I'll just add that a massive benefit of reflavoring is that you gain access to a huge amount of existing material that fits seamlessly into 5e mechanics and immediately gives your class a deep selection of abilities. If you try to homebrew an entire system that has magic-like effects but isn't magic, you not only have to create - and balance - every single one of those effects, you also need to consider how those effects interact with every part of the system and then make more adjustments in those parts. Otherwise a player will find a loophole and break your game with it. It's just what we do.
In general, the more places your homebrew hooks into or abides by existing D&D mechanics, the better it will be. A separate system created alongside and then kind of wedged into 5e is the type of design most likely to have issues.
Maybe you can explain what exactly you are trying to do? Do you want to make items that generate spell effects? Like a wand of Magic Missiles that they create to look like a gun? Making goggles that shoot out a beam of energy that does force damage, but not an actual spell? Or are you just trying to make existing magic items (like a flame tongue longsword) without being a spell caster?
Why does this class need to exist in the conworld you've created? Because if you're not careful, you won't just have reinvented the Artificer--you'll have reinvented Eberron as well... And what I'm trying to get at is we should consider the telos. That's how you will be able to invent something valuable. What purpose does Magitech serve? Is it an aesthetic? Is it a consequence of some other part of your world building? You want to have an answer to these kinds of questions, because having the answer is how you know how magic can be harnessed. In Forgotten Realms the answer might be "no," because in that setting you harness magic by having a relationship with the Weave. In Eberron, the answer is clearly, "yes," because magitech is what allows the world to resemble an industrialized world. What about your world?
don't know what conworld is
Is eberron bad?
If you are referring to "telos" by the definition of "the ultimate end" or something similar, then I haven't gotten that far. This is a rough draft for a class feature for a homebrew class; I'm still figuring out how to make it stand out, be fun to play and fit themes I could agree with.
The reason why the magitech as you call exists doesn't have a solid reason yet, here's the place holder idea: characters of this class were innately inept at spellcasting; for some reason the energies within them were insulated from outside forces, so they learned to use magic in alternative forms. These alternative forms weren't spells, but rather magical effects derived from various sources of magic, including magical materials: instead of being the conduit for magic they use magic-conductive materials to either enhance or power their items and machinery. How these magic-conductive materials can be utilized varies based on what artisan’s tool proficiencies they have: the product of each tool is magically enhanced by an effect from either a different or the same school of magic e.g., proficiency in forgery kit could add an enchantment effect similar to enchantment spells; proficiency in alchemy could be enhanced with greater transmutational capabilities. These magical effects weren't technically spells but shared common magical natures with spells; similar to how writing is to speaking, or a meaning in two different languages, the effects could be the same, but the causes were different.
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
THE MAGIC OF ARTIFICE
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with heat metal, you might be altering the device you use to heal — perhaps modifying a tool so that it channels heat instead of healing energy.
Such details don’t limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit beyond the spell’s effects. You don’t have to justify how you’re using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters.
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
Why does this class need to exist in the conworld you've created? Because if you're not careful, you won't just have reinvented the Artificer--you'll have reinvented Eberron as well... And what I'm trying to get at is we should consider the telos. That's how you will be able to invent something valuable. What purpose does Magitech serve? Is it an aesthetic? Is it a consequence of some other part of your world building? You want to have an answer to these kinds of questions, because having the answer is how you know how magic can be harnessed. In Forgotten Realms the answer might be "no," because in that setting you harness magic by having a relationship with the Weave. In Eberron, the answer is clearly, "yes," because magitech is what allows the world to resemble an industrialized world. What about your world?
don't know what conworld is
Is eberron bad?
If you are referring to "telos" by the definition of "the ultimate end" or something similar, then I haven't gotten that far. This is a rough draft for a class feature for a homebrew class; I'm still figuring out how to make it stand out, be fun to play and fit themes I could agree with.
The reason why the magitech as you call exists doesn't have a solid reason yet, here's the place holder idea: characters of this class were innately inept at spellcasting; for some reason the energies within them were insulated from outside forces, so they learned to use magic in alternative forms. These alternative forms weren't spells, but rather magical effects derived from various sources of magic, including magical materials: instead of being the conduit for magic they use magic-conductive materials to either enhance or power their items and machinery. How these magic-conductive materials can be utilized varies based on what artisan’s tool proficiencies they have: the product of each tool is magically enhanced by an effect from either a different or the same school of magic e.g., proficiency in forgery kit could add an enchantment effect similar to enchantment spells; proficiency in alchemy could be enhanced with greater transmutational capabilities. These magical effects weren't technically spells but shared common magical natures with spells; similar to how writing is to speaking, or a meaning in two different languages, the effects could be the same, but the causes were different.
Conworld = CONstructed WORLD. I'm trying to get at the part where an ultimate goal of game designers is to have internally consistent settings that do the heavy lifting of explaining why the things inside them exist by making the argument that those are the only things that can exist because the world is arranged in such a way for them to exist.
Eberron is awesome, but it's Keith Baker's invention. If you recreate it by accident, you've not exactly invented something. If you recreate it on purpose, you may have invented something. If you create something which only tangentially shares features with it, you are much more likely to have invented something.
Of course that's what I mean when I say "telos," that's the definition of the word. I've heard it more commonly given as, "the reason for which something is done." But precise definition isn't really needed, and an argument over that precise definition won't help either of us. I want to explain that getting to an internally cohesive setting involves having reasons which connect one part of the setting to another part of the setting. For example, the reason Artificers are rare in Forgotten Realms is that the gods of that setting created the Weave of Magic as a way for mortals to access arcane powers. There's no reason, then, to add an extra layer of technology to mediate because the mediation is already possible through Vancian spells. If you want a layer of technology, there should be a reason why it needs to exist. As an unavoidable consequence of that reason, you will no longer be playing in Forgotten Realms. I'd say that's a good thing.
Look, there's no reason you can't shoehorn something into an existing setting and play around with it. You will eventually find the reasons it doesn't work, and that will put a strain on the stories you tell. At that point you'll have no other recourse than to engage with the cosmology of the constructed world. I find it valuable to start with cosmological questions as then the specifics of magic use arise naturally. Your mileage will vary. Personally, I find the aesthetic of technology as superhuman capacity to be much better captured by settings like Shadowrun's.
Conworld = CONstructed WORLD. I'm trying to get at the part where an ultimate goal of game designers is to have internally consistent settings that do the heavy lifting of explaining why the things inside them exist by making the argument that those are the only things that can exist because the world is arranged in such a way for them to exist.
Eberron is awesome, but it's Keith Baker's invention. If you recreate it by accident, you've not exactly invented something. If you recreate it on purpose, you may have invented something. If you create something which only tangentially shares features with it, you are much more likely to have invented something.
Of course that's what I mean when I say "telos," that's the definition of the word. I've heard it more commonly given as, "the reason for which something is done." But precise definition isn't really needed, and an argument over that precise definition won't help either of us. I want to explain that getting to an internally cohesive setting involves having reasons which connect one part of the setting to another part of the setting. For example, the reason Artificers are rare in Forgotten Realms is that the gods of that setting created the Weave of Magic as a way for mortals to access arcane powers. There's no reason, then, to add an extra layer of technology to mediate because the mediation is already possible through Vancian spells. If you want a layer of technology, there should be a reason why it needs to exist. As an unavoidable consequence of that reason, you will no longer be playing in Forgotten Realms. I'd say that's a good thing.
Look, there's no reason you can't shoehorn something into an existing setting and play around with it. You will eventually find the reasons it doesn't work, and that will put a strain on the stories you tell. At that point you'll have no other recourse than to engage with the cosmology of the constructed world. I find it valuable to start with cosmological questions as then the specifics of magic use arise naturally. Your mileage will vary. Personally, I find the aesthetic of technology as superhuman capacity to be much better captured by settings like Shadowrun's.
I may be oversimplifying your point, but I think it can be summed up by the storytelling rule that trey parker created. Here are some references: Mass Effect 2 Broke the Franchise - YouTube
I'd give the credit to John Gardner's The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers, but you can take your pick of established authors who have given this advice.
Chapter 9 of the DMG offers suggestions of using technology so advanced that it seems like magic, encouraging people to create their own ideas of technological magic.
Because chapters 8 and 9 cover alternative rules and creating your own, you will not find them on official online tools like DDB. That does not mean they're unacceptable. It means there are too many possibilities for any standardized tool to handle.
If you can imagine it, you can do it. If it's fun for the table, you likely should do it.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
Being a 'spell' does come with certain caveats. It can be counter spelled. Or dispell magic'd. (Not fireball but non isntantaneous spells.) Things like aura of warding affect spells but not all magical damage.
That's all I can really think of mechanically for wanting it to not technically count as a spell.
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
Being a 'spell' does come with certain caveats. It can be counter spelled. Or dispell magic'd. (Not fireball but non isntantaneous spells.) Things like aura of warding affect spells but not all magical damage.
That's all I can really think of mechanically for wanting it to not technically count as a spell.
And sadly they even used that mechanic for psionics... meh
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
Being a 'spell' does come with certain caveats. It can be counter spelled. Or dispell magic'd. (Not fireball but non isntantaneous spells.) Things like aura of warding affect spells but not all magical damage.
That's all I can really think of mechanically for wanting it to not technically count as a spell.
The current design pattern for 5e from Wizards of the Coast is that it is not an important enough distinction to have two separate systems. The granularity gained by doing so is at the expense of design simplicity.
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
The bolded section is exactly how Artificers work. Just take an existing spellcasting class that gives progression close to what you want, re-flavor it, and call it a day. The mechanical effect of what you want is indistinguishable from spellcasting.
IE take the Oath of the Ancients paladin, tweak the tenets to match the description you want, change the spellcasting to be described as technology, and make divine smite trigger bonus damage when you hit spellcasters instead of undead.
Chapter 9 of the DMG offers suggestions of using technology so advanced that it seems like magic, encouraging people to create their own ideas of technological magic.
Some science fiction writer by the name of "Arthur C Clarke" said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” So to cavemen most technology would be seen as magic and the definition of magic would depend on your understanding of technology
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
I believe the answer is very much so, though both can produce similar effects, their cause, reactions and how they work can be different: if you apply the logic that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C Clarke,” then both can be seen as different forms of technology, powered and accessed by different things and vulnerable to different forms of anti-magic (or anti-technology I guess).
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
This almost sounds like a take on the Arcane Archer Fighter subclass, or at least maybe use it as inspiration. They use a bow and infuse magic into the bow for their special shots. You could use a similar idea for the materials/tools and come up with some magical effects for each. Have Stealth as a skill choice they can take and subclass features that either flesh out the magical nature of the class or tactical strength of the class.
Edit: sorry I don’t recall if you said you were the DM or not, but in the end you can create whatever you like. If the homebrew uses materials, devices, whatever to harness magic without being a spell caster then that’s a DM’s choice and they can figure out how it fits in its lore/world. You don’t need approval from us. There have been examples in this thread like Rune Knights and Arcane Archer that “harness” magic without being a spell caster. If they can do it, so can your homebrew. Just keep balance and fun in mind and have at it.
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
5e has put many things into the medium of "spells" that once upon a time were not and were intrinsic supernatural abilities or 'spell-like abilities'. They've also called things "spells" that either didn't used to be or don't necessarily have to be but are otherwise mechanically identical. For example, cleric "spells" don't actually have to be thought of as "spells" rather than as signs/wonders/miracles, etc. if one prefers the term "spell" to specifically reference a medium used only by mages or even just wizards. Warlocks used to have invocations instead of spells rather than in addition to them and certain paladin and ranger abilites were not spells either, and now they are.
I think perhaps you getting yourself a bit too hung up on the nomenclature and the developers decision to call something a "spell". You don't need to redesign the artificer per se to make yourself a technomancer or what have you. Just expand the concept of infusions and rename all of the artificer spells as 'infusions' instead. They infuse magic into technology or if you prefer, magic infuses itself into their technology -they know how to allow the magical properties of a substance into the machine crafted with that substance.
In 3e magic item creation was part of the feats system. Wizards would take an item createion feat such as brew potion, scribe scroll, craft wand etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
This almost sounds like a take on the Arcane Archer Fighter subclass, or at least maybe use it as inspiration. They use a bow and infuse magic into the bow for their special shots. You could use a similar idea for the materials/tools and come up with some magical effects for each. Have Stealth as a skill choice they can take and subclass features that either flesh out the magical nature of the class or tactical strength of the class.
Edit: sorry I don’t recall if you said you were the DM or not, but in the end you can create whatever you like. If the homebrew uses materials, devices, whatever to harness magic without being a spell caster then that’s a DM’s choice and they can figure out how it fits in its lore/world. You don’t need approval from us. There have been examples in this thread like Rune Knights and Arcane Archer that “harness” magic without being a spell caster. If they can do it, so can your homebrew. Just keep balance and fun in mind and have at it.
Yes, the magic isn't from the character but derived from materials containing magical energy; it's like the battery is the material instead of it being a spellcaster. My homebrew feature does add magical effects to the products created from artisan tools: basically you can either use raw magical resources or manufacture them for increased potency, then you can use them to apply custom magical effects to items you create, and the more powerful the effect, the more magical materials you have to expend. It's more like spell crafting than casting. Maybe the class could be called "spell crafter" or something; the placeholder I have is "martial mage"
Thank you for saying that, I appreciate the kindness : )
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
I believe the answer is very much so, though both can produce similar effects, their cause, reactions and how they work can be different: if you apply the logic that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C Clarke,” then both can be seen as different forms of technology, powered and accessed by different things and vulnerable to different forms of anti-magic (or anti-technology I guess).
I think the official answer to your original question of "can you harness magic via technology" is yes, looking at the Eberron and Ravnica settings. The published methods of doing this merely reflavor spellcasting as technology based, with the actual mechanics remaining the same for simplicity.
If you feel the increase in complexity is worth the increase in granularity, then by all means homebrew away. Current spells like Booming Blade, Lightning Arrow, and Steel Wind Strike are probably along the effects you want and I would start there.
I'll just add that a massive benefit of reflavoring is that you gain access to a huge amount of existing material that fits seamlessly into 5e mechanics and immediately gives your class a deep selection of abilities. If you try to homebrew an entire system that has magic-like effects but isn't magic, you not only have to create - and balance - every single one of those effects, you also need to consider how those effects interact with every part of the system and then make more adjustments in those parts. Otherwise a player will find a loophole and break your game with it. It's just what we do.
In general, the more places your homebrew hooks into or abides by existing D&D mechanics, the better it will be. A separate system created alongside and then kind of wedged into 5e is the type of design most likely to have issues.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Maybe you can explain what exactly you are trying to do? Do you want to make items that generate spell effects? Like a wand of Magic Missiles that they create to look like a gun? Making goggles that shoot out a beam of energy that does force damage, but not an actual spell? Or are you just trying to make existing magic items (like a flame tongue longsword) without being a spell caster?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Eberron is good. I think eapiv is pointing out that you are re-inventing the wheel when it already exists.
The Artificer is literally magic spells but with technology as a core feature.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Not spellcasting, the homebrewed class doesn't use spells, but uses magically infused resources as the source of magic, and technology to make the magic do specific things.
I should also state that this isn't the whole of the class's theme. I also want to add some stealthy or tactical features to the class; something similar to the rouge, monk or ranger.
Conworld = CONstructed WORLD. I'm trying to get at the part where an ultimate goal of game designers is to have internally consistent settings that do the heavy lifting of explaining why the things inside them exist by making the argument that those are the only things that can exist because the world is arranged in such a way for them to exist.
Eberron is awesome, but it's Keith Baker's invention. If you recreate it by accident, you've not exactly invented something. If you recreate it on purpose, you may have invented something. If you create something which only tangentially shares features with it, you are much more likely to have invented something.
Of course that's what I mean when I say "telos," that's the definition of the word. I've heard it more commonly given as, "the reason for which something is done." But precise definition isn't really needed, and an argument over that precise definition won't help either of us. I want to explain that getting to an internally cohesive setting involves having reasons which connect one part of the setting to another part of the setting. For example, the reason Artificers are rare in Forgotten Realms is that the gods of that setting created the Weave of Magic as a way for mortals to access arcane powers. There's no reason, then, to add an extra layer of technology to mediate because the mediation is already possible through Vancian spells. If you want a layer of technology, there should be a reason why it needs to exist. As an unavoidable consequence of that reason, you will no longer be playing in Forgotten Realms. I'd say that's a good thing.
Look, there's no reason you can't shoehorn something into an existing setting and play around with it. You will eventually find the reasons it doesn't work, and that will put a strain on the stories you tell. At that point you'll have no other recourse than to engage with the cosmology of the constructed world. I find it valuable to start with cosmological questions as then the specifics of magic use arise naturally. Your mileage will vary. Personally, I find the aesthetic of technology as superhuman capacity to be much better captured by settings like Shadowrun's.
I may be oversimplifying your point, but I think it can be summed up by the storytelling rule that trey parker created. Here are some references:
Mass Effect 2 Broke the Franchise - YouTube
The South Park Storytelling Method For Science Writers | by Gavin Lamb, PhD | Leaky Grammar | Medium
I'd give the credit to John Gardner's The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers, but you can take your pick of established authors who have given this advice.
Chapter 9 of the DMG offers suggestions of using technology so advanced that it seems like magic, encouraging people to create their own ideas of technological magic.
Because chapters 8 and 9 cover alternative rules and creating your own, you will not find them on official online tools like DDB. That does not mean they're unacceptable. It means there are too many possibilities for any standardized tool to handle.
If you can imagine it, you can do it. If it's fun for the table, you likely should do it.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Class A waves their hand in the air, chants a few words, and casts a fireball.
Class B adjusts the nozzle on a device, pulls a trigger, and creates a sphere of fire with a 20 foot radius that does 8d6 damage with Dexterity saving throw.
Is there a meaningful enough difference between those two effects to warrant two different rules systems for each?
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Being a 'spell' does come with certain caveats. It can be counter spelled. Or dispell magic'd. (Not fireball but non isntantaneous spells.) Things like aura of warding affect spells but not all magical damage.
That's all I can really think of mechanically for wanting it to not technically count as a spell.
And sadly they even used that mechanic for psionics... meh
The current design pattern for 5e from Wizards of the Coast is that it is not an important enough distinction to have two separate systems. The granularity gained by doing so is at the expense of design simplicity.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
The bolded section is exactly how Artificers work. Just take an existing spellcasting class that gives progression close to what you want, re-flavor it, and call it a day. The mechanical effect of what you want is indistinguishable from spellcasting.
IE take the Oath of the Ancients paladin, tweak the tenets to match the description you want, change the spellcasting to be described as technology, and make divine smite trigger bonus damage when you hit spellcasters instead of undead.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Some science fiction writer by the name of "Arthur C Clarke" said that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” So to cavemen most technology would be seen as magic and the definition of magic would depend on your understanding of technology
I believe the answer is very much so, though both can produce similar effects, their cause, reactions and how they work can be different: if you apply the logic that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C Clarke,” then both can be seen as different forms of technology, powered and accessed by different things and vulnerable to different forms of anti-magic (or anti-technology I guess).
This almost sounds like a take on the Arcane Archer Fighter subclass, or at least maybe use it as inspiration. They use a bow and infuse magic into the bow for their special shots. You could use a similar idea for the materials/tools and come up with some magical effects for each. Have Stealth as a skill choice they can take and subclass features that either flesh out the magical nature of the class or tactical strength of the class.
Edit: sorry I don’t recall if you said you were the DM or not, but in the end you can create whatever you like. If the homebrew uses materials, devices, whatever to harness magic without being a spell caster then that’s a DM’s choice and they can figure out how it fits in its lore/world. You don’t need approval from us. There have been examples in this thread like Rune Knights and Arcane Archer that “harness” magic without being a spell caster. If they can do it, so can your homebrew. Just keep balance and fun in mind and have at it.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
5e has put many things into the medium of "spells" that once upon a time were not and were intrinsic supernatural abilities or 'spell-like abilities'. They've also called things "spells" that either didn't used to be or don't necessarily have to be but are otherwise mechanically identical. For example, cleric "spells" don't actually have to be thought of as "spells" rather than as signs/wonders/miracles, etc. if one prefers the term "spell" to specifically reference a medium used only by mages or even just wizards. Warlocks used to have invocations instead of spells rather than in addition to them and certain paladin and ranger abilites were not spells either, and now they are.
I think perhaps you getting yourself a bit too hung up on the nomenclature and the developers decision to call something a "spell". You don't need to redesign the artificer per se to make yourself a technomancer or what have you. Just expand the concept of infusions and rename all of the artificer spells as 'infusions' instead. They infuse magic into technology or if you prefer, magic infuses itself into their technology -they know how to allow the magical properties of a substance into the machine crafted with that substance.
In 3e magic item creation was part of the feats system. Wizards would take an item createion feat such as brew potion, scribe scroll, craft wand etc.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Yes, the magic isn't from the character but derived from materials containing magical energy; it's like the battery is the material instead of it being a spellcaster. My homebrew feature does add magical effects to the products created from artisan tools: basically you can either use raw magical resources or manufacture them for increased potency, then you can use them to apply custom magical effects to items you create, and the more powerful the effect, the more magical materials you have to expend. It's more like spell crafting than casting. Maybe the class could be called "spell crafter" or something; the placeholder I have is "martial mage"
Thank you for saying that, I appreciate the kindness : )
I think the official answer to your original question of "can you harness magic via technology" is yes, looking at the Eberron and Ravnica settings. The published methods of doing this merely reflavor spellcasting as technology based, with the actual mechanics remaining the same for simplicity.
If you feel the increase in complexity is worth the increase in granularity, then by all means homebrew away. Current spells like Booming Blade, Lightning Arrow, and Steel Wind Strike are probably along the effects you want and I would start there.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ