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"
Damn, I forget about a Wizard losing their spellbook. I remember playing a 2nd edition campaign and our group came about an underground pool. Before we know it we were being attacked by a Black Dragon (turned out it was the dragon's den, we didn't know it because the dragon was invisible). Our Wizard got blasted by the acid breath and survived, but his spellbook was destroyed. He was pissed!!! The only spells he know were the ones that he had memorized at the beginning of the day.
That's an interesting comparison, honestly. A wizard's spellbook is the only other case of a specific class feature being tied to a specific item in the core rules (exempting the junk about martials needing weapons/armor, don't be pedantic please) that I can think of. Comparing The Spellbook to Wondrous Invention, what do we get?
Spellbook: -Unique to Wizards. No one but a wizard can use a spellbook, and a wizard cannot use another wizard's spellbook without spending an asston of gold first. -Accentuates, rather than replaces, the wizard's core spellcasting class feature. Wizards are still wizards without their spellbook; they're just irritated wizards with less stuff to prepare. -Can be recrafted/replaced, if at ruinous expense for a high-level spellbook. Nevertheless, if a player has access to many thousands of gold and a whole lotta downtime, they can freely duplicate even a maxed-out spellbook as a safeguard against loss.
Wondrous Invention: -No unique items/applications - you get loot from the same list as everybody else. -No corresponding core class feature. Wondrous Invention is your class feature, you don't get magic items as part of being better at something than everyone else. Even the rewritten "spend half the time crafting magic items up to rare" version doesn't give you a class feature. -Wondrous Items CANNOT be replaced. Not within the class. You get one und precisely vun, and if that one is lost you have to utilize the standard crafting rules with no discount or consideration for the fact that you crafted it yourself in the first place. yes, the base artificer says you can make magic items easier, but that doesn't actually apply to Wondrous Invention.
Wizards are dangerous spellcasters even if their spellbooks are lost or destroyed. They're stuck with whatever they happened to have prepared, but they can recover from that by either recovering their spellbook or laying down the cash for a new one. Even then, destroying a wizard's spellbook is an extremely contentious move only highly confrontational, Hardcore Mode DMs pull simply because it is such an enormous blow to the character.
If an artificer loses their Wondrous Items, however, they're up shit creek. They get no special means or method of restoring their items, and while wizards don't get a special discount on restoring spells they lost from a previous spellbook, they also don't have to make ten thousand "did you fail yet? No? Roll again: did you fail yet?" rolls when rescribing their spells. And most importantly, wizards cannot be completely deprived of their core class feature. They will always have spells prepared that they can use. Artificers, with Wondrous Invention, could easily be permanently stripped of their core class feature with no recourse for recovering it. Level 5 Sarcastic Guy, indeed.
Now, even the 2019 artificer has some of this issue in that she needs base items for her Infusions to work. If stripped naked and deposited in Pandemonium, she'd be in deep kaka. That said, so would the fighter, paladin, rogue, and many others who assume a basic level of mundane equippage at all times, so I'm going to assume a clever artificer can keep an infusions list that allows her to take advantage of whatever she has ready to hand. Importantly though, Infusions are sort of the Spellbook version of magical item crafting in that they mean an artificer always has access to a certain, basic level of magical item-ness. They cannot be fully deprived of their core class features, and that is super important.
If you really wanted Wondrous Invention because you hate the idea of being an Adventurer instead of a well-off craftsman who supplies Adventurers from the safety of his comfy, well-appointed workshop for extremely lucrative prices feel a need for permanency in your class, the spellbook would be something to take some inspiration from. Perhaps something to the effect of...:
"At [X] level(s), you gain a magical item. Select this item from (list/parameters here); you are assumed to have been working on this item in your spare time for several years and only just now completed it. Record which item you selected for this feature. Items you create in this way are bonded to you on a level that goes beyond mere attunement. If the item requires attunement, you may attune to it over the course of one minute's quiet focus, rather than one hour, and you may break your attunement to it as an action. Items bonded to you in this way cannot be removed from your person without your consent, and you always know where they are if they're on the same plane of existence as you. Should the item be permanently lost or destroyed, you can create a new copy of the same type of item in one quarter of the usual time, for one quarter of the usual cost, due to the experience you gained creating the first one and the bond forged between you and the object. Creating a second item this way breaks your bond to the first, causing its magic to decay and leaving it a mundane object. Any artisan's tools or Arcana checks you make to create the new item are made with advantage, for the same reason. A normal version of the item, without a bond to you, can be created in half the normal time and for half the normal cost."
At that point the artificer still has very little business leaving his lab (a problem you have consistently and willfully failed to address, by the way, Marine), but he does have the ability to rapidly switch his attunements at breathtaking speed by the standards of everyone else, allowing him to take much greater advantage of having multiple items to choose between, and he's rewarded for careful selection of items by being able to quickly recreate them. You can create one at Turbo Speed on the cheap, but you can only ever have one of those, and any you make for other folks only gets a 50% reduction, not a 75%. Still, however, a reduction. Again, most of the time this guy has no business being in the field, but at least with this version there is SOMETHING he can do during the course of an adventure that a Thief-archetype rogue cannot do better.
I still prefer Infusions, but something like that would at least qualify as something resembling a class feature, rather than just being an occasional shopping trip disguised as a class feature.
I think the issue comes from that there are two paths, and picking one makes the ones who would prefer the other angry. On the first path (the one I personally prefer, as a disclaimer), the burden of making the artificer feel like a magical inventor is on the player, coming up with ideas of little inventions to cast their spells, and using infusions to shape items to become magic, creating an explanation for this. For example, roleplaying a casting of Firebolt as if it is a small pistol shaped thing, or casting Arcane Weapon on a crossbow and flavoring it as if you put a magic disk on where the bolt shoots out, creating an elemental effect. For fifth edition? This works quite well, and makes the artificer very fun to imagine, because there is infinite potential to flavor it. However, there is the idea that this simplifies the artificer, imagining it as casting spells just at the end of a long rest and automatically making something magic. I suppose I can understand this point of view, even if I disagree with it, one may wonder why the player needs to put in effort to explain basic game mechanics. The other path is to rely solely on crafting mechanics to create magic items, turning the artificer into a slow crafter, but realized in game terms. However, I feel that the current UA balances the line quite well actually. Infusions are quick, and do require some effort, but I believe they are fun, and make the items the artificer can create feel unique (with specific things that only the artificer can make, which I hope they add much more of in E:RftLW). The subclasses also focus on crafting, even if it is not explicit. The alchemist is able to make potions better than anyone else, by far, and if you are running a downtime heavy campaign, can become a brewing machine, providing plenty of specialized items for the party. The Archivist can do the same thing, but with spell scrolls instead of potions, providing large variety in the spells able to be cast by the party. The artillerist is able to do the same but for wands, greatly assisting the parties spellcasters, while also having Defender turrets to help out the parties melee fighters. And the battle smith can work as a blacksmith for the party, crafting swords and armor for them with their tool proficiencies. The infuse item is really just a way to ensure that every artificer is able to do this, as well as feel unique. The artificer is still a crafting class, it just isn't entirely built to exist as a builder for the rest of the party to do things.
Xanathars crafting is fine. I really like the UA artificer, I just hope they fix the Alchemist a bit (more potion based abilities, not satchel necessarily, but perhaps having the ability to enchant potions at expense of a spell slot to make their abilities more potent, or for free if you crafted the potion yourself?) and add more non +1 infusion choices. And let them have more infused items at higher levels, i get 2 makes sense for level 2 but 5 doesnt feel quite right for level 18 for me. But I probably do not know what I am talking about, so take it with a grain of salt.
The final concession I want to get is about the exhaustion of working through a long rest. Exhaustion is again a horrible rule:
The punishment is too harsh, the fact your party could for any reason decide to do 3 long rests in 24 hours and you would technically get 2 points of exhaustion if you didn’t join them,
But most importantly, there are plenty of people in the world that when inspired can work on a 48 hour cycle, one of the Main being Tesla.
In a world of magic there are plenty of ways around this exhaustion, so just say all Artificers gain the benefits of a long rest even while working on their projects, the only class that doesn’t gain exhaustion.
This also helps with the downtime effect, some(50%+) campaigns don’t have Downtime? Well an Artificer always has downtime, about 8 hours of it. (Or what we suggested before, any unspent spellslots can be used by an Artificer to magically extend his day by 1 hour per slot level)
Or in my opinion a preferred way, when you learn a magic item from Infusion or Wondrous Invention you don’t get any bonuses to the “crafting time” you ******* get to make it in under a minute, you are McGyver. What do you think McGyvers crafting bonus was for flamethrowers? You can make it 10000 times faster?
What I would include just for fun is more Infusions unique to Artificer that don’t replicate magic items, and for “replicate” instead say “when you take this infusion choose a magic item on your person or that you have a detailed description of: this item is now recreatable according to the Infusions rules. You can do so for common&uncommon magic items increasing to rare at 10th, very rare at 15th and legendary at 20th.” In this way you would actually have Artificers going with the wizard to the library to the other section about magic items and detailing out his project list.
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.
Personally I don't have a problem with infusions, I was just brainstorming on how to make Wonderous Invention viable for people who aren't comfortable with the prospect of a class feature that can be potentially lost (assuming they want to fiddle around with the 2017 artificer). My original thought was to have it tied to attunement, until I remembered that not all magic items require that.
I won't deny, when the 2019 Artificer came out the first batch of Infusions that were available mostly felt lackluster and kind of annoyed me (and Replicate Item just felt like a massive cop-out to me). The second batch added to it in a way that felt much more interesting and I hope they continue going in that direction.
As for placing Infusions on a magic item, personally I think I'd allow it at my table, although I would still restrict the number of infusions allowed on one item at a time.
Replicate item feels interesting enough to me, although it definitely should not be the only "weird" one available. It gives you a wondrous item, and although it is not that useful at lower levels, some of the stuff at higher levels makes total sense as a class feature to me (gauntlets of ogre strength, headband of intellect, hat of disguise). Repeating shot feels good to me because it adds something special to the weapon, instead of making it a basic +1 crossbow, allowing you to shoot with infinite bolts. Resistance armor i feel makes sense, and you can change it on a long rest. Returning weapon feels cool, radiant sword feels kinda underpowered, repulsion shield also feels kinda underpowered (could be a cone effect instead of a single creature?), many handed pouch is cool conceptually but should also be able to hold more, boots of the winding path are epic. Enhanced weapon, enhanced defense, and enhanced wand make SENSE to me why they are there, but thematically feel boring. I still think they should stay, I just hope they add more infusions.
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.
Personally I don't have a problem with infusions, I was just brainstorming on how to make Wonderous Invention viable for people who aren't comfortable with the prospect of a class feature that can be potentially lost (assuming they want to fiddle around with the 2017 artificer). My original thought was to have it tied to attunement, until I remembered that not all magic items require that.
Replicate magic item? Same table (but larger), replenishes on a long rest, and still has the theme of you crafting.
The "magic item you made that you are specializing, specific to you" is supposed to be your subclass ability. The alchemists homonculous/satchel, the artillerists turrets, the archivists advisor, and the battle smiths iron defender. The reason the artificer is a "pet class" right now, or at least the subclass abilities appearing as such, is because they are trying to work in this theme of creating one special item that only you can build, that improves with levels. This is most easily realized in a pet companion, but that is what they are going for.
I'm just going to point out something I've observed about the Infuse Item feature, which is that it isn't actually about magic item creation but rather is an extension of the artificer's spellcasting. specifically it covers the issue that the artificer in 3.5e had specific capabilities such as those below:
making a weapon into a +1 weapon temporarily (magic weapon as a 1st level spell)
doing the same to armour (magic vestment (yet again as a 1st level spell))
grant armour/shield the ability of a +1 market price item (armour enhancement, lesser (1st level spell))
grant a weapon the ability of a +1 market price item (weapon enhancement, personal (1st level spell)) (this is largely replicated by the enhanced weapons spell)
I think you get what I'm getting at here. Also I'll add but if you compare the general features of the presently known infuse item options there is a great deal of similarity in capability between the infuse item options and many of the unique spells of the artificer.
finally any spells that are unique to the artificer's spell list and are newly introduced have to pass a simple acid test, "would the availablity of this spell make it a no brainer for any bard to pick for their 10th level feature or for a lore bard's 6th level feature" the answer to that would likely be that it would be picked up by the bard in a party faster than you can say dandelion.
To be frank, I think the Infuse Item feature really needs to lean into the unique flavour of the 3.5e spell infusions a little bit more in general and with such broad capabilities in the original 3.5e artificer spell list, its like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to coming up with ideas. the entire 3.5e magic item compendium is a potential gold mine for ideas as well as anything 4e came up with for this feature.
as for crafting rules and "why isn't the artificer not hooking into the crafting rules more!" by the 19th of November, I'm fairly certain we will be getting our 5th revision to the crafting rules, or as WotC are probably beginning to think when it comes to crafting rules "Variant No.5: crafting" and leave it to the DM to decide which set of crafting rules is relevant and appropriate to their game. tool's of the trade and tool expertise is probably about as in depth as the rules can go at this rate and you know what, I'm okay with that so long as they come up with a set of crafting rules that makes sense and is less of a pain to use than 3.5e's rules.
Some of them are, for sure, but lets note: the artificer is not necessarily better at making magic items, at least not ones outside of its subclass benefits. What infusions do is allow the artificer to actually make magic items, besides the one their subclass focuses intensely on. I would love to see more unique infusions. The +1 weapons make sense to me, and obviously the artificer should have them, but I do wish that they made each have some significant plus other than the +1 benefit (sort of like what repeating shot and returning weapon did). I suppose the 8th level ones (radiant) are a version of that, but I feel they are significantly weaker than infinite ammo + ignore the loading property, or getting your thrown weapons back. Perhaps a +1 sword that let you deal an extra 1d4 radiant damage on a hit? Or you could use the create blindness effect with radiant weapon on a critical hit? and have repulsion shield activate when an enemy rolls a critical miss? Anyways, that is unimportant. The reason for specialized infusions is that, with the exception of your specialization bonuses, you are not significantly better at making magic items than anyone else. Sure if you have proficiency with tools you have expertise, but you do not get a shortened time, or a lowered amount of gold required. Instead, you are able to create magic items with your infusions, to support the rest the party in that way. It is a bit of what the warlock has with their eldritch invocations, with a series of benefits you can apply to things, with a huge amount of customization. I personally think that it would make sense if there were tool-proficiency specific infusions (like the weapons ones you need proficiency in smiths tools, armor leatherworkers tools, maybe a potion one with brewing tools or alchemists supplies, wand ones for woodcarvers tools, perhaps resistant armor with cartography tool because of runes?) with the replicate magic item one not requiring tool proficiency, as well as stuff like boots of the winding path and many handed pouch not requiring them. This would not be subclass specific, but instead based on the tool proficiencies you either gain through your subclasses or get when you become an artificer. But that might not work, or be too limiting, requiring you to take feats or spend gold to learn more tool proficiencies. Anyways, I think we keep on comparing the current artificer to the 3.5 version, when we might want to focus instead on comparing it to other classes in 5e. Currently, to me, the artificer seems to be 2/5 wizard (int based arcane caster with ritual casting) , 1/5 ranger (half caster with a multitude of utility spells), 1/10 bard (class designed to be used, at least somewhat, for support, with extra emphasis on proficiencies), and 3/10 warlock (despite having low spell slots for a class built around casting, has a series of customizable buffs to it, gaining more on higher levels, and designed to be able to fight decently without expending too many spell slots).
@Bunsenburner03 It's potato, potahto to me, really (Although I'll just add that the idea I had was meant to be applied to any magic item, not just the ones on the table).
When looking at class features, I like when they do something different to other features that came before it. That's partly why I like the Infusion system; even though it's closely analogous to the Warlock's Invocations, it still works differently enough. Replicate Magic Item doesn't quite scratch that itch for me, and the Enhanced Defense/Wand/Weapon are INCREDIBLY boring, though in Enhanced Wand's defense it at least ignores defense from partial cover. (I also have to confess, I'm not really excited by Boots of the Winding Path either, but eh, there's plenty of things other classes have that don't excite me so whatevs)
@Manthel I'm hoping the new Eberron book has new crafting rules as well. It would make sense, seeing that it's introducing a class whose premise revolves around crafting.
Enhanced Wand/Defense are supposed to be boring. But they kinda have to be there. They are basic, sure, but they make perfect sense. Enhanced wand is just a wand of the war mage. Then they are +1 weapon or +1 shield/armor. Those are magic items sure, but it is still a useful buff to things. Do I wish it had a little extra flair, like repeating shot gets? Sure. Is it fine, if a little boring, without it? Also sure. Replicate magic item i agree does not scratch the itch at lower levels (i think you should get the second tier at 8th level, that is around the point that it would be particularly useful but not ridiculous, and let the third tier be 14th level), but some of the higher stuff definitely does for me. I think they just need more varied infusions, honestly.
I agree. Variety is something the Infusion system absolutely needs. With the confirmed change of the Homunculus from an Alchemist feature to an Infusion, I'm confident that's the direction WotC is going.
If you really wanted Wondrous Invention because you hate the idea of being an Adventurer instead of a well-off craftsman who supplies Adventurers from the safety of his comfy, well-appointed workshop for extremely lucrative prices feel a need for permanency in your class, the spellbook would be something to take some inspiration from. Perhaps something to the effect of...:
Who says a craftsman couldn't be an adventurer? Oh that's right you. You seemed to think that your way of playing D&D is the only way to play. Well you are wrong. I have agreed with your explanation with downtime and I have pointed out how downtime can be roleplayed during a session (with no response from you). But you don't seem to care as long as your opinion is the only one that matters. You proceed to cut down anything you don't like. Hell, I said I would be fine with infusions being the core of a subclass, but not a feature of core class. But you no matter what will continue to argue that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Well guess what, your opinion doesn't matter to me. I like the idea wondrous invention feature, as I find it to fits the core meaning of the Artificer. Being an adventurer isn't all about combat or combat related abilities. But it seems like that is all you think or care about. Screw the story I want to kill something. That is how you come off.
Xanathars crafting is fine. I really like the UA artificer, I just hope they fix the Alchemist a bit (more potion based abilities, not satchel necessarily, but perhaps having the ability to enchant potions at expense of a spell slot to make their abilities more potent, or for free if you crafted the potion yourself?) and add more non +1 infusion choices. And let them have more infused items at higher levels, i get 2 makes sense for level 2 but 5 doesnt feel quite right for level 18 for me. But I probably do not know what I am talking about, so take it with a grain of salt.
The 2019 Artificer (Alchemist) has very little to do with potions besides the advantage they get with crafting them. They are just a spellcaster that we are told to use our IMAGINATIONS (The Magic of Artifice) when we "CAST" spells. Players have been using their imaginations since D&D first came out, they don't need to be told or reminded to use their imaginations. As for increasing infusions, the same argument can be made for the Sorcerer's Metamagic (which they only get 4) and only knowing 15 spells (even though they are a caster class).
Players have been using their imaginations since D&D first came out, they don't need to be told or reminded to use their imaginations.
Some players weren't even born when D&D first came out. D&D incorporates new players all the time. Having encouragement for new players is extremely beneficial for WOTC's business model.
I've never once actually played D&D yet I'm extremely interested in it and the Artificer class in particular and speaking personally I definitely appreciated being told that I was to fill in the blanks for spellcasting with tools. In fact that very box text helped inspire me to begin thinking of ways I might use my imagination to fill in the deliberately left open blanks in the Artificer class description. Maybe you feel like you're being talked down to with that box text. I certainly don't and I'm glad that it's there. Maybe I didn't need to be told to use my imagination regardless I'm glad I was it's led to some excellent brainstorming. Maybe I'd have held a very different opinion had I been playing D&D for years already I don't know for sure it's a perspective I haven't yet gained.
Maybe never having played invalidates my opinion on the matter. I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that if they do. Certainly not having any hands on experience with the game means I don't know much about things like game balance or how things work out practically within a session or have any idea how most DMs behave on a general basis. The few posts in this thread I've made have aimed to avoid those topics precisely because of my inexperience.
With my inherent D&D naivety in mind, please take no offense at this minor semantic suggestion. What if the words "spellcasting" and "casting a spell" etc were replaced with "spellcrafting", "crafting a spell" etc. Even a "spellcrafting modifier." And the rest of the wording revised accordingly for coherence. I know this wouldn't alleviate every issue you have with the Artificer Marine, considering a lot of your dissatisfaction is mechanical not just in flavor. But would that be an improvement, even just slightly?
Further, if the wording were more thoroughly changed (and possibly mechanics as well) to reimagine the Artificer as not only a crafter of items and magic items but a crafter of spells as well. Some spells take immediate effect upon crafting, others take longer etc. Others are permanent etc. I mean there are already single use magic items, potions scrolls, etc. Would that be an improvement?
I mainly say this since I've still been thinking on this spellcasting = crafting thing for a while now. Mechanically different sure. But in character (and I mean In Character) it ends up the same.
I wouldn’t be a big fan of changing the standard language without changing the mechanics, “Spell casting” and “spells prepared” mean something to another subsection of the DnD player base that “spells crafted” wouldn’t. That demographic is the second time players who joined once or a few times before and we’re handed a Cleric and now are joining for Artificer.
I also find it neater to maintain the same language and reuse blocks of mechanics that are already written, like Spellcasting lists, rather than rewriting again in classes/subclasses (looking at you Monk&Mystic) But then again I have been one of the main contributors to the “Spell Conduit” idea, where you rewrite things like spell slots to be power sources and let other people as well as yourself within 30ft draw from your power source, casting the spells from the items you crafted as conduits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Damn, I forget about a Wizard losing their spellbook. I remember playing a 2nd edition campaign and our group came about an underground pool. Before we know it we were being attacked by a Black Dragon (turned out it was the dragon's den, we didn't know it because the dragon was invisible). Our Wizard got blasted by the acid breath and survived, but his spellbook was destroyed. He was pissed!!! The only spells he know were the ones that he had memorized at the beginning of the day.
That's an interesting comparison, honestly. A wizard's spellbook is the only other case of a specific class feature being tied to a specific item in the core rules (exempting the junk about martials needing weapons/armor, don't be pedantic please) that I can think of. Comparing The Spellbook to Wondrous Invention, what do we get?
Spellbook:
-Unique to Wizards. No one but a wizard can use a spellbook, and a wizard cannot use another wizard's spellbook without spending an asston of gold first.
-Accentuates, rather than replaces, the wizard's core spellcasting class feature. Wizards are still wizards without their spellbook; they're just irritated wizards with less stuff to prepare.
-Can be recrafted/replaced, if at ruinous expense for a high-level spellbook. Nevertheless, if a player has access to many thousands of gold and a whole lotta downtime, they can freely duplicate even a maxed-out spellbook as a safeguard against loss.
Wondrous Invention:
-No unique items/applications - you get loot from the same list as everybody else.
-No corresponding core class feature. Wondrous Invention is your class feature, you don't get magic items as part of being better at something than everyone else. Even the rewritten "spend half the time crafting magic items up to rare" version doesn't give you a class feature.
-Wondrous Items CANNOT be replaced. Not within the class. You get one und precisely vun, and if that one is lost you have to utilize the standard crafting rules with no discount or consideration for the fact that you crafted it yourself in the first place. yes, the base artificer says you can make magic items easier, but that doesn't actually apply to Wondrous Invention.
Wizards are dangerous spellcasters even if their spellbooks are lost or destroyed. They're stuck with whatever they happened to have prepared, but they can recover from that by either recovering their spellbook or laying down the cash for a new one. Even then, destroying a wizard's spellbook is an extremely contentious move only highly confrontational, Hardcore Mode DMs pull simply because it is such an enormous blow to the character.
If an artificer loses their Wondrous Items, however, they're up shit creek. They get no special means or method of restoring their items, and while wizards don't get a special discount on restoring spells they lost from a previous spellbook, they also don't have to make ten thousand "did you fail yet? No? Roll again: did you fail yet?" rolls when rescribing their spells. And most importantly, wizards cannot be completely deprived of their core class feature. They will always have spells prepared that they can use. Artificers, with Wondrous Invention, could easily be permanently stripped of their core class feature with no recourse for recovering it. Level 5 Sarcastic Guy, indeed.
Now, even the 2019 artificer has some of this issue in that she needs base items for her Infusions to work. If stripped naked and deposited in Pandemonium, she'd be in deep kaka. That said, so would the fighter, paladin, rogue, and many others who assume a basic level of mundane equippage at all times, so I'm going to assume a clever artificer can keep an infusions list that allows her to take advantage of whatever she has ready to hand. Importantly though, Infusions are sort of the Spellbook version of magical item crafting in that they mean an artificer always has access to a certain, basic level of magical item-ness. They cannot be fully deprived of their core class features, and that is super important.
If you really wanted Wondrous Invention because you
hate the idea of being an Adventurer instead of a well-off craftsman who supplies Adventurers from the safety of his comfy, well-appointed workshop for extremely lucrative pricesfeel a need for permanency in your class, the spellbook would be something to take some inspiration from. Perhaps something to the effect of...:"At [X] level(s), you gain a magical item. Select this item from (list/parameters here); you are assumed to have been working on this item in your spare time for several years and only just now completed it. Record which item you selected for this feature. Items you create in this way are bonded to you on a level that goes beyond mere attunement. If the item requires attunement, you may attune to it over the course of one minute's quiet focus, rather than one hour, and you may break your attunement to it as an action. Items bonded to you in this way cannot be removed from your person without your consent, and you always know where they are if they're on the same plane of existence as you. Should the item be permanently lost or destroyed, you can create a new copy of the same type of item in one quarter of the usual time, for one quarter of the usual cost, due to the experience you gained creating the first one and the bond forged between you and the object. Creating a second item this way breaks your bond to the first, causing its magic to decay and leaving it a mundane object. Any artisan's tools or Arcana checks you make to create the new item are made with advantage, for the same reason. A normal version of the item, without a bond to you, can be created in half the normal time and for half the normal cost."
At that point the artificer still has very little business leaving his lab (a problem you have consistently and willfully failed to address, by the way, Marine), but he does have the ability to rapidly switch his attunements at breathtaking speed by the standards of everyone else, allowing him to take much greater advantage of having multiple items to choose between, and he's rewarded for careful selection of items by being able to quickly recreate them. You can create one at Turbo Speed on the cheap, but you can only ever have one of those, and any you make for other folks only gets a 50% reduction, not a 75%. Still, however, a reduction. Again, most of the time this guy has no business being in the field, but at least with this version there is SOMETHING he can do during the course of an adventure that a Thief-archetype rogue cannot do better.
I still prefer Infusions, but something like that would at least qualify as something resembling a class feature, rather than just being an occasional shopping trip disguised as a class feature.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think the issue comes from that there are two paths, and picking one makes the ones who would prefer the other angry. On the first path (the one I personally prefer, as a disclaimer), the burden of making the artificer feel like a magical inventor is on the player, coming up with ideas of little inventions to cast their spells, and using infusions to shape items to become magic, creating an explanation for this. For example, roleplaying a casting of Firebolt as if it is a small pistol shaped thing, or casting Arcane Weapon on a crossbow and flavoring it as if you put a magic disk on where the bolt shoots out, creating an elemental effect. For fifth edition? This works quite well, and makes the artificer very fun to imagine, because there is infinite potential to flavor it. However, there is the idea that this simplifies the artificer, imagining it as casting spells just at the end of a long rest and automatically making something magic. I suppose I can understand this point of view, even if I disagree with it, one may wonder why the player needs to put in effort to explain basic game mechanics. The other path is to rely solely on crafting mechanics to create magic items, turning the artificer into a slow crafter, but realized in game terms. However, I feel that the current UA balances the line quite well actually. Infusions are quick, and do require some effort, but I believe they are fun, and make the items the artificer can create feel unique (with specific things that only the artificer can make, which I hope they add much more of in E:RftLW). The subclasses also focus on crafting, even if it is not explicit. The alchemist is able to make potions better than anyone else, by far, and if you are running a downtime heavy campaign, can become a brewing machine, providing plenty of specialized items for the party. The Archivist can do the same thing, but with spell scrolls instead of potions, providing large variety in the spells able to be cast by the party. The artillerist is able to do the same but for wands, greatly assisting the parties spellcasters, while also having Defender turrets to help out the parties melee fighters. And the battle smith can work as a blacksmith for the party, crafting swords and armor for them with their tool proficiencies. The infuse item is really just a way to ensure that every artificer is able to do this, as well as feel unique. The artificer is still a crafting class, it just isn't entirely built to exist as a builder for the rest of the party to do things.
Xanathars crafting is fine. I really like the UA artificer, I just hope they fix the Alchemist a bit (more potion based abilities, not satchel necessarily, but perhaps having the ability to enchant potions at expense of a spell slot to make their abilities more potent, or for free if you crafted the potion yourself?) and add more non +1 infusion choices. And let them have more infused items at higher levels, i get 2 makes sense for level 2 but 5 doesnt feel quite right for level 18 for me. But I probably do not know what I am talking about, so take it with a grain of salt.
I like the comparison to spellbook, to make it more ridiculous to make a point:
Infusions known is like your spellbook, while infusing at end of long rest is like preparing your spells.
While Wondrous Invention is like a Wizard scribing a spellbook and then handing it to the Champion Fighter along with Spell slots to go out adventure.
That is identical in that such a Wizard would never leave the library and such an Artificer would never leave a workshop.
The final concession I want to get is about the exhaustion of working through a long rest. Exhaustion is again a horrible rule:
The punishment is too harsh, the fact your party could for any reason decide to do 3 long rests in 24 hours and you would technically get 2 points of exhaustion if you didn’t join them,
But most importantly, there are plenty of people in the world that when inspired can work on a 48 hour cycle, one of the Main being Tesla.
In a world of magic there are plenty of ways around this exhaustion, so just say all Artificers gain the benefits of a long rest even while working on their projects, the only class that doesn’t gain exhaustion.
This also helps with the downtime effect, some(50%+) campaigns don’t have Downtime? Well an Artificer always has downtime, about 8 hours of it. (Or what we suggested before, any unspent spellslots can be used by an Artificer to magically extend his day by 1 hour per slot level)
Or in my opinion a preferred way, when you learn a magic item from Infusion or Wondrous Invention you don’t get any bonuses to the “crafting time” you ******* get to make it in under a minute, you are McGyver. What do you think McGyvers crafting bonus was for flamethrowers? You can make it 10000 times faster?
What I would include just for fun is more Infusions unique to Artificer that don’t replicate magic items, and for “replicate” instead say “when you take this infusion choose a magic item on your person or that you have a detailed description of: this item is now recreatable according to the Infusions rules. You can do so for common&uncommon magic items increasing to rare at 10th, very rare at 15th and legendary at 20th.” In this way you would actually have Artificers going with the wizard to the library to the other section about magic items and detailing out his project list.
Personally I don't have a problem with infusions, I was just brainstorming on how to make Wonderous Invention viable for people who aren't comfortable with the prospect of a class feature that can be potentially lost (assuming they want to fiddle around with the 2017 artificer). My original thought was to have it tied to attunement, until I remembered that not all magic items require that.
I won't deny, when the 2019 Artificer came out the first batch of Infusions that were available mostly felt lackluster and kind of annoyed me (and Replicate Item just felt like a massive cop-out to me). The second batch added to it in a way that felt much more interesting and I hope they continue going in that direction.
As for placing Infusions on a magic item, personally I think I'd allow it at my table, although I would still restrict the number of infusions allowed on one item at a time.
Replicate item feels interesting enough to me, although it definitely should not be the only "weird" one available. It gives you a wondrous item, and although it is not that useful at lower levels, some of the stuff at higher levels makes total sense as a class feature to me (gauntlets of ogre strength, headband of intellect, hat of disguise). Repeating shot feels good to me because it adds something special to the weapon, instead of making it a basic +1 crossbow, allowing you to shoot with infinite bolts. Resistance armor i feel makes sense, and you can change it on a long rest. Returning weapon feels cool, radiant sword feels kinda underpowered, repulsion shield also feels kinda underpowered (could be a cone effect instead of a single creature?), many handed pouch is cool conceptually but should also be able to hold more, boots of the winding path are epic. Enhanced weapon, enhanced defense, and enhanced wand make SENSE to me why they are there, but thematically feel boring. I still think they should stay, I just hope they add more infusions.
Replicate magic item? Same table (but larger), replenishes on a long rest, and still has the theme of you crafting.
The "magic item you made that you are specializing, specific to you" is supposed to be your subclass ability. The alchemists homonculous/satchel, the artillerists turrets, the archivists advisor, and the battle smiths iron defender. The reason the artificer is a "pet class" right now, or at least the subclass abilities appearing as such, is because they are trying to work in this theme of creating one special item that only you can build, that improves with levels. This is most easily realized in a pet companion, but that is what they are going for.
I'm just going to point out something I've observed about the Infuse Item feature, which is that it isn't actually about magic item creation but rather is an extension of the artificer's spellcasting. specifically it covers the issue that the artificer in 3.5e had specific capabilities such as those below:
I think you get what I'm getting at here. Also I'll add but if you compare the general features of the presently known infuse item options there is a great deal of similarity in capability between the infuse item options and many of the unique spells of the artificer.
finally any spells that are unique to the artificer's spell list and are newly introduced have to pass a simple acid test, "would the availablity of this spell make it a no brainer for any bard to pick for their 10th level feature or for a lore bard's 6th level feature" the answer to that would likely be that it would be picked up by the bard in a party faster than you can say dandelion.
To be frank, I think the Infuse Item feature really needs to lean into the unique flavour of the 3.5e spell infusions a little bit more in general and with such broad capabilities in the original 3.5e artificer spell list, its like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to coming up with ideas. the entire 3.5e magic item compendium is a potential gold mine for ideas as well as anything 4e came up with for this feature.
as for crafting rules and "why isn't the artificer not hooking into the crafting rules more!" by the 19th of November, I'm fairly certain we will be getting our 5th revision to the crafting rules, or as WotC are probably beginning to think when it comes to crafting rules "Variant No.5: crafting" and leave it to the DM to decide which set of crafting rules is relevant and appropriate to their game. tool's of the trade and tool expertise is probably about as in depth as the rules can go at this rate and you know what, I'm okay with that so long as they come up with a set of crafting rules that makes sense and is less of a pain to use than 3.5e's rules.
Some of them are, for sure, but lets note: the artificer is not necessarily better at making magic items, at least not ones outside of its subclass benefits. What infusions do is allow the artificer to actually make magic items, besides the one their subclass focuses intensely on. I would love to see more unique infusions. The +1 weapons make sense to me, and obviously the artificer should have them, but I do wish that they made each have some significant plus other than the +1 benefit (sort of like what repeating shot and returning weapon did). I suppose the 8th level ones (radiant) are a version of that, but I feel they are significantly weaker than infinite ammo + ignore the loading property, or getting your thrown weapons back. Perhaps a +1 sword that let you deal an extra 1d4 radiant damage on a hit? Or you could use the create blindness effect with radiant weapon on a critical hit? and have repulsion shield activate when an enemy rolls a critical miss? Anyways, that is unimportant. The reason for specialized infusions is that, with the exception of your specialization bonuses, you are not significantly better at making magic items than anyone else. Sure if you have proficiency with tools you have expertise, but you do not get a shortened time, or a lowered amount of gold required. Instead, you are able to create magic items with your infusions, to support the rest the party in that way. It is a bit of what the warlock has with their eldritch invocations, with a series of benefits you can apply to things, with a huge amount of customization. I personally think that it would make sense if there were tool-proficiency specific infusions (like the weapons ones you need proficiency in smiths tools, armor leatherworkers tools, maybe a potion one with brewing tools or alchemists supplies, wand ones for woodcarvers tools, perhaps resistant armor with cartography tool because of runes?) with the replicate magic item one not requiring tool proficiency, as well as stuff like boots of the winding path and many handed pouch not requiring them. This would not be subclass specific, but instead based on the tool proficiencies you either gain through your subclasses or get when you become an artificer. But that might not work, or be too limiting, requiring you to take feats or spend gold to learn more tool proficiencies. Anyways, I think we keep on comparing the current artificer to the 3.5 version, when we might want to focus instead on comparing it to other classes in 5e. Currently, to me, the artificer seems to be 2/5 wizard (int based arcane caster with ritual casting) , 1/5 ranger (half caster with a multitude of utility spells), 1/10 bard (class designed to be used, at least somewhat, for support, with extra emphasis on proficiencies), and 3/10 warlock (despite having low spell slots for a class built around casting, has a series of customizable buffs to it, gaining more on higher levels, and designed to be able to fight decently without expending too many spell slots).
@Bunsenburner03 It's potato, potahto to me, really (Although I'll just add that the idea I had was meant to be applied to any magic item, not just the ones on the table).
When looking at class features, I like when they do something different to other features that came before it. That's partly why I like the Infusion system; even though it's closely analogous to the Warlock's Invocations, it still works differently enough. Replicate Magic Item doesn't quite scratch that itch for me, and the Enhanced Defense/Wand/Weapon are INCREDIBLY boring, though in Enhanced Wand's defense it at least ignores defense from partial cover. (I also have to confess, I'm not really excited by Boots of the Winding Path either, but eh, there's plenty of things other classes have that don't excite me so whatevs)
@Manthel I'm hoping the new Eberron book has new crafting rules as well. It would make sense, seeing that it's introducing a class whose premise revolves around crafting.
Enhanced Wand/Defense are supposed to be boring. But they kinda have to be there. They are basic, sure, but they make perfect sense. Enhanced wand is just a wand of the war mage. Then they are +1 weapon or +1 shield/armor. Those are magic items sure, but it is still a useful buff to things. Do I wish it had a little extra flair, like repeating shot gets? Sure. Is it fine, if a little boring, without it? Also sure. Replicate magic item i agree does not scratch the itch at lower levels (i think you should get the second tier at 8th level, that is around the point that it would be particularly useful but not ridiculous, and let the third tier be 14th level), but some of the higher stuff definitely does for me. I think they just need more varied infusions, honestly.
I agree. Variety is something the Infusion system absolutely needs. With the confirmed change of the Homunculus from an Alchemist feature to an Infusion, I'm confident that's the direction WotC is going.
Who says a craftsman couldn't be an adventurer? Oh that's right you. You seemed to think that your way of playing D&D is the only way to play. Well you are wrong. I have agreed with your explanation with downtime and I have pointed out how downtime can be roleplayed during a session (with no response from you). But you don't seem to care as long as your opinion is the only one that matters. You proceed to cut down anything you don't like. Hell, I said I would be fine with infusions being the core of a subclass, but not a feature of core class. But you no matter what will continue to argue that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Well guess what, your opinion doesn't matter to me. I like the idea wondrous invention feature, as I find it to fits the core meaning of the Artificer. Being an adventurer isn't all about combat or combat related abilities. But it seems like that is all you think or care about. Screw the story I want to kill something. That is how you come off.
The 2019 Artificer (Alchemist) has very little to do with potions besides the advantage they get with crafting them. They are just a spellcaster that we are told to use our IMAGINATIONS (The Magic of Artifice) when we "CAST" spells. Players have been using their imaginations since D&D first came out, they don't need to be told or reminded to use their imaginations. As for increasing infusions, the same argument can be made for the Sorcerer's Metamagic (which they only get 4) and only knowing 15 spells (even though they are a caster class).
Some players weren't even born when D&D first came out. D&D incorporates new players all the time. Having encouragement for new players is extremely beneficial for WOTC's business model.
I've never once actually played D&D yet I'm extremely interested in it and the Artificer class in particular and speaking personally I definitely appreciated being told that I was to fill in the blanks for spellcasting with tools. In fact that very box text helped inspire me to begin thinking of ways I might use my imagination to fill in the deliberately left open blanks in the Artificer class description. Maybe you feel like you're being talked down to with that box text. I certainly don't and I'm glad that it's there. Maybe I didn't need to be told to use my imagination regardless I'm glad I was it's led to some excellent brainstorming. Maybe I'd have held a very different opinion had I been playing D&D for years already I don't know for sure it's a perspective I haven't yet gained.
Maybe never having played invalidates my opinion on the matter. I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking that if they do. Certainly not having any hands on experience with the game means I don't know much about things like game balance or how things work out practically within a session or have any idea how most DMs behave on a general basis. The few posts in this thread I've made have aimed to avoid those topics precisely because of my inexperience.
With my inherent D&D naivety in mind, please take no offense at this minor semantic suggestion. What if the words "spellcasting" and "casting a spell" etc were replaced with "spellcrafting", "crafting a spell" etc. Even a "spellcrafting modifier." And the rest of the wording revised accordingly for coherence. I know this wouldn't alleviate every issue you have with the Artificer Marine, considering a lot of your dissatisfaction is mechanical not just in flavor. But would that be an improvement, even just slightly?
Further, if the wording were more thoroughly changed (and possibly mechanics as well) to reimagine the Artificer as not only a crafter of items and magic items but a crafter of spells as well. Some spells take immediate effect upon crafting, others take longer etc. Others are permanent etc. I mean there are already single use magic items, potions scrolls, etc. Would that be an improvement?
I mainly say this since I've still been thinking on this spellcasting = crafting thing for a while now. Mechanically different sure. But in character (and I mean In Character) it ends up the same.
I wouldn’t be a big fan of changing the standard language without changing the mechanics, “Spell casting” and “spells prepared” mean something to another subsection of the DnD player base that “spells crafted” wouldn’t. That demographic is the second time players who joined once or a few times before and we’re handed a Cleric and now are joining for Artificer.
I also find it neater to maintain the same language and reuse blocks of mechanics that are already written, like Spellcasting lists, rather than rewriting again in classes/subclasses (looking at you Monk&Mystic) But then again I have been one of the main contributors to the “Spell Conduit” idea, where you rewrite things like spell slots to be power sources and let other people as well as yourself within 30ft draw from your power source, casting the spells from the items you crafted as conduits.