I don't get the hostility. Are those pseudo PCs not trying to maximize their effectiveness with both select race and feat combinations? Is this party normal in your experience? It seems full of odd combos and one trick concepts. This party looks like they read a bunch of online guides and slapped a party together and thought they have a really good one when it might be average or slightly below that. Maybe I'm missing something. They aren't players or even real fake PCs. they don't have feeling and if they are your pet builds I'm sorry.
Then you said the damage difference is small but 4 damage is more than 5 damage and passing out infusions is the exact opposite of "all your eggs Im one basket" if the artificer is taken out in place of the fighter. It becomes a game of what ifs.
None of the numbers I came up with are near the top end. The fighter is using a Longsword with blind fighting because why not.
No one cares about the fake characters or fake characters in the example.
The OP wants real people to stop telling other real people that they are bad and should feel bad about not giving away their character's Infusions. Whether it is better for the group, fictional or otherwise is not relevant. By saying "well it is better for the group" is just making excuses for being rude and abusive to another play because they what to play a particular character in a particular way.
I don't get the hostility. Are those pseudo PCs not trying to maximize their effectiveness with both select race and feat combinations? Is this party normal in your experience? It seems full of odd combos and one trick concepts. This party looks like they read a bunch of online guides and slapped a party together and thought they have a really good one when it might be average or slightly below that. Maybe I'm missing something. They aren't players or even real fake PCs. they don't have feeling and if they are your pet builds I'm sorry.
Then you said the damage difference is small but 4 damage is more than 5 damage and passing out infusions is the exact opposite of "all your eggs Im one basket" if the artificer is taken out in place of the fighter. It becomes a game of what ifs.
None of the numbers I came up with are near the top end. The fighter is using a Longsword with blind fighting because why not.
I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about those builds I presented. I find it annoying you asked for more details and then needlessly shat on the builds I provided, but I don't have some personal investment. What does it matter if the builds I gave you don't seem normal or don't seem like a real party? Maybe specifiy next time exactly what you're looking for or just provide your own party to analyze if you're going to nitpick and say unnecessarily and totally irrelevant negativities about what someone else gives you. Can you see how that would be annoying to someone? I don't have to have some emotional connection to this to be annoyed that you're suddenly tearing at little things that don't matter at all.
My hostility also comes from the hypocrisy of you accusing me of gatekeeping and then turning around and spewing gatekeeper language about "min/maxing". Also, no one appreciates wading through fallacious arguments like your wizard fireball example.
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.
Personally, that isn't how I'm taking what Stoutstein is saying at all. I know they aren't attacking people who choose to do different things with their infusions; I'm not one to be sensitive about people talking optimization like that. I just happen to disagree and think that even though certain classes could make slightly better use of an artificer's infusion than the artificer themselves, that combat in DnD is far too complex to be able to point to the numbers and say X is objectively better than Y in this case. Use of infusions is far more complex than comparing the damage die of weapons.
Actually, if you look back at Stoutstein's first post in the thread they attempt to use this number crunching logic as a reasoning to call artificer's greedy and jealous because they want to play with their own features instead of passing them out. So maybe I should roll back my comment that they aren't attacking people for doing what they want.
If said infusion would be more effective on another character and the artificer's only reasoning to not pass it on is "it's my feature. Go get your own." That is the very definition of greedy. Well maybe jealousy.
Looking back, you're guilty of exactly what the OP is saying not to do.
Really though, none of this number crunching means anything AT ALL to the topic of the OP. Stoutstein came in here with some ideas of what the best ways to use infusions are and I was curious to see the math play out, but none of it matters one iota to the idea that Artificers should be left alone to play how they want just like every other class.
Look, I have a pretty solid sense of self worth, so I wouldn't be rocked to the core of my being if someone called me greedy during a session for keeping my class features to myself. But I wouldn't take it as anything but a petty insult either.
I'm honestly not sure what your point is trying to move towards... Are you saying it's okay to call someone greedy at the DnD table when they don't share their class features because it isn't a complete condemnation of their being?
The disconnect from reality is very strong here. Do you walk around calling people greedy or jealous expecting them to take kindly to it?
It's an insult. It has always been an insult. It will always be an insult. To bring that kind of energy to the DnD table and subject a fellow player to ridicule like that is completely unacceptable.
The fact that you're trying to defend such behavior is...grotesque.
Settle down, folks. Everybody's got enough to be worked up about without being at each other's delicate bits over this. There's more worthy forum fights to be had for everyone involved.
The whole thing is honestly more the fault of gaming logic in general. Artificers are not (immediately/always) frontline attackers, so they're seen as a Support class. Support classes give Support. Frontliners receive support. 'Support' are things that make frontline hitters better at hitting, or heal them up so they can keep hitting. That is The Way Things Are, and nobody tends to think otherwise.
However...
In BattleTech, there is a 'Mech called the VTR-9B Victor. The Victor is an eighty-ton assault 'Mech (i.e. largest, meanest class of 'Mechs) armed with the largest (common) gun the game has (if not much else, sadly), a higher-output engine than many other 'Mechs of its class, and the rare inclusion of jump jets on a machine of its size. The Victor is quick(ish...for a Fatbro), it has excellent maneuverability for its size because it can jump, and its giant gun lets it punch holes through even heavy armor and open enemies up for structure damage.
The Victor was built, and is often still billed, as a support 'Mech. It is designed to "support" its allies by jumping into the midst of a fracas and shooting enemies with its giant gun, often shaking the resolve of less experienced enemy 'MechWarriors (the Victor is notably tall and imposing, alongside carrying an evil headchopping doomcannon) and adding its firepower to its allies where it's needed most. It is, in effect, a close-range fire support 'Mech. Many people will say "Maaan, that's just a striker!", especially as the Victor is notably armored rather poorly for its size...but I can honestly agree with the sentiment.
"Support" is you helping your allies win fights. You can do that by being a shitty timid White Mage slinging heals and the occasional Bless spell...or you can help your allies win fights by jumping into the fracas and shooting enemies with your giant gun. Providing close fire support for your friends, and helping to end fights before your friends need healing or Bless spells. I see nothing wrong with being a Victor instead of being a bad Life cleric, especially if your party is already fairly well supplied with arcane loot you've allowed them to have because you can provide for your own needs.
The talk about sharing overshadowed a big point and the worst offence IMO. If your group is counting and evenly distributing magic items , the Infusions should not count. Infusions are a class feature not a permanent magic item. Even if the artificer gives away the infusion it shouldn't be part of the totals. There are some who see infusions as they already having a magic item or some DMs who place magic items that encourage certain classes to take it but never provide good ones for others.(random tables not a part of this only placed items) Both those attitudes are wrong. A player or should be able to actively measure and tell if they are being greedy or selfish or just standing up for themselves.
Boy, this thread sure got heated lol. Here's how I understood the original topic, in what is hopefully a much more civil tone than a lot of this thread seems to have devolved into:
Artificers should not be expected to share their infusions. Can they use all their infusions for themselves? Sure, that's their decision. Can they give some or all of their infusions to other party members? Sure, that's their decision. But there's the key - it's the artificer's decision. Nobody should be telling anybody how they should or shouldn't be using their class features.
Artificers should not always get the short straw when it comes to distributing newly-acquired magical loot due to being able to "make their own" (that is, create infusions), especially if their infusions have already been given out to other party members anyway. Sometimes a given loot haul simply doesn't have something that would be of much use to the artificer, and that's just how it goes sometimes, but this is generally balanced out with other sources of loot throughout the campaign. Either way, the artificer should not be expected to rely solely on their own infusions while also being expected to dole out their infusions to the rest of the party on top of the other magic items that the party receives. If the party gets into this circular reasoning ("You don't need magic items because you have your infusions, but you also shouldn't keep your infusions to yourself"), then there needs to be a mature discussion within the group about the issue. Keyword: mature. It's an easy mindset to fall into, but not one that cannot be rectified with proper communication.
Artificers are not being selfish for using their infusions for themselves, as infusions are built into the class and the artificer's other class features can be restricted by not keeping some of their infusions for themselves. Again, this ties back into the first point: artificers should not be expected to share their infusions.
Note that Yurei is not saying that artificers should or shouldn't share their infusions, but that they should not be expected to share them. It is up to the artificer whether they choose to share their infusions, but it should not be an obligation.
Also note that Yurei is not saying that it is always the most beneficial option for the artificer to keep all of their infusions to themselves, nor are they saying that it is always the most beneficial option to share all of their infusions. The artificer is under no obligation to use their class features in the most beneficial way possible at any given moment, just as any other class in under no obligation to use their class features in the most beneficial way possible at any given moment.
Ultimately, the issue can be boiled down to one of communication and social boundaries within the group. It is not a mechanical issue, though mechanics can play a role in the discussion. It's primarily a social contract issue.
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.
Yeah, I didn't mean you in particular it's just I felt the emotion of responses when other people also joined in seemed to become a bit more agitated. I am sick with a fever at the moment so I may be bad at getting my point across at times ;)
Also I did a whole big comment yesterday about what you just said now too, but I removed it because I couldn't figure out (in my fevered mind) if I actually said what I was trying to say or not. But basically that pure numbers can be complicated as well. I made some example with the above mace and flail example, which in the case of a Fighter ONLY would be correct. A fighter picking betwen the two would be picking a worse weapon if they picked the mace. But as an example I had a situation with two characters, one with martial weapon proficiency (A) and the other without (B). If both had the exact same stats, no extra abilities (just to make it easier to compare) and the mace was +3 and the flail was +1, the A class would of course still do better with the mace than the flail, but in that situation the B class would have to use a weapon it wasn't proficient with and the team would still suffer more than if they could both use a proficient weapon. Something like that. Point trying to make being that if you're number crunching you first of all have to also compare what you're gaining with what you're losing. So an artificer giving away all their stuff will of course make the other characters better, just like a wizard casting haste on the fighter would make the fighter but isn't automatically better than the wizard throwing a fireball. And this is still just a small amount of possible abilities and would also depend on the situation.
Or, just as you said, combat is complex :)
But in my opinion that's one of the strength of certain classes, like the artificer. The ability to not just be a great support (in many ways) but also to be able to handle things on their own. There might be situations where it's best to make a certain infusion and give it to the fighter or wizard and someone might even enjoy this particular playstyle but you don't have to play it like this and can just as well make an artificer that does use most or all of their infusions to themselves and it can be really good. I think that's really cool.
My interpretion of the comment about greed and such was more like, a wizard with haste only using it on himself always with the motivation "it's my spell". Now, it's true and a lot of the times + depending on playstyle, it could probably be a good use but sometimes it's probably better to let one of the melee classes get it. This doesn't mean I think it's ok to demand the wizard casts haste on you, it's still just bad manners.. And like I said, depending on the usage and situation it might actually work really well or be very cool or just fit the character or something. Hide + cast spells each turn doesn't seem automatically bad tbh. But compare the motivation "it's my spell (with the intent, i'll only use my spells for myself)" with "I'm using it on myself (because I'm squishy or to get advantage on attack rolls from hiding). The second reasoning is using the spells to support themselves , so they can be better and in effect support the party better, while the first seems a bit more selfish? Or a Cleric with 50hp left using its last healing word spell for 4d4 hp on itself with the same reasoning, "it's my spell" instead of on the currently dying fighter. On the other hand if the reasoning and situation instead was the cleric healing itself because this way it could make sure it would stay up a few more rounds and keep the rest of the party alive, or even just so it could itself actually beat the remaining enemies it would be a whole other story, despite the fact that they did the same action, healing themselves. Sure it might feel like it sucks for the fighter right there and then, but maybe the cleric also has revivify ready and can actually bring the fighter back right after. And either way, the choice betwen the fighter dying and the whole party dying shouldn't be so hard.
That said I'm not sure this thread was the right place to bring up the discussion of wether an artificer can sometimes be more useful giving out infusions, it might have fit better in a separate topic since this was really more along the lines if it's ok to demand other players to give them things, use their abilities on them and to call them names if they don't. I mean, even if someone is really greedy and selfish, is it ok to just say that? In my opinion it's not really a great way to go about the situation. It can be good to talk about it but just keep it civil and be more curious about someone instead of annoyed with them. Instead of "why won't you give me your invocations?" and "oh you can pick last you can make your own gear" a better approach would be "what invocations are you using? Which can you make?" and later on you could maybe be like "oh, wait, couldn't you do this? could you make one of those for me so I can do X?" and "Hey, do you need any of these? If you get this one you could..." and "this requires attunement, maybe you could have that and then you could make me one of those instead?". I'm pretty sure anyone who feels like they're part of the group (and also get's a share of the loot for instance) would be more inclined to give out items on their own. And if they have a replica of a magic item and you find a real copy of it, it could free up a slot for them! You could even trade them for stuff "Hey, I got a real cloak of protection here, if you get it from me, could you make me a X instead?". I mean, there's lots of ways to do this but calling someone names (not in a joking way) isn't a great start.
The talk about sharing overshadowed a big point and the worst offence IMO. If your group is counting and evenly distributing magic items , the Infusions should not count. Infusions are a class feature not a permanent magic item. Even if the artificer gives away the infusion it shouldn't be part of the totals. There are some who see infusions as they already having a magic item or some DMs who place magic items that encourage certain classes to take it but never provide good ones for others.(random tables not a part of this only placed items) Both those attitudes are wrong. A player or should be able to actively measure and tell if they are being greedy or selfish or just standing up for themselves.
Yeah, I think this might be the biggest issue, which is why I think talking about it and explaining it is important. Explaining that, this is my class abilities, I need X to be able to do Y and I don't get other things like this and that class. Just like my previous example of a college of swords bard could explain they won't inspire the others much because they need the bardic inspirations to trigger their class abilites just like a battle master fighter would. Just explaining things should go a long way in terms of what others may otherwise be surprised about you not doing.
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.
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.
Settle down, folks. Everybody's got enough to be worked up about without being at each other's delicate bits over this. There's more worthy forum fights to be had for everyone involved.
The whole thing is honestly more the fault of gaming logic in general. Artificers are not (immediately/always) frontline attackers, so they're seen as a Support class. Support classes give Support. Frontliners receive support. 'Support' are things that make frontline hitters better at hitting, or heal them up so they can keep hitting. That is The Way Things Are, and nobody tends to think otherwise.
However...
In BattleTech, there is a 'Mech called the VTR-9B Victor. The Victor is an eighty-ton assault 'Mech (i.e. largest, meanest class of 'Mechs) armed with the largest (common) gun the game has (if not much else, sadly), a higher-output engine than many other 'Mechs of its class, and the rare inclusion of jump jets on a machine of its size. The Victor is quick(ish...for a Fatbro), it has excellent maneuverability for its size because it can jump, and its giant gun lets it punch holes through even heavy armor and open enemies up for structure damage.
The Victor was built, and is often still billed, as a support 'Mech. It is designed to "support" its allies by jumping into the midst of a fracas and shooting enemies with its giant gun, often shaking the resolve of less experienced enemy 'MechWarriors (the Victor is notably tall and imposing, alongside carrying an evil headchopping doomcannon) and adding its firepower to its allies where it's needed most. It is, in effect, a close-range fire support 'Mech. Many people will say "Maaan, that's just a striker!", especially as the Victor is notably armored rather poorly for its size...but I can honestly agree with the sentiment.
"Support" is you helping your allies win fights. You can do that by being a shitty timid White Mage slinging heals and the occasional Bless spell...or you can help your allies win fights by jumping into the fracas and shooting enemies with your giant gun. Providing close fire support for your friends, and helping to end fights before your friends need healing or Bless spells. I see nothing wrong with being a Victor instead of being a bad Life cleric, especially if your party is already fairly well supplied with arcane loot you've allowed them to have because you can provide for your own needs.
I just had the funniest image of a mech-suit gnome pushing a light armored cleric aside saying "you're obsolete".
But yeah, pretty much. It's a team effort and there's many ways to help
I'm saying that looking at mechanics without looking at their greater implications is a very bad way to look at the game.
A sub 10 Artificer gets 3 infusions and can share them with the party, if we infer that they should just because they can share, we're doing that artificer a disservice.
A party typically splits loot evenly, or tosses it all in one bag. If the party splits loot and contains a wizard, that wizard will spend disproportionately more gold than any other party member and never be able to afford magic items. Assuming that the gold spent on spells, paper, and ink should come out of the wizard's split and they not be compensated further for it is also stupid. The wizard should get magic stuff too, not just their class feature that they have to pay gold for for some reason. I get that the reason makes sense but what other class has to output such a large portion of their adventuring loot for a class feature? Shouldn't we, as players, look at this and go "hey a really basic amount of thought says the wizard shouldn't just be a body holding a bunch of loot that's been converted into spells, maybe they want a new cloak too?"
I'll be the first to admit I didn't really write that up particularly well.
I'm saying that looking at mechanics without looking at their greater implications is a very bad way to look at the game.
A sub 10 Artificer gets 3 infusions and can share them with the party, if we infer that they should just because they can share, we're doing that artificer a disservice.
A party typically splits loot evenly, or tosses it all in one bag. If the party splits loot and contains a wizard, that wizard will spend disproportionately more gold than any other party member and never be able to afford magic items. Assuming that the gold spent on spells, paper, and ink should come out of the wizard's split and they not be compensated further for it is also stupid. The wizard should get magic stuff too, not just their class feature that they have to pay gold for for some reason. I get that the reason makes sense but what other class has to output such a large portion of their adventuring loot for a class feature? Shouldn't we, as players, look at this and go "hey a really basic amount of thought says the wizard shouldn't just be a body holding a bunch of loot that's been converted into spells, maybe they want a new cloak too?"
I'll be the first to admit I didn't really write that up particularly well.
I really didn't want to get pulled back into this thread but saying a Wizard should be compensated for copying more spells is a really interesting topic. The Wizard has the biggest spell list in the game but you must also consider that the Wizard learns TWO new spells every level up and that mix and matching his spells is but a long rest away. Now spare a thought for the CHA based full casters. Those poor souls get 1 spell per lvl most of the time and at later lvls they only get a new spell every TWO levels. Those poor buggers can also only swap out ONE spell every level up.
Now in my opinion a well prepared Wizard player should be able to plan their character so that their 2 new spells per lvl should get the job done. If the Wizard player wants to copy every single spell he comes across then that should come out of his pocket. However if it was an important spell that the campaign plot hinged on, I would gladly chip in some gold for the Wizard to learn it. But if its just a situational spell like I dunno maybe Control Water when we are in a campaign thats no way near any bodies of water then its should come out of the Wizard's purse.
"Support" is you helping your allies win fights. You can do that by being a shitty timid White Mage slinging heals and the occasional Bless spell...or you can help your allies win fights by jumping into the fracas and shooting enemies with your giant gun. Providing close fire support for your friends, and helping to end fights before your friends need healing or Bless spells.
Yeah right, after this brilliant demonstration that DPS is support, I am eagerly waiting for the demonstration that DPS is tanking (after all, if you kill them before they harm your pals, it's defending them), and then the finale of this grand trilogy, DPS is control (Once they are dead, you can move them wherever you want). All hail the mighty DPS, ruler of TTRPG. *sigh*
In a way killing enemies with your spell slots is in most cases better than healing your allies (unless they are making death saving throws). Most healing spells cannot keep up with the damage that 1 enemy deals let alone if 2 or more enemies focus fire on 1 ally. Most good healing effects are better used for out of combat instances (like Prayer of Healing and Healing Spirit).
In tabletop games, 'tanking' does not really exist in the form of say a mmorpg. Your DM is not going to hit the meatiest front liner just because he is the closest. Tanking is basically giving disadvantage to your foes attack rolls and/or applying effects on them so that they cannot reach other members of your party, but killing them quickly before they get to your squishies also works (thats why Vengeance Paladins exist lol) so I guess thats kinda 'tanking' in the loosest sense of the word. These debuffs that 'tanks' can apply pretty much fall into the control category which leads to my next point.
Damage however is never control. Control are effects that turn the tides of battle in your favor or to cover an escape, they are for the most part not effects that outright end encounters (with a few exceptions like Mass Suggestion).
I guess when it really comes down to it TTRPGs only have 2 main roles during combats. Control and damage.
First of all I said tanking in TTRPG is different to MMORPG, which is achieved by keeping your enemies from reaching your allies. This I think is in line with "drawing fire away from your friends."
Secondly I did not confuse healing with support. I was merely using healing as an example that your spell slots are precious resources that cannot be sustained through trying to 'heal up' your allies during combat. Hence leading to me suggesting that using those resources to help kill enemies would be a better form of support.
I am just going to leave it at that and if my earlier post was confusing then I apologize, my caffeine levels are dropping which impedes my mental functions lol.
Seems reasonable, as a wizard I'll probably opt for self survival spells and divination magic in that campaign setting. Since fireball is now not required to get the job done, if the party wants a mass of damage knocked out hopefully I'll loot the spell or find it sold somewhere somehow. Or maybe take it at next level but that could be a ways off depending on the DM too. I may be lacking the gold by then too since everyone in the party got 1000gp and we all spent it on armor and weapon upgrades and supplies. I got a nice wand and a bunch of reagents that me and the cleric can use.
The talk about sharing overshadowed a big point and the worst offence IMO. If your group is counting and evenly distributing magic items , the Infusions should not count. Infusions are a class feature not a permanent magic item. Even if the artificer gives away the infusion it shouldn't be part of the totals. There are some who see infusions as they already having a magic item or some DMs who place magic items that encourage certain classes to take it but never provide good ones for others.(random tables not a part of this only placed items) Both those attitudes are wrong. A player or should be able to actively measure and tell if they are being greedy or selfish or just standing up for themselves.
Yeah, I think this might be the biggest issue, which is why I think talking about it and explaining it is important. Explaining that, this is my class abilities, I need X to be able to do Y and I don't get other things like this and that class. Just like my previous example of a college of swords bard could explain they won't inspire the others much because they need the bardic inspirations to trigger their class abilites just like a battle master fighter would. Just explaining things should go a long way in terms of what others may otherwise be surprised about you not doing.
There is no explanation to give. I'm sorry, but there is no reason for a character to be even aware of the abilities of another one, unless that one has discussed it first. The problem starts with this inferrence, which is purely metagaming for optimisation purpose, that because he is a college of the sword bards, he should have such and such power, and therefore he needs to justify when he does or does not use his power.
This is wrong, a player has absolutely no right to demand such explanations of another player. And actually, at our tables, we are banning these because they:
Take a long time for pure OOC reasons of metagaming.
Are often the source of argument because everyone just want to see their point of view and will discuss in bad faith as long as necessary to get his point across, which just reinforces point 1 above.
Stress more casual players, sometimes badly. We noticed that about 10 years ago when 3e optimisation was in full swing and some of our more timid or casual players spent a long time during their turn tentatively explaining the actions that they were taking in the hope that the more powergamy players would approve and not chastise them and force them to change. So we forbid players to explain their actions, and the game speed up by at least a factor 2 with no stress. And if course this is perfect with the streamlining of 5e.
The best way is to trust the other player for doing what seems fun to him and to the party and not be a jerk. If you do this, you will probably avoid being a jerk yourself, which is really a win-win situation.
Edited for point 3 above.
Yeah, I didn't mean it like you should explain everything you have and everytime you do it, more like maybe when you start playing the first time or something, or if it comes up after the game. It shouldn't interupt play of course. But I only meant that certain classes have specific or iconic abilities that you might "expect" them to use, like the bardic inspiration or a cleric having the ability to heal once in a while. This isn't the same as demanding it and I never claimed that to be the case. I made a post earlier but it might have been too long to read or something ;) But I explain it more there, that you could say before the game something like "just a heads up, this cleric won't be doing any healing". But I never said anything near someone having the right to demand something of anyone, in fact i've stated several times this isn't ok. I merely said this could be a way to explain so people won't be wondering why you aren't using your inspiration for instance. Some players, especially newer players but experienced ones as well, can have a hard time remembering all abilities they have so asking about it could be a nice way to remind someone they have a certain ability and help them feel more useful. I mean two sessions ago I forgot I had blindfighting when I ended up in darkness and someone was kind enough to point it out and we had a little laugh about it. This doesn't mean telling someone how to play or constantly saying they have this and that ability and if you follow your own advice and assume that people writing here also have good intent somehow then I don't think you would have come to the conclusion that I said in my post that people have the right to demand things and use metagaming for optimization.
Me, personally I would probably have asked an artificer what they can do simply because I'd be interested and I haven't played with many. I would do it before or after the game, or during a break. I wouldn't require them to explain everything in detail and I wouldn't demand they would give me anything. I also don't metagame anything, in fact I'm more likely to NOT act on something I know that I'm unsure if my character would know. I'm playing a campaign that is really long that I have played the beginning of before. Sometimes I knew where a trap was, what enemies we would face and so on. My reaction was more likely to straight out just go walk into the trap and similar just because I don't want to act on things I know that the character wouldn't. In another campaign with a bunch of mostly new people, I can point out they have certain abilities that they forget or help them figure out things here and there, while also playing a full support, controller. I make sure they don't face too many enemies at the same time, make sure they survive and become better and end up having a great time being extra good at the things they set out to do.
Your 3 points seem to work for your group which is great, and that sounds like a fun way to play so I don't see any issue there, but just because it works for your group doesn't mean that asking about abilities needs to be a bad thing in another group.
I'm saying that looking at mechanics without looking at their greater implications is a very bad way to look at the game.
A sub 10 Artificer gets 3 infusions and can share them with the party, if we infer that they should just because they can share, we're doing that artificer a disservice.
A party typically splits loot evenly, or tosses it all in one bag. If the party splits loot and contains a wizard, that wizard will spend disproportionately more gold than any other party member and never be able to afford magic items. Assuming that the gold spent on spells, paper, and ink should come out of the wizard's split and they not be compensated further for it is also stupid. The wizard should get magic stuff too, not just their class feature that they have to pay gold for for some reason. I get that the reason makes sense but what other class has to output such a large portion of their adventuring loot for a class feature? Shouldn't we, as players, look at this and go "hey a really basic amount of thought says the wizard shouldn't just be a body holding a bunch of loot that's been converted into spells, maybe they want a new cloak too?"
I'll be the first to admit I didn't really write that up particularly well.
I really didn't want to get pulled back into this thread but saying a Wizard should be compensated for copying more spells is a really interesting topic. The Wizard has the biggest spell list in the game but you must also consider that the Wizard learns TWO new spells every level up and that mix and matching his spells is but a long rest away. Now spare a thought for the CHA based full casters. Those poor souls get 1 spell per lvl most of the time and at later lvls they only get a new spell every TWO levels. Those poor buggers can also only swap out ONE spell every level up.
Now in my opinion a well prepared Wizard player should be able to plan their character so that their 2 new spells per lvl should get the job done. If the Wizard player wants to copy every single spell he comes across then that should come out of his pocket. However if it was an important spell that the campaign plot hinged on, I would gladly chip in some gold for the Wizard to learn it. But if its just a situational spell like I dunno maybe Control Water when we are in a campaign thats no way near any bodies of water then its should come out of the Wizard's purse.
Yeah, they get enough. Also, not 100% sure on this, but if you defeat someone with a spellbook you either have two books to use or one to copy from that you can then sell for more gold
Yeah, they get enough. Also, not 100% sure on this, but if you defeat someone with a spellbook you either have two books to use or one to copy from that you can then sell for more gold
Technically, you cannot use someone else's spellbook, you have to spend gold to copy them to your own book first. But then, of course, you can sell the original to get back some gold, or you can keep it as a backup, saving money from duplicating the spells you just got into your own backups.
Copying that spell into your spellbook involves reproducing the basic form of the spell, then deciphering the unique system of notation used by the wizard who wrote it. You must practice the spell until you understand the sounds or gestures required, then transcribe it into your spellbook using your own notation.
Thanks, I had a hunch there was something like this, that's why I wrote I wasn't 100% sure ;) But still, at least some cash back! Keeping it as backup is actually a nice idea as well, I'll be sure to use it in my next campaign where I'm probably playing a wizard :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No one cares about the fake characters or fake characters in the example.
The OP wants real people to stop telling other real people that they are bad and should feel bad about not giving away their character's Infusions. Whether it is better for the group, fictional or otherwise is not relevant. By saying "well it is better for the group" is just making excuses for being rude and abusive to another play because they what to play a particular character in a particular way.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I couldn't care less what anyone thinks about those builds I presented. I find it annoying you asked for more details and then needlessly shat on the builds I provided, but I don't have some personal investment. What does it matter if the builds I gave you don't seem normal or don't seem like a real party? Maybe specifiy next time exactly what you're looking for or just provide your own party to analyze if you're going to nitpick and say unnecessarily and totally irrelevant negativities about what someone else gives you. Can you see how that would be annoying to someone? I don't have to have some emotional connection to this to be annoyed that you're suddenly tearing at little things that don't matter at all.
My hostility also comes from the hypocrisy of you accusing me of gatekeeping and then turning around and spewing gatekeeper language about "min/maxing". Also, no one appreciates wading through fallacious arguments like your wizard fireball example.
uhhh....
Personally, that isn't how I'm taking what Stoutstein is saying at all. I know they aren't attacking people who choose to do different things with their infusions; I'm not one to be sensitive about people talking optimization like that. I just happen to disagree and think that even though certain classes could make slightly better use of an artificer's infusion than the artificer themselves, that combat in DnD is far too complex to be able to point to the numbers and say X is objectively better than Y in this case. Use of infusions is far more complex than comparing the damage die of weapons.
Actually, if you look back at Stoutstein's first post in the thread they attempt to use this number crunching logic as a reasoning to call artificer's greedy and jealous because they want to play with their own features instead of passing them out. So maybe I should roll back my comment that they aren't attacking people for doing what they want.
Looking back, you're guilty of exactly what the OP is saying not to do.
Really though, none of this number crunching means anything AT ALL to the topic of the OP. Stoutstein came in here with some ideas of what the best ways to use infusions are and I was curious to see the math play out, but none of it matters one iota to the idea that Artificers should be left alone to play how they want just like every other class.
Look, I have a pretty solid sense of self worth, so I wouldn't be rocked to the core of my being if someone called me greedy during a session for keeping my class features to myself. But I wouldn't take it as anything but a petty insult either.
I'm honestly not sure what your point is trying to move towards... Are you saying it's okay to call someone greedy at the DnD table when they don't share their class features because it isn't a complete condemnation of their being?
The disconnect from reality is very strong here. Do you walk around calling people greedy or jealous expecting them to take kindly to it?
It's an insult. It has always been an insult. It will always be an insult. To bring that kind of energy to the DnD table and subject a fellow player to ridicule like that is completely unacceptable.
The fact that you're trying to defend such behavior is...grotesque.
Settle down, folks. Everybody's got enough to be worked up about without being at each other's delicate bits over this. There's more worthy forum fights to be had for everyone involved.
The whole thing is honestly more the fault of gaming logic in general. Artificers are not (immediately/always) frontline attackers, so they're seen as a Support class. Support classes give Support. Frontliners receive support. 'Support' are things that make frontline hitters better at hitting, or heal them up so they can keep hitting. That is The Way Things Are, and nobody tends to think otherwise.
However...
In BattleTech, there is a 'Mech called the VTR-9B Victor. The Victor is an eighty-ton assault 'Mech (i.e. largest, meanest class of 'Mechs) armed with the largest (common) gun the game has (if not much else, sadly), a higher-output engine than many other 'Mechs of its class, and the rare inclusion of jump jets on a machine of its size. The Victor is quick(ish...for a Fatbro), it has excellent maneuverability for its size because it can jump, and its giant gun lets it punch holes through even heavy armor and open enemies up for structure damage.
The Victor was built, and is often still billed, as a support 'Mech. It is designed to "support" its allies by jumping into the midst of a fracas and shooting enemies with its giant gun, often shaking the resolve of less experienced enemy 'MechWarriors (the Victor is notably tall and imposing, alongside carrying an evil headchopping doomcannon) and adding its firepower to its allies where it's needed most. It is, in effect, a close-range fire support 'Mech. Many people will say "Maaan, that's just a striker!", especially as the Victor is notably armored rather poorly for its size...but I can honestly agree with the sentiment.
"Support" is you helping your allies win fights. You can do that by being a shitty timid White Mage slinging heals and the occasional Bless spell...or you can help your allies win fights by jumping into the fracas and shooting enemies with your giant gun. Providing close fire support for your friends, and helping to end fights before your friends need healing or Bless spells. I see nothing wrong with being a Victor instead of being a bad Life cleric, especially if your party is already fairly well supplied with arcane loot you've allowed them to have because you can provide for your own needs.
Please do not contact or message me.
The talk about sharing overshadowed a big point and the worst offence IMO. If your group is counting and evenly distributing magic items , the Infusions should not count. Infusions are a class feature not a permanent magic item. Even if the artificer gives away the infusion it shouldn't be part of the totals. There are some who see infusions as they already having a magic item or some DMs who place magic items that encourage certain classes to take it but never provide good ones for others.(random tables not a part of this only placed items) Both those attitudes are wrong. A player or should be able to actively measure and tell if they are being greedy or selfish or just standing up for themselves.
Boy, this thread sure got heated lol. Here's how I understood the original topic, in what is hopefully a much more civil tone than a lot of this thread seems to have devolved into:
Artificers should not be expected to share their infusions. Can they use all their infusions for themselves? Sure, that's their decision. Can they give some or all of their infusions to other party members? Sure, that's their decision. But there's the key - it's the artificer's decision. Nobody should be telling anybody how they should or shouldn't be using their class features.
Artificers should not always get the short straw when it comes to distributing newly-acquired magical loot due to being able to "make their own" (that is, create infusions), especially if their infusions have already been given out to other party members anyway. Sometimes a given loot haul simply doesn't have something that would be of much use to the artificer, and that's just how it goes sometimes, but this is generally balanced out with other sources of loot throughout the campaign. Either way, the artificer should not be expected to rely solely on their own infusions while also being expected to dole out their infusions to the rest of the party on top of the other magic items that the party receives. If the party gets into this circular reasoning ("You don't need magic items because you have your infusions, but you also shouldn't keep your infusions to yourself"), then there needs to be a mature discussion within the group about the issue. Keyword: mature. It's an easy mindset to fall into, but not one that cannot be rectified with proper communication.
Artificers are not being selfish for using their infusions for themselves, as infusions are built into the class and the artificer's other class features can be restricted by not keeping some of their infusions for themselves. Again, this ties back into the first point: artificers should not be expected to share their infusions.
Note that Yurei is not saying that artificers should or shouldn't share their infusions, but that they should not be expected to share them. It is up to the artificer whether they choose to share their infusions, but it should not be an obligation.
Also note that Yurei is not saying that it is always the most beneficial option for the artificer to keep all of their infusions to themselves, nor are they saying that it is always the most beneficial option to share all of their infusions. The artificer is under no obligation to use their class features in the most beneficial way possible at any given moment, just as any other class in under no obligation to use their class features in the most beneficial way possible at any given moment.
Ultimately, the issue can be boiled down to one of communication and social boundaries within the group. It is not a mechanical issue, though mechanics can play a role in the discussion. It's primarily a social contract issue.
Yeah, I didn't mean you in particular it's just I felt the emotion of responses when other people also joined in seemed to become a bit more agitated. I am sick with a fever at the moment so I may be bad at getting my point across at times ;)
Also I did a whole big comment yesterday about what you just said now too, but I removed it because I couldn't figure out (in my fevered mind) if I actually said what I was trying to say or not. But basically that pure numbers can be complicated as well. I made some example with the above mace and flail example, which in the case of a Fighter ONLY would be correct. A fighter picking betwen the two would be picking a worse weapon if they picked the mace. But as an example I had a situation with two characters, one with martial weapon proficiency (A) and the other without (B). If both had the exact same stats, no extra abilities (just to make it easier to compare) and the mace was +3 and the flail was +1, the A class would of course still do better with the mace than the flail, but in that situation the B class would have to use a weapon it wasn't proficient with and the team would still suffer more than if they could both use a proficient weapon.
Something like that. Point trying to make being that if you're number crunching you first of all have to also compare what you're gaining with what you're losing. So an artificer giving away all their stuff will of course make the other characters better, just like a wizard casting haste on the fighter would make the fighter but isn't automatically better than the wizard throwing a fireball. And this is still just a small amount of possible abilities and would also depend on the situation.
Or, just as you said, combat is complex :)
But in my opinion that's one of the strength of certain classes, like the artificer. The ability to not just be a great support (in many ways) but also to be able to handle things on their own. There might be situations where it's best to make a certain infusion and give it to the fighter or wizard and someone might even enjoy this particular playstyle but you don't have to play it like this and can just as well make an artificer that does use most or all of their infusions to themselves and it can be really good. I think that's really cool.
My interpretion of the comment about greed and such was more like, a wizard with haste only using it on himself always with the motivation "it's my spell". Now, it's true and a lot of the times + depending on playstyle, it could probably be a good use but sometimes it's probably better to let one of the melee classes get it. This doesn't mean I think it's ok to demand the wizard casts haste on you, it's still just bad manners.. And like I said, depending on the usage and situation it might actually work really well or be very cool or just fit the character or something. Hide + cast spells each turn doesn't seem automatically bad tbh. But compare the motivation "it's my spell (with the intent, i'll only use my spells for myself)" with "I'm using it on myself (because I'm squishy or to get advantage on attack rolls from hiding). The second reasoning is using the spells to support themselves , so they can be better and in effect support the party better, while the first seems a bit more selfish?
Or a Cleric with 50hp left using its last healing word spell for 4d4 hp on itself with the same reasoning, "it's my spell" instead of on the currently dying fighter. On the other hand if the reasoning and situation instead was the cleric healing itself because this way it could make sure it would stay up a few more rounds and keep the rest of the party alive, or even just so it could itself actually beat the remaining enemies it would be a whole other story, despite the fact that they did the same action, healing themselves. Sure it might feel like it sucks for the fighter right there and then, but maybe the cleric also has revivify ready and can actually bring the fighter back right after. And either way, the choice betwen the fighter dying and the whole party dying shouldn't be so hard.
That said I'm not sure this thread was the right place to bring up the discussion of wether an artificer can sometimes be more useful giving out infusions, it might have fit better in a separate topic since this was really more along the lines if it's ok to demand other players to give them things, use their abilities on them and to call them names if they don't. I mean, even if someone is really greedy and selfish, is it ok to just say that? In my opinion it's not really a great way to go about the situation. It can be good to talk about it but just keep it civil and be more curious about someone instead of annoyed with them. Instead of "why won't you give me your invocations?" and "oh you can pick last you can make your own gear" a better approach would be "what invocations are you using? Which can you make?" and later on you could maybe be like "oh, wait, couldn't you do this? could you make one of those for me so I can do X?" and "Hey, do you need any of these? If you get this one you could..." and "this requires attunement, maybe you could have that and then you could make me one of those instead?". I'm pretty sure anyone who feels like they're part of the group (and also get's a share of the loot for instance) would be more inclined to give out items on their own. And if they have a replica of a magic item and you find a real copy of it, it could free up a slot for them!
You could even trade them for stuff "Hey, I got a real cloak of protection here, if you get it from me, could you make me a X instead?". I mean, there's lots of ways to do this but calling someone names (not in a joking way) isn't a great start.
Yeah, I think this might be the biggest issue, which is why I think talking about it and explaining it is important. Explaining that, this is my class abilities, I need X to be able to do Y and I don't get other things like this and that class. Just like my previous example of a college of swords bard could explain they won't inspire the others much because they need the bardic inspirations to trigger their class abilites just like a battle master fighter would. Just explaining things should go a long way in terms of what others may otherwise be surprised about you not doing.
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.
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.
I just had the funniest image of a mech-suit gnome pushing a light armored cleric aside saying "you're obsolete".
But yeah, pretty much. It's a team effort and there's many ways to help
I'm saying that looking at mechanics without looking at their greater implications is a very bad way to look at the game.
A sub 10 Artificer gets 3 infusions and can share them with the party, if we infer that they should just because they can share, we're doing that artificer a disservice.
A party typically splits loot evenly, or tosses it all in one bag. If the party splits loot and contains a wizard, that wizard will spend disproportionately more gold than any other party member and never be able to afford magic items. Assuming that the gold spent on spells, paper, and ink should come out of the wizard's split and they not be compensated further for it is also stupid. The wizard should get magic stuff too, not just their class feature that they have to pay gold for for some reason. I get that the reason makes sense but what other class has to output such a large portion of their adventuring loot for a class feature? Shouldn't we, as players, look at this and go "hey a really basic amount of thought says the wizard shouldn't just be a body holding a bunch of loot that's been converted into spells, maybe they want a new cloak too?"
I'll be the first to admit I didn't really write that up particularly well.
Correct. The point was linking two concepts that look stupid. One established and one new.
I really didn't want to get pulled back into this thread but saying a Wizard should be compensated for copying more spells is a really interesting topic. The Wizard has the biggest spell list in the game but you must also consider that the Wizard learns TWO new spells every level up and that mix and matching his spells is but a long rest away. Now spare a thought for the CHA based full casters. Those poor souls get 1 spell per lvl most of the time and at later lvls they only get a new spell every TWO levels. Those poor buggers can also only swap out ONE spell every level up.
Now in my opinion a well prepared Wizard player should be able to plan their character so that their 2 new spells per lvl should get the job done. If the Wizard player wants to copy every single spell he comes across then that should come out of his pocket. However if it was an important spell that the campaign plot hinged on, I would gladly chip in some gold for the Wizard to learn it. But if its just a situational spell like I dunno maybe Control Water when we are in a campaign thats no way near any bodies of water then its should come out of the Wizard's purse.
In a way killing enemies with your spell slots is in most cases better than healing your allies (unless they are making death saving throws). Most healing spells cannot keep up with the damage that 1 enemy deals let alone if 2 or more enemies focus fire on 1 ally. Most good healing effects are better used for out of combat instances (like Prayer of Healing and Healing Spirit).
In tabletop games, 'tanking' does not really exist in the form of say a mmorpg. Your DM is not going to hit the meatiest front liner just because he is the closest. Tanking is basically giving disadvantage to your foes attack rolls and/or applying effects on them so that they cannot reach other members of your party, but killing them quickly before they get to your squishies also works (thats why Vengeance Paladins exist lol) so I guess thats kinda 'tanking' in the loosest sense of the word. These debuffs that 'tanks' can apply pretty much fall into the control category which leads to my next point.
Damage however is never control. Control are effects that turn the tides of battle in your favor or to cover an escape, they are for the most part not effects that outright end encounters (with a few exceptions like Mass Suggestion).
I guess when it really comes down to it TTRPGs only have 2 main roles during combats. Control and damage.
First of all I said tanking in TTRPG is different to MMORPG, which is achieved by keeping your enemies from reaching your allies. This I think is in line with "drawing fire away from your friends."
Secondly I did not confuse healing with support. I was merely using healing as an example that your spell slots are precious resources that cannot be sustained through trying to 'heal up' your allies during combat. Hence leading to me suggesting that using those resources to help kill enemies would be a better form of support.
I am just going to leave it at that and if my earlier post was confusing then I apologize, my caffeine levels are dropping which impedes my mental functions lol.
Seems reasonable, as a wizard I'll probably opt for self survival spells and divination magic in that campaign setting. Since fireball is now not required to get the job done, if the party wants a mass of damage knocked out hopefully I'll loot the spell or find it sold somewhere somehow. Or maybe take it at next level but that could be a ways off depending on the DM too. I may be lacking the gold by then too since everyone in the party got 1000gp and we all spent it on armor and weapon upgrades and supplies. I got a nice wand and a bunch of reagents that me and the cleric can use.
Yeah, I didn't mean it like you should explain everything you have and everytime you do it, more like maybe when you start playing the first time or something, or if it comes up after the game. It shouldn't interupt play of course. But I only meant that certain classes have specific or iconic abilities that you might "expect" them to use, like the bardic inspiration or a cleric having the ability to heal once in a while. This isn't the same as demanding it and I never claimed that to be the case. I made a post earlier but it might have been too long to read or something ;) But I explain it more there, that you could say before the game something like "just a heads up, this cleric won't be doing any healing". But I never said anything near someone having the right to demand something of anyone, in fact i've stated several times this isn't ok. I merely said this could be a way to explain so people won't be wondering why you aren't using your inspiration for instance.
Some players, especially newer players but experienced ones as well, can have a hard time remembering all abilities they have so asking about it could be a nice way to remind someone they have a certain ability and help them feel more useful. I mean two sessions ago I forgot I had blindfighting when I ended up in darkness and someone was kind enough to point it out and we had a little laugh about it.
This doesn't mean telling someone how to play or constantly saying they have this and that ability and if you follow your own advice and assume that people writing here also have good intent somehow then I don't think you would have come to the conclusion that I said in my post that people have the right to demand things and use metagaming for optimization.
Me, personally I would probably have asked an artificer what they can do simply because I'd be interested and I haven't played with many. I would do it before or after the game, or during a break. I wouldn't require them to explain everything in detail and I wouldn't demand they would give me anything. I also don't metagame anything, in fact I'm more likely to NOT act on something I know that I'm unsure if my character would know. I'm playing a campaign that is really long that I have played the beginning of before. Sometimes I knew where a trap was, what enemies we would face and so on. My reaction was more likely to straight out just go walk into the trap and similar just because I don't want to act on things I know that the character wouldn't. In another campaign with a bunch of mostly new people, I can point out they have certain abilities that they forget or help them figure out things here and there, while also playing a full support, controller. I make sure they don't face too many enemies at the same time, make sure they survive and become better and end up having a great time being extra good at the things they set out to do.
Your 3 points seem to work for your group which is great, and that sounds like a fun way to play so I don't see any issue there, but just because it works for your group doesn't mean that asking about abilities needs to be a bad thing in another group.
Yeah, they get enough. Also, not 100% sure on this, but if you defeat someone with a spellbook you either have two books to use or one to copy from that you can then sell for more gold
Thanks, I had a hunch there was something like this, that's why I wrote I wasn't 100% sure ;) But still, at least some cash back! Keeping it as backup is actually a nice idea as well, I'll be sure to use it in my next campaign where I'm probably playing a wizard :)