Yet another Artificer class!

[Ngagn]

Greetings to you all!

Just wanted to show you the homebrewed Artificer class that has been keeping me busy on those lonely nights (weel, while my wife and kids are sleeping).

This particular take on the artificer idea uses the point based spellcasting system found on the DMG, as it allows more flexibility but less raw power at higher levels. If you could please take a look at it and give me some feedback I would really appreciate it, as it is my first homebrew for D&D 5e. It has been playtested on a handful of games and, so far, it works and doesn't feel like a broken class, but I think maybe the last changes I made (centered around one sub-class, the Master of Battlesmith) could need some additional work.

Thanks to you all!

PS: Sorry if you found any problem on the redaction, english isn't my first language.

http://docdro.id/2FHzELc

[Ngagn]

Nobody? Please, some help would be really appreciated! :)

[JNAProductions]

Link is broken.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Link is broken.

Works fine for me.

My thoughts on the class:

Nothing that's truly broken, but it does seem rather powerful. Functionally speaking, it doesn't really have many weak points - full caster with good spell list, good casting method (essentially wizard minus ritual casting), decent durability for a caster, and good skill/tool use. In many ways, it comes off like a 'sawn-off' wizard - compared to the wizard it has a better chassis and a bunch of miscellaneous goodies in exchange for moderately worse casting (artificer spell list is slightly worse, and no ritual casting). Again, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's overpowered, but it's certainly up there with wizard, bard, and druid.

The Battlesmith subclass doesn't seem particularly problematic, but the wording on it could use some improvement, as the text under aecorforged weapon that says 'once per round, when you perform an attack action you can spend two or more innovation points...' seems to be contradicted by the various enhancements that don't activate on an attack action (e.g. Programmed Counterstrike)

The Master of Gearcraft, specifically the mechanical companion, is the only thing I'd put my foot down over and say is definitely overpowered - giving a full caster a companion as good as the Revised Ranger one is too much.

There are a few spelling and grammar errors, but nothing too bad.

Since the general idea seems to be that contraptions are basically the same as spells, you might want to make it explicit that they count as spells for the purposes of interacting with other effects (e.g. subject to magic resistance or immunity, concentration rules and such apply, can be dispelled, can be counterspelled).

Sorry if this has seemed negative - overall, I do quite like the class, and it's one of the nicer implementations of an artificer I've seen (most are either too complicated, or too similar to existing classes)

[Ngagn]

Link is broken.

Weird, link works fine for me :(

If you still have problems to download the pdf tell me and I will upload it on a different site.

[Ngagn]

Works fine for me.

My thoughts on the class:

Nothing that's truly broken, but it does seem rather powerful. Functionally speaking, it doesn't really have many weak points - full caster with good spell list, good casting method (essentially wizard minus ritual casting), decent durability for a caster, and good skill/tool use. In many ways, it comes off like a 'sawn-off' wizard - compared to the wizard it has a better chassis and a bunch of miscellaneous goodies in exchange for moderately worse casting (artificer spell list is slightly worse, and no ritual casting). Again, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's overpowered, but it's certainly up there with wizard, bard, and druid.

The Battlesmith subclass doesn't seem particularly problematic, but the wording on it could use some improvement, as the text under aecorforged weapon that says 'once per round, when you perform an attack action you can spend two or more innovation points...' seems to be contradicted by the various enhancements that don't activate on an attack action (e.g. Programmed Counterstrike)

The Master of Gearcraft, specifically the mechanical companion, is the only thing I'd put my foot down over and say is definitely overpowered - giving a full caster a companion as good as the Revised Ranger one is too much.

There are a few spelling and grammar errors, but nothing too bad.

Since the general idea seems to be that contraptions are basically the same as spells, you might want to make it explicit that they count as spells for the purposes of interacting with other effects (e.g. subject to magic resistance or immunity, concentration rules and such apply, can be dispelled, can be counterspelled).

Sorry if this has seemed negative - overall, I do quite like the class, and it's one of the nicer implementations of an artificer I've seen (most are either too complicated, or too similar to existing classes)

First of all, thank you so much for taking the time to review my work, I'm glad you liked it. Also, your comment is really helpful, not negative at all :)

Now, as you pointed out, the class does have a "better chasis", so I'm reducing the artificer's spell list to be more in line with the bard and the sorcerer's list.

I want to have a archetype that focus on constructs, but it is difficult to balance. The artificer from UA has the mechanical servant, but the general opinion is that it's too powerful when you get it but too weak when you get to higher levels, as it doesn't scale with the artificer. Any idea in how to balance a companion for the artificer?

Also, what do you think about the wonders that the artificer gets? Specially the familiar, the skyship and the little helper? I'm working on the magic items, as in general they are too powerful.

And as you said, the contraptions are basically spells but that need a spellcasting focus to be cast, so they interact in the same way as a spell does with dispelmagic, counterspell, antimagic field, etc. I will re-write it to make it clearer.

Any thoughts on the Master of Magitech?

Once again, thank you so much for your feedback!

[JNAProductions]

Weird, link works fine for me :(

If you still have problems to download the pdf tell me and I will upload it on a different site.

Maybe it's my computer, but yeah, upload it to a different site and give a mirror link?

[Ngagn]

Maybe it's my computer, but yeah, upload it to a different site and give a mirror link?

https://www.mediafire.com/?ezquf8a3cu017f6

How about now?

[JNAProductions]

Got it.

1d8 hit die, okay.

Three skills, okay.

I'm iffy on giving them spell points-why do that? Why not make them regular casters?

Improved Attunement is either amazing or useless-more likely to be useless at the level you get it.

Honestly, seems pretty okay. Nothing jumps out as overpowered, and it seems fun. The only thing is I'd make it a regular caster, and leave spell points up to the DM's discretion.

[Ngagn]

Got it.

1d8 hit die, okay.

Three skills, okay.

I'm iffy on giving them spell points-why do that? Why not make them regular casters?

Improved Attunement is either amazing or useless-more likely to be useless at the level you get it.

Honestly, seems pretty okay. Nothing jumps out as overpowered, and it seems fun. The only thing is I'd make it a regular caster, and leave spell points up to the DM's discretion.

I like the spell points system because it allows for more flexibility and less "powerful spells" at higher levels. Also, it allows to use the same spell points to fuel other abilities in the same flexible way that you can cast spells (if something needs to spend a 1st level spell to be activated, and you're out of spells, hardly you will be spending a higher level spell to activate it, but with the spell point system you can manage your resources more efficiently)

Improved attunement is there just for "compensate" the attunement slots you may need to make your Mechanical Wonder feature useful. It will be sad if you just created your third magic item that needs attunement and then you happened to find a new magic item that you can't attune to.

What do you thing about the archetypes?

[JNAProductions]

Archetpyes seem okay.

And I do kinda get what you're going for with the spell points, the issue is, it gives unparalleled flexibility to this class when it really doesn't need it.

[Ngagn]

Archetpyes seem okay.

And I do kinda get what you're going for with the spell points, the issue is, it gives unparalleled flexibility to this class when it really doesn't need it.

After some playtest it turned out that, even with the great flexibility that came with the spell points system, it didn't turned out to be unbalanced and, at the end of the day, the artificer casts less spells than a sorcerer or a wizard, as he is fuelling his other abilities with spell points. He compensates the lack of high level power and the need to spend spell points to use some other features with a high flexibility spell system.

Fluffwise, they turn magical energy in almost something you can touch, a real fuel, so it seemed "logical" that they can choose on the go which contraption to fuel (among the contraptions he already prepared after a long rest).