D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[clearstream]

SSI is not a magical item which is the corner stone of the ruling that allows it to fall under the item interaction action and not the active a magic item action.

It's not clear from the wording whether it could or could not be used with Fast Hands. It's frankly ambiguous, which is exacerbated by the unlovely tangle of RAW around item use.

 

[Ashrym]

The hang up that every other time a spell is cast or spell effect is produced or originates from an item, magical or otherwise, it explicitly states who's spell casting ability to use OR it has a stated DC or attack modifier listed.

SSI states the artificer stores a spell in it. How the creature activates the spell does not change the spell effect or rules (which I pointed to above) for the spell effects.

The only needed info (ability scores) is provided under the SSI while the spell effect covers the rest of the rules.

Even if the spell were cast by the item instead of the creature that same formula is used with the exception of the caster ability score, which is still covered by the SSI.

I would assume that SSI would use the rule for magical items found in the DMG:

A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.

In the case of SSI, the bit about using the artificer's intelligence overrides the mention of using your own ability modifier.

It's the same formula I gave from the PHB. I'm surprised this was even an argument.

The SSI isn't a magic item and uses the "use an object" action instead of "activate a magic item" or "cast a spell" actions but the method of activating the effect.

 

[Ashrym]

It's not clear from the wording whether it could or could not be used with Fast Hands. It's frankly ambiguous, which is exacerbated by the unlovely tangle of RAW around item use.

It is clear because this already came up in Sage Advice. SSI specifically uses the "use an item" action. It works with fast hands.

 

[clearstream]

It is clear because this already came up in Sage Advice. SSI specifically uses the "use an item" action. It works with fast hands.

That's helpful to have. I hadn't seen that ruling. So once one disapplies the DMG rules for using a magic item, one is right back to not having anything in the RAW that unambiguously states whether a proficiency bonus should count, and if so whose?

I appreciate that you believe the general rules on spellcasting cover it. For the sake of argument, suppose that is true. How do we unambiguously know who "your" is in the context of a spell storing item? Why is it not the original caster i.e. the artificer?

 

[Ashrym]

That's helpful to have. I hadn't seen that ruling. So once one disapplies the DMG rules for using a magic item, one is right back to not having anything in the RAW that unambiguously states whether a proficiency bonus should count, and if so whose?

I appreciate that you believe the general rules on spellcasting cover it. For the sake of argument, suppose that is true. How do we unambiguously know who "your" is in the context of a spell storing item? Why is it not the original caster i.e. the artificer?

No, one is right back to applying the resolution using the rules I quoted above.

SSI dictates the ability score. The spell effect dictates how to use the ability score and uses the rules I quoted as part of the effect.

It's still exactly the same spell effect regardless of the type of action used to produce it.

 

[Stoutstien]

No, one is right back to applying the resolution using the rules I quoted above.

SSI dictates the ability score. The spell effect dictates how to use the ability score and uses the rules I quoted as part of the effect.

It's still exactly the same spell effect regardless of the type of action used to produce it.

I kind of regret bringing up this up in this form cuz I felt like a derailed it but I think it is important to acknowledge there is some discrepancy in this particular feature. The artificer is the new class and has a bunch of unique features that interact with the game in ways that has not been seen before. I remember pointing out to my players that the cannon of the artillerist is immune to most spell effects because it's an object and not a creature. This is new. It's a player controlled magical object.
The SSI is new. It has zero groundwork to fall back on and past the sage advice verifying that the object itself falls under the item interaction rules. we have 2-3 different interpretation that are all equally valid depending on the order you take the rules into consideration. That is a minor flaw of the specific always beats general concept without any further specifications.

It's not like it's unique in the system to have little questions needing to be cleared up at session zero. How many years has the game been out and we still have to have the same run of questions, how are illusions going to be handled, stealth/sight/lighting, conjure spells, and so on. It's a minor hiccup on an otherwise pretty well put together class

 

[clearstream]

No, one is right back to applying the resolution using the rules I quoted above.

SSI dictates the ability score. The spell effect dictates how to use the ability score and uses the rules I quoted as part of the effect.

It's still exactly the same spell effect regardless of the type of action used to produce it.

That doesn't answer my question, sadly. Well, thank you for the discussion.

[EDIT I tweeted this question to JC "When a creature other than the artificer produces a spell from their Spell Storing Item that needs an attack roll or save DC, does a proficiency bonus apply to it and if so, whose?" It might not get us the justification, but hopefully will guide as to intent.]

 

[Ashrym]

I kind of regret bringing up this up in this form cuz I felt like a derailed it but I think it is important to acknowledge there is some discrepancy in this particular feature. The artificer is the new class and has a bunch of unique features that interact with the game in ways that has not been seen before. I remember pointing out to my players that the cannon of the artillerist is immune to most spell effects because it's an object and not a creature. This is new. It's a player controlled magical object.
The SSI is new. It has zero groundwork to fall back on and past the sage advice verifying that the object itself falls under the item interaction rules. we have 2-3 different interpretation that are all equally valid depending on the order you take the rules into consideration. That is a minor flaw of the specific always beats general concept without any further specifications.

It's not like it's unique in the system to have little questions needing to be cleared up at session zero. How many years has the game been out and we still have to have the same run of questions, how are illusions going to be handled, stealth/sight/lighting, conjure spells, and so on. It's a minor hiccup on an otherwise pretty well put together class

I think you're overthinking it. The artificer stores a spell in the SSI. How the creature activates that spell's effect is irrelevant. The spell effects all use a standard set of rules in chapter 10 of the PHB. Those are in effect until a specific change is given such as applying the artificer's INT as the ability modifier to use.

@cbwjm gave the same formula from the DMG regarding item use but that includes a helpful tips on what to do when the user doesn't have a casting stat, but it's moot given SSI covers the ability score.

All PC abilities use the same formulas to calculate DC's and attacks. It doesn't matter whether it's casting a spell, ki stunning an opponent, manuever disarming an opponent, or activating a spell from an item.

The only differences are it's a different action type to do it with the SSI and the default calculation from chapter 10 use the artificer INT as the caster ability score. The spell effects all use the same resolution they normally use because the SSI hasn't changed those.

I agree the general vs specific gets muddled up, but not in this case.

 

[Iry]

Ridiculous Dumb Idea
Armorer Artificer with the Tavern Brawler feat.
Hang a hundred gauntlets from your armor.
Turn them all into Thunder Gauntlets.
Throw them at people!
Name yourself Cottus, Briareus, or Gyges.

 

[Stoutstien]

I think you're overthinking it. The artificer stores a spell in the SSI. How the creature activates that spell's effect is irrelevant. The spell effects all use a standard set of rules in chapter 10 of the PHB. Those are in effect until a specific change is given such as applying the artificer's INT as the ability modifier to use.

@cbwjm gave the same formula from the DMG regarding item use but that includes a helpful tips on what to do when the user doesn't have a casting stat, but it's moot given SSI covers the ability score.

All PC abilities use the same formulas to calculate DC's and attacks. It doesn't matter whether it's casting a spell, ki stunning an opponent, manuever disarming an opponent, or activating a spell from an item.

The only differences are it's a different action type to do it with the SSI and the default calculation from chapter 10 use the artificer INT as the caster ability score. The spell effects all use the same resolution they normally use because the SSI hasn't changed those.

I agree the general vs specific gets muddled up, but not in this case.

I probably am overthinking but IMO that's most of the point of online forms like this. Talking about overthinking nuances that for most people will never show up and if they do will be immediately fixed with a table ruling.

When we're talking about the effectiveness of a class most of what is said on these sites is completely useless because every table is going to have a different game. But if you compile all those overthinkers into a small space like these forms and disregard the key slamming we can at least get a glimpse.