D&D (2024) 2024 Artificer

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Do you mean something like wizards and sorcerers could cast fireball as a 3rd level spell, but Artificers would be able to cast it as a 2nd level spell?

Yep! Ultimately they'd both be casting it at 5th level. I want to say 3rd edition had some spells that were granted earlier to rangers and paladins to keep their effects relevant for the tier they were obtained. I think 5E has some Ranger/Paladin only spells that are more powerful for their level as well.

 

[bedir than]

I've enjoyed using my Artillerist cannon as a lite-pet.
And, even without combat-centered optimization the party feels like I'm doing my part.

 

[Xeviat]

The problem is then they're competing with the bard and cleric, which are full casters with extra support on top of it. The infusions don't make up for it, given how stingy they are with the allowed effects at a particular level.

WOTC dropped the ball by not having individual class lists with spells at different levels for different classes. The half casters damage spells in particular need to be dropped. Fireball is meaningful at 5th level. Its a tickle at 9th level. They could have made it a 2nd level artificer spell. Same with crap like hail of thorns, which is just irritating busywork. Don't make me roll a bunch of saves for half damage on a single digit AE.

Half caster damage spells need to either be riders added onto of their base attacks, or the half caster itself needs a floating spell damage boost to split the difference. I personally like spells being a fixed level, but yeah a level 3 fireball is less helpful at level 9 instead of 5th, and a 5th level spell at 17th is less than it was at 9th. But swift quiver, lightning arrow, and the smites are still valuable.

I'm thinking about giving the artificer a spell damage boost at maybe levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 to help boost their output.

 

[mellored]

I'm thinking about giving the artificer a spell damage boost at maybe levels 3, 7, 11, and 15 to help boost their output.

I would lean more into the subclass, 3, 5, 9, 15.

Battle Smith gets scaling pet damage and multiattack. Least of a caster.
Armor gets extra damage to their attack. Could use a small boost but mostly should be buff spells.
Alchemist should get scaling bombs (acid splash). Moderate caster. Could use a bonus.
Artillery gets scaling spell slot damage. Already gets a spell damage boost, though it could scale a bit more.

 

[CreamCloud0]

The problem is then they're competing with the bard and cleric, which are full casters with extra support on top of it. The infusions don't make up for it, given how stingy they are with the allowed effects at a particular level.

WOTC dropped the ball by not having individual class lists with spells at different levels for different classes. The half casters damage spells in particular need to be dropped. Fireball is meaningful at 5th level. Its a tickle at 9th level. They could have made it a 2nd level artificer spell. Same with crap like hail of thorns, which is just irritating busywork. Don't make me roll a bunch of saves for half damage on a single digit AE.

I've slept on it, and remembered another thing about the artificer that kinda irks me:

Their spellcasting is described as them inventing things on the fly. Mechanically though, it is practically identical to literally every other spellcaster. There is a big divide between the described fiction and the mechanics of the game. I can't imagine that it would happen on a refresh, but I'd love to see some attempt to bring those closer in line with each other.

Maybe Artificers become fully Vancian casters, preparing their inventions at the start of the day. That's weaker to be sure, but more in line with what is described.

i think there could've been alot of potential in making more spellcasting classes have different spell slot progression and recovery to better tie into their narrative, like, people rave about the warlock's pact magic being different from literally every other caster which gives it it's own mechanical identity,

 

[Ashrym]

Under the 2024 rules you generally make those checks using an appropriate skill, such as Sleight of Hand, and if you're proficient with both the tool and the skill you gain advantage.

I don't think there will be such a thing as expertise with tool proficiencies for any 2024 class. They'll probably give artificers something else, whether it's expertise in the skills related to those tools or something of equivalent usefulness.

Right now that's still how Artificers work, however. They have Tool Expertise. We can't examine who they they based on speculation over what WotC might change in the future.

 

[Ashrym]

The problem is then they're competing with the bard and cleric, which are full casters with extra support on top of it. The infusions don't make up for it, given how stingy they are with the allowed effects at a particular level.

WOTC dropped the ball by not having individual class lists with spells at different levels for different classes. The half casters damage spells in particular need to be dropped. Fireball is meaningful at 5th level. Its a tickle at 9th level. They could have made it a 2nd level artificer spell. Same with crap like hail of thorns, which is just irritating busywork. Don't make me roll a bunch of saves for half damage on a single digit AE.

Artificers aren't competing with Clerics in skills.

Bards don't have Expertise with tools either. They have an extra skill proficiency and Expertise in 2 skills plus Jack of all Trades.

The Artificer cantrip Guidance covers against the Bard abilities until later and matches the Cleric cantrip which Artificers surpass with Tool Expertise and Flash of Genius.

There's no difference between a Cure Wounds or Faerie Fire or Lesser Restoration or Haste or Heat Metal cast by any of these classes. The difference is higher level slots for a few bigger moments versus more magic item support for general benefits most of the time.

I agree that there's room for more Infusions. Disagree that the full caster label higher level spells available is better most of the time.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The Battlesmith raises an eyebrow at you on that one.

I’d counter with “most magic-based classes have a weapon subclass” but then armored artificer pokes their helmet in.

 

[Ashrym]

From playing one, no. Infused weapons that you use your Int bonus to hit and damage and get extra attacks with end up being quite potent.

Sure, you can cast a spell in combat, but as a half caster, your combat options there are usually unimpressive. Actually just fighting works pretty well.

I said pet option. The pet is part of what makes the option decent in combat.

I said they are more magical than Paladins and Rangers as a class. A subclass doesn't change the premise of the base class.

The premise of the base class is artifice as implemented through magical infusions, crafting magical items, and carrying / using more magical items than other classes.

The fact that they can use the caster stat for weapon attacks when Paladins and Rangers don't supports the more magical vs more martial argument. IMO.

 

[Zardnaar]

Battles smith is still mediocre at combat, support and expert stuff. And reliant on the pet not dying. Same book with the latest artificer let you do a Wisdom based ranger.

We did stress test two of them at 9 an 10. Armorer and Battlesmith. Once your infusions become +2 and you can have 4 or 5 the class is a lot better. Ironman can use sharpshooter on the lightning blasts with enchanted gauntlets.

To much of the class is also tied up in how DM does magic items. Due to the infusions you're usually last in line for magic items found. Unless no one else can use them.