D&D 5E Running Eberron in 5E

[collin]

Yes, I agree. None of the existing classes have so much of their focus on casting spells into items rather than casting spells into people. And barely any classes ever grant features that have you craft something. An artificer subclass with the right feel and flavor would require too many changes to the base class.

And I also agree with Wrathaman and Fralex. From my perspective, the Artificer needs to be its own class. It is different enough that from what I have seen in 5th edition it would lose too much in becoming a subclass of wizard or some other magic-using class. As someone pointed out, the artificer is an engineer. Wizards and sorcerers are more like artists. Artificers would be more like mathematicians. Sort of a right brain vs. left brain type of contrast.

 

[Fralex]

As someone pointed out, the artificer is an engineer. Wizards and sorcerers are more like artists. Artificers would be more like mathematicians. Sort of a right brain vs. left brain type of contrast.

Well, I don't know if I would describe wizards as artists. If artificers are engineers and mathematicians, then wizards are scientists using the tools and formulas developed by the engineers and mathematicians. Wizards care more about applied magic and artificers care more about magic theory.

 

[Hyperlexic]

I'm playing with Keith / Hellcow's Artificer hack right now. I really quite like it, except that the Channel Divinity 'Weapon Augmentation' seems like a bit of a hack. I'm toying with the idea of replacing this with the ability to create short-term magic items...

We also gave the Artificer proficiency with all Crossbows, it seems very thematically appropriate; and gave him the Find Familiar / Craft Homunculus spells.

 

[Fralex]

I'm playing with Keith / Hellcow's Artificer hack right now. I really quite like it, except that the Channel Divinity 'Weapon Augmentation' seems like a bit of a hack. I'm toying with the idea of replacing this with the ability to create short-term magic items...

We also gave the Artificer proficiency with all Crossbows, it seems very thematically appropriate; and gave him the Find Familiar / Craft Homunculus spells.

Oh! Have you seen the artificer class I was working on that built on top of that hack? It goes up to level 10 at the moment, and I'd be interested to know how well it works so far. You can see it in the fan content section here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The class that mechanically fits the best is Warlock imo but thematically it doesnt work as a subclass. Then I would say Sorcerer. Again doesn't work.

Thematics are really all that matter. Everything else, from proficiencies to spell lists, can be put into any class that needs 'em. Why can't the artificer just use spell slots like every other class that creates magical effects? Or perhaps another way of thinking about it: what do warlocks and sorcerers have that you feel an artificer must have to be an artificer?

how bout bard? Why would they have a song of rest?

Bard is just a close fit mechanically, not thematically (which is why I didn't use that as my go-to). Mechanically, healing poultices and tonics are well within the wheelhouse of an artificer, and "heal extra hp during a short rest" easily fits with the flavor of the artificer repairing everyone, applying some painkillers, and the like.

and why does his bardic die mechanic doesnt seem to fit very well, and musically instruments as tools?

Mechanically, inspiration dice are just "+1dx to certain checks." In the artificer's hands, that is what enchanting your helmet to boost your Int for your Int checks (for instance) looks like. Mechanically, musical instruments as tools is just "I can use a spellcasting focus instead of material components." In the artificer's hands, that becomes a wand or a wrench or something.

Your suggestion wizard. Which on the surfaces thematically could work. But, it breaks down. Artificers dont have spell books,

It's not out of character for an artificer to have their formulas written in a book. I mean, where else are they going to write them down?

The whole section on preparing and casting spells goes out the window when you pick arcane tradition:artificer and then have to replace the entire spellcasting section.

The difference between using a wand that lets you cast a spell at will and using a cantrip, or using a potion or scroll that you can make each day and using a spell slot, or being able to infuse a buff into an item and casting a buff on someone wearing the item, is merely cosmetic. No need to replace the spellcasting mechanics. You just give artificers an extra, interesting way to represent their item-based casting (like being able to have anyone in the party trigger their spells).

Now if you've got a different spellcasting mechanic, that is likely WORTHY of an extra class! But artificers from 3e and 4e don't really have that.

Artificers instead of having spell books and casting spells prepare and cast spells differently... they can only infuse items with spells and make other magic items better.

That's pretty indistinguishable, mechanically, from just casting a spell. It needn't be, but the difference between "I cast mage armor on him!" and "I enchant his clothing with a force field!" is cosmetic without further development.

then as they level they have to add in how they make items, oh and they get different skill, armor and tool proficiencies.

Seems like a new class to me.

Skill, armor, and tool proficiencies aren't enough to make a new class. Neither is item creation (which anyone in 5e can do if the DM allows it).

W[/QUOTE]

 

[collin]

Well, I don't know if I would describe wizards as artists. If artificers are engineers and mathematicians, then wizards are scientists using the tools and formulas developed by the engineers and mathematicians. Wizards care more about applied magic and artificers care more about magic theory.

Good analogy. I like it.

 

[Wrathamon]

Kamikaze you arent getting the point. Could you use the wizard as a framework for a home brew artificer? Sure and it could work with how you are saying it could... by saying from the ground up replace this thematic and mechanic with this one. Could you make a published official sub-class version? No ...

why? because you have to rip out most of what is already written for wizard or re-write most of it. And at that point just go the next step and make it a new class and put more into it.

The fact that Wizards dont have armor proficiencies, the same skill lists, or even the same weapon proficiencies is one issue, so the very first part of the class needs to have a huge exception in the subclass. Then the next part of the basic wizard 1st level abilities needs a re-write to explain how artificers only cast spells into items. That is before they even get to their sub-class abilities. So at 1st level you are a wizard, then all of a sudden when you decide to go into the subclass path at lvl 2, you loose the ability to cast your spells like a wizard? That is why wizard doesnt work.

I already explained why Warlock, Cleric and Sorcerer do not work ... Artificers dont get their abilities from Otherworldly entities, their bloodline or their faith. Again, if you want to reskin one of those as a basis for the class, go ahead, but you cant just say artificers are sub-class path of one of these classes. It doesnt work. Who are they making a pact with? What Bloodline causes them to only infuse magic into items (and that is a total re-write of their lore) and they arent faith driven? Artificers are clerics of Magic Item Creation gods?

They are their own class. Part magic item maker, Part healer, part arcane user, part disable device expert, part trap maker, part alchemist, and can wear armor and use simple weapons. They are the arcane cleric who can disable traps.

 

[Fralex]

I don't think classes really need to be as different from each other as you claim to feel unique, Kamikaze Midget. Could a druid have just been relegated to a Nature Domain cleric? After all, the ancient druids from history were basically priests who revered nature. Just adjust the subclass features to give a Nature cleric shapeshifting as their Channel Divinity, Druidic as a bonus language, and make the domain spells be all the most iconic druid spells. Use the remaining subclass features to add in any other major druid abilities. You'd end up with something that could pass for a druid. But would the player who's always loved being a druid really be satisfied with the options avaliable? By making a druid just a specific kind of cleric, you remove most of the choices a player would ordinarily make about how they want to build their class. And you sort of imply that druids aren't really as important or evocative as clerics, that if you kept them as a full class there wouldn't be enough ways you could go with them to make adding extra options worthwhile.

I've seen this happening with a few players regarding the warlord class. Some of the people who really loved that class don't feel like the Battlemaster fighter does enough to scratch that itch. On the surface, yeah, you can make a martial character that gives allies extra attacks, moves them around, and helps them fight through grievous injury with inspiring words that light a fire in them. I looked at this and thought, Yep, sounds like a warlord to me. The people complaining it's not supported anymore are just being difficult. But after talking with some of them, I came to understand that yes, they were well aware of the fact that fighters could now do some things warlords could do, but anyone who wants to play as a warlord like they did in 4e will pretty much be forced into a very specific chain of options. The warlord abilities would come with limitations; Commander's Strike was supposed to be something they could use as much as they wanted. Now after barking a couple orders to their allies, their, um, voice gets too sore and they have to rest to clear it again? And they run out of shouting faster if they parry something? For people who just sort of had a passing interest in warlords these options might be enough, but for the people who loved the class? Trying to be one in 5e just reminds them of all the things they still can't do no matter how they build the character.

It's the same thing with the artificer. What do you think of the artificer class? Have you played one much? Can you approach the design of the 5e artificer with the mindset of the sort of person this class would appeal to? When the 5e artificer gets made, it deserves to be made by someone who really loves it. Your suggestions about making it a wizard subclass sound OK on the surface, but I don't feel like a mere subclass has enough depth to satisfy the people who care about it the most. In some ways artificers are a lot like wizards. But when I play an artificer, I never feel like I'm playing a wizard. The way things feel, the themes they embody and the stories they tell are an important part of game design, just like mechanics are. It's an art and a science.

 

[Hyperlexic]

Oh! Have you seen the artificer class I was working on that built on top of that hack? It goes up to level 10 at the moment, and I'd be interested to know how well it works so far. You can see it in the fan content section here.

I hadn't seen it! I'll comment there since i see some others have already commented. thanks!

 

[Fralex]

Yay, my DMG arrived! The magic items section has given me some great ideas. All those tables you can roll on to give minor properties to magic items? I feel like this is what the personal weapon augmentation infusion was always meant to be. I'm thinking you start off with a cantrip that lets you either give an object one minor property plus a random quirk, or just give it a quirk of your choice. At much higher levels you learn a new infusion, call it lesser artifactory, that does the same thing but uses the two Minor Properties tables (Beneficial replacing Minor Properties and Detrimental replacing Quirks) from the Artifact Properties section. Finally as one of the highest-level infusions you get greater artifactory, which uses the two Major Properties tables from that section. An epic-level artificer still can't craft artifacts, because that's stupid-overpowered even at the top tier, but they can reproduce the legendary enchantments commonly found on artifacts! Which is more open to creativity anyway. Honestly, these tables were basically MADE to be used by artificers. Oh, and lastly there should be some kind of mid-level infusion or class feature you get that lets you make the infusion you cast on an object permanent with enough gp worth of materials based on the infusion's level and maybe some other factors like how long it would last otherwise. Give artificers those four powers, along with spell-storing item and improved crafting ability and you've already gotten the main essence of the class's core theme down.