Now you are making some rather silly arguments, if that's what you're asking?
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
They only reason the people who built the first fighter jets didn't fly them is because they weren't seen as expendable compared to the farm boy who was trained to handle a stick.
No, not really. Besides the fact that you are wrong in your claim that the "farm boys" were expendable (they weren't, they were highly trained and valued (for example, one reason why Britain had an advantage during the Blitz was that British pilots who were shot down could just get another plane and go up again whereas the German pilots shot down were captured, planes were easier to replace than pilots (this was before jet fighters but the principle remains)), especially the ones that got to fly the first jet fighters), the people building and designing the planes were very often engineers and not pilots, so it would have been foolish for an untrained person to fly such dangerous machines.
But again, this is all beside the point that simply being able to build something does not mean you are automatically good at using it, yes?
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Has anyone actually said this?
Do you know what an analogy is?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Has anyone actually said this?
Do you know what an analogy is?
Yes. I also know what a strawman fallacy is. :)
It doesn't seem you do. I'm not misinterpreting your statement, I'm putting it in context with the other subclasses. If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same argument that I claimed you made?
"I built the plane, therefore I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes"
Artificers are trained to use the tools they get expertise in. If they're not trained in Vehicles, they can't be better than anyone who is trained.
Let me throw something in here, since i more or less started the debate:
Remember the podrace scene in "star wars episode 1: a phantom menace"? Remember how anakin was during the race making small technical adjustments to his vehicle mid flight to make it go faster or to resolve minor technical issues as they pooped up, including having to catch one of his engines with a grapple hook to stop it from flying away? Maybe you can justify tool expertise in a similar manner, your piloting skills are more or less the same but your technical innovations and subtle magics begin to aid you in your steering and piloting over rough Waters similarly to how People flavor flash of genious
Also vehicle proficiency is more than just the abillity to drive something, its a lot of theoretical stuff as well, including how to build and perform maintinance on a vehicle, and water vehicles also includes anything a sailor should know such as tying knots and things, according to xanatars guide to everything, and those things are all things that an artificer should be Good at, you could even say some of your expertise comes from your infused items to some degree
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same argument that I claimed you made?
"I built the plane, therefore I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes"
Artificers are trained to use the tools they get expertise in. If they're not trained in Vehicles, they can't be better than anyone who is trained.
I'm not even sure you yourself understand what you are trying to say. I was reitierating the flawed argument, did you not understand that? Again, you do understand the difference between being able to build an object and being able to use it? Just because you build, let's say a cart using your proficiency in carpenter's tools does not mean you automatically get profiency in Land Vehicles to allow you to drive that cart as efficient as someone who has trained (ie, has proficiency) driving carts.
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Has anyone actually said this?
Do you know what an analogy is?
Yes. I also know what a strawman fallacy is. :)
It doesn't seem you do. I'm not misinterpreting your statement, I'm putting it in context with the other subclasses. If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.
You're funny. You keep on repeating the same strawman argument while completely ignoring the point. Your scenario ("If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.") has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which is the simply because you build something does not give you proficiency in the thing you built.
@ArtificeMeal: Yes, absolutely. If that person has proficiency in both Land Vehicles and that required tool to build the specific land vehicle. But simply the act of building a vehicle doesn't give you proficiency in using that vehicle.
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same
@ArtificeMeal: Yes, absolutely. If that person has proficiency in both Land Vehicles and that required tool to build the specific land vehicle. But simply the act of building a vehicle doesn't give you proficiency in using that vehicle.
I do not have time to delete all that text but like, never did i say that having carpenter's tools is the same as having water vehicle proficiency or that the humble carpenter who made a trebuchet knows how to effectively deploy said trebuchet, i just wanted to mention that tool proficiency is broad and can apply to a range of situations, many of whom it would make sense for the problem-solving artificer to excell at especially with water vehicles and particularly high tech and magical craft, sas å well as give a suggestion as to how the inventor and problem solver begins to excell at these things starting at later levels
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same
@ArtificeMeal: Yes, absolutely. If that person has proficiency in both Land Vehicles and that required tool to build the specific land vehicle. But simply the act of building a vehicle doesn't give you proficiency in using that vehicle.
I do not have time to delete all that text but like, never did i say that having carpenter's tools is the same as having water vehicle proficiency or that the humble carpenter who made a trebuchet knows how to effectively deploy said trebuchet, i just wanted to mention that tool proficiency is broad and can apply to a range of situations, many of whom it would make sense for the problem-solving artificer to excell at especially with water vehicles and particularly high tech and magical craft, sas å well as give a suggestion as to how the inventor and problem solver begins to excell at these things starting at later levels
No, but what you said and what I commented on was "if their character makes vehicles for a living, that they should be alloweed to pilot them better". Being able to make something doesn't mean you can use them, on that we can agree, right?
Yeah, that is kind of a silly argument. Artificers know how to build things, and use the things they build.
Saying "an artificer shouldn't know how to drive their own vehicle" is a bit like saying "a battle smith shouldn't know how to control their own Steel Defender!"
Has anyone actually said this?
Do you know what an analogy is?
Yes. I also know what a strawman fallacy is. :)
It doesn't seem you do. I'm not misinterpreting your statement, I'm putting it in context with the other subclasses. If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.
You're funny. You keep on repeating the same strawman argument while completely ignoring the point. Your scenario ("If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.") has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which is the simply because you build something does not give you proficiency in the thing you built.
@ArtificeMeal: Yes, absolutely. If that person has proficiency in both Land Vehicles and that required tool to build the specific land vehicle. But simply the act of building a vehicle doesn't give you proficiency in using that vehicle.
Building something doesn't make you proficiency at the thing you build, but you generally have a better feel of how it works and how to use it than just a random joe.
In D&D, building a vehicle does not give you proficiency in the thing you build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Remember Artificers only get expertise in tools they're already proficient in, so they've also been trained how to use those things.
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
It's more like a fighter pilot getting more intimately familiar with the technical specs of her jet and using that knowledge to better push the limits.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same argument that I claimed you made?
"I built the plane, therefore I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes"
Artificers are trained to use the tools they get expertise in. If they're not trained in Vehicles, they can't be better than anyone who is trained.
I'm not even sure you yourself understand what you are trying to say. I was reitierating the flawed argument, did you not understand that? Again, you do understand the difference between being able to build an object and being able to use it? Just because you build, let's say a cart using your proficiency in carpenter's tools does not mean you automatically get profiency in Land Vehicles to allow you to drive that cart as efficient as someone who has trained (ie, has proficiency) driving carts.
I'm glad you've established that you know what a strawman argument is, because nobody was arguing that proficiency in carpenter's tools should make an Artificer proficient in Land Vehicles.
People were only stating that because they're Artificers, their training in Land Vehicles counts for more.
The artificer class itself has nothing to do with vehicles, instruments, or gaming sets. You don't even get any of those from the class.
The artificer's features are all about the tools they use and how they use then. The feature is also called "Tool Expertise", not just "Expertise". Therefore, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the artificer class to give expertise on anything but their tools. I don't think there's anything silly about a class focused around tools getting expertise in tools.
The game developers seem to disagree with you. They made Tool Expertise work on all "tools" for a reason, and RAW, RAI, and RAF it works the same way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The artificer class itself has nothing to do with vehicles, instruments, or gaming sets. You don't even get any of those from the class.
The artificer's features are all about the tools they use and how they use then. The feature is also called "Tool Expertise", not just "Expertise". Therefore, it doesn't really make a lot of sense for the artificer class to give expertise on anything but their tools. I don't think there's anything silly about a class focused around tools getting expertise in tools.
The game developers seem to disagree with you. They made Tool Expertise work on all "tools" for a reason, and RAW, RAI, and RAF it works the same way.
You love trying to just shut people down, don't you?
You can't say for sure what RAI are, as they haven't really been officially clarified. RAI is typically what makes the most sense. Including musical instruments and vehicles as "tools" isn't something that most people would consider to make the most sense You also can't say what RAF are, as that's more subjective to each group.
Not really at shutting people down, but keeping it open this way does make the game more open.
RAI, I think it's supposed to be open because the artificer class is supposed to fill the wide range that is the tools. Vehicle Artificers just make sense, and should be made a subclass sometime in the future (there are infernal warmachines that basically fit this). Vehicles make sense, instruments can make sense, and so do gaming sets. Artificers in general are supposed to be experts at a wide range of things.
RAF, yes I cannot say what that is for every group, but I know most players prefer the game to be open. Open ended rules like this one can encourage player choices.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Except RAI isn't what you think it is, it's what the developers intended when they wrote the features. Also, the point still stands that nothing in the Artificer class mentions instruments, gaming sets, or vehicles.
I'm not pretending to know exactly what the devs intended. I'm also not saying that it's an objective fact that the feature doesn't give you a bonus for those other items, as that's up to the DM of whatever group you're in. I'm just stating what makes the most sense.
The game devs have stated nothing saying that the feature was worded a way they didn't intend it to work. They have done clarifications very quickly for other features (Echoes, Chronugists, etc) that had vague text. Make the assumptions you like, I'll do the same, but RAW (and it seems RAI), the feature functions how I rule it.
Also, the point still stands that nothing in the Artificer class mentions instruments, gaming sets, or vehicles.
It doesn't need to. The feature isn't "your proficient bonus is doubled for any ability that uses a tool proficiency you get from this class". It says "your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool.". If they wanted it to only be artisans' tools they would have said "with an artisan's tool". Instruments, gaming sets and vehicles are all tool proficiencies. It also doesn't mention any of the tools that aren't artisan's tools, instruments, gaming sets or vehicles like the thieve's tools. The one tool proficiency that every single artificer will have, and that is in their starting equipment. If they wanted it to be artisan's tools+thieve's tools they could have said for any tools that can be used as a spellcasting focus. The fact of the matter is, there were many different ways to word the ability if it was intended to only work with the tools that a player can get from the artificer class, and they didn't choose to go with any of them. Any argument that Tool Expertise wasn't meant to include instruments, gaming sets or vehicles hinges entirely on the fact that the designers forgot that those are tool proficincies, in a game where any kind of proficiency that can be used in an ability check is defined as a skill proficiency or a tool proficiency.
Ya'll need to chill. Apparently anyone who says the anything different to anyone is just trying to shut down the game. I just gave an alternate possibility behind the feature and ya'll lost your minds. Clearly opinions aren't welcome on this thread.
Ah yes, because being told why your alternate possibility is most likely wrong is the same as being told you're not allowed to have an opinion.
Ya'll need to chill. Apparently anyone who says the anything different to anyone is just trying to shut down the game. I just gave an alternate possibility behind the feature and ya'll lost your minds. Clearly opinions aren't welcome on this thread.
So, in your strawman, we're not allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong, right? If you're able to put your (probably incorrect) opinion in this thread, we're allowed to put ours as well.
Good grief.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Now you are making some rather silly arguments, if that's what you're asking?
That was not what I was arguing against but to reply to this strawman, yes, what you say is absolutely correct. It has very little if anything to do with my objection. Like I said, just because you can build something does not mean that you are good at using it. You must also be trained in *how* to use it. The two aren't mutually exclusive but being good at the one does not mean you are automatically good at the other, which was the point I was making.
Which is not the same as "I built the plane, therefor I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes." Do you see the difference?
No, not really. Besides the fact that you are wrong in your claim that the "farm boys" were expendable (they weren't, they were highly trained and valued (for example, one reason why Britain had an advantage during the Blitz was that British pilots who were shot down could just get another plane and go up again whereas the German pilots shot down were captured, planes were easier to replace than pilots (this was before jet fighters but the principle remains)), especially the ones that got to fly the first jet fighters), the people building and designing the planes were very often engineers and not pilots, so it would have been foolish for an untrained person to fly such dangerous machines.
But again, this is all beside the point that simply being able to build something does not mean you are automatically good at using it, yes?
Has anyone actually said this?
Do you know what an analogy is?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes. I also know what a strawman fallacy is. :)
It doesn't seem you do. I'm not misinterpreting your statement, I'm putting it in context with the other subclasses. If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Did you just call my argument a strawman while immediately making the exact same argument that I claimed you made?
"I built the plane, therefore I automatically can fly it better than the pilots who train to fly planes"
Artificers are trained to use the tools they get expertise in. If they're not trained in Vehicles, they can't be better than anyone who is trained.
Let me throw something in here, since i more or less started the debate:
Remember the podrace scene in "star wars episode 1: a phantom menace"? Remember how anakin was during the race making small technical adjustments to his vehicle mid flight to make it go faster or to resolve minor technical issues as they pooped up, including having to catch one of his engines with a grapple hook to stop it from flying away? Maybe you can justify tool expertise in a similar manner, your piloting skills are more or less the same but your technical innovations and subtle magics begin to aid you in your steering and piloting over rough Waters similarly to how People flavor flash of genious
Also vehicle proficiency is more than just the abillity to drive something, its a lot of theoretical stuff as well, including how to build and perform maintinance on a vehicle, and water vehicles also includes anything a sailor should know such as tying knots and things, according to xanatars guide to everything, and those things are all things that an artificer should be Good at, you could even say some of your expertise comes from your infused items to some degree
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I'm not even sure you yourself understand what you are trying to say. I was reitierating the flawed argument, did you not understand that? Again, you do understand the difference between being able to build an object and being able to use it? Just because you build, let's say a cart using your proficiency in carpenter's tools does not mean you automatically get profiency in Land Vehicles to allow you to drive that cart as efficient as someone who has trained (ie, has proficiency) driving carts.
You're funny. You keep on repeating the same strawman argument while completely ignoring the point. Your scenario ("If there was an artificer who focuses on vehicles (which there should) they would know how to use their vehicles. An artificer that's proficient in Land Vehicles knows how to use land vehicles, because of the definition of proficiency in 5e.") has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which is the simply because you build something does not give you proficiency in the thing you built.
@ArtificeMeal: Yes, absolutely. If that person has proficiency in both Land Vehicles and that required tool to build the specific land vehicle. But simply the act of building a vehicle doesn't give you proficiency in using that vehicle.
I do not have time to delete all that text but like, never did i say that having carpenter's tools is the same as having water vehicle proficiency or that the humble carpenter who made a trebuchet knows how to effectively deploy said trebuchet, i just wanted to mention that tool proficiency is broad and can apply to a range of situations, many of whom it would make sense for the problem-solving artificer to excell at especially with water vehicles and particularly high tech and magical craft, sas å well as give a suggestion as to how the inventor and problem solver begins to excell at these things starting at later levels
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
No, but what you said and what I commented on was "if their character makes vehicles for a living, that they should be alloweed to pilot them better". Being able to make something doesn't mean you can use them, on that we can agree, right?
Building something doesn't make you proficiency at the thing you build, but you generally have a better feel of how it works and how to use it than just a random joe.
In D&D, building a vehicle does not give you proficiency in the thing you build.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
all tools are pretty DM/game dependent...expertise doubly so. some homebrew options:
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
I'm glad you've established that you know what a strawman argument is, because nobody was arguing that proficiency in carpenter's tools should make an Artificer proficient in Land Vehicles.
People were only stating that because they're Artificers, their training in Land Vehicles counts for more.
The game developers seem to disagree with you. They made Tool Expertise work on all "tools" for a reason, and RAW, RAI, and RAF it works the same way.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not really at shutting people down, but keeping it open this way does make the game more open.
RAI, I think it's supposed to be open because the artificer class is supposed to fill the wide range that is the tools. Vehicle Artificers just make sense, and should be made a subclass sometime in the future (there are infernal warmachines that basically fit this). Vehicles make sense, instruments can make sense, and so do gaming sets. Artificers in general are supposed to be experts at a wide range of things.
RAF, yes I cannot say what that is for every group, but I know most players prefer the game to be open. Open ended rules like this one can encourage player choices.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The game devs have stated nothing saying that the feature was worded a way they didn't intend it to work. They have done clarifications very quickly for other features (Echoes, Chronugists, etc) that had vague text. Make the assumptions you like, I'll do the same, but RAW (and it seems RAI), the feature functions how I rule it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It doesn't need to. The feature isn't "your proficient bonus is doubled for any ability that uses a tool proficiency you get from this class". It says "your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool.". If they wanted it to only be artisans' tools they would have said "with an artisan's tool". Instruments, gaming sets and vehicles are all tool proficiencies. It also doesn't mention any of the tools that aren't artisan's tools, instruments, gaming sets or vehicles like the thieve's tools. The one tool proficiency that every single artificer will have, and that is in their starting equipment. If they wanted it to be artisan's tools+thieve's tools they could have said for any tools that can be used as a spellcasting focus. The fact of the matter is, there were many different ways to word the ability if it was intended to only work with the tools that a player can get from the artificer class, and they didn't choose to go with any of them. Any argument that Tool Expertise wasn't meant to include instruments, gaming sets or vehicles hinges entirely on the fact that the designers forgot that those are tool proficincies, in a game where any kind of proficiency that can be used in an ability check is defined as a skill proficiency or a tool proficiency.
Ah yes, because being told why your alternate possibility is most likely wrong is the same as being told you're not allowed to have an opinion.
So, in your strawman, we're not allowed to have the opinion that your opinion is wrong, right? If you're able to put your (probably incorrect) opinion in this thread, we're allowed to put ours as well.
Good grief.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Whatever. You're so desperate to be right, so go ahead. I'm done arguing with someone with such a narrow mind.
How to add tooltips on dndbeyond