# Artificer UA to be released in February



## Ash Mantle (Jan 12, 2019)

WotC has tweeted: "The next Unearthed Arcana will be released in February and will be the *Artificer*! Thanks for your patience as we take this month to finish it." 

What's an artificer? For those unfamiliar, it's a class from Eberron which treats magic like technology.


----------



## vecna00 (Jan 12, 2019)

I was just coming here to see if anyone had posted the news yet!


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

'thanks for your patience'.
Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> 'thanks for your patience'.
> Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.




The final thing probably won't come until an update to the wayfarer's guide pdf and/or a physical release of the wayfarer's guide.  Those not interested in Eberron will probably have to wait for another Xanathar's-like book to get hold of the final thing.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

MechaPilot said:


> Those not interested in Eberron will probably have to wait for another Xanathar's-like book to get hold of the final thing.



It could be true. It would also be interesting to know if this Xan2 thing is actually one of the planned book of 2019 or not.


----------



## NaturalZero (Jan 12, 2019)

I really, really, really want a viable gunslinger artificer. Competitive damage + decent utility.


----------



## Olrox17 (Jan 12, 2019)

Never been a great fan of the artificer, but I’m happy for those that like it!


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 12, 2019)

I have a player in my Eberron game using KibbleTasty's expanded Artificer class that they built up from the previous WotC UA and thus far it works well.  The fact that it has like a half-dozen separate subclasses means you have any number of different ways to play one.  My player started as a Potionsmith, but due to her family background and the way the game has progressed she wants to get involved with warforging, and there's a subclass for that as well that she can now work on switching over to, the Golemsmith.

KibbleTasty's Artificer 1.6 on GMBinder

Even if/when the official WotC artificer gets released, I don't know that I'll have a need to switch over to it, especially considering it'll probably still only have those two subclasses-- the alchemist and the gunsmith.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Jan 12, 2019)

Thanks heaps to whoever edited my original post to make it more illuminating!


----------



## Morrus (Jan 12, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Thanks heaps to whoever edited my original post to make it more illuminating!




It got promoted to an article.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Jan 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> It got promoted to an article.




Oh, sweet as!


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 12, 2019)

MechaPilot said:


> The final thing probably won't come until an update to the wayfarer's guide pdf and/or a physical release of the wayfarer's guide.  Those not interested in Eberron will probably have to wait for another Xanathar's-like book to get hold of the final thing.




Well, if they are putting it in UA, that means they have potential product plans for it within ~12 months. I'd say the fourth of their "3-4 books" this year is a hardcover Eberron book if this is well received in playtest. I doubt they would put it in another book than an Eberron book, but leave it as an attracting factor in an Eberron book for those not playing in Eberron proper.


----------



## PabloM (Jan 12, 2019)

I have a question for those who knows about the subject: 
Is the artificer a character who treats magic like technology (I mean who manipulates arcane forces through items) or a character who crafts non magic items that have spell like effects (like a flamethrower is more or less similar to, lets say, burning hands)?


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 12, 2019)

I wonder about we will see a runesmith subclass, why not a subclass with incarnum soulmelds?


----------



## Morrus (Jan 12, 2019)

PabloM said:


> I have a question for those who knows about the subject:
> Is the artificer a character who treats magic like technology (I mean who manipulates arcane forces through items) or a character who crafts non magic items that have spell like effects (like a flamethrower is more or less similar to, lets say, burning hands)?




It's still magic, but they treat it like a science rather than an art.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> 'thanks for your patience'.
> Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.




UA is free playtesting material.

They don't have an obligation to produce or release any of it.


----------



## doctorhook (Jan 12, 2019)

Hopefully this artificer actually resembles the Eberron class. I had been losing hope that 5e would ever do Eberron justice.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> UA is free playtesting material.
> 
> They don't have an obligation to produce or release any of it.




who knows, maybe they think they have, given the fact they are officially thanking Customers for their patience.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> who knows, maybe they think they have, given the fact they are officially thanking Customers for their patience.




How do you “officially” thank somebody?

(Officially posted by me)


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> How do you “officially” thank somebody?
> 
> (Officially posted by me)




simply writing "thanks for your patience" on the official company Twitter account.


----------



## Satyrn (Jan 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> How do you “officially” thank somebody?
> 
> (Officially posted by me)




Admit them into the Most Noble Order of the Garter.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> 'thanks for your patience'.
> Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.



I don't think that's indicative of a release delay (though there may be one). It could be as simple as them being aware that people have been asking for the update on the artificer and thanking them for being patient while they finalised their updates to the class.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> simply writing "thanks for your patience" on the official company Twitter account.




Is that your official opinion?


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Is that your official opinion?




it is simply the way the things are. years ago companies used press releases, but in the last years they started to use social networking services to state their official declarations.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 12, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I don't think that's indicative of a release delay (though there may be one). It could be as simple as them being aware that people have been asking for the update on the artificer and thanking them for being patient while they finalised their updates to the class.




I don't know... the first version of the Artificer (a subclass of the wizard, at that time 
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/unearthed-arcana-eberron ) is four years old, and six months passed since the wayfinder guide is out... IMHO is a delay.

but it is always difficult, for me at least, decoding their official communications, so also your idea could be right.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 12, 2019)

I am not quoting anyone in particular, but if feels like I would have to quote at least a half dozen people if I did.  lol

First, Mearls and/or Crawford have posted to Twitter more than once about the Artificer's delays during 2018. This was not the first delay announcement or apology.

Second, the Artificer will be part of the official Eberron book, as stated previously by either Mearls or Crawford, I can never remember which says what. So anyone who pays the $20 for the Wayfinders Guide to Eberron pdf will get the finalized version once it is added to the pdf. And considering all the other player options in the book now, and likely more added along with the artificer, that $20 is probably worth it. Besides, the more it sells, the more likely WotC is to do the same thing with other D&D worlds. Do you want a new Dark Sun setting book? Or maybe Spelljammer? Buy this one to show them the idea works.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 12, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> I don't know... the first version of the Artificer (a subclass of the wizard, at that time
> http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/unearthed-arcana/unearthed-arcana-eberron ) is four years old, and six months passed since the wayfinder guide is out... IMHO is a delay.




Delay? More likely an item of low priority (until the Eberron pdf was released).


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 12, 2019)

doctorhook said:


> Hopefully this artificer actually resembles the Eberron class. I had been losing hope that 5e would ever do Eberron justice.



Isn't the DMs Guild product written by the person you made Eberron?  How does it fail to do justice to the setting?  I'm curious as I haven't purchased the product.  Or is there something else you are talking about?


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jan 13, 2019)

I'm just curious if they made an attempt at a crafting system. If not I'll just stick to the Gadgeteer and Craftsman classes from Mage Hand Press.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Jan 13, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> I really, really, really want a viable gunslinger artificer. Competitive damage + decent utility.




Check out the Gunslinger class by MHP. It has good gun rules.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> 'thanks for your patience'.
> Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.




One of the constants of the 5e dev team is that they've always been transparent with any delays, even if they announce it on the day of a supposed release. Another constant of that team is they've always been vague with any concrete information of a release or what they're planning on including in that release, prior to fully announcing it. Which to some is infuriating, but to others comes as a welcome surprise. 

Another constant is their team has been really good with playtesting their material, responding to feedback and releasing versions based on that feedback. That cycle to me is much better than releasing something that could have varying degrees of power, and class features that don't mesh well or that don't belong within the class.


----------



## vecna00 (Jan 13, 2019)

It'll be on D&D Beyond the week after its release.

https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/statu...NuXaE6IqHd9WdfdWQMRMYCmOlrH5VHBZgdQxr4K7hiL_U

Makes me wonder how close to the finished product this will be.

Side thought: The last time there was a significant delay to a UA, it was pushed back to the day Wayfinder's Guide was released for the big Eberron reveal. Makes me wonder if there is something else big brewing that is Eberron related. Maybe this will be included in Wayfinder's Guide day and date, or maybe the long-awaited Morgrave's Miscellany will drop the same day?


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Jan 13, 2019)

vecna00 said:


> Makes me wonder how close to the finished product this will be.
> 
> Side thought: The last time there was a significant delay to a UA, it was pushed back to the day Wayfinder's Guide was released for the big Eberron reveal. Makes me wonder if there is something else big brewing that is Eberron related. Maybe this will be included in Wayfinder's Guide day and date, or maybe the long-awaited Morgrave's Miscellany will drop the same day?




Everything I have seen marks this as the final playtest for the class, unless something goes horribly wrong with it and everyone hates it.   lol

Also, I forgot to point something out about this announcement that others may have missed. It is not just saying the Artificer is coming in Feb, but that they are not giving us a UA article at all in Jan so that they can focus on the Artificer.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> 'thanks for your patience'.
> Finally they admitted having a release delay. This is a good step towards having a fair approach towards the fan base regarding timing.
> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.




"fair"???

I think maybe you're not understanding the company/customer relationship here....


----------



## vecna00 (Jan 13, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Everything I have seen marks this as the final playtest for the class, unless something goes horribly wrong with it and everyone hates it.   lol
> 
> Also, I forgot to point something out about this announcement that others may have missed. It is not just saying the Artificer is coming in Feb, but that they are not giving us a UA article at all in Jan so that they can focus on the Artificer.




I picked up on it too, especially considering I was thinking that it was coming this month. It's why i'm under the impression it's being pushed back for another nifty reason or two!


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> However, I really expected having the final thing, not another UA again.



  But didn't they tell us a couple of months ago it was going to be released as a UA again?  If a remember correctly it was around Oct or Nov., and they said it would not be in that month's UA, but it was coming soon.  The speculation at the time was maybe the Dec UA, but I don't believe they actually stated that


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 13, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I have a player in my Eberron game using KibbleTasty's expanded Artificer class that the built up from the previous WotC UA and thus far it works well.  The fact that it has like a half-dozen separate subclasses means you have any number of different ways to play one.  My player started as a Potionsmith, but due to her family background and the way the game has progressed she wants to get involved with warforging, and there's a subclass for that as well that she can now work on switching over to, the Golemsmith.
> 
> KibbleTasty's Artificer 1.6 on GMBinder
> 
> Even if/when the official WotC artificer gets released, I don't know that I'll have a need to switch over to it, especially considering it'll probably still only have those two subclasses-- the alchemist and the gunsmith.



I can't imagine the WotC version will be nearly as good as KibbleTasty's artificer, that class is amazing.  The best homebrew is almost always better than WotC's stuff.


----------



## bedir than (Jan 13, 2019)

Over the past years they've always been lighter in December and January. It turns out the time between Thanksgiving and the first weekend of January are usually short staffed as a Americans take vacations (at companies that offer that perk and that don't forbid it during their peak season).

No matter the status of the Artificer as ready we know that Crawford and Mearls were both on vacations this year. That alone could "delay" the release, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the product.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Delay? More likely an item of low priority (until the Eberron pdf was released).




it can be. why ships and boats have higher priority than an iconic class is mistery for me, but it can be.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> "fair"???
> 
> I think maybe you're not understanding the company/customer relationship here....




there is only one kind of relationship here: no company exists without Customers.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jan 13, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> I really, really, really want a viable gunslinger artificer. Competitive damage + decent utility.




A gun-based subclass is unlikely to be in the "official" UA Artificer design, since that is probably going to be quite closely connected with Eberron. However there may well be a wand-user archetype that could be converted. 
And there is pretty definitely going to be even more gunslinger-type classes around on DMsGuild.


----------



## bedir than (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> it can be. why ships and boats have higher priority than an iconic class is mistery for me, but it can be.



Adventuring on ships definitely has a longer legacy than a class that didn't exist for the majority of DnD's existence


----------



## CapnZapp (Jan 13, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> WotC has tweeted: "The next Unearthed Arcana will be released in February and will be the *Artificer*! Thanks for your patience as we take this month to finish it."
> 
> What's an artificer? For those unfamiliar, it's a class from Eberron which treats magic like technology.
> ​




Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news.

And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience. 

They could have released this a year ago, or two years ago. Suggesting this month makes a difference feels like a punch to the face.

The real story is that WotC chooses to not release content.

Where's the revised Beastmaster?

Where's the psionics?

We've gotten exactly zero new classes, and a bunch of subclasses that mostly just change existing concepts around, without providing any new mechanics.​


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

bedir than said:


> Adventuring on ships definitely has a longer legacy than a class that didn't exist for the majority of DnD's existence




it was introduced in 1996*, so it has been existing for more than a half of the (A)D&D game life, qualifying it as at least as important as ships. and needing an official support more than boats, IMO. but that could be because no much of my games involve ships, but all of them involve players asking for new character's options.

*in Player's Options:spells & magic, as a wizard subclass (exactly as for the first UA).


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Jan 13, 2019)

1996 is still around 15 years later than adventuring on ships.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> 1996 is still around 15 years later than adventuring on ships.




you could be right, seen from an hystorical perspective the absence of complete rules related to ships&boats in PHB or DMG is a critical flaw in wotc design of 5E.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jan 13, 2019)

I start to guess the artificier will not a vacian spellcaster but the arcanepunk version of techie advanced class from d20 Modern. And we will see a transition toward arcanepunk tech like a previous step to a second edition of d20 Modern.

Will I can craft a crossbow what reload itself? Something like the spell "ghostly reload" from 3.5 "Races of Dragons". 

Alchemist was an artificier subclass. Why not also a subclass about magic runes?


----------



## generic (Jan 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news.
> 
> And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience.
> 
> ...




Meanwhile, members of the homebrew community have produced dozens of high-quality homebrew classes such as an Artificer, Psionicist, Witch, _et cetera._  Has WotC noticed this? No.  So much for taking ideas from the fanbase (one of the goals stated when the DMsGuild was created).


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> And can somebody point out that its been four years.




Shouldn't we be waiting like 16 more years for an updated then?!  4-5 years is way to fast for me! 



CapnZapp said:


> The real story is that WotC chooses to not release content.



  Thank goodness, I would be happy if they completely stopped releasing content. 



CapnZapp said:


> Where's the revised Beastmaster?



  There isn't one - I thought they made this clear.



CapnZapp said:


> Where's the psionics?



  Unfortunately I think they will make this - I've always hated psionics and will have to happily ignore them once again I guess.  Maybe WotC / Hasbro will go bankrupt before they get to it - I can dream 

Sorry - I'm a bit off today and felt like being the dissenting voice.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> Meanwhile, members of the homebrew community have produced dozens of high-quality homebrew classes such as an Artificer, Psionicist, Witch, _et cetera._  Has WotC noticed this? No.  So much for taking ideas from the fanbase (one of the goals stated when the DMsGuild was created).




That is more than enough for me.


----------



## generic (Jan 13, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> That is more than enough for me.




What do you mean by this?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just need a bit more context.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

Aebir-Toril said:


> What do you mean by this?
> 
> I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just need a bit more context.




Sorry - The fact the homebrew community is providing these options is "more than enough for me."  I don't need WotC to provide "official" versions.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> it can be. why ships and boats have higher priority than an iconic class is mistery for me, but it can be.




Because there's an actual product that's planned that would use those ship rules. Until Wayfarer's guide, there's no real place for the Eberrron-specific artificer class. Heck, the artificer MAY only being prioritized now due to the mysterious "4th release" of this year possibly being a print Eberron book.


----------



## gyor (Jan 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news.
> 
> And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience.
> 
> ...




 If you watch Mike Mearls happy hour you can watch the development of the Psion in action.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news.
> 
> And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience.
> 
> ...




This is the hyperbotastic response that we've all come to know. "Punch in the face" indeed. LOL


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Because there's an actual product that's planned that would use those ship rules.




do you mean the large ship 'miniature'? I would not say it is more diffused among dnd gaming groups than the eberron wayfinder's guide... an actual 'best adamantine seller' which would use the Artificer rules.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> do you mean the large ship 'miniature'?




No, the actual print product that WotC is currently teasing that will be released this year.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> do you mean the large ship 'miniature'? I would not say it is more diffused among dnd gaming groups than the eberron wayfinder's guide... an actual 'best adamantine seller' which would use the Artificer rules.




No, an actual adventure that will use the ship rules is planned.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

[MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION]
 [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]

it doesn't change so much... boat rules have higher priority because an adventure not yet published will use them... but not the Artificer rules which are to be used by a product which is already a huge bestseller... 
still a nonsense for me, unless wotc wants the Artificer out of the wayfinder's guide, which is a ghastly perspective for me.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION]
> [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]
> 
> it doesn't change so much... boat rules have higher priority because an adventure not yet published will use them... but not the Artificer rules which are to be used by a product which is already a huge bestseller...
> still a nonsense for me, unless wotc wants the Artificer out of the wayfinder's guide, which is a ghastly perspective for me.




I'm saying it wasn't a priority UNTIL the Wayfare's Guide was released (that's when WotC started making noise about bringing it back to UA for another run), and the Wayfare's Guide didn't have the same priority as a print product. Since Wayfare's Guide's release (which served as an introduction to the setting and a testbed for Eberron-related mechanics), they've said that the artificer would likely be appended to it at a later date, and if Wayfare's Guide was a success that they'd look into doing a print Eberron book. Well, it was success and many here are speculating that the possible "4th release" this year may be that print Eberron book. *IF* the 4th release happens, and *IF* it is an Eberron book, that would be the impetus to get the artificer banged out instead of sitting on it like they've done with the psionicist class and the Krynn stuff (which are low priority until there's a planned print release that they fit into).


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> @_*Azzy*_
> @_*dave2008*_
> 
> it doesn't change so much... boat rules have higher priority because an adventure not yet published will use them... but not the Artificer rules which are to be used by a product which is already a huge bestseller...
> still a nonsense for me, unless wotc wants the Artificer out of the wayfinder's guide, which is a ghastly perspective for me.




They have already said the artificer will be a part of the WGtE.  So that is a not an issue. 

The point is, from WotC perspective, they don't need Artificer rules until there is a finalized product.  WGtE is not a finalized product, it is a WIP, that is why a lot of it has been coming up in UAs lately.  So when WGtE is finalized, it will be included.  However, they have something else coming out this year that does not ship rules, so they want to get those looked at. 

Honestly, since the ship UA is in the middle of the Eberron UAs, I'm guessing we will see both things this year.  Which, from my perspective means they have a pretty similar priority.

EDIT: The real questions is which one should have priority. IMO, that would be the ship rules.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Well, it was success and many here are speculating that the possible "4th release" this year may be that print Eberron book. *IF* the 4th release happens, and *IF* it is an Eberron book, that would be the impetus to get the artificer banged out instead of sitting on it like they've done with the psionicist class and the Krynn stuff (which are low priority until there's a planned print release that they fit into).



exactly, it is a success, so why is it treated as low priority when compared with a boat-themed adventure and related rules for which no one, including wotc, has real data about Customers reception?


----------



## bedir than (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> exactly, it is a success, so why is it treated as low priority when compared with a boat-themed adventure and related rules for which no one, including wotc, has real data about Customers reception?



The boat book was in planning prior to Wayfarers. You can see this as obvious because WGtE is showing you the Work  that all happened behind the scenes for Big Book of Boats. 

We also can make some assumptions about customer interest based off of similar appeals to genre. Pirates of the Caribbean, National Talk Like A Pirate Day, Star Trek, Outlander, Black Sails all indicate strong interest in a Big Book of Boats.


----------



## generic (Jan 13, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Sorry - The fact the homebrew community is providing these options is "more than enough for me."  I don't need WotC to provide "official" versions.




Oh, thanks for the clarification!


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

bedir than said:


> We also can make some assumptions about customer interest based off of similar appeals to genre. Pirates of the Caribbean, National Talk Like A Pirate Day, Star Trek, Outlander, Black Sails all indicate strong interest in a Big Book of Boats.




which, in my opinion, will never sell more than a printed wayfinder with Artificer inside. but it is only my opinion, obviously, just based on the astounding sales of wayfinder's on dmsguild.
and wotc surely has its own reasons to not complete an adamantine best seller and prefer the printed publication of a boat book. reasons totally obscure to me, but convincing for them, at least I hope (for them).


----------



## bedir than (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> which, in my opinion, will never sell more than a printed wayfinder with Artificer inside. but it is only my opinion, obviously, just based on the astounding sales of wayfinder's on dmsguild.
> and wotc surely has its own reasons to not complete an adamantine best seller and prefer the printed publication of a boat book. reasons totally obscure to me, but convincing for them, at least I hope (for them).




They've said that they will complete it and the timeline seems like it will be either late 2019 (similar to Ravnica) or early 2020. Which would put its overall development cycle in that very familiar 18-24 month range.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> exactly, it is a success, so why is it treated as low priority when compared with a boat-themed adventure and related rules for which no one, including wotc, has real data about Customers reception?




The ship themed supplement was in production BEFORE Wayfare's Guide became a success and also take precedence because it is a *print product* rather than a pdf testbed. The artificer, unless it's going to be in a print product (which is a diistinct possibility), still is less of a priority than something that's supposed to be in a *soon to be released* print product. Nothing you can say changes that—unless Eberron gets a print product, the artificer is a lower priority to ANYTHING ELSE that *is* going into a print product.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> which, in my opinion, will never sell more than a printed wayfinder with Artificer inside. but it is only my opinion, obviously, just based on the astounding sales of wayfinder's on dmsguild.




Unlikely. A supplement that isn't setting specific is going to have more general appeal with the masses than a setting-specefic product. Xanathar's will always beat Ravnica, for instance. And Wayfinder's Guide isn't going to be released in print (other than POD)—they've said that, if they do a print Eberron book, that will be designed to compliment the Wayfinder's Guide not simply be a rehash (we'll see how that works, though).


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> it can be. why ships and boats have higher priority than an iconic class is mistery for me, but it can be...there is only one kind of relationship here: no company exists without Customers.




Artificer is not "iconic" for D&D. It has very little history relative to much of the game, was not on the top 10 list of classes people wanted to see during the playtest of the game, there is just no metric which places artificer as "iconic". Ships, on the other hand, have been a part of this game since almost day 1 in the 1970s and had support in every edition of the game on some level. And yes, no company exists without the customer, but as the customers this company has are overall extremely pleased with this companies products so much that it appears to be doing better right now with these products than this company or it's predecessor company ever did with these products, it seems to be doing just fine by the customers. 



CapnZapp said:


> Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news...And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience...They could have released this a year ago, or two years ago. Suggesting this month makes a difference feels like a punch to the face.




Man WOTC has punched you in the face so many times with news (which is apparently not news) I am surprised you still find yourself able to see the screen. I wonder, why do you keep playing a game by a company that is constantly punching you in the face? Is this Stockholm syndrome? Has Mike Mearls kidnapped you and forced you to play this game, while he punches you in the face?


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

[MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION]

I don't believe 'boats&ships' was in development since before 2015 when the first Artificer appeared.

Anyway, I don't want to change anything, if wotc thinks boats deserve a printed product before the Artificer or wayfinder, that's fine. Fool for me, but I'm just one.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 13, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Artificer is not "iconic" for D&D. It has very little history relative to much of the game, was not on the top 10 list of classes people wanted to see during the playtest of the game, there is just no metric which places artificer as "iconic". Ships, on the other hand, have been a part of this game since almost day 1 in the 1970s and had support in every edition of the game on some level.




when I think to dnd there are a lot of images in my mind of skilled dwarves and gnomes tinkering on technomagic items in their labs and very few ferries and oars, but it seems that I'm strict minority in this place. which is not a bad thing by itself, obviously.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=6563]Azzy[/MENTION]
> 
> I don't believe 'boats&ships' was in development since before 2015 when the first Artificer appeared.




I didn't say or imply that it was. When the artifice first showed up, it (like the mystic, the Krynn stuff, the mass-combat rules, and a bunch of other things) was just WotC trying things out with no actual products on the immediate schedule to place them in. It wasn't *until* Wayfinder's Guide (and actually getting Keith Baker involved) that the artificer was seen as anything to look at seriously instead of as some nebulous "something for someday". There are still things from the early UAs that haven't been touched on since—the only reason that the artificer is special is it's a lot closer to seeing print. The closer we get to Dark Sun, we'll also see the psion (in some form or another), but until that's in the print queue we probably won't see hide nor hair of it.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ... just based on the astounding sales of wayfinder's on dmsguild.




You should be careful with this statement as we don't really know it has "astounding sales."  We know if qualifies for the adamantine level which I believe is 5,000 sales.  However, if I recall correctly, WotC is looking to make about 150,000 sales per product.  So 5,000 is a long way away from their sales goals.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Sorry to ruin your party, but this is complete non-news.
> 
> And can somebody point out that its been four years. It's mighty rich asking us to have patience.
> 
> ...




They owe none of that to you. 

They class comes out when it’s ready. This isn’t previous editions, and they aren’t obligated to any release schedule.


----------



## NaturalZero (Jan 14, 2019)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> A gun-based subclass is unlikely to be in the "official" UA Artificer design, since that is probably going to be quite closely connected with Eberron. However there may well be a wand-user archetype that could be converted.
> And there is pretty definitely going to be even more gunslinger-type classes around on DMsGuild.




So you think they're going to toss the gun subclass that they were already testing in the last artificer article? I hope not.


----------



## SkidAce (Jan 14, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Shouldn't we be waiting like 16 more years for an updated then?!  4-5 years is way to fast for me!
> 
> Thank goodness, I would be happy if they completely stopped releasing content.
> 
> ...




I was enjoying the post and laughing with you until you you hated psionics.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 14, 2019)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> I'm just curious if they made an attempt at a crafting system. If not I'll just stick to the Gadgeteer and Craftsman classes from Mage Hand Press.



Yep...honestly, I'm way more excited for MHP to finish up their new binder than for anything WotC is putting out in 2019.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 14, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> So you think they're going to toss the gun subclass that they were already testing in the last artificer article? I hope not.




Quite possibly: whatever they have done is an extensive overhaul.


----------



## DQDesign (Jan 14, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> You should be careful with this statement as we don't really know it has "astounding sales."  We know if qualifies for the adamantine level which I believe is 5,000 sales.  However, if I recall correctly, WotC is looking to make about 150,000 sales per product.  So 5,000 is a long way away from their sales goals.




ok, it is not astounding.
It is only 5,000 copies over the boats thing and, most important to me, 100+ 5-stars ratings above.


----------



## Older Beholder (Jan 14, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> Yep...honestly, I'm way more excited for MHP to finish up their new binder than for anything WotC is putting out in 2019.




Have WotC announced anything coming out in 2019?


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 14, 2019)

I hope that this upcoming artificer hews closer to the spirit of artificers of Eberron more than its predecessor iterations did.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ok, it is not astounding.
> It is only 5,000 copies over the boats thing and, most important to me, 100+ 5-stars ratings above.




First, I apologize that my previous comment came off a bit wrong (can quite put into words at the moment).  Anyway, my point is that it may not have the sales reach they want for a print product.  I really think it is a test bed for future setting content.  It will be successful enough to push them to release PDF and print on demand products this way, but not successful enough to full print versions.  But that is just my guess.


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 14, 2019)

ModernApathy said:


> Have WotC announced anything coming out in 2019?




Yes, check the news feed.  A ship theme product and 3-4 other hard copy products.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Jan 14, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> First, I apologize that my previous comment came off a bit wrong (can quite put into words at the moment).  Anyway, my point is that it may not have the sales reach they want for a print product.  I really think it is a test bed for future setting content.  It will be successful enough to push them to release PDF and print on demand products this way, but not successful enough to full print versions.  But that is just my guess.




Thinking on it I don' really know, as an Eberron fan, if I want them to do an official Eberron product, WGtE is really good, and in this format they give Keith Baker more freedom to aply his vision of Eberron, and for a cheaper price XD.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 14, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> I hope that this upcoming artificer hews closer to the spirit of artificers of Eberron more than its predecessor iterations did.




Well, that's the plan. Whether or not that pans out....


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jan 14, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> I hope that this upcoming artificer hews closer to the spirit of artificers of Eberron more than its predecessor iterations did.




It'll be hard.  The "economy" of magic items in 5E is different than it was in 3.5.  As the artificer in Eberron is at baseline a class that embraced the breadth of the magic item economy of that setting, with the economy changing that will most likely have to change the artificer's baseline.  The class will need to work for non-magic item heavy settings as well and thus it'll probably be a bit different than the 3.5 version to do so.


----------



## Aldarc (Jan 14, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It'll be hard.  The "economy" of magic items in 5E is different than it was in 3.5.  As the artificer in Eberron is at baseline a class that embraced the breadth of the magic item economy of that setting, with the economy changing that will most likely have to change the artificer's baseline.  The class will need to work for non-magic item heavy settings as well and thus it'll probably be a bit different than the 3.5 version to do so.



Most definitely. One of the problems of the previous Artificer, IMO, was that it tried to be too many other concrete things all at once: Eberron artificer, a generic alchemist, a gunslinger, a mechanical rogue, etc. I personally think that WotC should give up the concept of Artificer as gunslinger/gunsmith since Matt Mercer's gunslinger largely fills that role already. 

The Artificer in Eberron was more akin to a guild artisan that would develop from within a magical setting. They looked across the spectrum of magical traditions, regardless of categories like "divine" or "arcane" magic, in a desire to distill and transfer the essence of magic into objects. And through infusions (and crafting), Artificers had a tremendous degree of flexibility in their use and creation of magical items. This magical economy was most definitely rooted in its original 3e context, but also to its benefit, a 5e Artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules. So a 5e Artificer provides the opportunity to present something more streamlined and simple.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Jan 14, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Most definitely. One of the problems of the previous Artificer, IMO, was that it tried to be too many other concrete things all at once: Eberron artificer, a generic alchemist, a gunslinger, a mechanical rogue, etc. I personally think that WotC should give up the concept of Artificer as gunslinger/gunsmith since Matt Mercer's gunslinger largely fills that role already.
> 
> The Artificer in Eberron was more akin to a guild artisan that would develop from within a magical setting. They looked across the spectrum of magical traditions, regardless of categories like "divine" or "arcane" magic, in a desire to distill and transfer the essence of magic into objects. And through infusions (and crafting), Artificers had a tremendous degree of flexibility in their use and creation of magical items. This magical economy was most definitely rooted in its original 3e context, but also to its benefit, a 5e Artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules. So a 5e Artificer provides the opportunity to present something more streamlined and simple.




Also, I think the Wafinder's Guide to Eberron did a good job in making the 5e magic item economy make sense in Eberron. An Artificer that follow those guidelines would probably focus more in common and uncommon magic itens.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 14, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> Also, I think the Wafinder's Guide to Eberron did a good job in making the 5e magic item economy make sense in Eberron. An Artificer that follow those guidelines would probably focus more in common and uncommon magic itens.




Supposedly, this iteration of the artificer is based on suggestions by Keith Baker, so...


----------



## Bill Winski (Jan 14, 2019)

Meh.


----------



## Parmandur (Jan 14, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> First, I apologize that my previous comment came off a bit wrong (can quite put into words at the moment).  Anyway, my point is that it may not have the sales reach they want for a print product.  I really think it is a test bed for future setting content.  It will be successful enough to push them to release PDF and print on demand products this way, but not successful enough to full print versions.  But that is just my guess.




In the Spoilers & Swag, Stewart said that Guildmasters Guide to Ravnica had proven the market is there for setting products lof a similar nature: I reckon we will see an Eberron book like Ravnica, with monsters and other important bits.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jan 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ok, it is not astounding.
> It is only 5,000 copies over the boats thing and, most important to me, 100+ 5-stars ratings above.




Maybe.  Captains and Cannons, a non-WoTC supplement, is ranked #21 right now on DMs Guild (compared to the #4 of Wayfinder's Guide).  This is a 41 page supplement that is ALL about ships.

So yeah, draw your own conclusion but I suppose it seems both are in demand right now.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Jan 14, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Maybe.  Captains and Cannons, a non-WoTC supplement, is ranked #21 right now on DMs Guild (compared to the #4 of Wayfinder's Guide).  This is a 41 page supplement that is ALL about ships whereas Wayfinder's Guide only has a few pages dedicated to the artificer.
> 
> Everyone buying Captains and Cannons is interested in utilizing ships in their campaigns.  I don't think that one can definitively say that everyone buying Wayfinder's Guide is interested in the artificer.
> 
> So yeah, draw your own conclusion but I suppose it seems both are in demand right now.




Wayfinder's Guide has nothing dedicated to the artificer (yet). But I don't know what's the point in this discussion on the priority of ships against boats. Both are wanted and both are coming. Does it really matter that one came 2-3 months earliers?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jan 14, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> Wayfinder's Guide has nothing dedicated to the artificer (yet). But I don't know what's the point in this discussion on the priority of ships against boats. Both are wanted and both are coming. Does it really matter that one came 2-3 months earliers?




Ooops - I missed the boat on that one!


----------



## dave2008 (Jan 14, 2019)

Bill Winski said:


> Meh.



Moo!


----------



## Aiden_Keller_ (Jan 14, 2019)

In Sword Coast D&D 5e....wouldn't this essentially be a wizard that has proficiency with Smith Tools?


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Jan 14, 2019)

I liked the Artificer that appeared in UA, I felt it just needed a couple more archetypes and some fixes to it's companion feature (hopefully regulated to a subclass).  I was completely fine with it's "sort of like sneak attack" features the subclasses got.  It felt different enough from other classes, which is what I felt was great.

And I liked the Gunsmith, it was never meant to be a gunslinger and I saw it as more of a prototype weapon designer, as it was implied that a Gunsmith Artificer might be the only people in the world using guns.  I also didn't feel that Artificers need to adhere to what's in Eberron.  Artificers shouldn't be exclusive to Eberron as there are many out there who have homebrew campaigns, where they can pick and choose what they want.


----------



## NaturalZero (Jan 15, 2019)

Aldarc said:


> Most definitely. One of the problems of the previous Artificer, IMO, was that it tried to be too many other concrete things all at once: Eberron artificer, a generic alchemist, a gunslinger, a mechanical rogue, etc. I personally think that WotC should give up the concept of Artificer as gunslinger/gunsmith since Matt Mercer's gunslinger largely fills that role already.
> 
> The Artificer in Eberron was more akin to a guild artisan that would develop from within a magical setting. They looked across the spectrum of magical traditions, regardless of categories like "divine" or "arcane" magic, in a desire to distill and transfer the essence of magic into objects. And through infusions (and crafting), Artificers had a tremendous degree of flexibility in their use and creation of magical items. This magical economy was most definitely rooted in its original 3e context, but also to its benefit, a 5e Artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules. So a 5e Artificer provides the opportunity to present something more streamlined and simple.




One of my most memorable characters in 3.5 was an artificer, and I enjoyed what it was at the time, but it definitely felt like it was more of a mechanical byproduct of the specific rules of 3e than a archetypal concept with rules created to match. There was no strong build for an alchemist, a mechanical tinkerer, a robot builder, or any of the other concepts you see in popular visions of the fantasy inventor. It played around with XP costs and pushed around crafting budgets but, for the most part, it didn't really do anything that different from other spellcasters in 3.5. It could buff armor and weapons, but so could the wizard or cleric. It could stack metamagic onto wands but other classes were doing mechanically identical things by stacking metamagic onto spell slots. Once you strip away effects that other classes are already doing, what was really left?

As a concept, the artificer would really benefit from being a legit alchemist, gunsmith, golemancer, arcance macguyver, et al. I want to see it doing stuff that no other class in 5e is doing, instead of trying to emulate what it did in 3.5, which was essentially wrapping the class features of other classes into new packages. The way these things manifest could, and should, involve magical crafting, but, as you point out, the artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules.


----------



## Mistwell (Jan 15, 2019)

Bill Winski said:


> Meh.




I rebut your retort with a critique of your retort:

Meh.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Jan 15, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> I liked the Artificer that appeared in UA, I felt it just needed a couple more archetypes and some fixes to it's companion feature (hopefully regulated to a subclass).  I was completely fine with it's "sort of like sneak attack" features the subclasses got.  It felt different enough from other classes, which is what I felt was great.
> 
> And I liked the Gunsmith, it was never meant to be a gunslinger and I saw it as more of a prototype weapon designer, as it was implied that a Gunsmith Artificer might be the only people in the world using guns.  I also didn't feel that Artificers need to adhere to what's in Eberron.  Artificers shouldn't be exclusive to Eberron as there are many out there who have homebrew campaigns, where they can pick and choose what they want.




While I agree Artificers shouldn't be exclusive to Eberron, I believe they should feel like they would fit in Eberron. And sadly that's not the case with that version of the class. None of the subclasses make much sense looking in what the class was in Eberron, and to me that is a problem. You don't need it to fit only Eberron, but at least part of it should mamke sense in that world. Even more so if it will be published in an Eberron book. Maybe you put the more Eberron centric subclasses there, and later you add some that represent how the class would make more sense in other worlds, in another book.


----------



## Charles Rampant (Jan 15, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> One of my most memorable characters in 3.5 was an artificer, and I enjoyed what it was at the time, but it definitely felt like it was more of a mechanical byproduct of the specific rules of 3e than a archetypal concept with rules created to match. There was no strong build for an alchemist, a mechanical tinkerer, a robot builder, or any of the other concepts you see in popular visions of the fantasy inventor. It played around with XP costs and pushed around crafting budgets but, for the most part, it didn't really do anything that different from other spellcasters in 3.5. It could buff armor and weapons, but so could the wizard or cleric. It could stack metamagic onto wands but other classes were doing mechanically identical things by stacking metamagic onto spell slots. Once you strip away effects that other classes are already doing, what was really left?
> 
> As a concept, the artificer would really benefit from being a legit alchemist, gunsmith, golemancer, arcance macguyver, et al. I want to see it doing stuff that no other class in 5e is doing, instead of trying to emulate what it did in 3.5, which was essentially wrapping the class features of other classes into new packages. The way these things manifest could, and should, involve magical crafting, but, as you point out, the artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules.




That's a really interesting point. It touches on (_my view of_) the essential problem with the Warlord class as well - that it was built to fulfil a rules niche, not a story niche, meaning that it is not simply a case of finding the best way to do its story in the new rules set. You could say that Rangers and Sorcerers have the same problem but to a much lesser extent. 

Either way, I've no particular horses in the Artificer race, not being that fussed by it either way, but I'm really hoping it is nothing like that homebrew one that people linked, which is _twenty eight_ pages long. D&D 5e material needs to be sleek.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 15, 2019)

Charles Rampant said:


> Either way, I've no particular horses in the Artificer race, not being that fussed by it either way, but I'm really hoping it is nothing like that homebrew one that people linked, which is _twenty eight_ pages long. D&D 5e material needs to be sleek.



Just to address the complexity issue, which the creator mentions in the Reddit post:

"The most common criticism I get is that the class is too complicated. I think this is probably true, but I don't think it is worth simplifying - and let me explain what I mean by that. The people that are going out to go find an Homebrew Artificer are looking for a class that has actual depth, so it is better served in having depth than being as 5e compliant as possible in terms of streamlining. If I was writing the new WotC version, I'd make cuts I wouldn't make to my Homebrew version... but probably not as many as I expect WotC to make."

That being said, a lot of us like our crunch to be actually crunchy.  Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is _too_ sleek for my tastes.


----------



## ad_hoc (Jan 15, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> Just to address the complexity issue, which the creator mentions in the Reddit post:
> 
> "The most common criticism I get is that the class is too complicated. I think this is probably true, but I don't think it is worth simplifying - and let me explain what I mean by that. The people that are going out to go find an Homebrew Artificer are looking for a class that has actual depth, so it is better served in having depth than being as 5e compliant as possible in terms of streamlining. If I was writing the new WotC version, I'd make cuts I wouldn't make to my Homebrew version... but probably not as many as I expect WotC to make."
> 
> That being said, a lot of us like our crunch to be actually crunchy.  Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is _too_ sleek for my tastes.




I think you're right and one reason I will probably never use homebrew.

I'm just not the market for it.

I'm glad for this system though. All those who are wanting more more more from WotC really ought to check out the things other people are making.


----------



## Azzy (Jan 15, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is _too_ sleek for my tastes.




Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.


----------



## TwoSix (Jan 15, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.



I was talking subclasses, i.e. Xanathar's.  XgtE has 3-4 subclasses that fit on 2 pages.

The referenced Artificer has 6 subclasses, each of which has 15-20 custom upgrades to pick from (which are similar to Warlock invocations).  It would be easy to trim down, but then it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.


----------



## cbwjm (Jan 15, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.



I think some people like a little more complexity for their classes. I do like the simplicity of 5e but sometimes I'd like something with a few more moving parts.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jan 16, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I think some people like a little more complexity for their classes. I do like the simplicity of 5e but sometimes I'd like something with a few more moving parts.



This is why I end up playing more Warlocks than anything else. Between Patron, Pact Boon, Spells, and Invocations, there are _just_ enough decision points to hold my interest. Most other 5e classes just don’t have enough going on, they all feel extremely bland and same-y to me.


----------



## JPL (Jan 16, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I have a player in my Eberron game using KibbleTasty's expanded Artificer class that they built up from the previous WotC UA and thus far it works well.




Now that is a pretty hip class.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Luke Biltcliffe (Jan 18, 2019)

Is it that upgrade by xp to level 3.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 12, 2019)

Looks like we'll be getting the artificer UA in the last week of Feb. Apparently the Pacific Northwest is being battered with snowstorms. 
View attachment 104734


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 12, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Looks like we'll be getting the artificer UA in the last week of Feb. Apparently the Pacific Northwest is being battered with snowstorms.



Yes it would matter if those involved in getting the article out can't get to work, I'm experiencing the same weather and suspected as much once a lot of snow started appearing.


----------



## CrimsonCarcharodon (Feb 12, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Yes it would matter if those involved in getting the article out can't get to work, I'm experiencing the same weather and suspected as much once a lot of snow started appearing.




There's been a state of emergency in Seattle and surrounding areas. I know certain areas have gotten upwards of a foot of snow in a period of only a few days. Snow's not that common in Washington, so it's kind of understandable. There are a bunch of places that closed early or closed entirely for a day or two. It's a whole thing.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 12, 2019)

Back in my day when we had to work from home because of snow, we put all our work in an envelope and mailed it!  We carried that envelope uphill both ways until it got delivered.

Then we went back home and kicked all the snow off our yard and sat on the porch because we were snowed in and had to work from home!

Pshaw!


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 12, 2019)

So long as this version doesn't have an infinite bottle factory...


----------



## Seramus (Feb 12, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> So long as this version doesn't have an infinite bottle factory...



Infinite bottle factory was one of the really unique and delightful things about the class. Certainly no worse than all the other infinites in the game, and a fun reason to engage more with NPCs.


----------



## bedir than (Feb 12, 2019)

CrimsonCarcharodon said:


> There's been a state of emergency in Seattle and surrounding areas. I know certain areas have gotten upwards of a foot of snow in a period of only a few days. Snow's not that common in Washington, so it's kind of understandable. There are a bunch of places that closed early or closed entirely for a day or two. It's a whole thing.



I live in Renton. The school district was closed Thursday, Friday, Monday, Tuesday. The snowfall in the region is the highest amount in a month in over 50 years. It's only been just over a week of snow. 
It's nearly two feet of snowfall since Feb 4.
Most non-essential government services closed for multiple days.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2019)

Yeah, can't blame WotC for nature.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 12, 2019)

Another viewpoint is that after five long years WotC still haven't managed to publish a single new class.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 12, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Another viewpoint is that after five long years WotC still haven't managed to publish a single new class.




Good, caution is the better part of valor.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 12, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> So long as this version doesn't have an infinite bottle factory...




I think it's generally assumed everyone has infinite ammo now, as I feel many groups don't want to count how many arrows, bolts, bullets, etc they're carrying.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 12, 2019)

So I spend a hour throwing 600 acid flasks, creating an impenetrable barrier of broken glass....


----------



## Gradine (Feb 12, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> So I spend a hour throwing 600 acid flasks, creating an impenetrable barrier of broken glass....




It's also generally assumed we care as much if not more about the _spirit_ of the rules than the exact letter.


----------



## CrimsonCarcharodon (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Another viewpoint is that after five long years WotC still haven't managed to publish a single new class.




So what? We're not entitled to new classes. They've put out UA versions of the artificer and mystic, and there are dozens of third-party publishers putting out new classes online. Who cares that WotC hasn't thrown a glut of classes at us again?


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 13, 2019)

Charles Rampant said:


> That's a really interesting point. It touches on (_my view of_) the essential problem with the Warlord class as well - that it was built to fulfil a rules niche, not a story niche, meaning that it is not simply a case of finding the best way to do its story in the new rules set. You could say that Rangers and Sorcerers have the same problem but to a much lesser extent.




I know it's a month out, and this thread has technically risen from it's grave, However...

Both the Cleric(Priest) and the Rogue(Thief) out of the "Core Four" were primarily made to fulfill a rules niche.
The Cleric was created explicitly to counter undead characters from ruining everything, with the added bonus of speeding up recovery time.
And Rogues were created to have a gimmicky non-combat character who countered the traps that were everywhere. 

Nowadays, we realize the problems with fixing such problems by introducing a new class. Rogues no longer have the monopoly on dealing with traps, locks, and skills in general. And fast healing is the default rule (despite the grumblings of Grognards).

Quite frankly, I think the game would be better off if the Rogue was folded into the Fighter, and the Cleric was turned into subclasses for the other classes. Heck, we are more than halfway there with the Cleric already!.

As for my view on the essential problem with the Warlord: It's the latest culprit in a long line of perpetrators that robs the Fighter of some cool thing that they should be able to do, and quarantines it off into it's own class.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 13, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, can't blame WotC for nature.




Well we can blame Western civilization for that one.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 13, 2019)

Given that there was a new announcement about exactly when in February the UA would be release, I don't think accusations of necromancy are valid.

I would say the thief class was added to fill a story niche, not a rules niche. The thief archetype was quite common in the Conan stories and the other swords and sorcery pulp fiction that inspired D&D.

And then the proliferation of locks and traps was added as a consequence, to justify the inclusion of a thief in the party.

The cleric was added to fill a rules niche though - can't think of many examples of the archetype in stories, apart from a couple of villains.

The Artificer is interesting, because it fills a story niche, but not one that existed at the time D&D was originally created. It arose later, along with the Steampunk genre.

The Warlord was created to specifically fill a rules niche in the 4e rules. Without 4e it's niche disappears.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 13, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Good, caution is the better part of valor.



If you aren't just trolling, and really believe five years between class additions is a reasonable development span, boy are you out of touch.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 13, 2019)

CrimsonCarcharodon said:


> So what? We're not entitled to new classes. They've put out UA versions of the artificer and mystic, and there are dozens of third-party publishers putting out new classes online. Who cares that WotC hasn't thrown a glut of classes at us again?



Strawman after strawman.

One class is not a glut. Nobody talked about entitlement. Putting out UA counts for very little.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 13, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The Artificer is interesting, because it fills a story niche, but not one that existed at the time D&D was originally created. It arose later, along with the Steampunk genre.




I kinda feel like the broad strokes of the artificer do actually pre-date DnD.  I think about Hephaestus creating robots and mechanical golden women in greek myth and medieval alchemists creating homonculi and "magic" formulas, for example.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> If you aren't just trolling, and really believe five years between class additions is a reasonable development span, boy are you out of touch.




I think there's quite a fair few of us on these forums in particular who like the slower pace of design content output by Wizards. There's certainly less of an uneven quality in design, barring a few outliers and Wizards seem willing to address those in the future, and certainly less of a glut of decision paralysis overall. 
I definitely wouldn't mind seeing factotums, or dragon sorcerers or spellthieves or truenamers or the casters who use chakra, or swordmages, etc, but the question would be would these work within the design and narrative framework of 5e? And could a subclass - current or to be designed - adequately capture the feel of these classes? 

I think something that could be born in mind is whether a player's concept of a character could work reasonably well within the current options that we already have. 



CapnZapp said:


> Strawman after strawman.
> 
> One class is not a glut. Nobody talked about entitlement.




It's true though that the DMsGuild is an excellent resource of third-party content, and content from older editions. 



> Putting out UA counts for very little.



I feel this is extremely unfair to the playtesting process and to the playtesters.


----------



## CrimsonCarcharodon (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Strawman after strawman.
> 
> One class is not a glut. Nobody talked about entitlement. Putting out UA counts for very little.




Whining that WotC hasn't put out a single class in "five long years" sounds an awful lot like entitlement. It's not like WotC isn't supporting this edition. There are new subclasses, plenty of books, UA, and the DM's Guild.  

There are dozens of new classes on DM's Guild and elsewhere on the Internet. You just have to look for them instead of complaining that WotC isn't doing it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 13, 2019)

If I thought there was a narrative hole that only a new class could fill, I'd be all for it.  That's one of the reasons why I like the Artificer-- because in the Eberron campaign setting specifically... a setting that puts a premium on magitech and magical items being much more prevalent... having a class specifically built to provide them makes for a fuller setting.  That's also why I love kibbletasty's Artificer revamp-- because Eberron can _easily_ support the six different subclassed versions of it, and having each one get its own list of "invocations" adds to it.  Complex?  Sure.  But very people choose to play in Eberron because they want an "easier" D&D experience than the Forgotten Realms.

As far as other classes are concerned?  If a setting has a hole to fill, then I'm good with them making one.  But at the same time if it can be filled by subclasses of existing classes, I'm good with that too.  Truth be told, I don't need/require more or less than we have, and would have been fine with whatever WotC had given us.  Had they given us just the Core Four and all the other current classes were merely subclasses of the Core Four?  That would have been fine.  Or if the subclass system didn't exist and all the thematic subclasses we currently have had all been individual 20-level classes?  I'd have been okay with that format too.

Because at the end of the day... whether or not themes are classes or subclasses or backgrounds really just come down to game mechanics.  How many different groups of 20 levels worth of game mechanics do we receive... or how many groups of 3 or 4 levels worth of new mechanics we get layered on top of other 20 levels, or how many get a single feature worth of mechanics layered on top of all those other things?  Which is why none of it really matters to me personally, because I play the game for the narrative and not just to use different game mechanics.  If I play 6 rogues in a row and they all use the same 90% of game mechanics each and every time?  If I create a different narrative for each of them and they grow and evolve differently over time... I'm good with it.  95% of D&D is rolling the exact same dice in the exact same ways over and over and over and over and over again... so feeling like I need new and different ways for that remaining 5% is a bit extreme.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 13, 2019)

CrimsonCarcharodon said:


> Whining that WotC hasn't put out a single class in "five long years" sounds an awful lot like entitlement. It's not like WotC isn't supporting this edition. There are new subclasses, plenty of books, UA, and the DM's Guild.
> 
> There are dozens of new classes on DM's Guild and elsewhere on the Internet. You just have to look for them instead of complaining that WotC isn't doing it.



Let me offer the alternative viewpoint: Thinking it is okay that WotC sits on its thumbs crunchwise for year after year sounds an awful lot like mindless fanboyism.

To me, the shifts in how many fans react depending on their corporate masters is ridiculous. 

During 3E what WotC did or said was the One True Way and every dissenting voice was whining. During 4E what WotC did or said was the One True Way and every dissenting voice was whining (although, thank god, this voice died down pretty quick). 

And now with 5E what WotC does (or doesn't) or says is the One True Way and every dissenting voice was whining. 

In reality, of course, not releasing a single new class in five years is a huge disappointment. There is nothing unreasonable about this sentiment.

Man, I feel like the boy calling out the Emperor as naked. There are too many people content to discuss which exact week the second iteration of the Artificer comes out, and not enough people questioning the overall dearth of new classes and the obvious fact that WotCs so called "strategy" for new content... is to release next to nothing at all!


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 13, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> I feel this is extremely unfair to the playtesting process and to the playtesters.



You respond as if what I said was that the UA process was worthless.

It is not and I never said so.

What I do say and stand for is:

Dragging out the playtest year after year is ridiculously slow. It is still not done. The focus shouldn't entirely be on excitement "oh what will we get". WotC has not deserved that.

This thread needs to also ask hard questions, mainly "why isn't this in a hardback already?"

Since nobody else added it, I did


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> If you aren't just trolling, and really believe five years between class additions is a reasonable development span, boy are you out of touch.




"Out of touch" with...what? What's popular? The careful approach to adding rules elements clearly hasn't hurt the game. With what is current? This has been the way of things for this whole decade, so it clearly what is in right now.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> You respond as if what I said was that the UA process was worthless.
> 
> It is not and I never said so.
> 
> ...




So what did you mean when you said "Putting out UA counts for very little"? I don't want to speak for you and put words in your mouth. 
There's no inference there to your point of the tedium of the playtest cycle. 

That you feel that playtesting is being dragged out is your prerogative, but I feel it serves to articulate the ideas that need to be articulated and expressed. It also serves to ensure, hopefully, the quality of the mechanics. 

When you ask the question of "why isn't this is in a hardback already?" you potentially get something like what's transpiring with the PF2.0 playtest. That's not asking a hard question, that's merely impatience in not wanting to see the quality audit of the mechanics through.


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Another viewpoint is that after five long years WotC still haven't managed to publish a single new class.




Yet another viewpoint is that after five years some people have still failed to take responsibility for their own game.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> In reality, of course, not releasing a single new class in five years is a huge disappointment. There is nothing unreasonable about this sentiment.
> 
> Man, I feel like the boy calling out the Emperor as naked. There are too many people content to discuss which exact week the second iteration of the Artificer comes out, and not enough people questioning the overall dearth of new classes and the obvious fact that WotCs so called "strategy" for new content... is to release next to nothing at all!




I confirm, nothing unreasonable.
And you are not alone, I see it naked exactly as you do.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 13, 2019)

I can see both the frustration with the dearth of crunch as well as the appreciation. It's not about "being okay" with WotC only releasing new races and class archetypes at this point, and no official new full class after years. It's in seeing that as a _feature_ and not as a _bug._

As someone who introduced new players to 3.5 after the end of its run, I feel I can say with certainty that D&D does not need fifty classes, nor does it need dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of races, nor does it need hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of feats or spells. That the closest thing WotC has to a true competitor (and I'd argue it was one in the lead up to 5e) has already sort of cornered the market on that style of game system, it actually makes a certain kind of sense to go in a different direction. I, for one, appreciate that the game is not considerably more complex now than it was five years ago. It's great not only for new players but especially for new DMs; I can imagine someone wanting to try out DMing (especially if there is no one in the group with much experience with the system) trying to pick up a game like 3.5 or PF or even 4e and suffering from a kind of archive panic. 5e is not going to instill the same sense of dread, and it's not likely that it ever will.

Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 13, 2019)

There's nothing wrong with  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] or  [MENTION=6781549]DQDesign[/MENTION] believing a snail's pace release schedule sucks for getting new "official" game mechanics (if that matters to you).  But I also think we can't deny that their pace has not made their business suffer.  And I'd be reticent to put forth the idea that D&D would be "stronger" than they are right now had they been putting out books of game mechanics at the rate they did for 3E and 4E.

Expectation for what's coming up has kept interest going for D&D even to us cynics on ENWorld.  The fact that we have 100 post threads about trying to divine what two pages of a book might mean and represent is indicative of that.  So while some folks want more faster (and there's nothing wrong with that), all of us can understand and accept why we don't get it.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> There's nothing wrong with  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] or  [MENTION=6781549]DQDesign[/MENTION] believing a snail's pace release schedule sucks for getting new "official" game mechanics (if that matters to you).  But I also think we can't deny that their pace has not made their business suffer.  And I'd be reticent to put forth the idea that D&D would be "stronger" than they are right now had they been putting out books of game mechanics at the rate they did for 3E and 4E.
> 
> Expectation for what's coming up has kept interest going for D&D even to us cynics on ENWorld.  The fact that we have 100 post threads about trying to divine what two pages of a book might mean and represent is indicative of that.  So while some folks want more faster (and there's nothing wrong with that), all of us can understand and accept why we don't get it.




thanks for the appraciation. sincerely.
anyway, I think me and CapnZapp would like to see stuff not faster, simply in human reasonably time. which, realistically, cannot be four years for a base class.


----------



## OB1 (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.




And it can be both a feature for me and a bug for [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] at the same time. There is no right or wrong about this, just a preference. 

Being called a corporate tool who can’t see through the lies and laziness of WoTC for expressing my preference is just lame.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.



why, because you don't like my thoughts?
I'm free to think, and above all, write here, anything I want within the forum rules.
and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> why, because you don't like my thoughts?
> I'm free to think, and above all, write here, anything I want within the forum rules.
> and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.




None of this is the problem. The problem is accusing those who disagree with you of being clueless, passive cowardly sheep. That kind of _is_ against the forum rules.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> None of this is the problem. The problem is accusing those who disagree with you of being clueless, passive corporate shills. That kind of _is_ against the forum rules.



quote my posts in which I did that, please.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> I can see both the frustration with the dearth of crunch as well as the appreciation. It's not about "being okay" with WotC only releasing new races and class archetypes at this point, and no official new full class after years. It's in seeing that as a _feature_ and not as a _bug._
> 
> As someone who introduced new players to 3.5 after the end of its run, I feel I can say with certainty that D&D does not need fifty classes, nor does it need dozens upon dozens (if not hundreds) of races, nor does it need hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of feats or spells. That the closest thing WotC has to a true competitor (and I'd argue it was one in the lead up to 5e) has already sort of cornered the market on that style of game system, it actually makes a certain kind of sense to go in a different direction. I, for one, appreciate that the game is not considerably more complex now than it was five years ago. It's great not only for new players but especially for new DMs; I can imagine someone wanting to try out DMing (especially if there is no one in the group with much experience with the system) trying to pick up a game like 3.5 or PF or even 4e and suffering from a kind of archive panic. 5e is not going to instill the same sense of dread, and it's not likely that it ever will.
> 
> Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.




The logical extreme that anyone who thinks there should be a few more classes and subclasses wants broken 3.5 back is what actually needs to go. Expecting people whose job is to design to you know actually design is not unreasonable


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 13, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> The logical extreme that anyone who thinks there should be a few more classes and subclasses wants broken 3.5 back is what actually needs to go. Expecting people whose job is to design to you know actually design is not unreasonable




And lo and behold, they have: there have been a number of Subclasses introduced, and Subclass design is the Thing for 5E, like Kits in 2E or Classes in 3.x. Actual Classes, which are expected to support 12+ Subclasses conceptually, are a long term proposition.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> quote my posts in which I did that, please.




You do understand what "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about right?

Edit: Hint: It is not exactly a flattering portrait of the Emperor's supporters.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> You do understand what "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about right?




of course, about people who see the emperor dressed because they fear his unquestionable authority, not because they are paid from him.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> of course, about people who see the emperor dressed because they fear his unquestionable authority, not because they are paid from him.




You do realize that that's not any better, right?


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> why, because you don't like my thoughts?
> I'm free to think, and above all, write here, anything I want within the forum rules.
> and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.




Oof. Someone doesn’t pay attention.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 13, 2019)

Gradine said:


> You do realize that that's not any better, right?




nevertheless, you lied when you wrote that I accused someone being a 'corporate shill'.

and I am not obliged to flatter anyone here.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> nevertheless, you lied when you wrote that I accused someone being a 'corporate shill'.




"Corporate shill" was perhaps not the best phrase. I replaced it with "cowardly sheep". Happy now?



> and I am not obliged to flatter anyone here.




You are rather obliged not to insult anyone here, however.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 13, 2019)

Just chill down. Same people repeating the same thing over and over again and again beating a dead horse...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 13, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Let me offer the alternative viewpoint: Thinking it is okay that WotC sits on its thumbs crunchwise for year after year sounds an awful lot like mindless fanboyism.



 Thinking that WotC has sat on its thumbs crunchwise for year after year sounds a awful lot like hyperbole. Particularly in a post that quotes someone detailing some of the crunch that WotC _have _been putting out year after year.
You may not like it. You may want them to make more. But you can't deny that they have put out crunch.



> To me, the shifts in how many fans react depending on their corporate masters is ridiculous.



 Eh. My corporate masters couldn't really care less about how I react to D&D.

"During 3E what WotC did or said was the Worst Thing Ever to happen to D&D and every dissenting voice was fanboyism. During 4E whatever WotC did or said was the Worst Thing Ever to happen to D&D and every dissenting voice was fanboyism (although there were less of those voices). 

And now with 5E what WotC does (or doesn't) or says is laziness, incompetence or hatred and every dissenting voice is fanboyism."



> In reality, of course, not releasing a single new class in five years is a huge disappointment. There is nothing unreasonable about this sentiment.



 Certainly not. You're entitled to state your own personal opinion or sentiment. That you and others were personally hoping for more official base classes for 5e is entirely acceptable and politely stating this preference in a thread about WotC's release schedule would be completely reasonable.



> Man, I feel like the boy calling out the Emperor as naked. There are too many people content to discuss which exact week the second iteration of the Artificer comes out, and not enough people questioning the overall dearth of new classes and the obvious fact that WotCs so called "strategy" for new content... is to release next to nothing at all!



 Nah. You're the boy calling out that the emperor should be wearing less silk and more fur. 

People interested in the Artificer class are interested in when it comes out, and are discussing it in a thread created for that exact purpose. Are you upset that there are a lot of them?
Are you upset that a lot of people are happy with 5e's release schedule?


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Feb 13, 2019)

5 years of complaining about WotC's release schedule, and still the complainers haven't found an interesting or creative way to complain.  The laziness of the complaining class is beyond dispute.  The Troll Overlords need new shills.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 13, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.




I'm not sure claiming they're directionless is reasonable, we're just not privy to their internal production cycles. We can see that their intent with UA is to publish these outcomes in books, only the classes and races are made generic so as to not tip their hand as to what is next in line. Although as the artificer is so heavily tied to Eberron, they can only hide that connection for so long. 

I don't feel they're hiding behind years of playtesting, that's extremely belittling of the entire playtesting and feedback process and implies malice where there is none. 
The mechanical and narrative framework of 5e is also different to past editions, the question of whether a class or subclass fits within that framework and the question of how to design within that framework are things that need to be hammered out and worked upon. The extremely easy fix is to rush it out and do a rush job, but then they'll be decried for their carelessness and inability to test properly.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 13, 2019)

MechaTarrasque said:


> 5 years of complaining about WotC's release schedule, and still the complainers haven't found an interesting or creative way to complain.  The laziness of the complaining class is beyond dispute.  The Troll Overlords need new shills.



I like how they call everyone who is happy with how the DnD team is doing things a corporate shill. So thought provoking, I'm sure many have rethought their generally happy position on the release schedule after being called a shill.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 13, 2019)

cbwjm said:


> I like how they call everyone who is happy with how the DnD team is doing things a corporate shill. So thought provoking, I'm sure many have rethought their generally happy position on the release schedule after being called a shill.




It's even worse if you validate their complaints by telling them that it's okay that they don't like something. 

I guess the part where they get upset is when you tell them that them not liking something doesn't mean that it is wrong. And perhaps people like it this way.

Maybe it comes down to people being attached to D&D. I've seen people have the stance that it should be all things to all people because it is D&D. If there are people who don't like the game then it is flawed. 

It's funny that this idea is still prevalent after we had 4e. 

There was a time when people thought D&D might be dead forever. But now that it is not only doing well but is the most popular RPG of all time, people feel they are entitled to it being a certain way.

I'm thankful it is still going. I'm also thankful that it is exactly what I want. I didn't care for 4e at all but I was happy for those who did.


----------



## CrimsonCarcharodon (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Let me offer the alternative viewpoint: Thinking it is okay that WotC sits on its thumbs crunchwise for year after year sounds an awful lot like mindless fanboyism.
> 
> To me, the shifts in how many fans react depending on their corporate masters is ridiculous.
> 
> ...




Sitting on its thumbs crunchwise? So, Xanathar's Guide doesn't count? The piles of monsters in Volo's and Mordenkainen's don't count? New spells, races, and class options in Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica don't count? WotC has put out plenty of mechanical content.

It's not a One True Way. WotC has done plenty that I'd have done differently. But slowing down the progression of books is one thing about WotC's direction of 5E that is exactly what I wanted, so I could actually keep up with the release schedule instead of being six months behind and trying to catch up, as was the case for 3.5 and 4E.

And WotC opening the DM's Guild was pure brilliance and really brings home the fact that D&D today, like D&D of the 70s, has a massive place for homebrewed content.

The difference here is expectations. You expect WotC to do what you want them to: release new classes and a ton of new mechanical widgets, like they did in 3.5 and 4E. I expect WotC to release whatever they feel like. If it's interesting, I'll buy it. If it isn't, I won't. And if I need something mechanical for a game that WotC hasn't put out yet, I'll either find a third-party that does it or I'll write it myself instead of complaining that WotC doesn't have it.


----------



## Seramus (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Let me offer the alternative viewpoint: Thinking it is okay that WotC sits on its thumbs crunchwise for year after year sounds an awful lot like mindless fanboyism.
> 
> To me, the shifts in how many fans react depending on their corporate masters is ridiculous.



There is nothing wrong with having a sad about the release schedule of complete classes. It is a preference you are absolutely entitled to, and one I share to a lesser degree. But the implication that there is anything wrong with being a fanboy, or having corporate masters? That's not cool, man.

You seem very unhappy with D&D in general.
Can we recommend other game systems you might enjoy more?


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 14, 2019)

Why is the desire for a single, solitary new class being met with constant strawman attacks against the apocalyptic deluge of classes in the past two editions? 

Forget the Emperor's New Clothes, the issue is a Three Bears scenario. Some want dangerous hot porridge, with 50 new classes, some want ice-cold porridge, with no new classes ever, but I imagine that most people want something in between.  The folks looking for an official artificer are asking the the ice-cold porridge to be heated up a measly 3 degrees.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 14, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> Why is the desire for a single, solitary new class being met with constant strawman attacks against the apocalyptic deluge of classes in the past two editions?
> 
> Forget the Emperor's New Clothes, the issue is a Three Bears scenario. Some want dangerous hot porridge, with 50 new classes, some want ice-cold porridge, with no new classes ever, but I imagine that most people want something in between.  The folks looking for an official artificer are asking the the ice-cold porridge to be heated up a measly 3 degrees.



What makes this issue get contentious isn't the fact that some people (myself included) would like more crunch, and some would like less.  It's the assertion that WotC has somehow committed a moral failure in not delivering more crunch.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 14, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> What makes this issue get contentious isn't the fact that some people (myself included) would like more crunch, and some would like less.  It's the assertion that WotC has somehow committed a moral failure in not delivering more crunch.




Even more so, it’s the assertion that those of us who are happy with current are foolish sheeple.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 14, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Again, you can see that as either a feature or a bug; there are valid arguments for both, even if I don't necessarily agree personally with all of them. But these "the emperor has no clothes" allusions really need to stop.




What really does need to stop is asking us all between only two choices: either fifty classes, one more ridiculously specific than the other. Or nothing at all.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 14, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> There's nothing wrong with  [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] or  [MENTION=6781549]DQDesign[/MENTION] believing a snail's pace release schedule sucks for getting new "official" game mechanics (if that matters to you).  But I also think we can't deny that their pace has not made their business suffer.



What I especially oppose is the notion that as a fan of a game, I'm only allowed to have wants and needs that align perfectly with maximizing company profits.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> why, because you don't like my thoughts?
> I'm free to think, and above all, write here, anything I want within the forum rules.
> and I think wotc has no clear publishing strategy nor decent approach to release schedule. and that hiding that behind 'four years of playtesting are needed for a basic class' is ridiculous and disrespectful of customers' intelligence.




Just to clarify, the HC Andersen allegory came from me, and I am neither DQDesign nor Gradine.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 14, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> The logical extreme that anyone who thinks there should be a few more classes and subclasses wants broken 3.5 back is what actually needs to go.



Thank you.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 14, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> And lo and behold, they have: there have been a number of Subclasses introduced, and Subclass design is the Thing for 5E, like Kits in 2E or Classes in 3.x. Actual Classes, which are expected to support 12+ Subclasses conceptually, are a long term proposition.



And look and behold, that's not what I'm asking for.

Most new subclasses are lazy rehashes of where exactly you gain Advantage.

I'm talking about new classes. This thread is about a new class.

Your post is irrelevant and likely meant only to dismiss my credibility.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Feb 14, 2019)

If WotC doesn't sell sourcebooks with new classes then it will be published by third party companies, and someone of them are in the SRD now.

My opinion is subclasses are like the same dress with a different color and some fashion accessories but some players want to wear different clothes, like a mark of identity. 

Maybe WotC and Dreamscarred press should make an agreement for a new version of magic of incarnum+Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, and with Radiance House for the vestige pact binder.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> What I especially oppose is the notion that as a fan of a game, I'm only allowed to have wants and needs that align perfectly with maximizing company profits.




the problem is even worse.
there are data which clearly show that non-FR material is very appreaciated by fans. see for example dndBeyond data or enworld reviews about curse of strahd.
there are also data which clearly show that crunch material is very appreciated by fans, see for example the amazing selling performances of xanathar.
so actually publishing something not-FR and crunchy (for example, the Artificer) would clearly maximize wotc profits.
and they instead decide to publish the 'seasickness handbook' and leave the artificer in the fridge for a lot of years. saying that it is for 'playtesting needs'.
moreover, they clearly stated that they will never publish something related to spelljammer or mystara, and they leave both the settings blocked on dmsguild for development. maybe because do they know that non-FR stuff is very appreciated there (see wayfinder eberron)??
anyone here is obviously allowed to consider that a very good approach towards the customers and the community, also basing his appreciation on the simple fact that wotc is 'THE authority'.
but I prefer to consider that a confusingly approach at best, and I think both the community, the brand and the customers would deserve something better.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> And look and behold, that's not what I'm asking for.
> 
> Most new subclasses are lazy rehashes of where exactly you gain Advantage.
> 
> ...




A Subclass makes significant mechanical and narrative differences, but yes, is easier to do than a whole Class.

Their stated goal with a new Class is to achieve parity with the satisfaction rates the base Classes (90% approval threshold). That is, make something balanced (difficult) and popular (double the trouble). This takes time and testing, years of it. They are producing crunch that people use, in a way that makes their customers happy. What monsters.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> the problem is even worse.
> there are data which clearly show that non-FR material is very appreaciated by fans. see for example dndBeyond data or enworld reviews about curse of strahd.
> there are also data which clearly show that crunch material is very appreciated by fans, see for example the amazing selling performances of xanathar.
> so actually publishing something not-FR and crunchy (for example, the Artificer) would clearly maximize wotc profits.
> ...




Let's not go overboard here though.  The reason why the artificer hasn't been released after all this time is entirely based upon when they are ready to release a 5E Eberron setting because that is where the artificer comes from and is primarily meant to be played.  Now if you want to argue they should have released Eberron two year ago (and thus we'd receive an artificer two years ago too), fine.  But let's not confuse that with this idea that they have deliberately held back making a new class just because they felt like it.  They've held back making a new class because they wanted to fit it into a product that actually uses and needs that new class.  The same way they've held back on the Psionmystic-- because its primary function has been to enhance Dark Sun.  And until they are ready to produce Dark Sun, they have no place to put psionics "just because".

And as far as opening up Spelljammer or Mystara or any other settings to DMs Guild for people to produce their own material... first of all I have no idea why anyone would actually want to make things for those settings right now in the first place.  Without the WotC machine producing Spelljammer and Mystara material to promote those settings, just how many copies of a Spelljammer module do you think you can sell?  And without the official rules on things *like* how Spelljammers work or the types of monsters and enemies and adventures that Spelljammers deal with... just how useful of things can you really make for publication?

And then secondly of course is that WotC is under no obligation to help other people make money off their stuff.  They *are* doing it because it helps keep their current storylines active for a whole heap of people, especially through Adventurer's League.  But why would they want people to produce product for things that aren't currently active?  How does that help anybody (either themselves, the players, or indeed the content creators?)  I'll be honest... I almost think they're doing people a favor by NOT letting them make stuff for settings that practically nobody is playing right now.  They're keeping content creators from making a marketing mistake by producing something for which there is legitimately almost no market.  Now if you want to argue that it should be up to the creators to determine whether they want to make that mistake by producing items for setting for which there is little to no market... okay, feel free to make that argument.  But I suspect you'll find very few people who would go along with you on that thinking that is was a good or smart idea.

Instead... WotC is telling all of us "If you want to make product that people will actually use, make it for the settings that are currently active, *or* make it generic and have faith that if there are small isolated pockets of fandom out there running campaigns in non-active settings, they will know how to take generic material and fit it into their specific setting.  But don't waste your time and energy trying to help out a 1% marketshare group and forsake the other 99%."

After all... if we think most DMs Guild product goes flying by unnoticed by most of the gamer population NOW... it'll be even worse when you slap on a "For use with X setting" sticker that'll mean nothing to almost everybody except for a select few.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ...moreover, they clearly stated that they will never publish something related to spelljammer or mystara, and they leave both the settings blocked on dmsguild for development.



That is not what they said.  They said - "not this year."  That is a pretty strong implication that it is planned or in the plans for the future.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> What I especially oppose is the notion that as a fan of a game, I'm only allowed to have wants and needs that align perfectly with maximizing company profits.




Literally nobody has advanced this notion, implicitly or explicitly. What has been said is that people like what they are doing, and their moral obligation is to make fiscally responsible product. Two separate thoughts, which happily align for many of us. WotC isn't under any moral obligation to meet a crunch quota.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 14, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Let's not go overboard here though.  The reason why the artificer hasn't been released after all this time is entirely based upon when they are ready to release a 5E Eberron setting because that is where the artificer comes from and is primarily meant to be played.  Now if you want to argue they should have released Eberron two year ago (and thus we'd receive an artificer two years ago too), fine.  But let's not confuse that with this idea that they have deliberately held back making a new class just because they felt like it.  They've held back making a new class because they wanted to fit it into a product that actually uses and needs that new class.  The same way they've held back on the Psionmystic-- because its primary function has been to enhance Dark Sun.  And until they are ready to produce Dark Sun, they have no place to put psionics "just because".
> 
> And as far as opening up Spelljammer or Mystara or any other settings to DMs Guild for people to produce their own material... first of all I have no idea why anyone would actually want to make things for those settings right now in the first place.  Without the WotC machine producing Spelljammer and Mystara material to promote those settings, just how many copies of a Spelljammer module do you think you can sell?  And without the official rules on things *like* how Spelljammers work or the types of monsters and enemies and adventures that Spelljammers deal with... just how useful of things can you really make for publication?
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think they are withholding settings for legitimate brand managing purposes, which benefit everyone in the long run. That's the key to WotC current strategy: long-term thinking.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 14, 2019)

[MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]

the Artificer does not come from Eberron. it was introduced in 1996 in 'players' options: spells&magic' as a wizard subclass, exactly as done in the first 5E wotc UA related to it. neither the psions were introduced in Dark Sun, they were already present in 1st edition AD&D handbook, so reasoning about those classes being tied to specific settings is pointless. both of them were firstly designed before the settings you cite, so clearly there is another reason because they are not published now, and that reason is not tied to campaign settings.

moreover, remember that wotc takes 50% of every penny gained on dmsguild, so their are not helping only authors making money, they are helping themselves a lot.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION]
> 
> the Artificer does not come from Eberron. it was introduced in 1996 in 'players' options: spells&magic' as a wizard subclass, exactly as done in the first 5E wotc UA related to it. neither the psions were introduced in Dark Sun, they were already present in 1st edition AD&D handbook, so reasoning about those classes being tied to specific settings is pointless. both of them were firstly designed before the settings you cite, so clearly there is another reason because they are not published now, and that reason is not tied to campaign settings.
> 
> moreover, remember that wotc takes 50% of every penny gained on dmsguild, so their are not helping only authors making money, they are helping themselves a lot.




Oh come on now... let's be real here.  The Artificer is a thing because Eberron made it a thing.  So why else would WotC find the need to create and re-publish an Artificer if not for the Eberron setting?  There have been hundreds of classes made for D&D over the years, in every edition and for countless books and in countless issues of Dragon Magazine.  If they are deciding to remake the Artificer for 5E, its because they want it available for Eberron, not just because they decided to randomly choose a 13th class to publish and this just happened to be the selection they drew out of a hat.

And while yes, psionics have been around since AD&D, they were never a focal point of any part of the game until Dark Sun purposefully made it an inherent part of their setting.  So again, if WotC was going to choose to publish this new Psion class for 5E and need a book to do it in, the most logical place to have it appear would be in the setting that is most closely aligned to it.  Sure they could have just put it in Xanathar's if they wanted to... but what would have been the point?  Just to have a 13th class out there for people?  I mean, I _guess_ you could do that if you felt any real need to make a 13th class available just because... but personally I don't see it.

Now, would it have bothered me if either the Artificer or the Psion had appeared earlier in just some random book?  Nope.  I'd look at them and go "Okay, they are now officially available for people.  Lovely."  But I also have not been put out at all that they haven't appeared.  Why? Because quite frankly I've already been using both of them already anyway in their playtest forms.  A player of mine used the playtest Mystic in one of my _Curse of Strahd_ games, and another player is currently using kibbletasty's expanded Artificer class based upon the playtest doc in my current Eberron game.  And the fact that they aren't "officially released" hasn't mattered one whit.

And it also matters not that WotC gets 50% of any DMs Guild sale, because if just selling lots of material for the cash was really all that mattered to them, they would have already made or opened all kinds of stuff.  Besides which, as I said... they aren't _really_ helping themselves by opening up Mystara on the DMs Guild, because 50% of nothing is nothing.  And while you may think you have some way of generating sales from settings that practically no one is playing... I suspect WotC would rather just wait on those nickels until such time as they can be fully supported across the entire platform.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Feb 14, 2019)

I think there is a good reason for a return of Spelljammer: Hasbro toys. In the right hands it can be a blockbuster like the reboot of "My little centauress: cuteness is magic". 

Mystara is also "Red Steel" and "Hollow World", but also the setting for the famous 90's arcade of D&D. A good agreement with Capcom and.. _voilá_!  

I miss the vestige binder, and I would like something like a nahualt, a totem shifter/beast warrior with incarnum soumelds.

* If a new class is added, they are in all the settings? For example the warden and the seeker in Dark Sun.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Another viewpoint is that after five long years WotC still haven't managed to publish a single new class.




Another view point is that they aren’t obligated to do so, ever, and any new class that does come out is a bonus.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 14, 2019)

So, like, if I'm a shill like Zapp suggests, why hasn't WotC paid me yet? I bet they haven't paid the other shills here, either.


Oh! I should take them to court. I'll even make it a *class-action* suit.


----------



## dave2008 (Feb 14, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> moreover, remember that wotc takes 50% of every penny gained on dmsguild, so their are not helping only authors making money, they are helping themselves a lot.



General idea is correct, but the OBS gets some of that money.  I believe they typically get 40% of the sale of something sold on one of their sites, though I bet WotC negotiated for more than 10%.  Regardless, a good chunk still probably goes to OBS and not WotC.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2019)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> I think there is a good reason for a return of Spelljammer: Hasbro toys. In the right hands it can be a blockbuster like the reboot of "My little centauress: cuteness is magic".
> 
> Mystara is also "Red Steel" and "Hollow World", but also the setting for the famous 90's arcade of D&D. A good agreement with Capcom and.. _voilá_!




A completely new toy line for a brand that has never had a toy line before aimed at a generation that has no idea what it is, and a 20 year old arcade game.  And because of that they should open up Spelljammer and Mystara to the tabletop players.

I thought you said a *good* reason?


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 14, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> A completely new toy line for a brand that has never had a toy line before aimed at a generation that has no idea what it is, and a 20 year old arcade game.  And because of that they should open up Spelljammer and Mystara to the tabletop players.
> 
> I thought you said a *good* reason?




Giant. Space. Hamster.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 14, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> If you aren't just trolling, and really believe five years between class additions is a reasonable development span, boy are you out of touch.




Where is the evidence that what you want is a well shared view? You're saying he is the one out of touch, but I have seen no evidence of that. It's seems from EnWorld responses you've gotten for years that opposite is true - it might be you who might be out of touch. Have you considered that possibility?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 14, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Giant. Space. Hamster.




I stand corrected.


----------



## Autumn Bask (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> And look and behold, that's not what I'm asking for.
> 
> Most new subclasses are lazy rehashes of where exactly you gain Advantage.
> 
> ...




Subclasses are actually a very important aspect of 5e's design, and they are not irrelevant to this discussion, because they are precisely why you and I won't be seeing many new additional classes. See things like Favored Soul/Divine Soul and Horizon Walker, which were their own class and prestige class respectively back in 3.5, as well as two classes I really liked and wanted to see introduced. And they were; not in the way I expected, but in a way that I am fairly satisfied with, because it wasn't the mechanics of those classes I cared about, but the flavor. 

The use of subclasses over new classes and prestige classes is twofold from a design and balance perspective. Firstly, and most simply, it tempers the potential of multiclass cheese because you can't be a Champion and a Battle Master, nor an Assassin and a Swashbuckler. 

However, secondly and far more importantly, it maintains the accessibility of the game while still providing a wide assortment of options. A Moon Druid will play different from a Land Druid who will play different from a Shepard Druid who will play different from a Spores Druid. 

The same goes for Lore, Valor, Glamour, and Whisper Bards. The only subclasses that "rehash where you gain Advantage" are the Rogue subclasses, and that's because the key feature of Rogue procs on Advantage, so that does drastically impact how they can behave in-combat. 

And the reason this maintains accessibility is that once a player understands the core mechanics and features of a specific class, they only need to learn a few alterations in order to understand how each of its subclasses will be played. It should be obvious that WotC sees subclasses as a sort of "soft replacement" for traditional classes, especially given that the first Artificer UA had it as a Wizard subclass.

WotC is being cautious, and maybe--with regards to your concerns--overcautious (maybe even a bit scared). But you keep using the word "lazy", and that's not how companies work. A tempered and careful approach to releasing new marketable content is not what laziness looks like; it would literally be the opposite. 

More importantly, you need to stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is either being dishonest or intellectually bankrupt. I am being completely genuine when I say that I love the subclass system and think it's a positive thing for the continued growth and expansion of 5e.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> What I especially oppose is the notion that as a fan of a game, I'm only allowed to have wants and needs that align perfectly with maximizing company profits.




I agree! That would be pretty lame. 


Good old thing literally no one is positing any such notion! 

But hey, straw men make great target practice, right?


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 15, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Another view point is that they aren’t obligated to do so, ever, and any new class that does come out is a bonus.



Again:

The fact there is no law or moral imperative to do this, does not in any way shape or form diminish our ability and right to complain about an obvious dearth of material.

If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money.

Luckily that is not the case.

If WotC saves on staff by publishing only as little new crunch as they can possibly get away with, they will keep hearing about it in public forums.

Like this one.


----------



## Henry (Feb 15, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Giant. Space. Hamster.




*GO FOR THE EYES, MEGA-BOO!*


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Again:
> 
> The fact there is no law or moral imperative to do this, does not in any way shape or form diminish our ability and right to complain about an obvious dearth of material.
> 
> ...




WotC doesn't read this forum: if you want to interact with them, try Twitter.

If the "dearth of material" was "obvious," that might be one thing: many of us are satisfied with what is on offer. We are not stooges, but happy customers. WotC is not on life support, they are being careful and considerate with releases.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 15, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> WotC is not on life support, they are being careful and considerate with releases.




repeatedly teasing at classic campaign settings and then publishing 'seasickness handbook' is neither careful nor considerate. it is just disrespectful towards fan of those settings who are waiting for their official 5E upgrades.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> repeatedly teasing at classic campaign settings and then publishing 'seasickness handbook' is neither careful nor considerate. it is just disrespectful towards fan of those settings who are waiting for their official 5E upgrades.




Dude, it is a game companies publishing schedule. "Disrespect" is a strong word for "not publishing everything all at once." They have years to work with, no need to be hasty, harrooom.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 15, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Dude, it is a game companies publishing schedule. "Disrespect" is a strong word for "not publishing everything all at once." They have years to work with, no need to be hasty, harrooom.




is it so difficult to understand that I care nothing about how much and when they publish what?

the problem, for me, is the approach.

wanna publish 'seasickness handbook'? that's fine, announce it within a reasonable time period, state clearly which the contents will be and strive to respect the deadline. you managed to do that? fine! you don't? apologize with the customers and go on.

the company which is so lucky to manage something amazing like the dnd brand has no need at all of pointlessly teasing  the customers or forbidding the amateur development of things in which they are clearly not interested at all.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> is it so difficult to understand that I care nothing about how much and when they publish what?
> 
> the problem, for me, is the approach.
> 
> ...




You are awfully worked up about a topic you care nothing about.

They announce books within a specific window of release, to focus hype and advertising. Given that I am still focused on the next release continuously since 2014, it's worked for me at least.

Just because they do not publish something right now, doesn't mean they have no interest in publishing it in due time. Far from not allowing amateur publishing of D&D IP< they have bent over backwards to facilitate it.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 15, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> is it so difficult to understand that I care nothing about how much and when they publish what?
> 
> the problem, for me, is the approach.
> 
> ...




Based on your stance and repeated posts throughout these forums, is your insistence to opening up the other campaign settings Wizards has under its belt primarily motivated by the ability to generate profit off of them?


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 15, 2019)

Ash Mantle said:


> Based on your stance and repeated posts throughout these forums, is your insistence to opening up the other campaign settings Wizards has under its belt primarily motivated by the ability to generate profit off of them?



yes, of course, as repeteadly said on these forums by various persons, I'm a greedy shark, exactly as the other dmsguild authors who funnel thousands of dollars into wotc pockets every day, developing stuff for settings, like FR or Ravenloft, which wotc did not create in the first place.


----------



## Autumn Bask (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Again:
> 
> If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money.
> 
> ...




WotC makes money by selling printed material. Hopefully for more money than it takes to employ their staff, otherwise they would be running at a loss, and it would be a miracle that they are supporting this game at all. (I'm going to assume this is not the case.) 

So please, explain to me how a dearth of new material is beneficial to their business, beyond maintaining the integrity of  their game? How would this strategy allow hobby companies to print money? 

If we can assume that the books they publish net them a positive profit (which, if they didn't, they wouldn't make them at all), why is it greedy and lazy for them to heavily stagnate their releases, especially when they're still releasing free content like the UAs and Planeshifts. Why not just print a book with those materials in it? 

If there is a demand for Artificer, which there clearly is, and WotC is lazy, why aren't they just rushing out a scrapped-together book with an Artificer in it for easy sales?

I think, as I stated in my previous post (and I'd still like to hear your response to that one), that the reason they're not doing this is because they care about maintaining the lifespan and accessibility of this system, and are cautious about introducing increased complexity and possibly destabilizing the system through an excess of additional crunch.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 15, 2019)

Until Wizards officially announces a product and _then_ cancels it... there is absolutely nothing they need to apologize for.

People hanging their hats on casual conversation and not getting what they want have no leg to stand on.  You're following them through Twitter and streaming and interviews because you're going out _looking_ for info-- info they have not officially deigned to announce.  If you then get all upset because they aren't producing the things they haven't announced yet, that's on you.  

Don't go looking for secret info and you can then be happy when you just receive the official announcements.  Because then you know you are getting what you are being told.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Until Wizards officially announces a product and _then_ cancels it... there is absolutely nothing they need to apologize for.
> 
> People hanging their hats on casual conversation and not getting what they want have no leg to stand on.  You're following them through Twitter and streaming and interviews because you're going out _looking_ for info-- info they have not officially deigned to announce.  If you then get all upset because they aren't producing the things they haven't announced yet, that's on you.
> 
> Don't go looking for secret info and you can then be happy when you just receive the official announcements.  Because then you know you are getting what you are being told.




They have been ridiculously good about this since after 4E ended: underpromise (if not no-promise) and overdeliver.

Wizards used to be terrible about announcing and cancelling products, and overshared all the time.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 15, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> repeatedly teasing at classic campaign settings and then publishing 'seasickness handbook' is neither careful nor considerate. it is just disrespectful towards fan of those settings who are waiting for their official 5E upgrades.




What a farce!


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Again:
> 
> The fact there is no law or moral imperative to do this, does not in any way shape or form diminish our ability and right to complain about an obvious dearth of material.




Nobody has ever, in the history of this message board, ever once even vaguely hinted for a moment that you do not have the "right" to complain about this topic. 

Many however have said they disagree with your opinion on this topic. A fact which you seem to struggle with.



> If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money.




Your characterization of his dissenting opinion from yours as "riduclous" is itself ridiculous. I say again, the evidence you've received on this message board concerning this opinion of yours is that your view is NOT WELL SHARED. The overwhelming majority of responses you've gotten on this topic is disagreement with your view. There is nothing inherantly wrong with you having a view that is not well shared, however your constnt characterization of that contrary majority view as "ridiculous" and other perjoratives is what people object to. 



> Luckily that is not the case.
> 
> If WotC saves on staff by publishing only as little new crunch as they can possibly get away with, they will keep hearing about it in public forums.
> 
> Like this one.




From you, and almost only you. The number of people who share your view are such a small fraction of the number of views expressed on this message board about this topic that every time you raise this view and go off like this, the only rational message it would send to WOTC (if they were reading any of this - which they are not) is that they're doing the right thing. Because your view is so not well shared here. All you're doing by behaving this way is sending up a red flare for them to see all the people who disagree with you, who deeply outnumber those who agree with you. It's almost like you're engaging in a false flag. If you actually loved the way WOTC had behaved so far, and you wanted to send that message to WOTC, I suppose one way to do it would be to do what you've been doing - behave so outrageously the other direction that you get people to post their disagreement where they otherwise might have remained silent.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Nobody has ever, in the history of this message board, ever once even vaguely hinted for a moment that you do not have the "right" to complain about this topic.
> 
> Many however have said they disagree with your opinion on this topic. A fact which you seem to struggle with.
> 
> ...




This sort of calm and rational post based in reality would only be written by a COMPELTE SELL-OUT CORPORATE SHILL.

REPENT, O SINNER, REPENT!!!


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 15, 2019)

Autumn Bask said:


> So please, explain to me how a dearth of new material is beneficial to their business, beyond maintaining the integrity of  their game?



Explain to me why I should care about maximizing corporate profit.

I am not a shareholder. I am a hobbyist and a fan.

The notion that us fans should self-censor just because our ideas might not align with corporate profit is completely alien to me.

Have a good day.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Explain to me why I should care about maximizing corporate profit.
> 
> I am not a shareholder. I am a hobbyist and a fan.
> 
> ...




You are the one making ethical claims: "should, "ought" etc.

The only ethical obligation WotC has in regards to product scheduling and development is to their shareholders. In general, this will align with making fans happy anyways, as it has these past many years. They have no moral obligation to reach a rules quota, unless that is what would be good for shareholders because of hobbyist interest. Apparently, it is not.

And folks here aren't self-censoring: we like what is happening, and are voicing disagreement with your opinion.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 15, 2019)

Maybe CapnZapp just is feeling the love from Valentine's Day and wanted to show us all some love.

How do I figure you ask?

Well every time he does this of course we respond telling him that we disagree. And every time we disagree with him, we all get lots of XP from others who agree with our dissenting views.

Maybe he just wanted to stealthly do something to get people to share the love. 

And if that is the case, well played Capn. Well played. And thank you. What a nice Valentine's Day gift.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 15, 2019)

I disagree with Zapp.


(Bring on those sweet sweet fake internet points!)


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Maybe CapnZapp just is feeling the love from Valentine's Day and wanted to show us all some love.
> 
> How do I figure you ask?
> 
> ...




Nah, Capn Zapp is just fulfilling his role of being the True Defender of the Orthodox Hobby. Zappius contra forum!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Again:
> 
> The fact there is no law or moral imperative to do this, does not in any way shape or form diminish our ability and right to complain about an obvious dearth of material.



We literally all agree on that. Why do you keep propping up this fake stance in order to knock it down? 



> If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money.
> 
> Luckily that is not the case.
> 
> ...




Why do you keep belittling the stance of people who disagree with you? Why is it difficult for you to deal with the fact that your opinion on this isn't shared by everyone else? It's genuinely getting a bit concerning. 

I literally go on twitter and criticize/challenge wotc in general, and Mearls and Crawford in particular, on a semi-regular basis. I simply disagree with every part of your complaint about the pace or release for 5e products. 



Parmandur said:


> WotC doesn't read this forum: if you want to interact with them, try Twitter.
> 
> If the "dearth of material" was "obvious," that might be one thing: many of us are satisfied with what is on offer. We are not stooges, but happy customers. WotC is not on life support, they are being careful and considerate with releases.




Wotc/5e is in fact doing better than DnD has ever done before, in the entire life of the game. In a hobby industry that relies entirely on customer satisfaction (this ain't Del Taco; folks aren't buying PHBs because they have to have some kind of game product and the 5e PHB is the cheapest and most convenient option), that means that people are overwhelmingly happy with 5e as a product line. 

The whole damn hobby ain't "shills", or sheeple, or whatever nonsense. 



DQDesign said:


> repeatedly teasing at classic campaign settings and then publishing 'seasickness handbook' is neither careful nor considerate. it is just disrespectful towards fan of those settings who are waiting for their official 5E upgrades.




Or, get this, they see more demand for a seafaring adventure and potentially a player-facing product to support it, than they do for literally any setting. 

Seriously, Eberron and Planescape are the two most popular settings after FR, which itself is far behind homebrew settings, and those are being supported. (the 5e core assumes Planescape as the basic cosmology of DnD) 



Parmandur said:


> They have been ridiculously good about this since after 4E ended: underpromise (if not no-promise) and overdeliver.
> 
> Wizards used to be terrible about announcing and cancelling products, and overshared all the time.




Yeah, seriously, they have been quite transparent, and reliable ever since late 4e. I love 4e, I miss getting new 4e stuff, I wish 5e was even more like 4e than it is. I wish 5e was basically 4e with simpler math, better support for simpler gameplay, and some of the cool innovations of 5e. 

But the release schedule? Yeah, I'm entirely in support of them taking as long as it takes to make any given thing. If that means another year before I can use an official artificer, then that's disappointing, but not something I'm going to mad about. 

Because here's the thing. 4e was very well balanced, all things considered. Even the "gulf" betwixt the PHB Twin Striking Elf Ranger and an Essentials Blackguard just isn't THAT great. But options were put out for 4e that just didn't work until errata came out for them. The Warlock ended up needing a massive overhaul that changed the numerical output of most of it's powers, and it's Curse class feature. Pages of "tax" options were put out to patch things they didn't want to errata (like the assassin, which was weird, because it would have taken less work to just fix the math of the assassin's powers). 

In many ways, it was a mess, and the reason that it was a mess was directly and unavoidably because they put out so many products so quickly. 



CapnZapp said:


> Explain to me why I should care about maximizing corporate profit.
> 
> I am not a shareholder. I am a hobbyist and a fan.
> 
> The notion that us fans should self-censor just because our ideas might not align with corporate profit is completely alien to me.




This position you are railing against literally only exists in your counter-arguments. No one has ever upheld such a position. Ever. 

I don't care about maximizing profits. The person you are responding to probably doesn't either. They certainly didn't indicate that they do, in any way. 

What people are indicating to you, is that in an industry where not a single customer ever needs the product, record breaking sales/profits probably indicates overwhelming satisfaction with the way things are going, and you should probably at least admit to yourself that you are yelling into the void, because there is absolutely no reasons whatsoever for wotc to do what you want them to do. 

They aren't being lazy, they are putting more work into each page of new material instead of putting the same amount of work into more pages of material. 

They aren't being greedy, they are holding themselves back and trying to foster a sustainable model for DnD publication. 

We aren't "fanboys" propping up some "one true way", we simply agree with a production model that gives us early preview access to new material, often with multiple rounds of playtest, and plenty of opportunity to provide feedback in several formats and venues, before a new thing is released. 

I wish they would do the same thing with the new lore they put out, as I frankly think that Morty's Fome of Toes is pretty terrible in terms of lore, albeit quite valuable mechanically. It that meant an even slower release schedule, that would be 100% worth it, to have a better product when it is released. Other people here, I'm sure, prefer to have a lot of mystery and surprises when they get their hands on the new books, and would perceive a loss in value if we knew most of the new lore before the book came out. I absolutely respect that opposing view, and if they vastly outnumber me, I'm not going to constantly spam every damn thread I see that in any way interacts with that disagreement with my complaints about how any argument against my position is ridiculous. 

Just like...try to be respectful of your fellow posters, for crap's sake! It's literally the bare minimum of good behavior.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Just like...try to be respectful of your fellow posters, for crap's sake! It's literally the bare minimum of good behavior.




Follow-up question: does this apply if other posters are clearly wrong, and probably corporate shills?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 15, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Follow-up question: does this apply if other posters are clearly wrong, and probably corporate shills?




I mean, in that case, they’re just trying to make damn living, ya know? 

Don’t be mean to workin folks just doing what they can to survive in this late capitalist hellscape, am I right?


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, in that case, they’re just trying to make damn living, ya know?
> 
> Don’t be mean to workin folks just doing what they can to survive in this late capitalist hellscape, am I right?




Well, that's inconvenient.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 15, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The whole damn hobby ain't "shills"




Well, that'll put a dent in my class-action lawsuit if you testify.


----------



## Autumn Bask (Feb 15, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Explain to me why I should care about maximizing corporate profit.
> 
> I am not a shareholder. I am a hobbyist and a fan.
> 
> ...




You shouldn't, nor did I even remotely imply that. However, if you are going to speculate about the motives of a company, which you are doing by calling WotC's release strategy "lazy", you need to understand profit-motive.

In other words, *I'm not saying that you need to prioritize WotC's profit in your complaints* about their business tactics, but you do need to understand at least the basics of how they make money before you make statements like: 



CapnZapp said:


> If all fans were as ridiculously understanding as you seem to be, life would be good for corporate strategists, since hobby products would be like printing money.
> 
> If WotC saves on staff by publishing only as little new crunch as they can possibly get away with, they will keep hearing about it in public forums.




And you would know that this was my intent if you actually read my post like it was written by a human being, who is trying to come to some understanding with you, rather than dismissing me as some sort of brainwashed capitalist trying to attack you. 

Like... what I was saying was really simple. Sure it was a bit long, but it basically comes down to "know what you're talking", and you're talking about a business. *Don't mistake people explaining something to you as them trying to "get you on the side of the corporations". *

That's literally the last thing I would ever want to do. *I'm very anti-corporate and anti-profit motive*, but that's exactly why I'm defending WotC's methods. Because, from what I can tell, they are prioritizing the longevity of their game and genuinely care about only publishing high quality materials. (That section in Xanathar's, _This is Your Life_, is absolutely amazing.) 

There is a difference between being *overcautious* and being *lazy*. *My argument* is that this "dearth of crunch" is a result of the former rather than the latter. 

And in order to justify this claim, I explained why WotC might _want_ to be cautious, as well as why your explanation, "laziness", doesn't make sense in the context of their actions. 

*I'm just trying to help you point your finger at the actual cause of your problem.*

(If you're wondering why I bolded things, I figured it might help you with your reading comprehension.)


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 15, 2019)

Autumn Bask said:


> You shouldn't, nor did I even remotely imply that. However, if you are going to speculate about the motives of a company, which you are doing by calling WotC's release strategy "lazy", you need to understand profit-motive.
> 
> In other words, *I'm not saying that you need to prioritize WotC's profit in your complaints* about their business tactics, but you do need to understand at least the basics of how they make money before you make statements like:
> 
> ...




The thing about profit as a motivator, is that it can be pursued wisely or unwisely. Making a quick buck is unwise, as it is not sustainable. Carefully cultivating a culture that produces long-term profits is difficult, the opposite of lazy, as you say.


----------



## cmad1977 (Feb 15, 2019)

It surprises me that the people least capable of running their game or challenging their players (Monsters are weak/boring!, GWM an SS are teh OP! Designers are lazy!) are the same ones that clamor for more options. Start getting a handle on the simple rules before asking for more stuff.


----------



## Ash Mantle (Feb 15, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> yes, of course, as repeteadly said on these forums by various persons, I'm a greedy shark, exactly as the other dmsguild authors who funnel thousands of dollars into wotc pockets every day, developing stuff for settings, like FR or Ravenloft, which wotc did not create in the first place.




That's not what I meant or what I asked at all. You'll note there's nothing in my post disparaging you if your motivation for them to open up the campaign settings was profit driven on your end, and there's also nothing wrong in that. 
But I hope you can see and appreciate why there's such a disconnect between your stance and the opinions of others.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 16, 2019)

Remember when people thought D&D was probably dead?

Shame on WotC for bringing D&D from the brink of death to revitalizing RPGs and making 5e the most popular RPG ever.

If D&D were dead we'd all be happy that they aren't making any money right?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 16, 2019)

we are half way through February...


----------



## bedir than (Feb 16, 2019)

GMforPowergamers said:


> we are half way through February...




I live 6.5 miles from WotC. My neighborhood is just getting plowed today. I've had dozens of neighbors not leave their house since over a week ago. The local school district hasn't had a full day of school this month.

The main roads here are fine, but neighborhoods are still quite bad.

A majority of their podcasts and streams were done from home rather than the offices. Several were just cancelled.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 16, 2019)

GMforPowergamers said:


> we are half way through February...




Crawford says this will be coming the last week of February.


----------



## lkj (Feb 16, 2019)

It's also worth noting that on one of their twitch shows at the end of January, Jeremy said it would be coming sometime in February but probably not the first week and possibly not until the end of the month. So they had never anticipated it coming out early in the month, even before the snowstorm. Probably they should have had the main wizard twitter drop that tidbit in the original announcement. But so it goes.

AD


----------



## guachi (Feb 17, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Yet another viewpoint is that after five years some people have still failed to take responsibility for their own game.




Did you pay any money for any 5e product? Then you have failed to take responsibility for your own game. Instead, you have relied on others to do the work for you.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 18, 2019)

lkj said:


> It's also worth noting that on one of their twitch shows at the end of January, Jeremy said it would be coming sometime in February but probably not the first week and possibly not until the end of the month. So they had never anticipated it coming out early in the month, even before the snowstorm. Probably they should have had the main wizard twitter drop that tidbit in the original announcement. But so it goes.




UA articles are normally released the second Monday of the month, sometimes the third, but Crawford tweeted last Monday (the second Monday of the month) that it would come out the last week of the month, instead of the usual time. To me, that means on the 25th, so no one freak out tomorrow when it does not release.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 18, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> To me, that means on the 25th, so no one freak out tomorrow when it does not release.




don't worry, after four years of waiting no one will freak on poor soft wotc even if they shift the release on March. it is only another iteration of playtesting, after all, not the real thing... so who cares? moreover, anyone knows that is possible podcasting from home during the blizzard, but putting pdfs online is not so easy, obviously.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> don't worry, after four years of waiting no one will freak on poor soft wotc even if they shift the release on March. it is only another iteration of playtesting, after all, not the real thing... so who cares? moreover, anyone knows that is possible podcasting from home during the blizzard, but putting pdfs online is not so easy, obviously.




*Please* just give it a rest. This crusade of yours is starting to make this forum less pleasant for other.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 18, 2019)

Morrus said:


> *Please* just give it a rest. This crusade of yours is starting to make this forum less pleasant for other.




it is a honor being 'invited' to shut up by the boss here, and a very unpleasant thing. anyway, I did not realise being so important to spoil the forum experience for someone here. anyway, I will not talk anymore about that, for what I care other people can freely continue to believe that the only perfect beings on earth are wotc employees.
me, regardless of your censorship (or maybe more because of it), will still continue considering them fallible humans, with their work influenced by luck, emotive random choices, not-so-good plans and all other factors which normally influence the lives of normal humand like we, and they, are.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> anyway, I did not realise being so important to spoil the forum experience for someone here.




It isn't about being "important".  It is about how often you make similar comments.  How consistently you bang on the same drum in everyone's face, and so on.  Being dogged to the point of dogma's a drag.  

The same can be said for more than one poster in this thread.  Same song, different day.

A discussion board is at its best when people are exchanging new ideas.  If your idea is not new, if it is just a retread of things you've already said before, you aren't really "discussing" any more.  You are venting or pontificating.  And, well, how much do you enjoy it when people blather on to you about the same thing they've said before seven times?  Probably not too much.  You probably sigh, roll your eyes, and check your watch a lot, like everyone else on the planet.

On top of that... some people have this weird idea that EN World has some sort of outsized influence on WotC.  We have no evidence that this is true.  Complaining about WotC here... is just complaining to people who have no notable influence or ability to enact change.  If you actually want WotC to know you don't like what they do, you have to take that message to WotC.  It is largely wasted here.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 18, 2019)

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]

thanks for your clarifications.
I hope you and [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] will keep consistently writing the same things, in MOD or ADMIN mode, to anyone who routinely writes that everything wotc does is utterly perfect, especially when they contradict themselves. also because, you know, we have no influence on wotc, so it is useless to always write that the standard approach here is appreciating what they do always and ever.

the amazing thing for me is that you supposed that I write those things here in the hope wotc could be influenced by them, when I never wrote that anywhere. I would explain the real reason behind that, but you made assumptions on me before asking, so I think you are not interested in it.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> thanks for your clarifications.




In the future, if you wish to discuss something a moderator writes in colored text, please take it to e-mail or PM, rather than discuss in thread, thank you.  I will make an exception for this post, but no farther.



> I hope you and Morrus will keep consistently writing the same things, in MOD or ADMIN mode, to anyone who routinely writes that everything wotc does is utterly perfect....





1) Nobody does that, just so you know.  That "utterly perfect" thing is an overstatement of dug in positions.  I wouldn't take it that you think WotC is "utter trash" either, unless I see you say that explicitly, so I suggest you extend similar benefit of the doubt.

2) We don't generally spend energy hunting down either positive or negative statements.  When they get to be enough that people start reporting posts, and we see a bothersome pattern, then we may comment.

3) Just so you know, as a practical matter, consistently negative positions are more of an issue, due to human psychology.  If all one has to say is negative stuff, and one finds people don't agree with, then there's a strong tendency to up the ante, over and over, to the point of hyperbole and insult.  A consistently positive position does not usually have the same pitfalls, and so is less problematic.

3a) It also tends to lead to being snarky at moderators.  Morrus does not feel we need to put up with that, so take care.

Which means, while thoughtful critique is always welcome, we suggest folks avoid general trash-talking.  If nothing else, a poster are apt to get more out of discussing a game you actually like, or something that interests you in a constructive way, rather than spending time trying to tear something down.  




> the amazing thing for me is that you supposed that I write those things here in the hope wotc could be influenced by them





Nope.  That was a general statement.  *Some people* think that.  It is pretty common.  But not stipulating *you* think that.  I may be responding to your post, but not everything in my response is all about you, personally.  

But, if you don't think that, then there's a (entirely rhetorical) question to be asked of why bother beating the drum so often that folks notice?  Ask yourself what you intend to get out of it, and whether that's a worthwhile pursuit.

And that's all I have to say on the matter here.  Any further discussion can be taken to PM.  Thanks for your time and attention.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 18, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> UA articles are normally released the second Monday of the month, sometimes the third, but Crawford tweeted last Monday (the second Monday of the month) that it would come out the last week of the month, instead of the usual time. To me, that means on the 25th, so no one freak out tomorrow when it does not release.




Worth noting that today is a Holiday, too.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 18, 2019)

Umbran said:


> In the future, if you wish to discuss something a moderator writes in colored text, please take it to e-mail or PM, rather than discuss in thread, thank you.  I will make an exception for this post, but no farther.
> 
> 
> Any further discussion can be taken to PM.  Thanks for your time and attention.




thanks for your offer, but no.
if I can't defend myself in a public way, it is time for me to leave.
please, give to me the 'the contact details of the data protection officer' of this website according to eu Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament, I was not able to find them here  http://www.enworld.org/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_privacy

I would like to take contact with her in order to exert my rights according to the said regulation.

thanks again.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 18, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> if I can't defend myself in a public way, it is time for me to leave.




You were not under attack..  This was a discussion of policy and local mores for your understanding, not a round of accusations or prelude to discipline.  There should be no need to 'defend yourself'.




> I would like to take contact with her in order to exert my rights according to the said regulation.




It is my understanding that we do not work with personal information in a way that needs a dedicated officer.  You can reach out to Morrus, who owns the site, if you have any questions.


----------



## DQDesign (Feb 18, 2019)

Umbran said:


> You were not under attack..  This was a discussion of policy and local mores for your understanding, not a round of accusations or prelude to discipline.  There should be no need to 'defend yourself'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok, thank you for your support. I'll cancel my account using the link provided in the page I cited above.
thanks again.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 18, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ok, thank you for your support. I'll cancel my account using the link provided in the page I cited above.
> thanks again.



Aww, I wanted to know what products he produced on DMsG, so I knew what not to buy...


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 18, 2019)

(Trying to bring the thread back to the topic)

What do you expect from this UA? 

I want an Artificer the hits clser to home in relation to Eberron's lore and theme. No guns is a great start.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Feb 18, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> (Trying to bring the thread back to the topic)
> 
> What do you expect from this UA?
> 
> I want an Artificer the hits clser to home in relation to Eberron's lore and theme. No guns is a great start.




I'm with you on this. I want the class to keep a good distance with anything steampunk: no robot, gun, mech-armor and such. Most of the 3PP takes on the class includes those elements and clash with the thematic behind the rest of the PHB classes, so I'd prefer a class that would fit next to, say, a barbarian or a druid.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 18, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Aww, I wanted to know what products he produced on DMsG, so I knew what not to buy...




You don't have to be an ass


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> You don't have to be an ass




Don't call people names, please.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 18, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Don't call people names, please.




Where is his warning that was very rude?


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 18, 2019)

vincegetorix said:


> I'm with you on this. I want the class to keep a good distance with anything steampunk: no robot, gun, mech-armor and such. Most of the 3PP takes on the class includes those elements and clash with the thematic behind the rest of the PHB classes, so I'd prefer a class that would fit next to, say, a barbarian or a druid.




there's also the point that the Artificer will be added in to the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, so it makes little sense for it to go against the setting's lore


----------



## bedir than (Feb 18, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> there's also the point that the Artificer will be added in to the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron, so it makes little sense for it to go against the setting's lore




I'm hoping the less Eberron subclass is more like an Alchemist than the gunsmith or mecha-suit gimmicks.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 18, 2019)

Umbran said:


> On top of that... some people have this weird idea that EN World has some sort of outsized influence on WotC.




Well, there have been people here who have said they are playtesters and such for WotC, but whether that is true or not is debatable, since they cannot say any more than that because of supposed NDAs they have signed.


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 18, 2019)

bedir than said:


> I'm hoping the less Eberron subclass is more like an Alchemist than the gunsmith or mecha-suit gimmicks.




I just hope its not worse than the current alchemist which I tried very hard to like and enjoy, but it was just bad.


----------



## OB1 (Feb 18, 2019)

vincegetorix said:


> I'm with you on this. I want the class to keep a good distance with anything steampunk: no robot, gun, mech-armor and such. Most of the 3PP takes on the class includes those elements and clash with the thematic behind the rest of the PHB classes, so I'd prefer a class that would fit next to, say, a barbarian or a druid.




Note that I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as I’ve never played an artificer, but I am looking forward to a new class and felt like the last UA version was pretty cool and made me want to try the class. 

That said, could a reason it’s taking so long to nail the class be because of the different expectations people have for it? A little bit like the Ranger issue? 

If so, if the steampunk elements were kept to one or two subclasses and out of the main class would that work for you?


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 18, 2019)

OB1 said:


> Note that I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as I’ve never played an artificer, but I am looking forward to a new class and felt like the last UA version was pretty cool and made me want to try the class.
> 
> That said, could a reason it’s taking so long to nail the class be because of the different expectations people have for it? A little bit like the Ranger issue?
> 
> If so, if the steampunk elements were kept to one or two subclasses and out of the main class would that work for you?




The problem to me is the intent of releasing it in an Eberron product, for that product I believe all the material should make sense in the setting. Another solution would be to release the more steampunky sub-classes in another book, that would fit them better.

There is already so much confusion with a lot of people misslabelling Eberron as Steampunk (not a jab at the genre, that's just not what Eberron is) that I'd find that kind of subclass confusing.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Feb 18, 2019)

OB1 said:


> Note that I don’t have a dog in this hunt, as I’ve never played an artificer, but I am looking forward to a new class and felt like the last UA version was pretty cool and made me want to try the class.
> 
> That said, could a reason it’s taking so long to nail the class be because of the different expectations people have for it? A little bit like the Ranger issue?
> 
> If so, if the steampunk elements were kept to one or two subclasses and out of the main class would that work for you?




Expectations are really the main element WotC have to consider: some people want to play Ironman in D&D, others want a class that goes with complete crafting rules for everything in the game, others want a magic-but-not-magic-because-its-potion class etc. 

For my part, I'd prefer the lowest tech level possible, but I'm fine with archetypes that evoke other genre with guns and powersuits.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> Where is his warning that was very rude?




Don’t challenge moderators. Don’t post in this thread again, please.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 18, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> (Trying to bring the thread back to the topic)
> 
> What do you expect from this UA?
> 
> I want an Artificer the hits clser to home in relation to Eberron's lore and theme. No guns is a great start.




Well, this iteration is supposedly touched by the hand of Keith Baker, so it's a good bet that the class is going to be a bit more in line with Eberron than previous outings.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 18, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> (Trying to bring the thread back to the topic)
> 
> What do you expect from this UA?
> 
> I want an Artificer the hits clser to home in relation to Eberron's lore and theme. No guns is a great start.




I hope the opposite. I hope that the base class and a single subclass are designed to fit seamlessly into Eberron; and the rest is designed to work in other types of settings, including actual magitech settings.


----------



## Vael (Feb 18, 2019)

I definitely want an Eberron-first Artificer. I didn't mind the idea of a gunsmith subclass, but the entire class felt off for me.

The main challenge is that the 3.5 Artificer used the very concrete 3.5 Magic Item crafting rules, and the rules for crafting in 5e are more ambiguous. You can't build the class around them, so at best I expect the Artificer to get some ribbon-ish abilities that simply allow an Artificer to craft items either faster or more cheaply. The one we got got a bunch of items for free, but that kinda bothered me.

So I'd guess that most of the Artificer's abilities will be around making temporary magic items. I'd also hope for a class feature resembling the Spell Storing Item Infusion. That always looked like a core Artificer class feature hidden in the spell chapter in the Eberron Campaign Setting. The ability to mimic almost any spell and create a single charged wand was really good. The Infuse Magic was close, but didn't quite do it for me.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2019)

Vael said:


> I definitely want an Eberron-first Artificer. I didn't mind the idea of a gunsmith subclass, but the entire class felt off for me.
> 
> The main challenge is that the 3.5 Artificer used the very concrete 3.5 Magic Item crafting rules, and the rules for crafting in 5e are more ambiguous. You can't build the class around them, so at best I expect the Artificer to get some ribbon-ish abilities that simply allow an Artificer to craft items either faster or more cheaply. The one we got got a bunch of items for free, but that kinda bothered me.
> 
> So I'd guess that most of the Artificer's abilities will be around making temporary magic items. I'd also hope for a class feature resembling the Spell Storing Item Infusion. That always looked like a core Artificer class feature hidden in the spell chapter in the Eberron Campaign Setting. The ability to mimic almost any spell and create a single charged wand was really good. The Infuse Magic was close, but didn't quite do it for me.




Fair enough. I’ve never liked infusing literal spells into items, personally. I’d rather just have the character cast the spell, and flavor it as using specially made items as the focus and components. 

But, I’d love to see a subclass or something that is all about that. 

For me, it’s more important that the Artificer jack the Xanathar’s Guide crafting rules with some narrow down of specifics, and have something like being able to skip the rare ingredient once per level or something. Or even just reduced cost and time, plus the ability to recharge magic items, and maybe even overcharge them somehow. 

And maybe even drain charges from items to fuel class features, like draining charges from a wand to make a weapon do spell-level-equivalent extra damage, or whatever. 

And a spell list that has all the spells that already involve items, like fabricate, and the tiny servant one, and a spiritual weapon equivalent, etc. and find familiar, because alchemists should be able to have familiars.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 19, 2019)

As I have no interest in Eberron I suppose I am one who doesn't care for it to be like that.

One thing to keep in mind is that edition changes bring changes to how classes work. I personally didn't like the 3e Artificer at all, but then, that was intertwined with my dislike of how magic items were handled. Magic items are much more rare in 5e and can only be created with variant rules. I'd rather not have an Artificer creating them.

Except for the golem they got (I think at 6th level) I quite liked the UA Artificer. I liked both the guns and the potions. I think it is okay for guns to be in the game as an only Artificer magical invention. Gnomes would be happy with that.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 19, 2019)

I think the gunsmith is cool too, and I understand the people that don't care for Eberron and wish a more broad archetype, I think that's fair. My main struggle is with the fact that the class will be published on an Eberron product, so I believe that the subclasses that don't fit the setting would be tricky to add there. Maybe having more options on the UA but only the Eberron themed options be included in the book? I really don't know what would be the best option here.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 19, 2019)

I can easily see them creating a whole class without features that depend on creating or relying on magic items out of the DMG being included in the campaign. This would probably be the smart move, since you could hypothetically include the class in a lower-magic item campaign without it taking a hit in power relative to all the other classes that don't directly rely on drops. There's more than enough design space to create class features that revolve around buffing existing items, crafting personal golems, or personal class items like the gun. It would fit into Eberron, regardless.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 19, 2019)

I'm fine with the Artificer having not-especially-Eberron-esque subclasses such as a gunsmith. I can always say "not in _my_ Eberron" to my players if I have a problem with any specific archetype. I've already introduced firearms and clockwork in my Eberron as an odd local quirk of the Lhazaar Principalities because of planar shenanigans involved in hacking a potential Blades in the Dark campaign into the setting.

Now, I'm not sure a gunsmith is an entirely _necessary_ addition to D&D, but I can always re-fluff the thing into a wandslinger if necessary (preferably this would work the other way around, however.)


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> And a spell list that has all the spells that already involve items, like fabricate, and the tiny servant one, and a spiritual weapon equivalent, etc.* and find familiar, because alchemists should be able to have familiars.*




Especially the bolded part.  Indeed.

Thats how we got homunculous  (sp?) in the first place, right?


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 19, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> Especially the bolded part.  Indeed.
> 
> Thats how we got homunculous  (sp?) in the first place, right?





I think a mechanical familiar would be great. Not so much a clockwork, or a robot, but a golem, imbued with magic. That's way better than the option on the other UA.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 19, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> Especially the bolded part.  Indeed.
> 
> Thats how we got homunculous  (sp?) in the first place, right?




Damn right! 

And I do want to see a subclass that gets a big bruiser construct that you can flavor how you want. 

But all artificers should have the option of a familiar. 

I’d also love to see something unique like DND Online’s Rune Arm.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 19, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> For me, it’s more important that the Artificer jack the Xanathar’s Guide crafting rules with some narrow down of specifics, and have something like being able to skip the rare ingredient once per level or something. Or even just reduced cost and time, plus the ability to recharge magic items, and maybe even overcharge them somehow.




I made an artificer class as a reskinned bard a few years back, and one of the abilities I gave them was that they automatically satisfied any level-appropriate caster prerequisites the DM would place on creating an item, but they would still need any special ingredients and processes. For example, let's say the DM rules that you need to be able to cast _lightning bolt_ in order to make a wand of lightning, and you also need to carve it from the wood of an elm struck twice by natural lightning and soak it in a bath of specially made electrolytes for a fortnight. Being an artificer would help with the _lightning bolt_ casting even though presumably _lightning bolt_ isn't an artificer spell, but you'd still need the right wood and electrolyte-soaking.


----------



## Seramus (Feb 19, 2019)

I certainly acknowledge that Eberron did for the Artificer what Johnny Cash did for Hurt, but since the class predates the setting I’m hoping for a 70/30 split on themes. I don’t mind if most of the class is thematically resonant with Eberron since it is being published in an Eberron book, but I would deeply appreciate at least one setting neutral subclass.


----------



## cbwjm (Feb 19, 2019)

I'd prefer that the artificer fits the setting only since it will be part of the eberron release. For other subclasses that don't fit well within eberron, I'd prefer that they were released elsewhere. This could be on the DMsGuild or in another Xanathar's style book where they include the artificer for those that didn't want to buy the eberron book.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 19, 2019)

Seramus said:


> I certainly acknowledge that Eberron did for the Artificer what Johnny Cash did for Hurt, but since the class predates the setting I’m hoping for a 70/30 split on themes. I don’t mind if most of the class is thematically resonant with Eberron since it is being published in an Eberron book, but I would deeply appreciate at least one setting neutral subclass.




Huh? The 3e Artificer class was published in the Eberron Campaign Setting book, and the 4e version in the Eberron Player's Guide. The only version I know that's not Eberron-based is the 2e wizard specialization from Player's Option: Spells & Magic, and that had pretty much nothing to do with what most D&D folks think of when they hear "artificer".


----------



## Seramus (Feb 19, 2019)

Staffan said:


> Huh? The 3e Artificer class was published in the Eberron Campaign Setting book, and the 4e version in the Eberron Player's Guide. The only version I know that's not Eberron-based is the 2e wizard specialization from Player's Option: Spells & Magic, and that had pretty much nothing to do with what most D&D folks think of when they hear "artificer".



No, no. The wizard specialization from Player's Option: Spells & Magic is pretty much the only thing people used to think about when they heard the word "Artificer." *There was literally no other option.

*Then Eberron came along and painted a new picture, which is where the Johnny Cash Hurt reference comes in.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 19, 2019)

Seramus said:


> No, no. The wizard specialization from Player's Option: Spells & Magic is pretty much the only thing people used to think about when they heard the word "Artificer." *There was literally no other option.
> 
> *Then Eberron came along and painted a new picture, which is where the Johnny Cash Hurt reference comes in.




I mean, the NIN version wasn't exactly obscure...


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 20, 2019)

What exactly is it that people don't think fits with Eberron? I've been following Eberron since the first book came out, and I get that guns aren't an assumed thing, but there's nothing saying that the thunder cannon (or whatever it's called) of the artificer isn't a special, rare thing that was invented only a few years ago and hasn't caught on. It's not common enough to be a ubiquitous part of the setting, but it still exists.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 20, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> What exactly is it that people don't think fits with Eberron? I've been following Eberron since the first book came out, and I get that guns aren't an assumed thing, but there's nothing saying that the thunder cannon (or whatever it's called) of the artificer isn't a special, rare thing that was invented only a few years ago and hasn't caught on. It's not common enough to be a ubiquitous part of the setting, but it still exists.




Every setting has its purists. It doesn't help that Word of God Keith Baker is fairly vocally "no guns" in his own version Eberron (never mind that he is also pretty adamant that his own Eberron should not ever be taken as canon)


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 20, 2019)

It's not about being a purist. If it fits your Eberron do it. If someone is telling you you can't use something in Eberron because "it's not canon" or whatever, that person does not understand the setting.

My point is that the thunder cannon is not what the setting proposes as artillery. A wand or Staff specialist artificer would make more sense. And I guess that maybe my problems with it are intensified by the fact that the class, in the last UA, did not represent Eberron at all, so the subclass intensified my dislike of it.


----------



## Vael (Feb 20, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> What exactly is it that people don't think fits with Eberron? I've been following Eberron since the first book came out, and I get that guns aren't an assumed thing, but there's nothing saying that the thunder cannon (or whatever it's called) of the artificer isn't a special, rare thing that was invented only a few years ago and hasn't caught on. It's not common enough to be a ubiquitous part of the setting, but it still exists.




The main reason I don't, and I think this is also one that Keith Baker has opined is that Eberron is a world where magic has taken the place of science. That's why instead of steam engines, we have bound elementals. Guns are a little on the scientific part of the spectrum. There are gun analogues, like Eternal wands of Magic Missile, but they are magic first.

I won't gainsay someone that wants to use firearms in Eberron, but that's why I don't.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Feb 20, 2019)

The fantasy is changing and fantasy videogames have got their own influence. Now there are more steampunk and arcanepunk machines, And gunners appear with knights and wizards. Firearms aren't seen with good eyes in fantasy settings because the classic hand-to-hand fighters would be replaced by the gunslingers. Then it wouldn't be medieval fantasy but weird western. 

And d20 system isn't really ready for firearms yet. Not only about balance of power in the gameplay, but also because players could create homebred tricks against gunpowder, for example creation of a piece of ectoplasma to block cannons. And somebody could wonder about supernatural factions (dragons, giants, lord feys) wouldn't allow in the zone. A war god could punish firearms in the battlefield sending petitioners from Valhalla with bulletproof resistance, and temples could summon an area effect curse where guns couldn't work in the streets or public domains. 

And it isn't only gundpower, now there is the biopunk, living beings working like machines, for example a crossbow what reload itself, created by tiranids from Warhammer 40.000 or yuzhaan vong from Star Wars legends.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Feb 20, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> Thats how we got homunculous  (sp?) in the first place, right?



 As a D&D familiar?  No, not really.  The 0e & AD&D Find Familiar spell didn't deliver a homunculus, rather, a wizard could make a homunculus if he really wanted to.  I can't recall if the formula (materials/costs, time & spells) was in Eldritch Wizardry, or the AD&D MM or somewhere else, but it existed.

The AD&D homunculus was remarkably derivative of the monster of the same name in Harryhausen's awesome 1973 opus, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad. The Tom Baker's evil Prince Koura constructs a "living homunculus" from chemicals and gives it life with his own blood, at the cost of aging visibly - actually, all his magic looked pretty alchemical, but was derived from pacts with dark powers, and caused him to age as a 'price.'  D&D used the aging as a price of powerful magic, a lot.  Koura can see through the eyes of his homunculus and is harmed when it is killed.  

View attachment 104953

Except for the sleep-inducing bite, the D&D homunculus is a pretty close match.

View attachment 104954


Neither bear much resemblance to a 'real' homunculus.  You see, back in the 16th century a crazy/brilliant guy calling himself Paracelsus prettymuch just pickled a foetus and called it an homunculus.  

View attachment 104955

OK, that was a tad flipant: Paracelsus was arguably a father (great grandfather? crazy old uncle?) of modern medicine.  Google him.  It's interesting.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 20, 2019)

Something to consider is the artficer may not be planned for one setting, but two. There have been some pretty persistent rumours about something Lantan related in the pipeline. It may be that artificer with Alchemist and Magewright subclasses is published in an Eberron book, and artificer with Alchemist and Gunsmith subclasses published in a Lantan book


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Feb 20, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Something to consider is the artficer may not be planned for one setting, but two. There have been some pretty persistent rumours about something Lantan related in the pipeline. It may be that artificer with Alchemist and Magewright subclasses is published in an Eberron book, and artificer with Alchemist and Gunsmith subclasses published in a Lantan book




This is a great point. Since they are making this a base class, they must be looking at making it fairly extensible. A Lantan suppliment would be a perfect place for the Gunsmith, but certainly not Eberron.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 21, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> My point is that the thunder cannon is not what the setting proposes as artillery. A wand or Staff specialist artificer would make more sense. And I guess that maybe my problems with it are intensified by the fact that the class, in the last UA, did not represent Eberron at all, so the subclass intensified my dislike of it.




The thunder cannon isn't technically artillery, since it's an ordinance weapon. If you swapped in a bunch of cannons during the Last War, sure, that would change the flavor, but having a few select people with magical small arms that produce magical effects doesn't really seem to change the base flavor, IMO. It's not like they're adding mundane guns to common solders, magewrights, and wand-slingers. The thunder cannon is a magical thing in the exact same vein as Eberron's magical trains and magical robots.

Making a dedicated wand-slinger could be cool and could fill the gunslinger niche, but my issue is that it would essentially be using the same items and spells as everyone else, with some tweaks. Alternately, it could use completely unique class items and spell effects, but then you're basically re-making the thunder cannon, with its special features.

People keep claiming that the UA artificer doesn't represent Eberron and I'm still not seeing how. Eberron, by default, was intended to be a setting where everything DnD has a place and, even if you toss out the thunder cannon subclass, everything else about the UA artificer seemed to fit just fine in core DnD, and thus, Eberron. What does it need to be Eberron and why? Dragon shard abilities? Dragonmark abilities?



Vael said:


> The main reason I don't, and I think this is also one that Keith Baker has opined is that Eberron is a world where magic has taken the place of science. That's why instead of steam engines, we have bound elementals. Guns are a little on the scientific part of the spectrum. There are gun analogues, like Eternal wands of Magic Missile, but they are magic first.
> 
> I won't gainsay someone that wants to use firearms in Eberron, but that's why I don't.




I think I'd understand this viewpoint more if they were adding mundane guns to the setting as a general item. The thunder cannon is an explicitly magical artifice and, to me, it lies exactly in line with the magical trains, magical robots, magical steetlights, etc, that reproduce scientific tech in Eberron already.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 21, 2019)

If I may address the issue of "why no guns in Eberron", the point of the setting is magic REPLACES technology. So trains, airships, street lighting  all function magically, and so does weaponary. Eberron has no non-magical trains, and no non-magical wands (AKA guns).


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 21, 2019)

I shake my head at the notion the upcoming class will cater mostly to one specific setting.

It will obviously cater chiefly to those playing generic D&D. If it works for Eberron that's nice for sure, but it sure won't be the chief concern.

WotC have been quite ruthless about focusing on a vaguely Realmsian target because they know most of their customers play either in Forgotten Realms or in a homebrew where Realmsian material is at the very least grudgingly accepted.

They won't create a class specific to one small sliver of the customer base. There's way too much talk about Eberron around here. If they didn't feel they could make an Artificer work in their generic game, they would never do one.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 21, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> I shake my head at the notion the upcoming class will cater mostly to one specific setting.
> 
> It will obviously cater chiefly to those playing generic D&D. If it works for Eberron that's nice for sure, but it sure won't be the chief concern.
> 
> ...




Yeah, but unless they surprise us with a separate release of just the finalized class, the only way to get the official, polished version will be to buy the Eberron PDF, because that is where it will be found once the playtesting is done. Why would they put something generic in a specific book like that?


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 21, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Yeah, but unless they surprise us with a separate release of just the finalized class, the only way to get the official, polished version will be to buy the Eberron PDF, because that is where it will be found once the playtesting is done. Why would they put something generic in a specific book like that?




As I said earlier, it might appear in more than one book (as many races and subclasses do), and whichever upcoming book features Lantan would be a likely candidate.

It could even be released as free content on D&D Beyond.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 21, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> If I may address the issue of "why no guns in Eberron", the point of the setting is magic REPLACES technology. So trains, airships, street lighting  all function magically, and so does weaponary. Eberron has no non-magical trains, and no non-magical wands (AKA guns).




Sure. So the magical thunder cannon that only the artificer can manage to create and use passes muster then, correct?


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 21, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Why would they put something generic in a specific book like that?



*Shrug* 

All I know is: if you expect a setting specific class, expect to be disappointed.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 21, 2019)

I have not seen any Changelings, Kalashtar, Shifters, or PCs with a dragonmark in any games. Have you guys seen them outside of 5e Eberron games you've played?


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 21, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I have not seen any Changelings, Kalashtar, Shifters, or PCs with a dragonmark in any games. Have you guys seen them outside of 5e Eberron games you've played?




Shifters as PCs, yes.

Changelings as NPCs, no Kalashtar.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Feb 21, 2019)

If WotC was to make only the two Artificer subclasses that they had in the last UA article (the alchemist and the gunsmith)... then obviously it would tell us that they weren't making the artificer for Eberron use.  Because we know, they know, and everyone knows that the baseline Eberron artificer is a tinker-like and/or an infusion-specialized subclass.  WotC isn't stupid.  And on top of that, they will have Keith Baker talking to them the entire time about what the Eberron artificer should have at a minimum.  So I would be exceedingly surprised if alchemist and gunsmith end up being the only two subclasses there are.

But at the same time... I also don't see the issue in having a gunsmith subclass available to the class, even if it isn't one that would normally appear in Eberron.  Because as has been said... if you don't want thunder cannons in your Eberron game, don't make it available to be selected in your Eberron game.  Don't require WotC to do your job for you by demanding they not have the gunsmith subclass available at all.

That's why I use kibbletasty's revised Artificer, because it has _seven_ different subclasses that pretty much cover almost all the aspects of engineering/tinkering/magitech you could possibly want regardlss of campaign setting, and which more than half *are* applicable to a standard Eberron campaign.  And quite frankly, I think it's going to end up being a more worthwhile selection no matter what the new official artificer UA ends up being.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Feb 21, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> Yeah, but unless they surprise us with a separate release of just the finalized class, the only way to get the official, polished version will be to buy the Eberron PDF, because that is where it will be found once the playtesting is done. Why would they put something generic in a specific book like that?




Because they know that players want to play an Artificer regardless of whether or not it's an Eberron campaign.

Look at what they've already produced: Between the SCAG and XGtE and the dozen or more subclasses between the two, there's exactly _one_ subclass that's setting-specific: The Purple Dragon Knight.  And that's when they're publishing _just subclasses_!  Surely they know that classes need to exist in any possible campaign setting.  If they want something specific, they can create _a setting specific subclass_ just for Eberron.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 21, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> *Shrug*
> 
> All I know is: if you expect a setting specific class, expect to be disappointed.




I think you misunderstood what we were saying. We are not asking for a class that would work only in Eberron, that doesn't make sense. We want the class that will be published in an Eberron book to respect the settings theme. That's it. I don't see how that would make it work less in a generic setting...


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 21, 2019)

I can see a couple of ways in which the Artificer could end up having a gunsmith-like class without having to put in in the Eberron rules directly. (Where I agree; it wouldn't fit.)
Assuming that the new version is similar enough to the UA to have one.

The UA Gunsmith Artificer had no place in Eberron, but it took very little work to adjust to a dedicated Wand or Staff wielder, which do have already-established places in Eberron. (Mostly just changing the damage type and removing the ammo pouch.)
A Specialist Wandslinger subclass would fit well, and a sidebar mentioning how to adjust to different settings such as by converting the wands to a firearm, or introducing the DDO-style Runearm seems possible.

Or they could introduce the Artificer in the Eberron book, with some Eberron-aligned and some setting-neutral subclasses like the Alchemist and a construct master perhaps. Then also include the Artificer and setting neutral subtypes in a new book of crunch like Xanathar's, alongside subclasses like the gunsmith and others not suitable for Eberron.

Just because the Artificer is appearing in the Eberron sourcebook doesn't mean that it won't be appearing elsewhere as well.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 21, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> What exactly is it that people don't think fits with Eberron? I've been following Eberron since the first book came out, and I get that guns aren't an assumed thing, but there's nothing saying that the thunder cannon (or whatever it's called) of the artificer isn't a special, rare thing that was invented only a few years ago and hasn't caught on. It's not common enough to be a ubiquitous part of the setting, but it still exists.



Speaking only for myself (which seems appropriate), I think there are two major, but related, objections I have.

1) I don't like guns in D&D (in its role as default fantasy RPG), as a rule. There was a thread on this, not too long ago, where I conceded that I could imagine where someone could conceive of settings that would mix guns into fantasy in a way that worked (urban fantasy, obviously, and things like Deadlands or Shadowrun). So far, no one has done it in D&D, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done. From this perspective, I'm unlikely to ever be a fan of any class, regardless of name, that pretty much boils down to a gunslinger, assault gunner, or anything of the sort -- especially if it's positioned as being "vanilla" D&D. Straight up, IMO, "vanilla" D&D/fantasy, by definition, excludes guns or anything that fills that niche for most purposes. If you want a "gunslinger" class on DMs Guild, great. Ditto for something setting-specific. Not so much for a class presented as universal.

2) I do like Eberron. If Eberron is viewed through a lens of being steampunk or some such, that seems totally out of sync with #1. But, Eberron really isn't that setting. It's not just stripping the gears off tech and replacing them with glowing crystals. When taken to its logical conclusion (magic evolved instead of tech), there will be some overlap -- of course there will. But... Saying that a "gunner" subclass is totally in line with the themes of Eberron, is off the mark and runs the risk of revising the feel of the setting, especially since the Artificer class has been so iconic of Eberron since the setting was released. Does it make sense that there's probably some Cannith fanatic, somewhere, who carries around a staff with a 6 inch barrel? Yeah, probably. Does it make sense that it's one of the core builds for the class? Not so much.

To move from the "complaining" side to the the "offering solutions" side of the conversation, here's what I'd like to see:

Hang the Artificer on the Warlock chassis (with Int as casting ability). Instead of the Incantations mechanic, grant them a list of Infusions. This is in line with the idea that the Artificer isn't about raw spell-casting power, but is about taking magic and making it more available and applicable. It has the added benefit or reusing the Warlock skeleton to make it less of a one-off oddity. Break down the sub-classes as follows (names may need work). Note that I've not put this together, formally, so I'm not trying to balance, just give thematic builds.

* Alchemist -- Potion master, including oils, salves, and even scrolls. Focus on effects that are traditionally transitive, instant, or affect individuals, but that could also be used with some preparation. Ideas are things like an infusion that lets the alchemist spend a spell slot of a given level to create a specific potion (or one of a tight group) in exchange for a spell slot. The potion only lasts until the next short rest, but the alchemist could opt to renew it. Depending on balance and play-testing, I could see just allowing the alchemist to create a certain number of potions every day that would last all day (or multiple days), but I haven't fleshed this out enough to say what the balance point is.

* Maker (hate this name, but don't have a better one) -- Focus on creating what would generally be seen as "permanent" items -- swords, armor, wondrous items, etc. Infusions would have a lot to do with creating or transferring effects along those lines. For example, expend a 1st level spell slot to make a weapon, shield, or suit of armor have a +1 bonus until you take a short rest (can be renewed at that time, 3rd level slot makes +2, 5th level slot is +3). Other infusions could add elemental effects or resistances to items. Flavor is that this is the "adventuring" version of the maker, so they might be capable of doing full item creation, but the powers in play represent "good enough" enchantments that get the job done without huge time investments and remain somewhat flexible. If the source book included more formal item creation rules, I could see these guys also getting a break on time or money, or some other break. Probably better armor and weapon proficiency, too.

* Animator -- Focus on golems, clockwork creatures, and the like. This is the pet master. Pick a type of appropriate pet and get infusions that enhance it and/or your bond with it (shared casting, for example). I'm not a huge fan of pets, but it's definitely a niche that makes a lot of sense for the artificer.

* Channeller -- Master of rods, staves, wands, etc. This would be the closest to a "gunner" that I'd include. They'd get infusions that would let them maximize or modify the effects of magical devices. In some cases, this would be a lot like Sorcerer metamagic -- increased damage, better range, twinning. I could also see infusions that allowed them to just embed a spell in a stick of wood to use their other infusions on it or use spell slots to recharge a device. Some of the gunner abilities could probably be saved, but the flavor would need to be fixed.

Obviously, some of this overlaps with the previous UA version of the Artificer. I think a lot of it was just flavor. The potion master subclass just felt too much like the Skylander character who ran around throwing random crap. The Thunder Cannon was too science-y, even if not unbalanced or could be reskinned as a staff. I didn't like granting a pet to every Artificer, even though I agree it's a valid archetype it's not inherent to the larger concept. I also didn't like that the base class used the 1/3 spell progression that is otherwise reserved for sub-classes. Base classes should be either full (Wizard) or half (Paladin) casters. Warlock isn't really one of those, but it has its own internal consistency and it would also make sense that the Artificer would have a hard time multi-classing with standard casters.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 21, 2019)

Your 2) hits the mark perfectly for me. Anything in D&D can be done in Eberron, you can do a gunslinger in your Eberron. But half of the representation of a core class in the setting being about a magic gun is not what I expect of it. And if Eberron is about things having consequences, soon enough someone (in cannith probably) will see that gun, make a schema of it that works for everyone, make the house rich and make every other kind of weapon obsolete.


----------



## reveal (Feb 21, 2019)

DQDesign said:


> ok, thank you for your support. I'll cancel my account using the link provided in the page I cited above.
> thanks again.




He seemed nice.


----------



## CapnZapp (Feb 21, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Aww, I wanted to know what products he produced on DMsG, so I knew what not to buy...



Perhaps this one (pure guess only)?

https://www.dmsguild.com/product/262627

(He did link to it in the recent Scarred Lands news thread)


----------



## Al2O3 (Feb 21, 2019)

When I try to imagine an artificer in D&D I think of tinker gnomes and guns. I really hope the final version does contain some kind of gun-toting subclass. However, it would probably be easy to add once the rest is right, so after reading this thread I hope that the UA contains a good overall framework and a couple of subclasses that are suitable for Eberron.

The generic framework should not have anything that seems off in Eberron, but also nothing that marks the class as "the Eberron class". Based on this thread I assume wandslinger, making minor magic items and making constructs are suitable themes for subclasses in Eberron, with guns added in some later and more generic book. That could also include some kind of robots or "robot arms" as far as I am concerned. Maybe limit it to small creature and dwarves.

Tinker gnomes (or is "rock gnomes" the right word?) should be good artificers. Maybe dwarves too, at least for the thunder gun version.

An alternative to a gun that would make me just as happy would be a signature semi-automatic light crossbow or hand crossbow and some reason for it to be limited to the artificer and mechanically better than a fighter with crossbow expert. Maybe it's better because it's more versatile (adding spells or something like the arcane archer effects, but through premade special bolts) or by doing more damage in some situations. Bonus action additional attack perhaps? Whatever gives you an incentive to pick the subclass over a fighter with crossbow expert.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 21, 2019)

AndrÃ© Soares said:


> We want the class that will be published in an Eberron book to respect the settings theme. That's it. I don't see how that would make it work less in a generic setting...




It is entirely reasonable to expect something in a setting-specific book to somehow fit with the setting themes.  

But, setting themes are usually pretty setting-specific.  So, if you are meeting the setting themes strongly, you probably *don't* work so well in other settings, because the theme elements you are leaning on don't exist in those other worlds.  

The compromise is a mix - the class, for example, has some subclass paths that are setting specific, and others that aren't.


----------



## Gradine (Feb 21, 2019)

CapnZapp said:


> Perhaps this one (pure guess only)?
> 
> https://www.dmsguild.com/product/262627
> 
> (He did link to it in the recent Scarred Lands news thread)




Makes sense; the initials line up, and the tone of his feedback response on this item certainly tracks.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 22, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Makes sense; the initials line up, and the tone of his feedback response on this item certainly tracks.



Yeah, that's probably him. The good news is out of the 32 products on his page, none of them mildly interest me. 

(And after reading that response to the reviewer, I wouldn't buy from him even if he isn't DQ Design. Yikes.)

Thank you both!


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Yeah, that's probably him. The good news is out of the 32 products on his page, none of them mildly interest me.
> 
> (And after reading that response to the reviewer, I wouldn't buy from him even if he isn't DQ Design. Yikes.)
> 
> Thank you both!




Agreed.


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 22, 2019)

I watched the latest Dragon+ Q&A with Crawford today. At the very end, he mentioned that the Artificer was still on track for release this month, but it may not be Monday. It may be the 28th instead. he also said that going forward, they're going to be more flexible on the release of UAs. They want tie it to playtesting things in future books. They may be holding onto things to put them in better shape in order to get the best feedback possible.

It sounds like they'll shoot for the second Monday, but it could be any day some months.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> It is entirely reasonable to expect something in a setting-specific book to somehow fit with the setting themes.
> 
> But, setting themes are usually pretty setting-specific.  So, if you are meeting the setting themes strongly, you probably *don't* work so well in other settings, because the theme elements you are leaning on don't exist in those other worlds.
> 
> The compromise is a mix - the class, for example, has some subclass paths that are setting specific, and others that aren't.




I pretty much agree with this. I'm not against subclasses that aren't setting specific, I'm just not a fan of subclasses that directly contradict the setting to be in a book about that setting.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 22, 2019)

vecna00 said:


> I watched the latest Dragon+ Q&A with Crawford today. At the very end, he mentioned that the Artificer was still on track for release this month, but it may not be Monday. It may be the 28th instead. he also said that going forward, they're going to be more flexible on the release of UAs. They want tie it to playtesting things in future books. They may be holding onto things to put them in better shape in order to get the best feedback possible.It sounds like they'll shoot for the second Monday, but it could be any day some months.



Makes sense.   There's no need to put out a UA just to put out a UA and not actually test anything. There was quite a few released in the past that were just there or the designers playing with a concept rather than something that was actively being worked on.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 22, 2019)

Al2O3 said:


> When I try to imagine an artificer in D&D I think of tinker gnomes and guns. I really hope the final version does contain some kind of gun-toting subclass. However, it would probably be easy to add once the rest is right, so after reading this thread I hope that the UA contains a good overall framework and a couple of subclasses that are suitable for Eberron.



I snipped the rest of your post, just to save space, but I think what you outlined seems totally reasonable.

This is coming from someone who really hates tinker (rock) gnomes, automatic crossbows, and guns in my D&D. I get that some people like them and don't want to scream BADWRONGFUN at anyone. Just have some segregation between the traditional tropes and the newer or "bonus" ones. Eventually, some things will get incorporated into the core, organically. Already, I prefer my D&D with dragonborn, for example.

I also wonder if there's a matter of scale or cultural fit to this whole conversation, as well. Take guns. I've warmed to them, somewhat, and could actually see me having fun in a setting that has them. I don't want them to be core, but having a published setting that used them wouldn't bother me in the slightest, and I might even pick it up, depending on other factors. What I'm definitely opposed to, though, are silly, giant thunder cannons -- Final Fantasy VII was fun enough, but I don't want to have the gun equivalent of Cloud's absurdly over-sized sword. Related to that, I don't really want anything that resembles the FF series (at least those I've played) tendency to intermingle tech and magic. It can be done well (Shadowrun), but the tendency of anime/manga to crank everything up to 11 gets on my nerves to no end.

That might be an age thing, though. I've been playing for 35+ years, which would be when manga/anime/wuxia was even more fringe than D&D was. I would guess that anyone just coming of age with 5E would have a significantly different feeling about how "alien" those things are.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 22, 2019)

Adding guns (and the alchemist) to the last artificer did seem to be deliberately testing the fanbase. To see if the players in general liked mixing those concepts with the artificer or not.


----------



## Al2O3 (Feb 22, 2019)

Mercule said:


> I snipped the rest of your post, just to save space, but I think what you outlined seems totally reasonable.
> 
> This is coming from someone who really hates tinker (rock) gnomes, automatic crossbows, and guns in my D&D. I get that some people like them and don't want to scream BADWRONGFUN at anyone. Just have some segregation between the traditional tropes and the newer or "bonus" ones. Eventually, some things will get incorporated into the core, organically. Already, I prefer my D&D with dragonborn, for example.
> 
> ...



I totally agree that guns can be a bit out of place in most D&D settings. That is partly the draw for me: artificers SHOULD often be a bit whacky and crazy. If I get to decide they are the "crazy scientist" type of character, and not really fitting in is part of the identity for any variety with a gun, automatic crossbow or robotic enhancements. The subclasses suitable for Eberron (and the base class) do not need to (or even should not) include any of that whackyness.

I'm not quite familiar with the FF and anime references, but they might be a good description for what I do want. And the age difference might be part of it, since you started playing years before I was born.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 22, 2019)

vecna00 said:


> I watched the latest Dragon+ Q&A with Crawford today. At the very end, he mentioned that the Artificer was still on track for release this month, but it may not be Monday. It may be the 28th instead. he also said that going forward, they're going to be more flexible on the release of UAs. They want tie it to playtesting things in future books. They may be holding onto things to put them in better shape in order to get the best feedback possible.
> 
> It sounds like they'll shoot for the second Monday, but it could be any day some months.



Crawford is testing my patience. I want the artifcer yesterday! :-(


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 22, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Crawford is testing my patience. I want the artifcer yesterday! :-(




The major problem with all the delays to me is that the expectation of qualitty is getting really high. There's no small chance for disapointment


----------



## lkj (Feb 22, 2019)

Having been on the internet for a little while, I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that there will be people who are disappointed.

Also, having grown up in Michigan, 'snowpocalypse' events rarely improve the quality of anything except sledding, snowball fights, and snow forts. They make snow forts completely awesome.

AD


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Feb 22, 2019)

lkj said:


> Having been on the internet for a little while, I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that there will be people who are disappointed.
> 
> Also, having grown up in Michigan, 'snowpocalypse' events rarely improve the quality of anything except sledding, snowball fights, and snow forts. They make snow forts completely awesome.
> 
> AD




Reading this, while in my suit, in the middle of the heat of Brazillian Summer, I can only imagine how awesome it would be hahahah


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 22, 2019)

LuisCarlos17f said:


> The fantasy is changing and fantasy videogames have got their own influence. Now there are more steampunk and arcanepunk machines, And gunners appear with knights and wizards. Firearms aren't seen with good eyes in fantasy settings because the classic hand-to-hand fighters would be replaced by the gunslingers. Then it wouldn't be medieval fantasy but weird western.



Having guns a setting doesn't necessarily mean it's a Western, there's a few novels out there of a relatively new sub-genre called "Gunpowder Fantasy" such as Django Wrexler's Shadow Campaign series which is based roughly on the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte's military campaigns.  And it doesn't have any steampunk elements.  Though that series is on the lower magic end (other novels of the sub-genre have higher magic levels), and probably would be strongly about mass combat if it ever was a D&D campaign.  While I'd certainly go for a more fantastical version of the French Revolution, there's certainly other events in other parts of the world in that time period to draw from.  But the definition of what makes something gunpowder fantasy is somewhat fluid at the moment since it's new.

Beyond those novels, we have a game like Pillars of Eternity and it's sequel which are strongly based in a Renaissance Era setting complete with pirates, archmages, artificial Gods, scheming political factions, ruins of ancient civilizations, psionics and a science based on soul energy.  You could roughly place that game into the gunpowder fantasy genre.

Of course there's always it's cousin the steampunk genre, as they both sometimes touch on similar historical eras.  A heavily Steampunk and in some cases verging into Dieselpunk (since it's a mix of late 19th century and early 20th century developments) there's the Dishonored series of 1st person stealth games.  You play a variety of Rogue/Warlock characters in most of them (last entry focused on an Artificer/Rogue).  It has magic with sword and pistol action.  Even though the pistol is probably the worst weapon to use since it's a stealth game and not killing anyone is a highly-incentivized gameplay style.


----------



## Vael (Feb 22, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Crawford is testing my patience. I want the artifcer yesterday! :-(




Lol, I wanted full Eberron support: Artificers, Eberron races and Psionics when 5e was announced. Way past due.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 23, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Crawford is testing my patience. I want the artifcer yesterday! :-(



I wanted it two weeks ago: I ran a level 8 one-shot and it would have been a great playtest session. But it’s been repeatedly delayed for six months now, so another couple weeks isn’t really a surprise.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 23, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> Sure. So the magical thunder cannon that only the artificer can manage to create and use passes muster then, correct?



I certainly think so. Especially when you consider that it could be based on a miniaturization of lightning rail tech, or a reliably imbued variant of something like Magic Stone or Catapult. 

And honestly, fireball absolutely cannot replace hurling physical objects against walls and other objects, so...why wouldn't there be Catapult [the spell] railguns hurling specially made balls of very heavy metal? You just need someone who can cast Catapult to _make it, not to use it._



Mistwell said:


> I have not seen any Changelings, Kalashtar, Shifters, or PCs with a dragonmark in any games. Have you guys seen them outside of 5e Eberron games you've played?




I've seen all but Kalashtar, plus Warforged. In fact, the only Warforged I've seen in 5e have been in FR games, so far. The Changling I played was in a Tal Dorei game. 



Kobold Avenger said:


> Having guns a setting doesn't necessarily mean it's a Western, there's a few novels out there of a relatively new sub-genre called "Gunpowder Fantasy" such as Django Wrexler's Shadow Campaign series which is based roughly on the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte's military campaigns.  And it doesn't have any steampunk elements.  Though that series is on the lower magic end (other novels of the sub-genre have higher magic levels), and probably would be strongly about mass combat if it ever was a D&D campaign.  While I'd certainly go for a more fantastical version of the French Revolution, there's certainly other events in other parts of the world in that time period to draw from.  But the definition of what makes something gunpowder fantasy is somewhat fluid at the moment since it's new.
> 
> Beyond those novels, we have a game like Pillars of Eternity and it's sequel which are strongly based in a Renaissance Era setting complete with pirates, archmages, artificial Gods, scheming political factions, ruins of ancient civilizations, psionics and a science based on soul energy.  You could roughly place that game into the gunpowder fantasy genre.
> 
> Of course there's always it's cousin the steampunk genre, as they both sometimes touch on similar historical eras.  A heavily Steampunk and in some cases verging into Dieselpunk (since it's a mix of late 19th century and early 20th century developments) there's the Dishonored series of 1st person stealth games.  You play a variety of Rogue/Warlock characters in most of them (last entry focused on an Artificer/Rogue).  It has magic with sword and pistol action.  Even though the pistol is probably the worst weapon to use since it's a stealth game and not killing anyone is a highly-incentivized gameplay style.




I'm a big fan of gaslamp fantasy, myself. 

For me, using guns in Eberron doesn't change the setting pretty much at all, except that the common guard and soldier gets more lethals. The problem for me with wandslingers is that you still have to be able to cast spells to use a wand. However, I do think that Eberron is a setting where using the "Level 1 Bonus Feat (can't be traded for an ASI)" houserule makes a lot of sense, so having characters with Magic Initiate, and a fancy wand, can work. Still, the wandslinger can't fill the same role of the firearm, IMO at all, unless it's something that can be picked up off the floor by an untrained peasant and kill you dead, so Wandslingers are always gonna fall short on that. 

I've gone two ways in the past, adding guns to Eberron. 

1) Magic Guns. It's a gun, looks like a gun, it's totally a gun. It is just powered by an alchemical liquid that explodes when you pull the trigger, because magical magnets, basically. It smells bad, too much of it in a small space will cause eyes to water, and it otherwise functions like a gun. 

2) A new kind of wand/rod/staff that does a very simple kind of damage, doesn't have charges, and requires no training or spellcasting ability. So, it's more magical in feel, because it's a wand/rod/staff, and it does fire, or radiant, or cold, or whatever, but otherwise it works like a gun that is magical. Range increments, add dex to attack and damage, etc. 

Both work fine, IME.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 23, 2019)

The thing with Eberron is it has magic pretty much falling out of the sky. So why would someone build a device for shooting little lead balls, when it is easier, cheaper, and more effective to build something that shoots lightning?


----------



## Jester David (Feb 23, 2019)

This discussion is archtypal ENWorld. The discussion of whether or not the artificer needed guns was a good one to have... back in January 2017 when the survey was posted. Now, it's irrelevant. Because nothing said here remotely matters in any way, and will have ZERO impact on the class that has already been written based on feedback that has already been given. It's an argument for the sake of fighting. It's not making anyone's game better, it's not improving the class or positing feedback, and it certainly isn't changing anyone's mind. It's just bickering.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 23, 2019)

What have you got against bickering? You think we have anything better to do? Sure, an artificer needs guns. Eberron does not need guns. Since Eberron won't be the only place artificers appear, there is no conflict. However, a lack of conflict is no reason to pass up on a good bicker.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Feb 23, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I've gone two ways in the past, adding guns to Eberron.
> 
> 1) Magic Guns. It's a gun, looks like a gun, it's totally a gun. It is just powered by an alchemical liquid that explodes when you pull the trigger, because magical magnets, basically. It smells bad, too much of it in a small space will cause eyes to water, and it otherwise functions like a gun.
> 
> ...



My idea for guns in Eberron was that the ancient Dhakaani Empire had weapons known as "boomsticks" that were guns, but the Goblins lost knowledge of how to make such weapons after the Dhakaani Empire fell.


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 23, 2019)

Eberron is a game where a 'Critical Role' approach is good - they're just being discovered at the time that Eberron takes place.  I added them to my recent, but short, Eberron game as a recent invention that started to show up in the hands of the Lord of Blades.  However, I think that every time I ran an Eberron campaign, I would go back to the same starting point in time and have whatever enemy I decided should be the main villain would be the one that discovered guns and added them to the world.

I think this artificer will likely not have the gun version included, or will have it as a build that is not recommended for Eberron - or is recommended as a Critical Role 'the PC introduces it' style mechanic.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 24, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> The thing with Eberron is it has magic pretty much falling out of the sky. So why would someone build a device for shooting little lead balls, when it is easier, cheaper, and more effective to build something that shoots lightning?




Even in a saturated low-magic setting like Eberron, most people can't cast damaging cantrips at-will. In fact, the presence of special arcaneers on the battlefield throwing magic around at non-magical soldiers makes a great argument for inventing firearms to level the playing field. In real life, one side has bows, the other side develops firearms, then one side gets better armor, the other side makes better guns, someone develops biologicial weapons, another makes bombs, drones appear to take out personnel, an so on. Having a war with "haves" and "have-nots" as far as ranged magical artillery is great recipe for an arms race.



jgsugden said:


> Eberron is a game where a 'Critical Role' approach is good - they're just being discovered at the time that Eberron takes place.




This is one viable way to go without changing the canon at all. The timeline didn't move forward, and someone has just come up with the idea. If you don't want the thundercannon subclass, no one has yet to come up with it yet. I mean, it's not that far off from what they did with the timeline for Dark Sun in 4e. Whatever direction you want to take your own game branches off of the presented material.


----------



## Kurotowa (Feb 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I certainly think so. Especially when you consider that it could be based on a miniaturization of lightning rail tech, or a reliably imbued variant of something like Magic Stone or Catapult.




Another alternative I've pondered is fluffing it as a Cantrip strength variant of Thunderwave plus a runically enhanced firing barrel to fire projectiles with pure air pressure. In other words, rather than alchemical gunpowder substitutes you'd be using magically powered airsoft guns strong enough to do actual damage. It would explain why the weapons can't be handed to just anyone, get more powerful as you go up in level, and are easily enhanced with extra magical effects. They'd be a pretty specialized weapon, but so is most of what PCs get up to, and you can just figure most Gunsmiths make their own guns.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> For me, using guns in Eberron doesn't change the setting pretty much at all, except that the common guard and soldier gets more lethals. The problem for me with wandslingers is that you still have to be able to cast spells to use a wand. However, I do think that Eberron is a setting where using the "Level 1 Bonus Feat (can't be traded for an ASI)" houserule makes a lot of sense, so having characters with Magic Initiate, and a fancy wand, can work. Still, the wandslinger can't fill the same role of the firearm, IMO at all, unless it's something that can be picked up off the floor by an untrained peasant and kill you dead, so Wandslingers are always gonna fall short on that.



 NPC Wandslingers can't generally cast spells without a wand. Remember in Eberron PCs are unusual. Its like why there are a lot more magewrights than artificers in the world: PC caster classes are much rarer than NPC Wandslingers, and much less limited.



NaturalZero said:


> Even in a saturated low-magic setting like Eberron, most people can't cast damaging cantrips at-will. In fact, the presence of special arcaneers on the battlefield throwing magic around at non-magical soldiers makes a great argument for inventing firearms to level the playing field.



 Firearms aren't something that you can just decide to invent from scratch. They are the result of many technological advances in metallurgy, engineering, chemistry etc. Only after all those were known were people able to consider the  concept of a firearm as a practical weapon.
Eberron doesn't have those advances. 
Its easy for us to look back through the history and say "Well, all they have to do is develop this, then that, and then they can make firearms." But the people actually doing so do not have that endpoint visible. Even more to the point, early firearms just weren't that effective. A nation would be more likely to be put resources into developing something they know will work, like improving the formulae for arcane foci to allow more people to be wandslingers.



> This is one viable way to go without changing the canon at all. The timeline didn't move forward, and someone has just come up with the idea. If you don't want the thundercannon subclass, no one has yet to come up with it yet. I mean, it's not that far off from what they did with the timeline for Dark Sun in 4e. Whatever direction you want to take your own game branches off of the presented material.



 Yep. If a player was dead-set on playing the Gunsmith Artificer, and wasn't willing to adjust it to fit in with the setting, having them be unique would be the way that you could allow them to without dissonance. They're the mad inventor who has developed something completely off the charts, and it will only work for them due to their knowledge of the magic involved.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 24, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> Another alternative I've pondered is fluffing it as a Cantrip strength variant of Thunderwave plus a runically enhanced firing barrel to fire projectiles with pure air pressure. In other words, rather than alchemical gunpowder substitutes you'd be using magically powered airsoft guns strong enough to do actual damage. It would explain why the weapons can't be handed to just anyone, get more powerful as you go up in level, and are easily enhanced with extra magical effects. They'd be a pretty specialized weapon, but so is most of what PCs get up to, and you can just figure most Gunsmiths make their own guns.



 Bound Air Elemental possibly. That would make the lightning effect (which becomes more powerful than the physical as you level) more logical.
It may require more cooperation from the elemental or unusual bindings to allow it to do so, hence why it can only be used by the artificer.


----------



## epithet (Feb 24, 2019)

I'm pretty sure I've seen warforged with arm cannons in 3 or 3.5. Was that not a thing?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 24, 2019)

epithet said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen warforged with arm cannons in 3 or 3.5. Was that not a thing?




Integrate crossbows and wands were a thing. Cannons weren't, at least not in, uh, canon. (Can't speak to what people did in their home games, of course.)


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 24, 2019)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> Firearms aren't something that you can just decide to invent from scratch. They are the result of many technological advances in metallurgy, engineering, chemistry etc. Only after all those were known were people able to consider the  concept of a firearm as a practical weapon.
> Eberron doesn't have those advances.




Of course they do. In fact, their "chemistry" and metallurgy is far beyond that of the civilizations in real life that were creating early firearms. They have alchemy that creates fire without sparks, bottled lightning, super glue, super glow sticks, etc. They're making special alloys that are far harder than steel, metals as hard as steel but much lighter, etc. They even have wood that's as hard as steel. The engineering and chemical tech of Eberron is way beyond what real world inventors had access too.



> Its easy for us to look back through the history and say "Well, all they have to do is develop this, then that, and then they can make firearms." But the people actually doing so do not have that endpoint visible. Even more to the point, early firearms just weren't that effective. A nation would be more likely to be put resources into developing something they know will work, like improving the formulae for arcane foci to allow more people to be wandslingers.




While is makes perfect sense for nations to invest in something that can compete with trained wandslingers without requiring all of the training, we're not talking about nations arming whole armies yet though. It's literally just an artificer crafting an experimental weapon with a base of metallurgic and alchemical knowledge which is already off the charts compared to what was available to real life inventors. Copying and pasting trains and adding magic was probably a far bigger technological leap, and that airship has already sailed.



epithet said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen warforged with arm cannons in 3 or 3.5. Was that not a thing?




There were attached wand sheathes that were a warforged component. Warforged arm prosthetics were also a thing, and my human artificer had 2 artificial arms with built in wands.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 24, 2019)

Mouseferatu said:


> Integrate crossbows and wands were a thing. Cannons weren't, at least not in, uh, canon. (Can't speak to what people did in their home games, of course.)




There was the also the Alchemical Launcher from 4e, which lobbed firebombs and other such grenades, but that's more like a catapult than a cannon.

Warforged components do some crazy things, like turn them into spider-tanks.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 24, 2019)

NaturalZero said:


> Even in a saturated low-magic setting like Eberron, most people can't cast damaging cantrips at-will. In fact, the presence of special arcaneers on the battlefield throwing magic around at non-magical soldiers makes a great argument for inventing firearms to level the playing field.




Whilst most soldiers may not know any damage cantrips, they can all, to a man, use a _Wand of Magic Missiles_, which can be made with existing technology and readily available materials. And your troops will be 100% accurate without needing any special training.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 24, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Whilst most soldiers may not know any damage cantrips, they can all, to a man, use a _Wand of Magic Missiles_, which can be made with existing technology and readily available materials. And your troops will be 100% accurate without needing any special training.




It's sort of interesting that this really only became a world building feature once 5e came out since OG 3.5 Eberron would have required spellcasting or a Use Magic Device check to cast from any wand. When the original Eberron was released, it didn't make a whole lot of sense to try and outdo cheap weapons with low level casters wielding expensive expendable items because they weren't that good for the cost, but that was the canon.

It's true, Magic Missile is the outlier in 5e since it doesn't require the user's casting mod, but it certainly doesn't make the musket obsolete since you're realistically only going to be able to fire 6 times per day without making your wand fizzle, per 400g you invest in a soldier. For 800g, a Magic Missile soldier can fire a total of 12 times a day without breaking his 2 wands while the musket user can shoot 1000 times for the same cost.  The wand does more average damage per shot and obviously has more accuracy, but it isn't as cost efficient as arming soldiers who will probably want to shoot more than 6 times.

Besides, everything from magic trains to robots exist in Eberron because someone was messing around and inventing stuff. The argument could go one way or the other as far the viability of guns as a big military investment, but the idea that inventors who are literally creating factories and floating buildings might come up with ranged weapons that don't require the manual strength necessary to pull a bow or crank a crossbow is perfectly reasonable. Whether or not guns would become a common, viable military weapon doesn't necessarily preclude the idea that artificers are going to be messing around trying to come up with something stronger than an Uncommon wand.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 24, 2019)

It's unlikely a musketeer would get to fire his musket more than 6 times in a battle - chances are he would have either won or been overwhelmed long before - especially against enemies with magic missile wands, who would have time for around 4 shots whilst the musketeer was still reloading. Musketeers would carry enough powder and shot for maybe a dozen shots into battle - and that was being optimistic. And there is no way any musket would fire 1000 shots in it's lifetime - it's chamber would wear out or it would catastrophically misfire long before then. 100 shots maybe, if well maintained.

And without competitive primitive firearms, there is no incentive to develop more advanced versions, even supposing a gunpowder equivalent even exists on Eberron (using a tiny magic fireball as a propellent is much more plausible in the setting). Much more effective to set your artificers working on cheep Firebolt wands or crossbows that fire force bolts.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 24, 2019)

Well, we're closing in on the release of this puppy—only four more days in this month.


----------



## Herosmith14 (Feb 24, 2019)

Wahoo!

I liked the last UA Artificer, and I'm excited to see what they did to change it (hopefully wrapping the golem off into its own subclass). 

I will say, I don't intend to play in Eberron all that much, do I don't mind if there's stuff that breaks theme, so long as it's good. As far as guns go, I subscribe to the philosophy of "it doesn't fit my setting, don't play it at this table." You're the DM, your rules.

Anyway, I'm eager to see the update, so I can think on how to integrate them into my campaign setting.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 24, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Well, we're closing in on the release of this puppy—only four more days in this month.




Until they announce its been delayed to "sometime in March", then "after April", then...


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 25, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> Whilst most soldiers may not know any damage cantrips, they can all, to a man, use a _Wand of Magic Missiles_, which can be made with existing technology and readily available materials. And your troops will be 100% accurate without needing any special training.




This is the scariest most world altering thought I've heard of in ages.  (And if they were all pointed at one target....)

/shudders.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 25, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> It's unlikely a musketeer would get to fire his musket more than 6 times in a battle - chances are he would have either won or been overwhelmed long before - especially against enemies with magic missile wands, who would have time for around 4 shots whilst the musketeer was still reloading. Musketeers would carry enough powder and shot for maybe a dozen shots into battle - and that was being optimistic. And there is no way any musket would fire 1000 shots in it's lifetime - it's chamber would wear out or it would catastrophically misfire long before then. 100 shots maybe, if well maintained.




The DnD "musket" is a thing that can be loaded in less than 6 seconds but you're right that in the 5e rules, X number of Magic Missile soldiers definitely outmatches X number of musket adversaries. The cost to damage ratio for arming a group of soldiers is still an issue though, and the DMG musket doesn't have to automatically out perform a specific wand to make it inconceivable as an experimental weapon in a world where people still shoot crossbows.

In the fantasy DnD world of Eberron, with alchemy and metallurgy that can do things 21st century scientists can't, there are no rules for guns wearing out any more than magic wands though. This is a planet where things are made of adamantine, mithril, byeshk, bronzewood, sentria, mournload, crysteel, etc, etc, and we can't really compare the invention of some guy from 16th century Spain to those of magical, alchemical artificers who also whip up floating trains and magic airplanes. The Eberron gun would likely be compared to a real world firearm the way a bound elemental airship is to a Boeing 737; deconstructed and re-imagined with magical functions and construction. The idea that an esoteric artificer with access to physics beyond what a person on Earth can master coming up with a simple way to shoot pieces of metal as a weird military arms experiment seems pretty reasonable.



> And without competitive primitive firearms, there is no incentive to develop more advanced versions, even supposing a gunpowder equivalent even exists on Eberron (using a tiny magic fireball as a propellent is much more plausible in the setting). Much more effective to set your artificers working on cheep Firebolt wands or crossbows that fire force bolts.




Primitive guns mostly had issues because of poor metallurgy and chemistry though, which are potentially non-issues here. The Eberron artificer essentially starts out with far more powerful toolkit of tech to make something simple like a tube that contains and explosion and a piece of metal. 

I'm totally open to it guns that are powered by magic propulsion too, and that would probably work with the setting even better. As someone mentioned earlier, you could have the thunder cannon just be a spin-off of lightning rail tech. Conductor stones use an EMF to fling a big metal train through space and a small, enclosed conductor stone could fling a bullet like a rail gun.


----------



## Paul Farquhar (Feb 25, 2019)

But why would you want to use magical fire/electricity to propel a lead ball down an adamantine tube when with the same magic and fewer materials you could simply shoot the fire/lightning directly at the target?! It's adding over-complication to achieve a less effective outcome (since in D&D non-magical bludgeoning damage is less effective than fire/lightning damage).


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Feb 25, 2019)

Now new generations want fantasy fiction allow amours by alchemical graphene or spider-silk because it is possible in the real life, and machines by living tissues like the gun from restaurant scene in the movie "eXisenZ", or the biopunk tech by the Yuuzhang-Vong from Star Wars legends. . 

There is a "taboo" about firearms because many fans don't want melee weapons to be replaced by guns and rifles. If an ordinary motor is possible, then it would be the end of chivalry, replaced by war chariots. 

Magic is more powerful, but more expensive. Musketeers can't be replaced by warmages (3.5 Ed class).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 25, 2019)

Kobold Avenger said:


> My idea for guns in Eberron was that the ancient Dhakaani Empire had weapons known as "boomsticks" that were guns, but the Goblins lost knowledge of how to make such weapons after the Dhakaani Empire fell.




I don't love boomstick, but otherwise yeah. I'd love to see some goblin tinker-gunslingers who've recreated ancient firearms. 



Kurotowa said:


> Another alternative I've pondered is fluffing it as a Cantrip strength variant of Thunderwave plus a runically enhanced firing barrel to fire projectiles with pure air pressure. In other words, rather than alchemical gunpowder substitutes you'd be using magically powered airsoft guns strong enough to do actual damage. It would explain why the weapons can't be handed to just anyone, get more powerful as you go up in level, and are easily enhanced with extra magical effects. They'd be a pretty specialized weapon, but so is most of what PCs get up to, and you can just figure most Gunsmiths make their own guns.




Lots of iconic dnd weapons are extremely niche, weirdo weapons. Nothing wrong with that!



Cap'n Kobold said:


> NPC Wandslingers can't generally cast spells without a wand. Remember in Eberron PCs are unusual. Its like why there are a lot more magewrights than artificers in the world: PC caster classes are much rarer than NPC Wandslingers, and much less limited.




I've always found that totally unconvincing, and also it doesn't change that wandslingers don't fill the niche of guns, so you still have to do something else if you want that niche filled. 



> Yep. If a player was dead-set on playing the Gunsmith Artificer, and wasn't willing to adjust it to fit in with the setting, having them be unique would be the way that you could allow them to without dissonance. They're the mad inventor who has developed something completely off the charts, and it will only work for them due to their knowledge of the magic involved.




That always works. 



Paul Farquhar said:


> But why would you want to use magical fire/electricity to propel a lead ball down an adamantine tube when with the same magic and fewer materials you could simply shoot the fire/lightning directly at the target?! It's adding over-complication to achieve a less effective outcome (since in D&D non-magical bludgeoning damage is less effective than fire/lightning damage).




Why would you assume that a magical spark or miniscule explosion would require the same magical energy/power as casting lighting bolt or fireball? It would logically be less than a cantrip. It's a weak Shocking Grasp or Firebolt.


----------



## gyor (Feb 25, 2019)

*Last Monday of February*

Last Monday of February,  yet no sign of it. Disappointing.


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 25, 2019)

gyor said:


> Last Monday of February,  yet no sign of it. Disappointing.




Crawford mentioned it's still on track for February, it may drop on the last day of February, but February nonetheless.


----------



## Vael (Feb 25, 2019)

Feb 28th, 11:59 pm


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 25, 2019)

Vael said:


> Feb 28th, 11:59 pm




PST*


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Feb 25, 2019)

This might be of interest to some: http://keith-baker.com/firearms-in-eberron/


----------



## Morrus (Feb 25, 2019)

Vael said:


> Feb 28th, 11:59 pm




11.59pm in Seattle. Early hours of the morning for the rest of us.


----------



## NaturalZero (Feb 26, 2019)

Paul Farquhar said:


> But why would you want to use magical fire/electricity to propel a lead ball down an adamantine tube when with the same magic and fewer materials you could simply shoot the fire/lightning directly at the target?! It's adding over-complication to achieve a less effective outcome (since in D&D non-magical bludgeoning damage is less effective than fire/lightning damage).






doctorbadwolf said:


> Why would you assume that a magical spark or miniscule explosion would require the same magical energy/power as casting lighting bolt or fireball? It would logically be less than a cantrip. It's a weak Shocking Grasp or Firebolt.




As doctorbadwolf says, from a world-building perspective there's nothing saying that creating a tiny explosion in a tube takes more resources than a wand that shoots an entire Firebolt (or whatever), especially if we're making a legitimately magical Eberron thing instead of a real-world mechanism. From this perspective, now I'm seeing how the magical "thunder cannon" could literally just be a single piece without moving parts and a tiny, less-powerful-than-a-cantrip spell in the barrel that propels metal balls. You could conceptually make it for _less _than the cost of a wand with a simpler design than even the most primitive real-world firearm.

Why would they make something that does bludgeoning damage in a war with magic? Because the thunder cannon does a bunch of other things, via the artificer. A wand does exactly one thing, but Unearthed Arcana gave us an experimental TC that does thunder damage, lightning damage, AOEs, et al. This is without getting into the idea that bullets could be enchanted with special properties, including rare ones with big effects. The wand does magic missle 6 times a day and that's it, but the magical gun is a platform to throw out Tanglefoot bullets, siege-destroying acid rounds, undead-killing blessed rounds, dispel magic rounds, or even expensive one-shot Fireball rounds. I'm thinking of how the Eberron-gun could be a thing that basically shoots bullets that are essentially one-charge spell expendable items, and that seems to not only fit the theme of the world perfectly but open up plenty of design space and options. It's steeped in magic flavor and far more versatile than a regular ol' wand.



Cap'n Kobold said:


> This might be of interest to some: http://keith-baker.com/firearms-in-eberron/




One of the cool pieces of 4e that 5e threw out was the concept of implements with different properties and benefits from specialization. I'd be hyped for an in-depth rule module that gave different implements various properties and presented a slew of intrinsically magical implements that grant effects to spells cast. I feel like i'd be more excited for wandslingers completely eclipsing the gunsmith artificer if there were interesting options to make wandslingers different from every other mage in every DnD setting that uses cantrips at-will. What would a specialized wandslinger artificer bring to the table that a every warlock with a gun-shaped wand from any other world doesn't?


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 26, 2019)

Just a small heads up: At the beginning of today's D&D News, Greg Tito said the UA is dropping this week. More than likely not today, but either Wednesday, Thursday, or (GASP!) Friday.


----------



## Enevhar Aldarion (Feb 27, 2019)

It was posted to Twitter tonight that we get the new issue of Dragon+ Wednesday afternoon, so we should get the Artificer UA at the same time, since it will probably be the UA that is in the new issue.


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 27, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> It was posted to Twitter tonight that we get the new issue of Dragon+ Wednesday afternoon, so we should get the Artificer UA at the same time, since it will probably be the UA that is in the new issue.




I don't think it'll be a part of Dragon+ with the way Tito was talking about the two. In regards to Dragon+, he said that it was pretty much ready to upload during the recording of D&D News, while the UA was not quite done.

Plus, I'm pretty sure they would flat-out say if the UA was going to release in Dragon+ instead of just being talked about within its pages. They could be released side-by-side though!


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 27, 2019)

vecna00 said:


> I don't think it'll be a part of Dragon+ with the way Tito was talking about the two. In regards to Dragon+, he said that it was pretty much ready to upload during the recording of D&D News, while the UA was not quite done.
> 
> Plus, I'm pretty sure they would flat-out say if the UA was going to release in Dragon+ instead of just being talked about within its pages. They could be released side-by-side though!




Getting the first new Class widely sampled is important nto WotC: could be that tying it into the Dragon+ issue for exposure alongside the Ghosts of Saltmarsh announcement was part of the delay.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 27, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Getting the first new Class widely sampled is important nto WotC: could be that tying it into the Dragon+ issue for exposure alongside the Ghosts of Saltmarsh announcement was part of the delay.



Except this won’t be the first new class. We’ve seen another earlier artificer and the mystic already.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 27, 2019)

I've been ignoring Dragon +.

Wonder if I should re-assess.


----------



## jayoungr (Feb 27, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> I've been ignoring Dragon +.
> 
> Wonder if I should re-assess.



I quite enjoy it, and almost every issue has a freebie of some kind (adventures, digital maps, etc.).


----------



## Ancalagon (Feb 27, 2019)

I just hope that they remove the robot companion at level 6. It didn't scale well, and should be a subclass specific power (the "golemist"?)


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Feb 27, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> I just hope that they remove the robot companion at level 6. It didn't scale well, and should be a subclass specific power (the "golemist"?)




Based on the other pet subclasses, it will probably be the homonculist.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 27, 2019)

MechaTarrasque said:


> Based on the other pet subclasses, it will probably be the homonculist.




I really hope that it's a class where the bulk of your power comes from subclasses, but if it isn't at least as subclass-oriented as the warlock, then you'll probably be right. 

Also, those names are terrible, and far too specific. 

Obviously it should be called the constructinator.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 27, 2019)

Enevhar Aldarion said:


> It was posted to Twitter tonight that we get the new issue of Dragon+ Wednesday afternoon, so we should get the Artificer UA at the same time, since it will probably be the UA that is in the new issue.



Dragon + posted and no artifcer. I'm thinking this is going to be further delayed


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 27, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Except this won’t be the first new class. We’ve seen another earlier artificer and the mystic already.




Nothing has been published in a final form: the delays here are related to them wanting to present something to get a thumbs u por down for final publication.


----------



## MechaTarrasque (Feb 27, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I really hope that it's a class where the bulk of your power comes from subclasses, but if it isn't at least as subclass-oriented as the warlock, then you'll probably be right.
> 
> Also, those names are terrible, and far too specific.
> 
> Obviously it should be called the constructinator.




Very true on the names.  I like constructinator, although I will be hard pressed to pick between "I'll be back" or "Constructinators, merge to form Devastator" as a go-to joke....

Artificer seems like it could be a good candidate for putting a lot of power in the subclasses, probably depending on how much juice they put in the default spell casting; if most of the spells affect things, not (directly) people (which would fit the class), then I think it could be argued that spell casting doesn't add a lot of direct power (artificer also seems like a good class to have subclass bonus spells).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Feb 27, 2019)

MechaTarrasque said:


> Very true on the names.  I like constructinator, although I will be hard pressed to pick between "I'll be back" or "Constructinators, merge to form Devastator" as a go-to joke....
> 
> Artificer seems like it could be a good candidate for putting a lot of power in the subclasses, probably depending on how much juice they put in the default spell casting; if most of the spells affect things, not (directly) people (which would fit the class), then I think it could be argued that spell casting doesn't add a lot of direct power (artificer also seems like a good class to have subclass bonus spells).




all good thoughts. Subclass spells for sure, as well as some conjuration of constructs, and temporary figurines of power could be fun, along with the various spells we already have that imbue magic into things.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 27, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Nothing has been published in a final form: the delays here are related to them wanting to present something to get a thumbs u por down for final publication.



 It's still going to be a UA. It maybe be close to it's final form, but I don't recall seeing anything that implied this will be the final draft and that there won't be any subsequent revisions. (If you have, please feel free to link them.)


----------



## vecna00 (Feb 27, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It's still going to be a UA. It maybe be close to it's final form, but I don't recall seeing anything that implied this will be the final draft and that there won't be any subsequent revisions. (If you have, please feel free to link them.)




It's mostly just speculation, I like to think of it as more "educated speculation" mostly because I want to see this in its final iteration. My bias is clearly showing there!


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It's still going to be a UA. It maybe be close to it's final form, but I don't recall seeing anything that implied this will be the final draft and that there won't be any subsequent revisions. (If you have, please feel free to link them.)




Pretty simple conclusion: they've stated that what they put into UA is intended to be published within a year ideally, and they have spent months refining and playtesting the Artificer internally before soliciting feedback. They want to put it in a book, bit they want to know people want it in a book.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Pretty simple conclusion: they've stated that what they put into UA is intended to be published within a year ideally, and they have spent months refining and playtesting the Artificer internally before soliciting feedback. They want to put it in a book, bit they want to know people want it in a book.



Yeah. Which still means it’s a year from being in a book (likely the PoD version of Wayfarer’s Guide). It’s still a play test.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yeah. Which still means it’s a year from being in a book (likely the PoD version of Wayfarer’s Guide). It’s still a play test.




Within a year: they have been kicking the can for half a year already. I'd expect to see the product this year...if the playtest is a success. If not, they might be forced back to the drawing board.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Within a year: they have been kicking the can for half a year already. I'd expect to see the product this year...if the playtest is a success. If not, they might be forced back to the drawing board.



I certainly hope they don’t rush things along to publication just because it took more time to make the mechanics work...


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> I certainly hope they don’t rush things along to publication just because it took more time to make the mechanics work...




Publishing in November would hardly be rushing. Stewart said there would be at least three main D&D books this year, and maybe four. The fourth maybe wouldn't be rushed if it made in this year.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 28, 2019)

I came to find people as anxious and impatient for the revised artificer release as me... I am not disappointed. lol


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Publishing in November would hardly be rushing. Stewart said there would be at least three main D&D books this year, and maybe four. The fourth maybe wouldn't be rushed if it made in this year.



It kinda would. 
They work far ahead. I guarantee they’re already working on the book for April 2020. They need to have the content for the November book locked down in a couple months so they can begin final editing and layout, to say nothing of art. 
It’d be super risky to bank on having a class ready for a November. After all, they thought the previous two versions would work as well. Why gamble that it’s ready to release when they’ve already delayed it so many times. Heck, they talking about getting it out in UA for last July!

Plus, while four books worked well last year, they didn’t know that until after November. And I imagine they would  want to space them out so they’re not releasing three books out in four months. Which was clearly a problem, as _Mad Mage_ was delayed *and* the spring book slipped from the ussual early April to late May. 
_But_ they also didn’t know four books would work until after November, too late to make firm decisions for this year. I expect we’ll still see three books this year and maybe four in 2020.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> It kinda would.
> They work far ahead. I guarantee they’re already working on the book for April 2020. They need to have the content for the November book locked down in a couple months so they can begin final editing and layout, to say nothing of art.
> It’d be super risky to bank on having a class ready for a November. After all, they thought the previous two versions would work as well. Why gamble that it’s ready to release when they’ve already delayed it so many times. Heck, they talking about getting it out in UA for last July!
> 
> ...




They were taking UA input for Ravnica into September.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> They were taking UA input for Ravnica into September.



Yes. For races. Which are pretty simple, and *had* to be included. They stopped taking subclass feedback in May, with the Order Domain. That book also had the advantage of the art already being done, since they were pulling from MtG cards. The artificer is much, much more complicated than a subclass and should have four or five subclasses of its own that also need to be tested and balanced. You can't test a class AND all its subclasses in the same length of time it takes to test a single subclass.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Yes. For races. Which are pretty simple, and *had* to be included. They stopped taking subclass feedback in May, with the Order Domain. That book also had the advantage of the art already being done, since they were pulling from MtG cards. The artificer is much, much more complicated than a subclass and should have four or five subclasses of its own that also need to be tested and balanced. You can't test a class AND all its subclasses in the same length of time it takes to test a single subclass.




Could be done in, say, a year and a half, though.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 28, 2019)

Looks like we're not getting the artifcer this month. See you all in March. Or April. Or May...


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 28, 2019)

Remathilis said:


> Looks like we're not getting the artifcer this month. See you all in March. Or April. Or May...




Have they stated that? It's only 2 PM here in the Pacific timezone, and they have posted UA as late as 8 PM Pacific.


----------



## Iry (Feb 28, 2019)

*https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf*


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 28, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Have they stated that? It's only 2 PM here in the Pacific timezone, and they have posted UA as late as 8 PM Pacific.



Usually they get that out sooner, but it looks like my Doom and gloom is for naught.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 28, 2019)

Look up Remathilis. It’s out.


----------



## Remathilis (Feb 28, 2019)

Jester David said:


> Look up Remathilis. It’s out.




Yup, just saw it.


----------



## 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.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 28, 2019)

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? They are ritual casters and an extra pair of hands seems like something they would want.

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 10 ability it would be way better since at level 18 its underwhelming but a little useful but at level 10 its pretty good.  ...In my opinion.

*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 bit of 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. ...In my opinion.

But the *Subclass Crafting bonus*..... That makes the Artificer actually and 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. 

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.

Edited: updates after going through it all.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Iry said:


> 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.




The potion-throwing is definitely there, if you look at how the base Spellcasting works: seen particularly how it interacts with Alchemical Mastery.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

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..
> 
> "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."
> 
> Am I wrong? This makes them a bit more forgiving for new players.




Clerics and Druids already do that.

However, the other half-casters don't even get Cantrips to begin with, so that's new.


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> The potion-throwing is definitely there, if you look at how the base Spellcasting works: seen particularly how it interacts with Alchemical Mastery.



That's just casting spells with a slight buff, which they could already fluff as whatever they want. Not an actual potion throwing mechanic.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Iry said:


> That's just casting spells with a slight buff, which they could already fluff as whatever they want. Not an actual potion throwing mechanic.




Using alchemist tools is a change up in mechanics: and why do they need completely new mechanics if a slight tweak and reflavoring does the job?

I like how this Artificer works with material components the way the Bard does with vocal: adds some symmetry.


----------



## AndrÃ© Soares (Mar 1, 2019)

I've really liked it at first glance. The way they dealt with fireweapons was ellegant in my opinion.


----------



## Iry (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Using alchemist tools is a change up in mechanics: and why do they need completely new mechanics if a slight tweak and reflavoring does the job?



A "slight tweak and reflavoring" would be polishing up the old Artificer mechanics which were quite fun. This version is the "completely new mechanics".


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Iry said:


> A "slight tweak and reflavoring" would be polishing up the old Artificer mechanics which were quite fun. This version is the "completely new mechanics".




Not completely new to the system though: the changes they've made are based on the feedback the last approach received.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Clerics and Druids already do that.
> 
> However, the other half-casters don't even get Cantrips to begin with, so that's new.




I just checked the PHB and D&D Beyond. Unless their is errata Clerics and Druids can only change spell 1st-9th. Not cantrips. But you are correct that I did over look this being the half caster class with cantrips at all. I updated my last post to correct this and to cover the rest of what I noticed going through the class.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I just checked the PHB and D&D Beyond. Unless their is errata Clerics and Druids can only change spell 1st-9th. Not cantrips. But you are correct that I did over look this being the half caster class with cantrips at all. I updated my last post to correct this and to cover the rest of what I noticed going through the class.




Oh, I stand corrected!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 1, 2019)

I’m a fan. 

I don’t like them getting cr actions spells twice as late as wizards, and thus being less good at that spect of magic, and I think the homunculus should be separate from the alchemist, perhaps as an infusion option, but mostly I like it. 

Needs twice as many spells on the list, though.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 1, 2019)

Iry said:


> *https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf*




Thank you - but I checked the website first, not well I supposed, where is this posted?

Edit:  I see it now, but it hasn't been tagged properly so at the moment I'm writing this it's not showing up everywhere.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 1, 2019)

Ok.... I don't understand what this new alchemist is supposed to be doing in combat.

The old alchemist could thrown potion bombs all day long, and had other alchemical combat utility things (healing, smoke etc).  Plus at level 6 he had the construct (wich I didn't like, but hey, it could fight).

Now... I don't know?  What is this guy supposed to do in a fight?  He could attack twice in a round at level 5, but that's probably going to be pretty underwhelming as there is nothing else to make them a good combatant (no fighting styles, rage, sneak attack...) He could use his magic, being a half caster, but that's still pretty weak compared to a full caster.  The other two half casters (ranger, paladin) are powerful combatants in their own right.  The Homunculus could attack, but unless I'm missing something it's not very powerful...

What am I missing here?


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 1, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> Ok.... I don't understand what this new alchemist is supposed to be doing in combat.
> 
> The old alchemist could thrown potion bombs all day long, and had other alchemical combat utility things (healing, smoke etc).  Plus at level 6 he had the construct (wich I didn't like, but hey, it could fight).
> 
> ...




Gain in versatility rather than raw power. Attacking twice in one round with your magical/enhanced weapon or throwing a cantrip isn't going to out-DPR a dedicated martial or caster. However its a solid base, and combining attacking or cantrip with your pet's action is a good contribution to the party's success for the round.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> Ok.... I don't understand what this new alchemist is supposed to be doing in combat.
> 
> The old alchemist could thrown potion bombs all day long, and had other alchemical combat utility things (healing, smoke etc).  Plus at level 6 he had the construct (wich I didn't like, but hey, it could fight).
> 
> ...




You are missing Alchemical Mastery and how it affects cantrips, and the use of the Homunculus in combat (two attacks with a magical weapon, and an attack from a Homunculus).


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> You are missing Alchemical Mastery and how it affects cantrips, and the use of the Homunculus in combat (two attacks with a magical weapon, and an attack from a Homunculus).



It still don't see how it's not a significant nerf from the first version of the alchemist, which wasn't a huge dps dealer to begin with....


----------



## Leatherhead (Mar 1, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> Ok.... I don't understand what this new alchemist is supposed to be doing in combat.
> 
> The old alchemist could thrown potion bombs all day long, and had other alchemical combat utility things (healing, smoke etc).  Plus at level 6 he had the construct (wich I didn't like, but hey, it could fight).
> 
> ...




They aren't a DPR murder machine, but it's not like they can't apply themselves in combat functionally.

They have two half hearted basic combat patterns.

The "free" one you get just for leveling up:
Cantrip attack (+ Int Bonus to damage), then use your bonus action for a pet attack (which does scale with level). Which is surprisingly viable when compared to the at-will offerings of full casters.

Or the MAD (at least until level 12) and resource intensive weapon route:
Pick up the *Enhanced Weapon* Infusion, and the _Arcane Weapon_ spell. Then attack twice for W+ dex/str mod + 1 (or 2) for infusion + 1d6 for the spell. And use a bonus action for the pet on top of that. At level 12 you can pick up an item to bolster the stat you have been slacking on (which should be STR, because STR is the only stat you will be able to boost to 21+ thanks to your items)

The real pain with that route is that it takes so long to come online, and the Artificer's weapon selection is incredibly lacking (crossbows just do not work into their action economy!) 

Really though, they need more cantrips. The Blade cantrips would be perfect for them, and some kind of bow/Crossbow ranged variant would be keen as well. Then they can scrap the pseudo-extra-attack feature in favor of something like Divine Smite.


----------



## Seramus (Mar 1, 2019)

I suppose the new alchemist is more like an Alchemical Knight.

+2 Weapon, +2 Shield, +2 Armor, Ready Action (Attack after Homunculus Helps).
Elven Artificer could be quite the crit fisher with elven accuracy.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 1, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> It still don't see how it's not a significant nerf from the first version of the alchemist, which wasn't a huge dps dealer to begin with....




It might be a nerf, if the original was OP. This seems very competitive to me (+ Ability mod to Cantrip damage is one of the main reasons people are gaga for Eldritch Blast), and accomplishes the potion flinging flavor with systematic elegance.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Mar 1, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> It might be a nerf, if the original was OP. This seems very competitive to me (+ Ability mod to Cantrip damage is one of the main reasons people are gaga for Eldritch Blast), and accomplishes the potion flinging flavor with systematic elegance.




Ability mod to cantrip damage only makes people go gaga for Eldritch Blast because of the ruling that you get the damage bonus for every bolt of Eldritch Blast, so it goes from 1d10+mod to 2d10+2*mod, etc. If you rule that only one bolt gets the bonus, it's far less appealing.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 2, 2019)

Bacon Bits said:


> Ability mod to cantrip damage only makes people go gaga for Eldritch Blast because of the ruling that you get the damage bonus for every bolt of Eldritch Blast, so it goes from 1d10+mod to 2d10+2*mod, etc. If you rule that only one bolt gets the bonus, it's far less appealing.




Why on Earth wouldn't the damage apply to each bolt, that's how attribute boni work in 5E...?

The Alchemist bonus applies to Acid Splash, so it would also affect multiple targets.


----------



## Staffan (Mar 2, 2019)

Bacon Bits said:


> Ability mod to cantrip damage only makes people go gaga for Eldritch Blast because of the ruling that you get the damage bonus for every bolt of Eldritch Blast, so it goes from 1d10+mod to 2d10+2*mod, etc. If you rule that only one bolt gets the bonus, it's far less appealing.




And that still only brings it up to be about equal to a martial character's at-will damage, but without fighting styles or similar abilities to push it a little bit more.

Warlocks fill a gap between martial types and more pure casters. Martials have great sustained damage, but generally can't push it when needed. Casters, on the other hand, have fairly weak sustained damage (via cantrips) but can do some pretty awesome things with their limited-use spells. Warlocks are in-between: they have sustained damage that comes near the martials', and can cast a more limited amount of spells.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Mar 2, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> It still don't see how it's not a significant nerf from the first version of the alchemist, which wasn't a huge dps dealer to begin with....



I don't think that the artificer class is meant to be a huge dps dealer. With its range of buff spells and pet actions, plus respectable, but not primary-tier damage, I think that you should be looking more at overall contribution to the party as you would a Bard or Cleric - just with less nova and more sustainability.


----------



## Ancalagon (Mar 2, 2019)

Seramus said:


> I suppose the new alchemist is more like an Alchemical Knight.
> 
> +2 Weapon, +2 Shield, +2 Armor, Ready Action (Attack after Homunculus Helps).
> Elven Artificer could be quite the crit fisher with elven accuracy.




I'm not sure that's viable because of the MAD - now you need a good stat for your spells (int) *and* a good attacking stat (str or dex)   And don't forget you are limited to simple weapons.


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 2, 2019)

Ancalagon said:


> I'm not sure that's viable because of the MAD - now you need a good stat for your spells (int) *and* a good attacking stat (str or dex)   And don't forget you are limited to simple weapons.




That's not very MAD, that's just two stats (Dex needn't be high with Medium Armor). A +2 magical great club is not shabby, and a Dwarf, High Elf or Githyanki Alchemist has even better options with Martial weapon proficiencies.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Mar 2, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> That's not very MAD, that's just two stats (Dex needn't be high with Medium Armor). A +2 magical great club is not shabby, and a Dwarf, High Elf or Githyanki Alchemist has even better options with Martial weapon proficiencies.




I tried making a High Elf Artillerist gish build focused around using the Force Ballista for shortsword Booming Blade cheese and then using a longbow when the turret is down or when I want to double down on ranged spam. Stat spreads I made were:
- 11 14 14 16 10 10
- 8 16 14 16 10 10
- 10 16 14 16 10 8

Is 14 Dex really enough? It maxes out the medium armor bonus, but for a build that relies on my weapons I'm a little worried. But if I pump Dex to 16 I have to dump something and i don't want to dump Wis so its either Str or Cha. But if I dump Str I can't use longswords or most simple weapons effectively until Level 12 when I can craft the Ogre Gauntlets...


----------



## Parmandur (Mar 2, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> I tried making a High Elf Artillerist gish build focused around using the Force Ballista for shortsword Booming Blade cheese and then using a longbow when the turret is down or when I want to double down on ranged spam. Stat spreads I made were:
> - 11 14 14 16 10 10
> - 8 16 14 16 10 10
> - 10 16 14 16 10 8
> ...




Well, the Artillerist needs more Dex, and Strength is of negligable use: the Alchemist is more suited for a front line Gish, needing no Dex for AC for range attacks.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 2, 2019)

Psyzhran2357 said:


> But if I dump Str I can't use longswords or most simple weapons effectively until Level 12 when I can craft the Ogre Gauntlets...




Why does dumping STR prevent you from using longswords?


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Mar 2, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> Why does dumping STR prevent you from using longswords?




It doesn't, but with 8 Str, a +1 to hit and -1 damage modifier before infusion doesn't look appealing.

Eh, the character's a sailor, so a shortsword is a bit more fitting thematically.


----------

