Unearthed Arcana Revised Artificer Survey now available

Charlaquin · Jun 4, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
But you're ignoring what that actually means. You're making something with a tool, and using it to create the magical effect described by the spell. Why do you want an extra mechanical step to take what the rules are already saying, and just...say it harder and with more complexity?

Because I want things that claim to be different to actually be different. Nobody bothers describing their spellcasting anyway, so saying “you can describe casting your spells as making something with a tool and using that tool to create the desired effect” doesn’t really mean anything. I don’t just want to say my Artificer’s magic is different, I want my Artificer’s magic to be different.

doctorbadwolf said:
This isn't the survey, though. And wotc doesn't read these threads. At all. Ever. You're just yelling at people who have no say in what happens, at this point. You, I assume, provided your feedback. So did the rest of us. We'll see what happens next, but post after post crapping on the basic premise of the class isn't helpful or interesting.

If I’m yelling it’s because I’m being told to shut up. I expressed my opinion about what I would like to see in an Artificer, got told I was wrong for wanting that and that I was “making false claims,” and I have only been justifying and defending my opinion since. You might notice that a few people have expressed a difference of opinion without attacking my opinion, and I ha e not responded to those people. Because I’m not really interested in arguing about what the Artificer should look like. But I’m also not going to lay down and take it when told that the Artificer shouldn't look like what I want out of it.

Charlaquin · Jun 4, 2019

SkidAce said:
I agree they don't formally.

But I don't think they ignore them completely.

I agree, but I don’t think they’ve really looked to forums to get a read on player opinions since the 5e open playtest ended and they shut down their official forums.

Charlaquin · Jun 4, 2019

Remathilis said:
I was curious because like the artificer, they have multiple competing mechanics (spell slots, invocations, patrons pacts and arcana) that mostly just replicate spells with an extra dose of spooky flavor. I see a lot of kinship between the artificer and warlock as flavorful alt-spellcasers with multiple sources of magic and a ton of customization.

That makes sense. I adore the Warlock for that. It’s the one casting class that actually feels like it plays in a meaningfully different way than the others to me.

Blue · Jun 4, 2019

hbarsquared said:
No. Pets.

Either one subclass, or an artificer version of find familiar.

Everything else is just tweaks.

Are you saying that:
1. No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet.
2. D&D 5e can't handle pets (in a game with summons and animates and the like) and shouldn't even try to rectify this classic archetype?
3. You have a personal preference you wish to enforce on everyone else?
4. Something else? If so, please describe.

hbarsquared · Jun 5, 2019

Blue said:
Are you saying that:
1. No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet.
2. D&D 5e can't handle pets (in a game with summons and animates and the like) and shouldn't even try to rectify this classic archetype?
3. You have a personal preference you wish to enforce on everyone else?
4. Something else? If so, please describe.

(4), with a little bit of (3) mixed in.

It's not that "No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet." It's that "There are those who want to play an artificer without a pet." Since the pet is baked in, I cannot play an artificer without a pet.

I'm in the camp that fell in love with the artificer from Eberron 3.5. I'm happy with a modern artificer with expanded/different capabilities, and even flavor, but only as long as I can still play an artificer that feels Original Eberron, to me. Spellcasting, Infusions, Tinkering, Tool proficiency, Spell-storing, and even the ideas behind the Specialists all work for me, in concept. However, I don't like the homunculus, the turret, the iron defender as required mechanics for the Specialists.

I want to play an artificer alchemists without the homunculus. I want to play a Wandslinger/Artillerists without the turret. With that said, I might want to play an Archivist with an iron defender pet, or a Battlesmith with the artificial mind - those sound like fun - and are precluded by the construction of the class and subclasses.

Seramus · Jun 5, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Page count? I really don't think there's much to that argument, tbh. It's a rather classic part of the archetype. Page count doesn't particularly impact that.

The problem is that there are several other classic parts of the archetype that are far more iconic and influential than the creation of homunculi. It’s like a Batman subclass that focuses on the batmobile, instead of his detective skills, combat prowess, or utility belt.

Enevhar Aldarion · Jun 5, 2019

In about an hour, on the Dragon+ podcast on Twitch, Jeremy Crawford will be discussing the Artificer, in case anyone wants to watch it live today or later once the recording is available.

Leatherhead · Jun 6, 2019

Enevhar Aldarion said:
In about an hour, on the Dragon+ podcast on Twitch, Jeremy Crawford will be discussing the Artificer, in case anyone wants to watch it live today or later once the recording is available.

Good news for some people in this thread:
It looks like the Homunculus is highly likely to be retooled into an Infusion instead of a Subclass Feature.

Unfortunately, it seems like the rest of the pets are stuck in their respective subclasses.

lkj · Jun 6, 2019

Leatherhead said:
Good news for some people in this thread:
It looks like the Homunculus is highly likely to be retooled into an Infusion instead of a Subclass Feature.

Unfortunately, it seems like the rest of the pets are stuck in their respective subclasses.

Perhaps. But it also sounded like the 'turret' for the Artillerist might get re-worked to be something that could be wielded. Which sounds a lot less pet-like.

AD

doctorbadwolf · Jun 6, 2019

Seramus said:
The problem is that there are several other classic parts of the archetype that are far more iconic and influential than the creation of homunculi. It’s like a Batman subclass that focuses on the batmobile, instead of his detective skills, combat prowess, or utility belt.

I disagree completely. It's more like a story about Batman that focuses on one of those three features.

lkj said:
Perhaps. But it also sounded like the 'turret' for the Artillerist might get re-worked to be something that could be wielded. Which sounds a lot less pet-like.

AD

Damn I hope it still can be a "pet", because my wife really enjoys her turret as it is.