I've been looking at responses on several places: here, multiple sub-reddits, even responses on Twitter. One thing that I noticed is that people are unhappy with different aspects of the class. Reminds me of the phrase "The best compromise normally leaves everyone a little unhappy."
And that's what this feels like to me, a very large compromise trying to cover too much in one class. Artificer would benefit greatly from sub-classes starting at Level 1 and more class options being relegated to the sub-class.
Base class can have the basic Crafting/Artistry/tool use, the Magic Item detection/identification/attunement, Infusions and Spell storing. But then let the sub-classes decide where to focus. Please, not every sub-class needs a "combat pet". Some only need an assistant/unseen servant/familiar. And granting an artist's kit is nice, but don't force it's use. Maybe the Alchemist uses a paint brush for their spellcasting?
Makes me wish harder for a "Commoner" class in DNDBeyond. Sub-classes at level 1 and no other base class feature. Let everything be a sub-class. That way I can use the Sidekicks UA for another character in the campaign, or make my own varient Artificer.
I prefer some symmetry rather than breaking patterns if it doesn’t open a new path of development, but to each their own.
The long rest suggestion I think is in response to this line in infuse item:
“Infusing an Item 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.“
It feels a bit jarring, lazy and breaks the above work they put into tinkering.
But I think it did open new development paths. It is clear they felt cantrips replacement felt tinkery enough for Artificers and they wanted them to have cantrips, but felt that the design limitations of cantrips at level 1 was more important than the design limitation of half casters at level 2.
Regarding long rests and infusing magical items, I don't think there intentions were laziness so much as simplicity. 5e has been out for a long time now and if it has taught us anything it is that WotC wants to keep the rules as simple as possible without sacrificing too much to the theme of the class. Now you could (and are) argue that this sacrifices too much of the theme, but I personally feel like for simplicity sake it is fine.
Okay so when I saw the infusions, especially Returning Weapon, I was (and still am) really excited/surprised-- I had an idea for a Scholar class and the Tinker/Smith subclass would have something not unlike the infusions, including one where you can make a thrown weapon with some sort of rope on it so it comes back to you.
Also I've been inspired by the part that suggests calligrapher's tools engraving on a suit of armour/weapon to make a runepriest-like character, Artificer (Artillerist) 15/Rune Scribe (UA) 5, who uses calligrapher's tools and his infusions are him inscribing runes. Also spells like glyph of warding.
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.
It is much more interesting and much more playable now.
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)
Ya I figured that it may be a little longer than normal being a full class with 2 subclasses included, but this class does need the time to get it right. From reading this forum on the Artificer I believe that there are a lot of people that will do some engineering on it lol.
Eh, I dunno. I look at it, and it just feels incredibly underwhelming and bland to me. The base class doesn't feel like it does much of anything that other classes don't do, and do better. The alchemist subclass doesn't really do much in the way of alchemy, and the artillerist feels like it has a good concept, but shoehorns wandcrafting when it seems something else (maybe to do with crossbows or armor?) would fit better with the turrets. The infusions are a cool idea, but most of them are pretty bland (i'm pretty sure we can do better than +1/+2 stat increases). The ability to switch out cantrips is pretty cool especially for a half-caster, but everything else is just...meh.
EDIT: Also, ritual casting but only 6 ritual spells? That seems...a little low...
Well they did say there is a chance that the March UA might have additional Artificer stuff. I'm thinking more Artificer specific spells and infusion options?
Well they did say there is a chance that the March UA might have additional Artificer stuff. I'm thinking more Artificer specific spells and infusion options?
I certainly hope so. I understand that UA is essentially a rough draft, so I hope they tweak the base class a bit more to set it apart, and I hope they redo those subclasses. Artillerist feels like it's onto something, but I think it'd be better off if they took the wandcrafting out (maybe save it for a wandslinging subclass for Artificer?) and replaced it with something that revolves more around the turrets since that seems to be the main focus of that archetype. For the Alchemist, I'm gonna be honest, I think they should scrap what they put out and go back to something more in line with what the first UA for Artificer had for alchemy; what they have now just doesn't feel right to me, especially when compared to what was put out previously (which, don't get me wrong also needed a lot more work, but it also feels way more appropriate thematically).
I think the Infusions as a feature are on the right track, but yeah, they need more options. I hope they keep working on that.
I think it is something like four steps forward and one step back. Personally it is one the right track and though there are some oddities I feel as though if it was released as is I would be happy *enough* with it. Granted I think being *just* happy *enough* isn't enough, so there will still be tweaks.
I think it is something like four steps forward and one step back. Personally it is one the right track and though there are some oddities I feel as though if it was released as is I would be happy *enough* with it. Granted I think being *just* happy *enough* isn't enough, so there will still be tweaks.
You are right, it is on the right track. Like a good piece of clay, I think it needs just a little more sculpting before I can say it really is a good design, otherwise all it will be is a bland lump of clay. But they did indicate that they will continue to work on it, so I'm nowhere near writing it off just yet.
In the replicate magic item infusion, it mentions to refer to the DMs guide for more info on what type of object you need to create the item. I have the DMs guide but I can't find any mention of prerequisite objects for magic items. Is it referring to the gp cost for different rarity levels of magic items?
You know, one thing off the top of my head is as a starting feature they could give the class a second item interaction for free, or make it a bonus action instead of an action. It may be insignificant (or maybe it's more gamebreaking than I'm considering, though I don't think it would be) but I feel that's a little bit of flavor and utility that would do the class some good. After all, they're a class that's supposed to be expert craftsmen of magical items, I think it would go some way to give them a little more expertise in using said items.
In the replicate magic item infusion, it mentions to refer to the DMs guide for more info on what type of object you need to create the item. I have the DMs guide but I can't find any mention of prerequisite objects for magic items. Is it referring to the gp cost for different rarity levels of magic items?
Maybe it's referring to the base item? Like boots for a pair of Boots of Elvenkind? Other than that, I got nothing.
You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of artificer spells requires time spent in tinkering with your spellcasting focuses: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.
Even as a half caster, I find this a powerful caster class simply because, like a cleric, they can change their spells after a long rest. Plus you can change a cantrip whenever you gain a level; something no other class can do to date. In all the campaigns I've run in 5E I've always used a house rule where you can change you cantrips whenever you can change a spell or spells.
As someone who loves playing a warlock with their Invocations, I get a very similar feeling from the Artificer's Infusions. The fact that they take a long rest to activate is more than made up for by their Indefinite duration.
The spell selection could us a bit of beefing up, like Boomign Blade and Green-flame blade, Unseen Servant, etc, but I can add those by House Rules or player character researching them if needed.
I like the Alchemost archtype, but am not impressed with the Artillerist but that is just a case of personal prejudices. At least one of my players can't wait to switch his Artificer over to this and try it as an Artillerist; she's a 7th level human (Mark of Making} artificer in my Eberron campaign. That group just made 7th level 2 sessions ago running through the Lost Laboratory of Kwalish.
My own artificer in a different campaign is a Warforged (Envoy) wizard (School of Invention 3/ Forge domain cleric 2 which my DM agreed to allow me to change over when this class finally came out. I'm looking forward to trying out this build as an Artificer (Alchemist).
A last comment; playing around I was impressed with how many tools you could start with if you chose the right background and race along with this class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Quick build is a good indicator :
”put your highest ability score in Intelligence, followed by Constitution or Dexterity.”
I've been looking at responses on several places: here, multiple sub-reddits, even responses on Twitter. One thing that I noticed is that people are unhappy with different aspects of the class. Reminds me of the phrase "The best compromise normally leaves everyone a little unhappy."
And that's what this feels like to me, a very large compromise trying to cover too much in one class. Artificer would benefit greatly from sub-classes starting at Level 1 and more class options being relegated to the sub-class.
Base class can have the basic Crafting/Artistry/tool use, the Magic Item detection/identification/attunement, Infusions and Spell storing. But then let the sub-classes decide where to focus. Please, not every sub-class needs a "combat pet". Some only need an assistant/unseen servant/familiar. And granting an artist's kit is nice, but don't force it's use. Maybe the Alchemist uses a paint brush for their spellcasting?
Makes me wish harder for a "Commoner" class in DNDBeyond. Sub-classes at level 1 and no other base class feature. Let everything be a sub-class. That way I can use the Sidekicks UA for another character in the campaign, or make my own varient Artificer.
But I think it did open new development paths. It is clear they felt cantrips replacement felt tinkery enough for Artificers and they wanted them to have cantrips, but felt that the design limitations of cantrips at level 1 was more important than the design limitation of half casters at level 2.
Regarding long rests and infusing magical items, I don't think there intentions were laziness so much as simplicity. 5e has been out for a long time now and if it has taught us anything it is that WotC wants to keep the rules as simple as possible without sacrificing too much to the theme of the class. Now you could (and are) argue that this sacrifices too much of the theme, but I personally feel like for simplicity sake it is fine.
Uh make infinite magic items from +1 to +2 in weapons and armor seems good
Also when this class drops on dndbeyond how many extra infusions will people be making?
It's not infinite though. You can create up to the # specified in the Infused Items column.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Okay so when I saw the infusions, especially Returning Weapon, I was (and still am) really excited/surprised-- I had an idea for a Scholar class and the Tinker/Smith subclass would have something not unlike the infusions, including one where you can make a thrown weapon with some sort of rope on it so it comes back to you.
Also I've been inspired by the part that suggests calligrapher's tools engraving on a suit of armour/weapon to make a runepriest-like character, Artificer (Artillerist) 15/Rune Scribe (UA) 5, who uses calligrapher's tools and his infusions are him inscribing runes. Also spells like glyph of warding.
i like linguistics and, well, d&d, obviously. this bio hadn't been updated for 3 years so i figured i'd do that.
It is much more interesting and much more playable now.
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)
Just as an FYI:
Site Rules & Guidelines --- Focused Feedback Mega Threads --- Staff Quotes --- Homebrew Tutorial --- Pricing FAQ
Please feel free to message either Sorce or another moderator if you have any concerns.
Ya I figured that it may be a little longer than normal being a full class with 2 subclasses included, but this class does need the time to get it right. From reading this forum on the Artificer I believe that there are a lot of people that will do some engineering on it lol.
I like the class.
Eh, I dunno. I look at it, and it just feels incredibly underwhelming and bland to me. The base class doesn't feel like it does much of anything that other classes don't do, and do better. The alchemist subclass doesn't really do much in the way of alchemy, and the artillerist feels like it has a good concept, but shoehorns wandcrafting when it seems something else (maybe to do with crossbows or armor?) would fit better with the turrets. The infusions are a cool idea, but most of them are pretty bland (i'm pretty sure we can do better than +1/+2 stat increases). The ability to switch out cantrips is pretty cool especially for a half-caster, but everything else is just...meh.
EDIT: Also, ritual casting but only 6 ritual spells? That seems...a little low...
Well they did say there is a chance that the March UA might have additional Artificer stuff. I'm thinking more Artificer specific spells and infusion options?
I certainly hope so. I understand that UA is essentially a rough draft, so I hope they tweak the base class a bit more to set it apart, and I hope they redo those subclasses. Artillerist feels like it's onto something, but I think it'd be better off if they took the wandcrafting out (maybe save it for a wandslinging subclass for Artificer?) and replaced it with something that revolves more around the turrets since that seems to be the main focus of that archetype. For the Alchemist, I'm gonna be honest, I think they should scrap what they put out and go back to something more in line with what the first UA for Artificer had for alchemy; what they have now just doesn't feel right to me, especially when compared to what was put out previously (which, don't get me wrong also needed a lot more work, but it also feels way more appropriate thematically).
I think the Infusions as a feature are on the right track, but yeah, they need more options. I hope they keep working on that.
I think it is something like four steps forward and one step back. Personally it is one the right track and though there are some oddities I feel as though if it was released as is I would be happy *enough* with it. Granted I think being *just* happy *enough* isn't enough, so there will still be tweaks.
You are right, it is on the right track. Like a good piece of clay, I think it needs just a little more sculpting before I can say it really is a good design, otherwise all it will be is a bland lump of clay. But they did indicate that they will continue to work on it, so I'm nowhere near writing it off just yet.
In the replicate magic item infusion, it mentions to refer to the DMs guide for more info on what type of object you need to create the item. I have the DMs guide but I can't find any mention of prerequisite objects for magic items. Is it referring to the gp cost for different rarity levels of magic items?
You know, one thing off the top of my head is as a starting feature they could give the class a second item interaction for free, or make it a bonus action instead of an action. It may be insignificant (or maybe it's more gamebreaking than I'm considering, though I don't think it would be) but I feel that's a little bit of flavor and utility that would do the class some good. After all, they're a class that's supposed to be expert craftsmen of magical items, I think it would go some way to give them a little more expertise in using said items.
Maybe it's referring to the base item? Like boots for a pair of Boots of Elvenkind? Other than that, I got nothing.
Even as a half caster, I find this a powerful caster class simply because, like a cleric, they can change their spells after a long rest. Plus you can change a cantrip whenever you gain a level; something no other class can do to date. In all the campaigns I've run in 5E I've always used a house rule where you can change you cantrips whenever you can change a spell or spells.
As someone who loves playing a warlock with their Invocations, I get a very similar feeling from the Artificer's Infusions. The fact that they take a long rest to activate is more than made up for by their Indefinite duration.
The spell selection could us a bit of beefing up, like Boomign Blade and Green-flame blade, Unseen Servant, etc, but I can add those by House Rules or player character researching them if needed.
I like the Alchemost archtype, but am not impressed with the Artillerist but that is just a case of personal prejudices. At least one of my players can't wait to switch his Artificer over to this and try it as an Artillerist; she's a 7th level human (Mark of Making} artificer in my Eberron campaign. That group just made 7th level 2 sessions ago running through the Lost Laboratory of Kwalish.
My own artificer in a different campaign is a Warforged (Envoy) wizard (School of Invention 3/ Forge domain cleric 2 which my DM agreed to allow me to change over when this class finally came out. I'm looking forward to trying out this build as an Artificer (Alchemist).
A last comment; playing around I was impressed with how many tools you could start with if you chose the right background and race along with this class.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!