I think your latest paragraph is very well laid out on most important points of the non magical vote, and you know my PoV. (related to Rangers are just half-caster Druids with bows, and Paladins are just half-caster Clerics with Big Weapons) Instead lets discuss your crafting of permanent magical items, so we can flesh out to a compromise.
1. What happens if your item is destroyed? Obviously this was the biggest item people complained about in 2017 and what drove this iteration. If it is something you know how to make, what stops you from making 100s. And if it is a one time thing then you just lost a part of your identity.
2. How long does it take? If it is over a week, then Artificers lose this core aspect when playing oneshots/short quests/start of game, every time the Artificer learns a new Magic item he asks the party to stop adventuring for a week? And if it is over a Long rest, what is the fluff?
3. What Materials required? If fully mundane, cloth bag + ink = bag of holding, then there is crazy money making potential. And if it is materials of the same cost as buying, what happens if those are not available?
4. What stops you from selling? Connected to point 2, if permanent consider how much money an artificer would be making, with magic items costing ridiculous high amounts as in 5e. I'd be happy with a stable 100g profit stream per adventure, but not 2-5 * 2,500g Bags of Holdings after every adventure.
5. Can you really flood the market with permanent magic items? This really doesn't fit into 5e and a Lot of other worlds ... "become more of a class that can be used in almost any world"
6. How does the presence of NPC Artificers effect your world? We can assume there are none of over 10th level as any PC class over 10th level is world changing, but if an Artificer lives in a town pumping out magical items literally every day from level 2, the whole world economy will be flooded within a year. (Which is why I previously suggested that permanent magic items be only at level 18)
Conclusion: I think this is again a problem with the fluff, and hope you agree with the following change in description without any change in mechanics (I actually did suggest this in like the first 10 pages :-P)
Driven to Invention: As an Artificer, when you take a long rest, you can choose to spend up to six hours entrenched in your work, rather than sleeping. In this state, you are unaware of your surroundings instead spending the time working on your inventions. After this you collapse in sleep for the remainder of the Long rest.
And then the Infusions text can change to: "Over the course of the long rest, you can work on a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magical item." instead of "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item." (Maybe at this point change name Infusions to Schematics)
Finally do something less mechanical about the limit of infusions? Your magical items become unstable if you hold too many together at a time? If you don't carefully disassemble the oldest item it explodes after 1d6 hours, roll on Sorcerers Wild Magic Table. And/Or the magic you infuse saps away if you are not within range as the mundane materials slowly decay, but you can spend an equivalent cost in gold to make the item stable for selling. (affected by your subclass crafting benefits)
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.
I have to agree with you here. I run ongoing campaigns in both Eberron (new for me) and in the Forgotten Realms. Neither current archetypes really fit FR though the Alchemist comes closest.
I'll be really happy when we can create subclasses on DnDBeyond to play with. As it is I've had to add the Artificer (2019) to Hero Lab to play with. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I think your latest paragraph is very well laid out on most important points of the non magical vote, and you know my PoV. (related to Rangers are just half-caster Druids with bows, and Paladins are just half-caster Clerics with Big Weapons) Instead lets discuss your crafting of permanent magical items, so we can flesh out to a compromise.
1. What happens if your item is destroyed? Obviously this was the biggest item people complained about in 2017 and what drove this iteration. If it is something you know how to make, what stops you from making 100s. And if it is a one time thing then you just lost a part of your identity.
2. How long does it take? If it is over a week, then Artificers lose this core aspect when playing oneshots/short quests/start of game, every time the Artificer learns a new Magic item he asks the party to stop adventuring for a week? And if it is over a Long rest, what is the fluff?
3. What Materials required? If fully mundane, cloth bag + ink = bag of holding, then there is crazy money making potential. And if it is materials of the same cost as buying, what happens if those are not available?
4. What stops you from selling? Connected to point 2, if permanent consider how much money an artificer would be making, with magic items costing ridiculous high amounts as in 5e. I'd be happy with a stable 100g profit stream per adventure, but not 2-5 * 2,500g Bags of Holdings after every adventure.
5. Can you really flood the market with permanent magic items? This really doesn't fit into 5e and a Lot of other worlds ... "become more of a class that can be used in almost any world"
6. How does the presence of NPC Artificers effect your world? We can assume there are none of over 10th level as any PC class over 10th level is world changing, but if an Artificer lives in a town pumping out magical items literally every day from level 2, the whole world economy will be flooded within a year. (Which is why I previously suggested that permanent magic items be only at level 18)
Conclusion: I think this is again a problem with the fluff, and hope you agree with the following change in description without any change in mechanics (I actually did suggest this in like the first 10 pages :-P)
Driven to Invention: As an Artificer, when you take a long rest, you can choose to spend up to six hours entrenched in your work, rather than sleeping. In this state, you are unaware of your surroundings instead spending the time working on your inventions. After this you collapse in sleep for the remainder of the Long rest.
And then the Infusions text can change to: "Over the course of the long rest, you can work on a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magical item." instead of "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item." (Maybe at this point change name Infusions to Schematics)
Finally do something less mechanical about the limit of infusions? Your magical items become unstable if you hold too many together at a time? If you don't carefully disassemble the oldest item it explodes after 1d6 hours, roll on Sorcerers Wild Magic Table. And/Or the magic you infuse saps away if you are not within range as the mundane materials slowly decay, but you can spend an equivalent cost in gold to make the item stable for selling. (affected by your subclass crafting benefits)
You are taking the creation of permanent magical items to the extreme. While they may be valid points, and some people with think along the same lines, it is up to the DM inform their players on what they can and cannot do. I am going to address each of your questions.
1. Magic items are not something that are destroyed very easily. The very magic that gives them their special properties also gives them protection similar ordinary items don’t have. Take for instance an ordinary sword, if stayed on the bottom of an ocean or any body of water it would eventually rust, a magical sword on the other hand would be protected because of its magical nature. There are magical items in the DMG that describe how they can be damage or destroyed, and if a character or adventuring party was careless to get their magic item destroyed then they have to live with it until they can replace it (even if they can replace it).
2. The DMG and XGtE explains how a player can create a magical item (cost and time frame). It is up to the DM to decide what magical item they can create, the cost and material needed and the amount of time necessary. There is nothing stopping the player and DM from hashing these things out in the beginning and during gameplay.
3. This connects back to my answer to your second question. The materials required to craft a magical item is completely up to the DM and the player. XGtE (pg. 129) mentions DM using quests for a player to get one or more of the materials necessary to craft a magic item. My example of creating a Bag of Holding was to show the disparity of creating a permanent magic item and the temporary ones in the current Artificer build.
4. Once again this connects back to my answer to your second question. Making money off of the creation and selling magic items, it is up to the DM to manage that. There are multiple RPGs that talk about rewarding characters and their ability to make money so it doesn't break the game and make it boring to play.
Years ago, I was playing in the WEG Star Wars RPG with some friends. I missed a couple of sessions and one of the players was able to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that essentially broke the game. So, I decided to GM a game and one of my goals was to kill his character off or if I couldn’t, I'd make it so that he would lose all of his equipment and the wealth he gained while I was absent. Needless to say, I was unable to kill him, but I was able to destroy his equipment and I set it up that his wealth was stolen. This was done to bring the game back into balance.
As for creating multiple magical items per session, a Bag of Holding has a rarity of Uncommon and costs between 101-500gp (DMG pgs. 135 & 153-154). As per XGtE in order to craft a Bag of Holding it would take 2 weeks and cost 200gp (pg. 129). If we look at the Artillerist's Tools of the Trade - Crafting, they can craft a magic wand it cost half's has much in the quarter of the amount of time. So, a Wand of Fireballs that would normally take 10 weeks at a cost of 2,000gp, the Artillerist can craft it in 2.5 weeks at a cost of 1,000gp.
5. This is where the DM comes into play. The DM needs to have some level of control over what the player is capable of. No one is saying that an Artificer can create a magic item every single day, especially me. The Wonderous Invention ability in the Artificer UA ’17 had some flaws, but overall it was a good feature. It allowed the Artificer the ability to create permanent magical items at certain levels. This controlled to a certain extent the Artificer’s ability to craft magic items.
6. Who do you think crafts the magic items in the world of D&D? While the world of Eberron had the Artificer, the rest of the D&D universe had Wizards and Clerics. The introduction of the Artificer in 5e was a way to allow player to craft their own magic items without having to purchase them. The Herbalism kit allows a player that is proficient with it the ability to craft the basic healing potion at a cost of 25gp and a single day’s worth of work (8 hours). The Alchemist can do it for 12.5gp in 2 hours. There are benefits to being an Artificer, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to craft a Bag of Hold in a single day. Let alone a Staff of Power in a single week.
I believe that the Artificer should be able to have some sort of benefit to crafting permanent magical items. The Alchemist gets a big boost in crafting potions and the Artillerist gets a big boost to crafting wands. But what about a generic boost for other magic items? Say like half the time, at half the cost or half the time, three quarters of the cost. This means the player isn't crafting 5 Bags of Holding in a single day. Let's not forget that just because they crafted the item to sell doesn't mean they will be able to sell it at the price they want, even if they are able to sell it at all.
Finally, I can't agree with your "Drive to Invention" rewording of Infuse Item. I personally think that the Infuse Item ability is an over powered ability no matter how you try to reword it. And the fact I think it is a terrible ability to begin with. I respect your views but no matter how I look at the current Artificer build, I am really disappointed in it.
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.
This I can agree with. Instead of making the entire class fit the Eberron setting, why not create a univeral core class and subclasses that would fit in Eberron, Ravnica and homebrew worlds. This would allows players and DM to utilize the core Artificer class and only those subclasses that fit their setting..
Thanks for the reply, I guess I was surprised to see you only describing the current permanent crafting as described in XtgE and the slight addition Artificer subclasses currently give and a potential addition to Core of a small boost to speed.
I still consider these Ribbons, as they are mechanics that come from theme but don’t affect how you play. I don’t really see a difference between 2 weeks and 1 week as they are both too long to do during an adventure, 8 hours of 4 hours might have a slight effect but it is still 2 or so Long rests.
I think if that was the only aspect of crafting items then it really would feel like just a Half Wizard with a discount card on materials and an assistant rolled into one. I may have misunderstood because you only used DMG and XtgE examples but every Wizard and Cleric can craft those.
I guess to get us closer to an understanding, what would you give an Artificer to make it feel distinctly Artificery instead of Quick crafting Magical items? And it has to be like something usable every session. Hope that helps.
Ill put it this way for all of you out there that thinks it is setting specific...
What stops you from adding said class to your world ?
Really you guys are arguing for no reasons at all and it seems to me like you are not even dms to begin with.
I have literally played in 5 of my different worlds some more whacky then others. And i have played in as many worlds as i can count because above 50 different dms in 30 years.
How many were locked away with class races... About 0 of them. I have yet to see any dm restraining his players from taking a race or class just because his world did not have them. How many dms have you met that told you... " i dont have x and y races in my world so you cant take em." far worse how many told you... "No x and y classes because in my world they dont exists."
Seriously the argument about setting specific is ridiculous at best and a nit pick on a dms part. Are you guys that shallow that you must play something exactly as written just because you cant create yourself ? I sure dont and i have no problem seeing a wand slinger in any of my worlds that i created and they are very very far from ebberon !
All is a question of perception and fluff. So why bother saying... This fit or not in certain worlds where it just a matter of saying yes you can or no you dont ?
Nit picking... Thats what the argument looks like to me.
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)
The core of an Artificer should be what the name means... A skilled craftsman or inventor. The quick crafting magical items that requires the player to add flair/ imagination as they touch a nonmagical item after long rest and poof it is a magical item to me isn't an Artificer. A skilled craftsman or inventor is able to have some advantages with the crafting/ creating an item because of their experience. The Infuse Item ability does not reflect any of that experience. Take the Wondrous Invention ability of the UA '17 Artificer. The player was able to craft a magical item at certain levels. But the key thing to this ability was that the magic item was created after "long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation". None of the abilities described in the UA '19 Artificer reflect on gaining this experience. Now the Wondrous Invention ability was flawed, but yet it didn't reward a player the ability to create a magic item after a long rest.
And while a Wizard and Cleric can craft the magic items described in the DMG & XGtE, it would still take them the full time frame and cost to craft a magic item as described in DMG or XGtE.
I would want a generic bonus that allows Artificer to craft a magic item in half the time and maybe three quarters of the costs. And the subclasses receive a bonus to a specific type of magic item. Like the Alchemist can craft potions in a quarter of the time at half the cost.
I could see and support a subclass that would allow the Artificer to craft temporary magical items, but not ones that would last until the player decides to replace it. Maybe the magic items duration last for a number of days equal to the player's Intelligence modifier.
Artificer's already have the ability to craft temporary magical items. They are called Infusions.
I can see an Archetype that allows the crafting of true magic items in 1/4 time & 1/2 cost mind you. But this is far as I would ever go in my campaigns.
Also, I have already implemented certain limitations concerning Infused (temporary) magical items in my campaigns: 1) Infused items, due to the nature can be DISPELLED. They are not true, permanent magical items after all. 2) Bags of Holding, if destroyed or somehow placed in another extra-dimension space, merely lose their magical properties. They do not create rifts as a true Bag of Holding do. I've already had 1 player trying to use them as weapon.
On the other hand, I also allow the Artificer to chose whatever appearance s/he chooses for an item. (ie. A Chest of Holding, A Torch of Revealing, etc.) Also, I allow my player's Artificer to create new items with Magical Tinkering. One of my players has created a brush which cleans her hair when she uses it. Another, who uses a Painter's Supplies, painted several different holy symbols and coats-of-arms on his shield. He changes them by tapping out the number of the image he wants to display.
For my main Artificer, at this time, I've gone Artillerist. One of my Infused Items is a Lantern of Revealing. I chose to have my Turret have a locking socket at its peak that I lock the lantern into. The only way to free it is to dismiss the Turret or blow it up. :)
The player who created the brush is currently using her downtime to research a variant ability for her Turret. She wants a hairdresser mode of things . . .
You have to leave room for the player's creativity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I just had an idea I think I'll ask my player Artificer to try out for a session:
When casting Alchemist or Artillerist specific spells, allows them to be cast through the Homunculous or Turret as long as the Homunculous or Turret is within 60-feet of you. I may also allow the Homunculous to be the cast of the spell. Of course all spell slots would have to be from the Artilleriest. I'll have to do some playtesting to see if my idea turns out to be too over powered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
"What would you give an Artificer to make it feel distinctly Artificery instead of Quick crafting Magical items?" My response was round about, but essentially make Infuse Item a subclass ability and have a generic bonus to craft permanent magic item for the core class.
You want to expand upon the abilities of the Alchemist's homunculus and the Artillerist's turret and allow subclass specific spells to be cast through them.
Are you purposely trying to make the subclasses overpowered?
The core of an Artificer should be what the name means... A skilled craftsman or inventor. The quick crafting magical items that requires the player to add flair/ imagination as they touch a nonmagical item after long rest and poof it is a magical item to me isn't an Artificer. A skilled craftsman or inventor is able to have some advantages with the crafting/ creating an item because of their experience. The Infuse Item ability does not reflect any of that experience. Take the Wondrous Invention ability of the UA '17 Artificer. The player was able to craft a magical item at certain levels. But the key thing to this ability was that the magic item was created after "long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation". None of the abilities described in the UA '19 Artificer reflect on gaining this experience. Now the Wondrous Invention ability was flawed, but yet it didn't reward a player the ability to create a magic item after a long rest.
And while a Wizard and Cleric can craft the magic items described in the DMG & XGtE, it would still take them the full time frame and cost to craft a magic item as described in DMG or XGtE.
I would want a generic bonus that allows Artificer to craft a magic item in half the time and maybe three quarters of the costs. And the subclasses receive a bonus to a specific type of magic item. Like the Alchemist can craft potions in a quarter of the time at half the cost.
I could see and support a subclass that would allow the Artificer to craft temporary magical items, but not ones that would last until the player decides to replace it. Maybe the magic items duration last for a number of days equal to the player's Intelligence modifier.
Yeah again agree to disagree, the current crafting system doesn’t allow for anything interesting to happen over the course of every session hence is not something that can be the core of a class mechanics. It.can and should be there because of theme but it is not enough.Your suggestion can be added to the current iteration in my opinion with absolutely no balance issue. If WotC don’t create any new mechanic then there is no reason for a new class I agree with @DnDPaladin on that point.
If you ask to remove a feature such as Infusions you need to give Core Artificers something to do of the level of Smites or Wildshape or Metamagic or Sneakattack or Ki, something no other class can do at all, and you can do within a 4 hour session at least once.
PS. I feel I already addressed the “long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation” in my last suggestion, which adds a 6 hour work time to creating any of your magic items(from the schematics you learn/invent as you level up), but hides it behind a Longrest so it doesn’t affect the flow of a normal game for the rest of the PCs.
Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't ban any of my players from taking this class (in fact, I consider myself somewhat laissez-faire when it comes to things like character decisions), but I have seen other people say not to take X race and Y class because they aren't a part of their setting, which, frankly, sucks.
Now as far as WotC using the Eberron setting for inspriation, again, I'm fine with that so long as they aren't too reliant on it. As I said before, maybe in the context of the Eberron setting it makes sense for Artillerists to have a special focus on both smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wandcrafting, but when you remove Eberron from the equation then those two things just don't fit together very well at all, and that's a pitfall I'd like WotC to avoid.
Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't ban any of my players from taking this class (in fact, I consider myself somewhat laissez-faire when it comes to things like character decisions), but I have seen other people say not to take X race and Y class because they aren't a part of their setting, which, frankly, sucks.
Now as far as WotC using the Eberron setting for inspriation, again, I'm fine with that so long as they aren't too reliant on it. As I said before, maybe in the context of the Eberron setting it makes sense for Artillerists to have a special focus on both smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wandcrafting, but when you remove Eberron from the equation then those two things just don't fit together very well at all, and that's a pitfall I'd like WotC to avoid.
And what im saying is that you picked one features and literally just decided that to you its ebberon specific setting !! Which is just that. You interpretting it that way out of the blue. I really dont see it as specific. Say the marks are very setting specific as they use literally factions from the setting.
But a class feature using wands ?
Heck id see wizards with that kind of feature !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It's not out of the blue. When this latest UA came out at the end of February, I saw the Artillerist with a jarring focus on two different things that didn't really go together: the turret, which felt like a strong class feature, and the wand prototype, which didn't really fit and felt like an afterthought tacked on just for the sake of having a complete subclass. Then I saw the D&D Beyond video where Jeremy Crawford talked about some of the design decisions behind the Artificer, and when talking about the Artillerist he kept bringing up it's role in the Last War in Eberron and how they operated and maintained the turrets in the Last war, and how they carried wands as sidearms in the Last War. So yes, it is something specific to the Eberron setting, and it makes sense in that context, but when you remove that context it doesn't make sense, it just feels like something slapped on for the sake of having a complete subclass ready to put out to meet the old UA deadline.
And this isn't because I'm opposed to class features using wands. I think it'd be great to have a wand subclass that focused on wandcrafting. I'd love to see a wizard subclass that does something with wands that other wizards can't. Heck, when I first saw the Eldritch Knight subclass for fighters I instantly saw it as an armored figure walking into battle with a sword in one hand and a wand in the other (before I looked again and saw that the text didn't say anything about being able to use an arcane focus).
All I'm saying is, from where I'm standing the wandcrafting/wand prototype features don't feel to me like they fit and at first I thought they were only added as an afterthought, which I now know isn't the case because I saw the video outlining their thoughts on the design, but without that piece of Eberron lore all I see is two subclass features that don't make much thematic sense together. Maybe you disagree with my opinion, and that's fine, we don't have to agree, but that's where I'm coming from with my concern.
Lastly we are not saying there is NO other world that could have these types of characters. We are just saying that given 5e has such Archetypical Hero Classes, slotting this niche subclass reasoning from one setting into 5e is jarring, and does take extra effort from the DM that isn’t in the design philosophy of any other class.
Especially when it doesn’t deliver on the Epicness or Mechanics end (plus Int to a cantrip is not worth it) and it could so easily be reworked into more archetypical Mechanist and Wandslinger. Staying with the current first draft is not worth it unless it really adds to the iteration.
That and suddenly jumping to 6 attunement slots at level 20 instead of scaling as you go are really the only main complaints I have about the Revisited Artificer. I would call the turret based subclass something like a Tactician.
The core of an Artificer should be what the name means... A skilled craftsman or inventor. The quick crafting magical items that requires the player to add flair/ imagination as they touch a nonmagical item after long rest and poof it is a magical item to me isn't an Artificer. A skilled craftsman or inventor is able to have some advantages with the crafting/ creating an item because of their experience. The Infuse Item ability does not reflect any of that experience. Take the Wondrous Invention ability of the UA '17 Artificer. The player was able to craft a magical item at certain levels. But the key thing to this ability was that the magic item was created after "long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation". None of the abilities described in the UA '19 Artificer reflect on gaining this experience. Now the Wondrous Invention ability was flawed, but yet it didn't reward a player the ability to create a magic item after a long rest.
And while a Wizard and Cleric can craft the magic items described in the DMG & XGtE, it would still take them the full time frame and cost to craft a magic item as described in DMG or XGtE.
I would want a generic bonus that allows Artificer to craft a magic item in half the time and maybe three quarters of the costs. And the subclasses receive a bonus to a specific type of magic item. Like the Alchemist can craft potions in a quarter of the time at half the cost.
I could see and support a subclass that would allow the Artificer to craft temporary magical items, but not ones that would last until the player decides to replace it. Maybe the magic items duration last for a number of days equal to the player's Intelligence modifier.
Yeah again agree to disagree, the current crafting system doesn’t allow for anything interesting to happen over the course of every session hence is not something that can be the core of a class mechanics. It.can and should be there because of theme but it is not enough.Your suggestion can be added to the current iteration in my opinion with absolutely no balance issue. If WotC don’t create any new mechanic then there is no reason for a new class I agree with @DnDPaladin on that point.
If you ask to remove a feature such as Infusions you need to give Core Artificers something to do of the level of Smites or Wildshape or Metamagic or Sneakattack or Ki, something no other class can do at all, and you can do within a 4 hour session at least once.
PS. I feel I already addressed the “long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation” in my last suggestion, which adds a 6 hour work time to creating any of your magic items(from the schematics you learn/invent as you level up), but hides it behind a Longrest so it doesn’t affect the flow of a normal game for the rest of the PCs.
Why does something interest have to happen in a over the course of a single session? Yes it can make the session boring, but not every session has to be about trying to walk across a rotted out rope bridge in the Underdark. There will be boring sessions, those sessions that allow the players to take care of personal business that you wouldn't normally be able to take care of while you are in the middle of a "quest".
Infuse Item is available at 2nd level. From 2nd - 5th levels you can have 2 infused items, 6th - 10th 3 infused items, 11th - 15th 4 infused items and at 16th level you get 5 infused items. All of which are "semi" permanent items. Your suggestion of spending 6 hours during a long rest creating an infused item will result in the player having to deal with exhaustion. Two hours of rest does not benefit from a long rest. So the player has to decide, do I want to take 3/4 quarters of my long rest and infuse a new item, gain an exhaustion point and not receive any benefit of a long rest, or do I forgo infusing an item, not receive a level of exhaustion, and receive the benefits of a long rest?
With Wondrous Invention is available at 2nd level, you can "craft" an additional permanent magic item at 5th, 10th, 15th, & 20th levels. This gives you 5 magic items that you crafted. What is to say that during that 4 hour session you are not working on studying, tinkering, and experimenting to create your next magic item?
Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't ban any of my players from taking this class (in fact, I consider myself somewhat laissez-faire when it comes to things like character decisions), but I have seen other people say not to take X race and Y class because they aren't a part of their setting, which, frankly, sucks.
Now as far as WotC using the Eberron setting for inspriation, again, I'm fine with that so long as they aren't too reliant on it. As I said before, maybe in the context of the Eberron setting it makes sense for Artillerists to have a special focus on both smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wandcrafting, but when you remove Eberron from the equation then those two things just don't fit together very well at all, and that's a pitfall I'd like WotC to avoid.
And what im saying is that you picked one features and literally just decided that to you its ebberon specific setting !! Which is just that. You interpretting it that way out of the blue. I really dont see it as specific. Say the marks are very setting specific as they use literally factions from the setting.
But a class feature using wands ?
Heck id see wizards with that kind of feature !
I agree with @Mezzurah. The smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wand crafting may work in Eberron, but they don't fit together very well overall.
In the D&D Beyond Youtube video "The New Artificer in Dungeons & Dragons' Unearthed Arcana", Jeremy Crawford states that the current version of the Artificer (UA '19) is more focused on Eberron than the previous version of the class. A big part of that is due to their release of Wayfinders Guide to Ebberon. They worked with Keith Baker (the creator of Eberron) to make the current Artificer class to appear better than the ones in Eberron from the past and what they wanted Artificers to appear going into the future.
It can be stated that the Artificer is a Eberron setting specific class. However, that doesn't mean the Artificer couldn't be used in other settings. However, there are aspects of the current build that don't work in every setting. Like turrets and wand crafting.
I don't believe that Mezzurah is asking for wands to be a class feature, but that maybe separating wands from the Artillerists and making a separate subclass called the wandslinger.
The wand is actually a feature of Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards. They can all use wands as a spellcasting focus, if they choose to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Marine2874
I think your latest paragraph is very well laid out on most important points of the non magical vote, and you know my PoV. (related to Rangers are just half-caster Druids with bows, and Paladins are just half-caster Clerics with Big Weapons) Instead lets discuss your crafting of permanent magical items, so we can flesh out to a compromise.
1. What happens if your item is destroyed? Obviously this was the biggest item people complained about in 2017 and what drove this iteration. If it is something you know how to make, what stops you from making 100s. And if it is a one time thing then you just lost a part of your identity.
2. How long does it take? If it is over a week, then Artificers lose this core aspect when playing oneshots/short quests/start of game, every time the Artificer learns a new Magic item he asks the party to stop adventuring for a week? And if it is over a Long rest, what is the fluff?
3. What Materials required? If fully mundane, cloth bag + ink = bag of holding, then there is crazy money making potential. And if it is materials of the same cost as buying, what happens if those are not available?
4. What stops you from selling? Connected to point 2, if permanent consider how much money an artificer would be making, with magic items costing ridiculous high amounts as in 5e. I'd be happy with a stable 100g profit stream per adventure, but not 2-5 * 2,500g Bags of Holdings after every adventure.
5. Can you really flood the market with permanent magic items? This really doesn't fit into 5e and a Lot of other worlds ... "become more of a class that can be used in almost any world"
6. How does the presence of NPC Artificers effect your world? We can assume there are none of over 10th level as any PC class over 10th level is world changing, but if an Artificer lives in a town pumping out magical items literally every day from level 2, the whole world economy will be flooded within a year. (Which is why I previously suggested that permanent magic items be only at level 18)
Conclusion: I think this is again a problem with the fluff, and hope you agree with the following change in description without any change in mechanics (I actually did suggest this in like the first 10 pages :-P)
Driven to Invention: As an Artificer, when you take a long rest, you can choose to spend up to six hours entrenched in your work, rather than sleeping. In this state, you are unaware of your surroundings instead spending the time working on your inventions. After this you collapse in sleep for the remainder of the Long rest.
And then the Infusions text can change to: "Over the course of the long rest, you can work on a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magical item." instead of "Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item." (Maybe at this point change name Infusions to Schematics)
Finally do something less mechanical about the limit of infusions? Your magical items become unstable if you hold too many together at a time? If you don't carefully disassemble the oldest item it explodes after 1d6 hours, roll on Sorcerers Wild Magic Table. And/Or the magic you infuse saps away if you are not within range as the mundane materials slowly decay, but you can spend an equivalent cost in gold to make the item stable for selling. (affected by your subclass crafting benefits)
I have to agree with you here. I run ongoing campaigns in both Eberron (new for me) and in the Forgotten Realms. Neither current archetypes really fit FR though the Alchemist comes closest.
I'll be really happy when we can create subclasses on DnDBeyond to play with. As it is I've had to add the Artificer (2019) to Hero Lab to play with. :)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
You are taking the creation of permanent magical items to the extreme. While they may be valid points, and some people with think along the same lines, it is up to the DM inform their players on what they can and cannot do. I am going to address each of your questions.
1. Magic items are not something that are destroyed very easily. The very magic that gives them their special properties also gives them protection similar ordinary items don’t have. Take for instance an ordinary sword, if stayed on the bottom of an ocean or any body of water it would eventually rust, a magical sword on the other hand would be protected because of its magical nature. There are magical items in the DMG that describe how they can be damage or destroyed, and if a character or adventuring party was careless to get their magic item destroyed then they have to live with it until they can replace it (even if they can replace it).
2. The DMG and XGtE explains how a player can create a magical item (cost and time frame). It is up to the DM to decide what magical item they can create, the cost and material needed and the amount of time necessary. There is nothing stopping the player and DM from hashing these things out in the beginning and during gameplay.
3. This connects back to my answer to your second question. The materials required to craft a magical item is completely up to the DM and the player. XGtE (pg. 129) mentions DM using quests for a player to get one or more of the materials necessary to craft a magic item. My example of creating a Bag of Holding was to show the disparity of creating a permanent magic item and the temporary ones in the current Artificer build.
4. Once again this connects back to my answer to your second question. Making money off of the creation and selling magic items, it is up to the DM to manage that. There are multiple RPGs that talk about rewarding characters and their ability to make money so it doesn't break the game and make it boring to play.
Years ago, I was playing in the WEG Star Wars RPG with some friends. I missed a couple of sessions and one of the players was able to accumulate a vast amount of wealth that essentially broke the game. So, I decided to GM a game and one of my goals was to kill his character off or if I couldn’t, I'd make it so that he would lose all of his equipment and the wealth he gained while I was absent. Needless to say, I was unable to kill him, but I was able to destroy his equipment and I set it up that his wealth was stolen. This was done to bring the game back into balance.
As for creating multiple magical items per session, a Bag of Holding has a rarity of Uncommon and costs between 101-500gp (DMG pgs. 135 & 153-154). As per XGtE in order to craft a Bag of Holding it would take 2 weeks and cost 200gp (pg. 129). If we look at the Artillerist's Tools of the Trade - Crafting, they can craft a magic wand it cost half's has much in the quarter of the amount of time. So, a Wand of Fireballs that would normally take 10 weeks at a cost of 2,000gp, the Artillerist can craft it in 2.5 weeks at a cost of 1,000gp.
5. This is where the DM comes into play. The DM needs to have some level of control over what the player is capable of. No one is saying that an Artificer can create a magic item every single day, especially me. The Wonderous Invention ability in the Artificer UA ’17 had some flaws, but overall it was a good feature. It allowed the Artificer the ability to create permanent magical items at certain levels. This controlled to a certain extent the Artificer’s ability to craft magic items.
6. Who do you think crafts the magic items in the world of D&D? While the world of Eberron had the Artificer, the rest of the D&D universe had Wizards and Clerics. The introduction of the Artificer in 5e was a way to allow player to craft their own magic items without having to purchase them. The Herbalism kit allows a player that is proficient with it the ability to craft the basic healing potion at a cost of 25gp and a single day’s worth of work (8 hours). The Alchemist can do it for 12.5gp in 2 hours. There are benefits to being an Artificer, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to craft a Bag of Hold in a single day. Let alone a Staff of Power in a single week.
I believe that the Artificer should be able to have some sort of benefit to crafting permanent magical items. The Alchemist gets a big boost in crafting potions and the Artillerist gets a big boost to crafting wands. But what about a generic boost for other magic items? Say like half the time, at half the cost or half the time, three quarters of the cost. This means the player isn't crafting 5 Bags of Holding in a single day. Let's not forget that just because they crafted the item to sell doesn't mean they will be able to sell it at the price they want, even if they are able to sell it at all.
Finally, I can't agree with your "Drive to Invention" rewording of Infuse Item. I personally think that the Infuse Item ability is an over powered ability no matter how you try to reword it. And the fact I think it is a terrible ability to begin with. I respect your views but no matter how I look at the current Artificer build, I am really disappointed in it.
You can disagree with my opinion and that is your right. But I still feel that they took the Artificer in the wrong direction.
This I can agree with. Instead of making the entire class fit the Eberron setting, why not create a univeral core class and subclasses that would fit in Eberron, Ravnica and homebrew worlds. This would allows players and DM to utilize the core Artificer class and only those subclasses that fit their setting..
Thanks for the reply, I guess I was surprised to see you only describing the current permanent crafting as described in XtgE and the slight addition Artificer subclasses currently give and a potential addition to Core of a small boost to speed.
I still consider these Ribbons, as they are mechanics that come from theme but don’t affect how you play. I don’t really see a difference between 2 weeks and 1 week as they are both too long to do during an adventure, 8 hours of 4 hours might have a slight effect but it is still 2 or so Long rests.
I think if that was the only aspect of crafting items then it really would feel like just a Half Wizard with a discount card on materials and an assistant rolled into one. I may have misunderstood because you only used DMG and XtgE examples but every Wizard and Cleric can craft those.
I guess to get us closer to an understanding, what would you give an Artificer to make it feel distinctly Artificery instead of Quick crafting Magical items? And it has to be like something usable every session. Hope that helps.
Ill put it this way for all of you out there that thinks it is setting specific...
What stops you from adding said class to your world ?
Really you guys are arguing for no reasons at all and it seems to me like you are not even dms to begin with.
I have literally played in 5 of my different worlds some more whacky then others. And i have played in as many worlds as i can count because above 50 different dms in 30 years.
How many were locked away with class races... About 0 of them. I have yet to see any dm restraining his players from taking a race or class just because his world did not have them. How many dms have you met that told you... " i dont have x and y races in my world so you cant take em." far worse how many told you... "No x and y classes because in my world they dont exists."
Seriously the argument about setting specific is ridiculous at best and a nit pick on a dms part. Are you guys that shallow that you must play something exactly as written just because you cant create yourself ? I sure dont and i have no problem seeing a wand slinger in any of my worlds that i created and they are very very far from ebberon !
All is a question of perception and fluff. So why bother saying... This fit or not in certain worlds where it just a matter of saying yes you can or no you dont ?
Nit picking... Thats what the argument looks like 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)
The core of an Artificer should be what the name means... A skilled craftsman or inventor. The quick crafting magical items that requires the player to add flair/ imagination as they touch a nonmagical item after long rest and poof it is a magical item to me isn't an Artificer. A skilled craftsman or inventor is able to have some advantages with the crafting/ creating an item because of their experience. The Infuse Item ability does not reflect any of that experience. Take the Wondrous Invention ability of the UA '17 Artificer. The player was able to craft a magical item at certain levels. But the key thing to this ability was that the magic item was created after "long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation". None of the abilities described in the UA '19 Artificer reflect on gaining this experience. Now the Wondrous Invention ability was flawed, but yet it didn't reward a player the ability to create a magic item after a long rest.
And while a Wizard and Cleric can craft the magic items described in the DMG & XGtE, it would still take them the full time frame and cost to craft a magic item as described in DMG or XGtE.
I would want a generic bonus that allows Artificer to craft a magic item in half the time and maybe three quarters of the costs. And the subclasses receive a bonus to a specific type of magic item. Like the Alchemist can craft potions in a quarter of the time at half the cost.
I could see and support a subclass that would allow the Artificer to craft temporary magical items, but not ones that would last until the player decides to replace it. Maybe the magic items duration last for a number of days equal to the player's Intelligence modifier.
Artificer's already have the ability to craft temporary magical items. They are called Infusions.
I can see an Archetype that allows the crafting of true magic items in 1/4 time & 1/2 cost mind you. But this is far as I would ever go in my campaigns.
Also, I have already implemented certain limitations concerning Infused (temporary) magical items in my campaigns:
1) Infused items, due to the nature can be DISPELLED. They are not true, permanent magical items after all.
2) Bags of Holding, if destroyed or somehow placed in another extra-dimension space, merely lose their magical properties. They do not create rifts as a true Bag of Holding do. I've already had 1 player trying to use them as weapon.
On the other hand, I also allow the Artificer to chose whatever appearance s/he chooses for an item. (ie. A Chest of Holding, A Torch of Revealing, etc.)
Also, I allow my player's Artificer to create new items with Magical Tinkering. One of my players has created a brush which cleans her hair when she uses it. Another, who uses a Painter's Supplies, painted several different holy symbols and coats-of-arms on his shield. He changes them by tapping out the number of the image he wants to display.
For my main Artificer, at this time, I've gone Artillerist. One of my Infused Items is a Lantern of Revealing. I chose to have my Turret have a locking socket at its peak that I lock the lantern into. The only way to free it is to dismiss the Turret or blow it up. :)
The player who created the brush is currently using her downtime to research a variant ability for her Turret. She wants a hairdresser mode of things . . .
You have to leave room for the player's creativity.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Question all:
I just had an idea I think I'll ask my player Artificer to try out for a session:
When casting Alchemist or Artillerist specific spells, allows them to be cast through the Homunculous or Turret as long as the Homunculous or Turret is within 60-feet of you. I may also allow the Homunculous to be the cast of the spell. Of course all spell slots would have to be from the Artilleriest. I'll have to do some playtesting to see if my idea turns out to be too over powered.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Arutha asked me the following question...
"What would you give an Artificer to make it feel distinctly Artificery instead of Quick crafting Magical items?" My response was round about, but essentially make Infuse Item a subclass ability and have a generic bonus to craft permanent magic item for the core class.
You want to expand upon the abilities of the Alchemist's homunculus and the Artillerist's turret and allow subclass specific spells to be cast through them.
Are you purposely trying to make the subclasses overpowered?
Yeah again agree to disagree, the current crafting system doesn’t allow for anything interesting to happen over the course of every session hence is not something that can be the core of a class mechanics. It.can and should be there because of theme but it is not enough.Your suggestion can be added to the current iteration in my opinion with absolutely no balance issue. If WotC don’t create any new mechanic then there is no reason for a new class I agree with @DnDPaladin on that point.
If you ask to remove a feature such as Infusions you need to give Core Artificers something to do of the level of Smites or Wildshape or Metamagic or Sneakattack or Ki, something no other class can do at all, and you can do within a 4 hour session at least once.
PS. I feel I already addressed the “long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation” in my last suggestion, which adds a 6 hour work time to creating any of your magic items(from the schematics you learn/invent as you level up), but hides it behind a Longrest so it doesn’t affect the flow of a normal game for the rest of the PCs.
@DnDPaladin
Speaking as a DM, I wouldn't ban any of my players from taking this class (in fact, I consider myself somewhat laissez-faire when it comes to things like character decisions), but I have seen other people say not to take X race and Y class because they aren't a part of their setting, which, frankly, sucks.
Now as far as WotC using the Eberron setting for inspriation, again, I'm fine with that so long as they aren't too reliant on it. As I said before, maybe in the context of the Eberron setting it makes sense for Artillerists to have a special focus on both smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wandcrafting, but when you remove Eberron from the equation then those two things just don't fit together very well at all, and that's a pitfall I'd like WotC to avoid.
And what im saying is that you picked one features and literally just decided that to you its ebberon specific setting !! Which is just that. You interpretting it that way out of the blue. I really dont see it as specific. Say the marks are very setting specific as they use literally factions from the setting.
But a class feature using wands ?
Heck id see wizards with that kind of feature !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
It's not out of the blue. When this latest UA came out at the end of February, I saw the Artillerist with a jarring focus on two different things that didn't really go together: the turret, which felt like a strong class feature, and the wand prototype, which didn't really fit and felt like an afterthought tacked on just for the sake of having a complete subclass. Then I saw the D&D Beyond video where Jeremy Crawford talked about some of the design decisions behind the Artificer, and when talking about the Artillerist he kept bringing up it's role in the Last War in Eberron and how they operated and maintained the turrets in the Last war, and how they carried wands as sidearms in the Last War. So yes, it is something specific to the Eberron setting, and it makes sense in that context, but when you remove that context it doesn't make sense, it just feels like something slapped on for the sake of having a complete subclass ready to put out to meet the old UA deadline.
And this isn't because I'm opposed to class features using wands. I think it'd be great to have a wand subclass that focused on wandcrafting. I'd love to see a wizard subclass that does something with wands that other wizards can't. Heck, when I first saw the Eldritch Knight subclass for fighters I instantly saw it as an armored figure walking into battle with a sword in one hand and a wand in the other (before I looked again and saw that the text didn't say anything about being able to use an arcane focus).
All I'm saying is, from where I'm standing the wandcrafting/wand prototype features don't feel to me like they fit and at first I thought they were only added as an afterthought, which I now know isn't the case because I saw the video outlining their thoughts on the design, but without that piece of Eberron lore all I see is two subclass features that don't make much thematic sense together. Maybe you disagree with my opinion, and that's fine, we don't have to agree, but that's where I'm coming from with my concern.
@DnDPaladin
Lastly we are not saying there is NO other world that could have these types of characters. We are just saying that given 5e has such Archetypical Hero Classes, slotting this niche subclass reasoning from one setting into 5e is jarring, and does take extra effort from the DM that isn’t in the design philosophy of any other class.
Especially when it doesn’t deliver on the Epicness or Mechanics end (plus Int to a cantrip is not worth it) and it could so easily be reworked into more archetypical Mechanist and Wandslinger. Staying with the current first draft is not worth it unless it really adds to the iteration.
That and suddenly jumping to 6 attunement slots at level 20 instead of scaling as you go are really the only main complaints I have about the Revisited Artificer. I would call the turret based subclass something like a Tactician.
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
Why does something interest have to happen in a over the course of a single session? Yes it can make the session boring, but not every session has to be about trying to walk across a rotted out rope bridge in the Underdark. There will be boring sessions, those sessions that allow the players to take care of personal business that you wouldn't normally be able to take care of while you are in the middle of a "quest".
Infuse Item is available at 2nd level. From 2nd - 5th levels you can have 2 infused items, 6th - 10th 3 infused items, 11th - 15th 4 infused items and at 16th level you get 5 infused items. All of which are "semi" permanent items. Your suggestion of spending 6 hours during a long rest creating an infused item will result in the player having to deal with exhaustion. Two hours of rest does not benefit from a long rest. So the player has to decide, do I want to take 3/4 quarters of my long rest and infuse a new item, gain an exhaustion point and not receive any benefit of a long rest, or do I forgo infusing an item, not receive a level of exhaustion, and receive the benefits of a long rest?
With Wondrous Invention is available at 2nd level, you can "craft" an additional permanent magic item at 5th, 10th, 15th, & 20th levels. This gives you 5 magic items that you crafted. What is to say that during that 4 hour session you are not working on studying, tinkering, and experimenting to create your next magic item?
I agree with @Mezzurah. The smithing/turrets and woodcarving/wand crafting may work in Eberron, but they don't fit together very well overall.
In the D&D Beyond Youtube video "The New Artificer in Dungeons & Dragons' Unearthed Arcana", Jeremy Crawford states that the current version of the Artificer (UA '19) is more focused on Eberron than the previous version of the class. A big part of that is due to their release of Wayfinders Guide to Ebberon. They worked with Keith Baker (the creator of Eberron) to make the current Artificer class to appear better than the ones in Eberron from the past and what they wanted Artificers to appear going into the future.
It can be stated that the Artificer is a Eberron setting specific class. However, that doesn't mean the Artificer couldn't be used in other settings. However, there are aspects of the current build that don't work in every setting. Like turrets and wand crafting.
I don't believe that Mezzurah is asking for wands to be a class feature, but that maybe separating wands from the Artillerists and making a separate subclass called the wandslinger.
The wand is actually a feature of Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards. They can all use wands as a spellcasting focus, if they choose to.