# Reviewing the Artificer



## fuindordm (Jul 3, 2008)

*Ground Rules:* this thread is for serious discussion of the choices that WotC made when adapting the artificer to 4th edition, and new proposals for the class.  Let's keep the banter to a minimum, and make this a useful resource for the game designers.

Here then are my own thoughts:

The artificer is a very strong concept--a master of magic, but not necessarily of spells or battle magic. The strongest archetype reproduced by this class is the arcane crafter (Weyland Smith, Mim and Eol from the Silmarillion), but it can also represent dusty scholars, smart explorers, technicians and alchemists.  

While the new artificer boasts many powers and abilities that support this theme, I feel that in certain cases the flavor of the class has been sacrificed to shoehorn them into the leader role. On the other hand, we also see the designers stretching their wings to extend the basic power framework--which in my mind is a very good thing.

There are some very good ideas in this class, especially:
 Linking some powers to a short rest (foresight-->strength).
 Artifices--halfway between zones and creatures (a solid mechanic, with their own HP and even the ability to move). 
 Healing surges as fuel--powering stronger magic with your own life force. Lovely, and very much on-theme!
All three are certainly keepers, and have immense potential. They should be used frequently to make this class a unique play experience.

Sadly, the number of such powers is fairly sparse. The list has many direct damage spells, following the now-familiar 4e model for leader powers: hurt the enemy and buff your friends at the same time. The problem is that aside from requiring a ranged weapon to use, far too many of feel no different from the cleric's attack+buff powers. I don't mind a few "magic bolt" powers, but they shouldn't be the focus of the class.  

I firmly believe that there is no need for all classes to focus on direct damage. Take the Warlord, for instance: one of their dailies isn't even an attack. Instead, they allow an ally to attack in their place. What a great idea! The Warlord fulfills the leader role mainly by focusing the party's damage output where it is needed most. The artificer should follow a similar model, but using magic rather than tactics--in my opinion, their flavor demands it.

On this level, here are some ideas for artificer at-wills:
 _Disrupting Blow_: Melee attack (Int vs AC), plus enemy gets a -2 to AC for one round. (Not unlike Aggravating Force)
 _Brand Weapon_: No attack, you or adjacent ally adds +1d6+Con elemental damage to their next attack (your choice of element).
 _Exploding Missile_: Ranged attack (Int vs AC), enemies in burst 1 take Con bonus in "splash damage" (your choice of element).

Now, how about their leader role? Let's look at the three things leaders should do for their party:
Cleric (healing and buffing)
Warlord (healing and focusing party damage)
Artificer (buffing and focusing party damage) 

To feel distinct, the artificer should be able to enhance their allies' attacks, especially by adding magical properties to them.  They should also enhance their allies' defenses in the same manner.  The designers may be afraid that such a character is boring, but many of the artificer powers they designed are so interesting and flavorful that I'm sure the class would be a lot of fun even with very few powerful direct damage effects. 

One might argue that all leaders need to provide lots of healing. I don't think this is true. First of all, avoiding damage is as good as repairing damage--if the artificer can grant _appropriate _resistances and defense bonuses on the fly ("A mind flayer, huh? Let me touch your helmets--there you go, +4 to Will defense!") or during a short rest, then they can make it much easier for a party to survive the encounter.  

The healing word/inspiring word formula is growing tiresome, and the alchemical flavor of "healing infusion" feels forced. Must all artificers fling magic tea at their allies to keep them alive? I much prefer the Regeneration Infusion, Healing Figurine and Hero's Elixir.

Finally, the hallmark of an artificer is flexibility.  Just as the wizard can change some of their spells every day, the artificer's powers should seldom be limited to a single damage type. The "magic bolts" are cool, but what the class really needs is an ability to play with elemental keywords in their own powers and their allies' equipment. 

*Recommendations*:
 When filling out the power list, try to find more Artifices, "short rest" powers, and party-buffing powers with variable keywords (which need not damage enemies at the same time). There are already more than enough "magic bolts"--players with the urge to play a "blastifer" can take them all, those who want to be crafters can focus on other things.
 Replace "Healing Infusion" with a class ability that allows them to grant minor elemental resistances or defense bonuses on the fly. Otherwise, its structure can be similar: for example, it can still be usable 2/encounter and feats can still open up other uses. The basic ability should be something along the lines of granting 5/10/15 resistance at the three tiers. 
If more healing is needed, you could allow the ally to spend a healing 
surge at the same time--but without restoring bonus HP.  
 Any power with an alchemy flavor should require _at least_ a short rest to prepare. Slick Concoction, for example, should really be of this type. And when it's used, it should actually create a slippery zone--not let the artificer push someone in any direction desired.  Caustic rampart also falls into this category--it's a really cool power, but I'd rather see the artificer brewing it up beforehand.

Thanks for listening!


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 3, 2008)

The healing aspect of the artificer is a legacy thing tho from 3rd edition.  They actually were capable of making healing concoctions, and using them at opportune moments.  In an Eberron game, while other characters might buy a wand of CLW, but the artificer could be making scrolls of CMW at level 1, and using them.  And cheaply at that.  

Plus, it's a defining feature of leaders, to be able to either magicly use, or non-magicly inspire, the use of healing surges outside the second wind action.

Defenders get to mark things.
Strikers get to add bonus dice of damage once/round.
Leaders get an ability to healing surge.

What makes the artificer different than the Cleric or Warlord is that he can use this ability in an alternate way, by providing temp hp to the entire group, and I could definately see this being -very- useful.  Perhaps they'll get feats that allow other uses of this feature.  (Kinda like how Divinity Feats affect Channel Divinity)


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 3, 2008)

Me again...

Here's another thing I just thought of--the artificer as trapmaker. 

Some of those "magic bolt" powers would be very interesting if there were a feat or utility power that allowed artificers to create a trap that does the same thing.  A power that creates simple elemental traps would also be very much in keeping with the class.

What? Not "Leader" enough for you? Class roles should be a guideline, not a straitjacket! As long as the artificer has lots of powers to buff and protect his allies, he qualifies as a leader in my book. 

Cheers,
Ben


----------



## Dayspire (Jul 3, 2008)

My world is very steampunkish.  And while I like some of the things here, I can't help but be a bit sad that the Artificer isn't more... I dunno... mechanical?  That's probably my own bias and hope talking there, I realize that.  I see this class, and I think _wow, I wonder what I could do trying to come up with an Inventor type core class._


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 3, 2008)

> Cleric (healing and buffing)
> Warlord (healing and focusing party damage)
> Artificer (buffing and focusing party damage)



Warlord-- Melee, defender qualities, tactical master
Cleric-- melee or ranged, defender and controller qualities, master of healing
Artificer-- ranged, controller qualities, master of zone buffs


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2008)

The Eberron Artificer was always magic based, not technological. Minor note, but Exploding Missile would be bad as it's pretty much _the_ controller aspect of being a wizard to have the at-will area attack. No poaching.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 3, 2008)

keterys said:


> The Eberron Artificer was always magic based, not technological. Minor note, but Exploding Missile would be bad as it's pretty much _the_ controller aspect of being a wizard to have the at-will area attack. No poaching.




I think artificers should be controllers. We already have two leaders, but only one controller.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 3, 2008)

> We already have two leaders, but only one controller.




BAH!  Class role should be assigned due to the needs of the class, not metagame BS.



> I think artificers should be controllers.




They have many controller abilities.  But still at their core, they're a buffing class.


----------



## Axensmash (Jul 3, 2008)

Another thing that I feel that they are lacking somewhat is their ability to craft Homonculi. One of the things that really drew me to the class was thier ability to bring a bunch of Homonculi to bear on the battlefield. Iron Defenders, Persistent Harriers etc. That flavour felt like it was missing.


----------



## Nymrohd (Jul 3, 2008)

I have to say I find it strange that so many artificer abilities are based on ranged weapons. For one thing any artificer who takes them would simply have to get Weapon Proficiency (longbow) since one feat would increase most of his damage by a die and increase his range a lot. The thing is that ranged weapon artificers really were one of the least favored builts back in 3.5. I would like to see a wand based artificer that uses implements for damage for one.

The artifice concept is great, and I wonder if it could possibly be adapted for homonculi, which were a great niche of the artificer and always interesting.

I will agree with the OP that the healing word concept is getting overused already. And that an artificer that focused on preventing damage or creating buffers like temporary hit points to absorb it, would serve as well as one that actually healed.

More powers that focus on buffing the gear of your allies is needed as well.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 3, 2008)

> ability to craft Homonculi.




it's the economy of actions.  No pets.


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*or at least, few*

Pets are available, but they tend to be few and of short duration: clerics in particular.


----------



## Axensmash (Jul 3, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> it's the economy of actions. No pets.




That's dumb. Give me my robot dogs dagnabit.


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2008)

lukelightning said:


> I think artificers should be controllers. We already have two leaders, but only one controller.




We could certainly use more controllers.

But the artificer is a leader, so it shouldn't get an area at-will.


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 3, 2008)

> That's dumb. Give me my robot dogs dagnabit.




So you can take twice the number of actions as the rest of the group?

Rangers lost their pets too.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 3, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> So you can take twice the number of actions as the rest of the group?




Twice? I've yet to meet an artificer that doesn't dream of an army of humonculi!


----------



## Boarstorm (Jul 3, 2008)

lukelightning said:


> Twice? I've yet to meet an artificer that doesn't dream of an army of humonculi!




Do humonculi dream of electric sheep?


----------



## The Little Raven (Jul 3, 2008)

Axensmash said:


> That's dumb. Give me my robot dogs dagnabit.




Robot dogs are too creepy, as we learned in the late 1970s...


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 3, 2008)

Uh, do we have a link? The TOC for Dragon 365 doesn't


----------



## hamishspence (Jul 3, 2008)

*getting in*

If you can get in via authentic/true just highlight dragon magazine on side, click on features. That worked for me. Home doesn't work: error message, though gleemax does (for the past few weeks its mostly been the other way.)


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jul 3, 2008)

Nymrohd said:


> I have to say I find it strange that so many artificer abilities are based on ranged weapons.



Why do people keep asking this? Bow and crossbow Artificers were one of the three major artificer "builds" or options that Artificers supported in 3.x. The Artificer who uses an action point to infuse their crossbow with "bane weapon whatever the hell I'm fighting" was one of the *quintessential* Artificer actions, second only to wands of scorching ray or orb spells.


Nymrohd said:


> For one thing any artificer who takes them would simply have to get Weapon Proficiency (longbow) since one feat would increase most of his damage by a die and increase his range a lot.



15/30 to 20/40 is not "a lot", it's "a bit", considering the amount of implement powers they have, I don't see it being more common than the amount of Rogues taking rapier or cross prof.


Nymrohd said:


> The thing is that ranged weapon artificers really were one of the least favored builts back in 3.5. I would like to see a wand based artificer that uses implements for damage for one.



It was still a major build choice, and the primary means of damage for any Articers that didn't go all out blasticificer.


Nymrohd said:


> The artifice concept is great, and I wonder if it could possibly be adapted for homonculi, which were a great niche of the artificer and always interesting.
> 
> I will agree with the OP that the healing word concept is getting overused already. And that an artificer that focused on preventing damage or creating buffers like temporary hit points to absorb it, would serve as well as one that actually healed.



I would have trouble disagreeing more. Not only is the Artificer the first leader we've seen that gets an option to use their basic healing class feature for something besides the basic "use a surge, get an extra xd6 hp", but they get scarcely any actual healing powers as it is. They get *no* "heal by attacking powers" which even Paladins get, and only get three healing utilities, one of which gives regeneration and one of which has to be set up when taking a short rest, leaving the Arificer the choice of *one* possible true in combat healing power.

The Artificer is _allready_ what you want it to be, and an Artificer without Restorative Formula would be unable to fulfil the basic functions of their role.


Nymrohd said:


> More powers that focus on buffing the gear of your allies is needed as well.



Well, I don't know about "need", there are a bunch of generic buffs which affect gear by fluff, and there's only so often you make your allies armour explode magic in your enemies faces, but sure, more would be a good thing.


----------



## Rechan (Jul 3, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> Rangers lost their pets too.




Martial Power book is supposed to give that option back. So we'll see.


----------



## Palladion (Jul 3, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> They have many controller abilities.  But still at their core, they're a buffing class.




Something I noticed as well.  This might be a sample of the dual role that druids are supposed to play (rumored as a striker and controller mix).  It is a very different flavor than either cleric or warlord.


----------



## Palladion (Jul 3, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Here's another thing I just thought of--the artificer as trapmaker.
> 
> Some of those "magic bolt" powers would be very interesting if there were a feat or utility power that allowed artificers to create a trap that does the same thing.  A power that creates simple elemental traps would also be very much in keeping with the class.




There is a whole set of artificer powers that are not available in the playtest document.  While the missing powers may not be "traps" per say, but thematically, the idea works.  Maybe more static (or artifice-centered) zones for buff and de-buff (keeping with the mixed leader and controller theme).


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jul 3, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Replace "Healing Infusion" with a class ability that allows them to grant minor elemental resistances or defense bonuses on the fly. Otherwise, its structure can be similar: for example, it can still be usable 2/encounter and feats can still open up other uses. The basic ability should be something along the lines of granting 5/10/15 resistance at the three tiers.




This is a rather interesting idea.

I wonder if it would actually hold water...


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 3, 2008)

hamishspence said:


> If you can get in via authentic/true just highlight dragon magazine on side, click on features. That worked for me. Home doesn't work: error message, though gleemax does (for the past few weeks its mostly been the other way.)




Found it - something is eating my cookies on this machine so I wasn't signed in.

I am also mildly annoyed that you lose one of your race abilities to play a human artificer (only 2 at-wills presented)


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 3, 2008)

> I am also mildly annoyed that you lose one of your race abilities to play a human artificer (only 2 at-wills presented)




for now I'd just take a cleric at will laser and convert it to int instead of wis.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Jul 3, 2008)

I agree that the healing power is too much like healing word and seems a bit forced.  But I disagree that healing is not essential to a leader.  A party simply is not as effective without healing.  Having a leader in the party should mean the party has that role covered and there should be no need to have a cleric or warlord in the party if you have an artificer.  Therefore, effective encounter healing powers are essential.


----------



## Zetesofos (Jul 3, 2008)

Perhaps the encounter healing class feature is a little forced, but for now, WotC 'knows' that it is a proven formula.  It's probably why they gave us two uses for it, to see if Curative Admixture is just as effective, less so, or more so.  On the one hand, I think a leader needs 'Some' per encounter healing of some amount.  It might mean all the difference if you have a dying character, and can't spend the heal check to bring them back.  

However, I would like to see a majority of the artificers healing come not through direct healing, but instead through temporary HP and regeneration.  I could even imagine a class feature similar Healers Lore  (i.e.  You add your constitution modifier to any temporary hit points granted by an artificer power you use.)


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 3, 2008)

OK, let's say that Game Balance demands a party member who can supply at least 3 surges per encounter. (I'm counting a surge+1d6 as 1.5 surges).

Can we come up with another means of letting allies surge _other _ than throwing tea at them?

Here are some options: 

Move the healing potion from a high-level utility to a class ability available from 1st level. The Artificer can "bank" his life energy (one surge) in potions or objects during each short rest. These become items that can be used by 
anyone for the rest of the day, that heal double the amount placed therein.

Maybe give them an extra surge over what you would expect from their role, like a paladin.

Whenever the artificer uses an encounter or daily power that buffs a single ally, the boost of magic lets that ally spend a healing surge. When he uses a power that buffs many allies at once, everyone gains temporary HP.

...I'm sure there are other ways, but I like both these solutions.

Ben


----------



## Zetesofos (Jul 3, 2008)

One problem though with that as the basic healing is that it can't be done at range, which is also a stable of our current leader classes.  Effective yes, but the Paladin, for example has similar surges for a couple encounters, but they must be in Touch range.

To limit the range of some basic healing seems to make the class inefficient.


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 3, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:


> They get *no* "heal by attacking powers" which even Paladins get, and only get three healing utilities, one of which gives regeneration and one of which has to be set up when taking a short rest, leaving the Arificer the choice of *one* possible true in combat healing power.
> 
> Well, I don't know about "need", there are a bunch of generic buffs which affect gear by fluff, and there's only so often you make your allies armour explode magic in your enemies faces, but sure, more would be a good thing.




Well, I do take your point that aside from the Infusion their healing options are limited. I just like their healing powers so much better than the Infusion...

And I do maintain that strong defenses are as good for a party as more HP. 4E has shied away from allowing players massive AC bonuses or resistances for the most part, so this could be the artificer's niche as long as the ability is sufficiently restricted.

And I have trouble swallowing the divine "attack an enemy and heal an ally" powers too. The artificer has "attack an enemy and buff an ally", which is no better.  I'd say that while about a third of the powers they've shown us make me shudder for this precise reason. On the other hand, the other powers make me feel really good about the direction the class is going.


----------



## Punio4 (Jul 3, 2008)

I'm not impressed with the artificier.

Sure, there are a few things that give it the gadgeteer/tinkerer/artificier flavor, such as:
The reparation apparatus and cannith goggles
The hot Eladrin at the last page
...
And that would be it?

What the dictionary, and common sense says:


> *Artificer* - noun
> a person who is skillful or clever in devising ways of making things; inventor.



What they say:


> Infuse x with y
> Conjure a x with your y
> Channel x to heal y
> Charge x with y
> Damage x with y



No. You are not a cleric/buffer.
And no amount of flavour text saying "You take a cube and its cube-iness heals your ally/damages your foe" will fix that.

This class is fail all the way.

No flavor, no crafting, which should be the CORE of a class named an _Artificer_, no nothing.

Just a ****load of powers which already exist, with tweaked flavor texts.


----------



## keterys (Jul 3, 2008)

To be honest, I find fights in which people get bloodied, drop, are brought back up, expend surges or potions, etc far more interesting than those in which people just miss a lot.

Maybe it's just me, though.


----------



## hailstop (Jul 3, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> So you can take twice the number of actions as the rest of the group?
> 
> Rangers lost their pets too.




How much do you want to bet that your pet (once they're around in the rules) will subplant your actions for the round, or you can mix a standard, move and minor action each round between you and your pet, but only one of each for the round total (excepting Action Points).


----------



## Saitou (Jul 3, 2008)

I noticed the summary at the beginning with all the class features of the Artificer lists his implements as "orb, staff, rod and wand" yet later on, when detailing his implements the orb is left out.

I thought it was a bit fishy to have someone be able to use _all_ available implements. I think the orb was a typo.


----------



## zero skill LPB (Jul 3, 2008)

Saitou said:


> I thought it was a bit fishy to have someone be able to use _all_ available implements.




Maybe trying to mimic 3e Use Magic Device? A 3e Artificer can pickup pretty much any magic item and get some use out of it.


----------



## NaturalZero (Jul 3, 2008)

Too bad you cant easily mix up weapon and implement powers within this one build if your actually using a projectile weapon like a crossbow. Are we expected to spend an action to put away an implement to reload and then another one to pull one out any time we alternate between weapon and implement powers?

What artificers need is the ability to use worn implements the way a cleric uses holy symbols so that they can actually load their projectile weapons.


----------



## Anguirus (Jul 3, 2008)

On my first read-through, I like it, but I was instantly annoyed that there was no Paragon Path.  I guess it's multiclassing, house-ruling, or nothing, for now.

Still, very nice material.


----------



## Benly (Jul 3, 2008)

There are at least a few genuinely artificer-feeling powers in there - I love the mini-trampoline absurdly. Also, it might be Kingdom of Loathing's fault but I envision Restorative Formula as a healing potion loaded onto a blowgun dart.

Personally, I would love the "elemental burst" at-will suggested, as a way of implementing good old alchemist's fire/frost/shock/whatever. I would also be happier if they had a unique implement in the form of a Quick Alchemy Kit or whatnot, used to mix and throw their potions and bombs. Wands, staves, and rods don't feel very artificer to me when they aren't actually making them themselves.


----------



## TK Lafours (Jul 3, 2008)

Benly said:


> Wands, staves, and rods don't feel very artificer to me when they aren't actually making them themselves.



 A wand with a sling attachment?


----------



## Benly (Jul 3, 2008)

TK Lafours said:


> A wand with a sling attachment?





While it's conceptually entertaining, it doesn't address the basic problem I have with this incarnation: the reason wands and staves were the staple of the 3E artificer is that the artificer's schtick was making his own equipment by the bucketload and wands were easy and effective to make. 
Departing from the 3E model of wands and crafting means that there is no element of artificing left in the use of wands, staves, and rods.


----------



## sukael (Jul 3, 2008)

Benly said:


> While it's conceptually entertaining, it doesn't address the basic problem I have with this incarnation: the reason wands and staves were the staple of the 3E artificer is that the artificer's schtick was making his own equipment by the bucketload and wands were easy and effective to make.
> Departing from the 3E model of wands and crafting means that there is no element of artificing left in the use of wands, staves, and rods.




Unless they're wands, staves, or rods the artificer makes for himself with the appropriate ritual.


----------



## Andor (Jul 3, 2008)

Okay this is just confusing. 



			
				Dragon said:
			
		

> Shielding Cube Artificer Attack 1
> _You launch a miniscule cube covered in runes into the fray. The cube exudes an aura that bashes nearby foes and shields your allies._
> Encounter ✦ Arcane, Artifice, Force, Implement
> Standard Action R Ranged 10
> *Requirement:* You must be wielding a ranged weapon.




Okay so you have to have an implement in one hand (say a wand), wield a ranged weapon in the other hand (Say a throwing hammer) and then toss the cube with your third hand! ... Wait...


----------



## webrunner (Jul 3, 2008)

Anguirus said:


> On my first read-through, I like it, but I was instantly annoyed that there was no Paragon Path.  I guess it's multiclassing, house-ruling, or nothing, for now.
> 
> Still, very nice material.




Or Warforgeding!


----------



## IanB (Jul 3, 2008)

IanArgent said:


> Found it - something is eating my cookies on this machine so I wasn't signed in.
> 
> I am also mildly annoyed that you lose one of your race abilities to play a human artificer (only 2 at-wills presented)




As the article says we've only got one build's worth of abilities at the moment. The final class will have at least twice as many at-will powers I expect.


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 3, 2008)

IanB said:


> As the article says we've only got one build's worth of abilities at the moment. The final class will have at least twice as many at-will powers I expect.




Hence only mildly annoyed. I am building up a human artificer, and will do so even if I can't talk my DM into letting me have _something_ as a third at-will


----------



## Rpgraccoon (Jul 4, 2008)

generalhenry said:


> So you can take twice the number of actions as the rest of the group?
> 
> Rangers lost their pets too.




It has been stated that Animal Companions make a comeback in the Martial Handbook. Thus, they are working on giving us back pets.


----------



## 2eBladeSinger (Jul 4, 2008)

The leader role needs healing according to the PHB.  However, I agree that it should be somehow different – I like the idea of surge plus defense buff.  I don’t think he ought to “throw tea at you”.  It should probably incorporate an artifice somehow.  

But speaking of artifices, I don’t quite understand how they are created.  Are they created at the moment the power is used, like a free action or are they created at extended rests like the other materials?  They can be reused if not destroyed, but what’s the point of being able to reuse one if they are created instantly?  If they aren’t created instantly, then when are they created?  Does it float?  Does it take damage from AoE?  Can someone else pick it up and run?  

Repair Object… so it’s basically unlimited outside of combat?  He can repair a nearly destroyed castle wall given he has enough time?  Are there other ‘rotes’ out there in theory?  Maybe via feat? 

I don’t really understand his use of implements.  Essentially, if he has one, he can use it’s magic enhancement on powers and use its daily (if it has it) – got it.  What other benefit does it have for him?  As someone said above, their awkward to use with a ranged weapon… _put away implement (minor) reload crossbow (minor) use power (standard)… oops no more actions to move the artifice_ Why not have, instead, some kind of ‘artificer holy symbol’?

He should get a pet when they become available.  

A lot of the powers are very controller, see _Caustic Rampart, Predatory Shards_ 

 _Earth’s Embrace_ should be called _Bowling for Chumps_


----------



## Benly (Jul 4, 2008)

sukael said:


> Unless they're wands, staves, or rods the artificer makes for himself with the appropriate ritual.





At which he is no better and than wizards, and like wizards he is likely to find that this gives him weaker wands than the ones he finds. The motivation for an artificer to actually Create Magic Items is as weak as it is for everyone else. I therefore strongly believe that their powers should have an "artificer-y" feel, rather than having them assumed to be artificing because it's magic through a wand.


----------



## Zinegata (Jul 4, 2008)

As-is, the Artificer isn't really very good. I wouldn't buy a book for an Artificer.

Main reasons are as follows:

1) Too many similarities with existing base classes (if it basically does something fairly similar to a Cleric, why not just play a Cleric and replace all Radiant attacks with an arcane version?)

2) Half Zone, Half Creature Artifices aren't really very good design, when most Artifices last till the end of your next turn. If they stayed around for a while, then it might be worth tracking HP for them, but as it stands they'll be gone even before they're damaged.

3) Mixing implements and weapon use is very clunky. Aside from a dagger and a javelin, you CANNOT be wielding a ranged weapon and an arcane implement at the same time. So unless your Artificer likes juggling, you'll have to stick to something like a knife and wand combination to be able to use all Artificer powers (and I suspect most players would prefer Artificer wielding Xbows - to further align the Artificer towards its mechanical flavor).

The ability to recharge items would be fairly nice though - albeit potentially game-breaking, so I'm on the fence on that one.

 So as it stands, it's not really worth it.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Well, I do take your point that aside from the Infusion their healing options are limited. I just like their healing powers so much better than the Infusion...



I agree that the healing powers they have are much more interesting and thematic than their class feature.


fuindordm said:


> And I do maintain that strong defenses are as good for a party as more HP. 4E has shied away from allowing players massive AC bonuses or resistances for the most part, so this could be the artificer's niche as long as the ability is sufficiently restricted.



Absolutely, and it is, the current set up does seem to be Warlords give extra actions, Clerics give healing, Artificers give buffs. However it should be remembered that eventually your allies will fall unconsious, at which point all the AC and temp hp in the world won't get them back on their feet, and not being able to bring allies back from unconsiousness with a minor action would arguably make the Artificer not a Leader with Controller abilities, but a Controller with Leader abilities, or at the very least a Hybrid class.


fuindordm said:


> And I have trouble swallowing the divine "attack an enemy and heal an ally" powers too. The artificer has "attack an enemy and buff an ally", which is no better.  I'd say that while about a third of the powers they've shown us make me shudder for this precise reason. On the other hand, the other powers make me feel really good about the direction the class is going.



I quite like abilities like Fiery Infusion, Spike Wire and Runic Resistance, and while I agree that spells like Thunder Armour and Shielding Cube could be better, at least they make an attempt to thematically tie the effects together in a way that Healing Strike or Paladin's Judgement don't bother.


----------



## Novem5er (Jul 4, 2008)

Okay, I'll be honest. The Artificer: I don't get it.

I really want to like this class. I've read several of the Eberron novels with artificer characters and I always like them. I'm understand that game mechanics cannot always reflect literature, and that balance and fun are primary concerns when designing any system. So far I love 4e, so no complaints there.

But this preview article? I just don't get that artificer feel. I was really curious how WotC was going to design it and, with this build at least, I'm just not feeling it. I've come here for help b/c I really want to like this class.

My big problem is that it doesn't feel like the artificer is actually "making" anything. It seems like you're pointing a wand and making stuff happen... sort of like a wizard, except that often an ally has to be a target, as opposed to an enemy.

Take the Thundering Armor At-Will ability. It has a range of 10, and can be done every round. The description says that you point your wand and make your ally's armor pulse. Just point and enchant?

Many of the other spells involve firing an infused projectile. I guess that the act of using the power is what actually creates the infusion. This makes sense, except that obviously the infusion has to be used right away and can't be passed to someone else.

Just taking a look at Healing Infusion, Restorative Infusion, and Altered Luck, it again appears that the artificer is throwing enchantments around. Altered Luck specifically states that you channel a pattern of energy into an ally's equipment... from a range of 10, but you don't actually have to have an ally to cast it.

So I guess I dig the crossbow bolts of infused-doom, but I'm really not getting the bippity-boppity-boo of enchanting things from a distance and levitating curative compounds through the air.

It just feels like they only put in infusions as flavor... and no real mechanic. Take "Slick Concoction" for example. "You direct magic-infused liquid under an ally's boots, causing her to slip forward".

a) the liquid isn't infused until you use the power (aka, you can't give it to someone else.
b) you don't have to apply the liquid to anything, it just magically appears under someone's boots. 

To me, this power could have easily been written for any number of classes with the same effect. The Warlord gives a shout that inspires a sudden burst of speed. The Warlock levitates an ally into position. The Wizard conjures a magic boot that kicks the ally in her rear.

Again, I understand game balance. It probably isn't fun for an artificer to waste an action infusing something, then another action to run over and apply it to a character's boots. It probably is unbalanced for the artificer to create something ahead of time and pass it around to the whole party to use. Still, I'm getting nervous now about 4e b/c of this article. It seems they are blatantly changing the flavor of a class to suit the needs of the game mechanics, instead of creating balanced mechanics that match the flavor of the class.

I haven't had a complaint until now


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 4, 2008)

Novem5er said:


> It seems they are blatantly changing the flavor of a class to suit the needs of the game mechanics, instead of creating balanced mechanics that match the flavor of the class.



Well, it's still a playtest document... so things can change. I think the class should, as a rule, only get these new-fangled "short rest" dailies.

Some classes seem to have the theme that the dailies are something "special" - spellbook, the reliable keyword.

If the artificer has only short rest dailies, he basically sacrifices his dailies to create infused items, i.e. his theme would be "passing around the dailies".

I think that's a balanced concept, and the concern that it robs the artificer of his daily spotlights is a non-issue, because the player still gloats "that was MY infusion, man!", and because it's something that people playing an artificer enjoy.

Then keep their encounters as short-lived, artifice flavoured effects, and the at-wills like they are now.

This should result in a artificer fitting the current power structure, but he still has the "building something beforehand" thing down.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Khaalis (Jul 4, 2008)

Just a few quick late comments.  I saw some people mentioning that it was a bad thing for the Artificer to have controller aspects. I personally think that is EXACTLY the way they should go. With only one controller option, having a class with a strong secondary roll of controller is a good thing.  I would love to see the class get more into the 'inventor'/'gadgeteer' role, especially allowing them to use items in a fashion similar to the Kobold Slingers. Less about direct damage and more about control, and definately more about boosting allies' powers.


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 4, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:


> If the artificer has only short rest dailies, he basically sacrifices his dailies to create infused items, i.e. his theme would be "passing around the dailies".
> 
> I think that's a balanced concept, and the concern that it robs the artificer of his daily spotlights is a non-issue, because the player still gloats "that was MY infusion, man!", and because it's something that people playing an artificer enjoy.




I like this idea.

And the artificer can always use those dailies himself.  In 3E parlance, sometimes it makes sense to give the bane weapon to your best fighter--but sometimes you can afford to use it yourself.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Jul 4, 2008)

I agree that the Artificer could do with some _more_ short rest dailys (considering there really aren't that many), actually having some short rest attack spells would be cool, allthough like Fighters and Reliable, I don't think it should be universal.


----------



## Sashi (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> The healing word/inspiring word formula is growing tiresome, and the alchemical flavor of "healing infusion" feels forced. Must all artificers fling magic tea at their allies to keep them alive? I much prefer the Regeneration Infusion, Healing Figurine and Hero's Elixir.




I agree that it's forced. But I think it's a design decision: all leader classes will have exactly the same "healing word" ability as their base healing ability. Just the way all defender classes will be able to mark their target.


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 4, 2008)

Sashi said:


> I agree that it's forced. But I think it's a design decision: all leader classes will have exactly the same "healing word" ability as their base healing ability. Just the way all defender classes will be able to mark their target.




And yet the three defenders (fighter, paladin, swordmage via origins) have very different and distinctive marking abilities. One is obviously non-magical and works well against many enemies, one is obviously magical and works best against a single champion...

Furthermore, if we just copy and paste the "necessary" abilities from one leader class to the next, we severely dilute the concept of power sources. If every leader gets ranged healing, what's so special about divine magic? 

This conversation just made me notice something: the cleric and warlord powers don't require their target to be conscious!

From PH p.293: "When a power heals you, you don't have to take an action to spend a healing surge. Even if you're unconscious, the power uses your healing surge and restores hit points."

Hmm... so how does Inspiring Word work on an unconscious character? 

The rules should always serve the fluff, even if it complicates things slightly. If there is one think I dislike about any edition, it's when fluff is slapped on to a rule without concern for verisimilitude.  

I have no problem with hit points representing morale in almost all cases. I have no problem with divine magic slapping awake an unconscious character. Divine characters should have better, more reliable healing than other characters and divine leaders should have the best healing of all.

But to preserve the distinctive flavor of the power sources, Martial characters should not be able to restore HP (=morale) to the unconscious, and Arcane characters should not be tossing around pure healing at range. 

And in particular I would say that ranged buffs, with or without a healing rider, are very out of character for the artificer. They should be used sparingly.

Ben


----------



## Vendark (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Hmm... so how does Inspiring Word work on an unconscious character?




Unconscious doesn't mean "in a coma." Unconscious people can be roused, and the Warlord is commanding enough to do it with the power of his voice.



> But to preserve the distinctive flavor of the power sources, Martial characters should not be able to restore HP (=morale) to the unconscious, and Arcane characters should not be tossing around pure healing at range.




I don't see why not. These seem like arbitrary declarations.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

There is a way for the Artificer to "grant healing" in the manner of Healing Word or Inspiring Word without it devolving into blowing tea into the air.  I say give the Artificer a Short Rest power and remove the 2x Encounter healing crap:

Armor of Resistance

Use your ally's vital force to enhance his armor.

Encounter, Arcane, Artifice
Short Rest
One Armor

Effect: Your ally uses up one of his healing surges.  You add a power to his armor.  As an immediate interrupt triggered by getting hit by an attack, he can gain resistance to all damage equal to his healing surge value until the start of his next turn.  You cannot enchant an armor with more than one instance of this power.


Yes, this is extremely powerful.  Essentially, what it does is "heal" your ally of his healing surge value by protecting him from one attack.  It doesn't "heal" as much as an Inspiring Word or a Healing Word and it can't be used on short rests to boost your party's native Healing Surges, but it DOES heavily discourage enemy focus firing, and it's extremely good at that.

Its main advantage is that you can layer it on everyone so it essentially can be used 5 times per encounter.  I don't know if that's super-broken powerful.

Its main disadvantage is that you can't really ameliorate round to round damage as much.  Once your ally expends his enchantment, he's a sitting duck.  You can't help him recover retroactively.

The power doesn't need to scale because healing surges automatically scale to level.


Personally, I think Artificer powers should focus on these items:

1. Ally buffing and healing.  Dailies on Short Rests for this, definitely.  More Good Luck Charms and Hero's Elixirs, please.

2. Striking.  Yes, Striking.  3e Artificers were known for striking and I think the class would lose its flavor if we killed this aspect of it.  Encounter Powers for this.  Blastificers concentrate on using powers from Wands.  Crossbow blasters concentrate on enchanting their crossbows with deadly powers.  No cross-healing on this please.

3. "Summoning."  No walls, please.  We want our Homonculi and Artifices.  Barbed Automaton would be great if it lasted for more than a turn.  Sustain: move action would limit the number of actions and Artifices you could use, cutting down on attack rolls and action economy - I imagine it would work a lot like the Mount rules.

In any case, the number of powers usable in an encounter could cap that number by itself, and if the attacks were sufficiently weak and uniform, it would not be any more complicated than a Wizard leveling a multitarget AoE power.


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 4, 2008)

I said: But to preserve the distinctive flavor of the power sources, Martial characters should not be able to restore HP (=morale) to the unconscious, and Arcane characters should not be tossing around pure healing at range.



Vendark said:


> I don't see why not. These seem like arbitrary declarations.




Because I would like to preserve a significant difference in the flavor of the three power sources.  If anyone can heal just as well and easily as the divine classes, then what's the point of dividing the two kinds of magic?

Now, I like systems such as Arcana Unearthed (Monte Cook) where all classes use the same spell list very much. If there is only one kind of magic in the world, then obviously no distinctions are needed. But one of the D&D conceits is that there is a strong distinction between Arcane and Divine, and I would like to preserve that feeling rather than breaking down the walls at every opportunity. 

One of the things I didn't like about 3E design was its insouciant tendency to toss all the best arcane spells into divine domains, for this very reason.


----------



## darkdragoon (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Hmm... so how does Inspiring Word work on an unconscious character?




Unconsciousness is not being able to *respond* to stimuli. Which is different from not receiving stimuli.


----------



## Roxlimn (Jul 4, 2008)

Less Warlord, more Artificer.


----------



## Danzauker (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> This conversation just made me notice something: the cleric and warlord powers don't require their target to be conscious!
> 
> From PH p.293: "When a power heals you, you don't have to take an action to spend a healing surge. Even if you're unconscious, the power uses your healing surge and restores hit points."




This is funny.

I haven't yet received the books, but could I heal an unwilling creature?

If this is the case I could use a healing power to actually hinder an enemy, let's say it is close to 100% hit points so that I actually have him waste an action surge, or maybe it has an action surge powered ability, or is more powerful when bloodied...


----------



## vladbat (Jul 4, 2008)

Is flavor really that big of a problem? I see my artificer throwing syringes at allies for his healing infusions, throwing combinations of dusts in the air and then zapping them with electricity from a gauntlet mounted generator to create things like Lightning Motes. Dancing weapon screams "Clockwork" to me. Thundering armor is a tympanic membrane on my armor that sends out sonic waves when struck.

He can enchant items if he takes the ritual but I think he needs some feats that allows him to do it better or cheaper or with less residuum. Implements seems to be too busy with the hands required which almost forces one to take quickdraw.

I built a WF to 20 to get a paragon path and it looks pretty solid. I think it would fill the role of leader as well as the Warlord I d built previously. Would I like more options? Absolutely! But I'm glad to have an Artificer at all.


----------



## Novem5er (Jul 4, 2008)

I'm just not comfortable with all the at-range, instant enchantments. It just doesn't match anything that I've read about the Artificer in other sources.

There are a few early level powers that enchant an ally's armor. However, you don't actually have to do anything to that armor, other than point a wand and say Boom... from a range of 50'.

Now, let's keep in mind that this is only one build. Maybe the other build has more artifices or more short rest powers. I'm not confident that this is the case, yet, because that would seem like what most players were expecting... so why put out a different build that doesn't meet the expectations of the players?

Mechanically, I don't think the artificer is bad. I just find that it stretches the imagination WAY more than the other classes.

Why can't the artificer have more artifices that are "encounter" powers or "daily" powers. Make it a short rest to create such an object, and then give it a power that can be activated once per encounter. Daily powers infused to an object could take an extended rest to create.

At will powers can just be artifices that are carried all the time, that can be used At-Will. The thundering armor ability could actually be an artifice that hurls magical globes of thunder energy at an ally. The globe hits the ally, surrounds him/her in protective energy, and then blasts an enemy.


They kind of hinted at this in the fluff w/ components, but then they ignored it in the power descriptions by putting in all sorts of wand-waving.


----------



## Badkarmaboy (Jul 4, 2008)

Lots of good feedback in here.  

I hope folks email their thoughts to wotc...


----------



## bganon (Jul 4, 2008)

Benly said:


> At which he is no better and than wizards, and like wizards he is likely to find that this gives him weaker wands than the ones he finds. The motivation for an artificer to actually Create Magic Items is as weak as it is for everyone else. I therefore strongly believe that their powers should have an "artificer-y" feel, rather than having them assumed to be artificing because it's magic through a wand.




Honestly, the only reason artificers were better than everybody else in 3.5e at making items was because everyone else, even wizards, sucked too much at making items.  It required too much investment (feats, xp) for little gain.

In 4e, making magic items doesn't seem to suck quite so much anymore, so the need for artificers to be better at it is less pressing.  But they *do* still gain from making items because they can get twice the daily usage out of them, and that's a pretty big deal.  

Creating a wand of _chill strike_ at 4th level is probably not a big deal for a wizard since they could already take it as an encounter power, and not a big deal for a warlock since they probably don't have the Int to make best use of it.  But when the artificer probably has an Int as good as a wizard, and can use that wand twice per day, it starts looking a whole lot better.  And that's without making it any _easier_ to make.

Keep in mind we also haven't seen any class feats yet.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2008)

Danzauker said:


> This is funny.
> 
> I haven't yet received the books, but could I heal an unwilling creature?
> 
> If this is the case I could use a healing power to actually hinder an enemy, let's say it is close to 100% hit points so that I actually have him waste an action surge, or maybe it has an action surge powered ability, or is more powerful when bloodied...




So long as he's you or an ally.  Sure.  Why not?

Of course, monsters don't have the ability to use healing surges with a couple notable exceptions....


----------



## Vendark (Jul 4, 2008)

Novem5er said:


> I'm just not comfortable with all the at-range, instant enchantments. It just doesn't match anything that I've read about the Artificer in other sources.




It matches just fine. Artificers infuse objects with magic. They did that in 3.5, they're doing it now in 4E. With magic being magic, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason why they shouldn't be able to infuse things at range.



> They kind of hinted at this in the fluff w/ components, but then they ignored it in the power descriptions by putting in all sorts of wand-waving.




This is kind of a funny objection, since wand-waving is one of the things the 3.5 Artificer is best known for.


----------



## Exen Trik (Jul 4, 2008)

vladbat said:


> Implements seems to be too busy with the hands required which almost forces one to take quickdraw.



I'm starting to think they should just grant quickdraw as an artificer class feature.


----------



## Vendark (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> Because I would like to preserve a significant difference in the flavor of the three power sources. If anyone can heal just as well and easily as the divine classes, then what's the point of dividing the two kinds of magic?




Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.

Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric. 
If the warlord can't revive the unconscious during an encounter, the defenders in the party are going to fast be wishing they had a cleric in the party instead. And if the artificer has to spend a move and a minor and get into melee reach of the enemy to heal someone, it's not going to be a very fun class to play. 4E is operating under the philosophy that you shouldn't have to spend most of your turn to make someone else's character feel better, and I think they got that right. Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.

Thirdly, there's a lot more to the flavor of each class than the healing/inspiring word/infusion features. You're not going to have any trouble telling the warlord from the cleric in play. And while I haven't seen the artificer in play yet, looking through its abilities I'm thinking it will stand out just as much as the other two classes do.


----------



## Dan'L (Jul 4, 2008)

Responding to several things, in no particular order:

- The implement/weapon/item toss juggling could be solved by allowing artificers to use a particular ranged weapon as an implement (perhaps a sling or handcrossbow, which have loading as a free action).  This way, the power could use the Implement keyword, Special require the wielding of the ranged weapon implement, but not include a weapon proficiency bonus for the attack.  Or, change the keyword to Weapon, but limit it to a specific set of Ranged weapons, as above, and allow the proficiency bonus.

- I think a big problem in this discussion lies in conceptualizing what an Artificer did in 3.x vs. what it can reasonably be expected to do in 4.0.  Yes, the Artificer could be known to strike, control, etc.--much like the Wizard had a large variety of spells to draw on for many varied effects.  But just like they focused the Wizard down to a blaster/controller, it seems they're wanting to focus on a particular interpretation of Artificer.  The vision: Arcane Leader.  Using the idea of an arcane power source, the more tinkerer aspects of the Artificer necessarily fall away.  Of course, then I suppose the class is more "Infuser," or "Channeller" but....

-That said, I'd like to see a similar-themed Martial Controller -- a Trap Maker/Gadgeteer.

-I like the idea of short-rest Daily infusions to pass around the party.

-The proposed controller-esque At-Will seems a bit much for a "Leader" At-Will, when compared with the Wizard's _Force Orb_ Encounter which has similar effect.

-I like the idea of infusing a weapon with a one-shot extra energy attack damage as an At-Will.  It's reminiscent of _Commander's Strike,_ where it helps an ally do extra damage.

I suppose that's about it for now

-Dan'L


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2008)

Vendark said:


> Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.
> 
> Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric.
> If the warlord can't revive the unconscious during an encounter, the defenders in the party are going to fast be wishing they had a cleric in the party instead. And if the artificer has to spend a move and a minor and get into melee reach of the enemy to heal someone, it's not going to be a very fun class to play. 4E is operating under the philosophy that you shouldn't have to spend most of your turn to make someone else's character feel better, and I think they got that right. Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.
> ...




Not to mention, the Artificer's heal gains flavor by being more flexible, and having an alternate use (perhaps another as well).

Complaining about not having enough powers on a playtest designed for a singular build is silly.  Of course they don't have enough for two builts, they're playtesting one build.


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 4, 2008)

Vendark said:


> Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.




Yes, and they're the only ones that can provide healing without burning a surge from _someone_, I think.



> Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric...Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.
> 
> Thirdly, there's a lot more to the flavor of each class than the healing/inspiring word/infusion features. You're not going to have any trouble telling the warlord from the cleric in play.




Yes, but for me that's not the issue. What worries me is to see classes given powers that are off-theme for such reasons.  I don't mind that Arcane Leaders have healing, but I think care should be taken to make each such power unique and appropriate to the class.

All three of your points are very good--but their _end result_ makes me sad.  4th edition has adopted the philosophy that limitations are not fun. In my mind, limitations _are _fun. They create challenges and a wider variety of interesting situations.

If the warlord cannot revive an unconscious ally, then they _must _pay close attention to his allies' status and use Inspiring Word before it's too late. Which makes quite a lot of sense for the class--they're supposed to be taking care of their troops, not saying "Damn, Joe went down! Didn't see that coming."  Sometime, of course, Joe will go down anyway... but like any smart leader, the warlord will have ways of protecting the fallen, too (healing potions). They need not be an all-purpose healing font in and of themselves.

In fact, this minor limitation on one class ability doesn't reduce their power significantly--but it does encourage a different style of play.

Similarly, I would like the artificer class better if their abilities encouraged a style of play where pre-battle preparation is key. If their healing (or protection) is touch-only like a paladin's, then it is not much less powerful... but it will encourage them to hang back in a position that has access to many party members. A standard action to shoot, a move action to reach someone, and a minor action to infuse healing is not _that _restrictive.

So while I agree that _minor action_ heals (and also siloing of healing powers) are necessary to prevent a character from turning into a healbot, I don't agree that ranged healing is necessary.

It is also cinematic and fun if once in a while you must rush to a wounded comrade's side.  There's something about having a character point their symbol/implement and 'pinging' you awake that leeches away the drama.

Cheers,
Ben


----------



## fuindordm (Jul 4, 2008)

Dan'L said:


> - I think a big problem in this discussion lies in conceptualizing what an Artificer did in 3.x vs. what it can reasonably be expected to do in 4.0.  Yes, the Artificer could be known to strike, control, etc.--much like the Wizard had a large variety of spells to draw on for many varied effects.  But just like they focused the Wizard down to a blaster/controller, it seems they're wanting to focus on a particular interpretation of Artificer.
> 
> -That said, I'd like to see a similar-themed Martial Controller -- a Trap Maker/Gadgeteer.




Another good point, this. The artificer was without question the most versatile class ever to appear in the game, and of course we can't expect the 4E version to have the same scope.  Since it seems a single class can comfortably fit two builds, what might those be?

WotC has already given us the Battlesmith, but the sample powers hardly seem focused. A few artifices, a few buffs, a few magic bolts...

If I had to choose two themes for the artificer, it would be

Battlesmith: mainly temporary enchantments to arms and armor, including the "magic bolt" powers.  Short-rest encounter powers to infuse allies' equipment with healing surges and/or elemental attributes. A few quirky artifices like the cube of protection and creating a bridge or stair out of thin air. This is the artificer with a touch of striker.

The powers in this group shouldn't use implements.

Wandmaster: not just wands, but for want of a better name... this is the artificer who focuses on getting the most out of existing magic items. Their powers are more like wizard spells, but tend heavily towards zone effects that do less damage. Some of these will take effect immediately, while others may be traps. To be really on-theme, the instant spells should change or enchant the substance of the zone (Magnetism, Spike Growth, Grease). The traps could produce elemental damage (flavored as runes).  This is the artificer with a touch of controller.

To encourage the 'bag full of wands' look, let the wandmaster get extra benefits from powers if the correct type of implement is used (just as the Fighter gets extras from a specific weapon).  Short-rest encounter powers could "supercharge" an implement.

A mixed Battlesmith/Wandmaster might only carry one implement, and choose control powers that make use of it.

This leaves two archetypes out in the cold:

The Alchemist--aside from being a source of healing potions, what is alchemy good for in an artificer? Frankly, it's hard to imagine doing any sort of alchemy in just a few seconds (OK, maybe mixing two liquids and making them go boom). But since it tends to require a lab and hours of effort, alchemy-related powers are a natural fit for rituals. Give them Brew Potion for free, obviously, when they reach that level. 

The Homonculist--it appears WotC is still trying to hit on the right formula for summoners and pet-focused characters. Again, probably rituals are the way to go. I foresee future supplements with a handful of encounter and daily powers to temporarily boost the fighting power of one's homonculus. 

How does this sound? We still haven't worked out the healing issue to my satisfaction, but I think it reproduces the two main builds of the 3E artificer reasonably well.

Ben


----------



## Benly (Jul 4, 2008)

fuindordm said:


> The Alchemist--aside from being a source of healing potions, what is alchemy good for in an artificer? Frankly, it's hard to imagine doing any sort of alchemy in just a few seconds (OK, maybe mixing two liquids and making them go boom). But since it tends to require a lab and hours of effort, alchemy-related powers are a natural fit for rituals. Give them Brew Potion for free, obviously, when they reach that level.





It takes a lab and hours of effort for most people. For an artificer? He has a well-organized reagent belt and knows by heart which bottles mix with which others in which proportions, and just how much magic to push into it.

For me, the Alchemist is the buffing artificer with a side of control. His implement is his reagent set, which is perhaps worn on his belt and requires a free hand to use. When he wants to heal someone, he whips up a quick sachet of healthpowder and hurls it at them. When he wants to strengthen them, he mixes up a flask of Oil Of Emboldening and tosses it all over them. And if he wants to hurt his enemies, he throws flashbombs in their faces, dumps alchemist's fire on them, or tosses quick-hardening glue underfoot.

That is how a combat alchemist works for me. There are a few powers that sort of hint at that with the playtest artificer but it's only gestured at.


----------



## cockroachman3178 (Jul 5, 2008)

Why must the artificer use healing abilities? I like the notion of the artificer granting Regeneration, Resisitance, and all around Buffing the party.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 5, 2008)

cockroachman3178 said:


> Why must the artificer use healing abilities? I like the notion of the artificer granting Regeneration, Resisitance, and all around Buffing the party.



Because he's a Leader, and Leaders heal. You're supposed to be able to do just as well with an artificer tagging along as with a cleric or warlord.


----------



## sukael (Jul 5, 2008)

bganon said:


> Creating a wand of _chill strike_ at 4th level is probably not a big deal for a wizard since they could already take it as an encounter power, and not a big deal for a warlock since they probably don't have the Int to make best use of it.  But when the artificer probably has an Int as good as a wizard, and can use that wand twice per day, it starts looking a whole lot better.  And that's without making it any _easier_ to make.




The problem I see with the artificer's ability to get extra uses out of items is the limit on using magic item daily powers per day (1, 2, or 3, plus 1 per milestone). The artificer can use the same item more than once, sure, but he's overall not getting much benefit over somebody who just uses a handful of slightly weaker items.


----------



## vladbat (Jul 5, 2008)

As for the hand juggling I mentioned before I guess I'll stick with warforged and use an armbow.


----------



## lightblade (Jul 5, 2008)

sukael said:


> The problem I see with the artificer's ability to get extra uses out of items is the limit on using magic item daily powers per day (1, 2, or 3, plus 1 per milestone). The artificer can use the same item more than once, sure, but he's overall not getting much benefit over somebody who just uses a handful of slightly weaker items.




Keep in mind that he can recharge the items of others in the party.  So it's not *his* best item, but *the party's* best item, if the artificer isn't too selfish.


----------



## Runestar (Jul 6, 2008)

> Honestly, the only reason artificers were better than everybody else in 3.5e at making items was because everyone else, even wizards, sucked too much at making items. It required too much investment (feats, xp) for little gain.



That is not necessarily true. XP expenditure in 3.5 is no longer the debilitating drawback it was in 3e because of a concept called "riding the gravy train". Basically, the self-correcting nature of xp gain in 3.5 ensures that you get more xp in encounters to compensate if you ever fall behind in levels. This means that it is actually beneficial for the item-crafting wizard or artificer to consistently lag at 1 lv behind the rest of the party. This way, they get much more xp, which in turn can be funnelled into crafting more magic items. And so on and so forth. It is a vicious cycle that gets ugly very quickly.

Plus, if you are not willing to waste so many feats, a warlock12/chameleon2 can access any item creation feat he wants and craft any item he wants.

Artificer just does all these more easily, but he is not the only item crafter in 3e worth his salt.


----------



## Dalzig (Jul 6, 2008)

I don't think the problem was actual XP and feat usage...

It was *apparent* XP and feat usage.  To many players, being one level behind is horrible.  Spending XP?  Even worse!  Having to spend 1-2 of your 7 feats?  Ghastly!

Basically, it was all in the player's mind, but it was enough to discourage crafting for most people.


----------



## A. Smith (Jul 6, 2008)

Here's the message I sent to the email address they gave. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

-------------------

I have played a session with an artificer character. We did mostly combat encounter, of course. Here are things that I think should be improved or built upon.

1) Short-rest prepared powers are a great concept, but are too sparse. Applying them to more powers would be, in my honest opinion, make the artificer a much more interesting class. Why? Because it makes it that much more distinct from the warlord and wizard (the two closest classes we have right now). Yes, this means the artificer might use his powers before the encounter and then hand them out to his party, but I'm not arguing for the artificer to have all his powers prepared in advance: I think putting a bit less then one option per "power level"* that is prepared in advance would be interesting, as you could build a character that is almost entirely based on these.

To compensate for the lack of direct attacks in such a build, perhaps give him ways to play even without casting new powers - perhaps "sustains" that act in new ways for the prepared powers. For example, you could have to prepare "Fiery infusion" in advance, but if you choose to sustain it (say, as a minor action), it might sustain the effect, or a part of it, for as long as you choose. since you will be throwing out powers, it could be an interesting choice between sustaining the power you just used or sustaining the one you used a round back.

2) I think his "Restorative formula" need to be re-flavoured (healing tea you spray on allies? seriously?) and changed a bit, so they don't feel so mechanically close to the warlord and cleric. Healing surge+1d6 is all fine and dandy, but it is starting to be overused. Perhaps change it to another type of healing; maybe give resistance X until the start of your turn, or something like that.

Now for the positive: what you did well, I LOVE. The mini-trampoline is inexplicably awesome. For that matter, his utility spells in general are very, very nicely done. Healing figurine, Phantom structure... Very polished, very fit thematically. However, again, I'd like to see more preparation: right now, even though the flavour says it's all because of his magical tinkering, there is almost no mechanical reflection of that. I think they should be models for some other powers: non-damage, but useful in any situation, including combat. Perhaps one more utilitarian power ever two or three "power level"?

Lastly, I'd like to direct you to this thread, on ENworld, that you might have already seen. it's filled with good ideas and feedback.

Thanks for the opportunity to playtest the artificer, and for reading this email.

* [Obligatory "It's over 9000" reference]


----------



## Bongo (Jul 6, 2008)

Totally agree with everyone that liked the short rest powers. One of the things I liked about 3rd edition artificer was it's radically different take on magic. I'd like to see the class be heavily based around some totally new method of buffing, whether it's handing out items made during the short rests, or something else that hasn't been tried yet.


----------



## Stogoe (Jul 6, 2008)

One of the problems I see is that the Artificer was itself an artifact of the crumbling spell system of 3.x, designed specifically to take advantage of 3rd Edition's quirks rather than as an actual archetype.  It's going to take quite a bit to hack out the 3e mechanics while convincing the fans that it still feels the same - the theme of the 3.x Artificer was "let's exploit the wonkiness of the spell system".  For me, I like what I see so far, but more 'short rest' dailies would be awesome.

And I absolutely adore the healing/inspiring word power.  If a leader doesn't have it, they're not viable as a leader.


----------



## Hambot (Jul 7, 2008)

Artificers should be able to break down a magic item and get back more than 1/5 of the creation cost.

Artificer also sounds like they could make magic items = their level +1.

That instantly offers parties with an artificer an equipment edge, which they could now afford to use when the artificer extracts more money from items than normal.  That should increase fun around the table.


----------



## Baron Opal (Jul 7, 2008)

A. Smith said:


> The mini-trampoline is inexplicably awesome.




I hope I'm not the only one who saw that and said

_"Spongify!"_


----------



## Stogoe (Jul 7, 2008)

Hambot said:


> Artificers should be able to break down a magic item and get back more than 1/5 of the creation cost.
> 
> Artificer also sounds like they could make magic items = their level +1.



These are incredibly bad ideas.  It seems like you're still thinking in terms of 3rd Edition.  The only thing I'd do if I wanted to make the Artificer 'feel' like an item crafter would be to give her the ritual automatically, and maybe one level early.  Anything else would quickly obliterate the wealth guidelines.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Jul 7, 2008)

Stogoe said:


> These are incredibly bad ideas.  It seems like you're still thinking in terms of 3rd Edition.  The only thing I'd do if I wanted to make the Artificer 'feel' like an item crafter would be to give her the ritual automatically, and maybe one level early.  Anything else would quickly obliterate the wealth guidelines.



Actually, the ability to craft level +1 items isn't that bad, because it still keeps you within the wealth guidelines in terms of total gp. Furthermore, PCs can already purchase higher-level items - this would be more like something of a convenience, because it can circumvent problems like finding a trader.

At least, I think it's not that problematic, simply because the step to one level higher is fairly flat in 4E (also in terms of magic items), and without sufficient gp, it won't help you - also: Due to the 1/5th conversion of magic items, saving for such an item takes a long time - by that time they're probably much closer to that extra level.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## mneme (Jul 7, 2008)

*Artifical Thoughts*

Agreed with Everyone Else on weapon juggling=bad.  Basically, as printed, I see three kinds of Artificers: Warforged Artificers (embedded weapons, embedded Implements), Implement + Dagger/Throwing Hammer artificers, and bad artificers.  Throwing Hammer Artifcers are actually the most interesting -- as they can bump up strength to have a decent ranged/melee basic and actually get AoOs (though given the lack of Close abilities, this is very weak) if they want to.

The mix of weapon/Implement powers is actually a problem in multiple ways -- it doesn't just mean having to take actions to switch around weapons (or in the case of Shielding Cube, not working at all unless the Artificer uses a one-handed ranged weapon), but that an Artificer must maintain both a magical Implement -and- a magical ranged weapon (the latter being somewhat more important, but still).  Even the Paladin isn't this MID-centric, as she -can- choose to take all melee powers or all-Implement powers, and at high levels, can get a Holy Avenger.

I'm not that bothered by the flavor or silliness.  I mean, really, dudes, it's D&D.  You can reflavor.  Maybe the Artificer's just powering up some "blank" potions she gave her allies pre-battle and letting allies drink them as a free action (actually, that's pretty good).

That said...lots of quibbles (yes, am sending to Wizards):

Repair Object: Can't heal constructs.  Right?  Just Checking.

Temp hit points: a healing surge from everyone who uses it?  Really?  For about 5 temporary HP, up to 14 at 20th level?  I don't have any problem with Artificers having a temp HP option that works on a burst, but this is just awful; most allies are better off saving their surge and just burning a minor on a healing potion.  I think this mechanic needs rebalancing at at least some levels, particularly since by and large, temporary HP aren't as good as actual healing.

Artifice defenses: Seems off.  Aside from the AC=Reflex issue (ok, just like a Wizard), artifices start off with defenses of 5, ie, an auto-hit (is this intended to be 15?), and scale up to 34 at 30th level (actually better than  a wizard's 30th level defense of 31).

Restorative Infusion: Oddly, the second part of this power is potentialy, much more disruptive than the first.  Consider the Warlock.  Now, consider a warlock who starts spending all her minor/move actions giving away temporary HP or cursing creatures (who die to give her more temporary HP to give away...).  The "transfer temporary HP" abilty needs a "any of -these- temporary HP" or at least an expiration time.

Regeneration Infusion: needs an expiration time.  Otherwise, the artificer ends up getting to choose at every short rest whether to rest, or to just keep sustatining the Infusion for another fight -- which might be worthwhile in some instances.

Good Luck Charm: Wow.  So you can spend every short rest passing around the Good Luck Charm, giving everyone +5s on their first non-attack roll?  Even for a Utilty 16, this is strong; it's a party buff that can also give one character (or with extra actions, multiple characters) in-combat buffs.  Plus, it's an untyped bonus.

Dancing Weapon: can't be retargetted?

=================================================

In terms of personal impressions:

I like the flavor of a Leader (Controller minor) who boosts allies by enchanting their stuff, and attacks enemies by throwing objects imbued with magic at them?  More of that please?  Actually, dropping implements entirely -- and having the class go with either a ranged, "Green Arrow" approach where they used special arrows/potions from a sling/infusions rubbed on a thrown weapon (or even a melee weapon--I'd love to see some spells that could be either ranged or close, depending on the weapon they were used with) or an activate (nominal, shouldn't require preparation) infusions on allies armor/weapons to have special effects approach (the Warlord "ally makes a basic attack with a bonus" basic really should make an appearance here--it's just so perfect, and adds some more leader-ish flavor to what's largely a very "controller" set of attack spells past first level).

While it's very important to -not- duplicate the "many, many craft points" approach of 3nd Ed, I think adding more craft -- in the form of free acquisition of the craft/destroy item rituals at appropriate level -- would help make the class feel more "artificer"-y.

This is, I think, a general point of feedback, but certainly applies to the Artificer.  It seems to me that the developers do the game a bit of a disservice by having so many classes that don't have a useful basic attack -- melee charming rogues, most wizards, charisma paladins, and charisma clerics might, or might not be paid for not having a basic attack with greater flexiblity/power (certainly, a charisma paladin is, despite the annoyance of not having a good AoO to a Paladin, as they get better ranged, close, and area attacks (and powers tied to their main ability at every level), in payment), but this also means that classes built this way don't play as well with others -- they may be able to lead, but cannot be lead.  The artificer looks to fill exactly this role, as without spells that replace basic attacks, and wilth little reason to  invest in either Dex or Str, she's going to be walking around with a weapon she cannot really use except with powers, on her own turn.  (the amusing bit is that all of the above are resillient to control powers, as they have no good basic for foes to use against their allies. But isn't this also bad for the game?)  (A 4.01 idea here would be for all stat-replacement at-will attacks to give you the ability to roll that stat for that type of attack as a basic.  Rogues could make AoOs with Dex.   Paladins could make AoOs with Charisma if they had a melee Char at-will.  Something similar could be added with ranged abilities for Clerics, Paladins, and now Artificers, and Wizards would either need fixing (they -can- have a ranged basic, but have good reasons not to) or not).

It's worth nothing an artificer's skill selection.  First, they don't have much of one -- they get to choose three skills of 6.  Though for ritual casting, it's certainly interesting that they've got Heal+Arcana.  OTOH, they only have two skills based on a key ability -- Arcana and History.  This means they're either going to be investing in Wis for defense/skills and looking at some of Dungeoneering, Heal, and Perception, or going for skills with an overall greater-than-average usefulness and flavor -- probably Thievery (a fairly rare skill to have access to without a feat) and Perception.  In fact, between Thievery and Ritual Casting, the class is probably the most flexible out of combat one out there, even without a lot of skill selection, particularly since most traps are much more easily disabled with a Thievery check than by any other method.


----------



## Goobermunch (Jul 8, 2008)

mneme said:


> Restorative Infusion: Oddly, the second part of this power is potentialy, much more disruptive than the first.  Consider the Warlock.  Now, consider a warlock who starts spending all her minor/move actions giving away temporary HP or cursing creatures (who die to give her more temporary HP to give away...).  The "transfer temporary HP" abilty needs a "any of -these- temporary HP" or at least an expiration time.




Except that temporary hit points don't stack.  So the Warlock cannot gain any more temporary hit points until the amount he gains exceeds the amount remaining from the RI.  Once that happens, if the Warlock chooses to gain the higher value (from his power), he has overwritten the RI and it's no longer in effect.  Or, he can choose to forego his pact granted temp hit points, but will be limited by the remaining power.  I don't think there's a problem here.

--G


----------



## mneme (Jul 8, 2008)

Goobermunch said:


> ...until the amount he gains exceeds the amount remaining from the RI.  Once that happens, if the Warlock chooses to gain the higher value (from his power), he has overwritten the RI and it's no longer in effect.




Have to call shenanigans here.

As far as I know, there's no rule such that "once the temporary hit points a power grants are gone, the power ceases to have an effect".

So the problem is that as e-printed, RI does two things: 1. Target gains a raft of temporary HP.  2. Until it expires, target can spend a Minor Action to give temporary HP to any target in range.  The lack of any expiration on the latter ability is the source of my nitpick.   -If- once the temporary HP were gone, the ability expired, my complaint would be solved -- in fact, that's exactly what I suggested.


----------



## Hambot (Jul 8, 2008)

Quote:
 	 	 		 			 				 					Originally Posted by *Hambot* 

 
_Artificers should be able to break down a magic item and get back more than 1/5 of the creation cost.

Artificer also sounds like they could make magic items = their level +1._



Stogoe said:


> These are incredibly bad ideas.  It seems like you're still thinking in terms of 3rd Edition.  The only thing I'd do if I wanted to make the Artificer 'feel' like an item crafter would be to give her the ritual automatically, and maybe one level early.  Anything else would quickly obliterate the wealth guidelines.




Um, I am offended by you saying my ideas are bad, then backing that up with the argument that the ideas are flawed because I am thinking of 3rd edition.  You seem very confident that wealth in the game would be destroyed, without saying why.

I quit 3rd edition, left a campaign just because it was running those rules that I am now completely sick of.

In 4th edition, people are routinely finding items up to 3 levels above themselves.  Letting artificers make items 1 level above themselves is good, but by no means game breaking.  It is supposed to be a good perk of the class - that is why I suggested it.  And just because they can do it, dosn't mean that they can afford the costs.  So I would get someone to playtest that, and if artificers can never afford to make items equal to their level + 1, they should get a little bit of extra cash out of breaking down magic items so that they can actually use such a perk if it were given to the class.  

Wealth guidelines are to control power levels, so the most direct route to acquiring more power is converting gold to magic items, so you would expect the extra money provided by the artificer to go towards using my proposed ability.  Basically, it allows a guy to buff his party by +1 here and +1 there, without using powers.  Naturally, this would need to come with a trade off in the form of less useful powers offset by an artificers ability to create cool magical artifacts.

This would differentiate the class a little from others, allowing them to focus on equipment more than an average PC, which feels right for a class named artificer.  Thats why rangers get twin strike - they're the two weapon fighting guy, so they get that awesome power.  You shouldn't compare that one at-will to that of another class, you have to compare the entire class' package deal, side by side for a meaningful comparison of power level.


----------



## IanArgent (Jul 8, 2008)

Allowing an artificer to craft an item of level + 1 isn't broken - you still have to afford it. Allowing them to break down an item for more than 1/5 it's value is what may break the system. I'd be wary of anything better than the 1/5 rule, since the magic item pricing runs on that as well...


----------



## generalhenry (Jul 8, 2008)

'should be able to' leads to terrible game design.

That was the biggest thing fixed in 4E

A hulking giant 'should be able to' hurl rocks at people.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Jul 8, 2008)

Here's an idea: Why not let the artificer gain item powers as his class powers?

Let's say he gets to level X and picks _thundering_.  You could go a couple ways with this:

1) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made _thundering_ until the artificer's next short rest.

2) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made _thundering_ while the artificer Sustain Minors it.

3) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made _thundering_ while the _ally_ Sustain Minors it.

etc.  There are lots of variations, but you get the idea.

Some of his utility powers might be paying some gold to swap out an item's power (the above artificer might take a _+2 flaming sword_, make it permanently a _+2 thundering sword_, and replace _thundering_ with _flaming_ in his powers known) or "metamagic-ing" an item like the old metamagic infusions--Quicken Item would let you use a standard-action item with a move or minor action once per day, Enlarge Item would extend the range by 2-3 squares once per day, and so forth.

Basically, the artificer's main schtick in 3e was using item abilities in place of his own...so why don't we literally let him use item powers to replace his own?


----------

