Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8234679" data-attributes="member: 6937590">It makes a sense as the chassis for a S&amp;S PC sorcerer type, but there are a bunch of artificer features that don't work so well.Alchemist is the only subclass that doesn't need to be heavily modified/reskinned--armor model, eldritch cannon, steel defender, these things don't fit the S&amp;S milieu at all. And, while you can reimagine them as something more fitting, there is a lot of cruft that translates poorly. For example, battle smiths and artillerists heal their pets with the mending spell; that doesn't make sense if you reflavor the steel defender to be a devilish familiar and continue to use mending as a repair spell in other circumstances.Then there's the emphasis on tools--which isn't incongruous with S&amp;S, but is conceptually limiting if artificer is the only spellcasting class.And there's the infuse item options to replicate various magic items--which makes total sense for an S&amp;S sorcerer in principle, but looking over the list, it is full of magic as technology conveniences: cap of water breathing, goggles of night, wand of magic detection.And finally, the spell list is mostly things that go against S&amp;S conventions, which are (to quote myself paraphrasing the Xoth players guide):Rope trick, water breathing, cure light wounds, revivify, detect magic, invisibility, and fly are all on their list.---I'm not objecting because I don't like the idea, I'm objecting because I did like the idea, did some work reskinning features and modifying subclasses, realized how much stuff needed to be changed to make the class fit, and gave up <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />.If anybody has written a less Eberron and more S&amp;S Artificer, I'd love to see it.But I think it might almost be easier to make paladins the sole spellcaster--most of what they do outside of their spell list and weapon &amp; armor proficiencies is actually pretty S&amp;S appropriate.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="squibbles, post: 8234679, member: 6937590"] It makes a sense as the chassis for a S&S PC sorcerer type, but there are a bunch of artificer features that don't work so well. Alchemist is the only subclass that doesn't need to be heavily modified/reskinned--armor model, eldritch cannon, steel defender, these things don't fit the S&S milieu at all. And, while you can reimagine them as something more fitting, there is a lot of cruft that translates poorly. For example, battle smiths and artillerists heal their pets with the mending spell; that doesn't make sense if you reflavor the steel defender to be a devilish familiar and continue to use mending as a repair spell in other circumstances. Then there's the emphasis on tools--which isn't incongruous with S&S, but is conceptually limiting if artificer is the only spellcasting class. And there's the infuse item options to replicate various magic items--which makes total sense for an S&S sorcerer in principle, but looking over the list, it is full of magic as technology conveniences: cap of water breathing, goggles of night, wand of magic detection. And finally, the spell list is [I]mostly [/I]things that go against S&S conventions, which are (to quote myself paraphrasing the Xoth players guide): Rope trick, water breathing, cure light wounds, revivify, detect magic, invisibility, and fly are all on their list. --- I'm not objecting because I don't like the idea, I'm objecting because I did like the idea, did some work reskinning features and modifying subclasses, realized how much stuff needed to be changed to make the class fit, and gave up :(. If anybody has written a less Eberron and more S&S Artificer, I'd love to see it. But I think it might almost be easier to make paladins the sole spellcaster--most of what they do outside of their spell list and weapon & armor proficiencies is actually pretty S&S appropriate. [/QUOTE]

Verification