I agree this is good solution also, especially if one of your players is looking for it, I see nothing wrong with going down that path.
However I am definitely of the opinion that the Artificer is enough for a full class. I mean giving a subclass Flexible Cantrips, Infusions/Replicate Magic Item, Spellstoring and Superior Attunement would be way too much. And all of the above (except maybe Cantrips) really drive home the feeling of being Artificery. After that the question is if you can come up with enough Subclass themes to fill enough of a roster, which WoTC is trying and almost succeeding to do, and others have easily done this on Reddit.
PS. It has been almost 5 years now since 5e released with no expansion on new classes, we can’t expect everything to be covered by just the 12 core. And if we wanted to we could go down the rabbit hole of make each of them subclasses of others, like a Monk as a fighter with fist and ki features, or easy enough to make Hunter and Beastmaster be Fighter Archetypes. Personally I see enough space for Artificer, Psionics and a Summoner as nothing does those themes justice yet.
This is probably where we differ in opinion though. i believe in 5 years of playing 5e that i could actually do everything with the current 12 classes. as an exemple... Artificer to me is nothing more then a variant wizard. at that point i can just create a class with crafting in mind and that would be it. the only reason you feel like it deserve more, is because you are seeing wizard add more to it. but if you think correctly, the only reason they are adding more is that the first Archetype artificer we had, which they totally wanted to do, was shut down by the masses as being no, it must be a class of its own. basically, wizard wanted the artificer to be an archetype at first, but since the public shut it down they are forced to check for more, thats why you are seeing more. to me it is simple concepts. that can easily be aded to an archetype. more so, an artificer in ebberon is literally just a wizard but more mechanical. the reason ebberon needed artificer, was that the author didn't want simple magic, he wanted people with creativity creating magic. and literally replaced the wizards with artificer in ebberon. this is something i could do to all classes if you think about it.
the psionic i have done often, there are many spells already int he spell lists of things that gives the impression of spionics. if you look at all psionics in the current monsters database, you'll see that all of them have "innate spellcasting" and all of them have spell like abilities. i've already done plenty of psionics in my world and my players have all been liking them as such.
as for the summonner... well i'd have to refer you to my pokemon trainer build. which is a 20th level character with literally a bag of creatures, many spells of summonning and the conjurer wizard as well as some levels of rangers. conjurers are literally able to be done as is.
feels to me like the problem is not from creating a class, but giving what people want ablity wise. and thats a problem cause there are as many abilities as there are people. even if the artificer comes out as a great class, people will still continu to say they want more out of it. there will be no end to what people will ask of it. you can already see this by the number of different artificer that exists out there. many people are right with them, but are not with others.
to me, if something do not exists and i want it, i simply ask mysefl, can an archetype do it ? more then enought he answer is yes. because the goal of 5e is not to have many classes, it is to have the core classes and then expend upon them by adding archetypes. when you look at it, we already have everything in the core classes. the rest is from everything that everyone can do. including crafting and the likes.
so to me, everything can be done byt he basic classes. they were designed to be all around. the last thing i want is for 5e to be like 3e and have like 1500 classes including prestiges and the likes. the more i check people trying to create classes, the more i see them just adding tons more abilities then the basic classes and often then not, what i see on the net is literally making the core classes useless.
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)
I appreciate that POV and I think a majority do hold the view that archetype can do everything. But I think the limit they drew is very arbitrary: Why does Monk or Ranger deserve to be classes but not Artificer or Summoner.
Everything can be half arsed by a current archetype but nothing does Summoner well enough, just pretending to be a summoner by choosing the most summoner spells is good but just a shadow. And arbitrarily keeping the limit at 12 classes chosen without a true reason is strange to me.
If something doesn’t exist just ask if it can be covered by an archetype? But did you ever ask yourself if the current classes could be archetypes of other core class?
I don’t ask for 1000s just enough design space for some more powerful features like Replicate Magic Item, double concentration, or Super pets Eidolons. Each of which would be maximum that a subclass could afford and not mixing many together.
Why doesn't it let me create an Artificer subclass in the homebrew classes? I find it odd that it'll let you create a subclass for Blood Hunter, but not Artificer.
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.
@irrelevant_ibis It's probably because the Artificer is Unearthed Arcana and liable to see changes, which potentially could be drastic. It would make sense for them to wait and see how this iteration goes before committing development time and resources to a class that could potentially be different the next time we see it.
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
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)
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
3rd edition only had 11 base classes, 13 if you include the psion and psychic warrior (both in the SRD for 3e). If the psion could be in the 3e SRD, why not the mystic or artificer for 5e? Pathfinder had the alchemist as a base class, which is close enough to the artificer that you could make the argument for it being a base class based on tradition.
If you want to go the tradition route, why not go back to Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting Man? "This is how it used to be" is no argument for anything.
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
3rd edition only had 11 base classes, 13 if you include the psion and psychic warrior (both in the SRD for 3e). If the psion could be in the 3e SRD, why not the mystic or artificer for 5e? Pathfinder had the alchemist as a base class, which is close enough to the artificer that you could make the argument for it being a base class based on tradition.
If you want to go the tradition route, why not go back to Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting Man? "This is how it used to be" is no argument for anything.
As well as adding things from a company who has nothing to do with d&d. My point is... They wanted to be generic and then become specialised with talent trees. They also could of just took cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard then everything in talent trees for anything else.
So yeah... Try to design your own game and see for yourself how hard it is to do things. Also see how everyone judges you for thing you done that are completely out of context. Thats what they contend with. Its not because you think that way that they do. And were not the ones making the game ! To me based on what jeremy said often and same with mike mearls... I really dont see the artificer as a full class and i think the 2 years of waiting for you to get a full class is proof that it wasnt all that easy to create.
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)
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
3rd edition only had 11 base classes, 13 if you include the psion and psychic warrior (both in the SRD for 3e). If the psion could be in the 3e SRD, why not the mystic or artificer for 5e? Pathfinder had the alchemist as a base class, which is close enough to the artificer that you could make the argument for it being a base class based on tradition.
If you want to go the tradition route, why not go back to Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting Man? "This is how it used to be" is no argument for anything.
As well as adding things from a company who has nothing to do with d&d. My point is... They wanted to be generic and then become specialised with talent trees. They also could of just took cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard then everything in talent trees for anything else.
So yeah... Try to design your own game and see for yourself how hard it is to do things. Also see how everyone judges you for thing you done that are completely out of context. Thats what they contend with. Its not because you think that way that they do. And were not the ones making the game ! To me based on what jeremy said often and same with mike mearls... I really dont see the artificer as a full class and i think the 2 years of waiting for you to get a full class is proof that it wasnt all that easy to create.
First of all, Pathfinder does not have nothing to do with DnD. The entire point was that it was backwards compatible with 3.5e DnD. It's close enough that it doesn't matter. Second, that's not at all the point I was making. The point I was making was that if the psion was a base class in 3e, why couldn't it be now. Same with the artificer/alchemist in Pathfinder. If it was a full class in a previous edition, or a game so close that there's no significant difference, why couldn't it be done in 5e. My other point was to look at the warlock. That wasn't a 3e core class, it was an uncommon alternative class, but it was a core class in 5e. The artificer was also an alternative class in 3e (in case you don't like pathfinder), and much more commonly used (at least in my experience) than the warlock.
My post was made to correct you saying that they wanted the core 3e classes in 5e, which was decidedly not true.
Also, the problem they were having with making the artificer a full class was not a lack of content, but a difficulty to pare down the complex existing content to a less complex form suitable for 5e play.
No clue on when it's coming; I'm fine with the wait, I just wish they could give a bit of an ETA. As far as subclasses go, I would really like to see a Wandslinger subclass since they are using the Eberron setting for inspiration (and also because the section on wandslingers in the Eberron sourcebook is extremely lackluster).
Also, a question for everyone: since Arcane Armament has been mentioned as being likely to be moved out as a main class feature, what would folks think about it becoming an Infusion instead of a subclass feature? I realize that may be a bit similar to the Thirsting Blade invocation for Warlocks (and could be more op than I'm considering) but I've been thinking that might be a cool way to implement it.
No clue on when it's coming; I'm fine with the wait, I just wish they could give a bit of an ETA. As far as subclasses go, I would really like to see a Wandslinger subclass since they are using the Eberron setting for inspiration (and also because the section on wandslingers in the Eberron sourcebook is extremely lackluster).
Also, a question for everyone: since Arcane Armament has been mentioned as being likely to be moved out as a main class feature, what would folks think about it becoming an Infusion instead of a subclass feature? I realize that may be a bit similar to the Thirsting Blade invocation for Warlocks (and could be more op than I'm considering) but I've been thinking that might be a cool way to implement it.
I feel like Arcane Armament is more of an offensive subclass feature (like in Artillerist, or what ever name they hopefully change it to).
So I must say, Im now 25 hours deep, (half way through level 6 to level 8) in playing my Alchemist (Plague Doctor/Field Medic flavour) and I am LOVING how its working now since the upgrade from '17 to '19. Naturally, theres the bumps that everyone has mentioned (i miss the alchemical sachtell and losing superior attunement sucks) but I'm very happy with it. Looking forward to an expanded spell list, some more invoca... I mean, infusion and the survey. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired) Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
Wizards of the Coast are taking more of a, "It's ready when it's ready" approach now, which has to be better than feeling they're forced to release UA content on a monthly basis.
Yeah every time I think about it I first compare to YouTube channels, which always say a steady stream of scheduled. Content is the most important. And I think UA would probably get more of a dedicated following if they did that, in the style of pre Xanathars subclass releases. But then I fully realised UA has no effect on how many people will play DND, those who were will and those who can’t still can’t. It’s only important to us tiny subset that enjoy theorycrafting even without active games.
I think EA is kind of integral to the feel of the class or subclass, but could see it going that way seeing as Invocations are our closest comparison, but if I remember correctly one of the bigger complaints of Bladelock is the amount of Invocation tax involved, I know this is just one Infusion but it would be better not to go down that path if avoidable.
But take my message with a grain of salt as I am obviously biased to my suggested solution. Split all subclasses into Martial (Artillerist) or Spellslinger (Alchemist) and give one half Extra Attack and give the other Dual Cast.
“Beginning at 5th level, whenever you spend your Action to cast an Artificer Cantrip, you can cast a second (different?) Artificer Cantrip as part of the same Action.”
Yeah every time I think about it I first compare to YouTube channels, which always say a steady stream of scheduled. Content is the most important. And I think UA would probably get more of a dedicated following if they did that, in the style of pre Xanathars subclass releases. But then I fully realised UA has no effect on how many people will play DND, those who were will and those who can’t still can’t. It’s only important to us tiny subset that enjoy theorycrafting even without active games.
Thats why next to no youtube channels lives more then 3 months. Having had a channel myself i can tell you... Putting content on a simple week basis is tiresome to a crisp. Having a job as well pushes you into doing that and youtube and nothing else.
Once a month for content means they develop everyday. Sorry but wotc do not has the staff for that. Nor do they want the staff for that kind of stuff. You also have to realise they are literally 2 years in advance to us all. While you wait for the next book. They are finishing it and working on the next thus they are literally already overloaded with stuff.
Believe me when i say they cannot work faster then this and its better for them to take their time then setting an eta. Not to mention that when you give an eta... People bashes you because all they care is content and do not take anything into account. So yeah... Its preferable not to put any hype on something that is not gonna be official.
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)
Yup that is kind of the point, though this is their job in part. We all keep hoping that they will try focus on UA as the stop gap solution to waiting 4-6 months between books (and 1-2 years between books with subclasses)
As you say if UA was a YouTube channel it would have failed. But then again this is more like Blizzard’s YouTube channel, why bother? They have a real cash cow instead.
and yet you didn't understand what i am saying... they are 2 years in front of us. meaning they dont have 1-2 books done that they are working on, but 4-5 ! and last year we didn't get 1-2 books, we got like 4. they definitely decided to up the number of books per years since last year. last year, we got 2 adventures and 2 books that gave player options.
so yeah, thats what im saying... you guys will always never have enough. so why bother trying to keep you in the loop when you clearly dont care about the loop and just want more stuff for your own campaign. as i said, its better for them not to give any hype for something since its not worth it. i dont hype myself for new subclasses of artificers or heck the shitty psionics you all want. i preffer good stuff, good stuff they have taken the time to develop and if its time consuming and they prefffer to keep it in the dark, then im fine with it. that way i dont hype myself for things that might not even come or be dumped later on.
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)
Good point, never researched the actual book release schedule so didn’t see the speed up last year. Happy to concede that point, and understand but lament that there isn’t a focus on UA as a pillar of release schedule, as it gets some hate and not lots of money.
I agree this is good solution also, especially if one of your players is looking for it, I see nothing wrong with going down that path.
However I am definitely of the opinion that the Artificer is enough for a full class. I mean giving a subclass Flexible Cantrips, Infusions/Replicate Magic Item, Spellstoring and Superior Attunement would be way too much. And all of the above (except maybe Cantrips) really drive home the feeling of being Artificery. After that the question is if you can come up with enough Subclass themes to fill enough of a roster, which WoTC is trying and almost succeeding to do, and others have easily done this on Reddit.
PS. It has been almost 5 years now since 5e released with no expansion on new classes, we can’t expect everything to be covered by just the 12 core. And if we wanted to we could go down the rabbit hole of make each of them subclasses of others, like a Monk as a fighter with fist and ki features, or easy enough to make Hunter and Beastmaster be Fighter Archetypes. Personally I see enough space for Artificer, Psionics and a Summoner as nothing does those themes justice yet.
This is probably where we differ in opinion though. i believe in 5 years of playing 5e that i could actually do everything with the current 12 classes. as an exemple... Artificer to me is nothing more then a variant wizard. at that point i can just create a class with crafting in mind and that would be it. the only reason you feel like it deserve more, is because you are seeing wizard add more to it. but if you think correctly, the only reason they are adding more is that the first Archetype artificer we had, which they totally wanted to do, was shut down by the masses as being no, it must be a class of its own. basically, wizard wanted the artificer to be an archetype at first, but since the public shut it down they are forced to check for more, thats why you are seeing more. to me it is simple concepts. that can easily be aded to an archetype. more so, an artificer in ebberon is literally just a wizard but more mechanical. the reason ebberon needed artificer, was that the author didn't want simple magic, he wanted people with creativity creating magic. and literally replaced the wizards with artificer in ebberon. this is something i could do to all classes if you think about it.
the psionic i have done often, there are many spells already int he spell lists of things that gives the impression of spionics. if you look at all psionics in the current monsters database, you'll see that all of them have "innate spellcasting" and all of them have spell like abilities. i've already done plenty of psionics in my world and my players have all been liking them as such.
as for the summonner... well i'd have to refer you to my pokemon trainer build. which is a 20th level character with literally a bag of creatures, many spells of summonning and the conjurer wizard as well as some levels of rangers. conjurers are literally able to be done as is.
feels to me like the problem is not from creating a class, but giving what people want ablity wise. and thats a problem cause there are as many abilities as there are people. even if the artificer comes out as a great class, people will still continu to say they want more out of it. there will be no end to what people will ask of it. you can already see this by the number of different artificer that exists out there. many people are right with them, but are not with others.
to me, if something do not exists and i want it, i simply ask mysefl, can an archetype do it ?
more then enought he answer is yes. because the goal of 5e is not to have many classes, it is to have the core classes and then expend upon them by adding archetypes. when you look at it, we already have everything in the core classes. the rest is from everything that everyone can do. including crafting and the likes.
so to me, everything can be done byt he basic classes. they were designed to be all around.
the last thing i want is for 5e to be like 3e and have like 1500 classes including prestiges and the likes.
the more i check people trying to create classes, the more i see them just adding tons more abilities then the basic classes and often then not, what i see on the net is literally making the core classes useless.
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 appreciate that POV and I think a majority do hold the view that archetype can do everything. But I think the limit they drew is very arbitrary: Why does Monk or Ranger deserve to be classes but not Artificer or Summoner.
Everything can be half arsed by a current archetype but nothing does Summoner well enough, just pretending to be a summoner by choosing the most summoner spells is good but just a shadow. And arbitrarily keeping the limit at 12 classes chosen without a true reason is strange to me.
If something doesn’t exist just ask if it can be covered by an archetype? But did you ever ask yourself if the current classes could be archetypes of other core class?
I don’t ask for 1000s just enough design space for some more powerful features like Replicate Magic Item, double concentration, or Super pets Eidolons. Each of which would be maximum that a subclass could afford and not mixing many together.
Why doesn't it let me create an Artificer subclass in the homebrew classes? I find it odd that it'll let you create a subclass for Blood Hunter, but not Artificer.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
@irrelevant_ibis It's probably because the Artificer is Unearthed Arcana and liable to see changes, which potentially could be drastic. It would make sense for them to wait and see how this iteration goes before committing development time and resources to a class that could potentially be different the next time we see it.
@arutha then again the same could be said about your summoner class. The thing is it can all be said the same which reinforce the fact that you are the one seeing it that way for your own reasons. In a sense it is not arbitrary considering it was the original 12 classes of 3e they just wanted that core back. Its not because you dont see their point that they had none !
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)
Fair enough to each their own.
3rd edition only had 11 base classes, 13 if you include the psion and psychic warrior (both in the SRD for 3e). If the psion could be in the 3e SRD, why not the mystic or artificer for 5e? Pathfinder had the alchemist as a base class, which is close enough to the artificer that you could make the argument for it being a base class based on tradition.
If you want to go the tradition route, why not go back to Magic-User, Cleric, and Fighting Man? "This is how it used to be" is no argument for anything.
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
As well as adding things from a company who has nothing to do with d&d. My point is... They wanted to be generic and then become specialised with talent trees. They also could of just took cleric, fighter, rogue and wizard then everything in talent trees for anything else.
So yeah... Try to design your own game and see for yourself how hard it is to do things. Also see how everyone judges you for thing you done that are completely out of context. Thats what they contend with. Its not because you think that way that they do. And were not the ones making the game ! To me based on what jeremy said often and same with mike mearls... I really dont see the artificer as a full class and i think the 2 years of waiting for you to get a full class is proof that it wasnt all that easy to create.
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)
First of all, Pathfinder does not have nothing to do with DnD. The entire point was that it was backwards compatible with 3.5e DnD. It's close enough that it doesn't matter. Second, that's not at all the point I was making. The point I was making was that if the psion was a base class in 3e, why couldn't it be now. Same with the artificer/alchemist in Pathfinder. If it was a full class in a previous edition, or a game so close that there's no significant difference, why couldn't it be done in 5e. My other point was to look at the warlock. That wasn't a 3e core class, it was an uncommon alternative class, but it was a core class in 5e. The artificer was also an alternative class in 3e (in case you don't like pathfinder), and much more commonly used (at least in my experience) than the warlock.
My post was made to correct you saying that they wanted the core 3e classes in 5e, which was decidedly not true.
Also, the problem they were having with making the artificer a full class was not a lack of content, but a difficulty to pare down the complex existing content to a less complex form suitable for 5e play.
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
Any word on when the second half of the Artificer UA is coming out? The subclasses I really want are:
Some kind of Weaponsmith
Some arcanomechanical armor type
Mechanical servant/golemancer
Anyone else's thoughts?
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
No clue on when it's coming; I'm fine with the wait, I just wish they could give a bit of an ETA. As far as subclasses go, I would really like to see a Wandslinger subclass since they are using the Eberron setting for inspiration (and also because the section on wandslingers in the Eberron sourcebook is extremely lackluster).
Also, a question for everyone: since Arcane Armament has been mentioned as being likely to be moved out as a main class feature, what would folks think about it becoming an Infusion instead of a subclass feature? I realize that may be a bit similar to the Thirsting Blade invocation for Warlocks (and could be more op than I'm considering) but I've been thinking that might be a cool way to implement it.
I feel like Arcane Armament is more of an offensive subclass feature (like in Artillerist, or what ever name they hopefully change it to).
So I must say, Im now 25 hours deep, (half way through level 6 to level 8) in playing my Alchemist (Plague Doctor/Field Medic flavour) and I am LOVING how its working now since the upgrade from '17 to '19. Naturally, theres the bumps that everyone has mentioned (i miss the alchemical sachtell and losing superior attunement sucks) but I'm very happy with it. Looking forward to an expanded spell list, some more invoca... I mean, infusion and the survey. :)
Hjalmar Gunderson, Vuman Alchemist Plague Doctor in a HB Campaign, Post Netherese Invasion Cormyr (lvl20 retired)
Godfrey, Autognome Butler in Ghosts of Saltmarsh into Spelljammer
Grímr Skeggisson, Goliath Rune Knight in Rime of the Frostmaiden
DM of two HB campaigns set in the same world.
Wizards of the Coast are taking more of a, "It's ready when it's ready" approach now, which has to be better than feeling they're forced to release UA content on a monthly basis.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Yeah every time I think about it I first compare to YouTube channels, which always say a steady stream of scheduled. Content is the most important. And I think UA would probably get more of a dedicated following if they did that, in the style of pre Xanathars subclass releases. But then I fully realised UA has no effect on how many people will play DND, those who were will and those who can’t still can’t. It’s only important to us tiny subset that enjoy theorycrafting even without active games.
@Mezzurah
I think EA is kind of integral to the feel of the class or subclass, but could see it going that way seeing as Invocations are our closest comparison, but if I remember correctly one of the bigger complaints of Bladelock is the amount of Invocation tax involved, I know this is just one Infusion but it would be better not to go down that path if avoidable.
But take my message with a grain of salt as I am obviously biased to my suggested solution. Split all subclasses into Martial (Artillerist) or Spellslinger (Alchemist) and give one half Extra Attack and give the other Dual Cast.
“Beginning at 5th level, whenever you spend your Action to cast an Artificer Cantrip, you can cast a second (different?) Artificer Cantrip as part of the same Action.”
Thats why next to no youtube channels lives more then 3 months. Having had a channel myself i can tell you... Putting content on a simple week basis is tiresome to a crisp. Having a job as well pushes you into doing that and youtube and nothing else.
Once a month for content means they develop everyday. Sorry but wotc do not has the staff for that. Nor do they want the staff for that kind of stuff. You also have to realise they are literally 2 years in advance to us all. While you wait for the next book. They are finishing it and working on the next thus they are literally already overloaded with stuff.
Believe me when i say they cannot work faster then this and its better for them to take their time then setting an eta. Not to mention that when you give an eta... People bashes you because all they care is content and do not take anything into account. So yeah... Its preferable not to put any hype on something that is not gonna be official.
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)
Yup that is kind of the point, though this is their job in part. We all keep hoping that they will try focus on UA as the stop gap solution to waiting 4-6 months between books (and 1-2 years between books with subclasses)
As you say if UA was a YouTube channel it would have failed. But then again this is more like Blizzard’s YouTube channel, why bother? They have a real cash cow instead.
and yet you didn't understand what i am saying...
they are 2 years in front of us.
meaning they dont have 1-2 books done that they are working on, but 4-5 !
and last year we didn't get 1-2 books, we got like 4.
they definitely decided to up the number of books per years since last year.
last year, we got 2 adventures and 2 books that gave player options.
so yeah, thats what im saying... you guys will always never have enough. so why bother trying to keep you in the loop when you clearly dont care about the loop and just want more stuff for your own campaign. as i said, its better for them not to give any hype for something since its not worth it. i dont hype myself for new subclasses of artificers or heck the shitty psionics you all want. i preffer good stuff, good stuff they have taken the time to develop and if its time consuming and they prefffer to keep it in the dark, then im fine with it. that way i dont hype myself for things that might not even come or be dumped later on.
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)
Good point, never researched the actual book release schedule so didn’t see the speed up last year. Happy to concede that point, and understand but lament that there isn’t a focus on UA as a pillar of release schedule, as it gets some hate and not lots of money.