Off topic, but the new sourcebook says it will add new races and dragonmarks. Anyone think it'll add anything different from Wayfinder's Guide, or just use the same stuff?
I am from the age where video games really started taking off with the introduction of the Nintendo, Sega Genesis, and computer games like the original Doom and Duke Nukem. But at the same time, I experienced table top rpgs like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, West End Games' Star Wars, Twilight 2000 and Star Frontiers. It is those rpgs that taught me the value of a good downtime. A good DM/GM would factor in downtime between adventures and if players took too much downtime during an adventure there were consequences. Downtime is essential for players to rest, repair/replace weapons and armor, stock up on essential supplies, and get their bearings.
You can see the effects of near instant crafting in videos games (like Elder Scrolls series). Like you I want that downtime to whatever and if I am an Artificer, I want to craft. As a Alchemist, I can craft on average 3x basic healing potions in a single day, for a total cost of 37 gold and 5 silver (factoring in the guidelines from XGtE, and the 2019 Artificer UA). So with a few days of downtime, that could essentially be 2 basic healing potions per party member (in a 5 person party). How could something like that be bad?
In the end, I will see what the final product of the Artificer looks like. I just wish that they would make the Eberron Artificer a subclass instead of the base class.
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
You can get a copy of the latest 2019 Artificer UA from this very website that will show you every spell that the Artificer base class and its subclasses can cast. With the exception of the subclasses, the base Artificer class does not cast direct damaging spells beyond cantrips.
Artficers have catapult and vitriolic sphere, which are both direct damage. Additionally there's heat metal, animate objects, and Bigby's hand - though whether those count as "direct" is a matter of opinion.
Personally, I believe that artificers should have access to both Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade as part of their cantrip repertoire. The both enhance melee weapon attacks which is what Artificer excel in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Still curious to see what they will settle on for Artificers attack options.
Fighter gets extra MA Attacks, Monk Extra BA Attacks, Barb Extra Flat Damage per Attack, Ranger Extra Dice per Attack, Rogue Extra Dice once per Attack, Paladin Extra Dice per hit using Spell Slots.
Finally realized that is why they designed the pet for the class / subclass format, to give them a special way to get BA attacks independent of weapons.
Not sure what else WotC can invent, maybe large flat damage once per turn, or playing more into the spellcaster angle by dual casting cantrips or War magic at 5th level.
Frankly really hoping they stick close to the 2019 design instead of walking back to the 2017 edition. I'm apparently the only one who thinks so, but the idea of the artificer being a flexible, nimble-fingered Quickfire Inventor with a strong bonus action in whatever their artificial companion does (provided the Artillerist and Archivist get tweaked enough for that to be true) is super cool. I've already pretty much decided that anyone who plays Beastmaster Ranger in my games going forward is getting a revised version of the artificer companion rules to run their beast, as well as anyone trying to pull combat familiar shenanery.
Dumping all of that just to give people "Sack of Goo Attack" or whatever they decide on to hew closer to the 2017 version would just be depressing.
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
You can get a copy of the latest 2019 Artificer UA from this very website that will show you every spell that the Artificer base class and its subclasses can cast. With the exception of the subclasses, the base Artificer class does not cast direct damaging spells beyond cantrips.
They don’t want the Artificer to be a striker. That being said, wouldn’t it make sense for an Artificer to make a stun gun to cast a spell like Witch Bolt?
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
You can get a copy of the latest 2019 Artificer UA from this very website that will show you every spell that the Artificer base class and its subclasses can cast. With the exception of the subclasses, the base Artificer class does not cast direct damaging spells beyond cantrips.
They don’t want the Artificer to be a striker. That being said, wouldn’t it make sense for an Artificer to make a stun gun to cast a spell like Witch Bolt?
In my own opinion, the powers that be at D&D have turned the Artificer into a spellcaster. However, there is wording within the current 2019 Artificer UA that states that instead of actually casting magic the players should use their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effects of Artificer spells. Now, Witch Bolt is a direct damaging spell. If the powers that be wanted the base Artificer class to have direct damaging spells besides cantrips (in my own opinion, the Artificer SHOULDN'T GET ANY direct damaging spells and the subclasses should only get direct damaging spells if they fit the class), they would have done that. Also, if the powers that be wanted any of the subclasses to have the Witch Bolt spell they would have given it to them.
Now since the current Artificer is an UA and playtest material, that might all change the Artificer spell list when it is officially released.
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
You can get a copy of the latest 2019 Artificer UA from this very website that will show you every spell that the Artificer base class and its subclasses can cast. With the exception of the subclasses, the base Artificer class does not cast direct damaging spells beyond cantrips.
They don’t want the Artificer to be a striker. That being said, wouldn’t it make sense for an Artificer to make a stun gun to cast a spell like Witch Bolt?
In my own opinion, the powers that be at D&D have turned the Artificer into a spellcaster. However, there is wording within the current 2019 Artificer UA that states that instead of actually casting magic the players should use their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effects of Artificer spells. Now, Witch Bolt is a direct damaging spell. If the powers that be wanted the base Artificer class to have direct damaging spells besides cantrips (in my own opinion, the Artificer SHOULDN'T GET ANY direct damaging spells and the subclasses should only get direct damaging spells if they fit the class), they would have done that. Also, if the powers that be wanted any of the subclasses to have the Witch Bolt spell they would have given it to them.
Now since the current Artificer is an UA and playtest material, that might all change the Artificer spell list when it is officially released.
I understand the “powers that be” etc. standpoint, hence my very first sentence. My point is, if anybody is going to craft an item anything like a stun gun, wouldn’t it logically BE the artificer? My argument is, drop any and all spells past cantrips, and then expand on Crafting and Infusions and include effects that mimic 1–5th level spells such as but not limited to: Witch Bolt, Burning Hands, Fog, etc. That would, IMHO, limit them to having to pre-craft the items, but still allow them to ACTUALLY craft the items. Mechanically it wouldn’t be any more OP than writing/reading scrolls that only they could use.
You are forgetting a part of my response; "there is wording within the current 2019 Artificer UA that states that instead of actually casting magic the players should use their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effects of Artificer spells."
Essentially, the powers that be at D&D instead of coming up with something original, expanded upon the Artificer spellcasting ability and suggested players use their imaginations to create devices to simulate spells. And more than likely, they didn't give the base class access to direct damaging spells (other than cantrips) to balance it out.
Your idea is to getting ride of all spells except for cantrips and crafting devices and creating infusions that simulate the effects of spells 1st - 5th level. So are you saying that the Artificer has access to every single 1st -5th level spell? Or are there limitations? How many times can a player use that device or infusion? Say a player has a "Witch Bolt stun gun" and a device that simulates the Burning Hands spell (both of which are 1st level spells). All spellcasters (except the Warlock) and half-casters only have four 1st level spell slots, how many times can they use a device that simulates the effect of a 1st level spell?
Another reason behind the suggestion of players using their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effect of spells is to put a limit on the number of uses of a spell. Your idea may sounds like a good idea, but there are too many flaws to it. Also, your first sentence of "they don't want the Artificer to be a striker". Your idea would make the Artificer into a striker, they just do it with gadgets.
Now this link https://www.patreon.com/KibblesTasty/overview is to a guy who created his own Artificer class. The entire thing is blatantly overpowered, but one of the subclasses is a gadgetsmith (which I think is something you are talking about).
The suggestion I had was that mechanically, it could work similarly to scrolls. How many times can a Character use a scroll? I thought the limit would be intrinsically implied. There could be a simple level based system for how many “gadgets” the Artificer could have made Per Long Rest. It could be kindof like spell slots used to work way back in 2e, only without spell levels the way Warlocks work in 5e. If you don’t like that and want them to be able to more “invent on the fly” it could be a Ponts based system like Sorcerers and Monks get, or maybe a Dice based system like Bards or Battle Masters get.
One could even explain it away that they require maintenance, and therefore only higher level Artificers can maintain a plethora of “gadgets.” If they want to swap Gadgets they would have to cannibalizes old ones until they level up and gain the experience to maintain more.
I’m not suggesting they get EVERY 1st-5th level spell, but with those limitations “The Powers that Be” could afford to open up the list to include a few more thematic options, like maybe a stun gun for example.... All they would have to do is simply expand on the Infusion ability and list. That IS in fact the brand new mechanic they invented for Artificers. Major Infusion would work the way they currently do, and minor ones could be one-shots similar to the way I described above.
“The Powers that Be” gave us a half of a wizard and some vague instructions to pretend really hard that their spells are actually some kind of gadgets. They have reasons for the decisions they make, I get that. I’m speaking from a more emotional standpoint. Look at it this way, WWMcGD? (What Would MacGyver Do?)
If you gave Mac 6 bic lighters, some duct tape, and a packet of poprocks he could probably whip up a Burning Hans equivalent. He made fog/poison gas with household cleaners; he made an explosive powerful enough to blow open a security door with some heart medication, some antiseptic, gauze, and a bedpan; he made a grappling gun with a telescope, an umbrella, and some moth balls; he repeatedly made an arc welder from a car battery, some jumper cables, and $.50 change. Why can’t my magically imbued Gnomish inventor?!? Get rid of that 1/2Wiz entirely. They don’t need “spells”, just some stuff and an imagination.
IamSposta it has been suggested before and I think could work, the only precedent for them not going that way are the WotFE Monk and 2017 Mystic. Both of which do pretty much what you said, Mystic in a 28 page document recreating a bunch of spell like abilities. And both didn’t really have good responses. But if you want to play those mechanics they exist, and are also in Kibbles Artificer linked above.
In my honest opinion Spellcasting is an intrinsic aspect of 5e class design, it should not be circumvented, instead mildly manipulated or added to while maintaining the vast rule block already printed. You might as well ask to play without AC or hitpoints, maybe Artificer should use 2d6 to determine if they hit an attack... 5e = Spellcasting as much as 5e=d20 to hit.
For example I would suggest adding that anti magic effects don’t work on an Artificer as all their “Spellcasting” comes from physical items replicating the effect of a spell on their spell list. IE. It is not a “suggestion” it is a “default” that unless stated and agreed with your DM the Artificer IS using items to cast, and can by fluff agree to use the Weave. While the Wizard IS using the Weave and can by fluff, homebrew and DM fiat, agree to use Items as fluff.
PS. I have refined this argument in the past 50 pages so anyone open to debate my points, I think it is fairly solid without just asserting my opinion.
Mechanics aside, mine and JackWake’s original point still stands: Why can’t an Artificer “build” a stun gun or a fog machine? Not even mounted on the Turret. It feels like an artificial limitation that breaks verisimilitude.
I understand where you come from, I really do. However, an Artificer isn't just about creating gadgets that allow them to simulate spell effects in or out of combat. Artificers also create magical items. There is a need for arcane abilities which would allow them to create a +1 sword, a Bag of Holding, or a Cloak of Elvenkind. And in the case of the 2019 Artificer UA, Infusions (which I hate). So no matter what, an Artificer is going to need to have arcane abilities, which is why I am not against spellcasting for the class.
I, however, would get rid of all direct damaging spells (to include cantrips), healing spells, and any spell that isn't on the Wizard's spell list (with the exception of a few spells). I see the base Artificer class as a support style spellcaster (minus certain spells to include healing spells). As for the subclass spell lists, I would keep the Artillerist's spell list (it fits the subclass), revise/modify the Battle Smith's spell list and get rid of the spell list for the Alchemist entirely (fyi, I HATE THE ARCHIVIST, so I don't even consider that subclass).
Also, nothing says that your gadget ideas could be applied to the current Artificer cantrip spell list.
There is nothing that isn't stopping you from creating a subclass that is essentially a gadgetsmith. You can create it in such a way that you are able to craft gadgets that simulate 1st - 5th level spells.
The Artificer base class should be something that allows spellcasting, crafting and some benefits like custom armor and enhanced attunement. The subclasses should be your specialization classes like your magically imbued Gnomish Inventor.
I encourage you to create your own gadgetsmith subclass.
Mechanics aside, mine and JackWake’s original point still stands: Why can’t an Artificer “build” a stun gun or a fog machine? Not even mounted on the Turret. It feels like an artificial limitation that breaks verisimilitude.
Nobody is saying you can't build a "stun gun" or a "fog machine" Jack's original post mentioned adding additional spells he believed any Artificer should be able to cast. Your original post mentioned not making the Artificer a striker while at the same time giving them access to direct damaging spells beyond cantrips (which in my mind would make them a striker). Then in a later post you talked about getting rid of the spellcasting ability with the exception of cantrips.
No one is saying you or Jack can't build something. However, like @Arutha said you will need to consult your DM about any changes you want to do. I have known DMs who would work with their players and those who don't. Nothing is stopping you. But be prepared to thoroughly explain your reasoning for wanting to building something that simulates a spell the Artificer doesn't have access to. This is where a custom subclass would come into play.
Mechanics aside, mine and JackWake’s original point still stands: Why can’t an Artificer “build” a stun gun or a fog machine? Not even mounted on the Turret. It feels like an artificial limitation that breaks verisimilitude.
Nobody is saying you can't build a "stun gun" or a "fog machine" Jack's original post mentioned adding additional spells he believed any Artificer should be able to cast. Your original post mentioned not making the Artificer a striker while at the same time giving them access to direct damaging spells beyond cantrips (which in my mind would make them a striker). Then in a later post you talked about getting rid of the spellcasting ability with the exception of cantrips.
No one is saying you or Jack can't build something. However, like @Arutha said you will need to consult your DM about any changes you want to do. I have known DMs who would work with their players and those who don't. Nothing is stopping you. But be prepared to thoroughly explain your reasoning for wanting to building something that simulates a spell the Artificer doesn't have access to. This is where a custom subclass would come into play.
You have completely misunderstood me. Lemme explain:
1)According to the rules, the way an Artificer “builds a gadget” is to cast that spell and everybody just pretends it’s a gadget instead of a spell. Fine, lazy writing, but fine. According to the current rules, an Artificer cannot cast spells that could be imagined as a stun gun nor a fog machine.
2)I didn’t say they shouldn’t be strikers and then contradict myself. I said “They (The Powers Tat Be) don’t want them to be strikers.” After that I said that they should be able to do those things. Yes, that would make them strikers. My point is that artificially preventing them from fulfilling a specific game role feels gamey to me and breaks verisimilitude (suspension of disbelief).
3) I then posited a possible alternative game mechanic beside the same old boring leveled spell slots that would feel themed and allow for an expanded spell list while maintaining balance. Something no more complicated than access to the full Wizard list levels 1-5, but instead of leveled spell slots, they get a number equal to their Proficiency Bonus/Long Rest, all at their highest possible level (just like Warlocks) and need to choose them all in the morning. Keep in mind, “Spell List” and “Spells Known” are not the same thing. They should still get a limit to their #of Spells Known.
I wasn’t trying to get in an argument with anyone. Someone else pointed out that they thought it odd that Artificers cannot do something they thought Artificers should be able to do. All I did was point out the logical game mechanic reason of “The Powers that Be” not wanting them to be strikers, and then voiced my opinion that it seemed like a BS reason.
Off topic, but the new sourcebook says it will add new races and dragonmarks. Anyone think it'll add anything different from Wayfinder's Guide, or just use the same stuff?
I saw a post on new Orcs and Bugbears, monstrous races as seen in the Everton world. Besides that I just want my Kalashtar to be official.
Just download a copy from the Unearthed Arcana website and save pdf copies of your characters from the DnDBeyond website.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
@DnDPaladin,
I am from the age where video games really started taking off with the introduction of the Nintendo, Sega Genesis, and computer games like the original Doom and Duke Nukem. But at the same time, I experienced table top rpgs like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, West End Games' Star Wars, Twilight 2000 and Star Frontiers. It is those rpgs that taught me the value of a good downtime. A good DM/GM would factor in downtime between adventures and if players took too much downtime during an adventure there were consequences. Downtime is essential for players to rest, repair/replace weapons and armor, stock up on essential supplies, and get their bearings.
You can see the effects of near instant crafting in videos games (like Elder Scrolls series). Like you I want that downtime to whatever and if I am an Artificer, I want to craft. As a Alchemist, I can craft on average 3x basic healing potions in a single day, for a total cost of 37 gold and 5 silver (factoring in the guidelines from XGtE, and the 2019 Artificer UA). So with a few days of downtime, that could essentially be 2 basic healing potions per party member (in a 5 person party). How could something like that be bad?
In the end, I will see what the final product of the Artificer looks like. I just wish that they would make the Eberron Artificer a subclass instead of the base class.
Artificer lacks many spells that I would imagine an Artificer (or at least Alchemist) to be able to cast with some re-flavoring following the general re-flavoring guidelines of the Artificer class. At the very least, things like Fog Cloud or Burning Hands. It's easy to imagine an Artificer creating some kind of fog or fire machine, like the fire breath traps commonly found in fantasy temples, or an Alchemist some kind of mixture to produce fog or flames. Please, revisit which spells Artificers are allowed to cast.
You can get a copy of the latest 2019 Artificer UA from this very website that will show you every spell that the Artificer base class and its subclasses can cast. With the exception of the subclasses, the base Artificer class does not cast direct damaging spells beyond cantrips.
Artficers have catapult and vitriolic sphere, which are both direct damage. Additionally there's heat metal, animate objects, and Bigby's hand - though whether those count as "direct" is a matter of opinion.
Personally, I believe that artificers should have access to both Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade as part of their cantrip repertoire. The both enhance melee weapon attacks which is what Artificer excel in.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Still curious to see what they will settle on for Artificers attack options.
Fighter gets extra MA Attacks, Monk Extra BA Attacks, Barb Extra Flat Damage per Attack, Ranger Extra Dice per Attack, Rogue Extra Dice once per Attack, Paladin Extra Dice per hit using Spell Slots.
Finally realized that is why they designed the pet for the class / subclass format, to give them a special way to get BA attacks independent of weapons.
Not sure what else WotC can invent, maybe large flat damage once per turn, or playing more into the spellcaster angle by dual casting cantrips or War magic at 5th level.
Suppose we'll find out in threeish months.
Frankly really hoping they stick close to the 2019 design instead of walking back to the 2017 edition. I'm apparently the only one who thinks so, but the idea of the artificer being a flexible, nimble-fingered Quickfire Inventor with a strong bonus action in whatever their artificial companion does (provided the Artillerist and Archivist get tweaked enough for that to be true) is super cool. I've already pretty much decided that anyone who plays Beastmaster Ranger in my games going forward is getting a revised version of the artificer companion rules to run their beast, as well as anyone trying to pull combat familiar shenanery.
Dumping all of that just to give people "Sack of Goo Attack" or whatever they decide on to hew closer to the 2017 version would just be depressing.
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!
They don’t want the Artificer to be a striker. That being said, wouldn’t it make sense for an Artificer to make a stun gun to cast a spell like Witch Bolt?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
In my own opinion, the powers that be at D&D have turned the Artificer into a spellcaster. However, there is wording within the current 2019 Artificer UA that states that instead of actually casting magic the players should use their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effects of Artificer spells. Now, Witch Bolt is a direct damaging spell. If the powers that be wanted the base Artificer class to have direct damaging spells besides cantrips (in my own opinion, the Artificer SHOULDN'T GET ANY direct damaging spells and the subclasses should only get direct damaging spells if they fit the class), they would have done that. Also, if the powers that be wanted any of the subclasses to have the Witch Bolt spell they would have given it to them.
Now since the current Artificer is an UA and playtest material, that might all change the Artificer spell list when it is officially released.
I understand the “powers that be” etc. standpoint, hence my very first sentence. My point is, if anybody is going to craft an item anything like a stun gun, wouldn’t it logically BE the artificer? My argument is, drop any and all spells past cantrips, and then expand on Crafting and Infusions and include effects that mimic 1–5th level spells such as but not limited to: Witch Bolt, Burning Hands, Fog, etc. That would, IMHO, limit them to having to pre-craft the items, but still allow them to ACTUALLY craft the items. Mechanically it wouldn’t be any more OP than writing/reading scrolls that only they could use.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
You are forgetting a part of my response; "there is wording within the current 2019 Artificer UA that states that instead of actually casting magic the players should use their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effects of Artificer spells."
Essentially, the powers that be at D&D instead of coming up with something original, expanded upon the Artificer spellcasting ability and suggested players use their imaginations to create devices to simulate spells. And more than likely, they didn't give the base class access to direct damaging spells (other than cantrips) to balance it out.
Your idea is to getting ride of all spells except for cantrips and crafting devices and creating infusions that simulate the effects of spells 1st - 5th level. So are you saying that the Artificer has access to every single 1st -5th level spell? Or are there limitations? How many times can a player use that device or infusion? Say a player has a "Witch Bolt stun gun" and a device that simulates the Burning Hands spell (both of which are 1st level spells). All spellcasters (except the Warlock) and half-casters only have four 1st level spell slots, how many times can they use a device that simulates the effect of a 1st level spell?
Another reason behind the suggestion of players using their imaginations to create devices that simulate the effect of spells is to put a limit on the number of uses of a spell. Your idea may sounds like a good idea, but there are too many flaws to it. Also, your first sentence of "they don't want the Artificer to be a striker". Your idea would make the Artificer into a striker, they just do it with gadgets.
Now this link https://www.patreon.com/KibblesTasty/overview is to a guy who created his own Artificer class. The entire thing is blatantly overpowered, but one of the subclasses is a gadgetsmith (which I think is something you are talking about).
The suggestion I had was that mechanically, it could work similarly to scrolls. How many times can a Character use a scroll? I thought the limit would be intrinsically implied. There could be a simple level based system for how many “gadgets” the Artificer could have made Per Long Rest. It could be kindof like spell slots used to work way back in 2e, only without spell levels the way Warlocks work in 5e. If you don’t like that and want them to be able to more “invent on the fly” it could be a Ponts based system like Sorcerers and Monks get, or maybe a Dice based system like Bards or Battle Masters get.
One could even explain it away that they require maintenance, and therefore only higher level Artificers can maintain a plethora of “gadgets.” If they want to swap Gadgets they would have to cannibalizes old ones until they level up and gain the experience to maintain more.
I’m not suggesting they get EVERY 1st-5th level spell, but with those limitations “The Powers that Be” could afford to open up the list to include a few more thematic options, like maybe a stun gun for example.... All they would have to do is simply expand on the Infusion ability and list. That IS in fact the brand new mechanic they invented for Artificers. Major Infusion would work the way they currently do, and minor ones could be one-shots similar to the way I described above.
“The Powers that Be” gave us a half of a wizard and some vague instructions to pretend really hard that their spells are actually some kind of gadgets. They have reasons for the decisions they make, I get that. I’m speaking from a more emotional standpoint. Look at it this way, WWMcGD? (What Would MacGyver Do?)
If you gave Mac 6 bic lighters, some duct tape, and a packet of poprocks he could probably whip up a Burning Hans equivalent. He made fog/poison gas with household cleaners; he made an explosive powerful enough to blow open a security door with some heart medication, some antiseptic, gauze, and a bedpan; he made a grappling gun with a telescope, an umbrella, and some moth balls; he repeatedly made an arc welder from a car battery, some jumper cables, and $.50 change. Why can’t my magically imbued Gnomish inventor?!? Get rid of that 1/2Wiz entirely. They don’t need “spells”, just some stuff and an imagination.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
IamSposta it has been suggested before and I think could work, the only precedent for them not going that way are the WotFE Monk and 2017 Mystic. Both of which do pretty much what you said, Mystic in a 28 page document recreating a bunch of spell like abilities. And both didn’t really have good responses. But if you want to play those mechanics they exist, and are also in Kibbles Artificer linked above.
In my honest opinion Spellcasting is an intrinsic aspect of 5e class design, it should not be circumvented, instead mildly manipulated or added to while maintaining the vast rule block already printed. You might as well ask to play without AC or hitpoints, maybe Artificer should use 2d6 to determine if they hit an attack... 5e = Spellcasting as much as 5e=d20 to hit.
For example I would suggest adding that anti magic effects don’t work on an Artificer as all their “Spellcasting” comes from physical items replicating the effect of a spell on their spell list. IE. It is not a “suggestion” it is a “default” that unless stated and agreed with your DM the Artificer IS using items to cast, and can by fluff agree to use the Weave. While the Wizard IS using the Weave and can by fluff, homebrew and DM fiat, agree to use Items as fluff.
PS. I have refined this argument in the past 50 pages so anyone open to debate my points, I think it is fairly solid without just asserting my opinion.
Mechanics aside, mine and JackWake’s original point still stands: Why can’t an Artificer “build” a stun gun or a fog machine? Not even mounted on the Turret. It feels like an artificial limitation that breaks verisimilitude.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING
@IamSposta
I understand where you come from, I really do. However, an Artificer isn't just about creating gadgets that allow them to simulate spell effects in or out of combat. Artificers also create magical items. There is a need for arcane abilities which would allow them to create a +1 sword, a Bag of Holding, or a Cloak of Elvenkind. And in the case of the 2019 Artificer UA, Infusions (which I hate). So no matter what, an Artificer is going to need to have arcane abilities, which is why I am not against spellcasting for the class.
I, however, would get rid of all direct damaging spells (to include cantrips), healing spells, and any spell that isn't on the Wizard's spell list (with the exception of a few spells). I see the base Artificer class as a support style spellcaster (minus certain spells to include healing spells). As for the subclass spell lists, I would keep the Artillerist's spell list (it fits the subclass), revise/modify the Battle Smith's spell list and get rid of the spell list for the Alchemist entirely (fyi, I HATE THE ARCHIVIST, so I don't even consider that subclass).
Also, nothing says that your gadget ideas could be applied to the current Artificer cantrip spell list.
There is nothing that isn't stopping you from creating a subclass that is essentially a gadgetsmith. You can create it in such a way that you are able to craft gadgets that simulate 1st - 5th level spells.
The Artificer base class should be something that allows spellcasting, crafting and some benefits like custom armor and enhanced attunement. The subclasses should be your specialization classes like your magically imbued Gnomish Inventor.
I encourage you to create your own gadgetsmith subclass.
Nobody is saying you can't build a "stun gun" or a "fog machine" Jack's original post mentioned adding additional spells he believed any Artificer should be able to cast. Your original post mentioned not making the Artificer a striker while at the same time giving them access to direct damaging spells beyond cantrips (which in my mind would make them a striker). Then in a later post you talked about getting rid of the spellcasting ability with the exception of cantrips.
No one is saying you or Jack can't build something. However, like @Arutha said you will need to consult your DM about any changes you want to do. I have known DMs who would work with their players and those who don't. Nothing is stopping you. But be prepared to thoroughly explain your reasoning for wanting to building something that simulates a spell the Artificer doesn't have access to. This is where a custom subclass would come into play.
You have completely misunderstood me. Lemme explain:
1)According to the rules, the way an Artificer “builds a gadget” is to cast that spell and everybody just pretends it’s a gadget instead of a spell. Fine, lazy writing, but fine. According to the current rules, an Artificer cannot cast spells that could be imagined as a stun gun nor a fog machine.
2)I didn’t say they shouldn’t be strikers and then contradict myself. I said “They (The Powers Tat Be) don’t want them to be strikers.” After that I said that they should be able to do those things. Yes, that would make them strikers. My point is that artificially preventing them from fulfilling a specific game role feels gamey to me and breaks verisimilitude (suspension of disbelief).
3) I then posited a possible alternative game mechanic beside the same old boring leveled spell slots that would feel themed and allow for an expanded spell list while maintaining balance. Something no more complicated than access to the full Wizard list levels 1-5, but instead of leveled spell slots, they get a number equal to their Proficiency Bonus/Long Rest, all at their highest possible level (just like Warlocks) and need to choose them all in the morning. Keep in mind, “Spell List” and “Spells Known” are not the same thing. They should still get a limit to their #of Spells Known.
I wasn’t trying to get in an argument with anyone. Someone else pointed out that they thought it odd that Artificers cannot do something they thought Artificers should be able to do. All I did was point out the logical game mechanic reason of “The Powers that Be” not wanting them to be strikers, and then voiced my opinion that it seemed like a BS reason.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB, & You
DDB CONTENT TROUBLESHOOTING