D&D 5E Artificer should be a half caster (0-5)

[77IM]

But why, mechanically, should that be so? You need to have an actual reason why the artificer should be a half-caster. Not "because it feels like it should be."

Uhhh, actually, "because it feels like it should be" is pretty much the best reason. The mechanics of a class should reflect its flavor. To me, it feels like the artificer should have a lot more spellcasting, something on par with a real caster. You may disagree, but that's your feeling, too -- I don't think there's any objective way to defend one viewpoint or the other.

 

[Proxxy55]

Uhhh, actually, "because it feels like it should be" is pretty much the best reason. The mechanics of a class should reflect its flavor. To me, it feels like the artificer should have a lot more spellcasting, something on par with a real caster. You may disagree, but that's your feeling, too -- I don't think there's any objective way to defend one viewpoint or the other.

You need to have a reason why you feel like it should be different. Otherwise your criticism is unhelpful. For example, I do have a reason that I think the artificer is fine and good as a 1/3 caster. An artificer is like an engineer. They know how to apply mathematics and science, but they don't study it for its own sake, nor do they have a deeper understanding of it. Wizards are like theoretical physicists. They could apply their knowledge practically, sure, but for the most part, they are investigating the deeper, less immediately practical secrets of the world.

So, because of that, I like that the artificer isn't a full caster. Mechanically, I think it's a benefit as well, because, since they don't have lots of magic eating up their power budget, they can have cooler other abilities.

So there are mechanical and thematic benefits to the artificer being a 1/3 caster. Unless one can bring up counterpoints for why they should have more magic, they are better off as a 1/3 caster.

 

[Aldarc]

So, because of that, I like that the artificer isn't a full caster. Mechanically, I think it's a benefit as well, because, since they don't have lots of magic eating up their power budget, they can have cooler other abilities.

So there are mechanical and thematic benefits to the artificer being a 1/3 caster. Unless one can bring up counterpoints for why they should have more magic, they are better off as a 1/3 caster.

And would you be arguing for them to be a 1/3 caster if UA had presented them as a 1/2 caster?

 

[77IM]

You need to have a reason why you feel like it should be different. Otherwise your criticism is unhelpful.

Oh, I think I get what you are saying. I already kind of gave a reason -- in my mind, creating permanent magic items is more difficult than casting spells, and requires a deeper understanding of magic. To elaborate, spellcasting is so easy that nearly every class in the PHB has access to it. And if artificers can't cast high-level spells, how can they make magic items relating to those spells? Either they can't (which seems to me like they are a poor artificer) or else they're capable of making items of spells they can't cast (which seems weird to me).

I can totally understand why some people would see it the opposite way. The flavor text of artificer seems to make them out as some sort of arcane "hacker" or "tinkerer" who just slaps stuff together experimentally, based on existing knowledge -- a sort of magical script-kiddie. That speaks to a low caster progression, like 1/3 caster (although even then I might bump them up to half because they seem at least as spell-casty as paladins and rangers). It also fits with the Eberron vision of the artificer as a sort of skilled craftsperson (in 3E Eberron they were like 2/3 casters, right? like a bard?).

This "arcane hacker" flavor is one of the things they were going for with the warlock class; the idea that the warlock takes shortcuts to power. So that makes me prefer the warlock progression over the normal spell-slot progression. This would give the artificer access to high-level spells but keep their actual spell slots very limited, so that they continue to rely primarily on their class abilities, rather than feeling like Just Another Spell Caster.

 

[Aldarc]

I do think that the warlock model of spellcasting would work well for artificers. Instead of needing wands of "attack spell" for their basic attacks, they could just have a wand as an arcane focus and some attack spell cantrips like the rest. That also covers their wand mastery. Then their infusions would be "cast" at max level but limited to per short rest, as per a warlock's pact magic. I'm not sure if I would give artificers anything akin to mystic arcanum though. And instead of a Pact Boon, they could have something more akin to a major discovery that flavors their approach to being artificers: e.g. homunculus, thunder cannon, wand-dueling, alchemist bag, etc. Then they would have minor discoveries (i.e., invocations) that could be used to build upon their major ones.

 

[Awesome Adam]

I just don't get how they cast using intellegence, like a wizard, make items, like a wizard, and then inherently know spells without a spellbook, like a Sorcerer.

I don't mind them having fewer and a lower maximum spell level than a true Wizard for game balance reasons, but I think they should have spell books, and learn spells like a wizard.

 

[TwoSix]

Agreed. I don't see how a person could have such a deep and understanding mastery of magic as to craft items without being at least a half-caster, if not a 2/3 caster or even a full caster.

Well, it depends on how much you view "facility with magic" as being intertwined with "having spell slots", right? I think you can make an artificer with full spellcasting, and I think you could make an artificer with no spellcasting at all. It all depends on how you flavor the rest of their abilities.

Personally, I'm a fan of the current version of the artificer as a rogue-type class with magical backup, but it's certainly not the only way to make the artificer.

 

[TwoSix]

I do think that the warlock model of spellcasting would work well for artificers. Instead of needing wands of "attack spell" for their basic attacks, they could just have a wand as an arcane focus and some attack spell cantrips like the rest. That also covers their wand mastery. Then their infusions would be "cast" at max level but limited to per short rest, as per a warlock's pact magic. I'm not sure if I would give artificers anything akin to mystic arcanum though. And instead of a Pact Boon, they could have something more akin to a major discovery that flavors their approach to being artificers: e.g. homunculus, thunder cannon, wand-dueling, alchemist bag, etc. Then they would have minor discoveries (e.g. invocations) that could be used to build upon their major ones.

I'd be on board with a warlock progression for artificers. (This may be related to the fact the warlock has the best design in 5e, IMO.) Make the subclass their "tech" method, whether that be alchemy, or constructs, or guns, or something. (I don't think they need two separate subclass choices like warlocks.) Give them abilities to craft items that mimic warlock invocations. Instead of Mystic Arcanum, give them ability to craft fairly significant magical items at higher levels.

 

[Mercule]

We have four models for casters: 1/3 caster (sub-classes: Arcane Trickster/Eldritch Knight), 1/2 caster (Paladin, Ranger), full caster (Wizard, Cleric, etc.), and whatever the heck Warlock is.

I don't like a full class being 1/3 casters. That's something that should be reserved for kits of otherwise non-magical classes as a way to grant them some advancement without either having to multi-class or when the DM otherwise doesn't allow for multi-classing. Any class using the 1/3 casting has magic as a tertiary concern and would, implicitly, have less magical acumen than a Paladin or Ranger -- essentially, a dabbler.

The Artificer is clearly not a dabbler in magic, even if their primary focus is not on spell work. That means that the least appropriate answer is for them to be a 1/3 caster. If you want to run with the idea that they are focused on magical engineering, at the cost of full spell capability, then 1/2 caster is an appropriate choice. The Artificer can still have abilities that make the spells augmentation, just like Ranger and Paladin. Also, the multi-class Wizard/Artificer takes as much of a caster progression hit as would the multi-class Druid/Ranger, which seems about right.

A case could be made for a full-caster progression of Artificer, since the Artificer really is based around faculty with magic. I think this case is weak. The focus of the Artificer is magical craftsmanship, not raw magic via casting. The comparison to engineer vs. scientist is very appropriate. One could make it work by creating a bunch of new spells, but those would exist in an almost completely separate, parallel silo from the existing spells.

Personally, I've always liked the idea of using the Warlock framework for Artificer, because it's separate from a "normal caster" and seems to model the "I'm getting better at everything, not just adding some space at the top" quite well. Additionally, the Invocations model could be used quite well for Infusions that gave the Artificer things to do with their spells, like creating short-term potions, improving weapons/armor, etc. without reinventing the wheel and the sub-class pre-requisites for the Infusions is already an established pattern. Finally, the 6-9th level slot the Warlock gets could, optionally, be brought over to the Artificer depending on how the rest of the core class abilities played out -- it's even possible that only a single sub-class (Wand Master, maybe?) would even get that ability. It gives the best of both 1/2 caster and full caster.

So, there are some arguments around building the Artificer. Short form of each, in order of preference:
1) Warlock: Best framework for a class that does weird magical things without spells and by modifying the way spells are applied.
2) Half-caster: A very acceptable framework for a class that is competent with magic, but doesn't necessarily focus on casting.
3) Full-caster: Not crazy, but doesn't leave enough room for non-casting abilities that the Artificer would have without mostly custom spells.
4) Third-caster: Exactly wrong solution and horrible design. Should be reserved for only sub-classes that dabble without multi-classing.

 

[Aldarc]

As a point of clarification, the artificer was explicitly referred to as "the ultimate magical dabbler" in the original 3E Eberron Campaign Setting (p.29). Dabbling in this context, however, referred to their broader and more versatile approach to magic (and magical items) that reached across the artificial divine/arcane divide rather than the depth of their "spells" (i.e. infusions). The 3E artificer is classified as a 2/3 caster (6th level spells), which places it in the same casting tier as the 3E bard (2/3 caster, 6th level spells) and above the ranger and paladin (both 1/3 casters who went up to 4th level spells). Notably, all of these aforementioned classes received an upgrade in their casting ability. The bard was boosted to a full caster, whereas rangers and paladins were both boosted to half-casters.