D&D 4E Eberron: The Artificer in 4e...

[kennew142]

I imagine Artificers will be similar to Incarnum-based classes, but without the wacky flavor.

I would definitely be in faovr of this.

I count incarnum as one of the coolest ideas from 4e that I never had a chance to use.

 

[Stogoe]

Infusion (Per encounter, standard)
...
Cold Investment (At will, standard)
...
Harden (At will, minor)
...
Nullifier (Per encounter, immediate interrupt)
...
Fusion (Per day, move)
...

I like. It seems to me to be a good overview of the intended themes of the artificer. There's a little too much reliance on 'magic items' for me to hotwire it into a 4e preview, which I'm a bit bummed about, but otherwise very nice.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think Leader role, probably arcane.

Though, if they go with a new source I could see them splitting the class up so fill out a few more class concepts.

Wand Slinger, for instance, as a sort of striker.

Infuser for Leader.

And a bomb-chucking wind up golem deploying controller type.

Working off of something inspired by Incarnum style mechanics is brilliant.

 

[D.Shaffer]

If they go with pure fluff text, the Artificer is definitely a leader. His powers and abilities are all based around buffing the party to some extent. If they dont use a new power source, he'd likely be an arcane type. If they DO use a new power source, it'll probably be something based around magical and quasi magical item construction...Artifice? Magitech? Who knows?

Other possible Artifice based classes...
Alchemist class - Potion maker, Controller
Dual Wand Wielder - 'Classic' wand wielder, Striker
Clockwork - Enhanced body with magitech, Defender

 

[Henry]

...but the Artificer is one of the most versitile classes in the game, I have laways seen them as controlers, but I have played them as all of the rolls mentioned in 4e. a Warforged Artificer is one tough guy, and the wand use is what make all of the other rolls possible.

I have seen one 10th level Artificer player, using nothing but scrolls, potions, and wands from the Spell Compendium and PHB, take out SIX 10th level NPCs in 4 rounds. He basically did the entire scry buff invisible fly thing, using a time stop scroll that he made, and a mix of clerical and wizard scrolls to fillet the NPCs with the exact spell for each given situation. It absolutely floored me that he accomplished it, and it was then that I knew to never acknowledge the existence of a "+10 Use Magic Device-boosting" item.

 

[Patlin]

I have seen one 10th level Artificer player, using nothing but scrolls, potions, and wands from the Spell Compendium and PHB, take out SIX 10th level NPCs in 4 rounds. He basically did the entire scry buff invisible fly thing, using a time stop scroll that he made, and a mix of clerical and wizard scrolls to fillet the NPCs with the exact spell for each given situation. It absolutely floored me that he accomplished it, and it was then that I knew to never acknowledge the existence of a "+10 Use Magic Device-boosting" item.

Is Time Stop lower than 9th level for someone? I thought artificer level +2 had to equal or exceed the minimum caster level for the spell in question in order to emulate it. That'd require a 15th level artificer to make a time stop scroll unless I'm missing something.

 

[Henry]

Is Time Stop lower than 9th level for someone? I thought artificer level +2 had to equal or exceed the minimum caster level for the spell in question in order to emulate it. That'd require a 15th level artificer to make a time stop scroll unless I'm missing something.

My mistake; the Time Stop he used on a later encounter, he was 11th rather than 10th, and it did take three rounds rather than one. He had Superior Invisibility, fly, Improved Mage Armor and Shield, used Ethereal Jaunt to get close, and with his metamagics targeted the foes with exactly what would kill them. The Karrnathi Undead Warrior he targeted with Bolt of Glory; the Mystic Theurge he targeted with Flesh to Stone; The elf rogue he used disintegrate on; the Human Ranger was laid low with some sort of hold spell (hold monster?) and the remaining cleric and transmuter made their saves and beat feet out of there with a teleport because the "unseen enemy" had decimated them. In all, in two rounds he had taken down over half of the party, and in the third round he tried to take down the last two, but they fled before he could. Still phenomenal to see a single 11th level character to cause as much carnage as he did.

He did have a time stop scroll (purchased in Sharn, a relic of the Last War), but opted to save it for later.

 

[Celebrim]

Obviously, much like the Warlock and the Sorcerer, the mechanical reason for the Artificer no longer exists in 4e. None of his mechanics port directly between 4e and 3e and I think it would be a mistake to try.

I think that for the most part people are over thinking this. All the 4e classes are fundamentally similar. The 4e artificer will be a 'Magitech Controller' (probably with a sub-schick of Leader, or else the reverse leader with a bit of controller mixed in) and follow the pattern thus far established. The flavor overlaid on his powers will be that he can quickly whip up small machine minions, mechanical traps, and so forth. The mechanical schtick of the artificer that will make it somewhat different from similar 'controller' classes is that his powers will be more like threats that have a duration, usually 'to the end of the encounter', rather than having an immediate effect.

 

[LightPhoenix]

I have to disagree with you, not that WotC is Incompitent, I have always been impressed with that, but the Artificer is one of the most versitile classes in the game, I have laways seen them as controlers, but I have played them as all of the rolls mentioned in 4e. a Warforged Artificer is one tough guy, and the wand use is what make all of the other rolls possible.

Well yes, Artificers could be everything, due to some rediculously wonky and broken mechanics... as people have demonstrated anecdotally many times. And as D.Shaffer stated, if you go by the fluff, it's readily apparent they are meant to be Leaders, as a role. Now, 3E didn't have roles, and the general 3E philosophy towards "support" classes was to pile stuff on until they were overpowered and people would want to play them (see Cleric). Granted, the next logical place to take them is from allied support to enemy frustration - ie, from buffing to cursing. So yes, I agree that by piling on abilties for the support players, they made a class that could in fact be a controller.

However, now we're talking 4E, and in 4E classes have defined roles. So taking the Artificer back to it's original concept - Leader.

Without the one spell per wand mechanic, the artificer could become any number of things. I believe that the artificer could be the first class to bridge rolls, probably Leader/Controler.

Which is probably why it's limited to wands.

WotC has said when asked about multi-roll classes "not yet." Or perhapse there will be a path for each roll in the class, chose whiich ever you want, but feel free to choose powers that are more in line with other paths, but I think that is probably too much choice and design work for one class (as they would probabliy need at least200% of the powers of the other classes.)

I'm inclined to agree. The problem with a multi-role class is, IMO, that it is exceedingly difficult to make a class where the two roles would mesh together without making the character weaker. In the end what I think would end up happening is that players would choose one path or the other. Which begs the question - why not just make it two classes and flesh out both of the concepts?

D&D has almost always been a game of specialization over generality. That is to say, doing one thing well is worth much more than doing a lot merely "okay". This is simply because of the nature of the game played as a cooperative group, and it's inherent to every version of D&D. It's better for each person to do one thing well. That was the biggest problem with the 3E Bard - it could do a lot "okay," but it took a lot of work to make it do anything well.

So, rather than try to cover a whole group of bases with the Artificer, I'm of the opinion they should stick to one and do it right.

As an aside (to others), there's no rule that there can only be one source/role combination. There's no real need to come up with a new power source for the artificer. Make them Arcane, and avoid having to come up with new classes to justify a power source when it's not necessary.