Community

That Blasted Somoflange wrote:

Does that mean the fighter should get a 'Sandvich' power?

Yes!

And he gets a bonus any time he screams out "CART WILL NOT PUSH SELF!"

I have had another session of playing my artificer and I have a few comments to make that might be helpful for input.

First, we have been trying to work within the scope that Shoe has put foward with the new Healing Infusion powers. First, we usually do a short rest for me to make the items that folks can use. I usually hand out about 1 token (that does the +1 AC and the temp hip points). My GM initially agreed to this option. We thought about it and said (well the tokens that are not used will stay around till we have another extended rest...)

What I may have been doing that is different from what Shoe and you folks have done with the new rules, is that we sort of agreed (the DM and I) is that if I have a token in use, I can't use one use of my encounter powers for Healing Infusions (for a one to one trade off, ie, 1 token in use implies that I have but 1 healing opportunity left).

This means that I have 1 healing to dole out. Fortunately, we have a dragonborn Pally in the party now, so it isn't so bad.

My question is to Shoe and you others. Did you use (or invision for Shoe and the other WotC folks who read this thread) such a restriction?

Curious,

-LN

I've been playing an artificer in our 4e game using only the materials in Dragon 365. I'm currently 3rd level and last session I finally got a chance to use my utility power, arcane springboard. I have to say, I was kind of disappointed by it; I tried to use it to get our surrounded fighter out of a jam. He shifted into the space containing the springboard, which prompted a discussion of whether or not the +2 bonus to speed continued the shift (it all came down to multiple OAs that would have probably downed the fighter). We couldn't tell from the power text, so the DM house-ruled that the movement was a shift. During the course of the discussion, I pointed out that a +2 bonus to speed didn't feel like you "were jumping." Personally, I think that the movement should be a shift, kind of like how the deathjump spider's movement power works, or should somehow interact with the jumping rules under the Athletics skill. As it currently stands, until WotC issues a revised version, I'm considering re-training, which is a shame since the power works better with my character concept.

Does anyone else feel the same way about this power or am I off base with my perceptions?

It's a neat idea for a power, but honestly it's not better than 20 temporary hitpoints at level 2. It's really no contest. I think that power should have some extra uses.

You know, how about the artificer just creates a healing wand and charges it with other peoples' surges? I don't know how much sense it makes to call for a ranged attack to hit considering the person isn't going to defend against it but creating the artifices and stuff isn't quite the flavor of the 3e artificer or the Dragon cover's artibabe: they used wands or poured energy into an existing item.

Fodigg: Like this ...
Starkiller: How about the artificer just creates a healing wand and charges it with other peoples' surges?

I could live with that.

I like the idea of the Artificer being the one to activate the healing artifices on his target of choice, rather than only being able to hand out 1-2 before the fight starts.

Whether it be the artificer using a wand to heal his friend, throwing a "healing bomb" at his friend, using a flying mechanical syringe or blowing pixie dust it should still be the artificer in control on when to use the healing artifices and on whom.

I don't like the idea of having to distribute the items pre-battle. Especially when at this stage they only recover surge+wis mod. It makes the Artificer an inferior healer that relies far too much on pre-emption of dice rolls.

Shroomy wrote:

Does anyone else feel the same way about this power or am I off base with my perceptions?

I feel the power seems silly and out of place with the magical steampunk style Artificer.

Humonculi! Clockwork contraptions (with magical components)! Humonculi! Persistent battlefield effects! Humonculi! Full Metal Alchemist style spontaneous transmutation of materails! Humonculi! More transmutation in general! Humonculi! More humonculi!

I really think the Artificer's daily powers at the very least should literally be contraptions that the artificer builds, that have weight and dimension, that have a slight cost associated with them etc. It make the class a lot more visceral.

We also need loss of this silly "you breath some dust at" and "you throw a magical cube at" nonsense. Wizards use weird little magical objects. Artificers use whirring, steaming, piston pumping, fire breathing, belt driven, arcanically modulated, oil lubricated, air cooled, elementally powered, magipunk, clockwork, steamwork, contraptions.

I also hope you're all keeping in mind what inspired Eberron; it's not the heroic medieval adventure of the 12th century. It's a far more modern world in rapid transition. Eberron is far closer to the 1890's and arguably, post WWI Europe. Sharn is obviously modeled after the gritty noir of the 20's and 30's New York City. Xen'Drik reflects both the Spanish exploration of South America and the pulp adventure of Indiana Jones. The setting is at the earliest mid Renaissance/Age of Discovery and shows strong influences as late as the Second World War.

Just keep in mind, Eberron is NOT medieval fantasy, and that's why people love it. The most vital aspect of a setting is it's style, it's atmosphere. With the edition shift you all have the opportunity to bring this unique Eberron atmosphere back stronger than it was with the original incarnation. At the very least do not let it get weaker.

There's this great little box at the bottom of page 7 of the 3.5 Eberron campaign setting. It's subject is the tone of Eberron, and it contains a list of movies that the designers drew inspiration from during the setting's creation. I've reproduced this list here, with the eras for each film listed.

Brotherhood of the Wolf: 18th Century France

Casablanca: World War II Morocco

From Hell: 19th century England

The Maltese Falcon: 1930's United States

The Mummy: 1920's Egypt

The Name of the Rose: 14th century Italy (abnormally early, but still soundly Renaissance, not medieval)

Pirates of the Caribbean: 19th century...Caribbean

Raiders of the Lost Ark: 1930's Egypt

Sleepy Hollow: 19th century United States


If we average them all out, just for fun, we get a date of about 1820. Pretty close, but if I had to choose I date I'd say the most accurate real-world analogue to Eberron would be 1922.

I could absolutely live with a healling wand. What would be even better is if the artificer could charge his implement (whatever that may be) with healing surges.

Yeah I'm thinking: "You create a wand that is powered by healing surges from you or an ally that are infused during a rest. The wand can hold two surges at a time." The range & twice per encounter usage/once per round is the same as the Healing Infusion in Dragon but uses the new effects outlined by Shoe.

StarKiller_ wrote:

Yeah I'm thinking: "You create a wand that is powered by healing surges from you or an ally that are infused during a rest. The wand can hold two surges at a time." The range & twice per encounter usage/once per round is the same as the Healing Infusion in Dragon but uses the new effects outlined by Shoe.

Well, I would stay away from the term 'wand' since those are implements that give you a bonus to hit, but perhaps 'you create a healing artifice' would be a better choice.

StarKiller_ wrote:

Yeah I'm thinking: "You create a wand that is powered by healing surges from you or an ally that are infused during a rest. The wand can hold two surges at a time." The range & twice per encounter usage/once per round is the same as the Healing Infusion in Dragon but uses the new effects outlined by Shoe.

that will do nicely starkiller, but it should work with your implement, you don't want to juggle a wand, a staff, and a bow do you?

I think both posts after mine have good points but the thing is the artificer (as presented in 3e and in the Dragon mag cover) is supposed to have a bandolier o' wands basically. Part of the class flavor that I would hate to lose. What about saying "baton" instead of "wand"? No, not a cheerleader's baton, a military one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_(symbol)

Also, for something like healing I don't think you should use an implement: there won't be an attack roll and the effect won't use implement bonuses.

As far as juggling the items, well again my image of the artificer is that's exactly what they do. I'm sure there can be magic items to help with this along with the QuickDraw feat, Warforged embedded components, etc. to help with this.

Oh and I just realized a problem with using the "artifice" keyword for the Healing Infusion as suggested above: the artifice keyword would allow you to basically have it in a separate square and not in your hand as per the keyword description. That's not appropriate.

StarKiller_ wrote:

Oh and I just realized a problem with using the "artifice" keyword for the Healing Infusion as suggested above: the artifice keyword would allow you to basically have it in a separate square and not in your hand as per the keyword description. That's not appropriate.

If the person has to be adjacent to it, I don't think that's a problem. The other leaders have a radius on their healing. Going with the artifice, it's not a perfect solution, the downside is that it could be destroyed before the healing is used. Artifices have hit points after all. That being said, artifices don't all work in the same way. What I propose is something similar to the level 10 artificer utility power healing figurine, only made into the class abilities. With the wand/artifice idea, this power becomes obsolete anyways.

wow, I've read through a lot of stuff and seen a huge wish list. But if any of this is going to be used, realistically, it needs to be in the same power scale as other classes.

mass pooling of Healing Surges. Think of a play balance issue and then toss it out the window. Usually, most of the Healing Surges will be used by the higher HP Defenders and not the lower HP Wizard. Also basically defeats the idea of having individual healing surges.

Anyway... Healing Infusions:

While the 'pixie dust' doesn't seem like an Artificer powers, there are easy ways to rationalize limited sharing of HS. For flaver (and the added versatility), the Arty would have to choose during each short rest which combo he/she wants to prepare (still has 2 total):

Restorative Formula: Bloodspikes anyone? For those that don't remember, check out Magic of Eberron, pg 139. During the short rest, the Arty pokes the donor and 'draws blood' (a HS). During combat, he throws it at someone as a minor action. So, the power still works Shoe's proposed healing ability and makes sense. Close burst 5, heals HS value + (whatever stat).

Curative Admixture. I like the idea of this (from Dragon 365), but few will be willing to spend a HS for 3-5 Temp HP (level 1... slightly more at higher levels). Perhaps instead, simply rewrite it so that only the Artificer spends a HS to give everyone the temp HP. Since this can be potentially unbalancing, have the Arty 'create' tokens (of some sort) during the short rest and hand out to party members, with the power infused. Due to a larger potential pool of THP (vs the HP from a single HS), perhaps each person with a token has to spend a minor action to activate it (instead of the Arty).

With these 2 options, the arty keeps his versatility during a combat (a must for a Leader), yet has some versatility and unique options.


As far as some of the other suggestions that Arty should be a balance between Clerics and Warlords, I think thats a BAD idea. Clerics are primarily healing. Warlords tend to have more attack/save buffs. Let Artificers carve their own path with something different. Maybe give them more powers that buff defenses, either singularly or individually. I'd tend towards group buffs, simply because if enemies know their target has higher defense, its fairly easy to disengage and go after others (like the squishy Arty). Or keep the Arty as it has been, primarily with damage buffs and enemy attack debuffs.

To those complaining about Arties not having high damage powers: Remember, despite being arcane, the Artificer is a LEADER, not a controller, striker, or defender. Constantly trying to compare them is pointless. Each has their OWN purpose. While it is nice to do damage as a leader, their primary purpose is to keep others in the fight and give them bonuses. So concern yourselves less with mass damage infusions and more with how you can help your allies. Wizards SHOULD have better AoE damage and control spells. Strikers SHOULD have better single-target damage abilities. Defenders should have better... umm... defenderish abilities.

Anyway, just my .02 for the morning.

Clerics aren't about healing, they're about being extremely well rounded. Artificers should be similar to Clerics in this regard.

The Cleric has strong melee attacks, strong defenses, healing, buffs, ranged attacks, AoE attacks, ritual caster...

Most well-rounded class in the game right now, IMO.

Subedei wrote:

Clerics aren't about healing, they're about being extremely well rounded. Artificers should be similar to Clerics in this regard.

The Cleric has strong melee attacks, strong defenses, healing, buffs, ranged attacks, AoE attacks, ritual caster...

Most well-rounded class in the game right now, IMO.

Clerics are not about healing? You can make a healing bot par excellence with a cleric. Given that at every level, you can manage to pick up an ability that directly heals hp. The Warlord and Artie don't offer that kind of hp restoration capability. I suppose that we agree to disagree on this point. For some folks (I frankly didn't care about them from a game balance perspective in other eds), the Cleric was the monster uber-class. They still rock solid, granted. But if the Cleric is your metric for well rounded with respect to healing, no one else comes close.

-LN

Lord Nedd wrote:

Clerics are not about healing? You can make a healing bot par excellence with a cleric. Given that at every level, you can manage to pick up an ability that directly heals hp. The Warlord and Artie don't offer that kind of hp restoration capability. I suppose that we agree to disagree on this point. For some folks (I frankly didn't care about them from a game balance perspective in other eds), the Cleric was the monster uber-class. They still rock solid, granted. But if the Cleric is your metric for well rounded with respect to healing, no one else comes close.

-LN

I think the main point of his statement is that the cleric is really well rounded. I'm pretty sure it is obvious to all the the cleric is probably the most potent healer 4e will ever see.

Jack of All Trades wrote:

I think the main point of his statement is that the cleric is really well rounded. I'm pretty sure it is obvious to all the the cleric is probably the most potent healer 4e will ever see.

Yes, that's it.

Clerics are both the most versatile class, and the best healers.

Tone down the healing, and you can give the Artificer stronger buffs and more/better controller powers than Clerics. Allowing them to surpass the Cleric in versatility, which I think is appropriate.

Artificers should be able to heal about as well as Warlords, IMO. The main focus on the class, as it has always been, should be being extremely adaptive and well rounded.

Subedei wrote:

Yes, that's it.

Clerics are both the most versatile class, and the best healers.

Tone down the healing, and you can give the Artificer stronger buffs and more/better controller powers than Clerics. Allowing them to surpass the Cleric in versatility, which I think is appropriate.

Artificers should be able to heal about as well as Warlords, IMO. The main focus on the class, as it has always been, should be being extremely adaptive and well rounded.

I agree that Clerics are incredibly versatile, and also that Artificers should be at least equally so, if not more. I think/hope that when the finished version gets to us, the powers will reflect that.

As to healing, I really liked the modifications to the healing infusion posted here precisely because they added versatility to the way the Artificer's healing is used. The fact that you have to plan beforehand who you're giving the healing to adds to the feel of the class as an "engineer" of sorts, influencing the world and helping his allies through devices.

I can't wait to play one... :D

C

I have lots of classes that deal damage. I want more classes that heal damage.

Their healing monopoly turns me off Clerics. I dont want them. It sucks that D&D continues to hold our hitpoints hostage to the Cleric monopoly. Most players dont want to play Clerics. Itd be nice to have a REAL alternative.

Haldrik wrote:

I have lots of classes that deal damage. I want more classes that heal damage.

Their healing monopoly turns me off Clerics. I dont want them. It sucks that D&D continues to hold our hitpoints hostage to the Cleric monopoly. Most players dont want to play Clerics. Itd be nice to have a REAL alternative.

Umm, we have already heard about your distrust and dislike of the Cleric class, and that you want a cleric (maximum healer) without all those silly trappings of religion.

However, you are making an assertion here, that being that 'Most players don't want to play clerics'. Where did you pull that from? I haven't noticed a great dearth of clerics in any of the playing groups that I have been in (I have been playing since '84). I don't recollect anything substantive on that front on the forums here...

-LN

Haldrik wrote:

Their healing monopoly turns me off Clerics. [snip] Itd be nice to have a REAL alternative.

I agree with this part of your statement... It would be nice to have a comparable alternative.

The whole religion/healing association in D&D has always irked me. I also agree that clerics are versatile and very popular (I have one player who only plays clerics)... I would go so far as to say that the idea of a polytheistic clergy capable of (amongst other things) healing allies while marching to war is one of the most universal and original tropes of the genre.

However, there should be other ways to look at it. I think that making all the classes in the "leader" role capable of healing is a step in the right direction - the chief reason I am looking forward to the Shaman class in PHBII is precisely that I hope we will see a class which is at least the match of the cleric in healing prowess, without necessitating the association with "divine" powers (incidentally because, IMHO, there really isn't that much of a difference between appealing to one type of incorporeal being or another for aid... )

Now, speaking to the topic at hand, I think the artificer should look at healing as the result of, well, artifice. A "scientific", "engineering" approach. IMO, the changes posted by Shoe to the healing infusion are a pretty good way of capturing that element of healing-as-technology without overly complicating the game or feeling like we're stepping out of the bounds of fantasy.

I once created a homebrew world with no clerics, with shamans taking over main healing duties... it was a blast, and my players loved the innovation. I'd like to convert it to 4e, allowing warlords, shamans and artificers to fill in the gap. We'll see what happens in 2009...

So, Mr. Shoe, are you going to give us a little more feedback about the changes you guys are making to the artificer? It seems like this thread is going in circles.

WotC_Shoe wrote:

At the moment, we’ve got 2 such powers. The first one is essentially like the Restorative Formula from the Dragon article – the target regains hit points equal to healing surge + your Wis mod. The biggest difference here is that the power consumes a healing infusion instead of the target’s healing surge.

The second power also consumes a healing infusion and gives one ally a +1 bonus to AC, which the ally can end as a free action to gain temporary hit points equal to the ally’s healing surge value. This one requires a bit more forethought by both the artificer and the target, to know not only who should get the bonus, but also when the temp hp should be triggered.

So if I'm reading this right, the powers are still ranged and function similar the old ones (except that the tmp HP power only affects one person now), but they consume healing infusions as "fuel"?  It seems like you're saying that the target does not have to be holding a healing infusion in order for it to work.  And it also seems like you're saying that healing infusions are generic "fuel," so you do not have to specify which power you're going to use a healing infusion for when you create it.  Is this right?

Bill Burdick

Subedei wrote:

I also hope you're all keeping in mind what inspired Eberron; it's not the heroic medieval adventure of the 12th century. It's a far more modern world in rapid transition. Eberron is far closer to the 1890's and arguably, post WWI Europe. Sharn is obviously modeled after the gritty noir of the 20's and 30's New York City. Xen'Drik reflects both the Spanish exploration of South America and the pulp adventure of Indiana Jones. The setting is at the earliest mid Renaissance/Age of Discovery and shows strong influences as late as the Second World War.

Subedei wrote:

If we average them all out, just for fun, we get a date of about 1820. Pretty close, but if I had to choose I date I'd say the most accurate real-world analogue to Eberron would be 1922.

Firstly I distinctly remember reading a comment by Keith Baker that Eberron is NOT based on the industrialisation but rather the Renaissance. Secondly I find the two statement above to contradict each other; in the first you seem to acknowledge the Renaissance setting only to refute it in the second. Thirdly I would like to quote from a couple of Eberron sourcebooks:

Eberron - Campaign Setting (pg. 29):
"In Eberron, magic is almost technology. Spellcasters specialize in certain forms of that technology, while artificers tinker with its fundamental workings. Artificers understand magic on a different level from spellcasters, and they do not cast spells as wizards and clerics do."

Same page a little further down:
"Artificers are perhaps the ultimate magical dabblers. They can use just about any spell from a wand or scroll, empower ordinary items with temporary magical power, repair damaged constructs (including warforged), alter the function of existing magic items, constructs and dragonshard items.They have a limited list of their own spell-like infusions that they can apply to objects, and they can also work with any of the spells on other classes' spell lists. Their magic is neither arcane nor divine, and they are not bound by that classification: Their trade is magic in its most abstract (they might say purest) form."

Magic in Eberron (pg. 91)
"In many ways Eberron's pseudo-medieval culture already shares many elements of a later renaissance society. This is an important point, because it underscores the fact that the benefits granted by the wide-scale manipulation of magic are not provided by arcane factories of mass production. Instead Eberron's magical wonders remain the purview of individual practitioners, artisans, and expert crafters."

Player's Guide to Eberron (pg. 62)
"The people of Khorvaire see magic as another form of knowledge or scholastic discipline - a wondrous and powerful discipline, certainly, but still one that can be understood and utilized by people making their way in the world. Budding magewrights, wizards, and artificers attend schools to hone their natural talents. Artificers in particular understand the fundamental workings of magic, and the world's best artficers strive to uncover more of its secrets."

Edit:
I should also note that the movie list you quote in your post is simply "examples of movies that have elements of the tone and attitude we've packed into this campaign setting". It is not the ultimate key to understanding and comprehending the setting.

You can excuse me if you think this idea is too complicated or such, but I have an idea.

What if the "donor" of the healing surges was healed more if the infusion was used on them? For example, an infusion from the defender of the party gives the defender healing surge +1d6 while one from the controller would give only the surge value to the defender. Then, in addition, any from the Artificer himself would give Healing Surge + Wis mod to anyone.

It seems to me that this would give a higher value to certain people's surges and help alleviate the ability to simply give up all the wizard's surges to keep the defenders on their feet.

luminaire_p wrote:

You can excuse me if you think this idea is too complicated or such, but I have an idea.

What if the "donor" of the healing surges was healed more if the infusion was used on them? For example, an infusion from the defender of the party gives the defender healing surge +1d6 while one from the controller would give only the surge value to the defender. Then, in addition, any from the Artificer himself would give Healing Surge + Wis mod to anyone.

It seems to me that this would give a higher value to certain people's surges and help alleviate the ability to simply give up all the wizard's surges to keep the defenders on their feet.

That sounds like a bit more book-keeping. If possible, let us keep the method for healing via surges to be uniform. We have enough to worry over during combat. I would rather not have to worry over 'did I give the surge from Joe to Micah? Or was it the one from Beth? Grr!'

-LN

Lord Nedd wrote:

That sounds like a bit more book-keeping. If possible, let us keep the method for healing via surges to be uniform. We have enough to worry over during combat. I would rather not have to worry over 'did I give the surge from Joe to Micah? Or was it the one from Beth? Grr!'

-LN

I'm with Lord Nedd on this one... accumulating little bits of bookkeeping like this amounts to the insidious, noxious basal stuff that game subsystems are spawned of. , and as DM, I am all for simplicity in game mechanics.

C

luminaire_p wrote:

You can excuse me if you think this idea is too complicated or such, but I have an idea.

What if the "donor" of the healing surges was healed more if the infusion was used on them? For example, an infusion from the defender of the party gives the defender healing surge +1d6 while one from the controller would give only the surge value to the defender. Then, in addition, any from the Artificer himself would give Healing Surge + Wis mod to anyone.

It seems to me that this would give a higher value to certain people's surges and help alleviate the ability to simply give up all the wizard's surges to keep the defenders on their feet.

I think it was Shoe's intent to encourage pooling healing surges with this power, since that's the main distinction of this power. If you really want to keep track of donors though, here's a way with no bookkeeping: have each player make two tokens that they can give to the artificer's player when he infuses from one of their healing surges. He can give a token back when he uses the healing infusion. If you have more than one artificer in the party, they'll need to make more tokens. Players will be motivated to make these tokens, since they get an advantage from getting healed with their "own" infusion.

Bill

I will come out and say that I did not read this entire thread, but at the same time I would like to comment on something about the Artificer playtest.

In my local 3.5 game I was playing an Artificer. Now, I have been playing D&D for a while now but I found that the way that the Artificer had its powers set up kind of limitied my ability to act in the game sessions. Now, I am not saying that all who play the Artificer have this problem, but I did for good or for ill.

Now, looking at the 4e Artificer I can tell immediately that the problems I found in the 3.5 version are no longer there. That while the flavor of the Artificer remains the mechanics were adjusted to allow it to be played in the same tempo as the other classes. Which, in my opinion, is a very good thing.

So my comment is that I think that the way they decided to take the 4e Artiticer is a good one and that it will provide for more playing options than the previous version. Which is something I consider a very positive thing.

valeren wrote:

I was already in the process of creating a human artificer when I also noticed this. Any suggestions on what at-will power could be used as a substitute?

I'm probably going for a variation of a warlord power as the artificer seem to be of the same function as that class.

I adapted the paladin' "enfeebling strike" at-will to be an arcane ranged weapon power that does 1[w]+ INT and causes the target to have the -2 to their next attack. It works well when your not adjacent to an ally you can buff.

While y'all at WotC are at it, could you maybe change the Target entry on Thundering Armor from "One ally" to "YOU or one ally"? My brusied and battered Artificer would appriciate it!

I recommend buying the Adventurer's Vault. Consumables and alchemy really go a long way to approximating the feel of the 3.5 artificer. Now my character can get his collection of utility "scrolls" again, like he used to have before we converted him from 3.5.

Bill

Haldrik wrote:

I need the Artificer to heal just as well as the Cleric does.

Speaking for myself, Iv always had a beef with the Cleric class. I desperately need an alternative primary healer.

What I hate most about the Cleric is, in order to be a healer, the character must also be a melee fighter. Moreover the flavor of compulsory god-worship doesnt appeal to me. I love compassionate high-minded mystics, but have no patience for the cronies of finite gods.

So, I have high hopes for this new Artificer. As far as I can tell, it fights better in non-melee, more like a Wizard. Likewise, Im into the technology flavor for healing powers. This Renaissance-style magic-tek is a breath of fresh air.

For me its critical, the Artificer heals just as well as a Cleric - not a single hitpoint less! I want the Artificer to heal differently than the Cleric does, but the numbers have to add up. I want to feel truly free from the Clerics traditional monopoly on healing.

Why not just declare that you cleric IS a "compassionate mystic" istead of dedicated to a God/dess? Since v3 we could have clerics that were committed to a principle instead of a deity.

Shroomy wrote:

I've been playing an artificer in our 4e game using only the materials in Dragon 365. I'm currently 3rd level and last session I finally got a chance to use my utility power, arcane springboard. I have to say, I was kind of disappointed by it; I tried to use it to get our surrounded fighter out of a jam. He shifted into the space containing the springboard, which prompted a discussion of whether or not the +2 bonus to speed continued the shift (it all came down to multiple OAs that would have probably downed the fighter). We couldn't tell from the power text, so the DM house-ruled that the movement was a shift. During the course of the discussion, I pointed out that a +2 bonus to speed didn't feel like you "were jumping." Personally, I think that the movement should be a shift, kind of like how the deathjump spider's movement power works, or should somehow interact with the jumping rules under the Athletics skill. As it currently stands, until WotC issues a revised version, I'm considering re-training, which is a shame since the power works better with my character concept.

Does anyone else feel the same way about this power or am I off base with my perceptions?

don't give up just yet...arcane springboard is great for getting over/around those pesky pressure plates or pit traps!

Quote from Shoe's up-date: "The first one [healing infusion] is essentially like the Restorative Formula from the Dragon article – the target regains hit points equal to healing surge + your Wis mod."

The Dragon article entry on Restoritive Formula says: "Target can spend a healing surge and gain an additional 1d6 hit points"

I've read about not having an extra 1d6 in restoritive formula in the other posts, and how it makes this feature different from the cleric's healing word (artificers being less effecient @ healing).

So my question is...
a):Is Healing Surge + Wis (no +1d6) the new standard? Or...
b):Is the +1d6 that was dropped out from restoritive formula the bonus the cleic enjoys from the healing lore class feature?

I hope its the latter, but will take the former, as I still LOVE the new Artificer!

MrParadigm wrote:

Quote from Shoe's up-date: "The first one [healing infusion] is essentially like the Restorative Formula from the Dragon article – the target regains hit points equal to healing surge + your Wis mod."

The Dragon article entry on Restoritive Formula says: "Target can spend a healing surge and gain an additional 1d6 hit points"

I've read about not having an extra 1d6 in restoritive formula in the other posts, and how it makes this feature different from the cleric's healing word (artificers being less effecient @ healing).

So my question is...
a):Is Healing Surge + Wis (no +1d6) the new standard? Or...
b):Is the +1d6 that was dropped out from restoritive formula the bonus the cleic enjoys from the healing lore class feature?

I hope its the latter, but will take the former, as I still LOVE the new Artificer!

It is a Healing Surge + Wis Mod.

Hope that helps (at least 2/ encounter!),

-LN

Just ran a game with my artificer using the new Infusions...

For ease of play, DM and I are treating the Restoitive Formula as a very unstable version of Potion of Healing. I make an Infusion, keep it in a flask, and then either use it myself of pass it off to another character.

For flavor, and to explain the "Burst 5" mechanic, my artificer puts his hand over the mouth of the flask and shakes it up, causing the contents to fizz and spray like a warm beer all over the target character. Its sounds a little weird, but its like this: IMO, a spray of suds-y healing is a lot easier to justify, givin the "Burst 5" mechanic, than a hypodermic hummingbird or a free ranged attack with a healing projectile (I still love the hummingbird, the artificer should have litle constructs buzzing about) and the "flask of volital reagents" vibe is more in keeping with the artificer as something of a mad Scientist. Your Artificer may not be a mad scientist, but mine is a MC Starlock, so its a cool effect. And lets be honest, by level 2 or 3, the restoritive formula will heal more than a potion of healing and the surge is already paid for - possibly by someone else!

As for "Curitive Admixture" - now a +1 AC that becomes temp hp - I'm picturing a paste or salve that you smear on the target character prior to the encounter. I usually use it myself - our fighter has a wicked high AC already -and I can tell by the end of the first round usually if I need the AC or the hp.

So usually I make one of each, the Admixture for me, and the Restoritive for use as a spray-on potion of healing for anybody that needs it. Its worked well so far, and the flavor I want for my Artificer is honored.

All in all Its a Win-win.

Mr Paradigm: Why not just declare that you cleric IS a "compassionate mystic" istead of dedicated to a God/dess?

You cant have a transcendent "mystic" Cleric because the rules in Players Handbook dont allow it!

Worshiping a killable god is hardcoded into the 4e rules-as-written.

Its one of several problems with the Cleric class.

I so want other classes that can heal!

Haldrik wrote:

You cant have a transcendent "mystic" Cleric because the f***ing rules in Players Handbook dont allow it!

Worshiping a killable god is hardcoded into the 4e rules-as-written.

Its one of several problems with the Cleric class.

I so want other classes that can heal!

Beyond the channel divinity feats, which can be reflavored, there is nothing about dieties which is hard coded into the class. The class as written would allow a cleric of Pelor to kill the high priest of the order that ordained him, leave the clergy, get drunk every night, and loudly proclaim there are no gods every day and he would still have his divine powers. If a cleric can do that, then you surely can reflavor it so that he never had to be in the clergy to begin with.

Yeah, even a paladin can do that, apparently. Weird, huh?

Had some fun with Arcane Springboard...

Scenario: We (2 Ftrs and me, an Artificer/Starlock) Are in a 6x6 chapel dedicated to Vecna. The ceiling is 3 sqares high, and perching on a ledge 2 sqares up are 2 rotwings. There are also two skeletons, and a spectre (though it took an Arcana role to figure why I was so cold and kept getting knocked prone).

This is what I did. I lay out my white hanky in a space near where the Rotwings kept hovering and attcking. Using Sustain Minor, The Ftrs were able to jump up to 3 sqs (my CON) up, bash the zombies, and then land without going over their move limits. I took out the spectre by deducing that if I felt cold (Spetre's aura 1) then the spectre was in range of both my spike wire and my MC Novice power, Otherwind Stride. So it went down in short order (I critted) and I got one of the skeletons for good mesure (I love Burst 1!).

After teleporting the 5 sqs, I was in position to lob ranged Encounter Powers (which included Dire Raidance) and @ wills at the rotwings and the remaining skelton, who was now on the other side of the bouncing Ftrs. Being in a good tactical position, I could sustain the Springboard, and still sacrifice my move action to Heal the Ftrs as needed. A Ftr crit and a few rounds later, we were richer in xp and treasue, taken from the alter itself. They wouldn't let me light the place on fire though.

So don't count Arcane Springboard out just yet, it has its uses

MrParadigm wrote:

Yeah, even a paladin can do that, apparently. Weird, huh?

Yep. The books are intentionally vague on that issue to allow the DMs more discretion. As such, the DM can put any restrictions she wants, for in the end of the day, it is her game.

-LN

Lord Nedd wrote:

Yep. The books are intentionally vague on that issue to allow the DMs more discretion. As such, the DM can put any restrictions she wants, for in the end of the day, it is her game.

-LN

I like it though. The removal of alignment based restriction is great for the role play value. History is full of church knight that are just as bad as the heathens they battle - if not worse.

But its off topic either way...Suffice it to say, I am quite comfortable with the Worlord and Artificer Leader classes having less healing than the Cleric, for flavor. As I've said before, Durable = full batch of Infusions w/o losing any surges from you're original total. Past 2nd or 3rd level (depending on CON), Infusions are better than Potions of Healing, and free.

IMO, the flavor of the Cleric should be a sacred way of life. Not healing. Healing belongs to everybody.

Haldrik wrote:

IMO, the flavor of the Cleric should be a sacred way of life. Not healing. Healing belongs to everybody.

But everyone does have healing now(well all leaders anyways). If clerics being healing specialists bothers you that much, then simply make cleric a social position in your campaign and come up with different fluff for the cleric class. You won't break anything in the game by doing that.

was there ever a third at will made/posted by WotC so that an individual can make an Human Artificer?

I did notice in the Barbarian article that there were three at will powers, so they did learn from the previous playtest article.

There is one major problem I have with the new healing rules of the artificer:
Who said they healing surges will be taken from party members?
If the party take a short rest in a place where there are friendly peaple the artificer could simply take their healing surges for his items. They will probably agree becouse most NPC don't fight most of their life so they don't need healing surges. For an example if the players are playing in a city and they fight the thieves guild for the goverment then most common citizens will easily give away their healing surges to help the party and therefore the party will get 2 healing surges from the common peaple each encounter and the healing between encounter would probably also be taken fron citizens. That mean that becouse of the ability of the artificer to take healing surges from other peaple the PC will have to use much less healing surges. Personaly I believe it is a way too powerfull ability.


Another thing: The 27th level encounter power Grave-Dust Clowd is an encounter power that allow to regain hit points without spending a healing surge. That could easily lead to the same problems mentioned above becouse the party will have unlimited daily healing. If you take the demigod epic destiny then the power become way too powerfull becouse you can heal everyone every round and you finish each encounter at full HP so again you use much less healing surges.

Super_Sorcerer wrote:

There is one major problem I have with the new healing rules of the artificer:
Who said they healing surges will be taken from party members?

Honestly, It would never have occured to me to take healing surges from NPCs. Really, is this going to be a huge problem? Who would give up their surges for free, anyway? If you had to pay, say, 50 gp a pop, that would eleminate the problem, wouldn't it? Even though Infusions are more powerful than Potions of Healing, the cost of using NPC's surges vs. Party member's makes it a balancing factor. If there's one thing I've learned about 4e so far, its that absolutly nothing is free. Or even a very good deal on resale.

MrParadigm wrote:

Just ran a game with my artificer using the new Infusions...

...As for "Curitive Admixture" - now a +1 AC that becomes temp hp - I'm picturing a paste or salve that you smear on the target character prior to the encounter. QUOTE]

Whups, the new rules (such as they are) seem to allow you to choose in combat which flavor you use for the Infusion, which are generic prior to use. Or was I right the first time? Anybody know?

Here's the text, and a modification to the healing infusion class feature, that I did for the cards I hand out to the player who gets said Healing Infusion.

Healing Infusion]Use the Healing Infusion to heal hit points equal to your healing surge value + the Artificers Wisdom Modifier

-or-

Receive a +1 to AC and a number of temporary hit points equal to your constitution modifier. The AC bonus remains as long as you have temporary hit points.

The artificer can only create 2 Healing infusions at a time, however they can be created during a short rest by expending a healing surge either from the artificer or a willing ally. At 16th level a third Healing Infusion can be created.
When used, please return this card to the artificer's player.[/quote wrote:

Use the Healing Infusion to heal hit points equal to your healing surge value + the Artificers Wisdom Modifier

-or-

Receive a +1 to AC and a number of temporary hit points equal to your constitution modifier. The AC bonus remains as long as you have temporary hit points.

The artificer can only create 2 Healing infusions at a time, however they can be created during a short rest by expending a healing surge either from the artificer or a willing ally. At 16th level a third Healing Infusion can be created.
When used, please return this card to the artificer's player.

Looks good

MrParadigm wrote:

Honestly, It would never have occured to me to take healing surges from NPCs. Really, is this going to be a huge problem? Who would give up their surges for free, anyway? If you had to pay, say, 50 gp a pop, that would eleminate the problem, wouldn't it? Even though Infusions are more powerful than Potions of Healing, the cost of using NPC's surges vs. Party member's makes it a balancing factor. If there's one thing I've learned about 4e so far, its that absolutly nothing is free. Or even a very good deal on resale.

There are many solutions to that problem:
1) If slavery is not forbiden where the campain is going on the party could simply buy some slaves to take some healing surges from them every day.
2) If the party is defending a town then probably most citizens will simply give their healing surges to the party for their own security.
3) On higher levels (12+) 50 gp isn't much and you can aford it without any problems.
4) On higher levels party members might be the rulers of a vilage/town/city/kingdom/empire and might simply take healing surges as part of their taxes.
5) 50 gp in not logical economicaly becouse most peasants never use their healing surges themselves and if one sell it for 50 gp there is no aparant reason why another one won't sell it for 40 gp so he will get an extra income of 40 gp each day for doing nothing. A common peasant gain one sp every day so most of them will be more than glad to sell something they don't use for 1 gp every day.

All you have to do is limit the number of surges an Artificer can handle at any one time. For example, surges equal to the Wisdom bonus, depending on exactly how the power would work.

:D Dont forget to donate blood in reallife.

Huh? As far as I know, an Artificer can't have more than two Healing Infusions at a time ever. Unles you take slaves into a delve with you, like Super Sorcerer suggested, you could only get the first two of the day from an outside source. At least, until hireling/cohort rules come out...

Having tested the healing infusion I posted earlier, I'm considering changing the ac bonus to equal the artificers wisdom bonus. The party didn't consider using the AC function of power still, they'd rather have healing. So, the second option of the power still goes unused. By using a bonus to ac equal to the artificers wisdom modifier, the power has a bit of scaling which it lacks at the moment.

Basically as is, the artificer is an incredibly sub-par healer, not that I mind, but if the second option of the power never used it is not really worth it.

That Blasted Somoflange wrote:

...if the second option of the power never used it is not really worth it.

That's a great point, and I hope the designers consider that. So far, I've never used Curative Admixture. I don't even consider it an option because it's so bad. A temporary Wisdom bonus to AC would definitely be worth considering.

From WotC Shoe:

“The second power also consumes a healing infusion and gives one ally a +1 bonus to AC, which the ally can end as a free action to gain temporary hit points equal to the ally’s healing surge value. This one requires a bit more forethought by both the artificer and the target, to know not only who should get the bonus, but also when the temp hp should be triggered.

So that means that you get the +1 to AC, and later, if needed, you can cash it in for the temp hp. I agree, if it were a case of a handful of temp hp and an AC bonus that dissappeared when the meger that hp was gone, it would be pretty lame. The verion above works well, however - I usually put it on myself for some extra AC and use the Restoritive Formula on the fighter, whose AC is wicked high anyway and take much more dmg than I (ahh, melee!). In the event that I get spanked, I cash it in and keep going on temp hp until the end of the encounter. If I never cash it in, I keep it and simply have one infusion available until such time as I do use cash in the AC, or the next extended rest.

I think, as written above, the curitive admixture is fairly useful Encounter power.

MrParadigm wrote:

I think, as written above, the curitive admixture is fairly useful Encounter power.

If the temporary hp were real hp, it might be worth it. On the other hand, if you can blow the AC bonus for temp hp after knowing that you're going to get hit, but before damage is applied, it would be a lot better.

How about this:

The second power also consumes a healing infusion and gives one ally a +1 bonus to AC. The next time that ally is hit, he takes no damage and the AC bonus is lost. Any other effects resulting from the hit still apply.

Sebastrd wrote:

If the temporary hp were real hp, it might be worth it. On the other hand, if you can blow the AC bonus for temp hp after knowing that you're going to get hit, but before damage is applied, it would be a lot better.

How about this:

The second power also consumes a healing infusion and gives one ally a +1 bonus to AC. The next time that ally is hit, he takes no damage and the AC bonus is lost. Any other effects resulting from the hit still apply.

That's actually not bad...but maybe a little over powered. Its like having a small increse to AC until you're actually hit, then its basicaly becomes a huge increse to AC, because you take no damage. That's an awfully powerful thing for a Class Feature you get at first level...

...What if they scrapped the +1 AC part completely, and instead the Curitive Admixture granted Resistance CON + 1/2 lvl? Or just Resistance 10 (increse +5/ tier)? You could cast it on you Ftr at the beginning of the encounter, or on you bloodied Wizard, or on yourself... It has the flavor of your idea above but its still possible to take damage, especially from high level monsters.

I definately think the concept has some potential...

Sebastrd: If the temporary hp were real hp, it might be worth it. On the other hand, if you can blow the AC bonus for temp hp after knowing that you're going to get hit, but before damage is applied, it would be a lot better.

This "immediate interrupt" healing reminds me of the Psi power of the Elan race, Resilience. It balances fine because of its limited use. In the case of the Elan, its quite costly. In the case of the Artificer, this immediate-healing Infusion would be a one-time effect per infused item. Its effective (because you only use it when you really need it), fun, yet fair.

Having read thru Adventurer’s Vault, and seeing all the nifty items there, I would like to express my opinion that it might be better if artificers were under the same rules as everyone else about not being able to use the Ritual Enchant Magic Item to create magic items that are higher than their level. This keeps the game balanced.

Making them good at using Alchemy instead seems a good direction to go.
A small pool of free points per level to spend on creating Alchemy seems like a good direction to go.

Dropping the component cost of Disenchant Magic Item and granting them the Enchant Magic Item Ritual and the Disenchant Magic Item Ritual for free sounds good.

Also, possible granting them some Artificer only rituals sounds like a good thing.
Perhaps they could use one Artificer ritual per day for free?

Douglas Zuver wrote:

Dropping the component cost of Disenchant Magic Item and granting them the Enchant Magic Item Ritual and the Disenchant Magic Item Ritual for free sounds good.

Also, possible granting them some Artificer only rituals sounds like a good thing.
Perhaps they could use one Artificer ritual per day for free?

The idea of rituals is that everyone can use them. If there are rituals that are unique to artificers is there any reason that there won't be rituals unique to wizards or clerics?

On 4th edition they decided that all the noncombat utility spells are avalible to all classes and not only the spellcasters. It means that rituals are never class dependent or race dependent. Even a warlord could be a good ritual caster.

According to the Bard preview there will be Bard-specific rituals, so restricted rituals are already out there.

5. Repair Object: Would it work on a warforged PC?

This was asked way back on page number 2 and I can't seem to find an answer for it in any of the later pages. Unless of course in my scanning I missed it, which would not surprise me.

This is rather an important question for my group seeing as last night we started a new party with both an Dwarven Artificer and Warforged Barbarian filling the ranks. Feedback from the group is that they truly dig the artificer. I'm hoping he lasts longer than any other PC I've played in 4th ed so far (3rd level being the highest before TPKs).

Again, sorry if I missed the answer somewhere along the line.

Playing a warforged Artificer, I would say no repair object would not work on a warforged, barring the debate about a warforged slave and such, I feel that any race that is living, and a warforged is a living construct would not benefit from it. I do think that the power in question should be renamed to repair artifice to prevent any further mix up.

Check out the character builder for a third at-will power for artificers called "magic sword."

ppaladin123 wrote:

Check out the character builder for a third at-will power for artificers called "magic sword."

Can't do that. Don't have DDI yet.

*Edit* I found 'Magic Weapon' on the EN World Forum. Nice indeed. Glad to see that as a substitute/third at-will.

Gaining Enchant/Disenchant at level 1 is great... But whats the trade-off?

A level 4 and level 6 ritual, and a discount on the casting of the disenchant.
So they are getting:
Ritual Caster + Mend Object + Enchant + Disenchant + Level 1 Ritual

Are they loosing something they had before, or is this bringing them up to par?

I dont think Enchantment at 1st is a problem balancewise - since magic items have their own limitations like level and body slot.

Awesome flavor!

It sure makes the Artificer the monarch of magic items!

Haldrik wrote:

I dont think Enchantment at 1st is a problem balancewise - since magic items have their own limitations like level and body slot.

Awesome flavor!

It sure makes the Artificer the monarch of magic items!

But is the Monarch an artificer?

Is there someway of getting all the ammendments into a nice resource? Like a .pdf?

Not talking about the whole class, just whatever Shoe is coming out with that is official.

In short, Artificer playtest errata .pdf?

Halo99 wrote:

Is there someway of getting all the ammendments into a nice resource? Like a .pdf?

Not talking about the whole class, just whatever Shoe is coming out with that is official.

In short, Artificer playtest errata .pdf?

Seconded.

Yes indeed. Being able to play test the latest iteration would be nice.

Halo99 wrote:

Is there someway of getting all the ammendments into a nice resource? Like a .pdf?

Not talking about the whole class, just whatever Shoe is coming out with that is official.

In short, Artificer playtest errata .pdf?

Add my vote in favour of this, please.

I'd love to "see" the Artificer as it stands now and have a reference to use during play(test)... printing posts off the forum and making sense of it all is getting cumbersome/weird...

Cheers,
C

Thanks for the support guys, hopefully Shoe will see this and grant us our wish

Halo99 wrote:

Thanks for the support guys, hopefully Shoe will see this and grant us our wish

Just a quick question though, is Shoe still employed at WotC? What with their, along with a good chunk of North America, laying off employees.

I haven't played with the Artificer much, but I have been reading and re-reading the Artificer article . From the moment I started playing, I felt that something big was missing, and now I think I know what it is, and the rest of the game for that matter, the ability to craft things. The craft skill seems completely gone from 4E, which is bad enough, but artificers not having such skills/abilities/features, would be just plain mad both fluff and crunch wise. They are craftsman aren't they, so why not be able to craft things like weapons, to armor, to trinkets/devices/gadgets (of varying degrees of usefulness), and so on.

One of their current class features is "Components" in which they "Craft, imbue, and prepare the objects they will need for the day". At the moment that feature strikes me as more fluff used to make his magic sound different then other magic users, and as an excuse to use the "artifice" as a requirement for some of his spells. (unless you have a very picky DM)

However what does interest me about that feature is where it says "If you don't have what you need, you can transmute mundane materials into components." It kind of makes me think of Full Metal Alchemist, but on a more limited scale.

Why not expand this feature to allow the artificer to craft(during those extended rests) temporary special magical items. They could be used to preform simple deeds. Want a small magical crane to lift something? No problem. Need a temporary widget to temporarily fix a larger mechanical device? Sure. Looking for a clockwork toy to amuse some children? Piece of cake! The list of possibilities goes on and on. Naturally there would have to be some limits to what it could do. For example: any magical items you make could only be used by you, could not do powerful actions (like create a huge deadly fireball), and will only work for so long if you are separated from it before it looses its power; as well as being a one time use deal. In addition you can only have so many of these actively magical items on you at any given time(standard magical items do not count). As for mechanical items, they could only be simple devices that, do to the use of a small amount of magic in their creation, fall into a state of disrepair rapidly if separated from you for to long. The short lifespan and requirement to keep them on your person could serve as a means to prevent them selling the creations for money.

Well that's my two cents for the moment. Cant wait to see the finished product.

That Blasted Somoflange wrote:

Just a quick question though, is Shoe still employed at WotC? What with their, along with a good chunk of North America, laying off employees.

I don't know anything about whats happening inside the company, but hopefully Shoe will still have his job. If not, there should be someone taking over the development who may be able to help us.

This might be a dumb question (read: it might have been already answered elsewhere), but, does the Character Builder incorporate any of the changes mentioned by Shoe to the class, or is all that material still as-written from the Dragon article?

C

cintain wrote:

This might be a dumb question (read: it might have been already answered elsewhere), but, does the Character Builder incorporate any of the changes mentioned by Shoe to the class, or is all that material still as-written from the Dragon article?

C

The Closed Beta was the Dragon Magazine article (plus Magic Weapon). I haven't downloaded the Open Beta yet (and haven't checked to see if it's available yet).

JohnduBois wrote:

The Closed Beta was the Dragon Magazine article (plus Magic Weapon). I haven't downloaded the Open Beta yet (and haven't checked to see if it's available yet).

Thanks.

I think I am almost ready to wait until the Eberron Player's Guide comes out in July before making my Artificer character, unless the powers that be have mercy on us and provide the afore-voted errata...

C

I am playing an artificer gnome in an FR game. It has been great fun.
The BS of 3E and it's craft and magic item creation nonsense kept me away from this class before. Now I love it and am healing PCs and blasting mobs like crazy. Good times.

I find that funny(and Interesting) that The crafting and magic item creation elements of the 3.5 Artificer repelled you when those elements are a very large part of the classes focus, both flavor and play wise. If it was just a matter of all the number crunching and little things that we had to do to make an item, then I understand and to a degree actually agree. From what I have heard, a good number of people disliked the process of creating an item to the point that it was removed for the 4th Edition.

Never the less, even if that is The issue for many people then the answer should be to change the mechanics for crafting rather then the class.

Not only did its description describe a "Magical Technologist" and have his ability to craft numerous times in their lore, just about all his class features heavily involved his interaction with items.
Artisan Bonus, Craft Reserve, Retain essence, Item Creation, Meta-magic spell trigger&Completion, and his access to all craft skills, not to mention his gaining of others as a bonus feat every few levels. All of these features helped to define the class.(Though this is how I see it)

Granted I am still trying to get comfortable with the change from 3.5 to 4E, as the class stands now the 4E Artificer feels less like its 3.5 counterpart then any of the other classes.
A good number of the spells , particularly those that require an "Artifice", feel more like something that he would craft rather then a spell/power which is how they are treated. Some such examples being: Hero's Elixir, Strangling Rope, Living Caltrop Swarm, Dancing Weapon, Arcane Springboard, Shielding Cube, Slick Concoction to name a few.
This, for lack of a better way to describe it, treatment of temporary magical items as Powers/Spells feels like it is taking away some of the fun of being a artificer and turning him into something else that is not D&D.
I touched upon the crafting of magical items via the "Components" feature in my previous post(5 posts back) and think that these "Item spells" is a good place to put them, with some Tweeks obviously. For example:

Every extended rest the artificer is allowed to craft X number of temporary magical items. These are treated like normal magical items (with a daily use), however they break down if they are not recharged or replaced during the extended rest (this recharge is separate from the arcane replenishment feature). At each extended rest the artificer can either craft a new temporary magical item (destroying any select ones that would otherwise put him over his limit) and/or recharging any that he had used that day and would like to use again. If they are separated from him for Y amount of time, then they break down.
As for how he gains access to these temporary magical items, he could record the ones he knows as Arcane Schematics, that can only be read by artificers. For a third option during extended rests, he could spend it creating a Arcane Schematic for a new one that he wanted to create and wasn't on the list, or add any schematics that he found much like how players learn new rituals. It would also make sense that he would not be able to craft or recharge any temporary magical items since he would be preoccupied working on a new one. At the next extended rest he could craft that new item. This would be a good way to allow players to incorporate their own homebrewed items that they wanted to craft as well. Naturally their would be level prerequisites just like any spell.

Creating Temporary magical items like this in a method like this would save players the effort all that it took in 3.5 and make playing as an Artificer more unique and interesting as well as making the class far more fast paced then its predecessor.

Hi there,

My 2 cents on the artificer. I'll try to pass quickly on things that have been said already. I've only played levels 3 and 4 of the class.

I like Arcane Replenishment. It gives a lot of flavor to the class. My character (lvl 4) use a wand of Icy Terrain, which he uses twice a day with this feature. It turns a magic item daily power into something that looks like an encounter use, making such objects more relieable. It encourages to invest into magical items with a good daily power. I'm only waiting now for a feat that would give an extra (or more) use of magical item for my character. I can also think of a feat that would allow an objet to be "replenished" more than once. It would be powerfull, but I don't think it would be fun, because the feature would risk to be used on a single object, over and over again.
Enough has been said on Healing Infusion.
Repair Object sounds weird. What exactly is "an object" ? Can I repair a house with it ? A bridge ? Can I use it on a drowned book, making it readable again ? It looks like the kind of power that looks useless at first, but overpowered in a given circonstance.
Both At-Will power from Dragon Magazine are good. Then my GM told me about "Magic Weapon" from the character builder preview, and I've never used Aggravating Force again. MW is like AF, only better most of the time. If I had to choose (My artificer is human), I would not hesitate. I wish in the final version, those powers will be more different.
Encounter powers 1 : Shielding Cube sucks, in my opinion. It can't stand to Spike Wire. Which is, well, very very good. It's a minion killer and, used with a good weapon, can deal good damage too. Especially if targets take additionnal damages during the following round.
Daily 1 : Lifetap's description is weird. Caustic Rempart is very powerfull, but needs to be settled in the appropriate position.
Utility 2 : Arcane Springboard is of no use for my constitution of 10. A minimal of 1 square should be specified. I didn't try it, but it may be fun to use it and even to move it during battle (it's an artifice). It may be used in skill challenges, I guess. Restorative Infusion is ok. I just have to learn to use it "before" taking damage.
Encounter 3 : Fiery Infusion is as good as Spike Wire. But it is too similar, and need to be changed to make it more unique. I didn't wanted to try Altered Luck, so I just multiclassed into a wizard and took Novice Power to select an other power. I guess I will retrain this feat when more powers will be available.
Items : Cannith Googles are way too powerfull for a level 1 object.

General notes :
Artificer is a great class for multiclassing, being capable of using all sorts of implements for arcane powers. This gives them versability.
But it's difficult to choose a weapon and an implement. Crossbows require a minor action to load, which is a problem for a class that needs them to heal the party, sustain powers and swith to implements, alchemical objects and potions. Javelin looks like the obvious choice for me, or I would take a bow profeciency as a feat. To be honest, I don't think it's an issue. It encourages creativity. It would be nice to have more powers, so that one can choose to deal only with weapon powers or with arcane powers. A magical property for weapons that would allow artificer to use them as an implement - such a pact blade for the warlock - would be nice. Or maybe an utility power that would allow objects switching for a low cost. Maybe an at-will power for a switch in minor action, or an encounter power for a free swith.

I can't wait to see the final class.

I never used the craft system and only saw one player use it and that was when he was playing the artificer.

Anyway I took altered luck and liked it but swapped it for Fiery Infusion since our group seemed only to get 4 players to show up every night every bit of damage was important. Then I multiclassed into a wizard for that extra aoe, Flameburst. I cannot wait until more powers are introduced so I can either go wand or crossbow.

Started an Artificer character:

1. Shielding cube not worth it.
Recommendation: Sustain minor then you can move the cube around.

2. Curative Admixture sucks big time just like basic healing potions.
Recommendation 1: Get rid of the healing surge requirement and make a set amount of temporary HP it grants (i.e. grants 4 temporary HP).
Recommendation 2: totally different effect as discussed - but you could still keep this as under recommendation 1.

3. Most artifice powers should have a sustain minor capability or are items that remain effective without a sustain (enemy needs to destroy). Right now the ability to move an artifice is not useable.

4. By linking lots of powers and effects to sustain minor it keeps balance because the Artificer can at most only sustain three things without taking any other action.

Hey Shoe, any updates on the potion-like healing infusions idea?

Bill

wrburdick wrote:

Hey Shoe, any updates on the potion-like healing infusions idea?

Bill

funny, I was just asking myself this exact same question in the shower this morning...

How about it, Shoe? can you give us Artificer fans a little love? I know the Eberrong PG is out in June, but it would be nice to know what Healing Infusion looks like for our characters in-game right now.

C

Bump for some information...are the developers mentioning anything at all about Artificer before the release of the Eberron books 5 months from now? Like many, I am curious to see if the class has changed much in all the playtesting.

Not asking for a full .pdf or anything, but some sort of update, however informal, would be excellent.

metalsiren wrote:

Bump for some information...are the developers mentioning anything at all about Artificer before the release of the Eberron books 5 months from now? Like many, I am curious to see if the class has changed much in all the playtesting.

Not asking for a full .pdf or anything, but some sort of update, however informal, would be excellent.

Still watching... :D

Hoping for the same thing. I realize you guys over at WotC must be really busy, but just an idea of where things wound up for the Artificer would be really appreciated.

C

An update would be great.

Original article, June 2008.
Release date, July 2009.

Lil help, please?

Any new thread to keep us going on this would be greatly appreciated.

Well, only knowing the publishing business from what I hear on these boards, I'm assuming the final version of the Artificer is already solidified and off to the printers. There's probably no more need for feedback, because they can't change the Eberron Player's Guide now.

Unfortunately, that seems the simplest (and therefore most likely) scenario. I think our best bet is just to hang in there and wait until the EPG comes out in June/July.

I just know that I'm hoping that the Multiclass feat lets you use Arcane Replinishment, unlikely as that is... My Tiefling Sorcerer needs it for her implement of choice.

I'm coming very late to this discussion, but I have some thoughts.

One of the questions has been whether dwarves, who are credited with inventing Artifice, are any good at it. Now I for one don't believe that dwarves need to be the absolute best suited race at artifice in order to have invented it. Plenty of ideas are developed by one person, but perfected by another. I would argue that most ideas are that way. Newton invented physics and calculus (which is no mistake, as calculus and physics are inter-related), but I wouldn't call him the greatest physicist and mathematician ever. Still, it is fair to note that dwarves should at least be good enough at the class that they get credit for it. Whether they are is a fair question, as dwarves gain bonuses in the secondary stats, but not the primary. Is this enough? Dwarves aren't considered to make great bards, although they get a bonus in the secondary for that class.

Well, it really depends on how much both secondaries matter to the Artificer. Some classes, like the aforementioned bard, have two secondaries, but really only need one. As long as they select powers favoring whichever secondary they selected, they can completely dump the other and call it a day. Wizards, rogues, warlords, etc. are designed this way. Wizards are of particular note, as they have both Constitution and Wisdom (and Dex) as secondaries, but they're generally considered a SAD class, enough so that people frequently put 18 in their primary before racials, and then pouring the rest of the points into a single secondary attribute (Wisdom for the all powerful Orb wizard).

Fighters, on the other hand, are designed so that both Con and Wis matter. Every fighter benefits from a good wisdom, as it improves their OAs, which are critical for a fighter. Every fighter needs Con as it improves his HP and the number of surges. Pit fighters need Wis for damage. Polearm fighters need Wis for Polearm Gamble. Axe and hammer fighters need Con for their weapon feats and powers. Battleragers need Con for their HP. In short, having both Wis and Con gives dwarves a number of advantages as a fighter from the very beginning. It also opens up a number of obvious possibilities--and by obvious, I mean things that are in character for a dwarf to do. Wielding Axes and Hammers. Battleraging. Pit fighting. And so on.

So, my take is that if you want dwarves to be natural Artificers, you need to make both Constitution and Wisdom matter. Having them both be secondaries is not enough if you only really need one.

I really wonder if that fluff is even accurate.... I can't recall exactly, but I thought House Cannith, a Dragonmarked House of humans and only humans, invented artifice in Eberron.