Unearthed Arcana Revised Artificer Survey now available

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I guess you didn't read the link.

In short, it does indeed do just what I said. You really should read the article.

I read the article. I just disagree with Keith that reskinned spellcasting is a sufficient mechanical representation of using magical items to produce spell-like effects.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Most editions’ Rangers could cast spells too, didn’t stop the 4e ranger from being a non-caster. And for that it was, in my opinion, a much better expression of the archetype the class represents. I don’t really care about how previous editions have expressed the archetype, I care about making the current edition’s expression of it the best it can be.


I disagree. I think the thing I want very much fits within the fiction of the Artificer. I just want a different mechanical expression of that “magitech crafter” concept. And I’m fine with both spellcasting and non-spellcasting options existing, it’s judt much harder to remove spells from a class that has them as part of its core features than it is to add spellcasting to one or more of the subclasses.

You cant have both in one class. A 1/3 caster cannot make a good spellcasting Artificer.

You’d be better off making a rogue subclass that crafts.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
You cant have both in one class. A 1/3 caster cannot make a good spellcasting Artificer.
So don’t make it a 1/3 caster? There are plenty of other ways to go about it. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and make it a half-caster. Give it Warlock-style spell slots. Hell, give it full casting and make spell slots the resource that Infusions consume instead of using their own unique resource. That would allow for anywhere from full casting to no casting as the player wishes, for all subclasses, and cuts back on resource tracking, lightening the class’s cognitive load.

You’d be better off making a rogue subclass that crafts.
No. Four class features that come at 3rd, 9th, 13th, and 17ty level is not sufficient to make a magitech character out of the rogue chassis. Not even close.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
So don’t make it a 1/3 caster? There are plenty of other ways to go about it. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and make it a half-caster. Give it Warlock-style spell slots. Hell, give it full casting and make spell slots the resource that Infusions consume instead of using their own unique resource. That would allow for anywhere from full casting to no casting as the player wishes, for all subclasses, and cuts back on resource tracking, lightening the class’s cognitive load.


No. Four class features that come at 3rd, 9th, 13th, and 17ty level is not sufficient to make a magitech character out of the rogue chassis. Not even close.

Or, just have a subclass that can use spell slots to make things on the fly.

But the class already infuses magic into items to create magical effects. You’re just trying to make it mechanically more explicit and clunky.

If it does a spell effect, it should mechanically just be a spell.
 

This conversation reminds me that there is definitely space in 5e for a skillful class that isn't a Rogue (subclasses like Tinkerer, Artiste, Factotatum?)
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Or, just have a subclass that can use spell slots to make things on the fly.
Sure, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s as elegant as making Infusions cost spell slots, but it works.

But the class already infuses magic into items to create magical effects.
No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t. A spell is a spell, and a magic item is a magic item, and the class as it currently stands uses its spell slots to produce the former. You can pretend it’s the latter if you want, but that’s not consistent with the way the game mechanically expresses those things in any other instance, and it’s also not something you need an Artificer class to be able to do.

You’re just trying to make it mechanically more explicit and clunky.
Mechanically more explicit? Yes. Clunky? I don’t believe it has to be.

If it does a spell effect, it should mechanically just be a spell.
There are plenty of counter-examples to this in published material. Ki abilities. Channel Divinity. Wild Shape. Racial features like the Eladrin teleport. Most relevant to this discussion, potions, scrolls, and wands.
 

Yeah, what I want out of the Artificer is D&D Batman.

Batman is just so far away from the artificer concept it is laughable. You take away Batman's utility belt and other toys (which he doesn't make himself) and he still wins. Because Batman's super power is - he's Batman.

And Batman type characters are already covered pretty well in 5e: Fighter (Battlemaster), Rogue (Investigative) or monk.

If you want superhero prototypes for an artificer you need to look at Iron Man, Rocket Racoon or the Doctor (Doctor Who). You take away Tony Stark's gadgets and he - improvises new gadgets (Iron Man 3).

And this artificer is based around Eberron, a setting whose whole shtick is magic replaces technology. So a non-magical artificer was never on the cards.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Sure, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s as elegant as making Infusions cost spell slots, but it works.


No, I’m sorry, it doesn’t. A spell is a spell, and a magic item is a magic item, and the class as it currently stands uses its spell slots to produce the former. You can pretend it’s the latter if you want, but that’s not consistent with the way the game mechanically expresses those things in any other instance, and it’s also not something you need an Artificer class to be able to do.


Mechanically more explicit? Yes. Clunky? I don’t believe it has to be.


There are plenty of counter-examples to this in published material. Ki abilities. Channel Divinity. Wild Shape. Racial features like the Eladrin teleport. Most relevant to this discussion, potions, scrolls, and wands.

Wanda and scrolls cast spells. Eladrin teleport is a rare exception. Most racial magic is spellcasting. Ki abilities don’t duplicate spells. They either do things spells dont, or they...literally cast a spell. Wild shape is very distinct from polymorph. Channel Divinity is the only case where you’re right, and it is that way so that the effects can’t be Counterspelled, I imagine. If not, then it should have just let them cast the spell it duplicates. Also, there is no Turn Undead spell.

I guess potions, but even they explicitly duplicate the spell, but technically don’t “cast” it.

The only thing gained by a what you want is that they could technically say that the class isn’t a spellcaster. That isn’t a good reason to add complexity. There is no thematic difference between “you infuse an item and then can ‘duplicate’ a spell from that item”, and “your spellcasting represents enchanting and crafting magical wonders, and then using them in the moment, which is represented by casting spells with your tools.”

Either way you’re creating the spell effects with your tools. It’s the same thing.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Batman is just so far away from the artificer concept it is laughable. You take away Batman's utility belt and other toys (which he doesn't make himself) and he still wins. Because Batman's super power is - he's Batman.

And Batman type characters are already covered pretty well in 5e: Fighter (Battlemaster), Rogue (Investigative) or monk.

If you want superhero prototypes for an artificer you need to look at Iron Man, Rocket Racoon or the Doctor (Doctor Who). You take away Tony Stark's gadgets and he - improvises new gadgets (Iron Man 3).
I didn’t mean literal Batman, and I’m pretty sure the context made it clear that I was using him as an example of a character who does not have super powers but keeps up with super powered characters by use of tech. If you prefer Iron Man or Rocket as an example, that works too.

And this artificer is based around Eberron, a setting whose whole shtick is magic replaces technology. So a non-magical artificer was never on the cards.
And f*** anyone who wants to play a magitech-using character in any setting other than Eberron, right?
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Wanda and scrolls cast spells.
Yes. The wands and the scrolls do it.

Eladrin teleport is a rare exception.
And so could the Artificer be.

Ki abilities don’t duplicate spells. They either do things spells dont, or they...literally cast a spell.
They cast spells without using spell slots.

Wild shape is very distinct from polymorph.
Yes, and it’d be pretty cool if Artificers did things that were similarly distinct from the thing wizards do.

Channel Divinity is the only case where you’re right, and it is that way so that the effects can’t be Counterspelled, I imagine. If not, then it should have just let them cast the spell it duplicates. Also, there is no Turn Undead spell.
So, again, this seems to be an example of a case where it is appropriate to use mechanics distinct from spellcasting to produce magical effects.

I guess potions, but even they explicitly duplicate the spell, but technically don’t “cast” it.
And another.

The only thing gained by a what you want is that they could technically say that the class isn’t a spellcaster. That isn’t a good reason to add complexity. There is no thematic difference between “you infuse an item and then can ‘duplicate’ a spell from that item”, and “your spellcasting represents enchanting and crafting magical wonders, and then using them in the moment, which is represented by casting spells with your tools.”
I disagree. There is a significant thematic difference because in one case you are casting a spell under your own power, in the other you are creating something with which to do something beyond your power. A flamethrower versus fire breath. Equally importantly, there is a functional difference, or at least, there should be. If it ends up effectively being no different than spells, yeah, of course it should just be spells. But if it’s not functionally different from casting spells, what’s the point? We have plenty of classes that cast spells already. The Artificer should bring something new to the table.

Either way you’re creating the spell effects with your tools. It’s the same thing.
It’s not.
 

And f*** anyone who wants to play a magitech-using character in any setting other than Eberron, right?


You have to plump for something eventually. Trying to be all things doesn't work, as the sucky previous iteration proved. Sure, it could lob acid by mixing together chemicals in a flask, but you still needed magic to create the infinite supply of glass bottles to put it in. The Acid Splash cantrip produces the same outcome much more efficiently.

And the fact is, this class is going to be published in the Eberron books. And technology-duplicating-magic does not work in Eberron, only magic-duplicating-technology exists in that setting. Nicely, magic-duplicating-technology is not prohibited in FR/Greyhawk etc, so the class is still portable to those settings.

Now, if you had a different setting, call it the Babylon 5 universe for example, where real magic didn't exist, then your class could only be of the technology-duplicating-magic variety. But that class is not this class. That class is called Technomage, not Artificer.

If you happened to want the technomage, not the artificer, then yes, you are f******. But there are some 3rd party classes you might look at. And on the bright side, you can save your money by not buying the Eberron books.
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Yes. The wands and the scrolls do it.


And so could the Artificer be.


They cast spells without using spell slots.


Yes, and it’d be pretty cool if Artificers did things that were similarly distinct from the thing wizards do.


So, again, this seems to be an example of a case where it is appropriate to use mechanics distinct from spellcasting to produce magical effects.


And another.


I disagree. There is a significant thematic difference because in one case you are casting a spell under your own power, in the other you are creating something with which to do something beyond your power. A flamethrower versus fire breath. Equally importantly, there is a functional difference, or at least, there should be. If it ends up effectively being no different than spells, yeah, of course it should just be spells. But if it’s not functionally different from casting spells, what’s the point? We have plenty of classes that cast spells already. The Artificer should bring something new to the table.


It’s not.
I fully sympathize with your desire for something different than pseudo spell slots, I really do, but it's a very hard nut to crack.

http://slugsandsilver.blogspot.com/2019/04/alchemists-and-resources-hard-nut-to.html?m=1

I'm close, but I still can't really get it right.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
You have to plump for something eventually. Trying to be all things doesn't work,
Seems to have worked well enough for the other 5e classes.

as the sucky previous iteration proved. Sure, it could lob acid by mixing together chemicals in a flask, but you still needed magic to create the infinite supply of glass bottles to put it in. The Acid Splash cantrip produces the same outcome much more efficiently.
Seems like a pretty good argument for why the Artificer shouldn’t be throwing acid at-will, not an argument for why it should have spells.

And the fact is, this class is going to be published in the Eberron books. And technology-duplicating-magic does not work in Eberron, only magic-duplicating-technology exists in that setting. Nicely, magic-duplicating-technology is not prohibited in FR/Greyhawk etc, so the class is still portable to those settings.
You don’t need technology duplicating magic to have a character who used magical technology in place of spells. And I believe that character can fit comfortably in the same class as the one who uses magical technology and spells. I notice no one has yet addressed my suggestion of simply having spell slots be the resource that Infusions consume, despite it seeming from where I’m sitting like a pretty reasonable way to accommodate a full caster Artificer and a non-caster Artificer in the same class.
 

Aldarc

Legend
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.
Except they did do magic in Eberron, which is where the hegemonic Artificer concept in D&D derives. Artificers in Eberron, however, had a different approach to their magic than other spellcasters. They were more about broader patterns of magic in the abstract rather than "arcane" or "divine" divides. Eberron did establish that they did not cast spells, as their "spells" were called "infusions," but that is different from saying that saying that they can't do magic themselves. I suspect that while having different subsystems was acceptable for 3.XE that 5E would prefer just categorizing all essentially spell-like things as spells to simplify things. But Artificers were definitely magical.

Furthermore, keep in mind that many people want an Artificer for running Eberron, which means that the Artificer cannot just be a more generic sense of Artificer, but one that is mostly congruent with how they operate in Eberron. If that does not satisfy what you want out of an Artificer, then this Artificer will not be for you. The reason why this iteration of the 5E Artificer looks like this and not more like the prior two iterations is because the D&D community gave feedback that they wanted a 5E Artificer more like the Eberron one rather than the generic crafter one. But the non-magical tech guy has never been part of D&D's artificers.

And f*** anyone who wants to play a magitech-using character in any setting other than Eberron, right?
And :):):):) anyone who wants to play a non-raging barbarian in D&D. And :):):):) anyone who wants to play a non-magical bard in D&D. And :):):):) anyone who wants to play a spell-less ranger or paladin in D&D. D&D has become its own fantasy with its own traditional archetypes that may or may not conform with your expectations, desires, or whims for what the archetype should be.
 

tglassy

Adventurer
I notice no one has yet addressed my suggestion of simply having spell slots be the resource that Infusions consume, despite it seeming from where I’m sitting like a pretty reasonable way to accommodate a full caster Artificer and a non-caster Artificer in the same class.

Because this is literally what they are doing. "Infusions" are a workable prototypes of magical items they are making. "Spells" are less than that, unstable magical items they are tinkering with and trying to make work, but don't have the stability that "Infusions" have.

If that makes you bent out of shape, just change the word "Spells" to "Infusions" and change "Infusions" to "Greater Infusions" or whatever. It really, really isn't that big of a deal.
 

Seems to have worked well enough for the other 5e classes.

No, it didn't. The other classes are not generic. The cleric, for example, was based on a very specific concept: a Christian crusader-priest. It's spent a good four editions trying to get away from that. Barbarian is based on Conan, good look trying to make Hawkeye. Ranger is based on Aragorn, so the get healing spells. etc.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I read the article. I just disagree with Keith that reskinned spellcasting is a sufficient mechanical representation of using magical items to produce spell-like effects.

It's the express intent of the class. You agreed with that description when I posted it for you. The author of the thing is saying that's how it works. How is that not sufficient? There are no really meaningful "spell-like effects" in terms of mechanics like there were in 3e. You have an end result, you have a tool you must use, and how you describe getting to that end result with that tool is a process that is at the heart of 5e. The mechanics are not going to do more than your description of what you're doing. This is a role playing element of the game, not a mechanical element.

You wanted the class to be more flexible such that it can work in settings other than just Eberron, and I don't know how much more flexible it can be than, "you fill in the role playing (setting) details on how you're getting from A to B".

Here is an example. My wife wanted a character similar to the Helda Spellman character on Chilling Adventures of Sabrina Netflix show. That character uses the kitchen to craft most of her spells, often focused on potions. This class fits that character concept well. I don't need any mechanics more than what's already in this class to make that character. And it's clearly not an Eberron character.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I would delete the homunculus in a heartbeat. It has very little to do with alchemy, and the whole subclass has nothing that screams “I am doing alchemy!” It needs a signature ability that actually feels like you are doing alchemy on a moment to moment basis. One that isn’t just flavor with your toolkit
The homunculus is a pretty big part of the mythology of alchemy.

As for a better suggestion, I’d leverage Infusions. We’ve already got a Replicate Magic Item Infusion. Add scrolls, potions, and wands to the list of things it can replicate, or make a separate “Replicate Consumable” Infusion, give the Artificer a few more Infusions per day, and bob’s your uncle.
Except you can't do that in a balanced way unless you force the crafting of a wand of fireballs to cost a number of infusions commensurate with casting fireball the same number of times the wand of fireball can cast it. In which case...you are literally only adding complexity, for no benefit. see, the monk.

Traditional Alchemy is just ritual casting Transmutation spells. Not very useful during an encounter.
Nope. Traditional alchemy is chemistry, toxicology, physics, optics, and pretty much all of natural philosophy/early science. Pop culture knowledge of "traditional" alchemy is all about transmutation, but actual history disagrees.

And f*** anyone who wants to play a magitech-using character in any setting other than Eberron, right?
Nothing about this artificer is out of place in dragonlance, greyhawk, the realms, mystara, or any other published setting I can think of that has magical inventors.

Yes. The wands and the scrolls do it.
Making a wand or scroll that casts fireball isn't actually distinct from casting the spell. It can even be counterspelled.


They cast spells without using spell slots.
Not really. They cast using a limited resource, the costing of which is based on spells slot costs for a given spell. The 4Elements monk has a cost of spell slot +1 because someone thought that was balanced due to ki resetting at a short rest, while shadow monks and sun soul monks have a cost of 1ki/spell level. The elemental monk even has upcasting that goes up at the same rate of 1ki/spell level, and has the same class level/maximum ki limitations that a direct spell casting class would.


Yes, and it’d be pretty cool if Artificers did things that were similarly distinct from the thing wizards do.
Wizards can't make repeating crossbows, boots that let a person teleport every round to get back out of melee safely, add persistent +1 to weapons, wands, or armor without constantly spending spell slots on it, create a turret that shoots force damage or creates a field of THP for allies, change at-wills on a long rest, change at-wills EVER, create semi-permanent audio or visual playback on an object on an at will basis, etc, etc. No class but the Artificer can do any of those things.

Oh! and no one else can make a weapon's damage magical at such a low level, with the only resource expenditure being the opportunity cost of not learning something else instead.


I disagree. There is a significant thematic difference because in one case you are casting a spell under your own power, in the other you are creating something with which to do something beyond your power. A flamethrower versus fire breath. Equally importantly, there is a functional difference, or at least, there should be. If it ends up effectively being no different than spells, yeah, of course it should just be spells. But if it’s not functionally different from casting spells, what’s the point? We have plenty of classes that cast spells already. The Artificer should bring something new to the table.
A wand of fireball that you have to use a long rest reset limited resource to create isn't mechanically distinct from using your wand spell focus to cast fireball using a spell slot that you'll get back with a long rest.


It’s not.
It very clearly is.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Because this is literally what they are doing.
No, they're not. In the current iteraction, Infusions cost their own unique resource, independent from spell slots. My suggestion is to consolodate those resources. Have Infusions cost spell slots and get rid of the separate limited number of Infusions per day. Then the folks who don't want to cast spells with their Artificer can spend those spell slots on more infusions, and the folks who do want to cast spells with their Artificer can spend their spell slots on that.

"Infusions" are a workable prototypes of magical items they are making. "Spells" are less than that, unstable magical items they are tinkering with and trying to make work, but don't have the stability that "Infusions" have.
That's not what spells are.

If that makes you bent out of shape, just change the word "Spells" to "Infusions" and change "Infusions" to "Greater Infusions" or whatever. It really, really isn't that big of a deal.
But at that point, why have "greater infusions" cost their own unique resource? Just have them consume a spell slot. Maybe with a minimum level for some of the more powerful ones.

It's the express intent of the class. You agreed with that description when I posted it for you. The author of the thing is saying that's how it works. How is that not sufficient?
Because I don't agree with the author that it works that way just because he says it does. Sorry, a spell is a spell, not an item. You can pretend it's an item if you want, but I'm not interested in doing that.

Except you can't do that in a balanced way unless you force the crafting of a wand of fireballs to cost a number of infusions commensurate with casting fireball the same number of times the wand of fireball can cast it. In which case...you are literally only adding complexity, for no benefit. see, the monk.
I don't think it's impossible to do in a balanced way. At all.

Making a wand or scroll that casts fireball isn't actually distinct from casting the spell. It can even be counterspelled.

A wand of fireball that you have to use a long rest reset limited resource to create isn't mechanically distinct from using your wand spell focus to cast fireball using a spell slot that you'll get back with a long rest.
Except it is, because in one case you have a scroll or a wand, and in the other case you don't. A scroll or a wand can be put in a backpack, it can be lost, stolen, or destroyed, it can be cast at one's leisure. A spell does none of those things, it's just an instantaneous effect. You might as well say that a match is fire.

Not really. They cast using a limited resource, the costing of which is based on spells slot costs for a given spell. The 4Elements monk has a cost of spell slot +1 because someone thought that was balanced due to ki resetting at a short rest, while shadow monks and sun soul monks have a cost of 1ki/spell level. The elemental monk even has upcasting that goes up at the same rate of 1ki/spell level, and has the same class level/maximum ki limitations that a direct spell casting class would.
Note how "Ki Point" and "Spell Slot" are two completely different terms. They're also functionally different resources, as they have different things they can be spent to do.

Wizards can't make repeating crossbows, boots that let a person teleport every round to get back out of melee safely, add persistent +1 to weapons, wands, or armor without constantly spending spell slots on it, create a turret that shoots force damage or creates a field of THP for allies, change at-wills on a long rest, change at-wills EVER, create semi-permanent audio or visual playback on an object on an at will basis, etc, etc. No class but the Artificer can do any of those things.

Oh! and no one else can make a weapon's damage magical at such a low level, with the only resource expenditure being the opportunity cost of not learning something else instead.
Alll of which is great! I'd love it if I could do more of those things, instead of casting boring spells.


It very clearly is.
Look, I'm not going to do a back-and-forth "nu-uh," "yes-huh" with you. I disagree with you that it is, and you've said nothing to convince me.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
No, they're not. In the current iteraction, Infusions cost their own unique resource, independent from spell slots. My suggestion is to consolodate those resources. Have Infusions cost spell slots and get rid of the separate limited number of Infusions per day. Then the folks who don't want to cast spells with their Artificer can spend those spell slots on more infusions, and the folks who do want to cast spells with their Artificer can spend their spell slots on that.
So, you want infusions to be spells that require the caster to be holding an item to cast, restrcited by level, what spells they prepared that day, and subject to counterspell when cast.
So, spells with clunky mechanics.

But at that point, why have "greater infusions" cost their own unique resource? Just have them consume a spell slot. Maybe with a minimum level for some of the more powerful ones.
do you want them to be distinct from spellcasting, or not?


Because I don't agree with the author that it works that way just because he says it does. Sorry, a spell is a spell, not an item. You can pretend it's an item if you want, but I'm not interested in doing that.
Only the Artificer has to use a tool to cast a spell. How is this any different from your suggestion of making infusions cost spell slots to create?


I don't think it's impossible to do in a balanced way. At all.
I agree! They did it just fine in the current iteration of the Artificer.
But lets go down this road a bit. How long do the infusions for things like wands and scrolls last? Is it different from stuff like repeating shot and many handed pouch (another thing that is entirely unique to artificers, btw)?
If it lasts longer than a long rest, does that infusion "slot" remain used up?
Can you change an unused wand of fireballs for a wand of dispel magic 3 hours after ending a long rest, or only during a long rest?
How is the costing of spellstoring items determined?
Can the party fighter use an infused wand of fireballs, or only the artificer themself?
If it can be passed off to other creatures, how do you balance that? If not, how is it different from the artificer casting the spell, since it clearly is coming from their own power, not the item itself?
How do you explain the idea that the magic comes from the item, if it requires the Artificer to make the item? If they can imbue that item with fireball, how the hell does that translate to them not making a fireball under their own power?
If they can do this without any special power of their own, like TOny Stark or Green Arrow, why can't my tinker/magic item crafting rogue make infusions? Why isn't this whole system just part of the crafting rules?


Except it is, because in one case you have a scroll or a wand, and in the other case you don't. A scroll or a wand can be put in a backpack, it can be lost, stolen, or destroyed, it can be cast at one's leisure. A spell does none of those things, it's just an instantaneous effect. You might as well say that a match is fire.
If I wake up from a night's sleep and have 6 matches, every single day, no matter what, how is that different from is I wake up with the abiity to make fire come out of my pinky, in the same size, for the same duration, as a match, 6 times a day?

Description. That's literally it. You're demanding extra mechanics to separate things that are literally non-distinct in terms of what the character can accomplish in a day.


Note how "Ki Point" and "Spell Slot" are two completely different terms. They're also functionally different resources, as they have different things they can be spent to do.
They aren't, though. The shadow monk is a spell caster. They cast spells. this is like trying to say that Ranger Spell Slots and Wizard Spell Slots are functionally different because they can be spent to do different things. It's blatantly absurd. If your hypothetical artificer casts spells by spending Infusion Points, it's still a spellcaster, just like the current one.

Alll of which is great! I'd love it if I could do more of those things, instead of casting boring spells.
You have literally been saying that they should be casting spells by making a wand that casts the spell, while claiming that the class has nothing that is unique. You made false claims, I corrected them with examples.

One more question. How would tracking how many charges of fireball the infusion wand would be able to cast work? Do you want to have to determine during a long rest exactly how many charges of each spell you've stored in items you have for the day? 3 detect magics, 4 magic missiles, 2 fireballs, 1 water breathing, etc? Because if so, that's just old school vancian spellcasting with a new coat of paint.

Or maybe you don't want it to be clunky and annoying, so you'd prefer to simply have x number of infusions that you use up as you declare throughout the day that you happen to have a wand or ring or whatever for this situation, and produce a ring of water breather you imbued during your last rest?

Because that is literally just current spell casting.

Look, I'm not going to do a back-and-forth "nu-uh," "yes-huh" with you. I disagree with you that it is, and you've said nothing to convince me.
I presented plenty of counter points in the post you quoted. At this point, it's clear that you simply refuse to acknowledge or consider the points of anyone who disagrees with you. Feel free to make an artificer that meets your requirements. Most players want what's being offered.


Maybe there is a feature that could accomodate you, if you were willing at all to compromise.

Spell storing item could be a low level feature, and you could cast a spell using a spell slot at any point to create a stasis bound spell in an object, that you could then hand to a friend. using it yourself is identical to casting it, except that you used the spell slot earlier. It can be countered just like casting from a wand.
If material components are required, they are spent when using the spell slot to imbue the item. You can reclaim your stored spell slots during a long rest, or let them stay in the object. You don't regain spell slots unless you use the spell stored, or reclaim the slots during a rest, removing them from the item. You do not recover spent material components, if the spell description says they are consumed by the spell.

I'd be fine with this as a subclass, but there are some hefty balance concerns, and you're still a spellcaster, because you can't have a subclass that removes spellcasting as a class feature, AND because spell slots by level and spell levels are already balanced, and the class is already too complicated to add "Infusion Points" just to obfuscate that it's a spellcasting class.


There would have to be an extra cost if your friends can use it. Perhaps a restriction on what level of spell you can imbue, or which ones can be used by someone other than you. Handing level 3 spell to your level 5 ranger friend is overpowered inherently. Magic items get away with it by being limited and having cost and rarity that help the GM adjudicate what items to give out.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top