D&D 5E Artificer Class, Revised: Rip Me A New One

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:

rampant wrote:My entire point is that the open ended number of schema known is inherently unbalancing the class. IF you reduce the number of schema known for the base class then it's dependent on the DM to give them opportunities to expand that list, iif you don't and the class gets the opportunity it's unbalanced. What part of this do you disagree with or not understand?
You're viewing it binary again, where unless something is exactly the right value, it's under- or over-powered. 
 
Let me make up some numbers as a demonstration; they'll have a narrow range of "good" target values and the ability to expand, just like spellbook versatility. Let's say that something has a base value, and can be expected to grow by about 5 points, but hypothetically could grow by up to 25 (however, it might not grow at all, and all signs point to 5 being a good average for expected growth, maybe plus or minus 2 if you want a 95% confidence interval, but the possibility of +25 still exists.). Anything over 35 would be considered "overpowered". Anything under 25 is considered "underpowered". What's the value you'd pick for the starting point? 
 
Your argument seems to be that you should pick 30 and remove the ability to expand it at all, which prevents the possibility of it ever growing to broken values. After all, if you kept the ability to expand, 30+25 = 55, which is ZOMGBRORKEN. (Note: I'd agree that in this example, 55 is broken.)
 
My argument is that it should start at 25. If the system expects a 5-growth range, then this will stll reach 30 (it's rare that you'll see anything higher than 32), which isn't yet broken - and it still has some leeway. The possibility exists of a 50, but all signs point to this being very rare, and the cirumstances that will bring this about cause other problems (because they imply a set of houserules that the system doesn't account for). And in the other corner case where it grows by 0, the result is 25, which is still acceptable.
 
THAT'S what I'm aiming for. If I reduce the number of schema available to the base class, low enough that it's still useful but it has room to grow between its base value and the point where it breaks, AND if the "wiggle room" corresponds to a more room than the game's default systems can expect to fill, I will have done my job. Adding in crazy Monty Haul circumstances where everyone can buy a bajillion scrolls every Tuesday is something a DM undertakes under caution, just like every other variant in the rules (including Honor, Sanity, wounds, and Epic Heroism resting), and that rule will impact far more than just the artificer.
 
My goal is to get the base artificer balanced against the base system using its baseline assumptions, first. I am attempting to make it robust to changes in those assumptions, but I can't be expected to think of every crazy houserule that DMs come up with. Neither could WotC, really, which is why there are so many cautionary notes about variant rules scattered throughout the DMG.
 

As for magic used on non-mages my point was that the spells that would actually help being a weapon user more interesting are self only buffs used by classes like the ranger. A lot of th ebuffs used by a dedicate dmagic class are kind of boring.
Setting aside that buffs in 5e are decidedly in the Boring But Practical category, instead of in the "Turn the caster into an impossible avatar of death" category that plagued CoDzillas everywhere.... 
I see two ways to accomplish something like this. One of them is understandable but is bad design. The second is new design space, but only potentially bad design.

The first, understandable, one is looking at self-only caster buffs - like paladin smites and ranger Swift Quiver - and wanting them as a fighter or rogue without having to multiclass.
 
Surely you see this is entirely centered around stealing another class' unique thunder - I wouldn't give Action Surge to paladins nor Metamagic to wizards, and I went to great lengths to prevent Spell Storing Item use from stealing Pact Magic's unique uses. Unique spells (which include nearly all of the Personal spells) are under the same umbrella. (Honestly, if it weren't for the cumbersome steps an artificer has to go through, I would restrict schema to spells that appear on more than one spell list, just to prevent this (even though that's incredibly cumbersome to figure out, thanks to the way the PHB is laid out!). Single-classed artificers generally lack the resources to exploit the low-level uniques like Hunter's Mark, but multiclassed artificers - which I'm still working on testing - don't necessarily have this limitation.)
 
It's also completely accomplishable through multiclassing - especially since one level in Ranger is all you'd need to use an artificer's arcane device of any ranger spell, so the artificer already lets you pull this off with fewer actual Ranger levels than normal (assuming he's high enough level to get the schema, and he can find it or chooses it with one of his few free level-up schemas - in the specific case of ranger, this potentially lets you get Swift Quiver slightly earlier (14th instead of 17th), but bards were already doing this at 10th (or even 6th, for Lore bards), and I'll happly apply any patch WotC uses to fix that in the core rules.). It just won't let you pull it off without ranger levels. And what was that you were saying about opportunity costs?
 
(A minor addendum: You can't actually use a one-level artificer dip the same way. You'd need to copy the higher-level schema from another artificer's book of schema, and you can't do that if you don't have a high enough spell slot. You'd need at least two levels, unless you're already a spellcaster of some sort, which isn't in your example.)
 
The second, potentially usable, is that you would prefer it if the warriors could contribute a concentration slot, so casters won't see "buff the fighter" as a burden.
 
Because that's pretty easy to accomplish through a different infusion (I don't have a name for it yet, but it would affect an item that's currently under the influence of a spell whose caster is both willing and maintaining concentration; the item's wielder is now considered concentrating on it). It's also the reason why I originally had spellforgers bypass concentration on the Tools of War spells. However, using an infusion like this is not like that (now ex-) concentration bypass, because it allows any caster's buff to transfer the concentration load onto its subject. For an artificer, that means that you might stop concentrating on one Magic Weapon and start concentrating on another.... but for a wizard, it means you stop concentrating on one Magic Weapon and start concentrating on Evard's Black Tentacles. THAT would require all kinds of crazy balancing and testing to prevent an explosion.
 
I'm not saying it's impossible - just that it's very treacherous waters.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by rampant:

NO I mean t that classes like ranger and paladin had all the spells for buffing that a weapon user would actually want cast on them, and can't because those spells are self only, and the dedicated caster classes have the boring buffs that can be cast on anyone. Relying on magic classes to make the non-magic classes more interesting is  waste of time because the hybrids are almost always better buffing themselves, and the dedicated casters don't actually have the really interesting buffs for weapon users in 5e.
 
Here's how to balance the artificer with the base system: a pre set number of powers learned. I don't understand why this whole learnign schem/spells without leveling up is so important to people, it's a piss poor mechanic that relies on an inflexible and rigid set of assumptions that in my experience rarely pans out, especially if one uses the treasure tables in the DMG, or the DM populates the world with classed NPCs to swap with. My biggest issue is the unbounded upper limit. If you're so sure that tehey'll not be able to easily get dozens of extra powers this way then it shouldn't be a problem to put a limit on it.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:

rampant wrote:NO I mean t that classes like ranger and paladin had all the spells for buffing that a weapon user would actually want cast on them, and can't because those spells are self only, and the dedicated caster classes have the boring buffs that can be cast on anyone. Relying on magic classes to make the non-magic classes more interesting is  waste of time because the hybrids are almost always better buffing themselves, and the dedicated casters don't actually have the really interesting buffs for weapon users in 5e.
And those are the unique spells I was talking about. I don't view them as detached from the class they're in - I view them as part of the class they're in. The artificer can already steal the low-level ones for hiimself relatively easily - a prospect that I will probably end up curtailing, if the multiclass tests come out the way I think they will. I wouldn't want him to also be able to steal them for others.
 

Here's how to balance the artificer with the base system: a pre set number of powers learned. I don't understand why this whole learnign schem/spells without leveling up is so important to people, it's a piss poor mechanic that relies on an inflexible and rigid set of assumptions that in my experience rarely pans out, especially if one uses the treasure tables in the DMG, or the DM populates the world with classed NPCs to swap with. My biggest issue is the unbounded upper limit. If you're so sure that tehey'll not be able to easily get dozens of extra powers this way then it shouldn't be a problem to put a limit on it.
I did mention earlier that having two sets of "spells known" raises all sorts of confusion and exceptions (Why can't he cast a spell he knows? He knows it! And likewise, why can't he create an item of a spell he's got committed to memory?), while having a spellbook (described as blueprints, not spells) and a separate space of spells known keeps the concept separate in players' minds. This is a cognitive argument independent of the size of the book. 
 
That said, I mentioned a while ago, and I didn't follow it, but I will mention it again now and I WILL follow it going forward: I will not address concerns about the size of the spellbook until you bring me some hard data on it being broken under 5e's basic assumptions. In your case, that must involve at least some experience with wizards in 5e standard. And yes, that includes its treasure tables - you'll be surprised at the results.
 
I will continue to be open to other feedback about the rest of the class, without any qualifiers.
 
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by rampant:

 
The size of the spell book is infinite, infinite is never balanced, ever. 
 
Do I need experience with a 5e wizard specifically in order to see that two wizards in the same party will double their spells known by trading?
DO I need experience with 5e wizards to see that the first thign they're gonna do with any scrolls that make it back to town with them is see if any of them are spells they don't know and scribe any that are into their books?
Do  I need experience with 5e wizards to realize that a wizard that is other wise identical to either of the above wizards will be less powerful because of not getitng that random scroll or partner mage depsite otherwise makign identical choices?
 
I can read the rules and see these issues without ever rolling a damned dice.
 
I mean seriously you haven't explained how any of this crap is okay, beyond wizards do it, and it's 'harder in 5e'. Harder doesn't mean impossible, and even an extra 3-4 spells known can make a huge difference. Both for the mage that has them, and the one that doesn't. To say nothing of the absolute unfairness of allowing them to get new powers that way when everyone else has to work for it. 
 
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:

I had an incredibly long post eaten by a browser, so I'm slightly peeved while I retype this. Know that this is frustration at a tool, and not at you.
 

rampant wrote:The size of the spell book is infinite, infinite is never balanced, ever.
It's not infinite. It's got a minimum size (for artificers, that's your level +4), and there are a finite set of spells to draw from (there are 300 spells in the PHB of levels 1-7), and the size of the book is class-level dependent (since you can't copy a schema if you don't have a slot - if you get a 5th level scroll, you can't copy it until level 14). There's also a very small chance of actually getting that many schema through scrolls (I'll get to that later).
 
For comparison, the wizard's base spellbook is twice your level +4 in size, and there are only 200 spells in the PHB they could copy (levels 1-9, and they get access to each level sooner than the artificer). 
 
Also, I'm still considering restricting schema to non-unique spells only (those that appear on more than one non-artificer, non-subclass spell list), which would reduce the artificer's valid selection choices to 209 and would remove many problem spells from his possible arsenal (such as Find Familiar). However, the rest of this post doesn't do that.
 
I mean seriously you haven't explained how any of this crap is okay, beyond wizards do it, and it's 'harder in 5e'. Harder doesn't mean impossible, and even an extra 3-4 spells known can make a huge difference.
I have explained it, but I'll put it all together here for you and show you more math. To me, math makes a much more compelling argument than a bad feeling based on zero applicable play experience.
 
There are three points to make here. 
 
The first is that word, "extra". You seem to assume I'm assuming only the basic number of schema (24 for a 20th level artificer) as okay, and anything above that is "extra". That's not what I'm doing. I'm assuming a single artificer is able to learn some schema from scrolls, and I'm actually working out how many scrolls of each level the artificer can expect to find. If I'm balancing my test artificers against this expanded level of schema, then finding some scrolls and copying them so you know more than you start with is not providing "extra" schema. That is, in fact, what I'm doing.
 
Second, I've said many times that it's harder to find scrolls, but let's look at exactly how many you're expected to get by looking directly at the loot.

Show
[sblock]Spell scrolls only show up on treasure hoard tables, so we're going to look at how many those tables produce. 
DMG page 133 shows that it assumes a typical campaign will provide 7 rolls on the CR 0-4 hoard table, 18 rolls on the CR 5-10 table, 12 rolls on the CR 11-16 table, and 8 rolls on the CR 17+ table. That's for the entire party, levels 1-20.
 
[One of the things I typed out here was the explicit breakdown of every treasure hoard table, showing its odds of producing certain numbers of rolls on Tables A-D (you don't need to look higher than D, since Tables E-I don't have any scrolls on them that the artificer can copy.) I'm not typing that out again; you can look at the treasure tables and hoard tables to find the probabilities I used.]
 
What emerges is the following. The expected value of scrolls of each level a party can find, by DMG assumptions, is:
1st: 4.032, available to copy after level 2 (one level after the wizard)
2nd: 1.6591, available to copy after level 5 (two levels after the wizard)
3rd: 0.6822, available to copy after level 8 (three levels after the wizard)
4th: 1.3888, available to copy after level 11 (four levels after the wizard)
5th: 1.1684, available to copy after level 14 (five levels after the wizard)
6th: 1.484, available to copy after level 17 (six levels after the wizard)
7th: 1.7192, available to copy after level 20 (seven levels after the wizard)
Total: 12.1337.
 
There's no way of determining which spells are on those scrolls. Thankfully, the artificer isn't restricted to one class' spell list, so that's a step we don't need to do. I'm going to make the assumption that all spells of the same level are equally likely to appear on a spell scroll (even though this isn't necessarily true - since wizard spell scrolls are actually used for spellbook expansion, one would assume there's a higher demand for wizard-list spell scrolls from whoever's making them in the first place. But I have no way to actually implement that - and in the absence of other prior information, it's logical to assume equal priors). Furthermore, since this is a stress test on the expectation, let's assume the absolute best possible scenario for expanding spellbooks - that none of those scrolls are duplicates. (There are 300 spells and you're sampling ~12 times with replacement; I'll need to double-check my formulas, but this appears to have a 92% probability of at least one duplicate if each possible spell is equally likely. But I digress.)
 
Let's assume the artificer holds on to every single spell scroll the party finds that he could, potentially, copy, and then does so at the first available opportunity - I call this the Turbo Packrat artificer. Note that this is not exactly likely - sometimes you'll want to use the scrolls, and if your party has a wizard in it, he'll not only want the wizard scrolls you find, but he'll be able to copy those sooner than you (and you can't copy them out of his spellbook).
 
At level 20, the Turbo Packrat Artificer goes from 25 schema to 37.1337 schema. Yes, this is an increase of 50%. However, that's still only 37/300 (or 12.3%) of the artificer library. A wizard with zero spells copied (because the Turbo Packrat Artificer is hogging them all) has 44/200 (22%) of their potential spell library, and they have fewer restrictions on how to use it (see below).
 
This is compounded by the artificer's slow spell slot access. Let's be ABSOLUTELY CRAZY and assume the artificer gets 100% of his team's career's loot at level 1 as a freebie, so he can copy every schema he can as soon as he gets the right slot level. Let's also pick a level - level 11, say, which is when fighters get their third attack and wizards get fifth level spells. (This isn't one of those levels I could have picked where other progressions get something new and artificers don't - artificers just unlocked a new spell level too, and 11th also comes with a third guild ability and a Salvage Essence upgrade.)
 
At this point, an artificer could have 15 base schema... but could only copy the 1st-4th level schema, of which we expect 7.762. He'll have 22.7 schema, none higher than 4th (he is expected to have about 2 4ths with his natural progression and entire career's worth of scrolls). The standard wizard with zero spells copied has 26 spells in his spellbook, with four 4ths and two 5ths if he's always taking the strongest ones, and he has more spell slots with which to use them (including higher level slots with which to upcast his weaker ones).
 
And that's with an entire campaign's worth of wealth squirreled away at level 1. Now imagine a more realistic trickle of treasure. Yes, it's even weaker on the arty's front.
 
Your point about multiple artificers increasing their versatility is a true one (although it's not a "double", since the scrolls found above are across the entire party; the only extra schema would be the ones the artificers pick from level-ups - since they both start with Detect Magic and Identify, two 20th level Turbo Packrat Artificers in a party would each know 58 unique schema with these super-duper-generous assumptions on scrolls), but this does not come without an opportunity cost of its own - you have more than one artificer, meaning one fewer member of any other class (a heavy armor tank, a high-accuracy archer, a full-strength caster, a feature-monkey, or what), and unlike wizards, the artificer has an intense limit on actually using his schema. I'll get to that next.

[/sblock]tl;dr: The artificer can, at absolute best (assuming no duplicates, copying every single scroll you find instead of using them or passing the compatible ones to the wizard, and only looking at level 20 when the delayed spell access is downplayed), expect to know 37 different schema out of a set of 300. There's some variability on that given that this is an expected value (and I'm not at the moment prepared to fit a confidence interval around that), but it's still far from knowing every one of those 300 spells, and it's even further from knowing infinite spells.
 
Incidentally? For all of my testing, I've been assuming 35 (which is more believable if you use a scroll or get a duplicate, though it still assumes you're giving every scroll to the artificer), and testing both that and the lower limit of 24; I realistically expect an artificer to know somewhere between these (closer to the 35 than the 24, because the only competition for compatible scrolls you'll have is on wizard spells, from wizards, who you may not have in the same party). In other words, the number of spells in that spellbook does not contain "extra" spells beyond the balance point (which it would if, say, it had 40 in it).
 
Finally, there's restrictions on the artificer's use of the schema (which means each individual additional schema is not as powerful an increase as an additional spell would be). I expressed this above, but let me put it in one place for you.

Tempest_Stormwind wrote:Furthermore, there's still not one but three throttles in place for how many of these can be deployed at once, even if you ignore the spellbook and the fact that artificers have slow spell level progression (so by the time they're building 3rd level devices, wizards are picking up 5th level spells; if there's a critical 4th level spell that you designed your adventure around, a PC wizard may have it, but a PC artificer won't). Let's assume that someone's actually got the infinite spellbook and the effect you want is of a level you can cast (this is actually a stronger set of assumptions than the artificer will ever encounter, so the clamping we get from these rules will actually be stronger in real play). 
1) There's craft reserve, most obviously, which is a daily resource with multiple features demanding it (and since devices cost one point of that per level of the spell, you wind up getting fewer and fewer of the strong ones; the fact that they're Spell Scrolls, which don't scale with your proficiency bonus or Intelligence, mean you have incentive to use your biggest ones).
2) There's also construction time (you can only build one of them per rest, and only if you have unspent reserve; if you walk into a dungeon with all your reserve in pre-built items, you can't replenish them until tomorrow, so your "versatility" is set entirely by what you prepared before the adventure began (just like an AD&D magic-user in this regard, since you need to build multiple copies of a device to use its effect more than once). If you walk in with no devices, keeping your craft reserve free to handle whatever problems you encounter with maximum versatility, you only get a chance to build one per rest. And every position in between on that scale.)
3) There's activation time. Using a spell scroll (and thus, an arcane device) always requires it to be in your hand (so you need to Use an Object to retrieve it, since they're not handled like ammunition; this isn't too severe but it does eat up your interaction options taken during movement most of the time), and being an object that requires your action to use (DMG p.139 on Spell Scrolls), you also need to Use an Object to activate them (Basic Rules p72 on Use an Object), meaning they take up your action even if the spell inside is a bonus-action spell, and short of using Contingency there's no way to make use of a reaction-spell-based arcane device. (The flipside is that it takes only one action even if the spell inside is a long-casting-time spell, but none of the long-casting-time spells are combat spells, and many of them are already rituals, which you can cast from scratch faster than you can build the device and paying 0 craft reserve. You, or the tomelock that's already shown this isn't too much of a problem.)
 
Now, you can get around these restrictions by using Prototype, which also uses your Intelligence and proficiency directly, but that carries its own set of restrictions:
1) It consistently costs a spell slot, even if there's a mishap. (Magitechnicians can cast it from craft reserve, but there, it eats up the craft reserve in the same way as an arcane device does - long rest recharge.) You have fewer of these slots to waste.
2) Casting time - it's a 1-minute cast time, preventing its use in combat. (Magitechnicians, again, can get around this, which is one of the big selling points of the guild. However, it costs a Hit Die to do this, so it's at most once per level per day, and long rests only recover up to one-half of your level in spent Hit Dice at most, so this is not sustainable and it eats into your ability to bounce back during rests.)
3) It's risky; I posted the success rates above. Recall how people would get bent out of shape with even a 10% Arcane Spell Failure chance in 3.5? You have much more than that if you're trying a high-level spell, meaning you stick to a lower level one than you need unless it's an emergency. This exposes it to similar weaknesses of using lower-level spell scrolls. Also, that 3.5 bent-out-of-shapeness was in a paradigm where a failed spell was just a wasted action - here, it's also a mishap, which is not insubstantial damage against you to begin with (which I assume during balancing), and possibly much more if the DM is getting creative. (Again, the magitechnicians get around this to an extent, but only after level 11, and the fail chance on your high level slots is still substantial.)
4) It actually shares the same activation time limit as above (need to be in hand, need to use your action to set them off, and as such make reaction spells impossible and bonus-action spells less useful), augmented by the shorter duration on prototypes and without the exception for long-casting-time spells. (Magitechnicians can't get around this, and in fact feel it stronger, since they rely on Prototype so much. Even they need to spend a turn (and a Hit Die!) setting it up, so you actually get the spell one round after you wanted it - and if circumstances have changed by then such that you no longer want it, tough, the slot is spent and the prototype's duration is ticking.)
 
All of that is independent of the size of your spellbook and the availability of spells to fuel it; it's also (more or less) independent of the delayed spell level acquisition that being a 2/3 caster brings with it. These are not hurdles that can be easily ignored.
And yet it appears you are ignoring them.
 
I left out another "limit" here because it's not so much a limit as an opportunity cost, but artificers - unlike warlocks, sorcerers, and wizards - have zero abilities that restore spell slots, so their limited number of slow-progression spell slots are even smaller in practice relative to their non-bard full-casting brethren. (The ability to cast from craft reserve is functionally equivalent to knowing a small number of extra slots, but you don't get duplicate spells without an opportunity cost, and only the spellforgers' Augmentation Savant and the alchemists's Infuse Bomb are on anything other than a long-rest recharge.)
 
This is the kind of argument you will need to address. A simple "bad gut feeling" based on a different game (3e) without any applicable (5e wizard) experience simply isn't going to cut it.
 
 
(There is another point, too, and that's that it's okay if the artificer excels at something. In the case of schema, its particularly good at inventing a crazy solution involving a lower-level spell and the magical equivalent of duct tape and paper clips, particularly if you're planning ahead for just such an occasion. That, and buffing up the team's gear, is basically the entire artificer.)
 
Revisions Made:
  • I've swapped Precision Reflexes (that really needs a new name...) and Infuse Bomb, I've increased the augment effect of bombs, and I've made them ranged attacks (with the creator having the option of using their casting score instead of Dexterity for the attack roll; they remain Int-based for the damage roll and save DC) instead of spell attacks. Testing showed alchemists took too long to "feel unique" unless they spent just about all of their downtime crafting alchemical items, and if they did that then having a bonus-action attack at 3rd was a little over the top. (This change also puts their bonus-action bomb attack at the same level spellforgers and most other characters get Extra Attack, which is appealing.) Their bombs also didn't have enough of an impact on battle at higher levels - the slower spell level progression hurt alchemists more than anticipated. Switching them to ranged attacks was to make the alchemist particularly appealing to rogues if multiclassing is allowed (a sneak attack bomb is positively deadly), especially because you only need 3 levels to get the bomb now. (Sneak Attack scales faster than bomb damage if you're targeting a single foe, but bomb damage and DC scale better if you're using them in an area.)
  • I also tweaked Precision Reflexes' wording a bit, so you can't use it to use arcane devices as a bonus action. (You can still use the bonus action to retrieve the right device, just not to cast its spell. I don't mind this increased ability to use them - the alchemist technically specializes in Infuse Arcane Device and Infuse Potion, but it's hard to see that underneath the name and the bombs, and that's deliberate - but I don't want it to bust things open.
  • Power Surge has been adjusted so that it can't be used to overload and destroy cursed magic items. I missed this earlier because there aren't any items in the DMG with both charges and curses, but it could easily happen, and I don't want an easy out on this (though Lift Curse still works to temporarily get rid of such items, artificers shouldn't be any better at permanently dealing with such curses than any other class).
  • The golemists' guild now clearly limits you to one homunculus.
  • The Reconstruction and Total Repair spells are slightly altered to reflect their very limited nature.
  • I changed the artificer's base spell list to drop Crusader's Mantle (Disruption Aura), which is a paladin unique otherwise. Crusader's Mantle was really only there because it was on Keith's artificer, but I'm putting more development into this, and the more I think about it, the more I prefer leaving easy radiant damage to the paladin. 
I'm considering limiting the schema to non-unique spells only, and also removing Shield of Faith (Deflection Field), which is also a paladin unique. (There is a third otherwise-unique, Blade Barrier, but artificer spells are sorely limited at the high levels and that one's appropriate.) I'm also considering simplifying the overall language about extra components (exploiting the ability of a component pouch to replace all M components otherwise), but I'm not exactly sure how to go about doing this.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by rampant:

I'm not assuming you're assuming that 24 is the standard and anything else is extra.
 
 
I'm telling you that anything else is extra. Set the standard to whatever the hell you feel it should be, but make a standard. This whole bit where you leave it up to the DM, or random chance, or just the caprices of the game world to determine an important function of a class like how many powers/recipes it can learn is bad class design. It doens't matter how good or bad the numbers are when you compute the chances and statistics. If you're recall the bell curve concept for a moment you'll understand the problem a  little better: Sure most artificers will be within that 1 standard deviation sweetspot where the number of extra powers you get/don't get aren't a huge anomaly. However that still leaves 30-40%, if I'm recalling correctly, out on the extreme ends, and that's assuming everyone has the exact same interpretation of the game's basic assumptions. Yes people can't muck with the rules too much and expect the game to not break, but there needs to be some wriggle room since not everyone is going to interpret things the exact same way especially since they saw fit to provide a price guide if you do wanna make magic items availiable for sale. 
 
What is so special about this idiotic wizard spell knowledge type system that people keep thinking it's not horribly horribly broken? Aside from it being less broken than Cleric casting,
 
A spell book has no upper bound on what it can hold. Sure chances are miniscule this becomes a big deal, but at no point have I been able to find how many pages a spell takes up in the book, only a number of pages in the book, also even if there was such a thing, there;s nothign keeping either wizards or arties from getitng multiple books. 
 
I don't care how many throttles you do or don't have, throttles are the wrong tool for the job. Throttles need someone paying attention to them, running them up and down all the time, an external force controlling them. A well designed class will perform as designed without the DM checking it's vitals every session. I've DMd for 3e wizards and I hated it, always making sure I didn't drop too many scrolls, or not being able to use wizard enemies without developing insane defenses and contingencies on their spell books to keep the party wizard from dramatically increasing his spells known, or using a wizard with a similar spell list to ensure that the gains were minimal. One class's power/versatility should not vary that much. That's like fighters learning the maneuvers of each other fighter they kill, why do wizards and your artificer get to play Highlander the RPG? While the guys with swords get left out to earn their powers the normal way?
 
No you haven't explained why I can't draw upon previous experience when it comes to your artificers and how they can get more spells known, I mentioned several examples that don't involve buying scrolls and are still functional under 5e rules. The only hting 5e doens't do in regards to this type of spell acquisition that 3e did is the whoel eeasy to buy scrolls thing, and honestly they both essentially leave it to the DM, there's just a bit of not-so-subtle encouragement to go one way over the other base dn the which edition you read. FOr example the two artificer party, each artificer can double theyr spells known by trading, nothing in 5e stops this, and it leads to a major boost of both of the artificers' personal versatility/power. Why is this acceptable to you? What makes you think that this is a good thing to enable?
 
What are you actually trying to keep/preserve/accomplish with such a bloody awful and UNBALANCEABLE power acquisition system. Because yes it is unbalanceable, because it's either random or DM controlled, neither of which is a balanced class feature. 
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:

rampant wrote:I'm not assuming you're assuming that 24 is the standard and anything else is extra.
 
 
I'm telling you that anything else is extra. Set the standard to whatever the hell you feel it should be, but make a standard. This whole bit where you leave it up to the DM, or random chance, or just the caprices of the game world to determine an important function of a class like how many powers/recipes it can learn is bad class design. It doens't matter how good or bad the numbers are when you compute the chances and statistics. If you're recall the bell curve concept for a moment you'll understand the problem a  little better: Sure most artificers will be within that 1 standard deviation sweetspot where the number of extra powers you get/don't get aren't a huge anomaly. However that still leaves 30-40%, if I'm recalling correctly, out on the extreme ends, and that's assuming everyone has the exact same interpretation of the game's basic assumptions. Yes people can't muck with the rules too much and expect the game to not break, but there needs to be some wriggle room since not everyone is going to interpret things the exact same way especially since they saw fit to provide a price guide if you do wanna make magic items availiable for sale.
For someone bringing up the bell curve concept, you're remarkably averse to probability distributions or things that aren't of equal utility every single time you play. Do you also assume thief rogues' Use Magic Device is terrible design, because its use is contingent upon the amount of class-limited magic items that appear in a game? What about the assassin rogues' infiltration abilities, whose use varies wildly depending on the amount of long-term social interaction in the game? Or Wild Magic, which is inherently probabilistic (and even more expressly DM-based, since the wild magic surges occur only when you cast a spell and the DM says so - employing a tradeoff by having the DM decide to Surge you also giving you an extra use of Bend Luck)? Or, horror of horrors, any spell that involves damage dice, because what could happen if you roll a string of straight-1s all the time?
 
Note: I don't think all of these are necessarily good design. But they're all examples of cleanly mechanical things whose utility explicitly depends on either the DM's personal fiat or the whim of the dice (or both), and none of them are examples you've brought up as bad design, since you keep latching onto the wizard's spellbook in the hypothetical (and virtually-impossible) "knows every spell" sense that I maintain will not exist in 5e practice.
 
 
(Full disclosure: I'm working on my PhD in cognitive science, specifically based on the mathematical psychology of probability reasoning. I also do casual reading, in my off-time, of statistics methods. So yes, I do understand the idea of a bell curve.)
 
A spell book has no upper bound on what it can hold. Sure chances are miniscule this becomes a big deal, but at no point have I been able to find how many pages a spell takes up in the book, only a number of pages in the book, also even if there was such a thing, there;s nothign keeping either wizards or arties from getitng multiple books.
Pages in the spellbook aren't a resource anymore. (I was surprised at this and actually started writing up rules for that here - schema used to take up twice as many pages as a comparable-level spell (since you had to understand everything about the spell's fundamentals instead of employing arcane shortcuts as a wizard would), and formula would take 2^(N+1) pages, where N was the rarity of the item (1 for Common, 5 for Legendary). I removed this when I confirmed there was no number of pages in a spellbook in the core rules, but I'd definitely suggest similar guidelines for anyone using spellbook space houserules!)
 
You're also completely obsessed with this "no upper bound" bit. Do you also assume that melee characters always roll nothing but critical hits with maximum damage? Because that's what it sounds like to me, except I think the odds of doing that over the course of an entire combat session are actually higher than the odds of a campaign producing a maxed-out spellbook.
 

I don't care how many throttles you do or don't have, throttles are the wrong tool for the job. Throttles need someone paying attention to them, running them up and down all the time, an external force controlling them. A well designed class will perform as designed without the DM checking it's vitals every session.
While a valid perspective, maybe my words weren't the right ones. Most of the things I've used throttles for in the artificer are self-regulating, using things you're already doing in game (notably item creation, which is entirely regulated by what items you're already allowing in-game and how much downtime you're handing out already; there are knobs to twist in case something slips through the cracks (notably adding a quest requirement to a formula), but again, that's only to catch things that slip through the cracks. Those are items that you're okay allowing in the game, but not okay if the players can replace them - and even then, you have lead time to adapt, since they need to build two of the item before they've got spares.)
 
I also discussed, at length, why arcane devices and prototype both had sufficient automatic checks on their power (in both their inherent mechanics and on the psychology of the player using them) to provide limits on how their schema are expressed, even if you have unlimited schema in the book, which you won't. (See the next point.)
 

I've DMd for 3e wizards and I hated it, always making sure I didn't drop too many scrolls, or not being able to use wizard enemies without developing insane defenses and contingencies on their spell books to keep the party wizard from dramatically increasing his spells known, or using a wizard with a similar spell list to ensure that the gains were minimal. One class's power/versatility should not vary that much. That's like fighters learning the maneuvers of each other fighter they kill, why do wizards and your artificer get to play Highlander the RPG? While the guys with swords get left out to earn their powers the normal way?
So you're assuming every wizard NPC you kill has their spellbook on them? And that the loot tables are as loaded with scrolls as they were in 3e? Neither's the case here.
 
For one, the NPC wizards you fight don't follow the player rules. They don't have spellbooks unless you say, fiat-wise, that they do (just like adding magic items to something). Look at the Monster Manual Appendix B (or the entire chapter in the DMG on designing NPCs) and it's quite clear they're not using the PC's rules, although they're similar. None of the spellcasting monsters - including the generic archmage and mage stat blocks - who have wizard spells also have a spellbook (you customize the spells they've got prepared via the rules for customizing NPCs rather than having it be something inherent to their class). In fact, the entire monster manual mentions spellbooks exactly twice (as the fluff reason for a lich's lair dungeon (note: liches also don't have a spellbook!), and as something nagas sometimes search for), and the DMG lists them four times (when providing rules on copying spell scrolls, using the Tome of the Stilled Tongue (a legendary item) as a spellbook (note: It doesn't come with any spells in it, and there's an easy way to instantly erase it), as the potential location for a "charm" (which is a DM fiat gift, similar to but more optional and regulated than wondrous locations), and in a table of random books (i.e. a table of stuff you can use to explain what's on a library shelf if a player investigates; you don't have to use the result of the table (you can reroll or choose again), and if you do, it's entirely up to you what's in it (i.e. just like another option's "Tome of Forbidden Lore" doesn't say what's in it...). None of these are given out as loot (i.e. there's no equivalent to the "Possessions: Spellbook containing X, Y, Z spells" entry from 3e wizard stat blocks). In short, spellbooks as loot only exist when you decide (by fiat) that they exist.
 
For two, the information I lost when my last post collapsed included the chance of getting a spell scroll on each table. I'm not typing them out again; you can look at pages 137-139 to see how likely it is you'll get a specific magic item table and how many times you roll on it, and on pages 144-145 for every table where spell scrolls appear. You can compare this to 3e's DMG if you want to see how likely the system "assumes" you are to get a scroll.
 
For instance, let's look at the most frequent scroll, a 1st level scroll. These only appear on Table A 21% of the time. Table A shows up on the CR 0-4 treasure hoard table 24% of the time (1d6 rolls), on the CR 5-10 table 16% of the time (also 1d6 rolls), and on the CR 11-16 table 14% of the time (1d4 rolls); it doesn't show up as a reward for the CR 17+ table. Again, the system assumes a typical game gives 7 rolls on the first table, 18 rolls on the second, and 12 rolls on the third for your entire party across an entire campaign. This is where the 4.032 expected 1st level scrolls came from.  (Remember that this also assumes no duplicates, as you don't need two scrolls of Alarm unless you have both an artificer and a wizard in the party.)
 
Since you like dealing with absolute maximums, the absolute maximum number of 1st level scrolls that could show up in a typical game is 198. (There will be duplicates, since there are only 72 1st level spells in the game). The probability of this happening is 1.75*10-52. For the record, 10^-52 is about one-tenth of the fraction of energy you'd get when comparing a housefly doing a single pushup to a supernova. This is why I don't consider maximum possible results a discussion worth having.
 
Now, you might consider that this is duplicitous - after all, there are only 72 1st level spells in the game, so I should concern myself with the probability of getting all 72 across those 7+18+12 drops that could contain 1st level scrolls. Let's assume, again, that every scroll you drop is unique, so there are no duplicates (the case with duplicates is needlessly complex, and I don't have a probability distribution for each specific spell, so I'd have to ad-hoc it. If you're actually reading this far, mention bananas at the start of your reply. In any case, the odds of getting all 72 spells allowing for duplicates is lower than the chance of getting 72 scrolls, so this is an absolute best-case scenario). I'm writing an R script to get this exact number for me - I believe it will be low enough to convince anyone reasonable that the odds of this happening are sufficiently low. Unless you're an absolutist who claims it must be zero, at which point I assume that no amount of discussion would ever change your mind, and further discussion would be pointless.
 
 
 
Meanwhile, let's look at the 3.5 DMG.
 
In 3e, simultaneously a bit easier and a bit harder to figure out how the treasure tables work, since the wealth by level guidelines are more firmly baked into the math. I COULD go through Table 3-5 to figure out how many minor, medium, and major items you're expected to find, then use Table 7-1 to figure out how many scrolls those would contain (as an aside, 35% of all minor items, 15% of all medium items, and 10% of all major items), then use Table 7-20 to figure out the level of these scrolls (note: if we're continuing 1st level spells, they only appear as 45% of minor magic items, each scroll holding 1d3 spells). Note: You'd need only 17 minor magic item drops to find more 1st level spells on scrolls than an entire 5e career! Note that 3.5 assumes 13.5 encounters per character level, and levels 1-4 have a 23%, 20%, 20%, and 20% chance of a single minor item drop each. This means that in 3e, you could expect to find 4 1st level scrolls by the start of level 5 (a reminder: you'd find 4 scrolls over 20 levels in 5e), assuming nothing but average rolls. (The maximum number you can have by this point is 54, if the dice entirely rolled in your favor, assuming every single encounter you fight is of equal CR to your party's level.)
 
Alternatively, I can take the shortcut, and look at Wealth By Level guidelines - first level scrolls are freely purchaseable for 25 GP, meaning anyone who has just 800gp is able to buy more scrolls than the absolute maximum number an entire party would find over the course of an entire 5e career. (These would not be duplicates; using a local archive of the D&DTools database, there are 297 1st level wizard spells in 3.5, which would cost less than a +4 belt of giant strength to buy.) The game assumes you get that much treasure in a single 3rd level encounter (though you'd be splitting it with your teammates, so it would take 3.5 encounters of 3rd level for a single wizard in a party of four to amass 800 extra gp). It's not recommended that level 3 characters spend all their wealth this way, but since wizards aren't doing much with their loot until they can afford +Int items, nothing stopped a 3rd level wizard from fighting a third of the way to 4th level and using his fresh earnings to buy more 1st level scrolls than a party of 5e characters would see in their entire career.
 
All of this sets aside that in 5e, you can't research new spells in your downtime. In 3e, you could, and it was rather simple to do so, although it was ill-defined. The only hard and fast rules was that it cost 20gp * spell level * caster level and took one day per spell level to research anything (DMG p.198, the same page that declaed "it's perfectly all right for two PC wizards to share spells", so I presume you've read it). In other words, independent research of four 1st level spells in 3e took 4 days and cost 80gp, which is downright trivial in 3e (and impossible in 5e). Independent research would take only ten months and under 6000gp to learn every single 1st level wizard spell ever written - note that 5e takes a comparable amount of time to learn how to speak a new language or proficiently use a new tool. In other words, a dedicated researcher in 3e could learn two hundred and fifty spells in the same amount of time it takes a dedicated 5e character to learn how to play the drums. Sure, the spells cost more in terms of GP, but again, that amount of wealth is about what a 4th level character could expect to have in 3e in terms of hard assets - and there's no asset more valuable to a 3e wizard than their spells (except, perhaps, their spell slots, but nothing that enhances those can be afforded so easily.).
 
You'll see immediately that 3e, by 5e's standards, is bloated with magic items, both baked into the system's rolls and because it has a permissive magic item economy. By 5e's standards, you're starving for magic items, including scrolls.
 

No you haven't explained why I can't draw upon previous experience when it comes to your artificers and how they can get more spells known, I mentioned several examples that don't involve buying scrolls and are still functional under 5e rules. The only hting 5e doens't do in regards to this type of spell acquisition that 3e did is the whoel eeasy to buy scrolls thing, and honestly they both essentially leave it to the DM, there's just a bit of not-so-subtle encouragement to go one way over the other base dn the which edition you read. FOr example the two artificer party, each artificer can double theyr spells known by trading, nothing in 5e stops this, and it leads to a major boost of both of the artificers' personal versatility/power. Why is this acceptable to you? What makes you think that this is a good thing to enable?
Actually, I did explain this - multiple times, including just now. It's not just the "bloody hard to get scrolls" thing (notice how the 5e system "expects" 4 1st level scrolls over 20 levels, while 3.5 hands out 4 of them in just 4 levels, without buying any?). It's also the lack of enemy spellbooks, since 5e villains follow different rules than 5e's PCs (unlike 3e, which used the same rules for both of them), and there's zero indication that enemy wizards use spellbooks. In fact, the only time I'd expect to find a spellbook in a game is exactly when the DM wished to give a specially-designed one out as loot, and in no other circumstance.
 
Indeed, the only thing 5e does do is allow PC-to-PC trading (with a cost in money and time, though I admit these are small - but they needn't be. I could easily make the time a number of days per level (making it a downtime activity), which really does prevent much of this copying - downtime days are a resource the DM hands out, except they can't be banked, and they get more and more precious as character levels go up if the AL is any standard. This sentence is a reminder to mention bananas at the start of your next reply, like I said six paragraphs ago.  Furthermore, spending downtime days on developing schema cuts into downtime days you could spend crafting items.). As I mentioned, sharing doesn't double the number you expect - it only increases the base number by, at most, your level +1, since all artificers start with the same two spells (detect magic and identify) and any scrolls you find add just one spell to your team's collective repertoire instead of adding two. 
 
And this also comes with the opportunity cost of having two of your limited players choosing the Artificer class, instead of one that's got better combat ability (say, Fighter) or faster spell access and better spell stamina (say, Wizard), or one that has more consistently-available class resources and social skills (say, Rogue), or one with all of the above (say, Valor bard). The artificer excels in versatility, especially when he's not under time pressure, but he suffers in sustained combat output - something that a party with two artificers will definitely be able to feel!
 
Furthermore, see above regarding how the throttles work (without DM intervention) even in the case of knowing every spell. They'll work whether or not the artificer knows every spell or not (and I would be very willing to bet you that no artificer played under typical conditions will have every spell).
 

What are you actually trying to keep/preserve/accomplish with such a bloody awful and UNBALANCEABLE power acquisition system. Because yes it is unbalanceable, because it's either random or DM controlled, neither of which is a balanced class feature. 
Again with intolerance of probability. If, for instance, the 95% confidence interval on the number of spells known falls completely within the "balanced" region, then I'd be confident saying that the class is balanced, even if the utterly remote possiblity of knowing absolutely everything exists.
 
I'll be sure to get back with you with the probability of an artificer actually knowing every 1st level spell. (I'll focus, for now, just on the 1sts, since it's a concrete problem and that's the level of spell that's cheapest to build devices and prototypes for.) I'll express it both as a percentage and as the number of artificers one would have to build before expecting you'd find one who did it. 
 
I will change my mind on this if, say, the number was just 5%, or higher, and I say that before I've run the analysis. You can hold me to it. What number would change yours?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revisions Made:
  • Spells from Elemental Evil have been added. The artificer now has access to Catapult (a ballistic spell that violently launches an item a great distance; it's shared by sorcerers and wizards) and Magic Stone (a cantrip that causes a small number of stones to attack using your Int modifier and deal slightly improved damage; due to its duration and effect I think it's appropriate despite my usual ban on offensive cantrips for the artificer. It's shared by druids and warlocks).
  • While I was at it, I added Cordon of Arrows to the artificer's spell list, removed the reflavoring on Deflection Field, and deleted Counterspell. The first is the only "trap" spell they couldn't cast, and it's not like rangers ever really learned the spell either. The second is now vanilla Shield of Faith, which saves some presentation space and leaves the fluff up to the player. The third reflects how only the "pure" arcanists - wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks - can counter a spell while it's being cast. The artificer is less of a "pure" caster than even the bard, and is less arcane than that. 
  • I've been re-writing the new spells in proper spell format, but none of the changes this has introduced are worth including at this point until I finish them.
  • There might be one more spell added if I can figure out if it breaks anything (Make Whole; it's curiously missing from this edition. If I include it, it'll also be on the cleric list, where it's always been).
  • Minor editing; nothing serious has changed. The biggest tweak was a clarification on how a golemists' homunculus works with arcane devices and prototypes (it's basically the same mechanic as Find Familiar's touch spell transfer, except you also need to spend a bonus action to command the homunculus, which prevents certain spell strategies from working).
If people are curious, I went through the list and noted which spells were previously "unique" (castable by only one non-artificer class) that wouldn't be unique if you use the artificer. These are the "unique class feature" spells that the artificer can "poach" using his own spells instead of arcane devices. If I make the proposed change (that spells that only appear on one non-artificer list can't be made into schema, which will prevent "class feature spells" like Hex and Hunter's Mark from being built), these will still be "poached".
 Shield of Faith (Paladin) - On the artificer list because it's a basic defensive buff and has been on the artificer in some form or another from the get-go. Nothing about it's inherently divine apart from the name, and Keith directly addressed Shield of Faith on his own hack.Arcane Lock (Wizard) - On the artificer list because they interact with objects more readily than wizards. Also slightly trap-themed, and they've both got Knock...Cordon of Arrows (Ranger) - On the artificer list because it's another magical trap, and directly imbues items with magic.Elemental Weapon (Paladin) - On the artificer list because it fits with their augmentation/magic weapon theme. In a sense, it's the paladin emulating the artificer's proficiency here instead of the other way around. (Elemental Evil does introduce a non-unique variant in Flame Arrows, which is also a 3rd level spell, but limited entirely to a quiver, is fixed to fire, and lacks the +X bonus.)Fabricate (Wizard) - On the artificer list because, again, it's direct manipulation of objects. This is a spell that both classes should have.Blade Barrier (Cleric) - On the artificer list as a rare combat spell, it directly controls the weapons forming its components. I also never saw why this was cleric-only, apart from historical reasons. View it as a level-up of Animate Objects. On the flipside, none of the 18 new spells here are on any other spell list as yet (that is, they're unique to the artificer), but I could be convinced to move a couple around.  For comparison, here's how many uniques are on other lists (including those from Elemental Evil, but not counting the "poached" spells, and ignoring subclasses):Bard: 4Cleric: 27Druid: 20 (but the Elemental Evil Player's Companion implies not every druid may necessarily have access to all of the new elemental ones)Paladin: 18Ranger: 8Sorcerer: 0 (I can't be the only one who finds this sad.)Warlock: 6Wizard: 35
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by rampant:

I don't care about % chance, what part "Powers known should not be based on chance and or DM fiat!" leads you to think I care if the odds are 1% or 99%?
 
Your system assumes iron adherence to the assumptions and chances from the DMG, when the artificer originally springs from Eberron, a place that specifically thumbs it's nose at those assumptions.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:

rampant wrote:I don't care about % chance, what part "Powers known should not be based on chance and or DM fiat!" leads you to think I care if the odds are 1% or 99%?
Oh, so you're an absolutist. No amount of evidence can possibly change your mind - the position of the fundamentalist.
 
By the way, good thing they're not powers. This is not 4e. This isn't even your spells-known list in 5e. This is far more limited than that.
 

Your system assumes iron adherence to the assumptions and chances from the DMG, when the artificer originally springs from Eberron, a place that specifically thumbs it's nose at those assumptions.
What part of this did you not read earlier?

Tempest_Stormwind wrote:I'm still not sure if the same degree of adjustment is true for the book of schema. That's one of the reasons why I defaulted to making it about half the size of a wizard's spellbook. You have a wider possible array of spells to select from, but only half as much space to carry them by default, so presumably the amount of work you'd need to do just to reach standard wizard levels will vary in 5e standard compared to Eberron. And guessing what form that Eberron's item economy will take is pure speculation at this point. (My guesses are that they'll either change item rarities and make common items available for purchase (possibly with a licensing or black-market system to provide a DM some check on this; Star Wars: Saga Edition did this in a really simple way that made getting certain things very difficult, and changed the dynamic for shopping between civilization and the fringes, which'd work in any setting with bureaucracy, including Eberron; Rodney Thomson was a Saga designer), or they'll introduce a tag on items that marks if they're being manufactured and available for sale at their original rarity.)

...
 
You also have to design within the constraints of 5e. One of those constraints is that scrolls aren't freely purchaseable. That's what I'm testing within. I can't foresee how available they'd become in games with more liberal economies, at least not without a point of reference (i.e. a 5e Eberron Campaign Setting Guide). But I do know that if I set it to be robust against all possible modifications (say, by adopting a spells-known model for schema), then the artificer ceases to feel like an artificer to me even in the assumed and shared 5e standard. I'd rather risk a potential imbalance in the face of a DM's houserule than ultimately producing a castrated version of the class - seeing as that's exactly the direction that WotC's Unearthed Arcana article tried to take, and if I thought that worked, then I wouldn't have done this project at all.
Without a point of reference for Eberron's economy, I'd be aiming at a nonexistent target, blindfolded. I also said that once such guidelines come out, I'll gladly re-evaluate everything, but if it's robust under the normal assumptions, it'll work in the meantime.
 
Or, if you want a 4e example, dragonborn were part of the "Nentir Vale / Points of Light" setting, designed with that in mind. Doesn't stop them from being designed with the generic assumptions about 5e in mind, which causes them to work just fine in other settings (provided there isn't a thematic conflict - there would be in Eberron's Khorvaire due to how that setting handles dragons. But that's a fluff issue, not a crunch one). When a setting book comes out, it adjusts the standard assumptions but accounts for where those assumptions sit. (For instance, Eberron handles half-elves very differently from the core rules - they're not outsiders or ambassadors, they're a proud separate race with ego issues and a lot of money. But they still use exactly the same stats as normal half-elves, just for different narrative reasons. The game assumed the standard, world-less half-elf stats and wrote the setting around it.)
 
 
Also, I can tell you didn't read my last reply. You didn't say the magic word.
 

RealAlHazred

Frumious Flumph (Your Grace/Your Eminence)
Originally posted by DarkSphinx:

In all of the Augmentation material...

 
Personal Weapon Augmentation
 
While fighting with a weapon under the influence of your Weapon Augmentation spell, you may use your Intelligence modifier on attack and damage rolls. The weapon also deals bonus damage of the chosen type at 5th (+1d4), 11th (+2d4), and 17th (+3d4) level. 
Prolonged Augmentation 
At 7th level, Weapon Augmentation and Armor Augmentation spells you cast now last up to 1 hour while you maintain concentration.
 Sustained AugmentationAt 10th level, Weapon Augmentation and Armor Augmentation spells you cast no longer require concentration. Expanded AugmentationAt 15th level, when you cast Weapon Augmentation or Armor Augmentation (using a shield), you can choose necrotic, psychic, poison, or radiant damage. Armor Augmentation using a suit of armor is now effective against magic weapons. Armor Augmentation
 
1st level transmutation
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: M (a bit of powdered metal, artisan's tools, and the armor or shield itself)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute or until you no longer wear the armor or shield
The touched armor or shield is magically transmuted to protect its bearer. The touched item becomes magical and grants its wearer resistance to one damage type. If you touch a suit of armor, choose bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage; magical weapons ignore this resistance. If you touch a shield, choose acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage.
At higher levels: For every spell level higher than 1st, this spell can affect an additional armor or shield in range (which becomes another component).
 
 
Weapon Augmentation
1st level transmutation
Casting time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Components: M (a bit of powdered metal, artisan's tools, and the weapon itself)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute or until the weapon is no longer wielded
You infuse a melee weapon with elemental energy. Alternatively, you can infuse a quiver, and any ammunition present when you do gains the benefit instead. Choose acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage. The weapon is now a magic weapon which deals damage of that type in place of one of its normal damage types. 
At higher levels: For every spell level higher than 1st, this spell can affect an additional weapon in range (which becomes another component).
==========================================
 
 
I didn't see "force" as an option for damage type.  Is this a purposeful omission?
 
-DS
 
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top