I am sorry if I came across as too aggressive. I have seen similar arguments about people bringing "sub-optimal" being a detriment to the group and trying to use math to justify being a jerk and it really pushed my buttons.
Oh, don't worry they still die and have to run and all that, I just help them make sure it doesn't happen too often ;)
And yeah, I've played games where we don't know anything about each other as well, it's just as fun if not more. I want to point out that I don't ask these questions mid game or while someone is talking or doing their turn, because that would indeed slow the game down. And like I said, I wouldn't ask about everything they can do, that would require lots of spells and everything, just some abilities seem cool and I could ask about them.
As for the blindsight thing, no problem forgetting that particular thing no. It didn't do any harm reminding me either though, and who knows, few bad rolls and it's a TPK. We're not playing a forgiving campaign.
And while I understand your reasoning I think it seems to come of playing with many people who behaved bad at the table, I've never had a player do something like this really.. Well, I've had a case with a shitty DM + a shitty player who basically just decided to screw the party, he was betraying the party and we couldn't do anything. He would get info he couldn't have gotten in game and was unstoppable and so on. So yeah, but that's a bit extreme and let's just say the rest of us left the group and made our own. I guess if I had played a lot with different people and saw this trend you mention, I probably would have gone with rules like this as well tbh.
Sort of disagree with the OP's assertion that artificers are bottom priority for getting loot. I've never seen that happen at tables and, frankly, it seems like it'd be a pretty bad group if they intentionally shortchanged the artificer player. Obviously you might not distribute certain treasure to them because they can't use it well, but it'd be weird if you just outright refused to give them a reasonable share in general.
I guess there's a weird issue where the artificer gets worse as a class the more prevalent magic items are in the rest of the campaign, but that's just how WOTC designed it.
Pretty sure Yurei saying that "this is 100% always a issue at every single table" was a exaggeration for the purpose of letting go their anger at the issue and wasn't actually important to the OP or any of their points in any way.
Obviously not every table is terrible about Artificers, like I'm sure if Yurei were to DM this wouldn't be a issue at their table.
Pretty sure Yurei saying that "this is 100% always a issue at every single table" was a exaggeration for the purpose of letting go their anger at the issue and wasn't actually important to the OP or any of their points in any way.
Obviously not every table is terrible about Artificers, like I'm sure if Yurei were to DM this wouldn't be a issue at their table.
While declaring it always an issue was probably an exaggeration. The fact that a few in this thread, without naming names, have said a varying amount of times when arguing that they get to keep their infusions that they are completely useless without them. As if they did not have any other features other than infusions. Like they didn't have a rather decent list of support spells to call upon, Other class and subclass features to empower them even without the infusions, Or even the actual need for those infusions to be their spell casting foci (despite this being a direct reason why the Artificer should keep their infusions in one post).
And the attitude that Artificers are completely useless without their Infusions is just as problematic as the attitude that they should share or that they should not get something because of infusions (which is something I don't actually see much but maybe that just speaks to the caliber of my groups). Being Useless without their infusions is a mentality that I'm seeing pop up more and more and affect a lot of the white room theory crafting that goes on around the class that causes certain people to claim that only certain choices can be made with the artificer and picking anything else is wrong. As much as the Artificer doesn't have to share their infusions. At the same time the class does not magically shut down if they do not have all of their infusions. There is still quite a lot that they can do. only one Artificer subclass can be said to have some requirement for their infusions and that is the Battle Smith. It's Battle Ready ability that allows it to attack with Intelligence is the only feature that requires something such as a magic weapon to be able to function. Every other feature either only requires relatively easy to pick up non-magical equipment or actually functions purely through their own features to allow these alternate ways of doing things. This is the only point where it's arguable that an infusion is particularly required by the artificer themselves. Everything else is Optional, whether that option means using it themselves, passing it around, or not using it at all in favor of other ones the character knows in one of the other two capacities.
I mean, Infusions are a significant portion of the Artificer's power. Sure, subclasses help nudge them in a certain direction, but even then they aren't natural martials, and they aren't full casters, and the fact that their spells are mostly utility and support does limit what they can do. Like it or not, infusions do make up the difference, and if a player wants their artificer to be as effective on an individual level as the next PC, that is something that does need to be taken into account.
I feel as though it doesn't really matter exactly if the Artificers in this thread are in the minority, or the majority. Either way it's happening, and happening enough for a thread to give 5 pages. Doesn't matter exactly how many Artificers, or even if it's literally just Yurei, they have the right to complain about their experiences.
You can certainly complain about a incident to millions of players, that's why r/rpghorrorstories exists.
You don't have to listen (like how I barely even know how to spell rpghorrorstories cause I never visit it), especially if your one of those artificers who don't suffer the same problem. To wage a comment war purely over Yurei suggesting that this might of happened more than once is honestly kind of silly.
It makes literally no difference how many suffer the issue, the whole "Clerics must heal" thing is not much of a issue nowadays, but that doesn't stop people making forums about it to gather advice on how to deal with it cause it still does happen. Nor do those people need to be told that their issues aren't important because nobody would ever do such a thing and it's just them. Let Yurei rant in peace.
Exactly how do you even argue such a position that only a minority suffers this issue, on a forum designed to gather all the people who have suffered from this incident to get them to talk about their suffering? Such a thing is completely irrelevant and kind of silly. People suffer, doesn't matter how many.
Edit: was going to make another post to reaffirm that I'm not arguing that it's a minority or majority, cause such a poll hasn't been done and would probably be biased, but that it simply doesn't matter. Such a post is completely unneeded though so I deleted it cause this is off-topic enough and I'll rather have it all in one large post than cluttering everything up with posts unrelated to the OP. I do enough of that already.
Sorry if this is slightly demeaning, but I would rather we discuss the topic laid out on the OP rather than a sentence Yurei accidently slipped in.
I have seen a number of people on these forums take the position that if it hasn't happened to them then it either doesn't happen or it doesn't matter. I think it is due to a general lack of empathy but I could be wrong.
I have seen a number of people on these forums take the position that if it hasn't happened to them then it either doesn't happen or it doesn't matter. I think it is due to a general lack of empathy but I could be wrong.
Internet forums aren't exactly engines of empathy and good-faith arguments...
I have seen a number of people on these forums take the position that if it hasn't happened to them then it either doesn't happen or it doesn't matter. I think it is due to a general lack of empathy but I could be wrong.
And I've seen even more times people trying to make a mountain out of a molehill as well, which, in the end is helping no one.
I am all for empathising with one guy having trouble with one jerk and discussing it and finding solutions, I have a much harder time empathising with a minority which, until proven otherwise (and I think it's been disproven so far more than anything) is just a figment of someone's imagination.
Had we been given more actual facts about what had happened to that poor guy, we would probably have been able to empathise and give specific advice as to how to deal with the situation. But branching off into purely theoretical discussions about the relative global power of giving away infusions or not can only fail because the game is much more varied than some people imagine and that people, campaigns and situations vary so wildly that, as could be expected, no definitive answer could be found.
I’m with you. I had the same question about the “always” tone in the first post - almost like the people they’ve been playing with seem to be rather toxic.
The times I’ve played Artificer - you better believe my items worked WAY better when donated to other party members. And they loved it! But I still got to grab loot.
And when I’ve played alongside Artificers that gave me a magical weapon, I sure wasn’t looking for more loot because I felt like I already had a magical item.
I swear some people need to evaluate their DnD groups more than they currently do.
I have both run multiple campaigns and played in campaigns where the Artificer characters were automatically assumed to just hand away their infusions and other magic items to the party willy-nilly, with no regard for their personal wants or needs in the game. Though Yurei may have been exaggerating with the "A.L.W.A.Y.S." portion of the OP, their base point still stands. Stop cookie-cutting and nit-picking, folks. They're red herrings. If you want to complain about the hyperbolic nature of the wording, you are entitled to do so, but it doesn't come off as anything more than whining about semantics.
Artificers at my table have been called "greedy" or "no-fun" for wanting to keep their infusions to themselves to help themselves and the rest of the party in combat. PCs would complain that I was awarding the artificers with just as many magic items as the rest of the party because "they already got them from their base class". I cannot say that this will happen all of the time or even the majority of the time, but I know that it happens frequently enough for me to have experienced it on multiple occasions with different people in different campaigns, as well as with other artificers having similar experiences.
Though artificers are not some marginalized group, it is still rude behavior to call them "greedy" or any other name because of themselves keeping their own class features. That is like saying, "well, I'm not insulting [insertmarginalizedgroup], so it's okay for me to insult you!" No it ******* isn't. Uncalled for, unwarranted jerkish behavior is not okay whether or not you're being rude to a minority.
Aye. Maybe my pre-coffeed eyes aren't working yet.
I think some of the conflict is the strong verbage being used. Forced, bullied, pressured, pressed, begging, and so on.
Maybe greedy is considered overly negative to some and is synonymous with bullying. I would use jealous but even if it is technically correct in the context, it just doesn't read right in my eyes.
My initial point was that by design, and the math supports this, in most cases the artificer spreading infusions out is more effective than solely using them to enhance their own abilities. The more a game style slides towards the war game mentality the more vital it is for parties to view resources and features as a collective whole rather than what's mine is mine.
Obviously a player using a class in a way that they enjoy is a very important factor but that must be weighed against the table as a whole.
All I got was meta the game.
Cause in the real world, when your friends need stuff we all chip in to buy it since we all love Jimmy's cooking and that new BBQ grill will be able to cook a feast to feed the whole neighborhood!
Totally normal.
Don't play the game to have fun. Optimize everything!
edit: As someone that's seen real combat with 3/7 Cav in OIF 1&3, I promise you wasn't nobody giving away gear like this. Sure if you run outta rounds I can throw you a mag but I'm not gonna give you my kevlar helmet and discrease my likely hood of surviving. I love my troops but I love my family back home more. I'm going home, you can bet on that.
So I read the first page and a half and skipped all the hullaboo to add my 5c to the discussion too. Long term Artificer here and its absolutely my fave class. My Alchemist, Hjalmar (link in my signature), is my longest standing active PC and my highest level PC at lvl14. I've been playing him since Version 1 UA in 2017. In our current party of 7 players, he's one of three left from the original line up.
For the most part, I have always kept my infusions and the party have never questioned it. I've given out one every now and then and then taken it back (or "turned it off") later. There's the usual selfishness in the party, but not to the extent they demand or guilt me into giving up my class features. Those aren't the sort of players I'd wanna play with and if you are the sort of person who believes another should disadvantage themselves so you can 'win' DnD better, then you're playing the game wrong.
Im with Yurei. Artificers keeping their infusions is not a greedy move.
Just chiming in a year and a half later again. Hjalmar is now lvl18 and still kicking. While I appreciate the play style of others handing out all their infusions, I still generally keep all mine purely because I've gotta stay alive to keep the party alive. Hjalmar has out lived and out healed two clerics in the party over the years and if it weren't for the alchemist heals, the party would have TPK'ed many times over. At the same time as "being greedy" and keeping all the things (bar one of my six infusions), he's also not optimised for effective combat. I draw hits away from other players with my 23AC and Flash of Genius to saves while protecting or healing those that can't take another hit. One person's "greedy" is another's benefit to the party as a whole.
Besides, I read somewhere on here a while back the analogy of a wizard's spellslots. Given the class feature to donate their spellslots, would it be right to expect the wizard to give away the thing that powers their class to the rest of the party? I mean, kudos to them if they do, but YOU'd be the jerk if you expected that, because then they'd be left with nothing and probably not having fun with a class they picked to have fun with.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
One of the things I have noticed in this discussion and the entire artificer list is that some folks seem to think that the number of infusions is somehow a “per day” or “per long rest” number so that the artificer has a whole bunch of infusions available over time. These folks also seem to be the ones “demanding” that the artificer give out all sorts of “freebie” infusions. Let’s go back and look - when I do I don’t see them listed as per day or per long rest. At L1-5 you can have 2 active that’s it. If you want something other than those 2 you have to either find real magic or shut down one of your 2 and activate a different known one in its place. Yes this number goes up as you level - to a whopping 4 active infusions at L10. This is why Yurei and others ( including myself) are saying “ stop asking the artificer for their infusions” especially stop demanding they give them out to others first and don’t get any found magic. Yes the artificer has spells - but it’s a freaking half caster not a full caster a Wizard gets fireball at L5, an artificer gets it at L9 a big difference. Generally giving away their infusions weakens the artificer significantly ( yes I’m sure someone will give us a scenario where it wouldn’t - but would you really play that construct in most campaigns or is it just a “whiteroom example” so do us a favor and don’t bother). Yes there are times and places where the artificer might well pass along an infused item be happy for those occasions. ( example - armorer turns L6 and gets a 3rd infusion. She is using her 2 for armor and a weapon but a fighter in the group still doesn’t have a magic weapon so she uses new infusion #3to provide a +1 weapon for them until they can get one from the loot pile etc. when they do she takes back the infusions and us3s it to create a bag of holding - that she Carrie’s not the rogue.)
What you are proposing, Stout, is the same damn thing I fought so hard against back when the class was in beta - the artificer "makes the most sense/impact" when you leave the actual artificer at home, don't allow the character to accompany you on adventures at all, and just treat them as an NPC magic dispensary. You are telling everybody that the artificer is so weak that the only reason to have one is to enhance the items of other players in the party - an opportunity the artificer player should feel grateful for even if they don't actually get to, y'know...play D&D because the only thing they get to do is text in who gets what infusion before the real players have a session.
That will never be the way I play an artificer, and I will never let anyone else bully an artificer player into playing that way, either.
If barbarian could give their rages to someone else, would it be greedy for them to use it themself? Is a beastmaster ranger greedy if their companion protects them instead of the party? Every class has key features that are iconic to its identity. The fact of the matter is that an artificer's infusions are a key feature of their class and a significant portion of their power. They help to complement or even define the artificer's build. The battle smith might even rely on them in certain campaigns. It is not greedy for a character to use their class features.
I am sorry if I came across as too aggressive. I have seen similar arguments about people bringing "sub-optimal" being a detriment to the group and trying to use math to justify being a jerk and it really pushed my buttons.
I apologize.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Oh, don't worry they still die and have to run and all that, I just help them make sure it doesn't happen too often ;)
And yeah, I've played games where we don't know anything about each other as well, it's just as fun if not more. I want to point out that I don't ask these questions mid game or while someone is talking or doing their turn, because that would indeed slow the game down. And like I said, I wouldn't ask about everything they can do, that would require lots of spells and everything, just some abilities seem cool and I could ask about them.
As for the blindsight thing, no problem forgetting that particular thing no. It didn't do any harm reminding me either though, and who knows, few bad rolls and it's a TPK. We're not playing a forgiving campaign.
And while I understand your reasoning I think it seems to come of playing with many people who behaved bad at the table, I've never had a player do something like this really.. Well, I've had a case with a shitty DM + a shitty player who basically just decided to screw the party, he was betraying the party and we couldn't do anything. He would get info he couldn't have gotten in game and was unstoppable and so on. So yeah, but that's a bit extreme and let's just say the rest of us left the group and made our own. I guess if I had played a lot with different people and saw this trend you mention, I probably would have gone with rules like this as well tbh.
Sort of disagree with the OP's assertion that artificers are bottom priority for getting loot. I've never seen that happen at tables and, frankly, it seems like it'd be a pretty bad group if they intentionally shortchanged the artificer player. Obviously you might not distribute certain treasure to them because they can't use it well, but it'd be weird if you just outright refused to give them a reasonable share in general.
I guess there's a weird issue where the artificer gets worse as a class the more prevalent magic items are in the rest of the campaign, but that's just how WOTC designed it.
Pretty sure Yurei saying that "this is 100% always a issue at every single table" was a exaggeration for the purpose of letting go their anger at the issue and wasn't actually important to the OP or any of their points in any way.
Obviously not every table is terrible about Artificers, like I'm sure if Yurei were to DM this wouldn't be a issue at their table.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
While declaring it always an issue was probably an exaggeration. The fact that a few in this thread, without naming names, have said a varying amount of times when arguing that they get to keep their infusions that they are completely useless without them. As if they did not have any other features other than infusions. Like they didn't have a rather decent list of support spells to call upon, Other class and subclass features to empower them even without the infusions, Or even the actual need for those infusions to be their spell casting foci (despite this being a direct reason why the Artificer should keep their infusions in one post).
And the attitude that Artificers are completely useless without their Infusions is just as problematic as the attitude that they should share or that they should not get something because of infusions (which is something I don't actually see much but maybe that just speaks to the caliber of my groups). Being Useless without their infusions is a mentality that I'm seeing pop up more and more and affect a lot of the white room theory crafting that goes on around the class that causes certain people to claim that only certain choices can be made with the artificer and picking anything else is wrong. As much as the Artificer doesn't have to share their infusions. At the same time the class does not magically shut down if they do not have all of their infusions. There is still quite a lot that they can do. only one Artificer subclass can be said to have some requirement for their infusions and that is the Battle Smith. It's Battle Ready ability that allows it to attack with Intelligence is the only feature that requires something such as a magic weapon to be able to function. Every other feature either only requires relatively easy to pick up non-magical equipment or actually functions purely through their own features to allow these alternate ways of doing things. This is the only point where it's arguable that an infusion is particularly required by the artificer themselves. Everything else is Optional, whether that option means using it themselves, passing it around, or not using it at all in favor of other ones the character knows in one of the other two capacities.
I mean, Infusions are a significant portion of the Artificer's power. Sure, subclasses help nudge them in a certain direction, but even then they aren't natural martials, and they aren't full casters, and the fact that their spells are mostly utility and support does limit what they can do. Like it or not, infusions do make up the difference, and if a player wants their artificer to be as effective on an individual level as the next PC, that is something that does need to be taken into account.
I feel as though it doesn't really matter exactly if the Artificers in this thread are in the minority, or the majority. Either way it's happening, and happening enough for a thread to give 5 pages. Doesn't matter exactly how many Artificers, or even if it's literally just Yurei, they have the right to complain about their experiences.
You can certainly complain about a incident to millions of players, that's why r/rpghorrorstories exists.
You don't have to listen (like how I barely even know how to spell rpghorrorstories cause I never visit it), especially if your one of those artificers who don't suffer the same problem. To wage a comment war purely over Yurei suggesting that this might of happened more than once is honestly kind of silly.
It makes literally no difference how many suffer the issue, the whole "Clerics must heal" thing is not much of a issue nowadays, but that doesn't stop people making forums about it to gather advice on how to deal with it cause it still does happen. Nor do those people need to be told that their issues aren't important because nobody would ever do such a thing and it's just them. Let Yurei rant in peace.
Exactly how do you even argue such a position that only a minority suffers this issue, on a forum designed to gather all the people who have suffered from this incident to get them to talk about their suffering? Such a thing is completely irrelevant and kind of silly. People suffer, doesn't matter how many.
Edit: was going to make another post to reaffirm that I'm not arguing that it's a minority or majority, cause such a poll hasn't been done and would probably be biased, but that it simply doesn't matter. Such a post is completely unneeded though so I deleted it cause this is off-topic enough and I'll rather have it all in one large post than cluttering everything up with posts unrelated to the OP. I do enough of that already.
Sorry if this is slightly demeaning, but I would rather we discuss the topic laid out on the OP rather than a sentence Yurei accidently slipped in.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
I have seen a number of people on these forums take the position that if it hasn't happened to them then it either doesn't happen or it doesn't matter. I think it is due to a general lack of empathy but I could be wrong.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Internet forums aren't exactly engines of empathy and good-faith arguments...
I’m with you. I had the same question about the “always” tone in the first post - almost like the people they’ve been playing with seem to be rather toxic.
The times I’ve played Artificer - you better believe my items worked WAY better when donated to other party members. And they loved it! But I still got to grab loot.
And when I’ve played alongside Artificers that gave me a magical weapon, I sure wasn’t looking for more loot because I felt like I already had a magical item.
I swear some people need to evaluate their DnD groups more than they currently do.
It's amazing how some people keep missing the forest for the trees here...
I have both run multiple campaigns and played in campaigns where the Artificer characters were automatically assumed to just hand away their infusions and other magic items to the party willy-nilly, with no regard for their personal wants or needs in the game. Though Yurei may have been exaggerating with the "A.L.W.A.Y.S." portion of the OP, their base point still stands. Stop cookie-cutting and nit-picking, folks. They're red herrings. If you want to complain about the hyperbolic nature of the wording, you are entitled to do so, but it doesn't come off as anything more than whining about semantics.
Artificers at my table have been called "greedy" or "no-fun" for wanting to keep their infusions to themselves to help themselves and the rest of the party in combat. PCs would complain that I was awarding the artificers with just as many magic items as the rest of the party because "they already got them from their base class". I cannot say that this will happen all of the time or even the majority of the time, but I know that it happens frequently enough for me to have experienced it on multiple occasions with different people in different campaigns, as well as with other artificers having similar experiences.
Though artificers are not some marginalized group, it is still rude behavior to call them "greedy" or any other name because of themselves keeping their own class features. That is like saying, "well, I'm not insulting [insertmarginalizedgroup], so it's okay for me to insult you!" No it ******* isn't. Uncalled for, unwarranted jerkish behavior is not okay whether or not you're being rude to a minority.
Got it? Can we move along?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
All I got was meta the game.
Cause in the real world, when your friends need stuff we all chip in to buy it since we all love Jimmy's cooking and that new BBQ grill will be able to cook a feast to feed the whole neighborhood!
Totally normal.
Don't play the game to have fun. Optimize everything!
edit: As someone that's seen real combat with 3/7 Cav in OIF 1&3, I promise you wasn't nobody giving away gear like this. Sure if you run outta rounds I can throw you a mag but I'm not gonna give you my kevlar helmet and discrease my likely hood of surviving. I love my troops but I love my family back home more. I'm going home, you can bet on that.
Just chiming in a year and a half later again. Hjalmar is now lvl18 and still kicking. While I appreciate the play style of others handing out all their infusions, I still generally keep all mine purely because I've gotta stay alive to keep the party alive. Hjalmar has out lived and out healed two clerics in the party over the years and if it weren't for the alchemist heals, the party would have TPK'ed many times over. At the same time as "being greedy" and keeping all the things (bar one of my six infusions), he's also not optimised for effective combat. I draw hits away from other players with my 23AC and Flash of Genius to saves while protecting or healing those that can't take another hit. One person's "greedy" is another's benefit to the party as a whole.
Besides, I read somewhere on here a while back the analogy of a wizard's spellslots. Given the class feature to donate their spellslots, would it be right to expect the wizard to give away the thing that powers their class to the rest of the party? I mean, kudos to them if they do, but YOU'd be the jerk if you expected that, because then they'd be left with nothing and probably not having fun with a class they picked to have fun with.
Carry on.
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
One of the things I have noticed in this discussion and the entire artificer list is that some folks seem to think that the number of infusions is somehow a “per day” or “per long rest” number so that the artificer has a whole bunch of infusions available over time. These folks also seem to be the ones “demanding” that the artificer give out all sorts of “freebie” infusions. Let’s go back and look - when I do I don’t see them listed as per day or per long rest. At L1-5 you can have 2 active that’s it. If you want something other than those 2 you have to either find real magic or shut down one of your 2 and activate a different known one in its place. Yes this number goes up as you level - to a whopping 4 active infusions at L10. This is why Yurei and others ( including myself) are saying “ stop asking the artificer for their infusions” especially stop demanding they give them out to others first and don’t get any found magic. Yes the artificer has spells - but it’s a freaking half caster not a full caster a Wizard gets fireball at L5, an artificer gets it at L9 a big difference. Generally giving away their infusions weakens the artificer significantly ( yes I’m sure someone will give us a scenario where it wouldn’t - but would you really play that construct in most campaigns or is it just a “whiteroom example” so do us a favor and don’t bother). Yes there are times and places where the artificer might well pass along an infused item be happy for those occasions. ( example - armorer turns L6 and gets a 3rd infusion. She is using her 2 for armor and a weapon but a fighter in the group still doesn’t have a magic weapon so she uses new infusion #3to provide a +1 weapon for them until they can get one from the loot pile etc. when they do she takes back the infusions and us3s it to create a bag of holding - that she Carrie’s not the rogue.)
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What you are proposing, Stout, is the same damn thing I fought so hard against back when the class was in beta - the artificer "makes the most sense/impact" when you leave the actual artificer at home, don't allow the character to accompany you on adventures at all, and just treat them as an NPC magic dispensary. You are telling everybody that the artificer is so weak that the only reason to have one is to enhance the items of other players in the party - an opportunity the artificer player should feel grateful for even if they don't actually get to, y'know...play D&D because the only thing they get to do is text in who gets what infusion before the real players have a session.
That will never be the way I play an artificer, and I will never let anyone else bully an artificer player into playing that way, either.
Please do not contact or message me.
If barbarian could give their rages to someone else, would it be greedy for them to use it themself? Is a beastmaster ranger greedy if their companion protects them instead of the party? Every class has key features that are iconic to its identity. The fact of the matter is that an artificer's infusions are a key feature of their class and a significant portion of their power. They help to complement or even define the artificer's build. The battle smith might even rely on them in certain campaigns. It is not greedy for a character to use their class features.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond