Being able to use wands as a focus is at level 3 for an artillerist only. At level 1 you have to use artisan tools, of which due to the current scenario, I have none. At level 2 I can use one of my infused items as a focus and (fortunately) infusing an item does not require an artisan tool, so once I get to level 2 I should, technically be able to start casting spells if I don't already have an artisan tool kit yet.
I do find it odd that Infusions do not require artisan tools, but magical tinkering does. More specifically because the infusions are a lot more involved than magical tinkering does.
Perhaps they could append this to the end of Magical Tinkering to alleviate this problem?
Alternatively, as an action and without needing a set of artisan's tools, you can use Magical Tinkering to turn a tiny nonmagical object into Prototype Artisan's Tools. These Prototype Artisan's tools do count toward the maximum number of objects you can affect with this feature.
Oof, I never even thought of that as a potential problem; that's rough!
I originally was going to suggest that Magical Tinkering be made into an Artificer cantrip, as it felt more like a utility cantrip like Prestidigitation than a class feature, but I like your idea. I think I will suggest that instead.
Even if Magical Tinkering was made into an Artificer Cantrip, cantrips still fall under the "Tools Required" class feature of requiring artisan tools for casting spells... So I can't even cast my cantrips.
Damage always dealing at least 1 damage is a house rule, which works for your group, great, but isn't necessarily always the case.
Crafting your own tools would work...Except you need artisan tools to craft them (first paragraph). So how am I supposed to craft artisan tools if I need artisan tools to craft said artisan tools?
i know its a house rule, but you should talk to your DM really... because the damage not doing at least 1 damage has always been a stupid ruling in d&d because anything can do damage. imagine yourself hitting someone with a ring on... you really think the DM will make that a a 1 point of damage ? anything can be a weapon including you hitting with a stick you found on the floor. in that very case, why would your fist not be a weapon ? if i were you i'd talk about it. as it clearly is a problem for your kobold.
as for tools... you never ever used a kitchen knife to unscrew a flat head screw ? do you really think the rules in the manual are to be respected line by line ? imagine yourself and then do it. thats what d&D is all about. again talk to your dm and be imaginative. stop looking at the rules and limiting yourself. use those rules and go beyond. do you think those costplayers have been using ful on metal to create their awesome armors ? they use their imagination and create stuff out of other materials if they dont have the right ones. same applies to anything in your d&d fantasy game. even a stick on the floor can serve as a weapon, a rock can serve as a hammer. i really dont see why you limit yourself thinking you need absolutely artisan tools to create artisan tools. you'd have to explain that to me.
i even gave you an exemple that hapenned in one of my games. i really dont think your DM wouldn't let you remake artisan tools even if they are temporary and have limited durability because of the junkiness they are made out of. after all the game itself requires a DM because it does have grey zones and rulings that contradict itself. again, talk to your dm and be imaginative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Yup. Again, that never even occurred to me as a problem until you pointed it out. That is definitely an oversight that needs to be brought up.
i dont see it as an oversight because those equiupment can literally be crafted out of nowhere with downtimes. thats the whole point of losing your powers because you are nude.
literally, if you remove a tool, you remove his powers, same with literally any class... as a DM story wise its important to know what your players weakness and use them against them to enable them to go beyond their weakness. as a player, if you cannot imagine yourself creating your artisan tools again or at least finding a way to make some tools for yourself, then you lack a lot in imagination needed to play the game. if your DM is saying no to you, then why play "his" story if you cannot do what you want ? those are all latent problems that are not game defining, they are playeer and DM defining and have nothing to dow ith the game ruling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Yup. Again, that never even occurred to me as a problem until you pointed it out. That is definitely an oversight that needs to be brought up.
i dont see it as an oversight because those equiupment can literally be crafted out of nowhere with downtimes. thats the whole point of losing your powers because you are nude.
literally, if you remove a tool, you remove his powers, same with literally any class... as a DM story wise its important to know what your players weakness and use them against them to enable them to go beyond their weakness. as a player, if you cannot imagine yourself creating your artisan tools again or at least finding a way to make some tools for yourself, then you lack a lot in imagination needed to play the game. if your DM is saying no to you, then why play "his" story if you cannot do what you want ? those are all latent problems that are not game defining, they are playeer and DM defining and have nothing to dow ith the game ruling.
Well, that's not entirely accurate. If you take everything away from the full casters they'll be hampered, but not all spells are dependent on having foci or having material components, and if you take everything away from a monk that would have a very minimal impact on their combat abilities thanks to their Martial Arts feature. "Oh no, I have lost all of my equipment, whatever shall I *BAM*HADOUKEN!!!!"
So far as I can tell, there aren't actually any rules on how to get artisan's tools without buying them, stealing them, or looting them. Now as a DM, I would totally come up with a way for my player to have an opportunity to get them or allow my player to Macgyver their way into improvising tools with rocks, sticks, and a piece of gum, but looking at the books I don't see anything that says you can do that (and if there is, please point me to it because I have my books right in front of me and have not been able to find that). From the looks of it, that is entirely DM dependent, and while you and I might allow a player to improvise tools for their character to use, I woudn't bet against there being DMs pedantic enough to not allow that either.
@DnDPaladin - The problem is all the examples you gave or house rules examples. Does creating mundane items require artisan tools? Read as Written? Yes.
Anything beyond that is up to the generosity of the DM.
@Mezzurah - Also the Arcane Turret requires Smith Tools and the Create Homunculus requires Alchemist Supplies.
Am I the only one who is extremely annoyed that the "Alchemist" has almost nothing to do with potions? In that way I like the previous incarnation of the Alchemist way better. Originally, Alchemy really just meant one of two things: The process of turning other materials into gold or silver and the creation of a universal cure that cured any disease and prolonged life. The latter is where the potion alchemist comes from. It's not until later around the medieval ages and Renaissance that Alchemical homunculus became a thing. Also, while there are already pet classes, the potion-based alchemist is pretty unique. For the record I also like the idea of the gunsmith as well. It fits with the tinkerer flavor that an artificer would have an extremely complicated weapon that he/she constantly improves upon and tweaks. I don't hate the Artillerist, I just wish they kept some incarnation of the gunsmith. My main beef is with the Alchemist.
So you never play rai ? Because you seem to be a rule lawyer and im playing as intended by the creators. The intention of crafting was not to limit your abilities to craft stuff. But whatever grizzlebub... Whatever...
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)
Am I the only one who is extremely annoyed that the "Alchemist" has almost nothing to do with potions? In that way I like the previous incarnation of the Alchemist way better. Originally, Alchemy really just meant one of two things: The process of turning other materials into gold or silver and the creation of a universal cure that cured any disease and prolonged life. The latter is where the potion alchemist comes from. It's not until later around the medieval ages and Renaissance that Alchemical homunculus became a thing. Also, while there are already pet classes, the potion-based alchemist is pretty unique. For the record I also like the idea of the gunsmith as well. It fits with the tinkerer flavor that an artificer would have an extremely complicated weapon that he/she constantly improves upon and tweaks. I don't hate the Artillerist, I just wish they kept some incarnation of the gunsmith. My main beef is with the Alchemist.
Nah im stoked as well.
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)
Also, when you think about it, the Artificer is quite OP-- it's a half-caster with magical improvements, but it can also have a +3 weapon that comes back to you, damage resistance, and 21 AC by 12th level.
My wizard can get to 29 ac by level 5.if i have an 18 dex and a 18 int.
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 regularly play Read as Intended, however, even then you have to take into account what is worded, and anything that delineates from that is still a house rule as interpreted by the GM. Which is OKAY, but still should not to be expected at all tables.
Creating a set of artisan tools require a set of artisan tool to create them. That is in the rules. Period. And I find it difficult to see how it could be interpreted as though that wasn't their intent.
Now it is up to the GM to come up with something if a player wishes to create something without them. Maybe they are only a prototype with limited uses? Maybe they only have a specific use? Regardless that is up to the GM to determine if they will allow it at their table.
Also, when you think about it, the Artificer is quite OP-- it's a half-caster with magical improvements, but it can also have a +3 weapon that comes back to you, damage resistance, and 21 AC by 12th level.
I'm trying to figure out how you have a +3 Weapon of Returning using the Infusions. You cannot infuse an already magical object and infusions make them magical, so you can't have the Enhanced Weapon and Returning Weapon infusions on the same weapon.
Damage always dealing at least 1 damage is a house rule, which works for your group, great, but isn't necessarily always the case.
Crafting your own tools would work...Except you need artisan tools to craft them (first paragraph). So how am I supposed to craft artisan tools if I need artisan tools to craft said artisan tools?
Forge domain clerics are great for creating (re-creating) tools as long as those tools contain some metal. Or, for 2 levels as Wizard you can go Scool of Conjuration. Then just create whatever focus you need for 1 hour per use.
I feel like discussing the “itemless” artificer isn’t actually a discussion about the class, but about this scenario. It’s not an issue of balance, the DM simply took your class ability away. It’s not up to the game rules to give it back. That’s the DM’s job. If he wanted you to have your class abilities, he’d have you find a hammer or let you make some scavenged tools.
Oh I agree it is a scenario that shouldn't be common, but one that does happen.
However, when compared to other classes that are "itemless" the Artificer is noticeably lacking. Even a wizard without a spell book has his spells that he last prepared available to him and his cantrips, which are memorized. Even spellcasters without a focus, holy symbol or component pouch has spells that don't require a material component available and most cantrips. Not to mention other class features.
The problem I have is right now after three sessions there has been nothing that really makes it apparent I am an artificer. If I switched classes to Rogue, Fighter, Druid or anything really at this point none of the other players would be none the wiser.
And multiclassing as a solution isn't really a solution at all.
Am I the only one who is extremely annoyed that the "Alchemist" has almost nothing to do with potions? In that way I like the previous incarnation of the Alchemist way better. Originally, Alchemy really just meant one of two things: The process of turning other materials into gold or silver and the creation of a universal cure that cured any disease and prolonged life. The latter is where the potion alchemist comes from. It's not until later around the medieval ages and Renaissance that Alchemical homunculus became a thing. Also, while there are already pet classes, the potion-based alchemist is pretty unique. For the record I also like the idea of the gunsmith as well. It fits with the tinkerer flavor that an artificer would have an extremely complicated weapon that he/she constantly improves upon and tweaks. I don't hate the Artillerist, I just wish they kept some incarnation of the gunsmith. My main beef is with the Alchemist.
I totally agree about the Alchemist, I also feel that we should have more subclass options and that one of them should be a weaponsmith subclass akin to the Gunsmith. Also, there could be a homunculus class called the Creaturemaster or something, but the Alchemist should be a potion specialist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I'm fine with the Alchemist being themetically related to alchemical homunculi and I could see a potion based artificer being called a Chemist, instead.
Alchemy goes further than just "guy who makes potions". Homunculi are generally created through alchemy and they can specialize in all types of transmutational weirdness. Though I would like to see some of the abilities from the first pass of the alchemist come back. Maybe in the "tools of the trade" section of the subclass have a small list of potions that only the Alchemist can create, and in a short period of time. Those being the items from the Alchemist's Satchel feature (Alchemical Fire, Smoke Stick, Swift Step Draught, and Thunderstone), albiet, with number changes to fit in with the current model.
Oh, and Alchemical Mastery should also effect the potions that you painstakingly craft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oof, I never even thought of that as a potential problem; that's rough!
I originally was going to suggest that Magical Tinkering be made into an Artificer cantrip, as it felt more like a utility cantrip like Prestidigitation than a class feature, but I like your idea. I think I will suggest that instead.
Even if Magical Tinkering was made into an Artificer Cantrip, cantrips still fall under the "Tools Required" class feature of requiring artisan tools for casting spells... So I can't even cast my cantrips.
Yup. Again, that never even occurred to me as a problem until you pointed it out. That is definitely an oversight that needs to be brought up.
i know its a house rule, but you should talk to your DM really... because the damage not doing at least 1 damage has always been a stupid ruling in d&d because anything can do damage. imagine yourself hitting someone with a ring on... you really think the DM will make that a a 1 point of damage ? anything can be a weapon including you hitting with a stick you found on the floor. in that very case, why would your fist not be a weapon ? if i were you i'd talk about it. as it clearly is a problem for your kobold.
as for tools... you never ever used a kitchen knife to unscrew a flat head screw ? do you really think the rules in the manual are to be respected line by line ?
imagine yourself and then do it. thats what d&D is all about. again talk to your dm and be imaginative. stop looking at the rules and limiting yourself. use those rules and go beyond. do you think those costplayers have been using ful on metal to create their awesome armors ? they use their imagination and create stuff out of other materials if they dont have the right ones. same applies to anything in your d&d fantasy game. even a stick on the floor can serve as a weapon, a rock can serve as a hammer. i really dont see why you limit yourself thinking you need absolutely artisan tools to create artisan tools. you'd have to explain that to me.
i even gave you an exemple that hapenned in one of my games.
i really dont think your DM wouldn't let you remake artisan tools even if they are temporary and have limited durability because of the junkiness they are made out of.
after all the game itself requires a DM because it does have grey zones and rulings that contradict itself. again, talk to your dm and be imaginative.
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 dont see it as an oversight because those equiupment can literally be crafted out of nowhere with downtimes. thats the whole point of losing your powers because you are nude.
literally, if you remove a tool, you remove his powers, same with literally any class...
as a DM story wise its important to know what your players weakness and use them against them to enable them to go beyond their weakness.
as a player, if you cannot imagine yourself creating your artisan tools again or at least finding a way to make some tools for yourself, then you lack a lot in imagination needed to play the game. if your DM is saying no to you, then why play "his" story if you cannot do what you want ? those are all latent problems that are not game defining, they are playeer and DM defining and have nothing to dow ith the game ruling.
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)
Well, that's not entirely accurate. If you take everything away from the full casters they'll be hampered, but not all spells are dependent on having foci or having material components, and if you take everything away from a monk that would have a very minimal impact on their combat abilities thanks to their Martial Arts feature. "Oh no, I have lost all of my equipment, whatever shall I *BAM* HADOUKEN!!!!"
So far as I can tell, there aren't actually any rules on how to get artisan's tools without buying them, stealing them, or looting them. Now as a DM, I would totally come up with a way for my player to have an opportunity to get them or allow my player to Macgyver their way into improvising tools with rocks, sticks, and a piece of gum, but looking at the books I don't see anything that says you can do that (and if there is, please point me to it because I have my books right in front of me and have not been able to find that). From the looks of it, that is entirely DM dependent, and while you and I might allow a player to improvise tools for their character to use, I woudn't bet against there being DMs pedantic enough to not allow that either.
@Grizzlebub I just realized, looking at the Magical Tinkering, that also requires you to have artisan's tools in order for you to use that feature...
EDIT: nevermind what I just said, you already addressed that in your comment and clearly I need more sleep...
@DnDPaladin - The problem is all the examples you gave or house rules examples. Does creating mundane items require artisan tools? Read as Written? Yes.
Anything beyond that is up to the generosity of the DM.
@Mezzurah - Also the Arcane Turret requires Smith Tools and the Create Homunculus requires Alchemist Supplies.
Am I the only one who is extremely annoyed that the "Alchemist" has almost nothing to do with potions? In that way I like the previous incarnation of the Alchemist way better. Originally, Alchemy really just meant one of two things: The process of turning other materials into gold or silver and the creation of a universal cure that cured any disease and prolonged life. The latter is where the potion alchemist comes from. It's not until later around the medieval ages and Renaissance that Alchemical homunculus became a thing. Also, while there are already pet classes, the potion-based alchemist is pretty unique. For the record I also like the idea of the gunsmith as well. It fits with the tinkerer flavor that an artificer would have an extremely complicated weapon that he/she constantly improves upon and tweaks. I don't hate the Artillerist, I just wish they kept some incarnation of the gunsmith. My main beef is with the Alchemist.
So you never play rai ? Because you seem to be a rule lawyer and im playing as intended by the creators. The intention of crafting was not to limit your abilities to craft stuff. But whatever grizzlebub... Whatever...
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)
Nah im stoked as well.
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)
My wizard can get to 29 ac by level 5.if i have an 18 dex and a 18 int.
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 regularly play Read as Intended, however, even then you have to take into account what is worded, and anything that delineates from that is still a house rule as interpreted by the GM. Which is OKAY, but still should not to be expected at all tables.
Creating a set of artisan tools require a set of artisan tool to create them. That is in the rules. Period. And I find it difficult to see how it could be interpreted as though that wasn't their intent.
Now it is up to the GM to come up with something if a player wishes to create something without them. Maybe they are only a prototype with limited uses? Maybe they only have a specific use? Regardless that is up to the GM to determine if they will allow it at their table.
I'm trying to figure out how you have a +3 Weapon of Returning using the Infusions. You cannot infuse an already magical object and infusions make them magical, so you can't have the Enhanced Weapon and Returning Weapon infusions on the same weapon.
Forge domain clerics are great for creating (re-creating) tools as long as those tools contain some metal. Or, for 2 levels as Wizard you can go Scool of Conjuration. Then just create whatever focus you need for 1 hour per use.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I feel like discussing the “itemless” artificer isn’t actually a discussion about the class, but about this scenario. It’s not an issue of balance, the DM simply took your class ability away. It’s not up to the game rules to give it back. That’s the DM’s job. If he wanted you to have your class abilities, he’d have you find a hammer or let you make some scavenged tools.
Oh I agree it is a scenario that shouldn't be common, but one that does happen.
However, when compared to other classes that are "itemless" the Artificer is noticeably lacking. Even a wizard without a spell book has his spells that he last prepared available to him and his cantrips, which are memorized. Even spellcasters without a focus, holy symbol or component pouch has spells that don't require a material component available and most cantrips. Not to mention other class features.
The problem I have is right now after three sessions there has been nothing that really makes it apparent I am an artificer. If I switched classes to Rogue, Fighter, Druid or anything really at this point none of the other players would be none the wiser.
And multiclassing as a solution isn't really a solution at all.
I totally agree about the Alchemist, I also feel that we should have more subclass options and that one of them should be a weaponsmith subclass akin to the Gunsmith. Also, there could be a homunculus class called the Creaturemaster or something, but the Alchemist should be a potion specialist.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
I'm fine with the Alchemist being themetically related to alchemical homunculi and I could see a potion based artificer being called a Chemist, instead.
Alchemy goes further than just "guy who makes potions". Homunculi are generally created through alchemy and they can specialize in all types of transmutational weirdness. Though I would like to see some of the abilities from the first pass of the alchemist come back. Maybe in the "tools of the trade" section of the subclass have a small list of potions that only the Alchemist can create, and in a short period of time. Those being the items from the Alchemist's Satchel feature (Alchemical Fire, Smoke Stick, Swift Step Draught, and Thunderstone), albiet, with number changes to fit in with the current model.
Oh, and Alchemical Mastery should also effect the potions that you painstakingly craft.