Well, Archivist is being dropped, so that just leaves the other three. As for a bomber type character, I think that's kinda what they intended the Artillerist to be but they didn't do a good job of it (IMO).
If you want to try a hand at homebrewing a grenadier type subclass like you've described, feel free. I was thinking of homebrewing a couple myself, I just want to wait and see what the final iteration of the Artificer looks like first.
I am going to try and create a subclass that specializes in Infusions. While I don't like the idea of Infusion in the base class, I have no issues if it was a subclass.
Well, Archivist is being dropped, so that just leaves the other three. As for a bomber type character, I think that's kinda what they intended the Artillerist to be but they didn't do a good job of it (IMO).
If you want to try a hand at homebrewing a grenadier type subclass like you've described, feel free. I was thinking of homebrewing a couple myself, I just want to wait and see what the final iteration of the Artificer looks like first.
In your opinion, from a power-gaming point of view and as the class is right now, which is the "best" Artificer subclass for playing a full-fledged Artificer without multiclassing? It seems to be the Battle-Smith to me, but I want to be sure.
Hey Yeah, archivist was a very power gamery class originally in my opinion. An Empowered “ranged” cantrip + Smite feature with no drawback? Plus the Monk’s Stunning Strike ability at range that works off Intelligence Saves. Very ridiculous class that seemed to be “balanced” by the fact that it was extremely boring to play and awkward to use. They needed a lot more work to make it playable, increasing mobility/range while removing the Stun strike.
On the other hand the other subclasses suffer from a greater flaw, in that they are built off adding a non weapon way to deal damage with your Bonus Action. However if you do take the Crossbow expert feat to get the Bonus action you deal more damage with the Crossbow, as you can the use your Arcane Weapon Spell on the damage and it outscales most of the Artillerist and Battlesmiths features. 1d8+2<2d8<2d6+3. Also the Artillerist Turret suffers currently from reasonably short survival time and long setup time (MA setup time means you lose an attacks worth of damage, potentially twice after 14th level)
In conclusion the most power gamery builds you can currently make are on Battle smith because of Int attacks helping you be good at spells, Arcane Jolt +2d4 damage and Improved Defended Defensive Pounce being a RA dealing damage. But unfortunately The most power gamery way to play still involve the OP feats Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master (or multiclassing for Two Weapon Fighting), and letting those remove what makes your mechanics uniquely Artificery.
PS: That is why I recommended I’m the survey staying away from BA damage and instead using something like Booming blade scaling on MA damage, especially with EA potentially being removed. (WotC do actually understand this Mathsy part as they are obviously searching for a new unique way to let Artificer scale different from the other martials. IE no martial had BA non weapon attacks.)
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
I came up with a rough idea for a Wandslinger. The below was part of a previous post I made.
The Wandslinger should be someone who specializes in using wands in combat. They would get the Wand Prototype feature, alone with features that include dual wielding wands, the ability to cast 2 cantrips from 2 separate wands in a single action, and any other wand type feature.
I will be playing in a Ghost of Saltmarsh campaign. I will be playing a Tritan Artificer with the Shipwright background. I may take a level or two of Cleric (Forge domain) at some point. I made sure I had the stats. I will probably go Battle Smith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
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)
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
That is one way of running D&D, and a perfectly good one, but it is not the only way.
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!
Hey @Marine to continue discussing Wondrous Invention, what happens if you lose one or all the items you received as part of the feature? Level 10 your rare item you just received and were waiting and longing for Dispell Magiced in the following session? You have to recraft it with months of downtime again? Then it is not a feature it is just a shortcut of the actual crafting rules again.
The change to Infusion I describe does say that you are crafting the items over the course of a long rest. (No longer magically infused) so would you be accepting of that?
Just spitballin' here, but one possible solution might be to have it work a bit like the Pact of the Blade boon for Warlocks where it disappears if removed from you and can reappear as an action. If we were to follow with that idea, we could also have it so you can have a number of these items "bonded" to you at a particular time, and the number you can have bonded in this matter increases with each new tier of the Wonderous Invention feature that you have.
Again, just spitballing. Not sure if it would be OP or not, but it may be worth considering for any folks who's want to homebrew it.
Just spitballin' here, but one possible solution might be to have it work a bit like the Pact of the Blade boon for Warlocks where it disappears if removed from you and can reappear as an action. If we were to follow with that idea, we could also have it so you can have a number of these items "bonded" to you at a particular time, and the number you can have bonded in this matter increases with each new tier of the Wonderous Invention feature that you have.
Again, just spitballing. Not sure if it would be OP or not, but it may be worth considering for any folks who's want to homebrew it.
Again not a bad idea, but if you pitch this isn’t it an even more magical process than the 2019 Infusions? :-/
It does align similar to my suggestion of a “Power pack” to explain “Spell Conduits/Spell Storing Items” earlier in the thread so could be applicable there too.
Seems people have already made up their mind about the current version of the class. I've tried a few times to point out the positive aspects of the UA class and it seems no-one is interested in that. So I'll at least say that I hope the class has the crafting mechanics it needs to feel like a true craftsman within an adventure instead of just between adventures like it currently is (because infusions apparently don't count). Maybe something like the Forge domain cleric's Channel Divinity, but it comes with a table of the various mundane items you can craft with various tools and the time and materials/money required to do so within reason for adventurers. Something that allows this to be done even when not in a settlement would definitely help as well.
I do think something should be done about the apparent crossbow emphasis. The current version of the class seems to make the crossbow the primary weapon of choice, but you either need specific feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter to make the most of it (which pushes the class to heavily favour Variant Humans for min-maxing) or a specific infusion which limits your infusion options. I'd say this part, along with the need for imagining how your "spells" work, the crafting mechanics and the wonkier subclass features, needs to be addressed in the final product. Also doesn't help that only the Battle-Smith allows you to use crossbows effectively without forcing you to do a balancing act between Int and Dex.
I would point out that every half caster does and should do the balancing act of Str&Cha or Dex&Wis or Str/Dex&Int. I do think that the Gish effects should stay on subclasses only.
On the other hand Extra Attack is likely moving to only some subclasses so maybe in the end things like Alchemist might be okay with 1 Attack from a Crossbow a turn and won’t need that feat or infusion.
Also interestingly now Artificer is actually the only class that could use a Heavy Crossbow. With Reloading Infusion you can deal 2*(d10+d6+5)+2d8=37>36=3*(d6+d6+5).
All right. I don't want to get into thirty more pages of the tiff with Paladin and junk, so instead I'm going to ask a question.
What is "downtime", in your definition, Marine?
Everyone tells me I'm "against" downtime and that I hate players doing downtime shit. That's not true - but to me, 'downtime' is essentially a timeskip. The players are told "two weeks will advance between this session and when we pick up, think about what you want to do with it." What the players do is narrated at the next session start, perhaps some dice are rolled or some scenes end up fleshed out, but for the most part "downtime" is handled between sessions more than during sessions, checking with the DM to see if their plans jive with hers and/or talking to the other players to coordinate efforts.
That is downtime. Useful, even essential for some campaigns, but nothing to focus on for multiple sessions, and there is absolutely no reason for a PC to specialize in 'downtime'. That's not a PC, that's an NPC, because the only time such a character ever does stuff is largely offscreen. Because this is the stuff that The Book of the Game, if someone were novelizing your D&D campaign, would gloss over with a few sentences or a short paragraph or two before getting back to the exciting stuff.
Am I wrong? Is that not what "Downtime" means to anyone else? Because oh my ******* Gawd am I sick of hearing that word tossed out as a reason why I'm an awful human being.
The main comparison I would draw here is to Bard and Ranger. The Bard specialises in Social encounters because of: Charisma Single Stat Dependence, Counter Charms and ability Inspirations, and Jack of all trades and Cha Expertises. The Ranger on the other hand specialises in Exploration because of: Wisdom Skills especially Survival, Favourite Enemy and Natural Explorer.
So what some people want is a third class that “Doesn’t specialise in Combat” and instead specialises in Downtime to exactly the same degree that Ranger specialises in Exploration. Because to your point Exploration is another thing that most people gloss over in recaps etc, EG imagine a political game where one session you are sabotaging the Vizier’s plans then for five sessions you are trying to walk to the neighbouring village... (PS I agree with this part but would remind some people that the Ranger still gets all their Exploration features AND functions in combat, so so should the Artificer, not 0% combat 100% Crafting, instead 50~80% combat AND 100% Crafting)
Now whether Ranger is a flawless class is in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fact it is the most homebrew revised class and the class that WotC have received the most negative feedback for (that’s why there is a UA Revised Ranger). So obviously the majority of the player base Do not appreciate a class built on a non Active pillar of gameplay.
But on the other hand I blame this purely on the lack of rules, if people hated Artificers “use your imagination” then you should look at the Exploration rules which are purely “use your imagination”. Bad rules are why people stay away from those Pillars of gameplay, because they either don’t know what to expect (PC) or don’t know what to do (new DMs). And if you never get experience in something you’ll never do it.
PS this is also why I think 99% of games don’t make it to 20, because 14-20th level don’t feel epic enough, if at 20 you got to do crazy stuff like BI works on everyone in your party or you can do two BA as a rogue, then everyone would push their DM to make it to 20. So far I have only seen Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin and Druid excited to be 20th. And even 9th level spells are disinteresting as they are too problematic for the DM and just cause the world to adjust rather than feeling epic.
TLDR: Downtime is equal to Exploration so Artificer should be a class similar to Ranger. Just needs better support from the rules. That is why I am homebrewing a set of rules to help give Exploration a role in gathering that will feed Gold into Crafting. And have Ranger and Artificer be the Masters of those respective aspects.
This is actually quite helpful. Thank you.
The important thing to keep in mind, I think, is that while the bard and the ranger are seen as specialists in their respective pillars, they're not restricted to just those pillars. As you said, the ranger is also a competent combatant with a reasonable side dollop of utility and support with its spellcasting, and the bard is arguably the most potent spellcaster in the game with full Charisma casting and strategic access to the game's entire spell list at higher levels, on top of a slew of features useful across all areas of the game. A "downtime specialist" that's completely useless outside of downtime, a'la Marine and Paladin's ideal artificer, is no good.
I've seen much better exploration rules out there which help greatly when a party is in a position where extended overland travel is a significant part of a given campaign, or even just a given leg of it. The Angry GM had a particularly useful write-up for sorting a day on the road into six blocks and hanging a few systems off that six-block structure that really helped smooth out Travel sections of the game. It mostly kind of illustrates one of the issues of 5e - anything that wasn't wargame miniature combat was largely ignored and the DM instructed to "do what works best for your table" without any real ideas for said DM of what that should actually be.
The Ranger suffers because half their class is built off of features that're trying to hook into rules that aren't there. The Ranger wants very much to hook into exploration, travel and survival rules, but the DMG's best version of those rules is "I dunno, make some rolls for stuff and things, then figure out what happens maybe?" You can't hang multiple class features off of "make some rolls and stuff maybe". Also why the artificer cannot be 100% downtime, 0% everything else - the base crafting rules are even more awful than the base exploration rules, since the base crafting rules are expecting, and in fact designed to induce, failure for anything more complicated than sub-100gp mundane adventuring gear. You'd need to completely reinvent the crafting rules, homebrew them from the ground up, before they'd be anything but a burden at your table, and if you're doing that then obviously Wizards can't build the artificer to hook into those rules for you.
It's why I favor simple, open-ended stuff like Tool Expertise that's able to hook into almost any homebrew version of crafting that actually matters, as well as stuff that's broadly applicable in multiple pillars of gameplay. Saying 'crafting costs are cut in half' is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the DMG rules, and even the "improved" Xanathar rules, tell the DM they're supposed to make several million rolls to check and see if the whole thing blows up in the craftsman's face and they fail to make their doohickus before a craftsman is allowed to make much of anything more complicated than a basic healing potion.
Artificers with magical infusions, half-casting, and enough weapon combat to get by make fine adventurers. The crafting hook-ins are light, but enough to suggest where to go, which is all they need to be until Wizards provides crafting rules that aren't an embarrassment to themselves and others. It may not feel like a Master of Downtime to some folks, but people can make it one if they want to. They may have to work at it, the same way they do with rangers, but it can be done. And frankly, the class not being closely tied to Wizards' abyssmally awful crafting rules is a boon, not a drawback. Means there's plenty of room to hook your artificers into whatever actual crafting you use at your table.
In my opinion it boils down to what you are playing. If you are into playing a game centered around downtime, go for it, but It has been my experience that downtime is kind of glossed over to get to the adventuring aspect of the game.
DM: "Ok, the character's have a few days in town while they wait for a response from King Bob. What are your characters doing while they wait?"
Player 1: "Greg the barbarian gets drunk!"
Player 2: "Tim the cleric spends some time helping the local temple."
Player 3: "Ron the wizard goes to the local library and does spell research."
Player 4: "Steve the rogue picks some pockets."
At this point the DM has the wizard and rogue make a couple of checks, they discuss what happens and poof, downtime is done and the adventure continues.
A character who has half or more of their abilities tied to downtime would basically just have half a character.
Hey @Marine to continue discussing Wondrous Invention, what happens if you lose one or all the items you received as part of the feature? Level 10 your rare item you just received and were waiting and longing for Dispell Magiced in the following session? You have to recraft it with months of downtime again? Then it is not a feature it is just a shortcut of the actual crafting rules again.
The change to Infusion I describe does say that you are crafting the items over the course of a long rest. (No longer magically infused) so would you be accepting of that?
Yes, you are correct wording plays a part of my dislike for the Infusion feature. I still think that Infusions are just shortcut. Why would the Artificer want magic items when they can just have infusions. If the Artificer has Infusions, why have any crafting abilities at all? However, I would be accepting of Infusions if it wasn't a core class feature but something that is the core of a subclass. Also, if a player is crafting an infusion over a long rest, wouldn't they gain a point of exhaustion?
To you point about losing a magic item. There is always a risk of losing a magic item (in one form or another). To think that you will never lose a magic item is just foolish. You also brought up the fact of a magic item losing it's magical properties via Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items. The description for Dispel Magic states...
"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends."
The text specifically states "ANY SPELL". It does not mention magic items. If you need further proof that Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items then....
Someone asked Jeremy Crawford via Twitter if Dispel Magic would work on a legendary item such as Dawnbringer. Jeremy's response was that Dispel Magic ends spells on its target and does nothing to other magic effects (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/31/does-dispel-magic-permanently-dispel-magic-items/). Essentially if Dispel Magic worked on magic items it would be a broken spell, as no magic item (this includes potions and spell scrolls) would be safe from the spell. So, unless your DM allows Dispel Magic to work on magic items (I don't know why they would) then no magic item would be safe. And
Homebrew crazy was happening kinda regardless. Artificers as an archetype appeal to the sorts of buildy, inventive players - and DMs - who employ healthy doses of homebrew regardless. The fact that the base crafting rules are absolute dogshit only accentuates the need for homebrew, rather than creating that need.
It does mean that the artificer is going to be absolutely horrible and mostly worthless in Adventurer's League, where you're not allowed to craft anything anyways, downtime is strictly measured out and generally only used for set, specific non-crafting activities, and there's absolutely no possibility of your inventive, outside-the-box artificer character being allowed to be inventive or outside the box. But that was kind of inevitable anyways, and is another sign that AL is basically a waste of time unless you're playing it for a mechanics testbed or because it's the only game available to you.
Humm that was my bad on Dispel Magic, I could have sworn there was some spell you were supposed to be careful about casting to make sure your items were safe, my bad.
On the other hand I don’t agree with the point about “There is always a chance of losing your magic items” because that was a chance specific to “Magic Items” and never previously applied to a Feature of a class. Imagine Rage, Wildshape, Smite or Bardic Inspiration were usable 20times ever, or Sorcerer Points that never regenerated, then you wouldn’t use them.
To you point about losing a magic item. There is always a risk of losing a magic item (in one form or another). To think that you will never lose a magic item is just foolish.
Uh yes, but you shouldn't have that same risk of losing an entire class feature.
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!
Humm that was my bad on Dispel Magic, I could have sworn there was some spell you were supposed to be careful about casting to make sure your items were safe, my bad.
On the other hand I don’t agree with the point about “There is always a chance of losing your magic items” because that was a chance specific to “Magic Items” and never previously applied to a Feature of a class. Imagine Rage, Wildshape, Smite or Bardic Inspiration were usable 20times ever, or Sorcerer Points that never regenerated, then you wouldn’t use them.
Maybe in older versions of D&D that was the case or maybe with the Wish spell, but as per Jeremy Crawford, Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items. No harm, no foul.
I believe D&D's reasoning behind the Wondrous Invention feature is that the Artificer would get a free magic item at certain level. But I understand what you are trying to say. There should be more to the feature besides getting a free magic item. As I say previously, the original Wondrous Invention was very poorly executed. There would need to be some other benefit to the Wondrous Invention that would make it more useful than just getting a free magic item every 5th level. That is why my rewrite of the feature included wording that benefited the Artificer when they are crafting a magic item whose rarity level is from common to rare. True that benefit isn't something that happens after a short or long rest, but it is still better than the original.
To you point about losing a magic item. There is always a risk of losing a magic item (in one form or another). To think that you will never lose a magic item is just foolish.
Uh yes, but you shouldn't have that same risk of losing an entire class feature.
That is why my rewrite of the Wondrous Invention feature included benefits of crafting a magic item whose rarity level is between common and rare.
To you point about losing a magic item. There is always a risk of losing a magic item (in one form or another). To think that you will never lose a magic item is just foolish.
Uh yes, but you shouldn't have that same risk of losing an entire class feature.
I did play in a game many moons ago where the group's wizard lost his spellbook and wasn't able to get a replacement for three levels.
He had less fun than you'd imagine, but on the plus side, at one point his character sheet said "Level 5 Sarcastic Guy"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am going to try and create a subclass that specializes in Infusions. While I don't like the idea of Infusion in the base class, I have no issues if it was a subclass.
Hey Yeah, archivist was a very power gamery class originally in my opinion. An Empowered “ranged” cantrip + Smite feature with no drawback? Plus the Monk’s Stunning Strike ability at range that works off Intelligence Saves. Very ridiculous class that seemed to be “balanced” by the fact that it was extremely boring to play and awkward to use. They needed a lot more work to make it playable, increasing mobility/range while removing the Stun strike.
On the other hand the other subclasses suffer from a greater flaw, in that they are built off adding a non weapon way to deal damage with your Bonus Action. However if you do take the Crossbow expert feat to get the Bonus action you deal more damage with the Crossbow, as you can the use your Arcane Weapon Spell on the damage and it outscales most of the Artillerist and Battlesmiths features. 1d8+2<2d8<2d6+3. Also the Artillerist Turret suffers currently from reasonably short survival time and long setup time (MA setup time means you lose an attacks worth of damage, potentially twice after 14th level)
In conclusion the most power gamery builds you can currently make are on Battle smith because of Int attacks helping you be good at spells, Arcane Jolt +2d4 damage and Improved Defended Defensive Pounce being a RA dealing damage. But unfortunately The most power gamery way to play still involve the OP feats Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master (or multiclassing for Two Weapon Fighting), and letting those remove what makes your mechanics uniquely Artificery.
PS: That is why I recommended I’m the survey staying away from BA damage and instead using something like Booming blade scaling on MA damage, especially with EA potentially being removed. (WotC do actually understand this Mathsy part as they are obviously searching for a new unique way to let Artificer scale different from the other martials. IE no martial had BA non weapon attacks.)
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
I came up with a rough idea for a Wandslinger. The below was part of a previous post I made.
The Wandslinger should be someone who specializes in using wands in combat. They would get the Wand Prototype feature, alone with features that include dual wielding wands, the ability to cast 2 cantrips from 2 separate wands in a single action, and any other wand type feature.
I will be playing in a Ghost of Saltmarsh campaign. I will be playing a Tritan Artificer with the Shipwright background. I may take a level or two of Cleric (Forge domain) at some point. I made sure I had the stats. I will probably go Battle Smith.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
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)
That is one way of running D&D, and a perfectly good one, but it is not the only way.
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!
Hey @Marine to continue discussing Wondrous Invention, what happens if you lose one or all the items you received as part of the feature? Level 10 your rare item you just received and were waiting and longing for Dispell Magiced in the following session? You have to recraft it with months of downtime again? Then it is not a feature it is just a shortcut of the actual crafting rules again.
The change to Infusion I describe does say that you are crafting the items over the course of a long rest. (No longer magically infused) so would you be accepting of that?
Just spitballin' here, but one possible solution might be to have it work a bit like the Pact of the Blade boon for Warlocks where it disappears if removed from you and can reappear as an action. If we were to follow with that idea, we could also have it so you can have a number of these items "bonded" to you at a particular time, and the number you can have bonded in this matter increases with each new tier of the Wonderous Invention feature that you have.
Again, just spitballing. Not sure if it would be OP or not, but it may be worth considering for any folks who's want to homebrew it.
Again not a bad idea, but if you pitch this isn’t it an even more magical process than the 2019 Infusions? :-/
It does align similar to my suggestion of a “Power pack” to explain “Spell Conduits/Spell Storing Items” earlier in the thread so could be applicable there too.
I would point out that every half caster does and should do the balancing act of Str&Cha or Dex&Wis or Str/Dex&Int. I do think that the Gish effects should stay on subclasses only.
On the other hand Extra Attack is likely moving to only some subclasses so maybe in the end things like Alchemist might be okay with 1 Attack from a Crossbow a turn and won’t need that feat or infusion.
Also interestingly now Artificer is actually the only class that could use a Heavy Crossbow. With Reloading Infusion you can deal 2*(d10+d6+5)+2d8=37>36=3*(d6+d6+5).
This is actually quite helpful. Thank you.
The important thing to keep in mind, I think, is that while the bard and the ranger are seen as specialists in their respective pillars, they're not restricted to just those pillars. As you said, the ranger is also a competent combatant with a reasonable side dollop of utility and support with its spellcasting, and the bard is arguably the most potent spellcaster in the game with full Charisma casting and strategic access to the game's entire spell list at higher levels, on top of a slew of features useful across all areas of the game. A "downtime specialist" that's completely useless outside of downtime, a'la Marine and Paladin's ideal artificer, is no good.
I've seen much better exploration rules out there which help greatly when a party is in a position where extended overland travel is a significant part of a given campaign, or even just a given leg of it. The Angry GM had a particularly useful write-up for sorting a day on the road into six blocks and hanging a few systems off that six-block structure that really helped smooth out Travel sections of the game. It mostly kind of illustrates one of the issues of 5e - anything that wasn't wargame miniature combat was largely ignored and the DM instructed to "do what works best for your table" without any real ideas for said DM of what that should actually be.
The Ranger suffers because half their class is built off of features that're trying to hook into rules that aren't there. The Ranger wants very much to hook into exploration, travel and survival rules, but the DMG's best version of those rules is "I dunno, make some rolls for stuff and things, then figure out what happens maybe?" You can't hang multiple class features off of "make some rolls and stuff maybe". Also why the artificer cannot be 100% downtime, 0% everything else - the base crafting rules are even more awful than the base exploration rules, since the base crafting rules are expecting, and in fact designed to induce, failure for anything more complicated than sub-100gp mundane adventuring gear. You'd need to completely reinvent the crafting rules, homebrew them from the ground up, before they'd be anything but a burden at your table, and if you're doing that then obviously Wizards can't build the artificer to hook into those rules for you.
It's why I favor simple, open-ended stuff like Tool Expertise that's able to hook into almost any homebrew version of crafting that actually matters, as well as stuff that's broadly applicable in multiple pillars of gameplay. Saying 'crafting costs are cut in half' is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the DMG rules, and even the "improved" Xanathar rules, tell the DM they're supposed to make several million rolls to check and see if the whole thing blows up in the craftsman's face and they fail to make their doohickus before a craftsman is allowed to make much of anything more complicated than a basic healing potion.
Artificers with magical infusions, half-casting, and enough weapon combat to get by make fine adventurers. The crafting hook-ins are light, but enough to suggest where to go, which is all they need to be until Wizards provides crafting rules that aren't an embarrassment to themselves and others. It may not feel like a Master of Downtime to some folks, but people can make it one if they want to. They may have to work at it, the same way they do with rangers, but it can be done. And frankly, the class not being closely tied to Wizards' abyssmally awful crafting rules is a boon, not a drawback. Means there's plenty of room to hook your artificers into whatever actual crafting you use at your table.
Please do not contact or message me.
In my opinion it boils down to what you are playing. If you are into playing a game centered around downtime, go for it, but It has been my experience that downtime is kind of glossed over to get to the adventuring aspect of the game.
DM: "Ok, the character's have a few days in town while they wait for a response from King Bob. What are your characters doing while they wait?"
Player 1: "Greg the barbarian gets drunk!"
Player 2: "Tim the cleric spends some time helping the local temple."
Player 3: "Ron the wizard goes to the local library and does spell research."
Player 4: "Steve the rogue picks some pockets."
At this point the DM has the wizard and rogue make a couple of checks, they discuss what happens and poof, downtime is done and the adventure continues.
A character who has half or more of their abilities tied to downtime would basically just have half a character.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Yes, you are correct wording plays a part of my dislike for the Infusion feature. I still think that Infusions are just shortcut. Why would the Artificer want magic items when they can just have infusions. If the Artificer has Infusions, why have any crafting abilities at all? However, I would be accepting of Infusions if it wasn't a core class feature but something that is the core of a subclass. Also, if a player is crafting an infusion over a long rest, wouldn't they gain a point of exhaustion?
To you point about losing a magic item. There is always a risk of losing a magic item (in one form or another). To think that you will never lose a magic item is just foolish. You also brought up the fact of a magic item losing it's magical properties via Dispel Magic. Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items. The description for Dispel Magic states...
"Choose one creature, object, or magical effect within range. Any spell of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each spell of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability. The DC equals 10 + the spell’s level. On a successful check, the spell ends."
The text specifically states "ANY SPELL". It does not mention magic items. If you need further proof that Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items then....
Someone asked Jeremy Crawford via Twitter if Dispel Magic would work on a legendary item such as Dawnbringer. Jeremy's response was that Dispel Magic ends spells on its target and does nothing to other magic effects (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/31/does-dispel-magic-permanently-dispel-magic-items/). Essentially if Dispel Magic worked on magic items it would be a broken spell, as no magic item (this includes potions and spell scrolls) would be safe from the spell. So, unless your DM allows Dispel Magic to work on magic items (I don't know why they would) then no magic item would be safe. And
Homebrew crazy was happening kinda regardless. Artificers as an archetype appeal to the sorts of buildy, inventive players - and DMs - who employ healthy doses of homebrew regardless. The fact that the base crafting rules are absolute dogshit only accentuates the need for homebrew, rather than creating that need.
It does mean that the artificer is going to be absolutely horrible and mostly worthless in Adventurer's League, where you're not allowed to craft anything anyways, downtime is strictly measured out and generally only used for set, specific non-crafting activities, and there's absolutely no possibility of your inventive, outside-the-box artificer character being allowed to be inventive or outside the box. But that was kind of inevitable anyways, and is another sign that AL is basically a waste of time unless you're playing it for a mechanics testbed or because it's the only game available to you.
Please do not contact or message me.
Humm that was my bad on Dispel Magic, I could have sworn there was some spell you were supposed to be careful about casting to make sure your items were safe, my bad.
On the other hand I don’t agree with the point about “There is always a chance of losing your magic items” because that was a chance specific to “Magic Items” and never previously applied to a Feature of a class. Imagine Rage, Wildshape, Smite or Bardic Inspiration were usable 20times ever, or Sorcerer Points that never regenerated, then you wouldn’t use them.
Uh yes, but you shouldn't have that same risk of losing an entire class feature.
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!
Maybe in older versions of D&D that was the case or maybe with the Wish spell, but as per Jeremy Crawford, Dispel Magic doesn't work on magic items. No harm, no foul.
I believe D&D's reasoning behind the Wondrous Invention feature is that the Artificer would get a free magic item at certain level. But I understand what you are trying to say. There should be more to the feature besides getting a free magic item. As I say previously, the original Wondrous Invention was very poorly executed. There would need to be some other benefit to the Wondrous Invention that would make it more useful than just getting a free magic item every 5th level. That is why my rewrite of the feature included wording that benefited the Artificer when they are crafting a magic item whose rarity level is from common to rare. True that benefit isn't something that happens after a short or long rest, but it is still better than the original.
That is why my rewrite of the Wondrous Invention feature included benefits of crafting a magic item whose rarity level is between common and rare.
I did play in a game many moons ago where the group's wizard lost his spellbook and wasn't able to get a replacement for three levels.
He had less fun than you'd imagine, but on the plus side, at one point his character sheet said "Level 5 Sarcastic Guy"