Does the 4e Artificer make sense?

[Whimsy Chris]

So today I was reading over the artificer in the Eberron Player's Guide, and it seems a little weak - not just in terms of its effectiveness as a class but its actual description. It's a little convoluted. I get a sense that the designers struggled with how to translate the artificer to 4e.

Its Healing Infusion power is strange. It acts as a healing power, almost like the Cleric's Healing Word, but you set up two at the beginning of the day and can renew a use by spending a Healing Surge during a short rest. This seems to severely weaken the Artificer as a Leader and healer. And what is this Healing Infusion power infusing into? A magic item? And what if you don't have a magic item?

But most convoluted to me is its Animation/Summoning power. There seems to be a discrepancy as to whether it animates or summons. Basically it animates a construct by summoning a elemental into the construct. However, where does the construct come from? The summoning powers of the Artificer have flavor texts that say one animates a construct. That gives me the sense the construct already exists and the Artificer merely animates it. But the power's description says the artificer creates the construct and it appears in an unoccupied square. This gives me the sense that it appears out of thin air.

So, which is it? If it's the former, what happens if the construct doesn't exist? Does that mean the Artificer can't use that power, which is often a daily power? Some of the summoning powers are general as to what may be constructed, but some have very specific construct descriptions such as acid filled wasp constucts.

If it's the latter and the construct appears out of midair, that sounds more like a conjurer than a crafter. Artificers, in my mind, are meant to be magic crafters.

Now obviously some of my questions have to do with flavor more than game mechanics, but this points out to me one of the weaknesses of 4e (which I otherwise happen to like a lot): crunch and fluff are so separated that some of the powers don't make a lot of sense outside of the game mechanics.

Has anyone else looked over this class? I'm willing to be a "believer" when it comes to the 4e Artificer, but as it stands, it feels like major parts of it make no sense. Anyone?

[Blazej]

In general, I've been treating characters with powers that seem to assume that you have that item ready (like animating constructs or martial attacks that inflict poison) as if they just have the components necessary (the construct body or poison). I'm not sure yet what I would do if I put my player's in the position that those components were unavailable (prison) or they try placing the construct in a place where they couldn't fit the construct at that moment (behind bars).

I guess I would deny them access to the power unless they describe how they managed to get the power to work (even if they just declare that they are animating the chains across the room, or that they have the components hidden on their person. If they are willing to attempt to try to keep the suspension of disbelief up, I don't think that I would feel the need to deny them powers.

My ability to respond the first part is limited due to me seeing the artificer for only a short time. They only suggestion I have right now is that maybe they have an increased number of surges to account for that loss.

Edit: I would also think that an artificer would be able to infuse non-magical items as well. For example, I believe the 3.5 artificer was able to use a similar power to make make weapons magical for short periods of time.

[nrtrandahl]

My guess would be that the Artificer creates a construct out of whatever's handy. Like a construct of stone and dirt tears itself out of the ground if they are outside.

[Celestial Healer]

I had the same thoughts just the other day when I was paging through the Eberron Players Guide at Borders. The class does not look like one of their best efforts.

[Matthew Koelbl]

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Its Healing Infusion power is strange. It acts as a healing power, almost like the Cleric's Healing Word, but you set up two at the beginning of the day and can renew a use by spending a Healing Surge during a short rest. This seems to severely weaken the Artificer as a Leader and healer.

The Artificer's Healing Infusion power is considered, hands-down, the strongest healing power of any Leader in the game. Cleric's might get more total healing on a single target, and Shaman's might heal more from the group as a whole, but no other healing as efficient, for three reasons:

1) The first two uses are free. No Healing Surge required - you get two uses at the start of the day, and don't need to spend Healing Surges until you are recharging them.

2) Recharging them means you get to choose who actually pays for the surge. Being able to recharge those surges from those who have an excess, and use the healing itself on those who are low on surges, is extremely useful - and can easily let a group go an extra encounter or two in a day, when a group with a different leader might need to stop and rest.

3) Versatility - the infusions have two uses, and you can choose which one you prefer at any given time. And both are pretty solid in effect.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

And what is this Healing Infusion power infusing into? A magic item? And what if you don't have a magic item?

Now, this is where things are less clear-cut. But it is because of a fundamental concept of 4E - narrative control is somewhat in the hands of the players as well as the DM. They give you the mechanics on how powers work, but what is happening in game is left for players to decide.

The two common views I've seen on how infusions work:

1) The Artificer is brewing some magical flasks of healing elixir during rests. In combat, when an ally needs assistance, he tosses the healing to them to quickly drink, or he tosses it at them and it pops in a burst of healing vapors, or so forth.

2) Alternatively, drawing from the older mechanics where Artificers would create 'temporary' magic wands, that is what he is doing here - he takes a small nonmagical wand or other device, and infuses it with temporary healing energies. It only has limited uses, and requires being recharged between combats. During combats, though, it is a trivial task to call forth its magic to heal an ally, however.

Insert more explanations as needed. They can be as gritty and realistic as you prefer, or as silly and lighthearted as desired - whatever works best for the group and the player, in the end.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

But most convoluted to me is its Animation/Summoning power. There seems to be a discrepancy as to whether it animates or summons. Basically it animates a construct by summoning a elemental into the construct. However, where does the construct come from? The summoning powers of the Artificer have flavor texts that say one animates a construct. That gives me the sense the construct already exists and the Artificer merely animates it. But the power's description says the artificer creates the construct and it appears in an unoccupied square. This gives me the sense that it appears out of thin air.

Same explanation as above - it is somewhat in the hands of the player. The common views I've seen:

1) The artificer carries around various gears and cogs and mechanical devices in his bag. In combat, he quickly pulls them out and tosses them on the ground (or even rapidly screws them together) - and then, with the touch of magic, elemental energies enter the construct and bring it to humming, creaking life.

2) The construct is formed from the environment. Fighting in a forge's workshop, it might draw in stray bits of cast-off metal and form those into a metallic form for the elemental to inhabit. On an empty plain, it might form from rocks and rubble instead. The responsibility for providing the explanation for why the power works, in the end, is placed on the DM and the player, rather than the power itself.

3) The artificer already has various half-finished constructs. In combat, he pulls them out and imbues them with an elemental that - temporarily - makes them a complete and working creation.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Some of the summoning powers are general as to what may be constructed, but some have very specific construct descriptions such as acid filled wasp constucts.

Well, the description could be one specific variant of the power, not the only possible build. But again, explanations are easy to come by - if you are viewing this as drawing from the natural environment, then a wasp construct is formed from whatever is handy, and the elemental provides the acid. If the artificer is tossing together stray supplies from his bag, then he tossed in some flasks of acid. Etc.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Now obviously some of my questions have to do with flavor more than game mechanics, but this points out to me one of the weaknesses of 4e (which I otherwise happen to like a lot): crunch and fluff are so separated that some of the powers don't make a lot of sense outside of the game mechanics.

It really is a matter of taste. I know that I personally view the seperation of the two as an incredibly good thing, and one of 4E's strongest assets. But I can certainly see how others would feel otherwise.

4E doesn't provide mechanical explanations for its powers - it leaves that in the hands of the players. Many find this freeing, allowing them to use their imaginations and describe scenes without feeling constrained by figuring out how something would literally work in that fashion. Others are frustrated by it, because it means there are no answers to the questions they ask - would this power work in darkness, or if the Artificer is deprived of his materials, or so forth. They want guidance to those questions, and 4E often provides none.

The key to realize is that in 4E, those questions are intended to be answered by a gamist or narrative philosophy, rather than a simulationist one.

In a simulationist game, the answer would be grounded in the 'laws' of the game-world's universe - does the wizard have the spell components needed, does the artificer have supplies for his construct, etc.

But looking at it from a gamist point of view, the question is instead: Would it improve the game to have the artificer, locked into a cell and deprived of gear, unable to create a construct? The answer could still be yes or no, often depending on the group. Perhaps they would find it more intense to be in a situation where powers don't help, and they have to come up with a clever solution to escape. Or perhaps they would prefer to find that solution with powers, and have the artificer take some prison utensils and scraps of cloth, and build a working automaton that can slip out of the cell and aid them. (Or whatever other explanation they come up with to describe how his power is available.)

A narrative viewpoint might be similar, except less concerned about what might serve the players at the present time, and more concerned with what makes for a better story or scene, or better serves the overall plot. If the characters are intended to be left with wits alone, then that's what happens. If being able to use their powers makes for a scenic escape, then that's fine too.

Everyone has different preferences on what styles work best for them, and many simulationists have had significant issues with 4Es step away from it. The Artificer is hardly the first such example - just, perhaps, a more prominent one, due to the examples you describe.

But for myself, I find that having the rules assume a power will work, and letting the player provide the explanation - and thus have some narrative control over the story - both frees the imagination, encourages roleplaying, and cements the concept of D&D as a shared-storytelling game.

[Whimsy Chris]

I thank everyone, particularly Matthew, for their explanations. It certainly helps me understand and appreciate the Artificer more.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

The Artificer's Healing Infusion power is considered, hands-down, the strongest healing power of any Leader in the game.

I was confused as to how Healing Infusion actually works. I was thinking the target uses a Healing Surge and then later another Healing Surge was needed to revive the power. Now that I understand that only one Healing Surge is required during short rests, and no Healing Surges actually spent using the powers during combat, it makes more sense to me.

Matthew Koelbl wrote:

But for myself, I find that having the rules assume a power will work, and letting the player provide the explanation - and thus have some narrative control over the story - both frees the imagination, encourages roleplaying, and cements the concept of D&D as a shared-storytelling game.

I understand where you're coming from. I initially appreciated that one can manipulate the flavor to fit one's campaign. But sometimes I think the lack of flavorful explanation goes to far. I think the Artificer (which I may try to play just to see if I like it) is this side of not enough explanation. If I was not aware of the 3.5 model, I might be really confused by this class, more so than I already am.

Perhaps part of my challenge is the group I am in. My experience (limited to this one group) is that players don't offer narrative explanations for their powers, but just say the power and the mechanical effects. I still enjoy the game, as I find 4e's style of combat exciting.

My challenge with the lack of explanation is that it doesn't allow for guidance in what to do in special circumstances. For example, if a Wizard is captured, all his stuff removed, and he is gagged and bound, can he cast a spell that doesn't have the implement keyword? I would argue no, but I know my players would argue yes. And most likely I'd give the players the benefit of the doubt, but feel the narrative has been somewhat slighted.

I'll accept that my group is filled with power gamers who play to "win", and aren't that concerned with narrative structure. I'm just wondering what other people's experience has been in comparison. Sometimes things will have a great theoretical explanation, but in practice falls short.

[Carl Cramér]

I could never grasp the 3.5 Artificer. I loved the idea, but the mechanics were just too convulted, confused, and lacking in power for me. I've not had a chance to try the 4E Artificer, but it seems a lot less confusing to me.

[Sebastrd]

I've been playing a DMPC Artificer for over a year now, and I’ve definitely struggled at times to describe his powers believably. Here's what I've come up with.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

Its Healing Infusion power is strange. It acts as a healing power, almost like the Cleric's Healing Word, but you set up two at the beginning of the day and can renew a use by spending a Healing Surge during a short rest. This seems to severely weaken the Artificer as a Leader and healer. And what is this Healing Infusion power infusing into? A magic item? And what if you don't have a magic item?

The original "fairy dust" description in the playtest article just seemed lame to me. I had been describing the healing infusions as mini-potions I threw to the PCs in battle. The final version is an actual suggestion from the feedback thread for the playtest article. The Artificer class powers describe him constantly infusing the party's equipment during rest periods, so I view the new healing infusions as sort of contingency infusions. In the heat of battle the Artificer "activates" the charges he infused in everyone's magical or mundane equipment.

Whimsy Chris wrote:

But most convoluted to me is its Animation/Summoning power. There seems to be a discrepancy as to whether it animates or summons. Basically it animates a construct by summoning a elemental into the construct. However, where does the construct come from? The summoning powers of the Artificer have flavor texts that say one animates a construct. That gives me the sense the construct already exists and the Artificer merely animates it. But the power's description says the artificer creates the construct and it appears in an unoccupied square. This gives me the sense that it appears out of thin air.

I always describe my DMPC Artificer as festooned with gizmos and gadgets and bits of whatever, so he can be expected to have whatever he’d need to make his constructs (Although, incidentally, he doesn’t have any of the summoning powers. He doesn’t make stealth checks either.). However, I think of the Artificer as a magical MacGyver or self-contained A-team; give him a rubber band, a paper clip, and some bubblegum, and he can build you a tank. Even if all of his gear gets taken away, he can build a construct out of anything that’s lying around. If you think of his summoning powers as animation of mundane objects with a bound elemental, it makes even more sense. He could animate the dust from the floor to create a desired construct.

[Grimcleaver]

This has been a really useful and fun post to read through. I'm running a 4e Eberron game and narrowly dodged the bullet of having to deal with an Artificer in the game (which I dreaded for most of the reasons listed here). Having read this section over, I think I'm really getting to like them. Particularly I dig the idea of them with hanging armatures, like artist models or puppets strapped onto them in little bundles--which they animate quickly and toss out into the field like an ally grenade. That's just fun.

Sort of reminds me of those fold up pit droids from Star Wars.

[Sebastrd]

Grimcleaver wrote:

Particularly I dig the idea of them with hanging armatures, like artist models or puppets strapped onto them in little bundles--which they animate quickly and toss out into the field like an ally grenade. Sort of reminds me of those fold up pit droids from Star Wars.

Good call. :)

I particularly love the idea of an "ally grenade". Good stuff.