These are incredibly bad ideas. It seems like you're still thinking in terms of 3rd Edition. The only thing I'd do if I wanted to make the Artificer 'feel' like an item crafter would be to give her the ritual automatically, and maybe one level early. Anything else would quickly obliterate the wealth guidelines.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Reviewing the Artificer
- Thread starter fuindordm
- Start date
WhatGravitas
Explorer
Actually, the ability to craft level +1 items isn't that bad, because it still keeps you within the wealth guidelines in terms of total gp. Furthermore, PCs can already purchase higher-level items - this would be more like something of a convenience, because it can circumvent problems like finding a trader.
At least, I think it's not that problematic, simply because the step to one level higher is fairly flat in 4E (also in terms of magic items), and without sufficient gp, it won't help you - also: Due to the 1/5th conversion of magic items, saving for such an item takes a long time - by that time they're probably much closer to that extra level.
Cheers, LT.
Artifical Thoughts
Agreed with Everyone Else on weapon juggling=bad. Basically, as printed, I see three kinds of Artificers: Warforged Artificers (embedded weapons, embedded Implements), Implement + Dagger/Throwing Hammer artificers, and bad artificers. Throwing Hammer Artifcers are actually the most interesting -- as they can bump up strength to have a decent ranged/melee basic and actually get AoOs (though given the lack of Close abilities, this is very weak) if they want to.
The mix of weapon/Implement powers is actually a problem in multiple ways -- it doesn't just mean having to take actions to switch around weapons (or in the case of Shielding Cube, not working at all unless the Artificer uses a one-handed ranged weapon), but that an Artificer must maintain both a magical Implement -and- a magical ranged weapon (the latter being somewhat more important, but still). Even the Paladin isn't this MID-centric, as she -can- choose to take all melee powers or all-Implement powers, and at high levels, can get a Holy Avenger.
I'm not that bothered by the flavor or silliness. I mean, really, dudes, it's D&D. You can reflavor. Maybe the Artificer's just powering up some "blank" potions she gave her allies pre-battle and letting allies drink them as a free action (actually, that's pretty good).
That said...lots of quibbles (yes, am sending to Wizards):
Repair Object: Can't heal constructs. Right? Just Checking.
Temp hit points: a healing surge from everyone who uses it? Really? For about 5 temporary HP, up to 14 at 20th level? I don't have any problem with Artificers having a temp HP option that works on a burst, but this is just awful; most allies are better off saving their surge and just burning a minor on a healing potion. I think this mechanic needs rebalancing at at least some levels, particularly since by and large, temporary HP aren't as good as actual healing.
Artifice defenses: Seems off. Aside from the AC=Reflex issue (ok, just like a Wizard), artifices start off with defenses of 5, ie, an auto-hit (is this intended to be 15?), and scale up to 34 at 30th level (actually better than a wizard's 30th level defense of 31).
Restorative Infusion: Oddly, the second part of this power is potentialy, much more disruptive than the first. Consider the Warlock. Now, consider a warlock who starts spending all her minor/move actions giving away temporary HP or cursing creatures (who die to give her more temporary HP to give away...). The "transfer temporary HP" abilty needs a "any of -these- temporary HP" or at least an expiration time.
Regeneration Infusion: needs an expiration time. Otherwise, the artificer ends up getting to choose at every short rest whether to rest, or to just keep sustatining the Infusion for another fight -- which might be worthwhile in some instances.
Good Luck Charm: Wow. So you can spend every short rest passing around the Good Luck Charm, giving everyone +5s on their first non-attack roll? Even for a Utilty 16, this is strong; it's a party buff that can also give one character (or with extra actions, multiple characters) in-combat buffs. Plus, it's an untyped bonus.
Dancing Weapon: can't be retargetted?
=================================================
In terms of personal impressions:
I like the flavor of a Leader (Controller minor) who boosts allies by enchanting their stuff, and attacks enemies by throwing objects imbued with magic at them? More of that please? Actually, dropping implements entirely -- and having the class go with either a ranged, "Green Arrow" approach where they used special arrows/potions from a sling/infusions rubbed on a thrown weapon (or even a melee weapon--I'd love to see some spells that could be either ranged or close, depending on the weapon they were used with) or an activate (nominal, shouldn't require preparation) infusions on allies armor/weapons to have special effects approach (the Warlord "ally makes a basic attack with a bonus" basic really should make an appearance here--it's just so perfect, and adds some more leader-ish flavor to what's largely a very "controller" set of attack spells past first level).
While it's very important to -not- duplicate the "many, many craft points" approach of 3nd Ed, I think adding more craft -- in the form of free acquisition of the craft/destroy item rituals at appropriate level -- would help make the class feel more "artificer"-y.
This is, I think, a general point of feedback, but certainly applies to the Artificer. It seems to me that the developers do the game a bit of a disservice by having so many classes that don't have a useful basic attack -- melee charming rogues, most wizards, charisma paladins, and charisma clerics might, or might not be paid for not having a basic attack with greater flexiblity/power (certainly, a charisma paladin is, despite the annoyance of not having a good AoO to a Paladin, as they get better ranged, close, and area attacks (and powers tied to their main ability at every level), in payment), but this also means that classes built this way don't play as well with others -- they may be able to lead, but cannot be lead. The artificer looks to fill exactly this role, as without spells that replace basic attacks, and wilth little reason to invest in either Dex or Str, she's going to be walking around with a weapon she cannot really use except with powers, on her own turn. (the amusing bit is that all of the above are resillient to control powers, as they have no good basic for foes to use against their allies. But isn't this also bad for the game?) (A 4.01 idea here would be for all stat-replacement at-will attacks to give you the ability to roll that stat for that type of attack as a basic. Rogues could make AoOs with Dex. Paladins could make AoOs with Charisma if they had a melee Char at-will. Something similar could be added with ranged abilities for Clerics, Paladins, and now Artificers, and Wizards would either need fixing (they -can- have a ranged basic, but have good reasons not to) or not).
It's worth nothing an artificer's skill selection. First, they don't have much of one -- they get to choose three skills of 6. Though for ritual casting, it's certainly interesting that they've got Heal+Arcana. OTOH, they only have two skills based on a key ability -- Arcana and History. This means they're either going to be investing in Wis for defense/skills and looking at some of Dungeoneering, Heal, and Perception, or going for skills with an overall greater-than-average usefulness and flavor -- probably Thievery (a fairly rare skill to have access to without a feat) and Perception. In fact, between Thievery and Ritual Casting, the class is probably the most flexible out of combat one out there, even without a lot of skill selection, particularly since most traps are much more easily disabled with a Thievery check than by any other method.
Agreed with Everyone Else on weapon juggling=bad. Basically, as printed, I see three kinds of Artificers: Warforged Artificers (embedded weapons, embedded Implements), Implement + Dagger/Throwing Hammer artificers, and bad artificers. Throwing Hammer Artifcers are actually the most interesting -- as they can bump up strength to have a decent ranged/melee basic and actually get AoOs (though given the lack of Close abilities, this is very weak) if they want to.
The mix of weapon/Implement powers is actually a problem in multiple ways -- it doesn't just mean having to take actions to switch around weapons (or in the case of Shielding Cube, not working at all unless the Artificer uses a one-handed ranged weapon), but that an Artificer must maintain both a magical Implement -and- a magical ranged weapon (the latter being somewhat more important, but still). Even the Paladin isn't this MID-centric, as she -can- choose to take all melee powers or all-Implement powers, and at high levels, can get a Holy Avenger.
I'm not that bothered by the flavor or silliness. I mean, really, dudes, it's D&D. You can reflavor. Maybe the Artificer's just powering up some "blank" potions she gave her allies pre-battle and letting allies drink them as a free action (actually, that's pretty good).
That said...lots of quibbles (yes, am sending to Wizards):
Repair Object: Can't heal constructs. Right? Just Checking.
Temp hit points: a healing surge from everyone who uses it? Really? For about 5 temporary HP, up to 14 at 20th level? I don't have any problem with Artificers having a temp HP option that works on a burst, but this is just awful; most allies are better off saving their surge and just burning a minor on a healing potion. I think this mechanic needs rebalancing at at least some levels, particularly since by and large, temporary HP aren't as good as actual healing.
Artifice defenses: Seems off. Aside from the AC=Reflex issue (ok, just like a Wizard), artifices start off with defenses of 5, ie, an auto-hit (is this intended to be 15?), and scale up to 34 at 30th level (actually better than a wizard's 30th level defense of 31).
Restorative Infusion: Oddly, the second part of this power is potentialy, much more disruptive than the first. Consider the Warlock. Now, consider a warlock who starts spending all her minor/move actions giving away temporary HP or cursing creatures (who die to give her more temporary HP to give away...). The "transfer temporary HP" abilty needs a "any of -these- temporary HP" or at least an expiration time.
Regeneration Infusion: needs an expiration time. Otherwise, the artificer ends up getting to choose at every short rest whether to rest, or to just keep sustatining the Infusion for another fight -- which might be worthwhile in some instances.
Good Luck Charm: Wow. So you can spend every short rest passing around the Good Luck Charm, giving everyone +5s on their first non-attack roll? Even for a Utilty 16, this is strong; it's a party buff that can also give one character (or with extra actions, multiple characters) in-combat buffs. Plus, it's an untyped bonus.
Dancing Weapon: can't be retargetted?
=================================================
In terms of personal impressions:
I like the flavor of a Leader (Controller minor) who boosts allies by enchanting their stuff, and attacks enemies by throwing objects imbued with magic at them? More of that please? Actually, dropping implements entirely -- and having the class go with either a ranged, "Green Arrow" approach where they used special arrows/potions from a sling/infusions rubbed on a thrown weapon (or even a melee weapon--I'd love to see some spells that could be either ranged or close, depending on the weapon they were used with) or an activate (nominal, shouldn't require preparation) infusions on allies armor/weapons to have special effects approach (the Warlord "ally makes a basic attack with a bonus" basic really should make an appearance here--it's just so perfect, and adds some more leader-ish flavor to what's largely a very "controller" set of attack spells past first level).
While it's very important to -not- duplicate the "many, many craft points" approach of 3nd Ed, I think adding more craft -- in the form of free acquisition of the craft/destroy item rituals at appropriate level -- would help make the class feel more "artificer"-y.
This is, I think, a general point of feedback, but certainly applies to the Artificer. It seems to me that the developers do the game a bit of a disservice by having so many classes that don't have a useful basic attack -- melee charming rogues, most wizards, charisma paladins, and charisma clerics might, or might not be paid for not having a basic attack with greater flexiblity/power (certainly, a charisma paladin is, despite the annoyance of not having a good AoO to a Paladin, as they get better ranged, close, and area attacks (and powers tied to their main ability at every level), in payment), but this also means that classes built this way don't play as well with others -- they may be able to lead, but cannot be lead. The artificer looks to fill exactly this role, as without spells that replace basic attacks, and wilth little reason to invest in either Dex or Str, she's going to be walking around with a weapon she cannot really use except with powers, on her own turn. (the amusing bit is that all of the above are resillient to control powers, as they have no good basic for foes to use against their allies. But isn't this also bad for the game?) (A 4.01 idea here would be for all stat-replacement at-will attacks to give you the ability to roll that stat for that type of attack as a basic. Rogues could make AoOs with Dex. Paladins could make AoOs with Charisma if they had a melee Char at-will. Something similar could be added with ranged abilities for Clerics, Paladins, and now Artificers, and Wizards would either need fixing (they -can- have a ranged basic, but have good reasons not to) or not).
It's worth nothing an artificer's skill selection. First, they don't have much of one -- they get to choose three skills of 6. Though for ritual casting, it's certainly interesting that they've got Heal+Arcana. OTOH, they only have two skills based on a key ability -- Arcana and History. This means they're either going to be investing in Wis for defense/skills and looking at some of Dungeoneering, Heal, and Perception, or going for skills with an overall greater-than-average usefulness and flavor -- probably Thievery (a fairly rare skill to have access to without a feat) and Perception. In fact, between Thievery and Ritual Casting, the class is probably the most flexible out of combat one out there, even without a lot of skill selection, particularly since most traps are much more easily disabled with a Thievery check than by any other method.
Goobermunch
Explorer
Except that temporary hit points don't stack. So the Warlock cannot gain any more temporary hit points until the amount he gains exceeds the amount remaining from the RI. Once that happens, if the Warlock chooses to gain the higher value (from his power), he has overwritten the RI and it's no longer in effect. Or, he can choose to forego his pact granted temp hit points, but will be limited by the remaining power. I don't think there's a problem here.
--G
Have to call shenanigans here.
As far as I know, there's no rule such that "once the temporary hit points a power grants are gone, the power ceases to have an effect".
So the problem is that as e-printed, RI does two things: 1. Target gains a raft of temporary HP. 2. Until it expires, target can spend a Minor Action to give temporary HP to any target in range. The lack of any expiration on the latter ability is the source of my nitpick. -If- once the temporary HP were gone, the ability expired, my complaint would be solved -- in fact, that's exactly what I suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambot
Artificers should be able to break down a magic item and get back more than 1/5 of the creation cost.
Artificer also sounds like they could make magic items = their level +1.
Um, I am offended by you saying my ideas are bad, then backing that up with the argument that the ideas are flawed because I am thinking of 3rd edition. You seem very confident that wealth in the game would be destroyed, without saying why.
I quit 3rd edition, left a campaign just because it was running those rules that I am now completely sick of.
In 4th edition, people are routinely finding items up to 3 levels above themselves. Letting artificers make items 1 level above themselves is good, but by no means game breaking. It is supposed to be a good perk of the class - that is why I suggested it. And just because they can do it, dosn't mean that they can afford the costs. So I would get someone to playtest that, and if artificers can never afford to make items equal to their level + 1, they should get a little bit of extra cash out of breaking down magic items so that they can actually use such a perk if it were given to the class.
Wealth guidelines are to control power levels, so the most direct route to acquiring more power is converting gold to magic items, so you would expect the extra money provided by the artificer to go towards using my proposed ability. Basically, it allows a guy to buff his party by +1 here and +1 there, without using powers. Naturally, this would need to come with a trade off in the form of less useful powers offset by an artificers ability to create cool magical artifacts.
This would differentiate the class a little from others, allowing them to focus on equipment more than an average PC, which feels right for a class named artificer. Thats why rangers get twin strike - they're the two weapon fighting guy, so they get that awesome power. You shouldn't compare that one at-will to that of another class, you have to compare the entire class' package deal, side by side for a meaningful comparison of power level.
Originally Posted by Hambot
Artificers should be able to break down a magic item and get back more than 1/5 of the creation cost.
Artificer also sounds like they could make magic items = their level +1.
Um, I am offended by you saying my ideas are bad, then backing that up with the argument that the ideas are flawed because I am thinking of 3rd edition. You seem very confident that wealth in the game would be destroyed, without saying why.
I quit 3rd edition, left a campaign just because it was running those rules that I am now completely sick of.
In 4th edition, people are routinely finding items up to 3 levels above themselves. Letting artificers make items 1 level above themselves is good, but by no means game breaking. It is supposed to be a good perk of the class - that is why I suggested it. And just because they can do it, dosn't mean that they can afford the costs. So I would get someone to playtest that, and if artificers can never afford to make items equal to their level + 1, they should get a little bit of extra cash out of breaking down magic items so that they can actually use such a perk if it were given to the class.
Wealth guidelines are to control power levels, so the most direct route to acquiring more power is converting gold to magic items, so you would expect the extra money provided by the artificer to go towards using my proposed ability. Basically, it allows a guy to buff his party by +1 here and +1 there, without using powers. Naturally, this would need to come with a trade off in the form of less useful powers offset by an artificers ability to create cool magical artifacts.
This would differentiate the class a little from others, allowing them to focus on equipment more than an average PC, which feels right for a class named artificer. Thats why rangers get twin strike - they're the two weapon fighting guy, so they get that awesome power. You shouldn't compare that one at-will to that of another class, you have to compare the entire class' package deal, side by side for a meaningful comparison of power level.
IanArgent
First Post
Allowing an artificer to craft an item of level + 1 isn't broken - you still have to afford it. Allowing them to break down an item for more than 1/5 it's value is what may break the system. I'd be wary of anything better than the 1/5 rule, since the magic item pricing runs on that as well...
generalhenry
First Post
'should be able to' leads to terrible game design.
That was the biggest thing fixed in 4E
A hulking giant 'should be able to' hurl rocks at people.
That was the biggest thing fixed in 4E
A hulking giant 'should be able to' hurl rocks at people.
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
Here's an idea: Why not let the artificer gain item powers as his class powers?
Let's say he gets to level X and picks thundering. You could go a couple ways with this:
1) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering until the artificer's next short rest.
2) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering while the artificer Sustain Minors it.
3) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering while the ally Sustain Minors it.
etc. There are lots of variations, but you get the idea.
Some of his utility powers might be paying some gold to swap out an item's power (the above artificer might take a +2 flaming sword, make it permanently a +2 thundering sword, and replace thundering with flaming in his powers known) or "metamagic-ing" an item like the old metamagic infusions--Quicken Item would let you use a standard-action item with a move or minor action once per day, Enlarge Item would extend the range by 2-3 squares once per day, and so forth.
Basically, the artificer's main schtick in 3e was using item abilities in place of his own...so why don't we literally let him use item powers to replace his own?
Let's say he gets to level X and picks thundering. You could go a couple ways with this:
1) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering until the artificer's next short rest.
2) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering while the artificer Sustain Minors it.
3) Use it on an adjacent ally's weapon, weapon is made thundering while the ally Sustain Minors it.
etc. There are lots of variations, but you get the idea.
Some of his utility powers might be paying some gold to swap out an item's power (the above artificer might take a +2 flaming sword, make it permanently a +2 thundering sword, and replace thundering with flaming in his powers known) or "metamagic-ing" an item like the old metamagic infusions--Quicken Item would let you use a standard-action item with a move or minor action once per day, Enlarge Item would extend the range by 2-3 squares once per day, and so forth.
Basically, the artificer's main schtick in 3e was using item abilities in place of his own...so why don't we literally let him use item powers to replace his own?
Last edited:
Similar Threads
