@Marine2874 Pardon me, I didn't see your second comment. I saw Magical Tinkering as being more like one of the utility cantrips like Prestidigitation or Druidcraft and was planning on suggesting they make it into one for the Artificer Spell List, though someone else (Grizzlebub I believe) suggested adding additional functionality to it by allowing one of the items made with it to be used as a rudimentary spellcasting focus, which I think would make it more meaningful and am planning on making that recommendation as well. As for Arcane Armaments, yeah, I didn't like it either. Unless they add some sort of additional functionality to make up for that, I'd rather they drop the fluff and just make it a normal Extra Attack.
My DM has allowed me a Magical Tinker ability to create a Trigger/Detonator. When tapped, it counts down frpm a number you can set to a maximum or 25. When it hits 0, it creates a spark capable of lighting an oil soak rag. Each number of the countdown is 1 second. So the countdown can be set to up to 25 seconds.
Last session, I dropped a copper piece I'd put my trigger on into a barrel of oil after activating it and ran . . .
Lol, nice! As a DM, I'd probably allow for a bunch of stuff like that. Perhaps when the survey finally comes out (which, might not be for a couple of months by the look of things) you could suggest that Magical Tinkering allow for more things like that at the DM's discretion (that's probably something covered under Rules As Intended, but still worth mentioning in my opinion.)
The DM that I am running my current Artificer under is thinking of creating a rogue/artificer. He is thinking of playing her as a gypst fortune teller (Arcane Trickster) with Charlatan background. Oh the possibilities with Magical Tinkering alone . . .
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
What about during downtime, the Artillerist tinkers away and comes up with plans for a new turret design. He builds the turret and tests it, once complete he magically causes the turret to reduce in size and collapse in on itself making the turret look like a mundane item the size of a deck of cards. To use it, he throws the mundane item out while chanting some words. When the turret lands, it begins to enlarge and transforms into the turret. This explanation of summoning the turret is better than saying I pullout my smithing hammer and strike it on the ground causing a turret to appear.
Hey @Marine2874 this is Exactly what it says you do in the RAW Artificer. It never says you have to only use your tools and nothing else, you just need your tools to unlock the turret when throwing it, otherwise why not pass the secret word to your teammate and let them summon it while you stay at the Inn.
The key to leaving it vaguer is that you ARE NOT locked into one way of summoning and can be a Thor themed Artillerist that summons the turret via lightning bolt. Which you would not be allowed to do if RAW was as above.
Leaving it vague up to imagination is more flexible.
While I appreciate the approach stating “just my opinion”, that is the best way to approach forum posts, I still disagree with your conclusions so expand on them, equally just my opinion but hope to sway yours.
Firstly, WoTC have promised a second half of Artificer UA, which will expand at least the Spells list, hopefully including some more Artificer and Alchemist themed spells, and maybe one more Subclass or more magic items for infusion list. There would be no point in releasing the survey before then as they would not get to process that feedback, and maybe it would already address half of peoples’ concerns.
Secondly, I did not clearly see what you thought was Overpowered besides the flexible Cantrips, which I address below. Could you make a list of the things you think are over powered to discuss?
On the flexible Cantrips, I think this is both a cool mechanic and one that has no balance issues, I mean Warlocks can get 7 cantrips with no multiclassing and any multiclassed spellcaster has a plethora of Cantrips. There is no power creep because you still have to choose 1 that you use each turn, I mean it is not like you can enter a combat with firebolt see they have fire resistance and say "Oops give me 1 hour break and we can restart combat, I just need to swap to ray of frost". They are just cantrips nothing impressive. It also fits the restless tinker and flexible caster theme.
On the Tools casting, I think the point is that this flavour IS THE DEFAULT for Artificer, it is not a variant rule it is a sidebar, so you would need a DMs approval to not do this. A DM technically has to approve any of the examples you have above because it messes with worldbuilding. For example a Sorcerer that gains magic from a God of Magic might flavour his focus as a holy symbol but when captured the guards have to be aware this is possible or they might not think to take his holy symbol. So by default the Artificer HAS NO SPELLS he has MECHANICS DICTATED BY SPELLCASTING, but they are not in lore spells. The Alchemist is creating Potions that recreate spelllike effects when thrown.
On Spellcasting: Spellcasting should not only be considered a core feature of a class, but also a Core Pillar of the whole game of DND 5e. I’d say about half of the game is based off spellcasting, both creatures and player characters. It helps people to build transferrable knowledge, learning how spellcasting works once and applying it to every class and even enemies: When the DM says the enemy casts Counterspell everyone understands but if an Artificer had to say “I use my ability Disruption.” “What is that?” “Oh your spell fails.” it is just not neat. Leaning into spellcasting lets you transfer a lot of utility to a class without having to rewrite a lot of it.
We could run the same set of questions on other classes, calling them sloppy: Why do Way of Four Elements monks just recreate a bunch of Spells? Why do Invocations just grant spells not new abilities? Why are Paladin Smites Spells not just more lists at the end of the class? Why do Paladins use Devine Magic if they are not granted by Gods? Why is Hunter’s Mark/Volley/Swift Quiver Spells and not a list at the end of the class? Why do Half casters just get spells and not Unique melee spell like abilities? I am sure there is a mandate to make sure the new classes have the same difficulty and core class building mechanics as the core classes so leaning into spellcasting system helps make the knowledge transferrable.
Overall I hope this helps explain why I think housing more of Artificers abilities into Spellcasting is an okay approach, and I hope you understand why I hate classes and homebrews that in general have huge lists of spelllike options at the end, it is better to house those rules in the Spellcasting section and explain why the class has this ability. Warlocks, Battlemasters and WotFE Monks are enough already and I can see that Psionics and maybe Summoner Evolutions will need it too but I do not see a reason why Artificer should. It does need an expanded list of lower and higher level Wands and Potions, but ones accessible to everyone, with Artificers being the best at making and hence using them.
PS. I think there isn’t that many people calling for less spellcasting more lists as you implied, you are the first one so strongly in this thread. Also I think in 2017 there was a lot of people saying the Alchemy lists didn’t make sense as it should just be a physical list of craftable potions instead. And I am sorry if I misinterpreted any of your arguments, used biased examples or used any antagonizing language, none of which was my intent.
For the record I do agree with most of the other points you brought up regarding Spell storing and crafting real magic items. Although I would probably just add a level 18 feature which let you make one of your Infusions permanent once per month and ability to learn schematics of magic items you have researched. With no fail states but month long craft times (scaled by number of assistants, even non artificers) and full magic item costs, no freebies just different from magic item purchasing.
On a side note I would enjoy if each subclass similar to its spell list also got a Replicate Magic Item list of a few only it can replicate. (only pulling from already written magic items, otherwise again too cumbersome)
@Marine2874
While you replied to one of my messages you may have missed this one as you still speak of spellcasting as strictly Magical. Do you disagree with the above quoted? I don’t mind if you do but please understand that others are more flexible and do appreciate the design philosophy.
On the topic of overpoweredinfusions, I believe this is a specific balancing idea. Having +1 infusions that early is indeed over powered but it is held in check by the other restrictions you say shouldn’t be there. For example using combat infusions on yourself is not optimised because your martial allies would be able to deal more damage with them, but then Arcane Armament comes in to expressly say “You have to use at least 1 infusion on yourself” that doesn’t seem like such a bad design.
In the old Artificer there was a problem with what happens if you lose your magic item, it never let you make it again. The infusion system gives us so much more flexibility rechoosing the infusions you need for the coming adventure. And if you want to play the other way just don’t swap infusions, only if you lose it recreate again.
In conclusion this is a class that specialises in Magic weapons it is just logical for it to get its magic weapons before everyone else.
I think it is also important to note that infusions can only be put on non-magical items. So those awesome magical weapons you get mid-to-late game? You can add Returning to them, or Radiant.
To me, the weapon and armor infusions are early game infusions. Once other magical weapons and armor start showing up the infusions will slowly migrate to Replicated Magical Items.
@marine2874 they focus it on ebberon because thats actually where it originated. Prior to ebberon there was no artificer. It was created for ebbron because ebberon is a world of technologie and wizards made no sense in that world and thus wizards became artificer. The same way we wont see the psionics before darksun. As they first appeared in darksun.
Also... You talk as if the author and original creator of the artificer wasnt consulted while he was literally the one giving feedback on this revised version and he himself said it was much closer to his book version of his hero which entirely 3e built.
But ill give you that one... Even the original author said it wasnt exactly right yet.
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)
As an engineer myself, I don't understand why Detect Magic and Identify are not part of the Artificer's spell list. Those capabilities seem like they'd be pretty instrumental to someone who copies, repairs, and creates magic items.
PS: Yes I know there is the infusion for a Wand of Detect Magic, but that's not the same.
@NewGMisNew, I would say that feels like an oversight, but 2017 version had identify at 1st level (and didn't even need the material component), so it was intentional. Not sure why, though.
@Marine 2874 They're probably putting more focus on the Eberron setting because they'll be adding the class to the Eberron source book. With that said, I think it might be a good idea for them to take a step back from that and keep a more setting-general flavor to it.
I know some other people like it, but I don't care for the homunculus any more than I cared for the mechanical servant. I would like to see the Infusions have more unique effects to them rather than number increases, but I'm coming at that from more of a flavor/utility standpoint than any sort of numbers game.
I'm not sure why they placed such emphasis on versatility (is there something I'm missing from the earlier editions here?). Personally I'm fine with it having versatility as a class, but they should take care not to make it too general when they do so.
Altering the Artificer class to be more inline with the Eberron setting just because they are releasing an Eberron source book is the wrong direction to take the class. I agree that the Artificer should have a more setting general flavor to it. Maybe they could design a subclass for the Artificer that would work in the Eberron world.
I made the following statement in my original post about the Artificer Revisited. The homunculus is as usefule as rubber toilet paper. Like you I don't care for it or the mechanical servant. But, unlike you I am not a fan of the infusions. Infusion items are just temporary magical items. They stop being magical if the character dies. This can and will be costly to a group who has an Artificer that dies. The Artificer is supposed to craft magic items, not touch a nonmagical mundane item and imbue it with an infusion to turn it into a magic item. That is not crafting a magical item.
Each of the other classes fulfill a niche within the D&D universe. By focusing on making the Artificer versatile, they are essentially negating the some of the other classes. It was pointed out that by giving the Artificer the spells Cure Wounds and Revivify, what use will a Cleric be to an adventuring party?
@Mezzurah the Artificer Revisited already has access to the Prestidigitation cantrip, what's the point of having Magical Tinkering? Yes items made with Magical Tinkering are semi permanent, but unless you have a DM that will work with the player the ability/feature is useless. In my own opinion.
@Marine2874. I don't think the Artificer invalidates the Cleric just because it has Cure Wounds and Revivify. In fact the notion is kind of laughable, considering one is a full caster and the other a half caster. The Artificer gets Revivify at class level 9 compared to the Cleric's class level 5. And if you wish to compare based on healing capabilities, the cleric quickly surpasses the Artificer in all regards: Spell slots, Casting at Higher levels, and additional (more powerful) healing spells.
It is the same reason that Paladin doesn't invalidate the cleric, which also gets Cure Wounds and Revivify. Support healers (Artificer, Bard, Paladin, Ranger et cetera) do not undermine the role of the main healer.
Agreed. In addition to that, clerics have abilities to help with their healing, and other spells like Guiding Bolt and Inflict Wounds that keep others with healing from making the cleric obsolete. The Artificer has no damage spells at level 1 except arcane weapon. In fact, I don't think an Artificer is a very good healer at all; they have other things to spend spell slots on, especially at low levels when spell slots are few.
Yea, Artificers are a support class through and through. And like any support class, they have a little bit of everything, but not good at anything.
Yes they can heal, but if we were meta-building a party I don't think anyone would say
"Okay, we have an artificer, so we don't need any more healing."
Instead, I would imagine one would say:
"Okay, we have an Artificer, does anyone want to play a Paladin, Ranger, or Bard so we can get some more partial healing? Or perhaps a Cleric, Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer or Circle of Dream Druids so we don't have to have 2-3 support healers and can rely on a full one?"
@Marine2874. I don't think the Artificer invalidates the Cleric just because it has Cure Wounds and Revivify. In fact the notion is kind of laughable, considering one is a full caster and the other a half caster. The Artificer gets Revivify at class level 9 compared to the Cleric's class level 5. And if you wish to compare based on healing capabilities, the cleric quickly surpasses the Artificer in all regards: Spell slots, Casting at Higher levels, and additional (more powerful) healing spells.
It is the same reason that Paladin doesn't invalidate the cleric, which also gets Cure Wounds and Revivify. Support healers (Artificer, Bard, Paladin, et cetera) do not undermine the role of the main healer.
I think at this point I am starting to ignore @Marine2874 for being inflexible, irrational and not willing to accept any other viewpoint than his own. It is okay to have his opinion and I will be happy to see how the feedback turns out in the survey. But see little chance of changing his point of view.
While I appreciate the approach stating “just my opinion”, that is the best way to approach forum posts, I still disagree with your conclusions so expand on them, equally just my opinion but hope to sway yours.
It is your right to agree and disagree with what anyone has to say. I like to make it known that I am expressing my opinion and not trying to make an argument the letter of the law. This is an open forum that people can discuss different D&D related topics.
Firstly, WoTC have promised a second half of Artificer UA, which will expand at least the Spells list, hopefully including some more Artificer and Alchemist themed spells, and maybe one more Subclass or more magic items for infusion list. There would be no point in releasing the survey before then as they would not get to process that feedback, and maybe it would already address half of peoples’ concerns.
Why make a class that is supposed to be about crafting magic items all about spellcasting? The Artificer is supposed to be a support character. I already stated that there are players that provide flair and imagination when they cast spells. The UA Artificer that was released in January 2017, was a good starting point for the Artificer. It wasn’t perfect by any measure, but it didn’t rely heavily on spellcasting. It had some arcane abilities to be able to craft magic items, use spell storing, to cast spell in support of other players, and to even use abilities/features in a subclass. So, giving the Artificer access to more spells makes the Artificer undesirable (in my opinion).
Instead of expanding the infuse list (I am not particularly fond of it to begin with) why not address the crafting of permanent magical items? The Artificer is supposed to me a craftsman or inventor. But as I said before, there is almost nothing about crafting permanent magical items in the Artificer Revisited.
Secondly, I did not clearly see what you thought was Overpowered besides the flexible Cantrips, which I address below. Could you make a list of the things you think are over powered to discuss?
My thoughts on overpowered mainly focused on “The Right Cantrip for the Job”, “Wand Prototype”, and certain "Infused Items".
On the flexible Cantrips, I think this is both a cool mechanic and one that has no balance issues, I mean Warlocks can get 7 cantrips with no multiclassing and any multiclassed spellcaster has a plethora of Cantrips. There is no power creep because you still have to choose 1 that you use each turn, I mean it is not like you can enter a combat with firebolt see they have fire resistance and say "Oops give me 1 hour break and we can restart combat, I just need to swap to ray of frost". They are just cantrips nothing impressive. It also fits the restless tinker and flexible caster theme.
The Artificer Revisited turns the Artificer into a spellcaster. The only difference between the Artificer and other spellcasters is that the Artificer needs some sort of tool, invention, or infusion to cast a spell. So, at 10 level the Artificer gains access to the ability/feature “The Right Cantrip for the Job”. This allows them to change out cantrips after a short or long rest. How is this not unbalanced?
A Warlock only has 7 cantrips if they have the Pact of the Tome ability/feature. Otherwise, they only have 4 cantrips. Let’s not forget that the Warlock has an extremely limited number of spell slots (max of 4). So, saying that a Warlock can have 7 cantrips, doesn’t compare to the Artificer Revisited having the ability to change out a cantrip after a short or long rest.
Also, the Artillerist’s ability/feature Wand Prototype gained at 6 level, allows the Artificer to place a cantrip (with a casting time of 1 action) from the Artificer into a wand (even a cantrip they don’t know) after finishing a long rest. At 14 level that number increases to 2 cantrips. This isn’t taking about an invention and reassembling it to have a new function. This is imbuing magical properties into a wooden stick.
Again, having essentially unlimited access to any cantrip is overpowered. Those spellcasters that have access to cantrips must decided which cantrip will work the best for them. Unlike the Artificer who can change their cantrips after a short or long rest.
On the Tools casting, I think the point is that this flavor IS THE DEFAULT for Artificer, it is not a variant rule it is a sidebar, so you would need a DMs approval to not do this. A DM technically has to approve any of the examples you have above because it messes with worldbuilding. For example, a Sorcerer that gains magic from a God of Magic might flavor his focus as a holy symbol but when captured the guards have to be aware this is possible or they might not think to take his holy symbol. So, by default the Artificer HAS NO SPELLS he has MECHANICS DICTATED BY SPELLCASTING, but they are not in lore spells. The Alchemist is creating Potions that recreate spell like effects when thrown.
The “Tools Required” is not a sidebar, it is an actual requirement for Artificers to cast a spell. It clearly states…
“You produce your artificer spell effect through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus–specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool–in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way.”
The Artificer Revisited is casting spells through TOOLS, INFUSED ITEMS, or INVENTIONS. While an invention made be used to simulate the effects of spells, tools and infused items are spellcasting focuses. Boots of the Winding Path is an infused magical item that can be used as a spellcasting focus. That doesn’t mean the boots are an invention that allows the Artificer to simulate the spells Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Longstrider, Blur, Haste or Water Walk. Because in order to use infuse item you need a nonmagical object. And while an Artificer’s inventions are not magical, they do simulate magical effects.
Clearly the Artificer Revisited does have spells because almost everything about the entire revisited class is about casting spells and imbuing magic into an item. There are only 2 entries in the entire class that deals with actual crafting of magical items. That is the “Tools of the Trade” features in each subclass. The Alchemist can craft potions at half the cost and in a quarter amount of time it normally takes to craft a potion. The Artillerist has the same benefits except that they apply to wands. Outside of that, there is nothing about crafting magic items.
To address you comment about a Sorcerer who gains their spellcasting ability from a God. I would expect any DM that has a player who is a Sorcerer and who’s magic is divine or came from a God to have a holy symbol to be their spellcasting focus. I would expect a player to have already made this decision.
On Spellcasting: Spellcasting should not only be considered a core feature of a class, but also a Core Pillar of the whole game of DND 5e. I’d say about half of the game is based off spellcasting, both creatures and player characters. It helps people to build transferrable knowledge, learning how spellcasting works once and applying it to every class and even enemies: When the DM says the enemy casts Counterspell everyone understands but if an Artificer had to say “I use my ability Disruption.” “What is that?” “Oh, your spell fails.” it is just not neat. Leaning into spellcasting lets you transfer a lot of utility to a class without having to rewrite a lot of it.
We could run the same set of questions on other classes, calling them sloppy: Why do Way of Four Elements monks just recreate a bunch of Spells? Why do Invocations just grant spells not new abilities? Why are Paladin Smites Spells not just more lists at the end of the class? Why do Paladins use Devine Magic if they are not granted by Gods? Why is Hunter’s Mark/Volley/Swift Quiver Spells and not a list at the end of the class? Why do Half casters just get spells and not Unique melee spell like abilities? I am sure there is a mandate to make sure the new classes have the same difficulty and core class building mechanics as the core classes so leaning into spellcasting system helps make the knowledge transferrable.
First, Way of the Four Elements (WotFE) subclass for the Monk blows. But it is a subclass and doesn’t affect the entire Monk Class. A Warlock’s Invocations do offer new abilities and not just access to additional spells. The Paladin’s Smite spells are spells that don’t require tools in order to cast them. Who says that the Paladin’s Divine Magic isn’t granted by a God or some deity? It can be said that a Ranger’s devotion to nature grants them access to nature magic. Why can’t half-casters have spells? Not all classes or subclasses lean into the spellcasting system. The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are classes that are not leaning into the spellcasting system. Sure, they have subclasses that have access to spellcasting. But overall those classes are not designed around the spellcasting system.
Overall I hope this helps explain why I think housing more of Artificers abilities into Spellcasting is an okay approach, and I hope you understand why I hate classes and homebrews that in general have huge lists of spell like options at the end, it is better to house those rules in the Spellcasting section and explain why the class has this ability. Warlocks, Battlemasters and WotFE Monks are enough already and I can see that Psionics and maybe Summoner Evolutions will need it too but I do not see a reason why Artificer should. It does need an expanded list of lower and higher level Wands and Potions, but ones accessible to everyone, with Artificers being the best at making and hence using them.
Your explanation does show why you “think housing more of the Artificer’s abilities into spellcasting is an okay approach”, but that is your opinion. But there is nothing wrong about having abilities that have similar effects as spells but are not spells. Take the Eladrin subrace for the Elf (MToF pg. 62). The Eladrin Elf has a racial ability called Fey Step. Fey Step is used as a bonus action and can magically transports the Elf up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space they can see. This ability is similar to the spell Misty Step, but it isn’t.
Nobody (at least myself) is asking for huge lists of ability that are spell like. We are asking for something that isn’t a reskinned spellcaster that requires flair and imagination to cast a spell. The Warlock’s spellcasting ability and invocations are granted to them from the deity that gave them their powers, the Battle Master (Fighter subclass) doesn’t have any spellcasting like abilities, and the WotFE Monk is using their Ki to cast spells. But, the abilities of these classes/subclasses are balanced.
PS. I think there isn’t that many people calling for less spellcasting more lists as you implied, you are the first one so strongly in this thread. Also, I think in 2017 there was a lot of people saying the Alchemy lists didn’t make sense as it should just be a physical list of craftable potions instead. And I am sorry if I misinterpreted any of your arguments, used biased examples or used any antagonizing language, none of which was my intent.
Not everyone who plays D&D is in this forum. I can make an educated guess on my feelings about the class and say that they are people besides myself that would like to see less focus on spellcasting for the class. Just like I can make an educated guess and say that there are people besides you that don’t have a problem with focusing on spellcasting for the class.
As for the Alchemist formulas for the 2017 Artificer, there is nothing that says those formulas were not real. They were potions that required immediate use. They couldn’t be held onto for months or years. I understand being able to craft real potions and that was one of the things wrong with the 2017 Artificer.
As for misinterpreting my arguments, use of biased examples, or the use of antagonizing language, this is a friendly discussion with 2 people expressing their opinions. I take not offense to anything. I may not agree with some or all of what you said, but I respect that you voiced your opinion.
For the record I do agree with most of the other points you brought up regarding Spell storing and crafting real magic items. Although I would probably just add a level 18 feature which let you make one of your Infusions permanent once per month and ability to learn schematics of magic items you have researched. With no fail states but month long craft times (scaled by number of assistants, even non artificers) and full magic item costs, no freebies just different from magic item purchasing.
On a side note I would enjoy if each subclass similar to its spell list also got a Replicate Magic Item list of a few only it can replicate. (only pulling from already written magic items, otherwise again too cumbersome)
@marine2874 they focus it on ebberon because thats actually where it originated. Prior to ebberon there was no artificer. It was created for ebbron because ebberon is a world of technologie and wizards made no sense in that world and thus wizards became artificer. The same way we wont see the psionics before darksun. As they first appeared in darksun.
Also... You talk as if the author and original creator of the artificer wasnt consulted while he was literally the one giving feedback on this revised version and he himself said it was much closer to his book version of his hero which entirely 3e built.
But ill give you that one... Even the original author said it wasnt exactly right yet.
If you were going to create a class that is only going to be played in a single world (like Eberron), then by all means let that class be purely for Eberron. However, the classes are not designed for just one world. They are designed to be played in every world (even homebrewed). However, there is nothing that says there are not Artificers in the other worlds. Magic items have to come from someplace. Generally an item is created by a skilled craftsman and a Wizard, Cleric, or Sorcerer spends times and components imbuing that item with magical properties, thus making a magic item. Who is to say that in other worlds a Wizard, Cleric, or Sorcerer didn't decide to train as a craftsman forgoing their original class training, so that they could specialize in crafting magical items.
If the devs want something that is on par with the World of Eberron, why not create a subclass that is specific to the World of Eberron?
As an engineer myself, I don't understand why Detect Magic and Identify are not part of the Artificer's spell list. Those capabilities seem like they'd be pretty instrumental to someone who copies, repairs, and creates magic items.
PS: Yes I know there is the infusion for a Wand of Detect Magic, but that's not the same.
They are for the UA Artificer Revisited 2019 (look at the 1st level spells). In the case of the UA Artificer 2017, they were an ability/feature of the core class called Magic Item Analysis.
@Marine2874. I don't think the Artificer invalidates the Cleric just because it has Cure Wounds and Revivify. In fact the notion is kind of laughable, considering one is a full caster and the other a half caster. The Artificer gets Revivify at class level 9 compared to the Cleric's class level 5. And if you wish to compare based on healing capabilities, the cleric quickly surpasses the Artificer in all regards: Spell slots, Casting at Higher levels, and additional (more powerful) healing spells.
It is the same reason that Paladin doesn't invalidate the cleric, which also gets Cure Wounds and Revivify. Support healers (Artificer, Bard, Paladin, et cetera) do not undermine the role of the main healer.
I think at this point I am starting to ignore @Marine2874 for being inflexible, irrational and not willing to accept any other viewpoint than his own. It is okay to have his opinion and I will be happy to see how the feedback turns out in the survey. But see chance of changing his point of view.
I am not being inflexible or irrational, I am more than willing to listen to other viewpoints, but nothing says that I have to agree with them. You can have your opinion and I will try and hopefully change it. Just like I welcome your opinion and hope that you might be able to change mine. There has been no name calling or belittling of other's opinion. I welcome differing thoughts. However, I am strong in my belief that they Artificer Revisited went in the wrong direction.
@Marine2874. I don't think the Artificer invalidates the Cleric just because it has Cure Wounds and Revivify. In fact the notion is kind of laughable, considering one is a full caster and the other a half caster. The Artificer gets Revivify at class level 9 compared to the Cleric's class level 5. And if you wish to compare based on healing capabilities, the cleric quickly surpasses the Artificer in all regards: Spell slots, Casting at Higher levels, and additional (more powerful) healing spells.
It is the same reason that Paladin doesn't invalidate the cleric, which also gets Cure Wounds and Revivify. Support healers (Artificer, Bard, Paladin, et cetera) do not undermine the role of the main healer.
I think at this point I am starting to ignore @Marine2874 for being inflexible, irrational and not willing to accept any other viewpoint than his own. It is okay to have his opinion and I will be happy to see how the feedback turns out in the survey. But see chance of changing his point of view.
I am not being inflexible or irrational, I am more than willing to listen to other viewpoints, but nothing says that I have to agree with them. You can have your opinion and I will try and hopefully change it. Just like I welcome your opinion and hope that you might be able to change mine. There has been no name calling or belittling of other's opinion. I welcome differing thoughts. However, I am strong in my belief that they Artificer Revisited went in the wrong direction.
My bad, I am glad you continued the conversation and I do think you did the correct statement, if I could remove the above post I would. Will read through your reply and see if anything further sways me.
I do think I am in the wrong in the quoted, my apologies for what they are worth. Agree to disagree from now on as I do see your point of view in above responses to my post, but do still have the opinion that expanding the spellcasting is the best transferable approach to continued and concise design.
Lol, nice! As a DM, I'd probably allow for a bunch of stuff like that. Perhaps when the survey finally comes out (which, might not be for a couple of months by the look of things) you could suggest that Magical Tinkering allow for more things like that at the DM's discretion (that's probably something covered under Rules As Intended, but still worth mentioning in my opinion.)
The DM that I am running my current Artificer under is thinking of creating a rogue/artificer. He is thinking of playing her as a gypst fortune teller (Arcane Trickster) with Charlatan background. Oh the possibilities with Magical Tinkering alone . . .
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Hey @Marine2874 this is Exactly what it says you do in the RAW Artificer. It never says you have to only use your tools and nothing else, you just need your tools to unlock the turret when throwing it, otherwise why not pass the secret word to your teammate and let them summon it while you stay at the Inn.
The key to leaving it vaguer is that you ARE NOT locked into one way of summoning and can be a Thor themed Artillerist that summons the turret via lightning bolt. Which you would not be allowed to do if RAW was as above.
Leaving it vague up to imagination is more flexible.
@Marine2874
While you replied to one of my messages you may have missed this one as you still speak of spellcasting as strictly Magical. Do you disagree with the above quoted? I don’t mind if you do but please understand that others are more flexible and do appreciate the design philosophy.
On the topic of overpowered infusions, I believe this is a specific balancing idea. Having +1 infusions that early is indeed over powered but it is held in check by the other restrictions you say shouldn’t be there. For example using combat infusions on yourself is not optimised because your martial allies would be able to deal more damage with them, but then Arcane Armament comes in to expressly say “You have to use at least 1 infusion on yourself” that doesn’t seem like such a bad design.
In the old Artificer there was a problem with what happens if you lose your magic item, it never let you make it again. The infusion system gives us so much more flexibility rechoosing the infusions you need for the coming adventure. And if you want to play the other way just don’t swap infusions, only if you lose it recreate again.
In conclusion this is a class that specialises in Magic weapons it is just logical for it to get its magic weapons before everyone else.
I think it is also important to note that infusions can only be put on non-magical items. So those awesome magical weapons you get mid-to-late game? You can add Returning to them, or Radiant.
To me, the weapon and armor infusions are early game infusions. Once other magical weapons and armor start showing up the infusions will slowly migrate to Replicated Magical Items.
@marine2874 they focus it on ebberon because thats actually where it originated. Prior to ebberon there was no artificer. It was created for ebbron because ebberon is a world of technologie and wizards made no sense in that world and thus wizards became artificer. The same way we wont see the psionics before darksun. As they first appeared in darksun.
Also... You talk as if the author and original creator of the artificer wasnt consulted while he was literally the one giving feedback on this revised version and he himself said it was much closer to his book version of his hero which entirely 3e built.
But ill give you that one... Even the original author said it wasnt exactly right yet.
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)
As an engineer myself, I don't understand why Detect Magic and Identify are not part of the Artificer's spell list. Those capabilities seem like they'd be pretty instrumental to someone who copies, repairs, and creates magic items.
PS: Yes I know there is the infusion for a Wand of Detect Magic, but that's not the same.
@NewGMisNew, I would say that feels like an oversight, but 2017 version had identify at 1st level (and didn't even need the material component), so it was intentional. Not sure why, though.
*wipes egg from face*
Ignore me. I apparently had the ritual filter set to "No" when I was looking at their spells.
Altering the Artificer class to be more inline with the Eberron setting just because they are releasing an Eberron source book is the wrong direction to take the class. I agree that the Artificer should have a more setting general flavor to it. Maybe they could design a subclass for the Artificer that would work in the Eberron world.
I made the following statement in my original post about the Artificer Revisited. The homunculus is as usefule as rubber toilet paper. Like you I don't care for it or the mechanical servant. But, unlike you I am not a fan of the infusions. Infusion items are just temporary magical items. They stop being magical if the character dies. This can and will be costly to a group who has an Artificer that dies. The Artificer is supposed to craft magic items, not touch a nonmagical mundane item and imbue it with an infusion to turn it into a magic item. That is not crafting a magical item.
Each of the other classes fulfill a niche within the D&D universe. By focusing on making the Artificer versatile, they are essentially negating the some of the other classes. It was pointed out that by giving the Artificer the spells Cure Wounds and Revivify, what use will a Cleric be to an adventuring party?
@Mezzurah the Artificer Revisited already has access to the Prestidigitation cantrip, what's the point of having Magical Tinkering? Yes items made with Magical Tinkering are semi permanent, but unless you have a DM that will work with the player the ability/feature is useless. In my own opinion.
@Marine2874. I don't think the Artificer invalidates the Cleric just because it has Cure Wounds and Revivify. In fact the notion is kind of laughable, considering one is a full caster and the other a half caster. The Artificer gets Revivify at class level 9 compared to the Cleric's class level 5. And if you wish to compare based on healing capabilities, the cleric quickly surpasses the Artificer in all regards: Spell slots, Casting at Higher levels, and additional (more powerful) healing spells.
It is the same reason that Paladin doesn't invalidate the cleric, which also gets Cure Wounds and Revivify. Support healers (Artificer, Bard, Paladin, Ranger et cetera) do not undermine the role of the main healer.
Agreed. In addition to that, clerics have abilities to help with their healing, and other spells like Guiding Bolt and Inflict Wounds that keep others with healing from making the cleric obsolete. The Artificer has no damage spells at level 1 except arcane weapon. In fact, I don't think an Artificer is a very good healer at all; they have other things to spend spell slots on, especially at low levels when spell slots are few.
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
Yea, Artificers are a support class through and through. And like any support class, they have a little bit of everything, but not good at anything.
Yes they can heal, but if we were meta-building a party I don't think anyone would say
"Okay, we have an artificer, so we don't need any more healing."
Instead, I would imagine one would say:
"Okay, we have an Artificer, does anyone want to play a Paladin, Ranger, or Bard so we can get some more partial healing? Or perhaps a Cleric, Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer or Circle of Dream Druids so we don't have to have 2-3 support healers and can rely on a full one?"
I think at this point I am starting to ignore @Marine2874 for being inflexible, irrational and not willing to accept any other viewpoint than his own. It is okay to have his opinion and I will be happy to see how the feedback turns out in the survey. But see little chance of changing his point of view.
@Arutha
While I appreciate the approach stating “just my opinion”, that is the best way to approach forum posts, I still disagree with your conclusions so expand on them, equally just my opinion but hope to sway yours.
It is your right to agree and disagree with what anyone has to say. I like to make it known that I am expressing my opinion and not trying to make an argument the letter of the law. This is an open forum that people can discuss different D&D related topics.
Firstly, WoTC have promised a second half of Artificer UA, which will expand at least the Spells list, hopefully including some more Artificer and Alchemist themed spells, and maybe one more Subclass or more magic items for infusion list. There would be no point in releasing the survey before then as they would not get to process that feedback, and maybe it would already address half of peoples’ concerns.
Why make a class that is supposed to be about crafting magic items all about spellcasting? The Artificer is supposed to be a support character. I already stated that there are players that provide flair and imagination when they cast spells. The UA Artificer that was released in January 2017, was a good starting point for the Artificer. It wasn’t perfect by any measure, but it didn’t rely heavily on spellcasting. It had some arcane abilities to be able to craft magic items, use spell storing, to cast spell in support of other players, and to even use abilities/features in a subclass. So, giving the Artificer access to more spells makes the Artificer undesirable (in my opinion).
Instead of expanding the infuse list (I am not particularly fond of it to begin with) why not address the crafting of permanent magical items? The Artificer is supposed to me a craftsman or inventor. But as I said before, there is almost nothing about crafting permanent magical items in the Artificer Revisited.
Secondly, I did not clearly see what you thought was Overpowered besides the flexible Cantrips, which I address below. Could you make a list of the things you think are over powered to discuss?
My thoughts on overpowered mainly focused on “The Right Cantrip for the Job”, “Wand Prototype”, and certain "Infused Items".
On the flexible Cantrips, I think this is both a cool mechanic and one that has no balance issues, I mean Warlocks can get 7 cantrips with no multiclassing and any multiclassed spellcaster has a plethora of Cantrips. There is no power creep because you still have to choose 1 that you use each turn, I mean it is not like you can enter a combat with firebolt see they have fire resistance and say "Oops give me 1 hour break and we can restart combat, I just need to swap to ray of frost". They are just cantrips nothing impressive. It also fits the restless tinker and flexible caster theme.
The Artificer Revisited turns the Artificer into a spellcaster. The only difference between the Artificer and other spellcasters is that the Artificer needs some sort of tool, invention, or infusion to cast a spell. So, at 10 level the Artificer gains access to the ability/feature “The Right Cantrip for the Job”. This allows them to change out cantrips after a short or long rest. How is this not unbalanced?
A Warlock only has 7 cantrips if they have the Pact of the Tome ability/feature. Otherwise, they only have 4 cantrips. Let’s not forget that the Warlock has an extremely limited number of spell slots (max of 4). So, saying that a Warlock can have 7 cantrips, doesn’t compare to the Artificer Revisited having the ability to change out a cantrip after a short or long rest.
Also, the Artillerist’s ability/feature Wand Prototype gained at 6 level, allows the Artificer to place a cantrip (with a casting time of 1 action) from the Artificer into a wand (even a cantrip they don’t know) after finishing a long rest. At 14 level that number increases to 2 cantrips. This isn’t taking about an invention and reassembling it to have a new function. This is imbuing magical properties into a wooden stick.
Again, having essentially unlimited access to any cantrip is overpowered. Those spellcasters that have access to cantrips must decided which cantrip will work the best for them. Unlike the Artificer who can change their cantrips after a short or long rest.
On the Tools casting, I think the point is that this flavor IS THE DEFAULT for Artificer, it is not a variant rule it is a sidebar, so you would need a DMs approval to not do this. A DM technically has to approve any of the examples you have above because it messes with worldbuilding. For example, a Sorcerer that gains magic from a God of Magic might flavor his focus as a holy symbol but when captured the guards have to be aware this is possible or they might not think to take his holy symbol. So, by default the Artificer HAS NO SPELLS he has MECHANICS DICTATED BY SPELLCASTING, but they are not in lore spells. The Alchemist is creating Potions that recreate spell like effects when thrown.
The “Tools Required” is not a sidebar, it is an actual requirement for Artificers to cast a spell. It clearly states…
“You produce your artificer spell effect through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus–specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool–in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way.”
The Artificer Revisited is casting spells through TOOLS, INFUSED ITEMS, or INVENTIONS. While an invention made be used to simulate the effects of spells, tools and infused items are spellcasting focuses. Boots of the Winding Path is an infused magical item that can be used as a spellcasting focus. That doesn’t mean the boots are an invention that allows the Artificer to simulate the spells Expeditious Retreat, Jump, Longstrider, Blur, Haste or Water Walk. Because in order to use infuse item you need a nonmagical object. And while an Artificer’s inventions are not magical, they do simulate magical effects.
Clearly the Artificer Revisited does have spells because almost everything about the entire revisited class is about casting spells and imbuing magic into an item. There are only 2 entries in the entire class that deals with actual crafting of magical items. That is the “Tools of the Trade” features in each subclass. The Alchemist can craft potions at half the cost and in a quarter amount of time it normally takes to craft a potion. The Artillerist has the same benefits except that they apply to wands. Outside of that, there is nothing about crafting magic items.
To address you comment about a Sorcerer who gains their spellcasting ability from a God. I would expect any DM that has a player who is a Sorcerer and who’s magic is divine or came from a God to have a holy symbol to be their spellcasting focus. I would expect a player to have already made this decision.
On Spellcasting: Spellcasting should not only be considered a core feature of a class, but also a Core Pillar of the whole game of DND 5e. I’d say about half of the game is based off spellcasting, both creatures and player characters. It helps people to build transferrable knowledge, learning how spellcasting works once and applying it to every class and even enemies: When the DM says the enemy casts Counterspell everyone understands but if an Artificer had to say “I use my ability Disruption.” “What is that?” “Oh, your spell fails.” it is just not neat. Leaning into spellcasting lets you transfer a lot of utility to a class without having to rewrite a lot of it.
We could run the same set of questions on other classes, calling them sloppy: Why do Way of Four Elements monks just recreate a bunch of Spells? Why do Invocations just grant spells not new abilities? Why are Paladin Smites Spells not just more lists at the end of the class? Why do Paladins use Devine Magic if they are not granted by Gods? Why is Hunter’s Mark/Volley/Swift Quiver Spells and not a list at the end of the class? Why do Half casters just get spells and not Unique melee spell like abilities? I am sure there is a mandate to make sure the new classes have the same difficulty and core class building mechanics as the core classes so leaning into spellcasting system helps make the knowledge transferrable.
First, Way of the Four Elements (WotFE) subclass for the Monk blows. But it is a subclass and doesn’t affect the entire Monk Class. A Warlock’s Invocations do offer new abilities and not just access to additional spells. The Paladin’s Smite spells are spells that don’t require tools in order to cast them. Who says that the Paladin’s Divine Magic isn’t granted by a God or some deity? It can be said that a Ranger’s devotion to nature grants them access to nature magic. Why can’t half-casters have spells? Not all classes or subclasses lean into the spellcasting system. The Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are classes that are not leaning into the spellcasting system. Sure, they have subclasses that have access to spellcasting. But overall those classes are not designed around the spellcasting system.
Overall I hope this helps explain why I think housing more of Artificers abilities into Spellcasting is an okay approach, and I hope you understand why I hate classes and homebrews that in general have huge lists of spell like options at the end, it is better to house those rules in the Spellcasting section and explain why the class has this ability. Warlocks, Battlemasters and WotFE Monks are enough already and I can see that Psionics and maybe Summoner Evolutions will need it too but I do not see a reason why Artificer should. It does need an expanded list of lower and higher level Wands and Potions, but ones accessible to everyone, with Artificers being the best at making and hence using them.
Your explanation does show why you “think housing more of the Artificer’s abilities into spellcasting is an okay approach”, but that is your opinion. But there is nothing wrong about having abilities that have similar effects as spells but are not spells. Take the Eladrin subrace for the Elf (MToF pg. 62). The Eladrin Elf has a racial ability called Fey Step. Fey Step is used as a bonus action and can magically transports the Elf up to 30 feet to an unoccupied space they can see. This ability is similar to the spell Misty Step, but it isn’t.
Nobody (at least myself) is asking for huge lists of ability that are spell like. We are asking for something that isn’t a reskinned spellcaster that requires flair and imagination to cast a spell. The Warlock’s spellcasting ability and invocations are granted to them from the deity that gave them their powers, the Battle Master (Fighter subclass) doesn’t have any spellcasting like abilities, and the WotFE Monk is using their Ki to cast spells. But, the abilities of these classes/subclasses are balanced.
PS. I think there isn’t that many people calling for less spellcasting more lists as you implied, you are the first one so strongly in this thread. Also, I think in 2017 there was a lot of people saying the Alchemy lists didn’t make sense as it should just be a physical list of craftable potions instead. And I am sorry if I misinterpreted any of your arguments, used biased examples or used any antagonizing language, none of which was my intent.
Not everyone who plays D&D is in this forum. I can make an educated guess on my feelings about the class and say that they are people besides myself that would like to see less focus on spellcasting for the class. Just like I can make an educated guess and say that there are people besides you that don’t have a problem with focusing on spellcasting for the class.
As for the Alchemist formulas for the 2017 Artificer, there is nothing that says those formulas were not real. They were potions that required immediate use. They couldn’t be held onto for months or years. I understand being able to craft real potions and that was one of the things wrong with the 2017 Artificer.
As for misinterpreting my arguments, use of biased examples, or the use of antagonizing language, this is a friendly discussion with 2 people expressing their opinions. I take not offense to anything. I may not agree with some or all of what you said, but I respect that you voiced your opinion.
For the record I do agree with most of the other points you brought up regarding Spell storing and crafting real magic items. Although I would probably just add a level 18 feature which let you make one of your Infusions permanent once per month and ability to learn schematics of magic items you have researched. With no fail states but month long craft times (scaled by number of assistants, even non artificers) and full magic item costs, no freebies just different from magic item purchasing.
On a side note I would enjoy if each subclass similar to its spell list also got a Replicate Magic Item list of a few only it can replicate. (only pulling from already written magic items, otherwise again too cumbersome)
If you were going to create a class that is only going to be played in a single world (like Eberron), then by all means let that class be purely for Eberron. However, the classes are not designed for just one world. They are designed to be played in every world (even homebrewed). However, there is nothing that says there are not Artificers in the other worlds. Magic items have to come from someplace. Generally an item is created by a skilled craftsman and a Wizard, Cleric, or Sorcerer spends times and components imbuing that item with magical properties, thus making a magic item. Who is to say that in other worlds a Wizard, Cleric, or Sorcerer didn't decide to train as a craftsman forgoing their original class training, so that they could specialize in crafting magical items.
If the devs want something that is on par with the World of Eberron, why not create a subclass that is specific to the World of Eberron?
They are for the UA Artificer Revisited 2019 (look at the 1st level spells). In the case of the UA Artificer 2017, they were an ability/feature of the core class called Magic Item Analysis.
I am not being inflexible or irrational, I am more than willing to listen to other viewpoints, but nothing says that I have to agree with them. You can have your opinion and I will try and hopefully change it. Just like I welcome your opinion and hope that you might be able to change mine. There has been no name calling or belittling of other's opinion. I welcome differing thoughts. However, I am strong in my belief that they Artificer Revisited went in the wrong direction.
My bad, I am glad you continued the conversation and I do think you did the correct statement, if I could remove the above post I would. Will read through your reply and see if anything further sways me.
I do think I am in the wrong in the quoted, my apologies for what they are worth. Agree to disagree from now on as I do see your point of view in above responses to my post, but do still have the opinion that expanding the spellcasting is the best transferable approach to continued and concise design.
Thanks for the challenges. :-)