Artificer Now

[Amdy_vill]

Now that artificer has been out a while what do people think of it, how does it preform in your games and what are you hoping to see out of the class in the future.

[Damon_Tor]

Favorite class. By a wide margin.

I've played... eight, I think? Some for one shots, three long term Theorycrafted many more

They are the one class I feel very little desire to multiclass out of. It's versatile enough that the tank builds are great thanks, the dps builds are great dps, and the healer/buffer builds are great at that too. But to be clear, they aren't top contenders at any of this, they're the ultimate jack of all trades, and that's a fine thing: an Artificer in the party probably won't be the best at anything, but he's likely to be the second best at everything.

[rickayelm]

All in all I like them. I only see two problems with the class both of which are easily fixed.

1. They need some subclasses that are not tied to the technomagic setting of Eberon. Of the three presented in the book, only the alchemist is really appropriate for most of the settings I have played in.

2. The core +1 rule for adventures league makes it difficult to add more subclasses, or use the class in specific settings.

I believe they will have to rewrite the class in a setting neutral book in the future, and add subclasses that have nothing to due with technomagic.

[airless_wing]

Running a high level nautical campaign with two players, one an artificer.

They’ve always wanted to play a character like the Demolitionist from Atlantis, and he is absolutely satisfied with it. Hes rolling another one for a different campaign as well.

I find them to be well balanced overall: the bonus action Eldritch Cannon attack is nice; it allows artillerists to still be capable even with few spell slots, or if they’re constantly being Counterspelled.
It plays well with the party too; he’ll change his infusions regularly to assist the party rogue if they need something like a returning dagger.

I like it. It is a bit of a hassle to figure out what magical items you can create, but that’s just the bookkeeping task you’ve gotta pay.

It is wild how their tool expertises are: tinker gnome artificers in particular can get much tool expertise. I like it, as it allows a player to try and leverage their tools sets to make more checks.

[Azuresun]

I believe they will have to rewrite the class in a setting neutral book in the future, and add subclasses that have nothing to due with technomagic.

And while we're at it, I'd like to play a fighter who doesn't do any fighting, or a sorcerer who doesn't have to use sorcery.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Now that artificer has been out a while what do people think of it, how does it preform in your games and what are you hoping to see out of the class in the future.

Like most classes, I want to see more sub-classes.

I love the concept of half-casters as they much a much better design than full casters.

My favorite artificers feel like Alchemist (Full Metal Alchemist) and I've seen a few played that way and they've been fun.

[stoutstien]

Now that artificer has been out a while what do people think of it, how does it preform in your games and what are you hoping to see out of the class in the future.

It spent a lot of time in play testing and it shows. It filled the role it was designed to without stepping on the other classes toes.

I hope to see more Subclasses that focus more on support. A artificer who uses sound, one that focus on jewel/light, scientific food, and so on.
Lots of room for love.

[Ashrym]

I enjoy it. It does what it's supposed to, doesn't seem OP, and is fun.

XGtE makes more use of the tool proficiencies.

[Sception]

I like the artillerist and battlesmith. Alchemist, though, feels somewhat lacking. It doesn't have the kind of damage output the others have, and the extra support it brings doesn't really bring a lot either. A shame, since Alchemist is the most setting neutral subclass, thematically. Not terrible, but underwhelming. IMO alchemist relies overmuch on its subclasses for combat effectiveness, which is how an underwhelming subclass like alchemist becomes such a problem. By comparison an underwhelming paladin oath, wizard school, or cleric domain can still be a strong and effective character since they're still a paladin/wizard/cleric respectively.

But the other two subclasses are great, and even alchemist works fine with a bit of multiclassing. Overall alchemist is pretty cool. Nice to have another int caster class, nice to have another option for gishy builds, nice to have another class with thieve's tool proficiency built in. Lots to like.

[Warwick]

I'd rate it as serviceable, but it has some notable failings.


The spell list is kind of weak, especially the level 1/2 spells (which is what you'll be limited to for 90% of most campaigns).
I would generally concur with the evaluation that battle smith and artillerist are fine(ish), alchemist is weak (in particular, elixir effect size not scaling with level is pretty dire)
WotC was waaaay too conservative with the Replicate Magic Item infusion, which is kind of an issue with a class that's supposed to be an inventor/crafter. I understand they're trying to make it more digestible and gunshy from the 3.5E artificer rather than just dropping the full list of magic items on you and hoping you don't find a way to break the game, but are they really trying to tell me a Hat of Disguise or Ring of Jumping is so powerful you can't have it until level 10?
Needs more/more exciting infusions in general. +1 weapon/armor isn't bad, but it is hella lame. Again, this is supposed to be an inventor-type class.
Lack of Steel Defender-oriented infusions is an oversight/missed opportunity. How many players are going to want a robot dog but not want to be able to improve it?
Spell Storing Item is cool and potentially really good - among other things, a rare way to share concentration. Unfortunately, it comes online at level 10 (noticing a theme here?). This should come online at a lower level in a reduced form.
I am generally unimpressed with the 'just reflavor, lol' approach to artificer spell casting. It's safe but lame.


I actually think the Alchemist has a good idea structurally (roll randomly on this list of wacky one-off things for free, and you can spend spell slots to choose what you want), it's just pre-nerfed. Letting the artificer quickly knock out ramshackle/prototype magic gear with limited uses would go a long way towards improving the inventor/gadgeteer feel of the class.

[stoutstien]

Something to note is nothing stopping a player from applying infusions to their SD. Some are questionable on if it would work but most are pretty straight forward. The + str items are a pretty solid boost if that your thing.

[OnceIWasABard]

Right now the thing I'm hoping for most is that the Armorer subclass makes it through UA and becomes official. Maybe down the line add a subclass focusing on enhancing weapons, but without a pet attached.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Right now the thing I'm hoping for most is that the Armorer subclass makes it through UA and becomes official. Maybe down the line add a subclass focusing on enhancing weapons, but without a pet attached.

I hope we get a book of absolutely nothing but sub-classes. I'm talking like each class getting 10 each.

Slap armorer down as one for the Artificer.

[ZRN]

OK, I've read the class description a few times and it never really "clicked" for me, so honest question: what is an artillerist or alchemist supposed to do with their action every round in combat?

Armorer and Battlesmith get Extra Attack and some fighting buffs, so okay, they're supposed to be at least somewhat effective with weapons. And the artillerist can use his turret as a very cool bonus action. But what else are artillerists doing with their actions? And what are alchemists doing at all? They aren't really very good with weapons, they don't have high-level spells... what am I missing? Is there some synergy here that makes them effective in combat?

[rickayelm]

And while we're at it, I'd like to play a fighter who doesn't do any fighting, or a sorcerer who doesn't have to use sorcery.

I believe that you can have a pure fantasy artifice, there is nothing about specializing in creating magical items that requires technomagic. Examples include the dwarves who created divine weapons in Norse mythology as well as craft mages found in many fantasy books.

[stoutstien]

OK, I've read the class description a few times and it never really "clicked" for me, so honest question: what is an artillerist or alchemist supposed to do with their action every round in combat?

Armorer and Battlesmith get Extra Attack and some fighting buffs, so okay, they're supposed to be at least somewhat effective with weapons. And the artillerist can use his turret as a very cool bonus action. But what else are artillerists doing with their actions? And what are alchemists doing at all? They aren't really very good with weapons, they don't have high-level spells... what am I missing? Is there some synergy here that makes them effective in combat?

The artillerist gets a lot of mileage from dodging if they want to hang out on the front lines. The arcane firearm adds 1d8 to any damage spells so it's like a permanent free up casting. It applies to AOE spell as well.

The Alchemist had a little rougher time. If the wording of The elixir didn't prevent them from just applying them to other people as an action it would open it up a lot.

[Warwick]

The Artillerist gets boosted attack cantrips in the form of Arcane Firearm. The Alchemist is supposed to be using acid and poison spells when they're not using elixirs, but the feature that buffs them isn't very good.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I believe that you can have a pure fantasy artifice, there is nothing about specializing in creating magical items that requires technomagic. Examples include the dwarves who created divine weapons in Norse mythology as well as craft mages found in many fantasy books.

You can also play all the current ones without the technomagic aspect.

Artillerist is essentially a mega wand, claim the movement is a familiar carrying it.

Steel Defender is a small steel golem. Something common in D&D.

I know the artificer is flavored by Eberron since it came from there, but nothing in the kit is uniquely magi-tech.

[rickayelm]

You can always reflux your class features if the dm allows it, but that would be a house rule. I would prefer more subclasses that have a wider variety to be made.

[Damon_Tor]

Right now the thing I'm hoping for most is that the Armorer subclass makes it through UA and becomes official. Maybe down the line add a subclass focusing on enhancing weapons, but without a pet attached.

The trouble is, I have a hard time imagining what book they would publish it in. Their design philosophy so far has been that the only book you need is the PHB: for example, whenever they publish a subclass that references a non-PHB spell, they always republish that spell in the same book. So would they reprint the entire Artificer base class? It's hard to imagine. And the odds that they would publish a second official Eberron book also seems very low; historically the second book in a sequence always sells significantly worse than the first.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

You can always reflux your class features if the dm allows it, but that would be a house rule. I would prefer more subclasses that have a wider variety to be made.

I'm not refluxing anything though.

A Steel Defender's appearance and description is based on Player choice. The stat block just says Construct and has no specifics to any magi-tech.

The Turret is described as being able to have little legs, but that's not magi-tech, that's no different from any animated object being able to move. And again, it lists its appearance as being up to the player.

The "Firearm" is a tricked out wand. No gun required despite the one picture of an artificer gnome in the book.

Nothing in the class requires magi-tech. I've been playing one in a game without magi-tech for a while now and no one has cared.

[Yakmala]

Played an Artillerist in an Eberron campaign and really enjoyed it. Beyond the turrets and infusions, it was great having so many tool proficiencies! By Level 3, with the Mark of Making Dragonmark and the House Agent background, he had seven tool proficiencies and gained expertise in them at level 6.

I have a player with a Battlesmith in a game I'm currently running and they are doing great! They tank fairly well, especially with the Steel Defender using its reaction to give an enemy disadvantage. They attack at range with Firebolt, are the party's emergency healer, and can make magical weapons to deal with resistant creatures. The high intelligence attribute also makes them the party's go-to investigator and historian. Pretty much, they bring something to the table in almost every situation.

[Ashrym]

OK, I've read the class description a few times and it never really "clicked" for me, so honest question: what is an artillerist or alchemist supposed to do with their action every round in combat?

Armorer and Battlesmith get Extra Attack and some fighting buffs, so okay, they're supposed to be at least somewhat effective with weapons. And the artillerist can use his turret as a very cool bonus action. But what else are artillerists doing with their actions? And what are alchemists doing at all? They aren't really very good with weapons, they don't have high-level spells... what am I missing? Is there some synergy here that makes them effective in combat?

They often play like a warlock spamming cantrips and sometimes casting a spell.

[Pinba77]

You use your infusions to help party members? How so?

Because I've noticed a VERY important change between the Artificer from Unearthed Arcana and the published "Eberron Rising from the last war" (ERFTLW). The part where it used to say "If the item requires attunement, you can attune yourself to it the instant you infuse the item, or you can forgo attunement so that someone else can attune to the item." does not appear in ERFTLW.

It's very obvious that removing this text is intentional, meaning that it's no longer feasible/allowed.
I find this to be quite a nerf on the class, as it reduces even more its support role.

Can anyone CONFIRM or PROVE me wrong?




It plays well with the party too; he’ll change his infusions regularly to assist the party rogue if they need something like a returning dagger.

[Waterdeep Merch]

You use your infusions to help party members? How so?

Because I've noticed a VERY important change between the Artificer from Unearthed Arcana and the published "Eberron Rising from the last war" (ERFTLW). The part where it used to say "If the item requires attunement, you can attune yourself to it the instant you infuse the item, or you can forgo attunement so that someone else can attune to the item." does not appear in ERFTLW.

It's very obvious that removing this text is intentional, meaning that it's no longer feasible/allowed.
I find this to be quite a nerf on the class, as it reduces even more its support role.

Can anyone CONFIRM or PROVE me wrong?

Easy- show me the text proving that other people can't attune to your infusions.

Since they act as permanent magic items in all other ways than those prescribed vis a vis 'Infusing An Item', first paragraph, page 57, they obey all such rules except where specified. No specifications to the contrary concerning attunement means that they can be attuned to by someone other than the infuser.

[Evaar]

Nothing in the text says that you cannot hand an item to someone else, or that others cannot attune to it (the text you cite only adds an exception to the usual attunement rules; absent that exception we'd use the normal rules), or that you must maintain constant physical contact for the item to function, or that only you can activate the item.

Compare that to something like Flame Blade, which says: "You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action."

If you were not meant to be able to share these items, the text would say so. It would not rely on you knowing that a previous edition explicitly called out that others might use the items you create, and that that clause was removed.

[airless_wing]

Not all infused items require Attunement, such as the returning weapons.

I'm seeing the text say, "If the item requires attunement, you can attune yourself to it the instant you infuse the item. If you decide to attune to the item later, you must do so using the normal process for attunement".
While that does specify 'you' as in the artificer, I don't see why the normal process for Attunement wouldn't be available to other players.
But, that could be considered a DM ruling. The scholars on the RAW threads might be able to get to the bottom of that one.

[Dudu]

Currently playing as a Battlesmith Gnome riding his Steel Defender. It's a blast.

After 5 lvls of Battlesmith I'll probably start investing in an Abjurer though. I feel a bit gimped playing as a half-caster.

[stoutstien]

Currently playing as a Battlesmith Gnome riding his Steel Defender. It's a blast.

After 5 lvls of Battlesmith I'll probably start investing in an Abjurer though. I feel a bit gimped playing as a half-caster.

I'd go at least to 11. The HP of the steel defender wouldn't hold up with only 5 lvs in artificer and SSI is a blast.

The lv 9 healings jolt is probably the best action economy heal in game at the moment.