Unearthed Arcana 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!

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!
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Maybe it is all the smite and aura spells, but the battle smith makes me think it is the paladin artificer.

Definitely. I wish other classes made use of spell slot burning for class features. The bard as a half caster with the ability to churn slots to buff makes a lot of sense, for instance.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I mean , the flip side is that Elemental Weapon isn't exactly a "must have" 3rd level spell.....

Well, no. It has its isolated uses-- being able to give your main damage dealer in the group a specific energy damage attack for when you need it-- but really any 3rd level spell is going to be competing against Fireball and Haste, and thus will usually fall short. Whether this means Elemental Weapon should actually be a 2nd level spell rather than a 3rd? Certainly an argument could be had.
 

Remathilis

Legend
I like how they made a third level spell a first level:

Arcane Weapon
1st-leveltransmutation
CastingTime: 1bonusaction
Range: Self
Components: V,S
Duration: Concentration,upto1hour

Youchannelarcaneenergy intoonesimpleormartialweaponyou’reholding,andchoose onedamagetype:acid,cold, fire,lightning,poison,orthunder. Untilthespellends,youdealanextra1d6damageofthechosentypetoanytarget youhitwiththeweapon. Iftheweaponisn’tmagical,itbecomesamagicweaponforthespell’sduration. Asabonus action,youcanchangethedamagetype,choosingfromtheoptionsabove.

AtHigherLevels. Whenyoucastthisspellusingaspellslotof3rdlevel orhigher,youcanmaintainyourconcentration onthespellforupto8hours.


Which is VERY similar to Elemental Weapon
A better comparison is Hunter's Mark or Hex.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I mean , the flip side is that Elemental Weapon isn't exactly a "must have" 3rd level spell.....

WotC really over-worried about melee damage buff spells. EW is a weak spell. Crusader's Mantle is better due to the fact that it has mass application but even so it's kind of meh.
 


Matt Clark1

First Post
In general I think the bonus action economy is ok.
It is just some classes that should do well do not because it is triggering from taking the attack action and because it competes in an unfavourable way with a different feature.

Good: cunning action/twf.

Bad:
ranger in general with hunter's mark
- beastmaster
- hunter lvl 11 feature
- horizon walker

I also don't like that there is no penalty for using two weapons as a wizard etc.

So my solution would be something along the line of:
- twf needs an ability to be used.

For example:
Cunning action gives twf as it is now.
Twf fighting style allows twf as a free attack with your offhand weapon doing no stat bonus to damage.
You need to check if you allow both features at once. But since both weapons need to be light then it seems ok.

TWF feat changes to:
You may use a bonus action to attack with an off-hand dagger.
You gain +1 AC
You can draw 2 weapons as part of the attack action.

Note that it overwrites the rogue feature with an attack that does stat bonus to damage.

My fix that we use for TWF at our table is this:

Main and Off-hand Attacks
• When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make +1 additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. All attacks are made at disadvantage.
• If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Or
• You can add the damage die for the second weapon to the damage die of the first weapon for each attack. Modifiers are applied as normal to the regular attack.

Two-Weapon Fighting (Fighting Style)
• You gain +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You no longer attack with disadvantage when attacking with weapons in both hands.

Dual Wielder (Feat)
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
• For each attack granted by the Attack action that you attack with a melee weapon in one hand you can make an additional attack with a different melee weapon you are holding in the other hand

*Rogues using a light weapon in offhand do not suffer disadvantage on attacks while two weapons fighting. (Gets around the issue of rogues not having the two weapon fighting style).

Also these changes only apply to melee weapons and the associated styles/feats. Ranged attacks and cross bow expert still use the bonus action to fire the extra attack.
 

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls
I like the look of that battle smith.

That will be something I need to think about or include once I start my 5e/Numenera mixed campaign.
 


MarkB

Legend
1 is a concession to how much the Artificer's Bonus Action is already in demand. 2 is just the usual "counts as magic weapon" clause which is mostly there to trigger Arcane Armament. I don't think either is a particularly big deal. 3 is true, for as valuable as a d6 or two of vulnerable damage is worth. But Hex inflicts disadvantage to a save type and Hunter's Mark improves your ability to tract the target, so they each have their own strong points.

Hex imposes disadvantage on ability checks, not saving throws. Its combat utility is mostly in impeding Dexterity (Stealth) checks for sneaky opponents, or Strength (Athletics) checks for grabby opponents.
 

jgsugden

Legend
Since artificers have cantrips (unlike rangers and paladins), I wouldn't be surprised if they errata'd artificer into the feat when the "for publication" version comes out. Of course, if they had said rangers and paladins get exactly two cantrips (spare the dying and true strike) [I didn't say they got two good ones, but both seem reasonable for rangers and paladins to have], they could have made the feat work for all casting classes.
Agreed, but it might just be a new feat that is similar to magic initiate rather than amending the existing feat.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top