D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

Levistus's_Leviathan · Jan 20, 2021

6ENow! said:
Yeah, its a minor distinction, but an important one IMO.

If you use a bonus action to cast a spell (either its normal casting time or via a feature somehow), IMO you would be limited to a cantrip. But in the discussion of using a shield scroll (in hand) as a reaction, that would be on some other turn and not impact the limit of spells cast on your turn.

As to reaction spells on your own turn, you could not cast any other spell then as I understand it.

You've got some things incorrect here. I'll clarify this.

If you cast a spell on your turn that is or is not a cantrip, as long as its casting time was not a bonus action, you are free to cast a reaction spell on your turn, or use Action Surge to cast any other action spell. However, if you cast a spell using your bonus action, the only spell you can cast on your turn must be a cantrip and it must have a casting time of an action. Otherwise, you can't cast any other spells on your turn.

The RAW is strange, but it would mean that if you were to cast Hex on your turn and someone readied their action to attack you, you could not use Shield on the same turn. RAW prevents you. (IMO, this is a dumb rule and almost definitely an oversight, but it is the RAW.)

DND_Reborn · Jan 20, 2021

AcererakTriple6 said:
You've got some things incorrect here. I'll clarify this.

Well, I had one thing... not "some things."

6ENow! said:
As to reaction spells on your own turn, you could not cast any other spell then as I understand it.

Yeah, I reviewed the reaction spells and nothing limits you from using another spell that requires your action on the same turn (I was mistakenly combining this with the bonus action rule). I'll edit my prior post.

So, on your turn, possible combinations are:
1. Bonus action spell + a cantrip with 1 action casting time
2. One action casting time spell and a reaction spell
3. Casting a spell with a casting time greater than 1 action and reaction spells during that casting

NOT possible:
Bonus action and reaction spell on your turn.

I don't see that being an issue since you rarely cast a reaction spell on your turn, but as a trigger on someone else's.

DND_Reborn · Jan 20, 2021

Thunderous Mojo said:
but 6 years in "rulings not rules" isn't aging well.

Yeah, clear rules in 6E would be paramount for me. No more of this "rulings not rules" crap.

DND_Reborn · Jan 20, 2021

Stoutstien said:
interacting with an object and interacting with a magical object are two different mechanics. interacting with the magical object falls under the activate magic object action that is listed in the DMG at the beginning of the magic item section I forget what exact page I'll update when I get back home.

I assume you mean this (DMG 141):

and this:

Using a scroll to cast a spell still falls under the Cast a Spell action IMO since you are still casting a spell.

It is interesting to note that using a scroll does not require providing any of the spell's components. So, does that mean if a spell has somatic components, you don't need to preform them when reading the scroll? What about verbal components?

I would think so. It means if someone is bound and gagged they could read a spell scroll to cast a spell from it without making a sound. Notice, nothing says you have to read the scroll aloud...

Stoutstien · Jan 20, 2021

tetrasodium said:
The same applies in reverse & that is the core of most of my points in this thread. People are arguing that every time there is an omission it must be in favor of the players and the very idea that suggesting loose wording of abilities & systems or precedent could lead a gm to ruling in ways that result in some of the artificer abilities when read as written are stupendously bad. Take the it says produce an effect not cast so there is no component cost by design argument.. 5e tried to move from the more mechanical/technical writing of past editions that would have a glossary defining "produce" if it were meaningfully different to that degree, but because they are trying for "natural language" the words produce an effect mean whatever the heck your gm deems and "it's just like casting" is an extremely reasonable way to interpret it as it avoids all the "what about pb or spell attacks & such" debate that came later. We can't judge RAW of a class based on all kinds of thing

Levistus's_Leviathan · Jan 20, 2021

6ENow! said:
Well, I had one thing... not "some things."

I hate to be nitpicky, but "some" is defined as "an unspecified number or amount of people or things".
One is a number, so therefore it fits into the definition of "some".

Stoutstien · Jan 20, 2021

6ENow! said:
I assume you mean this (DMG 141):
View attachment 131594
and this:
View attachment 131595

Using a scroll to cast a spell still falls under the Cast a Spell action IMO since you are still casting a spell.

It is interesting to note that using a scroll does not require providing any of the spell's components. So, does that mean if a spell has somatic components, you don't need to preform them when reading the scroll? What about verbal components?

I would think so. It means if someone is bound and gagged they could read a spell scroll to cast a spell from it without making a sound. Notice, nothing says you have to read the scroll aloud...

Correct as far as I know.

Bacon Bits · Jan 20, 2021

6ENow! said:
Using a scroll to cast a spell still falls under the Cast a Spell action IMO since you are still casting a spell.

Reading the scroll falls under Activating a Magic Item. The effect of the magic item is to allow you to immediately Cast a Spell. Scrolls, Wands, Staves, and similar items that say you cast a spell work this way. It's why you're able to counterspell spells cast from items; you're actually casting the spell only slightly modified.

6ENow! said:
It is interesting to note that using a scroll does not require providing any of the spell's components. So, does that mean if a spell has somatic components, you don't need to preform them when reading the scroll? What about verbal components?

It's only material components. The section has errata starting with at least the third printing:

Spell Scroll (p. 200). Starting with its second sentence, the first paragraph now reads as follows:

If the spell is on your class’s spell list, you can read the scroll and cast its spell without providing any material components. Otherwise, the scroll is unintelligible. Casting the spell by reading the scroll requires the spell’s normal casting time. Once the spell is cast, the words on the scroll fade, and it crumbles to dust. If the casting is interrupted, the scroll is not lost.

Blue · Jan 20, 2021

tetrasodium said:
You may not play AL & the idea of that footnote not possibly establishing precedent for many GMs rather than resorting to an endless chain of one off calvinball style rulings lacking any sort of consistency might appeal to some but it provides a reason why a GM would rule that a creature is not always a just a full creature capable of concentration as you describe and the thread I've linked a few times from september 2019 predates the november 2019 release of rising. That thread is filled with people giving reasons why they would not allow a warlock to offload concentration to their familiar with a spell storing ring many of which also apply to the situation of a battlesmith & iron defender. It's not unreasonable to say that there are plenty of reasons why a GM would not provide an excessively permissive ruling that allows an artificer to offload concentration like that when there is nothing in the ssi homunculus or iron defender saying that was the design intent. The ssi & spell storing ring are not so different that the reasons give there would not be equally reasonable for the ssi & steel defender. If that is the design intent from wotc it at the very least needs "advice" like SA errata or even a tweet admitting the wording was off from intent sometime before an eventual artificer revision similar to the optional rules the other classes got in tashas.

I'm not saying this because I'm trying to convince you to run your game that way, I'm saying it because there is ample reasoning for why a GM would not allow it. If the ssi is tuned on the assumption it will be the norm it is worded in a way that does not accomplish or even give a player something to argue on why it should if the gm disagrees.... If offloading concentration is an intended perk of the ssi but no text even hints at that being intended is absolutely a problem for artificer that contributes to answering the question "does the artificer suck" just as much as how your gm handles crafting.

Umm, DMs following the rules and not making any rulings and allowing it to follow what's written is what's consistant. It's only "Calvinball" when some start to make rulings instead. Sorry, that point not only doesn't support your case, it actively supports the case against it.

Now, I can understand why you would want to make such a ruling, but it is not true to suggest it's the default position, nor is it true that every DM will make that ruling so the idea that some will go with RAW is what will lead to chaos.

Blue · Jan 20, 2021

Helldritch said:
1) I don't hide nothing. Keep your accusations to yourself.

Just to make sure. You are saying that when you run, you make players aware that you use the rules written in a particular printing of the DMG, and/or list the rules that have changed that you don't agree with?

Because otherwise you're hiding it. A player may know the actual official rule from their own books or from another table, and if you are playing with non-official rules and don't let them know, it's hiding it.

Helldritch said:
2) I don't have the newer one, and I am not going to buy an other one for the pleasure of it. I will keep mine as the sole DMG in authority in my games unless I would happen to be agreeing with the change from a logical perspective. The rule was clear from the beginning. No need to change it as logic was respected.

You don't have to pay for a new one, they have handy errata documents.

And if you don't like it, house rule it. Already said I'm for it. Second guessing that it didn't need to be changed isn't contributing to anything since obviously the people who decided what rules are official disagree.

Helldritch said:
3) For some, you have to have the scroll already in hands. So now you have to have the scroll in hand... Check what would happen in my games.

The wizard Notsofasthand was carrying his scroll of counterspell in his hands. The big goblin Hitallthetime saw the scroll and knew that it was important that this thing got destroyed fast. Sneakily, Hitallthetime, got behind our poor Notsofasthand and snatched the scroll from his hands. Using the rest of his movement, Hitallthetime, put the scroll to torch by placing it in a pit fire, an already lit torch or simply tears it down and gobbles a part of it exactly as he was instructed by his master.

Or even this: The wizard Notsofasthand, who wants to be prepared to all eventualities, carries his scroll of featherfall just in case in his hands. Comes an invisible hidden kobold sorcer of no small fame going by the name Marksmankobie that recognize that the scroll might be something dangerous. Not taking any chance, our Kobold sorcer shoots the scrolls with a firebolt. Notsofasthand tries to protect the scroll instinctively, but even if the scrolls was a small thing and Notsofasthand provided a 3/4 cover, Maksmankobie hit the scroll with a critical and puff in flames goes the scroll...

So holding a scroll of "X" just in case is ripe for getting it destroyed.
Allowing this rule is opening the game for a potential abuse.
A scroll of Counterspell takes about one week to create and costs 500gp. In many games, downtime can extend from a few days, to a few years. With that amount of time, it is not impossible to see a wizard (or sorcer or whatever that can scribe scrolls and cast counterspell) have a dozen or so such scrolls at the ready (and even more than that if the DM is especially generous with money) Hell, the player could also buy these scrolls at the nearest mage's guild as such an item would be in ultra high demand!
The advantages of such a way to use scrolls is almost too much.
1) Have the scroll in hand along with your wand (focus).
2) Cast the counterspell without using a spell slot.
3) On your turn, free interaction, take a new scroll of counter spell.
4) Rinse and repeat for every possible caster that can do such a thing in the group. I have six players, and often, two of them can counter spell with their spell slots. Imagine if a free use of a scroll could be done this way. No lich, no evil wizard, no evil priest would ever be able to get a spell out... The principle of the casting BBEG is to forget if you play scroll usage this way.

And your examples assume that players have infinite reactions and infinite scrolls of reaction spells in order to be able to "Rinse and repeat for every possible caster". It also assumes every lich and caster out there is ignorant of basic ways to get around counterspell. Be more than 60' away, mode to hidden, ready to release when you see your opponent (which casts) then move back into view, be the second spell cast - either legendary actions or have allies, etc.

Helldritch said:
I do not know what led to that modification, but it was not a thoroughly thought one and it was definitively not playtested. The potential abuse is staggering. Feel free to disagree. I know powergamers that would destroy campaigns if their DM would allow such possible scroll usage.

Citation needed. Obviously the easiest for the designers would have been no change, so there was an impetious to change it. That it was broken in it's original form according to them. Your claims that it was not thought out and definitely not playtested is throwing share without any proof. And since it's an official rule that most tables have in play and we DON'T hear about "powergamers destroying campaigns" with it, we can assume that you are just making up unsupport facts again like the rest of this paragraph.

D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin

Stoutstien

lunk

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer

Stoutstien

lunk

Bacon Bits

Hero

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex