You response to my post just proves that you are a player that wants constant combat. You have no desire for the actual roleplaying or the downtime aspects of D&D. If you want to play a class that is purely all about combat, then play the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin. If you want to play a caster that uses gadgets to simulate their spells, then consider playing a full caster that has training in different tool sets. Not all classes are 100% combat orientated, but yes they do have combat aspects to them. Changing a class that is not designed purely for combat into a class designed to fight on par with a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin doesn't make it fun.
There is more to D&D than just combat all the time.
Also, your idea of fun is not the same as everyone else.
Now that's downright insulting, especially when I was at loggerheads with Arutha earlier in the thread over a desire to avoid shoving more combat mechanics into the Artificer.
First of all: please stop talking to me about downtime.Downtime is not a valid pillar of D&D. Downtime is something that happens between sessions. Nobody ever plays downtime at the table beyond a highlight reel. Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D. If I get the word "Downtime" flung in my face one more time I might scream.
Stop talking about downtime, please. Please. Please, stop talking about downtime.
Please?
Thank you.
Now. The artificer does not need to be a 'combat expert', no. it does, however, need to be able to not drag the party down in a fight, which the 2019 artificer accomplishes via an eclectic but flavorful mix of half-casting, mechanized combat companions, and bass-ackwards magic weapon utilization. That's fine. The artificer also needs to be able to contribute to exploration and Adventure - which, in this case, we shall classify as the act of undertaking a challenging series of encounters which include but are not limited to combats, traversal puzzles ("how do we get across this giant gap filled with necrospikes?"), Puzzle Rooms, field social/negotiation encounters ("Okay, Mr. Hobgoblin War Band, here's how we can all profit from this..."), and more.
The 2019 artificer accomplishes this through, again, half-casting, as well as the ability to switch which magical items they're using on long rest to better suit what the party could use in their pool of Magic Infusions. A feature which is surprisingly cool and allows many of the underused, undervalued Hinky Utility Items in the magic item list to finally get a chance to shine.
An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to combat any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to Adventuring any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. You can play your ideal artificer right now - make a level 1 character with no class selected, pick four to six tool proficiencies instead, and get your DM to build a crafting system for you to utilize those tool proficiencies with. Boom - "ideal artificer".
And since this is at least the fifth time I'm making this same argument, I'm going to stop talking about it now. Any more of this nonsense, I'm just going to ignore, because I'm not ending up having another ten pages of "but the downtimes! THE DOWNTIMES!" thrown in my face.
ANYWAYS...
@Ophi: I absolutely hear you, man. Nobody remembers that anybody in any class can use Two-Weapon Fighting for free, even wizards/sorcerers. They're bad at it, but they can do it. All the fighting style gives you is ability mod to damage of the bonus attack, and all the bad feat gives you is a wider selection of stuff to TWF with. Super frustrating trying to have that discussion though.
You response to my post just proves that you are a player that wants constant combat. You have no desire for the actual roleplaying or the downtime aspects of D&D. If you want to play a class that is purely all about combat, then play the Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin. If you want to play a caster that uses gadgets to simulate their spells, then consider playing a full caster that has training in different tool sets. Not all classes are 100% combat orientated, but yes they do have combat aspects to them. Changing a class that is not designed purely for combat into a class designed to fight on par with a Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin doesn't make it fun.
There is more to D&D than just combat all the time.
Also, your idea of fun is not the same as everyone else.
Now that's downright insulting, especially when I was at loggerheads with Arutha earlier in the thread over a desire to avoid shoving more combat mechanics into the Artificer.
First of all: please stop talking to me about downtime.Downtime is not a valid pillar of D&D. Downtime is something that happens between sessions. Nobody ever plays downtime at the table beyond a highlight reel. Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D. If I get the word "Downtime" flung in my face one more time I might scream.
Stop talking about downtime, please. Please. Please, stop talking about downtime.
Please?
Thank you.
Now. The artificer does not need to be a 'combat expert', no. it does, however, need to be able to not drag the party down in a fight, which the 2019 artificer accomplishes via an eclectic but flavorful mix of half-casting, mechanized combat companions, and bass-ackwards magic weapon utilization. That's fine. The artificer also needs to be able to contribute to exploration and Adventure - which, in this case, we shall classify as the act of undertaking a challenging series of encounters which include but are not limited to combats, traversal puzzles ("how do we get across this giant gap filled with necrospikes?"), Puzzle Rooms, field social/negotiation encounters ("Okay, Mr. Hobgoblin War Band, here's how we can all profit from this..."), and more.
The 2019 artificer accomplishes this through, again, half-casting, as well as the ability to switch which magical items they're using on long rest to better suit what the party could use in their pool of Magic Infusions. A feature which is surprisingly cool and allows many of the underused, undervalued Hinky Utility Items in the magic item list to finally get a chance to shine.
An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to combat any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to Adventuring any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. You can play your ideal artificer right now - make a level 1 character with no class selected, pick four to six tool proficiencies instead, and get your DM to build a crafting system for you to utilize those tool proficiencies with. Boom - "ideal artificer".
And since this is at least the fifth time I'm making this same argument, I'm going to stop talking about it now. Any more of this nonsense, I'm just going to ignore, because I'm not ending up having another ten pages of "but the downtimes! THE DOWNTIMES!" thrown in my face.
ANYWAYS...
@Ophi: I absolutely hear you, man. Nobody remembers that anybody in any class can use Two-Weapon Fighting for free, even wizards/sorcerers. They're bad at it, but they can do it. All the fighting style gives you is ability mod to damage of the bonus attack, and all the bad feat gives you is a wider selection of stuff to TWF with. Super frustrating trying to have that discussion though.
Thank you so much, this is exactly how I feel. Doesn't need to be focused on combat, but should be competent at it. About the TWF stuff: that is incredibly annoying as well. I only know it because the wizard in my party is inordinately obsessed with daggers.
What I said wasn't an insult it was stated fact and your comment "Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D." just proves that what I said wasn't an insult. You forget that there is no wrong way or right way to play D&D. Yes, roleplaying downtime is a part of playing D&D and any other rpg. I have played downtime in D&D and a host of other rpgs. I have also seen downtime played in D&D and a host of other rpgs. So, don't downplay downtime because you see it as something that is done between sessions and doesn't merit any roleplaying.
My issue about the current 2019 Artificer is that the crafting ability (which isn't the classes only ability) was sacrificed in exchange for expanded spellcasting and near instantaneous creation of temporary magic items. D&D isn't about always having the right tool or spells or whatever for the job all the time (what fun would that be). It is making do with what you have on hand at that time. If you do need a certain item or spell or whatever, than obtaining it can be an adventure all on it's own.
You may not like downtime and you may not like crafting, but they are parts of D&D.
I always allow my players to take downtime when they chose. In my current Ebberon-based Tomb of Annihilation campaign, they haven't been able to take as much downtime as they like because they know lives are being lost daily.
The party just got the last of the Puzzle Cube Keys in tonights session. With is session they have been at it for 29 days and are about to take a Long Rest making it 30 days . . .
Even so, they have found the time to make Potions of Healing, Antitoxins, acids and alchemist's Fire's.
I've run one campaign where the player's insisted on taking downtime only to get to their destination too late. The bad guys had completed their sacrifices and awoken the ancient evil. Needless to say the party's reputations were in tatters. Many fair weather friend turned on them but fortunately they had some real friends who helped hide and cover for them.
It has always been my policy to let the player do what they wanted, good or bad, but also let them know there would be consequences to their actions.
Downtime should be a tool AND a roleplaying experience for the players. Not either/or.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
You may not like downtime and you may not like crafting, but they are parts of D&D.
I think it my be important to distinguish the fact that if the DM and all the players don't like downtime and crafting, then technically they don't have to be a part of their D&D.
That is the beauty of D&D: it is flexible enough to be what works for each group!
You may not like downtime and you may not like crafting, but they are parts of D&D.
I think it my be important to distinguish the fact that if the DM and all the players don't like downtime and crafting, then technically they don't have to be a part of their D&D.
That is the beauty of D&D: it is flexible enough to be what works for each group!
I agree with you assessment. The rules of D&D are not rules but guidelines. A DM is free to use, change, or ignore any of them as they see fit. But to say things like...
"Downtime is not a valid pillar of D&D. Downtime is something that happens between sessions. Nobody ever plays downtime at the table beyond a highlight reel. Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D."
Is in my opinion forcing their views onto others. The same goes with crafting. Fifth edition was designed in such a way that allows for practically any play style. I have seen DMs allow casters like the Cleric, Druid and Wizard pick their spell lists after a long rest and I have seen others require players with the same classes take the time to study and memorize their chosen spells.
I have said it before and I will say it again.... There is no right way or wrong way to play D&D.
You're absolutely right that there's no right or wrong way to play D&D. As long as everyone's having fun, you're doing it right.
There is, however, an intended and supported way to play D&D. After all, it's completely okay to play a farmer managing your crop and trying to stay ahead of economic forces to make a living, but unless your farmer is doing so by kicking down doors, slaying monsters, or negotiating hostage situations you're going to be playing a much different game than the developers intended and most of the community is playing. Unless I missed the tables about seed pricing, fertilizer distribution, and crop rotations?
I'm not sure it's fair to go there and be annoyed at the rest of us for wanting to play the game as its labeled on the tin. It's kinda like going to a Marvel movie and complaining that there's not enough, I dunno, Regency romance?
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!
@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.
Who says that those two statements have to make sense? Nothing about the Artificer class makes sense to begin with. The class is supposed to be about crafting, but 90% of the class is spellcasting and imbuing magical properties into non-magical items, 7.5% is about melee combat and 2.5% is about crafting. By that account the Artificer is no long a crafter but in instead a spellcaster.
From your post it looks like you completely overlooked the part where I didn't have an issue with direct damaging spell for the subclasses (as long as they make sense).
Marine this is quite discouraging to further discussion if you admit your own logic makes no sense. I disagree that much of anything in published content lacks sense when viewed in a high fantasy setting, but I guess that is a matter of perspective.
A forum (both IRL and online) is a place to present ideas and debate the merits of ideas you like, to judge the interest of other people. What me and a few others have called you out on is: You are respectfully presenting your idea but repeatedly without actually trying to support your side (as seen above I am not sure you believe it yourself and are just dug into protectionism of your initial idea), and disrespectfully trying to destroy anyone who holds the other side to you.
While I grant there are many people in the world and that may be how you generally discuss I hope you understand why there is so much clash with your idea. You have not explained to us why your side of the argument, only crafting buff spells and no combat abilities on core class makes sense as everyone’s only type of Artificer? As Yurie has pointed out your main class is not an adventurer. And your whole premise seems to be the first google definition of an Artificer, while the first google definition of a Monk or Cleric or Bard also lacks any adventuring qualities. The choice has been made: crafters, singers and clergy that go out to adventure Are the combat trained ones, while the other 80% that stay home are the NPCs.
If you want to play an Artificer with no damage spells: just select that way in character creation and at level ups, same as a Bard can currently by choice play full buffer/controller (and to better success than any Artificer, hence it is not a novel idea or unique concept) And if you want to play one that is bad at combat: convince your DM to let you play a 8 8 8 18 8 8 stat block.
I also see the merit of a core class that has its focus not in combat with combat handled by subclasses. So far that is not the design choice made by WotC, and it is understandable why: WotC prefer every class to be accessible to majority of the player base with decisions of subclasses left to a secondary refinement of character or theme. If the core Artificer is not balanced to combat then every subclass has to consider how to give a minor buff, eg. Cleric’s Devine Smite vs Potent Cantrips (and the XGtE Ranger buffed subclasses, as arguably core Ranger is simply an Exploration guide NPC). If a base class has no combat ability and a subclass of it has no combat ability then that subclass type is locked to some portion of the player base, and that theme is completely dead to those people that want to play all pillars of adventuring.
I think this discussion could also benefit from a categorisation when an Idea is presented, as it is the cause of a few issues. Maybe something along the following lines:
Type 0 ideas: Feedback on Balance, something in the UA which may not be working as intended/expected/fun way and suggestions on language. EG. MA to deploy Artillerist Turret, BA+MA to do anything on Archivist.
Type 1 ideas: Could be potentially added to official release. EG. Moving Right Cantrip for the Job to level 1, Artillerist Turret more like Spirit Weapon.
Type 2 ideas: Homebrew food for thought, too late to make such a drastic change. EG. Pact caster type Artificer, Half Pact caster, No spell Artificer. (Same category as Spell less Ranger, Homebrew material)
Type 3 ideas: How I intend to play my Artificer. Which is often phrased as Type 1 and is very destructive because it is a form of “Enforcing my will onto others”
Type 4 ideas: Venting Anger & WotC and everyone else is wrong. Exemplified by the use of the words “I Hate” and “Everyone”. These are not productive because this thread is here for people that like 5e not to challenge the establishment and rebuild a new glorious edition of DnD.
What causes issue is when we mistake someone’s Type 2 suggestion with Type 1 both of which have a place in the thread just discussed differently. Type 3 is good too if you phrased accurately, but Type 4 tends to boil down to you should start by playing a different TTRPG and homebrewing an Artificer there. Many of the suggestions in Type 4 even if phrased for Artificer, are also veiled criticisms of Rangers and 5e in general and would require bigger changes than possible in one Eberron book.
I know some people have differences in phrasing that makes them come off as aggressive so there is no point in getting angry at each other as long as you know people are using a different logic to you. I know new people won’t see this but at least the core group active in the thread can take this into account, at this point I have been talking to some people in this thread for 6+ months.
TLDR: WotC have decided to release an Int Half caster, to fill out the roster since we have half Cha and half Wis already. (In fact I think that an Int orWis Pact caster might be next) And Artificer fits this bill as it is closely related to Int and yet not a full Wizard. But also not a physical attacker as that is only Str Dex and Con, and they don’t want to complicate explanations for new players.(with the exaction of specific subclasses) As Hunter is to Druid and Paladin is to Cleric so too should Artificer be to Wizard, similar but slower in return for not full reliance on spell slots. So suggestions related to breaking the above definitions are not really for this forum they are more for something internal to WotC feedback. Or at least phrase them as such. And avoid repeatedly stating your idea without adding to it, explaining some detail, or explaining how something else would clash with your suggestion in a way that is not solvable in game.
Notice: "The core rules of D&D support games of epic heroes who slay hideous monsters in the face of overwhelming odds, and claim the loot that they guard as a reward."
"Toning D&D all the way down from “heroic” to “gritty” requires so much customization on your part that you would honestly be better off playing a different game entirely."
"The game mechanics of D&D suit several very specific moods, feelings, and genres, and trying to change the engine of the game too much for a homebrew campaign is a fool’s errand."
"There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of roleplaying games out there—don’t torture yourself trying to fit a square peg into a D&D-shaped hole."
Artificers may be crafters, but they're still D&D heroes who kick ass, take names, and get loot.
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!
That's not to say there isn't room for a crafter in the genre of epic heroic fantasy. There is! But think about how they are portrayed, especially in ensemble pieces where they are part of a team instead of the main hero.
Usually they will pull out something nifty that helps turn the tide of battle. Sometimes there will be a quick flashback about them crafting something crucial. At the very most there might be a quick montage of them putting something together. It's not about the painstaking process in epic fantasy, it's about the results.
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 my own opinion, I think while the three pillars of 5e: Combat, Exploration and Social have been codified by Crawford previously, his word is also subject to change as is everyone else’s.
Either he would say that Downtime is actually a form of Exploration, in that in both cases you are exploring what your characters do in quieter days between action and plot points. (Which is actually fitting as they are both explained about equally horribly in DMG, but also a reason why I connect both in my homebrew Idea)
Or my personal favourite, Downtime should be added as an other pillar, but it should be phrased as “Combat and the three pillars that support it Social, Exploration and Downtime.” As that implies accurately in my opinion that combat is 50% of the game, and the other three share the other 50% of time. (With exceptions like Political games, Lost in the woods/survival games, and Bloodline games)
Also I brought up previously, what is the martial niche Artificer will fill? (Beyond 2 attacks per turn, Fighter get MA attacks, Monk BA attacks, Barb Extra flat damage per attack, Ranger Extra Dice per attack, Rogue Extra Dice once per turn and Paladin Extra dice on hits)
That is likely why the designers at WotC gave every Artificer BA scaling damage from a non weapon source. However the delivery of pet class is criticised and almost surely will disappear. I previously suggested Dual Cast Cantrips but that moves them too far away from Martial. So what can replace pets as a martial niche?
I wouldn’t mind as someone suggested if Artificer becomes the One Attack per turn expert by claiming Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade and some ranged versions as it’s core martial concept. It is not the only class that gets them but is the best at utilising them, same as I count Hunters Mark as a Ranger core martial concept. And it fits the spell type of enchantment suggested by Arcane Weapon.
In my opinion Downtime is a part of the Roleplay aspect of D&D. Also, to wizards, it a critical aspect of their class. Wizard's need downtime to writng spell they find while Adventuring into their spellbooks. Wizard's are the only class to date who absolutely must have gold, A large chunk of all caster's spell need components with a gp value, but wizard also have to spend gold to add spells to their repertoire.
The way some people want the Artificer to go would make them even more expensive to play than a wizard. Why adventure when most of your gain just goes into your functionality.
A few years ago a couple of players at my table told me of a campign they'd bee4n in where it was more profitable to do downtime activities than it was to adventure. I believe the campaign lasted 3 sessions before all the players bailed.
I beileve in the 3 pillars, but I have experience campaigns that were more based on 1-2 pillars and ignored the 3rd.
Ever since World of Warcraft came out, people have been insisting more and more on the concept of Balance in D&D. It started in 3rd edition, went way over board in 4th, and is still present, to the detriment of the game in my opinion, in 5th edition. In my opinion, the concept of balance should be tossed in the trash bin. It ruins the game. Adventures League is the most ridiculous example of this.
I started playing D&D with the Original Red box set in 1981. I have been DM's since practically the beginning. I have played all versions of D&D, including the original box set of small books (Chain mail, Greyhawk, etc.). I played 4E for a while before the perpetual changes for the purposes of Balancing the game drover me over to Pathfinder until the advent of 5th Edition.
No matter what we saynow, and/or do, WotC has finalized a version of the Artificer that will be realeases on Nov. 19. I hope it turns out to be what we want for the most part, but from some of the things I've seen them realease after UA, I am not holding my breath.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
To be fair, wizards natively learn forty-four spells (discounting cantrips) by level 20, eight of which can be 9th-level. Even without ever once scribing a 'found' spell into their spellbook, wizards learn almost triple the spells a sorcerer does and double what a bard ends up with. Yes, technically the divine casters "know" more spells, but their spell lists are sharply limited compared to wizards as accommodation for the fact that they have access to all of it to select from on short long rest.
Wizards don't need found spells to keep up, though it absolutely helps them. As for 'balance', nobody likes being the party booby. It's why the whole quadratic-wizards thing was addressed and why 5e was built so that martial characters tend to be the party's most reliable damage sources - nobody plays this game to exclusively watch other people have fun. if your character becomes functionally useless by tenth level because the party wizard has so outstripped your abilities in anything and everything you do that there's no longer a point for you to even be there save to carry the wizard's loot, why stay?
As for the bloody downtime thing, I'm generally on board with something you said earlier in the thread, Mergon. Players can inform me, as a DM, that they're taking some time off and they can do exactly that. But - and this is deeply ironic given the number of times folks like Marine and Paladin have accused me of being a stupid impatient Johnny-come-lately video game addict that's just Ruining D&D Forever(TM) with my modern teen-nerd sensibilities - when players take downtime?
The world doesn't pause for them while they do it.
If they're taking downtime because they're between adventures, having Saved The Day and opting to take a load off before heading out to do it again? Sure. That's part of the reward for Saving The Day, the chance to sit down for a while and enjoy the spoils. They want to spend some of that time, and a bit of session time, socializing and chatting around town, making connections and building character? Go for it, that sort of shit is great. If they want to spend two hours of session time narrating the precise, step-by-step process they use to assemble their outfit in the morning every day of their downtime, I'ma step on it because that's not fair to the rest of the table. Like I said - highlight reel, and if the highlight reel spawns some interesting scenes then we can duck into those and play them out.
If somebody says "I want to take two weeks to try and craft some new gear" and manages to convince the party of it while they are actively engaged in trying to discover and thwart the BBEG's nefarious plot? Well, that BBEG isn't going to stop plotting nefariously just because the heroes are leveling their Smithing in Whiterun. The heroes are going to find out, when they decide to go be adventurers again and Save The Day, that their jobs have gotten much more difficult after giving the BBEG two extra unopposed weeks to further their aforementioned plots of now +2 nefariousness. Time is valuable, and other people aren't going to waste theirs just because you're wasting yours. If that means the party loses and has to withdraw, perhaps even abandon whatever town they were operating out of because they're no longer able to safely stay there? Then everybody's learned a valuable lesson about prioritization.
Which, finally, goes back into why the artificer needs to be a functional adventurer as well as just an inventor. Because if you're not adventuring, Saving The Day and foiling the bad guys, who the hell else is going to?
When I'd played in adventures that have no Downtime, I feel like an Individual who goes to work, does his shift, then is put in stasis until the next session. Most of my players feel the same way. It why, of 8 people I usualy run for, only 2 others have been succeedful as DM's. The others just couldn't keep the interest of the players with non-stop combat. Of course those players usually run non-casters, or GISH characters.
I've dropped out of more ?campaigns? than I can count due to the lack of Downtime. My rpeference is for Living campaign worlds. This means downtime and decent levels of Roleplay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Somebody give me a wall to bang my head on. Preferably one they don't need in one piece later.
I resign the discussion. Nobody is paying attention anymore. We'll get what we get in November, apparently everyone will hate it because it's not a class that exists solely and completely for downtime crafting, and I will likely play it anyways the next time I get to play instead of DM.
To me combat isnt even a pillar of d&d... It is the necessary evil that you cannot forgo. But if you actually look at what the masses wants then i wonder where you guys are looking because everyone is trying to change d&d combat slugs to cinematic next to no dice rolling. Which proves further more that combat shouldnt even be a pillar to begin with.
That said... You guys think pillars are a truth... They are not. As to me the pillars are nothing but styles you can give to your game. Of everything d&d is and isnt... I will say it again... Its a simulation game and simulation games are way too complex to make em just be about combat.
Sorry but even if my players have goodberry and the likes. They still have to dodge that sun in the desert. Sorry but there is still chance for social encounter or crafting or whatever deal they want during their sleeping time.
Sorry but to me a dm who just handwaves my downtimes is gonna get a player less seat real fast. So many missed opportunities when you just handwave stuff.
As for those who only want cinematics...
Sorry but the only reason the stream works like that is that they have fookin actors playing it. Real games dont have that.
I feel one thing in this whole thread though... It is that people dont like the artificer cause its not fitting in with modules and in modules the downtimes are hand waved. So i feel like were talking to people who just want word for word rulings. While the other side wants a different class.
Guess what guys... Thanks to that were not getting what we want. Create your own class then.... Heres my solution to you.
Ps... Fighter gets 5 attacks at level 5. Thanks to action surge. Monks have 4 attacks at level 5 thanks to flurry of blows. Clerics of war have 2 attacks since level 1 with a two handed weapon. Rogues have only 2 attacks period at any levels. Barbarians have 3 attacks at level 5. And i could go on like that. And it goes higher with multiclassing as well as a warlock sorcerer fighter can fire 12 eldritch blast rays at level 17... So yeah...
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 am not trying to be disrespectful or trying to destroy anyone else's view. I am just trying to get others to understand mine.
The below are my main disagreements with the 2019 Artificer base class.
1) The Artificer is the class that is supposed to be the class that crafts non-magical and magical items. In the case of magical items, they should be permanent. Instead of the Artificer just need to touch a non-magical item and after a long rest, poof it is a magic item (a temporary one). If the party's Artificer dies, then any infused items that party members may have will become useless in a matter of days. That means if the party has a INFUSED bag of hold, the contents of said bag would be lost in the Astral Plane (unless they are removed before hand). Other than the subclasses, there is no real benefit to crafting permanent magic items. The Artificer jut needs to touch an item and they transform it into a magic item.
2) Two abilities that (in my opinion) are useless with the 2019 Artificer is magical tinkering and tool expertise. Tool expertise is meant to aid the Artificer when they actually attempt to craft an item (magical or not). But why have tool expertise when you damn near eliminate actual crafting all together from the class. Nothing about the base class is actual crafting, so why give the class any benefits that has to deal with their tool sets? Magical tinkering on the other hand, creates static objects that at best can be used as a distraction but at worst used to attract customers to a shop. At least magic item analysis allowed the Artificer the ability to cast 2 spells without expending a spell slot and the need for material components. And they can do this whenever they wanted. And these spells were actually useful in finding and identifying magic items.
3) I have said it several times. The Artificer's spellcasting has a major flaw. The only way you can cast an Artificer's spell is with a tool kit you are proficient with or an infusion.
"Tools Required - 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. 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." (pg. 3 2019 Artificer UA)
This feature of the spellcasting ability isn't limited to spells that have material components. This feature is also talking about spells that have the verbal and/or somatic traits. Unlike other spellcasters or half-casters, they only need spellcasting focuses for the spells requiring material components that don't have a cost or are consumed.
So, if you are robbed or you are incarcerated, your chances of being able to cast a spell are slim to none. Other casters don't have this issue, as they don't need a spellcasting focus to cast spells that have the verbal and/or somatic traits.
As for the direct damaging spells. I liked the fact that the 2017 Artificer spell list consisted of utility spells. It had the feel of a crafter. However, I felt the spellcasting ability and list fell short. I like how the 2019 Artificer's spellcasting ability allowed preparing spells like the cleric and druid and I also like the fact that cantrips were also added. However, I feel that including direct damaging spells and spells that are generally associated with clerics and druids, took the spell list in the wrong direction. This is due to the fact that those spells take away from the soul and true meaning of the Artificer.
4) Arcane Armament is only useful if you have a magic weapon. If for some reason you don't have a magic weapon, this feature becomes useless.
5) The right cantrip for the job is an overpowered ability. The Wizard who is supposed to be the master of the arcane arts only knows a max of 5 cantrips at 20th level (not counting feats). But yet a half-caster gets the ability to swap out their cantrips after a short or long rest doesn't work for me.
Cantrips are supposed to be those spells that were learned after repeatedly casting them. This infuses the knowledge of the spell in the caster's mind and they always have the magic necessary to cast it whenever they want. But the Artificer is supposed to cast their spells through their tool sets and described as gadgets, salves or balms. That would mean the blueprints for building devices that simulate the effects of cantrip were also memorized. But at 10th level, they now know the blueprints for all of Artificer's cantrips? I don't buy it. As this would mean the Artificer who is supposed to create magic items knows more about cantrips than a Wizard who is the master of the arcane arts.
6) Spell-storing item is an ability that was rebuilt from the 2017 Artificer infuse magic ability. This ability allows the Artificer to store a 1st or 2nd level spell into a simple or martial weapon, or an item that can be used as a spellcasting focus (i.e. an infusion). The Artificer doesn't have to expend a spell slot infuse the spell into the object and they can pick a spell they do not have prepared. To top it off, the spell can be cast a number of times equal to double the caster Intelligence modifier or until the ability is used again and anyone can use it. There are several parts of this ability that I disagree with. The first (and most important in my opinion) is that an infusion can be used to store the spell. This essentially allows the Artificer to infuse 2 different magic abilities into a single item (unbalanced). Second, I thought spells were supposed to be represented as gadgets, salves, or balms. How is a gadget that isn't a simple or martial weapon, or a spellcasting focus be used in conjunction with this ability? Third, if the cure wounds spell is used, the player who is in possession of the item could potentially have 10 cure wounds spells stored in an item (again unbalanced).
In a best possible outcome situation for this ability, an Elf Artificer (who has an Intelligence modifier of +5) who is 145 years old gets their hands on a Tome of Clear Thoughts that hasn't been used. And if said Elf lives to be 750, they can effectively read the Tome of Clear Thoughts 7 times giving them a +12 Intelligence modifier. Which means the spell-storing item can be used 24 times.
I would rather see the item be single use, the spell be 1st level or higher, use spells that have a casting time of 1 action, bonus action or reaction, and limit the number of items that can be created.
The powers that be at D&D specifically tell use to describe the object that is being used to simulate the spell effect, but at the same time the Artificer is imbuing magical properties into non-magical items, summoning things out of thin air, and using magic to make things happen. My understanding of the 2019 Artificer was that it didn't rely on the arcane arts, but instead the gadgets they create.
To be fair, wizards natively learn forty-four spells (discounting cantrips) by level 20, eight of which can be 9th-level. Even without ever once scribing a 'found' spell into their spellbook, wizards learn almost triple the spells a sorcerer does and double what a bard ends up with. Yes, technically the divine casters "know" more spells, but their spell lists are sharply limited compared to wizards as accommodation for the fact that they have access to all of it to select from on short long rest.
Wizards don't need found spells to keep up, though it absolutely helps them. As for 'balance', nobody likes being the party booby.
Nobody plays this game to exclusively watch other people have fun.
Yurei,
You are correct. A wizard naturally has access to 44 spells by the time they reach level 20. However, there are 268 spells available to the wizard (not counting cantrips which there are 29). So, if we use your line of thinking in regards to the spells that wizard knows, those 44 spells account for less than 17% of the total number of spells available to the wizard. And while yes a Wizard can get eight 9th level spells, your 44 spells would effectively limit the wizard to approximately 5 spells per spell level (not counting cantrips).
No person playing a wizard will be satisfied with limiting themselves to just 44 spells. Those players would want additional spells added to their spellbook, which would giving them more options of dealing with different situations (just like the 2019 Artificer's infusions and the right cantrip for the job abilities).
You are also wrong. A wizard does need those found spells (found or purchased) in order to keep up. There is no "balance" to the game just because a person playing a wizard doesn't want to be the "party booby". Your statement..."nobody plays this game to exclusively watch other people have fun." That is a true statement. But if you *****, moan, or complain that your wizard wants to take the time to add new spells to their spellbook, this will make them feel like they are inconveniencing you. Which can caused them to watch you fun have at their expense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now that's downright insulting, especially when I was at loggerheads with Arutha earlier in the thread over a desire to avoid shoving more combat mechanics into the Artificer.
First of all: please stop talking to me about downtime. Downtime is not a valid pillar of D&D. Downtime is something that happens between sessions. Nobody ever plays downtime at the table beyond a highlight reel. Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D. If I get the word "Downtime" flung in my face one more time I might scream.
Stop talking about downtime, please. Please. Please, stop talking about downtime.
Please?
Thank you.
Now. The artificer does not need to be a 'combat expert', no. it does, however, need to be able to not drag the party down in a fight, which the 2019 artificer accomplishes via an eclectic but flavorful mix of half-casting, mechanized combat companions, and bass-ackwards magic weapon utilization. That's fine. The artificer also needs to be able to contribute to exploration and Adventure - which, in this case, we shall classify as the act of undertaking a challenging series of encounters which include but are not limited to combats, traversal puzzles ("how do we get across this giant gap filled with necrospikes?"), Puzzle Rooms, field social/negotiation encounters ("Okay, Mr. Hobgoblin War Band, here's how we can all profit from this..."), and more.
The 2019 artificer accomplishes this through, again, half-casting, as well as the ability to switch which magical items they're using on long rest to better suit what the party could use in their pool of Magic Infusions. A feature which is surprisingly cool and allows many of the underused, undervalued Hinky Utility Items in the magic item list to finally get a chance to shine.
An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to combat any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. An artificer whose sole and only job is to craft magic stuff for other people to use does not contribute to Adventuring any more effectively than a Commoner kitted in the stuff the artificer makes does. You can play your ideal artificer right now - make a level 1 character with no class selected, pick four to six tool proficiencies instead, and get your DM to build a crafting system for you to utilize those tool proficiencies with. Boom - "ideal artificer".
And since this is at least the fifth time I'm making this same argument, I'm going to stop talking about it now. Any more of this nonsense, I'm just going to ignore, because I'm not ending up having another ten pages of "but the downtimes! THE DOWNTIMES!" thrown in my face.
ANYWAYS...
@Ophi: I absolutely hear you, man. Nobody remembers that anybody in any class can use Two-Weapon Fighting for free, even wizards/sorcerers. They're bad at it, but they can do it. All the fighting style gives you is ability mod to damage of the bonus attack, and all the bad feat gives you is a wider selection of stuff to TWF with. Super frustrating trying to have that discussion though.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thank you so much, this is exactly how I feel. Doesn't need to be focused on combat, but should be competent at it. About the TWF stuff: that is incredibly annoying as well. I only know it because the wizard in my party is inordinately obsessed with daggers.
DM for 3 campaigns
Lizardfolk Battle Smith Artificer
Gnome War Wizard
Human Tempest Cleric
@Yurei1453
What I said wasn't an insult it was stated fact and your comment "Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D." just proves that what I said wasn't an insult. You forget that there is no wrong way or right way to play D&D. Yes, roleplaying downtime is a part of playing D&D and any other rpg. I have played downtime in D&D and a host of other rpgs. I have also seen downtime played in D&D and a host of other rpgs. So, don't downplay downtime because you see it as something that is done between sessions and doesn't merit any roleplaying.
My issue about the current 2019 Artificer is that the crafting ability (which isn't the classes only ability) was sacrificed in exchange for expanded spellcasting and near instantaneous creation of temporary magic items. D&D isn't about always having the right tool or spells or whatever for the job all the time (what fun would that be). It is making do with what you have on hand at that time. If you do need a certain item or spell or whatever, than obtaining it can be an adventure all on it's own.
You may not like downtime and you may not like crafting, but they are parts of D&D.
I always allow my players to take downtime when they chose. In my current Ebberon-based Tomb of Annihilation campaign, they haven't been able to take as much downtime as they like because they know lives are being lost daily.
The party just got the last of the Puzzle Cube Keys in tonights session. With is session they have been at it for 29 days and are about to take a Long Rest making it 30 days . . .
Even so, they have found the time to make Potions of Healing, Antitoxins, acids and alchemist's Fire's.
I've run one campaign where the player's insisted on taking downtime only to get to their destination too late. The bad guys had completed their sacrifices and awoken the ancient evil. Needless to say the party's reputations were in tatters. Many fair weather friend turned on them but fortunately they had some real friends who helped hide and cover for them.
It has always been my policy to let the player do what they wanted, good or bad, but also let them know there would be consequences to their actions.
Downtime should be a tool AND a roleplaying experience for the players. Not either/or.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I think it my be important to distinguish the fact that if the DM and all the players don't like downtime and crafting, then technically they don't have to be a part of their D&D.
That is the beauty of D&D: it is flexible enough to be what works for each group!
I agree with you assessment. The rules of D&D are not rules but guidelines. A DM is free to use, change, or ignore any of them as they see fit. But to say things like...
"Downtime is not a valid pillar of D&D. Downtime is something that happens between sessions. Nobody ever plays downtime at the table beyond a highlight reel. Downtime. Is. Not. Playing. D&D."
Is in my opinion forcing their views onto others. The same goes with crafting. Fifth edition was designed in such a way that allows for practically any play style. I have seen DMs allow casters like the Cleric, Druid and Wizard pick their spell lists after a long rest and I have seen others require players with the same classes take the time to study and memorize their chosen spells.
I have said it before and I will say it again.... There is no right way or wrong way to play D&D.
You're absolutely right that there's no right or wrong way to play D&D. As long as everyone's having fun, you're doing it right.
There is, however, an intended and supported way to play D&D. After all, it's completely okay to play a farmer managing your crop and trying to stay ahead of economic forces to make a living, but unless your farmer is doing so by kicking down doors, slaying monsters, or negotiating hostage situations you're going to be playing a much different game than the developers intended and most of the community is playing. Unless I missed the tables about seed pricing, fertilizer distribution, and crop rotations?
I'm not sure it's fair to go there and be annoyed at the rest of us for wanting to play the game as its labeled on the tin. It's kinda like going to a Marvel movie and complaining that there's not enough, I dunno, Regency romance?
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 this is quite discouraging to further discussion if you admit your own logic makes no sense. I disagree that much of anything in published content lacks sense when viewed in a high fantasy setting, but I guess that is a matter of perspective.
A forum (both IRL and online) is a place to present ideas and debate the merits of ideas you like, to judge the interest of other people. What me and a few others have called you out on is: You are respectfully presenting your idea but repeatedly without actually trying to support your side (as seen above I am not sure you believe it yourself and are just dug into protectionism of your initial idea), and disrespectfully trying to destroy anyone who holds the other side to you.
While I grant there are many people in the world and that may be how you generally discuss I hope you understand why there is so much clash with your idea. You have not explained to us why your side of the argument, only crafting buff spells and no combat abilities on core class makes sense as everyone’s only type of Artificer? As Yurie has pointed out your main class is not an adventurer. And your whole premise seems to be the first google definition of an Artificer, while the first google definition of a Monk or Cleric or Bard also lacks any adventuring qualities. The choice has been made: crafters, singers and clergy that go out to adventure Are the combat trained ones, while the other 80% that stay home are the NPCs.
If you want to play an Artificer with no damage spells: just select that way in character creation and at level ups, same as a Bard can currently by choice play full buffer/controller (and to better success than any Artificer, hence it is not a novel idea or unique concept) And if you want to play one that is bad at combat: convince your DM to let you play a 8 8 8 18 8 8 stat block.
I also see the merit of a core class that has its focus not in combat with combat handled by subclasses. So far that is not the design choice made by WotC, and it is understandable why: WotC prefer every class to be accessible to majority of the player base with decisions of subclasses left to a secondary refinement of character or theme. If the core Artificer is not balanced to combat then every subclass has to consider how to give a minor buff, eg. Cleric’s Devine Smite vs Potent Cantrips (and the XGtE Ranger buffed subclasses, as arguably core Ranger is simply an Exploration guide NPC). If a base class has no combat ability and a subclass of it has no combat ability then that subclass type is locked to some portion of the player base, and that theme is completely dead to those people that want to play all pillars of adventuring.
I think this discussion could also benefit from a categorisation when an Idea is presented, as it is the cause of a few issues. Maybe something along the following lines:
Type 0 ideas: Feedback on Balance, something in the UA which may not be working as intended/expected/fun way and suggestions on language. EG. MA to deploy Artillerist Turret, BA+MA to do anything on Archivist.
Type 1 ideas: Could be potentially added to official release. EG. Moving Right Cantrip for the Job to level 1, Artillerist Turret more like Spirit Weapon.
Type 2 ideas: Homebrew food for thought, too late to make such a drastic change. EG. Pact caster type Artificer, Half Pact caster, No spell Artificer. (Same category as Spell less Ranger, Homebrew material)
Type 3 ideas: How I intend to play my Artificer. Which is often phrased as Type 1 and is very destructive because it is a form of “Enforcing my will onto others”
Type 4 ideas: Venting Anger & WotC and everyone else is wrong. Exemplified by the use of the words “I Hate” and “Everyone”. These are not productive because this thread is here for people that like 5e not to challenge the establishment and rebuild a new glorious edition of DnD.
What causes issue is when we mistake someone’s Type 2 suggestion with Type 1 both of which have a place in the thread just discussed differently. Type 3 is good too if you phrased accurately, but Type 4 tends to boil down to you should start by playing a different TTRPG and homebrewing an Artificer there. Many of the suggestions in Type 4 even if phrased for Artificer, are also veiled criticisms of Rangers and 5e in general and would require bigger changes than possible in one Eberron book.
I know some people have differences in phrasing that makes them come off as aggressive so there is no point in getting angry at each other as long as you know people are using a different logic to you. I know new people won’t see this but at least the core group active in the thread can take this into account, at this point I have been talking to some people in this thread for 6+ months.
TLDR: WotC have decided to release an Int Half caster, to fill out the roster since we have half Cha and half Wis already. (In fact I think that an Int or Wis Pact caster might be next) And Artificer fits this bill as it is closely related to Int and yet not a full Wizard. But also not a physical attacker as that is only Str Dex and Con, and they don’t want to complicate explanations for new players.(with the exaction of specific subclasses) As Hunter is to Druid and Paladin is to Cleric so too should Artificer be to Wizard, similar but slower in return for not full reliance on spell slots. So suggestions related to breaking the above definitions are not really for this forum they are more for something internal to WotC feedback. Or at least phrase them as such. And avoid repeatedly stating your idea without adding to it, explaining some detail, or explaining how something else would clash with your suggestion in a way that is not solvable in game.
Right in time, here's an article about adapting different genres to D&D: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/579-adapting-other-genres-to-d-d
Notice: "The core rules of D&D support games of epic heroes who slay hideous monsters in the face of overwhelming odds, and claim the loot that they guard as a reward."
"Toning D&D all the way down from “heroic” to “gritty” requires so much customization on your part that you would honestly be better off playing a different game entirely."
"The game mechanics of D&D suit several very specific moods, feelings, and genres, and trying to change the engine of the game too much for a homebrew campaign is a fool’s errand."
"There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of roleplaying games out there—don’t torture yourself trying to fit a square peg into a D&D-shaped hole."
Artificers may be crafters, but they're still D&D heroes who kick ass, take names, and get loot.
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's not to say there isn't room for a crafter in the genre of epic heroic fantasy. There is! But think about how they are portrayed, especially in ensemble pieces where they are part of a team instead of the main hero.
Usually they will pull out something nifty that helps turn the tide of battle. Sometimes there will be a quick flashback about them crafting something crucial. At the very most there might be a quick montage of them putting something together. It's not about the painstaking process in epic fantasy, it's about the results.
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 my own opinion, I think while the three pillars of 5e: Combat, Exploration and Social have been codified by Crawford previously, his word is also subject to change as is everyone else’s.
Either he would say that Downtime is actually a form of Exploration, in that in both cases you are exploring what your characters do in quieter days between action and plot points. (Which is actually fitting as they are both explained about equally horribly in DMG, but also a reason why I connect both in my homebrew Idea)
Or my personal favourite, Downtime should be added as an other pillar, but it should be phrased as “Combat and the three pillars that support it Social, Exploration and Downtime.” As that implies accurately in my opinion that combat is 50% of the game, and the other three share the other 50% of time. (With exceptions like Political games, Lost in the woods/survival games, and Bloodline games)
Also I brought up previously, what is the martial niche Artificer will fill? (Beyond 2 attacks per turn, Fighter get MA attacks, Monk BA attacks, Barb Extra flat damage per attack, Ranger Extra Dice per attack, Rogue Extra Dice once per turn and Paladin Extra dice on hits)
That is likely why the designers at WotC gave every Artificer BA scaling damage from a non weapon source. However the delivery of pet class is criticised and almost surely will disappear. I previously suggested Dual Cast Cantrips but that moves them too far away from Martial. So what can replace pets as a martial niche?
I wouldn’t mind as someone suggested if Artificer becomes the One Attack per turn expert by claiming Booming Blade, Green Flame Blade and some ranged versions as it’s core martial concept. It is not the only class that gets them but is the best at utilising them, same as I count Hunters Mark as a Ranger core martial concept. And it fits the spell type of enchantment suggested by Arcane Weapon.
@Arutha;
In my opinion Downtime is a part of the Roleplay aspect of D&D. Also, to wizards, it a critical aspect of their class. Wizard's need downtime to writng spell they find while Adventuring into their spellbooks. Wizard's are the only class to date who absolutely must have gold, A large chunk of all caster's spell need components with a gp value, but wizard also have to spend gold to add spells to their repertoire.
The way some people want the Artificer to go would make them even more expensive to play than a wizard. Why adventure when most of your gain just goes into your functionality.
A few years ago a couple of players at my table told me of a campign they'd bee4n in where it was more profitable to do downtime activities than it was to adventure. I believe the campaign lasted 3 sessions before all the players bailed.
I beileve in the 3 pillars, but I have experience campaigns that were more based on 1-2 pillars and ignored the 3rd.
Ever since World of Warcraft came out, people have been insisting more and more on the concept of Balance in D&D. It started in 3rd edition, went way over board in 4th, and is still present, to the detriment of the game in my opinion, in 5th edition. In my opinion, the concept of balance should be tossed in the trash bin. It ruins the game. Adventures League is the most ridiculous example of this.
I started playing D&D with the Original Red box set in 1981. I have been DM's since practically the beginning. I have played all versions of D&D, including the original box set of small books (Chain mail, Greyhawk, etc.). I played 4E for a while before the perpetual changes for the purposes of Balancing the game drover me over to Pathfinder until the advent of 5th Edition.
No matter what we saynow, and/or do, WotC has finalized a version of the Artificer that will be realeases on Nov. 19. I hope it turns out to be what we want for the most part, but from some of the things I've seen them realease after UA, I am not holding my breath.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
To be fair, wizards natively learn forty-four spells (discounting cantrips) by level 20, eight of which can be 9th-level. Even without ever once scribing a 'found' spell into their spellbook, wizards learn almost triple the spells a sorcerer does and double what a bard ends up with. Yes, technically the divine casters "know" more spells, but their spell lists are sharply limited compared to wizards as accommodation for the fact that they have access to all of it to select from on
shortlong rest.Wizards don't need found spells to keep up, though it absolutely helps them. As for 'balance', nobody likes being the party booby. It's why the whole quadratic-wizards thing was addressed and why 5e was built so that martial characters tend to be the party's most reliable damage sources - nobody plays this game to exclusively watch other people have fun. if your character becomes functionally useless by tenth level because the party wizard has so outstripped your abilities in anything and everything you do that there's no longer a point for you to even be there save to carry the wizard's loot, why stay?
As for the bloody downtime thing, I'm generally on board with something you said earlier in the thread, Mergon. Players can inform me, as a DM, that they're taking some time off and they can do exactly that. But - and this is deeply ironic given the number of times folks like Marine and Paladin have accused me of being a stupid impatient Johnny-come-lately video game addict that's just Ruining D&D Forever(TM) with my modern teen-nerd sensibilities - when players take downtime?
The world doesn't pause for them while they do it.
If they're taking downtime because they're between adventures, having Saved The Day and opting to take a load off before heading out to do it again? Sure. That's part of the reward for Saving The Day, the chance to sit down for a while and enjoy the spoils. They want to spend some of that time, and a bit of session time, socializing and chatting around town, making connections and building character? Go for it, that sort of shit is great. If they want to spend two hours of session time narrating the precise, step-by-step process they use to assemble their outfit in the morning every day of their downtime, I'ma step on it because that's not fair to the rest of the table. Like I said - highlight reel, and if the highlight reel spawns some interesting scenes then we can duck into those and play them out.
If somebody says "I want to take two weeks to try and craft some new gear" and manages to convince the party of it while they are actively engaged in trying to discover and thwart the BBEG's nefarious plot? Well, that BBEG isn't going to stop plotting nefariously just because the heroes are leveling their Smithing in Whiterun. The heroes are going to find out, when they decide to go be adventurers again and Save The Day, that their jobs have gotten much more difficult after giving the BBEG two extra unopposed weeks to further their aforementioned plots of now +2 nefariousness. Time is valuable, and other people aren't going to waste theirs just because you're wasting yours. If that means the party loses and has to withdraw, perhaps even abandon whatever town they were operating out of because they're no longer able to safely stay there? Then everybody's learned a valuable lesson about prioritization.
Which, finally, goes back into why the artificer needs to be a functional adventurer as well as just an inventor. Because if you're not adventuring, Saving The Day and foiling the bad guys, who the hell else is going to?
Please do not contact or message me.
@Yurei1453;
When I'd played in adventures that have no Downtime, I feel like an Individual who goes to work, does his shift, then is put in stasis until the next session. Most of my players feel the same way. It why, of 8 people I usualy run for, only 2 others have been succeedful as DM's. The others just couldn't keep the interest of the players with non-stop combat. Of course those players usually run non-casters, or GISH characters.
I've dropped out of more ?campaigns? than I can count due to the lack of Downtime. My rpeference is for Living campaign worlds. This means downtime and decent levels of Roleplay.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Somebody give me a wall to bang my head on. Preferably one they don't need in one piece later.
I resign the discussion. Nobody is paying attention anymore. We'll get what we get in November, apparently everyone will hate it because it's not a class that exists solely and completely for downtime crafting, and I will likely play it anyways the next time I get to play instead of DM.
Friggin' ugh.
Please do not contact or message me.
To me combat isnt even a pillar of d&d... It is the necessary evil that you cannot forgo. But if you actually look at what the masses wants then i wonder where you guys are looking because everyone is trying to change d&d combat slugs to cinematic next to no dice rolling. Which proves further more that combat shouldnt even be a pillar to begin with.
That said... You guys think pillars are a truth... They are not. As to me the pillars are nothing but styles you can give to your game. Of everything d&d is and isnt... I will say it again... Its a simulation game and simulation games are way too complex to make em just be about combat.
Sorry but even if my players have goodberry and the likes. They still have to dodge that sun in the desert. Sorry but there is still chance for social encounter or crafting or whatever deal they want during their sleeping time.
Sorry but to me a dm who just handwaves my downtimes is gonna get a player less seat real fast. So many missed opportunities when you just handwave stuff.
As for those who only want cinematics...
Sorry but the only reason the stream works like that is that they have fookin actors playing it. Real games dont have that.
I feel one thing in this whole thread though... It is that people dont like the artificer cause its not fitting in with modules and in modules the downtimes are hand waved. So i feel like were talking to people who just want word for word rulings. While the other side wants a different class.
Guess what guys... Thanks to that were not getting what we want. Create your own class then.... Heres my solution to you.
Ps... Fighter gets 5 attacks at level 5. Thanks to action surge. Monks have 4 attacks at level 5 thanks to flurry of blows. Clerics of war have 2 attacks since level 1 with a two handed weapon. Rogues have only 2 attacks period at any levels. Barbarians have 3 attacks at level 5. And i could go on like that. And it goes higher with multiclassing as well as a warlock sorcerer fighter can fire 12 eldritch blast rays at level 17... So yeah...
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)
@Arutha
I am not trying to be disrespectful or trying to destroy anyone else's view. I am just trying to get others to understand mine.
The below are my main disagreements with the 2019 Artificer base class.
1) The Artificer is the class that is supposed to be the class that crafts non-magical and magical items. In the case of magical items, they should be permanent. Instead of the Artificer just need to touch a non-magical item and after a long rest, poof it is a magic item (a temporary one). If the party's Artificer dies, then any infused items that party members may have will become useless in a matter of days. That means if the party has a INFUSED bag of hold, the contents of said bag would be lost in the Astral Plane (unless they are removed before hand). Other than the subclasses, there is no real benefit to crafting permanent magic items. The Artificer jut needs to touch an item and they transform it into a magic item.
2) Two abilities that (in my opinion) are useless with the 2019 Artificer is magical tinkering and tool expertise. Tool expertise is meant to aid the Artificer when they actually attempt to craft an item (magical or not). But why have tool expertise when you damn near eliminate actual crafting all together from the class. Nothing about the base class is actual crafting, so why give the class any benefits that has to deal with their tool sets? Magical tinkering on the other hand, creates static objects that at best can be used as a distraction but at worst used to attract customers to a shop. At least magic item analysis allowed the Artificer the ability to cast 2 spells without expending a spell slot and the need for material components. And they can do this whenever they wanted. And these spells were actually useful in finding and identifying magic items.
3) I have said it several times. The Artificer's spellcasting has a major flaw. The only way you can cast an Artificer's spell is with a tool kit you are proficient with or an infusion.
"Tools Required - 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. 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." (pg. 3 2019 Artificer UA)
This feature of the spellcasting ability isn't limited to spells that have material components. This feature is also talking about spells that have the verbal and/or somatic traits. Unlike other spellcasters or half-casters, they only need spellcasting focuses for the spells requiring material components that don't have a cost or are consumed.
So, if you are robbed or you are incarcerated, your chances of being able to cast a spell are slim to none. Other casters don't have this issue, as they don't need a spellcasting focus to cast spells that have the verbal and/or somatic traits.
As for the direct damaging spells. I liked the fact that the 2017 Artificer spell list consisted of utility spells. It had the feel of a crafter. However, I felt the spellcasting ability and list fell short. I like how the 2019 Artificer's spellcasting ability allowed preparing spells like the cleric and druid and I also like the fact that cantrips were also added. However, I feel that including direct damaging spells and spells that are generally associated with clerics and druids, took the spell list in the wrong direction. This is due to the fact that those spells take away from the soul and true meaning of the Artificer.
4) Arcane Armament is only useful if you have a magic weapon. If for some reason you don't have a magic weapon, this feature becomes useless.
5) The right cantrip for the job is an overpowered ability. The Wizard who is supposed to be the master of the arcane arts only knows a max of 5 cantrips at 20th level (not counting feats). But yet a half-caster gets the ability to swap out their cantrips after a short or long rest doesn't work for me.
Cantrips are supposed to be those spells that were learned after repeatedly casting them. This infuses the knowledge of the spell in the caster's mind and they always have the magic necessary to cast it whenever they want. But the Artificer is supposed to cast their spells through their tool sets and described as gadgets, salves or balms. That would mean the blueprints for building devices that simulate the effects of cantrip were also memorized. But at 10th level, they now know the blueprints for all of Artificer's cantrips? I don't buy it. As this would mean the Artificer who is supposed to create magic items knows more about cantrips than a Wizard who is the master of the arcane arts.
6) Spell-storing item is an ability that was rebuilt from the 2017 Artificer infuse magic ability. This ability allows the Artificer to store a 1st or 2nd level spell into a simple or martial weapon, or an item that can be used as a spellcasting focus (i.e. an infusion). The Artificer doesn't have to expend a spell slot infuse the spell into the object and they can pick a spell they do not have prepared. To top it off, the spell can be cast a number of times equal to double the caster Intelligence modifier or until the ability is used again and anyone can use it. There are several parts of this ability that I disagree with. The first (and most important in my opinion) is that an infusion can be used to store the spell. This essentially allows the Artificer to infuse 2 different magic abilities into a single item (unbalanced). Second, I thought spells were supposed to be represented as gadgets, salves, or balms. How is a gadget that isn't a simple or martial weapon, or a spellcasting focus be used in conjunction with this ability? Third, if the cure wounds spell is used, the player who is in possession of the item could potentially have 10 cure wounds spells stored in an item (again unbalanced).
In a best possible outcome situation for this ability, an Elf Artificer (who has an Intelligence modifier of +5) who is 145 years old gets their hands on a Tome of Clear Thoughts that hasn't been used. And if said Elf lives to be 750, they can effectively read the Tome of Clear Thoughts 7 times giving them a +12 Intelligence modifier. Which means the spell-storing item can be used 24 times.
I would rather see the item be single use, the spell be 1st level or higher, use spells that have a casting time of 1 action, bonus action or reaction, and limit the number of items that can be created.
The powers that be at D&D specifically tell use to describe the object that is being used to simulate the spell effect, but at the same time the Artificer is imbuing magical properties into non-magical items, summoning things out of thin air, and using magic to make things happen. My understanding of the 2019 Artificer was that it didn't rely on the arcane arts, but instead the gadgets they create.
Yurei,
You are correct. A wizard naturally has access to 44 spells by the time they reach level 20. However, there are 268 spells available to the wizard (not counting cantrips which there are 29). So, if we use your line of thinking in regards to the spells that wizard knows, those 44 spells account for less than 17% of the total number of spells available to the wizard. And while yes a Wizard can get eight 9th level spells, your 44 spells would effectively limit the wizard to approximately 5 spells per spell level (not counting cantrips).
No person playing a wizard will be satisfied with limiting themselves to just 44 spells. Those players would want additional spells added to their spellbook, which would giving them more options of dealing with different situations (just like the 2019 Artificer's infusions and the right cantrip for the job abilities).
You are also wrong. A wizard does need those found spells (found or purchased) in order to keep up. There is no "balance" to the game just because a person playing a wizard doesn't want to be the "party booby". Your statement..."nobody plays this game to exclusively watch other people have fun." That is a true statement. But if you *****, moan, or complain that your wizard wants to take the time to add new spells to their spellbook, this will make them feel like they are inconveniencing you. Which can caused them to watch you fun have at their expense.