I've never tried it or seen someone play it, so for anyone who has, is Armorer actually overpowered?
Any subclass that allows you to use your spellcasting stat as your melee attack stat definitely feels overpowered. The fact that it allows you to play stealthy WHILE wearing plate armor, plus being a class that allows you to infuse the Cloak of Elvenkind by level 6 makes this class OP, at least for me and my builds. Hell, the Infiltrator armor allows you to cancel out the disadvantage to stealth checks you get outright, so having the cloak on the Guardian armor makes you OP by level 6. Also, artificers get d8 hit dice which isn't bad, but that means you can dump Dex if you're going for a tank build and go straight Int and Con for that sweet Life pool. Finally, armorers are THE ONLY SUBCLASS THAT GETS EXTRA INFUSIONS. Granted, you have to be level 9 and they have to be a part of your armor, but how hard is it to pick out infusions that are good for a tank or a long-range build?
I have no desire to push D&D further into superhero/video game territory.
I mean, you can't push something into somewhere it already is.
Yeah I mean, has one seen player characters in this game?
They're literally called out as exceptional compared to all the normies they grace their presence with in the game world.
There's exceptional and there's exceptional.
I've no desire to participate as player or DM in a game where the characters are, for all intents and purposes, unkillable and are tabletop versions of MCU characters.
I have no desire to push D&D further into superhero/video game territory.
I mean, you can't push something into somewhere it already is.
Yeah I mean, has one seen player characters in this game?
They're literally called out as exceptional compared to all the normies they grace their presence with in the game world.
There are degrees to things. It's not all or nothing. One can enjoy or just tolerate where n the spectrum X is now without wanting it to be pushed even further along. The comment here was about not wanting to see it pushed FURTHER into superhero territory.
I've no desire to participate as player or DM in a game where the characters are, for all intents and purposes, unkillable and are tabletop versions of MCU characters.
Well, the good news is, the Artificer is not even remotely unkillable, so we're good there.
Unfortunately, getting rid of any (sub)classes that resemble MCU characters is going to be a bit more work. Along with the Armorer, we'll have to get rid of Storm Herald barbarians, they're way too close to Thor (I think Beast and Berserker paths are sufficiently different from The Hulk to pass muster, but the jury's still out). Arcane Archer's pretty close to Hawkeye, so we'll need to toss them as well. We'd better toss the sorcerer class in its entirety, between Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch. Monk's gotta go too, thanks to Shang-Chi. Warlock might have to go as well—Khonshu is a dead ringer for a Patron, which makes Moon Knight some kind of Hexblade or something. Not sure which Rogue subclasses have to go to keep people from trying to be Black Widow or Loki; Mastermind at the very least.
Have I missed anything? I'm sure I've missed something, there are a bajillion MCU characters.
Dr. Strange is actually more a Wizard than Sorcerer, since he studies magic rather than has it innately.
That's a fair point. I was basing it more on how the character functions in practice (using a limited set of spells over and over rather than having completely different complements on different days), but if we use that metric, then no one ends up being a Wizard, not even the likes of Gandalf, since no one else is using Jack Vance's magic system. Plus Dr. Strange clearly has ritual casting, so until 1DD comes out, he'd be an awkward fit for Sorcerer.
No, they are a niche class, not something that should be considered as a core class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
No, they are a niche class, not something that should be considered as a core class.
If you think about it, artificers are usually the first magic users a world will have if there is an ancient/lost civilization that leaves behind a lot fo magical artifacts. The idea of casting a spell is secondary to learning how to infuse magical properties INTO an item for use. Having an item do the work instead of simply using will to bend reality is a more fundamental stepping stone towards widespread magical use when worldbuilding is concerned.
If you think about it, artificers are usually the first magic users a world will have if there is an ancient/lost civilization that leaves behind a lot fo magical artifacts. The idea of casting a spell is secondary to learning how to infuse magical properties INTO an item for use. Having an item do the work instead of simply using will to bend reality is a more fundamental stepping stone towards widespread magical use when worldbuilding is concerned.
This kind of lines up with my thinking. Regardless of the chicken and egg problem of whether spellcasting or magic items comes first, If your world has magical items, including potions, wands, armor, and constructs, then you have everything you need for the Artificer to be a thematic fit. If your world doesn't have those things, then you're already homebrewing away from the default assumptions of the game, and so banning artificers is just one more line item along with the other classes and options that don't fit such a world. But the path going forward is for rules to be presented in a setting-agnostic format with sidebars about specific settings, and the artificer fits within those setting-agnostic assumptions.
No, they are a niche class, not something that should be considered as a core class.
Just for clarification, how do we define "niche class"?
Something very specialized which lacks broad appeal. They do not fit into the mold of any of the basic archetypes. They are not weapon focused martial characters. They are not divine focused spell casters. They are not arcane focused spell casters, and they are not steathy sneaksters.
The PHB should be focused on covering the basics, the things that you /need/ to play. Things like the artificer belong in follow up products. They're not necessary to play, but would be nice to have. The fact is, there's a lot of stuff we're going to want that we're simply not going to get in the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I'll grant you that when Artificers first came out two editions ago, they were very specialized, both in terms of focus and flavor. Bards, Monks, and Warlocks also started out as niche classes that didn't fit basic archetypes, but they all eventually made it into the core PHB. Things change, and what constitutes "basics" and "needs" does as well. I mean, looking at your list of archetypes, you could argue that only the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard belong in the PHB. Do you "need" the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, or Sorcerer if you have those? They're all a bit more niche, aren't they?
I'd be fine with cutting them if I had to. But I certainly would not take artificer over any of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I've never tried it or seen someone play it, so for anyone who has, is Armorer actually overpowered?
Generally. No. No Artificer even approaches the concept of 'overpowered' they are a bit more tuned up than other classes but thats more a factor of WOTC getting a little better at designing things the more often they do it. Which seems fairly normal to me. One of the things about Ranger in 1dd is that its getting much of the same 'tune up' that the artificer has in the spell casting department.
As for the armorer themselves. Everything that they have also has a downside that sort of balances it out. Int based attacks (but only with their built in weapons) A Soft Taunt effect (but no extra hitpoints), temp hitpoints (but only a small amount a limited number of times) Extra infusions (that you need to use to maintain parity with DM given magic items). I'd say where the Armorer REALLY shines is actually as the base of a Wizard Multiclass. 5 levels of artificer for the extra attack or just 3 for armor proficiency and then Wizard to ramp up the spell casting versatility. Armorer and Alchemist are specifically good at that compared to Artillerist and Battlesmith, which really operate better IMO as straight classes.
Personally, I'd say the Battlesmith stays head and shoulders above the others in most campaigns.
There is one reason to want the Artificer in the PHB:
Until they are, there will be no new subclasses. The writers want subclasses in their book that players use, and PHB classes can be assumed to be owned by any player. Artificer in 5e is in an expansion, so a significant number of players won't have it. Why would you write a subclass that only potentially appeals to, say, 60% of players when you can write one that appeals to 90%+ of players?
I want them in the PHB because they're an interesting class and I'd love to see more official subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They require the player to dive into a non-player-facing book (the DMG) to understand all their features. And unlike Druid's Wildshape changes, they can't change that with a generic statblock. The major offender here is Replicate Magic Item, but even without that infusion, you still need the DMG to understand the general rules behind magic items and attunement. I can understand them wanting to keep that out of core so that only groups that feel they're experienced enough to cross that threshold have to be expose to it.
They require the player to dive into a non-player-facing book (the DMG) to understand all their features. And unlike Druid's Wildshape changes, they can't change that with a generic statblock. The major offender here is Replicate Magic Item, but even without that infusion, you still need the DMG to understand the general rules behind magic items and attunement. I can understand them wanting to keep that out of core so that only groups that feel they're experienced enough to cross that threshold have to be expose to it.
By the same logic the Thief Subclass should be considered "exotic" as well. Its 10th level feature "Use Magic Device" requires precisely the same knowledge of the general rules of magic items as infusions require. Actually it requires further knowledge considering it adds an exception to how magic item charges work that the Artificer class does not. It even has special rules for how thieves interacts with spell scrolls. Yet, apparently there's plenty of room for the Thief Subclass in the PHB despite that it relies on game mechanics not covered in the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Any subclass that allows you to use your spellcasting stat as your melee attack stat definitely feels overpowered. The fact that it allows you to play stealthy WHILE wearing plate armor, plus being a class that allows you to infuse the Cloak of Elvenkind by level 6 makes this class OP, at least for me and my builds.
Hell, the Infiltrator armor allows you to cancel out the disadvantage to stealth checks you get outright, so having the cloak on the Guardian armor makes you OP by level 6. Also, artificers get d8 hit dice which isn't bad, but that means you can dump Dex if you're going for a tank build and go straight Int and Con for that sweet Life pool.
Finally, armorers are THE ONLY SUBCLASS THAT GETS EXTRA INFUSIONS. Granted, you have to be level 9 and they have to be a part of your armor, but how hard is it to pick out infusions that are good for a tank or a long-range build?
It is their most powerful subclass but its not like its a wizard or something.
I mean, you can't push something into somewhere it already is.
Yes, it does. But it needs more subclasses and fast.
There's exceptional and there's exceptional.
I've no desire to participate as player or DM in a game where the characters are, for all intents and purposes, unkillable and are tabletop versions of MCU characters.
There are degrees to things. It's not all or nothing. One can enjoy or just tolerate where n the spectrum X is now without wanting it to be pushed even further along. The comment here was about not wanting to see it pushed FURTHER into superhero territory.
Well, the good news is, the Artificer is not even remotely unkillable, so we're good there.
Unfortunately, getting rid of any (sub)classes that resemble MCU characters is going to be a bit more work. Along with the Armorer, we'll have to get rid of Storm Herald barbarians, they're way too close to Thor (I think Beast and Berserker paths are sufficiently different from The Hulk to pass muster, but the jury's still out). Arcane Archer's pretty close to Hawkeye, so we'll need to toss them as well. We'd better toss the sorcerer class in its entirety, between Dr. Strange and the Scarlet Witch. Monk's gotta go too, thanks to Shang-Chi. Warlock might have to go as well—Khonshu is a dead ringer for a Patron, which makes Moon Knight some kind of Hexblade or something. Not sure which Rogue subclasses have to go to keep people from trying to be Black Widow or Loki; Mastermind at the very least.
Have I missed anything? I'm sure I've missed something, there are a bajillion MCU characters.
That's a fair point. I was basing it more on how the character functions in practice (using a limited set of spells over and over rather than having completely different complements on different days), but if we use that metric, then no one ends up being a Wizard, not even the likes of Gandalf, since no one else is using Jack Vance's magic system. Plus Dr. Strange clearly has ritual casting, so until 1DD comes out, he'd be an awkward fit for Sorcerer.
No, they are a niche class, not something that should be considered as a core class.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
If you think about it, artificers are usually the first magic users a world will have if there is an ancient/lost civilization that leaves behind a lot fo magical artifacts. The idea of casting a spell is secondary to learning how to infuse magical properties INTO an item for use. Having an item do the work instead of simply using will to bend reality is a more fundamental stepping stone towards widespread magical use when worldbuilding is concerned.
This kind of lines up with my thinking. Regardless of the chicken and egg problem of whether spellcasting or magic items comes first, If your world has magical items, including potions, wands, armor, and constructs, then you have everything you need for the Artificer to be a thematic fit. If your world doesn't have those things, then you're already homebrewing away from the default assumptions of the game, and so banning artificers is just one more line item along with the other classes and options that don't fit such a world. But the path going forward is for rules to be presented in a setting-agnostic format with sidebars about specific settings, and the artificer fits within those setting-agnostic assumptions.
Something very specialized which lacks broad appeal. They do not fit into the mold of any of the basic archetypes. They are not weapon focused martial characters. They are not divine focused spell casters. They are not arcane focused spell casters, and they are not steathy sneaksters.
The PHB should be focused on covering the basics, the things that you /need/ to play. Things like the artificer belong in follow up products. They're not necessary to play, but would be nice to have. The fact is, there's a lot of stuff we're going to want that we're simply not going to get in the PHB.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I'll grant you that when Artificers first came out two editions ago, they were very specialized, both in terms of focus and flavor. Bards, Monks, and Warlocks also started out as niche classes that didn't fit basic archetypes, but they all eventually made it into the core PHB. Things change, and what constitutes "basics" and "needs" does as well. I mean, looking at your list of archetypes, you could argue that only the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard belong in the PHB. Do you "need" the Barbarian, Bard, Druid, or Sorcerer if you have those? They're all a bit more niche, aren't they?
I'd be fine with cutting them if I had to. But I certainly would not take artificer over any of them.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Generally. No. No Artificer even approaches the concept of 'overpowered' they are a bit more tuned up than other classes but thats more a factor of WOTC getting a little better at designing things the more often they do it. Which seems fairly normal to me. One of the things about Ranger in 1dd is that its getting much of the same 'tune up' that the artificer has in the spell casting department.
As for the armorer themselves. Everything that they have also has a downside that sort of balances it out. Int based attacks (but only with their built in weapons) A Soft Taunt effect (but no extra hitpoints), temp hitpoints (but only a small amount a limited number of times) Extra infusions (that you need to use to maintain parity with DM given magic items). I'd say where the Armorer REALLY shines is actually as the base of a Wizard Multiclass. 5 levels of artificer for the extra attack or just 3 for armor proficiency and then Wizard to ramp up the spell casting versatility. Armorer and Alchemist are specifically good at that compared to Artillerist and Battlesmith, which really operate better IMO as straight classes.
Personally, I'd say the Battlesmith stays head and shoulders above the others in most campaigns.
Yes. They did present a subclass for the class on a NON-CAMPAIGN specific source book.
I'm a little late to the party. Here are my thoughts on this.
Artificers has always been there in the world. People think they are out of place, they are not. Just not in name.
Artificers Armorer/Artillerist/Battle Smiths = Wizards Who Enchant things
Artificer Alchemist = Potion Maker/Alchemist
Steel Defenders = Golems with cooler shapes
Arcane Armor = Helmed Horror/Animated Armor just with a guy in it.
Arcane Firearm/Eldritch Cannon= Flying Sword( or Bent Wand that fits in hand, Huge Wand that has wings or legs. They fire spells )
Experimental Elixir = Fancy Potions
Homunculus Servant = Homunculus
There is one reason to want the Artificer in the PHB:
Until they are, there will be no new subclasses. The writers want subclasses in their book that players use, and PHB classes can be assumed to be owned by any player. Artificer in 5e is in an expansion, so a significant number of players won't have it. Why would you write a subclass that only potentially appeals to, say, 60% of players when you can write one that appeals to 90%+ of players?
I want them in the PHB because they're an interesting class and I'd love to see more official subclasses.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They require the player to dive into a non-player-facing book (the DMG) to understand all their features. And unlike Druid's Wildshape changes, they can't change that with a generic statblock. The major offender here is Replicate Magic Item, but even without that infusion, you still need the DMG to understand the general rules behind magic items and attunement. I can understand them wanting to keep that out of core so that only groups that feel they're experienced enough to cross that threshold have to be expose to it.
By the same logic the Thief Subclass should be considered "exotic" as well. Its 10th level feature "Use Magic Device" requires precisely the same knowledge of the general rules of magic items as infusions require. Actually it requires further knowledge considering it adds an exception to how magic item charges work that the Artificer class does not. It even has special rules for how thieves interacts with spell scrolls. Yet, apparently there's plenty of room for the Thief Subclass in the PHB despite that it relies on game mechanics not covered in the PHB.