Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer

If you don't like the magic items, just say only the alchemist can use his creations because they are complicated. It is odd that he can't replace them if they are lost/stolen/destroyed.

Man, kind of a mess that's filled with a lot of interesting ideas (that aren't necessarily good ideas, but that are interesting, and for a playtest that's more important!).

It's Narrow
I remember that there was the idea, once upon a time, of treating the artificer as a subdivision of a broader class that focused on "magical crafting" (dwarven runecarvers, elves that weave great magic in the land, etc.). That's an idea with a home in many campaigns that artificers could be one version of. This version is clearly not for anyone who doesn't want tech in their fantasy. Potentially bad page-count-to-broad-utility ratio.

Free Magic Items Break the "Contract"
"Oh, a robe of useful items. I mean, sure, it's nice, but I've already got one because I made it." Artificers are going to be making magic items, yes, but there are ways to handle that fiction that don't just give the party free treasure for leveling up. It makes gaining magic items through adventures less fun. That's not a great result. Magic items should always be fun to discover, even if your character can make magic items.

The Artificer Wants to Stay At Home
Between free magic items and infusions, the best artificer is one who stays in town (or otherwise away from the action) - you just come back to visit them to get recharged. During an adventure, the artificer isn't making a whole lot of interesting decisions about being an artificer. All those decisions are made before they start the adventure (and the things they enable aren't things that they need to do)

Bonus Attunement Slots? Power from Attunement?
Suddenly, my class powers are dependent on the roll of magic item tables.

Outclassing the Ranger
Hi, my beast companion is better than yours, I hope that's OK. But also, it can't be a humanoid, so I hope you didn't want a humanoid golem?

I think there's a lot of very interesting ideas here, but it is kind of a mess, and a lot of the ideas are a little weak conceptually (free magic items and the turtling being perhaps the most likely to have unpleasant in-play effects, though the better-than-a-ranger-beast-companion is also harsh). But, I like that they're trying out some bold ideas!

I'm unconvinced. For low-magic campaigns, this class is problematic, and given the power curve in 5e, I see a lot of campaigns going low-magic.

I love it. One of the best UAs in a while, possibly ever. It's nice to see some real novelty and risk-taking in some of the material, now that we're 2.5 years into 5e.

1) Identifying the artificer as an alternate rogue, and then building around a rogue sneak attack chassis, is fantastic. I'm doubly impressed that they were willing to put the at-will scaling mechanic into the subclasses, rather than the main class skeleton. The rogue is (stealthily) one of the best designed classes in 5e, and it's nice to see the sneak attack progression being used in more places. Extra props for making the thunder cannon scaling its own separate feature that requires an action, preventing shenanigans with cantrips or extra attack, or even Sharpshooter.

2) The combination of created magic items + extra attunement slots is great. It makes the artificer viable in both low magic item and high magic item campaigns. (In low magic item campaigns, their items grant some capability not normally accessible, and in high magic item campaigns, where the 3 slot limit can be actually restrictive, they're much more versatile.) Not to mention that the bulk of their accessible magic item recipes make them more rogue-like, tying into point 1!

3) Keeping their base spellcasting power low allows them to make Infuse Magic more powerful and thus more interesting. I might like a few more spell options, but the list is decent.

4) The mechanical animal feature is obviously intended to be the big boost for the class at the 5th-6th range, and I think it does the job pretty well. Strong, but not really much worse than a druid spending his 3rd level slots on Conjure Animals. Features like that really don't need to scale much in 5e, the animal will always be versatile and give a damage boost.

5) The mechanics are solid enough that they're easy to reskin. The alchemist could easily be flavored as a wand wielder, for example.

pauldanieljohnson said:

I'm unconvinced. For low-magic campaigns, this class is problematic, and given the power curve in 5e, I see a lot of campaigns going low-magic.

Click to expand...

I have what I consider to be an ingenious, nay brilliant, conception for a solution to this most heinous of problematicisms!

Don't allow it in a low magic campaign.

dropbear8mybaby said:

I have what I consider to be an ingenious, nay brilliant, conception for a solution to this most heinous of problematicisms!

Don't allow it in a low magic campaign.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

Staffan said:

Now this is an artificer I can get behind! (Because I wouldn't want to be in front of her when she's throwing alchemist's fire all over the place - hah!)

I like it. It's not quite what I would have done, but this has more of its own identity (mine was more of a reskinned Bard). On the first read-through, there are three things I'd add:

1. This is highly campaign-dependent (based on how much item creation the DM allows, so maybe there should be a sidebar about it), but the core identity of the 3e artificer was creating and use of magic items. They had the ability to use the skill Use Magic Device to bypass item creation requirements, primarily that of spellcasting. For example, if you wanted to make a pair of boots of the winterlands, you needed cat's grace, endure elements, and pass without trace. But the artificer had a very good chance of making them anyway. To reflect this ability in 5e, I would put in something like this:

Arcane Polyglot: The artificer is a master of using and crafting a diverse array of magic items. An artificer ignores any requirements on attuning to a magic item. If the campaign allows for PCs crafting their own magic items, an artificer would be able to bypass any spell knowledge requirement on the item, as long as the artificer's level is at least twice as high as the spell level. Example: In his campaign, Staffan has decided that in order to craft a Staff of the Woodlands you need to use the heartwood of the oldest tree in a major forest, with the permission of a treant native to the area. You would also need inlays from a certain number of rare trees, placed in a precise pattern portraying various animals. You also need to expend a few thousand gp worth of other components, and cast a number of spells including wall of thorns each day of the crafting. Nikolaj is playing an artificer in Staffan's campaign - he needs to buy/make all the stuff, and spend the time, but he does not need to cast any spells, and once the staff is finished he can attune to it even though he's not a druid.

2. I'm not too fond of the limited spells known for an artificer. Having full access to their whole, albeit rather limited in focus, spell list was one of the cool things about them in 3e.

3. There needs to be a clarification on how Concentration works regarding Infuse Item. I would have the item's user be the one concentrating on the spell (which would enhance the artificer's role as a buff specialist), but I could see it either way, and it needs to be clarified.



It might not give cantrips per se, but the Satchel and Thunder Cannon serve the same purpose.

Click to expand...

Offensive function wise it is pretty similar to the warlock in that it seems designed around spamming the same "cantrip" and then every so once in a while, pulling out the big spell, although the artificer's list is more utility than the warlock's (of course the warlock gets most his/her utility from invocations and the pact implement). Still, this nicely fills the "I want to be a utility guy, but I know I will need some offense" role.

I'm inclined to run low-magic (item) campaigns, so probably wouldn't use the Artificer, so can't really contribute much.

But, I do find it odd, after all the hand-wringing over and reluctance to introduce missing full classes, to see one put forth for a fairly specific and Ebberon-originated concept ('Gunsmith' seems to put it in that sort of fantasy-steampunk milieu, too). Maybe Eberon's in the offing?

Or might it be used as a foundation for a wider range of sub-classes. (I seem to recall Shaman as Artificer sub-class mentioned.)

Tony Vargas said:

I'm inclined to run low-magic (item) campaigns, so probably wouldn't use the Artificer, so can't really contribute much.

But, I do find it odd, after all the hand-wringing over and reluctance to introduce missing full classes, to see one put forth for a fairly specific and Ebberon-originated concept ('Gunsmith' seems to put it in that sort of fantasy-steampunk milieu, too). Maybe Eberon's in the offing?

Or might it be used as a foundation for a wider range of sub-classes. (I seem to recall Shaman as Artificer sub-class mentioned.)

Click to expand...

I think the Rune-caster "Prestige Class" may have been a test run for this, too, so there's another subclass possibility...

One of the ideas going around is that setting specific crunch (Dragonlance, Eberron, Dark Sun, etc...) is a big part of the forthcoming third book for the year. So no need for an Eberron, Dragonlance or Dark Sun specific book: all part of the Big Book of Options...

I'm a little skeptical about the artificer being a half-caster. It's not a deal killer, especially since the Eberron version wasn't a full caster, either. It looks like the kits have enough toys to keep them busy, which means it should work.

The Alchemist seems a bit quirky and silly. It doesn't look bad, but I'd have to see it in play before making too many pronouncements about it.

I do not like the Gunsmith. It looks balanced, I guess, but I don't like guns in my D&D. If they'd flavored it more as a wand-wielder, that'd be different, but it isn't. It's straight-up firearms. Do not like. At all.

The core abilities look nice, especially the Infuse Magic and Superior Attunement. The Wondrous Invention seems more tinkerer than master of artifice, but I don't have a better solution. The Mechanical Servant is fine for what it is.

Which bring me to what others have said about the Golem Master/Clockwork Engineer. This would have been a much, much better second archetype than the Gunsmith. If the Mechanical Servant was available at a lower level, say on power with a familiar (1/4 CR), and was upgradable, it would be much more interesting. Maybe they've got a Clockwork Engineer kit in the hopper that will allow earlier access and a bunch of extra toys. That'd be great. Otherwise, they missed the mark.

While I like the Clockwork Engineer, and I'm fine with some Artificers having a purely mechanical companion, the roots of the Artificer class in D&D goes to Eberron and House Cannith. It would make a ton more sense for them to have some flavor of golem, rather than a mechanical pet.

Between the pet and the firearms, the flavor seems much more steampunk than magical. There's nothing inherently wrong with steampunk and it's all easy enough to re-skin, but it does make me wonder if they aren't playing a bit too loose with the concept.

So, I like the core class. Not sure about one kit. Hate the other.