No problem I am probably still going that route for feedback but am glad you are happy with it. And if not swayed no problem, will see how the survey feedback sways WoTC as there can of course be multiple sides.
The turret to me just feel more mechanical, even if the power source is magical. More like a walking crossbow / flamethrower. And most of the flexibility you listed could as easily happen by ignoring the crossbow features as you would now ignore the wand feature if using sword and shield.
All I am advocating for is more wand features in another subclass as we don’t have something that feels good enough to feel like a master of wands.
How about we give 3 levels to the turret. If you whack it with a hammer it gains levels while being repaired and if it gets to level 3 it becomes hyper active with defense and powerful attacks ! Oh and lets give it auto aim to !!! 8D
Cant imagine other things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
For me I feel like the reason they focus on crossbow for the artificer is because of all the ranged weapons, the crossbow is the only real mechanical weapon system.
I know my (kobold) artificer has his hand crossbow re-skinned into what he calls a "Clockwork Slingshooter". It is a gear driven slingshot that propels ball bearings at a high-speeds.
WAIT WAIT WAIT I realized one case in which the wands might have some relevance to your character flavour.
So let's say you're an Artillerist and your character style is a sort of runepriest/sigilist/rune scribe (probably cast with calligrapher's tools), you could cast with a wand and say you were tracing the runes related to the spells in the air with your wand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
Think about it you are an artillerist... Canons and firearms do not exist in current dnd. But wands serves as canons...
So basically you are shooting as BA with your turret then shoot your own canon (the wand) with your MA. Thats really not far fetched when you consider that a crossbow is far from bein part of an artillery. But a wand of fireball or any other spells for that matter might do it. Not saying thats what they aim for. But being what it is... I think the damage from both a wand and the turret makes for an interesting blasting combo.
Though i do agree that artificer should be more focused on technologie. Its hard to miss the fact that they are mages and scientist. Not steampunk tinkerers. I feel like most of you just want them to be steampunk oriented. For my part... The artificer is not a tinkerer, never was. I think it always was "the mage" that explain why you need such and such ingredients to make this and that object. I see them as mages who specialised in making magical objects of all kinds instead of focusing on a school like the others.
Thats why when i see you guys wanting canons and the likes... Im thinking... Hey theres a few steampunk guys or girls...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Where I am coming from is let there be a subclass which has more steampunk orientated features and one which has more magical blaster orientation When you mix both you make people make compromises on both sides. But as others point out I will probably just use crossbow and ignore the wand feature except for RP stuff.
Do you think there is design space for a pure Wandslinger subclass to fill the proper Eberron version of cantrip slingers? (As my above post showed I started home brewing one with the 6th level feature from Artillerist moved over)
Think about it you are an artillerist... Canons and firearms do not exist in current dnd. But wands serves as canons...
So basically you are shooting as BA with your turret then shoot your own canon (the wand) with your MA. Thats really not far fetched when you consider that a crossbow is far from bein part of an artillery. But a wand of fireball or any other spells for that matter might do it. Not saying thats what they aim for. But being what it is... I think the damage from both a wand and the turret makes for an interesting blasting combo.
Though i do agree that artificer should be more focused on technologie. Its hard to miss the fact that they are mages and scientist. Not steampunk tinkerers. I feel like most of you just want them to be steampunk oriented. For my part... The artificer is not a tinkerer, never was. I think it always was "the mage" that explain why you need such and such ingredients to make this and that object. I see them as mages who specialised in making magical objects of all kinds instead of focusing on a school like the others.
Thats why when i see you guys wanting canons and the likes... Im thinking... Hey theres a few steampunk guys or girls...
It doesn't necessarily need to be cannons. From what I'm seeing, a lot of people really just want the conceptual space of a Wand Crafting subclass to be a separate thing, something more like a cross between a Wand Slinger and Ollivander from Harry Potter.
The Artillerist itself is a sound concept with some really cool abilities, but it seems to tread between two different conceptual spaces. Those being a Magical Engineer from Team Fortress 2/Torbjorn from Overwatch and the meticulous Magical Foci crafter. I don't see why WoC couldn't turn the focus of the Artillerist onto suffusing a held magical ranged weapon (Crossbow, Gun, Bow, Sling, ect) with abilities (or create magical ammo on the fly to fire at enemies from behind cover) while still keeping its offensive/defensive flexibility and then moving the "Wand Prototype" ability onto a new subclass that focuses on creating the ultimate Magical Item (whether that be a wand, rod, or staff) to channel powerful offensive magic.
Also, about the steampunk thing. The Artificer is in a weird place where it can lean into anything from straight magical crafting to clockwork tinkering (I'm even playing a Simic Alchemist who makes exclusively Biomantic creations). Wanting a "Gunsmith" or a "Mechanist" subclass is totally valid, though those kind of subclasses will probably come later down the line since this content seems to coincide with the release of Eberron.
It doesn't necessarily need to be cannons. From what I'm seeing, a lot of people really just want the conceptual space of a Wand Crafting subclass to be a separate thing, something more like a cross between a Wand Slinger and Ollivander from Harry Potter.
The Artillerist itself is a sound concept with some really cool abilities, but it seems to tread between two different conceptual spaces. Those being a Magical Engineer from Team Fortress 2/Torbjorn from Overwatch and the meticulous Magical Foci crafter. I don't see why WoC couldn't turn the focus of the Artillerist onto suffusing a held magical ranged weapon (Crossbow, Gun, Bow, Sling, ect) with abilities (or create magical ammo on the fly to fire at enemies from behind cover) while still keeping its offensive/defensive flexibility and then moving the "Wand Prototype" ability onto a new subclass that focuses on creating the ultimate Magical Item (whether that be a wand, rod, or staff) to channel powerful offensive magic.
Also, about the steampunk thing. The Artificer is in a weird place where it can lean into anything from straight magical crafting to clockwork tinkering (I'm even playing a Simic Alchemist who makes exclusively Biomantic creations). Wanting a "Gunsmith" or a "Mechanist" subclass is totally valid, though those kind of subclasses will probably come later down the line since this content seems to coincide with the release of Eberron.
This has put it the best for me so far, when pulling from Eberron why not go all the way with a Wandslinger subclass?
An idea that's gonna be hated (and not without a good reason, I know), but here it goes:
Since Artificer is supposedly casting via tools and gizmos, what do you guys think about it being the only class (so far) to have spellcasting mechanics more akin to 3.5e (and earlier)? Namely - Vancian Magic, so preparing each "use" of a particular spell in advance, as opposed to just choosing it on the fly.
This way, Artificer could be even made into a full caster with 9 levels of spells, but a major drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to cast spells freely, being locked behind a set of spells pre-specified upon a long rest.
That'd go somewhat more in line with that whole crafting of magical items and machines, and casting through them, and shouldn't make the class overpowered, since their casting wouldn't be nearly as flexible as any other class'.
And a little corner here, for those unfamiliar with vancian magic: Basically, instead of having a list of spells that you can cast any spell from, using any spell slot you like, you'd have to prepare each spell individually, as many times as you'd like to use it.
Example: if you have 2 spell slots for 3rd level, and you'd like to cast Fireball twice, you'd have to prepare Fireball twice, and then you wouldn't be able to cast any other 3rd level spell, or you could prepare Fireball once, and Fly once etc.
An idea that's gonna be hated (and not without a good reason, I know), but here it goes:
Since Artificer is supposedly casting via tools and gizmos, what do you guys think about it being the only class (so far) to have spellcasting mechanics more akin to 3.5e (and earlier)? Namely - Vancian Magic, so preparing each "use" of a particular spell in advance, as opposed to just choosing it on the fly.
This way, Artificer could be even made into a full caster with 9 levels of spells, but a major drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to cast spells freely, being locked behind a set of spells pre-specified upon a long rest.
That'd go somewhat more in line with that whole crafting of magical items and machines, and casting through them, and shouldn't make the class overpowered, since their casting wouldn't be nearly as flexible as any other class'.
And a little corner here, for those unfamiliar with vancian magic: Basically, instead of having a list of spells that you can cast any spell from, using any spell slot you like, you'd have to prepare each spell individually, as many times as you'd like to use it.
Example: if you have 2 spell slots for 3rd level, and you'd like to cast Fireball twice, you'd have to prepare Fireball twice, and then you wouldn't be able to cast any other 3rd level spell, or you could prepare Fireball once, and Fly once etc.
Yeah it’s crazy to think this is how spellcasting used to work, although we were given more slots to compensate. I think it makes sense for the Artificer, but surely they must have considered it and discounted it.
Preparing spells that way was great for certain limitations of lmagic, but unfortunately has 3e demonstrated, this method of work only makes casting much worse. it is unfortunately not a small drawback, its a huge one. but for sake of immersion, this type of casting makes things much more interesting. i myself might force my players in the campaign to do it that way at some point. the biggest hurdle is that people are stuck trying to get the use out of versatile spells, and since they are... "not sure to be used because of special moments that may or may not happen" players, often decided to use only spells they knew for sure would be used, like fight spells or charms. opening doors and things like that was also a thing. unfortunately it is that very same thing that rendered players blind to other spells to begin with. why would i ever use control water if i am not near a water source or the ocean. so that spell ended up one of those maybe, but i preffer something else in the spot. so out of 350+ spells, the wizard had really only magic missiles prepared. which lead me to the second point of that one argument...
Spell Scrolls and the ability to store spell slots. in 3e everyone tryed to have high use magic device in order to be able to cast from scrolls. why wouldn't they, those scrolls were better then the wizard himself. wizard were stuck with preparing spells each morning, while spell scrolls could be crafted easily without any real cost and could be spell slots prepared in advance that would never be lost. thus rendering the vancian method useless to begin with. because mages could create these scrolls on the fly. this is why the method was left and never used again after 3e.
5e and vancian magic... in 5e, scrolls can only be read by a person who actually has the spell in his spell list. the rest cannot use it. this effectively diminsh by a lot the fact that scrolls are actual spell slots. but it also renders the scrolls unusable by say a rogue who wants to save his party. the chance of faillure optionnal rule of it, acts as a pseudo, everyone can use them and it makes things a bit better. that said, vancian magic in 5e would work very differently... since magic is more powerfull to begin with and component pouches are a necessity. it makes things correctly done. unfortunately arcane focus renders that pretty much useless. i think 5e was designed like this because of the fact that people hated the vancian method. they preffered to be prepared and have the options, then having to deal with visions of the future to try and know what they will need. on the old artificer version, this fact was shown again by the infusions. infusing a spell in a copper coin and giving it to someone tleling him to use it when needed, was genious in theory. but in not in practice. in practice you often just wasted the spell slot because nobody would use the darn thing. instead you'd use them yourself, and at that point why prepare. i preffer to have the option of casting. and i think thats why the idea is not stellar, because its a concept that was prooven good in immersion and realism, but bad in practice because of all the limitation and the fact that players had to be inside the DMs head to know whats gonna be hapenning.
for all those reasons, i think the method is a no go for me. i might retry that method at some point, because everyone use magic and it makes the game boring. but aside from that, i dont think its something my players will love. its definitely not a thing for everyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It definitely does make sense-- But it makes the class entry-level so much higher, and the in-game time devotion more as well. Finish a long rest and now you have reassign all of your slots. Erk.
Where I am coming from is let there be a subclass which has more steampunk orientated features and one which has more magical blaster orientation When you mix both you make people make compromises on both sides. But as others point out I will probably just use crossbow and ignore the wand feature except for RP stuff.
Do you think there is design space for a pure Wandslinger subclass to fill the proper Eberron version of cantrip slingers? (As my above post showed I started home brewing one with the 6th level feature from Artillerist moved over)
Jeremy said it often that this unarted arcana is not complete. these are just two archetypes out of a multitude thats coming next unearthed arcana. so its useless talking about archetypes now and why they keep only two, because they actually dont. clearly they want the artificer to come alive. and they want to add it to ebberon. so they are working right now to make it work and they actually want him to have a number of sub classes equals to the other classes. thatmeans about 4-5 archetypes for sure. i actually expect them to have at least 3 more on the next unearthed arcana.
now onto the point of the artillerist... he's a blaster, by definition a wand is blasting. and by D&D standards, wands have always been counted as a big gun, while the crossbow is kinda lack luster. thats my point. though i would like a crossbow firing energy waves instead of bolts. the problem i have with this, is that it basically could be any weapons. i'd also see the superior long bow doing the same. so why crossbows if not just to make it like a ribbon.
nah i like the turret more, i think the artillerist should focus on well, artillery ! the word itself means BFG. you dont talk about artillery for those shooting bows, you dont see the word used either for crossbows... it must means something and i think the turret is a step in the right direction. my problem is that i wouldn't see a wand either unless it is capable of shooting fireballs and AOE effects. cantrips just doesn't cut it for me. at that point i'd preffer them to focus more ont he turret and leave the wand out for another sub class. Golems and the likes are also viable and i cant wait to see what they will come up with next time. though we already have an exemple in prestige classes of 3e since most of the sub clases we have right now are all part of a 3e class or a prestige classs turned into a sub class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
now onto the point of the artillerist... he's a blaster, by definition a wand is blasting. and by D&D standards, wands have always been counted as a big gun, while the crossbow is kinda lack luster. thats my point. though i would like a crossbow firing energy waves instead of bolts. the problem i have with this, is that it basically could be any weapons. i'd also see the superior long bow doing the same. so why crossbows if not just to make it like a ribbon.
I just want to help on understanding my Point of View on this Artillery point.
The term "arbalest" is sometimes used interchangeably with "crossbow". Arbalest is a Medieval French word originating from the Roman name arcuballista (from arcus 'bow' + ballista'missile-throwing engine'), which was then used for crossbows, although originally used for types of artillery. Modern French uses the word arbalète, which is linguistically one step further from the stem (disappearance of the s phoneme in the last syllable, before t).
Mechanical systems used for throwing ammunition in ancient warfare, also known as "engines of war", like the catapult, onager, trebuchet, and ballista, are also referred to by military historians as artillery.
Given that DND is a medival based war game I do think these are appropriate applications of the term Artillerist. Crossbows not guns or cannons together with the turret Are appropriate applications of the Artillerist title in low magic DND setting. And has no problem fitting with the common magic setting of Forgotten Realms.
Been trying to think of a replacement for Wand Prototype for Artillerist.
This is weird, but what if you spent a bonus action to infuse your next shot of ammunition with your essence and then, once fired, can use it as a magical focus. Whether it hits an enemy or you may fire it into a wall, floor, etc. As long as your are 30 feet from the spent shot you may cast damaging cantrips and 1st level spells using it as a focus (thus granting you extra range and sight, potentially getting past an enemy's cover). You may also use this feature on a turret, instead. At level 14 you are able to cast the full range of your spells like this AND are are granted vision from the point of the focus.
Keeps the Artillerist as a bunker style blaster while also giving it some interesting utility by allowing for some interesting shenanigans. Huck a rock from your sling down a hall way, allowing you to see a group of 8 gnolls lying in wait around the bend. They are confused, gathering to look at the random rubble that just landed at there feet... you cast fireball.
An Artillerist specializes in using magic to create explosions and defensive positions, as well as magic-infused sidearms—especially wands— that can be used on the battlefield. Artillerists were valued by all the armies of the Last War. Tools of the Trade: By the time you adopt this specialty at 3rd level, you’re deeply familiar with employing its tools. Proficiencies. You gain proficiency with smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools, assuming you don’t already have them. You also gain those tools for free—the result of tinkering you’ve done as you’ve prepared for this specialization. In addition, you gain the ability to use rods, staffs, and wands as spellcasting focuses for your artificer spells. You also gain a non-magical, wooden wand for free, which you’ve carved in your spare time.
Crafting. If you craft a magic item in the wand category, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold.
LEVEL 6 You gain the following
Wand Prototype By 6th level, you now regularly experiment with channeling different types of magic through wands. Whenever you finish a long rest and your woodcarver’s tools are with you, you can touch a non-magical, wooden wand and turn it into a magic item. When you do so, you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier (other creatures are unable to use the wand’s magic). The wand loses this magic when you finish your next long rest. Any damage roll you make for a cantrip in the wand gains a bonus equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).
When you reach 14th level in this class, you can invest the wand with two cantrips at the end of a long rest.
While this does give the Artillerist a history of wands, rods and staves being the only subclass of the Artificer that can use them as an arcane focus. The wording in the 6th level description is really pushing the idea of using the wand for damage, where instead I feel it should in actuality just grant another cantrip and focus more on granting the Artillerist 6 total cantrips compared to the Alchemists 4 total. The bonus to damage is just that a bonus, I just feel it pulls focus away from crossbows. As the Artillerist is the "Damage" subclass and the Alchemist is the "Healing" or "Support" subclass. The Artillerist should stick with a crossbow as its damage output with turrets and its damage focused spell list. If they have to fallback on the wand for damage if they run out of crossbow bolts. I also just wish the turret lasted longer than its 10 minute time limit, which would be a good reason for the Artillerist to actually take the Mending cantrip. Which at this point I feel is better for the Alchemist.
now onto the point of the artillerist... he's a blaster, by definition a wand is blasting. and by D&D standards, wands have always been counted as a big gun, while the crossbow is kinda lack luster. thats my point. though i would like a crossbow firing energy waves instead of bolts. the problem i have with this, is that it basically could be any weapons. i'd also see the superior long bow doing the same. so why crossbows if not just to make it like a ribbon.
I just want to help on understanding my Point of View on this Artillery point.
The term "arbalest" is sometimes used interchangeably with "crossbow". Arbalest is a Medieval French word originating from the Roman name arcuballista (from arcus 'bow' + ballista'missile-throwing engine'), which was then used for crossbows, although originally used for types of artillery. Modern French uses the word arbalète, which is linguistically one step further from the stem (disappearance of the s phoneme in the last syllable, before t).
Mechanical systems used for throwing ammunition in ancient warfare, also known as "engines of war", like the catapult, onager, trebuchet, and ballista, are also referred to by military historians as artillery.
Given that DND is a medival based war game I do think these are appropriate applications of the term Artillerist. Crossbows not guns or cannons together with the turret Are appropriate applications of the Artillerist title in low magic DND setting. And has no problem fitting with the common magic setting of Forgotten Realms.
sure... why not, old weapons of old considered artillery... still while many thinks the ballista was ust an overgrown crossbow.. it is definitely not the same, as crossbows were small, portable and definitely not as mechanicals. crossbows were always loaded manually. while ballistas were not. they were too big for transport and they had many a system involved to make up for their size. thats the whole point of calling it artillery. since you dont seem to know what BFG means... i'll tell it... "Big ******* Gun" thats what it means. look closely at your artillery and see for yourself that crossbows aren't part of it. may it be medieval or not. crossbows aren't engines of war material. they are not artillery. Artillery were engines as mentionned by yourself, that were way too big for people to load manually or too big for transport. they were big machines that could literally change the battlefield.
sorry, but i dont see a crossbow changing the battlefield... but hey, think what you want... the only thing you successfully did was show me that artillerist should go bigger then crossbows.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
sorry, but i dont see a crossbow changing the battlefield...
Devil’s advocate here, but that’s less than a lack of imagination, in a game that leans heavily into it. I disagree with above posts though that speak towards historical accuracy and ‘how something *was* done’. We spend our recreations plodding along landscapes that defy ‘how something was’ or historical accuracy. Guns alongside wands, gods meddling in affairs of mortals, titans walk... if you are able to shuffle all of this into a view of the game but absolutely unable to reconcile a repeater crossbow that is as effective as a gun, that’s not lack of imagination but adversity to difference.
With feats (and proficiency) it’s more than possible to change a battlefield with a crossbow, especially one held by an artificer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No problem I am probably still going that route for feedback but am glad you are happy with it. And if not swayed no problem, will see how the survey feedback sways WoTC as there can of course be multiple sides.
The turret to me just feel more mechanical, even if the power source is magical. More like a walking crossbow / flamethrower. And most of the flexibility you listed could as easily happen by ignoring the crossbow features as you would now ignore the wand feature if using sword and shield.
All I am advocating for is more wand features in another subclass as we don’t have something that feels good enough to feel like a master of wands.
I got this major idea !!!
How about we give 3 levels to the turret. If you whack it with a hammer it gains levels while being repaired and if it gets to level 3 it becomes hyper active with defense and powerful attacks ! Oh and lets give it auto aim to !!! 8D
Cant imagine other things.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
For me I feel like the reason they focus on crossbow for the artificer is because of all the ranged weapons, the crossbow is the only real mechanical weapon system.
I know my (kobold) artificer has his hand crossbow re-skinned into what he calls a "Clockwork Slingshooter". It is a gear driven slingshot that propels ball bearings at a high-speeds.
WAIT WAIT WAIT I realized one case in which the wands might have some relevance to your character flavour.
So let's say you're an Artillerist and your character style is a sort of runepriest/sigilist/rune scribe (probably cast with calligrapher's tools), you could cast with a wand and say you were tracing the runes related to the spells in the air with your wand.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
Also, the Artificer still isn't appearing on D&D Beyond. Where is it?!
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
You have to enable Playtest Content when you create a character.
Additionally, I think it is also lost that you can use the prototype wand as a spell focus for all of your spells.
For all those who think the wand is random...
Think about it you are an artillerist... Canons and firearms do not exist in current dnd. But wands serves as canons...
So basically you are shooting as BA with your turret then shoot your own canon (the wand) with your MA. Thats really not far fetched when you consider that a crossbow is far from bein part of an artillery. But a wand of fireball or any other spells for that matter might do it. Not saying thats what they aim for. But being what it is... I think the damage from both a wand and the turret makes for an interesting blasting combo.
Though i do agree that artificer should be more focused on technologie. Its hard to miss the fact that they are mages and scientist. Not steampunk tinkerers. I feel like most of you just want them to be steampunk oriented. For my part... The artificer is not a tinkerer, never was. I think it always was "the mage" that explain why you need such and such ingredients to make this and that object. I see them as mages who specialised in making magical objects of all kinds instead of focusing on a school like the others.
Thats why when i see you guys wanting canons and the likes... Im thinking... Hey theres a few steampunk guys or girls...
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Where I am coming from is let there be a subclass which has more steampunk orientated features and one which has more magical blaster orientation When you mix both you make people make compromises on both sides. But as others point out I will probably just use crossbow and ignore the wand feature except for RP stuff.
Do you think there is design space for a pure Wandslinger subclass to fill the proper Eberron version of cantrip slingers? (As my above post showed I started home brewing one with the 6th level feature from Artillerist moved over)
It doesn't necessarily need to be cannons. From what I'm seeing, a lot of people really just want the conceptual space of a Wand Crafting subclass to be a separate thing, something more like a cross between a Wand Slinger and Ollivander from Harry Potter.
The Artillerist itself is a sound concept with some really cool abilities, but it seems to tread between two different conceptual spaces. Those being a Magical Engineer from Team Fortress 2/Torbjorn from Overwatch and the meticulous Magical Foci crafter. I don't see why WoC couldn't turn the focus of the Artillerist onto suffusing a held magical ranged weapon (Crossbow, Gun, Bow, Sling, ect) with abilities (or create magical ammo on the fly to fire at enemies from behind cover) while still keeping its offensive/defensive flexibility and then moving the "Wand Prototype" ability onto a new subclass that focuses on creating the ultimate Magical Item (whether that be a wand, rod, or staff) to channel powerful offensive magic.
Also, about the steampunk thing. The Artificer is in a weird place where it can lean into anything from straight magical crafting to clockwork tinkering (I'm even playing a Simic Alchemist who makes exclusively Biomantic creations). Wanting a "Gunsmith" or a "Mechanist" subclass is totally valid, though those kind of subclasses will probably come later down the line since this content seems to coincide with the release of Eberron.
This has put it the best for me so far, when pulling from Eberron why not go all the way with a Wandslinger subclass?
An idea that's gonna be hated (and not without a good reason, I know), but here it goes:
Since Artificer is supposedly casting via tools and gizmos, what do you guys think about it being the only class (so far) to have spellcasting mechanics more akin to 3.5e (and earlier)? Namely - Vancian Magic, so preparing each "use" of a particular spell in advance, as opposed to just choosing it on the fly.
This way, Artificer could be even made into a full caster with 9 levels of spells, but a major drawback would be that they wouldn't be able to cast spells freely, being locked behind a set of spells pre-specified upon a long rest.
That'd go somewhat more in line with that whole crafting of magical items and machines, and casting through them, and shouldn't make the class overpowered, since their casting wouldn't be nearly as flexible as any other class'.
And a little corner here, for those unfamiliar with vancian magic: Basically, instead of having a list of spells that you can cast any spell from, using any spell slot you like, you'd have to prepare each spell individually, as many times as you'd like to use it.
Example: if you have 2 spell slots for 3rd level, and you'd like to cast Fireball twice, you'd have to prepare Fireball twice, and then you wouldn't be able to cast any other 3rd level spell, or you could prepare Fireball once, and Fly once etc.
Multiclass Warlock enthusiast.
Yeah it’s crazy to think this is how spellcasting used to work, although we were given more slots to compensate. I think it makes sense for the Artificer, but surely they must have considered it and discounted it.
Preparing spells that way was great for certain limitations of lmagic, but unfortunately has 3e demonstrated, this method of work only makes casting much worse. it is unfortunately not a small drawback, its a huge one. but for sake of immersion, this type of casting makes things much more interesting. i myself might force my players in the campaign to do it that way at some point. the biggest hurdle is that people are stuck trying to get the use out of versatile spells, and since they are... "not sure to be used because of special moments that may or may not happen" players, often decided to use only spells they knew for sure would be used, like fight spells or charms. opening doors and things like that was also a thing. unfortunately it is that very same thing that rendered players blind to other spells to begin with. why would i ever use control water if i am not near a water source or the ocean. so that spell ended up one of those maybe, but i preffer something else in the spot. so out of 350+ spells, the wizard had really only magic missiles prepared. which lead me to the second point of that one argument...
Spell Scrolls and the ability to store spell slots.
in 3e everyone tryed to have high use magic device in order to be able to cast from scrolls. why wouldn't they, those scrolls were better then the wizard himself. wizard were stuck with preparing spells each morning, while spell scrolls could be crafted easily without any real cost and could be spell slots prepared in advance that would never be lost. thus rendering the vancian method useless to begin with. because mages could create these scrolls on the fly. this is why the method was left and never used again after 3e.
5e and vancian magic...
in 5e, scrolls can only be read by a person who actually has the spell in his spell list. the rest cannot use it. this effectively diminsh by a lot the fact that scrolls are actual spell slots. but it also renders the scrolls unusable by say a rogue who wants to save his party. the chance of faillure optionnal rule of it, acts as a pseudo, everyone can use them and it makes things a bit better. that said, vancian magic in 5e would work very differently... since magic is more powerfull to begin with and component pouches are a necessity. it makes things correctly done. unfortunately arcane focus renders that pretty much useless. i think 5e was designed like this because of the fact that people hated the vancian method. they preffered to be prepared and have the options, then having to deal with visions of the future to try and know what they will need. on the old artificer version, this fact was shown again by the infusions. infusing a spell in a copper coin and giving it to someone tleling him to use it when needed, was genious in theory. but in not in practice. in practice you often just wasted the spell slot because nobody would use the darn thing. instead you'd use them yourself, and at that point why prepare. i preffer to have the option of casting. and i think thats why the idea is not stellar, because its a concept that was prooven good in immersion and realism, but bad in practice because of all the limitation and the fact that players had to be inside the DMs head to know whats gonna be hapenning.
for all those reasons, i think the method is a no go for me.
i might retry that method at some point, because everyone use magic and it makes the game boring. but aside from that, i dont think its something my players will love. its definitely not a thing for everyone.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It definitely does make sense-- But it makes the class entry-level so much higher, and the in-game time devotion more as well. Finish a long rest and now you have reassign all of your slots. Erk.
Jeremy said it often that this unarted arcana is not complete. these are just two archetypes out of a multitude thats coming next unearthed arcana.
so its useless talking about archetypes now and why they keep only two, because they actually dont. clearly they want the artificer to come alive. and they want to add it to ebberon. so they are working right now to make it work and they actually want him to have a number of sub classes equals to the other classes. thatmeans about 4-5 archetypes for sure. i actually expect them to have at least 3 more on the next unearthed arcana.
now onto the point of the artillerist...
he's a blaster, by definition a wand is blasting. and by D&D standards, wands have always been counted as a big gun, while the crossbow is kinda lack luster.
thats my point. though i would like a crossbow firing energy waves instead of bolts. the problem i have with this, is that it basically could be any weapons. i'd also see the superior long bow doing the same. so why crossbows if not just to make it like a ribbon.
nah i like the turret more, i think the artillerist should focus on well, artillery ! the word itself means BFG. you dont talk about artillery for those shooting bows, you dont see the word used either for crossbows... it must means something and i think the turret is a step in the right direction. my problem is that i wouldn't see a wand either unless it is capable of shooting fireballs and AOE effects. cantrips just doesn't cut it for me. at that point i'd preffer them to focus more ont he turret and leave the wand out for another sub class. Golems and the likes are also viable and i cant wait to see what they will come up with next time. though we already have an exemple in prestige classes of 3e since most of the sub clases we have right now are all part of a 3e class or a prestige classs turned into a sub class.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I just want to help on understanding my Point of View on this Artillery point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbalest
The term "arbalest" is sometimes used interchangeably with "crossbow". Arbalest is a Medieval French word originating from the Roman name arcuballista (from arcus 'bow' + ballista'missile-throwing engine'), which was then used for crossbows, although originally used for types of artillery. Modern French uses the word arbalète, which is linguistically one step further from the stem (disappearance of the s phoneme in the last syllable, before t).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery
Mechanical systems used for throwing ammunition in ancient warfare, also known as "engines of war", like the catapult, onager, trebuchet, and ballista, are also referred to by military historians as artillery.
Given that DND is a medival based war game I do think these are appropriate applications of the term Artillerist. Crossbows not guns or cannons together with the turret Are appropriate applications of the Artillerist title in low magic DND setting. And has no problem fitting with the common magic setting of Forgotten Realms.
Been trying to think of a replacement for Wand Prototype for Artillerist.
This is weird, but what if you spent a bonus action to infuse your next shot of ammunition with your essence and then, once fired, can use it as a magical focus. Whether it hits an enemy or you may fire it into a wall, floor, etc. As long as your are 30 feet from the spent shot you may cast damaging cantrips and 1st level spells using it as a focus (thus granting you extra range and sight, potentially getting past an enemy's cover). You may also use this feature on a turret, instead. At level 14 you are able to cast the full range of your spells like this AND are are granted vision from the point of the focus.
Keeps the Artillerist as a bunker style blaster while also giving it some interesting utility by allowing for some interesting shenanigans. Huck a rock from your sling down a hall way, allowing you to see a group of 8 gnolls lying in wait around the bend. They are confused, gathering to look at the random rubble that just landed at there feet... you cast fireball.
LEVEL 3 you gain the following
An Artillerist specializes in using magic to create explosions and defensive positions, as well as magic-infused sidearms—especially wands— that can be used on the battlefield. Artillerists were valued by all the armies of the Last War.
Tools of the Trade: By the time you adopt this specialty at 3rd level, you’re deeply familiar with employing its tools. Proficiencies. You gain proficiency with smith’s tools and woodcarver’s tools, assuming you don’t already have them. You also gain those tools for free—the result of tinkering you’ve done as you’ve prepared for this specialization. In addition, you gain the ability to use rods, staffs, and wands as spellcasting focuses for your artificer spells. You also gain a non-magical, wooden wand for free, which you’ve carved in your spare time.
Crafting. If you craft a magic item in the wand category, it takes you a quarter of the normal time, and it costs you half as much of the usual gold.
LEVEL 6 You gain the following
Wand Prototype
By 6th level, you now regularly experiment with channeling different types of magic through wands. Whenever you finish a long rest and your woodcarver’s tools are with you, you can touch a non-magical, wooden wand and turn it into a magic item. When you do so, you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier (other creatures are unable to use the wand’s magic). The wand loses this magic when you finish your next long rest. Any damage roll you make for a cantrip in the wand gains a bonus equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).
When you reach 14th level in this class, you can invest the wand with two cantrips at the end of a long rest.
While this does give the Artillerist a history of wands, rods and staves being the only subclass of the Artificer that can use them as an arcane focus. The wording in the 6th level description is really pushing the idea of using the wand for damage, where instead I feel it should in actuality just grant another cantrip and focus more on granting the Artillerist 6 total cantrips compared to the Alchemists 4 total. The bonus to damage is just that a bonus, I just feel it pulls focus away from crossbows. As the Artillerist is the "Damage" subclass and the Alchemist is the "Healing" or "Support" subclass. The Artillerist should stick with a crossbow as its damage output with turrets and its damage focused spell list. If they have to fallback on the wand for damage if they run out of crossbow bolts. I also just wish the turret lasted longer than its 10 minute time limit, which would be a good reason for the Artillerist to actually take the Mending cantrip. Which at this point I feel is better for the Alchemist.
sure... why not, old weapons of old considered artillery... still while many thinks the ballista was ust an overgrown crossbow.. it is definitely not the same, as crossbows were small, portable and definitely not as mechanicals. crossbows were always loaded manually. while ballistas were not. they were too big for transport and they had many a system involved to make up for their size. thats the whole point of calling it artillery. since you dont seem to know what BFG means... i'll tell it... "Big ******* Gun" thats what it means. look closely at your artillery and see for yourself that crossbows aren't part of it. may it be medieval or not. crossbows aren't engines of war material. they are not artillery. Artillery were engines as mentionned by yourself, that were way too big for people to load manually or too big for transport. they were big machines that could literally change the battlefield.
sorry, but i dont see a crossbow changing the battlefield...
but hey, think what you want... the only thing you successfully did was show me that artillerist should go bigger then crossbows.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Devil’s advocate here, but that’s less than a lack of imagination, in a game that leans heavily into it. I disagree with above posts though that speak towards historical accuracy and ‘how something *was* done’. We spend our recreations plodding along landscapes that defy ‘how something was’ or historical accuracy. Guns alongside wands, gods meddling in affairs of mortals, titans walk... if you are able to shuffle all of this into a view of the game but absolutely unable to reconcile a repeater crossbow that is as effective as a gun, that’s not lack of imagination but adversity to difference.
With feats (and proficiency) it’s more than possible to change a battlefield with a crossbow, especially one held by an artificer.