D&D 5E Artificer Rogue?

[Todd Roybark]

Umbran, I agree with the intent of what you are saying but look at it from a varying perspective.
I do not view the rules geared to PCs, (classes, feats, etc) to be the norm....the whole concept of class and feats and so forth are the gamist, part of the system.

The rules that apply to PCs are abstractions that do not necessarily apply to the fictional world around them. The rules are meant to ensure play betw the players is balanced and regulated for within the group.

Granting a cambion the ability to summon a weapon ala the Pactblade is not adding warlock class levels, nor is it making an impact to the CR. 3e design philosophy is dead, long live 5e.

Umbran, correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall statements from you in he past where you have stated that, narratively no one “In-Game” would ever refer to someone by their class.

If only the Knights of Malta summon weapons....Low Magic.
If every kingdom has units of Mindsword-eneers....we are entering The High Magic Zone.
If Magical Patronage is common, probably HMZ...if the Red Cross was openly affiliated with a Kirin or Asmodeus....I would deem that is rather fantastical.

Back to Doc’s topic....I prefer textual changes to a class, to be as limited in scope as possible.
If I were to grant Infusions to the Arcane Trickster, I would have the Infusions replace the Wizard Spells that can be from any school of magic.

So an Infusion would be granted at level 3,8,14, and 20th levels.
I would also allow the modified AT to retrain those Infusions upon any level up, not just at the specified levels per the usual AT.

So as to not step on the artificer classes toes I might also limit the Infusions learned to certain power levels.

The Infusion learned at 3rd level, even when retrained has to be from the 2nd level replicable item list, or another Infusion without a level prerequisite.

The Infusion learned at 8th level qualifies for Infusions with the 6th level prerequisite and so forth.

I think this is balanced, and easy to play, as the changes to the text are minimal.

 

[Stormonu]

The mentioned pet is not a familiar: They have access to the homunculus infusion which is rather more powerful.

If the character wants an actual familiar, then Magic Initiate feat is probably the best bet: Artificers do not have access to Find Familiar spell.

Homunculus are extra handy - prior character of the now-artificer had one and put it to good use.

Familiars may not be useful combat-wise, but they are otherwise borderline broken as scouts and messengers for the party. Who needs sneak or a 10 foot pole when you have a familiar that can do it for you?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The mentioned pet is not a familiar: They have access to the homunculus infusion which is rather more powerful.

If the character wants an actual familiar, then Magic Initiate feat is probably the best bet: Artificers do not have access to Find Familiar spell.

No. The best bet is a subclass feature. A created familiar or familiar-style pet is absolutely appropriate for an inventor rogue. Whether the artificer gets the specific spell called Find Familiar is the second most irrelevant idea presented in this thread so far. Why on Earth would that ever matter?

A pet that follows similar rules to the steel defender, but not nearly as beefy or dangerous, that can act as a set of tools (similar to the UA armor of tools, but mobile), is totally appropriate to the concept.

I'm saying that he comes pretty close to the "sniper rogue" combat style. Counting the Steel Defender, he's working with 3d8+12 damage per round, which compares pretty well with the weapon + sneak attack of a rogue of his level (so, like 4d6+4, or d8+4+3d6)

Damage totals couldn’t be further from the point. That is a completely different combat style. That it does similar damage is...completely irrelevant on every level.

 

[Umbran]

Damage totals couldn’t be further from the point. That is a completely different combat style. That it does similar damage is...completely irrelevant on every level.

So, how is "sneaking around and firing a crossbow" as an artificer a completely different combat style from "sneaking around and firing a shortbow" as a rogue? I did specify sniper-style already. You didn't seem to specify melee...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

No. The best bet is a subclass feature. A created familiar or familiar-style pet is absolutely appropriate for an inventor rogue. Whether the artificer gets the specific spell called Find Familiar is the second most irrelevant idea presented in this thread so far. Why on Earth would that ever matter?

Because the post I was responding to is from the OP who was asking for help and they were talking about a familiar. They usually have something specific in mind, but actually getting them to explain it can be hard, so I try to use whatever details they do actually give.

In this case, it seemed like they were talking about my suggestion and having a familiar, so I felt the need to specify that the companion pet in my suggestion was the homunculus construct that the character could choose rather than an actual familiar. Also that familiars as the term is used in 5e D&D aren't really an artificer thing.

That is why it is relevant, and that is why it matters.

A pet that follows similar rules to the steel defender, but not nearly as beefy or dangerous, that can act as a set of tools (similar to the UA armor of tools, but mobile), is totally appropriate to the concept.

Quite possibly, but I think that is the first I've heard of that concept in this thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, how is "sneaking around and firing a crossbow" as an artificer a completely different combat style from "sneaking around and firing a shortbow" as a rogue? I did specify sniper-style already. You didn't seem to specify melee...

The rogue doesn't rely on a big bruiser pet, but does rely on stealth and on having advantage to ensure landing Sneak Attack, and has access to much greater mobility and stealth. I am having trouble seeing how the two could be considered anything but very, very, different.

Because the post I was responding to is from the OP who was asking for help and they were talking about a familiar. They usually have something specific in mind, but actually getting them to explain it can be hard, so I try to use whatever details they do actually give.

In this case, it seemed like they were talking about my suggestion and having a familiar, so I felt the need to specify that the companion pet in my suggestion was the homunculus construct that the character could choose rather than an actual familiar. Also that familiars as the term is used in 5e D&D aren't really an artificer thing.

That is why it is relevant, and that is why it matters.

Quite possibly, but I think that is the first I've heard of that concept in this thread.

You realize I'm the OP, yes?

And since you basically just admitted that you were being pedantic about the word familiar, I'm kinda tuned out now.

As for the difficulty you reference, that is largely a result of your insistence on not just taking the OP at face value, and instead on trying to psychoanalyze some hidden motive behind the text of the OP. If I say that I'm interested in ideas and options for making an inventor rogue, and list as one option a familiar, why do you insist on trying to overthink what I really mean? I mean what I said.

 

[Umbran]

I am having trouble seeing how the two could be considered anything but very, very, different.

Fine. As you will.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Fine. As you will.

Okay? I welcome feedback, I just...don't understand how "just playing an artificer is the same thing" is supposed to be helpful, and I don't see how it's even all that similar.

Nothing else in the game is similar to sneaking as a bonus action with a bonus that is outside bounded accuracy's normal limits, in the middle of a fight, in order to get the one shot at dealing damage that you'll get this round. That's...what makes the rogue unique. The artificer overlaps in dealing with traps and locks, mostly. Where it overlaps in combat the two also overlap with....everyone else that can excel at ranged and light weapon combat?

IDK, I would like to understand where you're coming from, but "they're basically the same" isn't exactly helping me understand how they're apparently similar?

 

[Umbran]

Okay? I welcome feedback, I just...don't understand how "just playing an artificer is the same thing" is supposed to be helpful, and I don't see how it's even all that similar.

You named mechanics in your description of playstyle, rather than narrative action and results. So, I expect we differ in what counts as "similar playstyle" enough that I don't really care to argue over it with you. So, don't worry about it.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

As part of its 10-level characters class compendium, Giffyglyph focused the ranger on using ''scaps'' he gather on a long rest to make traps. You may want to use those mechanics to create a rogue archetype: Giffyglyph's Class Compendium | The Ranger

At 3rd, gain 2 traps, and 5 ''scraps''; the numbers increase at level X, Y and Z (you may want to reffluf them as more arcane if you want)

Also at 3rd add a ''animated tools'' with the same action economy as the new UA pets (steel defender, primal beast, wildfire thingy) that can use its action to cast ''mending'' and maybe alarm/knock/arcane lock, Int mod/Day.

at 9th level, gain the the improved tool function you created for that assassin's class we worked on (with grappling hook, disguise kit etc)

at 13th, gain advantage to disable magic locks and you can use you thieve's tool to ''hack'' portals sigil. Your animated tools can cast Dispel Magic, if the spell effect is disrupted, all enemies within 15 ft of it take Xd6 force damage.

17th, you can regain 4 scaps at the end of a short rest.