I don't think anyone saw this coming!
I agree. If that's going to be consistent across sub-classes, then just make it a core class feature ala Sneak Attack.Also, the damage scaling all at different intervals bothers me a lot more that i like to admit. they should just have an "artificer attack/alchemy dice" on the table like sneak attack, and all the damage modifiers referring to that. Single target effect just get a bonus on the initial damage if really wanted and be done.
Yeah, I just don't get this need to use the MM creatures. It causes all sorts of headaches where you need to check compatibility and balance every time you create a new creature, and yet it's a core rule for not only beasts attached to class mechanics and spells, but fey, fiends, elementals, etc.I wish mechanical servant was a subclass feature, I don't see every artificer having one.
The design team is apparently unable to remember just a few months back when the released the revised ranger that there was two years of consistent negative feedback, and gave out a companion as a class feature that doesn't scale. Either rip out this abortion or make it scale, but right now all it's doing is being an opportunity cost that there isn't something else written there except for a few levels.
Admittedly I am filtering this through my years of DMing, but I think part of my "not very fond" is that I'm having problems seeing past the fact that they are getting magic items, for free, that most characters have to spend a good majority of their careers adventuring for.
Or maybe I'm just very stingy with magic items to my players...
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.
Sure, but since your point was that the bonus action to reload the thunder cannon conflicted with the bonus action to command the servant to attack, that point isn't really relevant, right? It's about reactions, not bonus actions.I am referring to:
• If you are the target of a melee attack and the servant is within 5 feet of the attacker, you can use your reaction to command the servant to respond, using its reaction to make a melee attack against the attacker.
Apparatus of Kwalish added at 20th
Bag of Beans to 15th from 10th
Bag of Holding to 5th from 2nd
Boots of Striding and Springing down to 5th, from 15th.
Driftglobe to 10th from 2nd
Goggles of Night to 5th from 2nd
Gloves of Missile Snaring to 10th from 20th
Gloves of Thievery added at 15th.
Hat of Disguise to 10th from 15th
Heward's Handy Haversack to 2nd from 10th
Helm of Comprehending Languages from to 2nd from 5th
Mariner's Armor(Any Light) added at level 2.
Periapt of Wound Closure added at 15th.
Ring of jumping to 2nd from 20th
Ring of X-ray Vision added at 15th
Saddle of the Cavalier added at 10th
Sending Stones to 10th from 2nd
Wand of Magic Detection to 2nd from 5th
Yea, alchemist acid should do 2d6 upfront to keep pace with the rogue. Otherwise, seems pretty on-point.Also, the damage scaling all at different intervals bothers me a lot more that i like to admit. they should just have an "artificer attack/alchemy dice" on the table like sneak attack, and all the damage modifiers referring to that. Single target effect just get a bonus on the initial damage if really wanted and be done.
The problem with the whole "Eberron is incompatible with 5e's core design" issue is that it completely misunderstands the idea behind Eberron's magic economy. Eberron's magic economy is not 4e's; it's not a bunch of magic weapon/armor emporiums designed to outfit hundreds and thousands of adventurers. The basic concept behind Eberron is that adventurers; and especially characters with PC classes and levels, are exceptionally rare. Eberron's magic economy is all about consumer goods and services, most of them constructed by Magewrights who are not all that magically powerful. All told, Eberron is actually a fairly low-magic setting; that magic is just broad-based. It would be more accurate to call it a wide-magic setting. And there's nothing in 5e's core design, especially not anything to do with attunement, that makes Eberron not work perfectly fine in 5e without a little bit of tweaking. Certain magic items (Siberys items, including some already in the DMG, like sending stones) require a true dragonmark to attune to and/or use. Done.
I'm not even utterly convinced you'd need rules for magic item creation in an Eberron Campaign book. Maybe if you felt it was necessary to have rules for PCs to be able to do anything that NPCs can do; but I myself am content with leaving magic item creation to the House Cannith NPCs.
Then again, one of my Eberron 5e campaign ideas revolve around a massive dragonshard shortage to explain the lull in the magic economy. I just don't think that's the only way to run Eberron in 5e.