We're bringing you a brand new UA release that revises the Artificer, provides new spells and magic items compatible with the class, and a brand new Artificer subclass: the Cartographer. It also includes Dragonmarked feats: a new way to join the dragonmarked houses of Eberron.
Download it here and get testing now! Remember, as with all playtest material, this cannot be used with D&D Beyond's character builder.
New Artificer subclass is very welcome (I noticed Keith Baker's latest DM's Guild release also had a couple of new ones) and the Dragonmark feats look really interesting especially if you're playing a spell caster
Well, I concede I was mistaken about the Artificer picture back during that UA.
Though the Cartographer looks a bit lackluster, honestly. Given the complaints we already see about Artificer DPR, it’s interesting to see a subclass with no feature to bump up the output of their regular attacks.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the sheer degree of power creep in releases immediately following the core books' release is a terrible sign of 2024 5e's design direction.
Buy the new sourcebook to unlock backgrounds that let you take a feat to cast a 5th-level spell every short rest, or get the epic boon that lets you cast WISH every short rest!
The text is a bit ambiguous, but I believe the spells of the mark only give you new prepared spells, not free casts of those spells. And regardless, these look to be setting specific feats, similar to the Ravnica and Strixhaven backgrounds. They’re meant to enable high magic campaigns rather than being general tools; that’s probably part of why they’re their own class of feat, to clearly signal to DMs that these are balanced differently from typical examples.
Edit: On second glance, the exact wording of that feature is that if you have a spellcasting feature, the spells are added to that feature’s spell list; I think you don’t actually get them prepped, you just gain the option to take them when you otherwise might not.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the sheer degree of power creep in releases immediately following the core books' release is a terrible sign of 2024 5e's design direction.
Buy the new sourcebook to unlock backgrounds that let you take a feat to cast a 5th-level spell every short rest, or get the epic boon that lets you cast WISH every short rest!
The text is a bit ambiguous, but I believe the spells of the mark only give you new prepared spells, not free casts of those spells. And regardless, these look to be setting specific feats, similar to the Ravnica and Strixhaven backgrounds. They’re meant to enable high magic campaigns rather than being general tools; that’s probably part of why they’re their own class of feat, to clearly signal to DMs that these are balanced differently from typical examples.
Edit: On second glance, the exact wording of that feature is that if you have a spellcasting feature, the spells are added to that feature’s spell list; I think you don’t actually get them prepped, you just gain the option to take them when you otherwise might not.
Yeah, the Dragonmark Feats only add them to your spell list and only if you have a spell casting feature.
The Potent Dragonmark Feat is a bit more powerful as it basically gives you 1 Pact Magic Slot, but it can only be used on a Dragonmark Spell that has been prepared so would still require you to have the ability to prepare spells. I am not sure about the balance of this one as a Feat, but I can't say I hate it either.
Well, I concede I was mistaken about the Artificer picture back during that UA.
Though the Cartographer looks a bit lackluster, honestly. Given the complaints we already see about Artificer DPR, it’s interesting to see a subclass with no feature to bump up the output of their regular attacks.
I'm still mulling it over, and so far I do think the Cartographer could do with a little boost somewhere around 5th/9th level, but with that said I do think I like it, particularly with how mobile it is.
The "vigilant guardian" feature of the Mark of Sentinel is a little unclear. I guess when you use the feature, you are hit no matter what, even if the triggering attack on another would not hit your AC?
I don't think we need to even ask in regards to the balance of a feat that allows 5th-level spells every short rest when other feats might give you a 2nd-level spell every long rest.
It's power creep, plain and simple. In lieu of good, creative game design.
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
I don't think we need to even ask in regards to the balance of a feat that allows 5th-level spells every short rest when other feats might give you a 2nd-level spell every long rest.
It's power creep, plain and simple. In lieu of good, creative game design.
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
But that would raise the counter-complaint of player agency & creativity being inhibited, leading to the counter-counter complaint of "limitations bring better creativity", when both are opinions.
So deadlock happens until the next scandal causes number go down, subs down, & thus leverage happens again.
Now, as for the actual content...
Let the 1st-level feature items be permanent. There is no in-universe economy to break unless somebody inserts that.
Cartographer needs more damage oomph. Perhaps when Faerie Fire is being used specifically?
And if you intend for features to be locked behind campaign settings, actually lock them on Beyond to show you mean business, or else the "Setting-only" pretense means nothing in the character builder. As of now it is a polite suggestion(Unless you're at an AL event) akin to 2014 content being compatible with 2024(Fix Shepherd Druid next splatbook, or let a 3rd-party do so)
Hire back the people who actually know how the site's coding works. It's the only way to get stuff working on here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
I don't think we need to even ask in regards to the balance of a feat that allows 5th-level spells every short rest when other feats might give you a 2nd-level spell every long rest.
It's power creep, plain and simple. In lieu of good, creative game design.
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
How would that even work? The campaigns don't have any option for "This is set in Eberron" so there's no way for DDB to know what options to lock off. And what if your campaign goes places the DM never expected it to and the setting changes?
It's also massive over kill for a very simple solution; talk to your DM. If they can't trust you not to use features you're not supposed to and you can't trust them to allow you to use features you should have then you've got much bigger issues then power creep. Paper and pencil players seem to manage perfectly well without some toggle switch to turn off certain options. I DM for 12 year olds and even they understand "sorry, you can't use that because..."
The "vigilant guardian" feature of the Mark of Sentinel is a little unclear. I guess when you use the feature, you are hit no matter what, even if the triggering attack on another would not hit your AC?
That's how I would interpret it, though perhaps it would be clarified by saying "regardless of your own Armor Class." The idea seems to be just taking the damage for someone else.
I don't think we need to even ask in regards to the balance of a feat that allows 5th-level spells every short rest when other feats might give you a 2nd-level spell every long rest.
It's power creep, plain and simple. In lieu of good, creative game design.
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
How would that even work? The campaigns don't have any option for "This is set in Eberron" so there's no way for DDB to know what options to lock off. And what if your campaign goes places the DM never expected it to and the setting changes?
It's also massive over kill for a very simple solution; talk to your DM. If they can't trust you not to use features you're not supposed to and you can't trust them to allow you to use features you should have then you've got much bigger issues then power creep. Paper and pencil players seem to manage perfectly well without some toggle switch to turn off certain options. I DM for 12 year olds and even they understand "sorry, you can't use that because..."
If the DM is using the DND Beyond Campaigns, they can choose to restrict any sourcebooks they see fit. Obviously discussing with their players should be noted first, but they can also use this tool to ensure content isn't available at character creation.
I don't think we need to even ask in regards to the balance of a feat that allows 5th-level spells every short rest when other feats might give you a 2nd-level spell every long rest.
It's power creep, plain and simple. In lieu of good, creative game design.
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
How would that even work? The campaigns don't have any option for "This is set in Eberron" so there's no way for DDB to know what options to lock off. And what if your campaign goes places the DM never expected it to and the setting changes?
It's also massive over kill for a very simple solution; talk to your DM. If they can't trust you not to use features you're not supposed to and you can't trust them to allow you to use features you should have then you've got much bigger issues then power creep. Paper and pencil players seem to manage perfectly well without some toggle switch to turn off certain options. I DM for 12 year olds and even they understand "sorry, you can't use that because..."
If the DM is using the DND Beyond Campaigns, they can choose to restrict any sourcebooks they see fit. Obviously discussing with their players should be noted first, but they can also use this tool to ensure content isn't available at character creation.
Yes I know but the comment wasn't about restricting certain books, it was about the ability to switch off certain feats based on the setting. That would require a feature to set campaigns for certain settings which would fundamentally not work considering that around half of all campaigns are homebrew and DDB wouldn't recognise them
Do not like getting rid of infusions. This is a massive nerf to the Artificer, and weakens the class to be useless. If anything Infusions should be buffed and allowed on magical items. As it is the only benefit to an artificer is a multiclass Wizard having their first level being Artificer for Con.
-
edit: Yeah side by side comparison to Tasha's Artificer, Tasha's is far superior. More Role Play opportunities, more useful abilities. Infusions are a must keep.
I think the language needs clarified for the Armorer's Infiltrator Lightning Launcher -
''Lightning Launcher. A gemlike node appears on one of the armor’s gauntlets or on the armor’s chest (your choice). It has the following traits: Weapon Category: Simple Ranged Damage on a Hit: 1d6 Lightning plus the ability modifier used for the attack roll Properties: Thrown (Range 90/300 feet)''
The other simple ranged weapons available are light crossbow, shortbow, sling, and darts. The first three have the ammunition property while darts have the thrown property. If the gemlike node is thrown, the player will have to retrieve it or spend a replicate magic item slot for 'returning weapon'. If this is the case, why wouldn't the Artificer simply make additional lightning launcher gems to throw so they don't have to spend time retrieving them? Further, can other players/enemies pick it up and throw it back at the player?
If it is a single bolt of lightning launched at enemies, why the thrown property instead of the ammunition property? In this case, I don't see why the ammunition couldn't be something simple like ball bearings [free to make by the artificer using Magical Tinkering] as a conduit/storage for the lightning until it hits a target.
I don't disagree. I much preferred the flavor of infusions over the new Replicate style Artificer. Nonetheless, that ship has sailed, based on these 2 UA versions. We can advocate for tweaks to how it works or what we get, but there's no going back now. It's clear this is what the FotA Artificer will be.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
But that would raise the counter-complaint of player agency & creativity being inhibited, leading to the counter-counter complaint of "limitations bring better creativity", when both are opinions.
If you're the DM, just ask the players to only use the backgrounds you designate.
And if you're DMing for people who don't listen to/respect your wishes... that's not a book or website problem, it's an out of game problem (and should be resolved there as well.)
The "vigilant guardian" feature of the Mark of Sentinel is a little unclear. I guess when you use the feature, you are hit no matter what, even if the triggering attack on another would not hit your AC?
It's not unclear. It very clearly says, "you are hit." It doesn't say you switch places and the attack is against you instead (i.e., targets your AC). It very plainly says that you are hit.
Which kinda sucks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Good morning, all!
We're bringing you a brand new UA release that revises the Artificer, provides new spells and magic items compatible with the class, and a brand new Artificer subclass: the Cartographer. It also includes Dragonmarked feats: a new way to join the dragonmarked houses of Eberron.
Download it here and get testing now! Remember, as with all playtest material, this cannot be used with D&D Beyond's character builder.
Update 3/4/25: The feedback survey is live!
EDIT: Now with video!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her)
You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On | CM Hat Off
Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5].
Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Useful Links: Site Rules & Guidelines | D&D Educator Resources | Change Your Nickname | Submit a Support Ticket

New Artificer subclass is very welcome (I noticed Keith Baker's latest DM's Guild release also had a couple of new ones) and the Dragonmark feats look really interesting especially if you're playing a spell caster
Well, I concede I was mistaken about the Artificer picture back during that UA.
Though the Cartographer looks a bit lackluster, honestly. Given the complaints we already see about Artificer DPR, it’s interesting to see a subclass with no feature to bump up the output of their regular attacks.
The text is a bit ambiguous, but I believe the spells of the mark only give you new prepared spells, not free casts of those spells. And regardless, these look to be setting specific feats, similar to the Ravnica and Strixhaven backgrounds. They’re meant to enable high magic campaigns rather than being general tools; that’s probably part of why they’re their own class of feat, to clearly signal to DMs that these are balanced differently from typical examples.
Edit: On second glance, the exact wording of that feature is that if you have a spellcasting feature, the spells are added to that feature’s spell list; I think you don’t actually get them prepped, you just gain the option to take them when you otherwise might not.
Yeah, the Dragonmark Feats only add them to your spell list and only if you have a spell casting feature.
The Potent Dragonmark Feat is a bit more powerful as it basically gives you 1 Pact Magic Slot, but it can only be used on a Dragonmark Spell that has been prepared so would still require you to have the ability to prepare spells. I am not sure about the balance of this one as a Feat, but I can't say I hate it either.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm still mulling it over, and so far I do think the Cartographer could do with a little boost somewhere around 5th/9th level, but with that said I do think I like it, particularly with how mobile it is.
As an aside, I know its probably their usual mumbo-jumbo type disclaimer but I just had to chuckle to myself reading this UA, along the bottom of each page reads "©2025 Wizards of the Coast LLC. Confidential information. Do not distribute."
The "vigilant guardian" feature of the Mark of Sentinel is a little unclear. I guess when you use the feature, you are hit no matter what, even if the triggering attack on another would not hit your AC?
Did you actually bother to look at the spells offered before you came to this conclusion? A whopping two of the 5th level options have any practicality as combat damage spells, and the vast majority of the options as a whole are niche/utility picks. And, again, these are campaign-specific feats, clearly meant to support a high magic setting. The pre-reqs expressly highlight this, so it’s only “power creep” in a general sense if the DM specifically allows something with a big “not built for standard play” flag.
If this site actually LOCKED backgrounds to specific campaign settings, then this would mean something.
They need to actually LOCK stuff if they want to enforce this.
But that would raise the counter-complaint of player agency & creativity being inhibited, leading to the counter-counter complaint of "limitations bring better creativity", when both are opinions.
So deadlock happens until the next scandal causes number go down, subs down, & thus leverage happens again.
Now, as for the actual content...
Let the 1st-level feature items be permanent. There is no in-universe economy to break unless somebody inserts that.
Cartographer needs more damage oomph. Perhaps when Faerie Fire is being used specifically?
And if you intend for features to be locked behind campaign settings, actually lock them on Beyond to show you mean business, or else the "Setting-only" pretense means nothing in the character builder. As of now it is a polite suggestion(Unless you're at an AL event) akin to 2014 content being compatible with 2024(Fix Shepherd Druid next splatbook, or let a 3rd-party do so)
Hire back the people who actually know how the site's coding works. It's the only way to get stuff working on here.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
How would that even work? The campaigns don't have any option for "This is set in Eberron" so there's no way for DDB to know what options to lock off. And what if your campaign goes places the DM never expected it to and the setting changes?
It's also massive over kill for a very simple solution; talk to your DM. If they can't trust you not to use features you're not supposed to and you can't trust them to allow you to use features you should have then you've got much bigger issues then power creep. Paper and pencil players seem to manage perfectly well without some toggle switch to turn off certain options. I DM for 12 year olds and even they understand "sorry, you can't use that because..."
That's how I would interpret it, though perhaps it would be clarified by saying "regardless of your own Armor Class." The idea seems to be just taking the damage for someone else.
If the DM is using the DND Beyond Campaigns, they can choose to restrict any sourcebooks they see fit. Obviously discussing with their players should be noted first, but they can also use this tool to ensure content isn't available at character creation.
Yes I know but the comment wasn't about restricting certain books, it was about the ability to switch off certain feats based on the setting. That would require a feature to set campaigns for certain settings which would fundamentally not work considering that around half of all campaigns are homebrew and DDB wouldn't recognise them
Do not like getting rid of infusions. This is a massive nerf to the Artificer, and weakens the class to be useless. If anything Infusions should be buffed and allowed on magical items. As it is the only benefit to an artificer is a multiclass Wizard having their first level being Artificer for Con.
-
edit: Yeah side by side comparison to Tasha's Artificer, Tasha's is far superior. More Role Play opportunities, more useful abilities. Infusions are a must keep.
I think the language needs clarified for the Armorer's Infiltrator Lightning Launcher -
''Lightning Launcher. A gemlike node appears on
one of the armor’s gauntlets or on the armor’s
chest (your choice). It has the following traits:
Weapon Category: Simple Ranged
Damage on a Hit: 1d6 Lightning plus the ability
modifier used for the attack roll
Properties: Thrown (Range 90/300 feet)''
The other simple ranged weapons available are light crossbow, shortbow, sling, and darts. The first three have the ammunition property while darts have the thrown property. If the gemlike node is thrown, the player will have to retrieve it or spend a replicate magic item slot for 'returning weapon'. If this is the case, why wouldn't the Artificer simply make additional lightning launcher gems to throw so they don't have to spend time retrieving them? Further, can other players/enemies pick it up and throw it back at the player?
If it is a single bolt of lightning launched at enemies, why the thrown property instead of the ammunition property? In this case, I don't see why the ammunition couldn't be something simple like ball bearings [free to make by the artificer using Magical Tinkering] as a conduit/storage for the lightning until it hits a target.
I don't disagree. I much preferred the flavor of infusions over the new Replicate style Artificer. Nonetheless, that ship has sailed, based on these 2 UA versions. We can advocate for tweaks to how it works or what we get, but there's no going back now. It's clear this is what the FotA Artificer will be.
Hello friendsssss
First post has been updated with the feedback survey link!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her)
You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On | CM Hat Off
Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5].
Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Useful Links: Site Rules & Guidelines | D&D Educator Resources | Change Your Nickname | Submit a Support Ticket

If you're the DM, just ask the players to only use the backgrounds you designate.
And if you're DMing for people who don't listen to/respect your wishes... that's not a book or website problem, it's an out of game problem (and should be resolved there as well.)
It's not unclear. It very clearly says, "you are hit." It doesn't say you switch places and the attack is against you instead (i.e., targets your AC). It very plainly says that you are hit.
Which kinda sucks.