invent /ɪnˈvɛnt/ Learn to pronounce verb create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of. "he invented an improved form of the steam engine"
And it's in this context of the common tongue of this English language that we read:
Artificer Class Details
Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions. You can find everything you need to play one of these inventors in the next few sections. ... Throughout the D&D multiverse, artificers create inventions and magic items of peace and war. ...
... To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
In practice Artificers can work with Magical Tinkering to produce: a light, a voice recorder, a smell or sound emitter, or a picture; and we might easily interpret that we're hardly stretching into the territory of invention.
The Infuse Item ability allows artificers to "imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions", not new and novel magical infusions but only those from certain lists.
According to their class description, artificers might be better described as "Masters of replication ..." which might reduce potential player disappointment when DMs may potentially talk them down from any false expectations fostered by WotC.
Anyway, we've currently got the class description that we've got. (WotC don't often seem to be particularly tight with the descriptions they provide).
I could certainly imagine that an artificer might be relatively in tune with inventive approaches within various of their crafting endeavours. But how should/could an artificer be run/limited for a player with invention understandably in mind?
Most classes struggle a bit with flavor versus actual in-game mechanics. A Sorcerer is supposedly their own personal font of magical energy, yet they still require components for their spells unless they invest in the specific metamagic that lets them ignore that, but that also means they have to spend Sorcery points. The Artificer supposedly "invents" the devices that they create, but they're limited, for balance reasons, to a set selection of spells and infusions.
One thing to do to make an Artificer feel like they're inventing their infusions and spells is to not treat anything they create as though it's a known quantity in the world. If an Artificer infuses a weapon with the Returning Weapon property, have the player describe how that works... do they have a magnet device built into it? Do they have it on a string that retracts automatically? Does it have a miniature teleporter that blinks it back to your hand? Does the original device remain in your hand and a temporary copy is sent out instead? Then, don't have other characters comment on it like, "Ah, I see you have the Returning Weapon infusion on your Spear". Within the world of your story, That Artificer invented That Infusion. It does not exist even among other Artificers within that world. It's all smoke and mirrors and reflavoring, but honestly that's most of the class... there's nothing in the mechanics that says Artificer spellcasting functions any differently from spellcasting in other classes... they still need Vocal components for their spells, regardless of whatever in-universe explanation they have for their spellcasting.
That said, I think it also helps to play with a DM who's open to Homebrew... whether it's homebrewing new, original spells/infusions exclusive to your character or if they're willing to work with you to create unique, but technically non-magical devices. Tinkering represents what your Artificer can create without any major investment of money, resources, or time, but a lot of DM's will let you spend those resources creating unique creations that are all your own.
One thing to do to make an Artificer feel like they're inventing their infusions and spells is to not treat anything they create as though it's a known quantity in the world. ...
It's a lot of work for mimicking invention without peoducing any actual invention.
RAW the artificer is badly described as a "master of invention". A description as something like "a mystic crafter..." might have had better internal consistency.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; it's better to look at a class as a toolset that lets you create your character.
Just because mechanically you learn infusions at 6th level doesn't mean you have to learn them automatically; take some downtime, have your character working in their workshop when they finally hit that "Eureka!" moment and come out having finally figured out to do some new things.
While infusions are treated a bit like spells in that you simply know and activate them, that doesn't mean you have to play them that way. For example, for my artificer all of his infusions are bound to specific items that he's invented, so canonically he has one item for every infusion known, but he can only activate so many at a time (limited magical energy to power them all). This makes them feel more like inventions rather than some kind of magical blessing bestowed upon any item at any time.
Basically if you want more complexity to represent true invention, then add it. The rules generally try to be as simple as possible, because this allows them to represent more things; just because one artificer might be themed more as an inventor, doesn't mean another might not want to be more arcane, the rules allow both to be represented.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Something to keep in mind. Many Magic Items likely do not have a set blueprint or way to make them. So They may be a matter of basically reinventing them or figuring out the way a previous maker made them to create them. This would still make the artificer a master of Invention if they are good enough that they can approximate these items as easily as they do. Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it.
Infusions are Effectively Builder's/Inventors Secrets that are specific to that Artificer or line of Artificers that they learned from. So even if another Artificer does the same thing it's going to be done in a different way. And Any Magic Item that does the same thing is likely going to be done differently than either of them.
It should be kept in mind that in most settings standardization and industrialization are almost unheard of. Even in the ones that do know of it, it tends to be something fairly rare and guarded and used only by certain organizations and certain kinds of items for the most part.
... Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it. ...
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; ...
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
It's not unsupported though; infused items are inventions, so are items created or enhanced by Magical Tinkering, so are the spells you cast as you are actively encouraged to theme them:
To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
What you seem to want specifically is crafting, but we've never really had a crafting system in D&D 5e that doesn't require the DM to do a lot of the heavy lifting; I wish we'd get a proper one, as I'd happily buy a book that was just a Big ol' Guide to Crafting with clear rules for how to do it, big lists of stuff you can make and how to make it (plus a load of new stuff), but that doesn't seem to be what Wizards of the Coast want to make.
But crafting isn't the only form of invention.
Even if it was; whatever form of crafting your DM allows in your campaign, an Artificer is well suited to it thanks to more tool proficiencies than any other class, and the ability to always have whatever tools you need no matter where you are.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I get what you mean, but even if the mechanics of the class more accurately represented "invention" in the sense that you mean, it would still mean basically just requiring Homebrew for all Artificer players. To handle something like that, mechanically, while not completely unbalancing the game, you would need a deep, complex crafting system exclusive to this class with hard and fast rules that determine how inventions work... and while I'm not against that, exactly, it seems like it would be a huge pain the keister for everyone involved.
I think the assertion that they should be called "Masters of Replication" is a little too obviously bitter and sarcastic, but considering them instead "Masters of Crafting" would make a bit more sense. It doesn't imply that anything tinkered or infused by the Artificer is intended to be a replica of some well-known technology... it can be, depending on the campaign, but focusing the flavor on "Crafting" in general as opposed to "Invention" specifically should relieve some of the disappointment about how the class allows specific skills and abilities without dipping into homebrew.
... Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it. ...
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; ...
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
Here's your Problem and your biggest mistake.
Nothing that the Artificer does is common technology elsewhere. None of it.
Magic Items aren't common technology. They are not things most people have and they are not set to only one way to be made. Two Wizards could make two items that are functionally the same thing and thus called the same item that had very little in common for how they are made.
Half of the "Common technology" which encompasses little more than things like Wagons, and Horse Shoes, and basic stuff like that aren't even standardized or mass produced in any way. Each Wagon. Even if they functionally like every other wagon was individually made. Each trap, Each horse Shoe, each candelabra. All individually made, Mostly to order, and are only common in their use and some of the basic technologies for making them that people have varying mastery and understanding of.
... Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it. ...
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; ...
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
Here's your Problem and your biggest mistake.
Nothing that the Artificer does is common technology elsewhere. None of it.
Magic Items aren't common technology. They are not things most people have and they are not set to only one way to be made. Two Wizards could make two items that are functionally the same thing and thus called the same item that had very little in common for how they are made.
Half of the "Common technology" which encompasses little more than things like Wagons, and Horse Shoes, and basic stuff like that aren't even standardized or mass produced in any way. Each Wagon. Even if they functionally like every other wagon was individually made. Each trap, Each horse Shoe, each candelabra. All individually made, Mostly to order, and are only common in their use and some of the basic technologies for making them that people have varying mastery and understanding of.
Here's your Mistake and your biggest problem.
You see fault where there isn't any.
I completely agree "Nothing that the Artificer [as per the Artificer's class-related magical skills] does is common technology elsewhere."
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
... Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it. ...
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; ...
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
Here's your Problem and your biggest mistake.
Nothing that the Artificer does is common technology elsewhere. None of it.
Magic Items aren't common technology. They are not things most people have and they are not set to only one way to be made. Two Wizards could make two items that are functionally the same thing and thus called the same item that had very little in common for how they are made.
Half of the "Common technology" which encompasses little more than things like Wagons, and Horse Shoes, and basic stuff like that aren't even standardized or mass produced in any way. Each Wagon. Even if they functionally like every other wagon was individually made. Each trap, Each horse Shoe, each candelabra. All individually made, Mostly to order, and are only common in their use and some of the basic technologies for making them that people have varying mastery and understanding of.
Here's your Mistake and your biggest problem.
You see fault where there isn't any.
I completely agree "Nothing that the Artificer [as per the Artificer's class-related magical skills] does is common technology elsewhere."
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
. . . It's not "fallacious", it's flavor text. You're getting a bit too invested in proving that a small bit of flavor text (which can be applicable in worlds where their infusions are unique or where the DM lets them use downtime to invent new magic items and innovations) is wrong. It's not a big deal, and you're acting like it is and that you're somehow emotionally attached to proving that it is one.
Not all Clerics are healers or even support characters, but they are frequently enough for the community to stereotype them by that. The same thing applies to a lot of the flavor/fluff text for races/classes/subclasses in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
... Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it. ...
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; ...
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
Here's your Problem and your biggest mistake.
Nothing that the Artificer does is common technology elsewhere. None of it.
Magic Items aren't common technology. They are not things most people have and they are not set to only one way to be made. Two Wizards could make two items that are functionally the same thing and thus called the same item that had very little in common for how they are made.
Half of the "Common technology" which encompasses little more than things like Wagons, and Horse Shoes, and basic stuff like that aren't even standardized or mass produced in any way. Each Wagon. Even if they functionally like every other wagon was individually made. Each trap, Each horse Shoe, each candelabra. All individually made, Mostly to order, and are only common in their use and some of the basic technologies for making them that people have varying mastery and understanding of.
Here's your Mistake and your biggest problem.
You see fault where there isn't any.
I completely agree "Nothing that the Artificer [as per the Artificer's class-related magical skills] does is common technology elsewhere."
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
. . . It's not "fallacious", it's flavor text. You're getting a bit too invested in proving that a small bit of flavor text (which can be applicable in worlds where their infusions are unique or where the DM lets them use downtime to invent new magic items and innovations) is wrong. It's not a big deal, and you're acting like it is and that you're somehow emotionally attached to proving that it is one.
Not all Clerics are healers or even support characters, but they are frequently enough for the community to stereotype them by that. The same thing applies to a lot of the flavor/fluff text for races/classes/subclasses in the game.
I'd really appreciate it if people could quit telling people that they have a "problem" or asserting that they are doing things "too much". Perhaps let your arguments have a basis and let them do the talking.
"Flavor text ... serves to add realism or characterization to the item in question. Flavor text is often the last text on a card or on the rear of a toy card or package, and is usually printed in italics or written between quotes to distinguish it from game-affecting text."
I'd argue that, in this case, the initial description given presents a quite different flavour than those that item actually delivers, and it certainly seems possible for others to be misled by the description. The potential convention, of the text being the last to be presented or being printed in italics or written between quotes to distinguish it from other content, is far from followed.
Personally, I don't think that the artificer needs to be flavoured as an inventor. A true flavour as being a mystic crafter or some such seems good enough to me.
What's clear is that readers can develop expectations that a character class described as being master inventors will have a special ability to invent.
Would you agree that an artificer is not primarily an inventor?
An artificer may or may not personally make a simple or martial weapon or item that they can use as a spellcasting focus. Whatever the source of the item, yes, it can certainly be regarded as 100% one of a kind but not necessarily with any more variety than those of more permanent magical items. At 11th level an artificer learns how to store a spell in such an object so I guess this counts as making.
"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions" according to your "infusions known". RAW, you can get any old bag, set of goggles or some such and, according to the artificer's infusions known, can infuse such mundane items with magical properties as prototypes of permanent items. No additional materials are required. They weave in magic according to infusions known.
All involved can homebrew further ideas on ways an artificer might apply their know-how but this would be as an extension to RAW.
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
This is simply wrong; Artificers have more access to tool proficiencies than any other class, and get expertise (twice proficiency) in all of them at a later level; this means that straight away they have more access to crafting (and invention) than any other class, especially as this is combined with being Intelligence focused, with Intelligence checks being the most obvious way to handle creation of new items.
Add onto this they have the ability to turn mundane items (created by themselves or others) into magical ones; while some effects are similar to "standard" magic items (none of which are actually standard except mechanically) they also have unique effects that no other class can replicate.
You keep complaining that they are not masters of invention, but seem determined to ignore literally every class feature that enables them to invent?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
This is simply wrong; Artificers have more access to tool proficiencies than any other class, and get expertise (twice proficiency) in all of them at a later level; this means that straight away they have more access to crafting (and invention) than any other class, especially as this is combined with being Intelligence focused, with Intelligence checks being the most obvious way to handle creation of new items.
Add onto this they have the ability to turn mundane items (created by themselves or others) in magical ones; while some of the effects are similar to "standard" magic items (none of which are actually standard except mechanically) they also have unique effects that no other class can replicate.
You keep complaining that they are not masters of invention, but seem determined to ignore literally every class feature that enables them to invent?
Thank-you. This is certainly the best argument presented so far and I'll readily admit that this last statement was partly wrong. I guess I was getting overly argumental.
The query that I started with finished as follows:
... I could certainly imagine that an artificer might be relatively in tune with inventive approaches within various of their crafting endeavours. But how should/could an artificer be run/limited for a player with invention understandably in mind?
... magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
And, being a magical class, I personally view this as being quite an issue.
Expertise, as you mention, is also a relevant issue and, following 6th level, that may come into play.
To that point, artificers may have a broader range of fields in which they might invent while not actually being better at it.
Added to this 5e doesn't provide any rules for invention which, but for homebrew, makes much of this discussion moot.
Artificers start with proficiency in thieves' tools, tinker's tools, one type of artisan's tools of your choice. They also start with a magical motivation for higher intelligence characters to adopt this class and this, if a DM homebrewed some rules for invention, could also be relevant. Beyond this, any character, including artificers, can gain two tool proficiencies via custom background. Any NPC, if second option rules apply, can spend 250 days and a similar amount of gold to gain tools. Earth's history is full of rich entitled and educated people who had vastly more time to spend on things like invention than a typical adventurer would likely have. If such people had or manage to get the +2 proficiency of starting adventurers, I'd imagine that, if invention was a possibility, they might have, at least prior to artificers getting to level 6, at least a comparable level of potential in it.
So is Master of invention a good starting description for the artificer? In the context of no rules for conventional invention, not even in the class description of the "master of invention" and with artificers only getting a broader range of tools that they can use than the average adventurer, I say no.
... best ... you could hope for with a class focused on crafting in a game without solid crafting rules.
Alternatively, I could hope for a description that described a class focused on crafting. A reader who was led to expect the abilities of a master of invention and then found those abilities lacking might agree.
"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions."
No material components are required, no time requirement for the infusions is mentioned, no new effects are achieved and nothing is improved over things that have come before.
What we're talking about is invention without physical inputs and without new effects. It seems a bit like a magical hacker finding alternate ways to do old things. This certainly fits a definition of invention though perhaps not one that every reader would expect.
I can also invent alternate ways of casting the same spells as, say, a wizard - just at lower levels. How very masterful.
Let's start by getting our definitions on track.
invent
/ɪnˈvɛnt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of.
"he invented an improved form of the steam engine"
And it's in this context of the common tongue of this English language that we read:
Artificer Class Details
Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions. You can find everything you need to play one of these inventors in the next few sections.
...
Throughout the D&D multiverse, artificers create inventions and magic items of peace and war. ...
... To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
In practice Artificers can work with Magical Tinkering to produce: a light, a voice recorder, a smell or sound emitter, or a picture; and we might easily interpret that we're hardly stretching into the territory of invention.
The Infuse Item ability allows artificers to "imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions", not new and novel magical infusions but only those from certain lists.
According to their class description, artificers might be better described as "Masters of replication ..." which might reduce potential player disappointment when DMs may potentially talk them down from any false expectations fostered by WotC.
Anyway, we've currently got the class description that we've got. (WotC don't often seem to be particularly tight with the descriptions they provide).
I could certainly imagine that an artificer might be relatively in tune with inventive approaches within various of their crafting endeavours. But how should/could an artificer be run/limited for a player with invention understandably in mind?
Most classes struggle a bit with flavor versus actual in-game mechanics. A Sorcerer is supposedly their own personal font of magical energy, yet they still require components for their spells unless they invest in the specific metamagic that lets them ignore that, but that also means they have to spend Sorcery points. The Artificer supposedly "invents" the devices that they create, but they're limited, for balance reasons, to a set selection of spells and infusions.
One thing to do to make an Artificer feel like they're inventing their infusions and spells is to not treat anything they create as though it's a known quantity in the world. If an Artificer infuses a weapon with the Returning Weapon property, have the player describe how that works... do they have a magnet device built into it? Do they have it on a string that retracts automatically? Does it have a miniature teleporter that blinks it back to your hand? Does the original device remain in your hand and a temporary copy is sent out instead? Then, don't have other characters comment on it like, "Ah, I see you have the Returning Weapon infusion on your Spear". Within the world of your story, That Artificer invented That Infusion. It does not exist even among other Artificers within that world. It's all smoke and mirrors and reflavoring, but honestly that's most of the class... there's nothing in the mechanics that says Artificer spellcasting functions any differently from spellcasting in other classes... they still need Vocal components for their spells, regardless of whatever in-universe explanation they have for their spellcasting.
That said, I think it also helps to play with a DM who's open to Homebrew... whether it's homebrewing new, original spells/infusions exclusive to your character or if they're willing to work with you to create unique, but technically non-magical devices. Tinkering represents what your Artificer can create without any major investment of money, resources, or time, but a lot of DM's will let you spend those resources creating unique creations that are all your own.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
It's a lot of work for mimicking invention without peoducing any actual invention.
RAW the artificer is badly described as a "master of invention". A description as something like "a mystic crafter..." might have had better internal consistency.
Further, I think it's the only hope for the artificer that wants to invent.
Mechanics and theming don't necessarily have to align perfectly; it's better to look at a class as a toolset that lets you create your character.
Just because mechanically you learn infusions at 6th level doesn't mean you have to learn them automatically; take some downtime, have your character working in their workshop when they finally hit that "Eureka!" moment and come out having finally figured out to do some new things.
While infusions are treated a bit like spells in that you simply know and activate them, that doesn't mean you have to play them that way. For example, for my artificer all of his infusions are bound to specific items that he's invented, so canonically he has one item for every infusion known, but he can only activate so many at a time (limited magical energy to power them all). This makes them feel more like inventions rather than some kind of magical blessing bestowed upon any item at any time.
Basically if you want more complexity to represent true invention, then add it. The rules generally try to be as simple as possible, because this allows them to represent more things; just because one artificer might be themed more as an inventor, doesn't mean another might not want to be more arcane, the rules allow both to be represented.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Something to keep in mind. Many Magic Items likely do not have a set blueprint or way to make them. So They may be a matter of basically reinventing them or figuring out the way a previous maker made them to create them. This would still make the artificer a master of Invention if they are good enough that they can approximate these items as easily as they do. Invention isn't always about making something new. Sometimes it's about finding a different way to make something that already exists or figuring out ways to improve it.
Infusions are Effectively Builder's/Inventors Secrets that are specific to that Artificer or line of Artificers that they learned from. So even if another Artificer does the same thing it's going to be done in a different way. And Any Magic Item that does the same thing is likely going to be done differently than either of them.
It should be kept in mind that in most settings standardization and industrialization are almost unheard of. Even in the ones that do know of it, it tends to be something fairly rare and guarded and used only by certain organizations and certain kinds of items for the most part.
That's cool, but if people are described as "Masters of invention", you might think that they might do some actual invention. Again, in "figuring out ways to improve" things, what they actually do is replicate the same kind of buffs that are otherwise commonly produced elsewhere.
Players come to the description of the artificer class and are lead to believe that, within this class, they will be able to be inventors. There was a recent thread asking Can Artificer invent non-magical items that not on rule books? The basic answer was that, at best, this would require homebrew.
But troubles and potential disappointments may come when an opening statement of theme makes a suggestion that is utterly unsupported by the RAW mechanics that follow.
It's not unsupported though; infused items are inventions, so are items created or enhanced by Magical Tinkering, so are the spells you cast as you are actively encouraged to theme them:
What you seem to want specifically is crafting, but we've never really had a crafting system in D&D 5e that doesn't require the DM to do a lot of the heavy lifting; I wish we'd get a proper one, as I'd happily buy a book that was just a Big ol' Guide to Crafting with clear rules for how to do it, big lists of stuff you can make and how to make it (plus a load of new stuff), but that doesn't seem to be what Wizards of the Coast want to make.
But crafting isn't the only form of invention.
Even if it was; whatever form of crafting your DM allows in your campaign, an Artificer is well suited to it thanks to more tool proficiencies than any other class, and the ability to always have whatever tools you need no matter where you are.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I get what you mean, but even if the mechanics of the class more accurately represented "invention" in the sense that you mean, it would still mean basically just requiring Homebrew for all Artificer players. To handle something like that, mechanically, while not completely unbalancing the game, you would need a deep, complex crafting system exclusive to this class with hard and fast rules that determine how inventions work... and while I'm not against that, exactly, it seems like it would be a huge pain the keister for everyone involved.
I think the assertion that they should be called "Masters of Replication" is a little too obviously bitter and sarcastic, but considering them instead "Masters of Crafting" would make a bit more sense. It doesn't imply that anything tinkered or infused by the Artificer is intended to be a replica of some well-known technology... it can be, depending on the campaign, but focusing the flavor on "Crafting" in general as opposed to "Invention" specifically should relieve some of the disappointment about how the class allows specific skills and abilities without dipping into homebrew.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Here's your Problem and your biggest mistake.
Nothing that the Artificer does is common technology elsewhere. None of it.
Magic Items aren't common technology. They are not things most people have and they are not set to only one way to be made. Two Wizards could make two items that are functionally the same thing and thus called the same item that had very little in common for how they are made.
Half of the "Common technology" which encompasses little more than things like Wagons, and Horse Shoes, and basic stuff like that aren't even standardized or mass produced in any way. Each Wagon. Even if they functionally like every other wagon was individually made. Each trap, Each horse Shoe, each candelabra. All individually made, Mostly to order, and are only common in their use and some of the basic technologies for making them that people have varying mastery and understanding of.
Here's your Mistake and your biggest problem.
You see fault where there isn't any.
I completely agree "Nothing that the Artificer [as per the Artificer's class-related magical skills] does is common technology elsewhere."
This is exactly why I think it is fallacious to give Artificer's a primary description as "Masters of Invention..." They have no special ability with regard to invention in any conventional sense, and magically all they typically do is replicate the same kinds of effects that have already been more permanently been produced by others.
. . . It's not "fallacious", it's flavor text. You're getting a bit too invested in proving that a small bit of flavor text (which can be applicable in worlds where their infusions are unique or where the DM lets them use downtime to invent new magic items and innovations) is wrong. It's not a big deal, and you're acting like it is and that you're somehow emotionally attached to proving that it is one.
Not all Clerics are healers or even support characters, but they are frequently enough for the community to stereotype them by that. The same thing applies to a lot of the flavor/fluff text for races/classes/subclasses in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'd really appreciate it if people could quit telling people that they have a "problem" or asserting that they are doing things "too much". Perhaps let your arguments have a basis and let them do the talking.
"Flavor text ... serves to add realism or characterization to the item in question. Flavor text is often the last text on a card or on the rear of a toy card or package, and is usually printed in italics or written between quotes to distinguish it from game-affecting text."
I'd argue that, in this case, the initial description given presents a quite different flavour than those that item actually delivers, and it certainly seems possible for others to be misled by the description. The potential convention, of the text being the last to be presented or being printed in italics or written between quotes to distinguish it from other content, is far from followed.
Personally, I don't think that the artificer needs to be flavoured as an inventor. A true flavour as being a mystic crafter or some such seems good enough to me.
What's clear is that readers can develop expectations that a character class described as being master inventors will have a special ability to invent.
Would you agree that an artificer is not primarily an inventor?
An artificer may or may not personally make a simple or martial weapon or item that they can use as a spellcasting focus. Whatever the source of the item, yes, it can certainly be regarded as 100% one of a kind but not necessarily with any more variety than those of more permanent magical items. At 11th level an artificer learns how to store a spell in such an object so I guess this counts as making.
"At 2nd level, you gain the ability to imbue mundane items with certain magical infusions" according to your "infusions known". RAW, you can get any old bag, set of goggles or some such and, according to the artificer's infusions known, can infuse such mundane items with magical properties as prototypes of permanent items. No additional materials are required. They weave in magic according to infusions known.
All involved can homebrew further ideas on ways an artificer might apply their know-how but this would be as an extension to RAW.
This is simply wrong; Artificers have more access to tool proficiencies than any other class, and get expertise (twice proficiency) in all of them at a later level; this means that straight away they have more access to crafting (and invention) than any other class, especially as this is combined with being Intelligence focused, with Intelligence checks being the most obvious way to handle creation of new items.
Add onto this they have the ability to turn mundane items (created by themselves or others) into magical ones; while some effects are similar to "standard" magic items (none of which are actually standard except mechanically) they also have unique effects that no other class can replicate.
You keep complaining that they are not masters of invention, but seem determined to ignore literally every class feature that enables them to invent?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Thank-you. This is certainly the best argument presented so far and I'll readily admit that this last statement was partly wrong. I guess I was getting overly argumental.
The query that I started with finished as follows:
It remains fair to say that:
And, being a magical class, I personally view this as being quite an issue.
Expertise, as you mention, is also a relevant issue and, following 6th level, that may come into play.
To that point, artificers may have a broader range of fields in which they might invent while not actually being better at it.
Added to this 5e doesn't provide any rules for invention which, but for homebrew, makes much of this discussion moot.
Artificers start with proficiency in thieves' tools, tinker's tools, one type of artisan's tools of your choice. They also start with a magical motivation for higher intelligence characters to adopt this class and this, if a DM homebrewed some rules for invention, could also be relevant. Beyond this, any character, including artificers, can gain two tool proficiencies via custom background. Any NPC, if second option rules apply, can spend 250 days and a similar amount of gold to gain tools. Earth's history is full of rich entitled and educated people who had vastly more time to spend on things like invention than a typical adventurer would likely have. If such people had or manage to get the +2 proficiency of starting adventurers, I'd imagine that, if invention was a possibility, they might have, at least prior to artificers getting to level 6, at least a comparable level of potential in it.
So is Master of invention a good starting description for the artificer? In the context of no rules for conventional invention, not even in the class description of the "master of invention" and with artificers only getting a broader range of tools that they can use than the average adventurer, I say no.
Alternatively, I could hope for a description that described a class focused on crafting. A reader who was led to expect the abilities of a master of invention and then found those abilities lacking might agree.
No material components are required, no time requirement for the infusions is mentioned, no new effects are achieved and nothing is improved over things that have come before.
What we're talking about is invention without physical inputs and without new effects. It seems a bit like a magical hacker finding alternate ways to do old things. This certainly fits a definition of invention though perhaps not one that every reader would expect.
I can also invent alternate ways of casting the same spells as, say, a wizard - just at lower levels. How very masterful.