I'm not saying change it to ONLY boosting weapon attacks. I am saying for a class that gets limited spell slots and few cantrips but LOTS of options for ranged attack damage, making the big power boost at level 5 only apply to the limited spell slots and few cantrips is a strange class design choice.
Only to cantrips, spell slots, and magic items.
Beyond that I didn't think you were. I assumed you were talking about expanding it to also include weapon damage. I'm just saying boosting your light crossbow with an extra 1d8 of weapon damage for 2d8 + DEX instead of opting for a 3d8 ray of frost (plus rider effect) at 5th level is a bit of a strange gameplay choice in an absence of other reasons more specific to the character going into that decision.
Artificer subclasses are split between extra attack (Armorer, Battle Smith) and extra damage on spells (Artillerist, Alchemist) for their 5th level features. It's similar to how cleric subclasses get either Potent Spellcasting or Divine Strike as their 8th level feature. If anything it's rather consistent design. Tasha's variant feature for Blessed Strikes applying radiant damage to both is the strange newcomer not the norm.
From a design perspective it's not strange. From a mechanical perspective its not necessary, the feature is already plenty powerful enough. You might find it odd from a conceptual space but reflavoring is cheap, easy, and always an option.
And if you're suffering from a shortage of cantrips there are other ways to get some extra cantrips.
But if you want a mechanical argument against applying Arcane Firearm to both weapon damage and cantrips then consider Booming Blade and Green Flame-Blade which involve both weapon attacks and spell damage rolls. If Arcane Firearm applied to both scenarios that'd be an extra 1d8 on the weapon damage roll and an extra 1d8 on the spell damage roll. That'd be pretty broken.
Looking back at your first post I see you specifically put "ranged weapon" so, sure that'd be mechanically sound I guess considering Booming Blade and Green Flame-Blade call for melee weapons. And if you really want it that way in your games then you don't need to convince any of us. But I disagree that's how the class ought to be considering everything else about the class operates through spellcasting or at least spellcasting modifiers, including the attacks and saving throws of the Eldritch Cannon.
Having one feature also apply to weapons when none of the other features do would be the strange design decision not the other way around.
I understand it all applies to all spells and yes it applies to your Enhanced Arcane Focus as well. My point is that for a subclass dedicated to ranged attacks and gaining the firearm proficiency, the current iteration of Arcane Firearm dis-incentivizes Artillerists from utilizing their other ranged damage dealing options. I am just saying it should be an even playing field between an artillerist focusing on Cantrip/Spell Damage and an artillerist wanting to focus on Crossbows/Firearms with for instance the repeating shot infusion.
Welcome to the world of spell casting.
The reality is that their other ranged options aren't necessarily as good as those cantrips. Particularly after getting leveled a bit. Crossbows and Firearms are going to be secondary in damage without a lot of extra rescources to make them better such as feats and the like that the arcane firearm has nothing to do with. The arcane firearm is all about spells and spell casting. This is not a mistake.
We will have to agree to disagree on the assertion "This is not a mistake." The entire focus of Artificer is magical gadgets and the entire focus of Artillerist is magical ranged attacks. It seems strange to me to decide at level 5 AFTER granting infusions that enhance your mundane weapons to basically say "You know, lets give a bump in damage output for this class, you know since they don't get Extra Attack, BUT let's make sure they can ONLY use it with half of the skill set we have given them...."
Imagine if Paladin was told they could ONLY use their extra attack when they use Divine Smite. That is effectively what Arcane Firearm does....
You just said it yourself. Magical Ranged Attacks. Not physical. Not Martial. Magical Ranged Attacks.
Your Repeating Crossbow may be magical. Or have an infusion on it. But it is not a Magical Ranged Attack. it's physical. It's martial. It is not Magical.
So you can tell me we will have to agree to disagree. But even your disagreement is making my point.
And no. Arcane Firearm isn't like Divine Smite from a Paladin. Arcane Firearm is like the additional damage done by some clerics on spells that they cast. Or certain Mages that do additional damage to certain kinds of spells. Your Paladin comparison is overly hyperbolic and wrong.
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".
Separately, assuming the ability works the way most people are assuming it does, I agree with OP. The Artillerist already struggles really hard with how much better than the damage the temp hp option is, so much so that the L9 ability buffs everything except the temp hp, but the Arcane Firearm ability makes this worse by not buffing the cannon. Armorers get better at using their armor, one would think Artillerists would get better at using their artillery.
I understand it all applies to all spells and yes it applies to your Enhanced Arcane Focus as well. My point is that for a subclass dedicated to ranged attacks and gaining the firearm proficiency, the current iteration of Arcane Firearm dis-incentivizes Artillerists from utilizing their other ranged damage dealing options. I am just saying it should be an even playing field between an artillerist focusing on Cantrip/Spell Damage and an artillerist wanting to focus on Crossbows/Firearms with for instance the repeating shot infusion.
Welcome to the world of spell casting.
The reality is that their other ranged options aren't necessarily as good as those cantrips. Particularly after getting leveled a bit. Crossbows and Firearms are going to be secondary in damage without a lot of extra rescources to make them better such as feats and the like that the arcane firearm has nothing to do with. The arcane firearm is all about spells and spell casting. This is not a mistake.
We will have to agree to disagree on the assertion "This is not a mistake." The entire focus of Artificer is magical gadgets and the entire focus of Artillerist is magical ranged attacks. It seems strange to me to decide at level 5 AFTER granting infusions that enhance your mundane weapons to basically say "You know, lets give a bump in damage output for this class, you know since they don't get Extra Attack, BUT let's make sure they can ONLY use it with half of the skill set we have given them...."
Imagine if Paladin was told they could ONLY use their extra attack when they use Divine Smite. That is effectively what Arcane Firearm does....
You just said it yourself. Magical Ranged Attacks. Not physical. Not Martial. Magical Ranged Attacks.
Your Repeating Crossbow may be magical. Or have an infusion on it. But it is not a Magical Ranged Attack. it's physical. It's martial. It is not Magical.
So you can tell me we will have to agree to disagree. But even your disagreement is making my point.
And no. Arcane Firearm isn't like Divine Smite from a Paladin. Arcane Firearm is like the additional damage done by some clerics on spells that they cast. Or certain Mages that do additional damage to certain kinds of spells. Your Paladin comparison is overly hyperbolic and wrong.
😂Magic weapons literally deal magical damage which is why they overcome resistance to mundane weapon damage. Such a fundamental mistake precludes your opinion from being taken seriously on the rest of your criticism.
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.
😂Magic weapons literally deal magical damage which is why they overcome resistance to mundane weapon damage. Such a fundamental mistake precludes your opinion from being taken seriously on the rest of your criticism.
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.
That's certainly true for murdering a single target. When you're casting an AoE, it's slightly (.5 damage, on average) inferior to the Evocation Wizard ability Empowered Evocation, but you get it 5 levels earlier than they do, and not once have I heard anyone complain that Empowered Evocation is weak. It just means you need to lean harder into AOE damage spells, and if your DM has drunk the magic missile koolaid on that rules paradox, magic missile all day long.
Thankfully, the Artillerist spell list adds many AOEs to your list, like the iconic fireball. If you're hitting a crowd of targets, adding 1d8 damage to every target can quickly add up to overwhelm Extra Attack entirely. But the cold, hard truth is that Artillerists are better multiclassed with wizard, to get your hands on more spell slots and more AOEs. In fact, an Artillerist/Evoker gets to add the 1d8 and their Int modifier to the entire Fireball. It's a niche build, but it's pretty memetastic.
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.
No amount of shenanigans will let you pretend channel and through are synonyms.
No-one said they are synonms. Their meaning is related in common english ('through' as a preposition related to 'channel' as a verb) --- you "channel into or through something." You already know this. Basically anyone reading this thread knows this.
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.
Your rules-lawyering is shoddy and your intent is dubious. You are not helping anyone play or understand the game; you are sowing discord and confusion. Please stop.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Artillerists don't have Extra Attack, and Arcane Firearm also doesn't really compensate for that. Before level 5, an Artillerist may sometimes choose a light crossbow (or whatever) over cantrips, but at/past level 5, cantrips + arcane firearm outstrips any weapon use (without needing a second attribute keeping pace with Int).
Basically, arcane firearm's effects being added to weapons won't "fix" anything. You would need to redesign Arcane Firearm entirely and/or all of Artillerist to make "uses weapons as main attack, instead of cantrips" optimal. (Yet again, Artillerist is the wrong subclass for that idea.)
Note: I don't think Artillerists being mostly spell-based is broken at all, and the Eldritch Cannon can fill the "artillery" role just fine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
However there are no wands or Rods with combat stats unless they have a power to turn into some kind of actual weapon.
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.
Only to cantrips, spell slots, and magic items.
Beyond that I didn't think you were. I assumed you were talking about expanding it to also include weapon damage. I'm just saying boosting your light crossbow with an extra 1d8 of weapon damage for 2d8 + DEX instead of opting for a 3d8 ray of frost (plus rider effect) at 5th level is a bit of a strange gameplay choice in an absence of other reasons more specific to the character going into that decision.
Artificer subclasses are split between extra attack (Armorer, Battle Smith) and extra damage on spells (Artillerist, Alchemist) for their 5th level features. It's similar to how cleric subclasses get either Potent Spellcasting or Divine Strike as their 8th level feature. If anything it's rather consistent design. Tasha's variant feature for Blessed Strikes applying radiant damage to both is the strange newcomer not the norm.
From a design perspective it's not strange. From a mechanical perspective its not necessary, the feature is already plenty powerful enough. You might find it odd from a conceptual space but reflavoring is cheap, easy, and always an option.
And if you're suffering from a shortage of cantrips there are other ways to get some extra cantrips.
But if you want a mechanical argument against applying Arcane Firearm to both weapon damage and cantrips then consider Booming Blade and Green Flame-Blade which involve both weapon attacks and spell damage rolls. If Arcane Firearm applied to both scenarios that'd be an extra 1d8 on the weapon damage roll and an extra 1d8 on the spell damage roll. That'd be pretty broken.Looking back at your first post I see you specifically put "ranged weapon" so, sure that'd be mechanically sound I guess considering Booming Blade and Green Flame-Blade call for melee weapons. And if you really want it that way in your games then you don't need to convince any of us. But I disagree that's how the class ought to be considering everything else about the class operates through spellcasting or at least spellcasting modifiers, including the attacks and saving throws of the Eldritch Cannon.
Having one feature also apply to weapons when none of the other features do would be the strange design decision not the other way around.
You just said it yourself. Magical Ranged Attacks. Not physical. Not Martial. Magical Ranged Attacks.
Your Repeating Crossbow may be magical. Or have an infusion on it. But it is not a Magical Ranged Attack. it's physical. It's martial. It is not Magical.
So you can tell me we will have to agree to disagree. But even your disagreement is making my point.
And no. Arcane Firearm isn't like Divine Smite from a Paladin. Arcane Firearm is like the additional damage done by some clerics on spells that they cast. Or certain Mages that do additional damage to certain kinds of spells. Your Paladin comparison is overly hyperbolic and wrong.
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".
Separately, assuming the ability works the way most people are assuming it does, I agree with OP. The Artillerist already struggles really hard with how much better than the damage the temp hp option is, so much so that the L9 ability buffs everything except the temp hp, but the Arcane Firearm ability makes this worse by not buffing the cannon. Armorers get better at using their armor, one would think Artillerists would get better at using their artillery.
😂Magic weapons literally deal magical damage which is why they overcome resistance to mundane weapon damage. Such a fundamental mistake precludes your opinion from being taken seriously on the rest of your criticism.
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.
That's certainly true for murdering a single target. When you're casting an AoE, it's slightly (.5 damage, on average) inferior to the Evocation Wizard ability Empowered Evocation, but you get it 5 levels earlier than they do, and not once have I heard anyone complain that Empowered Evocation is weak. It just means you need to lean harder into AOE damage spells, and if your DM has drunk the magic missile koolaid on that rules paradox, magic missile all day long.
Thankfully, the Artillerist spell list adds many AOEs to your list, like the iconic fireball. If you're hitting a crowd of targets, adding 1d8 damage to every target can quickly add up to overwhelm Extra Attack entirely. But the cold, hard truth is that Artillerists are better multiclassed with wizard, to get your hands on more spell slots and more AOEs. In fact, an Artillerist/Evoker gets to add the 1d8 and their Int modifier to the entire Fireball. It's a niche build, but it's pretty memetastic.
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.
No-one said they are synonms. Their meaning is related in common english ('through' as a preposition related to 'channel' as a verb) --- you "channel into or through something." You already know this. Basically anyone reading this thread knows this.
Your rules-lawyering is shoddy and your intent is dubious. You are not helping anyone play or understand the game; you are sowing discord and confusion. Please stop.
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:
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/80333/weapon-attacks-compared-with-damaging-cantrips
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.
Artillerists don't have Extra Attack, and Arcane Firearm also doesn't really compensate for that. Before level 5, an Artillerist may sometimes choose a light crossbow (or whatever) over cantrips, but at/past level 5, cantrips + arcane firearm outstrips any weapon use (without needing a second attribute keeping pace with Int).
Basically, arcane firearm's effects being added to weapons won't "fix" anything. You would need to redesign Arcane Firearm entirely and/or all of Artillerist to make "uses weapons as main attack, instead of cantrips" optimal. (Yet again, Artillerist is the wrong subclass for that idea.)
Note: I don't think Artillerists being mostly spell-based is broken at all, and the Eldritch Cannon can fill the "artillery" role just fine.
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.
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.
However there are no wands or Rods with combat stats unless they have a power to turn into some kind of actual weapon.
it's weak (just a tweet), but it's there: https://twitter.com/GamerJosh/status/509454115861434368
Edit: much better, direct from the DMG: "Unless a staff’s description says otherwise, a staff can be used as a quarterstaff."