Revised Artificer Survey now available

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I was very thorough on this one. They’re honing in on what could be a really great class, but it’s not quite there yet.
 

MiraMels

Explorer
I spent an hour this morning filling it out. My response basically boiled down to "this is 140% of a class at the moment, but i'm looking forward to the 100% you pare it down to"
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I spent an hour this morning filling it out. My response basically boiled down to "this is 140% of a class at the moment, but i'm looking forward to the 100% you pare it down to"
Interesting! I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. This class definitely has a lot going on. Is there anything in particular you felt may have been contributing to the bloat that you’d be willing to talk more about?

Personally, I really like the tool proficiencies, crafting, and infusions, have mixed feelings about the pets, and think the spellcasting is too much.
 

77IM

Explorer!!!
My repeated feedback was "Unnecessarily complex." I like the class, I just think it needs streamlining. I agree with the 140% metaphor.
 

hbarsquared

Quantum Chronomancer
No. Pets.

Either one subclass, or an artificer version of find familiar.

Everything else is just tweaks.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I spent an hour this morning filling it out. My response basically boiled down to "this is 140% of a class at the moment, but i'm looking forward to the 100% you pare it down to"
My feedback will boil down to “do not pare this class down to any significant degree. It’s good as is, with some tweaks to when things come online and where they exist in the class or subclass”.

I’ll be extremely disappointed if it has noticeably fewer moving parts on release.
 
I largely hate the Artificer class in all its incarnations. I would have liked it only if it was done to represent a non-magic character e.g. a MacGuyver-type, but the game already has too many casters. So I am very undecided whether I should express my deep dislike to it, or if I should encourage them to go through with it as-is (or even purposefully suggest changes against my taste) so that I make sure I won't be tempted to waste my money on the Eberron book.
 
Conceptually, I'm fine with the artillerist's turrets. They are just weak to the level of pointlessness. Just buff them a bit.

If you deleted the alchemist's homunculus you are left with an extremely weak class all round. It's a spellcaster who gains spells at half the rate of other spellcasters. I would leave it alone since a complete reworking would prevent the release of the class anytime soon.

The Archivist, you would have to design dungeons so the party can't camp in a safe place whist the invulnerable artificial mind explores and slowly kills anything that can't run away. Personally, as it is, I would just ban the subclass. I don't like the concept anyway, but I guess making the AM vulnerable to Dispel Magic and force damage would help.
 
Last edited:

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
I am still thinking things through so as to better put them in the survey, but I think the artificer should have a Masterpiece--one object that they focus all their energies into, whether it is a special wand, a big gun, an extra special magic sword, a clockwork or golem, an elixir, or even an extra special magic book. The Masterpiece would be the center of the class and where most of the power budget goes. That still leaves room for being the intelligence-based skill monkey.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I largely hate the Artificer class in all its incarnations. I would have liked it only if it was done to represent a non-magic character e.g. a MacGuyver-type, but the game already has too many casters. So I am very undecided whether I should express my deep dislike to it, or if I should encourage them to go through with it as-is (or even purposefully suggest changes against my taste) so that I make sure I won't be tempted to waste my money on the Eberron book.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of (natively) spellcasting Artificers either. What’s cool about the Artificer is the idea of a character who can’t do magic herself, but creates magic items to do overcome that limitation. They’re the D&D Batman, with no super powers of their own, but enough gadgets that they don’t need powers. Let them craft potions, scrolls, and wands to cast spells with, but don’t give them spell slots. That was one of the key points in my feedback, anyway.
 
I am still thinking things through so as to better put them in the survey, but I think the artificer should have a Masterpiece--one object that they focus all their energies into, whether it is a special wand, a big gun, an extra special magic sword, a clockwork or golem, an elixir, or even an extra special magic book. The Masterpiece would be the center of the class and where most of the power budget goes. That still leaves room for being the intelligence-based skill monkey.
What happens if you lose it, it gets stolen, it's destroyed, etc?

Wasn't that the problem with the previous version of the Artificer? That if your robot or your gun was destroyed, you were SOL?
 
Yeah, I’m not a fan of (natively) spellcasting Artificers either. What’s cool about the Artificer is the idea of a character who can’t do magic herself, but creates magic items to do overcome that limitation. They’re the D&D Batman, with no super powers of their own, but enough gadgets that they don’t need powers. Let them craft potions, scrolls, and wands to cast spells with, but don’t give them spell slots. That was one of the key points in my feedback, anyway.
That runs entirely counter to the conceits of Eberron, where the goddamn cook in the burger shop down the street is probably a Magewright knows Prestidigitation and Purify Food and Drink, and so do all of his competitors. Given that the Artificer will be releasing in either the final version of the WGtE or the upcoming as-of-now unnamed Eberron book being designed by Welch, it makes sense that the Artificer is a Magewright on steroids.
 

MechaTarrasque

Adventurer
What happens if you lose it, it gets stolen, it's destroyed, etc?

Wasn't that the problem with the previous version of the Artificer? That if your robot or your gun was destroyed, you were SOL?
If the beastmaster can get a replacement for Fido, I see no reason there couldn't be a class feature to expedite a replacement for the MP. And if MP was a class feature instead of a subclass feature, then it seems likely that the artificer could get his/her toy back faster then the BM can get Fido II.....

I admit this was lacking in the previous version of the artificer, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened.
 

MiraMels

Explorer
Interesting! I think I agree, if I understand you correctly. This class definitely has a lot going on. Is there anything in particular you felt may have been contributing to the bloat that you’d be willing to talk more about?

Personally, I really like the tool proficiencies, crafting, and infusions, have mixed feelings about the pets, and think the spellcasting is too much.
I like the tools, crafting, and infusions as well! The pets, while i don't hate them, i think they should each do less. Personally, i'd remove the attack functionality from the Iron Defender and the Homunculus. As is, the Artificer already has access to damaging cantrips, and a form of Extra Attack, so they won't be lacking basic combat power if you remove the acid squirt or the iron jaws. Taking away basic attacks and making the constructs more specialized and purpose built gives each subclass a unique character. Archivists have an exploration-focused AI companion, Artillerists have a stationary combat construct, Battle Smiths have a companion that defends creatures and repairs constructs, and Alchemists have a flying construct that can support and enhance their allies.

Removing the ability to make attacks from the Iron Defender and Homunculus doesn't change their character or identity, but it does preserve the Beast Master's 'home turf' of having a companion creature that fights at their side. The Artificer's constructs shouldn't remind me of the Beast Master's companion, they should be more unique. Removing basic attacks from them makes the Artificer pets much simpler, but also simplifies the constructs significantly.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I largely hate the Artificer class in all its incarnations. I would have liked it only if it was done to represent a non-magic character e.g. a MacGuyver-type, but the game already has too many casters. So I am very undecided whether I should express my deep dislike to it, or if I should encourage them to go through with it as-is (or even purposefully suggest changes against my taste) so that I make sure I won't be tempted to waste my money on the Eberron book.
I like the tools, crafting, and infusions as well! The pets, while i don't hate them, i think they should each do less. Personally, i'd remove the attack functionality from the Iron Defender and the Homunculus. As is, the Artificer already has access to damaging cantrips, and a form of Extra Attack, so they won't be lacking basic combat power if you remove the acid squirt or the iron jaws. Taking away basic attacks and making the constructs more specialized and purpose built gives each subclass a unique character. Archivists have an exploration-focused AI companion, Artillerists have a stationary combat construct, Battle Smiths have a companion that defends creatures and repairs constructs, and Alchemists have a flying construct that can support and enhance their allies.

Removing the ability to make attacks from the Iron Defender and Homunculus doesn't change their character or identity, but it does preserve the Beast Master's 'home turf' of having a companion creature that fights at their side. The Artificer's constructs shouldn't remind me of the Beast Master's companion, they should be more unique. Removing basic attacks from them makes the Artificer pets much simpler, but also simplifies the constructs significantly.
I couldn’t disagree more. Removing the attack from the Iron Defender makes it an inherently silly construct. It is the Battle Smith’s damage boost, as well. I can see making the Alchemist a more strongly support role, with no combat damage boost and instead even more support boosts, but the Battle Smith should be able to stand alongside other combat focused subclasses.
 

tglassy

Adventurer
I think people get too worked up over "Spell Slots". They're just a mechanic, a means by which the character can do something. They don't mean "magical power". or at least, they don't have to. "Spells" and "Spell Slots" are a way of giving a variety of options for things to do in a given situation, and a limit on how to do them, without writing out a special mechanic just for this class to do the same. The pdf even says as much in the sidebar. You wanna cure someone, but don't want to be channeling "Divine magic"? Sure, you have a salve you can put on them that you've been working on. You want to cast "Disguise Self", but with no magic? Sure, you figured out how to do a hologram on yourself, either through advanced tech or Rune Magic or something similar.

This way, there's a huge list of effects they can do (spells) but a limit on how many times they can do them (spell slots). It's naturally upgraded as the character levels, it's on par with other classes in the progression, and most importantly, they don't have to recreate the wheel to give you "something unique". If you don't like spell slots, don't call them spell slots. Call them Artificer Slots or Gadget Uses or something like that, that just so happen to have the same functionality as Spell Slots.
 

MonkeezOnFire

Explorer
I think people get too worked up over "Spell Slots". They're just a mechanic, a means by which the character can do something. They don't mean "magical power". or at least, they don't have to. "Spells" and "Spell Slots" are a way of giving a variety of options for things to do in a given situation, and a limit on how to do them, without writing out a special mechanic just for this class to do the same. The pdf even says as much in the sidebar. You wanna cure someone, but don't want to be channeling "Divine magic"? Sure, you have a salve you can put on them that you've been working on. You want to cast "Disguise Self", but with no magic? Sure, you figured out how to do a hologram on yourself, either through advanced tech or Rune Magic or something similar.

This way, there's a huge list of effects they can do (spells) but a limit on how many times they can do them (spell slots). It's naturally upgraded as the character levels, it's on par with other classes in the progression, and most importantly, they don't have to recreate the wheel to give you "something unique". If you don't like spell slots, don't call them spell slots. Call them Artificer Slots or Gadget Uses or something like that, that just so happen to have the same functionality as Spell Slots.
Keith Baker posted to his website an article that had this as one of the sections addressing concerns people had about the artificer. That was back when the previous iteration came out in March, but since this version is basically just an iteration on that one it still applies.

http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/

Basically, you can flavour the class in a number of ways to make it your own. It's designed primarily with Eberron in mind but with enough creativity you can adopt it into a number of places.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I still find this version of the Artificer to be boring. It just doesn't feel like it gets anything unique. It has spells. It can make magic items. They can wear extra magic items. They get a pet. Yawn.

I like the gun or the alchemical satchel the last version had. Those felt like unique things that made it worthy of being it's own class and not just recycling other stuff.

I'm also not 100% sold on Artificer being a pet class.
 

Advertisement

Top