Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: The Artificer Is Here! & UA Schedule Changes

Not liking the shape of this. It's certainly powerful in a batman-utility sort of way, but I didn't expect the Artificer to become a "Must Have Pet" class. My potion thrower is gone, and the party Beastmaster is giving me side-eye.

Unless you can put Returning Weapon on the potions you throw.


Guest 6801328

Their message going into 5e has always been "your game, your decisions, your rules".

That works great when it's my game, but when I'm not DMing it's somebody else's game.

And even when it *is* my game, I feel like a jerk for telling a player, "No, sorry, you can't have that option just because it doesn't appeal to me aesthetically." So I usually don't.

It's ironic that whenever I say, "I hope X doesn't make it into the official game" the response is "Don't be a selfish jerk. You can do whatever you want with the game: if you don't want it in yours just don't include it!"

But the symmetric argument is: "You can do whatever you want with YOUR game, too: if you DO want it, just include UA or homebrew material. You don't need it to be official."

I understand that people are fans of certain options and hope they are in the game. That's find and totally valid. And sometimes I'm not a fan and don't want it in the game. That's neither more nor less valid.

It's just...willfully blind?...to argue that new options, especially new options with dramatically different flavor, don't have to have an impact on those who don't want them. At the very, very least you end up being the bad guy saying "no" to somebody.

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes, that's the intent of the text.
Yes, we both know what the intent of the text is.
What? Where are you getting that from? You need to expend a spell slot to summon a turret, you can't also benefit from having cast the spell. In fact, the text is actually quite clear.
From the strange way it is written. It reads like a trigger, instead of a cost paid in exchange for an effect. "You summon a turret when you expend a spell slot" as in expending a spell slot for any reason fulfills the criteria to summon it with an action, instead of the more standard "You must expend a spell slot to summon a turret as part of an action."


Jedi Master
Didn't WotC say that the Artificer would be added to the Wayfarer's Guide to Eberron after it was finished? That was one of the reasons they were delaying a print on demand option.

And checking Keith Baker's FAQ, http://keith-baker.com/wgte-faq/, that was at least the plan initially.


Hmmm, if it's in WGtE, I wonder if they will add it somewhere else, or even release it as a PDF player's guide. If the class is meant to be fundamental to the game as a whole, it just feels limited by only having it in WGtE.

Of course, with DnDB, and the ability to pay for classes ala carte, maybe it's not that big a deal. Would be crazy if they added the class to the DnDB players handbook (and maybe future printings of the PHB) as a way to test evolving the game without full numbered edition changes...


Quantum Chronomancer
Not a fan of the pets / animal companions. If the base wizard doesn't automatically get a familiar, why should the artificer?

I would much rather see find familiar, reflavored as a mechanical construct (perhaps call it craft familiar) as an available spell. Then you could have a golem/homunculus devoted subclass without forcing the theme onto a wandslinger or alchemist.


I will add this isn't everything for the Artificer, the next UA will have more. I figure it's most likely more subclasses so if you want a pet free Artificer that should fill those needs.

Tools required/Magic of Artifice: I like it. The whole VSM straight-jacket needs to be broken. Psionics could be spells that change trappings in a similar way to this -- obviously not with tools. Even though I'm adamantly opposed to the artificer using actual technology, they still work with items, so the trappings make sense. Just picture magic oils, special ingredients, etc., rather than gears and sprockets.
They are still in the V,S,M paradigm, while it emphasizes tool use nothing seems to indicate they can drop the V part of spellcasting because they're using tools.

Heh. It's really funny how we all have different take aways from different settings. You mention this not fitting in Greyhawk. But, GH is a setting with fallen spaceships (multiple), one of the iconic wizards of the setting uses six-guns, and one of the first encounters in the Slave Lords modules involves a wagon mounted flamethrower and goblins (or orcs, I can't remember).

The notion that artificers wouldn't fit in GH seems strange to me.

That is a good point, and I definitely agree. Sorry if I was a bit unclear, but what I was really aiming more towards there isn't an overall society or group in Greyhawk that would naturally produce them in bulk, unlike Eberron as a whole, Lantan (or even Thay, should they return to their 3e "magic sellers to the world" mode) in the Forgotten Realms, and the tinker gnomes of Dragonlance. Greyhawk could definitely have them, but they would be more one-off exceptions (in other words, ask your DM), instead of springing full-formed from an already existing group.
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads


Remove ads

Upcoming Releases