Eh, I both like and dislike aspects of it. The Artificer needed to be at least a half caster. Although I wish it had a mechanic which allowed casting of higher level spells (similar to the Warlocks Mystic Arcanum).
The tool use is good but I'd prefer the class use it's own 'Artificer Tools' for spell casting rather than whatever random tool they pick proficiency in. I mean, could you use paint brushes as arcane focus? Sounds like you could. While it might be cool to have a character creating paintings that come to life I would prefer this be a subclass of the Artificer rather than baked in to the standard class. What would a Cartographer's magic look like I wonder? And why do they not get expertise in their chosen tool? Seriously, should the party bard or rogue be better at alchemy then the Artificer?
I also find it interesting that Wizards wants the Artificer to be the pet class. I think there is plenty of room for a 'Engineer' class that creates or summons automatons but the Alchemist? I really don't see the need. And if they are so insistent on pets why does the Artificer not have Find Familiar? That seems like a large oversight.
Anyway, I see some potential but I also see lots of tinkering (is that irony?) with this class. For me, I know I will likely create a new Alchemist, a Engineer and a Gunsmith Specialist. And also new infusions. So I suppose the positive side is that this class does spark my creativity and I am looking forward to creating some things with it.
You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of artificer spells requires time spent in tinkering with your spellcasting focuses: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
Even as a half caster, I find this a powerful caster class simply because, like a cleric, they can change their spells after a long rest. Plus you can change a cantrip whenever you gain a level; something no other class can do to date. In all the campaigns I've run in 5E I've always used a house rule where you can change you cantrips whenever you can change a spell or spells.
Indeed, I had the same Homebrew rule. However, I also don't allow players to do things that encroach upon other class features so as to not cheapen those classes. Because changing cantrips at level up is now a class feature of the Artificer, I won't be allowing that further for non-Artificers.
Regarding random tools, I think I like it better that way. It allows flexibility of creating unique Artificers. Artificers that paint arcane sigils onto armor and infuse the paint with magic. Artificers that use tailoring to weave arcane threads into sheets of cloth and leather. Artificers that use chisels to chisel sigils into stones and metal. Et cetera. The only thing I'd change is have it say "when you take your first level in Artificer, choose a set of artisan tools. You use those artisan tools as spell caster focus." That way you set the way you weave magic into mundane items.
Eh, I both like and dislike aspects of it. The Artificer needed to be at least a half caster. Although I wish it had a mechanic which allowed casting of higher level spells (similar to the Warlocks Mystic Arcanum).
If they don't add it in the future, I may add Infusions that the Artificer MAY chose to take that would allow him or her to take a 6th, 7th, 8th, and/or 9th level spell. It might be tricky because you wouldn't be able to take them until after you have access to 5th level spells. It's just a thought at the moment. I'll know more after I, and my own players, have had a chance to do some play testing.
The tool use is good but I'd prefer the class use it's own 'Artificer Tools' for spell casting rather than whatever random tool they pick proficiency in. I mean, could you use paint brushes as arcane focus? Sounds like you could. While it might be cool to have a character creating paintings that come to life I would prefer this be a subclass of the Artificer rather than baked in to the standard class. What would a Cartographer's magic look like I wonder? And why do they not get expertise in their chosen tool? Seriously, should the party bard or rogue be better at alchemy then the Artificer?
I can see a character who 'paints' his spells in mid-air to cast them.
I also find it interesting that Wizards wants the Artificer to be the pet class. I think there is plenty of room for a 'Engineer' class that creates or summons automatons but the Alchemist? I really don't see the need. And if they are so insistent on pets why does the Artificer not have Find Familiar? That seems like a large oversight.
I tend to take 3 levels in another class when I play a wizard. Usually 3 levels of Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Just glancing over this and I don't know if people will agree with this, but the artillerist prototype wands seem like cantrip grenades.
The description doesn't state anywhere that the wand has to be in your possession when you activate it, simply that it cannot be used by others. It also states "As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip" Which to me suggests the wand is the origin of any effect, not the caster. Nothing in the wording suggests I can't slide a wand across the room and then activate it next turn, producing a mage hand with a 60ft bubble wayyyy over there. I know the description for mage hand refers to the caster as a point of origin but in this application that wouldn't make any sense, "I use the wand over there to cause an effect centred around myself" would be silly.
There's plenty of other applications, stick a wand in the back pocket of the weakest member of the party with spare from dying, if they go down you can cast it on them remotely (there'd be some clever wording to make sure the wand was touching them, not just their clothes but yeah.)
As for wands being fragile and not able to withstand being thrown around the place, if I'm making a wand I'm going to hurl at someone I'd make it as robust as possible. so long as it's a cylinder of wood, it's a wand, I can make it as big as as it needs to be to not break.
Any thoughts? would be good to hear how some DM's interpret this as to me the wording (or lack thereof) seems to almost suggest it.
I don't even think the description "cylinder of wood" is necessary. My first inclination was to make crossbow shaped "wands" that would fire whatever spell I chose to imbue it with. Considering the lengths they go to to re-inforce the concept of "fluff vs function" at the beginning with the treatise on electro-mechanical spiders being the "vessel" for which you use cure wounds, I am taking a VERY lenient approach to interpreting such things... So if you want your "wand" to A) be Frisbee shaped, B) infused with the returning property, and C) function as a landmine, I'm calling that legit... especially considering the how it's conflicting with the multi-attack feature so hard.
Likewise, if you want your "humunculous" to look and act like Carpet from Aladdin or Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation, I'm going to allow it, and call them stupid for using such weirdly specific language while encouraging broad/creative interpretations of the actual material, and expecting my player's storytelling to do something that they weren't really willing to do (make this class unique and give it it's own flavor and identity.)
Well, this looks drab and disappointing. Forcing pets onto both archetypes and forcing one of them into a more defensive style of play/being a turtle instead of mobility just feels....weird.
The removal of the thunder cannon is also sad to see go as generally a lot of people enjoyed it thematically. The class also lost a lot of its versatility a artificer should be known for which shows heavily in the alchemist class. While it was not the best before at least it had variation and options it could go down with how to tailor to fit into a party.
I have one player who wants to try it and we agree that thematically it shouldn't be wands for the artillerist like you said. We plan to hb some stuff later but for now we're gonna playtest it as it is and change the wands aesthetically to become mage-guns instead.
Losing the thunder cannon really did suck. Party was pretty disappointed to see that disappear. Between the two versions I liked the first version a bit better. While it was no means perfect I think it really fit the artificer theme a bit better than the revised version. While I somewhat like the idea of a turret making subclass I'd like it to be more of an artificer subclass that specializes in setting traps and has turrets rather than try to be the new gunsmith. Hope they bring back the thunder cannon at some point.
Well we could see gunsmith and somethng to do with the machine construct in next month's UA. I imagine one problem with gunsmith was people having the "weh guns are not allowed in D&D" reaction which is why the turret is bassically a glorified mini ballista and you have wands not guns. Also I could see it because if Keith Baker was involved who made Eberron guns are not a part of that setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Loex - A Lizardfolk Lvl 4/7/4 Hexblade Profane Blood Hunter/ Battlesmith Artificer/ Cleric of the Forge Arborea - A Warforged Lvl 5 Hexblade Warlock Archive - A Autognome Lvl 3 Old One Warlock ER15 - A Autognome Lvl 7 Binder Warlock
A. It is all extremely endearing and jam-packed with detail - cries out to be RP'd with endless fun minutiae. A round of applause for Many-Handed Pouch!
B. I wouldn't really want to play it, personally - it's very reminiscent of the warlock, but seems to trade the social pillar & out-there powers (e.g. uncapped Disguise Self or Speak with the Dead) for the role of 'walking loot table.'
There are some aspects I'd be thrilled to see in subclasses of core professions (e.g. wands and returning weapons), but - purely in theorycrafting terms - it seems like a lot of the encounter by encounter play would boil down to two vanilla attacks with a hand crossbow (alchemist) or casting one middling cantrip with INT based Potent Spellcasting (artillerist).
Bags of style, but I sense 'wizard regret' would set in for me during the long trek to level 12 - especially if the DM is generous when handing out +1 or unique gear drops.
Just glancing over this and I don't know if people will agree with this, but the artillerist prototype wands seem like cantrip grenades.
The description doesn't state anywhere that the wand has to be in your possession when you activate it, simply that it cannot be used by others. It also states "As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip" Which to me suggests the wand is the origin of any effect, not the caster. Nothing in the wording suggests I can't slide a wand across the room and then activate it next turn, producing a mage hand with a 60ft bubble wayyyy over there. I know the description for mage hand refers to the caster as a point of origin but in this application that wouldn't make any sense, "I use the wand over there to cause an effect centred around myself" would be silly.
There's plenty of other applications, stick a wand in the back pocket of the weakest member of the party with spare from dying, if they go down you can cast it on them remotely (there'd be some clever wording to make sure the wand was touching them, not just their clothes but yeah.)
As for wands being fragile and not able to withstand being thrown around the place, if I'm making a wand I'm going to hurl at someone I'd make it as robust as possible. so long as it's a cylinder of wood, it's a wand, I can make it as big as as it needs to be to not break.
Any thoughts? would be good to hear how some DM's interpret this as to me the wording (or lack thereof) seems to almost suggest it.
I don't even think the description "cylinder of wood" is necessary. My first inclination was to make crossbow shaped "wands" that would fire whatever spell I chose to imbue it with. Considering the lengths they go to to re-inforce the concept of "fluff vs function" at the beginning with the treatise on electro-mechanical spiders being the "vessel" for which you use cure wounds, I am taking a VERY lenient approach to interpreting such things... So if you want your "wand" to A) be Frisbee shaped, B) infused with the returning property, and C) function as a landmine, I'm calling that legit... especially considering the how it's conflicting with the multi-attack feature so hard.
Likewise, if you want your "humunculous" to look and act like Carpet from Aladdin or Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation, I'm going to allow it, and call them stupid for using such weirdly specific language while encouraging broad/creative interpretations of the actual material, and expecting my player's storytelling to do something that they weren't really willing to do (make this class unique and give it it's own flavor and identity.)
I really think this is an oversight rather than intended behavior for that class feature. I only say this because it doesn't mention a distance for activating the prototype wand. RAW the wand can be activated anywhere, even on a different plane as the Artificer. This leads me to believe they just overlooked the simple phrase "While holding it," that can be seen on all other wands.
Honestly, the only real criticism I have of this is the new Alchemist. I think the old Alchemist was better, more customizable, and more on the right track, and I’m kind of sad to see what they did to it, although damage/heal increase per level (like with many spells) for the Satchel items would be nice if they brought the Satchel back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
Honestly, the only real criticism I have of this is the new Alchemist. I think the old Alchemist was better, more customizable, and more on the right track, and I’m kind of sad to see what they did to it, although damage/heal increase per level (like with many spells) for the Satchel items would be nice if they brought the Satchel back.
I do like the old Alchemist better, however, I wouldn't call it "more customizable". Considering by level 20 all alchemists would look the same since you would eventually get all alchenical formulas. Obviously that could have been solved by adding more formulas, bit there is still time to provide feedback.
Personally I'm not "opposed" to the homunculus, but I would rather they just give the alchemist the Create Homonculus spell.
We went from a THUNDER CANNON to a wand....that's my big gripe, thunder cannon was kick ass, wands are pretty lame. It's a stick, that does magic, meh. I'm ok with the rest of the changes but losing the gun deal really makes this non interesting for me. Turrets are ok but seem much bulkier less cool than having a damn THUNDER CANNON.
Honestly, the only real criticism I have of this is the new Alchemist. I think the old Alchemist was better, more customizable, and more on the right track, and I’m kind of sad to see what they did to it, although damage/heal increase per level (like with many spells) for the Satchel items would be nice if they brought the Satchel back.
I do like the old Alchemist better, however, I wouldn't call it "more customizable". Considering by level 20 all alchemists would look the same since you would eventually get all alchenical formulas. Obviously that could have been solved by adding more formulas, bit there is still time to provide feedback.
Personally I'm not "opposed" to the homunculus, but I would rather they just give the alchemist the Create Homonculus spell.
I agree, they could've just put Create Homunculus into the extended list, and kept some modified version of the satchel with more formulae and maybe other features than just the Satchel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I fully expect to see Gunsmith and a Tinker archetypes in the next Unearthed Arcana update when it comes out.
I find the wording on the 5th level ability 'Arcane Armament, more than a bit confusing.
Do they mean that if you make an attack with a magical weapon you can make another weapon attack or can it be a ranged spell attack?
It might be better to replace it completely with an ability liek the Eldritch Knight's get at 7th level where if you make an attack with a cantrip, you can make a weapon attack as a bonus action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Also, I have a question. If you use Returning Weapon on a net, will you drag the creature that's in the net back to you? Returning Weapon seems really impractical with a net otherwise, because it doesn't do anything if the weapon just teleports back to you-- then the creature is freed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
Just glancing over this and I don't know if people will agree with this, but the artillerist prototype wands seem like cantrip grenades.
The description doesn't state anywhere that the wand has to be in your possession when you activate it, simply that it cannot be used by others. It also states "As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip" Which to me suggests the wand is the origin of any effect, not the caster. Nothing in the wording suggests I can't slide a wand across the room and then activate it next turn, producing a mage hand with a 60ft bubble wayyyy over there. I know the description for mage hand refers to the caster as a point of origin but in this application that wouldn't make any sense, "I use the wand over there to cause an effect centred around myself" would be silly.
There's plenty of other applications, stick a wand in the back pocket of the weakest member of the party with spare from dying, if they go down you can cast it on them remotely (there'd be some clever wording to make sure the wand was touching them, not just their clothes but yeah.)
As for wands being fragile and not able to withstand being thrown around the place, if I'm making a wand I'm going to hurl at someone I'd make it as robust as possible. so long as it's a cylinder of wood, it's a wand, I can make it as big as as it needs to be to not break.
Any thoughts? would be good to hear how some DM's interpret this as to me the wording (or lack thereof) seems to almost suggest it.
I don't even think the description "cylinder of wood" is necessary. My first inclination was to make crossbow shaped "wands" that would fire whatever spell I chose to imbue it with. Considering the lengths they go to to re-inforce the concept of "fluff vs function" at the beginning with the treatise on electro-mechanical spiders being the "vessel" for which you use cure wounds, I am taking a VERY lenient approach to interpreting such things... So if you want your "wand" to A) be Frisbee shaped, B) infused with the returning property, and C) function as a landmine, I'm calling that legit... especially considering the how it's conflicting with the multi-attack feature so hard.
Likewise, if you want your "humunculous" to look and act like Carpet from Aladdin or Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation, I'm going to allow it, and call them stupid for using such weirdly specific language while encouraging broad/creative interpretations of the actual material, and expecting my player's storytelling to do something that they weren't really willing to do (make this class unique and give it it's own flavor and identity.)
I really think this is an oversight rather than intended behavior for that class feature. I only say this because it doesn't mention a distance for activating the prototype wand. RAW the wand can be activated anywhere, even on a different plane as the Artificer. This leads me to believe they just overlooked the simple phrase "While holding it," that can be seen on all other wands.
I'd agree with Grizzlebub. This whole idea of using a wand at range is not RAI. What a wand IS has been firmly established in the game for decades. A wand is a magic stick that allows someone to cast spells from it while holding it in hand. Maybe the language is unfortunate but I doubt you will see many tables letting a Artificer throw around their wands like some sort of grenade.
Hopefully WOTC will clean up the wording when they take the next pass at it. It's why this is still play test and has not been released in anything official.
What I would have preferred to see in this class is:
Remove the subclasses entirely and replace infusions with inventions.The artificer would have a certain number of invention points and a max # of inventions that scales with level.
Vastly expand the list of inventions ("infusions") and categorize them... construct, infusions (enchanting weapons, armor, magic items), augmentation (bodily upgrades), alchemy
As the artificer levels up, they can spend invention points to create new inventions or to upgrade existing inventions. Level restrictions for certain inventions/upgrades.
When the artificer levels up, they can scrap an existing invention and reinvest the invention points into another invention.
Want a strong mechanical construct? You can do that.
Want to upgrade your body and be a front line fighter? You can do that.
Want to create magic items to upgrade the party? You can do that.
Want to concoct chemical warfare or healing? You can do that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
What I would have preferred to see in this class is:
Remove the subclasses entirely and replace infusions with inventions.The artificer would have a certain number of invention points and a max # of inventions that scales with level.
Vastly expand the list of inventions ("infusions") and categorize them... construct, infusions (enchanting weapons, armor, magic items), augmentation (bodily upgrades), alchemy
As the artificer levels up, they can spend invention points to create new inventions or to upgrade existing inventions. Level restrictions for certain inventions/upgrades.
When the artificer levels up, they can scrap an existing invention and reinvest the invention points into another invention.
Want a strong mechanical construct? You can do that.
Want to upgrade your body and be a front line fighter? You can do that.
Want to create magic items to upgrade the party? You can do that.
Want to concoct chemical warfare or healing? You can do that.
You shouldn't have a class without subclasses. It's just not a viable possibility.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Eh, I both like and dislike aspects of it. The Artificer needed to be at least a half caster. Although I wish it had a mechanic which allowed casting of higher level spells (similar to the Warlocks Mystic Arcanum).
The tool use is good but I'd prefer the class use it's own 'Artificer Tools' for spell casting rather than whatever random tool they pick proficiency in. I mean, could you use paint brushes as arcane focus? Sounds like you could. While it might be cool to have a character creating paintings that come to life I would prefer this be a subclass of the Artificer rather than baked in to the standard class. What would a Cartographer's magic look like I wonder? And why do they not get expertise in their chosen tool? Seriously, should the party bard or rogue be better at alchemy then the Artificer?
I also find it interesting that Wizards wants the Artificer to be the pet class. I think there is plenty of room for a 'Engineer' class that creates or summons automatons but the Alchemist? I really don't see the need. And if they are so insistent on pets why does the Artificer not have Find Familiar? That seems like a large oversight.
Anyway, I see some potential but I also see lots of tinkering (is that irony?) with this class. For me, I know I will likely create a new Alchemist, a Engineer and a Gunsmith Specialist. And also new infusions. So I suppose the positive side is that this class does spark my creativity and I am looking forward to creating some things with it.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
Indeed, I had the same Homebrew rule. However, I also don't allow players to do things that encroach upon other class features so as to not cheapen those classes. Because changing cantrips at level up is now a class feature of the Artificer, I won't be allowing that further for non-Artificers.
Regarding random tools, I think I like it better that way. It allows flexibility of creating unique Artificers. Artificers that paint arcane sigils onto armor and infuse the paint with magic. Artificers that use tailoring to weave arcane threads into sheets of cloth and leather. Artificers that use chisels to chisel sigils into stones and metal. Et cetera. The only thing I'd change is have it say "when you take your first level in Artificer, choose a set of artisan tools. You use those artisan tools as spell caster focus." That way you set the way you weave magic into mundane items.
If they don't add it in the future, I may add Infusions that the Artificer MAY chose to take that would allow him or her to take a 6th, 7th, 8th, and/or 9th level spell. It might be tricky because you wouldn't be able to take them until after you have access to 5th level spells. It's just a thought at the moment. I'll know more after I, and my own players, have had a chance to do some play testing.
I can see a character who 'paints' his spells in mid-air to cast them.
I tend to take 3 levels in another class when I play a wizard. Usually 3 levels of Eldritch Knight or Arcane Trickster.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I don't even think the description "cylinder of wood" is necessary. My first inclination was to make crossbow shaped "wands" that would fire whatever spell I chose to imbue it with. Considering the lengths they go to to re-inforce the concept of "fluff vs function" at the beginning with the treatise on electro-mechanical spiders being the "vessel" for which you use cure wounds, I am taking a VERY lenient approach to interpreting such things... So if you want your "wand" to A) be Frisbee shaped, B) infused with the returning property, and C) function as a landmine, I'm calling that legit... especially considering the how it's conflicting with the multi-attack feature so hard.
Likewise, if you want your "humunculous" to look and act like Carpet from Aladdin or Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation, I'm going to allow it, and call them stupid for using such weirdly specific language while encouraging broad/creative interpretations of the actual material, and expecting my player's storytelling to do something that they weren't really willing to do (make this class unique and give it it's own flavor and identity.)
Well, this looks drab and disappointing. Forcing pets onto both archetypes and forcing one of them into a more defensive style of play/being a turtle instead of mobility just feels....weird.
The removal of the thunder cannon is also sad to see go as generally a lot of people enjoyed it thematically. The class also lost a lot of its versatility a artificer should be known for which shows heavily in the alchemist class. While it was not the best before at least it had variation and options it could go down with how to tailor to fit into a party.
I have one player who wants to try it and we agree that thematically it shouldn't be wands for the artillerist like you said. We plan to hb some stuff later but for now we're gonna playtest it as it is and change the wands aesthetically to become mage-guns instead.
Losing the thunder cannon really did suck. Party was pretty disappointed to see that disappear. Between the two versions I liked the first version a bit better. While it was no means perfect I think it really fit the artificer theme a bit better than the revised version. While I somewhat like the idea of a turret making subclass I'd like it to be more of an artificer subclass that specializes in setting traps and has turrets rather than try to be the new gunsmith. Hope they bring back the thunder cannon at some point.
Well we could see gunsmith and somethng to do with the machine construct in next month's UA. I imagine one problem with gunsmith was people having the "weh guns are not allowed in D&D" reaction which is why the turret is bassically a glorified mini ballista and you have wands not guns. Also I could see it because if Keith Baker was involved who made Eberron guns are not a part of that setting.
Loex - A Lizardfolk Lvl 4/7/4 Hexblade Profane Blood Hunter/ Battlesmith Artificer/ Cleric of the Forge
Arborea - A Warforged Lvl 5 Hexblade Warlock
Archive - A Autognome Lvl 3 Old One Warlock
ER15 - A Autognome Lvl 7 Binder Warlock
DM - "Malign Intelligence"
After some contemplation, my view is...
A. It is all extremely endearing and jam-packed with detail - cries out to be RP'd with endless fun minutiae. A round of applause for Many-Handed Pouch!
B. I wouldn't really want to play it, personally - it's very reminiscent of the warlock, but seems to trade the social pillar & out-there powers (e.g. uncapped Disguise Self or Speak with the Dead) for the role of 'walking loot table.'
There are some aspects I'd be thrilled to see in subclasses of core professions (e.g. wands and returning weapons), but - purely in theorycrafting terms - it seems like a lot of the encounter by encounter play would boil down to two vanilla attacks with a hand crossbow (alchemist) or casting one middling cantrip with INT based Potent Spellcasting (artillerist).
Bags of style, but I sense 'wizard regret' would set in for me during the long trek to level 12 - especially if the DM is generous when handing out +1 or unique gear drops.
*eyes the Alchemist subclass*
Well, pretty sure I know what Matt Mercer will be playtesting on Critical Role if the Mighty Nein's current quest is a success...!
I really think this is an oversight rather than intended behavior for that class feature. I only say this because it doesn't mention a distance for activating the prototype wand. RAW the wand can be activated anywhere, even on a different plane as the Artificer. This leads me to believe they just overlooked the simple phrase "While holding it," that can be seen on all other wands.
Honestly, the only real criticism I have of this is the new Alchemist. I think the old Alchemist was better, more customizable, and more on the right track, and I’m kind of sad to see what they did to it, although damage/heal increase per level (like with many spells) for the Satchel items would be nice if they brought the Satchel back.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I do like the old Alchemist better, however, I wouldn't call it "more customizable". Considering by level 20 all alchemists would look the same since you would eventually get all alchenical formulas. Obviously that could have been solved by adding more formulas, bit there is still time to provide feedback.
Personally I'm not "opposed" to the homunculus, but I would rather they just give the alchemist the Create Homonculus spell.
We went from a THUNDER CANNON to a wand....that's my big gripe, thunder cannon was kick ass, wands are pretty lame. It's a stick, that does magic, meh. I'm ok with the rest of the changes but losing the gun deal really makes this non interesting for me. Turrets are ok but seem much bulkier less cool than having a damn THUNDER CANNON.
I agree, they could've just put Create Homunculus into the extended list, and kept some modified version of the satchel with more formulae and maybe other features than just the Satchel.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I fully expect to see Gunsmith and a Tinker archetypes in the next Unearthed Arcana update when it comes out.
I find the wording on the 5th level ability 'Arcane Armament, more than a bit confusing.
Do they mean that if you make an attack with a magical weapon you can make another weapon attack or can it be a ranged spell attack?
It might be better to replace it completely with an ability liek the Eldritch Knight's get at 7th level where if you make an attack with a cantrip, you can make a weapon attack as a bonus action.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Also, I have a question. If you use Returning Weapon on a net, will you drag the creature that's in the net back to you? Returning Weapon seems really impractical with a net otherwise, because it doesn't do anything if the weapon just teleports back to you-- then the creature is freed.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I'd agree with Grizzlebub. This whole idea of using a wand at range is not RAI. What a wand IS has been firmly established in the game for decades. A wand is a magic stick that allows someone to cast spells from it while holding it in hand. Maybe the language is unfortunate but I doubt you will see many tables letting a Artificer throw around their wands like some sort of grenade.
Hopefully WOTC will clean up the wording when they take the next pass at it. It's why this is still play test and has not been released in anything official.
Current Characters I am playing: Dr Konstantin van Wulf | Taegen Willowrun | Mad Magnar
Check out my homebrew: Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Feats
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorWhat I would have preferred to see in this class is:
Want a strong mechanical construct? You can do that.
Want to upgrade your body and be a front line fighter? You can do that.
Want to create magic items to upgrade the party? You can do that.
Want to concoct chemical warfare or healing? You can do that.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
You shouldn't have a class without subclasses. It's just not a viable possibility.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.