Per number 3, this is clearly verymuch by design. Per the rules, not only is the thundermonger effect a "special attack," the loading action of the thundercannon is a bonus action, for the same reason. The artificer class is one of the hardest hitting classes in the game, comparable even to melee classes, and that's unusual. At lvl 15, for instance, you're going to be rolling 9d6 on attack. A lvl 16 artificer/ fighter could be doing either (3x4)d6 or (2x7)d6. A straight fighter dual wielding is going to be doing ~(3x2)d8?
Can you tell me why you think the artificer should be doing more than one attack?
Looking back this is more directed towards the alchemist where it is much easier to miss which makes them only being usable once a turn a much larger detriment. I think they could tone down the damage to make them usable for multiple turns. I hate to use fun as a factor, but having it where you can only do one thing a turn and then miss it isn't as fun. With multiple uses you at least get more of a chance to do something. This class seems so built around only doing exactly one thing a turn.
By the time you get to 15th level, many monsters you face are doing lots more than 32 points average damage in a turn.
And pretty much everybody other than the artificer is gonna have magic weapons by that level. I've seen high level fighters do over 150 points in a turn, because they hit more than once with their magic weapons and use their maneuver dice.
The tactical situation will also have a bigger impact on an artificer than some other characters. if you're indoors, you probably won't be able to use your range or your mechanical flying beast to advantage, and a ranger will be more survivable, and more flexible, than you.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to when Artificers become AL legal so I can advance mine further.
Looking back this is more directed towards the alchemist where it is much easier to miss which makes them only being usable once a turn a much larger detriment. I think they could tone down the damage to make them usable for multiple turns. I hate to use fun as a factor, but having it where you can only do one thing a turn and then miss it isn't as fun. With multiple uses you at least get more of a chance to do something. This class seems so built around only doing exactly one thing a turn.
Thank you. I've noticed, and I have made comments in the artificer threads along this line before. It is very underwhelming, if not down right frustrating, to do literally nothing turn after turn because you are rolling "average" and "average just isn't good enough to hit." I have tended to go after "softer" targets specifically because of this mechanic and my fear of wasting my turn. As a result, I get more hits, but I get more hits on trash, rather than against the mob boss. As a secondary result, when I do get criticals, they also tended to be not as fun because, of course, I wasn't rolling against the trolls and the giants. I can see how not getting Criticals, or not even being able to get an attack roll, and simply being told by fiat that they are making their saves would be even worse. That being said, I don't know if multiple attacks a round would solve that. Your spell save DC is going to range from 13 to 17 pretty much no matter what. Speaking as a PC, that's not a very encouraging. I'd be willing to divide up your vials, and make each one a separate save (representing 4 separate vials instead of one) as a house rule, but you'd still be doing, and feel like you were doing crap damage. Another alternative is that you use your spell-casting ability (your intelligence) as the spell-save DC instead of the spell-save. This can technically get as high as 22 or 23 during a campaign and should be relatively high, relatively early. What do you think about that?
One thing I might say in this regard is that the artificer class probably works very well with, for instance a druid who can knock an enemy prone and attack at the same time, giving your artificer advantage in the process. Another option would be a rogue with poison. Some kind of 1-2 punch that allows the artificer to up his odds of getting a hit, and maybe THAT is what the class needs, rather than (and I'm not saying that multiple weaker attacks are a bad thing, what I am saying is flavor-wise, artificers are unique BECAUSE you are dropping 10 dice a go on an all or nothing shot.) taking away their flavor and making them even more ranger-like. (I mean c'mon, ranged damage dealers with a pet? drop their damage, give them multi-attack and literally every single person will consider artificers to be "ranger light" or vice versa depending on the final numbers.
@ Burad2, There is no reason that I can see that your DM can't grant you a nugget of kylerion steel to upgrade/reforge your gun. Attempting to compensate for the magic items that "everyone else is finding" in-class is not a winning proposition. Classes should be balanced against each other on an even playingfield, and elevated together over time. Every campaign is different. Power-curves and Rare Items are not standardized across D&D. Talk to your DM about it, if you are unhappy with the selection of rare-items that have been available to your party. It's possible that he is concerned already about the damage you do relative to your co-adventurers, or it's possible that he just hasn't considered the option of re-skinning some other weapon as a stand-in for a magic longsword, and maybe he should at that, or hell, maybe you can re-forge an actual magical item that you actually have into your gun somehow (Smith's tools are a class feature, plus 6P)*.
The funny thing is I wouldn't mind if it was a little more similar to the Ranger. As of right now the ranger class isn't very good in my opinion, and the UA Ranger isn't "official", and we have no idea of when it will be. So making the artificer a little bit more like a ranger could potentially solve two issues to me. Also the artificer is much more magic based than the ranger. To be honest I have built a artificer/UA ranger before that was a ton of fun (just want to note that i do know that UA stuff is not made to multiclass). They meld really well together.
And I don't know a for sure way to solve the doing nothing over and over that will make it more balanced. I think just switching the alchemist to attack rolls like the other subclass would be a small improvement.
A simple rules change that could be implemented to provide the Artificer with a simple upgrade they can get - for a cost - allow the Crossbow Expert feat to apply to the Artificer and his thunder cannon. Then you don't need to have the DM provide you with a special treasure item that allows you to manufacture a firearm that is basically outside the rules. And re-making your gun with a stronger steel (for example) doesn't do anything to solve the primary issue raised - which is one shot a turn after 5th level.
OTOH, the way it is right now, one can kind of equate the Artificer with a spell caster in some ways. With a spell caster, if they cast a spell and it doesn't work, they have effectively, in many cases, 'fired their one shot' for the turn with no effect. And their opportunities to do that are much more limited than the artificer, since they have a limited number of spell slots.
Personally, the only things I currently really care about I wish they'd add when the make the Artificer official is, I hope we can use the Crossbow Expert feat with the thunder cannon, and/or at least, I'd like to be able to use a rapier. And there are a couple of spells they could add that would make rational sense. But in the end, just make it official and I'll play with it, because I want to use it.
While crossbow expert feat is good it wouldn't solve several of the issues. The biggest reason being that the thundercannon being a 2 handed weapon so no matter what you can't use the reload feature of crossbow expert according to Sage Advice. If they change it to one handed, then they will probably drop the damage which would suck.
Also another issue of only being able to use the special abilities more than once a round is due to them being special actions and not normal actions you can not haste to use them more than once.
And the difference between artificers and spellcasters is that many spells will do half damage on a save (other than cantrips) so they are dealing some damage.
Uh, Heavy crossbow is also a two handed weapon, you know, as is light crossbow, and crossbow expert applies to both of those. It's Important to note that the RAW specifically says "You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient." Crossbows, with an S at the end. Not just hand crossbows. More than one kind of crossbow.
Sage Advice was specifically answering questions about hand crossbows in the second and third questions, and did not mention any other kind of crossbow in those responses. There is no reason to assume that those two responses apply to any other kind of crossbow. But it is also clear in their first question response, that they specifically did not restrict Crossbow Expert to only applying to hand crossbows. I have sent them a query, we'll see what they say.
You can pull the string back on a crossbow using a belt hook, or a pull lever incorporated into the stock can do it in about 3 seconds. With a pull lever you are holding the crossbow in one hand and reloading it with the other. For that matter, with a musket you are holding it in one hand and reloading it with the other.
We also literally do not know whether the Thunder Cannon is muzzle loading.
Meanwhile, you don't have to use the special attack to just shoot for 2d6; that's just a normal shooting attack.
The Artificer class is equally unofficial when compared with the UA ranger class. One should not exist in any game that the other does not exist in... and while the new ranger is a little off topic for this thread, my read on it is that the UA version is very good.
I'm also not opposed to the artificer being more ranger-like, per se, although, I am generally opposed to having any two classes that compete against each other for mind-space. IMO if you want to argue down that route, then we would move the discussion more towards the idea of turning the artificer into a ranger sub-class(which might be good.) A strong argument could be made. It would deepen the ranger class; it would also underscore a general goal that wizards seems to have been pursuing lately (branching out of medieval fantasy, and into other genres), and as it sits, there aren't so many differences that this plan would be unworkable(it was orifinally a wizard subclass in UA: Eberron)...
I'd prefer to expand the artificer class though, and make it more unique, rather than less
________________
@Burad2
Not every class needs-to-have multi-attack. Most Casters don't, and, like I said, The Artificer class matches an optimized fighter in raw damage(INCLUDING their multi-attack). DOUBLING the amount of damage that the artificer does, by implementing rules designed to allow multi-attack (without a compensatory reduction in damage) is a BAD choice. I brought up re-working the fire-arm because you were complaining about magic swords altering the formula. My only point was that you can't use the fighters modified damage output to argue for an increase in the artificer's base damage.
I feel that the Thunder Cannon needs to be nerfed and and replaced with more combat options for the Gunsmith as the Thunder Cannon is basically all you have I you have a someone that acts as support as well as the knockback blast doesn't do enough damage and/or knock far enough back to make it worthwhile over the standard shot. It is the most restrictive in character I have every played in 5e and this is coming from someone who played a Deep Gnome Battlerager who had disadvantage on every attack because of heavy weapons and was pacifist against humanoids.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One death is a tragedy. One T.P.K. is a nuisance. - Joseph Stalin if he played D&D
I meant more in the sense take a lot of the UA ranger and give it to Artificer. So the beast improvements are given to Artificer mechanical construct to build a subclass from that. I wonder if they will ever release the UA Ranger since it will force people to have to buy a second book to play one class, since the new ranger stuff would overrule the original content. I believe WOTC have said before they don't want to do that.
I will also have to take your word on the damage thing as well.
I have no idea why no one thought to just take away the reloading thing and give it the Loading property.
Forget the Thunder Cannon I think the Gunsmith should have a starting firearm weapon. Give them the option to chose one renaissance firearm from the DMG p.268. Give the Gunsmith the abilities to upgrade his chosen firearm. I can give a few examples.
Scope: Double the combat range of the weapon.
Double Barrel: (Prerequisite level 5) You can shoot twice a round.
Grappling hook: You can load a grappling hook into your gun and shoot it.
Iron sights: +2 to hit with chosen firearm
Silencer: Your range is reduced by half but your firearm does not create a lot of noise.
I've seen a well built dwarf fighter do over 200 points in one round with a magic weapon.
I'd propose being able to do Extra Attack, but it can't be a special attack (meaning the 2d attack would yield 2d6.). Lots of casters can do a spell and a cantrip in one round. This would be the equivalent of that. And along the lines of how the rangers don't get all the special dice on every hit.
Thraintar's idea is interesting. Have to look at it.
I've seen a well built dwarf fighter do over 200 points in one round with a magic weapon.
I'd propose being able to do Extra Attack, but it can't be a special attack (meaning the 2d attack would yield 2d6.). Lots of casters can do a spell and a cantrip in one round. This would be the equivalent of that. And along the lines of how the rangers don't get all the special dice on every hit.
Thraintar's idea is interesting. Have to look at it.
In any case, I want a bayonet on my gun.
Extra attacks that are limted to base damage only (sans thundermonger) would probably not stray too far outside the intended balance of the class, though again, its unnecessary either way (my mecha griffon HAD Multiattack) . I know that you want to compare the artificer to a l20 fighter with Dual Wielding, +3 swords in each hand, action surge, maneuver, etc but the artificer isnt a fighter. tell me the last time you saw a bard doing 200 damage in a turn? Or a Ranger? Or a Druid? The Artificer is a skill monkey, utility, caster, ranged damage dealer, and they approach it in a unique way, by focusing on TOOLs proficiencies, magical artifices, and ranged smiting(turn after turn after turn). If you want to play a fighter, play a fighter.
I see the Artificer as an Inventor. He is more of a range/support class compared to others. I would love to have both Alchemist and Gunsmith archetypes have Wondrous Invention options dedicated to these Archetypes. Example: An Alchemist can upgrade their Alchemical Acid to do Cold damage instead of Acid damage. A Gunsmith can attach a bayonet (thanks burad2) that does 1d8 piercing.
Thing is, Gunsmith is a shooter. That's ALL he is. He's not a buffer/debuffer, he's not a crowd control specialist, he can't go wild shape and melee, he's not a tanky healer, he's not a DPS caster, he's not an AOE caster, he's purely a ranged shooter. He can't do anything else. He can't have a shield and he can't have a decent 2 handed melee weapon, so you don't want him to melee. The gunsmith can't even throw spike growth or other stuff even the ranger can do to control the battle. All he can do is shoot. Once. And do pretty much nothing else. That's it. So it's interesting when folks say, OMG, he's too powerful, he has to be nerfed! If you nerf him too much, there won't be much point in playing one, 'cause the ranger would be significantly more useful and survivable. Though again, Thraintar's ideas are interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Per number 3, this is clearly verymuch by design. Per the rules, not only is the thundermonger effect a "special attack," the loading action of the thundercannon is a bonus action, for the same reason. The artificer class is one of the hardest hitting classes in the game, comparable even to melee classes, and that's unusual. At lvl 15, for instance, you're going to be rolling 9d6 on attack. A lvl 16 artificer/ fighter could be doing either (3x4)d6 or (2x7)d6. A straight fighter dual wielding is going to be doing ~(3x2)d8?
Can you tell me why you think the artificer should be doing more than one attack?
Looking back this is more directed towards the alchemist where it is much easier to miss which makes them only being usable once a turn a much larger detriment. I think they could tone down the damage to make them usable for multiple turns. I hate to use fun as a factor, but having it where you can only do one thing a turn and then miss it isn't as fun. With multiple uses you at least get more of a chance to do something. This class seems so built around only doing exactly one thing a turn.
By the time you get to 15th level, many monsters you face are doing lots more than 32 points average damage in a turn.
And pretty much everybody other than the artificer is gonna have magic weapons by that level. I've seen high level fighters do over 150 points in a turn, because they hit more than once with their magic weapons and use their maneuver dice.
The tactical situation will also have a bigger impact on an artificer than some other characters. if you're indoors, you probably won't be able to use your range or your mechanical flying beast to advantage, and a ranger will be more survivable, and more flexible, than you.
Nevertheless, I'm looking forward to when Artificers become AL legal so I can advance mine further.
The funny thing is I wouldn't mind if it was a little more similar to the Ranger. As of right now the ranger class isn't very good in my opinion, and the UA Ranger isn't "official", and we have no idea of when it will be. So making the artificer a little bit more like a ranger could potentially solve two issues to me. Also the artificer is much more magic based than the ranger. To be honest I have built a artificer/UA ranger before that was a ton of fun (just want to note that i do know that UA stuff is not made to multiclass). They meld really well together.
And I don't know a for sure way to solve the doing nothing over and over that will make it more balanced. I think just switching the alchemist to attack rolls like the other subclass would be a small improvement.
A simple rules change that could be implemented to provide the Artificer with a simple upgrade they can get - for a cost - allow the Crossbow Expert feat to apply to the Artificer and his thunder cannon. Then you don't need to have the DM provide you with a special treasure item that allows you to manufacture a firearm that is basically outside the rules. And re-making your gun with a stronger steel (for example) doesn't do anything to solve the primary issue raised - which is one shot a turn after 5th level.
OTOH, the way it is right now, one can kind of equate the Artificer with a spell caster in some ways. With a spell caster, if they cast a spell and it doesn't work, they have effectively, in many cases, 'fired their one shot' for the turn with no effect. And their opportunities to do that are much more limited than the artificer, since they have a limited number of spell slots.
Personally, the only things I currently really care about I wish they'd add when the make the Artificer official is, I hope we can use the Crossbow Expert feat with the thunder cannon, and/or at least, I'd like to be able to use a rapier. And there are a couple of spells they could add that would make rational sense. But in the end, just make it official and I'll play with it, because I want to use it.
While crossbow expert feat is good it wouldn't solve several of the issues. The biggest reason being that the thundercannon being a 2 handed weapon so no matter what you can't use the reload feature of crossbow expert according to Sage Advice. If they change it to one handed, then they will probably drop the damage which would suck.
Also another issue of only being able to use the special abilities more than once a round is due to them being special actions and not normal actions you can not haste to use them more than once.
And the difference between artificers and spellcasters is that many spells will do half damage on a save (other than cantrips) so they are dealing some damage.
Uh, Heavy crossbow is also a two handed weapon, you know, as is light crossbow, and crossbow expert applies to both of those. It's Important to note that the RAW specifically says "You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient." Crossbows, with an S at the end. Not just hand crossbows. More than one kind of crossbow.
Sage Advice was specifically answering questions about hand crossbows in the second and third questions, and did not mention any other kind of crossbow in those responses. There is no reason to assume that those two responses apply to any other kind of crossbow. But it is also clear in their first question response, that they specifically did not restrict Crossbow Expert to only applying to hand crossbows. I have sent them a query, we'll see what they say.
You can pull the string back on a crossbow using a belt hook, or a pull lever incorporated into the stock can do it in about 3 seconds. With a pull lever you are holding the crossbow in one hand and reloading it with the other. For that matter, with a musket you are holding it in one hand and reloading it with the other.
We also literally do not know whether the Thunder Cannon is muzzle loading.
Meanwhile, you don't have to use the special attack to just shoot for 2d6; that's just a normal shooting attack.
I have no idea why no one thought to just take away the reloading thing and give it the Loading property.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Indeed.
I'm guessing because they want people to get off 2 normal shots off if they want while hasted, but that is just a guess.
The Artificer class is equally unofficial when compared with the UA ranger class. One should not exist in any game that the other does not exist in... and while the new ranger is a little off topic for this thread, my read on it is that the UA version is very good.
I'm also not opposed to the artificer being more ranger-like, per se, although, I am generally opposed to having any two classes that compete against each other for mind-space. IMO if you want to argue down that route, then we would move the discussion more towards the idea of turning the artificer into a ranger sub-class(which might be good.) A strong argument could be made. It would deepen the ranger class; it would also underscore a general goal that wizards seems to have been pursuing lately (branching out of medieval fantasy, and into other genres), and as it sits, there aren't so many differences that this plan would be unworkable(it was orifinally a wizard subclass in UA: Eberron)...
I'd prefer to expand the artificer class though, and make it more unique, rather than less
________________
@Burad2
Not every class needs-to-have multi-attack. Most Casters don't, and, like I said, The Artificer class matches an optimized fighter in raw damage(INCLUDING their multi-attack). DOUBLING the amount of damage that the artificer does, by implementing rules designed to allow multi-attack (without a compensatory reduction in damage) is a BAD choice. I brought up re-working the fire-arm because you were complaining about magic swords altering the formula. My only point was that you can't use the fighters modified damage output to argue for an increase in the artificer's base damage.
I feel that the Thunder Cannon needs to be nerfed and and replaced with more combat options for the Gunsmith as the Thunder Cannon is basically all you have I you have a someone that acts as support as well as the knockback blast doesn't do enough damage and/or knock far enough back to make it worthwhile over the standard shot. It is the most restrictive in character I have every played in 5e and this is coming from someone who played a Deep Gnome Battlerager who had disadvantage on every attack because of heavy weapons and was pacifist against humanoids.
One death is a tragedy. One T.P.K. is a nuisance. - Joseph Stalin if he played D&D
I meant more in the sense take a lot of the UA ranger and give it to Artificer. So the beast improvements are given to Artificer mechanical construct to build a subclass from that. I wonder if they will ever release the UA Ranger since it will force people to have to buy a second book to play one class, since the new ranger stuff would overrule the original content. I believe WOTC have said before they don't want to do that.
I will also have to take your word on the damage thing as well.
I've seen a well built dwarf fighter do over 200 points in one round with a magic weapon.
I'd propose being able to do Extra Attack, but it can't be a special attack (meaning the 2d attack would yield 2d6.). Lots of casters can do a spell and a cantrip in one round. This would be the equivalent of that. And along the lines of how the rangers don't get all the special dice on every hit.
Thraintar's idea is interesting. Have to look at it.
In any case, I want a bayonet on my gun.
I see the Artificer as an Inventor. He is more of a range/support class compared to others. I would love to have both Alchemist and Gunsmith archetypes have Wondrous Invention options dedicated to these Archetypes. Example: An Alchemist can upgrade their Alchemical Acid to do Cold damage instead of Acid damage. A Gunsmith can attach a bayonet (thanks burad2) that does 1d8 piercing.
I just want the bayonet so I don't have to drop the gun to fight.
Thing is, Gunsmith is a shooter. That's ALL he is. He's not a buffer/debuffer, he's not a crowd control specialist, he can't go wild shape and melee, he's not a tanky healer, he's not a DPS caster, he's not an AOE caster, he's purely a ranged shooter. He can't do anything else. He can't have a shield and he can't have a decent 2 handed melee weapon, so you don't want him to melee. The gunsmith can't even throw spike growth or other stuff even the ranger can do to control the battle. All he can do is shoot. Once. And do pretty much nothing else. That's it. So it's interesting when folks say, OMG, he's too powerful, he has to be nerfed! If you nerf him too much, there won't be much point in playing one, 'cause the ranger would be significantly more useful and survivable. Though again, Thraintar's ideas are interesting.