If I were to venture a guess I would say that Arcane Firearms might be a possible replacement for the Wand Prototype feature, which WotC was telling people they could reskin as a firearm anyway. That's just a guess on my part though; as has been said already, we won't know for sure until the book releases.
I agree. Wand prototype never fit with the subclass(in my opinion). But the problem I have with the entire Artificer class is that we are being told to use our imaginations and reskin things in order to play the class. To me that just seems like the powers that be don't have any faith in the entire class. Before being told to use my imagination, I was already picturing a character for the majority of the subclasses (except archivist, I think that subclass fits better with the Wizard). So, why were we told to use our imaginations?
I disagree with your assessment that the 2019 Artificer class places an emphasis on crafting and tools. While the feature Tool Expertise gives the player a bonus when using a tool kit they are proficient with and the crafting portion of the Tools of the Trade feature of the subclasses gave an advantage when crafting an item in a specific category. The entire 2019 Artificer class moved away from actual crafting when they introduced the features Magical Tinkering and Infusion (in my opinion).
In the original 2017 Artificer the feature Magic Item Analysis was an extremely useful feature, as it allow the player to cast the Detect Magic and Identify spells as rituals without the need for material components. Essentially 2 free spells. It's replacement in the 2019 Artificer, Magical Tinkering allowed the player to craft magical knickknacks. And the Wondrous Invention feature from the 2017 Artificer (which had actual crafting of magic items), was replaced with the Infusion feature in the 2019 Artificer. There is no crafting with this feature. The player just touches a non-magical item after a long rest, and POOF a magic item.
I understand that there are people that like this feature, but to me it guts the true meaning of the Artificer. If they were to make a subclass that utilizes the Infusion feature as it core ability I wouldn't mind as it would be a subclass. But, we won't know the final results of the Artificer class until Eberron: Rising from the Last War is released.
It fit with the vision of Eberron, but in terms of the Artillerist subclass it felt (to me anyway) like there were two different ideas that were competing with each other instead of complementing as they should have been. Personally I felt it would have been a good idea to take those two ideas and make each one them a subclass of their own, but we'll see what WotC decided to go with.
"I see the Artillerist that had someone who can rain down destruction or provide protection for their party members. I would rather see a separate Wandslinger subclass. A person who pulls out a wand and can lay a single enemy out or battle multiple enemies at a single time."
I still believe that the Artillerist and the Wandslinger should be 2 separate subclasses. The Artillerist should have access to a larger array of turrets in exchange for getting rid of the Wand Prototype feature. The Wandslinger should be someone who specializes in using wands in combat. They would get the Wand Prototype feature, alone with features that include dual wielding wands, the ability to cast 2 cantrips from 2 separate wands in a single action, and any other wand type feature.
Yes, my response was directed at you. But I have to disagree that an Artificer class has to be difficult to conceive. D&D did it before with with 3rd (3.5) edition's The Eberron Campaign Setting and 4th edition's Eberron Player's Guide.
It seemed absolutely awesome at first blush - you get to pick your own personal magic items, yes! But the more you think about the feature, the more you realize that Wondrous Invention was a case of the rules screwing you out of a class feature.
Higher-level PCs can just *buy* most of the items on the Wondrous Invention list. You find them laying in crates in any game where the DM enjoys loot, which is also the only game anyone will ever be allowed to Artificer in. Nothing about Wondrous Invention was unique. Nothing about Wondrous Invention said "artificer here!" Nothing about it did anything a Thief subclass rogue couldn't do better with the same items they tried to pawn off as the artificer's 'class features'.
Especially when they tried to convince people to make the artificer give all their Wondrous Inventions to party members, because even Wizards recognized that there was no purpose whatsoever to the artificer herself heading into the field.
Now, six or seven people've spent thirty pages having this sane shitty argument with Marine so I won't rehash too much of it, but in this case I'm going to say that someone who didn't grow up on 3.5 and the idea that the Artificer is nothing more than the party crafting mule who doesn't even need to attend the session can very much see the crafting and artifice focus in the 2019 version. Infusions are a versatile tool that lets the artificer use their arcane knowledge to adapt to the needs of the day, and furthermore they get *actual class features*, like ADVENTURERS do, because the 2019 artificer is a badass field explorer and magical combat engineer.
Whereas the 2017 edition, outside the Free 120-Foot SneakaCannon, had basically no excuse to ever leave the keep.
It seemed absolutely awesome at first blush - you get to pick your own personal magic items, yes! But the more you think about the feature, the more you realize that Wondrous Invention was a case of the rules screwing you out of a class feature.
Higher-level PCs can just *buy* most of the items on the Wondrous Invention list. You find them laying in crates in any game where the DM enjoys loot, which is also the only game anyone will ever be allowed to Artificer in. Nothing about Wondrous Invention was unique. Nothing about Wondrous Invention said "artificer here!" Nothing about it did anything a Thief subclass rogue couldn't do better with the same items they tried to pawn off as the artificer's 'class features'.
Especially when they tried to convince people to make the artificer give all their Wondrous Inventions to party members, because even Wizards recognized that there was no purpose whatsoever to the artificer herself heading into the field.
Now, six or seven people've spent thirty pages having this sane shitty argument with Marine so I won't rehash too much of it, but in this case I'm going to say that someone who didn't grow up on 3.5 and the idea that the Artificer is nothing more than the party crafting mule who doesn't even need to attend the session can very much see the crafting and artifice focus in the 2019 version. Infusions are a versatile tool that lets the artificer use their arcane knowledge to adapt to the needs of the day, and furthermore they get *actual class features*, like ADVENTURERS do, because the 2019 artificer is a badass field explorer and magical combat engineer.
Whereas the 2017 edition, outside the Free 120-Foot SneakaCannon, had basically no excuse to ever leave the keep.
Wonderous Invention was fatally flawed. I don't think you're going to get much of any argument there. The only real praise I remember hearing about it was that it did represent an element of crafting in a class that's all about crafting, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that it could be represented much better.
Alright we get it. You don't like the 2017 Artificer and damn near anything about it.
As for the Wondrous Invention feature, it is a good idea but the execution was all wrong. First off the list of magic items was poorly put together from the very beginning. In fact, D&D shouldn't have provided a list. Instead, they should have provided guidance on about the rarity levels that should be available at certain levels. Such as being able to craft uncommon magic items at 5th level, rare at 10th, and very rare at 15th. This would allow the DM to determine which magic items are available in their campaign (and not locking them into a specific list) and it shows the characters level of progression as they are able to craft more complicated items (higher rarity level).
On page 135 of the DMG, there is a table called Magic Item Rarity. This table lays out the cost of magic items at the different rarity levels and at which character level players should be allowed access to those items.
So it was no wonder that the Wondrous Invention ability was poorly received. Considering the fact that out of the 32 magic items listed under Wondrous Inventions, only 6 of them were rare magic items, while the rest were all uncommon. Which as per the DMG an uncommon items should cost no more than 500 gp and a rare no more than 5,000 gp. As I said a very poor list.
Now the Infusion Replicate Magic Items has 48 magic items listed, 75% (or 36) of which are uncommon magic items and is even worse than the Wondrous Invention ability (in my opinion). The magic items are not permanent, all of the items available on 12th level and lower lists are uncommon magic items (which higher-level PCs can just *buy*), and the player doesn't get access to those remaining 12 rare magic items until 16th level (at a max cost of 5,000 gp even higher-level PCs can just *buy*).
But Wondrous Invention aside, you just have no desire for downtime in which the Artificer's crafting ability would take affect.
@Marine I still think that you have staked your post on the wrong hill. You have a problem with Infusions as they are “Touch at end of Long Rest” magic and hence have set your mind on the 2017 Wondrous Invention.
I recommend you instead make a fuss so the wording of the Infusion feature is changed while mechanics remain the same, that would be a middle ground that every one agrees on.
I recommend, “Over the course of light tinkering during a Long Rest, you can work on one non magical item to apply a known Infusions schematic. If this would put you over the Infusions threshold you chose one of your previous Infusions to go stale and lose its features.”
Nothing magical about the above and works nearly identically. Most notably covers the Wondrous Inventions greatest flaw of losing a feature if those items are ever Dispel Magiced by a BBEG.
Edit: please feel free to post your suggestion on how to fix the issues with the 2017 version.
All right. I don't want to get into thirty more pages of the tiff with Paladin and junk, so instead I'm going to ask a question.
What is "downtime", in your definition, Marine?
Everyone tells me I'm "against" downtime and that I hate players doing downtime shit. That's not true - but to me, 'downtime' is essentially a timeskip. The players are told "two weeks will advance between this session and when we pick up, think about what you want to do with it." What the players do is narrated at the next session start, perhaps some dice are rolled or some scenes end up fleshed out, but for the most part "downtime" is handled between sessions more than during sessions, checking with the DM to see if their plans jive with hers and/or talking to the other players to coordinate efforts.
That is downtime. Useful, even essential for some campaigns, but nothing to focus on for multiple sessions, and there is absolutely no reason for a PC to specialize in 'downtime'. That's not a PC, that's an NPC, because the only time such a character ever does stuff is largely offscreen. Because this is the stuff that The Book of the Game, if someone were novelizing your D&D campaign, would gloss over with a few sentences or a short paragraph or two before getting back to the exciting stuff.
Am I wrong? Is that not what "Downtime" means to anyone else? Because oh my ******* Gawd am I sick of hearing that word tossed out as a reason why I'm an awful human being.
Personally, I have absolutely no issues with the way Magical Infusions and Magical Trinkets are implemented. I use them 'as is' all the time without issues. I also have absolutely no issues withTool use with the Artificer. I have been using Tools on many of my characters in many different versions of D&D for years. I personally don't see why people have issues with any of these topics. If you don't like the way things are, don't use them. Just please don't try to force you desired changes on the rest of us who are happy withg the way things currently are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I know there is The Alchemist, the artillerist, the battle Smith, and the archivist, That's all well and good was wondering if there could be another option for a mad bomber. It would be somewhere along the line of an alchemist and also a little nod to the old Alchemist UA where some of the things might be bombs. like the old but powerful Alchemist fire smoke stick as smoke grenades and thunderstone as a concussive mine that with the knockback. This would a subclass more trap and grenade oriented. I don't know how well that would fit DND.
Well, Archivist is being dropped, so that just leaves the other three. As for a bomber type character, I think that's kinda what they intended the Artillerist to be but they didn't do a good job of it (IMO).
If you want to try a hand at homebrewing a grenadier type subclass like you've described, feel free. I was thinking of homebrewing a couple myself, I just want to wait and see what the final iteration of the Artificer looks like first.
I'm terrible at numbers so I'm probably not the best person to ask, but...if you were going for a martial/meele type character I'd agree and say the Battlesmith. For a caster/ranged character I'd say Artillerist might be a better choice, at least as is. (Again, not a good number cruncher so I'm not really the best person to ask around here; Arutha might have have a better estimate for you there.)
EDIT: If we're talking about the whole range of current subclasses, the Archivist looks like it can do insane amounts of damage with it's Information Overload ability. Couple that with the ability to see through the Artificial Mind which can be a maximum distance of 300 feet from you, and you can just about nuke enemies without them ever actally seeing you, which is SUPER broken!
@Marine I still think that you have staked your post on the wrong hill. You have a problem with Infusions as they are “Touch at end of Long Rest” magic and hence have set your mind on the 2017 Wondrous Invention.
I recommend you instead make a fuss so the wording of the Infusion feature is changed while mechanics remain the same, that would be a middle ground that every one agrees on.
I recommend, “Over the course of light tinkering during a Long Rest, you can work on one non magical item to apply a known Infusions schematic. If this would put you over the Infusions threshold you chose one of your previous Infusions to go stale and lose its features.”
Nothing magical about the above and works nearly identically. Most notably covers the Wondrous Inventions greatest flaw of losing a feature if those items are ever Dispel Magiced by a BBEG.
Edit: please feel free to post your suggestion on how to fix the issues with the 2017 version.
Yes my issue with Infusions is that there is no real crafting. The entire 2019 Artificer lacks any real crafting. D&D tells us to use our imaginations and not think of the Artificer as using the arcane to create magic items, but yet the wording in the UA is about imbuing non-magical items with arcane properties and making them magic items.
From the very beginning I was extremely disappointed in the execution of the Wondrous Invention feature. I (along with others) have created my own version of the Artificer. My Artificer class contains material that is original or borrowed from other creators. In the case of Wondrous Invention, I reworked it to say this....
Wondrous Invention - At 2nd level, you gain the use of a magic item that you crafted. Choose a common or uncommon magic item (DM discretion) found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide & Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
Crafting a magic item is a difficult task. When you gain a magic item from this feature, it reflects long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation that allowed you to finally complete the item. You are assumed to work on this item in your leisure time and to finish it when you level up. Due to your training, crafting times and costs for common through rare magic items are halved. These magic items are detailed in the Dungeon Master’s Guide & Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
You complete another magical item of your choice when you reach certain levels in this class: 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th (uncommon items at 5th level, rare at 10th and very rare at 15th). The item you choose must be of the specified rarity level or lower (DM discretion).
My biggest complaint about the feature is that the list of magic items was very restrictive and contained 26 uncommon magic items and only 6 rare items. And the levels that magic items became available did not show any type of skill progression in crafting. Meaning at lower level the player would be able to craft common and uncommon items, mid-level players rare items and high level players very rare items. Also, by eliminating the magic item list, the DM can inform his Artificer player which magic items are available in their campaign.
All right. I don't want to get into thirty more pages of the tiff with Paladin and junk, so instead I'm going to ask a question.
What is "downtime", in your definition, Marine?
Everyone tells me I'm "against" downtime and that I hate players doing downtime shit. That's not true - but to me, 'downtime' is essentially a timeskip. The players are told "two weeks will advance between this session and when we pick up, think about what you want to do with it." What the players do is narrated at the next session start, perhaps some dice are rolled or some scenes end up fleshed out, but for the most part "downtime" is handled between sessions more than during sessions, checking with the DM to see if their plans jive with hers and/or talking to the other players to coordinate efforts.
That is downtime. Useful, even essential for some campaigns, but nothing to focus on for multiple sessions, and there is absolutely no reason for a PC to specialize in 'downtime'. That's not a PC, that's an NPC, because the only time such a character ever does stuff is largely offscreen. Because this is the stuff that The Book of the Game, if someone were novelizing your D&D campaign, would gloss over with a few sentences or a short paragraph or two before getting back to the exciting stuff.
Am I wrong? Is that not what "Downtime" means to anyone else? Because oh my ******* Gawd am I sick of hearing that word tossed out as a reason why I'm an awful human being.
The main comparison I would draw here is to Bard and Ranger. The Bard specialises in Social encounters because of: Charisma Single Stat Dependence, Counter Charms and ability Inspirations, and Jack of all trades and Cha Expertises. The Ranger on the other hand specialises in Exploration because of: Wisdom Skills especially Survival, Favourite Enemy and Natural Explorer.
So what some people want is a third class that “Doesn’t specialise in Combat” and instead specialises in Downtime to exactly the same degree that Ranger specialises in Exploration. Because to your point Exploration is another thing that most people gloss over in recaps etc, EG imagine a political game where one session you are sabotaging the Vizier’s plans then for five sessions you are trying to walk to the neighbouring village... (PS I agree with this part but would remind some people that the Ranger still gets all their Exploration features AND functions in combat, so so should the Artificer, not 0% combat 100% Crafting, instead 50~80% combat AND 100% Crafting)
Now whether Ranger is a flawless class is in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fact it is the most homebrew revised class and the class that WotC have received the most negative feedback for (that’s why there is a UA Revised Ranger). So obviously the majority of the player base Do not appreciate a class built on a non Active pillar of gameplay.
But on the other hand I blame this purely on the lack of rules, if people hated Artificers “use your imagination” then you should look at the Exploration rules which are purely “use your imagination”. Bad rules are why people stay away from those Pillars of gameplay, because they either don’t know what to expect (PC) or don’t know what to do (new DMs). And if you never get experience in something you’ll never do it.
PS this is also why I think 99% of games don’t make it to 20, because 14-20th level don’t feel epic enough, if at 20 you got to do crazy stuff like BI works on everyone in your party or you can do two BA as a rogue, then everyone would push their DM to make it to 20. So far I have only seen Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin and Druid excited to be 20th. And even 9th level spells are disinteresting as they are too problematic for the DM and just cause the world to adjust rather than feeling epic.
TLDR: Downtime is equal to Exploration so Artificer should be a class similar to Ranger. Just needs better support from the rules. That is why I am homebrewing a set of rules to help give Exploration a role in gathering that will feed Gold into Crafting. And have Ranger and Artificer be the Masters of those respective aspects.
All right. I don't want to get into thirty more pages of the tiff with Paladin and junk, so instead I'm going to ask a question.
What is "downtime", in your definition, Marine?
Everyone tells me I'm "against" downtime and that I hate players doing downtime shit. That's not true - but to me, 'downtime' is essentially a timeskip. The players are told "two weeks will advance between this session and when we pick up, think about what you want to do with it." What the players do is narrated at the next session start, perhaps some dice are rolled or some scenes end up fleshed out, but for the most part "downtime" is handled between sessions more than during sessions, checking with the DM to see if their plans jive with hers and/or talking to the other players to coordinate efforts.
That is downtime. Useful, even essential for some campaigns, but nothing to focus on for multiple sessions, and there is absolutely no reason for a PC to specialize in 'downtime'. That's not a PC, that's an NPC, because the only time such a character ever does stuff is largely offscreen. Because this is the stuff that The Book of the Game, if someone were novelizing your D&D campaign, would gloss over with a few sentences or a short paragraph or two before getting back to the exciting stuff.
Am I wrong? Is that not what "Downtime" means to anyone else? Because oh my ******* Gawd am I sick of hearing that word tossed out as a reason why I'm an awful human being.
@Yurei1453
Yes I will agree that your definition of downtime is a form of downtime. I have experienced and have seen that form of downtime used and I do not have an issue with it. But that is not the only form of downtime.
Let's say for example the players arrive in a port town because they need to catch a ship to take them to an island or another continent. Unfortunately, the ship they need to catch doesn't leave for 3 days and the trip would take 2 weeks. Those 3 days waiting to leave could be used by the players as downtime. The DM doesn't need to have an entire session for those 3 days. The DM can have the players briefly explain what they want to do and if it requires dice rolls then the DM can make them roll some dice. The Artificer could use that time to craft healing potions, or work on magic item they are crafting. Something like this could be explained and played out in say 10 to 20 minutes.
Let's say the players finally board the ship and leave the port. They have 2 week until they reach their destination. There is no guarantee that the ship will or will not be attacked, so there is more downtime. This example can and has been used in actual gameplay (not in between sessions). Yes the DM will make the occasional roll to see if there is an encounter, and the DM can make the Artificer roll to determine the level of success during their time crafting. But even the two week trip can be played in session as downtime.
So you see, downtime can be played in a sessions. Because there is no guarantee of event free time during downtime.
If I were to venture a guess I would say that Arcane Firearms might be a possible replacement for the Wand Prototype feature, which WotC was telling people they could reskin as a firearm anyway. That's just a guess on my part though; as has been said already, we won't know for sure until the book releases.
I agree. Wand prototype never fit with the subclass(in my opinion). But the problem I have with the entire Artificer class is that we are being told to use our imaginations and reskin things in order to play the class. To me that just seems like the powers that be don't have any faith in the entire class. Before being told to use my imagination, I was already picturing a character for the majority of the subclasses (except archivist, I think that subclass fits better with the Wizard). So, why were we told to use our imaginations?
I thought it fit perfectly, but again it's because wands are the Eberron version of guns. Wandslingers are the artillerists of that world.
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 disagree with your assessment that the 2019 Artificer class places an emphasis on crafting and tools. While the feature Tool Expertise gives the player a bonus when using a tool kit they are proficient with and the crafting portion of the Tools of the Trade feature of the subclasses gave an advantage when crafting an item in a specific category. The entire 2019 Artificer class moved away from actual crafting when they introduced the features Magical Tinkering and Infusion (in my opinion).
In the original 2017 Artificer the feature Magic Item Analysis was an extremely useful feature, as it allow the player to cast the Detect Magic and Identify spells as rituals without the need for material components. Essentially 2 free spells. It's replacement in the 2019 Artificer, Magical Tinkering allowed the player to craft magical knickknacks. And the Wondrous Invention feature from the 2017 Artificer (which had actual crafting of magic items), was replaced with the Infusion feature in the 2019 Artificer. There is no crafting with this feature. The player just touches a non-magical item after a long rest, and POOF a magic item.
I understand that there are people that like this feature, but to me it guts the true meaning of the Artificer. If they were to make a subclass that utilizes the Infusion feature as it core ability I wouldn't mind as it would be a subclass. But, we won't know the final results of the Artificer class until Eberron: Rising from the Last War is released.
It fit with the vision of Eberron, but in terms of the Artillerist subclass it felt (to me anyway) like there were two different ideas that were competing with each other instead of complementing as they should have been. Personally I felt it would have been a good idea to take those two ideas and make each one them a subclass of their own, but we'll see what WotC decided to go with.
In a previous post I said....
"I see the Artillerist that had someone who can rain down destruction or provide protection for their party members. I would rather see a separate Wandslinger subclass. A person who pulls out a wand and can lay a single enemy out or battle multiple enemies at a single time."
I still believe that the Artillerist and the Wandslinger should be 2 separate subclasses. The Artillerist should have access to a larger array of turrets in exchange for getting rid of the Wand Prototype feature. The Wandslinger should be someone who specializes in using wands in combat. They would get the Wand Prototype feature, alone with features that include dual wielding wands, the ability to cast 2 cantrips from 2 separate wands in a single action, and any other wand type feature.
@Crawking_Chaos
Yes, my response was directed at you. But I have to disagree that an Artificer class has to be difficult to conceive. D&D did it before with with 3rd (3.5) edition's The Eberron Campaign Setting and 4th edition's Eberron Player's Guide.
I'ma just come right out and say it.
Wondrous Invention sucked.
It seemed absolutely awesome at first blush - you get to pick your own personal magic items, yes! But the more you think about the feature, the more you realize that Wondrous Invention was a case of the rules screwing you out of a class feature.
Higher-level PCs can just *buy* most of the items on the Wondrous Invention list. You find them laying in crates in any game where the DM enjoys loot, which is also the only game anyone will ever be allowed to Artificer in. Nothing about Wondrous Invention was unique. Nothing about Wondrous Invention said "artificer here!" Nothing about it did anything a Thief subclass rogue couldn't do better with the same items they tried to pawn off as the artificer's 'class features'.
Especially when they tried to convince people to make the artificer give all their Wondrous Inventions to party members, because even Wizards recognized that there was no purpose whatsoever to the artificer herself heading into the field.
Now, six or seven people've spent thirty pages having this sane shitty argument with Marine so I won't rehash too much of it, but in this case I'm going to say that someone who didn't grow up on 3.5 and the idea that the Artificer is nothing more than the party crafting mule who doesn't even need to attend the session can very much see the crafting and artifice focus in the 2019 version. Infusions are a versatile tool that lets the artificer use their arcane knowledge to adapt to the needs of the day, and furthermore they get *actual class features*, like ADVENTURERS do, because the 2019 artificer is a badass field explorer and magical combat engineer.
Whereas the 2017 edition, outside the Free 120-Foot SneakaCannon, had basically no excuse to ever leave the keep.
Please do not contact or message me.
*Slow claps while nodding in agreement*
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Wonderous Invention was fatally flawed. I don't think you're going to get much of any argument there. The only real praise I remember hearing about it was that it did represent an element of crafting in a class that's all about crafting, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that it could be represented much better.
Alright we get it. You don't like the 2017 Artificer and damn near anything about it.
As for the Wondrous Invention feature, it is a good idea but the execution was all wrong. First off the list of magic items was poorly put together from the very beginning. In fact, D&D shouldn't have provided a list. Instead, they should have provided guidance on about the rarity levels that should be available at certain levels. Such as being able to craft uncommon magic items at 5th level, rare at 10th, and very rare at 15th. This would allow the DM to determine which magic items are available in their campaign (and not locking them into a specific list) and it shows the characters level of progression as they are able to craft more complicated items (higher rarity level).
On page 135 of the DMG, there is a table called Magic Item Rarity. This table lays out the cost of magic items at the different rarity levels and at which character level players should be allowed access to those items.
So it was no wonder that the Wondrous Invention ability was poorly received. Considering the fact that out of the 32 magic items listed under Wondrous Inventions, only 6 of them were rare magic items, while the rest were all uncommon. Which as per the DMG an uncommon items should cost no more than 500 gp and a rare no more than 5,000 gp. As I said a very poor list.
Now the Infusion Replicate Magic Items has 48 magic items listed, 75% (or 36) of which are uncommon magic items and is even worse than the Wondrous Invention ability (in my opinion). The magic items are not permanent, all of the items available on 12th level and lower lists are uncommon magic items (which higher-level PCs can just *buy*), and the player doesn't get access to those remaining 12 rare magic items until 16th level (at a max cost of 5,000 gp even higher-level PCs can just *buy*).
But Wondrous Invention aside, you just have no desire for downtime in which the Artificer's crafting ability would take affect.
\Wave (back from holiday)
@Marine I still think that you have staked your post on the wrong hill. You have a problem with Infusions as they are “Touch at end of Long Rest” magic and hence have set your mind on the 2017 Wondrous Invention.
I recommend you instead make a fuss so the wording of the Infusion feature is changed while mechanics remain the same, that would be a middle ground that every one agrees on.
I recommend, “Over the course of light tinkering during a Long Rest, you can work on one non magical item to apply a known Infusions schematic. If this would put you over the Infusions threshold you chose one of your previous Infusions to go stale and lose its features.”
Nothing magical about the above and works nearly identically. Most notably covers the Wondrous Inventions greatest flaw of losing a feature if those items are ever Dispel Magiced by a BBEG.
Edit: please feel free to post your suggestion on how to fix the issues with the 2017 version.
All right. I don't want to get into thirty more pages of the tiff with Paladin and junk, so instead I'm going to ask a question.
What is "downtime", in your definition, Marine?
Everyone tells me I'm "against" downtime and that I hate players doing downtime shit. That's not true - but to me, 'downtime' is essentially a timeskip. The players are told "two weeks will advance between this session and when we pick up, think about what you want to do with it." What the players do is narrated at the next session start, perhaps some dice are rolled or some scenes end up fleshed out, but for the most part "downtime" is handled between sessions more than during sessions, checking with the DM to see if their plans jive with hers and/or talking to the other players to coordinate efforts.
That is downtime. Useful, even essential for some campaigns, but nothing to focus on for multiple sessions, and there is absolutely no reason for a PC to specialize in 'downtime'. That's not a PC, that's an NPC, because the only time such a character ever does stuff is largely offscreen. Because this is the stuff that The Book of the Game, if someone were novelizing your D&D campaign, would gloss over with a few sentences or a short paragraph or two before getting back to the exciting stuff.
Am I wrong? Is that not what "Downtime" means to anyone else? Because oh my ******* Gawd am I sick of hearing that word tossed out as a reason why I'm an awful human being.
Please do not contact or message me.
Personally, I have absolutely no issues with the way Magical Infusions and Magical Trinkets are implemented. I use them 'as is' all the time without issues. I also have absolutely no issues withTool use with the Artificer. I have been using Tools on many of my characters in many different versions of D&D for years. I personally don't see why people have issues with any of these topics. If you don't like the way things are, don't use them. Just please don't try to force you desired changes on the rest of us who are happy withg the way things currently are.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
I know there is The Alchemist, the artillerist, the battle Smith, and the archivist, That's all well and good was wondering if there could be another option for a mad bomber. It would be somewhere along the line of an alchemist and also a little nod to the old Alchemist UA where some of the things might be bombs. like the old but powerful Alchemist fire smoke stick as smoke grenades and thunderstone as a concussive mine that with the knockback. This would a subclass more trap and grenade oriented. I don't know how well that would fit DND.
Well, Archivist is being dropped, so that just leaves the other three. As for a bomber type character, I think that's kinda what they intended the Artillerist to be but they didn't do a good job of it (IMO).
If you want to try a hand at homebrewing a grenadier type subclass like you've described, feel free. I was thinking of homebrewing a couple myself, I just want to wait and see what the final iteration of the Artificer looks like first.
I'm terrible at numbers so I'm probably not the best person to ask, but...if you were going for a martial/meele type character I'd agree and say the Battlesmith. For a caster/ranged character I'd say Artillerist might be a better choice, at least as is. (Again, not a good number cruncher so I'm not really the best person to ask around here; Arutha might have have a better estimate for you there.)
EDIT: If we're talking about the whole range of current subclasses, the Archivist looks like it can do insane amounts of damage with it's Information Overload ability. Couple that with the ability to see through the Artificial Mind which can be a maximum distance of 300 feet from you, and you can just about nuke enemies without them ever actally seeing you, which is SUPER broken!
Yes my issue with Infusions is that there is no real crafting. The entire 2019 Artificer lacks any real crafting. D&D tells us to use our imaginations and not think of the Artificer as using the arcane to create magic items, but yet the wording in the UA is about imbuing non-magical items with arcane properties and making them magic items.
From the very beginning I was extremely disappointed in the execution of the Wondrous Invention feature. I (along with others) have created my own version of the Artificer. My Artificer class contains material that is original or borrowed from other creators. In the case of Wondrous Invention, I reworked it to say this....
Wondrous Invention - At 2nd level, you gain the use of a magic item that you crafted. Choose a common or uncommon magic item (DM discretion) found in the Dungeon Master’s Guide & Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
Crafting a magic item is a difficult task. When you gain a magic item from this feature, it reflects long hours of study, tinkering and experimentation that allowed you to finally complete the item. You are assumed to work on this item in your leisure time and to finish it when you level up. Due to your training, crafting times and costs for common through rare magic items are halved. These magic items are detailed in the Dungeon Master’s Guide & Xanathar’s Guide to Everything.
You complete another magical item of your choice when you reach certain levels in this class: 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th (uncommon items at 5th level, rare at 10th and very rare at 15th). The item you choose must be of the specified rarity level or lower (DM discretion).
My biggest complaint about the feature is that the list of magic items was very restrictive and contained 26 uncommon magic items and only 6 rare items. And the levels that magic items became available did not show any type of skill progression in crafting. Meaning at lower level the player would be able to craft common and uncommon items, mid-level players rare items and high level players very rare items. Also, by eliminating the magic item list, the DM can inform his Artificer player which magic items are available in their campaign.
The main comparison I would draw here is to Bard and Ranger. The Bard specialises in Social encounters because of: Charisma Single Stat Dependence, Counter Charms and ability Inspirations, and Jack of all trades and Cha Expertises. The Ranger on the other hand specialises in Exploration because of: Wisdom Skills especially Survival, Favourite Enemy and Natural Explorer.
So what some people want is a third class that “Doesn’t specialise in Combat” and instead specialises in Downtime to exactly the same degree that Ranger specialises in Exploration. Because to your point Exploration is another thing that most people gloss over in recaps etc, EG imagine a political game where one session you are sabotaging the Vizier’s plans then for five sessions you are trying to walk to the neighbouring village... (PS I agree with this part but would remind some people that the Ranger still gets all their Exploration features AND functions in combat, so so should the Artificer, not 0% combat 100% Crafting, instead 50~80% combat AND 100% Crafting)
Now whether Ranger is a flawless class is in the eye of the beholder, but it is a fact it is the most homebrew revised class and the class that WotC have received the most negative feedback for (that’s why there is a UA Revised Ranger). So obviously the majority of the player base Do not appreciate a class built on a non Active pillar of gameplay.
But on the other hand I blame this purely on the lack of rules, if people hated Artificers “use your imagination” then you should look at the Exploration rules which are purely “use your imagination”. Bad rules are why people stay away from those Pillars of gameplay, because they either don’t know what to expect (PC) or don’t know what to do (new DMs). And if you never get experience in something you’ll never do it.
PS this is also why I think 99% of games don’t make it to 20, because 14-20th level don’t feel epic enough, if at 20 you got to do crazy stuff like BI works on everyone in your party or you can do two BA as a rogue, then everyone would push their DM to make it to 20. So far I have only seen Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin and Druid excited to be 20th. And even 9th level spells are disinteresting as they are too problematic for the DM and just cause the world to adjust rather than feeling epic.
TLDR: Downtime is equal to Exploration so Artificer should be a class similar to Ranger. Just needs better support from the rules. That is why I am homebrewing a set of rules to help give Exploration a role in gathering that will feed Gold into Crafting. And have Ranger and Artificer be the Masters of those respective aspects.
@Yurei1453
Yes I will agree that your definition of downtime is a form of downtime. I have experienced and have seen that form of downtime used and I do not have an issue with it. But that is not the only form of downtime.
Let's say for example the players arrive in a port town because they need to catch a ship to take them to an island or another continent. Unfortunately, the ship they need to catch doesn't leave for 3 days and the trip would take 2 weeks. Those 3 days waiting to leave could be used by the players as downtime. The DM doesn't need to have an entire session for those 3 days. The DM can have the players briefly explain what they want to do and if it requires dice rolls then the DM can make them roll some dice. The Artificer could use that time to craft healing potions, or work on magic item they are crafting. Something like this could be explained and played out in say 10 to 20 minutes.
Let's say the players finally board the ship and leave the port. They have 2 week until they reach their destination. There is no guarantee that the ship will or will not be attacked, so there is more downtime. This example can and has been used in actual gameplay (not in between sessions). Yes the DM will make the occasional roll to see if there is an encounter, and the DM can make the Artificer roll to determine the level of success during their time crafting. But even the two week trip can be played in session as downtime.
So you see, downtime can be played in a sessions. Because there is no guarantee of event free time during downtime.