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

Kobold Avenger said:

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...

Click to expand...

I think as long as the artificer focuses on the concept of recreating or crafting magic items, it should be technology agnostic enough to fit in different settings. In Eberron, that's going to be magi-tech because the setting is about the fusion of magic and technology. In the forgotten realms, they're guild craftsmen with a focus on magic item creation. The class would be utterly perfect if it weren't for the pets. The homunculus is alchemy related, but it doesn't fit the focus of the class and the turret makes sense only in a setting like eberron.

Kobold Avenger said:

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...

Click to expand...

The godsmen (I think they are the ones with the forge) probably have a high number of artificers in their ranks.

People consider the forgotten realms a kitchen sink setting but it pales in the face of planescape.

Kobold Avenger said:

They are still in the V,S,M paradigm, while it emphasizes tool use nothing seems to indicate they can drop the V part of spellcasting because they're using tools.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not lost on me, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was more angling at is that RAW says (exact location escapes me, but I'm pretty sure it's there) that Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard all use the same words and gestures to cast any given spell (where access overlaps). I've never thought that made sense, especially for the Sorcerer. A sorcerer has magic running in their veins and, while they might use words to help channel it, the specifics don't matter. Where a wizard uses precise syllables, a sorcerer might just say, "Burn, you bastard!" Likewise, a cleric should probably be praying or otherwise calling on their patron.

This UA is the first time I've seen it officially suggested that the details of the VSM components can be tweaked for character concept. That's what I like.

Elfcrusher said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's possibly a clash between was written in the boxed set about what shouldn't be in Planescape (no sci-fi stuff, and it's medieval), vs what appeared later in the setting. One of the early modules visits a world of cyborgs with lightning guns and shock staffs (might contradict no sci-fi, even though they had a failure chance outside that world), another supplement mentions a Spelljammer Squid Ship somehow getting delivered to Sigil (might contradict no space-port), there's a demon-possessed printing press (Renaissance Technology), someone who keeps arquebuses for weapons (also Renaissance), and that space colonist who formed a powerful dreamscape while stuck in stasis. A bunch of those points would support there being Artificers in the setting, even before Artificers were generally conceived of.

So I feel that the sidebar about Artificers in other settings is certainly accurate when it comes to Planescape. Of course just because there's Artificers in a setting, doesn't mean there's lightning rails around. With Sigil I feel that while the capability exists, the political scrabbling between various factions and interests (pre-Faction War) would prevent such a thing from happening.

As for other settings such as Greyhawk or Mystara that I know far less about, I feel the sidebar is probably accurate in regards to the setting about Artificers in those worlds.

Another thing that was brought up about aesthetic of Planescape was no Planar-born Elves, Dwarves, Halflings or Gnomes allowed in the setting. It was probably written to encourage players to pick Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi, Githzerai and so on. But it's a ruling I feel most groups just ignored anyways along with clerics losing spell access across different planes, and magical pluses on weapons being degraded the further they are from their origin.

Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:

http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/

Mercule said:

Absolutely not lost on me, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What I was more angling at is that RAW says (exact location escapes me, but I'm pretty sure it's there) that Sorcerer, Bard, Cleric, and Wizard all use the same words and gestures to cast any given spell (where access overlaps). I've never thought that made sense, especially for the Sorcerer. A sorcerer has magic running in their veins and, while they might use words to help channel it, the specifics don't matter. Where a wizard uses precise syllables, a sorcerer might just say, "Burn, you bastard!" Likewise, a cleric should probably be praying or otherwise calling on their patron.

This UA is the first time I've seen it officially suggested that the details of the VSM components can be tweaked for character concept. That's what I like.

Click to expand...

I'm actually pretty sure the opposite is the case, that RAaw specifically doesn't limit what the VSM looks like for any spells. I'm certain this level of reflavoring has been advocated in the books previously, and certainly by Crawford in Sage Advise.

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.

Click to expand...

Artificer works great in Dark Sun as a one off, or as a halfling Life-Shaper. Which reminds me that I have to redo my version of the Life-Shaper for the new iteration.

Well, let's be honest. Setting purists will always have issues. It's just a thing. And, to be fair, everyone has a line that they don't want crossed. It doesn't have to be logical or really, even make a whole lot of sense since it's largely a taste thing. For me, I dislike psionics in D&D. Always have. Mostly my objections have been more mechanical than aesthetic, but, really, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't want psionics in their setting. When we're being honest with ourselves, most of the objections really are based purely on personal taste and have virtually nothing objective to ground them.

The problem really comes when people try to pass of their personal tastes as some sort of objective truth which leads to a everyone spinning their wheels because once you've made that a sticking point - that your personal tastes are objective truth - there's no way forward. "I don't want X in my setting because I don't like X" isn't a reason not to officially include it in the setting. It's a reason for you not to include it in your campaign. But, folks don't seem to want to do that. They want an official blessing to tell their players no so they can force their personal tastes on the group. Otherwise, if the group wants X and you don't, well, not many folks want to be that guy who will look at the group and say, "nope, my personal tastes trump yours".

The sidebar in the pdf at least only listed those worlds where it made sense to have artificers in it. Mystara for example did have magitech in it more so than say Greyhawk.

Greyhawk is one world where I don't think its a great idea to add the class, Spelljammer, Planescape, Mystara yeah sure makes a bit of sense. Even Krynn and the Gnomes (as long as it had a reason to fail).

I'm not a 100% purist as long as it makes sense for that world. Barbarians in Darksun sure (at least non magical ones), artificers erm no.

Twiggly the Gnome said:

Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:

http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/

Click to expand...

After reading his descriptions for things, I want the next D&D movie to include an Artificer character.