Artificer is coming in the next month UA - it's confirmed!

[Daphne]

From D&D Twitter: The next Unearthed Arcana will be released in February and will be the Artificer! Thanks for your patience as we take this month to finish it. (https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/1083963895260286976)

[Kane0]

Oooh pretty stoked!

[Foxhound438]

I believe mr. Jaappleton called this almost a week ago, a 100% confirmation of it is pretty cool.

but please let it have a L11 feature... unlike the last one...

[samcifer]

I hope the gunsmith keeps the extra damage dice. I played one during a one-shot as a time and space-displaced cowboy (blunderbuss was re-skinned as a Winchester rifle and the sabre-tooth tiger construct was re-skinned as a dire wolf) and really enjoyed playing that kind of character.

[Sindal]

Ooo neato .
Heres hoping for a good serviceable class.

[jaappleton]

I believe mr. Jaappleton called this almost a week ago, a 100% confirmation of it is pretty cool.

but please let it have a L11 feature... unlike the last one...

Well, Jeremy Crawford kinda confirmed it to me. I just posted about it. :smalltongue:

Slightly bummed out we don’t get a January UA, especially that they waited until two days before the January deadline, but I’ll happily take this trade off. It’ll be worth it.

My biggest questions are:

1/3rd Caster, or 1/2 Caster?
Extra Attack (for at least one Archetype) or no?
Is there one archetype focusing mainly on the 'pet'?

[Beechgnome]

I'm very interested in this, particularly if Baker may be part of the process. I think we saw the improvements in races, Dragon marks etc once he got involved directly in Eberron content and am hoping he has some input in this too.

I am really hoping for a half caster with a few more subclasses.

[jaappleton]

I'm very interested in this, particularly if Baker may be part of the process. I think we saw the improvements in races, Dragon marks etc once he got involved directly in Eberron content and am hoping he has some input in this too.

I am really hoping for a half caster with a few more subclasses.

My understanding of Baker's involvement is this:

The design team sat down with Baker. They went through a very large list of all things Eberron. Races, magic items, etc. He told them how it all works lore-wise. The design team took that, and mechanically fit it into 5E. Then, Baker looked over it with them, and essentially asked, 'Does this feel like how you envisioned it?'

Its my understanding that Baker had little involvement with making things work mechanically, but he's been giving thumbs up / thumbs down on whether or not the designs capture the essence of Eberron.

Remember, Baker doesn't work for WOTC. He's essentially a private contractor right now. But the fact that they brought him in, essentially to 'get it right', is a very good sign.

[Aett_Thorn]

So excited for this!

Here’s hoping that they’ve been able to fix some of the core problems with the last version, while not making it overpowered. Here’s my wishlist of features:

1) Pet restricted to a single, more focused subclass

2) More choices for Alchemist potions and some actual scaling for the non-damage ones

3) Half caster, and some unique options for things that they can do with spell slots besides just casting the spells (plus a list that is inclusive of Xanathar’s spells)

4) If they have a “create a magic item” class feature again, then a way to recreate the item should it be lost or damaged

[jas61292]

I think the biggest question with regard to the Artificer is whether it is designed for Ebberon, or if it is simply inspired by Ebberon. In the case of the former, it can make assumptions about magic item levels and whatnot, and thus include the creation type things that I've seen a number of people say they want. If it is simply inspired by Ebberon, and designed to be usable anywhere, then the only way they can make it create anything is if the creations have extreme limitations, like only being usable by the artificer themselves, or being limited to a very small number of creations existing at once.

Personally, I really liked the ideas in the last version of the Artificer, and hope they stick with something similar, but better refined. Of course, I don't actually care about Ebberon itself, so that certainly colors my views. I actually really liked them as a 1/3 caster with a rogue like offensive progression, as it is not something we have really seen (outside the rogue itself). I know a number of people want a half caster because it didn't feel magic enough, but I don't think they can give it all the cool kinds of stuff they had if they improve the casting, and I think that would be a shame. I do agree though with those who felt the mechanical beast should be its own subclass. That was the one thing that really felt tacked on. Though, honestly, I wouldn't mind if they just dropped it completely. Its existence feels unnecessary when Beastmaster Ranger exists, especially if they do end up changing it to a half caster.

[Max_Killjoy]

Let's hope this one is a little less wonky than the last one.

[Damon_Tor]

Pet restricted to a single, more focused subclass

A while back I tossed out some ideas for an artificer revamp where subclass picks happen at level 3, but at level 1 they get a minor version of whatever feature defines the subclass, including a smaller gun (basically just a heavy crossbow that uses Int instead of Dex for attacks), some minor potion-making ability, and a familiar-esque construct. Then at level 3 they either get the really good gun, the really good potions, or the really good construct, but they keep the minor version of the other two features. So a gunsmith would still wind up with a tiny "familiar" construct, but wouldn't get the mountable war-beast the construct specialist would get.

[jaappleton]

So excited for this!

Here’s hoping that they’ve been able to fix some of the core problems with the last version, while not making it overpowered. Here’s my wishlist of features:

1) Pet restricted to a single, more focused subclass

2) More choices for Alchemist potions and some actual scaling for the non-damage ones

3) Half caster, and some unique options for things that they can do with spell slots besides just casting the spells (plus a list that is inclusive of Xanathar’s spells)

4) If they have a “create a magic item” class feature again, then a way to recreate the item should it be lost or damaged

Emphasis mine.

Not happening, unfortunately. Due to their PHB+1 rule, they don't want to include spells that are exclusive to other books. Unless... Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron ALSO reprints those spells, though I don't see that as being likely. They had a great opportunity to include non-PHB spells as Domain Spells for Forge and Grave Clerics in Xanathar's, but refused.

[Tectorman]

Emphasis mine.

Not happening, unfortunately. Due to their PHB+1 rule, they don't want to include spells that are exclusive to other books. Unless... Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron ALSO reprints those spells, though I don't see that as being likely. They had a great opportunity to include non-PHB spells as Domain Spells for Forge and Grave Clerics in Xanathar's, but refused.

All the more reason why they should just take the PHB +1 rule and drop it in a dumpster once and for all. I mean, as it stands, you can play a Shadow Elf (Shadar-Kai), you can play a Shadow Sorcerer, but god forbid you play a Shadar-Kai Shadow Sorcerer (because of all the races that could be Shadow-themed Sorcerers, of course Shadow-themed Elves would be the last on the list). And that's just the beginning of a long list of completely intuitive and thematically appropriate character concepts that get shut down for absolutely no reason than because "Oh noes, they were printed in different books".

[Arkhios]

My biggest questions are:

1/3rd Caster, or 1/2 Caster?
Extra Attack (for at least one Archetype) or no?
Is there one archetype focusing mainly on the 'pet'?

I'd like if it was a 1/2 caster.

I think that the previous version was a bit too stuffed with too many abilities that were all over the place.

So, I'd prefer seeing Alchemist, Gunsmith, and a third one focused on a mechanical servant as separate sub-classes, with Extra Attack only as a gunsmith, if at all.

Also, I'd like to see Gunsmith name changed for something else.

[Talionis]

I agree I hope it’s not just for Eberon. I am never a fan of arbitrary fluff limits on a class. Gunsmith should have no real reference or requirement for a gun or crossbow just an option that allows it to work with all missile weapons generically so you could use Magic Stones a crossbow a javelin blow dart crossbow. Just give more creative options to build strange missile attackers those kinds of buffs should balance and naturally allow them to be used with modern weapons if your game allows those variants but allows the class in games where it’s not.

I hope the construct is not a class feature. A spell like Paladin Steed spells might be a good way to go maybe like create undead it requires casting daily. Maybe it also gets better the higher spell slot it’s cast out of it. Thus the construct can scale but it has a real cost to that scaling. That spell might not be available or scalable with all Patrons or Pacts.

On that mark I hope the Artficier has a much broader spell list possible all spells available with range personal or touch. Maybe with tweaks that allow for all spells to be cast as rituals but have longer duration maybe the class can have two or three concentration spells active at a time but this be a nine level ability and eighteenth level ability for three. I’d also make the class half caster. Maybe the number of known spells is small and they have a spell book that can record all spells level lower than two available at level fourteen?

I agree with a Hexblade like ability to use weapons with Intelligence but I’d make this a third level ability so it’s not too easily dipped. Another idea would be to make it a can trip that is always on after cast but must be recast after “six” (my gut to begin play testing) attacks to emulate recharging or reloading.

I’d like to see options for playing the character like a Dex character and a heavy armor character obviously not at the same time. So a dual tree mechanic system like Warlock Pact and Patron would be appropriated to add complexity diversity and replay.

I am not advocating all my ideas at once or that the ideas are balance or proper at the levels I suggested just starting points for thoughts on an eventual new class which I will by the book only for this class.

[Max_Killjoy]

All the more reason why they should just take the PHB +1 rule and drop it in a dumpster once and for all. I mean, as it stands, you can play a Shadow Elf (Shadar-Kai), you can play a Shadow Sorcerer, but god forbid you play a Shadar-Kai Shadow Sorcerer (because of all the races that could be Shadow-themed Sorcerers, of course Shadow-themed Elves would be the last on the list). And that's just the beginning of a long list of completely intuitive and thematically appropriate character concepts that get shut down for absolutely no reason than because "Oh noes, they were printed in different books".

It comes across as an effort to eat their cake and have it too -- they can print a ton of books with classes, subclasses, races, etc, scattered around to entice purchasing, but because combinations across books are limited, they have to worry less about how it all balances with different combinations.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I'm glad they gave a heads up. Even if its a couple days before, still progress and I appreciate it.
Still irked that it took this long to for artificer to be given another redo but i guess better late than never?

So I'm hoping for a complete class overhaul. But here's the gist of what I'm wanting:
-1/2 caster
- base line combat options for class
- more than 2 subclasses
- tools as magical focus
- 5th level feature instead of extra attack usual for 1/2caster. Maybe one subclass gets EA but not baseline.
- crafting is also baseline, but each subclass gets some special stuff they can make.


Besides that there are so many ways they could do this that are both amazing and horrible that I'm not gonna hype any more than mild interest.

[Rhedyn]

I hope it's a "fullcaster" but does it uniquely like an Artificer should. I hope Alchemy, Gunsmithing, and a third subclass get reduced to cantrip effectiveness and the class focuses on the "infusions" and magic item crafting.

[n00b]

I can't help but think with hearing everyone's expectations it's going to be a huge disappointment. Because all the ideas I hear sound quite OP.

[stoutstien]

well we currently don't have a int based half caster so there a giant void that artificer can fill. honestly the only one ive seen that is balanced and very well written is https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LAEn6ZdC6lYUKhQ67Qk

[PhoenixPhyre]

It comes across as an effort to eat their cake and have it too -- they can print a ton of books with classes, subclasses, races, etc, scattered around to entice purchasing, but because combinations across books are limited, they have to worry less about how it all balances with different combinations.

Note that the PHB+1 rule is only for AL. And it's specifically for this reason. To avoid the "have to know/buy everything to be competitive or to DM" problem. As a side effect, it lowers the barriers to entry on the game and makes AL DMing easier, especially when getting started.

[Beleriphon]

Emphasis mine.

Not happening, unfortunately. Due to their PHB+1 rule, they don't want to include spells that are exclusive to other books. Unless... Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron ALSO reprints those spells, though I don't see that as being likely. They had a great opportunity to include non-PHB spells as Domain Spells for Forge and Grave Clerics in Xanathar's, but refused.

PHB + 1 is an AL rule, not WotC. That said Wizard's doesn't cross publish stuff as reference other than the core because they don't want anybody to hve to buy books they don't want to. The idea is only ever need the core, plus supplements you want, rather than the core plus a supplement you want, and that other book that has one spell. Which I appreciate.

[Kite474]

My hope is its not as utterly boring as the last one.

Like the last one mechanically was fine but good lordy were your options not exactly exciting. The Gunner subclass beingbthe worst about it

[Max_Killjoy]

Note that the PHB+1 rule is only for AL. And it's specifically for this reason. To avoid the "have to know/buy everything to be competitive or to DM" problem. As a side effect, it lowers the barriers to entry on the game and makes AL DMing easier, especially when getting started.


PHB + 1 is an AL rule, not WotC. That said Wizard's doesn't cross publish stuff as reference other than the core because they don't want anybody to hve to buy books they don't want to. The idea is only ever need the core, plus supplements you want, rather than the core plus a supplement you want, and that other book that has one spell. Which I appreciate.

Fair enough. Though I do wonder how it is that having more books would make a player "more competitive"...

[Zonugal]

Fair enough. Though I do wonder how it is that having more books would make a player "more competitive"...

Do you not remember the 3.5 edition of D&D?

[Max_Killjoy]

Do you not remember the 3.5 edition of D&D?

I do, but 5e seems like a determined effort to avoid that.

Anyway, sorry, I'm doing my tangent / digression thing again, go back to the Artificer.

[Aett_Thorn]

Emphasis mine.

Not happening, unfortunately. Due to their PHB+1 rule, they don't want to include spells that are exclusive to other books. Unless... Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron ALSO reprints those spells, though I don't see that as being likely. They had a great opportunity to include non-PHB spells as Domain Spells for Forge and Grave Clerics in Xanathar's, but refused.

Eh, for a UA, at least they could include spells from that source just so that non-AL tables could see what the full list would look like. It’s not like AL tables can use UA anyways.

[Anonymouswizard]

Fair enough. Though I do wonder how it is that having more books would make a player "more competitive"...

I have to agree, especially as they don't have to release mechanics-focused books (as 3.X and 4e tended to do). They could easily release a bunch of fluff-focused books, potentially without any character options, and people would still buy them. I mean, I'd probably buy a Greyhawk worldbook which just had maps and area descriptions without any mechanical discussion, I'd potentially buy several that went into more detail.

I'd also buy books which are intentionally meant to be non-compatible with the PhB. As in, a book with a set of races or classes meant to be used in isolation and specifically not intended to be used alongside the PhB ones. Take the system and give something other than high magic high fantasy.

[Foxhound438]

All the more reason why they should just take the PHB +1 rule and drop it in a dumpster once and for all. I mean, as it stands, you can play a Shadow Elf (Shadar-Kai), you can play a Shadow Sorcerer, but god forbid you play a Shadar-Kai Shadow Sorcerer (because of all the races that could be Shadow-themed Sorcerers, of course Shadow-themed Elves would be the last on the list). And that's just the beginning of a long list of completely intuitive and thematically appropriate character concepts that get shut down for absolutely no reason than because "Oh noes, they were printed in different books".

I would agree with this... Note that they got around this with the Triton in Volo's guide by having a EEPC spell in a sidebar for them.

I think they could do the same for artificer here, since most of the spells in XGtE are in turn from the EEPC, and those aren't really artefact-y in general. Tiny Servant would certainly fit the bill, but one spell could easily be sidebarred for the class to use.

[strangebloke]

Just remember, guys, don't be over-the-top angry when it isn't precisely what you expected.

This is a new base class. They've very simply never released a new one since the original twelve, and anything they do release as beta material is going to be pretty problematic

[Contrast]

Just remember, guys, don't be over-the-top angry when it isn't precisely what you expected.

This is a new base class. They've very simply never released a new one since the original twelve, and anything they do release as beta material is going to be pretty problematic

...you mean apart from the last time (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf)? :smallconfused:

[Arkhios]

...you mean apart from the last time (https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/1_UA_Artificer_20170109.pdf)? :smallconfused:

It's still same 13th class they're churning out. That it has had multiple versions before now doesn't matter. The most recent version is what matters in the books.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just remember, guys, don't be over-the-top angry when it isn't precisely what you expected.

This is a new base class. They've very simply never released a new one since the original twelve, and anything they do release as beta material is going to be pretty problematic

On the one hand, after 12 base classes and two previous iterations I don't expect it to be that bad. Probably a bit strong or weak, and it'll be tweaked before going into a book, but I expect it to be at the very least a semi-solid option in need of tweaking but inherently sound (partially because I remember that describing the previous version).

However, as it's role (focus on magic items and tool use) isn't that similar to any of the 'original twelve' (bah! there were originally four!) I don't expect it'll look much like what people are expecting. It'll likely be a third caster or a half caster, with expertise in one or more tools, a handful of minor items, and a big item their subclass revolves around (potion bag, boom stick, robot, ect.), an evolution of what we've seen instead of anything new. I do highly expect to see the ability to substitute spell slots for magic item charges, but I don't think there will be any major changes from the last version.

Or else they'll remove the spellcasting entirely and add options for artificers just using advanced technology, but I don't think that is likely at all (a massive shame to me, but I'll still happily play a magic item maker).

[Mercurias]

Well cool! I’m excited for this!

I hope they keep the Gunsmith element to the class as an option. I know it devours your bonus action, but given that the class has so much utility I feel like it makes sense for that to be in place with the level of damage Thundemonger provides. I could see being able to chamber one or maybe two more rounds at once as a class feature at higher levels, but overall I do like that reloading is an element.

I love everything about the existing Artificer in concept (ho doesn’t want to fly on an Enlarged mechanical Giant Owl while chucking firebombs?), but I feel like it could do with streamlining.

[strangebloke]

It's still same 13th class they're churning out. That it has had multiple versions before now doesn't matter. The most recent version is what matters in the books.

Yes, this was precisely my point.

[Beechgnome]

I think the XGE spells they should get are catapult, snare, pyrotechnics, skywrite, flame arrows, tiny servant and, if they go half caster, skill empowerment. But if they had to include just one spell, I think tiny servant has to be there.

I would be sad to see the pet construct go entirely. One of my favourite NPC villains of all time was a plague doctor gunsmith who had a pet giant octopus construct strapped to his back.

[samcifer]

Just remember, guys, don't be over-the-top angry when it isn't precisely what you expected.

This is a new base class. They've very simply never released a new one since the original twelve, and anything they do release as beta material is going to be pretty problematic

*Makes a wisdom save to control temper... Total result: 3*

"Well, so much for that..."

*Takes a deep, steadying breath, then screams furiously as he flips over the table with both hands.*

[sambojin]

well we currently don't have a int based half caster so there a giant void that artificer can fill. honestly the only one ive seen that is balanced and very well written is https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LAEn6ZdC6lYUKhQ67Qk

I just read through all that, and it's pretty good. Kind of limited on some of the features compared to base classes, but nice and flavourful. And who doesn't want an Ironman suit?

The only potentially OP things I saw in it were probably the repeatable poison condition from the alchemist (though there's plenty of poison immunes, I'm a bit of a condition inflicting junky from all my Druid play), and the unlimited 30' lightning cones at lvl5 of the gunsmith (it's low damage, but geez that's a lot of AoE, even at low ranges).

I'm not sure I want them going in entirely that direction for the Artificer UA, but that's some really well made homebrew there.

[Daithi]

I like playing a sorlock as a sniper type character using a staff and EB as kind of magical rifle. So, I'll be comparing the artificer against this type of character. If it is close in power and provides some cool options I'll be happy.