I don't think there is a bunker strong enough to endure the fanbase exploding over this.
Artificer UA to be released in February
- Category Dungeons & Dragons
I don't think there is a bunker strong enough to endure the fanbase exploding over this.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
cbwjm
Seb-wejem
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.
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
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
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
Hero
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
The Elephant in the Room (she/her)
Every setting has its purists. It doesn't help that
A
André Soares
Guest
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.
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 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.
Similar Threads
Related Articles
-
-
D&D 5E [Legendary Games] Just one week left for Mechanical Monsters Revisited - 5E, PF1, and PF2!- Started by LegendaryGames
- Replies: 0
-
D&D 5E [+]What Characters Are You Excited to Build?- Started by doctorbadwolf
- Replies: 65
-
Unearthed Arcana Giving Artificers The UA Warlock Spellcasting
- Started by doctorbadwolf
- Replies: 16
-
D&D (2024) WotC Reveals The Confirmed Release Dates of 2024's D&D Slate- Started by Morrus
- Replies: 267