i like how streamlined 5e is. Just because you don't have to read through 10 pages to understand what the main class features are does not make it bad. Artificer is already as crunchy as 5e classes are going to get. Play an older edition if you dont like it, but 5e has been the most popular and profitable edition of dungeons and dragons so far.
Thats not entirely because its like, the most perfect and "streamlined" version of dnd or even ttrpgs. It is more largely due to the mainstreamification of Dungeons and Dragons, through things like; Critical Role, Stranger Things and all sorts of other books, plays and even some references in movies and music that caused a wider audience to become aware of it. And yes all these new people are much more likely to stick around because it is so easy, but that isnt necessarily a good (or bad) thing. A lot of time it is causing WotC to sacrifice interesting, unique and admittedly more complicated features, in lou of making everything accessible to, in the words of Yurie, noobs.
I think that a casual audience is kinda required nowadays for a game to be successful. That, or a series of die hard fans. I think that WoTC was worried about people continuing to play 3.5, after what happened with 4e (where it was less popular and a lot of people still played 3.5), and so tried to expand into a new audience of players, who were not willing to put in the time to memorizing and keeping track of a ridiculous amount of mechanics. I am, sorry to say, one of those people. When I started wanting to get into DnD (I was 13 at the time), 5e was the big one, and I have since gotten used to it, when I probably would not have with 3.5 rules.
Honestly, I agree with yurei on the satchel. If they bring back throwing damaging potions as a main class feature, I would be disappointed. I would much rather they go into a series of interesting and useful potion effects with a satchel, and let spells and cantrips be the main way of dealing damage as an alchemist. When I say "I would like a revised alchemists satchel" I do NOT mean "I want the alchemists satchel back as it was, because it was better"
The satchel was fine for the 2017 Artificer (excluding the damage numbers, because holy hell) but with the addition of cantrips the damaging options from the satchel would become a little redundant. If they were going to go with the satchel, they would have to add effects that aren't just replications of things that are already available to the class/subclass.
With that said, I sincerely doubt they'll bring the satchel back as a class feature. They had mentioned before possibly bringing it back as an infusion (which would be cool to have as an option) but that's as far as I've heard on the matter.
The satchel was fine for the 2017 Artificer (excluding the damage numbers, because holy hell) but with the addition of cantrips the damaging options from the satchel would become a little redundant. If they were going to go with the satchel, they would have to add effects that aren't just replications of things that are already available to the class/subclass.
With that said, I sincerely doubt they'll bring the satchel back as a class feature. They had mentioned before possibly bringing it back as an infusion (which would be cool to have as an option) but that's as far as I've heard on the matter.
I like this. I fee like infusions have a huge potential to change the entire way you can play an Artificer, just like how Eldritch Invocations do. And honestly if they added enough that were as unique and interesting as say the Satchel and Homonculus as infusions not class features(maybe requiring proficiency in alchemist supplies to be able to learn) it could make it flexible enough to make everyone happy
I guess? I feel like improvising a potion on the spot should be an alchemist ability, I cannot see a justification for that being an infusion. Homonculus I could understand, for creating a mechanical pet, but knowing how to use alchemists tools doesnt mean you should be a master at it. Tool proficiencies as a requirement to use an infusion is an idea I really like, but I feel there is a difference between knowing how to use tools to make something really well, and being an unprecedented master at it.
I guess? I feel like improvising a potion on the spot should be an alchemist ability, I cannot see a justification for that being an infusion. Homonculus I could understand, for creating a mechanical pet, but knowing how to use alchemists tools doesnt mean you should be a master at it. Tool proficiencies as a requirement to use an infusion is an idea I really like, but I feel there is a difference between knowing how to use tools to make something really well, and being an unprecedented master at it.
I guess? I feel like improvising a potion on the spot should be an alchemist ability, I cannot see a justification for that being an infusion. Homonculus I could understand, for creating a mechanical pet, but knowing how to use alchemists tools doesnt mean you should be a master at it. Tool proficiencies as a requirement to use an infusion is an idea I really like, but I feel there is a difference between knowing how to use tools to make something really well, and being an unprecedented master at it.
Thats fair i think. It just becomes really difficult to make everyone happy when no one thinks this class should be the same haha
Sneak Attack scaling with a magical base damage type, AoE effects on the one, and no actual requirements for Sneak Attack (i.e. no advantage, no flanking ally) was pretty gonzo.
That said...alright, alright. It amuses me to rip heavily on the Mad Scientist goobers, in part because that stupid trope is so overplayed and obnoxious and in part because it's so easy to make fun of. That and it's such a distressingly boring way to do it, when a chemical-spitting mechanical familiar whose loadout of concoctions you could change on a rest, or even a pneumatic crossbow loaded with a revolver-style cylinder of different fluids could've been so much more interesting and awesome than "sack of alchemical goo".
Alas, what might have been. Or will be, because if the Satchel goes live again I'm very much asking my DM if I can ignore the 'satchel' part of the satchel and retool the ability to work with either a homebrew homunculus or said pneumatic crossbow, instead.
I'd allow that at my table. In fact, in the campaign I'm running right now I homebrewed a druid subclass (with a little bit of inspiration from Circle of Spores) for one of my players after asking him what type of character he wanted to run (he was pretty jazzed with the result).
I've joked about making a cackling mad scientist Alchemist who blows himself up on the regular, but in actuality the Alchemist I made (but never got to play around with) was more of a quiet herbalist with a speech impediment living as a hermit by his lonesome until recent conflict forced him from his home, who reacted cool under pressure and expertly mixed reagents he'd collected during his travels to create whatever formula was needed at that moment. He was one of my favorites, even though I never got to play with him.
Basically what Wizards is saying the satchel is - you "Brew A Potion" as an action and hurl it in the same action.
As someone who's played alchemist-trained magical characters in other game types/settings, where this shit can take weeks to steep and require arcane processes and ingredients one cannot possibly carry in a fanny pack, however magical, It Offendeth Mine Sensibilities. Alchemists prepare what they need for quickfire situations like combat before combat, not in the midst of it. That is part and parcel of being an alchemist - a deliberate, scientifically-minded magician of materials who does things nobody could ever improvise into being in six seconds by taking their time, doing their research, and making full use of the tools and workspaces at their disposal.
An alchemist who adventures does so with compounds and materials they prepared before setting out; if they do have a field lab it's stripped down and not as capable as their home lab, used more to maintain their existing stock or to scratch-brew simple materials over the course of a short rest equivalent. The benefit of taking so much time to do their work is that the alchemist can create virtually anything she has the proper reagents for, not just one of four or five things off a shortlist of combat bombables.
Heh, it's why alchemists are also either weapon users or dabblers in Evocation (5e) or Aethermancy (home settings) - battle magic is what you use to fight battles with, not 'combat alchemy'. Or at least not the beer-and-candles alchemy. The clap-and-slap alchemy that turns whatever you slap into a high-speed debris fist aimed at your enemies is perfectly fine for fighting.
I agree with you that hurling created potions for damage is a bad idea, and undermines the idea of an alchemist as a scientist. But I do not feel the same for just improvising a weak potion of healing, or the other alchemical valve stuff on the spot. Alchemists being a combat based subclass would be wrong. But they should be able to support the party. Tools of the trade allow you to create all variety of potions in your downtime, i am talking about a limited use ability that allows you to improvise a very low level potion. I do not want the alchemists to be an explosive subclass. If the bard can improvise a song to empower their allies with inspiration on the spot, an alchemist can (with serious knowledge of the components and immense practice in doing things like this) mix chemicals together to heal their allies quickly. I do not want combat alchemy (besides cantrips that already exist).
if they already have the components, and are in a state prepared to mix them together, with them in the correct equipment, I would be perfectly fine with them doing that in combat. Or hell, let them pick a few benefits from a wide array, on a level similar to the alchemical salves, to prepare at the end of a short or long rest. That way it would still take time but they would be able to do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats not entirely because its like, the most perfect and "streamlined" version of dnd or even ttrpgs. It is more largely due to the mainstreamification of Dungeons and Dragons, through things like; Critical Role, Stranger Things and all sorts of other books, plays and even some references in movies and music that caused a wider audience to become aware of it. And yes all these new people are much more likely to stick around because it is so easy, but that isnt necessarily a good (or bad) thing. A lot of time it is causing WotC to sacrifice interesting, unique and admittedly more complicated features, in lou of making everything accessible to, in the words of Yurie, noobs.
yes, they have sacrificed complication for accessibility. Totally ruined the game.
Exaclty!! Thank you for actually reading what i had to say o.0
I dont understand how me stating exactly what WotC has said themselves makes me objectively wrong? But whatever im done arguing it
I think that a casual audience is kinda required nowadays for a game to be successful. That, or a series of die hard fans. I think that WoTC was worried about people continuing to play 3.5, after what happened with 4e (where it was less popular and a lot of people still played 3.5), and so tried to expand into a new audience of players, who were not willing to put in the time to memorizing and keeping track of a ridiculous amount of mechanics. I am, sorry to say, one of those people. When I started wanting to get into DnD (I was 13 at the time), 5e was the big one, and I have since gotten used to it, when I probably would not have with 3.5 rules.
Honestly, I agree with yurei on the satchel. If they bring back throwing damaging potions as a main class feature, I would be disappointed. I would much rather they go into a series of interesting and useful potion effects with a satchel, and let spells and cantrips be the main way of dealing damage as an alchemist. When I say "I would like a revised alchemists satchel" I do NOT mean "I want the alchemists satchel back as it was, because it was better"
The satchel was fine for the 2017 Artificer (excluding the damage numbers, because holy hell) but with the addition of cantrips the damaging options from the satchel would become a little redundant. If they were going to go with the satchel, they would have to add effects that aren't just replications of things that are already available to the class/subclass.
With that said, I sincerely doubt they'll bring the satchel back as a class feature. They had mentioned before possibly bringing it back as an infusion (which would be cool to have as an option) but that's as far as I've heard on the matter.
By satchel I mean some fastpaced potion crafting buff ability
I like this. I fee like infusions have a huge potential to change the entire way you can play an Artificer, just like how Eldritch Invocations do. And honestly if they added enough that were as unique and interesting as say the Satchel and Homonculus as infusions not class features(maybe requiring proficiency in alchemist supplies to be able to learn) it could make it flexible enough to make everyone happy
I guess? I feel like improvising a potion on the spot should be an alchemist ability, I cannot see a justification for that being an infusion. Homonculus I could understand, for creating a mechanical pet, but knowing how to use alchemists tools doesnt mean you should be a master at it. Tool proficiencies as a requirement to use an infusion is an idea I really like, but I feel there is a difference between knowing how to use tools to make something really well, and being an unprecedented master at it.
I guess? I feel like improvising a potion on the spot should be an alchemist ability, I cannot see a justification for that being an infusion. Homonculus I could understand, for creating a mechanical pet, but knowing how to use alchemists tools doesnt mean you should be a master at it. Tool proficiencies as a requirement to use an infusion is an idea I really like, but I feel there is a difference between knowing how to use tools to make something really well, and being an unprecedented master at it.
Thats fair i think. It just becomes really difficult to make everyone happy when no one thinks this class should be the same haha
Yeah. Also, the alchemists satchel from 2017 was not that op. It was sneak attack scaled.
Sneak Attack scaling with a magical base damage type, AoE effects on the one, and no actual requirements for Sneak Attack (i.e. no advantage, no flanking ally) was pretty gonzo.
That said...alright, alright. It amuses me to rip heavily on the Mad Scientist goobers, in part because that stupid trope is so overplayed and obnoxious and in part because it's so easy to make fun of. That and it's such a distressingly boring way to do it, when a chemical-spitting mechanical familiar whose loadout of concoctions you could change on a rest, or even a pneumatic crossbow loaded with a revolver-style cylinder of different fluids could've been so much more interesting and awesome than "sack of alchemical goo".
Alas, what might have been. Or will be, because if the Satchel goes live again I'm very much asking my DM if I can ignore the 'satchel' part of the satchel and retool the ability to work with either a homebrew homunculus or said pneumatic crossbow, instead.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah Artillerist is better for the mad scientist type, cause at least then it makes sense
I'd allow that at my table. In fact, in the campaign I'm running right now I homebrewed a druid subclass (with a little bit of inspiration from Circle of Spores) for one of my players after asking him what type of character he wanted to run (he was pretty jazzed with the result).
I've joked about making a cackling mad scientist Alchemist who blows himself up on the regular, but in actuality the Alchemist I made (but never got to play around with) was more of a quiet herbalist with a speech impediment living as a hermit by his lonesome until recent conflict forced him from his home, who reacted cool under pressure and expertly mixed reagents he'd collected during his travels to create whatever formula was needed at that moment. He was one of my favorites, even though I never got to play with him.
How about instead of alchemists satchel, it is an improvised potion type thing, where you brew a potion over the course of an action with an effect.
Basically what Wizards is saying the satchel is - you "Brew A Potion" as an action and hurl it in the same action.
As someone who's played alchemist-trained magical characters in other game types/settings, where this shit can take weeks to steep and require arcane processes and ingredients one cannot possibly carry in a fanny pack, however magical, It Offendeth Mine Sensibilities. Alchemists prepare what they need for quickfire situations like combat before combat, not in the midst of it. That is part and parcel of being an alchemist - a deliberate, scientifically-minded magician of materials who does things nobody could ever improvise into being in six seconds by taking their time, doing their research, and making full use of the tools and workspaces at their disposal.
An alchemist who adventures does so with compounds and materials they prepared before setting out; if they do have a field lab it's stripped down and not as capable as their home lab, used more to maintain their existing stock or to scratch-brew simple materials over the course of a short rest equivalent. The benefit of taking so much time to do their work is that the alchemist can create virtually anything she has the proper reagents for, not just one of four or five things off a shortlist of combat bombables.
Heh, it's why alchemists are also either weapon users or dabblers in Evocation (5e) or Aethermancy (home settings) - battle magic is what you use to fight battles with, not 'combat alchemy'. Or at least not the beer-and-candles alchemy. The clap-and-slap alchemy that turns whatever you slap into a high-speed debris fist aimed at your enemies is perfectly fine for fighting.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree with you that hurling created potions for damage is a bad idea, and undermines the idea of an alchemist as a scientist. But I do not feel the same for just improvising a weak potion of healing, or the other alchemical valve stuff on the spot. Alchemists being a combat based subclass would be wrong. But they should be able to support the party. Tools of the trade allow you to create all variety of potions in your downtime, i am talking about a limited use ability that allows you to improvise a very low level potion. I do not want the alchemists to be an explosive subclass. If the bard can improvise a song to empower their allies with inspiration on the spot, an alchemist can (with serious knowledge of the components and immense practice in doing things like this) mix chemicals together to heal their allies quickly. I do not want combat alchemy (besides cantrips that already exist).
if they already have the components, and are in a state prepared to mix them together, with them in the correct equipment, I would be perfectly fine with them doing that in combat. Or hell, let them pick a few benefits from a wide array, on a level similar to the alchemical salves, to prepare at the end of a short or long rest. That way it would still take time but they would be able to do that.