Unearthed Arcana Changing the Artificer from Unearthed Arcana PEACH

[TBSamophlange]

Here is what I propose, making it a bit more crafting centric.

Artificer


2nd level
You can expend your arcane recovery towards the cost of crafting an item. So if you would recover 2 spell levels, it will be 2 gold pieces.
You must still possess the proper proficiency.
2nd level
Recharge wands. You may spend your arcane recovery to recharge a wand/magic item of its charges. The item regains a number of charges equal to your arcane recovery levels.
6th level.
Superior artificer
When using your arcane recovery to craft items, the bonus is doubled.
Additionally, by spending 10 minutes focusing on two magic items, you may transfer a number of charges from one to the other.
10th level:
Extra attunement. You may attune one extra magic item. You may also attune wands that are not normally able to be attuned, wands attuned in this fashion are not destroyed on a roll of 1 if all charges are used.
14th level
Master Artificer stays the same.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Your alterations seem decent, and Iike your take better than the UA version if for no better reason than that it actually feels different from the other wizard subclasses.

I really think, though, that the Artificer doesn't work as a wizard subclass. It's too different from the standard wizard in terms of class abilities and "spells."

I'm really thinking that it would function better as a rogue sibclass, or maybe even a fighter subclass. The caster progressions in 5e are, oddly enough, too out of place and restrictive to work for the Artificer concept in my opinion.

Edit: the other issue is that the Artificer should be able to actually, you know, make things, and the lack of an item crafting system in 5e makes that implementation really difficult.

 

[Mercule]

I really think, though, that the Artificer doesn't work as a wizard subclass. It's too different from the standard wizard in terms of class abilities and "spells."

Agreed. My personal hallucination is that the Warlock chassis would be a good fit for the Artificer. It deals primarily with lower-level spells, so the conversion from 3.5E would be cleaner. Keep the spells as spells, but change Invocations to Infusions that can be used to do things like affix a spell to an object or otherwise replicate the feel of making stuff without having to rewrite a whole bunch of spells. Also, it bugs me that every other progression is used for multiple classes.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm really thinking that it would function better as a rogue subclass, or maybe even a fighter subclass. The caster progressions in 5e are, oddly enough, too out of place and restrictive to work for the Artificer concept in my opinion.

Whereas the rogue and fighter subclass structure isn't that great for the artificer either.

In truth... it's been mentioned by other before in the past several years, but I think the best option for the Artificer is for it to be its own class, and to use the Warlock mechanical structure to accomplish it. Clerics, Wizards, Druids, and Bards all use the exact same mechanical structure (same spell slot pyramid, same rules for preparation, same rules for attacks and save DCs) even though story-wise they are all very different. So in the Artificer's case, I think using the Warlock mechanical structure of getting a couple actual spells (always cast at highest spell level) and then a whole list of Infusions (Invocations) to choose from that give you special abilities (which are not spells, even if some of them duplicate spell effects) would create the kind of Artificer you'd probably want.

But because the story of the Artificer is so different from the Warlock you can't just make it a Warlock subclass (which oftentimes is what is proposed) because none of the story aspects between the two match up. Artificers would use INT, not CHA; the selection of a Patron is unwanted; the Pacts make no sense for an Artificer; most of the Invocations and the Warlock spell list are not geared towards the idea of an Artificer. So a true subclass doesn't work. But the mechanical structure of the class I think would work beautifully for it. Its own spell list, a couple spells known, a long list of Infusions, and a couple Contructions (Patrons) like the Tinkerer, Alchemist, and Runecarver.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed. My personal hallucination is that the Warlock chassis would be a good fit for the Artificer. It deals primarily with lower-level spells, so the conversion from 3.5E would be cleaner. Keep the spells as spells, but change Invocations to Infusions that can be used to do things like affix a spell to an object or otherwise replicate the feel of making stuff without having to rewrite a whole bunch of spells. Also, it bugs me that every other progression is used for multiple classes.

Heh... well that was funny! Yours hadn't appeared when I started my response, and it's basically what I had down to a T!

Needless to say, I agree with you 100%!

 

[Ath-kethin]

My mind went to rogue because I used that framework to recreate a 2e kit initially hung on the wizard but differing substantially from the 5e wizard paradigm. Looking at it now, I agree that the warlock frame might work better.

The fundamental problem, in my mind, is the entire 5e subclass system - it strongly inhibits the development of a variant that is different from the others from its beginning; i.e. from first level. The re-envisioning of the artificer on the warlock frame would require jettisoning all the spells known/spell slots (perhaps replacing spell slots with crafting points like they had in 3.5) and a larger number of invocations/infusions.

Specializing form there I'd be cool with, as others have suggested. Actually, I would just add the spells slots/known bit above to what the others have suggested already for the class.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

my 2 copper:

Artificer should be a full class, with a Alchemist, Engineer, and Improviser subclass, on a warlock style chassis. (but normal spellcasting)

The Alchemist would be the most complex, with choices ranging from PF style buff potions, to magical grenades.

You simply burn spell slots to imbue spells into items, and they last until you regain those spell slots, with features that let you imbue certain spells for longer periods, as a ritual. I like to have the ritual imbuing take 10minXspell level, normally. Makes it so you can't use 10 rituals to imbue all the things in a short rest.

At level two I put in a choice between three types of Artificer's weapons: A crossbow, cane/staff/, and an upgrade module for your Assistant, which gains a type based on your level 1 choice of Specialization. Basically a homunculus, IMp, etc that helps you with rituals and crafting.

 

[Mercule]

That sounds like it would work really well for the artificer.

Yeah. Now I just need to find time to write it up.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Agreed. My personal hallucination is that the Warlock chassis would be a good fit for the Artificer.

3.5 incarnum magic. The incarnate is basically an artificer already. Just port the system to 5E, make the soulmelds physical objects, and you're done.

 

[TBSamophlange]

I fully agree that the Artificer SHOULD be its own class, there are too many fiddly bits to fully capture the feel of the original. I used the unearthed arcana as basis because that is what is released, semi officially. Though, the creation of a full class offers other difficulties, such as creating different specialties. How different are artificers? At their core, do they ACTUALLY need their own class? And if so, what are three viable sub-types for the artificer? In my mind, the class should focus on three aspects - the adventuring, rogue-lite that uses his artificer abilities to disable traps and ancient secrets, the more "build magic items for the party", and possibly a psionic - grow items out if crystals. Keep in mind that the Artificer was built for Eberron, they are the people who make all the minor magic items that infuse the setting, and when designing the class, that must be kept in mind, with it being ported to other worlds second. This is important because if you want to create the artificer, you need to know what it is meant to do, and where it fits into a society/world. Eberron has lots of low level magic, and utility magic - this is what the artificer should be focused on.

in terms of class emulation, I am looking to the ranger, lower spell casting - limited to rituals maybe, and unique abilities toward the downtime crafting bent seems a decent mix.

While discussing the virtues of which class has the best core mechanics is interesting, It doesn't help me much in determiming if my changes are balanced or thematically sound.

While a full crafting system is not implemented, there is the downtime action, which I heavily relied on, to create many minor items, and gear, that I feel an artificer should excel at.