D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not going back and reading 38 pages of comments, but wanted to put in my 2 cents to the OP.
No, I don't like the artificer. Same thing as witches, oracles, warlocks, gunsmiths, alchemists, etc. There are classes that just duplicate other abilities or have no defined role in a group. They are almost always picked by players who want to be edgy and don't care how they fit into the campaign or the rest of the party's abilities.
I'm fine with cutting all these types of classes.

lol yeah, I'm definitely playing an airship mechanic and arcane hacker with an arcane prosthetic arm magical blaster pistols....to be edgy.

Definitely something I could just do as a rogue, also. Nothing new, here.

Sorry you've had bad player experiences with fun classes, though.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

There are classes that just duplicate other abilities or have no defined role in a group. They are almost always picked by players who want to be edgy and don't care how they fit into the campaign or the rest of the party's abilities.

Do you feel that Artificers are almost always picked by players who want to be edgy and don't care how they fit into the campaign or the rest of the party's abilities?
I've generally found very much the reverse: They're a support class with generally less flash than Clerics and Bards for example. Much of their effectiveness is based on the way they can boost the rest of the party.

 

[Stoutstien]

Any gear focus class has always had a polarizing effect on the player/dm pool. Which is funny to me because they make the more sense as an adventurer than the more traditional classes.

I didn't think there's some holdover resentment from 3.x as well. Artificers back then were basically Excel spreadsheet the class it could be a real drag with tables if they didn't know what they were doing.

 

[Retreater]

Do you feel that Artificers are almost always picked by players who want to be edgy and don't care how they fit into the campaign or the rest of the party's abilities?

I've only had one player entertain the idea of an Artificer, and he ultimately decided on a wizard for the reasons I mentioned - it just doesn't have a good, definable role in a party (unless the party and campaign is specifically built around it). The others I mentioned (gunslinger, witch, warlock, oracle, alchemist) certainly fit that description.
I still think that a little bit of creativity could fold these other classes into existing classes (or subclasses). Gunslinger is a fighter with training in firearms. A witch or warlock is a specialized wizard. An alchemist or artificer could be a rogue.

 

[Umbran]

An alchemist or artificer could be a rogue.

That seems very square peg in a round hole. Sneak attack and cunning action seem rather off-brand for either of these types.

Why on this good green Oerth aren't you placing them under wizard, or even sorcerer (where you might leverage sorcery points for producing effects)?

 

[FrogReaver]

Damage is the least of a PCs worry when it comes to STs.without heavy opportunity cost barbarians have little to prevent mental saves from taking them out any bypassing all of their mitigation powers with something as benign as a first level spell.

Barbarians don't get great wisdom saves. Then again, wizard's wis saves through level 8 aren't particularly great either. +2 to +3 higher than the Barbarians.

Alternatively Wizards can be nearly taken out by high damage AOE effects when they fail their dex/con save. (Barbarians usually get advantage in on such saves and have a much higher hp pool to take that damage with).

But most importantly, you are trying to make this into a Barbarian vs Wizard all in comparison and I'm talking about 1 specific role. That of a tanking. Wizards don't have the kind of toolbox needed to effectively tank - at least not in tier 2. By tier 3 and 4 things may change a bit. That doesn't mean they are bad. I'd still hold up wizards as being one of the best classes - but they don't fulfill every roll.

 

[Retreater]

That seems very square peg in a round hole. Sneak attack and cunning action seem rather off-brand for either of these types.

Why on this good green Oerth aren't you placing them under wizard, or even sorcerer (where you might leverage sorcery points for producing effects)?

I didn't put them under sorcerer, because I think that is a redundant wizard - but if it works for you, that's good for me.
I think that the 12 core classes are plenty to make most concepts work. (Honestly, you could probably get that down to 4 classes with a couple of archetypes for flavor.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I think Schrodinger's barbarian is just as absurd as the wizard. At least the wizard has the theoretical ability to potentially have the correct spells prepared. Everytime someone brings up barbs they somehow have spent ASIs on feats and have increased ability scores while also seem to have rages to spare.

Where have I done this? I mentioned a Greatsword Wielding Bear totem barbarian that started with 16 str and con and boosted str at level 4.

I've been consistent on that comparison even though it's not a particularly optimized build.

Usually they have the bear totems damage resistance and the AGs threat while never dealing with more than ~3 enemies that have no offense past melee attacks.

Show me where I did this in this thread? Show me where anyone did? I can show you where the wizard being cited keeps changing to suit the circumstance. Would it be helpful if I showed that?

*THL/TMW Tasha's hideous laughter/mind whip. Cheap high impact spells.

IMO.

Tasha's Laughter is a decent fill in spell for when you don't have enough 3rd+ level spells for an adventuring day. Though, under most circumstances it's a fairly low impact spell (disabling a single enemy on average for 1.5 rounds or less when used and it doesn't even work on everything). It's still a good pick up till about tier 3 as spell slots stay fairly limited till that point and it's better than most other level 1 wizard spell alternatives as long as you aren't going to be using your concentration for other things.

In terms of effectiveness I'm not particularly impressed with Tasha's Mind Whip. It's only saving grace is that it's not concentration which gives it a decent niche in tier 3 and 4. Sure it can stop a melee brute in his tracks for a round (assuming your melee allies fall in the right initiative order such that they can move away from that enemy and actually choose to do so. But there's much better level 2 spells for action denial. Web comes first to mind. Restraining multiple melee enemies for potentially multiple rounds is a much better spell use unless you need concentration for something else. Web also helps on ranged enemies as well whereas Tasha's Mind Blank will have little effect.

 

[tetrasodium]

Do you feel that Artificers are almost always picked by players who want to be edgy and don't care how they fit into the campaign or the rest of the party's abilities?
I've generally found very much the reverse: They're a support class with generally less flash than Clerics and Bards for example. Much of their effectiveness is based on the way they can boost the rest of the party.

I also find they tend to be played "the reverse" you noted. Unfortunately "support class" type spells & abilities in 5e tend to be almost as overvalued & over restrictive as DoTs. Sure some might look impressive over a session or few in a spreadsheet, but no d&d equivalent of warcraftlogs & nobody plays d&d in a way that fits such an analysis.

 

[ECMO3]

But most importantly, you are trying to make this into a Barbarian vs Wizard all in comparison and I'm talking about 1 specific role. That of a tanking. Wizards don't have the kind of toolbox needed to effectively tank - at least not in tier 2. By tier 3 and 4 things may change a bit. That doesn't mean they are bad. I'd still hold up wizards as being one of the best classes - but they don't fulfill every roll.

An optimized bladesinger can tank very effectively in tier 2 and absorb elements with a high dex takes care of most (not all but most) high damage AOE spells.

The toolbox to do this effectively are mostly spells - shield, mage armor, protection from good and evil, absorb elements, blur, mirror image, counterspell and misty step. At the upper end of tier 2 - greater invisibility, fire shield, contingency and false life. That along with proficiency in acrobatics through a background or race and Bladesong for 3 fights a day and they can tank very well.

The problem with Barbarians IMO is their AC is not good enough to be a regular tank. They can do it for a battle or two, but you have to have a crap ton of healing on hand if you expect them to do it all day because they lose half their hps in every battle. Aside from bladesingers, I think fighters, specifically either a Eldritch Knight or a Rune Knight make better tanks than most Barbarians.