D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Paul Farquhar]

Not really. When creating magic items, I always require my characters to obtain and expend magical substances and use spell slots to create it. Having a process doesn't make it a technology. I wouldn't allow a nonmagical barbarian character to create a magic item, but an artificer or wizard with the right tool proficiencies, supplies, and process could make it if they are high enough level and spend enough time making it and questing for knowledge how to make it.

But they know exactly what it is, how it works, and how to reproduce the effects. Requiring a character to have special skills and tools doesn't stop it being technology. I don't know how to build a car engine, but I know it aint magic.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The trouble with a player facing magic item recipe book is it (in a metaphorical sense) ceases to be magic and becomes technology.

I don't see the problem with this.

 

[tetrasodium]

But they know exactly what it is, how it works, and how to reproduce the effects. Requiring a character to have special skills and tools doesn't stop it being technology. I don't know how to build a car engine, but I know it aint magic.

I know exactly what electricity is but don't know how it gets in the wires. even if I have a vague understanding of how a generator solar panel or nuclear power plant works it might as well be magic because as the comic says "any technology, no mater how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it".

 

[DND_Reborn]

The whole magic = technology thing really depends on how much magic you have in your world.

If your city is lit by continual flame lampposts every 100 feet or less, and the citizens are used to it, it is not really "magical" anymore...

Ultimately, it depends on if you magic = mystery or not... I like the idea of 3rd level spells being thought of as EXTREMELY powerful--not mundane.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

But they know exactly what it is, how it works, and how to reproduce the effects. Requiring a character to have special skills and tools doesn't stop it being technology. I don't know how to build a car engine, but I know it aint magic.

Maybe we're just using different words for the term "technology". Doesn't matter a ton. If you don't want PCs making permanent magic items in your campaign, I don't care.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't see the problem with this.

I see little point in using a fantasy setting if it doesn't feature mystery, magic an the unknown.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I see little point in using a fantasy setting if it doesn't feature mystery, magic an the unknown.

Magic isn't unknown in Eberron, it's their version of technology, which is really cool IMO. Science was unknown to people thousands of years ago, but over time people mastered it and learned more.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Magic isn't unknown in Eberron, it's their version of technology, which is really cool IMO. Science was unknown to people thousands of years ago, but over time people mastered it and learned more.

Eberron is science fantasy though, and it still draws a distinction between arcane magic, that people understand, and divine magic, which is magic people don't really understand. There are plenty of magic items in Eberron that cannot be reproduced by PCs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Magic isn't unknown in Eberron, it's their version of technology, which is really cool IMO.

Precisely the reason why I don't like it, but to each their own so I am glad it has an audience in you.

 

[Ashrym]

The doubt is over which proficiency bonus to use, if any, right? Is your intended implication that it should be the PB associated with the spell level, e.g. +2 for 1st-level, +3 for 2nd-level, or do you mean the PB associated with the artificer at the time they stored the spells, i.e. at least +4, or something else?

One might feel drawn toward the PB of the artificer, but then by that logic the DMG should have been focusing on the level of the caster required to create a scroll, not to cast the spell, seeing as surely a 17th-level wizard could have created a 1st-level spell scroll. The words in the DMG on that are "the level of the spell on the scroll determines the spell's saving throw DC and attack bonus".

Therefore, is it right that you are saying the effective PB should be +2 if a 1st-level spell is stored, or +3 if it's 2nd-level?

Likewise. I find the SSI rules indefensibly poor. There is no reason not to have spelt out the DC formula, or to have failed to make the intent crystal-clear regarding costly material components. Part of the point of paying for rules from the WotC design team, for me, is to procure a level of expertise, forethought, playtesting, and consistency across tables, that would be effortful - perhaps impossible - for me to achieve myself. I do also value ingenuity, but that alone is not sufficient. (Part of why I am - reluctantly - keeping away from the advanced rules project. We're far enough into 5e that I would value better rules over more rules.)

Which proficiency bonus would have been the expected argument. The way it's laid out the individual using the SSI uses his/her/their own proficiency bonus. If the artificer's proficiency bonus was expected to be used the ability would have stated it uses the artificer's DC's / spell attack bonus.

It could have been presented better, for sure, but the general rule for DC's / attacks applies, the user of the item is the individual enacting that general rule, but the specific rule of using the artificer's INT is what dictates what ability score is applied.

Alot

Alot of that comes late in the Artificers career.
As I said if you wait to level 10+ your class basically sucks. To many of the archetypes are in that category.

That's not a rebuttal. It's restating your opinion. Plus, everyone else's tables aren't restricted to your level ranges you play. It's the "trap" option that I compared to bards above that you just confirmed don't suck after 10th level ;-)

What I demonstrated earlier is how strong the SSI is. It's a good feature.

The benefits of additional magic items at the lower levels outweigh the benefits of the slots long term (at no point is there no benefit to having more magic items, which infusions provide). Short term the slots are can be better immediate gratification but not necessarily better overall. Artificers are also one of those classes that adds a lot to subclasses early while bards are strong in the chassis just giving a few more options for a limited resource in the colleges.

The use artillerists get a lot out of a spell slot to resummon a cannon is so good that people make the claim alchemists are bad in comparison but that doesn't actually make alchemists bad. It makes them burn resources faster as the significant difference. The alternative for long term strong benefits is the steel defender, and I think the armorer isn't as bad as some people claim either. Thunder gauntlets kicks ass over vicious mockery because it's also at will, does better damage, and affects more than one attack. It's a d8 weapon that SAD's attack and spell modifiers and also either forces disadvantage on attacks or soft controls targets into attacking the high AC armorer with an extra attack subclass, and that's what people complained about because the UA armorer was better.

Artificers are great. Even the "traps".