D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[doctorbadwolf]

Not really that odd of a claim.

It is. Extremely so.

Full casters can greatly impact the momentum of an encounter so tactical savvy NPCs are going to do their best to prevent them from doing so. Most "tank" PCs lack the ability to control more than 1-3 targets and have few tools to prevent ranged attacks and spells from targeting others so the wizard will have to deal that. the wizard will end up tanking and dealing with mitigation on regular basis. Same reason parties focus on the enemy casters first the majority of the time.

And the actual tanks will keep the Wizard safe.

Past that purpose built wizard tanks are some of the best in the game. Armored evokers and abjuration wizards can usually out preform those purpose built for the task.

For a few rounds, at best, before forcing the healer to spend resources keeping them in the fight because they’re trying to tank with HP comparable to a summons.

Edit: as well, the Wizard has to use spell slots offensively to make themselves a high value target. Which means they’re not saving them for defense.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You run in open doors. I just wanted to explain why people think the wizard feel tanky. Usually because many adventuring days play towards their strengths. As soon as you get to 2nd level slots to burn on the shield spell, things are getting bad for the wizard.

An abjurer or a bladesinger however is quite tanky. But again, mostly if they are not challenged.
The artificer, the fighter or the monk and the rogue can endure much more over the course of a day, even the barbarian, although they run on limited daily ressources.

I guess different play styles will give different POV. For me, even the BS or Abjurer is very vulnerable to any sort of organized opposition, compared to any actual tank.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess different play styles will give different POV. For me, even the BS or Abjurer is very vulnerable to any sort of organized opposition, compared to any actual tank.

No, actually I agree.

 

[Stoutstien]

It is. Extremely so.

And the actual tanks will keep the Wizard safe.

For a few rounds, at best, before forcing the healer to spend resources keeping them in the fight because they’re trying to tank with HP comparable to a summons.

Edit: as well, the Wizard has to use spell slots offensively to make themselves a high value target. Which means they’re not saving them for defense.

Eh. Most of the time the "actual" tank isn't that impressive at mitigation once you start pumping up the challenge beyond the rather low bar in the DMG. For example the quintessential bear totem barbarian has less EHP than a hobgoblin abjuration wizard with the eldritch adept feat (armor of shadows) and that's before they do anything other than just eat damage with their Ward which could be shared for active mitigation as well. Toss on a cleric dip and then they have the full range of options for using resources. Sure they have to spend spell slots but they can safely make it through at least as many deadly encounters as half their total without running completely dry and that's very conservative expectation.

When you start to crank up the difficulty the idea that a character can fulfill a role breaks down. It's everybody's job to address mitigation, utility, recovery, damage, and any other aspects the party might need. When your party gets over extended and nailed with a banishment and to lose half your PCs until someone breaks that concentration.who ever past their save are going to need to handle that. Same story with facing off against 2-5 different fronts with a mix of different enemies. Unless your tank is actually three halflings in a trench coat they're going to struggle with this.

The artificer handles cranked up game a little better than the other 2 half casters which is why a think they are probably a little better. Not quite as well as a wizard but that's a pretty exclusive club that made up of other full casters with spells for army building capacities. It was fun building an artificer that could single-handedly take on challenges design for an entire party at level 20.

 

[FrogReaver]

On Wizards and Shield.
1. You only need to use shield on about 25% of attacks coming your way.
2. You won't be attacked every round.

Thus, you don't need to have many uses of shield to greatly increase your effective AC in most adventuring day situations.

 

[FrogReaver]

Eh. Most of the time the "actual" tank isn't that impressive at mitigation once you start pumping up the challenge beyond the rather low bar in the DMG. For example the quintessential bear totem barbarian has less EHP than a hobgoblin abjuration wizard with the eldritch adept feat (armor of shadows) and that's before they do anything other than just eat damage with their Ward which could be shared for active mitigation as well. Toss on a cleric dip and then they have the full range of options for using resources. Sure they have to spend spell slots but they can safely make it through at least as many deadly encounters as half their total without running completely dry and that's very conservative expectation.

When you start to crank up the difficulty the idea that a character can fulfill a role breaks down. It's everybody's job to address mitigation, utility, recovery, damage, and any other aspects the party might need.

I see comparisons like that alot but it's a very deceptive comparison.

Single encounter: level 5 Half Orc Bear Totem Barbarian (18 str, 16 con, 14 dex using a greatsword) eHp vs a +6 attack enemy = 220 eHp. He will be making 2 attacks @2d6+6 damage at will.

Single encounter: level 5 Hobgoblin Abjuration Wizard (18 in, 16 con, 14 dex) eHp vs a +6 attack enemy = 85 eHP before shield and in combat abjuration spells get factored in. He will get a few level 3 spell uses before mostly doing 2d10 with his firebolt cantrip.

When it comes to tanking it's not just about how much damage you can soak over the whole adventuring day. It's also important how much you can soak in a single combat at your best. It's about how effective healing is for you (Healing is very effective on a raging Barbarian but not nearly as good on an abjuration Wizard). It's about how much more eHP your hit dice can grant you (this is never factored into these comparisons and it's very much in the Barbarians favor) It's about how much of a threat you are (and not just when you have full resources). It's about whether you are willing to put yourself in positions where enemies can hit you and want to do so.

So I'll have to disagree. The tankiness of abjuration Wizards when compared to Barbarians and Fighters and even clerics tends to be highly overrated because they rate lowly on so many important tanking parameters (at least before much higher level).

Or maybe a better way to put this in perspective. In a single battle the Barbarian will only have lost about 6 hp from attacks before the abjurer wizard will lose his special abjuration shield (provided no abjuration spells are being cast). By the time the Barbarian loses 12 hp total, the abjuration wizard will have lost 14 actual hp (provided he's not using resources for extra mitigation).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eh. Most of the time the "actual" tank isn't that impressive at mitigation once you start pumping up the challenge beyond the rather low bar in the DMG. For example the quintessential bear totem barbarian has less EHP than a hobgoblin abjuration wizard with the eldritch adept feat (armor of shadows) and that's before they do anything other than just eat damage with their Ward which could be shared for active mitigation as well. Toss on a cleric dip and then they have the full range of options for using resources. Sure they have to spend spell slots but they can safely make it through at least as many deadly encounters as half their total without running completely dry and that's very conservative expectation.

When you start to crank up the difficulty the idea that a character can fulfill a role breaks down. It's everybody's job to address mitigation, utility, recovery, damage, and any other aspects the party might need. When your party gets over extended and nailed with a banishment and to lose half your PCs until someone breaks that concentration.who ever past their save are going to need to handle that. Same story with facing off against 2-5 different fronts with a mix of different enemies. Unless your tank is actually three halflings in a trench coat they're going to struggle with this.

The artificer handles cranked up game a little better than the other 2 half casters which is why a think they are probably a little better. Not quite as well as a wizard but that's a pretty exclusive club that made up of other full casters with spells for army building capacities. It was fun building an artificer that could single-handedly take on challenges design for an entire party at level 20.

Yeah I run and playin very high difficulty games and nothing you’re saying here rings remotely true.

The only thing I could mostly agree with is that everyone needs to have solutions for the primary basic avenues of efficacy.

But if high AC is making wizards that effective at damage mitigation in your games, we definitely accomplish high difficulty differently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, actually I agree.

I figured, I didn’t mean to word that so that it came across as arguing with you. I think we are on the same page.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

On Wizards and Shield.
1. You only need to use shield on about 25% of attacks coming your way.
2. You won't be attacked every round.

Thus, you don't need to have many uses of shield to greatly increase your effective AC in most adventuring day situations.

2 becomes less true the more the Wizard is trying to “tank”.

3. Shield doesn’t help you make saves.

 

[FrogReaver]

2 becomes less true the more the Wizard is trying to “tank”.

I don't disagree, but I don't see how the Wizard tanks anything particularly effectively. Remember tanking is about making the enemy want to attack you and being willing to be attacked. The only thing a wizard can do to draw enemies to attack him is cast powerful spells - most of which are concentration. The issue there is if he's concentrating on a powerful spell he probably doesn't want to be attacked and risk losing that concentration.

Contrast this with a raging Barbarian who who always wants to be attacked and can encourage enemies to attack him by positioning himself as an opportune target and having a strong OA

3. Shield doesn’t help you make saves.

Absorb elements is pretty effective for non-attack damage - just not every type.