I don't think anyone saw this coming!
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
I don't think anyone saw this coming!
Hawk Diesel
Adventurer
Does anyone else envision the Alchemist Artificer as Baggin' Saggin' Barry from All That?
BrockBallingdark
Explorer
Eberron being my favorite setting ever for D&D, I like what they did with the artificer, minus the guns (hate that). I will not be using this class for any of the settings I run but Eberron. I will tweak the getting magic item things for free part. I didn't play Eberron crazy with magic items for 3rd Edition (hated 4th), so I could get this to work for 5E easily.
vpuigdoller
Adventurer
After thinking a few days about it. I would replace the magic item part with an invention list like the tinker gnome inventions. You would get a blueprint from the list at the same lvls and you could find other blueprints around to dms discretion. Each imvention would have a maximum number of charges, lets say 3 charges maximum then it breaks. At higher lvls you can make items with more charges. Then a blueprint example would be water breathing mask, when a charge is used you can breath underwater for an hour. To create this items you have to expend days and resources.
Aldarc
Legend
Vindication!
Kobold Avenger
Legend
My thoughts on the abilities of the Gunsmith is that I feel they could go with a bunch of pick and choose options like what the Alchemist got, with damage and area that scales at levels. If might not look as interesting, but I feel it should be like that for those who want to be shooting flames before 17th level.
Edit: I am trying to format this as best I can. Will be editing and trying to get it right.
Problem: The current mechanical servant suffers from many problems which render it problematic at all levels of play. Currently, at the level at which you gain it, it completely obsoletes a Beast Master's animal companion in the damage department. While it lacks utility, it oversteps its role in a big way. After level 9, it starts to accelerate a bit, then fall off, but remains a large annoyance until it scales into obsolescence due to a lack of progression and low hit points.
This isn't purely a Role issue, as the DPR of an Artificer is resultingly out of line as well. The Gunsmith specialization for Artificer functions in an almost identical way to a Rogue in terms of how it does damage, which generally is viable at all levels(though slightly behind in the mid to late "teens" as other classes gain some late level damage boosts). In essence, by combining a large DPR spike that doesn't scale(and will quickly die in fights past level 12 or so) with a Rogue damage progression, we have a class that does extreme and unfair damage between levels 6 and 10, before falling into a weak rut after that.
I have included below examples as a way to compare a Construct Polar Bear vs a Animal Companion. I have also included Beastmaster DPR assuming a generic beastmaster using a Heavy Crossbow and upgrading Dex at every ASI, and using Hunters Mark at all times. This is compared against a generic Artificer with Gunsmith, using his Thunder Monger on every attack. In an ideal comparison, both will be using bonus actions every turn to shift marks, or reload guns, so it reaches some degree of balance.
Current Comparisons:
Panther @ Ranger 6
Constructed Polar Bear at Artificer 6
I advanced all characters to 9, which I'll omit here because it's just Dex and Proficiency increases, and got the following DPRs:
Proposal:
The current Construct needs to suffer a big power hit at the initial levels, gain some scaling, and be repurposed into another role. By reworking the Construct to focus on a role as a protector and mount, rather than a damage dealer, the Construct can serve as a front line fighter or vanguard to protect the Artificer and his allies. Furthermore, by making it so the Construct does not regenerate naturally and does not recover on a short rest, but heals to full each long rest, the Construct becomes a tool which can be committed to a fight as a way to protect someone, while utterly lacking the longevity of a typical fighter or a barbarian. Part of the front line character's role is the ability to keep fighting and surviving through multiple fights. Giving the construct a good HP pool and defense, but limiting its healing to almost purely long rests makes it extremely useful on the front line, but always as a secondary to the true frontliners. In short, a useful bruiser who doesn't step on toes.
Changes to the Construct:
Important note: While not expressly listed, the construct does NOT gain proficiency bonus to damage, nor does it gain ability score increases. Its hit points increase, but its abilities do not. It does not gain any skills like a ranger pet either. The construct is a mechanical creature which fulfills a purpose, but it is not truly alive, and doesn't gain the utility features of an animal companion.
New Class Feature:
Now, I'd like to include some of the new stats of an example companion at key levels, for your comparison:
New Construct @ 6: Brown Bear
New Construct @ 9: Brown Bear
In short, the new construct adds around 10 damage when it is acquired, but fails to advance in any way with regards to damage output. This is instead of the 20 or so damage it gains initially, which screws up the scaling for a good 5 levels. In the long term, the artificer gains a useful defensive tool, and something which gives it some interesting combat utility. Either way, it creates an interesting new mechanic which should in theory not subvert any existing roles.
I expect that this is not a final proposal, and that some nerfs will be needed. Perhaps removing the ability of the construct to gain save proficiency, or something along those lines. But regardless, the limit of utility and damage in favor of a bruiser should distinguish this from the Beastmaster and create a more balanced progression.
Possible problems: Since this is an initial proposal, there do remain some problems. For instance, the damage is reduced to be on par with a ranger at low levels, and fall off somewhat, but it still may be too high in conjunction with the sneak attack damage. Furthermore, the increased frontline potential may prove extremely problematic with the construct in this new form. Possible solutions could be to require the construct to use your bonus action to be commanded to move and attack.
It is ironic that the thing which annoys people most about vanilla Rangers may actually be a useful limitation and flavorful fix for the issues with artificers. I'm going to continue doing math and figuring this out, but if you think the current construct is too powerful, I suggest adding the caveat that it cannot attack without using your action.
Problem: The current mechanical servant suffers from many problems which render it problematic at all levels of play. Currently, at the level at which you gain it, it completely obsoletes a Beast Master's animal companion in the damage department. While it lacks utility, it oversteps its role in a big way. After level 9, it starts to accelerate a bit, then fall off, but remains a large annoyance until it scales into obsolescence due to a lack of progression and low hit points.
This isn't purely a Role issue, as the DPR of an Artificer is resultingly out of line as well. The Gunsmith specialization for Artificer functions in an almost identical way to a Rogue in terms of how it does damage, which generally is viable at all levels(though slightly behind in the mid to late "teens" as other classes gain some late level damage boosts). In essence, by combining a large DPR spike that doesn't scale(and will quickly die in fights past level 12 or so) with a Rogue damage progression, we have a class that does extreme and unfair damage between levels 6 and 10, before falling into a weak rut after that.
I have included below examples as a way to compare a Construct Polar Bear vs a Animal Companion. I have also included Beastmaster DPR assuming a generic beastmaster using a Heavy Crossbow and upgrading Dex at every ASI, and using Hunters Mark at all times. This is compared against a generic Artificer with Gunsmith, using his Thunder Monger on every attack. In an ideal comparison, both will be using bonus actions every turn to shift marks, or reload guns, so it reaches some degree of balance.
Current Comparisons:
Panther @ Ranger 6
- Pet DPR at level 6: 19
- Beastmaster DPR at level 6(Crossbow, 1d10+1d6+4): 13
- Total DPR at level 6: 32
Constructed Polar Bear at Artificer 6
- Pet DPR at level all levels: 21
- Pet Reaction DPR at all levels: 33
- Gunsmith DPR per shot at level 6(4d6+4):18
- Total DPR at level 6: 39-52
- Ranger DPR: 32
- Artificer DPR: 39-52
I advanced all characters to 9, which I'll omit here because it's just Dex and Proficiency increases, and got the following DPRs:
- Beastmaster Pet DPR at level 9: 23
- Beastmaster DPR at level 9(Crossbow, 1d10+1d6+5): 14
- Total DPR at level 9: 37
- Gunsmith Construct DPR at level 9: 21
- Gunsmith DPR per shot at level 9(6d6+5):26
- Total DPR at level 9: 47
Proposal:
The current Construct needs to suffer a big power hit at the initial levels, gain some scaling, and be repurposed into another role. By reworking the Construct to focus on a role as a protector and mount, rather than a damage dealer, the Construct can serve as a front line fighter or vanguard to protect the Artificer and his allies. Furthermore, by making it so the Construct does not regenerate naturally and does not recover on a short rest, but heals to full each long rest, the Construct becomes a tool which can be committed to a fight as a way to protect someone, while utterly lacking the longevity of a typical fighter or a barbarian. Part of the front line character's role is the ability to keep fighting and surviving through multiple fights. Giving the construct a good HP pool and defense, but limiting its healing to almost purely long rests makes it extremely useful on the front line, but always as a secondary to the true frontliners. In short, a useful bruiser who doesn't step on toes.
Changes to the Construct:
Important note: While not expressly listed, the construct does NOT gain proficiency bonus to damage, nor does it gain ability score increases. Its hit points increase, but its abilities do not. It does not gain any skills like a ranger pet either. The construct is a mechanical creature which fulfills a purpose, but it is not truly alive, and doesn't gain the utility features of an animal companion.
New Class Feature:
Now, I'd like to include some of the new stats of an example companion at key levels, for your comparison:
New Construct @ 6: Brown Bear
- Pet DPR at level 6: 11
- Gunsmith DPR per shot at level 6(4d6+4):18
- Total DPR at level 6: 29
- Compare to Beastmaster DPR at level 6: 32
New Construct @ 9: Brown Bear
- Pet DPR at level 9: 11
- Gunsmith DPR per shot at level 9(6d6+5):26
- Total DPR at level 9: 37
- Compare to Beastmaster DPR at level 9: 37
In short, the new construct adds around 10 damage when it is acquired, but fails to advance in any way with regards to damage output. This is instead of the 20 or so damage it gains initially, which screws up the scaling for a good 5 levels. In the long term, the artificer gains a useful defensive tool, and something which gives it some interesting combat utility. Either way, it creates an interesting new mechanic which should in theory not subvert any existing roles.
I expect that this is not a final proposal, and that some nerfs will be needed. Perhaps removing the ability of the construct to gain save proficiency, or something along those lines. But regardless, the limit of utility and damage in favor of a bruiser should distinguish this from the Beastmaster and create a more balanced progression.
Possible problems: Since this is an initial proposal, there do remain some problems. For instance, the damage is reduced to be on par with a ranger at low levels, and fall off somewhat, but it still may be too high in conjunction with the sneak attack damage. Furthermore, the increased frontline potential may prove extremely problematic with the construct in this new form. Possible solutions could be to require the construct to use your bonus action to be commanded to move and attack.
It is ironic that the thing which annoys people most about vanilla Rangers may actually be a useful limitation and flavorful fix for the issues with artificers. I'm going to continue doing math and figuring this out, but if you think the current construct is too powerful, I suggest adding the caveat that it cannot attack without using your action.
Last edited by a moderator:
BookBarbarian
Expert Long Rester
I enjoyed reading that. While I don't play in Eberron i think he had many good points about the design of the class.
In particular it bothers me when a class gets spellcasting, but then very few features (or none at all) that modify or make that spellcasting feel interesting or special. I think that's something that can be improved upon for the Artificer.
AaronOfBarbaria
Adventurer
The artificer gets the most differentiating method of making a class's spellcasting interesting or special - they have a spell list all their own.
Other traits building upon that (besides magic item analysis and infuse magic, which you've apparently decided do not count for some reason) would be gravy, but the class's use of spells already seems pretty unique to me.
MechaTarrasque
Hero
Maybe I am a little slow this afternoon (curse you cedar pollen!), but doesn't reloading the gun using the same bonus action that commanding the mechanical servant to attack uses?
If so, then the guntoting artificer can either shoot and reload (and thus shoot the next round) or shoot and tell his pet to attack (in which case, he/she is reloading the next round, but can still order the pet to attack again). If that is true, then it isn't really appropriate to compare the gunsmith to the BM/BC rangers, since the rangers will be using the pet to attack and the GS won't be using it that often.
If so, then the guntoting artificer can either shoot and reload (and thus shoot the next round) or shoot and tell his pet to attack (in which case, he/she is reloading the next round, but can still order the pet to attack again). If that is true, then it isn't really appropriate to compare the gunsmith to the BM/BC rangers, since the rangers will be using the pet to attack and the GS won't be using it that often.
Similar Threads
Related Articles
-
D&D (2024) New Unearthed Arcana Playtest Includes Barbarian, Druid, and Monk
- Started by darjr
- Replies: 816
-
D&D (2024) Bonus Unearthed Arcana Reveals The Bastion System
- Started by darjr
- Replies: 440
-
D&D (2024) PHB Playtest Packet 7 drops Thrusday, September 7.
- Started by Saracenus
- Replies: 179
-
D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books
- Started by Parmandur
- Replies: 382
-
D&D (2024) D&D 2024 Core Rulebooks: 'We'll Still Be Working On Them In May'- Started by Morrus
- Replies: 122