Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Introduces The Artifcer

I don't think anyone saw this coming!

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe I am a little slow this afternoon (curse you cedar pollen!), but doesn't reloading the gun using the same bonus action that commanding the mechanical servant to attack uses?

If so, then the guntoting artificer can either shoot and reload (and thus shoot the next round) or shoot and tell his pet to attack (in which case, he/she is reloading the next round, but can still order the pet to attack again). If that is true, then it isn't really appropriate to compare the gunsmith to the BM/BC rangers, since the rangers will be using the pet to attack and the GS won't be using it that often.

Commanding the servant to attack doesn't take a bonus action. The servant obeys your orders, but acts on its own initiative and takes its own actions.

 

[BookBarbarian]

The artificer gets the most differentiating method of making a class's spellcasting interesting or special - they have a spell list all their own.

Other traits building upon that (besides magic item analysis and infuse magic, which you've apparently decided do not count for some reason) would be gravy, but the class's use of spells already seems pretty unique to me.

Sorry, I was very unclear in my earlier post. Let me clarify. I think the Artificer Subclasses don't do anything meaningful with the Spellcasting aspect of the class. Not even a minor expansion of the class spell list. The result of that is, in my opinion, that the either the Alchemy/gunslinging aspects of the class feel tacked on or the spellcasting aspects of the class do. I think these features could be more integrated. Overall I like the class a lot.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Sorry, I was very unclear in my earlier post. Let me clarify. I think the Artificer Subclasses don't do anything meaningful with the Spellcasting aspect of the class. Not even a minor expansion of the class spell list. The result of that is, in my opinion, that the either the Alchemy/gunslinging aspects of the class feel tacked on or the spellcasting aspects of the class do. I think these features could be more integrated. Overall I like the class a lot.

I now see what you are getting at, and I think that is kind of a good point - not everyone will find the appearance of the class dabbling in this and that for features to be as appealing as they would find it with a singular more-focused theme.

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, I was very unclear in my earlier post. Let me clarify. I think the Artificer Subclasses don't do anything meaningful with the Spellcasting aspect of the class. Not even a minor expansion of the class spell list. The result of that is, in my opinion, that the either the Alchemy/gunslinging aspects of the class feel tacked on or the spellcasting aspects of the class do. I think these features could be more integrated. Overall I like the class a lot.

I would agree with that. Being able to infuse spells into potions seems like an obvious alchemist ability, for example. Or putting a short range spell into a bullet to trigger on a hit enemy at longer range. Adding spells to the spell list and item recipes to the crafted items list also seem like obvious places for more subclass customization.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I would agree with that. Being able to infuse spells into potions seems like an obvious alchemist ability, for example. Or putting a short range spell into a bullet to trigger on a hit enemy at longer range. Adding spells to the spell list and item recipes to the crafted items list also seem like obvious places for more subclass customization.

Yes! You're two examples both seem really awesome to me. Can you imagine a Thunderwave Gun? That would certainly make a Gunslinger feel unique.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes! You're two examples both seem really awesome to me. Can you imagine a Thunderwave Gun? That would certainly make a Gunslinger feel unique.

I was thinking Entangle (the bullet strikes, a wave of pollen sprays from the impact spot, and suddenly there are vines everywhere), but Thunderwave would be hella cool. ("There's 5 of us, and one of you. You can't hit all of us with that peashooter!" "Actually...")

 

[Aldarc]

I think it might be helpful to look back at the old flavor text of the 3.5E Artificer that gave birth to this D&D class in the first place. That may even aid your discussion regarding the place of magic spells in relation to the 5E Artificer class.

In Eberron, magic is almost technology. Spellcasters specialize in certain forms of technology, while artificers tinker with its fundamental workings. Artificers understand magic on a different level from spellcasters, and do not cast spells as wizards and clerics do. They have an amazing facility with magic items and constructs, and in many ways, they keep the magical world of Eberron running.

Characteristics: Artificers are perhaps the ultimate magical dabblers. They can use just about any spell from a wand or scroll, empower ordinary items with temporary magical power, repair damaged constructs (including warforged), alter the function of existing magic items, and craft magic items, constructs, and dragonshard items. They have a limited list of their own spell-like infusions that they can apply to objects, and they can also work with any of the spells on other classes' spell lists. Their magic is neither arcane nor divine, and they are not bound by that classification. Their trade is magic in its most abstract (they might say purest) form.

Role: In a typical adventuring party, artificers have a range of roles revolving around magic items. They bring an unparalleled flexibility to using and creating such items. In a party that doesn't include a druid, for example, an artificer can use (or scribe) a scroll of barksin or wield a staff of the woodlands. Though they can fight reasonably well, few artificers are inclined to engage in front-rank melee combat.

There is more but it repeats a lot (e.g. the artificer is not a formal spellcaster, its use of all magic items, etc.).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Edit: I am trying to format this as best I can. Will be editing and trying to get it right.

Problem: The current mechanical servant suffers from many problems which render it problematic at all levels of play. Currently, at the level at which you gain it, it completely obsoletes a Beast Master's animal companion in the damage department. While it lacks utility, it oversteps its role in a big way. After level 9, it starts to accelerate a bit, then fall off, but remains a large annoyance until it scales into obsolescence due to a lack of progression and low hit points.

This isn't purely a Role issue, as the DPR of an Artificer is resultingly out of line as well. The Gunsmith specialization for Artificer functions in an almost identical way to a Rogue in terms of how it does damage, which generally is viable at all levels(though slightly behind in the mid to late "teens" as other classes gain some late level damage boosts). In essence, by combining a large DPR spike that doesn't scale(and will quickly die in fights past level 12 or so) with a Rogue damage progression, we have a class that does extreme and unfair damage between levels 6 and 10, before falling into a weak rut after that.

I have included below examples as a way to compare a Construct Polar Bear vs a Animal Companion. I have also included Beastmaster DPR assuming a generic beastmaster using a Heavy Crossbow and upgrading Dex at every ASI, and using Hunters Mark at all times. This is compared against a generic Artificer with Gunsmith, using his Thunder Monger on every attack. In an ideal comparison, both will be using bonus actions every turn to shift marks, or reload guns, so it reaches some degree of balance.

I believe that this is in fact an inherently unbalanced comparison due to your choice of weapon for the Ranger.
By deliberately choosing a weapon that does not allow the Ranger to utilise some of their class features (Martial weapons and Extra Attack) you are underselling their damage considerably. If you're using one class' scaling damage source then you should use the other's.

If this calculation is behind your contention that the class has "extreme and unfair damage", I would suggest it may be worth checking your figures. A level 6 Gunsmith will be dealing 4d6+dex damage using both action and bonus action. A level 6 Ranger will be dealing 2d8+ 2xDex damage using just their action before you start adding in their hunter's mark, fighting style or the fact that they probably have a higher Dex.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I believe that this is in fact an inherently unbalanced comparison due to your choice of weapon for the Ranger.
By deliberately choosing a weapon that does not allow the Ranger to utilise some of their class features (Martial weapons and Extra Attack) you are underselling their damage considerably. If you're using one class' scaling damage source then you should use the other's.

I thought the Revised Beastmaster no longer had Extra Attack?

 

[Garresh]

I believe that this is in fact an inherently unbalanced comparison due to your choice of weapon for the Ranger.
By deliberately choosing a weapon that does not allow the Ranger to utilise some of their class features (Martial weapons and Extra Attack) you are underselling their damage considerably. If you're using one class' scaling damage source then you should use the other's.

If this calculation is behind your contention that the class has "extreme and unfair damage", I would suggest it may be worth checking your figures. A level 6 Gunsmith will be dealing 4d6+dex damage using both action and bonus action. A level 6 Ranger will be dealing 2d8+ 2xDex damage using just their action before you start adding in their hunter's mark, fighting style or the fact that they probably have a higher Dex.

This is for the beastmaster ranger from revised ranger, which does NOT gain the extra attack feature. As a result, I calculated the damage as the best single shot range weapon, which is a heavy crossbow. I also erred on the side of the ranger, by allowing them to use hunters mark and assuming the animal will always get its second attack via reaction. The only thing I ignored was accuracy due to fighting style, as this was just a flat damage numbers comparison to get a ballpark estimate. Also, favored enemies are considered unreliable damage.

In short, this was a comparison between beast conclave and gunsmith as they are both "pet classes", and at level 6 the artificer absolutely crushes the revised ranger(which already pretty strong) by around 20-25% DPR.

And while I'm at it, just in case I missed anything else. Simply as a matter of logic, we have to consider the revised ranger does most of its damage from its pet. If it is being outclassed by the artificer pet, when the artificer does most of its damage from its gun, then as a matter of principle the artificer would have to outclass it.