D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Paul Farquhar]

Upcast Tiny Servant to get 3 of them (and then have them throw magic stones every turn for a cool possible 3d6+15 damage )
You should have a wind instrument proficiency for using Pipes of Haunting.
You’re basically the robot pied piper.

Make rat costumes for your tiny servants, then send them to terrorise some town and extort money from the taxpayers to get rid of them.

If they don't pay up kidnap their children to turn them into an army of cyborg drones.

 

[Stoutstien]

As I pointed out, if everyone with a flicker of a brain will target whatever parchment is in my hand then why would I not carry one at all times? I'm trading an item interaction for an action every round. That is a real no brainier.

Attacking carried objects is way more of an abusable angle than scrolls. It's not explicitly allowed because that will have a fundamental shift of game play. You would always target shields first because at most the AC will be the same as the creature that is holding it but with a much lower hp, everyone would walk around with 3+ backups to their primary weapon, bows would be useless, and generally the game would be bogged down. Lot of foot work to counter a fairly limited tool.

Attacking objects being held is not explicitly RAW. That doesn't mean it can't happen but it's not something a player can safely assume they can do.

Planar Binding is a tad more difficult to pull off, than finding a scroll of Shield of Faith or Sanctuary. While, using a scroll of either spell plus another non Cantrip spell cast will, in most circumstances not break a game...clever use of a Bonus Action Spell Scroll plus a Non Cantrip Cast can disrupt an encounter of two.

What has annoyed me personally about the errata differences between different printings of 5e books, is the fact that due to some issues with 5e book bindings, replacement is often necessary. This leads to situations where people literally have different rulesets at the same table.

My experience with past editions, is when everyone bought the same book at the same time, we could all use the same book for the life of the edition and thus had the same rules, as the bindings held up. A page at the front on new 5e printings advising of the errata would be a polite addition for WoTC to include.

The change to the verbiage for the Evoker subclass and to Pole Arm Master, have both come up as in play surprises, in games I have played in.

Not possible. Using a scroll still counts as casting the spell so the normal rules for spell per round limitations apply.

 

[Helldritch]

As I pointed out, if everyone with a flicker of a brain will target whatever parchment is in my hand then why would I not carry one at all times? I'm trading an item interaction for an action every round. That is a real no brainier.

Attacking carried objects is way more of an abusable angle than scrolls. It's not explicitly allowed because that will have a fundamental shift of game play. You would always target shields first because at most the AC will be the same as the creature that is holding it but with a much lower hp, everyone would walk around with 3+ backups to their primary weapon, bows would be useless, and generally the game would be bogged down. Lot of foot work to counter a fairly limited tool.

Attacking objects being held is not explicitly RAW. That doesn't mean it can't happen but it's not something a player can safely assume they can do.

That is why most objects have resistance to damage. Adamantine weapons are a special, optional case. Attacking a shield will wear it down, unless the shield is magical. Historically, knights had way more than only one shield. Three or four would be closer to the truth. And while you attack the shield, you don't attack the holder of the shield. The few rounds it will take you to destroy the shield (and good luck if the shield is adamatine) you will be attacked by the holder of the shield. Normally, this is a losing strategy.

As for the scroll in hand.
Attacking it would not be hard, and I would give 3/4 cover as the person holding it will try to prevent it to be destroyed. But attacking a scroll will result, if successful, in its total and immediate destruction. Depending on what is on the scroll, this is a win situation at all times. Of course, a player (or an NPC) might bluff with a blank sheet of parchment, but it would be a risk most would be ready to take as you never know what will be on that scroll.

As for attacking a bow.
Perfectly fine option and dare I say:"Even optimal". If you are in hand to hand with a bow. You did something wrong and should die. It was so in history and should be so in D&D. Drop the bow as 100% of people in history did and pull out your short sword (or rapier) from its scabbard. Ready your buckler and hope that the big fellow with an axe comes to your help.

QUOTE="Stoutstien, post: 8176334, member: 7020569"]
Not possible. Using a scroll still counts as casting the spell so the normal rules for spell per round limitations apply.
[/QUOTE]
There we agree.

 

[Stoutstien]

That is why most objects have resistance to damage. Adamantine weapons are a special, optional case. Attacking a shield will wear it down, unless the shield is magical. Historically, knights had way more than only one shield. Three or four would be closer to the truth. And while you attack the shield, you don't attack the holder of the shield. The few rounds it will take you to destroy the shield (and good luck if the shield is adamatine) you will be attacked by the holder of the shield. Normally, this is a losing strategy.

As for the scroll in hand.
Attacking it would not be hard, and I would give 3/4 cover as the person holding it will try to prevent it to be destroyed. But attacking a scroll will result, if successful, in its total and immediate destruction. Depending on what is on the scroll, this is a win situation at all times. Of course, a player (or an NPC) might bluff with a blank sheet of parchment, but it would be a risk most would be ready to take as you never know what will be on that scroll.

As for attacking a bow.
Perfectly fine option and dare I say:"Even optimal". If you are in hand to hand with a bow. You did something wrong and should die. It was so in history and should be so in D&D. Drop the bow as 100% of people in history did and pull out your short sword (or rapier) from its scabbard. Ready your buckler and hope that the big fellow with an axe comes to your help.

QUOTE="Stoutstien, post: 8176334, member: 7020569"]
Not possible. Using a scroll still counts as casting the spell so the normal rules for spell per round limitations apply.

What an individual DM does or doesn't do isn't grounds for objectively viewing a player option. I could make a fighter pass a dex check between each attack to see if they can redirect those 2-9 blows effectively in the fraction of seconds they take place for the sake on some arbitrary grounds of realism or historical reasoning or add additional penalties for perception for anyone with a helm on but dnd is a poor simulator for such a granular approach and the rules aren't set up for it.

We can't say some of the artificer's features are bad because some DMs add layers of rules and exceptions. They have to be taken at face value. From there a player/DM/table can evaluate it in the parameters of that given group. The is especially true for a class that specializes in operating in the fringes of each pillar.

 

[clearstream]

What an individual DM does or doesn't do isn't grounds for objectively viewing a player option. I could make a fighter pass a dex check between each attack to see if they can redirect those 2-9 blows effectively in the fraction of seconds they take place for the sake on some arbitrary grounds of realism or historical reasoning or add additional penalties for perception for anyone with a helm on but dnd is a poor simulator for such a granular approach and the rules aren't set up for it.

We can't say some of the artificer's features are bad because some DMs add layers of rules and exceptions. They have to be taken at face value. From there a player/DM/table can evaluate it in the parameters of that given group. The is especially true for a class that specializes in operating in the fringes of each pillar.

Entailed is that a party might continuously benefit from warding bond, and structures belonging to the wealthy could be expected to be well lit by continual light and secured with plentiful arcane locks. Judging from threads on demographics in typical D&D worlds, tier 3 artificers aren't going to be so common that their casts impact the world more broadly. Given the background cost of such spells, however, one might expect such artificers to be extremely wealthy even if they transiently deflate the prices per cast.

These don't seem to me like dramatically dire consequences, and I do feel that "produce" in place of "cast" must have been consciously chosen wording. So it seems to me possible that the designer looked at the exploits and decided they could be lived with. The alternative must be something like to even store 10 productions of continual flame requires burning 500gp of ruby dust, which is then... lost if you store a different spell? Of do you have to give the dust to your ally or controlled servant? Both somewhat clunky.

Even so, pending errata or SA, I think I will rule that controlled servants and such can use the item, but house rule that costly components must be provided at the time of using the item by the user. I won't rule that, that constitutes a cast: the item is still just producing the effect.

 

[Stoutstien]

Entailed is that a party might continuously benefit from warding bond, and structures belonging to the wealthy could be expected to be well lit by continual light and secured with plentiful arcane locks. Judging from threads on demographics in typical D&D worlds, tier 3 artificers aren't going to be so common that their casts impact the world more broadly. Given the background cost of such spells, however, one might expect such artificers to be extremely wealthy even if they transiently deflate the prices per cast.

These don't seem to me like dramatically dire consequences, and I do feel that "produce" in place of "cast" must have been consciously chosen wording. So it seems to me possible that the designer looked at the exploits and decided they could be lived with. The alternative must be something like to even store 10 productions of continual flame requires burning 500gp of ruby dust, which is then... lost if you store a different spell? Of do you have to give the dust to your ally or controlled servant? Both somewhat clunky.

Even so, pending errata or SA, I think I will rule that controlled servants and such can use the item, but house rule that costly components must be provided at the time of using the item by the user. I won't rule that, that constitutes a cast: the item is still just producing the effect.

Something to keep in mind is that the spell effects from the SSI only receive the artificer's intelligence modifier and not their proficiency bonus which keeps the DCs and attack bonus with the SSI firmly in the mediocre range.

Something to weigh when looking at the total impact of the feature

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something to keep in mind is that the spell effects from the SSI only receive the artificer's intelligence modifier and not their proficiency bonus which keeps the DCs and attack bonus with the SSI firmly in the mediocre range.

Something to weigh when looking at the total impact of the feature

I don't think that is a correct interpretation. Let's consider a Steel Guardian casting Heat Metal using an SSI. What is the save DC?

The spellcasting rules state "The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers." Who is "your" in this text? It must be the creature casting the effect that exactly duplicates the effect of the spell. i.e. the Steel Guardian. The text of the SSI ability states that it uses the artificer's spellcasting ability modifier instead of the steel guardian's spellcasting ability modifier, but it doesn't say it removes the Steel Guardian's proficiency bonus (which is equal to the artificer's proficiency bonus).

Conclusion: DC is the same as if the artificer cast it themselves, unless there are special modifiers involved (e.g. an Enhanced Arcane focus).

 

[Stoutstien]

I don't think that is a correct interpretation. Let's consider a Steel Guardian casting Heat Metal using an SSI. What is the save DC?

The spellcasting rules state "The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers." Who is "your" in this text? It must be the creature casting the effect that exactly duplicates the effect of the spell. i.e. the Steel Guardian. The text of the SSI ability states that it uses the artificer's spellcasting ability modifier instead of the steel guardian's spellcasting ability modifier, but it doesn't say it removes the Steel Guardian's proficiency bonus (which is equal to the artificer's proficiency bonus).

The problem is it's not spell casting and it doesn't say it mimics your spell attack or save DC.

They steel defender says your spell attack modifier which automatically include your proficiency bonus because it states so in your spell casting feature. If you command the SD to use SSI(heat metal) the save DC would be 8+ artificer's intelligence modifier.

The difference between your spell attack modifier and your spell casting ability modifier is spell attack modifier has a formula and the later is just what it is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The problem is it's not spell casting and it doesn't say it mimics your spell attack or save DC.

It says it duplicates the effect of the spell. It does not give an alternative formula for calculating spell saves (or attack bonuses), so the usual formula must apply.

Since it doesn't say anything about whose proficiency bonus to use it uses the proficiency bonus of the person activating the SSI. If they are higher level than the artificer, the DC may be higher than if the artificer cast it, if they are lower level the save might be lower.

They steel defender says your spell attack modifier which automatically include your proficiency bonus because it states so in your spell casting feature.

"Proficiency Bonus (PB) equals your bonus"

The difference between your spell attack modifier and your spell casting ability modifier is spell attack modifier has a formula and the later is just what it is.

And spell attacks (and things that duplicate spell attacks) use the spell attack modifier formula, not just your casting ability modifier. All the SSI text does is it replaces the SSI activator's casting ability modifier with the artificer's casting ability modifier.

 

[Stoutstien]

It says it duplicates the effect of the spell. It does not give an alternative formula for calculating spell saves (or attack bonuses), so the usual formula must apply.

Since it doesn't say anything about whose proficiency bonus to use it uses the proficiency bonus of the person activating the SSI. If they are higher level than the artificer, the DC may be higher than if the artificer cast it, if they are lower level the save might be lower.

"Proficiency Bonus (PB) equals your bonus"

And spell attacks (and things that duplicate spell attacks) use the spell attack modifier formula, not just your casting ability modifier. All the SSI text does is it replaces the SSI activator's casting ability modifier with the artificer's casting ability modifier.

We can assume the normal casting rules apply but based on the responses on clarification on how this feature works they are adamantly stating that the SSI is not inherently a magical item nor is it spell casting. It falls under the "use an item" action rules.There's no precedent that it would allow proficiency bonuses because it's a truly unique item in this regard. No other item or featuring in the game duplicates spell effects without The key thing that was purposely omitted with any mention to the word cast. The artificer doesn't even cast when placing the spells in the SSI.

the closest thing is the command feature on a wand of fear but it is a magical item and gives a set DC.

It would be nice if it was worded differently but based on what is written no prof bonus.