The playtest artificer is starting to feel... weird.
If we look at other half-casters, we have paladins and rangers to compare with. Both of them wear their martial ancestry on their sleeves, with built-in Extra Attack and many features driving their attacks, with some utility sprinkled into the mix. They have spells, but they're only a limited part of the class (or arguably as uses per day for the paladin's smiting business).
Artificers, on the other hand, used to have a set of custom options in how you wanted to style the class (similar to the warlock). Now, with the playtest, Artificers essentially just have more money than other classes, that is earmarked for crafting gear. The benefits of this varies wildly depending on the campaign. If you get tons of money and items, then this feature is... less than impressive. In a low-magic, low-wealth campaign, it is disproportionally stronger.
Also, increasingly weirdly, the two Artificer subclasses that leans more towards the caster side, Alchemist and Artillerist, have features that ask them to burn through their spell-slots to get additional uses of their class features, meaning that the Armorer and Battle Smith ends up with more available spell slots in any given day. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That the more martial subclasses get ways to spend their spell-slots to enhance their combat prowess, and the caster subclasses get incentivised to cast their spells instead of using their slots to recharge a cannon or serve up some more drinks?
I really feel that the class ought to be the master of magic items (seeing as they have a feature that says as much), where they can get MORE out of the items they find, by tinkering and adding additional features to them. Expand on the Infusion mechanic, instead of tying so much of the class' mechanics to something shared by every character with some gold to spare.
So, yeah, the playtest Artificer feels weird :)
artificer is a unique class, its meant to be able to go in a more martial direction, or a more caster direction.
the magic replication is virtually the same as infusions, but far more versatile, its where a lot of the class customization comes from. by opening it up to uncommon-rare items, caster types will select items that improve or expand their spells. martials will select defense/offense, and martial friendly spells. they also have items, like spell refeuling ring, that increase slots. note they added a bunch of template items, where you can choose to create it from scratch, or provide the item. this allows you to create something like, a mithral armor of blugeoning resistance
basically you can create your own class features using items.
note that artificer also increases your max attuned items, so even in a game that gives many items, the artificer has more. In a game where they allow no crafting, magic replication is going against other class features.
the level 10 spell storing ring can basically give 10 artificer spell slots, and the subclass spells are considered artificer spells.
as far as using spell slots for class abilities, the artillerist one kinda irks me, because the free uses are so low, but as i said, they can get a lot of extra spells via replicate item. items with charges, spell like items, and enspelled items.. if they care, artificer probably has the highest amount of level 0-3 spells
and they can use thier homunculus to cast these item based spells, which makes them more valuable than they might be on classes that had to cast themselves.
the martials will be using their spell slots on things that enhance combat, like haste, jump, longstrider, shield, they might make a smite enspelled sword+1. or a flame tounge club+2
armorer btw, is meant to use its spells to enhance its armors playstyle,
How unique is Artificer, compared to Monk or Warlock, really?
Clerics can go in a more martial or more caster direction, only they're better at both: full caster, with features that enhance their martial combat, too. And not such tight progression that taking a dip will hurt their endgame, as Artificers seem built to do.
Magic Replication is pretty tame. Scribing scrolls gives you the same as the level 10 ability. Just scribe ten scrolls.
Sure, Artificer pets are nice, but they come from the same source as offered sidekicks, which can be vastly superior, and they're comparable to other class's pets.
Increasing maximum attuned items is fine. It's not game breaking. It makes sense. I'm with you there.
I'm just edgy and eager to see what the game designers do to improve the Playtest version, and hope it bears as little similarity to Playtest as the 2024 rules do to those playtest classes.
How unique is Artificer, compared to Monk or Warlock, really?
Clerics can go in a more martial or more caster direction, only they're better at both: full caster, with features that enhance their martial combat, too. And not such tight progression that taking a dip will hurt their endgame, as Artificers seem built to do.
Magic Replication is pretty tame. Scribing scrolls gives you the same as the level 10 ability. Just scribe ten scrolls.
Sure, Artificer pets are nice, but they come from the same source as offered sidekicks, which can be vastly superior, and they're comparable to other class's pets.
Increasing maximum attuned items is fine. It's not game breaking. It makes sense. I'm with you there.
I'm just edgy and eager to see what the game designers do to improve the Playtest version, and hope it bears as little similarity to Playtest as the 2024 rules do to those playtest classes.
when i said unique, i more meant that the base class is designed to not commit to magic or martial, i'd say only one other class has this paradigm
warlock is the other omni directional martial/magic class they can be like 100% magic to like 60% martial
ranger/pld have a fixed balance, id say they are like 50-75% martial
cleric cant be a real martial, their most martial version, id say is like a 33% martial
cleric cant go either direction and actually be a decent martial.
Not sure on what basis would a cleric be a better martial, you'll have to explain that.
monk is really not very magical, their most magical builds are like 25% tops.
artificers can be 100% magical, to like 75% martial.
Sidekicks is a whole other optional system, its not really comparable to a self contained class. You wouldnt be comparing a paladin to a monk+sidekick.
spell scrolls take time to create, and require you to knOw the spell, Other means of obtaining them are dm dependent/random. scribing 10 level 3 scrolls would take 50 days of 8 hour wordays and 1500g, For artificer that happens Every day with no effort.
What is special about artificers, is they have self contained itemization. Crafting, loot, and buying magic items is directly managed by the dm, by raw. So the artificer's companions can predictably cast haste via enspelled item, or invisible. Artillerists pets can cast fireball via items. They also have full access to level 0-3 spells via magic replication, no class limitation.
other classes can get summons, but they cant create items out of thin air to have them use. This essentially makes artificers very good at maintaining low level concentration spells.
but mostly what makes artificer interesting is its a very customizable class, the items as features thing gives people who really like creating a class more options, once again, only Warlock is really similar in that respect.
Artificers can only be 100% magical if you are not comparing to other magical classes. Being a half caster really limits their magical potential before level 11. Many campaigns never GET to level 11, which means their artificers feel REALLY weak and never really get going at all.
Also comparing Artificer who is a limited half caster to a full caster (albeit a kind of weird one) in the Warlock is kind of disingenuous. If they wanted to make the Artificer function like the warlock for spell progression I'd feel better about it, but never getting access to anything higher than level 5 and even that being EXTREMELY late game means that while you can toss out bucketloads of level 3 spells after level 11, you are forever cut off from the upper tiers of spells.
I feel like the replication abilities as they stand are no more useful than Warlock Invocations. Possibly less. Which means that comparing these two classes, the Warlock is MUCH more powerful at every tier aside from levels 11 through maybe 15 or so.
If they want Artificers to remain half casters, then their other class features need to make up for that, they currently do not. If they want Artificers to be spell casters who dedicate their non-spellcasting class features to make these temporary low tier magic items then they should be full casters or at least on par with Warlocks for casting ability.
I love the concept of Artificers. They are probably my single favorite class concept. The implementation leaves much to be desired.
Artificers can only be 100% magical if you are not comparing to other magical classes. Being a half caster really limits their magical potential before level 11. Many campaigns never GET to level 11, which means their artificers feel REALLY weak and never really get going at all.
Also comparing Artificer who is a limited half caster to a full caster (albeit a kind of weird one) in the Warlock is kind of disingenuous. If they wanted to make the Artificer function like the warlock for spell progression I'd feel better about it, but never getting access to anything higher than level 5 and even that being EXTREMELY late game means that while you can toss out bucketloads of level 3 spells after level 11, you are forever cut off from the upper tiers of spells.
I feel like the replication abilities as they stand are no more useful than Warlock Invocations. Possibly less. Which means that comparing these two classes, the Warlock is MUCH more powerful at every tier aside from levels 11 through maybe 15 or so.
If they want Artificers to remain half casters, then their other class features need to make up for that, they currently do not. If they want Artificers to be spell casters who dedicate their non-spellcasting class features to make these temporary low tier magic items then they should be full casters or at least on par with Warlocks for casting ability.
I love the concept of Artificers. They are probably my single favorite class concept. The implementation leaves much to be desired.
by 100%, i mean they can compete in damage and utility by using all spells. They can do this, even before Spell storing item, by using their replication on enspelled items/items with charges(enspelled at 6 gives 0-1 lvl spells). This combined with equipping their pets, allows the Arillerist to be a fairly decent blaster, and the alchemist to be a strong support/ healer.
for example, the level 6 artillerist can have a turn that looks like 2d10+5 (firebolt)action +2d8(flamethrower)cone BA+3d8 aoe(Homunculus enspelled burning hands) thats competitive with full casters, and all magic based.They can do this six turns per day. they can have a wand of the warmage +1 for more spell accuracy, or more spells for other combats, perhaps magic missle for single target. Being able to combine the homunculus+magic replication can mitigate their lack of high level spells. as early as level 6. Being able to leverage the homunculus action allows them to still be relevant even though their extra spells are always going to be weaker.
the alchemist at 6 can have the homuculus faerie fire with enspelled item, while concentrating on Web, providing fairly potent support. And hand out/use Elixirs as a BA. They could even give the homunculus a bless enspelled item. Thats a ton of support.
now, they will have to try to keep their homunculus alive or lose a lot of power/utility (and its fairly weak) but thats the nature of the beast.
Essentially the caster focused artificer can supplement their spells via items, the martial focused artificer can supplement their combat potential via items.
invocations are cool, but they are a different approach to charachter building, Both are good and on theme.
I dont actually think caster warlocks are more powerful than artillerist/alch. And, im not sure they are stronger than BS. My current tests of armorer suggest it probably needs some tweaks, but its still early, and i need to think about it.
its got some issues, I think some magic replications need to be moved down. I think BS possibly having to dual wield with a wrench to use spells and cantrips is an issue. I think Artilerist needs some more free castings of Eldritch cannon. Not sure if elixirs dont need a higher scaling for t3-t4. I also feel like, being a battlesmith without a fighter dip for masteries and a fighting style probably wont feel as good as with it. Yea, you can get some items with nice effects to combat this, and some blade cantrips early level, but not sure it feels as good.
but overall, this new artificer has a lot more potential/creativity than the old so far, if they fix/clear up some issues.
How unique is Artificer, compared to Monk or Warlock, really?
Artificer is much more unique than Monk. Monk is just a Fighter that moves fast and lacks all the customization of fighter. Warlock is an unfair comparator since it is by far the most unique class in the game due to their Pact Magic and Invocations.
The problem with Artificer is that WotC is pretty bad at balancing magic items. As such either their magic item crafting feels way to restrictive and lacking power, or is easy to exploit to break the game.
Though another issue is with player expectations (much like Monk & Ranger), Artificer is a half-caster so they like the other half-casters (Warlock, Ranger, Paladin) are neither the best at single-target damage, nor the best as spellcasting. Their whole thing is being a little of everything, thus being a jack of all trades and master of none, and thus also requiring a lot of skill to play effectively since you need to know when it is worth it to cast a spell vs use weapon attack vs something else. If we compare to Ranger, and Paladin, Ranger is Exploration + Combat, Paladin is Social + Combat, Artificer is Utility + Combat.
The UA is basically the same as what we currently have, the only issues with it are:
Tools Required. You produce your Artificer spells through tools. You can use Thieves’ Tools, Tinker’s Tools, or another kind of Artisan’s Tools with which you have proficiency as a Spellcasting Focus, and you must have one of those focuses in hand when you cast an Artificer spell (meaning the spell has an “M” component when you cast it).
Artificers are largely designed around medium armour (or heavy armour) + shield for defense so for those subclasses that use weapons too, always needing to have a focus in your hand to cast any spell is quite problematic. Paladin and Ranger get around this issue by having a lot of spells that are "V" only, so I don't know why they felt the need to force the artificer to always be holding their tools to cast any spell.
And that the Alchemist's Elixer's don't scale with the level of the spell slot you expend to create it, which means it's always really hard to justify using that feature more than a few times per day, when its supposed to be the key stone of the whole subclass.
Artificers can only be 100% magical if you are not comparing to other magical classes. Being a half caster really limits their magical potential before level 11. Many campaigns never GET to level 11, which means their artificers feel REALLY weak and never really get going at all.
You are wrapped up in spellcasting and assuming the rest of the class is mundane.
Magical Tinkering. The UA feature sucks, but it is magically conjuring mundane items.
Spellcasting.
Replicate Magic Item
Artificer Subclass (Apart from Tool Proficiency, this is mostly magical).
Ability Score Improvement (ASI). Same for all classes.
Level 5 Subclass feature. Varies. Armorer and Battle Smith are mundane.
Magic Item Tinker
Flash of Genius
ASI at level 8
Level 9 Subclass Feature. Magical features or modify magical features.
Magic Item Adept
Spell-storing Item
Level 12 ASI
Magic Item Savant
Level 15 Subclass Feature. Magical features or modify magical features.
Magic Item Master
Epic Boon same for all classes
Soul of Artifice.
They aren't full spellcasters, but the class is almost exclusively about magic, casting it, and using it ways that no other class can.
They use magic to do things yes, but in the case of Armorer and Battlesmith those things are generally expected to be martial in effect.
Also my point was that while 100% of what an artificer might do is magical in nature, it is only about 70% of what a full caster can do. The class feels incomplete.
And arguments that they CAN keep up with a full caster if they spend all their replications on enspelled items means they are sacrificing what makes their class different from a wizard in order to just keep up in combat. Either they need to be some flavor of full caster or they need more replications/flexibility and better scaling. I personally would prefer the latter but either solution would be acceptable.
I would not mind at all seeing Spell Storing Item be more limited and possibly a blocker on enspelled items being replicated in exchange for the class doing what it obviously is intended to do at a functional level without feeling REALLY weak.
And arguments that they CAN keep up with a full caster if they spend all their replications on enspelled items means they are sacrificing what makes their class different from a wizard in order to just keep up in combat. Either they need to be some flavor of full caster or they need more replications/flexibility and better scaling. I personally would prefer the latter but either solution would be acceptable.
I disagree. No class should be able to inherently replicate another class in that class's role without special investment. Otherwise, what's the point of classes at all? I do think the replicate magic items and some of their other features need more work.
I would not mind at all seeing Spell Storing Item be more limited and possibly a blocker on enspelled items being replicated in exchange for the class doing what it obviously is intended to do at a functional level without feeling REALLY weak.
If you scaled Spell-storing item, you could even give it to them early. Let's say X + Int modifier times per day (minimum of X +1) with level 1 spells at level 6, level 2 at level 11, and level 3 at 13 or 17. Past level 20 (Epic Boons to increase Intelligence), it will scale slower than the original version, but I don't really see that as a concern.
Another option could be to replace it with a different feature (may a once per day replicate item during a Short Rest), make it an infusion/replicated magic item (but not a general magic item), and increase the replicated magic item and plans known limits. If they do that and keep the rare item limit, making a spell-storing item that replicates 3rd level spells rare could act as a limit on the item.
They use magic to do things yes, but in the case of Armorer and Battlesmith those things are generally expected to be martial in effect.
Also my point was that while 100% of what an artificer might do is magical in nature, it is only about 70% of what a full caster can do. The class feels incomplete.
And arguments that they CAN keep up with a full caster if they spend all their replications on enspelled items means they are sacrificing what makes their class different from a wizard in order to just keep up in combat. Either they need to be some flavor of full caster or they need more replications/flexibility and better scaling. I personally would prefer the latter but either solution would be acceptable.
I would not mind at all seeing Spell Storing Item be more limited and possibly a blocker on enspelled items being replicated in exchange for the class doing what it obviously is intended to do at a functional level without feeling REALLY weak.
by what are you basing you metric of 70% of what caster can do?
they have a different balance.
they arent sacrificing what makes their classdifferent to keep up with casters by using magic replications on magic related items, they are using what makes their class different to become a unique type of caster.
they are leveraging magic items to have the best selection of level 0-3 spells /item charges in the game. they can have the most spell uses per day in the game, and they can outfit their creatures with magic replications to make these low level spells/item charges still valuable action economy wise. For other classes, more low level spell slots has no real use, because higher teir spells are better, and use the same action economy.
They are comparable to wizard but in a very different way. Not simply having the same spell list like sorcerer and bard
in the case of armorer or battlesmith they use this in a different way, that is unique from other half casters.
As far as other issues;
i would say the scaling or maybe progression is a bit off, they honestly feel a bit weak to me in the 1-4 level range. And for the casters, i would say artillerist feels a bit pressed for spells/slots before 6. their eldritch cannon does fill a gap, but onLy works for 1 hour /death before dipping into a very small spell slot pool. Id also say alchemist has a similar struggle, unless they are somehow crafting regular potions (which cant be assumed) BS is probably the best one since steel defender has no timer. Armorer, early on, they are basically a weaker fighter with 2 pieces of good gear. infiltrator needs better synergy, and guardian, is just a hands free sap, aka inferior to pld. If they dont intend armorer weapons to be craftable via magic replication/enhanced they need to make them scale better. If they do intend them to work with replication, they need to make that clear, as many dont read the rules that way.
i think 6+ they may be straight, as the variety and power of replications, as well as previous features combine to give them more power and stamina. but i need to do a bit more testing
Under 2014 rules, the only one that IME struggles is Alchemist, mainly because their Experimental Elixirs are too niche which means poor rolls on the table leaves your main subclass feature useless, and don't scale to keep up in tier 3 (and are borderline in tier 2).
Armourer is a Tank, they aren't a damage dealer, and they are fine as a tank - easily on par with the Paladin in terms of survivability. But with more flexibility to adapt to different situations than a Paladin (I'm sure we all know how annoying it is to try to ambush or infiltrate with a paladin in the party or heard them whining about flying enemies). They have more a bit more utility / battlefield control than a Paladin to make up for lower damage.
Artillerist is viable as a blaster, they aren't the best but not the worst either. Their eldritch cannon makes up for not the greatest Action-DPR. I really like the 2024 change to give them more flexibility in their cannon which did feel like a sore spot in 2014 as they ended up locked into their cannon choice from round 1.
Battlesmith is totally competent as a half-caster battlefield control/support martial.
Under 2014 rules, the only one that IME struggles is Alchemist, mainly because their Experimental Elixirs are too niche which means poor rolls on the table leaves your main subclass feature useless, and don't scale to keep up in tier 3 (and are borderline in tier 2).
Armourer is a Tank, they aren't a damage dealer, and they are fine as a tank - easily on par with the Paladin in terms of survivability. But with more flexibility to adapt to different situations than a Paladin (I'm sure we all know how annoying it is to try to ambush or infiltrate with a paladin in the party or heard them whining about flying enemies). They have more a bit more utility / battlefield control than a Paladin to make up for lower damage.
Artillerist is viable as a blaster, they aren't the best but not the worst either. Their eldritch cannon makes up for not the greatest Action-DPR. I really like the 2024 change to give them more flexibility in their cannon which did feel like a sore spot in 2014 as they ended up locked into their cannon choice from round 1.
Battlesmith is totally competent as a half-caster battlefield control/support martial.
they need to have a higher floor than 2014 rules though. things are substantialy different in terms of tactics, versatility, and power floor.
I'll continue to stand pat on my position, until the fully-fleshed out, official release of Artificer under 2024 rules comes out. I expect there to be so many changes that what we discuss here won't be very relevant by that point.
I'm enjoying the Playtest Artificers; I am. It's just that they're so frustratingly nearly as good as the least playable other classes that it saps the fun too much for me to prefer them over, say, a one-armed Ranger with tree-pollen allergies.
I'll continue to stand pat on my position, until the fully-fleshed out, official release of Artificer under 2024 rules comes out. I expect there to be so many changes that what we discuss here won't be very relevant by that point.
I'm enjoying the Playtest Artificers; I am. It's just that they're so frustratingly nearly as good as the least playable other classes that it saps the fun too much for me to prefer them over, say, a one-armed Ranger with tree-pollen allergies.
you are entitked to your perspective,
but may i ask, what level are you playing, what type of build/subclass?
I systematically worked through the four subclasses mechanically using a Sage (for Find Familiar and cantrips) Poisoner build, noting that Bonus Actions weren't really well fleshed-out but that Artificers have great ability to convert massive weights of treasure value (like copper coins, or loot in bulky form) to small weights of poison to avoid the problem of carrying weight, so at level four all those monsters with poison resistance would no longer resist Poison Spray, and would take +2d8 for most blows landed with weapons. Elven Accuracy at level 8. That convinced me Artificer could maybe-sorta not hurt party strength.
I tend to like Gish-types, so a Poison Armorer and a Poison Battle Smith wood elf were my two playtest attempts from level 1- up.
I haven't gotten very far in advancement with either, but both suffer compared to Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Hunter Ranger with similar builds in combat, and don't add that much to the fun of roleplay.
I don't think you went "wrong" per se, but your judgement seems to rely on elaborate multiclass builds optimized for DPS. Which is fine and all, but not the sum total of fun for most people.
The Artificer class is a very flexible support class. No other class can guarantee a Bag of Holding, as a class feature, at level 2, for example.
You're assuming Artificer is a DPS martial class, it's like saying Bard is bad because it doesn't deal as much damage with a sword in combat as a Fighter.
I systematically worked through the four subclasses mechanically using a Sage (for Find Familiar and cantrips) Poisoner build, noting that Bonus Actions weren't really well fleshed-out but that Artificers have great ability to convert massive weights of treasure value (like copper coins, or loot in bulky form) to small weights of poison to avoid the problem of carrying weight, so at level four all those monsters with poison resistance would no longer resist Poison Spray, and would take +2d8 for most blows landed with weapons. Elven Accuracy at level 8. That convinced me Artificer could maybe-sorta not hurt party strength.
I tend to like Gish-types, so a Poison Armorer and a Poison Battle Smith wood elf were my two playtest attempts from level 1- up.
I haven't gotten very far in advancement with either, but both suffer compared to Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Hunter Ranger with similar builds in combat, and don't add that much to the fun of roleplay.
Where did I go wrong?
i wouldnt say you went wrong, but level range matters. from my tests, artificer seems objectively weaker from levels 1-4, it gets a big boost at 5 and 6.
also having tested the sub classes in level 1-4, armorer seems like its the worst. the bonus AC is overated, and you dont have the threat or control to be a good tank. Your special armor doesnt do much defensively, offensively, and its control is generally worse than mastery by far. The stealth suit is good at stealth, but stealth offers very little benefit, and is actually kind of counter to having high speed.
5 is major, as you get homuculus and extra attack as well as level 2 slots, and 6 finally lets you use uncommon items to start to mitigate your faults make better use of homunculus
I don't think you went "wrong" per se, but your judgement seems to rely on elaborate multiclass builds optimized for DPS. Which is fine and all, but not the sum total of fun for most people.
The Artificer class is a very flexible support class. No other class can guarantee a Bag of Holding, as a class feature, at level 2, for example.
You're assuming Artificer is a DPS martial class, it's like saying Bard is bad because it doesn't deal as much damage with a sword in combat as a Fighter.
Artificer is a tanky, versatile, support class.
support doesnt mean weaker dpr in 5e, especially if you are looking at all subclasses. cleric, paladin, can give just as much if not more support with just if not more tankiness, and probably versatility on dpr.
and the UA 2024 artificer is not really objectively great at support or tankiness, at level 1-9, from what i can see, definitely from 1-5. havented tested 7-9, but nothing changes drastically in those levels.
6 is probably the biggest factor i might be underestimating, as you will have both a homunculus and access to uncommon replications. But that could go either way /damage or support.
from my tests, and i am currently testing all sub classes, 1-4 is rough, with armorer and alchemist being the most behind.
fact is their defense is highly overated. they can spec into +2 AC, (only 10% more evasion vs attacks) and theoretically have better equipment (though that is very DM/module dependent)
but most even slightly defensive classes get way more than that.
Barbarian is half damage, clerics got heavy armor, more/better spells, fighters have fighting styles, second wind and mastery, paladin has heavy armor, fighting styles, mastery better spell list, and lay on hands.
basically the 1-2 features arent strong, the subclass features are pretty strong, but not enough to make up the difference.
level 5 is big, things gel better, but alchs really need uncommon replications to catch up in magic, and armorers are basically tanky without synergistic means of tanking. they arent an offensive or support threat, so why would a monster waste their attacks on them? Other classes can use push, sap, topple, slow on hit to make them hard to avoid, and provide more of a threat for opportunity attacks, and have the strength or dex(monk) to support unarmed control.
now this can be mitigated, if your group allows crafting, making ogre guantlets dramatically helps tanking potential, as you could make better use of grapple/shove. mechanics, but even with this crafted item, it just gives you +1 mod, which probably doesnt fully make up for how behind you are without mastery (at being a useful tank)
or for the caster types, crafting a lvl 1 enspelled item of your choice.can mitigate a weak spell list, and low amount if spell slots, but is that enough to make up the difference?
I don't think you went "wrong" per se, but your judgement seems to rely on elaborate multiclass builds optimized for DPS. Which is fine and all, but not the sum total of fun for most people.
The Artificer class is a very flexible support class. No other class can guarantee a Bag of Holding, as a class feature, at level 2, for example.
I wish I had relied on elaborate multiclass builds. But all the builds I listed were single-class 'gish', and all of them outshine all four Artificer subclasses in support. Any of them can use Poisoner (at level 4) to convert 500 lbs of copper pieces in a treasure into 3 applications of poison that weigh nothing, and are certainly worth more than their 50 gp nominal value, which for my money is worth more than any bag of holding. Of which the party gets one. Sure, they have to wait two levels, but they're waiting two levels with a more capable partner.
I tried using Artificer features for support. Swamped by resources otherwise available, Artificer features more or less fade into the background, unimpressive and disappointing. Marginal at healing, and far worse at it than either Paladin or any full caster now; poor at control and far worse at it than either Ranger or any full caster now with 2024 rules; I just don't feel supportive of the party being essentially a tauntless kender with a one-ended hoopak. I do find the Armorer's extra defenses underwhelming and oversold, but that wasn't why I went with the subclass: it was for extra attack with an attack that at least feigns a mastery feature, to apply poison to. And that wasn't for 'extra' DPS: it was to keep from falling off the DPS map completely compared to the rest of the party. The Armorer's best contribution is using Investigate to look for traps so when they fail the check the Rogue doesn't soak all the damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
artificer is a unique class, its meant to be able to go in a more martial direction, or a more caster direction.
the magic replication is virtually the same as infusions, but far more versatile, its where a lot of the class customization comes from. by opening it up to uncommon-rare items, caster types will select items that improve or expand their spells. martials will select defense/offense, and martial friendly spells. they also have items, like spell refeuling ring, that increase slots. note they added a bunch of template items, where you can choose to create it from scratch, or provide the item. this allows you to create something like, a mithral armor of blugeoning resistance
basically you can create your own class features using items.
note that artificer also increases your max attuned items, so even in a game that gives many items, the artificer has more. In a game where they allow no crafting, magic replication is going against other class features.
the level 10 spell storing ring can basically give 10 artificer spell slots, and the subclass spells are considered artificer spells.
as far as using spell slots for class abilities, the artillerist one kinda irks me, because the free uses are so low, but as i said, they can get a lot of extra spells via replicate item. items with charges, spell like items, and enspelled items.. if they care, artificer probably has the highest amount of level 0-3 spells
and they can use thier homunculus to cast these item based spells, which makes them more valuable than they might be on classes that had to cast themselves.
the martials will be using their spell slots on things that enhance combat, like haste, jump, longstrider, shield, they might make a smite enspelled sword+1. or a flame tounge club+2
armorer btw, is meant to use its spells to enhance its armors playstyle,
How unique is Artificer, compared to Monk or Warlock, really?
Clerics can go in a more martial or more caster direction, only they're better at both: full caster, with features that enhance their martial combat, too. And not such tight progression that taking a dip will hurt their endgame, as Artificers seem built to do.
Magic Replication is pretty tame. Scribing scrolls gives you the same as the level 10 ability. Just scribe ten scrolls.
Sure, Artificer pets are nice, but they come from the same source as offered sidekicks, which can be vastly superior, and they're comparable to other class's pets.
Increasing maximum attuned items is fine. It's not game breaking. It makes sense. I'm with you there.
I'm just edgy and eager to see what the game designers do to improve the Playtest version, and hope it bears as little similarity to Playtest as the 2024 rules do to those playtest classes.
when i said unique, i more meant that the base class is designed to not commit to magic or martial, i'd say only one other class has this paradigm
warlock is the other omni directional martial/magic class they can be like 100% magic to like 60% martial
ranger/pld have a fixed balance, id say they are like 50-75% martial
cleric cant be a real martial, their most martial version, id say is like a 33% martial
cleric cant go either direction and actually be a decent martial.
Not sure on what basis would a cleric be a better martial, you'll have to explain that.
monk is really not very magical, their most magical builds are like 25% tops.
artificers can be 100% magical, to like 75% martial.
Sidekicks is a whole other optional system, its not really comparable to a self contained class. You wouldnt be comparing a paladin to a monk+sidekick.
spell scrolls take time to create, and require you to knOw the spell, Other means of obtaining them are dm dependent/random. scribing 10 level 3 scrolls would take 50 days of 8 hour wordays and 1500g, For artificer that happens Every day with no effort.
What is special about artificers, is they have self contained itemization. Crafting, loot, and buying magic items is directly managed by the dm, by raw. So the artificer's companions can predictably cast haste via enspelled item, or invisible. Artillerists pets can cast fireball via items. They also have full access to level 0-3 spells via magic replication, no class limitation.
other classes can get summons, but they cant create items out of thin air to have them use. This essentially makes artificers very good at maintaining low level concentration spells.
but mostly what makes artificer interesting is its a very customizable class, the items as features thing gives people who really like creating a class more options, once again, only Warlock is really similar in that respect.
if you dont like artificer thats fine,
Artificers can only be 100% magical if you are not comparing to other magical classes. Being a half caster really limits their magical potential before level 11. Many campaigns never GET to level 11, which means their artificers feel REALLY weak and never really get going at all.
Also comparing Artificer who is a limited half caster to a full caster (albeit a kind of weird one) in the Warlock is kind of disingenuous. If they wanted to make the Artificer function like the warlock for spell progression I'd feel better about it, but never getting access to anything higher than level 5 and even that being EXTREMELY late game means that while you can toss out bucketloads of level 3 spells after level 11, you are forever cut off from the upper tiers of spells.
I feel like the replication abilities as they stand are no more useful than Warlock Invocations. Possibly less. Which means that comparing these two classes, the Warlock is MUCH more powerful at every tier aside from levels 11 through maybe 15 or so.
If they want Artificers to remain half casters, then their other class features need to make up for that, they currently do not. If they want Artificers to be spell casters who dedicate their non-spellcasting class features to make these temporary low tier magic items then they should be full casters or at least on par with Warlocks for casting ability.
I love the concept of Artificers. They are probably my single favorite class concept. The implementation leaves much to be desired.
by 100%, i mean they can compete in damage and utility by using all spells. They can do this, even before Spell storing item, by using their replication on enspelled items/items with charges(enspelled at 6 gives 0-1 lvl spells). This combined with equipping their pets, allows the Arillerist to be a fairly decent blaster, and the alchemist to be a strong support/ healer.
for example, the level 6 artillerist can have a turn that looks like 2d10+5 (firebolt)action +2d8(flamethrower)cone BA+3d8 aoe(Homunculus enspelled burning hands) thats competitive with full casters, and all magic based.They can do this six turns per day. they can have a wand of the warmage +1 for more spell accuracy, or more spells for other combats, perhaps magic missle for single target. Being able to combine the homunculus+magic replication can mitigate their lack of high level spells. as early as level 6. Being able to leverage the homunculus action allows them to still be relevant even though their extra spells are always going to be weaker.
the alchemist at 6 can have the homuculus faerie fire with enspelled item, while concentrating on Web, providing fairly potent support. And hand out/use Elixirs as a BA. They could even give the homunculus a bless enspelled item. Thats a ton of support.
now, they will have to try to keep their homunculus alive or lose a lot of power/utility (and its fairly weak) but thats the nature of the beast.
Essentially the caster focused artificer can supplement their spells via items, the martial focused artificer can supplement their combat potential via items.
invocations are cool, but they are a different approach to charachter building, Both are good and on theme.
I dont actually think caster warlocks are more powerful than artillerist/alch. And, im not sure they are stronger than BS. My current tests of armorer suggest it probably needs some tweaks, but its still early, and i need to think about it.
its got some issues, I think some magic replications need to be moved down. I think BS possibly having to dual wield with a wrench to use spells and cantrips is an issue. I think Artilerist needs some more free castings of Eldritch cannon. Not sure if elixirs dont need a higher scaling for t3-t4. I also feel like, being a battlesmith without a fighter dip for masteries and a fighting style probably wont feel as good as with it. Yea, you can get some items with nice effects to combat this, and some blade cantrips early level, but not sure it feels as good.
but overall, this new artificer has a lot more potential/creativity than the old so far, if they fix/clear up some issues.
Artificer is much more unique than Monk. Monk is just a Fighter that moves fast and lacks all the customization of fighter. Warlock is an unfair comparator since it is by far the most unique class in the game due to their Pact Magic and Invocations.
The problem with Artificer is that WotC is pretty bad at balancing magic items. As such either their magic item crafting feels way to restrictive and lacking power, or is easy to exploit to break the game.
Though another issue is with player expectations (much like Monk & Ranger), Artificer is a half-caster so they like the other half-casters (Warlock, Ranger, Paladin) are neither the best at single-target damage, nor the best as spellcasting. Their whole thing is being a little of everything, thus being a jack of all trades and master of none, and thus also requiring a lot of skill to play effectively since you need to know when it is worth it to cast a spell vs use weapon attack vs something else. If we compare to Ranger, and Paladin, Ranger is Exploration + Combat, Paladin is Social + Combat, Artificer is Utility + Combat.
The UA is basically the same as what we currently have, the only issues with it are:
Artificers are largely designed around medium armour (or heavy armour) + shield for defense so for those subclasses that use weapons too, always needing to have a focus in your hand to cast any spell is quite problematic. Paladin and Ranger get around this issue by having a lot of spells that are "V" only, so I don't know why they felt the need to force the artificer to always be holding their tools to cast any spell.
And that the Alchemist's Elixer's don't scale with the level of the spell slot you expend to create it, which means it's always really hard to justify using that feature more than a few times per day, when its supposed to be the key stone of the whole subclass.
You are wrapped up in spellcasting and assuming the rest of the class is mundane.
They aren't full spellcasters, but the class is almost exclusively about magic, casting it, and using it ways that no other class can.
How to add Tooltips.
They use magic to do things yes, but in the case of Armorer and Battlesmith those things are generally expected to be martial in effect.
Also my point was that while 100% of what an artificer might do is magical in nature, it is only about 70% of what a full caster can do. The class feels incomplete.
And arguments that they CAN keep up with a full caster if they spend all their replications on enspelled items means they are sacrificing what makes their class different from a wizard in order to just keep up in combat. Either they need to be some flavor of full caster or they need more replications/flexibility and better scaling. I personally would prefer the latter but either solution would be acceptable.
I would not mind at all seeing Spell Storing Item be more limited and possibly a blocker on enspelled items being replicated in exchange for the class doing what it obviously is intended to do at a functional level without feeling REALLY weak.
I disagree. No class should be able to inherently replicate another class in that class's role without special investment. Otherwise, what's the point of classes at all? I do think the replicate magic items and some of their other features need more work.
If you scaled Spell-storing item, you could even give it to them early. Let's say X + Int modifier times per day (minimum of X +1) with level 1 spells at level 6, level 2 at level 11, and level 3 at 13 or 17. Past level 20 (Epic Boons to increase Intelligence), it will scale slower than the original version, but I don't really see that as a concern.
Another option could be to replace it with a different feature (may a once per day replicate item during a Short Rest), make it an infusion/replicated magic item (but not a general magic item), and increase the replicated magic item and plans known limits. If they do that and keep the rare item limit, making a spell-storing item that replicates 3rd level spells rare could act as a limit on the item.
How to add Tooltips.
by what are you basing you metric of 70% of what caster can do?
they have a different balance.
they arent sacrificing what makes their classdifferent to keep up with casters by using magic replications on magic related items, they are using what makes their class different to become a unique type of caster.
they are leveraging magic items to have the best selection of level 0-3 spells /item charges in the game. they can have the most spell uses per day in the game, and they can outfit their creatures with magic replications to make these low level spells/item charges still valuable action economy wise. For other classes, more low level spell slots has no real use, because higher teir spells are better, and use the same action economy.
They are comparable to wizard but in a very different way. Not simply having the same spell list like sorcerer and bard
in the case of armorer or battlesmith they use this in a different way, that is unique from other half casters.
As far as other issues;
i would say the scaling or maybe progression is a bit off, they honestly feel a bit weak to me in the 1-4 level range. And for the casters, i would say artillerist feels a bit pressed for spells/slots before 6. their eldritch cannon does fill a gap, but onLy works for 1 hour /death before dipping into a very small spell slot pool. Id also say alchemist has a similar struggle, unless they are somehow crafting regular potions (which cant be assumed) BS is probably the best one since steel defender has no timer. Armorer, early on, they are basically a weaker fighter with 2 pieces of good gear. infiltrator needs better synergy, and guardian, is just a hands free sap, aka inferior to pld. If they dont intend armorer weapons to be craftable via magic replication/enhanced they need to make them scale better. If they do intend them to work with replication, they need to make that clear, as many dont read the rules that way.
i think 6+ they may be straight, as the variety and power of replications, as well as previous features combine to give them more power and stamina. but i need to do a bit more testing
Under 2014 rules, the only one that IME struggles is Alchemist, mainly because their Experimental Elixirs are too niche which means poor rolls on the table leaves your main subclass feature useless, and don't scale to keep up in tier 3 (and are borderline in tier 2).
Armourer is a Tank, they aren't a damage dealer, and they are fine as a tank - easily on par with the Paladin in terms of survivability. But with more flexibility to adapt to different situations than a Paladin (I'm sure we all know how annoying it is to try to ambush or infiltrate with a paladin in the party or heard them whining about flying enemies). They have more a bit more utility / battlefield control than a Paladin to make up for lower damage.
Artillerist is viable as a blaster, they aren't the best but not the worst either. Their eldritch cannon makes up for not the greatest Action-DPR. I really like the 2024 change to give them more flexibility in their cannon which did feel like a sore spot in 2014 as they ended up locked into their cannon choice from round 1.
Battlesmith is totally competent as a half-caster battlefield control/support martial.
they need to have a higher floor than 2014 rules though. things are substantialy different in terms of tactics, versatility, and power floor.
I'll continue to stand pat on my position, until the fully-fleshed out, official release of Artificer under 2024 rules comes out. I expect there to be so many changes that what we discuss here won't be very relevant by that point.
I'm enjoying the Playtest Artificers; I am. It's just that they're so frustratingly nearly as good as the least playable other classes that it saps the fun too much for me to prefer them over, say, a one-armed Ranger with tree-pollen allergies.
you are entitked to your perspective,
but may i ask, what level are you playing, what type of build/subclass?
I systematically worked through the four subclasses mechanically using a Sage (for Find Familiar and cantrips) Poisoner build, noting that Bonus Actions weren't really well fleshed-out but that Artificers have great ability to convert massive weights of treasure value (like copper coins, or loot in bulky form) to small weights of poison to avoid the problem of carrying weight, so at level four all those monsters with poison resistance would no longer resist Poison Spray, and would take +2d8 for most blows landed with weapons. Elven Accuracy at level 8. That convinced me Artificer could maybe-sorta not hurt party strength.
I tend to like Gish-types, so a Poison Armorer and a Poison Battle Smith wood elf were my two playtest attempts from level 1- up.
I haven't gotten very far in advancement with either, but both suffer compared to Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Hunter Ranger with similar builds in combat, and don't add that much to the fun of roleplay.
Where did I go wrong?
I don't think you went "wrong" per se, but your judgement seems to rely on elaborate multiclass builds optimized for DPS. Which is fine and all, but not the sum total of fun for most people.
The Artificer class is a very flexible support class. No other class can guarantee a Bag of Holding, as a class feature, at level 2, for example.
You're assuming Artificer is a DPS martial class, it's like saying Bard is bad because it doesn't deal as much damage with a sword in combat as a Fighter.
Artificer is a tanky, versatile, support class.
i wouldnt say you went wrong, but level range matters. from my tests, artificer seems objectively weaker from levels 1-4, it gets a big boost at 5 and 6.
also having tested the sub classes in level 1-4, armorer seems like its the worst. the bonus AC is overated, and you dont have the threat or control to be a good tank. Your special armor doesnt do much defensively, offensively, and its control is generally worse than mastery by far. The stealth suit is good at stealth, but stealth offers very little benefit, and is actually kind of counter to having high speed.
5 is major, as you get homuculus and extra attack as well as level 2 slots, and 6 finally lets you use uncommon items to start to mitigate your faults make better use of homunculus
support doesnt mean weaker dpr in 5e, especially if you are looking at all subclasses. cleric, paladin, can give just as much if not more support with just if not more tankiness, and probably versatility on dpr.
and the UA 2024 artificer is not really objectively great at support or tankiness, at level 1-9, from what i can see, definitely from 1-5. havented tested 7-9, but nothing changes drastically in those levels.
6 is probably the biggest factor i might be underestimating, as you will have both a homunculus and access to uncommon replications. But that could go either way /damage or support.
from my tests, and i am currently testing all sub classes, 1-4 is rough, with armorer and alchemist being the most behind.
fact is their defense is highly overated. they can spec into +2 AC, (only 10% more evasion vs attacks) and theoretically have better equipment (though that is very DM/module dependent)
but most even slightly defensive classes get way more than that.
Barbarian is half damage, clerics got heavy armor, more/better spells, fighters have fighting styles, second wind and mastery, paladin has heavy armor, fighting styles, mastery better spell list, and lay on hands.
basically the 1-2 features arent strong, the subclass features are pretty strong, but not enough to make up the difference.
level 5 is big, things gel better, but alchs really need uncommon replications to catch up in magic, and armorers are basically tanky without synergistic means of tanking. they arent an offensive or support threat, so why would a monster waste their attacks on them? Other classes can use push, sap, topple, slow on hit to make them hard to avoid, and provide more of a threat for opportunity attacks, and have the strength or dex(monk) to support unarmed control.
now this can be mitigated, if your group allows crafting, making ogre guantlets dramatically helps tanking potential, as you could make better use of grapple/shove. mechanics, but even with this crafted item, it just gives you +1 mod, which probably doesnt fully make up for how behind you are without mastery (at being a useful tank)
or for the caster types, crafting a lvl 1 enspelled item of your choice.can mitigate a weak spell list, and low amount if spell slots, but is that enough to make up the difference?
I wish I had relied on elaborate multiclass builds. But all the builds I listed were single-class 'gish', and all of them outshine all four Artificer subclasses in support. Any of them can use Poisoner (at level 4) to convert 500 lbs of copper pieces in a treasure into 3 applications of poison that weigh nothing, and are certainly worth more than their 50 gp nominal value, which for my money is worth more than any bag of holding. Of which the party gets one. Sure, they have to wait two levels, but they're waiting two levels with a more capable partner.
I tried using Artificer features for support. Swamped by resources otherwise available, Artificer features more or less fade into the background, unimpressive and disappointing. Marginal at healing, and far worse at it than either Paladin or any full caster now; poor at control and far worse at it than either Ranger or any full caster now with 2024 rules; I just don't feel supportive of the party being essentially a tauntless kender with a one-ended hoopak. I do find the Armorer's extra defenses underwhelming and oversold, but that wasn't why I went with the subclass: it was for extra attack with an attack that at least feigns a mastery feature, to apply poison to. And that wasn't for 'extra' DPS: it was to keep from falling off the DPS map completely compared to the rest of the party. The Armorer's best contribution is using Investigate to look for traps so when they fail the check the Rogue doesn't soak all the damage.