"For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components. When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you can invoke one of the following runes: ... "
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
"For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components. When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you can invoke one of the following runes: ... "
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
Yeah, this is my biggest qualm with switching it to an Artificer subclass. Its main ability loses alot of power if tied to half caster, since it scales with spell slot level, not to even mention finding a new way to write the ability thats tied to Arcane Recovery. Also, thematically I feel like runes and other magical symbols are more up a wizard's ally than a magic craftsman.
If it were to be changed to an Artificer, they would probably need to make the Rune Carver feats part of the subclass chassis to theme it more around taking time to applying physical runes to crafted items.
I agree the name could use a change to make it feel less like the wizard is actual "crafting" the runes. Maybe Rune Master? Runic Calligrapher? Graphologist? Rune/Glyph/Sigil Mage? Symbologist? Idk, just throwing some ideas out there
"For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components. When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you can invoke one of the following runes: ... "
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
Are you kidding? Adding magical enhancements to objects is an Artificer's bread an butter. Infusions, Spell-Storing Item, etc.
My logic is this: If wizards get to take away Archivist from the Artificer because Wizards have a base class feature with the word "book" in it's name which somehow makes it more thematically appropriate to be a wizard subclass (and so that Wizards can have a subclass that makes them even more wizard) I see it as entirely fair that Artificers gain Runecrafter because Artificers have the class feature that modifies objects (and then Artificers gain a subclass that makes them even more Artificer).
Or I'd be cool with Wizards getting Runecrafter if Artificers got to have Archivist. Note that Archivist involved scribing runes onto an object to awaken a sentience within that item. A rune-themed Artificer could just be the Archivist spruced up for the released Artificer base class chassis and a different feature to replace Manifest Mind which now belongs to the Order of Scribes Wizard.
"For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components. When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you can invoke one of the following runes: ... "
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
Are you kidding? Adding magical enhancements to objects is an Artificer's bread an butter. Infusions, Spell-Storing Item, etc.
My logic is this: If wizards get to take away Archivist from the Artificer because Wizards have a base class feature with the word "book" in it's name which somehow makes it more thematically appropriate to be a wizard subclass (and so that Wizards can have a subclass that makes them even more wizard) I see it as entirely fair that Artificers gain Runecrafter because Artificers have the class feature that modifies objects (and then Artificers gain a subclass that makes them even more Artificer).
Or I'd be cool with Wizards getting Runecrafter if Artificers got to have Archivist. Note that Archivist involved scribing runes onto an object to awaken a sentience within that item. A rune-themed Artificer could just be the Archivist spruced up for the released Artificer base class chassis and a different feature to replace Manifest Mind which now belongs to the Order of Scribes Wizard.
They aren't adding magical enhancements to objects in the subclass, they added magical enhancements to spells. The only reference to putting runes on things is the cosmetic suggestions and where they are scribed in the spell book.
They aren't adding magical enhancements to objects in the subclass, they added magical enhancements to spells. The only reference to putting runes on things is the cosmetic suggestions and where they are scribed in the spell book.
My mistake, then. I must have blended the features of "Rune Carver" and "Runecrafter" together in my mind. That is very much a poor name for the subclass then, and I feel it's going to mess up the UA feedback survey results. "Runecaster" would be more functionally to the point since it involves invoking runes as part of the casting of a spell.
They aren't adding magical enhancements to objects in the subclass, they added magical enhancements to spells. The only reference to putting runes on things is the cosmetic suggestions and where they are scribed in the spell book.
My mistake, then. I must have blended the features of Rune Carver and Runecrafter together in my mind. That is very much a poor name for the subclass then. "Runecaster" would be more functionally to the point since it involves invoking runes as part of the casting of a spell.
Hey, I admire the dedication. I also share the love of the Artificer class and wish that WotC would let new Artificer subclasses be printed right now. But I highly doubt that they'd give up their whole "you only need the 3 Core Rulebooks and this book in order to use all of the content in this book"-shtick. It's extremely user-friendly, even if it has its downsides (redundant content by the people that own every book, making it impossible to print new Artificer subclasses after Tasha's, etc).
Hey, I admire the dedication. I also share the love of the Artificer class and wish that WotC would let new Artificer subclasses be printed right now. But I highly doubt that they'd give up their whole "you only need the 3 Core Rulebooks and this book in order to use all of the content in this book"-shtick. It's extremely user-friendly, even if it has its downsides (redundant content by the people that own every book, making it impossible to print new Artificer subclasses after Tasha's, etc).
Wait. I thought the MotM bundle released earlier this year officially added Xanathar's and Tasha's as core rulebooks along with the PHB, DMG, and MM
Nope. They're not core.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
If people think archivist and rune crafter are both wizard things.
What do people think artificer should get?
Tossed from the game.
:D
I kid, I know a lot of folks really dig them, but I've yet to see an artificer in my game (one character took the adept feat, and we do flavor it as a sorta technomagic, but no full blown artificers).
Anyway I think there's a distinction being made, though I wouldn't say it's an essential distinction, that Artificers are more innovators and inventors, using magic to create "new technologies." It seems Runes in the game so far are harnessing powers from the long past using the methods and traditions of the long past. Basically, Artificers use magically empowered technologies. Runes are not a technology and more of a rite, if that makes sense. Now someone can depart from this, I'm curious as I write this how an Artificer would manage the Rune Adept feat for instance, but there definitely seems to be ... well it's basically Dr. Strange v Iron Man.
Someone who works with runes is drawing on powers of runes that are known and handed down from the beginning of their being power in writing. An Artificer is more tinkering with more immediate and presently available magics in an effort to see what can happen. These two vantages could easily overlap, but my worldbuilding head can see cause for keeping them distinct.
That said, if you wanted have a Giant themed artificer, I'm thinking like Juggernaut Artificer to really let those artificers into mecha really have their day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
"For example, your runes could be engraved into the cover of your spellbook, glowing whenever you cast a spell, or you could work the shape and meaning of the runes directly into a spell’s somatic and verbal components. When you cast a spell using a spell slot, you can invoke one of the following runes: ... "
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
How was the Archivist better suited as a Wizard subclass? Barely any of its mechanics made it to the Order of the Scribes when it was converted from an Artificer subclass to a Wizard one.
"Using Runes to do magic" fits Artificers better than Wizards. The name fits better for Artificers (although I think "Runecarver" sounds cooler).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Y'all. Theres no reason to keep comparing the Runecrafter and the Archivist. The archivist ship has sailed, and it sailed long ago. This is a separate subclass that needs to be compared on its own merits. WotC does not "owe it" to the Artificer to steal from a Wizard UA subclass just because they did the inverse before.
As for the question of whether runes make more sense for an Artificer or not, I would like to add that 1) despite its name, there is nothing in the subclass now that is based around 'crafting' anything, nor anything that seems like it would synergize better with the Artificer class than Wizards & 2) Wizards have already been utilizing the magic of runes since the beginning of 5e: Glyph of Warding
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I find the wording in the rune of enmity confusing. It states:
When you mark the creature, and as a bonus action on subsequent turns for the duration, you can invoke the enmity rune to curse the creature until the start of your next turn. The next time one of your allies hits the cursed creature with an attack roll, the target also takes 1d8 force damage, and the curse ends.
It also says:
The enmity rune lasts for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). Once you have marked a creature in this way, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest, unless you expend a spell slot of 3rd level or higher to use this feature again.
It seems like those two ending conditions are in conflict. Does that mean you have to use another bonus action to reapply the curse, or is it an either/or situation?
If people think archivist and rune crafter are both wizard things.
What do people think artificer should get?
Tossed from the game.
:D
I kid, I know a lot of folks really dig them, but I've yet to see an artificer in my game (one character took the adept feat, and we do flavor it as a sorta technomagic, but no full blown artificers).
Anyway I think there's a distinction being made, though I wouldn't say it's an essential distinction, that Artificers are more innovators and inventors, using magic to create "new technologies." It seems Runes in the game so far are harnessing powers from the long past using the methods and traditions of the long past. Basically, Artificers use magically empowered technologies. Runes are not a technology and more of a rite, if that makes sense. Now someone can depart from this, I'm curious as I write this how an Artificer would manage the Rune Adept feat for instance, but there definitely seems to be ... well it's basically Dr. Strange v Iron Man.
Someone who works with runes is drawing on powers of runes that are known and handed down from the beginning of their being power in writing. An Artificer is more tinkering with more immediate and presently available magics in an effort to see what can happen. These two vantages could easily overlap, but my worldbuilding head can see cause for keeping them distinct.
That said, if you wanted have a Giant themed artificer, I'm thinking like Juggernaut Artificer to really let those artificers into mecha really have their day.
Awakening magic in everyday objects definitely doesn't need to be a new technology or innovation thing. To fit in with the UA they could include a subclass that was something of a shaman decidedly themed about ancient rites and finding the spirit within every day objects (real animism themes here). Imagine awakening a rock and learning of its thousands of years of history... Or it might have very little to say having been a rock its whole life, suffice to say, somebody should be able to speak with rocks and get a real answer back and that somebody might as well be an artificer.
However, the Artificer will NEVER be able to take on those kinds of themes and those characters will be limited to druids, rangers, nature clerics, or some flavor of warlock if the D&D fanbase and WOTC keep going whole hog on ensuring the Artificer always remains firmly in the advanced magi-tech box in every artificer subclass forever onward.
Not that I've personally ever gotten tired of technology themed Artificers but I'd like to see new concepts brought into the artificer chassis. Something with the Archivist feature set (but perhaps a different name and flavor) fits very well with a shamanistic kind of character and fits in with ancient and primordial themes, spirit of the land, etc.
I know a lot of folks really dig them, but I've yet to see an artificer in my game (one character took the adept feat, and we do flavor it as a sorta technomagic, but no full blown artificers).
If Artificer had been on the approved list for Wysp’s campaign you would have because it’s my favorite class. Instead you got Toots, but that’s okay since I am really diggin’ playing her and Bard is my second favorite class. (Warlock is 3rd.)
Artificers are the ultimate support class. They can heal enough to cover for a lack of a Cleric, magic enough to cover for the lack of a support caster, and skilled enough to cover for a lack of a skill monkey. And depending on which subclass you pick they can lean into some aspects or even branch out into others like being a mainline fighter or archer. It’s just enough of a bit of everything to really fill in almost any holes in any party. The only roles they can’t naturally fill well are Face and Tank, and they can even tank a bit with the Battle Smith subclass.
How does this sound like it belongs with an artificer? None of the abilities listed for this subclass actually deal with crafting anything. It is more akin to words of power than anything else. They could change the name of the subclass to remove the confusion, but they would have to rewrite the entire subclass to make it thematically and mechanically work for Artificer.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yeah, this is my biggest qualm with switching it to an Artificer subclass. Its main ability loses alot of power if tied to half caster, since it scales with spell slot level, not to even mention finding a new way to write the ability thats tied to Arcane Recovery. Also, thematically I feel like runes and other magical symbols are more up a wizard's ally than a magic craftsman.
If it were to be changed to an Artificer, they would probably need to make the Rune Carver feats part of the subclass chassis to theme it more around taking time to applying physical runes to crafted items.
I agree the name could use a change to make it feel less like the wizard is actual "crafting" the runes. Maybe Rune Master? Runic Calligrapher? Graphologist? Rune/Glyph/Sigil Mage? Symbologist? Idk, just throwing some ideas out there
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I like Rune Speaker or Rune Seer to keep with the primeval vibe.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
JC interview about Giant/Rune Feats
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Are you kidding? Adding magical enhancements to objects is an Artificer's bread an butter. Infusions, Spell-Storing Item, etc.
My logic is this: If wizards get to take away Archivist from the Artificer because Wizards have a base class feature with the word "book" in it's name which somehow makes it more thematically appropriate to be a wizard subclass (and so that Wizards can have a subclass that makes them even more wizard) I see it as entirely fair that Artificers gain Runecrafter because Artificers have the class feature that modifies objects (and then Artificers gain a subclass that makes them even more Artificer).
Or I'd be cool with Wizards getting Runecrafter if Artificers got to have Archivist. Note that Archivist involved scribing runes onto an object to awaken a sentience within that item. A rune-themed Artificer could just be the Archivist spruced up for the released Artificer base class chassis and a different feature to replace Manifest Mind which now belongs to the Order of Scribes Wizard.
They aren't adding magical enhancements to objects in the subclass, they added magical enhancements to spells. The only reference to putting runes on things is the cosmetic suggestions and where they are scribed in the spell book.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My mistake, then. I must have blended the features of "Rune Carver" and "Runecrafter" together in my mind. That is very much a poor name for the subclass then, and I feel it's going to mess up the UA feedback survey results. "Runecaster" would be more functionally to the point since it involves invoking runes as part of the casting of a spell.
Runecaster is a good name!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Hopefully that’ll get rectified in ‘24.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If people think archivist and rune crafter are both wizard things.
What do people think artificer should get?
How about some form of Golem Mechanic or a Gunsmith?
Edit: A Rocketeer?
Edit 2: Taxidermist (a necromancer themed Artificer)
Edit 3: Necro-surgeon (specialized in "enhancing" others or themselves through grafting)
Edit 4: Volcanist (specialized in creating dangerous terrain effects)
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I homebrewed that one already.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Combat engineers and demolitions experts.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Nope. They're not core.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Tossed from the game.
:D
I kid, I know a lot of folks really dig them, but I've yet to see an artificer in my game (one character took the adept feat, and we do flavor it as a sorta technomagic, but no full blown artificers).
Anyway I think there's a distinction being made, though I wouldn't say it's an essential distinction, that Artificers are more innovators and inventors, using magic to create "new technologies." It seems Runes in the game so far are harnessing powers from the long past using the methods and traditions of the long past. Basically, Artificers use magically empowered technologies. Runes are not a technology and more of a rite, if that makes sense. Now someone can depart from this, I'm curious as I write this how an Artificer would manage the Rune Adept feat for instance, but there definitely seems to be ... well it's basically Dr. Strange v Iron Man.
Someone who works with runes is drawing on powers of runes that are known and handed down from the beginning of their being power in writing. An Artificer is more tinkering with more immediate and presently available magics in an effort to see what can happen. These two vantages could easily overlap, but my worldbuilding head can see cause for keeping them distinct.
That said, if you wanted have a Giant themed artificer, I'm thinking like Juggernaut Artificer to really let those artificers into mecha really have their day.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
How was the Archivist better suited as a Wizard subclass? Barely any of its mechanics made it to the Order of the Scribes when it was converted from an Artificer subclass to a Wizard one.
"Using Runes to do magic" fits Artificers better than Wizards. The name fits better for Artificers (although I think "Runecarver" sounds cooler).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Y'all. Theres no reason to keep comparing the Runecrafter and the Archivist. The archivist ship has sailed, and it sailed long ago. This is a separate subclass that needs to be compared on its own merits. WotC does not "owe it" to the Artificer to steal from a Wizard UA subclass just because they did the inverse before.
As for the question of whether runes make more sense for an Artificer or not, I would like to add that 1) despite its name, there is nothing in the subclass now that is based around 'crafting' anything, nor anything that seems like it would synergize better with the Artificer class than Wizards & 2) Wizards have already been utilizing the magic of runes since the beginning of 5e: Glyph of Warding
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I find the wording in the rune of enmity confusing. It states:
When you mark the creature, and as a bonus action on subsequent turns for the duration, you can invoke the enmity rune to curse the creature until the start of your next turn. The next time one of your allies hits the cursed creature with an attack roll, the target also takes 1d8 force damage, and the curse ends.
It also says:
The enmity rune lasts for 1 minute or until you lose your concentration (as if you were concentrating on a spell). Once you have marked a creature in this way, you can’t do so again until you finish a long rest, unless you expend a spell slot of 3rd level or higher to use this feature again.
It seems like those two ending conditions are in conflict. Does that mean you have to use another bonus action to reapply the curse, or is it an either/or situation?
Awakening magic in everyday objects definitely doesn't need to be a new technology or innovation thing. To fit in with the UA they could include a subclass that was something of a shaman decidedly themed about ancient rites and finding the spirit within every day objects (real animism themes here). Imagine awakening a rock and learning of its thousands of years of history... Or it might have very little to say having been a rock its whole life, suffice to say, somebody should be able to speak with rocks and get a real answer back and that somebody might as well be an artificer.
However, the Artificer will NEVER be able to take on those kinds of themes and those characters will be limited to druids, rangers, nature clerics, or some flavor of warlock if the D&D fanbase and WOTC keep going whole hog on ensuring the Artificer always remains firmly in the advanced magi-tech box in every artificer subclass forever onward.
Not that I've personally ever gotten tired of technology themed Artificers but I'd like to see new concepts brought into the artificer chassis. Something with the Archivist feature set (but perhaps a different name and flavor) fits very well with a shamanistic kind of character and fits in with ancient and primordial themes, spirit of the land, etc.
If Artificer had been on the approved list for Wysp’s campaign you would have because it’s my favorite class. Instead you got Toots, but that’s okay since I am really diggin’ playing her and Bard is my second favorite class. (Warlock is 3rd.)
Artificers are the ultimate support class. They can heal enough to cover for a lack of a Cleric, magic enough to cover for the lack of a support caster, and skilled enough to cover for a lack of a skill monkey. And depending on which subclass you pick they can lean into some aspects or even branch out into others like being a mainline fighter or archer. It’s just enough of a bit of everything to really fill in almost any holes in any party. The only roles they can’t naturally fill well are Face and Tank, and they can even tank a bit with the Battle Smith subclass.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting