Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6459540" data-attributes="member: 2067">5e's shown a conservative vein that might make me bet against that if I were a betting man (see, for instance, the reaction against the transformative sorcerer in the playtest). But perhaps the artificer is an exception and people are interested in a fresh take on it? I think that would depend on how awesome the new mechanical fob was. Because it'd be easy to default make them a subclass. For a class, we need some reason not to do that. Yeah...there's also the issue of action use. Like, an artificer's main schtick is a schtick they do during rests (crafting). Which doesn't make for a lot of interesting in-the-middle-of-a-dungeon choices. The infusion mechanic I posted also suffers from that -- no interesting decision points between the rests. They could keep a few spells for in-combat use, and they could always drop potions or scrolls or whatever, but that's not unique (or much different form spellcasting). Sounds like a vote for a wizard subclass to me! "Reskinned spellcasting" isn't the most solid basis for a large wordcount spent, IMO.What does "this bag now acts like a bag of holding" do that, say, a Leomund's Secret Chest spell doesn't? If the differences aren't that great, functionally, why not just refluff casting Leomund's Secret Chest as "you make this bag work like a bag of holding"? What's re-inventing the wheel give us here? Mechanically, I think we would need to be cautious about letting them just recreate magic items from the DMG "reliably." A magic item from the DMG is built to serve a different gameplay purpose than an item made by an artificer. There's probably no harm with a minor feature that grants them more speed and cheaper item crafting, but item crafting itself is a pretty abstract and ad hoc process in 5e, so there's not a lot of grist for that mill -- it won't be a defining feature. Artificer crafting and bag-of-holding crafting serve different masters, so the artificer shouldn't be looking at the DMG for their class features. Which might actually be the start of a good major mechanical feature for an independent class. What are the differences between what a DMG magic item tries to do and what an artificer's magic item would have to do and what might a system of making the artificer's stuff look like? Sounds like any spellcaster with access to buff spells like bless, mage armor, etc. to me.Blasting spells like Fire Bolt or Burning Hands are magical bombs; potions are just buff spells.Buffs. And trucking in iffy "the artificer can reliably make what is intended to be an unreliable extra bonus" territory. Buffs again. 300 cable channels of buffs, but there's nothing on. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> A lot of this is the recurring issue of "I cast magic with items!" and "I cast magic by wiggling my fingers!" being a pretty cosmetic difference. That'd be basically fine for a subclass (a few features that add some anchors to the cosmetic difference is all that really needs). For a class, I'd want more than a cosmetic difference. Not totally sure what that might look like for an artificer, but I know I don't want it to be a whole independent class with 5 different slightly different flavors of buffs. Those distinctions are too fiddly and academic to be very compelling.</blockquote>

Verification