I tend to agree that Cartographer doesn't have a lot they can do personally to make great use of their excellent mobility.
However, one notable aspect of the maps is they they enable ALL map holders to ignore the sight restriction on targeting other map holders, not just the Cartographer. The Cartographer's maps enable other support casters to be better at their roles as well. The Cartographer's role then seems to be less direct support themselves and more support enabling.
A neat concept that occurred to me about the Cartographer was "What if you could plant a map on an enemy?" in theory you or an ally could then use it's line-of-sight bypass against the target offensively. So that could be an interesting thing the Cartographer could seek to use their movement to do in combat. Currently, the closest you get to that is by marking creatures with either faerie fire or guiding bolt.
Unfortunately, the current wording doesn't really work with using the Adventurer's Atlas offensively... You touch N creatures at the end of a long rest to grant each of them a map, it implies that the map only works on those creatures, not something you can trade freely with, or plant on other creatures.
I feel like the Cartographer could use more sabotage spells/abilities. The base artificer spell list has a few of those spells, but they also mostly conflict with concentration restrictions.
yes, other supports may be able to use it, but im not sure which support can benefit best, when counting the artificer list it became clear that a lot of support spells just say in range, or have a touch range. So while someone's list probably works well, I'm not 100% sure.
not so much artificers overall need more spell slots, just the alchemist and cartographer, And its tight for artillerists early on since eldritch cannon uses slots, bur eventually thats not a huge deal.
I partially disagree. The problem with the 'bad' artificer subclasses isn't the lack of spell slots it is their lack of non-spell features. The Alchemist needs more Elixirs and needs Elixirs to scale better. The Artillerist shouldn't need spell slots to make cannons (or should have those cannons last longer like Beastmaster Ranger's companion). And Cartographer needs something other than just hyper mobility - they are a ranged caster, they don't need super mobility.
not so much artificers overall need more spell slots, just the alchemist and cartographer, And its tight for artillerists early on since eldritch cannon uses slots, bur eventually thats not a huge deal.
I partially disagree. The problem with the 'bad' artificer subclasses isn't the lack of spell slots it is their lack of non-spell features. The Alchemist needs more Elixirs and needs Elixirs to scale better. The Artillerist shouldn't need spell slots to make cannons (or should have those cannons last longer like Beastmaster Ranger's companion). And Cartographer needs something other than just hyper mobility - they are a ranged caster, they don't need super mobility.
it can be spells or non spells, but they seem to want alch/cartograpgers, and even artillerists to be 'casters' they chose to make them all more dependent on casting spells/spell slot use. alch gets mod bonus to certain elements and healing cast, and artillerist gets a dice bonus to spells cast through staff/wand/rod. And cartographer needs cantrips over attacks due to scaling, and has features that allow it to cast spells without sight, and maintain concentration. So all of them currently have caster synergies.
that said it doesnt have to be spells for the class concept.But im mostly looking at what the designers seem to be emphasizing and working within that frame work.
that said, as you say dependence on slots can also be solved by making them less slot dependent.
Im surprised some of yall think cartographer is fine.
Cartographer is weird. I wouldn't call it fine. I am not sure what it is trying to do, but I think it might be in the wrong game for it, but it still might not be terrible. It is really difficult to rate the usability when it is so circumstantial.
faerie fire is not actually a great baseline usecase option, because it uses concentration, consumes an action, may miss, only is a good cast if you have many attackers with no source of advantage, and only gives 3-5 uses.(which is likely 3-10 monsters attemped per day) Hunters mark might give 3-5 uses, but that lasts you a whole day, and adds its bonus in all situations. It also does not scale as well as it needs to. And there is no unique benefit to a cartographer doing it versus anyone else. If other classes dont think casting faerie fire is a good idea, why would it be good for the artificer to do it?
Does Faerie Fire even work with Adventurer's Atlas? You target the creature regardless of sight, not the creature's space. I don't think you can use spells that don't target a creature with the spell.
Im surprised some of yall think cartographer is fine.
Cartographer is weird. I wouldn't call it fine. I am not sure what it is trying to do, but I think it might be in the wrong game for it, but it still might not be terrible. It is really difficult to rate the usability when it is so circumstantial.
faerie fire is not actually a great baseline usecase option, because it uses concentration, consumes an action, may miss, only is a good cast if you have many attackers with no source of advantage, and only gives 3-5 uses.(which is likely 3-10 monsters attemped per day) Hunters mark might give 3-5 uses, but that lasts you a whole day, and adds its bonus in all situations. It also does not scale as well as it needs to. And there is no unique benefit to a cartographer doing it versus anyone else. If other classes dont think casting faerie fire is a good idea, why would it be good for the artificer to do it?
Does Faerie Fire even work with Adventurer's Atlas? You target the creature regardless of sight, not the creature's space. I don't think you can use spells that don't target a creature with the spell.
You are correct, faerie fire doesnt work with atlas.
the only thing atlas effects is creatures you target at the end of a long rest. So essentially it works on spells/effects that require you to see allies whom you gave maps at the end of a long rest, and yourself.
its a cool feature, especially since it works for others as well. But its not something that has a baseline case of being useful. Especially since the class itself doesnt have that much that works with it.
As for whether the class concept makes sense. I think the fantasy makes sense, and could be interesting, i dont think they have figured out what its mechanical core is though. Movement by itself cant be a core, you have to gain some benefit with the movement.
IMO the general problem with the Artificer's design is that WotC thinks of this class as a support class, but it doesn't really work as one most of the time because at most tables magic items are plentiful, and even when they aren't creating magic items at the start of the day and giving them out to your allies doesn't give you anything to do for the rest of the day. However, TBH this is kind of a problem with the core fantasy. The artificer fantasy is being the "tech-guy" on the end of the phone that the hero calls to fix problems for them - the Oracle to Batman, or the Xavier to the Xmen, or the Q to 007. But in a TTRPG, it's just not very fun to be just sitting at the back watching the rest of your party being heroes waiting to be called on when they have a problem, doubly so when the TTRPG is one like D&D where magic quickly replaces non-magical equipment solutions to problems. Now if WotC actually incorporated magic items into the balance of the game it would be easier to make the magic item creation of an Artificer more reliably impactful, but it still wouldn't solve the boring-ness of it.
i dont think they see it as a support class, i think some players think thats the goal, but there was only one subclass that focuses on that. By an large their design suggests the artificer will be using magic items, maybe giving out a few.but not most.
artificer was designed to be able to equip any item, they have a feature which lets them attune to more items, and they have a feature which makes them better with saves the more items they are attuned to.
battlesmith is supposed to be using magic items to be a better dpr martial, armorsmith is supposed to be using items to be a tank, artillerist is designed to use items to be a blaster, only alchemist is specifically supposed to be supporting, and
And i dont think most games give you tons of magic items of your choice. But only a survey would really be able to speak on that.
Its designed as a class that can go in any direction, the fantasy is of the injenuity/smart guy, which can go many ways: specifically soldiers in eberron magic technology war; techno magic tanks, technomagic artillery, medic, etc. but fantasy trope wise, ironman, batman, nutty professor, magic artilllery guy.
They wanted a class that could use items and a bit of magic and a subclass to be many things.
the main class is designed to be able to support the subclass concept. Make a versatile chassis that can fit many concepts. this is the opposite of other classes where the main class is very defined, and the subclasses just rif on that.
cartographer just isnt achieving its goals, which by the UA is reconnaisace, debuffing targets and saving people. I mean they can do those things, but not good enough or unique enough that they stand out from other classes who can do those things.
The biggest problem I see is that the Artificer in general does not have enough tools to BE that versatile class. The infusions are cool, but if you share them, then you WOEFULLY under-perform yourself. If you hoard them you still slightly under-perform. And a lot of the abilities seem to think that the Artificer is going to be swapping out magic items on the fly to address problems, but they don't get ANYWHERE near enough plans known to do that.
Either artificers need more infusions so that they can equip both their party and themselves or they need basically no limit of plans known so they CAN pull the right tool for the job out of their hat as needed.
On top of that the Alchemist needs more elixirs and/or more control over their elixirs. And the Cartographer needs just more... Right now they really lack a key role. They are mediocre to poor at damage, mediocre to poor at support, great at mobility with little to no use for said mobility, and nothing special at exploration or social. If they are supposed to be the best at scouting they need some exploration focused skills, not just a few situational spells that they have half caster slots available for.
You can’t just look at the Artificer or the subclasses separately- the Artificer is not supposed to function in play as a jack of all trades, it’s supposed to be flexible enough that it can spec into different slots based on the subclass. It’s not about going wide, it’s about building with your subclass and infusions to fill a particular niche.
Here's a question for the thread: Have you ever seen any TTRPG system that did an artificer-type character well?
One of my groups tried pathfinder2e and even there, the inventor & alchemist were considered among the worst classes and they have a well-balanced magic item system.
The biggest problem I see is that the Artificer in general does not have enough tools to BE that versatile class. The infusions are cool, but if you share them, then you WOEFULLY under-perform yourself. If you hoard them you still slightly under-perform. And a lot of the abilities seem to think that the Artificer is going to be swapping out magic items on the fly to address problems, but they don't get ANYWHERE near enough plans known to do that.
Either artificers need more infusions so that they can equip both their party and themselves or they need basically no limit of plans known so they CAN pull the right tool for the job out of their hat as needed.
On top of that the Alchemist needs more elixirs and/or more control over their elixirs. And the Cartographer needs just more... Right now they really lack a key role. They are mediocre to poor at damage, mediocre to poor at support, great at mobility with little to no use for said mobility, and nothing special at exploration or social. If they are supposed to be the best at scouting they need some exploration focused skills, not just a few situational spells that they have half caster slots available for.
I think this is exactly right. I'd love to give items to my party, but I really can't effectively. For example, if I need one of my infused items in my hand as a spellcasting focus, then I can't give that one away. In the low levels I have 4 plans and two known. If I support the party by using one as a bag of holding, or perhaps with a homunculus, then I have to keep the other.
Even allowing any magic item as a focus and allowing it to be worn rather than in hand would help. Also being able to swap items once a day (not only immediately after a long rest) would also help.
I love playing my Artificer and it's a very effective character (2014 rules). Would love a dedicated additional magic item slot that I have to give away (since I'm presuming giving it without strings would seem too powerful) or more flexibility in the plans known. But that doesn't seem to be the direction they want to go, with cutting down the prepared spells known at a time.
Here's a question for the thread: Have you ever seen any TTRPG system that did an artificer-type character well?
One of my groups tried pathfinder2e and even there, the inventor & alchemist were considered among the worst classes and they have a well-balanced magic item system.
I think it’s the same problem as the Ranger. Everyone has a different opinion of what it’s supposed to be and how it’s supposed to play, then what we get is something in the middle of all those opinions and that is simply just not good enough to make anyone happy.
Random Thoughts: Take something from each armorer mode and mix it into one in the later feature of the class or let me swap armor mode with a bonus action. I mean you can have the thunder gauntlets, the lightning launchers, the stealth dampener and reach and it would still not do damage up to standard without a better scaling or infusion into the weapons, but for sure it would be more fun.
How about adding the effect of the thunder gauntlets to the weapon you hold or a shield u can bash with with the regular attack?
The biggest problem I see is that the Artificer in general does not have enough tools to BE that versatile class. The infusions are cool, but if you share them, then you WOEFULLY under-perform yourself. If you hoard them you still slightly under-perform. And a lot of the abilities seem to think that the Artificer is going to be swapping out magic items on the fly to address problems, but they don't get ANYWHERE near enough plans known to do that.
Either artificers need more infusions so that they can equip both their party and themselves or they need basically no limit of plans known so they CAN pull the right tool for the job out of their hat as needed.
On top of that the Alchemist needs more elixirs and/or more control over their elixirs. And the Cartographer needs just more... Right now they really lack a key role. They are mediocre to poor at damage, mediocre to poor at support, great at mobility with little to no use for said mobility, and nothing special at exploration or social. If they are supposed to be the best at scouting they need some exploration focused skills, not just a few situational spells that they have half caster slots available for.
I think this is exactly right. I'd love to give items to my party, but I really can't effectively. For example, if I need one of my infused items in my hand as a spellcasting focus, then I can't give that one away. In the low levels I have 4 plans and two known. If I support the party by using one as a bag of holding, or perhaps with a homunculus, then I have to keep the other.
Even allowing any magic item as a focus and allowing it to be worn rather than in hand would help. Also being able to swap items once a day (not only immediately after a long rest) would also help.
I love playing my Artificer and it's a very effective character (2014 rules). Would love a dedicated additional magic item slot that I have to give away (since I'm presuming giving it without strings would seem too powerful) or more flexibility in the plans known. But that doesn't seem to be the direction they want to go, with cutting down the prepared spells known at a time.
so, while i agree broadly with both of you i will say
in the lprevious artificer UA, battlesmith and artillerist do not underperform when using their replications. I tested 4 artificers from level 1-8 and while 1-4 was lackluster, 5-8 they were definitely interesting and effective relative to other dlasses. Id say that armorer needs to have their armor and weapons tie in better to replication, and alchemist needs a little more.
homunculus is a spell now, not an infusiom
and the latest UA artificeer imo is an inferior version which exacerbates some issues, but they did add a way to change one replication per day.
so i dont think the issue will be the core artificer, but more the execution of the subclasses
Here's a question for the thread: Have you ever seen any TTRPG system that did an artificer-type character well?
One of my groups tried pathfinder2e and even there, the inventor & alchemist were considered among the worst classes and they have a well-balanced magic item system.
while my knowledge of it is less in depth than 5e, I remember in cyberpunk red enjoying the tech, and blades in the dark i enjoy leech.
i will say though that both involve the crafting side more heavily than i have considered that in 5e. In these other systems, i believe crafting is the major focus of the "class" where its not really in 5e, and 5e's normal gameplay may never give you any downtime at all. Also both are more 'fiction first' type games and the dm is encouraged to work with these types of players. Also, in these games, they have stats, rolls,mechanics which make them better at crafting. In 5e, crafting has no rolls, and there is nothing active you can do, or even ways to make yourself better at crafting.
the vibe i generally hear from people in 5e spaces, which probably tends more towards DMs, is more towards limiting/controlling things, and the idea of working with players to create and distribute items is not something they want to engage too much in.
that said 5e artificer is a bit different, its not the main or only means of crafting, and it doesnt seem like its assumed they will get to craft anything. The design seems more based around different types of smart guys who use items and 'magitech' rather than the crafting itself.
as far as pathfinder, i dont remember those classes execution that well, but when i went in depth, i remember coming to the conclusion, alchemist just isnt designed well. And inventor i think is similar to bs/armorer in design, but more focused on being a gadgets guy. I dont remember inventor being flawed.
Covering distances quickly, not teleporting, just able to cover ground faster than others. Well, maybe some teleporting.
Bonus to Move Speed,
Free Misty Step, once per day, lvl 5
Teleportation circle as the spell at lvl 9 once per day as a sub-class ability, which would be when full casters get it. The other option is at lvl 15.
Mapping and reconnaissance. -
Marking objects (like gold coins, emerald rings, battle standards or cute orc chibis) and tracking the object magically on their map
See in darkness normally, like Devil Sight. Situational, but useful considering their map is lines on paper. How does that look with Darkvision?
Casting Locate spells through the map doubles the duration and boosts the range based on Cartographer lvl, lvl 15 range is on the same plane
Concealment and camouflage. -
Pass Without Trace
Skirmisher -
Firebolt and Acid splash cover this, as does a shortbow/light crossbow, or add Intelligence modifier to damage with ranged cantrips.
Communication
Sending as the spell at lvl 5, once per day as a sub-class ability. Because calling someone while they are on the toilet is always good for a laugh.
The problem with this; it looks like a really useful NPC, but not a character most people would want to play.
not so much artificers overall need more spell slots, just the alchemist and cartographer, And its tight for artillerists early on since eldritch cannon uses slots, bur eventually thats not a huge deal.
I partially disagree. The problem with the 'bad' artificer subclasses isn't the lack of spell slots it is their lack of non-spell features. The Alchemist needs more Elixirs and needs Elixirs to scale better. The Artillerist shouldn't need spell slots to make cannons (or should have those cannons last longer like Beastmaster Ranger's companion). And Cartographer needs something other than just hyper mobility - they are a ranged caster, they don't need super mobility.
This all the way. Flump spells I don't need them I am an Artificer!
not so much artificers overall need more spell slots, just the alchemist and cartographer, And its tight for artillerists early on since eldritch cannon uses slots, bur eventually thats not a huge deal.
I partially disagree. The problem with the 'bad' artificer subclasses isn't the lack of spell slots it is their lack of non-spell features. The Alchemist needs more Elixirs and needs Elixirs to scale better. The Artillerist shouldn't need spell slots to make cannons (or should have those cannons last longer like Beastmaster Ranger's companion). And Cartographer needs something other than just hyper mobility - they are a ranged caster, they don't need super mobility.
This all the way. Flump spells I don't need them I am an Artificer!
I posted this in another thread and thought I would point it out here too.
Spells
Brd
Clr
Drd
Sor
War
Wiz
Art
Pal
Rng
(AT)
(EK)
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
5
5
4
4
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
8
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
3
4
7
7
7
7
6
7
4
4
4
3
3
5
6
6
7
6
5
6
4
4
4
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
4
3
3
2
2
7
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
1
1
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
10
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
11
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
12
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
2
1
*
*
13
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
1
1
*
*
14
3
3
3
4
5
4
3
1
1
*
*
15
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
16
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
17
2
2
2
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
18
2
2
2
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
19
1
2
2
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
20
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
21
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
22
1
1
1
1
*
3
3
*
*
*
*
23
*
1
1
1
*
3
3
*
*
*
*
24
*
*
1
1
*
2
3
*
*
*
*
25
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
26
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
27
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
28
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
29
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
30
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
The first column represent how many spells it would take to go through the spell slots / pact slots + mystic arcanum and other spells the base class provides. The other columns indicate casting a spell or taking an alternative action. This gives us a rough visual on the level of those spells and how many spells each is casting before running out of gas.
An asterisk denotes using a cantrip, SLA, or other options such as an attack.
This is assuming 2 short rests regardless of how those short rests are obtained. No feats or subclasses are being considered in that chart. This is at 20th level.
Other notes...
Bard: Bards don't have ways to recover spell slots like other full spellcasters and the assumption is that the bard did not use spell slots to recover bardic inspiration uses. Bards don't have the lasting power we see with sorcerers through font of magic, warlocks through pact magic and SLA's, or wizards through various means. While bards do have access to higher level spells I don't think they have the lasting power to match the lower spell spells artificers have because of the spells storing device.
Cleric: Clerics can use divine intervention to replicate a 5th level spell once per day and this is included. The better version is not included because of the time to recover the ability.
Druid: At 20th level there's nothing stopping a druid from immediately creating an 8th level spell slot by converting 4 wild shape uses because they also recover a use of wild shape any time they roll initiative and have none so there isn't a significant reason not to make that assumption. They can also recover a 1st level slot using a wild shape use. I would note that the 8th level slot (or lower as the case may be) is only there at 20th level while the 1st level slot is easy to recover.
Sorcerer: I'm assuming the sorcerer creates two 5th level slots to remain competitive, and uses the rest of the sorcery points on metamagic. It's possible to vary this significantly and I went that way to help compare to warlocks.
Warlock: The free casting of contact other plane is included in the list. It's worth noting that with "cantrip/SLA" the SLA's available through invocations range in from 1st through 4th level spells. Warlocks lose out a bit in the high end of spells but they have plenty in the mid range and low end to keep up with other spellcasters, which is where I'm going with this. ;-)
Wizard: The wizard is using arcane recovery to recover two 5th level spell slots for similar reasons as the sorcerer example. In the wizard's case there's also a 1st and 2nd level SLA available through spell mastery, and 2 free castings of 3rd level signature spells that recover on a short rest. Wizards tend to dominate the high level spells based on their spell list and mechanics adding spells to it; and they also tend to dominate the low level spells because of arcane recovery, ritual adept, spell mastery, and a signature spells at this level.
It's worth noting that many of those 3rd level spells being cast are only available at 20th level, and spell mastery is a very high level ability. Wizards are still pretty good with arcane recovery and ritual adept outside of that point.
Artificer (UA): There are a few important considerations here. The first is the obvious benefit of the spell storing item holding ten 3rd level spells. The other important consideration is the magic item tinker ability. I didn't use draining an item to regain a spell slot because that seems like an exception to typical play to me. I did, however, assume an item like a wand of fireballs is a reasonable expectation at that level either by finding or crafting one, and that allows for leveraging spell slots to recharge items. With the wand of fireballs, for example, an artificer can use a 2nd level slot to add 2 charges and use those 2 charges to cast a 4th level fireball from the wand and use 1st level slots to recharge the wand and cast 3rd level fireballs. There are nuances to doing this but ultimately artificers can use the magic item tinker ability to use lower level slots and to cast higher level spells from items than those slots would. Between the spell storing item and recharging magic items with magic item tinker an artificer is fairly well stacked with the bottom of midrange (I define midrange as 3rd-5th level spells) spells.
For illustrative purposes that chart uses three 2nd level spell slots to cast three 4th level fireballs from a wand, and four 1st level slots to cast four 3rd level fireballs from the same wand. This is also something with a lot of room for variations.
Paladin: The chart includes the free castings of divine smite and find steed.
Ranger: The chart includes the free castings of hunter's mark.
Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight: There aren't really any assumptions to make with these options. They're the only two subclasses list and I included them because they're prominent enough options that they should be included in the comparison.
...
Artificers gain enough slots. The Charge Magic Item aspect of Magic Item Tinker let's artificer's leverage those low level slots as well so for the people arguing that magic items are rare this means the Replicate Magic Item ability becomes more important, and for the people arguing magic items are plentiful then the Magic Item Tinker abilities become more important. The artificer has a solid position under either premise.
The Spell Storing Item granting ten 3rd level spells blows away paladins and rangers as far as being spell casters, and this has become more evident with the Magic Item Tinker abilities.
I have to question some of the premises being given without supporting context or information illustrating those premises. For example, why do some of us thing Battle Smith damage is low? To what are we comparing that? A battle smith can take great weapon master as a feat and fight with a great sword using extra attack, and use a bonus action for the steel defender to attack, and use no action for the homunculus to attack, and invest in crafting vicious weapons.
Changing Homunculus Servant to a spell means all artificers get one. Requiring no action to instruct the homunculus is a free ranged bonus attack all artificers added.
Alchemists could definitely use more elixir variety, but 5 free elixirs isn't bad, plus 5 free castings of lesser restoration. This means that alchemists don't need to prepare lesser restoration in the first place allowing for a different spell for a slight advantage over other artificers in versatility, and any time the alchemist uses a free casting they have a 2nd level spell slot still available that another artificer would not. Elixirs and restorative reagents increase the number of low level spells available in a day from 5-10 more.
Cartographers are limited in offensive power more than other artificers and this is what hurts them. But as a scout, they can add skills and a feat through background for more skills and tools, use a cloak of elvenkind that they are guaranteed capable of producing, and take skill expert for expertise in stealth. It's not hard to supplement the strong mobility with other features that are easy to apply. I think what people don't like is the lack of damage.
I posted this in another thread and thought I would point it out here too.
Spells
Brd
Clr
Drd
Sor
War
Wiz
Art
Pal
Rng
(AT)
(EK)
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
5
5
5
4
4
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
8
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
3
4
7
7
7
7
6
7
4
4
4
3
3
5
6
6
7
6
5
6
4
4
4
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
5
6
4
3
3
2
2
7
5
5
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
1
1
9
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
10
4
5
5
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
11
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
2
2
1
1
12
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
2
1
*
*
13
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
1
1
*
*
14
3
3
3
4
5
4
3
1
1
*
*
15
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
16
2
3
3
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
17
2
2
2
3
5
3
3
1
1
*
*
18
2
2
2
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
19
1
2
2
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
20
1
1
1
2
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
21
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
*
1
*
*
22
1
1
1
1
*
3
3
*
*
*
*
23
*
1
1
1
*
3
3
*
*
*
*
24
*
*
1
1
*
2
3
*
*
*
*
25
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
26
*
*
*
*
*
2
*
*
*
*
*
27
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
28
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
29
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
30
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
*
The first column represent how many spells it would take to go through the spell slots / pact slots + mystic arcanum and other spells the base class provides. The other columns indicate casting a spell or taking an alternative action. This gives us a rough visual on the level of those spells and how many spells each is casting before running out of gas.
An asterisk denotes using a cantrip, SLA, or other options such as an attack.
This is assuming 2 short rests regardless of how those short rests are obtained. No feats or subclasses are being considered in that chart. This is at 20th level.
Other notes...
Artificer (UA): There are a few important considerations here. The first is the obvious benefit of the spell storing item holding ten 3rd level spells. The other important consideration is the magic item tinker ability. I didn't use draining an item to regain a spell slot because that seems like an exception to typical play to me. I did, however, assume an item like a wand of fireballs is a reasonable expectation at that level either by finding or crafting one, and that allows for leveraging spell slots to recharge items. With the wand of fireballs, for example, an artificer can use a 2nd level slot to add 2 charges and use those 2 charges to cast a 4th level fireball from the wand and use 1st level slots to recharge the wand and cast 3rd level fireballs. There are nuances to doing this but ultimately artificers can use the magic item tinker ability to use lower level slots
...
who said battlesmith dpr is low? I think battlesmith is the subclass with the least issues. neither BS nor artillerist are in a bad place dpr wise, other than in teir one.
As far as your chart, i dont really know what your numbers are signifying here.
also, spell effects are not really spell slots. spell slots can be used on spells you choose, and their save/attack is based on your stats. Not to mention it does not interact with alchemist/artillerist damage features. (bonus to spells cast through arcane focus)
and necklace of fireballs is not equal to fireball spells. at level 14, getting a fireball spell with a 15 save is poor, (would normally be 18 at this level) and fireball's damage is not impressive in t4. Spells from magic items are generally closer to features than spell slots.
when you get access to things matters a lot. its not just about spell effects, its about action economies. a level 3 spell at level 5 is great action economy, a level 3 spell at 15 is likely a poor use of action economy.
comparing things like limited uses of lesser restoration and spell slots shows why it doesnt hold up. lesser restoration is highly situational, you may go days without using it. It has no where the utility of an equivalent amount of spell slots. Alchemist can turn spell slots into elixirs, heal people with a bonus. That is better classified as a feature.
So when i say artillerist/alchemists need spell slots, im not simply talking about spell like effects, im talking about gasoline for features like eldritch cannon/elixirs, im talking about versatility of choosing the spell you need for the situation, and im talking about getting to apply your stats and features which gain benfits from spells.
and counting things this way, is a big reason why cartographers are poor. 5 faerie fires and 5 mistystep+ is not actually comparable with 10 spell slots in terms of value. And certainly compared to spell slots of other classes/subclasses. the spell list matters. One of the main problems is the spells and effects that cartographer has access to dont synergize or create strong gameplay options. Increasing damage is one simple answer, because good damage has a clear and measurable utility. However, that is not neccessarily the only way to solve things, and probably against the fantasy they are going for with cartographer. What they likely need to do is increase its versatility and create some better baseline gameplay options that are valuable/interesting or unique.
the problem of cartographer essentially boils down to, ok what am i supposed to do thats cool.
I think you should try to get some playtests of these classes, even solo if you want to get a better picture of the artificer/cartographer issues. Or even just try to build a lvl 6, 11, 15 version of the class that you think has good gameplay compare it to other builds with| similar focuses
yes, other supports may be able to use it, but im not sure which support can benefit best, when counting the artificer list it became clear that a lot of support spells just say in range, or have a touch range. So while someone's list probably works well, I'm not 100% sure.
I partially disagree. The problem with the 'bad' artificer subclasses isn't the lack of spell slots it is their lack of non-spell features. The Alchemist needs more Elixirs and needs Elixirs to scale better. The Artillerist shouldn't need spell slots to make cannons (or should have those cannons last longer like Beastmaster Ranger's companion). And Cartographer needs something other than just hyper mobility - they are a ranged caster, they don't need super mobility.
it can be spells or non spells, but they seem to want alch/cartograpgers, and even artillerists to be 'casters' they chose to make them all more dependent on casting spells/spell slot use. alch gets mod bonus to certain elements and healing cast, and artillerist gets a dice bonus to spells cast through staff/wand/rod. And cartographer needs cantrips over attacks due to scaling, and has features that allow it to cast spells without sight, and maintain concentration. So all of them currently have caster synergies.
that said it doesnt have to be spells for the class concept.But im mostly looking at what the designers seem to be emphasizing and working within that frame work.
that said, as you say dependence on slots can also be solved by making them less slot dependent.
Cartographer is weird. I wouldn't call it fine. I am not sure what it is trying to do, but I think it might be in the wrong game for it, but it still might not be terrible. It is really difficult to rate the usability when it is so circumstantial.
Does Faerie Fire even work with Adventurer's Atlas? You target the creature regardless of sight, not the creature's space. I don't think you can use spells that don't target a creature with the spell.
How to add Tooltips.
You are correct, faerie fire doesnt work with atlas.
the only thing atlas effects is creatures you target at the end of a long rest. So essentially it works on spells/effects that require you to see allies whom you gave maps at the end of a long rest, and yourself.
its a cool feature, especially since it works for others as well. But its not something that has a baseline case of being useful. Especially since the class itself doesnt have that much that works with it.
As for whether the class concept makes sense. I think the fantasy makes sense, and could be interesting, i dont think they have figured out what its mechanical core is though. Movement by itself cant be a core, you have to gain some benefit with the movement.
IMO the general problem with the Artificer's design is that WotC thinks of this class as a support class, but it doesn't really work as one most of the time because at most tables magic items are plentiful, and even when they aren't creating magic items at the start of the day and giving them out to your allies doesn't give you anything to do for the rest of the day. However, TBH this is kind of a problem with the core fantasy. The artificer fantasy is being the "tech-guy" on the end of the phone that the hero calls to fix problems for them - the Oracle to Batman, or the Xavier to the Xmen, or the Q to 007. But in a TTRPG, it's just not very fun to be just sitting at the back watching the rest of your party being heroes waiting to be called on when they have a problem, doubly so when the TTRPG is one like D&D where magic quickly replaces non-magical equipment solutions to problems. Now if WotC actually incorporated magic items into the balance of the game it would be easier to make the magic item creation of an Artificer more reliably impactful, but it still wouldn't solve the boring-ness of it.
i dont think they see it as a support class, i think some players think thats the goal, but there was only one subclass that focuses on that. By an large their design suggests the artificer will be using magic items, maybe giving out a few.but not most.
artificer was designed to be able to equip any item, they have a feature which lets them attune to more items, and they have a feature which makes them better with saves the more items they are attuned to.
battlesmith is supposed to be using magic items to be a better dpr martial, armorsmith is supposed to be using items to be a tank, artillerist is designed to use items to be a blaster, only alchemist is specifically supposed to be supporting, and
And i dont think most games give you tons of magic items of your choice. But only a survey would really be able to speak on that.
Its designed as a class that can go in any direction, the fantasy is of the injenuity/smart guy, which can go many ways: specifically soldiers in eberron magic technology war; techno magic tanks, technomagic artillery, medic, etc. but fantasy trope wise, ironman, batman, nutty professor, magic artilllery guy.
They wanted a class that could use items and a bit of magic and a subclass to be many things.
the main class is designed to be able to support the subclass concept. Make a versatile chassis that can fit many concepts. this is the opposite of other classes where the main class is very defined, and the subclasses just rif on that.
cartographer just isnt achieving its goals, which by the UA is reconnaisace, debuffing targets and saving people. I mean they can do those things, but not good enough or unique enough that they stand out from other classes who can do those things.
The biggest problem I see is that the Artificer in general does not have enough tools to BE that versatile class. The infusions are cool, but if you share them, then you WOEFULLY under-perform yourself. If you hoard them you still slightly under-perform. And a lot of the abilities seem to think that the Artificer is going to be swapping out magic items on the fly to address problems, but they don't get ANYWHERE near enough plans known to do that.
Either artificers need more infusions so that they can equip both their party and themselves or they need basically no limit of plans known so they CAN pull the right tool for the job out of their hat as needed.
On top of that the Alchemist needs more elixirs and/or more control over their elixirs. And the Cartographer needs just more... Right now they really lack a key role. They are mediocre to poor at damage, mediocre to poor at support, great at mobility with little to no use for said mobility, and nothing special at exploration or social. If they are supposed to be the best at scouting they need some exploration focused skills, not just a few situational spells that they have half caster slots available for.
You can’t just look at the Artificer or the subclasses separately- the Artificer is not supposed to function in play as a jack of all trades, it’s supposed to be flexible enough that it can spec into different slots based on the subclass. It’s not about going wide, it’s about building with your subclass and infusions to fill a particular niche.
Here's a question for the thread: Have you ever seen any TTRPG system that did an artificer-type character well?
One of my groups tried pathfinder2e and even there, the inventor & alchemist were considered among the worst classes and they have a well-balanced magic item system.
I think this is exactly right. I'd love to give items to my party, but I really can't effectively. For example, if I need one of my infused items in my hand as a spellcasting focus, then I can't give that one away. In the low levels I have 4 plans and two known. If I support the party by using one as a bag of holding, or perhaps with a homunculus, then I have to keep the other.
Even allowing any magic item as a focus and allowing it to be worn rather than in hand would help. Also being able to swap items once a day (not only immediately after a long rest) would also help.
I love playing my Artificer and it's a very effective character (2014 rules). Would love a dedicated additional magic item slot that I have to give away (since I'm presuming giving it without strings would seem too powerful) or more flexibility in the plans known. But that doesn't seem to be the direction they want to go, with cutting down the prepared spells known at a time.
I think it’s the same problem as the Ranger. Everyone has a different opinion of what it’s supposed to be and how it’s supposed to play, then what we get is something in the middle of all those opinions and that is simply just not good enough to make anyone happy.
Random Thoughts: Take something from each armorer mode and mix it into one in the later feature of the class or let me swap armor mode with a bonus action. I mean you can have the thunder gauntlets, the lightning launchers, the stealth dampener and reach and it would still not do damage up to standard without a better scaling or infusion into the weapons, but for sure it would be more fun.
How about adding the effect of the thunder gauntlets to the weapon you hold or a shield u can bash with with the regular attack?
so, while i agree broadly with both of you i will say
in the lprevious artificer UA, battlesmith and artillerist do not underperform when using their replications. I tested 4 artificers from level 1-8 and while 1-4 was lackluster, 5-8 they were definitely interesting and effective relative to other dlasses. Id say that armorer needs to have their armor and weapons tie in better to replication, and alchemist needs a little more.
homunculus is a spell now, not an infusiom
and the latest UA artificeer imo is an inferior version which exacerbates some issues, but they did add a way to change one replication per day.
so i dont think the issue will be the core artificer, but more the execution of the subclasses
while my knowledge of it is less in depth than 5e, I remember in cyberpunk red enjoying the tech, and blades in the dark i enjoy leech.
i will say though that both involve the crafting side more heavily than i have considered that in 5e. In these other systems, i believe crafting is the major focus of the "class" where its not really in 5e, and 5e's normal gameplay may never give you any downtime at all. Also both are more 'fiction first' type games and the dm is encouraged to work with these types of players. Also, in these games, they have stats, rolls,mechanics which make them better at crafting. In 5e, crafting has no rolls, and there is nothing active you can do, or even ways to make yourself better at crafting.
the vibe i generally hear from people in 5e spaces, which probably tends more towards DMs, is more towards limiting/controlling things, and the idea of working with players to create and distribute items is not something they want to engage too much in.
that said 5e artificer is a bit different, its not the main or only means of crafting, and it doesnt seem like its assumed they will get to craft anything. The design seems more based around different types of smart guys who use items and 'magitech' rather than the crafting itself.
as far as pathfinder, i dont remember those classes execution that well, but when i went in depth, i remember coming to the conclusion, alchemist just isnt designed well. And inventor i think is similar to bs/armorer in design, but more focused on being a gadgets guy. I dont remember inventor being flawed.
When I think of Scout, I picture:
The problem with this; it looks like a really useful NPC, but not a character most people would want to play.
This all the way. Flump spells I don't need them I am an Artificer!
"Life is Cast by Random Dice"
Burn my candle twice.
I have done my life justice
Against random dice.
spell slots feul elixirs, and eldritch cannon
I posted this in another thread and thought I would point it out here too.
The first column represent how many spells it would take to go through the spell slots / pact slots + mystic arcanum and other spells the base class provides. The other columns indicate casting a spell or taking an alternative action. This gives us a rough visual on the level of those spells and how many spells each is casting before running out of gas.
An asterisk denotes using a cantrip, SLA, or other options such as an attack.
This is assuming 2 short rests regardless of how those short rests are obtained. No feats or subclasses are being considered in that chart. This is at 20th level.
Other notes...
Bard: Bards don't have ways to recover spell slots like other full spellcasters and the assumption is that the bard did not use spell slots to recover bardic inspiration uses. Bards don't have the lasting power we see with sorcerers through font of magic, warlocks through pact magic and SLA's, or wizards through various means. While bards do have access to higher level spells I don't think they have the lasting power to match the lower spell spells artificers have because of the spells storing device.
Cleric: Clerics can use divine intervention to replicate a 5th level spell once per day and this is included. The better version is not included because of the time to recover the ability.
Druid: At 20th level there's nothing stopping a druid from immediately creating an 8th level spell slot by converting 4 wild shape uses because they also recover a use of wild shape any time they roll initiative and have none so there isn't a significant reason not to make that assumption. They can also recover a 1st level slot using a wild shape use. I would note that the 8th level slot (or lower as the case may be) is only there at 20th level while the 1st level slot is easy to recover.
Sorcerer: I'm assuming the sorcerer creates two 5th level slots to remain competitive, and uses the rest of the sorcery points on metamagic. It's possible to vary this significantly and I went that way to help compare to warlocks.
Warlock: The free casting of contact other plane is included in the list. It's worth noting that with "cantrip/SLA" the SLA's available through invocations range in from 1st through 4th level spells. Warlocks lose out a bit in the high end of spells but they have plenty in the mid range and low end to keep up with other spellcasters, which is where I'm going with this. ;-)
Wizard: The wizard is using arcane recovery to recover two 5th level spell slots for similar reasons as the sorcerer example. In the wizard's case there's also a 1st and 2nd level SLA available through spell mastery, and 2 free castings of 3rd level signature spells that recover on a short rest. Wizards tend to dominate the high level spells based on their spell list and mechanics adding spells to it; and they also tend to dominate the low level spells because of arcane recovery, ritual adept, spell mastery, and a signature spells at this level.
It's worth noting that many of those 3rd level spells being cast are only available at 20th level, and spell mastery is a very high level ability. Wizards are still pretty good with arcane recovery and ritual adept outside of that point.
Artificer (UA): There are a few important considerations here. The first is the obvious benefit of the spell storing item holding ten 3rd level spells. The other important consideration is the magic item tinker ability. I didn't use draining an item to regain a spell slot because that seems like an exception to typical play to me. I did, however, assume an item like a wand of fireballs is a reasonable expectation at that level either by finding or crafting one, and that allows for leveraging spell slots to recharge items. With the wand of fireballs, for example, an artificer can use a 2nd level slot to add 2 charges and use those 2 charges to cast a 4th level fireball from the wand and use 1st level slots to recharge the wand and cast 3rd level fireballs. There are nuances to doing this but ultimately artificers can use the magic item tinker ability to use lower level slots and to cast higher level spells from items than those slots would. Between the spell storing item and recharging magic items with magic item tinker an artificer is fairly well stacked with the bottom of midrange (I define midrange as 3rd-5th level spells) spells.
For illustrative purposes that chart uses three 2nd level spell slots to cast three 4th level fireballs from a wand, and four 1st level slots to cast four 3rd level fireballs from the same wand. This is also something with a lot of room for variations.
Paladin: The chart includes the free castings of divine smite and find steed.
Ranger: The chart includes the free castings of hunter's mark.
Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight: There aren't really any assumptions to make with these options. They're the only two subclasses list and I included them because they're prominent enough options that they should be included in the comparison.
...
Artificers gain enough slots. The Charge Magic Item aspect of Magic Item Tinker let's artificer's leverage those low level slots as well so for the people arguing that magic items are rare this means the Replicate Magic Item ability becomes more important, and for the people arguing magic items are plentiful then the Magic Item Tinker abilities become more important. The artificer has a solid position under either premise.
The Spell Storing Item granting ten 3rd level spells blows away paladins and rangers as far as being spell casters, and this has become more evident with the Magic Item Tinker abilities.
I have to question some of the premises being given without supporting context or information illustrating those premises. For example, why do some of us thing Battle Smith damage is low? To what are we comparing that? A battle smith can take great weapon master as a feat and fight with a great sword using extra attack, and use a bonus action for the steel defender to attack, and use no action for the homunculus to attack, and invest in crafting vicious weapons.
Changing Homunculus Servant to a spell means all artificers get one. Requiring no action to instruct the homunculus is a free ranged bonus attack all artificers added.
Alchemists could definitely use more elixir variety, but 5 free elixirs isn't bad, plus 5 free castings of lesser restoration. This means that alchemists don't need to prepare lesser restoration in the first place allowing for a different spell for a slight advantage over other artificers in versatility, and any time the alchemist uses a free casting they have a 2nd level spell slot still available that another artificer would not. Elixirs and restorative reagents increase the number of low level spells available in a day from 5-10 more.
Cartographers are limited in offensive power more than other artificers and this is what hurts them. But as a scout, they can add skills and a feat through background for more skills and tools, use a cloak of elvenkind that they are guaranteed capable of producing, and take skill expert for expertise in stealth. It's not hard to supplement the strong mobility with other features that are easy to apply. I think what people don't like is the lack of damage.
who said battlesmith dpr is low? I think battlesmith is the subclass with the least issues. neither BS nor artillerist are in a bad place dpr wise, other than in teir one.
As far as your chart, i dont really know what your numbers are signifying here.
also, spell effects are not really spell slots. spell slots can be used on spells you choose, and their save/attack is based on your stats. Not to mention it does not interact with alchemist/artillerist damage features. (bonus to spells cast through arcane focus)
and necklace of fireballs is not equal to fireball spells. at level 14, getting a fireball spell with a 15 save is poor, (would normally be 18 at this level) and fireball's damage is not impressive in t4. Spells from magic items are generally closer to features than spell slots.
when you get access to things matters a lot. its not just about spell effects, its about action economies. a level 3 spell at level 5 is great action economy, a level 3 spell at 15 is likely a poor use of action economy.
comparing things like limited uses of lesser restoration and spell slots shows why it doesnt hold up. lesser restoration is highly situational, you may go days without using it. It has no where the utility of an equivalent amount of spell slots. Alchemist can turn spell slots into elixirs, heal people with a bonus. That is better classified as a feature.
So when i say artillerist/alchemists need spell slots, im not simply talking about spell like effects, im talking about gasoline for features like eldritch cannon/elixirs, im talking about versatility of choosing the spell you need for the situation, and im talking about getting to apply your stats and features which gain benfits from spells.
and counting things this way, is a big reason why cartographers are poor. 5 faerie fires and 5 mistystep+ is not actually comparable with 10 spell slots in terms of value. And certainly compared to spell slots of other classes/subclasses. the spell list matters. One of the main problems is the spells and effects that cartographer has access to dont synergize or create strong gameplay options. Increasing damage is one simple answer, because good damage has a clear and measurable utility. However, that is not neccessarily the only way to solve things, and probably against the fantasy they are going for with cartographer. What they likely need to do is increase its versatility and create some better baseline gameplay options that are valuable/interesting or unique.
the problem of cartographer essentially boils down to, ok what am i supposed to do thats cool.
I think you should try to get some playtests of these classes, even solo if you want to get a better picture of the artificer/cartographer issues. Or even just try to build a lvl 6, 11, 15 version of the class that you think has good gameplay compare it to other builds with| similar focuses