D&D 5E (2024) So, what does the Artificer "replace"?

[Charlaquin]

Well 4E phb fighter basically had two paths snd the defender but was locked in.

That's not flexible. It's a straight jacket. You cant really dual eield very well or use a bow. You have to play a different class. And that class isn't sword and board or great weapon very well correct?

Again, that’s just weapon choice. That doesn’t have any real impact on what you are doing on your turn, just some very minor number differences and what meaningless damage type you say you do when you push the “attack” button for the billionth time. In 4e, different powers actually made your character do meaningfully mechanically different things, and no, defender focus was not the only way to build a fighter, even out of the PHB, though it was generally the most efficient way to do it until later releases.

We even had a claim the 5E fighter sucks at archery lol.

It’s as effective as any other class with Extra Attack at archery. Because that’s all the “versatility” martial gameplay in 5e has to offer. What weapon do you want to describe yourself attacking with when you do the exact same game action every single turn?

 

[Mephista]

Yea my wife and I are coming around a little. Party because the Artificers Forge bastion facility makes up for a lot, partly because tol expertise wouldnt actually do anything in the new rules, humonculus as spell is an upgrade, etc.

But...unless they update the tasha's class-locked items, which they wont, we still agree that killing the ability to ignore atunement restrictions is a massive thematic nerf that we just will not accept.

I think class locked items are dumb in the first place. Like... why lock out a staff of fire? And no scrolls or potions qith RMI?

They've made several weird decisions I'm guessing because they're afraid of somehow making the Artificer too powerful for some reason.

But their hand wringing gets in the way of class identity, which is. . . Yeah.

And i dont care how many prople kid themselves, the psuedo cantrip items were a better feature than making rope. Every single artificer i saw used that feature at least once a level, usually more. much more.

Absolutely. Both are ribbons, but one feels more fun than the other

 

[Zardnaar]

Again, that’s just weapon choice. That doesn’t have any real impact on what you are doing on your turn, just some very minor number differences and what meaningless damage type you say you do when you push the “attack” button for the billionth time. In 4e, different powers actually made your character do meaningfully mechanically different things, and no, defender focus was not the only way to build a fighter, even out of the PHB, though it was generally the most efficient way to do it until later releases.

It’s as effective as any other class with Extra Attack at archery. Because that’s all the “versatility” martial gameplay in 5e has to offer. What weapon do you want to describe yourself attacking with when you do the exact same game action every single turn?

Battlemaster can apply their things at range.

Champion advantage initiative, higher crits and can chain advantage togather level 10 wirh shortbow.

Death is still the best debuff in every edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

Battlemaster can apply their things at range.

Yep, Battlemaster is the least boring fighter subclass. Tellingly, it was the one specifically designed to appeal to 4e fans.

Champion advantage initiative, higher crits and can chain advantage togather level 10 wirh shortbow.

Yep. Minor numbers differences and different descriptions when it takes the exact same game action every turn, like I said.

Death is still the best debuff in every edition.

Ok. This statement is unrelated to the versatility of a class.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep, Battlemaster is the least boring fighter subclass. Tellingly, it was the one specifically designed to appeal to 4e fans.

Yep. Minor numbers differences and different descriptions when it takes the exact same game action every turn, like I said.

Ok. This statement is unrelated to the versatility of a class.

Advantage on every attack isnt exactly minor.

 

[Charlaquin]

Advantage on every attack isnt exactly minor.

Is the numerical difference significant? Sure. Doesn’t make it more versatile in any way. its still the exact same game action every time.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The DM (who is me) does not ensure the PCs always win, the rules do that. 5e combat is easy mode. Optimising characters is a waste of effort that only serves to make combat less interesting.

Well, there are multiple people here who don't have this issue, and we all use the same rules. So the rules don't do that.
. . . And if your players are indeed "unoptimised tactical duffers", then its probably not them ensuring they always win either.
. . . Which only really leaves the DM as the cause of this issue that you're having.

Relying on a core feature of the class... is a gimmick?

To me, it looks like it's the intended style of play.

Ymmv, I guess

I'm not unaware of the inherent oddness of complaining that the Artificer is relying on "gimmicks".
But using multiple minions and mass-produced wands is only one playstyle, and not all subclasses get to do it well.

 

[Mephista]

I'm not unaware of the inherent oddness of complaining that the Artificer is relying on "gimmicks".
But using multiple minions and mass-produced wands is only one playstyle, and not all subclasses get to do it well.

Never-ending. Misunderstood you

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, there are multiple people here who don't have this issue, and we all use the same rules. So the rules don't do that.
. . . And if your players are indeed "unoptimised tactical duffers", then its probably not them ensuring they always win either.
. . . Which only really leaves the DM as the cause of this issue that you're having.



I'm not unaware of the inherent oddness of complaining that the Artificer is relying on "gimmicks".
But using multiple minions and mass-produced wands is only one playstyle, and not all subclasses get to do it well.

I'm thinking the best builds aren't the high damage dealing ones.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm thinking the best builds aren't the high damage dealing ones.

Yeah, despite the adage that “dead is the best Condition,” damage is generally not the most efficient path to ending a combat encounter in 5e. Monsters just have enough HP that it’s usually easier to use debilitating spells instead.