I can see why the other class of characters wait until level 3. Afterall, a fighter is still a fighter, a cleric a cleric, etc.
However, the artificer, once they choose a subclass, are a wholly different class. So why not have them choose their subclass at level 1 but do not get the subclass benefits until level 3.
Afterall, an alchemist will most likely apprentice as such and not a smith, tinker, mechanic, etc. The armor and artillerist may apprentice as smiths or foundry workers. The battle smith may apprentice as a tinkerer, mechanic, etc.
For the Artificer this makes more sense than waiting until level 3.
I also feel there is too much dependence on magic for this class. I don't have a problem with it, but these characters need to be capable of building items also. With a level by level of progression of what they can do, in addition to their other skills listed already.
Which begs the question, since they did not include the artificer in the new player’s handbook, are they planning on revamping it in the future?
Unclear. There has been a lot of speculation, but they have not formally announced anything one way or the other. I definitely think it needs a bit of an overhaul.
Definitely, the term artificer implies they construct items, not will them into being with magic.
Nothing is willed into being. The word "artificer" implies they use their craft to deceive others. A genuine diamond bracelet isn't an example of artifice, but a fake would be.
When the artificer made its debut, it didn't actually cast spells. Its infusions duplicated the effects of spells and followed all the rules of spellcasting, but the infusions were neither arcane nor divine. In fact, they could come from any spell list, and the artificer even had a few exclusive ones. Now, the infusions are both arcane in nature and reclassified as spells, but the artificer isn't a spellcaster in the traditional sense. It never was, and it can't pull off such tricks without the tools of its trade. The language was merely standardized across all classes.
To sum up, artificers fake it until they make it by crafting items to achieve fantastical displays of power.
And the average person can't tell the difference between genuine magic and their nigh-indistinguishable technology.
Definitely, the term artificer implies they construct items, not will them into being with magic.
Nothing is willed into being. The word "artificer" implies they use their craft to deceive others. A genuine diamond bracelet isn't an example of artifice, but a fake would be.
That is not quite accurate. That is one possible definition. I am not sure what Keith Baker intended.
Quote from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
noun A skilled worker; a craftsperson.
noun One that contrives, devises, or constructs something.
noun A deceptive or devious person.
noun A military engineer.
The military engineer definition is particularly interesting.
An artificer is an appointment held by a member of an armed forces service who is skilled at working on electronic, electrical, electro-mechanical and/or mechanical devices. The specific term "artificer" for this function is typical of the armed forces of countries that are or have been in the British Commonwealth and refers to a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer. Artificer is a job title and not a rank.
Qualification to hold the position and title of Artificer requires years of training and service in order to gain the experience and rank required. In the British Forces, soldiers in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) or Royal Marines with the rank of Sergeant who have also qualified as Class 1 tradesmen are eligible for consideration for the Artificers course. Upon completion of the 18-month Artificers course, soldiers are promoted to Staff Sergeant (one rank above Sergeant in the British Army) and presented with the Artificers badge. They are also awarded a HND/Degree. Artificers are addressed as Tiff or 'The Tiffy', and may oversee the maintenance and repair of a unit's mechanical equipment, help to develop new equipment, or become further qualified on specific equipment.
Corps of Artificers served during the American Revolution and American Civil Wars. The rank of Artificer (abbreviated Art.), was also used in the United States army during the American Indian Wars.
Given the recent war/cold war aspect of the Eberron setting, this seems like a good candidate for the original inspiration. It's a field engineer responsible for maintaining, fabricating, and potentially inventing new equipment for their unit. Translating this to a D&D setting, they maintain and fabricate equipment for an adventuring party. Given that the setting, and the party's gear, is fantastical, artificers create magical items. Wizards are the physicists of magic, Artificers are the engineers.
My implication on willing it into being was the casting of a spell. I like the infusions aspect. I just hate that they just made them another spell caster. I love the idea of them being master crafters in various fields that can call on their arcane powers to form and construct things of wonder, not just do what every other spell caster could do with the tools at hand.
In a way, I spent 20 year as an artificer. I was a combat bridge engineer in the army. We build military style bridges and wooden bridges along with field fortifications.
One other thing, why do alchemist not how some kind of construct, like a golem. Afterall, as their alchemical skill grows they develop the means to bring life. Why not an inanimate elemental being?
One other thing, why do alchemist not how some kind of construct, like a golem. Afterall, as their alchemical skill grows they develop the means to bring life. Why not an inanimate elemental being?
Why don't Armorer's create animated suits of armor?
They can get a Homunculus (via their infusions) and it would dilute the focus of the subclass. In earlier editions, the Homunculus could craft for you (You provided any requirements, it provided the time). It is unfortunate that it does not provide the benefit anymore.
One other thing, why do alchemist not how some kind of construct, like a golem. Afterall, as their alchemical skill grows they develop the means to bring life. Why not an inanimate elemental being?
In the 2019 Artificer UA document the Alchemist's 3rd level subclass feature was the "Alchemical Homunculus" however in the feedback a lot of people complained how every Artificer subclass had a "pet" and they wanted a subclass that didn't have one (Armorer didn't exist yet). So upon release in Eberron The Alchemist's 3rd level subclass feature became "Experimental Elixir" instead and the "Alchemical Homunculus" had most of what was unique about it stripped away and weakened when it became the "Homunculus Servant" infusion. And many of us have been complaining or grumbling about this ever since.
In other words, they tried it but it wasn't popular enough so they revised it last minute and many feel it's worse off for the revision.
I can see why the other class of characters wait until level 3. Afterall, a fighter is still a fighter, a cleric a cleric, etc.
However, the artificer, once they choose a subclass, are a wholly different class. So why not have them choose their subclass at level 1 but do not get the subclass benefits until level 3.
Afterall, an alchemist will most likely apprentice as such and not a smith, tinker, mechanic, etc. The armor and artillerist may apprentice as smiths or foundry workers. The battle smith may apprentice as a tinkerer, mechanic, etc.
For the Artificer this makes more sense than waiting until level 3.
I also feel there is too much dependence on magic for this class. I don't have a problem with it, but these characters need to be capable of building items also. With a level by level of progression of what they can do, in addition to their other skills listed already.
Sort of a moot point given that all classes get their subclass selection at level 3 under 2024 rules.
I would agree, though, that the 5e Artificer class isn't hugely well-designed and probably shouldn't have a normal spellcasting feature at all.
pronouns: he/she/they
Which begs the question, since they did not include the artificer in the new player’s handbook, are they planning on revamping it in the future?
Unclear. There has been a lot of speculation, but they have not formally announced anything one way or the other. I definitely think it needs a bit of an overhaul.
pronouns: he/she/they
Definitely, the term artificer implies they construct items, not will them into being with magic.
Nothing is willed into being. The word "artificer" implies they use their craft to deceive others. A genuine diamond bracelet isn't an example of artifice, but a fake would be.
When the artificer made its debut, it didn't actually cast spells. Its infusions duplicated the effects of spells and followed all the rules of spellcasting, but the infusions were neither arcane nor divine. In fact, they could come from any spell list, and the artificer even had a few exclusive ones. Now, the infusions are both arcane in nature and reclassified as spells, but the artificer isn't a spellcaster in the traditional sense. It never was, and it can't pull off such tricks without the tools of its trade. The language was merely standardized across all classes.
To sum up, artificers fake it until they make it by crafting items to achieve fantastical displays of power.
And the average person can't tell the difference between genuine magic and their nigh-indistinguishable technology.
That is not quite accurate. That is one possible definition. I am not sure what Keith Baker intended.
The military engineer definition is particularly interesting.
Given the recent war/cold war aspect of the Eberron setting, this seems like a good candidate for the original inspiration. It's a field engineer responsible for maintaining, fabricating, and potentially inventing new equipment for their unit. Translating this to a D&D setting, they maintain and fabricate equipment for an adventuring party. Given that the setting, and the party's gear, is fantastical, artificers create magical items. Wizards are the physicists of magic, Artificers are the engineers.
How to add Tooltips.
My implication on willing it into being was the casting of a spell. I like the infusions aspect. I just hate that they just made them another spell caster. I love the idea of them being master crafters in various fields that can call on their arcane powers to form and construct things of wonder, not just do what every other spell caster could do with the tools at hand.
In a way, I spent 20 year as an artificer. I was a combat bridge engineer in the army. We build military style bridges and wooden bridges along with field fortifications.
One other thing, why do alchemist not how some kind of construct, like a golem. Afterall, as their alchemical skill grows they develop the means to bring life. Why not an inanimate elemental being?
Why don't Armorer's create animated suits of armor?
They can get a Homunculus (via their infusions) and it would dilute the focus of the subclass. In earlier editions, the Homunculus could craft for you (You provided any requirements, it provided the time). It is unfortunate that it does not provide the benefit anymore.
How to add Tooltips.
In the 2019 Artificer UA document the Alchemist's 3rd level subclass feature was the "Alchemical Homunculus" however in the feedback a lot of people complained how every Artificer subclass had a "pet" and they wanted a subclass that didn't have one (Armorer didn't exist yet). So upon release in Eberron The Alchemist's 3rd level subclass feature became "Experimental Elixir" instead and the "Alchemical Homunculus" had most of what was unique about it stripped away and weakened when it became the "Homunculus Servant" infusion. And many of us have been complaining or grumbling about this ever since.
In other words, they tried it but it wasn't popular enough so they revised it last minute and many feel it's worse off for the revision.