D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[doctorbadwolf]

It depends how high AC and if it is straight up or with advantage. A CR6 should not hit 27AC with disadvantage more than one time in every 400 swings.

Why is the BS wasting spell slots and concentration on Extreme Defense!!1! when they could be fishing out impressive damage with the same concentration and still be very hard to hit, first of all? How is that BS actually useful to the team?

Next, anyone with 27 AC has overinvested in AC, so show me a character sheet and I’ll point out the glaring weaknesses of the character.

Lastly, it sounds, not just from this comment, like you use much too low CR enemies in your games. I highly recommend homebrew enemies, and treating “deadly” as the CR target of most fights. A hard or lesser fight is a cakewalk in 5e, for most groups.

 

[ECMO3]

and level appropriate enemies should still hit high AC PCs some of the time.

It depends how high AC and if it is straight up or with advantage. A CR6 should only hit 26AC with disadvantage more than one time in every 400 swings. I would classify that as "almost never" instead of "some of the time'.

Hell, spike growth. Sure, spend yet another spell slot getting past damaging terrain to get to the caster that has most of the same tools you have. Like I’ve said before, Bladesingers are very good skirmish strikers and mixed-range artillery. They have some very real limits, though.

The caster spent a spell to cast spike growth too. Assuming she can't get around it, the bladesinger can spend the same 2nd level spell spell slot to simply misty step across and follow that up with both an attack and a cantrip. You have used the same spell slot and actually damaged the opponent.

Or if she really does not want to use the slot, go into bladesong, take the 10-ish damage to get across the spiked area and respond by hitting with both a weapon attack and a cantrip for about 20. You have lost no spell slot and can deal nearly 2 times as much damage.

IME bladesingers are not good skirmishers unless they multiclass. If they single class they are great tanks and good casters but even though their damage is ok it is not good enough to be an effective striker IME, at least not if you are comparing it to classes like Paladins and Arcane Tricksters. If they can pick up sneak attack, or maneuvers or something through a multiclass that is different. Every class is limited and that is the bladesingers biggest limit IMO, that and their spell book which is going to need a lot of defensive spells compared to a more traditional wizard.

 

[ECMO3]

Why is the BS wasting spell slots and concentration on Extreme Defense!!1! when they could be fishing out impressive damage with the same concentration and still be very hard to hit, first of all? How is that BS actually useful to the team?

Because that is their role. Their job is to suck up attacks and get in the way of enemies fixing or holding them in place. Hit points are a limited use commodity. Ending the fight with the party losing the fewest resources is the goal.

You are not going to find a 1st (PEG) or 2nd level (blur) spell that will be more effective in that regard at level 6. Sure I can fireball them all, hope all of them miss their save and maybe get the same result on round 1 (if I get lucky and they have abnormally low hps for CR6) or use a 1st or 2nd level slot and a 3-use a day ability and virtually assure it by round 3 or 4.

Next, anyone with 27 AC has overinvested in AC, so show me a character sheet and I’ll point out the glaring weaknesses of the character.

Sure everyone has weaknesses. I think a fighter in plate has bigger weaknesses though simply in terms of disadvantage on steath than anything you are going to point out on said warforged bladesinger.

You can find weakness on her sheet, but exploiting those weaknesses in combat is a bit more difficult to realize. The biggest obvious one is a bladesinger has few hps ... BUT she has a lot to cover that with shield, absorb elements, decent dex save and SOD. One reaction per turn is another weakness, and you can make her choose between an AOO early in the count vs saving the reaction for shield later .... BUT the initiave order needs to be conducive to it and even then it doesn't really translate into hurting her as much as it gives the enemy a bit more freedom. She has a poor charisma and strength save .... BUT not to many monsters leverage those and she has spells to end/counter some of these. She has poor constitution save ..... BUT most damage that requires a con save also requires a hit and she has INT bonus on concentration in bladesong while also getting hit less than other casters and having the ability to reduce any damage she does take (therefore lowering the concentration DC). She has poor athletics .... BUT in combat you can usually use acrobatics instead and she is both good at acrobatics and has advantage in bladesong.

I was not playing her; but we had a bladesinger in one of my campaigns that went multiple entire levels (around 4-7 or something like that) and never got hit by an attack in combat a single time. She was the character on the front line in every single fight. She was not my character, she was someone else's, but she was the strongest character I have ever seen played through level 13 (when we quit the campaign). Now she did have a staff of defense and bracers of defense (both of which came I believe from Lost Mines of Phadelvar). These enhanced her strengths even more, but neither of these are OP magic items for a tier 2 character.

Lastly, it sounds, not just from this comment, like you use much too low CR enemies in your games. I highly recommend homebrew enemies, and treating “deadly” as the CR target of most fights. A hard or lesser fight is a cakewalk in 5e, for most groups.

Well if we are bringing homebrew into it then we are not really playing the game RAW and the sky is the limit. RAW you should "exercise caution when using challange rating higher than the party's average level"

That is the game we are discussing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because that is their role.

Not if they’re being challenged.

Their job is to suck up attacks and get in the way of enemies fixing or holding them in place. Hit points are a limited use commodity. Ending the fight with the party losing the fewest resources is the goal.

Except the BS only tanks well if the DM is actively allowing it to do so, where nearly any other actual tank doesn’t need any help. A Fighter or Barbarian’s HP is much less limited, over the day, than anyone’s spells slots.
Maybe you play a game where shorts rests rarely happen? If so I find the comment below about RAW encounter building guidelines pretty humorous.

Sure everyone has weaknesses. I think a fighter in plate has bigger weaknesses though in terms of disadvantage on steath than anything you are going to point out on said warforged bladesinger.

Experience tells me to disagree. Maybe your DM is reluctant to deal big damage and sometimes knock out PCs, maybe it’s something else, but there is a reason that this thread is the only time I’ve ever seen anyone, anywhere, claim that BSs are good tanks.

Hell, just the opportunity cost of high Dex rather than max Int is being ignored here. You’re a Wizard. Your role is to cast spells. If you want to lock anyone down (a major tank goal) you’re gonna need that mod up. And concentration free for control and offensive usage.

The BS can, at level 6+, hit and cantrip, with flaming sphere, summon Fey/whatever else, spirit shroud, or use hideous laughter or hold person or faerie fire to have advantage and grant advantage to the whole team. Any of those are better for the team than the guy with 25 HP pretending to tank.

Well if we are bringing homebrew into it then we are not really playing the game RAW and the sky is the limit. RAW you should "exercise caution when using challange rating higher than the party's average level"

That is the game I am playing RAW.

Right. RAW is objectively incorrect, when it comes to CR. Even with right out of the PHB, so it isn’t a Bladesinger issue. In fact I find it easier to challenge a BS than to challenge an Evoker or Abjurer, but they’re all wizards. They all have low HP, garbage strength saves, mediocre Con saves, rarely train athletics, and have to spend a lot of their resources to do just about anything.
But we established earlier that you don’t see wizards spending spell slots out of combat, so, yeah, very different games.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Also, it will never be true that they have 26 or 27 AC all the time, unless they have just fully given up on any real offense or control, much less utility. Their at will output is good, but it isn’t great without using leveled spells to boost it. It isn’t better than a warrior class with subclass features adding to damage. Defense is the least impressive or strategically useful thing for them to spend a large number of slots on, much less concentration.

Also, they could have Mirror Image up, if the enemy is a heavy enough hitter with attacks to warrant it, and then have a pet out or a flaming sphere or haste. Always using blur is just…not good tactics.

 

[Stoutstien]

That's maybe it.
5e overall is a very balanced edition.
Every "broken" combo has its weakness and they are never so much over the top, that they completely invalidate other characters.
Usually it boils down to adventure steucture.
Too many long rests, so shield is always on. Long rest based classes are generally more powerful than expected.

Mostly it comes down to resources other than HP and damage that can easily throw DMs off.

Few weeks ago I unintentionally crashed a DMs plans just because I used a combination of arcane eye, clairvoyance, and scrying to avoid 90% of the challenges she had planned. She wasn't prepared for a party to circumvent the critical path in that manner so in her eyes those spells represented a hole in her planning. Are those spells overpowered? No, but to that DM they might as well be.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Mostly it comes down to resources other than HP and damage that can easily throw DMs off.

Few weeks ago I unintentionally crashed a DMs plans just because I used a combination of arcane eye, clairvoyance, and scrying to avoid 90% of the challenges she had planned. She wasn't prepared for a party to circumvent the critical path in that manner so in her eyes those spells represented a hole in her planning. Are those spells overpowered? No, but to that DM they might as well be.

I however would be happy if my players circumvent every combat by such means. It might throw them off later however, because the enemy force is not weakened, but probably that might also be solved through different means.

In one group the combination of mask of many faces, actor feat and charlatan background also allowed the party to circumvent a lot of fights.

 

[ECMO3]

Also, it will never be true that they have 26 or 27 AC all the time, unless they have just fully given up on any real offense or control, much less utility. Their at will output is good, but it isn’t great without using leveled spells to boost it. It isn’t better than a warrior class with subclass features adding to damage. Defense is the least impressive or strategically useful thing for them to spend a large number of slots on, much less concentration.

It is 26 or 27 vs more than half the attacks leveled at them. So you are right not all the time.

Taking 5 rounds to finish an enemy while taking no damage and using one 3x a day ability and two first level spells (say PEG and shield) is more efficient than killing the enemy in three rounds while using a third level spell a first level spell while also taking 5 damage.

Also, they could have Mirror Image up, if the enemy is a heavy enough hitter with attacks to warrant it, and then have a pet out or a flaming sphere or haste. Always using blur is just…not good tactics.

They could and mirror image is a spell we have at our table. Usually we use it with shadow blade or haste. It is especially useful with shadowblade when the character has no magic weapons and you come across something you need to hit with magic (although cantrips are an option too). In terms of effectiveness though blur alone is usually better than MI+haste and is a lot cheaper because you have to refresh MI regularly and when you do it costs you and attack and a cantrip on that turn, not to mention 2 turns getting them in place.

For example:

1. if you fight for 6 turns with MI and haste and the enemy drops one image every turn you will end up attacking 8 times (5x haste action 3 by attack action) and casting 3 cantrips (part of attack action) and using 2 2nd and one 3rd level slot plus any shields.

2. If you went instead with blur on turn 1 instead of MI; in 6 turns you will make 5 attacks and 5 cantrips and use only a 2nd level slot

Since Cantrips do more damage, player 2 (blur) does107.5 if all hit while player 1 (MI+haste) does 120.5. But player 2 has used an extra 2nd slot a 3rd level slot. So you are trading a 3rd and 2nd level slot for 13 damage and he probably used more shields and is more likely to have taken damage. He also has an 80 foot movement and other advantages too, so it is not all in damage, but I just wanted to point out this is typically not the best use of resources.

MI does work well with sentinel though as Sentinel gives you an AOO anytime the enemy targets something other than you within reach, so if he swings at an image you can make an AOO, although this costs your reaction and is not typically done vs a lot of enemies early in the initiative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is 26 or 27 vs more than half the attacks leveled at them. So you are right not all the time.

Taking 5 rounds to finish an enemy while taking no damage and using one 3x a day ability and two first level spells (say PEG and shield) is more efficient than killing the enemy in three rounds while using a third level spell a first level spell while also taking 5 damage.

No, it isn't. Especially for a character with a ton of HP. Better to drop the enemy faster, and leave the characters with a broader toolkit free and safe to do much wilder things than standing there trading blows.

They could and mirror image is a spell we have at our table. Usually we use it with shadow blade or haste. It is especially useful with shadowblade when the character has no magic weapons and you come across something you need to hit with magic (although cantrips are an option too). In terms of effectiveness though blur alone is usually better than MI+haste and is a lot cheaper because you have to refresh MI regularly and when you do it costs you and attack and a cantrip on that turn, not to mention 2 turns getting them in place.

Shadowblade is generally not that strong once you've got spells like haste available to you, outside of the fairly uncommon enemy with resistence to BPS damage. Haste or a summons, however, can dramatically increase you're offensive output, and summoned creatures also put more blocking spaces on the field and spread out incoming damage more. Blur is rarely in the top 3 choices of a concentration spell, much less the best option, for a wizard.

Again, you could just skip it or MI and just let an actual tank keep you safe. You've got crazy speed, grab Mobile and fight like you were designed to fight, which is a skirmisher that tags enemies and then forces them to either chase and get hurt, or sit and stew and let your allies womp them.

important note: Or, play however you want, because it's a game. I'm just talking about optimal play, here, which doesn't not include wizard tanks.

For example:

1. if you fight for 6 turns with MI and haste and the enemy drops one image every turn you will end up attacking 8 times (5x haste action 3 by attack action) and casting 3 cantrips (part of attack action) and using 2 2nd and one 3rd level slot plus any shields.

2. If you went instead with blur on turn 1 instead of MI; in 6 turns you will make 5 attacks and 5 cantrips and use only a 2nd level slot

Since Cantrips do more damage, player 2 (blur) does107.5 if all hit while player 1 (MI+haste) does 120.5. But player 2 has used an extra 2nd slot a 3rd level slot. So you are trading a 3rd and 2nd level slot for 13 damage and he probably used more shields and is more likely to have taken damage. He also has an 80 foot movement and other advantages too, so it is not all in damage, but I just wanted to point out this is typically not the best use of resources.

That just isn't ever going to be how it plays out, though. Instead, the guy with haste up drops or incapacitates multiple enemies in that time, while the guy with blur just isn't as much of a threat, and once the enemies see how hard to hit they are and that they're going full turtle-tank, they either bypass the attacks vs AC model, or focus on other targets.

And in case it wasn't clear, haste isn't at the top of the list, either. Flaming sphere and any conjure/summon XYZ spell are better uses of concentration in most fights. They aren't as fun for a lot of characters, but that's beside the point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is 26 or 27 vs more than half the attacks leveled at them. So you are right not all the time.

Taking 5 rounds to finish an enemy while taking no damage and using one 3x a day ability and two first level spells (say PEG and shield) is more efficient than killing the enemy in three rounds while using a third level spell a first level spell while also taking 5 damage.


They could and mirror image is a spell we have at our table. Usually we use it with shadow blade or haste. It is especially useful with shadowblade when the character has no magic weapons and you come across something you need to hit with magic (although cantrips are an option too). In terms of effectiveness though blur alone is usually better than MI+haste and is a lot cheaper because you have to refresh MI regularly and when you do it costs you and attack and a cantrip on that turn, not to mention 2 turns getting them in place.

For example:

1. if you fight for 6 turns with MI and haste and the enemy drops one image every turn you will end up attacking 8 times (5x haste action 3 by attack action) and casting 3 cantrips (part of attack action) and using 2 2nd and one 3rd level slot plus any shields.

2. If you went instead with blur on turn 1 instead of MI; in 6 turns you will make 5 attacks and 5 cantrips and use only a 2nd level slot

Since Cantrips do more damage, player 2 (blur) does107.5 if all hit while player 1 (MI+haste) does 120.5. But player 2 has used an extra 2nd slot a 3rd level slot. So you are trading a 3rd and 2nd level slot for 13 damage and he probably used more shields and is more likely to have taken damage. He also has an 80 foot movement and other advantages too, so it is not all in damage, but I just wanted to point out this is typically not the best use of resources.

MI does work well with sentinel though as Sentinel gives you an AOO anytime the enemy targets something other than you within reach, so if he swings at an image you can make an AOO, although this costs your reaction and is not typically done vs a lot of enemies early in the initiative.


MI works well with Sentinel too on a bladesinger, because if they attack an image you get

I wanna just take a second to say, I appreciate your POV on this. It’s interesting to argue with someone who experience the game very differently than I do. If I’ve come across as dismissive or aggro at all, I apologize.