Artificer UA to be released in February

I don't think there is a bunker strong enough to endure the fanbase exploding over this.

 

[CapnZapp]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[André Soares]

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]

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]

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.