Unearthed Arcana Revised Artificer Survey now available

Savevsdeath · Jun 3, 2019

Azzy said:
The 3.5e Artificer had spells, so why would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells? It seems like you want a different class altogether.

A lot of people don't like and/or never played Eberron or played with/as an Artificer, and thus want it to be something that it never was. Others just don't like any magic that isn't 'choose from a spell list, memorize, cast'. Still more just hate magitech. Regardless, to those people i say: if you don't like it, don't use it. You weren't going to anyway if it didn't exist, so don't ruin it for people who actually like Eberron.

That being said, I don't think it's perfect right now - just very, very close.

Charlaquin · Jun 3, 2019

Azzy said:
The 3.5e Artificer had spells, why would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells?

Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be.

Azzy said:
It seems like you want a different class altogether.

I disagree. I think the thing I want very much fits within the fiction of the Artificer. I just want a different mechanical expression of that “magitech crafter” concept. And I’m fine with both spellcasting and non-spellcasting options existing, it’s judt much harder to remove spells from a class that has them as part of its core features than it is to add spellcasting to one or more of the subclasses.

Azzy · Jun 3, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Yeah, and it was dumb then too. slwhy would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells?
So I can enjoy the class more?
Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be.
I disagree. I think the thing I want very much fits within the fiction of the Artificer. I just want a different mechanical expression of that “magitech crafter” concept. And I’m fine with both spellcasting and non-spellcasting options existing, it’s judt much harder to remove spells from a class that has them as part of its core features than it is to add spellcasting to one or more of the subclasses.

Great, so you want something different than what fans of the original class and of Eberron want. Go you. However, this playtest isn't going to give you what you want as it's designed for an Eberron supplement. Sorry.

Mistwell · Jun 3, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Yeah, and it was dumb then too. slwhy would you want a 5e version of the class to not have spells?

Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be.

I disagree. I think the thing I want very much fits within the fiction of the Artificer. I just want a different mechanical expression of that “magitech crafter” concept. And I’m fine with both spellcasting and non-spellcasting options existing, it’s judt much harder to remove spells from a class that has them as part of its core features than it is to add spellcasting to one or more of the subclasses.

Are you OK if they are using tools to produce magical effects? Ex. using a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.

Charlaquin · Jun 3, 2019

Savevsdeath said:
A lot of people don't like and/or never played Eberron or played with/as an Artificer, and thus want it to be something that it never was. Others just don't like any magic that isn't 'choose from a spell list, memorize, cast'. Still more just hate magitech.

And others, like myself, are perfectly fine with the Eberron Artificer, but want the 5e Artificer to be able to accommodate a wider range of character concepts than the original.

3.5 had a zillion classes and prestige classes to represent highly specific concepts. 5e takes a much broader, more archetypal approach to class design, with the more specific concepts falling to Subclasses to express. A 5e Artificer needs to be able to encompass more than just the Eberron Artificer, because it’s going to be the class everyone who wants to play a magitech character has to use, regardless of whether they’re playing Eberron or not. What I want may not be the Eberron Artificer, but there’s not going to be a class built around what I want out of a Magitech character. So, I want the 5e Artificer to be built broadly enough to use for both what I want and the Eberron Artificer.

Charlaquin · Jun 3, 2019

Azzy said:
Great, so you want something different than what fans of the original class and of Eberron want. Go you. However, this playtest isn't going to give you what you want as it's designed for an Eberron supplement. Sorry.

Which is shortsighted. The class isn’t only going to be used for Eberron, it should be built to be able to accommodate more concepts than just the Eberron Artificer. It should absolutely be able to accommodate the Eberron Artificer, but with 5e’s broad approach to class design, it should be able to accommodate other types of magitech characters too.

Charlaquin · Jun 3, 2019

Mistwell said:
Are you OK if they are using tools to produce magical effects? Ex. using a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.

Yes, that is precisely what I want them to do. Rather than casting spells themselves, they craft items, which they use to cast spells they otherwise couldn’t.

Mistwell · Jun 3, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Yes, that is precisely what I want them to do. Rather than casting spells themselves, they craft items, which they use to cast spells they otherwise couldn’t.

Then you're good. That's what this class does. I literally used the words about the class in my post, word for word. You can read more in Keith Baker's comments about it.

Charlaquin · Jun 3, 2019

Mistwell said:
Then you're good. That's what this class does. I literally used the words about the class in my post, word for word. You can read more in Keith Baker's comments about it.

Except, it doesn’t “use a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.” It casts the cure wounds spell, using thieves’ tools or artisan’s tools as a spellcasting focus.

Mistwell · Jun 3, 2019

Charlaquin said:
Except, it doesn’t “use a spell-storing item to create a cure wounds item, which results in using a tool to cast cure wounds.” It casts the cure wounds spell, using thieves’ tools or artisan’s tools as a spellcasting focus.

I guess you didn't read the link.

In short, it does indeed do just what I said. You really should read the article.