With the Artificer being an expert class and the Expertise ability being the feature of those classes, at what level would you make that ability available to them? The Bard gets theirs at 2nd level, while Rogue and Ranger gets theirs at 1st.
With the Artificer being an expert class and the Expertise ability being the feature of those classes, at what level would you make that ability available to them? The Bard gets theirs at 2nd level, while Rogue and Ranger gets theirs at 1st.
Honestly, it depends on whether or not you can still get tool expertise.
From the looks of it, that might not be the case, since it seems tools are more being relegated as aids in skill checks rather than checks in their own right. You can still make tool checks, but I don't know if you can ever get full-on expertise in them, is what I'm saying.
In that case, if Artificers get just regular Expertise, I wouldn't mind them getting it at 1st or 2nd level.
If however they get Tool Expertise again, I'd probably just put that at 1st level because tools are relatively situational.
Since it appears as though tools no longer have ability checks of their own, try looking at it another way. If the artificer can use their tool proficiency with a D20 Test, thus gaining advantage, they also gain Expertise if they're already proficient with the associated skill. If they don't have proficiency, then no expertise. And if they can't use their tools, no expertise.
The current rules don't necessarily preclude ability checks without applicable skill proficiencies.
The Tool Proficiency Rule in the rules glossary starts with this: "If you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any Ability Check you make that uses that tool."
So even if an ability check you make has no applicable skill (or you're just not proficient with the applicable skill) you still add your Tool Proficiency to the check if it "uses the tool." And if you have tool expertise that would apply as well.
Granted, I wonder if "uses the tool" is language that's too open. It feels like it could be misinterpreted to any ability check you use a specific tool to make (such as trying to use a flute as a lockpick) as opposed to any ability check that requires you to use a specific tool (playing a flute at a recital).
If WotC can add a new Race to One D&D, why can't they add the Artificer???
I don't think its a matter of not wanting to add them. It's just a matter of bulk in the UA. Artificers are unique to the classes in their connection to magical items. So including them means including the things they can make, many of which may not be ready for play test as magic items have not seen the 1dd treatment yet and really are unlikely to see that treatment till the end of the development cycle since first you have to nail down the classes before you modify them with items. Additionally, Artificers, being the latest added class are sort of balanced in response to the others. All in all, I still expect to see artificers in the PHB, but I actually expect to see a special UA playtest for them near the end of the development cycle, likely including a bunch of reworked and rebalanced magical items.
If artificers are going to be a Player's Handbook Class, the first thing WotC needs to do is flesh out the magical item crafting system. The bread and butter of the Artificer class is making magic items; they make items that are so great, they are regarded as artifacts of legend and we as adventurers go on entire quests to find one from a lost civilization.
Another thing holding the Artificer class back is the limited number of subclasses, but not at launch. 4 subclasses are pretty much considered "par for the course" for the player's handbook when a new version comes out UNLESS YOU'RE A WIZARD . One of the ideas that Tulok the Barbarian had for HIS homebrew artificer subclass was to use the tools that artificers craft with to flavor the subclass itself. I would love to see a jeweler artificer that specializes in unique gems and making them magical or a painter artificer that can make their paintings hypnotize people or come to life to fight. Personally, one of the things I want for 6e artificers is to have an actual homunculus as an infusion (maybe at lvl 10) as well as SUBCLASS SPECIFIC INFUSIONS. Why does the warlock get subclass and even pack-specific invocations, but WotC gave up on creativity for the artificer?!
If WotC can add a new Race to One D&D, why can't they add the Artificer???
I don't think its a matter of not wanting to add them. It's just a matter of bulk in the UA. Artificers are unique to the classes in their connection to magical items. So including them means including the things they can make, many of which may not be ready for play test as magic items have not seen the 1dd treatment yet and really are unlikely to see that treatment till the end of the development cycle since first you have to nail down the classes before you modify them with items. Additionally, Artificers, being the latest added class are sort of balanced in response to the others. All in all, I still expect to see artificers in the PHB, but I actually expect to see a special UA playtest for them near the end of the development cycle, likely including a bunch of reworked and rebalanced magical items.
Couldn't they just have us use the 5E version? They already adjusted feats like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, etc. despite there not being any updates for martials in general, which leaves martials in a pretty bad spot in One D&D's current UA since Martials were relying pretty heavily on the extra power from feats to compete with casters. So I really don't think not having a One D&D version of magic items is really an issue.
They've already released a subclass with one feature that is heavily dependent on the existence of magic items, Thief. Their 10th level feature Use Magic Device is entirely pointless without the existence of magic devices to use. It alters how thieves interact with attunement (they gain a 4th attunement), using charges (1/6 chance of not expending charges), and spell scrolls (ignore the spell list requirement, make an arcana check to cast higher than 1st level spells).
This is all despite the fact that the PHB completely lacks any listings of magic items, including spell scrolls, and lacks any rules for how attunement works. Those are all part of the DMG.
I do expect them to cover DMG rules and content in the OneD&D playtest eventually... but I think it will be a long ways off.
If they were to include Artificers in the new PHB it would make sense to playtest them later on along with the DMG content if they want to preview some changes to magic items both specifically and generically. The 5e rules for crafting magic items first appeared in the DMG after all.
That said the way they keep referring to Artificers where they are technically relevant but always ensuring to keep them conceptually isolated and separated from the other classes pretty much confirms for me that they have no intention of adding Artificers to the OneD&D PHB.
They've already released a subclass with one feature that is heavily dependent on the existence of magic items, Thief. Their 10th level feature Use Magic Device is entirely pointless without the existence of magic devices to use. It alters how thieves interact with attunement (they gain a 4th attunement), using charges (1/6 chance of not expending charges), and spell scrolls (ignore the spell list requirement, make an arcana check to cast higher than 1st level spells).
This is all despite the fact that the PHB completely lacks any listings of magic items, including spell scrolls, and lacks any rules for how attunement works. Those are all part of the DMG.
I do expect them to cover DMG rules and content in the OneD&D playtest eventually... but I think it will be a long ways off.
If they were to include Artificers in the new PHB it would make sense to playtest them later on along with the DMG content if they want to preview some changes to magic items both specifically and generically. The 5e rules for crafting magic items first appeared in the DMG after all.
That said the way they keep referring to Artificers where they are technically relevant but always ensuring to keep them conceptually isolated and separated from the other classes pretty much confirms for me that they have no intention of adding Artificers to the OneD&D PHB.
Many magic items and the rules for attunement can be found in the free Basic Rules & SRD, which is probably why they aren’t worried about it.
Many magic items and the rules for attunement can be found in the free Basic Rules & SRD, which is probably why they aren’t worried about it.
They also explicitly state in the playtest rules to fall back on 5e for rules changes not mentioned in the playtest. I imagine this also means for magic items.
I'm just saying, lack of magic items in the PHB isn't why Artificer wasn't fleshed out in the Experts Group UA.
With the Artificer being an expert class and the Expertise ability being the feature of those classes, at what level would you make that ability available to them? The Bard gets theirs at 2nd level, while Rogue and Ranger gets theirs at 1st.
Since it appears as though tools no longer have ability checks of their own, try looking at it another way. If the artificer can use their tool proficiency with a D20 Test, thus gaining advantage, they also gain Expertise if they're already proficient with the associated skill. If they don't have proficiency, then no expertise. And if they can't use their tools, no expertise.
The current rules don't necessarily preclude ability checks without applicable skill proficiencies.
The Tool Proficiency Rule in the rules glossary starts with this: "If you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any Ability Check you make that uses that tool."
So even if an ability check you make has no applicable skill (or you're just not proficient with the applicable skill) you still add your Tool Proficiency to the check if it "uses the tool." And if you have tool expertise that would apply as well.
Granted, I wonder if "uses the tool" is language that's too open. It feels like it could be misinterpreted to any ability check you use a specific tool to make (such as trying to use a flute as a lockpick) as opposed to any ability check that requires you to use a specific tool (playing a flute at a recital).
If WotC can add a new Race to One D&D, why can't they add the Artificer???
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I don't think its a matter of not wanting to add them. It's just a matter of bulk in the UA. Artificers are unique to the classes in their connection to magical items. So including them means including the things they can make, many of which may not be ready for play test as magic items have not seen the 1dd treatment yet and really are unlikely to see that treatment till the end of the development cycle since first you have to nail down the classes before you modify them with items. Additionally, Artificers, being the latest added class are sort of balanced in response to the others. All in all, I still expect to see artificers in the PHB, but I actually expect to see a special UA playtest for them near the end of the development cycle, likely including a bunch of reworked and rebalanced magical items.
If artificers are going to be a Player's Handbook Class, the first thing WotC needs to do is flesh out the magical item crafting system. The bread and butter of the Artificer class is making magic items; they make items that are so great, they are regarded as artifacts of legend and we as adventurers go on entire quests to find one from a lost civilization.
Another thing holding the Artificer class back is the limited number of subclasses, but not at launch. 4 subclasses are pretty much considered "par for the course" for the player's handbook when a new version comes out
UNLESS YOU'RE A WIZARD. One of the ideas that Tulok the Barbarian had for HIS homebrew artificer subclass was to use the tools that artificers craft with to flavor the subclass itself. I would love to see a jeweler artificer that specializes in unique gems and making them magical or a painter artificer that can make their paintings hypnotize people or come to life to fight. Personally, one of the things I want for 6e artificers is to have an actual homunculus as an infusion (maybe at lvl 10) as well as SUBCLASS SPECIFIC INFUSIONS. Why does the warlock get subclass and even pack-specific invocations, but WotC gave up on creativity for the artificer?!Couldn't they just have us use the 5E version? They already adjusted feats like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, etc. despite there not being any updates for martials in general, which leaves martials in a pretty bad spot in One D&D's current UA since Martials were relying pretty heavily on the extra power from feats to compete with casters. So I really don't think not having a One D&D version of magic items is really an issue.
They've already released a subclass with one feature that is heavily dependent on the existence of magic items, Thief. Their 10th level feature Use Magic Device is entirely pointless without the existence of magic devices to use. It alters how thieves interact with attunement (they gain a 4th attunement), using charges (1/6 chance of not expending charges), and spell scrolls (ignore the spell list requirement, make an arcana check to cast higher than 1st level spells).
This is all despite the fact that the PHB completely lacks any listings of magic items, including spell scrolls, and lacks any rules for how attunement works. Those are all part of the DMG.
I do expect them to cover DMG rules and content in the OneD&D playtest eventually... but I think it will be a long ways off.
If they were to include Artificers in the new PHB it would make sense to playtest them later on along with the DMG content if they want to preview some changes to magic items both specifically and generically. The 5e rules for crafting magic items first appeared in the DMG after all.
That said the way they keep referring to Artificers where they are technically relevant but always ensuring to keep them conceptually isolated and separated from the other classes pretty much confirms for me that they have no intention of adding Artificers to the OneD&D PHB.
Many magic items and the rules for attunement can be found in the free Basic Rules & SRD, which is probably why they aren’t worried about it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They also explicitly state in the playtest rules to fall back on 5e for rules changes not mentioned in the playtest. I imagine this also means for magic items.
I'm just saying, lack of magic items in the PHB isn't why Artificer wasn't fleshed out in the Experts Group UA.
Assuming the expert classes more or less make it to OneDND as is, I'd do this for any Artificer
Level 1: Expertise, Spellcasting
Level 2: Infuse Item, Magical Tinkering
Level 3: Sub Class
Level 4: Feat
Level 5: Flash of Genius
Level 6: Sub Class
Level 7: Magic Item Adept
Level 8: Feat
Level 9: Expertise
Lavel 10: Sub Class
Level 11: Magic Item Savant
Level 12: Feat
Level 13: Spell Storing Item
Level 14: Sub Class
Level 15: Magic Item Master
Level 16: Feat
Level 17: (Ranger did not get a 17th level ability)
Level 18: Soul of Artifice
Level 19: Feat
Level 20: Epic Boon
I think Expertise and Infuse Item could swap, but the rest will probably look similar. However the actual abilities could change in meaning.