I imagine it would, but Manifest Mind uses only a bonus action to summon it, whereas Dispel Magic costs a 3rd level spell slot so that would pretty much be a waste.
I was hoping they'd switch out the Iron Defender for a suit of arcano-magical armor for the Battle Smith.
As it is, giving the battle smith all those smites is a waste in my opinion. Odds are you won't waste bonus actions on them. You'd probably use them on your Iron Defender. I'd much rather have seen the Battle Smith get the Shield spell.
I don't mind the Iron Defender, I find it more useful than the Mechanical Servant from the 2017 UA Artifcier and the Alchemist's Alchemical Homunculus. I think it just needs some tweaking. As for the arcano-magical armor I would like to see something like that replace Arcane Armament. I mean Artificer's invent and build things. I would want some armor to protect me if something goes wrong.
I think the smite spells should be replaced. Give the Battle Smith the ability to craft oils that they apply to their weapons (melee and ranged) that has similar properties as smite spells. In order for the oils to work, the player will need to coat their weapon or ammunition with one of the oils and when they want to use the effects of the potion they would have to channel some of they arcane powers into the weapon. This will then activate the oil on the weapon or ammunition. The oils on a melee weapon would last for 1 minute or until they hit a target and then the effects are gone. In the case of ammunition for ranged weapons they player can only apply the oil to 3 pieces of ammunition and like melee weapons the oil would only last for a minute.
I definitely agree here. I can't see using any low level smite over arcane weapon and iron defender combo.
I agree but also, Branding and Blind Smite do RADIANT damage. I thought you have to be associated with the divine to be able to use radiant damage. It is true that the wizard can use spells that deal with radiant damage (Dawn (5th level), Sunbeam (6th level), Sunburst (8th level)), but that is at higher levels. The Artificer isn't a divine class and the Battle Smith isn't a divine subclass.
I think it is always important to have options, and though you can't stack Arcane Weapon and the smites due to concentration, I could see where you might want the secondary effect that the smite grants. Additionally, at least if you use the bonus action for something other than the Iron Defender it auto-dodges.
I see the Battle Smith as an Army Medic or Navy Corpsman. I think the Battle Smith spells should go away and replaced with some sort of oils that they craft that have similar effects as the smite spells and the ability to craft bandages (like Quik-Clot bandages) that they can apply to the wounded to have similar effect to the Cure Wounds Spell.
I actually like the idea of arcanomechanical armor replacing arcane armament.
Oils is a bit of a weird side step. It doesn't really match what other subclasses are doing. Plus, with magic of creation, you can flavor your spells as oil already.
I gave branding smite and blinding smite credit for their different damage types in a previous comment. But branding smite kind of loses functionally to faerie fire.
I understand that you can flavor you spellcasting and say you are using an oil as you cast the spell, but what about the other spells on the Battle Smith's spell list. The vast majority spells in the Battle Smith's spell list are a part of the Paladin's spell list (yes there are a couple that are found in the cleric's, druid's and/or bard's spell list). Essentially the Battle Smith is given access to divine spells (in my opinion). However, if you get rid of the subclass spell lists (except for the Artillerist, I feel that spell list actually fits that subclass very well) and require the subclasses to actually craft something instead of casting spells; I think it would be more in line with the spirit of the Artificer (except the Archivist, I think that subclass belongs in the wizard class).
Oils are just descriptive text. You can have your spells appears as you, and your DM, want them too. It one of the tings I love about the artificer.
I am just spitballing an idea. I personally think that the Artillerist spell list is the only spell list that actually fits any of the Artificer subclasses. The Artificer is an inventor who uses the arcane to imbue his inventions/creations with magical properties. But in the case of the Battle Smith, it is given access to spells that are for the vast majority divine spells.
I imagine it would, but Manifest Mind uses only a bonus action to summon it, whereas Dispel Magic costs a 3rd level spell slot so that would pretty much be a waste.
Yeah, that's also true. I mentioned it before, but burning a Dispel Magic to counter Manifest Mind puts you behind in combat momentum. Using a spell slot and an action to counter a spammable bonus action? You're losing a step there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I imagine it would, but Manifest Mind uses only a bonus action to summon it, whereas Dispel Magic costs a 3rd level spell slot so that would pretty much be a waste.
Yeah, that's also true. I mentioned it before, but burning a Dispel Magic to counter Manifest Mind puts you behind in combat momentum. Using a spell slot and an action to counter a spammable bonus action? You're losing a step there.
Not necessarily. Yes it is situational, but like I was saying previously, chances are if you are worried about your player taking advantage of Manifest Mind constantly then that player is a Power Gamer / Min-Maxer. At what point it doesn't matter if it is an Archivist, Coffee-lock, Sorcer-lock or some other build, you are already building scenarios and encounters to "counter" his current min-maxed power character.
For example, if the Manifest Mind becomes abused in your campaign, then the enemy will have a Wand of Dispel Magic. Or place them up against swarms of weaker creatures, it can only 5-foot target one creature, so his turn is going to be widely ineffective.
I don't foresee manifest mind being a problem for normal, conventional players.
Oils are just descriptive text. You can have your spells appears as you, and your DM, want them too. It one of the tings I love about the artificer.
I am just spitballing an idea. I personally think that the Artillerist spell list is the only spell list that actually fits any of the Artificer subclasses. The Artificer is an inventor who uses the arcane to imbue his inventions/creations with magical properties. But in the case of the Battle Smith, it is given access to spells that are for the vast majority divine spells.
These effect don't have to be considered divine.
The smite spells are similar enough to arcane weapon to fit as single use variants of that spell. Radiant damage can be described as using radioactive components in the spell, or it could be about temporarily destabilizing a small fraction of the structure of the weapon itself to release a minor radiant explosion. Or your mace just shoots lasers sometimes. Aura of Vitality, Aura of Purity, and Mass Cure wounds could be considered something like an aerosolized potion released in a cloud surrounding the Battle Smith. Heroism can be the Battle Smith injecting an ally with a stimulant. Warding bond might be something like a device powered by the Battle Smith projecting an force field onto an ally to protect them from damage however the damage applied to the field has direct feedback to the one powering the projection due to [insert principle of magical physics here].
Or your artificer has figured out how to channel divine energy without a divine contract or any trace of inherent divinity and it becomes a major sticking point every time the party encounters a cleric.
Oils are just descriptive text. You can have your spells appears as you, and your DM, want them too. It one of the tings I love about the artificer.
I am just spitballing an idea. I personally think that the Artillerist spell list is the only spell list that actually fits any of the Artificer subclasses. The Artificer is an inventor who uses the arcane to imbue his inventions/creations with magical properties. But in the case of the Battle Smith, it is given access to spells that are for the vast majority divine spells.
These effect don't have to be considered divine.
The smite spells are similar enough to arcane weapon to fit as single use variants of that spell. Radiant damage can be described as using radioactive components in the spell, or it could be about temporarily destabilizing a small fraction of the structure of the weapon itself to release a minor radiant explosion. Or your mace just shoots lasers sometimes. Aura of Vitality, Aura of Purity, and Mass Cure wounds could be considered something like an aerosolized potion released in a cloud surrounding the Battle Smith. Heroism can be the Battle Smith injecting an ally with a stimulant. Warding bond might be something like a device powered by the Battle Smith projecting an force field onto an ally to protect them from damage however the damage applied to the field has direct feedback to the one powering the projection due to [insert principle of magical physics here].
Or your artificer has figured out how to channel divine energy without a divine contract or any trace of inherent divinity and it becomes a major sticking point every time the party encounters a cleric.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. Instead of coming up with something original WotC/ D&D is forcing players to use their imagination via spellcasting. Instead of coming up with something original for the subclasses, they are just giving the players access to additional spells. Then when a player wants to use a spell they are forced to describe it in a way where they are not actually casting a spell.
The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that. To me that is just the creators being lazy in their writing and the editors having no problems with it.
I have stated in previous posts that with the exception of the Artillerist, none of the subclass spell lists fit any of the subclasses (the archivist should be a subclass for the wizard). I want abilities/features that fit the class/subclasses, instead of I pull out my smithing hammer and I use that as a spellcasting focus as I smack my main weapon with hammer and boom I have given my weapon the same abilities of Searing Smite for a certain period of time..
I'm curious about what your reasons are for why the archivist should be a subclass for the wizard. I'm curious because I know what my reasons are for the why the archivist should be a wizard subclass but I also understand (or at least, I have reasonable ideas about) why the version of the archivist that I want would not work as a wizard subclass.
Back to your point, your critiques have raised many valid concerns about the direction WotC is developing the game in. I hope you shared all these critiques in the survey when it was available because at the end of the day, this is still just an online forum for us in the community to interact with each other in. It's not the primordial ooze that new classes/races/spells/whatever crawl out of when they spawn anew. Not directly, anyway. Perhaps take a step back and remind yourself why this version upsets you so much. Because you've been coming off pretty tilted lately, especially in your latest post.
I will say this: you're probably right that the vast majority of D&D players don't need to be told to use their imagination when playing the game. But what about new players? People who genuinely have never played a TTRPG before, yet are curious to try? Is it wrong for the rules as written to tell them to be imaginative with the way they cast spells? Do you think that takes away from their enjoyment at the table? Or could it possibly add more to it by helping them figure out how they want to play the game while actually playing it?
I apologize if any of this came off preachy or condescending or in any other manner of offending you. But you keep coming back to the same points and I'm worried you'll eventually become incapable of letting them go. We get it: you think that the smite spells are too "divine" for an arcane inventor to be able to use (which, for the record, I agree with) and you think the Artillerist has the only subclass spell list that fits the subclass itself (which, for the record, I don't agree with). We can't stop you from sharing these opinions, just as you can't stop as from sharing ours. But maybe consider recusing yourself from posting and just read what others have to say about the class for awhile. After all, it's still just a game.
We have come back to this discussion a few times and have agreed that in the end it is fine for differing opinions as everyone does tend to discuss them constructively.
My main point is that if you consider WotC's "Use your imagination" as a Command then you see it from Marine2874's point of view. But I see it as a freedom they are leaving to the player. EG.
Unclevertitle: Warding bond might be something like a device powered by the Battle Smith projecting an force field onto an ally to protect them from damage however the damage applied to the field has direct feedback to the one powering the projection due to [insert principle of magical physics here].
Marine2874: Instead of coming up with something original for the subclasses, they are just giving the players access to additional spells
If Wizard's of the Coast followed your philosophy Marine2874, then they would invent a feature which gives exactly a "Force field projected onto an Ally" and that would restrict my ability to have Fun and say it is instead a Goo which is sprayed from my Alchemists flame thrower, or next character a little drone that hovers over an ally as an Artillerist. By defining it they reduce the amount of fun diversity a player can have in character creation.
"Use your imagination" is not a Command it is a Liberty for the player.
If people want to play a game where "Use your imagination" as an issue for them, then they shouldn't be playing PnP D&D, they should be playign a computer version where the rules are written in stone.
Some of my players have that mentality unfortunately. However, since none of them are willing to DM, and they do want to play in a more sandbox campaign, they just use RAW. Because, IMO, they don't want to be imaginative they sometimes get very upset with those of my player's who let their imagination's free.
In one of my current sessions, a party of 3 (wizard, Cleric/Artificer, Witch) they are trying to collect the key cubes from Tome of Annihilation. 2 members got petrified and the 3rd banished into the Veil of Dreams (we are based in Eberron). Before the banished character was banished, she set in motion an event where one of the 2 petrified characters would be freed. It was random, and it turned out to be the player whose imagination sucks <sigh>
Basically, because he CAN'T do anything. As of this time, the session is at an end. I have plans, but they can't happen right away and time is running out. In other words, at this moment, the character in Tome of Annihilation have failed.
In my opinion many apparently unsolvable problems CAN be solved with a bit of imagination. Other of my players have proved this over and over again in the 30+ years I have been plaing and DM'ing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
THIS IS THE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. Instead of coming up with something original WotC/ D&D is forcing players to use their imagination via spellcasting. Instead of coming up with something original for the subclasses, they are just giving the players access to additional spells. Then when a player wants to use a spell they are forced to describe it in a way where they are not actually casting a spell.
The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that. To me that is just the creators being lazy in their writing and the editors having no problems with it.
I don't really see it as a problem. Closer to a feature really. In a class who's main theme is all about being inventive, encouraging a player to think inventively about how the class works straight up primes them into the character's role.
Jeremy Crawford and Todd Kenreck talk about the Artificer
Re: Archivist in Wizard or Artificer - Jeremy Crawford goes into great detail about why the archivist is in the class, why it is called the archivist, etc.
Story description for the Archivist:
What are the best ways to store vast amounts of information? That question has occupied chroniclers and librarians for centuries. Scrolls and books were the finest information-storing methods for a long time, but the first Archivists imagined something greater: storing information in a real or an artificial mind. What library could match a mental archive capable of accessing information in seconds? As they work towards this goal, Archivists have become masters of storing knowledge and creating artificial intelligences fueled by magic. These techniques have yet to be perfected and institutionalized, and of all artificers, archivists are on the cutting edge of arcane science.
Their role is the bestowing of consciousness to items. And this goes into the origin of how the Warforged became sentient.
I'm sorry if I missed it in the thread, but I didn't really want to have to read through 59 pages. Does anyone think the Artillerist turrets should refresh on a short rest rather than on a long rest?
I think it is fine to have the "free uses" refresh on a long rest since you can refresh them sooner with spell slots. I'd prefer they lasted 1 hour plus 1 hour per level of spell slot used to create them. Because they only last 10 minutes, I'm often running into the issue of having to decide between spending my first turn of combat creating a turret or doing something else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Jeremy Crawford and Todd Kenreck talk about the Artificer
This interview just further proves that the 2019 UA Artificer build was designed specifically for Eberron without any thoughts about making it work in other official or homebrew worlds.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. Instead of coming up with something original WotC/ D&D is forcing players to use their imagination via spellcasting. Instead of coming up with something original for the subclasses, they are just giving the players access to additional spells. Then when a player wants to use a spell they are forced to describe it in a way where they are not actually casting a spell.
The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that. To me that is just the creators being lazy in their writing and the editors having no problems with it.
I don't really see it as a problem. Closer to a feature really. In a class who's main theme is all about being inventive, encouraging a player to think inventively about how the class works straight up primes them into the character's role.
Being told to be inventive on how you play a class isn't close to being an actual feature of the class. There is nothing inventive about giving a subclass more spells instead of coming up with a better ability/feature. As I stated at the end of my previous response... "The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that".
Thank you for posting that Sillvva! I am super keen for the next edition of the Artificer, which will probably be its final form in a hardback Eberron, right? Which I don't see a problem with, to be honest. I have no interest with Eberron as a campaign setting but it does not phase me at all that the class 'Eberron specific'. I've adapted my Artificer to a Cormyr campaign during the Shadow Wars and it fit right in without any complication to anyone else. It is what you make of it, like any other class. Surprised to hear the Alchemist is the least favourite, I love it (although I am looking forward to getting my Alchemists Satchel back).
At the end of day, if you don't like the pear and cranberry pie, don't eat the pear and cranberry pie and definitely don't waste your breathe whinging about the pie everyone else seems to be liking. Just go and eat your normal pie and stop bothering us artisan pie eaters... man, I just made myself hungry. hahaha
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
To be fair, Ranger subclassess originally didn't have additional spells (and the two vanilla ones still don't), not all Druid subclasses have additional spells always prepared, and the Warlock subclass specific spells aren't actually always available like they are for the artificer, they're just added to the spell list for you to choose from when you gain a new level. Plus, Cleric and Paladin subclasses have a little bit more going on in their subclass features than Artificer subclasses have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Would dispel magic work on the manifestation? Or would it have to be cast on the item itself?
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I imagine it would, but Manifest Mind uses only a bonus action to summon it, whereas Dispel Magic costs a 3rd level spell slot so that would pretty much be a waste.
I understand that you can flavor you spellcasting and say you are using an oil as you cast the spell, but what about the other spells on the Battle Smith's spell list. The vast majority spells in the Battle Smith's spell list are a part of the Paladin's spell list (yes there are a couple that are found in the cleric's, druid's and/or bard's spell list). Essentially the Battle Smith is given access to divine spells (in my opinion). However, if you get rid of the subclass spell lists (except for the Artillerist, I feel that spell list actually fits that subclass very well) and require the subclasses to actually craft something instead of casting spells; I think it would be more in line with the spirit of the Artificer (except the Archivist, I think that subclass belongs in the wizard class).
I am just spitballing an idea. I personally think that the Artillerist spell list is the only spell list that actually fits any of the Artificer subclasses. The Artificer is an inventor who uses the arcane to imbue his inventions/creations with magical properties. But in the case of the Battle Smith, it is given access to spells that are for the vast majority divine spells.
Yeah, that's also true. I mentioned it before, but burning a Dispel Magic to counter Manifest Mind puts you behind in combat momentum. Using a spell slot and an action to counter a spammable bonus action? You're losing a step there.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Not necessarily. Yes it is situational, but like I was saying previously, chances are if you are worried about your player taking advantage of Manifest Mind constantly then that player is a Power Gamer / Min-Maxer. At what point it doesn't matter if it is an Archivist, Coffee-lock, Sorcer-lock or some other build, you are already building scenarios and encounters to "counter" his current min-maxed power character.
For example, if the Manifest Mind becomes abused in your campaign, then the enemy will have a Wand of Dispel Magic. Or place them up against swarms of weaker creatures, it can only 5-foot target one creature, so his turn is going to be widely ineffective.
I don't foresee manifest mind being a problem for normal, conventional players.
These effect don't have to be considered divine.
The smite spells are similar enough to arcane weapon to fit as single use variants of that spell. Radiant damage can be described as using radioactive components in the spell, or it could be about temporarily destabilizing a small fraction of the structure of the weapon itself to release a minor radiant explosion. Or your mace just shoots lasers sometimes.
Aura of Vitality, Aura of Purity, and Mass Cure wounds could be considered something like an aerosolized potion released in a cloud surrounding the Battle Smith.
Heroism can be the Battle Smith injecting an ally with a stimulant.
Warding bond might be something like a device powered by the Battle Smith projecting an force field onto an ally to protect them from damage however the damage applied to the field has direct feedback to the one powering the projection due to [insert principle of magical physics here].
Or your artificer has figured out how to channel divine energy without a divine contract or any trace of inherent divinity and it becomes a major sticking point every time the party encounters a cleric.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM I AM TALKING ABOUT. Instead of coming up with something original WotC/ D&D is forcing players to use their imagination via spellcasting. Instead of coming up with something original for the subclasses, they are just giving the players access to additional spells. Then when a player wants to use a spell they are forced to describe it in a way where they are not actually casting a spell.
The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that. To me that is just the creators being lazy in their writing and the editors having no problems with it.
I have stated in previous posts that with the exception of the Artillerist, none of the subclass spell lists fit any of the subclasses (the archivist should be a subclass for the wizard). I want abilities/features that fit the class/subclasses, instead of I pull out my smithing hammer and I use that as a spellcasting focus as I smack my main weapon with hammer and boom I have given my weapon the same abilities of Searing Smite for a certain period of time..
I'm curious about what your reasons are for why the archivist should be a subclass for the wizard. I'm curious because I know what my reasons are for the why the archivist should be a wizard subclass but I also understand (or at least, I have reasonable ideas about) why the version of the archivist that I want would not work as a wizard subclass.
Back to your point, your critiques have raised many valid concerns about the direction WotC is developing the game in. I hope you shared all these critiques in the survey when it was available because at the end of the day, this is still just an online forum for us in the community to interact with each other in. It's not the primordial ooze that new classes/races/spells/whatever crawl out of when they spawn anew. Not directly, anyway. Perhaps take a step back and remind yourself why this version upsets you so much. Because you've been coming off pretty tilted lately, especially in your latest post.
I will say this: you're probably right that the vast majority of D&D players don't need to be told to use their imagination when playing the game. But what about new players? People who genuinely have never played a TTRPG before, yet are curious to try? Is it wrong for the rules as written to tell them to be imaginative with the way they cast spells? Do you think that takes away from their enjoyment at the table? Or could it possibly add more to it by helping them figure out how they want to play the game while actually playing it?
I apologize if any of this came off preachy or condescending or in any other manner of offending you. But you keep coming back to the same points and I'm worried you'll eventually become incapable of letting them go. We get it: you think that the smite spells are too "divine" for an arcane inventor to be able to use (which, for the record, I agree with) and you think the Artillerist has the only subclass spell list that fits the subclass itself (which, for the record, I don't agree with). We can't stop you from sharing these opinions, just as you can't stop as from sharing ours. But maybe consider recusing yourself from posting and just read what others have to say about the class for awhile. After all, it's still just a game.
We have come back to this discussion a few times and have agreed that in the end it is fine for differing opinions as everyone does tend to discuss them constructively.
My main point is that if you consider WotC's "Use your imagination" as a Command then you see it from Marine2874's point of view. But I see it as a freedom they are leaving to the player. EG.
If Wizard's of the Coast followed your philosophy Marine2874, then they would invent a feature which gives exactly a "Force field projected onto an Ally" and that would restrict my ability to have Fun and say it is instead a Goo which is sprayed from my Alchemists flame thrower, or next character a little drone that hovers over an ally as an Artillerist. By defining it they reduce the amount of fun diversity a player can have in character creation.
"Use your imagination" is not a Command it is a Liberty for the player.
If people want to play a game where "Use your imagination" as an issue for them, then they shouldn't be playing PnP D&D, they should be playign a computer version where the rules are written in stone.
Some of my players have that mentality unfortunately. However, since none of them are willing to DM, and they do want to play in a more sandbox campaign, they just use RAW. Because, IMO, they don't want to be imaginative they sometimes get very upset with those of my player's who let their imagination's free.
In one of my current sessions, a party of 3 (wizard, Cleric/Artificer, Witch) they are trying to collect the key cubes from Tome of Annihilation. 2 members got petrified and the 3rd banished into the Veil of Dreams (we are based in Eberron). Before the banished character was banished, she set in motion an event where one of the 2 petrified characters would be freed. It was random, and it turned out to be the player whose imagination sucks <sigh>
Basically, because he CAN'T do anything. As of this time, the session is at an end. I have plans, but they can't happen right away and time is running out. In other words, at this moment, the character in Tome of Annihilation have failed.
In my opinion many apparently unsolvable problems CAN be solved with a bit of imagination. Other of my players have proved this over and over again in the 30+ years I have been plaing and DM'ing.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I don't really see it as a problem. Closer to a feature really. In a class who's main theme is all about being inventive, encouraging a player to think inventively about how the class works straight up primes them into the character's role.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorJeremy Crawford and Todd Kenreck talk about the Artificer
Re: Archivist in Wizard or Artificer - Jeremy Crawford goes into great detail about why the archivist is in the class, why it is called the archivist, etc.
Story description for the Archivist:
What are the best ways to store vast amounts of information? That question has occupied chroniclers and librarians for centuries. Scrolls and books were the finest information-storing methods for a long time, but the first Archivists imagined something greater: storing information in a real or an artificial mind. What library could match a mental archive capable of accessing information in seconds? As they work towards this goal, Archivists have become masters of storing knowledge and creating artificial intelligences fueled by magic. These techniques have yet to be perfected and institutionalized, and of all artificers, archivists are on the cutting edge of arcane science.
Their role is the bestowing of consciousness to items. And this goes into the origin of how the Warforged became sentient.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
I'm sorry if I missed it in the thread, but I didn't really want to have to read through 59 pages. Does anyone think the Artillerist turrets should refresh on a short rest rather than on a long rest?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI think it is fine to have the "free uses" refresh on a long rest since you can refresh them sooner with spell slots. I'd prefer they lasted 1 hour plus 1 hour per level of spell slot used to create them. Because they only last 10 minutes, I'm often running into the issue of having to decide between spending my first turn of combat creating a turret or doing something else.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
This interview just further proves that the 2019 UA Artificer build was designed specifically for Eberron without any thoughts about making it work in other official or homebrew worlds.
Being told to be inventive on how you play a class isn't close to being an actual feature of the class. There is nothing inventive about giving a subclass more spells instead of coming up with a better ability/feature. As I stated at the end of my previous response... "The vast majority of D&D players already use their imagination when they are playing the game. They don't need to be told to do that".
I guess cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, and warlock subclasses need new features then.
Thank you for posting that Sillvva! I am super keen for the next edition of the Artificer, which will probably be its final form in a hardback Eberron, right? Which I don't see a problem with, to be honest. I have no interest with Eberron as a campaign setting but it does not phase me at all that the class 'Eberron specific'. I've adapted my Artificer to a Cormyr campaign during the Shadow Wars and it fit right in without any complication to anyone else. It is what you make of it, like any other class. Surprised to hear the Alchemist is the least favourite, I love it (although I am looking forward to getting my Alchemists Satchel back).
At the end of day, if you don't like the pear and cranberry pie, don't eat the pear and cranberry pie and definitely don't waste your breathe whinging about the pie everyone else seems to be liking. Just go and eat your normal pie and stop bothering us artisan pie eaters... man, I just made myself hungry. hahaha
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
To be fair, Ranger subclassess originally didn't have additional spells (and the two vanilla ones still don't), not all Druid subclasses have additional spells always prepared, and the Warlock subclass specific spells aren't actually always available like they are for the artificer, they're just added to the spell list for you to choose from when you gain a new level. Plus, Cleric and Paladin subclasses have a little bit more going on in their subclass features than Artificer subclasses have.