If the artificer loses all cantrips, damage spells, healing/support spells, any spell not on the wizard spell list, cannot cast those spells in combat without spending several weeks of downtime building a device first, and furthermore must spend months of downtime creating even basic magic items that most players simply find in a dungeon chest somewhere...
Why in Kord's name would anyone bother playing it?
If the artificer loses all cantrips, damage spells, healing/support spells, any spell not on the wizard spell list, cannot cast those spells in combat without spending several weeks of downtime building a device first, and furthermore must spend months of downtime creating even basic magic items that most players simply find in a dungeon chest somewhere...
Why in Kord's name would anyone bother playing it?
There has been a misunderstanding.
1) In my opinion, the Artificer SHOULD NOT HAVE any direct damaging spells. This includes direct damaging cantrips. I am not even a fan of the Arcane Weapon spell created for this class.
If I wanted a class that had access to direct damaging spells, I would select one of those classes.
2) I see the Artificer as a class that provides support spells for as long as they are not healing, protection, or restoration like spells.
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and Celestial Warlocks utilize Charisma or Wisdom as their spellcasting ability and all who can cast healing, protection, and restoration like spells. The Eldritch Knight (Fighter), Arcane Trickster (Rogue), and Wizard all utilize Intelligence as their spellcasting ability and are unable to cast healing spells. Now all of a sudden you have a class with the Intelligence spellcasting ability that is able to cast healing spells. Explain to me why the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Wizard can't cast healing spell.
3) I believe that the Artificer SHOULD BE ABLE TO cast spells without the need of a gadget, device, contraption or infusion. Also, they shouldn't be required to cast all of there spells using a component of one of their tool kits they are proficient with.
I believe that forcing Artificers to utilize a gadget, device, contraption, infusion, or tool kit component greatly hinders the class. Because if they are stripped of all their equipment, they are unable to cast ANY of their spells (unlike other spellcasting classes).
4) Any crafting that an Artificer does should be to create magic items that aid them or their group.
Who said that crafting basic magic items must take months? I never did. A healing potion is considered a basic magic item and 1 can be crafted in a single day. It is up to the DM to make the decision on how long it takes to craft a "basic magic item". Besides, the Artificer is supposed be an expert at crafting. The fact that D&D has crippled the crafting ability of the Artificer base class is a great disappointment. But this was done so that temporary magic items could be created in an instant (which I hate), and to increase their DPS.
1) Nothing in the text states that the contraption, device or gadget couldn't be something like a stun gun or a fog machine. The issue that was brought up was access to certain spells. Which also covers your second point. If the powers that be doesn't want the Artificer to be a strike (which I agree with) why would they give them access to direct damaging spells of 1st - 5th level? True the subclass lists contain direct damaging spells, but why should the base class?
2) You use the Warlock as an example instead of spell slots. The Warlock can know up to 15 spells (at 20th level) and has a maximum of 4 spell slots (at 20th level). The difference is that the Warlock base class has access to Eldritch Invocations which balances out the lack of spell slots. Also, I know the difference between spells know and spell list. I agree with the Artificer class having access to their complete spell list but having to choose their spells in the morning. As they are (in my opinion) a support spellcaster. However, I do not like the fact that they can change out a cantrip at after a short or long rest.
Jack was pointing out that...
"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."
He wasn't pointing out the inability to use certain gadgets, but the access to certain spells he feels the class/subclasses should have access to. A player can flavor casting a spell in anyway they want. It is their imagination.
The player who is an Arcane Trickster, has several vials of noxious gas in his possession, that when he breaks them, they releases a gas cloub similar to the Stinking Cloud spell. Or, the Druid throws several spiny seeds on the ground and when she presses her hands to the ground and mutters an incantation, the effects of the Spike Growth spell occurs.
Seeing as the Witch Bolt isn't a part of the Artificer spell list, why not use Shocking Grasp. You have to roll to attack for both, Shocking Grasp just doesn't let you to apply the damage roll every turn without another attack roll.
As you so helpfully pointed out, whenever an Artificer casts a spell we are supposed to just imagine that they are quickly cobbling together some gadget. Whenever I write the phrase "create gadget" I am flavorfully referring to them casting spells. Ergo, If they can't cast those spells, then they can't "create those Gadgets...."Do you get my point now?
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
@Marine the one thing that stands out in your statements when you say “I believe the Artificer SHOULD NOT have any direct damage spells” is applying a build concept you have to a class others may want to play differently.
If we compare this to my statement that “a Sorcerer should only have spells that deal fire damage.” I say that because that is the kind of character I have made before. But I wouldn’t say it should be a design rule, someone else prefers Lightning and another mix and a third some utility. Class design should be inclusive so the players can make choices at character creation. “Clerics shouldn’t have any damaging spells only healing...” Not fun concepts.
The spell list should be thematically driven just would a Cleric be able to fireball or lightning bolt? Feels very selfish. How about call lightning and firestorm? Oh yes answers from the gods. Same here can you think of an item that could be used to recreate witchbolt? Kind of although conc needs to be reflavored to malfunctions. How about paladins Aura spells? A bit pushing it maybe some emanating gasses or radiations.
In conclusion when Artificer goes live you can already play what you want do by only choosing support spells, while IamSposta cannot. And imposing your single play style on others in not the inclusive goal of the powers that be at 5e. Inclusivity is why 5e succeeds.
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
A half Pact caster is something I and a few other home brewers have tried before, it is a fairly solid idea but does suffer from restricting a restricted thing. So I see where your proficiency suggestion comes from, it would actually turn out closer to a “one and a half” Pact caster, but without many of the utility Invocations like armor of shadows. (Unless the infusion list is vastly expanded into more Spellcasting than Magic Items, which I’m not a big fan of)
The only downside is if WOTC tried to make this change now it wouldn’t get any playtest and would probably annoy the previous playtesters as it is such a drastic change. I guess that is why we keep suggesting it would be cool to see a homebrew that runs with your idea because it is solid.
Everything we talk now is pretty arbitrary since feedback survey is over and next iteration is final (unless by some miracle WOTC sends an intern to read these 1400+ posts to collate extra feedback \0/ Thank you for your work) But at least we are focusing on potential changes, small house rules, and things others may have missed to expand the way to play the 2019 Artificer and debate on Point of View on options and play styles.
1) First and foremost, the Artificer is the 1st 5E half-caster or 1/3 caster that is a caster 1st and a melee/ranged combatant 2nd. I believe the the Artificer needs more spells that affect objects, like the Magic Weapon which we already get. We get Arcane Lock but we don't get Knock. As for direct damage spells, during the Last War in Eberron, Art icier created and manned magic cannons (Staves).
Once they take away Arcane Armament and give it only to the Battle Smith they will make the Artificer far less effective. The Alchemist just doesn't get enough at higher levels to make it very effective as a caster 1st. The Archivist, with its Overload capability is effective because of that ability and the ability to cast spells through your manifestation but . . . you do not have enough spells slots to focus mostly on spellcasting. We need to have a Infusion that creates Wands, Rods, and Staves (as we level of course).
2) Tools - I see, having played two Artificers to 5th and 3rd level so far, no issues with wielding a Tool to cast spells. Personally, I use Infuse Defense on my shield and thus it is my focus instead of my Tools. About the only time I use my Tools is to Summon my Turret. The defense turret is great at low levels, its saved my party's butts more than once, but by the time its no long really effective, the Flame Thrower and Force Balliista are also ineffective for the most part. When I cast my spells, they are released from my shield. This leaves my main hand available for a weapon or my tools to summon the turret.
3) @Marine2874I for one, don't believe that an Artificer should ONLY be support. There are reasons to have Archetypes. I for one would stop playing Artificers if they become on support. I can respect you beliefs, but I don't thing should try to speak for others. In following this topic I think I have only seen one other posting saying they also believed as you do.
Right now, as a spells first half caster, the casting half is just not up to par. I am hoping the final version fixes this, especially when they take away Arcane Armament away for Artificers in general and give it only to an Archetype.
4) Off topic, any opinions on whether Counterspell works against Artificer 'spells'? Because of the way our spells work, I personally don't thing non-artificers should be able to recognize when we are casting our 'spells'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
As you so helpfully pointed out, whenever an Artificer casts a spell we are supposed to just imagine that they are quickly cobbling together some gadget. Whenever I write the phrase "create gadget" I am flavorfully referring to them casting spells. Ergo, If they can't cast those spells, then they can't "create those Gadgets...."Do you get my point now?
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
I never said anything about having to "quickly cobbling together some gadget" in order for the Artificer to cast spells.. If a player wants to flavor their Artificer spellcasting by having a contraption, device, or gadget that casts the effects of a certain spell then that is their choice.
I know they can't create gadgets for spells they don't know. Nothing about this whole thing was about creating gadgets to cast spells, it was about access to certain spells. So yes, if a player doesn't have access to certain spells, then they can't create gadgets to cast those spells.
Let me ask you this..... Do you think that the Artificer class should have access to direct damaging spell besides the direct damaging cantrips?
@Marine the one thing that stands out in your statements when you say “I believe the Artificer SHOULD NOT have any direct damage spells” is applying a build concept you have to a class others may want to play differently.
If we compare this to my statement that “a Sorcerer should only have spells that deal fire damage.” I say that because that is the kind of character I have made before. But I wouldn’t say it should be a design rule, someone else prefers Lightning and another mix and a third some utility. Class design should be inclusive so the players can make choices at character creation. “Clerics shouldn’t have any damaging spells only healing...” Not fun concepts.
The spell list should be thematically driven just would a Cleric be able to fireball or lightning bolt? Feels very selfish. How about call lightning and firestorm? Oh yes answers from the gods. Same here can you think of an item that could be used to recreate witchbolt? Kind of although conc needs to be reflavored to malfunctions. How about paladins Aura spells? A bit pushing it maybe some emanating gasses or radiations.
In conclusion when Artificer goes live you can already play what you want do by only choosing support spells, while IamSposta cannot. And imposing your single play style on others in not the inclusive goal of the powers that be at 5e. Inclusivity is why 5e succeeds.
You should know that I don't say that players have to play a class a certain way. That is the reason why I use "in my own opinion" or "I believe". There is not one correct way to play a character or class, just as there is no wrong way to play a character or class. With that being said, given the nature and very definition of the Artificer I have not heard a reason for the base Artificer class to have access to direct damaging spells.
@Marine the one thing that stands out in your statements when you say “I believe the Artificer SHOULD NOT have any direct damage spells” is applying a build concept you have to a class others may want to play differently.
If we compare this to my statement that “a Sorcerer should only have spells that deal fire damage.” I say that because that is the kind of character I have made before. But I wouldn’t say it should be a design rule, someone else prefers Lightning and another mix and a third some utility. Class design should be inclusive so the players can make choices at character creation. “Clerics shouldn’t have any damaging spells only healing...” Not fun concepts.
The spell list should be thematically driven just would a Cleric be able to fireball or lightning bolt? Feels very selfish. How about call lightning and firestorm? Oh yes answers from the gods. Same here can you think of an item that could be used to recreate witchbolt? Kind of although conc needs to be reflavored to malfunctions. How about paladins Aura spells? A bit pushing it maybe some emanating gasses or radiations.
In conclusion when Artificer goes live you can already play what you want do by only choosing support spells, while IamSposta cannot. And imposing your single play style on others in not the inclusive goal of the powers that be at 5e. Inclusivity is why 5e succeeds.
You should know that I don't say that players have to play a class a certain way. That is the reason why I use "in my own opinion" or "I believe". There is not one correct way to play a character or class, just as there is no wrong way to play a character or class. With that being said, given the nature and very definition of the Artificer I have not heard a reason for the base Artificer class to have access to direct damaging spells.
Rather than saying "when I play I will only choose support and not damaging spells" you say "I believe these spells shouldn't be on the spell list in the final version" meaning that option would be locked to every player that looks at the class, eg Mergon above and many others would not enjoy the class.
The reason for an Artificer to have damage spells is inclusivity, and the currently displayed design philosophy of 5e. Bards are not just about music they are also mixes of Redmage, Bard and Buff casters. Clerics are not just western monks, they are also militant templars and old hags and adventurous priests, and knowledgable sages. Multiple characters concepts refined and collated via the archetype, and sometimes multiple archetypes.
So the Artificer is a combination of the Crafter, the Eberron Wandslinger Artificer and some aspects of the Red Mage. Neither one taking over all concept but a combination of all.
As you so helpfully pointed out, whenever an Artificer casts a spell we are supposed to just imagine that they are quickly cobbling together some gadget. Whenever I write the phrase "create gadget" I am flavorfully referring to them casting spells. Ergo, If they can't cast those spells, then they can't "create those Gadgets...."Do you get my point now?
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
I never said anything about having to "quickly cobbling together some gadget" in order for the Artificer to cast spells.. If a player wants to flavor their Artificer spellcasting by having a contraption, device, or gadget that casts the effects of a certain spell then that is their choice.
I know they can't create gadgets for spells they don't know. Nothing about this whole thing was about creating gadgets to cast spells, it was about access to certain spells. So yes, if a player doesn't have access to certain spells, then they can't create gadgets to cast those spells.
Let me ask you this..... Do you think that the Artificer class should have access to direct damaging spell besides the direct damaging cantrips?
In post #1407 in this forum you stated: "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." In post #1409 you reiterated that by writing “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.‘“ You did say that. If you don't believe me go back and read your own posts.
And yes, I do think they should have access to spells such as but not limited to: Shocking Grasp, Burning Hands, Witch Bolt, etc. I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now.
let me ask you a question: Since we are to imagine that an Artificer’s Spells are really gadgets according to The Powers That Be at WoTC; by what flavorful, narrative, “fluff” reason should the NOT be able to cast those spells?
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
A half Pact caster is something I and a few other home brewers have tried before, it is a fairly solid idea but does suffer from restricting a restricted thing. So I see where your proficiency suggestion comes from, it would actually turn out closer to a “one and a half” Pact caster, but without many of the utility Invocations like armor of shadows. (Unless the infusion list is vastly expanded into more Spellcasting than Magic Items, which I’m not a big fan of)
The only downside is if WOTC tried to make this change now it wouldn’t get any playtest and would probably annoy the previous playtesters as it is such a drastic change. I guess that is why we keep suggesting it would be cool to see a homebrew that runs with your idea because it is solid.
Everything we talk now is pretty arbitrary since feedback survey is over and next iteration is final (unless by some miracle WOTC sends an intern to read these 1400+ posts to collate extra feedback \0/ Thank you for your work) But at least we are focusing on potential changes, small house rules, and things others may have missed to expand the way to play the 2019 Artificer and debate on Point of View on options and play styles.
Alas, you are correct. But isn't the point of a forum to share ideas? If not, then why would there be forums for things already officially published?
True true I do think there is plenty of space for messing with the Pact caster model that they should explore. I even have a Wis Pact caster Summoner in first draft that I shared on reddit.
My apologies then we have been too set in the mood of trying to predict what will come out as anticipation is building again.
Certainly. Some of us are planning on homebrewing our own artificer content (subclass or revisions) and are taking inspiration from this forum. I myself am thinking of trying my hand at homebrewing a class of my own for fun and seeing how it goes using at least some of the ideas I've brainstormed on here.
The important thing is not to get caught up too much in these discussions. People can get passionate sometimes, and it's times like that where it's important to take a step back and recognize that officially, the Artificer is out of our hands until it sees a release in the new book.
Certainly. Some of us are planning on homebrewing our own artificer content (subclass or revisions) and are taking inspiration from this forum. I myself am thinking of trying my hand at homebrewing a class of my own for fun and seeing how it goes using at least some of the ideas I've brainstormed on here.
The important thing is not to get caught up too much in these discussions. People can get passionate sometimes, and it's times like that where it's important to take a step back and recognize that officially, the Artificer is out of our hands until it sees a release in the new book.
EDIT: Comment directed at IamSposta.
Tell that to Marine. I simply brainstormed some ideas and agreed with someone completely different and Marine started coming at me like I pooped in his cereal.
Hey, relax. People get passionate sometimes, especially when we disagree. Clearly you two disagree, and all you have to do is say that. How many times do I have to say, no goddamn fighting in the War Room!
Also, I say that was directed at you not because I thought you were adversarial, but in agreement with your comment about having a discussion about a class that is now out of playtesting. I agree that we should keep having this discussion, I've found it to be quite enlightening even after the fact that the survey is now closed.
Also, I say that was directed at you not because I thought you were adversarial, but in agreement with your comment about having a discussion about a class that is now out of playtesting. I agree that we should keep having this discussion, I've found it to be quite enlightening even after the fact that the survey is now closed.
My apologies, I misunderstood why you had directed your comment in my direction. Please forgive me.
Hey, relax. People get passionate sometimes, especially when we disagree. Clearly you two disagree, and all you have to do is say that. How many times do I have to say, no goddamn fighting in the War Room!
Certainly. Some of us are planning on homebrewing our own artificer content (subclass or revisions) and are taking inspiration from this forum. I myself am thinking of trying my hand at homebrewing a class of my own for fun and seeing how it goes using at least some of the ideas I've brainstormed on here.
The important thing is not to get caught up too much in these discussions. People can get passionate sometimes, and it's times like that where it's important to take a step back and recognize that officially, the Artificer is out of our hands until it sees a release in the new book.
EDIT: Comment directed at IamSposta.
I, myself, have creasted a variant Archetype based on the Battle Smith. In this case I replaced the Iron Defender with a suit of Arcano-mechanical armor based on the stats of the iron defender.
So far, it doesn't seem to be unbalanced but I think it still needs a tweak or two. Especially where movement is concerned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Question, Marine.
If the artificer loses all cantrips, damage spells, healing/support spells, any spell not on the wizard spell list, cannot cast those spells in combat without spending several weeks of downtime building a device first, and furthermore must spend months of downtime creating even basic magic items that most players simply find in a dungeon chest somewhere...
Why in Kord's name would anyone bother playing it?
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
There has been a misunderstanding.
1) In my opinion, the Artificer SHOULD NOT HAVE any direct damaging spells. This includes direct damaging cantrips. I am not even a fan of the Arcane Weapon spell created for this class.
If I wanted a class that had access to direct damaging spells, I would select one of those classes.
2) I see the Artificer as a class that provides support spells for as long as they are not healing, protection, or restoration like spells.
Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, and Celestial Warlocks utilize Charisma or Wisdom as their spellcasting ability and all who can cast healing, protection, and restoration like spells. The Eldritch Knight (Fighter), Arcane Trickster (Rogue), and Wizard all utilize Intelligence as their spellcasting ability and are unable to cast healing spells. Now all of a sudden you have a class with the Intelligence spellcasting ability that is able to cast healing spells. Explain to me why the Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Wizard can't cast healing spell.
3) I believe that the Artificer SHOULD BE ABLE TO cast spells without the need of a gadget, device, contraption or infusion. Also, they shouldn't be required to cast all of there spells using a component of one of their tool kits they are proficient with.
I believe that forcing Artificers to utilize a gadget, device, contraption, infusion, or tool kit component greatly hinders the class. Because if they are stripped of all their equipment, they are unable to cast ANY of their spells (unlike other spellcasting classes).
4) Any crafting that an Artificer does should be to create magic items that aid them or their group.
Who said that crafting basic magic items must take months? I never did. A healing potion is considered a basic magic item and 1 can be crafted in a single day. It is up to the DM to make the decision on how long it takes to craft a "basic magic item". Besides, the Artificer is supposed be an expert at crafting. The fact that D&D has crippled the crafting ability of the Artificer base class is a great disappointment. But this was done so that temporary magic items could be created in an instant (which I hate), and to increase their DPS.
1) Nothing in the text states that the contraption, device or gadget couldn't be something like a stun gun or a fog machine. The issue that was brought up was access to certain spells. Which also covers your second point. If the powers that be doesn't want the Artificer to be a strike (which I agree with) why would they give them access to direct damaging spells of 1st - 5th level? True the subclass lists contain direct damaging spells, but why should the base class?
2) You use the Warlock as an example instead of spell slots. The Warlock can know up to 15 spells (at 20th level) and has a maximum of 4 spell slots (at 20th level). The difference is that the Warlock base class has access to Eldritch Invocations which balances out the lack of spell slots. Also, I know the difference between spells know and spell list. I agree with the Artificer class having access to their complete spell list but having to choose their spells in the morning. As they are (in my opinion) a support spellcaster. However, I do not like the fact that they can change out a cantrip at after a short or long rest.
Jack was pointing out that...
"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."
He wasn't pointing out the inability to use certain gadgets, but the access to certain spells he feels the class/subclasses should have access to. A player can flavor casting a spell in anyway they want. It is their imagination.
The player who is an Arcane Trickster, has several vials of noxious gas in his possession, that when he breaks them, they releases a gas cloub similar to the Stinking Cloud spell. Or, the Druid throws several spiny seeds on the ground and when she presses her hands to the ground and mutters an incantation, the effects of the Spike Growth spell occurs.
Seeing as the Witch Bolt isn't a part of the Artificer spell list, why not use Shocking Grasp. You have to roll to attack for both, Shocking Grasp just doesn't let you to apply the damage roll every turn without another attack roll.
*facepalm*
As you so helpfully pointed out, whenever an Artificer casts a spell we are supposed to just imagine that they are quickly cobbling together some gadget. Whenever I write the phrase "create gadget" I am flavorfully referring to them casting spells. Ergo, If they can't cast those spells, then they can't "create those Gadgets...." Do you get my point now?
Yes, Warlocks get Pacts and Invocations, but Artificers get Specialists and Infusions. You may note, that I suggested 2-6 "Gadgets" (Spell Slots=Proficiency Bonus) as opposed to the Warlock's 1-4. Also, you may note that I suggested the Wizard's much larger spell list for the Artificer as opposed to the Warlock's much more restricted spell list. I did actually take those balancing factors into account before I made those suggestions.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
@Marine the one thing that stands out in your statements when you say “I believe the Artificer SHOULD NOT have any direct damage spells” is applying a build concept you have to a class others may want to play differently.
If we compare this to my statement that “a Sorcerer should only have spells that deal fire damage.” I say that because that is the kind of character I have made before. But I wouldn’t say it should be a design rule, someone else prefers Lightning and another mix and a third some utility. Class design should be inclusive so the players can make choices at character creation. “Clerics shouldn’t have any damaging spells only healing...” Not fun concepts.
The spell list should be thematically driven just would a Cleric be able to fireball or lightning bolt? Feels very selfish. How about call lightning and firestorm? Oh yes answers from the gods. Same here can you think of an item that could be used to recreate witchbolt? Kind of although conc needs to be reflavored to malfunctions. How about paladins Aura spells? A bit pushing it maybe some emanating gasses or radiations.
In conclusion when Artificer goes live you can already play what you want do by only choosing support spells, while IamSposta cannot. And imposing your single play style on others in not the inclusive goal of the powers that be at 5e. Inclusivity is why 5e succeeds.
A half Pact caster is something I and a few other home brewers have tried before, it is a fairly solid idea but does suffer from restricting a restricted thing. So I see where your proficiency suggestion comes from, it would actually turn out closer to a “one and a half” Pact caster, but without many of the utility Invocations like armor of shadows. (Unless the infusion list is vastly expanded into more Spellcasting than Magic Items, which I’m not a big fan of)
The only downside is if WOTC tried to make this change now it wouldn’t get any playtest and would probably annoy the previous playtesters as it is such a drastic change. I guess that is why we keep suggesting it would be cool to see a homebrew that runs with your idea because it is solid.
Everything we talk now is pretty arbitrary since feedback survey is over and next iteration is final (unless by some miracle WOTC sends an intern to read these 1400+ posts to collate extra feedback \0/ Thank you for your work) But at least we are focusing on potential changes, small house rules, and things others may have missed to expand the way to play the 2019 Artificer and debate on Point of View on options and play styles.
1) First and foremost, the Artificer is the 1st 5E half-caster or 1/3 caster that is a caster 1st and a melee/ranged combatant 2nd. I believe the the Artificer needs more spells that affect objects, like the Magic Weapon which we already get. We get Arcane Lock but we don't get Knock. As for direct damage spells, during the Last War in Eberron, Art icier created and manned magic cannons (Staves).
Once they take away Arcane Armament and give it only to the Battle Smith they will make the Artificer far less effective. The Alchemist just doesn't get enough at higher levels to make it very effective as a caster 1st. The Archivist, with its Overload capability is effective because of that ability and the ability to cast spells through your manifestation but . . . you do not have enough spells slots to focus mostly on spellcasting. We need to have a Infusion that creates Wands, Rods, and Staves (as we level of course).
2) Tools - I see, having played two Artificers to 5th and 3rd level so far, no issues with wielding a Tool to cast spells. Personally, I use Infuse Defense on my shield and thus it is my focus instead of my Tools. About the only time I use my Tools is to Summon my Turret. The defense turret is great at low levels, its saved my party's butts more than once, but by the time its no long really effective, the Flame Thrower and Force Balliista are also ineffective for the most part. When I cast my spells, they are released from my shield. This leaves my main hand available for a weapon or my tools to summon the turret.
3) @Marine2874I for one, don't believe that an Artificer should ONLY be support. There are reasons to have Archetypes. I for one would stop playing Artificers if they become on support. I can respect you beliefs, but I don't thing should try to speak for others. In following this topic I think I have only seen one other posting saying they also believed as you do.
Right now, as a spells first half caster, the casting half is just not up to par. I am hoping the final version fixes this, especially when they take away Arcane Armament away for Artificers in general and give it only to an Archetype.
4) Off topic, any opinions on whether Counterspell works against Artificer 'spells'? Because of the way our spells work, I personally don't thing non-artificers should be able to recognize when we are casting our 'spells'.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I never said anything about having to "quickly cobbling together some gadget" in order for the Artificer to cast spells.. If a player wants to flavor their Artificer spellcasting by having a contraption, device, or gadget that casts the effects of a certain spell then that is their choice.
I know they can't create gadgets for spells they don't know. Nothing about this whole thing was about creating gadgets to cast spells, it was about access to certain spells. So yes, if a player doesn't have access to certain spells, then they can't create gadgets to cast those spells.
Let me ask you this..... Do you think that the Artificer class should have access to direct damaging spell besides the direct damaging cantrips?
You should know that I don't say that players have to play a class a certain way. That is the reason why I use "in my own opinion" or "I believe". There is not one correct way to play a character or class, just as there is no wrong way to play a character or class. With that being said, given the nature and very definition of the Artificer I have not heard a reason for the base Artificer class to have access to direct damaging spells.
Rather than saying "when I play I will only choose support and not damaging spells" you say "I believe these spells shouldn't be on the spell list in the final version" meaning that option would be locked to every player that looks at the class, eg Mergon above and many others would not enjoy the class.
The reason for an Artificer to have damage spells is inclusivity, and the currently displayed design philosophy of 5e. Bards are not just about music they are also mixes of Redmage, Bard and Buff casters. Clerics are not just western monks, they are also militant templars and old hags and adventurous priests, and knowledgable sages. Multiple characters concepts refined and collated via the archetype, and sometimes multiple archetypes.
So the Artificer is a combination of the Crafter, the Eberron Wandslinger Artificer and some aspects of the Red Mage. Neither one taking over all concept but a combination of all.
In post #1407 in this forum you stated: "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." In post #1409 you reiterated that by writing “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.‘“ You did say that. If you don't believe me go back and read your own posts.
And yes, I do think they should have access to spells such as but not limited to: Shocking Grasp, Burning Hands, Witch Bolt, etc. I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now.
let me ask you a question: Since we are to imagine that an Artificer’s Spells are really gadgets according to The Powers That Be at WoTC; by what flavorful, narrative, “fluff” reason should the NOT be able to cast those spells?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Alas, you are correct. But isn't the point of a forum to share ideas? If not, then why would there be forums for things already officially published?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
True true I do think there is plenty of space for messing with the Pact caster model that they should explore. I even have a Wis Pact caster Summoner in first draft that I shared on reddit.
My apologies then we have been too set in the mood of trying to predict what will come out as anticipation is building again.
Certainly. Some of us are planning on homebrewing our own artificer content (subclass or revisions) and are taking inspiration from this forum. I myself am thinking of trying my hand at homebrewing a class of my own for fun and seeing how it goes using at least some of the ideas I've brainstormed on here.
The important thing is not to get caught up too much in these discussions. People can get passionate sometimes, and it's times like that where it's important to take a step back and recognize that officially, the Artificer is out of our hands until it sees a release in the new book.
EDIT: Comment directed at IamSposta.
Tell that to Marine. I simply brainstormed some ideas and agreed with someone completely different and Marine started coming at me like I pooped in his cereal.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Hey, relax. People get passionate sometimes, especially when we disagree. Clearly you two disagree, and all you have to do is say that. How many times do I have to say, no goddamn fighting in the War Room!
Also, I say that was directed at you not because I thought you were adversarial, but in agreement with your comment about having a discussion about a class that is now out of playtesting. I agree that we should keep having this discussion, I've found it to be quite enlightening even after the fact that the survey is now closed.
My apologies, I misunderstood why you had directed your comment in my direction. Please forgive me.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Hehe
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I, myself, have creasted a variant Archetype based on the Battle Smith. In this case I replaced the Iron Defender with a suit of Arcano-mechanical armor based on the stats of the iron defender.
So far, it doesn't seem to be unbalanced but I think it still needs a tweak or two. Especially where movement is concerned.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!