Artificers Overpowered?

[Rel]

So basically if the artificer knows what is coming, he can prepare the entire party. If he's ambushed, he's probably in trouble.

I agree with this assessment.

And sure, when the party came across an encounter they weren't ready for then the Artificer could slap on a Bane Infusion here and there to dramatically beef up their damage output. But in the same amount of time a Wizard could have tossed out a few Scorching Rays and have done at least as much damage.

 

[xen_xheng]

What makes me think the artificer concept sucks is that it is a class that depends on metagaming. The knowledge of the spells he supposedly can "emulate" is purely metagaming knowledge. It's true manu classes are also, but it's not their main focus, and not in a such large scale.

A Wizard study to get his spells, may it be from his master, a magic school, etc. Or he must research a new spell by himself.

A Sorcerer must choose a few of these spells/effects to make.

A Cleric/Druid is the first metagamer, choosing from all the spells; we could tell his god whispers that knowledge in him... and yte it is a limited list.

The artificer has no explanation for where does he get access to all these virtual spells. That's what I don't like. It's cool a concept for making items; it sucks if the concept leads to a character who knows all existing magic in the world.

 

[Crothian]

For instance, consider a Widened, Maximized Fireball:

Would you say that it does maximum damage in a 20' radius and normal damage in a 20'-40' radius, or does it do maximum damage in a 40' radius?

Good points. I wouldn't let a twin spell though be maximized for both of the twins though. How meta magic abilities interact with each other is an area that obviously needs looking into.

 

[Anax]

There are also some pretty easy fixes to the overpowered bits. The easy one for stacking massive amounts of weapon and armor infusions (or the above metamagic item infusion) is to limit how they stack. The going opinion on the WotC boards (including Keith Baker's opinion, although there's been no "official" ruling by the sage) is that Metamagic Item shouldn't be allowed to stack on a single item.

(Isn't this kind of oversight why DMs are meant to make judgement calls, anyway? )

 

[IcyCool]

(Isn't this kind of oversight why DMs are meant to make judgement calls, anyway? )

Yeah, but you'll get the occaisional powergamer who will whine and stamp their feet and say that "it's not fair for you to make that ability more balanced!"

 

[Caliban]

The reason that you're confused is because you are taking a specific rule and trying to make it general.

The feats and metamagic rules specifically state that when mixing Maximize and Empower on the same spell they don't affect each other.

That's the only place any such rule is stated. There's nothing else that says, "When applying Widen spell and Enlarge spell, both apply to the base spell separately."

Therefore, they don't. If they did, you'd end up with really, really odd occurences.

For instance, consider a Widened, Maximized Fireball:



Would you say that it does maximum damage in a 20' radius and normal damage in a 20'-40' radius, or does it do maximum damage in a 40' radius?

Not this again.

I believe you are applying them incorrectly. Those feats are modifying different attributes of the same spell, so they both apply: the damage of the spell is maximized and the radius is Widened.

Twin, Quicken, and Repeat duplicate the base spell. They don't say that they duplicate other metamagic feats, so they don't.

Maximize and Empower modify the same attributes of the base spell, so each one is applied seperately. I believe the same would apply to any other set of feats that modify the same attribute.

We can debate it further, and it will probably end up just like the last time. Probably better not to hijack this thread. If you really want to debate it again, please start a seperate thread.

 

[CronoDekar]

2. Some of the higher plus armours: Armour of etherealness means that all-day etherealness is available to an artificer at level 3 for 50gp.

This is admittingly nitpicking, but an artificer won't be able to emulate etherealness until Lv5, since etherealness costs 49k and Armor Enhancement allows 35k. Plus it only lasts 10 minutes/level, so it won't be lasting all day, and when the person wearing it returns to the material he can't access it again. For 100gp though, it's still very nice.

 

[FireLance]

What makes me think the artificer concept sucks is that it is a class that depends on metagaming. The knowledge of the spells he supposedly can "emulate" is purely metagaming knowledge. It's true manu classes are also, but it's not their main focus, and not in a such large scale.

...

The artificer has no explanation for where does he get access to all these virtual spells. That's what I don't like. It's cool a concept for making items; it sucks if the concept leads to a character who knows all existing magic in the world.

You and I might have a very different idea of metagaming. When characters make use of resources from the latest rulebook, why is that metagaming when making use of the options available from the Player's Handbook is not? Assuming the DM decides to allow material from a new book into his campaign, there are all sorts of ways to explain how the PCs hear about them in game - research, rumor, Knowledge checks, information given to them by their patrons or mentors, etc. You might argue that an artificer is able to get more advantage out of the material in new books since they can potentially get access to all the new spells at no opportunity cost. However, I don't think it's fair to use a loaded term like "metagaming" to describe it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not this again.

Exactly.

Your theory on how MM feats "should stack" doesn't appear in the rule books, and therefore it's just that: a theory.

Feel free to start a new thread if you want to take this further.

 

[Caliban]

Exactly.

Your theory on how MM feats "should stack" doesn't appear in the rule books, and therefore it's just that: a theory.

Feel free to start a new thread if you want to take this further.

I'll take a theory over "intelligent design" any day.