Artificer UA to be released in February

I don't think there is a bunker strong enough to endure the fanbase exploding over this.

 

[André Soares]

I liked the Artificer that appeared in UA, I felt it just needed a couple more archetypes and some fixes to it's companion feature (hopefully regulated to a subclass). I was completely fine with it's "sort of like sneak attack" features the subclasses got. It felt different enough from other classes, which is what I felt was great.

And I liked the Gunsmith, it was never meant to be a gunslinger and I saw it as more of a prototype weapon designer, as it was implied that a Gunsmith Artificer might be the only people in the world using guns. I also didn't feel that Artificers need to adhere to what's in Eberron. Artificers shouldn't be exclusive to Eberron as there are many out there who have homebrew campaigns, where they can pick and choose what they want.

While I agree Artificers shouldn't be exclusive to Eberron, I believe they should feel like they would fit in Eberron. And sadly that's not the case with that version of the class. None of the subclasses make much sense looking in what the class was in Eberron, and to me that is a problem. You don't need it to fit only Eberron, but at least part of it should mamke sense in that world. Even more so if it will be published in an Eberron book. Maybe you put the more Eberron centric subclasses there, and later you add some that represent how the class would make more sense in other worlds, in another book.

 

[Charles Rampant]

One of my most memorable characters in 3.5 was an artificer, and I enjoyed what it was at the time, but it definitely felt like it was more of a mechanical byproduct of the specific rules of 3e than a archetypal concept with rules created to match. There was no strong build for an alchemist, a mechanical tinkerer, a robot builder, or any of the other concepts you see in popular visions of the fantasy inventor. It played around with XP costs and pushed around crafting budgets but, for the most part, it didn't really do anything that different from other spellcasters in 3.5. It could buff armor and weapons, but so could the wizard or cleric. It could stack metamagic onto wands but other classes were doing mechanically identical things by stacking metamagic onto spell slots. Once you strip away effects that other classes are already doing, what was really left?

As a concept, the artificer would really benefit from being a legit alchemist, gunsmith, golemancer, arcance macguyver, et al. I want to see it doing stuff that no other class in 5e is doing, instead of trying to emulate what it did in 3.5, which was essentially wrapping the class features of other classes into new packages. The way these things manifest could, and should, involve magical crafting, but, as you point out, the artificer will be spared the cumbersomeness of 3e magical crafting rules.

That's a really interesting point. It touches on (my view of) the essential problem with the Warlord class as well - that it was built to fulfil a rules niche, not a story niche, meaning that it is not simply a case of finding the best way to do its story in the new rules set. You could say that Rangers and Sorcerers have the same problem but to a much lesser extent.

Either way, I've no particular horses in the Artificer race, not being that fussed by it either way, but I'm really hoping it is nothing like that homebrew one that people linked, which is twenty eight pages long. D&D 5e material needs to be sleek.

 

[TwoSix]

Either way, I've no particular horses in the Artificer race, not being that fussed by it either way, but I'm really hoping it is nothing like that homebrew one that people linked, which is twenty eight pages long. D&D 5e material needs to be sleek.

Just to address the complexity issue, which the creator mentions in the Reddit post:

"The most common criticism I get is that the class is too complicated. I think this is probably true, but I don't think it is worth simplifying - and let me explain what I mean by that. The people that are going out to go find an Homebrew Artificer are looking for a class that has actual depth, so it is better served in having depth than being as 5e compliant as possible in terms of streamlining. If I was writing the new WotC version, I'd make cuts I wouldn't make to my Homebrew version... but probably not as many as I expect WotC to make."

That being said, a lot of us like our crunch to be actually crunchy. Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is too sleek for my tastes.

 

[ad_hoc]

Just to address the complexity issue, which the creator mentions in the Reddit post:

"The most common criticism I get is that the class is too complicated. I think this is probably true, but I don't think it is worth simplifying - and let me explain what I mean by that. The people that are going out to go find an Homebrew Artificer are looking for a class that has actual depth, so it is better served in having depth than being as 5e compliant as possible in terms of streamlining. If I was writing the new WotC version, I'd make cuts I wouldn't make to my Homebrew version... but probably not as many as I expect WotC to make."

That being said, a lot of us like our crunch to be actually crunchy. Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is too sleek for my tastes.

I think you're right and one reason I will probably never use homebrew.

I'm just not the market for it.

I'm glad for this system though. All those who are wanting more more more from WotC really ought to check out the things other people are making.

 

[Azzy]

Fitting 3 or 4 subclasses across 2 pages is too sleek for my tastes.

Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.

 

[TwoSix]

Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.

I was talking subclasses, i.e. Xanathar's. XgtE has 3-4 subclasses that fit on 2 pages.

The referenced Artificer has 6 subclasses, each of which has 15-20 custom upgrades to pick from (which are similar to Warlock invocations). It would be easy to trim down, but then it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

 

[cbwjm]

Considering most classes run about 5-8 pages, I doubt there's a chance of 2 pages. Even still, 20-odd pages is waaaay too much for a single class—even with 3-4 subclasses. If a class (especially one for 5e) can't be handled in under 10 pages, something's amiss IMO.

I think some people like a little more complexity for their classes. I do like the simplicity of 5e but sometimes I'd like something with a few more moving parts.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think some people like a little more complexity for their classes. I do like the simplicity of 5e but sometimes I'd like something with a few more moving parts.

This is why I end up playing more Warlocks than anything else. Between Patron, Pact Boon, Spells, and Invocations, there are just enough decision points to hold my interest. Most other 5e classes just don’t have enough going on, they all feel extremely bland and same-y to me.

 

[JPL]

I have a player in my Eberron game using KibbleTasty's expanded Artificer class that they built up from the previous WotC UA and thus far it works well.

Now that is a pretty hip class. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Luke Biltcliffe]

Is it that upgrade by xp to level 3.