D&D General Thoughts on New Artificer Subclasses from Exploring Eberron (D&D Beyond)

[Marandahir]

Keith Baker sat down with the D&D Beyond team to talk about the Maverick Artificer.

Link here

 

[Marandahir]

Is Exploring Eberron going to be updated for those that bought the PDF, but not the DnD Beyond version?

I tried the old Maverick and found it wanting, in general, a caster-focused subclass stapled to a half-caster felt really weak. But that's a shame, it is, conceptually, one of my fav Artificers as I liked the 3.5 Artificer with the Spell Storing Infusion, and this subclass is trying to emulate that.

Visionary Productions posted an FAQ including the answer to your question, on Facebook here.

But for ease of viewing, esp. for folks without FB, I screenshotted and attached below. Suffice to say, there's not going to be errata, but if you own the 5E 2014 version of the book, you will be able to buy the 5E 2024 version of the book at a dramatic discount – once it goes live on DMs Guild, for which there's no ETA.

I'd presume there's a licensing hurdle given D&D Beyond and Roll20 being competitors, much as there was before the WotC buyout when we could only get CritRoll stuff in one site or the other, but not both, for the longest time. Or at least, I'd guess WotC wants the book as a "timed-console-exclusive", given that it's essentially Keith's DLC for Forge of the Artificer.

 

[BigMac75]

Keith Baker sat down with the D&D Beyond team to talk about the Maverick Artificer.

Link here

Seems like mostly selling. Has anyone used the new subclass on D&D Beyond? As I mentioned earlier, early reviews found it had a bunch of missing components so wondering if it is fixes (my son is playing an Artificer in a campaign at school and has not declared his subclass yet).

Mostly I am looking for commentary on how people think it compares to the Battle Smith... Does the use of the infused one-time-use creations and the more open spell list make up for the loss of the Steel Defender and the couple of extra spell slots. All the other automaton creatures we were thinking about for the Battle Smith can be created by any subclass so it is mainly the Steel Defender that is lost.

 

[Marandahir]

Seems like mostly selling. Has anyone used the new subclass on D&D Beyond? As I mentioned earlier, early reviews found it had a bunch of missing components so wondering if it is fixes (my son is playing an Artificer in a campaign at school and has not declared his subclass yet).

Mostly I am looking for commentary on how people think it compares to the Battle Smith... Does the use of the infused one-time-use creations and the more open spell list make up for the loss of the Steel Defender and the couple of extra spell slots. All the other automaton creatures we were thinking about for the Battle Smith can be created by any subclass so it is mainly the Steel Defender that is lost.

I don't know if we have a lot of feedback on the revised version of the Forge Adept yet, but I'll say that ever since 2020 people have said that Forge Adept scratched an itch that Battle Smith didn't quite hit because of the forced use of a Digimon eating up core subclass features.

Forge Adept essentially is, "What if Battle Smith, but less Digidestined, and more Rune Soldier Louie?"

 

[BigMac75]

I don't know if we have a lot of feedback on the revised version of the Forge Adept yet, but I'll say that ever since 2020 people have said that Forge Adept scratched an itch that Battle Smith didn't quite hit because of the forced use of a Digimon eating up core subclass features.

Forge Adept essentially is, "What if Battle Smith, but less Digidestined, and more Rune Soldier Louie?"

I agree - the Forge Adept definitely fills a martial / offence niche. Also might keep it more in the strike-zone of fantasy genre players / DMs that don't like too strong a steam-punk feel (or simply do not allow guns). I am just getting back into the game since my son is starting to play so have not analyzed any other classes (I started with Artificer).

 

[Marandahir]

I agree - the Forge Adept definitely fills a martial / offence niche. Also might keep it more in the strike-zone of fantasy genre players / DMs that don't like too strong a steam-punk feel (or simply do not allow guns). I am just getting back into the game since my son is starting to play so have not analyzed any other classes (I started with Artificer).

It's essentially a twist on the class to make it an Arcane Gish akin to Hexblade, Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, etc.

Which is good to have, because Bladesinger is ultimately a bit too squishy of a gish, and there's viable space here given that Artificer is the arcane halfcaster. I also think it fits very well, because the Artificer as a class is a sort of natural extension of what an Arcane Gish might be like. What is an Int-focused weapons-expert that supplements their martial arts with arcane magic? My mind goes to Magitech first and foremost, with Armorer, Artillerist, and Battle Smith showing 3 different forms of magitech weaponry. But Forge Adept is a bit less magitech and more magic-blacksmith-using-runeswords-and-enchanting-their-blades.

 

[BigMac75]

I don't know if we have a lot of feedback on the revised version of the Forge Adept yet, but I'll say that ever since 2020 people have said that Forge Adept scratched an itch that Battle Smith didn't quite hit because of the forced use of a Digimon eating up core subclass features.

Forge Adept essentially is, "What if Battle Smith, but less Digidestined, and more Rune Soldier Louie?"

The reason I am really trying to compare the new Maverick subclass to the Battle Smith subclass is that we were planning for our Battle Smith character to leverage a number of constructs outfitted with magical items - Familiar (Construct Owl), Flying Mechanical Wonder, Steel Defender, Homunculus Servant, etc... - a small group of complimentary constructs that can handle scouting, defense, offence, suppression, etc...

Although they could not get the Steel Defender (big hit to defense), the Maverick subclass would actually be able to create Flying Wonders (and other Mechanical Wonders or any constructs that are also magic items) as well as the magical items that the constructs would use in 1/2 the time and for 1/2 the cost (I think) as compared to the Battle Smith. So wondering if the Steel Defender is really worth the double time for magical item creation, limited spell list, and lack of one-time use prototypes.