The artificer returns

[Rukelnikov]

It seems overly complicated to divorce certain rules of spellcasting from their level 1 just because you don't think they should be casting level spells at 1st level. They either get spellcasting, and all that it entails at level 1, or they get it all at level 2. It's only going to confuse those who would be learning the game for the first time on why every other class has all of their spellcasting rules found in the same block but Artificers have a seperated one for some reason.

Why can't level 1 spellcasting be a unique feature for them as well? What does it hurt? Is it really a bad thing that someone actually decided not to dump Int for once and is able to multiclass into it?

True, it is complicated, I would just move spellcasting to lvl 2 and keep infusions at lvl 1. Its not only the different table but only at lvl 1, needing to modify the multiclass rules for spell slots seems an unnecesary complication too.

[Tectorman]

I noticed two issues that still appear to not be addressed.

One: the extra attunement slots could easily stand to be spread out and granted dooner (others have mentioned this already).

Two: the Artificer still doesn't have Use Magic Device, let alone at a level before the Thief Rogue.

Also, was there ever an option to provide feedback for the first Artificer for this year? I never saw it (cause I know I would have made sure to mention those two issues, at least).

[Anderlith]

I noticed two issues that still appear to not be addressed.

One: the extra attunement slots could easily stand to be spread out and granted dooner (others have mentioned this already).

Two: the Artificer still doesn't have Use Magic Device, let alone at a level before the Thief Rogue.

Also, was there ever an option to provide feedback for the first Artificer for this year? I never saw it (cause I know I would have made sure to mention those two issues, at least).

I don’t believe so. It went sidekicks, Artificer, radio silence, Artificer 2 Subclasses Boogaloo

[Kane0]

I noticed two issues that still appear to not be addressed.

One: the extra attunement slots could easily stand to be spread out and granted dooner (others have mentioned this already).

Two: the Artificer still doesn't have Use Magic Device, let alone at a level before the Thief Rogue.

Also, was there ever an option to provide feedback for the first Artificer for this year? I never saw it (cause I know I would have made sure to mention those two issues, at least).

Previously mentioned, and nothing that I remember. Hopefully these threads get read though, the last one was easily a dozen pages.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Previously mentioned, and nothing that I remember. Hopefully these threads get read though, the last one was easily a dozen pages.

I'm not aware of an official feedback avenue for the first iteration (there was a thread on DNDBeyond for feedback that is still ongoing) however JC has tweeted here that any further iterations will come after a survey.

[Ventruenox]

Anyone else notice the new infusion let's you use a hand crossbow with a shield?

Wildarm noticed this a little bit earlier. Given how multiclass grants shield proficiency, I foresee a number of Artificier dip builds. Shield + ranged weapon finally becomes a long overdue possibility.

Personally, I'm looking forward to creating a dissociative identity disorder Archivist build based upon whatever book was most recently read. It would certainly fix the "I wanna play a new character" compulsion many of us have during a campaign.

[Trustypeaches]

The Battlesmith seems like two strong subclasses smashed together.

It’s the martial subclass, the medic subclass, and the combat pet subclass all at once. It should just be two of those things, IMO.

Also they really should change Alchemist’s sixth level feature to either (A) include another damage type or (B) apply to potions and poisons made by the Alchemist as well (+INT to cheap healing potions would be nice).

[Kane0]

Alchemist (acid, poison, healing, alchemical utility)
Mechanist (pet, gadgets)
Battlesmith (weapons, armor)
Artillerist (wands, rods, staves)
Archivist (scrolls, psychic)

Even that I think is one or two subclasses too many to start with, i'd say refine and release with three then add the other two later in further UA or splat like Xans.

[Arkhios]

INT to attack and damge rolls? Please, no...

Strongly agreed.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Strongly agreed.

I'm still curious as to why this is seen as such a large sticking point. Compared to Hexblade, this takes more commitment and keys off what many would unashamedly (and probably correctly) label as the worst ability score in 5E.

Is the concern in multiclassing? Is the concern that this would become Hexblade 2.0 and detract from the core classes identity, labeling it as a "one(three) level wonder" class?

I'd really like to understand why some are seeing it as such a problem, I don't see it that way myself.

[MinimanMidget]

Personally, I think they don't need to create a situation where spellcasters get to be just as good at fighting as martial classes. Because you can bet they'll never create the reverse situation and let martial classes be as good at spellcasting as spellcasters.

That aside, everyone else has to invest in one stat to get better at spellcasting, and another stat to get better at fighting. Then you have hexblades (and now battlesmiths), who get better at fighting without investing in a second stat, so it's a giant middle finger to everyone who doesn't have that option.

On top of that, wholesale substitution of attack and damage with another stat is boring, lazy design, that makes for boring, lazy builds. In the pre hexblade world, paladins, valor bards, bladelocks, and so on all had to invest in 2 stats, and make decisions about their priorities. Features like lifedrinker or sacred weapon made those choices more interesting without removing them. Now they just dip hexblade and pump Charisma.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying bladelock didn't have problems. But the hexblade is massively overpowered compared to every other patron and its fluff is nonsensical. It was not a good fix. The battlesmith won't be nearly as problematic, but it's still annoying to see them doing this again.

[JackPhoenix]

Fun fact I noticed, as written you can't actually be an Archivist or Battle Smith:

Kind of lazy of them to just copy-paste the abilities from before without double-checking them.

I don't know what are you talking about. It clearly states "At 3rd level, you choose the type of specialist you are: Alchemist, Archivist, Artillerist, or Battle Smith, each of which is detailed at the end of the class’s description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th and 14th level."

[Arkhios]

I'm still curious as to why this is seen as such a large sticking point. Compared to Hexblade, this takes more commitment and keys off what many would unashamedly (and probably correctly) label as the worst ability score in 5E.

Is the concern in multiclassing? Is the concern that this would become Hexblade 2.0 and detract from the core classes identity, labeling it as a "one(three) level wonder" class?

I'd really like to understand why some are seeing it as such a problem, I don't see it that way myself.

I suppose it just reminds me too much of 4th edition's idiocy in certain aspects of the game. If they keep Artificer's Intelligence as a possible substitution for attack and damage, how long it'll take until we get a class that uses Constitution for that instead (like they did with Battlemind in 4th edition; ridiculous idea and class, if you'd ask me).

I mean, you use your hand(s) to wield a weapon. It defies logic that a dude or dudette who can barely lift a sword would somehow be able to deal just as much damage with it as someone with Herculean strength just because they're very intelligent. Dexterity I can understand, somewhat. Though, even then it takes very specific type of weapons to make sense.

Hexblades are able to do the same with Charisma, but their choice of weapons is very limited.

Likewise, Shillelagh lets a druid (or someone with the cantrip) use Wisdom instead of strength when attacking with a club or quarterstaff. But that works only for 1 minute at a time.

Also, while Monks have more variety in weapons they can use with Dexterity, all of them make sense. And with Kensei, they have to choose individual weapons for that.

But Battle Smith? Oh, they can use Intelligence with ANY magic weapon they use. It doesn't matter if the weapon is normally mundane, because they could use an infusion to make that weapon magical for days at a time, and here we go again.

[Millstone85]

I don't know what are you talking about. It clearly states "At 3rd level, you choose the type of specialist you are: Alchemist, Archivist, Artillerist, or Battle Smith, each of which is detailed at the end of the class’s description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th and 14th level."

I had to erase my browsing history to get that correction.

[Constructman]

I don't know what are you talking about. It clearly states "At 3rd level, you choose the type of specialist you are: Alchemist, Archivist, Artillerist, or Battle Smith, each of which is detailed at the end of the class’s description. Your choice grants you features at 3rd level and again at 6th and 14th level."

They updated the doc. Before they did, that paragraph only had the old two subclasses, along with some other things that weren't caught by copyediting.

[Arkhios]

Is it just me, or does it feel strange that Artificer is, for some reason, entitled to "snowflake-ish" special rules for multiclass spellcasting, that are an exact opposite compared to other half-casters (or rather, all partial-level casters)?

RAW, Paladin, Ranger, Arcane Trickster, and Eldritch Knight all round their levels down. But Artificer? Round'em up. It just doesn't seem to add up. Why is it? Just because they absolutely must get spells at 1st level? Why wouldn't Cantrips be enough for first level?

As a side-note, would it actually hurt anything if the older classes would get this same treatment? In fact, what if they're already considering to change it so, and are playtesting it with Artificer?

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP

I suppose this is just going to be a difference in opinion then. I agree that from a certain viewpoint it can look off, rationalizing the intelligence attacker as being "smart enough to make his weapon hit harder" compared to physical strength definitely fits that angle.

The issue is that it really doesn't have to be that way, and in my opinion it doesn't do a whole lot of good to treat it that way. If we wanted to treat the game as realistic as possible, Dexterity really shouldn't be used for attacking in most cases either. Outside of weapons designed with precision or finesse (pun not intended) in mind you would expect strength to be the decider in how effective your damage is. Bows and Crossbows especially don't make any sense (I recall a thread bringing this up) and as someone who has taken at least two archery classes in my life I can tell you that it takes a lot of brute strength to draw a bow that hasn't been drastically modified. An 8 str Fighter with X-Bow expert it able to load and fire up to 4 bolts in a matter of seconds, that's an absurd amount of strength in a short span of time.

From the gameplay perspective, I don't see as many problems with this as I would the Hexblade. Infusions take a long rest to place, if you put one of these Artificers in a scenario where they were disarmed and had to escape quickly they'd be forced to use spells to escape rather than simply calling their weapon back as a Hexblade can.

Artificers are pegged as the guys who can draw the magic in things to their practical limits, I wouldn't think it out of the ordinary if they knew how to actively propel the magic in an item to do more. Their Arcane Armament feature is meant to emulate just that and Battle Smith is the guy who does that better than the rest.

It's at least not any stranger than a Dancing Sword using your Str mod to swing itself.

[Arkhios]

Spoiler: HIDDEN FOR LENGTH

Show

I suppose this is just going to be a difference in opinion then. I agree that from a certain viewpoint it can look off, rationalizing the intelligence attacker as being "smart enough to make his weapon hit harder" compared to physical strength definitely fits that angle.

The issue is that it really doesn't have to be that way, and in my opinion it doesn't do a whole lot of good to treat it that way. If we wanted to treat the game as realistic as possible, Dexterity really shouldn't be used for attacking in most cases either. Outside of weapons designed with precision or finesse (pun not intended) in mind you would expect strength to be the decider in how effective your damage is. Bows and Crossbows especially don't make any sense (I recall a thread bringing this up) and as someone who has taken at least two archery classes in my life I can tell you that it takes a lot of brute strength to draw a bow that hasn't been drastically modified. An 8 str Fighter with X-Bow expert it able to load and fire up to 4 bolts in a matter of seconds, that's an absurd amount of strength in a short span of time.

From the gameplay perspective, I don't see as many problems with this as I would the Hexblade. Infusions take a long rest to place, if you put one of these Artificers in a scenario where they were disarmed and had to escape quickly they'd be forced to use spells to escape rather than simply calling their weapon back as a Hexblade can.

Artificers are pegged as the guys who can draw the magic in things to their practical limits, I wouldn't think it out of the ordinary if they knew how to actively propel the magic in an item to do more. Their Arcane Armament feature is meant to emulate just that and Battle Smith is the guy who does that better than the rest.

It's at least not any stranger than a Dancing Sword using your Str mod to swing itself.

Hmm. When you put it that way, it does make a fair deal of sense, after all. I admit I made an oversight there. It's true that the exemplars of magical item creation could indeed draw a little bit of extra juice out of magic items, so much so to make attacks using wits instead of brawn. If anything, I think Artificer seems like the best choice to do that, actually.

[Tetrasodium]

@arkhios: the oddness you note with casting is because they are trying to take a 2/3 caster class and squish it into a half caster mold rather than just do 2/3 caster

I suppose it just reminds me too much of 4th edition's idiocy in certain aspects of the game. If they keep Artificer's Intelligence as a possible substitution for attack and damage, how long it'll take until we get a class that uses Constitution for that instead (

Speak if the devil... Funny you should mention that. Artificer is a class from eberron. On the subject of a con based class... Aberrant dragonmarks already key off con to represent the strain they put on the aberrant individual trying to harness their mark. It's not outside the realm of reasonable that there might be an aberrant class considering that true marks used to have several classes. Relax :D as long as they don't try to do like the bad old "artificer" Lantan/Ravinica versions it will be fine.

[Arkhios]

@arkhios: the oddness you note with casting is because they are trying to take a 2/3 caster class and squish it into a half caster mold rather than just do 2/3 caster

Personally, I would prefer that if they use an existing chassis for a new class, they should follow same base rules that are implied with similar classes. Theoretically, I wouldn't mind if they introduced an entirely new spellcasting progression, but practically, if they were to introduce an actual 2/3 progression, it might get very messy.

Speak if the devil... Funny you should mention that. Artificer is a class from eberron. On the subject of a con based class... Aberrant dragonmarks already key off con to represent the strain they put on the aberrant individual trying to harness their mark. It's not outside the realm of reasonable that there might be an aberrant class considering that true marks used to have several classes. Relax :D as long as they don't try to do like the bad old "artificer" Lantan/Ravinica versions it will be fine.

For the record, I've been playing D&D for little over 17 years, and I know that Artificer is a class from Eberron, which originated in 3.5.
I don't think it's bad if some "spell-like abilities" (again, I'm aware it's not a term that's in use in 5th edition, it just feels appropriate in this regard) key off from Constitution. What I do consider bad design is to actually let someone make a weapon attack using Constitution for both attack and damage rolls. Not only because of potentially implied incentive to do cheesy builds.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Speak if the devil... Funny you should mention that. Artificer is a class from eberron. On the subject of a con based class... Aberrant dragonmarks already key off con to represent the strain they put on the aberrant individual trying to harness their mark. It's not outside the realm of reasonable that there might be an aberrant class considering that true marks used to have several classes. Relax :D as long as they don't try to do like the bad old "artificer" Lantan/Ravinica versions it will be fine.

Morgrave Miscellany (unofficial add-on to WGtE, also written by Keith Baker) has Children of Khyber as a race option. The Aberrant Dragonmark is more of a feat chain (Lesser, Normal, Greater, Khyber) than a class with how it's listed, but it does give you limited spellcasting all the way up to 6th level.

It would take some effort but I think you could take a Fighter or Rogue and play them with some degree of success using primarily the spells/abilities gained from these feats.

[Kane0]

But they get zero abilities to manipulate the charges or power of magic items oddly enough.

[ProsecutorGodot]

But they get zero abilities to manipulate the charges or power of magic items oddly enough.

I'd say that Battle Smith's ability to use Int when attacking with magical weapons is a bit of manipulation (that's a stretch, I know) but I can't argue against the fact that they're missing a lot of basic things in terms of being masters of magical items.

For the sake of argument, do you think a distinction should be made in the ability to augment their own creations vs someone elses? This is pretty much the only reason I could think of that they would be lacking the ability to tinker with magical items that they didn't create, with their ability to create them being the extent to which they can push the boundary outside of their subclass specific creations.

[Damon_Tor]

I’m not a super fan of artificer being the official pet class, but the Battle Smith does mechanically give me more variety in my Gish Brothers idea:
Four brothers, one an EK, one an AT, one a Hexblade, and now one a Battle Smith, each using a different stat for attacking, each using different spell casting, each with a different style of martial combat...

You've got to figure out adding someone with shillelagh too.

[Arkhios]

You've got to figure out adding someone with shillelagh too.

Ranger with Magic Initiate (Druid): Magic Stone, Shillelagh, and maybe Goodberry. Could even take Archery style, and use the sling to "shoot" those magic stones. With Wisdom.

[Wildarm]

Wildarm noticed this a little bit earlier. Given how multiclass grants shield proficiency, I foresee a number of Artificier dip builds. Shield + ranged weapon finally becomes a long overdue possibility.

Personally, I'm looking forward to creating a dissociative identity disorder Archivist build based upon whatever book was most recently read. It would certainly fix the "I wanna play a new character" compulsion many of us have during a campaign.

Yeah the more I've been thinking on this build, the more I see a 2-3 Level Artificer dip being fantastic for a Ranged build in pretty much every way. It gives some utility, a +1 weapon without the loading property and +1d6 Acid damage to all your attacks.

Trying to come up with a Bladesinger/Battle Smith Build concept but it doesn't mesh all that well together. Can't use a shield or medium/heavy armor and you end up having to invest in Dex anyway.

Looking more to melee compared to ranged, I thought a Fighter 1/Battle Smith Artificer 5 is also very solid tank. Go full Metal:

Forest Gnome
Sword and Board - Str 8, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 8
Wear Heavy Armor and Ride your Iron Defender(AC15, 31 HP) with 40' Speed
You should have +1 Plate, Shield @ Level 4 - AC 21
Iron Defender can impose disadvantage on an attack against you as a reaction

Damage Output:

Longsword: 2x 1d8+4(Int)+1d6 Acid(Arcane Weapon)
Bonus Action Iron Defender Attack: 1d8+3
Overal DPS - 28 per round assuming all hit

You're tough to hurt and do enough damage to keep some attention on you. Plus the normal Artificer half caster spell progression. I expect your defender will get attacked as a priority but it can heal itself 6d8+9 HP per day and you can just spend a spell slot to rebuild it if it dies. That is crazy efficient.

Trying to think of a good combo for warding bond but nothing really comes to mind for this build except for perhaps Heavy Armor Master.

Other thoughts:

Battle Smith also builds magic armor cheaply. If you're DM allows you time to craft stuff, you could forgo the fighter level and just wear medium armor and eventually craft +1 Mithral Half Plate and a +1 Shield. Potentially craft some +1 mithral plate barding for your Iron Guardian as well to get it's AC up to 19.

New UA opens up quite a few strong and interesting builds. Have to give more though to Archivist. Seems so odd....

[OvisCaedo]

Well, there's a lot of... interesting stuff here, at least. Real weird stuff. I guess I like it, though a few things seem just strange to me.

...Like, why add an "enhanced wand" infusion instead of just putting wand of the war mage on the replicable items table? It seems to be completely identical. It scales up at 12, which is also where the higher batch of item replications show up and the +2 could be put. Maybe they just want to avoid putting redundant + items on the table, I guess...?

also still feels like the capstone is pretty sudden, and the lack of a UMD equivalent still feels odd. I guess it's not STRICTLY necessary, though, since it seems a lot of more generic wands and staves just say "spellcaster" as their attunement requirement.

(and a slight correction to the previous poster, repulsion shield seems to require 8th level, don't think you'll be getting that one at level 4. Not a big deal though. Possibly even for the best, since you might really want to have a permanently magic weapon instead of complete reliance on arcane weapon uptime for your attack stat)

[Misterwhisper]

I am more intrigued by a few of the infusions than I am the class itself.

The idea of an infusion that makes a magical auto-loading ranged weapon i love the idea of as it opens the door for having a normal magic item like that.
Same with the basic returning property.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah the more I've been thinking on this build, the more I see a 2-3 Level Artificer dip being fantastic for a Ranged build in pretty much every way. It gives some utility, a +1 weapon without the loading property and +1d6 Acid damage to all your attacks.

Trying to come up with a Bladesinger/Battle Smith Build concept but it doesn't mesh all that well together. Can't use a shield or medium/heavy armor and you end up having to invest in Dex anyway.

Looking more to melee compared to ranged, I thought a Fighter 1/Battle Smith Artificer 5 is also very solid tank. Go full Metal:

Forest Gnome
Sword and Board - Str 8, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 18, Wis 12, Cha 8
Wear Heavy Armor and Ride your Iron Defender(AC15, 31 HP) with 40' Speed
You should have +1 Plate, +1 Repulsion Shield @ Level 4 - AC 22
Iron Defender can impose disadvantage on an attack against you as a reaction

Damage Output:

Longsword: 2x 1d8+4(Int)+1d6 Acid(Arcane Weapon)
Bonus Action Iron Defender Attack: 1d8+3
Overal DPS - 28 per round assuming all hit

Bladesinger was the first thing I thought of too, but since they have to wear light armor you end up needing to max the two stats anyway and Int to att/dam becomes not as relevant, ended up thinking a build pretty similar to yours, ride panther and maybe get BB/GFB to ready attack with it when you ride by an enemy. The class really seems custom made for Gnomes(Rock in particular), and its fitting after all, bonus to Int, medium size pet (only smalls can ride it), and Artificer's Lore + Tinker.

Other interesting builds can be:

Art2/BattleMasterX - Plate + Shield + Hand Xbow, Arcane Weapon, plus nice versatility from low lvl spells

BS3/ArcaneArcherX - Full SAD, Improving Att/Dam also improves your saves DC, magic arms and archery style, Arcane Weapon.

BS3-5/ArcaneTricksterX - You are good with +2 Dex, your pet can soak some damage and grants you an ally for Sneak Attak, gain great versatility for spellcasting, and you only really need to pump Int.

[Tetrasodium]

I think that the concerns people are raising over it becoming another scorlockadin type abomination are drastically overblown & ignore the fact that sorc/warlock are both very frontloaded classes that have their archtype split at first level and have significant additive/multiplicative synergies. The artificer is anything but front loaded by comparison & splits into archtypes at third. Yes artificer enables some cool new multiclass options & some of them could work well together, but three levels is a huge investment & none of the other classes bring anything like pact magic+flexible casting+repelling agonizing eldritch blast+devils sight or any other scorlock WotCFailedSanityChecking combos.