Artificers in 4e

[felinoel]

The tinkerer build.

What is the point of kidnapping an elemental spirit and forcing it into a shell if it won't move itself? I have to spend my own move actions in order to make a sentient-esque construct do anything?! Why?

[nightwyrm]

In game explanation, you're using action to give them orders.

Out of game explanation, summoner builds playing half a dozen creatures and hogging all the game time was a problem in 3e and this is the approach they decided to use to fix it in 4e.

edit: In general, almost all of 4e's weird quirks and non-intuitive rules are a reaction to a problem that presented itself in 3e.

[felinoel]

In game explanation, you're using action to give them orders.

Out of game explanation, summoner builds playing half a dozen creatures and hogging all the game time was a problem in 3e and this is the approach they decided to use to fix it in 4e.

edit: In general, almost all of 4e's weird quirks and non-intuitive rules are a reaction to a problem that presented itself in 3e.

So you are saying that these sentient-esque constructs can in fact think for theirselves?

[Gralamin]

So you are saying that these sentient-esque constructs can in fact think for theirselves?

Most of the later summoning powers (Of which, artificers have none) have an "Instinctive Action" associated with them, so they will do something if you don't order them around. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this concept to all summons.

[felinoel]

Most of the later summoning powers (Of which, artificers have none) have an "Instinctive Action" associated with them, so they will do something if you don't order them around. It probably wouldn't be unreasonable to extend this concept to all summons.

But then what is the point of kidnapping elemental spirits and forcing them to reside in a shell?

[kieza]

Because the spirit provides a motive force, even if it won't do anything without instruction? Or it provides unusual powers related to its element? (Fire = Flaming fists, Air = Lightning, etc.) Because it's easier than simply enchanting something to move? There are lots of reasons to have a spirit bound into something besides making it think.

I have a feeling your complaint is based on the 3.5 elemental binding rules. Things changed between 3.5 and 4e, okay? It's better from a balance standpoint if you can't have a horde of minions that each get a full turn. You can still have fun explaining to your friends that yes, your iron guardian is animated by a spirit of earth, no, it didn't volunteer, and no, you don't care.

If it really gets you down that they don't take actions on their own...say that they could, if they wanted to, but you've bound them to only obey direct orders so that they can't harm you. Seriously, just come up with a cool rationale and run with it.

[Tengu_temp]

Ranger's animal companion works the same way. It's just the way 4e does things.

[felinoel]

Because the spirit provides a motive force, even if it won't do anything without instruction?

Might as well be controlling it myself, no need for the kidnapping

Or it provides unusual powers related to its element? (Fire = Flaming fists, Air = Lightning, etc.)

It does not

Because it's easier than simply enchanting something to move?

Is it though?

There are lots of reasons to have a spirit bound into something besides making it think.

None of them are implemented though

I have a feeling your complaint is based on the 3.5 elemental binding rules. Things changed between 3.5 and 4e, okay? It's better from a balance standpoint if you can't have a horde of minions that each get a full turn. You can still have fun explaining to your friends that yes, your iron guardian is animated by a spirit of earth, no, it didn't volunteer, and no, you don't care.

No my complaint is based on how worked up I was to make something to rival someone with undead followers or mind controlled followers to find out that it does not rival them at all

If it really gets you down that they don't take actions on their own...say that they could, if they wanted to, but you've bound them to only obey direct orders so that they can't harm you. Seriously, just come up with a cool rationale and run with it.

Nah I give up, I am going with the buff build of the artificer, sigh

Ranger's animal companion works the same way. It's just the way 4e does things.

Mind controlled followers and undead followers work that way too? So going up against some lich king will be easy since all of them can only get one move for anyone per round?

[Aroka]

Mind controlled followers and undead followers work that way too? So going up against some lich king will be easy since all of them can only get one move for anyone per round?

You appear to be talking about NPCs. That's missing the entire point - NPCs and their powers don't work like PCs and their powers, because the point of balance is completely different.

[felinoel]

You appear to be talking about NPCs. That's missing the entire point - NPCs and their powers don't work like PCs and their powers, because the point of balance is completely different.

That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

[kieza]

You're missing the separation between fluff and mechanics. This is the way it works. Any PC summon requires you to spend actions to order it around (with the exception of Instinctive abilities), whether it's a ranger pet, a wizard summon, a druid summon, or an artificer creation. If WotC gets around to releasing a necromancer or a "mind-control" class, they will almost certainly work the exact same way. There are not different systems for rangers' pets, summoned creatures, and artificers' creations, because there doesn't need to be.

The only difference between "styles" of summon is the powers available to that "style." Well, that and the description: wizards summon magical beings physically. Druids summon beasts of the forest physically. Artificers call up a spirit and bind it into an object. But regardless of how it's described, they all work in basically the same way. All of them have the same duration and the same general stat-block. All of them have to be ordered around in order to act. You don't like that your artificer summons can't act on their own? You have 3 options: Don't play an artificer, find some artificer powers which have the Instinctive option, or talk your DM into making you some powers.

[Aroka]

That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

Why? What says PCs and NPCs have to use the same mechanics? PCs get less hit points per level than NPCs, they get more powers, etc. That's how it works, because it gives better play balance. A NPC villain's minions aren't abilities (like a PC's minions), but rather monsters.

It's fair because it's mechanically balanced, and it makes perfect sense. As was already mentioned, this is one of the fixes that pre-empts 3.5 style action economy abuse, where a conjurer wizard is a better tank than a fighter.

This is like complaining that a 3.5 villain has more minions than it would have through a Leadership feat. It just doesn't make sense.


Anyway, if you're so set on a minion that can act on its own, there's an incredibly easy solution: get your DM to add a NPC/creature/monster to the group. It's very easy - the follower's XP value is just deducted from the XP total of every fight you get in.

[kieza]

Look at it this way: a lich king or thrallherd, or for that matter a wizard or druid or whatever who can give their summons their own initiative, is dangerous--a threat that must be dealt with--partly because he is able to so far exceed the limitations normally placed upon a necromancer or simple enchanter. He is a fair foe for an entire group of players. Someone who can just call up one or two summons and has to order them around in detail is a normal (leader) monster, or maybe an elite. 4e is not like 3.5, where a summoner was an entire party in one character.

The problem with giving players the ability to summon completely independent creatures is this: if each of those creatures has an entire set of actions and is rougly as effective as a PC, whoever summons one is roughly as effective as two PCs now. If they can summon more than one, it gets worse. In order for summoning to be balanced, the summoner has to give up something roughly as powerful as the summon. 4e handles it by making the summoner spend his actions to let the summon act.

Now, I've had a player in my group make roughly the same complaint as you. The solution I came up with was to give him a ritual which summoned an ally. Not a completely subservient creature, an actual, independent creature which he could bargain with for services. If he summoned one and got it to work with him, I played it as an NPC.

Edit: By the way, to answer your original question: what's the point of summoning a wolf or a fire elemental against its will if it can't act on it's own? You might as well train as a fighter and hit things yourself if you have to spend your actions.

[felinoel]

You're missing the separation between fluff and mechanics. This is the way it works. Any PC summon requires you to spend actions to order it around (with the exception of Instinctive abilities), whether it's a ranger pet, a wizard summon, a druid summon, or an artificer creation. If WotC gets around to releasing a necromancer or a "mind-control" class, they will almost certainly work the exact same way. There are not different systems for rangers' pets, summoned creatures, and artificers' creations, because there doesn't need to be.

The only difference between "styles" of summon is the powers available to that "style." Well, that and the description: wizards summon magical beings physically. Druids summon beasts of the forest physically. Artificers call up a spirit and bind it into an object. But regardless of how it's described, they all work in basically the same way. All of them have the same duration and the same general stat-block. All of them have to be ordered around in order to act. You don't like that your artificer summons can't act on their own? You have 3 options: Don't play an artificer, find some artificer powers which have the Instinctive option, or talk your DM into making you some powers.

That is all well and good but it is unfair to make some people follow those rules and allow others to do what they want?

Why? What says PCs and NPCs have to use the same mechanics?

The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?

PCs get less hit points per level than NPCs, they get more powers, etc. That's how it works, because it gives better play balance.

I wouldn't call it balance myself...

A NPC villain's minions aren't abilities (like a PC's minions), but rather monsters.

True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same

It's fair because it's mechanically balanced, and it makes perfect sense. As was already mentioned, this is one of the fixes that pre-empts 3.5 style action economy abuse, where a conjurer wizard is a better tank than a fighter.

How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?

This is like complaining that a 3.5 villain has more minions than it would have through a Leadership feat. It just doesn't make sense.

Only slightly but kinda pushing it there

Anyway, if you're so set on a minion that can act on its own, there's an incredibly easy solution: get your DM to add a NPC/creature/monster to the group. It's very easy - the follower's XP value is just deducted from the XP total of every fight you get in.

What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

[Vitruviansquid]

This is my stock answer whenever my players ask a question like this.

Are you saying you're a better artificer than your character? Are you saying you know more about artificing? When was the last time you artifice'd something? When was the last time you kidnapped an elemental spirit?

Oh you're not an artificer and you've never kidnapped an elemental spirit and forced it into a shell? Then I don't think you should be talking about what an artificer can or can't do!


Silliness aside, it's magic. Don't think too hard about how magic works because, by definition, it's something that doesn't work logically.

[Leolo]

To be fair intristic Actions are not the only way to let your creatures act and act by yourself.

Ranger and their beast companion for example have powers to do this. Wizards can use minor actions to let summons move.

Mounts can gave additional attacks or add damage.

[Tengu_temp]

What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

You do realize that balance and NPCs and PCs working under the same rules is not the same thing, right? 4e is a gamist system, which means that game balance is a high priority, at the cost of some mechanical elements not making a lot of sense from a realistic perspective.

[Makiru]

That is all well and good but it is unfair to make some people follow those rules and allow others to do what they want?

The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?I wouldn't call it balance myself...True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same

How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?

What I am set on is fair and balanced gameplay, if not everything is balanced then I might as well be playing 3.5

There's a very simple answer to this that you basically gave yourself without knowing. Think about how long the average PC is going to be around. The entire campaign, gods willing, right?

How long is a single NPC going to be present in the campaign? Probably only about five rounds, maybe a few fights if they're reoccurring villains or the BBEG. NPCs get to have their high HP and silly powers because they usually aren't going to be around long enough to unbalance things down the line and need to provide a challenging encounter. PCs, on the other foot, are balanced to not horribly break things like action economy and damage caps because of their longevity and make the game interesting and fun instead of a "Save-or-Die" affair like 3.5.

tl;dr: NPCs get less screen time, so they get more goodies to make that time awesome.

[Zombimode]

Silliness aside, it's magic. Don't think too hard about how magic works because, by definition, it's something that doesn't work logically.

Please learn what "logic" means. Logic only makes sure that you dont arrive at false conclusions from true premises.

The following syllogism is an example for a logical correct conclusion:

A -> B
B -> C
--
A -> C

Now, if we say that the elements of this syllogism would have the following meanings:

A: cats
B: dogs
C: fish

The syllogism now reads as follows:

All cats are dogs
All dogs are fish
--
Thus all cats are also fish

This is still a completely valid syllogism. There is no mistake in the logic. Only the premises are false (well, I think they are...).

Bottom line: magic is neither logical nor illogical (because only assertions can be either). What magic might do is to screw with the logical value of certain premises (so magic could make that all cats are indeed also fish).

[1of3]

Also note that long term creations of undead or any of the dragonhouses' toys would be in the purview of rituals. Your spells as an artificer are ad hoc tricks to get things done. Surely, they will not be as effiicient as a day long and very expensive ritual.

Sure, there are no such rituals printed at the moment. But here is fair ruling: To make a minion pay the same costs you would pay for a slave of comparable training. Your advantage as an artificer being that elemental binding is legal in most civilized countries.

[Leolo]

How does allowing one NPC do something causing it to be a god while a PC does the same thing and becomes unable to at the very least dodge incoming enemies fair?

The point is: While 4E is a gamistic rule set it has a very narrative way to describe the world.

The powers of the players and the npc are not all that those could do. They are only the options that are available at a given moment within the story of the adventure. Retraining is a good example. You do not forget how to throw a fireball if you retrain it. But you do not do it any longer, at least within this part of the story. The same narrative approach is used for npc powers. They are not what the npc could do at all. Only the options that might be used within the current fight. The powers of players and npc are not different fluffwise - they are only described differently by the game mechanics because they have different parts within the story.

A NPC necromancer does use commands to let his undead minions act the same way PC do it.
And a PC artificers summons does act without his commands (even without intrinstic actions) the same way the undead minions do.

But the rule mechanics work different. The necromancers effort to command his minions is calculated by not making him a solo - and therefore limiting his actions and general power by this decision. The reason for this is that it is a better way to provide a more exciting fight as part of your adventure if you can gave the monsters flexible powers and still let them be balanced.

A artificers summons actions are calculated by static benefits that comes into play without taking an extra action. (For example a Obedient Servant does damage a nearby opponent even if you do not let it attack as long as your defender is marking it, or the wizards summons opportunity attacks or intrinstic nature)

So even if you do have to use actions to command summons they do not standing still until you do so. The things your summons do as an "attack" on your command are just much better than those actions they could do on their own.

[Myatar_Panwar]

The only thing that differentiates the two is that the DM runs onw while the player runs the other, essentially a PC and NPC are the same thing, at least in their universe, why do NPCs get to be gods when they have the same stats as the ungod-like PC?I wouldn't call it balance myself...True, but when the NPC controls the minions like any PC would try to, it should be treated the same

....

Have you been playing 4e at all? There is a pretty definite line between what a PC does and what an NPC does.

This is not some contest between the dungeon master and YOU. The NPC's don't need to be balanced compared to player classes because you will never PLAY an npc. All that matters is that when the NPCs are thrown at the player, it is challenging and fun.

It is the worst when players ask about this kind of stuff at the table. "What, he can use mage hand from THAT FAR AWAY! But the mage hand descriptor says blah blah blah..."

When I want to make a level 5 fighter npc, I don't grab a character sheet and work out what powers I want at each level. Those days are gone. Instead I find out what HP a level 5 solider should have, what defenses, augment these depending on how I stat him out, and give him a couple powers which I think would help build a fun monster. If I decide that tide of iron needs to do 2[W] and be an encounter ability, I change it. PC fighter class be damned.

And if my players want to complain because I tried to make an encounter more fun, and that I should have just stuck by the rules and gone with a less fun encounter, well I don't really know what to say to them.

[pasko77]

That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

welcome to 4th edition.

[Kurald Galain]

That seems unfair? Plus it doesn't make sense?

It doesn't have to.

For instance, the rogue's sneak attack ability represents hitting a monster in a vital spot for massive damage. 3E takes this to the realistic conclusion that since skeleton warriors don't have a vital spot, you therefore can't sneak attack them. 4E instead decides that it wouldn't be fun nor balanced for the rogue to be more-or-less useless in a fight with skeleton warriors, and therefore sneak attack works on them.

Certain abilities would be unbalanced in the hands of PCs. An enemy enchanter can have an at-will minor action dominate attack, for example. PCs don't get this, ever. Conversely, a moderate-to-high level PC has way more abilities and powers than any monster you'll ever meet. This is to make the DM's life easier: if you want to give an enemy a fireball attack, you don' thave to look up what exactly the PC fireball attack does; you just decide what you want your enemy to do, and he does that.

[Tengu_temp]

It's like World of Warcraft!

[FelixG]

It's like World of Warcraft!

World of warcraft is my dynamic than 4e :P

[Badgerish]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned: Companion Characters (DMG2)

If you really want a semi-permanent ally (a construct for artificers, an animal or plant for druids, a summoned monster for wizards/sorcs, a divine assistant for clerics, a hireling/follower for anyone), these can be made using the "companion character" rules from DMG2.

These qualify/justify adding an NPC to the party to assist them. However, as it's an extra thing and it's actively helping, it makes the fights easier, therefore it makes the fight worth less XP (thus the GM will probably make the fights harder to compensate)


Importantly, this option is open to any class, it's not a class-feature/spell-choice like it was in 3.5

[nightwyrm]

This NPC =/= PC thing isn't a 4e thing. Every edition except for 3e has NPCs and PCs working by different rules. Even in 3e where they tried to shoehorn them both into working with the same rules, NPCs have been allowed to break the rules if they needed to.

For example, NPC necromancers can raise and control armies of undead that PCs just isn't able to. Artifacts are always stuff made by long dead NPCs that no PCs are able to make even if they became lv 20 wizards etc.

[FelixG]

This NPC =/= PC thing isn't a 4e thing. Every edition except for 3e has NPCs and PCs working by different rules. Even in 3e where they tried to shoehorn them both into working with the same rules, NPCs have been allowed to break the rules if they needed to.

For example, NPC necromancers can raise and control armies of undead that PCs just isn't able to. Artifacts are always stuff made by long dead NPCs that no PCs are able to make even if they became lv 20 wizards etc.

A properly built dread necromancer can control millions of HD of undead... I know i have done it XD

[nightwyrm]

A properly built dread necromancer can control millions of HD of undead... I know i have done it XD

I forgot about the DN, yet they have had wizard/cleric necromancer BBEGs way before DNs came out in a splat.