I don't think anyone saw this coming!
This. When magic items could just be bought and sold in 4e, they felt significantly less exciting and special. Instead, they became just another part of PC builds. With 5e, magic items started to feel, well, magical again. I don't mind PCs crafting magic items, but I feel like they should require quests and efforts, be a momentous undertaking. Not just "boom, you gained a level and get a free magic item."
Doesn't gaining levels require "quests and effort"? I feel like you mean that crafting a magic item should require extra layer of narrative, on top of whatever the party is normally doing.This. When magic items could just be bought and sold in 4e, they felt significantly less exciting and special. Instead, they became just another part of PC builds. With 5e, magic items started to feel, well, magical again. I don't mind PCs crafting magic items, but I feel like they should require quests and efforts, be a momentous undertaking. Not just "boom, you gained a level and get a free magic item."
This. When magic items could just be bought and sold in 4e, they felt significantly less exciting and special. Instead, they became just another part of PC builds. With 5e, magic items started to feel, well, magical again. I don't mind PCs crafting magic items, but I feel like they should require quests and efforts, be a momentous undertaking. Not just "boom, you gained a level and get a free magic item."
Doesn't gaining levels require "quests and effort"? I feel like you mean that crafting a magic item should require extra layer of narrative, on top of whatever the party is normally doing.
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...
Can't say as I agree. (Outside of agreeing that racial type subclasses would be great for this class.) Outside of the mechanical servant, most of the tech elements are imbedded in the subclasses. And you could easily have a more shamanistic subclass that makes the mechanical servant into a fey, for example. I could easily make an elven artificer that feels a lot like a ranger, for example, with only light reskinning. (Thunder Cannon becomes Arcane Bow, and the Mechanical Servant becomes a beast.)
We might disagree on this because of your preference for story elements being imbedded in the class, over my preference for viewing classes as holders of mechanics. Can't help you there, I'm afraid. Maybe there's a 12 step program.
You can have an artificer without the ability to craft magic items from the DMG that satisfies "creating magic items" as well as rewarding characters who find magic items.Sure, but allowing conversion of levels into items is far less problematic than allowing conversion of gold, or XP, or time into items. Allowing other magic items to be turned into crafted items would just bring back 4e residuum. Fundamentally, you can't have an artificer with ANY magic item crafting abilities that isn't going to cut into the novelty factor of finding your own magic items. At least by limiting it to a small selection of items gained at only a few points in your adventuring career, you're still keeping the bulk of magic items interesting. This way, they're more like class features that you can hand me down when you get bored with them.
Reading the subclasses more closely, it seems like they've put a good handle on it there. The main class has this issue (8 hours is plenty of time to run out and bash some gobbos and come back to camp), but the subclasses don't really. The way they accomplish it is a little artificial, but it's flavorful, so I'm cool with giving them a pass there. Though I'm a bit concerned about the "short-rest-recharge healing" offered by the healing drought, that's a specific quibble.I really don't see this one. The artificer is a rogue, first and foremost. They do excellent damage which is lost without their presence. They CAN'T craft new items unless they're out gaining XP and levels. Their infusions last 8 hours, max. I agree that they don't need to make a ton of "artificing decisions" outside of where to deploy their few spell slots, but moving them away from being a full caster is pretty strong signal that was the designer's intent.
A high campaign variability is not a desirable thing in a class, I'd think - you want it to be broadly useful, in a variety of campaigns. Otherwise, it's for a small niche of your audience. Could be OK, but if the goal is to get the class into the hands of players, not really what you're aiming for.TwoSix said:A minor ability that works in conjuction with their crafting ability to supprt both low and high item campaigns.
Narrowly speaking, it's possible that crafting a mechanical companion might be one sharp corner that needs a good sanding off. Possibly, find familiar-with-construct-option would make a good replacement.TwoSix said:Beasts are the safest choice for any sort of shapechanging or companion ability, due to the predictability of their advancement and abilities. And you can describe them any way you want. So you could use a bear's stats, for example, and just describe them as a burly humanoid. I agree that if you really wanted to build a C-3PO you're out of luck, but that seems addressable via subclasses in the future.
Boldness is good. For UA, I'd rather see bold messes than safe, sanitized options. In published products, maybe a bit more sanitation.More than anything, I appreciate the boldness, but I think there's a lot more clever design here than you may be giving them credit for.