2) Many of the UA changes basically amount to quality of life improvements (by cleaning up some really clunky stuff from Tasha's). That is great.
3) I have some minor issues with some of it --- like Battlesmiths should probably get to use their weapon Replications as foci; Replications should have the option to re-use mundane equipment --- but they are minor and nothing to panic about.
4) Hopefully, the new magic items list and the new Replicate Magic Item rules cause them to address the unknowns around Enspelled items --- like does a Replication commit you to the same spell, and are you limited in what spells you can choose from, etc --- and apply that thinking to spellwrought tattoos and the like. And I would be fine with just disallowing all of those, because tatoos feel like a loophole (against the no potion/scrolls rule) and Enspelled items overlap with Spell-Storing Item, conceptually.
There is also the Artificer losing the bonuses to crafting uncommon and lesser items in general and bypassing some attunement requirements.
Plus, the movement from infusing items to item conjuration means that Armorers can't enchant their Arcane Armor weapons. I think it's a mistake and should revert back to Infusing preexisting items. All the other mechanics work fine and you aren't turning the crafting class into a conjuror.
Im a bit unsure about this. I was reading this today and it says "Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls." and the magic items plan of lvl 2+ says "Weapon +1" so, I should be able to create any weapon +1 (including the special weapon of the armor) right?
I think that would be a houseruling thing. Weapons +1/2 dont mention the artificers stuff. i think raw it is like going to dndbeyond search weapon +1 or +2 and you will see the list of possibilities it isnt any weapon. otherwise think about it that way: your armor has the built in ones and you craft a second set of thunder gauntlets? also the special weapons of the armor are only weapons while your hands are empty. so what happens to the weapons if they arent? does the replication break? is it suspended?
Come to think about it even in the current one it isnt explicit what happens to the infusion if you grab an item even temporarily. even after lvl9. my artificer is lvl7 so I cant even infuse them yet to worry about it ( i got the +1 on the armor and am wearing gauntlets of ogre strength so cant infuse them even at 9).
I'd be more in favour of having the weapons inherit their +X from the suit of armor so if you find a +3 you could get even +3 to the weapons since they are a part of it. (forcing you to choose between armor sets more carefully)
2) Many of the UA changes basically amount to quality of life improvements (by cleaning up some really clunky stuff from Tasha's). That is great.
3) I have some minor issues with some of it --- like Battlesmiths should probably get to use their weapon Replications as foci; Replications should have the option to re-use mundane equipment --- but they are minor and nothing to panic about.
4) Hopefully, the new magic items list and the new Replicate Magic Item rules cause them to address the unknowns around Enspelled items --- like does a Replication commit you to the same spell, and are you limited in what spells you can choose from, etc --- and apply that thinking to spellwrought tattoos and the like. And I would be fine with just disallowing all of those, because tatoos feel like a loophole (against the no potion/scrolls rule) and Enspelled items overlap with Spell-Storing Item, conceptually.
There is also the Artificer losing the bonuses to crafting uncommon and lesser items in general and bypassing some attunement requirements.
Plus, the movement from infusing items to item conjuration means that Armorers can't enchant their Arcane Armor weapons. I think it's a mistake and should revert back to Infusing preexisting items. All the other mechanics work fine and you aren't turning the crafting class into a conjuror.
Im a bit unsure about this. I was reading this today and it says "Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls." and the magic items plan of lvl 2+ says "Weapon +1" so, I should be able to create any weapon +1 (including the special weapon of the armor) right?
With Infusions, you took a preexisting item and added a pseudo-enchantment to it and even then, the 9th level feature Armor Modifications was what explicitly allowed them to be infused.
With Replicate Magic Item, you are conjuring the magic item. So, you can summon a suit of armor that you make your Arcane Armor and it will then form the Armor Weapons, but you can't independently summon or craft those weapons. Those aren't items, they are components of your armor/class feature. And now Armor Modification is replaced by Armor Replication which just gives you an extra armor plan and an extra replicated armor and provides no ability to enchant your armor components.
I respect where you're coming from, but RAW doesn't say you can't enchant "components", or you couldn't have magic ammunition for weapons on that principle.
UA calls the Armorer weapons, "weapon". It's explicit in that:
Armor Flail. An iron ball on a chain appears on one of your armor’s gauntlets and has the following traits:
Weapon Category: Simple Melee
Damage on a Hit: 1d10 Bludgeoning plus the ability modifier used for the attack roll
What if instead of "Armor Flail", the feature were "Armor Grapple", or "Aklys" for those who remember Second Edition.
Then the "Armor Grapple" would hold any weapon (otherwise act as Unarmed Strike or Grapple), give the Armorer the ability to use Intelligence modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity for attack and damage rolls, and add 10' Reach property if the weapon doesn't already have it.
Solves all the problems about whether it's enchantable or not. True, you lose that juicy 1d10 one-handed weapon (2d6 'Perfected'), but maybe if you got to apply Weapon Mastery to the weapon's property (gaining the Push of Wrecking Ball if the weapon has Push), or like some subclasses gain weapon proficiency with a special weapon (Samurai, Blade Singer, some bards, Pact Warlock) while in your "Armor Grapple" -- or both?
This would be a neat way to make rope darts, dagger whips, chain swords, meteor hammers; you could even put them on both gauntlets for dual wielding.
2) Many of the UA changes basically amount to quality of life improvements (by cleaning up some really clunky stuff from Tasha's). That is great.
3) I have some minor issues with some of it --- like Battlesmiths should probably get to use their weapon Replications as foci; Replications should have the option to re-use mundane equipment --- but they are minor and nothing to panic about.
4) Hopefully, the new magic items list and the new Replicate Magic Item rules cause them to address the unknowns around Enspelled items --- like does a Replication commit you to the same spell, and are you limited in what spells you can choose from, etc --- and apply that thinking to spellwrought tattoos and the like. And I would be fine with just disallowing all of those, because tatoos feel like a loophole (against the no potion/scrolls rule) and Enspelled items overlap with Spell-Storing Item, conceptually.
There is also the Artificer losing the bonuses to crafting uncommon and lesser items in general and bypassing some attunement requirements.
Plus, the movement from infusing items to item conjuration means that Armorers can't enchant their Arcane Armor weapons. I think it's a mistake and should revert back to Infusing preexisting items. All the other mechanics work fine and you aren't turning the crafting class into a conjuror.
Im a bit unsure about this. I was reading this today and it says "Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls." and the magic items plan of lvl 2+ says "Weapon +1" so, I should be able to create any weapon +1 (including the special weapon of the armor) right?
With Infusions, you took a preexisting item and added a pseudo-enchantment to it and even then, the 9th level feature Armor Modifications was what explicitly allowed them to be infused.
With Replicate Magic Item, you are conjuring the magic item. So, you can summon a suit of armor that you make your Arcane Armor and it will then form the Armor Weapons, but you can't independently summon or craft those weapons. Those aren't items, they are components of your armor/class feature. And now Armor Modification is replaced by Armor Replication which just gives you an extra armor plan and an extra replicated armor and provides no ability to enchant your armor components.
I respect where you're coming from, but RAW doesn't say you can't enchant "components", or you couldn't have magic ammunition for weapons on that principle.
It doesn't say that you can and ammunition is not a component. A bow string is a component. An arrow is an independent object.
These weapons don't exist outside of a class feature. You can't hand them to your buddy. The class feature creates them attached to your armor and there is no guarantee that you can unequip them without unequipping your armor. There is certainly no allowance for you to equip a replacement.
A Pact of the Blade Warlock cannot summon and wield Armorer special weapons as their pact weapon because they are not independent equipment. They are class features that use equipment mechanics.
Even if you could spend time creating magical versions, you could only do so while the armor is equipped and once the armor is doffed, the enchanted weapons would disappear forever.
They are weapons, and defined as weapons, the weapon+1+2+3 says you can make any weapon, simple or martial. Your statement that you can’t independent craft them isn’t said anywhere.
2) Many of the UA changes basically amount to quality of life improvements (by cleaning up some really clunky stuff from Tasha's). That is great.
3) I have some minor issues with some of it --- like Battlesmiths should probably get to use their weapon Replications as foci; Replications should have the option to re-use mundane equipment --- but they are minor and nothing to panic about.
4) Hopefully, the new magic items list and the new Replicate Magic Item rules cause them to address the unknowns around Enspelled items --- like does a Replication commit you to the same spell, and are you limited in what spells you can choose from, etc --- and apply that thinking to spellwrought tattoos and the like. And I would be fine with just disallowing all of those, because tatoos feel like a loophole (against the no potion/scrolls rule) and Enspelled items overlap with Spell-Storing Item, conceptually.
There is also the Artificer losing the bonuses to crafting uncommon and lesser items in general and bypassing some attunement requirements.
Plus, the movement from infusing items to item conjuration means that Armorers can't enchant their Arcane Armor weapons. I think it's a mistake and should revert back to Infusing preexisting items. All the other mechanics work fine and you aren't turning the crafting class into a conjuror.
Im a bit unsure about this. I was reading this today and it says "Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls." and the magic items plan of lvl 2+ says "Weapon +1" so, I should be able to create any weapon +1 (including the special weapon of the armor) right?
I think that would be a houseruling thing. Weapons +1/2 dont mention the artificers stuff. i think raw it is like going to dndbeyond search weapon +1 or +2 and you will see the list of possibilities it isnt any weapon. otherwise think about it that way: your armor has the built in ones and you craft a second set of thunder gauntlets? also the special weapons of the armor are only weapons while your hands are empty. so what happens to the weapons if they arent? does the replication break? is it suspended?
Come to think about it even in the current one it isnt explicit what happens to the infusion if you grab an item even temporarily. even after lvl9. my artificer is lvl7 so I cant even infuse them yet to worry about it ( i got the +1 on the armor and am wearing gauntlets of ogre strength so cant infuse them even at 9).
I'd be more in favour of having the weapons inherit their +X from the suit of armor so if you find a +3 you could get even +3 to the weapons since they are a part of it. (forcing you to choose between armor sets more carefully)
The dmg literally says any weapon simple or martial for weapon+1+2+3
2) Many of the UA changes basically amount to quality of life improvements (by cleaning up some really clunky stuff from Tasha's). That is great.
3) I have some minor issues with some of it --- like Battlesmiths should probably get to use their weapon Replications as foci; Replications should have the option to re-use mundane equipment --- but they are minor and nothing to panic about.
4) Hopefully, the new magic items list and the new Replicate Magic Item rules cause them to address the unknowns around Enspelled items --- like does a Replication commit you to the same spell, and are you limited in what spells you can choose from, etc --- and apply that thinking to spellwrought tattoos and the like. And I would be fine with just disallowing all of those, because tatoos feel like a loophole (against the no potion/scrolls rule) and Enspelled items overlap with Spell-Storing Item, conceptually.
There is also the Artificer losing the bonuses to crafting uncommon and lesser items in general and bypassing some attunement requirements.
Plus, the movement from infusing items to item conjuration means that Armorers can't enchant their Arcane Armor weapons. I think it's a mistake and should revert back to Infusing preexisting items. All the other mechanics work fine and you aren't turning the crafting class into a conjuror.
Im a bit unsure about this. I was reading this today and it says "Each model includes a special weapon. When you attack with that weapon, you can add your Intelligence modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity modifier, to the attack and damage rolls." and the magic items plan of lvl 2+ says "Weapon +1" so, I should be able to create any weapon +1 (including the special weapon of the armor) right?
With Infusions, you took a preexisting item and added a pseudo-enchantment to it and even then, the 9th level feature Armor Modifications was what explicitly allowed them to be infused.
With Replicate Magic Item, you are conjuring the magic item. So, you can summon a suit of armor that you make your Arcane Armor and it will then form the Armor Weapons, but you can't independently summon or craft those weapons. Those aren't items, they are components of your armor/class feature. And now Armor Modification is replaced by Armor Replication which just gives you an extra armor plan and an extra replicated armor and provides no ability to enchant your armor components.
I respect where you're coming from, but RAW doesn't say you can't enchant "components", or you couldn't have magic ammunition for weapons on that principle.
It doesn't say that you can and ammunition is not a component. A bow string is a component. An arrow is an independent object.
These weapons don't exist outside of a class feature. You can't hand them to your buddy. The class feature creates them attached to your armor and there is no guarantee that you can unequip them without unequipping your armor. There is certainly no allowance for you to equip a replacement.
A Pact of the Blade Warlock cannot summon and wield Armorer special weapons as their pact weapon because they are not independent equipment. They are class features that use equipment mechanics.
Even if you could spend time creating magical versions, you could only do so while the armor is equipped and once the armor is doffed, the enchanted weapons would disappear forever.
you are assuming a lot of you can’t do this based on no rules. Nothing says that your crafted weapons would disappear when doffed. they specifically are vague here, likely because they know for some this is pure magic, and for others this is tinkering and tech. They said you can customize the arcane armor, they didn’t say by what means it’s occurring, or what happens to Them.
pact of the blade couldn’t really use these things because they are described as being used with the arcane armor they don’t have. If you had an armorer/pact of the blade warlock, I don’t doubt their armorer weapons could be their pact weapons.
They are weapons, and defined as weapons, the weapon+1+2+3 says you can make any weapon, simple or martial. Your statement that you can’t independent craft them isn’t said anywhere.
A Soulknife's Psychic Blades, manifestations of shimmering psychic energy, are simple melee weapons. They are not equipment. You cannot find +1/+2/+3 versions lying around dungeons.
Just like the Soulknife's Psychic Blades, the Armorer's special weapons are class features that use weapon mechanics, but are not equipment that you can craft or find. They appear on your Arcane Armor when you wear it, disappear when you remove the armor, and can never exist in any other manner.
You cannot take up Smith's Tools, pay half their cost, and craft yourself a spare set. They only way that they could be magical is via Infusions (non-UA Artificer) and the level 9 Armor Modifications Class Feature or possibly some leveled spells, like Magic Weapon. In the UA version, you can't summon them with Replicate Magic Item, and it is less clear if you can target them with spells like Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon because the level 9 feature no longer spells out that the special weapons are separate items.
3.Xe had Armor spikes and Shield spikes that could be independently enchanted as weapons on a defensive item. In addition, I believe shields could be explicitly enchanted for defense (AC) or offense (Shield Bashes), but you had to choose. I am not aware of any allowance for a part of an item to be enchanted independently from the whole in 5e. The UA Armorer has mundane Arcane Armor with mundane special weapons or magic Arcane Armor with mundane special weapons and those are the only options.
Can an Armorer doff their Dreadnaught armor and let the Fighter use it?
After all, RAW: "The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die."
You can customize your Arcane Armor. When you do so, choose one of the following armor models: Dreadnaught, Guardian, or Infiltrator. The model you choose gives you special benefits while you wear it.
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and it has no special benefits.
I agree. If the Artificer puts it back on, it's still the Dreadnaught armor for them, but if anyone else puts it on, it simply functions as whatever base armor it originally was.
Can an Armorer doff their Dreadnaught armor and let the Fighter use it?
After all, RAW: "The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die."
You can customize your Arcane Armor. When you do so, choose one of the following armor models: Dreadnaught, Guardian, or Infiltrator. The model you choose gives you special benefits while you wear it.
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and it has no special benefits.
Can an Armorer doff their Dreadnaught armor and let the Fighter use it?
After all, RAW: "The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die."
You can customize your Arcane Armor. When you do so, choose one of the following armor models: Dreadnaught, Guardian, or Infiltrator. The model you choose gives you special benefits while you wear it.
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and it has no special benefits.
The benefits to the Armorer are enumerated:
No Strength Requirement. Quick Don and Doff. Second Skin. Spellcasting Focus.
I agree by RAW those four benefits and what flows from them -- replacing missing limbs, cannot be removed against wearer's will, etc -- accrue only to the Armorer.
Other benefits of being an armorer -- 20% cost reduction due gaining proficiency with Smith's tools, half crafting time apply to all armors the Armorer works on, though.
And, per RAW, all the other benefits listed for armor model do specify, "you" (the Armorer). Which, while it's balanced, is a bit disappointing. What better party support could an Armorer offer, than blinging up every party member's armor?
But the gist of my question was simply about the armor itself. You craft full plate and can doff and don it as an action each. You can definitely enchant it. Be a shame if you couldn't, say while resting in a Leomund's Tiny Hut, share it with the Fighter when they dash out into danger. Odds are, the Armorer's will always be the best armor in the party, even without the bells and whistles. I see nothing in RAW that interferes with that, until the Armorer dons a different armor (though I imagine donning a shield would not count).
Speaking of which.. donning a shield -- which is a type of armor -- in a silly reading of RAW would grant Second Skin, a helmet, and replacement for missing limbs. How would you rule on that?
You can customize your Arcane Armor. When you do so, choose one of the following armor models: Dreadnaught, Guardian, or Infiltrator. The model you choose gives you special benefits while you wear it.
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and it has no special benefits.
The benefits to the Armorer are enumerated:
No Strength Requirement. Quick Don and Doff. Second Skin. Spellcasting Focus.
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and [the armor] has no special benefits [from Armor Model]. The special weapons don't exist or just don't work. The Giant Stature, Defensive Field, and Powered Steps don't benefit anyone except the Armorer and then, only while wearing the armor.
But the gist of my question was simply about the armor itself. You craft full plate and can doff and don it as an action each. You can definitely enchant it. Be a shame if you couldn't, say while resting in a Leomund's Tiny Hut, share it with the Fighter when they dash out into danger. Odds are, the Armorer's will always be the best armor in the party, even without the bells and whistles. I see nothing in RAW that interferes with that, until the Armorer dons a different armor (though I imagine donning a shield would not count).
You could definitely enchant it and share it, but there is no benefit over just enchanting a separate armor for the fighter, no property from the Arcane Armor carries over to another characters.
Speaking of which.. donning a shield -- which is a type of armor -- in a silly reading of RAW would grant Second Skin, a helmet, and replacement for missing limbs. How would you rule on that?
RAW, Shields and Armor are listed under Armor, but the two are broken out in a couple places.
Armor Category: "Every type of armor falls into a category: Light, Medium, or Heavy." Shields are not listed.
Armor Class: "The table’s Armor Class column tells you what your base AC is when you wear a type of armor." This doesn't apply to shields.
Armor Training: "Anyone can don armor or hold a Shield..."
Light, Medium, or Heavy Armor [Training] and Shield [Training]
From a strictest of strict RAW readings, it's not clear, but I feel RAI is that shields are not armor but shields are closely related with armor and they didn't want to rename the section "Defensive Items" or something.
It seems we largely agree. Shields are in the armor category for crafting, and for inventory lists, but not functionally 'Armor' in the sense of the Artificer Armorer subclass. Perhaps this will get some clarification later on.
The Armorer's special armor, if doffed and loaned to someone else, is just the base armor the Artificer started out with before modifications as described. Which for stealth situations, since it's a 'second skin' might mean with DM's permission sneaking armor past sentries, to give to another party member for whatever plot reason the creative party might have, for instance. I don't pretend this is an important issue.
I still think Dreadnaught would be better to position the Armor Flail as instead a "Gauntlet Grappler" (Aklys) that grips any weapon, giving it the Reach property for the Armorer if the weapon lacks the Reach property normally. Perhaps some other advantages, like fast draw, grappler on either gauntlet for dual wielding, granting proficiency, or weapon mastery could go along with this feature at levels 6 and 14.
I still think Dreadnaught would be better to position the Armor Flail as instead a "Gauntlet Grappler" (Aklys) that grips any weapon, giving it the Reach property for the Armorer if the weapon lacks the Reach property normally. Perhaps some other advantages, like fast draw, grappler on either gauntlet for dual wielding, granting proficiency, or weapon mastery could go along with this feature at levels 6 and 14.
The Dreadnaught feels super awkward to me. I don't feel it's cohesively themed. Flight, enlargement, and push/pull? It seems a bit too all over the place. I feel like it needs a charge ability, knock down ability, or something grapply instead of push/pull, the flight feels inappropriate, and increased reach could wind up being a hindrance (allowing enemies to more easily move within your reach. I don't know. I don't really know how to change it so it sits well with me.
Dreadnaught = Gundam? Voltron? Zord? Autobot? Iron Man? Steampunk construct?
I believe it is very thematic of many fantasy types. I don't disagree that binding the advancement to Flight alone is the right way to go; maybe if there were a menu of options reconfigured after a Short Rest?
I think the fixes are to treat the weapons as weapons, for all the armor options. Instead of Thunder Gauntlets, let the gauntlets on the other two suits act like metamagic for cantrips, and give the armorer one or two extra cantrips while in armor. That way the character can tailor their armor attacks to not just vanilla mandatory options.
the dmg and phb do not make any distinction between whether you can find an item in a dungeon and whether you can craft it. That is what you think should be the case, but its not a rule. whether you can find +1s of items is irrelevant to the existance of items, many items dont have plus versions.
Its questionable whether soul knife is an item, but even if it is, its fine, a soulblade, by definition ceases to exist after You hit or miss. Its stats are not special if you are not a rogue. So crafting them is not an issue. spend time and effort crafting a 1 shot soulblade if you wish.
you will also find things like shadowblade disapear after the spells duration, by definition.
you say they disapear when You remove your armor, but i dont see that anywhere. you are saying what you think the rules are, not what they say. items that disappear, like soulblades and shadow blades specifically say that.
the only thing that is said is that you can recustomize your armor when you rest. Its implied that your armor is customized until you recustomize it, or you make a new arcane armor, not that anything disappears when you take it off.
crafting is meant to be a tool for creating items, by the rules, the main issue with crafting these items is the DM would have to determine the materials, tools or rarity, but thats true for many things.
the dmg and phb do not make any distinction between whether you can find an item in a dungeon and whether you can craft it. That is what you think should be the case, but its not a rule. whether you can find +1s of items is irrelevant to the existance of items, many items dont have plus versions.
I think you were responding to me. Psychic knives are class features and are not equipment you find as loot. They do not exist outside of the Soulknife that manifests them.
you say they disapear when You remove your armor, but i dont see that anywhere. you are saying what you think the rules are, not what they say. items that disappear, like soulblades and shadow blades specifically say that.
That is an assumption on my part. I guess. The Armor Model gives you special benefits while you wear it. This includes the Armor Flail, Thunder Gauntlets, and Lightning Launchers. While you are not wearing the armor, you do not have the benefit of the special weapons.
Again, the special weapons are class features, not independent equipment and cannot be crafted, enchanted, bought, or sold. They only exist for the Artificer. At most they exist while the armor is customized for a certain Arcane Model, but potentially they only exist while the armor is worn by the Artificer. They are not even available to another Artificer who dons the armor without making it their Arcane Armor with the same Armor Customization.
crafting is meant to be a tool for creating items, by the rules, the main issue with crafting these items is the DM would have to determine the materials, tools or rarity, but thats true for many things.
It's not true for any weapon that can be crafted. They have predefined costs. Psychic knives, and Armorer special weapons do not because they are not equipment, they are class features.
I'm rapidly becoming less enamored with playtest Artificer.
A Sidekick Spellcaster Wizard has all the spellcasting abilities of an Artificer. A Kobold Inventor sidekick wizard would be functionally superior to an Artificer Alchemist.
I'm hoping the next version integrates Expertise for the class at level one, and for the martial subclasses Weapon Mastery, and the Light and Heavy weapon properties for all armorer armor weapons, perhaps enhanced darts, one-handed-crossbows, and a reach-extender for infiltrator, guardian, and dreadnaught.
Chromatic Orb and CME would give the flavor of the type of inventive versatility the class should exhibit, though I understand not wanting to step on Wizard's and Druid's toes.. since CME isn't class-unique (as Druids already get it too), where's the harm in Artificer's getting it in late game?
The playtest artificer is starting to feel... weird.
If we look at other half-casters, we have paladins and rangers to compare with. Both of them wear their martial ancestry on their sleeves, with built-in Extra Attack and many features driving their attacks, with some utility sprinkled into the mix. They have spells, but they're only a limited part of the class (or arguably as uses per day for the paladin's smiting business).
Artificers, on the other hand, used to have a set of custom options in how you wanted to style the class (similar to the warlock). Now, with the playtest, Artificers essentially just have more money than other classes, that is earmarked for crafting gear. The benefits of this varies wildly depending on the campaign. If you get tons of money and items, then this feature is... less than impressive. In a low-magic, low-wealth campaign, it is disproportionally stronger.
Also, increasingly weirdly, the two Artificer subclasses that leans more towards the caster side, Alchemist and Artillerist, have features that ask them to burn through their spell-slots to get additional uses of their class features, meaning that the Armorer and Battle Smith ends up with more available spell slots in any given day. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That the more martial subclasses get ways to spend their spell-slots to enhance their combat prowess, and the caster subclasses get incentivised to cast their spells instead of using their slots to recharge a cannon or serve up some more drinks?
I really feel that the class ought to be the master of magic items (seeing as they have a feature that says as much), where they can get MORE out of the items they find, by tinkering and adding additional features to them. Expand on the Infusion mechanic, instead of tying so much of the class' mechanics to something shared by every character with some gold to spare.
So, yeah, the playtest Artificer feels weird :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think that would be a houseruling thing. Weapons +1/2 dont mention the artificers stuff. i think raw it is like going to dndbeyond search weapon +1 or +2 and you will see the list of possibilities it isnt any weapon. otherwise think about it that way: your armor has the built in ones and you craft a second set of thunder gauntlets? also the special weapons of the armor are only weapons while your hands are empty. so what happens to the weapons if they arent? does the replication break? is it suspended?
Come to think about it even in the current one it isnt explicit what happens to the infusion if you grab an item even temporarily. even after lvl9. my artificer is lvl7 so I cant even infuse them yet to worry about it ( i got the +1 on the armor and am wearing gauntlets of ogre strength so cant infuse them even at 9).
I'd be more in favour of having the weapons inherit their +X from the suit of armor so if you find a +3 you could get even +3 to the weapons since they are a part of it. (forcing you to choose between armor sets more carefully)
I respect where you're coming from, but RAW doesn't say you can't enchant "components", or you couldn't have magic ammunition for weapons on that principle.
UA calls the Armorer weapons, "weapon". It's explicit in that:
What if instead of "Armor Flail", the feature were "Armor Grapple", or "Aklys" for those who remember Second Edition.
Then the "Armor Grapple" would hold any weapon (otherwise act as Unarmed Strike or Grapple), give the Armorer the ability to use Intelligence modifier instead of Strength or Dexterity for attack and damage rolls, and add 10' Reach property if the weapon doesn't already have it.
Solves all the problems about whether it's enchantable or not. True, you lose that juicy 1d10 one-handed weapon (2d6 'Perfected'), but maybe if you got to apply Weapon Mastery to the weapon's property (gaining the Push of Wrecking Ball if the weapon has Push), or like some subclasses gain weapon proficiency with a special weapon (Samurai, Blade Singer, some bards, Pact Warlock) while in your "Armor Grapple" -- or both?
This would be a neat way to make rope darts, dagger whips, chain swords, meteor hammers; you could even put them on both gauntlets for dual wielding.
Thoughts?
It doesn't say that you can and ammunition is not a component. A bow string is a component. An arrow is an independent object.
These weapons don't exist outside of a class feature. You can't hand them to your buddy. The class feature creates them attached to your armor and there is no guarantee that you can unequip them without unequipping your armor. There is certainly no allowance for you to equip a replacement.
A Pact of the Blade Warlock cannot summon and wield Armorer special weapons as their pact weapon because they are not independent equipment. They are class features that use equipment mechanics.
Even if you could spend time creating magical versions, you could only do so while the armor is equipped and once the armor is doffed, the enchanted weapons would disappear forever.
How to add Tooltips.
They are weapons, and defined as weapons, the weapon+1+2+3 says you can make any weapon, simple or martial. Your statement that you can’t independent craft them isn’t said anywhere.
The dmg literally says any weapon simple or martial for weapon+1+2+3
you are assuming a lot of you can’t do this based on no rules. Nothing says that your crafted weapons would disappear when doffed. they specifically are vague here, likely because they know for some this is pure magic, and for others this is tinkering and tech. They said you can customize the arcane armor, they didn’t say by what means it’s occurring, or what happens to Them.
pact of the blade couldn’t really use these things because they are described as being used with the arcane armor they don’t have. If you had an armorer/pact of the blade warlock, I don’t doubt their armorer weapons could be their pact weapons.
d10
A Soulknife's Psychic Blades, manifestations of shimmering psychic energy, are simple melee weapons. They are not equipment. You cannot find +1/+2/+3 versions lying around dungeons.
Just like the Soulknife's Psychic Blades, the Armorer's special weapons are class features that use weapon mechanics, but are not equipment that you can craft or find. They appear on your Arcane Armor when you wear it, disappear when you remove the armor, and can never exist in any other manner.
You cannot take up Smith's Tools, pay half their cost, and craft yourself a spare set. They only way that they could be magical is via Infusions (non-UA Artificer) and the level 9 Armor Modifications Class Feature or possibly some leveled spells, like Magic Weapon. In the UA version, you can't summon them with Replicate Magic Item, and it is less clear if you can target them with spells like Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon because the level 9 feature no longer spells out that the special weapons are separate items.
3.Xe had Armor spikes and Shield spikes that could be independently enchanted as weapons on a defensive item. In addition, I believe shields could be explicitly enchanted for defense (AC) or offense (Shield Bashes), but you had to choose. I am not aware of any allowance for a part of an item to be enchanted independently from the whole in 5e. The UA Armorer has mundane Arcane Armor with mundane special weapons or magic Arcane Armor with mundane special weapons and those are the only options.
How to add Tooltips.
You do raise an interesting question.
Can an Armorer doff their Dreadnaught armor and let the Fighter use it?
After all, RAW: "The armor continues to be Arcane Armor until you don another suit of armor or you die."
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and it has no special benefits.
How to add Tooltips.
I agree. If the Artificer puts it back on, it's still the Dreadnaught armor for them, but if anyone else puts it on, it simply functions as whatever base armor it originally was.
The benefits to the Armorer are enumerated:
No Strength Requirement. Quick Don and Doff. Second Skin. Spellcasting Focus.
I agree by RAW those four benefits and what flows from them -- replacing missing limbs, cannot be removed against wearer's will, etc -- accrue only to the Armorer.
Other benefits of being an armorer -- 20% cost reduction due gaining proficiency with Smith's tools, half crafting time apply to all armors the Armorer works on, though.
And, per RAW, all the other benefits listed for armor model do specify, "you" (the Armorer). Which, while it's balanced, is a bit disappointing. What better party support could an Armorer offer, than blinging up every party member's armor?
But the gist of my question was simply about the armor itself. You craft full plate and can doff and don it as an action each. You can definitely enchant it. Be a shame if you couldn't, say while resting in a Leomund's Tiny Hut, share it with the Fighter when they dash out into danger. Odds are, the Armorer's will always be the best armor in the party, even without the bells and whistles. I see nothing in RAW that interferes with that, until the Armorer dons a different armor (though I imagine donning a shield would not count).
Speaking of which.. donning a shield -- which is a type of armor -- in a silly reading of RAW would grant Second Skin, a helmet, and replacement for missing limbs. How would you rule on that?
If the fighter is wearing it, the artificer is not and [the armor] has no special benefits [from Armor Model]. The special weapons don't exist or just don't work. The Giant Stature, Defensive Field, and Powered Steps don't benefit anyone except the Armorer and then, only while wearing the armor.
You could definitely enchant it and share it, but there is no benefit over just enchanting a separate armor for the fighter, no property from the Arcane Armor carries over to another characters.
RAW, Shields and Armor are listed under Armor, but the two are broken out in a couple places.
From a strictest of strict RAW readings, it's not clear, but I feel RAI is that shields are not armor but shields are closely related with armor and they didn't want to rename the section "Defensive Items" or something.
How to add Tooltips.
It seems we largely agree. Shields are in the armor category for crafting, and for inventory lists, but not functionally 'Armor' in the sense of the Artificer Armorer subclass. Perhaps this will get some clarification later on.
The Armorer's special armor, if doffed and loaned to someone else, is just the base armor the Artificer started out with before modifications as described. Which for stealth situations, since it's a 'second skin' might mean with DM's permission sneaking armor past sentries, to give to another party member for whatever plot reason the creative party might have, for instance. I don't pretend this is an important issue.
I still think Dreadnaught would be better to position the Armor Flail as instead a "Gauntlet Grappler" (Aklys) that grips any weapon, giving it the Reach property for the Armorer if the weapon lacks the Reach property normally. Perhaps some other advantages, like fast draw, grappler on either gauntlet for dual wielding, granting proficiency, or weapon mastery could go along with this feature at levels 6 and 14.
The Dreadnaught feels super awkward to me. I don't feel it's cohesively themed. Flight, enlargement, and push/pull? It seems a bit too all over the place. I feel like it needs a charge ability, knock down ability, or something grapply instead of push/pull, the flight feels inappropriate, and increased reach could wind up being a hindrance (allowing enemies to more easily move within your reach. I don't know. I don't really know how to change it so it sits well with me.
How to add Tooltips.
Dreadnaught = Gundam? Voltron? Zord? Autobot? Iron Man? Steampunk construct?
I believe it is very thematic of many fantasy types. I don't disagree that binding the advancement to Flight alone is the right way to go; maybe if there were a menu of options reconfigured after a Short Rest?
I think the fixes are to treat the weapons as weapons, for all the armor options. Instead of Thunder Gauntlets, let the gauntlets on the other two suits act like metamagic for cantrips, and give the armorer one or two extra cantrips while in armor. That way the character can tailor their armor attacks to not just vanilla mandatory options.
the dmg and phb do not make any distinction between whether you can find an item in a dungeon and whether you can craft it. That is what you think should be the case, but its not a rule. whether you can find +1s of items is irrelevant to the existance of items, many items dont have plus versions.
Its questionable whether soul knife is an item, but even if it is, its fine, a soulblade, by definition ceases to exist after You hit or miss. Its stats are not special if you are not a rogue. So crafting them is not an issue. spend time and effort crafting a 1 shot soulblade if you wish.
you will also find things like shadowblade disapear after the spells duration, by definition.
you say they disapear when You remove your armor, but i dont see that anywhere. you are saying what you think the rules are, not what they say. items that disappear, like soulblades and shadow blades specifically say that.
the only thing that is said is that you can recustomize your armor when you rest. Its implied that your armor is customized until you recustomize it, or you make a new arcane armor, not that anything disappears when you take it off.
crafting is meant to be a tool for creating items, by the rules, the main issue with crafting these items is the DM would have to determine the materials, tools or rarity, but thats true for many things.
I think you were responding to me. Psychic knives are class features and are not equipment you find as loot. They do not exist outside of the Soulknife that manifests them.
You also cannot craft and enchant a Shadowblade and you will not find +1/+2/+3 Shadowblades lying about dungeons as loot.
That is an assumption on my part. I guess. The Armor Model gives you special benefits while you wear it. This includes the Armor Flail, Thunder Gauntlets, and Lightning Launchers. While you are not wearing the armor, you do not have the benefit of the special weapons.
Again, the special weapons are class features, not independent equipment and cannot be crafted, enchanted, bought, or sold. They only exist for the Artificer. At most they exist while the armor is customized for a certain Arcane Model, but potentially they only exist while the armor is worn by the Artificer. They are not even available to another Artificer who dons the armor without making it their Arcane Armor with the same Armor Customization.
It's not true for any weapon that can be crafted. They have predefined costs. Psychic knives, and Armorer special weapons do not because they are not equipment, they are class features.
How to add Tooltips.
I'm rapidly becoming less enamored with playtest Artificer.
A Sidekick Spellcaster Wizard has all the spellcasting abilities of an Artificer. A Kobold Inventor sidekick wizard would be functionally superior to an Artificer Alchemist.
I'm hoping the next version integrates Expertise for the class at level one, and for the martial subclasses Weapon Mastery, and the Light and Heavy weapon properties for all armorer armor weapons, perhaps enhanced darts, one-handed-crossbows, and a reach-extender for infiltrator, guardian, and dreadnaught.
Chromatic Orb and CME would give the flavor of the type of inventive versatility the class should exhibit, though I understand not wanting to step on Wizard's and Druid's toes.. since CME isn't class-unique (as Druids already get it too), where's the harm in Artificer's getting it in late game?
The playtest artificer is starting to feel... weird.
If we look at other half-casters, we have paladins and rangers to compare with. Both of them wear their martial ancestry on their sleeves, with built-in Extra Attack and many features driving their attacks, with some utility sprinkled into the mix. They have spells, but they're only a limited part of the class (or arguably as uses per day for the paladin's smiting business).
Artificers, on the other hand, used to have a set of custom options in how you wanted to style the class (similar to the warlock). Now, with the playtest, Artificers essentially just have more money than other classes, that is earmarked for crafting gear. The benefits of this varies wildly depending on the campaign. If you get tons of money and items, then this feature is... less than impressive. In a low-magic, low-wealth campaign, it is disproportionally stronger.
Also, increasingly weirdly, the two Artificer subclasses that leans more towards the caster side, Alchemist and Artillerist, have features that ask them to burn through their spell-slots to get additional uses of their class features, meaning that the Armorer and Battle Smith ends up with more available spell slots in any given day. Shouldn't it be the other way around? That the more martial subclasses get ways to spend their spell-slots to enhance their combat prowess, and the caster subclasses get incentivised to cast their spells instead of using their slots to recharge a cannon or serve up some more drinks?
I really feel that the class ought to be the master of magic items (seeing as they have a feature that says as much), where they can get MORE out of the items they find, by tinkering and adding additional features to them. Expand on the Infusion mechanic, instead of tying so much of the class' mechanics to something shared by every character with some gold to spare.
So, yeah, the playtest Artificer feels weird :)