Was dndnext something hosted on D&D Beyond? I had not heard about a Sorc playtest until now. Then again, I also don't pay close attention to UA in general unless there's a major buzz about on other parts of this portal.
Also you are making a significantly different argument than SemanticAvenger, who said that Artificers can be themed as purely about magic, and not science at all. I was responding to his comment, which was made in a particular context which you are either glossing over or have not read.
I missed this when I was replying last night, but I just want to say: That was not my point. My point is that in the official, published, fluffy lore text, artificers are explicitly and entirely magical. They just enchant objects rather than working the weave directly. They're essentially foci specialists. There are flavor options to layer tech stuff on top of that, but the default lore is that they are 100% magical, they just work it through more menial, less esoteric ways. The idea that they're some sort of steampunk machinists rather than just magic item enchanters is entirely based on a bit of official art and a whole lot of memes. It's like the horny bard, in that the official material does not support it, it's a community expectation or projection that's gotten bizarrely out of hand.
Your point is that the lore says Artificers do all their abilities with Magic. I get that. However, you are repeating yourself to no improvement of your argument b/c my point is, at its core, about WORLD-BUILDING and your point is NOT about that as you evidently much more concerned about rules balance. Therefore, until D&D starts publishing adventures with a strong science fiction flavor that DMs want to buy and run, we'll likely keep disagreeing post after tiresome post.
Was dndnext something hosted on D&D Beyond? I had not heard about a Sorc playtest until now. Then again, I also don't pay close attention to UA in general unless there's a major buzz about on other parts of this portal.
This was OLD playtest material. As in, 5e didn't EXIST yet, let alone D&D Beyond.
I mean gosh, it almost sounds like, between all this ranking of feats and then complaining some feats don't rank highly enough to be worth taking and others rank so highly you "have" to take them, that they're only in it for the clicks
Yeah, it's not really a thing. I've never taken one of those feats you "have" to take, and I've never had an issue. Not once have I touched Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, or Sharpshooter, and my longest-running characters were martials. You don't "have" to take anything unless you just want to play it. D&D is not a competition. You and your party shouldn't be having a pissing match to find out who's the most badass, and your DM shouldn't be your opponent.
I have one character with Crossbow Expert, but he's actually an expert with a heavy crossbow so it did seem kind of important. (It's a Battle Master tabaxi created as a riff on the Great White Hunter trope, cuz having a big cat as a classic big-game hunter seemed too funny not to try)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It isn't just the Homonculus spell. It's also the rules regarding creation of Golems, which, even at their most unreliable, require astronomical resources relative to the benefit of employing one Artificer Battlesmith or Artillerist, but the making a mobile turret or making a robo-pet is relatively super cheap. It's like saying that an "Artificer" engineer can make a Mercedes Benz for $100 but for some reason a "Wizard" engineer takes $500,000 just to make a Fiat.
No, I think it's more that an architect would have a longer, harder, more expensive time building a house than a contractor would. Thinking up the thing and knowing all its workings is not the same thing as doing the thing. Artificers specialize in the doing more than the understanding, particularly when it comes to making and empowering items and constructs. They should be better at it and have an easier time than Wizards do. Arties may be better at that one thing, but Wizards can still do it. By contrast, Wizards of a high enough level can cast Wish daily, a thing Artificer can never do at all.
Both engineers are using the same principals of science to do their thing, right? If both the Artie and the Wiz are using Arcane magic principles to do their cool stuff, there shouldn't be that kind of humongous cost-benefit discrepancy even if the Artie is more specialized in a certain area of magic. So the only narratively consistent way to explain the Artie's ridiculous benefits relative to the Wizard trying to create a magic pet with combat capability is to introduce a power + knowledge source that the Wizard doesn't have access to even at high levels, which is technology.
You're looking at this whole thing crazy sideways. Wizards can do everything magic can do, except maybe heal. That is who they are and what they do. Artificers focus on one aspect of magic, and get really good at it, and work it differently, concentrating all their efforts there, to the detriment of others. A professor of biology understands all aspects of life sciences at minimum at a basic level, but they aren't going to be as well-versed in upper respiratory infections in children as a practicing pediatric pulmonologist. That's just...how knowledge works. Why do you need anything more than "more experience at a specific thing?"
We'll have to agree to disagree, ultimately, because you're very clearly saying you care more about the meta of the rules balance than about worldbuilding
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no. Not remotely. I have more small explanations for the meta than I do for the worldbuilding because I think the worldbuilding requires one simple one-word explanation (specialization) that is absurdly self-evident to me, but for some reason, that goes over your head, or at least to the side of it, so I added more to the overall argument. I find it awfully convenient that you skipped over absolutely every example I gave of specialist characters getting something better than generalist ones (i.e. arcane trickster's mage hand being better than wizard's by a long shot) because it doesn't suit your framing.
whereas I care about them equally and I'm not going to throw out world-building for the sake of game balance. My point is made and as my punctilious attention to detail for how Arcane magic seems to work as whole (not just within one class) demonstrates, you need Artificers to have a power source other than just Arcane magic for a lot of their core mechanics to make sense.
No, you don't. It's just arcane magic that's more specialized and applied differently. There's zillions of real-world and in-narrative examples of someone with specialist training, knowledge and experience being better at their specialized thing than a generalist. Your argument is the D&D equivalent of "The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because other societies in the area weren't capable of it, so they needed an esoteric outside source, which HAD TO BE ALIENS." It's an absurdist jump made because you don't want to dismiss faulty preconceptions or think about things at all differently from how you already are.
And that is why we'll need to disagree. Because you quite clearly don't understand what I'm saying, and aren't even interested in trying.
Was dndnext something hosted on D&D Beyond? I had not heard about a Sorc playtest until now. Then again, I also don't pay close attention to UA in general unless there's a major buzz about on other parts of this portal.
DnDNext was a playtest during the lifespan of 4e that was essentially UA/Beta for the ruleset that became 5e. It was the 5e prototype. From the Wikipedia article on D&D's version history:
"In January 2012, Wizards of the Coast announced that a new edition of the game, at the time referred to as D&D Next, was under development. In direct contrast to the previous editions of the game, D&D Next was developed partly via a public open playtest. An early build of the new edition debuted at the 2012 Dungeons & Dragons Experience event to about 500 fans. Public playtesting began on May 24, 2012, with the final playtest packet released on September 20, 2013."
It included a lot of things people are still clamoring for: Maneuvers as part of the base Fighter, a heartier, gishier Sorc build with a more unique class identity, and loads of other stuff. I found this Dropbox link containing all (or at least the majority) of the playtest packet documents on a Reddit thread after a quick google.
b/c my point is, at its core, about WORLD-BUILDING and your point is NOT about that as you evidently much more concerned about rules balance.
Can you stop with that? You don't like artificers and that's perfectly valid.
But continuously trying to suggest that people that don't share your hangups are disregarding worldbuilding or only fixated on mechanics in order to prop up your opinion is not helpful to anyone. The issue you have with the artificer is entirely in your head and has nothing to do with lore, world building, or internal consistency (and in some cases completely contradicts all of the above) and everything to do with the way you personally view the class. But that's actually perfectly fine, because it's completely valid and normal for people to sometimes just not like something.
But it's really annoying to put words in people's mouths or throw shade at them for not sharing your issues.
Should we change topic for "Lets have constructive argue abour Artificer" for this long-going rant here?
to be fair, I am not super-good with Artif lore or probably even DnD lore itself (just the basis and some neat specific knowladge about realms/realities that i personaly like) but such rants helps me understand vague stuff and some picks from lore / books / meta and so on
so yeah, fair point to the SemanticAvenger as he said "The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because other societies in the area weren't capable of it, so they needed an esoteric outside source, which HAD TO BE ALIENS."
thats kinda like this whole topic started too looks like - someone put a lot of afford to point by point explain something, and as long as i understand "surely i can dont understand stuff" but i should be willing to keep going withdiscussion untill i will understand, and simply pointing, "nah its not gonna work cause ALIENS meta boogie woogie stuff" kinda makes my butt-hurt.
Your point is that the lore says Artificers do all their abilities with Magic. I get that. However, you are repeating yourself to no improvement of your argument b/c my point is, at its core, about WORLD-BUILDING and your point is NOT about that as you evidently much more concerned about rules balance. Therefore, until D&D starts publishing adventures with a strong science fiction flavor that DMs want to buy and run, we'll likely keep disagreeing post after tiresome post.
Yeah, that's just blatantly inaccurate. I care about the worldbuilding as published, none of which requires a level of technology higher than a hammer and chisel or a set of tinker's tools.
If your setting includes magic items, Artificers fit within it. Because all Artificers do is make magic items.
Here's what I'm hearing. "I choose options based on things other than optimization, such as aesthetics or narrative concept. And this makes me better than other people." Or maybe, "I perceive optimizers as thinking they're better than me, and they're not."
Somebody like Pack Tactics (gods above, let's move on from Treantmonk's Temple already) makes optimization content for optimizers. The target audience isn't "non-optimizers who need to learn the lesson that they're playing the game wrong." It's "people who care about optimization!" (TT literally opens his videos by addressing the audience as "optimancers.") If you feel attacked by it, that's really more to do with you and your experiences. If you don't care about optimization, these videos aren't going to change your mind because that's not what they're about. And because that's not really how it works anyway. It's a preference, not a scientific theory.
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Infusions and subclass features are supposed to be their “inventions.”
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Infusions and subclass features are supposed to be their “inventions.”
Right, I get that, but I don't think it works. You don't feel like you're inventing stuff, you feel like you're shopping.
Also, the fact that "Armorer" here means "person who wears armor" bugs me a bit. And "Battle Smith" is just a less fancy way to say "Artificer," really. At least Artillerist communicates what it is, and Alchemist gets sorta close to what you'd want from an alchemist, though it's apparently not very good from what I hear.
But yeah, I would say my main complaint with Artificer personally is that Artificer isn't a class, it's a job. "The guy who makes the magic potions" is an NPC role. What about that is supposed to make him good at adventuring? Give the loot to the Fighter, she actually knows how to use it to kill stuff. At most, Artificer could be a subclass or set of subclasses. I could see a field medic type of Ranger, an equipment enchanting Wizard, whatever.
I've seen it done elsewhere too and the idea is like, the stuff he makes is too dangerous for other people to handle consistently! Or it doesn't last long enough to buy it in town and take it into the field! But like, that's just a solution in search of a problem imo.
I also really feel like WotC's missing the mark on all these new features like the Eldritch Cannon or the various pets for different classes, where you just cause it to appear from nowhere with an action. I understand that this is better from, like, a balance standpoint? Like, having a feature that requires way more setup time than other characters often means you won't get to use it? But there's gotta be a better way, because these feel so fake, so video-gamey. The Artificer is supposed to be building these things, but instead he uses a spell slot and it just spawns in.
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Infusions and subclass features are supposed to be their “inventions.”
Right, I get that, but I don't think it works. You don't feel like you're inventing stuff, you feel like you're shopping.
Also, the fact that "Armorer" here means "person who wears armor" bugs me a bit. And "Battle Smith" is just a less fancy way to say "Artificer," really. At least Artillerist communicates what it is, and Alchemist gets sorta close to what you'd want from an alchemist, though it's apparently not very good from what I hear.
But yeah, I would say my main complaint with Artificer personally is that Artificer isn't a class, it's a job. "The guy who makes the magic potions" is an NPC role. What about that is supposed to make him good at adventuring? Give the loot to the Fighter, she actually knows how to use it to kill stuff. At most, Artificer could be a subclass or set of subclasses. I could see a field medic type of Ranger, an equipment enchanting Wizard, whatever.
I've seen it done elsewhere too and the idea is like, the stuff he makes is too dangerous for other people to handle consistently! Or it doesn't last long enough to buy it in town and take it into the field! But like, that's just a solution in search of a problem imo.
I also really feel like WotC's missing the mark on all these new features like the Eldritch Cannon or the various pets for different classes, where you just cause it to appear from nowhere with an action. I understand that this is better from, like, a balance standpoint? Like, having a feature that requires way more setup time than other characters often means you won't get to use it? But there's gotta be a better way, because these feel so fake, so video-gamey. The Artificer is supposed to be building these things, but instead he uses a spell slot and it just spawns in.
Infusions feel more “inventory” if you swap them out periodically. The idea of having to cannibalize one contraption for parts to build a different gizmo helps it feel more like inventions. And genuinely reflavoring spell effects as being generated from gadgets helps too. Like, whenever my Artificer casts thorn whip it’s a spool of barbed wire ejecting from his infused crossbow, ray of frost is a freeze ray attachment to his crossbow, enlarge/reduce is a shrink/embiggening ray, identify, detect magic, and see invisibility are done by viewing through his scope… etc.
Trust me, I really am one of the first people who will say I genuinely wish they had come up with something more concrete than “you cast spells but just pretend you aren’t casting spells,” but I’m tryin’a make the best out of what we got. 🤷♂️
There's nothing really wrong with someone being concerned about or at least tangentially interested in the game's overall balance and design. Yeah, a lot of people aren't extremely worried about it and the balance generally isn't so bad in 5e that you can't play it even when making wrong choices, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better either. It's not really that big of a deal to talk about.
Feats and mutliclassing are both variant/optional rules just like spell points and overrun and pack tactics and Honor and Sanity ability scores, and Wizards has been very open about the fact that the game is explicitly not balanced for their inclusion. They're fun options for people who feel like using them at tables where DMs allow them. Using them is basically jailbreaking an iPhone: You are, in effect, violating the terms of service, violating the warranty, and waiving your right to customer service and support. Or, in plainer terms, you are choosing to play the game in a way it was not designed for, and don't get to complain about "balance." Hexblade is not a problem when the base game assumes single-classing from 1st level to 20th, and Polearm Master is not an issue when the base game doesn't allow feats and the best thing a halberd offers is reach.
You want to use variant rules? Go for it. But that's not what the game is built for, and instead of complaining, write your own rules to balance out the problems that using those variant rules cause. It's nobody's issue but yours.
"It kind of sucks that this particular feat or spending an ASI is so much obviously stronger than this more fun or flavorful looking option" seems like a reasonable gripe for someone messing around with the system to have and it does not imply they're part of some sort of conspiracy. I've had both new and veteran players express that sentiment, because hey it's kind of a drag sometimes.
Ehhhhhhhh...I don't think so. It's a roleplaying game. You're there to play a role, not show all your friends how big your balls crits are. Take Actor instead of Crossbow Expert. It'll be fine.
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Lot of fighting about this one already. It mostly just seems to be people looking at the one published piece of art and a lot of fanart and deciding it's either extreme steampunk or high-tech sci-fi, neither of which fit a lot of people's ideas of the "setting" of D&D (which, let's be real, just means FR). Never mind that it's not those things. Basically, artie's leading the charge because an awful lot of people buy into the zeitgeist over what's actually published. It's just "horny bard" all over again.
I'm talking about game play. How many feats are there total? You don't see a handful of the same ones taken over and over again?
I've been playing for about three years now, pretty regular, both long-running campaigns and shorter ones, as well as one-shots, as both a DM and player. In all that time, I've seen one character take Polearm Master, and never seen anyone take any of the other big "power" feats. Again...most people just don't care.
Well, I'm glad you've unilaterally decided what people get to care about or discuss or criticize or not. Makes it hard to take the rest of the post seriously though.
It kind of undermines your whole 'most people are just here to have fun' point when you're also trying to police what qualifies.
Like I get that you have a very specific way you want to play the game and very specific things that you care about/don't care about, but trying to jam that perspective down other people's throats is the exact same thing you were complaining about earlier. Come on.
There's nothing really wrong with someone being concerned about or at least tangentially interested in the game's overall balance and design. Yeah, a lot of people aren't extremely worried about it and the balance generally isn't so bad in 5e that you can't play it even when making wrong choices, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be better either. It's not really that big of a deal to talk about.
Feats and mutliclassing are both variant/optional rules just like spell points and overrun and pack tactics and Honor and Sanity ability scores, and Wizards has been very open about the fact that the game is explicitly not balanced for their inclusion. They're fun options for people who feel like using them at tables where DMs allow them. Using them is basically jailbreaking an iPhone: You are, in effect, violating the terms of service, violating the warranty, and waiving your right to customer service and support. Or, in plainer terms, you are choosing to play the game in a way it was not designed for, and don't get to complain about "balance." Hexblade is not a problem when the base game assumes single-classing from 1st level to 20th, and Polearm Master is not an issue when the base game doesn't allow feats and the best thing a halberd offers is reach.
You want to use variant rules? Go for it. But that's not what the game is built for, and instead of complaining, write your own rules to balance out the problems that using those variant rules cause. It's nobody's issue but yours.
"It kind of sucks that this particular feat or spending an ASI is so much obviously stronger than this more fun or flavorful looking option" seems like a reasonable gripe for someone messing around with the system to have and it does not imply they're part of some sort of conspiracy. I've had both new and veteran players express that sentiment, because hey it's kind of a drag sometimes.
Ehhhhhhhh...I don't think so. It's a roleplaying game. You're there to play a role, not show all your friends how big your balls crits are. Take Actor instead of Crossbow Expert. It'll be fine.
Do you have a citation for WoTC saying the game is explicitly not balanced for feats?
Also, I've literally never played in a game that did not allow feats. They are the norm.
I'm talking about game play. How many feats are there total? You don't see a handful of the same ones taken over and over again?
I've been playing for about three years now, pretty regular, both long-running campaigns and shorter ones, as well as one-shots, as both a DM and player. In all that time, I've seen one character take Polearm Master, and never seen anyone take any of the other big "power" feats. Again...most people just don't care.
Hasn't been my experience at all. You've never had anyone take sharpshooter, war caster, or great weapon master? Um... okay...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Was dndnext something hosted on D&D Beyond? I had not heard about a Sorc playtest until now. Then again, I also don't pay close attention to UA in general unless there's a major buzz about on other parts of this portal.
Your point is that the lore says Artificers do all their abilities with Magic. I get that. However, you are repeating yourself to no improvement of your argument b/c my point is, at its core, about WORLD-BUILDING and your point is NOT about that as you evidently much more concerned about rules balance. Therefore, until D&D starts publishing adventures with a strong science fiction flavor that DMs want to buy and run, we'll likely keep disagreeing post after tiresome post.
This was OLD playtest material. As in, 5e didn't EXIST yet, let alone D&D Beyond.
I have one character with Crossbow Expert, but he's actually an expert with a heavy crossbow so it did seem kind of important. (It's a Battle Master tabaxi created as a riff on the Great White Hunter trope, cuz having a big cat as a classic big-game hunter seemed too funny not to try)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, I think it's more that an architect would have a longer, harder, more expensive time building a house than a contractor would. Thinking up the thing and knowing all its workings is not the same thing as doing the thing. Artificers specialize in the doing more than the understanding, particularly when it comes to making and empowering items and constructs. They should be better at it and have an easier time than Wizards do. Arties may be better at that one thing, but Wizards can still do it. By contrast, Wizards of a high enough level can cast Wish daily, a thing Artificer can never do at all.
You're looking at this whole thing crazy sideways. Wizards can do everything magic can do, except maybe heal. That is who they are and what they do. Artificers focus on one aspect of magic, and get really good at it, and work it differently, concentrating all their efforts there, to the detriment of others. A professor of biology understands all aspects of life sciences at minimum at a basic level, but they aren't going to be as well-versed in upper respiratory infections in children as a practicing pediatric pulmonologist. That's just...how knowledge works. Why do you need anything more than "more experience at a specific thing?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no. Not remotely. I have more small explanations for the meta than I do for the worldbuilding because I think the worldbuilding requires one simple one-word explanation (specialization) that is absurdly self-evident to me, but for some reason, that goes over your head, or at least to the side of it, so I added more to the overall argument. I find it awfully convenient that you skipped over absolutely every example I gave of specialist characters getting something better than generalist ones (i.e. arcane trickster's mage hand being better than wizard's by a long shot) because it doesn't suit your framing.
No, you don't. It's just arcane magic that's more specialized and applied differently. There's zillions of real-world and in-narrative examples of someone with specialist training, knowledge and experience being better at their specialized thing than a generalist. Your argument is the D&D equivalent of "The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because other societies in the area weren't capable of it, so they needed an esoteric outside source, which HAD TO BE ALIENS." It's an absurdist jump made because you don't want to dismiss faulty preconceptions or think about things at all differently from how you already are.
And that is why we'll need to disagree. Because you quite clearly don't understand what I'm saying, and aren't even interested in trying.
DnDNext was a playtest during the lifespan of 4e that was essentially UA/Beta for the ruleset that became 5e. It was the 5e prototype. From the Wikipedia article on D&D's version history:
"In January 2012, Wizards of the Coast announced that a new edition of the game, at the time referred to as D&D Next, was under development. In direct contrast to the previous editions of the game, D&D Next was developed partly via a public open playtest. An early build of the new edition debuted at the 2012 Dungeons & Dragons Experience event to about 500 fans. Public playtesting began on May 24, 2012, with the final playtest packet released on September 20, 2013."
It included a lot of things people are still clamoring for: Maneuvers as part of the base Fighter, a heartier, gishier Sorc build with a more unique class identity, and loads of other stuff. I found this Dropbox link containing all (or at least the majority) of the playtest packet documents on a Reddit thread after a quick google.
Can you stop with that? You don't like artificers and that's perfectly valid.
But continuously trying to suggest that people that don't share your hangups are disregarding worldbuilding or only fixated on mechanics in order to prop up your opinion is not helpful to anyone. The issue you have with the artificer is entirely in your head and has nothing to do with lore, world building, or internal consistency (and in some cases completely contradicts all of the above) and everything to do with the way you personally view the class. But that's actually perfectly fine, because it's completely valid and normal for people to sometimes just not like something.
But it's really annoying to put words in people's mouths or throw shade at them for not sharing your issues.
Should we change topic for "Lets have constructive argue abour Artificer" for this long-going rant here?
to be fair, I am not super-good with Artif lore or probably even DnD lore itself (just the basis and some neat specific knowladge about realms/realities that i personaly like) but such rants helps me understand vague stuff and some picks from lore / books / meta and so on
so yeah, fair point to the SemanticAvenger as he said "The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids because other societies in the area weren't capable of it, so they needed an esoteric outside source, which HAD TO BE ALIENS."
thats kinda like this whole topic started too looks like - someone put a lot of afford to point by point explain something, and as long as i understand "surely i can dont understand stuff" but i should be willing to keep going withdiscussion untill i will understand, and simply pointing, "nah its not gonna work cause ALIENS meta boogie woogie stuff" kinda makes my butt-hurt.
Yeah, that's just blatantly inaccurate. I care about the worldbuilding as published, none of which requires a level of technology higher than a hammer and chisel or a set of tinker's tools.
If your setting includes magic items, Artificers fit within it. Because all Artificers do is make magic items.
Here's what I'm hearing. "I choose options based on things other than optimization, such as aesthetics or narrative concept. And this makes me better than other people." Or maybe, "I perceive optimizers as thinking they're better than me, and they're not."
Somebody like Pack Tactics (gods above, let's move on from Treantmonk's Temple already) makes optimization content for optimizers. The target audience isn't "non-optimizers who need to learn the lesson that they're playing the game wrong." It's "people who care about optimization!" (TT literally opens his videos by addressing the audience as "optimancers.") If you feel attacked by it, that's really more to do with you and your experiences. If you don't care about optimization, these videos aren't going to change your mind because that's not what they're about. And because that's not really how it works anyway. It's a preference, not a scientific theory.
Anyway, can we talk about why the Artificer is leading the charge here? It's decidedly a strong class, and a versatile one, and it's the very second Intelligence class in the whole game. For me, I feel like it just doesn't fulfill the fantasy. It doesn't invent stuff!
Infusions and subclass features are supposed to be their “inventions.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Right, I get that, but I don't think it works. You don't feel like you're inventing stuff, you feel like you're shopping.
Also, the fact that "Armorer" here means "person who wears armor" bugs me a bit. And "Battle Smith" is just a less fancy way to say "Artificer," really. At least Artillerist communicates what it is, and Alchemist gets sorta close to what you'd want from an alchemist, though it's apparently not very good from what I hear.
But yeah, I would say my main complaint with Artificer personally is that Artificer isn't a class, it's a job. "The guy who makes the magic potions" is an NPC role. What about that is supposed to make him good at adventuring? Give the loot to the Fighter, she actually knows how to use it to kill stuff. At most, Artificer could be a subclass or set of subclasses. I could see a field medic type of Ranger, an equipment enchanting Wizard, whatever.
I've seen it done elsewhere too and the idea is like, the stuff he makes is too dangerous for other people to handle consistently! Or it doesn't last long enough to buy it in town and take it into the field! But like, that's just a solution in search of a problem imo.
I also really feel like WotC's missing the mark on all these new features like the Eldritch Cannon or the various pets for different classes, where you just cause it to appear from nowhere with an action. I understand that this is better from, like, a balance standpoint? Like, having a feature that requires way more setup time than other characters often means you won't get to use it? But there's gotta be a better way, because these feel so fake, so video-gamey. The Artificer is supposed to be building these things, but instead he uses a spell slot and it just spawns in.
Infusions feel more “inventory” if you swap them out periodically. The idea of having to cannibalize one contraption for parts to build a different gizmo helps it feel more like inventions. And genuinely reflavoring spell effects as being generated from gadgets helps too. Like, whenever my Artificer casts thorn whip it’s a spool of barbed wire ejecting from his infused crossbow, ray of frost is a freeze ray attachment to his crossbow, enlarge/reduce is a shrink/embiggening ray, identify, detect magic, and see invisibility are done by viewing through his scope… etc.
Trust me, I really am one of the first people who will say I genuinely wish they had come up with something more concrete than “you cast spells but just pretend you aren’t casting spells,” but I’m tryin’a make the best out of what we got. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Feats and mutliclassing are both variant/optional rules just like spell points and overrun and pack tactics and Honor and Sanity ability scores, and Wizards has been very open about the fact that the game is explicitly not balanced for their inclusion. They're fun options for people who feel like using them at tables where DMs allow them. Using them is basically jailbreaking an iPhone: You are, in effect, violating the terms of service, violating the warranty, and waiving your right to customer service and support. Or, in plainer terms, you are choosing to play the game in a way it was not designed for, and don't get to complain about "balance." Hexblade is not a problem when the base game assumes single-classing from 1st level to 20th, and Polearm Master is not an issue when the base game doesn't allow feats and the best thing a halberd offers is reach.
You want to use variant rules? Go for it. But that's not what the game is built for, and instead of complaining, write your own rules to balance out the problems that using those variant rules cause. It's nobody's issue but yours.
Ehhhhhhhh...I don't think so. It's a roleplaying game. You're there to play a role, not show all your friends how big your
ballscrits are. Take Actor instead of Crossbow Expert. It'll be fine.Lot of fighting about this one already. It mostly just seems to be people looking at the one published piece of art and a lot of fanart and deciding it's either extreme steampunk or high-tech sci-fi, neither of which fit a lot of people's ideas of the "setting" of D&D (which, let's be real, just means FR). Never mind that it's not those things. Basically, artie's leading the charge because an awful lot of people buy into the zeitgeist over what's actually published. It's just "horny bard" all over again.
I've been playing for about three years now, pretty regular, both long-running campaigns and shorter ones, as well as one-shots, as both a DM and player. In all that time, I've seen one character take Polearm Master, and never seen anyone take any of the other big "power" feats. Again...most people just don't care.
Well, I'm glad you've unilaterally decided what people get to care about or discuss or criticize or not. Makes it hard to take the rest of the post seriously though.
It kind of undermines your whole 'most people are just here to have fun' point when you're also trying to police what qualifies.
Like I get that you have a very specific way you want to play the game and very specific things that you care about/don't care about, but trying to jam that perspective down other people's throats is the exact same thing you were complaining about earlier. Come on.
Do you have a citation for WoTC saying the game is explicitly not balanced for feats?
Also, I've literally never played in a game that did not allow feats. They are the norm.
Hasn't been my experience at all. You've never had anyone take sharpshooter, war caster, or great weapon master? Um... okay...