D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Ancalagon]

I like artificers.


Let me see if I can paraphrase something shorter:

• Artificer has been my favorite class since 3.5
• other classes do more damage
• other classes have faster spell progression
• INT is a weak stat to be stuck with
• needs more feats because I can't fit the crossbow damage it
• hirelings with a healer kit outclass artificer healing
• invocations seem better than infusions
• item attunement should be better

I think that covers most it. Some of it seems like valid feedback if it doesn't match expectations. Some of it looks like a stretch to add more to the rant.

Personally, I love the artificer. A lot of weaker magic instead of some stronger magic suits me just fine.

Thank you!

But what do you mean by "

• needs more feats because I can't fit the crossbow damage it"
  ?

 

[Zardnaar]

Mostly a waste of time using guns as an artillerist unless you get an advanced one with the ammo as well.

New game does have that stuff but ammos an issue.

Armorer can't multiple attack with a gun your armor weapons are better.

A battlesmith can infuse a musket and multiple attack with it. Only artificer that should use guns after level 5.

Alchemist outright sucks but level 10 can do alright with cantrips, gauntlets of ogre power. Artillerist also becomes decent at melee level 10 using a staff and casting gfb/bb with it.

Level 10 is where artificer seems to switch on though. +2 items.

 

[tetrasodium]

A lot of your comments allude to a situation where everyone gets super cool magic items (and adapted to their playstyle to boo) while the artificer can't craft the exact one he needs to advance the party's goal. That's the exact contrary of the playstyles the Artificer can shine in, which would be both Eberron (magic wide but not very powerful, item creation possible) and the assumed default of not having magic item as they tend to break bounded accurracy (so the artificer is basically the only one with them).

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Infusions are a lot less flexible than your making them out to be

Spoiler: infuse item

Also it's pretty normal for PCs to get magic items relevant to what they do, so much so that it's odd to see someone playing it up like the rest of the table should expect random & ill-fitting magic items. There is the very relevant detail that other classes get cool magic items and class features while artificers get a class feature to let them have generally average magic items from mundane gear that tend to need attunement to ensure difficulties in making use of cool magic items along with those from their class feature if they get any.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I think it's a bigger issue than that. Infusions are a lot less flexible than your making them out to be

I mean, "without an artificer, there is no bag of holding" vs "without an artificer, there is a need to buy/conveniently find bag of holding". I didn't mean to imply that infusions can be changed at will.

Also it's pretty normal for PCs to get magic items relevant to what they do, so much so that it's odd to see someone playing it up like the rest of the table should expect random & ill-fitting magic items. There is the very relevant detail that other classes get cool magic items and class features while artificers get a class feature to let them have generally average magic items from mundane gear that tend to need attunement to ensure difficulties in making use of cool magic items along with those from their class feature if they get any.

As you pointed out, the "normal" in 5e is -- and it's flawed, I agree with you -- for PCs not to get any magic items at all. The game, despite having a whole section of the DMG about magic items, is built on the assumption that you can do without magic items. In a campaign obeying this design choice, artificers can be invaluable. If a party get magical loot that fit their needs (and I am not thinking having a bow-using character only fighting magical crossbows he isn't proficient with, but enough to cover the Replicate Magic Items list (which isn't great, but I think designed with the idea that magic items are nearly inexistant outside common ones), then the artificer is much less useful. In this case, it's the ability to create magic item quicker and for less money that makes them useful, rather than their infusions (though some of them hold their own until the endgame).

If I were to change things with the artificer, it would be to make the Magic Item Adept "scale" with magic richness of the campaign. Default of no magic items = less ressources to craft to uncommon, up to legendary in magic rich settings. So having an artificer, even in a campaign where all adventurer acquire magical loot, would be a guarantee to be able to complement the loot with powerful magic items even with reasonable downtime available (I can see 50 weeks of downtime being a lot between adventure, but reduced to 12.5... it's more reasonable within a campaign even if peril is looming).

 

[Ashrym]

Thank you!

But what do you mean by "

• needs more feats because I can't fit the crossbow damage it"
  ?

Oh and to rub in more salt in the wound, you likely wont ever have the feats to get xbow expert, no less sharpshooter so have fun being at a constant disadvantage in melee.

I was trying to paraphrase the wall-o-text. ;-)

The complaint seems to be "anything an artificer can do another class can also do, but better, and the thing artificers are meant to do (artifice) doesn't seem that potent or unique".

Plus some stuff about the mechanics needing a free hand for stuff and comparing the steel defender to the homunculus servant.

Artificers do tend to spam a limited number of attack cantrips or weapon attacks, so if a person doesn't like that I wouldn't expect them to like artificers given those attacks generally are better using other classes, and the spell casting isn't bad but they will lack the higher level spells of a full caster.

Artificers are more like 3.x bards. They don't have the attack power of more martial characters because they lean more towards magic, and they don't have the spell power of wizards and sorcerers. I would argue that the infusions are worth it compared to other support spell casters, but how that benefit presents itself tends to be a lot more subtle than high damage or potent spell effects.

 

[ECMO3]

I don't like playing them myself, but Battlesmith's are not weak and IMO in a point buy game if they are built right they are generally more powerful than Rangers and roughly equal to Paladins once you hit mid tier.

A few pieces of build advice:

1. They are SAD and do not need to invest in Charisma or Wisdom like Paladins/Rangers. You can dump either strength or dexterity and take a 13 in the other and still have great damage once you hit level 3.

2. They are prepare casters, like Paladins, but have better spells than Paladins and get cantrips.

3. You need to use at least a couple of your infusions for magic weapons so you can be SAD.

4. The disadvantage imposed by the steel defender is awesome. Make sure you have it in position to use it.

5. I really like the shield spell for these guys. Grab either magic initiate or or a 1-level wizard dip. Go strength 13 for chain or a 13/14 dex and half plate, and you have a fantastic AC with one attack at disadvantage every turn due to your defender.

6. If you take the wizard dip I like sentinel as a good feat option - if the enemy attacks you he does it with disadvantage because of your defender, if he attacks the defender you attack him with a reaction.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is true that the scope of roles available to the artificer are impressive, but its range becomes meaningless when the reality sets in that the Artificer class too is locked to the far narrower strengths of the subclass you choose at 3rd level;

I kinda like that the subclass distinguishes the style of play over the backbone of the base class: On most other cases, you would have to have a whole different class to get that level of variation.

As an Battlesmith Artificer your support role limited to the spells you know and using your pet's reaction wisely to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks.

Plus your infusions, plus reliable sustained damage etc.

Compared to the other half casters you lose a fighting style in favor of an admittedly great set of cantrips, but will rarely if ever make use of them in combat due to the clunky requirement of weilding a set of tools or an infusion imbued item to cast those cantrips. Easy enough yeah? This means you have to have a dedicated hand to weilding either tools, or a nonmagical version of an item you have to soup up to end up on a net disadvantage (not -that "disadvantage"-) compared to the items other classes are getting for free as part of their loot from adventuring

Wot.

If the campaign is monty haul enough that the rest of the party has been able to obtain their multiple ideally-configured, high-bonus magic items, then you also get those magic items in addition to your infused items. And you can probably get more use out of them given your higher attunement limits.

because your infusions (and primary weapon/item buffing spells) can only be used on non magical targets so if you plan on casting spells all the way through 20th level, you are still stuck holding tools, a mundane shield, or a mundane weapon.

Again: Wot?
You need to have one of your items be an item you have infused. That is now a magic weapon or shield.
If you have found an amazing weapon, infuse your shield.
If you have an amazing shield, infuse your weapon.
If you have found both amazing weapon and shield, your items are probably skewing your performance far enough that you won't need to regularly cast cantrips.

You still lag behind the guys with archery fighting style and their likely +1 ranged weapon, sharpshooter etc. Oh and to rub in more salt in the wound, you likely wont ever have the feats to get xbow expert, no less sharpshooter so have fun being at a constant disadvantage in melee.

You don't have a fighting style, but you pretty definitely have at least a +1 weapon, unlike the other guy. And feats are feats: Everyone gets them. If you want sharpshooter, you can take it, and then get Archery Fighting style as a feat because you don't need crossbow expert to get multiple attacks with a crossbow.

Oh and here's another kicker ; your tailored bonus smite spells are all incompatible with ranged attacks so your special bonus spelllist is useless of you go that route.

?
Heroism, Warding bond, Aura of Vitality etc are useful spells.

Your steel guardian is cool but any of the other artificers can make use of the almost equivalent iron guardian.

What is an Iron Guardian? Is that homebrew/3rd party?

That and a human hireling with a healing Kit easily outclasses your healing abilities in 5e.

I think you're going to have to show your work on that claim. Even at low level, having healing spells is way better for healing than someone with a healing kit. - And nothing is stopping you (or your homunculus) from using a healing kit either.

Oh and don't bother with two handed weapons because of that earlier mentioned need to have a tool in hand or a mundane weapon infused up because there are no infusions like repeating shot or "fancy shield" to support two weapons and their feat support is still riddled with dexterity and or strength based dependencies and you don't have those due to the big benefit you enjoy of using your int, which also happens to remain the weakest stat in 5e.

What Dex or Strength-based dependencies are you talking about?
Why do you believe that you can't use two-handed weapons? Pick your ideal obscure weapon: you don't need to rely on luck or DM favour to get a magic glaive. Pick up GWM and PE, and go nuts.

your AC being outclassed most other defender types, if not other Artificers.

On the basis that you can have magic armour and shield before any other class likely has, I believe that this is untrue.

So many of the Artificers class features are item creation features DMs are incentivized to not include by the decision not to publish gold values for magic items.

One.
"Many" does not mean "one."

 

[ECMO3]

Also it's pretty normal for PCs to get magic items relevant to what they do, so much so that it's odd to see someone playing it up like the rest of the table should expect random & ill-fitting magic items. There is the very relevant detail that other classes get cool magic items and class features while artificers get a class feature to let them have generally average magic items from mundane gear that tend to need attunement to ensure difficulties in making use of cool magic items along with those from their class feature if they get any.

In my games PCs get whatever magic items are in the adventure (which is usually not many) or random items. Usually in a balanced party these are relevant but rarely ideal.

For example we had a party that picked up a longsword of wounding which is cool, but we onlyhad 1 strength-based guy and he had already taken GWM. So the sword of wounding was a nice boost, and it still worked with the bonus action part of GWM and he used it with such, but it would have been better if it was a greatsword or greataxe or even a Halberd.

An Artificer lets you infuse the exact item you want. If you want a magic polearm, you get a magic polearm.

I have never played a game where we had enough money or enough time to buy or make good magic items of the sort Artificers can infuse. Purchases were typically limited to potions and low level spells. I have read about players that have tens of thousands of gold to spend by level 10, but I have not seen that in any games I have played, and as far as time goes they are typically rushing around to save the world and don't have time to wait 4 weeks to build a magic item.

 

[ECMO3]

there are no infusions like repeating shot or "fancy shield" to support two weapons and their feat support is still riddled with dexterity and or strength based dependencies

What are you talking about?

There are a total of I believe three feats with dex or str prereqs. Those are Skulker, grappler and defensive duelist, none of them have anything to do with weapons.

There is no strength requirement for Great Weapon Master. Your battlesmith with GWM could have an 8 strength and swing his infused Greatsword around for 2d6+24 with a 20 intelligence. Same for sharpshooter or crossbow expert or any other weapon feat.

There is a dexterity OR strength-based dependancy on AC but it is not that significant. 14 Dex can get you 17AC and 13 strength can get you 16AC, without a shield, while dumping the other to 8 (or if allowed at your table to 3) and you will still be able to get +3/+4/+5 at 3rd/4th/8th level through intelligence on magic weapon attacks

The arcane zap that your guardian can do is nice to provide some extra damage or healing but the damage is lackluster compared to the steady flow from features like hex, giantslayer, or Hunter's mark.

Hex and Hunters Mark do 1d6 per attack. That is 7DPR if making 2 attacks a turn. Steel Defender does 1d8+PB, which is 7.5 at 5th level when the ranger or fighter gets 2 attacks a turn, so it is pretty similar but requires no concentration and requires no spell slot.

Colossus slayer (which I assume is what you mean by Giant Slayer) does 1d8 per turn, so it is behind the steel defender from 3rd level all the way to 20 AND you don't need to make an attack yourself to get this damage.

Well you are going to take a hit to your ac because you wont be able to weild a shield because your nifty repeating shot infusion may create ammo for your gun but does nothing to get rid of the reload property guns have (which is different from the -loading- property crossbows have) so your second attack is as good as gone if you even pick up a firearm.

Two things. First it depends what firearm, a pistol and a pepperbox have a reload of 4 and 6 respectively. Second, having the reload property does not take away your second attack, it just means you can't attack with that firearm again until you reload it. So shoot someone for 2d8 with your blunderbus and then drop it and pull out Bad News for your second attack and 2d12. Next turn go to your long bow for the rest of the fight and you are 13 damage ahead of that guy that started the fight with his longbow .... and that is not even the best I could come up with.

being feeble and unable to use magic weapons the DM hands out

As alluded to earlier there are no strength requirements for any weapons in 5e. There are size penalties though, so your 20 strength Halfling barbarian swings a greataxe with disadvantage, but your 5 strength Elven battlesmith doesn't.

 

[tetrasodium]

If the campaign is monty haul enough that the rest of the party has been able to obtain their multiple ideally-configured, high-bonus magic items, then you also get those magic items in addition to your infused items. And you can probably get more use out of them given your higher attunement limits.

Spoiler: infused items

Artificer doesn't really have enough of an infused items to spread it around to the group and many of their class abilities only work with infused items to make getting magic items something likely to be a downgrade or side grade. Then there is the issue where it's hard to argue that there is any reason to not give those infused items to someone who can make better use of them.

Calling a game where players can find or buy magic items of their choice "monty haul" is absurd

Spoiler: That's simply not a description of the game wotc made

Given the tendency to blame the GM for all of 5e's ills, an argument that basically amounts to "but what if the gm is too inexperienced to make their own adventures or too uninterested in doing anything but running a module exactly as written?" hardly sidesteps any of these kind of problems.