I'd say it's role as a utility half caster is fairly impaired. Alchemist, which leans the most into its "jack of all trades/support" ethos is the most sparse of all the subclasses, while the "artificer but tank" or the "artificer but blaster" or "artificer but tank again" subclasses seem much more robust.
I can't tell if the base class needs more support features, or if I just wish the alchemist was better designed.
It heavily depends on the subclass, with alchemist being the standout underpowered subclass.
Artificer subclasses contain the bulk of the power budget for the class, with each making it play like an entirely different class. So it will always be hard to tell where the class sits overall.
It's a little undertuned I'd say - especially the two subclasses that don't get Extra Attack, Alchemist and Artillerist. And even the ones that do, Armorer and Battle Smith, spend their subclass budget on the privilege (unlike, say, Rangers and Paladins).
They're fun to play in low-magic-item campaigns, when you can hand out gear to your allies or be the only one capable of whipping out a bag of holding etc - but even in those cases where you're bringing something truly unique to the table, it's easy to feel like you're little more than party cheerleader rather than a strong individual contributor in your own right.
It heavily depends on the subclass, with alchemist being the standout underpowered subclass.
Artificer subclasses contain the bulk of the power budget for the class, with each making it play like an entirely different class. So it will always be hard to tell where the class sits overall.
Even the Alchemist isn’t really that bad. It has its drawbacks, but they’re really only glaring in comparison to the other subclasses in terms of combat power. When it comes to exploration and utility applications it really isn’t bad at all. And really it would only take a few minor tweaks to improve the Alchemist to par with its peers. Is it fair to say that the Alchemist is the “weakest” of the Artificer subclasses? Sure, but that’s like saying that the Necromancer is the weakest of the Wizard subclasses. It’s still an effing Wizard. Or like saying the Champion is the weakest Fighter class. It’s still an effing Fighter. The Artificer base class brings a lot to the table on its own:
It’s the strongest half-caster going
Infusions mean your party can always have exactly the right magic item it needs under pretty much any situation
It’s the ultimate handy person (the usefulness of which is admittedly DM/campaign dependent)
With features such as Flash of Genius & Spell Storing Item, the Artificer can support its party in ways no other class can
And it can carry its own for itself by simple virtue of being able to attune to twice as many magic items as anyone else, meaning it can really augment itself to be better in any ways it needs to be
And that’s just the base class. Adding the Alchemist features on top just makes it better.
It's a little undertuned I'd say - especially the two subclasses that don't get Extra Attack, Alchemist and Artillerist. And even the ones that do, Armorer and Battle Smith, spend their subclass budget on the privilege (unlike, say, Rangers and Paladins).
They're fun to play in low-magic-item campaigns, when you can hand out gear to your allies or be the only one capable of whipping out a bag of holding etc - but even in those cases where you're bringing something truly unique to the table, it's easy to feel like you're little more than party cheerleader rather than a strong individual contributor in your own right.
I agree they do feel a bit weak. Could use some buffs, especially Alchemist. And especially considering what they are doing in 1DD for the PHB classes.
It heavily depends on the subclass, with alchemist being the standout underpowered subclass.
Artificer subclasses contain the bulk of the power budget for the class, with each making it play like an entirely different class. So it will always be hard to tell where the class sits overall.
Even the Alchemist isn’t really that bad. It has its drawbacks, but they’re really only glaring in comparison to the other subclasses in terms of combat power. When it comes to exploration and utility applications it really isn’t bad at all. And really it would only take a few minor tweaks to improve the Alchemist to par with its peers. Is it fair to say that the Alchemist is the “weakest” of the Artificer subclasses? Sure, but that’s like saying that the Necromancer is the weakest of the Wizard subclasses. It’s still an effing Wizard. Or like saying the Champion is the weakest Fighter class. It’s still an effing Fighter. The Artificer base class brings a lot to the table on its own:
It’s the strongest half-caster going
Infusions mean your party can always have exactly the right magic item it needs under pretty much any situation
It’s the ultimate handy person (the usefulness of which is admittedly DM/campaign dependent)
With features such as Flash of Genius & Spell Storing Item, the Artificer can support its party in ways no other class can
And it can carry its own for itself by simple virtue of being able to attune to twice as many magic items as anyone else, meaning it can really augment itself to be better in any ways it needs to be
And that’s just the base class. Adding the Alchemist features on top just makes it better.
the alchemist has a ton of potential if the potions scaled and new options showed up on the list thats the only thing holding that subclass back. that and (from last i read) they dont actually get a buff or anything when it comes to making normal potions.
It heavily depends on the subclass, with alchemist being the standout underpowered subclass.
Artificer subclasses contain the bulk of the power budget for the class, with each making it play like an entirely different class. So it will always be hard to tell where the class sits overall.
Even the Alchemist isn’t really that bad. It has its drawbacks, but they’re really only glaring in comparison to the other subclasses in terms of combat power. When it comes to exploration and utility applications it really isn’t bad at all. And really it would only take a few minor tweaks to improve the Alchemist to par with its peers. Is it fair to say that the Alchemist is the “weakest” of the Artificer subclasses? Sure, but that’s like saying that the Necromancer is the weakest of the Wizard subclasses. It’s still an effing Wizard. Or like saying the Champion is the weakest Fighter class. It’s still an effing Fighter. The Artificer base class brings a lot to the table on its own:
It’s the strongest half-caster going
Infusions mean your party can always have exactly the right magic item it needs under pretty much any situation
It’s the ultimate handy person (the usefulness of which is admittedly DM/campaign dependent)
With features such as Flash of Genius & Spell Storing Item, the Artificer can support its party in ways no other class can
And it can carry its own for itself by simple virtue of being able to attune to twice as many magic items as anyone else, meaning it can really augment itself to be better in any ways it needs to be
And that’s just the base class. Adding the Alchemist features on top just makes it better.
the alchemist has a ton of potential if the potions scaled and new options showed up on the list thats the only thing holding that subclass back. that and (from last i read) they dont actually get a buff or anything when it comes to making normal potions.
Artificer's big problem is not its power, though it does lag behind other classes. What really causes Artificer to suffer is its lack of publication in the PHB resulting in less opportunity to expand on Artificer. After all, unlike other classes, where the game presumes you own the PHB, any Artificer subclass cannot presume you own some other supplemental book, which means they have to dedicate a significant section of text to "here's the base Artificer rules also."
Fewer subclasses, being locked behind a paywall in a way other classes are not, and fewer releases resulting in less UA testing creates a death spiral where Artificer is seen as less powerful and popular, making players less likely to play it--which in turn makes Wizards less likely to support the class.
Which is a shame. I like the idea of Artificer as a class and think it could add a fair bit to the game. But I would love to see some other options beyond the four (none of which I am all that interested in). Something like Izzet technomages from Magic, or a flesh artificer like Doctor Frankenstein. Ways to get diversity, so I am not just seeing the same characters over and over and over again. Plenty of neat things they could explore if they just... did that.
Alas, it looks like Wizards will be repeating the mistakes of 2014 in 2024, once again giving Artificer the short end of the stick. Here's hoping that, though they may not learn for the PHB, perhaps they will at least put the Artificer in the Basic Rules, so they can point to those and make subclass publication easier.
Artificer's big problem is not its power, though it does lag behind other classes. What really causes Artificer to suffer is its lack of publication in the PHB resulting in less opportunity to expand on Artificer. After all, unlike other classes, where the game presumes you own the PHB, any Artificer subclass cannot presume you own some other supplemental book, which means they have to dedicate a significant section of text to "here's the base Artificer rules also."
Fewer subclasses, being locked behind a paywall in a way other classes are not, and fewer releases resulting in less UA testing creates a death spiral where Artificer is seen as less powerful and popular, making players less likely to play it--which in turn makes Wizards less likely to support the class.
Which is a shame. I like the idea of Artificer as a class and think it could add a fair bit to the game. But I would love to see some other options beyond the four (none of which I am all that interested in). Something like Izzet technomages from Magic, or a flesh artificer like Doctor Frankenstein. Ways to get diversity, so I am not just seeing the same characters over and over and over again. Plenty of neat things they could explore if they just... did that.
Alas, it looks like Wizards will be repeating the mistakes of 2014 in 2024, once again giving Artificer the short end of the stick. Here's hoping that, though they may not learn for the PHB, perhaps they will at least put the Artificer in the Basic Rules, so they can point to those and make subclass publication easier.
if im being honest i feel like they keep the class separate now for money. they know people like the class and will wanna play it so the best thing for them is to leave it out of the new PHB so they can add it later and make more money there.
Artificer's big problem is not its power, though it does lag behind other classes. What really causes Artificer to suffer is its lack of publication in the PHB resulting in less opportunity to expand on Artificer. After all, unlike other classes, where the game presumes you own the PHB, any Artificer subclass cannot presume you own some other supplemental book, which means they have to dedicate a significant section of text to "here's the base Artificer rules also."
Fewer subclasses, being locked behind a paywall in a way other classes are not, and fewer releases resulting in less UA testing creates a death spiral where Artificer is seen as less powerful and popular, making players less likely to play it--which in turn makes Wizards less likely to support the class.
Which is a shame. I like the idea of Artificer as a class and think it could add a fair bit to the game. But I would love to see some other options beyond the four (none of which I am all that interested in). Something like Izzet technomages from Magic, or a flesh artificer like Doctor Frankenstein. Ways to get diversity, so I am not just seeing the same characters over and over and over again. Plenty of neat things they could explore if they just... did that.
Alas, it looks like Wizards will be repeating the mistakes of 2014 in 2024, once again giving Artificer the short end of the stick. Here's hoping that, though they may not learn for the PHB, perhaps they will at least put the Artificer in the Basic Rules, so they can point to those and make subclass publication easier.
if im being honest i feel like they keep the class separate now for money. they know people like the class and will wanna play it so the best thing for them is to leave it out of the new PHB so they can add it later and make more money there.
This seems more like baseless conspiracy than anything bordering on reality—particularly since your entire conspiratorial post is predicated on a falsehood.
Artificer, far and away, is the least popular class, for a number of reasons expounded upon in this thread. Far and away people do not like the class and simply do not play it and express no interest in playing it. While it is true that some people do like it and purchase product specifically to get the Artificer as an option, the same could be said of any other subclass being a catalyst for sales.
An improved Artificer and an Artificer they could consistently release subclasses for likely would be better for their bottom line. After all, keeping neat subclasses for popular classes behind a paywall has always been a driver of sales—I expect far more than keeping an unpopular class behind a paywall would.
I think Artificer just needs quality of life improvements mostly.
Base Class
The issue with Mending: The Steel Defender, the Eldritch Cannon, and the Homunculus Servant all give the impression that the Artificer needs to know the Mending cantrip, but they can only know 2 cantrips at a time until level 10. Further Mending is a very thematic cantrip for the Artificer to have so chances are your party will expect you to have it anyway. This is a bigger problem for Alchemist and Artillerist who rely on cantrips for at-will damage unlike the Armorer and Battle Smith who rely on weapons.
Ways to address this: Grant Alchemist and Artillerist a bonus cantrip at 3rd level AND/OR give Mending to the base class for free.
Infusions are a class feature and while most infusions use the Artificer's spell modifer/DC for spell attacks/saving throws Replicate Magic Item uses the static DC defined in the base magic item. This leads to some items being ignored as options because by the time they are available to the Artificer the DC is too low in comparison. (Looking at you Ring of the Ram, Horn of Blasting)
Ways to address this: Add a line to Replicate Magic Item that lets you use your spellcasting modifier/DC in place of the static one in the item's description OR add a class feature that lets you do this with any magic item with a static attack modifier/DC.
Alchemist
Mostly minor pain points that add up
Randomness and action economy awkwardness of Experimental elixir
Being very spell slot hungry for a half caster, especially in lower levels
Feeling that your ability is to just "have potions" as opposed to being the best at making them
Ways to address these: Everyone has their own opinions on how to address these pain points so I won't go into them, suffice to say WOTC can address them in a myriad of ways... if they so choose.
Artillerist
The Eldritch Cannon's one hour duration actually discourages taking short rests (or any non-combat activity that takes an hour or more) seeing as it requires a spell slot to resummon.
Ways to address this: Grant back one Cannon summon on a short rest. Alternately, use the same rules as the Steel Defender and have it last until the Cannon dies and resummoning/changing it's type costs you a spell slot.
Armorer
It's confusing just what and how many infusions are applicable to the Arcane Armor before level 9 when Armor Modifications comes along. It seems to retroactively imply that only one infusion applies to the entire armor.
Ways to address this: At level 3 state clearly how many infusions your Arcane Armor can bear, and what kind of infusions it can hold. At level 9 state how these clearly defined limits have changed with the Armor Modifications feature.
Battle Smith
The subclass name doesn't start with A.
Ways to address this: Assault Smith
No but seriously, I don't see any problems with the Battle Smith.
I think Artificer just needs quality of life improvements mostly.
Base Class
The issue with Mending: The Steel Defender, the Eldritch Cannon, and the Homunculus Servant all give the impression that the Artificer needs to know the Mending cantrip, but they can only know 2 cantrips at a time until level 10. Further Mending is a very thematic cantrip for the Artificer to have so chances are your party will expect you to have it anyway. This is a bigger problem for Alchemist and Artillerist who rely on cantrips for at-will damage unlike the Armorer and Battle Smith who rely on weapons.
Ways to address this: Grant Alchemist and Artillerist a bonus cantrip at 3rd level AND/OR give Mending to the base class for free.
Infusions are a class feature and while most infusions use the Artificer's spell modifer/DC for spell attacks/saving throws Replicate Magic Item uses the static DC defined in the base magic item. This leads to some items being ignored as options because by the time they are available to the Artificer the DC is too low in comparison. (Looking at you Ring of the Ram, Horn of Blasting)
Ways to address this: Add a line to Replicate Magic Item that lets you use your spellcasting modifier/DC in place of the static one in the item's description OR add a class feature that lets you do this with any magic item with a static attack modifier/DC.
Alchemist
Mostly minor pain points that add up
Randomness and action economy awkwardness of Experimental elixir
Being very spell slot hungry for a half caster, especially in lower levels
Feeling that your ability is to just "have potions" as opposed to being the best at making them
Ways to address these: Everyone has their own opinions on how to address these pain points so I won't go into them, suffice to say WOTC can address them in a myriad of ways... if they so choose.
Artillerist
The Eldritch Cannon's one hour duration actually discourages taking short rests (or any non-combat activity that takes an hour or more) seeing as it requires a spell slot to resummon.
Ways to address this: Grant back one Cannon summon on a short rest. Alternately, use the same rules as the Steel Defender and have it last until the Cannon dies and resummoning/changing it's type costs you a spell slot.
Armorer
It's confusing just what and how many infusions are applicable to the Arcane Armor before level 9 when Armor Modifications comes along. It seems to retroactively imply that only one infusion applies to the entire armor.
Ways to address this: At level 3 state clearly how many infusions your Arcane Armor can bear, and what kind of infusions it can hold. At level 9 state how these clearly defined limits have changed with the Armor Modifications feature.
Battle Smith
The subclass name doesn't start with A.
Ways to address this: Assault Smith
No but seriously, I don't see any problems with the Battle Smith.
i think you are right for the most part the only problems i have with the battle smith is SD not really getting upgrades of its own or being able to apply infusions to it like how the armor does with their stuff and the stat block of the SD being a little on the weaker side until very late game were its still on the weaker side and its main attack not getting an upgrade to it
I believe a lot of the wide-ranging complaints about Artificer could be solved by giving them an extra ASI/feat at level 6. An extra feat gives a lot of leeway for people to customize into their concept of the class.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I think Artificer just needs quality of life improvements mostly.
Base Class
The issue with Mending: The Steel Defender, the Eldritch Cannon, and the Homunculus Servant all give the impression that the Artificer needs to know the Mending cantrip, but they can only know 2 cantrips at a time until level 10. Further Mending is a very thematic cantrip for the Artificer to have so chances are your party will expect you to have it anyway. This is a bigger problem for Alchemist and Artillerist who rely on cantrips for at-will damage unlike the Armorer and Battle Smith who rely on weapons.
Ways to address this: Grant Alchemist and Artillerist a bonus cantrip at 3rd level AND/OR give Mending to the base class for free.
Infusions are a class feature and while most infusions use the Artificer's spell modifer/DC for spell attacks/saving throws Replicate Magic Item uses the static DC defined in the base magic item. This leads to some items being ignored as options because by the time they are available to the Artificer the DC is too low in comparison. (Looking at you Ring of the Ram, Horn of Blasting)
Ways to address this: Add a line to Replicate Magic Item that lets you use your spellcasting modifier/DC in place of the static one in the item's description OR add a class feature that lets you do this with any magic item with a static attack modifier/DC.
Alchemist
Mostly minor pain points that add up
Randomness and action economy awkwardness of Experimental elixir
Being very spell slot hungry for a half caster, especially in lower levels
Feeling that your ability is to just "have potions" as opposed to being the best at making them
Ways to address these: Everyone has their own opinions on how to address these pain points so I won't go into them, suffice to say WOTC can address them in a myriad of ways... if they so choose.
Artillerist
The Eldritch Cannon's one hour duration actually discourages taking short rests (or any non-combat activity that takes an hour or more) seeing as it requires a spell slot to resummon.
Ways to address this: Grant back one Cannon summon on a short rest. Alternately, use the same rules as the Steel Defender and have it last until the Cannon dies and resummoning/changing it's type costs you a spell slot.
Armorer
It's confusing just what and how many infusions are applicable to the Arcane Armor before level 9 when Armor Modifications comes along. It seems to retroactively imply that only one infusion applies to the entire armor.
Ways to address this: At level 3 state clearly how many infusions your Arcane Armor can bear, and what kind of infusions it can hold. At level 9 state how these clearly defined limits have changed with the Armor Modifications feature.
Battle Smith
The subclass name doesn't start with A.
Ways to address this: Assault Smith
No but seriously, I don't see any problems with the Battle Smith.
I agree with all of this. I like the artificer class, but it does need a lot QOL changes. Especially to keep up with the One D&D changes.
I'm sure I remember a UA where the Alchemist could create "grenades". I know this was critiqued for being underwhelming at the time, but seems odd they dropped that ability for an even more underwhelming Alchemist!
I would give back the ability create Alchemists Fire/Acid flasks, allow for more free potions/flasks, get rid of the random element (which just doesn't make sense to me) and, lastly, scale the potions/flasks
I am playing an artificer now from first level, and I have been surprised at how effective and powerful they have been at the low levels. I've earned Inspiration from the DM for my uses of magical tinkering and with 18 int and firebolt and a pretty good armor class. The campaign is leveling up very slowly which has has the interesting effect of making me really dig deep into all the abilities in a fun way.
I would agree that the mending cantrip should come with the class. I feel my character needs it thematically as well as practically to use the class features, and with only two cantrips and then a third at level 5, it's really skimpy. My character has mending and firebolt; I really feel that adding prestidigitation and/or mage hand would be on point with my character's mechanics, without significantly changing their combat abilities. (A maker/Artificer absolutely needs to clean things and to throw switches at a distance!) Two spell slots is very skimpy but with high int giving me a good selection of spells and the ability to swap them out every morning, I find the challenge of picking and using those resource limited spells pretty interesting.
The path I'm pursuing is to use downtime to make magic items, and a more robust system for that I think with more artificer-specific advantages might be an interesting way to improve the class than with direct class changes. Xanathar's rules are helpful but they benefit from a bit of home brew and obviously they need some collaboration from the DM to provide downtime and gold in adequate quantities to make anything, even really simple things. If your party is going on 3 adventures a week versus once every few months, it's a total change in what is possible. I personally find the idea of doing this crafting and assigning it to my character much more interesting than just buying items at a shop, and I think the timelines given in Xanathar's with the price only halved and weeks and weeks of downtime strongly favors buying stuff in shops. I'd like to see Artificers have more advantage in time, cost, or item quality given proficiency/expertise with tools and making.
The infusions are pretty neat. I'd love to see a type that is more of a charged-infusion, where for example I could make a magic item that would be good for say 4 (or 1D4) uses with one of my prepared spells or with an infusion type, and that could be handed out to the party. Or even only one use. I think that could be more interesting than giving the Artificer more spell slots. I also think it might be interesting to give the Artificer more infusion options so they can swap them out more, as you can with spells.
Before I started my Artificer, I kept hearing that the class was weak and also complicated, and I haven't found that at all. Although I also think Artificer should be in the new PHB, having all the text in a single book instead of having to assemble the class features across multiple books really helped me, and most of what's complicated about playing it for me is in the idea that you can prepare different spells each day - but that leans on my personal strengths of giving me something to do and learn about my character between games, which I enjoy.
The one other thing is that I think some of the RAW make it harder to add flavor than is needed. So for example, if I wrote the rules, I would allow much more flexibility in the spellcasting focus than just the official tools or infusions, and to for example allow it to be any item the character made or improved with their tools. I suspect this kind of happens by either accident or implication at a lot of tables.
i think i would have loved to see a new level of casters be added along with the artificers the 3/4ths casters that only go up to 7th level it would have works better for the artificer and their spell slot needs also around level 18 or 19 for you to be able to make rare and very rare items with the same ease as the 10th level ability gives or for the plus 1 weapons that go up to plus 2 to go up to a plus 3 later
You already do get the X charges with a spell in the Spell Storing Item at level 11 which anyone can use. It's big benefit is that it allows the person using it to concentrate. So if you gave it to your Fighter/Rogue/Monk, it basically gets you another concentration spell going.
Yeah, it's just that level 11 is very, very far away!
I'm currently playing a level 19 artificer - leveled from first level - in a campaign with another artificer. One is an Artillerist and the other an Armorer.
Overall, I've found the class quite reasonable. However, the value of the infusions in many cases depends strongly on the campaign itself. No other class is as dependent on the world building for assessing the overall power and usefulness of the class.
In a low magic world, an artificer can be king. They have access to a number of magic items that can be used by the artificer or used to support and supplement the party. However, their enhancements cap out at +2 for weapon and armor bonuses and the items available to replicate on each list could be useful in some cases but in many campaigns would just prove to be redundant when the DM provides more or better magic items. For example, at level 14, the artificer can infuse a belt of hill giant strength but in some campaigns it is likely that the party might have found similar but better magic items by this point if not earlier. A belt of Hill Giant strength could be considered a tier 2 item (level 5-10). As a result, the artificer's infusion ability which is pretty central to the class becomes devalued depending on the campaign.
At lower levels, the armorer can get magic weapons early in tier 1 which can be a boon. However, DMs may think that since the artificer has a magic weapon then the rest of the party should have a chance to have one too. So, again, depending on the game and DM, the key features of the artificer can get devalued relative to other classes that aren't dependent on world building decisions.
The artificer does have some exceptional features - Flash of Genius is an amazingly useful ability. The level 20 capstone is very powerful and greatly increases the survivability of the Artificer. However, multiclassing a few levels of wizard is always tempting and offers quite a bit of versatility so there is a trade off.
--------
In terms of changes/clarifications that might be nice ...
1) I agree that Mending should be a class cantrip in addition to the 2 they select at level 1. Mending is extremely thematic for the class and one would think every artificer would learn it - but taking Mending leaves only one cantrip from all of the rest to choose from.
2) I'd like additional clarification on the armorer infusions and how they can be stacked especially after level 9 when each piece of a set of armor can be infused separately.
In particular, it would be nice to have some rules on whether the Thunder Gauntlets and the Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion effect on the gauntlets can be stacked. There seems to be quite a bit of argument about this for some reason. Personally, I think it is fine from a mechanical, RAW and balance perspective but opinions differ. It is certainly less effective than the level 11 paladin Improved Divine Smite that adds d8 radiant damage to every weapon attack they make - so adding a d8 force damage to an armorer gauntlet attack certainly wouldn't be unbalancing. Considering, the base line armorer damage without that slight bump remains 2x(d8+stat) until level 20 using the suit's built in weaponry ... that seems extremely lackluster compared to other classes (especially the half-casters or even the Eldritch Knight).
If you compare the armorer to the artillerist .. the artillerist can create two force ballista cannons at level 15, each of which does 3d8 force damage and both of which can be fired as a bonus action. They can also add in firebolt which can do an additional 3d10 at level 15. The armorer has two gauntlet attacks for 1d8+int (probably 1d8+5 by that level - which is slightly more than the average damage from 4d8). Adding the d8 from Arcane propulsion armor can bring this to 2x(2d8+5) ... if the armorer casts Haste then they can have one more attack for 2d8+5 which brings the total damage into a similar range as the artillerist but the armorer has had to spend a spell slot and an infusion to get there.
So, although the armorer can be fun to play at higher levels ... it does seem to need some tuning.
I'm currently playing a level 19 artificer - leveled from first level - in a campaign with another artificer. One is an Artillerist and the other an Armorer.
Overall, I've found the class quite reasonable. However, the value of the infusions in many cases depends strongly on the campaign itself. No other class is as dependent on the world building for assessing the overall power and usefulness of the class.
In a low magic world, an artificer can be king. They have access to a number of magic items that can be used by the artificer or used to support and supplement the party. However, their enhancements cap out at +2 for weapon and armor bonuses and the items available to replicate on each list could be useful in some cases but in many campaigns would just prove to be redundant when the DM provides more or better magic items. For example, at level 14, the artificer can infuse a belt of hill giant strength but in some campaigns it is likely that the party might have found similar but better magic items by this point if not earlier. A belt of Hill Giant strength could be considered a tier 2 item (level 5-10). As a result, the artificer's infusion ability which is pretty central to the class becomes devalued depending on the campaign.
At lower levels, the armorer can get magic weapons early in tier 1 which can be a boon. However, DMs may think that since the artificer has a magic weapon then the rest of the party should have a chance to have one too. So, again, depending on the game and DM, the key features of the artificer can get devalued relative to other classes that aren't dependent on world building decisions.
The artificer does have some exceptional features - Flash of Genius is an amazingly useful ability. The level 20 capstone is very powerful and greatly increases the survivability of the Artificer. However, multiclassing a few levels of wizard is always tempting and offers quite a bit of versatility so there is a trade off.
--------
In terms of changes/clarifications that might be nice ...
1) I agree that Mending should be a class cantrip in addition to the 2 they select at level 1. Mending is extremely thematic for the class and one would think every artificer would learn it - but taking Mending leaves only one cantrip from all of the rest to choose from.
2) I'd like additional clarification on the armorer infusions and how they can be stacked especially after level 9 when each piece of a set of armor can be infused separately.
In particular, it would be nice to have some rules on whether the Thunder Gauntlets and the Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion effect on the gauntlets can be stacked. There seems to be quite a bit of argument about this for some reason. Personally, I think it is fine from a mechanical, RAW and balance perspective but opinions differ. It is certainly less effective than the level 11 paladin Improved Divine Smite that adds d8 radiant damage to every weapon attack they make - so adding a d8 force damage to an armorer gauntlet attack certainly wouldn't be unbalancing. Considering, the base line armorer damage without that slight bump remains 2x(d8+stat) until level 20 using the suit's built in weaponry ... that seems extremely lackluster compared to other classes (especially the half-casters or even the Eldritch Knight).
If you compare the armorer to the artillerist .. the artillerist can create two force ballista cannons at level 15, each of which does 3d8 force damage and both of which can be fired as a bonus action. They can also add in firebolt which can do an additional 3d10 at level 15. The armorer has two gauntlet attacks for 1d8+int (probably 1d8+5 by that level - which is slightly more than the average damage from 4d8). Adding the d8 from Arcane propulsion armor can bring this to 2x(2d8+5) ... if the armorer casts Haste then they can have one more attack for 2d8+5 which brings the total damage into a similar range as the artillerist but the armorer has had to spend a spell slot and an infusion to get there.
So, although the armorer can be fun to play at higher levels ... it does seem to need some tuning.
Really enjoyed reading your perspective here from the higher level of play. I think you're very right about the context - at the tables where I play my characters have often been able to easily obtain similar levels of items to the 2nd level artificer infusions, such as +1 armor or weapons, even sometimes a bag of holding, in the level 3 range. The artificer gets a little more agency and the ability to move them around, but having to choose only four at level-up with only two active at a time means that it's not much more flexible than the static magic item.
To casual reading, the Artificer's Armor of Magical Strength might read as a baby version of the Belt of Hill Giant Strength but it's much more limited not just by the score but by the usage. The armor requires that you use a slot on your non-magical armor, and it has charges for specific checks like falling prone or saving throws - but for example does nothing for your ability to carry something. The Belt of Hill Giant Strength actively changes your strength score for everything.
I do love the Artificer's armor proficiency and ability to swap out spells every morning - even with limited spell slots, this has made it very fun to play and given the character a lot of agency and tactical variety.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
as the question says. poll down below
I'd say it's role as a utility half caster is fairly impaired. Alchemist, which leans the most into its "jack of all trades/support" ethos is the most sparse of all the subclasses, while the "artificer but tank" or the "artificer but blaster" or "artificer but tank again" subclasses seem much more robust.
I can't tell if the base class needs more support features, or if I just wish the alchemist was better designed.
It heavily depends on the subclass, with alchemist being the standout underpowered subclass.
Artificer subclasses contain the bulk of the power budget for the class, with each making it play like an entirely different class. So it will always be hard to tell where the class sits overall.
It's a little undertuned I'd say - especially the two subclasses that don't get Extra Attack, Alchemist and Artillerist. And even the ones that do, Armorer and Battle Smith, spend their subclass budget on the privilege (unlike, say, Rangers and Paladins).
They're fun to play in low-magic-item campaigns, when you can hand out gear to your allies or be the only one capable of whipping out a bag of holding etc - but even in those cases where you're bringing something truly unique to the table, it's easy to feel like you're little more than party cheerleader rather than a strong individual contributor in your own right.
Even the Alchemist isn’t really that bad. It has its drawbacks, but they’re really only glaring in comparison to the other subclasses in terms of combat power. When it comes to exploration and utility applications it really isn’t bad at all. And really it would only take a few minor tweaks to improve the Alchemist to par with its peers. Is it fair to say that the Alchemist is the “weakest” of the Artificer subclasses? Sure, but that’s like saying that the Necromancer is the weakest of the Wizard subclasses. It’s still an effing Wizard. Or like saying the Champion is the weakest Fighter class. It’s still an effing Fighter. The Artificer base class brings a lot to the table on its own:
And that’s just the base class. Adding the Alchemist features on top just makes it better.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I agree they do feel a bit weak. Could use some buffs, especially Alchemist. And especially considering what they are doing in 1DD for the PHB classes.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
the alchemist has a ton of potential if the potions scaled and new options showed up on the list thats the only thing holding that subclass back. that and (from last i read) they dont actually get a buff or anything when it comes to making normal potions.
See, minor adjustment.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Artificer's big problem is not its power, though it does lag behind other classes. What really causes Artificer to suffer is its lack of publication in the PHB resulting in less opportunity to expand on Artificer. After all, unlike other classes, where the game presumes you own the PHB, any Artificer subclass cannot presume you own some other supplemental book, which means they have to dedicate a significant section of text to "here's the base Artificer rules also."
Fewer subclasses, being locked behind a paywall in a way other classes are not, and fewer releases resulting in less UA testing creates a death spiral where Artificer is seen as less powerful and popular, making players less likely to play it--which in turn makes Wizards less likely to support the class.
Which is a shame. I like the idea of Artificer as a class and think it could add a fair bit to the game. But I would love to see some other options beyond the four (none of which I am all that interested in). Something like Izzet technomages from Magic, or a flesh artificer like Doctor Frankenstein. Ways to get diversity, so I am not just seeing the same characters over and over and over again. Plenty of neat things they could explore if they just... did that.
Alas, it looks like Wizards will be repeating the mistakes of 2014 in 2024, once again giving Artificer the short end of the stick. Here's hoping that, though they may not learn for the PHB, perhaps they will at least put the Artificer in the Basic Rules, so they can point to those and make subclass publication easier.
if im being honest i feel like they keep the class separate now for money. they know people like the class and will wanna play it so the best thing for them is to leave it out of the new PHB so they can add it later and make more money there.
This seems more like baseless conspiracy than anything bordering on reality—particularly since your entire conspiratorial post is predicated on a falsehood.
Artificer, far and away, is the least popular class, for a number of reasons expounded upon in this thread. Far and away people do not like the class and simply do not play it and express no interest in playing it. While it is true that some people do like it and purchase product specifically to get the Artificer as an option, the same could be said of any other subclass being a catalyst for sales.
An improved Artificer and an Artificer they could consistently release subclasses for likely would be better for their bottom line. After all, keeping neat subclasses for popular classes behind a paywall has always been a driver of sales—I expect far more than keeping an unpopular class behind a paywall would.
I think Artificer just needs quality of life improvements mostly.
Base Class
Ways to address this: Grant Alchemist and Artillerist a bonus cantrip at 3rd level AND/OR give Mending to the base class for free.
Ways to address this: Add a line to Replicate Magic Item that lets you use your spellcasting modifier/DC in place of the static one in the item's description OR add a class feature that lets you do this with any magic item with a static attack modifier/DC.
Alchemist
Mostly minor pain points that add up
Ways to address these: Everyone has their own opinions on how to address these pain points so I won't go into them, suffice to say WOTC can address them in a myriad of ways... if they so choose.
Artillerist
Ways to address this: Grant back one Cannon summon on a short rest. Alternately, use the same rules as the Steel Defender and have it last until the Cannon dies and resummoning/changing it's type costs you a spell slot.
Armorer
Ways to address this: At level 3 state clearly how many infusions your Arcane Armor can bear, and what kind of infusions it can hold. At level 9 state how these clearly defined limits have changed with the Armor Modifications feature.
Battle Smith
Ways to address this: Assault Smith
No but seriously, I don't see any problems with the Battle Smith.
i think you are right for the most part the only problems i have with the battle smith is SD not really getting upgrades of its own or being able to apply infusions to it like how the armor does with their stuff and the stat block of the SD being a little on the weaker side until very late game were its still on the weaker side and its main attack not getting an upgrade to it
I believe a lot of the wide-ranging complaints about Artificer could be solved by giving them an extra ASI/feat at level 6. An extra feat gives a lot of leeway for people to customize into their concept of the class.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I agree with all of this. I like the artificer class, but it does need a lot QOL changes. Especially to keep up with the One D&D changes.
I'm sure I remember a UA where the Alchemist could create "grenades". I know this was critiqued for being underwhelming at the time, but seems odd they dropped that ability for an even more underwhelming Alchemist!
I would give back the ability create Alchemists Fire/Acid flasks, allow for more free potions/flasks, get rid of the random element (which just doesn't make sense to me) and, lastly, scale the potions/flasks
I am playing an artificer now from first level, and I have been surprised at how effective and powerful they have been at the low levels. I've earned Inspiration from the DM for my uses of magical tinkering and with 18 int and firebolt and a pretty good armor class. The campaign is leveling up very slowly which has has the interesting effect of making me really dig deep into all the abilities in a fun way.
I would agree that the mending cantrip should come with the class. I feel my character needs it thematically as well as practically to use the class features, and with only two cantrips and then a third at level 5, it's really skimpy. My character has mending and firebolt; I really feel that adding prestidigitation and/or mage hand would be on point with my character's mechanics, without significantly changing their combat abilities. (A maker/Artificer absolutely needs to clean things and to throw switches at a distance!) Two spell slots is very skimpy but with high int giving me a good selection of spells and the ability to swap them out every morning, I find the challenge of picking and using those resource limited spells pretty interesting.
The path I'm pursuing is to use downtime to make magic items, and a more robust system for that I think with more artificer-specific advantages might be an interesting way to improve the class than with direct class changes. Xanathar's rules are helpful but they benefit from a bit of home brew and obviously they need some collaboration from the DM to provide downtime and gold in adequate quantities to make anything, even really simple things. If your party is going on 3 adventures a week versus once every few months, it's a total change in what is possible. I personally find the idea of doing this crafting and assigning it to my character much more interesting than just buying items at a shop, and I think the timelines given in Xanathar's with the price only halved and weeks and weeks of downtime strongly favors buying stuff in shops. I'd like to see Artificers have more advantage in time, cost, or item quality given proficiency/expertise with tools and making.
The infusions are pretty neat. I'd love to see a type that is more of a charged-infusion, where for example I could make a magic item that would be good for say 4 (or 1D4) uses with one of my prepared spells or with an infusion type, and that could be handed out to the party. Or even only one use. I think that could be more interesting than giving the Artificer more spell slots. I also think it might be interesting to give the Artificer more infusion options so they can swap them out more, as you can with spells.
Before I started my Artificer, I kept hearing that the class was weak and also complicated, and I haven't found that at all. Although I also think Artificer should be in the new PHB, having all the text in a single book instead of having to assemble the class features across multiple books really helped me, and most of what's complicated about playing it for me is in the idea that you can prepare different spells each day - but that leans on my personal strengths of giving me something to do and learn about my character between games, which I enjoy.
The one other thing is that I think some of the RAW make it harder to add flavor than is needed. So for example, if I wrote the rules, I would allow much more flexibility in the spellcasting focus than just the official tools or infusions, and to for example allow it to be any item the character made or improved with their tools. I suspect this kind of happens by either accident or implication at a lot of tables.
i think i would have loved to see a new level of casters be added along with the artificers the 3/4ths casters that only go up to 7th level it would have works better for the artificer and their spell slot needs also around level 18 or 19 for you to be able to make rare and very rare items with the same ease as the 10th level ability gives or for the plus 1 weapons that go up to plus 2 to go up to a plus 3 later
Yeah, it's just that level 11 is very, very far away!
I'm currently playing a level 19 artificer - leveled from first level - in a campaign with another artificer. One is an Artillerist and the other an Armorer.
Overall, I've found the class quite reasonable. However, the value of the infusions in many cases depends strongly on the campaign itself. No other class is as dependent on the world building for assessing the overall power and usefulness of the class.
In a low magic world, an artificer can be king. They have access to a number of magic items that can be used by the artificer or used to support and supplement the party. However, their enhancements cap out at +2 for weapon and armor bonuses and the items available to replicate on each list could be useful in some cases but in many campaigns would just prove to be redundant when the DM provides more or better magic items. For example, at level 14, the artificer can infuse a belt of hill giant strength but in some campaigns it is likely that the party might have found similar but better magic items by this point if not earlier. A belt of Hill Giant strength could be considered a tier 2 item (level 5-10). As a result, the artificer's infusion ability which is pretty central to the class becomes devalued depending on the campaign.
At lower levels, the armorer can get magic weapons early in tier 1 which can be a boon. However, DMs may think that since the artificer has a magic weapon then the rest of the party should have a chance to have one too. So, again, depending on the game and DM, the key features of the artificer can get devalued relative to other classes that aren't dependent on world building decisions.
The artificer does have some exceptional features - Flash of Genius is an amazingly useful ability. The level 20 capstone is very powerful and greatly increases the survivability of the Artificer. However, multiclassing a few levels of wizard is always tempting and offers quite a bit of versatility so there is a trade off.
--------
In terms of changes/clarifications that might be nice ...
1) I agree that Mending should be a class cantrip in addition to the 2 they select at level 1. Mending is extremely thematic for the class and one would think every artificer would learn it - but taking Mending leaves only one cantrip from all of the rest to choose from.
2) I'd like additional clarification on the armorer infusions and how they can be stacked especially after level 9 when each piece of a set of armor can be infused separately.
In particular, it would be nice to have some rules on whether the Thunder Gauntlets and the Arcane Propulsion Armor infusion effect on the gauntlets can be stacked. There seems to be quite a bit of argument about this for some reason. Personally, I think it is fine from a mechanical, RAW and balance perspective but opinions differ. It is certainly less effective than the level 11 paladin Improved Divine Smite that adds d8 radiant damage to every weapon attack they make - so adding a d8 force damage to an armorer gauntlet attack certainly wouldn't be unbalancing. Considering, the base line armorer damage without that slight bump remains 2x(d8+stat) until level 20 using the suit's built in weaponry ... that seems extremely lackluster compared to other classes (especially the half-casters or even the Eldritch Knight).
If you compare the armorer to the artillerist .. the artillerist can create two force ballista cannons at level 15, each of which does 3d8 force damage and both of which can be fired as a bonus action. They can also add in firebolt which can do an additional 3d10 at level 15. The armorer has two gauntlet attacks for 1d8+int (probably 1d8+5 by that level - which is slightly more than the average damage from 4d8). Adding the d8 from Arcane propulsion armor can bring this to 2x(2d8+5) ... if the armorer casts Haste then they can have one more attack for 2d8+5 which brings the total damage into a similar range as the artillerist but the armorer has had to spend a spell slot and an infusion to get there.
So, although the armorer can be fun to play at higher levels ... it does seem to need some tuning.
Really enjoyed reading your perspective here from the higher level of play. I think you're very right about the context - at the tables where I play my characters have often been able to easily obtain similar levels of items to the 2nd level artificer infusions, such as +1 armor or weapons, even sometimes a bag of holding, in the level 3 range. The artificer gets a little more agency and the ability to move them around, but having to choose only four at level-up with only two active at a time means that it's not much more flexible than the static magic item.
To casual reading, the Artificer's Armor of Magical Strength might read as a baby version of the Belt of Hill Giant Strength but it's much more limited not just by the score but by the usage. The armor requires that you use a slot on your non-magical armor, and it has charges for specific checks like falling prone or saving throws - but for example does nothing for your ability to carry something. The Belt of Hill Giant Strength actively changes your strength score for everything.
I do love the Artificer's armor proficiency and ability to swap out spells every morning - even with limited spell slots, this has made it very fun to play and given the character a lot of agency and tactical variety.