There are two half-caster classes: ranger and paladin, both of these get a couple of neat 5th level spells that are almost exclusive for these classes, only available for other classes via specific subclasses, this is the case of Swift Quiver and Conjure Volley for rangers, Banishing Smite, Circle of Power and Destructive Wave for paladins. Meanwhile, the artificer which is a 2/3 caster does not get a single exclusive spell and it feels really underwhelming. You only get access to 5th level spells by level 17 in both 1/2 and 2/3 casters, while at level 17 a ranger may shoot 4 arrows in a single turn and a paladin can send a foe to Brazil, the artificer can only do things any level 9 wizard can. I thought Tasha's would fix this but it did not, and I'm very pessimistic about the future books doing anything to the artificer class, any thoughts about this?
This is ture but the subclasses themselves get some reeeaaalllyyy good ones to play with like wall of force and fireball even of they come online a bit late. The battlesmith gets banishing smite as well.
Neither the paladin or ranger get the slot value the artificer can squeeze out of their pool. Even Divine smite falls behind the shear cheapness at which the artificer can dish out the hurt.
I definitely think they could use some exclusive spells but for the time being creepy are doing fine poaching.
Alchemist doesn't get much in the vein of useful 5th level spells Raise Dead is cool if there's no full caster in the party who can cast it. Even so it's very situational. And Cloudkill sounds great... but then it's poison damage (lots of creatures are immune), a constitution saving throw (most monsters have at least decent constitution scores), and can be dispelled by a "strong wind".
I get the impression that high level artificers are supposed to really lean into that 14th level feature and gear up on powerful magic items. Which... leaves it up to the DM to have the party encounter said powerful magic items because the higher level infusion options don't really cut it at that point.
Artificers are not 2/3 casters, first off. They're 1/2 casters that round up instead of down. It only makes a difference at odd-numbered levels, and they both end up with the slots of a 10th-level full caster anyways.
There are two half-caster classes: ranger and paladin, both of these get a couple of neat 5th level spells that are almost exclusive for these classes, only available for other classes via specific subclasses, this is the case of Swift Quiver and Conjure Volley for rangers, Banishing Smite, Circle of Power and Destructive Wave for paladins. Meanwhile, the artificer which is a 2/3 caster does not get a single exclusive spell and it feels really underwhelming. You only get access to 5th level spells by level 17 in both 1/2 and 2/3 casters, while at level 17 a ranger may shoot 4 arrows in a single turn and a paladin can send a foe to Brazil, the artificer can only do things any level 9 wizard can. I thought Tasha's would fix this but it did not, and I'm very pessimistic about the future books doing anything to the artificer class, any thoughts about this?
Unique class spells are nice to have, but there isn't a negative impact on the class if the list has 5th-level spells versus 5th-level spells that include more options with the relative power of 5th-level spell. Not having a unique spell doesn't prevent using useful non-unique spells.
Wanting a unique spell for the sake of having a unique spell but there not being one isn't much of an issue.
This is ture but the subclasses themselves get some reeeaaalllyyy good ones to play with like wall of force and fireball even of they come online a bit late. The battlesmith gets banishing smite as well.
Neither the paladin or ranger get the slot value the artificer can squeeze out of their pool. Even Divine smite falls behind the shear cheapness at which the artificer can dish out the hurt.
I definitely think they could use some exclusive spells but for the time being creepy are doing fine poaching.
Alchemist doesn't get much in the vein of useful 5th level spells Raise Dead is cool if there's no full caster in the party who can cast it. Even so it's very situational. And Cloudkill sounds great... but then it's poison damage (lots of creatures are immune), a constitution saving throw (most monsters have at least decent constitution scores), and can be dispelled by a "strong wind".
I get the impression that high level artificers are supposed to really lean into that 14th level feature and gear up on powerful magic items. Which... leaves it up to the DM to have the party encounter said powerful magic items because the higher level infusion options don't really cut it at that point.
By "some" you mean "all but one" if you we ignore the one you pointed out? ;-)
Cloudkill isn't that bad despite it's drawbacks because it's a 17 DC save by the time it's acquired and as an AoE likely to affect targets. CON save proficiency isn't typical so the small CON bonus isn't a big issue given the DC at that time. Poison immunity isn't a big issue either because the alchemist would use the same slot for a different spell against questionable targets. Bigby's hand and animate objects are both reasonably useful alternatives taken from the base class spell list.
The resistance to damage from the spell also comes into play if the alchemist and cloud are in the same area so there's also a slight benefit in the alchemist's chemical mastery.
Artificers are not 2/3 casters, first off. They're 1/2 casters that round up instead of down. It only makes a difference at odd-numbered levels, and they both end up with the slots of a 10th-level full caster anyways.
So, pulling the "first off" line here, but no on is a full caster, half caster, or anything else under that label. Those aren't game terms. They are player slang based on progression tables specific classes use and how multiclassing mechanics work. Artificers are clearly more focused on magic than paladins or rangers.
The spell-storing item throws that way out as well. When it's gained the artificer has 10 spell slots to use and 8 or 10 (depending on if a feat was taken) uses of the a 2nd-level spell via the SSI. Plus rituals and cantrips. The paladin or ranger has 10 spell slots so a lot less magic just based on that feature alone, and a bard has 16 spell slots (so less) in comparison. That's before infusions that can replicate spell effects or provide long-term benefits. The difference between artificers and other spellcasters is generally a large quantify of lower level spell versus those higher level spell slots.
Just looking at the spell slot progression doesn't give an accurate assessment.
This is ture but the subclasses themselves get some reeeaaalllyyy good ones to play with like wall of force and fireball even of they come online a bit late. The battlesmith gets banishing smite as well.
Neither the paladin or ranger get the slot value the artificer can squeeze out of their pool. Even Divine smite falls behind the shear cheapness at which the artificer can dish out the hurt.
I definitely think they could use some exclusive spells but for the time being creepy are doing fine poaching.
Alchemist doesn't get much in the vein of useful 5th level spells Raise Dead is cool if there's no full caster in the party who can cast it. Even so it's very situational. And Cloudkill sounds great... but then it's poison damage (lots of creatures are immune), a constitution saving throw (most monsters have at least decent constitution scores), and can be dispelled by a "strong wind".
I get the impression that high level artificers are supposed to really lean into that 14th level feature and gear up on powerful magic items. Which... leaves it up to the DM to have the party encounter said powerful magic items because the higher level infusion options don't really cut it at that point.
By "some" you mean "all but one" if you we ignore the one you pointed out? ;-)
Cloudkill isn't that bad despite it's drawbacks because it's a 17 DC save by the time it's acquired and as an AoE likely to affect targets. CON save proficiency isn't typical so the small CON bonus isn't a big issue given the DC at that time. Poison immunity isn't a big issue either because the alchemist would use the same slot for a different spell against questionable targets. Bigby's hand and animate objects are both reasonably useful alternatives taken from the base class spell list.
The resistance to damage from the spell also comes into play if the alchemist and cloud are in the same area so there's also a slight benefit in the alchemist's chemical mastery.
Fair enough. I started that post before realizing that the Battle Smith's 5th level spells were pretty solid, granted the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells anyway.
Poison immunity becomes less of an issue if you know in advance that the monster is immune, sure... but I'm operating under the assumption that that fact is not automatically obvious. Means of testing immunity during combat would cost a spell slot (Ray of Sickness/Cloudkill), or require being within 10 feet (Poison Spray), or require the use of some other item/ability.
The resistance comes in handy if for some bizarre reason you need to cast cloudkill on yourself... but I can't think of a reason for that that wouldn't be better served by casting a different spell or making use of a non-concentration based source of flight.
This is ture but the subclasses themselves get some reeeaaalllyyy good ones to play with like wall of force and fireball even of they come online a bit late. The battlesmith gets banishing smite as well.
Neither the paladin or ranger get the slot value the artificer can squeeze out of their pool. Even Divine smite falls behind the shear cheapness at which the artificer can dish out the hurt.
I definitely think they could use some exclusive spells but for the time being creepy are doing fine poaching.
Alchemist doesn't get much in the vein of useful 5th level spells Raise Dead is cool if there's no full caster in the party who can cast it. Even so it's very situational. And Cloudkill sounds great... but then it's poison damage (lots of creatures are immune), a constitution saving throw (most monsters have at least decent constitution scores), and can be dispelled by a "strong wind".
I get the impression that high level artificers are supposed to really lean into that 14th level feature and gear up on powerful magic items. Which... leaves it up to the DM to have the party encounter said powerful magic items because the higher level infusion options don't really cut it at that point.
By "some" you mean "all but one" if you we ignore the one you pointed out? ;-)
Cloudkill isn't that bad despite it's drawbacks because it's a 17 DC save by the time it's acquired and as an AoE likely to affect targets. CON save proficiency isn't typical so the small CON bonus isn't a big issue given the DC at that time. Poison immunity isn't a big issue either because the alchemist would use the same slot for a different spell against questionable targets. Bigby's hand and animate objects are both reasonably useful alternatives taken from the base class spell list.
The resistance to damage from the spell also comes into play if the alchemist and cloud are in the same area so there's also a slight benefit in the alchemist's chemical mastery.
Fair enough. I started that post before realizing that the Battle Smith's 5th level spells were pretty solid, granted the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells anyway.
Poison immunity becomes less of an issue if you know in advance that the monster is immune, sure... but I'm operating under the assumption that that fact is not automatically obvious. Means of testing immunity during combat would cost a spell slot (Ray of Sickness/Cloudkill), or require being within 10 feet (Poison Spray), or require the use of some other item/ability.
The resistance comes in handy if for some bizarre reason you need to cast cloudkill on yourself... but I can't think of a reason for that that wouldn't be better served by casting a different spell or making use of a non-concentration based source of flight.
Recalling lore about objects or creatures is an INT check and something artificers are good at. For example, arcana would be applicable to inhabitants of outer planes the artificer might face. As long as the alchemist has cloudkill and an alternative then knowledge might not be a given but it's still a possibility.
Resistance to the damage can come in handy when it's desirable for the alchemist to move through the area of effect for any reason. The size is fairly large so that possibility does come up but can include casting on oneself as you mention or retreating to the AoE to keep opponents away. Casting it on oneself doesn't happen much, but moving through it can happen more often. As I said though, minor benefit; situational.
The obvious question to me would be "what do you think artificers need to get out of unique spells"?
Paladins and Rangers get unique spells that allow you to customise your Paladin/Ranger more, and in some ways these should regarded as core features/options for the class. For example, a Ranger without access to Hunter's Mark or Zephyr Strike would have a far more limited selection of builds you could make, but with access to these spells they're opened up to more options for dealing damage and mobility.
However Artificers don't need their spellcasting for this as they have infusions instead; the ability to create a whole bunch of magic items to complete their own build and/or aid their allies, as well as the ability to attune to more magic items than any other class. This makes them one of the most customisable classes in the game from 2nd level.
And really I find it hard to think of any unique spell that shouldn't just be made available to other classes as well. You'd have to tie it to the mechanics of the class, but that doesn't really work for spells.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There are two half-caster classes: ranger and paladin, both of these get a couple of neat 5th level spells that are almost exclusive for these classes, only available for other classes via specific subclasses, this is the case of Swift Quiver and Conjure Volley for rangers, Banishing Smite, Circle of Power and Destructive Wave for paladins. Meanwhile, the artificer which is a 2/3 caster does not get a single exclusive spell and it feels really underwhelming. You only get access to 5th level spells by level 17 in both 1/2 and 2/3 casters, while at level 17 a ranger may shoot 4 arrows in a single turn and a paladin can send a foe to Brazil, the artificer can only do things any level 9 wizard can.
I thought Tasha's would fix this but it did not, and I'm very pessimistic about the future books doing anything to the artificer class, any thoughts about this?
Some of the subclasses do.
Armorer, Artillerist both get access to wall of force
Battle Smith gets Mass Cure Wounds and Banishing Smite
Alchemist doesn't get much in the vein of useful 5th level spells Raise Dead is cool if there's no full caster in the party who can cast it. Even so it's very situational. And Cloudkill sounds great... but then it's poison damage (lots of creatures are immune), a constitution saving throw (most monsters have at least decent constitution scores), and can be dispelled by a "strong wind".
I get the impression that high level artificers are supposed to really lean into that 14th level feature and gear up on powerful magic items. Which... leaves it up to the DM to have the party encounter said powerful magic items because the higher level infusion options don't really cut it at that point.
Artificers are not 2/3 casters, first off. They're 1/2 casters that round up instead of down. It only makes a difference at odd-numbered levels, and they both end up with the slots of a 10th-level full caster anyways.
Unique class spells are nice to have, but there isn't a negative impact on the class if the list has 5th-level spells versus 5th-level spells that include more options with the relative power of 5th-level spell. Not having a unique spell doesn't prevent using useful non-unique spells.
Wanting a unique spell for the sake of having a unique spell but there not being one isn't much of an issue.
By "some" you mean "all but one" if you we ignore the one you pointed out? ;-)
Cloudkill isn't that bad despite it's drawbacks because it's a 17 DC save by the time it's acquired and as an AoE likely to affect targets. CON save proficiency isn't typical so the small CON bonus isn't a big issue given the DC at that time. Poison immunity isn't a big issue either because the alchemist would use the same slot for a different spell against questionable targets. Bigby's hand and animate objects are both reasonably useful alternatives taken from the base class spell list.
The resistance to damage from the spell also comes into play if the alchemist and cloud are in the same area so there's also a slight benefit in the alchemist's chemical mastery.
So, pulling the "first off" line here, but no on is a full caster, half caster, or anything else under that label. Those aren't game terms. They are player slang based on progression tables specific classes use and how multiclassing mechanics work. Artificers are clearly more focused on magic than paladins or rangers.
The spell-storing item throws that way out as well. When it's gained the artificer has 10 spell slots to use and 8 or 10 (depending on if a feat was taken) uses of the a 2nd-level spell via the SSI. Plus rituals and cantrips. The paladin or ranger has 10 spell slots so a lot less magic just based on that feature alone, and a bard has 16 spell slots (so less) in comparison. That's before infusions that can replicate spell effects or provide long-term benefits. The difference between artificers and other spellcasters is generally a large quantify of lower level spell versus those higher level spell slots.
Just looking at the spell slot progression doesn't give an accurate assessment.
Fair enough. I started that post before realizing that the Battle Smith's 5th level spells were pretty solid, granted the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells anyway.
Poison immunity becomes less of an issue if you know in advance that the monster is immune, sure... but I'm operating under the assumption that that fact is not automatically obvious.
Means of testing immunity during combat would cost a spell slot (Ray of Sickness/Cloudkill), or require being within 10 feet (Poison Spray), or require the use of some other item/ability.
The resistance comes in handy if for some bizarre reason you need to cast cloudkill on yourself... but I can't think of a reason for that that wouldn't be better served by casting a different spell or making use of a non-concentration based source of flight.
Recalling lore about objects or creatures is an INT check and something artificers are good at. For example, arcana would be applicable to inhabitants of outer planes the artificer might face. As long as the alchemist has cloudkill and an alternative then knowledge might not be a given but it's still a possibility.
Resistance to the damage can come in handy when it's desirable for the alchemist to move through the area of effect for any reason. The size is fairly large so that possibility does come up but can include casting on oneself as you mention or retreating to the AoE to keep opponents away. Casting it on oneself doesn't happen much, but moving through it can happen more often. As I said though, minor benefit; situational.
The obvious question to me would be "what do you think artificers need to get out of unique spells"?
Paladins and Rangers get unique spells that allow you to customise your Paladin/Ranger more, and in some ways these should regarded as core features/options for the class. For example, a Ranger without access to Hunter's Mark or Zephyr Strike would have a far more limited selection of builds you could make, but with access to these spells they're opened up to more options for dealing damage and mobility.
However Artificers don't need their spellcasting for this as they have infusions instead; the ability to create a whole bunch of magic items to complete their own build and/or aid their allies, as well as the ability to attune to more magic items than any other class. This makes them one of the most customisable classes in the game from 2nd level.
And really I find it hard to think of any unique spell that shouldn't just be made available to other classes as well. You'd have to tie it to the mechanics of the class, but that doesn't really work for spells.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.