I'd recommend adding Steel Wind Strike to the mix! It is an AWESOME gish spell that only Rangers and Wizards get, but it would be balanced with the half-caster of the Artificer.
Oh it's one of my favourite spells; I'm thinking of grabbing it as a Magical Secret on a Bard as an "Eep, I've got to fight my way out of here!" button. 😄
Unfortunately it's not in the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion so I can't put it on the prepared spell list for public homebrew on D&D Beyond. It's a solid contender for adding to the expanded list though, along with destructive wave.
Actually, steel wind strike could make more sense than holy weapon (as there's already a lot of solo stacking potential in the arcane weapon), though the strike does mean not really using the weapon in exchange for a sweet group finisher.
I could see Catapult being on there too, using it to launch your weapon at range and then summon it back as a bonus action.
I've tried to aim for non-Artificer spells as much as possible, though at some levels there aren't really any good options (hence a few Artificer spells later on). You're right that catapult has some fun synergy with the recall though!
Or maybe Divine Favor to go along with the concentration spells on your weapon (this is a nice, persistent, level 1 boost).
That's an interesting thought actually; I was debating whether to stick with hunter's mark at 1st-level or not. It's an odd one flavour-wise, but then so is holy weapon which I put on the expanded list but may replace.
Slow would be another good one to add as this benefits a melee based character.
Slow might be a better fit than blink actually; gives you two basic speed/time manipulating options for different types of offensive use. Plus blink isn't necessarily the best defensive spell (can't control when you come back unless you end it).
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 came up with this homebrew not long after the Armorer sub-class was released, and have been tweaking it off an on. The basic idea is that where Armorers are all about their Arcane Armor, a Weapon Smith is all about their Arcane Weapon.
In the hands of an artificer a weapon is just another tool – and every tool can be improved. With clever use of surface level enhancements, magical runes and other methods, even an already mastercrafted weapon can be significantly improved without the need to reforge it.
Those who train as weaponsmiths often learn to use a wide variety of weapons before deciding which one they wish to focus upon. While they typically do not set out to become warriors, a Weaponsmith's training and inventiveness can make them a formidable opponent all the same.
Cool idea, I like the concept.
Tools of the Trade
3rd-level Weapon Smith feature
You gain proficiency with martial weapons.
Makes sense. :)
Weapon Smith Spells
3rd-level Weapon Smith feature
You always have certain spells prepared after you reach particular levels in this class, as shown in the Weaponsmith Spells table. These spells count as artificer spells for you, but they don’t count against the number of artificer spells you can prepare.
Here we get the first major problems. Most of weapon smith spells really don't have anything to do with being a master weapon smith. What about the Weapon Smith would justify them being a hunter of people to the level that Hunter's Mark makes sense? What makes a WS nimble, decieveing or otherwordly enough to justify Blur, Misty Step or Blink, or at least more so than other Artificers? What makes them Holy enough to justify Holy Weapon? Is there a reason other than the fact that all of these are really good and powerful spells, especially in combination?
Arcane Weapon
3rd-level Weapon Smith feature
Your martial pursuits have led to you making your weapon a conduit for your magic. With tinker's tools to hand, you can spend one hour turning one melee weapon in your possession into your Arcane Weapon.
You gain the following benefits while wielding this weapon:
You may add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Dexterity or Strength, to your attack and damage rolls for this weapon.
You can use the arcane weapon as a spellcasting focus for your artificer spells.
You can cast spells on the arcane weapon that can only normally be applied to non-magical weapons.
So long as you can see it, you can use your bonus action to cause your arcane weapon to return to one of your free hands. If another creature is holding the weapon, it must succeed on a Strength save against your spell save DC to prevent this.
The arcane weapon has a number of charges equal to your proficiency bonus, regained following a short rest.
Whenever you fail a save to maintain concentration for a spell that was cast upon your arcane weapon (such as magic weapon), you may spend one of the arcane weapon's charges to roll the save again. You must use the second result.
The weapon continues to be an Arcane Weapon until you choose another weapon, or die.
Some interesting ideas. Intelligence instead of Dex or Strength makes sense, that's kind of the Artificer's deal. A thing you probably need to clarify is how Arcane Weapon interacts with the number of infusions allowed when combined with multiple spells that enchance it. The returning weapon thing seems kind of weird but since it's only line of sight I don't think it will be OP.
Also, and I don't think this will be a big deal since the Arcane Weapon will most likely be infused or enchanted most of the time but I'll mention it anyway, I think the Arcane Weapon should counts as magical when it comes to overcoming resistances and immunities to damages.
Fighting Style
3rd-level Weapon Smith feature
You adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again. Whenever you gain a level in this class that grants an Ability Score Increase, you may choose to change your Fighting Style to another.
Blind Fighting
You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Within that range, you can effectively see anything that isn’t behind total cover, even if blinded or in darkness. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within range, unless the creature successfully hides.
Not sure how this one makes any sense. Being a spectatular weapon smith doesn't make you see in the dark. Still, the fighting style inself won't make this subclass OP so not a huge problem.
Duelling
You gain a +2 damage bonus to a weapon held in one hand if you are holding no other weapons.
Great Weapon Fighting
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.
Interception
When a creature you can see hits a target, other than you, within 5 feet of you with an attack, you can use your reaction to reduce the damage the target takes by 1d10 + your proficiency bonus (to a minimum of 0 damage). You must be wielding a simple or martial weapon to use this reaction.
Thrown Weapon Fighting
You can draw a weapon that has the thrown property as part of the attack you make with the weapon. In addition, when you hit with a ranged attack using a thrown weapon, you gain a +2 bonus to the damage roll.
Enhanced Arcane Weapon
5th-level Weapon Smith feature
You may choose one weapon enhancement for your arcane weapon from the choices below. Enhancements are transferred when a new arcane weapon is chosen, and you change one weapon enhancement when you gain a level in this class.
Just change the last sentence to "you may change one weapon enhancement when you gain a level in this class". :)
Extra Attack
5th-level Weapon Smith feature
You can attack twice, rather than once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
Superior Arcane Weapon
9th-level Weapon Smith feature
Through experience and hard work you have crafted a weapon that even master artificers would be impressed by. You may choose one additional weapon enhancement for your arcane weapon.
Supreme Arcane Weapon
15th-level Weapon Smith feature
Your improvements to your arcane weapon have engineered it into a true masterpiece of your craft. You may choose one additional weapon enhancement for your arcane weapon.
Weapon Enhnacements
You may choose enhancements for your arcane weapon from the options below:
Arcane Channelling
Prerequisite: 15th level
While holding your arcane weapon you can maintain concentration upon one additional spell, so long as one of the two spells is cast upon the weapon itself (as for elemental weapon). If you are required to take a saving throw to maintain concentration, you must take a separate saving throw for each spell you are currently concentrating upon.
Holy Weapon + Haste will make this incredibly strong, just so you are aware of this. :D Even more so when combined with Keen Edge or Magically Bonded.
Automatic Parry
When you are hit by a melee weapon attack or a ranged projectile while holding your arcane weapon, you may spend one of your arcane weapon's charges to parry it as a reaction, reducing the damage by 1d10 + your Intelligence + your Artificer level.
Extra Infusion
Prerequisite: 9th level
You can place one additional artificer infusion upon your arcane weapon. This additional infusion ignores the normal restriction that prevents it from being placed upon an item that is already magical.
Keen Edge
Prerequisite: 9th level
When you make a weapon attack using your arcane weapon, you will score a critical hit on a 19 or 20.
Magically Bonded
Prerequisite: 15th level
As a bonus action during your turn you can dismiss your arcane weapon into a pocket dimension, or summon it back into your hand (no line of sight required). During any turn in which you summoned your arcane weapon into your hand, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage.
I'd limit the force damage to the first hit on the turn you summon the weapon. Spending your bonus action to do an extra 6D6 force damage (especially when combined with things like Holy Weapons) is SUPER good.
Sentient
Prerequisite: 9th level
Your arcane weapon gains a form of magical sentience, gaining a personality discussed between yourself and your DM. While touching your arcane weapon you are granted the following benefits:
The weapon is able to perceive the world through your senses, and can communicate telepathically with you (and only you). To reply you must speak aloud unless you also possess a form of telepathy.
You gain proficiency in one skill or tool appropriate to the weapon's personality (discuss with your DM).
Whenever you fail any ability check, or an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw, you may spend one your arcane weapon's charges to add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of 1) to the result, potentially causing it to succeed.
If you choose a new arcane weapon, the sentience is transferred intact to the new weapon. Whenever you gain a new level in this class however, you may discuss changes to the personality (and the proficiency it grants) with your DM.
This is incredibly powerful. It basically grants you free super-Guidance and more or less guarentees success on most ability checks. Especially when combined with Flash of Genius.
Spell Storing Weapon
Prerequisite: 15th level
If you choose your arcane weapon to be your Spell-Storing Item then it gains the following additional benefits:
The spell remains within the item even after you run out of uses.
You may also cast the spell by spending a number of arcane weapon charges equal to twice the level you wish to cast at.
When you cast the stored spell as an action, you may also attack with the arcane weapon as a bonus action.
Just to clarify. I assume by the first bullet you mean that you can still cast the spell using weapon charges even if it runs out of "normal" uses? Also, the third bullet should probably be limited to attacking once using a bonus action.
Vampiric Weapon
Prerequisite: 15th level
When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier.
All in all, this needs some reworking and some playtesting to make it balanced. It will basically make all the Paladins cry but it's a cool concept and it can be made to be really good with some touch ups.
What about the Weapon Smith would justify them being a hunter of people to the level that Hunter's Mark makes sense?
The way I tend to think of it is that Artificer spells aren't spells as such, they're a form of invention related to their craft; hunter's mark makes sense to me mechanically and thematically as if you're weapon focused then you're more likely to be an assassin/bodyguard/hunter etc.?
What makes a WS nimble, decieveing or otherwordly enough to justify Blur, Misty Step or Blink, or at least more so than other Artificers?
Again I would justify it on the basis of their being melee focused; this makes them more likely to be in harm's way and to need the means to protect themselves or escape. Blur to me fits some kind of defensive field, and misty step is your classic panic button or offensive option. I should note that blink is currently removed from my working copy of the sub-class in favour of slow, if you look at some of the last few posts I've been discussing spell selection.
What makes them Holy enough to justify Holy Weapon? Is there a reason other than the fact that all of these are really good and powerful spells, especially in combination?
This is one of those that I've been considering dropping as it's definitely too strong and weird thematically; my intention is to instead add steel wind strike to the spell list, as while it's also strong, it trades all of your normal weapon attacks (and bonuses) since it's a series of spell attacks (so not actually using the arcane weapon mechanically, though thematically you would be).
A thing you probably need to clarify is how Arcane Weapon interacts with the number of infusions allowed when combined with multiple spells that enchance it.
I'm not sure if it's a problem? Spells can only normally be applied after a weapon is infused, and there's a bullet point to allow this?
Also, and I don't think this will be a big deal since the Arcane Weapon will most likely be infused or enchanted most of the time but I'll mention it anyway, I think the Arcane Weapon should counts as magical when it comes to overcoming resistances and immunities to damages.
Good catch. I'll probably make this a feature of Enhanced Arcane Weapon since it comes in at 5th level (around when other classes/sub-classes get magical attacks that do so).
Not sure how this one makes any sense. Being a spectatular weapon smith doesn't make you see in the dark. Still, the fighting style inself won't make this subclass OP so not a huge problem.
How does a Fighter? For anyone focuses on melee it's worthwhile to train without the use of sight, though for an Artificer it could also be some kind of invention?
Enhanced Arcane Weapon
5th-level Weapon Smith feature
You may choose one weapon enhancement for your arcane weapon from the choices below. Enhancements are transferred when a new arcane weapon is chosen, and you change one weapon enhancement when you gain a level in this class.
Just change the last sentence to "you may change one weapon enhancement when you gain a level in this class". :)
Good catch, I've updated that in the first post!
Magically Bonded
Prerequisite: 15th level
As a bonus action during your turn you can dismiss your arcane weapon into a pocket dimension, or summon it back into your hand (no line of sight required). During any turn in which you summoned your arcane weapon into your hand, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage.
I'd limit the force damage to the first hit on the turn you summon the weapon.
That seems fair, do you think this wording is clear enough?
As a bonus action during your turn you can dismiss your arcane weapon into a pocket dimension, or summon it back into your hand (no line of sight required). If you summon your arcane weapon into your hand on the first turn of a combat, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage the first time it hits before the end of the turn.
Sentient
Prerequisite: 9th level
Your arcane weapon gains a form of magical sentience, gaining a personality discussed between yourself and your DM. While touching your arcane weapon you are granted the following benefits:
The weapon is able to perceive the world through your senses, and can communicate telepathically with you (and only you). To reply you must speak aloud unless you also possess a form of telepathy.
You gain proficiency in one skill or tool appropriate to the weapon's personality (discuss with your DM).
Whenever you fail any ability check, or an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw, you may spend one your arcane weapon's charges to add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of 1) to the result, potentially causing it to succeed.
If you choose a new arcane weapon, the sentience is transferred intact to the new weapon. Whenever you gain a new level in this class however, you may discuss changes to the personality (and the proficiency it grants) with your DM.
This is incredibly powerful. It basically grants you free super-Guidance and more or less guarentees success on most ability checks. Especially when combined with Flash of Genius
Hmm, I dunno about guarantees but you have a point, I actually forgot all about Flash of Genius while reworking that enhancement (it used to be a lot weaker). In that case I might just limit it to the mental saving throws only; hopefully that's still enough of an incentive to tempt people away from the more combat focused enhancements?
Spell Storing Weapon
Prerequisite: 15th level
If you choose your arcane weapon to be your Spell-Storing Item then it gains the following additional benefits:
The spell remains within the item even after you run out of uses.
You may also cast the spell by spending a number of arcane weapon charges equal to twice the level you wish to cast at.
When you cast the stored spell as an action, you may also attack with the arcane weapon as a bonus action.
Just to clarify. I assume by the first bullet you mean that you can still cast the spell using weapon charges even if it runs out of "normal" uses? Also, the third bullet should probably be limited to attacking once using a bonus action.
It's actually both, since arcane weapon charges come back on a short rest so even if you burn through both sets of uses, you've got the possibility of gaining more later, which is why it's more expensive to use those, at least that's the idea.
You're right about the bonus action attack though, it should specify a single attack.
Vampiric Weapon
Prerequisite: 15th level
When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier.
All in all, this needs some reworking and some playtesting to make it balanced. It will basically make all the Paladins cry but it's a cool concept and it can be made to be really good with some touch ups.
I was considering whether to limit it to only when you're below half health, as some recent healing features (especially on races) have been? It is limited to 15th level and later though.
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.
What about the Weapon Smith would justify them being a hunter of people to the level that Hunter's Mark makes sense?
The way I tend to think of it is that Artificer spells aren't spells as such, they're a form of invention related to their craft; hunter's mark makes sense to me mechanically and thematically as if you're weapon focused then you're more likely to be an assassin/bodyguard/hunter etc.?
With that logic, Fighters, Assassins and Barbarians should also have Hunter's Mark. Any class can work as any of those professions. Invention or spell, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really make sense for an Artificer, a class whose primary schtick is "making stuffs and then using those stuffs for adventuring" to have Hunter's Mark. It just seems like a way to tac on damage spells.
Again I would justify it on the basis of their being melee focused; this makes them more likely to be in harm's way and to need the means to protect themselves or escape. Blur to me fits some kind of defensive field, and misty step is your classic panic button or offensive option. I should note that blink is currently removed from my working copy of the sub-class in favour of slow, if you look at some of the last few posts I've been discussing spell selection.
Slow fits a lot better. And yes, Blur is a good way to protect yourself but that in combination with everything else and the fact that, as presented, the Weapon Smith is someone whose whole thing is to create an OFFENSIVE creation (compared to say the Armorer) it just comes of as trying to get rid of all the downsides of an already incredibly powerful base class which also makes it unbalanced.
This is one of those that I've been considering dropping as it's definitely too strong and weird thematically; my intention is to instead add steel wind strike to the spell list, as while it's also strong, it trades all of your normal weapon attacks (and bonuses) since it's a series of spell attacks (so not actually using the arcane weapon mechanically, though thematically you would be).
Steel Wind Strike is a much better option in my opinion. It's a very powerful spell but its use is limited to the number of spell slots of that level. It still fits the theme very well though.
I'm not sure if it's a problem? Spells can only normally be applied after a weapon is infused, and there's a bullet point to allow this?
There was discussions on how you could combine X number of infusions with X number of spells due to the Weapon Enhancements. It's not really a problem but it's a good thing if it is clear how those things work when combined, just to avoid confusion.
How does a Fighter? For anyone focuses on melee it's worthwhile to train without the use of sight, though for an Artificer it could also be some kind of invention?
The Artificer "doesn't focus on melee, they focus on artificing. The Fighter is supposed to be the best trained warrior of the DND world. They spend as much time, if not more, practicing fighting as the Wizard does learning spells or the Bard practicing Bard stuff. The Artificer, meanwhile, is supposed to primarily be a manufacturer of gadgets and then someone who uses those gadgets to do adventuring. While it makes sense for a an Artificer who specializes in making a superior weapon to be good at using that particular weapon 8reflecting in the weapon-specific fighting styles), it makes no sense what so ever for them to be able to sense things in the dark just because they forge a cool sword.
Magically Bonded
Prerequisite: 15th level
As a bonus action during your turn you can dismiss your arcane weapon into a pocket dimension, or summon it back into your hand (no line of sight required). During any turn in which you summoned your arcane weapon into your hand, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage.
I'd limit the force damage to the first hit on the turn you summon the weapon.
That seems fair, do you think this wording is clear enough?
As a bonus action during your turn you can dismiss your arcane weapon into a pocket dimension, or summon it back into your hand (no line of sight required). If you summon your arcane weapon into your hand on the first turn of a combat, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage the first time it hits before the end of the turn.
That works. I don't think you need to limit it to the first turn of the combat though (although that is a thing that needs playtesting). How about? "During any turn in which you summoned your arcane weapon into your hand, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage on the first hit you make that turn."
Sentient
Prerequisite: 9th level
Your arcane weapon gains a form of magical sentience, gaining a personality discussed between yourself and your DM. While touching your arcane weapon you are granted the following benefits:
The weapon is able to perceive the world through your senses, and can communicate telepathically with you (and only you). To reply you must speak aloud unless you also possess a form of telepathy.
You gain proficiency in one skill or tool appropriate to the weapon's personality (discuss with your DM).
Whenever you fail any ability check, or an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma saving throw, you may spend one your arcane weapon's charges to add your Intelligence modifier (minimum of 1) to the result, potentially causing it to succeed.
If you choose a new arcane weapon, the sentience is transferred intact to the new weapon. Whenever you gain a new level in this class however, you may discuss changes to the personality (and the proficiency it grants) with your DM.
This is incredibly powerful. It basically grants you free super-Guidance and more or less guarentees success on most ability checks. Especially when combined with Flash of Genius
Hmm, I dunno about guarantees but you have a point, I actually forgot all about Flash of Genius while reworking that enhancement (it used to be a lot weaker). In that case I might just limit it to the mental saving throws only; hopefully that's still enough of an incentive to tempt people away from the more combat focused enhancements?
It is very likely that you have an Int mod of +5 at level 8 as an Artificer. Being able to add +5 to ANY ability check or mental Saving throw four times per short rest (+10 if you combine with FoG) without having to think ahead (Guidance needs you to cast a spell and do it BEFORE the ability check) is incredibly powerful. Remember that since it's an Ability check you will already add an ability modifier and possibly your proficiency bonus. Even with a modest modifier of +2 that means you could easily get +16 to a failed ability check. That is incredibly powerful.
Limiting it to mental saving throws still allows for a +10 with FoG (before normal saving throw bonuses) but is a bit more limited and acts more like the Paladin's Aura of Protection. Again, Paladins will hate this subclass but this would make it a lot more balanced. :)
Vampiric Weapon
Prerequisite: 15th level
When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier.
All in all, this needs some reworking and some playtesting to make it balanced. It will basically make all the Paladins cry but it's a cool concept and it can be made to be really good with some touch ups.
I was considering whether to limit it to only when you're below half health, as some recent healing features (especially on races) have been? It is limited to 15th level and later though.
I wasn't specifically thinking of the Vampiric Weapon but rather the whole subclass. It just happened to show up after the VW. :) The weapon itself actually work quite well.
Thanks for the feedback!
You're welcome. As a general thought though. You've connected a bunch of features to the proficiency bonus. Since multiclassing is a thing and proficiency scales with character level and not class level you probably want to put some thought into what happens if this subclass multiclasses with other classes that uses PB instead of, say Charisma bonus to decide features. It could make certain combinations even more OP. This doesn't mean that the subclass is broken but it might be a problem that needs to be dealt with.
With that logic, Fighters, Assassins and Barbarians should also have Hunter's Mark. Any class can work as any of those professions. Invention or spell, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really make sense for an Artificer, a class whose primary schtick is "making stuffs and then using those stuffs for adventuring" to have Hunter's Mark. It just seems like a way to tac on damage spells.
I'm not sure how that follows; Assassins, Barbarians and Fighters are not spellcasters, and they all have their own ways of increasing damage and/or defence so they don't need it. One of my comparison points was Warlock, who can take hex with Pact of the Blade etc. for boosted damage (though they may swap it out later, depends on the build).
Feel free to suggest alternatives, but remember that granted spells in public homebrew are limited to the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion which sadly limits the option for something I'd like to release. Otherwise I'd have considered things like compelled duel, but that's PHB only so it's out.
This restriction doesn't apply to spells added to an expanded spell list which is how I was able to add the smite spells etc. as options at least (thanks again to naruhoodie for letting me know about that!).
A lot of the other alternatives I've considered are things already on the Artificer spell list; while it's not the end of the world to get one of these for free, it's not as beneficial (all the other sub-classes add new spells only unless I've missed some). For example ArntItheBest mentioned catapult which is a fun combo with the bonus action weapon recall, but it's also something an Artificer can just take.
Blur is a good way to protect yourself but that in combination with everything else and the fact that, as presented, the Weapon Smith is someone whose whole thing is to create an OFFENSIVE creation (compared to say the Armorer) it just comes of as trying to get rid of all the downsides of an already incredibly powerful base class which also makes it unbalanced.
Now I'm confused; you don't want me adding hunter's mark because it's a damage boost, and you don't want me adding blur because it's defensive. 😝
It's not about getting rid of downsides though, as blur has a number of weaknesses; it takes your action, concentration and only lasts a minute, so it's burning up limited spell slots to keep using it and it does nothing vs. saves or anything with blindsight or truesight. Plus if you look at a Hexblade Warlock, they have access to both blur and hex if they want them, though it's tough to compare (as they also have armor of agathys and hellish rebuke etc., shadow of moil at 7th-level and so-on, so Hexblade and Undead patron Warlocks are still the nastier swordy spellcasters overall).
How does a Fighter? For anyone focuses on melee it's worthwhile to train without the use of sight, though for an Artificer it could also be some kind of invention?
The Artificer "doesn't focus on melee, they focus on artificing. The Fighter is supposed to be the best trained warrior of the DND world. They spend as much time, if not more, practicing fighting as the Wizard does learning spells or the Bard practicing Bard stuff.
It's just one of several fighting style options; Fighters still have more choices, on a framework that gets more attacks, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. What I'm not clear on is what your problem is with Blind Fighting specifically? It makes sense as an option for a melee oriented combatant, except that unlike a Ranger (who can take fog cloud) a Weapon Smith will require allies or existing darkness etc. to really capitalise on it properly.
It is very likely that you have an Int mod of +5 at level 8 as an Artificer. Being able to add +5 to ANY ability check or mental Saving throw four times per short rest (+10 if you combine with FoG) without having to think ahead (Guidance needs you to cast a spell and do it BEFORE the ability check) is incredibly powerful. Remember that since it's an Ability check you will already add an ability modifier and possibly your proficiency bonus. Even with a modest modifier of +2 that means you could easily get +16 to a failed ability check. That is incredibly powerful.
True, the other possibility I thought of was of just having it be Flash of Genius, i.e- with a Sentient Arcane Weapon you can use that ability retroactively (rather than preemptively) on yourself? In that case I'd probably not have it use a weapon charge (unless it should still use both?) since you'd be limited by the charges for FoG itself.
You've connected a bunch of features to the proficiency bonus. Since multiclassing is a thing and proficiency scales with character level and not class level you probably want to put some thought into what happens if this subclass multiclasses with other classes that uses PB instead of, say Charisma bonus to decide features. It could make certain combinations even more OP. This doesn't mean that the subclass is broken but it might be a problem that needs to be dealt with.
The only feature tied to proficiency bonus is the number of charges on the Arcane Weapon, but that's intended to help it scale into higher level play; however with only a 3 level dip to get Weapon Smith you'd only have the weapon concentration save re-roll ability. You need at least five for an Enhanced Arcane Weapon before you can gain any new abilities on it, and those will be limited to Automatic Parry, Rending Strike and Self-Guiding; while they're all good I'm not sure it'd be OP, as that's a quarter of your levels if you're in a campaign lasting until 20 (and how many campaigns actually make it that far)? The level limited enhancements are tied to Artificer level only (same as Warlock Eldritch Invocations).
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'm not sure how that follows; Assassins, Barbarians and Fighters are not spellcasters, and they all have their own ways of increasing damage and/or defence so they don't need it. One of my comparison points was Warlock, who can take hex with Pact of the Blade etc. for boosted damage (though they may swap it out later, depends on the build).
The Weapon Smith also doesn't need it, it's powerful enough already. As I said, adding Hunter's mark which doesn't make any sense is just problematic and shifts it towards being unbalanced.
Feel free to suggest alternatives, but remember that granted spells in public homebrew are limited to the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion which sadly limits the option for something I'd like to release. Otherwise I'd have considered things like compelled duel, but that's PHB only so it's out.
This restriction doesn't apply to spells added to an expanded spell list which is how I was able to add the smite spells etc. as options at least (thanks again to naruhoodie for letting me know about that!).
A lot of the other alternatives I've considered are things already on the Artificer spell list; while it's not the end of the world to get one of these for free, it's not as beneficial (all the other sub-classes add new spells only unless I've missed some). For example ArntItheBest mentioned catapult which is a fun combo with the bonus action weapon recall, but it's also something an Artificer can just take.
So why not just add one of the smite spells or Catapult? That makes more sense and is less powergaming.
Now I'm confused; you don't want me adding hunter's mark because it's a damage boost, and you don't want me adding blur because it's defensive. 😝
No, that is false. I think Hunter's Mark and Blur are both bad options because they make the subclass unbalanced. And, as mentioned, HM just doesn't make any sense.
It's not about getting rid of downsides though, as blur has a number of weaknesses; it takes your action, concentration and only lasts a minute, so it's burning up limited spell slots to keep using it and it does nothing vs. saves or anything with blindsight or truesight. Plus if you look at a Hexblade Warlock, they have access to both blur and hex if they want them, though it's tough to compare (as they also have armor of agathys and hellish rebuke etc., shadow of moil at 7th-level and so-on, so Hexblade and Undead patron Warlocks are still the nastier swordy spellcasters overall).
The Hexblade can't concentrate on two spells, get infusions and so on and so on until we've gone through the entire list of Artificer and Weapon Smith features. It's very weird comparing Warlocks to Artificer and using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have...
The Artificer "doesn't focus on melee, they focus on artificing. The Fighter is supposed to be the best trained warrior of the DND world. They spend as much time, if not more, practicing fighting as the Wizard does learning spells or the Bard practicing Bard stuff.
It's just one of several fighting style options; Fighters still have more choices, on a framework that gets more attacks, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. What I'm not clear on is what your problem is with Blind Fighting specifically? It makes sense as an option for a melee oriented combatant, except that unlike a Ranger (who can take fog cloud) a Weapon Smith will require allies or existing darkness etc. to really capitalise on it properly.
Not sure how many times I have to explain it but sure, I'll try again. The Fighter doesn't get guaranteed +2 weapons, magic armour and so on and so on. The Artificer isn't a "melee oriented combatant", they are builders and tinkerers who can also fight. Being a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't automatically mean that you should get a Blind Fighting (or any Fighting style for that matter) so giving them access to a Fighting style (just access to fighting styles is a huge thing in the first place) that doesn't make any sense shifts it towards being unbalanced and, as mentioned previously, it doesn't make any sense. The question you should ask isn't "why shouldn't this subclass have X?" but rather "What makes this subclass need X to be able to fit the theme and fulfil its role while at the same time not making it unbalanced and/or overpowered?" Yes, that question is more complicated and difficult than the first one but that is also why it is so important.
It is very likely that you have an Int mod of +5 at level 8 as an Artificer. Being able to add +5 to ANY ability check or mental Saving throw four times per short rest (+10 if you combine with FoG) without having to think ahead (Guidance needs you to cast a spell and do it BEFORE the ability check) is incredibly powerful. Remember that since it's an Ability check you will already add an ability modifier and possibly your proficiency bonus. Even with a modest modifier of +2 that means you could easily get +16 to a failed ability check. That is incredibly powerful.
True, the other possibility I thought of was of just having it be Flash of Genius, i.e- with a Sentient Arcane Weapon you can use that ability retroactively (rather than preemptively) on yourself? In that case I'd probably not have it use a weapon charge (unless it should still use both?) since you'd be limited by the charges for FoG itself.
Or you could just get rid of it. Kill your darlings, and all that.
The only feature tied to proficiency bonus is the number of charges on the Arcane Weapon, but that's intended to help it scale into higher level play; however with only a 3 level dip to get Weapon Smith you'd only have the weapon concentration save re-roll ability. You need at least five for an Enhanced Arcane Weapon before you can gain any new abilities on it, and those will be limited to Automatic Parry, Rending Strike and Self-Guiding; while they're all good I'm not sure it'd be OP, as that's a quarter of your levels if you're in a campaign lasting until 20 (and how many campaigns actually make it that far)? The level limited enhancements are tied to Artificer level only (same as Warlock Eldritch Invocations).
You also use PB for the Vampiric weapon. And since you tie charges to a bunch of features of the Weapon Smith, those are all affected by it. You will also need to think through what happens if you mainly take Artificer levels but dip into other classes. That is something you need to playtest to see if it turns out to be a problem but you can't just assume that it won't be.
So why not just add one of the smite spells or Catapult? That makes more sense and is less powergaming.
Because the former isn't possible (D&D Beyond public homebrew only supports prepared spells from the Basic Rules and Elemental Evil Player's Companion) and the latter is already on the Artificer spell list as I said. I linked to the spell selection that's valid on DDB public homebrew if you'd like to look at what the available options are.
I was only able to add the smite spells because spells added to the expanded spell list (not granted spells, spells added to the list you can choose from yourself) aren't subject to the same restriction, but they can't be added to the sub-class' prepared spell list because they're not in the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion.
And I'd appreciate not being accused of power-gaming; hunter's mark is a good spell, but it's hardly OP, as the Weapon Smith isn't really well suited to two-weapon fighting for maximising the attacks, and it competes with haste unless you can get an ally to cast that on you so it won't work with that either, so it's not actually all that much extra damage.
Divine favor is the most direct alternative; shorter lived, slightly less bonus damage, no rider effect and no binding to a target, but its radiant rather than weapon damage. Radiant is a little strange, but then Artificers have the Radiant Weapon infusion so it's not necessarily strange for them. I'll think about it.
The Hexblade can't concentrate on two spells, get infusions and so on and so on until we've gone through the entire list of Artificer and Weapon Smith features. It's very weird comparing Warlocks to Artificer and using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have...
The Weapon Smith can only concentrate on two spells (one of which must be applied to the weapon) by choosing a specific weapon enhancement at 15th-level, by which which time Warlocks have had access to far superior defensive spells than blur (shadow of moil does basically the same thing but better from 9th level), and Warlocks don't actually have significantly fewer slots if you use the intended number of short rests (two or three per long rest), especially if you also account for at will spells (and spell like effects) from Eldritch Invocations, and the fact that their slots are always maximum level (with two short rests they've got six 5th levels spells per day).
But the point is, they have access to the same things you're calling overpowered, on top of their own unique bonuses, so it's a perfectly fine comparison to make as I have to compare to something for balance. If you think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it.
I'm more likely to consider swapping out blur purely because it's somewhat redundant with shield already there as a defensive option, but like I say there aren't loads of good alternatives; what blur does offer is a way to preemptively (if you can spare the action to activate it) give yourself a free Dodge to save on spell slots for defence (compared to burning shield when ambushed etc.). Stacking them is possible, but it'll burn your slots a lot faster.
Alternatively compare to a Battle Smith who has their Steel Defender for a built in third attack plus defensive reaction (on top of your own, and effectively creating a hit-point buffer). The Weapon Smith is intended to compete on damage via weapon spells and defence via defensive spells…
The Artificer isn't a "melee oriented combatant"
…the Weapon Smith is melee oriented. They are built around a single melee weapon, they don't have the option of sending a Steel Defender forward while firing from a safe distance, and on its own the Arcane Weapon doesn't deal any extra damage except with one 15th-level enhancement option, so they need to burn spells either for extra damage, or defence, or a mixture of both.
While enhancements can mitigate or complement this, you're still burning spells to gain offence/defence that either equals or exceeds what the Battle Smith gets just by being a Battle Smith. At least that's the idea; it's supposed to be a more "in your face", risky type of weapon focused Artificer.
Again there aren't a lot of ideal choices at 2nd level; the only other one that stands out to me is maybe hold person as a way to make a single target extra vulnerable to your attacks (as well as possible combat avoidance)?
The question you should ask isn't "why shouldn't this subclass have X?" but rather "What makes this subclass need X to be able to fit the theme and fulfil its role while at the same time not making it unbalanced and/or overpowered?" Yes, that question is more complicated and difficult than the first one but that is also why it is so important.
I'm asking the question in reverse; what is it that makes you think that having Blind Fighting available as an option is uniquely unbalancing compared to the other fighting styles? Wizards of the Coast consider it equivalent to any other fighting style, so why should that of all fighting styles be excluded?
I happen to think it fits nicely, because there are plenty of ways to justify it on an Artificer sub-class, as it doesn't just have to be a matter of training since it could also be a result of invention (goggles, the arcane weapon itself etc.).
If Blind Fighting is too strong then the implication is that all fighting styles would be, yet you don't seem to be arguing that the Weapon Smith shouldn't get one? So why Blind Fighting specifically?
Or you could just get rid of [Sentient?]. Kill your darlings, and all that.
Or I could I find a way to make it balanced rather than axing one of my favourite enhancement options?
What's wrong with it becoming just a way to trigger Flash of Genius retroactively? That solves the built-in stacking and greatly reduces the maximum number of uses, while allowing it to still have some combat application (so Sentient might actually be taken).
You also use PB for the Vampiric weapon.
No I don't? Also it requires 15 levels in Artificer before you can add that enhancement.
And since you tie charges to a bunch of features of the Weapon Smith, those are all affected by it. You will also need to think through what happens if you mainly take Artificer levels but dip into other classes. That is something you need to playtest to see if it turns out to be a problem but you can't just assume that it won't be.
I'd love to have infinite time to playtest but post lockdowns it's a struggle just to keep my once a week online sessions regular, which means a lot of homebrew these days is all about running it through the mind first and getting a chance to playtest hopefully someday… maybe. 😝
I've tried to think about possible combos that would cause problems but I haven't come up with much; you've got your usual combos with a quick Hexblade dip and the like, but they're not really massive problems as Hexblade's Curse fights for the bonus action, it requires more Charisma, and it delays Artificer progression. On the one hand though any Warlock dip gives trivial access to hex so dropping hunter's mark makes no difference to that kind of multiclass, and it's not really any different to a Warlock dip on anything else (since Warlock arguably pairs better with Bard, Paladin or Sorcerer).
Again, a lot of the Weapon Smith's strongest options don't become available until 5th onwards, so in a typical campaigns that's half your levels gone already, so not a huge amount of room for multiclassing in the first place (not if you want ability score increases). I'm just not seeing any particularly broken combos, and proficiency scaling uses is in line with a lot of newer sub-class features.
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.
So why not just add one of the smite spells or Catapult? That makes more sense and is less powergaming.
Because the former isn't possible (D&D Beyond public homebrew only supports prepared spells from the Basic Rules and Elemental Evil Player's Companion) and the latter is already on the Artificer spell list as I said. I linked to the spell selection that's valid on DDB public homebrew if you'd like to look at what the available options are.
There are plenty of subclasses that get spells the main class already have. They just get those spells "free".
I was only able to add the smite spells because spells added to the expanded spell list (not granted spells, spells added to the list you can choose from yourself) aren't subject to the same restriction, but they can't be added to the sub-class' prepared spell list because they're not in the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion.
It is perfectly possible to write what spells the subclass have here in this thread. What is possible in the homebrew section of the DnD Beyond mechanics really has no impact on whether or not a subclass is balanced. Nor should it.
And I'd appreciate not being accused of power-gaming; hunter's mark is a good spell, but it's hardly OP, as the Weapon Smith isn't really well suited to two-weapon fighting for maximising the attacks, and it competes with haste unless you can get an ally to cast that on you so it won't work with that either, so it's not actually all that much extra damage. Divine favor is the most direct alternative; shorter lived, with no binding to a target, but its radiant rather than weapon damage.
I haven't accused you of anything. Please read what I'ver actually wrote. You'll find that it's the combination of things that can cause a problem. Tacking on a damage spell that doesn't make sense can be problematic. Haste doesn't come until level 9 so it's hardly relevant.
The Hexblade can't concentrate on two spells, get infusions and so on and so on until we've gone through the entire list of Artificer and Weapon Smith features. It's very weird comparing Warlocks to Artificer and using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have...
The Weapon Smith can only concentrate on two spells (one of which must be applied to the weapon) by choosing a specific weapon enhancement at 15th-level, by which which time Warlocks have had access to far superior defensive spells than blur (shadow of moil does basically the same thing but better from 9th level), and Warlocks don't actually have significantly fewer slots if you use the intended number of short rests (two or three per long rest), especially if you also account for at will spells (and spell like effects) from Eldritch Invocations, and the fact that their slots are always maximum level (with two short rests they've got six 5th levels spells per day).
Of course Warlocks have fewer spell slots, that's right there in the rules. You can't take short rests during combats. Again, it's about trying to make the subclass balanced.
But the point is, they have access to the same things you're calling overpowered, on top of their own unique bonuses, so it's a perfectly fine comparison to make as I have to compare to something for balance. If you think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it.
I did, but if you don't want to see it then I can't help you and there's no point in repeating myself. We've already discussed Holy Weapon, for example. The double FoG is another example. You need to look at the whole and not just the single components.
I'm more likely to consider swapping out blur purely because it's somewhat redundant with shield already there as a defensive option, but like I say there aren't loads of good alternatives; what blur does offer is a way to preemptively (if you can spare the action to activate it) give yourself a free Dodge to save on spell slots for defence (compared to burning shield when ambushed etc.). Stacking them is possible, but it'll burn your slots a lot faster.
Alternatively compare to a Battle Smith who has their Steel Defender for a built in third attack plus defensive reaction (on top of your own, and effectively creating a hit-point buffer). The Weapon Smith is intended to compete on damage via weapon spells and defence via defensive spells…
And it already competes very well, to the point where you might want to consider if it might be too powerful
The Artificer isn't a "melee oriented combatant"
…the Weapon Smith is melee oriented. They are built around a single melee weapon, they don't have the option of sending a Steel Defender forward while firing from a safe distance, and on its own the Arcane Weapon doesn't deal any extra damage except with one 15th-level enhancement option, so they need to burn spells either for extra damage, or defence, or a mixture of both.
The whole point of subclass features is to use them, right? So a Weapon Smith would de facto use the things that makes their weapon better.
While enhancements can mitigate or complement this, you're still burning spells to gain offence/defence that either equals or exceeds what the Battle Smith gets just by being a Battle Smith. At least that's the idea; it's supposed to be a more "in your face", risky type of weapon focused Artificer.
Why should it get stuff for free just because it's not a battle smith? Should the battle smith get stuff for free for not being a warlock? The point of a class system is that some classes get things that other classes don't. Or at different levels. Gloom Stalker 7 vs Rogue 15, comes to mind.
The question you should ask isn't "why shouldn't this subclass have X?" but rather "What makes this subclass need X to be able to fit the theme and fulfil its role while at the same time not making it unbalanced and/or overpowered?" Yes, that question is more complicated and difficult than the first one but that is also why it is so important.
I'm asking the question in reverse; what is it that makes you think that having Blind Fighting available as an option is uniquely unbalancing compared to the other fighting styles? Wizards of the Coast consider it equivalent to any other fighting style, so why should that of all fighting styles be excluded?
As I've already mentioned: "Not sure how this one makes any sense. Being a spectatular weapon smith doesn't make you see in the dark. Still, the fighting style inself won't make this subclass OP so not a huge problem." Again, please read what I write so you don't accuse other of accusing you when they actually haven't.
I happen to think it fits nicely, because there are plenty of ways to justify it on an Artificer sub-class, as it doesn't just have to be a matter of training since it could also be a result of invention (goggles, the arcane weapon itself etc.).
You still have presented any of those justiification though.
If Blind Fighting is too strong then the implication is that all fighting styles would be, yet you don't seem to be arguing that the Weapon Smith shouldn't get one? So why Blind Fighting specifically?
Please see previous replies. You are putting words in my mouth.
Or you could just get rid of [Sentient?]. Kill your darlings, and all that.
Or I could I find a way to make it balanced rather than axing one of my favourite enhancement options?
Sure, but then you still need to come up with a way to actually make it balanced. But the whole poit of KYD is that favouritism shouldn't be a factor.
What's wrong with it becoming just a way to trigger Flash of Genius retroactively? That solves the built-in stacking and greatly reduces the maximum number of uses, while allowing it to still have some combat application (so Sentient might actually be taken).
Sure, if you can figure out a way to do it so that it is balanced and doesn't conflict with the different recharge times of FoG and the Arcane Weapon charges. Playtest that a bit and see how it works out.
You also use PB for the Vampiric weapon.
No I don't? Also it requires 15 levels in Artificer before you can add that enhancement.
Well, you do. Emphasize mine: "When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier."
And since you tie charges to a bunch of features of the Weapon Smith, those are all affected by it. You will also need to think through what happens if you mainly take Artificer levels but dip into other classes. That is something you need to playtest to see if it turns out to be a problem but you can't just assume that it won't be.
I'd love to have infinite time to playtest but post lockdowns it's a struggle just to keep my once a week online sessions regular, which means a lot of homebrew these days is all about running it through the mind first and getting a chance to playtest hopefully someday… maybe. 😝
The lack of time is the bane of all roleplayers and homebrewers. :) But sure, sometimes you don't have time to playtest things fully but the whole point of playtesting is quality assurance. If you don't do that then well, you really don't have a way to make sure your product is balanced. That's just life.
If you think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it.
I did, but if you don't want to see it then I can't help you and there's no point in repeating myself. We've already discussed Holy Weapon, for example. The double FoG is another example. You need to look at the whole and not just the single components.
I have already addressed both of these; as I've already said holy weapon is already being replaced with steel wind strike (which should have no stacking potential) and I'm trying to address the Flash of Genius stacking issue. I feel like this is just getting confused; as far as I'm concerned I'm addressing those possible exploits, so they should be no basis for anything else to be accused of being overpowered, or the sub-class as a whole.
I'm still unclear on why you think hunter's mark is either overpowered, somehow incompatible with a weapon focused Artificer, or both. I've already been considering divine favor as an alternative (shorter lived, no target limitation) but I'm happy that either is balanced on the Weapon Smith because these kind of spells are part of how the Weapon Smith can compete on damage. I'm also happy that they both work thematically because the Weapon Smith is focused on the arcane weapon, so of course they'd magically enhance it. Of the two divine favor feels weirder to me being radiant damage, but then Artificers have Radiant Weapon as an infusion option so it's not really off brand.
I compare to warlock because it's a perfectly valid class to compare against as a solid "gish" caster, and because it gets access to hex (which is very similar to hunter's mark) and also some really good defensive spells and invocations for enhancing a pact blade. I happen to feel that Weapon Smith stacks up favourably, while still being very much an Artificer. It's just one point of reference for balancing, same with Armorer and Battle Smith.
…the Weapon Smith is melee oriented. They are built around a single melee weapon, they don't have the option of sending a Steel Defender forward while firing from a safe distance, and on its own the Arcane Weapon doesn't deal any extra damage except with one 15th-level enhancement option, so they need to burn spells either for extra damage, or defence, or a mixture of both.
The whole point of subclass features is to use them, right? So a Weapon Smith would de facto use the things that makes their weapon better.
I'm not sure of your point here? The point I was making is that the Battle Smith gets added (scaling) offence and defence for "free" thanks to the Steel Defender; compared to that the Weapon Smith's passive bonuses are a lot weaker, mostly from their fighting style, then on top of that they can add enhancements or spells, most of which have limited resources. This allows the Weapon Smith to be stronger than the Battle Smith in melee combat (as they should be) but they are limited by those resources, especially since they need to balance both offence and defence in melee, whereas the Battle Smith is just as effective at range, and not as reliant on their spells in combat.
This is the rationale behind the sub-class, and again I think it's reasonably well balanced aside from issues that I'm trying to address already. It's supposed to be strong when everything is layered together, but this also burns through its resources faster so you have to choose your moment, because once the Weapon Smith is out of weapon charges and spell slots they're just an Artificer with a slightly better melee weapon.
I'm still not sure what to do about blur specifically; my main thinking for dropping it though is that I just don't see myself actually using it in practice. Only possibility from the available spells that I've come up with is hold person (and maybe swapping resilient sphere for hold monster to complete the set?) but it's not an ideal choice. Again, I'm limited in the spell choice because this is a sub-class intended for public release on DDB; maybe someday now that they're owned by WotC they'll allow homebrew for other sources (and just require users to buy the spell(s) or substitute them) but today is not that day.
Well, you do. Emphasize mine: "When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier."
That's not something unique to the Vampiric enhancement, that's just how the Arcane Weapon and most weapon enhancements work; you have finite charges on the weapon, and most enhancements give you new ways to spend that finite resource.
The fewer levels you have in Artificer the fewer enhancements you can take, and thus the fewer ways you have to spend those charges. You need at least 15 levels before you can make the arcane weapon vampiric, which is hardly a quick dip so I'm still not sure what your problem with Vampiric is?
If you only grab 3 levels to get the sub-class then the only way you have to spend those charges is on helping with concentration saves for a spell on the weapon itself, which is like getting a much worse version of War Caster. If you push 5 levels then you can gain one offensive or defensive option for the charges, but it should be reasonably balanced in line with how many levels you need to invest just to get it, especially since five levels in Weapon Smith would have given you 3 charges anyway. While a higher level multiclass will get to 6 even if they stay on 5 levels of Artificer, that is intended, because it means that the Arcane Weapon remains useful when multiclassed, but you don't get any extra enhancements such as double infusing or whatever.
Again, I don't see a problem here, least of all with Vampiric specifically? It's a good enhancement, but it's a very high level option.
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.
If you think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it.
I did, but if you don't want to see it then I can't help you and there's no point in repeating myself. We've already discussed Holy Weapon, for example. The double FoG is another example. You need to look at the whole and not just the single components.
I have already addressed both of these;
I think you need to read more carefully. This was a reply to you saying that if I "think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it." The bolded part of your claim simply isn't correct. I have made a case for why the things mentioned were overpowered. If you don't see it, please tell me what it is you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you. But as I said, if you don't want to aknowledge the problem there's no point in me just repeating myself and we should just move on.
as I've already said holy weapon is already being replaced with steel wind strike (which should have no stacking potential) and I'm trying to address the Flash of Genius stacking issue. I feel like this is just getting confused; as far as I'm concerned I'm addressing those possible exploits, so they should be no basis for anything else to be accused of being overpowered, or the sub-class as a whole.
Again, that was a statement explaining that it's the sum of the whole that could be overpowered, not any specific spell or feature in and of itself. I'm not confusing you when I say that you have to look at the whole and not just single components, am I?
I'm still unclear on why you think hunter's mark is either overpowered, somehow incompatible with a weapon focused Artificer, or both.
I've never claimed that the spell itself is OP, please don't put words in my mouth. But sure, I can repeat my previous explanation and expland a bit. Hunter's mark is thematically not a spell that has anything to do with being good at fighting with a particular weapon (which is the theme you say that you are going for with the subclass). HM is a spell mainly themed to hunt and track a prey with a fairly small damage rider tacked on to it. It comes from the Ranger list and thus have a stronger connection to a wilderness warrior rather than a blacksmith who spends most of their time in a forge. Therefor, giving it for free to a subclass just because it is a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't really make any sense and can come of more as a way to give the WS ways to do more damage rather than something that actually fits the theme. This, in combination with the other problematic things mentioned, can make the subclass OP.
I've already been considering divine favor as an alternative (shorter lived, no target limitation) but I'm happy that either is balanced on the Weapon Smith because these kind of spells are part of how the Weapon Smith can compete on damage. I'm also happy that they both work thematically because the Weapon Smith is focused on the arcane weapon, so of course they'd magically enhance it. Of the two divine favor feels weirder to me being radiant damage, but then Artificers have Radiant Weapon as an infusion option so it's not really off brand.
But Hunter's Mark isn't a weapon enchantment, you cast in on an opponent. And you still haven't really explained why you think it works thematically. The only justification seems to be "because it's a melee oriented combatant" which feels a bit odd considering what HM actually is...
I compare to warlock because it's a perfectly valid class to compare against as a solid "gish" caster, and because it gets access to hex (which is very similar to hunter's mark) and also some really good defensive spells and invocations for enhancing a pact blade. I happen to feel that Weapon Smith stacks up favourably, while still being very much an Artificer. It's just one point of reference for balancing, same with Armorer and Battle Smith.
Again, I feel that you missed the point. It was, speciifcally "using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have" that I was talking about. But yes, as you yourself point out, the Weapon Smith is incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock, which might be a problem, balance-wise.
…the Weapon Smith is melee oriented. They are built around a single melee weapon, they don't have the option of sending a Steel Defender forward while firing from a safe distance, and on its own the Arcane Weapon doesn't deal any extra damage except with one 15th-level enhancement option, so they need to burn spells either for extra damage, or defence, or a mixture of both.
The whole point of subclass features is to use them, right? So a Weapon Smith would de facto use the things that makes their weapon better.
I'm not sure of your point here? The point I was making is that the Battle Smith gets added (scaling) offence and defence for "free" thanks to the Steel Defender; compared to that the Weapon Smith's passive bonuses are a lot weaker, mostly from their fighting style, then on top of that they can add enhancements or spells, most of which have limited resources. This allows the Weapon Smith to be stronger than the Battle Smith in melee combat (as they should be) but they are limited by those resources, especially since they need to balance both offence and defence in melee, whereas the Battle Smith is just as effective at range, and not as reliant on their spells in combat.
Well, first of all the Steel Defender isn't free, it's quite fragile (especially at higher levels) and it requires a Bonus Action to use. Not sure how you figure that the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells considering it doesn't have an automatic magic weapon with charges that can do a bunch of stuff but my point was that of course the WS is relying on it's main feature, the Arcane Weapon, because that is what the Arcane Weapon is for, isn't it?
This is the rationale behind the sub-class, and again I think it's reasonably well balanced aside from issues that I'm trying to address already. It's supposed to be strong when everything is layered together, but this also burns through its resources faster so you have to choose your moment, because once the Weapon Smith is out of weapon charges and spell slots they're just an Artificer with a slightly better melee weapon.
How you playtested it to see how long it takes for the WS to run out of charges and spells as compared to, say a Battle Master's superiority dice or a Battle Smith's spell slots? Because considering that there are so many concentration spells that the WS has access to, they can probably come away with using fewer spell slots than for example a Paladin or a Warlock.
I'm still not sure what to do about blur specifically; my main thinking for dropping it though is that I just don't see myself actually using it in practice. Only possibility from the available spells that I've come up with is hold person (and maybe swapping resilient sphere for hold monster to complete the set?) but it's not an ideal choice. Again, I'm limited in the spell choice because this is a sub-class intended for public release on DDB; maybe someday now that they're owned by WotC they'll allow homebrew for other sources (and just require users to buy the spell(s) or substitute them) but today is not that day.
Not sure how resilient sphere or hold monster/person fits thematically but if you feel that Blur doesn't fit then it's not a bad idea to drop it. The Weapon Smith will still have access to it since it's on the Artificer spell list. Something like Heat Metal probably fits more thematically though.
Well, you do. Emphasize mine: "When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier."
That's not something unique to the Vampiric enhancement, that's just how the Arcane Weapon and most weapon enhancements work; you have finite charges on the weapon, and most enhancements give you new ways to spend that finite resource.
Again, you claimed that you didn't use PB for Vampiric Weapon. I pointed out that you do. And the charges aren't finite since they recharge on short rest.
The fewer levels you have in Artificer the fewer enhancements you can take, and thus the fewer ways you have to spend those charges. You need at least 15 levels before you can make the arcane weapon vampiric, which is hardly a quick dip so I'm still not sure what your problem with Vampiric is?
Again, I feel that you aren't reading the whole of the conversation or that there are things you might ve misunderstanding. I've never claimed that VW is a problem but I mentioned that as an example of where you use PB.
If you only grab 3 levels to get the sub-class then the only way you have to spend those charges is on helping with concentration saves for a spell on the weapon itself, which is like getting a much worse version of War Caster. If you push 5 levels then you can gain one offensive or defensive option for the charges, but it should be reasonably balanced in line with how many levels you need to invest just to get it, especially since five levels in Weapon Smith would have given you 3 charges anyway. While a higher level multiclass will get to 6 even if they stay on 5 levels of Artificer, that is intended, because it means that the Arcane Weapon remains useful when multiclassed, but you don't get any extra enhancements such as double infusing or whatever.
Again, I don't see a problem here, least of all with Vampiric specifically? It's a good enhancement, but it's a very high level option.
Like I said, VW isn't a problem but I've explained to you that you do de facto use PB for, amongst other things, it. And multiclassing works both ways, you can dip into Artificer and you can dip out of it. For example, have you considered what happens if a Weapon Smith take a few levels of Fighter for Action Surge and another Fighting Style? Add Haste and Blinding Smite to that and see what happens. How about a Weapon Smith/Paladin using Smites? Or a Weapon Smith with a few levels in Wizard for more spell slots? These are all things you need to consider when making sure your subclass is balanced, not just what happens if a Fighter takes three levels of Weapon Smith.
To reiterate, this can be a good subclass but you need to work out the kinks and playtest it if you want to make sure it's balanced.
Again, that was a statement explaining that it's the sum of the whole that could be overpowered, not any specific spell or feature in and of itself. I'm not confusing you when I say that you have to look at the whole and not just single components, am I?
You're confusing things by referring to issues that have already been solved as if they're current problems; if your argument is that it's overpowered because of combos that no longer exist then it's not something that needs to be reiterated?
I've never claimed that the spell itself is OP, please don't put words in my mouth.
And I never claimed that you did, so don't put words in mine. You called it "power-gaming" in reference to it being part of the sub-class!
HM is a spell mainly themed to hunt and track a prey with a fairly small damage rider tacked on to it.
I think most people would argue that it's actually the opposite; hunter's mark is a spell that boosts weapon damage and has a tracking rider added to it, in the same way that hex is damage plus an ability score disadvantage rider. In both cases the damage is listed as the first effect.
It comes from the Ranger list and thus have a stronger connection to a wilderness warrior rather than a blacksmith who spends most of their time in a forge. Therefor, giving it for free to a subclass just because it is a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't really make any sense and can come of more as a way to give the WS ways to do more damage rather than something that actually fits the theme.
It's absolutely a way for them to do more damage, with a weapon, which is what the Weapon Smith is all about. How this is any way thematically inappropriate is beyond me; these are not blacksmiths who merely make weapons, they are fighters in their own right, and using magic to enhance their attacks with that weapon is 100,000,000% on brand for the sub-class.
This, in combination with the other problematic things mentioned, can make the subclass OP.
Again you aren't explaining how; if it's the same things which I've already covered again then this is not constructive. Holy weapon was removed already, it no longer has anything to do with the balance of the sub-class, yet you've kept bringing it up and seem to be basing your idea of the sub-class' balance on things that don't exist.
And yet again you've ignored divine favor without offering any reasonable alternative of your own. I've stated repeatedly why I think either of them will fit the theme, as both are about dealing more damage with a weapon, you know… like someone who uses magic to enhance combat with a weapon might do.
It was, speciifcally "using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have" that I was talking about. But yes, as you yourself point out, the Weapon Smith is incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock, which might be a problem, balance-wise.
This seems like unnecessary hyperbole; now the Weapon Smith is "incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock", next time it's going to be "renders the Warlock and all other classes obsolete", then after that I'm guessing "takes out tiamat in a single round at 3rd-level". 😝
On the one hand you suggest that weapon charges resetting on a short rest aren't finite (when they are), while with the other you condemn Warlocks as barely pretend spellcasters compared to the Artificer because they have fewer slots refreshing on short rests. Either short rest resources are finite or they're not, because they can't be both.
In practice, with the intended number of short rests, Warlocks don't have many fewer slots than another full caster gets, and all of theirs are at their maximum level (up to 5th-level), so again, with two to three short rests at 9th level they've got six to eight 5th-level slots (equivalent to 42-56 spell points) compared to a Wizard's mixed bag of 14 (only one of which is 5th-level, equivalent to 57 spell points). But that's without accounting for Eldritch Invocations and other features that grant free spell casting and spell-like effects on top of that, or enable cantrips to compete on damage with spells, nor for the fact that we're actually comparing to a half caster here (who at the same level only gets 9 slots maxing out at 3rd, equivalent to 27 spell points).
And once again, it's a perfectly valid point of comparison and I'm happy the Weapon Smith stacks up to favourably, but not excessively so; I've given it a great deal of thought, and you haven't managed to establish why the Weapon Smith somehow reduces the Warlock down to the level of a mewling little baby. On damage alone an Improved Pact of the Blade Hexblade will easily compete, as will an Improved Pace of the Blade Undead (which is arguably better all round than the Hexblade), meanwhile both have access to far superior defensive spells than the ones you've complained about.
If you play campaigns where few (if any) short rests are taken then that's not a reflection upon the Warlock but the campaign, and the same issue will apply to the Arcane Weapon's charges.
Well, first of all the Steel Defender isn't free, it's quite fragile (especially at higher levels) and it requires a Bonus Action to use.
And? It costs no resources, that's what being "free" means. Unless you're being attacked solely with blasts then any damage the defender takes is damage that you don't take, plus it's trivial to repair between fights with the mending cantrip, so it's potentially equivalent to unlimited free armor of agathys. Even if it does get taken down you've gained value from it, and it all it requires is a long rest to get a new one, so it's equivalent to a really good free spell with unlimited duration.
And since the comparison was with hunter's mark, using the bonus action is fine as there isn't a lot else that the Weapon Smith will be doing with theirs (maybe a Homunculus Servant?), especially since it'll do the same or better damage than hunter's mark adds to the Weapon Smith, while also providing a defensive benefit, and being usable at range (as the defender doesn't need to be next to the Battle Smith).
Not sure how you figure that the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells
Because it deals the same or better damage without using any, and has defensive benefits that don't require any.
To do similar damage or receive similar defensive benefits the Weapon Smith must use spells, as the weapon enhancements only somewhat narrow the gap (and depend on what you choose).
it doesn't have an automatic magic weapon with charges that can do a bunch of stuff but my point was that of course the WS is relying on it's main feature, the Arcane Weapon, because that is what the Arcane Weapon is for, isn't it?
And how are you imagining the arcane weapon makes the Weapon Smith overpowered compared to the Battle Smith now? Before 5th-level it only has a single way to spend the charges (re-roll failed concentration save for a spell on the weapon itself).
Of the first three enhancements you can choose (one and only one) from you've got the ability to burn charges to reduce damage from a single melee weapon or projectile attack per turn (a good defensive boost, but easily overwhelmed), the ability to burn them to make your damage a bit more reliable (re-roll low rolls or reduce immunity to resistance or ignore resistance), or burn them to potentially turn a miss into a hit. At that level you've only got three charges which are going to disappear fast, especially if you use Rending Strike or Self-Guiding on more than one attack per turn.
While you can take more at higher levels, the Battle Smith is further increasing their own and/or their Steel Defender's damage (again for free) thanks to Arcane Jolt.
How you playtested it to see how long it takes for the WS to run out of charges and spells as compared to, say a Battle Master's superiority dice or a Battle Smith's spell slots? Because considering that there are so many concentration spells that the WS has access to, they can probably come away with using fewer spell slots than for example a Paladin or a Warlock.
Playtesting is not required for any of these things, they can simply be worked through; a Battle Master has four superiority dice from 3rd level, and adds them as d8's to most effects, it also gets to choose three options from 3rd level. The Weapon Smith by comparison has 2 charges at 3rd-level (character) and a single stock option to spend them on, they get a second option of their choice at 5th, but the Battle Master will always lead them on number of manoeuvres vs. number of charge spending options, and matches the number of charges (assuming they don't take Martial Adept) plus their superiority dice will have increased by this point as well.
I'm not sure of the need to compare to the Battle Smith's spell slots? If you want to increase your chances of hitting as a Battle Smith a single casting of faerie fire can do it, and benefits your entire party, meanwhile the Weapon Smith has to choose the Self-Guiding enhancement and burn through a charge on every miss (to potentially still miss).
I'm also not sure of the mention of concentration spells; Artificers don't have a tonne of concentrations spells that a Weapon Smith may uniquely want to use (and again they can only stack up to two from 15th-level using a specific enhancement choice), plus a lot of the Artificer concentration spells only have a duration of up to a minute. And again, compared to the Battle Smith, the Weapon Smith will be using these spells to compete on added damage with the Steel Defender; they might be able to exceed it in bursts, but at a cost of a finite resource.
It almost seems like you're trying to convince me that the Weapon Smith needs to be stronger to compete with the Battle Smith. 😝
Not sure how resilient sphere or hold monster/person fits thematically but if you feel that Blur doesn't fit then it's not a bad idea to drop it. The Weapon Smith will still have access to it since it's on the Artificer spell list. Something like Heat Metal probably fits more thematically though.
Resilient sphere was one of the defensive options already on their list as a panic button spell. My rationale for the hold spells is target acquisition; lock them down and maximise attacks against them. Not every spell has to be tied directly to the weapon if it still enables the weapon to be more effective. On that basis I'm unsure about heat metal personally as that's interfering with someone else's weapon, rather than helping you to use your own, though I'll think about it.
Again, you claimed that you didn't use PB for Vampiric Weapon. I pointed out that you do. And the charges aren't finite since they recharge on short rest.
I claimed that because Vampiric doesn't use the proficiency bonus, it's just an alternate way to spend your weapon's charges. Arcane Weapon is the feature that actually scales with the proficiency bonus, and by the time you can take Vampiric you've almost maxed it out anyway.
And you were trying to highlight that the proficiency bonus somehow makes the sub-class a multiclasser's dream but you haven't established how; Vampiric was the example you chose but it doesn't seem exploitable? Having more charges but fewer ways to spend them doesn't really change the numbers on the arcane weapon, it just helps it to scale into the late game.
And multiclassing works both ways, you can dip into Artificer and you can dip out of it. For example, have you considered what happens if a Weapon Smith take a few levels of Fighter for Action Surge and another Fighting Style?
Yes, as I've said, these are not things I haven't thought about. Why do you keep assuming I haven't considered any of this?
What happens is the same thing that happens if you do it with any other (sub-)class like Paladin, a Hexblade Warlock etc., they get a Fighting Style, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. It's a strong sub-class, and is why Fighter is so popular as a multiclass with any martial oriented build, but I don't see that it's meaningfully any better. There are other (faster) ways to get haste on a fighter, a pure Eldritch Knight can use shadow blade without any help (or multiclassing) and so-on; the Weapon Smith doesn't have any unique capacity for volume of attacks (or to exploit them) that I've been able to think of.
I'm not seeing where the Weapon Smith is any more unbalanced than any other multiclassing combos? Your original concern was about the proficiency bonus scaling, but now you're talking about dipping out of Weapon Smith, but if you're doing that then you've already gained the bulk of the proficiency bonus for the character level anyway. And really, I'm not sure Wizards of the Coast balances classes for multiclassing to begin with, as there are strong, close to broken, combos that have existed for years without ever being addressed.
Again, if you're got any specific issues in mind, please describe them?
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 think there is too much in the subclass, and some of it is out of order. It takes a while to read.
That'll be partly down to the two main options (fighting style and weapon enhancements); in practice you don't pick your first enhancement till 5th-level, and at that level you only have three to choose from. The enhancements are shown at the end because that seems to be how some (sub-)classes do it, though it's not very consistent.
At its core the sub-class is Arcane Weapon, martial weapons proficiency and a Fighting Style at 3rd, then Extra Attack and your first weapon enhancement at 5th, then two more enhancements at later levels.
Originally the sub-class was a lot simpler, and just allowed multiple weapon infusions, but it was far too strong (as most weapon infusions also boost the attack and damage rolls, so you could quickly end up with a +6 or better weapon with a bunch of different, always-on effects. I went the enhancements route because it gave me more control over keeping them better balanced (+5 should be the maximum, and only on a very specific combination of enhancements over an already magic weapon).
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.
Again, that was a statement explaining that it's the sum of the whole that could be overpowered, not any specific spell or feature in and of itself. I'm not confusing you when I say that you have to look at the whole and not just single components, am I?
You're confusing things by referring to issues that have already been solved as if they're current problems; if your argument is that it's overpowered because of combos that no longer exist then it's not something that needs to be reiterated?
Again, please read what I write. You are arguing against windmills right now. I've never claimed that issues that I already pointed out and you changed because I showed you they were OP is what makes this OP, that is just false. The part you are quoting was a reply to another wrong claim you made, the one where you said I hadn't told you why some things were OP. I have de facto done that.
I've never claimed that the spell itself is OP, please don't put words in my mouth.
And I never claimed that you did, so don't put words in mine. You called it "power-gaming" in reference to it being part of the sub-class!
You are the only one putting words in someone's mouth. You wrote: "I'm still unclear on why you think hunter's mark is either overpowered". Since I haven't there is no reason for you to be unclear on that issue. And I have already explained what the issue with giving this subclass HM is.
HM is a spell mainly themed to hunt and track a prey with a fairly small damage rider tacked on to it.
I think most people would argue that it's actually the opposite; hunter's mark is a spell that boosts weapon damage and has a tracking rider added to it, in the same way that hex is damage plus an ability score disadvantage rider. In both cases the damage is listed as the first effect.
The order is irrelevant. Both Hex and HM have a limited damage bonus whereas the main theme of the spells (hunting or cursing the target) can be upcasted. You do raise a good issue though that neither Hex nor HM is thematically suitable for this subclass.
It comes from the Ranger list and thus have a stronger connection to a wilderness warrior rather than a blacksmith who spends most of their time in a forge. Therefor, giving it for free to a subclass just because it is a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't really make any sense and can come of more as a way to give the WS ways to do more damage rather than something that actually fits the theme.
It's absolutely a way for them to do more damage, with a weapon, which is what the Weapon Smith is all about. How this is any way thematically inappropriate is beyond me; these are not blacksmiths who merely make weapons, they are fighters in their own right, and using magic to enhance their attacks with that weapon is 100,000,000% on brand for the sub-class.
Again, you are making a strawman. The argument wasn't that it's about "a way for them to do more damage, with a weapon", it was that you claimed that HM is a way to enchant the weapon. It is not. And like I've already explained to you, just because it is a way to make more damage with a weapon doesn't make it thematically suitable for the WS. In fact, the argument that you are making, and I'm paraphrasing here, "everything that allows more damage is justified" is what makes it sound very power-gamey. It doesn't fit the theme but you want it anyway? Why? Becuase it does more damage!
This, in combination with the other problematic things mentioned, can make the subclass OP.
Again you aren't explaining how; if it's the same things which I've already covered again then this is not constructive. Holy weapon was removed already, it no longer has anything to do with the balance of the sub-class, yet you've kept bringing it up and seem to be basing your idea of the sub-class' balance on things that don't exist.
I have already explained this multiple times and like I've said, please tell me what it is you don't understand. Me repeating myself if you don't read or don't understand is pointless, especially since these replies is running long as it is.
And yet again you've ignored divine favor without offering any reasonable alternative of your own. I've stated repeatedly why I think either of them will fit the theme, as both are about dealing more damage with a weapon, you know… like someone who uses magic to enhance combat with a weapon might do.
I haven't even mentioned Divine favor and I don't care about divine favor. What has that got to do with anything? I don't have an issue with it so why do you even talk about it?
It was, speciifcally "using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have" that I was talking about. But yes, as you yourself point out, the Weapon Smith is incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock, which might be a problem, balance-wise.
This seems like unnecessary hyperbole; now the Weapon Smith is "incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock", next time it's going to be "renders the Warlock and all other classes obsolete", then after that I'm guessing "takes out tiamat in a single round at 3rd-level". 😝
Yes, your strawman is indeed a hyperbole.
On the one hand you suggest that weapon charges resetting on a short rest aren't finite (when they are), while with the other you condemn Warlocks as barely pretend spellcasters compared to the Artificer because they have fewer slots refreshing on short rests. Either short rest resources are finite or they're not, because they can't be both.
If you don't understand the meaning of the word 'finite', I'm not going to argue that with you.
In practice, with the intended number of short rests, Warlocks don't have many fewer slots than another full caster gets,
As I have already pointed out, that is a false equivalence. A 10th level Warlock only ever has two spell slots in any giving encounter (since you can't do short rests in the middle of a combat). A 10th level Artificer has 9 spells slots, albeit of a lower spell level. A Bard however, have 15 spell slots, two of which are as high level as the Warlock's.
And once again, it's a perfectly valid point of comparison and I'm happy the Weapon Smith stacks up to favourably, but not excessively so; I've given it a great deal of thought, and you haven't managed to establish why the Weapon Smith somehow reduces the Warlock down to the level of a mewling little baby. On damage alone an Improved Pact of the Blade Hexblade will easily compete, as will an Improved Pace of the Blade Undead (which is arguably better all round than the Hexblade), meanwhile both have access to far superior defensive spells than the ones you've complained about.
I'm not sure why you insist on your false claims and hostility all the time. Again, your comparison of warlock spell slots and Artificer spells slots is indeed a skewed one. That doesn't mean "the Weapon Smith somehow reduces the Warlock down to the level of a mewling little baby". The reason why I haven't explained whu the WS does that should be painfully obvious, I haven't made any such claims, that's all on you. And no, it is quite clear that you haven't given this a lot of thought since there are appearantly quite a few things that I've brought up that you hadn't thought about. And again, that is perfectly fine but you can't claim that this is a balanced subclass if you don't work those things out. Which is also fine.
If you play campaigns where few (if any) short rests are taken then that's not a reflection upon the Warlock but the campaign, and the same issue will apply to the Arcane Weapon's charges.
Well, first of all the Steel Defender isn't free, it's quite fragile (especially at higher levels) and it requires a Bonus Action to use.
And? It costs no resources, that's what being "free" means. Unless you're being attacked solely with blasts then any damage the defender takes is damage that you don't take, plus it's trivial to repair between fights with the mending cantrip, so it's potentially equivalent to unlimited free armor of agathys. Even if it does get taken down you've gained value from it, and it all it requires is a long rest to get a new one, so it's equivalent to a really good free spell with unlimited duration.
Bonus action is a resource, spending time to use Mending is a resource. You are again making a false equivalence.
No, it wasn't. Again, please adress the things I actually say instead of the things you claim I say.
Not sure how you figure that the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells
Because it deals the same or better damage without using any, and has defensive benefits that don't require any.
To do similar damage or receive similar defensive benefits the Weapon Smith must use spells, as the weapon enhancements only somewhat narrow the gap (and depend on what you choose).
Please show me the math that a battlesmith can do the same or better damage to a comparable weapon smith.
it doesn't have an automatic magic weapon with charges that can do a bunch of stuff but my point was that of course the WS is relying on it's main feature, the Arcane Weapon, because that is what the Arcane Weapon is for, isn't it?
And how are you imagining the arcane weapon makes the Weapon Smith overpowered compared to the Battle Smith now? Before 5th-level it only has a single way to spend the charges (re-roll failed concentration save for a spell on the weapon itself).
Where have I said that "the arcane weapon makes the Weapon Smith overpowered compared to the Battle Smith"? It's a bit tedious that you keep on claiming that I've said things that I actually haven't.
Of the first three enhancements you can choose (one and only one) from you've got the ability to burn charges to reduce damage from a single melee weapon or projectile attack per turn (a good defensive boost, but easily overwhelmed), the ability to burn them to make your damage a bit more reliable (re-roll low rolls or reduce immunity to resistance or ignore resistance), or burn them to potentially turn a miss into a hit. At that level you've only got three charges which are going to disappear fast, especially if you use Rending Strike or Self-Guiding on more than one attack per turn.
While you can take more at higher levels, the Battle Smith is further increasing their own and/or their Steel Defender's damage (again for free) thanks to Arcane Jolt.
Arcane Jolt doesn't come online until 9th level and they are limited to fewer uses than the AW's charges.
How you playtested it to see how long it takes for the WS to run out of charges and spells as compared to, say a Battle Master's superiority dice or a Battle Smith's spell slots? Because considering that there are so many concentration spells that the WS has access to, they can probably come away with using fewer spell slots than for example a Paladin or a Warlock.
Playtesting is not required for any of these things, they can simply be worked through;
You should tell this to EVERY company in the world. They would be thrilled to hear that they don't need to spend millions of testing their products by just "working things through". The whole point of testing things is to catch the things you didn't notice when "working things through".
I'm not sure of the need to compare to the Battle Smith's spell slots? If you want to increase your chances of hitting as a Battle Smith a single casting of faerie fire can do it, and benefits your entire party, meanwhile the Weapon Smith has to choose the Self-Guiding enhancement and burn through a charge on every miss (to potentially still miss).
What prevents the Weapon Smith from casting Faerie fire? Also, you were the one that brought up the Battle Smith. If you didn't want to comapre the two, that's on you.
I'm also not sure of the mention of concentration spells; Artificers don't have a tonne of concentrations spells that a Weapon Smith may uniquely want to use (and again they can only stack up to two from 15th-level using a specific enhancement choice), plus a lot of the Artificer concentration spells only have a duration of up to a minute. And again, compared to the Battle Smith, the Weapon Smith will be using these spells to compete on added damage with the Steel Defender; they might be able to exceed it in bursts, but at a cost of a finite resource.
It almost seems like you're trying to convince me that the Weapon Smith needs to be stronger to compete with the Battle Smith. 😝
Again, the WS doesn't need to be stronger. And again, again, you are the one comparing it to the Battle Smith. Which has just as many spell slots as the WS, but can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Spells lasting for only a minute isn't an issue though, especially not one that is unique to the WS.
Not sure how resilient sphere or hold monster/person fits thematically but if you feel that Blur doesn't fit then it's not a bad idea to drop it. The Weapon Smith will still have access to it since it's on the Artificer spell list. Something like Heat Metal probably fits more thematically though.
Resilient sphere was one of the defensive options already on their list as a panic button spell. My rationale for the hold spells is target acquisition; lock them down and maximise attacks against them. Not every spell has to be tied directly to the weapon if it still enables the weapon to be more effective. On that basis I'm unsure about heat metal personally as that's interfering with someone else's weapon, rather than helping you to use your own, though I'll think about it.
So basically what you are saying that you don't care about what fits thematically as long as it makes the subclass stronger? I guess that is where we have a fundemental difference of opinion. For you, it seems, anything that makes your subclass stronger "fits thematically", even if it doesn't make any sense why a smith focused on forging and fighting with a melee weapon would know the spell. For me, it makes more sense if it is something that would actually make sense in the game world, something that the weapon smith would reasonably have picked up during its studies. I guess I'm more interested in storytelling and roleplaying than optimizing.
Again, you claimed that you didn't use PB for Vampiric Weapon. I pointed out that you do. And the charges aren't finite since they recharge on short rest.
I claimed that because Vampiric doesn't use the proficiency bonus,
Except that it does. The VW uses charges, and charges are based on your PB, then the VW de facto does use PB.
And you were trying to highlight that the proficiency bonus somehow makes the sub-class a multiclasser's dream
I've never said anything of the sorts, that's on you. I said that it is something that you, as the creator of this subclass, need to consider and test to make sure that your subclass is balancewd. Again, if you don't want to test your subclass, you don't have to. But then you can't really claim that it's balanced. Which, again, is totally fine.
but you haven't established how; Vampiric was the example you chose but it doesn't seem exploitable? Having more charges but fewer ways to spend them doesn't really change the numbers on the arcane weapon, it just helps it to scale into the late game.
Which, on combination with other things, might be unbalancing. But you can't know that unless you test for it. So you should test for it if you want to make sure that the subclass is balanced.
And multiclassing works both ways, you can dip into Artificer and you can dip out of it. For example, have you considered what happens if a Weapon Smith take a few levels of Fighter for Action Surge and another Fighting Style?
Yes, as I've said, these are not things I haven't thought about. Why do you keep assuming I haven't considered any of this?
I haven't assumed anything. I said that you need to test for things and you said that you didn't.
What happens is the same thing that happens if you do it with any other (sub-)class like Paladin, a Hexblade Warlock etc., they get a Fighting Style, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. It's a strong sub-class, and is why Fighter is so popular as a multiclass with any martial oriented build, but I don't see that it's meaningfully any better. There are other (faster) ways to get haste on a fighter, a pure Eldritch Knight can use shadow blade without any help (or multiclassing) and so-on; the Weapon Smith doesn't have any unique capacity for volume of attacks (or to exploit them) that I've been able to think of.
Well, you already told us that you haven't tested for problems so you can't really be sure that there arent any. But you really didn't adress the issue. A paladin and a Hexblade isn't a Weapon Smith so what happens when a Weapon Smith takes a few levels of Fighter is not the same as if a Hexblade does.
I'm not seeing where the Weapon Smith is any more unbalanced than any other multiclassing combos? Your original concern was about the proficiency bonus scaling, but now you're talking about dipping out of Weapon Smith, but if you're doing that then you've already gained the bulk of the proficiency bonus for the character level anyway. And really, I'm not sure Wizards of the Coast balances classes for multiclassing to begin with, as there are strong, close to broken, combos that have existed for years without ever being addressed.
There are multiple issues that have been adressed but this just goes to show us how important playtesting is for balance. WotC has made rather immense testing of all of their products yet still they have some issues with balance. You claim that you don't need to but can still deliver a better end product than them.
Again, if you're got any specific issues in mind, please describe them?
I have already described the issues I've had in mind put to reiterate my point, you can't know of all the possible issues unless you actually test for them.
A small thing that would be thematically suitable was if the Arcane weapon removed the penalties for Small PCs using a Heavy weapon as their Arcane weapon. The justification could be that the weapon smith has designed a weapon that is so perfectly suitable for themself that not even the difference in size causes problems.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh it's one of my favourite spells; I'm thinking of grabbing it as a Magical Secret on a Bard as an "Eep, I've got to fight my way out of here!" button. 😄
Unfortunately it's not in the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion so I can't put it on the prepared spell list for public homebrew on D&D Beyond. It's a solid contender for adding to the expanded list though, along with destructive wave.
Actually, steel wind strike could make more sense than holy weapon (as there's already a lot of solo stacking potential in the arcane weapon), though the strike does mean not really using the weapon in exchange for a sweet group finisher.
I've tried to aim for non-Artificer spells as much as possible, though at some levels there aren't really any good options (hence a few Artificer spells later on). You're right that catapult has some fun synergy with the recall though!
That's an interesting thought actually; I was debating whether to stick with hunter's mark at 1st-level or not. It's an odd one flavour-wise, but then so is holy weapon which I put on the expanded list but may replace.
Slow might be a better fit than blink actually; gives you two basic speed/time manipulating options for different types of offensive use. Plus blink isn't necessarily the best defensive spell (can't control when you come back unless you end it).
Thanks for the suggestions!
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.
It's an interesting idea but there are a lot of things that doesn't really make any sense which just makes it seem like powergaming.
Cool idea, I like the concept.
Makes sense. :)
Here we get the first major problems. Most of weapon smith spells really don't have anything to do with being a master weapon smith. What about the Weapon Smith would justify them being a hunter of people to the level that Hunter's Mark makes sense? What makes a WS nimble, decieveing or otherwordly enough to justify Blur, Misty Step or Blink, or at least more so than other Artificers? What makes them Holy enough to justify Holy Weapon? Is there a reason other than the fact that all of these are really good and powerful spells, especially in combination?
Some interesting ideas. Intelligence instead of Dex or Strength makes sense, that's kind of the Artificer's deal. A thing you probably need to clarify is how Arcane Weapon interacts with the number of infusions allowed when combined with multiple spells that enchance it. The returning weapon thing seems kind of weird but since it's only line of sight I don't think it will be OP.
Also, and I don't think this will be a big deal since the Arcane Weapon will most likely be infused or enchanted most of the time but I'll mention it anyway, I think the Arcane Weapon should counts as magical when it comes to overcoming resistances and immunities to damages.
Not sure how this one makes any sense. Being a spectatular weapon smith doesn't make you see in the dark. Still, the fighting style inself won't make this subclass OP so not a huge problem.
Just change the last sentence to "you may change one weapon enhancement when you gain a level in this class". :)
Holy Weapon + Haste will make this incredibly strong, just so you are aware of this. :D Even more so when combined with Keen Edge or Magically Bonded.
I'd limit the force damage to the first hit on the turn you summon the weapon. Spending your bonus action to do an extra 6D6 force damage (especially when combined with things like Holy Weapons) is SUPER good.
This is incredibly powerful. It basically grants you free super-Guidance and more or less guarentees success on most ability checks. Especially when combined with Flash of Genius.
Just to clarify. I assume by the first bullet you mean that you can still cast the spell using weapon charges even if it runs out of "normal" uses? Also, the third bullet should probably be limited to attacking once using a bonus action.
All in all, this needs some reworking and some playtesting to make it balanced. It will basically make all the Paladins cry but it's a cool concept and it can be made to be really good with some touch ups.
The way I tend to think of it is that Artificer spells aren't spells as such, they're a form of invention related to their craft; hunter's mark makes sense to me mechanically and thematically as if you're weapon focused then you're more likely to be an assassin/bodyguard/hunter etc.?
Again I would justify it on the basis of their being melee focused; this makes them more likely to be in harm's way and to need the means to protect themselves or escape. Blur to me fits some kind of defensive field, and misty step is your classic panic button or offensive option. I should note that blink is currently removed from my working copy of the sub-class in favour of slow, if you look at some of the last few posts I've been discussing spell selection.
This is one of those that I've been considering dropping as it's definitely too strong and weird thematically; my intention is to instead add steel wind strike to the spell list, as while it's also strong, it trades all of your normal weapon attacks (and bonuses) since it's a series of spell attacks (so not actually using the arcane weapon mechanically, though thematically you would be).
I'm not sure if it's a problem? Spells can only normally be applied after a weapon is infused, and there's a bullet point to allow this?
Good catch. I'll probably make this a feature of Enhanced Arcane Weapon since it comes in at 5th level (around when other classes/sub-classes get magical attacks that do so).
Good catch, I've updated that in the first post!
That seems fair, do you think this wording is clear enough?
Hmm, I dunno about guarantees but you have a point, I actually forgot all about Flash of Genius while reworking that enhancement (it used to be a lot weaker). In that case I might just limit it to the mental saving throws only; hopefully that's still enough of an incentive to tempt people away from the more combat focused enhancements?
It's actually both, since arcane weapon charges come back on a short rest so even if you burn through both sets of uses, you've got the possibility of gaining more later, which is why it's more expensive to use those, at least that's the idea.
You're right about the bonus action attack though, it should specify a single attack.
I was considering whether to limit it to only when you're below half health, as some recent healing features (especially on races) have been? It is limited to 15th level and later though.
Thanks for the feedback!
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.
With that logic, Fighters, Assassins and Barbarians should also have Hunter's Mark. Any class can work as any of those professions. Invention or spell, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't really make sense for an Artificer, a class whose primary schtick is "making stuffs and then using those stuffs for adventuring" to have Hunter's Mark. It just seems like a way to tac on damage spells.
Slow fits a lot better. And yes, Blur is a good way to protect yourself but that in combination with everything else and the fact that, as presented, the Weapon Smith is someone whose whole thing is to create an OFFENSIVE creation (compared to say the Armorer) it just comes of as trying to get rid of all the downsides of an already incredibly powerful base class which also makes it unbalanced.
Steel Wind Strike is a much better option in my opinion. It's a very powerful spell but its use is limited to the number of spell slots of that level. It still fits the theme very well though.
There was discussions on how you could combine X number of infusions with X number of spells due to the Weapon Enhancements. It's not really a problem but it's a good thing if it is clear how those things work when combined, just to avoid confusion.
"During any turn in which you summoned your arcane weapon into your hand, you may spend one of its charges to inflict an additional 3d6 force damage on the first hit you make that turn."
It is very likely that you have an Int mod of +5 at level 8 as an Artificer. Being able to add +5 to ANY ability check or mental Saving throw four times per short rest (+10 if you combine with FoG) without having to think ahead (Guidance needs you to cast a spell and do it BEFORE the ability check) is incredibly powerful. Remember that since it's an Ability check you will already add an ability modifier and possibly your proficiency bonus. Even with a modest modifier of +2 that means you could easily get +16 to a failed ability check. That is incredibly powerful.
Limiting it to mental saving throws still allows for a +10 with FoG (before normal saving throw bonuses) but is a bit more limited and acts more like the Paladin's Aura of Protection. Again, Paladins will hate this subclass but this would make it a lot more balanced. :)
I wasn't specifically thinking of the Vampiric Weapon but rather the whole subclass. It just happened to show up after the VW. :) The weapon itself actually work quite well.
You're welcome. As a general thought though. You've connected a bunch of features to the proficiency bonus. Since multiclassing is a thing and proficiency scales with character level and not class level you probably want to put some thought into what happens if this subclass multiclasses with other classes that uses PB instead of, say Charisma bonus to decide features. It could make certain combinations even more OP. This doesn't mean that the subclass is broken but it might be a problem that needs to be dealt with.
I'm not sure how that follows; Assassins, Barbarians and Fighters are not spellcasters, and they all have their own ways of increasing damage and/or defence so they don't need it. One of my comparison points was Warlock, who can take hex with Pact of the Blade etc. for boosted damage (though they may swap it out later, depends on the build).
Feel free to suggest alternatives, but remember that granted spells in public homebrew are limited to the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion which sadly limits the option for something I'd like to release. Otherwise I'd have considered things like compelled duel, but that's PHB only so it's out.
This restriction doesn't apply to spells added to an expanded spell list which is how I was able to add the smite spells etc. as options at least (thanks again to naruhoodie for letting me know about that!).
A lot of the other alternatives I've considered are things already on the Artificer spell list; while it's not the end of the world to get one of these for free, it's not as beneficial (all the other sub-classes add new spells only unless I've missed some). For example ArntItheBest mentioned catapult which is a fun combo with the bonus action weapon recall, but it's also something an Artificer can just take.
Now I'm confused; you don't want me adding hunter's mark because it's a damage boost, and you don't want me adding blur because it's defensive. 😝
It's not about getting rid of downsides though, as blur has a number of weaknesses; it takes your action, concentration and only lasts a minute, so it's burning up limited spell slots to keep using it and it does nothing vs. saves or anything with blindsight or truesight. Plus if you look at a Hexblade Warlock, they have access to both blur and hex if they want them, though it's tough to compare (as they also have armor of agathys and hellish rebuke etc., shadow of moil at 7th-level and so-on, so Hexblade and Undead patron Warlocks are still the nastier swordy spellcasters overall).
Here's the selection DDB allows for 2nd level that I've chosen from.
It's just one of several fighting style options; Fighters still have more choices, on a framework that gets more attacks, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. What I'm not clear on is what your problem is with Blind Fighting specifically? It makes sense as an option for a melee oriented combatant, except that unlike a Ranger (who can take fog cloud) a Weapon Smith will require allies or existing darkness etc. to really capitalise on it properly.
True, the other possibility I thought of was of just having it be Flash of Genius, i.e- with a Sentient Arcane Weapon you can use that ability retroactively (rather than preemptively) on yourself? In that case I'd probably not have it use a weapon charge (unless it should still use both?) since you'd be limited by the charges for FoG itself.
The only feature tied to proficiency bonus is the number of charges on the Arcane Weapon, but that's intended to help it scale into higher level play; however with only a 3 level dip to get Weapon Smith you'd only have the weapon concentration save re-roll ability. You need at least five for an Enhanced Arcane Weapon before you can gain any new abilities on it, and those will be limited to Automatic Parry, Rending Strike and Self-Guiding; while they're all good I'm not sure it'd be OP, as that's a quarter of your levels if you're in a campaign lasting until 20 (and how many campaigns actually make it that far)? The level limited enhancements are tied to Artificer level only (same as Warlock Eldritch Invocations).
Are there any specific combos you're thinking of?
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.
The Weapon Smith also doesn't need it, it's powerful enough already. As I said, adding Hunter's mark which doesn't make any sense is just problematic and shifts it towards being unbalanced.
So why not just add one of the smite spells or Catapult? That makes more sense and is less powergaming.
No, that is false. I think Hunter's Mark and Blur are both bad options because they make the subclass unbalanced. And, as mentioned, HM just doesn't make any sense.
The Hexblade can't concentrate on two spells, get infusions and so on and so on until we've gone through the entire list of Artificer and Weapon Smith features. It's very weird comparing Warlocks to Artificer and using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have...
Not sure how many times I have to explain it but sure, I'll try again. The Fighter doesn't get guaranteed +2 weapons, magic armour and so on and so on. The Artificer isn't a "melee oriented combatant", they are builders and tinkerers who can also fight. Being a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't automatically mean that you should get a Blind Fighting (or any Fighting style for that matter) so giving them access to a Fighting style (just access to fighting styles is a huge thing in the first place) that doesn't make any sense shifts it towards being unbalanced and, as mentioned previously, it doesn't make any sense. The question you should ask isn't "why shouldn't this subclass have X?" but rather "What makes this subclass need X to be able to fit the theme and fulfil its role while at the same time not making it unbalanced and/or overpowered?" Yes, that question is more complicated and difficult than the first one but that is also why it is so important.
Or you could just get rid of it. Kill your darlings, and all that.
You also use PB for the Vampiric weapon. And since you tie charges to a bunch of features of the Weapon Smith, those are all affected by it. You will also need to think through what happens if you mainly take Artificer levels but dip into other classes. That is something you need to playtest to see if it turns out to be a problem but you can't just assume that it won't be.
Because the former isn't possible (D&D Beyond public homebrew only supports prepared spells from the Basic Rules and Elemental Evil Player's Companion) and the latter is already on the Artificer spell list as I said. I linked to the spell selection that's valid on DDB public homebrew if you'd like to look at what the available options are.
I was only able to add the smite spells because spells added to the expanded spell list (not granted spells, spells added to the list you can choose from yourself) aren't subject to the same restriction, but they can't be added to the sub-class' prepared spell list because they're not in the Basic Rules or Elemental Evil Player's Companion.
And I'd appreciate not being accused of power-gaming; hunter's mark is a good spell, but it's hardly OP, as the Weapon Smith isn't really well suited to two-weapon fighting for maximising the attacks, and it competes with haste unless you can get an ally to cast that on you so it won't work with that either, so it's not actually all that much extra damage.
Divine favor is the most direct alternative; shorter lived, slightly less bonus damage, no rider effect and no binding to a target, but its radiant rather than weapon damage. Radiant is a little strange, but then Artificers have the Radiant Weapon infusion so it's not necessarily strange for them. I'll think about it.
The Weapon Smith can only concentrate on two spells (one of which must be applied to the weapon) by choosing a specific weapon enhancement at 15th-level, by which which time Warlocks have had access to far superior defensive spells than blur (shadow of moil does basically the same thing but better from 9th level), and Warlocks don't actually have significantly fewer slots if you use the intended number of short rests (two or three per long rest), especially if you also account for at will spells (and spell like effects) from Eldritch Invocations, and the fact that their slots are always maximum level (with two short rests they've got six 5th levels spells per day).
But the point is, they have access to the same things you're calling overpowered, on top of their own unique bonuses, so it's a perfectly fine comparison to make as I have to compare to something for balance. If you think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it.
I'm more likely to consider swapping out blur purely because it's somewhat redundant with shield already there as a defensive option, but like I say there aren't loads of good alternatives; what blur does offer is a way to preemptively (if you can spare the action to activate it) give yourself a free Dodge to save on spell slots for defence (compared to burning shield when ambushed etc.). Stacking them is possible, but it'll burn your slots a lot faster.
Alternatively compare to a Battle Smith who has their Steel Defender for a built in third attack plus defensive reaction (on top of your own, and effectively creating a hit-point buffer). The Weapon Smith is intended to compete on damage via weapon spells and defence via defensive spells…
…the Weapon Smith is melee oriented. They are built around a single melee weapon, they don't have the option of sending a Steel Defender forward while firing from a safe distance, and on its own the Arcane Weapon doesn't deal any extra damage except with one 15th-level enhancement option, so they need to burn spells either for extra damage, or defence, or a mixture of both.
While enhancements can mitigate or complement this, you're still burning spells to gain offence/defence that either equals or exceeds what the Battle Smith gets just by being a Battle Smith. At least that's the idea; it's supposed to be a more "in your face", risky type of weapon focused Artificer.
Again there aren't a lot of ideal choices at 2nd level; the only other one that stands out to me is maybe hold person as a way to make a single target extra vulnerable to your attacks (as well as possible combat avoidance)?
I'm asking the question in reverse; what is it that makes you think that having Blind Fighting available as an option is uniquely unbalancing compared to the other fighting styles? Wizards of the Coast consider it equivalent to any other fighting style, so why should that of all fighting styles be excluded?
I happen to think it fits nicely, because there are plenty of ways to justify it on an Artificer sub-class, as it doesn't just have to be a matter of training since it could also be a result of invention (goggles, the arcane weapon itself etc.).
If Blind Fighting is too strong then the implication is that all fighting styles would be, yet you don't seem to be arguing that the Weapon Smith shouldn't get one? So why Blind Fighting specifically?
No I don't? Also it requires 15 levels in Artificer before you can add that enhancement.
I'd love to have infinite time to playtest but post lockdowns it's a struggle just to keep my once a week online sessions regular, which means a lot of homebrew these days is all about running it through the mind first and getting a chance to playtest hopefully someday… maybe. 😝
I've tried to think about possible combos that would cause problems but I haven't come up with much; you've got your usual combos with a quick Hexblade dip and the like, but they're not really massive problems as Hexblade's Curse fights for the bonus action, it requires more Charisma, and it delays Artificer progression. On the one hand though any Warlock dip gives trivial access to hex so dropping hunter's mark makes no difference to that kind of multiclass, and it's not really any different to a Warlock dip on anything else (since Warlock arguably pairs better with Bard, Paladin or Sorcerer).
Again, a lot of the Weapon Smith's strongest options don't become available until 5th onwards, so in a typical campaigns that's half your levels gone already, so not a huge amount of room for multiclassing in the first place (not if you want ability score increases). I'm just not seeing any particularly broken combos, and proficiency scaling uses is in line with a lot of newer sub-class features.
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.
There are plenty of subclasses that get spells the main class already have. They just get those spells "free".
It is perfectly possible to write what spells the subclass have here in this thread. What is possible in the homebrew section of the DnD Beyond mechanics really has no impact on whether or not a subclass is balanced. Nor should it.
I haven't accused you of anything. Please read what I'ver actually wrote. You'll find that it's the combination of things that can cause a problem. Tacking on a damage spell that doesn't make sense can be problematic. Haste doesn't come until level 9 so it's hardly relevant.
Of course Warlocks have fewer spell slots, that's right there in the rules. You can't take short rests during combats. Again, it's about trying to make the subclass balanced.
I did, but if you don't want to see it then I can't help you and there's no point in repeating myself. We've already discussed Holy Weapon, for example. The double FoG is another example. You need to look at the whole and not just the single components.
And it already competes very well, to the point where you might want to consider if it might be too powerful
The whole point of subclass features is to use them, right? So a Weapon Smith would de facto use the things that makes their weapon better.
Why should it get stuff for free just because it's not a battle smith? Should the battle smith get stuff for free for not being a warlock? The point of a class system is that some classes get things that other classes don't. Or at different levels. Gloom Stalker 7 vs Rogue 15, comes to mind.
As I've already mentioned: "Not sure how this one makes any sense. Being a spectatular weapon smith doesn't make you see in the dark. Still, the fighting style inself won't make this subclass OP so not a huge problem." Again, please read what I write so you don't accuse other of accusing you when they actually haven't.
You still have presented any of those justiification though.
Please see previous replies. You are putting words in my mouth.
Well, you do. Emphasize mine: "When you inflict damage upon a creature (excluding constructs or the undead) using an arcane weapon attack during your turn, you may spend one of your arcane weapon charges to heal a number of hitpoints equal to 1d8 + your Intelligence modifier."
The lack of time is the bane of all roleplayers and homebrewers. :) But sure, sometimes you don't have time to playtest things fully but the whole point of playtesting is quality assurance. If you don't do that then well, you really don't have a way to make sure your product is balanced. That's just life.
I have already addressed both of these; as I've already said holy weapon is already being replaced with steel wind strike (which should have no stacking potential) and I'm trying to address the Flash of Genius stacking issue. I feel like this is just getting confused; as far as I'm concerned I'm addressing those possible exploits, so they should be no basis for anything else to be accused of being overpowered, or the sub-class as a whole.
I'm still unclear on why you think hunter's mark is either overpowered, somehow incompatible with a weapon focused Artificer, or both. I've already been considering divine favor as an alternative (shorter lived, no target limitation) but I'm happy that either is balanced on the Weapon Smith because these kind of spells are part of how the Weapon Smith can compete on damage. I'm also happy that they both work thematically because the Weapon Smith is focused on the arcane weapon, so of course they'd magically enhance it. Of the two divine favor feels weirder to me being radiant damage, but then Artificers have Radiant Weapon as an infusion option so it's not really off brand.
I compare to warlock because it's a perfectly valid class to compare against as a solid "gish" caster, and because it gets access to hex (which is very similar to hunter's mark) and also some really good defensive spells and invocations for enhancing a pact blade. I happen to feel that Weapon Smith stacks up favourably, while still being very much an Artificer. It's just one point of reference for balancing, same with Armorer and Battle Smith.
I'm not sure of your point here? The point I was making is that the Battle Smith gets added (scaling) offence and defence for "free" thanks to the Steel Defender; compared to that the Weapon Smith's passive bonuses are a lot weaker, mostly from their fighting style, then on top of that they can add enhancements or spells, most of which have limited resources. This allows the Weapon Smith to be stronger than the Battle Smith in melee combat (as they should be) but they are limited by those resources, especially since they need to balance both offence and defence in melee, whereas the Battle Smith is just as effective at range, and not as reliant on their spells in combat.
This is the rationale behind the sub-class, and again I think it's reasonably well balanced aside from issues that I'm trying to address already. It's supposed to be strong when everything is layered together, but this also burns through its resources faster so you have to choose your moment, because once the Weapon Smith is out of weapon charges and spell slots they're just an Artificer with a slightly better melee weapon.
I'm still not sure what to do about blur specifically; my main thinking for dropping it though is that I just don't see myself actually using it in practice. Only possibility from the available spells that I've come up with is hold person (and maybe swapping resilient sphere for hold monster to complete the set?) but it's not an ideal choice. Again, I'm limited in the spell choice because this is a sub-class intended for public release on DDB; maybe someday now that they're owned by WotC they'll allow homebrew for other sources (and just require users to buy the spell(s) or substitute them) but today is not that day.
That's not something unique to the Vampiric enhancement, that's just how the Arcane Weapon and most weapon enhancements work; you have finite charges on the weapon, and most enhancements give you new ways to spend that finite resource.
The fewer levels you have in Artificer the fewer enhancements you can take, and thus the fewer ways you have to spend those charges. You need at least 15 levels before you can make the arcane weapon vampiric, which is hardly a quick dip so I'm still not sure what your problem with Vampiric is?
If you only grab 3 levels to get the sub-class then the only way you have to spend those charges is on helping with concentration saves for a spell on the weapon itself, which is like getting a much worse version of War Caster. If you push 5 levels then you can gain one offensive or defensive option for the charges, but it should be reasonably balanced in line with how many levels you need to invest just to get it, especially since five levels in Weapon Smith would have given you 3 charges anyway. While a higher level multiclass will get to 6 even if they stay on 5 levels of Artificer, that is intended, because it means that the Arcane Weapon remains useful when multiclassed, but you don't get any extra enhancements such as double infusing or whatever.
Again, I don't see a problem here, least of all with Vampiric specifically? It's a good enhancement, but it's a very high level option.
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 think you need to read more carefully. This was a reply to you saying that if I "think something is overpowered then please make the case for why, I'm happy to listen, but so far you've just said it, and I don't see it." The bolded part of your claim simply isn't correct. I have made a case for why the things mentioned were overpowered. If you don't see it, please tell me what it is you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you. But as I said, if you don't want to aknowledge the problem there's no point in me just repeating myself and we should just move on.
Again, that was a statement explaining that it's the sum of the whole that could be overpowered, not any specific spell or feature in and of itself. I'm not confusing you when I say that you have to look at the whole and not just single components, am I?
I've never claimed that the spell itself is OP, please don't put words in my mouth. But sure, I can repeat my previous explanation and expland a bit. Hunter's mark is thematically not a spell that has anything to do with being good at fighting with a particular weapon (which is the theme you say that you are going for with the subclass). HM is a spell mainly themed to hunt and track a prey with a fairly small damage rider tacked on to it. It comes from the Ranger list and thus have a stronger connection to a wilderness warrior rather than a blacksmith who spends most of their time in a forge. Therefor, giving it for free to a subclass just because it is a "melee oriented combatant" doesn't really make any sense and can come of more as a way to give the WS ways to do more damage rather than something that actually fits the theme. This, in combination with the other problematic things mentioned, can make the subclass OP.
But Hunter's Mark isn't a weapon enchantment, you cast in on an opponent. And you still haven't really explained why you think it works thematically. The only justification seems to be "because it's a melee oriented combatant" which feels a bit odd considering what HM actually is...
Again, I feel that you missed the point. It was, speciifcally "using "the spell burns a spell slot" as an argument that the Warlock would be better, considering the limited number of spell slots Warlocks have" that I was talking about. But yes, as you yourself point out, the Weapon Smith is incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock, which might be a problem, balance-wise.
Well, first of all the Steel Defender isn't free, it's quite fragile (especially at higher levels) and it requires a Bonus Action to use. Not sure how you figure that the Battle Smith is less reliant on spells considering it doesn't have an automatic magic weapon with charges that can do a bunch of stuff but my point was that of course the WS is relying on it's main feature, the Arcane Weapon, because that is what the Arcane Weapon is for, isn't it?
How you playtested it to see how long it takes for the WS to run out of charges and spells as compared to, say a Battle Master's superiority dice or a Battle Smith's spell slots? Because considering that there are so many concentration spells that the WS has access to, they can probably come away with using fewer spell slots than for example a Paladin or a Warlock.
Not sure how resilient sphere or hold monster/person fits thematically but if you feel that Blur doesn't fit then it's not a bad idea to drop it. The Weapon Smith will still have access to it since it's on the Artificer spell list. Something like Heat Metal probably fits more thematically though.
Again, you claimed that you didn't use PB for Vampiric Weapon. I pointed out that you do. And the charges aren't finite since they recharge on short rest.
Again, I feel that you aren't reading the whole of the conversation or that there are things you might ve misunderstanding. I've never claimed that VW is a problem but I mentioned that as an example of where you use PB.
Like I said, VW isn't a problem but I've explained to you that you do de facto use PB for, amongst other things, it. And multiclassing works both ways, you can dip into Artificer and you can dip out of it. For example, have you considered what happens if a Weapon Smith take a few levels of Fighter for Action Surge and another Fighting Style? Add Haste and Blinding Smite to that and see what happens. How about a Weapon Smith/Paladin using Smites? Or a Weapon Smith with a few levels in Wizard for more spell slots? These are all things you need to consider when making sure your subclass is balanced, not just what happens if a Fighter takes three levels of Weapon Smith.
To reiterate, this can be a good subclass but you need to work out the kinks and playtest it if you want to make sure it's balanced.
You're confusing things by referring to issues that have already been solved as if they're current problems; if your argument is that it's overpowered because of combos that no longer exist then it's not something that needs to be reiterated?
And I never claimed that you did, so don't put words in mine. You called it "power-gaming" in reference to it being part of the sub-class!
I think most people would argue that it's actually the opposite; hunter's mark is a spell that boosts weapon damage and has a tracking rider added to it, in the same way that hex is damage plus an ability score disadvantage rider. In both cases the damage is listed as the first effect.
It's absolutely a way for them to do more damage, with a weapon, which is what the Weapon Smith is all about. How this is any way thematically inappropriate is beyond me; these are not blacksmiths who merely make weapons, they are fighters in their own right, and using magic to enhance their attacks with that weapon is 100,000,000% on brand for the sub-class.
This seems like unnecessary hyperbole; now the Weapon Smith is "incredibly powerful compared to the Warlock", next time it's going to be "renders the Warlock and all other classes obsolete", then after that I'm guessing "takes out tiamat in a single round at 3rd-level". 😝
On the one hand you suggest that weapon charges resetting on a short rest aren't finite (when they are), while with the other you condemn Warlocks as barely pretend spellcasters compared to the Artificer because they have fewer slots refreshing on short rests. Either short rest resources are finite or they're not, because they can't be both.
In practice, with the intended number of short rests, Warlocks don't have many fewer slots than another full caster gets, and all of theirs are at their maximum level (up to 5th-level), so again, with two to three short rests at 9th level they've got six to eight 5th-level slots (equivalent to 42-56 spell points) compared to a Wizard's mixed bag of 14 (only one of which is 5th-level, equivalent to 57 spell points). But that's without accounting for Eldritch Invocations and other features that grant free spell casting and spell-like effects on top of that, or enable cantrips to compete on damage with spells, nor for the fact that we're actually comparing to a half caster here (who at the same level only gets 9 slots maxing out at 3rd, equivalent to 27 spell points).
And once again, it's a perfectly valid point of comparison and I'm happy the Weapon Smith stacks up to favourably, but not excessively so; I've given it a great deal of thought, and you haven't managed to establish why the Weapon Smith somehow reduces the Warlock down to the level of a mewling little baby. On damage alone an Improved Pact of the Blade Hexblade will easily compete, as will an Improved Pace of the Blade Undead (which is arguably better all round than the Hexblade), meanwhile both have access to far superior defensive spells than the ones you've complained about.
If you play campaigns where few (if any) short rests are taken then that's not a reflection upon the Warlock but the campaign, and the same issue will apply to the Arcane Weapon's charges.
Playtesting is not required for any of these things, they can simply be worked through; a Battle Master has four superiority dice from 3rd level, and adds them as d8's to most effects, it also gets to choose three options from 3rd level. The Weapon Smith by comparison has 2 charges at 3rd-level (character) and a single stock option to spend them on, they get a second option of their choice at 5th, but the Battle Master will always lead them on number of manoeuvres vs. number of charge spending options, and matches the number of charges (assuming they don't take Martial Adept) plus their superiority dice will have increased by this point as well.
I'm not sure of the need to compare to the Battle Smith's spell slots? If you want to increase your chances of hitting as a Battle Smith a single casting of faerie fire can do it, and benefits your entire party, meanwhile the Weapon Smith has to choose the Self-Guiding enhancement and burn through a charge on every miss (to potentially still miss).
I'm also not sure of the mention of concentration spells; Artificers don't have a tonne of concentrations spells that a Weapon Smith may uniquely want to use (and again they can only stack up to two from 15th-level using a specific enhancement choice), plus a lot of the Artificer concentration spells only have a duration of up to a minute. And again, compared to the Battle Smith, the Weapon Smith will be using these spells to compete on added damage with the Steel Defender; they might be able to exceed it in bursts, but at a cost of a finite resource.
It almost seems like you're trying to convince me that the Weapon Smith needs to be stronger to compete with the Battle Smith. 😝
Resilient sphere was one of the defensive options already on their list as a panic button spell. My rationale for the hold spells is target acquisition; lock them down and maximise attacks against them. Not every spell has to be tied directly to the weapon if it still enables the weapon to be more effective. On that basis I'm unsure about heat metal personally as that's interfering with someone else's weapon, rather than helping you to use your own, though I'll think about it.
I claimed that because Vampiric doesn't use the proficiency bonus, it's just an alternate way to spend your weapon's charges. Arcane Weapon is the feature that actually scales with the proficiency bonus, and by the time you can take Vampiric you've almost maxed it out anyway.
And you were trying to highlight that the proficiency bonus somehow makes the sub-class a multiclasser's dream but you haven't established how; Vampiric was the example you chose but it doesn't seem exploitable? Having more charges but fewer ways to spend them doesn't really change the numbers on the arcane weapon, it just helps it to scale into the late game.
Yes, as I've said, these are not things I haven't thought about. Why do you keep assuming I haven't considered any of this?
What happens is the same thing that happens if you do it with any other (sub-)class like Paladin, a Hexblade Warlock etc., they get a Fighting Style, Action Surge, Second Wind etc. It's a strong sub-class, and is why Fighter is so popular as a multiclass with any martial oriented build, but I don't see that it's meaningfully any better. There are other (faster) ways to get haste on a fighter, a pure Eldritch Knight can use shadow blade without any help (or multiclassing) and so-on; the Weapon Smith doesn't have any unique capacity for volume of attacks (or to exploit them) that I've been able to think of.
I'm not seeing where the Weapon Smith is any more unbalanced than any other multiclassing combos? Your original concern was about the proficiency bonus scaling, but now you're talking about dipping out of Weapon Smith, but if you're doing that then you've already gained the bulk of the proficiency bonus for the character level anyway. And really, I'm not sure Wizards of the Coast balances classes for multiclassing to begin with, as there are strong, close to broken, combos that have existed for years without ever being addressed.
Again, if you're got any specific issues in mind, please describe them?
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 think there is too much in the subclass, and some of it is out of order. It takes a while to read.
It pronounced Den Sake. It is not Japanese.
Website character sheet not working fix (Hopefully)
Semi-Expert at homebrew, just ask for my help.
That'll be partly down to the two main options (fighting style and weapon enhancements); in practice you don't pick your first enhancement till 5th-level, and at that level you only have three to choose from. The enhancements are shown at the end because that seems to be how some (sub-)classes do it, though it's not very consistent.
At its core the sub-class is Arcane Weapon, martial weapons proficiency and a Fighting Style at 3rd, then Extra Attack and your first weapon enhancement at 5th, then two more enhancements at later levels.
Originally the sub-class was a lot simpler, and just allowed multiple weapon infusions, but it was far too strong (as most weapon infusions also boost the attack and damage rolls, so you could quickly end up with a +6 or better weapon with a bunch of different, always-on effects. I went the enhancements route because it gave me more control over keeping them better balanced (+5 should be the maximum, and only on a very specific combination of enhancements over an already magic weapon).
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.
Again, please read what I write. You are arguing against windmills right now. I've never claimed that issues that I already pointed out and you changed because I showed you they were OP is what makes this OP, that is just false. The part you are quoting was a reply to another wrong claim you made, the one where you said I hadn't told you why some things were OP. I have de facto done that.
You are the only one putting words in someone's mouth. You wrote: "I'm still unclear on why you think hunter's mark is either overpowered". Since I haven't there is no reason for you to be unclear on that issue. And I have already explained what the issue with giving this subclass HM is.
The order is irrelevant. Both Hex and HM have a limited damage bonus whereas the main theme of the spells (hunting or cursing the target) can be upcasted. You do raise a good issue though that neither Hex nor HM is thematically suitable for this subclass.
Again, you are making a strawman. The argument wasn't that it's about "a way for them to do more damage, with a weapon", it was that you claimed that HM is a way to enchant the weapon. It is not. And like I've already explained to you, just because it is a way to make more damage with a weapon doesn't make it thematically suitable for the WS. In fact, the argument that you are making, and I'm paraphrasing here, "everything that allows more damage is justified" is what makes it sound very power-gamey. It doesn't fit the theme but you want it anyway? Why? Becuase it does more damage!
Yes, your strawman is indeed a hyperbole.
If you don't understand the meaning of the word 'finite', I'm not going to argue that with you.
As I have already pointed out, that is a false equivalence. A 10th level Warlock only ever has two spell slots in any giving encounter (since you can't do short rests in the middle of a combat). A 10th level Artificer has 9 spells slots, albeit of a lower spell level. A Bard however, have 15 spell slots, two of which are as high level as the Warlock's.
I'm not sure why you insist on your false claims and hostility all the time. Again, your comparison of warlock spell slots and Artificer spells slots is indeed a skewed one. That doesn't mean "the Weapon Smith somehow reduces the Warlock down to the level of a mewling little baby". The reason why I haven't explained whu the WS does that should be painfully obvious, I haven't made any such claims, that's all on you.
And no, it is quite clear that you haven't given this a lot of thought since there are appearantly quite a few things that I've brought up that you hadn't thought about. And again, that is perfectly fine but you can't claim that this is a balanced subclass if you don't work those things out. Which is also fine.
You should tell this to EVERY company in the world. They would be thrilled to hear that they don't need to spend millions of testing their products by just "working things through". The whole point of testing things is to catch the things you didn't notice when "working things through".
What prevents the Weapon Smith from casting Faerie fire? Also, you were the one that brought up the Battle Smith. If you didn't want to comapre the two, that's on you.
Again, the WS doesn't need to be stronger. And again, again, you are the one comparing it to the Battle Smith. Which has just as many spell slots as the WS, but can only concentrate on one spell at a time. Spells lasting for only a minute isn't an issue though, especially not one that is unique to the WS.
So basically what you are saying that you don't care about what fits thematically as long as it makes the subclass stronger? I guess that is where we have a fundemental difference of opinion. For you, it seems, anything that makes your subclass stronger "fits thematically", even if it doesn't make any sense why a smith focused on forging and fighting with a melee weapon would know the spell. For me, it makes more sense if it is something that would actually make sense in the game world, something that the weapon smith would reasonably have picked up during its studies. I guess I'm more interested in storytelling and roleplaying than optimizing.
Except that it does. The VW uses charges, and charges are based on your PB, then the VW de facto does use PB.
I've never said anything of the sorts, that's on you. I said that it is something that you, as the creator of this subclass, need to consider and test to make sure that your subclass is balancewd. Again, if you don't want to test your subclass, you don't have to. But then you can't really claim that it's balanced. Which, again, is totally fine.
Which, on combination with other things, might be unbalancing. But you can't know that unless you test for it. So you should test for it if you want to make sure that the subclass is balanced.
I haven't assumed anything. I said that you need to test for things and you said that you didn't.
Well, you already told us that you haven't tested for problems so you can't really be sure that there arent any. But you really didn't adress the issue. A paladin and a Hexblade isn't a Weapon Smith so what happens when a Weapon Smith takes a few levels of Fighter is not the same as if a Hexblade does.
There are multiple issues that have been adressed but this just goes to show us how important playtesting is for balance. WotC has made rather immense testing of all of their products yet still they have some issues with balance. You claim that you don't need to but can still deliver a better end product than them.
I have already described the issues I've had in mind put to reiterate my point, you can't know of all the possible issues unless you actually test for them.
A small thing that would be thematically suitable was if the Arcane weapon removed the penalties for Small PCs using a Heavy weapon as their Arcane weapon. The justification could be that the weapon smith has designed a weapon that is so perfectly suitable for themself that not even the difference in size causes problems.