Are you satisfied enough with the Artificer to publish it?

[Mercule]

I just did a breakdown for one of my players and came up with these thoughts:

Taking another look at the current Artificer, I think there's one major issue I have left, but it's a doozey. With the exception of having a "golem master" specialty, the artificer shouldn't have a pet.

The alchemist's homonculus is relatively inoffensive and there's some history in D&D of coupling alchemists and homonculi. I'm probably OK with this subclass as written. At the very least, it no longer makes me think of Pop Fizz from Skylanders, which was my problem with the previous draft.

The archivist is just weird. The artificial mind seems too much like some sort of magical Alexa. There are some aspects of the subclass that might make a great foundation for the "golem master" -- there's an obvious tie to creating the warforged. On the other hand, the accidental creation of the warforged could have prompted a new, young field among artificers. Also, the way House Sivis manipulates elemental spirits for the creation of things like airships and the lightning rail gives some justification to the powers. I'm still uncomfortable with how much the "computer" dominates the class, and would prefer to see it revamped. Though, it could be reskinned as more of a Mark of Scribing thing than an artificer, for a unique character.

The artillerist is actually almost fixed. They got rid of the big shoulder cannon, in favor of wands. The turrets are probably the worst of the pets, though. You take an action (6 seconds) to just "create" a man-sized automaton with crab legs and it either has a flamethrower, laser gun, or a healing beacon. You can also just "dismiss" it in 6 seconds. I think the easy fix is to say that you can carry around a staff or similar item (open to suggestions) that you can jam into the ground to do the same basic thing. I'm not sure how getting rid of the movement would balance out, though. Maybe the ability does need to be replaced with something else, less pet-like.

The battle smith is an interesting problem. The iron defender is a great kernel for golem master subclass and it'd be easy enough to say, "can be metallic or some other golem-like construction, but here are the stats". Tying it to armor working makes some sense, but not as much as I'd like -- plus, I'd like to so a "battle smith" that focused on arms and armor, separate from the construct. So, it's almost a perfect implementation for one of the archetypes, but the flavor around what the sub-class is supposed to do doesn't match.

Edit: Note that I'm no warmer to the steampunk flavor than I was before. A re-read just showed that they actually did tone it down a lot.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm... Using your breakdown, I guess this makes more sense:
Sorcerers: Are magic (no disagreement, here)

Wizards: Magic as science. I think we're good, here.

Artificers: Magic as engineering or magic as craft. It's still magic, though, and should look as much like modern (or even enlightenment) engineering as wizards look like modern science.

I think that last is part of the key. I'm not looking for camp, steampunk, etc. I'm more than willing to include the logical extension of industrialized/engineered magic. It should still be cut from the same cloth as the rest of the magic in the game, though. This artificer isn't. It tries to add both the role of the magical engineer and the theme of weird science. I only want one of those.

My 2cp: Magic shouldn’t be a science. My preferred setting constraint around magic is “magic is common, but mysterious.” Under that directive, I prefer wizards to be more like hermeticists - their study is around making themselves better vessels for magic, rather than studying magic itself like it’s something that can be learned. Sorcerers are just naturally powerful vessels for magic, due to their bloodline or other circumstances of their birth. Artificers, in my view, shouldn’t do magic at all. They should be mundane engineers, alchemists, and tinkers. The closest they should come to magic in my opinion should be crafting potions, magical items, or perhaps golems or homunculi, but if they’re casting spells, they’re going in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[tglassy]

I’ve always viewed wizards as being those with the innate ability to use magic, but no natural skill with it. Like someone who likes to sing and can sound pretty good, but obviously needs lessons and dedication to become good at it. So most people. But few actually will take the time needed to really master it.

Sorcerers are the savants. Those people who are belting perfect and amazing songs at, like, 14, and mainly rely on their natural talent. It’s just a part of them, little study necessary. As such, many times they don’t have the technical skill of those who did study but didn’t have the talent.

Artificers are, in my opinion, the opposite of Sorcerers. No magical talent at all, unable to carry a tune in a bucket. But all the dedication and discipline of a Wizard. They love it. They learn everything they can. They understand the theory behind Magic better than anyone, except maybe wizards, but they have little, if any, actual skill with it.

So they use their knowledge to create items and find ways to manipulate magic indirectly, and therefore come up with more flexible ideas.

I also have no issue with the steampunk look, or any cosmetic look, really. If a player wants to say es a wizard but prefers his wizard to work like an Artificer, go ahead. If they want to say they’re actually from a sci fi setting and a breach in the universe brought them to a strange planet with magic and goblins, and all their “Magic” is actually advanced tech, and their Artificial Mind is actually their ship’s artificial intelligence, I say that’s awesome. Flavor is up to the player, in my opinion.

 

[Prakriti]

Since the release of Xanathar's Guide, I've lost all faith in the developers' ability to design new classes and sub-classes. At this point, anything they add to the game is just another thing I have to tell my players they can't use because it's awful and poorly designed (and I hate having to do that).

For the good of the game, I wish the developers would give up on creating new crunch and just focus on settings, adventures, and monsters instead. At least they're good at that stuff.

 

[Mercule]

My 2cp: Magic shouldn’t be a science. My preferred setting constraint around magic is “magic is common, but mysterious.” Under that directive, I prefer wizards to be more like hermeticists - their study is around making themselves better vessels for magic, rather than studying magic itself like it’s something that can be learned. Sorcerers are just naturally powerful vessels for magic, due to their bloodline or other circumstances of their birth. Artificers, in my view, shouldn’t do magic at all. They should be mundane engineers, alchemists, and tinkers. The closest they should come to magic in my opinion should be crafting potions, magical items, or perhaps golems or homunculi, but if they’re casting spells, they’re going in the wrong direction IMO.

I think we're using the same term for two different things. There may be room for both, but I definitely don't think they should overlap.

I'm coming from the perspective of an Eberron GM. In that setting, the artificer is explicitly someone who treats magic as a craft/industry. They make golems, bind elementals to power airships, create magic swords, etc. It may not be your thing, but that's the itch I want scratched and "artificer" is the term WotC decided to use for that role in 3.5, so it carries that weight.

It sounds like you're wanting an actual engineer or crafty-scientist. Not something I really care about, but I don't have a problem with it existing. Let's use your term of "tinkerer", just to use a name that isn't already claimed.

Now, I really don't care much if WotC decides the term "artificer" would be better for the tinkerer. Just don't try to tie it to Eberron. Tell us what the new name for the Eberron artificer will be and move on. I do think that's a bit silly, considering there are more words that work for engineer/tinkerer than for the Eberron artificer, but not worth getting too bent out of shape about. What they shouldn't do is make one class that hit both buckets. Pick a lane and stay in it.

The easiest illustration of this is the firearms sidebar. For the Eberron concept of an artificer -- treating magic as technology -- there is absolutely no reason to correlate artifice to firearms. In fact, it's kinda silly, since the artificer would gravitate towards wands and similar items (in fact, the artillerist archetype doubles down on this). I could actually make a case that the sidebar should say, "even if firearms are present in your setting, the artificer does not begin play with proficiency in firearms." On the other hand, it would be absurd to restrict the tinkerer from firearms and there's a pretty strong case that the tinkerer should have firearm proficiency even if the campaign has limited access to firearms and no other class can use them.

There's a middle ground of steampunk, JRPGs, and the like where you would mix magic and technology. That's either a bad idea or a third lane. Unless that's specifically your thing, I get ketchup on my chocolate and you have peanut butter on your fries. Create another class for it? Maybe. If all three exist, I'm going to list the artificer as an approved class, allow the tinkerer if someone asks, and tell the steampunker to go away (in fairly rude terms).

 

[77IM]

I like the concept, but the whole thing is much too complicated, notably the subclass pet rules. I haven't counted words, but it sure seems like there's a lot more material here than most PHB classes. I want an artificer class, not an entire new subsystem I have to learn.

 

[Kyvin]

I've been really looking forward to the artificer and would like to play one. I'm generally happy with this new version.

I have no interest personally in playing the Alchemist or Archivist. Initially, I was interested in playing the Artillerist but now the Battle Smith looks too good compared to it.

My issue with the Artillerist is that the 6th level wand ability seems useless to me. Why would this subclass want to use cantrips? You have the options of:

Attacking with your heavy crossbow twice for 1d10+dex+1d6(from arcane weapon) & 1d10+dex+1d6(arcane weapon) vs a firebolt with Int bonus for like 2d10+3. And if you take Sharpshooter, then forget about it. The wand stuff needs to go.

I would much rather have an ability at 6th level that lets the Artificer switch a turret from one type to another, or some other blasty kind of ability. I'd much prefer the ability to detonate turrets when they die, for a little more damage, using a reaction maybe and a spell slot.

Compared to the Artillerist, the Battle Smith seems to have much more useful abilities. It's probably a little less damage overall depending on number of encounters and length of encounters, but you're not using spell slots to deploy the Iron Defender all day, and you get a couple uses of a smite ability each day that add more damage or healing. Plus the benefits of a pet that can heal itself and apply disadvantage. Plus you can pump Int and be less MAD.

So I really wanted to play something like the Artillerist but it seems like the worse option to me. It's great later on when you get two going, but my campaigns never get above 10-12th level. At lower levels, Battle Smith just seems better.

 

[pukunui]

I dislike the emphasis on “pets”. The turret in particular is too video gamey for my tastes. The new archivist feels more like a psionic character than an artificer. I do like the unique approach to spell casting, though.

 

[tglassy]

I've been really looking forward to the artificer and would like to play one. I'm generally happy with this new version.

I have no interest personally in playing the Alchemist or Archivist. Initially, I was interested in playing the Artillerist but now the Battle Smith looks too good compared to it.

My issue with the Artillerist is that the 6th level wand ability seems useless to me. Why would this subclass want to use cantrips? You have the options of:

Attacking with your heavy crossbow twice for 1d10+dex+1d6(from arcane weapon) & 1d10+dex+1d6(arcane weapon) vs a firebolt with Int bonus for like 2d10+3. And if you take Sharpshooter, then forget about it. The wand stuff needs to go.

I would much rather have an ability at 6th level that lets the Artificer switch a turret from one type to another, or some other blasty kind of ability. I'd much prefer the ability to detonate turrets when they die, for a little more damage, using a reaction maybe and a spell slot.

Compared to the Artillerist, the Battle Smith seems to have much more useful abilities. It's probably a little less damage overall depending on number of encounters and length of encounters, but you're not using spell slots to deploy the Iron Defender all day, and you get a couple uses of a smite ability each day that add more damage or healing. Plus the benefits of a pet that can heal itself and apply disadvantage. Plus you can pump Int and be less MAD.

So I really wanted to play something like the Artillerist but it seems like the worse option to me. It's great later on when you get two going, but my campaigns never get above 10-12th level. At lower levels, Battle Smith just seems better.

Artificers aren’t proficient in Heavy Crossbows. Only Hand and Light. So choosing Firebolt is technically more damage than a Light Crossbow.

Also, the cantrips are for utility, and having up to four of them that you can switch out is useful. Mending, guidance, thorn ship, spare the dying, there are all kinds of utility in these. It’s not good to just think of everything by its combat utility. Just because a telephone isn’t as efficient as a revolver at killing things doesn’t mean you wouldn’t trade the revolver for a telephone in a heartbeat if you were stranded on a deserted island.

 

[Kyvin]

It says heavy crossbows. If I’m picking a subclass called “Artillerist”, I’d think it would be about damage. Also the wand ability gives you +damage that still isn’t more useful than a light crossbow and limits you to a single roll.