Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 i_am_the_law Jan 01, 2008 23:57:53	I kinda wonder how the 4e artificer would work, what with the 4e system's lack of an enforced need for an over-abundance of magical items. One thought I've had is that the artificer could be a lot like the mage, except needing to use a wand as a swiss army knife via their ability to change the nature of the device. The other thought is that they could go the way of Full Metal Alchemist - being able to severly change the nature of not only what they carry but also their enviroment. Maybe create magic traps on the fly in battle? That'd be kinda cool - create a controller that doesn't fight directly, but can, say, infuse an area or 3 to trap foes. Enemy fails will save to stay on the battlefield? Oops, they just wandered into the flame trap I layed down. Or a Hold trap. You guys hack or blast, I'll just stop them in their tracks. They'll probably keep the stat-boost-on-the-fly capabilities - stuff like give your defender +2 to AC for 5 rounds by infusing their armor. What other crazy things can we think up?
#2 Alex_ Jan 02, 2008 1:15:11	I see the Artificer more as a Leader class with a number of buffs and enchantments. Much of the 3.5 Artificer's Infusion list was custom anyway, so just give them bunch of per round/encounter/day abilities that allow it to infuse the items carries by allies, allowing them to prove temporary abilities and bonuses. Most Artificers I saw spent most of their time self-buffing (or buffing others) before going into battle with a melee weapon, ranged weapon, or wand.
#3 subtle Jan 02, 2008 1:35:48	My favorite roleplaying character is an artificer and I'm sad that he'll have to go under some kind of dramatic change for 4.0. Right now he spends time buffing himself and then fights from long distance with a rifle on his magic carpet. I obviously expect my tactics to have to change for 4.0, but the artificer is one of the hardest classes to peg into one group. They can act very much as a leader, buffing their allies, healing the warforged of the group or using wands to heal out of battle... they can also very much be strikers or defenders depending on their builds and buffs, or controllers if they focus on the magical side of things. If they're plugged into one group for 4.0 I hope it's the controller. Allowing them to infuse the earth isn't that much of a stretch, and would give them the ability to form iron walls out of nowhere, send ripples of energy through the earth to knock enemys down, or to make a giant section of the earth tilt backwords and have them all slip down it. I expect them to have a reoccuring blast built into the class, similar to the eldritch blast, though in the form of a wand, cross bow or rifle. This will be modified to fire multiple blasts, to fire aoe knockback ( 'shotgun') style blasts, and to have similar abilitys to the old weapon infusions ( like bane-ing on the fly, giving it elemental propertys). I hope they don't loose their extreme versitality in the tradition between editions, but I know that hope is unrealistic.
#4 Arcane_Guyver Jan 02, 2008 18:29:31	I wonder if the artificer will be too much different from the way they are now. The mechanics may change drastically, but the concept of the artificer isn't too difficult to think up abilities for. Unfortunately, I think we need to see more of the game system before getting too involved in this mental activity. There've been general statements about 'less gear' and 'simpler item creation,' but no useful specifics beyond uniform pricing schemes. BTW, I'm almost positive they'll end up as Leaders with Controller tendencies.
#5 technodemon Jan 03, 2008 2:25:40	The only difference I see would be the magic item creation feats since Wizards has said they are now gone and are morphed into rituals.
#6 obscidiandragon Jan 03, 2008 5:11:50	where can I find more out about rituals?
#7 larry_the_titan Jan 03, 2008 8:04:41	where can I find more out about rituals? At the moment I do believe WotC hasn't released anything about them. But they have said that magic Items will be made through them and Magic Items will no longer drain you Exp. I am hoping there is a Setting 4th ed preview for Eberron like there was for the Races and Classes. If there is the Artificer will definitely be covered there.
#8 mhacdebhandia Jan 03, 2008 14:55:44	The artificer's main schtick isn't permanent magic item creation, anyway, so while I am sure that the artificer in Fourth Edition will have a leg-up on performing item creation rituals in some sense, it might not be as dramatic an advantage as in Third Edition.
#9 Arcane_Guyver Jan 03, 2008 23:12:27	The artificer's main schtick isn't permanent magic item creation, anyway, so while I am sure that the artificer in Fourth Edition will have a leg-up on performing item creation rituals in some sense, it might not be as dramatic an advantage as in Third Edition. I imagine the advantages they'll enjoy will be in faster, cheaper, and ultimately easier rituals. We could still have something akin to a Craft Reserve, only it covers GP cost instead of XP cost.
#10 subtle Jan 04, 2008 1:31:55	It would be cool to see some kind of manuvers to create golems on the fly... or a paragon path/epic destiny that focuses around having an animal companion thats basicly a warforged titan ( Look to Warcasters from The Iron Kingdoms as an insperation)
#11 on_the_wings_of_tpk Jan 04, 2008 2:35:10	What I'd like to see is an artificer who was inspired of the decker in shadow run. basically he controls lots of constructs who do everything for him. Think of like a thrall herder, or necromancer, only instead of mind controlled minions or undead they have home made constructs. Combine this with small list of buff infusions, and you've got an interesting class....on second thought WotC can do whatever they want I'm saving this for my home brew.
#12 Alas Jan 04, 2008 9:11:41	Hmmm... will artificers use the Arcane power source, or have a new Artifice power source? I'd love to see the latter. It would be a highlight for the new edition of Eberron, and provide another set of benchmarks for homebrewers who want to create their own power sources.
#13 larry_the_titan Jan 04, 2008 12:07:35	Hmmm... will artificers use the Arcane power source, or have a new Artifice power source? I'd love to see the latter. It would be a highlight for the new edition of Eberron, and provide another set of benchmarks for homebrewers who want to create their own power sources. hmmm now there is an idea I wouldn't mind seeing. Making Artifice a power source for a systematic approach to magic. With Artificers being a term for a set of classes instead of just a class on its own.
#14 Alas Jan 04, 2008 12:42:02	Personally, I'd have to really stretch to come up with classes that could use Artifice to fill all the new roles: Striker-- artillerist? (wands and magic bullets) Controller--alchemist? (potions) Defender--armorer? Leader--artificer? (buffs and inventions) I'd be satisfied with just one class that exploits Artifice to begin with, since warforged characters (and possibly House Cannith heirs) could also tie it into their racial powers.
#15 i_am_the_law Jan 04, 2008 13:26:19	Well, the key with Artificers is that they treat magic as a science, so I could see them staying with the Arcane powersource. I know some peeps are going to groan at this, but I'll probably homebrew an artificer-like class loosly based off Full Metal Alchemist (which, btw, is surprisingly well researched with a LOT of referances to historical alchemy and how it was thought to work), with a concentration on temporary effects rather than straight up transmutation.
#16 subtle Jan 05, 2008 1:27:20	Before 3.5 got the breaks put on we definitly started getting a larger varity of effects. Magic of Ebberon brought us Blast Rod and Concurant Infusions, which really spiced up our options.
#17 lugnut71 Jan 05, 2008 12:07:41	Perhaps the artificer will change so it creates temporary magic items in a fight. Similar to an incarnate without the fluff. Also it would have some advantage in making permanent items. Still probably work as a leader type role, since it would buff itself and others. Just a thought that is how I would do it.
#18 larry_the_titan Jan 05, 2008 19:27:07	Striker-- artillerist? (wands and magic bullets) Controller--alchemist? (potions) Defender--armorer? Leader--artificer? (buffs and inventions) Not a bad list but your controller needs a better name because in D&D Alchemist means something different then what they did in Full Metal Alchemist. How about Geomancer? I mean there isn't a rule that they all had to start with an A is there? The Geomancer class would be about creating areas that grant magical effects. At higher levels the class would allow you to alter the battle field. Like moving the land around and even making and removing walls and floors. Now the Striker needs a better name. I just can't think of one.
#19 Alas Jan 07, 2008 7:39:43	Not a bad list but your controller needs a better name because in D&D Alchemist means something different then what they did in Full Metal Alchemist. How about Geomancer? I mean there isn't a rule that they all had to start with an A is there? The alliteration was accidental (though I didn't go out of my way to avoid it, either). I've never actually watched Full Metal Alchemist (my anime knowledge stopped being current around the time Nadesico wrapped up) so when I say "alchemist" I really do mean an adventurer with vials and powders pouring smoke onto the battlefield and performing rituals with alembecs and beakers. That said, a geomancer would be cooler-- I was trying to come up with an incarnum-based geomancer before 4th was announced, and Artifice (harkening back to the colorless mana?) would make a fine alternative source for it. The challenge with Artifice would be finding enough exciting material that doesn't tread on ground already covered by Arcane classes. This was sort of the point of my list: in addition to being a little lame, the alchemist is also a little too wizardly, the armorer too anonymous, and the artillerist unpoetic.
#20 larry_the_titan Jan 07, 2008 9:21:05	The alliteration was accidental (though I didn't go out of my way to avoid it, either). I've never actually watched Full Metal Alchemist (my anime knowledge stopped being current around the time Nadesico wrapped up) so when I say "alchemist" I really do mean an adventurer with vials and powders pouring smoke onto the battlefield and performing rituals with alembecs and beakers. That said, a geomancer would be cooler-- I was trying to come up with an incarnum-based geomancer before 4th was announced, and Artifice (harkening back to the colorless mana?) would make a fine alternative source for it. The challenge with Artifice would be finding enough exciting material that doesn't tread on ground already covered by Arcane classes. This was sort of the point of my list: in addition to being a little lame, the alchemist is also a little too wizardly, the armorer too anonymous, and the artillerist unpoetic. I actually liked that show but the effect of anime on D&D is sometimes better avoided. Now on to the name of the Artificer Striker. Artillerist isn't a bad name I just think it needs work. Cannoner would still be able to pull off what you came up with but when I think striker I think Rogue not Sorcerer. In more of the Rogue flavor maybe a reflavor of the spell thief with infusions and the ability to steal spells and Supernatural abilities would be fitting.
#21 Alas Jan 07, 2008 9:49:55	I actually liked that show but the effect of anime on D&D is sometimes better avoided. Depends on your group, I suppose. A good friend of mine ran a Slayers-style D&D campaign for over 5 years-- "A good time was had by all," as we used to say. In more of the Rogue flavor maybe a reflavor of the spell thief with infusions and the ability to steal spells and Supernatural abilities would be fitting. Ah, infusions. That's a term I hope they keep for the new artificer/Artifice. More than magic items and craft reserve, infusions and homonculi are really what I think of when I hear the word "artificer," probably because those are the elements that I see the most during the encounters that make up a gaming session. I hope that when they redesign artificers for 4th edition they find a way to bring more of the class's powers out of the workshop and into the dungeon. Hmmm... what could/should Artifice do, in a general sense? Item creation rituals are a given, but perhaps more flexible than those available to Arcane and Divine classes. Perhaps an emphasis on upgrading/modifiying existing items? For example, a wizard can craft a flamebrand sword, but an artificer can then take it into the shop on short notice and transform it into an icebrand sword. Infusions are the per-encounter and at-will powers, and revolve around physical objects, preferably crafted ones. Can't affect a tree, but can affect a wooden door? The power-stealing concept would be great, too-- the artificer could use a little invention like a mimic or repeater, intercepting attacks and hitting back with whatever hits him. Homonculi are to artificers what familiars and summoned beasts are to other classes. Once they figure out the rules for those, the artificer should get their little minions back. According to a recent article, traps are going to be more like encounters in their own right in the new edition. Artifice could be a way for players to mess around with those rules. Sort of like conjuring or summoning, the artificer could get a per-encounter power that creates one or more traps on the battlefield. Kind of like extemporaneously rigging a bucket over the door, only the door is a dungeon corridor and the bucket contains Artificial Nastiness. At the same time, I hope that Artifice (or whatever they decide to use) doesn't require widgety bookkeeping about item hit points and hardness and price tags. My players like artificers for the mad inventor schtick, not for the inventory list.
#22 decivre Feb 18, 2008 7:15:13	If artificers return, I think they'll have a new power source. Most likely called Artifice, as stated previously. Then the classes might be something like this... Defender: Mastermaker (from the Renegade Mastermaker prestige class... which was an awesome idea, by the way; modifies his body with artifice to make himself a better warrio) Controller: Alchemist/Wand Adept (from the Alchemist Savant/Cannith Wand Adept prestige class; uses potions/wands and such to control the field) I couldn't decide on which so I just put both Leader: Artificer (obvious; buffs the party with inventions and infusions) Striker: Factotum (I just see it in this power source... they'd be perfect for each other; uses artifice to act as a jack of all trades outside of combat... in combat fights best one on one)
#23 illathid Feb 19, 2008 1:36:08	I really can't think of a good way to implement an artifice defender, but thats fine as each role doesn't need to filled for every power source. As for the the name for a striker, I'm rather partial to Grenadier my self.
#24 larry_the_titan Feb 19, 2008 10:55:14	As I have replied to all the other threads that have brought this up, I will post again here. I have a list of classes for the Artificer Power Source. Leader: Artificer - Party Buffer, magical repairs, and Utility Item Creation. Striker: Spellthief - Nothing quite like Stealing a Casters spells except maybe using them on them. Controller: Geomancer - Terrain control, Giving the party the higher ground no matter wear they stand. I would use the Term Alchemist but some poeple might be worried about the simularity to anime or think it should only be throwing glass beakers, which isn't a smart idea in the least. No offense intended to those who thought the Alchemist would be a good name but it just has to much bagage. Defender : Mastermaker - Best name I heard so far, thanks to Decivre. I used to think Armorer was a good concept but a terrible name. Mastermaker fits the Spot so much better. Well anyway this class would be about making Weapons and Armor so they could stand Toe to Toe with the Heavy Hitters on the other side.
#25 d1tremere Feb 19, 2008 13:13:26	I have trouble seeing the Artificer in 4E. It's role in 3E was built solely out of the mistake they claim to have fixed in 4E, which was designing a class with out of combat strengths to balance in combat weeknesses. In 3E the Artificer was designed as a support class, to make magic items and effects out of combat was it's main strength then to provide buffs in combat to the team. As this isn't much fun you tend to see a lot of self buffing and combat builds. I can't see a solid artificer team role in 4E. The other big change is magic, and the way items were made. I strongly believe the Artificer was designed as a patch, an NPC who could reduce the PCs and DMs headaches over magic item construction and to maintain the magic heavy infrastructure in Eberron. With the need for a patch gone [I hope] and the rest of it's flare falling into the domain of other caster classes, I just can't see a need for a 4E Artificer.
#26 azazyll Feb 19, 2008 21:33:20	With the need for a patch gone [I hope] and the rest of it's flare falling into the domain of other caster classes, I just can't see a need for a 4E Artificer. The artificer isn't the patch; Eberron is. Eberron is making sense of the "mistake", which is, of course, just another proof of the roleplaying maxim that there are no mistakes, only limited imaginations. Eberron is a world where universal and omnipresent magic makes sense, and there are supposed to be a lot of items. I imagine we're more likely going to see a "patch" for 4th ed when eberron is released that will allow for more magic in the system, and the artificer will be a part of that. alternatively, it might be a path for wizards, but they've been very clear in the background from the beginning that the artificer is not arcane.
#27 d1tremere Feb 19, 2008 23:06:53	The artificer isn't the patch; Eberron is. Eberron is making sense of the "mistake", which is, of course, just another proof of the roleplaying maxim that there are no mistakes, only limited imaginations. Eberron is a world where universal and omnipresent magic makes sense, and there are supposed to be a lot of items. I imagine we're more likely going to see a "patch" for 4th ed when eberron is released that will allow for more magic in the system, and the artificer will be a part of that. alternatively, it might be a path for wizards, but they've been very clear in the background from the beginning that the artificer is not arcane. The patch I was refering to was the buying, selling and creating of magic items. Not the fluff elements, I could never see why realistic explinations were needed in an un-realistic fantasy game. Just the head ache of mechanics for identifying, devideing up, shopping for or selling and crafting.
#28 larry_the_titan Feb 20, 2008 11:01:43	The patch I was refering to was the buying, selling and creating of magic items. Not the fluff elements, I could never see why realistic explinations were needed in an un-realistic fantasy game. Just the head ache of mechanics for identifying, devideing up, shopping for or selling and crafting. The problem that I see is you still think of the class as just a patch. The class became a Icon for Eberron, Same as Warforged and Dragonmarks. You can't just get rid of them because of the purpose they have in the setting itself. Its like telling a Faerûn Fan that they got rid of Drow because their existence was no longer needed. If you can get a Faerûn Fan to do that without someone hitting you upside the head with the Forgotten Realms setting you should be in Sales making Millions not here with us.
#29 Alas Feb 20, 2008 11:09:29	I have trouble seeing the Artificer in 4E. It's role in 3E was built solely out of the mistake they claim to have fixed in 4E, which was designing a class with out of combat strengths to balance in combat weeknesses. In 3E the Artificer was designed as a support class, to make magic items and effects out of combat was it's main strength then to provide buffs in combat to the team. As this isn't much fun you tend to see a lot of self buffing and combat builds. I can't see a solid artificer team role in 4E. I suspect that the "support" role will be filled by the leader-type classes, which are reportedly designed to aid others while still doing their own exciting thing in combat. If I were to make an artificer for 4th edition, I'd aim for a cross between the "blastificer" (spells-in-a-bottle for combat fun) and the "bufficer" ("I've got just the thing for you..."). It sounds like classes don't have to choose between combat and non-combat effeciency anymore, but we'll have to wait to see how that works. The other big change is magic, and the way items were made. I strongly believe the Artificer was designed as a patch, an NPC who could reduce the PCs and DMs headaches over magic item construction and to maintain the magic heavy infrastructure in Eberron. It's been said that item creation is going to be a matter of rituals instead of feats, and that magic items will be in the PHB instead of the DMG. I really don't know how this will affect artificing, although I'm extremely hopeful that it means dispensing with Crafting pools and similar number crunching. With the need for a patch gone [I hope] and the rest of it's flare falling into the domain of other caster classes, I just can't see a need for a 4E Artificer. I don't know about need, but there's certainly a desire among my players for a gadget-wielding, faux-Medieval, mad MacGyver-type adventuring inventor. ;)
#30 makeshiftwings Feb 20, 2008 16:32:53	My opinions: 1) I specifically don't want them to "fill the grid" and release 4 different Artificers, one for each role. I'm against filling grids for its own sake in general; I think it's sort of an obsessive-compulsive gamer thing (I used to feel a need to do it too; I guess I've felt less compelled as the years have gone by). It often leads to a bunch of boring or repetitive content taking up space that could be used by something much more interesting. Not everything needs to be symmetrical. I can think of a lot of things I'd prefer that book space to be used for. 2) I think they could make him "Arcane" without it really affecting anything, but I guess if they wanted to make a new one called "Artifice" that would be fine. From what we know of the power sources, the label doesn't do a whole lot in game mechanics, and it's mostly a way to group classes with a similar theme and method of play. Even though the Artificer could use spells from all lists in 3E, he still seemed somewhat close to the wizard in style and fluff. In 4e, the old stigmas of "Arcane" meaning "no healing spells" and "can't cast in armor" are both gone, anyway. 3) I think he should be a Controller with some Leader abilities, or a Leader with some Controller abilities. He could have talent trees and paragon paths that would let him move somewhat into different roles: the Cannith Wand Adept path should be a pretty decent Striker, but not out-damage classes that are primary Strikers. I imagine this will annoy many people who can't deal with the idea of a mere rogue or ranger doing more damage than their old split ray empowered quickened Scorching Ray wand blaster used to do, but it's a necessary part of rebalancing. The Artificer can't be all things. 4) Along the same lines, I don't think he should have such easy access to all other classes' spell lists. If he has any access at all, it should be pretty limited and have a strict level cap a few levels below the Artificer's own. This is, again, because one class should not be able to outshine another class at its own spells. I think the artificer should mostly be written to have his own unique set of abilities: Infusions are a big one, of course. 5) One way to preserve the "fluff" of an item-making gadgeteer without needing a lot of actual magic items is to give the Artificer his own "implements", like the 4e Wizard has. Every few levels, the artificer can craft himself a new implement or an improved version of an existing implement. These would be items that only an Artificer can figure out how to use. One might be a Universal Wand that the artificer can use to create various different blasts and rays, with different modifications to the wand allowing different bonuses. One could be an Artificer's Toolkit, which adds different effects to your infusions. Maybe an Antimagic Focus that lets you reduce the effectiveness of the enemy's magic items or cast various debuffs on them. Anyway, we have a year after 4e comes out to worry about the Artificer, so I'm sure we'll all have better ideas for what we would like to see once we see the 4e PHB and play a few games.
#31 d1tremere Feb 21, 2008 23:17:20	The problem that I see is you still think of the class as just a patch. The class became a Icon for Eberron, Same as Warforged and Dragonmarks. You can't just get rid of them because of the purpose they have in the setting itself. Its like telling a Faerûn Fan that they got rid of Drow because their existence was no longer needed. If you can get a Faerûn Fan to do that without someone hitting you upside the head with the Forgotten Realms setting you should be in Sales making Millions not here with us. You can still have Artificers even if they remove the class. A title for example, given to wizards who use a specific set up. I'd say it's more like asking a FRs fan to accept the Drow are now Fay and all the Elven subraces have been folded into three distinct races, then the removel of Drow analogy.
#32 larry_the_titan Feb 22, 2008 6:58:01	You can still have Artificers even if they remove the class. A title for example, given to wizards who use a specific set up. This is something I don't understand, People assumption that the Artificer is like a Wizard. I mean the Artificer was very different from a Wizard. They didn't even prepare spells and they got there full spell list all the time. Over all the Artificer has more in common with Rogues then it does wizards. And there spell list was closer to that of a Cleric and they cast spells like a Bard. So of Wizard, Rogue, Bard or Cleric, you seem to think they fit best with Wizards? I mean the class was only spellcasting class that was Defined as neither Arcane nor Divine. Again how is that anything like a Wizard? The Artificer was distinct and that is why I say the class should remain a class by itself not part of a class that had nothing to do with it. I have a similar problem understanding why people think the Druid could be just a talent tree of Clerics. I mean some meaningless PrCs and base Classes can be made Talent trees and Paragon classes but this is not the case with Druids and Artificers. If you really want I am sure they could make everything a Talent Tree of Defenders, Controllers, Strikers and Leaders. Just add power Sources as fluff and you got everything you need with just 4 classes with very little distinct flavor and ability among themselves. Would you be happy with that?
#33 azazyll Feb 25, 2008 8:45:20	Actually, the artificer has the most in common with the other "improved" specialists, like the warmage and dread necromancer, or the beguiler or even the ill-conceived healer. However, it is significantly different from any of these, and I would have to agree that it is sufficiently different from the wizard that people will not be happy with an artificer talent tree. That said, it looks like the wizard is actually moving towards being more like the artificer in some ways with the focus items. the main problem is that, even more than the wizard, the artificer is the guy who can do everything under the sun. If you didn't have a cleric, he healed. no rogue, he found traps and could scout in a pinch. he could even take hits with sufficient boosts. It would be a shame to let class roles pigeonhole the artificer.
#34 Dragoloth Feb 25, 2008 14:57:54	A wizard can never replace an artificer. Artificers do not cast spells, they cast infusions, nor are they arcane. A wizard suffers from spell failure in fullplate an artificer does not. I for one hope that they keep the artificer class in fourth edition and keep it a class mainly focused on creation.
#35 larry_the_titan Feb 25, 2008 14:59:13	It would be a shame to let class roles pigeonhole the artificer. Sadly enough what you liked about the Artificer is what caused the most problems with the Class to begin with. A skilled enough Optimizer could make the class build all sorts of nasty tools and have the character fill every role in the party instead of one. The fact that the class could buff himself to a level few Barbarians get to in strength and still cast more powerful spells then a wizard was what made it dangerous. Its the main reason I want the class to become a Power source and a base Class, so that you can still make the class you want. You just can't break the game while doing it.
#36 makeshiftwings Feb 25, 2008 15:29:12	the main problem is that, even more than the wizard, the artificer is the guy who can do everything under the sun. If you didn't have a cleric, he healed. no rogue, he found traps and could scout in a pinch. he could even take hits with sufficient boosts. It would be a shame to let class roles pigeonhole the artificer. I would have to disagree; I'm on the dev's side in making it so that no class can do everything anymore. All the classes should be fairly balanced, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. It will take some getting used to for people who loved to create godlike one-man armies in 3e, but a game can actually be much more fun when each player has something useful they can do that you can't, and you must depend on each other to succeed.
#37 larry_the_titan Feb 26, 2008 10:08:16	Well the Rogue Preview is out. Consider me confused for the time being. Mainly on the fact that I don't see UMD on the Rogue Skill list. There doesn't even seem to be a Level progression really so I know that other things must take effect some where in there. I see only a slight mention of Talent trees, which appears to be just a list of recommended character options for 2 different build types. Skills seem to be broken down into trained and untrained skills with no Skill points per level. Then there is a list of Rogue Powers listed as at will, per encounter and daily. Sneak attack seems to be weaker but now a per round ability with no mention of things being immune to it. Which make Sneak Attack always useful and never a waste of space on your character sheet. Artificers could still exist with this format but I really don't see enough to know everything that is going on. I will just have to wait and see what options appear in the other classes and the actual game Rules before I can start Homebrewing an Artificer for 4E until the release the real deal.
#38 lightblade Feb 26, 2008 14:28:07	Well the Rogue Preview is out. Consider me confused for the time being. Mainly on the fact that I don't see UMD on the Rogue Skill list. There doesn't even seem to be a Level progression really so I know that other things must take effect some where in there. I see only a slight mention of Talent trees, which appears to be just a list of recommended character options for 2 different build types. Skills seem to be broken down into trained and untrained skills with no Skill points per level. Then there is a list of Rogue Powers listed as at will, per encounter and daily. Sneak attack seems to be weaker but now a per round ability with no mention of things being immune to it. Which make Sneak Attack always useful and never a waste of space on your character sheet.. UMD on the skill list: I don't think there will be magic devices to emulate with a skill. Note that scrolls were never mentioned in the magic item article, and wands and staves are now wizardly implements, and not charged magic items. It's been confirmed that you can now sneak attack undead and constructs, though from the new D&D minis game I expect elementals and oozes to still be immune. I agree that the artificer could be an interesting Arcane Leader. I wonder how much his "shtick" will change, now that scrolls might be gone and wands and staffs do very different things.
#39 zebastian Feb 26, 2008 22:21:56	The Artificer might work well as the elusive "Martial Controller" that has been speculated about in other threads on the 4E forums. Their personal talents would be martial in the sense that their own abilities are based on skill, rather than magic. Their artifice items might actually have arcane, primal, shadow, psi and/or divine as their power source, even though the artificer himself uses his skillful "martial" power source to construct or wield them. Who's to say education can't be martial. This could make for an interesting niche of character. They would be the most versatile controller, weilding power from nearly any source, though it would have to come at the expense of raw power, to maintain game balance. A place for Artificers in Eberron seems a critical part of maintaining the world's unique flavor. Just a thought.
#40 azazyll Feb 27, 2008 20:33:27	I would have to disagree; I'm on the dev's side in making it so that no class can do everything anymore. All the classes should be fairly balanced, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. It will take some getting used to for people who loved to create godlike one-man armies in 3e, but a game can actually be much more fun when each player has something useful they can do that you can't, and you must depend on each other to succeed. The artificer isn't a master of anything, he's good at a little of everything, but there's always someone who can do it better. And that should definitely be an option in 4th ed. Every class can be unbalanced, that's why people like tabletop games where there's a human DM instead of a computer, who can use judgment and imagination to fix any problems that come up.
#41 larry_the_titan Feb 28, 2008 9:00:29	The artificer isn't a master of anything, he's good at a little of everything, but there's always someone who can do it better. And that should definitely be an option in 4th ed. Every class can be unbalanced, that's why people like tabletop games where there's a human DM instead of a computer, who can use judgment and imagination to fix any problems that come up. This right here tells me that you don't know the Artificer as well as you should. Artificer weren't just good at a little of everything. They were the Best at Item Creation period and then was a good buffer and had trapfinding and with the right Items he could Melee, Destroy Armies with Spells, Sneak Around never being noticed and Heal. Being the best at one thing and being good at everything else isn't balanced when other classes aren't even the best at what they do and few could even be good at something else. Magic Items are being toned down in importance in 4E, at least according to most peoples thinking. That leaves the Artificer with Buffing and trapfinding of his normal abilities. After looking at the new Rogue, Trapfinding doesn't even appear on his list and who knows how it works. So that really just leaves Artificers as they were with Buffing which is now connected to the Leader Role. So I only see them either becoming part of their own Power source and being the Leader role or in the Leader Role in maybe Arcane.
#42 makeshiftwings Feb 29, 2008 19:19:38	The artificer isn't a master of anything, he's good at a little of everything, but there's always someone who can do it better. And that should definitely be an option in 4th ed. Every class can be unbalanced, that's why people like tabletop games where there's a human DM instead of a computer, who can use judgment and imagination to fix any problems that come up. Yeah, I'm going to agree with Larry. The artificer was extremely powerful at dealing damage, which is really the main "role" in 3e, plus he was an excellent buffer and great at defending himself. He outshone every core class in everything they did with the possible exception of well-built clerics and druids. He massively overpowered all the martial classes at being martial (just like the cleric) and was often a better wizard than the wizard. Plus, he had all of the rogue's good skills, the ability to use any other class's spells, and was the best at making and using magic items, which were a huge part of power in 3e. There was nothing that the artificer was bad at.
#43 phalon1 Mar 03, 2008 21:45:23	As I have done in other posts I just want to remind everyone how they are making classes in 4e. What made artificers original and unique among the classes? It could be that they buffed items rather then people. Giving them the ability to turn an ordinary weapon magic during combat or giving a suit of armor greater AC. Also their making of homunculi, more then any other class artificers could do it vary well; or making things although how this would play into in combat situations I don’t really know(implements or otherwise). Also fitting it into a particular role is also important. Should it be striker, defender, leader, or controller? Not a class that can do every role (some better then classes specifically designed for that role as was true in 3.x) but a class that can do one role and have at least one major difference in how they do it. Rather then being a fighter sometimes a wizard sometimes and a little bit of everything sometimes. I look forward to seeing the evolution of artifice in the feature because it will likely be different then anything we have thought up so far.
#44 dalarond Mar 06, 2008 17:06:20	The artificer's main schtick isn't permanent magic item creation, anyway, so while I am sure that the artificer in Fourth Edition will have a leg-up on performing item creation rituals in some sense, it might not be as dramatic an advantage as in Third Edition. It isn't? what about all those craft points and the fact that they get every item creation feat as bonus feats as they progress through levels?
#45 ddraig_goch_dup Mar 07, 2008 0:33:50	Artificer really screams "Arcane Leader" to me.
#46 lord_tirian Mar 10, 2008 6:56:40	Artificer really screams "Arcane Leader" to me. He'd also make a good "Arcane Defender". Why? Let's see: 1) Actual defence using Iron Defenders, Homunculi, whatever - he defends people with his mechanic pets. 2) Defensive buffing - there's precedent - the paladin smites can increase allies' AC. Imagine it as protective field around a homunculi, special infusions and so on. 3) Marking... imagine a wand with the magic equivalent of a laser scope. Ranged Opportunity Attacks against the marked target - that would be a nice defence! Cheers, LT.
#47 lugnut71 Mar 10, 2008 12:43:54	Anyone have thoughts about my idea. I mean it seems to tie his item creation ability and his infusion abilities together pretty well. Also I rather like him as an arcane leader using temporary magic items (he would still retain the ability to make permanent ones) to buff other people. Also artificers were great healers outside of battle (which really any class with UMD or a single cure spell were).
#48 Arcane_Guyver Mar 10, 2008 17:08:09	The healing is a huge part of the Artificer's party role, as they're good at both fixing warforged (with infusions) and healing everyone else (with magic items). Not many other classes can do both. They're called "Greasers" in the Mournland for a reason. They're not the frontline, nor in the background manipulating the environment, they're the guys in the middle fixing and buffing.
#49 technodemon Apr 06, 2008 21:03:04	There are some hope for the Articifer where someone form another source (not sure if I can say) that had some info about crafting From I-Con. Magic Item Creation: There will be a ritual available to drain magic from captured items to add to other items. This ritual will be usable in a dungeon. Crafting: There has been some talk about creating a more detailed crafting system. Magic Items: Magic items are definitely focused on powers, not bonuses.
#50 androkguz Apr 06, 2008 22:58:31	First: Stop trying to fill the grid!!!! We don't need each power source to have each role. An artifice striker is a bad idea. Second: My take on the artificer is making it a leader in combat that boost the party's items. I imagine artificers signing magic items to latter cast an infusion on the object as fast as a minor action. An idea: an infusion that's a melee attack. If you hit, the all the weapons of the party get +1 to damage and attack for one round. Your own sword channels the violence and triggers the power. Another: an infusion that adds +XdY fire damage to the next attack of a friend. A big bunch of infusions that the artificer can activate when some trigger occurs is also a nice idea. An example: an infusion that triggers when the signed armor gets hit. The artificer uses an inmediate action (the key word) and activates the infusion. The armor growths spikes that attack the agressor.
#51 kinowolf Apr 07, 2008 0:59:50	As I have replied to all the other threads that have brought this up, I will post again here. I have a list of classes for the Artificer Power Source. Leader: Artificer - Party Buffer, magical repairs, and Utility Item Creation. Striker: Spellthief - Nothing quite like Stealing a Casters spells except maybe using them on them. Controller: Geomancer - Terrain control, Giving the party the higher ground no matter wear they stand. I would use the Term Alchemist but some poeple might be worried about the simularity to anime or think it should only be throwing glass beakers, which isn't a smart idea in the least. No offense intended to those who thought the Alchemist would be a good name but it just has to much bagage. Defender : Mastermaker - Best name I heard so far, thanks to Decivre. I used to think Armorer was a good concept but a terrible name. Mastermaker fits the Spot so much better. Well anyway this class would be about making Weapons and Armor so they could stand Toe to Toe with the Heavy Hitters on the other side. Ooo... I like these. Geomancer is interesting, though perhaps the concept can be expanded. The class should be able to change terrain, but also enchant entire areas with lingering enchantments just like an Artificer does to armor and weapons. Entire tracts of land can become deadly, allowing well coordinated allies to bullrush enemies into them. It would be interesting to do long distance item control. Instead of giving positive enchantments to allies like an Artificer, the Controller could give them sort of un-enchantments, or curses. For example, enchanting the enemy teams armor with extra weight or gravity to pin them down instead of creating a sticky web spell like a Wizard. Or making enemy weapons overheat to create damage. This would make them less like Geomancers and more like Alchemists from Full Metal, though. Mastermaker is tough because it kind of dips into Swordmage territory. The Swordmage has been described as a Defender who uses magical wards and spell-shields instead of heavy armor. While enchanting armor is different, it's also pretty similar in a lot of ways. The challenge would be to find a niche that is fresh. Perhaps a character that can literally fashion arms and armor on the battlefied? Perhaps, the Mastermaker takes a bar of steel and when confronted with skeletons, makes a mace, and with others, an axe. Her armor becomes plate against big Ogres, but chain to make her nimble against a Wizard. These could be Per-Encounter powers. She could also have infusions as Daily (versus the Artificer who has Per-Encounter infusions). Her At-Will powers could be attacks with added elements of knocking weapons away (she knows how they're weighted) or even damaging items (with saves). Spellthief is great. Have her run around with a stave or even a box, in which she sucks in and stores attacks and then unleashes them. Not to bring up anything Japanese unnecessarily (it's such a dirty word around here), but this could be a lot like a Blue Mage from Final Fantasy. Her strength as a Striker is the ability to take in and store magic, as well creating mirrors (her version of a Mark or Curse) that turns magic from on source right back at the caster. To balance her, the magic she turns back can only be used against a few targets even if it's AoE (otherwise she's just overpowered). She needs a consistent At-Will attack that deals good damage and works even when there's no magic around. A Rogue has Sneak Attack, a Ranger has Careful Attack, a Warlock has Eldritch Blast... hard to say what it should be. Artificer is good as is. Focus the class on infusing allies' and her own equipment, repairing things, and producing new items. There's plenty to build a Leader from there. In any event, there's a lot to play with in a power source focused on enchanting objects, versus spells or prayers. Good stuff.
#52 larry_the_titan Apr 07, 2008 13:30:37	Ooo... I like these. Thx Geomancer is interesting, though perhaps the concept can be expanded. The class should be able to change terrain, but also enchant entire areas with lingering enchantments just like an Artificer does to armor and weapons. Entire tracts of land can become deadly, allowing well coordinated allies to bullrush enemies into them. It would be interesting to do long distance item control. Instead of giving positive enchantments to allies like an Artificer, the Controller could give them sort of un-enchantments, or curses. For example, enchanting the enemy teams armor with extra weight or gravity to pin them down instead of creating a sticky web spell like a Wizard. Or making enemy weapons overheat to create damage. This would make them less like Geomancers and more like Alchemists from Full Metal, though. Actually my Goal was to make a Class that was like Full Metal Alchemist but with a different name to avoid the Anime=Evil reactions that you get from some people. The idea was meant to be like the Druids Weather control but for Terrain alone. Create a Door or a Wall, Raise the Floor, Drop the Ceiling on someones head, Transmute the Ground into Ice, Lava, or Acid. Mastermaker is tough because it kind of dips into Swordmage territory. The Swordmage has been described as a Defender who uses magical wards and spell-shields instead of heavy armor. While enchanting armor is different, it's also pretty similar in a lot of ways. The challenge would be to find a niche that is fresh. Perhaps a character that can literally fashion arms and armor on the battlefied? Perhaps, the Mastermaker takes a bar of steel and when confronted with skeletons, makes a mace, and with others, an axe. Her armor becomes plate against big Ogres, but chain to make her nimble against a Wizard. These could be Per-Encounter powers. She could also have infusions as Daily (versus the Artificer who has Per-Encounter infusions). Her At-Will powers could be attacks with added elements of knocking weapons away (she knows how they're weighted) or even damaging items (with saves). Your probably right about Mastermaker be a little close to a Swordsage. There are a few neat ideas in your post as well which I will consider when I post the ideas in the future. Spellthief is great. Have her run around with a stave or even a box, in which she sucks in and stores attacks and then unleashes them. Not to bring up anything Japanese unnecessarily (it's such a dirty word around here), but this could be a lot like a Blue Mage from Final Fantasy. Her strength as a Striker is the ability to take in and store magic, as well creating mirrors (her version of a Mark or Curse) that turns magic from on source right back at the caster. To balance her, the magic she turns back can only be used against a few targets even if it's AoE (otherwise she's just overpowered). She needs a consistent At-Will attack that deals good damage and works even when there's no magic around. A Rogue has Sneak Attack, a Ranger has Careful Attack, a Warlock has Eldritch Blast... hard to say what it should be. Spellthieves should be about the same as it was before. The concept worked but not any better then the rogue of 3.X did. A form of Sneak attack should probably be in its abilities and its steal spell ability should be able to take any power source. Artificer is good as is. Focus the class on infusing allies' and her own equipment, repairing things, and producing new items. There's plenty to build a Leader from there. Strangly enough with what I have heard about Druids, new options have popped up. Exspecially with the concept of Hybrid Roles. Artificer could be a Hybrid Easily and my Class ideas could Easily be adjusted in power and Use into Paragon Levels or Epic Destinies. In any event, there's a lot to play with in a power source focused on enchanting objects, versus spells or prayers. Good stuff. Hopefully some of these ideas get used when Eberron 4E gets released. The Artificer has just to much promise to die because of a new Edition.
#53 dragom Apr 07, 2008 22:45:44	There is the possibility that the Druid will change roles when it shapeshifts. It's possible the Artificer could flip from Striker to Controller and back depending on how he adjusts his "Focus"