D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Umbran]

Not that it looks like (DMG139)

The DMG and the Basic rules are in conflict on this point.

Basic Rules (Pg 169 in the 2018 version), and thus D&D Beyond baseline, says it takes the spell's normal casting time. DMG pg 139 says it takes an action.

Either way, there's the matter of whether the scroll is in hand at the moment you want to use it. Just getting it out of your pack may be an action in and of itself.

 

[Flamestrike]

Rolled stats and +2 racial. Default array also has problems as some classes a lot more MAD than others.

Classes are MAD for a reason.

See also: Paladin.

 

[Zardnaar]

shield and AE are the big ones once you get to 10. i see you tend to run with a crossbow so having the free hand for scroll not even a big deal.

Second level scrolls are a bigger investment so spells that you doubt you ever need but really need them when you need them, like seeing invisibility and rope trick, really shine here.

Lv eight is a rough spot for the artificer but every level following is amazing.

Aren't scrolls an action to use so shield is bad to put on scrolls?

 

[Older Beholder]

I've never played an artificer, so I couldn't comment on whether they suck or not.
I would say from reading the class I always thought it would be a steep learning curve for a new player compared to a lot of other classes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Your assertion that the unfinished design outline is guidance not a rule is correct

There is no "unfinished design outline", and I never suggested there was. The 5e magic item rules are entirely finished, and can be summarised thus: "It is entirely up to the DM to decide how to distribute magic items". That also applies to those magic items the players craft themselves. Note that this is consistent with how all editions of D&D did it up until third.

"If you craft a magic item with a rarity of common or uncommon, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold" means that those elements are no longer something that can be "guidance that DMs can choose which version, or none, they want to use"

Sure they can. The DM decides on the time and cost, and then the artificer does it in a quarter of that for half the cost. That is why it is multiplicative - it works with any base value.

Whether or not it is an important ability or not depends entirely on the type of game being played. 5e deliberately avoids the kind of regimentation you seem to be looking for. In a game where the players craft a lot of magic items it's an important ability. In a game with little or no player crafting it's a ribbon, but - here is the clever bit - infused items are much more important. So it balances out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Paladin has 20 charisma, aura and uses shillelagh keyed off charisma.

There is the problem right there. Paladins are designed to be MAD as an intentional weakness. Battlesmiths are SAD as an intentional strength. The rules do not allow CHA-Shillelagh without multiclassing for a very good reason.

Overpowered paladin is obviously going to be better than a battlesmith - and any other melee character.

Or, to put it another way, does a battlesmith without it's SAD advantage suck? Then yes, if you take away a key advantage it sucks.

 

[Zardnaar]

There is the problem right there. Paladins are designed to be MAD as an intentional weakness. Battlesmiths are SAD as an intentional strength. The rules do not allow CHA-Shillelagh without multiclassing for a very good reason.

Overpowered paladin is obviously going to be better than a battlesmith - and any other melee character.

Or, to put it another way, does a battlesmith without it's SAD advantage suck? Then yes, if you take away a key advantage it sucks.

It's less broken than the hexblade/paladin MC.

Got it via a racial ability and it's almost as much as the race (Dragonkin) gets. They're marginally better than the dragonborn.

Otherwise he would like have hexblade/paladin plus better race.

Battlesmith also best the artificer has to offer imho. Two of the subclssses suck imho the other is ok.

 

[tetrasodium]

There is no "unfinished design outline", and I never suggested there was. The 5e magic item rules are entirely finished,

No, because it's guidance that DMs can choose which version, or none, they want to use. It's not rules.

So... which is it. You've argued both sides of that coin in the span of around 24hours. A design outline is a particular type of guidance for a particular purpose. Mere "guidance " is not a rule.

 

[Helldritch]

For the artifice
The class isn't weak, but it isn't OP either. You have to consider the class as a support for whatever roll might be missing in your party. This isnthe kind of class that is a good fifthwheeler in the sense that it will complement the other characters/roles quite nicely. The class ia not a full healer but it can heal, it is not a full blaster, but bot can it blast and though in hand ro hand it is a bit lacking, it does have access to melee cantrips and the pet is quite useful. The class ia almost the bard of second edition. It does not excel at anything (save one thing, thia will be addressed further down) but it is a good second everywhere.

What the class excels at is creating magical items and using them. Infusions are great and if the DM does not shut down item creation then the class is almost a must if your group is 5 or 6 characters strong.

As for scrolls.
It takes an action to use one. The DMG is quite clear on that. Yes, it means that reaction spells are almost useless on scrolls but not entirely so. Casting shield preemptively to cross a trapped room, or misty step for the same thing without using your spell slot might be good. Situational, yes, but still useful.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So... which is it. You've argued both sides of that coin in the span of around 24hours. A design outline is a particular type of guidance for a particular purpose. Mere "guidance " is not a rule.

I do get bored with people who think wilful misrepresentation is a legitimate form of debate.

Guidance is guidance. It is not a rule, nor is it a design outline. I have never said it was a "design outline". YOU brought up that bollocks.