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!
What I appreciate about the UA class as it is is that you can indeed just buy or stumble across the stuff that the 2019 UA Artificer can craft, but the main difference with the latter is that you can "buy" these items at a massive money discount through the Tools of the Trade feature. Ordinarily, 10 regular healing potions cost 500gp (not an insignificant cost at lower levels). With an alchemist in the party and adequate downtime (less than a week for this subclass IIRC), that cost is reduced to 125gp (Xanathar's Guide prices crafting 1 regular healing potion at 25gp). Plate armor is 1500gp and would require 30 workweeks (about half a year) to craft normally; a battle-smith cuts down that money and downtime required to 750gp and about 7 workweeks (about a month or two).
In other words, if you want to craft these things yourself instead of buying them for some reason, you need an Artificer with the appropriate subclass to make it more reasonable from a time point of view, and the financial savings can help to justify taking this approach.
Also, from a neutral point of view, being able to get a Bag of Holding after a long rest is great if the DM is anal about encumbrance.
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.
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.
In your opinion, from a power-gaming point of view and as the class is right now, which is the "best" Artificer subclass for playing a full-fledged Artificer without multiclassing? It seems to be the Battle-Smith to me, but I want to be sure.
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.
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 am going to try and create a subclass that specializes in Infusions. While I don't like the idea of Infusion in the base class, I have no issues if it was a subclass.
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.
In your opinion, from a power-gaming point of view and as the class is right now, which is the "best" Artificer subclass for playing a full-fledged Artificer without multiclassing? It seems to be the Battle-Smith to me, but I want to be sure.
Hey Yeah, archivist was a very power gamery class originally in my opinion. An Empowered “ranged” cantrip + Smite feature with no drawback? Plus the Monk’s Stunning Strike ability at range that works off Intelligence Saves. Very ridiculous class that seemed to be “balanced” by the fact that it was extremely boring to play and awkward to use. They needed a lot more work to make it playable, increasing mobility/range while removing the Stun strike.
On the other hand the other subclasses suffer from a greater flaw, in that they are built off adding a non weapon way to deal damage with your Bonus Action. However if you do take the Crossbow expert feat to get the Bonus action you deal more damage with the Crossbow, as you can the use your Arcane Weapon Spell on the damage and it outscales most of the Artillerist and Battlesmiths features. 1d8+2<2d8<2d6+3. Also the Artillerist Turret suffers currently from reasonably short survival time and long setup time (MA setup time means you lose an attacks worth of damage, potentially twice after 14th level)
In conclusion the most power gamery builds you can currently make are on Battle smith because of Int attacks helping you be good at spells, Arcane Jolt +2d4 damage and Improved Defended Defensive Pounce being a RA dealing damage. But unfortunately The most power gamery way to play still involve the OP feats Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master (or multiclassing for Two Weapon Fighting), and letting those remove what makes your mechanics uniquely Artificery.
PS: That is why I recommended I’m the survey staying away from BA damage and instead using something like Booming blade scaling on MA damage, especially with EA potentially being removed. (WotC do actually understand this Mathsy part as they are obviously searching for a new unique way to let Artificer scale different from the other martials. IE no martial had BA non weapon attacks.)
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
I came up with a rough idea for a Wandslinger. The below was part of a previous post I made.
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.
I will be playing in a Ghost of Saltmarsh campaign. I will be playing a Tritan Artificer with the Shipwright background. I may take a level or two of Cleric (Forge domain) at some point. I made sure I had the stats. I will probably go Battle Smith.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch your back, conserve your ammo, and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
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)
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
That is one way of running D&D, and a perfectly good one, but it is not the only way.
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!
Hey @Marine to continue discussing Wondrous Invention, what happens if you lose one or all the items you received as part of the feature? Level 10 your rare item you just received and were waiting and longing for Dispell Magiced in the following session? You have to recraft it with months of downtime again? Then it is not a feature it is just a shortcut of the actual crafting rules again.
The change to Infusion I describe does say that you are crafting the items over the course of a long rest. (No longer magically infused) so would you be accepting of that?
Just spitballin' here, but one possible solution might be to have it work a bit like the Pact of the Blade boon for Warlocks where it disappears if removed from you and can reappear as an action. If we were to follow with that idea, we could also have it so you can have a number of these items "bonded" to you at a particular time, and the number you can have bonded in this matter increases with each new tier of the Wonderous Invention feature that you have.
Again, just spitballing. Not sure if it would be OP or not, but it may be worth considering for any folks who's want to homebrew it.
Seems people have already made up their mind about the current version of the class. I've tried a few times to point out the positive aspects of the UA class and it seems no-one is interested in that. So I'll at least say that I hope the class has the crafting mechanics it needs to feel like a true craftsman within an adventure instead of just between adventures like it currently is (because infusions apparently don't count). Maybe something like the Forge domain cleric's Channel Divinity, but it comes with a table of the various mundane items you can craft with various tools and the time and materials/money required to do so within reason for adventurers. Something that allows this to be done even when not in a settlement would definitely help as well.
I do think something should be done about the apparent crossbow emphasis. The current version of the class seems to make the crossbow the primary weapon of choice, but you either need specific feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter to make the most of it (which pushes the class to heavily favour Variant Humans for min-maxing) or a specific infusion which limits your infusion options. I'd say this part, along with the need for imagining how your "spells" work, the crafting mechanics and the wonkier subclass features, needs to be addressed in the final product. Also doesn't help that only the Battle-Smith allows you to use crossbows effectively without forcing you to do a balancing act between Int and Dex.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.
Why you shouldn't start ANOTHER thread about DDB not giving away free redeems on your hardcopy book purchases.
Thinking of starting ANOTHER thread asking why Epic Boons haven't been implemented? Read this first to learn why you shouldn't!
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!
What I appreciate about the UA class as it is is that you can indeed just buy or stumble across the stuff that the 2019 UA Artificer can craft, but the main difference with the latter is that you can "buy" these items at a massive money discount through the Tools of the Trade feature. Ordinarily, 10 regular healing potions cost 500gp (not an insignificant cost at lower levels). With an alchemist in the party and adequate downtime (less than a week for this subclass IIRC), that cost is reduced to 125gp (Xanathar's Guide prices crafting 1 regular healing potion at 25gp). Plate armor is 1500gp and would require 30 workweeks (about half a year) to craft normally; a battle-smith cuts down that money and downtime required to 750gp and about 7 workweeks (about a month or two).
In other words, if you want to craft these things yourself instead of buying them for some reason, you need an Artificer with the appropriate subclass to make it more reasonable from a time point of view, and the financial savings can help to justify taking this approach.
Also, from a neutral point of view, being able to get a Bag of Holding after a long rest is great if the DM is anal about encumbrance.
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.
In your opinion, from a power-gaming point of view and as the class is right now, which is the "best" Artificer subclass for playing a full-fledged Artificer without multiclassing? It seems to be the Battle-Smith to me, but I want to be sure.
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.
I am going to try and create a subclass that specializes in Infusions. While I don't like the idea of Infusion in the base class, I have no issues if it was a subclass.
Hey Yeah, archivist was a very power gamery class originally in my opinion. An Empowered “ranged” cantrip + Smite feature with no drawback? Plus the Monk’s Stunning Strike ability at range that works off Intelligence Saves. Very ridiculous class that seemed to be “balanced” by the fact that it was extremely boring to play and awkward to use. They needed a lot more work to make it playable, increasing mobility/range while removing the Stun strike.
On the other hand the other subclasses suffer from a greater flaw, in that they are built off adding a non weapon way to deal damage with your Bonus Action. However if you do take the Crossbow expert feat to get the Bonus action you deal more damage with the Crossbow, as you can the use your Arcane Weapon Spell on the damage and it outscales most of the Artillerist and Battlesmiths features. 1d8+2<2d8<2d6+3. Also the Artillerist Turret suffers currently from reasonably short survival time and long setup time (MA setup time means you lose an attacks worth of damage, potentially twice after 14th level)
In conclusion the most power gamery builds you can currently make are on Battle smith because of Int attacks helping you be good at spells, Arcane Jolt +2d4 damage and Improved Defended Defensive Pounce being a RA dealing damage. But unfortunately The most power gamery way to play still involve the OP feats Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master (or multiclassing for Two Weapon Fighting), and letting those remove what makes your mechanics uniquely Artificery.
PS: That is why I recommended I’m the survey staying away from BA damage and instead using something like Booming blade scaling on MA damage, especially with EA potentially being removed. (WotC do actually understand this Mathsy part as they are obviously searching for a new unique way to let Artificer scale different from the other martials. IE no martial had BA non weapon attacks.)
The one that I've been most wanting to try my hand at is one that specializes in wands and gains a special attack when using them that gradually scales as the class gains levels. The way I envision it, it gains a special ranged attack, BA attack while dual wielding (and perhaps something else if not), extra attack (since it's been confirmed that's going away as a main class feature anyway), and...beyond that, I'd need to see what the Artificer looks like at release (perhaps that arcanomechanical armor from a previous UA, or a variation thereof?)
It's only a rough idea, but I'm excited to work on it when the time comes.
I came up with a rough idea for a Wandslinger. The below was part of a previous post I made.
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.
I will be playing in a Ghost of Saltmarsh campaign. I will be playing a Tritan Artificer with the Shipwright background. I may take a level or two of Cleric (Forge domain) at some point. I made sure I had the stats. I will probably go Battle Smith.
Watch your back, conserve your ammo,
and NEVER cut a deal with a dragon!
Ill simply say this... What i am through... Is people saying npc are not important for story cause only heroes aka the players should ever be heroes to begin with since its their story... Im through earing that bullshit. The world would still live with or without your participation in it. Now thats a reality ! Do you pull your share of the universe... Sure... Is the npc blacksmith a nobody cause hes just an npc that does downtime ? Surely not... For all you know he might be a level 20 adventurer who settled in defending town against the occasionnal bandits. Does the world revolve around the player characters... Nope, just no !!! That would be stupid. Are they doing stuff like everybody else... Sure they do. Is it more important then what the king npc or the marshall of the capital is doing... Definitely not !!! Cause if it was... Everybody would be doing it !
Conclusion... Your characters might be doings heroics... But the world dont revolve around them ! I swear you guys seem to think of d&d as just another rpg video game where all that matters is to get to the end game content.
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)
That is one way of running D&D, and a perfectly good one, but it is not the only way.
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!
Hey @Marine to continue discussing Wondrous Invention, what happens if you lose one or all the items you received as part of the feature? Level 10 your rare item you just received and were waiting and longing for Dispell Magiced in the following session? You have to recraft it with months of downtime again? Then it is not a feature it is just a shortcut of the actual crafting rules again.
The change to Infusion I describe does say that you are crafting the items over the course of a long rest. (No longer magically infused) so would you be accepting of that?
Just spitballin' here, but one possible solution might be to have it work a bit like the Pact of the Blade boon for Warlocks where it disappears if removed from you and can reappear as an action. If we were to follow with that idea, we could also have it so you can have a number of these items "bonded" to you at a particular time, and the number you can have bonded in this matter increases with each new tier of the Wonderous Invention feature that you have.
Again, just spitballing. Not sure if it would be OP or not, but it may be worth considering for any folks who's want to homebrew it.
Seems people have already made up their mind about the current version of the class. I've tried a few times to point out the positive aspects of the UA class and it seems no-one is interested in that. So I'll at least say that I hope the class has the crafting mechanics it needs to feel like a true craftsman within an adventure instead of just between adventures like it currently is (because infusions apparently don't count). Maybe something like the Forge domain cleric's Channel Divinity, but it comes with a table of the various mundane items you can craft with various tools and the time and materials/money required to do so within reason for adventurers. Something that allows this to be done even when not in a settlement would definitely help as well.
I do think something should be done about the apparent crossbow emphasis. The current version of the class seems to make the crossbow the primary weapon of choice, but you either need specific feats like Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter to make the most of it (which pushes the class to heavily favour Variant Humans for min-maxing) or a specific infusion which limits your infusion options. I'd say this part, along with the need for imagining how your "spells" work, the crafting mechanics and the wonkier subclass features, needs to be addressed in the final product. Also doesn't help that only the Battle-Smith allows you to use crossbows effectively without forcing you to do a balancing act between Int and Dex.