Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does the Artificer Suck?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8398894" data-attributes="member: 7023887"><p>Agreed. They're "powered", which means that they can be functional characters in a campaign. That's literally the baseline requirement for something to be a class; for it to be able to function in 5e.</p><p></p><p>I think the problem with the Alchemist is largely a combination of the same problems that the Way of the Four Elements Monk and the Wild Magic Sorcerers have. That being that they have to use their class resource to use their subclass features. Now, Alchemists don't have it as bad as the Four Elements Monks do, because the Alchemist at least gets some free uses of its abilities. However, these "free" uses of their subclass features come at the price of them being randomly determined (much like the Wild Magic Sorcerer), so their base subclass features have the possibility of being outright useless on the average adventuring day.</p><p></p><p>That's the problem. Imagine if there were 6 different types of Eldritch Cannons that the Artillerist could have, all with various uses, and the Artillerist had to randomly determine which free type of eldritch cannon they got each day. That would suck, and that's what makes the Alchemist suck. They aren't strictly "game-breakingly underpowered", but they are a problem.</p><p></p><p>That was kind of my point. That it got even less martial proficiencies and features (Extra Attack, Fighting Style) than other half-casters, and got their Artificer features in exchange for that (Infusions, Cantrips). It's a trade-off, it's not OP, was my point.</p><p></p><p>Agreed.</p><p></p><p>I don't think I said they were. The point was a trade-off. Artificers get magic items, but they aren't "free", at least in comparison to what other similar classes get.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. That was kind of my point. They're well-balanced, as all things should be <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p>- Thanos</p><p></p><p>Sure. And that versatility comes at a trade-off (normally DPR).</p><p></p><p>They're not "more powerful", but they are a good thing for a class to have. It differentiates them, often giving them something that only they have the ability to do (well, them and Bards, because of stupid Magical Secrets). This point wasn't really about "power", it was more about "Paladins and Rangers get unique spells on their spell lists, many of which are quite good and archetype-defining, and Artificers don't get those things". </p><p></p><p>Eh, I've found them situationally game-breaking. Maybe "game-breaking" wasn't the right term to use there. "More powerful, and in more circumstances" would probably be more accurate.</p><p></p><p>I don't think we really disagree, either. I was responding to [USER=6987520]@6ENow![/USER] because they were claiming that the Artificer (and Warforged) were game-breakingly overpowered, and I was trying to explain my reasoning why they weren't. They didn't reply (well, they did, but they replied to say that they weren't going to reply), but I'm glad you did.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. If I could make one simple change to the written Artificer class right now, it would be to give every subclass 1 extra infusion, but specific to that subclass's specialty (So an Armorer could get a special type of Armor upgrade that they could put on themselves or others, Battle Smiths could get Infusions that upgraded their Steel Defender, etc).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8398894, member: 7023887"] Agreed. They're "powered", which means that they can be functional characters in a campaign. That's literally the baseline requirement for something to be a class; for it to be able to function in 5e. I think the problem with the Alchemist is largely a combination of the same problems that the Way of the Four Elements Monk and the Wild Magic Sorcerers have. That being that they have to use their class resource to use their subclass features. Now, Alchemists don't have it as bad as the Four Elements Monks do, because the Alchemist at least gets some free uses of its abilities. However, these "free" uses of their subclass features come at the price of them being randomly determined (much like the Wild Magic Sorcerer), so their base subclass features have the possibility of being outright useless on the average adventuring day. That's the problem. Imagine if there were 6 different types of Eldritch Cannons that the Artillerist could have, all with various uses, and the Artillerist had to randomly determine which free type of eldritch cannon they got each day. That would suck, and that's what makes the Alchemist suck. They aren't strictly "game-breakingly underpowered", but they are a problem. That was kind of my point. That it got even less martial proficiencies and features (Extra Attack, Fighting Style) than other half-casters, and got their Artificer features in exchange for that (Infusions, Cantrips). It's a trade-off, it's not OP, was my point. Agreed. I don't think I said they were. The point was a trade-off. Artificers get magic items, but they aren't "free", at least in comparison to what other similar classes get. Agreed. That was kind of my point. They're well-balanced, as all things should be ;) - Thanos Sure. And that versatility comes at a trade-off (normally DPR). They're not "more powerful", but they are a good thing for a class to have. It differentiates them, often giving them something that only they have the ability to do (well, them and Bards, because of stupid Magical Secrets). This point wasn't really about "power", it was more about "Paladins and Rangers get unique spells on their spell lists, many of which are quite good and archetype-defining, and Artificers don't get those things". Eh, I've found them situationally game-breaking. Maybe "game-breaking" wasn't the right term to use there. "More powerful, and in more circumstances" would probably be more accurate. I don't think we really disagree, either. I was responding to [USER=6987520]@6ENow![/USER] because they were claiming that the Artificer (and Warforged) were game-breakingly overpowered, and I was trying to explain my reasoning why they weren't. They didn't reply (well, they did, but they replied to say that they weren't going to reply), but I'm glad you did. Agreed. If I could make one simple change to the written Artificer class right now, it would be to give every subclass 1 extra infusion, but specific to that subclass's specialty (So an Armorer could get a special type of Armor upgrade that they could put on themselves or others, Battle Smiths could get Infusions that upgraded their Steel Defender, etc). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Does the Artificer Suck?
Top