What comes to mind when you think about a Artificer?

[Throne12]

When I think about a Artificer I think magical Engineer. He builds things then fuse magic into them to create a effect. The way i see a Artificer's magic is that he knows what the spell looks like. Instead of Manifesting the effect like a caster. He needs tools to produce the effect.

So I don't like that how they get like to little trinket to give out then they casting spells like everyone else. So I was thinking of dropping the spell slots and making it were they have more of little Inventions with spells cast into them. So how do y'all think I should go about this. Also how should we fix the gunsmith because it sucks.

[Tetrasodium]

When I think about a Artificer I think magical Engineer. He builds things then fuse magic into them to create a effect. The way i see a Artificer's magic is that he knows what the spell looks like. Instead of Manifesting the effect like a caster. He needs tools to produce the effect.

So I don't like that how they get like to little trinket to give out then they casting spells like everyone else. So I was thinking of dropping the spell slots and making it were they have more of little Inventions with spells cast into them. So how do y'all think I should go about this. Also how should we fix the gunsmith because it sucks.


The EE analogy is accurate, but it's not the end of it.

A wizard is a specialized developer with strong extreme specialized knowledge in their field. That knowledge might include some tangential/shallow knowledge of EE but doesn't need to know deep down how to do things like optimize code down to the hardware with assembly & stuff that will only work on a very limited subset of hardware because they have detailed knowledge of modern compilers and stuff that make it irrelevant. The wizard doesn't need to know how to factor in the length of shadows to the date and whatnot because she has specialized knowledge/experience/practice with "modern" magic theories & techniques.

The artificer is the other way around. The artificer has extreme specialized knowledge into the low level fundamentals of how magic works. That knowledge might include some of the modern magic techniques known innately by a wizard, but not to the same degree. The artificer keeps track of barely relevant to the wizard things like planetary movements. the length of his shadow, what he ate for nbreakfast three days ago, so on & so forth because he can string enough of those obscure odds & ends into functional spells. Those spells will usually work, but sometimes might need some quick tweaks to juggle a miscalculation into some other functional spell(s). Those juggling things are usually attached to hastily assembled trinkets/wands/etc as a substitute for the magic techniques the wizard uses.

Out of all the Unearthed arcana's they put out, the only thing that feels like it carries the spirit of the artificer is the wizard archtype school of creation. The gunslinger & alchemist are ok as the start of an artificer archtype, but they are fluffed all wrong & are so far off that fixing them is more than just a matter of changing some fluff because of how they grow making the easy obvious solutions like "your gun is a wand that does elemental damage" (gunslinger especially)

[samcifer]

Rick Sanchez with amnesia and a blunderbuss

[Arkhios]

For me, artificer always striked me as one who would infuse lingering and/or long-term magical effects on items both of their own creation or otherwise. Artificer certainly should be able to cast spells, but only indirectly, through items. Direct magic just feels wrong for the concept.

Mechanically, I suppose it could be similar to how Warlock has Invocations, but the Artificer could share them to other characters with items.

[Regitnui]

McGuyver with magic. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGyvering)

I had the wand in wandsmith basically be an unstable prototype magic item that risked blowing up in its creator's face if they didn't tinker with it after each shot to make it safe again, neatly incorporating the "reload" bonus action.

The alchemist is putting together items from random junk they have in their bag. Not pulling out an alchemist's fire, but cobbling one together from bat guano, yellow powder, a bottle and a burning hands infusion.

[fbelanger]

The kind of guy who loose its job after its boss reorganized the company. Sorry pal you don’t fit in no more!

[Tetrasodium]

McGuyver with magic. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MacGyvering)

I had the wand in wandsmith basically be an unstable prototype magic item that risked blowing up in its creator's face if they didn't tinker with it after each shot to make it safe again, neatly incorporating the "reload" bonus action.

The alchemist is putting together items from random junk they have in their bag. Not pulling out an alchemist's fire, but cobbling one together from bat guano, yellow powder, a bottle and a burning hands infusion.

I have an artificer NPC in one of the games I run. He's always assembling crystals& bits of stuff , estimating nonsense, drawing runes, and doing weird stuff. Granted he's secretly a lord if dust, but one of the players asked what kind of spells he could cast I told them "pretty much anything, just not always right away". More often than not, he's doing things luike re-purposing an elemental ring of the airship everyone is one to let the elemental reach out/attack the things attacking the airship itself or maybe agianormous "we need to not be in this room in a few seconds if you always wanted to not be on fire" the round after he starts doing stuff.

// he's an npc so he's also off doing useless stuff like anylizing/studying well... most anything other than the thing(s) trying to eat his "allies" till one reminds him to do something if he can.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, an Artificer isn't a wizard. He's not even a magic engineer. He's a magic mad scientist. The things he cobbles together shouldn't work. They don't work for anyone else (at least not very well or reliably). The stereotypical gnomish engineer is this idea--bits and pieces of rube-goldberg machinery, frequent explosions, obsession, etc.

I tried putting together a version of this, but it's incomplete. The WIP can be found in this google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNH1DpxdNWDSXCmGlJ7Ks-4WD2dOQrj43mv1Ftba-pU/edit?usp=sharing). Comments (PEACH) are welcome, as are suggestions to flesh out the concoctions.

[Throne12]

So I have a Artificer character idea ready if I ever get to play again. When he is infusing magic into items he using magical circles into Circuitry Patterns. So that with item Release the magical energy stored in the item out with the Desired result based on what circles he use and what pattern he put them in.

Then I have Npc that writes runes on things. If you want to heal someone. He would write the runes health and repair on a Bandage wrap.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think of a mage who wields the forces of creation with every breath he takes he doesn’t cast a spell, he forces his will upon creation. His name is Sorcerer, an artist of magic.

That guy gets slapped in the back of the head by another mage who tells him how his stance is off, he’s not mumbling in correct rhythm, and that how if the Sorcerer ever looked at his notes he’d realize all this. This guy is the Wizard and he is the mathmatician of magic, with very precise castings. He’s trying to teach what he assumed was a prodigy.

They get interrupted by a handsome young mage who for some reason starts making music. They both look at him with awe and amazement and ask how he did that. To which he replies “You silly geese, Music is Magic to your ears. “ . This man is the Bard and neither of the other mages understand him.

The silence is interrupted by the snoring of a man with devilish good looks, and eyes they see can look straight into your soul. The Wizard wakes him up with a start, and the man explodes out of his chair “ I’m was paying attention the whole time!” The others quiz him and the voice the mans head tell him the gist of it all before going back to wherever it came from. This man does some things nobody should be able to do, and it is both terrifying and amazing. When asked how he does this he says “I Cheat.” He is the Warlock.

The room grows louder with discussion. The wizard says that’s not a thing you can do, the numbers don’t add up, the Sorcerer yells that it’s not about numbers it’s about how you feel, and the Warlock says he feels like doing what he pleases regardless of the Wizard’s fond numbers; all while the Bard his singing and playing loudly about how the music is inside all of us, whatever that means.

Sunddenly a gruff voice speaks up. “EVERYONE SHUT UP!!!”

They go quite and a guy waaay in the back is finally given attention. “ if you guys can shut it for five minutes I’ll give my new project to try .” The man, a rather rough around the edges type, is fiddling with a device and a large array of tools at a table. He suddenly stands up and proclaims he’s finished and gestures to his... thing. The group gather around and ask what it is. “ it’s Magic you dolts. And it will replace all of you.” This man is the Artificer, and he is the engineer, the alchemist, the smith, and the scientist all rolled into one.

Every time I think of the Artifixer I think of this.

Edit: to be more clear, Artificers are practical magic, they’ll use magic to make something useful. Magic is more like a very useful tool they use to create devices they have a desired effect. Often times a device may be used by anyone, if they are willing to learn from the artificer how it works, other times it’s only useful to themselves, something that requires a bit more expertise .

[Talionis]

Artificers

I think Artificer infuses magic into items. The fluff can very from campaign setting to campaign setting... in some it could be runes, in others another way of casting magic into items, some it might actually be technology (Gamma World, etc), but I think the idea of the Artificer "casting" in combat is a bad idea.

I see the Artificer as being a full or half caster, not a 1/3 caster. If they are 1/3 casters by level then they need to have a lot more choices for spells and need to be able to cast a lot. But magic/technology is the class so there abilities should mostly come from that and the character should feel like it uses magic as much as a Wizard does even if they use magic in very different ways.

So first off, I would make every spell they cast be cast with the ritual mechanic to infuse it into an item which can then later be activated. Have a limit on how many spells can be active at a time. Much like Warlock can cast 1-4 spells per short rest, use a similar level structure to allow the Artificer to have 1-4 spells activated at a time. Realizing that this basically allows the Artificer to have spells that are permanently extended... This means you have to be careful with which spells are added to their list, and at what level they are added to their list. But that Foresight might be an appropriate spell for them to learn when others are learning ninth level spells because it actually works like I envision Artificer spells work.

I would keep the ability to attune to more magical items. I would expand the selection of Magical items the Artificer just makes at certain levels, give them the ability to repair/replace the item, but have that cause the magic from the original item fail, so no proliferation of items.

I would give them the Ritual Caster feat similar to the Warlock Tome ability.

I would grant them Expertise with (Arcana, Religion or Nature) and two sets of tools.

Sub Classes

Wandsmith/Gunsmith -- Think evoker who charms ammunition or wands. This allows for fluff in different campaigns. Possibly some "Gunsmiths" will just use bows, crossbow wielders, slings, javelins, hatchets, etc. Some could use guns, some could use wands. Give this spell list a couple offensive cantrips and evocation spells at levels 1-5 that get added to their spell choice list like domain spells or like Warlock spells to be selected. This could potentially also be used on armor.

Alchemist -- This player makes potions. Give them some good cantrips. Add some more healing/buffing spells to their spell list. Make them be able to craft during long rests, certain numbers of potions of varying levels that can hold effect similar to potions already available. The potions only keep their affect for 24hours so no amassing huge stockpiles.

Golemancer -- Have a class that can create artificial summon(s). The summons need to scale by level.

Rune/Scars Ritualist -- Have this be a self buffer. Think Totemists from 3.5E. Think something like a Hexblade/Gish that powers up through magic to be a melee character. Maybe the Runes have a static ability and a release ability that does something flashy, but then they lose the static 24 hour buff.

I think the class requires a lot of work, because I imagine it being different much like Warlock is very different from the rest of the casters. They had to think up many invocations to make Warlock work and hopefully they will continue adding more choices for invocations.

[TheCount]

Similar to what Talionis and Mortis_Elrod have in mind.

In a nutshel, they are crafters and not fighters, aka their mean focus would be support from the back, and not blasters, tank or damage dealer.

Though, my take is almost like the forgers from the chinese xanxia/wuxia/my-head-ache-xia stories for it...or close to (those specializing in forging can be though opponents if they get fighting experience)

basically, they cook stuff up

artificer could specialize into:

wandmaker (wands and staff) (focus on situational stuff)
runesmith (magic arms and armor) (focus on battle)
enchanter (jewelry and woundrous items) (utility/versatility)
potion maker (focus on buff)


meaning, they can do more items from that field, but thats just my idea.

and the extra attunments! thats mandatory for the class (i so hate attunment!!!)



sooo, lets cook a wand for controll undead:

you will need a skull, for the skull is where the brain is (in most cases...) and either wood from a tree that has grown in a cemetery, or more bones (plus pionts if they are from powerfull creatures, another if you got the spine *wink wink* to kill them yourself).

that done, you will need to know the spell's or effect's (aka, controlling the undead) in theory, at least... or have a good and solid idea of it.

and lastly, you need necrotic/negative energy to fuse and empower the staff (can be from any place where a lot of people died...preferably violent deads or a lot of dead thing are gathered, like graveyards, battlefields, or the slaughter house that was closed years ago but the neighboors sometimes hear screams.....

now, that you found these, you draw a ritual/magic circle to focuse the energy and fuse the materials with your idea/theory and hpe you get want. Its trial and error, and not every cursed item was intentional... at first.

[Typhon]

I see artificers as the down and dirty field/common technician/engineer/mechanic. They may not know or understand then higher level stuff about magic and enchantments, but they have a greater grasp of lower level magic and a greater inventiveness because of that limitation. Creating items that are limited and lasting or variable but temporary. Either way they get the job done, reliably.

Where as I see wizards as more the academic/scholarly/research oriented scientist/engineer. They can do everything artificers can do, but they would rather it be very involved and specialized. They might try a similar route but it might be much more complex and/or convoluted. Creating a spell specialized for a result, instead of using existing spells and knowledge to make a simple answer to a problem.

So an artificer would have an associates or bachelors degree in magic, while a wizard is a masters degree or higher in the same general field. The wizard might have a greater breadth of knowledge and understanding, but the artificer most likely has more experience in real world application and techniques.

[Moredhel24]

I see artificers as the down and dirty field/common technician/engineer/mechanic. They may not know or understand then higher level stuff about magic and enchantments, but they have a greater grasp of lower level magic and a greater inventiveness because of that limitation. Creating items that are limited and lasting or variable but temporary. Either way they get the job done, reliably.

Where as I see wizards as more the academic/scholarly/research oriented scientist/engineer. They can do everything artificers can do, but they would rather it be very involved and specialized. They might try a similar route but it might be much more complex and/or convoluted. Creating a spell specialized for a result, instead of using existing spells and knowledge to make a simple answer to a problem.

So an artificer would have an associates or bachelors degree in magic, while a wizard is a masters degree or higher in the same general field. The wizard might have a greater breadth of knowledge and understanding, but the artificer most likely has more experience in real world application and techniques.

Ditto. Artificer to me is the dude builds items that emulate the effects of spells. The representation of the Artificer I like is Dibastet's. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367999-5e-Homebrew-The-Artificer-%28of-Alancia%29

One of my WIPs is an artificer based off his with some of the UA mixed in, currently on hiatus and lost in my sea of notebooks
What i got so far:

expanded discoveries
vocation features granted at 1st, 3rd, 6th, 14th, and 17th level
machinist gains ua's mechanical servant
Magewright/Wandsmith vocation: new invention type = wands, can cast identify and detect magic as rituals craft magic items, and 1/3rd spellcasting
various other changes to base class and vocation features




[/LIST]

[Mortis_Elrod]

I see artificers as the down and dirty field/common technician/engineer/mechanic. They may not know or understand then higher level stuff about magic and enchantments, but they have a greater grasp of lower level magic and a greater inventiveness because of that limitation. Creating items that are limited and lasting or variable but temporary. Either way they get the job done, reliably.

Where as I see wizards as more the academic/scholarly/research oriented scientist/engineer. They can do everything artificers can do, but they would rather it be very involved and specialized. They might try a similar route but it might be much more complex and/or convoluted. Creating a spell specialized for a result, instead of using existing spells and knowledge to make a simple answer to a problem.

So an artificer would have an associates or bachelors degree in magic, while a wizard is a masters degree or higher in the same general field. The wizard might have a greater breadth of knowledge and understanding, but the artificer most likely has more experience in real world application and techniques.

If we were to degrees I’d say Wizards have a PHD in High Arcana and Magical Theory. Artificers have masters in Magical Applications, Alchemy, and Engineering. Probably physics too.

[Talionis]

As far as how Artificiers play, they should probably play much like Bards. They should have to focus their infusions to be a poor version of something else. They should be able to play most roles if built to play the roles, but probably not the best at those roles.

I don't see the Artificer having any face/Charisma synergies.

But I could see them playing like Rogues from a stealth exploration role, if they select the right magical items and use the correct spells runes because they can open locks and disarm traps.

I could see them playing support/buffing roles. I don't know if they need a full healing role... they get healing potions, but not Revivify. But they should get spells like Enlarge/Reduce, Enhance Ability.

I think they should not get Extra Attack. Maybe they can cast cantrips only if they have a wand? Maybe their cantrips are like Shileigh to any weapon they enfuse as a bonus action, let the damage scale like a normal cantrip or slightly better than a normal cantrip.

I didn't like the alchemist endless supply of potions and at the same time I liked that for attacks. I liked the idea and visual, but I wanted that to be more their "spells". I could see them getting good Control spells in some way.

[Vogie]

I would basically build it much closer to a Warlock skeleton, with the "Pacts" replaced by Paths, "Patrons" being replaced by Specializations, and Invocations replaced by Discoveries. The Mythic Arcanum are replaced by 4 levels of custom, unique creations that they'd make at higher levels.

Paths:
Path of the Master - Maker of Simulacrums. May focus on a single one (a la summoner) or multiple (Minionmancer)
Path of the Armament - Weaponsmithing, be they guns, wands, siege engines, you name it.
Path of the Armor - Armorsmithing, anything from Tailoring to Iron Man to Witchblade
Path of the Self - Includes Alchemists & mutation-chasers
Path of the Tinker - Universalist, dabbles in the spells from other classes, focuses on one-use items

Specializations:
Volcano - Focuses on Fire and Earth
Waterspout - Focuses on Water and Air
Aether - Focuses on Magic and the Immaterial
Ironwood - Focuses on Wood and Metal
Tempest - Focuses on Lightning and Chaos
Genetics - Focuses on Living Things

[Asmotherion]

When I think of an Artificer, I think of a Wizard. He knows magic, he can produce magic with his bare hands (or with the minimal help of an arkane focus), but his speciality is creating and infusing magic into objects to create lesser artifects, also known as "wonderous items".

The idea of someone with no magical talent creating a magical item appears alien if not a bit stupid to me. A non-magical item that has some properties? Sure. Call him an Inventor, but that's an other thing, and probably decent as a Rogue Archetype. But an Artificer, at least in my mind, is someone who deals with combining Magic and Technology, and to do that you need, not only great magical knowlage, but at least decent magic power the way I see it.

You asked our oppinions, this is my personal viewpoint. The Artificer should have stayed a Wizard Subclass as initially Designed. I know a lot of people won't agree with this, but I don't care, this is my opinion on the matter.

[Tetrasodium]

When I think of an Artificer, I think of a Wizard. He knows magic, he can produce magic with his bare hands (or with the minimal help of an arkane focus), but his speciality is creating and infusing magic into objects to create lesser artifects, also known as "wonderous items".

The idea of someone with no magical talent creating a magical item appears alien if not a bit stupid to me. A non-magical item that has some properties? Sure. Call him an Inventor, but that's an other thing, and probably decent as a Rogue Archetype. But an Artificer, at least in my mind, is someone who deals with combining Magic and Technology, and to do that you need, not only great magical knowlage, but at least decent magic power the way I see it.

You asked our oppinions, this is my personal viewpoint. The Artificer should have stayed a Wizard Subclass as initially Designed. I know a lot of people won't agree with this, but I don't care, this is my opinion on the matter.



It's not so much that the artificer is someone who has"no magical talent", it's someone who has "different magical talent & specialization" than a wizard.

As to being a wizard archtype vrs it's own class, in all honesty it does not matter one bit from a lore standpoint. However, from a game mechanics standpoint it makes a huge difference, you need only look at the hugevariety of warlock/sorcerer/paladin archtypes & cha based paladin/sorcerer/warlock multiclassing combinations or the variety itself allowed by having the three different flavors. Int has only wizard & just like a wizard but splashed with X stuff like arcane trickster/eldritch knight. Having a second int based class allows the wide variety of concepts that don't quite fit under wizard like warlock & pally do for sorcerer. It's probably better for all of us to have a second(artificer) and/or third(something psionic?) int based class than to have yet another wizard archtype

[Asmotherion]

It's not so much that the artificer is someone who has"no magical talent", it's someone who has "different magical talent & specialization" than a wizard.

As to being a wizard archtype vrs it's own class, in all honesty it does not matter one bit from a lore standpoint. However, from a game mechanics standpoint it makes a huge difference, you need only look at the hugevariety of warlock/sorcerer/paladin archtypes & cha based paladin/sorcerer/warlock multiclassing combinations or the variety itself allowed by having the three different flavors. Int has only wizard & just like a wizard but splashed with X stuff like arcane trickster/eldritch knight. Having a second int based class allows the wide variety of concepts that don't quite fit under wizard like warlock & pally do for sorcerer. It's probably better for all of us to have a second(artificer) and/or third(something psionic?) int based class than to have yet another wizard archtype

It's better for all of us if the game stays as it is, instead of adding random things to it in the form of new classes. When core mechanics of a system are symple, and options are limited to 12, it's easyer to navigate yourself through suboptions.

Creating more core classes threatens this general truth "There are only 12 Classes", and then you endanger the game to fall into the Chaos of 3.5 and 4e were core classes were spread across diferent PHBs and PHB2 and some DMs might or might not allow one or the other and you might not be able to play that class, because you looked at a book that was cannon in 3e but not in 3.5e

Trust me, limiting 5e to 12 core classes and handling everything else through Archetypes/Subclasses and Backrounds is the best thing that happened in D&D since Ever, at least for me and my prefearance to focus on the Role Playing aspect of the Game rather than the Numeric Values. If something needs re-fluffing, I either do so, or allow my players to do so on their class to play their concept without changing any mechanics.

A Wizard (Exact same mechanics) can become an amazing Psionic or Artificer without altering game Balance at all. Just give one a rotating crystal and 1 inch levitation above the earth, as a fluff ability, and the other an Arcane Focus that is a device of their choice, and they prepare and cast spells through it (except cantrips). Point proven.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's better for all of us if the game stays as it is, instead of adding random things to it in the form of new classes. When core mechanics of a system are symple, and options are limited to 12, it's easyer to navigate yourself through suboptions.

Creating more core classes threatens this general truth "There are only 12 Classes", and then you endanger the game to fall into the Chaos of 3.5 and 4e were core classes were spread across diferent PHBs and PHB2 and some DMs might or might not allow one or the other and you might not be able to play that class, because you looked at a book that was cannon in 3e but not in 3.5e

Trust me, limiting 5e to 12 core classes and handling everything else through Archetypes/Subclasses and Backrounds is the best thing that happened in D&D since Ever, at least for me and my prefearance to focus on the Role Playing aspect of the Game rather than the Numeric Values. If something needs re-fluffing, I either do so, or allow my players to do so on their class to play their concept without changing any mechanics.

A Wizard (Exact same mechanics) can become an amazing Psionic or Artificer without altering game Balance at all. Just give one a rotating crystal and 1 inch levitation above the earth, as a fluff ability, and the other an Arcane Focus that is a device of their choice, and they prepare and cast spells through it (except cantrips). Point proven.

I disagree. There is no assumption that there will always be 12 classes--that's not a hard core point anywhere. Sure, you can refluff anything, but you lose a lot of possibilities and cause a lot of setting dissonance.

On topic, I don't see an artificer as casting spells per se at all (meaning using spell slots and the same spell mechanics as casting classes). Most of that is aesthetic--an artificer should produce supernatural results through artifice, not by waving his hands in the air and chanting. I see them as a tinkerer, a gadgeteer, and/or an alchemist. A garage chemist, a backyard engineer. Not a mage-smith, not an academic, and certainly not a theoretician. They're seat-of-the-pants experimenters. They're the type who, when challenged, says "well, might as well try. What's the worst that can happen?"

From a game perspective, many of the suggestions are really hard to balance. Pets/summon heavy mechanics work better at the class level (not the sub-class level). My design was to make artificers primarily alchemists and secondarily technologists. They produce effects comparable to spells, but through different means and with other advantages and drawbacks.

[Throne12]

It's better for all of us if the game stays as it is, instead of adding random things to it in the form of new classes. When core mechanics of a system are symple, and options are limited to 12, it's easyer to navigate yourself through suboptions.

Creating more core classes threatens this general truth "There are only 12 Classes", and then you endanger the game to fall into the Chaos of 3.5 and 4e were core classes were spread across diferent PHBs and PHB2 and some DMs might or might not allow one or the other and you might not be able to play that class, because you looked at a book that was cannon in 3e but not in 3.5e

Trust me, limiting 5e to 12 core classes and handling everything else through Archetypes/Subclasses and Backrounds is the best thing that happened in D&D since Ever, at least for me and my prefearance to focus on the Role Playing aspect of the Game rather than the Numeric Values. If something needs re-fluffing, I either do so, or allow my players to do so on their class to play their concept without changing any mechanics.

A Wizard (Exact same mechanics) can become an amazing Psionic or Artificer without altering game Balance at all. Just give one a rotating crystal and 1 inch levitation above the earth, as a fluff ability, and the other an Arcane Focus that is a device of their choice, and they prepare and cast spells through it (except cantrips). Point proven.


This thread is not about if the game needs more classes it about Artificer's.

[Throne12]

Right now I have my Artificer player toying around with every rest he Cobbles together little Do hickeys. They are items with spells infused into them. He gets his int mod + half his Artificer level round down of items. For these items he has a spell list. He pick out a spell and Assigned it to a item. Then he can use that item or hand it off to someone else to use. But I'm having trouble on how to balance this out. And I fell the sud classes are great ideas but badly Executed.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Right now I have my Artificer player toying around with every rest he Cobbles together little Do hickeys. They are items with spells infused into them. He gets his int mod + half his Artificer level round down of items. For these items he has a spell list. He pick out a spell and Assigned it to a item. Then he can use that item or hand it off to someone else to use. But I'm having trouble on how to balance this out. And I fell the sud classes are great ideas but badly Executed.

That’s a good way to make a good baseline artificer. I think bonus spells based on subclass would work on artificer as well. Alchemist to me just needs more options and maybe a another feature. Not sure about Gunsmith tho.

I would rewrite the whole darn thing along with downtime creation rules. But it’s a good start

[rigolgm]

I think of a career class that is horrible because of how (I think?) there's no direct mechanism for recovering/restoring lost items.

So, unlike every other career class, you potentially deteriorate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think of a career class that is horrible because of how (I think?) there's no direct mechanism for recovering/restoring lost items.

So, unlike every other career class, you potentially deteriorate.

That's why I made mine alchemy based (with limited uses per rest) with the sub-classes giving easily replaced/repaired augmentations to your current gear (armor in one case, a ranged weapon in another). The gadgets can be replaced at monetary/time cost if necessary, but they're permanent items.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think of a career class that is horrible because of how (I think?) there's no direct mechanism for recovering/restoring lost items.

So, unlike every other career class, you potentially deteriorate.

I think thats a non issue. or at least less of one than you think. How often are martials losing their favorite weapon? or wizards their spellbook or foci or component pouches? or tools?

Not saying it doesn't happen but even if it does just have the artificer able to remake it and it be fine.

[Tetrasodium]

It's better for all of us if the game stays as it is, instead of adding random things to it in the form of new classes. When core mechanics of a system are symple, and options are limited to 12, it's easyer to navigate yourself through suboptions.

Creating more core classes threatens this general truth "There are only 12 Classes", and then you endanger the game to fall into the Chaos of 3.5 and 4e were core classes were spread across diferent PHBs and PHB2 and some DMs might or might not allow one or the other and you might not be able to play that class, because you looked at a book that was cannon in 3e but not in 3.5e

Trust me, limiting 5e to 12 core classes and handling everything else through Archetypes/Subclasses and Backrounds is the best thing that happened in D&D since Ever, at least for me and my prefearance to focus on the Role Playing aspect of the Game rather than the Numeric Values. If something needs re-fluffing, I either do so, or allow my players to do so on their class to play their concept without changing any mechanics.

A Wizard (Exact same mechanics) can become an amazing Psionic or Artificer without altering game Balance at all. Just give one a rotating crystal and 1 inch levitation above the earth, as a fluff ability, and the other an Arcane Focus that is a device of their choice, and they prepare and cast spells through it (except cantrips). Point proven.



artificer was a full level 1-20 class (not a PrC) when it was introduced in 3.5 on ECS page 30. The same goes for various level 1-20 psionic classes & PrC's but I don't know when they were first released or in what order. As to the rest of your post, they went past 12 long ago as both the artificer & mystic UA were as full classes rather than archtypes.



That’s a good way to make a good baseline artificer. I think bonus spells based on subclass would work on artificer as well. Alchemist to me just needs more options and maybe a another feature. Not sure about Gunsmith tho.

I would rewrite the whole darn thing along with downtime creation rules. But it’s a good start


The big problem with gunsmith imo is the gun & how so many of the later abilities are setup for the gun followed by things that make it act like the wand it should have been from the start. The end result is that you can't easily just refluff it to the wand it should have been to start with.

[Regitnui]

Trust me, limiting 5e to 12 core classes and handling everything else through Archetypes/Subclasses and Backrounds is the best thing that happened in D&D since Ever, at least for me and my prefearance to focus on the Role Playing aspect of the Game rather than the Numeric Values. If something needs re-fluffing, I either do so, or allow my players to do so on their class to play their concept without changing any mechanics.

Cut out most of it, but this is the part I agree with... The rest, nope.

You see, the Class-Subclass division gets rid of the problem of identical-but classes that plagued 3.5 and 4e. The fighter was the same as the samurai but for a twist on mechanics, as an example. But the class subclass mechanic is best used for those. An artificer is not an "item-wizard". It's a class revolving around making temporary magic items and building permanent ones over time. In fact, sorcerer has more in common with wizard than artificer does. Psionics have always felt distinct from magic, even though it replicates some of the effects. Simply refluffing a mage class onto that again, does the previously distinct class a disservice.

Unless they're bringing back incarnum or a similarly odd and distinct system, that's all the base classes we need, though. Though the artificer is a distinct class, psionics brings subclasses to pretty much everyone; psychic warrior (fighter), lurk (rogue), divine mind (cleric), wilder (sorcerer), soulknife for monk... The list goes on. Barring a system addition, the base classes are excellent after artificer (magic mcguyver batman) and psionics.

So while refluffing isn't bad, the artificer's interaction with items is a system addition, just like psionics. It needs a new class for support.

[Throne12]

So a few things I'm thinking about for the Artificer.
1. Let's get rid of the free magic items. Or I should say let's change it. I was thinking let make it were one of there cobbled together magic items. Becomes a permanent magic item. I was thinking of thinking of lowing the number of them to maybe 2 or 3. They won't count towards the Arificers attunment slots but only for the Artificer.

2.Let's keep the Mechanical servant in the based class but let's do a bit more with it.

3. Sud-classes we will stick to the Alchemist and gunsmith. But let's change gunsmith to weapon Smith or something Vage but where you can tell what it'll go. This way we can fluff are blasting weapon in any way we want. You call it a wand, someone else calls it a gun, I call it a blasting gauntlet.


Oh we need a spell list so the Infused item can have effects. What do y'all think.

[Asmotherion]

This thread is not about if the game needs more classes it about Artificer's.

The thread title, if I'm not mistaken, is "What comes to mind when you think about an Artificer?"
And, my reply to that is that an Artificer is a Wizard who combines magic with technology.
Everything else is about explaining that I believe they were fine as a Wizard (Subclass) and that nothing more is needed. The rest is my explaination about this viewpoint.

If you want to rant to someone about derailing from the core point of the thread, it wasn't me who originally brought psionics on the proverbial table. I just broadened the subject to include them in my example.

No offence. I'm just deffending my case, because I feel unjustly targeted.

[mephnick]

Nothing comes to mind. It's not a fantasy archetype I'm aware of and thus I don't really care about it.

If it's actually about magic+machinery then I can ignore it because that's not my type of fantasy.

[Regitnui]

Nothing comes to mind. It's not a fantasy archetype I'm aware of and thus I don't really care about it.

If it's actually about magic+machinery then I can ignore it because that's not my type of fantasy.

It's about the sort of bloke who picks a stick off the ground, shaves off the end and casts a fireball through it that burns the stick to ash... But blows the kobold to Dolurrh.


The thread title, if I'm not mistaken, is "What comes to mind when you think about an Artificer?"
And, my reply to that is that an Artificer is a Wizard who combines magic with technology.
Everything else is about explaining that I believe they were fine as a Wizard (Subclass) and that nothing more is needed. The rest is my explaination about this viewpoint.

If you want to rant to someone about derailing from the core point of the thread, it wasn't me who originally brought psionics on the proverbial table. I just broadened the subject to include them in my example.

No offence. I'm just deffending my case, because I feel unjustly targeted.

An artificer isn't a wizard, though. It's never been a wizard. And the item wizard they presented us was just boring.

And you're not unfairly targeted. You were aware your opinion was controversial. A controversial opinion draws reply.

[Asmotherion]

It's about the sort of bloke who picks a stick off the ground, shaves off the end and casts a fireball through it that burns the stick to ash... But blows the kobold to Dolurrh.



An artificer isn't a wizard, though. It's never been a wizard. And the item wizard they presented us was just boring.

And you're not unfairly targeted. You were aware your opinion was controversial. A controversial opinion draws reply.

I was replying to Throne12 specifically, who accuses me of derailing from the subject. I am aware my oppoinion is controversial, and I actually agree with some of your previous points (on your other post) and critisism over mine.

I liked the "Item Wizard" Artificer, for two main reasons:
A) It fits the 5e general design better.
B) It has it's own interesting options, wile at the same time still being a full power Wizard. Since you can alter the visuals to whatever you want, you can have him cast spells through a "Magi-technological Glove with a complex runestone function" or whatever fits the Fantasy Trope you're going for. That's my taste at least. Bonus if your DM allows a steampunck-clockwork toy-familiar that combines the concepts of elemental magic (a steam mephit perhaps) bound to a clockworck animal. (Same stats as the fammiliar creature, but it is instead considered a construct instead of a celestial, fey or fiend). Sometimes, a bit of imagination can give everything a class needs to become IMO.

What could be focused on, is perhaps a re-creation of that Item Wizard, and an enhancment of that concept. I would work on that if I was to incarnate an Artificer in my Game, rather than a new class (which I would ban).

[Regitnui]

What could be focused on, is perhaps a re-creation of that Item Wizard, and an enhancment of that concept. I would work on that if I was to incarnate an Artificer in my Game, rather than a new class (which I would ban).

But then you're not playing an artificer, but a wizard using items. It's the distinction between a psionicist and a wizard who is refluffed.

[Throne12]

I was replying to Throne12 specifically, who accuses me of derailing from the subject. I am aware my oppoinion is controversial, and I actually agree with some of your previous points (on your other post) and critisism over mine.

I liked the "Item Wizard" Artificer, for two main reasons:
A) It fits the 5e general design better.
B) It has it's own interesting options, wile at the same time still being a full power Wizard. Since you can alter the visuals to whatever you want, you can have him cast spells through a "Magi-technological Glove with a complex runestone function" or whatever fits the Fantasy Trope you're going for. That's my taste at least. Bonus if your DM allows a steampunck-clockwork toy-familiar that combines the concepts of elemental magic (a steam mephit perhaps) bound to a clockworck animal. (Same stats as the fammiliar creature, but it is instead considered a construct instead of a celestial, fey or fiend). Sometimes, a bit of imagination can give everything a class needs to become IMO.

What could be focused on, is perhaps a re-creation of that Item Wizard, and an enhancment of that concept. I would work on that if I was to incarnate an Artificer in my Game, rather than a new class (which I would ban).

One in sorry if I hurt your feels with that post.



Next we can just give a wizard some magical items and call him a Artificer. It about the way the character use magic. You wouldn't call a bard, cleric, warlock, druid and sorcerer. Wizards because they use spell focuses wave there hands around and chant words of power. Would you?


I think I'll get rid of spells altogether and have abilities they Assign to items.

[Vaz]

Magic Item Crafting for the party's benefit.

[Arkhios]

Magic Item Crafting for the party's benefit.

I would add "Fast" to the Magic Item Crafting, because (IIRC) Artificer could craft them significantly faster than usual.

[Squiddish]

For me, an Artificer isn't a wizard. He's not even a magic engineer. He's a magic mad scientist. The things he cobbles together shouldn't work. They don't work for anyone else (at least not very well or reliably). The stereotypical gnomish engineer is this idea--bits and pieces of rube-goldberg machinery, frequent explosions, obsession, etc.

I tried putting together a version of this, but it's incomplete. The WIP can be found in this google doc (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNH1DpxdNWDSXCmGlJ7Ks-4WD2dOQrj43mv1Ftba-pU/edit?usp=sharing). Comments (PEACH) are welcome, as are suggestions to flesh out the concoctions.
I would just like to add the phrase "madgic scientist" to the discussion, maybe debate on the spelling a bit.


Nothing comes to mind. It's not a fantasy archetype I'm aware of and thus I don't really care about it.

If it's actually about magic+machinery then I can ignore it because that's not my type of fantasy.

It can be about magic+machinery, but more often it's about magic in the form of items rather than or in addition to spells. Most versions delve into magitech a little, such as magic versions of guns or constructs that serve you.

I'd also like to share a version of the artificer that my DM found a while ago.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H1ZDtpyaT-

I feel like it solves a lot of the problems of the original UA artificer while preserving the more interesting parts. Also a bit more setting-agnostic.

[Throne12]

I would just like to add the phrase "madgic scientist" to the discussion, maybe debate on the spelling a bit.



It can be about magic+machinery, but more often it's about magic in the form of items rather than or in addition to spells. Most versions delve into magitech a little, such as magic versions of guns or constructs that serve you.

I'd also like to share a version of the artificer that my DM found a while ago.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H1ZDtpyaT-

I feel like it solves a lot of the problems of the original UA artificer while preserving the more interesting parts. Also a bit more setting-agnostic.

I really like that one thanks.