D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[clearstream]

The general rule is it is treated as a spell unless it says otherwise in the description.

The principle "specific beets general" also applies in reverse - if there is no specific rule use the general rule.

The general rule is that when a spellcaster casts a spell, they use their ability modifier and their PB.

In (I think) every case where a spell is produced from an item, it uses the original caster's ability and PB.

For what @Ashrym asserts to be true, we must have a new "general" rule, that uses the original caster's ability modifier and the item user's PB.

Is that last, the "general" rule you are referring to?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The general rule is that when a spellcaster casts a spell, they use their ability modifier and their PB.

Indeed. And notice there is no "non-proficent" spell casting. If you can cast a spell your proficiency bonus always applies.

In (I think) every case where a spell is produced from an item, it uses the original caster's ability and PB.

This, however, is a specific rule. If an item has no specific rule associated with it it reverts to the general rule. (That's RAW, but a DM is free to create a general house rule for items if they wish).

For what @Ashrym asserts to be true, we must have a new "general" rule, that uses the original caster's ability modifier and the item user's PB.

Is that last, the "general" rule you are referring to?

It's not a new rule. The general rule still applies, but with the artificer's AB replacing the user's AB.

 

[clearstream]

Indeed. And notice there is no "non-proficent" spell casting. If you can cast a spell your proficiency bonus always applies.

This, however, is a specific rule. If an item has no specific rule associated with it it reverts to the general rule. (That's RAW, but a DM is free to create a general house rule for items if they wish).

A general rule might be inferred by considering DMG magic item parameters. SFAIK, there is no express RAW on this. Can you point to a rule that specifies that "spells produced from items use formula". I believe that at best, we can each make an inference.

And maybe I also misunderstand which way you fall on this? Do you mean that your putative "general rule" is that the user's ability modifier and proficiency bonus are used when a spell is produced or cast from an item. I don't see any evidence at all for that. Conversely, I see plentiful evidence that it should be the original caster's. One might feel that mentioning the artificer's ability modifier redundantly - under that interpretation - points the other way, but it could as well point to only using their ability modifier, and no proficiency bonus applies.

It's not a new rule. The general rule still applies, but with the artificer's AB replacing the user's AB.

The user of an SSI is producing the spell, not casting it. And again, there is no written general rule that I can find for casting a spell stored in an item, only evidence that it should use the original caster's stats.

 

[JackalTornMoons]

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.

Artillerist is S-Tier from 3-7. 1d8+Int temporary HP to all allies within 10ft for a bonus action an unlimited number of times is bonkers strong and trivializes most encounters.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A general rule might be inferred by considering DMG magic item parameters. SFAIK, there is no express RAW on this. Can you point to a rule that specifies that "spells produced from items use formula".

All SPELLS use the formula:
"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.

The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers." -Basic Rules

This does not say "not including spells cast from items". No special item rule is needed, since the rule above applies to "spells", irrespective of source.

I believe that at best, we can each make an inference.

And maybe I also misunderstand which way you fall on this? Do you mean that your putative "general rule" is that the user's ability modifier and proficiency bonus are used when a spell is produced or cast from an item. I don't see any evidence at all for that.

PHB and basic rules, cited above.

Conversely, I see plentiful evidence that it should be the original caster's.

There is NO evidence to that effect. There are items an powers that have specific rules that apply to that item/power only.

What you are doing is looking at specific rules for specific items, and trying to deduce a general rule that isn't printed anywhere. 5e does not work that way. Each specific rule stands alone, it is not derived from some hidden "master rule".

One might feel that mentioning the artificer's ability modifier redundantly - under that interpretation - points the other way, but it could as well point to only using their ability modifier, and no proficiency bonus applies.

It doesn't "point to" anything. It is a specific rule that overwrites part of a general rule in that specific instance only.

The user of an SSI is producing the spell, not casting it.

The rule cited above does not use the word "produce" or "cast". There is no difference.

And again, there is no written general rule that I can find for casting a spell stored in an item, only evidence that it should use the original caster's stats.

And again, there is a general rule FOR SPELLS. It does not specify that it only applies to spells cast by a person. That is what GENERAL RULE is.

 

[clearstream]

All SPELLS use the formula:
"Many spells specify that a target can make a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell's effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure.

The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 + your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers." -Basic Rules

For me, "your" points more to the original caster; the spell in the spell storing item belongs to the artificer more than to the current user. You might feel differently, but the RAW does not support your interpretation any better.

This does not say "not including spells cast from items". No special item rule is needed, since the rule above applies to "spells", irrespective of source.

The rule above might well apply to spells irrespective of source, what I don't agree with is who "your" is.

Thus, my argument doesn't hinge on the point you want to make here: I might concede it without impacting my point about who "your" refers to.

There is NO evidence to that effect. There are items an powers that have specific rules that apply to that item/power only.

I believe every or nearly every item listed in RAW uses the original caster's ability modifier and proficiency bonus, including spell storing rings. Not the holder of the item.

What you are doing is looking at specific rules for specific items, and trying to deduce a general rule that isn't printed anywhere. 5e does not work that way. Each specific rule stands alone, it is not derived from some hidden "master rule".

Recollect that my position is that there isn't any general rule provided by RAW. I don't need to defend this point. However, I am not looking at specific rules for specific items: rather all rules for all items (or at least, an overwhelming majority - all that I could find) that store charges to cast spells with.

The rule cited above does not use the word "produce" or "cast". There is no difference.

You think not, I believe so. We cannot resolve this point by debate between us. Fortunately, it is also not crucial. On my view, the intent behind "produce" is to emphasise that the artificer clearly remains the original caster.

And again, there is a general rule FOR SPELLS. It does not specify that it only applies to spells cast by a person. That is what GENERAL RULE is.

The rule that you want to claim is general and applies, refers to the original caster. It is not the rule you are looking for

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Recollect that my position is that there isn't any general rule provided by RAW. I don't need to defend this point.

You CAN'T defend the point - because it is WRONG.

I believe every or nearly every item listed in RAW uses the original caster's ability modifier and proficiency bonus, including spell storing rings.

Utterly and completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there are a billion specific rules attached to a billion specific items, it still doesn't make a general rule. 5e is an exception based rule system.

 

[Stoutstien]

You CAN'T defend the point - because it is WRONG.


Utterly and completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if there are a billion specific rules attached to a billion specific items, it still doesn't make a general rule. 5e is an exception based rule system.

The issue is it doesn't actually provide any actual exception. It hints at it but as written the intent is unclear. Hence the debate on who's proficiency gets added. it's an incredibly easy fix by just changing the words spellcasting modifier to spell casting ability which would allow the entire spellcasting feature to be used so it's all predetermined when the spells are loaded into the spell storing item. This prevents some game logic conflicts where a high level character somehow is better at mashing a button than a low level one when the feature clearly intends for that to not be a factor.

 

[Ancalagon]

Artillerists giving 1d8+Int Temp HP in an aoe every bonus action trivializes much of Tier 1 and 2 combat.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but have you looked at the twilight cleric? They make that turret look like chump change. 1d6+level in a 30 foot radius, every round, no action or concentration required.

 

[Ancalagon]

Artificers are strong enough to contribute meaningfully to any group.
But Alchemist and Armorer are trap choices.

This really bothers me because the Alchemists is the only one I can see including in most of my games, setting wise.