If you're one of those players/DMs who insists on a close adherence to RAW, one of the "if it's not in the book, it's not at my table" guys, then yeah - tool expertise isn't going to accomplish anything for you. Frankly, neither will the entirety of the Artificer class.
Has it never bothered you, Vorsa, that D&D provides dozens of different types and varieties of tool proficiencies the game books otherwise GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to discourage the use of? All those different tool proficiencies they let characters take are not only a waste, they're a trap - a player who doesn't know any better and thinks it'd be cool to be able to do this one neat crafting thing on the side quickly finds out they wasted a proficiency because the average DM, any DM who hews closely to RAW, and any/all AL events, are going to be all "yeaahhhh....tools aren't actually meant to be used by players? You can get those proficiencies, but the book says I'm not supposed to let you do anything with them. PCs are supposed to be adventuring, not sitting at home making stuff."
Hell with that noise. You want to give me a class that's all about making stuff, then tell me I can't use it to make stuff, I'm gonna tell you where to shove it.
I totally get that the dismissal of tool proficiencies and expertises is because most players only value things they can do in an instant (or in an action, in initiative order). A skill check can happen on a dime; a tool check needs set-up and pre-planning which you don't always have the luxury of. Get that; tool proficiencies and even tool Expertise isn't as valuable as the skill versions of either. If you're not prepared for your artificer player to find ways to use those Expertise scores, though? Bar the artificer from your table.
There is no point in an artificer that's choked by RAW and forced to just be another useless fight monkey scrambling to be the best there ever was at combat. Half the classes in the game are already laser-focused on 100% Fighting, 100% All Day and are absolutely terrible outside of initiative. Why does this one need to be the same way?
Alright I think we are getting a bit derailed, I agree that the Tool proficiency is a core feature of the feeling of being an Artificer, however I don't see a problem with keeping the tools and making them halfway competitive at combat. I don't think the RP component of the Artificer is so strong that it can't have more boosts in combat.
I just want every class to have multiple ways to play, what you are saying is give us a class that can only play inventive style that can't play combat, why not inventive style and combat?
Mostly because most of the suggestions I've seen for ways to improve the artificer's combat come at the expense of its noncombat utility and versatility.
People want to dispense with the crafting elements of the artificer in favor of enhancing existing weapons and armor a'la SSI or Arcane Conduit; they want to get rid of the ability to change cantrips on a rest to gain the ability to let their party cast a handful of semi-offensive spells in combat from a limited pool of stuff that basically includes Arcane Weapon and Things That Are Not Arcane Weapon.
There's a strong pull for "give us ways for the artificer to fight better!" It fights fine. Arcane Assault is a little weird and seems misplaced/janky, but I've honestly warmed up to it. It's nice to be able to use magical weapons you find with some degree of proficiency instead of feeling like a turdfairy any time you want to try and make use of your own weapon infusions, and Arcane Assault means one can dispense with the need to keep an utterly useless combat cantrip that does them no good whatsoever outside of initiative on their precious cantrip list (which is otherwise liberally seeded with gold) and instead focus on weapon combat. Your hit chances may not be amazing compared to the party's Ranger, but between Repeating Weapon (or Xbow Xpert if you go that route) and bonus action attack of your critter of choice? You get three swings a round at level 5, two of which can benefit from any of your weapon buff spells.
It's enough. The artificer will never be a nova damage specialist, but the tendency of the Internet D&D fanbase to try and make literally everything into a Sorlockadin Eldritch Blast LMG or Triple Smite dump-your-entire-character-into-one-turn-of-combat build drives me absolutely insane. Artificers with even a relatively modest +3DX outfight any caster that relies on a single cantrip per round for its at-will damage. Arcane Weapon is stronger than Hunter's Mark and Hex both, and those are considered character-defining spells worth ducking into a multiclass specifically to get.
You're not going to burst down an ancient dragon in one turn with an artificer. My question is why people feel the need to?
Haha I love the internet where two people can debate an argument neither have made and feel like the other person is defending the other side, even though they never said so. Two points:
I love Flexi Cantrips and think it should be a level 1 feature that along with Tool Expertise defines a unique and strong mechanical niche for Artificer, both in combat and out of combat. No nerfs to what is except spell casting moved to 2nd level.
Then I think adding Spell Storing item and Superior Attunement back to 2017 levels without any further nerfs to anything in 2019 version. as Right Cantrip for the Job was moved and 15th level always empty, and SSI can take a spot in Infusions list maybe (but then you can have only one)
The issue I've recently been seeing with the artificer in 5E is still a lack of identity for the class as a whole among the subclasses we've been given.
All of the current base classes in 5E have a "default" archetype: Berserker Barbarians, Lore Bards, Life Clerics, Land Druids, Champion Fighters, Open Hand Monks, Devotion Paladins, Hunter Rangers, Thief Rogues, Draconic Sorcerers, Fiend Warlocks, and Evoker Wizards. Even Matt Mercer's Bloodhunter class arguably is Ghost Slayer by "default".
As it is now, I can't confidently say that any of the current subclasses embody what the "default" artificer should be. Alchemist and Archivist were already base classes in previous editions and sourcebooks; I see the logic in making them subclasses as making them base classes in 5E would be difficult without having a clear idea of at least one other archetype for either of them. If the Battle Smith is still intended to be the weapon class of the artificer, it desperately needs an overhaul of its spell list to accommodate both ranged weapons and melee weapons. Either that, or make the Artillerist the ranged weapon class; the name and the turrets themselves should be enough to support that idea.
But again, none of these subclasses seem to say: "This is what a typical Artificer should look like." As much as I love the concept of the Artificer, I don't think we will ever truly get a version we can all be satisfied with in 5E. Which is more a criticism of the system itself rather than of the class. I would love to have an inventor class that crafts magic items to share with the party or sell for profit; I just don't see how else to make it more niche than that. Though perhaps that's just a lack of imagination on my part.
Personally I did see the Artillerist as an default Artificer subclass both because it was first and it is guns/steampunk in a 5e fluff, it is what most people think of Artificer Tinkerer first and foremost.
In my opinion the list of classes they should launch with are: Wandslinger (Magic, Jewlers/Woodcraft), Alchemist (Magic, Alchemy), Archivist (Magic, Caligraphy), Artillerist (Weapon, Carpenter/Smiths), Battlesmith (Weapon, Smiths), and Construct Tech (Weapon, Mason/Carpenter/Leather)
And magic subclasses should really push its Spellcasting to 2/3 caster in some way like some Mystic Arcanum or free casting spells in some way. That would puts it right in the middle of Martials and Spellcasters where you choose via the subclass.
From your post it seems like you completely forgot about the flamethrower turret. Also, until the player reaches level 14 (not all players will), the max damage that can be dealt by a turret is 3d6 and the turret is destroyed.
The only free damage for the turrets comes from the flamethrower turret (15' cone w/ 1d8 fire damage) and that free damage is halved if the creature makes a saving throw. The force ballista turret that you sited but didn't mention by name requires a ranged spell attack. And unless your dice are loaded, there is no guarantee that you will hit your target every time you roll the dice.
In XGtE, it wasn't about the "RAW short-comings of tools & how to encourage them". The very first paragraph under Tool Proficiencies in XGtE (pg. 78) it states...
"Tool proficiencies are a useful way to highlight a character's background and talents. At the game table, though, the use of tools sometimes overlaps with the use of skills, and it can be unclear how to use them together in certain situations. This section offers various ways that tools can be used in the game."
In short, players and DM were unsure how to use tool proficiencies and skills together. It wasn't about encouraging players and DMs to use tool kits.
You are forgetting that if you are proficient with a specific tool, you get to add your proficiency bonus to your dice roll. To take an entry out of XGtE's Tool Proficiencies section... "History - A forgery kit combined with your knowledge if history improves your ability to create fake historical documents or to tell if an old document is genuine." So, a player who wishes to create a fake historical document and is proficient with the forgery kit, would add their History score plus their proficiency bonus (forgery kit) to their d20 roll.
First off, I agree that it seems like the Artificer is being made more combat orientated at the expense of actual crafting (I hate the Magical Tinkering, Infuse Item and Spell-Storing Item features). Even though subclasses are given a crafting bonus, there is no real crafting for a class that is supposed be about crafting. The entire class has turned into a mid-level spellcaster and in order for us to play it properly we have to use flair in order to play it.
Second, Arcane Armament allows the player to attack TWICE if they are attacking with a magic weapon. The Artificer does not have three attacks at 5th level (unless the character is an Artillerist and they use their bonus action to make an attack with their turret or the Battle Smith uses its bonus action to make their Iron Defender attack).
From your post it seems like you completely forgot about the flamethrower turret. Also, until the player reaches level 14 (not all players will), the max damage that can be dealt by a turret is 3d6 and the turret is destroyed.
The only free damage for the turrets comes from the flamethrower turret (15' cone w/ 1d8 fire damage) and that free damage is halved if the creature makes a saving throw. The force ballista turret that you sited but didn't mention by name requires a ranged spell attack. And unless your dice are loaded, there is no guarantee that you will hit your target every time you roll the dice.
No I remembered the flamethrower turret, but since it is an AOE, its average damage is harder to calculate. Usually, you would never pick AOE over a single targeting attack with higher damage unless you could hit multiple targets. So it should average as much or more damage as the force ballista (especially accounting for half damage saves instead of missing).
And the turret last for multiple turns and can attack each turn instead of self destructing once. And eather way brings up the average DPS of the artificer significantly.
I don't even remember what this argument is about. Are you against higher DPS?
Every current Artificer spec can use a bonus action to cause damage with their critter, with the exception of Archivist. Alchemist, Artillerist, and Battlesmith can all command their critter to take a swipe. So all right - two and a half attacks at level 5. Still better than a lot of folks get.
Every current Artificer spec can use a bonus action to cause damage with their critter, with the exception of Archivist. Alchemist, Artillerist, and Battlesmith can all command their critter to take a swipe. So all right - two and a half attacks at level 5. Still better than a lot of folks get.
Don't forget gnome battlesmith artificers that pet is the mount as well :)
In XGtE, it wasn't about the "RAW short-comings of tools & how to encourage them". The very first paragraph under Tool Proficiencies in XGtE (pg. 78) it states...
"Tool proficiencies are a useful way to highlight a character's background and talents. At the game table, though, the use of tools sometimes overlaps with the use of skills, and it can be unclear how to use them together in certain situations. This section offers various ways that tools can be used in the game."
In short, players and DM were unsure how to use tool proficiencies and skills together. It wasn't about encouraging players and DMs to use tool kits.
You are forgetting that if you are proficient with a specific tool, you get to add your proficiency bonus to your dice roll. To take an entry out of XGtE's Tool Proficiencies section... "History - A forgery kit combined with your knowledge if history improves your ability to create fake historical documents or to tell if an old document is genuine." So, a player who wishes to create a fake historical document and is proficient with the forgery kit, would add their History score plus their proficiency bonus (forgery kit) to their d20 roll.
Until that section was published there was literally no mechanic to benefit from having applicable skill & tool proficiencies to gain advantage, nor 'special uses' to create free items or otherwise make use of tool proficiencies - literally the only RAW utilisation were the 1-2 from the basic rules/Player's Handbook e.g. "Proficiency with this kit lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to craft or use poisons."
I think it is a fair deduction that introducing two new favourable mechanics was done to incentivize their use, rather than because there was an outcry for clarification from DM's that "my player is arguing advantage on stealth checks in creaky haunted houses because of their carpentry proficiency" or "how many free arrows should I let a woodcarver make during every rest?" - they aren't likely to put in print that the prior implementation was lacklustre.
Just FYI that section is listing examples of skill & tool synergies that result in advantage - on the skill check (so no artificer expertise bonus) - when having both proficiencies, rather than adding proficiency bonus from two sources:
"Skills. Every tool potentially provides advantage on a check when used in conjunction with certain skills, provided a character is proficient with the tool and the skill. As DM, you can allow a character to make a check using the indicated skill with advantage."
If you are a good roleplayer you can play Artificer's tool expertise better, but if you are a good roleplayer you can equally play the proficiency in tools you get on any other class in exactly the same way. So what is the benefit of Expertise over Proficiency?
Would you rather only Artificers with Alchemy kits be able to test for Poisons or every player who picks up some Alchemy tool proficiency be able to do the inventive stuff?
In the first option all other classes lose that aspect of the game, in the second option Artificer has nothing unique except the implication that you HAVE TO be a roleplayer to have any use of that feature and have any fun.
All we want is some more interesting unique mechanics comparable to what every other class has, ie. Currently I feel like a Paladin with Divine Sense and not Smite, and a few people keep pointing out how amazing Divine Sense can be and adding Smite would just make it another Nova machine. And again I am not asking for Damage numbers just flexibility in the unique mechanic of sharing spells to non spellcasters, Which no other class can do and no other class can ever do again.
If you're one of those players/DMs who insists on a close adherence to RAW, one of the "if it's not in the book, it's not at my table" guys, then yeah - tool expertise isn't going to accomplish anything for you. Frankly, neither will the entirety of the Artificer class.
Has it never bothered you, Vorsa, that D&D provides dozens of different types and varieties of tool proficiencies the game books otherwise GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to discourage the use of? All those different tool proficiencies they let characters take are not only a waste, they're a trap - a player who doesn't know any better and thinks it'd be cool to be able to do this one neat crafting thing on the side quickly finds out they wasted a proficiency because the average DM, any DM who hews closely to RAW, and any/all AL events, are going to be all "yeaahhhh....tools aren't actually meant to be used by players? You can get those proficiencies, but the book says I'm not supposed to let you do anything with them. PCs are supposed to be adventuring, not sitting at home making stuff."
Hell with that noise. You want to give me a class that's all about making stuff, then tell me I can't use it to make stuff, I'm gonna tell you where to shove it.
I totally get that the dismissal of tool proficiencies and expertises is because most players only value things they can do in an instant (or in an action, in initiative order). A skill check can happen on a dime; a tool check needs set-up and pre-planning which you don't always have the luxury of. Get that; tool proficiencies and even tool Expertise isn't as valuable as the skill versions of either. If you're not prepared for your artificer player to find ways to use those Expertise scores, though? Bar the artificer from your table.
There is no point in an artificer that's choked by RAW and forced to just be another useless fight monkey scrambling to be the best there ever was at combat. Half the classes in the game are already laser-focused on 100% Fighting, 100% All Day and are absolutely terrible outside of initiative. Why does this one need to be the same way?
I think thats where you are wrong. It seems your generation is all about the story and doing stuff. To the point where if it takes you 5 days to run after the bbeg then you think your doing something wrong. Back in 1e and 2e we had no qualms taking downtimes calculated in weeks. We had to heal after all and while we healed we did craft a lot.
3e had the same vibe. Im thinking you are just thinking like downtime do not exists or your dm gives things for granted. Most dms i know right now are not that lenient. Those magical gears in 5e are so rare that one is almost better to just take the downtime.
On the contrary... Some one who goes raw by the book... His players will end up taking downtimes to sell and buy magical gear because they will barely ever see any rare items.
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)
Tool Expertise offers the same benefit skill Expertise does - being better at using the tool than other classes are. People keep pointing out that crafting DCs in the book are all always low because the DM is supposed to punish players for wanting to make gear by denying them the time to do so instead. Throw those rules out. They're bad and they should feel bad. Three hundred days to craft one single suit of basic platemail my shiny red tiefling ass.
The base PHB/DMG/XGtE rules for crafting are very clearly a crappy afterthought printed for the sake of saying the rules are in the game, because 5e was not built with any sort of player-based item creation in mind. 5e makes it difficult and unrewarding to use crafting tools because it does not WANT you to use crafting tools, it wants you to get all your stuff from dungeon loot and DM fiat while claiming that you can flavor your character with tool proficiencies you're not supposed to use instead of giving you useful language proficiencies or vital skill proficiencies.
Seriously. RAW, any background that gives you a tool instead of two languages is a disadvantage, and any background which gives you two tools and no languages is a pretty telling handicap. It's horseshit.
If you're going to play an artificer, which is a class centered on Artifice, which is to say centered on making junk, then you're going to need to strike out into uncharted waters and start treating crafting in your game more akin to skill challenges than anything else. Which includes the utilization of some very difficult DCs that an artificer can counteract (at higher levels, which is appropriate) with their expertise in tool use.
Anyways. Apologies for the ranting. I've been loving the hell out of my artificer even with limited spellcasting, it frustrates me when I see folks in this and other threads asking to take away things that make the class awesome. I get wanting something uniquely Artificer-ish in the mechanics, I do. I just don't understand why "uniquely Artificer-ish" HAS TO BE a combat mechanic, and I don't understand why so many other people seem to think that combat mechanic has to be 'paid for' by sacrificing a bunch of other stuff that isn't fight-y. Or why a combat mechanic needs to be "Moar damaj plz!" It feels to me like folks are pushing for the Artificer to basically just be another boring combat-only nova class whose schtick is "picks own magic items".
I'll agree that the current SSI is weird in that it's an extremely potent feature which comes out of nowhere late in level progression, and furthermore comment that its potency is oddly restrictive. Nobody needs ten daily uses of most of the spells on an artificer's list, which restricts it to either a butt-ton of free Cure Wounds (which is admittedly very powerful), or a magical quiverful of junk like Melf's Acid Arrow or other one-shot combat spells. Busting that out would be good. I'd favor something simpler and more elegant over "remove artificer spellcasting, replace with bizarre pseudo-spellcasting the artificer itself is unable to use", though. Likely something more like, as a spitball:
Spell Battery At 10th level, you've spent long enough experimenting with imbuing magic into the material that you learn how to store an active spell inside an object, to be triggered later. At the end of a long rest, as part of your Infused Items feature, you may select a number of items equivalent to your Intelligence modifier, minimum 1. These items do not need to be owned by you, but you do need to be able to touch them as part of the process. You may store one first-level spell from the Artificer spell list (with a casting time of 1 action, etc. etc. ...) in each of these items. The same spell can be stored more than once, and you do not need to have the spell prepared. Once stored, the spell can be triggered by whoever is in possession of the object, using your casting ability modifier but otherwise treating themself as the caster. Once the spell is triggered and takes effect, it disappears from the item.
Followed by...
Improved Spell Battery: At 15th level, your mastery of storing active spells has improved. When you store a spell in an object, you may select either a first-level or second-level spell from the Artificer spell list, and the spell may be activated twice before disappearing from the object.
Extra! Additionally, at 12th level, the artificer gains access to the "Enhanced Spell Battery" item infusion. An item infused with Enhanced Spell Battery doubles the number of uses of any item stored in it using the Spell Battery artificer feature - up to four uses, with Improved Spell Battery.
Artificer spellcasting otherwise works normally, save with the tool focus thing introduced in February, and Soul of Artifice likewise works on the proficiency-based system I've seen suggested a few times (though it'd likely need to not be explicitly tied to proficiency, since that's gameable with multiclassing and apparently boring DMs who run bad games don't like artificers getting extra attunements). Artificers can give most of the people in their party their own personal favorite spell (which basically means everybody gets Arcane Weapon) they can use whenever they feel the need, spreading out the number of uses and allowing an artificer finer control over their SSI shenanery, rather than just a single large magazine stuffed with 9mm Acid Arrows. OOOORRRR, an artificer that doesn't trust their party to use those spells properly can just load up her own gear with a selection of 'free' spells she can use when she needs them instead of otherwise.
Which, coincidentally, encourages her to wear all kinds of bangles and pendants and other little danglies she can use to stuff spells into at need, allowing her a valid reason to tell her party to shut up when she wants to spend an hour casing the local bazaar for more pretties.
100% agree all those ideas are better than the current SSI, and my only change is pull it right down to 2nd level as part of either Spellcasting or Infuse Magic Item. Maybe 5th level for subclasses that don’t have extra Attack.
It is up to the DM and the players to use their imagination when determining the relation between a skill and a tool. I have seen successful relationships between skills and tools before XGtE was published and unsuccessful ones as well. Ultimately it is up to the DM to decide what they want to do. Understand that nothing in the rules are set in stone. The DM can choose what they want to use or not use. It a player can give a legitimate reason to use a tool proficiency and a skill they are proficient with together I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed, unless it isn't unreasonable.
Perhaps. Heh, or whatever's next can be discussed alongside the artificer. Let's face it, we all know the artificer is only going live when the Eberron book does, and that'll happen When It's Ready(C), which is to say whenever they decide they need the cash infusion from releasing it for real. In the meantime, why not have some fun with it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you're one of those players/DMs who insists on a close adherence to RAW, one of the "if it's not in the book, it's not at my table" guys, then yeah - tool expertise isn't going to accomplish anything for you. Frankly, neither will the entirety of the Artificer class.
Has it never bothered you, Vorsa, that D&D provides dozens of different types and varieties of tool proficiencies the game books otherwise GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to discourage the use of? All those different tool proficiencies they let characters take are not only a waste, they're a trap - a player who doesn't know any better and thinks it'd be cool to be able to do this one neat crafting thing on the side quickly finds out they wasted a proficiency because the average DM, any DM who hews closely to RAW, and any/all AL events, are going to be all "yeaahhhh....tools aren't actually meant to be used by players? You can get those proficiencies, but the book says I'm not supposed to let you do anything with them. PCs are supposed to be adventuring, not sitting at home making stuff."
Hell with that noise. You want to give me a class that's all about making stuff, then tell me I can't use it to make stuff, I'm gonna tell you where to shove it.
I totally get that the dismissal of tool proficiencies and expertises is because most players only value things they can do in an instant (or in an action, in initiative order). A skill check can happen on a dime; a tool check needs set-up and pre-planning which you don't always have the luxury of. Get that; tool proficiencies and even tool Expertise isn't as valuable as the skill versions of either. If you're not prepared for your artificer player to find ways to use those Expertise scores, though? Bar the artificer from your table.
There is no point in an artificer that's choked by RAW and forced to just be another useless fight monkey scrambling to be the best there ever was at combat. Half the classes in the game are already laser-focused on 100% Fighting, 100% All Day and are absolutely terrible outside of initiative. Why does this one need to be the same way?
Please do not contact or message me.
Alright I think we are getting a bit derailed, I agree that the Tool proficiency is a core feature of the feeling of being an Artificer, however I don't see a problem with keeping the tools and making them halfway competitive at combat. I don't think the RP component of the Artificer is so strong that it can't have more boosts in combat.
I just want every class to have multiple ways to play, what you are saying is give us a class that can only play inventive style that can't play combat, why not inventive style and combat?
Mostly because most of the suggestions I've seen for ways to improve the artificer's combat come at the expense of its noncombat utility and versatility.
People want to dispense with the crafting elements of the artificer in favor of enhancing existing weapons and armor a'la SSI or Arcane Conduit; they want to get rid of the ability to change cantrips on a rest to gain the ability to let their party cast a handful of semi-offensive spells in combat from a limited pool of stuff that basically includes Arcane Weapon and Things That Are Not Arcane Weapon.
There's a strong pull for "give us ways for the artificer to fight better!" It fights fine. Arcane Assault is a little weird and seems misplaced/janky, but I've honestly warmed up to it. It's nice to be able to use magical weapons you find with some degree of proficiency instead of feeling like a turdfairy any time you want to try and make use of your own weapon infusions, and Arcane Assault means one can dispense with the need to keep an utterly useless combat cantrip that does them no good whatsoever outside of initiative on their precious cantrip list (which is otherwise liberally seeded with gold) and instead focus on weapon combat. Your hit chances may not be amazing compared to the party's Ranger, but between Repeating Weapon (or Xbow Xpert if you go that route) and bonus action attack of your critter of choice? You get three swings a round at level 5, two of which can benefit from any of your weapon buff spells.
It's enough. The artificer will never be a nova damage specialist, but the tendency of the Internet D&D fanbase to try and make literally everything into a Sorlockadin Eldritch Blast LMG or Triple Smite dump-your-entire-character-into-one-turn-of-combat build drives me absolutely insane. Artificers with even a relatively modest +3DX outfight any caster that relies on a single cantrip per round for its at-will damage. Arcane Weapon is stronger than Hunter's Mark and Hex both, and those are considered character-defining spells worth ducking into a multiclass specifically to get.
You're not going to burst down an ancient dragon in one turn with an artificer. My question is why people feel the need to?
Please do not contact or message me.
Haha I love the internet where two people can debate an argument neither have made and feel like the other person is defending the other side, even though they never said so. Two points:
I love Flexi Cantrips and think it should be a level 1 feature that along with Tool Expertise defines a unique and strong mechanical niche for Artificer, both in combat and out of combat. No nerfs to what is except spell casting moved to 2nd level.
Then I think adding Spell Storing item and Superior Attunement back to 2017 levels without any further nerfs to anything in 2019 version. as Right Cantrip for the Job was moved and 15th level always empty, and SSI can take a spot in Infusions list maybe (but then you can have only one)
Would you agree with this approach?
The issue I've recently been seeing with the artificer in 5E is still a lack of identity for the class as a whole among the subclasses we've been given.
All of the current base classes in 5E have a "default" archetype: Berserker Barbarians, Lore Bards, Life Clerics, Land Druids, Champion Fighters, Open Hand Monks, Devotion Paladins, Hunter Rangers, Thief Rogues, Draconic Sorcerers, Fiend Warlocks, and Evoker Wizards. Even Matt Mercer's Bloodhunter class arguably is Ghost Slayer by "default".
As it is now, I can't confidently say that any of the current subclasses embody what the "default" artificer should be. Alchemist and Archivist were already base classes in previous editions and sourcebooks; I see the logic in making them subclasses as making them base classes in 5E would be difficult without having a clear idea of at least one other archetype for either of them. If the Battle Smith is still intended to be the weapon class of the artificer, it desperately needs an overhaul of its spell list to accommodate both ranged weapons and melee weapons. Either that, or make the Artillerist the ranged weapon class; the name and the turrets themselves should be enough to support that idea.
But again, none of these subclasses seem to say: "This is what a typical Artificer should look like." As much as I love the concept of the Artificer, I don't think we will ever truly get a version we can all be satisfied with in 5E. Which is more a criticism of the system itself rather than of the class. I would love to have an inventor class that crafts magic items to share with the party or sell for profit; I just don't see how else to make it more niche than that. Though perhaps that's just a lack of imagination on my part.
Personally I did see the Artillerist as an default Artificer subclass both because it was first and it is guns/steampunk in a 5e fluff, it is what most people think of Artificer Tinkerer first and foremost.
In my opinion the list of classes they should launch with are: Wandslinger (Magic, Jewlers/Woodcraft), Alchemist (Magic, Alchemy), Archivist (Magic, Caligraphy), Artillerist (Weapon, Carpenter/Smiths), Battlesmith (Weapon, Smiths), and Construct Tech (Weapon, Mason/Carpenter/Leather)
And magic subclasses should really push its Spellcasting to 2/3 caster in some way like some Mystic Arcanum or free casting spells in some way. That would puts it right in the middle of Martials and Spellcasters where you choose via the subclass.
From your post it seems like you completely forgot about the flamethrower turret. Also, until the player reaches level 14 (not all players will), the max damage that can be dealt by a turret is 3d6 and the turret is destroyed.
The only free damage for the turrets comes from the flamethrower turret (15' cone w/ 1d8 fire damage) and that free damage is halved if the creature makes a saving throw. The force ballista turret that you sited but didn't mention by name requires a ranged spell attack. And unless your dice are loaded, there is no guarantee that you will hit your target every time you roll the dice.
In XGtE, it wasn't about the "RAW short-comings of tools & how to encourage them". The very first paragraph under Tool Proficiencies in XGtE (pg. 78) it states...
"Tool proficiencies are a useful way to highlight a character's background and talents. At the game table, though, the use of tools sometimes overlaps with the use of skills, and it can be unclear how to use them together in certain situations. This section offers various ways that tools can be used in the game."
In short, players and DM were unsure how to use tool proficiencies and skills together. It wasn't about encouraging players and DMs to use tool kits.
You are forgetting that if you are proficient with a specific tool, you get to add your proficiency bonus to your dice roll. To take an entry out of XGtE's Tool Proficiencies section... "History - A forgery kit combined with your knowledge if history improves your ability to create fake historical documents or to tell if an old document is genuine." So, a player who wishes to create a fake historical document and is proficient with the forgery kit, would add their History score plus their proficiency bonus (forgery kit) to their d20 roll.
First off, I agree that it seems like the Artificer is being made more combat orientated at the expense of actual crafting (I hate the Magical Tinkering, Infuse Item and Spell-Storing Item features). Even though subclasses are given a crafting bonus, there is no real crafting for a class that is supposed be about crafting. The entire class has turned into a mid-level spellcaster and in order for us to play it properly we have to use flair in order to play it.
Second, Arcane Armament allows the player to attack TWICE if they are attacking with a magic weapon. The Artificer does not have three attacks at 5th level (unless the character is an Artillerist and they use their bonus action to make an attack with their turret or the Battle Smith uses its bonus action to make their Iron Defender attack).
No I remembered the flamethrower turret, but since it is an AOE, its average damage is harder to calculate. Usually, you would never pick AOE over a single targeting attack with higher damage unless you could hit multiple targets. So it should average as much or more damage as the force ballista (especially accounting for half damage saves instead of missing).
And the turret last for multiple turns and can attack each turn instead of self destructing once. And eather way brings up the average DPS of the artificer significantly.
I don't even remember what this argument is about. Are you against higher DPS?
Every current Artificer spec can use a bonus action to cause damage with their critter, with the exception of Archivist. Alchemist, Artillerist, and Battlesmith can all command their critter to take a swipe. So all right - two and a half attacks at level 5. Still better than a lot of folks get.
Please do not contact or message me.
Don't forget gnome battlesmith artificers that pet is the mount as well :)
Until that section was published there was literally no mechanic to benefit from having applicable skill & tool proficiencies to gain advantage, nor 'special uses' to create free items or otherwise make use of tool proficiencies - literally the only RAW utilisation were the 1-2 from the basic rules/Player's Handbook e.g. "Proficiency with this kit lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to craft or use poisons."
I think it is a fair deduction that introducing two new favourable mechanics was done to incentivize their use, rather than because there was an outcry for clarification from DM's that "my player is arguing advantage on stealth checks in creaky haunted houses because of their carpentry proficiency" or "how many free arrows should I let a woodcarver make during every rest?" - they aren't likely to put in print that the prior implementation was lacklustre.
Just FYI that section is listing examples of skill & tool synergies that result in advantage - on the skill check (so no artificer expertise bonus) - when having both proficiencies, rather than adding proficiency bonus from two sources:
"Skills. Every tool potentially provides advantage on a check when used in conjunction with certain skills, provided a character is proficient with the tool and the skill. As DM, you can allow a character to make a check using the indicated skill with advantage."
The question still stands:
If you are a good roleplayer you can play Artificer's tool expertise better, but if you are a good roleplayer you can equally play the proficiency in tools you get on any other class in exactly the same way. So what is the benefit of Expertise over Proficiency?
Would you rather only Artificers with Alchemy kits be able to test for Poisons or every player who picks up some Alchemy tool proficiency be able to do the inventive stuff?
In the first option all other classes lose that aspect of the game, in the second option Artificer has nothing unique except the implication that you HAVE TO be a roleplayer to have any use of that feature and have any fun.
All we want is some more interesting unique mechanics comparable to what every other class has, ie. Currently I feel like a Paladin with Divine Sense and not Smite, and a few people keep pointing out how amazing Divine Sense can be and adding Smite would just make it another Nova machine. And again I am not asking for Damage numbers just flexibility in the unique mechanic of sharing spells to non spellcasters, Which no other class can do and no other class can ever do again.
I think thats where you are wrong. It seems your generation is all about the story and doing stuff. To the point where if it takes you 5 days to run after the bbeg then you think your doing something wrong. Back in 1e and 2e we had no qualms taking downtimes calculated in weeks. We had to heal after all and while we healed we did craft a lot.
3e had the same vibe. Im thinking you are just thinking like downtime do not exists or your dm gives things for granted. Most dms i know right now are not that lenient. Those magical gears in 5e are so rare that one is almost better to just take the downtime.
On the contrary... Some one who goes raw by the book... His players will end up taking downtimes to sell and buy magical gear because they will barely ever see any rare items.
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)
Tool Expertise offers the same benefit skill Expertise does - being better at using the tool than other classes are. People keep pointing out that crafting DCs in the book are all always low because the DM is supposed to punish players for wanting to make gear by denying them the time to do so instead. Throw those rules out. They're bad and they should feel bad. Three hundred days to craft one single suit of basic platemail my shiny red tiefling ass.
The base PHB/DMG/XGtE rules for crafting are very clearly a crappy afterthought printed for the sake of saying the rules are in the game, because 5e was not built with any sort of player-based item creation in mind. 5e makes it difficult and unrewarding to use crafting tools because it does not WANT you to use crafting tools, it wants you to get all your stuff from dungeon loot and DM fiat while claiming that you can flavor your character with tool proficiencies you're not supposed to use instead of giving you useful language proficiencies or vital skill proficiencies.
Seriously. RAW, any background that gives you a tool instead of two languages is a disadvantage, and any background which gives you two tools and no languages is a pretty telling handicap. It's horseshit.
If you're going to play an artificer, which is a class centered on Artifice, which is to say centered on making junk, then you're going to need to strike out into uncharted waters and start treating crafting in your game more akin to skill challenges than anything else. Which includes the utilization of some very difficult DCs that an artificer can counteract (at higher levels, which is appropriate) with their expertise in tool use.
Anyways. Apologies for the ranting. I've been loving the hell out of my artificer even with limited spellcasting, it frustrates me when I see folks in this and other threads asking to take away things that make the class awesome. I get wanting something uniquely Artificer-ish in the mechanics, I do. I just don't understand why "uniquely Artificer-ish" HAS TO BE a combat mechanic, and I don't understand why so many other people seem to think that combat mechanic has to be 'paid for' by sacrificing a bunch of other stuff that isn't fight-y. Or why a combat mechanic needs to be "Moar damaj plz!" It feels to me like folks are pushing for the Artificer to basically just be another boring combat-only nova class whose schtick is "picks own magic items".
I'll agree that the current SSI is weird in that it's an extremely potent feature which comes out of nowhere late in level progression, and furthermore comment that its potency is oddly restrictive. Nobody needs ten daily uses of most of the spells on an artificer's list, which restricts it to either a butt-ton of free Cure Wounds (which is admittedly very powerful), or a magical quiverful of junk like Melf's Acid Arrow or other one-shot combat spells. Busting that out would be good. I'd favor something simpler and more elegant over "remove artificer spellcasting, replace with bizarre pseudo-spellcasting the artificer itself is unable to use", though. Likely something more like, as a spitball:
Spell Battery
At 10th level, you've spent long enough experimenting with imbuing magic into the material that you learn how to store an active spell inside an object, to be triggered later. At the end of a long rest, as part of your Infused Items feature, you may select a number of items equivalent to your Intelligence modifier, minimum 1. These items do not need to be owned by you, but you do need to be able to touch them as part of the process. You may store one first-level spell from the Artificer spell list (with a casting time of 1 action, etc. etc. ...) in each of these items. The same spell can be stored more than once, and you do not need to have the spell prepared. Once stored, the spell can be triggered by whoever is in possession of the object, using your casting ability modifier but otherwise treating themself as the caster. Once the spell is triggered and takes effect, it disappears from the item.
Followed by...
Improved Spell Battery:
At 15th level, your mastery of storing active spells has improved. When you store a spell in an object, you may select either a first-level or second-level spell from the Artificer spell list, and the spell may be activated twice before disappearing from the object.
Extra!
Additionally, at 12th level, the artificer gains access to the "Enhanced Spell Battery" item infusion. An item infused with Enhanced Spell Battery doubles the number of uses of any item stored in it using the Spell Battery artificer feature - up to four uses, with Improved Spell Battery.
Artificer spellcasting otherwise works normally, save with the tool focus thing introduced in February, and Soul of Artifice likewise works on the proficiency-based system I've seen suggested a few times (though it'd likely need to not be explicitly tied to proficiency, since that's gameable with multiclassing and apparently boring DMs who run bad games don't like artificers getting extra attunements). Artificers can give most of the people in their party their own personal favorite spell (which basically means everybody gets Arcane Weapon) they can use whenever they feel the need, spreading out the number of uses and allowing an artificer finer control over their SSI shenanery, rather than just a single large magazine stuffed with 9mm Acid Arrows. OOOORRRR, an artificer that doesn't trust their party to use those spells properly can just load up her own gear with a selection of 'free' spells she can use when she needs them instead of otherwise.
Which, coincidentally, encourages her to wear all kinds of bangles and pendants and other little danglies she can use to stuff spells into at need, allowing her a valid reason to tell her party to shut up when she wants to spend an hour casing the local bazaar for more pretties.
Please do not contact or message me.
100% agree all those ideas are better than the current SSI, and my only change is pull it right down to 2nd level as part of either Spellcasting or Infuse Magic Item. Maybe 5th level for subclasses that don’t have extra Attack.
It is up to the DM and the players to use their imagination when determining the relation between a skill and a tool. I have seen successful relationships between skills and tools before XGtE was published and unsuccessful ones as well. Ultimately it is up to the DM to decide what they want to do. Understand that nothing in the rules are set in stone. The DM can choose what they want to use or not use. It a player can give a legitimate reason to use a tool proficiency and a skill they are proficient with together I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed, unless it isn't unreasonable.
A new Dragon+ out: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/457439620?filter=archives&sort=time
It is purposefully not about the artificer, but there was some talk of it late on (47m approximately):
I guess artificer UA discussion may have run its course then!
Perhaps. Heh, or whatever's next can be discussed alongside the artificer. Let's face it, we all know the artificer is only going live when the Eberron book does, and that'll happen When It's Ready(C), which is to say whenever they decide they need the cash infusion from releasing it for real. In the meantime, why not have some fun with it?
Please do not contact or message me.