Its really funny how you guys just jump at each others throat for no reasons... i think we all liked the original artificer, but WotC will never go back to that. and yes in 5e they just made "ANOTHER" spellcaster. because thats what WotC seems to want. and if you think about it... it is also what everyone wants. "Just another intellect user" my only beef is that they litrally just transformed the artificer into another version of the wizard. which to me could of been just a simple tradition at that point. but nope, all you guys want are a full class, in fact it seems most of you are more interested in just having new classes like this was 3e and its prestige classes. most people here just want a new class, it could be anything, they dont care all they want is a new class they have enough of the classes they have.
to me it is quite simple... if you so want classes... just take those in 3e and transpose them to 5e. its easy and it works. but don't wait for WotC to do so, because they won't. they simply don't want to remake the same thing twice. not in this edition anyway.
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)
It is simple and the reason why the majority of us are on the hunt for a new mechanical way to differentiate the class as a unique martial.
The classes are distinct because you could not just add a subclass to a fighter to make it a monk, it would work mechanically completely differently and scale differently through 1-20.
That is the first option of what we want for Artificer, some unique martial scaling. Or some unique spellcaster scaling or support scaling like sorcerer/warlock or bard respectively.
For example 5th level whenever you attack you hit an adjacent enemy, or you can cast a second cantrip using your bonus action, etc.
That is the reason to make a new class and why it is so hard, but just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And it does feel substantial meaty to get a new class as it breaks the mould we have gotten used to. And no point equating going from 12 to 13 classes to 3.5e with 500+ classes. I do think the full set should be 15 with Artificer, Psion and Summoner as the added classes.
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?
I know what I said and I do not dispute it. My issue is that ever since D&D first came out players were using their imaginations when it comes to casting spells or dealing the finishing blow to the bad guy or to imagine the environment they are in. D&D players do not need to be told to use their imaginations. The powers that be at D&D did not need to tells players to use their imaginations when they are casting spells as an Artificer.
When the 2017 Artificer UA came out, I imagined using different gadgets that simulated the different spells. Just like thousands of other players. My issues is being told to use my imagination when it comes to playing the Artificer and that is exactly what D&D did. You said it yourself....
"Since we are to imagine that an Artificer’s Spells are really gadgets according to The Powers That Be at WoTC".
Why should be be told to use our imaginations when we already do that.
The issue that I see with our disagreement is direct damaging spells. I do not think the base class should have access to direct damaging spells. However, I have no issues with a subclass having direct damaging spells if it fits the subclass.
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'.
The only reason why the Artificer is the first 5e half or 1/3 caster where being a caster is first and melee/ranged combatant is 2nd, is because people wanted the class to cut back on actual crafting and concentrate more on dps, instant creation of magic items and spellcasting.
While I agree that there are spells that the base class should have access too, I don't think they should have access to direct damaging spells.
I disagree on using tools to cast spells. The restrictions that D&D has placed on the Artificers spellcasting has made it a liability.
While I can see an Artificer exchanging blows with a bad guy, I don't see them wading into a group of goblins and going toe-to-toe with them. I see them in between front line fighters and the spellcasters in the back. Able to exchange blows if they need to, but providing support to those around them.
I have see the issue of Counterspell being thrown around. It is difficult to say, I would say that it is up to the players and the DM to decide.
If the player is going to make the argument that all of their spell effects come from their gadgets, then I as a DM would say that Counterspell wouldn't work. However, as the DM, I would tell my Artificer player that if they get captured and all of their equipment is taken from them, then they lose their spellcasting ability.
On the reverse side, if there is some arcane element to the Artificer casting spells, then I would say Counterspell would work against them.
@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.
Everyone has their own opinion and I still haven't seen a reason why the Artificer (base class), a craftsman, an inventor should have access to direct damaging spells.
I know that the Artificer originated in the world of Eberron. But the entire D&D multiverse isn't Eberron. So why should the base Artificer class be centered around Eberron? The class should be able to work in every D&D world. From the official worlds to the homemade worlds, the class should be playable in every world. It is easier to restrict subclasses than it is to restrict base classes.
It is simple and the reason why the majority of us are on the hunt for a new mechanical way to differentiate the class as a unique martial.
The classes are distinct because you could not just add a subclass to a fighter to make it a monk, it would work mechanically completely differently and scale differently through 1-20.
That is the first option of what we want for Artificer, some unique martial scaling. Or some unique spellcaster scaling or support scaling like sorcerer/warlock or bard respectively.
For example 5th level whenever you attack you hit an adjacent enemy, or you can cast a second cantrip using your bonus action, etc.
That is the reason to make a new class and why it is so hard, but just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And it does feel substantial meaty to get a new class as it breaks the mould we have gotten used to. And no point equating going from 12 to 13 classes to 3.5e with 500+ classes. I do think the full set should be 15 with Artificer, Psion and Summoner as the added classes.
Having another spellcaster is not unique. The Artificer is supposed to be the character that has the ability to CRAFT items that aids them and their party. But that is not the case with the current Artificer. The current Artificer is a Wizard cut in half. Everything about the class is about spellcasting and if I attack with a melee weapon, I want to get a secondary attack with a cantrip, or I want the ability to use 2 direct damaging spells during my turn.
You can see the Artificer's hard left turn away from crafting when the base class ability Magic Item Analysis was gotten rid of in favor of Magical Tinkering.
It is simple and the reason why the majority of us are on the hunt for a new mechanical way to differentiate the class as a unique martial.
The classes are distinct because you could not just add a subclass to a fighter to make it a monk, it would work mechanically completely differently and scale differently through 1-20.
That is the first option of what we want for Artificer, some unique martial scaling. Or some unique spellcaster scaling or support scaling like sorcerer/warlock or bard respectively.
For example 5th level whenever you attack you hit an adjacent enemy, or you can cast a second cantrip using your bonus action, etc.
That is the reason to make a new class and why it is so hard, but just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And it does feel substantial meaty to get a new class as it breaks the mould we have gotten used to. And no point equating going from 12 to 13 classes to 3.5e with 500+ classes. I do think the full set should be 15 with Artificer, Psion and Summoner as the added classes.
i'd say its what you and "Some Minority" wants. because looking at the current artificer build and the fact that i dont expect it to change much. i think its gonna be pretty much everything an artificer shouldn't be. heck the original author also thinks thats way and while you think it should be the way you want it, the original author is the one who should be creating the class and he has no willingness of creating for 5e. if he did we'd have a whole different class from what we have now.
to me its quite simple... what we see on the forum is only about 10% of the real feedback they have received. with forums thats alsways been truth. only 10% of the community is actually using the forum to talk and feedback. i'd bet you wont have what you want and i bet i wont have what i want. to me this conversation is kinda useless because at this point... you'd be better off creating your own.
just saying... the actual artificer to me, is was too similar to a wizard, which an artificer isn't !
PS: i created a monk fighter, it was easy to port as just like the battlemnaster archetype, it allows for choices to be made and my players thinks my archetype is much better then the monk itself. so think what you want, but... yeah i think a monk is easy to emulate on other classes.
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)
Thematically easy to emulate but does not have the same exact damage at every level. Mechanically it is distinct because monk can attack 4 times by level 5 but a fighter has to wait to lvl 20. That was my point, not the theme but the mechanical differences in ever martial class.
In the last iteration Artificer was just Ranger when using pure melee, while in 2017 Artificer was just Rogue when using thunder cannon.
But WHY? What is your narrative, fluff/story based reason for your opinion? Not game mechanical, not “just because” why should an Artificer not be able to cast DD spells from a story standpoint? It makes no sense to me. Can you please explain it to me?
I see the Artificer as a magically imbued MacGyver. If Mac could build a flamethrower or a stun gun (and he did canonically) then my Artificer should be able to “create a gadget” (read cast spell) that can do the same. My issue with it being treated the same way as traditional spellcasting is that it would take longer than 6 seconds (1 action) to craft, and once it’s built anyone in the party should be able to pull that trigger. That was the basis for why I disagree with them having traditional Spell Slots in favor of crafting temporary magic “gadgets” after a long rest that would mechanically function like temporary scrolls in game.
Just for fun IamSposta, I've been pasting this every now and again and one of the things I Suggested in the survey, works similar to yours but without the pact magic restriction. Hopefully covers all the surrounding rules that would have to come with sharing your spell slots to other players.
Spell Conduit
At 2nd level, you have learned how to anchor the weave to magic items. You can craft conduits out of weapons, armors or mundane looking items which then act as conduits to spell like abilities. These are drawn from other classes’ spell lists but are restricted to the below “Artificer Conduit List.” (renamed spell list)
You can craft up to Int Mod + half your Artificer level of these conduits and can double up on spells from the list if needed. Over the course of a Longrest you can rework up to Int Mod of these items to recreate different spells on the list. If disarmed of these Spell Conduit Items, you can recraft up to your Int Mod of these as improvised conduits over the period of a Long Rest or replaced at a town at a cost of 100g each.
These items can be activated by you or any allied creature but only within 30ft of you, as the conduits draw from a power source connected to you, be that magical or technological in nature. This power source refreshes on long rest and increases with level as per the Conduit Slots table (renamed from Spell Slots table) and can be powered by other class's spell slots as detailed in the multiclassing optional rules.
When activated the items use a Spellcasting modifier defined of your Int Mod, but take the Spell’s required Action and act as if cast by the activating creature, using their concentration if required. The conduit item is not consumed in the process.
(I may be missing some things please look at the Intent instead of the RAW)
For the most part it works similar to the way I was describing, just a few thoughts:
Int+1/2level feels like potentially A LOT of spells (gadgets) to me. That could be as many as 6 for a 1st level character. Also, my idea was to move away from traditional spell slots entirely since basically every “spellcaster” gets them and I was hoping for something that worked differently. Cantrips work as a quick little gizmo they whip up in 6secs, but for the more elaborate “gadgets” it feels a little ho-hum to me. i was thinking less “Magical Conduit” and more strictly mechanical in nature. I was only using Spells at all because the writing has been done already and then the Artificer wouldn’t need 30 pages of Gadgets that nobody would want to read.
I understand it’s too late for the Artificer, they are pretty much doomed to being what they are. I just hope this discussion might inspire someone at WotC to do something different with their next thing.
I kinda thought the magitech that Artificers use to channel their spells were prepared when they prepare their spells, so not cobbled together in the moment, but tinkered with over the few "light activity"hours of a long rest. Cantrips are the few trusty tools that don't need to be tinkered with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I kinda thought the magitech that Artificers use to channel their spells were prepared when they prepare their spells, so not cobbled together in the moment, but tinkered with over the few "light activity"hours of a long rest. Cantrips are the few trusty tools that don't need to be tinkered with.
So for you the Prepared Spells are the gadgets and the Spell Slots are just using them. That hadn’t occurred to me. I always considered the Prepared Spells the stuff they might make and the castings the actual makings. Then Arutha’s last post makes more sense to me on a re-read.
I guess that’s because for my imagination, they did not need some innate magical essence of their own to fuel their ongoing creations each time they used them. For me I imagined them fueling their devices as they created them. That’s why I would have gotten rid of spell slots and prepared spells entirely and just let them create a scaling number of them tied to the characters proficiency with their artisan tools (Prof Bonus, or maybe Prof Bonus+Int Mod) all like unique consumables, fire-and-forget as it were. Like I said, a MacGyver type. Then the Spell Level would have been Proficiency minus 1 (Spell levels 1-5, always cast at Max level in a manner similar to the Warlock). Then they wouldn’t even be “Spells” more “devices that mimic Spells”, clearing up the whole question on if Counterspell works or not.
I still don’t understand why they can’t prepare gadgets that mimic spells like burning hands, fog, or shocking grasp. One would think fire, chemical gasses, and electricity would be right up their alley.
I kinda thought the magitech that Artificers use to channel their spells were prepared when they prepare their spells, so not cobbled together in the moment, but tinkered with over the few "light activity"hours of a long rest. Cantrips are the few trusty tools that don't need to be tinkered with.
So for you the Prepared Spells are the gadgets and the Spell Slots are just using them. That hadn’t occurred to me. I always considered the Prepared Spells the stuff they might make and the castings the actual makings. Then Arutha’s last post makes more sense to me on a re-read. I still don’t understand why they can’t prepare gadgets that mimic spells like burning hands, fog, or shocking grasp. One would think fire, chemical gasses, and electricity would be right up their alley.
Ok, so you want to change the spell list available to Artificers? That seems like an easy houserule, so .. go ahead?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with shocking grasp, you might be breaking down the device you used to heal and creating an offensive item in its place—perhaps a gauntlet that lets you channel a surge of energy.
I just thought that an artificer's spell preparation is basically tinkering with one's tools so one has the required items to cast one's spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yup the grand total of my Spell Conduit idea amounts to having as many Spell conduits as a half caster has spells known except maybe you might want to create 4 Haste Conduits so each team member has one. And they aren’t as unstable as a McGyver intention, you can continue using them later.
The unique feature ofcourse comes from other players using them, but only within 30ft of you so people don’t run awawith your Conduit.
Yeah, in my version distance from Artificer wouldn't matter as it would have been a 1-shot consumable kinda like a scroll. Subtle difference, but not major. For me it would have been more of a flavor thing not having them "cast" spells with the traditional spell slot mechanic.
@Ophid,
That was how the entire conversation got started until someone told me I was wrong for daring to imagine that.
On both my active Artificers, when I cast a spell, I channel the spell energy either through my Infused item or through one of my tool sets. In the case of through a tool set, the spell takes on a form related to that tool set.
Examples 1) Guidance (Tinker's Tools) - An implant appears on the target's forehead that grants the effects of the Guidance spell. 2) Cure Wounds (Tinker's Tools) - A joy buzzer-like device appears on the palm of one of my hands allowing me to apply a [Cure Wounds[/spell]. 3) Alarm (Tinker's Tools) - I usually create this one as a ritual. I simply assemblr a motion sensing alarm out of parts created by the spell from the Tool.
I tend to have a list of descriptions for my spells that I create when I choose a spell. The DM has rules that unless an individual has seen me cast a particular spell before s/he can make a Arcana check to realize I am actually casting a spell. If successful, thens/he can cast a Counterspell to cancel it but has no idea what s/he just countered.
As I have said before, the Artificer is a caster first and combatant 2nd unlike the Paladin, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight. In my opinion, as such, they should have a wider spell selection. They should have a wider variety of spells: more direct damage (magic missiles, scorching ray, etc.), more utility (knock comes to mind), and a few more new Artificer only spells (ie: Infuse Weapon (Shillelaghs), Create Wand (creates a Wand with a number of charges equal to the spells levell. Allows the casting of a single spell of a lower level. I'd make it 3rd level and would be pumpable). I could go on. I'd also give Artificer's their own versions of the Smite spells that could be used with both Ranged or Melee weapons. Or maybe just versions for Ranged weapons.
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.
Its really funny how you guys just jump at each others throat for no reasons... i think we all liked the original artificer, but WotC will never go back to that. and yes in 5e they just made "ANOTHER" spellcaster. because thats what WotC seems to want. and if you think about it... it is also what everyone wants. "Just another intellect user" my only beef is that they litrally just transformed the artificer into another version of the wizard. which to me could of been just a simple tradition at that point. but nope, all you guys want are a full class, in fact it seems most of you are more interested in just having new classes like this was 3e and its prestige classes. most people here just want a new class, it could be anything, they dont care all they want is a new class they have enough of the classes they have.
to me it is quite simple...
if you so want classes... just take those in 3e and transpose them to 5e. its easy and it works. but don't wait for WotC to do so, because they won't. they simply don't want to remake the same thing twice. not in this edition anyway.
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)
It is simple and the reason why the majority of us are on the hunt for a new mechanical way to differentiate the class as a unique martial.
The classes are distinct because you could not just add a subclass to a fighter to make it a monk, it would work mechanically completely differently and scale differently through 1-20.
That is the first option of what we want for Artificer, some unique martial scaling. Or some unique spellcaster scaling or support scaling like sorcerer/warlock or bard respectively.
For example 5th level whenever you attack you hit an adjacent enemy, or you can cast a second cantrip using your bonus action, etc.
That is the reason to make a new class and why it is so hard, but just because it’s hard doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. And it does feel substantial meaty to get a new class as it breaks the mould we have gotten used to. And no point equating going from 12 to 13 classes to 3.5e with 500+ classes. I do think the full set should be 15 with Artificer, Psion and Summoner as the added classes.
I know what I said and I do not dispute it. My issue is that ever since D&D first came out players were using their imaginations when it comes to casting spells or dealing the finishing blow to the bad guy or to imagine the environment they are in. D&D players do not need to be told to use their imaginations. The powers that be at D&D did not need to tells players to use their imaginations when they are casting spells as an Artificer.
When the 2017 Artificer UA came out, I imagined using different gadgets that simulated the different spells. Just like thousands of other players. My issues is being told to use my imagination when it comes to playing the Artificer and that is exactly what D&D did. You said it yourself....
"Since we are to imagine that an Artificer’s Spells are really gadgets according to The Powers That Be at WoTC".
Why should be be told to use our imaginations when we already do that.
The issue that I see with our disagreement is direct damaging spells. I do not think the base class should have access to direct damaging spells. However, I have no issues with a subclass having direct damaging spells if it fits the subclass.
The only reason why the Artificer is the first 5e half or 1/3 caster where being a caster is first and melee/ranged combatant is 2nd, is because people wanted the class to cut back on actual crafting and concentrate more on dps, instant creation of magic items and spellcasting.
While I agree that there are spells that the base class should have access too, I don't think they should have access to direct damaging spells.
I disagree on using tools to cast spells. The restrictions that D&D has placed on the Artificers spellcasting has made it a liability.
While I can see an Artificer exchanging blows with a bad guy, I don't see them wading into a group of goblins and going toe-to-toe with them. I see them in between front line fighters and the spellcasters in the back. Able to exchange blows if they need to, but providing support to those around them.
I have see the issue of Counterspell being thrown around. It is difficult to say, I would say that it is up to the players and the DM to decide.
If the player is going to make the argument that all of their spell effects come from their gadgets, then I as a DM would say that Counterspell wouldn't work. However, as the DM, I would tell my Artificer player that if they get captured and all of their equipment is taken from them, then they lose their spellcasting ability.
On the reverse side, if there is some arcane element to the Artificer casting spells, then I would say Counterspell would work against them.
Everyone has their own opinion and I still haven't seen a reason why the Artificer (base class), a craftsman, an inventor should have access to direct damaging spells.
I know that the Artificer originated in the world of Eberron. But the entire D&D multiverse isn't Eberron. So why should the base Artificer class be centered around Eberron? The class should be able to work in every D&D world. From the official worlds to the homemade worlds, the class should be playable in every world. It is easier to restrict subclasses than it is to restrict base classes.
Having another spellcaster is not unique. The Artificer is supposed to be the character that has the ability to CRAFT items that aids them and their party. But that is not the case with the current Artificer. The current Artificer is a Wizard cut in half. Everything about the class is about spellcasting and if I attack with a melee weapon, I want to get a secondary attack with a cantrip, or I want the ability to use 2 direct damaging spells during my turn.
You can see the Artificer's hard left turn away from crafting when the base class ability Magic Item Analysis was gotten rid of in favor of Magical Tinkering.
i'd say its what you and "Some Minority" wants. because looking at the current artificer build and the fact that i dont expect it to change much. i think its gonna be pretty much everything an artificer shouldn't be. heck the original author also thinks thats way and while you think it should be the way you want it, the original author is the one who should be creating the class and he has no willingness of creating for 5e. if he did we'd have a whole different class from what we have now.
to me its quite simple... what we see on the forum is only about 10% of the real feedback they have received. with forums thats alsways been truth. only 10% of the community is actually using the forum to talk and feedback. i'd bet you wont have what you want and i bet i wont have what i want. to me this conversation is kinda useless because at this point... you'd be better off creating your own.
just saying... the actual artificer to me, is was too similar to a wizard, which an artificer isn't !
PS: i created a monk fighter, it was easy to port as just like the battlemnaster archetype, it allows for choices to be made and my players thinks my archetype is much better then the monk itself. so think what you want, but... yeah i think a monk is easy to emulate on other classes.
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)
Thematically easy to emulate but does not have the same exact damage at every level. Mechanically it is distinct because monk can attack 4 times by level 5 but a fighter has to wait to lvl 20. That was my point, not the theme but the mechanical differences in ever martial class.
In the last iteration Artificer was just Ranger when using pure melee, while in 2017 Artificer was just Rogue when using thunder cannon.
But WHY? What is your narrative, fluff/story based reason for your opinion? Not game mechanical, not “just because” why should an Artificer not be able to cast DD spells from a story standpoint? It makes no sense to me. Can you please explain it to me?
I see the Artificer as a magically imbued MacGyver. If Mac could build a flamethrower or a stun gun (and he did canonically) then my Artificer should be able to “create a gadget” (read cast spell) that can do the same. My issue with it being treated the same way as traditional spellcasting is that it would take longer than 6 seconds (1 action) to craft, and once it’s built anyone in the party should be able to pull that trigger. That was the basis for why I disagree with them having traditional Spell Slots in favor of crafting temporary magic “gadgets” after a long rest that would mechanically function like temporary scrolls in game.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Just for fun IamSposta, I've been pasting this every now and again and one of the things I Suggested in the survey, works similar to yours but without the pact magic restriction. Hopefully covers all the surrounding rules that would have to come with sharing your spell slots to other players.
Arutha,
For the most part it works similar to the way I was describing, just a few thoughts:
Int+1/2level feels like potentially A LOT of spells (gadgets) to me. That could be as many as 6 for a 1st level character. Also, my idea was to move away from traditional spell slots entirely since basically every “spellcaster” gets them and I was hoping for something that worked differently. Cantrips work as a quick little gizmo they whip up in 6secs, but for the more elaborate “gadgets” it feels a little ho-hum to me. i was thinking less “Magical Conduit” and more strictly mechanical in nature. I was only using Spells at all because the writing has been done already and then the Artificer wouldn’t need 30 pages of Gadgets that nobody would want to read.
I understand it’s too late for the Artificer, they are pretty much doomed to being what they are. I just hope this discussion might inspire someone at WotC to do something different with their next thing.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I like the concept of using the Artificer's Magical Tinkering ability to create McGuyver like gadgets. :)
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I kinda thought the magitech that Artificers use to channel their spells were prepared when they prepare their spells, so not cobbled together in the moment, but tinkered with over the few "light activity"hours of a long rest. Cantrips are the few trusty tools that don't need to be tinkered with.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So for you the Prepared Spells are the gadgets and the Spell Slots are just using them. That hadn’t occurred to me. I always considered the Prepared Spells the stuff they might make and the castings the actual makings. Then Arutha’s last post makes more sense to me on a re-read.
I guess that’s because for my imagination, they did not need some innate magical essence of their own to fuel their ongoing creations each time they used them. For me I imagined them fueling their devices as they created them. That’s why I would have gotten rid of spell slots and prepared spells entirely and just let them create a scaling number of them tied to the characters proficiency with their artisan tools (Prof Bonus, or maybe Prof Bonus+Int Mod) all like unique consumables, fire-and-forget as it were. Like I said, a MacGyver type. Then the Spell Level would have been Proficiency minus 1 (Spell levels 1-5, always cast at Max level in a manner similar to the Warlock). Then they wouldn’t even be “Spells” more “devices that mimic Spells”, clearing up the whole question on if Counterspell works or not.
I still don’t understand why they can’t prepare gadgets that mimic spells like burning hands, fog, or shocking grasp. One would think fire, chemical gasses, and electricity would be right up their alley.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Ok, so you want to change the spell list available to Artificers? That seems like an easy houserule, so .. go ahead?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Based on this:
I just thought that an artificer's spell preparation is basically tinkering with one's tools so one has the required items to cast one's spells.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
@Mergon: My Character would rock the mullet and everything. ;)
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
Yup the grand total of my Spell Conduit idea amounts to having as many Spell conduits as a half caster has spells known except maybe you might want to create 4 Haste Conduits so each team member has one. And they aren’t as unstable as a McGyver intention, you can continue using them later.
The unique feature ofcourse comes from other players using them, but only within 30ft of you so people don’t run awawith your Conduit.
@Arutha,
Yeah, in my version distance from Artificer wouldn't matter as it would have been a 1-shot consumable kinda like a scroll. Subtle difference, but not major. For me it would have been more of a flavor thing not having them "cast" spells with the traditional spell slot mechanic.
@Ophid,
That was how the entire conversation got started until someone told me I was wrong for daring to imagine that.
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
On both my active Artificers, when I cast a spell, I channel the spell energy either through my Infused item or through one of my tool sets. In the case of through a tool set, the spell takes on a form related to that tool set.
Examples
1) Guidance (Tinker's Tools) - An implant appears on the target's forehead that grants the effects of the Guidance spell.
2) Cure Wounds (Tinker's Tools) - A joy buzzer-like device appears on the palm of one of my hands allowing me to apply a [Cure Wounds[/spell].
3) Alarm (Tinker's Tools) - I usually create this one as a ritual. I simply assemblr a motion sensing alarm out of parts created by the spell from the Tool.
I tend to have a list of descriptions for my spells that I create when I choose a spell. The DM has rules that unless an individual has seen me cast a particular spell before s/he can make a Arcana check to realize I am actually casting a spell. If successful, thens/he can cast a Counterspell to cancel it but has no idea what s/he just countered.
As I have said before, the Artificer is a caster first and combatant 2nd unlike the Paladin, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight. In my opinion, as such, they should have a wider spell selection. They should have a wider variety of spells: more direct damage (magic missiles, scorching ray, etc.), more utility (knock comes to mind), and a few more new Artificer only spells (ie: Infuse Weapon (Shillelaghs), Create Wand (creates a Wand with a number of charges equal to the spells levell. Allows the casting of a single spell of a lower level. I'd make it 3rd level and would be pumpable). I could go on. I'd also give Artificer's their own versions of the Smite spells that could be used with both Ranged or Melee weapons. Or maybe just versions for Ranged weapons.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!