Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game. DMs don't need to consider new options outside this list unless they wish to expand it themselves.
Cons of Infusions:
We only see new options (outside of Common magic items which are inconsequential), when the Artificer gets reprinted. Now it's entirely possible for a book to include new Artificer infusion... it would be as simple as a small list of named magic items in a table when the book comes out or adding a simple tag or asterisk with a footnote that "[RMI 6] Indicates that this item is added to the list of an artificers options in Replicate Magic Item at 6th level." Etc. There's simple easy, minimal page-space possible ways to include new features for the Artificer.
But because the infusion mechanic does not require anyone to consider the Artificer, the Artificer just isn't considered at all when it comes to new content. And in over 4 years since the Artificer's most recent release in Tasha's not a single magic item was added to their list (outside of common items because they are inconsequential). There have been a couple of spells added to their list but no one seems to think of adding new magic items to the "magic item guy" class.
Pros of UA Replicate Magic Item:
Much larger and wider list of options from the get go. By having the list based on factors common to all magic items then when new magic items are released they automatically become candidates for Replicate Magic Item. The Artificer's options grow even if WoTC outright forget that Artificers exist.
Cons of UA Replicate Magic Item:
Primarily balance. And for adventure designers concerned about balance it puts the onus on them to consider the Artificer when releasing content, instead of ignoring them as has been the status quo. For DMs concerned about balance it puts the onus on them to examine new items and veto their inclusion in RMI in advance, or to simply ban the Artificer from their table.
In my mind the proper solution to this balance issue would be to actually balance magic items by their rarity... but since the 2024 DMG has already released that ship has sailed and it's not likely to ever occur this edition.
My Conclusion:
I reeeaallly like the new Replicate Magic Item precisely because of how conveniently open it is but I agree in its current state it's extremely exploitable and we likely won't see it survive UA.
As you said, the easiest solution would be a magic-item balance pass. But this will then go out the window when new Books release, because there are no guidelines to set rarity.
There is no system in place like "this item has just one cosmetic effect -> it is common" "this item has +1d4 to 1d6 extra damage -> it is uncommon" "this item allows the user to cast spell x -> this item now requires attunement".
to really make replicate magic item work, a set of guidelines are required, and not a random roll or a story reason. yeah this item is maybe unique because it is wielded by the king, but in the end it is just a +1 sword with +1d6 fire damage, so it should not be classified as "legendary" just because it is unique.
but items in general are problematic.
lets take the full plate for example, it costs 1500gp, but the only difference is +1AC when compared to a Splint, which is worth 200gp.
a Maul weighs 10lb, it is a big metal cube on a stick. a pike weighs 18lb, which is just a short blade on a stick. a trident, which is 3 blades on a stick, weighs only 4lb. firearms cost 250gp to 500gp, 5-10x more than any other weapon, yet they are mostly inferior to other ranged weapons due to their extremely short range, less than even a hand crossbow.
items overall feel like someone rolled a dice, and never really cared about logical balance. so a class that makes items can never be balanced.
Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game.
Requiring physical mundane objects has no significant impact on balance, but removes the item conjurer aspect of the UA Replicate Magic Item. The preexisting items could be store bought or crafted by the PC.
It might be interesting to have a more granular table and giving the Player +1 level for effects if the infused item was crafted by them. However, that would be a whole new can of balance worms.
Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game.
Requiring physical mundane objects has no significant impact on balance, but removes the item conjurer aspect of the UA Replicate Magic Item. The preexisting items could be store bought or crafted by the PC.
It might be interesting to have a more granular table and giving the Player +1 level for effects if the infused item was crafted by them. However, that would be a whole new can of balance worms.
Requiring the mundane item avoids the scenario of conjuring full plate armor as a common magic item (such as Cast-Off Armor or Armor of Gleaming) instead of paying the full 1500 gp. That's basically all I meant by that specific mention when I brought up balance. The curated list has a much larger balance impact overall.
Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game.
Requiring physical mundane objects has no significant impact on balance, but removes the item conjurer aspect of the UA Replicate Magic Item. The preexisting items could be store bought or crafted by the PC.
It might be interesting to have a more granular table and giving the Player +1 level for effects if the infused item was crafted by them. However, that would be a whole new can of balance worms.
Requiring the mundane item avoids the scenario of conjuring full plate armor as a common magic item (such as Cast-Off Armor or Armor of Gleaming) instead of paying the full 1500 gp. That's basically all I meant by that specific mention when I brought up balance. The curated list has a much larger balance impact overall.
It also impacts the Drain Magic Item, as mentioned before.
An Infused Item just turns back into a normal item. So you are left with a regular Sword instead of a +1 Sword. A Conjured Item poofs out of existance. You are now unarmed and need to find a new Weapon somewhere.
It can be beneficial too, lets say you are affected by Heat Metal, so you are cooked alive if you cant interrupt the Caster. Poof, armor is gone, no more damage.
Thanks very much to SgtBlaze for an excellent OP in this thread, really thoughtfully written and I hugely agree. I hope it will be read by people working on this UA. Between the timing and the format of the survey I don't think my submitted feedback was nearly what I wanted it to be.
I really really love the 2014 Magical Tinkering feature and the longer I've had it the more fun it is. I get that it doesn't read as that interesting in the book but playing Artificer in tight spots has gotten me to mine that feature again and again. I hadn't even thought about how beautifully it would pair with an invisible mage hand. I think the arcane trickster rogue and I need to get together - we've definitely missed some opportunities for fun shenanigans combining our abilities.
Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game.
Requiring physical mundane objects has no significant impact on balance, but removes the item conjurer aspect of the UA Replicate Magic Item. The preexisting items could be store bought or crafted by the PC.
It might be interesting to have a more granular table and giving the Player +1 level for effects if the infused item was crafted by them. However, that would be a whole new can of balance worms.
I think there is some impact on balance from the requirement of a mundane item in a couple of different ways.
1. You do have to think ahead to have the item on hand. And you have to be in a place where you can procure it. If it didn't have any impact, you wouldn't need a gem for a homunculus or material components for spells. At low levels, the gold requirement may be a limiter also. The DM can make the more exotic items hard to acquire if they wish.
2. You have to carry the mundane item. If your table tracks encumbrance, or plays with variant encumbrance, juggling your inventory can be something of a resource puzzle. Conventional advice is to dump strength with an Artificer character. Surprise, if you're playing variant, with a strength of 8, your Artificer can only carry 40 lbs. So carrying a bunch of extra mundane items 'just in case' you want one for an infusion may not be so easy. Enter the Bag of Holding, of course, but that takes a slot and also may take longer to access than your regular pack.
Now for the 2014 infusions, this mundane item is straightforward, because there's not really anything all that unusual about the base items. You apply it to armor, a weapon, etc you already have, for the most part. When you open the whole Magic Item catalog it's rather messier.
3. The difference between your armor becoming mundane when you pull the infusion vs disappearing entirely is pretty large in how you play it. I'm not sure one or the other is actually stronger and both have some interesting and surprising advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the infusion on mundane, but is that because I'm just used to it and I don't like change? Possibly. But for example it could be bad if I made magic armor for another character, died, and then they don't have any armor at all. Yeah there's enough time for the DM to teleport the party back to the nearest armor shop but mmm.
Requiring a physical mundane object and selecting from a curated list is easier to balance and designers don't need to consider how the Artificer is affected when making a new magic item for the game. DMs don't need to consider new options outside this list unless they wish to expand it themselves.
Cons of Infusions:
We only see new options (outside of Common magic items which are inconsequential), when the Artificer gets reprinted. Now it's entirely possible for a book to include new Artificer infusion... it would be as simple as a small list of named magic items in a table when the book comes out or adding a simple tag or asterisk with a footnote that "[RMI 6] Indicates that this item is added to the list of an artificers options in Replicate Magic Item at 6th level." Etc. There's simple easy, minimal page-space possible ways to include new features for the Artificer.
But because the infusion mechanic does not require anyone to consider the Artificer, the Artificer just isn't considered at all when it comes to new content. And in over 4 years since the Artificer's most recent release in Tasha's not a single magic item was added to their list (outside of common items because they are inconsequential). There have been a couple of spells added to their list but no one seems to think of adding new magic items to the "magic item guy" class.
Pros of UA Replicate Magic Item:
Much larger and wider list of options from the get go. By having the list based on factors common to all magic items then when new magic items are released they automatically become candidates for Replicate Magic Item. The Artificer's options grow even if WoTC outright forget that Artificers exist.
Cons of UA Replicate Magic Item:
Primarily balance. And for adventure designers concerned about balance it puts the onus on them to consider the Artificer when releasing content, instead of ignoring them as has been the status quo. For DMs concerned about balance it puts the onus on them to examine new items and veto their inclusion in RMI in advance, or to simply ban the Artificer from their table.
In my mind the proper solution to this balance issue would be to actually balance magic items by their rarity... but since the 2024 DMG has already released that ship has sailed and it's not likely to ever occur this edition.
My Conclusion:
I reeeaallly like the new Replicate Magic Item precisely because of how conveniently open it is but I agree in its current state it's extremely exploitable and we likely won't see it survive UA.
As you said, the easiest solution would be a magic-item balance pass. But this will then go out the window when new Books release, because there are no guidelines to set rarity.
There is no system in place like "this item has just one cosmetic effect -> it is common" "this item has +1d4 to 1d6 extra damage -> it is uncommon" "this item allows the user to cast spell x -> this item now requires attunement".
to really make replicate magic item work, a set of guidelines are required, and not a random roll or a story reason. yeah this item is maybe unique because it is wielded by the king, but in the end it is just a +1 sword with +1d6 fire damage, so it should not be classified as "legendary" just because it is unique.
but items in general are problematic.
lets take the full plate for example, it costs 1500gp, but the only difference is +1AC when compared to a Splint, which is worth 200gp.
a Maul weighs 10lb, it is a big metal cube on a stick. a pike weighs 18lb, which is just a short blade on a stick. a trident, which is 3 blades on a stick, weighs only 4lb. firearms cost 250gp to 500gp, 5-10x more than any other weapon, yet they are mostly inferior to other ranged weapons due to their extremely short range, less than even a hand crossbow.
items overall feel like someone rolled a dice, and never really cared about logical balance. so a class that makes items can never be balanced.
Don't confuse not seeing published guidelines to set rarity with there being no guidelines at all.
And the rest reads like someone who is very unfamiliar with game design. Items and equipment weren't randomly generated.
Don't confuse not seeing published guidelines to set rarity with there being no guidelines at all.
And the rest reads like someone who is very unfamiliar with game design. Items and equipment weren't randomly generated.
Well...take the Weapon of Warning as an example.
The 2014 version gave you (and only you) andvantage on initative rolls. it also made it so that you and your allies cant be surprised, and you are awakened when it would happen. The 2024 version got changed. it now gives everyone advantage on initiative. But it was not reclassified to rare. Meanwhile the Helm of Awareness was not changed. It is still the same "you have initiative advantage". Due to how the Replicate Magic Items are structured, this is a problem. Obviously an item that provides party-wide buffs is much stronger than one that only benefits the wearer. Yet this single-person item is further down in the list just because it is classified as a wonderous item instead of a weapon. This affects other items as well.
Boots of Elvenkind, Cloak of Elvenkind, and most of the others too are "uncommon woundrous items", yet they are exceptions at level 6 instead of 10 where they would belong. What is the rule for those exceptions? Why are Boots of Elvenkind a level 6, but Boots of Striding and Springing with the same rarity and item classification are not? Either you have a rule, or you dont. As soon as you add exceptions, you need to clarify them.
At level 14 the "pick whatever you want" system breaks. Take for example the Bag of Beans. Daerns Instant Fortress.
And what if your campaign allows for additional items? Like the recently featured Griphons Saddlebag 2? Or a campaign setting? You would need to give the Artificer access to all the items then, tell them which items are available for them to choose from.
So my point is...you cant have both. Either you have a fully customized list as 2014 where the items dont follow a fixed rule and are placed based on their power, or you have an open list that allows a free choice of everything. Both together doesnt work.
Don't confuse not seeing published guidelines to set rarity with there being no guidelines at all.
And the rest reads like someone who is very unfamiliar with game design. Items and equipment weren't randomly generated.
Well...take the Weapon of Warning as an example.
The 2014 version gave you (and only you) andvantage on initative rolls. it also made it so that you and your allies cant be surprised, and you are awakened when it would happen. The 2024 version got changed. it now gives everyone advantage on initiative. But it was not reclassified to rare. Meanwhile the Helm of Awareness was not changed. It is still the same "you have initiative advantage". Due to how the Replicate Magic Items are structured, this is a problem. Obviously an item that provides party-wide buffs is much stronger than one that only benefits the wearer. Yet this single-person item is further down in the list just because it is classified as a wonderous item instead of a weapon. This affects other items as well.
Boots of Elvenkind, Cloak of Elvenkind, and most of the others too are "uncommon woundrous items", yet they are exceptions at level 6 instead of 10 where they would belong. What is the rule for those exceptions? Why are Boots of Elvenkind a level 6, but Boots of Striding and Springing with the same rarity and item classification are not? Either you have a rule, or you dont. As soon as you add exceptions, you need to clarify them.
At level 14 the "pick whatever you want" system breaks. Take for example the Bag of Beans. Daerns Instant Fortress.
And what if your campaign allows for additional items? Like the recently featured Griphons Saddlebag 2? Or a campaign setting? You would need to give the Artificer access to all the items then, tell them which items are available for them to choose from.
So my point is...you cant have both. Either you have a fully customized list as 2014 where the items dont follow a fixed rule and are placed based on their power, or you have an open list that allows a free choice of everything. Both together doesnt work.
That "party-wide buff" comes with a drawback: Attunement. While it's true anyone in the party can attune to it, nobody can force (or should guilt or coerce) an artificer into (a) spending one of their limited plans to know it and (b) spending one of their limited used of Replicate Magic Item to always have it up.
Look, some of this comes down to system mastery. You want to know who has zero use for a fabricated melee weapon and use for a Wondrous Item that's a helmet? An artificer with the Armorer subclass. The playtest doesn't break the armor up into multiple slots like the Tasha's version does, but that's okay. You aren't stacking multiple armors anyway, and one free plan and magical armor is pretty good.
To be honest, the only artificer subclass that would want a magical weapon is the Battle Smith. I'm honestly shocked this has you that riled up. It would have made more sense if you brought up the disparity between the Cloak of Protection and the Ring of Protection.
Don't confuse not seeing published guidelines to set rarity with there being no guidelines at all.
And the rest reads like someone who is very unfamiliar with game design. Items and equipment weren't randomly generated.
Well...take the Weapon of Warning as an example.
The 2014 version gave you (and only you) andvantage on initative rolls. it also made it so that you and your allies cant be surprised, and you are awakened when it would happen. The 2024 version got changed. it now gives everyone advantage on initiative. But it was not reclassified to rare. Meanwhile the Helm of Awareness was not changed. It is still the same "you have initiative advantage". Due to how the Replicate Magic Items are structured, this is a problem. Obviously an item that provides party-wide buffs is much stronger than one that only benefits the wearer. Yet this single-person item is further down in the list just because it is classified as a wonderous item instead of a weapon. This affects other items as well.
Boots of Elvenkind, Cloak of Elvenkind, and most of the others too are "uncommon woundrous items", yet they are exceptions at level 6 instead of 10 where they would belong. What is the rule for those exceptions? Why are Boots of Elvenkind a level 6, but Boots of Striding and Springing with the same rarity and item classification are not? Either you have a rule, or you dont. As soon as you add exceptions, you need to clarify them.
At level 14 the "pick whatever you want" system breaks. Take for example the Bag of Beans. Daerns Instant Fortress.
And what if your campaign allows for additional items? Like the recently featured Griphons Saddlebag 2? Or a campaign setting? You would need to give the Artificer access to all the items then, tell them which items are available for them to choose from.
So my point is...you cant have both. Either you have a fully customized list as 2014 where the items dont follow a fixed rule and are placed based on their power, or you have an open list that allows a free choice of everything. Both together doesnt work.
That "party-wide buff" comes with a drawback: Attunement. While it's true anyone in the party can attune to it, nobody can force (or should guilt or coerce) an artificer into (a) spending one of their limited plans to know it and (b) spending one of their limited used of Replicate Magic Item to always have it up.
Look, some of this comes down to system mastery. You want to know who has zero use for a fabricated melee weapon and use for a Wondrous Item that's a helmet? An artificer with the Armorer subclass. The playtest doesn't break the armor up into multiple slots like the Tasha's version does, but that's okay. You aren't stacking multiple armors anyway, and one free plan and magical armor is pretty good.
To be honest, the only artificer subclass that would want a magical weapon is the Battle Smith. I'm honestly shocked this has you that riled up. It would have made more sense if you brought up the disparity between the Cloak of Protection and the Ring of Protection.
Helm of Awareness requires Attunement too. It is also requires that it is being worn. The Weapon just needs to be there, and you dont even need to attune to it yourself. One in the Party can attune to it and put it in a bag. No one needs to actively use it as a weapon.
As you said, the Armorer with the new system has no use for the Helmet. They could store the Weapon without using it though.
And yeah, thats just one example. Your Protection example is another good one. Another one that i found was with the Boots of the Winterlands and Armor of Resistance because just from the magic effect alone, the Boots are stronger, but less rare than the Armor. Both could have Cold Resistance, but the Armor has nothing else, while the Boots also ignore difficult terrain. Following the logic of "Item Type", The armor should be placed in the level 6 list since it has the same effect (though slightly weaker) as the level 10 wondrous item.
I bet there are even more similar examples, or ones that are too close, like Radiant Weapon VS Sun Blade. Both rare, both with very similar effects.
In the end, i would like to have a more curated list, place items based on their effect power, not based on this arbitrary "item type" power. it just doesnt make sense. Separating the effect from the items would be even better, like infusions used to be. that way you can create lists that are actually managable, without duplication, without broken items, and scaling was nice too because it did follow its own rules.
You can wear multiple Wondrous Items. You can only wear one suit of Armor.
Stop trying to weigh identical, or even similar, effects against one another. The calculus is more involved than that. This isn't an argument you're going to win, either. They're not going to redo everything in the DMG because you feel like being stubborn.
You can wear multiple Wondrous Items. You can only wear one suit of Armor.
Stop trying to weigh identical, or even similar, effects against one another. The calculus is more involved than that. This isn't an argument you're going to win, either. They're not going to redo everything in the DMG because you feel like being stubborn.
Why not? The PHB literally says: You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions. And the DMG lists Magic Item Price by Rarity, not Category. So, two of the same effects should be worth the same, no matter if it is a cloak or boots.
"Wondrous Item" is just a Term. You cant wear multiple Boots, just like you cant wear multiple Armors. The only ones not listed are Jewelry Items.
Of course they are not going to redo the DMG or the Magic Items, its simply not realistic. Thats why the list of items needs to be managed if they keep all those exceptions. Otherwise you cant create a "balanced list".
A Weapon of Warning and a Helm of Awareness are both limited by the attuned items limit. Magic Items are no longer primarily limited by slot and what each slot focuses on no longer affects the cost (now rarity) of the item, although there might be some holdovers due tradition. The per slot limit still exists, but that takes a back seat to the attunement requirements in 5e.
If the effects were the same, I would think Weapon of Warning should be equal rarity as the Helm of Awareness. In 3.x, I would expect it to be higher rarirty/cost.
A Weapon of Warning and a Helm of Awareness are both limited by the attuned items limit. Magic Items are no longer primarily limited by slot and what each slot focuses on no longer affects the cost (now rarity) of the item, although there might be some holdovers due tradition. The per slot limit still exists, but that takes a back seat to the attunement requirements in 5e.
If the effects were the same, I would think Weapon of Warning should be equal rarity as the Helm of Awareness. In 3.x, I would expect it to be higher rarirty/cost.
If your default response to this is "The DM might make exceptions," then you're invoking Rule Zero.
And that's not remotely helpful. You may as well say anything goes, and that means nothing matters. Including everything you've been criticizing.
Lazarus_Artificial was quoting the DMG. You have not backed up your assertions with rules.
They quoted the PH, not the DMG, and they italicized it; which is also not how you structure a quote. Nor did they invoke a rule, so don't hold that against me when they can't do the same. Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
And neither has the Helm of Awareness; not meaningfully. It was a 10th level infusion when introduced in 2020, alongside the Armorer, and it's still a 10th level choice in the playtest (the survey for which is now also closed). In other words, this has been a "problem" for five years, but not enough of a problem to actually warrant gnashing teeth over. Most artificer subclasses don't even have a use for hand-held weapons. Two (Alchemist and Artillerist) rely more on their cantrips for turn to turn damage, and the third (Armorer) has unique weapons that work better with it features.
I also think it's a bad example to cry over because it actually highlights the importance of player choice. That helmet still competes with other helmets, headbands, hats, and so on. That plan competes against all other potential plans. Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
They quoted the PH, not the DMG, and they italicized it; which is also not how you structure a quote. Nor did they invoke a rule, so don't hold that against me when they can't do the same.
D&D Beyond is not bound by APA or MLA standards for quotes.
Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions.
This is the rule. It is not less of a rule because it is in the Player's Handbook instead of the DMG. The clause about the DM potentially making suggestions is not as relevant as the restriction of only wearing one item of headwear.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
If you won't compare items to determine if they are balanced, why are you on the playtest forum? That's like going to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum and telling people that they shouldn't debate Rules as Written or Intended or going to the Homebrew & House Rule forum and telling people not to change the rules. This is absolutely the place to make those comparisons and looking behind the curtain would be extremely helpful. The designers put behind the scenes comments on multiple sections of the Unearthed Arcana and it would have been helpful to indicate why they didn't drop the rarity on the helmet.
No one is complaining about the cost and rarity of the DMG magic items. We are discussing the appropriateness of Helm of Awareness from the Unearthed Arcana. The Survey is closed, but with any luck someone may be reading the forum or they might publish a second pass.
And neither has the Helm of Awareness; not meaningfully. It was a 10th level infusion when introduced in 2020, alongside the Armorer, and it's still a 10th level choice in the playtest (the survey for which is now also closed). In other words, this has been a "problem" for five years, but not enough of a problem to actually warrant gnashing teeth over. Most artificer subclasses don't even have a use for hand-held weapons. Two (Alchemist and Artillerist) rely more on their cantrips for turn to turn damage, and the third (Armorer) has unique weapons that work better with it features.
I also think it's a bad example to cry over because it actually highlights the importance of player choice. That helmet still competes with other helmets, headbands, hats, and so on. That plan competes against all other potential plans.
In 2020, the Helm of Awareness infusion was not competing a Weapon of Warning Infusion. The balance has drastically changed. If the Helm of Awareness is going to compete against a Weapon of Warning, it has to be at least as good. A Weapon of Warning can be replicated at level 6 instead of level 10. A Weapon of Warning does more than the Helm of Awareness and provides its bonus to the whole party, not just the person who attuned it. The Helm of Awareness will never be taken over the Weapon of Warning as plan known. Both items count for attunement and the helm competes with other headgear while you are not restricted in the number of weapons you can carry (it does not need to be wielded to function). When you find a magic item, you find what you find. When you are picking Artificer plans known, there is never a situation where you should take the Helm of Awareness over the Weapon of Warning. There is not even a situation that they are even. The Helm should not be bumped down in rarity, but maybe advantage or perception checks and a bonus to passive perception would be fitting.
Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
If you have the choice of Magic Item Plan A that does the same thing as Magic Item Plan B, but better and Plan A does additional things and is equally or less restricted, Plan B is trap choice. It's like having the option at character creation to start with 50 Gold or 50 Silver. It's not really a choice.
They quoted the PH, not the DMG, and they italicized it; which is also not how you structure a quote. Nor did they invoke a rule, so don't hold that against me when they can't do the same. Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
And neither has the Helm of Awareness; not meaningfully. It was a 10th level infusion when introduced in 2020, alongside the Armorer, and it's still a 10th level choice in the playtest (the survey for which is now also closed). In other words, this has been a "problem" for five years, but not enough of a problem to actually warrant gnashing teeth over. Most artificer subclasses don't even have a use for hand-held weapons. Two (Alchemist and Artillerist) rely more on their cantrips for turn to turn damage, and the third (Armorer) has unique weapons that work better with it features.
I also think it's a bad example to cry over because it actually highlights the importance of player choice. That helmet still competes with other helmets, headbands, hats, and so on. That plan competes against all other potential plans. Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
And above the italicized part i wrote:
Why not? The PHB literally says: [...]
So, it should have been clear that the formatted text is the quote.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
Of course i dont. Neither do the others here. Thats why im writing about balance issues, because i dont understand the system behind it, since it is not explained.
There is a System in place that does not follow logic. If two items with the same effects and the same limitations appear in different rarity groups, but one with even more effects is placed lower, then there is either an issue because someone decided the rarity on a whim, or because there is a system in place that values one type more than another for some unexplained reason. The artificer list has a ton of exception items, but why? The only reason for now is "because those were 2014". Yet Infusions like "Enhanced Defense", "Repeating Shot" and all that have been moved, or removed. But why?
With Protection Items, the Cloak and the Ring can stack, so yeah, it makes sense that you should not get both at the same level. 2014 had both in a curated list, so thats totally fine because that list was manually balanced. But with an open-list, this no longer applies and exploits will appear, like with the Warning and Awareness.
Another issue i see is, that the UA added so many more items, but reduced the amount of known plans. If the list is that huge, then there should be a way to swap infusions on a regular basis. Especially the Rare List is huge with too many options.
Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
If you have the choice of Magic Item Plan A that does the same thing as Magic Item Plan B, but better and Plan A does additional things and is equally or less restricted, Plan B is trap choice. It's like having the option at character creation to start with 50 Gold or 50 Silver. It's not really a choice.
Exactly this. And sooner or later there will be a community made list with "the best choices for RMI", just like there is for Druids. At this point, this becomes the new curated list because it already removed trap choices or forbidden things.
Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions.
This is the rule. It is not less of a rule because it is in the Player's Handbook instead of the DMG. The clause about the DM potentially making suggestions is not as relevant as the restriction of only wearing one item of headwear.
I'm starting to think you're lost in the woods because I'm the one who invoked this rule. That discussion was about what can and cannot be worn, and Lazerus was the one arguing in favor of the exception. The general rule is you wear one suit of Armor, largely because you can only benefit from one AC calculation, and that there are multiple available "slots" for various other Wondrous Items. Two different Wondrous Items with the exact same effect are probably equal. But you'll notice that a Ring of Protection and a Cloak of Protection, despite granting the exact same bonus, are of different rarities because they belong to different categories (Ring and Wondrous Item). The same can be said for +1 Leather Armor and a +1 Shield. They're both of the Armor category, and they provide the same enhancement bonus, but they're treated differently.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
If you won't compare items to determine if they are balanced, why are you on the playtest forum? That's like going to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum and telling people that they shouldn't debate Rules as Written or Intended or going to the Homebrew & House Rule forum and telling people not to change the rules. This is absolutely the place to make those comparisons and looking behind the curtain would be extremely helpful. The designers put behind the scenes comments on multiple sections of the Unearthed Arcana and it would have been helpful to indicate why they didn't drop the rarity on the helmet.
No one is complaining about the cost and rarity of the DMG magic items. We are discussing the appropriateness of Helm of Awareness from the Unearthed Arcana. The Survey is closed, but with any luck someone may be reading the forum or they might publish a second pass.
There's more to commenting in a playtest forum than whinging about the supposed imbalance of magic items when I literally do not know what grading scale was used internally. I know what I don't know, and I know better than to pontificate out of ignorance. That magic item, that helm, was settled on years ago. There's no reason to assume it will change now, or that it is imbalanced. The chosen rarity matches what they've already done with it. Maybe it'll get a tweak, because the Weapon of Warning did, but I'm not worried if it doesn't.
I'm not worried because it's not an artificer-exclusive infusion like it was in 2020. It's a full-fledged magic item to be looted, awarded, or even chosen to start a game with. All the available plans compete against each other, so saying only these two compete is silly. And I'm honestly kind of shocked there are players railing against adding more magic items to the game, but whatever. I'll try not to yuk your yum, and I ask you to treat other players with the same courtesy.
Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
If you have the choice of Magic Item Plan A that does the same thing as Magic Item Plan B, but better and Plan A does additional things and is equally or less restricted, Plan B is trap choice. It's like having the option at character creation to start with 50 Gold or 50 Silver. It's not really a choice.
Okay, that thing about not yukking other people's yums, I do have one exception.
I don't believe in trap choices, and I do not think kindly of those who do. Every choice is a way to customize and empower your character and experience. With regard to these plans and replicated magic items, they're always boons. Every single one makes the artificer better; just as every Eldritch Invocation makes every warlock better.
You cannot control other people. If you spend your time worrying about what other players might do that you don't like, especially when you'll very likely never interact with them, you will be miserable.
And if your yum is yukking on other people having agency, we will always have a problem.
Once again, just because you cannot grasp the logic at play doesn't mean there isn't any logic at play. It means you don't know what you don't know, and you're confusing your ignorance for confidence.
It would be super nice to understand what it is.
The magic item rarity system is in discussion here because using it for the Artificer in this way dramatically changes how it matters. The various items in the Dungeon Master's Guide are given some rarity level and categorization, but it appears to me that's been done very loosely. That is, when someone at WOTC wants to create a new item, they do so and assign a rarity based on casual judgement and experience rather than a rigorous comparison and rating system. And that's fine, because it's all available at DM discretion, as loot or in exchange for gold, and items are tailored to the game at hand.
A situation where a huge portion of the catalog is available to Artificers of the requisite level based on rarity and type is a very different use case, and I posit, not one it is designed for.
I don't know that that's bad. Is giving every Artificer incentive to procure and read the DM Guide bad? Will it make for more interesting gameplay? Probably! Honestly I'd love to be able to trade the Steel Defender out for other magic items. I really want an Artificer to be able to be Q, producing gadgets behind the scenes that support the other players.
It's interesting that many people consider the Artificer "complicated to play" and I suspect someone thinks they are making it "simpler" with many of these changes. I don't see it the same way, and if anything, I consider the Artificer to be very straightforward if for no other reason than all its material is neatly combined in just a few pages in Tasha's. Adding in the full catalog of magic items (which is not even sorted by rarity or type) makes it so much more complicated.
Instead, I'd do something like allowing Spell-storing items much sooner, allowing Artificers to maybe store an extra cantrip in an item and allow for low level artificer spells to be stored in items they make or procure, to create truly unique magic items based on the existing patterns. It's much less choice to learn about and yet extremely flexible and interesting.
Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions.
This is the rule. It is not less of a rule because it is in the Player's Handbook instead of the DMG. The clause about the DM potentially making suggestions is not as relevant as the restriction of only wearing one item of headwear.
I'm starting to think you're lost in the woods because I'm the one who invoked this rule. That discussion was about what can and cannot be worn, and Lazerus was the one arguing in favor of the exception. The general rule is you wear one suit of Armor, largely because you can only benefit from one AC calculation, and that there are multiple available "slots" for various other Wondrous Items. Two different Wondrous Items with the exact same effect are probably equal. But you'll notice that a Ring of Protection and a Cloak of Protection, despite granting the exact same bonus, are of different rarities because they belong to different categories (Ring and Wondrous Item). The same can be said for +1 Leather Armor and a +1 Shield. They're both of the Armor category, and they provide the same enhancement bonus, but they're treated differently.
Yes, I am sorry that it wasn't clear, but I agree that the slot restriction is more relevant that the allowance of GM fiat. Yes, GM Fiat is always an option, but the reiteration here acts a prod for both player and GM to consider or discuss the topic. A Ring of Protection provides the same bonus of a Cloak of Protection, but there is no stated limit on the number of rings you can wear compared to one cloak. +1 Armor works for anyone that can use the armor, while a shield prevents you from using the hand for a weapon or spell casting (unless you have a way of making it your focus).
Looking at +X Armor in particular, it sucks that Artificers lost the ability to infuse/replicate +2 Armor, but I am not going to dispute that it is a very rare magic item. Maybe it's fair. Maybe Artificers should be able to make a limited number of Very Rare Items, maybe additionally limited to the subclass (Armorer can have one very rare armor, Battle Smiths one very rare weapon, Alchemists a bottle of their own tears, etc.).
There's more to commenting in a playtest forum than whinging about the supposed imbalance of magic items when I literally do not know what grading scale was used internally. I know what I don't know, and I know better than to pontificate out of ignorance. That magic item, that helm, was settled on years ago. There's no reason to assume it will change now, or that it is imbalanced. The chosen rarity matches what they've already done with it. Maybe it'll get a tweak, because the Weapon of Warning did, but I'm not worried if it doesn't.
I'm not worried because it's not an artificer-exclusive infusion like it was in 2020. It's a full-fledged magic item to be looted, awarded, or even chosen to start a game with. All the available plans compete against each other, so saying only these two compete is silly. And I'm honestly kind of shocked there are players railing against adding more magic items to the game, but whatever. I'll try not to yuk your yum, and I ask you to treat other players with the same courtesy.
The 5e magic items that have carried across editions follow similar trends as the 3.x items, but the removal of GP costs obfuscates things somewhat. The same effect on a weapon and a helmet would have been more expensive on the weapon because it was a slotless magic item. We see that in the Ring of Protection and Cloak of Protection. I would rather see the Helm of Awareness buffed rather than moved down a rarity level or the Weapon of Warning bumped up to Rare.
Any character with proficiency in the Arcana skill and Smith's Tools can craft a Weapon of Warning with 200 GP and 10 days (5 days for a UA Battle Smith). If they restored the original Artificer's Magic Item Adept, they would craft it for 100 GP in 2.5 days. If you use Bastions, at level 9+ anyone with a Smithy can issue the craft order to craft one for the same 200 GP and 10 days without your presence. There is just no reason for the Helm of Awareness to be harder for the Artificer to replicate than a Weapon of Warning.
As for exclusivity, I would rather have more magic item options via Infusion/Replicate Magic Item than exclusive items. I would like some of the Artificer exclusive 3.5 Infusions (their spells in 3.5) to make a return as Artificer exclusive spells. Some have become Infusions/Replicated Magic Items. Energy Alteration to change a Flaming Sword to an Acid one. Pending Potion might be nice as an Alchemist ability (Apply an oil or drink a potion and gain the effects later. Since drinking a potion a Bonus Action now, either it would be a non-action or a Bonus Action that doesn't require a free hand). Suppress Requirement could replace the lost perks of Magic Item Savant, suppressing one Attunement requirement plus one for every slot used above 3 for an hour or more (having it last until the next long rest would effectively make ignoring attunement requirements powered by spell slots and would be a decent compromise). Power Surge to give a wand extra temporary charges could be neat. Item Alteration to change the bonus an item provides (I don't know if this is suitable to 5e. It might mean casting it on Weapon of Warning and it to provide Advantage on Athletics checks).
Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
If you have the choice of Magic Item Plan A that does the same thing as Magic Item Plan B, but better and Plan A does additional things and is equally or less restricted, Plan B is trap choice. It's like having the option at character creation to start with 50 Gold or 50 Silver. It's not really a choice.
Okay, that thing about not yukking other people's yums, I do have one exception.
I don't believe in trap choices, and I do not think kindly of those who do. Every choice is a way to customize and empower your character and experience. With regard to these plans and replicated magic items, they're always boons. Every single one makes the artificer better; just as every Eldritch Invocation makes every warlock better.
You cannot control other people. If you spend your time worrying about what other players might do that you don't like, especially when you'll very likely never interact with them, you will be miserable.
And if your yum is yukking on other people having agency, we will always have a problem.
You do you, but when we are discussing balance in the Playtest forums, we are going to discuss balance. Every choice should be equally effective in normal use cases. I won't try to argue making sure taking one level in 13 classes should be as capable as focusing on one class for 13 levels. However, every class that has Fighting Style Options should have Fighting Style Options that are roughly equal in viability. If Rangers or Paladins had a Fighting Style that was +1 Damage to the damage of a spell cast using a slot on the turn it was cast, that would suck. Right now, in the Playtest forum would absolutely be the place to call it out as a trap choice and advocate that it should be changed. You would be doing a disservice to all Ranger and Paladin spell damage enjoyers.
Here we are in the Playtest forum discussing the proposed changes for the Artificer. Who knows if anyone with power to change the final outcome will read this, but on the off chance that someone is reading it, as a magic item enjoyer on behalf of other magic item enjoyers, I want it known that there is no reason to ever voluntarily make a Helm of Awareness over a Weapon of Warning (Make it a Sling of Warning if you are worried about weight). To not call out the imbalance would do a disservice to players of the final product. It is why we are here.
Edit: Apparently, accidentally hitting Ctrl + Space (I think that's what I did) submits the post early.
As you said, the easiest solution would be a magic-item balance pass. But this will then go out the window when new Books release, because there are no guidelines to set rarity.
There is no system in place like "this item has just one cosmetic effect -> it is common" "this item has +1d4 to 1d6 extra damage -> it is uncommon" "this item allows the user to cast spell x -> this item now requires attunement".
to really make replicate magic item work, a set of guidelines are required, and not a random roll or a story reason. yeah this item is maybe unique because it is wielded by the king, but in the end it is just a +1 sword with +1d6 fire damage, so it should not be classified as "legendary" just because it is unique.
but items in general are problematic.
lets take the full plate for example, it costs 1500gp, but the only difference is +1AC when compared to a Splint, which is worth 200gp.
a Maul weighs 10lb, it is a big metal cube on a stick. a pike weighs 18lb, which is just a short blade on a stick. a trident, which is 3 blades on a stick, weighs only 4lb. firearms cost 250gp to 500gp, 5-10x more than any other weapon, yet they are mostly inferior to other ranged weapons due to their extremely short range, less than even a hand crossbow.
items overall feel like someone rolled a dice, and never really cared about logical balance. so a class that makes items can never be balanced.
Requiring physical mundane objects has no significant impact on balance, but removes the item conjurer aspect of the UA Replicate Magic Item. The preexisting items could be store bought or crafted by the PC.
It might be interesting to have a more granular table and giving the Player +1 level for effects if the infused item was crafted by them. However, that would be a whole new can of balance worms.
How to add Tooltips.
Requiring the mundane item avoids the scenario of conjuring full plate armor as a common magic item (such as Cast-Off Armor or Armor of Gleaming) instead of paying the full 1500 gp. That's basically all I meant by that specific mention when I brought up balance. The curated list has a much larger balance impact overall.
It also impacts the Drain Magic Item, as mentioned before.
An Infused Item just turns back into a normal item. So you are left with a regular Sword instead of a +1 Sword.
A Conjured Item poofs out of existance. You are now unarmed and need to find a new Weapon somewhere.
It can be beneficial too, lets say you are affected by Heat Metal, so you are cooked alive if you cant interrupt the Caster. Poof, armor is gone, no more damage.
Thanks very much to SgtBlaze for an excellent OP in this thread, really thoughtfully written and I hugely agree. I hope it will be read by people working on this UA. Between the timing and the format of the survey I don't think my submitted feedback was nearly what I wanted it to be.
I really really love the 2014 Magical Tinkering feature and the longer I've had it the more fun it is. I get that it doesn't read as that interesting in the book but playing Artificer in tight spots has gotten me to mine that feature again and again. I hadn't even thought about how beautifully it would pair with an invisible mage hand. I think the arcane trickster rogue and I need to get together - we've definitely missed some opportunities for fun shenanigans combining our abilities.
I think there is some impact on balance from the requirement of a mundane item in a couple of different ways.
1. You do have to think ahead to have the item on hand. And you have to be in a place where you can procure it. If it didn't have any impact, you wouldn't need a gem for a homunculus or material components for spells. At low levels, the gold requirement may be a limiter also. The DM can make the more exotic items hard to acquire if they wish.
2. You have to carry the mundane item. If your table tracks encumbrance, or plays with variant encumbrance, juggling your inventory can be something of a resource puzzle. Conventional advice is to dump strength with an Artificer character. Surprise, if you're playing variant, with a strength of 8, your Artificer can only carry 40 lbs. So carrying a bunch of extra mundane items 'just in case' you want one for an infusion may not be so easy. Enter the Bag of Holding, of course, but that takes a slot and also may take longer to access than your regular pack.
Now for the 2014 infusions, this mundane item is straightforward, because there's not really anything all that unusual about the base items. You apply it to armor, a weapon, etc you already have, for the most part. When you open the whole Magic Item catalog it's rather messier.
3. The difference between your armor becoming mundane when you pull the infusion vs disappearing entirely is pretty large in how you play it. I'm not sure one or the other is actually stronger and both have some interesting and surprising advantages and disadvantages. I prefer the infusion on mundane, but is that because I'm just used to it and I don't like change? Possibly. But for example it could be bad if I made magic armor for another character, died, and then they don't have any armor at all. Yeah there's enough time for the DM to teleport the party back to the nearest armor shop but mmm.
Don't confuse not seeing published guidelines to set rarity with there being no guidelines at all.
And the rest reads like someone who is very unfamiliar with game design. Items and equipment weren't randomly generated.
Well...take the Weapon of Warning as an example.
The 2014 version gave you (and only you) andvantage on initative rolls. it also made it so that you and your allies cant be surprised, and you are awakened when it would happen.
The 2024 version got changed. it now gives everyone advantage on initiative. But it was not reclassified to rare.
Meanwhile the Helm of Awareness was not changed. It is still the same "you have initiative advantage".
Due to how the Replicate Magic Items are structured, this is a problem. Obviously an item that provides party-wide buffs is much stronger than one that only benefits the wearer. Yet this single-person item is further down in the list just because it is classified as a wonderous item instead of a weapon. This affects other items as well.
Boots of Elvenkind, Cloak of Elvenkind, and most of the others too are "uncommon woundrous items", yet they are exceptions at level 6 instead of 10 where they would belong. What is the rule for those exceptions? Why are Boots of Elvenkind a level 6, but Boots of Striding and Springing with the same rarity and item classification are not? Either you have a rule, or you dont. As soon as you add exceptions, you need to clarify them.
At level 14 the "pick whatever you want" system breaks. Take for example the Bag of Beans. Daerns Instant Fortress.
And what if your campaign allows for additional items? Like the recently featured Griphons Saddlebag 2? Or a campaign setting? You would need to give the Artificer access to all the items then, tell them which items are available for them to choose from.
So my point is...you cant have both. Either you have a fully customized list as 2014 where the items dont follow a fixed rule and are placed based on their power, or you have an open list that allows a free choice of everything. Both together doesnt work.
That "party-wide buff" comes with a drawback: Attunement. While it's true anyone in the party can attune to it, nobody can force (or should guilt or coerce) an artificer into (a) spending one of their limited plans to know it and (b) spending one of their limited used of Replicate Magic Item to always have it up.
Look, some of this comes down to system mastery. You want to know who has zero use for a fabricated melee weapon and use for a Wondrous Item that's a helmet? An artificer with the Armorer subclass. The playtest doesn't break the armor up into multiple slots like the Tasha's version does, but that's okay. You aren't stacking multiple armors anyway, and one free plan and magical armor is pretty good.
To be honest, the only artificer subclass that would want a magical weapon is the Battle Smith. I'm honestly shocked this has you that riled up. It would have made more sense if you brought up the disparity between the Cloak of Protection and the Ring of Protection.
Helm of Awareness requires Attunement too. It is also requires that it is being worn.
The Weapon just needs to be there, and you dont even need to attune to it yourself. One in the Party can attune to it and put it in a bag. No one needs to actively use it as a weapon.
As you said, the Armorer with the new system has no use for the Helmet. They could store the Weapon without using it though.
And yeah, thats just one example. Your Protection example is another good one. Another one that i found was with the Boots of the Winterlands and Armor of Resistance because just from the magic effect alone, the Boots are stronger, but less rare than the Armor. Both could have Cold Resistance, but the Armor has nothing else, while the Boots also ignore difficult terrain. Following the logic of "Item Type", The armor should be placed in the level 6 list since it has the same effect (though slightly weaker) as the level 10 wondrous item.
I bet there are even more similar examples, or ones that are too close, like Radiant Weapon VS Sun Blade. Both rare, both with very similar effects.
In the end, i would like to have a more curated list, place items based on their effect power, not based on this arbitrary "item type" power. it just doesnt make sense. Separating the effect from the items would be even better, like infusions used to be. that way you can create lists that are actually managable, without duplication, without broken items, and scaling was nice too because it did follow its own rules.
You can wear multiple Wondrous Items. You can only wear one suit of Armor.
Stop trying to weigh identical, or even similar, effects against one another. The calculus is more involved than that. This isn't an argument you're going to win, either. They're not going to redo everything in the DMG because you feel like being stubborn.
Why not? The PHB literally says:
You can’t wear more than one of certain magic items. You can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, or one cloak. The DM might make exceptions.
And the DMG lists Magic Item Price by Rarity, not Category. So, two of the same effects should be worth the same, no matter if it is a cloak or boots.
"Wondrous Item" is just a Term. You cant wear multiple Boots, just like you cant wear multiple Armors. The only ones not listed are Jewelry Items.
Of course they are not going to redo the DMG or the Magic Items, its simply not realistic. Thats why the list of items needs to be managed if they keep all those exceptions. Otherwise you cant create a "balanced list".
If your default response to this is "The DM might make exceptions," then you're invoking Rule Zero.
And that's not remotely helpful. You may as well say anything goes, and that means nothing matters. Including everything you've been criticizing.
A Weapon of Warning and a Helm of Awareness are both limited by the attuned items limit. Magic Items are no longer primarily limited by slot and what each slot focuses on no longer affects the cost (now rarity) of the item, although there might be some holdovers due tradition. The per slot limit still exists, but that takes a back seat to the attunement requirements in 5e.
If the effects were the same, I would think Weapon of Warning should be equal rarity as the Helm of Awareness. In 3.x, I would expect it to be higher rarirty/cost.
Lazarus_Artificial was quoting the DMG. You have not backed up your assertions with rules.
How to add Tooltips.
They quoted the PH, not the DMG, and they italicized it; which is also not how you structure a quote. Nor did they invoke a rule, so don't hold that against me when they can't do the same. Putting your hands together and saying, "pretty please, DM," is not a rule or game mechanic that players can rely on. It's a maybe, and we should be interested in things that are concrete.
I responded to someone complaining because they don't have a view behind a curtain they're not entitled to look beyond. Sorry, not sorry, that you can't reverse engineer a magic item like you could in 3.0 or 3.5, but this is 5.2. The old ways of doing things no longer apply, and complaining about the cost of a mundane item, or the rarity of magic items in the DMG, isn't constructive. The book is a done deal, so none of that it is going to change.
And neither has the Helm of Awareness; not meaningfully. It was a 10th level infusion when introduced in 2020, alongside the Armorer, and it's still a 10th level choice in the playtest (the survey for which is now also closed). In other words, this has been a "problem" for five years, but not enough of a problem to actually warrant gnashing teeth over. Most artificer subclasses don't even have a use for hand-held weapons. Two (Alchemist and Artillerist) rely more on their cantrips for turn to turn damage, and the third (Armorer) has unique weapons that work better with it features.
I also think it's a bad example to cry over because it actually highlights the importance of player choice. That helmet still competes with other helmets, headbands, hats, and so on. That plan competes against all other potential plans. Just because one or two people think it's a bad choice doesn't mean anything. Someone else is going to have a higher opinion than they do. Different strokes for different folks.
D&D Beyond is not bound by APA or MLA standards for quotes.
This is the rule. It is not less of a rule because it is in the Player's Handbook instead of the DMG. The clause about the DM potentially making suggestions is not as relevant as the restriction of only wearing one item of headwear.
If you won't compare items to determine if they are balanced, why are you on the playtest forum? That's like going to the Rules & Game Mechanics forum and telling people that they shouldn't debate Rules as Written or Intended or going to the Homebrew & House Rule forum and telling people not to change the rules. This is absolutely the place to make those comparisons and looking behind the curtain would be extremely helpful. The designers put behind the scenes comments on multiple sections of the Unearthed Arcana and it would have been helpful to indicate why they didn't drop the rarity on the helmet.
No one is complaining about the cost and rarity of the DMG magic items. We are discussing the appropriateness of Helm of Awareness from the Unearthed Arcana. The Survey is closed, but with any luck someone may be reading the forum or they might publish a second pass.
In 2020, the Helm of Awareness infusion was not competing a Weapon of Warning Infusion. The balance has drastically changed. If the Helm of Awareness is going to compete against a Weapon of Warning, it has to be at least as good. A Weapon of Warning can be replicated at level 6 instead of level 10. A Weapon of Warning does more than the Helm of Awareness and provides its bonus to the whole party, not just the person who attuned it. The Helm of Awareness will never be taken over the Weapon of Warning as plan known. Both items count for attunement and the helm competes with other headgear while you are not restricted in the number of weapons you can carry (it does not need to be wielded to function). When you find a magic item, you find what you find. When you are picking Artificer plans known, there is never a situation where you should take the Helm of Awareness over the Weapon of Warning. There is not even a situation that they are even. The Helm should not be bumped down in rarity, but maybe advantage or perception checks and a bonus to passive perception would be fitting.
If you have the choice of Magic Item Plan A that does the same thing as Magic Item Plan B, but better and Plan A does additional things and is equally or less restricted, Plan B is trap choice. It's like having the option at character creation to start with 50 Gold or 50 Silver. It's not really a choice.
How to add Tooltips.
And above the italicized part i wrote:
So, it should have been clear that the formatted text is the quote.
Of course i dont. Neither do the others here. Thats why im writing about balance issues, because i dont understand the system behind it, since it is not explained.
There is a System in place that does not follow logic. If two items with the same effects and the same limitations appear in different rarity groups, but one with even more effects is placed lower, then there is either an issue because someone decided the rarity on a whim, or because there is a system in place that values one type more than another for some unexplained reason.
The artificer list has a ton of exception items, but why? The only reason for now is "because those were 2014". Yet Infusions like "Enhanced Defense", "Repeating Shot" and all that have been moved, or removed. But why?
With Protection Items, the Cloak and the Ring can stack, so yeah, it makes sense that you should not get both at the same level. 2014 had both in a curated list, so thats totally fine because that list was manually balanced. But with an open-list, this no longer applies and exploits will appear, like with the Warning and Awareness.
Another issue i see is, that the UA added so many more items, but reduced the amount of known plans. If the list is that huge, then there should be a way to swap infusions on a regular basis. Especially the Rare List is huge with too many options.
Exactly this. And sooner or later there will be a community made list with "the best choices for RMI", just like there is for Druids. At this point, this becomes the new curated list because it already removed trap choices or forbidden things.
[REDACTED]
I'm starting to think you're lost in the woods because I'm the one who invoked this rule. That discussion was about what can and cannot be worn, and Lazerus was the one arguing in favor of the exception. The general rule is you wear one suit of Armor, largely because you can only benefit from one AC calculation, and that there are multiple available "slots" for various other Wondrous Items. Two different Wondrous Items with the exact same effect are probably equal. But you'll notice that a Ring of Protection and a Cloak of Protection, despite granting the exact same bonus, are of different rarities because they belong to different categories (Ring and Wondrous Item). The same can be said for +1 Leather Armor and a +1 Shield. They're both of the Armor category, and they provide the same enhancement bonus, but they're treated differently.
[REDACTED]
There's more to commenting in a playtest forum than whinging about the supposed imbalance of magic items when I literally do not know what grading scale was used internally. I know what I don't know, and I know better than to pontificate out of ignorance. That magic item, that helm, was settled on years ago. There's no reason to assume it will change now, or that it is imbalanced. The chosen rarity matches what they've already done with it. Maybe it'll get a tweak, because the Weapon of Warning did, but I'm not worried if it doesn't.
I'm not worried because it's not an artificer-exclusive infusion like it was in 2020. It's a full-fledged magic item to be looted, awarded, or even chosen to start a game with. All the available plans compete against each other, so saying only these two compete is silly. And I'm honestly kind of shocked there are players railing against adding more magic items to the game, but whatever. I'll try not to yuk your yum, and I ask you to treat other players with the same courtesy.
Okay, that thing about not yukking other people's yums, I do have one exception.
I don't believe in trap choices, and I do not think kindly of those who do. Every choice is a way to customize and empower your character and experience. With regard to these plans and replicated magic items, they're always boons. Every single one makes the artificer better; just as every Eldritch Invocation makes every warlock better.
You cannot control other people. If you spend your time worrying about what other players might do that you don't like, especially when you'll very likely never interact with them, you will be miserable.
And if your yum is yukking on other people having agency, we will always have a problem.
It would be super nice to understand what it is.
The magic item rarity system is in discussion here because using it for the Artificer in this way dramatically changes how it matters. The various items in the Dungeon Master's Guide are given some rarity level and categorization, but it appears to me that's been done very loosely. That is, when someone at WOTC wants to create a new item, they do so and assign a rarity based on casual judgement and experience rather than a rigorous comparison and rating system. And that's fine, because it's all available at DM discretion, as loot or in exchange for gold, and items are tailored to the game at hand.
A situation where a huge portion of the catalog is available to Artificers of the requisite level based on rarity and type is a very different use case, and I posit, not one it is designed for.
I don't know that that's bad. Is giving every Artificer incentive to procure and read the DM Guide bad? Will it make for more interesting gameplay? Probably! Honestly I'd love to be able to trade the Steel Defender out for other magic items. I really want an Artificer to be able to be Q, producing gadgets behind the scenes that support the other players.
It's interesting that many people consider the Artificer "complicated to play" and I suspect someone thinks they are making it "simpler" with many of these changes. I don't see it the same way, and if anything, I consider the Artificer to be very straightforward if for no other reason than all its material is neatly combined in just a few pages in Tasha's. Adding in the full catalog of magic items (which is not even sorted by rarity or type) makes it so much more complicated.
Instead, I'd do something like allowing Spell-storing items much sooner, allowing Artificers to maybe store an extra cantrip in an item and allow for low level artificer spells to be stored in items they make or procure, to create truly unique magic items based on the existing patterns. It's much less choice to learn about and yet extremely flexible and interesting.
Yes, I am sorry that it wasn't clear, but I agree that the slot restriction is more relevant that the allowance of GM fiat. Yes, GM Fiat is always an option, but the reiteration here acts a prod for both player and GM to consider or discuss the topic. A Ring of Protection provides the same bonus of a Cloak of Protection, but there is no stated limit on the number of rings you can wear compared to one cloak. +1 Armor works for anyone that can use the armor, while a shield prevents you from using the hand for a weapon or spell casting (unless you have a way of making it your focus).
Looking at +X Armor in particular, it sucks that Artificers lost the ability to infuse/replicate +2 Armor, but I am not going to dispute that it is a very rare magic item. Maybe it's fair. Maybe Artificers should be able to make a limited number of Very Rare Items, maybe additionally limited to the subclass (Armorer can have one very rare armor, Battle Smiths one very rare weapon, Alchemists a bottle of their own tears, etc.).
The 5e magic items that have carried across editions follow similar trends as the 3.x items, but the removal of GP costs obfuscates things somewhat. The same effect on a weapon and a helmet would have been more expensive on the weapon because it was a slotless magic item. We see that in the Ring of Protection and Cloak of Protection. I would rather see the Helm of Awareness buffed rather than moved down a rarity level or the Weapon of Warning bumped up to Rare.
Any character with proficiency in the Arcana skill and Smith's Tools can craft a Weapon of Warning with 200 GP and 10 days (5 days for a UA Battle Smith). If they restored the original Artificer's Magic Item Adept, they would craft it for 100 GP in 2.5 days. If you use Bastions, at level 9+ anyone with a Smithy can issue the craft order to craft one for the same 200 GP and 10 days without your presence. There is just no reason for the Helm of Awareness to be harder for the Artificer to replicate than a Weapon of Warning.
As for exclusivity, I would rather have more magic item options via Infusion/Replicate Magic Item than exclusive items. I would like some of the Artificer exclusive 3.5 Infusions (their spells in 3.5) to make a return as Artificer exclusive spells. Some have become Infusions/Replicated Magic Items. Energy Alteration to change a Flaming Sword to an Acid one. Pending Potion might be nice as an Alchemist ability (Apply an oil or drink a potion and gain the effects later. Since drinking a potion a Bonus Action now, either it would be a non-action or a Bonus Action that doesn't require a free hand). Suppress Requirement could replace the lost perks of Magic Item Savant, suppressing one Attunement requirement plus one for every slot used above 3 for an hour or more (having it last until the next long rest would effectively make ignoring attunement requirements powered by spell slots and would be a decent compromise). Power Surge to give a wand extra temporary charges could be neat. Item Alteration to change the bonus an item provides (I don't know if this is suitable to 5e. It might mean casting it on Weapon of Warning and it to provide Advantage on Athletics checks).
You do you, but when we are discussing balance in the Playtest forums, we are going to discuss balance. Every choice should be equally effective in normal use cases. I won't try to argue making sure taking one level in 13 classes should be as capable as focusing on one class for 13 levels. However, every class that has Fighting Style Options should have Fighting Style Options that are roughly equal in viability. If Rangers or Paladins had a Fighting Style that was +1 Damage to the damage of a spell cast using a slot on the turn it was cast, that would suck. Right now, in the Playtest forum would absolutely be the place to call it out as a trap choice and advocate that it should be changed. You would be doing a disservice to all Ranger and Paladin spell damage enjoyers.
Here we are in the Playtest forum discussing the proposed changes for the Artificer. Who knows if anyone with power to change the final outcome will read this, but on the off chance that someone is reading it, as a magic item enjoyer on behalf of other magic item enjoyers, I want it known that there is no reason to ever voluntarily make a Helm of Awareness over a Weapon of Warning (Make it a Sling of Warning if you are worried about weight). To not call out the imbalance would do a disservice to players of the final product. It is why we are here.
Edit: Apparently, accidentally hitting Ctrl + Space (I think that's what I did) submits the post early.
How to add Tooltips.