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.

 

[Hussar]

Eek. Has it gotten that bad?

Gotten?

It has always been thus.

 

[mellored]

That's awful survey design. Wow. Note, I used to do survey design for a living....

I think it's because they laid off most of the people that read the surveys for the playtest.

This way, it trims back on all the:"this sucks" and "this is great" comments, which was probably at least half of them.

I doubt they have an AI good enough to sort though the comments otherwise.

 

[mellored]

As for the actual feedback. I agree spell Storing item is all of sudden way too much.

I do like the artificer being an old-school prepared caster who has to pick their spells at the start of the day, as well as passing them out, but going from 2 fireballs to 13 slots is too much of a spike.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

It doesn't matter if you like it or if you think the whole feature is worthless. They care if you think it sparks joy, doesn't, or somewhat (and what parts don't).

Take Magical Tinkering. What does the stoplight represent for it? Depends what color its majority gets:

Green: The idea works as printed but might get some adjustments based on final balance tweaking (for example, deciding the bedroll option is too OP or that it needs more lanterns). This is basically the mid-80s or 90% rating.
Red: This idea did not work and it's time to replace it with something new. They aren't going to fix it; they are going to look back at the original feature and see what they can do to punch that up. This is sub 70% ratings.
Yellow: It has merit, but it's just not hitting. They will look at the list to see why (duration, specific list, etc) and adjust from there. They may not take your suggested "fixes", but they are going to see what the pain point was and adjust. This was your 70-low 80% bracket.

If you are looking for targeted fixes, it's a decent system. They aren't interested in praise or damnation, just "does this work for you?"

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Not to pick on you, but this is WHY they limited feedback. D&D 2024 isn't even completely out yet, and we've only had the PHB for four months. I don't think there is a large group of players who have used the new rules and certainly haven't done so for long if they have. We really haven't had the time to pick up on all the nuances. In specific, the tool proficiency model has changed. You can't get expertise in a tool anymore. The artificer HAD "expertise" in EVERY tool and they took it away because tools don't work like that. Further, the "pick a different tool" is verbatim from the 2014 version. Thus, giving them expertise in a tool they already have is pointless because you're never going to make a roll with just alchemy tools, you're going to make an Intelligence (arcana or medicine or intvestigation) check with advantage because you have alchemy tools or you're going to make something with alchemy tools (no check required).

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.

WotC doesn't care about your design philosophy. They don't care if you think the artificer should/shouldn't be a class, that you despise magical item crafting (either in general or how 2024 handles it), that you feel 2024 is OP powergaming munchkin land seeped in spellcasters and betrays the vision of Gary and Dave, or that Treantmonk discovered a loop for making 34 fireballs per day (and here's how). They care, in essence, "does Magical Tinkering work for you or do we need something different?"

They are gauging temperature, not collaborating on communal design.

 

[bedir than]

They get detailed feedback from internal playtesting too.

These surveys are about seeing that their internal metrics are valid in the broader fanbase, not about getting the details they already have.

 

[mellored]

My notes
Green for most things, no red.
*use crossbows and guns as implements, just for flavor.
*magic tinkering should be Int items at a time. I don't like 1 hour duration.
*Spell Storing Item is too much at once, spread it out.
*unsure about Experimental Elixir and alchemist in general. Might still be too weak.
*Armorer needs to be able to use magic weapons somehow.
*Arcane Firearm needs to allow firearms and crossbows.
*Homunculus Servant should not be able to cast Homunculus Servant via Spell Storing Item or otherwise.
**Or simulacrum for that matter, but forget to mention it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

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.

I don't think we should be surprised at the conservatism. In the PHB 2024 UAs, the more creative ideas were consistently rejected time and again. Sometimes because they were weak, sometimes because they were under-explained, sure. But the community regularly said no to innovation.

It becomes a feedback loop: as long as they commit to asking the community and decision-making based on percentages, then the past 18 months have shown them that creativity and innovation are not worth their time.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Eek. Has it gotten that bad?

It has always been that way they have just gotten more scientific about it. What is the problem do you not like buying things you like?

Seriously though, If you like it why does it matter? and if yuo do not like, don't buy it and it does not matter either.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Eek. Has it gotten that bad?

Nope, it’s just cynicism.

Reality is closer to they know that if red overwhelms the responses they have to completely redo or drop that option, and the why will mostly align with the feedback they see elsewhere. Same thing with green. It the response is majority green, the tweaks will either be stuff they’re better able to address anyway, or things they’re seeing everywhere else they get feedback.

There are people who only care what sells, but they aren’t on the actual design team.