D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Umbran]

You may not play AL & the idea of that footnote not possibly establishing precedent for many GMs rather than resorting to an endless chain of one off calvinball style rulings lacking any sort of consistency might appeal to some but it provides a reason why a GM would rule that a creature is not always a just a full creature capable of concentration as you describe and the thread I've linked a few times from september 2019 predates the november 2019 release of rising.

The run-on sentence here does not give me hope of understanding what you're really getting at.

But, to suggest that disagreement with you equals complete lack of discipline is insulting.

Stop insulting us. Now. Please and thank you.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I know powergamers that would destroy campaigns if their DM would allow such possible scroll usage.

If a powergamer can destroy a campaign using spell scrolls, the DM is DMing wrong. The DM is God. They control the table and how the game is played.

 

[Helldritch]

Just to make sure. You are saying that when you run, you make players aware that you use the rules written in a particular printing of the DMG, and/or list the rules that have changed that you don't agree with?

I run two groups of 6 players. We play democratily with every single optional rule voted upon. So nope, I don't hide nothing.

QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]
Because otherwise you're hiding it. A player may know the actual official rule from their own books or from another table, and if you are playing with non-official rules and don't let them know, it's hiding it.[/QUOTE]
Errata is not official. The print is. Afterall, a hand attack is a weapon attack but not for the paladin. So no punchinator, but SA do say that it is a weapon attack... so... SA and Errata are not common ground. Maybe it is time for 5.5 just like 3.5 came about. Until then, my version of the DMG is prime. And since every players that do DM in their own game have the same DMG as I...

QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]
You don't have to pay for a new one, they have handy errata documents.[/QUOTE]
Again, errata is not official. A print for 5.5 would be. Otherwise, screw the errata. An errata should not change a rule but add something that was omited. Adding a sentence that was left out. Adding a page number where it is reference but was not printed. The PoTA errata is a prime example of what an errata should be.

QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]
And if you don't like it, house rule it. Already said I'm for it. Second guessing that it didn't need to be changed isn't contributing to anything since obviously the people who decided what rules are official disagree.[/QUOTE]
Again, rules were voted upon by the players. So nope, I don't feel that the scroll errata was particularly judicious. It was an oversight that scrolls with reactions and bonus actions could not be used with the standard rule, but their "clarification" just put more potential abuses than it solves. That is my opinion (and consequently, seems to be my players' too as they voted against the errata when we saw it.) and so far, it works out perfectly. Yes it implies that reaction scrolls are bit risky to use (as you have to have them in your hands) but it works out for us.

QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]
And your examples assume that players have infinite reactions and infinite scrolls of reaction spells in order to be able to "Rinse and repeat for every possible caster". It also assumes every lich and caster out there is ignorant of basic ways to get around counterspell. Be more than 60' away, mode to hidden, ready to release when you see your opponent (which casts) then move back into view, be the second spell cast - either legendary actions or have allies, etc.[/QUOTE]
Do not assume I do not know how to play my badasses. I probably know the rules as good as you do. I simply do not play superheroes in fantasy environment.


QUOTE="Blue, post: 8176661, member: 20564"]
Citation needed. Obviously the easiest for the designers would have been no change, so there was an impetious to change it. That it was broken in it's original form according to them. Your claims that it was not thought out and definitely not playtested is throwing share without any proof. And since it's an official rule that most tables have in play and we DON'T hear about "powergamers destroying campaigns" with it, we can assume that you are just making up unsupport facts again like the rest of this paragraph.
[/QUOTE]
Can't you recognize a personal opinion when you see one? I do not need to prove anything as I feel that this is what happened again as with many rule erratas and SA... I do not consider these two to be valid debating point if a rule is good or not.

Edit: How we interpreted the original rule is that you use the scroll on your turn. Even reaction. So you can cast a shield spell premptively but you need to be the target of a spell during your turn to use counterspell. If it is on an opponent turn, you have to rely on your spell slots.

 

[Blue]

I run two groups of 6 players. We play democratily with every single optional rule voted upon. So nope, I don't hide nothing.

Then without weasel words tell me that you brought up that the group would be using your version of the DMG, even if it differs from theirs and the official rules.

Errata is not official. The print is.

This is simply incorrect. Errata is official, according to the people who decide what is official. It is also the print - every new printing contains all of the errata that came out before. This specific point is not worth debating any more because there is a straightforward, non-opinion, factual answer for this

Do not assume I do not know how to play my badasses. I probably know the rules as good as you do. I simply do not play superheroes in fantasy environment.

Your example required unlimited reactions per round to do what you said and shut down all casters, are you really sure you want to so loudly proclaim yourself an expert on the rules?

But really, basic steps to avoid counterspelling is not "superheroes". It's playing someone who does this for a living. Just like not triggering an Opportunity Attack is not "superheroes", just part of life.

The argument "I can't play my casters intelligently because that's 'superheroic' to me, and that means that the errata wasn't thought out and wasn't playtested" just isn't the strongest argument.

Can't you recognize a personal opinion when you see one?

I can. But you were making assertions like it wasn't playtested in addition to personal opinion, and if you notice that's what I called out as "throwing shade".

And I addressed personal opinion like powergamers would destory campaigns if that's how the rules were, by pointing out that we haven't heard such a thing even though most have been playing with these rules (as printed in their 5th printing or newer DMG) for years. So it's unlikely that personal opinion of yours is true.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think you guys have convinced me the battlesmith is a bit better than I though but that's the best one. Just build it differently.

Later on around level 10 looks like they get a lot better but it's a bit late imho and I generally rate classes level 1-7 as a priority.

 

[Helldritch]

Then without weasel words tell me that you brought up that the group would be using your version of the DMG, even if it differs from theirs and the official rules.


This is simply incorrect. Errata is official, according to the people who decide what is official. It is also the print - every new printing contains all of the errata that came out before. This specific point is not worth debating any more because there is a straightforward, non-opinion, factual answer for this


Your example required unlimited reactions per round to do what you said and shut down all casters, are you really sure you want to so loudly proclaim yourself an expert on the rules?

But really, basic steps to avoid counterspelling is not "superheroes". It's playing someone who does this for a living. Just like not triggering an Opportunity Attack is not "superheroes", just part of life.

The argument "I can't play my casters intelligently because that's 'superheroic' to me, and that means that the errata wasn't thought out and wasn't playtested" just isn't the strongest argument.


I can. But you were making assertions like it wasn't playtested in addition to personal opinion, and if you notice that's what I called out as "throwing shade".

And I addressed personal opinion like powergamers would destory campaigns if that's how the rules were, by pointing out that we haven't heard such a thing even though most have been playing with these rules (as printed in their 5th printing or newer DMG) for years. So it's unlikely that personal opinion of yours is true.

Been there, done that. Remember the thread about the alternate rest rule where with a single rest a sorcerer or whatever could change one of their spell? I was one to say it was not playtested and would lead to abuses. But many were talking exactly as you do, and yet. It got gutted from the Tasha's book because it was unbalanced and fortunately, we got heard. Even more impressive, Tasha's was advertised on that rule specificaly and the rule was removed just before going to print. For a long time now, I have felt that a lot of rulings and changes (in errata and SA) were improvised to cater to specific complains (as the switching of spell was) an done without much play test. As long as a change is not in print (in an advertised update), it is not something that I will ever consider official but a simple advice.

What would be official, is a 5.5 edition just like the 3ed did and it became 3.5ed. Not everyone will buy the "newest" print. This is a nice way to fish more money from customers. So until we have a PHB 5.5, a DMG 5.5 and a MM 5.5, all errata and SA will be taken as a grain of salt from me. I got burned a few times during the 3.0 era when some errata on rules could change from one month to the other. At a certain, point, you might even get the errata of the errata... Print is what is important and official. The rest might change according to the current wind direction.

 

[SkidAce]

Rolled stats eh?

I hate rolled stats. It creates the problem that caused you to start this thread.

I save the wod "hate" for things other than a game, but I do dislike point buy and prefer rolled.

It has its downsides you have to watch out for, but gives a much better variation of characters over time.

 

[see]

Been there, done that. Remember the thread about the alternate rest rule where with a single rest a sorcerer or whatever could change one of their spell? I was one to say it was not playtested and would lead to abuses. But many were talking exactly as you do, and yet. It got gutted from the Tasha's book because it was unbalanced and fortunately, we got heard. Even more impressive, Tasha's was advertised on that rule specificaly and the rule was removed just before going to print. For a long time now, I have felt that a lot of rulings and changes (in errata and SA) were improvised to cater to specific complains (as the switching of spell was) an done without much play test. As long as a change is not in print (in an advertised update), it is not something that I will ever consider official but a simple advice.

If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between an explicit playtest document (an Unearthed Arcana release) and official notification of the new printed version of the rule (an errata document), then my only advice to you is to never base an argument on "RAW", because you'll only embarrass yourself.

 

[Stoutstien]

I think you guys have convinced me the battlesmith is a bit better than I though but that's the best one. Just build it differently.

Later on around level 10 looks like they get a lot better but it's a bit late imho and I generally rate classes level 1-7 as a priority.

The artillerist has it high points with having a basic free up cast on all damage spells starting at lv 5 and extremely high returns for a spell slot. Even at late levels 13 THP for an hour for everyone is very good returns for a lv one slot.

The alchemist and armorer are late bloomers but are within reason.

 

[Helldritch]

If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between an explicit playtest document (an Unearthed Arcana release) and official notification of the new printed version of the rule (an errata document), then my only advice to you is to never base an argument on "RAW", because you'll only embarrass yourself.

Ho but I do understand perfectly. You seem unable to understand my position that errata have been changed in the past and will continue to change. Only an official book can do what you imply. The same goes with SA. I never mentionned UA. You did. If anything, UA is even less trustworthy as this is not a probability to change, it is a certainty.

From what I get, you see unwilling of trying to understand my position and put me in a constant bad light of bad faith and stupidity. Keep your advice to yourself and stop name calling and using demeaning words/flaws against myself. This do not suit this forum.

My position has been clear from the start. Errata and SA are not good grounds to use. Only the printed material is worthy of being used.