Massive buff for Artificer [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Teaguethebean

2021-05-20, 12:23 PM

Dork_Forge

2021-05-20, 12:30 PM

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 12:34 PM

Err, why are we comparing the damage of Tier 2 Clerics to Artificers at all?

Do you feel like the damage of the Artificer is lacking or something? Is this a feeling or did you do a comparison and were dissatisfied with the results?

Artificers are essentially already 2/3 casters since you round them up when MCing, they get casting at 1st level and they get cantrips by default. They're a pretty well designed class to begin with, giving them any degree of a buff hazards into OP territory.

They're half casters who get spellcasting at level 1 and they get cantrips. That's the only difference between them and Paladins/Rangers in terms of (a) slots and (b) spell levels. Calling them 2/3rds casters is wrong.

Teaguethebean

2021-05-20, 12:37 PM

Err, why are we comparing the damage of Tier 2 Clerics to Artificers at all?
I feel like they were both designed as support classes with blasting options making their comparison rather prudent. The more I play artificers the more I realize a cleric could do it better.

Do you feel like the damage of the Artificer is lacking or something? Is this a feeling or did you do a comparison and were dissatisfied with the results?

While direct comparisons to other classes seems to show that the artificer lags behind every class (besides monk) in most anything that class is meant to do this is supposed to be countered by the artificer being a jack of all trades. Though we know how dnd works and being able to do 2 things half as good as 2 people each is a waste of time because you have limited actions, this is why an evoker spell sword simply never exists in 5e, your better off doing what your good at.

Artificers are essentially already 2/3 casters since you round them up when MCing, they get casting at 1st level and they get cantrips by default. They're a pretty well designed class to begin with, giving them any degree of a buff hazards into OP territory.
The cantrips are their consolation for not getting a fighting style giving them another mediocre tool to their kit, and they very much are not a 2/3 caster because they cast spells at lv1.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-20, 12:41 PM

They're half casters who get spellcasting at level 1 and they get cantrips. That's the only difference between them and Paladins/Rangers in terms of (a) slots and (b) spell levels. Calling them 2/3rds casters is wrong.

They use half their level rounded up for determining MC caster level, where as the Paladin and Ranger round down. So they get access to more magic, earlier and carry more weight in multiclassing.

That certainly seems like more than a half caster to me.

Ganryu

2021-05-20, 12:42 PM

Meh, the Artificer in our party's probably the 2nd strongest one out of six.

Thing is, artificers get a lot for not having spell progression.

Alchemist is a bit weak, but other 3 get extra attack of some sort (turrets for artillerist)

Armorer has more Ac than anyone else and is a great tank

Battlesmith is battlefield support, and a SAD half caster

Artillerists get get cantrip power, and cover with their turrets.
And all of them can switch out infusions easily.

If you're going to buff them, give them active infusions equal to a warlocks invocations. No need to redesign spellcasting in general.

Still, there's a reason you hear so many artificers mentioned in shenanigans threads.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 12:44 PM

MrStabby

2021-05-20, 01:07 PM

I feel like they were both designed as support classes with blasting options making their comparison rather prudent. The more I play artificers the more I realize a cleric could do it better.

While direct comparisons to other classes seems to show that the artificer lags behind every class (besides monk) in most anything that class is meant to do this is supposed to be countered by the artificer being a jack of all trades. Though we know how dnd works and being able to do 2 things half as good as 2 people each is a waste of time because you have limited actions, this is why an evoker spell sword simply never exists in 5e, your better off doing what your good at.

The cantrips are their consolation for not getting a fighting style giving them another mediocre tool to their kit, and they very much are not a 2/3 caster because they cast spells at lv1.

I agree that specialism is usually better but the artificer may be the exception. Normally you can only use an action for one thing so it is only your best thing that counts. The artificer is good at many roles due to what their invocations bring, I.e. they are good in a way that doesn't stop them simultaneously being good at something else. I am also curious as to how you weighed these infusions against cleric abilities.

One thing that the artificer is... ok at is healing. But this is also an area that gets massively diminishing returns on specialisation. Once you get a friend back on their feet an extra few HP is not such a big deal.

And then artificers often have access to great specialist spells that are rarer for clerics; Faerie Fire and heat metal spring to mind. But add to this that they can switch infusions to give the party just what they expect to need on a coming day.

I also think the artificer has a lot of power in the subclasses. Comparing artificer to cleric is probably misleading; comparing a battlesmith to to war cleric make more sense, or an alchemist to a life cleric or whatever. Missing out on the really powerful subclass abilities is potentially a big error.

And then there are abilities like stroke of genius - 30ft radius and help in checks and saves? Absolutely awesome if a bit of a specialist tool.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-20, 01:09 PM

I feel like they were both designed as support classes with blasting options making their comparison rather prudent. The more I play artificers the more I realize a cleric could do it better.

They do lean into the support role, but I'm failing to see how a Cleric does it outright better. Are you factoring in infusions into this at all or are you just comparing them to a full caster based on their casting?

While direct comparisons to other classes seems to show that the artificer lags behind every class (besides monk) in most anything that class is meant to do this is supposed to be countered by the artificer being a jack of all trades. Though we know how dnd works and being able to do 2 things half as good as 2 people each is a waste of time because you have limited actions, this is why an evoker spell sword simply never exists in 5e, your better off doing what your good at.

What on earth are you talking about, what comparisons show that they lag behind every class but the Monk? ...The Monk is the martial with arguably the strongest showing in Tier 1. If you're going to make these claims then an actual comparison would help illustrate why you feel this way.

The cantrips are their consolation for not getting a fighting style giving them another mediocre tool to their kit, and they very much are not a 2/3 caster because they cast spells at lv1.

Cantrips are not a consolation, they are showing that whilst Rangers and Paladins are martial first, the base Artificer class is caster first.

I gave you three reasons why, you haven't even addressed their better MCing formula, which is where the half caster stuff comes from to begin with.

Half their level rounded up you say? Sounds pretty much exactly like what one would expect from a half caster... And how does this help, you know, and Artificer who isn't multiclassing? They still just have half-caster slots and half-caster max spell level, exactly like the other half casters. (Big deal, their level 1 is different. They get cantrips instead of a fighting style... but in Tasha's their fellow half-casters already get that option anyway.)

Where do you think half caster comes from? ...The MCing formula, because it isn't what they actually get.

They get cantrips at first level, vs a fighting style at second level. Optional rules later adding the option of cantrips does not change the core design.

Their spell lists are even drastically different, both the Ranger and Paladin lists lean into supporting their martial design whereas the Artificer is more just a blend of the arcane and divine fullcaster lists with a leaning on control/support effects.

MoiMagnus

2021-05-20, 01:12 PM

Beforehand, I will be biasied because the playstyle of our GM is quite unorthodox (and homebrew), so just because I find it strong doesn't mean it is strong on the average table. Though it seems that other peoples on the internet like it, for example RPGBot (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/characters/state-of-the-meta.html) put it as the strongest class, tying with the Bard. I will personally place it inferior to full spellcasters, but still higher than martial classes, so definitely not bad enough to deserve a buff.

First thing is to note that if your campaign deviate from the norm on magic items, the Artificer is quite strong. In low magic campaign you have access to +1 weapon/armour/shield quite easily at low level, which is great. In high magic campaign, your additional attunement slots makes you quite op at high level.

Something else important about artificers is that they are SAD.

Take the Armourer. You get an heavy armour (without needing Strength), and get Int-based attacks (ranged or melee, your choice, with some other bonuses linked). Since you don't need either Str or Dex for armour, if you give up initiative, you literally only need Int and Con to be viable, which are your two proficient save (so no need for a feat to be able to concentrate your spells safely). By being able to dump Str and Dex to 8 with almost no downside, you have a subtle but significant advantage over the other classes.

The strength of the Artificer is in the subclasses. Especially your GM loves to fireball, chances are that you will use most if not all of your spells for Absorb Elements, so don't count of them for your gameplay.

Flash of genius at level 7 is probably my favourite class feature of the Artificer. In general, the high level features are quite strong. The low level features are more focussed on "tools", so with a GM opens to creative solutions, you have a lot of room to improvise.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 01:16 PM

Where do you think half caster comes from? ...The MCing formula, because it isn't what they actually get.

They get cantrips at first level, vs a fighting style at second level. Optional rules later adding the option of cantrips does not change the core design.

Their spell lists are even drastically different, both the Ranger and Paladin lists lean into supporting their martial design whereas the Artificer is more just a blend of the arcane and divine fullcaster lists with a leaning on control/support effects.

Except their multiclassing formula IS A HALF CASTER (as is their spell level and spell slots table), they just fix that sometimes you don't get a spellcaster level when you'd expect to. They're half casters, as confirmed by everything.

2/3rd casters... would have level 6 or 7 as maximum spell level, would get spell slots at a lower level... none of this is the case barring the rounding error (haha) at the functionally irrelevant level 1.

They're half casters.

quindraco

2021-05-20, 01:17 PM

They use half their level rounded up for determining MC caster level, where as the Paladin and Ranger round down. So they get access to more magic, earlier and carry more weight in multiclassing.

That certainly seems like more than a half caster to me.

All partial casters round up until multiclassing stops them, and multiclassing stops all of them except the Artificer. I'm not sure that Artificers being specifically excellent at multiclassing with wizards is sufficient to claim they're more than a half caster.

As for OP: I think 2/3 casting is a weird thing to invent. I'd lean harder into established design concepts. Here are some ideas that aren't handing out more slots, potentially without spells to cast using said slots:

Expanded spell lists: Let Alchemists take any Transmutation spell, regardless of class. Let Artillerists have Evocation, let Armorers have Abjuration, let Battle Smiths have Conjuration.

Improved subclass abilities: Alchemist is the worst offender here, but all of the subclasses could be tweaked for less absurdity:
Alchemist: Let them pick which potion they want, and spike the base number to proficiency bonus per day. The potions are very weak, may as well be generous.
Armorer: Make the Thunder Gauntlets Light and have them always count as held and wielded while they are worn and you're not holding anything in them. Replace Powered Steps on the Infiltrator armor with advantage on Athletics and Acrobatics checks.
Artillerist: Fix their L5 ability wording to be like Alchemist, so it's clear when the ability applies and how; improve the buff from 1d8 to INT mod, like Alchemist, and let the buff apply to the three cannons.
Battle Smith: Give the defender a speaker, so it can speak. Make it proficient in Death saves, like a Primal Companion is.

That sort of thing.

Damon_Tor

2021-05-20, 01:19 PM

Artificers have, for all intents and purposes, 13 2nd level spell slots starting at 11th level. If you don't think that makes them more than a 1/2 caster, I'm not sure what to tell you. And before that, their subclass features keep them on an even keel with full casters. An alchemist competes with a life cleric for most HP healed per day while doing more at-will damage with cantrips AND access to infusions.

Like, I don't see the problem.

J-H

2021-05-20, 01:22 PM

Artificers are fine.

Teaguethebean

2021-05-20, 01:32 PM

They do lean into the support role, but I'm failing to see how a Cleric does it outright better. Are you factoring in infusions into this at all or are you just comparing them to a full caster based on their casting?
I was taking into account infusions, I just cannot find an infusion I would consider especially strong beyond a free +1 weapon which I assume you are using for yourself.

What on earth are you talking about, what comparisons show that they lag behind every class but the Monk? ...The Monk is the martial with arguably the strongest showing in Tier 1. If you're going to make these claims then an actual comparison would help illustrate why you feel this way. Monk after tier 1 is a joke when it comes to damage so I felt it important to specify before saying the artificer was lacking. A big thing is their casting is laughable after lv3 when you try to compare to a caster and their martial prowess is outdone by every martail class that has feat support (which the monk is not)

Their spell lists are even drastically different, both the Ranger and Paladin lists lean into supporting their martial design whereas the Artificer is more just a blend of the arcane and divine fullcaster lists with a leaning on control/support effects.
I actually agree with this full on, I just feel like this statement is not the positive you think it is. They act like they should cast spells as a wizard or cleric does but they have laughable numbers of slots and their spells are pitifully weak. Even when the artillerist gets usually good blast spells like Shatter, Fireball, and Cone of Cold, a real caster has moved on to the next one in the line by the time the artificer starts picking them up.

Damon_Tor

2021-05-20, 01:44 PM

Even when the artillerist gets usually good blast spells like Shatter, Fireball, and Cone of Cold, a real caster has moved on to the next one in the line by the time the artificer starts picking them up.

The artillerist can also cast Shatter or Scorching Ray 10 extra times a day via his SSI. Hell, he can "cast" them as a bonus action by handing the SSI off to his homunculus. He can cast them ten times in ONE ROUND by building a TSAR manned by ten tiny servants.

Are you even looking at the class features when evaluating this class?

Teaguethebean

2021-05-20, 01:51 PM

The artillerist can also cast Shatter or Scorching Ray 10 extra times a day via his SSI. Hell, he can "cast" them as a bonus action by handing the SSI off to his homunculus. He can cast them ten times in ONE ROUND by building a TSAR manned by ten tiny servants.

Are you even looking at the class features when evaluating this class?

Well I am a fool, I thought only the artificer could use the spell storing item, this is a massive change.

MoiMagnus

2021-05-20, 02:01 PM

I was taking into account infusions, I just cannot find an infusion I would consider especially strong beyond a free +1 weapon which I assume you are using for yourself.

Best infusions at level 2 are IMO:
* Enhanced defence +1 => Armour +1 are quite difficult to find (rarer than weapons and shields), and the likelihood of finding exactly the Armour +1 you need is even rarer.
* Enhanced arcane focus +1 => Similarly, arcane focus are usually pretty difficult to find (though it depends a lot on how GMs include the Tasha items in their loot tables)
* Replicate "Bag of Holding" => Because who doesn't want one? Additionally, since you can recreate the bag at every long rest, you can use it as a bomb if you're the kind who like to exploit mechanics

Honourable mentions:
* Returning weapon or Repeating shot, which can enable an entire build of one of your teammate.
* Homunculus servant, which is a good familiar, which also acts as a spiritual weapons (BA for attack). Sadly, it costs money, so not for low levels.
* Mind sharpener, which for some reason doesn't use attunement, so is a great infusion if the GM shower your team with magic items and their attunement are maxed out.

Ganryu

2021-05-20, 02:20 PM

Pretty much Artificers are like Bard.

Vanilla is a bit weak, weaker than average.

But if you get creative, you can utterly break the game beyond all reason.

kore

2021-05-20, 02:52 PM

Artificers are fine.

Agreed, I'm surprised my DM has put up with all of my shenanigans.

L12 Battle Smith
Fey Touched (get Hex; lineage race), CBE, SS, +2 INT
SSI Warding Bond
+2 Enhanced Armor to Steel Defender (AC 17 now)
+1 Repeating Hand Crossbow
Mundane Shield and Half Plate
Cloak of Protection
Gauntlets of Ogre Power

Steel Defender uses SSI to cast Warding Bond on me all day, so now I'm AC 20 with +2 to all saves. SD hangs back out of combat soaking shared damage (which is super easy to heal in and out of combat; basically free out of combat) from Warding Bond. I do one of two things, either Haste for bonuses to actions, AC, speed, and DEX saves OR I cast Hex on a target and target its STR and the extra damage. I then get in the target's face and shove (this is where Hex makes this practically a gimme if I don't use Haste) it prone each turn while unloading point-blank SS shots with advantage into said face. Warding Bond resistance ensures that anything getting passed my AC 20 (or 22 with Haste) won't drop me in one turn, mostly-excellent saves (WIS is weak-ish), Arcane Jolt for bonus crit damage or heals on attacks, Flash of Genius for just about anything (Concentration saves or scary WIS-targeting spells).

Huge monster? Cast Enlarge (instead of Hex or Haste) and continue shoving and shooting (with +1d4 damage from enlarged weapon).

I've toyed with the idea of using a Small race, fitting Mounted Combatant and Polearm Master into the build, using a Returning Spear with shield, and mounting the SD. Attacks targeting my SD target me and SD is buffed versus DEX save attacks. Additionally, Enhanced Defense can stay with the artificer giving it an AC 22 all the time. No more SS shots but due to mounted combat one could bonus action Disengage and Dash (assuming controlled mount) beside using the bonus action for PM attack.

And this is just one thing that can be done with Battle Smith. Armorer also has many options with access to even more "free" magic items.

Artificers don't need to be buffed, they have tons of options.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-20, 02:56 PM

Except their multiclassing formula IS A HALF CASTER (as is their spell level and spell slots table), they just fix that sometimes you don't get a spellcaster level when you'd expect to. They're half casters, as confirmed by everything.

2/3rd casters... would have level 6 or 7 as maximum spell level, would get spell slots at a lower level... none of this is the case barring the rounding error (haha) at the functionally irrelevant level 1.

They're half casters.

You're saying that their formula is a half caster, apart from this change to the formula...

You're basing it off of their max spell slots and their progression when it suits you. I really don't understand why it's so hard to see that they are more caster than a Paladin or Ranger are?

All partial casters round up until multiclassing stops them, and multiclassing stops all of them except the Artificer. I'm not sure that Artificers being specifically excellent at multiclassing with wizards is sufficient to claim they're more than a half caster.

The formula only really exists in multiclassing rules... You can infer what you like about the classes based on that but this isn't the full picture since they round up very early.

Their progression favours casting more than than the label 1/3rd caster suggests they should. The labels come from MCing, applying the labels straight to the tables doesn't really mean anything.

I was taking into account infusions, I just cannot find an infusion I would consider especially strong beyond a free +1 weapon which I assume you are using for yourself.

You could take multiple weapon infusions and spread them out amongst the party or facilitate a more powerful than standard build with them yourself. Just using a hand crossbow with a shield is a pretty big bump, that it's also a +1 is gravy.

Then there's infusions facilitating sword and board casting better than a Cleric or Paladin can do without Warcaster (as the Artificer adds M components to spells that lack them to make them use tools or foci).

Monk after tier 1 is a joke when it comes to damage so I felt it important to specify before saying the artificer was lacking. A big thing is their casting is laughable after lv3 when you try to compare to a caster and their martial prowess is outdone by every martail class that has feat support (which the monk is not)

Monks aren't a damage first kind of class, but to suggest that they're a joke after Tier 1 is ridiculous. Do you have any numbers to back your claims up?

I feel like you're looking at an Artificer without looking at subclasses, which is a mistake since they're incredibly subclass dependent. Case in point:

At 5th level the Battle Smith gets Extra Attack like a true martial, with a bonus action attack from the Steel Defender and the option to give themselves magical weapons and armour.

That seems pretty on par with all the other martials to me, Arcane Jolt and Smite spells let them dump in additional damage if they want through out the levels too.

I actually agree with this full on, I just feel like this statement is not the positive you think it is. They act like they should cast spells as a wizard or cleric does but they have laughable numbers of slots and their spells are pitifully weak. Even when the artillerist gets usually good blast spells like Shatter, Fireball, and Cone of Cold, a real caster has moved on to the next one in the line by the time the artificer starts picking them up.

Why do they act like they should cast like them?

Are you even taking into consideration the subclasses? An Artillerist is throwing an additional d8 onto the damage of their spells, which for levelled spells is basically a free upcast (or slightly better) and for cantrips is basically a tier jump. Firebolt being an at ill 2d10+1d8 is no joke. Then there's higher levels where they can use the SSI to basically cantripify Shatter/Scorching Ray etc. if they like. All of that is not taking into consideration that they're using their turret(s) too...

If you play an Artificer and just try to cast like a full caster then of course you'll be disappointed, you aren't playing a full caster.

If you really feel like they fall behind in damage then just give an exmaple that supports it.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 03:01 PM

You're saying that their formula is a half caster, apart from this change to the formula...

You're basing it off of their max spell slots and their progression when it suits you. I really don't understand why it's so hard to see that they are more caster than a Paladin or Ranger are?

Actually, everything agrees with them being a half-caster out of that. Sure, a slightly different one in two minor ways (and honestly, seems like fixing a multiclassing error without fixing it for existing things). I don't get how you can end up calling something where everything is half a 2/3rd caster. There's no 2/3rds. I can't even tell how you get that label for it and think it fits. After level 1, they're exactly as much caster in single-class application (barring level 1 that is basically trivial), and they just round differently (which is definitely not equal to calling them +1/6 caster). The formula is still a half caster; it's right there in the formula.

For L11, that's a big boost... but are we calling Warlocks infinite casters because of invocations? Are we calling Wizards infinite casters because of their level 18 ability? Are Wizards and Land Druids more than 100% casters because of Arcane/Divine Recovery? Are Sorcerers more than 100% casters because Sorcery Points can be converted into spell slots? Are Shadow Monks 1/4 or lower casters because they can use Ki to cast a few spells? No. Because that's not what they are. The Artificer, similarly, isn't a 2/3rds caster -- their actual spell progression and the multiclassing formula are half casters, with a rounding fix (not equal to 2/3rds) and getting their spells one session sooner if you don't skip the first level.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-20, 03:19 PM

Actually, everything agrees with them being a half-caster out of that. Sure, a slightly different one in two minor ways (and honestly, seems like fixing a multiclassing error without fixing it for existing things). I don't get how you can end up calling something where everything is half a 2/3rd caster. There's no 2/3rds. I can't even tell how you get that label for it and think it fits. After level 1, they're exactly as much caster in single-class application (barring level 1 that is basically trivial), and they just round differently (which is definitely not equal to calling them +1/6 caster). The formula is still a half caster; it's right there in the formula.

For L11, that's a big boost... but are we calling Warlocks infinite casters because of invocations? Are we calling Wizards infinite casters because of their level 18 ability? Are Wizards and Land Druids more than 100% casters because of Arcane/Divine Recovery? Are Sorcerers more than 100% casters because Sorcery Points can be converted into spell slots? Are Shadow Monks 1/4 or lower casters because they can use Ki to cast a few spells? No. Because that's not what they are. The Artificer, similarly, isn't a 2/3rds caster -- their actual spell progression and the multiclassing formula are half casters, with a rounding fix (not equal to 2/3rds) and getting their spells one session sooner if you don't skip the first level.

Just because you handwave it as fixing an 'error' (that seems fully intentional, so not an error at all) doesn't change the fact that it's different to the MC formula a Paladin or Ranger use.

Just because you handwave 1st level doesn't change the fact that it is different, at 1st level an Artificer has as much casting as any full caster.

Getting cantrips built in matters and an optional Fighting Style does not balance that.

The labels 'full caster' 'half caster' and '1/3rd caster' are not game terms. They do not exist in the game. They are forum terms used to refer to groups of classes/subclasses, they are defined by the community. When the Artificer was published I referred to them as 3/4 quite simply because they have more casting/emphasis on casters than the half casters do.

The get casting sooner, they get cantrips by default, they hold more sway as a caster in MC and they have subclass features that interact with their casting. The core of a Paladin and Ranger are martials with some casting to supplement their martial ability and theme. The core of an Artificer is less defined because they rely more on subclasses, but that core has more casting.

Saying that after first they progress at the same rate or cap at the same level slot doesn't change the fact that they do get more casting oomph by default.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 03:27 PM

Just because you handwave it as fixing an 'error' (that seems fully intentional, so not an error at all) doesn't change the fact that it's different to the MC formula a Paladin or Ranger use.

Just because you handwave 1st level doesn't change the fact that it is different, at 1st level an Artificer has as much casting as any full caster.

Getting cantrips built in matters and an optional Fighting Style does not balance that.

The labels 'full caster' 'half caster' and '1/3rd caster' are not game terms. They do not exist in the game. They are forum terms used to refer to groups of classes/subclasses, they are defined by the community. When the Artificer was published I referred to them as 3/4 quite simply because they have more casting/emphasis on casters than the half casters do.

The get casting sooner, they get cantrips by default, they hold more sway as a caster in MC and they have subclass features that interact with their casting. The core of a Paladin and Ranger are martials with some casting to supplement their martial ability and theme. The core of an Artificer is less defined because they rely more on subclasses, but that core has more casting.

Saying that after first they progress at the same rate or cap at the same level slot doesn't change the fact that they do get more casting oomph by default.

I'd just like the terms to be meaningful -- calling them 2/3rds casters is misleading to the point of either being deceitful or blatantly incorrect. If you want to call them "uphalf casters" or something else that seems vaguely true be my guest. But they in no way line up with what you'd expect from a 2/3rds caster. All of the casting oomph past level 1 is a couple (eventually a few) cantrips... So for this nonsensical term a 2/3rds caster is less than another half caster with magic initiate.

They're a half-caster, essentially just with a different fighting style (but no choice in the matter). Maybe they get to cast spells in session 1 unlike another half-caster, but otherwise they're the same.

Damon_Tor

2021-05-20, 03:40 PM

Are Wizards and Land Druids more than 100% casters because of Arcane/Divine Recovery? Are Sorcerers more than 100% casters because Sorcery Points can be converted into spell slots?

Yes.

If one considers the baseline spells per day as "100%" then anything beyond that is more than 100%. Wizards and Sorcerer's are "full casters+" which justifies their low hit dice and lack of armor proficiency. Druids can become full casters+ as a subclass option (just as there are wizard and sorcerer subclasses which mitigate the armor and/or hitpoint weakness).

Artificers are no different: their baseline spells per day is the same as paladins or rangers, but their class features and subclasses lean into the caster angle, while paladins and rangers lean into being martials. So if we call wizards full casters+, we could safely call artificers half casters+.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-20, 03:46 PM

Yes.

If one considers the baseline spells per day as "100%" then anything beyond that is more than 100%. Wizards and Sorcerer's are "full casters+" which justifies their low hit dice and lack of armor proficiency. Druids can become full casters+ as a subclass option (just as there are wizard and sorcerer subclasses which mitigate the armor and/or hitpoint weakness).

Artificers are no different: their baseline spells per day is the same as paladins or rangers, but their class features and subclasses lean into the caster angle, while paladins and rangers lean into being martials. So if we call wizards full casters+, we could safely call artificers half casters+.

Half-casters+ sure, since they're more casting-favouring half-casters. 2/3rds not at all.

Kane0

2021-05-20, 04:15 PM

Cleric is straight up one of the strongest, most versatile classes if not the top place. You probably don’t want every class to compare favorably to it.

MrStabby

2021-05-20, 08:51 PM

Cleric is straight up one of the strongest, most versatile classes if not the top place. You probably don’t want every class to compare favorably to it.

I think it depends on level range. At low levels clerics are awesome - healing is powerful as PCs frequently drop as it is so swingy, spells like guiding bolt are great at blasting. Low level cleric spells in general are superb. At level 5 I think it starts to lose out to druid (and to paladin, which overlaps somewhat) when conjure animals and plant growth come online. Go past level 10 though and all the class features just dry up and the spell selection falls behind arcane casters.

I guess I would put wizards, bards, sorcerers, druids, paladins above clerics for anything spending a substantial amount of time at mid levels+. 6th out of 13 would mean that I would be rating it pretty close to average power.

That said, I think your point is true. You cannnot esablish a class is underpowered just by comparing it to one single other class.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-21, 01:05 AM

I'd just like the terms to be meaningful -- calling them 2/3rds casters is misleading to the point of either being deceitful or blatantly incorrect. If you want to call them "uphalf casters" or something else that seems vaguely true be my guest. But they in no way line up with what you'd expect from a 2/3rds caster. All of the casting oomph past level 1 is a couple (eventually a few) cantrips... So for this nonsensical term a 2/3rds caster is less than another half caster with magic initiate.

They're a half-caster, essentially just with a different fighting style (but no choice in the matter). Maybe they get to cast spells in session 1 unlike another half-caster, but otherwise they're the same.

The be all end all of the terms to you seem to be max slot level and general progression level, then good for you. For me 3/4 just means they're more caster than a Ranger/Paladin (which they are), you seem okay with the fact they have more since you suggest other terms.

You are free to prefer your way of labelling them, I will continue to use mine until something is published that better fits it.

PhantomSoul

2021-05-21, 02:51 AM

The be all end all of the terms to you seem to be max slot level and general progression level, then good for you. For me 3/4 just means they're more caster than a Ranger/Paladin (which they are), you seem okay with the fact they have more since you suggest other terms.

You are free to prefer your way of labelling them, I will continue to use mine until something is published that better fits it.

That's unfortunate; it means you'll be misleading people who haven't realised it's just a flavour of half-caster. "Half-caster+" is silly, but at least it gives a better idea of what the actual class is (i.e. a half-caster). I'd rather give a label that fits the class, and neither 2/3rds nor 3/4ths conveys that in a transparent or meaningful way, particularly given how the existing terms can be interpreted.

---

EDIT:
Bringing things back to the OP, I see the appeal of turning the Artificer (and/or one of its subclasses) into an actual 2/3rds caster (maybe because one spot having called it a 2/3rds caster essentially meant I was lied to about what spellcasting progression to expect when I actually saw the class, and probably [also?] because it just feels limiting when looking at the class), but I'm not sure there's a progression with spell slots that will be satisfying (separate from it being good) just because you then can't have consistent caster level growth across class levels. I think a conversion attempt might benefit a lot from using spell points (under one name or another); it would let you get a smoother-looking progression since then it isn't as obviously lining up against caster slot progression, or even using spell points at half-caster progression would help (plus give you a single base resource for spells instead of managing spell slots of multiple types and multiple infusions). That would give it more freedom to actually be a 2/3rds caster.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-21, 02:55 AM

That's unfortunate; it means you'll be misleading people who haven't realised it's just a flavour of half-caster. "Half-caster+" is silly, but at least it gives a better idea of what the actual class is (i.e. a half-caster). I'd rather give a label that fits the class, and neither 2/3rds nor 3/4ths conveys that in a transparent or meaningful way, particularly given how the existing terms can be interpreted.

There's nothing misleading here, just a difference in opinion over non-official terms.

stoutstien

2021-05-21, 05:10 AM

Well I am a fool, I thought only the artificer could use the spell storing item, this is a massive change.

The artificer has a lot of these little tricks and tools that don't appear very powerful but they can be extremely impactful in multiple roles in the hands of a clever player.

Waazraath

2021-05-21, 05:38 AM

I have been playing around with the artificer for a while and I genuinely cannot find anything they stand up to clerics in beyond resourceless damage if the cleric doesn't bother to bet booming blade on their divine strike. So I have been thinking. What if we simply made the artificer the games first 2/3 caster effectively every third level they don't get spell progression still firmly placing them behind other casting classes with later bumps to spell level. It may be too much to give them 7th level spells but I have seen the consistent sentiment that they are built to be a caster with being a half caster tacked on. Regardless I would love to hear your input, hell I would even tolerate people claiming artificer is overpowered but I doubt that would occur.

I'm afraid this is just you misjudging the Artificer. It's a very powerful class, buffing it would definitely make it overpowered with the right build. Example: "I genuinely cannot find anything they stand up to clerics in beyond resourceless damage if the cleric doesn't bother to bet booming blade on their divine strike."

I like Clerics with booming blade. Played a tempest cleric with it. But even at level 8, it's just 1d8 + 1d8 (divine strike) + 1d8 (BB) + 4, with an optional +2d8 resourcless damage (and that's spending 1 ASI bumping your weapon stat instead of casting stat, and another or a specific race to get BB). 17,5 damage, 26,5 when BB secondary effect triggers.

A very basic artificer battlesmith without spending feats on damage, at that same level 8, will have a maxed out combat stat and a magical weapon infusion, going sword & board, will do 1d8 + 6 / 1d8 + 6, which is 21, except that it hits at +2 to hit better than the cleric, AND has a bonus action to have the steel companion attack for 1d8 + 4 (8,5) damage. So even being very generous to the cleric and assuming BB works all the time, a totally unoptimized Artificer Battle Smith does it better.

Of course, once the Artificer picks a hand crossbow, CBE and SS, and a repeating shot infusion, the Cleric gets blown out of the water damage wise.

Arteficer already is a very powerful, versatile class, that can buff, heal, has utility, can tank, and can do great damage. Adding more spellcasting to what it has already is too much.

Stangler

2021-05-21, 07:51 AM

The artificer is a weird class balance wise because of their relative power to other classes depends on itemisation within the campaign. They also tend to get power ups that leverage the bonus action so their power doesn’t keep pace with classes that leverage PAM or Xbox expert.

The battle smith is straight up good and compares well with other classes and benefits greatly by taking fey touched for hex. I think the class scales better than Ranger and certainly gets more interesting features as they level up.

Artllerist is super weird IMO as it has a really good level 3 ability and a mediocre level 5 one. It takes forever to scale up so the power level is only ok in the sweet spot of level 5 to 14. It is still plenty powerful to add to the party but it depends on spell slots which are very limited. It shines with multiple opponents but otherwise it is only ok.

Alchemist is bad.

Armorer is also weird as it is behind both the artllerist and bs until level 9 when things get complicated and rely more on items. It is still a difficult class for optimisation.

Personally I think the class should be a full caster in 6e with a big rework of infusions. It reminds me of the bard that is made way better as a full caster but isn’t op even when they get multiple attacks and armour.

They are also very clearly half casters. Maybe half caster plus but still half casters.

MoiMagnus

2021-05-21, 08:03 AM

Personally I think the class should be a full caster in 6e with a big rework of infusions. It reminds me of the bard that is made way better as a full caster but isn’t op even when they get multiple attacks and armour.

I think Artificer and Warlock should use the same mechanics. Both are spellcasters that get an immense part of their power from their subclasses and some weird features to pick from a list.

[I believe the main reason why they didn't do it is because Warlock's "per short rest" spell slots have some weird side effect for classes that have Cure Wounds in their spell list]

I'm a big proponent of weakening the "spell" part of some spellcasters in favour of powerful (and magical) class features.

Stangler

2021-05-21, 08:53 AM

I think Artificer and Warlock should use the same mechanics. Both are spellcasters that get an immense part of their power from their subclasses and some weird features to pick from a list.

[I believe the main reason why they didn't do it is because Warlock's "per short rest" spell slots have some weird side effect for classes that have Cure Wounds in their spell list]

I'm a big proponent of weakening the "spell" part of some spellcasters in favor of powerful (and magical) class features.

I think a mechanic where they can trade their spell slots for special abilities would work well. I think the short rest mechanic doesn't really work and making them a half caster really limits their power scaling. IMO the Artificer should be all about building and rebuilding their suit, or their weapon or their pet or some combination of all three. Warlock on the other hand should be more about letting the power of their patron flow through them in different ways transforming them or something.

Waazraath

2021-05-21, 10:40 AM

Personally I think the class should be a full caster in 6e with a big rework of infusions. It reminds me of the bard that is made way better as a full caster but isn’t op even when they get multiple attacks and armour.

Overall I agree with your analysis, but here not. I dislike it that the bard became a full caster in 5e. Mechanically the Bard had more interesting bits in 3.5 in inspire courage/comptence/etc., as a unique mechanic instad of just 'more spells'. Thematically, that also fits the 'jack of all trades' dabbler who learned some tricks and can use music to create wonders, far better than being just as powerful a caster as a wizard or priest whose main thing is 'being a caster'. Finally, I think the classes with most moving bits (like warlocks with spells/invocations and arteficers with spells/infusions) are most interesting.

6e needs less casters, and more types of magic for the casters that remain.

Dork_Forge

2021-05-21, 11:20 AM

Stangler

2021-05-21, 11:35 AM

Overall I agree with your analysis, but here not. I dislike it that the bard got a full caster in 5e. Mechanically the Bard had more interesting bits in 3.5 in inspire courage/comptence/etc., as a unique mechanic instad of just 'more spells'. Thematically, that also fits the 'jack of all trades' dabbler who learned some tricks and can use music to create wonders, far better than being just as powerful a caster as a wizard or priest whose main thing is 'being a caster'. Finally, I think the classes with most moving bits (like warlocks with spells/invocations and arteficers with spells/infusions) are most interesting.

6e needs less casters, and more types of magic for the casters that remain.

I think of spell slot progression as a good way to establish what the game gives the character as a resource. The more resources you give classes the more problems you get with scaling and design. Which is a common issue across RPGs in all forms, not just 5e or 3.5e. Where the class variety can come in is how they use that resource.

Overall I think the 5e Bard is a very well liked class that both plays as powerful, fun, and unique. I don't see them reverting back to the 3.5 approach given the success of the 5e bard. That said I would like to see Bards be able to mix their magic and their bardic inspirations together more. Working their magic through their team and not just themselves. For example a Bard could be causing their teammate to turn into a terrifying looking monster effectively casting fear through their teammate.

I think Infusions and Invocations building off of spell slot progression can offer plenty of interesting options with an approach that is easier to balance, especially with regards to scaling up as they level. Even if they are getting spell slots that doesn't mean their action economy is built around casting spells. I like both infusions and Invocations. I also think both of the classes are extremely clunky and poorly balanced largely due to the desire to have a design that gave them interesting options without a corresponding cost that made sense.