Thorn Whip for Wizards, worth it?

[Merudo]

For a Wizard, multiclassing into Artificer gives access to the Thorn Whip cantrip. Is it worth getting it?

As a Druid I nearly always pick up the Thorn Whip cantrip, for the CC it can provide.

However Wizards have access to much better cantrips (Fire Bolt, Toll the Dead, etc) than the Wizard, so there is a less of a need for the Whip. Is it still worth taking?

[BloodBrandy]

For a Wizard, multiclassing into Artificer gives access to the Thorn Whip cantrip. Is it worth getting it?

As a Druid I nearly always pick up the Thorn Whip cantrip, for the CC it can provide.

However Wizards have access to much better cantrips (Fire Bolt, Toll the Dead, etc) than the Wizard, so there is a less of a need for the Whip. Is it still worth taking?

Well, you could also just ask if your DM would allow you to use Magic Initiate for Artificer.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

For a Wizard, multiclassing into Artificer gives access to the Thorn Whip cantrip. Is it worth getting it?

As a Druid I nearly always pick up the Thorn Whip cantrip, for the CC it can provide.

However Wizards have access to much better cantrips (Fire Bolt, Toll the Dead, etc) than the Wizard, so there is a less of a need for the Whip. Is it still worth taking?

Most Wizards don't want enemies closer to them. If you attack a creature with an ally in between you and the target, the target gets a +2 to the AC.

So it takes a lot of positioning to get things right and have the wizard not be the next target for the creature.

Pass on it with a Wizard.

[stoutstien]

Most Wizards don't want enemies closer to them. If you attack a creature with an ally in between you and the target, the target gets a +2 to the AC.

So it takes a lot of positioning to get things right and have the wizard not be the next target for the creature.

Pass on it with a Wizard.

No quite. Regardless of reach, it is a Melee spell attack so half cover is not an issue.
Is it worth it will depend on how much you value forced movement.

[JackPhoenix]

No quite. Regardless of reach, it is a Melee spell attack so half cover is not an issue..

Cover applies every time someone (or something) is between you and the target, it doesn't matter if it's melee or ranged attack.

[stoutstien]

Cover applies every time someone (or something) is between you and the target, it doesn't matter if it's melee or ranged attack.

Huh, guess you are correct. I guess I took one look at it and said if an unbroken line can be drawn from user to target than cover isn't an issue. Same reasoning that a pixie can provide cover for a giant.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Huh, guess you are correct. I guess I took one look at it and said if an unbroken line can be drawn from user to target than cover isn't an issue. Same reasoning that a pixie can provide cover for a giant.

One of the most forgotten rules, or ignored, is that allies count as partial cover for enemies.

There's a reason Archery style gives you a +2 to attack and partial cover happens to give a +2 AC.

[stoutstien]

One of the most forgotten rules, or ignored, is that allies count as partial cover for enemies.

There's a reason Archery style gives you a +2 to attack and partial cover happens to give a +2 AC.

Ranged attacks make sense but melee I'm at a lose. I broke my own rule and applied real world logic. Where an arrow only has one pivot point and once fired cannot change paths a melee attack has four or more pivots and can adjust constantly.

Probably just my subconscious way of giving Melee a little edge over ranged attacks.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ranged attacks make sense but melee I'm at a lose. I broke my own rule and applied real world logic. Where an arrow only has one pivot point and once fired cannot change paths a melee attack has four or more pivots and can adjust constantly.

Probably just my subconscious way of giving Melee a little edge over ranged attacks.

Theres a body between you and who you're trying to attack, you don't have that many options to hit the target without hitting the one between you. In fast paced combat it's even more hectic.

Same with a tree, small wall, or whatever else. Hell, you're more likely to hit the cover than the target.

I have no clue how someone could have a disconnect with this.

[stoutstien]

Theres a body between you and who you're trying to attack, you don't have that many options to hit the target without hitting the one between you. In fast paced combat it's even more hectic.

Same with a tree, small wall, or whatever else. Hell, you're more likely to hit the cover than the target.

I have no clue how someone could have a disconnect with this.

Real life experience with weapons. A lot of polearm weapons were specifically designed to hit targets behind others. It's a common strategy to use the cover as a pivot point for the energy of the weapon. a lot of times it's actually easier to hit a Target behind another one due to reduce reaction time.
It's still used in modern riot control strategies.

From an in-game view it's kind of unfair that ranged attackers have access to a feet that bypass cover why melee attackers do not. Adds another notch of advantage on an already long list that range has over melee.

[Mikal]

Real life experience with weapons. A lot of polearm weapons were specifically designed to hit targets behind others. It's a common strategy to use the cover as a pivot point for the energy of the weapon. a lot of times it's actually easier to hit a Target behind another one due to reduce reaction time.
It's still used in modern riot control strategies.

From an in-game view it's kind of unfair that ranged attackers have access to a feet that bypass cover why melee attackers do not. Adds another notch of advantage on an already long list that range has over melee.

Meh. Real life doesn’t matter much when discussing a world where the laws of thermodynamics are repeatedly broken by 1st level characters.

And regardless, even if a weapon is designed to attack someone with another person in the way that doesn’t mean it’s not harder to do so. Even an ally who is in the way will impede your effort to attack someone between you and that ally.

[stoutstien]

Meh. Real life doesn’t matter much when discussing a world where the laws of thermodynamics are repeatedly broken by 1st level characters.

And regardless, even if a weapon is designed to attack someone with another person in the way that doesn’t mean it’s not harder to do so. Even an ally who is in the way will impede your effort to attack someone between you and that ally.

That's why I mentioned the mechanical balance point of view. Using ranged weapons is already Superior the majority of the time. Melee weapon users need some edge at least in one area. Allowing them to bypass Minor cover seems like a small concession.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Meh. Real life doesn’t matter much when discussing a world where the laws of thermodynamics are repeatedly broken by 1st level characters.

And regardless, even if a weapon is designed to attack someone with another person in the way that doesn’t mean it’s not harder to do so. Even an ally who is in the way will impede your effort to attack someone between you and that ally.

Both of these. +1

[No brains]

For a Wizard, multiclassing into Artificer gives access to the Thorn Whip cantrip. Is it worth getting it?

As a Druid I nearly always pick up the Thorn Whip cantrip, for the CC it can provide.

However Wizards have access to much better cantrips (Fire Bolt, Toll the Dead, etc) than the Wizard, so there is a less of a need for the Whip. Is it still worth taking?

Consider your other assets and your allies.

If you have enough mobility to get around your allies either from race or from expeditious retreat, you have more ways to control where an enemy will go. Likewise if you have spells that are most useful when enemies go near them like spike growth, thorn whip may be useful... also if your DM forgets/ decides not to add cover from allies, it's less of an issue.

Speaking of those allies, who benefits from having an enemy pulled closer to/ past them? Do they have abilities that work better when they have an enemy right next to them right away? As a wizard/ artificer, you're probably not going to have the responsibility of pulling enemies away from less squishy allies.


Theres a body between you and who you're trying to attack, you don't have that many options to hit the target without hitting the one between you. In fast paced combat it's even more hectic.

Same with a tree, small wall, or whatever else. Hell, you're more likely to hit the cover than the target.

I have no clue how someone could have a disconnect with this.

In the same way that a boxer can throw a hook around an opponent's blocking arms, a giant could conceivably throw a hook all the way around a tree to hit someone behind it.

Sure, that's not the rules nor a perfect analogy. It can be expressed by the giant having more squares to draw attack lines from or just having a high enough attack bonus to hit reliably even with cover, but I had fun thinking up that image.

[stoutstien]

Your disconnect is strong.

When working, specifically as a team, you can get good teamwork. However, this isn't what is happening. Running up and attacking with someone in between you and your target is not the same thing as having a formation.

I love it when people have "real life experiences" with weapons and then explains something wrong, moves a goalpost, or ignores what is actually happening. Like, having experiences with weapons means you know what you're talking about. Plenty of people have experiences with driving, but they drive wrong.



Both of these. +1

So two players can't coordinate attacks in the same way? "Frank duck!" Doesn't seem like too complex for two individual who spend the majority of their life together to pull off on a regular basis.
We're talking about a group of people who swing weapons for a living. So using the driver analogy we're talking about a team of professional racers. Not 5:00 traffic.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Consider your other assets and your allies.

If you have enough mobility to get around your allies either from race or from expeditious retreat, you have more ways to control where an enemy will go. Likewise if you have spells that are most useful when enemies go near them like spike growth, thorn whip may be useful... also if your DM forgets/ decides not to add cover from allies, it's less of an issue.

Speaking of those allies, who benefits from having an enemy pulled closer to/ past them? Do they have abilities that work better when they have an enemy right next to them right away? As a wizard/ artificer, you're probably not going to have the responsibility of pulling enemies away from less squishy allies.



In the same way that a boxer can throw a hook around an opponent's blocking arms, a giant could conceivably throw a hook all the way around a tree to hit someone behind it.

Sure, that's not the rules nor a perfect analogy. It can be expressed by the giant having more squares to draw attack lines from or just having a high enough attack bonus to hit reliably even with cover, but I had fun thinking up that image.

Boxer example is NOT the same thing.

A whole person, or tree, is a seperate entity and is making it harder to hit your target. It is taking up way more space than someone's arms. The arms aren't going to stop a sword. Hitting their arms is a very valid thing to do with a pointy stick as you will then get through to the juicy center.

You're also forgetting that the target you are attacking and the creature you are attack around aren't standing perfectly still.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So two players can't coordinate attacks in the same way? "Frank duck!" Doesn't seem like too complex for two individual who spend the majority of their life together to pull off on a regular basis.
We're talking about a group of people who swing weapons for a living. So using the driver analogy we're talking about a team of professional racers. Not 5:00 traffic.

Now you're changing goal posts. You're changing the stipulations of what is going on.

If Frank drops prone (free), or uses a reaction (held Action) to move out of the way, then yes the enemy wouldn't have partial cover.

Because Frank wouldn't be in the way.

But while Frank is in the way, he's granting the enemy partial cover.

[stoutstien]

Consider your other assets and your allies.

If you have enough mobility to get around your allies either from race or from expeditious retreat, you have more ways to control where an enemy will go. Likewise if you have spells that are most useful when enemies go near them like spike growth, thorn whip may be useful... also if your DM forgets/ decides not to add cover from allies, it's less of an issue.

Speaking of those allies, who benefits from having an enemy pulled closer to/ past them? Do they have abilities that work better when they have an enemy right next to them right away? As a wizard/ artificer, you're probably not going to have the responsibility of pulling enemies away from less squishy allies.



In the same way that a boxer can throw a hook around an opponent's blocking arms, a giant could conceivably throw a hook all the way around a tree to hit someone behind it.

Sure, that's not the rules nor a perfect analogy. It can be expressed by the giant having more squares to draw attack lines from or just having a high enough attack bonus to hit reliably even with cover, but I had fun thinking up that image.

That actually brings up an interesting conflict. Say a creature with a 10 ft reach like a using a natural weapon would have to deal with cover on an attack but would have no problem actually grappling the target. I disconnect with creatures like a giant octopus that has a grapple on hit effect.

[Chronos]

If you really want a cantrip that can pull things towards you, Lightning Lash (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) is already on the wizard list.

[stoutstien]

Now you're changing goal posts. You're changing the stipulations of what is going on.

If Frank drops prone (free), or uses a reaction (held Action) to move out of the way, then yes the enemy wouldn't have partial cover.

Because Frank wouldn't be in the way.

But while Frank is in the way, he's granting the enemy partial cover.
There is no goal post moved. You don't need three foot of opening to get a weapon past somebody. Realistically you need inches so dropping prone is not needed. I guess if you play the game like a turn-based RPG where no one can move at the same time that you can I can see your view.
The idea that anyone takes up the entire grid on a board is purely there as a reference. Two medium allies standing in a row can very easily find and clear path for a weapon past each other momentarily within a given segment of time.
A party learning to work as a team is not something I'm going to punish or hamper. The iconic image of a hero on the front line protecting their allies is already almost mechanically impossible why kick it while it's down.

[HiveStriker]

For a Wizard, multiclassing into Artificer gives access to the Thorn Whip cantrip. Is it worth getting it?

As a Druid I nearly always pick up the Thorn Whip cantrip, for the CC it can provide.

However Wizards have access to much better cantrips (Fire Bolt, Toll the Dead, etc) than the Wizard, so there is a less of a need for the Whip. Is it still worth taking?
I was gonna say "no", but if you can grab it as an INT-based cantrip, then YES, *thousand times YES".

Its main drawback is the mediocre range, which makes it kinda complex to use as a Druid which has, errm, well, nothing better really (barring niche use of Magic Stones).
As a Wizard, which also access many great ranged cantrips, it fits perfectly as the middle ground between "I play safe and laugh at my enemies while burning/freezing them with Firebolt/Ray of Frost" and "I don't laugh anymore at all, I'll try to escape from melee enemy (or finish him ^^) with Shocking Grasp".

Now, if the question was "is it worth enough to justify dipping into Artificer", probably definitely not (not familiar with Artificer, but no cantrip is worth enough by itself to deny a whole level of class features ^^).
If the question is "I'm gonna dip into Artificer, would Thorns Whip be a good choice", again, yes.

Enjoy ;=)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There is no goal post moved. You don't need three foot of opening to get a weapon past somebody. Realistically you need inches so dropping prone is not needed. I guess if you play the game like a turn-based RPG where no one can move at the same time that you can I can see your view.
The idea that anyone takes up the entire grid on a board is purely there as a reference. Two medium allies standing in a row can very easily find and clear path for a weapon past each other momentarily within a given segment of time.
A party learning to work as a team is not something I'm going to punish or hamper. The iconic image of a hero on the front line protecting their allies is already almost mechanically impossible why kick it while it's down.

Whatever game you like to play that's fine, but I was assuming we were talking 5e D&D, my bad.

[stoutstien]

Whatever game you like to play that's fine, but I was assuming we were talking 5e D&D, my bad.

In that case there's nothing that absolutely states that creature's provide cover. it specifically says 'can provide cover'. This suggests that this is a case-by-case ruling not a constant.
So a DM, in no way, restricted by the rules to say there's the impossibility of a momentary opening that doesn't cover half the target. heck, the player can jump and attack over the cover RAW. Which is more ridiculous?

[HiveStriker]

-----------------
Re: Lightning Lure VS Thorns Whip

If you really want a cantrip that can pull things towards you, Lightning Lash (Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide) is already on the wizard list.
True also, but they are actually more different than it seems.

1. Barring the damage effect, Lightning Lure targets STR save: whether it's better or worse than a plain attack is up to oneself to decide.
From what I see around though, many people tend to expect STR-save spells to lose efficiency in a steep manner above level 10 or so. Of course, one could argue from that level onwards you should not expect much of any cantrip (and not often have rounds when it's your best option) anyways... ^^
BUT, at least attack can benefit from advantage, which can be kinda a big deal in some party setups. Especially since Thorns Whip qualify as a *melee* attack, so unless I'm greatly mistaken, you still get advantage on a prone target irrelevant of the fact you're actually further than 5-10 feet away.
Also, in case a Wizard would like to grab Spell Sniper for building reasons, TW also benefits from it, which brings to the next point.

2. LL is only 15 feet. TW is 30. Difference may not seem much, and indeed it is insignificant when you fight high CR creatures at level 14+ (then again, confer previous point: why are you still using action on cantrips? XD).
Against regular enemies, and paired with a simple and cheap Longstrider, it makes the difference between "keeping away from harm" and "being in range from harm".
Because 30 feet is still the most common walking speed among creatures, and rare are those that could move as a bonus action (Dash/movement spell).
Since neither spell *imposes* you to actually move the creature, you can simply keep at optimum distance round after round while inflicting damage.
Which brings to the last point.

3. The one thing that makes LL much, much less useful than TW imo: *damage is applied ONLY if by the end of the spell effect the targeted creature ends within 5 feet of you*.
a) This can be very bothersome in essence because as said above you don't always actually want to move a creature.
b) IMX, being within 5 feet of an enemy is bad for any Wizard (even Bladesinger, even Abjurer). You simply do not want anyone hostile less than 20 feet away from you at any time, stat (barring very, very specific niche builds or an armored multiclass).


TL;DR: only potential advantage of LL is the damage type. Besides that, in most situations except very high AC enemies with no advantage source (in which case you'll probably spend most actions on leveled spells anyways), TW is simply easier and more reliable to work with.

-----------------
Re: Ranged VS melee attacks

Ranged attacks make sense but melee I'm at a lose. I broke my own rule and applied real world logic. Where an arrow only has one pivot point and once fired cannot change paths a melee attack has four or more pivots and can adjust constantly.

Probably just my subconscious way of giving Melee a little edge over ranged attacks.
To be fair it doesn't happen that often. ^^
The most usual case of cover in melee that I witness is when bar fights suddenly erupt and people start trying to smack each other from table sides. ^^


Real life experience with weapons. A lot of polearm weapons were specifically designed to hit targets behind others. It's a common strategy to use the cover as a pivot point for the energy of the weapon. a lot of times it's actually easier to hit a Target behind another one due to reduce reaction time.
It's still used in modern riot control strategies.

From an in-game view it's kind of unfair that ranged attackers have access to a feet that bypass cover why melee attackers do not. Adds another notch of advantage on an already long list that range has over melee.
You could add to that that it's usually more dangerous for your own health to be in melee.

On another hand, melee is also the style that gives you a more or less reliable way to generate advantage (Shove), a usually reliable way to cancel cover provided you have enough speed (jump over, move around), and one that allows other useful tactics as long as DM plays fair (like the Grapple over mouth to block verbal components).

Annnnd also the style that gives access to some powerful nova abilities (*cough* Smite *cough* although not only, also Barbarian's rage and some spells/features).

Sooo... I'd say it's fairer than you paint it. ^^

-----------------
Re: Tactical uses of pulling effect



Speaking of those allies, who benefits from having an enemy pulled closer to/ past them? Do they have abilities that work better when they have an enemy right next to them right away? As a wizard/ artificer, you're probably not going to have the responsibility of pulling enemies away from less squishy allies.
Pulling an enemy away from an ally is an obvious use-case indeed.
On that note, it's not always the squishy you want to protect: sometimes even the tankiest of the group is in bad enough shape that you want to give him some space to fall back without having to "waste" his action on Disengage/Dodge.

That is not the whole though. Common other use-cases...

- Setting enemies close to one another to enable "next in turn" ally's feature (melee Hunter Ranger, setting up a Cleave manoeuver -don't recall exact name-, or even a Twinned Booming Blade/Chill Touch or simple Acid Splash/Green Flame Blade) or getting one more creature in the AOE (like pulling "on the right side" of the delimitation of an Hypnotic Pattern / Fireball).

- Optimizing melee ally movement: like, you expect your Paladin/Barbarian to finish off one enemy with part of his Attack, but the "next in line" thought he was smart by putting itself just beyond your pal's walking range. Well, you'll outsmart him.
Same line of thinking can be used to optimize "off-turn" of friends, like putting a big guy in the threatening range of a Sentinel pal.
You could even plan ahead a bit so that any "regular" (non-Sentinel) pal who simply couldn't move enough to reach melee, instead of Dashing and count on an OA... Readied an action "I attack as soon as that enemy enters my reach" (especially nice for a Rogue / Paladin / melee gish with smite/whispers/upcast Shadow BLade/active smite spell).

[nickl_2000]

Back to the OP

It would be nice to have as a wizard, but you have lightning lure already that works in a similar situation. Given that you have that available, though it spent seem worth the investment of a dip or feat.

Now, if there was something else you wanted out of an artificer dip, then sure go for it.

[BloodBrandy]

Having taken some time to think on it, here's a more expanded opinion.

for a Wizard, a dip into Artificer is worth a lot. One level gives you light and medium armor proficiency as well as proficiency with shield, tinker tools and thieves tools. All of this can be very useful for an adventuring wizard. The armor and shield give a good cover for your squishiness, and thieves tools are good for when you don't feel like having Knock prepared. Tinker Tools are a bit less openly useful, but some discussion with your DM over what you can do with them can open a whole world of neat little tinkerings.

One level will also give you a wide list of Artificer spells you can just prepare whenever, and if your DM allows you can probably skip the scrolls and add your prepared Artificer spells to your Wizard books, if they are also Wizard spells, which eventually opens up your Artificer spells prepared to just be ones you can't use as a Wizard, like Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire or Sanctuary, while on your Wizard level up spell gains you can just focus on spells you can't get from Artificer.

Given multiclassing rules, that gives you the ability to play a decent back up support if your normal one goes down, and the fact that you can use Cure Wounds through your Familiar is just gravy.

For Thorn Whip itself, that's difficult to say. It would depend heavily on your team and your character. A druid is a lot more hearty than a Wizard, but the dip into artificer gives you a much more solid chance of defense than the usual Wizard, though you still have the Wizard HP for the most part. If you have other squishier teammates, like a Sorcerer or two, then yeah, might be worth taking, though there may be other cantrips better for you depending on your team.

I would also suggest taking 2 levels in Artificer rather than 1, as that second level gives you 4 Infusions known, 2 of which you can have active at any given time. Enhanced Arcane Focus for your spells, Enhanced Defense on your armor or shield, maybe Enhanced Weapon for one of your allies, or take a couple of Magic Item duplicates from the first table. All that and that extra bit of HP from the beefier Artificer hit die.

1 level in artificer gives a wizard a lot, but 2 is a major boon.

[stoutstien]

Having taken some time to think on it, here's a more expanded opinion.

for a Wizard, a dip into Artificer is worth a lot. One level gives you light and medium armor proficiency as well as proficiency with shield, tinker tools and thieves tools. All of this can be very useful for an adventuring wizard. The armor and shield give a good cover for your squishiness, and thieves tools are good for when you don't feel like having Knock prepared. Tinker Tools are a bit less openly useful, but some discussion with your DM over what you can do with them can open a whole world of neat little tinkerings.

One level will also give you a wide list of Artificer spells you can just prepare whenever, and if your DM allows you can probably skip the scrolls and add your prepared Artificer spells to your Wizard books, if they are also Wizard spells, which eventually opens up your Artificer spells prepared to just be ones you can't use as a Wizard, like Cure Wounds, Faerie Fire or Sanctuary, while on your Wizard level up spell gains you can just focus on spells you can't get from Artificer.

Given multiclassing rules, that gives you the ability to play a decent back up support if your normal one goes down, and the fact that you can use Cure Wounds through your Familiar is just gravy.

For Thorn Whip itself, that's difficult to say. It would depend heavily on your team and your character. A druid is a lot more hearty than a Wizard, but the dip into artificer gives you a much more solid chance of defense than the usual Wizard, though you still have the Wizard HP for the most part. If you have other squishier teammates, like a Sorcerer or two, then yeah, might be worth taking, though there may be other cantrips better for you depending on your team.

I would also suggest taking 2 levels in Artificer rather than 1, as that second level gives you 4 Infusions known, 2 of which you can have active at any given time. Enhanced Arcane Focus for your spells, Enhanced Defense on your armor or shield, maybe Enhanced Weapon for one of your allies, or take a couple of Magic Item duplicates from the first table. All that and that extra bit of HP from the beefier Artificer hit die.

1 level in artificer gives a wizard a lot, but 2 is a major boon.

It is of note that unlike other half casters artificer rounds up so if a player does settle with just the single level there's no loss in spell progression.

[BloodBrandy]

It is of note that unlike other half casters artificer rounds up so if a player does settle with just the single level there's no loss in spell progression.

My books says you round down

[stoutstien]

My books says you round down

Hiding on pg 54 in ERFLW. Under optional rules

[HappyDaze]

Hiding on pg 54 in ERFLW. Under optional rules

I'm hoping that one gets errata'd to "round down" just for consistency.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm hoping that one gets errata'd to "round down" just for consistency.

The Artificer isn't a conventional half caster though, they're more geared around casting than a Paladin or Ranger (casting at 1st level,cantrips, ritual casting) and that is reflected in rounding up.

[BloodBrandy]

Hiding on pg 54 in ERFLW. Under optional rules

My mistake, I was thinking Spells Prepared

[col_impact]

Totally worth it. Being a wizard/druid is totally worth it. 17/3 or 17/2/1, 18/2, or even 19/1 is a good split for maximum spell versatility.

Goodberry, farie fire, shillelagh, healing word, guidance, medium armor, and shields are a pretty strong pick up for a class that hits max cap at level 17 when it secures level 9 spells.

Goodberry is crazy good.

[djreynolds]

Why not? If you use intelligence for the attack roll, that's good. Nothing resists this like most cantrips other than EB and sacred flame (which it seems every enemy passes)

It doesn't have to be your go to spell. But its 30ft range and there is no save to pull the creature, and it doesn't say its restrained or grappled. So if you are flying you can pull a large to small creature and potentially drop them (AFB) not bad.

If you have enemy at a choke point, even pulling one out of there helps positioning. If there is any annoying archer or caster you just cannot get to, perhaps positioned behind a wall of enemy... now thorn whip him to your comrades

So its a tool in your bag of tricks. Think of a reason you may need this cantrip... and then you'll likely need it.

[FabulousFizban]

does thorn whip trigger opportunity attacks?

[Ventruenox]

does thorn whip trigger opportunity attacks?

No, since it is forced movement.

[Chronos]

On the other hand, forced movement can get you an extra instance of damage from many hazardous-area spells, like Spirit Guardians.

[nickl_2000]

On the other hand, forced movement can get you an extra instance of damage from many hazardous-area spells, like Spirit Guardians.

But when lightning lure does the same thing is it really worth a dip? And yes I know that thorn whip is a better spell in most situations.

[Ventruenox]

But when lightning lure does the same thing is it really worth a dip?

Simply for the spell? No. Even though Thorn Whip has twice the range of Lightning Lure and keys off an attack roll instead of a Strength save, it would be all the other goodies that the Artificer brings that makes the dip worthwhile.