Artificer Initiate RAW/RAI question/request of opinions

[Arkhios]

Artificer Initiate feat has three features, and the last one is what I'm wondering about:

You gain proficiency with one type of artisan's tools of your choice, and you can use that type of tool as a spellcasting focus for any spell you cast that uses Intelligence as its spellcasting ability.

Have I understood this correctly: If I chose, say, alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus, essentially I could cast all of my spells that use Intelligence as if I was an Artificer; creating magical effects by means of alchemy.

In other words, for example, as a Wizard I could cast Fireball through alchemist's supplies, which would essentially mean that as part of "casting" the spell, it could be that I'd throw a bottle that explodes in roaring flames.

I realize this is an odd question, and borders between RAW and RAI, at least I think it does.

Do you see it the same way, or is there something I may have missed about being an artificer?

[RogueJK]

In other words, for example, as a Wizard I could cast Fireball through alchemist's supplies, which would essentially mean that as part of "casting" the spell, it could be that I'd throw a bottle that explodes in roaring flames.

RAW, using an item as a spellcasting focus just involves holding it and using it as a means to focus/gather magical power.

So instead of holding a wand or a crystal like a Wizard, an Artificer might be holding their smithing hammer or woodcarving chisel and focus on that when they cast a spell.

But you're free to flavor your spellcasting however you want. If you want to have a "Mad Scientist" Wizard, then sure, you could flavor it that they're lobbing bottles of alchemical substances at enemies. At least for some spells. Understand that this approach will not exactly make total sense with every spell. Like a spell with a range of several hundred feet... Can your 8 STR Wizard realistically throw a bottle that far? Or a spell that doesn't require line of sight... How can your Wizard throw a bottle at something it can't see, from around a corner? Or a utility spell like Locate Object or Sending or Dream... What does throwing a bottle have to do with those very long range, more ephemeral effects?

My point is, while it's potentially a cool theme for some more straightforward damage spells, there's going to be situations in which stuff like throwing physical objects or splashing liquids just isn't going to make sense. Then you're back to the RAW of simply "gathering/channeling magical energy" in order to magically achieve the desired spell effects.

[Arkhios]

RAW, using an item as a spellcasting focus just involves holding it and using it as a means to focus/gather magical power.

So instead of holding a wand or a crystal like a Wizard, an Artificer might be holding their smithing hammer or woodcarving chisel and focus on that when they cast a spell.

But you're free to flavor your spellcasting however you want. If you want to have a "Mad Scientist" Wizard, then sure, you could flavor it that they're lobbing bottles of alchemical substances at enemies. At least for some spells. Understand that this approach will not exactly make total sense with every spell. Like a spell with a range of several hundred feet... Can your 8 STR Wizard realistically throw a bottle that far? Or a spell that doesn't require line of sight... How can your Wizard throw a bottle at something it can't see, from around a corner? Or a utility spell like Locate Object or Sending or Dream... What does throwing a bottle have to do with those very long range, more ephemeral effects?

My point is, while it's potentially a cool theme for some more straightforward damage spells, there's going to be situations in which stuff like throwing physical objects or splashing liquids just isn't going to make sense. Then you're back to the RAW of simply "gathering/channeling magical energy" in order to magically achieve the desired spell effects.

I see your point, and I concur. It was a flawed idea. And yet, it served a purpose to decide whether I'd take the feat or not, and it seems likely that I wouldn't.

After all, even though I could indeed flavor spellcasting however I want, I'd much rather do it within the expectations of RAW, and the RAW doesn't support the idea I had in mind, and I must seek for another solution, if there is one; essentially I had hoped to find a way to create bombs, much like the Alchemist class from Pathfinder. Currently, 5e doesn't offer much in that regard. The only other way I can think of for having bombs is the DMG's optional rules for firearms and thus, grenades and such. Sadly, it's not what I was looking for.

[MadMusketeer]

In other words, for example, as a Wizard I could cast Fireball through alchemist's supplies, which would essentially mean that as part of "casting" the spell, it could be that I'd throw a bottle that explodes in roaring flames.

I mean, you definitely could - nothing stopping you - but the only mechanical reason you'd want to is so you could use the Alchemist's 5th level ability on Wizard spells, possibly (if you roll really high for stats) for some Scribes/Wildfire/Alchemist/Hexblade one-trick-pony version of the Nuclear Wizard with an even more bonkers Magic Missile but much worse everything else, or something of that nature. Is it worth it. Absolutely not. Is it fun to think about, and would it be fun in a one-shot? Absolutely.

[Arkhios]

I mean, you definitely could - nothing stopping you - but the only mechanical reason you'd want to is so you could use the Alchemist's 5th level ability on Wizard spells, possibly (if you roll really high for stats) for some Scribes/Wildfire/Alchemist/Hexblade one-trick-pony version of the Nuclear Wizard with an even more bonkers Magic Missile but much worse everything else, or something of that nature. Is it worth it. Absolutely not. Is it fun to think about, and would it be fun in a one-shot? Absolutely.

Bold assumption that your opinion is the only one, but sure, it's a valid reason nonetheless.

That said, in this particular case I had no intention to multiclass with Artificer (to or from). The feat was the only option I was considering in that regard. I'm merely weighing my options to possibly make alchemy worth my while in-game, and possibly to replicate Witcher bombs to certain extent.


Fighter (Living Crucible (https://www.worldanvil.com/w/diabboru---grim-hollow-diabboru/a/living-crucible-article)) 18/Wizard (either War Magic or Order of Scribes) 2

We are using the 3rd party Grim Hollow material for our campaign and so, I have more or less decided to at least try out the Living Crucible archetype from said rules, but for reasons of my own, I want to spice it by dabbling in wizard.
War Magic intrigues me because Arcane Deflection works remarkably well to replicate Witcher's Quen sign, but then again, if I wanted to distance myself a bit further from Witchers, there's a character background related reason to go for Order of Scribes instead.

Background is Knight of the Order, and the Order is an Order of the Tome (it's a homebrew campaign so I've had relatively free hands to come up with the details myself. In short, they are an order of scholarly knights also known as Templars of Four Pointed Star - an ancient organization who have forgotten their origins and purpose a long time ago).

[Mastikator]

Sounds like a straightforward and correct reading of the rules. Any spell with an M component and INT mod gets to be used with alchemy tools as the spellcasting focus.

By RAW you are allowed to re-flavor spells as long as the mechanics don't change, saying you pull out a bottle and have it explode.

By RAW artificers are supposed to re-flavor their spells into magi-tech, meaning an artificer that uses magic as a wizard would is kinda sort a little bit doing it wrong.

[Arkhios]

By RAW you are allowed to re-flavor spells as long as the mechanics don't change, saying you pull out a bottle and have it explode.

I'm not saying you're wrong about this. I've just been unable to locate where it is said that you can do that, so could you (or someone else) provide me with the actual RAW on this.

[Mastikator]

I'm not saying you're wrong about this. I've just been unable to locate where it is said that you can do that, so could you (or someone else) provide me with the actual RAW on this.

Tasha's chapter 3: personalizing spells
"Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells"

Same book that introduces the Artificer Initiate feat, so if you have the feat then the book is allowed and thus re-flavoring your spell is fully RAW.

[Dualight]

"Personalizing Spells", TCE p. 116-117, and for the artificer specifically the "The magic of Artifice" sidebar on TCE p. 11. These are the sections that explicitly call out the possibility of reflavouring spells as you see fit, within the bounds of not changing the spell's mechanics. The PHB, meanwhile, appears to be silent on this topic, not commenting on spells specifically as far as I can tell.

[Arkhios]

Tasha's chapter 3: personalizing spells
"Regardless of what type of spellcaster you’re playing, you can customize the cosmetic effects of your character’s spells"

Same book that introduces the Artificer Initiate feat, so if you have the feat then the book is allowed and thus re-flavoring your spell is fully RAW.

"Personalizing Spells", TCE p. 116-117, and for the artificer specifically the "The magic of Artifice" sidebar on TCE p. 11. These are the sections that explicitly call out the possibility of reflavouring spells as you see fit, within the bounds of not changing the spell's mechanics. The PHB, meanwhile, appears to be silent on this topic, not commenting on spells specifically as far as I can tell.

Ah, yes! Of course, I wasn't paying enough attention to the entirety of TCE, only the feats section.

So, naturally, I dived in to search the answer from PHB, and couldn't find anything there.