D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Artificers are great. Even the "traps".

Fully agree. The "traps" aren't even traps anymore than other spellcasters have. A wizard can choose to have an 8 for Intelligence and know only Mending, Message, and Prestidigitation for their cantrips and only put Alarm, Distort Value, Floating Disk, Jump, Identify, and Snare in their spell list, which most people would consider a "trap". However, in both that case and for the Artificer, those aren't really traps as much as they are you purposefully nerfing yourself.

The biggest "trap" an Artificer can take (besides spell selection and not maxing out their main Ability Scores) is the Alchemist subclass, which isn't actually that mechanically awful. It's just frustrating that you don't get to choose the potions you want unless you give up your already limited spell slots.

Nothing else in the class is a true "trap", as in that it pretends to be viable and ends up being disappointing.

 

[Ashrym]

However, for D&D, those changes do not generally make it into the next printing.

As stated earlier - our discussions must allow for folks who work with the rules as originally printed, as well as for those who prefer to incorporate the errata. Working without the errata is totally legitimate, and if you intend to rhetorically beat someone over the head with errata to make them accept your point, or suggest that there's some moral superiority to using them, there's going to be problems.

...

In the end, in a game that starts with "rulings, not rules" and a 40+ year long tradition of homebrewing and houseruling, you cannot lean on RAW as, "this is correct and everyone else can shut up." Proving what is RAW is less important than demonstrating what works better at the table and why.

WotC's site states that the errata does go into the next printing so even if it does not make it in time the intent is clear. Errata isn't a preference. It's an update and it is the official version.

The same is true for sage advice. It's not just advice. Those are the official rulings.

Arguing whether those are official or not is fruitless. They are official. I'm only pointing out because if people are going to argue about rules it should be clear that those two sources are official and do trump older copies when it comes to a discussion like that.

It's your final comment I quoted that I agree with. Just because something is updated, RAW, or has an official ruling doesn't dictate anyone's particular table. What works and what doesn't at anyone's table is far more important, and demonstrating how or why is a better use of our time in discussions like this than something tangential like what version is correct. ;-)

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

There's even magic that's been lost & magic from ancient fallen civilizations. Warforged & the creation forges that make them are very strongly implied to have been copied by house cannith from something found in xendriik rather than invented, they even had to spend some time just trying to make it work & tweaking the results. The elemental binding for airships wasn't invented by cannith or the zil gnomes... it was stolen from the drow who preserved it from the giant empire they used to be slaves to. Both the dhakaani empire & giant empire were likely more advanced than the 5 nations & in the eberron of 998yk khorvaire isn't even the most advanced nation/continent in the world.

 

[Ashrym]

Fully agree. The "traps" aren't even traps anymore than other spellcasters have. A wizard can choose to have an 8 for Intelligence and know only Mending, Message, and Prestidigitation for their cantrips and only put Alarm, Distort Value, Floating Disk, Jump, Identify, and Snare in their spell list, which most people would consider a "trap". However, in both that case and for the Artificer, those aren't really traps as much as they are you purposefully nerfing yourself.

The biggest "trap" an Artificer can take (besides spell selection and not maxing out their main Ability Scores) is the Alchemist subclass, which isn't actually that mechanically awful. It's just frustrating that you don't get to choose the potions you want unless you give up your already limited spell slots.

Nothing else in the class is a true "trap", as in that it pretends to be viable and ends up being disappointing.

What's funny (to me anyway) is I play alchemists all the time. It's my preferred artificer subclass. The elixirs are costly compared to the other options but they do open up abilities. The randomness is more of a flavor implementation and I've seen tables remove that for a choice of elixir, but I've never seen a random elixir go to waste either. Any randomly rolled elixir gets used instead of going to waste.

Some of those I'd gladly spend a 1st level slot for. The only reason the elixirs look bad is because elixirs are in the shadow of the canons and defender. It's versatility vs longevity and longevity looks better. I prefer the versatility and flavor (also important) of the alchemist.

 

[Zardnaar]

WotC's site states that the errata does go into the next printing so even if it does not make it in time the intent is clear. Errata isn't a preference. It's an update and it is the official version.

The same is true for sage advice. It's not just advice. Those are the official rulings.

Arguing whether those are official or not is fruitless. They are official. I'm only pointing out because if people are going to argue about rules it should be clear that those two sources are official and do trump older copies when it comes to a discussion like that.

It's your final comment I quoted that I agree with. Just because something is updated, RAW, or has an official ruling doesn't dictate anyone's particular table. What works and what doesn't at anyone's table is far more important, and demonstrating how or why is a better use of our time in discussions like this than something tangential like what version is correct. ;-)

I think the point is the DM still decides to use it or not.

Doesn't really matter imho as long as it's consistent.

WotC RPG police won't be coming around and to your place and beat you over the head with the errata book.

Generally I don't go out of my way to follow errata but I do tend to use updates in books I own.

 

[Zardnaar]

It seems that your only measure of suck is DPR, which is fine, for a specific type of gamer.

But that will always result in certain build types being judged as awful. The Artificer can do lots of support in combat, are immeasurably valuable in exploration (a steel defender & homunculus exploration team can do a lot), and are fine in social situations.

You may not get what you want if you want only a combat build.

Not at all but there's better combat classes and better support classes and I would argue both eg clerics.

Battlesmiths pet died the other night and not for first time and low opportunity cost (AoEs).

White room can't guarantee pets always active.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

White room can't guarantee pets always active.

The pet should almost always be active. Mending heals it 2d6 hit points, so whenever it survives a fight, the artificer should just spam mending. If it does die, they just have to expend a 1st-level spell slot to bring it back at full HP.

 

[bedir than]

Not at all but there's better combat classes and better support classes and I would argue both eg clerics.

Battlesmiths pet died the other night and not for first time and low opportunity cost (AoEs).

White room can't guarantee pets always active.

Explain how a Cleric can send two bonded allies to explore a room on its own, at zero cost of slots.

 

[cbwjm]

I think the thing I dislike about the artificer is their general lack of spell slots, I really feel like they could have been a 2/3rds spellcaster instead of a half because as a half-caster they gain their spell slots too slowly for my taste. It would mean that they gain 7th level spell slots and they might need an expanded spell list to go with it, but I think it would give them a nice boost.

 

[tetrasodium]

Explain how a Cleric can send two bonded allies to explore a room on its own, at zero cost of slots.

Lots of classes can do that like so:

Spoiler

"I have my familiar perched on the rogue/ranger/whatever's shoulder"

It's also rarely a significant hurdle for a group to overcome
@AcererakTriple6 artificer doesn't get a third cantrip till 10 & at quite a few of their archetypes are pretty one element cookies.