Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer

I don't think anyone saw this coming!

 

[Blue]

The mechanical pet is really just the paladin's Steed spell, just permanent and non-summonable. It looks like it's meant to be a mount or a familiar, though it getting to make melee attacks does throw that under the bus.

If this gets scaling, then I want to be able to fortify my familiar by using a higher level spell slot to summon them.

I am all for using higher level slots to scale up Find Familiar and Find Steed.

Find Steed is particularly useless when played as written such as at AL where the DMs can't give out better steeds. At 5th level when a paladin first gets it it will die to the first or second AoE regardless if it makes it's save because it only has 19 HPs. In other words, it starts obsolete.

 

[TwoSix]

Because people in Eberron did not wield guns; they wielded wands of magic missile and the like. I recall Keith Baker saying that guns were not a part of his vision for Eberron.

Ehh. If there's any setting where guns could be shoehorned in easily, it's Eberron. Cannith needs something to do now that they can't sell warforged anymore. One of the great things about Eberron is that Keith built in setting-specific concepts that support the addition of pretty much any concept.

 

[Aldarc]

Ehh. If there's any setting where guns could be shoehorned in easily, it's Eberron. Cannith needs something to do now that they can't sell warforged anymore. One of the great things about Eberron is that Keith built in setting-specific concepts that support the addition of pretty much any concept.

Indeed. Cannith could sell magical wands as per usual instead of these shoehorned guns.

 

[Jer]

Ehh. If there's any setting where guns could be shoehorned in easily, it's Eberron. Cannith needs something to do now that they can't sell warforged anymore. One of the great things about Eberron is that Keith built in setting-specific concepts that support the addition of pretty much any concept.

Also the "gun problem" becomes a non-issue is simply rewording things without changing the mechanics. "Gunsmith" becomes "wandsmith" or "wand savant" or something. The firearm becomes a special more powerful wand that you've enhanced with your artificer abilities (or, better yet from my personal perspective, any wand you use that you want to sit down and spend a short rest modifying with your artificer abilities). All of the references to ammunition become references to a charging mechanism (i.e. "once you have expended your Thunder Wand you must recharge it as a bonus action" or something similar, Arcane Magazine becomes a toolkit for generating the charges, etc.). It's actually very easy to refluff into something that would have fit very well into 3rd edition Eberron, and depending on the purpose of the final product they could easily extract the guns and keep the subclass the same. There's really nothing mechanically in there at all that requires "guns".

I am wondering if they really wanted to create a divisive subclass on purpose to see how the reaction to arcane firearms would play out. Though I doubt it because it's fairly predictable - loud screams of SQUEEE from folks who have been wanting gun-toting steampunk wizards in their game and loud screams of pain from folks who have never wanted that at all. All played out with an internet megaphone that makes both groups seem larger than they really are.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

It's not Eberron specific, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for Eberron. The rules for magic item creation in Eberron would obviously have to be in their own separate rules system, not embedded in class mechanics. Same thing for dragonmarks.

In order to get magic item creation in Eberron anything close to how it was envisioned, we're going to have to do away with attunement. That means the mechanics of this artificer class will have to be reworked.

That's why it won't work for Eberron. The setting is too high-magic.

 

[Jer]

In order to get magic item creation in Eberron anything close to how it was envisioned, we're going to have to do away with attunement. That means the mechanics of this artificer class will have to be reworked.

That's why it won't work for Eberron. The setting is too high-magic.

I have to admit - I've run Eberron games and I'm not seeing why attunement is a problem. What makes you think that attunement is a dealbreaker for Eberron?

 

[TwoSix]

In order to get magic item creation in Eberron anything close to how it was envisioned, we're going to have to do away with attunement. That means the mechanics of this artificer class will have to be reworked.

That's why it won't work for Eberron. The setting is too high-magic.

Seems easy enough without getting rid of attunement. Feats that give you extra attunement slots. Dragonmarks let you use certain items without having to be attuned. Dragonshard items allow items to be created without causing attunements. Certain combinations of items only take one attunement slot. (Like, you can attune up to 3 wands at once for only one attunement slot. Or maybe that's what a wand sheath does!)

Just need a little out-of-the-box thinking and tinkering.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think Eberron, Dark Sun, and Planescape have an ANOVA issue with FR and Greyhawk. Within the setting, it is easy to scale things: for example in Dark Sun, your 1st level gnome fighter with added psychic goodies is fighting giant rats with added psychic goodies, so it all balances out. Between settings is a different story: in FR, neither gnome fighters or giant rats routinely have added psychic goodies, so your 1st level gnome fighter from Dark Sun is noticeably more powerful than his FR counterpart. Likewise the twice the encumbrance level weight of magic items commonly worn by PC's in Eberron or Planescape doesn't really fit "magic is uncommon" settings (not to mention you aren't really getting the Planescape feel unless you are a half assimar, half tiefling, half dwarf ).

I think balancing out the within the setting issues with the between setting issues is part of the reason they have been focusing on the FR.

 

[OB1]

I'm beginning to wonder if our upcoming Big Book of Crunch is actually going to specifically update important mechanics for the various settings, considering how much of the UAs seem dedicated towards that end. Perhaps we'll get a lot of mechanical options, and then a chapter dedicated to each of the main settings (outside of FR which already has SCAG, and Planescape which will probably get its own Manual of the Planes-type book) to update them and their particular peculiarities for 5e, with references to all the updated crunch from the rest of the book. That way we could get all these new classes, racial options for warforged, thri-kreen, kender (I heard you all groan there), and the like, and a small bestiary with setting-specific creatures like draconians. With WotC wanting to take the route of multi-purpose books, it would be a good idea to combine the common requests for more player options and for setting-specific stuff to be updated to 5e....

I think this might be right, and I would add that an interesting way to introduce players to all of the new realms would be through a portal driven, save the multiverse and get back home AP. Each chapter could be dedicated to a new environment, and contain rules for the DM on running a campaign in that setting. To take that one step further, if we can expect a major update llike the BBoC every three years, perhaps they also do a big two book story for it as well. In this were the case, I could see it breaking down like this

Book 1 - Fall 2017 - Low level, Tier I and II - One chapter each for Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Eberron, Shadowfell, Feywild, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Sigul
Book 2 - Spring 2018 - High level, Tier III and tier IV - Sigul, 6-7 outer planes, return to Forgotten Realms

One chapter each would let you get the flavor of each setting and to experience some of the different rules associated with each.

 

[ArchfiendBobbie]

I have to admit - I've run Eberron games and I'm not seeing why attunement is a problem. What makes you think that attunement is a dealbreaker for Eberron?

Seems easy enough without getting rid of attunement. Feats that give you extra attunement slots. Dragonmarks let you use certain items without having to be attuned. Dragonshard items allow items to be created without causing attunements. Certain combinations of items only take one attunement slot. (Like, you can attune up to 3 wands at once for only one attunement slot. Or maybe that's what a wand sheath does!)

Edit: I had posted a long argument here, but when I looked back on it, it wasn't coherent.

I don't trust my ability to post coherently right now. The cold meds are kicking my butt. So, I'm bowing out.