sure it is... But the fact you had to think carefully about it defeats the purpose for a much less role playing heavy player.
I take an exemple of one of my player who doesnt understand magic. To me he would say. I cast that and it does this. Thats it ! Now your text in the artificer isnt clear at all for a guy like that as the text literally contradicts itself. Such a player wouldnt comprehend that. And telling him not to play that class is not an option as it would mean he cant play what he wants.
But the only thing i was saying was that i understood where his dm came from when he said he could cast while being in the silence zone.
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 understand not wanting to restrict a player from a class but there are far simpler magic users specifically made for that reason. and at the end of the day if your not going to taking the time to care about how its working in the first place then that's fine you cast your spell and it does its thing and that's all there is to it. the arcane focus is irrelevant weather its an crystal ball or a blacksmith's hammer it no longer maters as it has had the flavor removed in place of simplicity at that point.
now on the topic of it being poorly worded that is possible and should be pointed out once the review comes up. as for me i say it come to common sense spell casting that avoids the spell components already exists; its called Innate Spellcasting and as part of it it specifically states what if any of a spells components the monster/or player is not required to use. and no doubt if the spirit of the classes spell casting was intended to be cast-able outside normal parameters it would state it. any other interpretation i would consider homebrew (which is fine) but ultimately it will be something that the players and dms will have to work out whats comfortable for them
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
that is a slippery slope my friend; being able to avoid verbal or somatic ect would essentially be giving the class free permanent Subtle Spell metamagic. which is in itself usually limited in use by spell points. now the spell list for the artificer isn't the most impressive but an extra lvl 3 feature tacked on to a class at lvl1 doesn't seem quite right for balance purposes. that being said if i was feeling particularly lax i might offer to allow it; should the player apply the proper fluff when describing how his spells work such as my previous example. ie if anything it should be a reward not a give-me.
that is a slippery slope my friend; being able to avoid verbal or somatic ect would essentially be giving the class free permanent Subtle Spell metamagic. which is in itself usually limited in use by spell points. now the spell list for the artificer isn't the most impressive but an extra lvl 3 feature tacked on to a class at lvl1 doesn't seem quite right for balance purposes. that being said if i was feeling particularly lax i might offer to allow it; should the player apply the proper fluff when describing how his spells work such as my previous example. ie if anything it should be a reward not a give-me.
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
Maybe just take away verbal, but still need somatic?
I myself would say the use of the tools would fulfill the somatic component, and the material component could just represent the prep you made in preparing the tools you use in casting your spells, but I agree that the verbal component should go; it works for people who might play their Artificer as a Fullmetal Alchemist type character, but outside that it just doesn't make much sense to me.
EDIT: How about this, as part of the Tools Required class feature, your spells all contain somatic components, but no longer require verbal components?
The problem in the text of artificer. It is contradictory. It says that you cast normally thus involving VSM. But then it says you fluff it it as just giving a vial full of healing. Preparing such a vial might use the vsm method but definitely drinking it wouldnt make sense to use said vsm.
I can understand your dm. It make no sense for immersion to require vsm just for drinking something.
I agree with everything that you said. The problem I feel is that they are trying to expand on the Artificer's spellcasting and requiring you to use a specific tool as an arcane focus in order to cast those spells. While at the same time telling you to use your imagination in describing how you cast those spells. You will still need to use VSM when you cast a spell, but saying you are creating a potion as you are describing your spellcasting doesn't work as the target of the spell can't drink the potion (in the middle of combat) as part of the casting.
but is it actually a problem? it simply requires you to think more about how you "cast" a spell lets take something like cure wounds (Components V, S) and assume we are using say... alchemy supplies. *you quickly add several key ingredients to a vial and begin to chant a prayer of healing; as your hand circles the vial each rotation causes the content inside swirl and churn (mixing the ingredients). then as it reaches a critical and unstable state you splash the vials contents onto your target; but before it even touches him its unstable nature turns it into a red mist that that envelopes him quickly closing some of his woulds before dissipating. * here we have a perfectly logical example of how to cast healing without needing to assume you would drink it alternatively the mist could be inhaled as a form of "drinking". and doing so in this fashion still accounts for things like counter spell as you are using magic to get it into this unique state. i simply wished to add another perspective to this this is very much a class for the imaginative and its unique abilities will need unique answers.
What you just did was add flair in your description of casting a spell. Most players already add flair in how them cast spells. Nothing in the Artificer '19 UA says a player has to add any type of description or flair when they cast a spell. They can just pull out a their Thieve's tools or any other artisan's tool (they are proficient with) and say they are casting a spell.
Now this is just my opinion, but yes the whole spellcasting setup for the Artificer is a problem. WotC expanded, placed restrictions, and overpowered the Artificer as it relates to spellcasting. The spellcasting feature for the Artificer class should not include any Cleric spells or spells that requires a saving throw, melee spell attack or ranged spell attack that deals damage. The spell list should contain support and defensive spells. Player's should be required to use tools in order to cast spells. Because if a player doesn't have access to Thieve's tools or an artisan's tool (they are proficient with), they are unable to cast spells. Finally, the Artificer shouldn't gain the ability to change their cantrips after a short or long rest. This just blatantly makes them overpowered. Not even a wizard who is trained and studies the arcane arts has the ability to change their cantrips. But yet a class that is supposed to specialize in making magical items that doesn't even receive any bonuses to make permanent magical items (magical tinkering doesn't count), gains an ability to change out cantrips is just wrong.
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
That just means an artificer would need multiple type of tools on them to cast the different spells. Even if you say they some sort of handheld device that simulates the spell. To carry all of those tools, they player would have to be very strong (and risk a stealth penalty) or have a Bag of Holding. If it is a handheld devices, they would need many different devices for each of their spells (and risk a stealth penalty).
that is a slippery slope my friend; being able to avoid verbal or somatic ect would essentially be giving the class free permanent Subtle Spell metamagic. which is in itself usually limited in use by spell points. now the spell list for the artificer isn't the most impressive but an extra lvl 3 feature tacked on to a class at lvl1 doesn't seem quite right for balance purposes. that being said if i was feeling particularly lax i might offer to allow it; should the player apply the proper fluff when describing how his spells work such as my previous example. ie if anything it should be a reward not a give-me.
You are forgetting that if they lose the tool or device they would not be able to cast the spell. Essentially losing their ability to cast spells.
"But yet a class that is supposed to specialize in making magical items that doesn't even receive any bonuses to make permanent magical items "
I agree!!
Thought of this counter recently so will add now, not sure it is strong enough but might lead you to rethink:
The same could be said about Wizards “A class that is supposed to specialise in writing new magical spells, and yet I didn’t receive any bonuses or unique mechanics to help me invent spells never before seen . . .”
I do think there is about equal precedent for Artificer Crafting Items and Wizards inventing new Spells in other lores. I just think proxying the magic items to spellcasting items and on long rest recharging magic items is a good solution but I understand how people could hold your view.
PS. I think level 18 ability should be something along the lines of “You can make one of your Infusions a Permanent Magic Item once per week worth of work hours, or any core rule book magic item using mundane materials at full cost once per Month worth of work hours. (Work hours can be shared across assistants)”
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
That just means an artificer would need multiple type of tools on them to cast the different spells. Even if you say they some sort of handheld device that simulates the spell. To carry all of those tools, they player would have to be very strong (and risk a stealth penalty) or have a Bag of Holding. If it is a handheld devices, they would need many different devices for each of their spells (and risk a stealth penalty).
Just a misunderstanding, I didn’t say it has to be a different large item for each spell, could be just the one paintbrush or brewers kit etc, unless you want to play it with many objects for fun. I was just suggesting since we have the Restriction of needing tools for every spell maybe we get the Trade Off of not needing the Verbal component as a Benefit written into the rules in same paragraph.
@Mezzurah great suggestion I agree with Somantic with Tools but not Verbal, and material as normal, for every spell.
"But yet a class that is supposed to specialize in making magical items that doesn't even receive any bonuses to make permanent magical items "
I agree!!
Thought of this counter recently so will add now, not sure it is strong enough but might lead you to rethink:
The same could be said about Wizards “A class that is supposed to specialise in writing new magical spells, and yet I didn’t receive any bonuses or unique mechanics to help me invent spells never before seen . . .”
I do think there is about equal precedent for Artificer Crafting Items and Wizards inventing new Spells in other lores. I just think proxying the magic items to spellcasting items and on long rest recharging magic items is a good solution but I understand how people could hold your view.
PS. I think level 18 ability should be something along the lines of “You can make one of your Infusions a Permanent Magic Item once per week worth of work hours, or any core rule book magic item using mundane materials at full cost once per Month worth of work hours. (Work hours can be shared across assistants)”
I have to disagree with your statement about Wizards are "A class that is supposed to specialize in writing new magical spells". If you look up the definition of both the Artificer and the Wizard in Merriam-Webster, only one of them is defined as an artistic worker or craftsman. But since this is D&D you can look how WotC describes the Wizard in the PHB, it says nothing about writing new magical spells. However, the Artificer 19' UA states "Artificers use tools to channel arcane power, crafting temporary and permanent magical objects" (I don't count the Magical Tinkering ability as crafting permanent magical objects as that ability sux and is useless in my opinion).
Now WotC D&D did released an UA called Three Subclasses that had a Wizard subclass called School of Invention. Unfortunately, the subclass had nothing to do with inventing new spells (but yet it gave the player proficiency with two tools of their choice).
The "proxy" magic items and spellcasting items are completely useless. I touch a small wooden stick while having my woodcarver's tools in my possession and after a long rest I have a wand that can cast a cantrip. Or after a long rest I touch a nonmagical item and poof it becomes an infused magical item (that goes away after you die). This in my opinion isn't an Artificer.
I don't think having an ability at level 18 that allows me to make an infusion a permanent magical item or picking a magical item from the core rule books, would change my views on the current Artificer build.
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
That just means an artificer would need multiple type of tools on them to cast the different spells. Even if you say they some sort of handheld device that simulates the spell. To carry all of those tools, they player would have to be very strong (and risk a stealth penalty) or have a Bag of Holding. If it is a handheld devices, they would need many different devices for each of their spells (and risk a stealth penalty).
Just a misunderstanding, I didn’t say it has to be a different large item for each spell, could be just the one paintbrush or brewers kit etc, unless you want to play it with many objects for fun. I was just suggesting since we have the Restriction of needing tools for every spell maybe we get the Trade Off of not needing the Verbal component as a Benefit written into the rules in same paragraph.
@Mezzurah great suggestion I agree with Somantic with Tools but not Verbal, and material as normal, for every spell.
I never said different large items for each spell. I said multiple types of tools to cast different spells. You have Calligrapher's supplies, cartographer's tools, Jeweler's tools, and Weaver's tools all of which are not large but you would need them on hand to cast different spells. I can't see a DM allowing a character to use Calligrapher's supplies to cast mending on a cloak that got damaged. I think what everyone is forgetting is that the spellcasting focus replaces material components that are not consumed or has a cost. So no matter what, the verbal and somantic portions of a spell is still required.
Magical Tinkering is pretty dope. I have a small fleet of tinker toys that make these really useful when spelunking, distracting, scouting, or just plain utility.
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
This would be no more powerful than the psioics of the Mystic class, so I'd have no issues with it personally
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
This would be no more powerful than the psioics of the Mystic class, so I'd have no issues with it personally
I think this is closest to understanding my intent, more feeling the items are housing the spells and no balance issues, just that the noncore classes have a small advantage that makes them feel different.
I never said different large items for each spell. I said multiple types of tools to cast different spells. You have Calligrapher's supplies, cartographer's tools, Jeweler's tools, and Weaver's tools all of which are not large but you would need them on hand to cast different spells. I can't see a DM allowing a character to use Calligrapher's supplies to cast mending on a cloak that got damaged. I think what everyone is forgetting is that the spellcasting focus replaces material components that are not consumed or has a cost. So no matter what, the verbal and somantic portions of a spell is still required.
Another interesting thing I learned today, Tools on average weight 5kg . . .
But no I disagree with you on this adamantly. If a DM can’t have enough imagination to see calligraphy tools as casting any spell that is a contradiction, a paradox, someone who imagines a whole world in his mind can’t imagine drawing Chinese character for Repair in the air to cast mending spell.
An Artificer and DM might have to put a minuscule bit more effort but by rules and with imagination, every spell can be cast from absolutely any tool. And your character can have just the one tool on them through which they cast every spell. Even though I expect they will have 2-3 more maybe non magical ones as they have the proficiencies.
PS. Good point on WotC’s own definition of Wizards and Artificers.
Well, using cobbler tools to cast anything outside of movement spells I can see being a stretch, but I will award inspiration to any player that can convincingly pull it off.
EDIT: "Now click your heels three times together and say 'FIREBALL'!"
sure it is... But the fact you had to think carefully about it defeats the purpose for a much less role playing heavy player.
I take an exemple of one of my player who doesnt understand magic. To me he would say. I cast that and it does this. Thats it ! Now your text in the artificer isnt clear at all for a guy like that as the text literally contradicts itself. Such a player wouldnt comprehend that. And telling him not to play that class is not an option as it would mean he cant play what he wants.
But the only thing i was saying was that i understood where his dm came from when he said he could cast while being in the silence zone.
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 understand not wanting to restrict a player from a class but there are far simpler magic users specifically made for that reason. and at the end of the day if your not going to taking the time to care about how its working in the first place then that's fine you cast your spell and it does its thing and that's all there is to it. the arcane focus is irrelevant weather its an crystal ball or a blacksmith's hammer it no longer maters as it has had the flavor removed in place of simplicity at that point.
now on the topic of it being poorly worded that is possible and should be pointed out once the review comes up. as for me i say it come to common sense spell casting that avoids the spell components already exists; its called Innate Spellcasting and as part of it it specifically states what if any of a spells components the monster/or player is not required to use. and no doubt if the spirit of the classes spell casting was intended to be cast-able outside normal parameters it would state it. any other interpretation i would consider homebrew (which is fine) but ultimately it will be something that the players and dms will have to work out whats comfortable for them
On a side note, would people approve of adding that as a trade off to Tools Required? You have to have tools but do not need verbal or somatic when casting the spell? Trade off for the restriction of always needing tools even when the spell doesn’t have material components.
that is a slippery slope my friend; being able to avoid verbal or somatic ect would essentially be giving the class free permanent Subtle Spell metamagic. which is in itself usually limited in use by spell points. now the spell list for the artificer isn't the most impressive but an extra lvl 3 feature tacked on to a class at lvl1 doesn't seem quite right for balance purposes. that being said if i was feeling particularly lax i might offer to allow it; should the player apply the proper fluff when describing how his spells work such as my previous example. ie if anything it should be a reward not a give-me.
Maybe just take away verbal, but still need somatic?
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
I myself would say the use of the tools would fulfill the somatic component, and the material component could just represent the prep you made in preparing the tools you use in casting your spells, but I agree that the verbal component should go; it works for people who might play their Artificer as a Fullmetal Alchemist type character, but outside that it just doesn't make much sense to me.
EDIT: How about this, as part of the Tools Required class feature, your spells all contain somatic components, but no longer require verbal components?
What you just did was add flair in your description of casting a spell. Most players already add flair in how them cast spells. Nothing in the Artificer '19 UA says a player has to add any type of description or flair when they cast a spell. They can just pull out a their Thieve's tools or any other artisan's tool (they are proficient with) and say they are casting a spell.
Now this is just my opinion, but yes the whole spellcasting setup for the Artificer is a problem. WotC expanded, placed restrictions, and overpowered the Artificer as it relates to spellcasting. The spellcasting feature for the Artificer class should not include any Cleric spells or spells that requires a saving throw, melee spell attack or ranged spell attack that deals damage. The spell list should contain support and defensive spells. Player's should be required to use tools in order to cast spells. Because if a player doesn't have access to Thieve's tools or an artisan's tool (they are proficient with), they are unable to cast spells. Finally, the Artificer shouldn't gain the ability to change their cantrips after a short or long rest. This just blatantly makes them overpowered. Not even a wizard who is trained and studies the arcane arts has the ability to change their cantrips. But yet a class that is supposed to specialize in making magical items that doesn't even receive any bonuses to make permanent magical items (magical tinkering doesn't count), gains an ability to change out cantrips is just wrong.
That just means an artificer would need multiple type of tools on them to cast the different spells. Even if you say they some sort of handheld device that simulates the spell. To carry all of those tools, they player would have to be very strong (and risk a stealth penalty) or have a Bag of Holding. If it is a handheld devices, they would need many different devices for each of their spells (and risk a stealth penalty).
You are forgetting that if they lose the tool or device they would not be able to cast the spell. Essentially losing their ability to cast spells.
"But yet a class that is supposed to specialize in making magical items that doesn't even receive any bonuses to make permanent magical items "
I agree!!
Thought of this counter recently so will add now, not sure it is strong enough but might lead you to rethink:
The same could be said about Wizards “A class that is supposed to specialise in writing new magical spells, and yet I didn’t receive any bonuses or unique mechanics to help me invent spells never before seen . . .”
I do think there is about equal precedent for Artificer Crafting Items and Wizards inventing new Spells in other lores. I just think proxying the magic items to spellcasting items and on long rest recharging magic items is a good solution but I understand how people could hold your view.
PS. I think level 18 ability should be something along the lines of “You can make one of your Infusions a Permanent Magic Item once per week worth of work hours, or any core rule book magic item using mundane materials at full cost once per Month worth of work hours. (Work hours can be shared across assistants)”
Just a misunderstanding, I didn’t say it has to be a different large item for each spell, could be just the one paintbrush or brewers kit etc, unless you want to play it with many objects for fun. I was just suggesting since we have the Restriction of needing tools for every spell maybe we get the Trade Off of not needing the Verbal component as a Benefit written into the rules in same paragraph.
@Mezzurah great suggestion I agree with Somantic with Tools but not Verbal, and material as normal, for every spell.
I have to disagree with your statement about Wizards are "A class that is supposed to specialize in writing new magical spells". If you look up the definition of both the Artificer and the Wizard in Merriam-Webster, only one of them is defined as an artistic worker or craftsman. But since this is D&D you can look how WotC describes the Wizard in the PHB, it says nothing about writing new magical spells. However, the Artificer 19' UA states "Artificers use tools to channel arcane power, crafting temporary and permanent magical objects" (I don't count the Magical Tinkering ability as crafting permanent magical objects as that ability sux and is useless in my opinion).
Now WotC D&D did released an UA called Three Subclasses that had a Wizard subclass called School of Invention. Unfortunately, the subclass had nothing to do with inventing new spells (but yet it gave the player proficiency with two tools of their choice).
The "proxy" magic items and spellcasting items are completely useless. I touch a small wooden stick while having my woodcarver's tools in my possession and after a long rest I have a wand that can cast a cantrip. Or after a long rest I touch a nonmagical item and poof it becomes an infused magical item (that goes away after you die). This in my opinion isn't an Artificer.
I don't think having an ability at level 18 that allows me to make an infusion a permanent magical item or picking a magical item from the core rule books, would change my views on the current Artificer build.
I never said different large items for each spell. I said multiple types of tools to cast different spells. You have Calligrapher's supplies, cartographer's tools, Jeweler's tools, and Weaver's tools all of which are not large but you would need them on hand to cast different spells. I can't see a DM allowing a character to use Calligrapher's supplies to cast mending on a cloak that got damaged. I think what everyone is forgetting is that the spellcasting focus replaces material components that are not consumed or has a cost. So no matter what, the verbal and somantic portions of a spell is still required.
Magical Tinkering is pretty dope. I have a small fleet of tinker toys that make these really useful when spelunking, distracting, scouting, or just plain utility.
@porphy
Not sure how magical tinkering can help out with spelunking.
This would be no more powerful than the psioics of the Mystic class, so I'd have no issues with it personally
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Delving, diving, crawling. Just another term for dungeon exploration.
I think this is closest to understanding my intent, more feeling the items are housing the spells and no balance issues, just that the noncore classes have a small advantage that makes them feel different.
Another interesting thing I learned today, Tools on average weight 5kg . . .
But no I disagree with you on this adamantly. If a DM can’t have enough imagination to see calligraphy tools as casting any spell that is a contradiction, a paradox, someone who imagines a whole world in his mind can’t imagine drawing Chinese character for Repair in the air to cast mending spell.
An Artificer and DM might have to put a minuscule bit more effort but by rules and with imagination, every spell can be cast from absolutely any tool. And your character can have just the one tool on them through which they cast every spell. Even though I expect they will have 2-3 more maybe non magical ones as they have the proficiencies.
PS. Good point on WotC’s own definition of Wizards and Artificers.
Well, using cobbler tools to cast anything outside of movement spells I can see being a stretch, but I will award inspiration to any player that can convincingly pull it off.
EDIT: "Now click your heels three times together and say 'FIREBALL'!"