Yes on AOE, Arcane Firearm is more favorable unfortunately that's hard to count on with the limited number of slots for Artificer. Your point is well made though and you are right that at the current balance, Artificer is probably better just taking Tier 1-2 abilities and then multiclassing in Tier 3-4.
In particular, Bladesinger/Artillerist is excellent - the cannon helps you solve your hit point woes, and arcane firearm adds 1d8 to booming blade just fine. Just as Arcane Firearm is great on AoEs, a single target single damage roll spell you were planning on casting anyway is also buffed.
Booming Blade Doesn't work with the arcane Firearm. Because the Arcane Firearm is not a weapon. It's a magical focus. Even if it's shaped like a staff it's not designed for fighting. But it could just as easily be a rod or wand which are a lot smaller and a lot flimsier than any staff.
Arcane firearm in one hand, weapon in the other. Cast spell with arcane firearm as focus. Make the weapon attack using the weapon in the other hand.
Booming Blade Doesn't work with the arcane Firearm. Because the Arcane Firearm is not a weapon. It's a magical focus. Even if it's shaped like a staff it's not designed for fighting. But it could just as easily be a rod or wand which are a lot smaller and a lot flimsier than any staff.
There's precedent for staves using the quarterstaff stat line in melee (and maybe something similar for rods, iirc). So booming blade / green-flame blade could be used with them.
There is precedent for Staves that are strengthened because they are meant to be as much magical weapons as they are sources of other magical powers. But that is different from a magical focus. Partly because there is no precedent that these magical weapon staves can also qualify for your magical focus for your class features. Just that they qualify as weapons that can cast their own magical spells. sometimes that are shapable by the one wielding them. Sometimes not.
weak indeed. but thank you for making me aware of it. Even old it's useful to know just in case.
You may have missed my edit. It's actually right in the DMG: "Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff."
There is a problem with that. That is talking specifically about magical items Staves, it does not however say it works on any staff focus that is not also already a magical item. The PHB entries which list the non-magical ones don't say that they can be used as quarter staves. They only talk about focusing magic. And the Quarter staff doesn't say anything to bridge the gap either.
So it looks more like it's a rules exception applied to Magical Staves rather than the general rule considering where it is listed.
Arcane firearm in one hand, weapon in the other. Cast spell with arcane firearm as focus. Make the weapon attack using the weapon in the other hand.
Booming Blade (et al) specifies that the material component must be a melee weapon.
Right. But ALL artificer spells require a material component in the form of a focus. So booming blade for an artificer needs both a spellcasting focus AND a melee weapon. So either that weapon is an infused item, an arcane firearm, or a spellcasting focus of some sort needs to be in one hand with a weapon in the other.
Cast spell with focus. Make the requisite weapon attack with the weapon in the other hand. It's simple.
And my point was comparing Extra Attack to Arcane Firearm which is exactly how the class is “balanced”- Extra Attack for Armorer and Battlesmith, Alchemical Savant/Arcane Firearm for Artillerist and Alchemist. It’s literally the class design-not hyperbole in the slightest. And if you can’t accept the simple numerical fact that Extra Attack is far superior and merits an examination of Arcane Firearm, then your not up to having the discussion.
No Jayne. The Arcane Firearm is not the balance to Extra Attack. The fact that the Cantrips "level up" to increased damage at level 5 are the balance equivalent to Extra Attack. You'd know that if you at all bothered to realize that Cantrips are in fact the magical equivalent to basic attacks. So it is not the design that you claim.
Cantrips scale at about half the average damage of Physical Attacks. Wizard casts Firebolt at level 20= 4d10 = 22 average damage compared to a Fighter with a Rapier/Longsword at Level 20 = 4x(1d8+5) = 38. Cantrip damage ends up at 57% of average weapon damage. Actually it's even worse than this for all Cantrips except Eldritch Blast since they have 1 chance to hit vs 4x for the Extra Attack.
I am not trying to be purposely antagonistic but you keep throwing out arguments which have been roundly and repeatedly debunked.
Edit- If you want to see an extensive debunking of Cantrip power, this is helpful:
It doesn't debunk anything. Your talking about the basic attack on a spell caster. It's still far more powerful than a spell caster hitting things with a weapon. It's their version of getting multiple hits in even if it's not doing as much as martial characters doing the same thing. The equivelency does not disappear just because one is doing less damage than the other. Compare it to some of the typical weapons those casters get. Things that are mostly d4's and d6's rather than d10's and d12's. You'll find the damage is a bit closer than it seems. It's not perfect. But it's closer. And those attacks don't have the rider abilities that many of those cantrips give up some of their damage for.
Nor does it take into account certain classes and subclasses abilities to either increase that damage further or mitigate damage loss through things like Misses. Which some things like Certain Wizard Subclasses and the Warlock through Agonizing Blast actually do.
So yeah. The math is all spiffy and correct for what he gives. Yet it's NOT all there and it's missing the point. And it let's people like you miss the point as well. The Bias in that whole write up is extreme and narrow. It purposely uses a tool that deceptively looks about middle but then actually isn't through things like Adding in the Duelist fighting style which is a purposeful increase in damage that means that the Rapier is now working top end in damage automatically. You notice he doesn't do anything like do the math iwth a short sword without duelist? There is a reason for that. The damage doesn't come out as spiffy or nice.
One particular note of Shenanigans is his inclusion of Sneak Attack Damage. Rogues are the one class that don't actually get an Extra Attack adjacent ability as a basic class feature. They are a bit more of a risk reward system on a single blow. But if you look at them purely from a basic attack standpoint their damage is actually abysmal in most situations. It has almost no scaling to it with the exception of a couple points from ASI's gained. But he isn't going to point that out because that damage's the narrative he's got going.
Another Example of how he belittles cantrips is that when One actually is comparitive to his Chosen fighter With it's Fighting Style and upper end damage is to basically say the comparison is unfair because another class feature stacks with it and does more damage. But then the Fighter can get something that isn't strictly part of their class features to compensate. Even though he's selectively applied other class features in other places.
He even resorts to using Divine Smite on Paladin's, and acknowledging it's something seperate from Extra Attack if you notice, to keep the Paladin doing more damage. And the Ranger only wins out because of Two Weapon fighting... Not Addressing any other style of Ranger in that and it's only barely above his example wizard.
The most combat capable of the Bards he outright stops from comparing it to a 17th level wizard and says 16 because conveniently the damage goes up on the 17th level wizard and then the Bard no longer qualifies. Even with it's best and brightest at melee damage. The Truth is that the Paladin without Smites is actually not much farther above the Bard. Probably equating to the 17th level Wizard at best. But then they never actually improve with their basic weapon attacks except through an ASi or two after level 5. Which is also never mentioned.
He also conveniently never mentions anything about damage maximums. Which would actually be lower for most of these classes than it would appear. Many of them within about 8 points of their average damages. But the variance is much higher in the stronger straight damage cantrips.
That Evoker that he bases for only doing 16 Average damage... Which is it's level 6 total mind you. He conveniently doesn't do the math any higher than that because at level 11 that goes up to 22.5 and then 28 average damages at 17... Is looking at a Max Damage of 45 for a single basic attack. It's basically one of the highest single basic attack damages in the game. Mitigated by the high variance of actual damage because of the dice rolls. Which is what keeps it from being practically OP.
Overall it's not the unbiased comparison that he desperately tries to make it seem and many will buy into because it reinforces many biases or they don't understand all the classes well enough to see what is going on. It's a hit piece disguised as an objective comparison and it's written in very deceptive ways.
I love how you claim this write up is bias and then proceed to use a SINGLE subclass of Wizard as your justification for Cantrips being balanced against Extra Attack. I didn't even include fighter dueling damage in my original comparison because I was giving an apples to apples "best attack cantrip" vs "best extra attack" setup to debunk your laughable submission that somehow Cantrips level up to balance against Extra Attack. At no point did I even include things like Sneak Attack or Divine Smite because those aren't relevant to your original argument that Cantrips already balance Extra Attack so Arcane Firearm isn't supposed to be. If you want to play that type of logical shenanigans, your position still looses badly:
Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
Dueling Fighter- 4d8+20+8 = 60 Slashing/Piercing Damage (Note I am only including level 1 fighting style feature here even though I included a level 10 wizard feature for the evoker)
Extra Attack is 33% better even at the max ranges.
Just stop. It's ok to be wrong sometimes. I am not saying extending Arcane Firearm to also empower magical weapons is an EXACT balance for the Extra Attack that Battle Smith & Armorer get. Numerically it doesn't need to be SPECIFICALLY because I am saying it should apply to spells and magic weapons. The increased flexibility over Extra Attack is what would provide the balance to it being numerically inferior to Extra Attack. This would stop penalizing Artillerists who want to use their very limited number of Cantrips for utility and give them some level of scaling damage output for their main action out side of their very limited spell slots. I never said it would be equal to Extra Attack, just that it would allow the Artillerist to not be forced into using Cantrips exclusively.
What is the argument here? "I don't like the way the artillerist was designed?" Ok, work with your DM to homebrew it.
The artillerist was designed as a cantrip blaster with a(two) bonus action cannon blasts to boost their damage, while also providing battlefield control through wall spells and half cover by just being near the Cannon or using said Cannon to provide temp HP to other party members.
And my point was comparing Extra Attack to Arcane Firearm which is exactly how the class is “balanced”- Extra Attack for Armorer and Battlesmith, Alchemical Savant/Arcane Firearm for Artillerist and Alchemist. It’s literally the class design-not hyperbole in the slightest. And if you can’t accept the simple numerical fact that Extra Attack is far superior and merits an examination of Arcane Firearm, then your not up to having the discussion.
No Jayne. The Arcane Firearm is not the balance to Extra Attack. The fact that the Cantrips "level up" to increased damage at level 5 are the balance equivalent to Extra Attack. You'd know that if you at all bothered to realize that Cantrips are in fact the magical equivalent to basic attacks. So it is not the design that you claim.
Cantrips scale at about half the average damage of Physical Attacks. Wizard casts Firebolt at level 20= 4d10 = 22 average damage compared to a Fighter with a Rapier/Longsword at Level 20 = 4x(1d8+5) = 38. Cantrip damage ends up at 57% of average weapon damage. Actually it's even worse than this for all Cantrips except Eldritch Blast since they have 1 chance to hit vs 4x for the Extra Attack.
I am not trying to be purposely antagonistic but you keep throwing out arguments which have been roundly and repeatedly debunked.
Edit- If you want to see an extensive debunking of Cantrip power, this is helpful:
It doesn't debunk anything. Your talking about the basic attack on a spell caster. It's still far more powerful than a spell caster hitting things with a weapon. It's their version of getting multiple hits in even if it's not doing as much as martial characters doing the same thing. The equivelency does not disappear just because one is doing less damage than the other. Compare it to some of the typical weapons those casters get. Things that are mostly d4's and d6's rather than d10's and d12's. You'll find the damage is a bit closer than it seems. It's not perfect. But it's closer. And those attacks don't have the rider abilities that many of those cantrips give up some of their damage for.
Nor does it take into account certain classes and subclasses abilities to either increase that damage further or mitigate damage loss through things like Misses. Which some things like Certain Wizard Subclasses and the Warlock through Agonizing Blast actually do.
So yeah. The math is all spiffy and correct for what he gives. Yet it's NOT all there and it's missing the point. And it let's people like you miss the point as well. The Bias in that whole write up is extreme and narrow. It purposely uses a tool that deceptively looks about middle but then actually isn't through things like Adding in the Duelist fighting style which is a purposeful increase in damage that means that the Rapier is now working top end in damage automatically. You notice he doesn't do anything like do the math iwth a short sword without duelist? There is a reason for that. The damage doesn't come out as spiffy or nice.
One particular note of Shenanigans is his inclusion of Sneak Attack Damage. Rogues are the one class that don't actually get an Extra Attack adjacent ability as a basic class feature. They are a bit more of a risk reward system on a single blow. But if you look at them purely from a basic attack standpoint their damage is actually abysmal in most situations. It has almost no scaling to it with the exception of a couple points from ASI's gained. But he isn't going to point that out because that damage's the narrative he's got going.
Another Example of how he belittles cantrips is that when One actually is comparitive to his Chosen fighter With it's Fighting Style and upper end damage is to basically say the comparison is unfair because another class feature stacks with it and does more damage. But then the Fighter can get something that isn't strictly part of their class features to compensate. Even though he's selectively applied other class features in other places.
He even resorts to using Divine Smite on Paladin's, and acknowledging it's something seperate from Extra Attack if you notice, to keep the Paladin doing more damage. And the Ranger only wins out because of Two Weapon fighting... Not Addressing any other style of Ranger in that and it's only barely above his example wizard.
The most combat capable of the Bards he outright stops from comparing it to a 17th level wizard and says 16 because conveniently the damage goes up on the 17th level wizard and then the Bard no longer qualifies. Even with it's best and brightest at melee damage. The Truth is that the Paladin without Smites is actually not much farther above the Bard. Probably equating to the 17th level Wizard at best. But then they never actually improve with their basic weapon attacks except through an ASi or two after level 5. Which is also never mentioned.
He also conveniently never mentions anything about damage maximums. Which would actually be lower for most of these classes than it would appear. Many of them within about 8 points of their average damages. But the variance is much higher in the stronger straight damage cantrips.
That Evoker that he bases for only doing 16 Average damage... Which is it's level 6 total mind you. He conveniently doesn't do the math any higher than that because at level 11 that goes up to 22.5 and then 28 average damages at 17... Is looking at a Max Damage of 45 for a single basic attack. It's basically one of the highest single basic attack damages in the game. Mitigated by the high variance of actual damage because of the dice rolls. Which is what keeps it from being practically OP.
Overall it's not the unbiased comparison that he desperately tries to make it seem and many will buy into because it reinforces many biases or they don't understand all the classes well enough to see what is going on. It's a hit piece disguised as an objective comparison and it's written in very deceptive ways.
I love how you claim this write up is bias and then proceed to use a SINGLE subclass of Wizard as your justification for Cantrips being balanced against Extra Attack. I didn't even include fighter dueling damage in my original comparison because I was giving an apples to apples "best attack cantrip" vs "best extra attack" setup to debunk your laughable submission that somehow Cantrips level up to balance against Extra Attack. At no point did I even include things like Sneak Attack or Divine Smite because those aren't relevant to your original argument that Cantrips already balance Extra Attack so Arcane Firearm isn't supposed to be. If you want to play that type of logical shenanigans, your position still looses badly:
Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
Dueling Fighter- 4d8+20+8 = 60 Slashing/Piercing Damage (Note I am only including level 1 fighting style feature here even though I included a level 10 wizard feature for the evoker)
Extra Attack is 33% better even at the max ranges.
Just stop. It's ok to be wrong sometimes. I am not saying extending Arcane Firearm to also empower magical weapons is an EXACT balance for the Extra Attack that Battle Smith & Armorer get. Numerically it doesn't need to be SPECIFICALLY because I am saying it should apply to spells and magic weapons. The increased flexibility over Extra Attack is what would provide the balance to it being numerically inferior to Extra Attack. This would stop penalizing Artillerists who want to use their very limited number of Cantrips for utility and give them some level of scaling damage output for their main action out side of their very limited spell slots. I never said it would be equal to Extra Attack, just that it would allow the Artillerist to not be forced into using Cantrips exclusively.
How I use a single subclass of Wizard?
All I used is the things that he wrote about. Nothing more. But your accusing me of only using one subclass of Wizard. Think about that for a second when your going on these diatribes trying to tell me I'm wrong.
And Yes. You are including a level 1 fighting style here. Or do you not understand where the +8 comes from? That is the Dueling Fighting Style Damage added on to the 4 basic attacks of the Fighter. I'm aware you just simply ripped his numbers out of his document and then scaled them for your own usage. But your not even clear on just that much it seems. Yet your trying to tell me he is entirely unbiased in trying to make your point and I am wrong.
The Fighter is also the Strongest Martial Subclass when it comes to basic attacks. This much should be obvious because they get more basic attacks than anybody else. Your at least aware of this fact right? Or has that escaped your attention to?
His whole document is written to seem like it's not cherry picking while it is indeed cherry picking. And your just blindly following his document but don't even seem to be understanding where all the numbers that your using are coming from. Yet are trying to tell me I'm simply wrong. This is a contradiction.
Oi vey go re-read. My original numbers used base level 20 Fighter vs base level 20 Wizard. "Wizard casts Firebolt at level 20= 4d10 = 22 average damage compared to a Fighter with a Rapier/Longsword at Level 20 = 4x(1d8+5) = 38."
Then you literally said in your response "That Evoker that he bases for only doing 16 Average damage... Which is it's level 6 total mind you. He conveniently doesn't do the math any higher than that because at level 11 that goes up to 22.5 and then 28 average damages at 17... Is looking at a Max Damage of 45 for a single basic attack."
So then for a SOMEWHAT fair comparison since you brought in a level 10 subclass feature I compared level 20 Evoker with their level 10 feature and level 20 Fighter with their level 1 fighting style.
"Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
I included his document only to say we aren't the first to debate Cantrip vs Extra attack. The maths have been done. The debate is over. Since you can't even bother to quote/paraphrase yourself properly, this no longer is amusing. It's just exhausting. Peace out.
Oh I like the flavor of Artillerist very much. Arcane Gunner/Artillery has appeal. I am saying that building the flavor of the subclass around guns/cannons but then designing features that don't promote that is not well thought out.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
Unless your firearm has a hole in it, casting through it is not a defined thing and means nothing at all. ... There's no such thing as casting "through" a focus.
I don't know man, when the wrinkly guy in Star Wars was telling Luke to "let the hate flow through you" the audience seemed to get it. This seems like a really bad faith argument. Words have meaning and when the game doesn't explicitly override the definition of a word you just assume it means what it usually means, otherwise how did you get past the first page in the Player's Handbook?
Oi vey go re-read. My original numbers used base level 20 Fighter vs base level 20 Wizard. "Wizard casts Firebolt at level 20= 4d10 = 22 average damage compared to a Fighter with a Rapier/Longsword at Level 20 = 4x(1d8+5) = 38."
Then you literally said in your response "That Evoker that he bases for only doing 16 Average damage... Which is it's level 6 total mind you. He conveniently doesn't do the math any higher than that because at level 11 that goes up to 22.5 and then 28 average damages at 17... Is looking at a Max Damage of 45 for a single basic attack."
So then for a SOMEWHAT fair comparison since you brought in a level 10 subclass feature I compared level 20 Evoker with their level 10 feature and level 20 Fighter with their level 1 fighting style.
"Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
I included his document only to say we aren't the first to debate Cantrip vs Extra attack. The maths have been done. The debate is over. Since you can't even bother to quote/paraphrase yourself properly, this no longer is amusing. It's just exhausting. Peace out.
BS. That link you sent. That uses a lot of different things as different levels. I bring that up in my criticism and your pretending it doesn't now. And Now your switching thigns up in various ways here to get the outcome you want yet again.
You used his Document as Proof that Cantrips were far from inadequate. If you really wanted it to be proof you should have discussed some of it's failings and perhaps addressed them for yourself. But you only said cantrips were bad compared to extra attack and then let his document do all the argueing. Which he uses an entirely disingenuous position. An then you complain about various things I bring up based upon his position in his document which is your supporting evidence for your argument here and are complaining when I poke holes in it.
If you didn't want me to poke holes in his badly written psueodo-unbiased argument then you shouldn't have used it.
Also Even with the Math Done. The Math does not invalidate the fact that leveled Cantrips are still the Caster equivalent to Extra Attack. Nothing in the link you gave or your argument actually denies or refutes that. All it says is that the damage isn't quite as good. Doesn't even address the fact that it shouldn't be as good for various reasons. which I have said AGAIN.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
It's not really a wording issue. It's an individual perception issue. People are choosing to assosicate these words purely with mechanical aspects when they don't have to be. That choice can easily be a subconcious one and not necessarily bad. But it is not all encompassing.
Glass Cannon, Blaster, Nuker, And other expressions have been used for magical characters many many times. Because they have slowly been disassociated from purely mechanical things over time.
Those things can easily be spell based. 5e isn't even the first to do so (it's been a video game and Anime/Manga thing for a long time). But is not something that everybody is used to. They don't need to be changed. We just need to open our perceptions to how they can be used somewhat.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
It's not really a wording issue. It's an individual perception issue. People are choosing to assosicate these words purely with mechanical aspects when they don't have to be. That choice can easily be a subconcious one and not necessarily bad. But it is not all encompassing.
Glass Cannon, Blaster, Nuker, And other expressions have been used for magical characters many many times. Because they have slowly been disassociated from purely mechanical things over time.
Those things can easily be spell based. 5e isn't even the first to do so (it's been a video game and Anime/Manga thing for a long time). But is not something that everybody is used to. They don't need to be changed. We just need to open our perceptions to how they can be used somewhat.
I would argue it’s not a personal perception issue but I can see how you would think that. When I look at Artificer I see mechanical/physical means of producing magical effects. They aren’t waving a wand around and drawing glyphs in the air. They view magic as an energy source that they use through gadgets and tools. I mean they literally can’t cast without some sort of mechanical tool or implement. They also are the only class with starting firearm proficiency (I think). In their class description it says to describe all their spells as if coming from a gadget of some kind. Realistically speaking, Artificer shouldn’t even have “spells” but 5e is so streamlined that spells are being used in proxy of a dedicated resource and magical effect system for Artificer. Infusions are a light version of this but the spells are being used to fill in the gaps.
In arguing for Arcane Firearm to apply to spells AND ranged magical weapons, I’m simply advocating for Artificer to be more of an Artificer and less of an Evoker with half the spell slots.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
It's not really a wording issue. It's an individual perception issue. People are choosing to assosicate these words purely with mechanical aspects when they don't have to be. That choice can easily be a subconcious one and not necessarily bad. But it is not all encompassing.
Glass Cannon, Blaster, Nuker, And other expressions have been used for magical characters many many times. Because they have slowly been disassociated from purely mechanical things over time.
Those things can easily be spell based. 5e isn't even the first to do so (it's been a video game and Anime/Manga thing for a long time). But is not something that everybody is used to. They don't need to be changed. We just need to open our perceptions to how they can be used somewhat.
I would argue it’s not a personal perception issue but I can see how you would think that. When I look at Artificer I see mechanical/physical means of producing magical effects. They aren’t waving a wand around and drawing glyphs in the air. They view magic as an energy source that they use through gadgets and tools. I mean they literally can’t cast without some sort of mechanical tool or implement. They also are the only class with starting firearm proficiency (I think). In their class description it says to describe all their spells as if coming from a gadget of some kind. Realistically speaking, Artificer shouldn’t even have “spells” but 5e is so streamlined that spells are being used in proxy of a dedicated resource and magical effect system for Artificer. Infusions are a light version of this but the spells are being used to fill in the gaps.
In arguing for Arcane Firearm to apply to spells AND ranged magical weapons, I’m simply advocating for Artificer to be more of an Artificer and less of an Evoker with half the spell slots.
even when you mix the two. That doesn't mean that Arcane Firearm has to work on both. If we are going by that logic. Arcane Firearm still shouldn't work through things like crossbows and such like some in this thread are wanting to work. If anything it should allow a firearm to also be a focus of a spell. Not so that you get the arcane firearm bonus on physical attacks. But so that you can cast spells through a musket or pistol or the like. Because a firearm is a unique type of ranged weapon with it's own forms of functionality and if we really want to say because they called it arcane firearm it should work on more than just spells. there is still nothing that says it should be all ranged weapons. It would just promote more usage of a rare kind of range weapon that your pointing out they get proficiency in.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
It's not really a wording issue. It's an individual perception issue. People are choosing to assosicate these words purely with mechanical aspects when they don't have to be. That choice can easily be a subconcious one and not necessarily bad. But it is not all encompassing.
Glass Cannon, Blaster, Nuker, And other expressions have been used for magical characters many many times. Because they have slowly been disassociated from purely mechanical things over time.
Those things can easily be spell based. 5e isn't even the first to do so (it's been a video game and Anime/Manga thing for a long time). But is not something that everybody is used to. They don't need to be changed. We just need to open our perceptions to how they can be used somewhat.
I would argue it’s not a personal perception issue but I can see how you would think that. When I look at Artificer I see mechanical/physical means of producing magical effects. They aren’t waving a wand around and drawing glyphs in the air. They view magic as an energy source that they use through gadgets and tools. I mean they literally can’t cast without some sort of mechanical tool or implement. They also are the only class with starting firearm proficiency (I think). In their class description it says to describe all their spells as if coming from a gadget of some kind. Realistically speaking, Artificer shouldn’t even have “spells” but 5e is so streamlined that spells are being used in proxy of a dedicated resource and magical effect system for Artificer. Infusions are a light version of this but the spells are being used to fill in the gaps.
In arguing for Arcane Firearm to apply to spells AND ranged magical weapons, I’m simply advocating for Artificer to be more of an Artificer and less of an Evoker with half the spell slots.
even when you mix the two. That doesn't mean that Arcane Firearm has to work on both. If we are going by that logic. Arcane Firearm still shouldn't work through things like crossbows and such like some in this thread are wanting to work. If anything it should allow a firearm to also be a focus of a spell. Not so that you get the arcane firearm bonus on physical attacks. But so that you can cast spells through a musket or pistol or the like. Because a firearm is a unique type of ranged weapon with it's own forms of functionality and if we really want to say because they called it arcane firearm it should work on more than just spells. there is still nothing that says it should be all ranged weapons. It would just promote more usage of a rare kind of range weapon that your pointing out they get proficiency in.
Oh I agree I am advocating for a sub-optimal solution. An ACTUAL Arcane Firearm feature where you got to craft a gun would be far better but also far more complicated. Cest la vie.
Arcane Firearm doesn't do *anything* until your DM fixes it with a houserule, so it's a bit challenging to discuss what it does across different tables. Unless your firearm has a hole in it, casting through it is not a defined thing and means nothing at all. If your firearm is, say, just a stick, you have no mechanism for casting through it and cannot trigger the ability. I am, as always, convinced Tasha's was never playtested.
What?
It must be a wand, rod, or staff (any of which is an arcane focus), and allows you to use said focus for your artificer spells. Casting "through" merely (obviously) means using that focus for the spell.
Obvious for you may not mean obvious for anyone else. You have chosen one of the options I listed (Alchemical Savant, only slightly less bad - Alchemical Savant really doesn't work on cantrips), but why didn't you choose Enhanced Arcane Focus/All-Purpose Tool/every other special focus in the game, which only requires holding the focus? Why didn't you choose a literal interpretation, and you have to drill a hole in your stick?
There's no such thing as casting "through" a focus. That's not how foci work. Like most of Tasha's, this rule was written without any understanding of how the game works, so we're left to guess at what they were trying to say. Ultimately, as a result, we can't really tell people how the rule will work on a table until they talk to their GM, just like trying to cast Charm Person through a glass window.
nah, you're being intentionally obtuse.
From the PHB: "An arcane focus is a special item — an orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length of wood, or some similar item — designed to channel the power of arcane spells." D&D 5e is written in natural language, and does not try to define common english words as technical terms. "Channel" -> "through." Easy and obvious. The entire game falls apart if you ignore the basic meanings of words, and you're just cherry-picking random bits to rag on the book.
Edit: seriously, the best thing you can hope to accomplish with this (other than, I guess, performance art) is to confuse people.
No amount of shenanigans will let you pretend channel and through are synonyms. Casting a spell through an arcane firearm is word salad, and it's patently absurd pretending otherwise. Your interpretation is not the only possible one, and the RAW makes no sense. It might well say, "when you flibdorch the globsnatch while casting the spell, you add 1d8 to one damage roll".
[REDACTED]
Arcane firearm is a great class feature and definitely is more efficient when used with Cantrips... but I’d offer that’s kind of the point. Use your other spells for buffing then and continue to blast. 🙂
Notes: Please keep posts respectful and constructive.
Arcane firearm in one hand, weapon in the other. Cast spell with arcane firearm as focus. Make the weapon attack using the weapon in the other hand.
weak indeed. but thank you for making me aware of it. Even old it's useful to know just in case.
And in response to it all I can really say ultimately is it's up to your DM if they want to follow that route... but it's not official.
Booming Blade (et al) specifies that the material component must be a melee weapon.
You may have missed my edit. It's actually right in the DMG: "Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff."
There is a problem with that. That is talking specifically about magical items Staves, it does not however say it works on any staff focus that is not also already a magical item. The PHB entries which list the non-magical ones don't say that they can be used as quarter staves. They only talk about focusing magic. And the Quarter staff doesn't say anything to bridge the gap either.
So it looks more like it's a rules exception applied to Magical Staves rather than the general rule considering where it is listed.
Right. But ALL artificer spells require a material component in the form of a focus. So booming blade for an artificer needs both a spellcasting focus AND a melee weapon.
So either that weapon is an infused item, an arcane firearm, or a spellcasting focus of some sort needs to be in one hand with a weapon in the other.
Cast spell with focus. Make the requisite weapon attack with the weapon in the other hand. It's simple.
I love how you claim this write up is bias and then proceed to use a SINGLE subclass of Wizard as your justification for Cantrips being balanced against Extra Attack. I didn't even include fighter dueling damage in my original comparison because I was giving an apples to apples "best attack cantrip" vs "best extra attack" setup to debunk your laughable submission that somehow Cantrips level up to balance against Extra Attack. At no point did I even include things like Sneak Attack or Divine Smite because those aren't relevant to your original argument that Cantrips already balance Extra Attack so Arcane Firearm isn't supposed to be. If you want to play that type of logical shenanigans, your position still looses badly:
Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
Dueling Fighter- 4d8+20+8 = 60 Slashing/Piercing Damage (Note I am only including level 1 fighting style feature here even though I included a level 10 wizard feature for the evoker)
Extra Attack is 33% better even at the max ranges.
Just stop. It's ok to be wrong sometimes. I am not saying extending Arcane Firearm to also empower magical weapons is an EXACT balance for the Extra Attack that Battle Smith & Armorer get. Numerically it doesn't need to be SPECIFICALLY because I am saying it should apply to spells and magic weapons. The increased flexibility over Extra Attack is what would provide the balance to it being numerically inferior to Extra Attack. This would stop penalizing Artillerists who want to use their very limited number of Cantrips for utility and give them some level of scaling damage output for their main action out side of their very limited spell slots. I never said it would be equal to Extra Attack, just that it would allow the Artillerist to not be forced into using Cantrips exclusively.
What is the argument here? "I don't like the way the artillerist was designed?" Ok, work with your DM to homebrew it.
The artillerist was designed as a cantrip blaster with a(two) bonus action cannon blasts to boost their damage, while also providing battlefield control through wall spells and half cover by just being near the Cannon or using said Cannon to provide temp HP to other party members.
How I use a single subclass of Wizard?
All I used is the things that he wrote about. Nothing more. But your accusing me of only using one subclass of Wizard. Think about that for a second when your going on these diatribes trying to tell me I'm wrong.
And Yes. You are including a level 1 fighting style here. Or do you not understand where the +8 comes from? That is the Dueling Fighting Style Damage added on to the 4 basic attacks of the Fighter. I'm aware you just simply ripped his numbers out of his document and then scaled them for your own usage. But your not even clear on just that much it seems. Yet your trying to tell me he is entirely unbiased in trying to make your point and I am wrong.
The Fighter is also the Strongest Martial Subclass when it comes to basic attacks. This much should be obvious because they get more basic attacks than anybody else. Your at least aware of this fact right? Or has that escaped your attention to?
His whole document is written to seem like it's not cherry picking while it is indeed cherry picking. And your just blindly following his document but don't even seem to be understanding where all the numbers that your using are coming from. Yet are trying to tell me I'm simply wrong. This is a contradiction.
Oi vey go re-read. My original numbers used base level 20 Fighter vs base level 20 Wizard. "Wizard casts Firebolt at level 20= 4d10 = 22 average damage compared to a Fighter with a Rapier/Longsword at Level 20 = 4x(1d8+5) = 38."
Then you literally said in your response "That Evoker that he bases for only doing 16 Average damage... Which is it's level 6 total mind you. He conveniently doesn't do the math any higher than that because at level 11 that goes up to 22.5 and then 28 average damages at 17... Is looking at a Max Damage of 45 for a single basic attack."
So then for a SOMEWHAT fair comparison since you brought in a level 10 subclass feature I compared level 20 Evoker with their level 10 feature and level 20 Fighter with their level 1 fighting style.
"Evoker Max Damage Firebolt- 4d10+5 = 45 Fire Damage
Dueling Fighter- 4d8+20+8 = 60 Slashing/Piercing Damage"
I included his document only to say we aren't the first to debate Cantrip vs Extra attack. The maths have been done. The debate is over. Since you can't even bother to quote/paraphrase yourself properly, this no longer is amusing. It's just exhausting. Peace out.
Oh I like the flavor of Artillerist very much. Arcane Gunner/Artillery has appeal. I am saying that building the flavor of the subclass around guns/cannons but then designing features that don't promote that is not well thought out.
So it's a wording issue? That it's called artillerist/firearm/canon while being spell based? I don't disagree, but this is a whole lot over some weird word choices.
Personally, from the start, I've been calling Maximilian a wandslinger.
I don't know man, when the wrinkly guy in Star Wars was telling Luke to "let the hate flow through you" the audience seemed to get it. This seems like a really bad faith argument. Words have meaning and when the game doesn't explicitly override the definition of a word you just assume it means what it usually means, otherwise how did you get past the first page in the Player's Handbook?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
BS. That link you sent. That uses a lot of different things as different levels. I bring that up in my criticism and your pretending it doesn't now. And Now your switching thigns up in various ways here to get the outcome you want yet again.
You used his Document as Proof that Cantrips were far from inadequate. If you really wanted it to be proof you should have discussed some of it's failings and perhaps addressed them for yourself. But you only said cantrips were bad compared to extra attack and then let his document do all the argueing. Which he uses an entirely disingenuous position. An then you complain about various things I bring up based upon his position in his document which is your supporting evidence for your argument here and are complaining when I poke holes in it.
If you didn't want me to poke holes in his badly written psueodo-unbiased argument then you shouldn't have used it.
Also Even with the Math Done. The Math does not invalidate the fact that leveled Cantrips are still the Caster equivalent to Extra Attack. Nothing in the link you gave or your argument actually denies or refutes that. All it says is that the damage isn't quite as good. Doesn't even address the fact that it shouldn't be as good for various reasons. which I have said AGAIN.
It's not really a wording issue. It's an individual perception issue. People are choosing to assosicate these words purely with mechanical aspects when they don't have to be. That choice can easily be a subconcious one and not necessarily bad. But it is not all encompassing.
Glass Cannon, Blaster, Nuker, And other expressions have been used for magical characters many many times. Because they have slowly been disassociated from purely mechanical things over time.
Those things can easily be spell based. 5e isn't even the first to do so (it's been a video game and Anime/Manga thing for a long time). But is not something that everybody is used to. They don't need to be changed. We just need to open our perceptions to how they can be used somewhat.
I would argue it’s not a personal perception issue but I can see how you would think that. When I look at Artificer I see mechanical/physical means of producing magical effects. They aren’t waving a wand around and drawing glyphs in the air. They view magic as an energy source that they use through gadgets and tools. I mean they literally can’t cast without some sort of mechanical tool or implement. They also are the only class with starting firearm proficiency (I think). In their class description it says to describe all their spells as if coming from a gadget of some kind. Realistically speaking, Artificer shouldn’t even have “spells” but 5e is so streamlined that spells are being used in proxy of a dedicated resource and magical effect system for Artificer. Infusions are a light version of this but the spells are being used to fill in the gaps.
In arguing for Arcane Firearm to apply to spells AND ranged magical weapons, I’m simply advocating for Artificer to be more of an Artificer and less of an Evoker with half the spell slots.
even when you mix the two. That doesn't mean that Arcane Firearm has to work on both. If we are going by that logic. Arcane Firearm still shouldn't work through things like crossbows and such like some in this thread are wanting to work. If anything it should allow a firearm to also be a focus of a spell. Not so that you get the arcane firearm bonus on physical attacks. But so that you can cast spells through a musket or pistol or the like. Because a firearm is a unique type of ranged weapon with it's own forms of functionality and if we really want to say because they called it arcane firearm it should work on more than just spells. there is still nothing that says it should be all ranged weapons. It would just promote more usage of a rare kind of range weapon that your pointing out they get proficiency in.
Oh I agree I am advocating for a sub-optimal solution. An ACTUAL Arcane Firearm feature where you got to craft a gun would be far better but also far more complicated. Cest la vie.
[REDACTED]
Arcane firearm is a great class feature and definitely is more efficient when used with Cantrips... but I’d offer that’s kind of the point. Use your other spells for buffing then and continue to blast. 🙂