Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana is Here - and it's all about EBERRON!

Pretty awesome that this series has started

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron

Will Greyhawk or Dragonlance be next??

Probably Dragonlance. Does Greyhawk have any particular crunchy player bits that aren't covered by the PHB already?

 

[Sir Brennen]

I am confused ... I never said they would get any free spells? what?

backstory: they have a dragonmark (it doesnt do anything) ... level 4 (i take the feat) now it does.

Sorry... in your original post, you said they'd start out with a least dragonmark. The least dragonmark is the version where it first grants spells. Otherwise, yeah, we're on the same page.

 

[Staffan]

The problem is that there are elements of the artificer class that don't appear in this subclass. Among them.

I think a good way of putting it is that while this document has an artificer, it doesn't have the artificer. It feels a lot closer to the 2e wizard specialization than to 3e's buffer/construct-focused caster.

But then again, a lot of the things the 3e artificer did are things 5e doesn't want PCs to do. It had a lot of buffs (flavored as making temporary magic items - the artificer didn't cast shield of faith on his buddy, he cast it on his buddy's bracelet instead, turning it into a bracelet of protection +x), but 5e limits buffs through the use of Concentration rules. It was better at crafting magic items, getting a pool of bonus XP to spend on making them, getting item creation feats for free, and additional feats that could be used to reduce time and cost for making them - but 5e strongly discourages PCs making magic items. That makes the artificer a very hard class to capture in 5e - potentially impossible.

 

[MoonSong]

On a side note, artificer was a specialist wizard class back in 2e which I rediscovered last night reading through spells & magic. This might explain why I'm happy with it being a wizard subclass while still retaining much of the flavour of the Eberron Artificer.

You are aware that that artificer has nothing to do with the Eberron artificer? It is like saying the amazon sorceress kit from tome of magic is the direct antecessor of 3e sorcerer.

Im a HUGE fan of Eberron, and so Im VERY excited about this... However, I have some notes...

Changlings - the use of the word polymorph is a strange one, it implies that the changling takes on physical characteristics of the creature it changed into... in the past it was a physical change only, more akin to the Warlock ability that gives you "at will" use of disguise self

Warforged - Not a fan of warforged wearing armor. I would say that warforged should have "sub races" that represent different types of armor. None, Light, Medium, and Heavy. Giving them that type of armor permanently.

Artificer - Doesnt feel right, more lacks the swashbuckling MacGuyver aspect of the class..

Indeed, Maybe a cleric subclass, or even a rogue one?

 

[Jester David]

Looking a little closer it does feel like the races are a little underpowered.
The changeling power is only useful in campaigns with humanoids. It's super adventure specific. The shifter feels like it needs a skill or something else minor, just something at all for when they're not shifting. And the warforged just feels... bland. Maybe if they also had resistance to poison or something.
I hope this is just a first draft, a playtest version they'll update later.


I'm glad they finally got around to this. It was a loooong January with no information and news. They promised us so much for "next year" (or even the end of 2014) and then seemed to drop off the earth. Digital news, the OGL (first details then the licence), the articles, the battlesystem rules, an update to the DM Basic rules, and more.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem is that there are elements of the artificer class that don't appear in this subclass. Among them.

* Artificers could fight decently. Simple weapons, d8 HD, medium armor + shields. The wizard lacks all this as he's supposed to be a support PC.
* Artificers were trapfinders (Search, Disable Device) as good as a rogue. The wizard lacks the proficiencies (perception, thieves tools) to do this. (Although, I guess an appropriate background could fix that).
* Artificers were great at dealing with constructs (healing, building, and destroying them). The wizard doesn't get any special abilities to do any of that, beyond the traditional spells any wizard can cast.
* Artificer spells were mostly buffing, building, and a touch of healing (in 4e). Wizard spells summon monsters, throw fireballs, animate skeletons, and a bunch of other un-flavorful stuff.

Those things alone are major strikes, and really make former methods of playing the artificer (both 3e's generalist and 4e's leader/healer) both invalid.

I'm not even sure how to fix these things, but it gives me a point of reference to start.

Hmmm...a "trained artificer" background might take care of the skills/tools.

Artificer spells could be updated for 5e without much of a problem (they'd be concentration spells by and large, so they wouldn't stack).

"Dealing with constructs" is a bit...niche. That's a potential grounding for some expanded ability, but "I am good at dealing with constructs" isn't really class-defining territory (what's that look like in a swamp adventure against bullywugs?)

The "good in melee" thing is something this one lacks that I think folks might actually miss. Like, a wizard doesn't HAVE to be awful at melee, but they certainly start off below the baseline, and the artificer probably shouldn't start below baseline. And outside of optional rules like multiclassing, there's not a way to get that out-of-the-box.

Indeed, Maybe a cleric subclass, or even a rogue one?

I don't like cleric -- though that gives them "good in melee," it doesn't fit in the narrative. Rogue suffers from similar issues, but feels a little closer. IMO, you shouldn't need to be Class X to be "good in melee." You can have a "good in melee" wizard build. This just ain't it.

Rogue would be an interesting choice, though. Something like the Arcane Trickster, but with mending instead of mage hand and transmutation/abjuration spells? Yeah, that might work...not that they get much out of Sneak Attack or a good Dex, but you can have a "good in melee" rogue build, too...

 

[fjw70]

I've noticed that Greyhawk has actually come in first in the "Which Non-Realmsian Setting Would You Like Next?" poll, and I'm curious if anyone can explain to me what Greyhawk offers that other campaign settings don't. (For example, Dark Sun, Eberron, and Spelljammer are wildly different enough from Forgotten Realms that I absolutely understand why someone would want to see those sooner rather than later.)

I guess if you are a Dark Sun fan and WotC released another post-apocalyptic type setting that wouldn't satisfy your desire for Dark Sun. People want Greyhawk because they like Greyhawk. They don't care how "close" it is to the Realms.

 

[Evenglare]

I hope they release a book every year of this stuff formatter nicely with art. I would love it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I'm confused where the general rules for polymorphing are found. If it's the spell polymorph, does the changeling get a bank of extra hitpoints whenever he shifts? I assume not, since this is probably too good, and there's that "if you die" entry. Does he get new physical characteristics? Again... probably too good?

It also looks like it's possible for the artificer to circumvent the "only 1 6-9th level spell slot per day" restriction by crafting a scroll.

As for playing an artificer: my artificer was a weapon-buffing melee combatant with a robot dog. I would probably play him as a reskinned ranger.

I could have gone the other way and hit something really wizardy, or a third buffing option and ended with a cleric. Hell, I think I could have picked infusions to make a social skill monkey too.

Given that, I think artificer should be a background (Arcana, Thieves tools, the tinker gnome construct creation power) and a refluffing of whatever spells you end up taking, and potentially throw in some of the ideas from this document as feats (ie - spending spell slots to make persistant one-shot items) and using the crafting rules from the DMG - or writing new ones. That lets you take basically whatever class you want, choose a spell using path if you feel like it and take the feat... again if you feel like it. If you want to be an artificer that wears clockwork full plate and wields a gigantic enchanted sword, eldritch knight fits that pretty well. If you want a robot dog, a reskinned pet-using ranger or warlock works for that.

 

[bmfrosty]

I hope they release a book every year of this stuff formatter nicely with art. I would love it.

I hope that at some point in Q3 15 they release a refined version of this bit of crunch in a nice hardback of 288-384 pages with the full setting and an adventure or two. They can probably block copy text from earlier books and edit to make it 5e.

New books for the new people. New edition of the old for those who have been around longer.

Rinse repeat with planescape, dark sun, and everything else.

 

[HobbitFan]

I'm really happy they released something.
January's communication silence had me worried.