Neither Patrick nor myself are arguing anything of the sort, actually. Patrick's original post primarily pointed out how a level of wizard advanced your spell slots and helped alleviate issues with constantly burning them to create eldritch turrets if you needed to, as well as patching low-level utility via extra cantrips and ritual spells. My arguments were primarily from real-world experience corroborating that the single wizard level is indeed valuable, but delayed artificer progression is more painful than many might suspect, looking at builds in a vacuum.
There are absolutely other ways of doing things, which I thought I'd made clear I concurred with. Apologies for the miscommunication. I do believe that burning multiple ASIs for all of the extra-magic feats is not ideal, but if you only care about a specific piece of extra magic, then one specific feat is perfectly valid. Artificers are an excellenbt choice for Ritual Caster; your casting modifier lines up with RC: Wizard (i.e. the only Ritual Caster worth taking), and artificers can easily fluff rituals and their ritual book as delicate equipment that takes time to set up and a manual of instruction for doing so. Magic Initiate can be justified any number of ways - basic wizard's training that the artificer washed out of, a side study the artificer took on to better understand magic as a whole, training from a famous magical parent, anything of the like.
Taking all of those - RC, MI, [Whatever]-Touched, and so forth - feels like a waste of resources, though. At that point I would suggest looking at whether simply taking a level of wizard is more what your specific artificer is looking for, because one level of wizard gets you a lot of bang for your magical buck. Nevertheless, it's absolutely not the only way to build an artificer, or even the best way. It's simply a good way, for those who like the bargain.
Neither Patrick nor myself are arguing anything of the sort, actually. Patrick's original post primarily pointed out how a level of wizard advanced your spell slots and helped alleviate issues with constantly burning them to create eldritch turrets if you needed to, as well as patching low-level utility via extra cantrips and ritual spells. My arguments were primarily from real-world experience corroborating that the single wizard level is indeed valuable, but delayed artificer progression is more painful than many might suspect, looking at builds in a vacuum.
There are absolutely other ways of doing things, which I thought I'd made clear I concurred with. Apologies for the miscommunication. I do believe that burning multiple ASIs for all of the extra-magic feats is not ideal, but if you only care about a specific piece of extra magic, then one specific feat is perfectly valid. Artificers are an excellenbt choice for Ritual Caster; your casting modifier lines up with RC: Wizard (i.e. the only Ritual Caster worth taking), and artificers can easily fluff rituals and their ritual book as delicate equipment that takes time to set up and a manual of instruction for doing so. Magic Initiate can be justified any number of ways - basic wizard's training that the artificer washed out of, a side study the artificer took on to better understand magic as a whole, training from a famous magical parent, anything of the like.
Taking all of those - RC, MI, [Whatever]-Touched, and so forth - feels like a waste of resources, though. At that point I would suggest looking at whether simply taking a level of wizard is more what your specific artificer is looking for, because one level of wizard gets you a lot of bang for your magical buck. Nevertheless, it's absolutely not the only way to build an artificer, or even the best way. It's simply a good way, for those who like the bargain.
This is what I was trying to bring up and point out more than once and was mostly just getting told that I was wrong. I tried to answer why it's an alternate way of being viable in several of my posts when complaints were brought up why what I was suggesting wouldn't work. I was simply trying to point out that it would work and it's a viable alternative. I also tried to point out the trades that would be made at times by taking them and why they were perfectly valid. There are reasons to do either even with a seeming apparent "full caster" like the Artillerist which does have a spell focus that might fit an individual thing. But it is a trade off either way that you do it (which is why I tried to show some of the downsides in some choices like feats). I also a lot of time never advocated for everything. At most I advocated that you could take two of them. The two that most closely matched what you were getting from taking the level of wizard. But I also said that those two weren't necessarily the best choices either.
But Ultimately whatever way that you go it is a choice and it's likely that the Artificer may have some extra's that are harder to quantify than other classes to help things along. I feel like in a way they are kind of like the Druid. A whole lot of options. A mixed and confused focus and an unclear path for ease of "groupthink" so to speak on just how to approach something with them, And I'm not sure if it's better or worse that Artificer is kind of missing a full on attacker/blaster build to fit into.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah. There's the confusion.
Neither Patrick nor myself are arguing anything of the sort, actually. Patrick's original post primarily pointed out how a level of wizard advanced your spell slots and helped alleviate issues with constantly burning them to create eldritch turrets if you needed to, as well as patching low-level utility via extra cantrips and ritual spells. My arguments were primarily from real-world experience corroborating that the single wizard level is indeed valuable, but delayed artificer progression is more painful than many might suspect, looking at builds in a vacuum.
There are absolutely other ways of doing things, which I thought I'd made clear I concurred with. Apologies for the miscommunication. I do believe that burning multiple ASIs for all of the extra-magic feats is not ideal, but if you only care about a specific piece of extra magic, then one specific feat is perfectly valid. Artificers are an excellenbt choice for Ritual Caster; your casting modifier lines up with RC: Wizard (i.e. the only Ritual Caster worth taking), and artificers can easily fluff rituals and their ritual book as delicate equipment that takes time to set up and a manual of instruction for doing so. Magic Initiate can be justified any number of ways - basic wizard's training that the artificer washed out of, a side study the artificer took on to better understand magic as a whole, training from a famous magical parent, anything of the like.
Taking all of those - RC, MI, [Whatever]-Touched, and so forth - feels like a waste of resources, though. At that point I would suggest looking at whether simply taking a level of wizard is more what your specific artificer is looking for, because one level of wizard gets you a lot of bang for your magical buck. Nevertheless, it's absolutely not the only way to build an artificer, or even the best way. It's simply a good way, for those who like the bargain.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is what I was trying to bring up and point out more than once and was mostly just getting told that I was wrong. I tried to answer why it's an alternate way of being viable in several of my posts when complaints were brought up why what I was suggesting wouldn't work. I was simply trying to point out that it would work and it's a viable alternative. I also tried to point out the trades that would be made at times by taking them and why they were perfectly valid. There are reasons to do either even with a seeming apparent "full caster" like the Artillerist which does have a spell focus that might fit an individual thing. But it is a trade off either way that you do it (which is why I tried to show some of the downsides in some choices like feats). I also a lot of time never advocated for everything. At most I advocated that you could take two of them. The two that most closely matched what you were getting from taking the level of wizard. But I also said that those two weren't necessarily the best choices either.
But Ultimately whatever way that you go it is a choice and it's likely that the Artificer may have some extra's that are harder to quantify than other classes to help things along. I feel like in a way they are kind of like the Druid. A whole lot of options. A mixed and confused focus and an unclear path for ease of "groupthink" so to speak on just how to approach something with them, And I'm not sure if it's better or worse that Artificer is kind of missing a full on attacker/blaster build to fit into.