This is the problem. Everyone wants the Artificer to be a spellcaster class at the expense of its true nature... creating and crafting. The powers that be at D&D tells us in the Artificer UA to use are imaginations when we are casting spells but to actually cast spells. We are told to describe gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms that simulate the casting and effects of spells without actually using any arcane power. But yet, with Infuse Item we touch a nonmagical item and turn it into a magic item. The spellcasting ability of the Artificer should be used to support them so that they can accomplish their tasks (in and out of combat).
I understand the need of needing something extra when it comes to combat. There are other classes that do not have an extra attack but yet they have other abilities that balance out their base class. To be honest I never liked Arcane Armament as I felt it was too restrictive. There is no guarantee that you will always have a magic weapon in your possession (i.e. captured, put in jail, robbed, etc.). Also the idea of going with a dual caster setup just continues to push the Artificer away from the foundation of the class which is creating and craft and into a full blown spellcaster. If you want something like that, then create a subclass for the Wizard that concentrates on combat (not evocation). The below is my idea as the replacement for Mechanical Servant of the 2017 Artificer UA and a better option than Arcane Armament.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6th level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
Conventional magic has an idea of what spellcasting is. The artificer challenges that idea. Gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms do no have to be divorced from concepts of arcane power. In fact it can (and for the artificer to an extent does) require arcane power. No one else can touch a non magical item and imbue it with magic so easily and freely. This is shown in the Arcane Weapon spell. Only artificers can cast it and it's effects are on par with elemental weapon but limited to specifically stay with the artificer. Thus an artificer who requires a magic weapon to attack twice in a round can take any nonmagical weapon and turn it into a magical one at the cost of merely a lvl 1 spell slot and a bonus action.
Getting captured or robbed will set almost ANY player back (the monk is a rather noteworthy exception). A barbarian has to regain a weapon. A fighter has to get a weapon and their armor back. A wizard has to regain their spellcasting focus. A paladin has to get a weapon, armor, and their holy symbol to be back in full form. An artificer has to get a weapon, armor, tools, and cast a spell.
That artificer's armor actually takes longer and more work to regain after it's lost, then what's necessary to regain a magical weapon. It seems like a more restricted version of the resistance armor Infusion. (I know not the fairest comparison considering you described that feature as a replacement for the 2017 Artificer's Mechanical Servant). However, I do like how the artificer's armor feature includes a sense of the work and effort required to craft it into its description.
I have no issues with the Artificer challenging conventional magic. Artificer by the very definition are inventors and crafters. However, there is this notion of moving the Artificer away from actual crafting and increasing their spellcasting capabilities. Artificers do need access to arcane powers as they are crafting actual magic items. They spend time crafting a nonmagical item and then imbuing it arcane/magical properties.
Arcane Weapon is a spell just like the different smite spells, several blade spells and even the Flame Arrows spell. Also, nothing in Arcane Weapon's description does it say it is for Artificers only. It says... "The artificer spell list contains a new spell: arcane weapon." So there is a real possibility that other classes will have access to it.
The point I am trying to make about a player getting robbed is that the Artificer is the only class that REQUIRES the player to cast all of their spells with a spellcasting focus (even spells that only have verbal and/or somatic components).
"You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way."
The above text is taken from the Tools Required entry under Spellcasting in the 2019 Artificer UA. That means unless the Artificer has a tool they are proficient with, they are unable to cast any of their spells. A wizard only needs a spellcasting focus to cast spells that have a material component that doesn't have a cost or isn't consumed. Which means that any spell that they know that only requires verbal and/or somatic components they don't need a spellcasting focus.
Let's not forget that the gray box entry of the 2019 Artificer UA.
"The Magic of Artifice As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with shocking grasp, you might be breaking down the device you used to heal and creating an offensive item in its place—perhaps a gauntlet that lets you channel a surge of energy.
Such details don’t limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit. You don’t have to justify how you’re using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters."
This entry is essentially saying that players should use their imaginations when casting spells as an Artificer by creating gadgets that simulate the effects of spells.
The point behind the Artificer's Armor is that they player has to actually craft it. An Artificer can use their downtime to craft a new set of armor. I had a DM who required the players to keep track of the damage they took while wearing armor. At a certain point, nonmagical armor would be destroyed or lose some of it's armor value. So the players would have to take it to a smith to get it repair/replaced or repair it themselves. Essentially players need downtown to take care of things they normally can't take care of during an adventure or just to relax.
@Marine2874 Are you by any chance familiar with the homebrewed version of the artificer by KibblesTasty? If you aren't, I feel it may be something you'd be interested in having a look at.
EDIT: for those who take a look at the homebrewed Artificer in that link, it looks like they updated it recently and there might be some formatting issues as a result. Apologies for that.
No I haven't, but I will take a look. I will give my opinion after reading it several times.
I'm fairly certain that having the artificer require tools to cast is to hammer home the idea that their spellcasting is crafting. Crafting requires tools so their spellcasting likewise requires tools. For the Artificer the two are the same. Maybe it'd be better to incorporate crafting mechanics more directly into the Artificer's design so those aspects of the Artificer mesh better mechanically as well as flavorfully. I'm not against that idea but I don't particularly see a need for it.
I mean maybe it's just me but I don't see much of a difference between an Artificer taking a long rest and applying an infusion to a suit of armor (that they very well may have crafted in advance) vs an artificer crafting a suit of magic armor over the space of 8 hours. You could just as easily describe the process of Infusion taking several careful and intricate modifications to the armor made over such a period. Maybe changing infusions should cost a point of exhaustion if done outside of downtime. Maybe some infusions should come with a cost of gold. (Wizards scribing spells into their spellbook comes at a gold cost after all) Or maybe the Artificer should only be able to infuse items that they themselves have crafted. I'm sure all of those ideas have pros and cons towards how things would pan out.
I have to confess, that Magic of Artifice gray box really rubbed me the wrong way a lot when I first read it. As someone who likes creative writing, who likes creating characters and describing different ways for what their spellcasting looks like (and when I DM, the first thing I say when one of my players casts a spell for the first time is, "describe for us what that looks like"), it annoyed me a lot that they would use something that people already do and try to use that as a distinguishing feature of the Artificer, when the reality of a tabletop rpg is that that's not unique, nor should it be.
I'm fairly certain that having the artificer require tools to cast is to hammer home the idea that their spellcasting is crafting. Crafting requires tools so their spellcasting likewise requires tools. For the Artificer the two are the same. Maybe it'd be better to incorporate crafting mechanics more directly into the Artificer's design so those aspects of the Artificer mesh better mechanically as well as flavorfully. I'm not against that idea but I don't particularly see a need for it.
I mean maybe it's just me but I don't see much of a difference between an Artificer taking a long rest and applying an infusion to a suit of armor (that they very well may have crafted in advance) vs an artificer crafting a suit of magic armor over the space of 8 hours. You could just as easily describe the process of Infusion taking several careful and intricate modifications to the armor made over such a period. Maybe changing infusions should cost a point of exhaustion if done outside of downtime. Maybe some infusions should come with a cost of gold. (Wizards scribing spells into their spellbook comes at a gold cost after all) Or maybe the Artificer should only be able to infuse items that they themselves have crafted. I'm sure all of those ideas have pros and cons towards how things would pan out.
I think this is the only issue I would agree with.
My solution was giving an Artificer a feature similar to many races: Instead of an 8 hour long rest you can spend 6 hours working and 2 hours Power Napping, without receiving Exhaustion. Over the course of this 6 hours you can change any infused items or use this time to contribute towards your crafting goals.
I dont understand why having tools is a problem for people. I mean clerics druids warlocks sorcerer bard wizards all need a focus to cast. Basically any spell casters need a focus. Here instead of creating focus like the others they just took what was already there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I've been playing a Artillerist in DotMM. I am now 7th level.
I've mostly been using the Turrent for temp hp and as a bomb. The party has been very generous in our movement speeds since it only can move 15-feet and cannot normally keep up with us.
Never once have tools been an issue. I've been using a hand crossbow with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter (with Arcane Weapon of course). My attacks tend to be devastating. Until I reached 5th level I had two shots a round or 1 shot plus Bonus Action (turret). I am human so I had both feats by 4th level.
I tend to stay at the back of the party using my turret for 1/2 cover and granting temp hp when needed. Until I get War Caster I don't use my shield unless absolutely necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
in any cases, you guys have to understand this little tidbit also...
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
So the whole must have a tool in hand to do the spellcasting is a moot point, because after second level this whole ordeal do not exists anymore. thus you can literally put any infusion on a simple rock and use that rock. if anything infusions do not use tools or things they just happen. if anything in a setting where you are copletely nude, the artificer has a clear and definitive advantage to the other classes. a completely naked artificer will anytime, take a long rest and infuse anything, then it is back up and running, the same way any fighter would create a dagger out of rocks to gain a weapon. seriously, i really really dont get this argument. after second level, the artificer can literally recreate a focus while every others cannot do that by RAW. if anything, its the other classes that screwed not the artificer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I dont understand why having tools is a problem for people. I mean clerics druids warlocks sorcerer bard wizards all need a focus to cast. Basically any spell casters need a focus. Here instead of creating focus like the others they just took what was already there.
The spellcasting focus is a substitute for material components. The below was taken from the D&D Beyond website.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
A bard, cleric, druid, fighter-eldritch knight, ranger, rogue-arcane trickster, sorcerer, warlock, & wizard does not need a spellcasting focus if the components of a spell are verbal and/or somatic.
in any cases, you guys have to understand this little tidbit also...
After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
So the whole must have a tool in hand to do the spellcasting is a moot point, because after second level this whole ordeal do not exists anymore. thus you can literally put any infusion on a simple rock and use that rock. if anything infusions do not use tools or things they just happen. if anything in a setting where you are copletely nude, the artificer has a clear and definitive advantage to the other classes. a completely naked artificer will anytime, take a long rest and infuse anything, then it is back up and running, the same way any fighter would create a dagger out of rocks to gain a weapon. seriously, i really really dont get this argument. after second level, the artificer can literally recreate a focus while every others cannot do that by RAW. if anything, its the other classes that screwed not the artificer.
The problem I have with Infuse Item is there is no crafting involved. The below sentence was taken from the Artificer 2019 UA pg.5.
"Infusing an Item - Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item."
The powers that be at D&D are telling us to cast spells by using a gadget that we created to simulate a spells effect, but yet we touch an object after a long rest and poof it is a magic item. If the powers that be at D&D want us to substitute arcane magic for gadgets and tools, then an Artificer shouldn't be able to cast any spell they want from spellcasting focus that is an infused item.
For example... An Artificer that uses the infusion "Boots of the Winding Path" as a spellcasting focus should only be able to cast movement related spell with it.
It is difficult to imagine the infusion "Boots of the Winding Path" being used to cast any of the following spells...
Acid Splash, Create Bonfire, Dancing Lights, Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Magic Stone, Mending, Message, Poison Spray, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost, Resistance, Shocking Grasp, Spare the Dying, Thorn Whip, and Thunderclap
while i agree with the first part, i'd disagree with the last part. i have no problems seeing a pair of boots as focus, just the same way one of my player warlock has a deck of cards as his focus, to cast spells she just shuffles a deck in different ways and i found that original. so no, i have no problem seeing how a pair of boots could cast spells.
back to the first part where you dislike the no crafting part... well, tell that to the thousands of players who entered in the feedback survey that they wanted less crafting and more instanteneous castings. because thats what the majority of feedback gave. this is exactly why i said people were taking 5e int he wrong direction to begin with. they want all classes to be identicals. all dps, all tanks, all healers, all everything. and i hate 5e for that one. if i wanted to play a video game i'd play a video game...
when it comes to the original author, i'd let him create a new version. instead of trying to make one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Ehhhh...with all due respect to Keith Baker, I picked up his Morgrave Miscellany on the DM's guild, and as far as its character options go I have to confess I found it incredibly unimpressive, so unless he were working in conjunction with people who can point and say there's a problem in the design (don't tie proficiency bonus to these features, hit dice are not meant to be used this way) I have to say that prospect doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...
So basically even if the artificer was created by the original creator. If it doesnt satisfy you its not right. Well i guess you have only one option then... Create it to your liking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
All I'm saying is, 5e is a different beast from 3e, and there are a lot of considerations that need to be taken that shouldn't be left in the hands of one guy when it comes to making official content. It's easy to make mistakes, especially for just one person, even if they did make an entire campaign setting.
From what i understand the author is still using 3e.
As for classes... Well mike mearls once said that 3e is very similar to 5e because 5e was built on 3e. Thus its easy to just port a class, as is, to 5e. And i tend to agree with that assessment as i took many classes and made them archetype features. I mean prestige classes.
I also made monster classes for friends and they are well balanced. So i dont agree on your saying that 3e and 5e are very different beast. Since mike mearl and crawford both said it was literally based on 3e.
Check on my wendigo version. Its literally 3e adjusted for 5e. And it seems quite a lot of people liked it.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
My bad, I did not mean to imply it was *very* different, just that differences do exist and they are important to keep in mind, and that some mistakes (like tying early class features to proficiency level, or being overly reliant on using hit dice) are easy to make.
Wendigo, eh? Is that here on DnDBeyond? I shall check it out.
EDIT: I can't seem to find it on DnDBeyond. Is it on a different site like DM's Guild?
it's here on beyond. go into homebrew and type in my name in author. you should find it... or i should just give you the link.
There are tons of it now, but mine has the most views and the most ADDs. used this in the wendigo encounter from the 3e book. needed it so i just redid it balanced with 5e in mind. it seems much higher then CR2, but believe me, its not that hard to kill and its not that hard hitting. you just need to catch it first, like in the 3e module.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
An issue came up in one of my current campaign. A player is playing a House Cannith Artificer haws a chance to get a Staff of Fireballs. She is an Artillerist.
Can she use the staff? What magic items is an Artificer limited to?
Personally I think that a Artificer can use any magic item despite class/alignment restrictions, but I'd loke to get something more official for the bloody rules lawyer in the same group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
@DnDPaladin You wanna know something? This is EXACTLY what I've been looking for in one of my next encounters for the campaign I'm running! Thanks!
@Mergon I would rule that you can, since you can use it as a focus and there's no thematic reason I can see for why you wouldn't be able to (in fact, I think I would make that ruling for Artificers in general), but that's me ruling as a DM, I'm not sure WotC has anything about class specific items that can or can't be used for an Unearthed Arcana like this.
I would point out to the bloody rules lawyer that artificers are UA and thus the rules on them are loose and fuzzy anyways, and also that you're the DM and Rule Zero takes precedence. There is absolutely no reason an Artillerist Artificer should have any issues using a Staff of Fireballs - none whatsoever. It makes no sense whatsoever given the thematics of the class/subclass, and any rule which states she can't is a rule that needs to be Rule Zero'd in this case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have no issues with the Artificer challenging conventional magic. Artificer by the very definition are inventors and crafters. However, there is this notion of moving the Artificer away from actual crafting and increasing their spellcasting capabilities. Artificers do need access to arcane powers as they are crafting actual magic items. They spend time crafting a nonmagical item and then imbuing it arcane/magical properties.
Arcane Weapon is a spell just like the different smite spells, several blade spells and even the Flame Arrows spell. Also, nothing in Arcane Weapon's description does it say it is for Artificers only. It says... "The artificer spell list contains a new spell: arcane weapon." So there is a real possibility that other classes will have access to it.
The point I am trying to make about a player getting robbed is that the Artificer is the only class that REQUIRES the player to cast all of their spells with a spellcasting focus (even spells that only have verbal and/or somatic components).
"You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way."
The above text is taken from the Tools Required entry under Spellcasting in the 2019 Artificer UA. That means unless the Artificer has a tool they are proficient with, they are unable to cast any of their spells. A wizard only needs a spellcasting focus to cast spells that have a material component that doesn't have a cost or isn't consumed. Which means that any spell that they know that only requires verbal and/or somatic components they don't need a spellcasting focus.
Let's not forget that the gray box entry of the 2019 Artificer UA.
"The Magic of Artifice
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.
The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with shocking grasp, you might be breaking down the device you used to heal and creating an offensive item in its place—perhaps a gauntlet that lets you channel a surge of energy.
Such details don’t limit you in any way or provide you with any benefit. You don’t have to justify how you’re using tools to cast a spell. But describing your spellcasting creatively is a fun way to distinguish yourself from other spellcasters."
This entry is essentially saying that players should use their imaginations when casting spells as an Artificer by creating gadgets that simulate the effects of spells.
The point behind the Artificer's Armor is that they player has to actually craft it. An Artificer can use their downtime to craft a new set of armor. I had a DM who required the players to keep track of the damage they took while wearing armor. At a certain point, nonmagical armor would be destroyed or lose some of it's armor value. So the players would have to take it to a smith to get it repair/replaced or repair it themselves. Essentially players need downtown to take care of things they normally can't take care of during an adventure or just to relax.
No I haven't, but I will take a look. I will give my opinion after reading it several times.
I'm fairly certain that having the artificer require tools to cast is to hammer home the idea that their spellcasting is crafting. Crafting requires tools so their spellcasting likewise requires tools. For the Artificer the two are the same. Maybe it'd be better to incorporate crafting mechanics more directly into the Artificer's design so those aspects of the Artificer mesh better mechanically as well as flavorfully. I'm not against that idea but I don't particularly see a need for it.
I mean maybe it's just me but I don't see much of a difference between an Artificer taking a long rest and applying an infusion to a suit of armor (that they very well may have crafted in advance) vs an artificer crafting a suit of magic armor over the space of 8 hours. You could just as easily describe the process of Infusion taking several careful and intricate modifications to the armor made over such a period. Maybe changing infusions should cost a point of exhaustion if done outside of downtime. Maybe some infusions should come with a cost of gold. (Wizards scribing spells into their spellbook comes at a gold cost after all) Or maybe the Artificer should only be able to infuse items that they themselves have crafted. I'm sure all of those ideas have pros and cons towards how things would pan out.
I have to confess, that Magic of Artifice gray box really rubbed me the wrong way a lot when I first read it. As someone who likes creative writing, who likes creating characters and describing different ways for what their spellcasting looks like (and when I DM, the first thing I say when one of my players casts a spell for the first time is, "describe for us what that looks like"), it annoyed me a lot that they would use something that people already do and try to use that as a distinguishing feature of the Artificer, when the reality of a tabletop rpg is that that's not unique, nor should it be.
I think this is the only issue I would agree with.
My solution was giving an Artificer a feature similar to many races: Instead of an 8 hour long rest you can spend 6 hours working and 2 hours Power Napping, without receiving Exhaustion. Over the course of this 6 hours you can change any infused items or use this time to contribute towards your crafting goals.
I dont understand why having tools is a problem for people. I mean clerics druids warlocks sorcerer bard wizards all need a focus to cast. Basically any spell casters need a focus. Here instead of creating focus like the others they just took what was already there.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I've been playing a Artillerist in DotMM. I am now 7th level.
I've mostly been using the Turrent for temp hp and as a bomb. The party has been very generous in our movement speeds since it only can move 15-feet and cannot normally keep up with us.
Never once have tools been an issue. I've been using a hand crossbow with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter (with Arcane Weapon of course). My attacks tend to be devastating. Until I reached 5th level I had two shots a round or 1 shot plus Bonus Action (turret). I am human so I had both feats by 4th level.
I tend to stay at the back of the party using my turret for 1/2 cover and granting temp hp when needed. Until I get War Caster I don't use my shield unless absolutely necessary.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
in any cases, you guys have to understand this little tidbit also...
So the whole must have a tool in hand to do the spellcasting is a moot point, because after second level this whole ordeal do not exists anymore. thus you can literally put any infusion on a simple rock and use that rock. if anything infusions do not use tools or things they just happen. if anything in a setting where you are copletely nude, the artificer has a clear and definitive advantage to the other classes. a completely naked artificer will anytime, take a long rest and infuse anything, then it is back up and running, the same way any fighter would create a dagger out of rocks to gain a weapon. seriously, i really really dont get this argument. after second level, the artificer can literally recreate a focus while every others cannot do that by RAW. if anything, its the other classes that screwed not the artificer.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
The spellcasting focus is a substitute for material components. The below was taken from the D&D Beyond website.
Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell. A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/spellcasting#Components
A bard, cleric, druid, fighter-eldritch knight, ranger, rogue-arcane trickster, sorcerer, warlock, & wizard does not need a spellcasting focus if the components of a spell are verbal and/or somatic.
The problem I have with Infuse Item is there is no crafting involved. The below sentence was taken from the Artificer 2019 UA pg.5.
"Infusing an Item - Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item."
The powers that be at D&D are telling us to cast spells by using a gadget that we created to simulate a spells effect, but yet we touch an object after a long rest and poof it is a magic item. If the powers that be at D&D want us to substitute arcane magic for gadgets and tools, then an Artificer shouldn't be able to cast any spell they want from spellcasting focus that is an infused item.
For example... An Artificer that uses the infusion "Boots of the Winding Path" as a spellcasting focus should only be able to cast movement related spell with it.
It is difficult to imagine the infusion "Boots of the Winding Path" being used to cast any of the following spells...
Acid Splash, Create Bonfire, Dancing Lights, Fire Bolt, Frostbite, Guidance, Light, Mage Hand, Magic Stone, Mending, Message, Poison Spray, Prestidigitation, Ray of Frost, Resistance, Shocking Grasp, Spare the Dying, Thorn Whip, and Thunderclap
while i agree with the first part, i'd disagree with the last part. i have no problems seeing a pair of boots as focus, just the same way one of my player warlock has a deck of cards as his focus, to cast spells she just shuffles a deck in different ways and i found that original. so no, i have no problem seeing how a pair of boots could cast spells.
back to the first part where you dislike the no crafting part...
well, tell that to the thousands of players who entered in the feedback survey that they wanted less crafting and more instanteneous castings.
because thats what the majority of feedback gave. this is exactly why i said people were taking 5e int he wrong direction to begin with. they want all classes to be identicals. all dps, all tanks, all healers, all everything. and i hate 5e for that one. if i wanted to play a video game i'd play a video game...
when it comes to the original author, i'd let him create a new version. instead of trying to make one.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Ehhhh...with all due respect to Keith Baker, I picked up his Morgrave Miscellany on the DM's guild, and as far as its character options go I have to confess I found it incredibly unimpressive, so unless he were working in conjunction with people who can point and say there's a problem in the design (don't tie proficiency bonus to these features, hit dice are not meant to be used this way) I have to say that prospect doesn't exactly fill me with confidence...
So basically even if the artificer was created by the original creator. If it doesnt satisfy you its not right. Well i guess you have only one option then... Create it to your liking.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
All I'm saying is, 5e is a different beast from 3e, and there are a lot of considerations that need to be taken that shouldn't be left in the hands of one guy when it comes to making official content. It's easy to make mistakes, especially for just one person, even if they did make an entire campaign setting.
From what i understand the author is still using 3e.
As for classes... Well mike mearls once said that 3e is very similar to 5e because 5e was built on 3e. Thus its easy to just port a class, as is, to 5e. And i tend to agree with that assessment as i took many classes and made them archetype features. I mean prestige classes.
I also made monster classes for friends and they are well balanced. So i dont agree on your saying that 3e and 5e are very different beast. Since mike mearl and crawford both said it was literally based on 3e.
Check on my wendigo version. Its literally 3e adjusted for 5e. And it seems quite a lot of people liked it.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
My bad, I did not mean to imply it was *very* different, just that differences do exist and they are important to keep in mind, and that some mistakes (like tying early class features to proficiency level, or being overly reliant on using hit dice) are easy to make.
Wendigo, eh? Is that here on DnDBeyond? I shall check it out.
EDIT: I can't seem to find it on DnDBeyond. Is it on a different site like DM's Guild?
it's here on beyond. go into homebrew and type in my name in author. you should find it... or i should just give you the link.
There are tons of it now, but mine has the most views and the most ADDs.
used this in the wendigo encounter from the 3e book. needed it so i just redid it balanced with 5e in mind.
it seems much higher then CR2, but believe me, its not that hard to kill and its not that hard hitting. you just need to catch it first, like in the 3e module.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/59735-wendigo
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
An issue came up in one of my current campaign. A player is playing a House Cannith Artificer haws a chance to get a Staff of Fireballs. She is an Artillerist.
Can she use the staff? What magic items is an Artificer limited to?
Personally I think that a Artificer can use any magic item despite class/alignment restrictions, but I'd loke to get something more official for the bloody rules lawyer in the same group.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
@DnDPaladin You wanna know something? This is EXACTLY what I've been looking for in one of my next encounters for the campaign I'm running! Thanks!
@Mergon I would rule that you can, since you can use it as a focus and there's no thematic reason I can see for why you wouldn't be able to (in fact, I think I would make that ruling for Artificers in general), but that's me ruling as a DM, I'm not sure WotC has anything about class specific items that can or can't be used for an Unearthed Arcana like this.
I would point out to the bloody rules lawyer that artificers are UA and thus the rules on them are loose and fuzzy anyways, and also that you're the DM and Rule Zero takes precedence. There is absolutely no reason an Artillerist Artificer should have any issues using a Staff of Fireballs - none whatsoever. It makes no sense whatsoever given the thematics of the class/subclass, and any rule which states she can't is a rule that needs to be Rule Zero'd in this case.
Please do not contact or message me.