D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Stoutstien]

It depends to some degree on what you view the DMs role to be.

when my players heavily optimize they tend to face harder challenges and encounters than a less optimized party would.

That doesn’t mean they don’t get to face opponents they will decimate, but that they will face those and also ones that are going to be challenging.

Optimization is a bit of an illusion - not totally - but DM behavior suggests they will mitigate some of the advantages of optimization in encounter design at least sometimes.

It often means playing characters thematically and holding back their power and tactics to some degree in play makes for a ‘more optimized and effective’ character as you can always push yourself to the next level in dire circumstances.

Aye. I agree optimization is a self defeating for most tables. OTOH a DM who can't conceptualize the difference between an item gained through a feature and an item that they allow the party access too by other means is probably better off limiting PC option to a field they are more comfortable with.

Artificers are not something to toss at new DMs the same way you wouldn't toss a nuke wizard or an echoing ancestral guardian multiclass in the mix.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It does matter though. It's especially true if you're giving the fighter an item that moves his attack and damage up alongside overcoming resistance or immunity to non magical weapon attacks.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion on issues with DM's own personal cognitive biases on how the class is structured could affect the balance. That's not something that you really can fault the class design on.

okay. If I had posted about anything relevant to any of that, I’d be more interested.

IME, magic items aren’t given out symetrically. Since I do not do white room analysis, I’m not going to ignore that.

If you can’t adjust what you’re looking at for simple things like the Artificer having different infusions prepared or a + weapon, that isn’t my fault or problem.

 

[Stoutstien]

Then it's a pointless exercise unless you trying to prove that an artificer could potentially out preform a fighter while at a deficit.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then it's a pointless exercise unless you trying to prove that an artificer could potentially out preform a fighter while at a deficit.

No, it is not. We are not optimizing the hell out of an artificer. It is just proving that the concept of the class is sound. Neither too good, nor too bad... A little +1 here or there makes NO difference.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Thsts a big part of the artificer's problem. Artificial er gets magic items as a class feature, other classes get class features plus magic items equal or better from adventuring. Without a wbl or similar system the artificer can't point at they cant even make a solid case when they get slighted in treasure.

The artificer can pass their items around if they wish. An alchemist should actually do so. It is also that the artificer infusions should fill in the gaps.
They become slightly worse in campaigns were the DM customizes magic items for the party. Those games have a different flavour than the campaigns were magic items influence the characters...

 

[Stoutstien]

No, it is not. We are not optimizing the hell out of an artificer. It is just proving that the concept of the class is sound. Neither too good, nor too bad... A little +1 here or there makes NO difference.

Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.

What?
You can do that yourself if pleases you. Should be easy to add +1 to some values...
Also choices were decent enough for an admittedly cobbled together character.

 

[tetrasodium]

The artificer can pass their items around if they wish. An alchemist should actually do so. It is also that the artificer infusions should fill in the gaps.
They become slightly worse in campaigns were the DM customizes magic items for the party. Those games have a different flavour than the campaigns were magic items influence the characters...

The arrtificer can do that yes, but that gets into the other half of the problem where its available infusion list is pegged to the bonkers 5e assumption of no feats no magic items baselines rather than the one wotc actually wrote. It doesn't help anyone to give a +1 item to someone with a +1 item & if they have something better the artificer can't give their items to someone else. Also don't forget that this tangent came up again because someone said "Because on an artificer I’d almost never expect to get as many magic items as the other PCs".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then it's a pointless exercise unless you trying to prove that an artificer could potentially out preform a fighter while at a deficit.

Nope. I have no intention doing a numerical comparison between the two.

Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.

That’s a completely nonsensical comparison.

Why even bring optimization into it, as well? I showed an artificer tank build that isn’t an armorer, and should be plenty effective at tanking while having a ton of other options available.

What?
You can do that yourself if pleases you. Should be easy to add +1 to some values...
Also choices were decent enough for an admittedly cobbled together character.

Right. It’s a simple quick build to see what options the Battlesmith has to tank. The only comparison is “the fighter is a good baseline. Can artificers get close to the fighter, at least part of the day?”

Also, just like…it’s +1. Just add it when doing math if you feel like ya need to. IME, if the party isn’t getting many magic items, they want magic item bonuses spread around. It helps the party more to have the art and fighter have a +1 magic weapon than to give the +1 weapon to the guy who can just make one. Just like a level 6 fighter needs the +1 spear more than the level 6 monk. Most players aren’t selfish, IME.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The arrtificer can do that yes, but that gets into the other half of the problem where its available infusion list is pegged to the bonkers 5e assumption of no feats no magic items baselines rather than the one wotc actually wrote. It doesn't help anyone to give a +1 item to someone with a +1 item & if they have something better the artificer can't give their items to someone else. Also don't forget that this tangent came up again because someone said "Because on an artificer I’d almost never expect to get as many magic items as the other PCs".

Which is ok. You can cherry pick those you really want to have.

Also as an artificer, if you don't have to give away +1 or 2 weapons, you can give bracers of archery or cloaks of resistance or headband of intellects...