Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer

I don't think anyone saw this coming!

 

[Aldarc]

I may provide a more detailed examination of the Artificer later, but for now, I'm unconvinced. Namely, I don't see the Artificer with the gunner subclass. It was more of a wand-wielder than gunner.

 

[unknowable]

but has there been any Warlock or Wizard coverage?

Yes... In the same UA actually. We got one warlock type and one wizard type.

One of them was called the seeker or something. It was the UA right before the new new ranger

 

[TwoSix]

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.

Can't say as I agree. (Outside of agreeing that racial type subclasses would be great for this class.) Outside of the mechanical servant, most of the tech elements are imbedded in the subclasses. And you could easily have a more shamanistic subclass that makes the mechanical servant into a fey, for example. I could easily make an elven artificer that feels a lot like a ranger, for example, with only light reskinning. (Thunder Cannon becomes Arcane Bow, and the Mechanical Servant becomes a beast.)

We might disagree on this because of your preference for story elements being imbedded in the class, over my preference for viewing classes as holders of mechanics. Can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe there's a 12 step program.

"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.

Sure, but allowing conversion of levels into items is far less problematic than allowing conversion of gold, or XP, or time into items. Allowing other magic items to be turned into crafted items would just bring back 4e residuum. Fundamentally, you can't have an artificer with ANY magic item crafting abilities that isn't going to cut into the novelty factor of finding your own magic items. At least by limiting it to a small selection of items gained at only a few points in your adventuring career, you're still keeping the bulk of magic items interesting. This way, they're more like class features that you can hand me down when you get bored with them.

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)

I really don't see this one. The artificer is a rogue, first and foremost. They do excellent damage which is lost without their presence. They CAN'T craft new items unless they're out gaining XP and levels. Their infusions last 8 hours, max. I agree that they don't need to make a ton of "artificing decisions" outside of where to deploy their few spell slots, but moving them away from being a full caster is pretty strong signal that was the designer's intent.

Suddenly, my class powers are dependent on the roll of magic item tables.

A minor ability that works in conjuction with their crafting ability to supprt both low and high item campaigns.

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?

Beasts are the safest choice for any sort of shapechanging or companion ability, due to the predictability of their advancement and abilities. And you can describe them any way you want. So you could use a bear's stats, for example, and just describe them as a burly humanoid. I agree that if you really wanted to build a C-3PO you're out of luck, but that seems addressable via subclasses in the future.

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!

More than anything, I appreciate the boldness, but I think there's a lot more clever design here than you may be giving them credit for.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I'm in, with some reservations:

I like that the artificer is its own class. Shackling it to the (problematic at best) wizard forced it to be as cookie-cutter as the others.

I like that the class addresses one of the fundamental issues with making every character concept a subclass: subclasses don't kick in until 2nd or 3rd level, so all members of a given class are identical to that point, For a class concept that is by necessity different, forcing it to fit a subclass mold wrecks it before it's even out of the gate.

I am mystified as to why the intro text talks about the paths of alchemy and engineering, then the subclasses are alchemy and a dude with a gun. Are the designers THAT afraid that nobody will play a class unless it has blasty potential? Worse, are they right?

I run a VERY low-magic game, and I'd allow the alchemist artificer. But if the designers' are planning on shoehorning guns and crap like that into Eberron, I guess it'll save me the $50 for that campaign setting when they release it.

All in all, I love it. It actually does what an artificer should be able to do, unlike the last version they farted out.

 

[doctheweasel]

This is the first entry that I read and thought, "I want to play that."

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

This. When magic items could just be bought and sold in 4e, they felt significantly less exciting and special. Instead, they became just another part of PC builds. With 5e, magic items started to feel, well, magical again. I don't mind PCs crafting magic items, but I feel like they should require quests and efforts, be a momentous undertaking. Not just "boom, you gained a level and get a free magic item."

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.

 

[pkt77242]

I understand the people who don't like the "gun" but that is an easy fix, just refluff it to a wand or special crossbow.

I like the class overall.

 

[fuindordm]

Squee!

I like this version a lot. There is definitely room for another subclass or two. I could see one focused on golems that powers up its companion at higher levels, and one focused on a sort of "item metamagic" that gets some of the Eberron artificer's signature abilities such as adding an elemental brand to a melee weapon or using extra charges to apply metamagic effects to charged items.

I also like that they're stretching the class design. 5E is certainly robust enough to handle this class.

Regarding attunement, I think it makes a ton of sense. I haven't checked if any of their "free" items require attunement, but I think some of them do. I think the intent is that the PC still has to attune their personal items. So this lets them use both their class items and some found items. I agree that they should have a replacement cost like the other personal items.

I really don't have too much to quibble about. My only major dislikes are that they out-rogue the rogue for trap, and that they don't have a spellbook like a wizard. I would take away the free expertise on thieves' tools. Instead, you could give them advantage on disarming magical traps (to cancel out the usual disadvantage, if I'm remembering that rule right).

When this gets published officially, I would like to see mainly more variety of everything: alchemist's tricks, gunsmith improvements (I think this should be modeled similarly to the alchemist, where the artificer chooses from a menu of enhancements), and a few unique spells like repair construct (they shouldn't have cure/cause wounds, but they should be able to do similar things for their companion and other constructs).

Ben

 

[Bad Fox]

A cool effort to put together a fun artificer! Definitely miles better than the wizard subclass that they previously floated.

Here are a couple immediate thoughts off the top of my head:

1. I wonder if it might sense to give the artificer a spell book as opposed to the sorcerer-ish way they're currently set up. Also, to really encourage the use of infusions, I might consider having all spells with a 1 action casting time always take 1 minute instead. To make up for the nerfing this causes, you could give the artificer slightly more spells per day? I like this because it even further distinguishes artificer casting from the way other casters work.

2. While I like the mechanical servant, I can't help but wonder if this might fit a little more neatly into a construct-themed subclass.

3. A couple spells completely unique to the artificer would be fun.

Also, did anyone else notice the nod to Mystara campaign setting?? "An elf scrambles up the castle’s wall, Baronvon Hendriks’ men close behind her." Hahah - so awesome! This part reads less like a UA article and more like draft material for a release that's intended for publishing.

 

[Demetrios1453]

I'm pretty impressed with this version of the artificier - just add in another subclass or two (engineer, clockwork creature builder, and the like; and I don't doubt we'll see some more when it has its final release) and make a few tweaks and it will be ready to go.

And, being an Int based class, well, it will be drawing lots of gnomes, as it should be...

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app