Artificer UA has been released!

[Ark the Pie King]

I've gotta be honest, I haven't been this excited to play anything in 5e in a long while. I feel a lot of the design space is very same-y from a mechanical point of view, and I've been struggling to build something that doesn't feel 'been there done that'. This pretty much scratches that itch. The Alchemist looks like a really fun hands on sort of support class. Having a pet that like, ya know actually DOES things is pretty exciting and I'm happy to use my bonus action to control it. The Turrets I feel could be a hair stronger given the fact that you're gonna be burning your limited spell slots to summon them but that said for the cost of a 1st level spell they seem pretty strong. It is a little odd that they don't scale though. Maybe the fact that they can be weighed against the 1st level spells is WHY they don't scale. Food for thought. Arcane Weapon with Not-Extra Attack seems juicy and fun. I do with they had slightly better weapon proficiencies because there's some anti-synergy with Not-Extra Attack and Crossbows but it's nothing that can't be dealt with at the end of the day. Either use a Shortbow, Take 1st level Fighter for Archery and Longbow, or Crossbow Master (the worst option imo).

The spell lists between the two Subclasses are kind of a joke though. The Artillerist's spell list is fire. Literally. It's a really, really solid blaster kit. The Alchemist's spell list has a weird number of spells that nobody has ever cast in a game ever like Purify Food and Drink or Create Food and Water (I know someone somewhere has cast them but we all know they're fluff spells). It feels like kind of a let down and I'd honestly look into swapping them out with something else. Also there's so oddities in the base class's spell list, like not having Unseen Servant and having Thorn Whip. There were a couple of other spells I thought for sure it'd have, but they escape me now.

I also wish there were more infusions. The ones that we got are perfectly serviceable, I just wish...ya know. There were more of them. Also someone else suggested this and I agree, let the Alchemist apply Alchemical Mastery to potions they brew that apply.

But on the whole, I'm REALLY happy with the class. It needs another round of polish but I'm thrilled with the results overall and I'm gearing up to ask my DM if I can play one tomorrow. Wish me luck!

 

[Ash Mantle]

Heh. It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings. You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk. But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).

The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.

Also the mentality of "X thing doesn't belong in Y setting because it wasn't in the original books for the setting." I mean, it didn't exist back then, so...

I honestly think it's more the mentality of "I don't like it in these settings, therefore it doesn't belong."

 

[Azzy]

Heh. It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings. You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk. But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).

The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.

Yeah, I'm rather tired of the mentality that "if it didn't exist in 1e, it doesn't belong in Greyhawk".

 

[Li Shenron]

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 agree with this sentiment.

It's OK if they provide suggestions on how to integrate new material into existing settings, but it'd better come with the more general suggestion that everyone needs to agree on altering a setting, and it's not player entitlement. Otherwise it's like showing up to a basketball game and pretend to play using your feet. And having spent money on a supplement book doesn't entitle you anything extra, just like having spent money on football shoes wouldn't.

 

[Ash Mantle]

I agree with this sentiment.

It's OK if they provide suggestions on how to integrate new material into existing settings, but it'd better come with the more general suggestion that everyone needs to agree on altering a setting, and it's not player entitlement. Otherwise it's like showing up to a basketball game and pretend to play using your feet. And having spent money on a supplement book doesn't entitle you anything extra, just like having spent money on football shoes wouldn't.

The classes they've been releasing and playtesting has more often than not been for the broadest appeal, and also possibly with a touch of the nostalgia factor. Their message going into 5e has always been "your game, your decisions, your rules".

Wizards also don't name-drop for no reason, we may well likely see eventual Greyhawk, Mystara, Dragonlance supplements. Their glacial pace notwithstanding.

 

[Seramus]

Huh. I just noticed the wording on Turret is phrased strangely. I know that is not the intent, but they make it sound like the Turret appears whenever you expend a spell slot.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Huh. I just noticed the wording on Turret is phrased strangely. I know that is not the intent, but they make it sound like the Turret appears whenever you expend a spell slot.

That's actually true to an extent, you need to take the entire context into consideration. It was intentionally worded that way.

Near the end of the entry, it says "you can summon your turret once for free and must finish a long rest before doing so again. You can also summon the turret by expending a spell slot of 1st level or higher. If you summon a second turret, the first turret disappears."

This means you can summon your free turret once but will need to wait until you finish a long rest to summon a new one. However, within that expended downtime you can sacrifice spells to summon the turret additional times per spell slots expended, another stipulation is that whenever you expend spell slots to summon turrets, the initial one disappears.

 

[Seramus]

However, within that expended downtime you can sacrifice spells to summon the turret additional times per spell slots expended, another stipulation is that whenever you expend spell slots to summon turrets, the initial one disappears.

The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning, even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.

 

[Ash Mantle]

The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning,

Yes, that's the intent of the text.

even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.

What? Where are you getting that from? You need to expend a spell slot to summon a turret, you can't also benefit from having cast the spell. In fact, the text is actually quite clear.

 

[Ash Mantle]

The way they worded it makes it sound like expending a spell slot makes the turret eligible for summoning, even if the spell slots are expended for unrelated reasons.

Are you at all familiar with paladin divine smiting or warlock eldritch smiting? It's basically the same principle.