Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
I used to hate the idea of an artificer in a low magic setting (the core assumption of 5E). But now I kind of like it. It’s not a class for me as a player. I don’t care for it. But what a plot device! Every bad guy in the land would be after the one person that can just make magic items. LOL!
A ranger in their setting is bonkers crazy cakes great to play. And a ranger is great to play out of their setting too, but with a few pieces missing. This would be the same for a cleric, fighter, or paladin in a desert or seafaring campaign too. All of that heavy armor, need of ranged attacks, and motility requirements would be tougher in those settings.
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
That is why the first change I might make is changing the number of spells known not how frequently they can be changed, having even a few more spells might make needing to change them out redundant.
Spell lists for rangers would help too....it certainly helped Gloomstalker and the rest of the XGtE Subclasses.
Honestly I would let them swap those out as well and you would be golden.
Right now rangers max out at L19/20 with 11 known spells. Changing the known spells to + wisdom bonus would mean maxing out (L19/20 + Wis:20) would mean 15 spells max, could you find 4 more spells from the expanded ranger list that you wish you had but had to leave on the table to get something “better”? I’ll bet you could. Add a subclass spells known list for the subclasses that are missing one and you would probably be pretty well set even if you had no way to change them out? Probably.
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
That is why the first change I might make is changing the number of spells known not how frequently they can be changed, having even a few more spells might make needing to change them out redundant.
A sorcerer and warlock gets what? Like 3 to 5 more spells known than a ranger of the same level? And they are full spellcasters! Spells are a big part of their identity. An eldritch knight and arcane trickster get about the same number. Two solid base classes with some supplemental spellcasting.
Tasha’s helps the spells known bit for folks.
Didn't a unearthed arcana for pre Tasha’s have all of the prepared casters getting to swap out one spell on a long rest?
Sorceror maxes out with 15 spells known because they change the progression after level 11. Until then it’s L+1 known, then it starts dropping: L12/13 are straight level, L14-15 are L-1, L16/17 are L-2 and then your stuck at 15 all the way out. Even the bard gets more 22 max) . If your going to let the ranger have L/2+WB, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LET THE SORCER HAVE L+1 all the way out (21 max) 😁😳🤪 and yes it’s off topic
Also off topic somewhat - Warlocks do get 15 spells max - sort of. They get 15 L1-5 spells but then they also get L6-9 spells they just call them Arcanum instead of spells.
Eldritch knights and arcane trickster get 16/17 spells known including 3/4 cantrips and they are 1/3casters
so giving the ranger 4 more spells (L/2+WB) is unlikely to hurt anything.
Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
I used to hate the idea of an artificer in a low magic setting (the core assumption of 5E). But now I kind of like it. It’s not a class for me as a player. I don’t care for it. But what a plot device! Every bad guy in the land would be after the one person that can just make magic items. LOL!
A ranger in their setting is bonkers crazy cakes great to play. And a ranger is great to play out of their setting too, but with a few pieces missing. This would be the same for a cleric, fighter, or paladin in a desert or seafaring campaign too. All of that heavy armor, need of ranged attacks, and motility requirements would be tougher in those settings.
Is that really the case though? I know that they don't have formalized magic item shop systems etc in 5E but I never get the impression it's 'low magic.'
And it's not like artificers can just freely make whatever they want anyway. Someone has to make the magic items that DO exist even in a game without an artificer anyway.
Take the top tier ranger spells. The ones everyone picks most of the time. What would you switch out for if you could/can prepare spells? Find traps?! I’m not saying it wouldn’t be and feel “better”, but I am poking at the idea that is needed or weaker because you can’t.
That is why the first change I might make is changing the number of spells known not how frequently they can be changed, having even a few more spells might make needing to change them out redundant.
A sorcerer and warlock gets what? Like 3 to 5 more spells known than a ranger of the same level? And they are full spellcasters! Spells are a big part of their identity. An eldritch knight and arcane trickster get about the same number. Two solid base classes with some supplemental spellcasting.
Tasha’s helps the spells known bit for folks.
Didn't a unearthed arcana for pre Tasha’s have all of the prepared casters getting to swap out one spell on a long rest?
Sorcerers also get a boat load of cantrips and SP that they can use to cast more spells by converting to spell slots.
Warlocks get the best combat cantrip in the game and invocations that allow them infinite free castings of 1st and 2nd level spells. They too get cantrips so its more than just 3-5 spells.
Plus they get high level magic which just blows most martial out of the water anyway. If you stop at 10th level (like 90% of all campaigns do) then rangers get their best spell (conjure animals) for the last 1/10th of the game.
Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
I used to hate the idea of an artificer in a low magic setting (the core assumption of 5E). But now I kind of like it. It’s not a class for me as a player. I don’t care for it. But what a plot device! Every bad guy in the land would be after the one person that can just make magic items. LOL!
A ranger in their setting is bonkers crazy cakes great to play. And a ranger is great to play out of their setting too, but with a few pieces missing. This would be the same for a cleric, fighter, or paladin in a desert or seafaring campaign too. All of that heavy armor, need of ranged attacks, and motility requirements would be tougher in those settings.
Is that really the case though? I know that they don't have formalized magic item shop systems etc in 5E but I never get the impression it's 'low magic.'
And it's not like artificers can just freely make whatever they want anyway. Someone has to make the magic items that DO exist even in a game without an artificer anyway.
They talk about it in chapter 7 of the DMG.
So many folks here take things so literally. In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
Yes. Sorcerers get metamagic and warlocks get their upper level stuff. Rangers are martials and have lots of skills woven into their class. If someone says rangers get the shaft at higher levels, think of how the poor fighter and rogue feel. LOL! That’s silly. All high level characters in 5E are amazing at higher levels. Rangers, monks, barbarians, magic users, all of them.
For comparison wizards get a max of 30 spells prepared including 5 cantrips. Bards get 22 known spells and 4 cantrips with 22 spell slots. Warlocks are just out there with spells only castable at set levels, invocations and arcanum they don’t compare to anything. The sorceror has 15 known spells + 5 cantrips but they have the same number of spell slots as the wizard - actually more since , as Optimus pointed out, they can use SP to create more slots. But they are still only have 15 spells to choose from. The ranger has a max of 11 spells, no cantrips and 15 slots. EK, AT have 13 spells + 3/4 cantrips with only 11 slots. Paladins can prepare upto 15 spells for their 15 slots. Cleary rangers and sorcerors are a bit nerfed in spells available. Sorcerors are a different discussion but rangers need some help. It’s not so much that they need to be able to prepare spells daily but that they should get spells based on CL/2+WB not CL+1. Prepping spells as well would just be the icing on the cake.
Does an artificer really mess with a low magic setting any more than a wizard does?
There's also two things being conflated a bit I think. 'This thing does not work in my setting' like an artificer in a low magic setting, or the classic arguement of firearms etc in a setting where the DM doesnt' want firearms, are a matter of certain options not making sense in the setting.
The other thing is things not being particularly suited to a given campaign. A ranger in a city or an assassin in a dungeon delving campaign might not best suited to the adventure at hand by default, but they aren't causing tonal problems with the setting. But even then, that doesn't mean creative ways can't be found to use them out of their typical element either.
I used to hate the idea of an artificer in a low magic setting (the core assumption of 5E). But now I kind of like it. It’s not a class for me as a player. I don’t care for it. But what a plot device! Every bad guy in the land would be after the one person that can just make magic items. LOL!
A ranger in their setting is bonkers crazy cakes great to play. And a ranger is great to play out of their setting too, but with a few pieces missing. This would be the same for a cleric, fighter, or paladin in a desert or seafaring campaign too. All of that heavy armor, need of ranged attacks, and motility requirements would be tougher in those settings.
Is that really the case though? I know that they don't have formalized magic item shop systems etc in 5E but I never get the impression it's 'low magic.'
And it's not like artificers can just freely make whatever they want anyway. Someone has to make the magic items that DO exist even in a game without an artificer anyway.
They talk about it in chapter 7 of the DMG.
So many folks here take things so literally. In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
So would wizards, sorcerers etc. Artificers aren't the only ones who can craft magic items and it's not like artificers can mass produce them.
After looking them over and arguing about them here in the forums artificers don’t worry me. At max they produce a grand total of 6 -10 +2 items that are not permanent and are really only enough to provide for themselves. Anything more is power gaming that should be overruled by the DM and will be in my campaigns so they aren’t going to break the game.
In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
As opposed to absolutely every other spellcaster type, who can canonically create magic items as well?
Yes. 100%. Read the DMG, dude.
The DMG is arguably the worst book WotC put out for 5E. Why not simply tell me what I'm supposed to be looking for?
Chapter 7. It talks about expectations of magic items in the first several paragraphs.
You’re all (a couple of you) taking a very crazy defensive stance on something I said to help find a possible fun way to fit an artificer into a low magic campaign.
The DMG is a great book that is under read, misunderstood, and underutilized.
In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
As opposed to absolutely every other spellcaster type, who can canonically create magic items as well?
Yes. 100%. Read the DMG, dude.
The DMG is arguably the worst book WotC put out for 5E. Why not simply tell me what I'm supposed to be looking for?
Chapter 7. It talks about expectations of magic items in the first several paragraphs.
You’re all (a couple of you) taking a very crazy defensive stance on something I said to help find a possible fun way to fit an artificer into a low magic campaign.
The DMG is a great book that is under read, misunderstood, and underutilized.
Stuff like this:
The game assumes that the secrets of creating the most powerful items arose centuries ago and were then gradually lost as a result of wars, cataclysms, and mishaps. Even uncommon items can’t be easily created. Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities.
in no way explains why non-artificer spellcasters are chopped liver for item creation purposes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
As opposed to absolutely every other spellcaster type, who can canonically create magic items as well?
Yes. 100%. Read the DMG, dude.
The DMG is arguably the worst book WotC put out for 5E. Why not simply tell me what I'm supposed to be looking for?
Chapter 7. It talks about expectations of magic items in the first several paragraphs.
You’re all (a couple of you) taking a very crazy defensive stance on something I said to help find a possible fun way to fit an artificer into a low magic campaign.
The DMG is a great book that is under read, misunderstood, and underutilized.
Stuff like this:
The game assumes that the secrets of creating the most powerful items arose centuries ago and were then gradually lost as a result of wars, cataclysms, and mishaps. Even uncommon items can’t be easily created. Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities.
in no way explains why non-artificer spellcasters are chopped liver for item creation purposes.
We are now way off topic 😳 but one thing to notice is that it says many, not even most items. So it shouldn’t be a problem for characters in a real campaign where time away from “adventuring” is actually played out. While I love the adventuring I enjoy the down time campaign episodes as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I used to hate the idea of an artificer in a low magic setting (the core assumption of 5E). But now I kind of like it. It’s not a class for me as a player. I don’t care for it. But what a plot device! Every bad guy in the land would be after the one person that can just make magic items. LOL!
A ranger in their setting is bonkers crazy cakes great to play. And a ranger is great to play out of their setting too, but with a few pieces missing. This would be the same for a cleric, fighter, or paladin in a desert or seafaring campaign too. All of that heavy armor, need of ranged attacks, and motility requirements would be tougher in those settings.
Spell lists for rangers would help too....it certainly helped Gloomstalker and the rest of the XGtE Subclasses.
Honestly I would let them swap those out as well and you would be golden.
Right now rangers max out at L19/20 with 11 known spells. Changing the known spells to + wisdom bonus would mean maxing out (L19/20 + Wis:20) would mean 15 spells max, could you find 4 more spells from the expanded ranger list that you wish you had but had to leave on the table to get something “better”? I’ll bet you could. Add a subclass spells known list for the subclasses that are missing one and you would probably be pretty well set even if you had no way to change them out? Probably.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A sorcerer and warlock gets what? Like 3 to 5 more spells known than a ranger of the same level? And they are full spellcasters! Spells are a big part of their identity. An eldritch knight and arcane trickster get about the same number. Two solid base classes with some supplemental spellcasting.
Tasha’s helps the spells known bit for folks.
Didn't a unearthed arcana for pre Tasha’s have all of the prepared casters getting to swap out one spell on a long rest?
Sorceror maxes out with 15 spells known because they change the progression after level 11. Until then it’s L+1 known, then it starts dropping: L12/13 are straight level, L14-15 are L-1, L16/17 are L-2 and then your stuck at 15 all the way out. Even the bard gets more 22 max) . If your going to let the ranger have L/2+WB, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LET THE SORCER HAVE L+1 all the way out (21 max) 😁😳🤪 and yes it’s off topic
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Also off topic somewhat - Warlocks do get 15 spells max - sort of. They get 15 L1-5 spells but then they also get L6-9 spells they just call them Arcanum instead of spells.
Eldritch knights and arcane trickster get 16/17 spells known including 3/4 cantrips and they are 1/3casters
so giving the ranger 4 more spells (L/2+WB) is unlikely to hurt anything.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Is that really the case though? I know that they don't have formalized magic item shop systems etc in 5E but I never get the impression it's 'low magic.'
And it's not like artificers can just freely make whatever they want anyway. Someone has to make the magic items that DO exist even in a game without an artificer anyway.
Sorcerers also get a boat load of cantrips and SP that they can use to cast more spells by converting to spell slots.
Warlocks get the best combat cantrip in the game and invocations that allow them infinite free castings of 1st and 2nd level spells. They too get cantrips so its more than just 3-5 spells.
Plus they get high level magic which just blows most martial out of the water anyway. If you stop at 10th level (like 90% of all campaigns do) then rangers get their best spell (conjure animals) for the last 1/10th of the game.
They talk about it in chapter 7 of the DMG.
So many folks here take things so literally. In a low magic world an artificer would be sought out and tried to be hired, bought, enslaved, something, by very evil folks.
Yes. Sorcerers get metamagic and warlocks get their upper level stuff. Rangers are martials and have lots of skills woven into their class. If someone says rangers get the shaft at higher levels, think of how the poor fighter and rogue feel. LOL! That’s silly. All high level characters in 5E are amazing at higher levels. Rangers, monks, barbarians, magic users, all of them.
For comparison wizards get a max of 30 spells prepared including 5 cantrips. Bards get 22 known spells and 4 cantrips with 22 spell slots. Warlocks are just out there with spells only castable at set levels, invocations and arcanum they don’t compare to anything. The sorceror has 15 known spells + 5 cantrips but they have the same number of spell slots as the wizard - actually more since , as Optimus pointed out, they can use SP to create more slots. But they are still only have 15 spells to choose from. The ranger has a max of 11 spells, no cantrips and 15 slots. EK, AT have 13 spells + 3/4 cantrips with only 11 slots. Paladins can prepare upto 15 spells for their 15 slots.
Cleary rangers and sorcerors are a bit nerfed in spells available. Sorcerors are a different discussion but rangers need some help. It’s not so much that they need to be able to prepare spells daily but that they should get spells based on CL/2+WB not CL+1. Prepping spells as well would just be the icing on the cake.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
As opposed to absolutely every other spellcaster type, who can canonically create magic items as well?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yes. 100%. Read the DMG, dude.
So would wizards, sorcerers etc. Artificers aren't the only ones who can craft magic items and it's not like artificers can mass produce them.
The DMG is arguably the worst book WotC put out for 5E. Why not simply tell me what I'm supposed to be looking for?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
After looking them over and arguing about them here in the forums artificers don’t worry me. At max they produce a grand total of 6 -10 +2 items that are not permanent and are really only enough to provide for themselves. Anything more is power gaming that should be overruled by the DM and will be in my campaigns so they aren’t going to break the game.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Chapter 7. It talks about expectations of magic items in the first several paragraphs.
You’re all (a couple of you) taking a very crazy defensive stance on something I said to help find a possible fun way to fit an artificer into a low magic campaign.
The DMG is a great book that is under read, misunderstood, and underutilized.
Stuff like this:
in no way explains why non-artificer spellcasters are chopped liver for item creation purposes.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
You may be right.
We are now way off topic 😳 but one thing to notice is that it says many, not even most items. So it shouldn’t be a problem for characters in a real campaign where time away from “adventuring” is actually played out. While I love the adventuring I enjoy the down time campaign episodes as well.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.