"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 . . .””
Actually I'd be in favor of those changes to the Wizard class as well. Thankfully there are many homebrew subclasses that do add that kind of flavor to the base class.
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.
Yes, tools on average have an weight of 5 lbs. (not kg, 5kg of Calligrapher's supplies weighs twice as much as 5 lbs of Calligrapher's supplies). However, the more tools you have the more weight you carry and lets not forget the rest of a character's equipment as well. Now there is nothing in the DMG that states the DM has to use the weight rule. But I find it hard to believe that a Gnome Artificer (that doesn't have a bag of holding or Heward's Handy Haversack) with a strength score of 12 being able to carry their normal equipment load (clothing, weapon, armor, backpack with supplies) and various different tool kits and not suffer from being encumbered. Also, there are subclass features that requires characters to uses specific tool kits in order to use their subclass features.
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.
Yes, tools on average have an weight of 5 lbs. (not kg, 5kg of Calligrapher's supplies weighs twice as much as 5 lbs of Calligrapher's supplies). However, the more tools you have the more weight you carry and lets not forget the rest of a character's equipment as well. Now there is nothing in the DMG that states the DM has to use the weight rule. But I find it hard to believe that a Gnome Artificer (that doesn't have a bag of holding or Heward's Handy Haversack) with a strength score of 12 being able to carry their normal equipment load (clothing, weapon, armor, backpack with supplies) and various different tool kits and not suffer from being encumbered. Also, there are subclass features that requires characters to uses specific tool kits in order to use their subclass features.
I find it interesting and confusing when people say that the tool weight is a problem. Let's say you are now proficient in every tool kit, you don't need to have every complete tool kit on you as an artificer, you just need to know how to be proficient in those tools as a whole. You don't need to pull out your whole blacksmith kit and or carpenters kit, you can just say you use the hammer in either of those kits as interchangeable hammers. Do that for most of the tools and suddenly you now have a bunch less weight.
Also, I feel like most people don't use carry weight when it comes to coinage or the things of that sort. Like yea my character can carry 10 longswords but some people don't even think on how that character is carrying absurd amounts of gold on em
Personally, when I DM I just tell my players not to worry about equipment weight unless they want to carry something absurd like an anvil. As for using tools, I'm starting to think this is something that may need just a little rethinking/clarification from WotC in regards to the way item interactions work. Say I'm an Artillerist who uses my Tinker's Tools as a focus for casting my spells, but if I want to deploy/redeploy my turret, I would need to put away or drop those tools to pull out my Smith's Tools in order to use that feature, but seeing as you only have one free item interaction, using a second interaction to pull out my tools would require my action, would it not? Unless I'm misreading something here...
There is a problem with you hammer logic. A carpenter's hammer is completely different from a blacksmith's hammer; they are not interchangeable. Plus the fact that subclass features state that you have to have the entire tool set. Now using a single item from the kit to cast a spell is understandable, but in order to use some of the subclass features the player will need the entire tool kit.
Personally, when I DM I just tell my players not to worry about equipment weight unless they want to carry something absurd like an anvil. As for using tools, I'm starting to think this is something that may need just a little rethinking/clarification from WotC in regards to the way item interactions work. Say I'm an Artillerist who uses my Tinker's Tools as a focus for casting my spells, but if I want to deploy/redeploy my turret, I would need to put away or drop those tools to pull out my Smith's Tools in order to use that feature, but seeing as you only have one free item interaction, using a second interaction to pull out my tools would require my action, would it not? Unless I'm misreading something here...
I don't think you are misreading. I think the "Tools Required" spellcasting feature needs to go away. An arcane focus is supposed to substitute material components that do not have a monetary value or are consumed when the spell is cast. But requiring the Artificer to use a tool kit they are proficient with to cast their spells (even the ones with no material components) is burdensome and taking the Artificer in the wrong direction.
Personally, I'd rule that as long as the whole kit is on your person, in easy reach, then at least as long as a part of that tool set is in hand or your are able to use the tool set, you meet the restrictions. Remember, Infused items also count as a focus for the Artificer. I don't see anyone using a shield, a tool set, and an Infused item focus at the same time.
I don't know offhand if you can use a Focus INSTEAD of a Tool set when casting a spell . . .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Its aweful how most of you guys can't even make a difference between artificer and wizards, this lead me to think that you guys want to replace the wizard with the artificer or vice versa. i think you guys have the wrong approach, the artificer is an ebberon thing, not a "neutral setting" thing. you guys should stop wondering about the class as a neutral class, and start folowing the simple ruling of "would it fit in my world and what would it bring compared to the others ?" i really don't see a wizard who "STUDIED ARCANE" for like years on end, unable to craft any new spells or any new magical items. saying otherwise defeats the purpose of the wizards to begin with. now if you look at D&D since its beginning which the artificer didn't exists because it was not part of d&d until eberron. you realise quite fast that both classes are interchangeable and both classes were designed specifically for the world they were put in.
Conclusion, if a wizard player wanted to create a form of magical item, i would not stop him by saying, its the artificer's job. nor do i think any of you would stop a wizard from creating a magical item. this is exactly why i think the artificer as is, is a good one, but lacks that diversity we used to have in 3e. in 3e an artificer wasn't the same as a wizard and could do stuff the wizard couldn't. here it seems to me like all you guys want is to replace the wizard to begin with. let's be clear here... both are able to make magical items, both are able to use arcane, both are able to use their intellect to create stuff. the major difference between the two is that one do it mystically, while the other do it scientifically. exemple of that...
in 3E wizard gained scribe scroll feat right away. but the rest was his choice as he needed to choose schools and his line of work. an artificer gained freely all crafting feats. because he specialised in supporting his team, not doing more damage. unlike the wizard who was ready for everything. this in term made the wizard too overpowered, but yeah, thats another discussion. i played an artificer in 3E and i loved him, because he couldn'T do shit on his own. sure i could do blasting by creating wands of fireball. but thats literally all i could do at higher levels. while that mage could literally just create scrolls of desintegrate. my artificer was loved by the others because he was the support guy and they felt right having that with them, unlike all the others who tryed to blast their way thru encounters, i was making sure they lived another day during that fight, or could nuke the shit out of the bad guys by buffing them up. i was way more different then a wizard who was forced to lose feats in order to gain crafting things. i had them freely. but the major difference was, that the wizard could get way beyond with its spell choice. while i was behind on everything else.
one last note. A wizard could take the same road, i could literally make an artificer and have the wizard do the very same with all crafting feats and all. so no... they are not all that different, the only difference was in the making of their stuff. an artificer would do it faster and more mechanically. it was even said in their descriptions... "they emulates magic" the same way i'm simulating gravity by spinning something on itself. thats how artificers are, they dont understand the mysticallity of the small pie to make people laugh, but telling a joke has the same effect, so why would i throw a pie ? in that sense, the fireball spell they would throw would be more like a bomb instead of a simple red bead like the wizard. they get the same effects, but the wizard wouldn't understand how the artificer got the same effect with material components like metal and ore.
that's their difference to begin with... and by the way... just to help...
D&D 4th edition, Eberron player's guide
Artificers in Eberron
Artificers are the engineers of Khorvaire, they invented all the technological wonders of Eberron including the Elemental Airship, the Elemental Galleon, the Lightening Rail the Elemental Landcart and most importantly the Warforged. Artificers are at the centre of civilization as they do not only invent they also repair and maintain their inventions. Artificers are the only professionals who can repair and modify warforged. In Eberron Artificers are also merchants and workshop owners who can be found all over the continent especially in the cities. These workshops sell, repair and modify magical equipment making them key vendors for adventurers.
Artificers are also known to become adventurers having skills in both artificing and combat.
D&D 3E, Wizard Description of spell casting. Player's handbook.
Spell Preparation and Casting
Wizards cast their spells by using their acquired magical knowledge and experience. In particular, they learn most new spells by seeking out magical writings and copying them into their spellbooks, a method that allows them, unlike sorcerers, to master any number of permissible spells once they find them, assembling a broad and versatile arsenal of power. Many wizards see themselves not only as spell casters but as philosophers, [B][U]inventors[/B][/U], and scientists, studying a system of natural laws that are for the most part unknown and undiscovered.
Resting: Wizards need to rest prior to spell casting. This may be in the form of sleep or meditation. A wizard who refuses to sleep and then goes on a spell casting binge (which is not entirely impossible, but rare due to temporal allowances) will grow weary - possibly delusional - and may experience many negative health effects.
Preparing: In order to prepare spells from their spellbooks, wizards need comfortable quiet areas to study. The spell is read, spoken, or memorized up until the trigger. This is the easiest and most efficient way to cast arcane magic as a wizard because it means the wizard needs only to perform the trigger element of the spell when the need arises to cast it. A weakness of wizards is that they cannot cast an arcane spell that they have not prepared, so they are extremely vulnerable if caught in a situation they did not expect. To minimize this, wizards often develop their problem-solving ability to anticipate which spells may be most useful, and some may enhance this with abilities such as foresight.
Casting: When the need calls for a certain spell to be cast, wizards will allow their thoughts to retreat back into their consciousness in order to obtain it, and it often appears that wizards are in trances while they are casting. While there is some credence to that, they are not so much entranced that they cannot recognize situations outside their subconscious. When they find the spell they want, wizards will then complete the trigger sequence.
This is the common view of a wizard casting: voicing several strange words, utilizing some arcane component (such as tossing pixie dust into the air) and perhaps making some sort of quirky hand movement. In actuality every part of the sequence must be exact or else the wizard may miscast, misfire, cast an entirely different spell, or cast nothing at all.
as i said... one is mystical in his ways, the other is scientifically doing it. but both are interchangeable. and to be clear... in eberron, artificers are responsible of the circle of creation and inventions. while wizards are responsible of the circle of mysticism and history. in ebrron both classes are interchangeable, wizards can do the artificers job and artificers can do the job of wizard. but the laws in eberron stops them from doing that. because thats how the setting works. so again, you should stop trying to make a class neutral to any settings when it was not defined as such to begin with. i'm not going to change my whole world views on a whim for a class that you guys want as neutral for the sake of being neutral. the real question is... how does it fit your world ?
all i want from the artificer, is for it to be mechanical, scientifically mechanical. artificers invents guns and robots as well as gears to simulates effects of magical stuff.
wizards care about history and the mysticism behind the magic that permeates the world around them. thats the base of both classes. that's all i'm requiring from both classes.
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 wanted the tinkerer that is gear and mechanics, but what is always published has its effects as always the same outcome as a spell so it always ends up as window dressing.
I'd like it be more anti magic, not able to dispel etc. We're not getting that. So this what we get unless you Homebrew in your own group.
I would use more updated reference for explanations on spellcasting.... You know, one that's updated in the last 10 years..? And on top of that this latest version of the Artificer was created for 5th Edition... If you were looking for an Artificer that fit a different setting, or different edition better, maybe check out one of the earlier releases, or one from a previous Edition. 5E is the most updated, easily understood, and easy to jump into versions of DND.
The reason WotC came out with 5E is because they needed an update to the games 4th Edition rule set, and has made leaps and bounds simplifying the entire game. From Spellcasting to Grappling, everything is much more easily understood.
Something that takes precedent in 5E, more than any other edition in my opinion, is the fact that you can make your character, and the world, whatever you want. You can add twists onto old cliches and tropes, and you can subvert the typical archetypal characters with interesting narrative... IF you want to cast spells from your top-hat, or maybe a glass eye, sure why not? How about a bird that's linked to your characters soul somehow.
You mentioned that it seems WotC wants to "replace the Wizard with the Artificer..." Lemme just mention if you are comparing 5E to 3rd Edition, you're in for a headache, and a lot of unnecessary work. And I also believe that you could not possibly be further from the truth...
3rd Edition was replete with character choices and options. With it's over 100+ total supplements for 3rd Edition alone... Players were intimidated by the amount of reading that was necessary to find a good combination of Multi-Class so that you could build a halfway functioning character... It was ridiculous to say the least. Options are fun, but can bog down the important parts of the game. Having fun with your friends.
On that note, if you think WotC will be "replacing" their love child Class, the Wizard, you will be pleasantly surprised your silk wearing, santa looking glass cannon in no way could be replaced. How do I know? Well with the Wizards 10+ 5E Archetypes.... I think WIZARDS of the Coast will have a hard time just sweeping that under the rug.... On top of that, Wizards have the longest list of available spells that they can learn, and carry spellbooks so that they can in fact do just that. Meanwhile, the Artificer has 100% access to all of their spell lists, and will never get anything passed a 5th level spell. Wizards get how many level 7, 8, & 9 spells?
Meanwhile, our half-caster over here, the Artificer, has just used a gem he had cut, and infused to imbue his crossbow with magic and it now deals an extra 2d6 whatever elemental damage they freaking want. And while the Wizard is nearly down for the count, the Artificer can slide up next to the Wizard and supply some much needed healing, or Lesser Restoration.
If you are in a campaign that takes place on a ship, or a cart, or a spelljammer, or inside a dungeon, or a research facility... These are all opportunities for your Dungeon Master to leverage the Artificer as a class and make it useful. Exactly like being a Paladin and attempting to eliminate evil from a once holy temple.
I'm not as familiar with Eberron content as I am with other content, but you could essentially flavor an artificer whatever way you want. If you have checked out Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they have descriptions of each set of tools, and things that you can do with them for examples. As an artificer, you can utilize these tool proficiency to new ends otherwise unattainable by other classes. You can even attempt to combine multiple Tool Proficiency into one project, completing all kinds of devices like guns, robots, or other machines.
And if you're upset about the fact that Artificer's have spell slots... These are just used as a means of "tracking and adjudicating" in game mechanics, and not a direct reflection of the narrative. Don't want your Alchemist to cast spells? Fine, don't. All his "Spells" are potions he throws at people that he makes on long rests when Artificer's prepare their spells. The newest Artificer is very much a DUNGEON MASTER's Playable Class. You have so many options that are adjudicated by in game rules, and the use of items and time. It can be a lot, but you can flavor it however you'd like.
And I might also remind you... No one in the history of Humanity has ever had anything akin to "Hit Points." These are metaphysical points that we use to determine how much damage your Character can take before they fall unconscious. We use them as a tracking system to keep tabs on our characters and how much "supplies" they have left in their journey. Spell Slots are just HP for spells. But I don't see you calling WotC out for that, or coming up with a better means of keeping track of your characters vitality and spell aptitude in table-top format.
I'm sorry, where is this idea of replacing Wizards with Artificers coming from? Did I miss something in this conversation?
It is just an exaggeration of the Ebberon setting lore applied to classes. In Ebberon there are no Wizards and Artificer take their place as more grounded representatives, hence by exaggeration Wizards and Artificers cannot exist within the same universe.
My counter is of course don’t apply Ebberon specific definitions of Artificers just use tinkerer, steampunk, magitech ideas instead. Then it can exist both thematically and lore wise, and mechanically it is already distinct in Half Int caster. (I do think guns should be let into forgotten realms with the Artificers, just say they are 100s of years from being Overpowered)
The core concept I disagree with is that the core classes are somehow exempt from all the arguments you make @DnDPaladin. You say Artificers don’t fit generic worlds hence only the core classes should remain, but never talk about Monks as being out of place in most western fantasy of the Sword Coast, etc.
This is a strict sense of stereotypes to think swords and melee weapons are europeen or japanese only. Im right now playing a monk in a far west type setting and it fits well within the confines.
If something seems out of place in your setting it might only be because of what "you" are doing in it.
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)
Unsure if this has been talked about earlier in this thread given that it is 42 pages long. However, I found a great subclass for the current artificer: Arcane Archer (yes i know Fighter has one). However, I feel that the fluff here fits soooo much better than fighter. Making some sort of ranged/thrown character that imbues attacks with spells would be amazing. It would fit exactly with everything that has been published for UA artificer so far.
I don't want the Artificer to replace the Wizard and I don't believe WotC wants to replace the Wizard as well. With that being said, I feel that the current Artificer build (UA '19) turns the Artificer into a half-caster Wizard that has the ability to make temporary magical items. In order for the current Artificer build to not feel like a half-caster Wizard, WotC encourages the class users to use their imagination when explaining how they cast spells while following the rules for casting spells. This doesn't work for me. As the Artificer just feels like a water-downed Wizard.
DnDPaladin, I agree that both Wizards and Artificers can create magical items; so can the Cleric (how else do you think the Holy Avenger sword and or the other items that are specific to Clerics and Paladins classes were created). The Wizard however, is the class that spends years studying the arcane arts to gain the ability to wield magic and it's many different forms. And some Wizard use that ability to imbue certain items with magical properties. The Artificer on the other hand can spend their years learning to craft items so that they have certain level of quality before the items can be imbued with magical properties. So on some level the Artificer utilizes the arcane arts in order to imbue their crafted items with magical properties. I can understand an Artificer creating a tool to simulate the magical effects of a spell, but the current UA '19 Artificer uses magic to imbue items with magical properties. So the argument that the Artificer just creates items/ tools that simulates the magical effects of spells but are not magic items, in my opinion is wrong.
IN MY OPINION, the current UA '19 Artificer core class needs to move away from the Eberron influence and become more of a class that can be used in almost any world. Then your subclasses can be created. The core class can grant the player access to spellcasting but also the ability crafting of permanent magical items (not temporary ones as described in Infused Items or the items described in Magical Tinkering). Like the Wizard's spellbook, the Artificer could have a book or sets of blueprints that have detailed instruction on how to craft certain magical items. It can contain a list of items/ ingredients necessary to craft the item and imbue it with it's magical properties. For example...
An Artificer uses their Leatherworker's tool to create a leather satchel. Once completed they begin to carve arcane symbols into the leather that will be on the inside of the satchel. As they are carving the arcane symbols they begin to chant a series of arcane words and sentences and once they are done carving the arcane symbols, they turn the satchel right side out and finish the incantation. The bag begins to glow and they have just create a Bag of Holding.
The create of the Bag of Holding can be done over a period of time. The current Artificer build just has you touching a nonmagical item after you wake from a long rest and you are able to imbue that item with magical properties. The ability says, they "INFUSE" an item with magical properties, there is no crafting involved. How can people say that the Artificer is creating items that have similar properties of a spell or a similar magical item but they are not magical? The player's "INFUSED" magic items would ping if someone were to cast Detect Magic and if someone were to cast the Identify spell on said "INFUSED" magic item, they would learn the properties of that "INFUSED" magic item. Lets not forget that Magical Tinkering and several subclass features require the Artificer to magically imbue an item or summon an items.
What it boils down to is that the Artificer does utilize the arcane arts, thus they are able to use magic in a limited way. The Artificer will never be able to replace the Wizard as the Wizard has a greater amount of control over the arcane art, thus giving them access to a larger number of spells. The Wizard will not be able to replace an Artificer, as the Artificer has a better understanding of the creation of magical items, thus giving them the ability to craft high quality non magical items and then imbuing them with magical properties. An Artificer doesn't need the Fireball or Magic Missile spells in order to craft a Wand of Fireballs or Wand of Magic Missiles. They have technical knowledge and blueprints that shows them how.
It was Eberron that introduced the Artificer, and it was for Eberron that the current version of the Artificer was mostly created. I've read 2 of Keith Baker's trilogies so far (The Draconic Prophesy & The Dreaming Dark trilogy) and I'd say that this version comes close to what Keith conceived of. When complete, the Artificer is meant to be added to the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron so I completely disagree with you that :
IN MY OPINION, the current UA '19 Artificer core class needs to move away from the Eberron influence and become more of a class that can be used in almost any world.
What it boils down to is that the Artificer does utilize the arcane arts, thus they are able to use magic in a limited way.
This I do not agree with. They use the Arcane arts in a different way, not a more limited way. They can perform arcane tasks, like creating magical items, in shorter periods of time because that is what they specialize in. Wizards, and most other arcane casters, focus on the casting of spells, and thus have a much wider range of effects they can produce. Not many other arcane casters can heal, the Artificer can through his various tools.
I'm fine with them using Eberron as their primary inspiration, and I think it'd be cool if they made a couple of subclasses that revolve around Eberron lore *coughcoughwandslingerscough* but I think would be better served if it's able to fit in settings outside of Eberron as well, such as Ravnica. For instance, take the artillerist: I have no doubt that it makes sense in the context of Eberron, but when you take it outside of that setting, then the two main focuses of the subclass (smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wands) just don't make any sense when you put them together, it would be better to focus on one part or the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually I'd be in favor of those changes to the Wizard class as well. Thankfully there are many homebrew subclasses that do add that kind of flavor to the base class.
Yes, tools on average have an weight of 5 lbs. (not kg, 5kg of Calligrapher's supplies weighs twice as much as 5 lbs of Calligrapher's supplies). However, the more tools you have the more weight you carry and lets not forget the rest of a character's equipment as well. Now there is nothing in the DMG that states the DM has to use the weight rule. But I find it hard to believe that a Gnome Artificer (that doesn't have a bag of holding or Heward's Handy Haversack) with a strength score of 12 being able to carry their normal equipment load (clothing, weapon, armor, backpack with supplies) and various different tool kits and not suffer from being encumbered. Also, there are subclass features that requires characters to uses specific tool kits in order to use their subclass features.
I find it interesting and confusing when people say that the tool weight is a problem. Let's say you are now proficient in every tool kit, you don't need to have every complete tool kit on you as an artificer, you just need to know how to be proficient in those tools as a whole. You don't need to pull out your whole blacksmith kit and or carpenters kit, you can just say you use the hammer in either of those kits as interchangeable hammers. Do that for most of the tools and suddenly you now have a bunch less weight.
Also, I feel like most people don't use carry weight when it comes to coinage or the things of that sort. Like yea my character can carry 10 longswords but some people don't even think on how that character is carrying absurd amounts of gold on em
Personally, when I DM I just tell my players not to worry about equipment weight unless they want to carry something absurd like an anvil. As for using tools, I'm starting to think this is something that may need just a little rethinking/clarification from WotC in regards to the way item interactions work. Say I'm an Artillerist who uses my Tinker's Tools as a focus for casting my spells, but if I want to deploy/redeploy my turret, I would need to put away or drop those tools to pull out my Smith's Tools in order to use that feature, but seeing as you only have one free item interaction, using a second interaction to pull out my tools would require my action, would it not? Unless I'm misreading something here...
@Sleepy_Gamez
There is a problem with you hammer logic. A carpenter's hammer is completely different from a blacksmith's hammer; they are not interchangeable. Plus the fact that subclass features state that you have to have the entire tool set. Now using a single item from the kit to cast a spell is understandable, but in order to use some of the subclass features the player will need the entire tool kit.
I don't think you are misreading. I think the "Tools Required" spellcasting feature needs to go away. An arcane focus is supposed to substitute material components that do not have a monetary value or are consumed when the spell is cast. But requiring the Artificer to use a tool kit they are proficient with to cast their spells (even the ones with no material components) is burdensome and taking the Artificer in the wrong direction.
Personally, I'd rule that as long as the whole kit is on your person, in easy reach, then at least as long as a part of that tool set is in hand or your are able to use the tool set, you meet the restrictions. Remember, Infused items also count as a focus for the Artificer. I don't see anyone using a shield, a tool set, and an Infused item focus at the same time.
I don't know offhand if you can use a Focus INSTEAD of a Tool set when casting a spell . . .
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
My comment here is more basic; does anyone play with such attention to detail? (some for sure.)
I wanted to play a tinkerer, this is a reasonably balanced attempt at that which I don't have to completely Homebrew.
Agreed. Ever since I started D&D, I've wanted to play a tinkerer and this is an easy way to do such.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
Its aweful how most of you guys can't even make a difference between artificer and wizards, this lead me to think that you guys want to replace the wizard with the artificer or vice versa.
i think you guys have the wrong approach, the artificer is an ebberon thing, not a "neutral setting" thing. you guys should stop wondering about the class as a neutral class, and start folowing the simple ruling of "would it fit in my world and what would it bring compared to the others ?" i really don't see a wizard who "STUDIED ARCANE" for like years on end, unable to craft any new spells or any new magical items. saying otherwise defeats the purpose of the wizards to begin with. now if you look at D&D since its beginning which the artificer didn't exists because it was not part of d&d until eberron. you realise quite fast that both classes are interchangeable and both classes were designed specifically for the world they were put in.
Conclusion, if a wizard player wanted to create a form of magical item, i would not stop him by saying, its the artificer's job.
nor do i think any of you would stop a wizard from creating a magical item.
this is exactly why i think the artificer as is, is a good one, but lacks that diversity we used to have in 3e. in 3e an artificer wasn't the same as a wizard and could do stuff the wizard couldn't. here it seems to me like all you guys want is to replace the wizard to begin with. let's be clear here... both are able to make magical items, both are able to use arcane, both are able to use their intellect to create stuff. the major difference between the two is that one do it mystically, while the other do it scientifically. exemple of that...
in 3E wizard gained scribe scroll feat right away. but the rest was his choice as he needed to choose schools and his line of work. an artificer gained freely all crafting feats. because he specialised in supporting his team, not doing more damage. unlike the wizard who was ready for everything. this in term made the wizard too overpowered, but yeah, thats another discussion. i played an artificer in 3E and i loved him, because he couldn'T do shit on his own. sure i could do blasting by creating wands of fireball. but thats literally all i could do at higher levels. while that mage could literally just create scrolls of desintegrate. my artificer was loved by the others because he was the support guy and they felt right having that with them, unlike all the others who tryed to blast their way thru encounters, i was making sure they lived another day during that fight, or could nuke the shit out of the bad guys by buffing them up. i was way more different then a wizard who was forced to lose feats in order to gain crafting things. i had them freely. but the major difference was, that the wizard could get way beyond with its spell choice. while i was behind on everything else.
one last note. A wizard could take the same road, i could literally make an artificer and have the wizard do the very same with all crafting feats and all. so no... they are not all that different, the only difference was in the making of their stuff. an artificer would do it faster and more mechanically. it was even said in their descriptions... "they emulates magic" the same way i'm simulating gravity by spinning something on itself. thats how artificers are, they dont understand the mysticallity of the small pie to make people laugh, but telling a joke has the same effect, so why would i throw a pie ? in that sense, the fireball spell they would throw would be more like a bomb instead of a simple red bead like the wizard. they get the same effects, but the wizard wouldn't understand how the artificer got the same effect with material components like metal and ore.
that's their difference to begin with...
and by the way... just to help...
as i said... one is mystical in his ways, the other is scientifically doing it.
but both are interchangeable.
and to be clear... in eberron, artificers are responsible of the circle of creation and inventions. while wizards are responsible of the circle of mysticism and history.
in ebrron both classes are interchangeable, wizards can do the artificers job and artificers can do the job of wizard. but the laws in eberron stops them from doing that. because thats how the setting works. so again, you should stop trying to make a class neutral to any settings when it was not defined as such to begin with. i'm not going to change my whole world views on a whim for a class that you guys want as neutral for the sake of being neutral. the real question is... how does it fit your world ?
all i want from the artificer, is for it to be mechanical, scientifically mechanical.
artificers invents guns and robots as well as gears to simulates effects of magical stuff.
wizards care about history and the mysticism behind the magic that permeates the world around them.
thats the base of both classes. that's all i'm requiring from both classes.
anything else is setting specific to me.
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 wanted the tinkerer that is gear and mechanics, but what is always published has its effects as always the same outcome as a spell so it always ends up as window dressing.
I'd like it be more anti magic, not able to dispel etc. We're not getting that. So this what we get unless you Homebrew in your own group.
I would use more updated reference for explanations on spellcasting.... You know, one that's updated in the last 10 years..? And on top of that this latest version of the Artificer was created for 5th Edition... If you were looking for an Artificer that fit a different setting, or different edition better, maybe check out one of the earlier releases, or one from a previous Edition. 5E is the most updated, easily understood, and easy to jump into versions of DND.
The reason WotC came out with 5E is because they needed an update to the games 4th Edition rule set, and has made leaps and bounds simplifying the entire game. From Spellcasting to Grappling, everything is much more easily understood.
Something that takes precedent in 5E, more than any other edition in my opinion, is the fact that you can make your character, and the world, whatever you want. You can add twists onto old cliches and tropes, and you can subvert the typical archetypal characters with interesting narrative... IF you want to cast spells from your top-hat, or maybe a glass eye, sure why not? How about a bird that's linked to your characters soul somehow.
You mentioned that it seems WotC wants to "replace the Wizard with the Artificer..." Lemme just mention if you are comparing 5E to 3rd Edition, you're in for a headache, and a lot of unnecessary work. And I also believe that you could not possibly be further from the truth...
3rd Edition was replete with character choices and options. With it's over 100+ total supplements for 3rd Edition alone... Players were intimidated by the amount of reading that was necessary to find a good combination of Multi-Class so that you could build a halfway functioning character... It was ridiculous to say the least. Options are fun, but can bog down the important parts of the game. Having fun with your friends.
On that note, if you think WotC will be "replacing" their love child Class, the Wizard, you will be pleasantly surprised your silk wearing, santa looking glass cannon in no way could be replaced. How do I know? Well with the Wizards 10+ 5E Archetypes.... I think WIZARDS of the Coast will have a hard time just sweeping that under the rug.... On top of that, Wizards have the longest list of available spells that they can learn, and carry spellbooks so that they can in fact do just that. Meanwhile, the Artificer has 100% access to all of their spell lists, and will never get anything passed a 5th level spell. Wizards get how many level 7, 8, & 9 spells?
Meanwhile, our half-caster over here, the Artificer, has just used a gem he had cut, and infused to imbue his crossbow with magic and it now deals an extra 2d6 whatever elemental damage they freaking want. And while the Wizard is nearly down for the count, the Artificer can slide up next to the Wizard and supply some much needed healing, or Lesser Restoration.
If you are in a campaign that takes place on a ship, or a cart, or a spelljammer, or inside a dungeon, or a research facility... These are all opportunities for your Dungeon Master to leverage the Artificer as a class and make it useful. Exactly like being a Paladin and attempting to eliminate evil from a once holy temple.
I'm not as familiar with Eberron content as I am with other content, but you could essentially flavor an artificer whatever way you want. If you have checked out Xanathar's Guide to Everything, they have descriptions of each set of tools, and things that you can do with them for examples. As an artificer, you can utilize these tool proficiency to new ends otherwise unattainable by other classes. You can even attempt to combine multiple Tool Proficiency into one project, completing all kinds of devices like guns, robots, or other machines.
And if you're upset about the fact that Artificer's have spell slots... These are just used as a means of "tracking and adjudicating" in game mechanics, and not a direct reflection of the narrative. Don't want your Alchemist to cast spells? Fine, don't. All his "Spells" are potions he throws at people that he makes on long rests when Artificer's prepare their spells. The newest Artificer is very much a DUNGEON MASTER's Playable Class. You have so many options that are adjudicated by in game rules, and the use of items and time. It can be a lot, but you can flavor it however you'd like.
And I might also remind you... No one in the history of Humanity has ever had anything akin to "Hit Points." These are metaphysical points that we use to determine how much damage your Character can take before they fall unconscious. We use them as a tracking system to keep tabs on our characters and how much "supplies" they have left in their journey. Spell Slots are just HP for spells. But I don't see you calling WotC out for that, or coming up with a better means of keeping track of your characters vitality and spell aptitude in table-top format.
I'm sorry, where is this idea of replacing Wizards with Artificers coming from? Did I miss something in this conversation?
It is just an exaggeration of the Ebberon setting lore applied to classes. In Ebberon there are no Wizards and Artificer take their place as more grounded representatives, hence by exaggeration Wizards and Artificers cannot exist within the same universe.
My counter is of course don’t apply Ebberon specific definitions of Artificers just use tinkerer, steampunk, magitech ideas instead. Then it can exist both thematically and lore wise, and mechanically it is already distinct in Half Int caster. (I do think guns should be let into forgotten realms with the Artificers, just say they are 100s of years from being Overpowered)
The core concept I disagree with is that the core classes are somehow exempt from all the arguments you make @DnDPaladin. You say Artificers don’t fit generic worlds hence only the core classes should remain, but never talk about Monks as being out of place in most western fantasy of the Sword Coast, etc.
Keyword:"western"
Meaning guns and the likes.
This is a strict sense of stereotypes to think swords and melee weapons are europeen or japanese only. Im right now playing a monk in a far west type setting and it fits well within the confines.
If something seems out of place in your setting it might only be because of what "you" are doing in it.
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)
Unsure if this has been talked about earlier in this thread given that it is 42 pages long. However, I found a great subclass for the current artificer: Arcane Archer (yes i know Fighter has one). However, I feel that the fluff here fits soooo much better than fighter. Making some sort of ranged/thrown character that imbues attacks with spells would be amazing. It would fit exactly with everything that has been published for UA artificer so far.
Anyway, just a thought.
@DnDPaladin, @Memphisck, @Mezzurah, @Arutha
I don't want the Artificer to replace the Wizard and I don't believe WotC wants to replace the Wizard as well. With that being said, I feel that the current Artificer build (UA '19) turns the Artificer into a half-caster Wizard that has the ability to make temporary magical items. In order for the current Artificer build to not feel like a half-caster Wizard, WotC encourages the class users to use their imagination when explaining how they cast spells while following the rules for casting spells. This doesn't work for me. As the Artificer just feels like a water-downed Wizard.
DnDPaladin, I agree that both Wizards and Artificers can create magical items; so can the Cleric (how else do you think the Holy Avenger sword and or the other items that are specific to Clerics and Paladins classes were created). The Wizard however, is the class that spends years studying the arcane arts to gain the ability to wield magic and it's many different forms. And some Wizard use that ability to imbue certain items with magical properties. The Artificer on the other hand can spend their years learning to craft items so that they have certain level of quality before the items can be imbued with magical properties. So on some level the Artificer utilizes the arcane arts in order to imbue their crafted items with magical properties. I can understand an Artificer creating a tool to simulate the magical effects of a spell, but the current UA '19 Artificer uses magic to imbue items with magical properties. So the argument that the Artificer just creates items/ tools that simulates the magical effects of spells but are not magic items, in my opinion is wrong.
IN MY OPINION, the current UA '19 Artificer core class needs to move away from the Eberron influence and become more of a class that can be used in almost any world. Then your subclasses can be created. The core class can grant the player access to spellcasting but also the ability crafting of permanent magical items (not temporary ones as described in Infused Items or the items described in Magical Tinkering). Like the Wizard's spellbook, the Artificer could have a book or sets of blueprints that have detailed instruction on how to craft certain magical items. It can contain a list of items/ ingredients necessary to craft the item and imbue it with it's magical properties. For example...
An Artificer uses their Leatherworker's tool to create a leather satchel. Once completed they begin to carve arcane symbols into the leather that will be on the inside of the satchel. As they are carving the arcane symbols they begin to chant a series of arcane words and sentences and once they are done carving the arcane symbols, they turn the satchel right side out and finish the incantation. The bag begins to glow and they have just create a Bag of Holding.
The create of the Bag of Holding can be done over a period of time. The current Artificer build just has you touching a nonmagical item after you wake from a long rest and you are able to imbue that item with magical properties. The ability says, they "INFUSE" an item with magical properties, there is no crafting involved. How can people say that the Artificer is creating items that have similar properties of a spell or a similar magical item but they are not magical? The player's "INFUSED" magic items would ping if someone were to cast Detect Magic and if someone were to cast the Identify spell on said "INFUSED" magic item, they would learn the properties of that "INFUSED" magic item. Lets not forget that Magical Tinkering and several subclass features require the Artificer to magically imbue an item or summon an items.
What it boils down to is that the Artificer does utilize the arcane arts, thus they are able to use magic in a limited way. The Artificer will never be able to replace the Wizard as the Wizard has a greater amount of control over the arcane art, thus giving them access to a larger number of spells. The Wizard will not be able to replace an Artificer, as the Artificer has a better understanding of the creation of magical items, thus giving them the ability to craft high quality non magical items and then imbuing them with magical properties. An Artificer doesn't need the Fireball or Magic Missile spells in order to craft a Wand of Fireballs or Wand of Magic Missiles. They have technical knowledge and blueprints that shows them how.
@Marine2874
It was Eberron that introduced the Artificer, and it was for Eberron that the current version of the Artificer was mostly created. I've read 2 of Keith Baker's trilogies so far (The Draconic Prophesy & The Dreaming Dark trilogy) and I'd say that this version comes close to what Keith conceived of. When complete, the Artificer is meant to be added to the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron so I completely disagree with you that :
This I do not agree with. They use the Arcane arts in a different way, not a more limited way. They can perform arcane tasks, like creating magical items, in shorter periods of time because that is what they specialize in. Wizards, and most other arcane casters, focus on the casting of spells, and thus have a much wider range of effects they can produce. Not many other arcane casters can heal, the Artificer can through his various tools.
I am currently playing a Level 3 artificer (Artillerist)/Level 2 wizard (War mage) and am enjoying it immensely. I am human with the Crossbow Expert feat and can do fair amage with the hand crossbow being now +1 and by casting Arcane Weapon on it.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I'm fine with them using Eberron as their primary inspiration, and I think it'd be cool if they made a couple of subclasses that revolve around Eberron lore *coughcoughwandslingerscough* but I think would be better served if it's able to fit in settings outside of Eberron as well, such as Ravnica. For instance, take the artillerist: I have no doubt that it makes sense in the context of Eberron, but when you take it outside of that setting, then the two main focuses of the subclass (smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wands) just don't make any sense when you put them together, it would be better to focus on one part or the other.