Are you satisfied enough with the Artificer to publish it?

Fenris-77 · May 17, 2019

Yup, crunch sells books. Plus, GMs are under no duress to use anything from any particular book in their personal campaign, so if you don't like it, don't use it. If a potential player has a huge issue with it, they can find another game. I know that sounds harsh, but the truth of the matter is that players are far more replaceable than GMs. If you want to play in my campaign and I'm not going to allow Artificers, or Druids, or Elves, or whatever, that's just the way it is.

Azzy · May 17, 2019

Blue said:
As a side note, I'm actually happy with the XGtE subclasses I've seen hit the table in the games I play.

Same here. So far, I've seen 1) in a previous campaign: forge domain cleric, way of the sun soul monk, divine soul sorcerer, and a shadow magic sorcerer (my character); 2) in our current campaign, a college of swords bard, circle of dreams druid, storm sorcery sorcerer, and a monster slayer ranger (my character).

Ancalagon · May 18, 2019

Blue said:
(As a side note, I'm actually happy with the XGtE subclasses I've seen hit the table in the games I play. I don't want to derail this, I personally had more problems with the races in Volo's but even there is was inconsistant, not universally banned.)

In my game, the paladin player had the chance to change to an "arcane gish" - ie a melee focused warlock. I thought he was going to take hexblade but nope, 5 levels fey bladepack with 3 fighter levels (battlemaster).

Ancalagon · May 18, 2019

To get back on topic...

The alchemist has a lot of flavor, but I think there is an issue with their powerful cantrip power, because it's limited to poison and acid cantrips only. It really, *really* should apply to fire. First for thematic reasons (come one, alchemist's fire? Anyone?!?). But also for "gamist" reason. Even when inproved, the acid/poison cantrips can't compete with a magically enhanced crossbow. But firebolt *might*...

Seriously speaking, if there was a way to merge the old alchemist (with the healing vials, the thrown vials of acids etc) and the new one, it would be *perfect*.

Ancalagon · May 18, 2019

A possible re-flavor of the battle smith would be a *battle golem*, which can separate in 2 (the iron defender) while the "main golem" blast away from the rear (heavy crossbow with spell on it).

PrimevalSeeker · May 18, 2019

I mostly like the base class, but some abilities such as spell storing item and extra attunement slots should come online much earlier and then scale as you level.

I really dislike that all subclasses have a pet/minion. The alchemist and archivist pets could be optional through infusions, the turrets could be spells and the battlesmith seems like it tries to fit two concepts within the same subclass.

Overall the base class could have its abilities rearranged and it would be fine. The problem is the theme of the subclasses, which is too Eberron-centric and forces you to have a minion.

Ancalagon · May 18, 2019

PrimevalSeeker said:
I mostly like the base class, but some abilities such as spell storing item and extra attunement slots should come online much earlier and then scale as you level.

I really dislike that all subclasses have a pet/minion. The alchemist and archivist pets could be optional through infusions, the turrets could be spells and the battlesmith seems like it tries to fit two concepts within the same subclass.

Overall the base class could have its abilities rearranged and it would be fine. The problem is the theme of the subclasses, which is too Eberron-centric and forces you to have a minion.

The spell storing was done differently in the first version of the class and came online a *lot* sooner. It really allowed the class to do support.

I think that of all of the subclasses, the alchemist is the easiest one to put in other campaigns. It really fits well in Yoon Suin for example, which is vastly different from Eberron. The battle Smith could work with some effort , the archivist I have to think about.

Yaarel · May 18, 2019

Kinda relating to the Artificer, I would find it helpful if D&D added a new skill: Alchemy.

Alchemy covers the elements − earth (bludgeon, pierce, slash), air (thunder, lightning), fire, and water (cold) − acid, metallurgy, material strength, pouring concrete, geology, (seismic activity, volcanoes), and so on. Basically, proto-chemistry.

So far I use the Nature skill for Alchemy. But I feel Alchemy is strong enough to merit its own skill. That allows Nature to focus on proto-biology (plants, animals) and proto-ecology (weather).

The Artificer might well enjoy Expertise in Alchemy.

gyor · May 18, 2019

They have an Alchemist Kit instead of a "skill".

SkidAce · May 18, 2019

Yaarel said:
Kinda relating to the Artificer, I would find it helpful if D&D added a new skill: Alchemy.

Alchemy covers the elements − earth (bludgeon, pierce, slash), air (thunder, lightning), fire, and water (cold) − acid, metallurgy, material strength, pouring concrete, geology, (seismic activity, volcanoes), and so on. Basically, proto-chemistry.

So far I use the Nature skill for Alchemy. But I feel Alchemy is strong enough to merit its own skill. That allows Nature to focus on proto-biology (plants, animals) and proto-ecology (weather).

The Artificer might well enjoy Expertise in Alchemy.

I use alchemist's tools/kit for this.

Proficiency plus choose either Int or Wisdom for mods.