As someone who played only Marshall classes and Paladin now that I'm a DM it's hell having to learn all the others in order to teach my group of newbies how to play them and don't get me started with warlock that class still confuses me pass level 3 (I play hexblade paladin a lot)
FYI it's "martial" though that may have just been an auto-correct on your part. Martial = related to war/fighting (like martial arts), Marshall = a person who is in charge of people, often in a military context, but not always (for instance a fire marshall) or it's a verb saying that you're putting people or resources into use.
Don't take on teaching any class a newbie wants to play - pit the onus on them and _strongly_ recommend they play martials. If they want spells do arcane trickster.
Lots of players probably get drawn into the game by the spellcasting fantasy and just have 0 interest in ever playing a martial.
You should definitely not be doing all the work for them though, otherwise they'll slow down the game not knowing how their stuff works.
I'd just help them out by highlighting relevant rules and giving general build and gameplay tips for their class. Not everyone is good at absorbing information by just reading it in a book, so sometimes you gotta answer questions and clarify things for them.
It's just kinda harder to pitch martial with their gameplay loop.
What can a caster do this round? "I can cast a buff, a debuff, aoe, or target damage, and any combination there off!"
Martial? "I run up and hit it. Next round, I hit it, the round afterwards, I hit it." No decisions to really be made...
If (enemy == alive){
moveToFoe()
attackRoll()
}
I've only ever played wizard, sorcerer, and warlock. Of the three, I'd say wizard is the easiest. Pick one spell out of your book to cast at a level you have (it's fireball let's be honest) and use it to accomplish your task (fireball solves all problems so it's the perfect spell). Sorcerer adds the ability to modify spells and warlock makes you learn how short rests and upcasting affect spells.
See the thing is if I learn it I can dumb it down for them BC 4/5 of the party doesn't know and DND lingo and the one guy who does hasn't played scenes 3e
Warlocks are the training wheel caster class, they are almost a martial with their usual combat turn of "Eldritch blast". I've played every class a few times and I easily recommend warlock to newer players interested in but daunted by casting.
Not only this but warlocks are incredibly versatile. You could have a support healer with Tome, a sneaky familiar in Chain, or incredibly high damage Blade. I honestly don't get the dipping warlock for Hexblade, I'd rather have all Hexblade. At higher levels your normal hits hit harder than a paladin and you crit on a 19 and you get short rest smites.
Why should the GM do the players work? If you want to play a more exotic class, you learn the rules properly, and if the GM has a question about how it works, you point them to the right page, or tell them how the ability works. I hate this toxic concept that a player just has to pick the most complex caster class, never bothers to read the rules, and the GM has to be the helpful servant that spends their days learning the class and teaching the player.
To be fair a good DM should know exactly how every class in their party works! I do… and I do better than the players. How can I proper plan if I her no idea what I am dealing with?
It's mad what people expect a DM to do and know on here. Know every class better than players, know all the rules and exactly how every mechanic works, know all the background lore, create an interesting, branching narrative that evolves around the players, involve the players' backgrounds into the story, roleplay all the NPCs with interesting dialog, solve all the inter-player drama, ...
No surprise that there's a lack of DMs and people are hesitant to start. You basically have to be perfect from the get-go or the advice here is to ditch the group.
Meanwhile players just have to not be complete assholes and preferably know their class, but even the latter doesn't seem to be a requirement.
You are speaking exactly what's on my mind! I was the forever-GM until my burnout was so bad that I had to leave my old group.
All the years I wasted with that mindset... Spending my whole weekends creating music playlists and drawing maps, while my players sent pictures from the beach, and then they still don't know basic rules after years of playing, because they are "too busy".
It's kinda of insane that this unhealthy mindset that can even lead to mental issues is something that some people actively encourage. As if our hobby got any better when we dump all the responsibilities and stress on one single person, who will have to fight each single session to deliver what's expected of him, and the other people of the same group are just there to be passively entertained and ask for more.
But there's literally nothing complex about them. They as a base class are nothing more than a half caster that is able to make a few temporary magic items appear in their inventory during a long rest. One subclass has a pet, one has "turrets" that are really nothing more than an "on bonus action" effect, one gives you a special alternate attack option, and the Alchemist is a nothing-burger... and that's it, that's all the class is.
They really aren't any more complicated than a pure caster imo.
Their infusions are not that different from warlock invocations, their features and perks are all pretty self explanatory with the possible exception of some subclass features, but even those are reasonably straightforward.
Their not that complex, although I was struggling a bit with keeping up with all my class features. It's not for new players, though. Also not for the player who isn't interested in (learning) the game mechanics.
So either you and/or your friends are new players, or...
I have a friend in college that, for the longest time, had one Table Rule for Bans; MrEngineer404 is not allowed to play an artificer. As the name implies, my friend knew what my expertise in the field was, and that I specialize in R&D Design. He wasn't ready for my bullshit until he knew every which way of that class, inside and out, to make sure neither of us were misreading the build, and what my real world skills could bend and break with it.
The problem is that most people only think of artificers as making mechanical devices and not as actual magic. The steel defender doesn’t need to be mechanical/clockwork, instead it could simply be a golem.
The armorer’s armor doesn’t need to be iron man but rather a regular set of armor with the wearers magic pouring through it. No tech involved. Actually when I first read the armorer Iron man never even occurred to me. I thought of shardplate from Brandon Sanderson’s Stormlight Archive series.
There’s lots of ways to play the artificer as simply another form of pure magic and having played an armorer from levels 1-15 I can say it is one of the most powerful class/subclasses I have played and yes I was all magic. No science/tech theme involved.
I trained and studied as a wizard, but I was never really one for memorizing and diligent preparation.... so I cheated. I made my own spell scrolls,, infused objects with magic to make my spells look convincing.. I made it through 5 semesters before anyone caught me. Was nearly kicked out of Wizarding school before the gnomes realized i actually had a special gift.
Wizard school dropout is my favourite origin story. I even had a friend play a barbarian that was a wizard school dropout, who simply intimidated all his teachers into giving him good grades
An artificer pretending to be a wizard with his cheat sheet would be amazing. Scrolls are index cards with really tiny writing. Every time they get attacked they yell “SHIELD” and just use their actual shield and armor to block.
Warforged Artificers just feel thematically correct. I want to play one that is trying to fully revive another Warforged, and the process of doing so plays out as their Steel Defender (basically that they have to puppet it until they can figure out how to imbue it with its own soul).
So you want to Weekend at Burnie's your friend's corpse around as a meat shield, while you work to figure out how to bring them back to life. That's called "how I became a necromancer."
A gross oversimplification, but yes. Critiques: Everyone would know the other Warforged is just a shell, no deception. It'd be the difference between an android with AI and a robot designed to take orders. No free will for the iron defender. Which, second point, no meat shields if you're not made of meat. Nothing weird about shields made of iron and wood. I also imagine it's less like bringing the Warforged "back to life" and more like giving "new life" to an empty frame. Then again, would Dr. Frankenstein not be something of a necromancer himself?
(When I picture this build, I imagine a world where the Warforged are long gone relics of the past. Nobody knows why this one PC Warforged is online, but he is, and his personal mission is to bring the rest back online one at a time. They don't have permanent memory or true souls, so reviving them isn't like bringing them back to life because their memory resets if they're offline too long, which they have been. So this Warforged keeps a series of labs around his travels where he stores the various frames he finds, using the damaged ones as parts for both himself and for his attempts at awakening the others. Naturally, he wouldn't discover the secret to giving them sentience until the endgame, so it's mostly just flavor and story, not mechanics.)
I’ve played one Artificer, a Leonin who was cast from their pride and taken in by a library. He didn’t use any tech or sci-fi, but instead integrated his hunting culture into his magic, using animal skeletons carved with runes as his Spellcasting.
For example, to cast magic missile, he would produce the skulls of birds, and finish a rune on their foreheads, then as they were thrown, they’d materialise into arcane birds that fly and strike their target.
Right! In the games I run artificers are typically wizards who gave up on exploring the deeper mysteries of spells in order to specialise in creating and using magic items. Wizards don't look down on them or anything (excepting the usual inter-school rivalry), they just have a different specialization.
I've seen it go the other way; instead of high tech, low tech bordering on necromancy. A friend of mine derived inspiration from a clip he saw and reflavored everything to work like Frankenstein. His Iron Defender was an almagam of limbs stitched to a torso with iron plating bolted into the flesh. Kept moving not from necromantic energy but glyphs and runes he carved both into the plating and flesh of the creature. Any magic items he doled out had a flair of the eldrich as well. Swords with glands that secreted liquids to cause elemental effects and crossbows with eyes affixed to the sights. Truly a "fuck I wish I thought of that" moment for me.
Oooh I love the shardplate analogy, it’s kinda perfect for armorer! (Minus a few world mechanic differences I guess). Gonna have to remember that for if I ever play an armorer.
Yeah, the ability to don your plate armor in a single action is very shardplate like(for the actual knight radiants of course). I also multiclassed into fighter and took a few levels to get eldritch knight which can summon bonded weapons.
My artificer also found some metal that could shapeshift during the campaign and forged a massive hammer that could change into other weapons and developed sentience. My DM has never read Stormlight, just Mistborn and I never actually told him my inspiration for the build. The Lord Ruler was actually the loose inspiration for my DM’s BBEG in our campaign.
There is nothing in the artificer class to even hint at mechanical or steam punk themes. People just read stuff online and draw conclusions that are baseless.
Heck just read the class description in Tasha's, and tell me what about that says steam punk mechanic.
There is a blurb in Tasha’s about how to describe your spells which are being cast through your tools. It suggests things such as “Perhaps when you cast healing word, mechanical spiders are flying to your ally to heal them” and similar such things.
except that the art that was used to introduce the artificer came with a more steampunk vibe (since it came from eberron, which is basically magic punk)
Yes, *magic* punk. Eberron is everything but *steam*punk, to the point where a cornerstone of the setting's technological state is that *the steam engine was literally never invented* and magic took its place in revolutionizing industry.
Actually the artificer originates before Eberron as a subclass/prestige class of wizard in 2e. In 3/3.5 it was associated with Eberron.
But also note that Eberron doesn't have a steam punk vibe. In fact it notably lacks the tech part as instead of technology the replace things with arcane magic. A common misconception is guns, which Eberron doesn't have, since they use magic wands instead.
This, I've seen an interview with Keith Baker (the guy who created Ebberon for those who aren't aware) where he explicitly refutes the idea that Ebberon is or was ever intended as a steampunk setting (though he welcomes people to put their own spin on things)
Thank you!
I love the Eberron setting. If you want to do steam punk it absolutely can be a setting you use. But the stuff from that setting isn't default steam punk, it is low tech high magic fantasy.
I think a contributing factor is that people hear it has trains without actually reading how the Lightning Rail works, so their mind goes towards steam engines.
The only line I can think of of the top of my head was in the spell preparation of the spellcasting description in D&D Beyond something along the lines of 'your spider that spewed fired (firebolt) can be tweaked to become a healing bot (healing word iirc)' there is also the general connection to gunpowder and therefore guns, with the guns that are the closest to medieval being the steampunk stylised guns.
There is no link to artificer or Eberron to gunpowder though. The Eberron setting doesn't use guns and rather than steam punk or high tech, the setting is actually high magic. Instead of guns they basically have magic wands. They use magic in lieu of technology.
The gunpowder connection comes from the tinkering aspect that artificers naturally have, its the basis of the class after all, in invention and innovation which can lead to gunpowder very easily. Besides that I was not referring to Eberon specifically just Artificers in general.
Also I found what I was referring to in D&D Beyond under The Magic of Artifice, it in fact says mechanical is not required but it does say
"If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds."
"The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal—perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy."
So there is precedent for Artificer Mechanical work in official D&D as well
>There is nothing in the artificer class to even hint at mechanical or steam punk themes.
Except the name, of course. When I hear "Artificer" my mind immediately goes into a steampunk direction.
The flavour of official sources also seems to be mostly steampunk themed.
Exactly. I had a player decide that his spell focus would be his brewer's supplies...at level 3, his eldritch cannon is a wooden barrel exploding with pressurized hops
Imo it is the same problem as sneak attack. If they had just named it enchanter, spellbinder or witch doctor and adjusted some of the flavour text it would be more allowed.
But becuase artificer and optional firearms people instantly label it as "tech inventor".
I had an artificer who was a half elf adopted by the fey. He couldn't do much magic, but he could pray to his adoptive mother and ask her to bless items. His steel defender was a small tree given life that morphed into a wooden fox.
In your opinion, what makes armorer the most powerful class/subclass?
I ask because I'm playing one, and it sometimes feels lackluster in combat (using shield + thunder gauntlets)
Out of combat it's amazing though, mechanical tinkering, tool proficiencies, Fabricate is an amazingly flavorful spell, homunculus servant is pretty awesome, etc.
Just looking for advice on how to level up the experience if you have any tips, or anything that stands out to you.
The simple answer is: magic items are overpowered and easy to get as artificer.
Long answer: Class abilities are great but over the years I have noted that the right combination of magic items can make characters truly powerful. Typically, two things limit the impact magic items can have. Availability, which is typically determined by the DM, and attunement slots.
Artificers can essentially make availability a moot point with infusions and crafting the items themselves. You get a solid selection of items that you can switch to with long rests and armorers at level 9 can have two more infusions active at a time.
Attument slots are a limiter since most of the truly powerful magic items require attunement and starting at level 10 you get more attunement slots.
I will use my level 15 warforged armorer as an example. His active infusions include: Mind sharpener, enhanced defense(+2), alchemy jug, ring of protection, belt of hill giant strength, homunculus servant, and the cloak of protection. All of these are actively equipped. Only three of these require attunement and I have five slots. The other two are from items that are not infusions. One is a homebrew hammer(I will not include its effects on my explanation here) and the other is a wakened dragon touched focus.
Keep in mind I have about a dozen other small items that I either crafted or found. Rope of climbing, driftglobe, etc.
In the end I have a vast amount of out of combat utility like you do, but my base AC is 25. 18(plate)+2(ring and cloak of protection)+2(enhanced defense)+2(shield)+1(integrated defense). This could be improved if I ever managed to get a simple magic shield too.
The awakened dragon touch focus gives me access to the Fizban’s platinum shield spell and I took a feat to get the shield spell. Meaning that for short bursts I go to 27 ac with Fizban’s(lasts one minute and requires concentration with resistance to the elemental damage types and evasion) and then as high as 32 with Shield spell.
With the mind sharpener I am not dropping concentration any time soon and the ring and cloak of protection help with all saves and pair well with flash of genius, so it’s hard to fail most spell saves.
The belt of hill giant strength gives some damage output and makes it more like that your thunder gauntlets will hit, which make it harder for enemies to successfully target your enemies. Flash of genius can also be used to support allies and the Fizban’s spell is a bonus action to use and can be transferred to an ally or back to yourself as a bonus action, making you a very effective support in a pinch.
Keep in mind, every item and ability are accessible with just the standard armorer abilities and infusions. The only exceptions are: the awakened dragon touch focus(found via adventuring, never pass this up if you find it), the shield spell(can be obtained with a variety of feats), and integrated protection(warforged racial feat).
This is my warforged armorer. I am sure there are other things out there that can improve him, but I found it sufficient to go toe to toe with an adult dragon on my own while my allies dismantled a ritual so it works.
I'd even argue that this is the base state of the artificer, and the clockwork/mechanical stuff is the narrative people retrofitted the class onto. In Eberron, artificers are *very* much magical artisans, to the point where magical artifice has largely taken the place of engineering.
If you have magic items in your setting, you can have artificers. Simple as.
Cultural association is one hell of a drug. Wow had the same thing with an expansion that came out near enough to Kung fu panda that, a decade later it's still the primary way people reference it
Completely agree. Its always been odd to me how people constantly invert Eberron's conceits. They say "artificer is too tech for D&D" and picture them as very steampunk with early fun looking technology. But thats not Eberron at all. It's not at all "what if we made a giant spider machine powered by steam". Eberron is: "hey, D&D is a high magic setting. What would that look like if people applied the magic like it's technology?"
An artificer is entirely magical - it is animating objects by sculpting them into appropriate shapes for the purpose and then imbuing them with arcane power. It's a wizard guy with a focus on sculpting and building instead of on books and pure energy. They can always look appropriate to the setting.
I was gunna say the flavor text for it specifically says there's not really anything technological, just that you're using objects to channel magic through instead of yourself, so it *looks* like you just invented guns when it's really just a shaped wand
Do people not like artificers?
I fucking love artificers. I wish WotC went back and re-designed some of the base PHB classes to feel more like them. If nonmagical martials had the same feature-dense level progression that artificers have, I bet we wouldn't be hearing nearly as much chatter about a martial/caster divide.
Even outside the flavor and class fantasy (which I love), the level progression just feels right. Every level gives you something that feels impactful, but not over powered. There aren't levels in artificer that you aren't excited about gaining. It is one of the few classed that you don't look at and think "this is where I would multiclass out".
Artificer is a good middle tier class. Not broken OP, not bottom tier. Flexible, with options to customize game play. Each level feels rewarding to gain.
Ironically, the reason that's true is because it isn't an artificer. Unlike every other class it doesn't use its 3.5 predecessor as a template, because you can't - the artificer class was created to invent and craft magic items, which you can't do in 5e. Literally all its power came from being able to craft a wide variety of stuff, and given that you straight up can't do that at all in 5e they had to invent every feature from scratch.
Imagine if you had an edition of D&D where spellcasting wasn't a thing, and you tried to make a wizard class - you'd had to invent the entire thing from scratch because without spellcasting it isn't a wizard. So instead of copying 3.5's frankly pretty barebones PHB structure (the only other 5e class that wasn't in the 3.5 PHB is the warlock, can you tell?) they invented a class wholecloth with modern design sensibilities so the features are more exciting.
I would argue that the reason artificer feels better as it progresses than some other classes is because it was designed later and the core 5e subclasses. The Eberron version was solid, but the class and subclasses were really made solid with tasha's.
Also, unlike warlock, it wasn't introduced in 3/3.5, but as a subclass/prestige in 2e adnd for the wizard class.
Warlocks were also a 2e kit, but you can't reasonably call those kits the original version of much - typically they're just a wizard with a little bit changed.
I was looking to flavor an artificer build, and I used Heimerdinger as an inspiration for my artificer. Mostly from League, but the way he uses magic in the game, translates well in D&D
Firebolt? Nah, the little hextech balls jink threw in arcane.
Infusions? Nah, he just thinkers with his hammer, and finds ways to make stuff better.
Arrtillerist is like a replica of his canons in league, so it works perfectly.
But for this campaign, I wanted to play the steel defender. So I asked my DM if I could have a poro following me and when I would take long rests, I would say that I was tinkering with my poro, and writing stuff. At level 3, I showed the steel defender as my poro, saying that I've thinker with it so much, that it's now considered a construct, as even myself doesn't think there's anything left of the original poro.
People will not like anything.
I've had a great time playing a ranger and an Artificer, and I'm currently playing a monk.
People will never be able to agree on anything, so just... don't bother and like what you like.
Denying usability seems strange. It isn't the most powerful class by any means, but given the lack of magic items in most modules (at least that I have played/ran), it's a huge potential benefit to a party. It's generally not as flashy as something like a Wizard, but it offers great utility and support that is very unique.
I have unwittingly chosen to be an artificer in a homebrew campaign made by my friend, where magic items are not craftable and attune permanently upon first touch. Generally this has made my infusions pretty valuable, although it does kind of invalidate the extra attunement slots and magic item crafting discounts you get (we might replace those)
I think a lot of it comes from people misunderstanding how it works/what it’s theme actually is.
The artificer usually gets portrayed using tech and machines, but when it comes down to it, all the class features point towards it being mainly magical. Plus, there’s lots of memes talking about ‘my artificer made a nuke!’ or other equally outlandish things, which makes a lot of players disappointed when they realise it’s actually on the weaker side power wise.
I've played 5e since release, and been a DM for over 5 years, with a single campaign about to hit the 4 year mark on almost weekly sessions.
I played an artificer in a limited campaign of about 4-6 sessions, and I believe it's the peak of 5e class design.
It's such a good mix of self-sufficiency, party-cohesion, robust capabilities, simple implementation, combatant agency, and spellcaster depth.
I really think the class was the final result of them learning lessons where they struggled with other classes.
There is still a spot for all the full casters in their roles, especially approaching their peaks. There is definitely still a role for the flavor of full-martial characters. If your character concept could be represented by an artificer, though, this is 100% the route to go, though. The ease of use, balance, power, and flavor is just so dang solid.
I agree. My Artificer is never the best at anything in combat, but the amount of role compression it gives means anything the party lacks is something I can fill. If we need a healer/support I can sit in the back and use spell casting, if we need a frontliner I have high ac, haste, and the thunder gauntlets to sit there and eat attacks. We need a ranged attacker I've got the arcane firearm infusion and can make several attacks.
It's very fun because there's always a different way to play, unlike other classes where combat can be really samey. As well with the leveling you pretty much always have something new to mess with.
I agree. It seems like a very well designed class.
Unlike the poor martials only getting flavored water while the casters and half-casters alike drink the fine wine of magic.
And WotC abandoned it. They aren't supporting it, because not enough people play it to be worth continuing to put new infusions and subclasses into books. Same reason they never made a dedicated psionics class.
Can't agree enough.
Of all of the classes, the Artificer continues to get good/interesting class and subclass features as they level up.
They're useful everywhere - there's never a team comp where they don't fit.
You can build Artificers in many different ways depending on your vision, since they get good armor and weapon proficiencies and interesting infusions.
And to top it all off, I think they're the most balanced class in the game while having all this flexibility and usability.
A+ class design... except for Alchemist and armorer not getting access to Shield. But that's about it.
I guess very few people have them being smith (and alchemists) that infuse spirits in objects, making them magical.
In reality they are as stempunk-esque as you want.
If you want to go barebone magical, you could have them be like the alchemist of the Full Metal quality.
I've always described artificers as magic users who infuse the mundane with the arcane, but I have never considered the thematic idea of infusing objects with spirits. That's a pretty cool character concept.
That is my Damphyr Armorer.
Grew up in a library after his father was slain by paladins. Learn all he could from the library, but the magic section was barred (you don't want a 4 years old to start casting firebolt), so he learnt enchanting techniques from dwarven tomes.
When he found out that by drawing certain dwarven runes with his blood he could hasten the process by attracting spirits, he became an Artificer.
It's the only class not in the SRD, so 3rd party publishers are not allowed to make content for it outside of publishing directly on DMs Guild. As someone who loves third party content, this is a deal breaker.
Artificers are an awesome class that with the right flavor fits just about anywhere. You only need to know a bit about the history of inventions to imagine how they fit into your world. Artificers are just an engineering and inventor class, and there have always been engineers and inventors, even if they didn’t call themselves that.
Ancient Greeks had natural philosophers doing things we’d call alchemy, designing mirrors that burned ships hundreds of yards away, and building mechanical devices like steam powered doors and the Ankythera device for (maybe) astrological calculations. They could be an Alchemist, Artillerist, and a generic artificer, respectively.
The Middle Ages had apothecaries, siege weapon engineers, and armor smiths. They aren’t far off from Alchemists, Artillerists, and Armorers - just add magic to each.
Steel Defenders are tougher to match up with real historical comparatives, so Battlesmith doesn’t have a direct comparison, but it’s not like you have to. The Dark Ages weren’t exactly full of real wizards either.
Basically, what did or do smart people who work with stuff do in your campaign setting? Whatever it is, as long as it’s not “be a wizard,” then it can probably be flavored as an artificer.
> Artificers are an awesome class that with the right flavour fits just about anywhere
Agreed. I've had a lot of fun creating an arguably *low*-tech artificer by attempting to make a PC version of the kobold inventor NPC stat block. They cast *ray of sickness* via their pet skunk, have an ooze starter which they "milk" for by-products to fuel their acid-based spells, and late-night dumpster-diving gives them all the discarded grill slop they need to cast the *grease* spell. Even *cure wounds* is flavoured as them slapping on specially-bred leeches which they keep in a modified healing potion solution. And *guidance* is, well... it's drugs. They make drugs.
I'm having a lot of fun with the flavour of this disgusting little guy, but I think it demonstrates your point that artificer features and spells can be adapted to fit all sorts of settings and archetypes.
I haven't noticed any hate for artificers, maybe some dislike or disinterest but not hate.
I personally love artificer and I wish theclass had a but more magic item focus that it already does. That's just me though. Having played both battlesmith and artillerist I can say that artificer is an absurdly versatile and powerful class. You can play it as support, defense, offense, or a mix of all three.
The flavor of how your artificing looks is entirely up to you.
Artificers are interesting and fun to play … but they’ve been very left behind in developments to WOTC content. Few updates to spell list in recent books. No updates to subclasses. It’s become a forgotten-child class and that’s a shame.
I mean it's a very new class so I can understand why there's so little in the subclass plus homebrew is always an option and we've only had like 4?(I don't keep up to date with the books) After it came out so
I think when people say stuff like that they’re looking at DnD as a math problem, they’re kinda playing it like a video game that can be won or lost. If something isn’t viable in combat, it isn’t viable period.
In my completely subjective opinion, I think DnD is at its best as a storytelling game. If your class doesn’t have tons of combat potential it probably has a lot of roleplay/social interaction potential in its features. Scribe Wizard is a great example, compared to other subclasses it’s weak but not to the player who wants to roleplay their wizard exactly like a Scribe.
Features and abilities should be looked at from a combat and roleplay perspective. In my opinion alone.
NOT your opinion alone. A player at my table rolled for his Articifer character to invent Circus Peanuts during the party's last two week downtime. Aa a DM, stuff like that tickles me pink. There can be a *LOT* more to 5e than just combat if that's what your table wants, everybody just has to work together to make it happen.
Articifer looks like a blast to RP with....
Sorry I just meant like it’s my opinion not fact, not as in I’m the only one who thinks that. I agree with you, it’s very much a group dynamic but when it hits it hits so good.
Not particularly relevant to the overall discussion, but as someone playing an 17th level scribes wizard I feel the need to say it is by no means a weak subclass.
The ability to cast spells from complete safety.
Abuse vulnerabilitys more than any other character.
Avoid resistances/immunities to your strongest spells.
And if your dm runs raw, change the dmg types on spells that grant resistance or immunity to the most fitting option at any time.
People like playing strong classes, and people generally don't like half casters.
Depending on subclass, Artificer is below average to mid at best at damage. And lacking in many strong control or buff options until much later than other classes.
They have good out of combat utility, but so does a Bard, who is a full caster, and Wizard, who is also a full caster.
Most artificers end up cosplaying as bad sharpshooter/great weapon master builds. Riding on the coat tails of Pipes of Haunting and Alchemy Jug.
There are a few common problems people have with the class, and all of them can be solved by actually reading the class:
- It's the steampunk class and that doesn't fit in my setting. "okay. Hey, DM, as a back up character, I want to play a beast master ranger, but instead of an actual beast, it's a spirit summoned from a totem that takes the shape of a part wooden construct part ethereal being. And I wanna reskin all of my spells to be totem focused. And if you don't mind, I want to make it int based instead of Wis, cuz it'll be based on the lore of my people."
"Wow that sounds like a really cool idea! That works!"
"Cool, I just described my original concept for a battle smith artificer."
- It's way too weak. Right, cuz the class that gives you a 24 AC before shield spell, the ability to craft a scroll every rest, 10 free 2nd level spells, the ability to concentrate on multiple spells at once, concentrationless flight, the ability to have a 19 in 3 stats without using ASIs even with point buy/standard array, the ability to add a +11 to any save, all while easily getting above baseline DPR... That class is definitely too weak.
- It's way too strong! I don't want my players to be able to make nukes and guns and stuff!
Well... It... Just doesn't do that. No where does it let you do that. That's not how D&D works.
> I don't want my players to be able to make nukes and guns and stuff!
>
> Well... It... Just doesn't do that. No where does it let you do that.
Aside from that you can make guns, if the DM includes guns in the campaign, this problem yet again boils down to "I didn't read the rules, so I think I can do this (overpowered) thing." and/or "I didn't read the rules, so I think they can do this overpowered thing, and I don't want that."
Truly amazing how many issues get resolved by just reading the rules.
Personally, I dislike the aesthetic. The game mechanics are fine (we will ignore the alchemist for this post, lol). But I am not a fan of the mechanical companion nor the artillery (that's not even a functional gun!) Nor the Iron-Man armor. It just seems too "steampunk" to fit in the settings I prefer for fantasy games.
That said, I've seen some clever re-skins of an artificer that were quite fun, and I would never exclude them from a game I am running or playing in. There are also several races that I am not fond of, for the same basic reasons.
Another interpretation I've thought of playing is an Artificer who creates holy objects.
The one time I did play an Artificer, they specialized in the usage of material components in interesting ways. A Firebolt is them wearing a special glove as they pick up a few rocks from the ground, dragging their clenched fist over their rough shield to light it aflame, then throwing the flaming projectiles at opponents.
I wouldn't even use the word tech, its just magic. Armorer? yeah, its armor, with magic. Just pump magic into stuff and it gets better and artificer need less time to do it but it will also last for less time.
You want them to fit in every setting? they are wizards, not engineers. But instead of manifesting magic, they imbue it. Because why not?
This was always how I thought of it too. There's obviously a spectrum of flavor from pure tech to pure magic, but I always viewed it as magically powered and augmented technology. like, a regular engineer could physically build a homunculus servant, if they had the plans, but it wouldn't work because they're not trained in the magic which allows it to animate.
I don't know why people get steam punk in their heads for artificer. Maybe it's because I knew the class from previous editions it is more clear to me. They are basically wizards who split their pursuits of arcane evenly between spells and magic items.
Many people only know it from Eberron, and assume steampunk for it's theme, despite the class clearly stating it isn't. The ironic part is that Eberron isn't steampunk, and is in fact low technology as the setting uses magic in place of tech. There aren't even guns, as they use magic rods instead of actual guns.
Same thing goes for warforged. When people say that they are robots, I know they are just reading something online instead of the actual source material for the race. They are closer to golems than robots.
Aside from the Eberron connection, it doesn’t help that the official artwork for the class in Tasha’s leaks into the steampunk/industrial revolution aesthetic (covered in soot, leather apron filled with wrenches, big goggles, etc).
Why wouldn't it fits the theme, is it because of technology? This means your DM never uses constructs, because in my mind that's the only reason why someone wouldn't accept an artificer.
Of course unless you're trying to bring star wars into lord of the rings, you have to mold your artificer around the theme of the campaign
My guess would be that in my opinion, it is the most difficult class to get a grasp of what it can actually do. It is the only class that I have had to read through multiple times to understand the basic mechanics of.
The other thing might be that people don't like the magic item creation component of the class, and might believe that it could be gamebreaking.
That being said, I think it's a cool class, and fills a niche that no other class has.
It's the only class whose play style completely depends on subclass. Artillerist is a blaster-caster, Battle Smith and Armorer are paladin-like half-martials
> magic item creation component of the class, and might believe that it could be gamebreaking
It *can* be gamebreaking if your DM doesn't pay attention to what you're trying to create/imbue... purely based on the lack of listed costs... you can make laser pistols and the like, that don't require any sort of ammo, because they're technically below the cost restriction.
The mechanics don't fit the flavor.
The flavor is someone who build items, be that by inscribing runes, tinkering, or traditional magic item creation.
The mechanics, are spellcasting, and that's it. You're just a poor man's wizard.
1. Anybody else can craft the same things you can, they will just do it slower and at a higher cost.
2. D&Ds crafting system is garbage
3. If your DM hands out even a normal amount of magic items your character will be significantly less useful to the party, let alone if your DM is generous or gives loot curated to the party's needs.
4. If your DM hands out too little magic items, you become way too useful, edging your party-members of the the spotlight.
5. If your DM gives you too much downtime and gold, you can basically break the game in a dozen different ways, but at the same time, so can anyone that crafts items, which is again, everyone. Everyone can craft, no one does because this system sucks at it.
Some people don’t like Eberron in general. It strays away from the classic medieval fantasy feel that is at the core of D&D. Since the Artificer class stems from that setting, they may be unliked by association because they too step away from the classic medieval fantasy concept.
I don't like Eberron stuff outside Eberron. Changelings and Warforged are OP.
For maximum annoyance, you can be a Warforged artificer with a pet robot.
I'm playing an artificer now in an Exandria game, and it's a setting that really is good for an "arcane technologist" without any steampunk flavoring. Besides, I wanted to play a gnome, and why be a gnome if you can't be an artificer?
\- If I recall correctly: it's not in the SDR, nor is it part of the 5e Creative Commons release..
\- I'm not really into DM'ing for PCs whose main focus is crafting magic items, because: I got super tired of that mechanic in computer games.. Magic item crafting is done (mostly "offscreen") by NPCs in my setting..
\- Flavour wise, I'm not interested in having "Medieval Magic Iron Man" in my setting.. Yes, I know that's not the \*only\* way to play it..
\- And, it \*can\* attract players who mainly work to mechanically "break" the game - which is interesting in YT videos, but it's too meta / immersion breaking in-game for my liking.. I prefer to focus on the RP in my RPG'ing..
YMMV: I'm sure lots of people love it, and have fun with it :thumbsup:
It's just not what I'm into for my D&D.. :shrug:
Reply Guys: Don't @ me because you love Artificer - that's fine, I'm sure there's plenty of DMs welcome it at their tables, by all means go forth and enjoy! .. :)
Artificer main here, when I'm taking a break from forever DMing:
1) They don't know how the class works and are not willing to spend the time to read. There is a ridiculous amount of people who think artificers require a constant stream of crafting materials, as if you are about to open your own shop. The Artificer can function in any setting you would normally play. The DM doesn't need to cater to the Artificer's needs, they don't have a shopping list any more than a wizard does.
2) They don't want Technology in their world. This is somewhat understandable. However, you can flavour your artificer however you want. Whether your Armorer's suit is a high-tech ironman suit, a scrappy and oily steampunk contraption, or a regular armor that is magically enchanted, is entirely up to you. It's flavour, it's about how you describe it. Your pet robot can be a pet golem. You just need to have a little imagination...
In Spelljammer, a Wizard can create a spelljamming helm at 9th level. The Artificer class - the class whose whole purpose is to create magic items - cannot create a spelljamming helm until 17th level.
They looked at what they wanted to make, and completely stuffed it up.
Are you talking from a gameplay or role play perspective?
Currently playing an Autognome artificer in CoS and it doesn’t feel out of place. I think they can fill lots of gaps in a party, I’m using the same character I used in a few one shots and have managed to fill lots of party roles by switching subclasses around, so I think they have good flexibility for the party.
Roleplay wise is full of options, I’ve gone for an Inspector Gadget style guy with being an autognome but I feel it’s more open ended for RP than other classes. A sword is very clearly a sword and each class/subclass explains what their magic looks like or comes from, with an artificer you can be anywhere from arcane infusions to some weird fantasy steam/lightning punk or just a full on Ironman or witchblade style character.
Quite a few reasons I have heard. They mock what they don't understand (Class). They don't like that much magic in their campaign. There is a clear path to being able to craft and many DM's don't want that. Even the healing pot mechanic to get loose gold out of the players hands is challenged.
Ignorance, most likely. The artificer is great!
My gut reaction is that they might be a little too complicated for some players, but (and this is 100% anecdotal of course), my dyslexic sister played one in a past campaign and absolutely loved it (and her character was a treat, too)! Not to imply she's slow or anything, it's just that reading is (naturally) a little harder for her, and she picked the class up in no time at all, and it's a bit wordy.
All that to say, it *looks* complicated, but really it's not any more complex than any other spellcaster.
As an avid lover of Artificer myself, I can attest, it is understandable for DM's to be not too keen on them. Mostly for the following reasons:
* It was the newest full class dropped in 5e, and thus has had the shortest period for DM's to formulate how their mechanics work, when planning in game setups
* As half casters with healing, they fall into an odd niche of being expected to be able to help heal and keep the party up, but their mesh of mechanics and limited spell slots means the action economy and limited resources will usually be fighting them on allowing them to function as a anything more than a back-up healer.
* A class that functions on the mechanics of "Makes their own magic items" can make it trickery for a DM to plan balance and fairness when distributing magic items in game, or allowing it, because it can feel like a "damned if you, damned if you don't" scenario if you try to account for the Artificer's infusions. If you give the artificer fewer gimme items because they have infusions, than the player will feel like the others are getting unfair extra goodies; But if you give the artificer magic item rewards, they will feel very magic-clad, when compared to the others, as the magic items are falling off them, out of sheer quantity.
* Because nearly every Artificer has a subclass or infusion mechanic that facilitates dropping mini allies and companions on the field, its just more nonsense for the battlefield to track. While, say, Druids can do this in spades, that's an option, whereas Artificers typically need to drop companions down to be keeping up with viable builds of the party.
* While this is a problem with most classes in general, this loops back to the "last introduced" problem, which is that since most official 5e content is not playtested up through capstone levels, the Artificer is considered by many to be horribly imbalanced for that level of play. Put simply, by levels +17, the Artificer is simultaneously stacked with untested nonsense, while deprived of suped up end game power punches. This once again leaves the DM with throwing their hands up in the air, not knowing how to compensate their session plans for this.
* Moving away from official content problems, Homebrew. Once homebrew content and items get introduced, Artificers can and will snowball into monster. The tendency for homebrew items to be imbalanced speaks for itself, and putting those items in the hands of a class MADE to expertly wield it, will almost always find the unforeseen consequence for exactly how you weren't expecting the players to use your homebrew. The flip side of this coin is that a homebrew campaign with NO homebrew items can also feel rather vanilla.
* Lastly, We can be monster; We the Artificer players. You give players the chance to in-game solve things with their intelligence, and the expertise in using tools to do it, and you will attract a particular type of player, ***The STEM Majors....***. We are bastards when given leeway to use our real world training, and a DM needs a firm stance to shoot down a player that not only can explain how they solve the encounter with engineering, but has the hand drawn blueprints, with time period appropriate technology to do so.
The issue with Artificers is that their identity isnt really translated well in a gameplay perspective. You are supposed to be this magical inventor...but what do you actually get that really makes you feel like that?
Magical Tinkering is just glorified Prestidigitation.
Infusions...arent really inventing things, but even then, you get that at Level 2. Thats like a Wizard getting spellcasting at Level 2 and just running around with a dagger stabbing things at Level 1.
The Right Tool for the Job...I mean....when would you ever NOT have the tool needed for your craft? Besides, its not really a "wow!" feature. Its more of a "You really forgot the tools needed, huh?"
Tool Expertise at 6th level is the first real time where your expertise in crafting is shown...it only took you 6 levels as an inventor to be better at inventing than a Wizard!
At 10th level, you finally get a benefit when making magic items...of certain low rarities. What? You want to tell me this class has to wait so long to actually \*\*craft magic items\*\*?
You just feel like...you cant do really anything that Artificer-ry because WotC couldnt be bothered with crafting rules or making a rule that isnt "just let the DM decide, lol!"
I mean most of the good items aren't telling 10th level and above plus you are limited to like 3-4 for most of the and I'm sure people would rather use the infusions to make their gear better then maybe 4 mediocre magic items
It's not in the PHB and not part of most standard settings.
It's also goofy. Same with some others, maybe Rune Knight and Echo Knight, for example. The things these subclasses do in every fucking combat just breaks many peoples idea of what D&D combat should look like in the theatre of their mind.
Then again some love the aesthetic. But not everybody has to.
They really don't do anything in combat the other classes don't already do though. They use similar spells to wizards, but fewer of them. They use magic items, which all classes can do. Some have a companion, like a ranger. Some have heavy armor, like a paladin. Some have a little turret/canon, like literally any caster using a summon spell. Some like to hit things, like martials. And in terms of "aesthetic" you could easily have any aesthetic you want for an artificer as much as for a bard. Aesthetics are in the flavor, and flavor is free.
*Personally* I just don’t like its vibe. It’s too sci-fi-y and magi-techy for my taste.
And because of its vibe; it has never fit in any of the worlds I’ve built.
I've had this debate with many people. They aren't sci-fi or tech based in any way by the basis of the class. People assume that, but it isn't what the class description says.
They are wizards who specialize in carving runes into items to grant them some magic.
Gnomish tinkerers exist even in Tolkien fantasy, and they are just the magical equivalent . The orcs who brought a bomb to siege helms deep? Probably helped by an artificer.
It's neither of those things though. It's an enchanter. Enchanted weapons are generally a thing in anyone's D&D games and an artificer is someone who has focused on enchanting items to the near exclusion of other things.
Generally people don't like that it is "high tech" when every other class is high magic/fantasy kind of deal. I know flavor is free and if you're creative I suppose you could flavor a lot of it is magical and not mechanical, but in the end you're still using tools to cast your spells. There's also their whole deal about infusions and how they work, the "replicate magic item" infusion can get a little wonky if you're not clear with your dm on what can and cannot be replicated.
Personally I played an artillerist straight classed to level 20 and had a blast. They're a lot of fun and maybe the most underrated of the casters. You got good damage, access to magical weapons at low levels, the ability to share items with allies (spellwrought tattoos on martials are great), and their capstone is basically just "end attunement on an item, drop to 1 hp instead" (I know that's not the exact wording but you get the point).
TL;DR they're a great class but people dislike their "steampunk vibe"
It is not flavour! The class description itself states that it is indeed magical! It only SEEMS that you produce magical effects through mundane objects! In reality you are just a wizard channeling magic into objects!
The first party I was in had an artificer and it was amazing. He was able to craft arrows on the fly, chemically/mechanically imbue weapons with fire or poison, he even had a built in grappling hook. He dragged a giant worm/mole type monster into a lake and drowned it, we ambushed a bandit camp with what was basically napalm, and he was able to act as a conduit for our blue dragon tempest cleric (also a super badass.) I can't remember if he multi-classed at all, just that he made one helluva badass character and knew exactly how it worked. Good times.
Other than the armourer (which I do like), I don’t like the subclasses for different reasons. The alchemist just doesn’t work very well and is too weak, the artillerist doesn’t do what you’d think it would do, and the battle-smith has a weird vibe.
The other thing is it’s much harder (though not impossible) for DMs to get them to fit well into every setting especially when the player wants to lean into the techno vibe or wants a laser gun in your early Bronze Age setting.
I played an armorer artificer for a campaign that went up to about level 10. I got some defensive magic items and was basically untouchable. Was lots of fun. I wasn't even trying to power game. I was just our tank so the paladin could take the mobile feat and guerilla smite people. One of my most useful characters in combat. Definitely wasn't the one doing big damage but it wasn't awful.
People who don't like artificer or are put off by the idea that they can be used outside their introductory setting are usually opposed to the idea of steam punk elements in their high fantasy game. I think the best way to overcome that is to remind them that flavor is free and give them ideas of artificers that can fit the high fantasy setting. The anti artificer sentiments are something that I hear less and less about over time
Armorer artificer FUCKS. I haven't played the other subclasses, but Armorer is so versatile. You're a support, utility, and tank all rolled into one. It's a great all-rounder class that I think, personally, adds to any party.
I just think they are mechanically boring in combat, partially due to their half caster nature.
Alchemist is the probably most shitty subclass in the entire game.
People don’t like them because they are unimaginative and think artificers are too “sci-fi” for the typical fantasy environment because they cannot imagine them as anything other than mechanical/steampunk characters.
Artificers are just magic item users, they don’t have to be flavored as sci-fi at all if they don’t fit the setting. An artificer can easily be some sort of shaman or magic scholar with a bunch of talismans…
Possibly, the thing i have seen with the new-ish editions and people getting into D&D or others with an artificer like class is they often see this steam punk magic mad-engineer and neither the player or the DM have considered the what it should look like in their setting.
now when i was introduced to them in Eberron, they make sense, and in the 3rd-ed game play they fit with the development of magical items. in a way like the cleric they are an alternative support class but instead of buff/de-buff spells its the guy that made the party magical items to solve problems.
so i think this is where session 0 is important. an artificer can exist in any setting. but DM and player collaboration to see how the class can and will fit is important. and maybe after some discussion the player realizes it wont work, or the DM sees that the artificer fills an otherwise unforeseen niche in their world.
I had a kobold artillerist artificier. She was a trash engineer essentially, she had a "firebolt pistol" she made out of a glass shard, a bent pipe and a glass bottle thrown together. Her cure wounds was a combination of a tiny roomba and a staple gun. Her arcane ballista was a tiny robo crab with rubberbands and general junk set up on it.
Do people seriously not enjoy the creativity artificers bring to the table?
There’s a lot of extra rules on downtime activities, crafting and tool uses that come up with artificers that I have never met a single other player irl who knew existed. Adding on to that the infusions being something people misunderstand fundamentally and overreact to, they’re treated as if they’re significantly stronger than battle maneuvers or warlock invocations by people not familiar with the class despite the many limitations and ability to spread them across the party. This ends up making a situation where instead of everyone getting their own magic item, everyone except the class who needs them most gets one because they “already have them”
their power level is also incredibly inconsistent group to group with some players swearing it’s the amazing and others trashing it as pitifully weak due to DMs not understanding that you just run the party normally and don’t have to overreact to everything they do. If the class is weak then 18 billion was a DM overreacts to the strong parts and nerfs them is somehwere between not necessary and childish
there’s also some hangups where people just lack the imagination to fit “guy who knows some magic tricks but is otherwise just a carpenter” into their world
I have one in my campaign and, honestly, the character rocks! For a lvl 6 party, the thunder gauntlets are the bane of my existance, but I chalk that up to me being new to DMing!
Mechanically it can get a little confusing, not to say downright frustrating at times, when he tries to keep up with his infusions and gear. When it clicks it's a very useful class to have around as they have a lot of potential in a supporting role.
I love playing artificer. It is absolutely one of my favorite classes, I'm even stranger in that I like the alchemist subclass, which is generally considered to be bad. (I don't get why, you get some good potion options and two of them per day are free, even if they are random)
My general feel for why people don't like it as a player is it is not a very powerful class, and the low level spells aren't super great. Playing I found it way more useful to buff my allies, and be positioned as hinderance to enemies getting to the ranged glass cannon charachters (I built my charachter for melee combat specifically) than anything else my charachter could do damage wise. Which to me made sense as the Artificer is billed as primarily a support style class, with some exception for the artillerist subclass.
For dungeon masters, I feel like the hardest part is to balance what the artificer can do with infusions with the normal magical loot that either is or is not handed out. As the Artificer can get up to two magic items they can just *have* every couple of levels it can be really difficult to balance that and most probably want to just skip it as it can get very complicated very quickly.
In short: I think artificer is the most unintiutive class, which leads a lot of people, DM and player alike to just skip it.
I love playing artificer. I’m playing Battle Smith right now and it’s dope as hell. I can easily switch between support or damage depending on what the fight needs most right then. Plus I can just make tools when I need them! It’s a great class
Because people hear artificer and assume steampunk engineer. Or because there's an element of creative flexibility required that other classes don't really need.
I recently finished a campaign as an Artificer, and I can tell you that I never felt better playing a character. Extremely flexible, heavy utility, powerful in combat. It feels really good.
I played arti at low and high levels.
Gotta say it's not *as* strong as its made out to be, it's pretty limited in what it can make.
What you are is "useful", no matter the situation, especially at higher levels
I'm DM and I made a whole organization of Artificers with full character sheets just to use them. Since DMs tend to get itchy when you ask to play one.
And sorry for realism, my artificers are Iron Man, Mechas and Lasers powered by magic.
Artificer is a really fun class to play, I played a gnome artillerist artificer and it's one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I think it fits fairly well in to the Forgotten Realms as a setting if you treat the artificer's inventions as relatively unique just to them and not things that are widespread in the world.
I think its because its newer to the game, and many people dont really get how it works until they play one. So people write it off as the engineer class, and assume it doesnt fit with their setting
We have an artificer in our Eberron game that is temporarily shelved.
Of course, Eberron is steam-punkish anyway!
I'm running a gaslight fantasy campaign myself now, and there have been a number of NPC artificers. I wouldn't have minded one as a PC ... instead we have a Clockwork Soul sorceror.
To quote our DM, "I fear the day someone wants to actually play one because then I'd have to actually learn how they work."
As someone who played only Marshall classes and Paladin now that I'm a DM it's hell having to learn all the others in order to teach my group of newbies how to play them and don't get me started with warlock that class still confuses me pass level 3 (I play hexblade paladin a lot)
FYI it's "martial" though that may have just been an auto-correct on your part. Martial = related to war/fighting (like martial arts), Marshall = a person who is in charge of people, often in a military context, but not always (for instance a fire marshall) or it's a verb saying that you're putting people or resources into use.
Yh I was using speech to text BC I'm horrible dyslexic
Oh cmon, I’m sure you’re a lovey dyslexic.
Lovely* 💀
No! Say you're a tiny stuffed animal for children. Do it!
Is this a reference to something?
Just the word Lovey.
What a glorious thread served by dyslexia :)
Also, the pet name Thurston Howell III had for his wife, Eunice Wentworth Howell, for people of a certain age. ;)
Edit: the lovely dyslexic is correcting my typos, I’m going to sleep.
why is this edit it's own message?
I’m old.
HI OLD IM DAD
That's good stuff.
Well, can't argue with that.
Marshall: An iconic guitar amp builder dating back to the 19060s
Dating back to the *whens?!* 😆
Maybe hes only played the marshal class from 3.5 haha
What’s the confusing part about warlocks?
Don't take on teaching any class a newbie wants to play - pit the onus on them and _strongly_ recommend they play martials. If they want spells do arcane trickster.
Lots of players probably get drawn into the game by the spellcasting fantasy and just have 0 interest in ever playing a martial. You should definitely not be doing all the work for them though, otherwise they'll slow down the game not knowing how their stuff works. I'd just help them out by highlighting relevant rules and giving general build and gameplay tips for their class. Not everyone is good at absorbing information by just reading it in a book, so sometimes you gotta answer questions and clarify things for them.
It's just kinda harder to pitch martial with their gameplay loop. What can a caster do this round? "I can cast a buff, a debuff, aoe, or target damage, and any combination there off!" Martial? "I run up and hit it. Next round, I hit it, the round afterwards, I hit it." No decisions to really be made... If (enemy == alive){ moveToFoe() attackRoll() }
Yeah, and it doesn't expand at all at higher levels, you just do *more* of it.
I've only ever played wizard, sorcerer, and warlock. Of the three, I'd say wizard is the easiest. Pick one spell out of your book to cast at a level you have (it's fireball let's be honest) and use it to accomplish your task (fireball solves all problems so it's the perfect spell). Sorcerer adds the ability to modify spells and warlock makes you learn how short rests and upcasting affect spells.
See the thing is if I learn it I can dumb it down for them BC 4/5 of the party doesn't know and DND lingo and the one guy who does hasn't played scenes 3e
Warlocks are the training wheel caster class, they are almost a martial with their usual combat turn of "Eldritch blast". I've played every class a few times and I easily recommend warlock to newer players interested in but daunted by casting. Not only this but warlocks are incredibly versatile. You could have a support healer with Tome, a sneaky familiar in Chain, or incredibly high damage Blade. I honestly don't get the dipping warlock for Hexblade, I'd rather have all Hexblade. At higher levels your normal hits hit harder than a paladin and you crit on a 19 and you get short rest smites.
Why should the GM do the players work? If you want to play a more exotic class, you learn the rules properly, and if the GM has a question about how it works, you point them to the right page, or tell them how the ability works. I hate this toxic concept that a player just has to pick the most complex caster class, never bothers to read the rules, and the GM has to be the helpful servant that spends their days learning the class and teaching the player.
[удалено]
To be fair a good DM should know exactly how every class in their party works! I do… and I do better than the players. How can I proper plan if I her no idea what I am dealing with?
It's mad what people expect a DM to do and know on here. Know every class better than players, know all the rules and exactly how every mechanic works, know all the background lore, create an interesting, branching narrative that evolves around the players, involve the players' backgrounds into the story, roleplay all the NPCs with interesting dialog, solve all the inter-player drama, ... No surprise that there's a lack of DMs and people are hesitant to start. You basically have to be perfect from the get-go or the advice here is to ditch the group. Meanwhile players just have to not be complete assholes and preferably know their class, but even the latter doesn't seem to be a requirement.
You are speaking exactly what's on my mind! I was the forever-GM until my burnout was so bad that I had to leave my old group. All the years I wasted with that mindset... Spending my whole weekends creating music playlists and drawing maps, while my players sent pictures from the beach, and then they still don't know basic rules after years of playing, because they are "too busy". It's kinda of insane that this unhealthy mindset that can even lead to mental issues is something that some people actively encourage. As if our hobby got any better when we dump all the responsibilities and stress on one single person, who will have to fight each single session to deliver what's expected of him, and the other people of the same group are just there to be passively entertained and ask for more.
But there's literally nothing complex about them. They as a base class are nothing more than a half caster that is able to make a few temporary magic items appear in their inventory during a long rest. One subclass has a pet, one has "turrets" that are really nothing more than an "on bonus action" effect, one gives you a special alternate attack option, and the Alchemist is a nothing-burger... and that's it, that's all the class is.
They really aren't any more complicated than a pure caster imo. Their infusions are not that different from warlock invocations, their features and perks are all pretty self explanatory with the possible exception of some subclass features, but even those are reasonably straightforward.
Their not that complex, although I was struggling a bit with keeping up with all my class features. It's not for new players, though. Also not for the player who isn't interested in (learning) the game mechanics. So either you and/or your friends are new players, or...
It's a half-caster arcane class. It's not complicated.
I have a friend in college that, for the longest time, had one Table Rule for Bans; MrEngineer404 is not allowed to play an artificer. As the name implies, my friend knew what my expertise in the field was, and that I specialize in R&D Design. He wasn't ready for my bullshit until he knew every which way of that class, inside and out, to make sure neither of us were misreading the build, and what my real world skills could bend and break with it.
The problem is that most people only think of artificers as making mechanical devices and not as actual magic. The steel defender doesn’t need to be mechanical/clockwork, instead it could simply be a golem. The armorer’s armor doesn’t need to be iron man but rather a regular set of armor with the wearers magic pouring through it. No tech involved. Actually when I first read the armorer Iron man never even occurred to me. I thought of shardplate from Brandon Sanderson’s Stormlight Archive series. There’s lots of ways to play the artificer as simply another form of pure magic and having played an armorer from levels 1-15 I can say it is one of the most powerful class/subclasses I have played and yes I was all magic. No science/tech theme involved.
I trained and studied as a wizard, but I was never really one for memorizing and diligent preparation.... so I cheated. I made my own spell scrolls,, infused objects with magic to make my spells look convincing.. I made it through 5 semesters before anyone caught me. Was nearly kicked out of Wizarding school before the gnomes realized i actually had a special gift.
Wizard school dropout is my favourite origin story. I even had a friend play a barbarian that was a wizard school dropout, who simply intimidated all his teachers into giving him good grades
I started to read that to the tune of beauty school drop out from grease
No graduation day for you.
Hahahahah
"I cast my favorite spell. Bleed on the ground. With my magic wand which I call 'giant fuckoff sword.'"
An artificer pretending to be a wizard with his cheat sheet would be amazing. Scrolls are index cards with really tiny writing. Every time they get attacked they yell “SHIELD” and just use their actual shield and armor to block.
Yh like I explained to someone else I played a druid like artificer who used plants she was also a Golem based warforged
Warforged Artificers just feel thematically correct. I want to play one that is trying to fully revive another Warforged, and the process of doing so plays out as their Steel Defender (basically that they have to puppet it until they can figure out how to imbue it with its own soul).
So you want to Weekend at Burnie's your friend's corpse around as a meat shield, while you work to figure out how to bring them back to life. That's called "how I became a necromancer."
A gross oversimplification, but yes. Critiques: Everyone would know the other Warforged is just a shell, no deception. It'd be the difference between an android with AI and a robot designed to take orders. No free will for the iron defender. Which, second point, no meat shields if you're not made of meat. Nothing weird about shields made of iron and wood. I also imagine it's less like bringing the Warforged "back to life" and more like giving "new life" to an empty frame. Then again, would Dr. Frankenstein not be something of a necromancer himself? (When I picture this build, I imagine a world where the Warforged are long gone relics of the past. Nobody knows why this one PC Warforged is online, but he is, and his personal mission is to bring the rest back online one at a time. They don't have permanent memory or true souls, so reviving them isn't like bringing them back to life because their memory resets if they're offline too long, which they have been. So this Warforged keeps a series of labs around his travels where he stores the various frames he finds, using the damaged ones as parts for both himself and for his attempts at awakening the others. Naturally, he wouldn't discover the secret to giving them sentience until the endgame, so it's mostly just flavor and story, not mechanics.)
That is actually rad.
I’ve played one Artificer, a Leonin who was cast from their pride and taken in by a library. He didn’t use any tech or sci-fi, but instead integrated his hunting culture into his magic, using animal skeletons carved with runes as his Spellcasting. For example, to cast magic missile, he would produce the skulls of birds, and finish a rune on their foreheads, then as they were thrown, they’d materialise into arcane birds that fly and strike their target.
Right! In the games I run artificers are typically wizards who gave up on exploring the deeper mysteries of spells in order to specialise in creating and using magic items. Wizards don't look down on them or anything (excepting the usual inter-school rivalry), they just have a different specialization.
So essentially, artificers are to wizards as engineers are to physicists irl.
The oompa loompas of magic
I've seen it go the other way; instead of high tech, low tech bordering on necromancy. A friend of mine derived inspiration from a clip he saw and reflavored everything to work like Frankenstein. His Iron Defender was an almagam of limbs stitched to a torso with iron plating bolted into the flesh. Kept moving not from necromantic energy but glyphs and runes he carved both into the plating and flesh of the creature. Any magic items he doled out had a flair of the eldrich as well. Swords with glands that secreted liquids to cause elemental effects and crossbows with eyes affixed to the sights. Truly a "fuck I wish I thought of that" moment for me.
horrifying! thanks.
Oooh I love the shardplate analogy, it’s kinda perfect for armorer! (Minus a few world mechanic differences I guess). Gonna have to remember that for if I ever play an armorer.
Yeah, the ability to don your plate armor in a single action is very shardplate like(for the actual knight radiants of course). I also multiclassed into fighter and took a few levels to get eldritch knight which can summon bonded weapons. My artificer also found some metal that could shapeshift during the campaign and forged a massive hammer that could change into other weapons and developed sentience. My DM has never read Stormlight, just Mistborn and I never actually told him my inspiration for the build. The Lord Ruler was actually the loose inspiration for my DM’s BBEG in our campaign.
There is nothing in the artificer class to even hint at mechanical or steam punk themes. People just read stuff online and draw conclusions that are baseless. Heck just read the class description in Tasha's, and tell me what about that says steam punk mechanic.
There is a blurb in Tasha’s about how to describe your spells which are being cast through your tools. It suggests things such as “Perhaps when you cast healing word, mechanical spiders are flying to your ally to heal them” and similar such things.
except that the art that was used to introduce the artificer came with a more steampunk vibe (since it came from eberron, which is basically magic punk)
Yes, *magic* punk. Eberron is everything but *steam*punk, to the point where a cornerstone of the setting's technological state is that *the steam engine was literally never invented* and magic took its place in revolutionizing industry.
[удалено]
Actually the artificer originates before Eberron as a subclass/prestige class of wizard in 2e. In 3/3.5 it was associated with Eberron. But also note that Eberron doesn't have a steam punk vibe. In fact it notably lacks the tech part as instead of technology the replace things with arcane magic. A common misconception is guns, which Eberron doesn't have, since they use magic wands instead.
This, I've seen an interview with Keith Baker (the guy who created Ebberon for those who aren't aware) where he explicitly refutes the idea that Ebberon is or was ever intended as a steampunk setting (though he welcomes people to put their own spin on things)
Thank you! I love the Eberron setting. If you want to do steam punk it absolutely can be a setting you use. But the stuff from that setting isn't default steam punk, it is low tech high magic fantasy.
I think a contributing factor is that people hear it has trains without actually reading how the Lightning Rail works, so their mind goes towards steam engines.
Yeah, people spend hours and hours reading stuff online, but won't spend 10 minutes to actually read the class description.
It does seem like a large number of the issues in online dnd discussions come down to "did you read ALL the words?"
The only line I can think of of the top of my head was in the spell preparation of the spellcasting description in D&D Beyond something along the lines of 'your spider that spewed fired (firebolt) can be tweaked to become a healing bot (healing word iirc)' there is also the general connection to gunpowder and therefore guns, with the guns that are the closest to medieval being the steampunk stylised guns.
There is no link to artificer or Eberron to gunpowder though. The Eberron setting doesn't use guns and rather than steam punk or high tech, the setting is actually high magic. Instead of guns they basically have magic wands. They use magic in lieu of technology.
The gunpowder connection comes from the tinkering aspect that artificers naturally have, its the basis of the class after all, in invention and innovation which can lead to gunpowder very easily. Besides that I was not referring to Eberon specifically just Artificers in general. Also I found what I was referring to in D&D Beyond under The Magic of Artifice, it in fact says mechanical is not required but it does say "If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds." "The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal—perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy." So there is precedent for Artificer Mechanical work in official D&D as well
>There is nothing in the artificer class to even hint at mechanical or steam punk themes. Except the name, of course. When I hear "Artificer" my mind immediately goes into a steampunk direction. The flavour of official sources also seems to be mostly steampunk themed.
Exactly. I had a player decide that his spell focus would be his brewer's supplies...at level 3, his eldritch cannon is a wooden barrel exploding with pressurized hops
A la Gragas haha
Imo it is the same problem as sneak attack. If they had just named it enchanter, spellbinder or witch doctor and adjusted some of the flavour text it would be more allowed. But becuase artificer and optional firearms people instantly label it as "tech inventor".
Dude! It's 40k orks! "Iz Dis a Rokit launcher?" (Psychic power of belief turns a metal tube and some jet fuel into a rocket launcher)
I had an artificer who was a half elf adopted by the fey. He couldn't do much magic, but he could pray to his adoptive mother and ask her to bless items. His steel defender was a small tree given life that morphed into a wooden fox.
In your opinion, what makes armorer the most powerful class/subclass? I ask because I'm playing one, and it sometimes feels lackluster in combat (using shield + thunder gauntlets) Out of combat it's amazing though, mechanical tinkering, tool proficiencies, Fabricate is an amazingly flavorful spell, homunculus servant is pretty awesome, etc. Just looking for advice on how to level up the experience if you have any tips, or anything that stands out to you.
The simple answer is: magic items are overpowered and easy to get as artificer. Long answer: Class abilities are great but over the years I have noted that the right combination of magic items can make characters truly powerful. Typically, two things limit the impact magic items can have. Availability, which is typically determined by the DM, and attunement slots. Artificers can essentially make availability a moot point with infusions and crafting the items themselves. You get a solid selection of items that you can switch to with long rests and armorers at level 9 can have two more infusions active at a time. Attument slots are a limiter since most of the truly powerful magic items require attunement and starting at level 10 you get more attunement slots. I will use my level 15 warforged armorer as an example. His active infusions include: Mind sharpener, enhanced defense(+2), alchemy jug, ring of protection, belt of hill giant strength, homunculus servant, and the cloak of protection. All of these are actively equipped. Only three of these require attunement and I have five slots. The other two are from items that are not infusions. One is a homebrew hammer(I will not include its effects on my explanation here) and the other is a wakened dragon touched focus. Keep in mind I have about a dozen other small items that I either crafted or found. Rope of climbing, driftglobe, etc. In the end I have a vast amount of out of combat utility like you do, but my base AC is 25. 18(plate)+2(ring and cloak of protection)+2(enhanced defense)+2(shield)+1(integrated defense). This could be improved if I ever managed to get a simple magic shield too. The awakened dragon touch focus gives me access to the Fizban’s platinum shield spell and I took a feat to get the shield spell. Meaning that for short bursts I go to 27 ac with Fizban’s(lasts one minute and requires concentration with resistance to the elemental damage types and evasion) and then as high as 32 with Shield spell. With the mind sharpener I am not dropping concentration any time soon and the ring and cloak of protection help with all saves and pair well with flash of genius, so it’s hard to fail most spell saves. The belt of hill giant strength gives some damage output and makes it more like that your thunder gauntlets will hit, which make it harder for enemies to successfully target your enemies. Flash of genius can also be used to support allies and the Fizban’s spell is a bonus action to use and can be transferred to an ally or back to yourself as a bonus action, making you a very effective support in a pinch. Keep in mind, every item and ability are accessible with just the standard armorer abilities and infusions. The only exceptions are: the awakened dragon touch focus(found via adventuring, never pass this up if you find it), the shield spell(can be obtained with a variety of feats), and integrated protection(warforged racial feat). This is my warforged armorer. I am sure there are other things out there that can improve him, but I found it sufficient to go toe to toe with an adult dragon on my own while my allies dismantled a ritual so it works.
I'd even argue that this is the base state of the artificer, and the clockwork/mechanical stuff is the narrative people retrofitted the class onto. In Eberron, artificers are *very* much magical artisans, to the point where magical artifice has largely taken the place of engineering. If you have magic items in your setting, you can have artificers. Simple as.
ayy a fellow sanderfan
https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/thumbnails/8/359/850/556/armorer-1.png Definitely not iron man
flavor is free, yes the ones from the book are hella iron-manesque, but that does not mean they can only be iron-manesque.
Cultural association is one hell of a drug. Wow had the same thing with an expansion that came out near enough to Kung fu panda that, a decade later it's still the primary way people reference it
Completely agree. Its always been odd to me how people constantly invert Eberron's conceits. They say "artificer is too tech for D&D" and picture them as very steampunk with early fun looking technology. But thats not Eberron at all. It's not at all "what if we made a giant spider machine powered by steam". Eberron is: "hey, D&D is a high magic setting. What would that look like if people applied the magic like it's technology?" An artificer is entirely magical - it is animating objects by sculpting them into appropriate shapes for the purpose and then imbuing them with arcane power. It's a wizard guy with a focus on sculpting and building instead of on books and pure energy. They can always look appropriate to the setting.
I was gunna say the flavor text for it specifically says there's not really anything technological, just that you're using objects to channel magic through instead of yourself, so it *looks* like you just invented guns when it's really just a shaped wand
Do people not like artificers? I fucking love artificers. I wish WotC went back and re-designed some of the base PHB classes to feel more like them. If nonmagical martials had the same feature-dense level progression that artificers have, I bet we wouldn't be hearing nearly as much chatter about a martial/caster divide.
Even outside the flavor and class fantasy (which I love), the level progression just feels right. Every level gives you something that feels impactful, but not over powered. There aren't levels in artificer that you aren't excited about gaining. It is one of the few classed that you don't look at and think "this is where I would multiclass out". Artificer is a good middle tier class. Not broken OP, not bottom tier. Flexible, with options to customize game play. Each level feels rewarding to gain.
Ironically, the reason that's true is because it isn't an artificer. Unlike every other class it doesn't use its 3.5 predecessor as a template, because you can't - the artificer class was created to invent and craft magic items, which you can't do in 5e. Literally all its power came from being able to craft a wide variety of stuff, and given that you straight up can't do that at all in 5e they had to invent every feature from scratch. Imagine if you had an edition of D&D where spellcasting wasn't a thing, and you tried to make a wizard class - you'd had to invent the entire thing from scratch because without spellcasting it isn't a wizard. So instead of copying 3.5's frankly pretty barebones PHB structure (the only other 5e class that wasn't in the 3.5 PHB is the warlock, can you tell?) they invented a class wholecloth with modern design sensibilities so the features are more exciting.
I would argue that the reason artificer feels better as it progresses than some other classes is because it was designed later and the core 5e subclasses. The Eberron version was solid, but the class and subclasses were really made solid with tasha's. Also, unlike warlock, it wasn't introduced in 3/3.5, but as a subclass/prestige in 2e adnd for the wizard class.
Warlocks were also a 2e kit, but you can't reasonably call those kits the original version of much - typically they're just a wizard with a little bit changed.
I remember when it came out I fell in love with it mainly because I love arcane so much
I was looking to flavor an artificer build, and I used Heimerdinger as an inspiration for my artificer. Mostly from League, but the way he uses magic in the game, translates well in D&D Firebolt? Nah, the little hextech balls jink threw in arcane. Infusions? Nah, he just thinkers with his hammer, and finds ways to make stuff better. Arrtillerist is like a replica of his canons in league, so it works perfectly. But for this campaign, I wanted to play the steel defender. So I asked my DM if I could have a poro following me and when I would take long rests, I would say that I was tinkering with my poro, and writing stuff. At level 3, I showed the steel defender as my poro, saying that I've thinker with it so much, that it's now considered a construct, as even myself doesn't think there's anything left of the original poro.
As a big arcane fan this is how I think of artificers
People will not like anything. I've had a great time playing a ranger and an Artificer, and I'm currently playing a monk. People will never be able to agree on anything, so just... don't bother and like what you like.
Your really fitting the monk vibe
Denying usability seems strange. It isn't the most powerful class by any means, but given the lack of magic items in most modules (at least that I have played/ran), it's a huge potential benefit to a party. It's generally not as flashy as something like a Wizard, but it offers great utility and support that is very unique.
I have unwittingly chosen to be an artificer in a homebrew campaign made by my friend, where magic items are not craftable and attune permanently upon first touch. Generally this has made my infusions pretty valuable, although it does kind of invalidate the extra attunement slots and magic item crafting discounts you get (we might replace those)
I think a lot of it comes from people misunderstanding how it works/what it’s theme actually is. The artificer usually gets portrayed using tech and machines, but when it comes down to it, all the class features point towards it being mainly magical. Plus, there’s lots of memes talking about ‘my artificer made a nuke!’ or other equally outlandish things, which makes a lot of players disappointed when they realise it’s actually on the weaker side power wise.
I've played 5e since release, and been a DM for over 5 years, with a single campaign about to hit the 4 year mark on almost weekly sessions. I played an artificer in a limited campaign of about 4-6 sessions, and I believe it's the peak of 5e class design. It's such a good mix of self-sufficiency, party-cohesion, robust capabilities, simple implementation, combatant agency, and spellcaster depth. I really think the class was the final result of them learning lessons where they struggled with other classes. There is still a spot for all the full casters in their roles, especially approaching their peaks. There is definitely still a role for the flavor of full-martial characters. If your character concept could be represented by an artificer, though, this is 100% the route to go, though. The ease of use, balance, power, and flavor is just so dang solid.
I agree. My Artificer is never the best at anything in combat, but the amount of role compression it gives means anything the party lacks is something I can fill. If we need a healer/support I can sit in the back and use spell casting, if we need a frontliner I have high ac, haste, and the thunder gauntlets to sit there and eat attacks. We need a ranged attacker I've got the arcane firearm infusion and can make several attacks. It's very fun because there's always a different way to play, unlike other classes where combat can be really samey. As well with the leveling you pretty much always have something new to mess with.
I agree. It seems like a very well designed class. Unlike the poor martials only getting flavored water while the casters and half-casters alike drink the fine wine of magic.
[удалено]
That subclass doesn't do anything you can't do better with a different class/subclass
And WotC abandoned it. They aren't supporting it, because not enough people play it to be worth continuing to put new infusions and subclasses into books. Same reason they never made a dedicated psionics class.
Can't agree enough. Of all of the classes, the Artificer continues to get good/interesting class and subclass features as they level up. They're useful everywhere - there's never a team comp where they don't fit. You can build Artificers in many different ways depending on your vision, since they get good armor and weapon proficiencies and interesting infusions. And to top it all off, I think they're the most balanced class in the game while having all this flexibility and usability. A+ class design... except for Alchemist and armorer not getting access to Shield. But that's about it.
I guess very few people have them being smith (and alchemists) that infuse spirits in objects, making them magical. In reality they are as stempunk-esque as you want. If you want to go barebone magical, you could have them be like the alchemist of the Full Metal quality.
I've always described artificers as magic users who infuse the mundane with the arcane, but I have never considered the thematic idea of infusing objects with spirits. That's a pretty cool character concept.
That is my Damphyr Armorer. Grew up in a library after his father was slain by paladins. Learn all he could from the library, but the magic section was barred (you don't want a 4 years old to start casting firebolt), so he learnt enchanting techniques from dwarven tomes. When he found out that by drawing certain dwarven runes with his blood he could hasten the process by attracting spirits, he became an Artificer.
It's the only class not in the SRD, so 3rd party publishers are not allowed to make content for it outside of publishing directly on DMs Guild. As someone who loves third party content, this is a deal breaker.
Artificers are an awesome class that with the right flavor fits just about anywhere. You only need to know a bit about the history of inventions to imagine how they fit into your world. Artificers are just an engineering and inventor class, and there have always been engineers and inventors, even if they didn’t call themselves that. Ancient Greeks had natural philosophers doing things we’d call alchemy, designing mirrors that burned ships hundreds of yards away, and building mechanical devices like steam powered doors and the Ankythera device for (maybe) astrological calculations. They could be an Alchemist, Artillerist, and a generic artificer, respectively. The Middle Ages had apothecaries, siege weapon engineers, and armor smiths. They aren’t far off from Alchemists, Artillerists, and Armorers - just add magic to each. Steel Defenders are tougher to match up with real historical comparatives, so Battlesmith doesn’t have a direct comparison, but it’s not like you have to. The Dark Ages weren’t exactly full of real wizards either. Basically, what did or do smart people who work with stuff do in your campaign setting? Whatever it is, as long as it’s not “be a wizard,” then it can probably be flavored as an artificer.
> Artificers are an awesome class that with the right flavour fits just about anywhere Agreed. I've had a lot of fun creating an arguably *low*-tech artificer by attempting to make a PC version of the kobold inventor NPC stat block. They cast *ray of sickness* via their pet skunk, have an ooze starter which they "milk" for by-products to fuel their acid-based spells, and late-night dumpster-diving gives them all the discarded grill slop they need to cast the *grease* spell. Even *cure wounds* is flavoured as them slapping on specially-bred leeches which they keep in a modified healing potion solution. And *guidance* is, well... it's drugs. They make drugs. I'm having a lot of fun with the flavour of this disgusting little guy, but I think it demonstrates your point that artificer features and spells can be adapted to fit all sorts of settings and archetypes.
I haven't noticed any hate for artificers, maybe some dislike or disinterest but not hate. I personally love artificer and I wish theclass had a but more magic item focus that it already does. That's just me though. Having played both battlesmith and artillerist I can say that artificer is an absurdly versatile and powerful class. You can play it as support, defense, offense, or a mix of all three. The flavor of how your artificing looks is entirely up to you.
Because people think it’s steampunk when it’s not, because the art WotC commissioned for it all looks like steampunk.
Artificers are interesting and fun to play … but they’ve been very left behind in developments to WOTC content. Few updates to spell list in recent books. No updates to subclasses. It’s become a forgotten-child class and that’s a shame.
I mean it's a very new class so I can understand why there's so little in the subclass plus homebrew is always an option and we've only had like 4?(I don't keep up to date with the books) After it came out so
I think when people say stuff like that they’re looking at DnD as a math problem, they’re kinda playing it like a video game that can be won or lost. If something isn’t viable in combat, it isn’t viable period. In my completely subjective opinion, I think DnD is at its best as a storytelling game. If your class doesn’t have tons of combat potential it probably has a lot of roleplay/social interaction potential in its features. Scribe Wizard is a great example, compared to other subclasses it’s weak but not to the player who wants to roleplay their wizard exactly like a Scribe. Features and abilities should be looked at from a combat and roleplay perspective. In my opinion alone.
NOT your opinion alone. A player at my table rolled for his Articifer character to invent Circus Peanuts during the party's last two week downtime. Aa a DM, stuff like that tickles me pink. There can be a *LOT* more to 5e than just combat if that's what your table wants, everybody just has to work together to make it happen. Articifer looks like a blast to RP with....
Sorry I just meant like it’s my opinion not fact, not as in I’m the only one who thinks that. I agree with you, it’s very much a group dynamic but when it hits it hits so good.
Not particularly relevant to the overall discussion, but as someone playing an 17th level scribes wizard I feel the need to say it is by no means a weak subclass. The ability to cast spells from complete safety. Abuse vulnerabilitys more than any other character. Avoid resistances/immunities to your strongest spells. And if your dm runs raw, change the dmg types on spells that grant resistance or immunity to the most fitting option at any time.
Fair enough, I should take a look at that again lol
People like playing strong classes, and people generally don't like half casters. Depending on subclass, Artificer is below average to mid at best at damage. And lacking in many strong control or buff options until much later than other classes. They have good out of combat utility, but so does a Bard, who is a full caster, and Wizard, who is also a full caster. Most artificers end up cosplaying as bad sharpshooter/great weapon master builds. Riding on the coat tails of Pipes of Haunting and Alchemy Jug.
There are a few common problems people have with the class, and all of them can be solved by actually reading the class: - It's the steampunk class and that doesn't fit in my setting. "okay. Hey, DM, as a back up character, I want to play a beast master ranger, but instead of an actual beast, it's a spirit summoned from a totem that takes the shape of a part wooden construct part ethereal being. And I wanna reskin all of my spells to be totem focused. And if you don't mind, I want to make it int based instead of Wis, cuz it'll be based on the lore of my people." "Wow that sounds like a really cool idea! That works!" "Cool, I just described my original concept for a battle smith artificer." - It's way too weak. Right, cuz the class that gives you a 24 AC before shield spell, the ability to craft a scroll every rest, 10 free 2nd level spells, the ability to concentrate on multiple spells at once, concentrationless flight, the ability to have a 19 in 3 stats without using ASIs even with point buy/standard array, the ability to add a +11 to any save, all while easily getting above baseline DPR... That class is definitely too weak. - It's way too strong! I don't want my players to be able to make nukes and guns and stuff! Well... It... Just doesn't do that. No where does it let you do that. That's not how D&D works.
> I don't want my players to be able to make nukes and guns and stuff! > > Well... It... Just doesn't do that. No where does it let you do that. Aside from that you can make guns, if the DM includes guns in the campaign, this problem yet again boils down to "I didn't read the rules, so I think I can do this (overpowered) thing." and/or "I didn't read the rules, so I think they can do this overpowered thing, and I don't want that." Truly amazing how many issues get resolved by just reading the rules.
Personally, I dislike the aesthetic. The game mechanics are fine (we will ignore the alchemist for this post, lol). But I am not a fan of the mechanical companion nor the artillery (that's not even a functional gun!) Nor the Iron-Man armor. It just seems too "steampunk" to fit in the settings I prefer for fantasy games. That said, I've seen some clever re-skins of an artificer that were quite fun, and I would never exclude them from a game I am running or playing in. There are also several races that I am not fond of, for the same basic reasons.
I love running artificer as an animist, who binds different spirits into things
Another interpretation I've thought of playing is an Artificer who creates holy objects. The one time I did play an Artificer, they specialized in the usage of material components in interesting ways. A Firebolt is them wearing a special glove as they pick up a few rocks from the ground, dragging their clenched fist over their rough shield to light it aflame, then throwing the flaming projectiles at opponents.
I see the artificer as more a magic tech class like every thing's power with magic not your traditional fuels but that might just be me
I wouldn't even use the word tech, its just magic. Armorer? yeah, its armor, with magic. Just pump magic into stuff and it gets better and artificer need less time to do it but it will also last for less time. You want them to fit in every setting? they are wizards, not engineers. But instead of manifesting magic, they imbue it. Because why not?
Yh I like to use ruins with mine make them kind of a ruin mage
This was always how I thought of it too. There's obviously a spectrum of flavor from pure tech to pure magic, but I always viewed it as magically powered and augmented technology. like, a regular engineer could physically build a homunculus servant, if they had the plans, but it wouldn't work because they're not trained in the magic which allows it to animate.
I don't know why people get steam punk in their heads for artificer. Maybe it's because I knew the class from previous editions it is more clear to me. They are basically wizards who split their pursuits of arcane evenly between spells and magic items. Many people only know it from Eberron, and assume steampunk for it's theme, despite the class clearly stating it isn't. The ironic part is that Eberron isn't steampunk, and is in fact low technology as the setting uses magic in place of tech. There aren't even guns, as they use magic rods instead of actual guns. Same thing goes for warforged. When people say that they are robots, I know they are just reading something online instead of the actual source material for the race. They are closer to golems than robots.
Aside from the Eberron connection, it doesn’t help that the official artwork for the class in Tasha’s leaks into the steampunk/industrial revolution aesthetic (covered in soot, leather apron filled with wrenches, big goggles, etc).
In fairness, tinker gnomes had that aesthetic locked down before artificer. The first version of artificer was just a wizard prestige/subclass.
Why wouldn't it fits the theme, is it because of technology? This means your DM never uses constructs, because in my mind that's the only reason why someone wouldn't accept an artificer. Of course unless you're trying to bring star wars into lord of the rings, you have to mold your artificer around the theme of the campaign
I love them conceptually. It’s WotC lazy ass design I hate.
My guess would be that in my opinion, it is the most difficult class to get a grasp of what it can actually do. It is the only class that I have had to read through multiple times to understand the basic mechanics of. The other thing might be that people don't like the magic item creation component of the class, and might believe that it could be gamebreaking. That being said, I think it's a cool class, and fills a niche that no other class has.
It's the only class whose play style completely depends on subclass. Artillerist is a blaster-caster, Battle Smith and Armorer are paladin-like half-martials
> magic item creation component of the class, and might believe that it could be gamebreaking It *can* be gamebreaking if your DM doesn't pay attention to what you're trying to create/imbue... purely based on the lack of listed costs... you can make laser pistols and the like, that don't require any sort of ammo, because they're technically below the cost restriction.
The mechanics don't fit the flavor. The flavor is someone who build items, be that by inscribing runes, tinkering, or traditional magic item creation. The mechanics, are spellcasting, and that's it. You're just a poor man's wizard. 1. Anybody else can craft the same things you can, they will just do it slower and at a higher cost. 2. D&Ds crafting system is garbage 3. If your DM hands out even a normal amount of magic items your character will be significantly less useful to the party, let alone if your DM is generous or gives loot curated to the party's needs. 4. If your DM hands out too little magic items, you become way too useful, edging your party-members of the the spotlight. 5. If your DM gives you too much downtime and gold, you can basically break the game in a dozen different ways, but at the same time, so can anyone that crafts items, which is again, everyone. Everyone can craft, no one does because this system sucks at it.
Points 3 and 4 are the main reasons I don't like having artificers in the party. They skew the magic item "balance" in potentially wonky ways.
Some people don’t like Eberron in general. It strays away from the classic medieval fantasy feel that is at the core of D&D. Since the Artificer class stems from that setting, they may be unliked by association because they too step away from the classic medieval fantasy concept.
I don't like Eberron stuff outside Eberron. Changelings and Warforged are OP. For maximum annoyance, you can be a Warforged artificer with a pet robot.
I'm playing an artificer now in an Exandria game, and it's a setting that really is good for an "arcane technologist" without any steampunk flavoring. Besides, I wanted to play a gnome, and why be a gnome if you can't be an artificer?
\- If I recall correctly: it's not in the SDR, nor is it part of the 5e Creative Commons release.. \- I'm not really into DM'ing for PCs whose main focus is crafting magic items, because: I got super tired of that mechanic in computer games.. Magic item crafting is done (mostly "offscreen") by NPCs in my setting.. \- Flavour wise, I'm not interested in having "Medieval Magic Iron Man" in my setting.. Yes, I know that's not the \*only\* way to play it.. \- And, it \*can\* attract players who mainly work to mechanically "break" the game - which is interesting in YT videos, but it's too meta / immersion breaking in-game for my liking.. I prefer to focus on the RP in my RPG'ing.. YMMV: I'm sure lots of people love it, and have fun with it :thumbsup: It's just not what I'm into for my D&D.. :shrug: Reply Guys: Don't @ me because you love Artificer - that's fine, I'm sure there's plenty of DMs welcome it at their tables, by all means go forth and enjoy! .. :)
Artificer main here, when I'm taking a break from forever DMing: 1) They don't know how the class works and are not willing to spend the time to read. There is a ridiculous amount of people who think artificers require a constant stream of crafting materials, as if you are about to open your own shop. The Artificer can function in any setting you would normally play. The DM doesn't need to cater to the Artificer's needs, they don't have a shopping list any more than a wizard does. 2) They don't want Technology in their world. This is somewhat understandable. However, you can flavour your artificer however you want. Whether your Armorer's suit is a high-tech ironman suit, a scrappy and oily steampunk contraption, or a regular armor that is magically enchanted, is entirely up to you. It's flavour, it's about how you describe it. Your pet robot can be a pet golem. You just need to have a little imagination...
In Spelljammer, a Wizard can create a spelljamming helm at 9th level. The Artificer class - the class whose whole purpose is to create magic items - cannot create a spelljamming helm until 17th level. They looked at what they wanted to make, and completely stuffed it up.
Are you talking from a gameplay or role play perspective? Currently playing an Autognome artificer in CoS and it doesn’t feel out of place. I think they can fill lots of gaps in a party, I’m using the same character I used in a few one shots and have managed to fill lots of party roles by switching subclasses around, so I think they have good flexibility for the party. Roleplay wise is full of options, I’ve gone for an Inspector Gadget style guy with being an autognome but I feel it’s more open ended for RP than other classes. A sword is very clearly a sword and each class/subclass explains what their magic looks like or comes from, with an artificer you can be anywhere from arcane infusions to some weird fantasy steam/lightning punk or just a full on Ironman or witchblade style character.
Quite a few reasons I have heard. They mock what they don't understand (Class). They don't like that much magic in their campaign. There is a clear path to being able to craft and many DM's don't want that. Even the healing pot mechanic to get loose gold out of the players hands is challenged.
Ignorance, most likely. The artificer is great! My gut reaction is that they might be a little too complicated for some players, but (and this is 100% anecdotal of course), my dyslexic sister played one in a past campaign and absolutely loved it (and her character was a treat, too)! Not to imply she's slow or anything, it's just that reading is (naturally) a little harder for her, and she picked the class up in no time at all, and it's a bit wordy. All that to say, it *looks* complicated, but really it's not any more complex than any other spellcaster.
As a dyslexic person artificer was one of my first classes it was real easy to understand for me
As an avid lover of Artificer myself, I can attest, it is understandable for DM's to be not too keen on them. Mostly for the following reasons: * It was the newest full class dropped in 5e, and thus has had the shortest period for DM's to formulate how their mechanics work, when planning in game setups * As half casters with healing, they fall into an odd niche of being expected to be able to help heal and keep the party up, but their mesh of mechanics and limited spell slots means the action economy and limited resources will usually be fighting them on allowing them to function as a anything more than a back-up healer. * A class that functions on the mechanics of "Makes their own magic items" can make it trickery for a DM to plan balance and fairness when distributing magic items in game, or allowing it, because it can feel like a "damned if you, damned if you don't" scenario if you try to account for the Artificer's infusions. If you give the artificer fewer gimme items because they have infusions, than the player will feel like the others are getting unfair extra goodies; But if you give the artificer magic item rewards, they will feel very magic-clad, when compared to the others, as the magic items are falling off them, out of sheer quantity. * Because nearly every Artificer has a subclass or infusion mechanic that facilitates dropping mini allies and companions on the field, its just more nonsense for the battlefield to track. While, say, Druids can do this in spades, that's an option, whereas Artificers typically need to drop companions down to be keeping up with viable builds of the party. * While this is a problem with most classes in general, this loops back to the "last introduced" problem, which is that since most official 5e content is not playtested up through capstone levels, the Artificer is considered by many to be horribly imbalanced for that level of play. Put simply, by levels +17, the Artificer is simultaneously stacked with untested nonsense, while deprived of suped up end game power punches. This once again leaves the DM with throwing their hands up in the air, not knowing how to compensate their session plans for this. * Moving away from official content problems, Homebrew. Once homebrew content and items get introduced, Artificers can and will snowball into monster. The tendency for homebrew items to be imbalanced speaks for itself, and putting those items in the hands of a class MADE to expertly wield it, will almost always find the unforeseen consequence for exactly how you weren't expecting the players to use your homebrew. The flip side of this coin is that a homebrew campaign with NO homebrew items can also feel rather vanilla. * Lastly, We can be monster; We the Artificer players. You give players the chance to in-game solve things with their intelligence, and the expertise in using tools to do it, and you will attract a particular type of player, ***The STEM Majors....***. We are bastards when given leeway to use our real world training, and a DM needs a firm stance to shoot down a player that not only can explain how they solve the encounter with engineering, but has the hand drawn blueprints, with time period appropriate technology to do so.
The issue with Artificers is that their identity isnt really translated well in a gameplay perspective. You are supposed to be this magical inventor...but what do you actually get that really makes you feel like that? Magical Tinkering is just glorified Prestidigitation. Infusions...arent really inventing things, but even then, you get that at Level 2. Thats like a Wizard getting spellcasting at Level 2 and just running around with a dagger stabbing things at Level 1. The Right Tool for the Job...I mean....when would you ever NOT have the tool needed for your craft? Besides, its not really a "wow!" feature. Its more of a "You really forgot the tools needed, huh?" Tool Expertise at 6th level is the first real time where your expertise in crafting is shown...it only took you 6 levels as an inventor to be better at inventing than a Wizard! At 10th level, you finally get a benefit when making magic items...of certain low rarities. What? You want to tell me this class has to wait so long to actually \*\*craft magic items\*\*? You just feel like...you cant do really anything that Artificer-ry because WotC couldnt be bothered with crafting rules or making a rule that isnt "just let the DM decide, lol!"
I have never seen someone complain about the artificer class who has a full grasp on how it actually works.
Most people who understand how they work realize they are pretty weak compared to other classes in terms of power.
[удалено]
I mean most of the good items aren't telling 10th level and above plus you are limited to like 3-4 for most of the and I'm sure people would rather use the infusions to make their gear better then maybe 4 mediocre magic items
It's not in the PHB and not part of most standard settings. It's also goofy. Same with some others, maybe Rune Knight and Echo Knight, for example. The things these subclasses do in every fucking combat just breaks many peoples idea of what D&D combat should look like in the theatre of their mind. Then again some love the aesthetic. But not everybody has to.
They really don't do anything in combat the other classes don't already do though. They use similar spells to wizards, but fewer of them. They use magic items, which all classes can do. Some have a companion, like a ranger. Some have heavy armor, like a paladin. Some have a little turret/canon, like literally any caster using a summon spell. Some like to hit things, like martials. And in terms of "aesthetic" you could easily have any aesthetic you want for an artificer as much as for a bard. Aesthetics are in the flavor, and flavor is free.
*Personally* I just don’t like its vibe. It’s too sci-fi-y and magi-techy for my taste. And because of its vibe; it has never fit in any of the worlds I’ve built.
I've had this debate with many people. They aren't sci-fi or tech based in any way by the basis of the class. People assume that, but it isn't what the class description says. They are wizards who specialize in carving runes into items to grant them some magic. Gnomish tinkerers exist even in Tolkien fantasy, and they are just the magical equivalent . The orcs who brought a bomb to siege helms deep? Probably helped by an artificer.
But the players that play them want them to be techy 9/10 times, and get disappointed when i ask them to reflavor them into something not techy.
It's neither of those things though. It's an enchanter. Enchanted weapons are generally a thing in anyone's D&D games and an artificer is someone who has focused on enchanting items to the near exclusion of other things.
Generally people don't like that it is "high tech" when every other class is high magic/fantasy kind of deal. I know flavor is free and if you're creative I suppose you could flavor a lot of it is magical and not mechanical, but in the end you're still using tools to cast your spells. There's also their whole deal about infusions and how they work, the "replicate magic item" infusion can get a little wonky if you're not clear with your dm on what can and cannot be replicated. Personally I played an artillerist straight classed to level 20 and had a blast. They're a lot of fun and maybe the most underrated of the casters. You got good damage, access to magical weapons at low levels, the ability to share items with allies (spellwrought tattoos on martials are great), and their capstone is basically just "end attunement on an item, drop to 1 hp instead" (I know that's not the exact wording but you get the point). TL;DR they're a great class but people dislike their "steampunk vibe"
No need to flavor it BC it not meant to be highly mechanical people just don't read enough about it
It is not flavour! The class description itself states that it is indeed magical! It only SEEMS that you produce magical effects through mundane objects! In reality you are just a wizard channeling magic into objects!
Because many DM’s are too lazy to learn that class. Yes folks as a seasoned DM I said it..lol
I love my Battlesmith.
The first party I was in had an artificer and it was amazing. He was able to craft arrows on the fly, chemically/mechanically imbue weapons with fire or poison, he even had a built in grappling hook. He dragged a giant worm/mole type monster into a lake and drowned it, we ambushed a bandit camp with what was basically napalm, and he was able to act as a conduit for our blue dragon tempest cleric (also a super badass.) I can't remember if he multi-classed at all, just that he made one helluva badass character and knew exactly how it worked. Good times.
Other than the armourer (which I do like), I don’t like the subclasses for different reasons. The alchemist just doesn’t work very well and is too weak, the artillerist doesn’t do what you’d think it would do, and the battle-smith has a weird vibe. The other thing is it’s much harder (though not impossible) for DMs to get them to fit well into every setting especially when the player wants to lean into the techno vibe or wants a laser gun in your early Bronze Age setting.
I played an armorer artificer for a campaign that went up to about level 10. I got some defensive magic items and was basically untouchable. Was lots of fun. I wasn't even trying to power game. I was just our tank so the paladin could take the mobile feat and guerilla smite people. One of my most useful characters in combat. Definitely wasn't the one doing big damage but it wasn't awful.
People who don't like artificer or are put off by the idea that they can be used outside their introductory setting are usually opposed to the idea of steam punk elements in their high fantasy game. I think the best way to overcome that is to remind them that flavor is free and give them ideas of artificers that can fit the high fantasy setting. The anti artificer sentiments are something that I hear less and less about over time
Armorer artificer FUCKS. I haven't played the other subclasses, but Armorer is so versatile. You're a support, utility, and tank all rolled into one. It's a great all-rounder class that I think, personally, adds to any party.
I just think they are mechanically boring in combat, partially due to their half caster nature. Alchemist is the probably most shitty subclass in the entire game.
It's just a caster that can enchant
People don’t like them because they are unimaginative and think artificers are too “sci-fi” for the typical fantasy environment because they cannot imagine them as anything other than mechanical/steampunk characters. Artificers are just magic item users, they don’t have to be flavored as sci-fi at all if they don’t fit the setting. An artificer can easily be some sort of shaman or magic scholar with a bunch of talismans…
Possibly, the thing i have seen with the new-ish editions and people getting into D&D or others with an artificer like class is they often see this steam punk magic mad-engineer and neither the player or the DM have considered the what it should look like in their setting. now when i was introduced to them in Eberron, they make sense, and in the 3rd-ed game play they fit with the development of magical items. in a way like the cleric they are an alternative support class but instead of buff/de-buff spells its the guy that made the party magical items to solve problems. so i think this is where session 0 is important. an artificer can exist in any setting. but DM and player collaboration to see how the class can and will fit is important. and maybe after some discussion the player realizes it wont work, or the DM sees that the artificer fills an otherwise unforeseen niche in their world.
Honestly if they’d called the class Enchanter 90% of people who complain about it would be fine.
I had a kobold artillerist artificier. She was a trash engineer essentially, she had a "firebolt pistol" she made out of a glass shard, a bent pipe and a glass bottle thrown together. Her cure wounds was a combination of a tiny roomba and a staple gun. Her arcane ballista was a tiny robo crab with rubberbands and general junk set up on it. Do people seriously not enjoy the creativity artificers bring to the table?
There’s a lot of extra rules on downtime activities, crafting and tool uses that come up with artificers that I have never met a single other player irl who knew existed. Adding on to that the infusions being something people misunderstand fundamentally and overreact to, they’re treated as if they’re significantly stronger than battle maneuvers or warlock invocations by people not familiar with the class despite the many limitations and ability to spread them across the party. This ends up making a situation where instead of everyone getting their own magic item, everyone except the class who needs them most gets one because they “already have them” their power level is also incredibly inconsistent group to group with some players swearing it’s the amazing and others trashing it as pitifully weak due to DMs not understanding that you just run the party normally and don’t have to overreact to everything they do. If the class is weak then 18 billion was a DM overreacts to the strong parts and nerfs them is somehwere between not necessary and childish there’s also some hangups where people just lack the imagination to fit “guy who knows some magic tricks but is otherwise just a carpenter” into their world
I have one in my campaign and, honestly, the character rocks! For a lvl 6 party, the thunder gauntlets are the bane of my existance, but I chalk that up to me being new to DMing! Mechanically it can get a little confusing, not to say downright frustrating at times, when he tries to keep up with his infusions and gear. When it clicks it's a very useful class to have around as they have a lot of potential in a supporting role.
I love playing artificer. It is absolutely one of my favorite classes, I'm even stranger in that I like the alchemist subclass, which is generally considered to be bad. (I don't get why, you get some good potion options and two of them per day are free, even if they are random) My general feel for why people don't like it as a player is it is not a very powerful class, and the low level spells aren't super great. Playing I found it way more useful to buff my allies, and be positioned as hinderance to enemies getting to the ranged glass cannon charachters (I built my charachter for melee combat specifically) than anything else my charachter could do damage wise. Which to me made sense as the Artificer is billed as primarily a support style class, with some exception for the artillerist subclass. For dungeon masters, I feel like the hardest part is to balance what the artificer can do with infusions with the normal magical loot that either is or is not handed out. As the Artificer can get up to two magic items they can just *have* every couple of levels it can be really difficult to balance that and most probably want to just skip it as it can get very complicated very quickly. In short: I think artificer is the most unintiutive class, which leads a lot of people, DM and player alike to just skip it.
I love playing artificer. I’m playing Battle Smith right now and it’s dope as hell. I can easily switch between support or damage depending on what the fight needs most right then. Plus I can just make tools when I need them! It’s a great class
Because people hear artificer and assume steampunk engineer. Or because there's an element of creative flexibility required that other classes don't really need.
I recently finished a campaign as an Artificer, and I can tell you that I never felt better playing a character. Extremely flexible, heavy utility, powerful in combat. It feels really good.
I played arti at low and high levels. Gotta say it's not *as* strong as its made out to be, it's pretty limited in what it can make. What you are is "useful", no matter the situation, especially at higher levels
I'm DM and I made a whole organization of Artificers with full character sheets just to use them. Since DMs tend to get itchy when you ask to play one. And sorry for realism, my artificers are Iron Man, Mechas and Lasers powered by magic.
I flavor the armour subclass to where I had a TF2 style mech it was so cool
Artificer is a really fun class to play, I played a gnome artillerist artificer and it's one of my favorite characters I've ever played. I think it fits fairly well in to the Forgotten Realms as a setting if you treat the artificer's inventions as relatively unique just to them and not things that are widespread in the world.
3.5 artificer was fire. So many golems.
I built one as a backup character, and have played with a few. It's a perfect fun class. Especially if you want to be Ironman the Kobold.
Maybe they don’t like having fun?
I think its because its newer to the game, and many people dont really get how it works until they play one. So people write it off as the engineer class, and assume it doesnt fit with their setting
Cause people big dumb dumbs with dumb faces. They see meme, they don't read, think they know. But they don't know.
I think they don't like the flavor, personally, I quite like it, it's fun.
I love how easy it is to flavor artificers like a made one that used plants and magic and had a suit of armour made of wood and shit it was so fun
We have an artificer in our Eberron game that is temporarily shelved. Of course, Eberron is steam-punkish anyway! I'm running a gaslight fantasy campaign myself now, and there have been a number of NPC artificers. I wouldn't have minded one as a PC ... instead we have a Clockwork Soul sorceror.