If the group enjoys approaching character creation like that, good for them.
I acknowledged that if the group likes approaching the game like that there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not gatekeeping. I'm expressing my opinion why I think it can be a toxic way to approach the game by default in settings where you are not intimately aware of how people enjoy the game. Mostly because of how it can effect newer players.
so a wizard dropping fireballs on the party for lolz or the rouge stealing from the party is ok because we cant tell a cut it out because its rude? see the issue with absolutes with social interactions is they are impossible to maintain. asking can't be deemed rude because that can only be decided by the actual people involved. ask vs guess is something that should be covered pregame but making a taboo is probably the worst idea. can't fix what can't be addressed.
Please don't make up these ridiculous situations like it was what I was talking about at all. Come on. I clearly stated that what matters is everyone having fun and these are so obviously contrary to that I shouldn't have to be discussing them. I also talked about there being outlier situations that do need to be considered because they have a high chance of impinging on the fun of others.
As for math, sure I can give you party to work off of. Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Artificer.
Not everyone has to play TTRPG's like it's high end content on a major MMO such that every iota of min-maxing power generation must be dragged from every character.
Seriously, is 3 points of damage per round average at 8th level really that significant?
hooray. a party of bad min/maxers lol. this party really doesn't make much sense oh well. lets just start with the assumption that the BS will keep one infusion because of subclass and SS.
range of ac from 13-20 at-will disregarding extra damage due to being unilateral
fighter no infusion ~16.71 dpr with normal BB + ba attack . %62.5 hit chance
fighter with +1 infusion(radiant allows for a new reaction option) ~19.34 dpr with BB action+ ba attack. %67.5 hit chance
battlesmith repeating shot +SS ~18.83 (knowledge of target AC will change this up or down 3-5 dpr)
battlesmith without SS with repeating shot ~16.07 hope that cover is a big factor i guess
battlesmith+ repeating+archery style feat in place of SS ~19.93
(if haste is running SS does pull ahead but not until the 3rd round)
so with 2 infusions left what could the artificer be using to compare to the value it has on the fighter even before action surge or factoring hit chance to reaction attacks? utility wise i'm guessing the fighter is also the only one with a low dex(stealth) value. what is the value of addressing that with EC(yay double dipping) against the artificer's second self pick?
once you start looking at the wizard's or cleric's concentration value and mind sharpener or the value of a 3rd level slot with the spell refuel ring it's hard to see the value of a second infusion not being spread somewhere between them.
im almost done with the all infusion on art crunch but then i have to value the AC increase on the fighter as well. Might be a we bit there.
If you are playing the Artificer then you can divide your Infusions the way you like. You don't get to tell Cleric players what spells to cast, you don't get to tell Paladin players which creatures to Smite and you don't get to tell Artificer players what to do with their Infusions.
I didn't think there needed to be a thread to let people know that they don't have the right to tell other people how to play their characters, but I probably should have known better.
Eh this is one of those things that falls into more effective doesn't always mean fun.
Like clerics being forced to heal, wizards discouraged from using pure blasting, magic items being distributed according to actual weaknesses (see rogues and their Cloaks of Elvenkind), etc.
Besides, this is DND. Balance barely mattered in the first place. If your DM puts you against a creature with immunity to nonmagical weapons, then that's on them for not giving anyone magical weapons.
What's the point of a DM giving the party a challenge (non-magical weapon resistance) and then an automatic solution (magic weapon)? I'm not arguing the case of setting up the table to fail but that is a pretty big devaluation of impact to the classes/subclasses that have built in magical weapons. Game style depending of course.
On the note of fun over crunch I agree. I wouldn't play an artificer who didn't spend half the time with odd ball infusions like the unbreakable arrow to find genuine nonstandard solutions. Even if I make a few extra problems in the process. That was also part of my original point. Most of the infusions can free be passed around. With some cleaver planning you can turn one item into a party wide buff. But it only works if the player is willing to look at infusions as a feature without the concept of my feature go get your own.
The point of the original post was that too many people act like an Artificer using their own class features for themselves is wrong. The point is a player should never be made to feel bad for using their features in a manner that they desire. How effective it may be is completely irrelevant.
Sharing infusions is more effective in the vast majority of parties. It just a statement on how the system works. I didn't know that was even something that people doubted before this thread.
Except your numbers and examples really don't prove that. The differences are miniscule and you're really just taking 3ish damage and moving it from the Battlesmith to the Fighter. The Mind Sharpener is just as useful on the artificer who also has good concentration spells and has fewer resources invested in concentration checks than the wizard and cleric. The artificer is just as likely to need a boost to stealth in their half-plate as the fighter. There's the homonculus which makes a great action economy abusing minion for emergency heals and the like (look at that, the artificer is playing support while using their own infusions). Or piling on defensive boosts so that the Artificer can help hold the front line. Heck, even an alchemy jug can be used advantageously in combat.
Back to the battlesmith and fighter relationship: really what you're illustrating is edging into the "putting your eggs in one basket" territory. Which is not automatically the best thing, or that phrase would have a better connotation. In fact, it can easily backfire. What happens if the fighter is incapacitated in any one of the numerous ways a fighter can be laid on their ass? What was once a Battlesmith at 7/10 effectiveness and Fighter at 7/10 effectiveness is now a Battlesmith at 6/10 and Fighter at 8/10. Take the fighter out of the equation and the squad is much worse for it than if the Battlesmith had just held on to their infusions because not only did incapacitating the fighter take their skill set out of the equation, but it also took out some of the Battlesmith's relative strength with it as well. It's simply not an automatic truth that buffing a couple party members that make slightly (and this really is about as slightly as you get because those numbers are not impressive) better use of an item is actually the better use of that item. Spreading out your strength and having everyone capable of churning out good damage is strong tactically.
I'm not convinced in the slightest.
I'm amused by the parfait of hypocrisy you've built Stoutstein.
You accuse me of gatekeeping, and then after requesting more detailed builds, label them as "bad min/maxers". That's like two levels of gatekeeping right there in three words. All of a sudden these builds only belong to min/maxers, and also, those min/maxers are bad. I mean seriously? That's some toxic language. Suddenly anyone that cares about their concentration checks on a spellcaster is a min/maxer? And being that min/maxer is bad? Please.
After labeling a series of builds as "bad min/maxers" you then go on to crunch a bunch of numbers to try and prove why it's strategically best to hand out some of your infusions as an artificer. And point to miniscule numbers like they prove your point.
All of this after you try to counter my points about not telling people how to play with some wildly fallacious straw men about wizard's raining fireballs down on their friends' heads.
'cause the answer is: Yes. It's better. If you only compare them to each other, then the flail is better. That doesn't mean it's super important to always take a flail instead of a mace. Or that it's cooler or anything. But the flail deals a d8 while the mace deals a d6. The only difference is the damage and that mace is simple and flail is martial, but fighter can use both hence the flail IS better since it deals more damage and there is no other difference.
Some things ARE better, in the sense that they are more efficient or whatever, that's fact not fiction. Is it important to always take a flail over a mace? Nope. But that doesn't change the fact of which is better (if you're proficient with both).
I think this is what one side is trying to say, but being a bit misunderstood and not getting their point across because other people thing they are saying people who use maces are dumb, while they are really just trying to say flails are better statistically but play what you want.
That said, some groups play a lot for efficiency, some play a mix, some don't care at all. What's fun for some are less fun for others and the playstyle can be important to agree on before playing. This doesn't mean you can be an a-hole and demand things from anyone just because you think you're better than everyone, it's still a group of people playing to have fun. It can be fair to require some things of your teammates though, you DON'T have the right to play what you want or do what you want, you also abide by the same rules as everyone else, be nice and civil and if there is a theme, you might actually have to follow that as well. Note that this doesn't mean that you need to be anyone's slave, but if you join a group about to start curse of strahd and you make fluffles the joking jester you better make sure you play it REALLY good without breaking the setting. Just like if you're playing a social setting with intrigues and plots, you don't make conan the barbarian and start berserking mid dinner, without checking with dm and players before. Fair play goes both ways.
Requiring someone to use their abilities in a certain way is not something that's really required most of the time , I say most because I'm sure there could be some times it actually is but I can't imagine any at the moment. And an artificer lending it's gear is most likely better for the group at times, but this doesn't mean it is always better or that anyone else have the right to demand it.
Team effort doesn't mean everyone always make the fighter shine, it means everyone helps to make everyone shine.
(Though that made me wonder just how badass you could make it if that's what you actually did? Just 3 supports that all stay back and cast tons of spells on one fighter and let the fighter charge alone.)
I have a couple of thoughts on this topic to share.
Yes, you can share infusions. Yes, party members can ask for infusions. No, artificers are not required, obligated, or even expected to give their infusions to other party members.
If you want someone to play artificer just so you can take their infusions, you are not asking for a player. You are asking for an NPC to give you free magic items. This is especially the case in earlier levels since artificers don't have many features to work with.
Making a d&d party generally isn't about making a single adventurer very powerful. It's about bringing together a group of adventurers that compliment each other and can fill different roles.
D&D classes are intended to be made in a way that they have class features that benefit them and their play style. Heavy spellcasters have features that help their spell casting, and scouts will have features that assist their stealth and/or mobility. Artificer was made with a heavy focus on magic items, and so the infusions were made as a way to compliment that. The artificer can also attune to more magic items. This particular feature just happens to be gained at the exact levels where the artificer is able to infuse more items than they can normally attune to. It's almost as if the artificer was specifically made to be able to always use all their infusions.
I acknowledged that if the group likes approaching the game like that there is nothing wrong with that. I'm not gatekeeping. I'm expressing my opinion why I think it can be a toxic way to approach the game by default in settings where you are not intimately aware of how people enjoy the game. Mostly because of how it can effect newer players.
Please don't make up these ridiculous situations like it was what I was talking about at all. Come on. I clearly stated that what matters is everyone having fun and these are so obviously contrary to that I shouldn't have to be discussing them. I also talked about there being outlier situations that do need to be considered because they have a high chance of impinging on the fun of others.
As for math, sure I can give you party to work off of. Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Artificer.
No multiclasses, all level 8. Assume whatever ASI's aren't spoken for are going into maxing the appropriate stat for the class.
PAM/Warcaster + Booming Blade Eldritch Knight (V Human)
Resilient (con)/War Caster Twilight Cleric (V Human)
Resilient (con)/War Caster Diviner (V Human)
Elven Accuracy/Sentinel + Mirror Image Arcane Trickster (High Elf)
Sharpshooter Battlesmith (V Human)
That seems like a very oddly specific group but yeah should be interesting.
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.
They asked for details, and I want to see where this goes, so I obliged.
Not everyone has to play TTRPG's like it's high end content on a major MMO such that every iota of min-maxing power generation must be dragged from every character.
Seriously, is 3 points of damage per round average at 8th level really that significant?
If you are playing the Artificer then you can divide your Infusions the way you like. You don't get to tell Cleric players what spells to cast, you don't get to tell Paladin players which creatures to Smite and you don't get to tell Artificer players what to do with their Infusions.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I didn't think there needed to be a thread to let people know that they don't have the right to tell other people how to play their characters, but I probably should have known better.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Eh this is one of those things that falls into more effective doesn't always mean fun.
Like clerics being forced to heal, wizards discouraged from using pure blasting, magic items being distributed according to actual weaknesses (see rogues and their Cloaks of Elvenkind), etc.
Besides, this is DND. Balance barely mattered in the first place. If your DM puts you against a creature with immunity to nonmagical weapons, then that's on them for not giving anyone magical weapons.
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.
The point of the original post was that too many people act like an Artificer using their own class features for themselves is wrong. The point is a player should never be made to feel bad for using their features in a manner that they desire. How effective it may be is completely irrelevant.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Except your numbers and examples really don't prove that. The differences are miniscule and you're really just taking 3ish damage and moving it from the Battlesmith to the Fighter. The Mind Sharpener is just as useful on the artificer who also has good concentration spells and has fewer resources invested in concentration checks than the wizard and cleric. The artificer is just as likely to need a boost to stealth in their half-plate as the fighter. There's the homonculus which makes a great action economy abusing minion for emergency heals and the like (look at that, the artificer is playing support while using their own infusions). Or piling on defensive boosts so that the Artificer can help hold the front line. Heck, even an alchemy jug can be used advantageously in combat.
Back to the battlesmith and fighter relationship: really what you're illustrating is edging into the "putting your eggs in one basket" territory. Which is not automatically the best thing, or that phrase would have a better connotation. In fact, it can easily backfire. What happens if the fighter is incapacitated in any one of the numerous ways a fighter can be laid on their ass? What was once a Battlesmith at 7/10 effectiveness and Fighter at 7/10 effectiveness is now a Battlesmith at 6/10 and Fighter at 8/10. Take the fighter out of the equation and the squad is much worse for it than if the Battlesmith had just held on to their infusions because not only did incapacitating the fighter take their skill set out of the equation, but it also took out some of the Battlesmith's relative strength with it as well. It's simply not an automatic truth that buffing a couple party members that make slightly (and this really is about as slightly as you get because those numbers are not impressive) better use of an item is actually the better use of that item. Spreading out your strength and having everyone capable of churning out good damage is strong tactically.
I'm not convinced in the slightest.
I'm amused by the parfait of hypocrisy you've built Stoutstein.
You accuse me of gatekeeping, and then after requesting more detailed builds, label them as "bad min/maxers". That's like two levels of gatekeeping right there in three words. All of a sudden these builds only belong to min/maxers, and also, those min/maxers are bad. I mean seriously? That's some toxic language. Suddenly anyone that cares about their concentration checks on a spellcaster is a min/maxer? And being that min/maxer is bad? Please.
After labeling a series of builds as "bad min/maxers" you then go on to crunch a bunch of numbers to try and prove why it's strategically best to hand out some of your infusions as an artificer. And point to miniscule numbers like they prove your point.
All of this after you try to counter my points about not telling people how to play with some wildly fallacious straw men about wizard's raining fireballs down on their friends' heads.
I just wanna say that I feel this thread has taken sides and is kinda focusing on the wrong things or arguing the wrong points...
Thought excercise....
For a fighter, Is a flail better than a mace?
'cause the answer is: Yes. It's better. If you only compare them to each other, then the flail is better. That doesn't mean it's super important to always take a flail instead of a mace. Or that it's cooler or anything. But the flail deals a d8 while the mace deals a d6. The only difference is the damage and that mace is simple and flail is martial, but fighter can use both hence the flail IS better since it deals more damage and there is no other difference.
Some things ARE better, in the sense that they are more efficient or whatever, that's fact not fiction. Is it important to always take a flail over a mace? Nope. But that doesn't change the fact of which is better (if you're proficient with both).
I think this is what one side is trying to say, but being a bit misunderstood and not getting their point across because other people thing they are saying people who use maces are dumb, while they are really just trying to say flails are better statistically but play what you want.
That said, some groups play a lot for efficiency, some play a mix, some don't care at all. What's fun for some are less fun for others and the playstyle can be important to agree on before playing. This doesn't mean you can be an a-hole and demand things from anyone just because you think you're better than everyone, it's still a group of people playing to have fun. It can be fair to require some things of your teammates though, you DON'T have the right to play what you want or do what you want, you also abide by the same rules as everyone else, be nice and civil and if there is a theme, you might actually have to follow that as well. Note that this doesn't mean that you need to be anyone's slave, but if you join a group about to start curse of strahd and you make fluffles the joking jester you better make sure you play it REALLY good without breaking the setting. Just like if you're playing a social setting with intrigues and plots, you don't make conan the barbarian and start berserking mid dinner, without checking with dm and players before. Fair play goes both ways.
Requiring someone to use their abilities in a certain way is not something that's really required most of the time , I say most because I'm sure there could be some times it actually is but I can't imagine any at the moment. And an artificer lending it's gear is most likely better for the group at times, but this doesn't mean it is always better or that anyone else have the right to demand it.
Team effort doesn't mean everyone always make the fighter shine, it means everyone helps to make everyone shine.
(Though that made me wonder just how badass you could make it if that's what you actually did? Just 3 supports that all stay back and cast tons of spells on one fighter and let the fighter charge alone.)
I have a couple of thoughts on this topic to share.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond