I believe I have said earlier, if WotC is going to place emphasis on casting for this class, then I think it would be good for them to include a couple more spells that are Artificer exclusive, especially cantrips since they seem to want to make that a key feature.
On that note, anyone have any homebrew spell/cantrip ideas they wanna throw in?
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.
I see the Artificer as the individual that crafts magical and non-magical (maybe repair) equipment for themselves and their party. While yes there are magic items that deal direct damage like the Wand of Magic Missiles, Wand of Fireballs and Ring of the Ram; but I see the Artificer as the person that crafts non-magical item and working off of magical formulas they imbue with them arcane properties and transforming non-magical items into magic items. I see that as the base class.
As for the subclasses, they are the specialists. While they can craft other magical items, it is easier for them to craft magic items related fields. Which I feel gives them a better understanding of the arcane properties of certain magic items. Let's say there is an actual Wandslinger subclass (which I know certain people want separate from the Artillerist). This individual has a much better understanding of the arcane formulas for crafting magic wands, thus allowing them the ability of casting spells that can be found in magic wands.
In the case of the magically imbued MacGyver, you would know that his inventions were not used to purposely kill his opponents, but I get what you are saying. And in the case of a magically imbued Macgyver, I would see this Artificer as a Gadgetsmith. Thus giving him the ability to craft gadgets that can simulate spell effects (direct damaging or not)..
Now, in the case of a party member being able to use a gadget that simulates a spell effect, that would fall into the realm of the Spell Storing ability.
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.
I never liked the tool sets as focus for Artificer spells. Depending on how someone plays the Artificer, the lack of a tools set will severely hamper the classes abilities to cast spells, let alone using them to craft gadgets the simulate the spells.
The problem with the Artificer being a caster first, is that it backseats the main reason for their class. Actual crafting. The Artificer should be a crafter first and their spellcasting should aid them in their ability. I do agree that they should have access to more utility spells. But if you give the base class access to direct damaging spells, you would be better off playing a Wizard and create/modify a background to give you proficiency with tool sets and select the Skilled feat and select 3 tool sets. This way you can access to spells like Chain Lightning, Sunbeam and Prismatic Spray.
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.
Now I truly understand why we were having our disagreement. I was seeing gadgets as prepared spells and their uses as spell slots and you were thinking the player had to actually craft the gadget as an actual part of casting the spell.
@Marine Can you explain to me how your two statements of an Artificer “crafting Gadgets on preparing a spell”, and “shouldn’t have access to direct damage spells” make sense together? How can someone make so many fantastical gadgets but never solve a simple flamethrower? (Burning Hands)
And if Artificer can craft a gadget that lets people Fly then surely he can craft something to simulate Lightning Bolt?
It is either realism in that he crafts both damage and support spells or arbitrary restraints in that he is a pacifist crafter? I mean almost the first thing Ironman realises is his Flight propulsion tech makes a good gun, Firebolt cantrip.
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.
This is the 1st thing you have said that I 100% agree with.
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.
Now I truly understand why we were having our disagreement. I was seeing gadgets as prepared spells and their uses as spell slots and you were thinking the player had to actually craft the gadget as an actual part of casting the spell.
See what rational, not “going at each other’s throats” conversation got us? Enlightenment! We had a heated debate because we are both passionate about our hobby, but we never felt the need to attack each other. I saw another user not two weeks ago who got so personally nasty his comment was redacted by a moderator. Can you imagine? I did not take proficiency in Trollish and have no idea what he wrote, so don't ask.
The fact that we had such a monumental disagreement, about something so simple and fundamental, for more than a week, and didn't even realize it all came down to language interpretation proves my point that this is a poorly written class. I thought about it for 10 minutes and came up with reasonable idea that completely omitted both Prepared Spells and Spell Slots (the exact things we both interpreted differently), but basically accomplished a similar end result, felt specifically mechanical, and fit it into a paragraph of txt that would have fit on magic card. I'm a nobody who dreams of one day maybe being lucky enough to write games for a living. If I could do that, then the brilliant minds at WotC, with their gallons of talent and years of experience could have more than likely come up with an idea that would have made look like an opus written by an Auroch... in crayon.... Instead, they gave us "You cast spells just like everyone else but pretend extra hard that you're not." (paraphrased of course)
@Marine Can you explain to me how your two statements of an Artificer “crafting Gadgets on preparing a spell”, and “shouldn’t have access to direct damage spells” make sense together? How can someone make so many fantastical gadgets but never solve a simple flamethrower? (Burning Hands)
And if Artificer can craft a gadget that lets people Fly then surely he can craft something to simulate Lightning Bolt?
It is either realism in that he crafts both damage and support spells or arbitrary restraints in that he is a pacifist crafter? I mean almost the first thing Ironman realises is his Flight propulsion tech makes a good gun, Firebolt cantrip.
I couldn't agree more!! You can click HERE and purchase a 100% NON-magical simulation of Shocking Grasp, HERE and buy one for Witch Bolt, and HERE for Fog Cloud. If these items exist anywhere on the Prime Material plane, wouldn't it have to have been Artificers that made them?!?
What did you think an artificer was ? just another wizard who cast spells in order to make stuff ? isn't that exactly what wizards, sorcerers and warlocks do as well as bards and pretty much every other spellcasters ?
Artificer builds stuff, while your wizards learns magic, they create their magic out of physical stuff they build. basically, wizards and other spell casters are mystically creating stuff while artificer are supposed to be scientist with no magics that actually create stuff out of physical gears. basically if you want better terminology... artificer should be Engineers, not spellcasters with mystical abilities.
look at it that way... doctor strange is a real doctor, he has no healing abiltiies... would you still think he's the same healer as say a priest who pray and stuff get healed ? the same way the feat healer, makes you a healer, but not magically, you still require the use of a medical kit to do your stuff. its completely different from a mystical healer who just pray and stuff happens.
thats the proble with most of the people who gives feedback, they check on whats already there and just want whats already there. they wanted an artificer to be a full caster, they are transforming him into a full caster. but that's not what an artificer is to begin with. and this is exactly why the original author think the class is not worthy yet ! because in the very beginning, in 3e... the artificer was not a spell catser per say. he had some spells, but only what he needed to create other stuff. his infusions were also not magical, he literally changed the atomic composition of the stuff to make it be what he wanted it to be. there was no magic involved in that.
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)
I never liked the tool sets as focus for Artificer spells. Depending on how someone plays the Artificer, the lack of a tools set will severely hamper the classes abilities to cast spells, let alone using them to craft gadgets the simulate the spells.
The problem with the Artificer being a caster first, is that it backseats the main reason for their class. Actual crafting. The Artificer should be a crafter first and their spellcasting should aid them in their ability. I do agree that they should have access to more utility spells. But if you give the base class access to direct damaging spells, you would be better off playing a Wizard and create/modify a background to give you proficiency with tool sets and select the Skilled feat and select 3 tool sets. This way you can access to spells like Chain Lightning, Sunbeam and Prismatic Spray.
Are tools really that much more of a hindrance than Arcane Foci, Component Pouches, or Holly Symbols? Really? To be honest, that was the part that made me think they "built their gadgets" in the moment. I thought that was why they need their tools to cast their spells. Except they don't actually cast spells, right??
Also they couldn't just give 1 Specialist access to scores of DD Spells and leave all the other Specialists with only the 10 extra Spells like any other 1/2 caster gets.They would have to divide them all up among the various Specialists and then they would each get dozens of different Specialist "Spells/Gadgets" (or at least a list of dozens from which to choose 10). It's mechanically simpler to just put them in the base Class Spell list and be done with it. I think that's the problem with the Class as a whole, they seem to have tried to do it without having to invent any new mechanics. I think the point their missing is that people want new Classes because they want something different.
What did you think an artificer was ? just another wizard who cast spells in order to make stuff ? isn't that exactly what wizards, sorcerers and warlocks do as well as bards and pretty much every other spellcasters ?
Artificer builds stuff, while your wizards learns magic, they create their magic out of physical stuff they build. basically, wizards and other spell casters are mystically creating stuff while artificer are supposed to be scientist with no magics that actually create stuff out of physical gears. basically if you want better terminology... artificer should be Engineers, not spellcasters with mystical abilities.
look at it that way... doctor strange is a real doctor, he has no healing abiltiies... would you still think he's the same healer as say a priest who pray and stuff get healed ? the same way the feat healer, makes you a healer, but not magically, you still require the use of a medical kit to do your stuff. its completely different from a mystical healer who just pray and stuff happens.
thats the proble with most of the people who gives feedback, they check on whats already there and just want whats already there. they wanted an artificer to be a full caster, they are transforming him into a full caster. but that's not what an artificer is to begin with. and this is exactly why the original author think the class is not worthy yet ! because in the very beginning, in 3e... the artificer was not a spell catser per say. he had some spells, but only what he needed to create other stuff. his infusions were also not magical, he literally changed the atomic composition of the stuff to make it be what he wanted it to be. there was no magic involved in that.
The fact that you wrote this proves that you have absolutely no idea what in the 9 hells I am talking about whatsoever. Please go back and read the conversation starting from post # 1406 forward. I have neither the time nor the energy to re-re-reexplain it all over again.
And for the record, I started playing D&D before there were Race/Class combos, when you were either a Fighter, OR an Elf. In fact, the only Editions of D&D I haven't played were 4th and Pathfinder because, at the time, I had no inclination of buying all of those books all over again. I remember what the Artificer was, that's part of what has been driving my discussion points this whole time. The other part is because I remember why the Artificer was the way it was. Simply put, because it had never been done that way in D&D before, and it was F-ing cool.
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.
I see the Artificer as the individual that crafts magical and non-magical (maybe repair) equipment for themselves and their party. While yes there are magic items that deal direct damage like the Wand of Magic Missiles, Wand of Fireballs and Ring of the Ram; but I see the Artificer as the person that crafts non-magical item and working off of magical formulas they imbue with them arcane properties and transforming non-magical items into magic items. I see that as the base class.
As for the subclasses, they are the specialists. While they can craft other magical items, it is easier for them to craft magic items related fields. Which I feel gives them a better understanding of the arcane properties of certain magic items. Let's say there is an actual Wandslinger subclass (which I know certain people want separate from the Artillerist). This individual has a much better understanding of the arcane formulas for crafting magic wands, thus allowing them the ability of casting spells that can be found in magic wands.
In the case of the magically imbued MacGyver, you would know that his inventions were not used to purposely kill his opponents, but I get what you are saying. And in the case of a magically imbued Macgyver, I would see this Artificer as a Gadgetsmith. Thus giving him the ability to craft gadgets that can simulate spell effects (direct damaging or not)..
Now, in the case of a party member being able to use a gadget that simulates a spell effect, that would fall into the realm of the Spell Storing ability.
To your first point, read my last reply to Arutha. (#1465)
To your second point, read the second half of my last reply to you. (#1467)
To your third point, just because MacGyver was a pacifist doesn't mean that MagCyver the Artificer has to be. ;)
To your fourth point, I would have written the class to make mechanical equivalents of Stored Spells the whole time. Note I said mechanical equivalent, decidedly non-magic. Purely technology based inventions that produce the same effects as magic.
Iamspotsta yet you always makes us repeat ourselves all the time.
The fact you wrote pathfinder as DnD proves you dont even know that paizo is not wizard of the coast.
Anyway... As i said... Useless conversation because we all donot even agree on what an artificer should be. So imagine creating a version that is on point. Ill say it again... Everything you are asking for is a whole new wizard class. I'm not.
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)
How can I possibly be asking for the Artificer to be a new “Wizard Class” when I don’t think the Artificer should have any Spell slots, don’t think they should cast spells, and do think that what the Artificer does should be Technologically based and not magically based?!? Please explain what convoluted set of tracks your train of thought was running on to get you to that conclusion? Lemme know when you’re ready, I’ll go make popcorn.
There is one thing you said that I must, in good conscience, 100% agree with you about: I know absolutely nothing about Pathfinder. Go buy yourself a cookie and send me the bill.
PS- The sharing of ideas is never useless if it leads to new ideas.
The problem, Paladin/Marine, is that if the Artificer is solely/only "The Crafty Guy", that means the artificer has to deal with the crafting rules in 5e.
And the crafting rules in 5e are completely and utterly horrible.
Any given crafting project beyond the tiniest, most useless trinkets takes several weeks to several years to finish, with dozens of rolls to determine crafting mishaps and several tables a DM is encouraged to use to figure out ways crafting goes wrong. The "crafting" rules in 5e are very clearly intended as a bolt-on afterthought that the developers added to address the very common player question of "hey! Can I use some of these tools to just, like...make my stuff?"
The developer's answer is a very blatant "No. No you cannot. You're an adventurer, not a craftsman - get your stuff by looting it or buying it, not making it." No other interpretation of the official crafting rules makes any sense.
In order for the artificer to be a playable character class despite lacking any/all class features beyond "makes stuff", Wizards would have to rip out the crafting rules entirely and redo them in a way that actually allows a player to benefit from crafting. They don't want to do that because players are well known for optimizing the fun right out of their game in the name of "Winning", and becoming a profitable craftsman is very much "Winning" despite essentially removing the character as a PC. So they specifically designed the crafting rules to be punitive, unappealing, prone to drastic and wasteful failures, and just generally unfun, figuring a DM with a table that insisted on crafting would just homebrew something anyways.
That works (for a given definition of working) with the existing classes, but it also means the artificer cannot be a class with no class features that don't relate to the creation of items while still being playable. If the artificer could not swing a weapon or cast a spell without previously having spent six months carefully inking down a one-shot scroll or constructing a weapon that somehow comes apart after swinging itself once, the class would be completely unplayable.
So, to put it short: Wizards doesn't actually want crafting in the game because crafting is not Adventuring, and Adventuring is what you're supposed to do with your playtime. Artificers are traditionally crafty bois, but cannot be crafty bois with the current crafting rules because those rules are designed to prevent crafting. Ergo, the artificer needs to feel like a crafty boi, but in a way that does not require it to spend all its time in a workshop while its friends go off and have fun without it, meaning it needs REGULAR CLASS FEATURES that allow it to do things like make magic or hit stuff.
If you'd rather the Artificer be 100% dependent on crafting, then give your Artificer player the Commoner stat block and insist they manufacture their class features. Using the base crafting rules, which requires several years' time investment and hundreds of thousands of gold for most significant creations.
The Crafting rules in Xanathar's are better than the DMG, and even better combined with an appropriate archetype crafting focus.
I have been playing around with a new Archetype where the Artificer when using crafting, can expend a spell slot to Instantly complete crafting.
3rd level, the Artificer can expend a spell slot to complete crafting. This takes an Action and the Artificer must be holding an appropriate set of tools for the item. The level of the spell slot depends on the Rarity of the item.
Creating a non-magical item requires a 1st level slot, a Common magical item a 2nd level slot (Uncommon - 3rd, Rare - 4th, Very Rare - 5th). Note: I am still fooling around with this so spell slot levels are subject to change. In addition, I was thinking of making the duration limited (still not sure about how long) and along with the use of higher level slots that required to increase that duration.
6th level, the Artificers can draw upon the power of magic items to restore spell slots. The Artificer can, at the end of a Short Rest, draw magic out of the magic item and restore spell slots equal to the rarity of the item (ie: Common - 1st level slot, Uncommon - two levels of spell slots, Rare - 3 levels of spell slots, Very Rare - 4 levels of spell slots, Legendary - 5 levels of spell slots). Doing so renders the magic item inoperative until 24 hours have past since the magic was drawn from the item.
10th level, the Artificer can transfer magic from one magic item to another magic item that has charges. The 2nd item regains a number of charges based on the Rarity of the first item (Common - 2 charges, Uncommon - 3 charges, Rare - 5 charges, Very Rare - 6 charges, Legendary - 7 charges). This is based on the spell points option for the DMG. This is done during a Short Rest and is complete at the end of said short rest. The 2nd item cannot regain charges greater than its capacity.
14th level, the Artificer can restore a broken or de-powered magic item to full functionality.The Artificer must have all pieces of the magic item otherwise this ability automatically fails.
At the end of a long rest, during which the Artificer must remain in contact with the item (or all its parts), the Artificer must expend a spell slot 2 levels or more higher than the level of the item (with that being Common - Level 1, Uncommon - Level 2, Rare - Level 3, Very Rare - Level 4, Legendary - Level 5). The restore magic item is fully functional. If the item has charges or uses, then it starts with the minimum number of uses or charges at the end of the long rest. It may then regain uses or charges dependent on the item as usual. Only a single magical item can be restores per long rest.
My name for this Archetype isThe Crafter. The Crafter would gain Proficiency with 2 tools of his or her choice
Related item levels and related levels is something I will have to test making changes as I see the need. What do people think? Am I completely off target with this?
3rd level, the Artificer can expend a spell slot to complete crafting. This takes an Action and the Artificer must be holding an appropriate set of tools for the item. The level of the spell slot depends on the Rarity of the item.
Creating a non-magical item requires a 1st level slot, a Common magical item a 2nd level slot (Uncommon - 3rd, Rare - 4th, Very Rare - 5th).
I really like this, except I wouldn't have it complete entire magical items using spell slots and would have it be based on workweeks.
At 3rd Level, once per long rest the Artificer can expend a spell slot to increase the amount of work they can complete during an average work day. The amount of work able to be completed during a single workday depends on the level of the spell slot expended:
1st level spell: 2 Workdays
2nd level spell: 1 Workweek
3rd level spell: 3 Workweeks
4th level spell: 8 Workweeks
5th level spell: 12 Workweeks
This way it complements crafting and does not replace it. More importantly the Artificer still has to pay for the ingredients to create the item. I'm sure it was an oversight, but as it is currently written there is some vagueness and one could argue that you don't have to pay for the magical item when using that class feature to create a magical item.
Valid point. In older editions of D&D Characters were expected to take Proficiencies in crafting. A Fighter was expected to eventually take blacksmithing or a Ranger was expected to take up Bowyer/Fletcher. Then those Characters would have to work with the party Cleric or “Magic User” (because there was only one type) to create Holy/Magic weapons for the party. I thought crafting was a bit odd in 5e, now I have a better understanding as to why.
Dang Mergon that is actually a very good set of item related abilities, in fact I would prefer they are part of core Artificer rather than a subclass.
I’ll have to slowly think how I would structure and Artificer like that. Agree with Grizzelbub, maybe a speed up rather than an instant completion. Like a resource management game where the Artificer is actually trying to save his spell slots to the end of day Long rest because he wants to pour them into Crafting.
Finally I do want to bring up my solution for the Raw Materials gold cost. I always let the Exploration leg of adventuring cover materials costs. Usually on good rolls you get free raw materials which you can craft using tools into items useful to sell in towns (Carpenters, Masons Tools) On Medium rolls I offer a choice of resources but with delays, and on bad rolls delays no upside, sometimes with IRL delays in the form of combat.
It would be amazing to see a core rule book come out with expanded Social, Exploration and Crafting that use the above two ideas, with the Bard, Ranger and Artificer as the Experts in each of above respective fields.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe I have said earlier, if WotC is going to place emphasis on casting for this class, then I think it would be good for them to include a couple more spells that are Artificer exclusive, especially cantrips since they seem to want to make that a key feature.
On that note, anyone have any homebrew spell/cantrip ideas they wanna throw in?
I haven’t gotten around to fully homebrewing spells yet. But for themes like “Smite” and “Volley” I’d suggest:
“Turrets” repeated locational magic effects.
“Potion AoEs” for Ranged Weapon/Thrown Attacks with Magical effect riders, similar to Booming blades are for melee.
And “Weapon Enchants” like the the Arcane Weapon we already got but maybe less concentration or directly in the spell asking for users concentration.
I see the Artificer as the individual that crafts magical and non-magical (maybe repair) equipment for themselves and their party. While yes there are magic items that deal direct damage like the Wand of Magic Missiles, Wand of Fireballs and Ring of the Ram; but I see the Artificer as the person that crafts non-magical item and working off of magical formulas they imbue with them arcane properties and transforming non-magical items into magic items. I see that as the base class.
As for the subclasses, they are the specialists. While they can craft other magical items, it is easier for them to craft magic items related fields. Which I feel gives them a better understanding of the arcane properties of certain magic items. Let's say there is an actual Wandslinger subclass (which I know certain people want separate from the Artillerist). This individual has a much better understanding of the arcane formulas for crafting magic wands, thus allowing them the ability of casting spells that can be found in magic wands.
In the case of the magically imbued MacGyver, you would know that his inventions were not used to purposely kill his opponents, but I get what you are saying. And in the case of a magically imbued Macgyver, I would see this Artificer as a Gadgetsmith. Thus giving him the ability to craft gadgets that can simulate spell effects (direct damaging or not)..
Now, in the case of a party member being able to use a gadget that simulates a spell effect, that would fall into the realm of the Spell Storing ability.
I never liked the tool sets as focus for Artificer spells. Depending on how someone plays the Artificer, the lack of a tools set will severely hamper the classes abilities to cast spells, let alone using them to craft gadgets the simulate the spells.
The problem with the Artificer being a caster first, is that it backseats the main reason for their class. Actual crafting. The Artificer should be a crafter first and their spellcasting should aid them in their ability. I do agree that they should have access to more utility spells. But if you give the base class access to direct damaging spells, you would be better off playing a Wizard and create/modify a background to give you proficiency with tool sets and select the Skilled feat and select 3 tool sets. This way you can access to spells like Chain Lightning, Sunbeam and Prismatic Spray.
Now I truly understand why we were having our disagreement. I was seeing gadgets as prepared spells and their uses as spell slots and you were thinking the player had to actually craft the gadget as an actual part of casting the spell.
@Marine Can you explain to me how your two statements of an Artificer “crafting Gadgets on preparing a spell”, and “shouldn’t have access to direct damage spells” make sense together? How can someone make so many fantastical gadgets but never solve a simple flamethrower? (Burning Hands)
And if Artificer can craft a gadget that lets people Fly then surely he can craft something to simulate Lightning Bolt?
It is either realism in that he crafts both damage and support spells or arbitrary restraints in that he is a pacifist crafter? I mean almost the first thing Ironman realises is his Flight propulsion tech makes a good gun, Firebolt cantrip.
This is the 1st thing you have said that I 100% agree with.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See what rational, not “going at each other’s throats” conversation got us? Enlightenment! We had a heated debate because we are both passionate about our hobby, but we never felt the need to attack each other. I saw another user not two weeks ago who got so personally nasty his comment was redacted by a moderator. Can you imagine? I did not take proficiency in Trollish and have no idea what he wrote, so don't ask.
The fact that we had such a monumental disagreement, about something so simple and fundamental, for more than a week, and didn't even realize it all came down to language interpretation proves my point that this is a poorly written class. I thought about it for 10 minutes and came up with reasonable idea that completely omitted both Prepared Spells and Spell Slots (the exact things we both interpreted differently), but basically accomplished a similar end result, felt specifically mechanical, and fit it into a paragraph of txt that would have fit on magic card. I'm a nobody who dreams of one day maybe being lucky enough to write games for a living. If I could do that, then the brilliant minds at WotC, with their gallons of talent and years of experience could have more than likely come up with an idea that would have made look like an opus written by an Auroch... in crayon.... Instead, they gave us "You cast spells just like everyone else but pretend extra hard that you're not." (paraphrased of course)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I couldn't agree more!! You can click HERE and purchase a 100% NON-magical simulation of Shocking Grasp, HERE and buy one for Witch Bolt, and HERE for Fog Cloud. If these items exist anywhere on the Prime Material plane, wouldn't it have to have been Artificers that made them?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
IamSpotsta:
What did you think an artificer was ? just another wizard who cast spells in order to make stuff ? isn't that exactly what wizards, sorcerers and warlocks do as well as bards and pretty much every other spellcasters ?
Artificer builds stuff, while your wizards learns magic, they create their magic out of physical stuff they build. basically, wizards and other spell casters are mystically creating stuff while artificer are supposed to be scientist with no magics that actually create stuff out of physical gears. basically if you want better terminology... artificer should be Engineers, not spellcasters with mystical abilities.
look at it that way... doctor strange is a real doctor, he has no healing abiltiies... would you still think he's the same healer as say a priest who pray and stuff get healed ?
the same way the feat healer, makes you a healer, but not magically, you still require the use of a medical kit to do your stuff. its completely different from a mystical healer who just pray and stuff happens.
thats the proble with most of the people who gives feedback, they check on whats already there and just want whats already there. they wanted an artificer to be a full caster, they are transforming him into a full caster. but that's not what an artificer is to begin with. and this is exactly why the original author think the class is not worthy yet ! because in the very beginning, in 3e... the artificer was not a spell catser per say. he had some spells, but only what he needed to create other stuff. his infusions were also not magical, he literally changed the atomic composition of the stuff to make it be what he wanted it to be. there was no magic involved in that.
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)
Are tools really that much more of a hindrance than Arcane Foci, Component Pouches, or Holly Symbols? Really? To be honest, that was the part that made me think they "built their gadgets" in the moment. I thought that was why they need their tools to cast their spells. Except they don't actually cast spells, right??
Also they couldn't just give 1 Specialist access to scores of DD Spells and leave all the other Specialists with only the 10 extra Spells like any other 1/2 caster gets.They would have to divide them all up among the various Specialists and then they would each get dozens of different Specialist "Spells/Gadgets" (or at least a list of dozens from which to choose 10). It's mechanically simpler to just put them in the base Class Spell list and be done with it. I think that's the problem with the Class as a whole, they seem to have tried to do it without having to invent any new mechanics. I think the point their missing is that people want new Classes because they want something different.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The fact that you wrote this proves that you have absolutely no idea what in the 9 hells I am talking about whatsoever. Please go back and read the conversation starting from post # 1406 forward. I have neither the time nor the energy to re-re-reexplain it all over again.
And for the record, I started playing D&D before there were Race/Class combos, when you were either a Fighter, OR an Elf. In fact, the only Editions of D&D I haven't played were 4th
and Pathfinderbecause, at the time, I had no inclination of buying all of those books all over again. I remember what the Artificer was, that's part of what has been driving my discussion points this whole time. The other part is because I remember why the Artificer was the way it was. Simply put, because it had never been done that way in D&D before, and it was F-ing cool.Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To your first point, read my last reply to Arutha. (#1465)
To your second point, read the second half of my last reply to you. (#1467)
To your third point, just because MacGyver was a pacifist doesn't mean that MagCyver the Artificer has to be. ;)
To your fourth point, I would have written the class to make mechanical equivalents of Stored Spells the whole time. Note I said mechanical equivalent, decidedly non-magic. Purely technology based inventions that produce the same effects as magic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Iamspotsta yet you always makes us repeat ourselves all the time.
The fact you wrote pathfinder as DnD proves you dont even know that paizo is not wizard of the coast.
Anyway... As i said... Useless conversation because we all donot even agree on what an artificer should be. So imagine creating a version that is on point. Ill say it again... Everything you are asking for is a whole new wizard class. I'm not.
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)
Paladin,
How can I possibly be asking for the Artificer to be a new “Wizard Class” when I don’t think the Artificer should have any Spell slots, don’t think they should cast spells, and do think that what the Artificer does should be Technologically based and not magically based?!? Please explain what convoluted set of tracks your train of thought was running on to get you to that conclusion? Lemme know when you’re ready, I’ll go make popcorn.
There is one thing you said that I must, in good conscience, 100% agree with you about: I know absolutely nothing about Pathfinder. Go buy yourself a cookie and send me the bill.
PS- The sharing of ideas is never useless if it leads to new ideas.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The problem, Paladin/Marine, is that if the Artificer is solely/only "The Crafty Guy", that means the artificer has to deal with the crafting rules in 5e.
And the crafting rules in 5e are completely and utterly horrible.
Any given crafting project beyond the tiniest, most useless trinkets takes several weeks to several years to finish, with dozens of rolls to determine crafting mishaps and several tables a DM is encouraged to use to figure out ways crafting goes wrong. The "crafting" rules in 5e are very clearly intended as a bolt-on afterthought that the developers added to address the very common player question of "hey! Can I use some of these tools to just, like...make my stuff?"
The developer's answer is a very blatant "No. No you cannot. You're an adventurer, not a craftsman - get your stuff by looting it or buying it, not making it." No other interpretation of the official crafting rules makes any sense.
In order for the artificer to be a playable character class despite lacking any/all class features beyond "makes stuff", Wizards would have to rip out the crafting rules entirely and redo them in a way that actually allows a player to benefit from crafting. They don't want to do that because players are well known for optimizing the fun right out of their game in the name of "Winning", and becoming a profitable craftsman is very much "Winning" despite essentially removing the character as a PC. So they specifically designed the crafting rules to be punitive, unappealing, prone to drastic and wasteful failures, and just generally unfun, figuring a DM with a table that insisted on crafting would just homebrew something anyways.
That works (for a given definition of working) with the existing classes, but it also means the artificer cannot be a class with no class features that don't relate to the creation of items while still being playable. If the artificer could not swing a weapon or cast a spell without previously having spent six months carefully inking down a one-shot scroll or constructing a weapon that somehow comes apart after swinging itself once, the class would be completely unplayable.
So, to put it short: Wizards doesn't actually want crafting in the game because crafting is not Adventuring, and Adventuring is what you're supposed to do with your playtime. Artificers are traditionally crafty bois, but cannot be crafty bois with the current crafting rules because those rules are designed to prevent crafting. Ergo, the artificer needs to feel like a crafty boi, but in a way that does not require it to spend all its time in a workshop while its friends go off and have fun without it, meaning it needs REGULAR CLASS FEATURES that allow it to do things like make magic or hit stuff.
If you'd rather the Artificer be 100% dependent on crafting, then give your Artificer player the Commoner stat block and insist they manufacture their class features. Using the base crafting rules, which requires several years' time investment and hundreds of thousands of gold for most significant creations.
See how much fun that player has.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Crafting rules in Xanathar's are better than the DMG, and even better combined with an appropriate archetype crafting focus.
I have been playing around with a new Archetype where the Artificer when using crafting, can expend a spell slot to Instantly complete crafting.
3rd level, the Artificer can expend a spell slot to complete crafting. This takes an Action and the Artificer must be holding an appropriate set of tools for the item. The level of the spell slot depends on the Rarity of the item.
Creating a non-magical item requires a 1st level slot, a Common magical item a 2nd level slot (Uncommon - 3rd, Rare - 4th, Very Rare - 5th).
Note: I am still fooling around with this so spell slot levels are subject to change. In addition, I was thinking of making the duration limited (still not sure about how long) and along with the use of higher level slots that required to increase that duration.
6th level, the Artificers can draw upon the power of magic items to restore spell slots. The Artificer can, at the end of a Short Rest, draw magic out of the magic item and restore spell slots equal to the rarity of the item (ie: Common - 1st level slot, Uncommon - two levels of spell slots, Rare - 3 levels of spell slots, Very Rare - 4 levels of spell slots, Legendary - 5 levels of spell slots). Doing so renders the magic item inoperative until 24 hours have past since the magic was drawn from the item.
10th level, the Artificer can transfer magic from one magic item to another magic item that has charges. The 2nd item regains a number of charges based on the Rarity of the first item (Common - 2 charges, Uncommon - 3 charges, Rare - 5 charges, Very Rare - 6 charges, Legendary - 7 charges). This is based on the spell points option for the DMG. This is done during a Short Rest and is complete at the end of said short rest. The 2nd item cannot regain charges greater than its capacity.
14th level, the Artificer can restore a broken or de-powered magic item to full functionality.The Artificer must have all pieces of the magic item otherwise this ability automatically fails.
At the end of a long rest, during which the Artificer must remain in contact with the item (or all its parts), the Artificer must expend a spell slot 2 levels or more higher than the level of the item (with that being Common - Level 1, Uncommon - Level 2, Rare - Level 3, Very Rare - Level 4, Legendary - Level 5). The restore magic item is fully functional. If the item has charges or uses, then it starts with the minimum number of uses or charges at the end of the long rest. It may then regain uses or charges dependent on the item as usual. Only a single magical item can be restores per long rest.
My name for this Archetype is The Crafter. The Crafter would gain Proficiency with 2 tools of his or her choice
Related item levels and related levels is something I will have to test making changes as I see the need. What do people think? Am I completely off target with this?
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I really like this, except I wouldn't have it complete entire magical items using spell slots and would have it be based on workweeks.
At 3rd Level, once per long rest the Artificer can expend a spell slot to increase the amount of work they can complete during an average work day. The amount of work able to be completed during a single workday depends on the level of the spell slot expended:
This way it complements crafting and does not replace it. More importantly the Artificer still has to pay for the ingredients to create the item. I'm sure it was an oversight, but as it is currently written there is some vagueness and one could argue that you don't have to pay for the magical item when using that class feature to create a magical item.
@Yorei:
Valid point. In older editions of D&D Characters were expected to take Proficiencies in crafting. A Fighter was expected to eventually take blacksmithing or a Ranger was expected to take up Bowyer/Fletcher. Then those Characters would have to work with the party Cleric or “Magic User” (because there was only one type) to create Holy/Magic weapons for the party. I thought crafting was a bit odd in 5e, now I have a better understanding as to why.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Dang Mergon that is actually a very good set of item related abilities, in fact I would prefer they are part of core Artificer rather than a subclass.
I’ll have to slowly think how I would structure and Artificer like that. Agree with Grizzelbub, maybe a speed up rather than an instant completion. Like a resource management game where the Artificer is actually trying to save his spell slots to the end of day Long rest because he wants to pour them into Crafting.
Finally I do want to bring up my solution for the Raw Materials gold cost. I always let the Exploration leg of adventuring cover materials costs. Usually on good rolls you get free raw materials which you can craft using tools into items useful to sell in towns (Carpenters, Masons Tools) On Medium rolls I offer a choice of resources but with delays, and on bad rolls delays no upside, sometimes with IRL delays in the form of combat.
It would be amazing to see a core rule book come out with expanded Social, Exploration and Crafting that use the above two ideas, with the Bard, Ranger and Artificer as the Experts in each of above respective fields.