What would be the best way for the Artificer to be implemented in 5th Edition?

Any ideas? What do you think it will look like when/if it's implemented? 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
Personally I want it to be a kind of Wizard/Alchemist type deal. Creating alchemical items from scratch and imbuing them with magic to make them even more powerful. So I guess I'd like them to have spells of some sort that allow them to temporarily enchant items or create new minor/temporary magical items like elixers.
Hmmm...maybe

Hit Die: d8

Bab: Low

Armor Prof: Light

Weps: Simple Melee/Ranged Plus any loader ranged weps 

Class Feature: Arcane Crafters Mastery- Training in Knowledge Arcana and one Craft skill of choice.

When making a skill check with the chosen crafting skill, roll two skill dice and take the higher.

Casting: Class specifc cantrips (like mend item). Imbues and Alters per day per caster level.

Imbues = short term effects that imitate magical properties that increase in power and effect with

level. These would have daily spell slots.

Alters (Permanent/Short Duration) = alters magical item properties permanently, such as flaming

to frost, or acid resist to thunder (a permanently altered property could not be changed again, but

other properties on an item could be); Or, temporarily (minutes or rounds) alters the physical property

of an item to mimic another, steel to silver, mithral to adamantine. These effects would be level

dependent and on a per-day basis (as clerics divine channel) starting at level 5, gaining one more use

per-day at 10, 15, and 20 for a total of 4 per day at 20.


Class: Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard...one time Artificer

 

Magic Colors: Red/Blue

id rather see them as a tinkerer than modifying magic items. loved tinker gnomes in dragonlance but i didnt play 4th so i dont know much about the class
...it's from third edition, not fourth (although the fourth edition was my favourite version of the class)
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
I'd rather see Artificers looking more like they do in M:tG than they do coming out of Eberron -- machinists that specialize in making quasimagical devices, potentially even constructs.

I'd probably give them d6 hd, Light Armor at best, Poor attacks, and a limit to the number of items/creations they can sustain the magic of  based on their level and the complexity ("spell level") of the item/creation.  In fact, it might be fitting to give them a pool of "power" resource that they can allocate to activate their inventions.  As for what inventions, well, you'd need a standard list of schematics/patterns that they can learn from, and perhaps a list of standard modifications that can be added onto a basic schematic for a cost of extra power-to-use.  At the start, many would have a base power cost too high for the artificer to even attempt: no golem servitor fighting your battles at level 1....

Come to think of it, this is sounding mechanically a lot like 3e's Incarnum, plus "Summons" as an option.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I'd rather see Artificers looking more like they do in M:tG than they do coming out of Eberron -- machinists that specialize in making quasimagical devices, potentially even constructs.



I'll second this one!  Urza (pre-ascension) or Dunstan, please, none of this faux-magic crap!
I'd rather see Artificers looking more like they do in M:tG than they do coming out of Eberron -- machinists that specialize in making quasimagical devices, potentially even constructs


I really don't mind the more "pure magic" bent of the 3e Artificer, given how indistinguishable "magic" and "technology" are in Eberron.

Buuuuut, yeah, I fell in love with the idea of an "artificer" from M:tG (yes, Urza pre-ascension; what is that incredibly awesome M:tG book that doesn't really even have much magic in it?  The Brothers' War?), and from more steam-punk-y fare like Arcanum.

Honestly, what would really, really make me happy?  A robust class that could support any of the different concepts folks are spitting out, as well as any blend of those concepts that people might want.

Quasimagical machinist with a sprinkling of "supercharged magical enchanting"?  Awesome.  That should be doable.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
We don't know what crafting is going to be like yet, so too soon to tell. Personally I'm hoping for an overhaul of crafting, which wouldn't require you to be an artificer to effectively and efficiently craft anything, but artificers would be the best at it and be able to imbue their items with special properties not available to others.
I'd rather see Artificers looking more like they do in M:tG than they do coming out of Eberron -- machinists that specialize in making quasimagical devices, potentially even constructs


I really don't mind the more "pure magic" bent of the 3e Artificer, given how indistinguishable "magic" and "technology" are in Eberron.

Buuuuut, yeah, I fell in love with the idea of an "artificer" from M:tG (yes, Urza pre-ascension; what is that incredibly awesome M:tG book that doesn't really even have much magic in it?  The Brothers' War?), and from more steam-punk-y fare like Arcanum.

Honestly, what would really, really make me happy?  A robust class that could support any of the different concepts folks are spitting out, as well as any blend of those concepts that people might want.

Quasimagical machinist with a sprinkling of "supercharged magical enchanting"?  Awesome.  That should be doable.


Yeah, The Brothers' War.  Not just a strong contender for the best M:tG tie-in novel, but a good, solid fantasy novel in its own right.

I agree with your "robust/supportive" goal.

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

Yeah, The Brothers' War.  Not just a strong contender for the best M:tG tie-in novel, but a good, solid fantasy novel in its own right.


That is the only M:tG novel I ever bothered to read, and it really is one of my favorite fantasy novels in general, just for being so excellent.

I haven't been able to find my copy in years, and just noticed they printed it in a collection with a few other books.  Think I might pick that up to re-read The Brothers' War, and get a few "bonus" novels as well.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Like a lot of other people, I'd prefer an artificer that feels more like a magical engineer/alchemist and less like an enhancement-focused wizard, but I don't know how to pull it off in a satisfying manner. I've tried. I've tried in both 3.5 and 4e. It's hard not to veer too far into Moneymancer territory, where you end up with a class that has to pay to fight reasonably (something that really doesn't appeal to me) or into a sort of cartoony hammerspace gizmo guy.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

Hmm. Mechanically, there are some issues with this based on the approach we've seen to other classes so far. Nothing insurmountable but I'd be interested to see how their "no magic items by default" approach would work with a character that basically makes magic items. Temporary imbues are cool. Clockwork pets would be great too.


I've not read the M:tG books and I haven't played the card game since before the Ice Age expansion but one of my absolute favourite sets ever (in my time playing) was Antiquities, which is basically the set that tells the Brothers' War story.


Anyway. The biggest issue I see with an artificer class in 5e is there's a serious drive to limit the number of active buffs on anything, and the artificer seems to naturally fit as a class based entirely on active buffs. I think their base numbers (attack bonus et al) and proficiencies would have to be pretty bare bones to make it work.


I think their powers would look pretty spell-like as well, but I like the idea of imbues.

Yeah, The Brothers' War.  Not just a strong contender for the best M:tG tie-in novel, but a good, solid fantasy novel in its own right.


That is the only M:tG novel I ever bothered to read, and it really is one of my favorite fantasy novels in general, just for being so excellent.

I haven't been able to find my copy in years, and just noticed they printed it in a collection with a few other books.  Think I might pick that up to re-read The Brothers' War, and get a few "bonus" novels as well.



Do eet.  Artifacts Cycle I, the omnibus it's now available in, pairs it with The Thran, another somewhat worthwhile novel that happens to be a prequel to it. Tongue Out
My problem with the artificer, which I believe was created to be a party support class, as a tinkerer or roboteer, instead of an arcane manipulator, is that the artificer is then focused far more on controlling and adapting his creations than on a mechanic the whole party uses, magic (gear or otherwise). I see this as functionally being the Summoner's eidolon mechanic from PF and as flawed as that concept, because the creations simply become extra members of the party, quite possibly overshadowing certain roles consistently because the creations are permanent, not temporary like summons.

Contraptions and bombs are already covered in equipment and skills whcih any class can use, why make a whole class that does what everyone else can?

Artificer abilities should have specific effects and durations that do not occur in Wizard spell lists for enhancement spells, or the class is simply not needed.

5e has some very specific feelings about magic items and artifacts, it would be nice if a dm could allow some wiggle room in there without having to house rule anything by letting an established class be played for that purpose.

Further, magic is 'tech' in D&D, even the 'constructs' are made with magic...I just don't see the two as being seperable effectively. 

In conclusion, I always saw the artficer as an arcanist providing party support of a different flavor, not a robot maker living in a world of wizards that can summon things (functionally superior for combat or skill checks to any permanent construct because they can be summoned to fit the situation without overshadowing a role due to finite wizard spells per day and limited spell duration) at will and contribute a myriad of other useful spells to the party. The former seems like a waste of time (and a party slot), due to the later being available.

Class: Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard...one time Artificer

 

Magic Colors: Red/Blue

Ok I know I say this a lot, but STEAL FROM TEPHRA!

It's a game designed with the mad scientist, and uber tinkerer's in mind.  

Instead of giving the artificer broad magical item creation abilities force them to specialize. An alchemist has different abilities from the construct crafter who is different from the mage smith.

Then as they level up they gain the ability to make a limited number fo specific items based on their build, and have the ability to customize them a bit.

For example  a first level alchemist might have the ability to brew up x potions per day/per short rest/whatever (for no gold or exp cost) based on a list of potion recipes known, then the individual potions/recipes (depending on the level of granularity you desire) could be enhanced with things like increased area, mixed effects, clinging, empowered, etc. These enhancements would also be limited by level and choice so you can't empower, clinging, increase area and admixture every single potion you make.

Construct crafters on the other hand would have a set number of constructs they can maintain and each one would be alloted a few upgrades as your level progressed. These constructs would advance with level and the ones with especially relevant combat abilities might eat some of your actions to use.

Mage smiths could be worked on a per enchantment basis (i.e. they can maintain x enchants at a time) or a per item basis (they can enchant x items at a time), and then be allowed to tweak the various enchants/items as they level up.

Throw in a few shared abilities such as the ability to royally jack up people's armor and weapons (even natural ones), and bingo. 
Artificer as a concept was unique to 3E-style magic items, which came in many varieties and were plenty. DND Next, so far, does not subscribe to the Monty Haul style delivery of magic items, instead choosing to see them as rare and wonderful. I  don't think the magic item infusion concept translates well to DND Next, so artificers will look like something bizarre.

I am not sure how successful they were in 4E (didn't they create clockwork henchmen or something?), but I'm sure DND Next's artificers will look more like 4E and less like 3E.
Artificer as a concept was unique to 3E-style magic items, which came in many varieties and were plenty. DND Next, so far, does not subscribe to the Monty Haul style delivery of magic items, instead choosing to see them as rare and wonderful. I  don't think the magic item infusion concept translates well to DND Next, so artificers will look like something bizarre.

I am not sure how successful they were in 4E (didn't they create clockwork henchmen or something?), but I'm sure DND Next's artificers will look more like 4E and less like 3E.




Yes any arcane infusion would have to be temporary (effectively making it no more potent than a spell), a matter of rounds, or altered with an already existing magic item that the dm put into or rolled into the campaign. Unless 5e seeks to do away with magic item manipulation/customization altogether.

I see these as the only possible solutions to a 'magic items are rare' (because it mucks up BA) mentality that can still find room for the Artificer as the party support/arcanist it was originally designed to be. This is important to someone like myself who wishes the class that he has played the most not be changed too drastically at its core, much like someone that wants to play a fighter in 5e still wants to use weapons.

I do agree to the premise that this class will look strange in the 5e that we have seen, so it will most like be relegated to a module/setting that caters to the "I like magic stuff in my campaigns, but I want to play 5e because its new" audience.

*There were a few ways to build the Artificer in 4e. I found the 'clockwork Artificer' the least appealing for my playstyle and hope that the mechanical restrictions that they have built into the system of 5e don't preclude me from an enjoyable play experience.

Class: Sorcerer/Wizard/Bard...one time Artificer

 

Magic Colors: Red/Blue

I am not sure how successful they were in 4E (didn't they create clockwork henchmen or something?), but I'm sure DND Next's artificers will look more like 4E and less like 3E.

Artificers in 4e had a few different types of skills. Their leader specialty was buffing. The flavor of enchanting weapons and armor mid-combat led them to getting somewhat more complex skills than the average leader class. (For example, a zapping lighting spell that also puts an enchantment on an ally's armor that zaps the next foe that hits them.) All artificers could "charge up" items - both limited-use magical items, to give them another use for the day, or any ordinary weapon or implement, to boost the next attack made with it.

Artificer healing worked in a unique way. Most 4e leaders had a healing ability that could be used twice per combat that, when used on an ally, allowed the ally to spend a healing surge with some bonus healing and also sometimes gave the ally another benefit, typically tied to the leader's specialty (the ability to adjust your position for Bards, etc.) Artificers instead got an ability that was used between encounters to produce "infusions", which they could maintain two of at a time (three at high levels.) The infusions cost a healing surge to create, but that healing surge could come from anybody. Then, when they were used  to heal (or provide THP or resistances, which were also options), the target was simply healed for a large amount without having to actually spend a healing surge, which is how most leader healing works. This gave artificers the incredible ability to effectively "spread around" the party's healing surges.

They had a number of subthemes -
- Buffing, as mentioned above. Artificers were king among leaders, perhaps, at the art of just making allies' numbers larger. Magic Weapon is often considered the best leader at-will ability in the game.
- Granting abilities to allies that the allies could then use at their whim. "Sigil" effects granted an ally an ongoing bonus that could be discharged for a bigger effect. For example, a sigil effect might cause an ally's weapon to be infused with cold, dealing extra cold damage. When the ally hits an enemy, they can choose to discharge the enchantment into the enemy to freeze them solid. (Or they can keep on using the cold damage bonus, if they prefer.)
- Mechanical constructs. These used the summoning rules, and tended to be defensive in nature (although several are offensively-oriented.)
- Protective inturrupts. This was a weird subtheme that is due to a Dragon article, and one that I don't think all that many people noticed, but the Artificer had access to a ton of powers that allowed him or her to inturrupt enemy actions to provide some benefit.
- "Hit that guy" abilities. Artificers had a large number of abilities that had some trigger when the targeted enemy was hit by one of your allies. (See above for how artificers tended towards somewhat convoluted abilities.)

The 4e artificer is an exciting and cool class to play, but is pretty much a combat enchanter. It does try to do the engineering thing a little, but that's harder to translate. Also, while there were some very notable exceptions, the "combat enchanter" abilities tended to be somewhat stronger than the engineering-themed abilities. (Something that I doubt was intended, although it's partially a reflection of the fact that in 4e granting bonuses is very good and summoning is kind of a niche thing, and the Artificer was better than everyone at granting bonuses and not one of the better summoners.) The clockwork assistants were among the flashier abilities, but ultimately, making a robot that you can funnel your actions through to do 1d10+stat damage isn't really as good as using those actions for making an attack with a bonus to hit that does 1d10+stat damage and then gives all your allies a bonus to hit and a bigger bonus to damage.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Unless they include the assumption of magic items and bonuses in 5E any representation of an artificer is going to restrained against its traditional presentation. This affects the 3E version more than 4E.
Unless they include the assumption of magic items and bonuses in 5E any representation of an artificer is going to restrained against its traditional presentation. This affects the 3E version more than 4E.

Or its stats on the class table is gonna suck and they're going to make them up through their items/pets/imbues.

I want the artificer to be the guy with goggles, a homemade flamethrower, boots with springs in them, a magic grappling hooks, and a helper robot.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

The 4e artificer is an exciting and cool class to play, but is pretty much a combat enchanter.


In that respect, I see the Artificer as having the same "issues" as the "full Assassin class" that folks want.

An Artificer could be (and has been, to some degree or another) any of the things we've all piled into this thread... but there also needs to be (or will be, regardless of need) effective Enchantment/Transmutation/Item Creation(if you allow it at all at your table) option outside of the class.

Like the Assassin, a pretty big chunk of how some people think of the class is at best going to overlap significantly with another class (or option), and at worst be made exclusive to someone else.  Which isn't really that bad.  I suspect that, just as I can play a "mundane assassin" using a 5e Rogue, I'll probably be able to play a "combat-enchanter artificer" using a 5e Wizard (maybe?).

I don't think that necessarily hurts the class - it just means that it needs to be built to emphasize all of these other concepts a bit more.

(Which may just be a long way of saying "I'd personally turn the focus to an aspect of the class other than 'enchanting'.")


EDIT: Wasn't there a 3e prestige class (from a forgotten realms book - maybe even the core one) that touched on the "artificer" concept, and predated the full Eberron Artificer class?  I want to say it focused more on the "technological gadgets" element, though discussed it in terms of duplicating spell effects.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
It should not be a new class.  A specialty of the wizard class is all that's needed.    

 


It should not be a new class.  A specialty of the wizard class is all that's needed.    

 


I don't think a series of feats is going to do anyone's Artificer characters justice.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
There's more than enough previous-E material to do an Artificer class in 5E justice.

- He's your "technomancer", the medieval/fantasy equivalent of a hacker.
- He can graft body mods
- He can build his own pet
- He can construct his own traps
- He can analyze constructs and knows their weaknesses
- He can whip up alchemical concoctions


"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
I would kill incarnum and give similar abilities to the artificer, making a class for magic items lovers, turning them into medieval iron man or tribal fetishes/talismans users.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Instead of giving the artificer broad magical item creation abilities force them to specialize. An alchemist has different abilities from the construct crafter who is different from the mage smith.

Then as they level up they gain the ability to make a limited number fo specific items based on their build, and have the ability to customize them a bit.

For example  a first level alchemist might have the ability to brew up x potions per day/per short rest/whatever (for no gold or exp cost) based on a list of potion recipes known, then the individual potions/recipes (depending on the level of granularity you desire) could be enhanced with things like increased area, mixed effects, clinging, empowered, etc. These enhancements would also be limited by level and choice so you can't empower, clinging, increase area and admixture every single potion you make.

Construct crafters on the other hand would have a set number of constructs they can maintain and each one would be alloted a few upgrades as your level progressed. These constructs would advance with level and the ones with especially relevant combat abilities might eat some of your actions to use.

Mage smiths could be worked on a per enchantment basis (i.e. they can maintain x enchants at a time) or a per item basis (they can enchant x items at a time), and then be allowed to tweak the various enchants/items as they level up.

Throw in a few shared abilities such as the ability to royally jack up people's armor and weapons (even natural ones), and bingo. 



This is my favorite idea so far.  It could be argued that Alchemist and Artificer are two different things (since, they are...), but for the purposes of simplification it might be easier to just lump them together.  Have an Artificer class, and then just like Wizards, have a number of schools underneath that you can choose from: Alchemist, Tinkerer, Imbuer, etc.  Each of these would have a few big daily resources they could use and a number of at-will/encounter cantrips to keep life interesting.  The daily resources might be things you produce in your off-time (potions, clockworks, etc) that you can then whip out later on - and NOT necessarily combat-focused.

I actually quite like the Pathfinder take on the Alchemist.  I've not played it, but reading over the class I thought it was interesting.  Basically you know a certain number of recipes and can make a certain number of things/day, and as you level you learn more recipes so your versatility grows (in essence, recipes:Alchemist::spells:Wizard).  Then as a separate thing you can improvise bombs to use in combat - IIRC its basically a recharge type of ability (every round roll a d6 to see if you get another bomb or something).  I think there's room to use that sort of concept as inspiration without straight copying it over.

For the tinkerer type, your daily resource could basically be preparing various template constructs, which can summon x times/day.  You could have a few different templates maybe (both combat and non-combat), and as your cantrips you'd have various ways to buff them (change damage type, add effects, etc).  An Imbuer (or whatever you want to call it) could have the same sort of deal, only with armor/weapons - daily ways to charge or augment gear, with cantrips that give short-term bonus effects.

Bam.  Done.  I'm gonna roll one up over lunch.
I'd rather see Artificers looking more like they do in M:tG than they do coming out of Eberron -- machinists that specialize in making quasimagical devices, potentially even constructs.

I'd probably give them d6 hd, Light Armor at best, Poor attacks, and a limit to the number of items/creations they can sustain the magic of  based on their level and the complexity ("spell level") of the item/creation.  In fact, it might be fitting to give them a pool of "power" resource that they can allocate to activate their inventions.  As for what inventions, well, you'd need a standard list of schematics/patterns that they can learn from, and perhaps a list of standard modifications that can be added onto a basic schematic for a cost of extra power-to-use.  At the start, many would have a base power cost too high for the artificer to even attempt: no golem servitor fighting your battles at level 1....

Come to think of it, this is sounding mechanically a lot like 3e's Incarnum, plus "Summons" as an option.


This is how they should be. I just don't have a clue on how to ballance this although my first thought basically led me down the PFRPG summoner reflavored.
I think some combination of Iron Man and Full Metal Alchemist would be a sweet artificer. Give them the ability to "create" and "transmute" matter through magic including weapons, armor, pets, etc but only for short durations. The do not necessarily need permanent item creation.

I 100% do not want to see them stuck with the sorcerer/wizard spell list and X per day funkhanic. They are nothing like the wizard and their spells should reflect that difference.
I played an artificer in 4e for about 1.5 years, it was a lot of fun, but it had it's hiccups. There was a lot of bookeeping if I wanted to be effective with alchemical items (bombs, traps, glues, agents, etc). The problem overall I think is that there is no one archetype that resembles the artificer in D&D. He is an engineer, a transmuter and a mad scientist rolled into one.

Some things I think that will need to be addressed before Artificers are introduced:
• We haven't seen any real summoning spells or pets yet. Maybe the druid's release will broach that slice of the game.
• Alchemical bombs are about as boring as you can get to focus a whole class on. The wizard has that already and it's called fireball and it's better. If Alchemy is going to be introduced and important to the Artificer, it needs to be unique, and it needs to exist outside of the economy in the game.
• Crafting of items is such a passive and unfun aspect of the game that giving the Artificer features around something like that would be a shame. It's not unfun to customize your own gear, it's unfun in the act of crafting, and therefore shouldn't be some feature of the Artificer.

I think the Artificer should be a good support character overall. In lower tiers, I think they should be an authority on machines (simple and complex) and engineering. I think they should have features that allow them to "always have the right tool for the job." I think their magic should go beyond just the wizard's list of spells. At higher tiers they are enchanting trebuchets, manufacturing caustic bombs and airships from which to drop them, and concocting agents filtered from the elemental planes that infuse their allies with the strength of extraplanar creatures.

Come to think of it, this is sounding mechanically a lot like 3e's Incarnum, plus "Summons" as an option.




Speaking of, the 3rd Ed Incarnum classes port over to 5th Ed very easily.

I would like the Artificer like the Clockwork Mage/Mechanician from 2nd Ed (Al-Qadim kit), make little constructs that can deliver spells and fight for you.
Okay, I've dug out my copy of Magic of Incarnum, and now remember how the hell that system worked.

Have to say, I think that might be a great way to approach the Artificer (on the "game mechanics" side of things).  Temporary "magic (or tech, or both - preferably just player choice and aesthetics) items", with scalable effects?  That seems about right.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Iron Man 3 trailer has me wanting to play "D&D Iron Man".

Does anyone have a good pop-culture character for the more "Create equipment and [mechano/magical] allies" styled character?  I'm trying to think of someone that can stand as a good model for that type of Artificer, alongside...

Tony Stark / Iron Man
and
Bruce Wayne / Batman
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Well, it's sort of the mad scientist archetype, which, while famous, both a) is usually villianous and b) lacks an ideal example.

The best I can think for "Mech minion" artificers are...

Urza, Mishra, Acrum Dagsson, and other M:tG Artificers
Dr. Ivo Robotnik/Dr. Eggman
Dr. Virgil Haas (A Miracle of Science)
Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)

"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920


Urza, Mishra, Acrum Dagsson, and other M:tG Artificers
Agatha Heterodyne (Girl Genius)


Agatha works perfectly.  Not quite as "pop culture" as Batman or Iron Man, but really an "ideal" Artificer example anyways.

So, yeah, on the mechanical side of the Artificer (rather than conceptual), I'd like to see...

Batman options - always having the right tool for the job.
Iron Man options - using "gadgets" to augment your own capabilities.
and Urza options - creating tools and minions to get the job done.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Iron Man 3 trailer has me wanting to play "D&D Iron Man".

Does anyone have a good pop-culture character for the more "Create equipment and [mechano/magical] allies" styled character?  I'm trying to think of someone that can stand as a good model for that type of Artificer, alongside...

Tony Stark / Iron Man
and
Bruce Wayne / Batman



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyborg_(comics)
Lots of rpg videogames have got a crafting system to create magic item. If I´m not wrong WotC wish create a module about "crafting"...and artificiers are the best craftmans of D&D.

I imagine artificier like a steampunk spellcaster... but there are lots of crazy ideas. Why not create a crossbow what reload itself? Or a osteotome (little chainsaw) like weapon, or a lance with taser (electroshock weapon), or a magic motorbike (the motor+energy battery would be only a wheel what spins around.) I am afraid we would need a sourcebook about steampunk (+clockpunk and fantasy gaslight) magic technology.

Why a alchemist would use magic? Security. A counter-spell rune in the molotov cocktail avoids a enemy spellcaster cause a explosion in your hands when you were going to throw it.

But I have got a doubt... what if artificier has created too much potions and that type of things? It would be like PCs with lots of magic scrolls, and the dungeon would become too easy. 

I rebember my experencie when I played "Heroes of Newerwinter", the facebook videogame. If I hadn´t got healing potions the dungeon was too dificult, but if I had bought too much... the dungeon was almost a walk. 

 Maybe this character from webcomic "el Vosque" (Don´t worry, it is English text) could be interesting alchemist(+swordman) for you.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

That's why the artificer needs to pick a limited number of items as his class feature rather then being graanted blanket access to the entire system.
Should the artificier can use a...teslapunk technology? For example energy battery. 

 

---

A about alchemist... I imagine a totally different system of magic, something like the powers of Prometean: the created, and a background like from manga "Full Metal Alchemist", using maná with different "colours" like from Magic: the Gathering "Green, Blue, Red, Black, White.. and maybe others..".

---

We need something about level of power.... for example a group of 3rd level but with lots of magic item (and other extra help like allies) has got higher level of power that a group of 3rd but "naked" (without expensive item). A low level of magic campaing or a clockpunk fantasy setting can be too diferent. Other example a T-Rex can be very powerful for PCs from d20 Past but nothing for a mecha-rider from d20 Future. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Sign In to post comments