• 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?

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...
No then can not until level ten. Those are tenth level items.
1631573932891.png
Wotc made a game where a +1 item is 500gp & GM are encouraged to be generous then designed the artificer for a game where magic items are more in line with those of an AiME game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nope. I have no intention doing a numerical comparison between the two.

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.


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.
But there isn't a party. Just the question of is the artificer over/under the curve by a margin large enough to be considered an issue. You could say the artificer is being compared to a fighter sharing the same external magical item pool which would at least acknowledge the fact the artificer is providing that fringe benefit.
 


ECMO3

Adventurer
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.
no they will drop less because:
1. They get hit less often
2. Can reduce damage better when they get hit
3. Typically have more total hit points to start with (including temp hit points)

Sure everyone has to fall back on occasion, but a Bladesinger will outlast most martials against most foes.
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.

A 10th-level AC21 bladesinger in bladesong and blur in a 4 turn fight with CR13 Brass Dragon who directs every one of his actions to attack the bladesinger; will do on average 87 points of damage if she casts no shields at all and that number includes a damage bonus for attacks after blur has been knocked down (if it gets knocked down). If she does casts shield she will lose on average 31hps and cast 2 shield spells. She has enough slots she can do that all day long. That is without using SOD at all. Even if she was caught off guard, did not have false life up and did not cast it, she can still be alive at the start of turn 4 after taking every attack from said +11 CR13 Brass Dragon.

Having someone still standing with substantial hps, without drawing any party healing and using only 20% of her own available spell slots (2 1st and 1 2nd) is pretty darn efficient.

A 20AC fighter in the same 4-turn fight will lose on average 130hp. That is after reducing it from 145 by healing himself using second wind. If the fighter has heavy armor master it would be 119. If he is an EK and uses shield himself, he will take 90 while casting shield more often and with fewer slots available.

Now that is a dragon that attacks specifically that one character using all the actions on his turn for 4 rounds. He never uses his breath, never cast frightful presence, but she is is better prepared to deal with most of those as well (not to mention they are likely to hit rear members anyway). It is also an example of two characters taking every action attack from that dragon for a full four rounds. H

Claiming I am bringing less efficacy without providing statistics is not much of an argument. Provide the math to back that up. Think of it this way; because she is there we can ditch a party fighter and have a second wizard.

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.
Who said I don't. I cast false life out of combat. I also cast Protection from Evil and Good out of combat and of course rituals.

That isn't my role, just like the fighter doesn't action surge out of combat and the Barbarian doesn't rage out of combat.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think it's reasonable that the presence of an artificer will guide some DM's to provide less magical items so that the artificer gets more spotlight in that area.

I think it's reasonable that an artificer who is using tons of magical items himself will end up with less magical items from some DM's than other PC's.

I also think it's reasonable that in some games that neither of those things will change.

In terms of artificer infusions - The biggest issue I find with artificers is that they can only use each type of infusion once, which makes it rather hard to tailor them to your party.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
no they will drop less because:
1. They get hit less often
2. Can reduce damage better when they get hit
3. Typically have more total hit points to start with (including temp hit points)

Sure everyone has to fall back on occasion, but a Bladesinger will outlast most martials against most foes.


A 10th-level AC21 bladesinger in bladesong and blur in a 4 turn fight with CR13 Brass Dragon who directs every one of his actions to attack the bladesinger; will do on average 87 points of damage if she casts no shields at all and that number includes a damage bonus for attacks after blur has been knocked down (if it gets knocked down). If she does casts shield she will lose on average 31hps and cast 2 shield spells. She has enough slots she can do that all day long. That is without using SOD at all. Even if she was caught off guard, did not have false life up and did not cast it, she can still be alive at the start of turn 4 after taking every attack from said +11 CR13 Brass Dragon.

Having someone still standing with substantial hps, without drawing any party healing and using only 20% of her own available spell slots (2 1st and 1 2nd) is pretty darn efficient.

A 20AC fighter in the same 4-turn fight will lose on average 132hp. That is after reducing it from 145 by healing himself using second wind. If the fighter has heavy armor master it would be 119. If he is an EK and uses shield himself, he will take 90 while casting shield more often and with fewer slots available.

Now that is a dragon that attacks specifically that one character using all the actions on his turn for 4 rounds. He never uses his breath, never cast frightful presence, but she is is better prepared to deal with most of those as well (not to mention they are likely to hit rear members anyway). It is also an example of two characters taking every action attack from that dragon for a full four rounds. H

Claiming I am bringing less efficacy without providing statistics is not much of an argument. Provide the math to back that up. Think of it this way; because she is there we can ditch a party fighter and have a second wizard.


Who said I don't. I cast false life out of combat. I also cast Protection from Evil and Good out of combat and of course rituals.

That isn't my role, just like the fighter doesn't action surge out of combat and the Barbarian doesn't rage out of combat.
I’m not reading another text wall, my dude.

I’ll make it easier this time, and not reply at all to anything you’re saying.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
But there isn't a party. Just the question of is the artificer over/under the curve by a margin large enough to be considered an issue. You could say the artificer is being compared to a fighter sharing the same external magical item pool which would at least acknowledge the fact the artificer is providing that fringe benefit.
Now that's just crazy talk
 

No then can not until level ten. Those are tenth level items.
Wotc made a game where a +1 item is 500gp & GM are encouraged to be generous then designed the artificer for a game where magic items are more in line with those of an AiME game.
Yes. I did not look at the level of the char in question.
But there are useful items in the list... They just don't add to damage
...
 

Now that's just crazy talk
There isn't a party. There is a [party] as in a generic reference point they would have in common in the same way we would say they would hold up ok to [combat encounters] rather than having an actual campaign to run them through

Artificers are more potent than they look on paper once you do start adding in specific party combinations because of the infusion system but that would involve a lot of pencil work even for a simple comparison substituting them in for a fighter.
 

Ashrym

Hero
Frankly, I think both of these claims are pretty ridiculous, and I tend to give more weight to the ones complaining that it's underpowered (the Alchemist subclass does exist, after all).
It's not underpowered or overpowered. It's just powered. ;-)

I never felt underpowered on an alchemist. The other subclasses are more efficient but the alchemist does add versatility over them and focuses more on actual healing. Different focus isn't the same thing as underpowered.
I mean, they literally have the same armor proficiencies as a Ranger, but less weapon proficiencies, a smaller hit die, and have to trade their Fighting Style, their Extra Attack, and other martial features for 2 cantrips and a handful of infusions. They're half-casters, and they get a tiny bit more casting than Rangers/Paladins (this difference is even slighter if the Ranger/Paladin takes the Divine/Druidic Warrior Fighting Style), but aren't martial, they're primarily buff-based (and they can buff themselves if they choose to).
If the armor proficiencies are good enough for a ranger then they are good enough for an artificer. I'd argue artificers applying infusions make better use of the armor regardless of who is wearing it, though.

Less weapon proficiencies won't matter because subclasses either add proficiencies or the artificer uses cantrips instead. The extra attack is similar in that subclasses add it for that style of character anyway.

Using the fighting style to gain cantrips comes a level later, gives up the actual fighting style, and doesn't add the additional cantrips gained later or ritual casting.

Infusions are not available to paladins or rangers.

I would say the points given show they are different in some respects and not others, but doesn't demonstrate superiority or inferiority.
IMO, they're much less OP than a Paladin, and roughly equivalent to new Rangers in their power-scale. They do get nice features, and are versatile (much like the Warlock), but none of their subclasses are OP, none of their features are OP, and none of their spells are OP (they don't even get unique spells, they're mostly piggy-backing off of the Wizard and a bit from the Cleric).
Artificers are more versatile than paladins. Paladins are better at nova (IME).

Unique spells aren't more or less powerful than other spells of the same level. That's the point of having spell levels to measure general power. ;-)
In my experience, Paladins, Wizards, Clerics, Bards, and even Rogues have been more game-breaking than Artificers. And, in my experience, Aasimar, Elves, Mountain Dwarves, Yuan-Ti, Satyrs, and Dragonmarked Races have been much more powerful than Warforged. I just don't see how Warforged Artificers could be gamebreaking, unless in a very niche campaign, especially not gamebreaking enough for you to advocate/support removing them from the game.
IME none of those classes are actually game breaking. Hella useful sometimes but not actually game breaking.
Care to explain/rebutt anything?
Challenge accepted, but I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I think we both don't find artificers OP or weaksauce.
One other, from what I've seen in this thread. Two people saying "this thing is OP and broke my campaign" with no elaboration whatsoever isn't a very compelling or believable argument.
Artificers are not OP. They are pretty useful in all stages of the game, but more infusions at lower levels would be nice. That feels a bit restrictive.
Getting back to the artificer, I've reevaluated Artillerist and I'd rank him as a very good artificer and character in general.

I really want to like armourer, but I'm just not seeing it for him.
I see you caught some of the arguments for artillerists I was going to make. The armorer has good AC without needing to cast shield because of infusions and also has absorb elements as mentioned for tanking above with wizards. Damage isn't stellar but the guardian armor draws attacks or protects other better than a lot of classes, and the electric blast from the infiltrator armor can be used to leverage the sharpshooter feat.

All artificers also add sanctuary and web in the arsenal to help with protecting others, and armorers get a solid spell in hypnotic pattern to help.

The bonus action can go to the homunculus for a ranged attack, or a feat to help, or hold off for using it on a bigger spell like bigby's hand or animate objects later.

The subclass to watch out for is the alchemist because they are more resource dependent than the other 3 subclasses. They can be effective but that lasting power cost for cost isn't there compared to other artificer subclasses.
I bet there are a few spells you can take to increase your hit.
Yes. Faerie fire is available to all artificers at 1st level and can cheese it later with the SSI for the homunculus to cast it and spend the concentration to maintain it. If I want to play with more damage for the armorer that tactic plus flash of genius makes up for the hit penalty on sharp shooter more than enough.
That's a lotta levels to wait through to get good.
By "good" Zard means "good at damage" specifically, and when it comes up into comparison is compared to a sharpshooting crossbow expert battle master with precision. ;-)
 

The bonus action can go to the homunculus for a ranged attack, or a feat to help, or hold off for using it on a bigger spell like bigby's hand or animate objects later.
As an artificer you have naturally access to heat metal, as spell that I never take as a bard, because it is often not useful.
But for the armorer who can prepare spells, it is very handy if you know who you are up against.
2d8 damage without a saving throw and disadvantage on attacks and ability checks as long as you concentrate and 2d8 extra damage per bonus action is exactly what you want.
You probably will take out a polearm great weapon fighter.
The sharpshooter might or might not be lucky because they are probably not wearing metal armor.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
It's not underpowered or overpowered. It's just powered. ;-)
Agreed. They're "powered", which means that they can be functional characters in a campaign. That's literally the baseline requirement for something to be a class; for it to be able to function in 5e.
I never felt underpowered on an alchemist. The other subclasses are more efficient but the alchemist does add versatility over them and focuses more on actual healing. Different focus isn't the same thing as underpowered.
I think the problem with the Alchemist is largely a combination of the same problems that the Way of the Four Elements Monk and the Wild Magic Sorcerers have. That being that they have to use their class resource to use their subclass features. Now, Alchemists don't have it as bad as the Four Elements Monks do, because the Alchemist at least gets some free uses of its abilities. However, these "free" uses of their subclass features come at the price of them being randomly determined (much like the Wild Magic Sorcerer), so their base subclass features have the possibility of being outright useless on the average adventuring day.

That's the problem. Imagine if there were 6 different types of Eldritch Cannons that the Artillerist could have, all with various uses, and the Artillerist had to randomly determine which free type of eldritch cannon they got each day. That would suck, and that's what makes the Alchemist suck. They aren't strictly "game-breakingly underpowered", but they are a problem.
If the armor proficiencies are good enough for a ranger then they are good enough for an artificer. I'd argue artificers applying infusions make better use of the armor regardless of who is wearing it, though.
That was kind of my point. That it got even less martial proficiencies and features (Extra Attack, Fighting Style) than other half-casters, and got their Artificer features in exchange for that (Infusions, Cantrips). It's a trade-off, it's not OP, was my point.
Less weapon proficiencies won't matter because subclasses either add proficiencies or the artificer uses cantrips instead. The extra attack is similar in that subclasses add it for that style of character anyway.

Using the fighting style to gain cantrips comes a level later, gives up the actual fighting style, and doesn't add the additional cantrips gained later or ritual casting.
Agreed.
Infusions are not available to paladins or rangers.
I don't think I said they were. The point was a trade-off. Artificers get magic items, but they aren't "free", at least in comparison to what other similar classes get.
I would say the points given show they are different in some respects and not others, but doesn't demonstrate superiority or inferiority.
Agreed. That was kind of my point. They're well-balanced, as all things should be ;)
- Thanos
Artificers are more versatile than paladins. Paladins are better at nova (IME).
Sure. And that versatility comes at a trade-off (normally DPR).
Unique spells aren't more or less powerful than other spells of the same level. That's the point of having spell levels to measure general power. ;-)
They're not "more powerful", but they are a good thing for a class to have. It differentiates them, often giving them something that only they have the ability to do (well, them and Bards, because of stupid Magical Secrets). This point wasn't really about "power", it was more about "Paladins and Rangers get unique spells on their spell lists, many of which are quite good and archetype-defining, and Artificers don't get those things".
IME none of those classes are actually game breaking. Hella useful sometimes but not actually game breaking.
Eh, I've found them situationally game-breaking. Maybe "game-breaking" wasn't the right term to use there. "More powerful, and in more circumstances" would probably be more accurate.
Challenge accepted, but I'm not sure we're disagreeing. I think we both don't find artificers OP or weaksauce.
I don't think we really disagree, either. I was responding to @6ENow! because they were claiming that the Artificer (and Warforged) were game-breakingly overpowered, and I was trying to explain my reasoning why they weren't. They didn't reply (well, they did, but they replied to say that they weren't going to reply), but I'm glad you did.
Artificers are not OP. They are pretty useful in all stages of the game, but more infusions at lower levels would be nice. That feels a bit restrictive.
Agreed. If I could make one simple change to the written Artificer class right now, it would be to give every subclass 1 extra infusion, but specific to that subclass's specialty (So an Armorer could get a special type of Armor upgrade that they could put on themselves or others, Battle Smiths could get Infusions that upgraded their Steel Defender, etc).
 
Last edited:

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top