Jeremy talks Artificer

[Kane0]

For those interested:
https://youtu.be/PxQxu_sbSlM

Is the survey still open?

[Seclora]

It is not, I just checked

[Damon_Tor]

Very interesting stuff. I love to hear it's well past the "publishable" threshold.

Interesting to hear that they're seriously considering making the pets optional features. Anyone care to speculate what an alternative might be? Maybe that's a good topic for a new thread.

[Kane0]

Happy to discuss it here :smallsmile:

I'm sort of surprised that it was as highly rated as it was. Maybe i'm just a bit critical and the average player doesn't care about the intricacies as much. To me it's still very rough around the edges and needs a lot more tweaking before release, lest we end up with another hexblade.

The previous version's satchel was cool, and some set-and-forget passive buffs could be a viable replacement. Also more spell-slot or infusion powered options.

[Damon_Tor]

My idea for a pet replacement would be some kind of portable workshop. It would include all the stuff you need to perform your craft at the highest level but can't fit in a backpack. So for a blacksmith it would include a forge and smelter, for a brewer it would include stills, etc. For travel, it would fold itself up into a self-propelled wagon.

At level 7 you could imbue your workshop with a level 4 or lower artificer spell, and once per day you can use the workshop to cast it as a ritual. (The archtypical choice here would be fabricate.) At later levels you could give it higher level spells and increase the uses per day.

[KorvinStarmast]

My response to the survey was negative.
IMO, it is overly fiddly.
It needs another scrub before going live, or we end up with the Hexblade bloat problem again.

[Appleheart]

I'm sort of surprised that it was as highly rated as it was. Maybe i'm just a bit critical and the average player doesn't care about the intricacies as much. To me it's still very rough around the edges and needs a lot more tweaking before release, lest we end up with another hexblade.

I think in general these forums go into the nitty gritty details about these things more than the average player probably does.

The latest version of the Artificer, to me at least, is thematically great and in broad strokes and bigger picture formats a great, fun, and interesting class.

The problems with the Artificer really is in the details and the fine print. I just hope that they don't overlook those smaller details before releasing it. :)

That said, I don't mind the int-based attacks on the Battle-Smith. Hexblade wouldn't be nearly as Hexblade-y if it required higher levels to come online, and if it wasn't a Cha-based class in the first place. And I don't mind Hexblade, I like alternate scaling options for different character builds.

[NaughtyTiger]

I am biased against Artificer battle pets, because it is another thing whittling away at Beastmaster.


I think in general these forums go into the nitty gritty details about these things more than the average player probably does.

I think that we are average players. Just cuz every DnD player isn't on this forum doesn't mean many of them don't argue about it.
Before forums, we would sit around the lunch table going into the nitty gritty details. I would meet up with random folks at camp, and find that we argued about the same things with the same intensity.

[Trustypeaches]

Honestly I think the only thing the Artificer needs is more features / scaling for Tiers 3 and 4 and some more infusions. Other than that I'm pretty satisfied.

[Vogie]

I am biased against Artificer battle pets, because it is another thing whittling away at Beastmaster.


I think it's very telling (and JC brings this up in the video) that the Artificer pets are designed around non-damage abilities. The Iron Defender's main function is the Protection Fighting style (Defensive Pounce) and the Homunculus' ability to gift inspiration, flying speed, and THP. The one that is focused on damage, is the least like a pet - it's just a turret, and a self-destructive one at that.

I wouldn't be surprised if the new ranger isn't around the corner, using some of the mechanics they designed based on the Artificer designs and Revised ranger.

[Eragon123]

I wouldn't be surprised if the new ranger isn't around the corner, using some of the mechanics they designed based on the Artificer designs and Revised ranger.

I think its actually the other way around. (https://imgur.com/kOhgfPw)

A lot of the draft ideas for the reworked ranger got picked up by the artificer since they have seemed to have dropped A full ranger rework.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think that we are average players. Just cuz every DnD player isn't on this forum doesn't mean many of them don't argue about it.
Before forums, we would sit around the lunch table going into the nitty gritty details. I would meet up with random folks at camp, and find that we argued about the same things with the same intensity.

I doubt it we are the average player. In my small anecdotal experience with different 5e D&D players, few actually care about nitty grittys. I've found more people focused on flavor than mechanics in this edition, and i really only see flak for Hexblade online.



I am biased against Artificer battle pets, because it is another thing whittling away at Beastmaster.

Another thing whittling away at beastmaster its that its poorly designed.

We shouldn't say the artificer cant have nice things because Beastmaster is bad. We should say fix Beastmaster.

Personally i think its fine. The only change to the Artificer i would do right now would be to put a little more limitation on the archivist.

[Damon_Tor]

I think its actually the other way around. (https://imgur.com/kOhgfPw)

A lot of the draft ideas for the reworked ranger got picked up by the artificer since they have seemed to have dropped A full ranger rework.

IIRC, there was some official communication confirming that there would never be a Revised Ranger. No idea where I read this or what the context was, but that's my recollection.

[Waterdeep Merch]

I like the artificer as a kind of overly-fiddly kit for huge nerds that want to obsess over pages of concrete tools to find the right one for each job. It's thematic, and satisfying for the right sort of player. Much in the same way a wizard is. So I'm all for adding in even more optional parts and letting the player travel down the deepest of rabbit holes.

It could probably use a 'champion' archetype for that rare player that wants to play a tinker narratively but has zero patience in learning the sort of system that could allow something like that to function. I know at least one player like that, and he's struggled to use the current version even as other players have embraced the complexity.

[Man_Over_Game]

IIRC, there was some official communication confirming that there would never be a Revised Ranger. No idea where I read this or what the context was, but that's my recollection.

Realistically, it just wouldn't make sense. The game is 5 years old, and replacing one of the core classes, when they've only had the original 12 for this long, would be a nightmare for the edition.

Rather, it'd be a lot simpler to output subclasses that work and scale (like how the Xanathar's classes have scaling spell slots), and include more and more additions to the Ranger-specific spell list. Tack on a few level 4 spells that have long durations, focuses on attacking/being attacked, and no Concentration (so it's effectively a permanent buff that doesn't work with the Bard's playstyle), and that'd be much less of a trauma than replacing the Ranger class. Also print out some more books like Xanathar's, that include a whole bunch of rules on exploration/ambushing/party splitting that coincidentally are enhanced by having Rangers in the party, and that'd make everyone happy.

Now it's no longer a:
"Welp, we f***** up and we're replacing one of our 12 classes after not printing a single new one out for 12 years. Our Bad. Hope you don't feel cheated and you'll trust us not to make the same mistake again."
but instead it's a:
"Hey, we made a new book and a bunch of new spells to allow new (playable) playstyles into the game! Buy it and make your game (and Rangers) better! Expect more books in the store later this year!"

[stoutstien]

Realistically, it just wouldn't make sense. The game is 5 years old, and replacing one of the core classes, when they've only had the original 12 for this long, would be a nightmare for the edition.

Rather, it'd be a lot simpler to output subclasses that work and scale (like how the Xanathar's classes have scaling spell slots), and include more and more additions to the Ranger-specific spell list. Tack on a few level 4 spells that have long durations, focuses on attacking/being attacked, and no Concentration (so it's effectively a permanent buff that doesn't work with the Bard's playstyle), and that'd be much less of a trauma than replacing the Ranger class. Also print out some more books like Xanathar's, that include a whole bunch of rules on exploration/ambushing/party splitting that coincidentally are enhanced by having Rangers in the party, and that'd make everyone happy.

Now it's no longer a:
"Welp, we f***** up and we're replacing one of our 12 classes after not printing a single new one out for 12 years. Our Bad", but instead it's a:
"Hey, we made a new book and a bunch of new spells to allow new playstyles into the game! Buy it and make your game (and Rangers) better!"

Yea, still pissy they didn't include expanded spell list for phb rangers in a splat yet. It would take less than 1/4 of a page.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yea, still pissy they didn't include expanded spell list for phb rangers in a splat yet. It would take less than 1/4 of a page.

The thing is, adding a buff like that is directly making a statement of "These Subclasses are Bad". You can't do that after someone's already bought a product.

You can clarify things so that things are more in-line with how they're supposed to be, or to fix misprints, but you're never supposed to admit to making a mistake over something you actively chose to do in a product. It's akin to saying "Your product deserves a recall", minus the part about actually getting a recall.

It also creates problems between different printings. An errata is usually so niche and compact that it's easy to make minor adjustments based off of clarified rulings, but changing balance opens the floodgates, which leads to players demanding more balance changes (which causes more printing/balance concerns). It creates mistrust.

I can see it now. "Are the subclasses bad, or is just the Ranger bad? If changes are being implemented for the subclasses, shouldn't we just get a reprint of the Ranger class to address all the root concerns? Well, if Rangers happen to suck due to a campaign/table mismatch, what should we expect to happen with Warlocks when DMs only want to run one fight per day? Or what should we do if DMs just ignore Cover rules or don't use Difficult Terrain or Encumbrance when I have a feature that relates to those things?"

It took them 5 years to update the Beastmaster to have the Companion use the Dodge action when you don't give it a command. One sentence of content-specific balance changes every few years. I'd say that's what we should expect.

I don't think they're necessarily reluctant to make changes, I just think they're being very cautious and methodical about it so that they aren't backtracking too much. They're a business, and you don't stay the biggest TTRPG company by ignoring the Company side of things.

[MaxWilson]

We shouldn't say the artificer cant have nice things because Beastmaster is bad. We should say fix Beastmaster.

Beastmaster is better than it used to be--at least now your pet doesn't stand there like an idiot all the time. It's still a little bit dumber than a conjured animal, but considered in isolation the Beastmaster's pet is now almost not annoyingly stupid.

Also, some of the mechanical issues at high levels (weapon-resistant foes) are now gone.


You can clarify things so that things are more in-line with how they're supposed to be, or to fix misprints, but you're never supposed to admit to making a mistake over something you actively chose to do in a product. It's akin to saying "Your product deserves a recall", minus the part about actually getting a recall.

It also creates problems between different printings. An errata is usually so niche and compact that it's easy to make minor adjustments based off of clarified rulings, but changing balance opens the floodgates, which leads to players demanding more balance changes (which causes more printing/balance concerns). It creates mistrust.

Whether or not they should have, changing the Beastmaster balance is exactly what they did in errata. I think it was a positive thing overall. Quoting for the sake of those who haven't seen recent printings:



[New] Ranger’s Companion (p. 93). The following sentence has been added to the end of the first paragraph: “Like any creature, the beast can spend Hit Dice during a short rest.”

A new third paragraph has been inserted: “If you are incapacitated or absent, the beast acts on its own, focusing on protecting you and itself. The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.”

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, the phrase that begins “though it doesn’t take …” has been deleted.

In the third sentence of the second paragraph, “Dodge,” has been deleted. After that sentence, this one is added: “If you don’t issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.”

[New] Exceptional Training (p. 93). “Dodge,” has been deleted. Another sentence has been added: “In addition, the beast’s attacks now count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage.”

Bestial Fury (p. 93). This section has been changed to “Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.”


Healing Spirit also fixed a major issue with beast healing, namely that the beast doesn't actually have very many HD to spend during short rests--but with Healing Spirit, that's irrelevant, and Beastmasters can keep their pets at full health all day long.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The thing is, adding a buff like that is directly making a statement of "These Subclasses are Bad". You can't do that after someone's already bought a product.

You can clarify things so that things are more in-line with how they're supposed to be, or to fix misprints, but you're never supposed to admit to making a mistake over something you actively chose to do in a product. It's akin to saying "Your product deserves a recall", minus the part about actually getting a recall.

It also creates problems between different printings. An errata is usually so niche and compact that it's easy to make minor adjustments based off of clarified rulings, but changing balance opens the floodgates, which leads to players demanding more balance changes (which causes more printing/balance concerns). It creates mistrust.

I can see it now. "Are the subclasses bad, or is just the Ranger bad? If changes are being implemented for the subclasses, shouldn't we just get a reprint of the Ranger class to address all the root concerns? Well, if Rangers happen to suck due to a campaign/table mismatch, what should we expect to happen with Warlocks when DMs only want to run one fight per day? Or what should we do if DMs just ignore Cover rules or don't use Difficult Terrain or Encumbrance when I have a feature that relates to those things?"

It took them 5 years to update the Beastmaster to have the Companion use the Dodge action when you don't give it a command. One sentence of content-specific balance changes every few years. I'd say that's what we should expect.

I don't think they're necessarily reluctant to make changes, I just think they're being very cautious and methodical about it so that they aren't backtracking too much. They're a business, and you don't stay the biggest TTRPG company by ignoring the Company side of things.

They did once say they might do an optional alternative class feature or something for the Ranger. Honestly it shouldnt be that hard to post a free online pdf of some optional changes you could make if you feel dissatisfied with the class/subclass. The fixing through more good content is literally a cover up of the problems and not a real solution. Especially when i have to pay for the cover ups. Thats the type of stuff to make me want to not play 5e.

As far as im concerned it is never too late to fix whats broken. Figure it out. Recalls aren't needed. Reprints aren't needed. Just give us a different option and we'll use what we want. Heck don't even bother with the base class just do the beastmaster. That way other classes can have pets without people pointing to it saying its not fair.

[Kane0]

Honestly it shouldnt be that hard to post a free online pdf of some optional changes you could make if you feel dissatisfied with the class/subclass. The fixing through more good content is literally a cover up of the problems and not a real solution. Especially when i have to pay for the cover ups.

As far as im concerned it is never too late to fix whats broken. Figure it out. Recalls aren't needed. Reprints aren't needed. Just give us a different option and we'll use what we want.

Agreed. This sort of thing was managed in the 80s before the internet, surely it can't be a big roadblock now. WotC doesn't strike me as the kind of company that is obsessed with never admitting fault, or at least Mearls and Crawford don't appear to be.