Artificers are a repellent, revolting anachronism.
Elaborate please?
Actually, please don't.
The first dozen or so pages of this thread were just relitigating that exact wrong point over and over again.
OH ok fair!
I strongly disliked the Artificer, but the debate caused me to look at them further. After a deep dive I’m still disinterested in most of them… but the Battle Smith looks potentially really good. And well designed, too.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
I have no strong opinions about Monk, but while I like the concept of the Artificer, I feel it's lacking....something. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it could be one or more of the following:
It's yet another spellcaster, but this time it has the strict tool requirement, and it literally asks for your imagination in a way other casters don't. It also doesn't have any unique spells to set it apart from other casters the way Rangers and Paladins do.
There is no crafting system to provide a solid foundation to base this class on. We have crafting rules, but those are highly impractical without DMs providing some leniency.
The rules for tools leave a lot to be desired, even in Xanathar's Guide's take on them. So features like Tool Expertise or just the class's tool focus in general have gaps.
It doesn't give me that "inventor" feel in the way I want, as both the spells and infusions feel like "easy mode" in a way.
Its base class is almost entirely support (and not in the way clerics or druids are) or utility, so it has to lean heavily on the subclass to be functional in combat.
I do think Artificer is a functional class overall, and you can make some good characters out of it, but from a basic mechanical point of view, I feel like it could do with some kind of revision.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
I have no strong opinions about Monk, but while I like the concept of the Artificer, I feel it's lacking....something. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it could be one or more of the following:
It's yet another spellcaster, but this time it has the strict tool requirement, and it literally asks for your imagination in a way other casters don't. It also doesn't have any unique spells to set it apart from other casters the way Rangers and Paladins do.
I actually loved playing the Artificer for the fun ways I got to imagine and explain the spells. I get that some people might not love that though. I agree that a few unique spells in there would be fun though.
There is no crafting system to provide a solid foundation to base this class on. We have crafting rules, but those are highly impractical without DMs providing some leniency.
The rules for tools leave a lot to be desired, even in Xanathar's Guide's take on them. So features like Tool Expertise or just the class's tool focus in general have gaps.
It doesn't give me that "inventor" feel in the way I want, as both the spells and infusions feel like "easy mode" in a way.
100% agree. I would love if a crafting system were more fleshed out. As it is it's 100% just whatever the DM wants to create but honestly DMs already have so much to worry about. Creating a sensible crafting system would benefit everyone though. Artificer Infusions do a decent job of creating that crafting fantasy but more rules for crafting in general is fun.
Its base class is almost entirely support (and not in the way clerics or druids are) or utility, so it has to lean heavily on the subclass to be functional in combat.
I do think Artificer is a functional class overall, and you can make some good characters out of it, but from a basic mechanical point of view, I feel like it could do with some kind of revision.
I think that every subclass should have just been given extra attack. It's the only half caster that doesn't have it as a base class feature. Artillerist might not need it but alchemist sure does. Then the level 5 features could be more interesting. I think the Battlesmith and Armorer feel pretty good in combat. I've never played the other two though so maybe I don't give them enough credit.
All that said I loved playing my Artificer. It felt super creative and customizable to play.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
I think people dislike the monk because a lot of people on the internet like to hate on them. They're far from perfect, but they still feel great to play through the first 10 levels or so. Tasha's did a bit to help them out. Honestly, the last major issue is that not many official magic items exist for unarmed attacks. I'd also like to see some features that don't rely on Ki but overall I think the class is not as bad as people seem to think. They do have some under performing subclasses though and in general I think this is the class that needs a rework the most. I don't think it needs a ton though.
Artificers as a whole I think are in a great spot and a ton of fun to play. I think people just don't like the perception that it is too scifi for high fantasy. I for one love the flavor of fusing ancient technology with magic.
Tashas did monk some favors but neglected the real issue: resource drain.
Monks are bad imo as they never get to use all their good stuff because ki is so limited and stunning is so needed to bring their utility up.
They need a secondary resource pool like paladin who gets channel divinity, lay on hands, divine sense, and spell slots.
That's why paladin is always so heavily favored is they get to do stuff just for the fun of it without burning the same core resource.
Also Stunning fails most of the time, and when that happens in the Ki is just wasted. It's a good effect but so many spells are even better. Even the level 1 spell, Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
Tashas did monk some favors but neglected the real issue: resource drain.
Monks are bad imo as they never get to use all their good stuff because ki is so limited and stunning is so needed to bring their utility up.
They need a secondary resource pool like paladin who gets channel divinity, lay on hands, divine sense, and spell slots.
That's why paladin is always so heavily favored is they get to do stuff just for the fun of it without burning the same core resource.
Also Stunning fails most of the time, and when that happens in the Ki is just wasted. It's a good effect but so many spells are even better. Even the level 1 spell, Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
Warlocks, because every time I start a campaign and one of my players decides to bring a "Hexblade" I inherently get anxious and worried I'm going to have to fight over every ruling I make in game. I'm so sick of the broken Warlock WomboCombos and "I'm Just playing Rule Of Cool!" I could vomit. Please delete this class.
Warlocks, because every time I start a campaign and one of my players decides to bring a "Hexblade" I inherently get anxious and worried I'm going to have to fight over every ruling I make in game. I'm so sick of the broken Warlock WomboCombos and "I'm Just playing Rule Of Cool!" I could vomit. Please delete this class.
I'd prefer they revise how the class works rather than delete it. Especially since there are other warlock subclasses that exist that I like, such as Genie and Celestial.
They had something there with eldritch invocations and pact boons, but they made the class way too focused on eldritch blast, and made Hexblade way too front-loaded and multiclass dip-friendly.
Alternatively, if they would hypothetically delete the class, I'd like them to put in concrete rules for making pacts with fiends, celestials, genies, etc, including what form the pact would take, what you can get out of it, what the drawbacks (if any) would be, etc. Descent into Avernus has something like this for devils specifically, so I'd be intrigued to see that for archfey, demon lords, celestials, genies, and so on.
I mean, I guess? But still, do we need 5 different types of magic users, who's only defining difference is where their powers come from? Who cares? Just give me a Magic User that can do Arcane checks, and cast support magic. I don't need a 3 page background that I have to incorporate into every session, because you're dumb Brooding Edgelord fanfic needs to be highlighted once per week or you get but hurt.
Warlocks are a not a good addition to DnD. They are there only to create drama, with the "will they won't they" turn evil at some point. In a never ending quest to validate a dumb as rocks alignment system that hasn't been relevant since Adv DND. Stop trying to play like a Dbag because your half demon mom makes you Chaotic evil every time you see the sun. Just cast sleep and give me back my session.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
I think people dislike the monk because a lot of people on the internet like to hate on them. They're far from perfect, but they still feel great to play through the first 10 levels or so. Tasha's did a bit to help them out. Honestly, the last major issue is that not many official magic items exist for unarmed attacks. I'd also like to see some features that don't rely on Ki but overall I think the class is not as bad as people seem to think. They do have some under performing subclasses though and in general I think this is the class that needs a rework the most. I don't think it needs a ton though.
Gonna have to personally disagree with just about everything you said. My Monk was on the Way of Mercy (one of "the good subclasses"), had an Eldritch Claw Tattoo (one of the unarmed magic items), and went to level 7ish (most of the level range you described). Her ability scores were where they were supposed to be, and the rest of the party was nothing weird by any means. We took about 2 short rests per long rest on average. In other words, I was in the "optimal scenario" for Monks.
I was useless.
Everything I could do, someone else could do better. What's more, there was a lot I couldn't do. When we weren't fighting something, I was basically a third, worse set of eyes to roll Perception checks, and that's all. And then we got a Druid and I went to fourth! When we WERE fighting things, I was basically a liability, able to easily get within getting-stabbed-to-death distance, but unable to capitalize on that or to escape.
I don't know what exactly I'd do for Monks, but I don't think I subscribe to the idea that they'd be fine if you just shuffled the numbers a bit.
I mean, I guess? But still, do we need 5 different types of magic users, who's only defining difference is where their powers come from? Who cares? Just give me a Magic User that can do Arcane checks, and cast support magic. I don't need a 3 page background that I have to incorporate into every session, because you're dumb Brooding Edgelord fanfic needs to be highlighted once per week or you get but hurt.
Warlocks are a not a good addition to DnD. They are there only to create drama, with the "will they won't they" turn evil at some point. In a never ending quest to validate a dumb as rocks alignment system that hasn't been relevant since Adv DND. Stop trying to play like a Dbag because your half demon mom makes you Chaotic evil every time you see the sun. Just cast sleep and give me back my session.
Well first, getting magic from different sources is supposed to be reflected in how the classes actually function. They don't do this perfectly, since every caster class uses the same basic spellcasting system, but that's supposed to be the idea. As to who cares....I care, and I'm willing to bet many players and DMs who play this game also care.
Also Warlocks in 5e don't and never have been guaranteed to become "evil" nor have they ever been obligated to care about the alignment system. I literally just mentioned the Celestial and Genie warlocks, two types of entities that could easily be not evil. And even Fiend warlocks can defy their patrons, which is actually not an uncommon thing with those kind of characters. So this gripe you have with the class is purely anecdotal, as I have encountered quite a few warlock players who haven't been problems at their tables at all.
But just how many GMs run campaigns where weapons and armor are in short supply or even outlawed to the common man? Not many. And that is the culture that the Monk class was built for and from.
Without all their extras they are pretty thin on the combat spectrum.
I agree it's the purest form of "I had a bad experience, and I'm but hurt still". Only problem is, after 20+ years of playing this game, I have personal experience with many other players, and GM's than the average new player. I'm not a rookie GM. I personally, hate the way Warlocks can become so easily broken, meaning not only more work for me, but an inversely worse time for the rest of the group, on average. If the Hexblade can defeat the entire encounter in 1 turn, I have to upscale it, or flat out lie about how much damage it can take. No, your 180 damage didn't kill the enemy, it's still go most of it's head left. I generally feel the desire to play the simple friendly game has been superseded of late by a generation of kids who grew up digitally, and know more about WoW then Drow. Where min-maxing is encouraged, if not demanded. I think there is a time and place for super powerful combos, but I don't care how much damage your Pally Smite did, or how much your Drow Great weapon master with Haste did when they burned all 4 lock levels. Did the rest of the party have fun, did everyone get a chance to chip in and feel like they contributed or had a good fight, or did you end it in 30 seconds?
Hexblades are a chew toy handed to ravenous players who just want to throw dice, instead of actually playing a game. Hexblades make the GM's have to plan encounters that directly stop a single play style from ruining the fun for everyone. And it sucks.
I dunno, with a good DM, they can give you some pretty BAMF Tattoo abilities or Gloves. I had a ton of fun with my Monk and his Gloves of Soul Snatching or whatever. 4d8 Necrotic damage that heals the owner for an equal ammount? Yes please. And then with Mercy, I just ran around giving "Good Game" butt pats to the tanks/hurt players, for 1d6+5 healing. If I combined it with Flurry of Blows, thats 2d6+10. A Very fun way to role-play healing everyone. I pictured him as a odd version of Ted Lasso.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OH ok fair!
I strongly disliked the Artificer, but the debate caused me to look at them further. After a deep dive I’m still disinterested in most of them… but the Battle Smith looks potentially really good. And well designed, too.
Possibly the most complete Gish in the game.
Further proof that no two people ever mean the same thing when they say Gish.
Artificer and Monk are both showing a distinct lead here. Not terribly surprising. I wonder if WotC internal data bears out the same result. Hopefully those classes will get extra attention for the rework.
I have no strong opinions about Monk, but while I like the concept of the Artificer, I feel it's lacking....something. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but it could be one or more of the following:
I do think Artificer is a functional class overall, and you can make some good characters out of it, but from a basic mechanical point of view, I feel like it could do with some kind of revision.
What do you mean by Gish?
I actually loved playing the Artificer for the fun ways I got to imagine and explain the spells. I get that some people might not love that though. I agree that a few unique spells in there would be fun though.
100% agree. I would love if a crafting system were more fleshed out. As it is it's 100% just whatever the DM wants to create but honestly DMs already have so much to worry about. Creating a sensible crafting system would benefit everyone though. Artificer Infusions do a decent job of creating that crafting fantasy but more rules for crafting in general is fun.
I think that every subclass should have just been given extra attack. It's the only half caster that doesn't have it as a base class feature. Artillerist might not need it but alchemist sure does. Then the level 5 features could be more interesting. I think the Battlesmith and Armorer feel pretty good in combat. I've never played the other two though so maybe I don't give them enough credit.
All that said I loved playing my Artificer. It felt super creative and customizable to play.
I think people dislike the monk because a lot of people on the internet like to hate on them. They're far from perfect, but they still feel great to play through the first 10 levels or so. Tasha's did a bit to help them out. Honestly, the last major issue is that not many official magic items exist for unarmed attacks. I'd also like to see some features that don't rely on Ki but overall I think the class is not as bad as people seem to think. They do have some under performing subclasses though and in general I think this is the class that needs a rework the most. I don't think it needs a ton though.
Artificers as a whole I think are in a great spot and a ton of fun to play. I think people just don't like the perception that it is too scifi for high fantasy. I for one love the flavor of fusing ancient technology with magic.
Tashas did monk some favors but neglected the real issue: resource drain.
Monks are bad imo as they never get to use all their good stuff because ki is so limited and stunning is so needed to bring their utility up.
They need a secondary resource pool like paladin who gets channel divinity, lay on hands, divine sense, and spell slots.
That's why paladin is always so heavily favored is they get to do stuff just for the fun of it without burning the same core resource.
Also Stunning fails most of the time, and when that happens in the Ki is just wasted. It's a good effect but so many spells are even better. Even the level 1 spell, Tasha's Hideous Laughter.
Very fair
Warlocks, because every time I start a campaign and one of my players decides to bring a "Hexblade" I inherently get anxious and worried I'm going to have to fight over every ruling I make in game. I'm so sick of the broken Warlock WomboCombos and "I'm Just playing Rule Of Cool!" I could vomit. Please delete this class.
I'd prefer they revise how the class works rather than delete it. Especially since there are other warlock subclasses that exist that I like, such as Genie and Celestial.
They had something there with eldritch invocations and pact boons, but they made the class way too focused on eldritch blast, and made Hexblade way too front-loaded and multiclass dip-friendly.
Alternatively, if they would hypothetically delete the class, I'd like them to put in concrete rules for making pacts with fiends, celestials, genies, etc, including what form the pact would take, what you can get out of it, what the drawbacks (if any) would be, etc. Descent into Avernus has something like this for devils specifically, so I'd be intrigued to see that for archfey, demon lords, celestials, genies, and so on.
I mean, I guess? But still, do we need 5 different types of magic users, who's only defining difference is where their powers come from? Who cares? Just give me a Magic User that can do Arcane checks, and cast support magic. I don't need a 3 page background that I have to incorporate into every session, because you're dumb Brooding Edgelord fanfic needs to be highlighted once per week or you get but hurt.
Warlocks are a not a good addition to DnD. They are there only to create drama, with the "will they won't they" turn evil at some point. In a never ending quest to validate a dumb as rocks alignment system that hasn't been relevant since Adv DND. Stop trying to play like a Dbag because your half demon mom makes you Chaotic evil every time you see the sun. Just cast sleep and give me back my session.
Gonna have to personally disagree with just about everything you said. My Monk was on the Way of Mercy (one of "the good subclasses"), had an Eldritch Claw Tattoo (one of the unarmed magic items), and went to level 7ish (most of the level range you described). Her ability scores were where they were supposed to be, and the rest of the party was nothing weird by any means. We took about 2 short rests per long rest on average. In other words, I was in the "optimal scenario" for Monks.
I was useless.
Everything I could do, someone else could do better. What's more, there was a lot I couldn't do. When we weren't fighting something, I was basically a third, worse set of eyes to roll Perception checks, and that's all. And then we got a Druid and I went to fourth! When we WERE fighting things, I was basically a liability, able to easily get within getting-stabbed-to-death distance, but unable to capitalize on that or to escape.
I don't know what exactly I'd do for Monks, but I don't think I subscribe to the idea that they'd be fine if you just shuffled the numbers a bit.
Well first, getting magic from different sources is supposed to be reflected in how the classes actually function. They don't do this perfectly, since every caster class uses the same basic spellcasting system, but that's supposed to be the idea. As to who cares....I care, and I'm willing to bet many players and DMs who play this game also care.
Also Warlocks in 5e don't and never have been guaranteed to become "evil" nor have they ever been obligated to care about the alignment system. I literally just mentioned the Celestial and Genie warlocks, two types of entities that could easily be not evil. And even Fiend warlocks can defy their patrons, which is actually not an uncommon thing with those kind of characters. So this gripe you have with the class is purely anecdotal, as I have encountered quite a few warlock players who haven't been problems at their tables at all.
That's allowed.
Monks are great hand to hand.
But just how many GMs run campaigns where weapons and armor are in short supply or even outlawed to the common man? Not many. And that is the culture that the Monk class was built for and from.
Without all their extras they are pretty thin on the combat spectrum.
Technically, expressing a desire for an entire class to be deleted is also allowed. But that doesn't mean I can't challenge it.
I agree it's the purest form of "I had a bad experience, and I'm but hurt still". Only problem is, after 20+ years of playing this game, I have personal experience with many other players, and GM's than the average new player. I'm not a rookie GM. I personally, hate the way Warlocks can become so easily broken, meaning not only more work for me, but an inversely worse time for the rest of the group, on average. If the Hexblade can defeat the entire encounter in 1 turn, I have to upscale it, or flat out lie about how much damage it can take. No, your 180 damage didn't kill the enemy, it's still go most of it's head left. I generally feel the desire to play the simple friendly game has been superseded of late by a generation of kids who grew up digitally, and know more about WoW then Drow. Where min-maxing is encouraged, if not demanded. I think there is a time and place for super powerful combos, but I don't care how much damage your Pally Smite did, or how much your Drow Great weapon master with Haste did when they burned all 4 lock levels. Did the rest of the party have fun, did everyone get a chance to chip in and feel like they contributed or had a good fight, or did you end it in 30 seconds?
Hexblades are a chew toy handed to ravenous players who just want to throw dice, instead of actually playing a game. Hexblades make the GM's have to plan encounters that directly stop a single play style from ruining the fun for everyone. And it sucks.
I dunno, with a good DM, they can give you some pretty BAMF Tattoo abilities or Gloves. I had a ton of fun with my Monk and his Gloves of Soul Snatching or whatever. 4d8 Necrotic damage that heals the owner for an equal ammount? Yes please. And then with Mercy, I just ran around giving "Good Game" butt pats to the tanks/hurt players, for 1d6+5 healing. If I combined it with Flurry of Blows, thats 2d6+10. A Very fun way to role-play healing everyone. I pictured him as a odd version of Ted Lasso.