Taken with the Artificer, they make different types of batteries for you arcano-magical items. In one Eberron campaign, my Ironman-like character who made her own plate armor and added shard powered features to the armor. She is currently trying to design a warforge armor (half plate) for non-warforged that grants the wearer's Proficiency bonus to the character's armor class. Her 1st attempt was a massive failure )Rolled two natural 1's rolling Advantage). The armor developed a mind of its own in the middle of my first combay while wearign it . . .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Maybe it’s just me, but I like when things that are supposed to be “unique” feel unique. I’m okay with reskinning to a point, but when everything starts to feel like the same thing when playing it stops being special. Kind of like hearing your favorite song too many times on the radio and you get kind of sick of it.
Maybe it’s just me, but I like when things that are supposed to be “unique” feel unique. I’m okay with reskinning to a point, but when everything starts to feel like the same thing when playing it stops being special. Kind of like hearing your favorite song too many times on the radio and you get kind of sick of it.
Gotta admit - warforged armor developing a mind of its own mid-combat sounds like "Feature, Not Bug" territory to me. Also sounds like the sort of awesome story people tell for years afterwards.
@IamSposta: Unfortunately, what you're running into is 5e Issues again. Wizards specifically designed 5e to be as lean and slim as it could and still be D&D, cutting the fat ruthlessly to try and make the game more accessible and easier to run/get into. It worked like gangbusters, if arguably because the slimmed-down rules made it easier to stream (Critical Role, as a side note, was Pathfinder, not D&D, until they switched pre-stream specifically because Pathfinder was too damn slow and fiddly for a streaming show), and because it worked so astonishingly well for them they're not likely to break it. Adding fat back in is something Wizards is very loathe to do, especially for "Big" mechanics like a complete overhaul of spellcasting.
The upshot is that a DM familiar with the game can teach someone to run 5e in, like...an hour. The downshot is that this is because 5e is built to be very simple and re-use mechanics wherever possible, keeping the overall cognitive load as low as it can manage by not adding a ton of weird funky rules where it doesn't need to. You see this most clearly in warlocks, which use the same base spellcasting rules as every other class despite previous editions (apparently) not giving it proper spellcasting at all. The warlock's Pact Magic feature has different variables, yes, but it's the same basic system with a few knobs cranked differently. Same with Invocations - they either add passive abilities or grant you spells that work the same way every other spell does, just with wonky casting/spell slot requirements at times. Nowhere in the warlock do they add new spellcasting rules - they just crank the knobs on the rules they already have.
Artificers are the same. They use the same basic spellcasting rules as everybody else because one of the most critical design goals of 5e as a system is to be as simple and streamlined as it can be. Adding an entirely separate spellcasting system for artificers and ONLY artificers, which is an optional class for a single campaign setting they don't even consider a primary focus of the game, is simply not happening. And I'm sure you've seen my comments to Marine concerning the "viability" of an artificer with no class abilities or special tricks beyond "can craft better".
Given that limitation, I hope Wizards clarifies that when they say "artificers must have their tools in hand when they cast," they mean "artificers must have an item they have created using those tools in hand", which is how literally everyone who isn't an idiot has interpreted it. Especially given that their "The Magic of Artifice" sidebar specifically describes using artifacts created by tools rather than the tools themselves to cast spells. But beyond that, I'm cool with artificers being spellcasters. It may not be what everybody wants, but I think it's the best compromise we're going to get.
And hey - at least they get to be half-casters now instead of third-casters like the 2017 release.
I think what is confusing the issue between us is the concept of Artificers “Casting Spells” in the first place.
When “TPTB” over at WotC wrote this version of the Artificer they put two specific bits in there that I think people are misinterpreting in different ways (which is why I say it is poorly written, if they had written it better people would be better able to agree on what they mean).
On p1 they wrote this: “Artificers use tools to channel arcane power, crafting temporary and permanent magical objects. To cast a spell, an artificer could use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power on an ally’s armor, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents.”
And on p3 they wrote this: “To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders through various items.”
The way I, and possibly others, interpret this is that, as players, we are to assume that while mechanically Artificers “Cast Spells” narratively we are supposed to head-cannon it that they are not actually “Casting Spells” at all but are instead using wondrous machines to replicate Spell casting. The problem comes from the simple fact that WotC is using the same mechanics as Spellcasting to represent “magical inventions” that the Artificer just whipped out of their pocket or quickly assembled from spare parts in their tool kit. Probably, as Yurei pointed out, because crafting sucks balls in 5e and they didn’t want to rewrite the whole darned thing for just one class. Using the same mechanic to represent such wildly different things is lazy writing, poor design, and leads to two normal, rational people such as ourselves to debate about nothing. That was behind my desire to scrap “Spell Casting” mechanic entirely for the Artificer in favor of a more... “mechanical” mechanic. (See what I did there?)
If you look at it and realize that we aren’t sposta think of the Artificer as “Casting Spells” at all, but instead running around with a tool belt full of gadgets I think you’ll find that we’re both saying similar things in different ways.
Therefore, for the sake of our conversation, can we agree upon another term rather than “Cast Spell” when referring to what the Artificers do whenever their player spends a Spell Slot? I propose “Make/Use Gadget” but am amenable to something else if you prefer.
Sposta,
I never liked that part of the opening paragraph and if you pay attention to the first two sentences you will see they are contradicting themselves like you said. They first two sentences state...
"Masters of unlocking magic in everyday objects, artificers are supreme inventors. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and controlled." These two sentences tell us that they are people who study the mysteries of the arcane as it relates to magic items and their creation. It is because of this contradiction that I prefer the fourth paragraph (pg. 1) from the 2017 Artificer UA's ....
"Makers of magic-infused objects, artificers are defined by their inventive nature. Like wizards, they see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and controlled through a combination of thorough study and investigation. Artificers, though, focus on creating marvelous new magical objects. Spells are often too ephemeral and temporary for their tastes. Instead, they seek to craft durable, useful items."
At least with this paragraph it shows us that the Artificer isn't a spellcaster.
While I don't agree with the direction that D&D took with regards to spellcasting, I can understand not creating a whole new system for a single class. The class is given access to additional spells and casting those spells requires tools or an infusion. The spell list is used as a means of tracking how many times the player can cast a 1st level spell (use a gadget), a 2nd level, 3rd level and so on and so on. And they requires us to describe a gadget, salve or palm to cover not actually casting a "spell".
But this whole gadget/spellcasting issue runs into the problem of... I am not using magic to cast a spell, it is a mechanical gadget that simulates the effects of a spell. With that description in mind, the counterspell and dispel magic spells shouldn't work against them.
Another issue I have is that if the player is using all of these gadgets to "cast" a spell, it should effect their ability to be stealthy. Now you can say, the Artificer pulls the gadget out of their bag of holding, but the problem I have with that is using a magic item takes an action so it would take 2 turns to "cast" a single spell.
@Ophidimancer: Pretty much. But then I'm bored at work, so why not have the debate?
@Marine: the issue I have with this idea of yours is exactly what I said to you before: there's no reason to take your ideal artificer on an adventure. "The person who creates magical and non-magical items for the party" has no reason to ever set foot outside their safe, well-equipped workshop and step into a dungeon because any class feature they have is one they are, by your explicit and fundamental design, able to give away to someone else who's better set up to use it. An artificer in this mold does nothing that requires it to actually accompany the party, nor does the party WANT this artificer to accompany them because this artificer is 100% a liability in every conceivable situation wherein anyone else wearing the artificer's crap could've come along instead.
Your suggested class feature is a great indicator of this. As a CLASS FEATURE, the artificer gains...the ability to craft Armor of Resistance. Just...simple, basic Armor of Resistance. It is a class feature the artificer must pay copious quantities of gold for and swallow constant exhaustion to utilize as anything but a regular, ordinary suit of Armor of Resistance. Anyone else who just...just has a set of Armor of Resistance is gaining the sixth-level class feature of this Artificer. Any other character with a suit of Armor of Resistance has the same "class feature" as your character, BUT ALSO a regular ordinary sixth-level class feature of their own. And yes, I know, only the artificer can wear this special suit of technically-variable Armor of Resistance. here's the thing - why would they want to, when they can just stay home instead and not have to deal with the threat of taking damage at all?
I've said it before, I'll doubtless say it again - an artificer whose only job is crafting stuff is an artificer that has no business being a PC. The 2019 artificer, as much guff as people are giving it, is a flexible expert in magical infusion and quickfire combat tinkering that pulls their weight in a dungeon. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's worlds better than the 2017 version, and it honestly feels a lot more like someone with a gift or talent for bringing out the magic of the world around them rather than simply imposing their will on the Weave.
Like Ophi said - magitech, not real-life engineering. I work in the technology sector, and lemme tell you - a real-life engineer would NOT go along with a dungeon crawl just because he made the stuff the actual dungeon crawlers are using to do it.
A couple of things.
1) You are forgetting about the subclasses. The subclasses would bring in abilities that would be extremely useful outside of the workshop. The Alchemist hurls a bottle of acid or alchemical fire at a troll thus preventing it from regenerating. Or they throw a smoke bomb obscuring the bad guy's vision thus allowing them and their party to escape. Or they pull a healing draught out of the Alchemist's Satchel and revive a fallen comrade. Or how about the Artillerist sets out his Flame Turret in a tunnel and uses it to burn a path through a swarm of spiders.
The base class only makes up part of PC.
2) While the Artificer's Armor is similar to the Armor of Resistance, it isn't a "simple, basic Armor of Resistance". With the AoR, the player would have resistance to a single damage type. However, the AA allows the Artificer to change the damage type. But that is arguing semantics.
The problem with the 2019 Artificer is that it sacrifice the soul and the meaning of the name Artificer in exchange for having 2 temporary magic items at 2nd level and the ability to change a cantrip at 10th level.
Tell how this isn't unbalances. A player creates a 2019 Artificer. At second level, they select the Enhanced Defense infusion for the +1 to their armor and the Repeating Shot infusion for their hand crossbow. At 4th level they select the Crossbow Expert feat and at 5th level they gain the Arcane Armament feature. So, at 5th level their Artificer has a +1 armor, and they can attack 3 times with their hand crossbow (2 attacks from Arcane Armament and 1 bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat). Not even the Fighter has 3 attack at 5th level.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a combat expert in any way shape or form.
Finally, D&D isn't real life. It is a fantasy game and people like us enjoy playing. Trying to compare a real life occupation to a fantasy game work, is like comparing special effects in the movies to real life. It doesn't work.
Everything you said is correct. There is nothing that you said I can or will disagree with. There is no right way or wrong way to play a game. Everyone has their own views. However, due to the nature of the Artificer class, I doubt that it will be close of everyone's ideal Artificer.
You are correct, 5e is the most streamlined version of D&D ever created. WotC has done a wonderful job of cutting out all of the extra bloat from previous editions, but maybe they went just a touch too far. For my personal tastes I think it is a little too streamlined. I for one could stand just a little bit more chunk in the rules. Any chef will tell you that fat adds flavor. Too much fat and a dish becomes a greasy sodden mess that nobody wants. Too little fat and everything starts to taste a bit bland. I’m not asking for a half kilo of lard added back into my D&D, but maybe just a drizzle of olive oil?
A fighter very much has an extra attack and a bonus action attack at level 5, they just have to dual wield. They also didn't have to get a feat you do so.
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!
Everything you said is correct. There is nothing that you said I can or will disagree with. There is no right way or wrong way to play a game. Everyone has their own views. However, due to the nature of the Artificer class, I doubt that it will be close of everyone's ideal Artificer.
You are correct, but maybe if their Spell list included a few more things a few more people could get just a little bit closer to what they want.
I am currently playing Peter Quill (Starlord) as an Artificer 5 (Artillerist)/Wizard 2 (War Magic) in W:DotMM. He is Variant human (was a tough call between that and Celestial). He starrted with the Crossbow Expert feat and took Sharpshooter at 4th level Artificer. His two Infusions currently are Repeating Shot & Goggles of Night (his mask). Because I don't have levels of fighter or ranger I don't have the Archery combat style. Even so, against low AC creatures my damage is devastating. I tend to fire my 1st shot with -5. Once that gives me an idea about the targets AC I may continue taking the -5.
Now throw in the Arcane Weapon spell and you have Peter's Elemental Gun.
I treat his magic as his celestial power inherited from his father. This is fitting in my case since Peter is the son of one of my oldest character (whom I have rebuilt and played in every version of D&D that I have ever played in since 1981 (except 4th edition which I refuse to tough with a nuke). :)
I have played a similar build as a human fighter (Eldritch Knight) who was almost as devastating due to the Archery combat style to make up for the lack of the Arcane Weapon spell.
The Human (variant) rogue with the Hand crossbow & Crossbow Expert is equally devasting due to Sneak Attack.
Has anyone played either a Human Crossbow Expert Fighter/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue, Artificer/Ranger, or a Fighter/Artificer/Rogue build. If so, how do those measure up?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Because I absolutely DETEST the internested quote system DDB uses here, simply going to address these the old-fashioned way.
"1) You are forgetting about the subclasses. The subclasses would bring in abilities that would be extremely useful outside of the workshop. The Alchemist hurls a bottle of acid or alchemical fire at a troll thus preventing it from regenerating. Or they throw a smoke bomb obscuring the bad guy's vision thus allowing them and their party to escape. Or they pull a healing draught out of the Alchemist's Satchel and revive a fallen comrade. Or how about the Artillerist sets out his Flame Turret in a tunnel and uses it to burn a path through a swarm of spiders.
The base class only makes up part of PC."
Am I? An alchemist can give that flask of acid or alchemist's fire to the party's Thief, who uses Fast Hands to throw it as a bonus action. Same with the smoke bomb. Or the healing draught. Thieves make better item users than artificers in just about every way - artificer makes the stuff, Thief uses the stuff.
The flame turret, if it requires constant attention and maintenance from the artificer, is perhaps an example of why the artificer needs to go - if the party wants flame turrets, anyways - but not why it wants to go. Especially when it could focus on other disciplines instead and, once again, stay safe at home in the workshop where it's not at risk of dying.
"2) While the Artificer's Armor is similar to the Armor of Resistance, it isn't a "simple, basic Armor of Resistance". With the AoR, the player would have resistance to a single damage type. However, the AA allows the Artificer to change the damage type. But that is arguing semantics."
Artificer's Armor allows you to change the resistance type...if you kill a hundred gold on it and skip a long rest to do it, forcibly accepting a level of exhaustion and destroying your skill checks for the remainder of the trip. #NotWorth, that ability will never be used in a hostile area. It may feel like a semantic argument, but it's not - "class abilities" like this that force the artificer to furiously expend resources and forego resting simply to USE THOSE FEATURES effectively deny the character a place in the party because nobody else is going to pay the artificer's bills for her or sit there for multiple eight-hour work periods within a hostile enemy-filled crypt to allow the artificer time to simply use their class features.
If every feature of your ideal artificer works the same way, then I cannot imagine a single character I've ever played who would agree to haul this guy along in a draugr-infested ruin. That isn't a Fellow Adventurer, that's an escort mission, and either my characters would demand to be paid for their escort mission or they would object to the mission ahead of time out of sheer conscience.
I don't know how many other ways I can say it - a PC character class in this game is required to be able to hold their own in an adventure. They cannot be restricted to "only makes stuff", without any ability to use what they make, or any ability to act quickly within a dangerous situation rather than requiring several hours'/days'/weeks'/decades' downtime and the expenditure of several hundred gold to accomplish anything worthwhile.
"The problem with the 2019 Artificer is that it sacrifice the soul and the meaning of the name Artificer in exchange for having 2 temporary magic items at 2nd level and the ability to change a cantrip at 10th level."
Suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather have a character who's learned how to break the rules and accomplish things quickly, take shortcuts for the purposes of keeping up when she doesn't have the time or inclination to sit in the workshop for weeks, to a character that is an "artificer" in the sense of being a master of invention but also nothing else.
"Tell how this isn't unbalances. A player creates a 2019 Artificer. At second level, they select the Enhanced Defense infusion for the +1 to their armor and the Repeating Shot infusion for their hand crossbow. At 4th level they select the Crossbow Expert feat and at 5th level they gain the Arcane Armament feature. So, at 5th level their Artificer has a +1 armor, and they can attack 3 times with their hand crossbow (2 attacks from Arcane Armament and 1 bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat). Not even the Fighter has 3 attack at 5th level.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a combat expert in any way shape or form."
Why not? The artificer is supposed to be an expert in the creation and employment of magical items. Creating a magic machine-pistol hand crossbow is perfectly within their purview, and this particular character is an 'expert' in the hand crossbow because you took a feat called "Crossbow Expert " that gives a character exceptional expertise with a crossbow. Being an artificer has nothing to do with this particular character being really good with a crossbow, being a Crossbow Expert does.
Also your Enhanced Defense infusion is better in a shield than in armor, because +1 shields are generally much harder to find than +1 armor, and honestly I wouldn't bother with Crossbow Expert if you're going to do Repeating Shot. Most artificers have a strong bonus action in their Kompanion Kritter's hijinks that conflicts with an Xbow Xpert shot. If you pick up Sharpshooter later (or plan to) then yes, Xbow Xpert is a thing, but Repeating Shot by itself allows you to do pistol crossbow + shield and gain both your attacks. It's a good compromise that feels much more like an artificer-y fighting style to me - a magical self-loading crossbow spitting bolts from behind an enchanted shield while a mechanical familiar harries the target.
That is cool. And also a character worthy of accompanying the adventurers on their adventure.
A fighter very much has an extra attack and a bonus action attack at level 5, they just have to dual wield. They also didn't have to get a feat you do so.
Actually Dual Wielder is the feat, you are thinking of Two-Weapon Fighting. Just like you said, they need to take that feature. In the case of the Artificer infusion Repeating Shot, 95% of players will want this infusion as the weapon becomes a magical weapon, grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, it ignores the loading property and it produces it's own ammunition. Also placing this infusion on a hand crossbow means their other hand is free to do something else.
Taking the Crossbow Expert feat allows the player to fire on enemies that are within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage and when you take the attack action, you can use the bonus action to attack. The Crossbow Expert's within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage feature also applies to spells. Meaning that everyone that wants those direct damaging spells, those with attack rolls will benefit from the Crossbow Expert feat.
Now the Artificer can switch out infusions and still benefit from the feat. The fighter is stuck with their Fighting Style, unless they chose the Champion subclass and even then they have to wait until 10th to chose a second fighting style.
So, the Artificer still benefits the most from possible attacks at 5th level.
Everything you said is correct. There is nothing that you said I can or will disagree with. There is no right way or wrong way to play a game. Everyone has their own views. However, due to the nature of the Artificer class, I doubt that it will be close of everyone's ideal Artificer.
You are correct, but maybe if their Spell list included a few more things a few more people could get just a little bit closer to what they want.
If you are talking about direct damaging spells, then you run into the situation where people like myself who don't want direct damaging spells, the class moves farther away. No matter how you look at it, people will not be happy.
That is why I feel a compromise of adding a subclass or 2 that have direct damaging spells would appeal to both groups. You can have a gadgetsmith who creations simulate the effects of direct damaging spells, and you can have a wandslinger subclass for those that don't find the appeal of gadgets.
I am currently playing Peter Quill (Starlord) as an Artificer 5 (Artillerist)/Wizard 2 (War Magic) in W:DotMM. He is Variant human (was a tough call between that and Celestial). He starrted with the Crossbow Expert feat and took Sharpshooter at 4th level Artificer. His two Infusions currently are Repeating Shot & Goggles of Night (his mask). Because I don't have levels of fighter or ranger I don't have the Archery combat style. Even so, against low AC creatures my damage is devastating. I tend to fire my 1st shot with -5. Once that gives me an idea about the targets AC I may continue taking the -5.
Now throw in the Arcane Weapon spell and you have Peter's Elemental Gun.
I treat his magic as his celestial power inherited from his father. This is fitting in my case since Peter is the son of one of my oldest character (whom I have rebuilt and played in every version of D&D that I have ever played in since 1981 (except 4th edition which I refuse to tough with a nuke). :)
I have played a similar build as a human fighter (Eldritch Knight) who was almost as devastating due to the Archery combat style to make up for the lack of the Arcane Weapon spell.
The Human (variant) rogue with the Hand crossbow & Crossbow Expert is equally devasting due to Sneak Attack.
Has anyone played either a Human Crossbow Expert Fighter/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue, Artificer/Ranger, or a Fighter/Artificer/Rogue build. If so, how do those measure up?
No matter how you look at it, a hand crossbow with the Repeating shot infusion, Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feat is particularly nasty even without the other classes. Plus being a Human Variant makes this character broke in my opinion.
You response to my post just proves that you are a player that wants constant combat. You have no desire for the actual roleplaying or the downtime aspects of D&D. If you want to play a class that is purely all about combat, then play the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin. If you want to play a caster that uses gadgets to simulate their spells, then consider playing a full caster that has training in different tool sets. Not all classes are 100% combat orientated, but yes they do have combat aspects to them. Changing a class that is not designed purely for combat into a class designed to fight on par with a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin doesn't make it fun.
There is more to D&D than just combat all the time.
Also, your idea of fun is not the same as everyone else.
Actually Dual Wielder is the feat, you are thinking of Two-Weapon Fighting. Just like you said, they need to take that feature. In the case of the Artificer infusion Repeating Shot, 95% of players will want this infusion as the weapon becomes a magical weapon, grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, it ignores the loading property and it produces it's own ammunition. Also placing this infusion on a hand crossbow means their other hand is free to do something else.
Taking the Crossbow Expert feat allows the player to fire on enemies that are within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage and when you take the attack action, you can use the bonus action to attack. The Crossbow Expert's within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage feature also applies to spells. Meaning that everyone that wants those direct damaging spells, those with attack rolls will benefit from the Crossbow Expert feat.
Now the Artificer can switch out infusions and still benefit from the feat. The fighter is stuck with their Fighting Style, unless they chose the Champion subclass and even then they have to wait until 10th to chose a second fighting style.
So, the Artificer still benefits the most from possible attacks at 5th level.
*sigh* It's annoying that I can't talk about the technique of dual wielding without someone thinking that you have to take the Dual Wielder feat in order to do so.
My point was that a Fighter can have 3 attacks at level 5 easily without taking anything extra, not a Fighting Style or a Feat, so your original statement that a Fighter can't do that is incorrect. Now you're moving the bar to talk about who "benefits the most."
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!
You response to my post just proves that you are a player that wants constant combat. You have no desire for the actual roleplaying or the downtime aspects of D&D. If you want to play a class that is purely all about combat, then play the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin. If you want to play a caster that uses gadgets to simulate their spells, then consider playing a full caster that has training in different tool sets. Not all classes are 100% combat orientated, but yes they do have combat aspects to them. Changing a class that is not designed purely for combat into a class designed to fight on par with a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin doesn't make it fun.
There is more to D&D than just combat all the time.
Also, your idea of fun is not the same as everyone else.
Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. Having all classes being able to partake meaningfully in all pillars is one of those mission statement things about 5E, I think.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of the thing I love about Eberron are Dragonshards.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/wgte/magic-items
Taken with the Artificer, they make different types of batteries for you arcano-magical items. In one Eberron campaign, my Ironman-like character who made her own plate armor and added shard powered features to the armor. She is currently trying to design a warforge armor (half plate) for non-warforged that grants the wearer's Proficiency bonus to the character's armor class. Her 1st attempt was a massive failure )Rolled two natural 1's rolling Advantage). The armor developed a mind of its own in the middle of my first combay while wearign it . . .
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ophid,
Maybe it’s just me, but I like when things that are supposed to be “unique” feel unique. I’m okay with reskinning to a point, but when everything starts to feel like the same thing when playing it stops being special. Kind of like hearing your favorite song too many times on the radio and you get kind of sick of it.
I’m unfamiliar with Fate?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
*leans in resting chin on hand* Tell me more....
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
https://fate-srd.com/fate-core/basics
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!
Gotta admit - warforged armor developing a mind of its own mid-combat sounds like "Feature, Not Bug" territory to me. Also sounds like the sort of awesome story people tell for years afterwards.
@IamSposta: Unfortunately, what you're running into is 5e Issues again. Wizards specifically designed 5e to be as lean and slim as it could and still be D&D, cutting the fat ruthlessly to try and make the game more accessible and easier to run/get into. It worked like gangbusters, if arguably because the slimmed-down rules made it easier to stream (Critical Role, as a side note, was Pathfinder, not D&D, until they switched pre-stream specifically because Pathfinder was too damn slow and fiddly for a streaming show), and because it worked so astonishingly well for them they're not likely to break it. Adding fat back in is something Wizards is very loathe to do, especially for "Big" mechanics like a complete overhaul of spellcasting.
The upshot is that a DM familiar with the game can teach someone to run 5e in, like...an hour. The downshot is that this is because 5e is built to be very simple and re-use mechanics wherever possible, keeping the overall cognitive load as low as it can manage by not adding a ton of weird funky rules where it doesn't need to. You see this most clearly in warlocks, which use the same base spellcasting rules as every other class despite previous editions (apparently) not giving it proper spellcasting at all. The warlock's Pact Magic feature has different variables, yes, but it's the same basic system with a few knobs cranked differently. Same with Invocations - they either add passive abilities or grant you spells that work the same way every other spell does, just with wonky casting/spell slot requirements at times. Nowhere in the warlock do they add new spellcasting rules - they just crank the knobs on the rules they already have.
Artificers are the same. They use the same basic spellcasting rules as everybody else because one of the most critical design goals of 5e as a system is to be as simple and streamlined as it can be. Adding an entirely separate spellcasting system for artificers and ONLY artificers, which is an optional class for a single campaign setting they don't even consider a primary focus of the game, is simply not happening. And I'm sure you've seen my comments to Marine concerning the "viability" of an artificer with no class abilities or special tricks beyond "can craft better".
Given that limitation, I hope Wizards clarifies that when they say "artificers must have their tools in hand when they cast," they mean "artificers must have an item they have created using those tools in hand", which is how literally everyone who isn't an idiot has interpreted it. Especially given that their "The Magic of Artifice" sidebar specifically describes using artifacts created by tools rather than the tools themselves to cast spells. But beyond that, I'm cool with artificers being spellcasters. It may not be what everybody wants, but I think it's the best compromise we're going to get.
And hey - at least they get to be half-casters now instead of third-casters like the 2017 release.
Please do not contact or message me.
No.
Sposta,
I never liked that part of the opening paragraph and if you pay attention to the first two sentences you will see they are contradicting themselves like you said. They first two sentences state...
"Masters of unlocking magic in everyday objects, artificers are supreme inventors. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and controlled." These two sentences tell us that they are people who study the mysteries of the arcane as it relates to magic items and their creation. It is because of this contradiction that I prefer the fourth paragraph (pg. 1) from the 2017 Artificer UA's ....
"Makers of magic-infused objects, artificers are defined by their inventive nature. Like wizards, they see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and controlled through a combination of thorough study and investigation. Artificers, though, focus on creating marvelous new magical objects. Spells are often too ephemeral and temporary for their tastes. Instead, they seek to craft durable, useful items."
At least with this paragraph it shows us that the Artificer isn't a spellcaster.
While I don't agree with the direction that D&D took with regards to spellcasting, I can understand not creating a whole new system for a single class. The class is given access to additional spells and casting those spells requires tools or an infusion. The spell list is used as a means of tracking how many times the player can cast a 1st level spell (use a gadget), a 2nd level, 3rd level and so on and so on. And they requires us to describe a gadget, salve or palm to cover not actually casting a "spell".
But this whole gadget/spellcasting issue runs into the problem of... I am not using magic to cast a spell, it is a mechanical gadget that simulates the effects of a spell. With that description in mind, the counterspell and dispel magic spells shouldn't work against them.
Another issue I have is that if the player is using all of these gadgets to "cast" a spell, it should effect their ability to be stealthy. Now you can say, the Artificer pulls the gadget out of their bag of holding, but the problem I have with that is using a magic item takes an action so it would take 2 turns to "cast" a single spell.
A couple of things.
1) You are forgetting about the subclasses. The subclasses would bring in abilities that would be extremely useful outside of the workshop. The Alchemist hurls a bottle of acid or alchemical fire at a troll thus preventing it from regenerating. Or they throw a smoke bomb obscuring the bad guy's vision thus allowing them and their party to escape. Or they pull a healing draught out of the Alchemist's Satchel and revive a fallen comrade. Or how about the Artillerist sets out his Flame Turret in a tunnel and uses it to burn a path through a swarm of spiders.
The base class only makes up part of PC.
2) While the Artificer's Armor is similar to the Armor of Resistance, it isn't a "simple, basic Armor of Resistance". With the AoR, the player would have resistance to a single damage type. However, the AA allows the Artificer to change the damage type. But that is arguing semantics.
The problem with the 2019 Artificer is that it sacrifice the soul and the meaning of the name Artificer in exchange for having 2 temporary magic items at 2nd level and the ability to change a cantrip at 10th level.
Tell how this isn't unbalances. A player creates a 2019 Artificer. At second level, they select the Enhanced Defense infusion for the +1 to their armor and the Repeating Shot infusion for their hand crossbow. At 4th level they select the Crossbow Expert feat and at 5th level they gain the Arcane Armament feature. So, at 5th level their Artificer has a +1 armor, and they can attack 3 times with their hand crossbow (2 attacks from Arcane Armament and 1 bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat). Not even the Fighter has 3 attack at 5th level.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a combat expert in any way shape or form.
Finally, D&D isn't real life. It is a fantasy game and people like us enjoy playing. Trying to compare a real life occupation to a fantasy game work, is like comparing special effects in the movies to real life. It doesn't work.
@Sposta,
Everything you said is correct. There is nothing that you said I can or will disagree with. There is no right way or wrong way to play a game. Everyone has their own views. However, due to the nature of the Artificer class, I doubt that it will be close of everyone's ideal Artificer.
@Yurei:
You are correct, 5e is the most streamlined version of D&D ever created. WotC has done a wonderful job of cutting out all of the extra bloat from previous editions, but maybe they went just a touch too far. For my personal tastes I think it is a little too streamlined. I for one could stand just a little bit more chunk in the rules. Any chef will tell you that fat adds flavor. Too much fat and a dish becomes a greasy sodden mess that nobody wants. Too little fat and everything starts to taste a bit bland. I’m not asking for a half kilo of lard added back into my D&D, but maybe just a drizzle of olive oil?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
A fighter very much has an extra attack and a bonus action attack at level 5, they just have to dual wield. They also didn't have to get a feat you do so.
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!
You are correct, but maybe if their Spell list included a few more things a few more people could get just a little bit closer to what they want.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am currently playing Peter Quill (Starlord) as an Artificer 5 (Artillerist)/Wizard 2 (War Magic) in W:DotMM. He is Variant human (was a tough call between that and Celestial). He starrted with the Crossbow Expert feat and took Sharpshooter at 4th level Artificer. His two Infusions currently are Repeating Shot & Goggles of Night (his mask). Because I don't have levels of fighter or ranger I don't have the Archery combat style. Even so, against low AC creatures my damage is devastating. I tend to fire my 1st shot with -5. Once that gives me an idea about the targets AC I may continue taking the -5.
Now throw in the Arcane Weapon spell and you have Peter's Elemental Gun.
I treat his magic as his celestial power inherited from his father. This is fitting in my case since Peter is the son of one of my oldest character (whom I have rebuilt and played in every version of D&D that I have ever played in since 1981 (except 4th edition which I refuse to tough with a nuke). :)
I have played a similar build as a human fighter (Eldritch Knight) who was almost as devastating due to the Archery combat style to make up for the lack of the Arcane Weapon spell.
The Human (variant) rogue with the Hand crossbow & Crossbow Expert is equally devasting due to Sneak Attack.
Has anyone played either a Human Crossbow Expert Fighter/Rogue, Artificer/Rogue, Artificer/Ranger, or a Fighter/Artificer/Rogue build. If so, how do those measure up?
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Because I absolutely DETEST the internested quote system DDB uses here, simply going to address these the old-fashioned way.
"1) You are forgetting about the subclasses. The subclasses would bring in abilities that would be extremely useful outside of the workshop. The Alchemist hurls a bottle of acid or alchemical fire at a troll thus preventing it from regenerating. Or they throw a smoke bomb obscuring the bad guy's vision thus allowing them and their party to escape. Or they pull a healing draught out of the Alchemist's Satchel and revive a fallen comrade. Or how about the Artillerist sets out his Flame Turret in a tunnel and uses it to burn a path through a swarm of spiders.
The base class only makes up part of PC."
Am I?
An alchemist can give that flask of acid or alchemist's fire to the party's Thief, who uses Fast Hands to throw it as a bonus action. Same with the smoke bomb. Or the healing draught. Thieves make better item users than artificers in just about every way - artificer makes the stuff, Thief uses the stuff.
The flame turret, if it requires constant attention and maintenance from the artificer, is perhaps an example of why the artificer needs to go - if the party wants flame turrets, anyways - but not why it wants to go. Especially when it could focus on other disciplines instead and, once again, stay safe at home in the workshop where it's not at risk of dying.
"2) While the Artificer's Armor is similar to the Armor of Resistance, it isn't a "simple, basic Armor of Resistance". With the AoR, the player would have resistance to a single damage type. However, the AA allows the Artificer to change the damage type. But that is arguing semantics."
Artificer's Armor allows you to change the resistance type...if you kill a hundred gold on it and skip a long rest to do it, forcibly accepting a level of exhaustion and destroying your skill checks for the remainder of the trip. #NotWorth, that ability will never be used in a hostile area. It may feel like a semantic argument, but it's not - "class abilities" like this that force the artificer to furiously expend resources and forego resting simply to USE THOSE FEATURES effectively deny the character a place in the party because nobody else is going to pay the artificer's bills for her or sit there for multiple eight-hour work periods within a hostile enemy-filled crypt to allow the artificer time to simply use their class features.
If every feature of your ideal artificer works the same way, then I cannot imagine a single character I've ever played who would agree to haul this guy along in a draugr-infested ruin. That isn't a Fellow Adventurer, that's an escort mission, and either my characters would demand to be paid for their escort mission or they would object to the mission ahead of time out of sheer conscience.
I don't know how many other ways I can say it - a PC character class in this game is required to be able to hold their own in an adventure. They cannot be restricted to "only makes stuff", without any ability to use what they make, or any ability to act quickly within a dangerous situation rather than requiring several hours'/days'/weeks'/decades' downtime and the expenditure of several hundred gold to accomplish anything worthwhile.
"The problem with the 2019 Artificer is that it sacrifice the soul and the meaning of the name Artificer in exchange for having 2 temporary magic items at 2nd level and the ability to change a cantrip at 10th level."
Suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather have a character who's learned how to break the rules and accomplish things quickly, take shortcuts for the purposes of keeping up when she doesn't have the time or inclination to sit in the workshop for weeks, to a character that is an "artificer" in the sense of being a master of invention but also nothing else.
"Tell how this isn't unbalances. A player creates a 2019 Artificer. At second level, they select the Enhanced Defense infusion for the +1 to their armor and the Repeating Shot infusion for their hand crossbow. At 4th level they select the Crossbow Expert feat and at 5th level they gain the Arcane Armament feature. So, at 5th level their Artificer has a +1 armor, and they can attack 3 times with their hand crossbow (2 attacks from Arcane Armament and 1 bonus action attack from the Crossbow Expert feat). Not even the Fighter has 3 attack at 5th level.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a combat expert in any way shape or form."
Why not? The artificer is supposed to be an expert in the creation and employment of magical items. Creating a magic machine-pistol hand crossbow is perfectly within their purview, and this particular character is an 'expert' in the hand crossbow because you took a feat called "Crossbow Expert " that gives a character exceptional expertise with a crossbow. Being an artificer has nothing to do with this particular character being really good with a crossbow, being a Crossbow Expert does.
Also your Enhanced Defense infusion is better in a shield than in armor, because +1 shields are generally much harder to find than +1 armor, and honestly I wouldn't bother with Crossbow Expert if you're going to do Repeating Shot. Most artificers have a strong bonus action in their Kompanion Kritter's hijinks that conflicts with an Xbow Xpert shot. If you pick up Sharpshooter later (or plan to) then yes, Xbow Xpert is a thing, but Repeating Shot by itself allows you to do pistol crossbow + shield and gain both your attacks. It's a good compromise that feels much more like an artificer-y fighting style to me - a magical self-loading crossbow spitting bolts from behind an enchanted shield while a mechanical familiar harries the target.
That is cool. And also a character worthy of accompanying the adventurers on their adventure.
Please do not contact or message me.
Actually Dual Wielder is the feat, you are thinking of Two-Weapon Fighting. Just like you said, they need to take that feature. In the case of the Artificer infusion Repeating Shot, 95% of players will want this infusion as the weapon becomes a magical weapon, grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with it when it’s used to make a ranged attack, it ignores the loading property and it produces it's own ammunition. Also placing this infusion on a hand crossbow means their other hand is free to do something else.
Taking the Crossbow Expert feat allows the player to fire on enemies that are within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage and when you take the attack action, you can use the bonus action to attack. The Crossbow Expert's within 5 feet and not suffer from disadvantage feature also applies to spells. Meaning that everyone that wants those direct damaging spells, those with attack rolls will benefit from the Crossbow Expert feat.
Now the Artificer can switch out infusions and still benefit from the feat. The fighter is stuck with their Fighting Style, unless they chose the Champion subclass and even then they have to wait until 10th to chose a second fighting style.
So, the Artificer still benefits the most from possible attacks at 5th level.
If you are talking about direct damaging spells, then you run into the situation where people like myself who don't want direct damaging spells, the class moves farther away. No matter how you look at it, people will not be happy.
That is why I feel a compromise of adding a subclass or 2 that have direct damaging spells would appeal to both groups. You can have a gadgetsmith who creations simulate the effects of direct damaging spells, and you can have a wandslinger subclass for those that don't find the appeal of gadgets.
No matter how you look at it, a hand crossbow with the Repeating shot infusion, Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter feat is particularly nasty even without the other classes. Plus being a Human Variant makes this character broke in my opinion.
@Yurei1453
You response to my post just proves that you are a player that wants constant combat. You have no desire for the actual roleplaying or the downtime aspects of D&D. If you want to play a class that is purely all about combat, then play the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin. If you want to play a caster that uses gadgets to simulate their spells, then consider playing a full caster that has training in different tool sets. Not all classes are 100% combat orientated, but yes they do have combat aspects to them. Changing a class that is not designed purely for combat into a class designed to fight on par with a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin doesn't make it fun.
There is more to D&D than just combat all the time.
Also, your idea of fun is not the same as everyone else.
*sigh* It's annoying that I can't talk about the technique of dual wielding without someone thinking that you have to take the Dual Wielder feat in order to do so.
My point was that a Fighter can have 3 attacks at level 5 easily without taking anything extra, not a Fighting Style or a Feat, so your original statement that a Fighter can't do that is incorrect. Now you're moving the bar to talk about who "benefits the most."
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!
Combat is one of the three pillars of D&D. Having all classes being able to partake meaningfully in all pillars is one of those mission statement things about 5E, I think.
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!