D&D 5E (2024) Do Artificers Break The Game at 10th Level?

[Zardnaar]

It depends what you mean by broken. The magic item rarity classifications have been broken since 2014 at least, in that it doesn't correspond to the actual power of the magic item. Which didn't matter so long as it wasn't tied to class abilities and the DM wasn't trying to allocate loot 3rd edition style.

But clearly, single use items are rated as less rare than permanent items, and the rules for artificers fail to call this out when the item in question is not a potion or scroll. Back in Tashas you could bend the rules using the one shot tattoos that worked like scrolls in the same book for example.

In this particular example, if it's not a computer game, having a large number of summons in play is clearly antisocial, slowing the game to a crawl, which is why spells like Conjure Animals were changed. So I can't see any DM allowing this instance of rules-bending. So the game is broken in the sense that it's going to leave the player who tries it butt-hurt.

Even in BG3 to many summons is a PitA. Computer does most of the work.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Even in BG3 to many summons is a PitA. Computer does most of the work.

Indeed. Having lots of summons in a computer game isn't a gameplay problem because the computer does the work. You could have 20+ in BG1 until it was changed to cap at 5.

But BG3 allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in the tabletop game, such as stacking damage riders.

 

[Zardnaar]

Indeed. Having lots of summons in a computer game isn't a gameplay problem because the computer does the work. You could have 20+ in BG1 until it was changed to cap at 5.

But BG3 allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in the tabletop game, such as stacking damage riders.

Yeah. Easy access to specific items breaks things and strength elixirs.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah. Easy access to specific items breaks things and strength elixirs.

It's the DM's job to rule RAI, and and make sure that players don't play in such a way as to make the game less fun for other players. That's why you have a human do it, not a computer.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's the DM's job to rule RAI, and and make sure that players don't play in such a way as to make the game less fun for other players. That's why you have a human do it, not a computer.

I do curated lists. Bit like BG3 but without the bonkers combos. Toning it down from last game

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I do curated lists. Bit like BG3 but without the bonkers combos. Toning it down from last game

Generally speaking, I would treat the broad label (in this case "Elemental Gem") as the item type - A Blue Sapphire is not a different item from a Yellow Diamond, in the same way that a +1 Sword is not a different item from a +1 Axe. That would limit the artificer to one pet, which should be fine unless they start stacking them from other sources. In which case it might be worth house ruling a hard cap on the number of pets a player can have at once. This is the reason the game requires you to use an action/bonus action to command your pet OC. Which the item does not include since it was designed before it mattered.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally speaking, I would treat the broad label (in this case "Elemental Gem") as the item type - A Blue Sapphire is not a different item from a Yellow Diamond, in the same way that a +1 Sword is not a different item from a +1 Axe. That would limit the artificer to one pet, which should be fine unless they start stacking them from other sources. In which case it might be worth house ruling a hard cap on the number of pets a player can have at once. This is the reason the game requires you to use an action/bonus action to command your pet OC. Which the item does not include since it was designed before it mattered.

I think each color needs a plan. Not 100% sure though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it so humorous how eager you are to find brokenness in literally any other part of the game than regular full-casters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think each color needs a plan. Not 100% sure though.

The rules are unclear, since they were never designed to deal with that issue - DDB has separate entries for +1 weapon and +1 axe for example. So the DM rules so as to avoid an outcome that is unfun (and allows the artificer to choose what kind of elemental they want every morning).

One interesting item I came across a while back is the common Vox Seeker from Explorers Guide to Wildemount.

 

[Maxperson]

Seems like yet another consequence of 5e's continued inability to codify magical item value.

3e and 4e both understood that magic items are just as important an axis in character power growth as class features, but primarily under the GM's purview. And they correctly codified that power.

5e's rarity tiers are simply not sufficient to the task of giving the GM (or other portions of the game engine) guidance as to what magic items are appropriate; the system doesn't even have key words to separate out consumables from charged items from permanent items!

My feeling is that the only common or uncommon items(outside of a setting like Eberron) should be potions and scrolls.