I feel that artificers should be full casters. i understand that if they had a spell list like the wizards and had all their class features they would be too powerfull, but as it is, they only have mostly utility spells anyway. give me your thoughts on this and why i am right or wrong
Wouldn't a full caster artificer basically just be a wizard? It's the infusions, magic item attunement and sub-class features etc. that make them artificers, and you'd need to lose or nerf most of that to make them a full caster instead.
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.
Spell for Artificers are not supposed to be the core element of their class any more than other half-casters such as Paladin and Rangers. Artificers are more dependent on what their sub-classes provide as reliable damage. Consider also that Artificers have full access to all Artificer spells and cantrips and can prepare an entirely new set after each long rest. I would say lean more heavily into your sub-class features, keep more infusions for yourself, and not worry about arming your party with magic items (that's your DM's job anyway). Then you can use your spells to provide the utility they were built for.
Because, at 10th level, for example, an artillerist can have a +2 Enhanced Arcane Focus that adds 1d8 to spells cast through it, including AOE, like Fireball, a +2 Breastplate, Winged Boots and a Cloak of Protection through infusions. And a bonus action cannon pumping out 3d8 damage every round.
All that without the DM handing the character a single item.
Imagine that with full spell progression. It would be pretty obnoxious. The rest of the table would either hate you, or they would all be artificers.
It is frustrating that some pretty thematic spells for Artificer (Animate Objects & Arcane Hand, for example) are only available towards the end-progression of their class; whereas full casters are able to access these sorts of spells as their mid-career reward.
But the utility of having magic items, Infusions, and…for the most part…potent subclasses help to bolster this disadvantage; keeps things balanced.
If Artificers we’re granted the rank of full spellcasters, they would have to have these elements trimmed down substantially…specifically the Infusions that would allow them to craft +1 or +2 weapons, armor & spellcasting focuses. Certain spells might also need to be restricted.
At that point, they start to lose what being an Artificer is all about.
It’s admittedly a reason why I’ve taken the “Artificer Initiate” feat a few times when playing a Wizard…being able to get those higher-level spells and using “gadgets” to cast them is a viable way to make a full-casting Artificer without…well, Artificer.
It is frustrating that some pretty thematic spells for Artificer (Animate Objects & Arcane Hand, for example) are only available towards the end-progression of their class; whereas full casters are able to access these sorts of spells as their mid-career reward.
This feels like a good example of when we need some earlier versions of these spells; even for a Wizard the jump from mage hand to arcane hand is pretty big (and a long wait). We could really do with a weaker option at 2nd- or 3rd-level to get us started. Likewise with animate objects; a lesser "animate object" (singular) or similar would really help out, not just Artificers but theming casters that currently need to wait half the game to get these.
By comparison, regular damage spells are somewhat well covered unless you're focused on a specific damage type (Alchemists could use more compatible acid/fire/poison options).
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.
It is frustrating that some pretty thematic spells for Artificer (Animate Objects & Arcane Hand, for example) are only available towards the end-progression of their class; whereas full casters are able to access these sorts of spells as their mid-career reward.
This feels like a good example of when we need some earlier versions of these spells; even for a Wizard the jump from mage hand to arcane hand is pretty big (and a long wait). We could really do with a weaker option at 2nd- or 3rd-level to get us started. Likewise with animate objects; a lesser "animate object" (singular) or similar would really help out, not just Artificers but theming casters that currently need to wait half the game to get these.
By comparison, regular damage spells are somewhat well covered unless you're focused on a specific damage type (Alchemists could use more compatible acid/fire/poison options).
Artificers do at least have Tiny Servant which is basically a single target animate objects (better than it in some respects). And while it's a little different Maximilian's Earthen Grasp works as a bit of a median between mage hand and arcane hand, granted Artificer's don't have access to that spell...
It is frustrating that some pretty thematic spells for Artificer (Animate Objects & Arcane Hand, for example) are only available towards the end-progression of their class; whereas full casters are able to access these sorts of spells as their mid-career reward.
This feels like a good example of when we need some earlier versions of these spells; even for a Wizard the jump from mage hand to arcane hand is pretty big (and a long wait). We could really do with a weaker option at 2nd- or 3rd-level to get us started. Likewise with animate objects; a lesser "animate object" (singular) or similar would really help out, not just Artificers but theming casters that currently need to wait half the game to get these.
By comparison, regular damage spells are somewhat well covered unless you're focused on a specific damage type (Alchemists could use more compatible acid/fire/poison options).
Artificers do at least have Tiny Servant which is basically a single target animate objects (better than it in some respects). And while it's a little different Maximilian's Earthen Grasp works as a bit of a median between mage hand and arcane hand, granted Artificer's don't have access to that spell...
Tiny Servant is a favorite spell of mine. Perfect for an artificer of all sorts.
Maximillian’s Earthen Grasp would be great for an Artificer subclass based around “Mason’s Tools”…an earth-bender of sorts.
My “image” of a Arcane Hand for an Artificer gets pretty wild…I tried homebrewing an Artificer subclass based around “Jeweler’s Tools”; and at one point a major mechanic was using the crafted gems as a power core for light-based laser spells…we’re talking “Guiding Bolt”, “Chromatic Orb” and “Wall of Light” shenanigans.
”Arcane Hand” ended up becoming a holographic hand projected from these gems…we need some hefty subclasses for the Artificer. Too much good potential to waste.
Imma gonna be honest, i saw this and laughed, as an artificer main the one issue i face is being sort of under leveled as compared to the other spell casters in the party, if i didn't have to wait for level 9 for fire ball then id suggest you run as far away as possible as quickly as possible, oh wait that wouldn't do anything because I'd have the haste spell, i think artificers being two thirds casters are powerful and broken enough, but if they were full casters im pretty sure my dm would rue the day he got tasha's cauldron of everything with content sharing on, my hilariously broken characters would be even more ridiculous, imagine the guy who is able to create mass destruction at high levels using mid leveled spells having access to 9th level spells, mien godt, id have meteor swarm the instant i hit level 20, also being a full caster would interfere with the progression as at level three you choose a subclass, each subclass gets its own unique 2nd level spell at this point by default, if you were a full caster this progression would be offset by a lot
Artificer is already one of, if not the, most powerful class in the game so no, they don't need to be even more powerful. If you want to play a full caster with artificer flavour, go for an Abjuration Wizard or Clockwork Sorcerer instead.
I like artificers being half casters for two reasons. The first is that it allows a lot more power to go into their subclasses. Artificer subclasses are some of the most unique and impactful in 5e, with each one completely changing how the class plays. With a full caster, most of the power budget goes into the spells which then prevents the subclasses being super powerful (except moon druid who gets to have their cake and eat it too, the result being an overpowered mess)
The second is that if you make artificer an arcane full caster, 5e will then have wizard, sorcerer, bard? (according to onednd), warlock, and artificer as arcane full casters.... And not a single arcane half caster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I feel that artificers should be full casters. i understand that if they had a spell list like the wizards and had all their class features they would be too powerfull, but as it is, they only have mostly utility spells anyway. give me your thoughts on this and why i am right or wrong
Wouldn't a full caster artificer basically just be a wizard? It's the infusions, magic item attunement and sub-class features etc. that make them artificers, and you'd need to lose or nerf most of that to make them a full caster instead.
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.
Spell for Artificers are not supposed to be the core element of their class any more than other half-casters such as Paladin and Rangers. Artificers are more dependent on what their sub-classes provide as reliable damage. Consider also that Artificers have full access to all Artificer spells and cantrips and can prepare an entirely new set after each long rest. I would say lean more heavily into your sub-class features, keep more infusions for yourself, and not worry about arming your party with magic items (that's your DM's job anyway). Then you can use your spells to provide the utility they were built for.
Because, at 10th level, for example, an artillerist can have a +2 Enhanced Arcane Focus that adds 1d8 to spells cast through it, including AOE, like Fireball, a +2 Breastplate, Winged Boots and a Cloak of Protection through infusions. And a bonus action cannon pumping out 3d8 damage every round.
All that without the DM handing the character a single item.
Imagine that with full spell progression. It would be pretty obnoxious. The rest of the table would either hate you, or they would all be artificers.
I do understand the conundrum, somewhat.
It is frustrating that some pretty thematic spells for Artificer (Animate Objects & Arcane Hand, for example) are only available towards the end-progression of their class; whereas full casters are able to access these sorts of spells as their mid-career reward.
But the utility of having magic items, Infusions, and…for the most part…potent subclasses help to bolster this disadvantage; keeps things balanced.
If Artificers we’re granted the rank of full spellcasters, they would have to have these elements trimmed down substantially…specifically the Infusions that would allow them to craft +1 or +2 weapons, armor & spellcasting focuses. Certain spells might also need to be restricted.
At that point, they start to lose what being an Artificer is all about.
It’s admittedly a reason why I’ve taken the “Artificer Initiate” feat a few times when playing a Wizard…being able to get those higher-level spells and using “gadgets” to cast them is a viable way to make a full-casting Artificer without…well, Artificer.
This feels like a good example of when we need some earlier versions of these spells; even for a Wizard the jump from mage hand to arcane hand is pretty big (and a long wait). We could really do with a weaker option at 2nd- or 3rd-level to get us started. Likewise with animate objects; a lesser "animate object" (singular) or similar would really help out, not just Artificers but theming casters that currently need to wait half the game to get these.
By comparison, regular damage spells are somewhat well covered unless you're focused on a specific damage type (Alchemists could use more compatible acid/fire/poison options).
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.
Artificers do at least have Tiny Servant which is basically a single target animate objects (better than it in some respects). And while it's a little different Maximilian's Earthen Grasp works as a bit of a median between mage hand and arcane hand, granted Artificer's don't have access to that spell...
Tiny Servant is a favorite spell of mine. Perfect for an artificer of all sorts.
Maximillian’s Earthen Grasp would be great for an Artificer subclass based around “Mason’s Tools”…an earth-bender of sorts.
My “image” of a Arcane Hand for an Artificer gets pretty wild…I tried homebrewing an Artificer subclass based around “Jeweler’s Tools”; and at one point a major mechanic was using the crafted gems as a power core for light-based laser spells…we’re talking “Guiding Bolt”, “Chromatic Orb” and “Wall of Light” shenanigans.
”Arcane Hand” ended up becoming a holographic hand projected from these gems…we need some hefty subclasses for the Artificer. Too much good potential to waste.
Imma gonna be honest, i saw this and laughed, as an artificer main the one issue i face is being sort of under leveled as compared to the other spell casters in the party, if i didn't have to wait for level 9 for fire ball then id suggest you run as far away as possible as quickly as possible, oh wait that wouldn't do anything because I'd have the haste spell, i think artificers being two thirds casters are powerful and broken enough, but if they were full casters im pretty sure my dm would rue the day he got tasha's cauldron of everything with content sharing on, my hilariously broken characters would be even more ridiculous, imagine the guy who is able to create mass destruction at high levels using mid leveled spells having access to 9th level spells, mien godt, id have meteor swarm the instant i hit level 20, also being a full caster would interfere with the progression as at level three you choose a subclass, each subclass gets its own unique 2nd level spell at this point by default, if you were a full caster this progression would be offset by a lot
Artificer is already one of, if not the, most powerful class in the game so no, they don't need to be even more powerful. If you want to play a full caster with artificer flavour, go for an Abjuration Wizard or Clockwork Sorcerer instead.
I like artificers being half casters for two reasons. The first is that it allows a lot more power to go into their subclasses. Artificer subclasses are some of the most unique and impactful in 5e, with each one completely changing how the class plays. With a full caster, most of the power budget goes into the spells which then prevents the subclasses being super powerful (except moon druid who gets to have their cake and eat it too, the result being an overpowered mess)
The second is that if you make artificer an arcane full caster, 5e will then have wizard, sorcerer, bard? (according to onednd), warlock, and artificer as arcane full casters.... And not a single arcane half caster.