Honestly, with the lore behind Battle Smiths, crafting for Armor makes sense. To me (and I mentioned this in the survey), the Artillerist makes more sense to be focused on weapons. I would remove Wand Prototype and replace it with the Arcane Armaments (and replace the base class version with something else). Then give the Artillerist discounts on crafting weapons.
At that point it opens up wands to be for a wandslinger class.
I also saw only recently that there was a hidden announcement that an Ebberon book was also in the plan for this year. It apparently was after a concert after the rest of the announcements, not sure why?
But I expect that does mean a proper deadline for the Artificer, although I don’t expect to see a full iteration on UA any more, maybe only retweaked Artillerist or something regarding the analysis of the feedback. Could be wrong of course.
At the very end, Jeremy Crawford confirms - pending survey feedback & internal review of course - they will "highly likely" move the Extra Attack feature (whether Arcane Armament or a successor) exclusively to the Battle Master sub-class, and do some tweaking of the other sub-classes to compensate.
Their logic being that they've gotten consistent feedback so far that the class overall is too versatile/unstructured, and the devs want to instill some "clear paths" for how the various artificers should be used in combat.
Honestly, with the lore behind Battle Smiths, crafting for Armor makes sense. To me (and I mentioned this in the survey), the Artillerist makes more sense to be focused on weapons. I would remove Wand Prototype and replace it with the Arcane Armaments (and replace the base class version with something else). Then give the Artillerist discounts on crafting weapons.
At that point it opens up wands to be for a wandslinger class.
I like this idea, it feels more inline with the Gunsmith subclass I imagine many of us were expecting for the Artificer. In which case:
Take the current Artillerist spell list and Wand Prototype, and give it to the Wandslinger subclass.
Give the new Artillerist spell list several of the ranger-only spells since a number utilize ranged weapon attacks already.
Crafting ranged weapons (including or specifically firearms) makes sense for the Gunsmith, melee weapons not as much; maybe let the Battle Smiths have melee weapons as well as armor, or drop armor crafting altogether for melee weapon crafting. Changed my mind, Battle Smith and Artillerist would become two sides of the same coin in this iteration.
Battle Ready and Arcane Armament both fit in with both the Battle Smith and this version of the Artillerist.
ADDENDUM: Grizzlebub now got me thinking of Wandslinger stuff XD The pet feature for the Wandslinger could be something akin to the Warlock's Pact of the Chain pact boon feature. Maybe not a familiar exactly like in the spell find familiar but some rich combination of one with all the Artificer pet caveats mixed in: max HP scales with class level, takes its turn immediately after you on your initiative count, uses your bonus action to dictate its action, regains 2d6 HP if mending is cast on it, etc. Ooh, it could look like a clockwork version of all the familiar options in the find familiar spell!
I like the idea of the artillerist having battle ready and arcane armament, being a ranged version of battle smith. (I've heard a lot of good ideas here that I will be including in the survey).
I don't think I would ask for a wand slinger subclass so much as a spellcraft subclass, maybe focusing on rune magic with a rune golem familiar. The artillerist can keep the wand crafting specialty, but the rune scribe would get the artillerist's wand prototype in the form of a rune staff and have staff crafting specialty.
I also think the artificer needs an expanded spell list. And similar to how wizard subclasses can learn spells of other schools, the base artificer should have spells that might be more suited to some subclasses than others with only thematic spells otherwise impossible without specialization as signature spells.
I like the idea of the artillerist having battle ready and arcane armament, being a ranged version of battle smith. (I've heard a lot of good ideas here that I will be including in the survey).
I don't think I would ask for a wand slinger subclass so much as a spellcraft subclass, maybe focusing on rune magic with a rune golem familiar. The artillerist can keep the wand crafting specialty, but the rune scribe would get the artillerist's wand prototype in the form of a rune staff and have staff crafting specialty.
I also think the artificer needs an expanded spell list. And similar to how wizard subclasses can learn spells of other schools, the base artificer should have spells that might be more suited to some subclasses than others with only thematic spells otherwise impossible without specialization as signature spells.
Not sure I understand what you're saying in that last sentence. Literally every spell that appears on each artificer subclass's spell list is exclusive to their respective subclasses and doesn't appear in the baseline artificer spell list.
I also think the artificer needs an expanded spell list. And similar to how wizard subclasses can learn spells of other schools, the base artificer should have spells that might be more suited to some subclasses than others with only thematic spells otherwise impossible without specialization as signature spells.
Not sure I understand what you're saying in that last sentence. Literally every spell that appears on each artificer subclass's spell list is exclusive to their respective subclasses and doesn't appear in the baseline artificer spell list.
Like for example fireball. I could imagine an alchemist mixing chemicals together and throwing it or an archivist folding a written spell into a paper airplane and throwing it, and the fireball erupts from where they land. But fireball is artillerist exclusive, because for some reason they didn't want to give the base class offensive spells, so subclasses are completely reliant on the specialist spells for offense. But that means there are some spells that are perfect for a subclass that get left out so it can meet its attack spell quota.
What I'm saying is some spells (especially offensive spells) that could be explained using multiple tool types should be base alchemist spells and for the specialist spells to feel really appropriate for that subclass.
But mostly I just want more spell options. The XGtE spells are a start.
I've been playing with artificer a bit and our group as put the alchemist and artillerist through a few test combats. Honestly, at this point, the extra attack is the only thing keeping it viable in combat post level 7. Now, I'm not saying the class is bad or that it doesn't have other useful things to bring to the table. It just seems a little jumbled and dies off noticeable at 7 and then at 11.
On one hand, crossbow expert seems like the way to go, depending how much your DM is willing to wave the 'bonus action attack' property of the feat. The problem is that both subclasses have heavy competition for your bonus action, which the feat uses too. Artillerists are particularly hit hard as their force turrets provide 2d8 damage every round, which means the feat isn't that great. Even the alchemist has to wonder if taking the feat is worth it, given the usefulness of the homunculus' help action, salve and later on the acid spit. Choices are good but this isn't really a choice. That artificers seem pushed towards using a crossbow, it seems odd they can't take advantage of this feat.
So... casting? Hmm. Well, casting is outright difficult as a half-caster. You can't rely on it to be your main source of damage due to limited slots and the delay in spell levels but both alchemist and artillerists seem like they're encouraged to use their subclass spells. This means they trade off a good portion of their utility to act as a caster when they're not set up for it. Also, depending on the wording for the arcane weapon spell, you may not get the +int bonus to spells or cantrips. The way my DM interpreted it was that the spell alone wouldn't allow you to add the +int to a cantrip/spell, as it doesn't use a weapon. The workaround was that if you had infused your weapon to make it an arcane focus, you could use it as a focus to get the +int because it is a weapon. Convoluted I know and somewhat of a stretch.
Subclass features were also a bit frustrating. The reliance on poison damage for alchemist was painful, although acid helps... a bit. The later features were lackluster. How often are the restoration line really cast? Even in our ToA playthrough it wasn't super common. Artillerists seem even more pushed to use magic for damage but run into the difficulties I previously mentioned. The wand prototype feature is equally baffling. Another cantrip. Wow, such flexibility. Wait, don't we get to double up on that at 10th level?
I really think that both classes could do with some extra love. Maybe allow the alchemist to turn any damage spell into acid or poison damage? Given them a source of damage that isn't spells or acid spit? Add better utility than just being a restoration bot? The artillerist needs similar things. Maybe allow their wand prototype to discharge both cantrips in a turn with +int damage? Add more utility to their list? Both subclasses need their abilities to scale better, period.
The base class also needs to do more than be a magic item vending machine in later levels. Heck, being able to add an infusion to a magical weapon would be great. It would hurt pretty awful to luck out on the loot tables but have to pass on that sweet crossbow because you can't add a repeating infusion to it because it's already got a +2 bonus. Something, anyway! I want my artificer to hit 20th level and feel like they've accomplished something, not do 'meh' damage with the crossbow, know a hand-full of spells and tell themselves it's okay because can bling it up better than anyone else.
I've been playing with artificer a bit and our group as put the alchemist and artillerist through a few test combats. Honestly, at this point, the extra attack is the only thing keeping it viable in combat post level 7. Now, I'm not saying the class is bad or that it doesn't have other useful things to bring to the table. It just seems a little jumbled and dies off noticeable at 7 and then at 11.
On one hand, crossbow expert seems like the way to go, depending how much your DM is willing to wave the 'bonus action attack' property of the feat. The problem is that both subclasses have heavy competition for your bonus action, which the feat uses too. Artillerists are particularly hit hard as their force turrets provide 2d8 damage every round, which means the feat isn't that great. Even the alchemist has to wonder if taking the feat is worth it, given the usefulness of the homunculus' help action, salve and later on the acid spit. Choices are good but this isn't really a choice. That artificers seem pushed towards using a crossbow, it seems odd they can't take advantage of this feat.
So... casting? Hmm. Well, casting is outright difficult as a half-caster. You can't rely on it to be your main source of damage due to limited slots and the delay in spell levels but both alchemist and artillerists seem like they're encouraged to use their subclass spells. This means they trade off a good portion of their utility to act as a caster when they're not set up for it. Also, depending on the wording for the arcane weapon spell, you may not get the +int bonus to spells or cantrips. The way my DM interpreted it was that the spell alone wouldn't allow you to add the +int to a cantrip/spell, as it doesn't use a weapon. The workaround was that if you had infused your weapon to make it an arcane focus, you could use it as a focus to get the +int because it is a weapon. Convoluted I know and somewhat of a stretch.
Subclass features were also a bit frustrating. The reliance on poison damage for alchemist was painful, although acid helps... a bit. The later features were lackluster. How often are the restoration line really cast? Even in our ToA playthrough it wasn't super common. Artillerists seem even more pushed to use magic for damage but run into the difficulties I previously mentioned. The wand prototype feature is equally baffling. Another cantrip. Wow, such flexibility. Wait, don't we get to double up on that at 10th level?
I really think that both classes could do with some extra love. Maybe allow the alchemist to turn any damage spell into acid or poison damage? Given them a source of damage that isn't spells or acid spit? Add better utility than just being a restoration bot? The artillerist needs similar things. Maybe allow their wand prototype to discharge both cantrips in a turn with +int damage? Add more utility to their list? Both subclasses need their abilities to scale better, period.
The base class also needs to do more than be a magic item vending machine in later levels. Heck, being able to add an infusion to a magical weapon would be great. It would hurt pretty awful to luck out on the loot tables but have to pass on that sweet crossbow because you can't add a repeating infusion to it because it's already got a +2 bonus. Something, anyway! I want my artificer to hit 20th level and feel like they've accomplished something, not do 'meh' damage with the crossbow, know a hand-full of spells and tell themselves it's okay because can bling it up better than anyone else.
Agreed about the weird, tenuous-level of reliance on the Crossbow Expert feat that the artificer currently has. Like, between the number of other options available for the artificer to use their bonus action on and the Repeating Shot infusion, the only benefit they're really getting from the feat is its second effect: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." It's not a bad benefit, I just can't justify spending my feat selection for effectively that effect alone. The timing of when you could get the feat also really works against it unless you're a variant human, and even then it just ends up feeling like a waste of a feat at later levels. The earliest a non-variant-human artificer could get Crossbow Expert is level 4, yet on your journey to that level you would gain access to the Repeat Shot infusion at level 2, and the bonus action options from your subclass's "pet" at level 3. Honestly, I think the design intent here was to make ranged weapons our preferred weapon of choice as an artificer, maybe with a focus especially on crossbows but not necessarily hand crossbows. The first two effects of Crossbow Expert affect all crossbows but the last effect really only affects hand crossbows. And since the last effect Crossbow Expert also requires your bonus action to use, it's just simpler to use a bigger crossbow and not worry about wasting your bonus action on an additional hand crossbow attack since you have better options to spend your bonus action on. Now that I'm thinking about it, the ideal level to take Crossbow Expert would be level 12; the bonus to attack and damage rolls from the Repeating Shot infusion never increases to +2 but the bonus from the Enhanced Weapon infusion does at level 12, though you'll probably need to get used to getting ammunition for your crossbow again if you dropped the Repeating Shot infusion for Enhanced Weapon and Crossbow Expert.
I also agree that the baseline Arcane Armament feature is the only thing keeping the class viable from level 7 and up. I know in other forum threads I've been vocal about making Arcane Armament a subclass feature rather than baseline, but then I thought about what else could replace that feature baseline at level 5. Among the 12 base classes already in the game, exactly 6 of them get Extra Attack as a baseline feature at level 5, including the other half-caster classes (paladin & ranger) and the classes capable of becoming third-casters (Eldritch Knights, Arcane Trickster, and to an extent Way of the Four Element monks). The other 6 classes gain access to 3rd-level spell slots baseline; these are your full-casters (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard) and the warlock. Take away Arcane Armament as a baseline feature, and your only remaining meaningful contribution in combat as a level 5 artificer is 2nd-level spells. I think you hit the nail on its head about the limitations of being a half-caster, especially with the subclasses in mind, too: "You can't rely on it to be your main source of damage due to limited slots and the delay in spell levels but both alchemist and artillerists seem like they're encouraged to use their subclass spells."
Frankly, I think the solution is to make the artificer a full-caster class. This would make the removal of baseline Arcane Armament easier to swallow as we'd still have access to 3rd-level spell slots as a 5th-level full-caster, and there's already enough precedence of an Extra Attack feature becoming a subclass feature for a full-caster class (Valor Bards, Sword Bards, and Bladesinger Wizards). Now here's where I get weird with the rules design: if you make the artificer a full-caster, you should let them have access to spell slots for 6th-level-or-higher spells but give them NO new spells above level 5. As mentioned earlier, both alchemists and artillerists seem encouraged to use their subclass spells; I believe that if say the artillerist had access to a 6th-level spell slot and no 6th-level spell to spend it on, why wouldn't they spend it to cast a 6th-level fireball or cone of cold then?
I realize there's a number of new issues that would arise from making the artificer a full-caster this way. But I'll end things here for now and let the rest of the community think on it.
Edited because I remembered that rogues do NOT get an Extra Attack at level 5, so listing Arcane Tricksters where I did was incorrect.
I do feel that the Repeating Shot infusion does alleviate the pressure on forcing the need for the Crossbow Expert feat. Granted there are stilp advantages to getting it.
I do feel that the Repeating Shot infusion does alleviate the pressure on forcing the need for the Crossbow Expert feat. Granted there are stilp advantages to getting it.
Even less reason for a battlesmith Artificer I really think that the bonus action hand crossbow attacks cuts into the Defenders bite which uses the Battlesmiths Bonus Action. The Ranged attack without disadvantage being the only reason to take the Crossbow Expert feat which is still really good. I am building a Gnome Battlesmith that will use a hand crossbow with the repeating shot infusion with the Arcane Weapon spell the 2d8 bite still beats a 2d6 crossbow attack. depending on the attribute bonus damage.
I do feel that the Repeating Shot infusion does alleviate the pressure on forcing the need for the Crossbow Expert feat. Granted there are stilp advantages to getting it.
Even less reason for a battlesmith Artificer I really think that the bonus action hand crossbow attacks cuts into the Defenders bite which uses the Battlesmiths Bonus Action. The Ranged attack without disadvantage being the only reason to take the Crossbow Expert feat which is still really good. I am building a Gnome Battlesmith that will use a hand crossbow with the repeating shot infusion with the Arcane Weapon spell the 2d8 bite still beats a 2d6 crossbow attack. depending on the attribute bonus damage.
Agreed about the weird, tenuous-level of reliance on the Crossbow Expert feat that the artificer currently has.
I also agree that the baseline Arcane Armament feature is the only thing keeping the class viable from level 7 and up.
Frankly, I think the solution is to make the artificer a full-caster class. I realize there's a number of new issues that would arise from making the artificer a full-caster this way. But I'll end things here for now and let the rest of the community think on .
Snipped for brevity :)
There's a bit of speculation going around regarding Crossbow Expert and the Repeating Infusion letting you take four attacks in a round. It stems from a bit of Sage Advice talking about the loading and ammunition properties and how this prevents someone with extra attack shooting four times. With the Repeating Infusion to remove the prohibitive ammunition issue... people are hoping for four attacks, which would be very nice in addition to Arcane Weapon damage. This is why everyone wants to somehow squeeze in Crossbow Expert and why there is such clamor over the use of bonus action for the specialization pet. Battle Smith is even more limited with its spell list being almost all smites which use bonus actions and it sucks for the Artillerist because their turret only lasts 10 minutes so the pressure is on. Anyway, my DM would probably say no to Crossbow Expert cheese this but given how limited Artificer is... a case could be made.
This brings me to the Infusion issue you mentioned. Infusions sound nice on the surface but they are very limited. I can't use the same infusion more than once, which just is frustrating. I also think that Repeating Infusion will be standard for most, which means the infusion becomes the equivalent of a subpar invocation I have to pay to use, by taking up an attunement slot. Infusions also lose value very quickly in a high/er level game or a game where magical items aren't super rare. Like you said because Repeating doesn't scale, it becomes reliant on Crossbow Expert cheese, which I mentioned above, to be viable. I'd love to see more scaling of infusions and perhaps the ability to put utility infusions on magical items.
I don't mind Arcane Armament but I don't like that this whole class has an identity problem. It doesn't know what it wants to do, how to do it or even be competent at any of it. I want to love it. The lore is awesome and there are hints of things I'd really enjoy playing. It just doesn't work well the way it is past level seven. After that it limps and progressively falls behind.
Would making it a full caster work? I think there are segments of the Artificer fanbase that would be up in arms. Personally, I don't think it could hurt but there has to be a more thematic way of handling it. Specialization abilities that were effective, not completely tied to spells and with reasonable scaling would be good. That would be my first choice.
If they did give full casting... I wouldn't mind seeing more utility spells. The current spell list is good thematically but upcasting lower level spells probably isn't enough and it will need a little help later on. Perhaps including extended specialization spell lists to add to flavor?
Honestly, for the second go of writing up the class, this is just sad. So many problems.
Fully agree, TheManyNamed - it's really hard to put my finger on what the artificer does competitively & what the answer could be (for those of us who aren't taken with the current build).
I started to write a wall of text about the issues/conflicts, but it was a bit much so I'll just post one possible brainstorm of a class (or Artillerist) feature...
Crossbow Tinkering
At 2nd level, your tinkering allows you to modify a crossbow to your own specifications. Whenever you finish a long rest and your tinker's tools are with you, you can modify one crossbow you own (magical or non-magical) to be more efficient in combat. You may ignore the loading property of crossbows you have modified. A modified crossbow also require no ammunition; it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it. The ammunition produced by the modified crossbow vanishes the instant after the it hits or misses a target. Only you are able to wield a crossbow that you have modified, however anyone with tinker's tools may remove modifications from a crossbow and restore it to it's original condition by spending an hour and passing a DC 20 Intelligence (Tinker's Tools) check.
If your Dungeon Master uses the rules on firearms in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (p. 267), they may allow this feature to be used on firearms also. At the DM's discretion, using this feature on a firearm might consume materials equal to a quarter the value of the firearm and also allow you to ignore the reloading property.
I think this would be better than occupying 20-50% of an artificer's infusions, and also makes it compatible with both looted magical crossbows and the scaling Enhanced Weapon infusion. Potentially this could instead be a unique feature for the artillerist, if they no longer had Wand Prototype.
I think this would be better than occupying 20-50% of an artificer's infusions, and also makes it compatible with both looted magical crossbows and the scaling Enhanced Weapon infusion. Potentially this could instead be a unique feature for the artillerist, if they no longer had Wand Prototype.
I think this would be an excellent Artillerist feature and would neatly address the issue with competition from infusions or other magical items. Wand Prototype is laughable in its damage capabilities and your Crossbow Tinkering with turrets would do far better. Mind you I'd very much like to see turrets that aren't a ten minutes a spell slot and maybe a little more scaling damage. The only sticking point is that I know Alchemist would really want something like this too. Mind you, I'd love to see them focused on potion splash damage or maybe a splash delivered debuff. Maybe a small aoe attached to a single attack, along with a normal attack? Not sure. Does need to get away from poison damage a bit more and that awful +int to one roll.
I think this would be better than occupying 20-50% of an artificer's infusions, and also makes it compatible with both looted magical crossbows and the scaling Enhanced Weapon infusion. Potentially this could instead be a unique feature for the artillerist, if they no longer had Wand Prototype.
I think this would be an excellent Artillerist feature and would neatly address the issue with competition from infusions or other magical items. Wand Prototype is laughable in its damage capabilities and your Crossbow Tinkering with turrets would do far better. Mind you I'd very much like to see turrets that aren't a ten minutes a spell slot and maybe a little more scaling damage. The only sticking point is that I know Alchemist would really want something like this too. Mind you, I'd love to see them focused on potion splash damage or maybe a splash delivered debuff. Maybe a small aoe attached to a single attack, along with a normal attack? Not sure. Does need to get away from poison damage a bit more and that awful +int to one roll.
I have cheekily expanded on my alchemist idea into yet another thread - alchemist is where my heart lies, despite the current implementation basically just consisting of the homunculus and restoration freebies.
I have cheekily expanded on my alchemist idea into yet another thread - alchemist is where my heart lies, despite the current implementation basically just consisting of the homunculus and restoration freebies.
I like the idea of the alchemical compound feature. It's clever, fun and provides a little more dps and a lot of flexibility. I think, though, it's a little too generous in its flexibility at the moment. The effects by themselves aren't horribly excessive alone but access to all of them? That's a bit too good. You effectively double your cantrip list and can cherry pick the best features. A mini fireball doing sonic damage? Or firebolt ignoring resistance? That's potentially higher in dps than hand crossbow with crossbow expert cheese and has nice rider effects. The limit of one compound per short rest is good but perhaps limiting the number of compounds you know by your intelligence bonus and then added over a few levels rather than all at once might be a bit more balanced. Even then it's very powerful.
I understood it was only one augment per short rest. Even just one of the modifications per short rest is strong simply because you have a long list of options. Like I said, it's pretty much doubling your spell list.
It can even make your spell list utterly irrelevant. A small 5ft aoe at 4d10 or even 4d6 of a less resisted type, is better than a 2nd level Scorcher and you can use it indefinitely. Not the greatest spell to compare against, I admit, but it goes to show the equivalent of a second level spell cast that you can cast forever is too overpowered. 4d10/12 on a single target it can't resist is pretty good as far as cantrips go too. To say nothing of the more utility focused riders you can add.
In short, it's a great idea but too much to have access to all the options at short or even long rest.
Honestly, with the lore behind Battle Smiths, crafting for Armor makes sense. To me (and I mentioned this in the survey), the Artillerist makes more sense to be focused on weapons. I would remove Wand Prototype and replace it with the Arcane Armaments (and replace the base class version with something else). Then give the Artillerist discounts on crafting weapons.
At that point it opens up wands to be for a wandslinger class.
Wandslinging does sound fun!
FYI for those who haven't seen it posted in the main Artificer thread:
At the very end, Jeremy Crawford confirms - pending survey feedback & internal review of course - they will "highly likely" move the Extra Attack feature (whether Arcane Armament or a successor) exclusively to the Battle Master sub-class, and do some tweaking of the other sub-classes to compensate.
Their logic being that they've gotten consistent feedback so far that the class overall is too versatile/unstructured, and the devs want to instill some "clear paths" for how the various artificers should be used in combat.
I like this idea, it feels more inline with the Gunsmith subclass I imagine many of us were expecting for the Artificer. In which case:
Crafting ranged weapons (including or specifically firearms) makes sense for the Gunsmith, melee weapons not as much; maybe let the Battle Smiths have melee weapons as well as armor, or drop armor crafting altogether for melee weapon crafting.Changed my mind, Battle Smith and Artillerist would become two sides of the same coin in this iteration.ADDENDUM: Grizzlebub now got me thinking of Wandslinger stuff XD
The pet feature for the Wandslinger could be something akin to the Warlock's Pact of the Chain pact boon feature. Maybe not a familiar exactly like in the spell find familiar but some rich combination of one with all the Artificer pet caveats mixed in: max HP scales with class level, takes its turn immediately after you on your initiative count, uses your bonus action to dictate its action, regains 2d6 HP if mending is cast on it, etc. Ooh, it could look like a clockwork version of all the familiar options in the find familiar spell!
Edited to include addendum.
I like the idea of the artillerist having battle ready and arcane armament, being a ranged version of battle smith. (I've heard a lot of good ideas here that I will be including in the survey).
I don't think I would ask for a wand slinger subclass so much as a spellcraft subclass, maybe focusing on rune magic with a rune golem familiar. The artillerist can keep the wand crafting specialty, but the rune scribe would get the artillerist's wand prototype in the form of a rune staff and have staff crafting specialty.
I also think the artificer needs an expanded spell list. And similar to how wizard subclasses can learn spells of other schools, the base artificer should have spells that might be more suited to some subclasses than others with only thematic spells otherwise impossible without specialization as signature spells.
Not sure I understand what you're saying in that last sentence. Literally every spell that appears on each artificer subclass's spell list is exclusive to their respective subclasses and doesn't appear in the baseline artificer spell list.
Like for example fireball. I could imagine an alchemist mixing chemicals together and throwing it or an archivist folding a written spell into a paper airplane and throwing it, and the fireball erupts from where they land. But fireball is artillerist exclusive, because for some reason they didn't want to give the base class offensive spells, so subclasses are completely reliant on the specialist spells for offense. But that means there are some spells that are perfect for a subclass that get left out so it can meet its attack spell quota.
What I'm saying is some spells (especially offensive spells) that could be explained using multiple tool types should be base alchemist spells and for the specialist spells to feel really appropriate for that subclass.
But mostly I just want more spell options. The XGtE spells are a start.
I've been playing with artificer a bit and our group as put the alchemist and artillerist through a few test combats. Honestly, at this point, the extra attack is the only thing keeping it viable in combat post level 7. Now, I'm not saying the class is bad or that it doesn't have other useful things to bring to the table. It just seems a little jumbled and dies off noticeable at 7 and then at 11.
On one hand, crossbow expert seems like the way to go, depending how much your DM is willing to wave the 'bonus action attack' property of the feat. The problem is that both subclasses have heavy competition for your bonus action, which the feat uses too. Artillerists are particularly hit hard as their force turrets provide 2d8 damage every round, which means the feat isn't that great. Even the alchemist has to wonder if taking the feat is worth it, given the usefulness of the homunculus' help action, salve and later on the acid spit. Choices are good but this isn't really a choice. That artificers seem pushed towards using a crossbow, it seems odd they can't take advantage of this feat.
So... casting? Hmm. Well, casting is outright difficult as a half-caster. You can't rely on it to be your main source of damage due to limited slots and the delay in spell levels but both alchemist and artillerists seem like they're encouraged to use their subclass spells. This means they trade off a good portion of their utility to act as a caster when they're not set up for it. Also, depending on the wording for the arcane weapon spell, you may not get the +int bonus to spells or cantrips. The way my DM interpreted it was that the spell alone wouldn't allow you to add the +int to a cantrip/spell, as it doesn't use a weapon. The workaround was that if you had infused your weapon to make it an arcane focus, you could use it as a focus to get the +int because it is a weapon. Convoluted I know and somewhat of a stretch.
Subclass features were also a bit frustrating. The reliance on poison damage for alchemist was painful, although acid helps... a bit. The later features were lackluster. How often are the restoration line really cast? Even in our ToA playthrough it wasn't super common. Artillerists seem even more pushed to use magic for damage but run into the difficulties I previously mentioned. The wand prototype feature is equally baffling. Another cantrip. Wow, such flexibility. Wait, don't we get to double up on that at 10th level?
I really think that both classes could do with some extra love. Maybe allow the alchemist to turn any damage spell into acid or poison damage? Given them a source of damage that isn't spells or acid spit? Add better utility than just being a restoration bot? The artillerist needs similar things. Maybe allow their wand prototype to discharge both cantrips in a turn with +int damage? Add more utility to their list? Both subclasses need their abilities to scale better, period.
The base class also needs to do more than be a magic item vending machine in later levels. Heck, being able to add an infusion to a magical weapon would be great. It would hurt pretty awful to luck out on the loot tables but have to pass on that sweet crossbow because you can't add a repeating infusion to it because it's already got a +2 bonus. Something, anyway! I want my artificer to hit 20th level and feel like they've accomplished something, not do 'meh' damage with the crossbow, know a hand-full of spells and tell themselves it's okay because can bling it up better than anyone else.
Agreed about the weird, tenuous-level of reliance on the Crossbow Expert feat that the artificer currently has. Like, between the number of other options available for the artificer to use their bonus action on and the Repeating Shot infusion, the only benefit they're really getting from the feat is its second effect: "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls." It's not a bad benefit, I just can't justify spending my feat selection for effectively that effect alone. The timing of when you could get the feat also really works against it unless you're a variant human, and even then it just ends up feeling like a waste of a feat at later levels. The earliest a non-variant-human artificer could get Crossbow Expert is level 4, yet on your journey to that level you would gain access to the Repeat Shot infusion at level 2, and the bonus action options from your subclass's "pet" at level 3. Honestly, I think the design intent here was to make ranged weapons our preferred weapon of choice as an artificer, maybe with a focus especially on crossbows but not necessarily hand crossbows. The first two effects of Crossbow Expert affect all crossbows but the last effect really only affects hand crossbows. And since the last effect Crossbow Expert also requires your bonus action to use, it's just simpler to use a bigger crossbow and not worry about wasting your bonus action on an additional hand crossbow attack since you have better options to spend your bonus action on. Now that I'm thinking about it, the ideal level to take Crossbow Expert would be level 12; the bonus to attack and damage rolls from the Repeating Shot infusion never increases to +2 but the bonus from the Enhanced Weapon infusion does at level 12, though you'll probably need to get used to getting ammunition for your crossbow again if you dropped the Repeating Shot infusion for Enhanced Weapon and Crossbow Expert.
I also agree that the baseline Arcane Armament feature is the only thing keeping the class viable from level 7 and up. I know in other forum threads I've been vocal about making Arcane Armament a subclass feature rather than baseline, but then I thought about what else could replace that feature baseline at level 5. Among the 12 base classes already in the game, exactly 6 of them get Extra Attack as a baseline feature at level 5, including the other half-caster classes (paladin & ranger) and the classes capable of becoming third-casters (Eldritch Knights,
Arcane Trickster, and to an extent Way of the Four Element monks). The other 6 classes gain access to 3rd-level spell slots baseline; these are your full-casters (bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard) and the warlock. Take away Arcane Armament as a baseline feature, and your only remaining meaningful contribution in combat as a level 5 artificer is 2nd-level spells. I think you hit the nail on its head about the limitations of being a half-caster, especially with the subclasses in mind, too: "You can't rely on it to be your main source of damage due to limited slots and the delay in spell levels but both alchemist and artillerists seem like they're encouraged to use their subclass spells."Frankly, I think the solution is to make the artificer a full-caster class. This would make the removal of baseline Arcane Armament easier to swallow as we'd still have access to 3rd-level spell slots as a 5th-level full-caster, and there's already enough precedence of an Extra Attack feature becoming a subclass feature for a full-caster class (Valor Bards, Sword Bards, and Bladesinger Wizards). Now here's where I get weird with the rules design: if you make the artificer a full-caster, you should let them have access to spell slots for 6th-level-or-higher spells but give them NO new spells above level 5. As mentioned earlier, both alchemists and artillerists seem encouraged to use their subclass spells; I believe that if say the artillerist had access to a 6th-level spell slot and no 6th-level spell to spend it on, why wouldn't they spend it to cast a 6th-level fireball or cone of cold then?
I realize there's a number of new issues that would arise from making the artificer a full-caster this way. But I'll end things here for now and let the rest of the community think on it.
Edited because I remembered that rogues do NOT get an Extra Attack at level 5, so listing Arcane Tricksters where I did was incorrect.
I do feel that the Repeating Shot infusion does alleviate the pressure on forcing the need for the Crossbow Expert feat. Granted there are stilp advantages to getting it.
Even less reason for a battlesmith Artificer I really think that the bonus action hand crossbow attacks cuts into the Defenders bite which uses the Battlesmiths Bonus Action. The Ranged attack without disadvantage being the only reason to take the Crossbow Expert feat which is still really good. I am building a Gnome Battlesmith that will use a hand crossbow with the repeating shot infusion with the Arcane Weapon spell the 2d8 bite still beats a 2d6 crossbow attack. depending on the attribute bonus damage.
Where are you getting 2d8 bite damage from?
Sorry Swapped the bite and repair dice my bad lol.
Snipped for brevity :)
There's a bit of speculation going around regarding Crossbow Expert and the Repeating Infusion letting you take four attacks in a round. It stems from a bit of Sage Advice talking about the loading and ammunition properties and how this prevents someone with extra attack shooting four times. With the Repeating Infusion to remove the prohibitive ammunition issue... people are hoping for four attacks, which would be very nice in addition to Arcane Weapon damage. This is why everyone wants to somehow squeeze in Crossbow Expert and why there is such clamor over the use of bonus action for the specialization pet. Battle Smith is even more limited with its spell list being almost all smites which use bonus actions and it sucks for the Artillerist because their turret only lasts 10 minutes so the pressure is on. Anyway, my DM would probably say no to Crossbow Expert cheese this but given how limited Artificer is... a case could be made.
This brings me to the Infusion issue you mentioned. Infusions sound nice on the surface but they are very limited. I can't use the same infusion more than once, which just is frustrating. I also think that Repeating Infusion will be standard for most, which means the infusion becomes the equivalent of a subpar invocation I have to pay to use, by taking up an attunement slot. Infusions also lose value very quickly in a high/er level game or a game where magical items aren't super rare. Like you said because Repeating doesn't scale, it becomes reliant on Crossbow Expert cheese, which I mentioned above, to be viable. I'd love to see more scaling of infusions and perhaps the ability to put utility infusions on magical items.
I don't mind Arcane Armament but I don't like that this whole class has an identity problem. It doesn't know what it wants to do, how to do it or even be competent at any of it. I want to love it. The lore is awesome and there are hints of things I'd really enjoy playing. It just doesn't work well the way it is past level seven. After that it limps and progressively falls behind.
Would making it a full caster work? I think there are segments of the Artificer fanbase that would be up in arms. Personally, I don't think it could hurt but there has to be a more thematic way of handling it. Specialization abilities that were effective, not completely tied to spells and with reasonable scaling would be good. That would be my first choice.
If they did give full casting... I wouldn't mind seeing more utility spells. The current spell list is good thematically but upcasting lower level spells probably isn't enough and it will need a little help later on. Perhaps including extended specialization spell lists to add to flavor?
Honestly, for the second go of writing up the class, this is just sad. So many problems.
Fully agree, TheManyNamed - it's really hard to put my finger on what the artificer does competitively & what the answer could be (for those of us who aren't taken with the current build).
I started to write a wall of text about the issues/conflicts, but it was a bit much so I'll just post one possible brainstorm of a class (or Artillerist) feature...
Crossbow Tinkering
At 2nd level, your tinkering allows you to modify a crossbow to your own specifications. Whenever you finish a long rest and your tinker's tools are with you, you can modify one crossbow you own (magical or non-magical) to be more efficient in combat. You may ignore the loading property of crossbows you have modified. A modified crossbow also require no ammunition; it magically produces one piece of ammunition each time you make a ranged attack with it, unless you manually load it. The ammunition produced by the modified crossbow vanishes the instant after the it hits or misses a target. Only you are able to wield a crossbow that you have modified, however anyone with tinker's tools may remove modifications from a crossbow and restore it to it's original condition by spending an hour and passing a DC 20 Intelligence (Tinker's Tools) check.
If your Dungeon Master uses the rules on firearms in the Dungeon Master’s Guide (p. 267), they may allow this feature to be used on firearms also. At the DM's discretion, using this feature on a firearm might consume materials equal to a quarter the value of the firearm and also allow you to ignore the reloading property.
I think this would be better than occupying 20-50% of an artificer's infusions, and also makes it compatible with both looted magical crossbows and the scaling Enhanced Weapon infusion. Potentially this could instead be a unique feature for the artillerist, if they no longer had Wand Prototype.
I think this would be an excellent Artillerist feature and would neatly address the issue with competition from infusions or other magical items. Wand Prototype is laughable in its damage capabilities and your Crossbow Tinkering with turrets would do far better. Mind you I'd very much like to see turrets that aren't a ten minutes a spell slot and maybe a little more scaling damage. The only sticking point is that I know Alchemist would really want something like this too. Mind you, I'd love to see them focused on potion splash damage or maybe a splash delivered debuff. Maybe a small aoe attached to a single attack, along with a normal attack? Not sure. Does need to get away from poison damage a bit more and that awful +int to one roll.
I have cheekily expanded on my alchemist idea into yet another thread - alchemist is where my heart lies, despite the current implementation basically just consisting of the homunculus and restoration freebies.
I like the idea of the alchemical compound feature. It's clever, fun and provides a little more dps and a lot of flexibility. I think, though, it's a little too generous in its flexibility at the moment. The effects by themselves aren't horribly excessive alone but access to all of them? That's a bit too good. You effectively double your cantrip list and can cherry pick the best features. A mini fireball doing sonic damage? Or firebolt ignoring resistance? That's potentially higher in dps than hand crossbow with crossbow expert cheese and has nice rider effects. The limit of one compound per short rest is good but perhaps limiting the number of compounds you know by your intelligence bonus and then added over a few levels rather than all at once might be a bit more balanced. Even then it's very powerful.
Actually it is supposed to be that you only know one compound cantrip, and respec it after a rest!
Also each compound is a base + one augment, so the augments are all mutually exclusive.
I shall tidy it up to make that clear a.s.a.p.
I understood it was only one augment per short rest. Even just one of the modifications per short rest is strong simply because you have a long list of options. Like I said, it's pretty much doubling your spell list.
It can even make your spell list utterly irrelevant. A small 5ft aoe at 4d10 or even 4d6 of a less resisted type, is better than a 2nd level Scorcher and you can use it indefinitely. Not the greatest spell to compare against, I admit, but it goes to show the equivalent of a second level spell cast that you can cast forever is too overpowered. 4d10/12 on a single target it can't resist is pretty good as far as cantrips go too. To say nothing of the more utility focused riders you can add.
In short, it's a great idea but too much to have access to all the options at short or even long rest.