I mean they mentioned the reasons they don't think they're good. Fairly reasonable, the class is kind of a mess. I really love it, but it's hard to deny its issues.
I mean they mentioned the reasons they don't think they're good. Fairly reasonable, the class is kind of a mess. I really love it, but it's hard to deny its issues.
Right, and I 100% agree that it's not THE best, but it's also not the worst. It has a niche just like the rest.
I know this isn't going to make me popular, but: none, there are no reasons.
Not sure if you are jokingly trolling or if you just want to stir the pot but objectively you are quite wrong. Sure, there are arguments to say that pretty much any class is the best or worst (which shows how balanced 5E is) but since there isn't just the one definition of "best" I'll just adress the points you made:
"They are complicated to manage for new players,"
Not necessarily. You can easily play a blasty artillerist or a punchy armorer in a way that isn't much different from a fighter who just hits stuff. Sure, the whole spell and infusion stuff can be a bit bothersome but not any more than say, the spells and invocations of a warlock or the daily spell selection of a cleric.
"the damage output is relatively low,"
Compared to what? There are numerous artificers builds that can deal out quite a bit of damage, even though damage output isn't the artificer's main focus.
"it's not particularly survivable,"
In what way? It's the only class that can have three dump stats and still end up with all ability scores of 18 and higher. It can also have AC of 21+ at lower levels and have access to all kinds of healing, besides healing spells.
"and its spell list is at best, average."
The main strength of the artificier's spell list is that you can change it every long rest. It is also one of the most versatile spell lists (even though no caster class really has a bad spell list, per se) covering damage, utility, exploration, buffs and debuffs.
"Overall their best ability is infusing items, and usually the best use of that is to give them to other PC's."
Which is a fantastic ability in and off itself.
"Is there an argument for them being the 'best' class? No, not that I see."
Care to explain what you mean by that? There are a good deal many arguments being presented in this thread why the artificer is a good (or even, for a arbitrary definition "best") class but you haven't really told us why you think the artificer is "dead last". The reason you have given doesn't really add up so is there any particular reason why you feel that way?
"If I were giving letter grades, even the Battle Smith I wouldn't grade higher than a C+. There is a great niche for players who like to play them, but are they a 'better' class than the wizard, bard or cleric for example?"
I think you're missing the point with artificers. Far from, as you claim, them being niche they are (as evidenced by this thread) one of the most versatile classes in the game and they can fulfil pretty much any role in any given situation. But what makes you think that the wizard, bard or cleric is better than the artificer, for any given value?
Ive topped dpr charts. +2 greataxe, haste, great wepon master, steel defender, arcane jolt. 3 attacks, sometimes 4 with gwm. Flanking advantage with the steel defender. And if all goes wrong and i have no options left. My steel defender runs in and kamikazes them with 2 bags of holding.
You're math is off. If you use GWM to get a bonus attack you can't have you steel defender attack. Statistically a great sword is better than a greataxe.
yeah.. GWM kinda conflicts with pet classes like Battle Smith, though its not a bad idea to have imo. most of the time youre not going to crit, so you get a third (fourth if hasted) bonus action attack with your defender anyway. if you do crit, great! now you get a better extra attack through GWM Bonus action, and your defender can still be there to deflect on reaction.
I mean they mentioned the reasons they don't think they're good. Fairly reasonable, the class is kind of a mess. I really love it, but it's hard to deny its issues.
Right, and I 100% agree that it's not THE best, but it's also not the worst. It has a niche just like the rest.
Not sure if you are jokingly trolling or if you just want to stir the pot but objectively you are quite wrong. Sure, there are arguments to say that pretty much any class is the best or worst (which shows how balanced 5E is) but since there isn't just the one definition of "best" I'll just adress the points you made:
"They are complicated to manage for new players,"
Not necessarily. You can easily play a blasty artillerist or a punchy armorer in a way that isn't much different from a fighter who just hits stuff. Sure, the whole spell and infusion stuff can be a bit bothersome but not any more than say, the spells and invocations of a warlock or the daily spell selection of a cleric.
"the damage output is relatively low,"
Compared to what? There are numerous artificers builds that can deal out quite a bit of damage, even though damage output isn't the artificer's main focus.
"it's not particularly survivable,"
In what way? It's the only class that can have three dump stats and still end up with all ability scores of 18 and higher. It can also have AC of 21+ at lower levels and have access to all kinds of healing, besides healing spells.
"and its spell list is at best, average."
The main strength of the artificier's spell list is that you can change it every long rest. It is also one of the most versatile spell lists (even though no caster class really has a bad spell list, per se) covering damage, utility, exploration, buffs and debuffs.
"Overall their best ability is infusing items, and usually the best use of that is to give them to other PC's."
Which is a fantastic ability in and off itself.
"Is there an argument for them being the 'best' class? No, not that I see."
Care to explain what you mean by that? There are a good deal many arguments being presented in this thread why the artificer is a good (or even, for a arbitrary definition "best") class but you haven't really told us why you think the artificer is "dead last". The reason you have given doesn't really add up so is there any particular reason why you feel that way?
"If I were giving letter grades, even the Battle Smith I wouldn't grade higher than a C+. There is a great niche for players who like to play them, but are they a 'better' class than the wizard, bard or cleric for example?"
I think you're missing the point with artificers. Far from, as you claim, them being niche they are (as evidenced by this thread) one of the most versatile classes in the game and they can fulfil pretty much any role in any given situation. But what makes you think that the wizard, bard or cleric is better than the artificer, for any given value?
yeah.. GWM kinda conflicts with pet classes like Battle Smith, though its not a bad idea to have imo. most of the time youre not going to crit, so you get a third (fourth if hasted) bonus action attack with your defender anyway. if you do crit, great! now you get a better extra attack through GWM Bonus action, and your defender can still be there to deflect on reaction.