The difference is a wizard is required to use a boring old spell focus like a pleb. An artificer can grab anything from a tool kit or anything with an infusion and go to town. I'd read the tool kit descriptions in XGtE for inspiration.
Artificer screams Macgyver not 3M research and development.
Those poor plebeian wizards and their potentials (while artificers spells reach 5th level) to cast wish or to crush that town with a meteor swarm.
Aritificers are great! They have armour, weapons, infusion etc. abilities and constitution based saving throws, but let's not pretend they are master spellcasters. They're a bit of a jack of trades and with all of the parts adding to an extremely strong whole.
Yep and, if there's going to be a description of artificer abilities, this could provide a great base. "Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power" and, for instance, they can be presumed to be used in their literal crafting of magic to "imbue" "certain kinds of objects" "with certain magical infusions".
Artificer class features are just things an artificer can do with their powers, not ALL they can do with their powers. If you're playing an artificer and you don't have an experimental crafting project on the side consuming most of your gold and down time then are you really even playing an artificer?
You think artificers should be able to invent stuff? Invent something; come up with an idea and run it by your DM to see how they'd implement it. That's what you've got all the tool proficiencies for.
Artificer class features are just things an artificer can do with their powers, not ALL they can do with their powers. If you're playing an artificer and you don't have an experimental crafting project on the side consuming most of your gold and down time then are you really even playing an artificer?
You think artificers should be able to invent stuff? Invent something; come up with an idea and run it by your DM to see how they'd implement it. That's what you've got all the tool proficiencies for.
Which is the kind of thing I've been repeatedly saying. You've got to homebrew stuff to make the artificer live up to its description. (I didn't even get to commenting on "consuming most of your gold and downtime" but, yes, perhaps these may also be required to make the description fit).
They did what they could to fit in the 5e system. Could you imagine introducing a class like the 3.x artificer into the game? I still have a character binder (not sheet) for one and she was only lv 11. Between riding the exp currents, tracking the ebbs and flows of projects being finished by DW, and having a constant eye on the party's current excess to each buff type to make sure no holes where left the class it self was probably more complicated than the entirely of a standard 5e party.
They did what they did to make a character class.
The class starts with three tool proficiencies that they don't necessarily need when they get to "imbue" "certain kinds of objects" "with certain magical infusions". They cast low-level spells in flavourful ways but they get various buffs and add ons as well as tool expertise at 6th level.
Before that, they may be less masters of invention than, say, some good gene pool noble with curiosity and time on their hands. But things may balance out. The noble may not waste time going adventuring but may face fewer problems to solve. As the old phrase goes, necessity can be a mother of invention.
None this doesn't change the fact that players come to this class to read the description of an inventor but with the mechanics of an enhancer or crafter of certain items.
But like, what would a class feature centered around invention even look like? "Here's some subclasses based around a thing you choose to invent, it's exactly the same at the invention options for every other artificer of this subclass"?
I'm not sure there's a way to codify class mechanics around invention in the way you want, because invention (by its nature) is something original, unique to the inventor. The concept demands a little bit of homebrew, but I find that a feature, not a bug. The features provide flavor and function, while the fiction of the class encourages you to come up with side projects and mad inventions to really dive into the role of an eccentric inventor.
I think one of the challenges of defining the Artificer as a "Master of Invention" compared to other classes is, even if you and your DM happily embrace homebrew and inventing items, there's not really anything preventing anyone from any other class with the right tool proficiencies doing the same thing. The entire Rock Gnome sub-race has a form of tinkering available from day 1 and even starts with proficiency in Tinker's Tools. A Rock Gnome Barbarian could invent just as well as an Artificer, in many ways. Mechanically, the only advantage an Artificer really has is the fact that, at 10th level, they can produce magic items faster and at lower cost. It's still on the player and DM to decide if they want the artificer to be able to craft anything other than the officially sanctioned magic items created by WotC.
That said, I think that defining them as Master's of Invention gets the old brain-juices flowing for players. 5e has a very open-ended crafting system, and the class gives incentive to at least attempt to craft something regularly. I can hardly imagine someone playing artificer who doesn't at least attempt to build something regularly and likely has a potion brewing somewhere or a half-built weapon they tinker with during any downtime.
But like, what would a class feature centered around invention even look like? "Here's some subclasses based around a thing you choose to invent, it's exactly the same at the invention options for every other artificer of this subclass"?
I'm not sure there's a way to codify class mechanics around invention in the way you want, because invention (by its nature) is something original, unique to the inventor. The concept demands a little bit of homebrew, but I find that a feature, not a bug. The features provide flavor and function, while the fiction of the class encourages you to come up with side projects and mad inventions to really dive into the role of an eccentric inventor.
I've not said that codified class mechanics is something that I want, though this would certainly provide one route by which the gap between function and flavour could be bridged. I've commented:
... that players come to this class to read the description of an inventor but with the mechanics of an enhancer or crafter of certain items.
Sure, the artificer is a great functional class. I just don't think it performs according to the flavours that it is specifically advertised with.
When I first came to the artificer it was as a player looking for a base for an inventive crafter. In this case, I didn't get far because my character concept of a svirfneblin artificer did not fit with the then adventurer's league rules. I settled, instead, for a dwarven forge cleric who still managed some pretty creative and competitive exploits. I personally think that a team of an artificer and a forge cleric could work really effectively together.
Features provide function. They, along with associated texts and descriptions, provide flavour. In the current case, functions (even in their specified modes of working) don't fulfil what additionally supplied flavour suggests.
There is little in the artificer text to fulfil expectations of invention or even much by way of explanation or direction should certain readers find those specific expectations unfulfilled.
But like, what would a class feature centered around invention even look like? "Here's some subclasses based around a thing you choose to invent, it's exactly the same at the invention options for every other artificer of this subclass"?
I'm not sure there's a way to codify class mechanics around invention in the way you want, because invention (by its nature) is something original, unique to the inventor. The concept demands a little bit of homebrew, but I find that a feature, not a bug. The features provide flavor and function, while the fiction of the class encourages you to come up with side projects and mad inventions to really dive into the role of an eccentric inventor.
I've not said that codified class mechanics is something that I want, though this would certainly provide one route by which the gap between function and flavour could be bridged. I've commented:
... that players come to this class to read the description of an inventor but with the mechanics of an enhancer or crafter of certain items.
Sure, the artificer is a great functional class. I just don't think it performs according to the flavours that it is specifically advertised with.
When I first came to the artificer it was as a player looking for a base for an inventive crafter. In this case, I didn't get far because my character concept of a svirfneblin artificer did not fit with the then adventurer's league rules. I settled, instead, for a dwarven forge cleric who still managed some pretty creative and competitive exploits. I personally think that a team of an artificer and a forge cleric could work really effectively together.
Features provide function. They, along with associated texts and descriptions, provide flavour. In the current case, functions (even in their specified modes of working) don't fulfil what additionally supplied flavour suggests.
There is little in the artificer text to fulfil expectations of invention or even much by way of explanation or direction should certain readers find those specific expectations unfulfilled.
I think this is more of a matter of personal preference then. If you don't want them to impose class features to fix that you perceive to be a problem, but you also don't want the current features because they're not flavourful enough by your standards, then it seems like your argument is less based off of any observation of yours about how the class could be improved and more about how something that inspires others doesn't inspire you. All I can say is that different people respond to different things, but that myself and others I know who are fans of the class haven't had the experience with it you describe.
None this doesn't change the fact that players come to this class to read the description of an inventor but with the mechanics of an enhancer or crafter of certain items.
I think you're still looking at the class from the wrong direction; every class ultimately has to have functional mechanics that can be (somewhat) balanced, and that means some kind of limitations. But invention exists within as much of the class as your imagination allows.
Pretty much every class feature can be justified from the perspective of invention(s); infused items are a type of invention, as you've either invented the item itself (if you're not in the habit of switching infusions around) or you've invented the spell or process by which you infuse it. Spells are inventions if they're cast using anything unusual, like a customised clockwork wand or some other specially created focus, or if they're a unique twist on the spell (maybe your Fire Bolt is a glass bead containing a tiny sample of the breath of a dragon?). It doesn't matter if a feature is limited, or replicates something that already exists, because how it does those things is still ultimately up to you. It doesn't matter if your Enhanced Weapon is the same as any "regular" +1 or +2 weapon*, because those are created by different means. *Plus there is no such thing as a "regular" magic weapon, as even different +1 and +2 weapons may be created radically differently, e.g- by divine intervention, wizard enchantment, infernal bargains etc.
While a lot of Artificer features have trivial cost in time (e.g- action + touch) that doesn't mean they come from nowhere; how did your Artificer figure out how to do it? Did they use experiments or some kind of devices to help them? Did it require hours/days/weeks/months before they mastered it? Just because something can take only an action, doesn't mean you need to deliver it instantly. Some players may want to build an Artificer that is more spontaneous and of the moment in which case the one action cost lets them build what they want, but just because a feature supports that playstyle doesn't mean that it's the only way to play it. You as the player get to pick whether something is truly instantaneous, or justify how it works narratively.
To give a more concrete example; I'm about to run an Armorer in an upcoming campaign, and his inventiveness is very much focused around his armour (as you might expect). While mechanically he could touch any old suit of armour and turn it into identical Arcane Armor to what he has, thematically the armour he has is pretty much his life's work so far, so narratively he's never going to create new Arcane Armor, only improve what he has. If he were to be separated from his armour somehow, he would do everything in his power to get it back, not just transfer to the nearest suit of whatever he can find. The vast majority of his features and abilities are thematically built into his armour somehow; for example like all Armorers he knows Thunderwave, and his armour is the Guardian model with a shield, so for me that's him punching his Thunder Gauntlet into the back of the shield, which has resonating components designed to amplify the effect into a thunder wave. He also has Thorn Whip (good mechanically for bringing enemies closer to you while dealing some damage) which I'm picturing as built into an arm as some kind of grappling line launcher rather than a thorn vine or whatever. All of this is invention, and it's as inventive as I want it to be. No homebrew crafting system is required for him to be an inventor, because most of what he does involves some invention or another; inventions that no-one else has.
Now if I come up with something that I'd like to make that the rules don't quite allow, then I will absolutely ask my DM if they'll let me homebrew it somehow, but the character is not just some infusion photocopier until then; he's a master of invention. He's more than just game mechanics; as I've pointed out before the Spellcasting feature explicitly encourages you to think about how you cast your spells, the phrase "Masters of invention" at the start is a part of that, not some exception to it, because it's encouraging you to think about what and how your character invents.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those poor plebeian wizards and their potentials (while artificers spells reach 5th level) to cast wish or to crush that town with a meteor swarm.
Aritificers are great! They have armour, weapons, infusion etc. abilities and constitution based saving throws, but let's not pretend they are master spellcasters. They're a bit of a jack of trades and with all of the parts adding to an extremely strong whole.
Yep and, if there's going to be a description of artificer abilities, this could provide a great base. "Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power" and, for instance, they can be presumed to be used in their literal crafting of magic to "imbue" "certain kinds of objects" "with certain magical infusions".
Artificer class features are just things an artificer can do with their powers, not ALL they can do with their powers. If you're playing an artificer and you don't have an experimental crafting project on the side consuming most of your gold and down time then are you really even playing an artificer?
You think artificers should be able to invent stuff? Invent something; come up with an idea and run it by your DM to see how they'd implement it. That's what you've got all the tool proficiencies for.
Which is the kind of thing I've been repeatedly saying. You've got to homebrew stuff to make the artificer live up to its description. (I didn't even get to commenting on "consuming most of your gold and downtime" but, yes, perhaps these may also be required to make the description fit).
You, like Stoutstein, should work for WotC.
They did what they did to make a character class.
The class starts with three tool proficiencies that they don't necessarily need when they get to "imbue" "certain kinds of objects" "with certain magical infusions". They cast low-level spells in flavourful ways but they get various buffs and add ons as well as tool expertise at 6th level.
Before that, they may be less masters of invention than, say, some good gene pool noble with curiosity and time on their hands. But things may balance out. The noble may not waste time going adventuring but may face fewer problems to solve. As the old phrase goes, necessity can be a mother of invention.
None this doesn't change the fact that players come to this class to read the description of an inventor but with the mechanics of an enhancer or crafter of certain items.
But like, what would a class feature centered around invention even look like? "Here's some subclasses based around a thing you choose to invent, it's exactly the same at the invention options for every other artificer of this subclass"?
I'm not sure there's a way to codify class mechanics around invention in the way you want, because invention (by its nature) is something original, unique to the inventor. The concept demands a little bit of homebrew, but I find that a feature, not a bug. The features provide flavor and function, while the fiction of the class encourages you to come up with side projects and mad inventions to really dive into the role of an eccentric inventor.
I think one of the challenges of defining the Artificer as a "Master of Invention" compared to other classes is, even if you and your DM happily embrace homebrew and inventing items, there's not really anything preventing anyone from any other class with the right tool proficiencies doing the same thing. The entire Rock Gnome sub-race has a form of tinkering available from day 1 and even starts with proficiency in Tinker's Tools. A Rock Gnome Barbarian could invent just as well as an Artificer, in many ways. Mechanically, the only advantage an Artificer really has is the fact that, at 10th level, they can produce magic items faster and at lower cost. It's still on the player and DM to decide if they want the artificer to be able to craft anything other than the officially sanctioned magic items created by WotC.
That said, I think that defining them as Master's of Invention gets the old brain-juices flowing for players. 5e has a very open-ended crafting system, and the class gives incentive to at least attempt to craft something regularly. I can hardly imagine someone playing artificer who doesn't at least attempt to build something regularly and likely has a potion brewing somewhere or a half-built weapon they tinker with during any downtime.
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
I've not said that codified class mechanics is something that I want, though this would certainly provide one route by which the gap between function and flavour could be bridged. I've commented:
Sure, the artificer is a great functional class. I just don't think it performs according to the flavours that it is specifically advertised with.
When I first came to the artificer it was as a player looking for a base for an inventive crafter. In this case, I didn't get far because my character concept of a svirfneblin artificer did not fit with the then adventurer's league rules. I settled, instead, for a dwarven forge cleric who still managed some pretty creative and competitive exploits. I personally think that a team of an artificer and a forge cleric could work really effectively together.
Features provide function. They, along with associated texts and descriptions, provide flavour. In the current case, functions (even in their specified modes of working) don't fulfil what additionally supplied flavour suggests.
There is little in the artificer text to fulfil expectations of invention or even much by way of explanation or direction should certain readers find those specific expectations unfulfilled.
I think this is more of a matter of personal preference then. If you don't want them to impose class features to fix that you perceive to be a problem, but you also don't want the current features because they're not flavourful enough by your standards, then it seems like your argument is less based off of any observation of yours about how the class could be improved and more about how something that inspires others doesn't inspire you. All I can say is that different people respond to different things, but that myself and others I know who are fans of the class haven't had the experience with it you describe.
I think you're still looking at the class from the wrong direction; every class ultimately has to have functional mechanics that can be (somewhat) balanced, and that means some kind of limitations. But invention exists within as much of the class as your imagination allows.
Pretty much every class feature can be justified from the perspective of invention(s); infused items are a type of invention, as you've either invented the item itself (if you're not in the habit of switching infusions around) or you've invented the spell or process by which you infuse it. Spells are inventions if they're cast using anything unusual, like a customised clockwork wand or some other specially created focus, or if they're a unique twist on the spell (maybe your Fire Bolt is a glass bead containing a tiny sample of the breath of a dragon?). It doesn't matter if a feature is limited, or replicates something that already exists, because how it does those things is still ultimately up to you. It doesn't matter if your Enhanced Weapon is the same as any "regular" +1 or +2 weapon*, because those are created by different means. *Plus there is no such thing as a "regular" magic weapon, as even different +1 and +2 weapons may be created radically differently, e.g- by divine intervention, wizard enchantment, infernal bargains etc.
While a lot of Artificer features have trivial cost in time (e.g- action + touch) that doesn't mean they come from nowhere; how did your Artificer figure out how to do it? Did they use experiments or some kind of devices to help them? Did it require hours/days/weeks/months before they mastered it? Just because something can take only an action, doesn't mean you need to deliver it instantly. Some players may want to build an Artificer that is more spontaneous and of the moment in which case the one action cost lets them build what they want, but just because a feature supports that playstyle doesn't mean that it's the only way to play it. You as the player get to pick whether something is truly instantaneous, or justify how it works narratively.
To give a more concrete example; I'm about to run an Armorer in an upcoming campaign, and his inventiveness is very much focused around his armour (as you might expect). While mechanically he could touch any old suit of armour and turn it into identical Arcane Armor to what he has, thematically the armour he has is pretty much his life's work so far, so narratively he's never going to create new Arcane Armor, only improve what he has. If he were to be separated from his armour somehow, he would do everything in his power to get it back, not just transfer to the nearest suit of whatever he can find. The vast majority of his features and abilities are thematically built into his armour somehow; for example like all Armorers he knows Thunderwave, and his armour is the Guardian model with a shield, so for me that's him punching his Thunder Gauntlet into the back of the shield, which has resonating components designed to amplify the effect into a thunder wave. He also has Thorn Whip (good mechanically for bringing enemies closer to you while dealing some damage) which I'm picturing as built into an arm as some kind of grappling line launcher rather than a thorn vine or whatever. All of this is invention, and it's as inventive as I want it to be. No homebrew crafting system is required for him to be an inventor, because most of what he does involves some invention or another; inventions that no-one else has.
Now if I come up with something that I'd like to make that the rules don't quite allow, then I will absolutely ask my DM if they'll let me homebrew it somehow, but the character is not just some infusion photocopier until then; he's a master of invention. He's more than just game mechanics; as I've pointed out before the Spellcasting feature explicitly encourages you to think about how you cast your spells, the phrase "Masters of invention" at the start is a part of that, not some exception to it, because it's encouraging you to think about what and how your character invents.
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.