Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer

I don't think anyone saw this coming!

 

[plisnithus8]

One of players decided to play an Artificier gunsmith last night.
Unfortunately for him, we were playing Out of the Abyss which many of you know starts off with [spoiler?].

 

[Ancalagon]

The more I think about it...

Am I right to be concerned about the alchemist's limited range? The pathfinder's version didn't have much range either, but it was more like 100 feet or so, not 30. When I first read the class I didn't really clue in on this but now it seems awfully short.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more I think about it...

Am I right to be concerned about the alchemist's limited range? The pathfinder's version didn't have much range either, but it was more like 100 feet or so, not 30. When I first read the class I didn't really clue in on this but now it seems awfully short.

It is short, but not terribly short from my perspective.

We play on a battlemap most of the time, so we're a lot more constrained than a ToTM game, which might have something to do with it.

If you end your turn there, you are i range for an enemy to run to you and attack, but if you've got movement left you can generally get back far enough that most things are going to have trouble catching you.You are far enough back that the frontliners can still harry the enemy and probably keep it off you.

TL;DR
I've seen a lot of archers and the like keep about 30-50 ft away most games, and done fairly well.

 

[Edward Centofante]

How are you guys dealing with the noise of a THUNDER CANNON using the THUNDER MONGER ability that deals THUNDER damage?

It seems a pretty glaring oversight to not include any information on that.

 

[Garresh]

How are you guys dealing with the noise of a THUNDER CANNON using the THUNDER MONGER ability that deals THUNDER damage?

It seems a pretty glaring oversight to not include any information on that.

The default assumption is most any part of combat is noisy. Swords bouncing off steel plates and being deflected. Shouts and cries of pain. Fireballs exploding, magic missiles whooshing. If someone's firing an attack like that it probably draws some attention, but no moreso than any spell or cantrip.

 

[Kyvin]

I'd like to add my ideas to this thread. I was very pleased to see the UA artificer, as someone who has always liked the idea of the artificer as a class. I think it brings something unique to the game. From this thread, I get the feeling that just like the ranger, people have very different ideas about what an artificer should be. Indeed, the class can go in many different directions. One way that the artificer can go in two different directions is the magic vs technology aspect. Some people really want the artificer to be magic-powered and others more steampunk. I think the best route is give the artificer some mechanical toys but make sure to say that the technology is powered by the artificer's unique kind of magic.

First off, my opinion is that alchemy shouldn't belong to the artificer. In my mind, the artificer is the class that builds magical stuff, like an arcane engineer. Working with all kinds of chemicals and obscure magical components to create potions and draughts and so forth sounds like something a wizard would be doing. It even says in the UA fluff that artificers long to create magical objects that aren't temporary. I would like to see Alchemy as a wizard tradition.

Another opinion I have is that the artificer class should NOT get spellcasting. Again, it says right in the fluff that artificers create objects, not spells. Why not just be a wizard? Instead, I think the focus of the artificer class should be using gadgets or inventions that function like spells. For example, artificers could start with being able to create or power up two inventions a day to start and then more as they level up. They can choose which inventions they want for that adventuring day from a list similar to the warlock invocations list.
Items could include goggles of darkvision, monocles that can read languages, boots that spring or levitate, chains or traps that catch monsters, belts that put up a shield-like forcefield, the more flavorful and goofy the better. It would take a bonus action for the artificer to activate an invention, and the artificer would get a certain number of "slots" or "artificer points" a day to activate these items. To make things more interesting, when an artificer uses an invention they might have to roll a d20 and add their proficiency bonus. On a score of 5 or lower, the invention doesn't function. On a natural 1, the invention seriously malfunctions and can't be used until the following day after a long rest. To make things even more interesting, if an artificer wants to swap out an invention for another they can do so during a short rest, but the invention doesn't work on a score of 10 or lower, because artificer hastily put it together. In this way, the artificer is the problem solver and versatile 5th party member but there's a chance of failure. This would also give the artificer a totally unique flavor rather than just another spellcasting class (which so many classes already have). This also solves the problem of giving the artificer cool things to make that they can swap out every day but aren't DMG magic items for free that can get lost or stolen.

As far as the artificer subclasses, call them vocations or whatever here are my ideas:

Cannoneer -the gun artificer but don't call it a gun, call it a thunder cannon or arcane cannon and have it use magic, not bullets. Make it scale, add other goodies like being able to fire off explosions or magic bombs (smoke, bursting, web) or whatever for all the people who want a bomb-shooting alchemist. As they level, let them fire off big blasts once a day or choose an elemental damage type to fire. Or maybe call it something else and let players choose if they want to make it a staff, rod, wand, or cannon, but give it the same abilities.

Armorsmith - the mech artificer. Gains proficiency with heavy armor and a slam attack that scales. As they level, gets proficient or advantage on strength checks. At high levels, gets to power up their armor with resistance to a damage type for the day or something crazy like +2 armor class for a limited time as a one per day ability.

Mechanomancer - the clockwork minion artificer. Gets a mechanical pet that doesn't outdo the ranger. Other cool ideas would be little clockwork bugs that run up to enemies and explode (like Torchlight 2's spider mines) and a clockwork thopter that functions like an aura, zapping enemies that enter your reach (also stolen from Torchlight 2, would need to reflavor a bit but you get the idea).

I DO really like: being able to cast identify and detect magic as rituals, the ability to attune to more magic items (but maybe 5 max) and the capstone ability is really neat. But honestly I don't like the Infuse Magic idea. It seems really fiddly and as a DM I don't want to deal with fiddly stuff. I think the inventions per day thing covers this idea. Maybe they could still be able to give inventions to other players but they only last the day and would need the artificer present (nearby?) to "activate" them. This would satisfy those in the community who really wanted the artificer to supply party members with support items.

Thanks for reading, I would appreciate hearing other people's opinions as well.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

How are you guys dealing with the noise of a THUNDER CANNON using the THUNDER MONGER ability that deals THUNDER damage?

It seems a pretty glaring oversight to not include any information on that.

I'm figuring that because it is actually a firearm, the designers are assuming that we will understand that it is a very loud noise.

Only magic, which doesn't necessarily have to be loud even while dealing "sound" damage with the thunder type, needs a clarification on how far away it can be heard - loud noises that actually exist in the real world, such as shouting, are not given audible ranges.

 

[Lanliss]

Another opinion I have is that the artificer class should NOT get spellcasting. Again, it says right in the fluff that artificers create objects, not spells. Why not just be a wizard? Instead, I think the focus of the artificer class should be using gadgets or inventions that function like spells. For example, artificers could start with being able to create or power up two inventions a day to start and then more as they level up. They can choose which inventions they want for that adventuring day from a list similar to the warlock invocations list.
Items could include goggles of darkvision, monocles that can read languages, boots that spring or levitate, chains or traps that catch monsters, belts that put up a shield-like forcefield, the more flavorful and goofy the better. It would take a bonus action for the artificer to activate an invention, and the artificer would get a certain number of "slots" or "artificer points" a day to activate these items. To make things more interesting, when an artificer uses an invention they might have to roll a d20 and add their proficiency bonus. On a score of 5 or lower, the invention doesn't function. On a natural 1, the invention seriously malfunctions and can't be used until the following day after a long rest. To make things even more interesting, if an artificer wants to swap out an invention for another they can do so during a short rest, but the invention doesn't work on a score of 10 or lower, because artificer hastily put it together. In this way, the artificer is the problem solver and versatile 5th party member but there's a chance of failure. This would also give the artificer a totally unique flavor rather than just another spellcasting class (which so many classes already have). This also solves the problem of giving the artificer cool things to make that they can swap out every day but aren't DMG magic items for free that can get lost or stolen.

How does one infuse magic into items, but know zero magic? That's like wanting blacksmiths to not know different Ores.

They describe the magic as a means to an end, little things the artificer learned as they studied magic, so that they know how it works before sticking some runes on a pair of goggles. This seems fine to me.

 

[mellored]

How does one infuse magic into items, but know zero magic? That's like wanting blacksmiths to not know different Ores.

They describe the magic as a means to an end, little things the artificer learned as they studied magic, so that they know how it works before sticking some runes on a pair of goggles. This seems fine to me.

A smith could know ore without knowing where or how to dig for it.

Similarly, an artificer might be able to learn the fireball spell, but not have any spell slot to cast it.
They could instead use that knowledge to make a wand of fireball. Recylcing it later to make a wand of meteor swarm.

Which would fit pretty well IMO.

 

[Aldarc]

How does one infuse magic into items, but know zero magic? That's like wanting blacksmiths to not know different Ores.

They describe the magic as a means to an end, little things the artificer learned as they studied magic, so that they know how it works before sticking some runes on a pair of goggles. This seems fine to me.

3.X artificer infusions walked the line between conventional spells while also not being spells since they could only "cast" their infusions on objects, and most of their infusions were about turning mundane items into temporary magic items or changing the magical properties of a preexisting magic item.

It's a shame that the 5e artificer does not infuse items in a manner similar to a warlock's pact magic: X times per short rest and done at max power. Then instead of invocations, they could have "discoveries." Then they could also have pact-boon like approaches: construct homunculus (instead of chain), wand-specialist, etc.