Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Artificer Class, Revised: Rip Me A New One
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749961" data-attributes="member: 25818"><p><strong>Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:</strong></p><p></p><p>I've seen issues like this first-hand. The way we resolved them was gentleman's agreements: no custom magic items (though upgrading and merging printed items was fine), no infinite loops, and so on. Even then, all the games I've had artificers in also had immense time-pressure elements to them; we eventually rigged up a portable <em>base</em> that allowed us to create items on the road and multi-threaded crafting through the use of Dedicated Wrights. That was the only way we could keep our gear up to par.</p><p> </p><p>And yet, functionally, this was akin to managing downtime days, just with far more elaborate math involved in the relevant activity. This is assumed by default in 5e - you get N downtime days between adventures, decide how to allocate them. You also have a system where magic item treadmills are gone - you don't need to spend every waking moment slaving over a forge to have math that works. Add in the requirement for formulas (which lets DMs set which items they determine are appropriate for their game in a way that's far less negotiable than simply allowing or disallowing them, like in previous editions) and it becomes rather hard to view this artificer as a magic-item factory.</p><p> </p><p>This is deliberate: the game doesn't assume magic items are freely available, so I carefully designed the artificer to avoid creating a magic-item-market-style-economy. This includes the short-lived items (arcane devices and potions; neither of these are usable by enough people over a long enough time to make them worth anything on the market, and since vital craft reserve doesn't return until the item's used, artificers are not incentivized to give control over their use to anyone else) as well as the more dramatic permanent items. He can duplicate items you find, or create new items based on old ones (depending on how you rule on formulas; for instance, does dismantling +1 Scale Mail give you a formula for any +1 armor or specifically for +1 scale mail?) but due to the intense costs involved (including the sacrifice of the original item and the prolonged number of downtime days) and the lack of existing infrastructure to support buying these items, this won't translate into introducing economies where they don't belong.</p><p> </p><p>This, in turn, combined with the need for formulas, prevents players from kitting themselves out in Iron Man suits of perfectly customized equipment. DMs remain in full control of what items are handed out, as always in 5e. Players can still create items, if they have the resources (including downtime days) to spend, without developing the expectation that they can "win" D&D if they pore through enough splatbooks and assemble the perfect Christmas wishlist of magical tools to build. This puts a rather strong leash on the adversarial attitude that the old artificer encouraged.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I don't see how it <em>must</em> necessarily fall into this adversarial attitude. That attitude came out of assumptions in the game and how the mechanics worked - two things which dramatically changed between editions. If you look at <a href="http://keith-baker.com/extra-life-hacking-the-artificer/" target="_blank">how Keith sees the artificer</a> - which is almost identical to my vision for it, conceptually - and breaks it down to core abilities, the only one which <em>potentially</em> causes tension with 5e is the proficiency with creating permanent magic items, since 5e doesn't assume that such items are widely available. (My solution was to link that proficiency with discovering formulas - based on items the DM consented to accept by giving out in the first place. If the player dismantles an item that the DM doesn't want them duplicating, the rules already support adding in troublesome quest requirements (i.e. it isn't really fiat) - one of the only example formulas in the entire game suggests having a flame tongue require being forged in lava, which isn't exactly common in your own forge.). </p><p> </p><p>In terms of the need for item creation mechanics, I find the actual item creation rules present in the DMG <em>are</em> sufficient, assuming you don't believe that PCs should be able to invent customized magic items out of nowhere to introduce into the game. The way to handle that <em>does</em> require some fiat, namely working with your DM to devise a new item and place its formula somewhere in the world for the PC to discover (either through adventuring or through invention). Considering how this requires a dramatic shift in assumptions about the game and it isn't <em>absolutely</em> central to the artificer concept I'm using, I'm fine with this particular aspect being handled by fiat.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I disagree slightly with this, but that slight disagreement makes all the difference.</p><p> </p><p>Ranger abilities are extremely dependent upon adventuring environment and foe composition, true - but the DM needs to create environments and foe distributions already, as part of the process of creating the adventure in the first place. If he doesn't decide, for instance, to use Forsts and Goblins, then a ranger who picked those environments and foes is SOL. There's no way to adapt said ranger to the world the DM made, so such a character creates more work for the DM, as you say.</p><p> </p><p>However, it's also true that the DM must decide which treasures to place in the world as part of creating the adventure. He's doing this anyway, regardless of who's in the game. The artificer only introduces a handful of basic potions to the game (and even then, only in the adventure itself; he can't sell them and they're not any more available at merchants); his schema were already present (through other spellcasters), he gets "enough" schema on his own to not rely on scrolls (an artificer character doesn't force a DM to change his mind on placing scrolls any more than a wizard character does), and the way Salvage Essence works, it adapts the <em>artificer</em> to the <em>world</em>, based on choices the DM is already making. </p><p> </p><p>That's the difference: a ranger is fixed in specific choices, and will not adjust to a world that doesn't conform to those choices, which creates more work for the DM. An artificer adapts automatically to the world the DM is making, without any special effort on the DM's part.</p><p> </p><p>There are only three corner cases where the artificer might require more work from the DM.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The first of these is in how much downtime the DM hands out. Giving out too few days is akin to saying that magic item creation is unavailable - which is fine, this artificer doesn't actually require magic item creation to function. Giving out too many gives the artificer plenty of time to work on items, if he has a formula and the means to do so. While the DM doesn't <em>need</em> to modify his downtime schedule to account for this, he does need to be aware of what signals that sends. This is similar to setting short rest frequency between long rests: plentiful short rests favor warriors (and warlocks), few short rests weakens them. However, downtime day determination only happens once per adventure, instead of every few hours of the potentially-multi-day adventure.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The second is if the DM decides to hand out powerful magic items that he doesn't want the artificer to duplicate. There are lots of ways of regulating this - a ban works just fine, but in-world, you can use a formula that can't be fulfilled, you can give the item plot significance, or you can control the downtime days. These <em>do</em> require extra work (and they also punish players, because a salvaged item is not recoverable), but the situation where they occur is sufficiently niche that I'm not worried about it. It's enough that the class has a way to control this without it spiralling into chaos.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The presence of construct-only spells implies the existence or use of constructs in the game world in a way similar to the ranger's favored enemy or the cleric's turn undead. I got around this by having enough of those spells function on objects in the game world (Inflict Damage, for instance, works just fine for demolition as well as fighting constructs), and due to the cleric-style casting, there's no opportunity cost to this ability in a world without constructs. Therefore, the artificer only introduces extra work for the DM if the DM already wants to use constructs in his story.</li> </ul><p>I've seen how much work the artificer used to force on the DM by its mere presence. I tried my best to make sure this artificer doesn't impose on the DM in a significant way. If you think I've failed in that goal, I'd very much like to know how to address it.</p><p></p><p>That was certainly true in 3.5. I don't think it's true here. To the extent where it's relevant, I'm working as a designer to minimize it, and am still open to suggestions.</p><p> </p><p>Let's consider your concerns.</p><p> </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Repurcussions of introducing spells to the game. I don't see how this argument applies any more to the artificer than it does to any other spellcaster. Clerics and druids already bring their entire spell list to the game, and wizards learn about twice as many spells from their list as artificers get total schema. The artificer also must split his limited schema choice across multiple spell lists, and can't pull a new spell out of the ether (since actually <em>using</em> those spells always requires giving you fair warning - usually in the form of "I'm building this during my short rest" alerts long before the next encounter starts). The only exception is a magitechnician's Prototype, but even then, you still have the </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Related, but worth pointing out in a separate point: The Concentration mechanic goes a long way to keeping this from going out of control. Yes, an artificer can create devices that mimic spells on different spell lists. He still only has one concentration slot. He can't Hex and Hunter's Mark a foe, nor can he Hold Person someone in a Wall of Fire. The Concentration mechanic allows me, as a designer, to look at the spell combinations out there among spells that do not require concentration, and see if anything breaks if list barriers are broken down. If I do my job right, a DM doesn't need to worry about that, because the system (via concentration) and the designer (via how these rules work) do it for them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Introducing magic items to the game. As I said above, the only items the artificer always introduces to the game are the simple potions on the Infuse Potions list, and scrolls of the spells in their book of schema; these are introduced in a way that they can't change the economy. Since the artificer cannot introduce new items into the game other than this, the DM doesn't need to worry about the player pulling a killer interaction out of his hat. There are some potential interaction effects here when paired with some of the new spells - notably Synchronize, Power Surge, and Jumpstart - but that's the point of this exercise: finding out how to design the class so these interaction effects aren't worth worrying about. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Unlimited spell selection capacity: I go over this again and again with Rampant. The artificer doesn't have unlimited spell selection unless you specifically give it to them, which occurs in exactly the same circumstance that a wizard has unlimited spell selection capacity. People are familiar with wizards and know what "unlimited scrolls" means, and won't do it (nor does the system do it by default; it's actually quite stingy on that front). This is amplified by the artificer's slower spell level progression, since a level-appropriate scroll for a wizard is one he won't be able to copy. A DM using the time-saving tables will find the artificer still has a <em>very</em> limited spell selection. There <em>is</em> the possiblity of pulling a rabbit out of your hat by picking spells from multiple lists that break the game when combined in the same caster but <em>don't</em> break the game if combined across two casters (after all, if Wizard Spell A and Druid Spell B put together didn't break the game with two casters, why would they break the game on one, who has to spend extra time (and possibly a single concentration slot) to bring both of them to bear?). That's why I'm testing the bajeezus out of this, trying to find any such interaction.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Incidentally, any implementation of the artificer that uses "any spell list" (including yours) will have that exact same problem, and will need to engineer its own solutions. Mine include the limitations of craft reserve, the spellbook, the delayed spell level access, the spell scroll's low DCs, the extra setup time (especially for arcane devices), and the mishap chance on prototypes.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Playing the game against the game: Again, if I do my job right, this isn't going to happen, because the artificer, while exploitable like any class, won't introduce any completely adventure-wrecking interactions.</li> </ul><p>Many of these problems seem to stem from viewing this as a finished project, instead of a testing project attempting to catch these very issues as a designer and minimizing or removing their impact on DMs running with it. A designer and developer doing their job will nip these in the bud, whether your players are immature munchkins or gentlemen. If we don't do our job, then you rely on gentlemens' agreements in places where there should be rules, and any munchkin will turn it into a wrecking ball. That's incentive enough to do my job.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Part of the problem with this is it inches too close to Pathfinder, where every class had their own resource management minigame powering their abilities. 5e generally minimizes this; apart from spell slots, resource management is generally tied to single uses of specific abilities. There are a few exceptions (such as supremacy dice and sorcery points) but these are kept to a minimum. That's why I use craft reserve the way I do - it becomes a currency to work on spells, similar to sorcery points (except only really managed during rests instead of on a round-by-round basis), instead of an entirely separate point-based invention system that either only sees use during downtime or slows the game to a halt when it's used during an adventure.</p><p> </p><p>I like the warlock design quite a lot, so I'm sympathetic to your fix (though I wish it was more specific). However, your specific concern seems to misread the artificer.</p><p> </p><p>First, the artificer <em>doesn't</em> improve spell-slot selection if one multiclasses into it. You do get access to the book of schema, but those are fuelled off of [UNKNOWN=del]: Pact Magic slots</p><p> craft reserve. Your schema are totally different from your spells known, and your craft reserve is totally different from your spell slots.</p><p> </p><p>Second, the warlock <em>does</em> improve spell slot variability, since you can cast warlock spells through your Spellcasting slots and your spellcaster spells through your Pact Magic slots accordingly. The artificer doesn't do this (beyond what other caster/caster MCs do, using the artificer's highly-focused normal spell list), since you can't cast schema nor can you build devices of spells you know.</p><p> </p><p>If this wasn't clear, how can I make it clearer?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Apologies. If you look through Rampant's replies that triggered that, you'll notice that even when I was brief or clear on specific points, he didn't acknolwedge any of it. Length didn't matter at all - he refused to accept that a spellbook wasn't infinite in this edition, no matter how I phrased it. The only conclusion I could have was that he wasn't reading what I wrote, so I added sentences asking him to mention bananas if he read them. <em>Multiple</em> sentences, actually. He still didn't mention it. (And, later, when I wrote what you quoted, he didn't even acknowledge that there <em>was</em> a magic word, and that specific quote showed up in a very brief reply. The length didn't matter.)</p><p> </p><p>Considering the alternative, on my side, would be to similarly ignore concerns that others are raising, what solution would you suggest?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealAlHazred, post: 6749961, member: 25818"] [b]Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:[/b] I've seen issues like this first-hand. The way we resolved them was gentleman's agreements: no custom magic items (though upgrading and merging printed items was fine), no infinite loops, and so on. Even then, all the games I've had artificers in also had immense time-pressure elements to them; we eventually rigged up a portable [i]base[/i] that allowed us to create items on the road and multi-threaded crafting through the use of Dedicated Wrights. That was the only way we could keep our gear up to par. And yet, functionally, this was akin to managing downtime days, just with far more elaborate math involved in the relevant activity. This is assumed by default in 5e - you get N downtime days between adventures, decide how to allocate them. You also have a system where magic item treadmills are gone - you don't need to spend every waking moment slaving over a forge to have math that works. Add in the requirement for formulas (which lets DMs set which items they determine are appropriate for their game in a way that's far less negotiable than simply allowing or disallowing them, like in previous editions) and it becomes rather hard to view this artificer as a magic-item factory. This is deliberate: the game doesn't assume magic items are freely available, so I carefully designed the artificer to avoid creating a magic-item-market-style-economy. This includes the short-lived items (arcane devices and potions; neither of these are usable by enough people over a long enough time to make them worth anything on the market, and since vital craft reserve doesn't return until the item's used, artificers are not incentivized to give control over their use to anyone else) as well as the more dramatic permanent items. He can duplicate items you find, or create new items based on old ones (depending on how you rule on formulas; for instance, does dismantling +1 Scale Mail give you a formula for any +1 armor or specifically for +1 scale mail?) but due to the intense costs involved (including the sacrifice of the original item and the prolonged number of downtime days) and the lack of existing infrastructure to support buying these items, this won't translate into introducing economies where they don't belong. This, in turn, combined with the need for formulas, prevents players from kitting themselves out in Iron Man suits of perfectly customized equipment. DMs remain in full control of what items are handed out, as always in 5e. Players can still create items, if they have the resources (including downtime days) to spend, without developing the expectation that they can "win" D&D if they pore through enough splatbooks and assemble the perfect Christmas wishlist of magical tools to build. This puts a rather strong leash on the adversarial attitude that the old artificer encouraged. I don't see how it [i]must[/i] necessarily fall into this adversarial attitude. That attitude came out of assumptions in the game and how the mechanics worked - two things which dramatically changed between editions. If you look at [URL=http://keith-baker.com/extra-life-hacking-the-artificer/]how Keith sees the artificer[/URL] - which is almost identical to my vision for it, conceptually - and breaks it down to core abilities, the only one which [i]potentially[/i] causes tension with 5e is the proficiency with creating permanent magic items, since 5e doesn't assume that such items are widely available. (My solution was to link that proficiency with discovering formulas - based on items the DM consented to accept by giving out in the first place. If the player dismantles an item that the DM doesn't want them duplicating, the rules already support adding in troublesome quest requirements (i.e. it isn't really fiat) - one of the only example formulas in the entire game suggests having a flame tongue require being forged in lava, which isn't exactly common in your own forge.). In terms of the need for item creation mechanics, I find the actual item creation rules present in the DMG [i]are[/i] sufficient, assuming you don't believe that PCs should be able to invent customized magic items out of nowhere to introduce into the game. The way to handle that [i]does[/i] require some fiat, namely working with your DM to devise a new item and place its formula somewhere in the world for the PC to discover (either through adventuring or through invention). Considering how this requires a dramatic shift in assumptions about the game and it isn't [i]absolutely[/i] central to the artificer concept I'm using, I'm fine with this particular aspect being handled by fiat. I disagree slightly with this, but that slight disagreement makes all the difference. Ranger abilities are extremely dependent upon adventuring environment and foe composition, true - but the DM needs to create environments and foe distributions already, as part of the process of creating the adventure in the first place. If he doesn't decide, for instance, to use Forsts and Goblins, then a ranger who picked those environments and foes is SOL. There's no way to adapt said ranger to the world the DM made, so such a character creates more work for the DM, as you say. However, it's also true that the DM must decide which treasures to place in the world as part of creating the adventure. He's doing this anyway, regardless of who's in the game. The artificer only introduces a handful of basic potions to the game (and even then, only in the adventure itself; he can't sell them and they're not any more available at merchants); his schema were already present (through other spellcasters), he gets "enough" schema on his own to not rely on scrolls (an artificer character doesn't force a DM to change his mind on placing scrolls any more than a wizard character does), and the way Salvage Essence works, it adapts the [i]artificer[/i] to the [i]world[/i], based on choices the DM is already making. That's the difference: a ranger is fixed in specific choices, and will not adjust to a world that doesn't conform to those choices, which creates more work for the DM. An artificer adapts automatically to the world the DM is making, without any special effort on the DM's part. There are only three corner cases where the artificer might require more work from the DM. [LIST][*]The first of these is in how much downtime the DM hands out. Giving out too few days is akin to saying that magic item creation is unavailable - which is fine, this artificer doesn't actually require magic item creation to function. Giving out too many gives the artificer plenty of time to work on items, if he has a formula and the means to do so. While the DM doesn't [i]need[/i] to modify his downtime schedule to account for this, he does need to be aware of what signals that sends. This is similar to setting short rest frequency between long rests: plentiful short rests favor warriors (and warlocks), few short rests weakens them. However, downtime day determination only happens once per adventure, instead of every few hours of the potentially-multi-day adventure. [*]The second is if the DM decides to hand out powerful magic items that he doesn't want the artificer to duplicate. There are lots of ways of regulating this - a ban works just fine, but in-world, you can use a formula that can't be fulfilled, you can give the item plot significance, or you can control the downtime days. These [i]do[/i] require extra work (and they also punish players, because a salvaged item is not recoverable), but the situation where they occur is sufficiently niche that I'm not worried about it. It's enough that the class has a way to control this without it spiralling into chaos. [*]The presence of construct-only spells implies the existence or use of constructs in the game world in a way similar to the ranger's favored enemy or the cleric's turn undead. I got around this by having enough of those spells function on objects in the game world (Inflict Damage, for instance, works just fine for demolition as well as fighting constructs), and due to the cleric-style casting, there's no opportunity cost to this ability in a world without constructs. Therefore, the artificer only introduces extra work for the DM if the DM already wants to use constructs in his story. [/LIST] I've seen how much work the artificer used to force on the DM by its mere presence. I tried my best to make sure this artificer doesn't impose on the DM in a significant way. If you think I've failed in that goal, I'd very much like to know how to address it. That was certainly true in 3.5. I don't think it's true here. To the extent where it's relevant, I'm working as a designer to minimize it, and am still open to suggestions. Let's consider your concerns. [LIST][*]Repurcussions of introducing spells to the game. I don't see how this argument applies any more to the artificer than it does to any other spellcaster. Clerics and druids already bring their entire spell list to the game, and wizards learn about twice as many spells from their list as artificers get total schema. The artificer also must split his limited schema choice across multiple spell lists, and can't pull a new spell out of the ether (since actually [i]using[/i] those spells always requires giving you fair warning - usually in the form of "I'm building this during my short rest" alerts long before the next encounter starts). The only exception is a magitechnician's Prototype, but even then, you still have the [*]Related, but worth pointing out in a separate point: The Concentration mechanic goes a long way to keeping this from going out of control. Yes, an artificer can create devices that mimic spells on different spell lists. He still only has one concentration slot. He can't Hex and Hunter's Mark a foe, nor can he Hold Person someone in a Wall of Fire. The Concentration mechanic allows me, as a designer, to look at the spell combinations out there among spells that do not require concentration, and see if anything breaks if list barriers are broken down. If I do my job right, a DM doesn't need to worry about that, because the system (via concentration) and the designer (via how these rules work) do it for them. [*]Introducing magic items to the game. As I said above, the only items the artificer always introduces to the game are the simple potions on the Infuse Potions list, and scrolls of the spells in their book of schema; these are introduced in a way that they can't change the economy. Since the artificer cannot introduce new items into the game other than this, the DM doesn't need to worry about the player pulling a killer interaction out of his hat. There are some potential interaction effects here when paired with some of the new spells - notably Synchronize, Power Surge, and Jumpstart - but that's the point of this exercise: finding out how to design the class so these interaction effects aren't worth worrying about. [*]Unlimited spell selection capacity: I go over this again and again with Rampant. The artificer doesn't have unlimited spell selection unless you specifically give it to them, which occurs in exactly the same circumstance that a wizard has unlimited spell selection capacity. People are familiar with wizards and know what "unlimited scrolls" means, and won't do it (nor does the system do it by default; it's actually quite stingy on that front). This is amplified by the artificer's slower spell level progression, since a level-appropriate scroll for a wizard is one he won't be able to copy. A DM using the time-saving tables will find the artificer still has a [i]very[/i] limited spell selection. There [i]is[/i] the possiblity of pulling a rabbit out of your hat by picking spells from multiple lists that break the game when combined in the same caster but [i]don't[/i] break the game if combined across two casters (after all, if Wizard Spell A and Druid Spell B put together didn't break the game with two casters, why would they break the game on one, who has to spend extra time (and possibly a single concentration slot) to bring both of them to bear?). That's why I'm testing the bajeezus out of this, trying to find any such interaction. [*]Incidentally, any implementation of the artificer that uses "any spell list" (including yours) will have that exact same problem, and will need to engineer its own solutions. Mine include the limitations of craft reserve, the spellbook, the delayed spell level access, the spell scroll's low DCs, the extra setup time (especially for arcane devices), and the mishap chance on prototypes. [*]Playing the game against the game: Again, if I do my job right, this isn't going to happen, because the artificer, while exploitable like any class, won't introduce any completely adventure-wrecking interactions. [/LIST] Many of these problems seem to stem from viewing this as a finished project, instead of a testing project attempting to catch these very issues as a designer and minimizing or removing their impact on DMs running with it. A designer and developer doing their job will nip these in the bud, whether your players are immature munchkins or gentlemen. If we don't do our job, then you rely on gentlemens' agreements in places where there should be rules, and any munchkin will turn it into a wrecking ball. That's incentive enough to do my job. Part of the problem with this is it inches too close to Pathfinder, where every class had their own resource management minigame powering their abilities. 5e generally minimizes this; apart from spell slots, resource management is generally tied to single uses of specific abilities. There are a few exceptions (such as supremacy dice and sorcery points) but these are kept to a minimum. That's why I use craft reserve the way I do - it becomes a currency to work on spells, similar to sorcery points (except only really managed during rests instead of on a round-by-round basis), instead of an entirely separate point-based invention system that either only sees use during downtime or slows the game to a halt when it's used during an adventure. I like the warlock design quite a lot, so I'm sympathetic to your fix (though I wish it was more specific). However, your specific concern seems to misread the artificer. First, the artificer [i]doesn't[/i] improve spell-slot selection if one multiclasses into it. You do get access to the book of schema, but those are fuelled off of [UNKNOWN=del]: Pact Magic slots craft reserve. Your schema are totally different from your spells known, and your craft reserve is totally different from your spell slots. Second, the warlock [i]does[/i] improve spell slot variability, since you can cast warlock spells through your Spellcasting slots and your spellcaster spells through your Pact Magic slots accordingly. The artificer doesn't do this (beyond what other caster/caster MCs do, using the artificer's highly-focused normal spell list), since you can't cast schema nor can you build devices of spells you know. If this wasn't clear, how can I make it clearer? Apologies. If you look through Rampant's replies that triggered that, you'll notice that even when I was brief or clear on specific points, he didn't acknolwedge any of it. Length didn't matter at all - he refused to accept that a spellbook wasn't infinite in this edition, no matter how I phrased it. The only conclusion I could have was that he wasn't reading what I wrote, so I added sentences asking him to mention bananas if he read them. [i]Multiple[/i] sentences, actually. He still didn't mention it. (And, later, when I wrote what you quoted, he didn't even acknowledge that there [i]was[/i] a magic word, and that specific quote showed up in a very brief reply. The length didn't matter.) Considering the alternative, on my side, would be to similarly ignore concerns that others are raising, what solution would you suggest? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Artificer Class, Revised: Rip Me A New One
Top