Greywander
2020-11-21, 06:52 PM
The issue with Last War's version of the artificer was that they had to hold a spell focus (tool or infused item) in order to cast any of their spells, even if they didn't have an M component. As per one of the more common interpretations of spellcasting rules (though perhaps not the only valid reading of those rules), you can't perform somatic components with a hand holding a spell focus unless that spell also has an M component. Furthermore, costly components also require a free hand to use, but you're still required to also hold your spell focus. Thus, for both somatic-only spells and spells with costly components, you actually needed both hands to cast that spell. This is further exasperated by artificers having proficiency with shields, so of course they're going to want to have a shield in one hand, which means they have to have their spell focus in the other. Now, you could infuse your shield and use that as your spell focus while keeping your other hand empty, but 2 out of 3 subclasses need a specific spell focus in order to gain the full benefit of their subclass (alchemist's tools for the alchemist, and the arcane firearm for the artillerist), while the remaining subclass really wants to hold a weapon in their non-shield hand, so we're back to having both hands full.
The version of the artificer in Tasha's seems to change the wording slightly. It still says that you need your spell focus in hand, but now it has a parenthetical clarification that this means that all of your spells now have an M component. It's still... very oddly worded, though. They could have just said that (a) all of your spells have an M component (which specifically requires a spell focus, rather than the specific materials), and (b) you can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus. Instead, they still say you need the focus in hand, but the clarification seems to imply that this only means that the focus is the M component for the spell. A strict reading would seem like you still need to hold the focus, but a more permissive reading would allow you to access the focus on your person if you have a free hand, just like any other M components or spell focus.
What do you think? Does this fix the issue, or is it still kind of broken?
Personally, I still feel like they should have removed V and S components, only requiring M components for artificer spells. Or they should have left it being identical to any other spellcaster. In any case, I've written up my own revised artificer that replaces spellcasting with an expanded spell-storing item system (which I think is more interesting and better fits both the theme and playstyle of the artificer), so if I should play an artificer at some point I'd probably see if the DM would let my use my homebrew version. But if I had to use an official version, Tasha's at least seems to be an improvement, if only slightly.
The version of the artificer in Tasha's seems to change the wording slightly. It still says that you need your spell focus in hand, but now it has a parenthetical clarification that this means that all of your spells now have an M component. It's still... very oddly worded, though. They could have just said that (a) all of your spells have an M component (which specifically requires a spell focus, rather than the specific materials), and (b) you can use a tool or infused item as a spell focus. Instead, they still say you need the focus in hand, but the clarification seems to imply that this only means that the focus is the M component for the spell. A strict reading would seem like you still need to hold the focus, but a more permissive reading would allow you to access the focus on your person if you have a free hand, just like any other M components or spell focus.
What do you think? Does this fix the issue, or is it still kind of broken?
Personally, I still feel like they should have removed V and S components, only requiring M components for artificer spells. Or they should have left it being identical to any other spellcaster. In any case, I've written up my own revised artificer that replaces spellcasting with an expanded spell-storing item system (which I think is more interesting and better fits both the theme and playstyle of the artificer), so if I should play an artificer at some point I'd probably see if the DM would let my use my homebrew version. But if I had to use an official version, Tasha's at least seems to be an improvement, if only slightly.