Artificer UA has been released!

[Mercule]

Finally had a chance to look at this. I like it way, way better than I thought it would. Still far from perfect, but heading in the right direction. Here are some high-level thoughts:

Firearm Proficiency: Bad. Horrible. It would be more appropriate to say, "If your setting is using firearm rules, your artificer can never use them because it's anathema to the idea of using magic over technology." Seriously. If you're writing an artificer and including actual, honest to goodness, technology, you're doing it wrong. Stop and let someone else do it. That said, it's a sidebar, and people who want the artificer to be a gunslinger will give them firearms, regardless. Just evidence that the artificer is only slightly more likely to please all its fans than a hypothetical warlord/marshal.

Magical tinkering: As others have said, it's pretty much just a ribbon ability and a reskin of Prestidigitation. I like it, though. Really, every class that has access to prestidigitation or thaumaturgy (or the like) should just get them as bonus abilities. They're just fun toys.

Tools required/Magic of Artifice: I like it. The whole VSM straight-jacket needs to be broken. Psionics could be spells that change trappings in a similar way to this -- obviously not with tools. Even though I'm adamantly opposed to the artificer using actual technology, they still work with items, so the trappings make sense. Just picture magic oils, special ingredients, etc., rather than gears and sprockets.

Infuse Items: I like it. It fits with my thoughts that the artificer should be hung on the Warlock chassis. Nothing is perfect, and I'm sure someone could rip apart the details, but it looks good to me.

Right tool for the job: Perfect! Maybe it should show up earlier, but it's still great in flavor and power.

Specialties, in general: Probably a good breakdown, though I really, really hate the idea that pets are awarded for all subclasses of any class. I do like that each subclass gets bonuses around certain crafting types.

Alchemist: All the powers are very fitting and seem balanced for what they are. Again, I kind of lean towards not forcing a pet on the subclass, but I'm not fan of pets, in general. The homonculous seems like a reasonably good fit, as presented, though, and I don't actually object, so much as just don't really like pets, in principle. If it made it to final printing, I'd be fine.

Artillerist: Everything besides the Turret is great.

The turret kinda sucks. It's not unbalanced but, I just don't get how the artificer creates a small-to-medium sized construct out of thin air in six seconds. The description still sounds too much like a robot, kinda. Maybe if the Arcane Turret ability was "plant a staff in the ground and choose the effect". I don't like that the 14th level ability also involves the turret. That should really be a one-and-done ability that's understated. This is especially true since I'd like to see the Wand Prototype at 3rd level and the Turret pushed to 6th (or even 14th).

Also, the artillerist should definitely get the options in Wayfairer's Guide for extra range when using a staff, etc.

 

[Ash Mantle]

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.

I mean that's your prerogative and you're always welcome to play the game however you want and that includes stopping the inclusion of something, but I feel if people have a justifiable reason for the inclusion of an "outside-setting" class or race and can make it work in the campaign, all the more power to them.
This is really where you need a session 0 to discuss the expectations, the tone, and the assumptions of the campaign.
I feel the sidebar as presented gives justifiable reasons to include them in those campaign settings.

 

[Seramus]

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.

But Elfcrusher, what if it makes perfect sense within the context of the narrative?

Morpheus Voice "What if I told you... you could change the way you feel about jumbles of every possible race and class in the same setting?"

*Ducks and runs away before he is shot.*

 

[Guest 6801328]

But Elfcrusher, what if it makes perfect sense within the context of the narrative?

That's exactly it...I don't want to be part of the narrative in which that makes sense.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is really where you need a session 0 to discuss the expectations, the tone, and the assumptions of the campaign.
I feel the sidebar as presented gives justifiable reasons to include them in those campaign settings.

I agree with all that. In practice, though, a lot of games start with "ok, bring a legal character...".

 

[Ash Mantle]

I agree with all that. In practice, though, a lot of games start with "ok, bring a legal character...".

I've only played with friends so I haven't been familiar with that stipulation.
In practice though, I'd argue that a lot of games are home games, where the potential to discuss within session 0 is there, rather than AL-legal only games.

 

[Seramus]

I've only played with friends so I haven't been familiar with that stipulation.
In practice though, I'd argue that a lot of games are home games, where the potential to discuss within session 0 is there, rather than AL-legal only games.

Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!
It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!

Definitely concur, bro!

It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.

This is weird though. There's always discussions where things turn heated so I guess there's that.
Anecdotally, I've played with lots of different friends and with different systems - FATE, Dresden Files, Qin, 4e, Pathfinder, 5e, Fantasy Craft - and we've always had a session 0.

 

[Prakriti]

Session 0 is awesome. I really recommend it!
It also makes people angry, and the habit is not very common. Unfortunately.

Session 0s make people angry? Why? Or is that not what you meant?

 

[epithet]

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

I think most DMs willing to use a class from UA in their games would be plenty open minded enough to include Artificer in the Magic Initiate list. As was pointed out upthread, the problem with paladin and ranger is that they have no cantrips, so their spell lists are structurally inappropriate for the feat.