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.

 

[Valetudo]

I really wish I could remember where the detail is. Looking at the PHB, I don't see it called out, either way, in either the Classes or Spellcasting chapters. About the best I've got is to say that it came up during a discussion on whether psions could be done as a subclass of sorcerer and related concepts. My personal feeling is that a really great version of psion could be easily achieved with a sorcerer subclass and spell points by just running with the idea that the psion "casts" firebolt by pointing at the bad guy (S) and saying "Burn, bastard!" (V). But, someone pulled out a "you've gotta use the same components" reference.

Regardless, if it's officially open to interpretation, that's awesome. I've got no problem ignoring a straight jacket like that, at my table, but I'm happier if the jacket isn't put on.

This subconversation probably qualifies as white noise, though. If I was absolutely correct about the RAW, even I would just say, "OK, that's nice. I'm ignoring it."

you could make one of the subclasses features be no need for componets or change them to some sort of psychic focus.

 

[duelistjp]

the problem is psionics makes no sense with spells since their is no reason for them to need s,v, or m components. maybe say their eyes glow or something so it is not completely undetectable but a major part of psionics is using the mind instead of the usual trappings of the arcane

 

[MechaTarrasque]

the problem is psionics makes no sense with spells since their is no reason for them to need s,v, or m components. maybe say their eyes glow or something so it is not completely undetectable but a major part of psionics is using the mind instead of the usual trappings of the arcane

Actually in most settings, there is a good social reason for using components: unless the psychic is followed around by Exposition Guy/Gal, there is no particular reason to assume that many (if any) people know the difference between magic and psychics. So since "everyone knows" that magic involves waiving your hands, saying weird stuff, and playing with knick knacks, the odds are the psychic has been trained that way, even if it doesn't actually add anything. The baseball player who always wears his "lucky" socks to the game, doesn't actually "get" anything from it, but if they go missing, his confidence suffers. Likewise, the psychic might not need to rub his magic 8 ball to mind zap someone, but without it, he is just a smuck.

 

[duelistjp]

might be reason for him to do it at times to get people to let their guard down but when he is trying to talk his way in somewhere why wouldn't he take advantage of what works out to being free subtle spell on his mind affecting abilities

 

[Parmandur]

I really wish I could remember where the detail is. Looking at the PHB, I don't see it called out, either way, in either the Classes or Spellcasting chapters. About the best I've got is to say that it came up during a discussion on whether psions could be done as a subclass of sorcerer and related concepts. My personal feeling is that a really great version of psion could be easily achieved with a sorcerer subclass and spell points by just running with the idea that the psion "casts" firebolt by pointing at the bad guy (S) and saying "Burn, bastard!" (V). But, someone pulled out a "you've gotta use the same components" reference.

Regardless, if it's officially open to interpretation, that's awesome. I've got no problem ignoring a straight jacket like that, at my table, but I'm happier if the jacket isn't put on.

This subconversation probably qualifies as white noise, though. If I was absolutely correct about the RAW, even I would just say, "OK, that's nice. I'm ignoring it."

Somebody might have been bringing in some earlier edition rule bit and misapplying it: 5E has always been as loose as this Artificer about component details.

 

[Terran5891]

Keith Baker has posted a new article on his site, briefly addressing the current Artificer UA:

http://keith-baker.com/dm-artificer/

Ah, that answers some things. The design focus is for Eberron. Then the turret definitely fits in. The homunculus is more of a technological thing then the kind of homunculus created as a wizard familiar. I'd like it more if the turret and homunculus benefits scaled a little bit, though. Kind of feels like they're not really that relevant by 10+.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Well, let's be honest. Setting purists will always have issues. It's just a thing. And, to be fair, everyone has a line that they don't want crossed. It doesn't have to be logical or really, even make a whole lot of sense since it's largely a taste thing. For me, I dislike psionics in D&D. Always have. Mostly my objections have been more mechanical than aesthetic, but, really, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone who doesn't want psionics in their setting. When we're being honest with ourselves, most of the objections really are based purely on personal taste and have virtually nothing objective to ground them.

The problem really comes when people try to pass of their personal tastes as some sort of objective truth which leads to a everyone spinning their wheels because once you've made that a sticking point - that your personal tastes are objective truth - there's no way forward. "I don't want X in my setting because I don't like X" isn't a reason not to officially include it in the setting. It's a reason for you not to include it in your campaign. But, folks don't seem to want to do that. They want an official blessing to tell their players no so they can force their personal tastes on the group. Otherwise, if the group wants X and you don't, well, not many folks want to be that guy who will look at the group and say, "nope, my personal tastes trump yours".

I can't emphasize enough how well you put this, people want Wizards of the Coast to win their arguments with their friends about whether or not something should be a part of their game/world for them.

 

[Ark the Pie King]

I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.

They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.

 

[NaturalZero]

I've been thinking about this recently, and at first I felt the same way (still do to some extent) but I started looking at it through another lense.

They're free at first, with additional uses of them costing a 1st level spell, so I started comparing them to 1st level spells and full stop I would 100% be fine with that cost. They're far better than 1st level spells, both of them probably being more along the lines of a strong 2nd level spell or a weaker 3rd level spell. So with that in mind, I'm fine with them not scaling. I still wish they did, but I don't think it's strictly necessary with all the benefit you're getting from them for relatively low cost.

I wouldn't mind seeing the free one scale for free and then have additional ones scale up based on the level of the spell slot you spend.

 

[Ash Mantle]

Now that's ironic, because I would have thought that including the hashtag #getoffmylawn would have at least hinted at the lack of seriousness behind my negative tone. But, whatever.

One thing I find curious is the number of posters that assume this is a case of "if it wasn't in the original greyhawk then it doesn't belong". I certainly didn't say anything like that. Is that a response to other posters? Or is it just an assumption that opposition to new stuff is automatically a case of being stuck in the past?

As you know, hint of intent doesn't translate well through posts, especially since your subsequent post was also negative. I tend to find emoticons are the best hint at a lack of seriousness.