D&D 5E (2024) So, what does the Artificer "replace"?

[Zardnaar]

Using Protector mode on the Eldritch Cannon and all spells as Cure Wounds versus a Life Cleric using all Cure Wounds (including 2nd level) means with an average encounter day the Artificer provides more HP potentially while the floor of the Life Cleric is higher thanks to their bonuses.

Plus, the Eldritch Cannon's protector is merely a Bonus Action

Aware. Killing everything faster is also another way of preventing damage. Or stopping the attack all togather.

Also depends how often the cannon gets nuked. Eg via AoE. 5.5 critters have some brutal abilities and AoE. It cant sit at the back and spam temp hp.

Looks very good on paper though. Homonculi, wand of MM, temp hp lvl 6 for example. Drain the wand transmute it into a dazzling weapon hunt if to a PC. Combine with true strike repeating crossbow as your arcane firearm.

Its ticking a lot of boxes for level 2-6 play and 11+.

 

[Mephista]

If I had to put Artificer anywhere (tank, scout, healer, mage), I'd put them down as a mage. Kind of inverted warlocks.

They can scout, but in the same way a wizard scouts - with limited magics and not a great Stealth / Perception score. Wand of Secrets is great, but you get 3 uses a day.

They're not tanks by default. Armorer and Battlemaster can. But that's more exceptions, not rule, for Artificer.

They can heal, especially Alchemist and Battlemaster, but again that's subclasses, not core Artificer. Default artificer is slightly worse than paladin

 

[Remathilis]

When they tested the more explicit and crunchy "Class Groups" for 2024, Artificer were called out as Experts, like Bard, Ranger, or Rogue.

I remember that, but I kinda wonder if (after the explicit grouping was abandoned) if the Artificer still fits. It doesn't seem reliant on skills the way a rogues, bards and even rangers are. No expertise, only two skills, etc. I kinda just put them with the rogue group because of their tool proficiency and bonuses to crafting (which is skill related). I almost think expertise in a skill or two would not have made them OP.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

So, like, The Beatles?

(Sorry Ringo! Forgive me!)

Ringo was a caveman (Caveman (1981) 5.8 | Comedy, Romance)

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Seems like the 5th party member (the flavor role) to me, but honestly, that is where I would stick druid or monk.

 

[Mistwell]

It depends on level. At 10th and 11th level, they do a whole lot more than they do at lower levels. Their homunculus spamming 10 fireballs a day, or 10 hypnotic patterns or conjure barrage, while the artificer casts other spells, is a different thing than the low level tinkerer.

 

[Zardnaar]

I remember that, but I kinda wonder if (after the explicit grouping was abandoned) if the Artificer still fits. It doesn't seem reliant on skills the way a rogues, bards and even rangers are. No expertise, only two skills, etc. I kinda just put them with the rogue group because of their tool proficiency and bonuses to crafting (which is skill related). I almost think expertise in a skill or two would not have made them OP.

They get guidance which is better than expertise at low levels.

 

[Mephista]

I remember that, but I kinda wonder if (after the explicit grouping was abandoned) if the Artificer still fits. It doesn't seem reliant on skills the way a rogues, bards and even rangers are. No expertise, only two skills, etc. I kinda just put them with the rogue group because of their tool proficiency and bonuses to crafting (which is skill related). I almost think expertise in a skill or two would not have made them OP.

I do honestly believe that they are attempting to make the artificer a dedicated spellcaster. Even as a half-caster. A dedicated half-caster? Its kind of like a mirror of warlock, in much the same way that paladin and ranger are mirrors of each other. Paladins smite, socialize, aura, etc. Very tanky. Ranger uses the longer lasting Hunter Mark and similar spells for spreading out damage, they're skirmishers and are perceptive/insightful instead of social.

Meanwhile, warlocks are very limited in spell slots that go up to 9, but have at-will Invocations and best cantrips. On the flipside, artificers have low level spell slots... but have the RMI to get more. Replicating wands, that ring, getting ring of spell storing, swapping for more wands, etc. And, at level 5, you get Homuculus Servent, who can use those wands for you too. This makes Artificer the only class that can truly doublecast - whereas the wizard is casting fireball, the artificer&HS pair are casting two 2nd level spells on the same turn. That's where an artificer's power really comes from - doubling up on spellcasting. On paper, it looks pretty effective, imho. You're not quite Twinning Dragon's Breath spells, but you can have two of them active at once, and that's just as effective as a level 3 or so spell, imho.

Of course, the homu-servant is made of fragilium, so that's a big concern. But if you can keep it alive, the artificer seems to be pulling off being an alternative-style-caster archetype pretty well. Again, on paper - I'm still playing warlock character, but artificer might be next.

I also believe this is a big part of the reason why they took away guns and only gave them to the Battlemaster (and kinda-artillerist). They want you to stop thinking in terms of at-will weapons and start thinking caster. Battlemaster is the gish. Artillerist only uses the guns with True Strike magic, and even then you've got a fair amount of other stuff going on. Armorer technically attacks, but can't use magic weapons, and deals force/lightning/thunder damage, making it more like magical than a gish would normally be.

Doing a deep dive on all the subclasses is another issue for another time.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do people like the class?

 

[Zardnaar]

I do honestly believe that they are attempting to make the artificer a dedicated spellcaster. Even as a half-caster. A dedicated half-caster? Its kind of like a mirror of warlock, in much the same way that paladin and ranger are mirrors of each other. Paladins smite, socialize, aura, etc. Very tanky. Ranger uses the longer lasting Hunter Mark and similar spells for spreading out damage, they're skirmishers and are perceptive/insightful instead of social.

Meanwhile, warlocks are very limited in spell slots that go up to 9, but have at-will Invocations and best cantrips. On the flipside, artificers have low level spell slots... but have the RMI to get more. Replicating wands, that ring, getting ring of spell storing, swapping for more wands, etc. And, at level 5, you get Homuculus Servent, who can use those wands for you too. This makes Artificer the only class that can truly doublecast - whereas the wizard is casting fireball, the artificer&HS pair are casting two 2nd level spells on the same turn. That's where an artificer's power really comes from - doubling up on spellcasting. On paper, it looks pretty effective, imho. You're not quite Twinning Dragon's Breath spells, but you can have two of them active at once, and that's just as effective as a level 3 or so spell, imho.

Of course, the homu-servant is made of fragilium, so that's a big concern. But if you can keep it alive, the artificer seems to be pulling off being an alternative-style-caster archetype pretty well. Again, on paper - I'm still playing warlock character, but artificer might be next.

I also believe this is a big part of the reason why they took away guns and only gave them to the Battlemaster (and kinda-artillerist). They want you to stop thinking in terms of at-will weapons and start thinking caster. Battlemaster is the gish. Artillerist only uses the guns with True Strike magic, and even then you've got a fair amount of other stuff going on. Armorer technically attacks, but can't use magic weapons, and deals force/lightning/thunder damage, making it more like magical than a gish would normally be.

Doing a deep dive on all the subclasses is another issue for another time.

At levels that matter you can stick heroes feast on the homonculi and possibly aid.

Plus temporary hp.