It's a very common complaint by people that hate artificers/Eberron. And it was mentioned in this thread, through a post with 7 "upvotes"/Thanks. So you're complaining about a correction to something that was mentioned and liked in this thread.
Most of the people in this thread who have talked about not particularly liking artificers have given reasons other than "because sci-fi"
Talking past those people to convenient "others" who aren't even here isn't exactly furthering the conversation
One comment with 7 up votes, and an up vote is generally used as an expression of agreement. But that doesn't really matter because his original comment was, "Everyone who hates Artificer because "sci-fi" clearly has never heard of Leonardo Da Vinci" Everyone. People who are not in this thread definitely fall into the subset of everyone.
A side note, I actually think his Da Vinci reference was brilliant.
I think Artificer hate is kinda silly, myself. I mean, the Modron plane exists, and Beholders, Liches and mages of all shapes and walks of life experiment and science about. Artificers are right at home for those of a more practical mindset... think of them like what some folks think the term 'Enchanter' means. They aren't the pinnacle of mages. They are the progress of mages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Working on a supplement for the adventure-minded. A project including (and crediting) homebrew subclasses from the community, a world of my own design, premade characters, magic items, and even a prologue adventure to start things off!
Past and Current Characters: Morgann 'Duskspear' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Paladin/Fighter/Warlock; Ephemeral 'Skye' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Artificer; Zaldrick Lawscrip of Orzhov, Hobgoblin Wizard; Eremys Spydrun, Shadar'kai Monk; Cuchulainn, Wood Elf Blood Hunter.
So, I did a deep dive into Battle Smith, and ended up building one. There are some interesting parallels between the Battle Smith and the Eldritch Knight. All the points of comparison would make this post way too long, but the bottom line, they're both "Gish" types, with the EK being more martially focused, and the BS being more magic focused, and that's obviously what we would expect.
There is a LOT the base Fighter and the EK subclass give you that are painful to give up... Action Surge, a Fighting Style, Extra ASI, War Magic, Eldritch Strike.
However....
Spell progression for the EK is sooooo painfully slow, the BS gets the infusions, and the Steel Defender can act as a damage sponge plus consistent bonus action damage. I also love that it can heal itself 3x per day plus mending does the same. Last, as a spell caster having Con Save proficiency is great.
What do you think of my build? I went sword and board, because the Steel Defender is already adding to the damage pool, and with d8 hit dice I wanted to make him more survivable. This way he's more balanced. I also chose the Sentinel Feat, which further enhances damage output. The main strategy, charge in with his Steel Defender. Flank if those rules apply. Reaction attack every time my Steel Defender is attacked. It's a bit min-maxy with 8 in STR and CHA, but I can always drop my Con from 16 to 14 and make those 10's.
So, I did a deep dive into Battle Smith, and ended up building one. There are some interesting parallels between the Battle Smith and the Eldritch Knight. All the points of comparison would make this post way too long, but the bottom line, they're both "Gish" types, with the EK being more martially focused, and the BS being more magic focused, and that's obviously what we would expect.
There is a LOT the base Fighter and the EK subclass give you that are painful to give up... Action Surge, a Fighting Style, Extra ASI, War Magic, Eldritch Strike.
However....
Spell progression for the EK is sooooo painfully slow, the BS gets the infusions, and the Steel Defender can act as a damage sponge plus consistent bonus action damage. I also love that it can heal itself 3x per day plus mending does the same. Last, as a spell caster having Con Save proficiency is great.
What do you think of my build? I went sword and board, because the Steel Defender is already adding to the damage pool, and with d8 hit dice I wanted to make him more survivable. This way he's more balanced. I also chose the Sentinel Feat, which further enhances damage output. The main strategy, charge in with his Steel Defender. Flank if those rules apply. Reaction attack every time my Steel Defender is attacked. It's a bit min-maxy with 8 in STR and CHA, but I can always drop my Con from 16 to 14 and make those 10's.
Looks good. Your main ability scores look good, with the +2 to Dexterity for Half-Plate being good. Your infusions look optimal for this level, but as soon as you get to level 6 you'll want a Radiant Weapon instead of Enhanced Weapon and probably also want the Repulsion Shield. I've never considered doing a Sword-and-Board Battlesmith, so I can't vouch for its effectiveness, but Sentinel with the Steel Defender seems good. Your spells look good, too.
Let me know how it plays!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I’ve played a few different 5e classes and I feel like the level of contribution of each varied vastly. These are just my experiences and are mostly related to how the games worked out. Though I do think that GMs should be aware of not continually leaving players sat with nothing to contribute, which probably helped colour my view of each class. I also think the GM should not always just give the magic items printed in an adventure adjust it to suit the party handing out x10 +1 shields is not good.
Game 1 Fighter was heavily out paced by a monk and a paladin, though that may have been to do with the very few and what magic items we found and creatures like undead we fought being resistant or immune to the Fighters normal weapons. It did eventually feel like the only point to turn up was to use Fighter hit points as ablative armour for other players and with an AC of 16 didn’t take long to lose them.
Game 2 Ranger feels very pointless even with favoured enemy constantly fighting and natural explorer terrain the party is always in. Demons and Giants hit real hard making it impossible to stay in or get out of melee, AC 17 makes you still very squashy. Again, the issue is having no arrows left and zero magic items to help, so far, the party has a cleric with +2 breastplate and +2 shield, a paladin with +1 plate and frost brand and a barbarian with +1 shield and +1 axe.
Game 3 Monk is very mobile, very good damage output and seems to have skills and abilities that are either often called on or very powerful. +1 quarterstaff and +2AC doesn’t hurt.
Game 4 Cleric can often be like TOFTT as you do kind of need one, but it can often be fun to take a shot at being the cleric.
I’ve played a few different 5e classes and I feel like the level of contribution of each varied vastly. These are just my experiences and are mostly related to how the games worked out. Though I do think that GMs should be aware of not continually leaving players sat with nothing to contribute, which probably helped colour my view of each class. I also think the GM should not always just give the magic items printed in an adventure adjust it to suit the party handing out x10 +1 shields is not good.
Fighter was heavily out paced by a monk and a paladin, though that may have been to do with the very few and what magic items we found and creatures like undead we fought being resistant or immune to the Fighters normal weapons. It did eventually feel like the only point to turn up was to use Fighter hit points as ablative armour for other players and with an AC of 16 didn’t take long to lose them.
Ranger feels very pointless even with favoured enemy constantly fighting and natural explorer terrain the party is always in. Demons and Giants hit real hard making it impossible to stay in or get out of melee, AC 17 makes you still very squashy. Again, the issue is having no arrows left and zero magic items to help, so far, the party has a cleric with +2 breastplate and +2 shield, a paladin with +1 plate and frost brand and a barbarian with +1 shield and +1 axe.
Monk is very mobile, very good damage output and seems to have skills and abilities that are either often called on or very powerful. +1 quarterstaff and +2AC doesn’t hurt.
Cleric can often be like TOFTT as you do kind of need one, but it can often be fun to take a shot at being the cleric.
Why did your Fighter only have an AC of 16 when the rest of the party obviously had a bunch of magic items that could've helped?
Dual wield Dex based fighter wearing studded leather basically as I mentioned the GM gave us only a few magic items, but did zero work to see if we could make good use of them. The druid in the party was not happy as every shield we found was metal. The NPC guide even ended up with better gear than my Fighter. Paladin in that game had +1 longsword +1 shield NPC guide in that game had +1 longsword +1 shield
Maybe I was not clear each class I mentioned I played in a different game
Any Fighter can use any weapon and most fighters can use most armor. Your particular fighting style might not work with a particular weapon, but with Action Surge and Second Wind (and yes, no innate way to deal magical damage), there's still a good chance it's better in your hands than someone else's. Fighters are adaptive by design, but they have that dastardly Fighting Style making them look like one-trick ponies.
Idk. I feel like the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk should get first dibs on all magic weapons and armor. And they should put their pride aside and use them!
A well built Fighter out damages Monks by a mile and has better survivability. I've never played in a campaign where a DM dishes out weapon resistant/immune enemies while depriving the players of magic weapons. Maybe once or twice as a curve ball to mix things up is cool, but if it's a regular thing I'd want to know that at session 0.
Game 1 Fighter was heavily out paced by a monk and a paladin, though that may have been to do with the very few and what magic items we found and creatures like undead we fought being resistant or immune to the Fighters normal weapons. It did eventually feel like the only point to turn up was to use Fighter hit points as ablative armour for other players and with an AC of 16 didn’t take long to lose them.
Fighters are not hit point shields, they're good and especially with things like the tough feat, can have a lot of them, but no one character can take all the hits for the whole party, and the fact that when they tried to do so, they got knocked unconscious quickly, is not surprising.
They may not be able to do everything and take every blow, but that's not how the fighter is meant to be played, but I think you'll find that when not the only one person with a decent amount of hit points, a fighter can be awesome.
I thought Monks were pretty powerful, DPR use a spear or quarterstaff two-handed, allowing two attacks at level 5 plus two attacks as bonus actions from flurry of blows. So a 5th level Monk if they hit with all attacks could do 2d8+2d6 plus whatever (Dex modifier they have x4). I will say boosting Dex to max and then Wis will take time. With only 5 ASI Feats are hard to squeeze in depending what you think is cool and useful for you. 1Ki per level with recovery on a short rest
I thought Monks were pretty powerful, DPR use a spear or quarterstaff two-handed, allowing two attacks at level 5 plus two attacks as bonus actions from flurry of blows. So a 5th level Monk if they hit with all attacks could do 2d8+2d6 plus whatever (Dex modifier they have x4). I will say boosting Dex to max and then Wis will take time. With only 5 ASI Feats are hard to squeeze in depending what you think is cool and useful for you. 1Ki per level with recovery on a short rest
Are we gonna do the whole Monk thing again? Monks are just a bit below average in games without feats, and a bit further below in games with feats. They have some unique things that make it difficult to draw a direct comparison, but not THAT difficult. On an individual basis the variance in things like dice rolls, party makeup, play style, and so on can easily make Monks good or even OP, but taken on average, they're not pulling their weight, so to speak.
Of course, nobody plays on average. I myself have experienced two evidently worthwhile Monks and one that felt nearly useless. And the useless one was the only one who got one of the two(?) magic items that are designed for Monks! So, you really never know.
But the useless one was also the one I played myself, so I'm not looking to go back and try again.
One comment with 7 up votes, and an up vote is generally used as an expression of agreement. But that doesn't really matter because his original comment was, "Everyone who hates Artificer because "sci-fi" clearly has never heard of Leonardo Da Vinci" Everyone. People who are not in this thread definitely fall into the subset of everyone.
A side note, I actually think his Da Vinci reference was brilliant.
I think Artificer hate is kinda silly, myself. I mean, the Modron plane exists, and Beholders, Liches and mages of all shapes and walks of life experiment and science about. Artificers are right at home for those of a more practical mindset... think of them like what some folks think the term 'Enchanter' means. They aren't the pinnacle of mages. They are the progress of mages.
Working on a supplement for the adventure-minded. A project including (and crediting) homebrew subclasses from the community, a world of my own design, premade characters, magic items, and even a prologue adventure to start things off!
Past and Current Characters: Morgann 'Duskspear' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Paladin/Fighter/Warlock; Ephemeral 'Skye' Solbeard, Hill Dwarf Artificer; Zaldrick Lawscrip of Orzhov, Hobgoblin Wizard; Eremys Spydrun, Shadar'kai Monk; Cuchulainn, Wood Elf Blood Hunter.
I'm pretty sure artificer hate only exists because they're the first and so far only new official class. Its new so it sucks yadda yadda.
I remember the mystic. Looks like that didn't take off.
Well, the Mystic was an enormous mess.
Third_Sundering,
So, I did a deep dive into Battle Smith, and ended up building one. There are some interesting parallels between the Battle Smith and the Eldritch Knight. All the points of comparison would make this post way too long, but the bottom line, they're both "Gish" types, with the EK being more martially focused, and the BS being more magic focused, and that's obviously what we would expect.
There is a LOT the base Fighter and the EK subclass give you that are painful to give up... Action Surge, a Fighting Style, Extra ASI, War Magic, Eldritch Strike.
However....
Spell progression for the EK is sooooo painfully slow, the BS gets the infusions, and the Steel Defender can act as a damage sponge plus consistent bonus action damage. I also love that it can heal itself 3x per day plus mending does the same. Last, as a spell caster having Con Save proficiency is great.
What do you think of my build? I went sword and board, because the Steel Defender is already adding to the damage pool, and with d8 hit dice I wanted to make him more survivable. This way he's more balanced. I also chose the Sentinel Feat, which further enhances damage output. The main strategy, charge in with his Steel Defender. Flank if those rules apply. Reaction attack every time my Steel Defender is attacked. It's a bit min-maxy with 8 in STR and CHA, but I can always drop my Con from 16 to 14 and make those 10's.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/80249453
Looks good. Your main ability scores look good, with the +2 to Dexterity for Half-Plate being good. Your infusions look optimal for this level, but as soon as you get to level 6 you'll want a Radiant Weapon instead of Enhanced Weapon and probably also want the Repulsion Shield. I've never considered doing a Sword-and-Board Battlesmith, so I can't vouch for its effectiveness, but Sentinel with the Steel Defender seems good. Your spells look good, too.
Let me know how it plays!
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I’ve played a few different 5e classes and I feel like the level of contribution of each varied vastly.
These are just my experiences and are mostly related to how the games worked out.
Though I do think that GMs should be aware of not continually leaving players sat with nothing to contribute, which probably helped colour my view of each class.
I also think the GM should not always just give the magic items printed in an adventure adjust it to suit the party handing out x10 +1 shields is not good.
Game 1
Fighter was heavily out paced by a monk and a paladin, though that may have been to do with the very few and what magic items we found and creatures like undead we fought being resistant or immune to the Fighters normal weapons. It did eventually feel like the only point to turn up was to use Fighter hit points as ablative armour for other players and with an AC of 16 didn’t take long to lose them.
Game 2
Ranger feels very pointless even with favoured enemy constantly fighting and natural explorer terrain the party is always in.
Demons and Giants hit real hard making it impossible to stay in or get out of melee, AC 17 makes you still very squashy. Again, the issue is having no arrows left and zero magic items to help, so far, the party has a cleric with +2 breastplate and +2 shield, a paladin with +1 plate and frost brand and a barbarian with +1 shield and +1 axe.
Game 3
Monk is very mobile, very good damage output and seems to have skills and abilities that are either often called on or very powerful. +1 quarterstaff and +2AC doesn’t hurt.
Game 4
Cleric can often be like TOFTT as you do kind of need one, but it can often be fun to take a shot at being the cleric.
Why did your Fighter only have an AC of 16 when the rest of the party obviously had a bunch of magic items that could've helped?
This was my thought as well....
Fighters out of any class really need to have a magic weapon at some point.
Monks at least get magical fists and paladins do a bunch of magical smite damage.
Does their reliability on magic weapons make them the worst class? Not really.
Does it contribute to their downsides? Sure... I'm just not sure this puts them behind monk
Dual wield Dex based fighter wearing studded leather basically as I mentioned the GM gave us only a few magic items, but did zero work to see if we could make good use of them. The druid in the party was not happy as every shield we found was metal.
The NPC guide even ended up with better gear than my Fighter.
Paladin in that game had +1 longsword +1 shield
NPC guide in that game had +1 longsword +1 shield
Maybe I was not clear each class I mentioned I played in a different game
Any Fighter can use any weapon and most fighters can use most armor. Your particular fighting style might not work with a particular weapon, but with Action Surge and Second Wind (and yes, no innate way to deal magical damage), there's still a good chance it's better in your hands than someone else's. Fighters are adaptive by design, but they have that dastardly Fighting Style making them look like one-trick ponies.
Idk. I feel like the Fighter, Rogue, and Monk should get first dibs on all magic weapons and armor. And they should put their pride aside and use them!
But also, Magic Weapon exists.
A well built Fighter out damages Monks by a mile and has better survivability. I've never played in a campaign where a DM dishes out weapon resistant/immune enemies while depriving the players of magic weapons. Maybe once or twice as a curve ball to mix things up is cool, but if it's a regular thing I'd want to know that at session 0.
Fighters are not hit point shields, they're good and especially with things like the tough feat, can have a lot of them, but no one character can take all the hits for the whole party, and the fact that when they tried to do so, they got knocked unconscious quickly, is not surprising.
They may not be able to do everything and take every blow, but that's not how the fighter is meant to be played, but I think you'll find that when not the only one person with a decent amount of hit points, a fighter can be awesome.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Artificers are a repellent, revolting anachronism.
Elaborate please?
Monk, not because I don't enjoy it. It is actually my favorite. It just needs tweaks. More DPR, more ASI/Feats, more KI.
I thought Monks were pretty powerful, DPR use a spear or quarterstaff two-handed, allowing two attacks at level 5 plus two attacks as bonus actions from flurry of blows. So a 5th level Monk if they hit with all attacks could do 2d8+2d6 plus whatever (Dex modifier they have x4).
I will say boosting Dex to max and then Wis will take time.
With only 5 ASI Feats are hard to squeeze in depending what you think is cool and useful for you.
1Ki per level with recovery on a short rest
https://youtu.be/Aaqq7iZUmMk
Go to the 18:46 Mark where he talks about damage.
Monk is not good at damage... They are at best average in an unoptimized party and bad in an optimized one.
Are we gonna do the whole Monk thing again? Monks are just a bit below average in games without feats, and a bit further below in games with feats. They have some unique things that make it difficult to draw a direct comparison, but not THAT difficult. On an individual basis the variance in things like dice rolls, party makeup, play style, and so on can easily make Monks good or even OP, but taken on average, they're not pulling their weight, so to speak.
Of course, nobody plays on average. I myself have experienced two evidently worthwhile Monks and one that felt nearly useless. And the useless one was the only one who got one of the two(?) magic items that are designed for Monks! So, you really never know.
But the useless one was also the one I played myself, so I'm not looking to go back and try again.
Actually, please don't.
The first dozen or so pages of this thread were just relitigating that exact wrong point over and over again.