D&D Releases Playtest for Updated Artificer

Wizards of the Coast has dropped a new Unearthed Arcana Playtest for the Artificer, bringing the often neglected 13th Dungeons & Dragons 5E class into alignment with the 2024 rules update. The playtest was released via D&D Beyond today, with feedback launching on December 24th.

The Artificer gains several new abilities, many of which are designed with an eye to making the class more versatile. For instance, players can now craft low-cost items quickly with a revamped Magical Tinkering ability, while Infuse Item ha been changed to Replicate Magic Item and allows players to replicate magic items of certain rarities and item type. Players can also use the Magic Item Tinker ability to convert a Replicated magic item into a spell slot. The capstone Soul of Artifice ability has also received a buff, with the Artificer no needing a Reaction in order to utilize its ability to skip death saving throws and restoring more health as well.

The subclasses were also updated. For example, the Alchemist's Experimental Elixir producing more elixirs and Chemical Mastery getting a big boost with extra damage, resistance, and the ability to cast Tasha's Bubbling Cauldron. The Armorer has a new Dreadnought option and Armor Modifications was replaced with a new ability called Armor Replication. The Artillerist's Eldritch Cannon can switch between various options instead of being set to one option and the Explosive Cannon ability does more damage and only requires a Reaction to use. Finally, the Battle Smith has received minor adjustments to its Steel Defender construct.

Compared to many other class updates in the 2024 Player's Handbook, the Artificer's changes are much less drastic. There are some obvious updates that bring the class in line with the design updates to other classes, but it didn't receive a major rework like several other classes.

 

[Zaukrie]

Considering how many fans think they can out-design WotC and then make the most broken, convoluted rules imaginable, I think WotC is wise to limit their feedback. I can only imagine how many people posted their own manifestos and house rules rather than discuss what WotC is working on.

They have no idea why someone picked green or red at this point. It's terrible survey design. The inability to make an overall comment is truly baffling. Unless they don't want feedback.

 

[Hussar]

They have no idea why someone picked green or red at this point. It's terrible survey design. The inability to make an overall comment is truly baffling. Unless they don't want feedback.

And you got it in one. They don’t want feedback. At least not how you mean. They are getting tens of thousands of responses to these UA’s. The time and effort to go through all that is staggering. So they are streamlining as much as possible.

Too much red on an answer? Dump it and move on. Why is there too much? They don’t care. Something gets green across the board? Job done. Yellow gets a second look.

Why would reasons matter?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They have no idea why someone picked green or red at this point.

It says in the instructions. You pick green if like the feature as is. You pick red if you think the feature is beyond saving. If you hate the fundamental design of the class, WotC aren't interested in your opinion, because that isn't up for change.

It's terrible survey design.

It's ideal for this situation, where they just want to update an existing class. It would be less good if the overall design (and existence) of the class was up for change.

And it's much less likely to see the "auto-reject if it scores less than 70% positive" that went with the earlier survey design.

 

[Weiley31]

I can't believe they didn't nerf that in other ways to compensate. There's no way that makes it through UA as is!

Artificer is bottom 3 unless you abuse enspelled items. Spell storing item for 11+. Broken item abusing Artificer is top 5 in ~level 6-15

My favorite spell to put on Spell Storing Item is Vortex Warp. It's fun to teleport things around the battlefield. Getting 3rd level options is nice though.

LEVEL 11: SPELL-STORING ITEM
Whenever you finish a Long Rest, you can touch one Simple or Martial weapon or one item that you can use as a Spellcasting Focus, and you store a spell in it, choosing a level 1, 2, or 3 Artificer spell that has a casting time of an action (you needn't have the spell prepared).

I feel like Spell Storing, as is, will not survive the UA. It just seems hella nice. Especially since your BattleSmith pet can use it as well.

 

[humble minion]

I voted red on spell storing, I have to admit. It's potent to the point that the entire class is kinda built around it, and it really comes out of nowhere. All of a sudden, your artificer who could last level use 2 3rd level spells per day, can now use 13. II get that they were probably trying to beef up the alchemist (especially) that has no real combat options that mean anything at higher levels, but it's a wild power jump, and I think that's poor design.

Bit glum about the whole UA, to be honest. It just screams conservatism, don't rock the boat, minimal changes, and a failure to seriously address the things that were the real problem last time. The poor old alchemist really needs a complete rethink if it's going to be a useful combat subclass, but it got almost nothing. I quite like the dreadnought option for the Armorer, but if it isn't made VERY clear that Replicate Magic Item can be used on arcane armor's inbuilt weapons, and if both inbuilt weapons and armour can't be enhanced with Replicate Magic Item simultaneously, then I question how viable it'll be long term.

Also I yelled a bit about how if you get a tool profiency related to your subclass when you enter your subclass, and you already have that proficiency, you should be able to choose to double the proficiency bonus for that tool rather than just pick a different, unrelated one.

Oh yeah, and the new survey format stinks on toast. Fix the text boxes so we can read everything we write at once, give a feedback option when we vote red so we can say WHY we did, and for pete's sake add in a place to talk about general feedback rather than specific features or details. This is D&D for crying out loud. It's ALL ABOUT synergies and the interaction of abilities. Feedback depends on context and design philosophy , and they're not giving us a place to talk about this stuff.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It just screams conservatism, don't rock the boat, minimal changes, and a failure to seriously address the things that were the real problem last time.

Despite what some people claim, it's not a new edition. The class is being tweaked, not redesigned (and remember this version was the third attempt to do it for 5e).

Also I yelled a bit about how if you get a tool profiency related to your subclass when you enter your subclass, and you already have that proficiency, you should be able to choose to double the proficiency bonus for that tool rather than just pick a different, unrelated one.

One of the things that has changed in 2024 D&D is that tools no longer function in the same way as skills. So double proficiently in a tool is now a meaningless concept. See rogue.

 

[abirdcall]

I voted red on spell storing, I have to admit. It's potent to the point that the entire class is kinda built around it, and it really comes out of nowhere. All of a sudden, your artificer who could last level use 2 3rd level spells per day, can now use 13. II get that they were probably trying to beef up the alchemist (especially) that has no real combat options that mean anything at higher levels, but it's a wild power jump, and I think that's poor design.

Bit glum about the whole UA, to be honest. It just screams conservatism, don't rock the boat, minimal changes, and a failure to seriously address the things that were the real problem last time. The poor old alchemist really needs a complete rethink if it's going to be a useful combat subclass, but it got almost nothing. I quite like the dreadnought option for the Armorer, but if it isn't made VERY clear that Replicate Magic Item can be used on arcane armor's inbuilt weapons, and if both inbuilt weapons and armour can't be enhanced with Replicate Magic Item simultaneously, then I question how viable it'll be long term.

Also I yelled a bit about how if you get a tool profiency related to your subclass when you enter your subclass, and you already have that proficiency, you should be able to choose to double the proficiency bonus for that tool rather than just pick a different, unrelated one.

Oh yeah, and the new survey format stinks on toast. Fix the text boxes so we can read everything we write at once, give a feedback option when we vote red so we can say WHY we did, and for pete's sake add in a place to talk about general feedback rather than specific features or details. This is D&D for crying out loud. It's ALL ABOUT synergies and the interaction of abilities. Feedback depends on context and design philosophy , and they're not giving us a place to talk about this stuff.

We have entirely different views on what D&D is all about.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

It says in the instructions. You pick green if like the feature as is. You pick red if you think the feature is beyond saving. If you hate the fundamental design of the class, WotC aren't interested in your opinion, because that isn't up for change.

It's ideal for this situation, where they just want to update an existing class. It would be less good if the overall design (and existence) of the class was up for change.

And it's much less likely to see the "auto-reject if it scores less than 70% positive" that went with the earlier survey design.

I love this change.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

They have no idea why someone picked green or red at this point. It's terrible survey design. The inability to make an overall comment is truly baffling. Unless they don't want feedback.

This is not (and I do not believe the UA process ever was) about crowd sourcing design. It is about marketing. Is this marketable, that is would it be accepted in the market.
Green = Yes, Red = No and Yellow, we will iterate on that. The particulars of why we like or dislike a thing is immaterial, because it will be for a mixed bag of reasons, many of which are irreconcilable. They probably have enough feedback from previous UAs to know if that is actually true.
Green, it will sell, and they are only interested in what will sell.

 

[Distracted DM]

This is not (and I do not believe the UA process ever was) about crowd sourcing design. It is about marketing. Is this marketable, that is would it be accepted in the market.
Green = Yes, Red = No and Yellow, we will iterate on that. The particulars of why we like or dislike a thing is immaterial, because it will be for a mixed bag of reasons, many of which are irreconcilable. They probably have enough feedback from previous UAs to know if that is actually true.
Green, it will sell, and they are only interested in what will sell.

Eek. Has it gotten that bad?