I've been trying to get a broader picture of the overall opinion of artificer, since I missed the whole survey thing and am trying to get in front of whatever it is Wizards is going to do with the class. From what I've been able to gather, by far the most requested change is "give us back Infuse Magic/SSI!" Usually at the expense of Arcane Assault or The Right Cantrip for the Job (the former of which I've kinda warmed up to over time, and the latter of which is one of the coolest options the Artificer has), and almost always for the given reason of "this is just something artificers should be able to do, it's not an artificer if it can't bank spells in random bitsies for later!"
I'm honestly largely ignoring the 2017 Artificer at this point. SSI/Infuse Magic is one of those things you think is awesome until you start playing a game with it, proudly being a 'selfless player' and handing out all your spell slots in the form of buff magic for your allies, and then getting Bard Problems and watching them completely forget they have buff coins or whatever and just doing their own thing. The ideal is giving everybody a buff specific to them that they can concentrate on and hurray. The reality is that anything the artificer is likely to actually do at most tables with SSI/Infuse can be replicated by being not an artificer, taking a full arcane caster class instead, and just upcasting whatever buff spell you want to hold onto.
What I most fiercely miss from the 2017 Artificer, and the only thing I miss in any real sense, is the previous version of Superior Attunement. DMs apparently hated it, but as a player and a DM both I'll tell you - the attunement system and the almost complete inability to monkey with it can suck a fat one. One of the things I hate most about 5e is its deep-seated hatred of magic items. I understand that this was backlash from previous iterations of the game where DMs felt forced to produce certain magic items on command and wanted the ability to run gritty sword-and-sorcery low magic games where players felt lucky whenever they managed to find a basic healing potion, but excuse me Wizards, excuse me - have you SEEN your character classes? "Low magic", the ruleset of D&D is not. Artificer offered a way to actually USE all that cool loot you can find/make without maxing out your attunement slots by level 5 and going "WHELP, guess we don't get to be excited about finding magical shit anymore", and that ability now being reserved solely for the artificer capstone upsets me greatly.
Nevertheless. After reading ten pages of people complaining that an Artillerist's turret by itself can't compare to a level 20 Fighter's four attacks a turn, ten more about how terrible the Alchemical Homunculus is for not being as sack of random reagents you reach into and hurl around whilst hoping for the best, several Intarwebs articles about how spell-storing item is the quintessential ability any artificer needs to have in order to be an artificer, I have to wonder why people are interested in this class at all. You have Expertise in at least five different types of tool kit by level 3, with many artificers getting a sixth from background. The class specifically allows you to create lasting magical items/effects with as little as one action in the case of Tinkering, to say nothing about some of the possibilities RMI infusions can give you. If you can't figure out ways of making that work for you - or if your DM isn't going to let you use those half a dozen tool Expertises to make cool shit because he's an *******/you're playing AL and thus can never do anything cool - then why are you even playing an artificer?
Always happy to see someone new join the conversation, and I know this thread was dynamic so don't expect all our best ideas to be clearly visible.
What I can't agree with you is the Tools are a good replacement for SSI, you seem to say it like having Alchemical tools means you would let someone create something like poison spray spell or revivify. Tools are predominantly for RP while SSI was predominantly for Combat, and I can't see anything Combat orientated that helped. And most damming Tools are the easiest thing that "can be replicated by being not an artificer" via the training downtime rules.
Personally though I don't think that SSI in its 2017 version is good enough to be returned in its original format, I agree and totally see all the issues with depending on party members to waste their action on the action you should be doing for them, and locking your spell slots....
Hence earlier (again buried on page 52 i think) I suggested the following change to SSI to make it easier to use, basically the spell slot is spent from the artificer only when the item is activated call a Spell Conduit: (it was part of a discussion related to removing Arcane spellcasting from Artificer to replace it with a more Mechanical/Physical Tricks fluff.
Spell Conduit
At 2nd level, you have learned how to anchor the weave to magic items. You can craft conduits out of weapons, armors or mundane looking items which then act as conduits to spell like abilities. These are drawn from other classes’ spell lists but are restricted to the below “Artificer Conduit List.” (renamed spell list)
You can craft up to Int Mod + half your Artificer level of these conduits and can double up on spells from the list if needed. Over the course of a Longrest you can rework up to Int Mod of these items to recreate different spells on the list. If disarmed of these Spell Conduit Items, you can recraft up to your Int Mod of these as improvised conduits over the period of a Long Rest or replaced at a town at a cost of 100g each.
These items can be used by any allied creature but only within 30ft of you, as the conduits draw from a power source connected to you, be that magical or technological in nature. This power source refreshes on long rest and increases with level as per the Conduit Slots table (renamed from Spell Slots table) and can be powered by other classes spell slots as detailed in the multiclassing optional rules.
When activated the items use a Spellcasting modifier defined of your Int Mod, but take the Spell’s required Action and act as if cast by the activating creature, using their concentration if required. The conduit item is not consumed in the process.
(I may be missing some things please look at the Intent instead of the RAW)
This would make thematic sense to those of you who prefer full crafting focus Artificer and maintain the lore of an Ebberon Artificer, and I think more cleanly does what they intended to do with Tools required. And yes I intend this still be paired with DMG/XGTE magic item crafting, but with this being the more active combat focused crafting giving a lot of extra options of what to do in combat.
On balance I see that this is a whole different ballpark, giving a crazy unique way of playing Artificer as every spell known becomes a spell stored item, but it maintains most of the limitations of Spellcasting, while interestingly giving Artificer a super strong and unique Utility party role. Turn your Barbarian’s Greataxe into a conduit for Arcane weapon, etc. I though don’t think it is that over powered because it doesn’t give that much numerical advantage just a lot of flexibility and theme driven mechanics.
Edit: I'll also repost my given feedback if you like to see if you agree with some of the finer details as it doesn't quite align with what you have seen in the community.
Feedback that I submitted to the Artificer Survey: (Not representative of this thread however this thread did inform my feedback a lot eg on the SSI spell slot spent timing)
Multiclassing for Tinkering and Infusions
Half Caster and Cantrips
Spellstoring and Superior Attunement
Spell list
Artillerist Wands
Artillerist Turret
Alchemist Restoration
Archivist Mind Overload
Battle Smith Iron Defender
1. When someone multiclasses into Artificer they get very little repeatedly useable features for high level. As a Paladin you get Smite, as a Bard your number of uses is defined of Cha but as a Artificer you only really get Proficiencies, Int Casting, and Infuse items limited to only ever two items: +1s or lowest level Wonderous items.
Proposal: Improve Magical Tinkering to include more like Crafting bonuses and/or free uses of Identify and Detect Magic. Or make Infusion level restrictions scale on player level rather than class level. Or below Cantrip suggestion.
2. I find the half caster at level 1 extremely inelegant, like deciding to give a class Extra Attack at level 4 or only at level 20 for their capstone.
Proposal: Give a level 1 feature that gives Cantrips but move Spell casting to level 2. My best suggestion is move “Right Cantrip for the Job” to level 1, giving a very unique feel with only 2 or 3 Cantrips at a time but always have ability to change on short rest. (Also protecting common homebrew cantrip swaps on level up)
3. The current iteration of Spell Storing and Superior Attunements feel very out of the blue, it can’t be a core part of your identity just randomly “I can do this now”.
Proposal: Add Superior Attunement to 10th and 15th levels, let the DM control the power level at his table. And add Spell Storing item as a low level feature, maybe as a default option for Infusions: Infuse a spell or one of the known replicate magic items(so you don’t have a limit of just one stored spell). Also instead of locking the Spell slot on Infuse, it would be good to make the Spell Slot spent on activation of that item.
4. The spell list currently is well focused but a half caster has to have some unique spells on their list similar to Paladin Auras and Smite spells and Ranger’s Arrow Spells and Conjure Volleys.
Proposal: Add some kind of potion like, turret like or more enchantment like spells unique to Artificer.
5. Artillerist Wand features seem to clash with more grounded Artillerist aspects. This seems like spending two potential subclass themes without delivering as well as it should on either.
Proposal: Link Artillerist to Crossbows allowing them to craft crossbows faster and potentially arm a whole army. And instead leave the Subclass space for a dedicated Wandslinger, perhaps in the finalised Ebberon book.
6. The Artillerist’s turret had a lot of misunderstandings and the use of MA really cripples deployment in combat as the lost damage takes a long time to catch up via the BAs.
Proposal: Clarify within the text that the magical object is not subject to spells targeting creatures. Perhaps use the wording from Spiritual Weapon on BA or let the turret remain deployed until destroyed, otherwise players will always wait till combat starts as it only lasts 10 minutes.
7. Alchemist theming is more broad than just as a healer, the current features giving restoration magic are wasted on the Mad Scientist players.
Proposal: Add a choice to the restoration features letting players cast healing or poisoning spells on the shared resource. Eg greater restoration or contagion once per long rest, and one of ray of enfeeblement or bestow curse for the level 6 feature.
8. Archivist’s Mind Overload is potentially too strong, a stun is a strong control effect and on an Int save would be very easy to land on many even high level creatures (eg Terrasques) and as a non spell effect is not subject to many spell resistances or counterspells, only improved Intelligence saves. Also the MA ability requires a lot of movement which then require BA, leaving not a lot for Artificer to do.
Proposal: Add more of the drawbacks from Tasha’s Hideous Laughter as a 1st level spell. No damage, Incapacitated and Prone instead of Stunned, Repeated Saves on every damage. And perhaps nerf damage to BA level and allow movement within same action.
9. Battle smith Iron Defender as a pet is out of place when Battle Ready and all other features focus on making you a strong fighter.
Proposal: As with Artillerist either split them into individual subclasses or convert the abilities of the pet into abilities the Artificer himself can perform, eg by crafting additional reactions into your own Battle Armor.
I plan on my Artillerist being more of a wand-slinger and casting damaging cantrips, spells etc. rather than crossbow so I have a couple questions about some of the wording.
Wand Prototype, and Empowered Wand both specify a non-magical wand. So I'm going to assume I'm not able to Empower a wand, then Prototype it. However, is there anything preventing me from holding a Prototype in one hand for casting, and the Empowered in the other for the bonus?
I am guessing when you say Empower a wand you are talking about the Enhanced Wand Infusion. If you are talking about Enhanced Wand then you are correct. You cannot "prototype a wand that has been empowered" or vice versa. In the case of having a Enhanced Wand in 1 hand and a Wand Prototype in another, you will not benefit from the Enhanced Wand's bonus when casting the cantrips that are stored in the Wand Prototype. The bonus only occurs when you cast spells the you know from your spell list through the Enhanced Wand.
I'm not understanding why this wouldn't work. Enhanced Wand says "a creature gains a +1 bonus to spell attack rolls," and casting, say, Firebolt from the Prototype would still produce a spell attack roll, wouldnt it?
Wand Prototype stores a cantrip in similar way as the Wand of Magic Missiles and Wand of Fireballs. The Wand Prototype stores the cantrip and it's effects at the Artillerist's current level. So a level 10 Artillerist's Fire Bolt spell store in the Wand Prototype only does 2d10 points worth of fire damage and no bonuses. The Enhanced Wand is essentially an arcane focus.
The entry for the Wand Prototype states "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". The Wand Prototype is a magic item and you are just activating it. You are not actually casting the cantrip, you are just activating a magic item. So with that said, the magic item would not benefit from benefits of the Enhanced Wand.
Per the "Infusing an Item" section: 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.
Wand Prototype: Whenever you finish a long rest and your woodcarver’s tools are with you, you can touch a nonmagical, wooden wand and turn it into a magic item.
The issue here is timing. If you infuse your nonmagical, wooden wand with the enhanced wand infusion, it becomes a magic item and therefore is no eligible to become a Wand Protoype; if you turn your nonmagical, wooden wand into your Wand Prototype, it becomes a magic item and therefore cannot be infused with any item infusion, such as enhanced wand.
The effect of enhanced wand could and would still be applied to an attack cantrip from the Wand Prototype.
I have to disagree with your assessment of Enhanced Wand. The Enhanced Wand is essentially an Arcane Focus and you are casting your spells through the wand. The Wand Prototype has a spell stored in it. The Wand Prototype states "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". The wand produces magic, you are not actually casting it. So the cantrip stored in the Wand Prototype does not benefit from the effects of the Enhanced Wand.
For reference it is my opinion that Enhanced Wand does not require you to cast through it, even if it acts as your focus. (or it would have said so in the description, eg think Tempest Cleric casting a Lightning Bolt from his Holy Symbol)
It does increase your Spellcasting Ability Modifier, just by holding it in your hand, like how Bracers of Archery increase your ranged weapon damage even though they are not used in the attack process.
And if your Spellcasting Ability Modifier is increased it effects your Wand Prototype Cantrip.
But there is no way to know for sure as the language is not in a complete state and Crawford hasn’t answered it directly.
Also there is no issue with balance as it means you can’t shield, or have flexibility of a hand Crossbow in other hand. You can however cast properly as Infused Items count as Arcane focuses with somatic components performed by the hand holding the focus.
On the thread being freaking huge: Yeah, I get you there. I had to stop/take a break around page 30 because I was sick unto death of reading more back-and-forth arguments about the gorram turret, but again - I've been referencing as many other halfway reputable sources as I can find, not just this one thread. Still, intent taken.
On tool expertise being a throwaway 'RP' feature nobody should care about: That is, I believe, where people are dead wrong, and severely underestimating the value of the class. Point me at any other class in 5e that gains Expertise - not just proficiency, but Expertise,i.e. Anime Protagonist-level capability - with a MINIMUM of five different "skills" in one level, as well as automatically adding that same Expertise-level bonus to any other "skill" they later acquire so long as that skill is exercised via a toolkit rather than with the bare meatpaws. My Alchemist started life as an archaeologist, meaning I get Expertise-level proficiency in tinkerer's tools, thieves' tools, alchemical equipment, the herbalism kit, glassblower's tools (any proper alchemist can make her own labware, after all), and cartographer's tools. Six Expertise-level abilities. Yeah okay, they're not combat talents or find-traps-better talents or any of the things players usually find valuable, but if you're playing an artificer in the first place - especially now, when it's UA - it's because you've had a conversation with your DM and said "I intend to be a mad fabrication monkey who is constantly making shit and pushing their tools."
It's a slower pace of play and you can't always do it, but I would posit that someone who is truly wanting to play an artificer, and not just an "I decide my own magic items!" guy, would be finding ways to use their tools everywhere. Not just off-camera in making shit, but saying "can I take ten minutes to set up some experiments with my alchemical equipment here to try and determine the chemical make-up of this weird stain on the wall?" or "I'm going to use this short rest to map out the chunk of dungeon we've explored so far. if I succeed on the roll, can you vet my sketch here and tell me what corrections I need to make for this to be accurate?"
There's ways to make use of having a huge number of Ridiculously Good Tool Rolls that I doubt anyone's really thinking of because they're so hyperfocused on "what can I do when initiative is rolled?" If you're a proper artificer, the answer is 'whatever I built beforehand to do'.
On Spell Conduit: I feel like this is reaching some. The entire purpose of 5e is to try and be rules-light and barebones; it's a lean system meant to consolidate as many options into as few words as possible. The warlock's Pact Magic isn't a complete reinvention of the spellcasting rules - it's a rejiggering of the numbers behind spellcasting without actually changing how spellcasting works in 5e. You have less slots, they recharge on a short rest instead of a long, but they're still spell slots that work the same way any other spell slot does, and the actual act of you casting a spell doesn't change at all. At least mechanically.
Spell Conduit forcing you to tie your spells to specific items that you no longer have control over, cannot readily change without expending significant gold, and which interacts super weirdly with magic item rules (do conduits count as magical items? Can a magical item be made into a conduit? if an item is a conduit and then later becomes a magical item, does it explode in a thermonuclear death cloud? Can a magic item with spellcasting charges a'la a staff use those charges to cast the conduit spell? HOW DO I KNOW WHAT'S REAL ANYMORE?) seems like a great deal more headache and complication than Wizards is willing to put up with for a single class that's guaranteed to be thinly represented simply because it's not a PHB class, and thus not a core/'real' option. Especially when it forces the entire party to change the core way spellcasting works in their group. Some parties would be absolutely on board with it, but other parties will basically just be Bard Problems all over again, save you cannot cast your own spells yourself to make up for the fact that your Barbarian is too raging to bother with Arcane Weapon.
I feel like mechanically forcing artificers to cast spells weirdly is pushing too hard, especially when sufficiently creative artifice does the job fine. One of my own favorites was the Guidance cantrip I used all the time on my own artificer. Rather than clonking someone with a beaker and saying "GUIDANCE", I had a vial of special alchemically-charged smelling salts that induced a brief rush of energy and chutzpah. I went out of my way to describe it as being akin to snorting bath salts coated in mentol and then steeped in Red Bull; clears the sinuses in microseconds and maybe gives you a brief peak beyond the Veil, but otherwise just gives you a boost. DM went with it - "you have a little bit of a nosebleed now, but you also feel more energized than you have in years."
On top of simply being fun play, this cemented in my party's mind that this was a thing I could do. Afterwards I'd frequently get people saying "Ana! Give me a hit of that good shit vial!" before the player acted all cracked out for their role. It turned into a minor running gag at the table, and also went a long way towards selling my other artificer-y 'object' spells.
You don't need to necessarily change the RAW. Just take that 'Magic of Artifice' sidebar as being more important than not, and also accept that maybe combat isn't A.) all-important, or B.) where the artificer shines.
I read the other but will respond to it a bit later once I've had a bit more time to chew on it.
Well, as I've said before, this isn't a finished product; that's the whole reason why us nerds are going over this whole thing to begin with, to figure out what works, what doesn't work, and what might work if we smooth out the clunkyness from it. As it stands, the wandslinging aspects of the Artillerist are rather clunky (in my opinion) and if that's really the route they want to go, then they need to work on it to smooth it out. Personally, I feel the other way from you, that the turret is the main focus of the class and the wandslinging feels shoehorned in, but that's just my opinion.
The survey came out a while ago, so they probably aren't taking any more feedback right now, but from the sound of things on the Dragon+ talks it sounds like there'll be another revision based on the feedback that was given, so we'll see how things pan out.
I agree with everything that you said (especially about the Artillerist and wandslinger aspect). The Artificer is not a finished class and because of the feedback from the community (and popularity of the Artificer class), the powers at be at D&D want to get it to a point where they can release it. The Artificer is a popular class. Which is the reason why it has been released multiple times in Unearthed Arcana. Finally, it has been almost 2 months since the survey was released. So no more feedback is being taken.
Well, with the Artillerist I felt that they were trying to fit two concepts into one subclass, when what they should have done was integrated the turret into the artillerist a bit better and have a separate subclass that's properly devoted to wandslinging. And yeah, having the artificer be a pet class was something that had me scratching my head, but whatever, I think it can work (so long as they change the humonculus; god, I hate the humonculus...)
I don't think they're going to deviate too much from this current iteration. From what I can understand, Arcane Armament was one of the biggest complaints people had so it sounds like that will be made into a subclass feature and it'll be replaced with something else for the main class, but beyond that it seems like this version gave them a better baseline to work with. Again, it doesn't sound like they'll deviate too much like they did with the first and second iterations, so we'll see
EDIT: And yeah, the thunder cannon was...I liked the idea behind it, but the implementation left *much* to be desired. I was thinking after the fact that maybe some version of it would make for a good infusion, but yeah, too late now lol. We'll see where the next version takes us.
I always felt that the wandslinger portion of the Artillerist didn't fit. It was like they were trying to make a diamond out of rat poop. Like what you said I think wandslinger should be a separate subclass and the humonculus was a terrible idea and I thought the Mechanical Servant from the 2017 Artificer UA was bad. I do like the Iron Defender for the Battle Smith, but it needs to be reworked.
I don't think that everyone will be happy with the final iteration of the Artificer. I agree that Arcane Armament was one of the biggest complaints and it has been mentioned in Dragon+ with Jeremy Crawford.
As for the Gunsmith and Thunder Cannon, I agree it was overpowered just like the Alchemist's Satchel. If both are reworked in such a way that wouldn't make them overpowered I think that they both would be great.
Well, with the Artillerist I felt that they were trying to fit two concepts into one subclass, when what they should have done was integrated the turret into the artillerist a bit better and have a separate subclass that's properly devoted to wandslinging.
The concept of the artillerist is flashy projectile damage. I think wands fit that concept fine, especially if you put any amount of creativity into it (my artillerist's "wand" is metal with a grip handle on the side).
If the concept of the Artillerist is flashy projectile damage why have turrets? It doesn't make sense.
However, is there anything preventing me from holding a Prototype in one hand for casting, and the Empowered in the other for the bonus?
The infusion's text only requires that you attune the wand and be holding it to get the bonus. It says nothing about needing to use the wand as a focus. Therefore you do get the +1 to attack rolls with the wand prototype while also holding the enhanced wand, but the downside is you can't also be holding a shield or something else.
The Wand Prototype is actually a magic item that is activated; you are not actually casting the cantrip. The Wand Prototype says... "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". Essentially you are activating the Wand Prototype (a magic item) using your ability modifier.
Well, early on they had this idea of being able to do anything with the Artificer with regards to combat, which was very much a detriment to the class. They really didn't really move towards specializing until they put out the second set of subclasses, and even then they couldn't fully flesh that out because they were hampered by that first draft of the new Artificer.
We'll see where they go. Battle Smith does seem to be the martial option; I myself would like to see Artillerist as a second martial option and have the Alchemist and Archivist as the two caster options, but if they can work spellcasting into the Artillerist better in the next version than they did with this one, I would be interested to see how it pans out.
I think they should make a wandslinger into a subclass and keep the artillerist subclass and expand the turrets. The alchemist should move away from spellcasting (using flair when casting spells to make it seem like doing something related to alchemy does not make an alchemist). While the Alchemist's Satchel in the 2017 Artificer UA was broken at least the player didn't have to use flair when pulling an achemical formula from the alchemist's satchel. Being an alchemist isn't about casting spells. As for the archivist, that subclass belongs with the wizard class.
However, is there anything preventing me from holding a Prototype in one hand for casting, and the Empowered in the other for the bonus?
The infusion's text only requires that you attune the wand and be holding it to get the bonus. It says nothing about needing to use the wand as a focus. Therefore you do get the +1 to attack rolls with the wand prototype while also holding the enhanced wand, but the downside is you can't also be holding a shield or something else.
The Wand Prototype is actually a magic item that is activated; you are not actually casting the cantrip. The Wand Prototype says... "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". Essentially you are activating the Wand Prototype (a magic item) using your ability modifier.
Interesting. I’d have to compare the language with some other items, but I think you’re right. When you cast a spell from a magic item, it still counts as casting a spell and you add bonuses as normal. However, I think you’re right that this wording means you’re not casting the spell from the wand, only creating the effect. This is likely just the normal inconsistency with language in UA and will probably be fixed before printing, but maybe not.
I concede the point on Tool Expertise, I guess I am a little dismissive of that, I just think that anything cool you can think of for Artificer, any DM would let a non Artificer with proficiency attempt. Mapping out dungeons is what every character with cartography attempts, and testing goop generic alchemy stuff. Your mileage may vary but not a great design philosophy that strikes close to Ranger balance: hence not loved by community sentiment.
I agree that spell conduit as I wrote it originally is still bad language. (eg I’d change the flat 100g cost to Material cost next time) But it could also be changed to the Spellslots, SpellsKnown, SpellAbility, SpellFocus, format of the other half casters with the changes suggested.
I think a new class is not deserving of being a new class if it does not alter the existing rules in some way. Imagine a world without Fighters just Barbarians, and then someone proposes 4 attacks... Imagine a world without Paladins, and then someone proposes every spell slot equals 1d8+ as long as you hit a melee Attack. Imagine a world with Artificers that improve everyone in their team to be a spellcaster for whatever they need, and still keep their own core spells in hand as a backup if everyone is busy.
Well, with the Artillerist I felt that they were trying to fit two concepts into one subclass, when what they should have done was integrated the turret into the artillerist a bit better and have a separate subclass that's properly devoted to wandslinging.
The concept of the artillerist is flashy projectile damage. I think wands fit that concept fine, especially if you put any amount of creativity into it (my artillerist's "wand" is metal with a grip handle on the side).
If the concept of the Artillerist is flashy projectile damage why have turrets? It doesn't make sense.
Are you implying that turrets are not flashy, not projectile, or can't do damage?
Discarding the original large post I'd written up because I like to do those...
Boiled down to essentials, what people seem to be asking for is a narrow focus for the Artificer in which it is super freaking good, in a way which is directly applicable to combat. I believe this is an erroneous and in fact actively harmful ask. Some people play rogues or lore bards because they love having a huge variety of different talents to bring to bear on a problem - they don't minmax for single-round nova damage the way everyone else does, they minmax for versatility and the ability to have at least something to contribute in as many possible situations as they can manage.
Artificers are magnificent for versatility-minded players, who otherwise have the option of being rogues, lore bards, or...basically just rogues and lore bards at this point. The desire to force them into a narrower niche so they can be better at combat but worse at everything else sticks in my craw like a dire chicken bone, I hate the thought of taking away things that make them more flexible in return for nothing more than some combat power everyone else is already going to have more of anyways. You are never going to compete with the fighters or the barbarians or such in terms of combat power, and frankly the fighter/barb/whatever-else players have every right to get pissed off if you do.
The artificer should exist to do more than just be an SSI mule giving out Arcane Weapons to all the martials whenever combat starts. if a player looks at the artificer and sees an unfocused, low-damage mess, that player should go play a Sorlockadin instead (at someone else's table because I refuse to allow it at mine or play at the table of a DM who does). if they look at the artificer and see a goldmine of adaptable utility and start coming up with a dozen things they want to kibbitz into their game at once?
Y'know, as a 5e Jane-come-lately who'd never gotten any chances to play 3.5 or any earlier edition, it has taken me quite some time to figure out why everyone is so keenly up the ass of Spell-Storing Item/Infuse Item. Going through this thread and as many other sources as I can spot, what I've come to understand is that SSI was basically the only reason artificers existed in 3.5, and people have the idea in their head that because of that, SSI is the only thing an artificer should be doing.
I'd like to raise a counterpoint: the new Artificer is a master of tools, creation, and artifice. Spell-Storing Item basically makes them into worse Wizards. Yes, you can use SSI to spread concentration around, and everybody remembers that one time Tary hijinks'd a Revivify into a coin (which he absolutely would NOT have done if Mercer had remembered he needed to expend the material component first, wasting the 300-gold cast if nothing had happened) and saved his friend. What I remember is everything else Taryon doing basically coming from him having Dragon Heist Hoard's worth of magic items and the rest of his oversized party being powerful enough to cover for Taryon's numerous weaknesses.
The new Artificer is not a combat expert, and frankly shouldn't be. That said, I enjoy the idea of the class being more focused on building items and tools and useful things, being a Gadgetmancer and magical MacGyver, than on being nothing more than the SSI mule handing out lucky rabbit's feet of invisibility whenever the party needs it and doing screw-all in the interim because everybody's humping the 3.5e Artificer instead of seeing what this new one might do.
Spell-Storing Item is the reworked version of Infuse Magic from the 2017 Artificer UA. After the 2017 Artificer UA the powers that be reworked the Artificer so that it would be more in line with the Eberron Artificer and that is where Infuse Item comes into play. Spell-Storing Item doesn't come into play until 18th level and only a single weapon or item that can be used as a spellcasting focus can store a spell. So no, a player can't use Spell-Storing Item to spread concentration around.
As for the the whole Critical Role Tary Revivify coin, from the very beginning fans were introduced to a character that threw money away. So it wouldn't be unheard of for the Tary character spending 300-gold to put Revivify in a coin. Also, do we know what changes Matt Mercer and Sam Riegel might have made to the class as it is an unofficial class.
You are correct when you stated that the new Artificer is a master of tools and creation (artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others / has nothing to do with the Artificer). However, the Infuse Item feature of the 2019 Artificer UA enables the Artificer to create magic items at 2nd level after a long rest. Thus completely bypassing the actual crafting process.
Well, with the Artillerist I felt that they were trying to fit two concepts into one subclass, when what they should have done was integrated the turret into the artillerist a bit better and have a separate subclass that's properly devoted to wandslinging.
The concept of the artillerist is flashy projectile damage. I think wands fit that concept fine, especially if you put any amount of creativity into it (my artillerist's "wand" is metal with a grip handle on the side).
If the concept of the Artillerist is flashy projectile damage why have turrets? It doesn't make sense.
Are you implying that turrets are not flashy, not projectile, or can't do damage?
I am saying that the class goes more into details about turrets than wands. You get all of this information about turrets then all of a sudden the Artillerist can build prototype wands, then you get another feature for your turrets. The way that the current turrets are designed, the wording suggests that turrets are defensive in nature They have low hit points, could only be used on your turn as a bonus action, only move 15 feet and the max damage they would deal is 3d6 (and that is if you cause them to detonate).
Well, with the Artillerist I felt that they were trying to fit two concepts into one subclass, when what they should have done was integrated the turret into the artillerist a bit better and have a separate subclass that's properly devoted to wandslinging.
The concept of the artillerist is flashy projectile damage. I think wands fit that concept fine, especially if you put any amount of creativity into it (my artillerist's "wand" is metal with a grip handle on the side).
If the concept of the Artillerist is flashy projectile damage why have turrets? It doesn't make sense.
Are you implying that turrets are not flashy, not projectile, or can't do damage?
I am saying that the class goes more into details about turrets than wands. You get all of this information about turrets then all of a sudden the Artillerist can build prototype wands, then you get another feature for your turrets. The way that the current turrets are designed, the wording suggests that turrets are defensive in nature They have low hit points, could only be used on your turn as a bonus action, only move 15 feet and the max damage they would deal is 3d6 (and that is if you cause them to detonate).
Turrets because two blasts of energy are better than one. Wands because crossbows can't shoot fireballs. Then more turrets, because 2 turrets are better than 1.
Free damage at range as a bonus action is defensive? And the turret's HP is comparable to the artificer's. It is the same as the average hit dice with 10 CON. And the max damage is 4d8 (from 120 feet away) once you hit level 14. There is a defensive option, and they do boost defense at level 14, but these are secondary to its main feature of being a weapon.
Respectfully, I cannot agree with the above posts about being tool expertise being some bountiful creative goldmine for gameplay - XGtE was quite explicit about the RAW short-comings of tools & how to encourage them... (hope it is OK to post this one excerpt)
Tools and Skills Together
Tools have more specific applications than skills. The History skill applies to any event in the past. A tool such as a forgery kit is used to make fake objects and little else. Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?
To make tool proficiencies more attractive choices for the characters, you can use the methods outlined below.
Advantage. If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success.
Added Benefit. In addition, consider giving characters who have both a relevant skill and a relevant tool proficiency an added benefit on a successful check. This benefit might be in the form of more detailed information or could simulate the effect of a different sort of successful check. For example, a character proficient with mason’s tools makes a successful Wisdom (Perception) check to find a secret door in a stone wall. Not only does the character notice the door’s presence, but you decide that the tool proficiency entitles the character to an automatic success on an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how to open the door.
When using the optional "added benefit" rules expertise with tools is of zero benefit, and I think common sense is that 9 times out of 10 the "advantage" rule is going to result in a skill check with advantage rather than a tool one - also rendering tool expertise redundant.
E.g. If trying to identify the origins of a fancy wine to impress a noble at a soiree - which we'll imagine as being Perception & Brewer's Tools check - it is obviously going to be a discrete single-action Perception check with advantage, rather than a tool check where you set up Brewer's Tools and try to distil it. Even if you grant artificers the magical shortcut of using some kind of instant chemical probe device (which isn't at all RAW for them), that will extract the information but singularly fail to impress in a social setting - it's the equivalent of googling the label on your mobile in plain sight & reciting the ingredients.
Furthermore, XGtE goes on to list pages of special uses and sample DC's for tools; absolutely none of the special uses scale with expertise, and aside from Thieves' Tools there isn't a single application listed with DC beyond the 10-20 range (majority 10-15) - in the context of which any other tool expertise is overkill (doubly-so if DM allows other players to Help non-combat checks).
There simply isn't anything RAW that suggests tool expertise (excepting Thieves' Tools) is a gap that needed addressing, and if the artificer was intended to both create such a niche & fill it then we'll have to hope the book it is published in comes with a XGtE-esque section that does so - these artificer class previews haven't at all. Frankly I think it would do more harm than good if there were, because if there were a new tier of tool applications for which +17 was actually necessary on a check then other classes would have little incentive to pick up these proficiencies at all.
While there is definite value in the breadth of tool proficiencies that artificer's obtain, from a mechanical perspective the Tool Expertise feature is just garnish atop getting Thieves' Tools expertise - personally I'd take "Thieve's Tools expertise + expertise in one other skill or tool" over the current iteration, for the potential to become an expert scholar, salesman, etc.
I've been trying to get a broader picture of the overall opinion of artificer, since I missed the whole survey thing and am trying to get in front of whatever it is Wizards is going to do with the class. From what I've been able to gather, by far the most requested change is "give us back Infuse Magic/SSI!" Usually at the expense of Arcane Assault or The Right Cantrip for the Job (the former of which I've kinda warmed up to over time, and the latter of which is one of the coolest options the Artificer has), and almost always for the given reason of "this is just something artificers should be able to do, it's not an artificer if it can't bank spells in random bitsies for later!"
I'm honestly largely ignoring the 2017 Artificer at this point. SSI/Infuse Magic is one of those things you think is awesome until you start playing a game with it, proudly being a 'selfless player' and handing out all your spell slots in the form of buff magic for your allies, and then getting Bard Problems and watching them completely forget they have buff coins or whatever and just doing their own thing. The ideal is giving everybody a buff specific to them that they can concentrate on and hurray. The reality is that anything the artificer is likely to actually do at most tables with SSI/Infuse can be replicated by being not an artificer, taking a full arcane caster class instead, and just upcasting whatever buff spell you want to hold onto.
What I most fiercely miss from the 2017 Artificer, and the only thing I miss in any real sense, is the previous version of Superior Attunement. DMs apparently hated it, but as a player and a DM both I'll tell you - the attunement system and the almost complete inability to monkey with it can suck a fat one. One of the things I hate most about 5e is its deep-seated hatred of magic items. I understand that this was backlash from previous iterations of the game where DMs felt forced to produce certain magic items on command and wanted the ability to run gritty sword-and-sorcery low magic games where players felt lucky whenever they managed to find a basic healing potion, but excuse me Wizards, excuse me - have you SEEN your character classes? "Low magic", the ruleset of D&D is not. Artificer offered a way to actually USE all that cool loot you can find/make without maxing out your attunement slots by level 5 and going "WHELP, guess we don't get to be excited about finding magical shit anymore", and that ability now being reserved solely for the artificer capstone upsets me greatly.
Nevertheless. After reading ten pages of people complaining that an Artillerist's turret by itself can't compare to a level 20 Fighter's four attacks a turn, ten more about how terrible the Alchemical Homunculus is for not being as sack of random reagents you reach into and hurl around whilst hoping for the best, several Intarwebs articles about how spell-storing item is the quintessential ability any artificer needs to have in order to be an artificer, I have to wonder why people are interested in this class at all. You have Expertise in at least five different types of tool kit by level 3, with many artificers getting a sixth from background. The class specifically allows you to create lasting magical items/effects with as little as one action in the case of Tinkering, to say nothing about some of the possibilities RMI infusions can give you. If you can't figure out ways of making that work for you - or if your DM isn't going to let you use those half a dozen tool Expertises to make cool shit because he's an *******/you're playing AL and thus can never do anything cool - then why are you even playing an artificer?
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Always happy to see someone new join the conversation, and I know this thread was dynamic so don't expect all our best ideas to be clearly visible.
What I can't agree with you is the Tools are a good replacement for SSI, you seem to say it like having Alchemical tools means you would let someone create something like poison spray spell or revivify. Tools are predominantly for RP while SSI was predominantly for Combat, and I can't see anything Combat orientated that helped. And most damming Tools are the easiest thing that "can be replicated by being not an artificer" via the training downtime rules.
Personally though I don't think that SSI in its 2017 version is good enough to be returned in its original format, I agree and totally see all the issues with depending on party members to waste their action on the action you should be doing for them, and locking your spell slots....
Hence earlier (again buried on page 52 i think) I suggested the following change to SSI to make it easier to use, basically the spell slot is spent from the artificer only when the item is activated call a Spell Conduit: (it was part of a discussion related to removing Arcane spellcasting from Artificer to replace it with a more Mechanical/Physical Tricks fluff.
Edit: I'll also repost my given feedback if you like to see if you agree with some of the finer details as it doesn't quite align with what you have seen in the community.
Feedback that I submitted to the Artificer Survey: (Not representative of this thread however this thread did inform my feedback a lot eg on the SSI spell slot spent timing)
Wand Prototype stores a cantrip in similar way as the Wand of Magic Missiles and Wand of Fireballs. The Wand Prototype stores the cantrip and it's effects at the Artillerist's current level. So a level 10 Artillerist's Fire Bolt spell store in the Wand Prototype only does 2d10 points worth of fire damage and no bonuses. The Enhanced Wand is essentially an arcane focus.
The entry for the Wand Prototype states "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". The Wand Prototype is a magic item and you are just activating it. You are not actually casting the cantrip, you are just activating a magic item. So with that said, the magic item would not benefit from benefits of the Enhanced Wand.
I have to disagree with your assessment of Enhanced Wand. The Enhanced Wand is essentially an Arcane Focus and you are casting your spells through the wand. The Wand Prototype has a spell stored in it. The Wand Prototype states "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". The wand produces magic, you are not actually casting it. So the cantrip stored in the Wand Prototype does not benefit from the effects of the Enhanced Wand.
For reference it is my opinion that Enhanced Wand does not require you to cast through it, even if it acts as your focus. (or it would have said so in the description, eg think Tempest Cleric casting a Lightning Bolt from his Holy Symbol)
It does increase your Spellcasting Ability Modifier, just by holding it in your hand, like how Bracers of Archery increase your ranged weapon damage even though they are not used in the attack process.
And if your Spellcasting Ability Modifier is increased it effects your Wand Prototype Cantrip.
But there is no way to know for sure as the language is not in a complete state and Crawford hasn’t answered it directly.
Also there is no issue with balance as it means you can’t shield, or have flexibility of a hand Crossbow in other hand. You can however cast properly as Infused Items count as Arcane focuses with somatic components performed by the hand holding the focus.
On the thread being freaking huge:
Yeah, I get you there. I had to stop/take a break around page 30 because I was sick unto death of reading more back-and-forth arguments about the gorram turret, but again - I've been referencing as many other halfway reputable sources as I can find, not just this one thread. Still, intent taken.
On tool expertise being a throwaway 'RP' feature nobody should care about:
That is, I believe, where people are dead wrong, and severely underestimating the value of the class. Point me at any other class in 5e that gains Expertise - not just proficiency, but Expertise, i.e. Anime Protagonist-level capability - with a MINIMUM of five different "skills" in one level, as well as automatically adding that same Expertise-level bonus to any other "skill" they later acquire so long as that skill is exercised via a toolkit rather than with the bare meatpaws. My Alchemist started life as an archaeologist, meaning I get Expertise-level proficiency in tinkerer's tools, thieves' tools, alchemical equipment, the herbalism kit, glassblower's tools (any proper alchemist can make her own labware, after all), and cartographer's tools. Six Expertise-level abilities. Yeah okay, they're not combat talents or find-traps-better talents or any of the things players usually find valuable, but if you're playing an artificer in the first place - especially now, when it's UA - it's because you've had a conversation with your DM and said "I intend to be a mad fabrication monkey who is constantly making shit and pushing their tools."
It's a slower pace of play and you can't always do it, but I would posit that someone who is truly wanting to play an artificer, and not just an "I decide my own magic items!" guy, would be finding ways to use their tools everywhere. Not just off-camera in making shit, but saying "can I take ten minutes to set up some experiments with my alchemical equipment here to try and determine the chemical make-up of this weird stain on the wall?" or "I'm going to use this short rest to map out the chunk of dungeon we've explored so far. if I succeed on the roll, can you vet my sketch here and tell me what corrections I need to make for this to be accurate?"
There's ways to make use of having a huge number of Ridiculously Good Tool Rolls that I doubt anyone's really thinking of because they're so hyperfocused on "what can I do when initiative is rolled?" If you're a proper artificer, the answer is 'whatever I built beforehand to do'.
On Spell Conduit:
I feel like this is reaching some. The entire purpose of 5e is to try and be rules-light and barebones; it's a lean system meant to consolidate as many options into as few words as possible. The warlock's Pact Magic isn't a complete reinvention of the spellcasting rules - it's a rejiggering of the numbers behind spellcasting without actually changing how spellcasting works in 5e. You have less slots, they recharge on a short rest instead of a long, but they're still spell slots that work the same way any other spell slot does, and the actual act of you casting a spell doesn't change at all. At least mechanically.
Spell Conduit forcing you to tie your spells to specific items that you no longer have control over, cannot readily change without expending significant gold, and which interacts super weirdly with magic item rules (do conduits count as magical items? Can a magical item be made into a conduit? if an item is a conduit and then later becomes a magical item, does it explode in a thermonuclear death cloud? Can a magic item with spellcasting charges a'la a staff use those charges to cast the conduit spell? HOW DO I KNOW WHAT'S REAL ANYMORE?) seems like a great deal more headache and complication than Wizards is willing to put up with for a single class that's guaranteed to be thinly represented simply because it's not a PHB class, and thus not a core/'real' option. Especially when it forces the entire party to change the core way spellcasting works in their group. Some parties would be absolutely on board with it, but other parties will basically just be Bard Problems all over again, save you cannot cast your own spells yourself to make up for the fact that your Barbarian is too raging to bother with Arcane Weapon.
I feel like mechanically forcing artificers to cast spells weirdly is pushing too hard, especially when sufficiently creative artifice does the job fine. One of my own favorites was the Guidance cantrip I used all the time on my own artificer. Rather than clonking someone with a beaker and saying "GUIDANCE", I had a vial of special alchemically-charged smelling salts that induced a brief rush of energy and chutzpah. I went out of my way to describe it as being akin to snorting bath salts coated in mentol and then steeped in Red Bull; clears the sinuses in microseconds and maybe gives you a brief peak beyond the Veil, but otherwise just gives you a boost. DM went with it - "you have a little bit of a nosebleed now, but you also feel more energized than you have in years."
On top of simply being fun play, this cemented in my party's mind that this was a thing I could do. Afterwards I'd frequently get people saying "Ana! Give me a hit of that good shit vial!" before the player acted all cracked out for their role. It turned into a minor running gag at the table, and also went a long way towards selling my other artificer-y 'object' spells.
You don't need to necessarily change the RAW. Just take that 'Magic of Artifice' sidebar as being more important than not, and also accept that maybe combat isn't A.) all-important, or B.) where the artificer shines.
I read the other but will respond to it a bit later once I've had a bit more time to chew on it.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
I agree with everything that you said (especially about the Artillerist and wandslinger aspect). The Artificer is not a finished class and because of the feedback from the community (and popularity of the Artificer class), the powers at be at D&D want to get it to a point where they can release it. The Artificer is a popular class. Which is the reason why it has been released multiple times in Unearthed Arcana. Finally, it has been almost 2 months since the survey was released. So no more feedback is being taken.
I always felt that the wandslinger portion of the Artillerist didn't fit. It was like they were trying to make a diamond out of rat poop. Like what you said I think wandslinger should be a separate subclass and the humonculus was a terrible idea and I thought the Mechanical Servant from the 2017 Artificer UA was bad. I do like the Iron Defender for the Battle Smith, but it needs to be reworked.
I don't think that everyone will be happy with the final iteration of the Artificer. I agree that Arcane Armament was one of the biggest complaints and it has been mentioned in Dragon+ with Jeremy Crawford.
As for the Gunsmith and Thunder Cannon, I agree it was overpowered just like the Alchemist's Satchel. If both are reworked in such a way that wouldn't make them overpowered I think that they both would be great.
If the concept of the Artillerist is flashy projectile damage why have turrets? It doesn't make sense.
The Wand Prototype is actually a magic item that is activated; you are not actually casting the cantrip. The Wand Prototype says... "you invest it with one artificer cantrip of your choice—even one you don’t know—that has a casting time of 1 action. As an action, you can cause the magic wand to produce the cantrip, using your spellcasting ability modifier". Essentially you are activating the Wand Prototype (a magic item) using your ability modifier.
I think they should make a wandslinger into a subclass and keep the artillerist subclass and expand the turrets. The alchemist should move away from spellcasting (using flair when casting spells to make it seem like doing something related to alchemy does not make an alchemist). While the Alchemist's Satchel in the 2017 Artificer UA was broken at least the player didn't have to use flair when pulling an achemical formula from the alchemist's satchel. Being an alchemist isn't about casting spells. As for the archivist, that subclass belongs with the wizard class.
Interesting. I’d have to compare the language with some other items, but I think you’re right. When you cast a spell from a magic item, it still counts as casting a spell and you add bonuses as normal. However, I think you’re right that this wording means you’re not casting the spell from the wand, only creating the effect. This is likely just the normal inconsistency with language in UA and will probably be fixed before printing, but maybe not.
@Yurei
I concede the point on Tool Expertise, I guess I am a little dismissive of that, I just think that anything cool you can think of for Artificer, any DM would let a non Artificer with proficiency attempt. Mapping out dungeons is what every character with cartography attempts, and testing goop generic alchemy stuff. Your mileage may vary but not a great design philosophy that strikes close to Ranger balance: hence not loved by community sentiment.
I agree that spell conduit as I wrote it originally is still bad language. (eg I’d change the flat 100g cost to Material cost next time) But it could also be changed to the Spellslots, SpellsKnown, SpellAbility, SpellFocus, format of the other half casters with the changes suggested.
I think a new class is not deserving of being a new class if it does not alter the existing rules in some way. Imagine a world without Fighters just Barbarians, and then someone proposes 4 attacks... Imagine a world without Paladins, and then someone proposes every spell slot equals 1d8+ as long as you hit a melee Attack. Imagine a world with Artificers that improve everyone in their team to be a spellcaster for whatever they need, and still keep their own core spells in hand as a backup if everyone is busy.
Are you implying that turrets are not flashy, not projectile, or can't do damage?
Discarding the original large post I'd written up because I like to do those...
Boiled down to essentials, what people seem to be asking for is a narrow focus for the Artificer in which it is super freaking good, in a way which is directly applicable to combat. I believe this is an erroneous and in fact actively harmful ask. Some people play rogues or lore bards because they love having a huge variety of different talents to bring to bear on a problem - they don't minmax for single-round nova damage the way everyone else does, they minmax for versatility and the ability to have at least something to contribute in as many possible situations as they can manage.
Artificers are magnificent for versatility-minded players, who otherwise have the option of being rogues, lore bards, or...basically just rogues and lore bards at this point. The desire to force them into a narrower niche so they can be better at combat but worse at everything else sticks in my craw like a dire chicken bone, I hate the thought of taking away things that make them more flexible in return for nothing more than some combat power everyone else is already going to have more of anyways. You are never going to compete with the fighters or the barbarians or such in terms of combat power, and frankly the fighter/barb/whatever-else players have every right to get pissed off if you do.
The artificer should exist to do more than just be an SSI mule giving out Arcane Weapons to all the martials whenever combat starts. if a player looks at the artificer and sees an unfocused, low-damage mess, that player should go play a Sorlockadin instead (at someone else's table because I refuse to allow it at mine or play at the table of a DM who does). if they look at the artificer and see a goldmine of adaptable utility and start coming up with a dozen things they want to kibbitz into their game at once?
They're a proper artificer player.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
Spell-Storing Item is the reworked version of Infuse Magic from the 2017 Artificer UA. After the 2017 Artificer UA the powers that be reworked the Artificer so that it would be more in line with the Eberron Artificer and that is where Infuse Item comes into play. Spell-Storing Item doesn't come into play until 18th level and only a single weapon or item that can be used as a spellcasting focus can store a spell. So no, a player can't use Spell-Storing Item to spread concentration around.
As for the the whole Critical Role Tary Revivify coin, from the very beginning fans were introduced to a character that threw money away. So it wouldn't be unheard of for the Tary character spending 300-gold to put Revivify in a coin. Also, do we know what changes Matt Mercer and Sam Riegel might have made to the class as it is an unofficial class.
You are correct when you stated that the new Artificer is a master of tools and creation (artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others / has nothing to do with the Artificer). However, the Infuse Item feature of the 2019 Artificer UA enables the Artificer to create magic items at 2nd level after a long rest. Thus completely bypassing the actual crafting process.
I am saying that the class goes more into details about turrets than wands. You get all of this information about turrets then all of a sudden the Artillerist can build prototype wands, then you get another feature for your turrets. The way that the current turrets are designed, the wording suggests that turrets are defensive in nature They have low hit points, could only be used on your turn as a bonus action, only move 15 feet and the max damage they would deal is 3d6 (and that is if you cause them to detonate).
Turrets because two blasts of energy are better than one. Wands because crossbows can't shoot fireballs. Then more turrets, because 2 turrets are better than 1.
Free damage at range as a bonus action is defensive? And the turret's HP is comparable to the artificer's. It is the same as the average hit dice with 10 CON. And the max damage is 4d8 (from 120 feet away) once you hit level 14. There is a defensive option, and they do boost defense at level 14, but these are secondary to its main feature of being a weapon.
Respectfully, I cannot agree with the above posts about being tool expertise being some bountiful creative goldmine for gameplay - XGtE was quite explicit about the RAW short-comings of tools & how to encourage them... (hope it is OK to post this one excerpt)
Tools and Skills Together
Tools have more specific applications than skills. The History skill applies to any event in the past. A tool such as a forgery kit is used to make fake objects and little else. Thus, why would a character who has the opportunity to acquire one or the other want to gain a tool proficiency instead of proficiency in a skill?
To make tool proficiencies more attractive choices for the characters, you can use the methods outlined below.
Advantage. If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success.
Added Benefit. In addition, consider giving characters who have both a relevant skill and a relevant tool proficiency an added benefit on a successful check. This benefit might be in the form of more detailed information or could simulate the effect of a different sort of successful check. For example, a character proficient with mason’s tools makes a successful Wisdom (Perception) check to find a secret door in a stone wall. Not only does the character notice the door’s presence, but you decide that the tool proficiency entitles the character to an automatic success on an Intelligence (Investigation) check to determine how to open the door.
When using the optional "added benefit" rules expertise with tools is of zero benefit, and I think common sense is that 9 times out of 10 the "advantage" rule is going to result in a skill check with advantage rather than a tool one - also rendering tool expertise redundant.
E.g. If trying to identify the origins of a fancy wine to impress a noble at a soiree - which we'll imagine as being Perception & Brewer's Tools check - it is obviously going to be a discrete single-action Perception check with advantage, rather than a tool check where you set up Brewer's Tools and try to distil it. Even if you grant artificers the magical shortcut of using some kind of instant chemical probe device (which isn't at all RAW for them), that will extract the information but singularly fail to impress in a social setting - it's the equivalent of googling the label on your mobile in plain sight & reciting the ingredients.
Furthermore, XGtE goes on to list pages of special uses and sample DC's for tools; absolutely none of the special uses scale with expertise, and aside from Thieves' Tools there isn't a single application listed with DC beyond the 10-20 range (majority 10-15) - in the context of which any other tool expertise is overkill (doubly-so if DM allows other players to Help non-combat checks).
There simply isn't anything RAW that suggests tool expertise (excepting Thieves' Tools) is a gap that needed addressing, and if the artificer was intended to both create such a niche & fill it then we'll have to hope the book it is published in comes with a XGtE-esque section that does so - these artificer class previews haven't at all. Frankly I think it would do more harm than good if there were, because if there were a new tier of tool applications for which +17 was actually necessary on a check then other classes would have little incentive to pick up these proficiencies at all.
While there is definite value in the breadth of tool proficiencies that artificer's obtain, from a mechanical perspective the Tool Expertise feature is just garnish atop getting Thieves' Tools expertise - personally I'd take "Thieve's Tools expertise + expertise in one other skill or tool" over the current iteration, for the potential to become an expert scholar, salesman, etc.