I feel the extra language for Sneak Attack is weird. As far as I can tell they didnt change the progression of Sneak Attack damage, and they left the column as part of the class table to show it, but they also added this tidbit "To determine the extra damage, roll a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level (round up), and add the dice together." Is this necessary if they keep the progression listed in the table?
Only thing I can think of is the UA wanted to include "show your work" logic so a playtester knows "why" or at least the formula behind what's on the table, or maybe it's an articulation for a tableless SRD, or even an accessibility move. Put in the "redundant" language for folks who may have difficulty interpreting tables?
The thought does occur to me, that the language could be useful if later down the line some variation of Sneak Attack were used in other classes/subclasses for multiclass purposes. Pure, baseless speculation on my part, but...
Crossbow Expert feat is either missing something, or it is just really bad. It looks like they intended to make a dual crossbow wielding build a reality, since the text makes it clear that a different weapon than than the first is needed in order to perform the extra crossbow attack. The issue is that they seemed to forget that the ammunition property is still a thing. A free hand is needed to reload the crossbows, so firing them both only works on turn 1. Then you have to drop one to be able to reload.
Maybe they are reworking crossbows in general?? I sure hope so, because this current iteration is not great.
I really like that they rebalanced martial combat styles. It looks like two weapon fighting will actually be able to compete with heavy weapon and ranged builds, instead of being just noob bait for new players.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
It seems it's not going to be part of the PHB so if an official version of it shows up modified for One Dnd Mechanics it'll probably be a while until it shows up... probably even past 2024 which is when the new PHB comes out.
My cynical guess at this point would be that all we're getting in these UAs for Artificer is where in the new mechanics Artificer would lie. So far it's the Arcane spell list (don't know which school restrictions they'd have) and being a part of the Expert group thus qualifying for feats (and magic items) that specify Expert as a prerequisite.
It'd be faster to take the 12 PHB classes (once they all show up in UA) as reference and make your own version of Artificer.
Right now using just the UA Bard and Ranger as a quick and dirty template...
Change up the prepared spellcasting so you have as many prepared spells as you do slots and for those same levels (keep in mind you'd also prepare cantrips with this version).
To determine what spell schools to exclude look at the current Artificer spell list (limited to PHB only spells) and filter based on spell schools to see which ones the Artificer already has and cross reference that with the Arcane spell list. Then determine which schools the Artificer has the least/none of. Doing that myself right now it seems like the only school truly absent is the Enchantment School of Magic. So a quick and generous method is just Saying Artificers get the full Arcane list excluding Enchantment similar to how Rangers get the Primal list excluding Evocation. You'd lose some spells but I think end up gaining far more spells than you'd lose.
Then you can take a route similar to what they did with the Bard's Songs of Restoration and grant a list of always prepared spells that extend beyond the Arcane list but are iconic for the Artificer. Such as spells like Cure Wounds or Enhance Ability. Specific missing desired cantrips can be snagged with Magic Initiate as needed but admittedly that's less designing a class and just straight up building a character.
From then push the level 20 capstone down to level 18, just slot it in there right next to the 6th Attunement slot (they used to be part of the same feature anyways).
Replace the level 20 capstone with an Epic Boon feat.
Then keep everything else including subclasses exactly the same and call it a day.
I’m not going to comment on the bard and rogue - I don’t play them enough to have a good basis for judgement. A couple of things on the ranger however,. 1) someone back in the middle pages was saying that they had trouble seeing the ranger as an expert. I can see why IF you only look at this download. I tried using the previous download as well and was a revalation. I was trying to recreate the character in my sig that is based on a real person and this is what I got: A human gets 1 skill and can take the the skilled feat as their “versatile” ability so +3 skills, then background adds 2 skills and a tool, a language and a feat. Finally Ranger adds 3 more skills and expertise in 2 of them for a final total of 9 skills with expertise in 2 and one tool set. If that is not an expert I’m not sure what qualifies. 2) two weapon fighting + dual wielding feat + 2 attacks/round = 2d8+2d6+4d6(HM)+4(stat bonus) every round IF everything hits. Sadly they took haste away from the primal spells so you’ll have to get to L9 horizon walker to get it or get someone to add it ( or stock up on speed potions) to get that third attack action but two weapon fighting for rangers is back in a big way now. Rangers in 5e were pretty much relegated to ranged + casting past say L4 But the revised ranger can now stand in melee and deal damage.
I'm the odd one out and detest what they've done with the Ranger.
It's basically streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a patch and making it permanent with a lot less choice than there was; without identifying the core problem... which was that the 5e chassis for Ranger did not mechanically live up well to its class fantasy. Now that's its bloated up with the Tasha replacement, they stuck to the safe choices and didn't try to innovate like they should have had.
The ranger is just there to do some damage, have some skills and sling about some druid spells, without getting much that would have a party go "YES, WE HAVE A RANGER" and rejoice the same way they might with a Paladin or a Bard.
Think about it: when do people - in-character - actually want and value a ranger's skills? It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the wilds. From dealing with dangerous monsters because the ranger had an eye for dealing with them, to ease of getting around in the wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazard.
The ranger is supposed to be known as a master at dealing with all of that. More importantly, the fiction usually support that a party needs what the ranger knows.
Why?
Because the Ranger should have been designed as a force-multiplier.
I think, in replacement to Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, the Ranger could have two features, one offensive and one defensive.
I'll start with Offensive:
Hunter's Mark, as an spell, is inferior to Hex because it once does one instance of damage per round. Given that the 5e Ranger can usually hope for 2 to 3 attacks at high level, the Warlock rather easily outstrips any offensive potential the Ranger might have had with its easy access to multiple Eldritch Blasts which scale in level just as well as the Fighter's Extra Attack, and Hex will allow for an extra dice of damage on each.
But, let's switch that around. What if Hunter's Mark did not just let the ranger deal damage to an enemy, but also others? The Ranger uses Hunter's Mark and outlines the some weaknesses of the creatures to his companions. Then everyone that deals damage to the marked target can add an extra 1d6 of damage!
Are you happy to have a Ranger in your group now? Probably! There's at least one thing he helps you do better. But wait, the ranger is a specialist at dealing with monsters. what if there was more?
What if the Ranger had a way to upgrade Hunter's Mark into something that did something a bit more bespoke? Such as, how a Warlock invocation alters Eldritch Blast, how a Paladin has access to multiple kinds of smite spells, how a Fighter/Battle Master has maneuvers at his disposal, or how the Blood Hunter learns different Crimson Rites. Also, that's a bit inspired from how the Council of Wyrm 'dragonslayer' fighter kit could do wing strikes and throat strikes to hinder a dragon's offensive abilities as well as the 4E Warlord's ability and enabling certain things for the party.
So, say a Ranger learns Disruptive Mark, which not only gives the Ranger and his allies the benefits of extra damage on hit... but also, anyone that manages to lad a hit and deal damage imposed a condition on the creature. In Disruptive Mark's case, it's disadvantage on the next attack.
Anthony the ranger saw Fulminorax the Red perch itself over the ledge where Dain the Dwarven Fighter stood and unleashed itself into a flurry of strikes from claws and fangs. After a moment observing the wyrm, Anthony noted something in its posture and pointed out to his friends: "Strike at its hindlegs!" If they focused there, the red dragon would be hard-presses to strike its foreclaws for rain further strikes on his dwarven companion.
Disrupting Mark is just one example of what a ranger could select. Hindering Mark could help deal extra damage and slow the movement of the struck creature. Hampering Mark could be something that deals damage and hamper certain saving throws. Hunter's Mark variants gained at higher levels could be more effective, or upgrades of lower level mark (i.e.: Greater Disrupting Mark).
I make no claim of being a skilled game designed and creating balanced abilities... but if a Ranger has something like Closing Mark which deals damage and reduces the effective reach of a creature; Enervating Mark which prevents healing; Weakening Mark for when for probably won't avoid the next hit, but maybe you can make it do half-damage; or Hallowed Mark which could mitigate the potency of necrotic abilities ... maybe picking different pieces as a theme makes you a Giant Slayer, or Troll Slayer, or an Undead slayer.
As for Defensive:
Isn't a ranger one of the people that is supposed to be a survivalist, and help people benefit from the same when they are with him?
The sad fact is that 5e DnD has been very short on party-wide spells that would grants benefits such as 3E's Endure Elements or 5E Resist Elements.
What, what if the Ranger could be they purveyor of party-wide protections such as this?
Anthony watched as Fulminorax the Red's gullet swelled and sparks escaped the corners of the dragon's mouth. "It's about to breathe! Take cover!"
I submit that the Ranger schooled in watching out for certain dangers should be a master of reactions, helping his companions deal with the same danger much better. Like invocations, the Ranger could pick from a selection of - say - Wilderness Lore features. Anthony above would have picked - say - "Firewatcher", which allowed him to grant a reaction allowing his party a spontaneous opportunity to take half-damage from the red dragon's flames. Maybe Firewatcher also grants useful features such as being able to help a party deal with extreme heat when traveling, as well as perhaps access to casting a party-wide Resist Element.
One or the other. Again, I make no claim to be balance-savvy. But I see obvious benefits to a Ranger having "Treewalker" and granting his friends better conditions through forest, make it easier to climb trees, advantage against plant-related spells and better acrobatics checks for being sure footed. "Mountaineer" for ease traveling through mountains, dealing with rough terrain, and being better able to cope with being knocked prone or pushes. Something jungle themed could concern poison handing, snow themed for cold ... there's plenty of choices to be had here, and if they touch core combat mechanics in D&D, they ought to become useful at one point of another - allowing the Ranger to gainfully assist his group satisfyingly without the scope of the game's mechanics.
Fluff and substance both.
_________________________________________________
In effect, the above isn't that different from the concepts presented in the Hunter subclass of the 2014 PHB. The main problem of the Hunter subclass is that it:
was separate from the core Ranger chassis;
wasn't developed enough to make its options attractive.
Between the above suggestions for making Hunter's Mark a class feature, and Wilderness Lore the actively defensive component of a Ranger offerings, I think the Ranger would secure its role much better amongst the other classes of Dungeons & Dragons.
Still thinking about some of the changes. Some things I like, some I don't. Some we will see. I don't mind inspiration on a 1 but I also liked it on a 20. I see both sides. On a 1 you vow to do better but I also see on a 20 as being on a role.
One thing I really like is the rules for influence. Will do away with the trope of the bard asking for the kingdom. Taking creature as anything but a PC.You have that they won't do anything that is against their alignment or repugnant to them. So even the friendly king probably would not accept given the kingdom over.
I like the hiding action result being the DC of finding it. Now does Prof bonus get added to that? If I role a 17 and have a plus 10 does that mean the DC is now 27?
If I am remembering right, he stated it in the 1DD video that dropped yesterday. As for the time stamp, I honestly cannot recall but it is a fairly short video.
Zoberraz, you might want to go back and look at hunter’s mark again it doesn’t do damage once a round -“Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack,” so a L5 TWFing ranger could potentially hit 4 times adding 4D6 damage not 1D6. The rest of your ideas for the ranger are interesting but possibly too much.
One thing I really like is the rules for influence. Will do away with the trope of the bard asking for the kingdom. Taking creature as anything but a PC.You have that they won't do anything that is against their alignment or repugnant to them. So even the friendly king probably would not accept given the kingdom over.
I like the hiding action result being the DC of finding it. Now does Prof bonus get added to that? If I role a 17 and have a plus 10 does that mean the DC is now 27?
The rules for influence are basically the same as in the DMG, just moved to a location where people actually notice it. The DC being a static 10 or 20 is problematic.
The roll to find someone hiding was always the hide check. The DC being a static 15 is problematic.
I’m not going to comment on the bard and rogue - I don’t play them enough to have a good basis for judgement. A couple of things on the ranger however,. 1) someone back in the middle pages was saying that they had trouble seeing the ranger as an expert. I can see why IF you only look at this download. I tried using the previous download as well and was a revalation. I was trying to recreate the character in my sig that is based on a real person and this is what I got: A human gets 1 skill and can take the the skilled feat as their “versatile” ability so +3 skills, then background adds 2 skills and a tool, a language and a feat. Finally Ranger adds 3 more skills and expertise in 2 of them for a final total of 9 skills with expertise in 2 and one tool set. If that is not an expert I’m not sure what qualifies.
While having a lot of skills is nice both..... bard(jack of all trades) and rogue(reliable) have extra boons to skills where a ranger doesn't (they use to be able to stack advantage and expertise)
Really it just seems like they tried to avoid complaints around the ranger without attempting to address the root of the problem. I think that problem is tied to Static DC's. As in trying to spoon feed rules instead of training players and dms how to expect fair rulings on such abilities.
If I am remembering right, he stated it in the 1DD video that dropped yesterday. As for the time stamp, I honestly cannot recall but it is a fairly short video.
I watched that video yesterday. All I recall them talking about the Artificer is that the Artificer is part of the Expert Group and that qualifies them for feats, magic items, etc. Nothing about the Artificer being featured in future UAs, just it being "mentioned" in the current UA which is exactly what we've seen so far. The Artificer mentioned.
So far it's been stated that it would use the Arcana spell list, and is in the Expert group. That's the grand sum of information we've had about the Artificer regarding 1D&D so far.
Rather than rewatch the entire 18 minute video again to verify I'll just search this auto generated transcript posted to reddit.
The only thing class related mentioned as featured in future Unearthed Arcanas is the other Class groups. But seeing as the Artificer is in the Expert group if it were to show up in class related Unearthed Arcanas then it's already missed its bus.
I noticed that artificer IS going to be considered an expert class, but it just had an asterisk next to it in the UA. Is artificer getting an overhaul for One DnD or is it still considered an unofficial class?
One of the things I really wanted for artificer was to get an improved homunculus around level 10 just like the wizards get their spell at that time.
Artificer is an “official class,” it’s just not a PHB class. Which is stupid if they don’t include it in the ‘24 PHB, because if they don’t they can’t support it with subclasses in future publications without reprinting the whole damned class again.
Unclevertitle, they are only doing the PHB classes, artificer is from a later volume so you won’t see it in the play test the brief mention is basically all your getting.
The thought does occur to me, that the language could be useful if later down the line some variation of Sneak Attack were used in other classes/subclasses for multiclass purposes. Pure, baseless speculation on my part, but...
Crossbow Expert feat is either missing something, or it is just really bad. It looks like they intended to make a dual crossbow wielding build a reality, since the text makes it clear that a different weapon than than the first is needed in order to perform the extra crossbow attack. The issue is that they seemed to forget that the ammunition property is still a thing. A free hand is needed to reload the crossbows, so firing them both only works on turn 1. Then you have to drop one to be able to reload.
Maybe they are reworking crossbows in general?? I sure hope so, because this current iteration is not great.
I really like that they rebalanced martial combat styles. It looks like two weapon fighting will actually be able to compete with heavy weapon and ranged builds, instead of being just noob bait for new players.
It seems it's not going to be part of the PHB so if an official version of it shows up modified for One Dnd Mechanics it'll probably be a while until it shows up... probably even past 2024 which is when the new PHB comes out.
My cynical guess at this point would be that all we're getting in these UAs for Artificer is where in the new mechanics Artificer would lie. So far it's the Arcane spell list (don't know which school restrictions they'd have) and being a part of the Expert group thus qualifying for feats (and magic items) that specify Expert as a prerequisite.
It'd be faster to take the 12 PHB classes (once they all show up in UA) as reference and make your own version of Artificer.
Right now using just the UA Bard and Ranger as a quick and dirty template...
Edit: Nevermind, I might have over cynicised.
Do you happen to know where JC stated this?
I’m not going to comment on the bard and rogue - I don’t play them enough to have a good basis for judgement. A couple of things on the ranger however,.
1) someone back in the middle pages was saying that they had trouble seeing the ranger as an expert. I can see why IF you only look at this download. I tried using the previous download as well and was a revalation. I was trying to recreate the character in my sig that is based on a real person and this is what I got: A human gets 1 skill and can take the the skilled feat as their “versatile” ability so +3 skills, then background adds 2 skills and a tool, a language and a feat. Finally Ranger adds 3 more skills and expertise in 2 of them for a final total of 9 skills with expertise in 2 and one tool set. If that is not an expert I’m not sure what qualifies.
2) two weapon fighting + dual wielding feat + 2 attacks/round = 2d8+2d6+4d6(HM)+4(stat bonus) every round IF everything hits. Sadly they took haste away from the primal spells so you’ll have to get to L9 horizon walker to get it or get someone to add it ( or stock up on speed potions) to get that third attack action but two weapon fighting for rangers is back in a big way now. Rangers in 5e were pretty much relegated to ranged + casting past say L4 But the revised ranger can now stand in melee and deal damage.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I'm the odd one out and detest what they've done with the Ranger.
It's basically streamlining anything that came out of Tasha as a patch and making it permanent with a lot less choice than there was; without identifying the core problem... which was that the 5e chassis for Ranger did not mechanically live up well to its class fantasy. Now that's its bloated up with the Tasha replacement, they stuck to the safe choices and didn't try to innovate like they should have had.
The ranger is just there to do some damage, have some skills and sling about some druid spells, without getting much that would have a party go "YES, WE HAVE A RANGER" and rejoice the same way they might with a Paladin or a Bard.
Think about it: when do people - in-character - actually want and value a ranger's skills? It's when they want an expert at dealing with dangers out in the wilds. From dealing with dangerous monsters because the ranger had an eye for dealing with them, to ease of getting around in the wilderness, to dealing with dangerous hazard.
The ranger is supposed to be known as a master at dealing with all of that. More importantly, the fiction usually support that a party needs what the ranger knows.
Why?
Because the Ranger should have been designed as a force-multiplier.
I think, in replacement to Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain, the Ranger could have two features, one offensive and one defensive.
I'll start with Offensive:
Hunter's Mark, as an spell, is inferior to Hex because it once does one instance of damage per round. Given that the 5e Ranger can usually hope for 2 to 3 attacks at high level, the Warlock rather easily outstrips any offensive potential the Ranger might have had with its easy access to multiple Eldritch Blasts which scale in level just as well as the Fighter's Extra Attack, and Hex will allow for an extra dice of damage on each.
But, let's switch that around. What if Hunter's Mark did not just let the ranger deal damage to an enemy, but also others? The Ranger uses Hunter's Mark and outlines the some weaknesses of the creatures to his companions. Then everyone that deals damage to the marked target can add an extra 1d6 of damage!
Are you happy to have a Ranger in your group now? Probably! There's at least one thing he helps you do better. But wait, the ranger is a specialist at dealing with monsters. what if there was more?
What if the Ranger had a way to upgrade Hunter's Mark into something that did something a bit more bespoke? Such as, how a Warlock invocation alters Eldritch Blast, how a Paladin has access to multiple kinds of smite spells, how a Fighter/Battle Master has maneuvers at his disposal, or how the Blood Hunter learns different Crimson Rites. Also, that's a bit inspired from how the Council of Wyrm 'dragonslayer' fighter kit could do wing strikes and throat strikes to hinder a dragon's offensive abilities as well as the 4E Warlord's ability and enabling certain things for the party.
So, say a Ranger learns Disruptive Mark, which not only gives the Ranger and his allies the benefits of extra damage on hit... but also, anyone that manages to lad a hit and deal damage imposed a condition on the creature. In Disruptive Mark's case, it's disadvantage on the next attack.
Anthony the ranger saw Fulminorax the Red perch itself over the ledge where Dain the Dwarven Fighter stood and unleashed itself into a flurry of strikes from claws and fangs. After a moment observing the wyrm, Anthony noted something in its posture and pointed out to his friends: "Strike at its hindlegs!" If they focused there, the red dragon would be hard-presses to strike its foreclaws for rain further strikes on his dwarven companion.
Disrupting Mark is just one example of what a ranger could select. Hindering Mark could help deal extra damage and slow the movement of the struck creature. Hampering Mark could be something that deals damage and hamper certain saving throws. Hunter's Mark variants gained at higher levels could be more effective, or upgrades of lower level mark (i.e.: Greater Disrupting Mark).
I make no claim of being a skilled game designed and creating balanced abilities... but if a Ranger has something like Closing Mark which deals damage and reduces the effective reach of a creature; Enervating Mark which prevents healing; Weakening Mark for when for probably won't avoid the next hit, but maybe you can make it do half-damage; or Hallowed Mark which could mitigate the potency of necrotic abilities ... maybe picking different pieces as a theme makes you a Giant Slayer, or Troll Slayer, or an Undead slayer.
As for Defensive:
Isn't a ranger one of the people that is supposed to be a survivalist, and help people benefit from the same when they are with him?
The sad fact is that 5e DnD has been very short on party-wide spells that would grants benefits such as 3E's Endure Elements or 5E Resist Elements.
What, what if the Ranger could be they purveyor of party-wide protections such as this?
Anthony watched as Fulminorax the Red's gullet swelled and sparks escaped the corners of the dragon's mouth. "It's about to breathe! Take cover!"
I submit that the Ranger schooled in watching out for certain dangers should be a master of reactions, helping his companions deal with the same danger much better. Like invocations, the Ranger could pick from a selection of - say - Wilderness Lore features. Anthony above would have picked - say - "Firewatcher", which allowed him to grant a reaction allowing his party a spontaneous opportunity to take half-damage from the red dragon's flames. Maybe Firewatcher also grants useful features such as being able to help a party deal with extreme heat when traveling, as well as perhaps access to casting a party-wide Resist Element.
One or the other. Again, I make no claim to be balance-savvy. But I see obvious benefits to a Ranger having "Treewalker" and granting his friends better conditions through forest, make it easier to climb trees, advantage against plant-related spells and better acrobatics checks for being sure footed. "Mountaineer" for ease traveling through mountains, dealing with rough terrain, and being better able to cope with being knocked prone or pushes. Something jungle themed could concern poison handing, snow themed for cold ... there's plenty of choices to be had here, and if they touch core combat mechanics in D&D, they ought to become useful at one point of another - allowing the Ranger to gainfully assist his group satisfyingly without the scope of the game's mechanics.
Fluff and substance both.
_________________________________________________
In effect, the above isn't that different from the concepts presented in the Hunter subclass of the 2014 PHB. The main problem of the Hunter subclass is that it:
Between the above suggestions for making Hunter's Mark a class feature, and Wilderness Lore the actively defensive component of a Ranger offerings, I think the Ranger would secure its role much better amongst the other classes of Dungeons & Dragons.
Still thinking about some of the changes.
Some things I like, some I don't. Some we will see. I don't mind inspiration on a 1 but I also liked it on a 20. I see both sides. On a 1 you vow to do better but I also see on a 20 as being on a role.
One thing I really like is the rules for influence. Will do away with the trope of the bard asking for the kingdom. Taking creature as anything but a PC.You have that they won't do anything that is against their alignment or repugnant to them. So even the friendly king probably would not accept given the kingdom over.
I like the hiding action result being the DC of finding it. Now does Prof bonus get added to that? If I role a 17 and have a plus 10 does that mean the DC is now 27?
Hello Unclevertitle,
If I am remembering right, he stated it in the 1DD video that dropped yesterday. As for the time stamp, I honestly cannot recall but it is a fairly short video.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
...unless it isn't.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Zoberraz, you might want to go back and look at hunter’s mark again it doesn’t do damage once a round -“Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack,” so a L5 TWFing ranger could potentially hit 4 times adding 4D6 damage not 1D6. The rest of your ideas for the ranger are interesting but possibly too much.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The rules for influence are basically the same as in the DMG, just moved to a location where people actually notice it. The DC being a static 10 or 20 is problematic.
The roll to find someone hiding was always the hide check. The DC being a static 15 is problematic.
While having a lot of skills is nice both..... bard(jack of all trades) and rogue(reliable) have extra boons to skills where a ranger doesn't (they use to be able to stack advantage and expertise)
Really it just seems like they tried to avoid complaints around the ranger without attempting to address the root of the problem. I think that problem is tied to Static DC's. As in trying to spoon feed rules instead of training players and dms how to expect fair rulings on such abilities.
I watched that video yesterday. All I recall them talking about the Artificer is that the Artificer is part of the Expert Group and that qualifies them for feats, magic items, etc. Nothing about the Artificer being featured in future UAs, just it being "mentioned" in the current UA which is exactly what we've seen so far. The Artificer mentioned.
So far it's been stated that it would use the Arcana spell list, and is in the Expert group. That's the grand sum of information we've had about the Artificer regarding 1D&D so far.
Rather than rewatch the entire 18 minute video again to verify I'll just search this auto generated transcript posted to reddit.
The only thing class related mentioned as featured in future Unearthed Arcanas is the other Class groups. But seeing as the Artificer is in the Expert group if it were to show up in class related Unearthed Arcanas then it's already missed its bus.
I finally had a chance to sit down and read part of this damned thing. Did anyone else notice the nerf to Sneak Attack?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Artificer is an “official class,” it’s just not a PHB class. Which is stupid if they don’t include it in the ‘24 PHB, because if they don’t they can’t support it with subclasses in future publications without reprinting the whole damned class again.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Unclevertitle, they are only doing the PHB classes, artificer is from a later volume so you won’t see it in the play test the brief mention is basically all your getting.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What nerf?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Sneak Attack only works with the Attack Action. No Sneak Attacks on Opportunity Attacks or any other off turn attack.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It can't work with booming blade etc.
Oh, ok. I wasn't sure if there was something I missed. My brain is kind of mushy as of late.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master