• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Revised Artificer Survey now available

Charlaquin

Explorer
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.
I kinda doubt we will, honestly. For better or worse, thr Artificer in this most recent round is probably very close to the one we’ll be getting in the final product. There may be some small tweaks, but I expect it to be about like the difference between the UAs for the Xanathar’s Guide subclasses and their final iterations.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
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.
IMO it's a very good thing that they are reluctant to introduce entirely new resource models into the game. I think one of the primary and irreplaceable strengths of the edition is that the game doesn't function completely differently for people with all the material vs people with just the PHB.

That said, the damage track of the rogue could be exactly what an Inventor class would benefit from. Not the Artificer, because that's an explicitly magical crafter with a specific vision, but a different Inventor class, certainly. If they are somehow able to infuse magic into things while simultaneously unable to do any magic directly (imo a silly premise), why not allow a similar damage track as a psuedo-smite that is at-will because it isn't coming from without, but from their "signature weapon"?

Maybe less restricted than the rogue, but also less damage. So, you can add it to the damage of the firebolt you shoot out of your Signature Wand or whatever, but you deal half the extra damage of a rogue, or something like half the dice but d8s instead of d6s, or whatever makes the math work.

I'd also give such a class, maybe called the Imbuer, the ability to recharge magic items with charges x/day, with a level based table for what rarity of item they can recharge, and how many x it takes to recharge items of a given rarity. Using spell slots to do it would be more mechanically efficient, I'd wager, but since the goal is to not have those...

Then I'd have a few different types of Signature Creation you can have, analogous to the Warlocks Pact Boon choice in that it's aside from the subclass choice. Subclasses would include things like gaining the ability to make a weapon attack as a Bonus Action after using a magic item as an Action, 1/3 spellcasting, a mech suit, advanced bomb and/or trap crafting, etc. I've despised every "mutagen" chugging class I've ever seen in a d20 game, but might as well let those guys have their thing, too.

Just, leave the Artificer itself out of it. They're two separate concepts.

But in the end, folks that don't like this Artificer are best off looking to 3pp, for better or worse.

The survey is no longer accepting additional responses?
But we only got one week of play testing the new material!
Yeah, I think they basically just ran the numbers on the satisfaction portion, saw overwhelmingly positive responses, and realised that any further work would just be fine tuning. And they probably got more than sufficient (in their view) responses in that time. Still, I wish it was open for longer, or that they'd waiting longer to put it out. I know a couple ppl in my group didn't get a chance to sit down and go through it properly enough to give good feedback.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
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.
Page count? I really don't think there's much to that argument, tbh. It's a rather classic part of the archetype. Page count doesn't particularly impact that.
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
I don't disagree with you, but 4e already tried that and a lot of people weren't happy about it.
People didn't read past the basic formatting presentation.
Proof: 5e does the same thing all over the place, and people don't mind because it's presented differently at a quick glance.

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.
But you're ignoring what that actually means. You're making something with a tool, and using it to create the magical effect described by the spell. Why do you want an extra mechanical step to take what the rules are already saying, and just...say it harder and with more complexity?


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.
This isn't the survey, though. And wotc doesn't read these threads. At all. Ever. You're just yelling at people who have no say in what happens, at this point. You, I assume, provided your feedback. So did the rest of us. We'll see what happens next, but post after post crapping on the basic premise of the class isn't helpful or interesting.
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
Archetype? The Archetype for this class is clearly the Doctor.

Who else do you know who uses a tool (sonic screwdriver) as a focus, which duplicates the effect of a spell (Knock) by default, but can be tinkered to produce pretty much any other magical (Time Lord technology obeys Clarke's law, and is indistinguishable from magic) effect the plot requires, prefers to fight using Intelligence rather than Strength, and is sometimes accompanied by a mechanical combat pet:

new-k9.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think a non-spellcasting Artificer would fit fine in Eberron. It’s not like they wouldn’t be able to make scrolls, potions, wands, etc. with which to produce the effects of spells.



Ugh. If there’s one thing I dislike more than a spellcasting Artificer, it’s a spellcasting Artificer that tries to pretend it’s not casting spells because it calls its spells something different. I don’t want the Artificer to be a spellcaster, but if it has to be out of some kind of adherence to the artistic vision of Eberron or whatever, at least have the decency to call those spells what they are. A sidebar saying “you can use thieves tools as a spellcasting focus and describe your spells however you want!” doesn’t actually make it any less of a spellcasting class. I can already describe my spells however I want, and no one ever actually describes their spells anyway. I’m not opposed to the idea of a spellcasting Artificer existing, but please at least give us a non-spellcasting option.

I also don’t buy the “this way they don’t have to recreate the wheel to give you ‘something unique’” argument. The wheel’s already been recreated and called Infusions.
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on warlocks, invocations and pact magic?
 

Charlaquin

Explorer
Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion on warlocks, invocations and pact magic?
Big fan. Favorite class in 5e. Great class for newer players who want to play a caster but might be overwhelmed by spell slots and spell preparation, tons of customizability for experienced players who want to mess around with builds. One of the best gishes in the edition. And its resource management is functionally pretty close to AEDU, which I love.
 
Last edited:
Big fan. Favorite class in 5e. Great class for newer players who want to play a caster but might be overwhelmed by spell slots and spell preparation, tons of customizability for experienced players who want to mess around with builds. One of the best gishes in the edition. And its resource management is functionally pretty close to AEDU, which I love.
I was curious because like the artificer, they have multiple competing mechanics (spell slots, invocations, patrons pacts and arcana) that mostly just replicate spells with an extra dose of spooky flavor. I see a lot of kinship between the artificer and warlock as flavorful alt-spellcasers with multiple sources of magic and a ton of customization.
 

Charlaquin

Explorer
But you're ignoring what that actually means. You're making something with a tool, and using it to create the magical effect described by the spell. Why do you want an extra mechanical step to take what the rules are already saying, and just...say it harder and with more complexity?
Because I want things that claim to be different to actually be different. Nobody bothers describing their spellcasting anyway, so saying “you can describe casting your spells as making something with a tool and using that tool to create the desired effect” doesn’t really mean anything. I don’t just want to say my Artificer’s magic is different, I want my Artificer’s magic to be different.

This isn't the survey, though. And wotc doesn't read these threads. At all. Ever. You're just yelling at people who have no say in what happens, at this point. You, I assume, provided your feedback. So did the rest of us. We'll see what happens next, but post after post crapping on the basic premise of the class isn't helpful or interesting.
If I’m yelling it’s because I’m being told to shut up. I expressed my opinion about what I would like to see in an Artificer, got told I was wrong for wanting that and that I was “making false claims,” and I have only been justifying and defending my opinion since. You might notice that a few people have expressed a difference of opinion without attacking my opinion, and I ha e not responded to those people. Because I’m not really interested in arguing about what the Artificer should look like. But I’m also not going to lay down and take it when told that the Artificer shouldn't look like what I want out of it.
 

Charlaquin

Explorer
I agree they don't formally.

But I don't think they ignore them completely.
I agree, but I don’t think they’ve really looked to forums to get a read on player opinions since the 5e open playtest ended and they shut down their official forums.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Explorer
I was curious because like the artificer, they have multiple competing mechanics (spell slots, invocations, patrons pacts and arcana) that mostly just replicate spells with an extra dose of spooky flavor. I see a lot of kinship between the artificer and warlock as flavorful alt-spellcasers with multiple sources of magic and a ton of customization.
That makes sense. I adore the Warlock for that. It’s the one casting class that actually feels like it plays in a meaningfully different way than the others to me.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad day
No. Pets.

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

Everything else is just tweaks.
Are you saying that:
1. No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet.
2. D&D 5e can't handle pets (in a game with summons and animates and the like) and shouldn't even try to rectify this classic archetype?
3. You have a personal preference you wish to enforce on everyone else?
4. Something else? If so, please describe.
 

hbarsquared

Quantum Chronomancer
Are you saying that:
1. No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet.
2. D&D 5e can't handle pets (in a game with summons and animates and the like) and shouldn't even try to rectify this classic archetype?
3. You have a personal preference you wish to enforce on everyone else?
4. Something else? If so, please describe.
(4), with a little bit of (3) mixed in.

It's not that "No one who wants to play an artificer would want a pet." It's that "There are those who want to play an artificer without a pet." Since the pet is baked in, I cannot play an artificer without a pet.

I'm in the camp that fell in love with the artificer from Eberron 3.5. I'm happy with a modern artificer with expanded/different capabilities, and even flavor, but only as long as I can still play an artificer that feels Original Eberron, to me. Spellcasting, Infusions, Tinkering, Tool proficiency, Spell-storing, and even the ideas behind the Specialists all work for me, in concept. However, I don't like the homunculus, the turret, the iron defender as required mechanics for the Specialists.

I want to play an artificer alchemists without the homunculus. I want to play a Wandslinger/Artillerists without the turret. With that said, I might want to play an Archivist with an iron defender pet, or a Battlesmith with the artificial mind - those sound like fun - and are precluded by the construction of the class and subclasses.
 

Seramus

Explorer
Page count? I really don't think there's much to that argument, tbh. It's a rather classic part of the archetype. Page count doesn't particularly impact that.
The problem is that there are several other classic parts of the archetype that are far more iconic and influential than the creation of homunculi. It’s like a Batman subclass that focuses on the batmobile, instead of his detective skills, combat prowess, or utility belt.
 
In about an hour, on the Dragon+ podcast on Twitch, Jeremy Crawford will be discussing the Artificer, in case anyone wants to watch it live today or later once the recording is available.
 

Leatherhead

Adventurer
In about an hour, on the Dragon+ podcast on Twitch, Jeremy Crawford will be discussing the Artificer, in case anyone wants to watch it live today or later once the recording is available.
Good news for some people in this thread:
It looks like the Homunculus is highly likely to be retooled into an Infusion instead of a Subclass Feature.

Unfortunately, it seems like the rest of the pets are stuck in their respective subclasses.
 

lkj

Explorer
Good news for some people in this thread:
It looks like the Homunculus is highly likely to be retooled into an Infusion instead of a Subclass Feature.

Unfortunately, it seems like the rest of the pets are stuck in their respective subclasses.
Perhaps. But it also sounded like the 'turret' for the Artillerist might get re-worked to be something that could be wielded. Which sounds a lot less pet-like.

AD
 

doctorbadwolf

Explorer
The problem is that there are several other classic parts of the archetype that are far more iconic and influential than the creation of homunculi. It’s like a Batman subclass that focuses on the batmobile, instead of his detective skills, combat prowess, or utility belt.
I disagree completely. It's more like a story about Batman that focuses on one of those three features.

Perhaps. But it also sounded like the 'turret' for the Artillerist might get re-worked to be something that could be wielded. Which sounds a lot less pet-like.

AD
Damn I hope it still can be a "pet", because my wife really enjoys her turret as it is.
 

Advertisement

Top