D&D 5E Running Eberron in 5E

[I'm A Banana]

I would welcome an artificer class that was rebuilt from the ground up, personally. Previously, they have always had (IMO) a little too much inherited from the wizard. A new system designed just for them? Heck yes. I always felt that the infusions were just reskinned wizard spells anyway.

5e's shown a conservative vein that might make me bet against that if I were a betting man (see, for instance, the reaction against the transformative sorcerer in the playtest). But perhaps the artificer is an exception and people are interested in a fresh take on it? I think that would depend on how awesome the new mechanical fob was. Because it'd be easy to default make them a subclass. For a class, we need some reason not to do that.

The main problem I see is balance. If a party member can make trinkets with minor magical effects and hand them out like candy, does that infringe on the other party members abilities? And if the artificer CAN'T do that, then what makes them unique?

Yeah...there's also the issue of action use. Like, an artificer's main schtick is a schtick they do during rests (crafting). Which doesn't make for a lot of interesting in-the-middle-of-a-dungeon choices. The infusion mechanic I posted also suffers from that -- no interesting decision points between the rests. They could keep a few spells for in-combat use, and they could always drop potions or scrolls or whatever, but that's not unique (or much different form spellcasting).

It's about how they replicate magic by making items that do the same thing that a spell does. And, they do it during an adventure, when the situation comes up they make something to solve the problem.

Sounds like a vote for a wizard subclass to me! "Reskinned spellcasting" isn't the most solid basis for a large wordcount spent, IMO.

What if an artificer could make temporary magical items that mimicked real magic items? Not "This shirt has shield of faith on it, +2 to AC" but "This bag now acts like a bag of holding" type stuff. As he gains levels, make permanent ones quicker or cheaper than a normal mage.

What does "this bag now acts like a bag of holding" do that, say, a Leomund's Secret Chest spell doesn't? If the differences aren't that great, functionally, why not just refluff casting Leomund's Secret Chest as "you make this bag work like a bag of holding"? What's re-inventing the wheel give us here?

Magic items are based around rarity (Common through Legendary). As an artificer gains levels, he gains the ability to make (and affect) rarer and rarer items. He might only be able to do Common at first, Uncommon at 3rd, but by 20th he can even affect Legendary items.

Mechanically, I think we would need to be cautious about letting them just recreate magic items from the DMG "reliably." A magic item from the DMG is built to serve a different gameplay purpose than an item made by an artificer. There's probably no harm with a minor feature that grants them more speed and cheaper item crafting, but item crafting itself is a pretty abstract and ad hoc process in 5e, so there's not a lot of grist for that mill -- it won't be a defining feature. Artificer crafting and bag-of-holding crafting serve different masters, so the artificer shouldn't be looking at the DMG for their class features.

Which might actually be the start of a good major mechanical feature for an independent class. What are the differences between what a DMG magic item tries to do and what an artificer's magic item would have to do and what might a system of making the artificer's stuff look like?

Homoculous Master lets him burn his Artificer Reserve to augment constructs; adding new abilities to them without relying on infusions.

Sounds like any spellcaster with access to buff spells like bless, mage armor, etc. to me.

Alchemists can make magical bombs, attempt crazy potions combinations, even avoid miscability rolls (just look at PF's alchemist for ideas)

Blasting spells like Fire Bolt or Burning Hands are magical bombs; potions are just buff spells.

Runeforgers get a bonded magical weapon they can burn points into enchanting, giving it additional abilities like sentience or doing so at a discounted rate.

Buffs. And trucking in iffy "the artificer can reliably make what is intended to be an unreliable extra bonus" territory.

Mastermakers can use their AR on themselves to augment.

Buffs again. 300 cable channels of buffs, but there's nothing on.

A lot of this is the recurring issue of "I cast magic with items!" and "I cast magic by wiggling my fingers!" being a pretty cosmetic difference. That'd be basically fine for a subclass (a few features that add some anchors to the cosmetic difference is all that really needs). For a class, I'd want more than a cosmetic difference. Not totally sure what that might look like for an artificer, but I know I don't want it to be a whole independent class with 5 different slightly different flavors of buffs. Those distinctions are too fiddly and academic to be very compelling.

 

[Remathilis]

What does "this bag now acts like a bag of holding" do that, say, a Leomund's Secret Chest spell doesn't? If the differences aren't that great, functionally, why not just refluff casting Leomund's Secret Chest as "you make this bag work like a bag of holding"? What's re-inventing the wheel give us here?

Mechanically, I think we would need to be cautious about letting them just recreate magic items from the DMG "reliably." A magic item from the DMG is built to serve a different gameplay purpose than an item made by an artificer. There's probably no harm with a minor feature that grants them more speed and cheaper item crafting, but item crafting itself is a pretty abstract and ad hoc process in 5e, so there's not a lot of grist for that mill -- it won't be a defining feature. Artificer crafting and bag-of-holding crafting serve different masters, so the artificer shouldn't be looking at the DMG for their class features.

Which might actually be the start of a good major mechanical feature for an independent class. What are the differences between what a DMG magic item tries to do and what an artificer's magic item would have to do and what might a system of making the artificer's stuff look like?

Again, you're looking for a new idea. Here's a new idea. The ability to make an apparatus of kwalish may not be easy to balance, but its something unique.

Sounds like any spellcaster with access to buff spells like bless, mage armor, etc. to me.

Blasting spells like Fire Bolt or Burning Hands are magical bombs; potions are just buff spells.

Buffs. And trucking in iffy "the artificer can reliably make what is intended to be an unreliable extra bonus" territory.

Buffs again. 300 cable channels of buffs, but there's nothing on.

A lot of this is the recurring issue of "I cast magic with items!" and "I cast magic by wiggling my fingers!" being a pretty cosmetic difference. That'd be basically fine for a subclass (a few features that add some anchors to the cosmetic difference is all that really needs). For a class, I'd want more than a cosmetic difference. Not totally sure what that might look like for an artificer, but I know I don't want it to be a whole independent class with 5 different slightly different flavors of buffs. Those distinctions are too fiddly and academic to be very compelling.

Yet we still find the need for wizards, sorcerers, warlocks to be separate classes (rather than being reskinned or subclasses of Mage, like they almost were) and we still find design space for Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Monks, despite being differently fluffed ways to say "I hit something". When you come down to it, every class is either a wizard or fighter with some variant of "I hit stuff" or "I wiggle my fingers and magic happens" or some mixture of both. Demanding artificers be some special snowflake is as impossible as arguing barbarian should be a fighter subclass; it has

As stated, I don't want Eberron artificers to be "reskinned wizards". If that is my option, I'd rather they not even bother putting them in. Artificer is a niche class and I'm ok with it not being a broad and flexible archetype. But saying "play a wizard and reskin your spells to be magic items" isn't an artificer to me anymore than saying "play a wizard and pretend your spells come from your bloodline and not a book" is a sorcerer.

 

[Fralex]

When you come down to it, every class is either a wizard or fighter with some variant of "I hit stuff" or "I wiggle my fingers and magic happens" or some mixture of both.

About a year ago I made a chart like that.

Cleric = Religious wizard
Paladin = Religious fighter
Druid = Hippie wizard
Ranger = Hippie fighter
Warlock = Moody wizard
Barbarian = Moody fighter
Sorcerer = Equipment-less wizard
Monk = Equipment-less fighter
Bard = Tricky wizard
Rogue = Tricky fighter

So if an artificer = inventive wizard, what would be an inventive fighter? The builders from that Lego movie?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Again, you're looking for a new idea. Here's a new idea. The ability to make an apparatus of kwalish may not be easy to balance, but its something unique.

It's not about balance, it's about purpose. Whipping up an Apparatus of Kwalish isn't overpowered, it's just not right for a class feature -- square peg in a round hole. An artificer shouldn't rely on the DMG's magic item list as a source of their every-day powers, I think, ESPECIALLY if those powers are supposed to be reliable and given. I don't like the idea of an Eberron DM who wants to allow artificers also de facto allowing an artificer whipping up Manuals of Bodily Health every day and jacking the whole party's CON to 20, or whatever.

It's also not that unique. An Apparatus is a few buffs and some aquatic movement when boiled down to its essential function. It's fun as a goofy thing to find in a dragon's hoard, but as a reliable thing that the party can always have access to, it's adventuring function is "now I get to fight and explore underwater," which isn't anything that magic spells can't already do.

It's new, it's big, it's just not a good thing in play. We can do better!

Yet we still find the need for wizards, sorcerers, warlocks to be separate classes (rather than being reskinned or subclasses of Mage, like they almost were) and we still find design space for Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Monks, despite being differently fluffed ways to say "I hit something".

All of those distinctions -- arbitrary as they may be in story -- are supported with mechanics in 5e. The artificer could be, too. If the artificer is to be a distinct class, it needs that mechanical distinction. What might that mechanical distinction look like? Because the 3e artificer and the 4e artificer don't have that strong of a distinction. A cosmetic change ("I use cantrips from a book" / "I use cantrips from a wand!") doesn't feel strong enough. And "I can mine the DMG for magic items to craft" is trying to make two distinct rules elements kiss and make horrific monster babies. It's a nightmare. That way lies madness. There is a better way.

As stated, I don't want Eberron artificers to be "reskinned wizards". If that is my option, I'd rather they not even bother putting them in. Artificer is a niche class and I'm ok with it not being a broad and flexible archetype. But saying "play a wizard and reskin your spells to be magic items" isn't an artificer to me anymore than saying "play a wizard and pretend your spells come from your bloodline and not a book" is a sorcerer.

That's fair. I'm not saying it has to be one or the other. Here is what I am saying:

In 3e and 4e, the artificer class was not very distinct. It was a cosmetic distinction. Item creation wasn't a unique niche, and neither was "non-scholarly spellcaster." The 3e and 4e classes both had some interesting mechanical fobs (infusions, armor, item crafting), but those fobs are small and easily fit into subclass features. Those fobs are too small to hang a whole friggin' 5e class on.

If the artificer follows the pattern from 3e and 4e, it should be a subclass. Bard subclass, cleric subclass, wizard subclass, whatever. Item crafting, proficiencies, and infusions can fit in subclasses. If that's all an artificer is, then it needs to be a subclass. It's a specific kind of spellcaster, one with a little niche that it does well, and that's cool, but it doesn't need a 5-page spread to support that.

If the artificer is to be a full class, it needs to be a more meaningful chioce, mechanically and narratively. It needs to support a variety of character types from the world under its umbrella (the idea of mining PrCs for this is a good call!). It needs to support that with distinct mechanics. I don't know what those mechanics would look like. They wouldn't be the same mechanics from 3e or 4e (which are small variations on proficiencies and spellcasting). They would have to be more significant.

There's precedence of 5e doing this -- the Sorcerer is more distinct now than it was in 3e or 4e, too, with a fairly novel mechanic. I can accept an artificer class, I just don't see what its version of "sorcery points" much actually look like. "I get to make items from the DMG reliably" isn't viable, but something crafting-based probably would be.

It's Paradox of Choice stuff: The decision point at the level of class is BIG. If an artificer class is what we want, it needs to be BIG, as big as the other classes.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I have nothing to contribute, but I have read this entire thread and it is wonderful. Gold stars for everyone. Threads like this are what makes EN World worth visiting.

Thank you,
TC

 

[collin]

First attempt at a 5th edition Artificer

Okay, here is what I have come up with so far. I am sure this will need a lot of tweaking and revision until I am satisfied, but for now I am using this as a starting point. One goal that I had was to retain as much of the original Artificer character class flavor from 3e as possible. Special thanks, kudos, and Experience Points to Keith Baker who gave (what I thought) were some great ideas for helping me get started with it.

 

[Fralex]

Well, I can't give you many suggestions without testing this out in full, but I can comment on the ability to craft homunculi. I actually convinced my D&D Encounters DM to let my wizard make himself a homunculus at 2nd level, given that A) he was a transmuter, B) he had proficiency in alchemist's supplies and had spent 50gp on them, and C) he knew the find familiar ritual and was willing to pay twice the usual component cost. The basic homunculus as described in the MM is really only a little more powerful than, say, an owl familiar. They're both Tiny creatures worth 10 XP. The homunculus has:

• Better ability scores, giving the typical homunculus 4 more HP, 2 higher AC, and a 1 better attack bonus (not that the familiar can usually make attacks anyway)
• A telepathic bond covering the whole plane rather than a 100-foot radius
• Knowledge of everything you know, which could allow it to share a few of the skill proficiencies you have that are tied to mental ability scores
• The ability to give you direct sensory information without you needing to spend an action to shut off your own senses
• A 1-damage bite attack that might poison the target and, if you're very lucky, knock the target out for several minutes
• Immunity to poison and charms
• A better walking speed (20 feet instead of 5)

On the other hand, an owl familiar has:

• Better Wisdom
• +3 to Stealth and Perception rather than +2 and 0 respectively, as well as Keen Sight
• A better flying speed (60 feet instead of 40)
• 120-foot darkvision, twice the distance of a homunculus's darkvision
• Flyby to protect it from OAs
• Access to all your touch spells
• A pocket dimension you can send it to when you don't need it
• The capability to be turned into a different animal granted by the find familiar spell

I've had the homunculus for a while now, and it hasn't felt overpowered IME. It's been really helpful, though; in one session it saved the lives of three party members by ferrying and administering healing potions to dying allies! It even managed to knock someone out with its poisonous bite once, but it usually just deals 1 damage if it hits at all. Most creatures can pass DC 6 saves.

I'm toying with the idea of a more powerful version of the basic homunculus that has a cantrip scroll as a material component. The idea is it gains the power to cast that cantrip at will, but with one of those "recharges on a 6" limitations. This I haven't tested yet. I wrote up the details for a homunculus-crafting spell here.

 

[collin]

Well, I can't give you many suggestions without testing this out in full, but I can comment on the ability to craft homunculi. I actually convinced my D&D Encounters DM to let my wizard make himself a homunculus at 2nd level, given that A) he was a transmuter, B) he had proficiency in alchemist's supplies and had spent 50gp on them, and C) he knew the find familiar ritual and was willing to pay twice the usual component cost. The basic homunculus as described in the MM is really only a little more powerful than, say, an owl familiar. They're both Tiny creatures worth 10 XP. The homunculus has:

• Better ability scores, giving the typical homunculus 4 more HP, 2 higher AC, and a 1 better attack bonus (not that the familiar can usually make attacks anyway)
• A telepathic bond covering the whole plane rather than a 100-foot radius
• Knowledge of everything you know, which could allow it to share a few of the skill proficiencies you have that are tied to mental ability scores
• The ability to give you direct sensory information without you needing to spend an action to shut off your own senses
• A 1-damage bite attack that might poison the target and, if you're very lucky, knock the target out for several minutes
• Immunity to poison and charms
• A better walking speed (20 feet instead of 5)

On the other hand, an owl familiar has:

• Better Wisdom
• +3 to Stealth and Perception rather than +2 and 0 respectively, as well as Keen Sight
• A better flying speed (60 feet instead of 40)
• 120-foot darkvision, twice the distance of a homunculus's darkvision
• Flyby to protect it from OAs
• Access to all your touch spells
• A pocket dimension you can send it to when you don't need it
• The capability to be turned into a different animal granted by the find familiar spell

I've had the homunculus for a while now, and it hasn't felt overpowered IME. It's been really helpful, though; in one session it saved the lives of three party members by ferrying and administering healing potions to dying allies! It even managed to knock someone out with its poisonous bite once, but it usually just deals 1 damage if it hits at all. Most creatures can pass DC 6 saves.

I'm toying with the idea of a more powerful version of the basic homunculus that has a cantrip scroll as a material component. The idea is it gains the power to cast that cantrip at will, but with one of those "recharges on a 6" limitations. This I haven't tested yet. I wrote up the details for a homunculus-crafting spell here.

Thanks! Every bit of feedback and suggestion helps.

 

[Wrathamon]

If the artificer follows the pattern from 3e and 4e, it should be a subclass. Bard subclass, cleric subclass, wizard subclass, whatever. Item crafting, proficiencies, and infusions can fit in subclasses. If that's all an artificer is, then it needs to be a subclass. It's a specific kind of spellcaster, one with a little niche that it does well, and that's cool, but it doesn't need a 5-page spread to support that.

The class that mechanically fits the best is Warlock imo but thematically it doesnt work as a subclass. Then I would say Sorcerer. Again doesn't work. Your artificer didnt make a deal with a warforged to get his powers, and he wasnt born in an artificer bloodline. how bout bard? Why would they have a song of rest? and why does his bardic die mechanic doesnt seem to fit very well, and musically instruments as tools? Your suggestion wizard. Which on the surfaces thematically could work. But, it breaks down. Artificers dont have spell books, that would happen before the arcane tradition is chosen. The whole section on preparing and casting spells goes out the window when you pick arcane tradition:artificer and then have to replace the entire spellcasting section. Artificers instead of having spell books and casting spells prepare and cast spells differently ... they can only infuse items with spells and make other magic items better. then as they level they have to add in how they make items, oh and they get different skill, armor and tool proficiencies.

Seems like a new class to me.

W

 

[Fralex]

Yes, I agree. None of the existing classes have so much of their focus on casting spells into items rather than casting spells into people. And barely any classes ever grant features that have you craft something. An artificer subclass with the right feel and flavor would require too many changes to the base class.