Gate Pass Gazette What content do y'all want from Gate Pass Gazette?

[Morrus]

Kickstarter backers should now have their copies of Issue #0!

 

[Demiurge108]

Kickstarter backers should now have their copies of Issue #0!

thank you for your hard work Morrus. Pass a good holydays.

 

[VenerableBede]

I like the idea of a full-caster or half-caster where all of its “spells” are at-will or recharge on a d6 features — kind of like 3.5’s warlock. That one might also be a chunk of a full book rather than a magazine article, though.

 

[Larnievc]

I’d like a solid psionics rule set. I’d like it thematically similar to the Dark Sun ‘Will and the Way’ but with modern sensibilities and PSPs rather than slots. I’d like a psionicist class with only a few sub classes and none of this multiple psionic versions of other classes nonsense.

And if I was really lucky I’d like a bunch of psionic variant monsters given some LU love.

 

[carborundum]

Requests from my players are mostly ways to build/port favourite characters they never played enough into 5e. Bladesinger, spellthief (lost way too much in the UA version), forsaker...

 

[VelvetHobo]

I’d like a solid psionics rule set. I’d like it thematically similar to the Dark Sun ‘Will and the Way’ but with modern sensibilities and PSPs rather than slots. I’d like a psionicist class with only a few sub classes and none of this multiple psionic versions of other classes nonsense.

And if I was really lucky I’d like a bunch of psionic variant monsters given some LU love.

I'd kill for a well balanced psionic sysyem that was unique from magic.

 

[Corinnguard]

Requests from my players are mostly ways to build/port favourite characters they never played enough into 5e. Bladesinger, spellthief (lost way too much in the UA version), forsaker...

The Bladechanter synergy feat tree has some of the flavor of the Bladesinger. As for the Spellthief, an archetype or as another synergy feat tree (3 levels of Rogue + 3 levels of Wizard)?

 

[noodohs]

In future issues, I'd like to see an improved artificer I actually want to play. I gotta say that it was a real downer (compared to all the clear wins in the base rules) and does not inspire confidence in future issues. It felt like the test period was rushed and could have been much improved with more time and if the Gazette is meant to come out every month, I really worry that everything in it is always going to be rushed by virtue of that timeline.

 

[Anselm]

In future issues, I'd like to see an improved artificer I actually want to play. I gotta say that it was a real downer (compared to all the clear wins in the base rules) and does not inspire confidence in future issues. It felt like the test period was rushed and could have been much improved with more time and if the Gazette is meant to come out every month, I really worry that everything in it is always going to be rushed by virtue of that timeline.

I guess I feel the opposite. I really like the new artificer. I don't know if the play test we received was the only one but it felt more like a final pass than a play test so I'd assume they did a smaller one that didn't involve the backers.

 

[noodohs]

I guess I feel the opposite. I really like the new artificer. I don't know if the play test we received was the only one but it felt more like a final pass than a play test so I'd assume they did a smaller one that didn't involve the backers.

I like the core concept, don't get me wrong. And the archetypes are fine, even if none of them really scream artificer to me (part of the reason I don't want to play one is there aren't any archetypes I like). But the capstone feature is just so bad by comparison to the other classes. The playtest lab they get could've just been an option for them to purchase, but the automaton is pretty much worse than the O5e steel defender and that levels with you starting at level 3. And there are a number of other little things that just don't make sense and were brought up in other threads here and never addressed. Hence why I think if they had taken more time to actually gather feedback, it would've been better. Or maybe they just didn't care, I dunno. Either way, it has me worried for future additions.

 

[Xaielao]

I to really like the new artificer, it's a marked improvement in just core design and function over the o5e one. I can only imagine the ideas the designers have for future subclasses. I for one am happy that D&D finally has an alchemical bomber again. I've seriously missed that archetype.

I'll give you noodohs that the capstone feature's automoton isn't as good as a level 20 Steel Defender, but having played the o5e Defender Artificer, that thing stole the show. Literally my character mostly sat on it's back while it tore through enemies like a buzz saw. It's a good thing there wasn't a ranger in the group or they'd have been second fiddle from day 1. The o5e Defender is the strongest pet in the game, by a huge margin.

 

[Bunker]

Hence why I think if they had taken more time to actually gather feedback, it would've been better. Or maybe they just didn't care, I dunno.

Or maybe other people had different opinions to you. I know I do.

 

[Anselm]

Or maybe other people had different opinions to you. I know I do.

Yeah I mean not to be snarky and not knowing the full gambit of play testing that took place, it's very possible the feedback they got from the backer sneak peek was positive and more time there would have been superfluous. I'd be hesitant to argue the process is bad just because any single person doesn't like the design.

 

[noodohs]

It is possible, of course, and clearly there are people that like it. But I've been playing (and complaining about) an O5e artificer for a year or so now and while there are some things that LU gets better, it's not nearly as amazing (and thematically appropriate) as what PF2e accomplished. Since LU bills itself as the go between for those two systems, I was really hoping they'd take inspiration from that and stop trying to lump alchemy in with artifice (as one example) and give them like actual tool wizard things, since that's what the class seems like it's supposed to be. I was excited to finally have something cool to convince my DM to let me play, but my subclass (battle smith) doesn't even have an equivalent available.

Again, it's a cool core concept, but I think with more time, a few more minor tweaks could have been made that everyone would have liked. Like the automaton companion is just objectively worse in nearly every way than an equivalent steel defender at level 20, but you get to take it with you starting at level 3 as a battle smith. Yes, it starts out worse, but something is better than nothing. Meanwhile a herald gets to just not die at level 20. Surely even those of you who like the artificer can agree there could've been a better capstone. On top of that, O5e artificers just get infusions at certain levels, they don't have to go find them in the world, so I can just have a headband of intellect overnight whereas in LU I have to hope my DM is feeling generous and will allow me to find one somewhere in the world that I can replicate... except I'd already have one, so why bother making a new one?

At some point, I am probably going to rework the class on my own and will post the results in a different thread for further discussion.

 

[Anselm]

even those of you who like the artificer can agree there could've been a better capstone

Probably but I also don't think it's fair to judge a class design on it's capstone. 99.9% of the people who use the class will never touch level 20.

I was really hoping they'd take inspiration from that and stop trying to lump alchemy in with artifice (as one example) and give them like actual tool wizard things, since that's what the class seems like it's supposed to be

Again a fair criticism for what you want but I'm not sure if it's a bad design for the mechanics. If you don't want an alchemical artificer you can flavor them as mini inventions or tech bombs pretty easily.

Again it's very fair to say that the class was not what you were looking for but that's a difference in taste, not quality.

Like the automaton companion is just objectively worse in nearly every way than an equivalent steel defender at level 20

That's also probably true but it didn't mean the class is worse just that it's doing something different. You can, probably with dm permission, just use the battlesmith subclass with the A5E artificer. That design works. I'm going to let one of my players do exactly that.

 

[ReadyButNot]

Probably but I also don't think it's fair to judge a class design on it's capstone. 99.9% of the people who use the class will never touch level 20.

why not? just because most people won't use it doesn't mean it isn't part of the class. that aside, a capstone is part of what's going to encourage people to consider not multiclassing - i'd say the feasibility of multiclassing (or not) is a pretty important thing to consider when making a class.

Or maybe other people had different opinions to you. I know I do.

i'm not sure. on the playtest thread, pretty much every single person who brought up schematics (including myself) did so to point out that there needed to be a more guaranteed way of getting schematics, since at the moment it was (and now will forever be) essentially DM fiat whether or not you got any more...and the only thing they did to address that was give one field discovery that lets you take a few schematics from a very limited group (common or uncommon potions) that you can take once. i think noodohs has a point here.

 

[Anselm]

why not? just because most people won't use it doesn't mean it isn't part of the class.

I'm not saying it isn't part of the class nor is it above scrutiny. I'm saying in terms of the things that make a class well designed, fun to play, and balanced, it is absolutely the last thing on the list for priority. For example, the O5E wizard has one of the most lackluster capstones in the game but no one ever argues that it makes the rest of of the class weak or poorly designed. The opposite is true and it is generally considered the most powerful, most flexible, and fun to play.

 

[ReadyButNot]

I'm not saying it isn't part of the class nor is it above scrutiny. I'm saying in terms of the things that make a class well designed, fun to play, and balanced, it is absolutely the last thing on the list for priority. For example, the O5E wizard has one of the most lackluster capstones in the game but no one ever argues that it makes the rest of of the class weak or poorly designed. The opposite is true and it is generally considered the most powerful, most flexible, and fun to play.

i guess i see your point, but i wouldn't call the o5e wizard's capstone "one of the most lackluster in the game" primarily because the bard, monk, and sorcerer capstones exist

 

[Anselm]

i guess i see your point, but i wouldn't call the o5e wizard's capstone "one of the most lackluster in the game" primarily because the bard, monk, and sorcerer capstones exist

That's fair though the point stands with at least bard from that list as well

 

[VenerableBede]

I find it interesting how much of this discussion on the artificer revolves around the lackluster capstone, or uses the lackluster capstone to justify criticizing the class overall, when the capstone is the last and least important of the artificer's abilities. In my perception, the various capstones vary wildly in terms of power and flavor; the artificer's capstone does, to me, sit on the lower end, but it isn't the weakest.

That aside, how often will most tables actually see a class's capstone? Every table is different, and A5e was designed to help make higher level play happen more often (to my understanding), but most characters will still never see 4th tier, let alone level 20. As a result, which I get excited about a good capstone or unmotivated by a middling one, it's not the deciding factor in whether or not I think a class is good.

I don't think the above justifies capstones and high-level abilities that don't seem to deliver, but, for me at least, it does encourage me to weigh later-level abilities significantly lower than earlier-level abilities when determining how strong, flavorful, and fun a class is. And I think the artificer is extremely solid through tier two, even tier three.