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

Not liking the shape of this. It's certainly powerful in a batman-utility sort of way, but I didn't expect the Artificer to become a "Must Have Pet" class. My potion thrower is gone, and the party Beastmaster is giving me side-eye. Unless you can put Returning Weapon on the potions you throw.

Not liking the shape of this. It's certainly powerful in a batman-utility sort of way, but I didn't expect the Artificer to become a "Must Have Pet" class. My potion thrower is gone, and the party Beastmaster is giving me side-eye.

Unless you can put Returning Weapon on the potions you throw.
 

Ash Mantle

Adventurer
If the wording had been "when you expend a spell slot", you might have had a case. But it's "by expending a spell slot."

Summoning the turret takes an action and the use of your smith's tools. You can do this for free once per long rest, or more often by expending spell slots. This is clear as glassteel. If it was intended that just using the spell slots recovered the ability, the wording would be similar to that of the Wild Magic Sorcerer's Tides of Chaos, which reads:
Starting at 1st level, you can manipulate the forces of chance and chaos to gain advantage on one attack roll, ability check, or saving throw. Once you do so, you must finish a long rest before you can use this feature again.

Any time before you regain the use of this feature, the DM can have you roll on the Wild Magic Surge table immediately after you cast a sorcerer spell of 1st level or higher. You then regain the use of this feature.


The equivalent for the turret would be: "Once you use this feature, you can’t use it again until you finish a long rest or expend a spell slot for any reason."

Note it's similar to the paladin divine smites and the eldritch smites of the warlock where you also activate the full effect of their respective class features by expending spell slots.
Also note that the wild sorcerer feature also specifically spells out that you cast the instance of the spell thereby gaining the Tides of Chaos effect, thereby expending the spell slot, the casting of spell has been fully spelled out.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Ash Mantle

Adventurer
No worries, [MENTION=38860]Ser[/MENTION]amus, it's interesting that I can see your comment when I'm logged out but not when I'm logged into my account, I guess you blocked me.
I feel we've had a reasonable discussion, where we've both had good points in the discussion, but I'm not sure only coming from the angle of a pedant reading of the wording is fair to the wording. I, like you, would want this wording to be cleared up and tightened for official play and eagerly await that.
I've also said that it'd cool if playing as an artificer, you could synergise bonus action spells with summoning the turret, that'll be an excellent play.

Best wishes to you.
 

Terran5891

First Post
I like almost everything about this class except for the pet features. The pets start out strong when the artificer gets them, but become increasingly irrelevant at higher levels. I think the alchemist would be better off being able to imbue mundane drinks into tonics as a bonus action that provide the same benefits that the homunculus can provide. Plus that leaves room for advancing the effect since it is no longer tied to a pet. For artillerist, they can just enchant a bow or crossbow with force ballista. Or have a dragon gun for the flamethrower.

It also just occurred to me that the transmuter wizard specialization makes a lot of references to alchemy, and homunculi were a type of advanced familiar that wizards could summon in previous editions. Giving artificers with alchemist specialization a special homunculus familiar feels like its trying to specialize something that was a lot more of a generalist feature.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
However, I also find it ironic that your initial phrasing has always been strongly negative and strongly defensive, and that you've constructed a narrative for yourself.

Now that's ironic, because I would have thought that including the hashtag #getoffmylawn would have at least hinted at the lack of seriousness behind my negative tone. But, whatever.

One thing I find curious is the number of posters that assume this is a case of "if it wasn't in the original greyhawk then it doesn't belong". I certainly didn't say anything like that. Is that a response to other posters? Or is it just an assumption that opposition to new stuff is automatically a case of being stuck in the past?
 


Artificiers in Athas are possible... only the psionic version, canon in 3.5. (Magic of Eberron pg 42) Or create an artificer who uses primal/elemental magic. I have thought about an archetype or subclass like a incarnum artificer, like the prestige class "ironsoul forgemaster"
 

It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
It's not only Greyhawk, it's other settings too for many purists. Even among Planescape fans, there's a bunch that feel since something didn't exist in 2e, it (such as Warlocks) wouldn't be in Sigil, even if there's the conceit that there's doors to everywhere in Sigil...

Ok, but is it actually simply because it wasn't in the original, or are you allowing for any validity to the sentiment that some of these settings have an aesthetic to them, and that certain new elements would clash with that aesthetic?

I dunno, but it feels like people are ascribing simple close-mindedness where there might be a perfectly valid concern.

(And, of course, there might be a middle ground, where the viewer feels that the new element would clash with the aesthetic simply because he's not inured to the presence of it, and that had it been there originally he/she would never have felt it was out of place. "No, you can't possibly put that Jasper Johns painting in the hall with all the 18th century portraits! It...uh...oh, wow, you know, it looks pretty good!")
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top