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 really don’t see a need for +1/+2 Infusions to be separated from +1 + effect Infusions. I think all effect Infusions should have scaling to +2 and the boring +1/+2 Infusions should go. They do need to purge the depths of Magic Items for more ideas though as we all agree. Preferably sticking to fixes for mechanics that don’t quite lead to fun gameplay: thrown weapons not returning and crossbows not loading were great starts. Quick don armor, and silent armor are great ideas too.
I also didn’t have a place to mention yet, but I love my latest world building idea for Guild of Artificers selling Infusions in cities/towns with a lot of adventurers traffic: Take the approximate cost buying of a +1 Weapon and divide it by 10. The guild will “rent” you a +1 enchantment for the above cost per day. EG you could get your whole 4 person party kitted out in +1 weapons for a 3 day journey instead of buying one +1 Weapon. And the artificers just reinfuse something else 3 days later when your time is up.
Kind of goes hand in hand with my Cult of Archivists who keep a Terrasque Permanently stunned via their Mind Overload Abilities.
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.
I haven't responded to your claims that downtime can be roleplayed because they do not, in principle, matter. Whether downtime is glossed over mid-session or glossed over between sessions doesn't change the fact that currently, "Downtime Activities" are typically glossed over because they boil down to a check that says "did you do the thing? Y/N". The default crafting rules say you have to make that check ten billion times if you don't want an item-ruining "COMPLICATION" destroying your crafting attempt - or rather, that your DM makes the roll and you have no ability to influence it. DM gets a three on any of the hundreds of 'COMPLICATION' rolls they're instructed to make for your thing? Your thing is irretrievably broken.
Those are shit rules, and they STILL don't encourage actual roleplaying.
The thing you've repeatedly, willfully, and determinedly failed to tell me, is WHAT YOUR ARTIFICER BRINGS TO THE TABLE. You yell at me about downtime, tell me I'm a terrible person who hates D&D and fun, tell me I never played 3.5 so CLEARLY I don't know what I'm doing, yadda yadda yadda, but you have yet to tell me why your perfect, ideal, Wonmdrous Invention-and-literally-nothing-else artificer would ever leave their ^*&^$ing lab and Adventure.
The barbarian gets battle rages, a massive HP pool, and a variety of unique features that allow it to rip enemies to pieces and shrug off enormous amounts of damage. The bard gets full arcane spellcasting, the ability to mix spells that would normally never be seen together, the ability to improve its allies' rolls, and a Jack of All Trades that means they're bad at nothing. The cleric gets full divine spellcasting, a huge range of cool effects from their domain, and the ability to straight-up ask God to come down and help them out. The druid gets to transform into animal forms for a variety of tasks, also gets full divine spellcasting, and chooses between any of a very nice package of boosts from their Circle. The fighter gets a fighting style, more base attacks than any other class, extra feats/ASIs, and its choice of multiple combat-enhancing subclass abilities. The monk...
I could go on and on. Every other class in the game has a heaping slew of useful abilities that help them either Fight, Find, or Flummox. They get abilities and powers they AND ONLY THEY can use, abilities that make them useful to have in the field whether you're fighting or not, abilities that make them unique and fun to play.
Your artificer? It has no. Such. Distinction.
It does absolutely nothing that Fjord couldn't do when he was a feeble d'orc. It does nothing that a Commoner couldn't do, other than take an extra punch or two because hit dice. it does absolutely nothing in the field except be a burden to the rest of the party because it cannot do anything without being given six months' downtime and five thousand gold worth of materials and supplies. The fact that it can do awesome things with those materials and that downtime is irrelevant. I don't want that artificer in my adventuring party. He could be my best friend IC, he could be the reason we're adventuring because he's a very wealthy craftsman and he's sending us to find supplies and materials for him, but he has no bloody business actually leaving town.
None.
And until he has something worth lugging him through a draugr-infested crypt for, he gets to be an NPC.
Making a rp based crafter class puts the burden of making their artificer feel good on the player, and requires them to roleplay on their own. Making a class centered around downtime puts a burden on the DM to give out a good amount of downtime, and yet still make the adventure feel fast paced, so the rest of the party does not feel as if they have to take days off to allow the artificer to use their class abilities. The burden of a class should be on the player playing it, not the DM.
Also i really dont think +1 infusions are that bad, I think its nice that you get them. I just wish you had more infusion slots to use them, so you did not feel like a forge cleric with less spells and worse armor. And again, you wanna play a class based on downtime? The current artificer fits that fine. And if you wanna play an artificer that is entirely centered around a system where it specifically shines on crafting rules, i suggest you play 3.5, because that idea does not mesh with 5e.
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.
That’s part of the reason I wanted WotC to use a mechanic other than Spell Slots and Prepared Spells for the Artificer.
Once the finalized version of the Artificer comes out I'll be entering it in the HeroLab 5E Community Pack. Then I'll be ablt to play with archetypes and the Power Point Optional Rules from the DMG.
DnDBeyond has plans (nothing definite) to implement the Optional Power Point rules some day, but who knows when.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
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.
That’s part of the reason I wanted WotC to use a mechanic other than Spell Slots and Prepared Spells for the Artificer.
Fair enough but I think we have to strike a balance, your approach is quite detrimental for second timers or experienced players, and equally difficult for a first timer. Just a bit more exciting for first looking at it for the DMs and designer focused experienced 5e players.
I do think that Mystic / Psion by definition either uses spell points with Spellcasting but does benefit a lot from new rewrites with changes to Spellcasting to indicate the “alienness” of the magic. However that caused a 38 page class which is longer than all 12 core classes+subclasses combined. I don’t want two of those classes, inclusivity not catering to the super hardcore.
While I think Artificer does make sense still grounded in the fantasy magic system. They have two roles creating “Magic Items” and creating “Items that replicate Magic”. IE. An Artificer sees a Wizard cast Fireball, he will try to make an item that does the same thing but it might take a while.
If you think of real life, what are engineers if not replicating real life non magical effects, an engineer looks at a horse and sees a car, an engineer sees someone doing math and invents a calculator, then another optimises to make it a computer.
a completely different method would be extremely difficult to understand, and be completely necessary*. you could say that the bard should instead cast spells as songs, and use a different system based on performance checks, but that would just bog the bard class down. Instead, it is spell casting. This is roughly the same. The reason you use your tools as a focus is because it is supposed to be rped as you building something or using an invention to cast that spell. same reason the bard uses an instrument as a casting focus.
Dangit Bunsenburner3, now you've got me wanting to make a revised bard that uses a concentration based spell system instead of the normal one. Why do you have to put fool ideas into my head?!
(In seriousness, that's an interesting idea that I may end up borrowing from if you don't mind my doing so...)
I just replayed ff4 where I kept thinking “why didn’t they do DnD bard like these song magics”, and then remembering “oh yeah this IS just concentration effects.” It just work much better on a per tick basis instead of per turn. Would be fun to do something like heal 1 Hp every tick of initiative, but 5e hates that.
a completely different method would be extremely difficult to understand, and be completely necessary*. you could say that the bard should instead cast spells as songs, and use a different system based on performance checks, but that would just bog the bard class down. Instead, it is spell casting. This is roughly the same. The reason you use your tools as a focus is because it is supposed to be rped as you building something or using an invention to cast that spell. same reason the bard uses an instrument as a casting focus.
*edit: Unnecessary, sorry, typo
A Bard doesn't necessarily have to sing; they can also recite limericks, poems or stories (but that is just semantics). However, because a Bard's spellcasting ability is Charisma based, they are technically making performance based checks when they cast a spell that requires a roll of the dice.
Spellcasting in 5th edition was simplified so that when a player used different spellcaster classes they are not bogged down with learning new spellcasting abilities that are unique to each class or subclass. Yes the spellcasting abilities for each caster is different and unique, but not in a way that requires learning a whole new system that has no similarities to other spellcaster classes or subclasses. Having each spellcaster class or subclass have their own unique spellcasting system would just complicate spellcasting. In the case of the Artificer, the spellcasting ability is still similar to the other spellcasters, we were just told to "spice it up" a little bit more with our descriptions on how we cast a spell. Most players already "spice up" their descriptions when casting spells.
On another note, I had an idea for a College of the Sword Bard who sucks at playing musical instruments and reciting limericks, poems and singing. But, is very good at utilizing melee weapons. So they learned the magic of the Bard, but instead focuses their arcane ability through their melee weapon fighting instead of music and words. That is why until they reach 3rd level and are able to pick the College of the Sword subclass (to use melee weapons as a spellcasting focus), there is a 50% chance of their spells failing because of their lack of musical talent and the gift of words.
A player is not required or supposed to spice it up. They are encouraged by the DM and the other players, but spicing up spellcasting descriptions are not required. It is the player's preference on how they describe their character casting a spell.
An example would be from the movie "The House with a Clock in Its Walls". Jack Black teaches his nephew about magic and how he needs to find his own style of magic. It's the same things with players. They need to find their own style.
For an example of Arcane Weapon being OP, look at my human artificer (Battle Smith). He is only 6th level, has the Crossbow Expert & Sharpshooter feats already. Throw on arcane weapon (Repeatign Shot Hand Crossbow) and what you get is overwhelming.
I usually hit 2 out of 3 shots unless the targets has a very high AC. I've been thinking of taking a 1-3 level dip into fighter for the Archery Combat Style, Action Surge, and maybe, Eldritch Knight. Not sure yet, though I will have to make up my mind soon (Dungeon of the Mad Mage)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I'd remind to only discuss "OP" in the context of comparison. EG everything you described is also possible as a Human Ranger taking same feats and using Hunter's Mark. The only difference would be Archery giving +2 hit vs +1 weapons for Artificer (note that benefit could be wiped out if the DM grants a +1 crossbow by level 6). Plus a ranger could use Hunter Colossus Slayer to go above the Artificer.
So Arcane Weapon is not OP it is a normal balance point for anyone going combat and is what I would call "Average High tier" where Colossus Slayer is "High High tier." (and the high tier level is only driven by the power feats not the Arcane weapon)
On new spells I have given it a bit of thought and I think is a Main lack of the class so far, I really hope WotC got that from the feedback surveys. I can only come up with the following categories for Artificer specific spells: Traps/Turrets (ala Blade Barrier) Enchants (ala Arcane weapon or other spells connected to weapons) Potions/Poisons (spell damage that works off your ranged attack roll)
It's funny how people keep saying "artificers shouldn't fight as well as they do!", then citing variant human examples with XbowXpert and Sharpshooter as being The Power of Artifice. As if those two feats aren't the ones doing eighty percent of the fighting, and accomplish the same nonsense on any other class in the game capable of wielding hand crossbows.
I'd be wary of that. A lot of DMs already hate Sharpshooter and XbowXpert for making ranged weapons kinda strictly superior to melee options; allowing your artificer to ignore cover, Loading, melee disadvantage AND ammunition requirements with one infusion and no feats would be kinda gonzo. The artificer should need to do more than have one infusion active to gain that kind of combat power.
Arcane weapon would be kinda ridiculous if it scaled. At least, as a second level spell. And even higher due to magical secrets. As a 5th level battle smith artificer, with a repeating shot heavy crossbow, and +3 INT, assuming each hits, using a 2nd level slot, you would deal 2d10+6+2+4d6 damage on every turn, an average of 33 damage, until your concentration broke. For an hour. At level 5. Maxxing out INT makes that 37. As a level 20 artificer, with the same adjustments but a 5th level spell slot and +5 INT, that is 2d10+10+2+10d6 damage on every turn, for an hour (assuming we get rid of the fact that if it is a spell slot higher than 3rd level it lasts 8 hours), until your concentration broke. That is 58 DPR, ranged, with the only caveat being that it takes a bonus action to start and maintains requires concentration. What if a bard with +5 DEX took it through magical secrets? And, for the sake of argument, there would not be a clause saying it could only go up to 5th level? And their crossbow had a repeating shot cast on it through a party artificer. That would be 2d10+10+2+18d6 per round. Or 86 DPR, for an hour. In contrast, with current rules, with max INT and battle smith for 5th level artificer and above, thats only 2d10+10+2+2d6 damage, or 30 at most. Which is still a lot, but it requires maxxing out INT. If INT is just +3, its 26 on average. Could a battle smith have their iron defender protect them from enemy attacks, imposing disadvantage on melee attacks that might lead to breaking a saving throw? Sure, but that is not ridiculously OP. It is powerful for sure, but is one of many strategies. (Note: for other artificer subclasses, substitute INT for DEX, I assumed battle smith because that is the one someone who wanted to make it OP would do. In addition, this is assuming that every attack hit, which is not going to happen every round). That is why Arcane Weapon does not scale with spell slots. This is without the Crossbow expert feat, because I forgot about it while i was typing this and dont want to go back.
I really don’t see a need for +1/+2 Infusions to be separated from +1 + effect Infusions. I think all effect Infusions should have scaling to +2 and the boring +1/+2 Infusions should go. They do need to purge the depths of Magic Items for more ideas though as we all agree. Preferably sticking to fixes for mechanics that don’t quite lead to fun gameplay: thrown weapons not returning and crossbows not loading were great starts. Quick don armor, and silent armor are great ideas too.
I also didn’t have a place to mention yet, but I love my latest world building idea for Guild of Artificers selling Infusions in cities/towns with a lot of adventurers traffic: Take the approximate cost buying of a +1 Weapon and divide it by 10. The guild will “rent” you a +1 enchantment for the above cost per day. EG you could get your whole 4 person party kitted out in +1 weapons for a 3 day journey instead of buying one +1 Weapon. And the artificers just reinfuse something else 3 days later when your time is up.
Kind of goes hand in hand with my Cult of Archivists who keep a Terrasque Permanently stunned via their Mind Overload Abilities.
I haven't responded to your claims that downtime can be roleplayed because they do not, in principle, matter. Whether downtime is glossed over mid-session or glossed over between sessions doesn't change the fact that currently, "Downtime Activities" are typically glossed over because they boil down to a check that says "did you do the thing? Y/N". The default crafting rules say you have to make that check ten billion times if you don't want an item-ruining "COMPLICATION" destroying your crafting attempt - or rather, that your DM makes the roll and you have no ability to influence it. DM gets a three on any of the hundreds of 'COMPLICATION' rolls they're instructed to make for your thing? Your thing is irretrievably broken.
Those are shit rules, and they STILL don't encourage actual roleplaying.
The thing you've repeatedly, willfully, and determinedly failed to tell me, is WHAT YOUR ARTIFICER BRINGS TO THE TABLE. You yell at me about downtime, tell me I'm a terrible person who hates D&D and fun, tell me I never played 3.5 so CLEARLY I don't know what I'm doing, yadda yadda yadda, but you have yet to tell me why your perfect, ideal, Wonmdrous Invention-and-literally-nothing-else artificer would ever leave their ^*&^$ing lab and Adventure.
The barbarian gets battle rages, a massive HP pool, and a variety of unique features that allow it to rip enemies to pieces and shrug off enormous amounts of damage.
The bard gets full arcane spellcasting, the ability to mix spells that would normally never be seen together, the ability to improve its allies' rolls, and a Jack of All Trades that means they're bad at nothing.
The cleric gets full divine spellcasting, a huge range of cool effects from their domain, and the ability to straight-up ask God to come down and help them out.
The druid gets to transform into animal forms for a variety of tasks, also gets full divine spellcasting, and chooses between any of a very nice package of boosts from their Circle.
The fighter gets a fighting style, more base attacks than any other class, extra feats/ASIs, and its choice of multiple combat-enhancing subclass abilities.
The monk...
I could go on and on. Every other class in the game has a heaping slew of useful abilities that help them either Fight, Find, or Flummox. They get abilities and powers they AND ONLY THEY can use, abilities that make them useful to have in the field whether you're fighting or not, abilities that make them unique and fun to play.
Your artificer? It has no. Such. Distinction.
It does absolutely nothing that Fjord couldn't do when he was a feeble d'orc. It does nothing that a Commoner couldn't do, other than take an extra punch or two because hit dice. it does absolutely nothing in the field except be a burden to the rest of the party because it cannot do anything without being given six months' downtime and five thousand gold worth of materials and supplies. The fact that it can do awesome things with those materials and that downtime is irrelevant. I don't want that artificer in my adventuring party. He could be my best friend IC, he could be the reason we're adventuring because he's a very wealthy craftsman and he's sending us to find supplies and materials for him, but he has no bloody business actually leaving town.
None.
And until he has something worth lugging him through a draugr-infested crypt for, he gets to be an NPC.
Does that clarify matters?
Please do not contact or message me.
Making a rp based crafter class puts the burden of making their artificer feel good on the player, and requires them to roleplay on their own. Making a class centered around downtime puts a burden on the DM to give out a good amount of downtime, and yet still make the adventure feel fast paced, so the rest of the party does not feel as if they have to take days off to allow the artificer to use their class abilities. The burden of a class should be on the player playing it, not the DM.
Also i really dont think +1 infusions are that bad, I think its nice that you get them. I just wish you had more infusion slots to use them, so you did not feel like a forge cleric with less spells and worse armor. And again, you wanna play a class based on downtime? The current artificer fits that fine. And if you wanna play an artificer that is entirely centered around a system where it specifically shines on crafting rules, i suggest you play 3.5, because that idea does not mesh with 5e.
That’s part of the reason I wanted WotC to use a mechanic other than Spell Slots and Prepared Spells for the Artificer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
that would just make things more complicated
Once the finalized version of the Artificer comes out I'll be entering it in the HeroLab 5E Community Pack. Then I'll be ablt to play with archetypes and the Power Point Optional Rules from the DMG.
DnDBeyond has plans (nothing definite) to implement the Optional Power Point rules some day, but who knows when.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Fair enough but I think we have to strike a balance, your approach is quite detrimental for second timers or experienced players, and equally difficult for a first timer. Just a bit more exciting for first looking at it for the DMs and designer focused experienced 5e players.
I do think that Mystic / Psion by definition either uses spell points with Spellcasting but does benefit a lot from new rewrites with changes to Spellcasting to indicate the “alienness” of the magic. However that caused a 38 page class which is longer than all 12 core classes+subclasses combined. I don’t want two of those classes, inclusivity not catering to the super hardcore.
While I think Artificer does make sense still grounded in the fantasy magic system. They have two roles creating “Magic Items” and creating “Items that replicate Magic”. IE. An Artificer sees a Wizard cast Fireball, he will try to make an item that does the same thing but it might take a while.
If you think of real life, what are engineers if not replicating real life non magical effects, an engineer looks at a horse and sees a car, an engineer sees someone doing math and invents a calculator, then another optimises to make it a computer.
a completely different method would be extremely difficult to understand, and be completely necessary*. you could say that the bard should instead cast spells as songs, and use a different system based on performance checks, but that would just bog the bard class down. Instead, it is spell casting. This is roughly the same. The reason you use your tools as a focus is because it is supposed to be rped as you building something or using an invention to cast that spell. same reason the bard uses an instrument as a casting focus.
*edit: Unnecessary, sorry, typo
Dangit Bunsenburner3, now you've got me wanting to make a revised bard that uses a concentration based spell system instead of the normal one. Why do you have to put fool ideas into my head?!
(In seriousness, that's an interesting idea that I may end up borrowing from if you don't mind my doing so...)
I just replayed ff4 where I kept thinking “why didn’t they do DnD bard like these song magics”, and then remembering “oh yeah this IS just concentration effects.” It just work much better on a per tick basis instead of per turn. Would be fun to do something like heal 1 Hp every tick of initiative, but 5e hates that.
A Bard doesn't necessarily have to sing; they can also recite limericks, poems or stories (but that is just semantics). However, because a Bard's spellcasting ability is Charisma based, they are technically making performance based checks when they cast a spell that requires a roll of the dice.
Spellcasting in 5th edition was simplified so that when a player used different spellcaster classes they are not bogged down with learning new spellcasting abilities that are unique to each class or subclass. Yes the spellcasting abilities for each caster is different and unique, but not in a way that requires learning a whole new system that has no similarities to other spellcaster classes or subclasses. Having each spellcaster class or subclass have their own unique spellcasting system would just complicate spellcasting. In the case of the Artificer, the spellcasting ability is still similar to the other spellcasters, we were just told to "spice it up" a little bit more with our descriptions on how we cast a spell. Most players already "spice up" their descriptions when casting spells.
On another note, I had an idea for a College of the Sword Bard who sucks at playing musical instruments and reciting limericks, poems and singing. But, is very good at utilizing melee weapons. So they learned the magic of the Bard, but instead focuses their arcane ability through their melee weapon fighting instead of music and words. That is why until they reach 3rd level and are able to pick the College of the Sword subclass (to use melee weapons as a spellcasting focus), there is a 50% chance of their spells failing because of their lack of musical talent and the gift of words.
i would never mind
And yeah, i mean you are always supposed to spice it up. It is just more explicit with the artificer class.
A player is not required or supposed to spice it up. They are encouraged by the DM and the other players, but spicing up spellcasting descriptions are not required. It is the player's preference on how they describe their character casting a spell.
An example would be from the movie "The House with a Clock in Its Walls". Jack Black teaches his nephew about magic and how he needs to find his own style of magic. It's the same things with players. They need to find their own style.
For an example of Arcane Weapon being OP, look at my human artificer (Battle Smith). He is only 6th level, has the Crossbow Expert & Sharpshooter feats already. Throw on arcane weapon (Repeatign Shot Hand Crossbow) and what you get is overwhelming.
3 shots /round, 1d6+3+10 piercing + 1d6 elemental (usually acid).
I usually hit 2 out of 3 shots unless the targets has a very high AC. I've been thinking of taking a 1-3 level dip into fighter for the Archery Combat Style, Action Surge, and maybe, Eldritch Knight. Not sure yet, though I will have to make up my mind soon (Dungeon of the Mad Mage)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I'd remind to only discuss "OP" in the context of comparison. EG everything you described is also possible as a Human Ranger taking same feats and using Hunter's Mark. The only difference would be Archery giving +2 hit vs +1 weapons for Artificer (note that benefit could be wiped out if the DM grants a +1 crossbow by level 6). Plus a ranger could use Hunter Colossus Slayer to go above the Artificer.
So Arcane Weapon is not OP it is a normal balance point for anyone going combat and is what I would call "Average High tier" where Colossus Slayer is "High High tier." (and the high tier level is only driven by the power feats not the Arcane weapon)
On new spells I have given it a bit of thought and I think is a Main lack of the class so far, I really hope WotC got that from the feedback surveys. I can only come up with the following categories for Artificer specific spells: Traps/Turrets (ala Blade Barrier) Enchants (ala Arcane weapon or other spells connected to weapons) Potions/Poisons (spell damage that works off your ranged attack roll)
It's funny how people keep saying "artificers shouldn't fight as well as they do!", then citing variant human examples with XbowXpert and Sharpshooter as being The Power of Artifice. As if those two feats aren't the ones doing eighty percent of the fighting, and accomplish the same nonsense on any other class in the game capable of wielding hand crossbows.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'd be wary of that. A lot of DMs already hate Sharpshooter and XbowXpert for making ranged weapons kinda strictly superior to melee options; allowing your artificer to ignore cover, Loading, melee disadvantage AND ammunition requirements with one infusion and no feats would be kinda gonzo. The artificer should need to do more than have one infusion active to gain that kind of combat power.
Please do not contact or message me.
Arcane weapon would be kinda ridiculous if it scaled. At least, as a second level spell. And even higher due to magical secrets. As a 5th level battle smith artificer, with a repeating shot heavy crossbow, and +3 INT, assuming each hits, using a 2nd level slot, you would deal 2d10+6+2+4d6 damage on every turn, an average of 33 damage, until your concentration broke. For an hour. At level 5. Maxxing out INT makes that 37. As a level 20 artificer, with the same adjustments but a 5th level spell slot and +5 INT, that is 2d10+10+2+10d6 damage on every turn, for an hour (assuming we get rid of the fact that if it is a spell slot higher than 3rd level it lasts 8 hours), until your concentration broke. That is 58 DPR, ranged, with the only caveat being that it takes a bonus action to start and maintains requires concentration. What if a bard with +5 DEX took it through magical secrets? And, for the sake of argument, there would not be a clause saying it could only go up to 5th level? And their crossbow had a repeating shot cast on it through a party artificer. That would be 2d10+10+2+18d6 per round. Or 86 DPR, for an hour. In contrast, with current rules, with max INT and battle smith for 5th level artificer and above, thats only 2d10+10+2+2d6 damage, or 30 at most. Which is still a lot, but it requires maxxing out INT. If INT is just +3, its 26 on average. Could a battle smith have their iron defender protect them from enemy attacks, imposing disadvantage on melee attacks that might lead to breaking a saving throw? Sure, but that is not ridiculously OP. It is powerful for sure, but is one of many strategies. (Note: for other artificer subclasses, substitute INT for DEX, I assumed battle smith because that is the one someone who wanted to make it OP would do. In addition, this is assuming that every attack hit, which is not going to happen every round). That is why Arcane Weapon does not scale with spell slots. This is without the Crossbow expert feat, because I forgot about it while i was typing this and dont want to go back.