Paul Farquhar
Legend
No. I guess it is loosely incorporated into PSHE/morning assembly requirements (which are often ignored/forgotten about, even though it's a legal obligation).Do you still have civics?
No. I guess it is loosely incorporated into PSHE/morning assembly requirements (which are often ignored/forgotten about, even though it's a legal obligation).Do you still have civics?
Wow...If most people have no idea what it stands for it's jargon.
I suspect the majority of people using this site have little idea what it represents, never mind what it actually stands for. DON'T USE IT. Or, if you must use it, explain what it means.
pretentious nonsense, invented by people who want a pay-check for spouting useless garbage
This is a pretty old thread but I agree with basically all of this, even more having played and seen a few artificer over campaigns than the short term artificer experience back when people were being told such complaints were wrong.Let me start by saying this is a rant. It's a giant rat-king nest of run on sentences but the content is solid and worth considering when weighing in on the power level of Artificers if your group isn't going to casually look the other way to make the Artificer payable/fun. Having played an Artificer in a long term Eberron campaign in 5e through every iteration of the class since it was pitched as a wizard subclass, and having been asked to adapt my pcs mechanics through its various incarnations through the grueling slog of character progression as an artificer, I have a pretty in depth answer. Before I go into it I just want to give a disclaimer that the artificer class, in concept, has been my favorite character class since 3.5e and I have had fun playing one in 5e... Solely by the generous permission of the GM to allow it to make and innovate using the item creation system available to any class. In 5e the Artificer ends up falling short of its potential due to clunky oversights in game design that ultimately make for a class that, on paper, is capable of bringing a wide array of fun archetypes but in practice makes for the least cohesive class to play. For every inovative mechanic the class brings to the table to make its subclasses attractive, there seems to be an oversight in its implementation and those mechanics sieze up when forced to take into account the same core 5e mechanics that all other classes are bound to . The class ends up being the perpetual brides maid, never the bride when compared to other classes ( and I mean -all- other classes that are designed to fill that party niche). It is true that the scope of roles available to the artificer are impressive, but its range becomes meaningless when the reality sets in that the Artificer class too is locked to the far narrower strengths of the subclass you choose at 3rd level; any subclass of which is handily outclassed by all but the worst subclasses available to the core classes designed to fullfill its same niche. The most unexpected issue is that the artificer ends up being more multiple attribute dependent than anticipated, even for the subclasses that allow for substituting intelligence in their attack roles because that substitution is either limited to attacks made with magical weapons in the case of the Battlesmith or with armor specific weapons in the case of the Armorer. lets take a closer look at the mess that is Battlesmith under the microscope and you will see what I'm complaining about. As an Battlesmith Artificer your support role limited to the spells you know and using your pet's reaction wisely to impose disadvantage on enemy attacks. Compared to the other half casters you lose a fighting style in favor of an admittedly great set of cantrips, but will rarely if ever make use of them in combat due to the clunky requirement of weilding a set of tools or an infusion imbued item to cast those cantrips. Easy enough yeah? This means you have to have a dedicated hand to weilding either tools, or a nonmagical version of an item you have to soup up to end up on a net disadvantage (not -that "disadvantage"-) compared to the items other classes are getting for free as part of their loot from adventuring because your infusions (and primary weapon/item buffing spells) can only be used on non magical targets so if you plan on casting spells all the way through 20th level, you are still stuck holding tools, a mundane shield, or a mundane weapon. But the artificer has firearms proficiency and in theory the battlesmith is the subclass best equipped to make use of them right? Well you are going to take a hit to your ac because you wont be able to weild a shield because your nifty repeating shot infusion may create ammo for your gun but does nothing to get rid of the reload property guns have (which is different from the -loading- property crossbows have) so your second attack is as good as gone if you even pick up a firearm. You still lag behind the guys with archery fighting style and their likely +1 ranged weapon, sharpshooter etc. Oh and to rub in more salt in the wound, you likely wont ever have the feats to get xbow expert, no less sharpshooter so have fun being at a constant disadvantage in melee. Oh and here's another kicker ; your tailored bonus smite spells are all incompatible with ranged attacks so your special bonus spelllist is useless of you go that route. More salt in your wound, you dont get to add your intelligence to your armor class in lieu of dexterity and are still bound to its strength requirements so you may as well do away with that major benefit since dexterity is now nearly as valuable as if you were attacking with it anyway. Your steel guardian is cool but any of the other artificers can make use of the almost equivalent iron guardian. While the artillerist can issue commands to both his turrets, if you decide to get an iron defender too, you wont ever get to do the same for multiple homonculi so thats a useless infusion. The arcane zap that your guardian can do is nice to provide some extra damage or healing but the damage is lackluster compared to the steady flow from features like hex, giantslayer, or Hunter's mark. They took away your equivalent spell, arcane weapon even though it too could only be cast on a nonmagical weapon and thus was incompatible with your infusions, not because it was too powerful for you but because it could possibly be cherry picked and stacked by other classes and instead of giving you Hunter's mark or hex to fill that gap or making it a class feature that isn't easily dipped into they just left the void cementing the regret of not having played a ranger or hexblade crossbow warlock. That and a human hireling with a healing Kit easily outclasses your healing abilities in 5e. Oh and don't bother with two handed weapons because of that earlier mentioned need to have a tool in hand or a mundane weapon infused up because there are no infusions like repeating shot or "fancy shield" to support two weapons and their feat support is still riddled with dexterity and or strength based dependencies and you don't have those due to the big benefit you enjoy of using your int, which also happens to remain the weakest stat in 5e. On the plus side you do get to be proficient in con saves so on the off chance you get to use one of the concentration support spells that the full casters got access to 7-10 levels ago and are able to upcast several times better might actually be a detriment compared to the cantrips you are giving up most of your subclass benefits every time you cast one.
Each of the Artificers subclasses have awful issues just like this wether it's its the artillerist being outclassed, outgunned, and outsupported by the (anything that can cast fireball 4 levels earlier), the glaring issue of the Armorers weapons being about as effective as simple weapons unlike mundane simple weapons can be targetted by your infusions and spells, but at least you didnt have to worry about stength! (Except when grappling, jumping, climbing or being feeble and unable to use magic weapons the DM hands out and your AC being outclassed most other defender types, if not other Artificers. Or the bonuses the alchemist gets to key spell types which feature prominently on their spelllist.?. Nope! All this on top of the fact the Artificers big benefit, infusions, are essentially the equivalent of warlock infusions... er invocations except they eat up attunement slots and make you equip mundane items to gain their benefits, or the percent decrease to the cost of item creation despite no magic item having a price in 5e and the mechanics for making them left purposefully vaugue and unsupported as an optional system the DM has no obligation to include in their game. Imagine if the rogue and fighter instead of getting additional ability score improvements explicitly got feats and you are sol if the GM didn't want to include feats, but worse since at least then you get something. So many of the Artificers class features are item creation features DMs are incentivized to not include by the decision not to publish gold values for magic items. The biggest problem I see with the Artificer was making it's signature ability to use any magic item freely and use them as it's spellcasting niche to 14th level... A level which in a canon eberron game you have would count yourself among the rarest of individuals, the setting Elminsters and Mordenkainens, to have obtained so good luck ever making it there. Tldr: if I had more time I would have written a shorter post.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.