Newest version of 5e Artificer?

[Rynjin]

I've found one PDF but from what I understand it's been revised at least once.

Is this (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf) the newest version, or is there another? If there is, where can I get it (that preferably isn't the broken DM's Guild free download)?

[MeeposFire]

I've found one PDF but from what I understand it's been revised at least once.

Is this (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf) the newest version, or is there another? If there is, where can I get it (that preferably isn't the broken DM's Guild free download)?

I believe that is the latest version. The other version was a wizard sub type.

I like many aspects of this artificer though there are a number of changes I would like to make (making it a half caster like the paladin/ranger, gaining cantrips and ritual use, filling up the dead levels, etc).

[Rynjin]

Gotcha. I was hoping there was a version that lacked the construct servant and tweaked the inconsistent damage of the class (the Alchemist seems to especially get a raw deal with all of his damage being save for none), but maybe in the final version.

[RickAllison]

Gotcha. I was hoping there was a version that lacked the construct servant and tweaked the inconsistent damage of the class (the Alchemist seems to especially get a raw deal with all of his damage being save for none), but maybe in the final version.

According to a tweet from Mearls, we may have a revised artificer coming up in December. "revised ranger is up next, then we'll look at the two new classes", is the text, and it was in response to Crawford's announcement of the release date going to the second Monday. Presumably, he was talking about Revised Ranger v3 being next on the list of priorities (hoping they already had that UA finished), then Artificer v3 and Mystic v4. At least, presumably he was talking about those two rather than two entirely new classes.

[MeeposFire]

Gotcha. I was hoping there was a version that lacked the construct servant and tweaked the inconsistent damage of the class (the Alchemist seems to especially get a raw deal with all of his damage being save for none), but maybe in the final version.

Outside of success rate (since it depends greatly on what exactly you are fighting) what is the difference between a save for none and an attack roll? An attack roll is essentially a save for none except that the attacker rolls instead of the defender.

[BaratheonFury]

Outside of success rate (since it depends greatly on what exactly you are fighting) what is the difference between a save for none and an attack roll? An attack roll is essentially a save for none except that the attacker rolls instead of the defender.

I've always preferred attack rolls since it feels a lot easier to buff them up (getting advantage, bless, Fighting style:ranged) than it is to boost your save DC or giving them disadvantage.

[RickAllison]

Outside of success rate (since it depends greatly on what exactly you are fighting) what is the difference between a save for none and an attack roll? An attack roll is essentially a save for none except that the attacker rolls instead of the defender.

Saving throws tend to decrease in effectiveness with higher levels because the defenses directly scale with increasing CR while AC does not necessarily do so. As you increase the CR of a creature, the resistance based on saving throws increases in three ways: the ability scores of the creature in general increase, the creatures tend to gain more saving throw proficiencies (as it would be odd for the powerful creatures to be taken out thanks to one Hold Monster or Banishment), and the bonus from proficiency increases. Meanwhile, AC increases only with a single ability score (two with certain creatures) and remains fairly static.

You can find creatures of CR 4 with AC 20, but this remains the limit going up to ancient dragons, and even a god and destruction incarnate (Tiamat and the Tarrasque) only have AC 25. While AC increases in general, the rate is far slower compared to saving throws. Attack bonus and saving throw DC both increase by 6 in this time, but the attack may receive further increase of +3 or more with ready advantage while the enemies have received increases of 7+ to saving throws and quite possibly have advantage on the same or even better.

[SharkForce]

Outside of success rate (since it depends greatly on what exactly you are fighting) what is the difference between a save for none and an attack roll? An attack roll is essentially a save for none except that the attacker rolls instead of the defender.

in addition to being easier to buff attack rolls as noted already, it's also a lot easier to make multiple attack rolls, whether by feat (crossbow expert, polearm mastery, great weapon mastery, and to some extent shield expert or tavern brawler although those are special attacks rather than generic attacks) or class ability (berserker and monk have easy bonus action attacks, hunter rangers can get extra attacks too, and of course the extra attack class feature isn't too rare, and for monsters multiattack is likewise common) or just by basic mechanics of the game (twf). if one attack misses, there's a decent chance you can make a second or third to try to land at least *some* damage.

[Rynjin]

All of that, plus a sense of dissatisfaction with having your success be put entirely in the hands of the enemy. It's the same reason I don't generally play save or suck casters in any edition, compounded with the fact that even 10d6 damage is hardly going to end a fight the same way something like Pathfinder's Chains of Light or something will.

It's a combo of the lack of raw effect (single target Fireball that gives everybody you toss it at Evasion is pretty meh), variable success rate, and "feels bad, man".

[Zehinoc]

Another problem with the artificer is that both subclasses only deal elemental damage, (apart from the gunsmith's base attack and knockback), and since its not through spells, elemental adept does not apply. This can leave artificers being basically useless in some encounters.

[RickAllison]

Another problem with the artificer is that both subclasses only deal elemental damage, (apart from the gunsmith's base attack and knockback), and since its not through spells, elemental adept does not apply. This can leave artificers being basically useless in some encounters.

Admittedly, this isn't as much of a concern as if they relied cold or fire damages. The standard single-target damage types are comparatively rare as resistances (acid and thunder), so they aren't as bad against resistances as you might think.

[SharkForce]

Admittedly, this isn't as much of a concern as if they relied cold or fire damages. The standard single-target damage types are comparatively rare as resistances (acid and thunder), so they aren't as bad against resistances as you might think.

not to mention that each actually has multiple damage types available eventually.

still, a bit more variety would be nice i think. they were one of the most versatile classes in 3.x, even exceeding wizards if you gave them enough prep time. obviously, we don't want something that is like a 3.x tier 1 class, but it would be nice to see a wider variety of options.

[Rynjin]

The Gunsmith seems to severely lack oomph in its higher level two abilities. 4d6 save for none is REALLY bad at 14th+ level, even in 5e.

[SharkForce]

The Gunsmith seems to severely lack oomph in its higher level two abilities. 4d6 save for none is REALLY bad at 14th+ level, even in 5e.

those are AoE abilities. you're supposed to be using them when there are several creatures in the area (so only one of them needs to fail for it to do something), and the cost is extremely low. if they're not what you want, then you use your regular shot.

it would still be nice to see more options, but when we're looking at a 10/short rest + 40/long rest ability, it can't be *that* crazy.

[RickAllison]

those are AoE abilities. you're supposed to be using them when there are several creatures in the area (so only one of them needs to fail for it to do something), and the cost is extremely low. if they're not what you want, then you use your regular shot.

it would still be nice to see more options, but when we're looking at a 10/short rest + 40/long rest ability, it can't be *that* crazy.

It actually is crazier than that. 10/short and 40/long are the minimum amounts, but the ammunition produced doesn't go away. If you have enough carrying capacity, you effectively never have to worry about the ammunition because so much is produced during downtime. An artificer that has prepared to go to war for a year (in terms of downtime for a retired adventurer, not a long time) is capable of putting out hundreds of half-Fireballs over the course of a day.

[Arkhios]

The mechanical servant isn't actually that bad. Sure, it starts strong and it's large, but it doesn't get any improvements.

[SharkForce]

It actually is crazier than that. 10/short and 40/long are the minimum amounts, but the ammunition produced doesn't go away. If you have enough carrying capacity, you effectively never have to worry about the ammunition because so much is produced during downtime. An artificer that has prepared to go to war for a year (in terms of downtime for a retired adventurer, not a long time) is capable of putting out hundreds of half-Fireballs over the course of a day.

better than a half fireball. 500 foot range and 30 foot radius instead of 20. if you're playing on a typical 5' grid setup, the artificer's half-fireball probably more than fills most people's entire table. if you have a round table 5 feet in diameter, that's your template for the blast, and you need 6.5 (edit: my bad. that should be eight and a quarter, give or take, i think) of them lined up for the artificer to use their max range.

that fireball isn't an ability for killing the tarrasque. that's an ability that says "orc army? what orc army? i don't see any orc army."

[Foff]

a player in my campaign is using a gnome artificer with a giant eagle mechanical servant, needless to say that in the open field he's godlike, shooting stuff with sharpshooter from 100 ft above and his shots hurt, a lot.
we just assaulted a lightly fortified fort with stone giants and human guards, at the end of the battle, when things were going badly for us, he realised that he could just use his robe of wondorous items to drop steel doors and row boats at the giants from 300 feet, quickly ending the fight.
He used 2 steel doors and 2 rowboats in 4 rounds and then the fight ended, but he still had a horse to throw XD

that was magical

[RickAllison]

better than a half fireball. 500 foot range and 30 foot radius instead of 20. if you're playing on a typical 5' grid setup, the artificer's half-fireball probably more than fills most people's entire table. if you have a round table 5 feet in diameter, that's your template for the blast, and you need 6.5 (edit: my bad. that should be eight and a quarter, give or take, i think) of them lined up for the artificer to use their max range.

that fireball isn't an ability for killing the tarrasque. that's an ability that says "orc army? what orc army? i don't see any orc army."

For those who don't know just how rare endless AoE abilities like this are, there are only a few comparable options:

Searing Sunburst (Monk of the Sun Soul): 150 ft range, 20 ft radius, Con save, 2d6 radiant for failure
Volley (Hunter Ranger): range of weapon, 10 ft radius, attack roll, attack damage (limited by arrows)
Shatter (Wizard, Spell Mastery): 60 ft range, 10 ft radius, Con save, 3d8 thunder, save for half

So there are a couple options, but none with nearly so wide an AoE, greatly reduced range, and about the same power level. Well, Volley can have the same range, but suffers disadvantage at that distance.

[Rynjin]

This is the classic mistake people tend to make: Overvaluing at-will (and likewise overvaluing "mook slaughter"). It's quite a bit worse than Fireball. It does half the damage and it's save for none, which is by far the more important part (though the former is still very important for an ability gained at 17th level, where Fireball comes online at 5th). That means on average a Fireball will deal as much damage as Explosive Round...if everybody in its AoE passes the save or has Resistance.

Yes, it's quite nice if you're fighting a bunch of CR 1/4 enemies, but a 17th level ability (and its 14th level predecessor for that matter) should not exist solely to annihilate groups of things you moved on from fighting seriously 15 levels ago.

In any actual fight, with groups of reasonably CR appropriate foes, it will do next to nothing. Or more likely actually nothing, since they need to pass a pretty low DC, made even lower by the artificer not having any incentive before 14th level to raise Int, (which is a whole nother problem) to take no damage. You'll be better off simply firing your 3rd level ability at a single target since you're contributing more to the party that way. The 9th level ability is meh, but I can at least see scenarios where I'd use it. Piercing and Explosive Rounds are just big ol' trap options.

It being at-will is not an excuse for it sucking, and never should be. An at-will ability that sucks is an ability that you will rarely, if ever, have the desire to use.

[SharkForce]

This is the classic mistake people tend to make: Overvaluing at-will (and likewise overvaluing "mook slaughter"). It's quite a bit worse than Fireball. It does half the damage and it's save for none, which is by far the more important part (though the former is still very important for an ability gained at 17th level, where Fireball comes online at 5th). That means on average a Fireball will deal as much damage as Explosive Round...if everybody in its AoE passes the save or has Resistance.

Yes, it's quite nice if you're fighting a bunch of CR 1/4 enemies, but a 17th level ability (and its 14th level predecessor for that matter) should not exist solely to annihilate groups of things you moved on from fighting seriously 15 levels ago.

In any actual fight, with groups of reasonably CR appropriate foes, it will do next to nothing. Or more likely actually nothing, since they need to pass a pretty low DC, made even lower by the artificer not having any incentive before 14th level to raise Int, (which is a whole nother problem) to take no damage. You'll be better off simply firing your 3rd level ability at a single target since you're contributing more to the party that way. The 9th level ability is meh, but I can at least see scenarios where I'd use it. Piercing and Explosive Rounds are just big ol' trap options.

It being at-will is not an excuse for it sucking, and never should be. An at-will ability that sucks is an ability that you will rarely, if ever, have the desire to use.

it doesn't suck. it has essentially the same cost as a cantrip, and compared to a cantrip it is obscenely good. it actually even has advantages over fireball, as i pointed out. get into a fight where the enemy is sending a dozen hill giants at you or something like that, and it'll be pretty good because they won't *all* be making their save. it's really hard to spread out enough to not be clumped up in that AoE; you'll probably catch more of them than you would with a fireball.

now, i think it would be nice to see more options for different kinds of attacks, because an obscenely good AoE cantrip is not going to be useful in every campaign, and pretty much all the gun artificer has been getting since the first ability are upgrades to their original single-target damage ability, and a bunch of really supercharged AoE cantrips, and if those supercharged AoE cantrips aren't terribly useful in that campaign they basically haven't had much of a subclass apart from that first feature.

but to just declare that it's got no value at all? nonsense. if large numbers of weak creatures were not a significant threat, nobody would worry about necromancer wizards being able to get a horde of skeletons.

[8wGremlin]

Isn't the blast only 15 feet, as in 3 squares?
You'll hit what 2 giants with that attack?

for on average 7pt's of Force damage if they fail the STR saving throw. DC 8+int+prof

All of which is available at 9th level...

Sorry this is a pretty minor attack compared to some.

Acid splash, can hit 2 targets for 7 (2d6) acid dex save at 60' range at level 5
Hand of radiance, can hit each creature you can see with in 5' of you for 7 (2d6) radiant damage, con save at level 5...
these are cantrips, and can be quickened, and extended with magic items etc...

Blast Wave the level 9th ability of the Artificer gunsmith class needs to do this at the equivalent level, and do it better as it uses ammo as well.

WoTC can do better.

[Rynjin]

it doesn't suck. it has essentially the same cost as a cantrip, and compared to a cantrip it is obscenely good. it actually even has advantages over fireball, as i pointed out. get into a fight where the enemy is sending a dozen hill giants at you or something like that, and it'll be pretty good because they won't *all* be making their save. it's really hard to spread out enough to not be clumped up in that AoE; you'll probably catch more of them than you would with a fireball.

now, i think it would be nice to see more options for different kinds of attacks, because an obscenely good AoE cantrip is not going to be useful in every campaign, and pretty much all the gun artificer has been getting since the first ability are upgrades to their original single-target damage ability, and a bunch of really supercharged AoE cantrips, and if those supercharged AoE cantrips aren't terribly useful in that campaign they basically haven't had much of a subclass apart from that first feature.

but to just declare that it's got no value at all? nonsense. if large numbers of weak creatures were not a significant threat, nobody would worry about necromancer wizards being able to get a horde of skeletons.

People worry about (PC) necromancers having a horde of skeletons because it slows the game down. It's been the same way in every edition with summoners and necromancers.

The AoEs lack value because, in a best case scenario, they are a time saver. You could spend 30 rounds clearing up 30 CR 1/4 skeletons, or you can blast them with your otherwise bad AoE.

Your hill giants example is a pretty bad one, considering even if they fail their save 4d6 damage is pretty piddling. That's an average of 14 damage vs their HP total of 105. You're better off attacking them one at a time for a more respectable 10d6+5 (average 40 damage), because at least you'l kill one every three rounds (assuming you hit, which with their 13 AC is fairly assured; You should have at least a +11 attack bonus by 17th), reducing their overall combat potential.

It'd take you on average 14 rounds to kill them all with the AoE (assuming they all fail their save all 14 times) and in the meantime they're all operating at full capacity. Being able to drop 4 of them in the same time frame (with room to miss two attacks, even) one at a time is more value to your party since they'll be taking overall less damage.

Aside from the mook slayer scenario it is not hyperbole to say there is never a reason to use the Explosive Round option at the level you obtain it. Comparing it to a cantrip is damning in itself; Gaining a 1st level ability, even a suped up one, should not be your reward for making it to 17th level.


Isn't the blast only 15 feet, as in 3 squares?
You'll hit what 2 giants with that attack?

That's not how cones work (I'm assuming you're referring to Blast Wave). A 15 ft. cone would be 6 squares, r 7 with the "hammer" optio (as seen here (https://dungeonsolvers.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/cones.jpg)). Still very small, but the value of Blast Wave isn't in the AoE or damage, it's in the knockback. Ignoring niche scenarios like shoving an enemy or two off a cliff or into some other hazard, it has value as a situational life saver option (pushing a melee based enemy out of range of you so you can flee without provoking) and gives battlefield control options so you could clump enemies for a (good) AoE from one of your allies or put them within move+attack range of your melee compatriots.

While still not stellar, it has value by increasing your number of options in combat, rather than the last two abilities that merely grant damage options that are generally inferior.

[RickAllison]

Isn't the blast only 15 feet, as in 3 squares?
You'll hit what 2 giants with that attack?

The 15 ft ability is not the one being discussed. That one is much more situational, but it does have its uses due to being a Strength saving throw. All those high-Dexterity creatures that flit about like Pixies? To shreds! The line attack is also situational, but worst case you have roughly Sneak Attack-level damage on a single target. And that is ultimately the role that the different blasts fall into, different attacks that aren't as individually powerful as just shooting, but that you pull out when they are useful. The cone is nice for clearing out the high-Dex creatures and pushing foes in melee away to escape, the line is great when you have a corridor, and the mini-Fireball is, well, a very big blast.

Honestly, the gunsmith artificer ties in really closely to the Rogue. Same damage for the go-to attack, but with more of a focus on support. It isn't a bad choice of subclass and certainly seems competitive with things like the Assassin, but its not great and your options are limited. I hope that we see some more variety with the next revision (which would come out at the earliest in December, and probably later than that).

For the next release, I would really like for the bonus action reload to be removed, to fold the cone and line attacks into the same level, and to add some other feature for level 14. Actually, one nice ability if they keep the bonus action reload would be the L14 Artificer getting some options for what to do with the bonus action reload. Or just do a total overhaul... I would love to see a Gunsmith that actually modifies his weapon, not just shoots it. You know, so he would be a gunsmith rather than just a gunner. It could work almost like Invocations, but be modifiable over a short/long rest rather than per level. Come to think of it, that could work for the Alchemist as well... Hmmm...

[Garfunion]

I hate to say this but with the Arcane Archer subclass coming out, it creates another magical ammunition class players can make (the Ranger's spells that enchant ammunition being the other). The next Artificer release may not have the gunsmith subclass, which would make it more in line with the original Artificer class from Eberron. (Guns do not exist in Eberron.)

[Arkhios]

(Guns do not exist in Eberron.)

Yet :smallwink:

Personally, Eberron would be my first (official) fantasy setting where I would allow guns. Eberron has a frikkin' railway, air ships, and "robots"; Firearms wouldn't break anything, anymore.

[SharkForce]

I hate to say this but with the Arcane Archer subclass coming out, it creates another magical ammunition class players can make (the Ranger's spells that enchant ammunition being the other). The next Artificer release may not have the gunsmith subclass, which would make it more in line with the original Artificer class from Eberron. (Guns do not exist in Eberron.)

as i've already noted, it's pretty trivial to refluff the gunsmith into an artificer that uses magical staves to do all that blasting. now, i would certainly agree that it feels a bit weird to have to refluff the artificer back to being the original artificer, but it really doesn't take any significant effort at all.

[Regitnui]

. (Guns do not exist in Eberron.)


Yet :smallwink:

Personally, Eberron would be my first (official) fantasy setting where I would allow guns. Eberron has a frikkin' railway, air ships, and "robots"; Firearms wouldn't break anything, anymore.

Technically, the "gun"smith subclass fite into Eberron if you make one little change; call it a "wandsmith". Wands, especially eternal wands from 3.5) took the place of guns. Several pictures, most prominently the Explorer's Handbook, show a warforged wielding a staff like Shadowrun mages would a rifle. On the same picture, a human wields a very pistol-like hand crossbow against the attacking sahuagin.

Eberron doesn't have guns because the idea of hurling small metal objects via explosion never occurred to them. Why would it, when they could shoot the explosion itself at someone instead? An Eberron army has siege staves instead of cannons, staves instead of rifles (Keith Baker's original pitch had a gnome sniper using a staff that split into seven pieces to assassinate someone), and hand crossbows/wands instead of pistols. Now if you want guns in your Eberron, that's fine, but by canon there are plenty of better options for those looking for a little ranged action.

(No, there aren't fireworks in Eberron either. Again, dancing light cantrips...)

[SharkForce]

People worry about (PC) necromancers having a horde of skeletons because it slows the game down. It's been the same way in every edition with summoners and necromancers.

The AoEs lack value because, in a best case scenario, they are a time saver. You could spend 30 rounds clearing up 30 CR 1/4 skeletons, or you can blast them with your otherwise bad AoE.

Your hill giants example is a pretty bad one, considering even if they fail their save 4d6 damage is pretty piddling. That's an average of 14 damage vs their HP total of 105. You're better off attacking them one at a time for a more respectable 10d6+5 (average 40 damage), because at least you'l kill one every three rounds (assuming you hit, which with their 13 AC is fairly assured; You should have at least a +11 attack bonus by 17th), reducing their overall combat potential.

It'd take you on average 14 rounds to kill them all with the AoE (assuming they all fail their save all 14 times) and in the meantime they're all operating at full capacity. Being able to drop 4 of them in the same time frame (with room to miss two attacks, even) one at a time is more value to your party since they'll be taking overall less damage.

Aside from the mook slayer scenario it is not hyperbole to say there is never a reason to use the Explosive Round option at the level you obtain it. Comparing it to a cantrip is damning in itself; Gaining a 1st level ability, even a suped up one, should not be your reward for making it to 17th level.


30 skeletons is chump change for what a high level necromancer can do, and those skeletons will probably be outputting somewhere around 35-70 damage per round depending on target (that's assuming AC between 15 and 20). more than double that if they were animated by a necromancer as opposed to just a regular wizard who uses necromancy. you don't *have* 30 rounds to clear them up, in 30 rounds those skeletons will have cleared *you* up, and that's without the necromancer sending anything else along with them. or just sending more than that number.

and those hill giants... you outrange them. by a ridiculously large amount. you can afford to get a few shots in to soften them up before they get close, and then (together with the single target specialists, which your artificer cannot be because you are a utility character like the rogue instead of a damage character like the fighter) you can focus them down much more quickly because they're already half dead. heck, if you're willing to kite (and you do have incredibly easy access to a flying mount that can move faster than those giants), you can kill them all much more quickly and with fewer resources by using the AoE... though more likely you'll get a few rounds to soften them up, force them to separate far away, and then you can pick them off one by one with the party, because even hill giants shouldn't be dumb enough to stand around in a cluster and let you get the full benefit of your AoE indefinitely. but of course, at that point, you've just split one moderately challenging fight into a much easier scenario.

now, once again, i would completely agree that having more options would be a good thing. the aoe being useful and powerful in the right situation does not mean that your campaign is likely to include that situation, and it especially doesn't mean it happens often enough for you to want that ability over something that might be more useful for your specific situation, nor does it mean that you want *every* ability after the first to be some form of AoE even if AoE abilities can prove to be useful.

but ultimately, you already have close to the same damage potential as the rogue just from your first ability, which is about as awesome damage-wise as the artificer can be allowed to get; you cannot have a bunch of utility *and* make the classes that revolve entirely around damage dealing look bad in their own area of specialty. that is never going to be fair or balanced.

[Rynjin]

30 skeletons is chump change for what a high level necromancer can do, and those skeletons will probably be outputting somewhere around 35-70 damage per round depending on target (that's assuming AC between 15 and 20). more than double that if they were animated by a necromancer as opposed to just a regular wizard who uses necromancy. you don't *have* 30 rounds to clear them up, in 30 rounds those skeletons will have cleared *you* up, and that's without the necromancer sending anything else along with them. or just sending more than that number.

Except, as you point out, you can more likely than not fly while skeletons can't. And 30 rounds is assuming it's just one artificer vs a skeleton army, instead of the more likely scenario of 4 adventurers vs a skeleton army, who can make work of them in 7-8 rounds and will make the damage be spread around.

By 17th I'm hard pressed to think of any character besides an unarmored full caster with less than 20 AC, the game guides you in that direction.


and those hill giants... you outrange them. by a ridiculously large amount. you can afford to get a few shots in to soften them up before they get close, and then (together with the single target specialists, which your artificer cannot be because you are a utility character like the rogue instead of a damage character like the fighter) you can focus them down much more quickly because they're already half dead. heck, if you're willing to kite (and you do have incredibly easy access to a flying mount that can move faster than those giants), you can kill them all much more quickly and with fewer resources by using the AoE... though more likely you'll get a few rounds to soften them up, force them to separate far away, and then you can pick them off one by one with the party, because even hill giants shouldn't be dumb enough to stand around in a cluster and let you get the full benefit of your AoE indefinitely. but of course, at that point, you've just split one moderately challenging fight into a much easier scenario.

Why are you assuming the Hill Giants are starting so far away on a flat plane? That is incredibly unlikely.

Plus hill giants can chuck rocks if they find themselves in such a poor position. Those rocks do a pretty good hunk of damage.


n

but ultimately, you already have close to the same damage potential as the rogue just from your first ability, which is about as awesome damage-wise as the artificer can be allowed to get; you cannot have a bunch of utility *and* make the classes that revolve entirely around damage dealing look bad in their own area of specialty. that is never going to be fair or balanced.

Are you claiming the Gunsmith already deals too much damage? Because that's a strong claim.

I never said they needed more damage, I said they needed more OPTIONS. But if all they're going to get is damage, it damn well better be GOOD damage.

[8wGremlin]

I never said they needed more damage, I said they needed more OPTIONS. But if all they're going to get is damage, it damn well better be GOOD damage.

I agree with the more options, they can be quite dull when in combat.

So what can we do about it?

Consensus appears to be - alchemy, minion-mancy, and gun/wand mastery

So if each of those is a sub class, what should the main chassis be?

Item enhancements, magic item creation seems core concept for Artificers.

What do you think?

[SharkForce]

Except, as you point out, you can more likely than not fly while skeletons can't. And 30 rounds is assuming it's just one artificer vs a skeleton army, instead of the more likely scenario of 4 adventurers vs a skeleton army, who can make work of them in 7-8 rounds and will make the damage be spread around.

By 17th I'm hard pressed to think of any character besides an unarmored full caster with less than 20 AC, the game guides you in that direction.



Why are you assuming the Hill Giants are starting so far away on a flat plane? That is incredibly unlikely.

Plus hill giants can chuck rocks if they find themselves in such a poor position. Those rocks do a pretty good hunk of damage.



Are you claiming the Gunsmith already deals too much damage? Because that's a strong claim.

I never said they needed more damage, I said they needed more OPTIONS. But if all they're going to get is damage, it damn well better be GOOD damage.

... yeah, the game totally doesn't push you to AC 20 or better. not at all. unless you're using a shield, *and* full plate, AC 17-18 is much more likely unless you have a magical AC bonus from somewhere. and sure you can fly... but those skeletons can have bows (in fact the default skeleton entry comes equipped with a bow). and 2 bullets is a lot better than over 30 (since you'd be missing some shots). and if you're in a full group, expect to face more than 30 skeletons. that doesn't necessarily mean expect 60 skeletons, but it can easily mean expect 30 skeletons and some wights and a mummy or two and an evil priest, or something like that.

those hill giant boulders... not range 500. artificer gun: range 500. pretty sure the artificer is handily winning on range here. the rocks can do as much damage as you want, it doesn't matter if the artificer can simply stay well out of range.

useful in every situation? nope. very useful in some situations? definitely. again, i'm fine with more options (though when you're focused on using a gun, there's not a ton of variety i would expect beyond different ways of shooting things). but it's nonsense to suggest that this is not a good ability. it may not be an ability you will use often in every campaign, but it *is* a useful ability for some people in some campaigns, and it is very strong in its own way.

[Rynjin]

... yeah, the game totally doesn't push you to AC 20 or better. not at all. unless you're using a shield, *and* full plate, AC 17-18 is much more likely unless you have a magical AC bonus from somewhere. and sure you can fly... but those skeletons can have bows (in fact the default skeleton entry comes equipped with a bow). and 2 bullets is a lot better than over 30 (since you'd be missing some shots). and if you're in a full group, expect to face more than 30 skeletons. that doesn't necessarily mean expect 60 skeletons, but it can easily mean expect 30 skeletons and some wights and a mummy or two and an evil priest, or something like that.

You get 17 as a matter of course by leve 10 or so, generally (armor + maxed stat, or heavy armor + minimal stat), and there are quite a few other ways to raise AC in the game. 19 is easy to achieve, 20 is very doable.

Re: Flight vs bows, as you point out, you can outrange them. You can outrange them in a nice way to where your single shot is at normal attack bonus and they're at Disadvantage.


those hill giant boulders... not range 500. artificer gun: range 500. pretty sure the artificer is handily winning on range here. the rocks can do as much damage as you want, it doesn't matter if the artificer can simply stay well out of range.

How are your allies doing?



useful in every situation? nope. very useful in some situations? definitely. again, i'm fine with more options (though when you're focused on using a gun, there's not a ton of variety i would expect beyond different ways of shooting things). but it's nonsense to suggest that this is not a good ability. it may not be an ability you will use often in every campaign, but it *is* a useful ability for some people in some campaigns, and it is very strong in its own way.

Like, you still haven't even proven it's "very" useful in some situations. A group of CR 1/4 or even CR 5 enemies should not be a threat regardless at the level this ability comes online. It's a mook killer, as I said.

It' a magical gun so there's plenty you can do with it besides damage, it just requires a modicum of creativity. Crowd control options are always nice, if Explosive Round was a Graviton Bomb type thing with a 30 ft. radius that pulls everybody in the area 15 ft. toward the center of the blast (and did either small or even no damage) I would find it far more useful than a piddling AoE.

Change Lightning Round to a stunning shot, Con save or be Stunned, or shoot like an electrified net, Dex save or be Restrained and take like a d6 of electric damage every round, things of that nature.

There's A LOT you can do with a magic/sci-fi gun that isn't damage.

[SharkForce]

You get 17 as a matter of course by leve 10 or so, generally (armor + maxed stat, or heavy armor + minimal stat), and there are quite a few other ways to raise AC in the game. 19 is easy to achieve, 20 is very doable.

Re: Flight vs bows, as you point out, you can outrange them. You can outrange them in a nice way to where your single shot is at normal attack bonus and they're at Disadvantage.



How are your allies doing?




Like, you still haven't even proven it's "very" useful in some situations. A group of CR 1/4 or even CR 5 enemies should not be a threat regardless at the level this ability comes online. It's a mook killer, as I said.

It' a magical gun so there's plenty you can do with it besides damage, it just requires a modicum of creativity. Crowd control options are always nice, if Explosive Round was a Graviton Bomb type thing with a 30 ft. radius that pulls everybody in the area 15 ft. toward the center of the blast (and did either small or even no damage) I would find it far more useful than a piddling AoE.

Change Lightning Round to a stunning shot, Con save or be Stunned, or shoot like an electrified net, Dex save or be Restrained and take like a d6 of electric damage every round, things of that nature.

There's A LOT you can do with a magic/sci-fi gun that isn't damage.

- i'm a bit disappointed that you need this pointed out, but... 17 is not 20. and while 17 is fairly easy, getting up to 20 without using a shield generally involves either magic items (which may not be available) or magical abilities (which may not be available, may conflict with other things you want your concentration for, and certainly aren't likely to be available 24/7). consistent AC 19 or 20 is not a trivial thing to get, unless you're using a shield. this is, of course, beside the point; 30 skeletons created by an actual necromancer will still be doing about 70 damage per round to someone with 20 AC. that sounds like "still a threat" to me. even the 30 controlled by a normal wizard or cleric or not controlled at all sounds like a potential problem, because 35ish damage per round is certainly an improvement, but that's still dealing a good chunk of your HP. a level 17 fighter with 16 con probably has ~154 max HP (assuming they take the 6 HP instead of rolling... if they roll, 8 less than that on average, but averages aren't really reliable). that's, what, 5 rounds worth of 30 completely ordinary skeletons with zero backup? and obviously signifcantly less if they *do* target your wizard with 15-16 AC. yeah, sure, you just go ahead and ignore them. see how that works out for you.

- my allies are going to be doing better at taking down the remaining giants because i've been softening them up before the giants get in close. or, you know, being level 17, they can just afford horses, which will keep them out of range of the giants as well. or maybe they've moved in and are fighting the giants 1 or 2 at a time instead of 12 at a time because the giants can't stay together without getting wrecked, in which case, i guess the ability has done some pretty good work, splitting one fight into half a dozen trivial ones with no meaningful resource expenditure. now your wizard has a few extra counterspells that didn't need to be fireballs instead; sounds pretty damn useful to me. hey look, it's almost like a CC effect that you were wanting!

a group of CR 1/4 or CR 5 enemies are ALWAYS a threat, if you don't do something about them. that was one of the core design principles behind 5th edition. you get better at dealing with skeletons, but you don't become immune to them. you get better at dealing with elementals, or ogres, or gryphons, but you don't reach a point where you can just safely ignore them indefinitely because they're a non-threat. this isn't 3.x where your AC can go up to 50 with even the tiniest bit of effort and a monster with +5 to hit just doesn't have a meaningful chance of hitting you any more.

abilities have to be balanced against their cost. an AoE stun with a cost of 1 bullet is hilariously overpowered. heck, a single target stun that costs 1 bullet takes probably the most powerful ability that monks even get and makes it even stronger. you are looking at essentially zero-cost abilities here. now you're just asking for spells that are as good as what the wizard is getting except at zero cost. you're not a wizard. you're not a fighter. you're in the middle. your DPR isn't going to compete with a fighter, your crowd control isn't going to compete with a wizard, and that's the way it SHOULD be.

the class you seem to want gunsmith to be does not belong in 5th edition. a great deal of effort has gone into making tier lists nothing more than a curiosity. the game doesn't need a new tier 1 class to invalidate all the others, D&D got rid of those for a reason. if you want to be able to do a little bit of everything, you cannot be better than the specialists, and the artificer is a class that does a little bit of everything.

[Rynjin]

RE: AC even non-magical means can get you closer and closer. A single dip in Fighter for defense fighting style as a simple example. Not having at least +1 armor by 17th is also pretty unlikely. There's 19 with minimal investment. The last point can come from either Bracers or Cloak of Defense, Ring of Protection, etc. A completely lo magic game is something I see people theorize about, but not one I've ever seen in actual play in any edition.

Also, if you're saying the party has a Wizard, he can just Fireball the whole group and kill them all even when every single one passes their save...so again, the ability is pointless.



abilities have to be balanced against their cost. an AoE stun with a cost of 1 bullet is hilariously overpowered. heck, a single target stun that costs 1 bullet takes probably the most powerful ability that monks even get and makes it even stronger. you are looking at essentially zero-cost abilities here. now you're just asking for spells that are as good as what the wizard is getting except at zero cost. you're not a wizard. you're not a fighter. you're in the middle. your DPR isn't going to compete with a fighter, your crowd control isn't going to compete with a wizard, and that's the way it SHOULD be.

...Except as-is you compete with neither. You're not in the middle, you're just inferior in every regard. The Artificer as currently written has HEAVY "jack of all trades syndrome". It tries to do a lot and ends up being pretty bad at all of it.


the class you seem to want gunsmith to be does not belong in 5th edition. a great deal of effort has gone into making tier lists nothing more than a curiosity. the game doesn't need a new tier 1 class to invalidate all the others, D&D got rid of those for a reason. if you want to be able to do a little bit of everything, you cannot be better than the specialists, and the artificer is a class that does a little bit of everything.

Admittedly, I already find 5e to be a frustratingly restrictive, extremely repetitive game when it comes to combat in particular, but jumping from me throwing out three suggestions that aren't simply "****ty damage" from off the top of my head to "You just want to make the Artificer a top tier class" pretty much says to me you're no longer interested in having a real conversation, so I see no reason for either of us to continue replying to each other.

[SharkForce]

RE: AC even non-magical means can get you closer and closer. A single dip in Fighter for defense fighting style as a simple example. Not having at least +1 armor by 17th is also pretty unlikely. There's 19 with minimal investment. The last point can come from either Bracers or Cloak of Defense, Ring of Protection, etc. A completely lo magic game is something I see people theorize about, but not one I've ever seen in actual play in any edition.

Also, if you're saying the party has a Wizard, he can just Fireball the whole group and kill them all even when every single one passes their save...so again, the ability is pointless.



...Except as-is you compete with neither. You're not in the middle, you're just inferior in every regard. The Artificer as currently written has HEAVY "jack of all trades syndrome". It tries to do a lot and ends up being pretty bad at all of it.



Admittedly, I already find 5e to be a frustratingly restrictive, extremely repetitive game when it comes to combat in particular, but jumping from me throwing out three suggestions that aren't simply "****ty damage" from off the top of my head to "You just want to make the Artificer a top tier class" pretty much says to me you're no longer interested in having a real conversation, so I see no reason for either of us to continue replying to each other.

17+1 = 18. you're really not impressing me with your math skills here. furthermore, not everyone wants a fighter dip, and not everyone who wants a fighter dip wants that fighting style. and just because there are magic items doesn't mean you've got magical armour that gives an AC bonus, or indeed magical *anything* that gives an AC bonus.

as to that wizard, sure you might have one (or whatever else). they need to burn resources to nuke that group of skeletons. you don't. they might have higher-priority actions as well. they might also not have the range (remember, you have 500 fet) or the AoE (remember, you get 30 foot radius, they get 20 foot radius). and yes, some skeletons might save. most won't; you should have a decent save DC, and they won't have an amazing bonus. if you destroy 3/4 of them with one action so that the specialists can do their thing, you're in pretty good shape.

and you're right, you don't compete with either. but guess what: the fighter isn't as good as you are at AoE damage, and the wizard isn't as good as you are at single-target damage, and neither of them have the base artificer class features that you have which allow you to hand out haste to the rogue without locking out the option of wall of force from the wizard or allowing the fighter to have expeditious retreat at all, for example. you have your own bag of tricks, it isn't fair for you to take everyone else's too.

and frankly, in your own way, you *are* competing with either end of the spectrum; as i've already said, the wizard doesn't have your stamina (you can save up hundreds of fireballs, the wizard can get maybe a dozen in a day if they're willing to sacrifice some other really awesome stuff), or the range for that matter, and while you don't compete with the fighter in single target damage, your total damage over the course of a fight could quite possibly be nearly as high or even higher.

so again, the problem here is that you're expecting the generalist to do what the specialists do. if you want amazing single target DPS... don't pick artificer. if you want top-tier crowd control... don't pick artificer. the artificer is not and indeed can not be those things and remain balanced. they've got other things instead. instead, you are in the neighbourhood of rogue and monk. neither of them have amazing DPR, or wizard-like shutdown, but each of them has their own uses.

[Regitnui]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't condemn the bard for not being as good a healer as a cleric, despite being able to fill that role. Why condemn the artificer for not having high DPS? It's not a crowd control class. There will be situations where, by the numbers, you're useless. But the artificer can make every other class better at their schtick; a wizard gets stronger spells and more, the fighter gets magic and special weapons, the rogue gets potions of invisibility and the monk gets enhanced mobility.

Yes, the gun/wandsmith is a damage subclass of a support class. But they don't bring damage to the table. They bring magic items, whether temporary or permanent.

[Rynjin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you wouldn't condemn the bard for not being as good a healer as a cleric, despite being able to fill that role. Why condemn the artificer for not having high DPS? It's not a crowd control class. There will be situations where, by the numbers, you're useless. But the artificer can make every other class better at their schtick; a wizard gets stronger spells and more, the fighter gets magic and special weapons, the rogue gets potions of invisibility and the monk gets enhanced mobility.

Yes, the gun/wandsmith is a damage subclass of a support class. But they don't bring damage to the table. They bring magic items, whether temporary or permanent.

No, because crafting doesn't really work in 5e in any campaign-viable timespan. The Artificer is not a magical crafting class; at least, they cannot be and be an active adventurer at the same time.

I would not condemn a Bard for not healing as well as a Cleric, but I WOULD condemn a Bard if they had no real niche and were worse at any given thing than everybody else to a significant degree, which the Artificer is.

They do not bring any more utility to the group than any other 4 level caster, nor do they bring damage, or crowd control, or anything else in any significant degree to make a real difference in the game. The class' design is everywhere and lacks focus...which i fine, for a first draft, but should be fixed for the final release.

[SharkForce]

No, because crafting doesn't really work in 5e in any campaign-viable timespan. The Artificer is not a magical crafting class; at least, they cannot be and be an active adventurer at the same time.

I would not condemn a Bard for not healing as well as a Cleric, but I WOULD condemn a Bard if they had no real niche and were worse at any given thing than everybody else to a significant degree, which the Artificer is.

They do not bring any more utility to the group than any other 4 level caster, nor do they bring damage, or crowd control, or anything else in any significant degree to make a real difference in the game. The class' design is everywhere and lacks focus...which i fine, for a first draft, but should be fixed for the final release.

their ability to hand off objects that cast spells is something that nobody else can do. so, good news... they do something nobody else does, just by being an artificer. they also bring a variety of magical items. mainly not the kind that just give you bigger numbers, certainly, but they do give you magic items, which is again something no other class does at all, making them better at that than anyone else in that area.

then, depending on archetype, they bring a variety of other effects, and while you may not be that excited about them, those effects generally do have uses.

the gunsmith does not have the same peaks as a full caster. it cannot. the cost of its abilities are too low. what it *can* do is freely use the abilities it does have without worrying about cost. an evoker wizard might have a more damaging fireball, but the gunsmith can just spam half-strength fireballs any time they're useful and not need to worry about whether the fight is worth a spell slot or not.

likewise, the artificer doesn't have as high of a peak as a spellcaster. their fire attack has a much worse area, damage, and range when compared to a fireball, and their acid has a much shorter range and less damage than a disintegrate (not to mention it won't disintegrate walls of force, although it *is* crazy damage against objects), but they can use them whenever needed. their other effects are less powerful as well (though on the plus side, don't cost concentration), but again, there is never a question of whether something is worth a slot. if someone is damaged, you can just heal them, you don't have to ask yourself whether you might need that slot for a spirit guardians spell, or to remove a curse, or to restore drained strength.

it could still use a bit of tweaking, but it is pretty close. that doesn't mean you have to like it or anything, but you don't have to like it for it to be pretty good. i don't like barbarians in the slightest. i have zero interest in playing one, and i feel like at higher levels other classes (particularly full spellcasters) pull massively far ahead of it in power. that doesn't mean it's a bad class, and i believe many people play it and enjoy it and don't feel it is lacking in power at all, it just means it isn't a class for me.

[Regitnui]

They do not bring any more utility to the group than any other 4 level caster, nor do they bring damage, or crowd control, or anything else in any significant degree to make a real difference in the game. The class' design is everywhere and lacks focus...which i fine, for a first draft, but should be fixed for the final release.

*checks UA*

Yes, because any class can make encumbrance a nonissue, offer a light source, see further than practically any monster in the dark, and make sure that a split party can still coordinate at level 2. Admittedly, they can't do all of those at once, but they can do any of them. And the best part is that even though they created the item, anyone else can use it.

Their Infuse Magic ability (level 4) then makes any piece of equipment into a one-use magic item. The wizard could cast jump on the rogue to get him across a chasm, but that's a spell slot the wizard could use on something else and the spell fails if the wizard is taken out. An artificer can give the rogue one-use boots of striding and springing, letting the wizard focus on something else.

Yeah, the artificer brings nothing new to the table at all. It's not like magic items are ever useful. It's not like anyone would need the ability to use a spell that they can't cast and the wizard didn't prepare. That's the core of the class. That's what the UA artificer focused on and did. Sure the subclasses are fuzzy and the spell selection needs work, but the artificer has its niche pinned down. The class needs refinement. There we agree. But I disagree that it doesn't bring anything to the table; it brings magic items.

[Rynjin]

*checks UA*

Yes, because any class can make encumbrance a nonissue, offer a light source, see further than practically any monster in the dark, and make sure that a split party can still coordinate at level 2. Admittedly, they can't do all of those at once, but they can do any of them. And the best part is that even though they created the item, anyone else can use it.

Their Infuse Magic ability (level 4) then makes any piece of equipment into a one-use magic item. The wizard could cast jump on the rogue to get him across a chasm, but that's a spell slot the wizard could use on something else and the spell fails if the wizard is taken out. An artificer can give the rogue one-use boots of striding and springing, letting the wizard focus on something else.

Yeah, the artificer brings nothing new to the table at all. It's not like magic items are ever useful. It's not like anyone would need the ability to use a spell that they can't cast and the wizard didn't prepare. That's the core of the class. That's what the UA artificer focused on and did. Sure the subclasses are fuzzy and the spell selection needs work, but the artificer has its niche pinned down. The class needs refinement. There we agree. But I disagree that it doesn't bring anything to the table; it brings magic items.

It brings very few magic items, 5 across 20 levels. Most of which are not useful enough to justify an entire class choice. That's what people don't seem to get in discussions like this, every choice of a class is an opportunity cost of another class.

You could choose to play an Artificer to get guaranteed access to a Bag of Holding, Cap of Water Breathing, Decanter of Endless Water, Boots of Striding and Springing, and Wings of Flying...or you could trade out the Artificer for a Cleric or Wizard that can cast Water Breathing, Create Water, Jump/Longstrider, and Fly and still have a bajillion spell slots left to do other things with, or even not cast them at all that day because they weren't useful that day. They're also not locked into those spells and can do other things on a daily basis...which the Artificer cannot.

So basically you have a dude with a fancy bag, and god help you if the party finds one of the most iconic D&D items ever made during their adventures.

All of these things are USEFUL and nice to have, but not USEFUL ENOUGH or NICE ENOUGH to justify an entire class pick to provide them.

Unless you're playing in a game with no or very few magic items (which does not seem to be what the devs have in mind, given how many are in both of the official adventures I've played) the Artificer is playing a guessing game with what loot the party might find AND trying to pick around things the rest of the party can likely already do. In the classic party of Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard the Artificer does not satisfactorily replace any of the above except perhaps the Rogue, but then starts competing for the Sorcerer and Bard as 4th wheels. And the Warlock, for that matter.

The artificer is in a spot where it has a solid CONCEPT, which you seem to be confusing for its NICHE. It doesn't fill any role very well in any sort of well balanced party is the main issue. Its magic item concept certainly has merit, but with the small selection of useful items to choose from (only 2-3 at any given level) it's playing roulette with its long term usefulness to the party, potentially providing early and consistent access to some niche spell effects, but after that being barely able to pull its own weight.

When the class could generally be considered to provide the same utility dead as alive (the magic items don't disappear, or cease to function after all, and then you can replace it with a more effective class) you have a fundamental design flaw.

Were it more similar to the 3rd party Pathfinder Artificer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/artificer/) (which is sorta like a more streamlined version of the 3.5 one), having a wider range of effects that can be combined and tweaked daily, and 5e were not so paranoid about people crafting (or people knowing the rules for things in general), the class would be in a much better spot.

To be fair, I think that might be more an issue with 5e's design philosophy than anything. The Artificer seems to be in a really bad spot from multiple directions on that, constrained by rules designed to reduce simplicity and prevent reliance on magic items on a class traditionally designed to be flexible on a day to day basis and based largely around crafting permanent magic items.

Hm. Quick fix might be allowing the Artificer to imbue items on a per 24 hour basis with any of the effects listed in Wondrous Invention. At level 10 they can make 3 Wondrous Inventions per day that last 24 hours a day, chosen in any combination from the 1, 5, and 10th level lists. That reduces the "roulette problem" if nothing else. The Artificer might wear a Helm of Comprehending Languages on a diplomatic mission...but not be stuck if they find one on a later dungeon crawl, or be stuck having it FOR that dungeon crawl where it is less likely to be useful.

[RickAllison]

When posters say that Artificers make magic items, they aren't just talking about Wondrous Inventions. Hang on to the Rogue's cap for a while and you can expend a spell slot to make it a temporary Hat of Disguise, or make his ring one of Invisibility to activate when he needs it. Or give the Monk a Potion of Growth that only lasts for a minute. No other caster has the ability to package up their spells so the other party members can use them when it is most convenient.

[Arkhios]

When posters say that Artificers make magic items, they aren't just talking about Wondrous Inventions. Hang on to the Rogue's cap for a while and you can expend a spell slot to make it a temporary Hat of Disguise, or make his ring one of Invisibility to activate when he needs it. Or give the Monk a Potion of Growth that only lasts for a minute. No other caster has the ability to package up their spells so the other party members can use them when it is most convenient.

Well, technically Forge Cleric can do something fairly similar. Although, it's limited to armors, shields, and weapons and only to add a +1 bonus to AC or to Attack/Damage with a weapon (plus making the item magical, of course).

[SharkForce]

getting a few magic items is, indeed, not enough to fill out an entire class. it is fortunate that the artificer has more than 5 magic items as the entire class. they have single-target damage very close to a rogue in each subclass, as well as a few other simple tricks up their sleeve. they get expertise in thieve's tools, making them experts at disarming traps and picking locks. they have a companion that can provide a variety of things (mobility, debuffs, added damage, crowd control) depending on which one you choose. they have some spellcasting (personally i'd like to see them have a bit more, at least half-caster, plus some (non-damage) cantrips, and maybe some sort of recharging ability similar wizards or land druids once they get past level 11 or so) and the ability to give control of that spellcasting to someone else (which no other class in the game has).

then, on top of all that, they get a few magic items (from a selection which i feel is a bit too limited, and i would prefer to see some modified - the robe of useful items is a good example of an item that the artificer should be able to recharge somehow, for example). heck, a general ability to recharge or re-enchant items would fit well for an artificer too. as well as an ability to have magic items use your class save DC where appropriate (in addition to getting UMD like the thief rogues - there's definitely some tweaks i wouldn't mind).

5 items isn't a class... but the UA artificer is far more than just 5 items. and yes, a caster could potentially prepare something to cover similar situations as those magic items with spells, potentially. but they can't just hand those spells to others in every case, they don't get those effects on a permanent basis, and they often need concentration to be able to do it when they might be needed to concentrate on someone else, and they may need or at the very least want those prepared spells for something else too. i don't know about you, but even on my casters with more prepared spells, i find myself regularly thinking i could use yet even more. those early items that aren't that awesome, you're looking at a time where replacing them with spells has the highest cost. if i'm level 3 (note: one level AFTER getting access to the first set of items) and you ask me to devote a spell known and a precious level 2 spell slot on darkvision, don't be surprised if i don't seem very happy about it. if i'm level 5 and you want me to prepare water breathing just in case we come across some water that we'd like to explore, instead of preparing and using fireball or hypnotic pattern (or conjure animals, or spirit guardians, depending on class), don't be too surprised if i just straight up tell you no. yes, a caster potentially *could* have those spells handy, but they're not likely to in normal circumstances.

yes, that list could be better. i think it would be awesome if it had things like "formula for a philtre of love, max 2 in existence at any time" or "immovable rod" or maybe a few more wands on it. but it's not the entire class. it is just one of the things the class does.

[Regitnui]

. Quick fix might be allowing the Artificer to imbue items on a per 24 hour basis with any of the effects listed in Wondrous Invention. At level 10 they can make 3 Wondrous Inventions per day that last 24 hours a day, chosen in any combination from the 1, 5, and 10th level lists. That reduces the "roulette problem" if nothing else. The Artificer might wear a Helm of Comprehending Languages on a diplomatic mission...but not be stuck if they find one on a later dungeon crawl, or be stuck having it FOR that dungeon crawl where it is less likely to be useful.

I wouldn't choose the artificer for those 5 items either. I'd choose them for the potentially hundreds of temporary items they'd jury-rig like magical McGuyver through their Imbue Items feature.


When posters say that Artificers make magic items, they aren't just talking about Wondrous Inventions. Hang on to the Rogue's cap for a while and you can expend a spell slot to make it a temporary Hat of Disguise, or make his ring one of Invisibility to activate when he needs it. Or give the Monk a Potion of Growth that only lasts for a minute. No other caster has the ability to package up their spells so the other party members can use them when it is most convenient.

And this is the niche the Artificer fills. The UA pulls this off with flying colours. Rynjin, you don't like the artificer. Fine. But please don't think for a minute that other people don't. All we need is polish, an expanded spell list, and a little more fun with the homunculus/mechanical servant feature.

[Rynjin]

I wouldn't choose the artificer for those 5 items either. I'd choose them for the potentially hundreds of temporary items they'd jury-rig like magical McGuyver through their Imbue Items feature.

Perhaps this is just a difference in perspective. You see Infuse Magic as creating magic items...I see them as Alchemist nfusions (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo-alchemist-discoveries/infusion/) with a far more limited and slowly progressing spell list.

The fluff is irrelevant, and while some of the spells are quite useful, most if not all of them are not particularly hindered by needing to be cast by the caster.

So again you're left with a class feature that is neat, but nothing that justifies the class' existence on its own.

Again the Artificer has a bunch of neat little useful class features but in the best case scenario it takes an enormous hit to raw utility for a bit of QoL, which is a bad trade.

Maybe if you're of the opinion that a Wizard would turn their nose up at casting utility spells for...some reason, like SharkForce I can see why you might think the Artificer has a niche as a utility caster, but that has never been the case to my experience, even in 5e where casters are encouraged to blast.


Rynjin, you don't like the artificer. Fine. But please don't think for a minute that other people don't. All we need is polish, an expanded spell list, and a little more fun with the homunculus/mechanical servant feature.

Ah, no, this is another thing people frequently misunderstand. Generally when I critique (or less charitably, complain) about something a lot it's because I like it quite a bit, but I want it to be GOOD. My favorite Pathfinder class is the Monk. I complain about them a lot because they hold the position of one of the weakest classes in the game, but I LIKE them, they're fun to play and build. They're just not very good.

Artificer is kind of the same way. It's a breath of fresh air to have a 5e class that can actually make options besides Feats and your specialization at 3rd level. I'm enjoying playing one, and I can even stand the companion (though I'd still prefer the class without it, I hate having to keep track of an AC or familiar), but their utility is completely overshadowed by other casters in the party, and I don't see that changing at higher levels (I'm 5th now).

[8wGremlin]

So what would you like to see for the artificers then?

What would you like them to do.

[UrielAwakened]

There's a better homebrew version that turns the Construct into its own sub-class instead.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GeXkJY4hvfVEp1QXJCS3FVVjA/view

It's a big improvement over the UA version IMO.

[Rynjin]

So what would you like to see for the artificers then?

What would you like them to do.

Remove the companion from the base class and shunt it to a third Specialty.

Assuming they're unwilling to make true crafting adventure-viable (which is fair enough), I would like to see him be able to ACTUALLY make temporary magic items. Choosing from the base list and expanding by specialty would be interesting. It would make sense for Alchemists to have an easier time creating Potions (essentially functioning as a longer lasting, more limited version of Infuse Magic), the construct specialist having access to a wider range of utility items (weird **** like the Apparatus of the Crab, or a Flying Carpet), and the Gunsmith being able to grant their Thunder Cannon special weapon effects (one at a time) like a Javelin of Lightning effect or Mace of Disruption on days you know you'll be facing a lot of undead.

Give them the ability to transfer magic from one item to another. As an example, if the Barbarian is really into hammers but the only magic weapon he has is a +1 glaive, it'd be nice to have a class that can strip the magic from the glaive and put it on the hammer.

Expand the spell list significantly Either make it a 6-caster (which I don't think 5e has any of, actually) or give it expanded spell access, pulling from both Cleric and Wizard lists but only up to 4th level, for example.

And then some minor tweaks to each specialization to make them less all or nothing in the case of the Alchemist (perhaps make things like Acid require an attack roll, dealing full damage no save to a single target, then a reduced damage scaling and save for none on the splash), less focused on damage and more on battlefield control in the case of the Gunsmith (I've already posted some ideas in the thread), and...something for a hypothetical Construct based Specialty.

[Regitnui]

Remove the companion from the base class and shunt it to a third Specialty.

Assuming they're unwilling to make true crafting adventure-viable (which is fair enough), I would like to see him be able to ACTUALLY make temporary magic items. Choosing from the base list and expanding by specialty would be interesting. It would make sense for Alchemists to have an easier time creating Potions (essentially functioning as a longer lasting, more limited version of Infuse Magic), the construct specialist having access to a wider range of utility items (weird **** like the Apparatus of the Crab, or a Flying Carpet), and the Gunsmith being able to grant their Thunder Cannon special weapon effects (one at a time) like a Javelin of Lightning effect or Mace of Disruption on days you know you'll be facing a lot of undead.

Give them the ability to transfer magic from one item to another. As an example, if the Barbarian is really into hammers but the only magic weapon he has is a +1 glaive, it'd be nice to have a class that can strip the magic from the glaive and put it on the hammer.

Expand the spell list significantly Either make it a 6-caster (which I don't think 5e has any of, actually) or give it expanded spell access, pulling from both Cleric and Wizard lists but only up to 4th level, for example.

And then some minor tweaks to each specialization to make them less all or nothing in the case of the Alchemist (perhaps make things like Acid require an attack roll, dealing full damage no save to a single target, then a reduced damage scaling and save for none on the splash), less focused on damage and more on battlefield control in the case of the Gunsmith (I've already posted some ideas in the thread), and...something for a hypothetical Construct based Specialty.

So... Essentially what they'd do anyway to bring it up to standard? There's an awful lot of hate in this topic for your opinion to essentially be "finish it off".

Also, the Imbue Items is creating temporary magic items. One-use temporary items that can be passed on to any other party member. The artificer can spread the magic around. Or would you rather have a 3.5 crafting system where you sacrifice XP or "Craft Points" to create permanent magic items?

And the wizard would not prepare utility because the artificer can do it instead...

[Rynjin]

So... Essentially what they'd do anyway to bring it up to standard? There's an awful lot of hate in this topic for your opinion to essentially be "finish it off".

Are you sure they'd do any of that? I haven't heard a peep about it.


Also, the Imbue Items is creating temporary magic items. One-use temporary items that can be passed on to any other party member. The artificer can spread the magic around. Or would you rather have a 3.5 crafting system where you sacrifice XP or "Craft Points" to create permanent magic items?

I prefer the PF method where it's just gold, and magic items can be crafted in a matter of days (usually) instead of years.


And the wizard would not prepare utility because the artificer can do it instead...

Again, opportunity cost. You COULD have a 4-caster do the job, or you could instead have something that ISN'T an Artificer filling that 4th slot, and get 5 more spell levels of utility.

A party of Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Bard is better than one where the Bard is replaced by Artificer (or substitute Bard for another Wizard or Cleric or even a Druid). Particularly since a (Coast) Druid or Cleric or Wizard with a feat can just Ritual cast Water Breathing and not even use up a spell slot past preparing it. And both would have it available 8 levels earlier, and would not be spending their only 3rd level spell known at 13th level on a niche spell, they would simply be using one of their daily spells prepared on it and can get rid of it at the next Long Rest.

[SharkForce]

Maybe if you're of the opinion that a Wizard would turn their nose up at casting utility spells for...some reason, like SharkForce I can see why you might think the Artificer has a niche as a utility caster, but that has never been the case to my experience, even in 5e where casters are encouraged to blast.

blasting on any caster as a primary strategy is pretty terrible. there are situations where blasting is actually a good idea (large group of enemies clumped up, level 1 and everything dies to one hit, or you're talking about a warlock using eldritch blast), but broadly speaking, there is no caster that is genuinely encouraged to blast, or at least not using spell slots. enemies in 5e have way too many hit points apart from very low levels for blasting to ever be the most efficient use of spell slots. with bounded accuracy, that means enemies scale from hit points... meanwhile, your spell damage scales a lot slower.

again, this is not to suggest that damage dealing with spell slots is never good, especially if you're looking at damage with a rider (like evard's black tentacles or sunbeam) or sustained damage (like call lightning or flaming sphere or animate objects). but no, 5e does not encourage it. not for any class, really, no matter how much people get fixated on this nonsensical nuking sorcerer idea (it may have been a good idea in 4e, but it was *never* even close to being the most effective option in 3.x, and it still isn't in 5e). blasting is something that casters can frequently do, but it is not something they should specialize in. being able to lob a fireball in the situation where it's useful? that's a great ability. being able to cast scorching ray at all? uncomfortably close to useless. the martials have been doing that kind of thing better and cheaper than you since level 1. you're not made to be better at it than them, and in this edition, you *aren't* better at it than them. in fact, the whole reason artificer AoE is useful is that it has such a low cost that you actually *can* use it efficiently, in a way that a wizard or a sorcerer cannot, just like the warlock's eldritch blast allows them to concentrate a bit on blasting in ways that a wizard or a sorcerer cannot.

and frankly, the wizard casting utility spells is not the same at all as the artificer casting utility spells. not even close. when a wizard casts fly, that means the wizard is *not* casting hold person, or banishment, or wall of force, because they must concentrate on keeping fly active. when an artificer casts fly, they can just shove it into a cape, hand it to their friend who needs the spell, and the friend can do the concentrating while the artificer is free to concentrate on whatever else might be necessary. it's like having a bunch of rings of spell storing. that just isn't even remotely the same thing. the wizard that casts fly gives up much more than a spell slot. not to mention that, once again i must emphasize, the wizard CANNOT cast certain spells on other people. no matter how much they may wish to give blur to the front line warrior with 21 AC (plate mail, shield, defense style), no matter how much of a good idea it might be to actually this time use concentration on buffing that front line warrior instead of using it elsewhere, it simply cannot be done. an artificer, on the other hand, just hands them a hat, or a ring, or a belt, or a rock they picked up off the ground, and now that front line warrior can cast blur on themselves thanks to the artificer.

the artificer has a niche as a utility caster because it gets around concentration (sort of) by letting other people do that. no other class can do that, and it *is* an awesome ability. it can also allow you to get around other limitations; range, line of sight, target (again, self-only spells can be given to others by the artificer), even incapacitation (a paralyzed artificer who has handed out infused items can still see their spells get used). now, because that is such a core feature, the one unique thing that artificers get, in my opinion that should be expanded. that's why i think artificers should get at least 1/2 casting instead of 1/3 casting, and also why i think they should get a source of spell slot recovery at higher levels, so that they can do their one really unique thing more often.

[Rynjin]

Hm. You know, I'll give you that. I always forget about Concentration being such a big deal in 5e, that makes me like Infuse Magic a lot more.

I still don't think it makes Artificers the best utility casters, but I can see why you'd choose to have one now. Still think the class needs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more work though. As-is even with that in mind I'd still rather have a second Wizard or Cleric, or a Druid or Bard instead of an Artificer around.

[SharkForce]

Hm. You know, I'll give you that. I always forget about Concentration being such a big deal in 5e, that makes me like Infuse Magic a lot more.

I still don't think it makes Artificers the best utility casters, but I can see why you'd choose to have one now. Still think the class needs waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more work though. As-is even with that in mind I'd still rather have a second Wizard or Cleric, or a Druid or Bard instead of an Artificer around.

*shrug* they're not a druid, bard, wizard, or cleric equivalent. they're more filling the same spot as a rogue. and i for one would feel perfectly comfortable with an artificer instead of a rogue. or vice versa, really. each of them have their own advantages and disadvantages.