Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
That’s because the other half of Rangers and Paladins is martial. The other half of Artificer is support/skill monkey. They are very strong, just as something other than a martial classes is all.
Rangers and Paladins get the same spell level progression as the Artificer, *and* they're fully competent in martial combat.
When casting spells the Artificer is left in the dust by full casters. Including support casters like Clerics and Bards. Bards and Rogues make better skill monkeys.
I am open to being wrong here, and it would not be the first time. Can you elaborate on their support/skill monkey role? What do they have that outshines, or at least keeps up with everyone else?
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
That’s because the other half of Rangers and Paladins is martial. The other half of Artificer is support/skill monkey. They are very strong, just as something other than a martial classes is all.
Rangers and Paladins get the same spell level progression as the Artificer, *and* they're fully competent in martial combat.
When casting spells the Artificer is left in the dust by full casters. Including support casters like Clerics and Bards. Bards and Rogues make better skill monkeys.
I am open to being wrong here, and it would not be the first time. Can you elaborate on their support/skill monkey role? What do they have that outshines, or at least keeps up with everyone else?
They can hand out their Infusions like party favors to support the party and use their spells in combat, OR they can hold onto their Infusions and use their spells (like Cure Wounds, Enlarge/Reduce or Haste) to support the party, OR they can both hand out their Infusions and use their spells to support the party, AND they have mad tool proficiencies to whip up whatever the party might not have, AND they still have their suite of subclass features to utilize too. The Alchemist can hand out bottled 1st-level spells to people, the Battle Smith has a pet monster to help them, the Armorer is amazeballs in combat, and the Artillerist can lay down supporting fire like few others. An Artificer’s main strength is their sheer versatility. Rangers and Paladins may be better in combat, but Artificers can still hold their own, AND they’re better than Rangers and Paladins combined at pretty much everything else, depending on which Infusions they have ready at any given time. It isn’t their combat potential that makes them strong, it’s the sheer variety of their potential. They can simultaneously buff everyone else in the party at the same time. “Here’s a magic wand for the Wiz, a magic weapon for the Fighter, some magic boots for the Rogue to help with the sneakysneak, a buffing Concentration spell on whoever needs one, and don’t worry Cleric, I got the healz covered too so you can keep on keepin’ on with your Spirit Guardians over there where you’re needed more. Don’t worry folks, whatever you need, Igotchew.”
Least favorite from a storytelling perspective is Artificer. The magic-tech idea doesn't bother me (so long as it fits in the campaign universe), but the power levels are weird, it's thematically inconsistent, and it really doesn't give you the freedom to experiment, which should be the point of a science-y character class. All the magic items are you allowed to make have to be ones that already exist. Low level Battlesmiths can do things that a 9th level Wizard can't do and Much Much better at far lower price in time and gold. Same thing for the Artillerist. Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist, but they are by far the weakest and playing one well basically means you're effectively the party's healbot who can eventually get a few tricks at higher levels. Not worth the trouble considering how poorly their core features scale.
Least favorite from a mechanics perspective is Barbarian. Antithetical to magic, too few skills, not enough tactical diversity. Though in a high level campaign that allows multi-classing with a Warlock or something, I might be convinced otherwise.
One reason I love artificers is how strong their subclass is next to the main class, and how you get those subclass abilities early. Whichever subclass you pick, you play completely different to other artificers from level 3 onwards.
Sameish subclasses is something which really puts me off certain classes like paladin.
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting
Just to see if I could based on this thread, I slapped together a multiclass of my two least favorite classes, paladin and artificer, while trying not to have the artificer part be all techy-techy
Wound up with an Oath of the Ancients/Armorer gnome as a sort of deep forest protector concept, with the infusions and such flavored more as fey gifts and nature magic
Like the bard and music, though, RAW still forces you to view the artificer as an inventor/engineer-type with all the tool proficiencies (like, what's this guy going to do with tinker's tools, exactly?), so if I were actually going to play this character I'd probably talk to the DM about swapping at least one of them out for another language or something
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)
Lot of folks up in here hating on Artificer for "reasons" not actually based on fact. I have to wonder how many people complaining about the "technology" angle have actually read the Artie's flavor. The literal first two sentences are:
"Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
Actually, in my mind, the archetypal artificers in modern fantasy fiction are Sandal and Bodahn from Dragon Age. Artificers analyze magic the way scientists do physical laws, but they're still DOING MAGIC. All their flavor supports this. The fluff offers multiple ways you can describe and flavor your casting as creating magically-enhanced devices, but those are potential options, they're not proscriptive. Mechanically, all you need is to have tools or an infused item to cast.
Basically, every objection I've read in this thread indicates the objector hasn't actually read the class, either looked at the art or simply jumped on the Reddit/YouTube bandwagon. But there's nothing restrictive about the flavor of artificer, no one way to do them, if anything, they're given more flavor choices than any other class, and there's no setting they can't work in. People who claim otherwise simply lack imagination.
The reason I dislike them has nothing to do with flavor. I dislike them because they're weak. They don't get nearly enough to justify only being a half caster. Rangers and Paladins are far stronger half casters.
That’s because the other half of Rangers and Paladins is martial. The other half of Artificer is support/skill monkey. They are very strong, just as something other than a martial classes is all.
Rangers and Paladins get the same spell level progression as the Artificer, *and* they're fully competent in martial combat.
Artificer's spellcasting is actually stronger than Rangers and Paladins. 1) They have access to cantrips inherently and learn more as they level up. Having access to cantrips means they dont have to fall back on martial attacks when they run out of spell slots. They can invest entirely in their spellcasting if their chosen subclass doesnt offer a strong martial presence. 2) They can cast spells as rituals, meaning they can conserve their spell slots better 3) They can use their infused items (including weapons) as spellcasting foci. Paladins and Rangers didnt get spellcasting foci until the optional rules from Tasha's, and even then they cant use their weapons as one which makes things wonky for leaving hands free for somatic components and such.
When casting spells the Artificer is left in the dust by full casters. Including support casters like Clerics and Bards. Bards and Rogues make better skill monkeys.
Their spellcasting isnt supposed to be as strong as full casters. That being said, the 11th level ability for Artificers makes their spellcasting potential kinda nutty. They can choose a 1st or 2nd level spell from the Artificer spell list, store it in an item, and are then capable of casting that spell up to 10 times in a given day without expending a spell slot. Thats almost as good as the wizard's Spell Mastery ability, albeit weaker if your adventuring days have tons of encounters. Whats more is this item can be used by your allies as well. You could store Invisibility in a weapon and before potential stealth encounters pass the weapon around and have everyone cast the spell on themselves. Or you could take the time and allow everyone in the party to cast Enlarge/Reduce on themselves. Heck, even just having 10 free castings of Cure Wounds has great potential for healing up the party quickly when you dont have the time for a short rest. Its like having a magic item with 10 charges, but you are guaranteed to get all the charges back every day
I am open to being wrong here, and it would not be the first time. Can you elaborate on their support/skill monkey role? What do they have that outshines, or at least keeps up with everyone else?
As one example of how the use of infusions supplements what an artificer can do, by 6th level they have arguably a higher potential for lock picking than rogues. They have proficiency in Theives' Tools inherently and by 6th level get expertise in using them. Also at 6th level, they can use the Replicate Magic Item infusion to replicate Gloves of Thievery, giving them a +5 bonus to their lock picking checks. Finally, they can also potentially use the Flash of Genius feature to add their Int modifier to the check. So, if you want to build into lock picking, all you have to do is commit one of your infusions and your potential bonus for every check is 2xprof+Dex+5 (+Int a few times per day).
Or, if youd rather support the rogue in their lock picking, you can give THEM the gloves of thievery and apply your Flash of Genius feature to their skill check.
Not to mention, on top of all of that, one of the cantrips that Artificers have available to them is Guidance which is great for boosting your skill checks or supporting your allies'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My least favorite class is Rogue. I dont think theres anything wrong with them, its just being a martial focused character with only one attack isnt for me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I picked Artificer simply because it does not appeal to me as a class - I tend to prefer playing more sword and sorcery or high fantasy characters, so artificer just does not offer anything personally to me.
It probably does not help that one of the few times I played with an artificer, they clearly only chose the class because they wanted to play some kind of tech game instead of D&D… and were such an incredibly boring player anyway that they played the one-trick pony of “technology will replace magic and all your gods (and let me be clear, when I say gods are dumb, I am specifically trying to insult the DM who is a practicing Christian) and magic users (and let me also be clear, I will spend this entire campaign lecturing the Wizard and Bard about how bad their magics are, and also yell at the DM out of game because they keep outperforming me and I want them nerfed rather than me to be a better player or character creator).” They…. Didn’t last in the party very long.
I am 100% sure not every artificer is like that (and would hazard a guess the overwhelming majority are not), but the class does seem to lend itself to “I am playing D&D, but really wanted to be playing a modern gun fighting game instead” in a way other classes do not.
Though, to be clear, just because it doesn’t appeal to me and my setting preferences, as a DM, I’d of course allow them and adjust the setting accordingly to make sure my player was having fun.
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting
Just to see if I could based on this thread, I slapped together a multiclass of my two least favorite classes, paladin and artificer, while trying not to have the artificer part be all techy-techy
Wound up with an Oath of the Ancients/Armorer gnome as a sort of deep forest protector concept, with the infusions and such flavored more as fey gifts and nature magic
Like the bard and music, though, RAW still forces you to view the artificer as an inventor/engineer-type with all the tool proficiencies (like, what's this guy going to do with tinker's tools, exactly?), so if I were actually going to play this character I'd probably talk to the DM about swapping at least one of them out for another language or something
Your tinker's tools are made of wood from your home forest, and you use them to disassemble the mundane armor you're using, and carve druidic symbols into it, infusing the gaps between plates or straps with natural magic and causing the symbols to glow with a pale green light.
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist
Tell me you haven't read Artificer without telling me you haven't read Artificer.
If your setting features any magic items whatsoever (so basically 99.99% of all 5e games), then Artificers fit in your setting thematically.
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting
Just to see if I could based on this thread, I slapped together a multiclass of my two least favorite classes, paladin and artificer, while trying not to have the artificer part be all techy-techy
Wound up with an Oath of the Ancients/Armorer gnome as a sort of deep forest protector concept, with the infusions and such flavored more as fey gifts and nature magic
Like the bard and music, though, RAW still forces you to view the artificer as an inventor/engineer-type with all the tool proficiencies (like, what's this guy going to do with tinker's tools, exactly?), so if I were actually going to play this character I'd probably talk to the DM about swapping at least one of them out for another language or something
Your tinker's tools are made of wood from your home forest, and you use them to disassemble the mundane armor you're using, and carve druidic symbols into it, infusing the gaps between plates or straps with natural magic and causing the symbols to glow with a pale green light.
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
I guess it's harder than you thought
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)
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist
Tell me you haven't read Artificer without telling me you haven't read Artificer.
If your setting features any magic items whatsoever (so basically 99.99% of all 5e games), then Artificers fit in your setting thematically.
This is perfect for DnD memes :D tell me you haven't read players handbook without telling me your havnt do so :D epic one - if you agree i would screenshot this;
anyway - yes i do "does not like artificer" for so long time having my mind set on more like mad-alchemist or more like scienceboy scrap-trap maker (maybe due to bad games settings) but ONE just ONE good game with cool DMs idea of this Izzet alike magic area full of magic-inventor and magic-constructor or even golem-factory alike (heroes 3) fixed it and now articifer is damn-good-immersive class in DnD for me.
so my least favorite class is again Monk xD cause im noooooooooooob with playing this guy i just cant imagine it "fisting" the dragon xD or bo-staff my ki-points into behemots face :P
For me I'd say Paladan or Bard but the only reason I say this is because I've played all the classes besides those two so I may be hating on my new favorite class without knowing it.
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor. That doesn't preclude them being made of wood, particularly in a magic-filled world, and when the character in question is a magically-enhanced forest guardian. Even if they're not wood, they're still being used to augment metal (or in rarer instances, leather or hide) armor with magic. In the case of your example character, primal, natural magic. You're thinking in real-world terms, not magical D&D terms. Ironwood exists in Forgotten Realms lore, they could be made from the corpse of a wood woad, they could've been whittled from a tree your parents planted the day you were born and then infused with magic by a character whose entire deal is infusing mundane objects with magic.
Using tinker's tools doesn't make it "technological" in the way we think of today. The most complex "machinery" in a set of tinker's tools is the hinge and leverage of a pair of pliers, which have been in existence since like 3000 BCE. Otherwise you're basically talking about the individual components of a swiss army knife or multitool. Given that an armorer just takes a suit of regular mundane armor and puts magic in it, I really don't understand why this is a complicated concept? Pull out the rivets and straps and reduce the armor to its component parts, put it back together with your magic-infused tools, and BAM!, magic armor. Maybe carve a couple runes into it, too.
They are not inherently technological, nor mundane. Nothing they do is non-magical. They are casting spells, both mechanically and narratively. The very first feature they get, Magical Tinkering, says "you learn how to invest a spark of magic into mundane objects," and all their magic works that way, they weave the arcane into the mundane.
I guess it's harder than you thought
I'd say harder than you thought. This is not an own. This is a failure of imagination. Artificers are explicitly designed and written to function in basically any setting with a stone age or later level of technology. If wheels exist, you're good. If tinder and flint exists, you're good. If any amount of wood, bone, ceramic, or metalworking exists, you're good. If there is any craftsmanship whatsoever, you're good.
I genuinely don't understand this line of thought. You're not working on a spontaneous combustion engine or even an intricate clock, a relatively common item in many settings. You are using standard craftsman's tools that already exist within the rules and the settings. Any level of "technology" equivalent or better than ancient Egypt works with artificer's written rules or flavor. Anything beyond that is something the reader brings to the material, like the never-not-irritating "horny bard" trope, not something that's baked into what's published.
Bards don't have to be horny.
Paladins don't need gods.
And artificers don't have to be engineers.
They can be, but they don't have to be, and the officially published material that forms this "game" we all play doesn't proscribe one way or the other. If you want elaborate clockwork automatons, awesome. If you want steam valves and brass fittings, awesome. If you want cars and guns and printing presses, awesome. if you want nanotech, then also...awesome. Go for it. But if you want your armorer to use leatherworkers tools to strap carved, whittled, and rune-marked bones from monsters they've killed to their hide chestpiece and grant them powerful magical defenses, that is also awesome. There are endless opportunities, so the fact that so much of this community just somehow accepts that Artificers require special exceptions to allow, while often allowing Blood Hunters (which are unofficial, poorly-balanced, poorly-written material) is absolutely absurd to me. People bring things to the rules that are not in them, and it ruins the game for everyone that doesn't share those preconceptions.
I know I won't change any minds, I'm just so damn tired of seeing these mistaken, baseless ideas cut a whole official class out of the game. It's exhausting.
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor.
No, that would be the smith's tools proficiency you get with the Armorer subclass
But please, continue to lecture other people about how they don't understand the artificer or haven't read the PHB or whatever
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 remember time in my area, maybe even "country" scale xD that people does not like Warlock-ish stuff that is not super meshy with D&D, all thinking its even lazier form of sorcerer (srsly xD) and now I can see its one of the most immersive class in most (esp. dark-fantasy) heroic campaign I took part in.
Probably same with Artificer, need some more time and people will learn that they are cool and fine.
Btw funny cause I many times heard that stuff about artificer you mentioned, and those same people had no problem with those golemish races (i do not remember name, warforged?) as playable race in game....
anyway 100% agree with your statement.
I remember argue i got about even critical role Vox Machina that Percy should/is artificer not gunslinger -> which precisely shows that people are making their perspective of artificer around "technology" not science related with magic...
Btw funny cause I many times heard that stuff about artificer you mentioned, and those same people had no problem with those golemish races (i do not remember name, warforged?) as playable race in game....
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it easier to re-skin warforged as something not rooted in technology (if that's what makes sense for the campaign) than artificers
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)
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor.
No, that would be the smith's tools proficiency you get with the Armorer subclass
But please, continue to lecture other people about how they don't understand the artificer or haven't read the PHB or whatever
Yes, because there are zero softer metals used for buckles or filigree or anything else on armor.
That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to. A lot of people just don't want to.
(and if you want to get shitty about details, I never mentioned the PHB, the Artificer is printed in Eberron: Rising From the Last War and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, so the PHB isn't even relevant. See, I can pick petty nits, too)
Rangers and Paladins get the same spell level progression as the Artificer, *and* they're fully competent in martial combat.
When casting spells the Artificer is left in the dust by full casters. Including support casters like Clerics and Bards. Bards and Rogues make better skill monkeys.
I am open to being wrong here, and it would not be the first time. Can you elaborate on their support/skill monkey role? What do they have that outshines, or at least keeps up with everyone else?
They can hand out their Infusions like party favors to support the party and use their spells in combat, OR they can hold onto their Infusions and use their spells (like Cure Wounds, Enlarge/Reduce or Haste) to support the party, OR they can both hand out their Infusions and use their spells to support the party, AND they have mad tool proficiencies to whip up whatever the party might not have, AND they still have their suite of subclass features to utilize too. The Alchemist can hand out bottled 1st-level spells to people, the Battle Smith has a pet monster to help them, the Armorer is amazeballs in combat, and the Artillerist can lay down supporting fire like few others. An Artificer’s main strength is their sheer versatility. Rangers and Paladins may be better in combat, but Artificers can still hold their own, AND they’re better than Rangers and Paladins combined at pretty much everything else, depending on which Infusions they have ready at any given time. It isn’t their combat potential that makes them strong, it’s the sheer variety of their potential. They can simultaneously buff everyone else in the party at the same time. “Here’s a magic wand for the Wiz, a magic weapon for the Fighter, some magic boots for the Rogue to help with the sneakysneak, a buffing Concentration spell on whoever needs one, and don’t worry Cleric, I got the healz covered too so you can keep on keepin’ on with your Spirit Guardians over there where you’re needed more. Don’t worry folks, whatever you need, Igotchew.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Least favorite from a storytelling perspective is Artificer. The magic-tech idea doesn't bother me (so long as it fits in the campaign universe), but the power levels are weird, it's thematically inconsistent, and it really doesn't give you the freedom to experiment, which should be the point of a science-y character class. All the magic items are you allowed to make have to be ones that already exist. Low level Battlesmiths can do things that a 9th level Wizard can't do and Much Much better at far lower price in time and gold. Same thing for the Artillerist. Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist, but they are by far the weakest and playing one well basically means you're effectively the party's healbot who can eventually get a few tricks at higher levels. Not worth the trouble considering how poorly their core features scale.
Least favorite from a mechanics perspective is Barbarian. Antithetical to magic, too few skills, not enough tactical diversity. Though in a high level campaign that allows multi-classing with a Warlock or something, I might be convinced otherwise.
One reason I love artificers is how strong their subclass is next to the main class, and how you get those subclass abilities early. Whichever subclass you pick, you play completely different to other artificers from level 3 onwards.
Sameish subclasses is something which really puts me off certain classes like paladin.
Just to see if I could based on this thread, I slapped together a multiclass of my two least favorite classes, paladin and artificer, while trying not to have the artificer part be all techy-techy
Wound up with an Oath of the Ancients/Armorer gnome as a sort of deep forest protector concept, with the infusions and such flavored more as fey gifts and nature magic
Like the bard and music, though, RAW still forces you to view the artificer as an inventor/engineer-type with all the tool proficiencies (like, what's this guy going to do with tinker's tools, exactly?), so if I were actually going to play this character I'd probably talk to the DM about swapping at least one of them out for another language or something
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)
Idk why but clerics just don't really excite me. Never really have. I like paladins well enough, but clerics, not really so much.
Artificer's spellcasting is actually stronger than Rangers and Paladins. 1) They have access to cantrips inherently and learn more as they level up. Having access to cantrips means they dont have to fall back on martial attacks when they run out of spell slots. They can invest entirely in their spellcasting if their chosen subclass doesnt offer a strong martial presence. 2) They can cast spells as rituals, meaning they can conserve their spell slots better 3) They can use their infused items (including weapons) as spellcasting foci. Paladins and Rangers didnt get spellcasting foci until the optional rules from Tasha's, and even then they cant use their weapons as one which makes things wonky for leaving hands free for somatic components and such.
Their spellcasting isnt supposed to be as strong as full casters. That being said, the 11th level ability for Artificers makes their spellcasting potential kinda nutty. They can choose a 1st or 2nd level spell from the Artificer spell list, store it in an item, and are then capable of casting that spell up to 10 times in a given day without expending a spell slot. Thats almost as good as the wizard's Spell Mastery ability, albeit weaker if your adventuring days have tons of encounters. Whats more is this item can be used by your allies as well. You could store Invisibility in a weapon and before potential stealth encounters pass the weapon around and have everyone cast the spell on themselves. Or you could take the time and allow everyone in the party to cast Enlarge/Reduce on themselves. Heck, even just having 10 free castings of Cure Wounds has great potential for healing up the party quickly when you dont have the time for a short rest. Its like having a magic item with 10 charges, but you are guaranteed to get all the charges back every day
As one example of how the use of infusions supplements what an artificer can do, by 6th level they have arguably a higher potential for lock picking than rogues. They have proficiency in Theives' Tools inherently and by 6th level get expertise in using them. Also at 6th level, they can use the Replicate Magic Item infusion to replicate Gloves of Thievery, giving them a +5 bonus to their lock picking checks. Finally, they can also potentially use the Flash of Genius feature to add their Int modifier to the check. So, if you want to build into lock picking, all you have to do is commit one of your infusions and your potential bonus for every check is 2xprof+Dex+5 (+Int a few times per day).
Or, if youd rather support the rogue in their lock picking, you can give THEM the gloves of thievery and apply your Flash of Genius feature to their skill check.
Not to mention, on top of all of that, one of the cantrips that Artificers have available to them is Guidance which is great for boosting your skill checks or supporting your allies'.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My least favorite class is Rogue. I dont think theres anything wrong with them, its just being a martial focused character with only one attack isnt for me.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I picked Artificer simply because it does not appeal to me as a class - I tend to prefer playing more sword and sorcery or high fantasy characters, so artificer just does not offer anything personally to me.
It probably does not help that one of the few times I played with an artificer, they clearly only chose the class because they wanted to play some kind of tech game instead of D&D… and were such an incredibly boring player anyway that they played the one-trick pony of “technology will replace magic and all your gods (and let me be clear, when I say gods are dumb, I am specifically trying to insult the DM who is a practicing Christian) and magic users (and let me also be clear, I will spend this entire campaign lecturing the Wizard and Bard about how bad their magics are, and also yell at the DM out of game because they keep outperforming me and I want them nerfed rather than me to be a better player or character creator).” They…. Didn’t last in the party very long.
I am 100% sure not every artificer is like that (and would hazard a guess the overwhelming majority are not), but the class does seem to lend itself to “I am playing D&D, but really wanted to be playing a modern gun fighting game instead” in a way other classes do not.
Though, to be clear, just because it doesn’t appeal to me and my setting preferences, as a DM, I’d of course allow them and adjust the setting accordingly to make sure my player was having fun.
Your tinker's tools are made of wood from your home forest, and you use them to disassemble the mundane armor you're using, and carve druidic symbols into it, infusing the gaps between plates or straps with natural magic and causing the symbols to glow with a pale green light.
This isn't hard.
Tell me you haven't read Artificer without telling me you haven't read Artificer.
If your setting features any magic items whatsoever (so basically 99.99% of all 5e games), then Artificers fit in your setting thematically.
Tinker's tools are literally for working with tin and other softer metals. 'Tinker's tools made of wood' is an oxymoron
What you're suggesting is a switch to woodworking tools, which still doesn't fit the character concept as I'm explicitly trying to do the thing you said was possible -- make a non-technological artificer
I guess it's harder than you thought
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)
This is perfect for DnD memes :D tell me you haven't read players handbook without telling me your havnt do so :D epic one - if you agree i would screenshot this;
anyway - yes i do "does not like artificer" for so long time having my mind set on more like mad-alchemist or more like scienceboy scrap-trap maker (maybe due to bad games settings) but ONE just ONE good game with cool DMs idea of this Izzet alike magic area full of magic-inventor and magic-constructor or even golem-factory alike (heroes 3) fixed it and now articifer is damn-good-immersive class in DnD for me.
so my least favorite class is again Monk xD cause im noooooooooooob with playing this guy i just cant imagine it "fisting" the dragon xD or bo-staff my ki-points into behemots face :P
For me I'd say Paladan or Bard but the only reason I say this is because I've played all the classes besides those two so I may be hating on my new favorite class without knowing it.
I personally like the Artificer and Barbarian.
DruidVSAdventure
Check out my Homebrew Class The Evoker
Cool. They're for working with metals. Like the metals of an armorer artificer's armor. That doesn't preclude them being made of wood, particularly in a magic-filled world, and when the character in question is a magically-enhanced forest guardian. Even if they're not wood, they're still being used to augment metal (or in rarer instances, leather or hide) armor with magic. In the case of your example character, primal, natural magic. You're thinking in real-world terms, not magical D&D terms. Ironwood exists in Forgotten Realms lore, they could be made from the corpse of a wood woad, they could've been whittled from a tree your parents planted the day you were born and then infused with magic by a character whose entire deal is infusing mundane objects with magic.
Using tinker's tools doesn't make it "technological" in the way we think of today. The most complex "machinery" in a set of tinker's tools is the hinge and leverage of a pair of pliers, which have been in existence since like 3000 BCE. Otherwise you're basically talking about the individual components of a swiss army knife or multitool. Given that an armorer just takes a suit of regular mundane armor and puts magic in it, I really don't understand why this is a complicated concept? Pull out the rivets and straps and reduce the armor to its component parts, put it back together with your magic-infused tools, and BAM!, magic armor. Maybe carve a couple runes into it, too.
I'd say harder than you thought. This is not an own. This is a failure of imagination. Artificers are explicitly designed and written to function in basically any setting with a stone age or later level of technology. If wheels exist, you're good. If tinder and flint exists, you're good. If any amount of wood, bone, ceramic, or metalworking exists, you're good. If there is any craftsmanship whatsoever, you're good.
I genuinely don't understand this line of thought. You're not working on a spontaneous combustion engine or even an intricate clock, a relatively common item in many settings. You are using standard craftsman's tools that already exist within the rules and the settings. Any level of "technology" equivalent or better than ancient Egypt works with artificer's written rules or flavor. Anything beyond that is something the reader brings to the material, like the never-not-irritating "horny bard" trope, not something that's baked into what's published.
Bards don't have to be horny.
Paladins don't need gods.
And artificers don't have to be engineers.
They can be, but they don't have to be, and the officially published material that forms this "game" we all play doesn't proscribe one way or the other. If you want elaborate clockwork automatons, awesome. If you want steam valves and brass fittings, awesome. If you want cars and guns and printing presses, awesome. if you want nanotech, then also...awesome. Go for it. But if you want your armorer to use leatherworkers tools to strap carved, whittled, and rune-marked bones from monsters they've killed to their hide chestpiece and grant them powerful magical defenses, that is also awesome. There are endless opportunities, so the fact that so much of this community just somehow accepts that Artificers require special exceptions to allow, while often allowing Blood Hunters (which are unofficial, poorly-balanced, poorly-written material) is absolutely absurd to me. People bring things to the rules that are not in them, and it ruins the game for everyone that doesn't share those preconceptions.
I know I won't change any minds, I'm just so damn tired of seeing these mistaken, baseless ideas cut a whole official class out of the game. It's exhausting.
People don't like Artificer mechanics? Fine by me.
People say Artificers don't narratively mesh with D&D? Y'all we gon have woooooooooooords
No, that would be the smith's tools proficiency you get with the Armorer subclass
But please, continue to lecture other people about how they don't understand the artificer or haven't read the PHB or whatever
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 remember time in my area, maybe even "country" scale xD that people does not like Warlock-ish stuff that is not super meshy with D&D, all thinking its even lazier form of sorcerer (srsly xD) and now I can see its one of the most immersive class in most (esp. dark-fantasy) heroic campaign I took part in.
Probably same with Artificer, need some more time and people will learn that they are cool and fine.
Btw funny cause I many times heard that stuff about artificer you mentioned, and those same people had no problem with those golemish races (i do not remember name, warforged?) as playable race in game....
anyway 100% agree with your statement.
I remember argue i got about even critical role Vox Machina that Percy should/is artificer not gunslinger -> which precisely shows that people are making their perspective of artificer around "technology" not science related with magic...
I can't speak for anyone else, but I find it easier to re-skin warforged as something not rooted in technology (if that's what makes sense for the campaign) than artificers
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)
Yes, because there are zero softer metals used for buckles or filigree or anything else on armor.
That's the thing about flavor. You can make anything work if you want to. A lot of people just don't want to.
(and if you want to get shitty about details, I never mentioned the PHB, the Artificer is printed in Eberron: Rising From the Last War and Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, so the PHB isn't even relevant. See, I can pick petty nits, too)