The “wave a monkey wrench” bit is the hard mechanical implementation of exactly the concept you’re describing. Mechanically, using tools as foci is simple to track and keep in the same system as other spellcasting. Now, if you read the description in Tasha’s, there’s a sidebar that specifically discusses ways to flavor spells as pulling out gadgets or other creations that produce the effect.
And trying to base a whole class around building custom gadgets would at the very least be an absolutely massive project to distill into something easy to implement in play and well balanced. More likely, you’d get an unwieldy overtuned mess like the old Mystic UA.
This is a discussion about updating the primary text for Artificer. Clarity and specificity should be in the main text, not a sidebar. It is one thing to say, "you produce your spells through tools", and another to say, "daily preparation of your spells requires a set of tools to craft the objects that produce them". Which is more accurate to the spirit and theme of an Artificer?
Regardless of a sidebar in an arguably now out-of-date sourcebook, I don't think the class is being written to operate as a crafter of objects. TInker's Magic specifically treats it as a hardware store conjuror. The language used matters. Am I being pedantic? Perhaps. But this is a discussion of editing text. Specificity matters to how it will be interpreted.
And I never proposed basing the "whole class around building custom gadgets". There SHOULD be a fixed list of what items can be replicated. Refining that list when the core traits of the class are yet to be properly established is putting the cart before the horse.
You are correct, their primary function is not creating objects. That’s because creating custom objects is a nonstarter in 5e, and magic item crafting needs to be regulated because there’s a lot of item combos that would make the Artificer/party pretty OP if they could just knock together nearly any magic item mid adventure. Regardless of what your headcanon is or how previous editions have handled them, 5e Artificers are in fact magic users who integrate things like Conjuration and Transmutation with their craftsman’s skills.
It's not like the Eberron campaign pre-req is some vast and immovable barrier. It's signaling that these feats are tuned a bit higher than something like Magic Initiate, and thus DMs are advised to stop and consider before allowing a player to bring them into a different campaign, particularly something like a premade adventure. The Dragonmark feats are clearly intended to function as Origin feats, since they lack a level 4+ pre-req.
I agree in principle; however, the campaign differences are not explained in the UA document. Without different instructions, we have to evaluate the balance within the Context of the 2024 PHB options. I think the Dragonmark Feats themselves are okay if a little strong. The Aberrant Dragonmark, Potent Dragonmark, Boon of Siberys, and maybe the Greater Aberrant Dragonmark may be too strong in any context.
I quote from Artificer Class Features - Level 1: Spellcasting - Tools Required: "You produce your Artificer spells through tools." No. Wrong. Incorrect. An Artificer, using tools, crafts objects that produce their spells. As it stands now, an Artificer can wave a monkey wrench to cast Faerie Fire. They can wave a sewing needle to conjure up a bucket. They are not Conjurors or Transmuters. They are Crafters. Please provide a class that crafts.
This is mainly solved by changing the replicate magic item and magical tinkering features back into infusing items with magic instead of summoning them. Any other problem is just flavor.
Quibbling over a list of what magic items can be replicated at what level means nothing when the whole class is constructed on a weak foundation.
These are mechanics and are the meat of the matter. Flavor can be adjusted easily enough. The underlying mechanics need to be sound.
At the end of the day, summoning items sucks, but it's an easy to house rule to make it require an item or require that you have appropriate tools and/or materials. It has minimal impact on the function of the class. Being able to summon 1,500+ GP Cast-Off Full Plate armor at level 2 is problematic.
That's not to say don't voice your disapproval of the flavoring. Quite the contrary, do it! However, these mechanical discussions, of the Artificer, the Cartographer, and the Feats need to happen at the same time.
It would paint a clearer picture if Tools Required was more about preparing spells through crafting objects. And the objects, the prepared spells themselves, would act as their own spellcasting focus in casting them. But that also opens the cans of beans of making a ton of objects at the end of every long rest, determining how and if those items can be disseminated, used by others, or lost, etc.
I think the current wording of Tools Required keeps things simple mechanically, and for that reason I don't have any issue with it.
My take is that this leaves the Artificer likely the weakest class by a notable margin. Most of the tricks people came up with to make the UA artificer able to keep up with the other classes are no longer available. Now, I think that is mostly a good thing because those tricks really did not fit the flavor or intent of the artificer, but they should have come with things that brought the class up to par without them.
Additionally it seems they made it so that the Alchemist is no longer the weakest Artificer subclass by introducing a new weaker subclass.
Both of these need a HUGE boost.
My take on the dragon mark feats is that they are quite strong. If that is the intent, then awesome! However, if they are not intended to be so strong, I'd move some of the aspects of the basic marks over to the greater mark feats which are less impressive than the base marks.
It's not like the Eberron campaign pre-req is some vast and immovable barrier. It's signaling that these feats are tuned a bit higher than something like Magic Initiate, and thus DMs are advised to stop and consider before allowing a player to bring them into a different campaign, particularly something like a premade adventure. The Dragonmark feats are clearly intended to function as Origin feats, since they lack a level 4+ pre-req.
I agree in principle; however, the campaign differences are not explained in the UA document. Without different instructions, we have to evaluate the balance within the Context of the 2024 PHB options. I think the Dragonmark Feats themselves are okay if a little strong. The Aberrant Dragonmark, Potent Dragonmark, Boon of Siberys, and maybe the Greater Aberrant Dragonmark may be too strong in any context.
I quote from Artificer Class Features - Level 1: Spellcasting - Tools Required: "You produce your Artificer spells through tools." No. Wrong. Incorrect. An Artificer, using tools, crafts objects that produce their spells. As it stands now, an Artificer can wave a monkey wrench to cast Faerie Fire. They can wave a sewing needle to conjure up a bucket. They are not Conjurors or Transmuters. They are Crafters. Please provide a class that crafts.
This is mainly solved by changing the replicate magic item and magical tinkering features back into infusing items with magic instead of summoning them. Any other problem is just flavor.
Quibbling over a list of what magic items can be replicated at what level means nothing when the whole class is constructed on a weak foundation.
These are mechanics and are the meat of the matter. Flavor can be adjusted easily enough. The underlying mechanics need to be sound.
At the end of the day, summoning items sucks, but it's an easy to house rule to make it require an item or require that you have appropriate tools and/or materials. It has minimal impact on the function of the class. Being able to summon 1,500+ GP Cast-Off Full Plate armor at level 2 is problematic.
That's not to say don't voice your disapproval of the flavoring. Quite the contrary, do it! However, these mechanical discussions, of the Artificer, the Cartographer, and the Feats need to happen at the same time.
plate armor costing 1500 gp is just weird, well not that weird if you are giving gold as reccomended. 1500g in gold is pretty fast.
but the real point im getting at is, 18 AC at level 2 isnt actually a flex power wise. its fairly cheap to get 16-17 acc, So, if the artificer couldnt get this item at early level, their level 2 feat becomes pretty poor for those not using a shield. at the end of the day all plate armor is, is +1-2 AC over normal. Not much compared to bless, shield, rage, second wind, Focus.
It really just costs a ton of money for flavor, and the item fabricator would be able to make it. Its just a common item at the end of the day.
plate armor costing 1500 gp is just weird, well not that weird if you are giving gold as reccomended. 1500g in gold is pretty fast.
but the real point im getting at is, 18 AC at level 2 isnt actually a flex power wise. its fairly cheap to get 16-17 acc, So, if the artificer couldnt get this item at early level, their level 2 feat becomes pretty poor for those not using a shield. at the end of the day all plate armor is, is +1-2 AC over normal. Not much compared to bless, shield, rage, second wind, Focus.
It really just costs a ton of money for flavor, and the item fabricator would be able to make it. Its just a common item at the end of the day.
Either Plate is overpriced for setting your AC to an 18 before item bonuses, a shield, and other modifiers or summoning a free set is potentially potent at level 2 with the impact dropping off at higher levels. Part of the difficulty in judging the potency is that high AC only matters if you can force the enemy to target you (which the Artificer/Armorer can certainly heavily discourage targeting anyone else)
Historically, Plate was rare and custom fit for the wearer, being less effective after wear and tear and being handed down. The price tag representing that makes sense. I prefer the 3.x representation though where you retained your dexterity bonus.
All of your counter examples either don't improve defense or stack with Full Plate.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to their respective race/species. I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to race/species. I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
Dragonmarks being a subspecies was only a thing at the start of 5e and depends on species having subspecies.
Breaking it back out into the original feats allows you to retain your full species abilities and still participate in the Eberron campaign/Dragon Prophecy. The issue is that they need to be balanced against the feats available in their setting.
Since we aren't given any different guidance and there are multiple indicators that the Dragonmark Feats will be available at 1st level, they should be balanced against other 1st level feats and I think they are consistently stronger.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to race/species. I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
Dragonmarks being a subspecies was only a thing at the start of 5e and depends on species having subspecies.
Breaking it back out into the original feats allows you to retain your full species abilities and still participate in the Eberron campaign/Dragon Prophecy. The issue is that they need to be balanced against the feats available in their setting.
Since we aren't given any different guidance and there are multiple indicators that the Dragonmark Feats will be available at 1st level, they should be balanced against other 1st level feats and I think they are consistently stronger.
Which is why they're specifically tagged as something specific to the setting, with the implication that all characters playing in the setting should take one. It is the same as the Ravnica or Strixhaven backgrounds- they give somewhat overtuned feats/background features meant to facilitate the concept that this particular setting is so high magic that there's a lot more people who have access to a basic degree of magic.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to race/species. I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
Dragonmarks being a subspecies was only a thing at the start of 5e and depends on species having subspecies.
Breaking it back out into the original feats allows you to retain your full species abilities and still participate in the Eberron campaign/Dragon Prophecy. The issue is that they need to be balanced against the feats available in their setting.
Since we aren't given any different guidance and there are multiple indicators that the Dragonmark Feats will be available at 1st level, they should be balanced against other 1st level feats and I think they are consistently stronger.
Which is why they're specifically tagged as something specific to the setting, with the implication that all characters playing in the setting should take one. It is the same as the Ravnica or Strixhaven backgrounds- they give somewhat overtuned feats/background features meant to facilitate the concept that this particular setting is so high magic that there's a lot more people who have access to a basic degree of magic.
I am aware, however, not all Eberron characters are Dragonmarked. That changes the narrative for the setting. Many characters in Eberron are part of a Dragonmarked house. This is essentially equivalent to being part of a guild. This is not represented by Dragonmark Feats.
Dragonmarks are passed down through bloodlines. This is more like making every character part of the setting's nobility. Dragonmarks are rare. Separating the species requirements is already a deviation from the preexisting Lore, but I can live with that. Making them so everyone is expected to have one in order to keep up is step too far.
Additionally, Ravnica and Strixhaven started setting specific trends that continued in Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. They should just make them balanced period instead of using them as an OP carrot to sell the book and then throwing their hands up if and when people mix them with other options.
What's the point of every book bringing us options that we can't use outside of the book? I will always play Planescape. I play every setting because that is what Planescape is as a setting.
It has the same problem the All-Purpose Tool has. Being able to swap a tool proficiency on the fly is nearly too good to ignore for an Artificer but it has the unfortunate side effect of making the artisan tool proficiencies you get from your Class and perhaps your Background entirely redundant. It invalidates your character choices. But at least the All-Purpose Tool has the decency to "require attunement by an Artificer."
The Manifold Tool can be attuned to by anyone. Ranger? Check. Rogue? Check. Bard? Check. Wizard? Check. Wizard's familiar? Oddly enough, RAW, check!
Further, all of those classes share a feature that the Artificer lacks. Expertise. Rogues and Bards in particular have a plethora of skill proficiencies allowing them to more often make use of the Skills + Tools advantage.
And then it's a common magic item, not an exclusive infusion, not an Artificer exclusive spell, making it very quick and easy to craft. Just need Tinker's Tools + Arcana proficiency. Then once you have the Manifold Tool you can then craft any magic item. The proficiency gates swing wide open.
Artificers used to be the "best at tools," primarily due to Tool Expertise. Now their only bonus regarding tools is the category based crafting time reduction in their subclass however you can get an equivalent reduction in crafting time by making a 2nd Manifest Tool and giving it to an ally who also has Arcana Proficiency and the two of your working together. For these reasons I can't help but view the Manifold tool as harmful to the Artificer's Identity.
I'd much rather the ability to grant a creature a tool proficiency as an action be an Artificer exclusive spell, or if the Manifold Tool MUST exist, give it the prerequisite "requires attunement by an Artificer".
Alternately, give Artificers Tool Expertise again or Expertise in a skill, or something in that vein. Artificers were once tangentially listed as Experts alongside Bards, Rogues, and Rangers.
It seems like WoTC are swiftly eroding that tenuous identity pushing Artificers to be ONLY about magic items and nothing else.
expertise in tools doesnt matter much in 2024, because you dont make rolls to craft things. There are some times where you might use like masonry tools to take the hinges off a door, but you do have flash of genius.
As far as crafting,
then the artificer can reduce the time to one 4rth. They also can give this item to a homunculus and work all night crafting. It actually bothered me last UA that the homucukus could assist crafting, Its one of the primary things i think an artificer would want from a homunculus.
to be honest, i think in games that let you craft/have downtime, most artificers are interesting, but the baseline, no, or rare crafting campaigns i generally see, that magic replication is supposed to handle, seems questionable in this version
As much as I love the idea of giving the Manifold Tool to the homunculus to help with crafting, a helper must also have Arcana. Though they can at least help craft non-magic items/gear, which is better than nothing, I guess.
Now if the Manifold Tool gave proficiency in Arcana on top of any tool, that would solve the issue. And while I agree with other comments saying the tool should be Artificer only, that would prevent the homunculus from using it. Unless they include a detail in the tool description or homunculus stat block to still allow it (which I find unlikely to happen).
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to race/species. I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
Dragonmarks being a subspecies was only a thing at the start of 5e and depends on species having subspecies.
Breaking it back out into the original feats allows you to retain your full species abilities and still participate in the Eberron campaign/Dragon Prophecy. The issue is that they need to be balanced against the feats available in their setting.
Since we aren't given any different guidance and there are multiple indicators that the Dragonmark Feats will be available at 1st level, they should be balanced against other 1st level feats and I think they are consistently stronger.
Which is why they're specifically tagged as something specific to the setting, with the implication that all characters playing in the setting should take one. It is the same as the Ravnica or Strixhaven backgrounds- they give somewhat overtuned feats/background features meant to facilitate the concept that this particular setting is so high magic that there's a lot more people who have access to a basic degree of magic.
I am aware, however, not all Eberron characters are Dragonmarked. That changes the narrative for the setting. Many characters in Eberron are part of a Dragonmarked house. This is essentially equivalent to being part of a guild. This is not represented by Dragonmark Feats.
Dragonmarks are passed down through bloodlines. This is more like making every character part of the setting's nobility. Dragonmarks are rare. Separating the species requirements is already a deviation from the preexisting Lore, but I can live with that. Making them so everyone is expected to have one in order to keep up is step too far.
So, basically you're saying a group of PCs are going to be particularly exceptional individuals relative to the general setting? And we're supposed to view this as some unprecedented and ridiculous paradigm for them?
Additionally, Ravnica and Strixhaven started setting specific trends that continued in Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. They should just make them balanced period instead of using them as an OP carrot to sell the book and then throwing their hands up if and when people mix them with other options.
What's the point of every book bringing us options that we can't use outside of the book? I will always play Planescape. I play every setting because that is what Planescape is as a setting.
The Spelljammer and Planescape backgrounds are not nearly comparable to Ravinca and Strixhaven- Dragonlance is somewhere in the middle iirc. The former were test cases of the origin feat system. The latter- like Dragonmarks- are specifically to play into the idea of a high magic setting by providing a bit more general and thematically targeted spell access.
And, again, there is no vast immovable barrier that says you can't use setting material outside of the setting. However, actually making setting material meaningfully different helps make different settings feel you know... different rather than just being all but identical except for the paint job- which was probably one complaint about previous backgrounds, along with how spotty the implementation of soft background features could be.
I am aware, however, not all Eberron characters are Dragonmarked. That changes the narrative for the setting. Many characters in Eberron are part of a Dragonmarked house. This is essentially equivalent to being part of a guild. This is not represented by Dragonmark Feats.
Dragonmarks are passed down through bloodlines. This is more like making every character part of the setting's nobility. Dragonmarks are rare. Separating the species requirements is already a deviation from the preexisting Lore, but I can live with that. Making them so everyone is expected to have one in order to keep up is step too far.
So, basically you're saying a group of PCs are going to be particularly exceptional individuals relative to the general setting? And we're supposed to view this as some unprecedented and ridiculous paradigm for them?
No. Already being member of a house is significant. I am saying that an all Dragonmarked adventuring party is rare and such characters would be pulled into the drama of their individual houses more than a member of the house. Making every character nobility diminishes the value of nobility and puts conflicting expectations on the party or everyone gets the same Dragonmark.
A party full of nobles might be interesting once in a while but that is not the default, and shouldn't be, flavor of the Eberron setting.
The Spelljammer and Planescape backgrounds are not nearly comparable to Ravinca and Strixhaven- Dragonlance is somewhere in the middle iirc. The former were test cases of the origin feat system. The latter- like Dragonmarks- are specifically to play into the idea of a high magic setting by providing a bit more general and thematically targeted spell access.
You appear to be confusing settings. Ravnica and Strixhaven had strong Backgrounds (if you were a spellcaster).
I don't think Ravnica had origin feats.
Strixhaven's feats gave you 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell themed around your school which is completely in line with Magic Initiate. It was only stronger because it was the first time you could cast the spell with you any other slots you had and you got to pick the spellcasting attribute.
Dragonlance is harder to judge because it has a martial feat. The spellcaster feat gave you two first level spells which is technically stronger than Magic Initiate, but not by much. If you took it as a non-spellcaster (via the background) for some reason, you might prefer a cantrip or two over a second 1st level spell. Most of the spell options weren't amazing but, again you got to cast it with spell slots and pick the spellcasting attribute.
Spelljammer didn't have any setting-specific feats but it continued the trend of a Background giving you an "origin" feat.
Planescape's "origin" feat gave you a cantrip and damage resistance. I personally picked Outlands with Force resistance and Mage Hand because I like having the cantrip and felt Force fit my character's astral origin.
I feel that the feats from Strixhaven, Dragonlance, and Planescape are roughly in line with each other and don't too heavily outshine what would become origin feats. I am not sure if the damage resistance (particularly to Poison) may be on the strong side. The Eberron feats should follow suit with the 2024 PHB as a baseline instead of the 2014.
You can absolutely create feats that are meaningful different and push the mood of the setting without having to break the balance. Look at Planar Wanderer which has strong abilities in a Planescape setting but is much weaker in others. Look at the Strixhaven Mascot feat or the spell selections on Strixhaven Initate.
Additionally, Eberron is not a High Magic Setting. It is high up until the middle levels drops off to normal magic. Most of the heightened magic is supposed to come from the items created by Artificers (and Magewrights if they still existed). The dragonmarks should be relatively strong when powered up, not out the gate.
The "Mark of ..." feats are better than the Strixhaven Initiate feat combined with the Strixhaven/Ravnica background features. Potent Dragonmark is like multiclassing into Warlock for the spellcasting as a feat (however many Short Rests you can fit in, plus 1, is the number of spell slots you get per day for your Dragonmark spells).
And then you have the Aberrant Dragonmarks which gives you level one spells that you can cast once per short rest. And the Potent Dragonmark which gives you an extra spell slot per short rest. And the Epic Boon which gives you ridiculous spellcasting.
"Oh. It's a different setting" is not an excuse to ignore balance. If something is an automatic choice, it needs to be rebalanced.
I don't mind the feats being a bit overtuned. These do seem a step too far in the basic marks and a step not far enough in the greater. I know the recommendation I will make is just to move some aspects of the basic marks to their respective greater ones to address the issue and I will feel content with most of the power levels. A bit high but not game breakingly so.
There are a few of the feats as others have mentioned that would still be too much, and those should be reigned in, but just moving some aspects around fixes most of it. If you make it so that not taking the greater feat if you took a basic mark leaves a lot on the table, then consider that those characters would likely be giving up both their origin feat and first choice feat in order to get a fully functional dragon mark. Yes that is powerful for sure, but it would also mean that a lot of the go-to regular feats for martial and/or caster builds wouldn't start to be gotten until level 8 for most characters. That is a very substantial delay on many builds.
For the Manifold Tool, a solution I'd like to see (and I plan on commenting in the survey) is to make it a feature at level 3. Pull it out of the replicate feature entirely and just say artificers can make one (a permanent item since it's not under the replicate feature). So it wouldn't actually be a magic item you can craft with the normal rules, since it's just a class feature in the shape of an item. Then have it upgrade to the existing All-Purpose version at level 10 (+1) and level 14 (+2) so we actually get something besides attunement there.
This way we can get the cool tool without needing to burn an item slot and we don't loose out on the lv 3 feature they removed. It also removes a potential issue of the whole party getting all tool proficiencies (if some people see that as an issue). The Manifold version is a class feature and the All-Purpose versions are artificer only, so those staying as regular magic items is fine.
interestingly, many of the artifcer features werent up for feeback on my survey, that might be a bug, or it might mean they are targeting certain features for improvements or changes,
The “wave a monkey wrench” bit is the hard mechanical implementation of exactly the concept you’re describing. Mechanically, using tools as foci is simple to track and keep in the same system as other spellcasting. Now, if you read the description in Tasha’s, there’s a sidebar that specifically discusses ways to flavor spells as pulling out gadgets or other creations that produce the effect.
And trying to base a whole class around building custom gadgets would at the very least be an absolutely massive project to distill into something easy to implement in play and well balanced. More likely, you’d get an unwieldy overtuned mess like the old Mystic UA.
This is a discussion about updating the primary text for Artificer. Clarity and specificity should be in the main text, not a sidebar. It is one thing to say, "you produce your spells through tools", and another to say, "daily preparation of your spells requires a set of tools to craft the objects that produce them". Which is more accurate to the spirit and theme of an Artificer?
Regardless of a sidebar in an arguably now out-of-date sourcebook, I don't think the class is being written to operate as a crafter of objects. TInker's Magic specifically treats it as a hardware store conjuror. The language used matters. Am I being pedantic? Perhaps. But this is a discussion of editing text. Specificity matters to how it will be interpreted.
And I never proposed basing the "whole class around building custom gadgets". There SHOULD be a fixed list of what items can be replicated. Refining that list when the core traits of the class are yet to be properly established is putting the cart before the horse.
AmazingScottMan#3124 on Discord
You are correct, their primary function is not creating objects. That’s because creating custom objects is a nonstarter in 5e, and magic item crafting needs to be regulated because there’s a lot of item combos that would make the Artificer/party pretty OP if they could just knock together nearly any magic item mid adventure. Regardless of what your headcanon is or how previous editions have handled them, 5e Artificers are in fact magic users who integrate things like Conjuration and Transmutation with their craftsman’s skills.
I agree in principle; however, the campaign differences are not explained in the UA document. Without different instructions, we have to evaluate the balance within the Context of the 2024 PHB options. I think the Dragonmark Feats themselves are okay if a little strong. The Aberrant Dragonmark, Potent Dragonmark, Boon of Siberys, and maybe the Greater Aberrant Dragonmark may be too strong in any context.
This is mainly solved by changing the replicate magic item and magical tinkering features back into infusing items with magic instead of summoning them. Any other problem is just flavor.
These are mechanics and are the meat of the matter. Flavor can be adjusted easily enough. The underlying mechanics need to be sound.
At the end of the day, summoning items sucks, but it's an easy to house rule to make it require an item or require that you have appropriate tools and/or materials. It has minimal impact on the function of the class. Being able to summon 1,500+ GP Cast-Off Full Plate armor at level 2 is problematic.
That's not to say don't voice your disapproval of the flavoring. Quite the contrary, do it! However, these mechanical discussions, of the Artificer, the Cartographer, and the Feats need to happen at the same time.
How to add Tooltips.
It would paint a clearer picture if Tools Required was more about preparing spells through crafting objects. And the objects, the prepared spells themselves, would act as their own spellcasting focus in casting them. But that also opens the cans of beans of making a ton of objects at the end of every long rest, determining how and if those items can be disseminated, used by others, or lost, etc.
I think the current wording of Tools Required keeps things simple mechanically, and for that reason I don't have any issue with it.
My take is that this leaves the Artificer likely the weakest class by a notable margin. Most of the tricks people came up with to make the UA artificer able to keep up with the other classes are no longer available. Now, I think that is mostly a good thing because those tricks really did not fit the flavor or intent of the artificer, but they should have come with things that brought the class up to par without them.
Additionally it seems they made it so that the Alchemist is no longer the weakest Artificer subclass by introducing a new weaker subclass.
Both of these need a HUGE boost.
My take on the dragon mark feats is that they are quite strong. If that is the intent, then awesome! However, if they are not intended to be so strong, I'd move some of the aspects of the basic marks over to the greater mark feats which are less impressive than the base marks.
plate armor costing 1500 gp is just weird, well not that weird if you are giving gold as reccomended. 1500g in gold is pretty fast.
but the real point im getting at is, 18 AC at level 2 isnt actually a flex power wise. its fairly cheap to get 16-17 acc, So, if the artificer couldnt get this item at early level, their level 2 feat becomes pretty poor for those not using a shield. at the end of the day all plate armor is, is +1-2 AC over normal. Not much compared to bless, shield, rage, second wind, Focus.
It really just costs a ton of money for flavor, and the item fabricator would be able to make it. Its just a common item at the end of the day.
Either Plate is overpriced for setting your AC to an 18 before item bonuses, a shield, and other modifiers or summoning a free set is potentially potent at level 2 with the impact dropping off at higher levels. Part of the difficulty in judging the potency is that high AC only matters if you can force the enemy to target you (which the Artificer/Armorer can certainly heavily discourage targeting anyone else)
Historically, Plate was rare and custom fit for the wearer, being less effective after wear and tear and being handed down. The price tag representing that makes sense. I prefer the 3.x representation though where you retained your dexterity bonus.
All of your counter examples either don't improve defense or stack with Full Plate.
How to add Tooltips.
To be honest, I am uncomfortable with Dragonmarks being a feat instead of being tied to their respective race/species.
I think the Greater Dragonmarks being a feat that enhances a Dragonmark with the requirement of corresponding Dragonmark race/species, would be better.
Dragonmarks being a subspecies was only a thing at the start of 5e and depends on species having subspecies.
Breaking it back out into the original feats allows you to retain your full species abilities and still participate in the Eberron campaign/Dragon Prophecy. The issue is that they need to be balanced against the feats available in their setting.
Since we aren't given any different guidance and there are multiple indicators that the Dragonmark Feats will be available at 1st level, they should be balanced against other 1st level feats and I think they are consistently stronger.
How to add Tooltips.
Which is why they're specifically tagged as something specific to the setting, with the implication that all characters playing in the setting should take one. It is the same as the Ravnica or Strixhaven backgrounds- they give somewhat overtuned feats/background features meant to facilitate the concept that this particular setting is so high magic that there's a lot more people who have access to a basic degree of magic.
I am aware, however, not all Eberron characters are Dragonmarked. That changes the narrative for the setting. Many characters in Eberron are part of a Dragonmarked house. This is essentially equivalent to being part of a guild. This is not represented by Dragonmark Feats.
Dragonmarks are passed down through bloodlines. This is more like making every character part of the setting's nobility. Dragonmarks are rare. Separating the species requirements is already a deviation from the preexisting Lore, but I can live with that. Making them so everyone is expected to have one in order to keep up is step too far.
Additionally, Ravnica and Strixhaven started setting specific trends that continued in Dragonlance, Spelljammer, and Planescape. They should just make them balanced period instead of using them as an OP carrot to sell the book and then throwing their hands up if and when people mix them with other options.
What's the point of every book bringing us options that we can't use outside of the book? I will always play Planescape. I play every setting because that is what Planescape is as a setting.
How to add Tooltips.
As much as I love the idea of giving the Manifold Tool to the homunculus to help with crafting, a helper must also have Arcana. Though they can at least help craft non-magic items/gear, which is better than nothing, I guess.
Now if the Manifold Tool gave proficiency in Arcana on top of any tool, that would solve the issue. And while I agree with other comments saying the tool should be Artificer only, that would prevent the homunculus from using it. Unless they include a detail in the tool description or homunculus stat block to still allow it (which I find unlikely to happen).
So, basically you're saying a group of PCs are going to be particularly exceptional individuals relative to the general setting? And we're supposed to view this as some unprecedented and ridiculous paradigm for them?
The Spelljammer and Planescape backgrounds are not nearly comparable to Ravinca and Strixhaven- Dragonlance is somewhere in the middle iirc. The former were test cases of the origin feat system. The latter- like Dragonmarks- are specifically to play into the idea of a high magic setting by providing a bit more general and thematically targeted spell access.
And, again, there is no vast immovable barrier that says you can't use setting material outside of the setting. However, actually making setting material meaningfully different helps make different settings feel you know... different rather than just being all but identical except for the paint job- which was probably one complaint about previous backgrounds, along with how spotty the implementation of soft background features could be.
No. Already being member of a house is significant. I am saying that an all Dragonmarked adventuring party is rare and such characters would be pulled into the drama of their individual houses more than a member of the house. Making every character nobility diminishes the value of nobility and puts conflicting expectations on the party or everyone gets the same Dragonmark.
A party full of nobles might be interesting once in a while but that is not the default, and shouldn't be, flavor of the Eberron setting.
You appear to be confusing settings. Ravnica and Strixhaven had strong Backgrounds (if you were a spellcaster).
I don't think Ravnica had origin feats.
Strixhaven's feats gave you 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell themed around your school which is completely in line with Magic Initiate. It was only stronger because it was the first time you could cast the spell with you any other slots you had and you got to pick the spellcasting attribute.
Dragonlance is harder to judge because it has a martial feat. The spellcaster feat gave you two first level spells which is technically stronger than Magic Initiate, but not by much. If you took it as a non-spellcaster (via the background) for some reason, you might prefer a cantrip or two over a second 1st level spell. Most of the spell options weren't amazing but, again you got to cast it with spell slots and pick the spellcasting attribute.
Spelljammer didn't have any setting-specific feats but it continued the trend of a Background giving you an "origin" feat.
Planescape's "origin" feat gave you a cantrip and damage resistance. I personally picked Outlands with Force resistance and Mage Hand because I like having the cantrip and felt Force fit my character's astral origin.
I feel that the feats from Strixhaven, Dragonlance, and Planescape are roughly in line with each other and don't too heavily outshine what would become origin feats. I am not sure if the damage resistance (particularly to Poison) may be on the strong side. The Eberron feats should follow suit with the 2024 PHB as a baseline instead of the 2014.
You can absolutely create feats that are meaningful different and push the mood of the setting without having to break the balance. Look at Planar Wanderer which has strong abilities in a Planescape setting but is much weaker in others. Look at the Strixhaven Mascot feat or the spell selections on Strixhaven Initate.
Additionally, Eberron is not a High Magic Setting. It is high up until the middle levels drops off to normal magic. Most of the heightened magic is supposed to come from the items created by Artificers (and Magewrights if they still existed). The dragonmarks should be relatively strong when powered up, not out the gate.
The "Mark of ..." feats are better than the Strixhaven Initiate feat combined with the Strixhaven/Ravnica background features. Potent Dragonmark is like multiclassing into Warlock for the spellcasting as a feat (however many Short Rests you can fit in, plus 1, is the number of spell slots you get per day for your Dragonmark spells).
And then you have the Aberrant Dragonmarks which gives you level one spells that you can cast once per short rest. And the Potent Dragonmark which gives you an extra spell slot per short rest. And the Epic Boon which gives you ridiculous spellcasting.
"Oh. It's a different setting" is not an excuse to ignore balance. If something is an automatic choice, it needs to be rebalanced.
How to add Tooltips.
I don't mind the feats being a bit overtuned. These do seem a step too far in the basic marks and a step not far enough in the greater. I know the recommendation I will make is just to move some aspects of the basic marks to their respective greater ones to address the issue and I will feel content with most of the power levels. A bit high but not game breakingly so.
There are a few of the feats as others have mentioned that would still be too much, and those should be reigned in, but just moving some aspects around fixes most of it. If you make it so that not taking the greater feat if you took a basic mark leaves a lot on the table, then consider that those characters would likely be giving up both their origin feat and first choice feat in order to get a fully functional dragon mark. Yes that is powerful for sure, but it would also mean that a lot of the go-to regular feats for martial and/or caster builds wouldn't start to be gotten until level 8 for most characters. That is a very substantial delay on many builds.
For the Manifold Tool, a solution I'd like to see (and I plan on commenting in the survey) is to make it a feature at level 3. Pull it out of the replicate feature entirely and just say artificers can make one (a permanent item since it's not under the replicate feature). So it wouldn't actually be a magic item you can craft with the normal rules, since it's just a class feature in the shape of an item. Then have it upgrade to the existing All-Purpose version at level 10 (+1) and level 14 (+2) so we actually get something besides attunement there.
This way we can get the cool tool without needing to burn an item slot and we don't loose out on the lv 3 feature they removed. It also removes a potential issue of the whole party getting all tool proficiencies (if some people see that as an issue). The Manifold version is a class feature and the All-Purpose versions are artificer only, so those staying as regular magic items is fine.
Survey is open now. And will remain open until March 11th.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/ua/eberron-updates
interestingly, many of the artifcer features werent up for feeback on my survey, that might be a bug, or it might mean they are targeting certain features for improvements or changes,
https://media.dndbeyond.com/compendium-images/ua/eberron-updates/Lhg25Ggx5iY3rETH/UA2025-CartographerArtificer.pdf