Why are you adding the spell caster ability modifier to fire bolt or eldritch blast damage rolls? You don't get your spell caster ability modifier added to damage unless it says to.
Why are you adding the spell caster ability modifier to fire bolt or eldritch blast damage rolls? You don't get your spell caster ability modifier added to damage unless it says to.
i assume he is using the wand prototype ability for firebolt but that's just a guess. and he stated his using agonizing blast for the EB attacks numbers
Why are you adding the spell caster ability modifier to fire bolt or eldritch blast damage rolls? You don't get your spell caster ability modifier added to damage unless it says to.
I’m assuming firebolt is your wand Cantrip hence level 6.
This is actually going to be the worst UA content on D&D Beyond. Since it is a whole new class and not an archetype once it goes away there is no way to homebrew...
I'm pretty sure of all the UA material the Artificer will more than likely make it into a book and won't just "go away". The only caveat would obviously be that UA homebrew would probably need some adaptation to update when it becomes official.
So... here are my main thoughts on the artificer 2019 ver.
While the Alchemist option seems fairly solid I question the alchemical homunculus as necessary and feel that wand creation should be an option for all Artificers just like magic item creation.
Rather than the Artillerist I feel a Machinist option would have been better and set a more general flavor. A class that focuses on constructs in general and can create a variety of low to mid challenge automatons that can perform tactical, investigation, or labor functions. These constructs could include types of artillery functions as well.
Lastly rather than making the Artificer a Half caster who has to hold tools to cast. Make the spells all ritual castings that bind the spells to a peice of gear for activation later. This allows them to imbue some very strong spells into their gear with the trade off that they cannot scale their spells on demand so whatever they are cast at when preparing the gear is what they can be used at later. Total number of available slots is still used to determine how many spells and of what spell level can be baked into the gear.
I am currently working on a design for this and hope to have it up on the DMs Guild as a "pay what you want" in the near future. But feel free to steal any of this if you feel like it.
When I said it would "go away", I meant it wouldn't be available to play until it was re-released as UA or officially.
Unlike the other UA content that was archetypes, you could re-create them using the homebrew system on this site for personal use. You would be unable to re-create the Artificer with D&D Beyonds homebrew system because they don't have one for classes.
So it looks like the new artificer class is not on D&D Beyond yet. Has anyone heard if it will be added or not? I thought we had been told it would show up here within a few days of its release in Unearthed Arcana. I know this is a new class, so it may just take them a lot longer to code it into the system? I would have thought they would have been given early access to it from WoC in order to get it ready for the launch.
So it looks like the new artificer class is not on D&D Beyond yet. Has anyone heard if it will be added or not? I thought we had been told it would show up here within a few days of its release in Unearthed Arcana. I know this is a new class, so it may just take them a lot longer to code it into the system? I would have thought they would have been given early access to it from WoC in order to get it ready for the launch.
Tomorrow will be my first session of Out of the Abyss as a Kobold Artificer, should be good!
I have a dexterity based build and I am going hand crossbow + Crossbow Expert. I plan to eventually multiclass into either Arcane Archer (GM is fine with it working with crossbow) or Battlemaster. In either case the arcane shots or battle maneuvers will be flavored to be technological inventions.
So it looks like the new artificer class is not on D&D Beyond yet. Has anyone heard if it will be added or not? I thought we had been told it would show up here within a few days of its release in Unearthed Arcana. I know this is a new class, so it may just take them a lot longer to code it into the system? I would have thought they would have been given early access to it from WoC in order to get it ready for the launch.
So... here are my main thoughts on the artificer 2019 ver.
While the Alchemist option seems fairly solid I question the alchemical homunculus as necessary and feel that wand creation should be an option for all Artificers just like magic item creation.
Rather than the Artillerist I feel a Machinist option would have been better and set a more general flavor. A class that focuses on constructs in general and can create a variety of low to mid challenge automatons that can perform tactical, investigation, or labor functions. These constructs could include types of artillery functions as well.
Lastly rather than making the Artificer a Half caster who has to hold tools to cast. Make the spells all ritual castings that bind the spells to a peice of gear for activation later. This allows them to imbue some very strong spells into their gear with the trade off that they cannot scale their spells on demand so whatever they are cast at when preparing the gear is what they can be used at later. Total number of available slots is still used to determine how many spells and of what spell level can be baked into the gear.
I am currently working on a design for this and hope to have it up on the DMs Guild as a "pay what you want" in the near future. But feel free to steal any of this if you feel like it.
Tell me what you think.
I think by now everyone knows my opinion of the Alchemist, so I won't relitigate that. I'm fine with the specificity of the Artillarist, I just think the wand features clash thematically and should be switched out in favor of something else, preferably to do with the turret since that seems to be the main gist of the subclass (I do think the scaling is a little odd, but I don't have thoughts on how to change/improve that); I think a "Machinist" focused on making a beefed-up construct would stand well as a subclass in it's own right, so maybe it would help to start formulating ideas on how that could work.
As for your spellcasting idea, I appreciate that it tries to do something different, but I think it would cause players to prioritize spells with more frequent use over ones that are already more situational or niche (that's one of my concerns with Spell-Storing item, with only having one spell with a range of 2 to 10 max uses, I think that encourages players to use one commonly used spell like Cure Wounds over just about everything else). Perhaps there's a way to make your idea work, but right now I'm just not sure it fits in a way that works with this class.
So it looks like the new artificer class is not on D&D Beyond yet. Has anyone heard if it will be added or not? I thought we had been told it would show up here within a few days of its release in Unearthed Arcana. I know this is a new class, so it may just take them a lot longer to code it into the system? I would have thought they would have been given early access to it from WoC in order to get it ready for the launch.
Have noticed the Artificer tag showing up on relevant spells now, so hopefully not too far off. I thought they might put up Arcane Weapon spell sooner than the full class, but they seem to be holding that back.
I see your point about spell storing as a new perspective again, quite interesting but I think Spell Storing at all levels does fit very well into the narrative of Artificer.
For me 3 things define Core Artificers : Making Magic items, Items that Make Magic, and Having the Most Magic Items. (And having an Int half caster body helps fill out the roster by symmetry which pleases me) Everything outside that is subclass theming.
Saying artificers shouldn’t have Spell storing items because it “encourages players to use only common spells” feels to me dangerously close to saying, “Paladin shouldn’t have smite because it encourages players to use only those spell types.”
I think Spell storing goes a bit too far with 10 uses, but that’s because it is a shit copy of Wizard’s feature. Instead if each spell was connected to a single spell slot and you had to take infusions to make them, limiting the number of slots you “locked” daily, then there wouldn’t be as much forcing you down one path.
Well, It's not that I think Spell-Storing Item should be removed, I just think it's problematic as it's currently written. I think a better way of implementing it would be to have it so it it can store more spells in more items, let's say 3 different spells in 3 different items, and have each item have 2-3 uses each. That way they can pass those 3 items (and their spells) around to more than one party member at a time, and also allow the use of less commonly used spells without making it feel like a waste, plus this presents the opportunity to change Spell-Storing Item so that it can grow in power as the Artificer levels rather than sticking it near the end at level 18; instead it could start at a lower level with a single spell/item, then gradually increase to 2 and later 3 as the Artificer levels. I would also think it would be prudent to change the item requirements on the feature so it can be used on more than just weapons and items that can be used as a Focus, I think that's too limiting personally.
100% agree with that, be that “free spell slots” with reduced max spell level or “locking spell slots” giving you more freedom to put more fun spells in earlier.
I also hate the level 18 & 20 “surprise new types of features never mentioned before”, since that can’t be tied into a core part of your character backstory, theming or play style, just “oops I can do this now.”
Why are you adding the spell caster ability modifier to fire bolt or eldritch blast damage rolls? You don't get your spell caster ability modifier added to damage unless it says to.
i assume he is using the wand prototype ability for firebolt but that's just a guess. and he stated his using agonizing blast for the EB attacks numbers
I’m assuming firebolt is your wand Cantrip hence level 6.
Ah, gotcha, yea if it isn't spelled out I try not to assume, but I did miss the Agonizing Blast reference.
Do we know more about the release? The only thing we got is, that it needs more than a few days. Now its already 10 days in and no information
Homebrew I share:
Demonic Houndmaster
^^^ At least I am not the only one wondering.
This is actually going to be the worst UA content on D&D Beyond. Since it is a whole new class and not an archetype once it goes away there is no way to homebrew...
I'm pretty sure of all the UA material the Artificer will more than likely make it into a book and won't just "go away". The only caveat would obviously be that UA homebrew would probably need some adaptation to update when it becomes official.
So... here are my main thoughts on the artificer 2019 ver.
While the Alchemist option seems fairly solid I question the alchemical homunculus as necessary and feel that wand creation should be an option for all Artificers just like magic item creation.
Rather than the Artillerist I feel a Machinist option would have been better and set a more general flavor. A class that focuses on constructs in general and can create a variety of low to mid challenge automatons that can perform tactical, investigation, or labor functions. These constructs could include types of artillery functions as well.
Lastly rather than making the Artificer a Half caster who has to hold tools to cast. Make the spells all ritual castings that bind the spells to a peice of gear for activation later. This allows them to imbue some very strong spells into their gear with the trade off that they cannot scale their spells on demand so whatever they are cast at when preparing the gear is what they can be used at later. Total number of available slots is still used to determine how many spells and of what spell level can be baked into the gear.
I am currently working on a design for this and hope to have it up on the DMs Guild as a "pay what you want" in the near future. But feel free to steal any of this if you feel like it.
Tell me what you think.
When I said it would "go away", I meant it wouldn't be available to play until it was re-released as UA or officially.
Unlike the other UA content that was archetypes, you could re-create them using the homebrew system on this site for personal use. You would be unable to re-create the Artificer with D&D Beyonds homebrew system because they don't have one for classes.
So it looks like the new artificer class is not on D&D Beyond yet. Has anyone heard if it will be added or not? I thought we had been told it would show up here within a few days of its release in Unearthed Arcana. I know this is a new class, so it may just take them a lot longer to code it into the system? I would have thought they would have been given early access to it from WoC in order to get it ready for the launch.
That's MISter Izzy to YOU!
See this tweet from Adam Bradford.
Tomorrow will be my first session of Out of the Abyss as a Kobold Artificer, should be good!
I have a dexterity based build and I am going hand crossbow + Crossbow Expert. I plan to eventually multiclass into either Arcane Archer (GM is fine with it working with crossbow) or Battlemaster. In either case the arcane shots or battle maneuvers will be flavored to be technological inventions.
That sounds cool! Let us know how it works.
That's what I thought! Gracias!
That's MISter Izzy to YOU!
I think by now everyone knows my opinion of the Alchemist, so I won't relitigate that. I'm fine with the specificity of the Artillarist, I just think the wand features clash thematically and should be switched out in favor of something else, preferably to do with the turret since that seems to be the main gist of the subclass (I do think the scaling is a little odd, but I don't have thoughts on how to change/improve that); I think a "Machinist" focused on making a beefed-up construct would stand well as a subclass in it's own right, so maybe it would help to start formulating ideas on how that could work.
As for your spellcasting idea, I appreciate that it tries to do something different, but I think it would cause players to prioritize spells with more frequent use over ones that are already more situational or niche (that's one of my concerns with Spell-Storing item, with only having one spell with a range of 2 to 10 max uses, I think that encourages players to use one commonly used spell like Cure Wounds over just about everything else). Perhaps there's a way to make your idea work, but right now I'm just not sure it fits in a way that works with this class.
Have noticed the Artificer tag showing up on relevant spells now, so hopefully not too far off. I thought they might put up Arcane Weapon spell sooner than the full class, but they seem to be holding that back.
@mezzurah
I see your point about spell storing as a new perspective again, quite interesting but I think Spell Storing at all levels does fit very well into the narrative of Artificer.
For me 3 things define Core Artificers : Making Magic items, Items that Make Magic, and Having the Most Magic Items. (And having an Int half caster body helps fill out the roster by symmetry which pleases me) Everything outside that is subclass theming.
Saying artificers shouldn’t have Spell storing items because it “encourages players to use only common spells” feels to me dangerously close to saying, “Paladin shouldn’t have smite because it encourages players to use only those spell types.”
I think Spell storing goes a bit too far with 10 uses, but that’s because it is a shit copy of Wizard’s feature. Instead if each spell was connected to a single spell slot and you had to take infusions to make them, limiting the number of slots you “locked” daily, then there wouldn’t be as much forcing you down one path.
Well, It's not that I think Spell-Storing Item should be removed, I just think it's problematic as it's currently written. I think a better way of implementing it would be to have it so it it can store more spells in more items, let's say 3 different spells in 3 different items, and have each item have 2-3 uses each. That way they can pass those 3 items (and their spells) around to more than one party member at a time, and also allow the use of less commonly used spells without making it feel like a waste, plus this presents the opportunity to change Spell-Storing Item so that it can grow in power as the Artificer levels rather than sticking it near the end at level 18; instead it could start at a lower level with a single spell/item, then gradually increase to 2 and later 3 as the Artificer levels. I would also think it would be prudent to change the item requirements on the feature so it can be used on more than just weapons and items that can be used as a Focus, I think that's too limiting personally.
100% agree with that, be that “free spell slots” with reduced max spell level or “locking spell slots” giving you more freedom to put more fun spells in earlier.
I also hate the level 18 & 20 “surprise new types of features never mentioned before”, since that can’t be tied into a core part of your character backstory, theming or play style, just “oops I can do this now.”
Agreed. That's one thing the previous iteration (flawed as it was) did better than this one.