Nord Ronnoc
Explorer
Presdigitation covers the old level 1 feature.
D&D 5E (2024) What's New with the Artificer in Eberron: Forge of the Artificer
- Thread starter ersatzphil
- Start date
The old level 1 feature is basically the Rock Gnome racial ability now. So, if they made the old level 1 feature into a cantrip or something, they render the entire Rock Gnome redundant, and they didn't want to do that.
Even more notably, they're also taking some pains to avoid any overlap with the Crafter feat as well. So, anyone that wanted to really go heavy into being a craftsperson bits, they could go Rock Gnome / Artisan / Artificer, and none of the features overlap in the slightest.
On the flip side, that also means that the level 1 feature is locked under a species choice, which is... odd.
Cap'n Kobold
Legend
Overall, I am disappointed with the new Artificer. There are some improvements compared to the older one, and some changes that I regard as worse than the previous.
My biggest annoyance is that the original issue of the Artificer was not addressed gracefully: It has a general problem with sheer throughput.
Artificers have always been fairly versatile, but lacking when it comes to their turn in the combat round: aside from a couple of subclasses, they are half-casters trying to be full casters. Adding Int once to the damage rolls of a cantrip matches neither having a proper extra attack, nor the ability to start the fight with a fireball or similar before falling back on those cantrips. Even where the artificer does have multiple attacks, it doesn't scale well.
As Mr Mearls brought up not long ago, the adventuring day paradigm that WotC seems to use is no longer the way the most modern D&D is played. There are less dungeon slogs, exterminating every inhabitant room-by-room, and more single set-piece difficult encounters, with maybe a skirmish or two beforehand. Due to WotC's 6-8 encounter model, they seem to undervalue at-will or always-on abilities, and overvalue limited-use but powerful abilities like high-level spell slots. Artificers, with their ability to provide long-term buffs through distribution of magic items, seem to have fallen afoul of this.
Given the improvements that many of the lower-performing classes received in 2024, I was hopeful that artificer would be similarly improved. The only indications that the new artificer may be able to do well compared to many 2024 classes seem to rely on specific gimmicks, such as being at Tier 3, or getting downtime and mass-producing wands of magic missile.
My biggest annoyance is that the original issue of the Artificer was not addressed gracefully: It has a general problem with sheer throughput.
Artificers have always been fairly versatile, but lacking when it comes to their turn in the combat round: aside from a couple of subclasses, they are half-casters trying to be full casters. Adding Int once to the damage rolls of a cantrip matches neither having a proper extra attack, nor the ability to start the fight with a fireball or similar before falling back on those cantrips. Even where the artificer does have multiple attacks, it doesn't scale well.
As Mr Mearls brought up not long ago, the adventuring day paradigm that WotC seems to use is no longer the way the most modern D&D is played. There are less dungeon slogs, exterminating every inhabitant room-by-room, and more single set-piece difficult encounters, with maybe a skirmish or two beforehand. Due to WotC's 6-8 encounter model, they seem to undervalue at-will or always-on abilities, and overvalue limited-use but powerful abilities like high-level spell slots. Artificers, with their ability to provide long-term buffs through distribution of magic items, seem to have fallen afoul of this.
Given the improvements that many of the lower-performing classes received in 2024, I was hopeful that artificer would be similarly improved. The only indications that the new artificer may be able to do well compared to many 2024 classes seem to rely on specific gimmicks, such as being at Tier 3, or getting downtime and mass-producing wands of magic missile.
Just a minor nitpick, but I'd like to point out that the subclasses that add INT or 1d8 to spell damage aren't restricted to cantrips, but rather have other restrictions built in. Alchemist boosts any spell that deals poison, fire or acid damage or heals, but only when using alchemist tools. Reanimator has any "Artificer spell from the Evocation or Necromancy schools and deal damage while your companion is within 120 feet of you" as its restriction. For Cartographer, its using any of its subclass spells or hitting something affected by Faerie Fire. Artilerist is the least restrictive, only requiring you to cast an Artificer spell through your Arcane Firearm.
Mind, I don't think that this doesn't change your overall point, but I just thought it was worth bringing up to avoid confusion.
Clint_L
Legend
I got the digital version and, sure enough, it opened right away for me as a master tier subscriber. So that was nice.
My initial take is that Battlesmith remains far and away the best subclass and the one most on par with the 2024 update, but artillerist and alchemist are improved and solid B tier subclasses. Armourer still fails to deliver on the Iron Man concept in a way that would make it feel competitive with other frontline options, and Cartographer feels incomplete.
My initial take is that Battlesmith remains far and away the best subclass and the one most on par with the 2024 update, but artillerist and alchemist are improved and solid B tier subclasses. Armourer still fails to deliver on the Iron Man concept in a way that would make it feel competitive with other frontline options, and Cartographer feels incomplete.
Kurotowa
Legend
I can't help but compare Battle Smith to Paladins and Rangers. Same casting progression, same intent to be primarily a martial character, but no Weapon Mastery or Fighting Style. The main advantage of the Battle Smith is that you're making weapon attacks with your caster stat, so your spells are generally a bit stronger. And I don't know if that balances out, given how few spells they actually have.
The Battle Smith barely changed from the prior version, and that means they effectively lost ground because all the PHB martials have advanced.
Zardnaar
Legend
Yup. They were a bad half caster, bad warrior and a bad expert. And bad at support. Still seems like the worst class.
Original one did get better around level 10ish.
Cap'n Kobold
Legend
Indeed. And the Battle Smith is probably the best subclass Artificers have: They get more attacks than the others due to their Iron Defender, and at least some of their attacks are likely to scale well well due to using actual weapons, which allows flametongue, wounding effects to add to their damage as well as ability score and similar increases.
The other artificer subclasses do not scale as well.
Clint_L
Legend
My home campaign has a battlesmith as well as a paladin, monk, ranger, and barbarian, and the BS more than holds their own.
I let them have firearms, which helps their DPR (repeating shot infusion FTW). But having not one, but two automatons (defender and homunculus) makes them incredibly effective; they do competitive damage on their own, and then extra with the defender, plus the defensive help, meaning that their bonus action and their reaction are almost never wasted. Much like 2024 monk, they are a really efficient subclass in this regard.
Spells are there for utility and CC, seldom as a primary offence, for the BS (that's why they get two attacks at level 5). So they effectively have three attacks if they want.
I think they're way better than 2024 rangers.
Similar Threads
