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

[Mercule]

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).

Fair point. Maybe "hobbyist" would be a better word for my post. I think my intent was clear, though. I was using "dabbler" in the sense of an amateur or otherwise lightly committed practitioner, rather than in the sense of someone who was a Jack of many and Ace of none.

 

[Aldarc]

Fair point. Maybe "hobbyist" would be a better word for my post. I think my intent was clear, though. I was using "dabbler" in the sense of an amateur or otherwise lightly committed practitioner, rather than in the sense of someone who was a Jack of many and Ace of none.

Of course. My point of clarification was not aimed at you per se, but, rather, primarily aimed at people who would take the mention of "the ultimate magical dabbler" from the original artificer description and use it as a sort of hollow "gotcha!" moment: "So you see, according to the original book, they were dabblers! So according to your own words, 1/3 caster is more appropriate!"

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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).

Is knowing a specific spell required for making a specific item?

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?).

I'd actually view it as slightly different. The Wizard is the IT technician: the person with the practical knowledge and a wide array of different applications. The Artificer is the programmer: they can write their own applications as well as permanently-running programs. They can whip up a few applications quickly from base principles, but don't have the range of the technician who has a book full of pre-written applications.

The effort that the artificer put into knowing enough theory to put together their items, the wizard spent training in the magical endurance required to increase their spell slots.

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.

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.

Think of it like the Technician/ programmer. The technician can work much harder and has more range because they use a book of pre-written applications. The programmer doesn't have that book: they can write the code for a few applications without needing instructions.

Slightly confused by your "Make items like a wizard" comment though. All spelllcasters can make items. With the exception of the Artificer Tradition subclass, wizards don't make items any differently from other casters.

 

[Xeviat]

Feel is a large part of my point. I, too, think 2/3rds should be reserved for subclasses. And yes, the warrior half casters don't get cantrips. I'm not married to them. Mending makes more sense on the engineer than the alchemist.

Mechanically, I don't think the class gets quite enough to have it be a 2/3rds caster. The rogue lacks any dead levels, and the Artificer has 4. Yes, the Artificer gets damage boosts on the odd levels, but so does the rogue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kyvin]

I am working on a homebrew artificer that some people may like. I would appreciate feedback in this thread. Lots of views so far but no comments.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...brew-Artifcer-Class-Needs-balancing-amp-ideas

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think the argument would carry more weight if it was "the artificer really needs access to these 5th level spells" with a list of said spells.

 

[Awesome Adam]

I think the argument would carry more weight if it was "the artificer really needs access to these 5th level spells" with a list of said spells.

That is a valid point.

The entire Artificer Spell list is rather lack luster.

Animate Objects , Cloudkill , Cone of Cold, Creation, Hold Monster, Passwall, Planar Binding, Telekinesis, Teleportation Circle, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone would all be great additions.

Teleportation Circle in particular seems

 

[MechaTarrasque]

That is a valid point.

The entire Artificer Spell list is rather lack luster.

Animate Objects , Cloudkill , Cone of Cold, Creation, Hold Monster, Passwall, Planar Binding, Telekinesis, Teleportation Circle, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone woud all be great additions.

Teleportation Circle in particular seems

That is a good list.

 

[Merric Huffstutler]

I definitely think direct damage spells are a no go. None of the rest of his kit contains it nor does it fit with the theme of creation and experimentation.

I'd rather see something like the following:

* Animate Objects
* Bigby's hand
* Creation 
* Greater Restoration
* Passwall
* Telekinesis
* Teleportation Circle
* Wall of Force

 

[AmerginLiath]

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.

That actually really works. The warlock's system of magic should problem reappear somewhere in the game, even if reskinned. Using infusions in place of infusions and some sort of systems of study and toolsets in place or patrons and pacts would make for an interesting and distinct-from-wizards way of building artificers.