Anyone else find the Infiltrator damage pairing odd? Lightning? How does that fit with stealth? Plus the improved version literally lights up the area. And infiltrator seems like the perfect armor set to have fly on as well, not the Dreadnought (clearly they were trying for an ironman theme that doesn't make sense here).
Oddly, it looks like an Artificer can't use Replicate Magic Item to create any rods or staffs of Uncommon or higher rarity.
They CAN create common rods or staffs (like a Rod of the Pact Keeper, or ... a Staff of Birdcalls, I guess) because the Level +2 table doesn't place any restrictions on magic item categories other than no potions/scrolls/cursed items). However, for the Level 6+, 10+ and 14+ tables, the only categories that aren't covered are rods and staffs (staves?).
Does this seem like a deliberate choice for some reason? Or just an oversight?
There is a video I saw of a guy in a government facility who walks up and touches an electric fan with an exposed wire. As soon as he touches it his body locks up and he is dying. A guy right next to him didn’t even notice the guy was dying. So yes lightning damage can be stealthy.
DnD has Lightning and Thunder as separate damage types. Note how the Thunderwave spell explicitly causes loud noise, but the Lightning Bolt spell does not.
There is a video I saw of a guy in a government facility who walks up and touches an electric fan with an exposed wire. As soon as he touches it his body locks up and he is dying. A guy right next to him didn’t even notice the guy was dying. So yes lightning damage can be stealthy.
You know why it was quiet? It wasn't arcing. The game ability is an electric arc. Show me a quiet electrical arc. Show me an electrical arc that doesn't light up an area and doesn't scream 'look this way!'
Also Ignoring the extra big bright flashy marker of the improved version.
How does this sound as a direction to take Artificer: make Artificer a class-independent subclass for any character it's theme-appropriate.
Does your world have raging barbaric dwarves who bang out artillery pieces on their anvils and then run wild with them in battle? Barbarian Artificer Artillerist.
A minstrel who's stolen arcane secrets to pack into her rapier for extra flash and bang? Bard Artificer Battle Smith.
A cleric who hands around curatives in bottles in the name of a god of Knowledge, Life, or Magic? Cleric Artificer Alchemist.
Cunning sword-and-board sappers trained to charge up to a wall and demolish it with a wrecking ball? Fighter Artificer Armorer.
Not multiclass, because Artificer as it stands now lacks the elements of a real class anymore following the 2024 changes to how Species, Backgrounds, and General Feats integrate with the 12 classes they were designed for.
I skimmed and didn't see it here, but does anyone actually like the UA Artificer?
I mostly like it.
Oh, wonderful. I generally find myself appreciating your opinions on the forums. I have seen a lot of criticism of the Artificer, but as someone who has never really cared about 2014 Artificer one way or another, I am not really sure how to feel about them. I have seen what appears to be thoughtful complaints though and would love to see that contrasted with an opposing opinion from someone invested in the Artificer. Do you have a post where you talk about the specific things you like? If not, would you be willing to risk sharing what it is you like about it?
I skimmed and didn't see it here, but does anyone actually like the UA Artificer?
I mostly like it.
Oh, wonderful. I generally find myself appreciating your opinions on the forums. I have seen a lot of criticism of the Artificer, but as someone who has never really cared about 2014 Artificer one way or another, I am not really sure how to feel about them. I have seen what appears to be thoughtful complaints though and would love to see that contrasted with an opposing opinion from someone invested in the Artificer. Do you have a post where you talk about the specific things you like? If not, would you be willing to risk sharing what it is you like about it?
My opinions on this are not very strong, but I'll take a crack at it.
1) The Tasha's Artificer was already partially tuned to 2024 levels --- it's obvious that some of its caster features were prototypes for 2024, at least. So it didn't need as much as an overhaul as some of the other classes did to match up. The base class is already, like, the best support class, and a half caster, and had the potential for the highest ACs in game, etc. (DPS is not everything.) I happen to like the core identity of the class-as-is, so I don't have a problem with the UA version that doesn't reinvent the class fantasy.
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.
5) Most of the noise is, same as when Tasha's came out, about how people hate random elixirs. I don't get the hate (it makes sense for the alchemist concept) and the UA makes the feature more powerful and a little bit less random.
5) Most of the noise is, same as when Tasha's came out, about how people hate random elixirs. I don't get the hate (it makes sense for the alchemist concept) and the UA makes the feature more powerful and a little bit less random.
I disagree that it makes sense, it's never made sense to me.
What about alchemy makes it's fundamentally less reliable than other magic or arcane research? Am I missing some inherent D&D lore here that explains this, that makes it fundamentally coherent? Chemistry, the real world parallel to alchemy, isn't random. The same chemicals in the same ratios under the same conditions produce the same results. A 1d6 only rolls the same number 1/6 of the time. If it's an issue of not knowing the necessary conditions to produce the same results how come the Alchemist doesn't learn how to account for these variables? If it's an issue of being more difficult doing this on the road then why does Experimental Elixir have the exact same odds in a dungeon that it has within a pristine laboratory?
What trope is the Alchemist meant to fulfill? It's not mad science (or if it is it fails at it, HARD), there's no chance for accidental explosions or horrendous mutations. The accidents have no consequences, the random roll has no teeth! This isn't wild magic it's mild magic. It's half-assed, feels pointless and like it's just there to make things annoying. If it's meant to fulfill the mad scientist trope. Make it MORE random! Make a d100 table! If it's not meant to fulfill this trope then take the pointless randomness away, or find some other way to give the randomness a point. If the only reason is to have an excuse to roll a d6, I can just cast Acid Splash at any time. Or hell. Just roll dice without attaching a function to it.
Why does the Alchemist feel like it operates under a handicap compared to the other subclasses? The Artillerist never has to roll to select their Eldritch cannon type (hell they can change it every round now), the Armorer never accidentally makes their armor Infiltrator mode when they choose make it the Guardian model. The effects of the Elixirs are certainly useful, but I don't think any of the options are a runaway source of gamebreaking tomfoolery. And even then if they were broken to allow the answer would be to address the effects individually, not slap a dice roll on the mechanic and call it a day.
Why does the Alchemist feel like it never learns how to do its job? The Alchemist only approaches actual control over their desired elixir by either volume (more elixirs), random chance (rolling a 6) or by expending extra effort (a spell slot). That bizarre complication is unique to the Alchemist and I don't feel like it's justified.
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.
5) Most of the noise is, same as when Tasha's came out, about how people hate random elixirs. I don't get the hate (it makes sense for the alchemist concept) and the UA makes the feature more powerful and a little bit less random.
I disagree that it makes sense, it's never made sense to me. What about alchemy makes it's fundamentally less reliable than other magic or arcane research? Am I missing some inherent D&D lore here that explains this, that makes it fundamentally coherent? Chemistry, the real world parallel to alchemy, isn't random. The same chemicals in the same ratios under the same conditions produce the same results.
(I don't want to get into some back and forth about taste. I think it's fine; you don't; that's OK. But I will at least explain what I mean.)
It fits the concept for me because it's (conceptually and handwavily) based on ingredients, and you can only use the ingredients you happen to find. Chemistry produces the same results from the same reactants, but you can't always find the same reactants "in the wild." And they didn't want to make it feel store-bought. Want a particular effect? Burn a spell slot, like everyone else.
It's not less reliable at all. It's just less controllable. Alchemists get to have a grab bag of free goodies that they can pass out, with a fair amount of variety, rather than always using the same favorites each time. I think that's a fine and fitting character idea, that matches up with "alchemy" concepts in other games and media, and more interesting that just "wizard with potion bottles."
5) Most of the noise is, same as when Tasha's came out, about how people hate random elixirs. I don't get the hate (it makes sense for the alchemist concept) and the UA makes the feature more powerful and a little bit less random.
I disagree that it makes sense, it's never made sense to me. What about alchemy makes it's fundamentally less reliable than other magic or arcane research? Am I missing some inherent D&D lore here that explains this, that makes it fundamentally coherent? Chemistry, the real world parallel to alchemy, isn't random. The same chemicals in the same ratios under the same conditions produce the same results.
(I don't want to get into some back and forth about taste. I think it's fine; you don't; that's OK. But I will at least explain what I mean.)
It fits the concept for me because it's (conceptually and handwavily) based on ingredients, and you can only use the ingredients you happen to find. Chemistry produces the same results from the same reactants, but you can't always find the same reactants "in the wild." And they didn't want to make it feel store-bought. Want a particular effect? Burn a spell slot, like everyone else.
It's not less reliable at all. It's just less controllable. Alchemists get to have a grab bag of free goodies that they can pass out, with a fair amount of variety, rather than always using the same favorites each time. I think that's a fine and fitting character idea, that matches up with "alchemy" concepts in other games and media, and more interesting that just "wizard with potion bottles."
I can respect that, thanks for the explanation. I also don't want to get into a huge back and forth.
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?
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.
Anyone else find the Infiltrator damage pairing odd? Lightning? How does that fit with stealth? Plus the improved version literally lights up the area.
And infiltrator seems like the perfect armor set to have fly on as well, not the Dreadnought (clearly they were trying for an ironman theme that doesn't make sense here).
taser or ranged taser to prevent loud guns?
Oddly, it looks like an Artificer can't use Replicate Magic Item to create any rods or staffs of Uncommon or higher rarity.
They CAN create common rods or staffs (like a Rod of the Pact Keeper, or ... a Staff of Birdcalls, I guess) because the Level +2 table doesn't place any restrictions on magic item categories other than no potions/scrolls/cursed items). However, for the Level 6+, 10+ and 14+ tables, the only categories that aren't covered are rods and staffs (staves?).
Does this seem like a deliberate choice for some reason? Or just an oversight?
Or... am I missing something?
Taser's aren't quiet.
There is a video I saw of a guy in a government facility who walks up and touches an electric fan with an exposed wire. As soon as he touches it his body locks up and he is dying. A guy right next to him didn’t even notice the guy was dying. So yes lightning damage can be stealthy.
Ignoring the big bright flashy marker of the improved version.
And can it be quiet. Sometimes. Is it always, most of the time? No.
DnD has Lightning and Thunder as separate damage types. Note how the Thunderwave spell explicitly causes loud noise, but the Lightning Bolt spell does not.
You know why it was quiet? It wasn't arcing. The game ability is an electric arc. Show me a quiet electrical arc. Show me an electrical arc that doesn't light up an area and doesn't scream 'look this way!'
Also Ignoring the extra big bright flashy marker of the improved version.
It does not fit infiltration to me.
How does this sound as a direction to take Artificer: make Artificer a class-independent subclass for any character it's theme-appropriate.
Does your world have raging barbaric dwarves who bang out artillery pieces on their anvils and then run wild with them in battle? Barbarian Artificer Artillerist.
A minstrel who's stolen arcane secrets to pack into her rapier for extra flash and bang? Bard Artificer Battle Smith.
A cleric who hands around curatives in bottles in the name of a god of Knowledge, Life, or Magic? Cleric Artificer Alchemist.
Cunning sword-and-board sappers trained to charge up to a wall and demolish it with a wrecking ball? Fighter Artificer Armorer.
Not multiclass, because Artificer as it stands now lacks the elements of a real class anymore following the 2024 changes to how Species, Backgrounds, and General Feats integrate with the 12 classes they were designed for.
Thoughts?
I skimmed and didn't see it here, but does anyone actually like the UA Artificer?
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
I mostly like it.
Oh, wonderful. I generally find myself appreciating your opinions on the forums. I have seen a lot of criticism of the Artificer, but as someone who has never really cared about 2014 Artificer one way or another, I am not really sure how to feel about them. I have seen what appears to be thoughtful complaints though and would love to see that contrasted with an opposing opinion from someone invested in the Artificer. Do you have a post where you talk about the specific things you like? If not, would you be willing to risk sharing what it is you like about it?
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
My opinions on this are not very strong, but I'll take a crack at it.
1) The Tasha's Artificer was already partially tuned to 2024 levels --- it's obvious that some of its caster features were prototypes for 2024, at least. So it didn't need as much as an overhaul as some of the other classes did to match up. The base class is already, like, the best support class, and a half caster, and had the potential for the highest ACs in game, etc. (DPS is not everything.) I happen to like the core identity of the class-as-is, so I don't have a problem with the UA version that doesn't reinvent the class fantasy.
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.
5) Most of the noise is, same as when Tasha's came out, about how people hate random elixirs. I don't get the hate (it makes sense for the alchemist concept) and the UA makes the feature more powerful and a little bit less random.
I disagree that it makes sense, it's never made sense to me.
What about alchemy makes it's fundamentally less reliable than other magic or arcane research? Am I missing some inherent D&D lore here that explains this, that makes it fundamentally coherent? Chemistry, the real world parallel to alchemy, isn't random. The same chemicals in the same ratios under the same conditions produce the same results. A 1d6 only rolls the same number 1/6 of the time. If it's an issue of not knowing the necessary conditions to produce the same results how come the Alchemist doesn't learn how to account for these variables? If it's an issue of being more difficult doing this on the road then why does Experimental Elixir have the exact same odds in a dungeon that it has within a pristine laboratory?
What trope is the Alchemist meant to fulfill? It's not mad science (or if it is it fails at it, HARD), there's no chance for accidental explosions or horrendous mutations. The accidents have no consequences, the random roll has no teeth! This isn't wild magic it's mild magic. It's half-assed, feels pointless and like it's just there to make things annoying. If it's meant to fulfill the mad scientist trope. Make it MORE random! Make a d100 table! If it's not meant to fulfill this trope then take the pointless randomness away, or find some other way to give the randomness a point. If the only reason is to have an excuse to roll a d6, I can just cast Acid Splash at any time. Or hell. Just roll dice without attaching a function to it.
Why does the Alchemist feel like it operates under a handicap compared to the other subclasses? The Artillerist never has to roll to select their Eldritch cannon type (hell they can change it every round now), the Armorer never accidentally makes their armor Infiltrator mode when they choose make it the Guardian model. The effects of the Elixirs are certainly useful, but I don't think any of the options are a runaway source of gamebreaking tomfoolery. And even then if they were broken to allow the answer would be to address the effects individually, not slap a dice roll on the mechanic and call it a day.
Why does the Alchemist feel like it never learns how to do its job? The Alchemist only approaches actual control over their desired elixir by either volume (more elixirs), random chance (rolling a 6) or by expending extra effort (a spell slot). That bizarre complication is unique to the Alchemist and I don't feel like it's justified.
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.
How to add Tooltips.
(I don't want to get into some back and forth about taste. I think it's fine; you don't; that's OK. But I will at least explain what I mean.)
It fits the concept for me because it's (conceptually and handwavily) based on ingredients, and you can only use the ingredients you happen to find. Chemistry produces the same results from the same reactants, but you can't always find the same reactants "in the wild." And they didn't want to make it feel store-bought. Want a particular effect? Burn a spell slot, like everyone else.
It's not less reliable at all. It's just less controllable. Alchemists get to have a grab bag of free goodies that they can pass out, with a fair amount of variety, rather than always using the same favorites each time. I think that's a fine and fitting character idea, that matches up with "alchemy" concepts in other games and media, and more interesting that just "wizard with potion bottles."
I can respect that, thanks for the explanation. I also don't want to get into a huge back and forth.
I really, really hope they do something with Magical Tinkering so it goes back to being magical. I have really enjoyed finding creative uses for it.
I did my part, submitted my form.
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.
How to add Tooltips.