Really hoping that when the artificer is published it has a third option. I am really anti-guns in D&D. I'm not a huge fan of tinkering either, mostly because of random things getting built that are "simple" but seem game breaking... but the artificer doesn't seem to allow that. I'd love to keep another option open though rather than eliminating one of two options for a class. But guns are out of the question. I've thought about cosmetic things to change gun to something else, but can't really think of anything that would really work.
Guns have been in D&D since basically forever, so even if you don't want to use "gun" (you can just describe them as special magical rods, like E. Gary Gygax has been reported to have done with a character called Murlynd who spent some time in wild west era Arizona and brought back a revolver) there is no sense in being against their inclusion. Might as well be anti-gnomes in D&D.
However, I expect that by the time all is said and done, whether official or just well made by 3rd parties, there will be plenty of options for the artificer class - WotC just went with the two that seem, to me and likely to them, the most obvious areas of expertise for the character theme of power-through-making-stuff.
I have a feeling that despite "being in D&D since basically forever" it is very common for a lot of people to be anti guns. Could be their lack on inclusion within the 3rd edition players handbook. I'm not even sure if they ever made an appearance in third, at least I can't think of it.
I have a feeling that despite "being in D&D since basically forever" it is very common for a lot of people to be anti guns. Could be their lack on inclusion within the 3rd edition players handbook. I'm not even sure if they ever made an appearance in third, at least I can't think of it.
They were in the DMG then just like they are now.
Yes, a lot of folks get up in arms about guns not having a place in D&D, but a lot of people thinking something doesn't actually make it any more reasonable a thing to think.
Should have specified as far as a class using them. Oddly I've yet to play in a game where guns were allowed. Oddly I've only once played in a game where anything outside of the players handbook was allowed.
The primary reason to not like guns is the damage seems vastly superior to bows. Meaning anyone with a gun is likely to outshine anyone using a bow.
With the melee weapons there are trade-offs to keep everyone from going for the great sword.
In the end I just enjoy a nice medieval society that doesn't have guns. The advent of guns really should be a world changing experience and if they existed in the world, would be favored above bows and melee weapons and such that those things should begin to become obsolete.
I do like how on critcial role, Percy is essentially the creator of guns and that explains why they aren't widely around. Beyond that, the town guard should have guns if they exist within the world.
When the artificer gets released I'd like to see more options for it that turn ot into a more support oriented class like how a divination wizard, a non-combat rouge or a bard are
I would like to see another option to make it three archetypes, like other base classes initially started with.
As for the thundercannon, I wouldn't be surprised if they addressed this in the publication with some suggestions - a rod or staff seem like the two easiest reskins of the gun.
I have allowed a gun of sorts in the campaign I'm currently running, they're called "spike slingers" and they shoot out metal spikes as ammo. The stats are the same as the same size crossbow. I've done the same with nunchaku, using a club for stats (got that from the DMG), along with a few other weapons. I've told the players that they can come up with whatever idea hey have and we'll see if it makes sense within the game world. If it does then we match it up with the most similar weapon in the PHB.
Out of curiosity, what is your aversion to tinkering? I know some people prefer to keep their world in a medieval type setting, I was wondering if that was the case for you or if there are other things you don't like it about it.
Primarily I just know a bunch of smart people. So tinkering has the potential to come up with some really crazy broken ideas. So while I do like keeping the world within a medieval setting, tinkering specifically has issues. Notably, is the concept of whether or not the PC could reasonably build such a device. Often times the player who is playing the tinkering character knows exactly how such a device could easily be built from medieval concepts...while the DM is clueless and thinks the device seems complex to a medieval person without modern knowledge. Also it is harder to control overpowered things when the PC can legit make it or at least gets a chance to roll for it.
Short answer, it is a mix between wanting to stay within a medieval world, not allowing things that brake the game world or would be giving "magic" (Stun gun/etc) to someone outside of magical weapons, and simply choosing to avoid the argument on whether or not the player could even conceive of how to build such an item with the materials present, let alone actually do it.
I'd like to see a spec that makes more use of the Mechanical Servant. Have the damage and HP scale up or let them build versions of higher CR beasts/monsters. Give them more utility options.
Having gotten to dick around with an artificer recently for a campaign I'll share my observations:
1) Infusions are great. They free up concentration slots for the party, which is a good bit of design. The actual spell list could probably be expanded substantially to include basically all buff spells up to level 4 spells, but that's just me.
2) Wondrous Invention needs some tweaking. Or maybe the design paradigm needs to be better explained. Personally I think the general item categories should be something like Uncommon (mediocre), Uncommon (useful), rare, very rare, and then at level 20 you create your magnum opus with a legendary item. Might be too good, but I'd adore if someone in my group hit 20 and to celebrate whipped up an Apparatus of Kwalish.
3) Why don't Artificers have Use Magic Device like Thief Rogues get? I'm a bit at a loss for why this was excluded. One of the hallmarks of artificers is their mastery of magic items, so the inability to use many due to class/race/level restrictions seems like an oversight.
4) Artificer Specialists need some customization. Both Gunsmith and Alchemist are neat, but feel kind of lacking - it'd go a long way to add something like a little chart for mixing alchemical item effects or experimental formulas or customizable thunder cannons with benefits and trade offs to each design.
I think there's fertile ground for at least two other specialties. As some have mentioned something that doubles down on the mechanical servant mechanic would be neat and I'd like to see something that really goes ham on manipulating magic items if Use Magic Device isn't introduced baseline into the final iteration - especially if it lets you manipulate magic item charges in some way.
For people wanting more tinkering options I recommend some of the material from Plane-Shift: Kaladesh, especially the Quicksmithing and Servocrafting feats (basically remove mention of aether).
Other than those little observations/gripes I've had a blast with the class. Cheers.
Short answer, it is a mix between wanting to stay within a medieval world, not allowing things that brake the game world or would be giving "magic" (Stun gun/etc) to someone outside of magical weapons, and simply choosing to avoid the argument on whether or not the player could even conceive of how to build such an item with the materials present, let alone actually do it.
Ive got smart players, too, and lateral thinking/tinkering was an issue until I started forcing the use of their arcane resources to power anything that duplicated a magical effect. I considered it on-the-spot spell creation. It cost the wizard spell slots, or they had to forget a cantrip to channel energy for weaker effects, cost the monk ki, warlock an invocation, barb items only worked during rages, etc. It's fairly easy to apply a limited resource to an item and narrate in some kind of appropriate use of it drawing its power from the or their inventory & gold.
Making them deplete resources tends to help with balance issues so you can still say yes to your players without letting them outthink the structure.
We also have INT rolls when a plan seems too clever for the character, which sometimes makes for even better, sillier plans.
Really hoping that when the artificer is published it has a third option. I am really anti-guns in D&D. I'm not a huge fan of tinkering either, mostly because of random things getting built that are "simple" but seem game breaking... but the artificer doesn't seem to allow that. I'd love to keep another option open though rather than eliminating one of two options for a class. But guns are out of the question. I've thought about cosmetic things to change gun to something else, but can't really think of anything that would really work.
Guns have been in D&D since basically forever, so even if you don't want to use "gun" (you can just describe them as special magical rods, like E. Gary Gygax has been reported to have done with a character called Murlynd who spent some time in wild west era Arizona and brought back a revolver) there is no sense in being against their inclusion. Might as well be anti-gnomes in D&D.
However, I expect that by the time all is said and done, whether official or just well made by 3rd parties, there will be plenty of options for the artificer class - WotC just went with the two that seem, to me and likely to them, the most obvious areas of expertise for the character theme of power-through-making-stuff.
I have a feeling that despite "being in D&D since basically forever" it is very common for a lot of people to be anti guns. Could be their lack on inclusion within the 3rd edition players handbook. I'm not even sure if they ever made an appearance in third, at least I can't think of it.
Should have specified as far as a class using them. Oddly I've yet to play in a game where guns were allowed. Oddly I've only once played in a game where anything outside of the players handbook was allowed.
The primary reason to not like guns is the damage seems vastly superior to bows. Meaning anyone with a gun is likely to outshine anyone using a bow.
With the melee weapons there are trade-offs to keep everyone from going for the great sword.
In the end I just enjoy a nice medieval society that doesn't have guns. The advent of guns really should be a world changing experience and if they existed in the world, would be favored above bows and melee weapons and such that those things should begin to become obsolete.
I do like how on critcial role, Percy is essentially the creator of guns and that explains why they aren't widely around. Beyond that, the town guard should have guns if they exist within the world.
I was anti gnome for over 25 years, but it was due to tinker gnomes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I despise tinkering way more than guns to be honest.
Rock Gnomes are extinct in my campaign world to this day. Forest Gnomes have made a come back since 5e hit.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't allow night elf hunters myself, stupid loot mongers...oh wait sorry wrong game
When the artificer gets released I'd like to see more options for it that turn ot into a more support oriented class like how a divination wizard, a non-combat rouge or a bard are
I would like to see another option to make it three archetypes, like other base classes initially started with.
As for the thundercannon, I wouldn't be surprised if they addressed this in the publication with some suggestions - a rod or staff seem like the two easiest reskins of the gun.
I have allowed a gun of sorts in the campaign I'm currently running, they're called "spike slingers" and they shoot out metal spikes as ammo. The stats are the same as the same size crossbow. I've done the same with nunchaku, using a club for stats (got that from the DMG), along with a few other weapons. I've told the players that they can come up with whatever idea hey have and we'll see if it makes sense within the game world. If it does then we match it up with the most similar weapon in the PHB.
Out of curiosity, what is your aversion to tinkering? I know some people prefer to keep their world in a medieval type setting, I was wondering if that was the case for you or if there are other things you don't like it about it.
Primarily I just know a bunch of smart people. So tinkering has the potential to come up with some really crazy broken ideas. So while I do like keeping the world within a medieval setting, tinkering specifically has issues. Notably, is the concept of whether or not the PC could reasonably build such a device. Often times the player who is playing the tinkering character knows exactly how such a device could easily be built from medieval concepts...while the DM is clueless and thinks the device seems complex to a medieval person without modern knowledge. Also it is harder to control overpowered things when the PC can legit make it or at least gets a chance to roll for it.
Short answer, it is a mix between wanting to stay within a medieval world, not allowing things that brake the game world or would be giving "magic" (Stun gun/etc) to someone outside of magical weapons, and simply choosing to avoid the argument on whether or not the player could even conceive of how to build such an item with the materials present, let alone actually do it.
I'd like to see a spec that makes more use of the Mechanical Servant. Have the damage and HP scale up or let them build versions of higher CR beasts/monsters. Give them more utility options.
Having gotten to dick around with an artificer recently for a campaign I'll share my observations:
1) Infusions are great. They free up concentration slots for the party, which is a good bit of design. The actual spell list could probably be expanded substantially to include basically all buff spells up to level 4 spells, but that's just me.
2) Wondrous Invention needs some tweaking. Or maybe the design paradigm needs to be better explained. Personally I think the general item categories should be something like Uncommon (mediocre), Uncommon (useful), rare, very rare, and then at level 20 you create your magnum opus with a legendary item. Might be too good, but I'd adore if someone in my group hit 20 and to celebrate whipped up an Apparatus of Kwalish.
3) Why don't Artificers have Use Magic Device like Thief Rogues get? I'm a bit at a loss for why this was excluded. One of the hallmarks of artificers is their mastery of magic items, so the inability to use many due to class/race/level restrictions seems like an oversight.
4) Artificer Specialists need some customization. Both Gunsmith and Alchemist are neat, but feel kind of lacking - it'd go a long way to add something like a little chart for mixing alchemical item effects or experimental formulas or customizable thunder cannons with benefits and trade offs to each design.
I think there's fertile ground for at least two other specialties. As some have mentioned something that doubles down on the mechanical servant mechanic would be neat and I'd like to see something that really goes ham on manipulating magic items if Use Magic Device isn't introduced baseline into the final iteration - especially if it lets you manipulate magic item charges in some way.
For people wanting more tinkering options I recommend some of the material from Plane-Shift: Kaladesh, especially the Quicksmithing and Servocrafting feats (basically remove mention of aether).
Other than those little observations/gripes I've had a blast with the class. Cheers.