D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[tetrasodium]

That's a wizard features. Artificers can't do that.
From TCoE:

I noticed we were treating cantrips for artificers wrong at our table while making that point, you noticing it adds another area to the tally of areas the artificer makes too many sacrifices to for the other stuff they get to justify.

 

[Stoutstien]

Ask the player idk. You don't always see incoming AoEs either.

He has mending available, just had combat intense session.

SD is a monkey he's starting to call it Spiritual Monkey after the cleric spell Spiritual Weapon.

Basically because of the bonus action.

Ah. It's okay damage for a bonus action but it really sells the SD short if the whole package isn't utilized.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I noticed we were treating cantrips for artificers wrong at our table while making that point, you noticing it adds another area to the tally of areas the artificer makes too many sacrifices to for the other stuff they get to justify.

Uh. . . no. This isn't a problem with the Artificer. It's a problem with WotC giving their favorite class the Wizard a feature that it didn't need.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah. It's okay damage for a bonus action but it really sells the SD short if the whole package isn't utilized.

Personally I don't think that player should have picked the Artificer.

I regard it as the most advanced class, probably up there with warlock. A lot of trap potential.

Next game might incorporate Tasha's, probably say no to some things.

 

[Umbran]

I noticed we were treating cantrips for artificers wrong at our table while making that point, you noticing it adds another area to the tally of areas the artificer makes too many sacrifices to for the other stuff they get to justify.

So, here's the thing I notice in a lot of these discussions. There's a few different ways we can look at whether a character is fun or not.

You can, for example
1) Look at what they can do, and see if that is fun, or
2) Look at what they cannot do, and see if that is too annoying.

I'm playing a Battlesmith regularly. It is a blast. I'm a gnome with a big honkin' metal dog-thing, and a crossbow almost as big as I am. I'm the smartest guy in the room, miss no details, and I always have a plan and a trick up my sleeve. I have no problem finding ways to be effective and relevant. I also spend exactly zero time each session chafing that wizards get to swap out cantrips more often than I can.

Envying other classes is not a great way to find the fun in the one you have.

 

[Helldritch]

I looked and couldn't find a statement from WotC to that effect. Anything that suggested as such was just speculation from either Morrus or one of the users here.

No there was a sentence or two in the early preview description. Naturally, the description has been adapted since. I thought there was a link to the old description (or at least a screen shot). Guess WoTC were quick to adapt.

As for our subject
The artificer is quite strong. It is not the first damage dealer, or the first healer or the first support but it is a good blend of the three. He is a perfect 5th or 6th character in a group. When you consider that a group is usually (but not always) composed of a Martial class, a healer type, an arcane full caster and a rogue like fourth companion, the fifth one, will be doomed to step on the toes of one of the other four. The artificer is especially gifted in the sense that it can do all four role in a pinch (especially if he took thieving tools as a skill/profession).

In addition, the Artificer's pet can use the help action to give advantage to an other character at the cost of a bonus action. This is really good. And if you use the flanking rule (which I don't) then it will provide flanking and benefits from it too. A win/win situation. The two artificers I have seen so far were an Alchemist and an Artillist. Both were simply WOW! in terms of usefulness and versatility. So versatile, that the wizard and the arcane trickster were jealous of what the artificer could achieve in versatility. An artificer is never out of tricks, can use almost every magical items and can attune to more of them than anyone else. And if the DM is too penny pinching magic item wise, the Artificer can make his own and infuse items with magic. That alone should ring a bell to the detractors of the class.

And for the errata thing.
I am still not going to use errata. But since a 5.5 is out of the question for many here.
How about a DMG/PHB 2 with all the added subclasses and errata over the years? I would buy that book in a pinch (in fact, I'd buy two or three of them. 1 for my collection, 1 for the players, 1 for my own usage.) (and yes, I do own 3 PHB of every editions...save 1st, it went up in smokes in a fire...).
What do you think? Would you buy such a book? I know I would.

 

[tetrasodium]

So, here's the thing I notice in a lot of these discussions. There's a few different ways we can look at whether a character is fun or not.

You can, for example
1) Look at what they can do, and see if that is fun, or
2) Look at what they cannot do, and see if that is too annoying.

I'm playing a Battlesmith regularly. It is a blast. I'm a gnome with a big honkin' metal dog-thing, and a crossbow almost as big as I am. I'm the smartest guy in the room, miss no details, and I always have a plan and a trick up my sleeve. I have no problem finding ways to be effective and relevant. I also spend exactly zero time each session chafing that wizards get to swap out cantrips more often than I can.

Envying other classes is not a great way to find the fun in the one you have.

"Is this fun" is one way to judge something like a class, but it's not the only way & shouldn't be the exclusive metric. Comparison is important to consider for judging when a hinderance is ill applied or overly pronounced though & you can't see where something falls on a curve if there are no other points on the curve. Battlesmith largely sidesteps elemental resists as I'm sure you've noticed. Imagine an artillerist & battlesmith both in Descent into avernus where nearly everything has some flavor of fire or magic resist/immune to knock one turret off the viable list & remove a big chunk of their spell list from being viable. The artillerist is going to start noticing how deep the class's limits cut for him quite a bit more than the battlesmith. That artillerist can switch to the heal turret & web sure, but 5e does a lot of things to make the (de)buffing/battlefield control role quite a bit less fun than past editions & is going to expect a lot more out of their level 10/11abilities than the battlesmith. One of those two will be very happy with them, the other maybe not so excited about having what basically amounts to umlimited web castings.

As anther example... There's not much debate about dex or cha being objectively better stats with bigger benefits to a class linked to them than strength or int unless your class is strength or int based.... that shouldn't be ignored

* Or a boon being too far over/under the curve.

 

[Ashrym]

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.

That's beside the point, however. The errata and sage advice are the official updates and rulings. That's going to be the default when different groups from different tables share a discussion because they are the official standpoint.

I don't always follow them either but I cannot present the rules I use as the rules over those ones.

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

Present the arguments instead of general statements if you would make that argument. ;-)

Bards are an excellent support class and we already touched on those differences. Clerics have more spell prep and similar AC to artificers but still lack the infusions, SSI, flash of genius, or tool expertise.

The bottom line is spell progression is traded off for infusions and infusions don't suck.

Mending should be on their known cantrips anyways. Artificers can change a cantrip when they level up, too.

Also, if they want to get more cantrips, there are a ton of ways to do so. (High Elf, Magic Initiate (Wizard), Artificer Initiate, etc.)

Cannith us a decent race choice to pick it up with the mark of making.

How many of the people IN THIS DISCUSSION are at your table?

You are talking with people you aren't playing with. Learn how to deal with that courteously, and without the assumption that the world must subscribe to your particular preferred documents.

I'm going to reverse that. How many people in this discussion are at your table?

The concern I had was the apparent denial of the official material as official because DM's are not required to follow it.

The default rules are going to be the errata and the default rulings are going to be the sage advice. None of us is required to follow it, and none of us should be forcing it on others; but we should be acknowledging it and there's nothing wrong with explaining it.

Explaining the rules isn't forcing them anymore than a DM expressing what he/she/they do and why.

I'm dropping that particular argument and this point. It still seems to be a tangent to the artificer topic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

your sneaky types never try to scout a bit? That's pretty normal for so many tables that it tends to be mentioned in rogue guides & such.

Not if there are expendable familiars or drones available.

 

[clearstream]

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.

To me, the words for SSI most concretely imply no PB. The user does not have proficiency with it. The only applicable modifier is as stated the creator's Int.

Note the similar language in counterspell, which many at first misinterpret.