Also: it is one of my goals as a 3PP content creator to get the non-gray parts of those bars to even out as much as possible.
i'm also thinking one centered around weapons/armor, sort of like a pf2e inventor or a mage hand press craftsman. the not-quite-computer idea is pretty cool, i like thatThe Artificer currently has one archetype that throws bombs, one archetype that builds vehicles, and one archetype that makes
constructs undeadmonstrosities. It could benefit from an alchemist, of course. And someone who creates clockworks, which would include clockwork pets and... maybe Babbage engine-type computers that allow for research, divinations, and things like that. And perhaps someone who can replace body parts with
I’ve never self-published before, so no, I don’t. Faolyn and I are ostensibly working on a project together, and they’ve published, but I wouldn’t really know where to start!Nice! Got your self-publishing stuff ready to go? Because that should definitely be a commercial product!
It's not as bad as you might think (actually, it's really straightforward), but it's also beyond the scope of a thread reply. I really should stand a blog up somewhere and write a post about it.I’ve never self-published before, so no, I don’t. Faolyn and I are ostensibly working on a project together, and they’ve published, but I wouldn’t really know where to start!
Artificer:Hmm. So, everyone: what sort of archetypes do Savants and Artificers need?
If it shouldn’t, then the design focuses on someone who knows as much as a wizard does but keeps a distance from spellcasting, perhaps because they’re magically impotent, a fanatical mage hunter with moral reservations about magic, or just doesn’t like getting their hands dirty.
e.g.This angle sounds really interesting. I like the idea of some kind of "third party metamagic" as the basis for these abilities, especially in a negative sense. No intrinsic ability to cast spells, but some combination of ability to enhance, improve spells cast by allies and probably a heavier emphasis on weakening/altering enemy spells. Disempower spell, maybe a dissonant humming that increases casting times, maybe a way to copy enemy buffs, probably some kind of nonmagical dispel magic effect.
I would say it's fine. Fighters and rogues are traditionally non-magical, but they had 1/3-casters in o5e. But...Question I’ve been mulling over: is a Savant 1/3 caster a bad idea? Specifically, I’ve been taking a look at my Arcana-focused Savant idea and wondering whether it should have some spellcasting.
I wouldn't focus on rare spells, since that's still a downtime activity. It could be a ribbon ability, but not a main draw of the archetype. What I would do is actually give them some sorcerer metamagics. They learn a few spells (far less than a wizard would), and have to prepare their spells via books, like wizards do, and can only learn spells from the wizard's spell list (such a restriction, I know), but their intense focus gives them the ability to modify those spells in a sorcerer-like way.If it does have spellcasting, my notion is that such Savants usually consider themselves Wizards, but spend more time with each spell and have a narrower focus, allowing them to rapidly create rare spells, making them mildly Sorcerer-like in the process. (Adjacent question: would such Savants have spellbooks or be known casters?)
In this case, you could say that instead of spell slots, they get spell points like warlocks. This would only be a problem with multiclassing into an Int-based warlock, but you could also say that the points don't stack. Savant spell points (call them something else) only work with savant spells.)If it shouldn’t, then the design focuses on someone who knows as much as a wizard does but keeps a distance from spellcasting, perhaps because they’re magically impotent, a fanatical mage hunter with moral reservations about magic, or just doesn’t like getting their hands dirty.
The problem is that if Savants are going to be a 1/3 caster, they’re going to be INT-based, which is already their primary ability score. In addition, they would have to get spellcasting at level 1 or 2, as they have no third-level archetype feature. I’m worried that such an archetype would be too strong, and potentially even introduce a dangerous multiclass dip for wizards.