New Unearthed Arcana: Revised Artificer

The Artificer Returns, and it's a better Beast Master than the Beast Master

ICYMI, enjoy! It's got two new subclasses, new spells, and some tweaks to multiclassing. Plus, you know, typos.

Now to the meat of the matter. The Battle Smith. Everyone's better at having pets than the poor Beast Master Ranger. Discuss!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Comments

Travis Henry

Villager
Nice that several D&D worlds are mentioned in the Artificer write-up, including Mystara!:

"in Mystara, various nationsemploy artificers to keep airships and other wondrousdevices operational."

Cool. The "wondrous devices" may refer to the BECMI accessory AC11: The Book of Wondrous Inventions (1987). Which had magi-tech boom-boxes, vending machines, submarines, and the like. Besides Mystara, some of the invention write-ups are based in Oerth, so those would be another source of Artificers in the Greyhawk setting.

Another source of Artificers in Mystara would be the Earth Gnomes of the Snartan Empire and the Land of the Earthshakers, located in the southern continent of Davania; from module CM4: Earthshakers! Earthshakers are basically gigantic gnome-crafted "Battle Mechs"! Also the Skygnomes of the Flying City of Serraine, from PC1: Top Ballista. The Flying City is powered by a magi-tech jet engine! Other Skygnomes are found in the city of Oostdok in the Hollow World.
 

Parmandur

Legend
Has anything changed besides the addition of spells and 2 sub-classes?

I, for one, am happy that Tiny Servant has been added to their spell list. Tiny Servant is the best spell in the game. It is known.
Some of the details of the multuclassing rules, and expanded Invocation options.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Travis Henry

Villager
I like the "suggested appearances" of the Artificial Minds (basically, "awakened" objects). I'd add these:

For mineral (glass, stone, metal) objects, could also have a personality like a dwarf, gnome, or earth elemental, as these are all traditionally "earth spirits."
For plant objects, rather than just "bespectacled visage or treant", could also have a personality like a dryad or other plant spirit.
 
Is this the third version of this class in the last year?

(this is NOT a criticism. I really, really appreciate that we are seeing an iterative process on some of these more complex classes.)
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
I like the "suggested appearances" of the Artificial Minds (basically, "awakened" objects). I'd add these:

For mineral (glass, stone, metal) objects, could also have a personality like a dwarf, gnome, or earth elemental, as these are all traditionally "earth spirits."
For plant objects, rather than just "bespectacled visage or treant", could also have a personality like a dryad or other plant spirit.
I agree.

At the same time, I am ok with the pets being golem-like, artificial, and even mechanical, to convey the flavor that the Artificer is using artifice to construct things. To me this has a Renaissance vibe, when building ‘automatons’ was popular.
 

Kurotowa

Explorer
Is this the third version of this class in the last year?
No. There have been three Artificer UA in total but the first draft, the one with the Gunsmith, was put out over two years ago in January 2017. The one previous to this was three months ago, but there's almost no changes to that material. Today's release is mostly adding two additional subclasses and expanding the spell list to include XGtE.

So while I do expect iterative revisions based on feedback, because that's what UA is for, we're not there yet.
 

collin

Explorer
Okay, I'm convinced WotC. Stop right there! I think you have done a very good job bringing the artificer to 5e (much better than the first attempt in UA). I am already planning on playing an artificer in the next adventure I get involved with, Eberron or not.
 

Kurotowa

Explorer
At the same time, I am ok with the pets being golem-like, artificial, and even mechanical, to convey the flavor that the Artificer is using artifice to construct things. To me this has a Renaissance vibe, when building ‘automatons’ was popular.
I expect there will be a lot of room for personalized style in the flavor text for your PC's pet. A High Elf's artistic melding of metal and wood won't be the same as a Rock Gnome's gear powered mechanism will differ from a Mountain Dwarf's animated stone construct.
 

UngeheuerLich

Adventurer
Agreed. The line below, just by itself, taken straight from the Iron Defender feature, would do wonders for the Beast Master's pet.

"[Y]ou take a bonus action on your turn to command it (the Iron Defender) to take one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, or Help action."
That would still leave the beastmaster unable to use TWF.
Imagine you chose twf as your weapons style and then you decide to take beastmaster.
While I don't hate the two weapon fighting rule, maybe it needs a general revision to not take a bonus action but using a bonus action improves it. Or we need the twf style remove the bonus action cost.
 

gyor

Adventurer
The Battlesmith is a better Paladin then the Paladin and a better ranger then the Ranger.

A Battlesmith 3/Wizard Bladedancer 17 is going to be insanely good and powerful.

Archivist isn't pet free, it's just that it's pet is mostly mental, but housed in a physical object.

Archivist can turn an ordinary none magical holy symbol into mind, making it a impliment for both artificer and cleric spells making it the perfect choice for Cleric/Paladin multiclassing with artificer.

I love this class and it's subclasses. You have a more blaster type in the artillerist, a half caster fighter type in the Battlesmith, a healer with minion in the Alchemist, and the rebirth of the old Archivist class sort of in the Archivist.

The base abilities are good, the spell list fun and thematic. I say publish it as is.
 

Chryssis

Explorer
i think just adding something like "[Y]ou take a bonus action on your turn to command it (the Iron Defender) to take one of the actions in its stat block or the Dash, Disengage, or Help action until you give it another command." would solve the TWF bonus action conflict.
 

Gradine

Archivist
I also really like this version of the Artificer. I agree; ship as is.

Also, a reminder: homonculi were always a fairly core class feature for Artificers.
 

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
That would still leave the beastmaster unable to use TWF.
Imagine you chose twf as your weapons style and then you decide to take beastmaster.
While I don't hate the two weapon fighting rule, maybe it needs a general revision to not take a bonus action but using a bonus action improves it. Or we need the twf style remove the bonus action cost.
Yeah, maybe TWF needs to be fixed, too.
 

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
Make TWF like earlier editions as just a thing you can do with your off-hand when you make an attack and the problem is solved. I know some people might not like free g up the bonus action for other things but I don't really think it is a major issue.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
Yeah, maybe TWF needs to be fixed, too.
I would say this is just an example of poor choices by the player. How is this different from any other character choosing more than one bonus sction attack pair of options?

Making your "bonus action attack" be the beast attack instead of your blade attack fits to me pretty solid.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
That Iron defender is a huge HP bag... Say you have 18 int at level 5, so 5 x (5 + 4 +2) = 55 hp... That's a pretty stout defender.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top