Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: The Artificer Is Here! & UA Schedule Changes

AKRandomRicker · Mar 3, 2019

I like it! It just looks like it's going to be a blast to run, both as a DM and as a player! It's full of interestingly "Arcana-tech" flavored mechanics and features!

In response to some of the things others have said:

-I like the Homunculus, it reminds me of all the 3e Eberron pictures of "Warforged animals", and the turrets are strait out of 4e (Animate Arbalester ability), in fact a LOT of the Artificer abilities seem perfect for use in a game, and especially in an Eberron campaign! Only thing that really seems to be missing is a "Bomb" cantrip to simulate the old "Bomb" class-feature.

-I love the idea of using the class abilities of the old UA Artificer with the new base to expand the Class, and calling the new Alchemist "Mad Scientist" is a SWEET idea!

What it all boils down to is that I like the class, but I have an Eberron bias, and each to their own for how they use and feel about this TEST material!

SkidAce · Mar 3, 2019

Demetrios1453 said:
...And those who try to say that Greyhawk shouldn't have any tieflings simply make me shake my head. What have Iuz and the Great Kingdom been doing for decades? There's minimal difficulty with introducing tieflings to the setting given the history we already have!

And cambions.

Quoted for truth.

R_Chance · Mar 3, 2019

Remathilis said:
This seems true of most established D&D settings; ardent fans demand the setting never change from it's first printing and any attempt to widen the field is sacrilege. It creates these arguments that Greyhawk cannot have dragonborn, Dragonlance cannot have warlocks, Dark Sun cannot have tieflings, Mystara cannot have artificers, etc.

Settings adapt or die. Those that cannot adapt to the current rules should be left to gather dust with the edition they were written for.

Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.

Hussar · Mar 3, 2019

R_Chance said:
Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.

There is a pretty wide gulf between "every class or race or spell (or anything else) has to exist in every setting" and "setting never change from its first printing".

Sure, you don't have to add everything, but the default answer shouldn't be, "Well, it wasn't there thirty years ago, so not now" either. If adding to the something makes sense and is in keeping with the setting, then, IMO, it should be added.

Alchemists and mad scientists in Greyhawk? Yuppers. Fits right in. This setting always played fast and loose with genre lines. Like I said above, you have at least two crashed spaceships in the setting, a giant mechanical spider, and a wizard most known for carrying six-guns.

I'd say that its a pretty small jump to add in alchemists to the setting.

Remathilis · Mar 3, 2019

R_Chance said:
Well, no. Not every class or race or spell (or anything else) *has* to exist in every setting. They could be added to a pre-existing setting, or not. A setting could be revived for 5E and not use every option in 5E. As well as one being revived and adding options vanilla 5E doesn't have. Either or both are options for older settings. And if you want a specific class (etc.), pick a setting that has that option in it or talk to your DM about it.

Eh, while not every option need be viable for every setting, the fact X wasn't in the original book shouldn't disqualify it automatically. Lots of revised books were able to add some form expanded option to established setting; 3e era versions of Greyhawk and Realms added sorcerers, Ravenloft added half-orcs (in the form of calibans), Dragonlance added monks, and the 4e version of Dark Sun added tieflings, dragonborn (dray) and warlocks while Eberron added eladrin and dragonborn, yet none of those settings broke. Settings are far more resilient than people think. Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.

R_Chance · Mar 3, 2019

Remathilis said:
Eh, while not every option need be viable for every setting, the fact X wasn't in the original book shouldn't disqualify it automatically. Lots of revised books were able to add some form expanded option to established setting; 3e era versions of Greyhawk and Realms added sorcerers, Ravenloft added half-orcs (in the form of calibans), Dragonlance added monks, and the 4e version of Dark Sun added tieflings, dragonborn (dray) and warlocks while Eberron added eladrin and dragonborn, yet none of those settings broke. Settings are far more resilient than people think. Sure, artificer might not work in Dark Sun, but it probably works fine in more settings than people are willing to give it credit for.

I agree. I was just pointing out that not everything needs to be in every setting. I wasn't arguing against change per se. Just saying that some things will fit, others won't. I have a 44 year old home brew setting. I've squeezed in a lot of new things over the years. Like most things that are in the current game

Just not "everything". Oh, and a lot of things that aren't in this edition (or prior ones) have found their way in...

R_Chance · Mar 3, 2019

Hussar said:
There is a pretty wide gulf between "every class or race or spell (or anything else) has to exist in every setting" and "setting never change from its first printing".

Sure, you don't have to add everything, but the default answer shouldn't be, "Well, it wasn't there thirty years ago, so not now" either. If adding to the something makes sense and is in keeping with the setting, then, IMO, it should be added.

Alchemists and mad scientists in Greyhawk? Yuppers. Fits right in. This setting always played fast and loose with genre lines. Like I said above, you have at least two crashed spaceships in the setting, a giant mechanical spider, and a wizard most known for carrying six-guns.

I'd say that its a pretty small jump to add in alchemists to the setting.

And I agree with you as well. Especially about Greyhawk. It even has Blackmoor in it

Of course EGG kind of paved over it, but hey, it's there along with the Great / Grand Kingdom! See my reply above this...

*edit* Spelling and Great = (roughly) Grand...

Seramus · Mar 3, 2019

Ash Mantle said:
They never say you also get to cast the spell, only that you expend a spell slot.

The only criteria for summoning a turret is "Did you expend a spell slot?" and "Smith's Tools + Action". So an anal player could say she casts Arcane Weapon as a bonus action, which expends a spell slot and qualifies her for a turret summon.

Obviously not intended, but that's one of the ways it reads.

Ash Mantle · Mar 3, 2019

Seramus said:
The only criteria for summoning a turret is "Did you expend a spell slot?" and "Smith's Tools + Action". So an anal player could say she casts Arcane Weapon as a bonus action, which expends a spell slot and qualifies her for a turret summon.

Obviously not intended, but that's one of the ways it reads.

Except expending a spell slot is not the same as casting it, as per the quotes from the PHB above. Even a pedantic reading of the text would not likely yield that conclusion, unless the player is intentionally exploiting and twisting the reading. I mean, sure, it could benefit from tightening of the wording but if Wizards had said the artificer also casts a spell in addition to expending the spell slot they would've clearly stated this.