Reviewing the Artificer

[Vendark]

I'm just not comfortable with all the at-range, instant enchantments. It just doesn't match anything that I've read about the Artificer in other sources.

It matches just fine. Artificers infuse objects with magic. They did that in 3.5, they're doing it now in 4E. With magic being magic, there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason why they shouldn't be able to infuse things at range.

They kind of hinted at this in the fluff w/ components, but then they ignored it in the power descriptions by putting in all sorts of wand-waving.

This is kind of a funny objection, since wand-waving is one of the things the 3.5 Artificer is best known for.

 

[Exen Trik]

Implements seems to be too busy with the hands required which almost forces one to take quickdraw.

I'm starting to think they should just grant quickdraw as an artificer class feature.

 

[Vendark]

Because I would like to preserve a significant difference in the flavor of the three power sources. If anyone can heal just as well and easily as the divine classes, then what's the point of dividing the two kinds of magic?

Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.

Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric.
If the warlord can't revive the unconscious during an encounter, the defenders in the party are going to fast be wishing they had a cleric in the party instead. And if the artificer has to spend a move and a minor and get into melee reach of the enemy to heal someone, it's not going to be a very fun class to play. 4E is operating under the philosophy that you shouldn't have to spend most of your turn to make someone else's character feel better, and I think they got that right. Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.

Thirdly, there's a lot more to the flavor of each class than the healing/inspiring word/infusion features. You're not going to have any trouble telling the warlord from the cleric in play. And while I haven't seen the artificer in play yet, looking through its abilities I'm thinking it will stand out just as much as the other two classes do.

 

[Dan'L]

Responding to several things, in no particular order:

- The implement/weapon/item toss juggling could be solved by allowing artificers to use a particular ranged weapon as an implement (perhaps a sling or handcrossbow, which have loading as a free action). This way, the power could use the Implement keyword, Special require the wielding of the ranged weapon implement, but not include a weapon proficiency bonus for the attack. Or, change the keyword to Weapon, but limit it to a specific set of Ranged weapons, as above, and allow the proficiency bonus.

- I think a big problem in this discussion lies in conceptualizing what an Artificer did in 3.x vs. what it can reasonably be expected to do in 4.0. Yes, the Artificer could be known to strike, control, etc.--much like the Wizard had a large variety of spells to draw on for many varied effects. But just like they focused the Wizard down to a blaster/controller, it seems they're wanting to focus on a particular interpretation of Artificer. The vision: Arcane Leader. Using the idea of an arcane power source, the more tinkerer aspects of the Artificer necessarily fall away. Of course, then I suppose the class is more "Infuser," or "Channeller" but....

-That said, I'd like to see a similar-themed Martial Controller -- a Trap Maker/Gadgeteer.

-I like the idea of short-rest Daily infusions to pass around the party.

-The proposed controller-esque At-Will seems a bit much for a "Leader" At-Will, when compared with the Wizard's Force Orb Encounter which has similar effect.

-I like the idea of infusing a weapon with a one-shot extra energy attack damage as an At-Will. It's reminiscent of Commander's Strike, where it helps an ally do extra damage.

I suppose that's about it for now

-Dan'L

 

[DracoSuave]

Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.

Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric.
If the warlord can't revive the unconscious during an encounter, the defenders in the party are going to fast be wishing they had a cleric in the party instead. And if the artificer has to spend a move and a minor and get into melee reach of the enemy to heal someone, it's not going to be a very fun class to play. 4E is operating under the philosophy that you shouldn't have to spend most of your turn to make someone else's character feel better, and I think they got that right. Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.

Thirdly, there's a lot more to the flavor of each class than the healing/inspiring word/infusion features. You're not going to have any trouble telling the warlord from the cleric in play. And while I haven't seen the artificer in play yet, looking through it's abilities I'm thinking it will stand out just as much as the other two classes do.

Not to mention, the Artificer's heal gains flavor by being more flexible, and having an alternate use (perhaps another as well).

Complaining about not having enough powers on a playtest designed for a singular build is silly. Of course they don't have enough for two builts, they're playtesting one build.

 

[fuindordm]

Firstly, the cleric does heal a little better than the other two classes, by and large. They have the healing lore class feature, and access to more healing powers in general.

Yes, and they're the only ones that can provide healing without burning a surge from someone, I think.

Secondly, you can't reduce the other leaders' base healing abilities below a certain level and still have them remain viable alternatives to the cleric...Minor action, ranged heals are necessary to keep the leader from degenerating into a mere healbot.

Thirdly, there's a lot more to the flavor of each class than the healing/inspiring word/infusion features. You're not going to have any trouble telling the warlord from the cleric in play.

Yes, but for me that's not the issue. What worries me is to see classes given powers that are off-theme for such reasons. I don't mind that Arcane Leaders have healing, but I think care should be taken to make each such power unique and appropriate to the class.

All three of your points are very good--but their end result makes me sad. 4th edition has adopted the philosophy that limitations are not fun. In my mind, limitations are fun. They create challenges and a wider variety of interesting situations.

If the warlord cannot revive an unconscious ally, then they must pay close attention to his allies' status and use Inspiring Word before it's too late. Which makes quite a lot of sense for the class--they're supposed to be taking care of their troops, not saying "Damn, Joe went down! Didn't see that coming." Sometime, of course, Joe will go down anyway... but like any smart leader, the warlord will have ways of protecting the fallen, too (healing potions). They need not be an all-purpose healing font in and of themselves.

In fact, this minor limitation on one class ability doesn't reduce their power significantly--but it does encourage a different style of play.

Similarly, I would like the artificer class better if their abilities encouraged a style of play where pre-battle preparation is key. If their healing (or protection) is touch-only like a paladin's, then it is not much less powerful... but it will encourage them to hang back in a position that has access to many party members. A standard action to shoot, a move action to reach someone, and a minor action to infuse healing is not that restrictive.

So while I agree that minor action heals (and also siloing of healing powers) are necessary to prevent a character from turning into a healbot, I don't agree that ranged healing is necessary.

It is also cinematic and fun if once in a while you must rush to a wounded comrade's side. There's something about having a character point their symbol/implement and 'pinging' you awake that leeches away the drama.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[fuindordm]

- I think a big problem in this discussion lies in conceptualizing what an Artificer did in 3.x vs. what it can reasonably be expected to do in 4.0. Yes, the Artificer could be known to strike, control, etc.--much like the Wizard had a large variety of spells to draw on for many varied effects. But just like they focused the Wizard down to a blaster/controller, it seems they're wanting to focus on a particular interpretation of Artificer.

-That said, I'd like to see a similar-themed Martial Controller -- a Trap Maker/Gadgeteer.

Another good point, this. The artificer was without question the most versatile class ever to appear in the game, and of course we can't expect the 4E version to have the same scope. Since it seems a single class can comfortably fit two builds, what might those be?

WotC has already given us the Battlesmith, but the sample powers hardly seem focused. A few artifices, a few buffs, a few magic bolts...

If I had to choose two themes for the artificer, it would be

Battlesmith: mainly temporary enchantments to arms and armor, including the "magic bolt" powers. Short-rest encounter powers to infuse allies' equipment with healing surges and/or elemental attributes. A few quirky artifices like the cube of protection and creating a bridge or stair out of thin air. This is the artificer with a touch of striker.

The powers in this group shouldn't use implements.

Wandmaster: not just wands, but for want of a better name... this is the artificer who focuses on getting the most out of existing magic items. Their powers are more like wizard spells, but tend heavily towards zone effects that do less damage. Some of these will take effect immediately, while others may be traps. To be really on-theme, the instant spells should change or enchant the substance of the zone (Magnetism, Spike Growth, Grease). The traps could produce elemental damage (flavored as runes). This is the artificer with a touch of controller.

To encourage the 'bag full of wands' look, let the wandmaster get extra benefits from powers if the correct type of implement is used (just as the Fighter gets extras from a specific weapon). Short-rest encounter powers could "supercharge" an implement.

A mixed Battlesmith/Wandmaster might only carry one implement, and choose control powers that make use of it.

This leaves two archetypes out in the cold:

The Alchemist--aside from being a source of healing potions, what is alchemy good for in an artificer? Frankly, it's hard to imagine doing any sort of alchemy in just a few seconds (OK, maybe mixing two liquids and making them go boom). But since it tends to require a lab and hours of effort, alchemy-related powers are a natural fit for rituals. Give them Brew Potion for free, obviously, when they reach that level.

The Homonculist--it appears WotC is still trying to hit on the right formula for summoners and pet-focused characters. Again, probably rituals are the way to go. I foresee future supplements with a handful of encounter and daily powers to temporarily boost the fighting power of one's homonculus.

How does this sound? We still haven't worked out the healing issue to my satisfaction, but I think it reproduces the two main builds of the 3E artificer reasonably well.

Ben

 

[Benly]

The Alchemist--aside from being a source of healing potions, what is alchemy good for in an artificer? Frankly, it's hard to imagine doing any sort of alchemy in just a few seconds (OK, maybe mixing two liquids and making them go boom). But since it tends to require a lab and hours of effort, alchemy-related powers are a natural fit for rituals. Give them Brew Potion for free, obviously, when they reach that level.

It takes a lab and hours of effort for most people. For an artificer? He has a well-organized reagent belt and knows by heart which bottles mix with which others in which proportions, and just how much magic to push into it.

For me, the Alchemist is the buffing artificer with a side of control. His implement is his reagent set, which is perhaps worn on his belt and requires a free hand to use. When he wants to heal someone, he whips up a quick sachet of healthpowder and hurls it at them. When he wants to strengthen them, he mixes up a flask of Oil Of Emboldening and tosses it all over them. And if he wants to hurt his enemies, he throws flashbombs in their faces, dumps alchemist's fire on them, or tosses quick-hardening glue underfoot.

That is how a combat alchemist works for me. There are a few powers that sort of hint at that with the playtest artificer but it's only gestured at.

 

[cockroachman3178]

Why must the artificer use healing abilities? I like the notion of the artificer granting Regeneration, Resisitance, and all around Buffing the party.

 

[Staffan]

Why must the artificer use healing abilities? I like the notion of the artificer granting Regeneration, Resisitance, and all around Buffing the party.

Because he's a Leader, and Leaders heal. You're supposed to be able to do just as well with an artificer tagging along as with a cleric or warlord.