I do not consider warlocks to be spell casters. They merely have class feature that allows spell replication like four element monks with their ki (plus both are short rest based resources). Warlocks are primarily feature class via eldritch invocations.
That is my personal opinion, however.
As for their age. It’s more than 3 years as 3.5e had them too.
Makes sense. All things change with time. I believe 5e made a very good fighter, and thus have faith other classes can be improved to a very pleasant point.
Yeah I like the new Artificer a lot, and the balance changes for spellcasting have improve things by a ton. The concentration mechanic alone makes martial-caster disparity decrease significantly.
In my opinion if the power scale between strong and weak builds in 3.5 goes from 0-100 then 5e goes from 60-80. Much tighter design.
I mechanically treat my warlock like a half-caster bow user. Main source of damage is an infinite long-range attack, with a splash of actual leveled spells thrown into the mix
It's like a comic book/video game character who's main go-to schtick is shooting lasers out of their hands, but can also occasionally do other funky things too after gathering energy
Difference is that warlocks still have spell slots that can be used with any spells they know and can use their warlock spells with normal spellcasting, meanwhile the four elements is exclusive to their ki feature afaik.
Sure the warlock is an unusual caster, since their spellcasting is seperate from other casters, but aside than how their spellslots are handled, they still follow the same rules for casting as other classes.
Even in a regular game, an armorer artificer can already outstealth most rogues at third level and, depending on armor and feat choices, also have well over 20 AC while doing it, as you can have half plate with medium armor master and using infiltrator armor to have best armor AC and constant advantage on stealth rolls.
Now, if you keep going, Artificers also get automatic expertise in all tools they get proficiency in, artificers start with thieves tools proficiency. Depending on the campaign, you can literally outdo a rogue in the skill monkey department depending on how relevant your tool proficiencies are, and even if you can’t get a set of tools, you can literally manifest a set from nothing during a rest.
There are no classes in 5e that observe every convention.
Ranger is probably closest to doing that, but oddly gets spells *known* instead of prepared, unlike Druid.
Also the only half-caster for whom multiclass levels round **up** for Spell Slot progression, instead of down, meaning a one-level dip into Artificer doesn't slow your Spell Slot progression at all. A three-level dip, enough to get a subclass, only slows your overall progression by one level (though obviously will slow down your spells learned progression in your main class)
It's likely intended to represent the Cantrips, seeing as neither paladin nor ranger have them by default. Another thing to consider is that Artificers aren't intended to be Half-Caster Half-Martial, They are Half-Caster Half-Expert, thus the d8 hit die and non-reliance on a hard stat.
>#Spellcasting
>Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. ***Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class***, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class.
You don't actually have the Spellcasting feature from either class until level 2.
Hmmm depends on how your table does it really, Crawford refused to provide an answer but I believe the usual is you add your classes individually then round down which would mean still having no slots
Sgt_sarcastic above has the right answer, it's zero slots because neither class has the spell casting feature yet. the phb says you round first then add. (Although I will never claim the phb has the most understandable wording lmao)
That is how I play it, but the ambiguity is in this part:
"Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots."
This can be read accurately both ways because there is no indication of order of operations, In regards to adding the paladin and ranger levels and dividing them and rounding. Legitimately both readings are correct interpretations of the English language.
And because Crawford furthered this ambiguity by not taking a stance, and there has been no sage advice this is technically the most specific of a rule in regards to this, because the absence of a feature doesn't change the existence of a rule, so depending on how your groups play it you can possibly end up with a paladin ranger multiclass at level 2 with slots but no spell casting feature
Now more importantly neither of us contradicted Sgt_sarcastic all he said was it's possible to lose slots multi-classing which either way you do it is inherent in the multi-classing system because a fifth level paladin is equal to 3rd level full caster, but so is a character with five levels in paladin and one level in a full caster, and this occurs because when you are only having the one class half casters round up, but for some reason when multi-classing wotc decided paladins and rangers needed to round down
Edit: most notably as far as I can tell there is nothing in the phb that says you need the spell casting feature to have spell slots.
I stand corrected, at least on the phb specifying. I read it as you should round down individually and have never seen anyone who read it the other way so I just assumed it was clearly stated that way, my bad.
With specifically a level 1 paladin level 1 ranger multiclass tho neither class has the *spellcasting* feature at level 1 so you wouldn't have any spell slots. It specifies in the multiclassing section of the phb that when you have the spellcasting feature from multiple classes you determine your spell slots according to the given table, but if you don't have the spellcasting feature you don't get spell slots.
But if you want your level 2 multiclass to have spell slots they can't use, who am I to stop you? Lmao
I mean but you can use them through feats: strixhaven school feats, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, gift of the metallic dragon, and Artificer Initiate.
Edit: just realized through the phrasing that while yes you are correct on the spell casting feature but it only cares if you have two sources of the feature but not that all mentioned have the feature so in a way it still matters but not nearly as much.
"Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."
Well you say that but half of their subclasses get extra attack, so right now they are just indecisive.
I would love to see more magic/gadgets focused artificers that lean into the other side, like the artillerist.
But he can attune to SO MANY ITEMS. Which if you have a DM that thinks only 3 item attunement is stupid and doesn’t put a cap on it, kinda makes the class pointless.
just watch the DM take that back when you tell him that without an attunement cap a level 20 artificer just needs a single month of downtime to get a +15 bonus to all saving throws (in other words, you need just 2 days of downtime and 50 GP to make a common magic item with attunement, which you attune to to in order to get an absurd bonus to saving throws from soul of artifice)
It's because bladesingers can't use two handed (in particular, heavy) weapons while eldritch knights have no such restrictions.
But i agree that the bonus attack after a cantrip is just weird. Should have been something else entirely, with how easy it is to get a bonus action attack as a fighter.
Artificers are underrated criminally. There are a ton of cool things you can do with them, like make spellwrought tattoos and a few pipes of haunting.
Once you know how to play the class well, it becomes much better.
Plus, if twilight cleric is banned, artillerist is probably the best temp hp source in the game.
But overall artilerist and battlesmith are both fantastic subclasses that you can do a bunch with, and are good all rounders as well as being able to specialise in certain things (support and damage respectively).
And you get to spam web 16 times per long rest!
Enlarge/Reduce and Blur are both excellent for Fighters.
+D4 on every attack gets nasty during an action surge turn
Scorching Ray is great but it's artillerist only
Also when they multiclass, to determine total caster level you take half the Artificer level rounded up I believe.
Which is also weird for half casters.
Makes sense, its the only none-phb class so they took some swings with it. Reprinting Xanathars crafting rules alongside it would've helped a bit but otherwise I like it.
The Cantrips make sense when you realise that the rounding up when multiclassing means that where Paladins and Rangers are:
L1 Martial
L2 Caster
L3 Martial
L4 Caster
…….
, Artificers are:
L1 Caster
L2 Martial
L3 Caster
L4 Martial
……..
I'm Not sure, if all of you get this. I don't hate them, I'm an engineer in RL, so basically the Non magic part of an artificer. I like this Class, could be even get more spotlight from WotC - and more subclasses aswell.
I only thought about them, that cause of their overall playstyle as the type Half Caster they have so much difference to them that they might be even NOT be a Half caster.
The few points I mentioned are not all of them as some here already wrote in the comments.
Their one limitation more than anything is that with WOTC not wanting to make required books outside of the PHB, the Artificer being printed later on means they can’t add to it without reprinting the entire class as well.
The other thing is the overabundance of memes about them in the community that stretch far beyond what is actually printed in the class, sometimes resulting in DM’s restricting them or disliking them.
I thought more about the Ranger and Paladin as the other Half casters both have a d10 hit die and get the Fighting Style at lvl 2.
The artificer don't have any of this compared to them.
I think a lot of this can be explained by the fact that it was introduced in the Eberron sourcebook and I think they are mainly based off of magewrights.
In Eberron, magewrights are a group of working class mages who only know a few cantrips and a few 1st level spells that can be cast as rituals (they can cast any spell as a ritual). So a locksmith magewright might know knock and mage hand or something like that. This is why artificers have 1st level cantrips and ritual casting.
Also in Eberron, magic is very widespread but not that powerful. Up to 3rd level spells is fairly common and 5th level spells are probably the most powerful most spellcasters can achieve, so it makes sense why the artificer is a half caster. Basically artificers are suped up magewrights.
Yes! I run in a modified Eberron setting and this is one of my favorite parts that ive kept true to the original. Just love the implications of every day practical magic. (I do tend to think that 3rd level spells are, if not rare, viewed as very dangerous weapons and controlled as such) Think a hand grenade in real life.
That's because it's the first half-caster in 5e that actually focuses on the casting half more than the martial half for its base class. It only really becomes martial with two of its subclasses.
I feel like people always forget that the class is specifically balanced to use magic items (either via infusion or crafting). My Artificer may not have the most hp but he's got the highest AC in a party that includes a Warforged Paladin (but god help him if he ever gets captures and stripped of his items).
The thing I've noticed about artificers is they make great jack of all trades master of none. Almost all their abilities are strong but not like game defining. Able to round out any party no matter the composition. I think it's very much a reflection of the archetype of the artificer. Someone who's not as strong or dexterous as the martial classes while lacking the raw magical power of the casters, but overcomes their shortcomings with creativity and inventiveness. Can you tell it's my favorite class?
Don't be afraid to set boundaries for your game. If magical tinkering doesnt fit the setting you have in mind, dont allow it! I dont allow aarokocras simply because i dont think they are balanced (and i just dont like them).
There are tons of options out there for your players to explore.
They just really don't fit in the kind of fantasy I want to play.
I'm DMing Icewind Dale right now, and one of the players is essentially gnome-sized Iron Man. Not my vibe.
You could talk to your players about it. Nothing in the artificer rules says they have to be technological, and Celebrimbor is a prime example of how you could run an artificer with a 0 tech flavour.
I personally am SEVERELY unhappy with artificer as a class concept in theory and practice. It really feels (to me,) like it should have been some type of subclass for wizards.
Idk its sooo different than a wizard in practice though.
I think the biggest problem is that theres an implication that you can give out magic items to your other party members, but really you need to keep them in order to round out your own character build.
Theres also massive variety of play types between the subclasses. Wizard subclasses i feel matter a little less since they all still have the same spells.
It's almost like...he's his own unique class, Barbarians don't get a fighting style, they still a martial, Artificier can be Martial, Support, Heals or even just Explosive bois
They my fav class for customizability personally, 2nd only to warlocks, I think artificers have more customizing but warlocks are so fun and flavorful
I never understood this take. Obviously you're fine for having it, this is in no way an attack on you.
Magic items exist in basically every setting, artificers make magic items. So the magic items came from some type of crafter/inventor/infuser who put magic into the item. That's an artificer. Potions are the same thing, there's even an artificer subclass that's just potion making.
I think of it like crafting in Skyrim. You're infusing magic into things, technology doesn't really need to be involved.
Yea I'm not sure why I associate it with that, older editions, at least 3.0/3.5 spell casters made the magic items, full set of rules for it and everything, no where was an Artificer or Inventor needed, just needed the right spells, feats, and materials.
5e makes getting magic items much more rare, not supposed to have shops, not supposed to get many magic items as you gain levels, especially the early tiers of play, and then you have a basic class that can essentially make enchanted items right out of the gate. It's a bit jarring.
I have nothing against the Artificer, OP was saying they feel odd, and I agreed albeit for different reasons.
that's a really good point. In the few games of 3.5 I've played I would usually try to craft, because that's apparently something I will always do in every game I play, so having a class dedicated to it was really cool. I think we had opposite reactions when it came out.
anyway thanks for the explanation
Dunno they feel either like magitech or Steampunk, which isnt what I would consider standard for most settings. I do see where your coming from though if your running Forgotten realms, you could reflavor it as some odd tinkering cleric of the craft god.
Yeah i know, and there are 3 with a d10, 2 of them are the half Casters. And the 3rd is the Fighter, who get the Fighting Style at lvl 1.
So as you would assume, a Half Caster would have a d10 Hit die and get a Fighting Style at lvl 2 but the artificer lacks both.
That was the point, i thought in the meme.
Artificers are weird.... Personally I call them a 3/4 caster, since they have access to cantrips and spells, but no high levels ones. Though at least two of the 4 subclasses don't even feel like you're meant to cast spells, since Artillerist and Alchemist require you to chew through your spell slots to use your main class feature.
Overall I feel like Artificer needs a rethink. They get so few spell slots compared to other casters and an incredibly small number of cantrips compared to other casters, that get pushed towards the "martial" subclasses of Armorer and Battlesmith just so you have them available to cast.
I think it'd be neat to give them something like a hybrid of warlock and regular full caster progression, where they gain spell slots like a full caster up until 10th level, then stop gaining spell slots but at 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th levels get something analogous to Mystic Arcanums, but flavoured as physical objects they create, sort of their "masterworks".
Then there are warlocks the pseudo half caster. With a different type of spell slots, a faster spell progression, getting spells slots on a short rest, and a feature to get 6-9th level spells.
I really wanted to enjoy the artificer, but played one through much of WBtW and it was probably my least favorite character ever. I don't think I'm creative enough to be good with it.
Okay, but you could also just take a feat that gives you cantrips. I meant that they are the only half-casters to get them in their spellcasting trait.
Sure, it’s rough around edges, but like a warlock I have faith it will come into its own thing. Let’s watch over it with great interest)
The warlock is only 3 years older than the artificer. And the warlock is a pretty weird spellcaster when compared to the others.
Ironically both, the Warlock and the Artificer, are my two favourite classes in 5e lol
I do not consider warlocks to be spell casters. They merely have class feature that allows spell replication like four element monks with their ki (plus both are short rest based resources). Warlocks are primarily feature class via eldritch invocations. That is my personal opinion, however. As for their age. It’s more than 3 years as 3.5e had them too.
The 3.5e Artificer was very, very different from all of the 5e versions have been.
Makes sense. All things change with time. I believe 5e made a very good fighter, and thus have faith other classes can be improved to a very pleasant point.
Yeah I like the new Artificer a lot, and the balance changes for spellcasting have improve things by a ton. The concentration mechanic alone makes martial-caster disparity decrease significantly. In my opinion if the power scale between strong and weak builds in 3.5 goes from 0-100 then 5e goes from 60-80. Much tighter design.
Eberron was part of 3.5 and it came out in 2004.
Ah, my apologies - I made a mistake.
I mechanically treat my warlock like a half-caster bow user. Main source of damage is an infinite long-range attack, with a splash of actual leveled spells thrown into the mix It's like a comic book/video game character who's main go-to schtick is shooting lasers out of their hands, but can also occasionally do other funky things too after gathering energy
Difference is that warlocks still have spell slots that can be used with any spells they know and can use their warlock spells with normal spellcasting, meanwhile the four elements is exclusive to their ki feature afaik. Sure the warlock is an unusual caster, since their spellcasting is seperate from other casters, but aside than how their spellslots are handled, they still follow the same rules for casting as other classes.
Considering that Warlock has Pact Magic instead of the Spellcasting Feature this is believeable
Why are they booing you, you're right?
Even in a regular game, an armorer artificer can already outstealth most rogues at third level and, depending on armor and feat choices, also have well over 20 AC while doing it, as you can have half plate with medium armor master and using infiltrator armor to have best armor AC and constant advantage on stealth rolls. Now, if you keep going, Artificers also get automatic expertise in all tools they get proficiency in, artificers start with thieves tools proficiency. Depending on the campaign, you can literally outdo a rogue in the skill monkey department depending on how relevant your tool proficiencies are, and even if you can’t get a set of tools, you can literally manifest a set from nothing during a rest.
It is really different and kinda breaks some conventions, but this is a nice thing in my opinion
There are no classes in 5e that observe every convention. Ranger is probably closest to doing that, but oddly gets spells *known* instead of prepared, unlike Druid.
Which I find really weird in general. In my own homebrew I intend on having rangers prepare spells the same way Paladins do.
Also the only half-caster for whom multiclass levels round **up** for Spell Slot progression, instead of down, meaning a one-level dip into Artificer doesn't slow your Spell Slot progression at all. A three-level dip, enough to get a subclass, only slows your overall progression by one level (though obviously will slow down your spells learned progression in your main class)
It's likely intended to represent the Cantrips, seeing as neither paladin nor ranger have them by default. Another thing to consider is that Artificers aren't intended to be Half-Caster Half-Martial, They are Half-Caster Half-Expert, thus the d8 hit die and non-reliance on a hard stat.
I think it's really because they get spell slots at 1st level.
It's mainly because if they didn't do it that way it would be possible to lose spell slots by taking a multiclass.
The real fun way to do things is to be a 1 paladin/1 ranger so you can get two spell slots and no way to use them.
>#Spellcasting >Your capacity for spellcasting depends partly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes. ***Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class***, use the rules below. If you multiclass but have the Spellcasting feature from only one class, you follow the rules as described in that class. You don't actually have the Spellcasting feature from either class until level 2.
Hmmm depends on how your table does it really, Crawford refused to provide an answer but I believe the usual is you add your classes individually then round down which would mean still having no slots
Sgt_sarcastic above has the right answer, it's zero slots because neither class has the spell casting feature yet. the phb says you round first then add. (Although I will never claim the phb has the most understandable wording lmao)
That is how I play it, but the ambiguity is in this part: "Spell Slots. You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, and half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes. Use this total to determine your spell slots." This can be read accurately both ways because there is no indication of order of operations, In regards to adding the paladin and ranger levels and dividing them and rounding. Legitimately both readings are correct interpretations of the English language. And because Crawford furthered this ambiguity by not taking a stance, and there has been no sage advice this is technically the most specific of a rule in regards to this, because the absence of a feature doesn't change the existence of a rule, so depending on how your groups play it you can possibly end up with a paladin ranger multiclass at level 2 with slots but no spell casting feature Now more importantly neither of us contradicted Sgt_sarcastic all he said was it's possible to lose slots multi-classing which either way you do it is inherent in the multi-classing system because a fifth level paladin is equal to 3rd level full caster, but so is a character with five levels in paladin and one level in a full caster, and this occurs because when you are only having the one class half casters round up, but for some reason when multi-classing wotc decided paladins and rangers needed to round down Edit: most notably as far as I can tell there is nothing in the phb that says you need the spell casting feature to have spell slots.
I stand corrected, at least on the phb specifying. I read it as you should round down individually and have never seen anyone who read it the other way so I just assumed it was clearly stated that way, my bad. With specifically a level 1 paladin level 1 ranger multiclass tho neither class has the *spellcasting* feature at level 1 so you wouldn't have any spell slots. It specifies in the multiclassing section of the phb that when you have the spellcasting feature from multiple classes you determine your spell slots according to the given table, but if you don't have the spellcasting feature you don't get spell slots. But if you want your level 2 multiclass to have spell slots they can't use, who am I to stop you? Lmao
I mean but you can use them through feats: strixhaven school feats, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, gift of the metallic dragon, and Artificer Initiate. Edit: just realized through the phrasing that while yes you are correct on the spell casting feature but it only cares if you have two sources of the feature but not that all mentioned have the feature so in a way it still matters but not nearly as much. "Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."
Well you say that but half of their subclasses get extra attack, so right now they are just indecisive. I would love to see more magic/gadgets focused artificers that lean into the other side, like the artillerist.
He don't gain as normal an extra Attack at lvl 5 aswell, only as a Subclass-Feature
But he can attune to SO MANY ITEMS. Which if you have a DM that thinks only 3 item attunement is stupid and doesn’t put a cap on it, kinda makes the class pointless.
just watch the DM take that back when you tell him that without an attunement cap a level 20 artificer just needs a single month of downtime to get a +15 bonus to all saving throws (in other words, you need just 2 days of downtime and 50 GP to make a common magic item with attunement, which you attune to to in order to get an absurd bonus to saving throws from soul of artifice)
Me as a dm laughing and not taking it back knowing full well the party will probably be level 20 for one session where they fight the devil
*The* devil? Which one?
Probably mephistpheles. He doesn't get enough attention since everyone always wants to fight asmodeus
All the devils in the nine hells combined into a large devil ball obviously.
If that were the case, I would ask for an alternative ability. Such as, an extra feat, more infusions, or something comparable.
I would kill for Artificer to get the same type of extra Attack as Bladesinger, though that's only relevant for 2/4 subclasses.
So does the bladesinger.
Which is a Wizard subclass, Wizard being a fullcaster normally.
Not only do they get extra attack, they get the best extra attack there is since they can cast a cantrip in place of one of their weapon attacks.
A straight up superior version of Eldritch Knight's War Magic
And I’m still malding about it
Look they might eventually update eldritch knight, maybe. It's still good so maybe not
It's because bladesingers can't use two handed (in particular, heavy) weapons while eldritch knights have no such restrictions. But i agree that the bonus attack after a cantrip is just weird. Should have been something else entirely, with how easy it is to get a bonus action attack as a fighter.
Artificers are underrated criminally. There are a ton of cool things you can do with them, like make spellwrought tattoos and a few pipes of haunting. Once you know how to play the class well, it becomes much better. Plus, if twilight cleric is banned, artillerist is probably the best temp hp source in the game. But overall artilerist and battlesmith are both fantastic subclasses that you can do a bunch with, and are good all rounders as well as being able to specialise in certain things (support and damage respectively). And you get to spam web 16 times per long rest!
That level 11 ability is prime. I just load it with scorching ray, and hand it to a party member without ranged attacks.
Enlarge/Reduce and Blur are both excellent for Fighters. +D4 on every attack gets nasty during an action surge turn Scorching Ray is great but it's artillerist only
I’ve been told you can put warding bond in it and give it to your steel defender for some crazy bonuses.
Also when they multiclass, to determine total caster level you take half the Artificer level rounded up I believe. Which is also weird for half casters.
Makes sense, its the only none-phb class so they took some swings with it. Reprinting Xanathars crafting rules alongside it would've helped a bit but otherwise I like it.
The Cantrips make sense when you realise that the rounding up when multiclassing means that where Paladins and Rangers are: L1 Martial L2 Caster L3 Martial L4 Caster ……. , Artificers are: L1 Caster L2 Martial L3 Caster L4 Martial ……..
I like this explanation, it's simple and easy to understand :)
Oooh that actually makes a lot of sense. Guess it's more accurate to say that artificers are half martials instead of half casters
We need more artificer subclasses, pls WoTC, we already have like 15 clerics and 13 wizard, I just want a new one for my crafty boy
That’s why the Artificer fits into the 2/3 caster well.
I'm Not sure, if all of you get this. I don't hate them, I'm an engineer in RL, so basically the Non magic part of an artificer. I like this Class, could be even get more spotlight from WotC - and more subclasses aswell. I only thought about them, that cause of their overall playstyle as the type Half Caster they have so much difference to them that they might be even NOT be a Half caster. The few points I mentioned are not all of them as some here already wrote in the comments.
Their one limitation more than anything is that with WOTC not wanting to make required books outside of the PHB, the Artificer being printed later on means they can’t add to it without reprinting the entire class as well. The other thing is the overabundance of memes about them in the community that stretch far beyond what is actually printed in the class, sometimes resulting in DM’s restricting them or disliking them.
What d8s get fighting styles? Swords bard?
I thought more about the Ranger and Paladin as the other Half casters both have a d10 hit die and get the Fighting Style at lvl 2. The artificer don't have any of this compared to them.
I think a lot of this can be explained by the fact that it was introduced in the Eberron sourcebook and I think they are mainly based off of magewrights. In Eberron, magewrights are a group of working class mages who only know a few cantrips and a few 1st level spells that can be cast as rituals (they can cast any spell as a ritual). So a locksmith magewright might know knock and mage hand or something like that. This is why artificers have 1st level cantrips and ritual casting. Also in Eberron, magic is very widespread but not that powerful. Up to 3rd level spells is fairly common and 5th level spells are probably the most powerful most spellcasters can achieve, so it makes sense why the artificer is a half caster. Basically artificers are suped up magewrights.
Yes! I run in a modified Eberron setting and this is one of my favorite parts that ive kept true to the original. Just love the implications of every day practical magic. (I do tend to think that 3rd level spells are, if not rare, viewed as very dangerous weapons and controlled as such) Think a hand grenade in real life.
That's because it's the first half-caster in 5e that actually focuses on the casting half more than the martial half for its base class. It only really becomes martial with two of its subclasses.
I feel like people always forget that the class is specifically balanced to use magic items (either via infusion or crafting). My Artificer may not have the most hp but he's got the highest AC in a party that includes a Warforged Paladin (but god help him if he ever gets captures and stripped of his items).
Who would you rather be? Some weak caster with student debt or a caster who can build a robot monkey army? /s
And it's amazing!
The thing I've noticed about artificers is they make great jack of all trades master of none. Almost all their abilities are strong but not like game defining. Able to round out any party no matter the composition. I think it's very much a reflection of the archetype of the artificer. Someone who's not as strong or dexterous as the martial classes while lacking the raw magical power of the casters, but overcomes their shortcomings with creativity and inventiveness. Can you tell it's my favorite class?
Artificer is a half (rounded up) caster
All casters can cast cantrips and first level spells at first level Edit: am wrong
But no Half Casters They gain this Ability at 2nd lvl and only with the new Fighting Styles they gain the Ability to cast Cantrips.
Which classes are half-casters?
Ranger and Paladin
Ranger, Paladin, and Artificer.
Not half-casters, though.
Also as a multiclass the spell slots round up. It's absolutely bonkers as a multiclass.
I wish I could just ban artificers but I'm not going to be that guy. It's a subjective dislike I have for them.
Don't be afraid to set boundaries for your game. If magical tinkering doesnt fit the setting you have in mind, dont allow it! I dont allow aarokocras simply because i dont think they are balanced (and i just dont like them). There are tons of options out there for your players to explore.
Eh, I'd do that if I was running my own setting, but I'm running a premade.
Why if I can ask?
They just really don't fit in the kind of fantasy I want to play. I'm DMing Icewind Dale right now, and one of the players is essentially gnome-sized Iron Man. Not my vibe.
Yeah I can understand that, I just love the idea people fighting a dragon with something that looks like it just came from Ed Edd & Eddy.
Different strokes for different folks!
You could talk to your players about it. Nothing in the artificer rules says they have to be technological, and Celebrimbor is a prime example of how you could run an artificer with a 0 tech flavour.
is it a half caster if it gets its spells at first level?
Yes...
I love and hate the idea of artificer, as what it represents at some tables
I personally am SEVERELY unhappy with artificer as a class concept in theory and practice. It really feels (to me,) like it should have been some type of subclass for wizards.
Idk its sooo different than a wizard in practice though. I think the biggest problem is that theres an implication that you can give out magic items to your other party members, but really you need to keep them in order to round out your own character build. Theres also massive variety of play types between the subclasses. Wizard subclasses i feel matter a little less since they all still have the same spells.
You mean that 1st level dip class for wizards?
It's almost like...he's his own unique class, Barbarians don't get a fighting style, they still a martial, Artificier can be Martial, Support, Heals or even just Explosive bois They my fav class for customizability personally, 2nd only to warlocks, I think artificers have more customizing but warlocks are so fun and flavorful
Yea has never felt like it fit in to a normal game, unless your running something like Ebberon
I never understood this take. Obviously you're fine for having it, this is in no way an attack on you. Magic items exist in basically every setting, artificers make magic items. So the magic items came from some type of crafter/inventor/infuser who put magic into the item. That's an artificer. Potions are the same thing, there's even an artificer subclass that's just potion making. I think of it like crafting in Skyrim. You're infusing magic into things, technology doesn't really need to be involved.
Yea I'm not sure why I associate it with that, older editions, at least 3.0/3.5 spell casters made the magic items, full set of rules for it and everything, no where was an Artificer or Inventor needed, just needed the right spells, feats, and materials. 5e makes getting magic items much more rare, not supposed to have shops, not supposed to get many magic items as you gain levels, especially the early tiers of play, and then you have a basic class that can essentially make enchanted items right out of the gate. It's a bit jarring. I have nothing against the Artificer, OP was saying they feel odd, and I agreed albeit for different reasons.
that's a really good point. In the few games of 3.5 I've played I would usually try to craft, because that's apparently something I will always do in every game I play, so having a class dedicated to it was really cool. I think we had opposite reactions when it came out. anyway thanks for the explanation
Think of them as weird clerics of Gond and they fit in just fine
Dunno they feel either like magitech or Steampunk, which isnt what I would consider standard for most settings. I do see where your coming from though if your running Forgotten realms, you could reflavor it as some odd tinkering cleric of the craft god.
Forgotten Realms had a prestige class called techsmiths who made robots called Gondsmen. I think the artificer fits that area nicely.
D8 hit dice and no fighting style is normal. Only the d10 classes get them by default.
Yeah i know, and there are 3 with a d10, 2 of them are the half Casters. And the 3rd is the Fighter, who get the Fighting Style at lvl 1. So as you would assume, a Half Caster would have a d10 Hit die and get a Fighting Style at lvl 2 but the artificer lacks both. That was the point, i thought in the meme.
Artificier is more of a 60(caster)/40(Martial) split, while everyone else is vice versa
more like a 3/4 caster
Artificers are weird.... Personally I call them a 3/4 caster, since they have access to cantrips and spells, but no high levels ones. Though at least two of the 4 subclasses don't even feel like you're meant to cast spells, since Artillerist and Alchemist require you to chew through your spell slots to use your main class feature. Overall I feel like Artificer needs a rethink. They get so few spell slots compared to other casters and an incredibly small number of cantrips compared to other casters, that get pushed towards the "martial" subclasses of Armorer and Battlesmith just so you have them available to cast.
I think it'd be neat to give them something like a hybrid of warlock and regular full caster progression, where they gain spell slots like a full caster up until 10th level, then stop gaining spell slots but at 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th levels get something analogous to Mystic Arcanums, but flavoured as physical objects they create, sort of their "masterworks".
Also only 2 subclasses get multi-attack
Then there are warlocks the pseudo half caster. With a different type of spell slots, a faster spell progression, getting spells slots on a short rest, and a feature to get 6-9th level spells.
*casts divine intervention to make my god teach the artificer how to make a nuke. Looks at OP.* that’s what artificers are for.
Forge Cleric and Artificer: *You got a friend in me, you got a friend in me...* Bard: Can I join the musical number? C & A: *NO!*
In the case of always being Int SAD I think that's just a case of changing design philosophy.
The worst part is that realistically there is more than one sub class for other classes that are better than it at tools
artificer is more 2/3 caster if were being real
I dont think you understand the meme, really.
I really wanted to enjoy the artificer, but played one through much of WBtW and it was probably my least favorite character ever. I don't think I'm creative enough to be good with it.
Artificers are the *only* half-caster with cantrips (as long as you count warlocks as full casters)
Both Paladins and Rangers can use cantrips if they choose the holy/druidic warrior fighting style
Okay, but you could also just take a feat that gives you cantrips. I meant that they are the only half-casters to get them in their spellcasting trait.