D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Jfdlsjfd]

The 10 INT 10 WIS homunculus cannot do what the dumpstat 8 INT 8 WIS raging barbarian can? Just putting that out there.... ;-)

And the 3 INT fighter, whose player decided to roll instead of choosing the standard array. "OK, it's 4d6 drop lowest in the rules, but then you must keep your rolls" said the GM ominously... Even if it was dubious in UA that homunculi could take any action not described in their stat block, it is now mentionned in the final version, but it could be made apparent. It sparked a debate during the playtest, they could have specifically mentionned it as the homunculus and the steel defender especially for the battlesmith are a core feature of the class.

Good job on discussing the comparison with the cleric. Given the versatility of the builds, I find it difficult to compare effectiveness, especially when dealing damage. If we're going by the idea that a performance can be replicated each fight, the best thing to do is to divide the ressource by the number of expected fight, so a long-rest resource can't be used more than 1/7th of the time. So unless you get 7 spell slot of level 3 or above, you can't expect to cast fireball at the beginning of each fight. But in real life, tactics are adapted to the fight so it's difficult to estimate...

If there is something I don't think any class can replicate as soon or earlier, it's the ability, with the right infusions (BoH and Homunculus), to ferry the whole party over natural obstacles (by making them enter the bag of holding, then having the homunculus carry the bag over the obstacle -- maybe in two passes) at level 2. It makes a lot of exploration obstacles (dangerous ford, broken bridge, climbing a tower, hiking to take a shortcut, quicksands, fortifications...) moot much before what is intended (partywide flight). A familiar might do it (if your DM isn't petty with the INT 2 Owl ability to implement complex orders) but there's no guarantee to have a BoH at level 2.

 

[tetrasodium]

Choosing to interpret the suggestion to be generous with magic items if a party has no spellcasters, monks, etc and you have creatures immune to nonmagical attack as meaning that magic items should be freely available to trade is an absolutely valid choice for your DM to make.
Its not the only choice, but as long as you're having fun with your friends, you do you. Artificers can work pretty well no matter what the level of magic items in the game, so if you want to play a cool concept using one, go for it!

Even in AL the magic item rules don't make them non-viable. Frankly, the emphasis on short adventuring days and only a couple of combat encounters per long rest in the modules there does a lot more to crimp their style, since they are a class with more endurance, but less nova than full spellcasters.

It’s good that you’ve gone from suggesting anything north of “whatever the module gives” or magic items as available as wotc’s own ruleset+advice makes them as “monty haul”. Buying magic items is not the only optional part of magic items though, magic items themselves are also optional with 5e being designed to not need them or include them in the design math considerations. Obviously the artificer does not fit that level of middle earth style magic item availability & should not be designed for that baseline. Unfortunately the artificer is balanced for that instead of having a sidebar about middle earth type settings like the one on firearms that design just ignores all the rough edges that surface when not playing in middle earth or with a party constrained to “whatever the module gives.” Those rough edges were what started this tangent not the inevitable result of "monty haul" gms

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It’s good that you’ve gone from suggesting anything north of “whatever the module gives” or magic items as available as wotc’s own ruleset+advice makes them as “monty haul”.

No, I don't think I have. I've never made such a suggestion.
I would really suggest that you re-read my posts discussing this.
You have implied this several times however, despite me pointing out that you were incorrect in each instance.

I think that if you were to explain where this misunderstanding originates from, I am sure that we can get this straightened out.

Buying magic items is not the only optional part of magic items though, magic items themselves are also optional with 5e being designed to not need them or include them in the design math considerations.

Indeed. However there is a distinction between "making the choice to actively add or remove something" and just using the rules as they are.

Obviously the artificer does not fit that level of middle earth style magic item availability & should not be designed for that baseline. Unfortunately the artificer is balanced for that instead of having a sidebar about middle earth type settings like the one on firearms that design just ignores all the rough edges that surface when not playing in middle earth or with a party constrained to “whatever the module gives.” Those rough edges were what started this tangent not the inevitable result of "monty haul" gms

As mentioned before, the artificer is generally balanced no matter what the level of ambient magic items. Allowing players free choice to pick whatever they want can throw a bit of s spanner into the works, but it is no worse than having only 3 encounters per long rest. (Although that skews the balance of many classes.)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It’s good that you’ve gone from suggesting anything north of “whatever the module gives” or magic items as available as wotc’s own ruleset+advice makes them as “monty haul”. Buying magic items is not the only optional part of magic items though, magic items themselves are also optional with 5e being designed to not need them or include them in the design math considerations.

Yet they are expected since the rules gives them, randomly, and suppose one will get 100 of them over their career. I think 0 magic item is as much a deviation from the standard as magic item shops.

Obviously the artificer does not fit that level of middle earth style magic item availability & should not be designed for that baseline. Unfortunately the artificer is balanced for that instead of having a sidebar about middle earth type settings like the one on firearms that design just ignores all the rough edges that surface when not playing in middle earth or with a party constrained to “whatever the module gives.” Those rough edges were what started this tangent not the inevitable result of "monty haul" gms

I am not sure any class is balanced for a world where magic items are available over the counter at the price point mentionned as "base price" in the rules. If rare items can start being bought around level 5 for 500-5,000 gp, then we should measure damage dealing taking into account that a wand of fireball allows anyone to cast 1d6+1 fireball a day when a wizard can manage one. After all, a level 5 party should have gathered enough gold to buy two of them and quickly equip the whole party with it (even at the highest end of the large price range). And the Helm of Teleportation, in the same price range, will make getting the 7th level teleportation spell a... disappointment for the wizard "Hey, one more use of what I've been doing 1d3 times a day for 8 levels..." I am curious on how AL manages that in their adventures, given they seem to concentrate only on the number of magic items by tier.

If your point had been "It's sad (or problematic, or noteworthy) that, despite artificers being easier to fluff into a magic-heavy campaign because their default flavour is magitech and, well, carrying a robo-dog or a turret doesn't feel very low-magic, that the class is performing better in the latter settings than in the ones where magic items are easily tradable", I'd have agreed.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yet they are expected since the rules gives them, randomly, and suppose one will get 100 of them over their career. I think 0 magic item is as much a deviation from the standard as magic item shops.



I am not sure any class is balanced for a world where magic items are available over the counter at the price point mentionned as "base price" in the rules. If rare items can start being bought around level 5 for 500-5,000 gp, then we should measure damage dealing taking into account that a wand of fireball allows anyone to cast 1d6+1 fireball a day when a wizard can manage one. After all, a level 5 party should have gathered enough gold to buy two of them and quickly equip the whole party with it (even at the highest end of the large price range). And the Helm of Teleportation, in the same price range, will make getting the 7th level teleportation spell a... disappointment for the wizard "Hey, one more use of what I've been doing 1d3 times a day for 8 levels..." I am curious on how AL manages that in their adventures, given they seem to concentrate only on the number of magic items by tier.

If your point had been "It's sad (or problematic, or noteworthy) that, despite artificers being easier to fluff into a magic-heavy campaign because their default flavour is magitech and, well, carrying a robo-dog or a turret doesn't feel very low-magic, that the class is performing better in the latter settings than in the ones where magic items are easily tradable", I'd have agreed.

Yea it's really obvious how adding magic items disrupts the math of things between classes over the course of a campaign because of how wotc treated them like an afterthought but generally it's not as problematic for other classes as it is for the artificer since the others have class abilities and whatever they buy/find while that actually makes a mess of things for the artificer trying to offer/use infusions. I've said a few times that it should have been built for the settings like the one it was originally designed for (eberron) where magic items are normal & had a sidebar for games closer to AiME and at least once stated that it should be on the gm of such a game to say no artificer just as they might wizard & sorcerer rather than designing for that & shrugging it off in settings where magic items exist.

@Cap'n Kobold It started here after the first "Wot." in your reply to @DukeCityCowboy's post that revived this thread where you jumped from "items other classes are getting for free as part of their loot from adventuring" to "If the campaign is monty haul enough that the rest of the party has been able to obtain their multiple ideally-configured, high-bonus magic items..."

 

[Fenris-77]

So, without having to read this whole thread, is there anything on the table here beside something close to a discussion of suck/not suck as a function of DPR or something similar? If it's just about 'better' in that most white-roomy of ways I'll softly close the door and see myself out.

 

[tetrasodium]

So, without having to read this whole thread, is there anything on the table here beside something close to a discussion of suck/not suck as a function of DPR or something similar? If it's just about 'better' in that most white-roomy of ways I'll softly close the door and see myself out.

It got necro'd here a couple days ago with a post that sums up a lot of problems & frustrations artificers will feel. Pretty much all of the current debate is over some aspect of that post.

 

[Fenris-77]

Huh, well isn't that just the walliest-wall of text I've seen in a hot minute. I guess I don't completely disagree. The Artificer isn't a powerful class mechanically speaking, and even the gamey synergies mostly fall flat. That said, I've played an Artificer and had fun doing so, and that's really my main gauge for games I care about, since those tend not to be white-room power gamey games. Not that those are bad, I played 'em and loved 'em for years, but it's not where I'm at as a player or a GM anymore.

 

[Stoutstien]

So, without having to read this whole thread, is there anything on the table here beside something close to a discussion of suck/not suck as a function of DPR or something similar? If it's just about 'better' in that most white-roomy of ways I'll softly close the door and see myself out.

It's hard to have a discussion on the metric on how fun or interesting a class is. Though artificer is pretty polarizing due to its "default" flavor regardless of it's built in flavor freedom.

The real question is does it succeed at being a more caster focused half caster and does the infusions actually cause any issues in the progression of a party in comparison to any other class.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It got necro'd here a couple days ago with a post that sums up a lot of problems & frustrations artificers will feel. Pretty much all of the current debate is over some aspect of that post.

I read this carefully. There are some good questions raised.

however, there are work around later for the use of tools. Any held item that is infused can be a focus.

would that mean an infused shield would make holding tools optional?

edit: the post addressed this; nevermind