Artificer UA has been released!

[gyor]

Ok, so looking at the class a few times, I have the following thoughts:

1) Magical Tinkering does not belong. It seems to be a ribbon ability, but it is basically a reskinned Prestidigitation that lasts longer. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem, but the ability is weighted heavily enough to be the only other ability provided in addition to spellcasting. This is supposed to put it on par with a Wizard's Arcane Recovery or a Sorcerer's access to their archetype at first level, since these are the other two classes that get access to Spell Casting at level 1. Erase this ability and give the Artificer access to their first archetype ability at level 1.

2) Flavorwise, neither the alchemist's nor the arterialist's mechanical abilities seem thematically linked to the concept they are meant to represent.

3) Take out the pets for both archetypes. This gives each archetype more design space for thematically appropriate abilities, and provides an opportunity for a new archetype focused on making and using constructs.

4) The original 3.5 version of the Artificer had a means to replicate spells from any other spell list. I'm not sure how they would do it on the existing framework (I've figured it out for my own homebrew version), but they need an ability similar to a Bard's Magical Secrets.

5) The Right Cantrip for the Job is a genuinely good ability, fits the Artificer concept, and I'm glad it's included. However, it needs to come online well before level 10.

6) Not sure the Artificer needs Tool Expertise. Proficiency in their tools is enough. Tool use seldom comes up in the games I've played except Thieves' Tools. I would prefer this was scrapped to allow design space for less mundane abilities more related to their archetype or the creation of magical items. Artificers are skilled in creating things, but I would not say they are Artisans. At least to me, they are more about the binding and manipulation of magical energies to replicate spells and magical enchantments.

7) Spell-Storing Item is interesting. I need to reflect on this ability a bit more, but I am leaning towards liking it. It is effective at replicating a wand, and has a good amount of power. It is also similar to a Wizard's Signature Spell ability, but can be used by other characters.

8) Infusions are interesting. I don't exactly like the way it is executed, but it does allow for the feel of creating magic items.

9) Arcane Weapon seems too powerful in comparison to similar spells. It's certainly more powerful than Divine Favor (another 1st level spell). This seems to be at least a 2nd level spell, on par with Magic Weapon. You do more damage, but don't get the benefit of bonus on attack. Additionally, placing it at level 1 makes it a ripe choice for Magic Initiate.

Magic Initiate only can choose, Wizard, Bard, Warlock, Cleric, Sorcerer spells/cantrips, not Paladin Ranger, or Artificer spells.

 

[OB1]

Really like what I see here. The class tells a story and doesn’t feel like any other. Never played an artificer before but want to now!

I’m thinking the Homuclus is going to move over to it’s own subclass, maybe switch lightening damage for the acid, while the alchemist will get back its potion throwing. That makes three solid and unique subclasses to choose from.
Can’t wait till it’s released! Wonder what type of book it will be in? I’d bet heavily against it being in an Ebberon campaign guide (that will probably get a 4th subclass specific to it), unless Ebberon is just a part of a multiple classic setting guidebook.

 

[lkj]

Really like what I see here. The class tells a story and doesn’t feel like any other. Never played an artificer before but want to now!

I’m thinking the Homuclus is going to move over to it’s own subclass, maybe switch lightening damage for the acid, while the alchemist will get back its potion throwing. That makes three solid and unique subclasses to choose from.
Can’t wait till it’s released! Wonder what type of book it will be in? I’d bet heavily against it being in an Ebberon campaign guide (that will probably get a 4th subclass specific to it), unless Ebberon is just a part of a multiple classic setting guidebook.

Didn't WotC say that the Artificer would be added to the Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron after it was finished? That was one of the reasons they were delaying a print on demand option.

And checking Keith Baker's FAQ, http://keith-baker.com/wgte-faq/, that was at least the plan initially.

AD

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Why doesn't Wizards ever look at 3rd party stuff/homebrew stuff???

It's mind confusing to me that here they have so much 3rd party stuff they could mine ideas from and a lot of it is really good.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I guess you can add find steed, find familiar, and Temple of the Gods Spell to that list.

This is probably a discussion that warrant's its own thread, since I think it is beyond the scope of this thread. However, since you brought it up, those spells are certainly iconic. However, there is a difference between something being iconic, and something being a core aspect of that class's identity.

When the warlock debuted in 3.5, Eldritch Blast was literally the defining feature of the class. And I would say that in 5th edition, it is clear that the Warlock and Ranger were balanced around them having Hex and Hunter's Mark. I would say this is especially true for the Ranger since Favored Enemy was nerfed down to a ribbon ability without offering any combat potential, thus the need for Hunter's Mark to fill the void that is left. On the other hand, I think a wizard and paladin not only function, but play as intended without find steed or find familiar.

Wizard with fireball is iconic. A wizard without fireball still feels like a wizard and plays like a Wizard. I don't think the same can be said of the Warlock without Eldritch Blast or a Ranger without Hunter's Mark. For that reason, if they have this Arcane Weapon spell which is clearly better for its level than similar spells, they should either open it to other spell lists or incorporate it more fully into the Artificer mechanics as an ability rather than a spell.

Magic Initiate only can choose, Wizard, Bard, Warlock, Cleric, Sorcerer spells/cantrips, not Paladin Ranger, or Artificer spells.

Very true. But Ranger and Paladin also don't have normal access to cantrips, making the feat not work for those classes. While the feat does not technically cover the Artificer, it is not a far leap to include them since they possess both a cantrip and spell list.

Why doesn't Wizards ever look at 3rd party stuff/homebrew stuff???

It's mind confusing to me that here they have so much 3rd party stuff they could mine ideas from and a lot of it is really good.

I'm not 100%, but I would guess because it creates a lot of issues around intellectual property and crediting writers/designers. I think WotC designers likely purposely stay away from boards like these and looking through 3rd party material because they don't want to be accused of stealing ideas, whether unintentionally or not. That's why whenever they release an Unearthed Arcana, it is always playtest material and they follow up with a survey on what people think about it. Gives them a clean way to get feedback and ideas specifically submitted to them, rather than them pouring over a place like this to mine for feedback or ideas that were not specifically given to them. It's a subtle but important difference.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I don't think we've ever not allowed players to swap out cantrips as long as it's within reason and you ask. I mean, they're described by the game as the most basic spells that you learn. They are, by it's own narrative, so simple that a beginner can memorize them. Even then, cantrips are relatively weak and not major game changers. Yeah, the game expects you to have one useful attack cantrip, but after that it's really all gravy. Granted, Artifacers get much better at swapping cantrips at level 10 than even we would allow, but it's still really not a particularly powerful ability.

I mean if that is your house rule sure, but my GM does not allow it. Having RAW for a class is big deal at my GMs table. I have been allowed to change once but because he didn't want me to use a cantrip (guidance) so I was allowed one I could use. Not because I just didn't like my pick.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Haven't really looked too in-depth into this (have been really busy with work as of late), but I quite like what I'm reading. There's a lot of story and roleplaying potential here, which is excellent. And Wizards is trying a slightly different mechanical class chassis in design.
It's also heartening to see Keith Baker being involved in the design of this class.

I really like the potential to troll others with Magical Tinkering.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ugh. I'm going to be annoyed as $%@# if people start showing up in my group with Artificiers. I wish the sidebar made it explicit that these are intended solely for Eberron. Instead they did the opposite.

What's next, Jedi?

#getoffmylawn

 

[Ash Mantle]

What's next, Jedi?

Mike Mearls was working on the psychic warrior and soulknife in his stream. Hopefully they see the light of day.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Mike Mearls was working on the psychic warrior and soulknife in his stream. Hopefully they see the light of day.

I'd be more ok with genre expansion if it additional classes (and races, subclasses, and even spells) were tied explicitly to different settings. "If you're playing Dark Sun, remove classes A, B, and C, and add classes X, Y, and Z."

I loathe having a jumble of every possible race and class combination in the same setting.