D&D 5E (2014) Running Eberron in 5E

[collin]

Thanks guys!

 

[Remathilis]

Really! Can you go into a little more depth on this? They give out a "wizard subclass" vibe to me ("I contribute to a party primarily by using arcane magic via items and equipment"), though they feel like a better fit proficiency/HP wise with bards (or, as you did, clerics). I feel like they'd need a big unique hook to draw me in as a unique class, and that's something that the artificer hasn't had in previous iterations. 3e's Artificer identity was primarily "I make items and cast arcane spells," 4e's Artificer identity was primarily "I heal people and cast arcane spells," and I would need some distinct story reason for them to not just be a wizard whose specialized knowledge was applied to stuff rather than books and words and wiggling your fingers about. Like, what would define their subclasses, narratively speaking?

To me, an artificer is a mix of rogue and wizard, with the emphasis on "stuff" rather than "spells". Honestly, they are more "bard" than "wizard"; a support caster focused on buffs and minor [construct] healing, along with permanent item creation and trapfinding. I think the 5e bard, reworked to emphasize magic items rather than music, is a good starting point.

...still not sure what I'd see as "subclasses" of artificers, but that might be a bit enough mechanical fob to hang a class off of.

Alchemist: makes potions, bombs, poisons, and such.
Runesmith: master of using (and making) enchanted weapons
Homoculus Master: Makes and improves constructs.
Wand Master: Able to use wands and staves more efficiently
Magewright: Adept at making permanent items. (default subclass).

 

[Vael]

...still not sure what I'd see as "subclasses" of artificers, but that might be a bit enough mechanical fob to hang a class off of.

The Artificer, to me, deserves its own class as it's going to have a very different spell list. Even the 3.5 Artificer had this fusion of cleric and wizard spells, in addition to several unique spells. That alone makes it worthy of its own class.

I'd build subclasses off the traditional focuses of the Artificer:

- The Armiger: The warrior Artificer, infuses weapons and armour. (I'd actually expect Artificers to have Bard-like weapon and armour proficiencies, and this subclass, like the College of Valor Bard, gains proficiency with Martial Weapons and Medium Armour)
- The Golem-mancer: The Artificer that focuses on building combat Homunculi or Golems. (While I'd expect all Artificers can create a Homunculus, this is like the Circle of the Moon version)
- The Alchemist: Potion and bomb-making (?) Artificer.

I'd generally expect the Artificer to cast spells as a Druid or Cleric, ie, full access to their spell list (without requiring a spell book), but have to prepare a subset. They can only ritually cast spells they have prepared. That said, create a "Spell-storing Infusion" spell, and it still grants the Artificer a fair amount of flexibility.

 

[Wrathamon]

They emulate magic spells with items they make or temporarily infuse magic into an item , they dont cast spells. Wizards learn and cast spells.

Thematically they are different and even mechanically they are just as different as the warlock or sorcerer are from the magic user ...er wizard is.

If I was to build one I think I would use the cleric and warlock as starting points, as I referenced the 3rd and 4th edition versions. They would have heavy Tool proficiency over skill proficiency and the hardest part (since I dont have a dmg) is the making of magic items that are permanent. Seems like a good down time ability.

 

[ccooke]

For me, the Artificer should be its own class (and not a Wizard subclass) because I think it should be possible to make a multiclass Artificer/Wizard.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To me, an artificer is a mix of rogue and wizard, with the emphasis on "stuff" rather than "spells". Honestly, they are more "bard" than "wizard"; a support caster focused on buffs and minor [construct] healing, along with permanent item creation and trapfinding. I think the 5e bard, reworked to emphasize magic items rather than music, is a good starting point.

I'd imagine the spell list would look quite different. I don't imagine artificers being charmers and tricksters and such as strongly as bards are.

Alchemist: makes potions, bombs, poisons, and such.
Runesmith: master of using (and making) enchanted weapons
Homoculus Master: Makes and improves constructs.
Wand Master: Able to use wands and staves more efficiently
Magewright: Adept at making permanent items. (default subclass).

I think my issue with that breakdown is twofold.

First, I imagine EVERY artificer able to do ALL of those things. You could still do this (a la wizard subclasses - non-diviners can still cast divinations), but there's no reason that an artificer should really have to choose between making a homunculus and making a potion (for instance). It feels like an artificial distinction. Why (in setting-logic) can't I do both?

Second, and this is perhaps the more foundational issue: there's no strong narrative distinction between these characters, or between these characters and others. They're all folks who make magic things. Which is also what wizards and clerics and druids do anyway. The difference between the priest who makes potions and golems in Eberron and the artificer who makes potions and golems in Eberron isn't clearly drawn. There's also not a clear difference in the world between the artificer who makes wands and the one who makes potions. Which is part of why it's hard for me to see artificers as a distinct class at the moment. "Wizard with a dash of rogue who makes things" is something you can do in like 5 different ways in the core books at the moment. If the artificer just brings more of that, why does it want a whole new class to do that? Why not just be a wizard with a specific arcane tradition that maybe ups your durability and proficiencies and says that your "prepared spells" are actually some collection of potions, wands, and trinkets that you use to generate your effects, with your "spellbook" being the formula for making them, and your "component pouch" being the necessary tools and resources?

The Artificer, to me, deserves its own class as it's going to have a very different spell list. Even the 3.5 Artificer had this fusion of cleric and wizard spells, in addition to several unique spells. That alone makes it worthy of its own class.

I'm not entirely convinced that an alternate spell list is enough to warrant a new class as much as it is enough to just warrant a different spell list. No reason to invent a bunch of extra class features if the class is basically "basically a bard, but with Transmutation instead of Enchantment."

I'd build subclasses off the traditional focuses of the Artificer:

- The Armiger: The warrior Artificer, infuses weapons and armour. (I'd actually expect Artificers to have Bard-like weapon and armour proficiencies, and this subclass, like the College of Valor Bard, gains proficiency with Martial Weapons and Medium Armour)
- The Golem-mancer: The Artificer that focuses on building combat Homunculi or Golems. (While I'd expect all Artificers can create a Homunculus, this is like the Circle of the Moon version)
- The Alchemist: Potion and bomb-making (?) Artificer.

Yeah, still the same fundamental issues as I had with Remathilis's breakdown. Why can't any artificer do all of that? And, more critically, how are the stories of those artificers different?

To maybe elaborate on that last point: a Necromancer and an Enchanter are both wizards, but they're very distinct character types, with unique tropes associated with them. You wouldn't mistake one for the other in most cases, but they share a sort of foundational mechanical chassis.

The same is true of pretty much any subclass. A Champion and a Battle Master are distinct character types, with distinct associations. A thief and an assassin aren't the same. A druid of the land and a druid of the moon aren't just mechanical variations, they're distinct character types.

It's pretty clear that Eberron's artificer is also a distinct character type. It's much less clear to me that a maker of golems and a maker of potions and a maker of magic equipment are distinct character types. You could probably force them apart, but I never got the impression that they were different things in the fiction of Eberron the way that, say, Radagast the Brown and Beast Boy from Teen Titans truck in different archetypes.

Just floating around the idea....
[sblock]
The School of Artifice
You've studied the art of infusing magic into items. No frail scholar, your training leaves you well acquainted with a wide variety of equipment, and the methods of magic used to increase the equipment's effectiveness...at least for a time.

• Infusion: At 2nd level when you become an artificer, you learn how to weave your spells into objects. At the end of a rest, you can infuse any spell you know into an object by spending spell slots. Infusing a spell into an object takes 10 minutes, and consumes a spell slot as if casting the spell. You can even infuse cantrips in this way, though doing that consumes one 1st-level spell slot. When complete, any character holding the infused item can release the spell acting as the spell's caster, but using your spell DC and your spell attack bonus. Infusions fade at the end of the next long rest after they are created, if they are not used.
• On-The-Job Training: You gain proficiency in all simple weapons, medium armor, shields, one skill proficiency of your choice, and proficiency with one kind of artisan's tools. Additionally, whenever you learn a new spell, you may select a spell from the Cleric spell list instead of from the Wizard spell list.
• Magic Item Lore: At 6th level, when you discover a magic item, you are prepared for it. You gain advantage on any checks to discern a magic item from a mundane item. Additionally, once you have handled a magic item, you know the prerequisites for attunement for that item (if any). You can attune to an item especially quickly, requiring only 10 minutes to attune.
• Shared Magic Item: At 10th level, you can use a magic item to empower an ally. Using your action, you can give an ally within 60 ft. of you the benefits of a magic item you wield for a time. For instance, if you have a +1 Sword, you can use your action to give an ally within 60 ft. of you a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls. This doesn't give you extra uses of an item that is consumable -- if you share your potion of healing, for instance, an ally can heal the HP, but the potion loses its potency after 1 use even if it isn't physically drunk. Similarly, if you shared a bolt of rakshasa slaying with an ally who made an attack against a rakshasa with their own bow, the shared arrow would lose its magic upon they ally's hit. This sharing lasts as long as you concentrate on the effect, and a magic item not consumed in its use can only be shared once per day like this (any additional uses might disrupt the delicate magical weave and dispel the magic on the item).
• Metamagic Item: At 14th level, you can change how a magic item works on the fly. When you activate a magic item, you can apply one of the following alterations to how it functions: Improved Range (if the item creates an effect that has a range of 5 ft. or more, you can double the range, or if the item creates an effect at touch range, you can make the range 30 ft.); Empowered Item (when you roll damage from a magic item's effect, you can re-roll up to 3 of the dice you roll, keeping the new rolls); Extended Duration (if the item has an effect that lasts at least 1 minute, you can double the duration to a maximum of 24 hours); Heightened Effect (if the item has an effect that causes creatures to make a save, you can impose disadvantage on the first save made against the item); or Quickened Activation (if the item takes your action to activate, you can activate it instead as a bonus action).

[/sblock]
...or somesuch...

 

[fuindordm]

To me, an artificer is a mix of rogue and wizard, with the emphasis on "stuff" rather than "spells". Honestly, they are more "bard" than "wizard"; a support caster focused on buffs and minor [construct] healing, along with permanent item creation and trapfinding. I think the 5e bard, reworked to emphasize magic items rather than music, is a good starting point.

Yeah, the bard is a good framework in terms of proficiences and such. The problem is that bards are spontaneous casters. I think the Artificer's main poower, which is being able to learn and emulate any spell, is a better fit for the wizard. If there's any class which shouldn't have to pick a limited list of spells known, it's the artificer!

That leaves wizard or cleric from the base list.

Then the next biggest issue is what to do with their "spell storing item" infusion.That's a pretty powerful ability. Does it need to be a class ability? Can it be a subclass ability? Or just a spell on their list?

I think 5E has lots of design space to create a new class or new subclass that captures the feel of an artificer. In 3E the class structure was so inflexible it really had to be a unique class. Here I'm not so sure.

 

[collin]

To me, an artificer is a mix of rogue and wizard, with the emphasis on "stuff" rather than "spells". Honestly, they are more "bard" than "wizard"; a support caster focused on buffs and minor [construct] healing, along with permanent item creation and trapfinding. I think the 5e bard, reworked to emphasize magic items rather than music, is a good starting point.



Alchemist: makes potions, bombs, poisons, and such.
Runesmith: master of using (and making) enchanted weapons
Homoculus Master: Makes and improves constructs.
Wand Master: Able to use wands and staves more efficiently
Magewright: Adept at making permanent items. (default subclass).

I like your points. In essence, I agree with you about the thematic mixture of bard and rogue, as the artificer to me is more of a support character (like a bard) who helps other characters, and his/her infusions are akin to wizard and some cleric spells. The problem I was running into (as I imagine Keith Baker was) is that with the 5th edition system, making a artificer out of modifying a bard or wizard seemed more difficult to me. I think there are plenty of infusions that could be created that stem from wizards' or clerics' spells, but there should also be infusions which are unique to the class. One of the other big problems for me was, in game terms, how do you advance the character besides giving him/her more infusions? If Crafting is no longer a big deal, what abilities do you give the Artificer, because the class needs something in order to make a reasonable contribution to a party of other characters, even if that contribution is more of assistance to them than actual damage.

I like your fusing of the rogue with a magic-user class. For example, I think at some point in advancement the Artificer should gain the Expertise ability that a rogue has. Also, I think the Use Magic Device ability from the Thief archetype should also come into play, but at a much sooner progression than 13th level.

I also like your subclass list. The 2 main areas I was thinking of was an archetype that focuses on constructs (warforged, homonculus) and one that focuses on transportation (airships, lightning rails, etc.). I think alchemist makes good sense, too.

Thanks again!

 

[Vael]

Yeah, still the same fundamental issues as I had with Remathilis's breakdown. Why can't any artificer do all of that? And, more critically, how are the stories of those artificers different?

To maybe elaborate on that last point: a Necromancer and an Enchanter are both wizards, but they're very distinct character types, with unique tropes associated with them. You wouldn't mistake one for the other in most cases, but they share a sort of foundational mechanical chassis.

The same is true of pretty much any subclass. A Champion and a Battle Master are distinct character types, with distinct associations. A thief and an assassin aren't the same. A druid of the land and a druid of the moon aren't just mechanical variations, they're distinct character types.

Well, nothing prevents the Necromancer from casting Enchantments, or vice versa. And nothing prevents an Armiger Artificer from creating a Homunculus, it's just the Golem-mancer is better at it. Subclasses, to me, are also about areas of specialization.

As for story, to continue with the options I offered:

The Armiger is Tony Stark. He's forging magical arms and armour that allow him to match strength with foes beyond his normal capabilities.

The Golem-mancer is Dr. Noonian Soong, Data's creator. No mere necromancer, he's about imbuing life into the lifeless.

The Alchemist is a fairly well defined story. Dr. Jekyll, pre-Hyde, there are many stories of alchemists attempting to brew the right potion.

Also, while I don't want to push the Magic = Technology element too much, I see Wizards as Mathematicians, while Artificers as Engineers. Theory vs. Practical, sort of.

 

[BrockBallingdark]

Now that the DMG is out I'll take a pass at a full class artificer when I have some time, but at the moment I'm in crunch mode on two projects.

Funny after I got my DMG on Friday, I was thinking all weekend... I hope Keith is looking through it, to figure out some Eberron stuff.

My friends are screaming for a 5E Eberron game, so I am working on a campaign for them, while running them through Hoard of the Dragon Queen. I can only hold these guys off for so long! lol