Unearthed Arcana Revised Artificer Survey now available

[Charlaquin]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

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]

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.

 

[bedir than]

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]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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]

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]

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]

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.