CapnZapp
Legend
I hear you.Just a semirant/off-topic note: I wish they were putting all that energy to deliver a solid psion.
Maybe in five years time...
I hear you.Just a semirant/off-topic note: I wish they were putting all that energy to deliver a solid psion.
Yeah. I get that half-casters can be powerful, and it shores up the mundane aspects.
At the same time, someone who makes magic items needs to excel at magic, including high-level spellcasting for high-level magic items.
At the very least, I want to see a high level feature that can access high level spells, even if like the way a Warlock does.
It's always an exchange. If the Artificer also had access to high level spells he'd need to have less something else. That's not an impossible task, but I think that having more class abilities and infusions and whatnot with the corollary of less high level spells does a good job separating the Artificer from the Wizard. If you were to give access to high level spells what would you be willing to remove from the class as its written now? 10 will get you 20 that the answer from a lot of folks will be "the pet", which is fine, but at that point why not just write a wizard subclass that specializes in magic item creation? Just my two cents...
Yea, agreed. The WotC Artificer is fine, it's not like I would turn it away if someone wanted to play it, but I'd show them Kibbletasty's first and recommend it as the superior option.In all seriousness, I actually do not care if/when they publish it, as I believe KibbleTasty's Alternate Artificer (currently on v1.7) already is a better version than what WotC has continued on with and it is all I will ever want or need in an Artificer. The seven subclasses it has for it cover conceivable archetype I might ever want, and my Eberron campaigns have already benefited from its existence.
Unless your only option is playing Adventurer's League and thus HAVE to use the WotC version... I don't know why anyone would go with theirs over KibbleTasty's.
In all seriousness, I actually do not care if/when they publish it, as I believe KibbleTasty's Alternate Artificer (currently on v1.7) already is a better version than what WotC has continued on with and it is all I will ever want or need in an Artificer. The seven subclasses it has for it cover conceivable archetype I might ever want, and my Eberron campaigns have already benefited from its existence.
Unless your only option is playing Adventurer's League and thus HAVE to use the WotC version... I don't know why anyone would go with theirs over KibbleTasty's.
I took a look at KTs. I can see the appeal, there is a lot of good stuff there. But on the other hand....the class by itself probably takes up as many pages as all of the core classes (seriously, its huge). So its good, but WOTC would never spend that much page space on a single class.
Since the release of Xanathar's Guide, I've lost all faith in the developers' ability to design new classes and sub-classes. At this point, anything they add to the game is just another thing I have to tell my players they can't use because it's awful and poorly designed (and I hate having to do that).
For the good of the game, I wish the developers would give up on creating new crunch and just focus on settings, adventures, and monsters instead. At least they're good at that stuff.
My issue with the Artillerist is that the 6th level wand ability seems useless to me. Why would this subclass want to use cantrips? You have the options of:
Attacking with your heavy crossbow twice for 1d10+dex+1d6(from arcane weapon) & 1d10+dex+1d6(arcane weapon) vs a firebolt with Int bonus for like 2d10+3. And if you take Sharpshooter, then forget about it. The wand stuff needs to go.