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 ^^
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.
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.
Where is an Artificer supposed to get access to legendary items?
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.
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.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
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 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.
Where is an Artificer supposed to get access to legendary items?
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.
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 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.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
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.
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 have the chance to branch into weapon mastery. See Weapon Master.
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 with the properties of their invention, not their skill at arms. To be a skilled melee combatant detracts from their identity as magical inventors.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bards are another "jack of all trades". Are you going to give them Weapon Mastery too?
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.
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.
that only proofs my point that arteficers should get weapon masteries
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.
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.
Thats what i said, they get a masterie kind effect, but right know it feels that they are missing out at something, atleast for me
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.
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.
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.
That proofes my point even more, so what should i say about it
If a class changes focus, which is the case for Armorer and Battlesmith, just as well as Valor Bard, Arcane Trickster, and so many others, they should get access to the resources.
Let it be Cantrips like the Trickster, Magic-Extra Attacks like the Bard, or simply Mastery.
The Argument "this is not the intended design because all martials start with it and artificer has cantrips and they can just use a feat for that" doesnt match here. Other classes could just take a feat too. you can get cantrips and spells (magic initiate), mastery (weapon master), and fighting styles (tashas fighter initiate) through them.
Battle Smith's Mastery could be a variant like "only with magic weapons or those created through your features", or limit it to one mastery instead of two so it will never be as good as that of a class that starts with it. Matching it to infused items only would perfectly fit their theme.
And if Armorer would get access to regular weapons with mastery, that would be fine too, they are limited to simple weapons or their armor versions.
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.
I never said that. I said that's why Eberron has a lot of lower level magic items and not higher and that Artificers and Magewrights (3.5 NPC class) were the explanation for it.
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.
Show me a non-full spellcaster that is a support or utility class like the Artificer. You have to compare classes within their own role and function in the game.
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.
A Rogue can and does act as jack of all trades, though to a lesser degree than the Bard and Artificer. However, when it comes to combat encounters, the class primarily interacts via weapons, hence they get weapon masteries.
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.
Show me an official subclass that currently grants weapon masteries.
We have species that grant Cantrips and level 1+ spells. Show me one that grants weapon mastery. Weapon mastery is a feature that is incredibly potent. It gives all weapons a rider effect and can even increase the number of attacks you make (Nick). Just having access to one at a time still allows you to change which one every long rest. Let the martials have this one. Artificers are not a martial class.
Think of it as a Rogue is a half-martial/half-jack of all trades (via being a skill monkey). Artificers are half-casters (sort of)/half-jack of all trades. If you want to solve every problem with a sword, the Artificer isn't for you, at least not a straight Artificer.
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.
if you're running around dungeons as magic Iron Man and don't stand out, I am baffled. Do you only define "standing out" in terms of raw damage numbers?
As an Armorer, weapon mastery is not appropriate. It would be nice for the special weapons to have Masteries defined for characters who take the feat or multiclass, but Artificers themselves should not receive Weapon Masteries.
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.
You can't have everything. You have to make choices.
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.
2 wondrous items (Boots of Winding Path and Helm of Awareness), 1 ring (Spell-refueling Ring), 1 armor was changed to a ring (Mind Sharpener), 3 weapons, and 1 shield.
All of the infusions were changed to magic items. Moving Mind Sharpener to a ring improved its utility for the Artificer and party members alike. I think many, if not all, of the infusions converted to magic items were not Artificer-specific in 3.5. Returning was a 3.5 magic property. I think Radiant Weapon is the 5e update to the 3.5 Brilliant Energy Weapons. 3.5 had repeating crossbows (as a mundane item), but I think there were a few magical, self-loading specific weapons as well, not limited to crossbows. Most of these are moving back to being not an Artificer-specific thing because they never should have been exclusive to Artificers. Artificers were not conceptualized as creators of Artificer-exclusive items. They created things that anyone else could, but were better at it and faster at it than anyone else, in part because they could throw a Homunculus in a portable hole with crafting supplies and have them fulfill the time requirements of crafting while adventuring and also because they had a craft reserve of points that they could use for crafting instead of experience points.
But honestly? Listing a separate book is just stupid. The Class in itself needs to fix the issue, not rely on additional books.
It makes sense if you are specifically wanting a play test in the context of the 2024 rules. I believe that there is a good chance that we will see a UA for updated spells, magic items, species, and subclasses as prep for one or two books that has consolidated updates. We may have even gotten the Artificer as the first UA after the 2024 PHB because they are expecting to need multiple passes.
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.
I never said that. I said that's why Eberron has a lot of lower level magic items and not higher and that Artificers and Magewrights (3.5 NPC class) were the explanation for it.
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.
Show me a non-full spellcaster that is a support or utility class like the Artificer. You have to compare classes within their own role and function in the game.
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.
A Rogue can and does act as jack of all trades, though to a lesser degree than the Bard and Artificer. However, when it comes to combat encounters, the class primarily interacts via weapons, hence they get weapon masteries.
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.
Show me an official subclass that currently grants weapon masteries.
We have species that grant Cantrips and level 1+ spells. Show me one that grants weapon mastery. Weapon mastery is a feature that is incredibly potent. It gives all weapons a rider effect and can even increase the number of attacks you make (Nick). Just having access to one at a time still allows you to change which one every long rest. Let the martials have this one. Artificers are not a martial class.
Think of it as a Rogue is a half-martial/half-jack of all trades (via being a skill monkey). Artificers are half-casters (sort of)/half-jack of all trades. If you want to solve every problem with a sword, the Artificer isn't for you, at least not a straight Artificer.
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.
if you're running around dungeons as magic Iron Man and don't stand out, I am baffled. Do you only define "standing out" in terms of raw damage numbers?
As an Armorer, weapon mastery is not appropriate. It would be nice for the special weapons to have Masteries defined for characters who take the feat or multiclass, but Artificers themselves should not receive Weapon Masteries.
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.
You can't have everything. You have to make choices.
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.
2 wondrous items (Boots of Winding Path and Helm of Awareness), 1 ring (Spell-refueling Ring), 1 armor was changed to a ring (Mind Sharpener), 3 weapons, and 1 shield.
All of the infusions were changed to magic items. Moving Mind Sharpener to a ring improved its utility for the Artificer and party members alike. I think many, if not all, of the infusions converted to magic items were not Artificer-specific in 3.5. Returning was a 3.5 magic property. I think Radiant Weapon is the 5e update to the 3.5 Brilliant Energy Weapons. 3.5 had repeating crossbows (as a mundane item), but I think there were a few magical, self-loading specific weapons as well, not limited to crossbows. Most of these are moving back to being not an Artificer-specific thing because they never should have been exclusive to Artificers. Artificers were not conceptualized as creators of Artificer-exclusive items. They created things that anyone else could, but were better at it and faster at it than anyone else, in part because they could throw a Homunculus in a portable hole with crafting supplies and have them fulfill the time requirements of crafting while adventuring and also because they had a craft reserve of points that they could use for crafting instead of experience points.
But honestly? Listing a separate book is just stupid. The Class in itself needs to fix the issue, not rely on additional books.
It makes sense if you are specifically wanting a play test in the context of the 2024 rules. I believe that there is a good chance that we will see a UA for updated spells, magic items, species, and subclasses as prep for one or two books that has consolidated updates. We may have even gotten the Artificer as the first UA after the 2024 PHB because they are expecting to need multiple passes.
Edit to clean up random line breaks.
We're going around in circles; this discussion doesn't make sense if the counterarguments aren't addressed, and instead only cherry-picking and strawman arguments are being used. I notice that you're not open to a real discourse. Let me know when you're ready for that point.
Show me an official subclass that currently grants weapon masteries.
We have species that grant Cantrips and level 1+ spells. Show me one that grants weapon mastery. Weapon mastery is a feature that is incredibly potent. It gives all weapons a rider effect and can even increase the number of attacks you make (Nick). Just having access to one at a time still allows you to change which one every long rest. Let the martials have this one. Artificers are not a martial class.
Think of it as a Rogue is a half-martial/half-jack of all trades (via being a skill monkey). Artificers are half-casters (sort of)/half-jack of all trades. If you want to solve every problem with a sword, the Artificer isn't for you, at least not a straight Artificer.
Thats the point, there isnt one. But there are enough where it is the other way around. Classes that start with Mastery and then gain Magic-Extra Attacks or Cantrips. Both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster get access to Cantrips and Mastery. Ranger and Paladin can get it too when they trade in their Fighting Style.
There is just no case yet where a Class starts with Cantrips and then gets Mastery, but enough that get the Magic-Extra-Attack. Artificer starts with purely spells and then gains Martial features, Heavy Armor, Martial Weapons, Extra Attack...so they should be treated the same as the other mix-classes, just the other way around. A Magic-Extra-Attack could fit too for Armorer and Battle Smith. Or just let them chose, or grant it at a later level.
And if you use Blade-Cantrips, they are restricted to Melee, and restricts access to the Pet Commands.
Green-flame Blade and Booming Blade are cast with a Magic Action. How do they restrict access to the Pet Commands which use a Bonus Action?
Ah right, my bad. I somehow confused them with Smite-Like spells that use a Bonus Action. They still restrict the type of weapon to only melee though. This means they dont work with Ranged Weapons (which is a playstyle that many Battle Smiths like to play), as well as the Armorers Armor-Weapons (because they dont have a cost), AND they dont work with Extra-Attack like they do for other hybrids.
Show me an official subclass that currently grants weapon masteries.
We have species that grant Cantrips and level 1+ spells. Show me one that grants weapon mastery. Weapon mastery is a feature that is incredibly potent. It gives all weapons a rider effect and can even increase the number of attacks you make (Nick). Just having access to one at a time still allows you to change which one every long rest. Let the martials have this one. Artificers are not a martial class.
Think of it as a Rogue is a half-martial/half-jack of all trades (via being a skill monkey). Artificers are half-casters (sort of)/half-jack of all trades. If you want to solve every problem with a sword, the Artificer isn't for you, at least not a straight Artificer.
Thats the point, there isnt one. But there are enough where it is the other way around. Classes that start with Mastery and then gain Magic-Extra Attacks or Cantrips. Both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster get access to Cantrips and Mastery. Ranger and Paladin can get it too when they trade in their Fighting Style.
There is just no case yet where a Class starts with Cantrips and then gets Mastery, but enough that get the Magic-Extra-Attack. Artificer starts with purely spells and then gains Martial features, Heavy Armor, Martial Weapons, Extra Attack...so they should be treated the same as the other mix-classes, just the other way around. A Magic-Extra-Attack could fit too for Armorer and Battle Smith. Or just let them chose, or grant it at a later level.
And my point is that there is not one because it's not appropriate. They had the opportunity to set a precedence with the College of Valor Bard and chose not to. The true martial classes, both non-casters and half-casters have options that give them cantrips, but they never catch up to the Artificer or Bard. Artificers are more than half-casters even if the spells per day and multiclassing rules lump them in with half-casters. If you choose to ignore the class features of the Artificer, including the ability to cast spells and give someone else a spell-storing item, you don't get to turn around and say they don't have enough utility or effectiveness. Spell-storing item effectively allows them to cast spells with someone else's action and have someone who doesn't need concentration concentrate on a spell! It's bonkers. Artificers are crazy good spellcasters who trade volume for quality (high level).
And if you use Blade-Cantrips, they are restricted to Melee, and restricts access to the Pet Commands.
Green-flame Blade and Booming Blade are cast with a Magic Action. How do they restrict access to the Pet Commands which use a Bonus Action?
Ah right, my bad. I somehow confused them with Smite-Like spells that use a Bonus Action. They still restrict the type of weapon to only melee though. This means they dont work with Ranged Weapons (which is a playstyle that many Battle Smiths like to play), as well as the Armorers Armor-Weapons (because they dont have a cost), AND they dont work with Extra-Attack like they do for other hybrids.
No worries. Yes, I am not refuting that those two only work with melee weapons. We may see a change when/if they are updated for 2024. I wouldn't mind seeing the spells being updated to allow ranged attacks or even unarmed attacks. Green-flame strike and Booming Strike? Would that really be so bad? Speaking of Monks, they are another class, one that has no inherent spellcasting, that does not access to Weapon Mastery, despite have the option to use Monk Weapons with their abilities.
Tbh, AS a DM i allow unarmed strikes to Work and Up until know IT wasn't a Problem, but tbh i never Had a monk use this spell. Thats Something that needs Testing, but one Thing i can say and allow für everyone on my table with multi Attack. When they cast booming Blade or Green-flame Blade, they are still able to use their Attacks from multi Attack (yeah i know raw its Not allowed, but i Had No Problems with this ruleing Up until know) thats why i dont think that it IS a Problem even at monks
And my point is that there is not one because it's not appropriate. They had the opportunity to set a precedence with the College of Valor Bard and chose not to. The true martial classes, both non-casters and half-casters have options that give them cantrips, but they never catch up to the Artificer or Bard. Artificers are more than half-casters even if the spells per day and multiclassing rules lump them in with half-casters. If you choose to ignore the class features of the Artificer, including the ability to cast spells and give someone else a spell-storing item, you don't get to turn around and say they don't have enough utility or effectiveness. Spell-storing item effectively allows them to cast spells with someone else's action and have someone who doesn't need concentration concentrate on a spell! It's bonkers. Artificers are crazy good spellcasters who trade volume for quality (high level).
You always return to Spell Storing Items. This is just a feature of the class, nothing more. Fighter gets Two Extra-Attacks. Bard gets access to all Spells. Ranger gets Tireless. Paladin gets Radiant Strikes. Everyone can craft Enspelled Items. Bard and Wizard need more time, sure, but due to the much larger selection of spells, their Enspelled Items are way more versatile. Everyone can hand them out to others. Artificer can create an Item with a Class Feature, but they wont get access to other features like Radiant Strikes, Tireless and all that.
You just cant compare such a feature with another one at a different level. You need to compare those features with eachother. Both Bard and Warlock gain access to Cantrip-Extra Attacks, but Artificer doesnt, and as you said, Artificer is not a Martial. So if other Spellcasters get this feature, why not Artificer? A Feature at a much later level is no excuse for that because that one should be compared to other features at that level then.
If other Subclasses get access to Cantrips and start with Mastery, why shouldnt it also work the other way around? Just because there is no example with the other classes for that? Thats simply because no other gets such a wide Weapon Focus. All the other Casters get a limited use, but they get the Cantrip-Attack instead.
And my point is that there is not one because it's not appropriate. They had the opportunity to set a precedence with the College of Valor Bard and chose not to. The true martial classes, both non-casters and half-casters have options that give them cantrips, but they never catch up to the Artificer or Bard. Artificers are more than half-casters even if the spells per day and multiclassing rules lump them in with half-casters. If you choose to ignore the class features of the Artificer, including the ability to cast spells and give someone else a spell-storing item, you don't get to turn around and say they don't have enough utility or effectiveness. Spell-storing item effectively allows them to cast spells with someone else's action and have someone who doesn't need concentration concentrate on a spell! It's bonkers. Artificers are crazy good spellcasters who trade volume for quality (high level).
You always return to Spell Storing Items. This is just a feature of the class, nothing more. Fighter gets Two Extra-Attacks. Bard gets access to all Spells. Ranger gets Tireless. Paladin gets Radiant Strikes. Everyone can craft Enspelled Items. Bard and Wizard need more time, sure, but due to the much larger selection of spells, their Enspelled Items are way more versatile. Everyone can hand them out to others. Artificer can create an Item with a Class Feature, but they wont get access to other features like Radiant Strikes, Tireless and all that.
You just cant compare such a feature with another one at a different level. You need to compare those features with eachother. Both Bard and Warlock gain access to Cantrip-Extra Attacks, but Artificer doesnt, and as you said, Artificer is not a Martial. So if other Spellcasters get this feature, why not Artificer? A Feature at a much later level is no excuse for that because that one should be compared to other features at that level then.
If other Subclasses get access to Cantrips and start with Mastery, why shouldnt it also work the other way around? Just because there is no example with the other classes for that? Thats simply because no other gets such a wide Weapon Focus. All the other Casters get a limited use, but they get the Cantrip-Attack instead.
yeah, i gave up on this guy already. I dont have enough time to fight with someone like him
You always return to Spell Storing Items. This is just a feature of the class, nothing more.
A class feature that allows Artificer spells to be cast more often than their spell list provides. Are Eldritch Invocations just a feature of the class, nothing more, even when they can allow the Warlock to cast a spell at will?
Fighter gets Two Extra-Attacks. Bard gets access to all Spells. Ranger gets Tireless. Paladin gets Radiant Strikes.
Paladins also get Lay on Hands and Restoring Touch which would be relevant in a discuss about healing, but not one about spellcasting and Spell-storing Item provides additional spellcasting, pushing the focus of the class away from martial endeavors and towards a spellcasting focus greater than the Paladin or Ranger.
How does a Champion Fighter create one? However, the point is actually be able to create one, it is being able to Replicate one. When anyone who can craft an Enspelled Item crafts one, the spell is set. Only an Artificer can change the spell by replacing an Enpselled Item with one with a different spell.
Regardless of the spell selection available to the Artificer for Replicating Enspelled Items, Wands, or other items that cast spells, this provides additional spellcasting that is more flexible than the Bard's Magical Secrets, which provides greater flexibility is spell choice but provides no additional spell slots; Magical Secrets doesn't allow the Bard to cast more spells per day, but Replicate Magic Items does.
Replicate Magic Items and Spell-storing Items can actually increase the number of spells per round by handing items created by the Artificer's class features to other party members and let them use their actions to cast the Artificer's spells. That's bonkers.
You just cant compare such a feature with another one at a different level. You need to compare those features with eachother. Both Bard and Warlock gain access to Cantrip-Extra Attacks, but Artificer doesnt, and as you said, Artificer is not a Martial. So if other Spellcasters get this feature, why not Artificer? A Feature at a much later level is no excuse for that because that one should be compared to other features at that level then.
Of course you can compare a class feature to another, regardless of level, particularly when it scales with level. You can't compare what two classes can do at level 20 and ignore the class features from level 19 and below.
I would like for the Battle Smith to get access to substituting a Cantrip for an attack, just like College of Valor and Eldritch Knight. I am totally on board with it as long as it is balanced. At 6th level, Eldritch Knight and College of Valor Bard pick up those features. I hope it's not something like it's balanced at level 6, but not at 5.
Well, assuming they can do it by level 6, It would have to be compared against
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to command the Steel Defender.
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to cast a Bonus Action spell.
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to attack with a second Light Weapon if a Light Weapon was used to make an attack earlier in the sequence.
With Dual Wielding to make a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to attack with a second Weapon if a Light Weapon was used to make an attack earlier in the sequence.
What is the potentially most disruptive cantrip that can be cast in these sequences? Level 5 is when Cantrips bump up in effectiveness. At level 5/6, Firebolt will be dealing 2d10 damage, at level 20, it can deal 4d10. True Strike will add 1d6 to a weapon's damage and change the weapon damage type.
If other Subclasses get access to Cantrips and start with Mastery, why shouldnt it also work the other way around? Just because there is no example with the other classes for that? Thats simply because no other gets such a wide Weapon Focus. All the other Casters get a limited use, but they get the Cantrip-Attack instead.
In order to consider that, they two features would have to be equivalent.
No Artificer sub-class is focused on Weapons to the exclusion of all else. The Battle Smith is a weapon and pet focused support class.
The Battle Smith needs the ability to use their weapon as a Spellcasting Focus. That, I know I mentioned in the feedback. I would like to see them pick up a War Magic Feature. I don't think they really need anything else in terms of features that are missing from the class. I don't think the Steel Defender is as bad numerically as some people claim, but I wouldn't mind if it scaled in effectiveness between 3rd and 15th levels and beyond. It might be nice if the Defender could repair itself without you using a Bonus Action to command it to (add it to the list of actions it can take when you aren't Incapacitated and haven't used a Bonus Action to command it).
You always return to Spell Storing Items. This is just a feature of the class, nothing more.
A class feature that allows Artificer spells to be cast more often than their spell list provides. Are Eldritch Invocations just a feature of the class, nothing more, even when they can allow the Warlock to cast a spell at will?
Fighter gets Two Extra-Attacks. Bard gets access to all Spells. Ranger gets Tireless. Paladin gets Radiant Strikes.
Paladins also get Lay on Hands and Restoring Touch which would be relevant in a discuss about healing, but not one about spellcasting and Spell-storing Item provides additional spellcasting, pushing the focus of the class away from martial endeavors and towards a spellcasting focus greater than the Paladin or Ranger.
How does a Champion Fighter create one? However, the point is actually be able to create one, it is being able to Replicate one. When anyone who can craft an Enspelled Item crafts one, the spell is set. Only an Artificer can change the spell by replacing an Enpselled Item with one with a different spell.
Regardless of the spell selection available to the Artificer for Replicating Enspelled Items, Wands, or other items that cast spells, this provides additional spellcasting that is more flexible than the Bard's Magical Secrets, which provides greater flexibility is spell choice but provides no additional spell slots; Magical Secrets doesn't allow the Bard to cast more spells per day, but Replicate Magic Items does.
Replicate Magic Items and Spell-storing Items can actually increase the number of spells per round by handing items created by the Artificer's class features to other party members and let them use their actions to cast the Artificer's spells. That's bonkers.
You just cant compare such a feature with another one at a different level. You need to compare those features with eachother. Both Bard and Warlock gain access to Cantrip-Extra Attacks, but Artificer doesnt, and as you said, Artificer is not a Martial. So if other Spellcasters get this feature, why not Artificer? A Feature at a much later level is no excuse for that because that one should be compared to other features at that level then.
Of course you can compare a class feature to another, regardless of level, particularly when it scales with level. You can't compare what two classes can do at level 20 and ignore the class features from level 19 and below.
I would like for the Battle Smith to get access to substituting a Cantrip for an attack, just like College of Valor and Eldritch Knight. I am totally on board with it as long as it is balanced. At 6th level, Eldritch Knight and College of Valor Bard pick up those features. I hope it's not something like it's balanced at level 6, but not at 5.
Well, assuming they can do it by level 6, It would have to be compared against
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to command the Steel Defender.
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to cast a Bonus Action spell.
a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to attack with a second Light Weapon if a Light Weapon was used to make an attack earlier in the sequence.
With Dual Wielding to make a normal attack (melee or ranged), plus a Cantrip, plus a Bonus Action to attack with a second Weapon if a Light Weapon was used to make an attack earlier in the sequence.
What is the potentially most disruptive cantrip that can be cast in these sequences? Level 5 is when Cantrips bump up in effectiveness. At level 5/6, Firebolt will be dealing 2d10 damage, at level 20, it can deal 4d10. True Strike will add 1d6 to a weapon's damage and change the weapon damage type.
If other Subclasses get access to Cantrips and start with Mastery, why shouldnt it also work the other way around? Just because there is no example with the other classes for that? Thats simply because no other gets such a wide Weapon Focus. All the other Casters get a limited use, but they get the Cantrip-Attack instead.
In order to consider that, they two features would have to be equivalent.
No Artificer sub-class is focused on Weapons to the exclusion of all else. The Battle Smith is a weapon and pet focused support class.
The Battle Smith needs the ability to use their weapon as a Spellcasting Focus. That, I know I mentioned in the feedback. I would like to see them pick up a War Magic Feature. I don't think they really need anything else in terms of features that are missing from the class. I don't think the Steel Defender is as bad numerically as some people claim, but I wouldn't mind if it scaled in effectiveness between 3rd and 15th levels and beyond. It might be nice if the Defender could repair itself without you using a Bonus Action to command it to (add it to the list of actions it can take when you aren't Incapacitated and haven't used a Bonus Action to command it).
You know what, i took some of your points and arguments and includet them in my UA. If you are open to it, you could take a look at it and comment improvements either here or at the google docs file. In my opinion it includes evrithing to make evryone happy and solves some of the balance issues i had with the UA 2024 arteficer
I think at the end of the day, the UA Artificer does a LOT of things poorly but nothing well with one exception. The daily enspelled item. And THAT I think is too strong. This feels like they put all the eggs in one basket as far as power. Being able to throw out THAT many 3rd level spells daily feels broken. I think this should give you int mod x2 LEVELS of spells daily not just straight up castings. Make it tempting to put a first level spell in there if it is something you are going to use a lot. 3 3rd level vs 5 2nd level vs 10 1st level feels right to me. AND then they would be able to spread out the potency into some of the other class features that currently feel inadequate.
This isn't like other Jack of all trades kind of classes like Bard. Bards do a lot of things well and a few things they excel at. They are FULL spellcasters and get access to higher level spells at the same rate as other full spellcasters. They have subclasses that are good at martial stuff, they have a lot of skills and bonuses to the ones they don't have proficiency in. They have Charisma as a primary stat on top of some top shelf social spells so they are pretty much either number 1 or 2 in the social pillar of play. They are one of the best classes for exploration as well with many of the spells they have access to.
Artificers don't even excel at the one thing they are supposed to. Item creation. It doesn't help that the standard magic crafting rules for DnD are fundamentally incompatible with most adventures and campaigns due to lack of sufficient downtime. The reduction from TCoE to UA in number of known replications makes what they were already mediocre at and makes it worse. They should have more flexibility not less. OR they should be able to have more replications at a time so they can easily afford to share them with their party. As it is, they can fill gaps in what the party has access to, but only if they have sufficient foresight and intel to know what to have access to. I think they should do away with known replications entirely and let the artificer make anything they COULD have known so they could fill surprise gaps in the toolset the way they are supposed to. As it is, their replications feel more like a gimmick than a feature.
The worst thing is the lack of proper scaling on the various subclass features. Armorer in particular feels not even half baked but like at most quarter baked. The built in weapons can't be the recipients of replications the way they could infusions before, and even WITH that they wouldn't be able to keep up with even other half martials in combat. The damage output doesn't scale nearly fast enough to stand alone.
And this doesn't even touch on the lack of being able to cast through your weapon for Battlesmiths or the random bullcrap that Alchemists deal with.
I think at the end of the day, the UA Artificer does a LOT of things poorly but nothing well with one exception. The daily enspelled item. And THAT I think is too strong. This feels like they put all the eggs in one basket as far as power. Being able to throw out THAT many 3rd level spells daily feels broken. I think this should give you int mod x2 LEVELS of spells daily not just straight up castings. Make it tempting to put a first level spell in there if it is something you are going to use a lot. 3 3rd level vs 5 2nd level vs 10 1st level feels right to me. AND then they would be able to spread out the potency into some of the other class features that currently feel inadequate.
That's an interesting approach to it. I took a different one in my UA version. In the end, I had 12 charges, but the charges were depleted by the same amount as the spell level. Here it is for understanding purposes:
LEVEL 11: SPELL-STORING ITEM
Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can touch one Simple or Martial weapon or one item that you can use as a Spellcasting Focus, and you store one spell in it, choosing a level 1, 2, or 3 Artificer spell that has a casting time of an action (you needn’t have the spell prepared). While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier. If the spell requires Concentration, the creature must concentrate. The spell stays in the object until its charges are depleted and it gets a number of charges equal to twice your Intelligence modifier + 2 (minimum of two charges) or until you use this feature again to store a spell in an object. The number of charges that get used to cast a spell with this item is equal to the stored spells Level.
This isn't like other Jack of all trades kind of classes like Bard. Bards do a lot of things well and a few things they excel at. They are FULL spellcasters and get access to higher level spells at the same rate as other full spellcasters. They have subclasses that are good at martial stuff, they have a lot of skills and bonuses to the ones they don't have proficiency in. They have Charisma as a primary stat on top of some top shelf social spells so they are pretty much either number 1 or 2 in the social pillar of play. They are one of the best classes for exploration as well with many of the spells they have access to.
I couldn't say it better^^
Artificers don't even excel at the one thing they are supposed to. Item creation. It doesn't help that the standard magic crafting rules for DnD are fundamentally incompatible with most adventures and campaigns due to lack of sufficient downtime. The reduction from TCoE to UA in number of known replications makes what they were already mediocre at and makes it worse. They should have more flexibility not less. OR they should be able to have more replications at a time so they can easily afford to share them with their party. As it is, they can fill gaps in what the party has access to, but only if they have sufficient foresight and intel to know what to have access to. I think they should do away with known replications entirely and let the artificer make anything they COULD have known so they could fill surprise gaps in the toolset the way they are supposed to. As it is, their replications feel more like a gimmick than a feature.
With that, I would be a little careful—this could escalate extremely quickly.
The worst thing is the lack of proper scaling on the various subclass features. Armorer in particular feels not even half baked but like at most quarter baked. The built in weapons can't be the recipients of replications the way they could infusions before, and even WITH that they wouldn't be able to keep up with even other half martials in combat. The damage output doesn't scale nearly fast enough to stand alone.
And this doesn't even touch on the lack of being able to cast through your weapon for Battlesmiths or the random bullcrap that Alchemists deal with.
When it comes to that, I completely agree ... it’s infuriating. I recomend you take a look at my UA take, i think you would like it
Y'all are spending a lot of time worrying about the spell-storing item. It is really cool. But it's also just one spell you have to guess in advance. There are good third level spells but not that many that you'd use 10 actions a day on. In truth to me it seems like an awesome clutch item that will have just the right spell in it that you didn't otherwise have prepared, and maybe you'd use it 3-4 times, depending on the spell and situation.
I'd probably be more likely to fill it with upcasts of Catapult or Cure Wounds rather than anything on the 3rd level list.
Y'all are spending a lot of time worrying about the spell-storing item. It is really cool. But it's also just one spell you have to guess in advance. There are good third level spells but not that many that you'd use 10 actions a day on. In truth to me it seems like an awesome clutch item that will have just the right spell in it that you didn't otherwise have prepared, and maybe you'd use it 3-4 times, depending on the spell and situation.
I'd probably be more likely to fill it with upcasts of Catapult or Cure Wounds rather than anything on the 3rd level list.
You do realize the Artillerist gets fireball right? How about the Armorer getting Hypnotic Pattern? Alchemist getting mass healing word?
Even just looking at the generic list you have Haste and Fly on there! Do you seriously not see the opportunity present in being able to spam THOSE spells? Possibly from a familiar, servant, or defender or maybe even just an ally who doesn't have great combat potential?
Limiting level three spells to only 2 or 4 uses makes it still very valuable but not outright abusable. If you have a party that can spam out fireball every round of every combat even without any upcasting, that trivializes SO MANY encounters. Not to mention the ability to just grant your whole party fly or haste multiple times a day.
If anyone just loads it up with upcasts of catapult I would seriously question their intelligence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
that only proofs my point that arteficers should get weapon masteries
Thats what i said, they get a masterie kind effect, but right know it feels that they are missing out at something, atleast for me
As i pointed out before ^^
That proofes my point even more, so what should i say about it
Im with you on that^^
If a class changes focus, which is the case for Armorer and Battlesmith, just as well as Valor Bard, Arcane Trickster, and so many others, they should get access to the resources.
Let it be Cantrips like the Trickster, Magic-Extra Attacks like the Bard, or simply Mastery.
The Argument "this is not the intended design because all martials start with it and artificer has cantrips and they can just use a feat for that" doesnt match here. Other classes could just take a feat too. you can get cantrips and spells (magic initiate), mastery (weapon master), and fighting styles (tashas fighter initiate) through them.
Battle Smith's Mastery could be a variant like "only with magic weapons or those created through your features", or limit it to one mastery instead of two so it will never be as good as that of a class that starts with it. Matching it to infused items only would perfectly fit their theme.
And if Armorer would get access to regular weapons with mastery, that would be fine too, they are limited to simple weapons or their armor versions.
I never said that. I said that's why Eberron has a lot of lower level magic items and not higher and that Artificers and Magewrights (3.5 NPC class) were the explanation for it.
Show me a non-full spellcaster that is a support or utility class like the Artificer. You have to compare classes within their own role and function in the game.
A Rogue can and does act as jack of all trades, though to a lesser degree than the Bard and Artificer. However, when it comes to combat encounters, the class primarily interacts via weapons, hence they get weapon masteries.
Show me an official subclass that currently grants weapon masteries.
We have species that grant Cantrips and level 1+ spells. Show me one that grants weapon mastery. Weapon mastery is a feature that is incredibly potent. It gives all weapons a rider effect and can even increase the number of attacks you make (Nick). Just having access to one at a time still allows you to change which one every long rest. Let the martials have this one. Artificers are not a martial class.
Think of it as a Rogue is a half-martial/half-jack of all trades (via being a skill monkey). Artificers are half-casters (sort of)/half-jack of all trades. If you want to solve every problem with a sword, the Artificer isn't for you, at least not a straight Artificer.
if you're running around dungeons as magic Iron Man and don't stand out, I am baffled. Do you only define "standing out" in terms of raw damage numbers?
As an Armorer, weapon mastery is not appropriate. It would be nice for the special weapons to have Masteries defined for characters who take the feat or multiclass, but Artificers themselves should not receive Weapon Masteries.
You can't have everything. You have to make choices.
Green-flame Blade and Booming Blade are cast with a Magic Action. How do they restrict access to the Pet Commands which use a Bonus Action?
2 wondrous items (Boots of Winding Path and Helm of Awareness), 1 ring (Spell-refueling Ring), 1 armor was changed to a ring (Mind Sharpener), 3 weapons, and 1 shield.
All of the infusions were changed to magic items. Moving Mind Sharpener to a ring improved its utility for the Artificer and party members alike. I think many, if not all, of the infusions converted to magic items were not Artificer-specific in 3.5. Returning was a 3.5 magic property. I think Radiant Weapon is the 5e update to the 3.5 Brilliant Energy Weapons. 3.5 had repeating crossbows (as a mundane item), but I think there were a few magical, self-loading specific weapons as well, not limited to crossbows. Most of these are moving back to being not an Artificer-specific thing because they never should have been exclusive to Artificers. Artificers were not conceptualized as creators of Artificer-exclusive items. They created things that anyone else could, but were better at it and faster at it than anyone else, in part because they could throw a Homunculus in a portable hole with crafting supplies and have them fulfill the time requirements of crafting while adventuring and also because they had a craft reserve of points that they could use for crafting instead of experience points.
It makes sense if you are specifically wanting a play test in the context of the 2024 rules. I believe that there is a good chance that we will see a UA for updated spells, magic items, species, and subclasses as prep for one or two books that has consolidated updates. We may have even gotten the Artificer as the first UA after the 2024 PHB because they are expecting to need multiple passes.
Edit to clean up random line breaks.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
We're going around in circles; this discussion doesn't make sense if the counterarguments aren't addressed, and instead only cherry-picking and strawman arguments are being used. I notice that you're not open to a real discourse. Let me know when you're ready for that point.
Thats the point, there isnt one. But there are enough where it is the other way around. Classes that start with Mastery and then gain Magic-Extra Attacks or Cantrips. Both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster get access to Cantrips and Mastery. Ranger and Paladin can get it too when they trade in their Fighting Style.
There is just no case yet where a Class starts with Cantrips and then gets Mastery, but enough that get the Magic-Extra-Attack.
Artificer starts with purely spells and then gains Martial features, Heavy Armor, Martial Weapons, Extra Attack...so they should be treated the same as the other mix-classes, just the other way around.
A Magic-Extra-Attack could fit too for Armorer and Battle Smith. Or just let them chose, or grant it at a later level.
Ah right, my bad. I somehow confused them with Smite-Like spells that use a Bonus Action.
They still restrict the type of weapon to only melee though. This means they dont work with Ranged Weapons (which is a playstyle that many Battle Smiths like to play), as well as the Armorers Armor-Weapons (because they dont have a cost), AND they dont work with Extra-Attack like they do for other hybrids.
And my point is that there is not one because it's not appropriate. They had the opportunity to set a precedence with the College of Valor Bard and chose not to. The true martial classes, both non-casters and half-casters have options that give them cantrips, but they never catch up to the Artificer or Bard. Artificers are more than half-casters even if the spells per day and multiclassing rules lump them in with half-casters. If you choose to ignore the class features of the Artificer, including the ability to cast spells and give someone else a spell-storing item, you don't get to turn around and say they don't have enough utility or effectiveness. Spell-storing item effectively allows them to cast spells with someone else's action and have someone who doesn't need concentration concentrate on a spell! It's bonkers. Artificers are crazy good spellcasters who trade volume for quality (high level).
No worries. Yes, I am not refuting that those two only work with melee weapons. We may see a change when/if they are updated for 2024. I wouldn't mind seeing the spells being updated to allow ranged attacks or even unarmed attacks. Green-flame strike and Booming Strike? Would that really be so bad? Speaking of Monks, they are another class, one that has no inherent spellcasting, that does not access to Weapon Mastery, despite have the option to use Monk Weapons with their abilities.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Tbh, AS a DM i allow unarmed strikes to Work and Up until know IT wasn't a Problem, but tbh i never Had a monk use this spell. Thats Something that needs Testing, but one Thing i can say and allow für everyone on my table with multi Attack. When they cast booming Blade or Green-flame Blade, they are still able to use their Attacks from multi Attack (yeah i know raw its Not allowed, but i Had No Problems with this ruleing Up until know) thats why i dont think that it IS a Problem even at monks
You always return to Spell Storing Items. This is just a feature of the class, nothing more.
Fighter gets Two Extra-Attacks. Bard gets access to all Spells. Ranger gets Tireless. Paladin gets Radiant Strikes.
Everyone can craft Enspelled Items. Bard and Wizard need more time, sure, but due to the much larger selection of spells, their Enspelled Items are way more versatile. Everyone can hand them out to others. Artificer can create an Item with a Class Feature, but they wont get access to other features like Radiant Strikes, Tireless and all that.
You just cant compare such a feature with another one at a different level. You need to compare those features with eachother.
Both Bard and Warlock gain access to Cantrip-Extra Attacks, but Artificer doesnt, and as you said, Artificer is not a Martial. So if other Spellcasters get this feature, why not Artificer? A Feature at a much later level is no excuse for that because that one should be compared to other features at that level then.
If other Subclasses get access to Cantrips and start with Mastery, why shouldnt it also work the other way around? Just because there is no example with the other classes for that? Thats simply because no other gets such a wide Weapon Focus. All the other Casters get a limited use, but they get the Cantrip-Attack instead.
yeah, i gave up on this guy already. I dont have enough time to fight with someone like him
A class feature that allows Artificer spells to be cast more often than their spell list provides. Are Eldritch Invocations just a feature of the class, nothing more, even when they can allow the Warlock to cast a spell at will?
Paladins also get Lay on Hands and Restoring Touch which would be relevant in a discuss about healing, but not one about spellcasting and Spell-storing Item provides additional spellcasting, pushing the focus of the class away from martial endeavors and towards a spellcasting focus greater than the Paladin or Ranger.
How does a Champion Fighter create one? However, the point is actually be able to create one, it is being able to Replicate one. When anyone who can craft an Enspelled Item crafts one, the spell is set. Only an Artificer can change the spell by replacing an Enpselled Item with one with a different spell.
Regardless of the spell selection available to the Artificer for Replicating Enspelled Items, Wands, or other items that cast spells, this provides additional spellcasting that is more flexible than the Bard's Magical Secrets, which provides greater flexibility is spell choice but provides no additional spell slots; Magical Secrets doesn't allow the Bard to cast more spells per day, but Replicate Magic Items does.
Replicate Magic Items and Spell-storing Items can actually increase the number of spells per round by handing items created by the Artificer's class features to other party members and let them use their actions to cast the Artificer's spells. That's bonkers.
Of course you can compare a class feature to another, regardless of level, particularly when it scales with level. You can't compare what two classes can do at level 20 and ignore the class features from level 19 and below.
I would like for the Battle Smith to get access to substituting a Cantrip for an attack, just like College of Valor and Eldritch Knight. I am totally on board with it as long as it is balanced. At 6th level, Eldritch Knight and College of Valor Bard pick up those features. I hope it's not something like it's balanced at level 6, but not at 5.
Well, assuming they can do it by level 6, It would have to be compared against
What is the potentially most disruptive cantrip that can be cast in these sequences? Level 5 is when Cantrips bump up in effectiveness. At level 5/6, Firebolt will be dealing 2d10 damage, at level 20, it can deal 4d10. True Strike will add 1d6 to a weapon's damage and change the weapon damage type.
The Battle Smith needs the ability to use their weapon as a Spellcasting Focus. That, I know I mentioned in the feedback. I would like to see them pick up a War Magic Feature. I don't think they really need anything else in terms of features that are missing from the class. I don't think the Steel Defender is as bad numerically as some people claim, but I wouldn't mind if it scaled in effectiveness between 3rd and 15th levels and beyond. It might be nice if the Defender could repair itself without you using a Bonus Action to command it to (add it to the list of actions it can take when you aren't Incapacitated and haven't used a Bonus Action to command it).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You know what, i took some of your points and arguments and includet them in my UA. If you are open to it, you could take a look at it and comment improvements either here or at the google docs file. In my opinion it includes evrithing to make evryone happy and solves some of the balance issues i had with the UA 2024 arteficer
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PYCGWg0NvtiNXZjgoWcavyYUPsZCzHPpE831lMFmn_s/edit?usp=sharing
I think at the end of the day, the UA Artificer does a LOT of things poorly but nothing well with one exception. The daily enspelled item. And THAT I think is too strong. This feels like they put all the eggs in one basket as far as power. Being able to throw out THAT many 3rd level spells daily feels broken. I think this should give you int mod x2 LEVELS of spells daily not just straight up castings. Make it tempting to put a first level spell in there if it is something you are going to use a lot. 3 3rd level vs 5 2nd level vs 10 1st level feels right to me. AND then they would be able to spread out the potency into some of the other class features that currently feel inadequate.
This isn't like other Jack of all trades kind of classes like Bard. Bards do a lot of things well and a few things they excel at. They are FULL spellcasters and get access to higher level spells at the same rate as other full spellcasters. They have subclasses that are good at martial stuff, they have a lot of skills and bonuses to the ones they don't have proficiency in. They have Charisma as a primary stat on top of some top shelf social spells so they are pretty much either number 1 or 2 in the social pillar of play. They are one of the best classes for exploration as well with many of the spells they have access to.
Artificers don't even excel at the one thing they are supposed to. Item creation. It doesn't help that the standard magic crafting rules for DnD are fundamentally incompatible with most adventures and campaigns due to lack of sufficient downtime. The reduction from TCoE to UA in number of known replications makes what they were already mediocre at and makes it worse. They should have more flexibility not less. OR they should be able to have more replications at a time so they can easily afford to share them with their party. As it is, they can fill gaps in what the party has access to, but only if they have sufficient foresight and intel to know what to have access to. I think they should do away with known replications entirely and let the artificer make anything they COULD have known so they could fill surprise gaps in the toolset the way they are supposed to. As it is, their replications feel more like a gimmick than a feature.
The worst thing is the lack of proper scaling on the various subclass features. Armorer in particular feels not even half baked but like at most quarter baked. The built in weapons can't be the recipients of replications the way they could infusions before, and even WITH that they wouldn't be able to keep up with even other half martials in combat. The damage output doesn't scale nearly fast enough to stand alone.
And this doesn't even touch on the lack of being able to cast through your weapon for Battlesmiths or the random bullcrap that Alchemists deal with.
That's an interesting approach to it. I took a different one in my UA version. In the end, I had 12 charges, but the charges were depleted by the same amount as the spell level. Here it is for understanding purposes:
LEVEL 11: SPELL-STORING ITEM
Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can touch one Simple or Martial weapon or one item that you can use as a Spellcasting Focus, and you store one spell in it, choosing a level 1, 2, or 3 Artificer spell that has a casting time of an action (you needn’t have the spell prepared). While holding the object, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier. If the spell requires Concentration, the creature must concentrate. The spell stays in the object until its charges are depleted and it gets a number of charges equal to twice your Intelligence modifier + 2 (minimum of two charges) or until you use this feature again to store a spell in an object. The number of charges that get used to cast a spell with this item is equal to the stored spells Level.
I couldn't say it better^^
With that, I would be a little careful—this could escalate extremely quickly.
When it comes to that, I completely agree ... it’s infuriating. I recomend you take a look at my UA take, i think you would like it
Y'all are spending a lot of time worrying about the spell-storing item. It is really cool. But it's also just one spell you have to guess in advance. There are good third level spells but not that many that you'd use 10 actions a day on. In truth to me it seems like an awesome clutch item that will have just the right spell in it that you didn't otherwise have prepared, and maybe you'd use it 3-4 times, depending on the spell and situation.
I'd probably be more likely to fill it with upcasts of Catapult or Cure Wounds rather than anything on the 3rd level list.
You do realize the Artillerist gets fireball right? How about the Armorer getting Hypnotic Pattern? Alchemist getting mass healing word?
Even just looking at the generic list you have Haste and Fly on there! Do you seriously not see the opportunity present in being able to spam THOSE spells? Possibly from a familiar, servant, or defender or maybe even just an ally who doesn't have great combat potential?
Limiting level three spells to only 2 or 4 uses makes it still very valuable but not outright abusable. If you have a party that can spam out fireball every round of every combat even without any upcasting, that trivializes SO MANY encounters. Not to mention the ability to just grant your whole party fly or haste multiple times a day.
If anyone just loads it up with upcasts of catapult I would seriously question their intelligence.