None of that applies in 5e. Paladins are not driven by faith or deities, but by their conviction and belief in specific ideals, i.e. devotion, redemption, etc. They aren't overtly religious, they just are so convinced of the worth of their ideology that they tap into something magical.
Depending on your personal level of cynicism, you are either both wrong or both correct under RAW. It is very clearly stated in the rules that “a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god”; that it is essentially equal parts the commitment to the oath as it is the divinity itself.
Personally, I would go with you both being wrong about RAW. That holds doubly true for someone trying to lecture another player on the other player being wrong under RAW (incorrectly, I might add) in the very same thread as them stating “[p]eople who claim [there is only one way to play a class] simply lack imagination.”
A class represents an archetype. As long as you move within the archetype, it's fine. But if you intend to play a Wizard that doesn't know magic, and casts innately, you're not playing a wizard, you're playing a sorcerer.
But honestly, the main problem with paladins isn't that people want to play an original paladin or whatever. It is that they use it simply as a mechanical corset without any thematic content. Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
None of that applies in 5e. Paladins are not driven by faith or deities, but by their conviction and belief in specific ideals, i.e. devotion, redemption, etc. They aren't overtly religious, they just are so convinced of the worth of their ideology that they tap into something magical.
Depending on your personal level of cynicism, you are either both wrong or both correct under RAW. It is very clearly stated in the rules that “a paladin’s power comes as much from a commitment to justice itself as it does from a god”; that it is essentially equal parts the commitment to the oath as it is the divinity itself.
Personally, I would go with you both being wrong about RAW. That holds doubly true for someone trying to lecture another player on the other player being wrong under RAW (incorrectly, I might add) in the very same thread as them stating “[p]eople who claim [there is only one way to play a class] simply lack imagination.”
A class represents an archetype. As long as you move within the archetype, it's fine. But if you intend to play a Wizard that doesn't know magic, and casts innately, you're not playing a wizard, you're playing a sorcerer.
But honestly, the main problem with paladins isn't that people want to play an original paladin or whatever. It is that they use it simply as a mechanical corset without any thematic content. Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
And some goes with druid imo : you got a "way" to play him around Circle culture/archetype.
Paladin same way. you can be just a kinda-holy warrior, fighter with very strict code related with ideals/faith/chivalry, but if ur not roleplay those you are basicly a fighter with extra steps. same with druid - if you just play it as it is without roleplaying those circle spises your are just a (sorry for blasphemy) nature-cleric with stick.
warlock - same story - one EB gimmick and some extra step related with lvl up. all power of that class is born around rich background, possible roleplay and interaction with patron
I would suggest that the “you have to roleplay your Oath/Pact and interact with it” is only half the puzzle - while player roleplay is important, both classes are also heavily reliant on the DM’s ability to roleplay the player’s respective patron. With a competent DM, this can be a really fun and dynamic roleplay element. But with a bad DM who sees a pact/oath as a way to work against the player or a mechanism for forcing their own limited views on morality, religion, etc. onto a player character…. It can lead to some of the most miserable gameplay in the game.
Even having recently finished up a campaign playing a Paladin subjected to some really bad, heavy handed DMing betraying a significant lack of emotional intelligence on the DM’s part, I find it hard to blame the class for what was my single most miserable experience with D&D.
Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
Generally speaking, it's on the DM more than it's on the player if a warlock patron is just window dressing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
Generally speaking, it's on the DM more than it's on the player if a warlock patron is just window dressing
Honestly I know its maybe to arrogant to put that much responsibility on DM - but yeah - most of the time I "met" boring Paladin, warlock with patron on paper or sorcerer playing like wizzard its because DM didnt give a shait about background nor roleplay, its was always about min-max harder and harder encounter and fight (which was fun, sure, but im type of player "storyteller" and i love to roleplay. Actor Feat - must have!)
Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
Generally speaking, it's on the DM more than it's on the player if a warlock patron is just window dressing
Honestly I know its maybe to arrogant to put that much responsibility on DM - but yeah - most of the time I "met" boring Paladin, warlock with patron on paper or sorcerer playing like wizzard its because DM didnt give a shait about background nor roleplay, its was always about min-max harder and harder encounter and fight (which was fun, sure, but im type of player "storyteller" and i love to roleplay. Actor Feat - must have!)
It has to be on the DM simply because it is their world. It is arguably harder on the DM if the player is allowed to make it all up themself and then the DM be expected to fit it in... somehow.
That said, the DM can leave it up to the player to carry on based on what they believe their patron's wishes to be, with the DM only intervening as they feel necessary. That intervention can be in or out of character too, either by some event or contact in character, or by quietly taking the player aside between sessions to guide them.
True.
thats why i am bad material for DM - i like shooting question, instead of giving answers :D
nethertheless some classes are less DM/Player forgiving in case of roleplaying - imo still - paladin & warlock - if you play it bad or dm will not give u oportunity to roleplay it, that class might be super cool/good/powerfull its just boring to play
on the other hand monk is just (IMO!) hard to play no matter dm xD hhahaa
The party monk has an Eldritch Claw Tattoo that he activates on his first round, and he has Hunter's Mark from the Fey Touched feat, so on his third turn in combat, he gets to make 5 attacks (2 from Extra Attack + 2 from Flurry of Blows + 1 from Haste), dealing a total of 100 (5d8 + 10d6 + 5d4 + 30) average damage per round of combat if all attacks hit (he has a +11 to hit, too).
Without the Artificer, the monk would just do 56 (4d8 + 4d6 + 24) average damage per turn, about half the damage he does with the Artificer's help.
That's just a smart use of spells.
And what's your point? Because it's the Artificer class and its mechanics that allowed that smart combination of spells to be possible. No other class in the game can allow a single character to cast those to spells at the same time. Spell Storing Item is the only feature that makes this "smart use of spells" possible.
So, yes, it is a smart use of spells. That's only possible because of the Artificer class. Otherwise, it would take two different spellcasting PCs to make this combo possible.
But for comparison sake, the Artificer can't access haste until level 9. Full casters can do so at level 5. Granted, it's not a fair comparison because you have a half caster compared to a full caster.
Yep. Not a fair comparison. Because the Artificer is a half-caster and you're comparing it to a full caster. And even if you were to make that comparison, one character casting both haste and enlarge on one of their companions is not possible in the official rules.
So, sure, it takes them longer to get both spells, but they also get to do combos that no other class can possibly do.
There's a couple Paladins who also get Haste. Take both of their spells away, and now how do they compare? The half caster concept is supposed to be you get all this other stuff to make up for cutting your spell progression in half. So here's a thought experiment. Make a mental note of all the half casters in the game. Now take all of their spells away. How do they compare? The Artificer is left far behind. That's my main gripe. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster.
That's not a fair comparison. Artificers are more of a spell-focused class than Paladins are. They get spells earlier and get cantrips. That would be like saying Wizards suck compared to Fighters because they're completely useless while inside the range of an antimagic field while Fighters get to keep all of their features. Or like saying that Fighters suck compared to monks because when you take away a fighter's weapons and armor they're less effective in combat than monks are with no weapons or armor.
Spellcasting is a bigger part of the artificer class than it is for rangers and paladins. If you remove spellcasting from both, the artificer is going to be weaker because it makes more use of spellcasting than rangers and paladins do. That's a really stupid and fallacious argument.
And Artificers get quite a bit to make up for their half-casting. They get cantrips, spells at first level, more tools (which are campaign dependent, but still useful), infusions, and subclasses that give them more features than those of the other half-casters.
They are a “spell focused class” that get the same spell slots and spell progression, so how is it not fair?
Because the Artificer gets cantrips and infusions instead of martial prowess. It's not a fair comparison just like it wouldn't be fair to compare the effectiveness of a Wizard and a Battlemaster Fighter while they're both in an antimagic field. (Yes, the power difference wouldn't be as drastic as this scenario, but it is a valid comparison to show the unfairness of the scenario you're proposing.)
Give the Artificer ALL of those things then compare them to other half casters but take away leveled spells for everyone. And sure, give everyone their sub class features. How do Artificers compare?
Stop trying to compare the classes once you're removed features from them. A more fair comparison would be the classes at the height of their powers and their effectiveness. And not just pure damage output, because as I noted before, a lot of the artificer's effectiveness in combat comes from buffing their allies.
Their infusions are weak for their given levels, and some of them even take up attunement spots. Cantrips are cool, but by design they’re not nearly as powerful as martial skills. They’re meant to be utility, and fillers in combat full casters can use between leveled spells.
Here’s the point of taking away all their spells, and then fine you can give them back and re-compare them:
Line up all the half caster classes. Take away their spells. IF the Artificer is left in the dust (and it IS)… it now needs to make up that deficit by giving the spells back. But it doesn’t.
The Artificer is a “spell focused class” (your words), yet it’s only a half caster. To make up for only being a half caster they get cantrips, weak infusions, and they gain 1st level spells at level 1 instead of 2.
ALL half casters can cast spells in combat. Between casting spells, who is more effective? An Artificer or any one of the other half casters? And heck, it’s worse than that. The others are not only way more effective between spells, many of their spells are complimenting their more effective weapon attacks.
On the topic of adhering to an oath as a paladin, or a patron as a warlock, etc. I think many of you are still limiting yourselves.
The game mechanics are for balance. As long as you adhere to the game mechanics you can go far beyond to flavor your character. If you are a fighter, you can take one or two levels of barbarian and just completely ignore the barbarian aspect and in game your character is just a fighter. The same with Warlock. You can come up with some reason or way your character has those spells and abilities and not have a patron at all, and not even consider your character a warlock.
Artificers seem very dependent on their subclasses. Half of them getting second attack in a way that kind of reminds me of her cleric domains either get a cantrip buff or more melee capability. I wouldn't really call an armorer or battle smith spell focused. Alchemists are support that get their elixirs and getting to add their INT modifier to one roll of a spell for healing or damage. Artillerists get to fire their cannon as a bonus action and add a d8 to their rolls etc.
Now, all characters get additional abilities and theming from their subclasses. But artificers to me feel like they rely on it more to give direction to what the character is and what they do than most other classes.
There are several classes that put more of their power budget in subs (fighters, barbs, I'd even say sorcs and warlocks to a degree), but arties are maybe the most dependent on their subclasses. If you only compare base class to base class, they'll always come up behind. What artificers are supposed to be is the half-caster (+) answer to the Bard (and maybe the fighter and/or rogue from the martial side). They're supposed to be the half-caster that can be put into any party role and be reasonably good at it depending on your build...particularly the subclass.
Base artificers will never be big damage dealers. Period. That's not what they're for, just like it's not what Bards are for. But throw a Battle Smith subclass on top of it, and that changes. Base, they're rotten tanks...but then Armorer exists. It's the same way Bards work, with Valor/Swords for melee, Lore for skill monkey, Eloquence for (even better) face stuff, etc. The base Artificer chassis is deliberately kind of a B- in a lot of things because it's built to have a transformative subclass grafted to it which alters the way it plays. You can't compare "ARTIFICER" and "PALADIN" as monoliths because they're intentionally built differently. But there's a possibility you could compare specific builds and come out relatively equivalent.
...and I think a lot of folks are violently underestimating just how good a free +1 weapon at level 2 can be. Either that or they play with far more generous DMs than I do and are getting stuff like that real early. Never mind that a lot of people who slag off the artie kind of ignore that a non-Battle Smith is better off handing that free +1 weapon to the Fighter or Paladin than keeping it for themselves.
There are several classes that put more of their power budget in subs (fighters, barbs, I'd even say sorcs and warlocks to a degree), but arties are maybe the most dependent on their subclasses. If you only compare base class to base class, they'll always come up behind. What artificers are supposed to be is the half-caster (+) answer to the Bard (and maybe the fighter and/or rogue from the martial side). They're supposed to be the half-caster that can be put into any party role and be reasonably good at it depending on your build...particularly the subclass.
Base artificers will never be big damage dealers. Period. That's not what they're for, just like it's not what Bards are for. But throw a Battle Smith subclass on top of it, and that changes. Base, they're rotten tanks...but then Armorer exists. It's the same way Bards work, with Valor/Swords for melee, Lore for skill monkey, Eloquence for (even better) face stuff, etc. The base Artificer chassis is deliberately kind of a B- in a lot of things because it's built to have a transformative subclass grafted to it which alters the way it plays. You can't compare "ARTIFICER" and "PALADIN" as monoliths because they're intentionally built differently. But there's a possibility you could compare specific builds and come out relatively equivalent.
...and I think a lot of folks are violently underestimating just how good a free +1 weapon at level 2 can be. Either that or they play with far more generous DMs than I do and are getting stuff like that real early. Never mind that a lot of people who slag off the artie kind of ignore that a non-Battle Smith is better off handing that free +1 weapon to the Fighter or Paladin than keeping it for themselves.
The problem is it's never going to come anywhere near being as good of a tank as an actual tank. As a half caster, I don't know how it's going to be the answer to a Bard. I get the concept that their subclass has a dramatic effect on their identity and what they can do. Your analogy about College of Swords/Valor making the Bard decent at melee. But the Swords/Valor Bard still doesn't stack up against actual martial classes. But you know what? When the Bard isn't having fun with their weapons, they are still a full caster.
I do think the Battle Smith is decent, but overall artificers are the 2nd weakest class.
Ha, ha, ha. No. No, they're not. I don't know what campaign's you're playing in, but I've never gotten a +1 weapon that lets you ignore ammunition and loading for guns/crossbows at level 2 before. Or a magic item that gives you Legendary Resistance 4 times a day for Concentration saving throws (also at level 2). Or a Homunculus that you get to recreate every long rest that can deliver your touch spells and you can control as a bonus action (also at level 2). Or a +1 weapon that always returned to the hand of whomever threw it (also at level 2).
No. They're not underpowered. Unless you're playing in a campaign where the DM is so generous with their magic items that you already have that kind of stuff at level 2.
and some of them even take up attunement spots.
And to make up for that, you get more attunement slots at higher level. And, from my experience, a lot of PCs never fill up all 3 attunement slots until around Tier 3 of the game.
Cantrips are cool, but by design they’re not nearly as powerful as martial skills. They’re meant to be utility, and fillers in combat full casters can use between leveled spells.
That entirely depends on which cantrip you choose and the weapon you choose. Oh, and your subclass. Cantrips scale in power, in similar ways to how martial characters' damage scales when they level up. Artillerists and Alchemists both get abilities at level 5 that increase the damage of certain spells they cast, which often includes cantrips.
Here’s the point of taking away all their spells, and then fine you can give them back and re-compare them:
Line up all the half caster classes. Take away their spells. IF the Artificer is left in the dust (and it IS)… it now needs to make up that deficit by giving the spells back. But it doesn’t.
The Artificer is a “spell focused class” (your words), yet it’s only a half caster. To make up for only being a half caster they get cantrips, weak infusions, and they gain 1st level spells at level 1 instead of 2.
ALL half casters can cast spells in combat. Between casting spells, who is more effective? An Artificer or any one of the other half casters? And heck, it’s worse than that. The others are not only way more effective between spells, many of their spells are complimenting their more effective weapon attacks.
Making up for the lack of martial ability is not just cantrips and infusions. As has been said before, their subclasses are more important to them than they are to a Paladin. Paladins only get channel divinities and spells at level 3 from their subclass. Artificers get spells, tool proficiencies, and 1-2 other features that make them focus on what their subclass's theme is (Battle Smiths get Steel Defenders and magical martial training, Artillerists get 3 different options for summoning magical turrets, Armorers get heavy armor proficiency, specialized magical armor, and armor-based weapon attacks). And they get their later subclass features earlier than paladins do.
And that's not even mentioning that artificers generally get more bonus action class feature options than Paladins do. And a lot of them are based on creating allies or objects that can harm others.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Ha, ha, ha. No. No, they're not. I don't know what campaign's you're playing in, but I've never gotten a +1 weapon that lets you ignore ammunition and loading for guns/crossbows at level 2 before. Or a magic item that gives you Legendary Resistance 4 times a day for Concentration saving throws (also at level 2). Or a Homunculus that you get to recreate every long rest that can deliver your touch spells and you can control as a bonus action (also at level 2). Or a +1 weapon that always returned to the hand of whomever threw it (also at level 2).
No. They're not underpowered. Unless you're playing in a campaign where the DM is so generous with their magic items that you already have that kind of stuff at level 2.
Maybe not at level 2, but very early (maybe 3 or 4) a +1 weapon or equivalent is pretty standard. It's nice, but it essentially makes up for not getting a fighting style. And if I'm an archer, I would take the archery fighting style over a +1 weapon. The Homunculus and Mind Sharpener are actually pretty good. I was sloppy in my wording. When I said weak for the level I was comparing then to what other half casters get instead at given levels. In my opinion they don't close the gap.
And to make up for that, you get more attunement slots at higher level. And, from my experience, a lot of PCs never fill up all 3 attunement slots until around Tier 3 of the game.
Not until level 10. It's a fair point that most don't use all of their attunement slots, but the Artificer should be using his own item (many of which require attunement) plus whatever the game gives them. But truthfully, I would need to check in the Artificer section to know if running out of slots is a common problem. In tier 2 it's not unheard of to have two items attuned already, if not at least 1.
That entirely depends on which cantrip you choose and the weapon you choose. Oh, and your subclass. Cantrips scale in power, in similar ways to how martial characters' damage scales when they level up. Artillerists and Alchemists both get abilities at level 5 that increase the damage of certain spells they cast, which often includes cantrips.
Assuming it's a well-built Paladin or Ranger, cantrips don't even come close to the damage output. And that's not even factoring in their subclass abilities.
Making up for the lack of martial ability is not just cantrips and infusions. As has been said before, their subclasses are more important to them than they are to a Paladin. Paladins only get channel divinities and spells at level 3 from their subclass. Artificers get spells, tool proficiencies, and 1-2 other features that make them focus on what their subclass's theme is (Battle Smiths get Steel Defenders and magical martial training, Artillerists get 3 different options for summoning magical turrets, Armorers get heavy armor proficiency, specialized magical armor, and armor-based weapon attacks). And they get their later subclass features earlier than paladins do.
And that's not even mentioning that artificers generally get more bonus action class feature options than Paladins do. And a lot of them are based on creating allies or objects that can harm others.
That is all true. Yet still, if you have a well-built Artificer, Ranger, and Paladin, who is doing the least damage in combat? Of them the Paladin is also contributing the most in support, between lay on hands and later on their aura. The Ranger has some great healing options, not the least of which is Goodberry. The best support the Artificer has is the Artillerist's protection cannon, which is admittedly pretty powerful.
On the whole I consider the Artificer the second weakest class. But the exception is the Battle Smith subclass (which I consider decent), and (specifically) the protection cannon is really powerful. Mind Sharpener is also really good, and coupled with having Con save proficiency it eliminates the need for War Caster. But then you're essentially protecting concentration spells that are levels behind a full caster. That's it. One of the sub classes, and if you want to spam temp hit points, one option of another sub class.
Just one thing for everyone to remember. Artificers get bags of holding. For free. At second level. Unless your DM is insanely generous, thats amazing. Thats all
Maybe not at level 2, but very early (maybe 3 or 4) a +1 weapon or equivalent is pretty standard. It's nice, but it essentially makes up for not getting a fighting style. And if I'm an archer, I would take the archery fighting style over a +1 weapon. The Homunculus and Mind Sharpener are actually pretty good. I was sloppy in my wording. When I said weak for the level I was comparing then to what other half casters get instead at given levels. In my opinion they don't close the gap.
Homunculus Servant and Mind Sharpener are good at all levels, and the fact that you can get them so early is really good. So, we're in agreement there.
Actually, a +1 weapon/armor does make up for most Fighting Styles. Archery is unique because it's probably the best fighting style in the game. But the infusion that gives you a +1 armor that increases to +2 at level 10? Straight up better than Defense, because it scales at higher levels, and it makes your armor more resistant to damaging/corroding effects. A +1 weapon that makes it so you don't have to reload your crossbow is, in my opinion, about on par with the Archery Fighting Style. A +1 Weapon is easily on par with the Dueling Fighting Style, and better than Great Weapon Master.
And you get multiple infusions at level 2. And get more when you level up, something no martials (besides Champion Fighters) get with their Fighting Styles. Two different +1 weapons easily beats a single +2 to hit from the Archery fighting style.
And that's not even taking into account that Infusions are like Fighting Styles, but you can give them away. If you want to use your infusions to buff yourself and be more effective in combat (normally for Armorers and Battlesmiths), you absolutely can do. However, if you want to give them to your allies and make them even better (and they stack with their Fighting Styles), you absolutely can do.
So, mathematically, the bonuses you can get at level 2 from some of the main infusions are better than even the best Fighting Styles that martials can get access to. And you can switch out which infusions you have active after a long rest, and you can use them to buff your allies, and quite a few of them get better at higher levels, and you get even more at higher levels.
Yeah, I think Infusions more than make up for not having a Fighting Style. Easily.
And to make up for that, you get more attunement slots at higher level. And, from my experience, a lot of PCs never fill up all 3 attunement slots until around Tier 3 of the game.
Not until level 10. It's a fair point that most don't use all of their attunement slots, but the Artificer should be using his own item (many of which require attunement) plus whatever the game gives them. But truthfully, I would need to check in the Artificer section to know if running out of slots is a common problem. In tier 2 it's not unheard of to have two items attuned already, if not at least 1.
Uh, no. The "Artificer should be using their own items" entirely depends on your subclass, the magic items your allies have, and the infusions you have available.
Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it is from an Eberron campaign where I was pretty lenient on giving out magical items, in my campaign where a player played an Artificer, they spent the first 14 levels of the game always having at least one empty attunement slot, which was including their infusions.
Yes, you don't get more attunement slots until level 10, but if you have extra infusions, you can give them to your allies, and, in my experience, artificers really do not need that extra attunement slot until around Tier 3 of the game.
That entirely depends on which cantrip you choose and the weapon you choose. Oh, and your subclass. Cantrips scale in power, in similar ways to how martial characters' damage scales when they level up. Artillerists and Alchemists both get abilities at level 5 that increase the damage of certain spells they cast, which often includes cantrips.
Assuming it's a well-built Paladin or Ranger, cantrips don't even come close to the damage output. And that's not even factoring in their subclass abilities.
"Subclass abilities"? Paladins don't get "subclass abilities" that increase damage. Rangers do, because that's built into the core assumptions of the Ranger class just like it is for the Artificer, but Paladins almost always only get damage-enhancing features at level 15 in the game. Their auras don't add to their damage, their channel divinities are normally crowd control, and their subclass spells typically don't increase damage (with only a few exceptions, like Spiritual Weapon from the Oath of Conquest).
This is my point. You have to take into account the Artificer subclass abilities, because they actually increase damage due to it not being built into the base class (which isn't a fault of the class, the classes are just built differently). Paladin subclasses normally don't increase damage until really late in the campaign (levels 15-20), because paladins are already really, really good at damage.
But if you take into account the level 5 Artillerist with [Tooltip Not Found] and a turret? They'll be doing 2d10+1d8 fire damage with their action + 2d8 force damage that pushes someone away or 2d8 fire damage in a cone-based AoE. At range. Without expending spell slots. Without counting their high bonus to hit because they're more SAD than a paladin and have a +1 arcane focus that lets them ignore half-cover.
At the same level, a well-built paladin will be doing 2d8+12 damage (or 4d6+8 if they're using a greatsword). Less than the Artillerist. If they want to deal more damage, they have to expend spell slots or use the risky Great Weapon Master (which requires you to use a two-handed weapon, lowering your AC). And, again, this isn't taking into account that the Artillerist at the same level has access to spells that can damage multiple targets like shatter and scorching ray.
Or, if you want to compare that paladin to a Battle Smith, the Battle Smith with the same weapons will be doing 2 more damage using the Attack Action without expending resources (using a +1 weapon), but also has a steel defender to do a consistent 1d8 + 3 damage every round as a bonus action (basically a spiritual weapon combined with a familiar).
Artillerists and Battle Smiths deal more consistent damage every round than the typical paladin does, and in order for the paladin to deal more damage, they have to use Divine Smite or a smite spell.
Making up for the lack of martial ability is not just cantrips and infusions. As has been said before, their subclasses are more important to them than they are to a Paladin. Paladins only get channel divinities and spells at level 3 from their subclass. Artificers get spells, tool proficiencies, and 1-2 other features that make them focus on what their subclass's theme is (Battle Smiths get Steel Defenders and magical martial training, Artillerists get 3 different options for summoning magical turrets, Armorers get heavy armor proficiency, specialized magical armor, and armor-based weapon attacks). And they get their later subclass features earlier than paladins do.
And that's not even mentioning that artificers generally get more bonus action class feature options than Paladins do. And a lot of them are based on creating allies or objects that can harm others.
That is all true. Yet still, if you have a well-built Artificer, Ranger, and Paladin, who is doing the least damage in combat? Of them the Paladin is also contributing the most in support, between lay on hands and later on their aura. The Ranger has some great healing options, not the least of which is Goodberry. The best support the Artificer has is the Artillerist's protection cannon, which is admittedly pretty powerful.
Again, it depends on the subclass and what style of fighting the paladin/ranger are. And what turn in initiative it is. And whether or not every attack is using sharpshooter/great weapon master. And what level this is at.
And, the classes can support in different ways, especially when you compare the subclasses. Artillerists can give out a bunch of temporary hit points as a bonus action from a movable AoE. Armorers can make enemies have disadvantage on all attack rolls not focused at the Armorer by thunderpunching them. Battle Smiths can use their Steel Defender's reaction to give disadvantage on any attack roll within 5 feet of the steel defender. All artificers can get a Homunculus Servant, which allows them to cure wounds, spare the dying, and revivify allies at range. And level 7 Artificers can use a reaction to give themselves or an ally within 30 feet of them a +4/+5 to an ability check or saving throw 4 or 5 times a day.
And I'm not dissing on the paladin's supportive capabilities. Aura of Protection and Lay on Hands are amazing, easily some of the best support abilities in the game. But I'd say that infusions, Flash of Genius, Protector Cannon, Steel Defenders, Thunder Gauntlets, and casting touch-bases support spells at range are also really potent early support abilities, easily better than any support that Rangers get access to.
I also consider Spell Storing Item partnered with either Steel Defender, a Familiar, or Homunculus Servant to be one of the best inter-class combos in the game. Some of the options you can get from this are amazingly good. You can heal as a bonus action without expending any spell slots, or cast a minor buffing spell (enlarge/reduce) on the party's front-liner, or have your homunculus cast scorching ray as a bonus action every single round of combat. There's a ton of options, and a lot of them are really, really good.
On the whole I consider the Artificer the second weakest class. But the exception is the Battle Smith subclass (which I consider decent), and (specifically) the protection cannon is really powerful. Mind Sharpener is also really good, and coupled with having Con save proficiency it eliminates the need for War Caster. But then you're essentially protecting concentration spells that are levels behind a full caster. That's it. One of the sub classes, and if you want to spam temp hit points, one option of another sub class.
As a final question, I'll ask you, have you actually ever played an Artificer (or at a table with one) that spanned 5+ levels? Because, if you haven't, I would recommend not dismissing them out of hand without experiencing them at a table. I know that I certainly didn't realize how much some of their features would come up and how potent some of them were until I was at a table with one for 15 levels. Their infusions, spell-storing item, their pets, flash of genius, and even some of their tool-based features surprised me at how useful they were.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I'll give the Battle Smith a shot. Max out Intelligence and Constitution, then distribute the rest. Now to figure out if I want to go Hill Dwarf + Greataxe to make it more tanky, or Human Variant + Greatsword for the feat..
I'll give the Battle Smith a shot. Max out Intelligence and Constitution, then distribute the rest. Now to figure out if I want to go Hill Dwarf + Greataxe to make it more tanky, or Human Variant + Greatsword for the feat..
Yeah, I strongly recommend Battle Smith. (Also, keep in mind that they're not restricted to melee like paladins. They can be just as good with range as Rangers. Even better if the DM allows them to use their optional firearm proficiency.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
See, this is proof I'm playing a completely different game than someone like Sean. I cannot even imagine making a Battle Smith character, and your first decision not being how you plan to flavor your Steel Defender
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm honestly shocked so many people dislike artificer. I don't particularly enjoy it, but I also have nothing against it.
I've always viewed artificer as a good utility/skill monkey class.
I think it's a lot better than a monk at a minimum. Monks are way to weak mechanically and have too little HP, especially at low level's to play the role they're supposed to play. And since they're so MAD they can't prioritize their con score or get more HP.
I am a bit lost in this whole rant :D its long-storyalike post taking more and more personal narration
everyone plays "diffrently" and we should shoot here our perspective on our least favorite class not trying to force our point of view from perspective of right / wrong
longer im reading whole of it the less i like to play Artif so thx u all :P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A class represents an archetype. As long as you move within the archetype, it's fine. But if you intend to play a Wizard that doesn't know magic, and casts innately, you're not playing a wizard, you're playing a sorcerer.
But honestly, the main problem with paladins isn't that people want to play an original paladin or whatever. It is that they use it simply as a mechanical corset without any thematic content. Something similar happens with warlocks, which many people ignore is someone who has forged a pact with a patron. That means that your patron is going to use you in his plans because you are his pawn. You are not a free agent. You can play your warlock in a way that he tries to trick his patron, or faces moral dilemmas because of what his patron asks of him. That's narratively rich. But if you ignore your patron as if he doesn't exist, you're simply not playing a warlock as it should be played narratively.
And some goes with druid imo : you got a "way" to play him around Circle culture/archetype.
Paladin same way. you can be just a kinda-holy warrior, fighter with very strict code related with ideals/faith/chivalry, but if ur not roleplay those you are basicly a fighter with extra steps. same with druid - if you just play it as it is without roleplaying those circle spises your are just a (sorry for blasphemy) nature-cleric with stick.
warlock - same story - one EB gimmick and some extra step related with lvl up. all power of that class is born around rich background, possible roleplay and interaction with patron
I would suggest that the “you have to roleplay your Oath/Pact and interact with it” is only half the puzzle - while player roleplay is important, both classes are also heavily reliant on the DM’s ability to roleplay the player’s respective patron. With a competent DM, this can be a really fun and dynamic roleplay element. But with a bad DM who sees a pact/oath as a way to work against the player or a mechanism for forcing their own limited views on morality, religion, etc. onto a player character…. It can lead to some of the most miserable gameplay in the game.
Even having recently finished up a campaign playing a Paladin subjected to some really bad, heavy handed DMing betraying a significant lack of emotional intelligence on the DM’s part, I find it hard to blame the class for what was my single most miserable experience with D&D.
Generally speaking, it's on the DM more than it's on the player if a warlock patron is just window dressing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly I know its maybe to arrogant to put that much responsibility on DM - but yeah - most of the time I "met" boring Paladin, warlock with patron on paper or sorcerer playing like wizzard its because DM didnt give a shait about background nor roleplay, its was always about min-max harder and harder encounter and fight (which was fun, sure, but im type of player "storyteller" and i love to roleplay. Actor Feat - must have!)
True.
thats why i am bad material for DM - i like shooting question, instead of giving answers :D
nethertheless some classes are less DM/Player forgiving in case of roleplaying - imo still - paladin & warlock - if you play it bad or dm will not give u oportunity to roleplay it, that class might be super cool/good/powerfull its just boring to play
on the other hand monk is just (IMO!) hard to play no matter dm xD hhahaa
Their infusions are weak for their given levels, and some of them even take up attunement spots. Cantrips are cool, but by design they’re not nearly as powerful as martial skills. They’re meant to be utility, and fillers in combat full casters can use between leveled spells.
Here’s the point of taking away all their spells, and then fine you can give them back and re-compare them:
Line up all the half caster classes. Take away their spells. IF the Artificer is left in the dust (and it IS)… it now needs to make up that deficit by giving the spells back. But it doesn’t.
The Artificer is a “spell focused class” (your words), yet it’s only a half caster. To make up for only being a half caster they get cantrips, weak infusions, and they gain 1st level spells at level 1 instead of 2.
ALL half casters can cast spells in combat. Between casting spells, who is more effective? An Artificer or any one of the other half casters? And heck, it’s worse than that. The others are not only way more effective between spells, many of their spells are complimenting their more effective weapon attacks.
On the topic of adhering to an oath as a paladin, or a patron as a warlock, etc. I think many of you are still limiting yourselves.
The game mechanics are for balance. As long as you adhere to the game mechanics you can go far beyond to flavor your character. If you are a fighter, you can take one or two levels of barbarian and just completely ignore the barbarian aspect and in game your character is just a fighter. The same with Warlock. You can come up with some reason or way your character has those spells and abilities and not have a patron at all, and not even consider your character a warlock.
Artificers seem very dependent on their subclasses. Half of them getting second attack in a way that kind of reminds me of her cleric domains either get a cantrip buff or more melee capability. I wouldn't really call an armorer or battle smith spell focused. Alchemists are support that get their elixirs and getting to add their INT modifier to one roll of a spell for healing or damage. Artillerists get to fire their cannon as a bonus action and add a d8 to their rolls etc.
Now, all characters get additional abilities and theming from their subclasses. But artificers to me feel like they rely on it more to give direction to what the character is and what they do than most other classes.
There are several classes that put more of their power budget in subs (fighters, barbs, I'd even say sorcs and warlocks to a degree), but arties are maybe the most dependent on their subclasses. If you only compare base class to base class, they'll always come up behind. What artificers are supposed to be is the half-caster (+) answer to the Bard (and maybe the fighter and/or rogue from the martial side). They're supposed to be the half-caster that can be put into any party role and be reasonably good at it depending on your build...particularly the subclass.
Base artificers will never be big damage dealers. Period. That's not what they're for, just like it's not what Bards are for. But throw a Battle Smith subclass on top of it, and that changes. Base, they're rotten tanks...but then Armorer exists. It's the same way Bards work, with Valor/Swords for melee, Lore for skill monkey, Eloquence for (even better) face stuff, etc. The base Artificer chassis is deliberately kind of a B- in a lot of things because it's built to have a transformative subclass grafted to it which alters the way it plays. You can't compare "ARTIFICER" and "PALADIN" as monoliths because they're intentionally built differently. But there's a possibility you could compare specific builds and come out relatively equivalent.
...and I think a lot of folks are violently underestimating just how good a free +1 weapon at level 2 can be. Either that or they play with far more generous DMs than I do and are getting stuff like that real early. Never mind that a lot of people who slag off the artie kind of ignore that a non-Battle Smith is better off handing that free +1 weapon to the Fighter or Paladin than keeping it for themselves.
The problem is it's never going to come anywhere near being as good of a tank as an actual tank. As a half caster, I don't know how it's going to be the answer to a Bard. I get the concept that their subclass has a dramatic effect on their identity and what they can do. Your analogy about College of Swords/Valor making the Bard decent at melee. But the Swords/Valor Bard still doesn't stack up against actual martial classes. But you know what? When the Bard isn't having fun with their weapons, they are still a full caster.
I do think the Battle Smith is decent, but overall artificers are the 2nd weakest class.
Ha, ha, ha. No. No, they're not. I don't know what campaign's you're playing in, but I've never gotten a +1 weapon that lets you ignore ammunition and loading for guns/crossbows at level 2 before. Or a magic item that gives you Legendary Resistance 4 times a day for Concentration saving throws (also at level 2). Or a Homunculus that you get to recreate every long rest that can deliver your touch spells and you can control as a bonus action (also at level 2). Or a +1 weapon that always returned to the hand of whomever threw it (also at level 2).
No. They're not underpowered. Unless you're playing in a campaign where the DM is so generous with their magic items that you already have that kind of stuff at level 2.
And to make up for that, you get more attunement slots at higher level. And, from my experience, a lot of PCs never fill up all 3 attunement slots until around Tier 3 of the game.
That entirely depends on which cantrip you choose and the weapon you choose. Oh, and your subclass. Cantrips scale in power, in similar ways to how martial characters' damage scales when they level up. Artillerists and Alchemists both get abilities at level 5 that increase the damage of certain spells they cast, which often includes cantrips.
Making up for the lack of martial ability is not just cantrips and infusions. As has been said before, their subclasses are more important to them than they are to a Paladin. Paladins only get channel divinities and spells at level 3 from their subclass. Artificers get spells, tool proficiencies, and 1-2 other features that make them focus on what their subclass's theme is (Battle Smiths get Steel Defenders and magical martial training, Artillerists get 3 different options for summoning magical turrets, Armorers get heavy armor proficiency, specialized magical armor, and armor-based weapon attacks). And they get their later subclass features earlier than paladins do.
And that's not even mentioning that artificers generally get more bonus action class feature options than Paladins do. And a lot of them are based on creating allies or objects that can harm others.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Maybe not at level 2, but very early (maybe 3 or 4) a +1 weapon or equivalent is pretty standard. It's nice, but it essentially makes up for not getting a fighting style. And if I'm an archer, I would take the archery fighting style over a +1 weapon. The Homunculus and Mind Sharpener are actually pretty good. I was sloppy in my wording. When I said weak for the level I was comparing then to what other half casters get instead at given levels. In my opinion they don't close the gap.
Not until level 10. It's a fair point that most don't use all of their attunement slots, but the Artificer should be using his own item (many of which require attunement) plus whatever the game gives them. But truthfully, I would need to check in the Artificer section to know if running out of slots is a common problem. In tier 2 it's not unheard of to have two items attuned already, if not at least 1.
Assuming it's a well-built Paladin or Ranger, cantrips don't even come close to the damage output. And that's not even factoring in their subclass abilities.
That is all true. Yet still, if you have a well-built Artificer, Ranger, and Paladin, who is doing the least damage in combat? Of them the Paladin is also contributing the most in support, between lay on hands and later on their aura. The Ranger has some great healing options, not the least of which is Goodberry. The best support the Artificer has is the Artillerist's protection cannon, which is admittedly pretty powerful.
On the whole I consider the Artificer the second weakest class. But the exception is the Battle Smith subclass (which I consider decent), and (specifically) the protection cannon is really powerful. Mind Sharpener is also really good, and coupled with having Con save proficiency it eliminates the need for War Caster. But then you're essentially protecting concentration spells that are levels behind a full caster. That's it. One of the sub classes, and if you want to spam temp hit points, one option of another sub class.
Just one thing for everyone to remember. Artificers get bags of holding. For free. At second level. Unless your DM is insanely generous, thats amazing. Thats all
N/A
Homunculus Servant and Mind Sharpener are good at all levels, and the fact that you can get them so early is really good. So, we're in agreement there.
Actually, a +1 weapon/armor does make up for most Fighting Styles. Archery is unique because it's probably the best fighting style in the game. But the infusion that gives you a +1 armor that increases to +2 at level 10? Straight up better than Defense, because it scales at higher levels, and it makes your armor more resistant to damaging/corroding effects. A +1 weapon that makes it so you don't have to reload your crossbow is, in my opinion, about on par with the Archery Fighting Style. A +1 Weapon is easily on par with the Dueling Fighting Style, and better than Great Weapon Master.
And you get multiple infusions at level 2. And get more when you level up, something no martials (besides Champion Fighters) get with their Fighting Styles. Two different +1 weapons easily beats a single +2 to hit from the Archery fighting style.
And that's not even taking into account that Infusions are like Fighting Styles, but you can give them away. If you want to use your infusions to buff yourself and be more effective in combat (normally for Armorers and Battlesmiths), you absolutely can do. However, if you want to give them to your allies and make them even better (and they stack with their Fighting Styles), you absolutely can do.
So, mathematically, the bonuses you can get at level 2 from some of the main infusions are better than even the best Fighting Styles that martials can get access to. And you can switch out which infusions you have active after a long rest, and you can use them to buff your allies, and quite a few of them get better at higher levels, and you get even more at higher levels.
Yeah, I think Infusions more than make up for not having a Fighting Style. Easily.
Uh, no. The "Artificer should be using their own items" entirely depends on your subclass, the magic items your allies have, and the infusions you have available.
Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it is from an Eberron campaign where I was pretty lenient on giving out magical items, in my campaign where a player played an Artificer, they spent the first 14 levels of the game always having at least one empty attunement slot, which was including their infusions.
Yes, you don't get more attunement slots until level 10, but if you have extra infusions, you can give them to your allies, and, in my experience, artificers really do not need that extra attunement slot until around Tier 3 of the game.
"Subclass abilities"? Paladins don't get "subclass abilities" that increase damage. Rangers do, because that's built into the core assumptions of the Ranger class just like it is for the Artificer, but Paladins almost always only get damage-enhancing features at level 15 in the game. Their auras don't add to their damage, their channel divinities are normally crowd control, and their subclass spells typically don't increase damage (with only a few exceptions, like Spiritual Weapon from the Oath of Conquest).
This is my point. You have to take into account the Artificer subclass abilities, because they actually increase damage due to it not being built into the base class (which isn't a fault of the class, the classes are just built differently). Paladin subclasses normally don't increase damage until really late in the campaign (levels 15-20), because paladins are already really, really good at damage.
But if you take into account the level 5 Artillerist with [Tooltip Not Found] and a turret? They'll be doing 2d10+1d8 fire damage with their action + 2d8 force damage that pushes someone away or 2d8 fire damage in a cone-based AoE. At range. Without expending spell slots. Without counting their high bonus to hit because they're more SAD than a paladin and have a +1 arcane focus that lets them ignore half-cover.
At the same level, a well-built paladin will be doing 2d8+12 damage (or 4d6+8 if they're using a greatsword). Less than the Artillerist. If they want to deal more damage, they have to expend spell slots or use the risky Great Weapon Master (which requires you to use a two-handed weapon, lowering your AC). And, again, this isn't taking into account that the Artillerist at the same level has access to spells that can damage multiple targets like shatter and scorching ray.
Or, if you want to compare that paladin to a Battle Smith, the Battle Smith with the same weapons will be doing 2 more damage using the Attack Action without expending resources (using a +1 weapon), but also has a steel defender to do a consistent 1d8 + 3 damage every round as a bonus action (basically a spiritual weapon combined with a familiar).
Artillerists and Battle Smiths deal more consistent damage every round than the typical paladin does, and in order for the paladin to deal more damage, they have to use Divine Smite or a smite spell.
Again, it depends on the subclass and what style of fighting the paladin/ranger are. And what turn in initiative it is. And whether or not every attack is using sharpshooter/great weapon master. And what level this is at.
And, the classes can support in different ways, especially when you compare the subclasses. Artillerists can give out a bunch of temporary hit points as a bonus action from a movable AoE. Armorers can make enemies have disadvantage on all attack rolls not focused at the Armorer by thunderpunching them. Battle Smiths can use their Steel Defender's reaction to give disadvantage on any attack roll within 5 feet of the steel defender. All artificers can get a Homunculus Servant, which allows them to cure wounds, spare the dying, and revivify allies at range. And level 7 Artificers can use a reaction to give themselves or an ally within 30 feet of them a +4/+5 to an ability check or saving throw 4 or 5 times a day.
And I'm not dissing on the paladin's supportive capabilities. Aura of Protection and Lay on Hands are amazing, easily some of the best support abilities in the game. But I'd say that infusions, Flash of Genius, Protector Cannon, Steel Defenders, Thunder Gauntlets, and casting touch-bases support spells at range are also really potent early support abilities, easily better than any support that Rangers get access to.
I also consider Spell Storing Item partnered with either Steel Defender, a Familiar, or Homunculus Servant to be one of the best inter-class combos in the game. Some of the options you can get from this are amazingly good. You can heal as a bonus action without expending any spell slots, or cast a minor buffing spell (enlarge/reduce) on the party's front-liner, or have your homunculus cast scorching ray as a bonus action every single round of combat. There's a ton of options, and a lot of them are really, really good.
As a final question, I'll ask you, have you actually ever played an Artificer (or at a table with one) that spanned 5+ levels? Because, if you haven't, I would recommend not dismissing them out of hand without experiencing them at a table. I know that I certainly didn't realize how much some of their features would come up and how potent some of them were until I was at a table with one for 15 levels. Their infusions, spell-storing item, their pets, flash of genius, and even some of their tool-based features surprised me at how useful they were.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'll give the Battle Smith a shot. Max out Intelligence and Constitution, then distribute the rest. Now to figure out if I want to go Hill Dwarf + Greataxe to make it more tanky, or Human Variant + Greatsword for the feat..
Yeah, I strongly recommend Battle Smith. (Also, keep in mind that they're not restricted to melee like paladins. They can be just as good with range as Rangers. Even better if the DM allows them to use their optional firearm proficiency.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
See, this is proof I'm playing a completely different game than someone like Sean. I cannot even imagine making a Battle Smith character, and your first decision not being how you plan to flavor your Steel Defender
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm honestly shocked so many people dislike artificer. I don't particularly enjoy it, but I also have nothing against it.
I've always viewed artificer as a good utility/skill monkey class.
I think it's a lot better than a monk at a minimum. Monks are way to weak mechanically and have too little HP, especially at low level's to play the role they're supposed to play. And since they're so MAD they can't prioritize their con score or get more HP.
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.I am a bit lost in this whole rant :D its long-storyalike post taking more and more personal narration
everyone plays "diffrently" and we should shoot here our perspective on our least favorite class not trying to force our point of view from perspective of right / wrong
longer im reading whole of it the less i like to play Artif so thx u all :P