D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Helldritch]

I like the bugbear for spring loaded thunder punch

Same reason a wizard can't go around melting locks and doors with acid splash. The conjuration magic works on with creatures because insert magic lore here.

The cannon isn't truly independent. It doesn't even have any movement speed. You can tell it to move X as part of the commanding bonus action but at all no time does it have or utilize any type of action or feature in a way to be seen as a creature creature rather than an object.

You know that in our real world, there are acids that only works on organic material don't you? This is not a magic limitation, but an acid type limitation.

But, you can always firebolt it... But not Eldritch blast it. Everything works out fine....

 

[Stoutstien]

You know that in our real world, there are acids that only works on organic material don't you? This is not a magic limitation, but an acid type limitation.

But, you can always firebolt it... But not Eldritch blast it. Everything works out fine....

Magic is weird and there are just some points we have to just take it at face value because of game balance reasons.

 

[BookTenTiger]

You know that in our real world, there are acids that only works on organic material don't you? This is not a magic limitation, but an acid type limitation.

But, you can always firebolt it... But not Eldritch blast it. Everything works out fine....

You can always lob a vial of acid at it.

But Rule 0, man, if it doesn't make sense to you change it.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

That's your explanation then. You pay too much attention to people who earn money by spouting pretentious nonsense.

Wittgenstein

You did just not

 

[Iry]

You did just not

The broad strokes dismissal seems to be a position of Anti-Education, as opposed to objecting to the research and lectures of one or two specific people.

 

[TwoSix]

The broad strokes dismissal seems to be a position of Anti-Education, as opposed to objecting to the research and lectures of one or two specific people.

Which seems strange, since the main reason I come here is to get the opinions of people more educated than me on gaming topics!

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Just came here to say that the artificer in my campaign had his spine explode out his back after a beefed up flesh golem overhand smashed his head down into his torso. I guess my point is that, kinda like a bard, they can easily become outmatched when going toe to toe with big bois. My other point I wanted to make was that it is very fun running a deadly encounter.

 

[clearstream]

That's your explanation then. You pay too much attention to people who earn money by spouting pretentious nonsense.

It really depends on your interests. I don't think there is anything special about reading discussions by other people who are working to understand the very interesting phenomena that is gaming.

I have no idea what that means, and I don't care. Jargon is a language invented to make people think "I don't understand what that person is talking about, but it sounds clever so it must be true".

It is jargon and there's nothing threatening or at risk for you in knowing or not knowing it. When working with difficult ideas - especially meaning - it can be important to express a concept by using a previously defined term for it.

Rules are things people make up. I can draw a circle on the ground and toss the chess men into it from a distance of 3 meters. It's a game, its perfectly fun, and it has nothing to do with the rules you are talking about.

Why the circle, why 3 meters? Would you call it joining a session of play of your game, if everyone else does something completely different? This isn't a question of whether they can or ought, or what is better. It is about whether they can be said to be joining with you in playing a shared game.

 

[clearstream]

You did just not

I've gone to and fro on Wittgenstein. Philosophy has continued to advance since his time. But I would say that if you read his Philosophical Investigations then you'll gain some insights about meaning that you might not otherwise arrive at. Going beyond his famous comments on defining games (i.e. the impossibility thereof).

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Rolled stats eh?

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

Precisely this. The problem isn't the paladin or the artificer, it because their DM was foolish enough to use rolled states for their game in the first place, and then expect any sort of balancing to be possible after. Rolling stats is not balanced by design.