This week's Dragon Talk covers Lantan - and Chris Perkins says it will be featured in an upcoming product!

[Cap'n Kobold]

I suspect that they are the same thing.

The UA alchemical and gun-totting Artificer was more appropriate for Forgotten Realms than the artificers of Eberron, so woe to Eberron and its artificers if your suspicion bears fruit.

The Alchemical artificer is at least usable as is in Eberron, even if its a weird take. The Gunsmith isn't suitable as written, but can be tweaked into a wand/staff blaster artificer without too much effort.

Turning the Artificer into a tinker and mechanic suitable for Lantan however, would probably make it harder to fit into the magical technician concept of the Eberron artificer however.

 

[Demetrios1453]

The Alchemical artificer is at least usable as is in Eberron, even if its a weird take. The Gunsmith isn't suitable as written, but can be tweaked into a wand/staff blaster artificer without too much effort.

Turning the Artificer into a tinker and mechanic suitable for Lantan however, would probably make it harder to fit into the magical technician concept of the Eberron artificer however.

If they can work out a suitable base chassis for the underlying class, there should be room to create subclasses for both types of artificer.

Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

 

[Aldarc]

The Alchemical artificer is at least usable as is in Eberron, even if its a weird take. The Gunsmith isn't suitable as written, but can be tweaked into a wand/staff blaster artificer without too much effort.

The Alchemist subclass seemed more inspired by Pathfinder's bombing Alchemist than from Eberron. And if you have to tweak a Gunsmith so that it's no longer a Gunsmith to amke it work for Eberron, then the option clearly does not work for Eberron. The UA Artificer was a step in the right direction from its predecessor, but it still fell incredibly short of capturing the spirit of Eberron's artificers.

 

[gyor]

The UA alchemical and gun-totting Artificer was more appropriate for Forgotten Realms than the artificers of Eberron, so woe to Eberron and its artificers if your suspicion bears fruit.

What exactly is the main differences between FR Artificer and Eberron Artificer?

 

[Aldarc]

What exactly is the main differences between FR Artificer and Eberron Artificer?

I believe you may be asking the wrong question. I would suggest instead asking, "Why does the UA Artificer fail to represent the artificers of Eberron? And why is the UA Artificer not a problem for the Forgotten Realms?"

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

It may just be coincidence, but Baldman Games’ AL adventure series features Modrons pretty heavily as well.

I’m not sure if Modrons AND Spelljammer together would be chocolate and peanut butter, or chocolate and mayonnaise, though…

It seems like they have been dropping hints about the modrons for a while. It wouldn't hurt my feelings for a spring 2018 AP.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What exactly is the main differences between FR Artificer and Eberron Artificer?

Essentially, the Gnomes of Lantan advance FR technology further along earth's historical lines (although with a sometimes fantastical bent): developing gunpowder and firearms, or intricate clockwork for example.

Eberron artificers work with magical rather than mechanical devices. Enchanting wands, binding elementals into constructs or objects.

In practical, rules-mechanics terms, some things may be effectively identical (a clockwork beast or a combat homunculus for example. Others may be able to be twisted to fit with a few rules changes(converting the Thunder Cannon of the Gunsmith into a wand or staff.)
If WotC decide to go full tinker with a new Artificer class however, it is likely that there will be parts of the class that require a bit more than minor alterations to fit Eberron.

Its not helped by the fact that not only is there a disagreement between what an Artificer class should be between Eberron fans and those of FR/Krynn etc, there is also a fair amount of disagreement as to what an "Eberron Artificer" class should be/have the capability to do.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I believe you may be asking the wrong question. I would suggest instead asking, "Why does the UA Artificer fail to represent the artificers of Eberron? And why is the UA Artificer not a problem for the Forgotten Realms?"

The answer to that however, will depend a lot upon who you ask.

 

[pukunui]

Lantan = steampunk
Eberron = magitech

Although, based on what they were saying in the video, there is a magical element to Lantanese technology. They emphasized that smokepowder is *not* gunpowder. It's an unstable magical substance.

 

[gyor]

Essentially, the Gnomes of Lantan advance FR technology further along earth's historical lines (although with a sometimes fantastical bent): developing gunpowder and firearms, or intricate clockwork for example.

Eberron artificers work with magical rather than mechanical devices. Enchanting wands, binding elementals into constructs or objects.

In practical, rules-mechanics terms, some things may be effectively identical (a clockwork beast or a combat homunculus for example. Others may be able to be twisted to fit with a few rules changes(converting the Thunder Cannon of the Gunsmith into a wand or staff.)
If WotC decide to go full tinker with a new Artificer class however, it is likely that there will be parts of the class that require a bit more than minor alterations to fit Eberron.

Its not helped by the fact that not only is there a disagreement between what an Artificer class should be between Eberron fans and those of FR/Krynn etc, there is also a fair amount of disagreement as to what an "Eberron Artificer" class should be/have the capability to do.

Okay so its more Lantan magical Steam Punk vs. Eberron Magitech. Cool.