Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749968" data-attributes="member: 25818">Originally posted by Tempest_Stormwind:That's possible, but a hearty endeavor, and it treads over design space that already exists (i.e. if spells already do that style of work, why re-invent spells?). It also makes magic item treasure less relevant, since you can more-or-less-freely cook up optimal gear even in games where magic items are scarce. This hits the problem with the ranger you raised upthread (and I addressed in a post you said you didn't read), and it conflicts with Design Goal 1. Mine's limited too, in different ways. Once a bard has a spell from another class, it's his to use as he sees fit. Once an artificer learns a schema, he still has to build the device to use it, and those carry greater limitations.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Delayed spell access (there's a reason you don't rely on Eldritch Knights as primary casters)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reliance on time to build your devices (one device or potion per short rest, or a solid minute to cook up an unreliable prototype)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Super costly prices (compare how costly an arcane device of level X is to an Elements monk's spells; ki points and craft reserve are pretty much on the same scale. They're comparable - and elemental monks aren't known for bringing much magic to the table!)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Narrow spell selection (both in normal spells (which only really work on objects) and in schema (since you learn so few of them to begin with)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inability to make use of bonus-action or reaction spells except the rare few on the artificer list itself</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Very limited skill list (notably with zero social skills and very few exploration skills).</li> </ul>That's just off the top of my head. There are more.It cannot do everything anyone else can do. In your own specific case, try convincing a guard to let you past. Bards are made for this with a few smooth words and a winning smile (and magic if all else fails); artificers have to build a mind-control device to have a chance of success here, which takes time, eats up resources, and has a chance of failure (low arcane device DC and Prototype failure rates), and after all that it produces an effect that the bard outgrew several levels ago. I've been running this through various gauntlets for the past several months. If anything, test characters often came up too narrow in focus. Sure, the class as a whole has a lot of flexibility, but any individual artificer does not. Remember the 3e sorcerer? The class, as a whole, had a huge range of flexibility through access to the largest spell list ever printed. Despite this, no one remembers the sorcerer as being a paragon of versatility.Fair enough, but I also challenge you to look through the actual class and build an artificer of your own design, at a level of your choosing, that can rival the versatility of an equivalently-levelled Valor bard (not even a Lore bard, a Valor bard) that I build. You decided that the bard is your hallmark of versatility, which is why I'm selecting it here. This challenge might require a few words, though.[sblock] In favor of your design:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Assuming an intricately developed modular invention system, the PCs will be able to create tools of their own design using simple, non-spell-based building blocks and exploiting the interactions between them. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">With enough building blocks, the system could accommodate virtually unlimited potential devices, which could be concentrated in one truly epic Rube Goldberg device or spread out across multiple party members, potentially using the same resource to manage it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In theory, this system would be translatable to multiple classes, in effect turning anyone into whatever flavor of artificer you desire. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If an actual artificer class, subclass, or feat is designed, it can dovetail with this system (in a manner similar to how the spell-less ranger or the Martial Adept feat dovetail with the Battle Master fighter maneuver list). </li> </ul>However, against this design:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spells already provide building blocks; this is reinventing the wheel.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The game already uses spells as basic components common to all classes - for instance, there's no arcane/divine distinction, and what used to be spell-like abilities are now just "can cast X spell". Even sophisticated variants are just modifications to this base system - for instance, psionics, so far, is just innate spellcasting without components.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Blocks based on the DMG magic items make the assumption that such items are appropriate for any world that would potentially allow this creation system.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Furthermore, this system assumes that it is appropriate to give players control over which magic items are present in the world, something that no other class even comes close to doing (except possibly the ranger in regards to foes and environments, which you identified upthread as a problem).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This system would still hit some of the same limits mine does, notably in requiring a solution to preventing it from introducing a magic item economy in any world that doesn't already have one. Including, notably, 5e's "default" world.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Such a system is an immense undertaking. Assume a simple system: devices consist of a Red block, a Green block, and a Blue block, and each color of block has six possible states to choose from (note: there are 16 battle master maneuvers and 17 elemental disciplines; I did not make this number up out of thin air), you have to consider 216 possible three-block devices (assuming you can't duplicate a color) when evaluating their impact on the game. For comparison, the wizard has 230 spells (excluding cantrips but including the spells in Elemental Evil), and the wizard was closely scrutinized by the entire Wizards D&D staff and an Internet full of playtesters for years.</li> </ul>Note that none of these are against that specific implementation of the artificer, particularly as a DM or player - it's against the scope of this undertaking as a designer. Against my own artificer:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The class involves tracking two sets of spells - your schema and whichever spells you've prepared.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You need to be creative in describing the results of your devices to really capture the "inventor" feel - an "arcane device of Tongues" makes you sound like every boring spellcaster, but a helmet that speaks its wearer's words in a different language, made from a discarded hobgoblin skull and some spare silver dust, feels more like the mad inventor.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Choosing one spell from any list in the book takes a surprisingly long time, so levelling up at the playing table takes a while.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Craft reserve recharges at two separate rates, requiring a bit more bookkeeping than normal (I use two piles of stones (available, and coming back next short rest) and a storage bag (coming back next long rest).)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Delayed spell access requires a teensy bit more arithmetic than usual, if you aren't just writing down the numbers on your sheet. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Delayed spell access also makes you feel like you're playing second fiddle if you learn schema from spell lists that other party members choose from (although this isn't true if you're focusing on other lists, since there aren't PCs of that class at your table to compare yourself to)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Magecraft puts it on par with rogues on handling traps for one hour per craft reserve spent, meaning rogues are slightly less unique specifically in regards to thieves' tools</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Access to any spell list lets it crib unique spells (i.e. Hex, Hunter's Mark, or Bless), further reducing the uniqueness of those other classes*</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Extremely reliant on rests to re-tool its equipment; if you don't have the perfect tool already built and don't want to risk a prototype failing, it takes a short rest to pull a rabbit out of your hat</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">For all of the hoops it needs to jump through, individual artificers still only have a small list of unconventional effects to draw upon; I may have been overly conservative in limiting flexibility</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It can't really "invent" new magic items, even if the world would normally allow for this, without the same DM fiat that any other class would need</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The construct-specific elements of it, notably the Golemists' Guild, implies a higher level of Constructs than most campaign settings employ</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If multiclassing is allowed, Expertise (Arcana) makes prototypes much more reliable at low levels, cribbing the 11th level magitechnician ability possibly much earlier; meanwhile, MCing into artificer might let you cast one more 5th or 6th level spell than you normally would (from any list).**</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">All the testing I've done apparently hasn't translated into a simple class - there's still apparently plenty of complexity that I haven't successfully hidden.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">...I'm running short on time and honestly starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel here.</li> </ul> *I do share this concern, and have been debating whether or not to require a spell to appear on at least two spell lists before the artificer can learn it, with the fluff justification that unique spells are too intrinsic to the training style of individual classes to duplicate from first principles without actually being in that class yourself. My testing has shown that this isn't necessary, but it does remain on the table. **I addressed this point in the spoiler block in my previous reply. [/sblock]Does that suffice? When you mount criticism of my artificer, I ask too that you consider the three listed design goals in your evaluation:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It has to be playable with standard 5e assumptions about magic items as well as in worlds like Eberron (including not forcing an economy where one doesn't belong)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It has to feel like the original artificer; I concur with Keith's summation <a href="http://keith-baker.com/extra-life-hacking-the-artificer/" target="_blank">here</a></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It has to be at least as simple to play as 5e's spellcasters, and presentable without an incredible amount of text. (The math used to develop it can be longer, as long as that complexity is hidden in the final result.)</li> </ul>Your proposal here dramatically challenges Goal 1, compromises on Goal 2, and hits the second half of Goal 3 with a depth charge. This isn't to say that it's a bad implementation, it just means that our design goals don't overlap. I'd like to know which of those goals you disagree with or consider unreasonable, and why, and what your goals would be in a similar project.</blockquote>

Verification