Quote from BramblefootDruid >>

Guys, I do love the talk of the artificer theme, but if you don't have any more about what class you won't play, I kindly ask you to stop. 

Don't take this the wrong way, please, but any open discussion like this is going to naturally go off into tangents of people explaining why they would play something someone wouldn't play. Otherwise, are we just to list the classes we don't want to play and everyone who reads it nods and says nothing?

It will get back on topic if the discussion stays active, a new person will see the thread and hop in without reading what everyone else wrote and say, "I won't play this!" Then the discussion will continue. How is that bad?

I won't play a bloodhunter.

Anyways, if I'm out of line I apologize and will cease further discussion on the topic now that I have shared my on topic comment.

I won't play Bards, because I'm a singer/songwriter. I do have the ability to inspire people, evoke emotions, tell epic stories, and manipulate the mood of a room. And as a lifelong atheist, Clerics hold no appeal for me. I'm open to pretty much anything else, though, and I do find that I roleplay best and have the most fun when I'm playing someone who is very different from my RL self.

I tend towards spellcasting in almost any game I play, so the martial classes hold a lot less interest to me, but I have played fighters (eldritch knight) and monk (way of mercy).  I think Barbarians are the only class I would not try at all, for that reason.

Quote from Rig9 >>

Quote from BramblefootDruid >>

Guys, I do love the talk of the artificer theme, but if you don't have any more about what class you won't play, I kindly ask you to stop. 

 

Don't take this the wrong way, please, but any open discussion like this is going to naturally go off into tangents of people explaining why they would play something someone wouldn't play. Otherwise, are we just to list the classes we don't want to play and everyone who reads it nods and says nothing?

It will get back on topic if the discussion stays active, a new person will see the thread and hop in without reading what everyone else wrote and say, "I won't play this!" Then the discussion will continue. How is that bad?

I won't play a bloodhunter.

Anyways, if I'm out of line I apologize and will cease further discussion on the topic now that I have shared my on topic comment.

 For what it's worth, I enjoy hearing about how people get around certain barriers to a class and it's made me a bit more open about trying the ones I'm not usually into. I'm bringing a bard to today's game, which I might not have ever tried if not for this thread. I do think the artificer convo was getting a bit circular and at some point we need to agree to disagree about things.

I'm not a huge fan of bloodhunter either. It's very fiddly with lots of moving parts, but I typically enjoy complexity. It might have to do with the fact that while the class seems effective as a total sum of its parts, the way those parts come together doesn't feel cohesive enough. I haven't looked at it in a while, I might try to put one together again and figure out why it didn't resonate with me before.

I get the appeal of bloodhunter, but it seems like it's trying to do too much. Though, with all the new subclasses from Tasha's and other sources, I guess the rest of the classes are trending towards the same.

So, I should clarify, as of now I have no interest in Bloodhunter. Maybe some day in the future that'll change. I never had an interest in Barbarian like I said before until I made myself play one, now it is one of my favorite classes.

As for the Artificer discussion, your point is valid, I am just afraid of killing the exchange of perspectives that this thread will likely produce. If given the opportunity, I think everyone should try every class, just to see if it is fun or not. 

In the game I'm playing in that has gone on the longest I'm playing a wizard, and while it is fun and powerful, it doesn't really speak to me. We started at level 1 and this last session just hit level 17 so I haven't played it all the way, but I think it's safe to say I probably won't play one again. I gave it a shot, and it doesn't really spark my interest as strongly as other classes do.

At this point in my player career, any subclass that doesn't have access to spells (with the possible exception of a Path of Wild Magic Barbarian). I have become addicted to having wacky spells to use and cause mayhem, and the big amount of number click-clacks dice I get to roll triggers something in the kobold part of my brain.

I know that this thread has been dead for over a year, but I just hate the rogue class. 

Everything: the steriotypes, the lack of interesting things, the chaotic alignment, the dex build, and most importantly, the fact that the rogue class is the only class without a single support ability.

Also that people think that this class can pick locks and disable traps and find secret doors better than all others. I hate this part a lot because I had a Kenku goo warlock that was an archeologist from ToA and he loved to look for secret doors until a rogue came along and copied his role and all the other players said “Oh, well we don’t need Growler anymore, let’s leave him behind in the dungeon to get devoured by ghasts” and abandoned him while he was distracted at a secret door. 

In short, I hate the rogue class. 

Having thought more about it, I would play an Artificer if they were allowed to use their tools to modify existing magic similar to the way a Sorcerer's Metamagic modifies spells.  I feel like they should be more about altering typical magic than about making robots.  Not that robots are bad in and of themselves, but thematically, having the kind of magi-tech to make a Steel Defender or a suit of Power Armor feels either too advanced (if in a medieval campaign) or too primitive (if in a Spelljammer campaign).

I also will not play classes that have no spellcasting or no extra skills unless I can kind an interesting way to pair a race with spells/skills with the class.  Exception being the Monk; because being able to run up walls and deflect missiles are basically specialized skills.  

Quote from Squidboy84 >>

Also that people think that this class can pick locks and disable traps and find secret doors better than all others. I hate this part a lot because I had a Kenku goo warlock that was an archeologist from ToA and he loved to look for secret doors until a rogue came along and copied his role and all the other players said “Oh, well we don’t need Growler anymore, let’s leave him behind in the dungeon to get devoured by ghasts” and abandoned him while he was distracted at a secret door. 

In short, I hate the rogue class. 

 That sounds more like a problem with your gaming group rather than the class.

Quote from Song_of_Blues >>

Having thought more about it, I would play an Artificer if they were allowed to use their tools to modify existing magic similar to the way a Sorcerer's Metamagic modifies spells.  I feel like they should be more about altering typical magic than about making robots.  Not that robots are bad in and of themselves, but thematically, having the kind of magi-tech to make a Steel Defender or a suit of Power Armor feels either too advanced (if in a medieval campaign) or too primitive (if in a Spelljammer campaign).

I also will not play classes that have no spellcasting or no extra skills unless I can kind an interesting way to pair a race with spells/skills with the class.  Exception being the Monk; because being able to run up walls and deflect missiles are basically specialized skills.  

 i think that artificers being able to do more to alter existing magic items rather than creating new ones would be a good thing simply becuase it circumvents the potential scenario where the artificer's known infusions completely overlap with the magic items that the dm has or is planning to give out. Let the artificer turn a boring +3 longsword that the party found into a less boring +3 longsword, let them modify a wand of fireballs so that it can also cast some other artificer spell of your choice using it's charges, let them add the secondary property of the returning weapon infusion to an existing thrown magic item (without changing that magic item's bonus to attack and damage) and so on. 

this has been said a million times but you don't have to have some kind of magictech aestetic for the artificer if you don't want to, with the combination of the tools you can cast with and the fact that infused items count as spellcasting foci means you can flavor spells as anything from magically produced food products to mundane spells shot from a wand to carved runes or whatever else, golems and animated armors of various kinds exist in many medieval campaigns so an steel defender could just be one of those.

Also "artificers should not be about building robots" reminds me of one of my biggest gripes with the artificer: you are arguably outshun by wizards in terms of creating magical constructs:
the artificer:

• gets to cast tiny servant starting at 9th level, summon construct starting at 13th level and animate objects + bigby's hand at 17th level
• can use a manual of golems starting at 14th level or 17th level depending on interpretation, if magic item creation rules are used you might save some gold and time on making new manuals of golems so that you can make more golems.
• can create an humonculus via one of their infusion slots, and use another infusion slot for some weak thing from explorer's guide to wildemount
• depending on subclass you might get a single steel defender or an arcane cannon that you might choose to flavor as something alive

meanwhile the wizard:

• casts tiny servant starting at 5th, summon construct starting at 7th and animate objects + bigby's hand starting at 9th level
• can use a manual of golems starting at 9th level
• can get a humonculus via create homunculus (different from the artificer's one in certain key ways but still the same)
• can use the create magen spell to create an army of permanent constructs (albeit ones with a very different aestetic to what you might be looking for if trying to build an army of magical constructs)

If a Steel Defender is a Golem, how does a low level Artificer get to have one when all the Monster Manual golems cost a lot of money and multiple mid-tier to high-tier spells?  

If Power Armor is that easily manufactured, why does only a specific sub-class of Artificer get to use that  special armor?  Also, how is it powered?  

One of the main things about technology that is very distinct from magic:  It generally does not require a lot of specialized training to use it.  Machines were developed to save time and labor costs.  If only 1 or 2 people can ever use a machine, that sort of defeats the purpose of having the machine because people easily get sick or have "morale problems".  Driving a car is no more difficult to learn than riding a horse.  An electric stove is not multiple degrees harder than using a wood-burning stove.     Having a class that is good at making technological solutions without those solutions (robots) being usable by anyone except the Artificer damages the verismilitude of the fictional world...unless literally anyone with the money to employ an Artificer ALSO has robots.  

These are questions specific to world-building, and unless the DM or the splatbook has found a way to answer them in a satisfactory way for the specific setting of the adventure,  it doesn't feel right to play these subclasses of Artificer.  

Quote from Song_of_Blues>>

If a Steel Defender is a Golem, how does a low level Artificer get to have one when all the Monster Manual golems cost a lot of money and multiple mid-tier to high-tier spells?  

One of the main things about technology that is very distinct from magic:  It generally does not require a lot of specialized training to use it.  Machines were developed to save time and labor costs.  If only 1 or 2 people can ever use a machine, that sort of defeats the purpose of having the machine because people easily get sick or have "morale problems".  Driving a car is no more difficult to learn than riding a horse.  An electric stove is not multiple degrees harder than using a wood-burning stove.     Having a class that is good at making technological solutions without those solutions (robots) being usable by anyone except the Artificer damages the verismilitude of the fictional world...unless literally anyone with the money to employ an Artificer ALSO has robots.  

These are questions specific to world-building, and unless the DM or the splatbook has found a way to answer them in a satisfactory way for the specific setting of the adventure,  it doesn't feel right to play these subclasses of Artificer.  

 Because artificers use magic, not technology.  And the magic limits how many things they can create- once they exceed that limit, one of their previous magic items stop working.  They are using magic powers to mimic technology, not creating tech.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from Song_of_Blues>>

If a Steel Defender is a Golem, how does a low level Artificer get to have one when all the Monster Manual golems cost a lot of money and multiple mid-tier to high-tier spells?  

Because a Steel Defender is a construct, not a golem.  Golems are a different type of construct that are much more powerful and consequently much more expensive.

If Power Armor is that easily manufactured, why does only a specific sub-class of Artificer get to use that  special armor?  Also, how is it powered?  

Because it's made via magic, not manufactured.

One of the main things about technology that is very distinct from magic:  It generally does not require a lot of specialized training to use it.  Machines were developed to save time and labor costs.  If only 1 or 2 people can ever use a machine, that sort of defeats the purpose of having the machine because people easily get sick or have "morale problems".  Driving a car is no more difficult to learn than riding a horse.  An electric stove is not multiple degrees harder than using a wood-burning stove.     Having a class that is good at making technological solutions without those solutions (robots) being usable by anyone except the Artificer damages the verismilitude of the fictional world...unless literally anyone with the money to employ an Artificer ALSO has robots.  

These are questions specific to world-building, and unless the DM or the splatbook has found a way to answer them in a satisfactory way for the specific setting of the adventure,  it doesn't feel right to play these subclasses of Artificer.  

 Because artificers use magic, not technology.  And the magic limits how many things they can create- once they exceed that limit, one of their previous magic items stop working.  They are using magic powers to mimic technology, not creating tech.

What I'm getting from your reply is that Artificers do not really invent anything.  They're just a weaker form of Wizard that use tools and apply magic to machines, which somehow do not cost much, if any, money to manufacture.  

But somehow these machines, which run entirely on magic do not drain the power of the caster nor require concentration because REASONS since they clearly do not run on electricity since they are not technological.  Riiiiiiiight.  Makes no sense to me.  Thus why I won't play one (except the Alchemist, which I also don't like because it's mechanics make it the weaksauce version of a Cleric).

It's freaking magic, it doesn't need to make sense so long as it's internally consistent, which it is.  We don't need any more explanation for how an Artificer's infusions work than we need for how a Warlock's invocations work.  Wizards and Artificers both use magic, just in different ways from each other.  Wouldn't really be much point to having Artificers if they were exactly the same as Wizards.  Not really much more to it than that.

I just like to think of Artificers as people who specialized into the Magic Weapon spell a whole lot. Like, so much that they spend the other half of their spellcasting solely upcasting it on everything including armor and golems and wands through pure love of magic weapon.

Edit: it's probably more accurate to say something like they imbue a bit of their soul into items to make them magic or something like that, causing them to lose a bit of their connection to the weave. Especially for some of their later features. Why all the tool proficiencies? Well if you're imbuing your soul into something, you better know how it works.

As for the actual thread post, honestly I don't have any particular class I would be against playing, but as for role I refuse to play the face. To sum it up, I don't have the natural charisma for it and I hold myself to too unrealistically high standards to just say "I persuade the guard to do x".

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

It's freaking magic, it doesn't need to make sense so long as it's internally consistent, which it is.  We don't need any more explanation for how an Artificer's infusions work than we need for how a Warlock's invocations work.  Wizards and Artificers both use magic, just in different ways from each other.  Wouldn't really be much point to having Artificers if they were exactly the same as Wizards.  Not really much more to it than that.

It's not internally consistent when you have robots that do WAY more stuff than most low-tier and mid-tier concentration spells, that you are here claiming are run entirely on magic, but running these robots don't cost concentration of the Artificer when SOOO much magic stuff in 5E does cost concentration.  That is NOT consistency.

If the devs bothered to create a explanation for how robots run without technology, then I'd take a second look at the Artificer.  Until then, it's just wacky how it's supposed to just work because magic.  

Quote from Song_of_Blues >

It's not internally consistent when you have robots that do WAY more stuff than most low-tier and mid-tier concentration spells, that you are here claiming are run entirely on magic, but running these robots don't cost concentration of the Artificer when SOOO much magic stuff in 5E does cost concentration.  That is NOT consistency.

If the devs bothered to create a explanation for how robots run without technology, then I'd take a second look at the Artificer.  Until then, it's just wacky how it's supposed to just work because magic.  

Wizard spells work differently than Cleric spells work differently than Warlock invocations work different than Sorcerous Metamagic works differently than Artificer infusions. Magic manifests differently depending on the praxes, the occult trappings, and the source of the magic. I get that you don't like the explanation for how Artificers work magic differently than how other people do it, and that's fine, you don't have to like them, but the explanation makes as much sense as any other magic.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

Quote from Song_of_Blues >

It's not internally consistent when you have robots that do WAY more stuff than most low-tier and mid-tier concentration spells, that you are here claiming are run entirely on magic, but running these robots don't cost concentration of the Artificer when SOOO much magic stuff in 5E does cost concentration.  That is NOT consistency.

If the devs bothered to create a explanation for how robots run without technology, then I'd take a second look at the Artificer.  Until then, it's just wacky how it's supposed to just work because magic.  

Wizard spells work differently than Cleric spells work differently than Warlock invocations work different than Sorcerous Metamagic works differently than Artificer infusions. Magic manifests differently depending on the praxes, the occult trappings, and the source of the magic. I get that you don't like the explanation for how Artificers work magic differently than how other people do it, and that's fine, you don't have to like them, but the explanation makes as much sense as any other magic.

That's because the magic system in 5E is itself very inconsistent.  Other than more Bigger/More Dice = higher level, and longer duration=higher spell slot, there is very little that makes sense if you look at all the magic available in this edition.  Look at the arguments in the Paladin section about whether you can have atheist Oathbreaker Paladins.  And the arguments in the Sorcerer section about the identity of Sorcs.   Look at the Tasha's Clerics.  They have abilities that used to require thematic commitment or concentration.  (See low-tier abilities of the Twilight and Peace domains.)  That's been thrown out the window.  Part of this is b/c powercreep, but part of this is that the emphasis on modularity in 5E has damaged the thematic glue of the story-telling aspect.  By going full bore into the idea that any spell, any class can be used in any campaign world/adventure, WotC also willingly sacrificed any consistency of magic.  The center does not hold. 

Saying "because Magic" is not actually demonstrative of any kind of internal logic to a system that supposedly explains superpowers that are disproportionate to the spell slot level (if any) expended.  

Quote from Song_of_Blues >> 

That's because the magic system in 5E is itself very inconsistent.  Other than more Bigger/More Dice = higher level, and longer duration=higher spell slot, there is very little that makes sense if you look at all the magic available in this edition.  Look at the arguments in the Paladin section about whether you can have atheist Oathbreaker Paladins.  And the arguments in the Sorcerer section about the identity of Sorcs.   Look at the Tasha's Clerics.  They have abilities that used to require thematic commitment or concentration.  (See low-tier abilities of the Twilight and Peace domains.)  That's been thrown out the window.  Part of this is b/c powercreep, but part of this is that the emphasis on modularity in 5E has damaged the thematic glue of the story-telling aspect.  By going full bore into the idea that any spell, any class can be used in any campaign world/adventure, WotC also willingly sacrificed any consistency of magic.  The center does not hold. 

Saying "because Magic" is not actually demonstrative of any kind of internal logic to a system that supposedly explains superpowers that are disproportionate to the spell slot level (if any) expended.

 ... aaaand?

I mean what do you want? The mechanics of the game were always only loosely diegetic. Look at Hit Points! I can understand wanting a system that is deeply tied into the lore of a world and hews very closely to "how things work" within the narrative, but that has never been D&D. I'm afraid if that's what you want from D&D you're always going to be disappointed.

Quote from Song_of_Blues >>

That's because the magic system in 5E is itself very inconsistent.

 Yeah that's just a issue with the 5E magic system.

It's generally just assumed that (let's say Battlesmith, applies to all of them though) Artificer has a physical statue of a golem or whatever your defender is, and then they imbue it with magic causing it to be "alive" (When I say statue, just some nonliving physical object your turning into a defender it doesn't literally need to be a stone statue or something).

Your stuff about concentration and mid/high tier magic doesn't matter. Technically speaking steel defender is more consistent than some of the other subclass abilties for some of the other classes, because Artificers do indeed have the abiltiy to bring things to life running entirely on magic without concentration at low levels, Infusion: Homunculus Servant. Wizards and the such can do the same at higher levels as well so that's not even new. Artificers just get them at a earlier level because they sacrificed their spellcasting to do so.

Granted, Homunculus Servant infusion requires a 100 gp gem. Also granted, steel defender assumes you made a statue or whatever that you've brought to life via magic. Note that if it dies, you need to physically create a new one using your tools (which doesn't cost money for the same reason Transmutation wizards don't pay a million gold to make a transmutation stone, because game balance).

edit: I plan this to be my last post on the subject. I don't think there's much else to discuss cause this is a very opinion-based thing. Probably a better discussion for the Artificer forum anyways.