I think what could work is a more dramatic approach to reflavoring spellcasting. Instead of spellcasting with Tools Required I suggest we go all out, replace Spellcasting with the following:
Spell Conduit
At 2nd level, you have learned how to anchor the weave to magic items. You can craft conduits out of weapons, armors or mundane looking items which then act as conduits to spell like abilities. These are drawn from other classes’ spell lists but are restricted to the below “Artificer Conduit List.” (renamed spell list)
You can craft up to Int Mod + half your Artificer level of these conduits and can double up on spells from the list if needed. Over the course of a Longrest you can rework up to Int Mod of these items to recreate different spells on the list. If disarmed of these Spell Conduit Items, you can recraft up to your Int Mod of these as improvised conduits over the period of a Long Rest or replaced at a town at a cost of 100g each.
These items can be used by any allied creature but only within 30ft of you, as the conduits draw from a power source connected to you, be that magical or technological in nature. This power source refreshes on long rest and increases with level as per the Conduit Slots table (renamed from Spell Slots table) and can be powered by other classes spell slots as detailed in the multiclassing optional rules.
When activated the items use a Spellcasting modifier defined of your Int Mod, but take the Spell’s required Action and act as if cast by the activating creature, using their concentration if required. The conduit item is not consumed in the process.
(I may be missing some things please look at the Intent instead of the RAW）
This would make thematic sense to those of you who prefer full crafting focus Artificer and maintain the lore of an Ebberon Artificer, and I think more cleanly does what they intended to do with Tools required. And yes I intend this still be paired with DMG/XGTE magic item crafting, but with this being the more active combat focused crafting giving a lot of extra options of what to do in combat.
On balance I see that this is a whole different ballpark, giving a crazy unique way of playing Artificer as every spell known becomes a spell stored item, but it maintains most of the limitations of Spellcasting, while interestingly giving Artificer a super strong and unique Utility party role. Turn your Barbarian’s Greataxe into a conduit for Arcane weapon, etc. I though don’t think it is that over powered because it doesn’t give that much numerical advantage just a lot of flexibility and theme driven mechanics.
Your Spell Conduit is overpowered and going in the wrong direction. It is essentially combining spellcasting and Infuse Magic (2017 UA Artificer).
My idea of a gadget/invention for cantrips would be like Hiccup's Flame Sword from How to Train Your Dragon (you could say that Hiccup was an Artificer because he was crafting and inventing). Or, Taliesin Jaffe's Percy characters electrocution glove. You could say that Hiccup's Flame Sword utilized only fire damage from the Arcane Weapon spell and Percy's Electrocution Glove was an example of Shocking Grasp. This is what I am talking about. Actual physical inventions/gadgets that simulate spells. Now in the case of imbuing nonmagical items with magical properties, I would suggest something similar to the Wizard's Spellbook. But in this case it would be a book filled with instruction on how to imbue nonmagical items with magical properties and blueprints for crafting gadgets that simulate cantrips.
With that being said, I still believe that direct damage spells should be removed from the core class and that all divine spells should be removed period. Artificer's utilize Arcane magic, not divine magic. In the case of healing, that can be done through potions and salves but only by the Alchemist.
For the Alchemist, you would completely rebuild the subclass. Tools of the Trade.... keep and add Alchemist's satchel, Alchemist spell list... gone, Homunculus.... gone, Alchemical Mastery & Chemical Savant... gone. Instead you would bring back the Alchemists Satchel and rework the Alchemical Formulas. This would include creating chemical compounds that while wouldn't be spells, they would have similar effects as certain spells.
I believe the Archivists should be a Wizard subclass.
The Artillerist's would keep it's expanded spell list as I feel it works for the class. However, I would get rid of anything that has to do with wands. I would expand on the turrets though. Increase the number and types of turrets available to the Artillerist and allow them to chose them. The Defender turret would project a force field that surrounds the players (equal to INT mod) that are within 15 feet of it (at the time it was deployed). The force field would simulate the temporary hit points. However, the characters would have to stay within 15 feet of the turret at all times and if they move outside of that 15 foot radius they lose the protection (they are unable to get it back if they return within range of the turret). Also, once damage has used up those temporary hit points, the players can't get them back.
I see the Battle Smith as like a Navy Corpsman or an Army Medic, with that being said, it would lose it's expanded spell list. Instead it would be able to coat it's weapon in a special formula that would simulate some of the smite spells. They could also have a minor ability to heal characters. This ability could be something similar to cure wounds, but instead of actually getting the spell the character would have something like "quikclot" bandages (1d8+INT mod heal) instead (uses equal to their INT mod, 1 use per player per short/long rest). The Battle Smith would also receive proficiency with the Medicine Skill as well. The Iron Defender would only be able to heal itself, and replace Defensive Pounce with a Shield ability it can use to defend itself or other player (number of uses INT mod). Arcane Jolt would be changed to 2d4 lightning damage or any creature within 15 feet of the Iron Defender would be shot with a paintball style healing salve (1d6 hit points, number of shots equal INT mod, and 1 use per short rest), and the player would double the number of "quikclot" bandages they can have on hand. Improve Defender damage would increase to 4d4 lightning damage, the "quikclot" bandages would do 2d8+INT mod heal (can be used 2x on a player per short/long rest), and Iron Defender Shield ability use is doubled.
In all of these example Spellcasting is is reduced, while at the same time, increasing gadgets/inventions.
The more I look at the Iron Defender's pet the more I want it to do more than just be a big bitey meat shield...
I wonder if it would be overpowered to add a bonus action/reaction to it (maybe at higher levels or even a subclass specific infusion) that allows it to turn into armor that gives you it's Health as Temp HP, its AC, and, if you are a small character, its medium size. So basically your character presses a button and the Iron Defender alters its form to clamp around you and become a sweet mech suit... is that too weird? It would stay in line with the subclasses "armor smith/battle artificer" vibe.
If it were a sub class specific infusion that would also pave the way for other infusions of the like.
We could give the Alchemist back a revised version of the Alchemist's Satchel that gives you access to Healing Draught, Smoke Sticks, Alchemist's Fire, Tanglefoot Bag, and Thunderstone (or something of the like) but you can only have 3 of these prepared per long rest or something.
I think that the bonus action buffs would tred too closely on the Artillerist's turrets abilities. That being said, keep on mind that as a Battle Smith you can create armor that your Iron Defender could wear, which can obviously magical. Additionally, something that may be overlooked is that unlike the Turrets, the Iron Defender is a creature, meaning a lot of spells (both good and bad) can target it (the Turrets are objects).
I suppose I didn't think about it being a creature and thus barding could come into effect... honestly I've just been waiting for the ability for my Warforged Artificer to go full Transformers and merge with their mechanical Mastiff. Hopefully whatever DM I have will be kind and allow me to make some... modifications to my Iron Defender.
I stand by the Alchemist's Satchel though. Alchemists should have a more active "potion mixing" mechanic. And having Subclass specific infusions wouldn't be a terrible idea.
Crawford has mentioned that the Alchemist Satchel very likely could be an Infusion option unique to the alchemist subtype.
The current Alchemist build is garbage. They need to get rid of the Alchemist spell list, Homunculus, Alchemical Mastery & Chemical Savant and bring back the Alchemist's Satchel and fix the satchel. Not make it an infusion specific to the alchemist.
@Marine2874 That is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I'm merely presenting the information that I heard on Dragon+ from Jeremy Crawford explaining what he expected future changes to the Alchemist would look like.
@Marine2874 That is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I'm merely presenting the information that I heard on Dragon+ from Jeremy Crawford explaining what he expected future changes to the Alchemist would look like.
I understand, I just find it odd that they are already talking about changes and they haven't even released the survey yet.
@Marine2874 That is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I'm merely presenting the information that I heard on Dragon+ from Jeremy Crawford explaining what he expected future changes to the Alchemist would look like.
I understand, I just find it odd that they are already talking about changes and they haven't even released the survey yet.
A little context: The changes they were talking about was done during a Q&A Dragon+ vodcast, people asked questions about the new subclasses and why the alchemist's satchel was removed. During the discussion Crawford did say there is a possibility a revision of the satchel could make an appearance as a infusion depending on the survey. So it wasn't like he was speaking in absolutes, he was answering a question proposed by a player.
@Marine2874 That is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I'm merely presenting the information that I heard on Dragon+ from Jeremy Crawford explaining what he expected future changes to the Alchemist would look like.
I understand, I just find it odd that they are already talking about changes and they haven't even released the survey yet.
A little context: The changes they were talking about was done during a Q&A Dragon+ vodcast, people asked questions about the new subclasses and why the alchemist's satchel was removed. During the discussion Crawford did say there is a possibility a revision of the satchel could make an appearance as a infusion depending on the survey. So it wasn't like he was speaking in absolutes, he was answering a question proposed by a player.
Is Artificer's Enhanced Wand Infusion wasted Potential since it doesnt work with Artillerist's lvl 6 Wand Prototype ability?
Wand Prototype allows you INT damage to your damage roll that you infuse in a Non-magical wand. It doesn't work with Enhanced Wand Infusions, since the wand is a prototype Magical Item now. Artificers already have a niche spell list that hardly has a lot of Spells where you roll damage.
Meanwhile, Alchemist's Homunculus does twice the damage of 18 at lvl 14 in comparison with the Turrets. But somehow they have more firepower than other Artificers? For most players, whose games only last Tier 2, I personally feel its a huge investment that doesnt give enough fruit.
Do you feel it could be improved to allow the 2 abilities to work in sync? Would it be too much ignore the RAW in this case?
Is Artificer's Enhanced Wand Infusion wasted Potential since it doesnt work with Artillerist's lvl 6 Wand Prototype ability?
Wand Prototype allows you INT damage to your damage roll that you infuse in a Non-magical wand. It doesn't work with Enhanced Wand Infusions, since the wand is a prototype Magical Item now. Artificers already have a niche spell list that hardly has a lot of Spells where you roll damage.
Meanwhile, Alchemist's Homunculus does twice the damage of 18 at lvl 14 in comparison with the Turrets. But somehow they have more firepower than other Artificers? For most players, whose games only last Tier 2, I personally feel its a huge investment that doesnt give enough fruit.
Do you feel it could be improved to allow the 2 abilities to work in sync? Would it be too much ignore the RAW in this case?
In one of the campaigns I am currently running, one of my players is playing a war wizard / artificer (Artillerist) who asked the same question. Because Enhanced Wand is new, I've allowed him to use an Enhanced Wand with Wand Prototype.
Personally, I tend to use my Turret in Defense mode. This provides me with half cover & temporary hp when needed. My main Artificer is human (5th level), an Artillerist who's main weapon is an Enhanced hand crossbow (Crossbow Mastery feat).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Yeah, this feels like an oversight that the subclass that is supposed to be a wand specialist can't use Enhanced Want on it's prototype wand. I'd allow it in my game and will include it in the survey. The Enhanced Wand should have a specific rule regarding this and is the only infusion that can be applied to another magic item. Specifically a prototype wand:
Item: A wand or the Artillerist's Prototype Wand (Requires Attunement)
I’d just rewrite (/remove) the Artillerist‘s Wand prototype to work on magic item wands instead, as that is the problem.
Then again I like the concept of a Artificer with 3-5 Wands in his coat and selecting the right one for the Job, that’s probably how I would play a Wandslinger rather than one that does all. (But better have option rather than force everyone to carry many wands)
I'd make it: Item: A wand, an Enhanced Wand or the Artillerist's Prototype Wand (Requires Attunement)
Unless I am misreading what you are saying, it doesn't make sense to allow the Enhanced Wand to be applied to another Enhanced Wand. It would overcomplicate the number of exception required on an infusion. The first being applying an infusion to a magical item and the second being picking an infusion multiple times.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 68 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+32= 78 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Myself I would make the Prototype wand the exception since it can actually only be used by the Artificer as others cannot activate the magic in the wand to cast the cantrip(s) in it. making this the only exception to infuseing an already magical item. Which really thinking about it, maybe it is a Rule as Intended (RAI) and needs clarifying in the document.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or +2 (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 70 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 +2 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+2+32= 80 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Their effects are actually quite synergistic. Artillerists can use wands as a spell focus for casting spells, including the Prototype Wand.
So if Artillerist has an Enhanced Prototype Wand, it can give +1/+2 to attack rolls for any spell using the wand as a spell focus due to it being Enhanced...
Or it can give +1 / +2 to attacks with the cantrip(s) within the Prototype Wand (due to it being Enhanced) and then deal + Int Modifier (Prototype) to damage.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or +2 (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 70 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 +2 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+2+32= 80 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Their effects are actually quite synergistic. Artillerists can use wands as a spell focus for casting spells, including the Prototype Wand.
So if Artillerist has an Enhanced Prototype Wand, it can give +1/+2 to attack / damage rolls for any spell using the wand as a spell focus due to it being Enhanced...
Or it can give +1 / +2 to attacks with the cantrip(s) within the Prototype Wand (due to it being Enhanced) and then deal + Int Modifier (Prototype) and an additional + 1 / +2 (Enhanced) to damage.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or +2 (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 70 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 +2 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+2+32= 80 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Their effects are actually quite synergistic. Artillerists can use wands as a spell focus for casting spells, including the Prototype Wand.
So if Artillerist has an Enhanced Prototype Wand, it can give +1/+2 to attack / damage rolls for any spell using the wand as a spell focus due to it being Enhanced...
Or it can give +1 / +2 to attacks with the cantrip(s) within the Prototype Wand (due to it being Enhanced) and then deal + Int Modifier (Prototype) and an additional + 1 / +2 (Enhanced) to damage.
Enhanced wand doesn't add to damage rolls.
Correct, while tabbing between browsers I started reading enhanced weapon, just underneath it instead. My bad. Edited to correct. That being said, my point is still valid, just not as good.
If the +1/+2 is just to hit then the only cantrips you can use the Prototype wand and not get the bonus are: Firebolt, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp and Thorn Whip, the others have saving throws instead of attack rolls so they don't benefit from the +1/+2 to attack rolls.
In which case you can choose whether you prefer the up to +5 (int mod) for the particular cantrip(s) of the day or whether you need some extra accuracy. This is similar to half the Sharpshooter feat for magic since you give up extra accuracy for 5 extra damage while the feat gives a penalty of -5 to a ranged attack in exchange for 10 extra damage if hit.
Less risk, less damage, safer, and you only need 2 levels to get it instead of a feature. It's quite balanced.
If the +1/+2 is just to hit then the only cantrips you can use the Prototype wand and not get the bonus are: Firebolt, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp and Thorn Whip, the others have saving throws instead of attack rolls so they don't benefit from the +1/+2 to attack rolls.
In which case you can choose whether you prefer the up to +5 (int mod) for the particular cantrip(s) of the day or whether you need some extra accuracy. This is similar to half the Sharpshooter feat for magic since you give up extra accuracy for 5 extra damage while the feat gives a penalty of -10 to a ranged attack in exchange for 10 extra damage if hit.
Less risk, less damage, safer, and you only need 2 levels to get it instead of a feature. It's quite balanced.
Point of note, Sharpshooter is -5/+10, not -10/+10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your Spell Conduit is overpowered and going in the wrong direction. It is essentially combining spellcasting and Infuse Magic (2017 UA Artificer).
My idea of a gadget/invention for cantrips would be like Hiccup's Flame Sword from How to Train Your Dragon (you could say that Hiccup was an Artificer because he was crafting and inventing). Or, Taliesin Jaffe's Percy characters electrocution glove. You could say that Hiccup's Flame Sword utilized only fire damage from the Arcane Weapon spell and Percy's Electrocution Glove was an example of Shocking Grasp. This is what I am talking about. Actual physical inventions/gadgets that simulate spells. Now in the case of imbuing nonmagical items with magical properties, I would suggest something similar to the Wizard's Spellbook. But in this case it would be a book filled with instruction on how to imbue nonmagical items with magical properties and blueprints for crafting gadgets that simulate cantrips.
With that being said, I still believe that direct damage spells should be removed from the core class and that all divine spells should be removed period. Artificer's utilize Arcane magic, not divine magic. In the case of healing, that can be done through potions and salves but only by the Alchemist.
For the Alchemist, you would completely rebuild the subclass. Tools of the Trade.... keep and add Alchemist's satchel, Alchemist spell list... gone, Homunculus.... gone, Alchemical Mastery & Chemical Savant... gone. Instead you would bring back the Alchemists Satchel and rework the Alchemical Formulas. This would include creating chemical compounds that while wouldn't be spells, they would have similar effects as certain spells.
I believe the Archivists should be a Wizard subclass.
The Artillerist's would keep it's expanded spell list as I feel it works for the class. However, I would get rid of anything that has to do with wands. I would expand on the turrets though. Increase the number and types of turrets available to the Artillerist and allow them to chose them. The Defender turret would project a force field that surrounds the players (equal to INT mod) that are within 15 feet of it (at the time it was deployed). The force field would simulate the temporary hit points. However, the characters would have to stay within 15 feet of the turret at all times and if they move outside of that 15 foot radius they lose the protection (they are unable to get it back if they return within range of the turret). Also, once damage has used up those temporary hit points, the players can't get them back.
I see the Battle Smith as like a Navy Corpsman or an Army Medic, with that being said, it would lose it's expanded spell list. Instead it would be able to coat it's weapon in a special formula that would simulate some of the smite spells. They could also have a minor ability to heal characters. This ability could be something similar to cure wounds, but instead of actually getting the spell the character would have something like "quikclot" bandages (1d8+INT mod heal) instead (uses equal to their INT mod, 1 use per player per short/long rest). The Battle Smith would also receive proficiency with the Medicine Skill as well. The Iron Defender would only be able to heal itself, and replace Defensive Pounce with a Shield ability it can use to defend itself or other player (number of uses INT mod). Arcane Jolt would be changed to 2d4 lightning damage or any creature within 15 feet of the Iron Defender would be shot with a paintball style healing salve (1d6 hit points, number of shots equal INT mod, and 1 use per short rest), and the player would double the number of "quikclot" bandages they can have on hand. Improve Defender damage would increase to 4d4 lightning damage, the "quikclot" bandages would do 2d8+INT mod heal (can be used 2x on a player per short/long rest), and Iron Defender Shield ability use is doubled.
In all of these example Spellcasting is is reduced, while at the same time, increasing gadgets/inventions.
Crawford has mentioned that the Alchemist Satchel very likely could be an Infusion option unique to the alchemist subtype.
@Grizzlebub
The current Alchemist build is garbage. They need to get rid of the Alchemist spell list, Homunculus, Alchemical Mastery & Chemical Savant and bring back the Alchemist's Satchel and fix the satchel. Not make it an infusion specific to the alchemist.
@Marine2874 That is your opinion and you are definitely entitled to it. I'm merely presenting the information that I heard on Dragon+ from Jeremy Crawford explaining what he expected future changes to the Alchemist would look like.
I understand, I just find it odd that they are already talking about changes and they haven't even released the survey yet.
A little context: The changes they were talking about was done during a Q&A Dragon+ vodcast, people asked questions about the new subclasses and why the alchemist's satchel was removed. During the discussion Crawford did say there is a possibility a revision of the satchel could make an appearance as a infusion depending on the survey. So it wasn't like he was speaking in absolutes, he was answering a question proposed by a player.
Gotcha, thanx.
Is Artificer's Enhanced Wand Infusion wasted Potential since it doesnt work with Artillerist's lvl 6 Wand Prototype ability?
Wand Prototype allows you INT damage to your damage roll that you infuse in a Non-magical wand. It doesn't work with Enhanced Wand Infusions, since the wand is a prototype Magical Item now. Artificers already have a niche spell list that hardly has a lot of Spells where you roll damage.
Meanwhile, Alchemist's Homunculus does twice the damage of 18 at lvl 14 in comparison with the Turrets. But somehow they have more firepower than other Artificers? For most players, whose games only last Tier 2, I personally feel its a huge investment that doesnt give enough fruit.
Do you feel it could be improved to allow the 2 abilities to work in sync? Would it be too much ignore the RAW in this case?
In one of the campaigns I am currently running, one of my players is playing a war wizard / artificer (Artillerist) who asked the same question. Because Enhanced Wand is new, I've allowed him to use an Enhanced Wand with Wand Prototype.
Personally, I tend to use my Turret in Defense mode. This provides me with half cover & temporary hp when needed. My main Artificer is human (5th level), an Artillerist who's main weapon is an Enhanced hand crossbow (Crossbow Mastery feat).
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Yeah, this feels like an oversight that the subclass that is supposed to be a wand specialist can't use Enhanced Want on it's prototype wand. I'd allow it in my game and will include it in the survey. The Enhanced Wand should have a specific rule regarding this and is the only infusion that can be applied to another magic item. Specifically a prototype wand:
Item: A wand or the Artillerist's Prototype Wand (Requires Attunement)
I'd make it: Item: A wand, an Enhanced Wand or the Artillerist's Prototype Wand (Requires Attunement)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I’d just rewrite (/remove) the Artillerist‘s Wand prototype to work on magic item wands instead, as that is the problem.
Then again I like the concept of a Artificer with 3-5 Wands in his coat and selecting the right one for the Job, that’s probably how I would play a Wandslinger rather than one that does all. (But better have option rather than force everyone to carry many wands)
Unless I am misreading what you are saying, it doesn't make sense to allow the Enhanced Wand to be applied to another Enhanced Wand. It would overcomplicate the number of exception required on an infusion. The first being applying an infusion to a magical item and the second being picking an infusion multiple times.
Currently, a 14th level Artillerist focused exclusively on damage can deal.
Poison Spray 3d12 = 3 > 36
+5 (Int Mod) Or (ignores Half-Cover)
4d8 Force Damage as a bonus action with 2 turrets = 4 > 32
Ignoring resistances, you can deal up to 36+5+32= 73 damage and if target is under half cover, use the other wand to deal up to 68 damage while ignoring it.
This is without any cost other than summoning the turrets which last 10 minutes.
Alternatively, they can use Fireball and deal 8d6 ignoring half cover in addition to the 4d8 force damage on survivors.
That's up to 46+32= 78 damage ignoring half cover.
Or is it that you guys forgot the Prototype wand only gives the bonus to the single assigned cantrip while the Enhanced Wand gives it to every spell you cast? Their effects are incompatible.
Myself I would make the Prototype wand the exception since it can actually only be used by the Artificer as others cannot activate the magic in the wand to cast the cantrip(s) in it. making this the only exception to infuseing an already magical item. Which really thinking about it, maybe it is a Rule as Intended (RAI) and needs clarifying in the document.
Their effects are actually quite synergistic. Artillerists can use wands as a spell focus for casting spells, including the Prototype Wand.
So if Artillerist has an Enhanced Prototype Wand, it can give +1/+2 to attack rolls for any spell using the wand as a spell focus due to it being Enhanced...
Or it can give +1 / +2 to attacks with the cantrip(s) within the Prototype Wand (due to it being Enhanced) and then deal + Int Modifier (Prototype) to damage.
Enhanced wand doesn't add to damage rolls.
Correct, while tabbing between browsers I started reading enhanced weapon, just underneath it instead. My bad. Edited to correct. That being said, my point is still valid, just not as good.
If the +1/+2 is just to hit then the only cantrips you can use the Prototype wand and not get the bonus are: Firebolt, Ray of Frost, Shocking Grasp and Thorn Whip, the others have saving throws instead of attack rolls so they don't benefit from the +1/+2 to attack rolls.
In which case you can choose whether you prefer the up to +5 (int mod) for the particular cantrip(s) of the day or whether you need some extra accuracy. This is similar to half the Sharpshooter feat for magic since you give up extra accuracy for 5 extra damage while the feat gives a penalty of -5 to a ranged attack in exchange for 10 extra damage if hit.
Less risk, less damage, safer, and you only need 2 levels to get it instead of a feature. It's quite balanced.
Point of note, Sharpshooter is -5/+10, not -10/+10.