D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Paul Farquhar]

It's less broken than the hexblade/paladin MC.

No, it is MORE broken, because a three level dip is a significant cost.

Not to say that it isn't broken, mutliclassing is an optional rule by default, and I certainly wouldn't allow a hexblade/paladin at my table, but it's less broken than allowing the same benefit without taking the levels.

Got it via a racial ability and it's almost as much as the race (Dragonkin) gets. They're marginally better than the dragonborn.

Which is why you have to be careful using 3rd party stuff. They don't have the same level of QA checks to make sure they can't break the game. WotC would never let a possibility of free CHA-Shillelagh through.

Battlesmith also best the artificer has to offer imho. Two of the subclssses suck imho the other is ok.

Depends what you want to do with it. Battlesmith is the best for hitting stuff. Artillerist is a better party defender due to it's ability to spam temp hp every round, Armorer is a better tank due to it's ability to stop enemies ignoring it. Alchemist is an RP choice, but Tasha's buffs it by making the Homunculus available at level 2, but it depends on how often conditions occur in your game. If you have enemies who spam blindness then the ability to spam lesser restoration is not to be sneezed at.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do get bored with people who think wilful misrepresentation is a legitimate form of debate.

Guidance is guidance. It is not a rule, nor is it a design outline. I have never said it was a "design outline". YOU brought up that bollocks.

I was calling it a design outline long before you jumped on saying the xge "guidance" is not a rule. It's ok for you to admit that your own logic fell apart but you don't need to get nasty. You came out saying that I was expecting bad wrong fun and in less than a day switched from its guidance not a rule to it's a completed rule.... those two positions are n the t comparable.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I was calling it a design outline long before you jumped on saying the xge "guidance" is not a rule. It's ok for you to admit that your own logic fell apart but you don't need to get nasty. You came out saying that I was expecting bad wrong fun and in less than a day switched from its guidance not a rule to it's a completed rule.... those two positions are n the t comparable.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth - to a degree I find extremely offensive - I have never said guidance the was a rule, I consistently stated it IT IS NOT A RULE. It is not intended to be a rule, it is not a prototype for a rule, it is not an outline for a rule.

The rule for 5e magic items is THERE IS NO RULE. This is complete and final and a deliberate design decision. There is guidance available for those DMs who feel they need help.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again, you are putting words into my mouth - to a degree I find extremely offensive - I have never said guidance the was a rule, I consistently stated it IT IS NOT A RULE. It is not intended to be a rule, it is not a prototype for a rule, it is not an outline for a rule.

The rule for 5e magic items is THERE IS NO RULE. This is complete and final and a deliberate design decision. There is guidance available for those DMs who feel they need help.

It would be comical if this were not the result of having me agree with your original point about xge 128 not being a rule since I had already been saying it was a particular type & entirely inadequate form of guidance rather than a finished rule. Wotc making a "deliberate design decision" does not shield make that decision become above criticism over the resulting failings. I'm not saying your engaging in badwrongfun if you think that the "guidance" is acceptable or just what you need; I'm saying that wotc needs to consider more than the one true way beyond which only exists badwrongfun & that whatever you want to call it for crafting on xge128 does not do that

 

[Stoutstien]

There's no conflict with the casting time of spell scrolls. The 2015 DMG errta is quite clear on this.
The Text has also been updated in any DMG that was printed after the 5th printing at the latest because I'm comparing a first and fifth printing side by side and the ladder has all of the 2015 erratas in it.

Ask for taking the scroll out it would most likely fall into the interacting with objects around you as part of your movement and action or in other words, your free item interaction. one of those it's withdrawing an item from your backpack which is probably harder than retrieving one from a scroll case.

Where the rules are not clear at all is how many hands does it take to read a scroll.

 

[Asisreo]

The DMG and the Basic rules are in conflict on this point.

Basic Rules (Pg 169 in the 2018 version), and thus D&D Beyond baseline, says it takes the spell's normal casting time. DMG pg 139 says it takes an action.

Either way, there's the matter of whether the scroll is in hand at the moment you want to use it. Just getting it out of your pack may be an action in and of itself.

Just to be clear. There is no difference between the Basic Rules and the current version of the DMG.

The section Tetrasodium pointed out is outdated and has been errata'd to "the normal casting time."

Now, as for having the scroll in-hand, I think its fair that the spellcaster should have taken it out on his turn, but through an interaction rather than a whole action.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying that wotc needs to consider more than the one true way beyond which only exists badwrongfun

You you may want to step back and separate some guy on the internet arguing with vigor, and WotC's stance on the matter. The Artificer design (remember, this thread is about the Artificer) seems pretty well designed to flex, rather than being a One True Way design.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Now, as for having the scroll in-hand, I think its fair that the spellcaster should have taken it out on his turn, but through an interaction rather than a whole action.

That would depend on if the scroll was on their utility belt or in the bottom of a backpack.

 

[Umbran]

Just to be clear. There is no difference between the Basic Rules and the current version of the DMG.

Just to be clear: D&D rules discussions must allow for folks using official products as printed. In that light, they are both correct.

The section Tetrasodium pointed out is outdated and has been errata'd to "the normal casting time."

Interestingly, that gets complicated.

The original passage on pg 139 says, "...unleashing that magic requires using an action to read the scroll..."
Applying the errata to that text, it says, "...unleashing that magic requires the user to read the scroll..."

It isn't until you get to the errata for page 200 that they give the casting time issue. So, they change the rules and move the information to a different place in the book, which will muddle understanding. Such is the nature of editing after the fact. Space needs to be left in our discussion to allow for that

 

[Blue]

No, it is not a problem.

RPGs that have a regimented "you should have this at level X" approach are the problem. Making them not so much role playing games as tactical combat board games.

I agree with Paul - 3.x implicitly and 4e explicitly had magic item bonuses worked into the expected math of character advancement. They were a hidden/pointed-out-but-discrete part of leveling. 5e does not have that.

If you look at the breakdown in XGtE pg 135, the idea that any specific character has any items in not addressed. What you do have is a loose guide by tier, and it's for an entire party. And that's just derived from the expected distribution of the DMG treasure tables plus adding in Common items which were introduced on the following page.

The other side of this is that when items are an expected part of character math, they need to be purchasable so there needs to be both magic item costs and wealth per level, and the wealth per level needs to handle the expected items but not more - pushing out other uses of wealth. By not having magic items being part of character math, those can be left out so that it is another knob the DM can use to customize their own setting without worrying about going monty haul in terms of magic items because they aren't directly exchangeable. So one DM can have a setting with plenty of gold and the characters buying titles, building fortifications, bribing officials, and doing whatever, and another can have characters always hungry for the next quest due to needing funds - and both of those parties are mechanically able to handle the same range of expected foes.