D&D 5E Running Eberron in 5E

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think we should all build and playtest the perfect 5e Artificer class and post it on this site.

 

[fuindordm]

Lots of really interesting ideas in here, but I don't think there's any point in debating the "right way" to do the artificer.

If your goal is to reproduce the 3E class from the Eberron setting as closely as possible, then clearly a new class is needed to grant the right combination of proficiencies and features. The downside of this approach is that you are trying to reproduce a class which was originally designed to interact with the 3E magic item creation system, which no longer exists.

If your goal is to make an artificer that meshes well with the 5E system, then you have tons of choices. Creating a new class, reskinning the bard, a new wizard subclass, a cleric variant... all of these could work.

If your goal is to make an artificer that can fill the same cultural role in Eberron that the original did, then you might choose differently.

The tough part is that one day soon, WotC will probably release an official 5E version of the artificer and then we'll be stuck debating how they should have done it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Of course, that's not factually true. The subclass I had, for instance, has a few extra proficiencies (not unlike certain bard or cleric subclasses) and a way that they might use some spell slots (not unlike the way channel divinity allows for new uses of a class feature). None of that rips out anything or re-writes anything. Like any subclass, it sits on top of the wizard.

Now, if you DID have to re-write the class, that would be a good case for it to be its own class! But that is demonstrably not what a subclass requires.

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.

It is a non-issue. See war clerics and valor bards, for instance. Proficiencies in skills and weapons and armor are comfortably subclass-level material. This is not a "huge exception," it is part of what subclasses do. Proficiencies are largely cosmetic.

Then the next part of the basic wizard 1st level abilities needs a re-write to explain how artificers only cast spells into items.

This doesn't actually require any mechanics to do. As a 1st-level wizard, you prepare oils and potions and scrolls and wands instead of spell slots. Mechanically, it looks the same: choose some recipes you know and whip up some temporary items that you then use in the "casting." There is no functional difference between "I prepare mage armor so that I can cast it later" and "I whip up an oil of mage armor so that I can apply it to my friend's clothes later!"

You could invent new mechanics for that, and then, depending on the size of that mechanic, they might warrant a new class. But you could also grab something like my infusion idea which isn't a major overhaul or power-up, just another option for "casting." For all people's insisting that artificers must be a class, I haven't seen anyone propose a viable new central mechanic for that class. The closest we've come is Remathilis's idea of using the DMG as a list of artificer abilities, which...I'm not a big fan of.

I think this point bears repeating, because it sounds like it's not exactly going through. Convincing me that the artificer should be its own class isn't hard. It just requires a viable mechanical hook. Proficiencies, skills, and other cosmetic changes are not enough to warrant a whole new class -- give me something bigger. 3e and 4e don't have much of a mechanical hook, but that didn't stop the sorcerer, either. It doesn't need to stop Artie!

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.

Nah, the subclass vision means that they were never actually using any different mechanics from the wizard in the first place. There is no mechanical difference between "I cast magic missile!" and "I infuse my spell slots into my Universal Wand to shoot forth a magic missile!" For any spell a wizard would cast, you can imagine an artificer making and using an item and producing the spell with the same exact mechanical system.

If there IS a mechanical difference, no one has been telling me what it should be or needs to be.

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?

Thematics are important to me, too, so you'll get no disagreement from me there. Artifice isn't something that folks on Eberron learn from aliens or gods or are born being able to do. It is something they study and educate themselves to do -- just like a wizard.

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.

That is not enough to warrant its own class, I believe. That is enough to warrant a subclass with medium armor, simple weapon, and thieves' tools proficiency, and a bonus skill or two.

 

[dwayne]

I could see many options here to deal with it, on the one hand you could go with a non magic option to create devices that emulate those of the magic counter parts. These would require up keep and adjustment to keep going and would only function for a short time at low levels. As you advance the items would get more complex and the lesser ones would last longer, the key is the items at lower levels would be stable at higher levels but the max you could create would only be rare using the class abilities. But you could create items like every other wizard and due to your insight the time and cost of the object is halved, but this also has a down side seeing as you take short cuts and by pass some of the magic elements all your creations have an odd quirk or minor detrimental property. This would depend on the power of the object and its usefulness (up to DM ). As to your study of alchemy to make potions much the same as your technique is not an exact science and is due to experimentation your potions some times have unforeseen side effects or draw backs or just explode, I see them as the wild mage of science more so than magic. These are just Ideas I am not going in to too much detail I will leave that to some one else with more time.

 

[aramis erak]

It would be nice if any 5E artificer would also serve as a Dragonlance tinker...

 

[Fralex]

This doesn't actually require any mechanics to do. As a 1st-level wizard, you prepare oils and potions and scrolls and wands instead of spell slots. Mechanically, it looks the same: choose some recipes you know and whip up some temporary items that you then use in the "casting." There is no functional difference between "I prepare mage armor so that I can cast it later" and "I whip up an oil of mage armor so that I can apply it to my friend's clothes later!"

You could invent new mechanics for that, and then, depending on the size of that mechanic, they might warrant a new class. But you could also grab something like my infusion idea which isn't a major overhaul or power-up, just another option for "casting." For all people's insisting that artificers must be a class, I haven't seen anyone propose a viable new central mechanic for that class. The closest we've come is Remathilis's idea of using the DMG as a list of artificer abilities, which...I'm not a big fan of.

I think this point bears repeating, because it sounds like it's not exactly going through. Convincing me that the artificer should be its own class isn't hard. It just requires a viable mechanical hook. Proficiencies, skills, and other cosmetic changes are not enough to warrant a whole new class -- give me something bigger. 3e and 4e don't have much of a mechanical hook, but that didn't stop the sorcerer, either. It doesn't need to stop Artie!

That is not enough to warrant its own class, I believe. That is enough to warrant a subclass with medium armor, simple weapon, and thieves' tools proficiency, and a bonus skill or two.

Does the ability to invent new magic items using a gradually increasing array of tools count? That's the direction I'm taking it in. At the moment, over 37 unique items can be crafted from cantrips and first-level spells alone, including energy bombs, barometers, vine-conjuring whips, microphones, quarterstaffs that strike with a deafening impact and knock the enemy back, and lengths of rope that can't be torn apart or cut.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Does the ability to invent new magic items using a gradually increasing array of tools count? That's the direction I'm taking it in. At the moment, over 37 unique items can be crafted from cantrips and first-level spells alone, including energy bombs, barometers, vine-conjuring whips, microphones, quarterstaffs that strike with a deafening impact and knock the enemy back, and lengths of rope that can't be torn apart or cut.

It might! Unique items is a good first step into some mechanically unique territory.

But, you'll need to make a strong distinction. The difference between "I made a rope that can't be torn apart or cut!" and "I know mending!" seems potentially cosmetic. Ditto something like "a staff that strikes with a deafening impact and knocks someone back" and "I cast thunderwave."

Like, a sorcerer's "My dragon's blood lets me spit forth roaring gouts of fire " and "I cast fireball." are the same thing. Ditto, say, a sun cleric's "I call down the power of the sun god!" and "I cast fireball." An artificer's "I made a bomb!" might also be "I cast fireball!"

But then, a sorcerer can twist that fireball into new shapes and ramp it up to new heights of power and do it whenever they want. And a sun cleric can also call upon the sun god's light to banish darkness and sear their foes with radiance. What does the artificer do that makes "I made a bomb!" different from "I cast fireball!."? Or, what do they do in addition to making bombs that essentially cast fireball?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But, you'll need to make a strong distinction. The difference between "I made a rope that can't be torn apart or cut!" and "I know mending!" seems potentially cosmetic.

You keep coming back to that point but it seems to me that it's patently untrue. Here's the thing with objects: other people can borrow them and use them. That rope? Otto the Rogue can use it. Your mending spell? Not so much. That's what an Artificer is all about: giving out toys to everyone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You keep coming back to that point but it seems to me that it's patently untrue. Here's the thing with objects: other people can borrow them and use them. That rope? Otto the Rogue can use it. Your mending spell? Not so much. That's what an Artificer is all about: giving out toys to everyone.

That's a pretty minor thing, though. The mending spell is a party resource, that is available at any time that the party is not separated. If Otto is off on his own, a rope that won't break isn't going to save him from an ambush or a nasty fall (it can still be untied, or climbed down by whatever would cut it), so it's not like it actually lowers the risk for that general activity at all. Additionally, it's not much different than my idea of infusing the mending spell into the rope and allowing Otto to cast it as a wizard subclass ability, it just takes more words and more complexity.

When a sorcerer empowers a fireball, that is a pretty significant thing, ramping up the party damage for that round exceptionally. When a light cleric blasts searing radiance from their holy symbol, it is an iconic moment of demonstrating the sun-god's power over darkness. When an artificer makes a rope that can't break, it's going to need to be bigger than "well, the rogue is safe from one narrow class of failure when they happen to become isolated from the party" if we want it to compete with those class mechanics. When the artificer makes a bomb, it's we're going to need more than "it works like fireball, but anyone in the party can cast it." That's a fine start, but if that's all it is, we haven't yet escaped subclass orbit. Go big or go into the Wizard.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

That's a pretty minor thing, though. The mending spell is a party resource, that is available at any time that the party is not separated. If Otto is off on his own, a rope that won't break isn't going to save him from an ambush or a nasty fall (it can still be untied, or climbed down by whatever would cut it), so it's not like it actually lowers the risk for that general activity at all. Additionally, it's not much different than my idea of infusing the mending spell into the rope and allowing Otto to cast it as a wizard subclass ability, it just takes more words and more complexity.



When a sorcerer empowers a fireball, that is a pretty significant thing, ramping up the party damage for that round exceptionally. When a light cleric blasts searing radiance from their holy symbol, it is an iconic moment of demonstrating the sun-god's power over darkness. When an artificer makes a rope that can't break, it's going to need to be bigger than "well, the rogue is safe from one narrow class of failure when they happen to become isolated from the party" if we want it to compete with those class mechanics. When the artificer makes a bomb, it's we're going to need more than "it works like fireball, but anyone in the party can cast it." That's a fine start, but if that's all it is, we haven't yet escaped subclass orbit. Go big or go into the Wizard.

I disagree. Being able to infuse objects, on the fly, with magical powers that everyone can use is a strong, unique ability, one which is much more distinctive than anything the Sorcerer can do.