http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/365
As they did last month, they turn the links on as the articles go up... i just changed the number at the end of the URL from issue 364 to 365...
Still, thanks for the heads up.
Also Logan Bonner, Mike Mearls, and David Noonan on the Artificer? I thought Keith, Ari, and James were the ones writting the Eberron 4e... maybe its Keith and co on the Campaign Setting and Bonner, Mearls, and Noonan on the Players Guide...
LET THE WILD SPECULATION BEGIN!
well not quite yet but nearly... I cant wait to get this up so I can play one...
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drtoc/365
As they did last month, they turn the links on as the articles go up... i just changed the number at the end of the URL from issue 364 to 365...
Tried the same trick with the next issue of Dungeon and it has a FR conversion of H2 but no Eberron equivalent. Slightly worrying.
Also Logan Bonner, Mike Mearls, and David Noonan on the Artificer? I thought Keith, Ari, and James were the ones writting the Eberron 4e... maybe its Keith and co on the Campaign Setting and Bonner, Mearls, and Noonan on the Players Guide...
LET THE WILD SPECULATION BEGIN!
Well, no offense to Keith, Ari, and James, but I think that Logan, Mike, and David are somewhat better in mechanics. I guess they'll also be part of the development team for the player's guide.
Cheers, LT.
Its not too much of a mission changing it over really.
I do like it when Eberron gets the love though.
I do like it when Eberron gets the love though.
I like it when people are reminded that Forgotten Realms isn't the only 'other' setting, heh.
Tried the same trick with the next issue of Dungeon and it has a FR conversion of H2 but no Eberron equivalent. Slightly worrying.
They might just be hoping to spread the conversions out a little, so the Eberron H2 could be in August's Dungeon.
http://www.wocstudios.com/artificer.htm
That's William O'Connor Studios and a large picture of the 4e artificer in the gallery.
What else could it be? Buffs, heals, damage, it seems to fit into the leader role better than anything else. I can't imagine why 4th ed. named the support role "Leader", though.
I'm not altogether familiar with Artificers, but is it possible for them to be Martial? If the magic they use is 4E Ritual magic, then they don't need to be Arcane or Divine to use that. Wishful thinking on my part, though, as I'd really like another Martial class.
No way. Best case is striker. Artificers in 3.5 are more like rogues (trapfinding, disable device) mixed with cleric (buffs on stuff rather you directly on creature) mixed with magic item creation feats.
Seeing how rituals are in 4e, I could see the role leaning toward striker. Average BAB in 3.5 mixed with ranged attacks with magic items in 4e is what leads me to believe that.
Having said all that, they are not combatants, and so martial powers wouldn't fit. I truly think Artificers will be the exception to the 4e rules as they were in 3.5.
Err... huh? I was talking about power source, not role.
Again...
Having said all that, they are not combatants, and so martial powers wouldn't fit. I truly think Artificers will be the exception to the 4e rules as they were in 3.5.
Artificers treat mastery of magic like a technical skill. They see a pattern in energy and matter, and they develop an understanding of how to manipulate the flow of arcane energy in and around material objects and creatures. Artificers learn to channel magic into items by using complex chains of sigils and diagrams or by using magical materials. With their skills, they can assemble the perfect magical object for any situation.
Does look like an interesting class to play, even without all the abilities.
For your viewing pleasure...
http://www.wocstudios.com/artificer.htm
That's William O'Connor Studios and a large picture of the 4e artificer in the gallery.
Is it just me, or is that an Eladrin? in Eberron? with a Dragonmark? (it might not be a Dragonmark, I guess). I guess I missed when/how Eladrin were put into Eberron Canon.
Is it just me, or is that an Eladrin? in Eberron? with a Dragonmark? (it might not be a Dragonmark, I guess). I guess I missed when/how Eladrin were put into Eberron Canon.
I just thought it was an elf or half-elf.
But eladrin, definitely not. No marks for them, and... why an eladrin anyway?
as for the mark, it's very faint, very unlike the vibrant blue color in the rest of the artwork. I don't think it is a mark.
Am I the only one disturbed by the lack of a belly button?
Kylie XX. ;)
Why would you think its an eladrin? Its an elf, and it looks like it has a mark of shadow. I suppose it could be a half-elf.
But eladrin, definitely not. No marks for them, and... why an eladrin anyway?
Eladrin have the funny coloured eyes with no pupil or iris, Elves have normal eyes, this character has the Eladrin eyes, thus it's an Eladrin. However, I'm not entirely certain that she has a Dragonmark, it doesn't look like the Mark of Shadow to me, and it doesn't seem "glowy" like most Marks I've seen in artwork.
As for the artificer does anyone else find it strange that so many powers depend on ranged weapons? Weapon Proficiency (longbow) is an absolute must for this, but I would rather he substituted all the ranged weapon powers for implement powers. Maybe those are on the other built . . .
As for creating new items,well artifice powers technically are new items and he can pick the enchant item ritual as easily as anyone else.
I thought it was an Eladrin becouse of the glowy eyes.
It assumed it's darkvision from the Cannith Googles.
Am I the only one disturbed by the lack of a belly button?
Yes, it's true. Artificers lose their belly buttons.
I am suddenly tempted to allow firearms in Eberron. Can you picture a dwarf artificer using all those ranged weapon powers with a gun?
I'm hoping Tome of Treasures has them :D IMO guns would definitely fit in with Eberron, along with alchemy and all that sort of thing. I'll also be playing alchemy down in any Forgotten Realms campaigns I run (as the designers seem to have been doing that), making it the domain of experts and rare people, to give it a more traditional fantasy feel.
So don't assume there is only ranged.
We don't have a date for the ECS yet, which realistically means 2nd quarter '09 at the EARLIEST, and realistically not until 3rd quarter.
Which makes me sad, but there it is.
God, I hope they don't leave shifters like they are right now in the MM. I loved the 3.5 shifters, I was a fiend for shifter feats. I loved maximizing my shifting potential, even if it limited my class role viability, I admit that.
I just hope they make it an option again in the 4e ECS/EPG.
I still remember the joys of rolling all my scrolls with my 3.5 Artificer, and infusing banes to my weapon to join the melee. I want that joy in 4th edition!
I really hope they give Artificers the feel of item users alot more than the Dragon article has them right now. So far the class looks like a wizard/cleric hybrid that works by tossing pixie dust everywhere to make effects.
I still remember the joys of rolling all my scrolls with my 3.5 Artificer, and infusing banes to my weapon to join the melee. I want that joy in 4th edition!
I agree, I think the Healing infusion power would be loads better if it was a short rest power that allowed to artificer to brew healing potions or an artificer power that allowed him to build a small totem that generates a regen ward would just fit so much better that Inspiriing word, healing word cop-out power they used. Also, the emphasis on ranged isn't to keen either, just change it to weapon, not just ranged ones, bleh. Also, they should shorten the ranged to touch on all his buffing abilities, Lei had to make contact with things she infusion, it seemed that all artificer's have to, this magic wand waving and poof just doesn't fit the artificer flavor at all. More FMA, Less Harry potter!
I would also be in favor of encounter spannin encounter powers that created artifices that in return, the artificer would have to use actions to power, things like a "shock puppy" artifice, which would create a little golem that the arificer could power with his actions. "move the golem with a minor, cause it to use a spark blast with a move-action". In my option, that would fit loads more with the flavor of a class that was based upon controlling golems and building stuff than "you blow crack into your friend's face and he heals from it".
Am I the only one disturbed by the lack of a belly button?
I noticed that as well.
I see a lot of potential with multiclassing, especial warlock (ranged weapon = eldrich blast) and wizard (ranged weapon = magic missile). However, I think it may be best to use either of these other classes as the base and adding the artificer on top. My only problem was I did not see any multiclass feat for the artificer. Any suggestions???
Multiclassing wizard only gives you an at-will as an encounter power. And so you'd need at leastb two feats if you wanted to use either class this way. And there is no feat for a multiclass artificer, as we don't have the whole artificer yet.
I see a lot of potential with multiclassing, especial warlock (ranged weapon = eldrich blast) and wizard (ranged weapon = magic missile).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that just because you can use Eldritch Blast and Magic Missile to make ranged basic attacks that they then also count as being weapons for the purpose of powers which require a weapon.
Am I missing something?
No way. Artificers are manipulating the weapon/ammo with their power to give it the extra kick. It would only work with a ranged weapon, not a ranged spell.
I agree, the artificer is all about infusing things to produce effects. With no focus for their talents to be directed at, then there is no effect. Least how it is written so far, and I personally think it should stay this way or it will just become a wizard clone eventually.
Well, both are the only powers that count as being ranged basic attacks, which are what weapon attacks are. Not sure if that means they can be, but ranged basic attacks give no other benefit.
Sure they do.
You can use them when something (such as another power) allows you to make a ranged basic attack.
Sure they do.
You can use them when something (such as another power) allows you to make a ranged basic attack.
A single epic Warlord power does this so far. I don't think it's that great a benefit.
A single epic Warlord power does this so far. I don't think it's that great a benefit.
I didn't say it was a great benefit. I was just pointing out that counting as a Ranged Basic Attack has a meaning in the system and no where does it suggest that that means you can use those powers as a substitute for a ranged weapon.