• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

Infusions are a class feature so that kinda is the point of the statement of keeping the comparison fair.

Flight is extremely important for a tank because you have full control of positioning, can bypass area denial effects, and double down on control/damage. It's one of the biggest flaws of barbarians they struggle to keep pressure because they can only threaten what they can reach. You want a tank? Have an artificer yank target back into the cloud of daggers from above dropping them prone, adding fall damage, and procing the AoE. Could even ready an action for this.


Cloak of protection is +1 AC and +1 to all saves. If your not using the push back of the shield that choice is even worse than it was originally.

EHP do exist. You can calculate them and talk about them in a context anyone can see. 20 AC and 100 HP is more EHP than 10 AC and 100HP. Cloak of protection is better for staying power than doubling your HD rolls.

Artificers address challenges differently than most classes so they need to keep some flexibility on hand. You are a swiss army knife not a Hammer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Irrelevant. The point is that the BS will get hit, will need to rely on those HP, and will drop more often or be forced to fall back more often, if the DM is actually challenging the group.

If you’re casting upcast false life, blur, and multiple shields in every single fight, you are bringing less efficacy to your party than any other Wizard build would.

Just knowing that you don’t use spell slots out of combat makes me wince at the thought of your Bladesinger in any party I’ve been involved in.

So, for the last time. We play vastly different games, CR is useless, and there is no point in continuing this.
But in an all wizard party, it might not be the bladesingers role to cast spells out of combat, but instead be tanky. No matter what a wizard could bring to the table otherwise, you can "waste" all your slots on tankiness and be reasonably useful for that purpose.
And on days, where you don't have to tank, you can do wizardly too.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
But in an all wizard party, it might not be the bladesingers role to cast spells out of combat, but instead be tanky. No matter what a wizard could bring to the table otherwise, you can "waste" all your slots on tankiness and be reasonably useful for that purpose.
And on days, where you don't have to tank, you can do wizardly too.
You can do whatever you want, and if you’re having fun, great!

But the argument upthread was very much that wizards are the best tanks. They aren’t, especially not the whole day, and especially not if they are trying to be unhittable turtles with no meaningful offense or utility.
 



Because on an artificer I’d almost never expect to get as many magic items as the other PCs. A magic weapon or shield or whatever would be fine, though.
Why wouldn't you have the same number of magic items as the character that you are directly comparing against? Surely you should try to make external factors like DM generosity the same across all comparisons?
 

Why wouldn't you have the same number of magic items as the character that you are directly comparing against? Surely you should try to make external factors like DM generosity the same across all comparisons?
Thsts a big part of the artificer's problem. Artificial er gets magic items as a class feature, other classes get class features plus magic items equal or better from adventuring. Without a wbl or similar system the artificer can't point at they cant even make a solid case when they get slighted in treasure.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Why wouldn't you have the same number of magic items as the character that you are directly comparing against? Surely you should try to make external factors like DM generosity the same across all comparisons?
It really doesn’t matter. I’m not trying to like, map out a spreadsheet, here.
 

It really doesn’t matter. I’m not trying to like, map out a spreadsheet, here.
It does matter though. It's especially true if you're giving the fighter an item that moves his attack and damage up alongside overcoming resistance or immunity to non magical weapon attacks.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion on issues with DM's own personal cognitive biases on how the class is structured could affect the balance. That's not something that you really can fault the class design on.

It's in the same vein of thought of if a character takes great weapon master or sharpshooter the DM inadvertently just starts adding HP/AC to all their NPCs.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
It does matter though. It's especially true if you're giving the fighter an item that moves his attack and damage up alongside overcoming resistance or immunity to non magical weapon attacks.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion on issues with DM's own personal cognitive biases on how the class is structured could affect the balance. That's not something that you really can fault the class design on.

It's in the same vein of thought of if a character takes great weapon master or sharpshooter the DM inadvertently just starts adding HP/AC to all their NPCs.
It depends to some degree on what you view the DMs role to be.

when my players heavily optimize they tend to face harder challenges and encounters than a less optimized party would.

That doesn’t mean they don’t get to face opponents they will decimate, but that they will face those and also ones that are going to be challenging.

Optimization is a bit of an illusion - not totally - but DM behavior suggests they will mitigate some of the advantages of optimization in encounter design at least sometimes.

It often means playing characters thematically and holding back their power and tactics to some degree in play makes for a ‘more optimized and effective’ character as you can always push yourself to the next level in dire circumstances.
 

It depends to some degree on what you view the DMs role to be.

when my players heavily optimize they tend to face harder challenges and encounters than a less optimized party would.

That doesn’t mean they don’t get to face opponents they will decimate, but that they will face those and also ones that are going to be challenging.

Optimization is a bit of an illusion - not totally - but DM behavior suggests they will mitigate some of the advantages of optimization in encounter design at least sometimes.

It often means playing characters thematically and holding back their power and tactics to some degree in play makes for a ‘more optimized and effective’ character as you can always push yourself to the next level in dire circumstances.
Aye. I agree optimization is a self defeating for most tables. OTOH a DM who can't conceptualize the difference between an item gained through a feature and an item that they allow the party access too by other means is probably better off limiting PC option to a field they are more comfortable with.

Artificers are not something to toss at new DMs the same way you wouldn't toss a nuke wizard or an echoing ancestral guardian multiclass in the mix.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
It does matter though. It's especially true if you're giving the fighter an item that moves his attack and damage up alongside overcoming resistance or immunity to non magical weapon attacks.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion on issues with DM's own personal cognitive biases on how the class is structured could affect the balance. That's not something that you really can fault the class design on.
okay. If I had posted about anything relevant to any of that, I’d be more interested.

IME, magic items aren’t given out symetrically. Since I do not do white room analysis, I’m not going to ignore that.

If you can’t adjust what you’re looking at for simple things like the Artificer having different infusions prepared or a + weapon, that isn’t my fault or problem.
 



Thsts a big part of the artificer's problem. Artificial er gets magic items as a class feature, other classes get class features plus magic items equal or better from adventuring. Without a wbl or similar system the artificer can't point at they cant even make a solid case when they get slighted in treasure.
The artificer can pass their items around if they wish. An alchemist should actually do so. It is also that the artificer infusions should fill in the gaps.
They become slightly worse in campaigns were the DM customizes magic items for the party. Those games have a different flavour than the campaigns were magic items influence the characters...
 

No, it is not. We are not optimizing the hell out of an artificer. It is just proving that the concept of the class is sound. Neither too good, nor too bad... A little +1 here or there makes NO difference.
Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.
 

Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.
What?
You can do that yourself if pleases you. Should be easy to add +1 to some values...
Also choices were decent enough for an admittedly cobbled together character.
 

The artificer can pass their items around if they wish. An alchemist should actually do so. It is also that the artificer infusions should fill in the gaps.
They become slightly worse in campaigns were the DM customizes magic items for the party. Those games have a different flavour than the campaigns were magic items influence the characters...
The arrtificer can do that yes, but that gets into the other half of the problem where its available infusion list is pegged to the bonkers 5e assumption of no feats no magic items baselines rather than the one wotc actually wrote. It doesn't help anyone to give a +1 item to someone with a +1 item & if they have something better the artificer can't give their items to someone else. Also don't forget that this tangent came up again because someone said "Because on an artificer I’d almost never expect to get as many magic items as the other PCs".
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Then it's a pointless exercise unless you trying to prove that an artificer could potentially out preform a fighter while at a deficit.
Nope. I have no intention doing a numerical comparison between the two.
Then give it to the artificer instead of the fighter.

No one talking about optimization past making at least halfway decent choices. It's like saying the dragon sorcerer as a option is bad full stop based on someone picked fire for a campaign set in the elemental plane of fire.
That’s a completely nonsensical comparison.

Why even bring optimization into it, as well? I showed an artificer tank build that isn’t an armorer, and should be plenty effective at tanking while having a ton of other options available.

What?
You can do that yourself if pleases you. Should be easy to add +1 to some values...
Also choices were decent enough for an admittedly cobbled together character.
Right. It’s a simple quick build to see what options the Battlesmith has to tank. The only comparison is “the fighter is a good baseline. Can artificers get close to the fighter, at least part of the day?”

Also, just like…it’s +1. 🤷‍♂️ Just add it when doing math if you feel like ya need to. IME, if the party isn’t getting many magic items, they want magic item bonuses spread around. It helps the party more to have the art and fighter have a +1 magic weapon than to give the +1 weapon to the guy who can just make one. Just like a level 6 fighter needs the +1 spear more than the level 6 monk. Most players aren’t selfish, IME.
 

The arrtificer can do that yes, but that gets into the other half of the problem where its available infusion list is pegged to the bonkers 5e assumption of no feats no magic items baselines rather than the one wotc actually wrote. It doesn't help anyone to give a +1 item to someone with a +1 item & if they have something better the artificer can't give their items to someone else. Also don't forget that this tangent came up again because someone said "Because on an artificer I’d almost never expect to get as many magic items as the other PCs".
Which is ok. You can cherry pick those you really want to have.

Also as an artificer, if you don't have to give away +1 or 2 weapons, you can give bracers of archery or cloaks of resistance or headband of intellects...
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top