I had a thought about how if you combined a battle smiths steel defender and a beast wardens beast of the land into one creature you can make a beast servitor from Warhammer 40k and thought I should mention it.
Whats to say the Steel Defender wasn't that already? It doesn't explicitly state the defender has to be non-organic in nature. I believe its common practice to flavor them along the lines of golems common to whatever you setting is. So if you're some place that uses flesh golems on the regular, a defender being a dead body (or not so dead body ) thats reanimated by machinery would fit right in.
Refocusing, the general concept of a ranger- artificer multiclassing has some intriguing possibilities.I’ve argued elsewhere that that rangers should have way more skills and an artisan background artificer/ranger can certainly manage that. Further, if rangers are supposedly spending significant time alone in the wilds using their skills to develop useful infusions generating effectively magical items can make a lot of sense. I would recommend going ranger 1/ artificer 2 to get basic skills and HP from ranger then infusions from artificer . After that I suggest going ranger to L6 to get the subclass, ASI, extra attack and roving. While ranger has a number of nice features after L6 I think artificer may offer more/better and would go artificer the rest of the way ending as a ranger 6/artificer 14. Yes, there are some redundancies like armorer getting a useless extra attack at L5. Over all I think the concept is worth considerably more exploration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had a thought about how if you combined a battle smiths steel defender and a beast wardens beast of the land into one creature you can make a beast servitor from Warhammer 40k and thought I should mention it.
Whats to say the Steel Defender wasn't that already? It doesn't explicitly state the defender has to be non-organic in nature. I believe its common practice to flavor them along the lines of golems common to whatever you setting is. So if you're some place that uses flesh golems on the regular, a defender being a dead body (or not so dead body ) thats reanimated by machinery would fit right in.
thanks, I tend to go over bored with the multi classing.
Refocusing, the general concept of a ranger- artificer multiclassing has some intriguing possibilities.I’ve argued elsewhere that that rangers should have way more skills and an artisan background artificer/ranger can certainly manage that. Further, if rangers are supposedly spending significant time alone in the wilds using their skills to develop useful infusions generating effectively magical items can make a lot of sense. I would recommend going ranger 1/ artificer 2 to get basic skills and HP from ranger then infusions from artificer . After that I suggest going ranger to L6 to get the subclass, ASI, extra attack and roving. While ranger has a number of nice features after L6 I think artificer may offer more/better and would go artificer the rest of the way ending as a ranger 6/artificer 14. Yes, there are some redundancies like armorer getting a useless extra attack at L5. Over all I think the concept is worth considerably more exploration.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.