Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
College of Valor Bards can cast almost as many spells as an Artificer and Artificers may actually have access to more spells at a given time via Enspelled items. 2014 Artificers have access to more items, but UA loses this perk. I would like to see Battle Smiths picking up the substituting an attack for a Cantrip, but as Ace of Rogues pointed out, there may be balance issues with that and the Steel Defender attack. I am leaning towards it would be fine though.
College of Valor Bard has the same Action Economy as the Battle Smith.
Attack, Extra Attack, Bonus Action for Bardic Inspiration/Spells.
At level 2, Rangers and Paladins can give up their free Fighting Style to get 2 Cantrips. At this level, Artificers and Bards also have 2 Cantrips. At level 14+ Rangers and Paladins still have 2 Cantrips. Artificers and Bards have 4.
The Ranger's pet can't deflect attacks which is a significant part of the Steel Defender's support capability.
Artificers are not half martials. Battle Smiths aren't either. If you want a martial with a splash of casting, grab an Eldritch Knight, and take the Artisan Feat and you have something more like the Battle Smith you want.
If you want a pet as good as a Beast Master's, Weapon Features as good as Martials, and all the Artificer gravy on top in order to be considered "fair". I will not support that. It's not appropriate or balanced. It's way too much. The Steel Defender is great and you seem to wholly discount it, instead dwelling on the class has martial weapon proficiencies so it "must" be a martial class. I think the main thing the Battle Smith is missing is the ability to use replicated items as spellcasting foci, which I think was an oversight, or to use a magic weapons as one.
If you want Battle Smiths to pick up weapon masteries on top of the buffs they got, you have to ask what Subclass features you would be willing to drop.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Im not sure which list you are looking at, but Bards are Full Casters. They get access to more Spell Slots and the full 9 Levels.
As you just said, there may be balance issues...maybe because Valor Bard is not the correct comparison? Beast Master Ranger who picked up Cantrips is.
Not to mention that the Enspelled Items are considered an exploit by many and want a clarification on that.
No? Attack, Extra Attack / Cantrip / Spell, Bonus Action for Inspiration. Thats a big difference to literally the same Economy.
Wow, 4 Cantrips, thats amazing. Totally worth 14 Levels. /s
Rangers Land-Pet has Beast-Strike. If it moved, it deals more Damage. 1d8 + 2 + Wis + 1d6 and the Target is Prone, without saving throw.
Rangers Water-Pet is Ambhibious and usable on Land and Water. When attacking, it Grapples.
Rangers Air-Pet is the weakest of the 3 but does not provoke Opportunity Attacks.
Battle Smiths Pet deals 1d8 + 2 + Int, so similiar to the Land-Pet, but instead of the Prone-Attack it has a Deflect-Reaction and Repair.
Neither of these pets is better or stronger than the others, Ranger is simply more flexible with it, but Ranger is the Class with the stronger base-set due to all the 2024 Buffs and the Artificers UA Nerf.
Level 1: Every Artificer knows Prestidigitation. Maybe Mending. These two Cantrips are so iconic for Artificers, why should only a Rock Gnome know them for free?
Keep the old Magic Tinkering and fill in the blanks of Prestidigitation:
Warm/Chill: The Item provides advantage on extreme weather checks (like a mundane blanket)
Illusion Trinket: You can create 1 Item from the Fast Crafting List in addition to [ Insert Items like the Vials and Ladder ]. This unifies the systems by not adding yet another list of items you need to remember.
Level 2: Choose between 2 Schools: Arcane and War.
Arcane: You learn 2 Cantrips. You can switch Cantrips at a Long Rest.
War: You have Weapon Mastery with 2 Weapons and you can use them as a Spellcasting Focus
Artificer Spellcasting + Spell Storing Item with 20 Intelligence + Drain Magic Item is 15 + 10 + 1 = 26 leveled spells per day at level 20.
Bard Spellcasting + nothing is 22 + 0 = 22 leveled spells per day at level 20.
Ranger Spellcasting + Hunter's Mark twice per day is 15 + 2 = 17 leveled spells per day at level 20.
That is before taking into account the actual Replicated Magic Item (apart for making one to Drain). The Bard can cast spells above level 5, but the Artificer can cast 4 more spells per day than the Bard and 9 more than the Ranger.
For spell versatility, the Artificer has numerous options via Replicate Magic Item. An All Purpose Tool allows access to any one Cantrip from any class (and treat it as an Artificer spell), multiple Wand Options (I think at rare, the highest spell level is 3), many of the magic items can produce one time spells or at will spells of varying level. I think at Rare, a Mimir producing Legend Lore might be the highest level spell (level 5). Even if we restrict the Artificer to learning Enspelled Item {Spell} as an individual plan, that still puts it on par with the versatility of a Bard's Magical Secrets.
In a spellcasting sense, Rangers and Paladins can't come close to an Artificer.
Yes, I agree, the Bard has literally the same Action Economy. If one of the classes didn't have viable Bonus Attack actions, the Action Economy would be different, but that's not the case.
Options lead to versatility which strengthens your character. Don't ignore the class features then complain about your character being weak or not optimal. You chose to discard the features.
This is the dedicated pet subclass. Stop comparing your pet that is not the dedicated focus of the subclass to the pets of the class that dedicates all of the Subclass abilities to it. If you want a Steel Defender that is as strong and versatile as a Ranger's Pet, give up Battle Ready, Arcane Jolt, and their upgrades. There is no flat out UA Artificer Nerf. Some things got removed. but some crazy things go added.
This, I agree with. I would think they'd replace the old Magical Tinkering with Prestidigitation rather than have both, but I would like this version with Mending too.
If you want a feature to represent branching paths, the Cleric's Divine order is more appropriate, although I don't see that happening unless they remove Heavy Armor Proficiency from the Armorer (which also seems unlikely).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
After getting feedback for my revised version of the artificer, that i created as feedback and option for the communety i revorked some things and here is the new one, so have fun with it:
To the point that Warlocks top off at 5th level spells, just like Artificers. They are not full casters. They are the best class to compare Artificers to. That's somewhat true, but it's although wrong and the reason why I said that the warlock isn't good for comparison and that's a special case under full casters. Their spell slots cap out at 5th lvl spells, but their spell casting ability doesn't. The important difference to Artificers is that they have access to 9th lvl spells. You can compare a warlock more to a full caster than to a halve caster.... to the other point that Artificers aren't half caster and half martial, I don't think so. They where part of the 3 half casters and you could play the other two although more as a support or build them more than a martial build. The only difference is that ranger and pala got fighting styles and Artificers Cantrips, but a discussion over this is a belief thing. The only fact is, if they miss out of weapon masteries they are the only half casters that didn't got buffed and the short end of the stick.
P.s. the warlock has although normal spell progression. They have 3rd lvl spells at 5th lvl while all half caster have them at 9th level, which is a huge difference.
To your argument that the Artificer can use magic items for its spells with enspelled weapons and that they get more spells with the spell storing Item. The magic item thing is a exploit which gets either removed or Band at tables, to the second point, paladins and rangers get free casts of spells to, so they should count in the total of spells aswell
To the point that they don't use weapons I can only say that I completely disagree, they are the MAGIC ITEM USER class, which includes magic weapons...
How exactly do Warlocks cast spells above 5th level outside of their Mystic Arcanum and scrolls? What am I missing? Warlock is a good class to compare Artificers to because they cap off at level 5 slots and have a class feature that expands their magic ability (Eldritch Invocations paralleling Infusions/Replicate Magic Item). It's not perfect, but they follow similar templates.
Artificers are not martial. Not everyone who doesn't fully cast spells are half martial. Artificers are spellcasters and the other half is more magic shenanigans. Warlocks aren't half Martial because they cap off at 5th level slots.
Honestly, until we see the final version, the RAW of the UA is the only thing we can assess. Anything else is premature. With a 20 Intelligence, Artificers can use Spell-storing Item and Drain Magic Item to cast an additional 10 spells per day before actually casting spells via Replicate Magic Item with things like Enspelled Items. The spell levels will be low, like Warlocks casting spells via Eldritch Invocations, but the number of spells will be wild.
I counted the Ranger's free casting. If I missed any, please correct my math. I did not check the Paladin. If either comes close to casting 26 leveled spells per day, with or without a spell slot from class features, let me know. Note that 26 spells is just the base Artificer spellcasting, Spell-storing Item, and Drain Magic Item, nothing else.
Magic items includes armor, should the base class suddenly get all armor proficiencies? Should they get martial weapon proficiency because they can replicate them? No.
Everyone gets weapon proficiency and can use them. If you are going to base that on justification for Weapon Masteries, then everyone should get them. At that point, actual martials will need something special again. At which point everyone who looked at a weapon once while be clamoring for it too.
No, the Artificer does not primarily focus on interacting in combat encounters via weapons. If you want Masteries without multiclassing, take the feat. Just like a College of Valor Bard or Pact of the Blade Warlock.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You can't compare warlocks with any half caster, just because their official spell slot progression ends at 5th lvl. First off all, they gain the normal spell progression of full casters, which you completely ignore and you ignore the fact that they have a spell list up to 9th lvl spells they can use. Either give Artificers a feature like warlock have and turn them to semi full caster (that's what the Level 11: Mystic Arcanum features does for warlocks) with the improved spell list and spell progression (http://dnd2024.*******.com/warlock:spell-list that's the warlock spell list, which proves the point that they are more like full casters... http://dnd2024.*******.com/warlock:main and here is the full class with its spell progression that it proves aswell. It doesn't matter that the table shows them only going to 5th lvl, when they have access to 9th lvl spells.) There’s a reason why full casters get less class features then half-casters and martials, since spells are features... that's why you can't compare a half-casters with any full casters, since the power between a 5th and 9th level spell are world's appart in general. There are some enemies you can't even hurt with low level spells and for them you need weapons and class features as a half caster. I agree to the point that martials need something to reduce the gap to the full casters, but so do the half casters and they got it up until know
To your point that they can cast spells with magic items, so can evryone else, either they craft the magic item themselves (which is extremely easy with the new rules) or you don't play like a jerk as a Artificer and hand out the magic items you create. The additional spells you can cast aren't just for you, but your whole party. If you ever played and optimised a Artificer, than you would know that they get stronger by increasing the whole Partys strength, but the problem with that is that your character feels underwealming afterwards. Just a question, have you ever played as a Artificer before?
P.s. BTW, Artificers get armor perficencies, some get even heavy armor and martial weapon proficiency and if I follow your argument, then paladins and rangers shouldn't had received weapon masteries aswell
Not sure its being a jerk as an Artificer if you keep some or all of your created items for yourself; it just may or may not be the most tactical play depending on the situation and the rest of the party.
But it does have a weird interaction with the other Artificer features that are "fuelled" by destroying your items! Nobbling your main class feature in order to use another class feature feels dumb. As others have pointed out, the best way to use this is to create wands or other charged items and only destroy them once the charges have been used.
But that still constrains what you make and when you can use your features - and if you gave your magic items out to party members this just creates a whole bunch of other issues! Do you destroy the magic sword you gave to the fighter because you really want a 2nd level spell slot back???
Well, you could play the egoistisch way and keep them (that could make sense as a Armorer or battle Smith, but even than it would be wise to give some to your party) or be a team player and share
My point was more about using those Artificer features that require you to destroy your items. Using those features becomes even worse if all your items are actively being used by your party members!
Partly depends on tier of play, how the DM hands out loot, and if your group disregards attunement. If you keep the restrictions then most groups getting into tier 2 can already start bumping up against the ceiling of what they can use at once. It’s a fair go for Artificers to lean towards keeping a personal kit of tools or rounding out their own build before covering others, especially if the others are already being provided for.
I could see this in D&D 5.5 (depends on the monster manual), but in 5e, especially when the DM isn't someone who gives out magic items regularly, the infusions that turn weapons into magic items are a must-have for martial characters, especially in tiers 2 and 3, thanks to resistance against non-magical piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage. (Poor martials D: ) On the other hand, a Mind Sharpener (keeping concentraition on those shut down spells is important) or Enhanced Arcane Focus is great for your full caster allies (yes, even the Enhanced Arcane Focus, especially for Warlocks, Eldrich blast go brrr XD). And for all tiers, Goggles of Night are fantastic to give to your human fighter, who would otherwise stumble in the dark. It's always good to share atleast one magic with your party, sharing is careing and when the party depends on your items, they will do a lot to keep you alive XD
p.s.
P.S. But that wasn't the main point. The core of my argument is that you can't really compare a Bard or a Warlock with an Artificer, thanks to their diffrent spell recourses. Additionally, the infusions aren't just a resource for one player; they can be a party-wide benefit, helping everyone, not just the Artificer
i agree with you on that, there are so many options in the artificer for a weapon user and many of its features go over many areas. Its the jack of all traists class and master of non. It was alway the case and it will always be. Thats a other reason why they should get weapon masteries ^^
I didn't ignore it, which is why I asked how Warlocks cast spells above 5th level outside of Mystic Arcanum and Scrolls. Mystic Arcanum allows the Warlock to cast one 6th+ level spell, but I don't see any other use for their spell list. That is extremely limited. Take your one gimmick, cast it, then take a nap? The best use of the Spell List is to grab some scrolls and activate them to cast the spell you need.
I have played Artificers since Eberron released in 3.5. I also tend to play Paladins and Bards, but Artificers are my favorite class to play. Just a question, have you?
For this point only consider the items that the Artificer Replicates (UA) or Infuses (2014). These are effectively class features. They can be used to buff the artificer or handed out. If you feel underwhelming because the rest of the party is doing better because of your buffs (handing out replicated magic items is buffing others with your class features) then you are not accustomed to playing in a buffing role. You succeed or fail as a team. Anyone playing in a support role needs to embrace that.
Artificers as a class do not get Heavy Armor Proficiency. Ranges and Paladins are martial classes that primarily interact with combat encounters with weapons.
A Warlock mixes spellcasting with magic options via class features that can replicate spellcasting. This is very much like an Artificer and before the UA, I wondered if moving Warlock Invocations up to first level might mean Infusions might be bumped up to 1st level as well.
Warlocks tend to be more "selfish" in that they are more focused on personal abilities or damage, but Bards very much share their abilities with the Party and increase the effectiveness of their Party Members. It might be more obvious because the Bardic buffs are shorter duration than giving someone a +1/+2 sword.
Infusion/Replicate Magic Items are a way to reliably plan access to specific items. It is up to the Artificer to decide where to best use them. Just overcoming non-magical damage resistance also has other options that should not be overlooked, like [spells]Magic Weapon[spells], even if magic weapons aren't otherwise common or available. However, I would imagine that in a magic item depleted campaign, an Artificer would be disruptive and potentially be disallowed due to their nature.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Emphasis added. They are exactly this, a jack of all trades, with mastery of none, including weapons.
Keith Baker's original Artificer and Magewright classes from 3.5 were part of the explanation of the abundance of magic items in the setting. They (primarily House Cannith) figured out how to churn out a lot of magic items, but they were generally on the low end and higher tier magic was as restricted as in normal settings. The Artificer in 5e has Sorcerer (3.x) level of spellcasting volume, but doesn't hit the high levels of spellcasting that Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerer, and Wizards do. They also do not have exceptional access to Very Rare or Legendary Items (apart from the crafting time reduction for their specialty). Both of these are thematically appropriate to the Eberron setting and, by extension, the Artificer class.
In everything, the Artificer can do a lot, but does not demonstrate mastery.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Where is an Artificer supposed to get access to legendary items? The DM doesn’t count, as all classes can eventually gain access to them through the DM. Regarding your point that Artificers are "jack-of-all-trades," which is why they shouldn't get weapon masteries: In my opinion, that’s exactly the reason why they should. Not every Artificer should have access to features like Divine Smite (Paladin), Hunter’s Mark (ranger, which is a trap, but thats a other thing and there are batter options for it), Sneek Attack (Rouge), Action Surge (Fighter) Furry of Blows (Monk) or Reckless Attack (Barbarian), which boost their weapons/melee damage and push them into a martial role. However, they should still have the option to specialize in that direction from their baseline without feeling like they're out of place. They should be able to improve or even become proficient in martial combat if they choose to focus on it.
Right now, Artificers are ok and coult turn decent at martial combat, but they don't excel. They should have the chance to branch into weapon mastery if they want to and become better at it, without detracting from their identity as magical inventors. The key is allowing them to have access to martial weapon options that enhance their combat effectiveness, not necessarily turning them into melee-focused juggernauts but still making them viable when they choose that path.
They do have a chance to branch into more marital stuff- it's called "taking one or more feats that boost their martial repertoire".
The Artificer and everyone else rely on the DM for access to Very Rare and Legendary items. It is why they "do not have exceptional access to Very Rare or Legendary items". Not having exceptional access means that their access is the same as everyone else's. It's part of why Keith Baker justified Eberron as whole having more access to lower end magical items, but not higher end items.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
They have the chance to branch into weapon mastery. See Weapon Master.
An inventor typically fights with the properties of their invention, not their skill at arms. To be a skilled melee combatant detracts from their identity as magical inventors. The key difference is leaning into their magical options to enhance their combat. That means using Magic Weapon, Green-flame Blade, Replicate Magic Item/Infusions, and similar effects to boost their ability. Just like any other support/utility class, they have the option to use their buffs on themselves.
Maybe you play in an environment where the DM floods the group with Magic Items making the Artificer's abilities less impactful, but that would be an issue with the group, not the class design.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
First of all, regarding the magic items that are Very Rare or Legendary, I understand that only the DM can hand them out. That’s exactly why I don’t understand your argument about them being a reason why an Artificer shouldn't get Weapon Masteries. The ability to wield powerful magic items is already under the DM’s control, so it shouldn't be used as a reason to restrict an Artificer's abilities and it's not a argument that i will count for them not getting weapon masteries, especially when such features would enhance their versatility and combat potential.
Regarding your Bard argument, I have a simple question: Are Bards martial or half-casters? I’ll say this one last time: you can’t compare a full caster to a half-caster or a martial class. You need to compare them to classes within their own role and function in the game. A half-caster has its own unique set of strengths and limitations, and comparing it to a full caster or a martial class doesn’t make sense because they fulfill different roles and function differently.
If I were to follow your argument, I could use the Rogue as an example of why they should get Weapon Masteries, since they could fulfill the role of a jack-of-all-trades. But that wouldn’t make sense, as the Rogue is fundamentally different in mechanics and how they fulfill the JOAT role. You could even argue that the Bard is more of a buff and control character, based on its features, rather than a true JOAT, since they excel in those areas.
Additionally, it's not fair to compare one of the best full caster classes to a half-caster ... they are designed fundamentally differently, and each has its own intended purpose in gameplay.
To your point about investing a feat for it, it seems you've overlooked how impactful and important feats are, especially for Artificers. If you want to use that argument, you could just build a Wizard with Arcana proficiency and the Crafter feat, and you’d essentially have a character who could fulfill a similar role with only a bit more time—yet still a full Intelligence caster—using the new crafting rules.
In addition, a feat wouldn’t solve the issue with the integrated weapons from the Armorer subclass. The lack of Weapon Masteries on these weapons right now is a significant problem. The additional effects they offer aren’t true masteries—they were a way to make the Armorer stand out and feel unique. At this point, every martial class (and even full casters with your feat argument) could have masteries, which does litterally the same thing and takes away what made the Armorer’s integrated weapons special in the first place.
If the Armorer got both, weapon effects and a mastery, it would make their weapons feel unique again. And since you like to compare to other classes, consider the Soulknife Rogue, who gets mastery for their weapons as well.
An inventor typically fights using the properties of their inventions, not just their physical skill. This concept is central to the Artificer’s identity, especially with the Armorer subclass, where the integrated weapons should be something special, reflecting the Artificer’s ingenuity. Combining both the effects and a weapon mastery would help to fulfill this role more effectively. Regarding that point, it seems we have completely different ideologies. If I were to follow your perspective, an Artificer should stay at the party’s base while the others go on the adventure. For me, that would be too boring, but if that’s how you enjoy playing, then have fun with it!
In the 2024 UA, Green-Flame Blade is no longer available to Artificers. If you're arguing that they still have it, I must disappoint you—under the 2024 material, it’s not included. This is because Tasha's Cauldron of Everything hasn’t been updated to reflect the 2024 changes yet.
Regarding your last point, what were the most Infusions in 2014 that were changed to magic items in the 2024 UA version? Let me think... ah, right—weapons and armor. Some things for casters, but mostly focused on ranged and melee weapons and armor. Even then, the problem was that the Artificer lost its importance in a party as more magic items were handed out by the DM. And no, I’m not just talking about games where the DM floods the group with magic items, making the Artificer's abilities feel less impactful. This issue persists even if the DM sticks to the recommended amount of magic items in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (I believe it’s in the DMG, though it may also be in the PHB).
Take the Arcane Trickster. Turns the Rogue (who has Expertise and Weapon Mastery) into a a Martial Caster. They learn Cantrips through a Subclass, so why shouldnt a Subclass grant Mastery? They use the Wizard Spell List, which is much bigger than what Artificer has access too.
So going with the same argument, why should a Subclass grant access to 3 Cantrips (so the same as artificer level 10), when they could use a Feat instead to get some?
Bard also gets access to the Magical Extra Attack, which no Artificer has access to.
Technically Armorer has something very close to Mastery, since each Armor-Weapon has a special on-hit-effect. They are just not the "default masteries".
Battle Smith is the one who cant use a Focus, cant use Mastery, cant use Cantrip-Extra Attacks. And if you use Blade-Cantrips, they are restricted to Melee, and restricts access to the Pet Commands.
The UA had: The list includes only spells from the Player’s Handbook and this article. If you have Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything, your Artificer can continue to use the class’s spells in that book.
But honestly? Listing a separate book is just stupid. The Class in itself needs to fix the issue, not rely on additional books.
And yeah, the DMG (and Xanathar) both suggest a total of 100 Magic Items. Chances are high that there are enough Weapons or Enspelled Items in there. If you play with a "Wish List" and dont throw out "useless items that no one can use", then the Artificers features become less interesting.
Also: The new DMG awards more gold than ever before (because it only awards gold or platinum), there are no more copper or silver rewards in treasures. And it suggests one Hoard per Session.
Individual Treasure now starts at 3d6gp, and a treasure hoard (once per session) rewards 1d4-1 magic items with 2d4x100 gp.
The old DMG individual treasure ranged between 5d6cp and 1d6pp.