I think the removal of the Artificer base class getting skill expertise and proficiency with crossbows and firearms in this version was a mistake. Those are part of what made the class operate differently to wizard. Since they gave the Wizard expertise in PHB 2024, it doesn't make sense to remove it from the Artificer. I also think this would be the perfect time to release a revised Gunner feat as well as a few more firearms. A blunderbuss with the graze mastery for example.
Artificer skill expertise wasn't removed, it was never present There has not been a single published artificer class or subclass with a skill expertise in the history of 5th edition They did have *tool* expertise, but they removed that from the game, it is no longer possible in 5e to have tool expertise, because there are no tool checks in 5e As such, they really should call it tool training rather than tool proficiency I suppose
@@nyanbrox5418 It's as easy as this: *Tool Expertise: "If you have proficiency with a tool, your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the tool unless the bonus is doubled by another feature."*
In my opinion, this ua has cemented in my mind that the artificers are Master's of certain magic items types . Alchemist: potions Armorer: armor Artilerist: wands Battle smith: weapons For this reason I think the classes should be built more around those traits and using them better than other. This leads easily into the creation of more subclasses based around the remaining magic item categories, as well as telling us where they could twist the replicate magic items list. Let alchemists make potions, give us a scrolls (I know it would kinda over lap with the scribes wizard), a wonder item, a cursed item, artificer ect.
Firstly, their weapons can no longer have a +2 infusions because infusion no longer exist so there weapons are less powerful then before. Secondly the level 9 feature is even worse then you think because the best armor you have acces to is a +1 armor so if you find a better armor you now have a usless level 9 feature. Also Armorer special weapon kinda just feels like weapon mastery Push or Sap and weapon mastery can be used with +3 weapons or other magic items, but the Armorer special weapons are only +0. Guardian Armorer Defensive field is just way less temp hp then the Artillerist protector canon which can gives you 1d8 +int with no restriction (no waiting for bloody) and it's AOE 10 feet radius. So yeah Armorer is feeling pretty bad. I love the concept of Armorer but they just suck in term of power. They need big buffs. Also they lack strenght to avoid grapple so they should add a feature to avoid that.
@googloocraft12 I agree 100%. I love the flavor but the execution just isn't there, I think it would be cool if each subclass could also give you access to higher values of thier specialty when you get them, such as the armorer being able to make rare armors at lv 9 and very rare at 15( with some restrictions if needed). Also a homebrew I give to every subclass that revolves around its personalized weapon is giving them a +1, +2, and +3 as they scale up.
I played a Guardian Armorer from levels 5 to 10. A combination of variant human, house rules, magic items, and rolled stats meant I had Sentinel, Fey-Touched, Telekinetic, and Resilient (Wisdom); with +5 INT and +5 CON (but like a 12 or less for the rest of my stats). I appreciate the upgrade from d8 to d10. Damage lagged behind, the reaction is INT/day which isn't much if you often do reaction damage as part of your build's DPR (or use other support reactions, being that Guardian is a tank/support playstyle), this at least keeps Booming Blade/True Strike pushed back from being the go-to for a little while. I guess the way I feel about it is that I'd rather have Fighter's Studied Attacks. Advantage in case you miss the first, since only 2 chances to apply your soft-taunt can feel bad when trying to defend your allies against a really tough enemy.
@@bryanthiga3198 Replicate Magic Item creates new weapons, rather than infusing old ones. So the armorer doesn't get any way to use magic weapons anymore. Probably the reason they added innate weapon die increases.
I think infusions are still needed as separate from magic items to enhance and buff weapons and gear. I like decoupling magic items from the infusions, I like the ones that they made their own magic items but, I still want to be able to enhance and tinker with existing items.
Isn't having say, 1 infusion and 1 magic item just strictly worse than 2 magic items, when the magic items do the same things or better than the infusions do? I understand some of the previous infusions got nerfed and pushed back to level 6 or 10 or 14, that previously were available sooner. But that was probably necessary for balance reasons. PROBABLY. No early repeating shot musket on a battlesmith will still hurt.
You do know infusions can't be used on magical items, right? So the new feature is identical it just doesn't require a non-magical item. I do like the idea of artificers being able to buff existing magic items tho, like giving returning weapon to a magical weapon
I miss the infusions as well. Also the DMG shouldn't be for players to look through for items. So infusions make more sense as they just list them in the same book as the Artificer.
Artificers are all about magic items, so introduce a recharge mechanic. Recharge Magic Item: spend a spell slot of the highest spell level the item contains to recharge 1d4 charges. This process takes 10min and can be done during a short rest. You regain the ability during a long rest. (Scale number of times with magic item crafting features)
Or at least have a few basic elixirs like Healing Potions(/Antidotes to remove the Poisoned condition) that are separate to the random table so you can always guarantee a steady stock level of them. :)
Played my Alchemist (level 10) last night in a holiday one shot. It was absolutely grand, but only because there was a single combat encounter and it was a 4-player party. I also got really lucky on the random rolls. Every round of combat my +healing/damage or potions were impactful, so I felt like I was really contributing even though my damage wasn't great. Having the Poisoner feat and smearing poison in other people's weapons was also a fun bonus action. But if this had been a normal session with 4-6 combats, I would have been way more stingy with potions and likely just spent the whole time casting cantrips. If burning a spell slot gave [proficiency bonus] potions, I'd play standard sessions more like that one shot and spread the love as a buff bot more. I also love Tasha's cauldron, but it comes only 5 levels late. At that point, there's only a couple of potions that are impactful and some niche uses but unlikely to have enough to cover the party. :/
Battlesmith needs to be able to mod a weapon so it counts as an artisan tool as well and have a small option for steel defender Alchemist needs alchemist's fire and acid added to magical tinkering and level scaling on the base elixirs. Radiant weapon shouldn't be spellcaster locked.
This version of the Artificer seems like an NPC class. Something you want in your party, but not something you’d want to play. This Artificer’s ability to add around 50 extra casts of 3rd and 4th level spells beyond its own spellcasting seems a little broken.
I agree. When Ted glossed over the 'spell storing' function of the class, I threw up my hands. 10 fireballs a day as L5 artificer is NOT balanced. (A wizard can do two fireballs per day at L5.)
@@imayb1 What do you mean Level 5 Artificer? Spell-Storing Item is level 11. When the Wizard has a 6th level, 2x5ths, 3x4ths, and 3x3rds. 10x(8d6) vs (3x(8d6) + 3x(9d6) + 2x(10d6) + 1x(11d6)). I.e. 80d6 vs 82d6. It's very close, and takes (slightly) fewer actions to do it.
Well in particular i was asking the guy who claimed they got all this at level 5... but it is a 14th level requirement to get that many items. According to the magic items awarded by level table in the DMG everyone in the party should have 18 rare items along with 8 very rare and 2 legendary items. This would include doubling up of wands of fireballs for the wizards if you want. Also fireballs is practical useless by this level unless you decided to go bully some townies. Globe of invulnerablity, investature of the flame, fire elemental shape change, or any other of the other ways to get immunity to fire. @@hatihrodvitnisson
For me, the Artificer is the magitech jack of all trades. A class that should mix skill/tool proficiency with some spellcasting and a magical bag of tricks. I do miss the idea of having expertise with the tools, but I suspect it was clashing with their new rules for actions performed with tools or for crafting. It looks like they went the route of emphasizing the spellcasting side and eschewing some of the jack of trades aspects. The Artificer I made for a campaign before the 2024 rules was effectively emulating a Rogue without being one. Ended up going Battle Smith and becoming the combat swiss army knife of the party. Feels like by them playing it very safe, I can't quite do that anymore.
Expertise in tools is no longer a thing. In new content, skill checks can be made with tools. So you use proficiency/expertise of the skill and if you have proficiency in the tool, you roll with advantage.
imo, an artificer is that mad scientist that makes weird and dangerous stuff. whether that’s fancy new tech, potions or something else. this artificer fits that kind of but is closer fancy metal worker that sometimes has a fancy pet or weapon
My thoughts exactly. Other than the dreadnaught and the artillerist, for me, everything feels far too tame or just plain boring. How does being better at ability checks and cheating death personify being a master inventor? Why isn't the Infiltrator good at infiltrating or the guardian armor good at guarding? Why is there so much bonus action clog on every single new version of DND's half casters?
Magical Tinkering needs better item durations, Replicate Magic Item needs to limit enspelled items to avoid 3rd level spam, Soul of Artifice needs to apply to saving throws or go back to the old version. Experimental elixirs, some effects are too weak or dont last long enough, Alchemical Savant is too restrictive, should be all artificer spells if they want to avoid multiclass exploits. Armorer weapons should be generic weapons that can can have generic variant magic item effects applied, Armor replication should allow you to replace separate parts of the armor with magic items, they should return the advantage to Lightning launcher on Perfected armor. Artillerist needs firearm proficiency.
I think there is a big piece missing from the Armorer changes here. Before you could infuse your armor, but now you just make magic items. It specifically says your armor covers your entire body, so how do you put on the magic boots or gloves you're making? You effectively lose those slots (more if your DM is mean) now. Simple wording like the BA for removing the helm to say that you can remove your gloves or boots would fix this. Or even specifying that you can choose to not cover the hands and feet and not lose any benefit of the armor.
I didn't realize until after watching this video, the material component for Homunculus is 100G and is consumed! That is tough for a level 3 character to spend I think.
@ Right, but until the new DMG is released, we are stuck with the wording from the old DMG: Multiple Items of the Same Kind Use common sense to determine whether more than one kind of a given magic item can be worn. A character can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or be able to layer two cloaks.
@@codebracker Yeah, it wasn't consumed, it was just used for the spell. I just realized that it no longer takes a BA to command it though, which is totally worth the 100G lost cost. Plus it has more HP and Evasion so it will survive a bit longer.
I think removing expertise and infusions was a mistake. But I'm not sold that there isn't a better core feature than infusion either. For the 4 subclasses, I personally would choose: Golemsmith (creates a construct of some type that fights and is customizable, possibly like a sidekick where you can make it a warrior, expert, or spellcaster) Warsmith (basically the armorer but more damaging/weapon stuff) Alchemist (potion brewer and bomb maker) Gunsmith (makes a magic gun that can have different modes and uses). I would encourage anyone reading this to check out KibblesTasty's Inventor class, which is a complete rework of the Artificer that was made a few years ago. It has tons of options so some could find it overloading, but I really like it in comparison to WotC Artificer.
When I homebrewed an updated artificer recently, the core identity I gave them was modifying weapons. One feature gave them the ability to permanently change a weapon’s mastery property by meeting certain criteria, and a later feature allowed them to infuse a weapon in order to use its mastery property.
Lol. It looks like WotC is playtesting their review process as well. I definitely will be filling out the survey shortly. I have always believed the Artificer should be focused on magitech creation. I'm currently in a playtest and will be cycling through the sub classes before final review. So far, the Alchemist needs a total rehaul. The other three need tweaks (Especially the higher level stuff) that are dependent on changes to the base class. With that said, I have always felt like the Alchemist should be its own core class to give it what it deserves. I would replace it with a subclass that focuses on creating arcane traps and quickly deploying mechanical traps that can be thrown out in combat.
What I don't understand is that it makes mundane items that last a short time, but full blown items that carry magic you can make and keep forever and the magic never runs out.
The biggest probably I have with what was in the UA (besides the level 20 feature) was that they removed the ability to heal the Steel Defender with Mending. It was a simple way to do some upkeep, and now it's gone.
Keith Baker has talked positively about the 5E Artificer. This is theoretical - I did not speak to anyone at WotC - but I could see this as another Wayfarer's Guide - which they snuck out for 2014 before eventually releasing "for real" in Last War. It might be the same thing is happening - particularly with all the partnered content. I could see them, for Artificer specifically, releasing a small partnered content book to get the class and backgrounds onto 2024 rules.
Replicate Magic Item lasts indefinitely once you construct the item, or 1d4 days if you die, just like Infusions do. At higher levels, you have fewer known infusions - but it's not changed by a lot.
I like it if it comes in the Forgotten Realms book instead of a an Eberron book for the simple reason that it will shut up the people that say "We can't have Artificers in FR, it is an Eberron specific class".
I think for magical tinkering, itll be really cool if it was just a gp limit, like you can make any mundane item under 30gp, and it lasts for 24 hours or something. Maybe even have it get upgraded later on. Having a small selection of items is cool but not that useful in general. At least in my games.
Yes to the changes you mentioned for alchemist. It’s my favorite subclass and it feels like they dropped the ball again… the only way I desire to play this current iteration of the alchemist is as a multi class with beast barbarian since the bonus action elixirs work great since they aren’t spells.
Imo they should either commit more to the experimental elixir with quality of life changes and wackier options or take it out completely. I would prefer to have more than one table to roll from, make it so you don’t always have the obvious solution but still have a solution for the situation, have a table for wacky effects. The alchemist has no business being so damn boring
The Battlesmith has a big problem with having full hands now. Without the ability to use an infusion as a focus, but still counting every artificer spell as having an M component, their half-caster status essentially vanishes when holding both a weapon and shield.
I love the idea of a static set of alchemical items and also a random list if the alchemist wants to experiment. My idea was to keep the random elixirs, but use alchemical reactives in them to throw them as bombs if you couldn’t find a use for them during the day. You could pick from the elemental damage types in alchemical savant and gain that bonus in an aoe.
I really enjoy these server videos. I will only point out, though, that the subclasses you suggested at the end are pretty much what the Artificer has and does currently. I think the disconnect comes from using magic vs something more grounded (like an artificer that uses guns vs the artilerist. what is the difference between a revolver and the arcane firearm?). It's already in the game mechanically - the issue is flavor. If everything about the artificer was worded as engineering or physics or chemistry rather than magic, I think much fewer people would have issues with the class as it stands today - aside from some mechanical stuff that does need tunning.
Its interesting that pretty much all the examples of what people might want are things already covered in the subclasses. I imagine the issue here is that the subclasses are not nearly transformative / extreme enough to truly live those fantasies.
Dreadnaught armor should be the armor that deals Aoe attacks or the armor that comes with spikes that damage the attacker. As for Subclasses I would add to the Artificer; I'd make "Vehicle " subclass that mostly focuses on traversal but can provide sheltering cover in a fight; or a "Necromantic" subclass think "battle smith" but the undead, the servant gets the extra attack, and you can customize the servant to be more then just "Bones Malones" the undead warrior.
As someone whose favorite class is the Artificer, whose favorite setting is Eberron, and who has played an Artificer more than any other class (at least 10 times), I'd like to weigh in. I think Artificer's core identity is as a "Magical Inventor". Regardless of whether it's replicating magic items, or creating your own unique magical gear that non-artificers cannot replicate, the core of the class is as someone who utilizes magic in the form of inventions. "Magic through science" or "magic AS science" is core to the Artificer's theme. They don't just make technological machines creations, magic must be involved in the process, that's why I don't think a "Gunslinger" should be a subclass for Artificer, as firearms are too mundane of an invention, typically not revolving around magic. If anything, I feel the Artillerist should involve actually turning a wand or staff into a magical firearm, not just making spells deal more damage. Furthermore, I believe each subclass, at least of the base 4, should focus on a different "category" of crafted items. Armorer = armor, Alchemist = potions, Battle Smith = weapons, Artillerist = wands/staffs/rods. This leaves open the possibility of future subclasses relating to different item types. Like a "jeweler" artificer that focuses on rings/necklaces. Personally, I like the idea of starting with the base 4 we have, then expanding into others that relate to the remaining categories of magic items, and having different tools associated with each. Something like these: *Gem Carver* = Rings (as well as other jewelry) (Jeweler's Tools) *Rune Crafter* = Scrolls (and more vaguely rune-associated stuff, like maybe Magical Tattoos) (Calligrapher's Supplies) *Mechanist* = Wonderous Items (this one is more vague, but I think lends itself perfectly to being the "Mech" subclass) (Tinker's Tools) And then once those are out of the way you can focus on maybe some more niche subclasses related to certain artisan's tools that don't fall under the other subclasses. Maybe a "Chef" or "Brewer" artificer. Maybe a "Driver" artificer focused on different types of vehicle transportation and movement.
They nerfed the number of known infusion too much (before it was double the the number of active infusion, now it’s only two more then the number of active infusion) which sucks because there’s a lot of situational items in there which you don’t want to wear everyday. For exemple all of the stealth options (Gloves of thievery, cloak of Elvenkind, resistance armor which you can no longer get at level 6 because of its rarety, googles of night, wand of magic detection, etc). A lot of infusions are now delayed to 4 levels later and Mind Sharpener got heavy nerfed because it needs a attunement now. Lost tool expertise at level 6. Lost cost reduction and time reduction to craft magic item at level 10. Lost the ignore requirement to attune to a item (don't need to be a certain class, etc) at level 14. ARMORER HAVE TWO BIG PROBLEM. Firstly, their weapons can no longer have a +2 infusions because infusion no longer exist so there weapons are less powerful then before. Secondly the level 9 feature is even worse then you think because the best armor you have acces to is a +1 armor so if you find a better armor you now have a usless level 9 feature. Also Armorer special weapon kinda just feels like weapon mastery Push or Sap and weapon mastery can be used with +3 weapons or other magic items, but the Armorer special weapons are only +0. Guardian Armorer Defensive field is just way less temp hp then the Artillerist protector canon which can gives you 1d8 +int with no restriction (no waiting for bloody) and it's AOE 10 feet radius. So yeah Armorer is feeling pretty bad. I love the concept of Armorer but they just suck in term of power. They need big buffs. Also they lack strenght to avoid grapple so they should add a feature to avoid that. The level 6 feature of the World tree barbarian is stronger the the level 15 Armorer guardian feature. Barbarian have unlimited usage but Armorer only have 5 usage per day. BATTLESMITH GOT TWO BIG PROBLEMS First of all and most importantly they are obligated to have a tool in hand to cast spells since they can no longer use magic items as a spell focus. Which sucks because they usully use one hand weapon and a shield. Secondly, the Steel defender can no longer be healed with mending, so you will need a lot more of spell slot per day to recast it. Also smith spells need bonus action so you won't really get a good use out of them because your Steel Defender already eats your bonus action. ALCHEMIST actully got a pretty BIG hidden NERF : You can no longer stack effect of potions with the new ruling. You need to roll on a table to determine the bad effect which can completely nullify the effect of both potions or make you explode and this for each potions you drink after the first one. With the new crafting system a Wizard can start crafting wands of fireball or enspelled items at level 5 since he know fireball at level 5. It cost 2000 gp and 50 days of work. You can obtain woodcarving tool proficiency with background and Arcana is usually taken by wizards. Also if you take a elf race then you have 4hours of free time per day to craft. Between level 5 and 11 I’m pretty shure you will have enough time and gp to craft 3 rare magic items and thus have more fireballs then the Artillerist which only unlock fireballs at level 9. So the artificer replicate magic items feel a bit shit with the new crafting magic items system, since a Wizard level 5 can creat a wand of fireball, but a Artificer replicate magic items needs to wait for level 14.
I'd like to see the Artificer have a feature that enhances the spell Fabricate. its one of their top end spells, but they build things, they should get unique bonuses to using that spell. I made an Artificer character with the current design, before this UA, and he was intended to build ballistias on the battlefield. If firepower wasn't needed, then fortified locations for 3/4th or full cover. Center around the combat engineer WotC.
Anyone else think that the Artillerist's Cannon only being available 1/day for one hour a little underwhelming? It is basically the entire identity of the subclass, and you can barely use it.
Agree with the lack of identity. All the ideas mentioned by others here essentially have to do with the artificer making/crafting “magi-tech” stuff, which feels right to me as well. It’s why infusions felt better than just making things appear out of thin air.
@@AnaseSkyrider Well, at that point you're making base artificer, a middle of the road class even when choosing the best subclass for it, weaker. It should be better than a +1 weapon. +1 weapon is part of the level 2 tier. Bag of Holding should technically be a level 10 item but you get it at level 2. I could say leave it rare but add it as an exception to the level 6 list.
For me Artificer is a master craftsman capable of customizing items and spells, perhaps even on the fly. Not very powerful in pure strength, but he's very versatile, flexible and adaptable. Bombmaker, construct-maker, weaponsmith and armorer - my default list. Artist, stage magician illusionist, master of runes, and master scribe - a list for book expansions.
Armorer needs the most help, from the start they need to explicitly state each part of the armor is separate. Otherwise, their weapon is part of the armor, so it could be interpreted as it can't gain the benefit from replicate magic item. It's really off putting that as a Battle Smith I can take an infusion on their head, armor and boots at level 6 and the armorer needs to wait until level 9 to do so. Dreadnaught seems to be the weakest because they don't state if it's size provides any mechanical benefit, enlarge gains advantage on strength tests and 1d4 extra damage, but a dreadnaught's flail does the same damage at size medium as it would at size huge. Flight is also not a big deal when you can take winged boots at level 10 so even the alchemist can fly by then. Guardians should be able to punch with both fists, give the gauntlets the light property so it works with the dual wielder feat, but nick and two weapon fighting would need to be written into the armor model. Infiltrator should be able to overcharge their weapon sacrificing their additional attack rolls for a more potent single shot and give them a bonus action hide, then at level 15 return their advantage giving shots so they chose to hit one person hard or tag a bunch of targets for the rest of the party. Ideally the player has to pick feats to make the model's playstyle work perfectly, but if they needed, they could swap to a model where they lack the feat to make it work smoothly. Alchemist would be better if they gained 1d8 to damage when casting a spell earlier. If that extra die counted as if the spell were upcast or player was a higher level for cantrips, chromatic orb and sorcerer's burst would be fun. Hell, giving them an extra attack with a cantrip on a magic action would also make them kinda enticing. Battlesmith's defender got nerfed because it lost the healing through mending. As it currently is written, it can be restored if it drops to 0 and you expend a spell slot or if you build a new one, so you kill your pet to heal it or abandon it. Battlesmith should get weapon mastery and a fighting style, maybe cast a cantrip on their extra attack but that might be over powered. Arcane Jolt is good, you can add the jolt and a smite to a hit. What they really need is a smite that doesn't use concentration like thunderous smite, that way they can keep concentration on haste while searching for crits to jolt+smite on.
Artificer always felt like the wizard’s assistant, the guy that made equipment to focus a wizard’s power. I’ve felt like their defining trait was resiliency. None of the subclasses (as a non multi class build) were amazing in any aspect. Elite damage dealing wasn’t it, or battlefield control, or even healing and support. They’ve always felt like a very hardy, got your back kind of PC. With the new crafting rules (good, bad, broken or not) plus bastions that can make items, the artificer feels very much an after thought by wotc. This was one of maybe 2 classes that really encouraged player to stay single classed, druids being the other. Perhaps it’s irony that the new druid capstone, and this preposed change to artificer are both reasons to look elsewhere now.
I mean i thought the artificer's core ability was infusions and should have been leaned in to to make them like meta magic for a sorcerer and invocations for a warlock but no they went the other root. The one sub class i think is missing (though a mech would be cool) was one that like the armorer focused on improving a weapon.
I was watching some other dnd indeed videos on the newer artificer as well. And here's something weird was noticed. That rules as written. You must use your tools for any spell with an m component. And you cannot use your magic items this time around
Anybody else notice that by a strict reading of the Magic Item Plan lists for Replicate Magic Item, an Artificer cannot replicate any of the uncommon or rare Rods or Staffs? Those are the only item categories not accounted for somewhere on the lists...
One of the flaws of this survey is it doesn't flag you for missing filling in the dots, as evidenced in this video. Just on the first actual page of the survey, you thought you filled in two of the circles, but hadn't actually, yet the survey let you click the Next button. That's an issue. You get incomplete feedback from that kind of thing.
Easy solution... Make 3 versions of the Artificer Class... 1 That uses Dragon Magazine #1's "Artificer Race" as its basis for a Greyhawk Artificer... 1 that uses 2E's "Gnome Artificer" for reference as the Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms Artificer... 1 that uses 3.5 Eberron's Artificer as the basis for an ACTUAL Eberron Artificer... ...screw it, 4... make the gadget-y, cartoony, Artificer of 5E since apparently that low-brow, dumbell version is now the basis of what "WotC Creativity" can come up with! Either way, any direction that the current "creative team" takes the class is going to be sorely lacking, and generally just some "pop-culcha" trope/gimmick... An Artificer is not a "Mage with a gun" (aka "Steampunk Ironman")... They are a powerhouse multi-tool with a toolbox of extra features! The Artificer's core concept *MUST* revolve around crafting, and being given the chance to craft and use magic items...they are the ones who can easily identify magic items, safely handly cursed objects without being affected, and can carry around a multitude of "magic items as needed"! Among REQUIRED magic items for an Artificer is... 1. Infinite Scrollcase: Holds upto 50 Magic Scrolls that can be pulled on command. 2. Quiver of Ehlonna: 60 Wands, 18 Rods, 6 Staffs...need I say more? 3. Artificer's Monocle: Allows the Artificer to use their skill-check to Identify magic items, rather then using the Spell. 4. Wand Bracelet: Store upto 4 small-sized items that can be retrieved with a quick/bonus action? Yes! 5. Spare Hands: A belt with a pair of Construct Arms and hands that operate by thought...including activating magic items! 6. Ring of Master Artifice: A Ring that allows an Artificer an additional use of Infusion from level 1 to Level 6... Oh, and get rid of Spell Slots! The Artificer is not a Caster...to make the comparison of the two Intelliegence-based classes; A Wizard is a Quantum Physicist, an Artificer is a Quantum Mechanic/Engineer... For another analogy, Star Trek's Engineering team about the Enterprise is full of Engineers...the Science Team studying Astronavigational Phenomena or Quantum Rifts is in the Science Department... Blue Shirt, Red Shirt... I dont understand why WotC has muddied the Artificer Class up so much! I could go on, but I've wasted enough time explaining this to you lot...
An artificer to me is the inventor of D&D it is the class that is supposed to revolve around making magic items i think that most abilities are nice but there are a few that need to be polished in order for this to happen and I personally would like to see a bomb subclass that makes me feel like tiny tina from borderlands
The reason they list Magic Item Adept and the other abilities as separate is for the sake of idiot proofing the class. If they put it under Replicate Magic Item a bunch of people online who can't read would argue that since they got Replicate Magic Item they should get all the "upgrades" with their 2nd level Artificer dip. They did this with all of the other classes in 2024. It's great for newer players. Sadly the main people who would exploit this likely can't or won't read the rules anyway (insert meme here). WIth Soul of Artifice, keep in mind this is an ability they can use *SIX* times per long rest. It's WAY better than the other similar abilities. It will make artificers damned near unkillable at 20th level. If anything the issue is just that it doesn't "feel" very on brand with the rest of the classes abilities. My biggest concerns with the artificer are as follows: 1) They did not address at all what is essentially the biggest issue with the class: attunement. The entire point of the class is that you can make and give your party members magic items, which essentially becomes impossible the moment they all get 3 magic items that require attunement. Solution: Let the artifcer grant their extra attunement slots to other players as an alternative to themselves if they wish. Specifically in the form of only functioning for their Replicate Magic Items. 2) They really need to commit to granting them all extra attack or not. This will they won't they with all the subclasses is odd and needs to get ironed out. Is it a half caster class or not? Why does every other half-caster class get extra attack and not the artificer? The same could be argued for weapon mastery, but I'm okay with them reserving this for a subclass (looking at you battlesmith). 3) I feel like Replicate Magic item really should progress as follows: 2nd: The artificer can make common magic items or uncommon items that do not require attunement. 6th: Common or uncommon items (can make attunement) 10th: Rare magic items 14th: Very Rare magic items. It's simpler, takes up less space on a page than the annoying chart they have at the moment and frankly just makes more sense. That said, there's one annoying elephant in the room: 4) Enspelled Weapons, Armor, and Staves should all arguably be bumped up a magic item category (in general not just for Replicate magic item). These items are absurdly more powerful than any other uncommon item in their versatility and in the hands of an artificer's replicate magic item ability are going to be VERY easy to exploit. Not to mention I'd be hard pressed to find any sort of player who won't end up with at least 2 out of the 3 for their plans known. They are arguably too close to "must haves" and this is a problem. And even if we aren't worrying about the optimization standpoint, there is still an issue of these magic items step ALL over the toes of the Artificer's Spell-Storing Item feature, which they don't gain until 11th level in concept, AND the artificer can make these things at 6th level! Yes, I know it has more uses, and yes I know it uses their spellcasting DC. Those minor numerical benefits are NOT enough to distinctly differentiate them. Solution: Change the feature to be: "At 11th level, you can create one enspelled weapon, armor, or staff using your Replicate magic item feature. This does not count against your number of magic items created using this ability and you need not know the chosen plan to create this item. Additionally, when you make the enspelled object using this ability, you can select any object that you can use as a spell focus, it uses your spellcasting modifier, spell attack, and spell save DC, and it does not require attunement." Essentially this make the ability just build off of what the artificer has already been doing since 6th level: using enspelled items (and why the hell wouldn't they be doing it?) And it has the perk of making it retroactively feel like the artificer sort of "learns" the spell-storing item thing earlier than 11th level (a common complaint I've heard for the 2014 class). I suppose there's an argument that maybe the artificer should just outright learn the enspelled stuff at 6th level so it isn't stuck in some sort of skill mastery limbo. Could be debated.
I find it hilarious that they did this color-coded system, and none of the actual survey is in color. Why use colors and not indicate it visually in the form at all?
I think of artifices as the inventors the Engineers the core features should be able to be making unique magical devices that don't just replicate magical items that anyone who is skilled in Arcana can do a warrior for example who took acana proficiency instead of increasing their strength at level four can theoretically speaking build any magical item artifice should be making things that only they can make
Completely remove the ability to replicate magic items. SO MUCH of the Artificer’s power budget is reserved for replicating items. Everyone says Artificer’s are banned at tables because of guns, but every table I’ve ever seen that has banned Artificers because they can just make whatever they want. I talked to a DM that said he wanted to make a crunchy campaign where you’d really have to take note of equipment weight, arcane components, and ammo. Artificer proceeded to make a Bag of Holding and a Repeating Crossbow for the Fighter and trivialized the whole thing. I believe every Artificer should be a specialist, like they are now, and have sub-class specific infusions they can improve their specialty with. Instead of 3 separate armor forms, you get 1. But that 1 suit could be infused with Thunder Gauntlets, Advantage on Stealth, and a fly speed. Or an Artillerist that upgraded their turret to have it act as a mount. Like a gunner chair. Or an Alchemist that doesn’t suck. That to me was an Artificer’s core identity, their specialization tl,dr: Get rid of replicating magical items completely, it’s impossible to completely balance and is the biggest reason DMs ban Artificers. Instead have them focus on sub-class specific infusions and let them be the ultimate customizable class
To me, an artificer is a half caster that creates (sometimes special) magic items. I can't think of what else their class is defined by than that. But for optimization, they're the single best class at STORING power between adventuring days. Making money with alchemy jugs, making spellwrought tattoos every day, now crafting magic items faster... but I'm not sure that's good for the game. I also have to say, some of the early comments you made in the survey really put me off. They made think, "this guy is out in left field". Even some of the more reasonable thoughts along the way lacked context or comparison, and didn't feel like they came from a design mindset. 6d6 to any ability check you choose once per turn? That's an average +21 bonus. lmao what? The Homunculus being a spell now means it can be given to other players via things like spell-storing item and spellwrought tattoo. But adding a 100 gold cost that's consumed on each use and not returned when it dies means this will NEVER SEE USE in the vast majority of games. Imagine if Identify consumed the pearl when cast. It honestly feels like that, OR, pushes the artificer to do things like replicate alchemy jugs to produce acid/poison and sell it for money to fuel their homunculus debt. I'm not a fan of that. Giving them a special, extra familiar that's a bit more expensive but can attack is a valuable distinction for the class. Then you can have a familiar, homunculus, and steel defender potentially, making them to some degree the 'pet class'. That's unique! I agree with you about most of armorer though. I've never understood that subclass. I think people are sleeping on Alchemist, and it's now FAR stronger than people realize with the bonus action APPLICATION for experimental elixirs, and familiars. Boldness stacks with Bless and Emboldening Bond, along with other similar features. We don't have -5/+10 to amp that up even more, but it's still extremely strong and thanks to bounded accuracy, automatically scales and is always relevant. Your only concern at that point is getting more potions, and dipping a couple levels of Warlock with a 4-hour long rest species fixes that right up. Suddenly, you have 10+ of these elixirs every day, and you can even build them around Charisma if you want and play a Warlock-Arti multiclass face, covering your rolls with invocations, magic items and/or Flash of Genius. Wild! But as a straight-class, they're pretty meh. :` I honestly think they should get more elixirs built-in, possibly by creating more when you cast Artificer spells, which would tone down multiclassing this and banking boatloads of elixirs and potions between days.
so you are saying the alchemist should have some sort of modular flask. I said when I took the survey I think the armorer and battlesmith's extra attack should be like the valor bard/eldrich knight. If I were to start from the beginning my four core tenets would be the making and improving of magic items such you can make a plus one sword/armor but you can upgrade an acquired plus one sword/armor into a plus two and so one, and as such have you improvements be something you can do for the entire party. Next I would take the idea of the homunculus servant as a feature not a spell and give each subclass away to interact with or improve it, such as converting it into the your steel defender/eldrich cannon, maybe a special walking cauldron for the alchemist they generates extra potions when they use it to mix potions the number of extra potions being based on half your int mod rounded up, and for the armorer perhaps the servant becomes the armor and you have modules you can activate on it to do the functions of the models shown. third as the other two half casters have light and medium armor, simple and martial weapons, and shields, give them all a couple of masteries then the armorer and battlesmith unlock being able to use heavy armor based on their int mod. than from there give each subclass truly unique and on theme bonus spells including one 6th level spell each can use twice a day.
IMO: I liked the Magical Tinkering feature much more in Tasha's. The mundane item effects could be used much more creatively. Just giving us a shopping list of existing items is boring.
My main thoughts about the artificer is that it is far too boring and not fantastic enough to pique my interest over other options. For the subclasses: Alchemist-Elixirs being randomized is not fun and they could be a lot more fun and interesting. The fact that they didn't make a second elixir table for their 15th level feature feels like they dropped the ball. Armorer-Dreadnought is great but Guardian can't guard well (doesn't have a reliable way of taking damage and staying alive, especially compared to other options) and infiltrator isn't very good at infiltrating imo (druid gets pass without trace, casters get invisibility, etc). Then for some reason they gave dreadnought flight instead of Infiltrator. Artillerist-It's all right Battle Smith-bonus action clog among various features (Steel Defender requires bonus action but so does various spells, including the new smite spells that it gets as part of the subclass). Honestly don't know why every half caster so far has the worst bonus action clog in the game to the point of suffering from it.
This survey format was so stupid, not letting you comment for green options. I purposely made some yellow just to give my deeper thoughts on them. For example, with spellcasting, I like their style of using tools and always having an M component, but it's still limiting to say its the tools themselves. I saw a response from someone about the old artificer, who said any "gadget" you make with those tools would also serve as a focus, since the tool imparts the magic into the device. So you can shoot your Fire Bolt out of a flamethrower-style gadget, instead of shooting it from the screwdriver that made it, like it was a wand. These wouldn't be actual magic items or anything, just flavor for your spells. Even if they intended for devices to count, the text doesn't imply that, so they should include it for people to better understand what their style of tool-casting could look like. The old description about infusions being foci was the same concept, but it should be open to any flavored objects you want, just like how a wizard's spellbook doesn't actually need to be a stereotypical book. And this should also work for the subclasses, which even the old version failed at. You couldn't use your infusions for subclass-specific features (at least for the alchemist). Let me flavor something that fits my alchemist's vibe to serve as a given spell's focus, instead of just holding a flask in the same boring aesthetic. I'm still holding something, even if that object is only flavor and not actually a tangible item, mechanically.
I don't understand what your actual issue is with this UA of the artificer. It mechanically didn't change anything, it was just flavor, that flavor-text will probably be repeated in the actual publication, and that flavor actually caused ludo-narrative dissonance. Kidnapped by bandits, but you pickpocket a guy's thieves' tools? No problem: since you still prepare spells like everyone else, you're suddenly a full spellcaster again. Despite no longer possessing the weightless tiny objects you "created" as part of your long rest's daily preparations to be able to cast your spells. I always thought the unwillingness to commit to using actual custom items as a required focus was stupid. There's no reason you can give to me other than tradition that it's less dumb to wave a wooden wand around to cast a spell than for an artificer whose connection to tools is so supernaturally infused with magic that they can wave lockpicks around to cast spells instead of a traditional wand.
@@AnaseSkyrider To be clear, I have this same issue with the current artificer too. It's not specifically the UA version. But now was my chance to voice that issue in the small bits of comments they allowed. It's not a prominent issue for me, but it's one of the main things in my current character concept that I'd be deviating from the rules on, when it's such a simple fix to make it actually work that way. So there's no reason for them to not make that tweak to the text. For the bandit scenario, you just MacGyver a gadget with anything you see lying around, which is already an implied aesthetic to the class. You cast a spell or two until you get your stuff back. Also, it's not like you'd be alone, so you wouldn't have to worry about taking on all of them yourself with scraps as your temporary gadgets. But it's also fine to say that this scenario is a special case, and your connection to your craft is high enough that you manage to squeeze out some spells through the tool itself, in desperation, due to the residual tinker energy flowing through it. That can be just as flavorful in a situation like that. I agree that the wizard always defaulting to waving a twig is just as dumb. The difference is the rules directly state you can use your spellbook as the focus, and the community at large seems to understand that your spellbook doesn't always need to be a "book". I've seen enough people in videos talk about that, and the official rules state you decide the appearance, with nothing seeming to prevent you from making that appearance not be a book. But saying you use the tools locks you in to just those. They may not strictly define what is actually inside each tool kit, but it would come off just as stupid, whether its a screwdriver, paint brush, sewing needle, or a lock pick (though painting a sigil in the air or spell effect on a page to come to life is actually fitting in cases like painter's supplies, so not all tools have this issue). To me, the artificer has far more flexibility with how they would visually cast a spell, due to the tinkering aesthetic. But when they only say the tool itself must be in your hand, it implies you never actually tinker anything. You just hold your metal wand, point, and click. You could say other classes are the same, but none of those push so heavily the idea that your spellcasting is different. Just look at the description in Tasha's: "To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you appear to produce wonders from mundane items and outlandish inventions." Yet the very next paragraph locks you out of those inventions by saying the tool must be in hand when casting, instead of the tool OR an invention made from the tool. And saying you can use a gadget, as long as the tool is also in hand would be just as stupid. If I build a device to shoot fire out, why would a screw always need tightened first, just to properly allow me to use that device? If anything that would just occupy your other hand for no reason. I'll still be flavoring it the way I want, regardless. But having the text lock you in will make many new players not see the full flavor they could get out of this class, and could potentially make it feel boring for them. Seeing that your casting can go beyond the tool itself will open up what concepts they could come up with for their characters.
Hello there, probably sidetracking. The Forgotten Realms has a tradition of artificers since 1st ed. Think about Gondians and Lantaneses, then in 3rd edition there was a prestige class called the Gnome Artificer that was similar to the base artificer of 5th edition. I cannot say anything about Eberron because I've never played there, but wanted to comment about the FR and its engineers. My 2 cents.
I disagree on your opinion that destroing a magic item to regain power is not in theme with the class. Imo it is very mutch because this is not just an engeneere, this class infues magic into their creations so it makes sense that they can disable a creation to reclaim the magic inside
Hate how red doesnt let you write in If you think something is just awful and irredeemable you probably still want to go yellow to give feedback because A: it might be redeemable using incredibly extensive changes that you would consider an entirely different feature, which should be red, but is infact yellow because all possible opinions where feedback is useful are yellow since only yellow gives feedback. And B: if yellow wins you might have more influence on the final outcome by being yellow than by being red even if you want extensive changes. Red opinions probably have some perspective on alternatives, but only yellows are allowed to give them. There's so much bias towards yellow that there's basically zero quantitative results
Wouldn't it be great if the Artificer breathed new life into the game, drawing on the game's roots? Daedalus, Hephaestus, da Vinci, Takeda Ōmi, Frankenstein.. inventors from myth, legend, and history, from the steampunk creations of the Foglios? The Apparatus of Kwalish. Teleporting cabinets. Time travel boxes. Golems. Flying chariots. Heck, even a steam-powered wheelchair? As it stands, for the early tiers the Artificer is just bad at everything, and a liability to any party. Better to take the 2024 Bard as a template, exchange Charisma for Intelligence, crafter's tools for Musical Instruments, and fiddle with the class features a bit, than to try to make a go of half-caster Artificer.
In regards to the survey time availability. Why don't they drop UA the first week of one month and start the first week of the next month. These short turnarounds suck. The proficiency change or lack there of. It was better having the Artificer proficient with all crafting tool kits but expertise with ones related to the subclass choice.
I dislike the homunculus servant as a spell for role-playing reasons. It's not a persistent mechanical pet now, you just poof them into existence for short term use.
It's as persistent as the regular Find Familiar. It has no duration, so it lasts indefinitely. The old infusion also essentially generated matter after applying the infusion to a core: "The item you infuse serves as the creature's heart, around which the creature's body instantly forms." It was never tanky, so it dying was burning one of your infusions. Now it burns no spell slots (at levels 5-8), or just one slot at 9+ when/if you upcast it; if you want to use it identically to how you did before. Its HP scales about as well as it did before, if not slightly better.
What is an Artificer? I've never understood the uniqueness of the class. It seemed to me, back in Tasha's, that it was a half-caster with a lot of tinkering going on.. But, not a real bonified Class. I appreciate the Idea of them, but I wish they'd have their own identity. Hopefully that can be cleared up in the future. Tbh I'd rather see a design for a Psionicist Class.
How about a Psionicist that is anchored to Intelligence, but choosing it's other saving throw proficiency to attune to other psionic devotions and sciences based on the ability score to choose. Think of abilities without casting spells or spell slots and doing it with their minds. There are 5.
I doubt they corelate the answers. So you can say you like the artificer as is, and dislike every feature. Confusing them, but I don't think you need to worry as much about saying I want it changed, or I didn't like it.
Artillerist just feels really lame to me. Steel Defender is all around better than the Cannon, and the cannon and other features are really uninspired. Also, why is it small or tiny but you can't just pick it up and use it as a weapon? I was envisioning a dude holding a giant rocket launcher or gatling gun, not a civil war error cannon on wheels.
I believe you can pick it up if it's tiny. That's how my group is playing. There's a trade-off between a slow cannon that works remotely & one you can carry with you at full speed.
I think Returning Weapon might be too strong as a non-attunement item. It's a +1 weapon and it returns to you after throwing it. Also, logically this "returns to your hand" thing feels like an attunement based effect - it needs to know its owner. What happens if someone takes it from you? Now they can throw it and it goes back to them? I don't like that. It should be attunement, and it should just return to you 6 seconds after it leaves your person regardless of how/why unless you specifically choose to leave it in place somewhere or un-attune.
The more they update Artificers, the less i want to play them. In 3.5 Artificer "shtick" was kind of the master crafter. You were the arms dealer to the party, the Frankenstein to your monster, you were the recycler that took magic items that you didn't need and dismantled them to make them for ones your party did need. But a lot of other classes could do stuff like that. You just did it better. They added the fact that you could ignore requirements, and the glass very much became a person who is all about magic items. It wasn't the best, but with a little multiclassing and flavor, you could make due. Jump ahead to 5e and the artificer was similar to what it used to be instead of handing out an armory to your party you now have a set of things you can make magical for some time and they pretty much are only useful to you. The subclasses were lackluster and felt almost like worse versions of other classes. So here are some cool general things I would like to see all Artificers do and some subclasses which i think would fit the class, and i might brew: General - Item transfer - either the ability to break down and reshape an item into another or the ability to transfer properties to others. I like the idea of "custom magic items" because players know what they want best for their build. The ability to take a sword no one is going to use or someone has outgrown and transfer its magic to a mace for your cleric is great. Make it a 1 hour thing so it can't be done on fly really and there we go. Subclasses: Magic Item Adept - this class focuses and expands on magic items and the above transfer property allowing tweaks on the fly, chaning a flaming sword to a electric one or a +2 armor to an armor of buoyancy to help a drowning friend. Sormthing like that these would be temporary, of course. Maybe they can stack items together collecting weapons with specific abilities to dismantle and combine onto another permanently. Steammech Pilot - this artificer would focus on creating a beefy mech that is their main form of combat kind like a golem you ride in. Getting the ablity, choosing weapons, and infusing abilties one this mech. perhaps they can choose between a repeating balista arm on one side and a fist that pops out into a wrecking ball like flail. I think the armor has some good this to add to this, but let's face it. You only pick one armor type, and you all in on it. You pick feats and items that help that armor, why try to make them both in one class. Armorer Artificer - change this to focus around the inflatrator armor that exists, give it more toolbox functions and things like flight limited use energy stlye force beams ect. Really lean into the ironman theme with this one to set it apart from the steam mech. Artilerist Artificer - needs to change this cannon class really seems as borning as warlocks eldritch blast. Make this the gunslinger or demolition artificers, allowing them to really take hold with blackpower style weapons and explosives. Make it something like the fighters' Battle Master allowing them to choose from a veritiy of explosive types like flash granades or gas granades Battlesmith - this is the one we give some more choices on battlesmith. It should be more that a ranger allow it to choose an upgrade path for their steel defender to a mount to assist them with travel and calvery type battle or intead they can upgrade it to a hulking golem that fights by there side adding another ally to the battlefield. idk just some ideas. I would like the artificer to go in directions that make them seem more like builders, tinkers, and smiths in both the magical and the practical sense.
To be fair, most of us don’t have a running game where we can just slot in a new character for testing. Or can find a group to do a one-shot for the purposes of playtesting in the three weeks over the holidays that the test is open.
Well, it's still useful as any new player reading a class/subclass & saying "this looks like it sucks, I don't wanna play it" is a core thing that WotC would want to avoid? :)
I think the removal of the Artificer base class getting skill expertise and proficiency with crossbows and firearms in this version was a mistake. Those are part of what made the class operate differently to wizard. Since they gave the Wizard expertise in PHB 2024, it doesn't make sense to remove it from the Artificer.
I also think this would be the perfect time to release a revised Gunner feat as well as a few more firearms. A blunderbuss with the graze mastery for example.
Artificer skill expertise wasn't removed, it was never present
There has not been a single published artificer class or subclass with a skill expertise in the history of 5th edition
They did have *tool* expertise, but they removed that from the game, it is no longer possible in 5e to have tool expertise, because there are no tool checks in 5e
As such, they really should call it tool training rather than tool proficiency I suppose
@@nyanbrox5418 It's as easy as this: *Tool Expertise: "If you have proficiency with a tool, your Proficiency Bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the tool unless the bonus is doubled by another feature."*
@mogalixir yes, except for the fact that there are no tool checks anymore, you make sleight of hand checks to pick locks, etc
@@nyanbrox5418technically it was always that way, but you couldn’t even attempt the check unless you were proficient in thieves tools.
@@nyanbrox5418 @nyanbrox5418 I don't know who keeps spreading this false information. Utilize tool actions exist....... it uses tool proficiency.
In my opinion, this ua has cemented in my mind that the artificers are Master's of certain magic items types .
Alchemist: potions
Armorer: armor
Artilerist: wands
Battle smith: weapons
For this reason I think the classes should be built more around those traits and using them better than other. This leads easily into the creation of more subclasses based around the remaining magic item categories, as well as telling us where they could twist the replicate magic items list. Let alchemists make potions, give us a scrolls (I know it would kinda over lap with the scribes wizard), a wonder item, a cursed item, artificer ect.
Firstly, their weapons can no longer have a +2 infusions because infusion no longer exist so there weapons are less powerful then before. Secondly the level 9 feature is even worse then you think because the best armor you have acces to is a +1 armor so if you find a better armor you now have a usless level 9 feature. Also Armorer special weapon kinda just feels like weapon mastery Push or Sap and weapon mastery can be used with +3 weapons or other magic items, but the Armorer special weapons are only +0.
Guardian Armorer Defensive field is just way less temp hp then the Artillerist protector canon which can gives you 1d8 +int with no restriction (no waiting for bloody) and it's AOE 10 feet radius. So yeah Armorer is feeling pretty bad. I love the concept of Armorer but they just suck in term of power. They need big buffs. Also they lack strenght to avoid grapple so they should add a feature to avoid that.
@googloocraft12 I agree 100%. I love the flavor but the execution just isn't there, I think it would be cool if each subclass could also give you access to higher values of thier specialty when you get them, such as the armorer being able to make rare armors at lv 9 and very rare at 15( with some restrictions if needed). Also a homebrew I give to every subclass that revolves around its personalized weapon is giving them a +1, +2, and +3 as they scale up.
Armorer thunder gauntlets increasing from 1d8 to 1d10 *at level 15* is a straight up spit in the face.
It feels like they assumed everyone will take vicious weapon and adjusted the armorer according to that assumption.
Hey, could be worse, could also require concentration
But in all seriousness, yeah that’s ridiculous
Ranger enters the chat
I played a Guardian Armorer from levels 5 to 10. A combination of variant human, house rules, magic items, and rolled stats meant I had Sentinel, Fey-Touched, Telekinetic, and Resilient (Wisdom); with +5 INT and +5 CON (but like a 12 or less for the rest of my stats).
I appreciate the upgrade from d8 to d10. Damage lagged behind, the reaction is INT/day which isn't much if you often do reaction damage as part of your build's DPR (or use other support reactions, being that Guardian is a tank/support playstyle), this at least keeps Booming Blade/True Strike pushed back from being the go-to for a little while.
I guess the way I feel about it is that I'd rather have Fighter's Studied Attacks. Advantage in case you miss the first, since only 2 chances to apply your soft-taunt can feel bad when trying to defend your allies against a really tough enemy.
@@bryanthiga3198 Replicate Magic Item creates new weapons, rather than infusing old ones. So the armorer doesn't get any way to use magic weapons anymore. Probably the reason they added innate weapon die increases.
I have been waiting for this. Hopefully, enough people will fill this out in a similar fashion to make a big enough difference to fix the issues.
I think infusions are still needed as separate from magic items to enhance and buff weapons and gear. I like decoupling magic items from the infusions, I like the ones that they made their own magic items but, I still want to be able to enhance and tinker with existing items.
Isn't having say, 1 infusion and 1 magic item just strictly worse than 2 magic items, when the magic items do the same things or better than the infusions do? I understand some of the previous infusions got nerfed and pushed back to level 6 or 10 or 14, that previously were available sooner. But that was probably necessary for balance reasons. PROBABLY. No early repeating shot musket on a battlesmith will still hurt.
You do know infusions can't be used on magical items, right? So the new feature is identical it just doesn't require a non-magical item.
I do like the idea of artificers being able to buff existing magic items tho, like giving returning weapon to a magical weapon
I miss the infusions as well. Also the DMG shouldn't be for players to look through for items. So infusions make more sense as they just list them in the same book as the Artificer.
Artificers are all about magic items, so introduce a recharge mechanic.
Recharge Magic Item: spend a spell slot of the highest spell level the item contains to recharge 1d4 charges. This process takes 10min and can be done during a short rest. You regain the ability during a long rest. (Scale number of times with magic item crafting features)
This design is bad but the idea is also bad
I just wish the Alchemist wouldn't have to rely on random rolls for elixirs!
Or at least have a few basic elixirs like Healing Potions(/Antidotes to remove the Poisoned condition) that are separate to the random table so you can always guarantee a steady stock level of them. :)
@@zTom_ Yeah agreed. A feature to make basic items like vial of poison, antidote, alchemist's fire could be cool without being game breaking.
Played my Alchemist (level 10) last night in a holiday one shot. It was absolutely grand, but only because there was a single combat encounter and it was a 4-player party. I also got really lucky on the random rolls.
Every round of combat my +healing/damage or potions were impactful, so I felt like I was really contributing even though my damage wasn't great. Having the Poisoner feat and smearing poison in other people's weapons was also a fun bonus action.
But if this had been a normal session with 4-6 combats, I would have been way more stingy with potions and likely just spent the whole time casting cantrips.
If burning a spell slot gave [proficiency bonus] potions, I'd play standard sessions more like that one shot and spread the love as a buff bot more.
I also love Tasha's cauldron, but it comes only 5 levels late. At that point, there's only a couple of potions that are impactful and some niche uses but unlikely to have enough to cover the party. :/
Battlesmith needs to be able to mod a weapon so it counts as an artisan tool as well and have a small option for steel defender
Alchemist needs alchemist's fire and acid added to magical tinkering and level scaling on the base elixirs.
Radiant weapon shouldn't be spellcaster locked.
This version of the Artificer seems like an NPC class. Something you want in your party, but not something you’d want to play. This Artificer’s ability to add around 50 extra casts of 3rd and 4th level spells beyond its own spellcasting seems a little broken.
I agree. When Ted glossed over the 'spell storing' function of the class, I threw up my hands. 10 fireballs a day as L5 artificer is NOT balanced. (A wizard can do two fireballs per day at L5.)
What are you talking about?
@@imayb1 What do you mean Level 5 Artificer? Spell-Storing Item is level 11. When the Wizard has a 6th level, 2x5ths, 3x4ths, and 3x3rds.
10x(8d6) vs (3x(8d6) + 3x(9d6) + 2x(10d6) + 1x(11d6)). I.e. 80d6 vs 82d6. It's very close, and takes (slightly) fewer actions to do it.
@@davidbilich1708 Spell-storing item: 10 casts. Wand of Fireball: 7 casts. Wand of Lightning Bolt: 7 casts. Enspelled Weapon: 6 casts. Enspelled Armor: 6 casts. Enspelled Staff: 6 casts. Necklace of Fireballs: 4-9 casts. Total: anywhere from 46-51 level three and four spells. With potentially 38 Fireballs.
Well in particular i was asking the guy who claimed they got all this at level 5... but it is a 14th level requirement to get that many items.
According to the magic items awarded by level table in the DMG everyone in the party should have 18 rare items along with 8 very rare and 2 legendary items.
This would include doubling up of wands of fireballs for the wizards if you want. Also fireballs is practical useless by this level unless you decided to go bully some townies. Globe of invulnerablity, investature of the flame, fire elemental shape change, or any other of the other ways to get immunity to fire.
@@hatihrodvitnisson
For me, the Artificer is the magitech jack of all trades. A class that should mix skill/tool proficiency with some spellcasting and a magical bag of tricks. I do miss the idea of having expertise with the tools, but I suspect it was clashing with their new rules for actions performed with tools or for crafting. It looks like they went the route of emphasizing the spellcasting side and eschewing some of the jack of trades aspects. The Artificer I made for a campaign before the 2024 rules was effectively emulating a Rogue without being one. Ended up going Battle Smith and becoming the combat swiss army knife of the party. Feels like by them playing it very safe, I can't quite do that anymore.
Expertise in tools is no longer a thing. In new content, skill checks can be made with tools. So you use proficiency/expertise of the skill and if you have proficiency in the tool, you roll with advantage.
I’m not sure they’re going to get any useful information out of this survey, given there was minimal space given to explain our responses this time.
Yellow is the way to explain yourself with words
imo, an artificer is that mad scientist that makes weird and dangerous stuff. whether that’s fancy new tech, potions or something else. this artificer fits that kind of but is closer fancy metal worker that sometimes has a fancy pet or weapon
YES.
Give me that sweet, mad science!
My thoughts exactly. Other than the dreadnaught and the artillerist, for me, everything feels far too tame or just plain boring. How does being better at ability checks and cheating death personify being a master inventor? Why isn't the Infiltrator good at infiltrating or the guardian armor good at guarding? Why is there so much bonus action clog on every single new version of DND's half casters?
Magical Tinkering needs better item durations, Replicate Magic Item needs to limit enspelled items to avoid 3rd level spam, Soul of Artifice needs to apply to saving throws or go back to the old version. Experimental elixirs, some effects are too weak or dont last long enough, Alchemical Savant is too restrictive, should be all artificer spells if they want to avoid multiclass exploits. Armorer weapons should be generic weapons that can can have generic variant magic item effects applied, Armor replication should allow you to replace separate parts of the armor with magic items, they should return the advantage to Lightning launcher on Perfected armor. Artillerist needs firearm proficiency.
I think there is a big piece missing from the Armorer changes here. Before you could infuse your armor, but now you just make magic items. It specifically says your armor covers your entire body, so how do you put on the magic boots or gloves you're making? You effectively lose those slots (more if your DM is mean) now. Simple wording like the BA for removing the helm to say that you can remove your gloves or boots would fix this. Or even specifying that you can choose to not cover the hands and feet and not lose any benefit of the armor.
I didn't realize until after watching this video, the material component for Homunculus is 100G and is consumed! That is tough for a level 3 character to spend I think.
@@Intenderthat was always the case, but before you got it back when it died
To be fair, i feel like "slots" were kinda glossed over in general
@ Right, but until the new DMG is released, we are stuck with the wording from the old DMG: Multiple Items of the Same Kind
Use common sense to determine whether more than one kind of a given magic item can be worn. A character can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or be able to layer two cloaks.
@@codebracker Yeah, it wasn't consumed, it was just used for the spell. I just realized that it no longer takes a BA to command it though, which is totally worth the 100G lost cost. Plus it has more HP and Evasion so it will survive a bit longer.
I think removing expertise and infusions was a mistake. But I'm not sold that there isn't a better core feature than infusion either. For the 4 subclasses, I personally would choose:
Golemsmith (creates a construct of some type that fights and is customizable, possibly like a sidekick where you can make it a warrior, expert, or spellcaster)
Warsmith (basically the armorer but more damaging/weapon stuff)
Alchemist (potion brewer and bomb maker)
Gunsmith (makes a magic gun that can have different modes and uses).
I would encourage anyone reading this to check out KibblesTasty's Inventor class, which is a complete rework of the Artificer that was made a few years ago. It has tons of options so some could find it overloading, but I really like it in comparison to WotC Artificer.
When I homebrewed an updated artificer recently, the core identity I gave them was modifying weapons. One feature gave them the ability to permanently change a weapon’s mastery property by meeting certain criteria, and a later feature allowed them to infuse a weapon in order to use its mastery property.
Lol. It looks like WotC is playtesting their review process as well. I definitely will be filling out the survey shortly. I have always believed the Artificer should be focused on magitech creation. I'm currently in a playtest and will be cycling through the sub classes before final review. So far, the Alchemist needs a total rehaul. The other three need tweaks (Especially the higher level stuff) that are dependent on changes to the base class. With that said, I have always felt like the Alchemist should be its own core class to give it what it deserves. I would replace it with a subclass that focuses on creating arcane traps and quickly deploying mechanical traps that can be thrown out in combat.
What I don't understand is that it makes mundane items that last a short time, but full blown items that carry magic you can make and keep forever and the magic never runs out.
The biggest probably I have with what was in the UA (besides the level 20 feature) was that they removed the ability to heal the Steel Defender with Mending. It was a simple way to do some upkeep, and now it's gone.
I think it's cause they made healing spells work on constructs just generally
They didn't remove it.
Keith Baker has talked positively about the 5E Artificer. This is theoretical - I did not speak to anyone at WotC - but I could see this as another Wayfarer's Guide - which they snuck out for 2014 before eventually releasing "for real" in Last War. It might be the same thing is happening - particularly with all the partnered content. I could see them, for Artificer specifically, releasing a small partnered content book to get the class and backgrounds onto 2024 rules.
Replicate Magic Item lasts indefinitely once you construct the item, or 1d4 days if you die, just like Infusions do. At higher levels, you have fewer known infusions - but it's not changed by a lot.
I hope in a few months they put another UA with 4 more old 2014 subclasses for each of the 12 PHB 2024 classes.
I like it if it comes in the Forgotten Realms book instead of a an Eberron book for the simple reason that it will shut up the people that say "We can't have Artificers in FR, it is an Eberron specific class".
Who gives a fuck about FR. I don't even like Eberron, but holy fuck is it better than all of the whinny FR fans. Especially the 4E/5E ones.
I think for magical tinkering, itll be really cool if it was just a gp limit, like you can make any mundane item under 30gp, and it lasts for 24 hours or something. Maybe even have it get upgraded later on. Having a small selection of items is cool but not that useful in general. At least in my games.
I mean they could have just copied how creation bard does it
Yes to the changes you mentioned for alchemist. It’s my favorite subclass and it feels like they dropped the ball again… the only way I desire to play this current iteration of the alchemist is as a multi class with beast barbarian since the bonus action elixirs work great since they aren’t spells.
Imo they should either commit more to the experimental elixir with quality of life changes and wackier options or take it out completely. I would prefer to have more than one table to roll from, make it so you don’t always have the obvious solution but still have a solution for the situation, have a table for wacky effects. The alchemist has no business being so damn boring
@@sspectre8217exactly, if they need to be random, make it the wild magic of artificer
"We're gonna get back to something we used to do on this channel"
"Upload regularly?"
I mean probably
The Battlesmith has a big problem with having full hands now. Without the ability to use an infusion as a focus, but still counting every artificer spell as having an M component, their half-caster status essentially vanishes when holding both a weapon and shield.
I love the idea of a static set of alchemical items and also a random list if the alchemist wants to experiment. My idea was to keep the random elixirs, but use alchemical reactives in them to throw them as bombs if you couldn’t find a use for them during the day. You could pick from the elemental damage types in alchemical savant and gain that bonus in an aoe.
26:57 how does dreadnaught win? I don’t see any benefit for the entire time besides extra reach until the very minimal increase in damage
I really enjoy these server videos. I will only point out, though, that the subclasses you suggested at the end are pretty much what the Artificer has and does currently. I think the disconnect comes from using magic vs something more grounded (like an artificer that uses guns vs the artilerist. what is the difference between a revolver and the arcane firearm?). It's already in the game mechanically - the issue is flavor. If everything about the artificer was worded as engineering or physics or chemistry rather than magic, I think much fewer people would have issues with the class as it stands today - aside from some mechanical stuff that does need tunning.
Yeah, it was pretty strange hearing him say we need x and y and z at the end and them all being things we already have.
Its interesting that pretty much all the examples of what people might want are things already covered in the subclasses. I imagine the issue here is that the subclasses are not nearly transformative / extreme enough to truly live those fantasies.
Dreadnaught armor should be the armor that deals Aoe attacks or the armor that comes with spikes that damage the attacker.
As for Subclasses I would add to the Artificer; I'd make "Vehicle " subclass that mostly focuses on traversal but can provide sheltering cover in a fight; or a "Necromantic" subclass think "battle smith" but the undead, the servant gets the extra attack, and you can customize the servant to be more then just "Bones Malones" the undead warrior.
As someone whose favorite class is the Artificer, whose favorite setting is Eberron, and who has played an Artificer more than any other class (at least 10 times), I'd like to weigh in.
I think Artificer's core identity is as a "Magical Inventor". Regardless of whether it's replicating magic items, or creating your own unique magical gear that non-artificers cannot replicate, the core of the class is as someone who utilizes magic in the form of inventions. "Magic through science" or "magic AS science" is core to the Artificer's theme.
They don't just make technological machines creations, magic must be involved in the process, that's why I don't think a "Gunslinger" should be a subclass for Artificer, as firearms are too mundane of an invention, typically not revolving around magic. If anything, I feel the Artillerist should involve actually turning a wand or staff into a magical firearm, not just making spells deal more damage.
Furthermore, I believe each subclass, at least of the base 4, should focus on a different "category" of crafted items. Armorer = armor, Alchemist = potions, Battle Smith = weapons, Artillerist = wands/staffs/rods. This leaves open the possibility of future subclasses relating to different item types. Like a "jeweler" artificer that focuses on rings/necklaces.
Personally, I like the idea of starting with the base 4 we have, then expanding into others that relate to the remaining categories of magic items, and having different tools associated with each. Something like these:
*Gem Carver* = Rings (as well as other jewelry) (Jeweler's Tools)
*Rune Crafter* = Scrolls (and more vaguely rune-associated stuff, like maybe Magical Tattoos) (Calligrapher's Supplies)
*Mechanist* = Wonderous Items (this one is more vague, but I think lends itself perfectly to being the "Mech" subclass) (Tinker's Tools)
And then once those are out of the way you can focus on maybe some more niche subclasses related to certain artisan's tools that don't fall under the other subclasses. Maybe a "Chef" or "Brewer" artificer. Maybe a "Driver" artificer focused on different types of vehicle transportation and movement.
It's so weird that they introduce a color system, but use only black text, and write out the color names for choices.
They nerfed the number of known infusion too much (before it was double the the number of active infusion, now it’s only two more then the number of active infusion) which sucks because there’s a lot of situational items in there which you don’t want to wear everyday. For exemple all of the stealth options (Gloves of thievery, cloak of Elvenkind, resistance armor which you can no longer get at level 6 because of its rarety, googles of night, wand of magic detection, etc).
A lot of infusions are now delayed to 4 levels later and Mind Sharpener got heavy nerfed because it needs a attunement now.
Lost tool expertise at level 6. Lost cost reduction and time reduction to craft magic item at level 10. Lost the ignore requirement to attune to a item (don't need to be a certain class, etc) at level 14.
ARMORER HAVE TWO BIG PROBLEM.
Firstly, their weapons can no longer have a +2 infusions because infusion no longer exist so there weapons are less powerful then before. Secondly the level 9 feature is even worse then you think because the best armor you have acces to is a +1 armor so if you find a better armor you now have a usless level 9 feature. Also Armorer special weapon kinda just feels like weapon mastery Push or Sap and weapon mastery can be used with +3 weapons or other magic items, but the Armorer special weapons are only +0.
Guardian Armorer Defensive field is just way less temp hp then the Artillerist protector canon which can gives you 1d8 +int with no restriction (no waiting for bloody) and it's AOE 10 feet radius. So yeah Armorer is feeling pretty bad. I love the concept of Armorer but they just suck in term of power. They need big buffs. Also they lack strenght to avoid grapple so they should add a feature to avoid that.
The level 6 feature of the World tree barbarian is stronger the the level 15 Armorer guardian feature. Barbarian have unlimited usage but Armorer only have 5 usage per day.
BATTLESMITH GOT TWO BIG PROBLEMS
First of all and most importantly they are obligated to have a tool in hand to cast spells since they can no longer use magic items as a spell focus. Which sucks because they usully use one hand weapon and a shield.
Secondly, the Steel defender can no longer be healed with mending, so you will need a lot more of spell slot per day to recast it.
Also smith spells need bonus action so you won't really get a good use out of them because your Steel Defender already eats your bonus action.
ALCHEMIST actully got a pretty BIG hidden NERF :
You can no longer stack effect of potions with the new ruling. You need to roll on a table to determine the bad effect which can completely nullify the effect of both potions or make you explode and this for each potions you drink after the first one.
With the new crafting system a Wizard can start crafting wands of fireball or enspelled items at level 5 since he know fireball at level 5. It cost 2000 gp and 50 days of work. You can obtain woodcarving tool proficiency with background and Arcana is usually taken by wizards. Also if you take a elf race then you have 4hours of free time per day to craft. Between level 5 and 11 I’m pretty shure you will have enough time and gp to craft 3 rare magic items and thus have more fireballs then the Artillerist which only unlock fireballs at level 9.
So the artificer replicate magic items feel a bit shit with the new crafting magic items system, since a Wizard level 5 can creat a wand of fireball, but a Artificer replicate magic items needs to wait for level 14.
I'd like to see the Artificer have a feature that enhances the spell Fabricate. its one of their top end spells, but they build things, they should get unique bonuses to using that spell. I made an Artificer character with the current design, before this UA, and he was intended to build ballistias on the battlefield. If firepower wasn't needed, then fortified locations for 3/4th or full cover. Center around the combat engineer WotC.
Anyone else think that the Artillerist's Cannon only being available 1/day for one hour a little underwhelming? It is basically the entire identity of the subclass, and you can barely use it.
Agree with the lack of identity. All the ideas mentioned by others here essentially have to do with the artificer making/crafting “magi-tech” stuff, which feels right to me as well. It’s why infusions felt better than just making things appear out of thin air.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Radiant Weapon is rare now. Level 14. It should be uncommon like you said.
Replicate Magic Item needs to scale less stupidly. It shouldn't be Uncommon because it's just an objectively better +1 Weapon in that case.
@@AnaseSkyrider Well, at that point you're making base artificer, a middle of the road class even when choosing the best subclass for it, weaker. It should be better than a +1 weapon. +1 weapon is part of the level 2 tier. Bag of Holding should technically be a level 10 item but you get it at level 2. I could say leave it rare but add it as an exception to the level 6 list.
I would add a weapon mastery to battle ready
For me Artificer is a master craftsman capable of customizing items and spells, perhaps even on the fly. Not very powerful in pure strength, but he's very versatile, flexible and adaptable.
Bombmaker, construct-maker, weaponsmith and armorer - my default list.
Artist, stage magician illusionist, master of runes, and master scribe - a list for book expansions.
Armorer needs the most help, from the start they need to explicitly state each part of the armor is separate. Otherwise, their weapon is part of the armor, so it could be interpreted as it can't gain the benefit from replicate magic item. It's really off putting that as a Battle Smith I can take an infusion on their head, armor and boots at level 6 and the armorer needs to wait until level 9 to do so.
Dreadnaught seems to be the weakest because they don't state if it's size provides any mechanical benefit, enlarge gains advantage on strength tests and 1d4 extra damage, but a dreadnaught's flail does the same damage at size medium as it would at size huge. Flight is also not a big deal when you can take winged boots at level 10 so even the alchemist can fly by then. Guardians should be able to punch with both fists, give the gauntlets the light property so it works with the dual wielder feat, but nick and two weapon fighting would need to be written into the armor model. Infiltrator should be able to overcharge their weapon sacrificing their additional attack rolls for a more potent single shot and give them a bonus action hide, then at level 15 return their advantage giving shots so they chose to hit one person hard or tag a bunch of targets for the rest of the party. Ideally the player has to pick feats to make the model's playstyle work perfectly, but if they needed, they could swap to a model where they lack the feat to make it work smoothly.
Alchemist would be better if they gained 1d8 to damage when casting a spell earlier. If that extra die counted as if the spell were upcast or player was a higher level for cantrips, chromatic orb and sorcerer's burst would be fun. Hell, giving them an extra attack with a cantrip on a magic action would also make them kinda enticing.
Battlesmith's defender got nerfed because it lost the healing through mending. As it currently is written, it can be restored if it drops to 0 and you expend a spell slot or if you build a new one, so you kill your pet to heal it or abandon it. Battlesmith should get weapon mastery and a fighting style, maybe cast a cantrip on their extra attack but that might be over powered. Arcane Jolt is good, you can add the jolt and a smite to a hit. What they really need is a smite that doesn't use concentration like thunderous smite, that way they can keep concentration on haste while searching for crits to jolt+smite on.
Artificer always felt like the wizard’s assistant, the guy that made equipment to focus a wizard’s power.
I’ve felt like their defining trait was resiliency.
None of the subclasses (as a non multi class build) were amazing in any aspect.
Elite damage dealing wasn’t it, or battlefield control, or even healing and support.
They’ve always felt like a very hardy, got your back kind of PC.
With the new crafting rules (good, bad, broken or not) plus bastions that can make items, the artificer feels very much an after thought by wotc.
This was one of maybe 2 classes that really encouraged player to stay single classed, druids being the other.
Perhaps it’s irony that the new druid capstone, and this preposed change to artificer are both reasons to look elsewhere now.
I mean i thought the artificer's core ability was infusions and should have been leaned in to to make them like meta magic for a sorcerer and invocations for a warlock but no they went the other root. The one sub class i think is missing (though a mech would be cool) was one that like the armorer focused on improving a weapon.
I was watching some other dnd indeed videos on the newer artificer as well. And here's something weird was noticed.
That rules as written. You must use your tools for any spell with an m component. And you cannot use your magic items this time around
Anybody else notice that by a strict reading of the Magic Item Plan lists for Replicate Magic Item, an Artificer cannot replicate any of the uncommon or rare Rods or Staffs? Those are the only item categories not accounted for somewhere on the lists...
My issue with Artificer is that it's a half caster that is also not half something else. It needs the other half.
I think they should have the mending spell as one of his artificer spells he always has and doesn't count toward his spell count.
One of the flaws of this survey is it doesn't flag you for missing filling in the dots, as evidenced in this video. Just on the first actual page of the survey, you thought you filled in two of the circles, but hadn't actually, yet the survey let you click the Next button. That's an issue. You get incomplete feedback from that kind of thing.
Easy solution...
Make 3 versions of the Artificer Class...
1 That uses Dragon Magazine #1's "Artificer Race" as its basis for a Greyhawk Artificer...
1 that uses 2E's "Gnome Artificer" for reference as the Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms Artificer...
1 that uses 3.5 Eberron's Artificer as the basis for an ACTUAL Eberron Artificer...
...screw it, 4... make the gadget-y, cartoony, Artificer of 5E since apparently that low-brow, dumbell version is now the basis of what "WotC Creativity" can come up with!
Either way, any direction that the current "creative team" takes the class is going to be sorely lacking, and generally just some "pop-culcha" trope/gimmick...
An Artificer is not a "Mage with a gun" (aka "Steampunk Ironman")... They are a powerhouse multi-tool with a toolbox of extra features!
The Artificer's core concept *MUST* revolve around crafting, and being given the chance to craft and use magic items...they are the ones who can easily identify magic items, safely handly cursed objects without being affected, and can carry around a multitude of "magic items as needed"! Among REQUIRED magic items for an Artificer is...
1. Infinite Scrollcase: Holds upto 50 Magic Scrolls that can be pulled on command.
2. Quiver of Ehlonna: 60 Wands, 18 Rods, 6 Staffs...need I say more?
3. Artificer's Monocle: Allows the Artificer to use their skill-check to Identify magic items, rather then using the Spell.
4. Wand Bracelet: Store upto 4 small-sized items that can be retrieved with a quick/bonus action? Yes!
5. Spare Hands: A belt with a pair of Construct Arms and hands that operate by thought...including activating magic items!
6. Ring of Master Artifice: A Ring that allows an Artificer an additional use of Infusion from level 1 to Level 6...
Oh, and get rid of Spell Slots! The Artificer is not a Caster...to make the comparison of the two Intelliegence-based classes; A Wizard is a Quantum Physicist, an Artificer is a Quantum Mechanic/Engineer...
For another analogy, Star Trek's Engineering team about the Enterprise is full of Engineers...the Science Team studying Astronavigational Phenomena or Quantum Rifts is in the Science Department... Blue Shirt, Red Shirt... I dont understand why WotC has muddied the Artificer Class up so much!
I could go on, but I've wasted enough time explaining this to you lot...
An artificer to me is the inventor of D&D it is the class that is supposed to revolve around making magic items i think that most abilities are nice but there are a few that need to be polished in order for this to happen and I personally would like to see a bomb subclass that makes me feel like tiny tina from borderlands
So those typing bubbles. They only come in scrolling form.
The reason they list Magic Item Adept and the other abilities as separate is for the sake of idiot proofing the class. If they put it under Replicate Magic Item a bunch of people online who can't read would argue that since they got Replicate Magic Item they should get all the "upgrades" with their 2nd level Artificer dip. They did this with all of the other classes in 2024. It's great for newer players. Sadly the main people who would exploit this likely can't or won't read the rules anyway (insert meme here).
WIth Soul of Artifice, keep in mind this is an ability they can use *SIX* times per long rest. It's WAY better than the other similar abilities. It will make artificers damned near unkillable at 20th level. If anything the issue is just that it doesn't "feel" very on brand with the rest of the classes abilities.
My biggest concerns with the artificer are as follows:
1) They did not address at all what is essentially the biggest issue with the class: attunement. The entire point of the class is that you can make and give your party members magic items, which essentially becomes impossible the moment they all get 3 magic items that require attunement.
Solution: Let the artifcer grant their extra attunement slots to other players as an alternative to themselves if they wish. Specifically in the form of only functioning for their Replicate Magic Items.
2) They really need to commit to granting them all extra attack or not. This will they won't they with all the subclasses is odd and needs to get ironed out. Is it a half caster class or not? Why does every other half-caster class get extra attack and not the artificer? The same could be argued for weapon mastery, but I'm okay with them reserving this for a subclass (looking at you battlesmith).
3) I feel like Replicate Magic item really should progress as follows:
2nd: The artificer can make common magic items or uncommon items that do not require attunement.
6th: Common or uncommon items (can make attunement)
10th: Rare magic items
14th: Very Rare magic items.
It's simpler, takes up less space on a page than the annoying chart they have at the moment and frankly just makes more sense. That said, there's one annoying elephant in the room:
4) Enspelled Weapons, Armor, and Staves should all arguably be bumped up a magic item category (in general not just for Replicate magic item). These items are absurdly more powerful than any other uncommon item in their versatility and in the hands of an artificer's replicate magic item ability are going to be VERY easy to exploit. Not to mention I'd be hard pressed to find any sort of player who won't end up with at least 2 out of the 3 for their plans known. They are arguably too close to "must haves" and this is a problem.
And even if we aren't worrying about the optimization standpoint, there is still an issue of these magic items step ALL over the toes of the Artificer's Spell-Storing Item feature, which they don't gain until 11th level in concept, AND the artificer can make these things at 6th level! Yes, I know it has more uses, and yes I know it uses their spellcasting DC. Those minor numerical benefits are NOT enough to distinctly differentiate them.
Solution: Change the feature to be: "At 11th level, you can create one enspelled weapon, armor, or staff using your Replicate magic item feature. This does not count against your number of magic items created using this ability and you need not know the chosen plan to create this item. Additionally, when you make the enspelled object using this ability, you can select any object that you can use as a spell focus, it uses your spellcasting modifier, spell attack, and spell save DC, and it does not require attunement."
Essentially this make the ability just build off of what the artificer has already been doing since 6th level: using enspelled items (and why the hell wouldn't they be doing it?) And it has the perk of making it retroactively feel like the artificer sort of "learns" the spell-storing item thing earlier than 11th level (a common complaint I've heard for the 2014 class). I suppose there's an argument that maybe the artificer should just outright learn the enspelled stuff at 6th level so it isn't stuck in some sort of skill mastery limbo. Could be debated.
I think the lights should be :- Green = Keep it as is.
Yellow = Needs tweaks
Red = Needs major changes.
+ Don't know / Don't care / Don't want it.
Meh
I find it hilarious that they did this color-coded system, and none of the actual survey is in color. Why use colors and not indicate it visually in the form at all?
Thank you for your information video
i love how the thumbnail has a short beard, then you click on the video, and its dwarf beard status.
I think of artifices as the inventors the Engineers the core features should be able to be making unique magical devices that don't just replicate magical items that anyone who is skilled in Arcana can do a warrior for example who took acana proficiency instead of increasing their strength at level four can theoretically speaking build any magical item artifice should be making things that only they can make
Completely remove the ability to replicate magic items. SO MUCH of the Artificer’s power budget is reserved for replicating items.
Everyone says Artificer’s are banned at tables because of guns, but every table I’ve ever seen that has banned Artificers because they can just make whatever they want. I talked to a DM that said he wanted to make a crunchy campaign where you’d really have to take note of equipment weight, arcane components, and ammo. Artificer proceeded to make a Bag of Holding and a Repeating Crossbow for the Fighter and trivialized the whole thing.
I believe every Artificer should be a specialist, like they are now, and have sub-class specific infusions they can improve their specialty with. Instead of 3 separate armor forms, you get 1. But that 1 suit could be infused with Thunder Gauntlets, Advantage on Stealth, and a fly speed.
Or an Artillerist that upgraded their turret to have it act as a mount. Like a gunner chair.
Or an Alchemist that doesn’t suck.
That to me was an Artificer’s core identity, their specialization
tl,dr: Get rid of replicating magical items completely, it’s impossible to completely balance and is the biggest reason DMs ban Artificers. Instead have them focus on sub-class specific infusions and let them be the ultimate customizable class
To me, an artificer is a half caster that creates (sometimes special) magic items. I can't think of what else their class is defined by than that. But for optimization, they're the single best class at STORING power between adventuring days. Making money with alchemy jugs, making spellwrought tattoos every day, now crafting magic items faster... but I'm not sure that's good for the game.
I also have to say, some of the early comments you made in the survey really put me off. They made think, "this guy is out in left field". Even some of the more reasonable thoughts along the way lacked context or comparison, and didn't feel like they came from a design mindset. 6d6 to any ability check you choose once per turn? That's an average +21 bonus. lmao what?
The Homunculus being a spell now means it can be given to other players via things like spell-storing item and spellwrought tattoo. But adding a 100 gold cost that's consumed on each use and not returned when it dies means this will NEVER SEE USE in the vast majority of games. Imagine if Identify consumed the pearl when cast. It honestly feels like that, OR, pushes the artificer to do things like replicate alchemy jugs to produce acid/poison and sell it for money to fuel their homunculus debt. I'm not a fan of that. Giving them a special, extra familiar that's a bit more expensive but can attack is a valuable distinction for the class. Then you can have a familiar, homunculus, and steel defender potentially, making them to some degree the 'pet class'. That's unique!
I agree with you about most of armorer though. I've never understood that subclass. I think people are sleeping on Alchemist, and it's now FAR stronger than people realize with the bonus action APPLICATION for experimental elixirs, and familiars. Boldness stacks with Bless and Emboldening Bond, along with other similar features. We don't have -5/+10 to amp that up even more, but it's still extremely strong and thanks to bounded accuracy, automatically scales and is always relevant. Your only concern at that point is getting more potions, and dipping a couple levels of Warlock with a 4-hour long rest species fixes that right up. Suddenly, you have 10+ of these elixirs every day, and you can even build them around Charisma if you want and play a Warlock-Arti multiclass face, covering your rolls with invocations, magic items and/or Flash of Genius. Wild! But as a straight-class, they're pretty meh. :` I honestly think they should get more elixirs built-in, possibly by creating more when you cast Artificer spells, which would tone down multiclassing this and banking boatloads of elixirs and potions between days.
so you are saying the alchemist should have some sort of modular flask. I said when I took the survey I think the armorer and battlesmith's extra attack should be like the valor bard/eldrich knight. If I were to start from the beginning my four core tenets would be the making and improving of magic items such you can make a plus one sword/armor but you can upgrade an acquired plus one sword/armor into a plus two and so one, and as such have you improvements be something you can do for the entire party. Next I would take the idea of the homunculus servant as a feature not a spell and give each subclass away to interact with or improve it, such as converting it into the your steel defender/eldrich cannon, maybe a special walking cauldron for the alchemist they generates extra potions when they use it to mix potions the number of extra potions being based on half your int mod rounded up, and for the armorer perhaps the servant becomes the armor and you have modules you can activate on it to do the functions of the models shown. third as the other two half casters have light and medium armor, simple and martial weapons, and shields, give them all a couple of masteries then the armorer and battlesmith unlock being able to use heavy armor based on their int mod. than from there give each subclass truly unique and on theme bonus spells including one 6th level spell each can use twice a day.
11:22 I’ve always thought that’s been the point of the Artificer?
IMO: I liked the Magical Tinkering feature much more in Tasha's. The mundane item effects could be used much more creatively. Just giving us a shopping list of existing items is boring.
My main thoughts about the artificer is that it is far too boring and not fantastic enough to pique my interest over other options.
For the subclasses:
Alchemist-Elixirs being randomized is not fun and they could be a lot more fun and interesting. The fact that they didn't make a second elixir table for their 15th level feature feels like they dropped the ball.
Armorer-Dreadnought is great but Guardian can't guard well (doesn't have a reliable way of taking damage and staying alive, especially compared to other options) and infiltrator isn't very good at infiltrating imo (druid gets pass without trace, casters get invisibility, etc). Then for some reason they gave dreadnought flight instead of Infiltrator.
Artillerist-It's all right
Battle Smith-bonus action clog among various features (Steel Defender requires bonus action but so does various spells, including the new smite spells that it gets as part of the subclass). Honestly don't know why every half caster so far has the worst bonus action clog in the game to the point of suffering from it.
This survey format was so stupid, not letting you comment for green options. I purposely made some yellow just to give my deeper thoughts on them.
For example, with spellcasting, I like their style of using tools and always having an M component, but it's still limiting to say its the tools themselves. I saw a response from someone about the old artificer, who said any "gadget" you make with those tools would also serve as a focus, since the tool imparts the magic into the device. So you can shoot your Fire Bolt out of a flamethrower-style gadget, instead of shooting it from the screwdriver that made it, like it was a wand. These wouldn't be actual magic items or anything, just flavor for your spells. Even if they intended for devices to count, the text doesn't imply that, so they should include it for people to better understand what their style of tool-casting could look like.
The old description about infusions being foci was the same concept, but it should be open to any flavored objects you want, just like how a wizard's spellbook doesn't actually need to be a stereotypical book. And this should also work for the subclasses, which even the old version failed at. You couldn't use your infusions for subclass-specific features (at least for the alchemist). Let me flavor something that fits my alchemist's vibe to serve as a given spell's focus, instead of just holding a flask in the same boring aesthetic. I'm still holding something, even if that object is only flavor and not actually a tangible item, mechanically.
I don't understand what your actual issue is with this UA of the artificer. It mechanically didn't change anything, it was just flavor, that flavor-text will probably be repeated in the actual publication, and that flavor actually caused ludo-narrative dissonance.
Kidnapped by bandits, but you pickpocket a guy's thieves' tools? No problem: since you still prepare spells like everyone else, you're suddenly a full spellcaster again. Despite no longer possessing the weightless tiny objects you "created" as part of your long rest's daily preparations to be able to cast your spells.
I always thought the unwillingness to commit to using actual custom items as a required focus was stupid. There's no reason you can give to me other than tradition that it's less dumb to wave a wooden wand around to cast a spell than for an artificer whose connection to tools is so supernaturally infused with magic that they can wave lockpicks around to cast spells instead of a traditional wand.
@@AnaseSkyrider To be clear, I have this same issue with the current artificer too. It's not specifically the UA version. But now was my chance to voice that issue in the small bits of comments they allowed. It's not a prominent issue for me, but it's one of the main things in my current character concept that I'd be deviating from the rules on, when it's such a simple fix to make it actually work that way. So there's no reason for them to not make that tweak to the text.
For the bandit scenario, you just MacGyver a gadget with anything you see lying around, which is already an implied aesthetic to the class. You cast a spell or two until you get your stuff back. Also, it's not like you'd be alone, so you wouldn't have to worry about taking on all of them yourself with scraps as your temporary gadgets. But it's also fine to say that this scenario is a special case, and your connection to your craft is high enough that you manage to squeeze out some spells through the tool itself, in desperation, due to the residual tinker energy flowing through it. That can be just as flavorful in a situation like that.
I agree that the wizard always defaulting to waving a twig is just as dumb. The difference is the rules directly state you can use your spellbook as the focus, and the community at large seems to understand that your spellbook doesn't always need to be a "book". I've seen enough people in videos talk about that, and the official rules state you decide the appearance, with nothing seeming to prevent you from making that appearance not be a book. But saying you use the tools locks you in to just those. They may not strictly define what is actually inside each tool kit, but it would come off just as stupid, whether its a screwdriver, paint brush, sewing needle, or a lock pick (though painting a sigil in the air or spell effect on a page to come to life is actually fitting in cases like painter's supplies, so not all tools have this issue).
To me, the artificer has far more flexibility with how they would visually cast a spell, due to the tinkering aesthetic. But when they only say the tool itself must be in your hand, it implies you never actually tinker anything. You just hold your metal wand, point, and click. You could say other classes are the same, but none of those push so heavily the idea that your spellcasting is different. Just look at the description in Tasha's: "To observers, you don’t appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you appear to produce wonders from mundane items and outlandish inventions." Yet the very next paragraph locks you out of those inventions by saying the tool must be in hand when casting, instead of the tool OR an invention made from the tool. And saying you can use a gadget, as long as the tool is also in hand would be just as stupid. If I build a device to shoot fire out, why would a screw always need tightened first, just to properly allow me to use that device? If anything that would just occupy your other hand for no reason.
I'll still be flavoring it the way I want, regardless. But having the text lock you in will make many new players not see the full flavor they could get out of this class, and could potentially make it feel boring for them. Seeing that your casting can go beyond the tool itself will open up what concepts they could come up with for their characters.
Hello there, probably sidetracking. The Forgotten Realms has a tradition of artificers since 1st ed. Think about Gondians and Lantaneses, then in 3rd edition there was a prestige class called the Gnome Artificer that was similar to the base artificer of 5th edition. I cannot say anything about Eberron because I've never played there, but wanted to comment about the FR and its engineers. My 2 cents.
I disagree on your opinion that destroing a magic item to regain power is not in theme with the class. Imo it is very mutch because this is not just an engeneere, this class infues magic into their creations so it makes sense that they can disable a creation to reclaim the magic inside
Hate how red doesnt let you write in
If you think something is just awful and irredeemable you probably still want to go yellow to give feedback because
A: it might be redeemable using incredibly extensive changes that you would consider an entirely different feature, which should be red, but is infact yellow because all possible opinions where feedback is useful are yellow since only yellow gives feedback.
And B: if yellow wins you might have more influence on the final outcome by being yellow than by being red even if you want extensive changes. Red opinions probably have some perspective on alternatives, but only yellows are allowed to give them.
There's so much bias towards yellow that there's basically zero quantitative results
Wouldn't it be great if the Artificer breathed new life into the game, drawing on the game's roots? Daedalus, Hephaestus, da Vinci, Takeda Ōmi, Frankenstein.. inventors from myth, legend, and history, from the steampunk creations of the Foglios?
The Apparatus of Kwalish. Teleporting cabinets. Time travel boxes. Golems. Flying chariots. Heck, even a steam-powered wheelchair?
As it stands, for the early tiers the Artificer is just bad at everything, and a liability to any party.
Better to take the 2024 Bard as a template, exchange Charisma for Intelligence, crafter's tools for Musical Instruments, and fiddle with the class features a bit, than to try to make a go of half-caster Artificer.
In regards to the survey time availability. Why don't they drop UA the first week of one month and start the first week of the next month.
These short turnarounds suck.
The proficiency change or lack there of. It was better having the Artificer proficient with all crafting tool kits but expertise with ones related to the subclass choice.
I dislike the homunculus servant as a spell for role-playing reasons. It's not a persistent mechanical pet now, you just poof them into existence for short term use.
When you don't cast them you store their body in a bag like necros do. Then you "power them up" with a spell slot just like a roomba.
It's as persistent as the regular Find Familiar. It has no duration, so it lasts indefinitely. The old infusion also essentially generated matter after applying the infusion to a core: "The item you infuse serves as the creature's heart, around which the creature's body instantly forms." It was never tanky, so it dying was burning one of your infusions. Now it burns no spell slots (at levels 5-8), or just one slot at 9+ when/if you upcast it; if you want to use it identically to how you did before. Its HP scales about as well as it did before, if not slightly better.
What is an Artificer?
I've never understood the uniqueness of the class.
It seemed to me, back in Tasha's, that it was a half-caster with a lot of tinkering going on..
But, not a real bonified Class.
I appreciate the Idea of them, but I wish they'd have their own identity.
Hopefully that can be cleared up in the future.
Tbh I'd rather see a design for a Psionicist Class.
How about a Psionicist that is anchored to Intelligence, but choosing it's other saving throw proficiency to attune to other psionic devotions and sciences based on the ability score to choose.
Think of abilities without casting spells or spell slots and doing it with their minds.
There are 5.
I doubt they corelate the answers. So you can say you like the artificer as is, and dislike every feature. Confusing them, but I don't think you need to worry as much about saying I want it changed, or I didn't like it.
Yay!
Artillerist just feels really lame to me. Steel Defender is all around better than the Cannon, and the cannon and other features are really uninspired. Also, why is it small or tiny but you can't just pick it up and use it as a weapon? I was envisioning a dude holding a giant rocket launcher or gatling gun, not a civil war error cannon on wheels.
I believe you can pick it up if it's tiny. That's how my group is playing. There's a trade-off between a slow cannon that works remotely & one you can carry with you at full speed.
Bonus action temp hp for everyone in an area every turn in is still pretty good my guy.
I think Returning Weapon might be too strong as a non-attunement item. It's a +1 weapon and it returns to you after throwing it. Also, logically this "returns to your hand" thing feels like an attunement based effect - it needs to know its owner. What happens if someone takes it from you? Now they can throw it and it goes back to them? I don't like that. It should be attunement, and it should just return to you 6 seconds after it leaves your person regardless of how/why unless you specifically choose to leave it in place somewhere or un-attune.
The more they update Artificers, the less i want to play them. In 3.5 Artificer "shtick" was kind of the master crafter. You were the arms dealer to the party, the Frankenstein to your monster, you were the recycler that took magic items that you didn't need and dismantled them to make them for ones your party did need. But a lot of other classes could do stuff like that. You just did it better. They added the fact that you could ignore requirements, and the glass very much became a person who is all about magic items. It wasn't the best, but with a little multiclassing and flavor, you could make due.
Jump ahead to 5e and the artificer was similar to what it used to be instead of handing out an armory to your party you now have a set of things you can make magical for some time and they pretty much are only useful to you. The subclasses were lackluster and felt almost like worse versions of other classes.
So here are some cool general things I would like to see all Artificers do and some subclasses which i think would fit the class, and i might brew:
General - Item transfer - either the ability to break down and reshape an item into another or the ability to transfer properties to others. I like the idea of "custom magic items" because players know what they want best for their build. The ability to take a sword no one is going to use or someone has outgrown and transfer its magic to a mace for your cleric is great. Make it a 1 hour thing so it can't be done on fly really and there we go.
Subclasses:
Magic Item Adept - this class focuses and expands on magic items and the above transfer property allowing tweaks on the fly, chaning a flaming sword to a electric one or a +2 armor to an armor of buoyancy to help a drowning friend. Sormthing like that these would be temporary, of course. Maybe they can stack items together collecting weapons with specific abilities to dismantle and combine onto another permanently.
Steammech Pilot - this artificer would focus on creating a beefy mech that is their main form of combat kind like a golem you ride in. Getting the ablity, choosing weapons, and infusing abilties one this mech. perhaps they can choose between a repeating balista arm on one side and a fist that pops out into a wrecking ball like flail. I think the armor has some good this to add to this, but let's face it. You only pick one armor type, and you all in on it. You pick feats and items that help that armor, why try to make them both in one class.
Armorer Artificer - change this to focus around the inflatrator armor that exists, give it more toolbox functions and things like flight limited use energy stlye force beams ect. Really lean into the ironman theme with this one to set it apart from the steam mech.
Artilerist Artificer - needs to change this cannon class really seems as borning as warlocks eldritch blast. Make this the gunslinger or demolition artificers, allowing them to really take hold with blackpower style weapons and explosives. Make it something like the fighters' Battle Master allowing them to choose from a veritiy of explosive types like flash granades or gas granades
Battlesmith - this is the one we give some more choices on battlesmith. It should be more that a ranger allow it to choose an upgrade path for their steel defender to a mount to assist them with travel and calvery type battle or intead they can upgrade it to a hulking golem that fights by there side adding another ally to the battlefield.
idk just some ideas. I would like the artificer to go in directions that make them seem more like builders, tinkers, and smiths in both the magical and the practical sense.
Oh dang, I'm the first
I wouldn't fill out a survey about a playtest of I haven't playtested it. It defeats the surveys purpose, but that's just me.
To be fair, most of us don’t have a running game where we can just slot in a new character for testing. Or can find a group to do a one-shot for the purposes of playtesting in the three weeks over the holidays that the test is open.
Well, it's still useful as any new player reading a class/subclass & saying "this looks like it sucks, I don't wanna play it" is a core thing that WotC would want to avoid? :)