D&D 5E Running Eberron in 5E

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Then I'd suggest there probably should be a unique set of rules features for the Artificer that go along with "handing spells off" to other people, the same way the Sorcerer has the metamagic rules working alongside their spell list, and Warlock has the invocation rules working alongside their spell list.

It seems like this is what KM is advocating-- a conceptually "new" set of features the Artificer class would have that runs alongside their spell list. Infusions would probably be that set of features... but I presume he'd want to see the Infusion feature set to be a new set of rules outside of what we already have in the Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer. If the Artificer has its spell list, and it has a rules system for Infusions that not only allows the "handing off" of spell effects to other players (via temporary magic items), but also does something new (perhaps creating completely new effects outside the existing spells)... that's probably what KM would need to see to warrant the Artificer having its own class.

And I'd tend to agree with that. If there's a new set of game mechanics to be introduced that doesn't duplicate any existing class's game mechanics... that's potential "new class" territory. But if the concepts to be introduced can pretty much be replicated by an existing class's mechanics and it's only the outer shell of story and fluff of how they look in the game world that is different... then that's sub-class territory.

After all... if you can go so far as to give a Fighter spellcasting and *still* have it be considered a "sub-class"... the Sub-class System is much wider and more open for new concepts than we might give credit for.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Then I'd suggest there probably should be a unique set of rules features for the Artificer that go along with "handing spells off" to other people, the same way the Sorcerer has the metamagic rules working alongside their spell list, and Warlock has the invocation rules working alongside their spell list.

It seems like this is what KM is advocating-- a conceptually "new" set of features the Artificer class would have that runs alongside their spell list. Infusions would probably be that set of features... but I presume he'd want to see the Infusion feature set to be a new set of rules outside of what we already have in the Wizard, Warlock and Sorcerer. If the Artificer has its spell list, and it has a rules system for Infusions that not only allows the "handing off" of spell effects to other players (via temporary magic items), but also does something new (perhaps creating completely new effects outside the existing spells)... that's probably what KM would need to see to warrant the Artificer having its own class.

And I'd tend to agree with that. If there's a new set of game mechanics to be introduced that doesn't duplicate any existing class's game mechanics... that's potential "new class" territory. But if the concepts to be introduced can pretty much be replicated by an existing class's mechanics and it's only the outer shell of story and fluff of how they look in the game world that is different... then that's sub-class territory.

After all... if you can go so far as to give a Fighter spellcasting and *still* have it be considered a "sub-class"... the Sub-class System is much wider and more open for new concepts than we might give credit for.

If it were up to me, a 1st-level Artificer would only be able to have one temporary magic item (a "Burner" ) at the same time. As he would gain experience, he would be able to learn disciplines which would help him maintain several Burners at the same time, to be able to focus on specific kind of objects (wands, rings, homunculi, etc.) and make them more powerful and ultimately, to be able to infuse magic permanently, bypassing the usual magic item creation rules.

 

[Wrathamon]

It is only sub-class territory if it doesn't change the mechanics that lead up to that point. What class feature in any of the subclasses replaces an existing feature? They are all additions that I can see. Fighters GET spellcasting, they dont get spell-casting but loose armor proficiencies.

If artificers only make items magical, and dont cast spells, it is not a wizard sub-class.

If you want to design a wizard subclass that lets them make magical items better... then that is a magic item making wizard. That isnt an artificer as it was envisioned in Eberron. If this "artificer" can cast spells like a wizard, and it can imbue those spells into items for others to use, then I can see that being a viable sub-class. Because, they aren't loosing anything a starting wizard gets, it is additive. But, it misses the itch that is the artificer imo.


Also, thematically does matter. Adding a bloodline or pact (which is just fluff) that just uses the mechanics of that class, but doesn't add a new bloodline or pact story hook, isn't subclass territory. It's home-brewing\re-skinning a class by hijacking its mechanics, which is great! I am all for that, but I would never expect (or want) an official product to do this except as examples for how you could re-skin something. But, that is my opinion, I like theme and mechanics to work together and not stomp on each other in the existing game.

 

[Wrathamon]

Item Infusions to me are not spells you place on items. They are similar to warlock evocations and the sorcerer metamagics.

They should be a list of "cool" crap you can add or boost to an existing item or make a new item. It could even be similar to the psionic construct mechancis of past editions. Take X from table A, take flaw from Table B and take side effect from table C or something to make Z bomb.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is only sub-class territory if it doesn't change the mechanics that lead up to that point. What class feature in any of the subclasses replaces an existing feature? They are all additions that I can see. Fighters GET spellcasting, they dont get spell-casting but loose armor proficiencies.
...
If this "artificer" can cast spells like a wizard, and it can imbue those spells into items for others to use, then I can see that being a viable sub-class.

I'd basically agree with that. Which is why artificers-as-wizards as I presented them GET infusions, and don't lose other things.

it misses the itch that is the artificer imo

We need to get specific about that itch. That itch would be the goal that WotC should design for. If that itch (laying aside proficiencies, which are clearly subclass-able) isn't "uses and makes magic items, including on the fly" then what is the itch? For me, an artificer subclass that lets party members use actions to cast spells put in items is enough to match my play experience, but my experience is limited.

They are similar to warlock evocations and the sorcerer metamagics.

How? Lets get specific to the mechanics and play effects. These are two very different mechanics. They produce very different effects in play. How are infusions, in your mind, like either of those?

They should be a list of "cool" crap you can add or boost to an existing item or make a new item. It could even be similar to the psionic construct mechancis of past editions. Take X from table A, take flaw from Table B and take side effect from table C or something to make Z bomb.

Maybe a little complex and potentially fiddly, but I like the "size" of it. An item creation system that artificers and only artificers use is fertile design ground, I think!

 

[fuindordm]

Personally, I never understood why Artificers, as the ultimate magic engineers, wouldn't be able to cast spells. Practically every class has them, so it must be a pretty easy skill to pick up.

I really think that the whole "infusions" thing can be taken care of by giving them a handful of spells unique to the class and using the same mechanics as everyone else for managing spells/infusions/prayers/whatever.

 

[Wrathamon]

first, I dont see them casting "spells". They dont say words and wave their hands and poof magic. They only have material components to worry about and maybe they need to Touch something or inscribe something on an item to imbue it.

How is is like metamagic and evocations?

Weapon augmentation could add something to an existing item. When you first get this infusion it just give its +1 to hit and damage. Later you can add other effects to it as you level up. Like someone suggested. By picking your infusions you can create a bunch of different mechanics by mixing and matching. Make your weapons do energy damage, repel, any rider effect you can think of. You can make a wand more powerful by amplifying it with your infusions that are more like metamagics. Think of it as a tool kit, apply limitations to said toolkit to keep it balanced, unlock more variety as you level, scale as you level to keep infusions relevant.

I see it as almost like a super power creation system in a way but it has to go on an item and it takes more than an action. It takes minutes. During combat, maybe the player can do an action but it requires an ability check to see if your successful for an accelerated infusion.

this is pure brain dump, but I think the Infusions are important mechanic that can be evolved.

Common item creation, potions wands and such are really just discounts and ease of access. Maybe they can create X number of these as a downtime ability or during a long rest they can make a few common items if they have the resources to do it. This is separate from the infusions.

Permanency might be a higher level ability and they can only have X number of permanent items. They get more attunements. Maybe they get lvl 20 a perfect item (artifact) with intelligence. Random chart.

as for them casting spells ... they never cast spells. They might be able to "add a spell" to an item like a staff but they never learn spells from a spell list.

 

[Boarstorm]

I've given it a few minutes of thought, and I think this is how I would do an artificer (so far)...

Infusions are their "spell list" -- though Invocations would probably be a better analogy. These are the things the artificer knows how to do. Examples might be granting darkvision to a helm or expanding the threat range of a weapon. The artificer's level would determine how many of these he knows, and how many he can have "up and running" at any given time. Each long rest he can swap out which Infusions are active, with perhaps a mid-level ability to "Jury Rig" one Infusion during a short rest.

Subclasses, then, would be tied to a specific PERMANENT class item that could be replicated if lost, but which wouldn't really grant someone untrained in it a categorical advantage. Say, a homunculus (similar to Pact of the Chain) or perhaps a signature Repeating Crossbow (it feels very artificer-y to me). As they leveled up, their companion or signature weapon (or skill with said weapon) would get better.

The problem with all this, ultimately (as KM observed) is that this makes for a "downtime" class, which isn't super exciting to play. So we would need to spice up their active problem solving. For exploration, they could get rogue-like abilities to detect and disarm traps. For combat... well, that's harder. Maybe alchemical poisons/etc? Or pack some of that punch back into subclass features and Infusions?

I dunno. The idea train left the station. I'll chase it down. Maybe when I catch up to it, the ideas will be more "magic" and less "engineer."

In the meantime, does this feel like a set-up that could support an entire class, or are we back to subclass territory?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

You are free to disagree, but your reasons are all very vague and subjective. Without some indication of what you actually mean in play by these things, this is all just Argument Clinic-ing with soundbites and milquetoast catchphrases. Artificers don't need a pep talk to be a full class, they need a solid design grounding!

first, I dont see them casting "spells". They dont say words and wave their hands and poof magic. They only have material components to worry about and maybe they need to Touch something or inscribe something on an item to imbue it.

This so far is subclass-level stuff. Components are minor. If what they're doing is still producing the effect of "I cast fireball," the fact that they put it into an item and someone else casts it later isn't enough to distinguish them from anyone else that casts fireball. It's not nothing, but it's not big enough to make them a different class, since they still mostly contribute via spell effects (and the class that mechanically contributes the most via spell effects is the wizard).

Weapon augmentation could add something to an existing item. When you first get this infusion it just give its +1 to hit and damage. Later you can add other effects to it as you level up.

How is this distinguished from spending higher-level slots on lower-level spells?

By picking your infusions you can create a bunch of different mechanics by mixing and matching.

Lets get specific. What do you mean by "a bunch of different mechanics." What does "mixing and matching" look like to you?

Make your weapons do energy damage, repel, any rider effect you can think of.

...y'know, I can see the seed of a pretty robust independent class system there. "Rider effects." Hmm...

You can make a wand more powerful by amplifying it with your infusions that are more like metamagics

Yeah, "metamagic item." This ability is also pretty minor (given that the wands you'll find in treasure holds are not an essential trait of your character).

Think of it as a tool kit, apply limitations to said toolkit to keep it balanced, unlock more variety as you level, scale as you level to keep infusions relevant.

Well, that's all just "don't break it." Yeah, don't break it.

I see it as almost like a super power creation system in a way but it has to go on an item and it takes more than an action. It takes minutes.

That would definitely be big enough. I think it might have a few other issues, but size would not be one of 'em!

During combat, maybe the player can do an action but it requires an ability check to see if your successful for an accelerated infusion.

This brings up something I'm thinking about unrelated to the size of the artificer's class abilities...how to keep the artificer's actions distinctly "artificer"-y. Item creation and infusion of spells is all well and good, but that's downtime/rest stuff, and they should still be making interesting round-to-round decisions.

Common item creation, potions wands and such are really just discounts and ease of access. Maybe they can create X number of these as a downtime ability or during a long rest they can make a few common items if they have the resources to do it. This is separate from the infusions.

Yeah, anything that depends on magic items from the DMG to function is going to be pretty minor, simply because magic items are not the defining element of a character that they were previously.

Some good foundations there! I am going to think especially more about your "rider effects" idea...it's true that there isn't a good way to replicate some of 3e's more interesting design ideas about item construction, and that could be lootable in certain ways for an artificer's class abilities.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

You are free to disagree, but your reasons are all very vague and subjective. Without some indication of what you actually mean in play by these things, this is all just Argument Clinic-ing with soundbites and milquetoast catchphrases.

Yeah. I gotta say, though: repeating "this is just subclass material" over and over again is not like something out of the Cambridge Union either. There have been lots of arguments and ideas posted in this thread. To me, they sounded distinctive, in terms of flavor and in terms of mechanics, and when I say "distinctive", I mean "as distinctive or more distinctive than Sorcerers or Rangers." I don't know what you're looking for here in terms of originality, but we're not likely to find the RPG equivalent of the Higgs Boson, nor are we required to.