Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="xiphumor" data-source="post: 8765186" data-attributes="member: 7033055">I want to preface this by saying that I think Andrew Engelbrite did a fantastic job designing A5e’s Artificer. Fizzle dice in particular are a statistical stroke of brilliance, and the schematics mechanic is an elegant way to expand on where the O5e Artificer felt limited.However, as I’ve been mulling over the class which is intended to be A5e’s master craftsman, I can’t help but think that a few of the features - specifically Tactical Chemistry, Battlefield Smithing, and Magical Automaton - incline themselves more toward heavier, dirtier, mechanical trades. (The existing archetypes in A5e and O5e also share this bias, but as an intrinsically modular part of the class, they aren’t an issue in of themselves.)Perhaps this bias is just how the Artificer ought to be, but as I glance down the list of tools in the AG and think about what it would mean for an Artificer to represent a seamstress, cook, jeweler, or other, more delicate crafts, the features mentioned above don’t seem well equipped to support those archetypes, even though most of the class does.My questions are:1. Should the Artificer be modified in order to better support these archetypes, or would it better to leave the Artificer alone and have these ideas implemented elsewhere in the game?2. If the Artificer should be modified, how can this best be done? What kinds of features would help the class be more inclusive and representative of the whole spectrum of crafts and trades?</blockquote>

Verification