D&D 5E (2024) What's New with the Artificer in Eberron: Forge of the Artificer

[WanderingMystic]

In other words, the design of the class is built to reward people who pick the Right Options and abuse the mechanics—which were almost certainly devised to do exactly the kind of thing you describe.

People should realize the more "this is how you cheese/optimize this mechanic" becomes an integral part of the game, the more off-putting it is for the majority of players. Except the people this design direction is aimed towards are the only players the designers really care about. Certainly not the DM whose game will end up mired in drama when the Artificer gets into a spat with the Fighter and suddenly leaves them naked in the middle of a dungeon.

Yeah the artificer just happens to be giving the fighter a +1 set of armor, with one of their very few items then decided to sacrifice it is a player problem not a game design problem. That like saying the fighter and the cleric got in a tiff and the cleric stopped healing him.

So the spell storing ring was created specifically for the artificer as a way of getting more spells in a half caster that should have been a full caster. Out of the 6 different games I have played with an artificer at 3 different tables everyone has chosen spell storing ring and everyone would have been grateful to have been able to change that out after its use.

 

[eclair~]

So the spell storing ring was created specifically for the artificer as a way of getting more spells in a half caster that should have been a full caster. Out of the 6 different games I have played with an artificer at 3 different tables everyone has chosen spell storing ring and everyone would have been grateful to have been able to change that out after its use.

I think you need to read up on the Artificer class, to understand what the class mechanics better.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I would say the same to you. I currently have a lvl 7, my previous ended at lvl 12. In other games we have an artificer who is not 18th having played since 3rd level. The other two I have played with ended around 8-9. I can think of one game in the last 3 or so years that hasn't had an artificer in it.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't really undertsand the "artificer should have been a full caster" comment. My spouse has been playing a battlesmith for several years now in two separate campaigns, and I find it to be a very effective character. Outstanding at party support while still offering strong ranged offence. Maybe it's because I allow artificers to use firearms.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I don't really undertsand the "artificer should have been a full caster" comment. My spouse has been playing a battlesmith for several years now in two separate campaigns, and I find it to be a very effective character. Outstanding at party support while still offering strong ranged offence. Maybe it's because I allow artificers to use firearms.

That comment comes from how they were presented in 3rd Ed, and the dragon magazine ones in 2nd edition. When they were originally planned to all have a homunculus during the play tests of 5e they felt more in line with other classes.
The battlesmith I have played with is amazing, the two alchemist both felt like they would have been better as a bard or a cleric form the concept of helping the party and felt their own personal damage was negligible. I have played an armorer which was fun but my current Artillerist is out classed by every character in our party. The ranger does lots more damage, the cleric dose less damage but with double the spells and better buffing abilities.

 

[Clint_L]

That comment comes from how they were presented in 3rd Ed, and the dragon magazine ones in 2nd edition. When they were originally planned to all have a homunculus during the play tests of 5e they felt more in line with other classes.
The battlesmith I have played with is amazing, the two alchemist both felt like they would have been better as a bard or a cleric form the concept of helping the party and felt their own personal damage was negligible. I have played an armorer which was fun but my current Artillerist is out classed by every character in our party. The ranger does lots more damage, the cleric dose less damage but with double the spells and better buffing abilities.

That's fair; the battlesmith definitely feels like the most fully realized subclass.

 

[bedir than]

That comment comes from how they were presented in 3rd Ed, and the dragon magazine ones in 2nd edition. When they were originally planned to all have a homunculus during the play tests of 5e they felt more in line with other classes.
The battlesmith I have played with is amazing, the two alchemist both felt like they would have been better as a bard or a cleric form the concept of helping the party and felt their own personal damage was negligible. I have played an armorer which was fun but my current Artillerist is out classed by every character in our party. The ranger does lots more damage, the cleric dose less damage but with double the spells and better buffing abilities.

I love my artillerist. I'm using the cannon as a turret that usually sits on the character's shoulder and channeling spells through it -- like a tiny bulb that pushes out noxious gasses or streams, balloons that explode, etc. This gets the damage rider while fitting the narrative.