Considering right now it's an Unearthed Arcana and not an official product just yet, they're probably going to wait until we see an official release before they begin adding homebrew support for Artificer subclasses.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, what you are wanting out of spell storing makes it sound overpowered in my opinion. You need to think of Spell Storing as a modified version of the 3rd level spell Glyph of Warding (Spell Glyph). The first sentence for Spell Glyph states... "You can store a prepared spell of 3rd level or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph." You need to cast that spell in conjunction with casting Glyph of Warding. So you are using two spell slots.
Spell Storing allows you to imbue the arcane properties of a spell into a nonmagical object that can be used at a latter time. In order to imbue those properties you will need to cast the spell. But what you are talking about is essentially using that nonmagical item that has a spell stored in it as a remote control to activate the spell. This way the Artificer still has the spell slot if they need it.
What if the player with the nonmagical item that has been imbued with a spell uses it and the Artificer doesn't know about? Then the Artificer thinks they have three 1st level spell slots in reality they have two. Or the Artificer uses up all their 1st level spell slots and the character that was given the nonmagical item that has been imbued with a 1st level spell and tries to use it but they can't because the spell slot is gone.
At least with the spell slot being used in conjunction with using spell storing, you will not run into the above situation.
The Artificer is not supposed to be a 100% spellcaster. Spellcasting is supposed to be an ability that assists the Artificer. The Artificer has subclasses that contain abilities that aid them in combat. If you want to rely on the spellcasting ability when you are in combat, they maybe you should play a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard. They have plenty of spell slots and access to plenty of direct damaging spells.
Thanks for the replies Marine, these are well structured and phrased posts so more conducive to discussion. :-)
Firstly I will say baseline, as you know, I do disagree with your balancing point for Artificer. They originally used Rogue sneak attack damage scaling per hit, which while uninventive was technically balanced? A rogue can also do 11d6 in one turn and has a potential to do 13d6 if hitting with an offhand (which most did), while 2017 artificer had higher variance because it was a MA to cast thunder cannon and could not be backed up with a second shot. (50% chance to deal extra 9d6 vs 75% on the rogue)
My goal is to let Artificer have options in combat 1. To attack to a level equal to a Valor Bard without expending resources. 2. To spell cast damaging spells to a level between an Eldritch Knight and an Arcane Trickster. 3. To give versatility in Sharing spells without pre expending resources (as that is soooo cool and deserves to exist in 5e in some way) 4. Cantrips.
I feel like your suggested changes to Alchemist bag and Gunsmith would not be sustainable, as a half caster has such low number of spell slots. An Artificer in your suggestion would have to use spell slots to stay viable even above Cantrips. And using spellslots prior to combat in spell Storing, and in combat to deal what is effectively Ranged weapon damage, would leave you without any left to play utility with your spells out of combat. Just map out the first 10 rounds of a combat at level 5, while trying to keep resources for a full day of adventuring, and see if you feel Epic? Even vs a Valor bard. Because that is what we are playing this glorious game to achieve.
Now to the quoted. (sorry about that rant) I am glad you brought up Glyph of Storing, I forgot about that spell as it is rarely used in practice and I think works in my favour. Let me map out my opinion on the power level of character creation features:
Cantrips < Racial features < Subclass and class features (6-14 level) <= 1-3rd level spells <= Feats < 4-6th level spells <= Core class identity features (1-3 level) < 7-9th level spells
All above is my opinion and variable but for some examples: Swift Quiver lvl 5 spell ~ Monk’s Flurry of Blows. Investure in Stone ~ Barbarian’s Rage. Misty Step lvl 2 spell ~ Monk Shadow step ~ Mobile feat. All this is ofcourse hard given the general rule not to replicate abilities with feats and spells.
All that to say Spell Storing Item should be better than Glyph of Warding in every way.
PS: Almost forgot my main response to your above questions: If anyone uses a spell Storing Item the Artificer is instantly aware they lose a spell slot and of what level (think Wading Bond would you rule that the caster don’t know they take damage until they all of a sudden die?) And if someone uses a Spell Storing Item without knowing and without checking that the Artificer has Spell slots left, it fizzles. (maybe without expending the action) Both rules could be written within two lines.
Has anyone else noticed that when you multiclass Artificer with another spellcaster you round your Artificer class levels UP for the purposes of spell slots? That's an interesting difference from the other half casters, in my opinion.
They added that change with the 2nd interation of Artificer 2019.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Where all the other half-caster's are combat 1st and spell casters 2nd, the Artificer is the reverse. The Artificer is a spell caster 1st and combat 2nd. This will be even more so when they take away Arcane Armaments from all Artificers and give it only to the Battle Smith.
A lot of the time, I have issues seeing the combat side of a Artificer. At this time, I think this sill be an even bigger issue when the next iteration of the Artificer comes out.
For all other half casters, if you take away their spell ability, you still have an effective combat character. For the Artificer I don't quite get that feel, and if all Artificers lose Arcane Armament except one archetype, I think that will be even more so unless they do something to increase the Artificer's spellcaster half.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Where all the other half-caster's are combat 1st and spell casters 2nd, the Artificer is the reverse. The Artificer is a spell caster 1st and combat 2nd. This will be even more so when they take away Arcane Armaments from all Artificers and give it only to the Battle Smith.
A lot of the time, I have issues seeing the combat side of a Artificer. At this time, I think this sill be an even bigger issue when the next iteration of the Artificer comes out.
For all other half casters, if you take away their spell ability, you still have an effective combat character. For the Artificer I don't quite get that feel, and if all Artificers lose Arcane Armament except one archetype, I think that will be even more so unless they do something to increase the Artificer's spellcaster half.
Exactly and just for one more point, it is still a Halfcaster! So no matter if it is a spell caster first, it currently feels like a half character in combat without Extra Attack.
That is kind of why I was championing a Dual Caster replacement for Extra Attack which lets you cast a second cantrip in same turn, like meta magic but free as it is 5 levels in to the class. (Only Artificer Cantrips to cut out Eldritch Blast)
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
Why?
Tell me - what out-of-combat abilities does a Barbarian give you? What are the out-of-combat abilities of the average Fighter, exempting subclass stuff like Samurai? Or, to a lesser extent, the Monk?
Why are there allowed to be classes that specialize in face-punching at the expense of everything else, but no class is EVER allowed to specialize in something other than fighting? Why should combat viability be the sole and only determinant of whether a class is good or not?
Why is it a 'Design Mandate' that artificers be super fantabulous awesome at fighting (at the expense of losing out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities if there's no other way to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin(C)) but no such mandate is enforced when someone asks 'what can my fighter do when he's not fighting'?
i have to agree, mandating thigns should go all the way for every classes... exemples of ASI and Martial Archetype features which clearly were mandatory in the making of each classes. why would everyone be mandatory to be a fighting class ? i played often a sorcerer healer whoc couldn'T defend himself at all in combat. i also created a lot of characters who were just not good in combat. they were fun to play still.
but i will say this much... i loved the fighter archetype feature that says that if he cast a spell as an action, he can still use a bonus action to attack. i think that solves many problems. i also like to say that booming blade and green flame blade actually solve this very issue. so i'd make it a feature of the class that later on in the game, if they cast a spell, they can cast a cantrip as a bonus action. that could be usefull.
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)
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
Why?
Tell me - what out-of-combat abilities does a Barbarian give you? What are the out-of-combat abilities of the average Fighter, exempting subclass stuff like Samurai? Or, to a lesser extent, the Monk?
Why are there allowed to be classes that specialize in face-punching at the expense of everything else, but no class is EVER allowed to specialize in something other than fighting? Why should combat viability be the sole and only determinant of whether a class is good or not?
Why is it a 'Design Mandate' that artificers be super fantabulous awesome at fighting (at the expense of losing out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities if there's no other way to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin(C)) but no such mandate is enforced when someone asks 'what can my fighter do when he's not fighting'?
A fighter get a choice of two skill proficiencies and two from their background, that is where the majority of roleplaying skill checks come from. If there was ever a class created with no skill proficiencies there would and should be an uproar. Secondly Fighters get the maximum and quickest amount of feats which if you wish can be chosen for Noncombat purposes. Thirdly Fighters get the most Subclass features so your restriction was stupid. Finally Fighter is supposed to be the introductory class for the video gamers so by design it was made simpler.
Barbarians also get 4 skills, albeit from a more restricted list and less subclass features. But they do get Advantage on all strength checks and resistance to all environmental damage, if that is not enough in itself ... Also by design they have an RP niche prepared for them that no one can fill better, due to their Multi Physical Ability Dependence they are encouraged to play low intelligence which is itself a goldmine for roleplay.
All I am saying is if any of them mechanically could not do any skills or just said “you have no personality and you only get proficiency in Athletics and can’t learn any other skills” only then that would be a valid comparison. Because Artificer says “you suck at magic and can attack only once and only using simple weapons.”
I am getting frustrated with this line of argument as you keep blaming me of wanting to take away your “out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities” and say I want “to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin” When I never say I want to remove anything from Artificer just want multiple ways to play in or out of combat.
You keep saying we are restricting your way to play when we are embracing yours and YOU are the ones restricting ours!
PS you are not the only one but I am frustrated with the NO Combat ability group as a whole due to everyone’s exclusivity mentality (You can see in my quote above that I just want the best of both worlds, but for some reason you still jump on me and say No it should only be Non-combat features for everything in Artificer...)
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
Why?
Tell me - what out-of-combat abilities does a Barbarian give you? What are the out-of-combat abilities of the average Fighter, exempting subclass stuff like Samurai? Or, to a lesser extent, the Monk?
Why are there allowed to be classes that specialize in face-punching at the expense of everything else, but no class is EVER allowed to specialize in something other than fighting? Why should combat viability be the sole and only determinant of whether a class is good or not?
Why is it a 'Design Mandate' that artificers be super fantabulous awesome at fighting (at the expense of losing out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities if there's no other way to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin(C)) but no such mandate is enforced when someone asks 'what can my fighter do when he's not fighting'?
The Artificer is a half-caster. If the other half is not about combat, then what is it. The way you are arguing, the Artificer should actually be a full caster and not a half-caster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
i have to agree, mandating thigns should go all the way for every classes... examples of ASi and Martial Archetype features which clearly were mandatory in the making of each classes. why would everyone be mandatory to be a fighting class ? i played often a sorcerer healer whoc couldn'T defend himself at all in combat. i also created a lot of characters who were just not good in combat. they were fun to play still.
but i will say this much... i loved the fighter archetype feature that says that if he cast a spell as an action, he can still use a bonus action to attack. i think that solves many problems. i also like to say that booming blade and green flame blade actually solve this very issue. so i'd make it a feature of the class that later on in the game, if they cast a spell, they can cast a cantrip as a bonus action. that could be usefull.
1) The sorcerer is a full caster and cannot, at this time, be compared in any way, shape or form to an Artificer.
2) The Eldritch Knight is a fighter who's best use of his/her spells is to boost damage and increase self defense. They are 1/2 casters. They get multiple attacks in all archetypes and also have Action Surge which allows them to cast a 2nd full spell, something no other caster can do without multi-classing into fighter.
Personally, I think they should leave Arcane Armament available to all archetypes and, like Artutha suggested, allow the one of the attacks to be a spell (possibly a cantrip originally, then a spell at a higher level).
To me, the Artificer feels like its becomes a 1/3 caster with the lesser part becoming more beast master ranger like.
Just my two cents.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
My initial thought was to have it as something kind of like a fighting style, where the Artificer could choose between either the Arcane Armament feature, a damage boost for cantrips like the Artillerist and the Alchemist (sort of) has, or a cantrip+bonus action attack like the Eldritch Knight/College of Valor has.
Also, folks, let's not jump down each other's throats, all right? We're allowed our disagreements, but we can have this discussion without getting annoyed with each other.
I understand the point you are trying to make. However, what you are wanting out of spell storing makes it sound overpowered in my opinion. You need to think of Spell Storing as a modified version of the 3rd level spell Glyph of Warding (Spell Glyph). The first sentence for Spell Glyph states... "You can store a prepared spell of 3rd level or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph." You need to cast that spell in conjunction with casting Glyph of Warding. So you are using two spell slots.
Spell Storing allows you to imbue the arcane properties of a spell into a nonmagical object that can be used at a latter time. In order to imbue those properties you will need to cast the spell. But what you are talking about is essentially using that nonmagical item that has a spell stored in it as a remote control to activate the spell. This way the Artificer still has the spell slot if they need it.
What if the player with the nonmagical item that has been imbued with a spell uses it and the Artificer doesn't know about? Then the Artificer thinks they have three 1st level spell slots in reality they have two. Or the Artificer uses up all their 1st level spell slots and the character that was given the nonmagical item that has been imbued with a 1st level spell and tries to use it but they can't because the spell slot is gone.
At least with the spell slot being used in conjunction with using spell storing, you will not run into the above situation.
The Artificer is not supposed to be a 100% spellcaster. Spellcasting is supposed to be an ability that assists the Artificer. The Artificer has subclasses that contain abilities that aid them in combat. If you want to rely on the spellcasting ability when you are in combat, they maybe you should play a cleric, sorcerer, or wizard. They have plenty of spell slots and access to plenty of direct damaging spells.
Thanks for the replies Marine, these are well structured and phrased posts so more conducive to discussion. :-)
Firstly I will say baseline, as you know, I do disagree with your balancing point for Artificer. They originally used Rogue sneak attack damage scaling per hit, which while uninventive was technically balanced? A rogue can also do 11d6 in one turn and has a potential to do 13d6 if hitting with an offhand (which most did), while 2017 artificer had higher variance because it was a MA to cast thunder cannon and could not be backed up with a second shot. (50% chance to deal extra 9d6 vs 75% on the rogue)
My goal is to let Artificer have options in combat 1. To attack to a level equal to a Valor Bard without expending resources. 2. To spell cast damaging spells to a level between an Eldritch Knight and an Arcane Trickster. 3. To give versatility in Sharing spells without pre expending resources (as that is soooo cool and deserves to exist in 5e in some way) 4. Cantrips.
I feel like your suggested changes to Alchemist bag and Gunsmith would not be sustainable, as a half caster has such low number of spell slots. An Artificer in your suggestion would have to use spell slots to stay viable even above Cantrips. And using spellslots prior to combat in spell Storing, and in combat to deal what is effectively Ranged weapon damage, would leave you without any left to play utility with your spells out of combat. Just map out the first 10 rounds of a combat at level 5, while trying to keep resources for a full day of adventuring, and see if you feel Epic? Even vs a Valor bard. Because that is what we are playing this glorious game to achieve.
Now to the quoted. (sorry about that rant) I am glad you brought up Glyph of Storing, I forgot about that spell as it is rarely used in practice and I think works in my favour. Let me map out my opinion on the power level of character creation features:
Cantrips < Racial features < Subclass and class features (6-14 level) <= 1-3rd level spells <= Feats < 4-6th level spells <= Core class identity features (1-3 level) < 7-9th level spells
All above is my opinion and variable but for some examples: Swift Quiver lvl 5 spell ~ Monk’s Flurry of Blows. Investure in Stone ~ Barbarian’s Rage. Misty Step lvl 2 spell ~ Monk Shadow step ~ Mobile feat. All this is ofcourse hard given the general rule not to replicate abilities with feats and spells.
All that to say Spell Storing Item should be better than Glyph of Warding in every way.
PS: Almost forgot my main response to your above questions: If anyone uses a spell Storing Item the Artificer is instantly aware they lose a spell slot and of what level (think Wading Bond would you rule that the caster don’t know they take damage until they all of a sudden die?) And if someone uses a Spell Storing Item without knowing and without checking that the Artificer has Spell slots left, it fizzles. (maybe without expending the action) Both rules could be written within two lines.
Thanks. I try to make contributions to discussions that are logical (I don't always succeed).
In regards to a Rogue's sneak attack, they only get that additional damage if they are hidden from their target and are able to hit their target. However, the Alchemist can do 10d6 acid damage (or half as much on a successful DEX saving throw) or restore 10d8 hit points every turn, and the Gunsmith can do an additional 9d6 damage every round. My rebuild of the Alchemist's formulas and the Gunsmith's attacks was to reflect that they are able to do a base amount of damage/ restore hit points every round and by imbuing their "attacks" (or restoring hit points) with arcane power they are able to increase their damage dealt and type. I am scaling the damage similar to spells that do additional damage if cast them at higher levels. Additionally, I am not a fan of the Artificer having the ability to cast direct damage spells (cantrips) or having cleric healing ability, so in my Artificer class build I have removed direct damaging spells from the base spell list and the additional spells the subclasses get (except for the Artillerist it fits and I am reworking the Battle Smith). This makes the ability to increase the damage at the cost of a spell slot viable.
My reason for pointing out the Spell Glyph portion of Glyph of Warding was to show you that an additional spell slot was spent when casting Glyph of Warding. Balance wise The number of spell slots that the current Artificer has is on par with my Artificer build. So with a maximum of 15 spell slots (level 20) means the players can chose to use spell storing and not really regret their decision. Also, my version of Spell Storing allows it to last until the beginning of a long rest and can use spells that use a bonus action or reaction to cast.
I am not trying to compare Glyph of Warding to your version of Spell Storing. I am merely pointing out a certain aspect of Glyph of Warding. Also it doesn't work in your favor. You need to spend a spell slot to cast Glyph of Warding, it lasts until it is triggered or dispelled, and the caster will not know that it has been triggered. Someone or something triggers a Glyph of Warding and the player who cast it, did so 7 days ago and they are over 100 miles away from the location. They have already regained their spell slot and they will not know the results of their spell unless they check on it at a later date.
From your response you are saying that they Artificer will know if their stored spell was activated, but the if the player attempts to use an item that has a spell stored in it they are SOL if it doesn't activate. If I was a player that was given an item that has a spell stored in it from an Artificer and that item fails to activate when I needed it I would be very upset. The only person your version of Spell Storing benefits is the Artificer. They know if the item was used so they can make adjustments. But if the item doesn't activate for the player they could potentially be screwed. Also Warding Bond has a range of 60 feet and Spell Storing doesn't have range limit.
I can understand wanting to give the Artificer additional options when it comes to combat. It is difficult to balance a class or subclass. Plus, not everyone will be happy with a class/subclass' build. We can see that in this very discussion board.
In my eyes, the Artificer's spellcasting ability is not foundation for the class. I think of the Artificer's spellcasting ability in a similar way as the Arcane Trickster's. Nine out of the 13 spells that the Arcane Trickster knows are from the enchantment and illusion schools and the other 4 can be from any school. In my opinion the Artificer should be gear towards something similar and not have any direct damaging (even cantrips), faith based or healing spells (this includes the restoration spells).
Too many people are trying to steer the Artificer into the direction of a full blown spellcaster at the expense of actually crafting anything.
Where all the other half-caster's are combat 1st and spell casters 2nd, the Artificer is the reverse. The Artificer is a spell caster 1st and combat 2nd. This will be even more so when they take away Arcane Armaments from all Artificers and give it only to the Battle Smith.
A lot of the time, I have issues seeing the combat side of a Artificer. At this time, I think this sill be an even bigger issue when the next iteration of the Artificer comes out.
For all other half casters, if you take away their spell ability, you still have an effective combat character. For the Artificer I don't quite get that feel, and if all Artificers lose Arcane Armament except one archetype, I think that will be even more so unless they do something to increase the Artificer's spellcaster half.
Exactly and just for one more point, it is still a Halfcaster! So no matter if it is a spell caster first, it currently feels like a half character in combat without Extra Attack.
That is kind of why I was championing a Dual Caster replacement for Extra Attack which lets you cast a second cantrip in same turn, like meta magic but free as it is 5 levels in to the class. (Only Artificer Cantrips to cut out Eldritch Blast)
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
This is the problem. Everyone wants the Artificer to be a spellcaster class at the expense of its true nature... creating and crafting. The powers that be at D&D tells us in the Artificer UA to use are imaginations when we are casting spells but to actually cast spells. We are told to describe gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms that simulate the casting and effects of spells without actually using any arcane power. But yet, with Infuse Item we touch a nonmagical item and turn it into a magic item. The spellcasting ability of the Artificer should be used to support them so that they can accomplish their tasks (in and out of combat).
I understand the need of needing something extra when it comes to combat. There are other classes that do not have an extra attack but yet they have other abilities that balance out their base class. To be honest I never liked Arcane Armament as I felt it was too restrictive. There is no guarantee that you will always have a magic weapon in your possession (i.e. captured, put in jail, robbed, etc.). Also the idea of going with a dual caster setup just continues to push the Artificer away from the foundation of the class which is creating and craft and into a full blown spellcaster. If you want something like that, then create a subclass for the Wizard that concentrates on combat (not evocation). The below is my idea as the replacement for Mechanical Servant of the 2017 Artificer UA and a better option than Arcane Armament.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6th level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
@Marine2874 Are you by any chance familiar with the homebrewed version of the artificer by KibblesTasty? If you aren't, I feel it may be something you'd be interested in having a look at.
EDIT: for those who take a look at the homebrewed Artificer in that link, it looks like they updated it recently and there might be some formatting issues as a result. Apologies for that.
This is the problem. Everyone wants the Artificer to be a spellcaster class at the expense of its true nature... creating and crafting. The powers that be at D&D tells us in the Artificer UA to use are imaginations when we are casting spells but to actually cast spells. We are told to describe gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms that simulate the casting and effects of spells without actually using any arcane power. But yet, with Infuse Item we touch a nonmagical item and turn it into a magic item. The spellcasting ability of the Artificer should be used to support them so that they can accomplish their tasks (in and out of combat).
I understand the need of needing something extra when it comes to combat. There are other classes that do not have an extra attack but yet they have other abilities that balance out their base class. To be honest I never liked Arcane Armament as I felt it was too restrictive. There is no guarantee that you will always have a magic weapon in your possession (i.e. captured, put in jail, robbed, etc.). Also the idea of going with a dual caster setup just continues to push the Artificer away from the foundation of the class which is creating and craft and into a full blown spellcaster. If you want something like that, then create a subclass for the Wizard that concentrates on combat (not evocation). The below is my idea as the replacement for Mechanical Servant of the 2017 Artificer UA and a better option than Arcane Armament.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6th level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
Conventional magic has an idea of what spellcasting is. The artificer challenges that idea. Gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms do no have to be divorced from concepts of arcane power. In fact it can (and for the artificer to an extent does) require arcane power. No one else can touch a non magical item and imbue it with magic so easily and freely. This is shown in the Arcane Weapon spell. Only artificers can cast it and it's effects are on par with elemental weapon but limited to specifically stay with the artificer. Thus an artificer who requires a magic weapon to attack twice in a round can take any nonmagical weapon and turn it into a magical one at the cost of merely a lvl 1 spell slot and a bonus action.
Getting captured or robbed will set almost ANY player back (the monk is a rather noteworthy exception). A barbarian has to regain a weapon. A fighter has to get a weapon and their armor back. A wizard has to regain their spellcasting focus. A paladin has to get a weapon, armor, and their holy symbol to be back in full form. An artificer has to get a weapon, armor, tools, and cast a spell.
That artificer's armor actually takes longer and more work to regain after it's lost, then what's necessary to regain a magical weapon. It seems like a more restricted version of the resistance armor Infusion. (I know not the fairest comparison considering you described that feature as a replacement for the 2017 Artificer's Mechanical Servant). However, I do like how the artificer's armor feature includes a sense of the work and effort required to craft it into its description.
i have to agree, mandating thigns should go all the way for every classes... examples of ASi and Martial Archetype features which clearly were mandatory in the making of each classes. why would everyone be mandatory to be a fighting class ? i played often a sorcerer healer whoc couldn'T defend himself at all in combat. i also created a lot of characters who were just not good in combat. they were fun to play still.
but i will say this much... i loved the fighter archetype feature that says that if he cast a spell as an action, he can still use a bonus action to attack. i think that solves many problems. i also like to say that booming blade and green flame blade actually solve this very issue. so i'd make it a feature of the class that later on in the game, if they cast a spell, they can cast a cantrip as a bonus action. that could be usefull.
1) The sorcerer is a full caster and cannot, at this time, be compared in any way, shape or form to an Artificer.
2) The Eldritch Knight is a fighter who's best use of his/her spells is to boost damage and increase self defense. They are 1/2 casters. They get multiple attacks in all archetypes and also have Action Surge which allows them to cast a 2nd full spell, something no other caster can do without multi-classing into fighter.
Personally, I think they should leave Arcane Armament available to all archetypes and, like Artutha suggested, allow the one of the attacks to be a spell (possibly a cantrip originally, then a spell at a higher level).
To me, the Artificer feels like its becomes a 1/3 caster with the lesser part becoming more beast master ranger like.
Just my two cents.
You got me wrong there... i was answering the above post that said an artificer should just be like every other classes and have combat options... when i used my sorcerer character it was to say that you dont need a combat character to have fun. i mean my sorcerer had strickly no combat options. he had no cantrips for attacks, he had no spells for atacks, he was fully a healer and dedicated as such. i was not refering to the artificer to be anything like that. i simply said, a character to be fun doesn't need to be a combat worthy foe.
the other part... he's a half caster now, feels like you are still seeing the old one. he is literally just a half caster now with even more options to make things magical. i don't see how he looks like a third caster in the last iteration we've seen. as for me, i wonder why we all have a say in this... if anything its the authors choice, not ours. if the author thinks the class is what he likes, then we have no say in it. of course it wont be for everyone, but its already like that for every classes.
my views on this whole classes war in 5e... is that they are all big combat focused classes and i hate that. its like all classes must be able to deal massive damage as if massive damage is all that is required in D&D. and that irks me the wrong way because d&d is not a video game where you just need more DPS to kill everything. i like the tactical aspect of the game and i love that damage is not the only thing that can get into an encounter. i played the original artificer too, and what i really really liked in the 3e version was that the artificer couldn'T do squat if he wasn't with a group of players. he was literally just a support character. it is that, that brought me to love the guy. because he added a layer onto any strategies for any groups, he didn't just bring more damage. if you wanted in 5e to bring more damages, then just do another paladin or better, just do a group of all paladins and smite the shit out of your opponents. there is no way an artificer can get that type of damage. so why bother trying to boost its capabilities like that. at that point, just give him options and make him a support class like it used to be.
thats what i think of it. though, i'll say... i agree that more classes should have options like the fighting styles. i love those and i think many classes could of benefitted from something of the sort as it brings the choices up a bit without being too focused on it. so yeah, i'd agree that the armament could be ust like the fighting styles.
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)
The issue I take, Arutha, is that I keep seeing suggestions to get rid of things the current artificer does in order to "make room" for fighty stuff. Things like "get rid of Magical Tinkering and move The Right Cantrip for the Job to level 1 instead, so we can get a combat-focused SSI variation in at level 10."
Excuse me? I love Magical Tinkering. Take it away from me, I'll put it right the bloody hell back in, because the idea of an artificer being able to basically do Cantrip Crafting - quick, handy little magical hacks that's basically their version of Prestidigitation save item-focused (and in return demi-permanent) - is fantastic. I like TRCftJ, but I'm not giving up Magical Tinkering for it.
Similarly with removing the various critters for more hard combat options (I don't want magical power armor that's completely ****off-useless for everything but fighting, I want my infinitely handy mechanical familiar), or removing spellcasting from the Artificer altogether in favor of a system which allows other people to cast the artificer's spells for them but ONLY in combat because everybody wants Arcane Weapon but only on their hyper-optimized Great Polearm Master double-smite paladins.
The artificer fights fine. It's not an amazing damage dealer, but Arcane Weapon is a thing and Arcane Assault, as weird and out of place as it initial seems, kinda works. As well, the fact that artificers have an always-on bonus action they can use to heckle shit so long as their critter is there is surprisingly useful. Repeating Weapon on a crossbow (or a pistol, if you happen to be playing in Exandria) and a combat familiar that can spit acid for you has kept up just fine for me in the Tier 1 and 2 games I've run with Ana. Is she a bruiser? Nah. But she can hold her own. I don't see why people want to rip out half the class' existing features in order to shove a bunch of direct-damage bullhonkey in there when they have, like...nine other classes that are direct-damage specialists.
Revisions to Arcane Assault? Sure, I like that notion Mezurrah came up with for a Fighting Style-esque choice of combat enhancer at level 5. Perhaps fill some of the mostly dead levels where all it gets is a new infusion slot with a more fighty feature or two. Revise some of the wonkier specialist features to allow for some heavier combat from the critters (and just redo the Artillerist entirely because that turret is bad and it should feel bad). Or, and here's an idea - incorporate TRCftJ into the class' basic spellcasting and give the artificer a sixth feat, at level 10 like rogues get. Artificers, as many people have pointed out many times, are half-casters with no heavy core of martial ability to back it up. Give them an extra ASI instead to help patch that up, or to further indulge in their creative crafty needs.
But please. Stop trying to suggest that one can 'make room' for combat features by ripping out noncombat ones. No, the basic two skill proficiencies everybody gets for being a D&D character are not "out of combat features", especially since nobody except wizards or bards ever takes anything but Acro, Athletics, or Stealth if their class gives them any remote choice in the matter. It's just...not okay, okay?
Okay, without addressing any one person here (because it's not just one person) I think it's important for everyone to keep a number of things in perspective:
1) No single person here has ultimate say over how the final version of the artificer turns out. We're all a bunch of nerds coming together to have this discussion, and the majority opinion of the entire participating fanbase is what gets listened to, not any one person. Personally, I thought Superior Attunement was an excellent feature and was disappointed to see it get removed, but apparently a lot of folks thought otherwise. Heck, when I stop and think about it, it's not even guaranteed that WotC will even take the majority opinion, it's just as likely the designers will take some popular opinions and make an executive decision to disregard them in order to make a more balanced class.
2) The whole purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to improve the class, and it's perfectly fine if we don't agree. A big part of this discussion is to come up with new ideas and improve existing ones, not just advocate for or against them. For that matter, a lot of ideas have been brought up, debated, accepted, rejected, left for dead, resurrected, and gone through multiple iterations. We're here to brainstorm, so no fighting in the War Room!
3) The survey was finished quite some time ago so unless WotC change their minds about having another UA, the next time we see the Artificer will be in a published product, so as of right now the chances of us having any more influence on the design of the class range somewhere between slim and none. Now obviously everyone here is passionate about the class because otherwise we wouldn't be here, but we also need to recognize that as of right now, that boat has sailed. The only reasons to keep having this discussion is A) for the unlikely event that we'll get another UA (which, being another revision, would likely render this discussion largely irrelevant anyways) and B) to come up with new ideas for us to homebrew until the final product does comes out. As of right now, everything is out of our hands so let's not get annoyed with each other, alright?
Considering right now it's an Unearthed Arcana and not an official product just yet, they're probably going to wait until we see an official release before they begin adding homebrew support for Artificer subclasses.
It is because it is not official yet and may (will) change.
Thanks for the replies Marine, these are well structured and phrased posts so more conducive to discussion. :-)
Firstly I will say baseline, as you know, I do disagree with your balancing point for Artificer. They originally used Rogue sneak attack damage scaling per hit, which while uninventive was technically balanced? A rogue can also do 11d6 in one turn and has a potential to do 13d6 if hitting with an offhand (which most did), while 2017 artificer had higher variance because it was a MA to cast thunder cannon and could not be backed up with a second shot. (50% chance to deal extra 9d6 vs 75% on the rogue)
My goal is to let Artificer have options in combat 1. To attack to a level equal to a Valor Bard without expending resources. 2. To spell cast damaging spells to a level between an Eldritch Knight and an Arcane Trickster. 3. To give versatility in Sharing spells without pre expending resources (as that is soooo cool and deserves to exist in 5e in some way) 4. Cantrips.
I feel like your suggested changes to Alchemist bag and Gunsmith would not be sustainable, as a half caster has such low number of spell slots. An Artificer in your suggestion would have to use spell slots to stay viable even above Cantrips. And using spellslots prior to combat in spell Storing, and in combat to deal what is effectively Ranged weapon damage, would leave you without any left to play utility with your spells out of combat. Just map out the first 10 rounds of a combat at level 5, while trying to keep resources for a full day of adventuring, and see if you feel Epic? Even vs a Valor bard. Because that is what we are playing this glorious game to achieve.
Now to the quoted. (sorry about that rant) I am glad you brought up Glyph of Storing, I forgot about that spell as it is rarely used in practice and I think works in my favour. Let me map out my opinion on the power level of character creation features:
Cantrips < Racial features < Subclass and class features (6-14 level) <= 1-3rd level spells <= Feats < 4-6th level spells <= Core class identity features (1-3 level) < 7-9th level spells
All above is my opinion and variable but for some examples: Swift Quiver lvl 5 spell ~ Monk’s Flurry of Blows. Investure in Stone ~ Barbarian’s Rage. Misty Step lvl 2 spell ~ Monk Shadow step ~ Mobile feat. All this is ofcourse hard given the general rule not to replicate abilities with feats and spells.
All that to say Spell Storing Item should be better than Glyph of Warding in every way.
PS: Almost forgot my main response to your above questions: If anyone uses a spell Storing Item the Artificer is instantly aware they lose a spell slot and of what level (think Wading Bond would you rule that the caster don’t know they take damage until they all of a sudden die?) And if someone uses a Spell Storing Item without knowing and without checking that the Artificer has Spell slots left, it fizzles. (maybe without expending the action) Both rules could be written within two lines.
They added that change with the 2nd interation of Artificer 2019.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
The Artificer is a half caster.
Where all the other half-caster's are combat 1st and spell casters 2nd, the Artificer is the reverse. The Artificer is a spell caster 1st and combat 2nd. This will be even more so when they take away Arcane Armaments from all Artificers and give it only to the Battle Smith.
A lot of the time, I have issues seeing the combat side of a Artificer. At this time, I think this sill be an even bigger issue when the next iteration of the Artificer comes out.
For all other half casters, if you take away their spell ability, you still have an effective combat character. For the Artificer I don't quite get that feel, and if all Artificers lose Arcane Armament except one archetype, I think that will be even more so unless they do something to increase the Artificer's spellcaster half.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Exactly and just for one more point, it is still a Halfcaster! So no matter if it is a spell caster first, it currently feels like a half character in combat without Extra Attack.
That is kind of why I was championing a Dual Caster replacement for Extra Attack which lets you cast a second cantrip in same turn, like meta magic but free as it is 5 levels in to the class. (Only Artificer Cantrips to cut out Eldritch Blast)
And in before people say we think combat is the only thing that matters, you need a balance in both forms of play combat and non combat, no other class sacrifices combat viability for out of combat abilities. And That should be considered a design mandate.
Why?
Tell me - what out-of-combat abilities does a Barbarian give you? What are the out-of-combat abilities of the average Fighter, exempting subclass stuff like Samurai? Or, to a lesser extent, the Monk?
Why are there allowed to be classes that specialize in face-punching at the expense of everything else, but no class is EVER allowed to specialize in something other than fighting? Why should combat viability be the sole and only determinant of whether a class is good or not?
Why is it a 'Design Mandate' that artificers be super fantabulous awesome at fighting (at the expense of losing out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities if there's no other way to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin(C)) but no such mandate is enforced when someone asks 'what can my fighter do when he's not fighting'?
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 have to agree, mandating thigns should go all the way for every classes... exemples of ASI and Martial Archetype features which clearly were mandatory in the making of each classes.
why would everyone be mandatory to be a fighting class ? i played often a sorcerer healer whoc couldn'T defend himself at all in combat. i also created a lot of characters who were just not good in combat. they were fun to play still.
but i will say this much...
i loved the fighter archetype feature that says that if he cast a spell as an action, he can still use a bonus action to attack.
i think that solves many problems. i also like to say that booming blade and green flame blade actually solve this very issue.
so i'd make it a feature of the class that later on in the game, if they cast a spell, they can cast a cantrip as a bonus action.
that could be usefull.
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)
A fighter get a choice of two skill proficiencies and two from their background, that is where the majority of roleplaying skill checks come from. If there was ever a class created with no skill proficiencies there would and should be an uproar. Secondly Fighters get the maximum and quickest amount of feats which if you wish can be chosen for Noncombat purposes. Thirdly Fighters get the most Subclass features so your restriction was stupid. Finally Fighter is supposed to be the introductory class for the video gamers so by design it was made simpler.
Barbarians also get 4 skills, albeit from a more restricted list and less subclass features. But they do get Advantage on all strength checks and resistance to all environmental damage, if that is not enough in itself ... Also by design they have an RP niche prepared for them that no one can fill better, due to their Multi Physical Ability Dependence they are encouraged to play low intelligence which is itself a goldmine for roleplay.
All I am saying is if any of them mechanically could not do any skills or just said “you have no personality and you only get proficiency in Athletics and can’t learn any other skills” only then that would be a valid comparison. Because Artificer says “you suck at magic and can attack only once and only using simple weapons.”
I am getting frustrated with this line of argument as you keep blaming me of wanting to take away your “out-of-battle or battle-adjacent abilities” and say I want “to make them Nova Like a Sorcadin” When I never say I want to remove anything from Artificer just want multiple ways to play in or out of combat.
You keep saying we are restricting your way to play when we are embracing yours and YOU are the ones restricting ours!
PS you are not the only one but I am frustrated with the NO Combat ability group as a whole due to everyone’s exclusivity mentality (You can see in my quote above that I just want the best of both worlds, but for some reason you still jump on me and say No it should only be Non-combat features for everything in Artificer...)
The Artificer is a half-caster. If the other half is not about combat, then what is it. The way you are arguing, the Artificer should actually be a full caster and not a half-caster.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
1) The sorcerer is a full caster and cannot, at this time, be compared in any way, shape or form to an Artificer.
2) The Eldritch Knight is a fighter who's best use of his/her spells is to boost damage and increase self defense. They are 1/2 casters. They get multiple attacks in all archetypes and also have Action Surge which allows them to cast a 2nd full spell, something no other caster can do without multi-classing into fighter.
Personally, I think they should leave Arcane Armament available to all archetypes and, like Artutha suggested, allow the one of the attacks to be a spell (possibly a cantrip originally, then a spell at a higher level).
To me, the Artificer feels like its becomes a 1/3 caster with the lesser part becoming more beast master ranger like.
Just my two cents.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
My initial thought was to have it as something kind of like a fighting style, where the Artificer could choose between either the Arcane Armament feature, a damage boost for cantrips like the Artillerist and the Alchemist (sort of) has, or a cantrip+bonus action attack like the Eldritch Knight/College of Valor has.
Also, folks, let's not jump down each other's throats, all right? We're allowed our disagreements, but we can have this discussion without getting annoyed with each other.
Thanks. I try to make contributions to discussions that are logical (I don't always succeed).
In regards to a Rogue's sneak attack, they only get that additional damage if they are hidden from their target and are able to hit their target. However, the Alchemist can do 10d6 acid damage (or half as much on a successful DEX saving throw) or restore 10d8 hit points every turn, and the Gunsmith can do an additional 9d6 damage every round. My rebuild of the Alchemist's formulas and the Gunsmith's attacks was to reflect that they are able to do a base amount of damage/ restore hit points every round and by imbuing their "attacks" (or restoring hit points) with arcane power they are able to increase their damage dealt and type. I am scaling the damage similar to spells that do additional damage if cast them at higher levels. Additionally, I am not a fan of the Artificer having the ability to cast direct damage spells (cantrips) or having cleric healing ability, so in my Artificer class build I have removed direct damaging spells from the base spell list and the additional spells the subclasses get (except for the Artillerist it fits and I am reworking the Battle Smith). This makes the ability to increase the damage at the cost of a spell slot viable.
My reason for pointing out the Spell Glyph portion of Glyph of Warding was to show you that an additional spell slot was spent when casting Glyph of Warding. Balance wise The number of spell slots that the current Artificer has is on par with my Artificer build. So with a maximum of 15 spell slots (level 20) means the players can chose to use spell storing and not really regret their decision. Also, my version of Spell Storing allows it to last until the beginning of a long rest and can use spells that use a bonus action or reaction to cast.
I am not trying to compare Glyph of Warding to your version of Spell Storing. I am merely pointing out a certain aspect of Glyph of Warding. Also it doesn't work in your favor. You need to spend a spell slot to cast Glyph of Warding, it lasts until it is triggered or dispelled, and the caster will not know that it has been triggered. Someone or something triggers a Glyph of Warding and the player who cast it, did so 7 days ago and they are over 100 miles away from the location. They have already regained their spell slot and they will not know the results of their spell unless they check on it at a later date.
From your response you are saying that they Artificer will know if their stored spell was activated, but the if the player attempts to use an item that has a spell stored in it they are SOL if it doesn't activate. If I was a player that was given an item that has a spell stored in it from an Artificer and that item fails to activate when I needed it I would be very upset. The only person your version of Spell Storing benefits is the Artificer. They know if the item was used so they can make adjustments. But if the item doesn't activate for the player they could potentially be screwed. Also Warding Bond has a range of 60 feet and Spell Storing doesn't have range limit.
I can understand wanting to give the Artificer additional options when it comes to combat. It is difficult to balance a class or subclass. Plus, not everyone will be happy with a class/subclass' build. We can see that in this very discussion board.
In my eyes, the Artificer's spellcasting ability is not foundation for the class. I think of the Artificer's spellcasting ability in a similar way as the Arcane Trickster's. Nine out of the 13 spells that the Arcane Trickster knows are from the enchantment and illusion schools and the other 4 can be from any school. In my opinion the Artificer should be gear towards something similar and not have any direct damaging (even cantrips), faith based or healing spells (this includes the restoration spells).
Too many people are trying to steer the Artificer into the direction of a full blown spellcaster at the expense of actually crafting anything.
This is the problem. Everyone wants the Artificer to be a spellcaster class at the expense of its true nature... creating and crafting. The powers that be at D&D tells us in the Artificer UA to use are imaginations when we are casting spells but to actually cast spells. We are told to describe gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms that simulate the casting and effects of spells without actually using any arcane power. But yet, with Infuse Item we touch a nonmagical item and turn it into a magic item. The spellcasting ability of the Artificer should be used to support them so that they can accomplish their tasks (in and out of combat).
I understand the need of needing something extra when it comes to combat. There are other classes that do not have an extra attack but yet they have other abilities that balance out their base class. To be honest I never liked Arcane Armament as I felt it was too restrictive. There is no guarantee that you will always have a magic weapon in your possession (i.e. captured, put in jail, robbed, etc.). Also the idea of going with a dual caster setup just continues to push the Artificer away from the foundation of the class which is creating and craft and into a full blown spellcaster. If you want something like that, then create a subclass for the Wizard that concentrates on combat (not evocation). The below is my idea as the replacement for Mechanical Servant of the 2017 Artificer UA and a better option than Arcane Armament.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6th level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
@Marine2874 Are you by any chance familiar with the homebrewed version of the artificer by KibblesTasty? If you aren't, I feel it may be something you'd be interested in having a look at.
https://www.patreon.com/KibblesTasty/overview
EDIT: for those who take a look at the homebrewed Artificer in that link, it looks like they updated it recently and there might be some formatting issues as a result. Apologies for that.
Conventional magic has an idea of what spellcasting is. The artificer challenges that idea. Gadgets, contraptions, salves and balms do no have to be divorced from concepts of arcane power. In fact it can (and for the artificer to an extent does) require arcane power. No one else can touch a non magical item and imbue it with magic so easily and freely. This is shown in the Arcane Weapon spell. Only artificers can cast it and it's effects are on par with elemental weapon but limited to specifically stay with the artificer. Thus an artificer who requires a magic weapon to attack twice in a round can take any nonmagical weapon and turn it into a magical one at the cost of merely a lvl 1 spell slot and a bonus action.
Getting captured or robbed will set almost ANY player back (the monk is a rather noteworthy exception). A barbarian has to regain a weapon. A fighter has to get a weapon and their armor back. A wizard has to regain their spellcasting focus. A paladin has to get a weapon, armor, and their holy symbol to be back in full form. An artificer has to get a weapon, armor, tools, and cast a spell.
That artificer's armor actually takes longer and more work to regain after it's lost, then what's necessary to regain a magical weapon. It seems like a more restricted version of the resistance armor Infusion. (I know not the fairest comparison considering you described that feature as a replacement for the 2017 Artificer's Mechanical Servant). However, I do like how the artificer's armor feature includes a sense of the work and effort required to craft it into its description.
You got me wrong there...
i was answering the above post that said an artificer should just be like every other classes and have combat options... when i used my sorcerer character it was to say that you dont need a combat character to have fun. i mean my sorcerer had strickly no combat options. he had no cantrips for attacks, he had no spells for atacks, he was fully a healer and dedicated as such. i was not refering to the artificer to be anything like that. i simply said, a character to be fun doesn't need to be a combat worthy foe.
the other part... he's a half caster now, feels like you are still seeing the old one. he is literally just a half caster now with even more options to make things magical. i don't see how he looks like a third caster in the last iteration we've seen. as for me, i wonder why we all have a say in this... if anything its the authors choice, not ours. if the author thinks the class is what he likes, then we have no say in it. of course it wont be for everyone, but its already like that for every classes.
my views on this whole classes war in 5e... is that they are all big combat focused classes and i hate that. its like all classes must be able to deal massive damage as if massive damage is all that is required in D&D. and that irks me the wrong way because d&d is not a video game where you just need more DPS to kill everything. i like the tactical aspect of the game and i love that damage is not the only thing that can get into an encounter. i played the original artificer too, and what i really really liked in the 3e version was that the artificer couldn'T do squat if he wasn't with a group of players. he was literally just a support character. it is that, that brought me to love the guy. because he added a layer onto any strategies for any groups, he didn't just bring more damage. if you wanted in 5e to bring more damages, then just do another paladin or better, just do a group of all paladins and smite the shit out of your opponents. there is no way an artificer can get that type of damage. so why bother trying to boost its capabilities like that. at that point, just give him options and make him a support class like it used to be.
thats what i think of it.
though, i'll say...
i agree that more classes should have options like the fighting styles. i love those and i think many classes could of benefitted from something of the sort as it brings the choices up a bit without being too focused on it. so yeah, i'd agree that the armament could be ust like the fighting styles.
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)
The issue I take, Arutha, is that I keep seeing suggestions to get rid of things the current artificer does in order to "make room" for fighty stuff. Things like "get rid of Magical Tinkering and move The Right Cantrip for the Job to level 1 instead, so we can get a combat-focused SSI variation in at level 10."
Excuse me? I love Magical Tinkering. Take it away from me, I'll put it right the bloody hell back in, because the idea of an artificer being able to basically do Cantrip Crafting - quick, handy little magical hacks that's basically their version of Prestidigitation save item-focused (and in return demi-permanent) - is fantastic. I like TRCftJ, but I'm not giving up Magical Tinkering for it.
Similarly with removing the various critters for more hard combat options (I don't want magical power armor that's completely ****off-useless for everything but fighting, I want my infinitely handy mechanical familiar), or removing spellcasting from the Artificer altogether in favor of a system which allows other people to cast the artificer's spells for them but ONLY in combat because everybody wants Arcane Weapon but only on their hyper-optimized Great Polearm Master double-smite paladins.
The artificer fights fine. It's not an amazing damage dealer, but Arcane Weapon is a thing and Arcane Assault, as weird and out of place as it initial seems, kinda works. As well, the fact that artificers have an always-on bonus action they can use to heckle shit so long as their critter is there is surprisingly useful. Repeating Weapon on a crossbow (or a pistol, if you happen to be playing in Exandria) and a combat familiar that can spit acid for you has kept up just fine for me in the Tier 1 and 2 games I've run with Ana. Is she a bruiser? Nah. But she can hold her own. I don't see why people want to rip out half the class' existing features in order to shove a bunch of direct-damage bullhonkey in there when they have, like...nine other classes that are direct-damage specialists.
Revisions to Arcane Assault? Sure, I like that notion Mezurrah came up with for a Fighting Style-esque choice of combat enhancer at level 5. Perhaps fill some of the mostly dead levels where all it gets is a new infusion slot with a more fighty feature or two. Revise some of the wonkier specialist features to allow for some heavier combat from the critters (and just redo the Artillerist entirely because that turret is bad and it should feel bad). Or, and here's an idea - incorporate TRCftJ into the class' basic spellcasting and give the artificer a sixth feat, at level 10 like rogues get. Artificers, as many people have pointed out many times, are half-casters with no heavy core of martial ability to back it up. Give them an extra ASI instead to help patch that up, or to further indulge in their creative crafty needs.
But please. Stop trying to suggest that one can 'make room' for combat features by ripping out noncombat ones. No, the basic two skill proficiencies everybody gets for being a D&D character are not "out of combat features", especially since nobody except wizards or bards ever takes anything but Acro, Athletics, or Stealth if their class gives them any remote choice in the matter. It's just...not okay, okay?
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!
Okay, without addressing any one person here (because it's not just one person) I think it's important for everyone to keep a number of things in perspective:
1) No single person here has ultimate say over how the final version of the artificer turns out. We're all a bunch of nerds coming together to have this discussion, and the majority opinion of the entire participating fanbase is what gets listened to, not any one person. Personally, I thought Superior Attunement was an excellent feature and was disappointed to see it get removed, but apparently a lot of folks thought otherwise. Heck, when I stop and think about it, it's not even guaranteed that WotC will even take the majority opinion, it's just as likely the designers will take some popular opinions and make an executive decision to disregard them in order to make a more balanced class.
2) The whole purpose of this discussion is to come up with ways to improve the class, and it's perfectly fine if we don't agree. A big part of this discussion is to come up with new ideas and improve existing ones, not just advocate for or against them. For that matter, a lot of ideas have been brought up, debated, accepted, rejected, left for dead, resurrected, and gone through multiple iterations. We're here to brainstorm, so no fighting in the War Room!
3) The survey was finished quite some time ago so unless WotC change their minds about having another UA, the next time we see the Artificer will be in a published product, so as of right now the chances of us having any more influence on the design of the class range somewhere between slim and none. Now obviously everyone here is passionate about the class because otherwise we wouldn't be here, but we also need to recognize that as of right now, that boat has sailed. The only reasons to keep having this discussion is A) for the unlikely event that we'll get another UA (which, being another revision, would likely render this discussion largely irrelevant anyways) and B) to come up with new ideas for us to homebrew until the final product does comes out. As of right now, everything is out of our hands so let's not get annoyed with each other, alright?