# Artificer UA has been released!



## Morrus (Feb 28, 2019)

As promised, WotC has just released the new version of the Artificer in a 10-page PDF! "In a previous installment of Unearthed Arcana, we presented a new character class: the artificer, a master of magical invention. Based on the feedback we received, we now offer a new look at this class."

View attachment 105135​

They also note that the schedule for Unearthed Arcana is changing -- "We typically look to release Unearthed Arcana once a month. The series remains a valuable opportunity for us to publish playtest content and gather your feedback. That said, we want to release Unearthed Arcana content only when it is ready for you to try. Moving forward, this content will release on a more flexible schedule, roughly once a month and on whatever day works best that month. We’ll let you know when the next UA installment is ready! (There’s a good chance it will contain more content for the artificer.)"


----------



## Iry (Feb 28, 2019)

Not liking the shape of this. It's certainly powerful in a batman-utility sort of way, but I didn't expect the Artificer to become a "Must Have Pet" class. My potion thrower is gone, and the party Beastmaster is giving me side-eye.

Unless you can put Returning Weapon on the potions you throw.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 28, 2019)

Yea, I've definitely been spoiled by the amount of good homebrew out there.  I don't think there's anything obviously wrong with this (although a half caster getting spellcasting at 1st level is a bit of a proud nail).  It's just kind of bland.  Some of the infusions are decent.  The magical tinkering at 1st level is a nice ribbon++.  But forcing a support pet onto both subclasses is kind of not great.  I don't like seeing an alchemist with no healing abilities.


----------



## Prakriti (Feb 28, 2019)

I really, _really_, *really* don't like that they're trying to fit mechanical engineering into a spellcasting chassis. The whole "The Magic of Artifice" text-box makes my skin crawl:

"As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds."

It gets worse as it goes on, and the whole time I'm wondering... why? Why not just give the Artificer their own unique abilities that allow them to manufacture mechanical spiders that bind wounds or produce healing salves? Why make these abilities "spells" and dump all the responsibility of making them cool and flavorful onto the players themselves? Also, what happens when the Artificer enters an anti-magic zone? Do the clockwork spiders suddenly stop working? Or the healing salves? Meh...

I wish they'd just make an all-out engineer class (with gunpowder and clockwork inventions a la _World of Warcraft_) or an all-out magic-item-creation class. Instead, they're trying to kill two birds with one stone and fit both archetypes into a single class. It just doesn't work.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 1, 2019)

Some thoughts on this:

-They made the spell progression a more standard 1/2 caster level, it brings it more in line with the 3e Artificer.
-I miss having the sub-classes having different combat abilities and scaling to the Rogue. I'm also not a fan on both of the sub-classes getting a pet.
-I feel Artificer Infusions can be expanded in the way Warlock Invocations have expanded.  They more infusions to choose from.  I know it saves space with "replicate magic item", but maybe they could have sub-class only infusions.
-I think that an Artillerist should be able to use a firearm as an arcane focus, if they're proficient and such weapons exist in a campaign. I want to see pistols that shoot Fireballs.
-The Alchemist seems a lot more boring now, could they have at least had something like being able to enhance some of the special equipment items.
-Could they at least include some of the spells from outside the PHB? I know it's a losing proposition trying to do that with every book that introduces new spells (other than using some D&D Beyond thing).  I think Artificers should get something like Ice Knife, and maybe some of those melee attack cantrips like Green Flame Blade. I know it's up to the DM to decide if they get access to new spells, but it's almost like they should get something like the Bard's magical secrets.
-The Artillerist flamethrower should scale up in damage, or maybe allow a spell slot expenditure add damage to any of it's attack types.
-I think there should be more level tiers of replicated magic items, like maybe one at level 6 or 8.


----------



## Voort (Mar 1, 2019)

So I’m an INT-based caster, but I shouldn’t ever actually increase my Intelligence, because I can craft a Headband of Intellect at level 12.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 1, 2019)

Yeah I’m not too keen on this. I have the prior version in a game I’m DMing right now and it’s working great. 

TBH, I’m a little tired of every class being a wizard. I get why, I just don’t like it.


----------



## lkj (Mar 1, 2019)

I thought this little note on the UA page in the scheduling section was interesting:

"We’ll let you know when the next UA installment is ready! (There’s a good chance it will contain more content for the artificer.)"

AD


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

Voort said:


> So I’m an INT-based caster, but I shouldn’t ever actually increase my Intelligence, because I can craft a Headband of Intellect at level 12.



*Stupificer*
Put your lowest score in Intelligence.
Focus on Buff and Ritual spells.
Alchemists let their homunculus make intelligence skill checks, Artillerist take Defender turret.
Craft Headband of Intellect at 12.
_Name yourself Algernon._


----------



## MarkB (Mar 1, 2019)

At first glance, I like it. The Artillerist gives me vibes of the Engineer from Guild Wars 2, throwing down turrets for reinforcement or support.

I have an NPC in my Eberron campaign for whom this is a good fit, a rogue House Cannith inventor. I look forward to seeing how it performs.


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 1, 2019)

I've never played an artificer or been the DM for an artificer player, but this doesn't feel like what I think of when I think artificer (I think steam punk engineer type).  I really think they need a new mechanic, not a 1/2 caster.  They at least need new spells I think, not simply leave it to he PC to re-flavor existing spells.  But I would prefer a new system/way of making these abilities.  It can be magic, but more not "spells" as we know them.


----------



## pukunui (Mar 1, 2019)

Not a fan of the video gamey turrets. Not sure about the rest yet.

I like the idea of reflavoring spells but agree with others that it would be better to have unique magical abilities. I think the devs painted themselves into a bit of a corner, though, by not including “spell-like abilities” in 5e.


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

I don't mind a single Archetype being about creating pets; choosing between a homunculus or a turret for example. But having both archetypes be pet classes, at the expense of previous archetypes which were fun to play with, seems unnecessary.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 1, 2019)

Now I get to play Torbjorn from Overwatch in 5e!

I think the class looks interesting, I like it better than the last version but that might just be because it is fresh and new. I definitely like the spellcasting starting at 1st level and I don't know why it never occurred to me to do that for my own arcane half-caster class. I assume it was because I was looking at the ranger and paladin and working of their advancement. As for pets, I know not everyone wants them, I wouldn't mind their being an elemental subclass for the Izzet guild that focuses on harnessing the power of lightning which has some other gadgets instead of a pet.

I'm adding that Arcane Weapon spell to the wizard and sorcerer spell list.


----------



## jmucchiello (Mar 1, 2019)

Shouldn't Artificers be knowledgeble? Two skills?


----------



## Kurotowa (Mar 1, 2019)

jmucchiello said:


> Shouldn't Artificers be knowledgeble? Two skills?




With three starting Tool proficiencies and another two from the subclass at 3rd level. Artificiers went to technical college for practical skills, not some big name university to pore over old tomes.


----------



## Gradine (Mar 1, 2019)

I don't really see the Artillerist as a pet class; I don't really understand why that's the connection being made to it. I mean, it's not like _flaming sphere_ or _call lightning_ are considered pets, or the Circle of the Shepherd's Spirit Totems, which I see as closer analogues than the Beastmaster or even the Alchemist (whose homonculi strike me more as familiars than pets in any case).

For the most part I really like this class. I'll echo that the summon turret ability is a little _too_ on-the-nose video-gamey for my liking, but playing that archetype wouldn't feel like playing a pet class to me.


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 1, 2019)

The turrets are cool, but the fire damage feels anemic. They need better scaling before waiting till level 14 to get an extra one. The subclass is also supposed to be a battle wand specialist but gets next to nothing to make that apparent mechanically beyond a small damage boost. On the other hand, the gunsmith with different damage types and an AOE out of the same weapon felt more versatile and different from every other guy with a wand.

The alchemist feels like it gets almost no alchemist flavor at all until later in the game. The whole "you cast the same spell as 6 other classes with a slight tweak" is disappointing and bland compared to unique features. I hate having yet another class that just uses the same spell list as multiple other classes as a primary ability. 

I also feel like they should drop the requirement of using a magical weapon for Extra Attack. You shouldn't have to use a specific infusion or spell slot in order to use a basic function that plenty of other classes get without restriction.


----------



## Ristamar (Mar 1, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I don't really see the Artillerist as a pet class; I don't really understand why that's the connection being made to it. I mean, it's not like _flaming sphere_ or _call lightning_ are considered pets, or the Circle of the Shepherd's Spirit Totems, which I see as closer analogues than the Beastmaster or even the Alchemist (whose homonculi strike me more as familiars than pets in any case).
> 
> For the most part I really like this class. I'll echo that the summon turret ability is a little _too_ on-the-nose video-gamey for my liking, but playing that archetype wouldn't feel like playing a pet class to me.




Reminds me a bit of Roland from Borderlands.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 1, 2019)

Wait...can the Alchemical Homunculus give all PCs advantage on all out of combat skill checks, and 12+Int temporary hitpoints prior to any combat, as often as it wants at no cost?


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Wait...can the Alchemical Homunculus give all PCs advantage on all out of combat skill checks, and 12+Int temporary hitpoints prior to any combat, as often as it wants at no cost?



Looks like you get 3 Salves Per Day. Defender Turrent looks like it can go forever.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Wait...can the Alchemical Homunculus give all PCs advantage on all out of combat skill checks, and 12+Int temporary hitpoints prior to any combat, as often as it wants at no cost?




Any PC can give another Advantage outside of combat.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Mar 1, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> I really, _really_, *really* don't like that they're trying to fit mechanical engineering into a spellcasting chassis. The whole "The Magic of Artifice" text-box makes my skin crawl:




You got it mistaken. It's magical mechanical engineering. 

Anyway I like the class.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 1, 2019)

I'm amused at the Artificers in Other Worlds part, it even brings up Mystara and Sigil!  Along with the very obvious Izzet League having many Artificers in Ravnica.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm amused at the Artificers in Other Worlds part, it even brings up Mystara and Sigil!  Along with the very obvious Izzet League having many Artificers in Ravnica.




That is a robust section: makes me suspicious.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 1, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I'm amused at the Artificers in Other Worlds part, it even brings up Mystara and Sigil!  Along with the very obvious Izzet League having many Artificers in Ravnica.



What's amusing about it?


----------



## vecna00 (Mar 1, 2019)

I've posted this on Facebook, but I'll just copy it here!

I'm pretty positive on it. I miss the gunsmith and incremental extra attunements, and I question adding their version of Extra Attack, but overall I like it.

The pets are fine, not great, but fine. They give a bit of the original artificer feel, but I would love the ability to craft any type of homunculus as before.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 1, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> What's amusing about it?



Queue the thread speculating about what campaign setting is next...

Also setting purists who insist that if a class never existed in the last edition a campaign setting was published in, it's not part of that campaign setting.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 1, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Wait...can the Alchemical Homunculus give all PCs advantage on all out of combat skill checks, and 12+Int temporary hitpoints prior to any combat, as often as it wants at no cost?




It only grants 1 single PC advantage (only on ability checks) up to Int mod times within the next hour OR 2d6 temp hit points only 3/day. So it’s pretty narrowly defined.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 1, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Queue the thread speculating about what campaign setting is next...
> 
> Also setting purists who insist that if a class never existed in the last edition a campaign setting was published in, it's not part of that campaign setting.



Hah, yeah. I can totally see both of those things happening.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 1, 2019)

Magical Tinkering is cool.

1st level NPCs with this can now create magical paintings with ambient sound.

/scurries off to create the Imager's Guild.

Note:  with Paint Brushes as their magical focus of course.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2019)

Couple of things jump out.

1.  Being able to spend a bonus action to have your homonculus perform the Help action kinda steps on the Mastermind's toes a bit.  But, it is pretty cool.  And, it makes the pet VERY useful without needing to have a "combat pet".  

2.  I get the notion, but, a turret isn't really a pet is it?

3.  Why does this class get extra attacks per round?  I mean, the spell list for both subclasses is pretty robust - they've got damage spells down pat.  None of the other casters get multiple attacks as a baseline.  Seems a tad unnecessary to me. And, unless you pick up a magic weapon, doesn't that make the Enhanced Weapon infusion pretty much a must have?  Additionally, I know that my current DM had a real issue with my forge priest getting a magic weapon at 1st level, I can't imagine he's going to be thrilled with someone who can create two magic weapons at 2nd level and give them to anyone.

4.  I LOVE the fact that the artificer can swap out cantrips on a long rest.  Very cool idea.

I want to see this in play.  Fortunately, my group will be staring a new campaign very soon.  Yay.


----------



## epithet (Mar 1, 2019)

_Arcane Weapon_ is a pretty great 1st level spell. It's at least as good as the 3rd level _Elemental Weapon_.

Seems like Artificer would be a good choice for the Magic Initiate feat.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Mar 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> 3.  Why does this class get extra attacks per round?  I mean, the spell list for both subclasses is pretty robust - they've got damage spells down pat.  None of the other casters get multiple attacks as a baseline.  Seems a tad unnecessary to me. And, unless you pick up a magic weapon, doesn't that make the Enhanced Weapon infusion pretty much a must have?  Additionally, I know that my current DM had a real issue with my forge priest getting a magic weapon at 1st level, I can't imagine he's going to be thrilled with someone who can create two magic weapons at 2nd level and give them to anyone.




The Artificer's spell slots only go up to Level 5, so I guess the extra attack (albeit with the magical weapon caveat) is to keep it in line with the Ranger and the Paladin. 

Also, we now have an INT half caster to round out the casters, yay. I can finally make Gnomes that aren't wizards or third casters! Hopefully it remains so in the final iteration.


----------



## gyor (Mar 1, 2019)

I really, really like both of them.


----------



## gyor (Mar 1, 2019)

epithet said:


> _Arcane Weapon_ is a pretty great 1st level spell. It's at least as good as the 3rd level _Elemental Weapon_.
> 
> Seems like Artificer would be a good choice for the Magic Initiate feat.




 You can use that feat to poach any half caster spells like Ranger,  Paladin, or now Artificer.

 A Bard however could chose it as a magical secret.


----------



## Arryn (Mar 1, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Some thoughts on this:
> 
> 
> -I think that an Artillerist should be able to use a firearm as an arcane focus, if they're proficient and such weapons exist in a campaign. I want to see pistols that shoot Fireballs.




Attach a wand to the barrel of your pistol. Cast that new spell which makes it magical, then you have a gun which is a focus and you can fire it twice a round if you want.


----------



## Herosmith14 (Mar 1, 2019)

I like it. I like the warlock/paladin chassis, which I think fixed a lot of the conceptual problems the old one had.

I do agree that Alchemist feels a little bland (then again, that's what I thought about last versions alchemist, too), but I can live with this. And while I will miss the gunsmith, I'm willing to give artillerist a chance (the turret actually looks decently fun).

And who knows? If UA down the road is more Artificer stuff, maybe Gunsmith will get resed, and wasn't included here because this was planned for Eberron, and I've seen how people react when you put guns in people's Eberron.

I do also love the infusion system. While I do agree Spell Storing should come in a little earlier, if they expand on the infusion list, is be just as happy getting it at 18th.


----------



## Thurmas (Mar 1, 2019)

I like the fact that they finally gave a half caster cantrips. I wish the ranger and paladin followed the same model. You could even keep the same 1st level slots at level 2, similar to those two classes, with the cantrips at level 1 and I would be fine with it. 

I wish the turret damage scaled with spell slot expended. 1d10 per spell slot for a single target turret, 1d6 per slot for a cone aoe turret. It would give a nice, similar ability to the paladin's smite, yet be different. All that being said, not entirely sure how I feel about the turret in general.


----------



## Herosmith14 (Mar 1, 2019)

Also, I don't know whether to be amused or triggered by the fact that people are complaining this isn't Steampunky enough, when a lot of the complaints I saw on last version were that it wasnt magitechy enough.


----------



## Kurotowa (Mar 1, 2019)

Hussar said:


> 3.  Why does this class get extra attacks per round?  I mean, the spell list for both subclasses is pretty robust - they've got damage spells down pat.  None of the other casters get multiple attacks as a baseline.  Seems a tad unnecessary to me. And, unless you pick up a magic weapon, doesn't that make the Enhanced Weapon infusion pretty much a must have?




This is the part that I'm still trying to get my head around. There seem to be two paths for what your default combat action will be. You can take an attack Cantrip that's buffed by your subclass's Level 6 class feature or you can buff a crossbow (or firearm) with Arcane Weapon and Enhanced Weapon. The two paths don't synergize, but they also don't force many mutually exclusive class choices. So I'm not quite sure what sort of builds are being encouraged.

It's too bad that Gunsmith is gone. I really liked the concept, and even if the flavor might be less out of place Artillerist doesn't feel like it delivers as a wandslinger the same way. Better to go EB spam Warlock if that's what you want.


----------



## Mr. Wilson (Mar 1, 2019)

While I'm still somewhat...confused as to why the Artificer is suddenly a pet class, I'm thrilled they stripped out the gunsmith from it and moved it back towards wands given the origination of the class.

I was hoping it would have more interesting ways to interact with Warforged, but overall I dig the changes.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Mar 1, 2019)

Looks good. A distinct improvement on the last iteration. It might need one more round of polishing, but this seems playable right out of the gate. 

I would probably break up the archetype levels a bit.... 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th. 

1st level would get the bonus tool proficencies and bonus spells from 3rd level, while 3rd level would retain the homunculus/turret ability.  At 14th level, both archetypes currently get really two related abilities in the current format, I would probably split them between 10th and 14th. It just gives a slight little power up to balance out the flavorful, but usually just fluffy cantrip swap ability at 10th level. 

Overall though, I am very happy with where all this is going. I kind of wish that Paladins and Rangers got their spellcasting at first level like the Artificer. I may have to tinker with that for my home game.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 1, 2019)

I posted about this in the on the way announcement but see this maybe here is better, Very curious what other have to say, here is my first impressions:


First thing I notice... Artificer's as far as I now are now the first class to be *able to change out cantrips*.. as well as being the *only 1/2 caster class to have cantrips* at all. "When you gain a level in this class, you can replace one of the artificer cantrips you know with another cantrip from the artificer spell list." This makes them a bit more forgiving for new players. … Then they double down on that at level 10 and with the Artillerist subclass with Wand Prototype ... interesting even if cantrip over kill.

Also, my first look at their current spell list makes me think, *where is unseen servant and Comprehend Languages?* They are ritual casters with 6 rituals seems kind of a waste for Identify and detect magic. Alarms nice but an extra pair of hands and the ability to read deferent manuals and books seem like things that any artificer would really want and prioritize.

*Infuse Magic at lvl 4* was what I liked best about the Artificer... now its *Spell storing at level 18* and limited to 1st and 2nd level spells. That limits its best use to Disguise Self, Alter self, Expeditious Retreat, Blur, See invisible, Enlarge/Reduce, heat metal, Invisibility, shield of faith, and then New Arcane Weapon. That's not a bad list, the loss of fly, haste, and revivify hurt it but don't break it. The biggest thing here is that at level 18 your not likely to ever seen perhaps one of the most unique and interesting abilities of the artificer. If they could drop it to the lvl 10 ability it would be way better since at level 18 its underwhelming but a little useful but at level 10 its pretty good. Besides you can already change your cantrips when you level the Artillerist sub class can cantrip wands so the level 10 ability get to a point where I just ask, "Why do I want this?" its kind an unwanted unneeded triple down on minor feature, the double down on the subclass if fine plus it adds an intellect bonus to damage but this seems a bit much. 

*Infuse Item* does feel more like an artificer than the previous version namely when it comes to *Replicate Magic* item in replace of the free magic items from Wonderous Invention. Really this takes a *page from warlock Eldritch Invocations* and opens up the class to greater player to player variation... WHICH I LOVE!! This is a great improvement.

But the *Subclass Crafting bonus*..... That makes the Artificer actually an artificer. *Hell yes!* I generally like the new subclasses better, they are less cumbersome. They seemed like they were trying to be too much their own thing before. They seem to haves successfully made the artificer more an artificer and subclasses feel more like specialties than almost entirely new classes.

... that's  just my opinion / review. curious to see what others think.

Over all... It's much improved from my prospective. I am also hopeful for a scroll based subclass, I keep thinking of a 3 Naruto characters, one who used scrolls like Drawmij's Instant Summons (pulling weapons and equipment out of a scroll, kind of like robe of many things), the summoned illusion enemies to fight like Simulacrum (A paper mache decoy fighter), while another used things like symbol (buff/debuff), glyph of warding (exploding notes) and Illusory Script (secret notes)… combining something like that would make cool option I think.


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 1, 2019)

*Class Features*
The basic stuff is to be expected. Though Con/Int saving throws is unique.
It's a rogue with more defense. Though the reliance on crossbows leaves me wondering about their Bonus Action economy, I have a feeling it wont matter in the long run. Oh, and as an option, they can use guns.

*Magical Tinkering *
If there was ever an example of magitec opulence this is it:
The magic way to send Text messages, selfies, and even stink bombs. I can see this being used for oodles of flavor and humor.

*Spells*
They follow the Cleric Method of spell casting. Pick a few of the spells from the entire list available per day, and also ritual casting but only of spells you have already prepaired.
They also use INT, which is nice, INT needs way more love, but it's totally expected.
The real interesting thing here is that this is a half caster with cantrips! Finally!

Cantrips:
A combination of Wizard and Druid! cantrips. Though I would have used _Produce Flame_ instead of _Firebolt_.

Level 1
No direct offensive spells. There are a lot of buffs, detection, a smattering of area denial, and some restoration here.
_Cure Wounds_ over _Healing Word _is an interesting choice. I suppose they couldn't justify the less tangible _Healing Word_.

Level 2.
Finally a spell that can be used to apply the hurt, but otherwise the trend continues.

In fact, outside of getting _Fabricate_ and _Creation_, the spells are basically the same but better from here on on. Not much to comment on other than the fact it gets all of the essential healer spells, except for _Remove Curse_, which it should totally have because it fits perfectly.

*Infusing Items.*
They fixed the bug where your class features could be permanently stolen from you. Which is nice.
Other than that, they are basically Invocations that you can share with your party, with the additional bonus of the items being semi-swappable every day.
It is a bit odd that the +x weapons and Armor only go up to 2, but then again a +3 item is legendary.

*Tool Expertise.*
Lets you keep up with the Rogue in the disarming arms race.

*ASIs*
Everyone gets them.

*Arcane Armament.*
This is an oddly specific take on the extra attack feature. One that is easily overcame mind you, but still really damn weird considering they are meant to use Crossbows of all weapons. It's a pity they don't get a bonus to Cantrip damage, or something akin to Divine Strike instead.

*The Right Cantrip for the Job *
A Wizard would kill for this. In fact, put this on the pile of features I earmarked for the Generalist Wizard.

*Spell-Storing Item.*
This is a capstone-esque ability that lets you finally share your spells with your group. Or just get 5 extra low level spells per day. Either way it's rather boss.

*Soul of Artifice.*
Because having one capstone wasn't enough!
Not only do you get to attune to 6 magic items, you get a +6 bonus on all saving throws!

I'm just going to say this ability needs some heavy retooling. Drop the bonus to saving throws, and make it come online somewhere at the end of t1 or beginning of t2 so that the artificer can use the goodies they are making.

*Subclasses. *
Alchemist, for those who want to be party support.
They get skills to use the proper tools. Of note, you are intended to craft potions with this subclass.
An expanded spell list that has some OK options.
It gets better healing powers, a bit more acid/poison damage, and a familiar that would make a Beastmaster Ranger cry.


Artillerist, because the boomstick subclass wouldn't fly in Eberron.
The tools are technically worse, but you get to use Wands, Staves, and Rods as compensation. Also, you are supposed to craft permanent wands with this subclass, but good luck with that one.
Speaking of wands, you can use them to cast [-]*Any Cantrip In The Game*,[/-] any artificer cantrip, even those you don't know, with a damage bonus.
[-]Did you want to Eldritch Blast like a Warlock? Good news! Really want to pick up Druidcraft because you like flowers? No problem! [/-]

_~~~I stand corrected, apparently I didn't catch the restriction the first time around~~~_

To hammer home the idea that this subclass is all about the spell booming, you get _Fireball_ and a selection of other destructive spells. And also _Shield_, for reasons I'm not really sure of, but then again the base class should have gotten that spell anyway.
Now, the really fun part about this subclass is the Arcane Turret, which is a walking Flamethrower, Laser cannon, or force-field generator, with the option to self destruct, and be resummoned with a spell slot. It's a lot like a Spirit Totem from the Circle of the Shepard, only more explosive.

Over all, the class sounds fun, but they aren't even remotely tooled to be an Attack-Action class, despite having class features intended to back them up.


----------



## Kurotowa (Mar 1, 2019)

Leatherhead said:


> Speaking of wands, you can use them to cast *Any Cantrip In The Game*, with a damage bonus.
> Did you want to Eldritch Blast like a Warlock? Good news! Really want to pick up Druidcraft because you like flowers? No problem!




This isn't right, I don't think.



			
				Wand Prototype said:
			
		

> When you do so, you invest it with one *artificer* cantrip of your choice — even one you don’t know — that has a casting time of 1 action.




Or is there another class feature I'm overlooking?


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 1, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> I really, _really_, *really* don't like that they're trying to fit mechanical engineering into a spellcasting chassis. The whole "The Magic of Artifice" text-box makes my skin crawl:
> 
> "As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds."
> 
> ...




*A good post. I agree they should stick with magic and make Tinker/Engineer something else like The Critical Role gunslinger*. By the title of Artificer, they should be about infusing objects into magic items. 

*What like, I REALLY like*, its the *Crafting bonus*,  *Infuse Item*, *Spells storing*(though at level 18 its so late they are denying a strong heart of the class like giving moon druids shape change at level 18), and Soul of Artifice (which is good but I liked Superior Attunement at level 5 easing you into it). I even like it as a half caster class with cantrips that they change as they level (its shifting low level magic which I can except with class that studies the workings and manipulation of magic for the purpose of infusing it into items) and 1st level spells at level 1 with ritual casting. To me this makes them Wizards who decided to specialize in crafting items then at level 3 they specialize into a specific type of items. I love this feel and it makes since as studied practitioners of magic learning to infuse that magic into items should require some of the same base fundamentals.

*What I don't like* is the support constructs (make Golemancy / Forge a subclass give them a "Warforged light assistant"), Arcane Armament (they are a caster class dedication way to much time to magic and construction to be picking up "Extra attack", its the same problem with magic and engineering. A little is fine. They have armor, shield, simple weapons, crossbow proficiencies and give them Green Flame Blade/Booming Blade a magic solution to melee but not extra attack a melee staple ability), and The right cantrip for the job (This is something wizards can't do and should be better at)

*My Suggested fixes*: switch Arcane Armament at level 5 for a "Superior Attunement/Spells storing" hybrid, The +1 attunement item is very artificer like but not useful until you get a magic item and scaling it up to level 15 is good but not useful at lower levels. Spell storing is key ability of awesomeness which becomes wasted at level 18 but perhaps too powerful at lower levels, so you need to cap it at lower levels then open it up at higher levels. 

*Magic Item connections*
At 5th level, your superior understanding of magic items allows you to use them to a greater degree. You can now attune to up to four, rather than three, magic items at a time. You also learn to store spells in none magical items. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one simple or martial weapon or an item that you can use as a spellcasting focus and store a spell in it, choosing one 1st level spell from the artificer spell list that requires 1 action to cast (you don’t need to have the spell prepared). With the object in hand, a creature can take an action to produce the spell’s effect from it, using your spellcasting ability modifier but their on concentration if required. Once used the item is once again mundane. You can have this ability active on a number of items equal to your intelligence modifier. If you cast it on an additional item after that the oldest active items magic dissipates and becomes mundane.

*Superior Magic Storage*
At 10th level, You also learn to store larger spells in none magical items. You can now store spells of level 2 and level 3.

*Master Infusion*
At 18th level, your superior understanding of magic items has expanded again. You may now attune to five items, rather than four. You also lean to use duplicate infusions letting you put the same infusion in multiple objects at a time but your total number of infusions still can not exceed your intellect modifier (minimum of one).

(AKA, voids: "You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time.")


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 1, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Wait...can the Alchemical Homunculus give all PCs advantage on all out of combat skill checks, and 12+Int temporary hitpoints prior to any combat, as often as it wants at no cost?




That was my first thought too.

Maybe I am overlooking something but I see no restrictions in this draft for the humonculus to give inspiration AND temporary HP to everyone all the time outside combat. It's even worse than Guidance which is technically broken but somewhat tolerable.

I am sure this will be corrected.

Edit: aha, there IS a limit of 3/day fortunately!


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Any PC can give another Advantage outside of combat.




That's a common misconception. They "can" in the sense that they "might" if the DM rules positively, but the RAW on helping others doesn't entitle anybody. The Homunculus RAW doesn't include DM's adjudication so it just works.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 1, 2019)

Just to say something positive: I really like the infusions.

But overall I don't think I am in the customer base for this class, I never was because I don't want another spellcaster in the game, especially one that takes the magic items availability control off my DM's hands. And I have zero interest in Ravnica or Eberron.

The only Artificer I would be interested in would be a non-magic MacGuyver class, which is clearly not what they want. 

I do think the Alchemist has potential as a Wizard subclass however.


----------



## Inglorin (Mar 1, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> That was my first thought too.
> 
> Maybe I am overlooking something but I see no restrictions in this draft for the humonculus to give inspiration AND temporary HP to everyone all the time outside combat. It's even worse than Guidance which is technically broken but somewhat tolerable.
> 
> I am sure this will be corrected.



Isn't the Inspiration and the Temp HP a kind of salve and thus restricted to 3/day?


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 1, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> This isn't right, I don't think.




Hmm, I missed that first part for some reason. I think my eyes must have bugged out of my skull when I read "even one you don’t know" and knocked what I just read out of my mind.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 1, 2019)

I would like, or I suggest, a future subclasse about runes as a softer version of seals for pacts with vestiges, and other about incarnum soulmelds like the ironsoul forgemaster.  

OH MY GOD! Can you guess what is my fear now? Fortnite. I mean now some player will want a subclass about creating walls and traps like in the videogames "Orcs must die" or "Fortnite: Save the world". Maybe it will be only a homebrew version.

I imagine artificer like a master of crafting single-use magic item (scrolls, potions, talismans, runes, tattoos..). 

* Now I am try to imagine a story about a blue goblin half-fraal ("the little grayskin aliens were here") who is a trapper, an artificer living in a wild zone using primal magic (and a piece of psionic powers) to teletransport traps (and other biopunk tech, machines by living tissues) created in the tribe ville to hunt savage species (and sometimes enemy werebeasts).  His weapons would be a crossbow what reload itself, and his mount is a mutant board with tentacles what can reload a crossbow. He found a planar rift to a demiplane with living constructs like the creatures from the videogame "Horizon Zero". Maybe it is a stupid idea but at least we need something to start a idea storm.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 1, 2019)

How is the abnormal spell progression table supposed to combine with multiclassing?


----------



## GothicEmperor (Mar 1, 2019)

It still needs a bit of work. For example, the Wand Prototype feature of the Artillerist uses wands to fire cantrips (magical pistols, essentially), but it doesn't quite say if that wand also casts cantrips at the same caster level as the artificer. I suppose it does, but for cantrips, that's crucial information.

I like the 'use magic as shorthand for gimmicks and gizmo's'-aspect to it, myself. I can handle the abstraction, and one can easily refluff it to fit different types of settings.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 1, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> How is the abnormal spell progression table supposed to combine with multiclassing?




No problem. Just a standard half caster. Divide artificer level by 2. Cantrips are always on top of the multiclassing table. No matter what second class you have, you at least have a single level on the spellcadting table. It is now possible to use the first line of this table which was previously impossible.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 1, 2019)

Maybe they should replace Arcane Armament with something similar to the Cleric's Divine Strike.  It doesn't necessarily have to be one where it's different for each subclass.  Or maybe a sneak attack-like feature, like what the previous iteration had (probably would have to tone it down though since it's more beefed up on other things now).

But overall I don't think it has too much that jumps out and makes one want to play this class.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 1, 2019)

I am not sure how I like that class.
I think as a half caster, spells like fireball and so on are coming a bit late to really have the right impact.
I am still thinking the warlock chassis would have been a great way of doing the artificer.
I also think that gaining crucial proficiencies at level 3 is too late (see scout). I really do believe that at least you need to remove the addition (if you don't already have it) which forces you to not take the thematic proficiency because it would be wasted. Interestingly dndbeyond ignores the if clause in the character builder and just allows you to chose a different proficiency as by the standard rules.
I guess chosing the sublclass at level 1 would work better for the artificer would get rid of the problem.
My other problem comes with the spellcasting feature. I don't like the reflavouring here. I'd rather have hard rules. When preparing a spell you need to imbue an item with the ability to do x. You now can use your spell slots to activate the magic of the item or even more restrictive: habe the artificer use old vancian casting: you get exactly what you prepared in the morning (maybe allow recreating at a short rest). The artificer subclasses already habe ways to be flexible with their creations.

So while I think the general direction seems good enough (like the bard he gets spells to avoid a new subsystem) but I fear about immersion and scaling.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 1, 2019)

Regardless of anything else, I am just happy to see that firearms are only mentioned in an optional sidebar and not forced into the base class, which would not fit Eberron. Save the guns for future subclasses/archetypes that would fit other worlds better.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 1, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> How is the abnormal spell progression table supposed to combine with multiclassing?



Same as ranger and paladin. The only difference is they gain spellcasting at 1st level.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 1, 2019)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I am not sure how II also think that gaining crucial proficiencies at level 3 is too late (see scout). I really do believe that at least you need to remove the addition (if you don't already have it) which forces you to not take the thematic proficiency because it would be wasted. Interestingly dndbeyond ignores the if clause in the character builder and just allows you to chose a different proficiency as by the standard rules.
> I guess chosing the sublclass at level 1 would work better for the artificer would get rid of the problem.




This.

Not only moving the subclass to level 1 would fix the delayed proficiencies oddity, but it would also push spellcasting to 2nd level, fixing the other oddity of a non-standard half-caster spell slots progression. Cantrips can still start at 1st, as they are unprecedented to half-casters. Then maybe move Infuse Item to 3rd:

1st: Magical Tinkering, Artificer Specialist*, Tool Expertise 
2nd: Spellcasting 
3rd: Infuse Item, Artificer Specialist feature*

*The Homunculus/Turret can stay at 3rd level


----------



## TrippyHippy (Mar 1, 2019)

Perfect for a Gnome - I prefer the Articifer Class to what it was. I guess it will see publishing exposure in the next Ebberon book?


----------



## Bitbrain (Mar 1, 2019)

*reads UA, then creates a rock gnome 3rd level artillerist with _goggles of nigh_t and _cloak of the manta ray_*

*puts on sunglasses and listens to Rob Zombie*

*designates arcane turret _Dragula_*


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 1, 2019)

Sorry for this almost off-topic, but artificer is closest to arcanepunk tech. 

Could this class create the equivalent of new materials (from real life) such as graphene, metallic foam, or synthetic spider silk? And a arcanepunk motor, such as a homopolar generator or Faraday disk (let's see wikipedia)? It could be very expensive, but on the battlefield it could be used on a driller-machine to break enemy defenses, to reload giant crossbows, or to move an armored war wagon with which to change against the (now obsolete) cavalry.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Mar 1, 2019)

I think this version is a good step forward. Some things I'd modify should I have one at my table:

- At level 5, remove the extra attack and give Spell storing item and an Extra attunement slot. Create an Infusion that give extra attack ala Warlock's thirsting blade instead. One more attunement slot at 18. 

- The homonculus gain a acidic death burst ala mephit.

- The alchemist crafting bonus applies to alchemist fire, holy water and acid vials. 

- Remove the turret and steal the Arcane Proxy from 4e Artificer: choose an item on a willing ally, for the rest of the encounter, you can cast spell with that item as origin point as long as it is within 30' of you.

and that's it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Mar 1, 2019)

The UA looks to me to match a lot of the older playtest documents, in that they have "combined" game mechanics they wish tested with flavoring that most likely is not going to actually be used when the final product is done.

When I saw the homunculus fall under the alchemist I thought "That doesn't make any sense..." but then I quickly realized that they probably didn't want to confuse the testing issues by presenting the 3, 4, 5 actual subclasses that are going to appear (and have everybody under the sun do nothing but talk about the flavor rather than actually test the mechanics.)

I would be not at all surprised if what ends up happening is the Artificer class itself appear in a regular hardcover book with the two "standard" non-setting-specific subclasses (probably alchemist and gunsmith)... and then additional artificer subclasses appear in the hardcover Eberron book when that comes, with those subs being more setting specific (like the warforged/golemsmith-- to which the 'craft homunculus' feature would probably be connected... and the wandslinger/artillerist-- as that was the main magic support during all the fighting of the Last War).

For everyone who enjoyed the "potion bombs" of the previous UA for the alchemist... I would not be surprised at all if WotC had received very positive feedback on that feature and determined they didn't need to test it again.  So they just created a new subclass feature for testing and put it into the alchemist just so as to not make people think "Hey, are you getting rid of the Alchemist?!?  Don't do that!!!" had they created a more correct "flavor" subclass for the feature and had it in place of the alchemist in this new UA.


----------



## Laurefindel (Mar 1, 2019)

oooooh, an (updated) updated  ranger playtest in disguise!


----------



## Jester David (Mar 1, 2019)

Voort said:


> So I’m an INT-based caster, but I shouldn’t ever actually increase my Intelligence, because I can craft a Headband of Intellect at level 12.



Given most campaigns end around level 10, this doesn't feel like a game breaking problem.


----------



## Hawk Diesel (Mar 1, 2019)

I'm incredibly disappointed with this latest iteration. Neither subclass needs pets. Create a new subclass specifically made for pets, and free up design space for abilities that are more thematically aligned for the other two.

I also don't like the way they are handling the cantrips and spellcasting. I agree that an artificer should have it's own spell list, but the original Artificer had a way to replicate the spells of other classes. I would like to see something akin to a bard's magical secrets ability.

Not a fan of magical tinkering. I mean, it's cool and flavorful. But let's be honest, it's mostly just a reskinned prestidigitation that lasts a bit longer. I don't think it's necessary even as a ribbon ability.

Finally, nothing about the mechanics of the alchemists or arterialist makes me feel like either of those things. Overall, I feel like this version is worse than the last.


----------



## scottieboy86 (Mar 1, 2019)

I see some people happy that the gunsmith is gone because "no guns in Eberron." Aren't turrets just fancy guns?


----------



## TiwazTyrsfist (Mar 1, 2019)

All other things aside, I really like Many-Handed Pouch.

Here you go guys, everyone take one.  Oh, you need a potion, i put it in my bag, now it's also in your bag.

Magic shared inventory.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 1, 2019)

gyor said:


> You can use that feat to poach any half caster spells like Ranger,  Paladin, or now Artificer.
> 
> A Bard however could chose it as a magical secret.




I think the main reason for that was because rangers and paladins don't have cantrips (thus you lose at least half the value of the feat).  Artificer doesn't have that limitation, so it could get errata'd into the feat (after the "final" version comes out, assuming it is similar to this one).


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The UA looks to me to match a lot of the older playtest documents, in that they have "combined" game mechanics they wish tested with flavoring that most likely is not going to actually be used when the final product is done.
> 
> When I saw the homunculus fall under the alchemist I thought "That doesn't make any sense..." but then I quickly realized that they probably didn't want to confuse the testing issues by presenting the 3, 4, 5 actual subclasses that are going to appear (and have everybody under the sun do nothing but talk about the flavor rather than actually test the mechanics.)
> 
> ...




I actually think it's quite the opposite: this looks ready to publish, down to the flavor text. I wager they received sufficiently negative feedback to potion-slinging that they went back to the drawing board.

Dragon+ with Crawford and the Happy Fun Hour with Mearls will probably shed more light on this.


----------



## vpuigdoller (Mar 1, 2019)

I have issues with the new version. It’s not that the class is bad. I see an issue with the flavor .  Example the previous alchemist in flavor and mechanic felt like an alchemist the new one feels like an engineer that dables in alchemy.  The artillerist I believe is a direct result of Ravnica and I feel is succesful for Ravnica but not for Eberron.  That is my opinion at least and I understand It might not be shared by others.  If this were to become the official version I will not allow them in any setting other than Ravnica and have no idea what Inwould
do with Eberron.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Mar 1, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> I really, _really_, *really* don't like that they're trying to fit mechanical engineering into a spellcasting chassis.




Personally, I love it.  I think it suits what they're trying to accomplish perfectly.  I'm all for having multiple ways for magic to happen.



> It gets worse as it goes on, and the whole time I'm wondering... why? Why not just give the Artificer their own unique abilities that allow them to manufacture mechanical spiders that bind wounds or produce healing salves? Why make these abilities "spells" and dump all the responsibility of making them cool and flavorful onto the players themselves? Also, what happens when the Artificer enters an anti-magic zone? Do the clockwork spiders suddenly stop working? Or the healing salves? Meh...
> 
> I wish they'd just make an all-out engineer class (with gunpowder and clockwork inventions a la _World of Warcraft_) or an all-out magic-item-creation class. Instead, they're trying to kill two birds with one stone and fit both archetypes into a single class. It just doesn't work.




Because, from a game design perspective, you're asking for new mechanical game systems for things that don't actually need new mechanical game systems. Balance-wise, spells are a known commodity including how they work with multiclassing. You'll either end up designing something that looks like bad spells that don't scale right because you had to oversimplify the system (e.g., Battlemaster dice) or you're essentially completely re-implementing the entire magic system with the same underlying balancing rules except it has to look like that's _not_ exactly what you've done. It's much easier to just reuse the existing design. It not only saves you the considerable hassle of building two competing game systems that have to be balanced against each other, you also don't have to teach your players a new system from scratch and you don't have to worry that what you're doing is going to work great at one table and completely break down at another. That's why the answer the designers go to is almost always "give it spells and magic." Further, one of the 5e philosophies is to try to keep the rules as simple as practicable. That also pushes design towards re-use of spellcasting and magic and the mechanics.

Second of all, people want _a class that can build magic items_. That's absolutely core to the class concept of an Artifacer. It's what people asked for in 3e, and it's what that Eberron's Artifacer did. It's like the Paladin's Smite Evil or the Bard's music or the Wizard's signature spells or the Rogue's sneak attack. Artifacers make magic items.

So, not only is it extremely difficult to do what you're asking, what people are expecting the class to do pretty much requires magic. So, they tell you to use magic, and use spells, but to come up with thematic and narrative components to how your stuff works. Going to cast _web_? Well, you pull out a glue gun and fire it. The same gun also has a _grease_ mode. Casting _expeditious retreat_? Rocket skates. _Cure wounds_? Hypospray. _Wall of stone_? Instant concrete grenade. Why do you have limited uses? Because the devices are roughly made, slipshod, one-off, hand-crafted, cobbled together prototypes. Just because you're a genius doesn't mean your tools have the precision required for them to work reliably -- _in the field_ no less! They require a lot of maintenance to keep working, and it's exhausting to do it. And, yes, they may of the effects use magic combined with technology to create the result.



Hussar said:


> Couple of things jump out.
> 
> 1.  Being able to spend a bonus action to have your homonculus perform the Help action kinda steps on the Mastermind's toes a bit.  But, it is pretty cool.  And, it makes the pet VERY useful without needing to have a "combat pet".




Eh, I don't think preserving the uniqueness of one ability of one subclass is particularly valuable. Particularly when the Homunculus is going to have to expose itself to combat if it wants to help in combat.



> 2.  I get the notion, but, a turret isn't really a pet is it?




It is now.  It made me think of the engineer from Team Fortress 2.  I dig it.  Realistically, you could call it a golem or construct if the name "turret" bothers you.  It moves so slowly and lasts such a short amount of time, it's not going to be around very long.



> 3.  Why does this class get extra attacks per round?  I mean, the spell list for both subclasses is pretty robust - they've got damage spells down pat.  None of the other casters get multiple attacks as a baseline.  Seems a tad unnecessary to me. And, unless you pick up a magic weapon, doesn't that make the Enhanced Weapon infusion pretty much a must have?  Additionally, I know that my current DM had a real issue with my forge priest getting a magic weapon at 1st level, I can't imagine he's going to be thrilled with someone who can create two magic weapons at 2nd level and give them to anyone.




100% because it's a half-caster. Note that the class gets a pretty beefy selection of armors. This class, like Bard and (to some degree) Cleric, gets to choose whether they want to be spell-based or weapon-based for basic combat. Bladesinger, too, gets Extra Attack, so full casters with Extra Attack are already a thing.

I kind of wish the class could craft a Crossbow of Loading or Repeating Crossbow, however. I suppose you could always take Crossbow Expert, however.



ClaytonCross said:


> First thing I notice... Artificer's as far as I now are now the first class to be able to change out cantrips.




I don't think we've ever _not_ allowed players to swap out cantrips as long as it's within reason and you ask. I mean, they're described by the game as the most basic spells that you learn. They are, by it's own narrative, so simple that a beginner can memorize them. Even then, cantrips are relatively weak and not major game changers. Yeah, the game expects you to have one useful attack cantrip, but after that it's really all gravy. Granted, Artifacers get much better at swapping cantrips at level 10 than even we would allow, but it's still really not a particularly powerful ability.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 1, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Regardless of anything else, I am just happy to see that firearms are only mentioned in an optional sidebar and not forced into the base class, which would not fit Eberron. Save the guns for future subclasses/archetypes that would fit other worlds better.




THis makes no sense, to me. You're glad there isn't a gunsmith subclass, but you're fine with a future gunsmith subclass? 

You know you don't have to use any subclass, right? 



Li Shenron said:


> This.
> 
> Not only moving the subclass to level 1 would fix the delayed proficiencies oddity, but it would also push spellcasting to 2nd level, fixing the other oddity of a non-standard half-caster spell slots progression. Cantrips can still start at 1st, as they are unprecedented to half-casters. Then maybe move Infuse Item to 3rd:
> 
> ...




I'd lose all interest in it if they did that. 



scottieboy86 said:


> I see some people happy that the gunsmith is gone because "no guns in Eberron." Aren't turrets just fancy guns?




Kinda. The turret is very Eberron, though. It also doesn't shoot projectiles, which helps keep it from being a gun. 

And iron defender would be even more eberron, and a subclass that makes bomb ammo for a crossbow while being defended by a metal construct dog would be about as Eberron as it could get, but the Artillerist is very very Eberron, and quite cool. 

I just want the wandslinger part to be it's own subclass, rather than a level 6 feature for an otherwise unrelated subclass.


----------



## pauldanieljohnson (Mar 1, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Given most campaigns end around level 10, this doesn't feel like a game breaking problem.




I don't think it's game-breaking in any event. Deciding to give up 25% of your infused items to buff your own prime ability score is a real trade-off, considering most parties would probably be expecting this class to provide magic items to the other PCs, not just hoarding them. Not only that, but there's a real risk to a character whose primary ability is nerfed if they're deprived of their equipment.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 1, 2019)

TiwazTyrsfist said:


> All other things aside, I really like Many-Handed Pouch.
> 
> Here you go guys, everyone take one.  Oh, you need a potion, i put it in my bag, now it's also in your bag.
> 
> Magic shared inventory.




It's funny, just a couple weeks ago I wondered about pretty much this exact magic item in response to an episode of Critical Role.

[sblock=Critical Role Campaign 2, Episode 50]When Nott was trapped alone with the fire giants coming after her, I thought this would be a perfect situation to be able to pass Caleb's Transmuter's Stone (which I think was set to fire resistance) to her through some sort of magically shared pocket. One of those "not super powerful, but in rare situations is absolutely life saving" sort of items that are my favorite kind.[/sblock]


----------



## duelistjp (Mar 1, 2019)

so looking at the replicate magic weapon infusion in order to change the item you replicate you have to do it on level up by using the one change of your infusions you know.  seems a bit overly limiting.  i think they should have offered to let you tinker for some amount of time to figure out how to do a different time.  in universe their are often weeks between parts of an adventure and it would make sense to be able to change that.  if it took like 3 days of 8 hours work to do would that be so gamebreaking?


----------



## Hawk Diesel (Mar 1, 2019)

Ok, so looking at the class a few times, I have the following thoughts:

1) Magical Tinkering does not belong. It seems to be a ribbon ability, but it is basically a reskinned Prestidigitation that lasts longer. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but the ability is weighted heavily enough to be the only other ability provided in addition to spellcasting. This is supposed to put it on par with a Wizard's Arcane Recovery or a Sorcerer's access to their archetype at first level, since these are the other two classes that get access to Spell Casting at level 1. Erase this ability and give the Artificer access to their first archetype ability at level 1.

2) Flavorwise, neither the alchemist's nor the arterialist's mechanical abilities seem thematically linked to the concept they are meant to represent.

3) Take out the pets for both archetypes. This gives each archetype more design space for thematically appropriate abilities, and provides an opportunity for a new archetype focused on making and using constructs.

4) The original 3.5 version of the Artificer had a means to replicate spells from any other spell list. I'm not sure how they would do it on the existing framework (I've figured it out for my own homebrew version), but they need an ability similar to a Bard's Magical Secrets.

5) The Right Cantrip for the Job is a genuinely good ability, fits the Artificer concept, and I'm glad it's included. However, it needs to come online well before level 10.

6) Not sure the Artificer needs Tool Expertise. Proficiency in their tools is enough. Tool use seldom comes up in the games I've played except Thieves' Tools. I would prefer this was scrapped to allow design space for less mundane abilities more related to their archetype or the creation of magical items. Artificers are skilled in creating things, but I would not say they are Artisans. At least to me, they are more about the binding and manipulation of magical energies to replicate spells and magical enchantments.

7) Spell-Storing Item is interesting. I need to reflect on this ability a bit more, but I am leaning towards liking it. It is effective at replicating a wand, and has a good amount of power. It is also similar to a Wizard's Signature Spell ability, but can be used by other characters.

8) Infusions are interesting. I don't exactly like the way it is executed, but it does allow for the feel of creating magic items.

9) Arcane Weapon seems too powerful in comparison to similar spells. It's certainly more powerful than Divine Favor (another 1st level spell). This seems to be at least a 2nd level spell, on par with Magic Weapon. You do more damage, but don't get the benefit of bonus on attack. Additionally, placing it at level 1 makes it a ripe choice for Magic Initiate.


----------



## scottieboy86 (Mar 1, 2019)

I think arcane weapon is supposed to be more comparable to hex and hunter's mark. Those spells are exclusive to warlocks and rangers, both of which are not "full" casters.


----------



## Hawk Diesel (Mar 1, 2019)

scottieboy86 said:


> I think arcane weapon is supposed to be more comparable to hex and hunter's mark. Those spells are exclusive to warlocks and rangers, both of which are not "full" casters.




Sure, that makes sense. But I'm also against those spells. Hex, Hunter's Mark, even Eldritch Blast. If a 1st level spell or a cantrip is so tied to the concept of the class, then you find design space to incorporate it into the class. You don't cop out and make it a spell, eligible to be obtained via Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate. Allow those to be abilities with their own resource pool, rather than something that has to compete from a shared resource pool.


----------



## scottieboy86 (Mar 1, 2019)

Hawk Diesel said:


> Sure, that makes sense. But I'm also against those spells. Hex, Hunter's Mark, even Eldritch Blast. If a 1st level spell or a cantrip is so tied to the concept of the class, then you find design space to incorporate it into the class. You don't cop out and make it a spell, eligible to be obtained via Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate. Allow those to be abilities with their own resource pool, rather than something that has to compete from a shared resource pool.




Yeah I agree, but tis what it tis, and thats the framework that I think is being followed.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 1, 2019)

Hexblade dip shows up again.

Short Rest slots to use on Arcane Weapon.
That let’s you summon a Homu/Turret 1-2 times every short rest.
Enhanced Weapon makes it a spellcasting focus for both classes.
Synergy with a Arcane Armament.


----------



## lkj (Mar 1, 2019)

So, I'll admit I'm not that familiar with previous incarnations of the Artificer and haven't done more than glance over Eberron stuff. But my initial impressions:

1) I really like the flavor. It's something different and looks fun.
2) On that same note, I really like the Magical Tinkering feature. It's a nice, flavorful roleplaying ability with utility but not a ton of power. I've found other features like that are really fun at the table. For example, it reminds me of the Conjuring specialty ability for the wizard subclass. That has led to a lot of fun moments in our games.
3) I like that the approach of reflavoring the spells. While I understand the desire to create something different to increase the 'feel', that would be a lot of overhead to basically get to the same place that spells (a system already tested and robust) already serve.
4) I like the infusions. They look fun. The other class abilities seem appropritae and cool
5) The "Alchemy" part of the Alchemist wasn't obvious at first. I mean, it's there-- extra acid damage, list of bonus spells that are alchemy related. Extra acid damage with every related spell. A little construct that spits acid. Add the reflavored spells and I think in play that the subclass will have a strong alchemy feel. But it's a little subtle on the page. I kind of feel the Ranger has this issue as well, where the abilities look a little flat until you add up all the pieces. 
6) In contrast, the Artillerist abilities have a very obvious up front feel. I'll be honest-- The whole turret thing is odd to me. Looks fun but just seems like a strange manifestation of an ability. I'm guessing this is because of my lack of experience with Eberron and Artificers in general. Nothing wrong with it, but I wouldn't have imagined that feature beforehand.

My couple cents!

AD


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 1, 2019)

Hawk Diesel said:


> Sure, that makes sense. But I'm also against those spells. Hex, Hunter's Mark, even Eldritch Blast. If a 1st level spell or a cantrip is so tied to the concept of the class, then you find design space to incorporate it into the class. You don't cop out and make it a spell, eligible to be obtained via Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate. Allow those to be abilities with their own resource pool, rather than something that has to compete from a shared resource pool.




The pits of the 9 Hells, the dungeons of the Feywild, and Cthulhu's gullet are full of people who thought taking magic initiate didn't mean selling your soul .  Just because short-sighted PC's don't think through the consequences of their decisions doesn't mean the infernal accountants haven't given it a lot of thought; a whole soul for a trivial amount of power (compared to a full warlock), that's a good deal... for the patron.  That also could explain why patrons don't ride heard so hard on warlocks, who really exist to market "cool warlock powers" to the masses.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 1, 2019)

lkj said:


> 5) The "Alchemy" part of the Alchemist wasn't obvious at first. I mean, it's there-- extra acid damage, list of bonus spells that are alchemy related. Extra acid damage with every related spell. A little construct that spits acid. Add the reflavored spells and I think in play that the subclass will have a strong alchemy feel. But it's a little subtle on the page. I kind of feel the Ranger has this issue as well, where the abilities look a little flat until you add up all the pieces.



I definitely recommend checking out the old Artificer. Alchemist in that version has so much flavor, and is such a cool idea. It just needed a little polish and love.

I think I’ll let my players use the old Artificer Archetypes.
They don’t conflict and easily slot into the new Artificer base.


----------



## JPL (Mar 1, 2019)

I want a "Lego video game" specialty.  Master Builder.  Wave your hands at a pile of raw materials, and they go click-click-click, and bam, you done built something.

Which I guess you can do with the Artillarist. 

Why the hell is sanctuary on the spell list?  What's the thinking there?  Like a quick charm that keep the bad guys from attacking you while you're trying to fix/build/buff something?


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

Seramus said:


> I think I’ll let my players use the old Artificer Archetypes.
> They don’t conflict and easily slot into the new Artificer base.



Mad Scientist (New Alchemist)
Artillerist
Alchemist (Old Alchemist)
Gunsmith

Something like that?


----------



## gyor (Mar 1, 2019)

Hawk Diesel said:


> Sure, that makes sense. But I'm also against those spells. Hex, Hunter's Mark, even Eldritch Blast. If a 1st level spell or a cantrip is so tied to the concept of the class, then you find design space to incorporate it into the class. You don't cop out and make it a spell, eligible to be obtained via Magical Secrets or Magic Initiate. Allow those to be abilities with their own resource pool, rather than something that has to compete from a shared resource pool.




 I guess you can add find steed,  find familiar,  and Temple of the Gods Spell to that list.


----------



## gyor (Mar 1, 2019)

Hawk Diesel said:


> Ok, so looking at the class a few times, I have the following thoughts:
> 
> 1) Magical Tinkering does not belong. It seems to be a ribbon ability, but it is basically a reskinned Prestidigitation that lasts longer. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but the ability is weighted heavily enough to be the only other ability provided in addition to spellcasting. This is supposed to put it on par with a Wizard's Arcane Recovery or a Sorcerer's access to their archetype at first level, since these are the other two classes that get access to Spell Casting at level 1. Erase this ability and give the Artificer access to their first archetype ability at level 1.
> 
> ...




Magic Initiate only can choose, Wizard,  Bard,  Warlock,  Cleric,  Sorcerer spells/cantrips,  not Paladin Ranger, or Artificer spells.


----------



## OB1 (Mar 1, 2019)

Really like what I see here. The class tells a story and doesn’t feel like any other. Never played an artificer before but want to now!  

I’m thinking the Homuclus is going to move over to it’s own subclass, maybe switch lightening damage for the acid, while the alchemist will get back its potion throwing. That makes three solid and unique subclasses to choose from. 
Can’t wait till it’s released!  Wonder what type of book it will be in? I’d bet heavily against it being in an Ebberon campaign guide (that will probably get a 4th subclass specific to it), unless Ebberon is just a part of a multiple classic setting guidebook.


----------



## lkj (Mar 1, 2019)

OB1 said:


> Really like what I see here. The class tells a story and doesn’t feel like any other. Never played an artificer before but want to now!
> 
> I’m thinking the Homuclus is going to move over to it’s own subclass, maybe switch lightening damage for the acid, while the alchemist will get back its potion throwing. That makes three solid and unique subclasses to choose from.
> Can’t wait till it’s released!  Wonder what type of book it will be in? I’d bet heavily against it being in an Ebberon campaign guide (that will probably get a 4th subclass specific to it), unless Ebberon is just a part of a multiple classic setting guidebook.




Didn't WotC say that the Artificer would be added to the Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron after it was finished? That was one of the reasons they were delaying a print on demand option. 

And checking Keith Baker's FAQ, http://keith-baker.com/wgte-faq/, that was at least the plan initially.

AD


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Mar 1, 2019)

Why doesn't Wizards ever look at 3rd party stuff/homebrew stuff??? 

It's mind confusing to me that here they have so much 3rd party stuff they could mine ideas from and a lot of it is really good.


----------



## Hawk Diesel (Mar 1, 2019)

gyor said:


> I guess you can add find steed,  find familiar,  and Temple of the Gods Spell to that list.




This is probably a discussion that warrant's its own thread, since I think it is beyond the scope of this thread. However, since you brought it up, those spells are certainly _iconic._ However, there is a difference between something being iconic, and something being a core aspect of that class's identity. 

When the warlock debuted in 3.5, Eldritch Blast was _literally_ the defining feature of the class. And I would say that in 5th edition, it is clear that the Warlock and Ranger were balanced around them having Hex and Hunter's Mark. I would say this is especially true for the Ranger since Favored Enemy was nerfed down to a ribbon ability without offering any combat potential, thus the need for Hunter's Mark to fill the void that is left. On the other hand, I think a wizard and paladin not only function, but play as intended without find steed or find familiar. 

Wizard with fireball is iconic. A wizard without fireball still feels like a wizard and plays like a Wizard. I don't think the same can be said of the Warlock without Eldritch Blast or a Ranger without Hunter's Mark. For that reason, if they have this Arcane Weapon spell which is clearly better for its level than similar spells, they should either open it to other spell lists or incorporate it more fully into the Artificer mechanics as an ability rather than a spell.



gyor said:


> Magic Initiate only can choose, Wizard,  Bard,  Warlock,  Cleric,  Sorcerer spells/cantrips,  not Paladin Ranger, or Artificer spells.




Very true. But Ranger and Paladin also don't have normal access to cantrips, making the feat not work for those classes. While the feat does not technically cover the Artificer, it is not a far leap to include them since they possess both a cantrip and spell list. 



Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Why doesn't Wizards ever look at 3rd party stuff/homebrew stuff???
> 
> It's mind confusing to me that here they have so much 3rd party stuff they could mine ideas from and a lot of it is really good.




I'm not 100%, but I would guess because it creates a lot of issues around intellectual property and crediting writers/designers. I think WotC designers likely purposely stay away from boards like these and looking through 3rd party material because they don't want to be accused of stealing ideas, whether unintentionally or not. That's why whenever they release an Unearthed Arcana, it is always playtest material and they follow up with a survey on what people think about it. Gives them a clean way to get feedback and ideas specifically submitted to them, rather than them pouring over a place like this to mine for feedback or ideas that were not specifically given to them. It's a subtle but important difference.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 1, 2019)

Bacon Bits said:


> I don't think we've ever _not_ allowed players to swap out cantrips as long as it's within reason and you ask. I mean, they're described by the game as the most basic spells that you learn. They are, by it's own narrative, so simple that a beginner can memorize them. Even then, cantrips are relatively weak and not major game changers. Yeah, the game expects you to have one useful attack cantrip, but after that it's really all gravy. Granted, Artifacers get much better at swapping cantrips at level 10 than even we would allow, but it's still really not a particularly powerful ability.




I mean if that is your house rule sure, but my GM does not allow it. Having RAW for a class is big deal at my GMs table. I have been allowed to change once but because he didn't want me to use a cantrip (guidance) so I was allowed one I could use. Not because I just didn't like my pick.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Haven't really looked too in-depth into this (have been really busy with work as of late), but I quite like what I'm reading. There's a lot of story and roleplaying potential here, which is excellent. And Wizards is trying a slightly different mechanical class chassis in design.  
It's also heartening to see Keith Baker being involved in the design of this class.  

I really like the potential to troll others with Magical Tinkering.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 2, 2019)

Ugh.  I'm going to be annoyed as $%@# if people start showing up in my group with Artificiers.  I wish the sidebar made it explicit that these are intended solely for Eberron.  Instead they did the opposite.

What's next, Jedi?

#getoffmylawn


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> What's next, Jedi?




Mike Mearls was working on the psychic warrior and soulknife in his stream. Hopefully they see the light of day.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Mike Mearls was working on the psychic warrior and soulknife in his stream. Hopefully they see the light of day.




I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings.  "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."

I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 2, 2019)

Finally had a chance to look at this. I like it way, way better than I thought it would. Still far from perfect, but heading in the right direction. Here are some high-level thoughts:

Firearm Proficiency: Bad. Horrible. It would be more appropriate to say, "If your setting is using firearm rules, your artificer can never use them because it's anathema to the idea of using magic over technology." Seriously. If you're writing an artificer and including actual, honest to goodness, technology, you're doing it wrong. Stop and let someone else do it. That said, it's a sidebar, and people who want the artificer to be a gunslinger will give them firearms, regardless. Just evidence that the artificer is only slightly more likely to please all its fans than a hypothetical warlord/marshal.

Magical tinkering: As others have said, it's pretty much just a ribbon ability and a reskin of _Prestidigitation_. I like it, though. Really, every class that has access to _prestidigitation_ or _thaumaturgy_ (or the like) should just get them as bonus abilities. They're just fun toys.

Tools required/Magic of Artifice: I like it. The whole VSM straight-jacket needs to be broken. Psionics could be spells that change trappings in a similar way to this -- obviously not with tools. Even though I'm adamantly opposed to the artificer using actual technology, they still work with _items_, so the trappings make sense. Just picture magic oils, special ingredients, etc., rather than gears and sprockets.

Infuse Items: I like it. It fits with my thoughts that the artificer should be hung on the Warlock chassis. Nothing is perfect, and I'm sure someone could rip apart the details, but it looks good to me.

Right tool for the job: Perfect! Maybe it should show up earlier, but it's still great in flavor and power.

Specialties, in general: Probably a good breakdown, though I really, really hate the idea that pets are awarded for all subclasses of any class. I do like that each subclass gets bonuses around certain crafting types.

Alchemist: All the powers are very fitting and seem balanced for what they are. Again, I kind of lean towards not forcing a pet on the subclass, but I'm not fan of pets, in general. The homonculous seems like a reasonably good fit, as presented, though, and I don't actually object, so much as just don't really like pets, in principle. If it made it to final printing, I'd be fine.

Artillerist: Everything besides the Turret is great. 

The turret kinda sucks. It's not unbalanced but, I just don't get how the artificer creates a small-to-medium sized construct out of thin air in six seconds. The description still sounds too much like a robot, kinda. Maybe if the Arcane Turret ability was "plant a staff in the ground and choose the effect". I don't like that the 14th level ability also involves the turret. That should really be a one-and-done ability that's understated. This is especially true since I'd like to see the Wand Prototype at 3rd level and the Turret pushed to 6th (or even 14th).

Also, the artillerist should definitely get the options in Wayfairer's Guide for extra range when using a staff, etc.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings.  "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."
> 
> I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.




I mean that's your prerogative and you're always welcome to play the game however you want and that includes stopping the inclusion of something, but I feel if people have a justifiable reason for the inclusion of an "outside-setting" class or race and can make it work in the campaign, all the more power to them. 
This is really where you need a session 0 to discuss the expectations, the tone, and the assumptions of the campaign.
I feel the sidebar as presented gives justifiable reasons to include them in those campaign settings.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings.  "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."
> 
> I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.



But Elfcrusher, what if it makes perfect sense within the context of the narrative?

*Morpheus Voice* "What if I told you... you could change the way you feel about jumbles of every possible race and class in the same setting?"

_*Ducks and runs away before he is shot.*_


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> But Elfcrusher, what if it makes perfect sense within the context of the narrative?




That's exactly it...I don't want to be part of the narrative in which that makes sense.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> This is really where you need a session 0 to discuss the expectations, the tone, and the assumptions of the campaign.
> I feel the sidebar as presented gives justifiable reasons to include them in those campaign settings.




I agree with all that.  In practice, though, a _lot_ of games start with "ok, bring a legal character...".


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I agree with all that.  In practice, though, a _lot_ of games start with "ok, bring a legal character...".




I've only played with friends so I haven't been familiar with that stipulation. 
In practice though, I'd argue that a _lot_ of games are home games, where the potential to discuss within session 0 is there, rather than AL-legal only games.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> I've only played with friends so I haven't been familiar with that stipulation.
> In practice though, I'd argue that a _lot_ of games are home games, where the potential to discuss within session 0 is there, rather than AL-legal only games.



Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!
It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!



Definitely concur, bro! 



> It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.



This is weird though. There's always discussions where things turn heated so I guess there's that. 
Anecdotally, I've played with lots of different friends and with different systems - FATE, Dresden Files, Qin, 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft - and we've always had a session 0.


----------



## Prakriti (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!
> It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.



Session 0s make people angry? Why? Or is that not what you meant?


----------



## epithet (Mar 2, 2019)

gyor said:


> Magic Initiate only can choose, Wizard,  Bard,  Warlock,  Cleric,  Sorcerer spells/cantrips,  not Paladin Ranger, or Artificer spells.




I think most DMs willing to use a class from UA in their games would be plenty open minded enough to include Artificer in the Magic Initiate list. As was pointed out upthread, the problem with paladin and ranger is that they have no cantrips, so their spell lists are structurally inappropriate for the feat.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> Session 0s make people angry? Why? Or is that not what you meant?



Like "_I worked 72 hours this week. Can we just play?_"
The players who want everything taken care of before people meet up.
Sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes not.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Like "_I worked 72 hours this week. Can we just play?_"
> The players who want everything taken care of before people meet up.
> Sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes not.




I understand that not all people can have their times all sync up to discuss things, though discussing ahead of a meet up is also good. 

Otherwise, potentially leaving things to be taken care of by the others, bringing something that may not be vetted, potentially getting angry at session 0 discussions,  and making the excuse that they work long hours probably means they won't be a good fit for any party unfortunately.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Othwerwise, leaving things to be taken care of by the others, bringing something that may not be vetted, potentially getting angry at session 0 discussions, and making the excuse that they work long hours probably means they won't be a good fit for any party unfortunately.



I can understand the impulse somewhat. I've seen experienced players show up at the table without their characters created, when the expectation was that everyone would have their stuff done. Or times when the Session 0 took place on the internet over a group chat, and someone was just too busy with work to follow along. If the player is good otherwise, you can forgive some faults.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> I can understand the impulse somewhat. I've seen experienced players show up at the table without their characters created, when the expectation was that everyone would have their stuff done. Or times when the Session 0 took place on the internet over a group chat, and someone was just too busy with work to follow along. If the player is good otherwise, you can forgive some faults.




I can also understand that, one of my best friends is one of those players who'll consistently come to a session without having his character created. But that's the good thing with discussion and roleplaying games, you just roll with it. We'll have a discussion with character creation then, there's no delay in starting and everyone will be on the same page. We're also all friends, and everything's drama free, so that's no worries.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ugh.  I'm going to be annoyed as $%@# if people start showing up in my group with Artificiers.  I wish the sidebar made it explicit that these are intended solely for Eberron.  Instead they did the opposite.
> 
> What's next, Jedi?
> 
> #getoffmylawn




I agree with you that they were pushing it a bit for some settings (such as Greyhawk), but the examples they gave for the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance are spot on and fit just fine with those settings' established canon. They probably should have just added a line like "Artificers don't necessarily exist in every world, so ask your DM before creating one", similar to the statement on how "uncommon" races don't exist in every D&D world in the PHB...


----------



## Prakriti (Mar 2, 2019)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> Why doesn't Wizards ever look at 3rd party stuff/homebrew stuff???
> 
> It's mind confusing to me that here they have so much 3rd party stuff they could mine ideas from and a lot of it is really good.



The same reason that TV writers don't read third-party screenplays for their own show*: liability reasons. If WotC started reading third-party content, even a little here and there, then it would open the door for plagiarism accusations. The only way to avoid that scenario is to not read _any_ third-party content _ever_, which is presumably what they do.

* When you apply for a job as a TV writer, you always submit screenplays for _other_ shows. Even if you've written a killer screenplay for that particular show, the writers/producers can't/won't read it (unless they hire you, of course, in which case you can pitch your script in the writers room).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2019)

Demetrios1453 said:


> I agree with you that they were pushing it a bit for some settings (such as Greyhawk), but the examples they gave for the Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance are spot on and fit just fine with those settings' established canon. They probably should have just added a line like "Artificers don't necessarily exist in every world, so ask your DM before creating one", similar to the statement on how "uncommon" races don't exist in every D&D world in the PHB...




Heh.  It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings.  You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk.  But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).

The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 2, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> The same reason that TV writers don't read third-party screenplays for their own show*: liability reasons. If WotC started reading third-party content, even a little here and there, then it would open the door for plagiarism accusations. The only way to avoid that scenario is to not read _any_ third-party content _ever_, which is presumably what they do.
> 
> * When you apply for a job as a TV writer, you always submit screenplays for _other_ shows. Even if you've written a killer screenplay for that particular show, the writers/producers can't/won't read it (unless they hire you, of course, in which case you can pitch your script in the writers room).




Not entirely so: the DMs Guild terms are designed to more or less provide a legal space that minimizes this liability.


----------



## Hawk Diesel (Mar 2, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Not entirely so: the DMs Guild terms are designed to more or less provide a legal space that minimizes this liability.




Sure, but that would destroy a lot of the goodwill that WotC has built with its player base if they just steal from creators without any credit or compensation.


----------



## vecna00 (Mar 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings.  You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk.  But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).
> 
> The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.




Also the mentality of "X thing doesn't belong in Y setting because it wasn't in the original books for the setting." I mean, it didn't exist back then, so...


----------



## Ark the Pie King (Mar 2, 2019)

I've gotta be honest, I haven't been this excited to play anything in 5e in a long while. I feel a lot of the design space is very same-y from a mechanical point of view, and I've been struggling to build something that doesn't feel 'been there done that'. This pretty much scratches that itch. The Alchemist looks like a really fun hands on sort of support class. Having a pet that like, ya know actually DOES things is pretty exciting and I'm happy to use my bonus action to control it. The Turrets I feel could be a hair stronger given the fact that you're gonna be burning your limited spell slots to summon them but that said for the cost of a 1st level spell they seem pretty strong. It is a little odd that they don't scale though. Maybe the fact that they can be weighed against the 1st level spells is WHY they don't scale. Food for thought. Arcane Weapon with Not-Extra Attack seems juicy and fun. I do with they had slightly better weapon proficiencies because there's some anti-synergy with Not-Extra Attack and Crossbows but it's nothing that can't be dealt with at the end of the day. Either use a Shortbow, Take 1st level Fighter for Archery and Longbow, or Crossbow Master (the worst option imo). 

The spell lists between the two Subclasses are kind of a joke though. The Artillerist's spell list is fire. Literally. It's a really, really solid blaster kit. The Alchemist's spell list has a weird number of spells that nobody has ever cast in a game ever like Purify Food and Drink or Create Food and Water (I know someone somewhere has cast them but we all know they're fluff spells). It feels like kind of a let down and I'd honestly look into swapping them out with something else. Also there's so oddities in the base class's spell list, like not having Unseen Servant and having Thorn Whip. There were a couple of other spells I thought for sure it'd have, but they escape me now. 

I also wish there were more infusions. The ones that we got are perfectly serviceable, I just wish...ya know. There were more of them. Also someone else suggested this and I agree, let the Alchemist apply Alchemical Mastery to potions they brew that apply. 

But on the whole, I'm REALLY happy with the class. It needs another round of polish but I'm thrilled with the results overall and I'm gearing up to ask my DM if I can play one tomorrow. Wish me luck!


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings.  You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk.  But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).
> 
> The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.






vecna00 said:


> Also the mentality of "X thing doesn't belong in Y setting because it wasn't in the original books for the setting." I mean, it didn't exist back then, so...




I honestly think it's more the mentality of "_I_ don't like it in these settings, therefore it doesn't belong."


----------



## Azzy (Mar 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings.  You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk.  But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).
> 
> The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.




Yeah, I'm rather tired of the mentality that "if it didn't exist in 1e, it doesn't belong in Greyhawk".


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings.  "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."
> 
> I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.




I agree with this sentiment. 

It's OK if they provide suggestions on how to integrate new material into existing settings, but it'd better come with the more general suggestion that everyone needs to agree on altering a setting, and it's not player entitlement. Otherwise it's like showing up to a basketball game and pretend to play using your feet. And having spent money on a supplement book doesn't entitle you anything extra, just like having spent money on football shoes wouldn't.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> I agree with this sentiment.
> 
> It's OK if they provide suggestions on how to integrate new material into existing settings, but it'd better come with the more general suggestion that everyone needs to agree on altering a setting, and it's not player entitlement. Otherwise it's like showing up to a basketball game and pretend to play using your feet. And having spent money on a supplement book doesn't entitle you anything extra, just like having spent money on football shoes wouldn't.




The classes they've been releasing and playtesting has more often than not been for the broadest appeal, and also possibly with a touch of the nostalgia factor. Their message going into 5e has always been "your game, your decisions, your rules".

Wizards also don't name-drop for no reason, we may well likely see eventual Greyhawk, Mystara, Dragonlance supplements. Their glacial pace notwithstanding.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Huh. I just noticed the wording on Turret is phrased strangely. I know that is not the intent, but they make it sound like the Turret appears whenever you expend a spell slot.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Huh. I just noticed the wording on Turret is phrased strangely. I know that is not the intent, but they make it sound like the Turret appears whenever you expend a spell slot.




That's actually true to an extent, you need to take the entire context into consideration. It was intentionally worded that way. 

Near the end of the entry, it says "you can summon your turret once for free and must finish a long rest before doing so again. You can also summon the turret by expending a spell slot of 1st level or higher. If you summon a second turret, the first turret disappears."

This means you can summon your free turret once but will need to wait until you finish a long rest to summon a new one. However, within that expended downtime you can sacrifice spells to summon the turret additional times per spell slots expended, another stipulation is that whenever you expend spell slots to summon turrets, the initial one disappears.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> However, within that expended downtime you can sacrifice spells to summon the turret additional times per spell slots expended, another stipulation is that whenever you expend spell slots to summon turrets, the initial one disappears.



The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning, even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning,




Yes, that's the intent of the text. 



> even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.



What? Where are you getting that from? You need to expend a spell slot to summon a turret, you can't also benefit from having cast the spell. In fact, the text is actually quite clear.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning, even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.




Are you at all familiar with paladin divine smiting or warlock eldritch smiting? It's basically the same principle.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Their message going into 5e has always been "your game, your decisions, your rules".




That works great when it's my game, but when I'm not DMing it's somebody else's game.

And even when it *is* my game, I feel like a jerk for telling a player, "No, sorry, you can't have that option just because it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically."  So I usually don't.

It's ironic that whenever I say, "I hope X doesn't make it into the official game" the response is "Don't be a selfish jerk.  You can do whatever you want with the game: if you don't want it in yours just don't include it!"

But the symmetric argument is: "You can do whatever you want with YOUR game, too: if you DO want it, just include UA or homebrew material.  You don't need it to be official."

I understand that people are fans of certain options and hope they are in the game.  That's find and totally valid.  And sometimes I'm _not_ a fan and _don't_ want it in the game.   That's neither more nor less valid.  

It's just...willfully blind?...to argue that new options, especially new options with dramatically different flavor, don't have to have an impact on those who don't want them.  At the very, _very_ least you end up being the bad guy saying "no" to somebody.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Yes, that's the intent of the text.



Yes, we both know what the intent of the text is.


Ash Mantle said:


> What? Where are you getting that from? You need to expend a spell slot to summon a turret, you can't also benefit from having cast the spell. In fact, the text is actually quite clear.



From the strange way it is written. It reads like a trigger, instead of a cost paid in exchange for an effect. "You summon a turret when you expend a spell slot" as in expending a spell slot for any reason fulfills the criteria to summon it with an action, instead of the more standard "You must expend a spell slot to summon a turret as part of an action."


----------



## OB1 (Mar 2, 2019)

lkj said:


> Didn't WotC say that the Artificer would be added to the Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron after it was finished? That was one of the reasons they were delaying a print on demand option.
> 
> And checking Keith Baker's FAQ, http://keith-baker.com/wgte-faq/, that was at least the plan initially.
> 
> AD




Hmmm, if it's in WGtE, I wonder if they will add it somewhere else, or even release it as a PDF player's guide.  If the class is meant to be fundamental to the game as a whole, it just feels limited by only having it in WGtE.

Of course, with DnDB, and the ability to pay for classes ala carte, maybe it's not that big a deal.  Would be crazy if they added the class to the DnDB players handbook (and maybe future printings of the PHB) as a way to test evolving the game without full numbered edition changes...


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 2, 2019)

Just noting that it’s pretty cool that at 3rd level  you can give a small party the ability to fly once per day (using humonculois).


----------



## Seramus (Mar 2, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> Just noting that it’s pretty cool that at 3rd level  you can give a small party the ability to fly once per day (using humonculois).



I imagine it's *Fizzy Lifting Drink* from Willy Wonka.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 2, 2019)

Not a fan of the pets / animal companions.  If the base wizard doesn't automatically get a familiar, why should the artificer?

I would much rather see _find familiar_, reflavored as a mechanical construct (perhaps call it _craft familiar_) as an available spell.  Then you could have a golem/homunculus devoted subclass without forcing the theme onto a wandslinger or alchemist.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 2, 2019)

Hawk Diesel said:


> Sure, but that would destroy a lot of the goodwill that WotC has built with its player base if they just steal from creators without any credit or compensation.




True, which is why the DMsGuild has terms for WotC buying content they want to use.


----------



## gyor (Mar 2, 2019)

I will add this isn't everything for the Artificer, the next UA will have more. I figure it's most likely more subclasses so if you want a pet free Artificer that should fill those needs.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 2, 2019)

Mercule said:


> Tools required/Magic of Artifice: I like it. The whole VSM straight-jacket needs to be broken. Psionics could be spells that change trappings in a similar way to this -- obviously not with tools. Even though I'm adamantly opposed to the artificer using actual technology, they still work with _items_, so the trappings make sense. Just picture magic oils, special ingredients, etc., rather than gears and sprockets.



They are still in the V,S,M paradigm, while it emphasizes tool use nothing seems to indicate they can drop the V part of spellcasting because they're using tools.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 2, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Heh.  It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings.  You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk.  But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).
> 
> The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.




That is a good point, and I definitely agree. Sorry if I was a bit unclear, but what I was really aiming more towards there isn't an overall society or group in Greyhawk that would naturally produce them in bulk, unlike Eberron as a whole, Lantan (or even Thay, should they return to their 3e "magic sellers to the world" mode) in the Forgotten Realms, and the tinker gnomes of Dragonlance. Greyhawk could definitely have them, but they would be more one-off exceptions (in other words, ask your DM), instead of springing full-formed from an already existing group.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ugh.  I'm going to be annoyed as $%@# if people start showing up in my group with Artificiers.  I wish the sidebar made it explicit that these are intended solely for Eberron.  Instead they did the opposite.
> 
> What's next, Jedi?
> 
> #getoffmylawn




If you were a Jedi, the kids would obey your #jedimindtrick


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 2, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Yeah, I'm rather tired of the mentality that "if it didn't exist in 1e, it doesn't belong in Greyhawk".



This seems true of most established D&D settings; ardent fans demand the setting never change from it's first printing and any attempt to widen the field is sacrilege. It creates these arguments that Greyhawk cannot have dragonborn, Dragonlance cannot have warlocks, Dark Sun cannot have tieflings, Mystara cannot have artificers, etc.

Settings adapt or die. Those that cannot adapt to the current rules should be left to gather dust with the edition they were written for.


----------



## Blue (Mar 2, 2019)

Prakriti said:


> It gets worse as it goes on, and the whole time I'm wondering... why? Why not just give the Artificer their own unique abilities that allow them to manufacture mechanical spiders that bind wounds or produce healing salves? Why make these abilities "spells" and dump all the responsibility of making them cool and flavorful onto the players themselves? Also, what happens when the Artificer enters an anti-magic zone? Do the clockwork spiders suddenly stop working? Or the healing salves? Meh...




They are explicitly tying it into the spell mechanics, which does a lot of the heavy lifting for them.  And yes, _as makes sense with the fiction_, if an artificer walks into an anti-magic zone their magically-powered constructs stop working.

Now, if they should do this is a very valid question.  It does mean there's already a lot built up for them, including meaningful multiclassing as opposed to how in some earlier editions you couldn't multiclass out of a "new mechanics" class because unlike spellcasting or melee there were no other classes that would advance your new mechanic.



Prakriti said:


> I wish they'd just make an all-out engineer class (with gunpowder and clockwork inventions a la _World of Warcraft_)  or an all-out magic-item-creation class. Instead, they're trying to  kill two birds with one stone and fit both archetypes into a single  class. It just doesn't work.




That would be a cool class, but at odds with the already established magic-enchanting artificer that's been around for over a decade.  I'd like to see it, but not have them re-interpret the canon Artificer in that direction.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> That works great when it's my game, but when I'm not DMing it's somebody else's game.
> 
> And even when it *is* my game, I feel like a jerk for telling a player, "No, sorry, you can't have that option just because it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically."  So I usually don't.




That's definitely commendable and understandable, and I've been in the situation here before and I appreciate the struggle. 



> It's ironic that whenever I say, "I hope X doesn't make it into the official game" the response is "Don't be a selfish jerk.  You can do whatever you want with the game: if you don't want it in yours just don't include it!"
> 
> But the symmetric argument is: "You can do whatever you want with YOUR game, too: if you DO want it, just include UA or homebrew material.  You don't need it to be official."
> 
> ...




However, I also find it ironic that your initial phrasing has always been strongly negative and strongly defensive, and that you've constructed a narrative for yourself. 


Elfcrusher said:


> Ugh.  I'm going to be annoyed as $%@# if people start showing up in my group with Artificiers.  I wish the sidebar made it explicit that these are intended solely for Eberron.  Instead they did the opposite.
> 
> What's next, Jedi?
> 
> #getoffmylawn






Elfcrusher said:


> I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings.  "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."
> 
> I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.




My posting to your response:


Ash Mantle said:


> I mean that's your prerogative and you're always welcome to play the game however you want and that includes stopping the inclusion of something, but I feel if people have a justifiable reason for the inclusion of an "outside-setting" class or race and can make it work in the campaign, all the more power to them.
> This is really where you need a session 0 to discuss the expectations, the tone, and the assumptions of the campaign.
> I feel the sidebar as presented gives justifiable reasons to include them in those campaign settings.




I mean it's your narrative


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> From the strange way it is written. It reads like a trigger, instead of a cost paid in exchange for an effect. "You summon a turret when you expend a spell slot" as in expending a spell slot for any reason fulfills the criteria to summon it with an action, instead of the more standard "You must expend a spell slot to summon a turret as part of an action."




Yeah, that's indeed the cost and effect or trigger and effect, dude. I don't want to be rude, but do you understand how expending a spell slot, rather than casting a spell, to fulfil an effect works?
Check out the paladin divine smiting or the warlock eldritch smiting, it works similarly to those mechanics. 



> Artificer Revisited UA: You can summon a turret once for free and must finish a long rest before doing so again. You can also summon the turret by expending a spell slot of 1st level or higher.






> Paladin Divine Smite: Starting at 2nd level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target






> Warlock  Eldritch Smite: Once per turn when you hit a creature with your pact weapon, you can expend a warlock spell slot to deal an extra 1d8 force damage to the target


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 3, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> This seems true of most established D&D settings; ardent fans demand the setting never change from it's first printing and any attempt to widen the field is sacrilege. It creates these arguments that Greyhawk cannot have dragonborn, Dragonlance cannot have warlocks, Dark Sun cannot have tieflings, Mystara cannot have artificers, etc.
> 
> Settings adapt or die. Those that cannot adapt to the current rules should be left to gather dust with the edition they were written for.




The thing about races in Greyhawk is that, outside the Flanaess and neighboring regions, the setting is largely unexplored, by both us (players and those who wrote for the setting) and its inhabitants. So who's to say there isn't a nation of dragonborn somewhere to far to the west or southwest on the continent of Oerik (or elsewhere)? And those who try to say that Greyhawk shouldn't have any tieflings simply make me shake my head. What have Iuz and the Great Kingdom been doing for decades? There's minimal difficulty with introducing tieflings to the setting given the history we already have!

(Hmm, I may need to backtrack my statements on the artificer for the same reason as dragonborn - there may just be a nation or society of them somewhere out in unexplored parts of the world...)


----------



## mcmillan (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Yeah, that's indeed the cost and effect or trigger and effect, dude. I don't want to be rude, but do you understand how expending a spell slot, rather than casting a spell, to fulfil an effect works?
> Check out the paladin divine smiting or the warlock eldritch smiting, it works similarly to those mechanics.




Note the phrasing is different, though it obviously has the same intention. The smites are phrased as "when you hit ... you can spend a slot to deal damage". The artificer is phrased as "you summon the turret by expending spell slots". Seramus' point is if someone was being really pendantic they can interpret that phrasing as expending slots to cast a spell will also summon the turret. This kind of phrasing tweaks are in line with the documents itself noting it's "not refined by full game development"


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

mcmillan said:


> Note the phrasing is different, though it obviously has the same intention. The smites are phrased as "when you hit ... you can spend a slot to deal damage". The artificer is phrased as "you summon the turret by expending spell slots". Seramus' point is if someone was being really pendantic they can interpret that phrasing as expending slots to cast a spell will also summon the turret. This kind of phrasing tweaks are in line with the documents itself noting it's "not refined by full game development"




My reading has been that it functions similarly to previous precedent, that you use up the spell but the spell isn't cast. Note if they intended the expenditure to also include spellcasting they would've said so. Hopefully we can give them this feedback in the class survey and get them to clean up their wording, but it isn't confusing. 

Note this stipulation with casting: 



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell's level or higher


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Check out the paladin divine smiting or the warlock eldritch smiting, it works similarly to those mechanics.



Notice how there's a distinct difference in the phrasing of the Turret vs the two Smites? That's what I'm talking about. That's certainly not how I'm going to run it in my game, since the intent is pretty clear to me. But it was weird enough that it stood out to me.

Hopefully it gets cleaned up in the final version.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Notice how there's a distinct difference in the phrasing of the Turret vs the two Smites? That's what I'm talking about. That's certainly not how I'm going to run it in my game, since the intent is pretty clear to me. But it was weird enough that it stood out to me.
> 
> Hopefully it gets cleaned up in the final version.




As an UA, it'll be excellent for them to clean up and tighten their wording, especially if it's in line with previous precedent. But I'm honestly not seeing an issue, if they were to stipulate you also get to cast a spell by expending the spell slot they would've worded the sentence with that in mind. They didn't do that. Note the phrasing on "Casting a Spell in the PHB". 



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell's level or higher




They never say you also get to cast the spell, only that you expend a spell slot.


----------



## AKRandomRicker (Mar 3, 2019)

I like it! It just looks like it's going to be a blast to run, both as a DM and as a player! It's full of interestingly "Arcana-tech" flavored mechanics and features! 

In response to some of the things others have said:

-I like the Homunculus, it reminds me of all the 3e Eberron pictures of "Warforged animals", and the turrets are strait out of 4e (Animate Arbalester ability), in fact a LOT of the Artificer abilities seem perfect for use in a game, and especially in an Eberron campaign! Only thing that really seems to be missing is a "Bomb" cantrip to simulate the old "Bomb" class-feature.

-I love the idea of using the class abilities of the old UA Artificer with the new base to expand the Class, and calling the new Alchemist "Mad Scientist" is a SWEET idea!

What it all boils down to is that I like the class, but I have an Eberron bias, and each to their own for how they use and feel about this TEST material!


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 3, 2019)

Demetrios1453 said:


> ...And those who try to say that Greyhawk shouldn't have any tieflings simply make me shake my head. What have Iuz and the Great Kingdom been doing for decades? There's minimal difficulty with introducing tieflings to the setting given the history we already have!




And cambions.

Quoted for truth.


----------



## R_Chance (Mar 3, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> This seems true of most established D&D settings; ardent fans demand the setting never change from it's first printing and any attempt to widen the field is sacrilege. It creates these arguments that Greyhawk cannot have dragonborn, Dragonlance cannot have warlocks, Dark Sun cannot have tieflings, Mystara cannot have artificers, etc.
> 
> Settings adapt or die. Those that cannot adapt to the current rules should be left to gather dust with the edition they were written for.




Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2019)

R_Chance said:


> Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.




There is a pretty wide gulf between "every class or race or spell (or anything else) has to exist in every setting" and "setting never change from its first printing".

Sure, you don't have to add everything, but the default answer shouldn't be, "Well, it wasn't there thirty years ago, so not now" either.  If adding to the something makes sense and is in keeping with the setting, then, IMO, it should be added.

Alchemists and mad scientists in Greyhawk?  Yuppers.  Fits right in.  This setting always played fast and loose with genre lines.  Like I said above, you have at least two crashed spaceships in the setting, a giant mechanical spider, and a wizard most known for carrying six-guns.  

I'd say that its a pretty small jump to add in alchemists to the setting.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 3, 2019)

R_Chance said:


> Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.




Eh, while not every option need be viable for every setting, the fact X wasn't in the original book shouldn't disqualify it automatically. Lots of revised books were able to add some form expanded option to established setting; 3e era versions of Greyhawk and Realms added sorcerers, Ravenloft added half-orcs (in the form of calibans), Dragonlance added monks, and the 4e version of Dark Sun added tieflings, dragonborn (dray) and warlocks while Eberron added eladrin and dragonborn, yet none of those settings broke. Settings are far more resilient than people think. Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.


----------



## R_Chance (Mar 3, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Eh, while not every option need be viable for every setting, the fact X wasn't in the original book shouldn't disqualify it automatically. Lots of revised books were able to add some form expanded option to established setting; 3e era versions of Greyhawk and Realms added sorcerers, Ravenloft added half-orcs (in the form of calibans), Dragonlance added monks, and the 4e version of Dark Sun added tieflings, dragonborn (dray) and warlocks while Eberron added eladrin and dragonborn, yet none of those settings broke. Settings are far more resilient than people think. Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.




I agree. I was just pointing out that not everything needs to be in every setting. I wasn't arguing against change per se. Just saying that some things will fit, others won't. I have a 44 year old home brew setting. I've squeezed in a lot of new things over the years. Like most things that are in the current game  Just not "everything". Oh, and a lot of things that aren't in this edition (or prior ones) have found their way in...


----------



## R_Chance (Mar 3, 2019)

Hussar said:


> There is a pretty wide gulf between "every class or race or spell (or anything else) has to exist in every setting" and "setting never change from its first printing".
> 
> Sure, you don't have to add everything, but the default answer shouldn't be, "Well, it wasn't there thirty years ago, so not now" either.  If adding to the something makes sense and is in keeping with the setting, then, IMO, it should be added.
> 
> ...




And I agree with you as well. Especially about Greyhawk. It even has Blackmoor in it  Of course EGG kind of paved over it, but hey, it's there along with the Great / Grand Kingdom! See my reply above this...

*edit* Spelling and Great = (roughly) Grand...


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> They never say you also get to cast the spell, only that you expend a spell slot.



The only criteria for summoning a turret is "Did you expend a spell slot?" and "Smith's Tools + Action". So an anal player could say she casts Arcane Weapon as a bonus action, which expends a spell slot and qualifies her for a turret summon.

Obviously not intended, but that's one of the ways it reads.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> The only criteria for summoning a turret is "Did you expend a spell slot?" and "Smith's Tools + Action". So an anal player could say she casts Arcane Weapon as a bonus action, which expends a spell slot and qualifies her for a turret summon.
> 
> Obviously not intended, but that's one of the ways it reads.




Except expending a spell slot is not the same as casting it, as per the quotes from the PHB above. Even a pedantic reading of the text would not likely yield that conclusion, unless the player is intentionally exploiting and twisting the reading. I mean, sure, it could benefit from tightening of the wording but if Wizards had said the artificer also casts a spell in addition to expending the spell slot they would've clearly stated this.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Except expending a spell slot is not the same as casting it, as per the quotes from the PHB above.



Turret doesn't care how you expend the slot. Only that it is expended.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Turret doesn't care how you expend the slot. Only that it is expended.




If Turret specified you also cast in expending the spell slot, it would've clearly stated this. It is only expended.
You could get Jeremy Crawford to clear up the wording.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> If Turret specified you also cast in expending the spell slot, it would've clearly stated this. It is only expended.



You don't have to agree. I'm just letting you know there is an issue and other people see it.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> You don't have to agree. I'm just letting you know there is an issue and other people see it.




Based on a really bizarre interpretation of the wording  and I'm just suggesting a solution.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Based on a really bizarre interpretation of the wording  and I'm just suggesting a solution.



Bizarre to you, not to me or the player who pointed it out to me.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> Bizarre to you, not to me or the player who pointed it out to me.




And you were never going to rule it as per spells cast as you admitted anyway, so


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> And you were never going to rule it as per spells cast as you admitted anyway, so



This has nothing to do with what somebody would rule.
Only that it is worded strangely.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> This has nothing to do with what somebody would rule.
> Only that it is worded strangely.




Yet you already admitted as to how you would rule it, which speaks to understanding the intent behind the wording and how the effect would play out in game. 



Seramus said:


> [...]That's certainly not how I'm going to run it in my game, since the intent is pretty clear to me.




I also hope that it's cleared up in another playtest packet of the artificer or in the final wording, but if it still weirds you out in the meantime, I'd suggest asking Jeremy Crawford, he responds quickly to rules questions asked of him.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

On the other hand, if we could synergise the summoning of the turret using a spell slot with casting a bonus action spell beforehand that'll also be excellent. Then it could play out like how as a paladin you could bonus action blinding smite and then divine smite with your attack action.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 3, 2019)

If the wording had been "*when you expend* a spell slot", you might have had a case. But it's "*by expending* a spell slot."

Summoning the turret takes an action and the use of your smith's tools. You can do this for free once per long rest, or more often by expending spell slots. This is clear as glassteel. If it was intended that just using the spell slots recovered the ability, the wording would be similar to that of the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Tides of Chaos, which reads:
_Starting at 1st level, you can manipulate the forces of chance and chaos to gain advantage on one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. Once you do so, you must finish a long rest before you can use this feature again.

Any time before you regain the use of this feature, the DM can have you roll on the Wild Magic Surge table immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher. You then regain the use of this feature._

The equivalent for the turret would be: _"Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest or expend a spell slot for any reason."_


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Yet you already admitted as to how you would rule it, which speaks to understanding the intent behind the wording and how the effect would play out in game.



I said that in my very first post about the subject. What are you on about?


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Staffan said:


> If the wording had been "*when you expend* a spell slot", you might have had a case. But it's "*by expending* a spell slot."
> 
> Summoning the turret takes an action and the use of your smith's tools. You can do this for free once per long rest, or more often by expending spell slots. This is clear as glassteel. If it was intended that just using the spell slots recovered the ability, the wording would be similar to that of the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Tides of Chaos, which reads:
> _Starting at 1st level, you can manipulate the forces of chance and chaos to gain advantage on one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. Once you do so, you must finish a long rest before you can use this feature again.
> ...




Note it's similar to the paladin divine smites and the eldritch smites of the warlock where you also activate the full effect of their respective class features by expending spell slots. 
Also note that the wild sorcerer feature also specifically spells out that you cast the instance of the spell thereby gaining the Tides of Chaos effect, thereby expending the spell slot, the casting of spell has been fully spelled out.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

Seramus said:


> I said that in my very first post about the subject. What are you on about?






Ash Mantle said:


> which speaks to understanding the intent behind the wording and how the effect would play out in game.



That's my point. 


Anyway, I do suggest asking Jeremy Crawford about it since it appears to be causing some confusion.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> That's my point.



Your point is that you needed to tell me something I already knew, and said in my very first post? And you filled more than entire page worth of posts to do that?

I'm ending this very weird conversation.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 3, 2019)

No worries, [MENTION=38860]Ser[/MENTION]amus, it's interesting that I can see your comment when I'm logged out but not when I'm logged into my account, I guess you blocked me. 
I feel we've had a reasonable discussion, where we've both had good points in the discussion, but I'm not sure only coming from the angle of a pedant reading of the wording is fair to the wording. I, like you, would want this wording to be cleared up and tightened for official play and eagerly await that.
I've also said that it'd cool if playing as an artificer, you could synergise bonus action spells with summoning the turret, that'll be an excellent play.

Best wishes to you.


----------



## Terran5891 (Mar 3, 2019)

I like almost everything about this class except for the pet features. The pets start out strong when the artificer gets them, but become increasingly irrelevant at higher levels. I think the alchemist would be better off being able to imbue mundane drinks into tonics as a bonus action that provide the same benefits that the homunculus can provide. Plus that leaves room for advancing the effect since it is no longer tied to a pet. For artillerist, they can just enchant a bow or crossbow with force ballista. Or have a dragon gun for the flamethrower.

It also just occurred to me that the transmuter wizard specialization makes a lot of references to alchemy, and homunculi were a type of advanced familiar that wizards could summon in previous editions. Giving artificers with alchemist specialization a special homunculus familiar feels like its trying to specialize something that was a lot more of a generalist feature.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 3, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> However, I also find it ironic that your initial phrasing has always been strongly negative and strongly defensive, and that you've constructed a narrative for yourself.




Now _that's_ ironic, because I would have thought that including the hashtag #getoffmylawn would have at least hinted at the lack of seriousness behind my negative tone.  But, whatever.

One thing I find curious is the number of posters that assume this is a case of "if it wasn't in the original greyhawk then it doesn't belong".  I certainly didn't say anything like that.  Is that a response to other posters?  Or is it just an assumption that opposition to new stuff is automatically a case of being stuck in the past?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 3, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.



Athasian Artificers might those who use Rhulisti Halfling Life-Shaped devices...


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 3, 2019)

Artificiers in Athas are possible... only the psionic version, canon in 3.5. (Magic of Eberron pg 42) Or create an artificer who uses primal/elemental magic. I have thought about an archetype or subclass like a incarnum artificer, like the prestige class "ironsoul forgemaster"


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 3, 2019)

It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Mar 3, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...




Ok, but is it actually simply because it wasn't in the original, or are you allowing for any validity to the sentiment that some of these settings have an aesthetic to them, and that certain new elements would clash with that aesthetic? 

I dunno, but it feels like people are ascribing simple close-mindedness where there might be a perfectly valid concern.

(And, of course, there might be a middle ground, where the viewer feels that the new element would clash with the aesthetic simply because he's not inured to the presence of it, and that had it been there originally he/she would never have felt it was out of place.  "No, you can't possibly put that Jasper Johns painting in the hall with all the 18th century portraits!   It...uh...oh, wow, you know, it looks pretty good!")


----------



## Terran5891 (Mar 3, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...




I think as long as the artificer focuses on the concept of recreating or crafting magic items, it should be technology agnostic enough to fit in different settings. In Eberron, that's going to be magi-tech because the setting is about the fusion of magic and technology. In the forgotten realms, they're guild craftsmen with a focus on magic item creation. The class would be utterly perfect if it weren't for the pets. The homunculus is alchemy related, but it doesn't fit the focus of the class and the turret makes sense only in a setting like eberron.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 3, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...



The godsmen (I think they are the ones with the forge) probably have a high number of artificers in their ranks. 

People consider the forgotten realms a kitchen sink setting but it pales in the face of planescape.


----------



## Mercule (Mar 3, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> They are still in the V,S,M paradigm, while it emphasizes tool use nothing seems to indicate they can drop the V part of spellcasting because they're using tools.



Absolutely not lost on me, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was more angling at is that RAW says (exact location escapes me, but I'm pretty sure it's there) that Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard all use the same words and gestures to cast any given spell (where access overlaps). I've never thought that made sense, especially for the Sorcerer. A sorcerer has magic running in their veins and, while they might use words to help channel it, the specifics don't matter. Where a wizard uses precise syllables, a sorcerer might just say, "Burn, you bastard!" Likewise, a cleric should probably be praying or otherwise calling on their patron.

This UA is the first time I've seen it officially suggested that the details of the VSM components can be tweaked for character concept. That's what I like.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 3, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Ok, but is it actually simply because it wasn't in the original, or are you allowing for any validity to the sentiment that some of these settings have an aesthetic to them, and that certain new elements would clash with that aesthetic?
> 
> I dunno, but it feels like people are ascribing simple close-mindedness where there might be a perfectly valid concern.



There's possibly a clash between was written in the boxed set about what shouldn't be in Planescape (no sci-fi stuff, and it's medieval), vs what appeared later in the setting. One of the early modules visits a world of cyborgs with lightning guns and shock staffs (might contradict no sci-fi, even though they had a failure chance outside that world), another supplement mentions a Spelljammer Squid Ship somehow getting delivered to Sigil (might contradict no space-port), there's a demon-possessed printing press (Renaissance Technology), someone who keeps arquebuses for weapons (also Renaissance), and that space colonist who formed a powerful dreamscape while stuck in stasis.  A bunch of those points would support there being Artificers in the setting, even before Artificers were generally conceived of.  

So I feel that the sidebar about Artificers in other settings is certainly accurate when it comes to Planescape. Of course just because there's Artificers in a setting, doesn't mean there's lightning rails around. With Sigil I feel that while the capability exists, the political scrabbling between various factions and interests (pre-Faction War) would prevent such a thing from happening.

As for other settings such as Greyhawk or Mystara that I know far less about, I feel the sidebar is probably accurate in regards to the setting about Artificers in those worlds.

Another thing that was brought up about aesthetic of Planescape was no Planar-born Elves, Dwarves, Halflings or Gnomes allowed in the setting. It was probably written to encourage players to pick Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Githzerai and so on. But it's a ruling I feel most groups just ignored anyways along with clerics losing spell access across different planes, and magical pluses on weapons being degraded the further they are from their origin.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Mar 3, 2019)

Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:

http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 4, 2019)

Mercule said:


> Absolutely not lost on me, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was more angling at is that RAW says (exact location escapes me, but I'm pretty sure it's there) that Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard all use the same words and gestures to cast any given spell (where access overlaps). I've never thought that made sense, especially for the Sorcerer. A sorcerer has magic running in their veins and, while they might use words to help channel it, the specifics don't matter. Where a wizard uses precise syllables, a sorcerer might just say, "Burn, you bastard!" Likewise, a cleric should probably be praying or otherwise calling on their patron.
> 
> This UA is the first time I've seen it officially suggested that the details of the VSM components can be tweaked for character concept. That's what I like.




I'm actually pretty sure the opposite is the case, that RAaw specifically doesn't limit what the VSM looks like for any spells. I'm certain this level of reflavoring has been advocated in the books previously, and certainly by Crawford in Sage Advise.


----------



## vecna00 (Mar 4, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Eh, while not every option need be viable for every setting, the fact X wasn't in the original book shouldn't disqualify it automatically. Lots of revised books were able to add some form expanded option to established setting; 3e era versions of Greyhawk and Realms added sorcerers, Ravenloft added half-orcs (in the form of calibans), Dragonlance added monks, and the 4e version of Dark Sun added tieflings, dragonborn (dray) and warlocks while Eberron added eladrin and dragonborn, yet none of those settings broke. Settings are far more resilient than people think. Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.




Artificer works great in Dark Sun as a one off, or as a halfling Life-Shaper. Which reminds me that I have to redo my version of the Life-Shaper for the new iteration.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2019)

Well, let's be honest.  Setting purists will always have issues.  It's just a thing.  And, to be fair, everyone has a line that they don't want crossed.  It doesn't have to be logical or really, even make a whole lot of sense since it's largely a taste thing.  For me, I dislike psionics in D&D.  Always have.  Mostly my objections have been more mechanical than aesthetic, but, really, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't want psionics in their setting.  When we're being honest with ourselves, most of the objections really are based purely on personal taste and have virtually nothing objective to ground them.  

The problem really comes when people try to pass of their personal tastes as some sort of objective truth which leads to a everyone spinning their wheels because once you've made that a sticking point - that your personal tastes are objective truth - there's no way forward.  "I don't want X in my setting because I don't like X" isn't a reason not to officially include it in the setting.  It's a reason for you not to include it in your campaign.  But, folks don't seem to want to do that.  They want an official blessing to tell their players no so they can force their personal tastes on the group.  Otherwise, if the group wants X and you don't, well, not many folks want to be that guy who will look at the group and say, "nope, my personal tastes trump yours".


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 4, 2019)

The sidebar in the pdf at least only listed those worlds where it made sense to have artificers in it. Mystara for example did have magitech in it more so than say Greyhawk.

 Greyhawk is one world where I don't think its a great idea to add the class, Spelljammer, Planescape, Mystara yeah sure makes a bit of sense. Even Krynn and the Gnomes (as long as it had a reason to fail).

 I'm not a 100% purist as long as it makes sense for that world. Barbarians in Darksun sure (at least non magical ones), artificers erm no.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Mar 4, 2019)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:
> 
> http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/




After reading his descriptions for things, I want the next D&D movie to include an Artificer character.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2019)

Here's a question:

Why does Arcane Weapon work on Martial Weapons when the character doesn't gain any martial weapon proficiencies?

Maybe this spell is going to be available to other classes when released?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2019)

Never mind.  Answered my own question - pistol crossbows are martial.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 4, 2019)

Rereading the part on focuses I see that one could make a weapon such as a firearm into a focus if it has an infusion, but it's a wait until 2nd before you could do such thing.

But now I just thought of an artificer casting Cure Wounds by loading a Blunderbuss with healing powder and then shooting someone with it to heal them.


----------



## Mecheon (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> The sidebar in the pdf at least only listed those worlds where it made sense to have artificers in it. Mystara for example did have magitech in it more so than say Greyhawk.
> 
> Greyhawk is one world where I don't think its a great idea to add the class, Spelljammer, Planescape, Mystara yeah sure makes a bit of sense. Even Krynn and the Gnomes (as long as it had a reason to fail).
> 
> I'm not a 100% purist as long as it makes sense for that world. Barbarians in Darksun sure (at least non magical ones), artificers erm no.




I mean, I'd argue Greyhawk, the setting with multiple crashed alien spaceships and where one of the gods is basically an artificer, is a perfect setting for it


----------



## Zardnaar (Mar 4, 2019)

Mecheon said:


> I mean, I'd argue Greyhawk, the setting with multiple crashed alien spaceships and where one of the gods is basically an artificer, is a perfect setting for it




Doesn't mean they can build said spaceship. It's also a exception having that ship its basically unique. Mystara makes more sense than Greyhawk IMHO.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 4, 2019)

How do you post spoilers on this forum?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Here's a question:
> 
> Why does Arcane Weapon work on Martial Weapons when the character doesn't gain any martial weapon proficiencies?
> 
> Maybe this spell is going to be available to other classes when released?




RAW a bard could acquire it through Magical Secrets for a start.

That raises an interesting point though: the spell description only requires the caster to be holding the weapon when the spell is cast. So, hypothetically, they could cast the spell on the fighter's weapon and give it back to them. It's a concentration spell, so it might not be too overpowered read like that.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 4, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> That raises an interesting point though: the spell description only requires the caster to be holding the weapon when the spell is cast. So, hypothetically, they could cast the spell on the fighter's weapon and give it back to them. It's a concentration spell, so it might not be too overpowered read like that.



This. Plus Racial Weapon Proficiencies, Multiclassing, or the Weapon Master feat.


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 4, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> How do you post spoilers on this forum?



There are two tags SBLOCK and SPOILER

Unfortunately one works in the browser, the other on the app. So you need to use both.

Here's an example. Reply to me and look at the source code to find out the exact syntax 



Spoiler



Spoiler tag
[SBLOCK]
Both tags. This info is hidden no matter from where you access EN World
[/SBLOCK]
Sblock tag


----------



## CapnZapp (Mar 4, 2019)

I think it has been comprehensively concluded how ridiculous the content production rate is.

One new class in four years and it still is met with lots of complaints.

If they released one new class a year you should be able to find at least one that is to your liking.

Now the most likely result is that they effectively have released no new classes at all.

Sigh.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 4, 2019)

Now I have a doubt. If artificer isn't in the SRD.... could a third party to publish a technomancer from Starfinder as a D&D class? For example the trapper, an artificer with primal magic who create traps to hunt or to create mutant "monster pets". 

If WotC doesn't publish more classes they will be created by third parties. If WotC warns about the return of Dark Sun, Dreamscarred Press could publish a psionic handbook months previous. Maybe WotC should hire Dreamscarred Press as subcontract for the 5th Ed of psionics, incarnum and martial adepts.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 4, 2019)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> Now I have a doubt. If artificer isn't in the SRD.... could a third party to publish a technomancer from Starfinder as a D&D class?




Yes.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't mean they can build said spaceship. It's also a exception having that ship its basically unique. Mystara makes more sense than Greyhawk IMHO.




Not exactly unique.  There are more than one crashed spaceships in Greyhawk. The Warden II crashed in Tomoachan.  I'm sure there are other goodies from Dungeon or Dragon as well.

And, let's face it, an artificer can't build a spaceship either.  

Greyhawk did quite a lot of genre bending.  Space travel was certainly done - they went to Mars as I recall as part of the original campaign.  Dragon 258 introduced "Sheens" which were tied specifically to Greyhawk.  Heck, going all the way back to Dragon 17, there's a canon story where Greyhawk natives traveled to the Metamorphosis Alpha universe and back.  

Like I said, there's more than enough GH material to justify an artificer.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 4, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Doesn't mean they can build said spaceship. It's also a exception having that ship its basically unique. Mystara makes more sense than Greyhawk IMHO.




Includes spoilers for The Lost Laboratory of Kwalish.


Spoiler



[SBLOCK]
In Lost Laboratory of Kwalish (canonically set in Greyhawk) that is pretty much exactly what happens. Kwalish discovers a crashed planar ship and uses the magi-tech he finds their becomes "one of the most powerful arcane inventors of all time", inventing the Apparatus of Kwalish, amongst other things.

Given that Lost Laboratory was released prior to this, Kwalish is stated as a wizard, but it would make more sense to stat him as an artificer. His notes, which can be recovered over the course of the adventure, could be studied to enable someone to become an artificer.

However their is a big difference between Greyhawk having one or two Artificers as a product of weird events, and Artificers being a ubiquitous part of daily life, as they are in Eberron.
[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 4, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> There are two tags SBLOCK and SPOILER
> 
> Unfortunately one works in the browser, the other on the app. So you need to use both.
> 
> ...




Thanks.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 4, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Not exactly unique.  There are more than one crashed spaceships in Greyhawk. The Warden II crashed in Tomoachan.  I'm sure there are other goodies from Dungeon or Dragon as well.




So, one in Barrier Peaks, another in Blackmoor, and still another in Tomoachan? It's practically raining crashed spaceships in Greyhawk. 



> And, let's face it, an artificer can't build a spaceship either.
> 
> Greyhawk did quite a lot of genre bending.  Space travel was certainly done - they went to Mars as I recall as part of the original campaign.  Dragon 258 introduced "Sheens" which were tied specifically to Greyhawk.  Heck, going all the way back to Dragon 17, there's a canon story where Greyhawk natives traveled to the Metamorphosis Alpha universe and back.
> 
> Like I said, there's more than enough GH material to justify an artificer.




And given that Greyhawk has Murlynd, the god of Magical Technology, artificers seem like a natural fit for those that venerate him.


----------



## gyor (Mar 4, 2019)

The Clockwork Mage for Zakhara was a kind of prototype for Artificer,  so it fits the setting like a glove. Actually there are a few exotic mage types from Zakhara that would fit Artificer as subclasses like a glove,  such as Astrologer.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 4, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> I think it has been comprehensively concluded how ridiculous the content production rate is.



 maybe you’ve concluded that, but it certainly isn’t a consensus.


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Mar 4, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Rereading the part on focuses I see that one could make a weapon such as a firearm into a focus if it has an infusion, but it's a wait until 2nd before you could do such thing.
> 
> But now I just thought of an artificer casting Cure Wounds by loading a Blunderbuss with healing powder and then shooting someone with it to heal them.



I'm just remembering Homer's "make-up gun" from "The Simpsons"...


----------



## Mercule (Mar 4, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> I'm actually pretty sure the opposite is the case, that RAaw specifically doesn't limit what the VSM looks like for any spells. I'm certain this level of reflavoring has been advocated in the books previously, and certainly by Crawford in Sage Advise.



I really wish I could remember where the detail is. Looking at the PHB, I don't see it called out, either way, in either the Classes or Spellcasting chapters. About the best I've got is to say that it came up during a discussion on whether psions could be done as a subclass of sorcerer and related concepts. My personal feeling is that a really great version of psion could be easily achieved with a sorcerer subclass and spell points by just running with the idea that the psion "casts" _firebolt_ by pointing at the bad guy (S) and saying "Burn, bastard!" (V). But, someone pulled out a "you've gotta use the same components" reference.

Regardless, if it's officially open to interpretation, that's awesome. I've got no problem ignoring a straight jacket like that, at my table, but I'm happier if the jacket isn't put on.

This subconversation probably qualifies as white noise, though. If I was absolutely correct about the RAW, even I would just say, "OK, that's nice. I'm ignoring it."


----------



## Valetudo (Mar 4, 2019)

Mercule said:


> I really wish I could remember where the detail is. Looking at the PHB, I don't see it called out, either way, in either the Classes or Spellcasting chapters. About the best I've got is to say that it came up during a discussion on whether psions could be done as a subclass of sorcerer and related concepts. My personal feeling is that a really great version of psion could be easily achieved with a sorcerer subclass and spell points by just running with the idea that the psion "casts" _firebolt_ by pointing at the bad guy (S) and saying "Burn, bastard!" (V). But, someone pulled out a "you've gotta use the same components" reference.
> 
> Regardless, if it's officially open to interpretation, that's awesome. I've got no problem ignoring a straight jacket like that, at my table, but I'm happier if the jacket isn't put on.
> 
> This subconversation probably qualifies as white noise, though. If I was absolutely correct about the RAW, even I would just say, "OK, that's nice. I'm ignoring it."



you could make one of the subclasses features be no need for componets or change them to some sort of psychic focus.


----------



## duelistjp (Mar 4, 2019)

the problem is psionics makes no sense with spells since their is no reason for them to need s,v, or m components.  maybe say their eyes glow or something so it is not completely undetectable but a major part of psionics is using the mind instead of the usual trappings of the arcane


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Mar 4, 2019)

duelistjp said:


> the problem is psionics makes no sense with spells since their is no reason for them to need s,v, or m components.  maybe say their eyes glow or something so it is not completely undetectable but a major part of psionics is using the mind instead of the usual trappings of the arcane




Actually in most settings, there is a good social reason for using components:  unless the psychic is followed around by Exposition Guy/Gal, there is no particular reason to assume that many (if any) people know the difference between magic and psychics.  So since "everyone knows" that magic involves waiving your hands, saying weird stuff, and playing with knick knacks, the odds are the psychic has been trained that way, even if it doesn't actually add anything.  The baseball player who always wears his "lucky" socks to the game, doesn't actually "get" anything from it, but if they go missing, his confidence suffers.  Likewise, the psychic might not need to rub his magic 8 ball to mind zap someone, but without it, he is just a smuck.


----------



## duelistjp (Mar 4, 2019)

might be reason for him to do it at times to get people to let their guard down but when he is trying to talk his way in somewhere why wouldn't he take advantage of what works out to being free subtle spell on his mind affecting abilities


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 4, 2019)

Mercule said:


> I really wish I could remember where the detail is. Looking at the PHB, I don't see it called out, either way, in either the Classes or Spellcasting chapters. About the best I've got is to say that it came up during a discussion on whether psions could be done as a subclass of sorcerer and related concepts. My personal feeling is that a really great version of psion could be easily achieved with a sorcerer subclass and spell points by just running with the idea that the psion "casts" _firebolt_ by pointing at the bad guy (S) and saying "Burn, bastard!" (V). But, someone pulled out a "you've gotta use the same components" reference.
> 
> Regardless, if it's officially open to interpretation, that's awesome. I've got no problem ignoring a straight jacket like that, at my table, but I'm happier if the jacket isn't put on.
> 
> This subconversation probably qualifies as white noise, though. If I was absolutely correct about the RAW, even I would just say, "OK, that's nice. I'm ignoring it."




Somebody might have been bringing in some earlier edition rule bit and misapplying it: 5E has always been as loose as this Artificer about component details.


----------



## Terran5891 (Mar 4, 2019)

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:
> 
> http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/




Ah, that answers some things. The design focus is for Eberron. Then the turret definitely fits in. The homunculus is more of a technological thing then the kind of homunculus created as a wizard familiar. I'd like it more if the turret and homunculus benefits scaled a little bit, though. Kind of feels like they're not really that relevant by 10+.


----------



## The-Magic-Sword (Mar 5, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, let's be honest.  Setting purists will always have issues.  It's just a thing.  And, to be fair, everyone has a line that they don't want crossed.  It doesn't have to be logical or really, even make a whole lot of sense since it's largely a taste thing.  For me, I dislike psionics in D&D.  Always have.  Mostly my objections have been more mechanical than aesthetic, but, really, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't want psionics in their setting.  When we're being honest with ourselves, most of the objections really are based purely on personal taste and have virtually nothing objective to ground them.
> 
> The problem really comes when people try to pass of their personal tastes as some sort of objective truth which leads to a everyone spinning their wheels because once you've made that a sticking point - that your personal tastes are objective truth - there's no way forward.  "I don't want X in my setting because I don't like X" isn't a reason not to officially include it in the setting.  It's a reason for you not to include it in your campaign.  But, folks don't seem to want to do that.  They want an official blessing to tell their players no so they can force their personal tastes on the group.  Otherwise, if the group wants X and you don't, well, not many folks want to be that guy who will look at the group and say, "nope, my personal tastes trump yours".




I can't emphasize enough how well you put this, people want Wizards of the Coast to win their arguments with their friends about whether or not something should be a part of their game/world for them.


----------



## Ark the Pie King (Mar 5, 2019)

I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.

They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 5, 2019)

Ark the Pie King said:


> I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.
> 
> They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.




I wouldn't mind seeing the free one scale for free and then have additional ones scale up based on the level of the spell slot you spend.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 8, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Now _that's_ ironic, because I would have thought that including the hashtag #getoffmylawn would have at least hinted at the lack of seriousness behind my negative tone.  But, whatever.
> 
> One thing I find curious is the number of posters that assume this is a case of "if it wasn't in the original greyhawk then it doesn't belong".  I certainly didn't say anything like that.  Is that a response to other posters?  Or is it just an assumption that opposition to new stuff is automatically a case of being stuck in the past?




As you know, hint of intent doesn't translate well through posts, especially since your subsequent post was also negative. I tend to find emoticons are the best hint at a lack of seriousness.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Mar 8, 2019)

Dragon+: Jeremy Crawford on the Artificer, 3/6/19

Jeremy Crawford explains the reasoning behind the direction they've taken with the artificer, the focus on its background as a staple of Eberron and also its intention to be used in other settings, and there'll be more subclasses for the artificer in coming UAs. 

Don't forget to fill out the UA survey that'll also be out soon.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Mar 8, 2019)

Have you thought about an artificer in Dark Sun. Maybe a psionic version, but I am thinking about something like biopunk (life-shape) tech.


----------



## Savevsdeath (Mar 9, 2019)

I love literally everything about this new Artificer and i absolutely, sincerely hope this is pretty much what we're getting in Wayfinder's. I can actually make my Final Fantasy 14 Machinist, complete with magitek turrets and firearms, in D&D. That is exciting and so very cool that i could not be happier. WoTC nailed this one as far as i'm concerned.

Now...i know some people are all 'get your darn vidja games out of my D&D!' but please....don't dismiss what you personally dislike, even at your table as a GM. D&D needs to grow and evolve, gain new players and incorporate new ideas into its version of fantasy. Let's embrace rather than deny, because if we don't the number of people who love 'your' fantasy will begin to dwindle over time as your vision diverges from what newer generations of gamers grew up with. Adapt, embrace, incorporate - don't cross your arms, turn up your nose and poo-poo the new.


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 9, 2019)

I was watching the video and thinking about how JC was saying that the artificer will be able to use firearms but that they won't necessarily be baked into the class. I think i could be as cool with this as anything as long as we get a stand-alone module with gun rules that work a little better than the DMG ones. At the least, there needs to be an official feat to address reload issues.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 9, 2019)

Ark the Pie King said:


> I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.
> 
> They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.




I wouldn't have made the pets baseline, but have them as options that come out of the Artificer's infusion budget. I would still expect them to be baseline and/or receive bonuses in a subclass based around one or more constructed pets though.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 9, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> I was watching the video and thinking about how JC was saying that the artificer will be able to use firearms but that they won't necessarily be baked into the class. I think i could be as cool with this as anything as long as we get a stand-alone module with gun rules that work a little better than the DMG ones. At the least, there needs to be an official feat to address reload issues.




Reload issues?

How do the gun rules in the DMG not work?


----------



## Terran5891 (Mar 9, 2019)

Savevsdeath said:


> I love literally everything about this new Artificer and i absolutely, sincerely hope this is pretty much what we're getting in Wayfinder's. I can actually make my Final Fantasy 14 Machinist, complete with magitek turrets and firearms, in D&D. That is exciting and so very cool that i could not be happier. WoTC nailed this one as far as i'm concerned.
> 
> Now...i know some people are all 'get your darn vidja games out of my D&D!' but please....don't dismiss what you personally dislike, even at your table as a GM. D&D needs to grow and evolve, gain new players and incorporate new ideas into its version of fantasy. Let's embrace rather than deny, because if we don't the number of people who love 'your' fantasy will begin to dwindle over time as your vision diverges from what newer generations of gamers grew up with. Adapt, embrace, incorporate - don't cross your arms, turn up your nose and poo-poo the new.




I agree. The only thing I can see them doing to improve the class would be letting us expend spell slots to supercharge the turret or allow the homunculus to do something special. Just so they have the sense of scaling at higher levels even if they really stay the same.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 9, 2019)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Reload issues?
> 
> How do the gun rules in the DMG not work?




The Renaissance guns in the DMG have the loading property—like crossbows. I'm presuming the "reloading issues" is that loading and multiple attacks don't play nice with each other.


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 9, 2019)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Reload issues?
> 
> How do the gun rules in the DMG not work?




The artificer gets Extra Attack but can't actually use it with firearms, unless you're using the OP modern weapons. Crossbow only gets a pass because there's a feat.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 10, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> The artificer gets Extra Attack but can't actually use it with firearms, unless you're using the OP modern weapons. Crossbow only gets a pass because there's a feat.



Then make a firearm mastery feat for firearms?


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 10, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> Then make a firearm mastery feat for firearms?




Well, sure. You can homebrew anything but you can't always convince every DM to use your homebrew over an official product. It would be cool if they put a nice little mod with some firearm options, feats, and related magic items.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 10, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> Well, sure. You can homebrew anything but you can't always convince every DM to use your homebrew over an official product. It would be cool if they put a nice little mod with some firearm options, feats, and related magic items.



For all we know they will. Still early days yet and if they out in options for firearms specialists in the artificer then they will likely include them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 10, 2019)

I’d be cool with scaling by spell level spent, but yeah, I think it’s fine as is. 



Ark the Pie King said:


> I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.
> 
> They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> The artificer gets Extra Attack but can't actually use it with firearms, unless you're using the OP modern weapons. Crossbow only gets a pass because there's a feat.




Quite right too! The reload feat is a stretch with a heavy crossbow, but you could go with the "lie on your back and use your feat" method. With renascence firearms it's stupid. Even firing once per round (6 seconds) is dumb with such weapons. You don't want reload? Then skip renascence and go straight to modern.


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 10, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Quite right too! The reload feat is a stretch with a heavy crossbow, but you could go with the "lie on your back and use your feat" method. With renascence firearms it's stupid. Even firing once per round (6 seconds) is dumb with such weapons. You don't want reload? Then skip renascence and go straight to modern.




Yeah, I'm definitely of the mind that the "pistol" and "musket" in the DMG aren't directly analogous to the Renaissance firearms of Earth history as much as they are a fantasy (or, really, just mechanical) construct loosely based on the concept. Aiming, firing, AND reloading every 6 seconds means they have to work differently from their real-world namesakes. The issue for me is that modern ones given are overpowered once you let them in your game world and I can't imagine DMs i know letting me show up with any of those at the table.

So far, most games I've played have just used crossbows and reflavored them as guns, but I'd really, really, like to see an official mod that covers somewhat balanced ways to handle firearms, as well as all kinds of explosive tech, in existing settings in different ways.  I thought the thunder cannon was great conceptually, because it was essentially a magical invention that did magic things and didn't demand simulationist explanations.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 10, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> For all we know they will. Still early days yet and if they out in options for firearms specialists in the artificer then they will likely include them.



My bet would be we see another sub-class that is optional that gets the better use of guns as part of its features. I kinda figure some of the pieces we see now will be spread among 3-4 subs - some non-pets.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 10, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Quite right too! The reload feat is a stretch with a heavy crossbow, but you could go with the "lie on your back and use your feat" method. With renascence firearms it's stupid. Even firing once per round (6 seconds) is dumb with such weapons. You don't want reload? Then skip renascence and go straight to modern.



Or instead of modern, you tie it to a class that uses magic and tech together in a fusion.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Or instead of modern, you tie it to a class that uses magic and tech together in a fusion.




Something like this?

*Artificer Infusion*

*Autoloader*
_Item: any simple or martial ranged weapon with the "ammunition" property_
If the weapon had the "Loading" property it now does not. In addition, if you use the Attack action to attack with the weapon, you can use a bonus action to make an extra attack. Any ammunition shot from the weapon counts as magical.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2019)

So I've mulled over some of the design elements in the document for a while, and while this is "white room" and not playtest, I just want to give some initial impressions.

*1.) The Spell Damage Output (Nova) element of an Artificer isn't as bad as I thought. *

I figured a class that has half the spell levels of a dedicated spellcaster would lag significantly behind other classes in nova-ing a BBEG when it came time. I was less wrong than I thought. Sure, an artillerist gets fireball at 9th level (when dedicated mages have had it since 5th) but the damage of fireball is such that isn't as far behind as I would assume. Its comperable to a cleric using flame strike (23 vs 22 for FS), lags slightly behind a sorc/wizard using cone of cold (23 vs 30 CC) or an infernal warlock using his own fireball (23 vs 29 due to 5th a lvl slot) but really looks bad vs a druid using blight (23 vs 33 for blight). 

At 17th level, when every class has their final spell slots, the disparity is far greater; the artillerist artificer is going online with cone of cold (8 levels after the wizard got it) for 30 damage, which is surprisingly comparible to a cleric's harm (40), a druid's sunburst (35), or a bard max-cranking out shatter (37). Of course, a warlock can outpace it with finger of death (51) and all the classes combined don't match the broken glory of a sorcerer or wizard casting meteor swarm  (116). 

_*Final Conclusion:*_ despite being a half-caster, artificers (esp artillerists) are comperable to a cleric, druid, or bard in terms of damage output, but lag behind the dedicated arcanists (warlock, sorc/wiz). 

*2.) Healing, on the Other Hand, with an artificer is terrible.*

Third edition artificer's didn't heal. 4e ones did as they were leaders. 5e gives artificers (esp alchemists) the tools to heal, but do NOT rely on them as primary healers for long. Again using 9th level, an artificer restores 13 hp (+Int and if alchemist, double Int). That's equal to or slightly inferior to the ranger (13 + wis, which probably won't be as high as an artifer's Int), or a paladin using spell slots (but a paladin has lay on hands for a big 45 point heal if needed). Bards and Druids pull up next with 22 points per 5th level cure wounds (+ Wis/cha as appropriate) as do all non-life clerics (while life clerics heal 32 + Wis for a 5th level cure wounds). Additionally, bards, cleric,s and druids all got healing word (bonus-speed healing at range) and the mass healing spells (which allow multiple targets simultaneously). A paladin can also bust out Aura of Vitality for healing over time. 

Beyond HP, artificers get a few status removal spells (lesser/greater restoration, revivify and even raise dead for alchemists) but again, they get these far later than a dedicated caster like a bard, cleric, or druid. The Alchemist can cheat cast lesser/greater restoration without spell slots at 6th and 14th levels, which is a tremendous boon but several levels after the other classes do. Still, its far better than the ranger (who only gets lesser restoration) and on par with a paladin (who gets lesser and greater on the same table, along with revivify and can use their lay on hands as a lesser restoration as well). 

_*Final Conclusion: *_Don't rely on an alchemist artificer as your sole healer, but they are serviceable backups like other half-casters are.

*3.) Arcane Armament is a Trap.*

At 5th level, an artificer gets 2 attacks with the odd caveat they must be with a magical weapon. Assuming they meet this requirement, that puts them on par with most "martial" classes for 2nd attack (bbn, ftr, pld, rgr, mnk) as well as bladelocks (thirsting blade) and ahead of valor bards. However, the reason I call this a trap is threefold.

a.) the requirement for a magical weapon means that, barring a generous DM or extenuating circumstances, you're going to need to burn an infusion on Enhanced Weapon to use it. That means you really have 1 less infused item per day if you plan to attack twice.
b.) The artificer only has simple weapons and crossbows (we're ignoring firearms, they're optional), the latter cannot be used to attack twice unless you sink a feat into crossbow mastery. So assuming you didn't use your ASI on it (or weren't a human), the best weapons you have are either d6's or d8's two handed. (Again, we're ignoring racial weapons, but elf and dwarf artificers do look more tempting due to this). All other two-attack classes have some access to martial melee weapons (either due to class or subclasas, or bladelocks being proficient in their blades) or scale better (monks, but they get more attacks to make up for it).
c.) Your Strength or Dex Score aren't going to be a good as a dedicated warriors. A dedicated attack class will have a 16 or 18 by 5th level, and while you have a +1 to hit/damage thank to it being magical, at best you're probably only sinking a 14 in either score due to INT being your primary king stat. Additionally, you're probably not increasing said stats in favor of your caster stat, while a barbarian is upping his Str or a Monk his Dex, and your magical edge is lost the minute THEY find a magical weapon of their own. Lastly, you lack any sort of damage booster beyond arcane weapon (the artificer version of hex/hunter's mark). Fighter's get Fighting Styles, Barbarian's get rage, paladin's get smite, rangers get bonuses for being a hunter, and valor bards can even use Inspiration. 

This makes Arcane Armament very build-specific and situational. Its fair to say you are not replacing a fighter, barbarbian, ranger, or paladin in combat, and you might, at best, make squint substitute for a valor bard or bladelock IF you manage to find a way to get access to a martial weapon or don't mind spears or quarterstaves. If you insist on going ranged, either bite the bullet and invest in crossbow mastery OR invest in a shortbow instead. OR don't bother; firebolt cast from an artillerists wand or using alchemy to cast poison spray or acid splash is a far superior damage output.

_*Final Conclusion: *_Unless you are building around AA, just use cantrips. This feature belongs in a subclass dedicated to weapon/armor enhancing, not the main class.

*4.) For a Cantrip-Focused class, Artificer's don't get enough Cantrips.*

Jeremy Crawford said he viewed the artificer as being a class than has versatility as its main feature. Its obvious that they wanted the artificer to be versatile with their cantrips, both from their retraining (the only class that lets you retain cantrips) and their 10th level ability (which reduces to the wait from once per level to once per rest). Additionally, the artificer has a long-list of cantrips, many fitting the flavor of the magical tinkerer ability. 

Its just, they learn new ones at such a slow rate, you're mostly locked into your choices regardless.

To start: While starting with 2 is fine (on par with the bard, druid, and warlock), they don't get a 3rd until 10th level. Every other class has learned two in that amount of time. An artillertist gets a free one at 6th level (via his prototype wand) but beyond that, you get two. Sure, you can swap them out once per level, but that assumes a.) you know what the next level is going bring so you can swap out ray of frost for firebolt or message. b.) You don't have a cantrip that it important to your subclass (such as acid splash, poison spray for alchemists or mending for artillerists). So most artificers will have one attack cantrip and maybe one utility cantrip (like mending, light or such) for nearly half your adventuring carreer, only swapping them when you know something's going to change or you get bored with one you have. 

In my opinion, an artificer should get the normal progression of 2 cantrip full caster (start at 2, go to 3 at fourth and max out at 4 at tenth). Additionally, I think they should move "The Right Cantrip for the Job" down (to say, 5th level and bump arcane armament?) allowing them crazy versatility with their cantrips. This would put them on part with a warlock, trading the higher level arcanas for wider versatility in cantrips. Because right now, the artificer doesn't feel very versatile in his cantrips, he feels more like a two-trick pony. 

_*Final Conclusion:*_ Give the artificer more cantrips!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2019)

Arcane Armament: Using enhanced weapon gives you a +1 weapon, as well as enabling the ability. That's equivalent to two extra pips in your strength/dexterity. Also, in a game where magic items are rare, chances are the Artificer would want to uses their infusion on a magical weapon, even without the ability, just so they have something that can damage all those monsters that resist non-magical damage.

In Eberron, Mark of Making Dragonmark can give you another way of obtaining a magic weapon.

Cantrips: Artificers can cast cantrips they don't know - that's where the versitility is.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 10, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> Yeah, I'm definitely of the mind that the "pistol" and "musket" in the DMG aren't directly analogous to the Renaissance firearms of Earth history as much as they are a fantasy (or, really, just mechanical) construct loosely based on the concept. Aiming, firing, AND reloading every 6 seconds means they have to work differently from their real-world namesakes. The issue for me is that modern ones given are overpowered once you let them in your game world and I can't imagine DMs i know letting me show up with any of those at the table.



I remember the mention that a well trained musketeer could fire and reload a muzzle-loaded musket about 3 times a minute.  That would roughly translate into taking 2 rounds to reload.

But I feel most groups would not want to track reload times over 1 round. In fact I felt with even going all the way up to 19th century firearms where there's the possibility of breech loading and powder cartridges, that there should be only 3 types of reload times: 1 bonus action, 1 action or 1 short rest (or minute).


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 10, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> *3.) Arcane Armament is a Trap.*
> 
> At 5th level, an artificer gets 2 attacks with the odd caveat they must be with a magical weapon. Assuming they meet this requirement, that puts them on par with most "martial" classes for 2nd attack (bbn, ftr, pld, rgr, mnk) as well as bladelocks (thirsting blade) and ahead of valor bards.



I feel this is where they should go for something like the Cleric's Divine Strike.  Maybe vary it like Divine Strike/Potent Spellcasting, the Artillerist sort of gets Potent Spellcasting anyways.  It could also be somewhere where they could give a subclass "sneak attack lite" too, much like the previous version of the class.


Remathilis said:


> *4.) For a Cantrip-Focused class, Artificer's don't get enough Cantrips.*
> 
> Jeremy Crawford said he viewed the artificer as being a class than has versatility as its main feature. Its obvious that they wanted the artificer to be versatile with their cantrips, both from their retraining (the only class that lets you retain cantrips) and their 10th level ability (which reduces to the wait from once per level to once per rest). Additionally, the artificer has a long-list of cantrips, many fitting the flavor of the magical tinkerer ability.
> 
> ...



They need to go with Sorcerer numbers for cantrips, and I agree they need Right Cantrip for the Job a lot earlier. Though I feel they should get cantrips like Green-Flame Blade and Booming Blade, as much as they're trying to bury those cantrips away.  Some of the 4e classes Artificer included, got a ranged weapon attack cantrip, and maybe it's something they could think of.  Though with those cantrips it would mean even less of a reason for having Arcane Armament.


----------



## Ark the Pie King (Mar 10, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> So I've mulled over some of the design elements in the document for a while, and while this is "white room" and not playtest, I just want to give some initial impressions.
> 
> *1.) The Spell Damage Output (Nova) element of an Artificer isn't as bad as I thought. *
> 
> ...




Why wouldn't you make Int your secondary stat? I'm going to be playing a level 8 Alchemist soon and I 100% made Dex my primary stat. Between Not-Extra Attack and Arcane Weapon you've got a ton of incentive to attack people, and by level 8 with 1 ASI and Crossbow Master I can pump out some serious hurt. With an 18 dex and a +1 weapon 1st turn is 2d10+2d6+10, 2nd turn is 2d10+3d6+14 if I'm using my bonus action to attack with my Homunculus, or it's still 2d10+2d6+10 and I'm giving someone else advantage, or giving temp HP with it. You're really underselling them at physical attackers. Their primary stat is *not* Int the same way the primary stat for Ranger isn't Wis and the primary stat for Paladin isn't Cha. They're a hybrid class, so you've got to treat them like one. Yeah they can use cantrips but if you go that route you're leaving all their best features on the table.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2019)

Ark the Pie King said:


> Why wouldn't you make Int your secondary stat? I'm going to be playing a level 8 Alchemist soon and I 100% made Dex my primary stat. Between Not-Extra Attack and Arcane Weapon you've got a ton of incentive to attack people, and by level 8 with 1 ASI and Crossbow Master I can pump out some serious hurt. With an 18 dex and a +1 weapon 1st turn is 2d10+2d6+10, 2nd turn is 2d10+3d6+14 if I'm using my bonus action to attack with my Homunculus, or it's still 2d10+2d6+10 and I'm giving someone else advantage, or giving temp HP with it. You're really underselling them at physical attackers. Their primary stat is *not* Int the same way the primary stat for Ranger isn't Wis and the primary stat for Paladin isn't Cha. They're a hybrid class, so you've got to treat them like one. Yeah they can use cantrips but if you go that route you're leaving all their best features on the table.




I'm going to disagree with you partially. You CAN build around AA to maximize damage just like you can build around Valor Bards or Bladelocks to maximize combat damage. However, I think its pretty safe to say that such builds should not be the default assumption of the artificer. For example, your build requires the use of a feat (which is, by definition, an optional rule even if few DMs don't allow it), and the base game should assume you don't need feats to make a class feature usable. The base artificer build seems to be geared toward a more support/magic role, much like how the base bard wants to be a support caster and the base warlock wants to be a ranged/caster class first. 

My thought here is that AA should be the 6th level feature of an artificer subclass focused on magical arms/armor and combat. Much like bladelocks and valor bards, the option should be there if you want to build around it, but by making it the generic 5th level ability (which is supposed to reward you with important features like extra attack, 3rd level spells, uncanny dodge or font of inspiration) it it too situational and requires too much forethought to set up properly. Unless you think to build ahead (select EW infusion, take crossbow mastery at 4th level, or have a decent str and somehow acquire proficiency in a martial weapon) you can easily have a 5th level class feature you cannot use, which doesn't seem to be how 5e class features work.  

TL;dr There should be a subclass, ala the valor bard, where AA is a thing for those who want combat first, caster second artificers. Its too fiddly and requires too much planning to make it useful the level you get it as written right now. The base artificer should get something else and leave AA to a sublcass.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 10, 2019)

Remember it's designed for Eberron: aquiring a magic weapon isn't difficult. Nor is acquiring proficencies in decent weapons: double bladed scimiter anyone?


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 10, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Remember it's designed for Eberron: aquiring a magic weapon isn't difficult. Nor is acquiring proficencies in decent weapons: double bladed scimiter anyone?



Eberron in flavor, univeral in mechanics. There is nothing in the Wayfarers Guide to Eberron that gives greater access to +1 weapons, nor does that change the base proficiency of the class. AA is still a class feature that can easily end up a unusable one if you built your character wrong, and that is a thing that the designers have tried to avoid in the past. A class feature should function when you get it and not assume you built your character a certain way to use it.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 10, 2019)

Ark the Pie King said:


> Why wouldn't you make Int your secondary stat? I'm going to be playing a level 8 Alchemist soon and I 100% made Dex my primary stat. Between Not-Extra Attack and Arcane Weapon you've got a ton of incentive to attack people, and by level 8 with 1 ASI and Crossbow Master I can pump out some serious hurt. With an 18 dex and a +1 weapon 1st turn is 2d10+2d6+10, 2nd turn is 2d10+3d6+14 if I'm using my bonus action to attack with my Homunculus, or it's still 2d10+2d6+10 and I'm giving someone else advantage, or giving temp HP with it. You're really underselling them at physical attackers. Their primary stat is *not* Int the same way the primary stat for Ranger isn't Wis and the primary stat for Paladin isn't Cha. They're a hybrid class, so you've got to treat them like one. Yeah they can use cantrips but if you go that route you're leaving all their best features on the table.




You are a bit at risk because of the need of a concentration spell, but that is very respectable damage output.  It will cost a spell slot, but if you think about it, another half-caster (the paladin) gets 2d8 damage for a slot.  If you managed to land 3 attacks, you are more efficient with the slots (excluding critical hits) 

I do see 2 flaws though:

There is very little scaling.  You will gain a little bit of damage due to your Homunculus "leveling up", and a little bit from another ASI.  Meanwhile the cantrips do scale. 

The master crossbowman artificer is cool, but not as cool as a potion hurling alchemist (the 1.0 model)


----------



## Ark the Pie King (Mar 11, 2019)

There is scaling, it's just not as flashy. Remember as you level up you get access to more infusions. At level 5 you get double attack. At 9th you get 3rd level spells. At 12th you unlock the 3rd tier of infusions, and 13th you get 4th level spells. 16th you get the strongest infusions in the game and make no mistake they are good and strong. Even the 12th level ones are great. Bracers of Archery are a solid extra +4 damage a turn, and don't forget there's nothing that says you have to use these yourself. You can pass this stuff off to party members. Fighters that high level would love Winged Boots to fly up and deal with flyers, the Bard or Rogue would get a lot of benefit out of the Hat of Disguise, at 12th level you just manufacture your own +2 weapon, etc. Even the weaker level 16 ones like Ring of the Ram can still be respectable. 6d10 damage isn't nothing. There's a lot of versatility in the Infusions. The class isn't flashy in the way that it progresses but it's definitely there. And I'm really not altogether worried about the Homunculus or the Turrets. The way I see it, you have to compare them to 1st level spells and in both cases they're far and away better than any other 1st level spells you can ask for with very few, if any acceptions. My main beef is with the Artillerist and needing to spend a whole action to summon the turret. It feels like a waste of a turn. It should really be a bonus action to summon it and then activate it in the same turn, otherwise the higher your level the harder it is to justify that kind of action cost.

The Artificer is the same as it's always been. Subtle, not flashy, and geared towards a support role and I'd be happy to have one in my party no problem. It's undertuned to be sure, but it's not a bad class by any stretch. It's incredibly versatile.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 11, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Eberron in flavor, univeral in mechanics. There is nothing in the Wayfarers Guide to Eberron that gives greater access to +1 weapons, nor does that change the base proficiency of the class. AA is still a class feature that can easily end up a unusable one if you built your character wrong, and that is a thing that the designers have tried to avoid in the past. A class feature should function when you get it and not assume you built your character a certain way to use it.



All it requires is someway to make a weapon magical. It doesn't have to be a crossbow, they can use a short bow if they want to stay ranged. They have infusions and spells if they haven't found a magical weapon yet. More than likely anyone building an artificer who wants to make use of that 2nd attack will build for it. If they make a mistake the DM will either let them retcon their build or the player can correct it at 6th level.

basically,  I get that some might make a mistake (just like I have with a 6th level evoker and there half cantrip damage ability), but it is an easy fix.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 11, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Eberron in flavor, univeral in mechanics. There is nothing in the Wayfarers Guide to Eberron that gives greater access to +1 weapons, nor does that change the base proficiency of the class. AA is still a class feature that can easily end up a unusable one if you built your character wrong, and that is a thing that the designers have tried to avoid in the past. A class feature should function when you get it and not assume you built your character a certain way to use it.




Eberron is more than just "flavour". It is fundamental to the nature of the setting that "low level magic is commonplace". That means that you don't have to wait for the DM to dish out magic weapons - you can walk into a high street shop in Sharn and buy one off the shelf.

Then there is the Mark of Making, a dragonmark which is common amongst artificers, and allows you to turn any weapon into a +1 weapon for an hour.

And it's not unprecedented for an "extra attack" feature to be awarded that might be difficult for some builds to make use of - bladesinger, some bladepact warlocks.

Which is not to say that it isn't an issue when you want to make a Lantanise artificer in the Forgotten Realms. In which case you would most likely use a firearm, and an ability that added elemental damage to a single attack would work better than having to introduce automatic weapons in some way.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 11, 2019)

Yeah, I'm envisioning an alchemist artificer character proficient with calligraphy tools as a Japanese-style onmyouji casting spells with ofuda (paper talismans) and the homunculus as a shikigami.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 11, 2019)

Has anyone else watched the Dragon+ Jeremy Crawford interview about the artificer?


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 11, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Has anyone else watched the Dragon+ Jeremy Crawford interview about the artificer?




Yeah, it was interesting: curious to see the other subclasses he's worked on. I'm hoping to see some sort of Time mage (Calligraphy and paint kits?), or maybe a Shaman type character.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 11, 2019)

I'm finally watching the dragon+ interview. 

I love the parts of how your tool use interacts with your spellcasting. 

I do think they need a slightly better weapon list, and the Artillerist should use weapons instead of wands, or be able to choose between weapons or wands. 

I'd love to see a subclass that is all about delivering spells using ammunition, if we can't make that part of the Artillerist. I'd love to shoot an arrow/bolt/bullet at someone, and make Thunderwave come out of that target space.

edit: I am also really glad they landed on Spells Prepared. I do wish they could swap 1 spell per day as a short rest, like a versatility equivalent of Arcane Recovery. Maybe as a feature in a subclass. 

I also really really wish that the Spell-Storing Item feature was an Infusion option, at a much lower level.

One thing that I wish the class had would be the ability to burn spell slots to recharge a magic item with charges.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm finally watching the dragon+ interview.
> 
> I love the parts of how your tool use interacts with your spellcasting.
> 
> ...



I had, half-heartedly, started on rules for firearm ammunition which included alchemy shots and spell shots. Alchemy shots could be made by anyone proficient with alchemist supplies and included things such as dealing additional fire or acid damage or creating a cone of fire like a shotgun.

Spell shots were enchanted ammo that would do things like bind your target with the web spell, or blast the target and everyone in range with a fireball. I think I was creating a wizard subclass which used firearms and I wanted some special ammo to go with it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 11, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I had, half-heartedly, started on rules for firearm ammunition which included alchemy shots and spell shots. Alchemy shots could be made by anyone proficient with alchemist supplies and included things such as dealing additional fire or acid damage or creating a cone of fire like a shotgun.
> 
> Spell shots were enchanted ammo that would do things like bind your target with the web spell, or blast the target and everyone in range with a fireball. I think I was creating a wizard subclass which used firearms and I wanted some special ammo to go with it.




I'd love to see something like that, though a lot of it is just...a different way to describe casting a spell, with maybe a different "does it land" mechanic and/or a change of range. 

I think the way to go might be a feature that lets you use the ranges of your weapons when using your weapon as a spellcasting focus, and then focus new ammunition on things that are genuinely new?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 11, 2019)

Also, I would really want to see a defensive turret, and the ability to cast spells through the turret.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 11, 2019)

I think it would be cool if the Replicate Item infusions had some more options based on specialization, leaning into the stuff that specialization's supposed to be good at. I think it might be even cooler if they could make limited-use items, like potions for alchemists and wands for artillerists. Perhaps those choices could be limited a bit (like Magical Secrets for bards), so they get one specialist item per item tier (2nd level, 12th level, 16th level). Come to think of it, I'd probably put the first one at something like 6th or 8th level, so they could get some juice in them.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd love to see something like that, though a lot of it is just...a different way to describe casting a spell, with maybe a different "does it land" mechanic and/or a change of range.
> 
> I think the way to go might be a feature that lets you use the ranges of your weapons when using your weapon as a spellcasting focus, and then focus new ammunition on things that are genuinely new?




From memory what I had down in my notes was that spell-shots weren't just for casters, these were enchanted ammo that anyone with a firearm could use. 

For the spell-sniper subclass, they were able to cast spells using their weapon and their weapon range. It would deal normal weapon damage in addition to the spell damage and were able to use the weapons range. Thing is, I think in many cases, the spell could easily have a better range than the firearm.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 11, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'm finally watching the dragon+ interview.
> 
> I love the parts of how your tool use interacts with your spellcasting.




I agree. It oozes with flavor.



doctorbadwolf said:


> I do think they need a slightly better weapon list, and the Artillerist should use weapons instead of wands, or be able to choose between weapons or wands.




Artificers already can!  "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus." So all you need is the enhanced weapon infusion and you can use any weapon you want as your focus.

As for proficiencies, I'm fine with the base model but I think a subclas geared around using enchanted weapons and armor would be a great place to expand proficiency in weapons. 




doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd love to see a subclass that is all about delivering spells using ammunition, if we can't make that part of the Artillerist. I'd love to shoot an arrow/bolt/bullet at someone, and make Thunderwave come out of that target space.




Basically, a retrofitted Arcane Archer as an artificer, mixed with IK's gunmage. I could see it. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> edit: I am also really glad they landed on Spells Prepared. I do wish they could swap 1 spell per day as a short rest, like a versatility equivalent of Arcane Recovery. Maybe as a feature in a subclass.




I think "Right Cantrip for the Job" does a good impression of that, it just needs to come sooner. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> I also really really wish that the Spell-Storing Item feature was an Infusion option, at a much lower level.




My belief is that Arcane Armament should get bumped to aforementioned enchanted weapon/armor subclass (Runesmith?), RCFtJ goes to 5th level, and Spell Storing Item goes to 10th, and a new ability comes in at 18th. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> One thing that I wish the class had would be the ability to burn spell slots to recharge a magic item with charges.




Hmmm... considering they are half-casters, perhaps that would be a good near-high level ability to replace Spell Storing item after its moved down?


----------



## NaturalZero (Mar 12, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I'd love to see something like that, though a lot of it is just...a different way to describe casting a spell, with maybe a different "does it land" mechanic and/or a change of range.
> 
> I think the way to go might be a feature that lets you use the ranges of your weapons when using your weapon as a spellcasting focus, and then focus new ammunition on things that are genuinely new?




Ideally, they'd unique stuff but I'll take "Thunderwave, but delivered from 50' away with a gun" over "Thunderwave, but just like every other class that uses Thunderwave" any day. I'm really hoping the final version doesn't just use +1 crossbows and wands that do +Int damage instead of guns or crossbows that deliver evocative effects.


----------



## i_dont_meta (Mar 12, 2019)

Do we know if the Homunculus/Turret can Delay an Action? I'm currently futzing around with an Alchemist and this came up @ our table. My DM (much love, EP!) was kind enough to allow my PC to use his/her Reaction to enable this.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 12, 2019)

i_dont_meta said:


> Do we know if the Homunculus/Turret can Delay an Action? I'm currently futzing around with an Alchemist and this came up @ our table. My DM (much love, EP!) was kind enough to allow my PC to use his/her Reaction to enable this.




Well, delay an action isn't actually a think in 5e.

Do you mean Ready an Action?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 12, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> From memory what I had down in my notes was that spell-shots weren't just for casters, these were enchanted ammo that anyone with a firearm could use.
> 
> For the spell-sniper subclass, they were able to cast spells using their weapon and their weapon range. It would deal normal weapon damage in addition to the spell damage and were able to use the weapons range. Thing is, I think in many cases, the spell could easily have a better range than the firearm.



Seems hard to balance without spending spell slots, or a hard x/day limit, but conceptually I’m into it. 



Remathilis said:


> Artificers already can!  "After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus." So all you need is the enhanced weapon infusion and you can use any weapon you want as your focus.



What I mean is, they shouldn’t be stuck using wands in order to benefit from their subclass traits. 



> Basically, a retrofitted Arcane Archer as an artificer, mixed with IK's gunmage. I could see it.



 Sure, though I’d have it work quit differently so it doesn’t obviate the Arcane Archer. Also, I’d give the class some ranger spells that enhance ranged weapon attacks. 





> I think "Right Cantrip for the Job" does a good impression of that, it just needs to come sooner.



 I actually like it where it is. I’d rather have a “tradeout 1 prepared spell” feature at lower level, and leave catnip swapping for level10




Hmmm... considering they are half-casters, perhaps that would be a good near-high level ability to replace Spell Storing item after its moved down?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 12, 2019)

The reason the "Right Cantrip" ability is level 10 is the Artillerist subclass gains a similar ability at level 6. This reflects the bard's "Spell Secrets", that all bards get at level 10, but Lore bards get at level 6.

I also suspect there is an tacit assumption that a great many Artificers will have the "Mark of Making" Dragonmark, Whose "Magecraft" ability allows them to put any wizard cantrip into an item.

This "assumption of Eberron" is also why Artillerists use wands. In (canonical, as dictated by the setting's creator) Eberron no one uses guns. Although they may use wands the size of tree trunks in order to launch city destroying fireballs.

I think perhaps more thought needs to go into how the artificer translates to other settings, with the Eberron features pushed more into the subclasses, which could be given more Eberron-specific names. What you would expect from an Eberron Artillerist is significantly different to what you would expect from a Lantan Artillerist.

_Edit: It occurs to me that "Arcane Engineer" might be a better name for the subclass currently known as Artillerist, since it removes the expectation that they will be a gun class. Then the actual gun subclass (Lantanise Artillerist) is named "Cannoneer"._


----------



## i_dont_meta (Mar 12, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Well, delay an action isn't actually a think in 5e.
> 
> Do you mean Ready an Action?



<SMH> Yep, meant to say Ready an Action. But upon further review I think they explicitly tell you what actions it can take.


----------



## Amir Mammadov (Mar 13, 2019)

I'm currently playing an overly eccentric (and arguably psychopath) gnome who uses his turret as a mount. I don't know if it's possible RAW, but my DM allowed me. It's not terribly optimized, but it sure is fun.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 13, 2019)

i_dont_meta said:


> Do we know if the Homunculus/Turret can Delay an Action? I'm currently futzing around with an Alchemist and this came up @ our table. My DM (much love, EP!) was kind enough to allow my PC to use his/her Reaction to enable this.



You can Ready An Action to attack immediately after your Homunculus Helps. It costs your reaction, but gives you advantage every round.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 14, 2019)

Seramus said:


> You can Ready An Action to attack immediately after your Homunculus Helps. It costs your reaction, but gives you advantage every round.




True, but, it would also cost you your extra attack.  Advantage on a single attack is likely not as good as actually making two attacks.


----------



## i_dont_meta (Mar 14, 2019)

You raise a great point, [MENTION=6812658]Seramus[/MENTION]. My PC is a Fighter (Samurai) 3/Artificer (Alchemist) 3, so being able to save my 3 Fighting Spirits for emergencies is a huge plus. With my Infused "katana" (longsword) + Great Weapon style I'd probably prefer the Advantage with that Attack over the Acidic Spittle my lil Homunculus spits, but it's always situational. Another shout-out to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] for a very valid counter-argument. Thanks, y'all!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 14, 2019)

Amir Mammadov said:


> I'm currently playing an overly eccentric (and arguably psychopath) gnome who uses his turret as a mount. I don't know if it's possible RAW, but my DM allowed me. It's not terribly optimized, but it sure is fun.




The turret has a strength of 10, so it could carry up to 150 lb. A gnome weighs around 40 lb, so it could easily carry them. It is one size larger than the gnome, so there is plenty of room for a seat. On the downside it moves more slowly than a walking gnome and only lasts 10 minutes.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 14, 2019)

Question:  How is the HP of the homunculus calculated?

"equal to five times your level in this class +
your Intelligence modifier"

Does this mean

HP = (level X 5) + Int bonus

OR

HP = level X (5 + int bonus)

In the first case, your int bonus provides a small buff to the homunculus HP.  In the second, your int is acting as the homunculus's con score, by providing a bonus per every level.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 14, 2019)

I would assume the second.  The first way would seem pretty sad.


----------



## Volund (Mar 14, 2019)

PEMDAS. Do the multiplication first, then the addition.

OR handle it just like Con modifiers to hp?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Mar 14, 2019)

I read it as  this: HP = (level X 5) + Int bonus (as per standard Mathematical rules)

But it certainly needs clarifying.


----------



## Ark the Pie King (Mar 17, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> I read it as  this: HP = (level X 5) + Int bonus (as per standard Mathematical rules)
> 
> But it certainly needs clarifying.




This was how I interpreted it as well.


----------



## cbwjm (Mar 17, 2019)

The artificer is now available to use on DnDbeyond for those interested.


----------



## MarkB (Mar 18, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> The artificer is now available to use on DnDbeyond for those interested.




Thanks, I've been waiting for that.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 18, 2019)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who isn't sure what meaning was intended!  (re HP)


----------



## FlyingChihuahua (Apr 1, 2019)

I'm kinda sitting here wondering what other artisan's tools you could make subclasses out of, since it seems like the subclasses for the Artificers are based primarily on the tools you use (alchemist's supplies and herbalism kit for Alchemist, and Smith's and Woodcarvers tools for Artilierist)

Assuming there's no crossover of tools, you could make something with Jeweler's Kits and Mason's Tools and be a kind of elementalist (like real life Periodic Table elements, not The 4 Elements type thing). Part of your crafting specialty could be those spell gem things that were in OotA (basically spell scrolls, but you can't write them into your book)

There's also Calligraphy Set and Artist's Supplies for the artsy types who paint pretty pictures of what they want to happen and it happens. They would probably focus on Spell Scrolls for crafting.

Heck, if they don't care too much about different subclasses getting the same proficiency, they could use Herbalist's Kit and Woodcarver's Tools to make an Apothocary subclass that would focus more on healing, and let Alchemists throw greek fire and poison gas around.

Really, the more I look at the tools, the more ideas I get.

Kinda think they should get another skill proficiency, but I understand that they don't, considering all the stuff they put into Xanathar's about other uses for your tool proficiencies.


----------



## R_Chance (Apr 1, 2019)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'm kinda sitting here wondering what other artisan's tools you could make subclasses out of, since it seems like the subclasses for the Artificers are based primarily on the tools you use (alchemist's supplies and herbalism kit for Alchemist, and Smith's and Woodcarvers tools for Artilierist)
> 
> Assuming there's no crossover of tools, you could make something with Jeweler's Kits and Mason's Tools and be a kind of elementalist (like real life Periodic Table elements, not The 4 Elements type thing). Part of your crafting specialty could be those spell gem things that were in OotA (basically spell scrolls, but you can't write them into your book)
> 
> ...




Interesting ideas. Leaving me more interested now than I was before. Thanks.


----------



## MarkB (Apr 1, 2019)

FlyingChihuahua said:


> I'm kinda sitting here wondering what other artisan's tools you could make subclasses out of, since it seems like the subclasses for the Artificers are based primarily on the tools you use (alchemist's supplies and herbalism kit for Alchemist, and Smith's and Woodcarvers tools for Artilierist)




My Viking Alchemist with the Pirate background has tool proficiency with Vehicles (Water). I have been wondering whether that means he can cast spells using a longship.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Apr 1, 2019)

MarkB said:


> My Viking Alchemist with the Pirate background has tool proficiency with Vehicles (Water). I have been wondering whether that means he can cast spells using a longship.




If artificers first came about (or came to prominence) during a big war then this is the kind of thing I would expect would have been developed.


----------

