D&D 5E How is Artificer Balanced?

[Paul Farquhar]

A tiny sized magical object can easily be considered to be within the weight capacity of the Mage Hand cantrip. My group has used that to pass the baton, as it were. Typically to play “keep away” if enemy spell casters get close to the Protector Cannon.

Could just put it in a sack so your enemy spellcasters can't see it.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Could just put it in a sack so your enemy spellcasters can't see it.

That seems, uncouth. The turret is powerful enough, even before ruling it doesn’t need line of effect.
The player of the Artificer constantly changes the appearance and Role Play description, so pure efficiency is not always an option..(alas )

 

[Coroc]

The turret is largely immune to AoE effects. Remember; it's an object, not a creature.

If the turret is attended (its being held, worn or is clinging to a creature) it becomes an attended object, and is not affected by most AoE effects. In addition most AoE effects only target creatures, they dont target objects.

Look at fireball:



Fireball doesnt damage it (its an object, not a creature) even if unattended, and only sets it on fire if the Turret is fluffed as being flammable and is unattended. Burning hands is worded the same.

Same deal with a dragons breath:



Its also immune to that. It's not a creature; it's a magic object. It is just as immune to the AoE damage as +2 Full plate or a Cloak of resistance or the fighters sword is.

In fact I cant think of many AoE spells or effects that actually target objects, and the few that do require the object to be unattended (not worn or carried).

It's the same with spell targeting generally. A heck of a lot of spells target 'one creature within range'. As the turret is not a creature (it's an object) it cannot be targeted. You cant spam an Eldritch blast on it for example.

Very clarifying, and if you recap, quite logical. Since the thing is although kind of summoned, part of the artificers weapons it should be as immune to most AE etc. as other things carried around by players.

The question comes up though, why is it stated with HP and AC anyway?

Is it intended to be at least attackable by physical means? A built in "tank/decoy" to get attention away from the artificer himself?

 

[Todd Roybark]

The rules for Objects in the DMG, (pg 246), states this about Objects:
For the purpose of these rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book,table, chair, or stone, not a building or a vehicle that is composed of many other objects.

So, (to me), an Arcane Canon, a magical object, is already, somewhat, outside the normal definition of objects per the rules. An Arcane Canon, is most certainly animate.

The intent of the class, moreover, is for the player to describe what they are making. An origami paper dragon turret or even a turret made of brass, certainly are susceptible to burning or melting.

The Fireball spell says this:
The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren't being worn or carried.

So while creatures are allowed a saving throw, an object gets NO Saving Throw and is automatically subject to the effect, and catches on fire, (if appropriate), in addition.

Not being a creature, grants the Arcane Canon, less protection than a creature, not more.

To counter all rules lawyer-ish arguments the DMG states(pg 246):
Use common sense when determining a character's success at damaging an objects.

If the Jawas in Star Wars can shoot R2-D2 with a lightning gun, then it seems like common sense that someone could target a player’s, physical, Arcane Canon with a Lightning Bolt or a Fireball.

How the player choses to describe their Arcane Canon, is going to drive how it interacts with spells. Keep in mind, the Arcane Canon, as an object, is going to interact with spells, it has NO choice. It gets no chance to save itself.................not it is unaffected.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

When RAW is harmful to the suspension of disbelief, it's time to ditch RAW. There is no practical difference between a turret trotting around on little legs and a suit of animated armour. The technicality of one being labelled an object and the other being labelled a construct is just that - a label. The DM should decide what they are affected by. It is a convenience/narrative device to treat worn or carried things differently, so fireballs don't destroy the PC's clothes (not looking at any Game of Thrones in particular), or the wooden floor they are standing on (unless the DM thinks that development would be fun).

As for Fireball, it does not say "leaves objects in the AoE untouched", it says, by omission "objects don't get a saving throw".

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm playing a battlesmith at the moment. 6th level.

I admit that I'm not optimizing for damage - we have a barbarian and a warlock for that. I instead shifted the character a bit towards filling a support and rogue slot...

So, not using a combat cantrip at this time - I have mending (for the Steel Defender) and Mage Hand for utility. I'm working with an infused crossbow, and with the extra attack, and the Defender's attack, it all comes out to be a decent steady damage output.

RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed? I'm thinking no because it isn't finesse or light...but it is a ranged weapon and bows allow for SA.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

double post:

What is dragon's Breath? Is it a spell? What class? Artificer?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed? I'm thinking no because it isn't finesse or light...but it is a ranged weapon and bows allow for SA.

No.

As per rules, the force balista makes a ranged spell attack. In 5e you can't sneek attack with a spell attack.

 

[Umbran]

RE: the rogue.

if you are using the turret as a worn object, can you get sneak attack with it if you are muti-classed?

I am playing a Battlesmith, so I haven't had to answer that question.

As a GM, if I had to rule this moment, I'd say:

Sneak attack requires you make an attack with a finesse or ranged weapon. The Force Ballista power is a ranged spell attack, not a weapon attack. If you can't sneak attack with fire bolt, you can't with the turret.

 

[Ashrym]

The turret is largely immune to AoE effects. Remember; it's an object, not a creature.

The larger canon occupies space (which can be useful) and is unattended by default. The held canon loses that space and can still become unattended. When it comes up damage based on saves is a weakness for canons.