Unearthed Arcana Revised Artificer Survey now available

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
No, I want Infusions to be as they are in the playtest (they pretty much nailed them, in my opinion), except instead of spending the "Infused Items" resource on them, you spend spell slots on them. Mostly so that I can do something more interesting than cast spells with the spell slots you people insist the class must have.

do you want them to be distinct from spellcasting, or not?
Yes.

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?
It's just a spellcasting focus. They can use thieves tools or artisan's tools as a spellcasting focus. That's no more unique than a cleric using a holy symbol or a druid using holly and mistletoe instead of a staff. I don't understand how you can honestly think that's remotely similar to spending spell slots to make things like Many Handed Pouches.

I agree! They did it just fine in the current iteration of the Artificer.
Yes, they did. Infusions are a great bit of design. I just want a character that does that, and doesn't cast spells. Since apparently it's not Eberron if the Artificer doesn't cast spells, and apparently it's impossible to make an Eberron Artificier with spellcasting as a subclass feature, I've moved on to suggesting that they let us use spell slots on something other than spells, namely Infusions.

But lets go down this road a bit. How long do the infusions for things like wands and scrolls last?
From the article, "Your infusion remains in an item indefinitely, but when you die, the infusion vanishes after a number of days have passed equal to your Intelligence modifier (minimum of 1 day). The infusion also vanishes if you give up your knowledge of the infusion for another one."

Is it different from stuff like repeating shot and many handed pouch (another thing that is entirely unique to artificers, btw)?
No. I'm literally suggesting that you be able to spend spell slots to do more of those cool unique things instead of casting more boring spells.

If it lasts longer than a long rest, does that infusion "slot" remain used up?
Yes. Just like the "Infused Items" resource, which this would replac.

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?
During a long rest.

How is the costing of spellstoring items determined?
Good question. Perhaps by the level of the spell stored and the slot expended to create the item. The Spell Point conversion rate from the Sorcerer's Flexible Casting might be a good place to start.

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?
Sure. The party fighter can use an infused Enhanced Weapon, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to use an infused wand of fireballs. That's also part of what makes it an item as opposed to just a spell you cast with your thieves' tools instead of a staff. I don't think it would be particularly unbalanced, given the inherent limitations of the Infuse Item feature.

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?
Me, personally? I don't worry about it. I don't ever use my spell slots to cast spells, I just use them to infuse items, and I narrate it as my character having strong magical potential, but being unable to cast spells, perhaps due to lack of training or some form of disability, but channels that magical energy into items instead to overcome that limitation.

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?
The matches can be lost, stolen, destroyed, stored and used at your leisure, handed to a friend, etc.

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.
No, I'm not. Spell storing items can quite literally do things spells cannot. See the match example.

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.
I have never claimed the class does nothing unique. I said that "casting spells and describing them as something other than spells" is not a unique thing the class does.

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.
Really? You could make permanent repeating crossbows with old-school Vancian spellcasting? Your spells could be transferred to other people? You could have your prepared spells stolen? Man, old-school Vancian was pretty different than I remember.

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.
Just because I didn't agree with your counterpoints doesn't mean I haven't been considering them.

Maybe there is a feature that could accomodate you, if you were willing at all to compromise.
My suggestion of spending spell slots on infusions is already a compromise. I'd prefer an Artificier that just didn't have spells, or at least had an option for playing without spells, and I think the easiest way to do that would be to make spellcasting a feature of one or more of the subclasses. But I was told that was impossible to make in a way that would satisfy the Eberron Artificier. So, I changed tac to suggesting that there be something the Artificer can spend spell slots on other than spells. Infusions seemed like a good candidate.

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 feel like this is exactly what I'm suggesting, only you can make a spell storing item at any time instead of only at a long rest. I'd be perfectly fine with that.

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,
Whatever, I'm not concerned with it technically being "a spellcaster," as long as I don't have to actually cast spells and can use the spell slots on something that is not just a spell I used Tinkers Tools as a spellcasting focus for.

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.
The class already has "Infusion Points," I'm suggesting reducing the complexity by getting rid of them and making spell slots the resource you spend on Infusions instead.

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.
Sure. I think that's design work worth doing though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


tglassy

Adventurer
Me, personally? I don't worry about it. I don't ever use my spell slots to cast spells, I just use them to infuse items, and I narrate it as my character having strong magical potential, but being unable to cast spells, perhaps due to lack of training or some form of disability, but channels that magical energy into items instead to overcome that limitation.
.

You’re entire argument just died. You just said you don’t worry about it and just narrate your character as having a concept and fluffing the mechanics to fit. Which is what you have been saying you DON’T want to do.

At this point you are just arguing to argue. If you hate spellcasting so much and lack the creativity to fluff something into something else then go play a different game. I hear Pathfinder has so many options it’ll make your head spin. Have fun.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
You’re entire argument just died. You just said you don’t worry about it and just narrate your character as having a concept and fluffing the mechanics to fit. Which is what you have been saying you DON’T want to do.
No, I’ve been saying I don’t want to cast spells and pretend they’re something other than spells. I have no problem with narrating things to suit my character, what I have a problem with is trying to pretend a spell isn’t a spell just because you used Calligrapher’s Tools instead of an Orb to cast it.

At this point you are just arguing to argue. If you hate spellcasting so much and lack the creativity to fluff something into something else then go play a different game. I hear Pathfinder has so many options it’ll make your head spin. Have fun.
Or, how about this for a novel idea: I provide feedback in the public playtest survey that exists for the very purpose of helping refine the 5e Artificer into something that the majority of interested players are satisfied with, to insure that voices like mine who want a non-spellcasting option for the class are heard.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
No, I’ve been saying I don’t want to cast spells and pretend they’re something other than spells. I have no problem with narrating things to suit my character, what I have a problem with is trying to pretend a spell isn’t a spell just because you used Calligrapher’s Tools instead of an Orb to cast it.


Or, how about this for a novel idea: I provide feedback in the public playtest survey that exists for the very purpose of helping refine the 5e Artificer into something that the majority of interested players are satisfied with, to insure that voices like mine who want a non-spellcasting option for the class are heard.

I don't really understand your objection anymore, and I don't see anyone else making the arguments you're making (here or elsewhere) so I have no idea where you're getting the word "majority" from in this objection.

The class itself directly says, "To observers, you ... look as if you’re producing wonders through various items..." with an entire section which adds:

Artificer Class said:
As an artificer, you use tools when you cast your spells. When describing your spellcasting, think about how you’re using a tool to perform the spell effect. If you cast cure wounds using alchemist’s supplies, you could be quickly producing a salve. If you cast it using tinker’s tools, you might have a miniature mechanical spider that binds wounds. When you cast poison spray, you could fling foul chemicals or use a wand that spits venom. The effect of the spell is the same as for a spellcaster of any other class, but your method of spellcasting is special.

The same principle applies when you prepare your spells. As an artificer, you don’t study a spellbook or pray to prepare your spells. Instead, you work with your tools and create the specialized items you’ll use to produce your effects. If you replace cure wounds with shocking grasp, you might be breaking down the device you used to heal and creating an offensive item in its place—perhaps a gauntlet that lets you channel a surge of energy.

Is it you want that emphasized more? Is it you want something different than that?
 
Last edited:

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
No, I want Infusions to be as they are in the playtest (they pretty much nailed them, in my opinion), except instead of spending the "Infused Items" resource on them, you spend spell slots on them. Mostly so that I can do something more interesting than cast spells with the spell slots you people insist the class must have.
Honestly, I'd drop this particular point (spell slots powering infusions), as it weakens your overall argument. If you want a class where the bulk of its power lies in a mechanical chassis that's not spellcasting, than the spellcasting has to go. Much easier to make a class with a nonmagical chassis, and then add in a third caster subclass, a la Eldritch Knight.

The only 5e PHB guidance to follow as to how to model a class that's both not a martial (a martial gains Extra Attack at 5th) and not a full caster is the rogue, and I don't think the rogue damage track is the right path to follow. Making the artificer a half-caster has the advantage of simplicity. Making the artificer a noncaster requires an entire new resource model, so I'm not surprised they didn't go in that direction; 5e mechanical design has certainly tended to be conservative from the official channels. As always, I'm glad I've weaned myself off official material for my own table needs.
 

The homunculus is a pretty big part of the mythology of alchemy.
While it is a credit to WotC that versions of a Homunculus actually do appear in alchemical texts, they rarely comprise more than two to three pages on the subject with the notable exception of Chymical Wedding. I suspect the inclusion of the Homunculus as the primary feature of the Alchemist subclass has more to do with someone on the staff being inspired by modern sources.
 
Last edited:

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
While it is a credit to WotC that versions of a Homunculus actually do appear in alchemical texts, they rarely comprise more than two to three pages on the subject with the notable exception of Chymical Wedding. I suspect the inclusion of the Homunculus as the primary feature of the Alchemist subclass has more to do with someone on the staff being inspired by modern sources.

I suspect it has more to do with the "Oh crap, we already gave the Transmuter the (not)Philosopher's stone, and people hate it when we crib features from other subclasses! Now what are we going to give them?" angle.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don't really understand your objection anymore, and I don't see anyone else making the arguments you're making (here or elsewhere) so I have no idea where you're getting the word "majority" from in this objection.
I’m not claiming my stance is the majority. I’m saying that the point of the playtest and surveys is to end up with an Artificer that satisfies the majority of players. I am providing my feedback to help insure that my perspective is taken into account. They’ll end up with what they end up with, but for as long as they’re seeking feedback, I’m going to continue expressing my desire for a non-spellcasting Artificer.

The class itself directly says, "To observers, you ... look as if you’re producing wonders through various items..." with an entire section which adds:

Is it you want that emphasized more? Is it you want something different than that?
I want mechanical distinction to match the narrative distinction. I don’t just want to describe my character “making a salve” or “using a wand that spits venom” while performing the exact same game action as anyone else casting cure wounds or acid spray. I want a meaningful distinction between using a salve and casting cure wounds. I can already play a wizard or a cleric or whatever and describe my spells as if I was using items to produce the effects if that’s what I want to do. I want the Artificer to do something that is mechanically distinct from casting spells.

And before someone points it out, yes, I know Artificers have unique mechanics, such as Infusions. I approve strongly of those mechanics. What I want is an Artificer who does more of those things, instead of casting spells.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Honestly, I'd drop this particular point (spell slots powering infusions), as it weakens your overall argument. If you want a class where the bulk of its power lies in a mechanical chassis that's not spellcasting, than the spellcasting has to go. Much easier to make a class with a nonmagical chassis, and then add in a third caster subclass, a la Eldritch Knight.
I’d be fine with it working that way, personally, but I’ve been told that that isn’t sufficient spellcasting ability to express the Eberron Artificer. The suggestion of spell slots powering Infusions was meant as a compromise. An alternative where both full-spellcasting and non-spellcasting could coexist in the same class. Personally, I don’t much care how it gets done, as long as it is possible to play an Artificer who doesn’t cast spells and is still a fully contributing member of the party.

The only 5e PHB guidance to follow as to how to model a class that's both not a martial (a martial gains Extra Attack at 5th) and not a full caster is the rogue, and I don't think the rogue damage track is the right path to follow. Making the artificer a half-caster has the advantage of simplicity. Making the artificer a noncaster requires an entire new resource model, so I'm not surprised they didn't go in that direction; 5e mechanical design has certainly tended to be conservative from the official channels. As always, I'm glad I've weaned myself off official material for my own table needs.
Err... The Artificer in the playtest does get Extra Attack at 5th. Technically it’s slightly more restrictive than Extra Attack, but since you can Infuse a magic weapon for yourself if you need it and it counts as Extra Attack for multiclassing purposes, I’d call the current Artificer a martial by this definition.

I don’t see any reason spellcasting via subclass needs to be 1/3 progression. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and give them half-casting via their subclasses. As long as there’s one that gets something else, like extra Infused Items, or a more powerful pet, or bonus ASIs like the Fighter and Rogue get. Anything, really, as long as there’s an avenue for playing a non-casting Artificer.

Of course, I know it won’t happen. They didn’t give us an option for non-casting rangers, they’re not going to do it for Artificers. But as long as this thing is still in play testing, I’m going to keep giving the feedback that I and others want a non-spellcasting option for the class.
 
Last edited:


TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I’d be fine with it working that way, personally, but I’ve been told that that isn’t sufficient spellcasting ability to express the Eberron Artificer. The suggestion of spell slots powering Infusions was meant as a compromise. An alternative where both full-spellcasting and non-spellcasting could coexist in the same class. Personally, I don’t much care how it gets done, as long as it is possible to play an Artificer who doesn’t cast spells and is still a fully contributing member of the party.
That's fair. I'd just rather hear about your personal vision than the compromise vision.


Err... The Artificer in the playtest does get Extra Attack at 5th. Technically it’s slightly more restrictive than Extra Attack, but since you can Infuse a magic weapon for yourself if you need it and it counts as Extra Attack for multiclassing purposes, I’d call the current Artificer a martial by this definition.
Heh, shows how much concern I have about WotC's version. I only read through it once, since I'm already using the (to me) far more interesting KibblesTasty version.

I don’t see any reason spellcasting via subclass needs to be 1/3 progression. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and give them half-casting via their subclasses. As long as there’s one that gets something else, like extra Infused Items, or a more powerful pet, or bonus ASIs like the Fighter and Rogue get. Anything, really, as long as there’s an avenue for playing a non-casting Artificer.
I suggested it only because there's no precedent for a class with no casting to gain half casting via subclass. Not that it can't work, but class structures that haven't been done before need a longer period of scrutiny. It also means the subclass would have more power relative to the base class, and thus any other subclasses would also need a power up. Again, not unworkable, but something to consider.

Of course, I know it won’t happen. They didn’t give us an option for non-casting rangers, they’re not going to do it for Artificers. But as long as this thing is still in play testing, I’m going to keep giving the feedback that I and others want a non-spellcasting option for the class.
Probably not. It's personally not a big deal for me, since I have no issue reskinning one mechanical concept into multiple narrative expressions, or reskinning multiple mechanical concepts into the same narrative expression, if that supports that character concept and the player's needs. I just tend to advocate for new mechanical concepts, since those take work.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I’d be fine with it working that way, personally, but I’ve been told that that isn’t sufficient spellcasting ability to express the Eberron Artificer. The suggestion of spell slots powering Infusions was meant as a compromise. An alternative where both full-spellcasting and non-spellcasting could coexist in the same class. Personally, I don’t much care how it gets done, as long as it is possible to play an Artificer who doesn’t cast spells and is still a fully contributing member of the party.


Err... The Artificer in the playtest does get Extra Attack at 5th. Technically it’s slightly more restrictive than Extra Attack, but since you can Infuse a magic weapon for yourself if you need it and it counts as Extra Attack for multiclassing purposes, I’d call the current Artificer a martial by this definition.

I don’t see any reason spellcasting via subclass needs to be 1/3 progression. Have the subclass kick in at 2nd level and give them half-casting via their subclasses. As long as there’s one that gets something else, like extra Infused Items, or a more powerful pet, or bonus ASIs like the Fighter and Rogue get. Anything, really, as long as there’s an avenue for playing a non-casting Artificer.

Of course, I know it won’t happen. They didn’t give us an option for non-casting rangers, they’re not going to do it for Artificers. But as long as this thing is still in play testing, I’m going to keep giving the feedback that I and others want a non-spellcasting option for the class.

Weird. The quote has my name. But I didn't write what you're responding to? Maybe it was [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] ?
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
Weird. The quote has my name. But I didn't write what you're responding to? Maybe it was [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] ?
Yea, that was my quote listed under your name. I'm sure [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] can fix it in the morning (since it's midnight in Australia.)
 

Savevsdeath

First Post
And others, like myself, are perfectly fine with the Eberron Artificer, but want the 5e Artificer to be able to accommodate a wider range of character concepts than the original.

3.5 had a zillion classes and prestige classes to represent highly specific concepts. 5e takes a much broader, more archetypal approach to class design, with the more specific concepts falling to Subclasses to express. A 5e Artificer needs to be able to encompass more than just the Eberron Artificer, because it’s going to be the class everyone who wants to play a magitech character has to use, regardless of whether they’re playing Eberron or not. What I want may not be the Eberron Artificer, but there’s not going to be a class built around what I want out of a Magitech character. So, I want the 5e Artificer to be built broadly enough to use for both what I want and the Eberron Artificer.

What do you want the Artificer to do that it can't currently? What concept should it represent that you believe is unrepresented? I'm struggling to think of any.

Yes, that is precisely what I want them to do. Rather than casting spells themselves, they craft items, which they use to cast spells they otherwise couldn’t.

That's fine; while this would make them more like the Artificers of old, it would also make them less suitable for many settings and more complicated to redesign. I wouldn't be heartbroken to get an artificer that lost spells entirely and focused more on Infusions, but how do you design that so it's meaningfuly different from a spellcaster? The class already makes it clear that you are casting via items; that's really all the mechanics that are needed. What do you want done differently? What is your complaint or brilliant change that would be better and make the class work for any setting?

Edit: I started writing the post last night and you answered part of my question since. I see where you're trying to go; i just don't like where you're headed, but who says everyone has to agree? But ultimately, i want the class to serve Eberron first and everything else second; an Artificer that doesn't feel right for Eberron but is great for other settings is a bad Artificer IMO, and i believe that baking more of the class' power into the subclass would cause a level of overspecialization that would make it not feel like an Artificer.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Yea, that was my quote listed under your name. I'm sure [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] can fix it in the morning (since it's midnight in Australia.)

I live in the US, so it’s morning now where I’m at. Sorry, I copy and paste quote tags a lot, sometimes I get the wrong one. It’s fixed now.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Apologies, I took your location field to mean something else.

Yeah, Oz as in the magical land of. I have no idea why ENworld lists that as my location though. I once set that as my location for Gaia Online as a joke when I was in middle school, but I never set it to that in ENworld that I remember.
 


MiraMels

Explorer
The survey is no longer accepting additional responses?
But we only got one week of play testing the new material!

That hardcover is coming out at the end of the year, they've got to hop to it!

I hope we see another UA release before the book is published.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top