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.
@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?!?
My issue is giving the base class access to direct damaging spell. If you want to give subclasses access to direct damaging spells, I do not have an issue with that as long as it fits the subclass. So if you want to create a gadgetsmith subclass that creates gadgets and simulates direct damaging spells then by all mean create the subclass.
But, giving the Artificer access to more and more spells, just cements the fact that the Artificer is no longer a class that is about crafting but is instead a spellcaster.
Also, Fog Cloud is a utility spell and I think the Artificer should have access to that spell.
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.
Yes tools are that much more of a hindrance than an Arcane Focus, Component Pouches, or a Holy Symbol. In the 2019 Artificer UA it clearly states on page 3 under Tools Required states...
"You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, “Equipment,” in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools. After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
In the case of the Arcane Focus and Holy Symbol, they are used to substitute material components that do not have a cost and/or are consumed. The Component Pouch can be used instead of a Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol and it can also be used to store material components that have a cost and/or are consumed (if the player uses an Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol). There are spells that do not require any material components, so they do not need to be cast through an Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol.
In the case of the Artificer, it doesn't matter if the spell has material components or not, they still have to be cast through a tool set or infusion.
Nobody says that the subclass has to get access to scores of dd spells. Also, it is a matter of balancing the subclasses. In that completely broken Artificer build that I mentioned to you in a previous post, the gadgets of the gadgetsmith subclass had an element to them that I liked, they could only be used again after a short or long rest (after it was used). While the subclass was given access to certain spells, they had a limited use. That is a way of balancing the subclass. Give it access to dd spells, but limit it to a single use or limit the number of gadgets the subclass can have at any one time.
I understand that people want something new. But, taking something new (a crafter) and turning it into something old (a spellcaster) isn't something new.
The issue, Marine, is that nobody can figure out why utility spells are okay and perfectly fine to have, but damaging spells are a completely different thing and just utterly ruin the artificer by turning it into a crappy wizard, the way you keep saying they do.
Why are some spells okay but others are not? Why are damaging spells such a huge no-no when the Fog Clouds and the Spider Climbs and the Darknesses and such are A-OK? And what the Sam Shatner banana manhell do you expect an artificer to do any time it's not safely in town at a workbench if, as per your version of the class, ALL IT CAN DO IS CRAFT?
An artificer with no spells, no weapons, no armor, no actions, no companions, no anything whatsoever except apparently alternative crafting rules somehow baked into a PC class instead of just the game in general is. Not. A. Functional. Character. That is an NPC at absolute best and honestly more likely to just be a list of item fabrication services the DM makes available to players in the more normal course of things. It is enormously confusing what you're even trying to argue for, so please.
Why the hateboner for damage spells but ONLY damage spells, if your argument is "spells suck the artificer should be crafty"? And furthermore, what does the artificer do in your world where it's completely unable to assist its party outside of staying safely at home in a workshop making items for the Real Adventurers who actually get to go out and play D&D?
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.
The rules for D&D are merely guidelines. Even the powers that D&D/WotC have said that. There is nothing stopping the DM from adding, altering, and/or getting rid of rules that they don't agree with. As @Mergon pointed out, the Crafting rules in XGtE are much better than the ones in the DMG. But who says you have to abide by the rules for either one of them?
In the 2017 Artificer UA, on page 3 under Wondrous Invention, in the second paragraph it states... "You are assumed to work on this item in your leisure time and to finish it when you level up." So, depending on what you are crafting the DM can have you have you periodically make a tool check during downtimes. This can be used to determine how far along you are in crafting a magic item.
People seem to think that the rules in D&D are set in stone; they aren't.
We finally figured out the basic misunderstanding that led to a rabbit hole of debates covering just about everything to do with Artificers except maybe underwear preference. I have absolutely no arguments mechanical, narrative, or otherwise against your concept of the role Artificers fulfill in a party, play them how you want. I never once said you were wrong in your opinion, I simply have a different one. Now that we figured all of that out, I would like to ask your honest opinions about two things:
1) If I want my Artificer to be like Tony Stark from Marvel, Q from James Bond (my man got out in the field back in the older movies), or MacGyver (yes he was a pacifist, but he blew shit up all the time and it was awesome, admit it) do you think I should be disallowed from playing them like that?
2) If your Artificer could magitech up the pseudo-medieval fantasy version of an Iron Man suit, or a pimped our Aston Martin with Fireball headlights and everything, or make a Delayed Blast Fireball out of trash, literally junk other adventurers had thrown away, are you honestly telling me you wouldn’t think that was cool?
Sposta,
1) I have no issue if you want to play your Artificer like a Tony Stark or a Q. If you can fully explain the reasoning behind it (the character's backstory), I have no issues with it.
2) If the ability to "cast" those spells were a part of a subclass I would have no issues.
But as it stands, damn near everyone wants to turn the entire Artificer class into a spellcaster and just want to use gadgets as an excuse cast direct damaging spells.
I think what is confusing the issue between us is the concept of Artificers “Casting Spells” in the first place.
When “TPTB” over at WotC wrote this version of the Artificer they put two specific bits in there that I think people are misinterpreting in different ways (which is why I say it is poorly written, if they had written it better people would be better able to agree on what they mean).
On p1 they wrote this: “Artificers use tools to channel arcane power, crafting temporary and permanent magical objects. To cast a spell, an artificer could use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power on an ally’s armor, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents.”
And on p3 they wrote this: “To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders through various items.”
The way I, and possibly others, interpret this is that, as players, we are to assume that while mechanically Artificers “Cast Spells” narratively we are supposed to head-cannon it that they are not actually “Casting Spells” at all but are instead using wondrous machines to replicate Spell casting. The problem comes from the simple fact that WotC is using the same mechanics as Spellcasting to represent “magical inventions” that the Artificer just whipped out of their pocket or quickly assembled from spare parts in their tool kit. Probably, as Yurei pointed out, because crafting sucks balls in 5e and they didn’t want to rewrite the whole darned thing for just one class. Using the same mechanic to represent such wildly different things is lazy writing, poor design, and leads to two normal, rational people such as ourselves to debate about nothing. That was behind my desire to scrap “Spell Casting” mechanic entirely for the Artificer in favor of a more... “mechanical” mechanic. (See what I did there?)
If you look at it and realize that we aren’t sposta think of the Artificer as “Casting Spells” at all, but instead running around with a tool belt full of gadgets I think you’ll find that we’re both saying similar things in different ways.
Therefore, for the sake of our conversation, can we agree upon another term rather than “Cast Spell” when referring to what the Artificers do whenever their player spends a Spell Slot? I propose “Make/Use Gadget” but am amenable to something else if you prefer.
The issue, Marine, is that nobody can figure out why utility spells are okay and perfectly fine to have, but damaging spells are a completely different thing and just utterly ruin the artificer by turning it into a crappy wizard, the way you keep saying they do.
Why are some spells okay but others are not? Why are damaging spells such a huge no-no when the Fog Clouds and the Spider Climbs and the Darknesses and such are A-OK? And what the Sam Shatner banana manhell do you expect an artificer to do any time it's not safely in town at a workbench if, as per your version of the class, ALL IT CAN DO IS CRAFT?
An artificer with no spells, no weapons, no armor, no actions, no companions, no anything whatsoever except apparently alternative crafting rules somehow baked into a PC class instead of just the game in general is. Not. A. Functional. Character. That is an NPC at absolute best and honestly more likely to just be a list of item fabrication services the DM makes available to players in the more normal course of things. It is enormously confusing what you're even trying to argue for, so please.
Why the hateboner for damage spells but ONLY damage spells, if your argument is "spells suck the artificer should be crafty"? And furthermore, what does the artificer do in your world where it's completely unable to assist its party outside of staying safely at home in a workshop making items for the Real Adventurers who actually get to go out and play D&D?
This statement... "Turning it into a crappy wizard". The Artificer isn't a Wizard in anyway shape or form. The Artificer is the person who crafts magical and non-magical items for themselves and their party. They can also be the person repairs broken items for the party.
I don't see an issue of limiting the Artificer's spell to utility type spells. The Eldritch Knight is limited to Abjuration and Evocation spells (with the exception of 4 spells) and the Arcane Trickster is limited to Enchantment and Illusion spells (with the exception of 4 spells). By not giving the base Artificer class access to direct damaging spells it (in my opinion) shows that class isn't a spellcaster.
My homebrew Artificer doesn't have access to direct damaging spells, healing spells, or similar such spells. It does however, have access to other types of spells. Take my homebrew Alchemist. It is similar to the Achemist from the 2017 Artificer UA, except there are more formulas, to increase damage a spell slot needs to be expended, and they need to purchase new alchemical component to refill their alchemy bag. What the subclass doesn't have access to is additional spells. This is because I don't feel additional spells fit the Alchemist. My modified Artillerist does have additional spells as it fits the subclass.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a spellcaster. But they do have the ability to imbue arcane properties into non-magical items (I'm not talking about infusions either). The below is a feature from my homebrew Artificer.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6 level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
This is a base class feature. It provides a set of magical armor, while at the same time it addresses the crafting nature of the Artificer. I don't expect everyone to like this feature, but I find it a better feature than the Mechanical Servant from the 2017 UA and Arcane Armament of the 2019 UA.
This feels like a disagreement about the base concept. A mission statement level disagreement, if you will. Right from the description of the current Artificer they mention unlocking magic from everyday items. They are arcane inventors, not real life engineers. They are magitech, not technology.
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!
@Ophidimancer: Pretty much. But then I'm bored at work, so why not have the debate?
@Marine: the issue I have with this idea of yours is exactly what I said to you before: there's no reason to take your ideal artificer on an adventure. "The person who creates magical and non-magical items for the party" has no reason to ever set foot outside their safe, well-equipped workshop and step into a dungeon because any class feature they have is one they are, by your explicit and fundamental design, able to give away to someone else who's better set up to use it. An artificer in this mold does nothing that requires it to actually accompany the party, nor does the party WANT this artificer to accompany them because this artificer is 100% a liability in every conceivable situation wherein anyone else wearing the artificer's crap could've come along instead.
Your suggested class feature is a great indicator of this. As a CLASS FEATURE, the artificer gains...the ability to craft Armor of Resistance. Just...simple, basic Armor of Resistance. It is a class feature the artificer must pay copious quantities of gold for and swallow constant exhaustion to utilize as anything but a regular, ordinary suit of Armor of Resistance. Anyone else who just...just has a set of Armor of Resistance is gaining the sixth-level class feature of this Artificer. Any other character with a suit of Armor of Resistance has the same "class feature" as your character, BUT ALSO a regular ordinary sixth-level class feature of their own. And yes, I know, only the artificer can wear this special suit of technically-variable Armor of Resistance. here's the thing - why would they want to, when they can just stay home instead and not have to deal with the threat of taking damage at all?
I've said it before, I'll doubtless say it again - an artificer whose only job is crafting stuff is an artificer that has no business being a PC. The 2019 artificer, as much guff as people are giving it, is a flexible expert in magical infusion and quickfire combat tinkering that pulls their weight in a dungeon. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's worlds better than the 2017 version, and it honestly feels a lot more like someone with a gift or talent for bringing out the magic of the world around them rather than simply imposing their will on the Weave.
Like Ophi said - magitech, not real-life engineering. I work in the technology sector, and lemme tell you - a real-life engineer would NOT go along with a dungeon crawl just because he made the stuff the actual dungeon crawlers are using to do it.
I find myself agreeing with Yurei on this point. I don't like a class feature that you have to spend money on to use. Or even if so, why would the class feature of a technologist not be an array of things to choose from? After all, it's about what they can build, right?
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!
Personally, I believe that artificers should have access to both Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade as part of their cantrip repertoire. The both enhance melee weapon attacks which is what Artificer excel in.
A bit late on the comment, but personally I want to see new weapon cantrips (like those) that also work with ranged weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
That does seem a very natural extension of the artificer's magic-meets-tools identity, and a good way for them to dodge the pitfalls and awkwardness of Arcane Assault for people who haven't warmed up to it/don't care for the idea. It's already pretty easy to imagine an artificer's Firebolt cantrip as an enchanted crossbow bolt or their Acid Splash as (eeuuugh...) hurled flasks of acid, but some honest to Bob weapon-delivered spells akin to GFB or Booming would be awesome. Artificers could gain a feature allowing them to use Intelligence to attack with such cantrips rather than their native weapon stat, a'la the Battlesmith, as a way of differentiating artificers from other potential users of those spells.
Heh, and Wizards could FINALLY FRICKIN' SPECIFY that attacks made during the course of such a cantrip count as magical. Wouldn't that be nice.
You see the the Artificer fulfilling a very niche roll within the party, and that’s perfectly fine. You’ll get no argument from me about that.
I see the Artificer as standing on a large, green, rectangular court with a crisp, white line painted around it. Across the center of the court is another white line, and standing opposite the Artificer is a Wizard. The two of them are singing a D&D duet of Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better and attempting to outdo each other, one with Magic, and the other with Magitech.
If the Artificer gets designed the way you suggest, then you get to be happy. Other people who envision their Artificers differently... maybe not so much. If the Artificer “Spell List” were to be more inclusive then you could still have yours fulfilling the roll you imagine for them, and everyone else could also have theirs fulfill the roles they envision as well.
I don’t think you’re wrong at all. But I also don’t think the players who want something different for their Characters are wrong either. I am simply advocating for a change to the Class that would allow everyone to get as close as possible to their ideal Artificer.
This feels like a disagreement about the base concept. A mission statement level disagreement, if you will. Right from the description of the current Artificer they mention unlocking magic from everyday items. They are arcane inventors, not real life engineers. They are magitech, not technology.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here just a little bit. This is one point with which I am in agreement with Marine. To me, the “Magic” in the “Magitech” is that it exists at all. Kind of like Forge from the X-Men. Once the devices are created the are just devices. Miraculous, wonderful, devices to be sure, but they work on cogs and springs and such. The fact that an Artificer can even conceive of, let alone build them is the Artificer’s “Magic.” The fact that the Artificer can do it so quickly, truly mind blowing.
This feels like a disagreement about the base concept. A mission statement level disagreement, if you will. Right from the description of the current Artificer they mention unlocking magic from everyday items. They are arcane inventors, not real life engineers. They are magitech, not technology.
I have to respectfully disagree with you here just a little bit. This is one point with which I am in agreement with Marine. To me, the “Magic” in the “Magitech” is that it exists at all. Kind of like Forge from the X-Men. Once the devices are created the are just devices. Miraculous, wonderful, devices to be sure, but they work on cogs and springs and such. The fact that an Artificer can even conceive of, let alone build them is the Artificer’s “Magic.” The fact that the Artificer can do it so quickly, truly mind blowing.
I appreciate the respectful tone, but it's not me you're disagreeing with, it's Wizards of the Coast. That's the Artificer they chose to create. One that builds explicitly magical items and invokes magic in their artifice.
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 do however disagree with WotC and wish they had given us something mechanically different from Spell Casting to emphasize the “Magi” less and the “Tech” more. How many Classes and Subclasses have Spell Slots? More than half? It would be nice if there was someone on the other side of that line who could match their effects without them.
I gotta say it, I’m bored of everybody getting Spell Slots one way or another. Show me something different, show me something that makes me go “ooohhh” like when this was all new to me. This and the Mystic were my two best hopes. 🥺
I dunno. I play Fate, so I'm used to reskinning mechanics to do what I want so I don't really feel the need for a whole new subsystem to keep things fresh.
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!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Glad there is at least something we can agree on.
My issue is giving the base class access to direct damaging spell. If you want to give subclasses access to direct damaging spells, I do not have an issue with that as long as it fits the subclass. So if you want to create a gadgetsmith subclass that creates gadgets and simulates direct damaging spells then by all mean create the subclass.
But, giving the Artificer access to more and more spells, just cements the fact that the Artificer is no longer a class that is about crafting but is instead a spellcaster.
Also, Fog Cloud is a utility spell and I think the Artificer should have access to that spell.
Yes tools are that much more of a hindrance than an Arcane Focus, Component Pouches, or a Holy Symbol. In the 2019 Artificer UA it clearly states on page 3 under Tools Required states...
"You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus—specifically thieves’ tools or some kind of artisan’s tool—in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature. You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, “Equipment,” in the Player’s Handbook for descriptions of these tools. After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
In the case of the Arcane Focus and Holy Symbol, they are used to substitute material components that do not have a cost and/or are consumed. The Component Pouch can be used instead of a Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol and it can also be used to store material components that have a cost and/or are consumed (if the player uses an Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol). There are spells that do not require any material components, so they do not need to be cast through an Arcane Focus or Holy Symbol.
In the case of the Artificer, it doesn't matter if the spell has material components or not, they still have to be cast through a tool set or infusion.
Nobody says that the subclass has to get access to scores of dd spells. Also, it is a matter of balancing the subclasses. In that completely broken Artificer build that I mentioned to you in a previous post, the gadgets of the gadgetsmith subclass had an element to them that I liked, they could only be used again after a short or long rest (after it was used). While the subclass was given access to certain spells, they had a limited use. That is a way of balancing the subclass. Give it access to dd spells, but limit it to a single use or limit the number of gadgets the subclass can have at any one time.
I understand that people want something new. But, taking something new (a crafter) and turning it into something old (a spellcaster) isn't something new.
The issue, Marine, is that nobody can figure out why utility spells are okay and perfectly fine to have, but damaging spells are a completely different thing and just utterly ruin the artificer by turning it into a crappy wizard, the way you keep saying they do.
Why are some spells okay but others are not? Why are damaging spells such a huge no-no when the Fog Clouds and the Spider Climbs and the Darknesses and such are A-OK? And what the Sam Shatner banana manhell do you expect an artificer to do any time it's not safely in town at a workbench if, as per your version of the class, ALL IT CAN DO IS CRAFT?
An artificer with no spells, no weapons, no armor, no actions, no companions, no anything whatsoever except apparently alternative crafting rules somehow baked into a PC class instead of just the game in general is. Not. A. Functional. Character. That is an NPC at absolute best and honestly more likely to just be a list of item fabrication services the DM makes available to players in the more normal course of things. It is enormously confusing what you're even trying to argue for, so please.
Why the hateboner for damage spells but ONLY damage spells, if your argument is "spells suck the artificer should be crafty"?
And furthermore, what does the artificer do in your world where it's completely unable to assist its party outside of staying safely at home in a workshop making items for the Real Adventurers who actually get to go out and play D&D?
Please do not contact or message me.
The rules for D&D are merely guidelines. Even the powers that D&D/WotC have said that. There is nothing stopping the DM from adding, altering, and/or getting rid of rules that they don't agree with. As @Mergon pointed out, the Crafting rules in XGtE are much better than the ones in the DMG. But who says you have to abide by the rules for either one of them?
In the 2017 Artificer UA, on page 3 under Wondrous Invention, in the second paragraph it states... "You are assumed to work on this item in your leisure time and to finish it when you level up." So, depending on what you are crafting the DM can have you have you periodically make a tool check during downtimes. This can be used to determine how far along you are in crafting a magic item.
People seem to think that the rules in D&D are set in stone; they aren't.
Sposta,
1) I have no issue if you want to play your Artificer like a Tony Stark or a Q. If you can fully explain the reasoning behind it (the character's backstory), I have no issues with it.
2) If the ability to "cast" those spells were a part of a subclass I would have no issues.
But as it stands, damn near everyone wants to turn the entire Artificer class into a spellcaster and just want to use gadgets as an excuse cast direct damaging spells.
So @Marine, do you like the current UA Artificer spell list?
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!
Marine,
I think what is confusing the issue between us is the concept of Artificers “Casting Spells” in the first place.
When “TPTB” over at WotC wrote this version of the Artificer they put two specific bits in there that I think people are misinterpreting in different ways (which is why I say it is poorly written, if they had written it better people would be better able to agree on what they mean).
On p1 they wrote this: “Artificers use tools to channel arcane power, crafting temporary and permanent magical objects. To cast a spell, an artificer could use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power on an ally’s armor, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents.”
And on p3 they wrote this: “To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you’re producing wonders through various items.”
The way I, and possibly others, interpret this is that, as players, we are to assume that while mechanically Artificers “Cast Spells” narratively we are supposed to head-cannon it that they are not actually “Casting Spells” at all but are instead using wondrous machines to replicate Spell casting. The problem comes from the simple fact that WotC is using the same mechanics as Spellcasting to represent “magical inventions” that the Artificer just whipped out of their pocket or quickly assembled from spare parts in their tool kit. Probably, as Yurei pointed out, because crafting sucks balls in 5e and they didn’t want to rewrite the whole darned thing for just one class. Using the same mechanic to represent such wildly different things is lazy writing, poor design, and leads to two normal, rational people such as ourselves to debate about nothing. That was behind my desire to scrap “Spell Casting” mechanic entirely for the Artificer in favor of a more... “mechanical” mechanic. (See what I did there?)
If you look at it and realize that we aren’t sposta think of the Artificer as “Casting Spells” at all, but instead running around with a tool belt full of gadgets I think you’ll find that we’re both saying similar things in different ways.
Therefore, for the sake of our conversation, can we agree upon another term rather than “Cast Spell” when referring to what the Artificers do whenever their player spends a Spell Slot? I propose “Make/Use Gadget” but am amenable to something else if you prefer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This statement... "Turning it into a crappy wizard". The Artificer isn't a Wizard in anyway shape or form. The Artificer is the person who crafts magical and non-magical items for themselves and their party. They can also be the person repairs broken items for the party.
I don't see an issue of limiting the Artificer's spell to utility type spells. The Eldritch Knight is limited to Abjuration and Evocation spells (with the exception of 4 spells) and the Arcane Trickster is limited to Enchantment and Illusion spells (with the exception of 4 spells). By not giving the base Artificer class access to direct damaging spells it (in my opinion) shows that class isn't a spellcaster.
My homebrew Artificer doesn't have access to direct damaging spells, healing spells, or similar such spells. It does however, have access to other types of spells. Take my homebrew Alchemist. It is similar to the Achemist from the 2017 Artificer UA, except there are more formulas, to increase damage a spell slot needs to be expended, and they need to purchase new alchemical component to refill their alchemy bag. What the subclass doesn't have access to is additional spells. This is because I don't feel additional spells fit the Alchemist. My modified Artillerist does have additional spells as it fits the subclass.
The Artificer isn't supposed to be a spellcaster. But they do have the ability to imbue arcane properties into non-magical items (I'm not talking about infusions either). The below is a feature from my homebrew Artificer.
Artificer’s Armor - Innovation and construction of magical items is a dangerous practice, at least as far as members of your class are concerned. As a shield against this risk, you have developed a set of magical armor.
Starting at 6 level, you construct a set of magical armor (a magical item that only you can attune to). While wearing this attuned armor, the wearer chooses and imbues this armor with resistance to a damage type of their choice: acid, cold, fire, force, lightning or thunder. This choice can be changed by expending 75gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or a long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) working.
The magical armor has the same nonmagical properties and traits as the chosen set of armor. You can create a new set of armor over the course of 7 days of work (8 hours each day) and expending 300gp worth of raw materials or by expending 150gp worth of raw materials and spending 8 hours (or long rest, gaining 1 point of exhaustion) preparing a set of nonmagical armor and touching both sets of armor. This process transfers the magical properties from one suit to another. Doing so removes the magic from your previous set of armor, turning it into a set of nonmagical armor.
This is a base class feature. It provides a set of magical armor, while at the same time it addresses the crafting nature of the Artificer. I don't expect everyone to like this feature, but I find it a better feature than the Mechanical Servant from the 2017 UA and Arcane Armament of the 2019 UA.
This feels like a disagreement about the base concept. A mission statement level disagreement, if you will. Right from the description of the current Artificer they mention unlocking magic from everyday items. They are arcane inventors, not real life engineers. They are magitech, not technology.
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!
@Ophidimancer: Pretty much. But then I'm bored at work, so why not have the debate?
@Marine: the issue I have with this idea of yours is exactly what I said to you before: there's no reason to take your ideal artificer on an adventure. "The person who creates magical and non-magical items for the party" has no reason to ever set foot outside their safe, well-equipped workshop and step into a dungeon because any class feature they have is one they are, by your explicit and fundamental design, able to give away to someone else who's better set up to use it. An artificer in this mold does nothing that requires it to actually accompany the party, nor does the party WANT this artificer to accompany them because this artificer is 100% a liability in every conceivable situation wherein anyone else wearing the artificer's crap could've come along instead.
Your suggested class feature is a great indicator of this. As a CLASS FEATURE, the artificer gains...the ability to craft Armor of Resistance. Just...simple, basic Armor of Resistance. It is a class feature the artificer must pay copious quantities of gold for and swallow constant exhaustion to utilize as anything but a regular, ordinary suit of Armor of Resistance. Anyone else who just...just has a set of Armor of Resistance is gaining the sixth-level class feature of this Artificer. Any other character with a suit of Armor of Resistance has the same "class feature" as your character, BUT ALSO a regular ordinary sixth-level class feature of their own. And yes, I know, only the artificer can wear this special suit of technically-variable Armor of Resistance. here's the thing - why would they want to, when they can just stay home instead and not have to deal with the threat of taking damage at all?
I've said it before, I'll doubtless say it again - an artificer whose only job is crafting stuff is an artificer that has no business being a PC. The 2019 artificer, as much guff as people are giving it, is a flexible expert in magical infusion and quickfire combat tinkering that pulls their weight in a dungeon. Is it perfect? Nah. But it's worlds better than the 2017 version, and it honestly feels a lot more like someone with a gift or talent for bringing out the magic of the world around them rather than simply imposing their will on the Weave.
Like Ophi said - magitech, not real-life engineering. I work in the technology sector, and lemme tell you - a real-life engineer would NOT go along with a dungeon crawl just because he made the stuff the actual dungeon crawlers are using to do it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I find myself agreeing with Yurei on this point. I don't like a class feature that you have to spend money on to use. Or even if so, why would the class feature of a technologist not be an array of things to choose from? After all, it's about what they can build, right?
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!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorA bit late on the comment, but personally I want to see new weapon cantrips (like those) that also work with ranged weapons.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
That does seem a very natural extension of the artificer's magic-meets-tools identity, and a good way for them to dodge the pitfalls and awkwardness of Arcane Assault for people who haven't warmed up to it/don't care for the idea. It's already pretty easy to imagine an artificer's Firebolt cantrip as an enchanted crossbow bolt or their Acid Splash as (eeuuugh...) hurled flasks of acid, but some honest to Bob weapon-delivered spells akin to GFB or Booming would be awesome. Artificers could gain a feature allowing them to use Intelligence to attack with such cantrips rather than their native weapon stat, a'la the Battlesmith, as a way of differentiating artificers from other potential users of those spells.
Heh, and Wizards could FINALLY FRICKIN' SPECIFY that attacks made during the course of such a cantrip count as magical. Wouldn't that be nice.
Please do not contact or message me.
@Marine:
You see the the Artificer fulfilling a very niche roll within the party, and that’s perfectly fine. You’ll get no argument from me about that.
I see the Artificer as standing on a large, green, rectangular court with a crisp, white line painted around it. Across the center of the court is another white line, and standing opposite the Artificer is a Wizard. The two of them are singing a D&D duet of Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better and attempting to outdo each other, one with Magic, and the other with Magitech.
If the Artificer gets designed the way you suggest, then you get to be happy. Other people who envision their Artificers differently... maybe not so much. If the Artificer “Spell List” were to be more inclusive then you could still have yours fulfilling the roll you imagine for them, and everyone else could also have theirs fulfill the roles they envision as well.
I don’t think you’re wrong at all. But I also don’t think the players who want something different for their Characters are wrong either. I am simply advocating for a change to the Class that would allow everyone to get as close as possible to their ideal Artificer.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have to respectfully disagree with you here just a little bit. This is one point with which I am in agreement with Marine. To me, the “Magic” in the “Magitech” is that it exists at all. Kind of like Forge from the X-Men. Once the devices are created the are just devices. Miraculous, wonderful, devices to be sure, but they work on cogs and springs and such. The fact that an Artificer can even conceive of, let alone build them is the Artificer’s “Magic.” The fact that the Artificer can do it so quickly, truly mind blowing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I appreciate the respectful tone, but it's not me you're disagreeing with, it's Wizards of the Coast. That's the Artificer they chose to create. One that builds explicitly magical items and invokes magic in their artifice.
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!
That said, they're also really good at technology, with their expertise in artisan's tools.
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!
Touché Ophid, you are correct on all counts.
I do however disagree with WotC and wish they had given us something mechanically different from Spell Casting to emphasize the “Magi” less and the “Tech” more. How many Classes and Subclasses have Spell Slots? More than half? It would be nice if there was someone on the other side of that line who could match their effects without them.
I gotta say it, I’m bored of everybody getting Spell Slots one way or another. Show me something different, show me something that makes me go “ooohhh” like when this was all new to me. This and the Mystic were my two best hopes. 🥺
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I dunno. I play Fate, so I'm used to reskinning mechanics to do what I want so I don't really feel the need for a whole new subsystem to keep things fresh.
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!