Well, today, I just finished one side project, my Essential Artificer, the Infuser. I'd be interested in getting people's opinions on it.
plotscaper.com/2011/05/16/custom-class-e...
The basic design concept is: their primary method of attack is their homunculus (an iron defender or a clay scout), and all of their other abilities are Infusions; infusions are essentially stances, in that they can only have one infusion out at a time, and they modify other attacks rather than being attacks in their own right. Among other things, this means that the artificer is a major support class, relying upon his homunculus and his allies to get through combat. On the other hand, there's no reason he can't just grab a mace and some armor, and infuse his own gear... it's meant to be one of the most versatile classes in the game, but not necessarily any more powerful than a standard leader/melee fighter
I didn't like the 4E artificer, but I loved the 3E artificer with all of his ability variety and making up magical gadgets on the spot. So I remade him with an eye toward that.
This is my first draft, having finished typing it and quickly combed through it. I need to think about balance issues though, like whether Magic Weapon should be an infusion or not, and whether the Infusion Expert ability could be something a bit more creative and artificer-ish.
But yeah. Any and all input on this would be desirable (except of course "it's stupid". Constructive criticism, please.) I hope to run an Eberron game soon, and I know I have a player who is drooling over the concept of an infusion-based artificer, so I hope to polish this up pretty soon.
Anyway, thanks, enjoy, give me input.
EDIT: Also, in terms of what I used to yardstick out his balance... he was based on the druid, heavily modified with modified fighter-stances instead of at-wills, replacing the nature talent things with cantrips... etc. etc.
Just off the top of my head:
1. Healing Infusion needs reworded to actually do something. And why does this heal an object instead of a creature?
2. Magic Weapon isn't an attack, it's a utility.
3. Detect Magic is useless, Arcana does that.
4. I look forward to Fabricating all my enemies into steak dinners. This needs limited to not work on anything that's alive, or being held, or magical, or otherwise important.
5. Explosive Armor is abusable through auto-hit effects.
6. Actually, the entire set of augmentations is quite abusable, thanks to the existence of Corellon's Boon of Arcane Might...
7. Magic Weapon needs to upgrade effects, not just damage, or it's going to be useless.
1. Fixed the wording on the Healing Infusion, I had a typo in it. Hoewver, it doesn't heal an object; it heals the holder of an object. Thus, an artificer could conceivably infuse a healing infusion into, say, a rubber ball, bounce it across the battlefield, have it get caught by the fighter and then heal the fighter.
2. Oops. Fixed.
3. 3.5 artificer also had a nearly useless detect magic ability. The defining difference is that detect magic doesn't require an Arcana check, and can detect high-level spells regardless of the artificer's level. Mostly useless, I agree, but I like the option being there.
4. I changed fabricate to specify nonliving or dead. I could've left it as nonliving except the scientist in me must distinguish 'nonliving' and 'dead.'
5. I'm not sure how you mean that this is abusable with auto-hit effects. It's only usable once per round, and the attack must hit the wearer--Effects such as Magic Missile do not qualify for 'hitting'.
6. I'm not really going to concern myself with how broken every single item in the game can make every single option in the game... I'm running an essentials game anyway. I see your point, but I don't really see a way to fix it considering that the boon allows for the duplication of any at-will "power", which is a general statement waiting to be broken (and I imagine is broken anyway; if there is a 30th level epic destiny at-will utility power out there, it too qualifies for Corellon's Boon, since there is no limit to level or needing it to be an attack; so I imagine that trying to fix my class to avoid Corellon's Boon is the path to madness). If you have any suggestions let me know.
7. I made Magic Weapon now effect implement attacks too. Is that what you meant? I really only want it to succeed on an attack hit, not on effects... hm.
plotscaper.com/2011/05/16/custom-class-e...
Fixed some infusions which lacked the ability to enhance implements. I reread all of the essential classes and tweaked some class features to be more in line with the progression and balance of the other classes (including replacing the second 'improved magic weapon' with an enhancement to the current magic weapon). Made homunculuses slightly weaker, but, they get a free infusion on them that can be replaced at a range of 20 squares--so they're just about as strong, but much more tweakable.
Tweaked a couple cantrips, moved some class feature levels around slightly.... probably there were a few other tweaks, but in any case, yeah. Link updated.
I would also say that the homunculi are nowhere near equal in power. The scout does lower damage, has lower defenses, and has a worse attack. I would also say that the aura on the scout is way worse than the aura on the iron defender, because it's more likely that people can generate their own combat advantage (say, by flanking with the iron defender) then they are to generate their +2 to all defenses (even if it is a power bonus).
I'm not sure why you put charisma as the secondary stat. I don't really get the mechanics->flavor connection there.
Keep Healing Infusion the same as in the book. You've changed it; but there's no real reason for doing so. Just because you're using an essential design plan doesn't mean you should make everything "Noob Mode". You've removed the uniqueness of it and you really haven't given anything in return.
I would also say that the homunculi are nowhere near equal in power. The scout does lower damage, has lower defenses, and has a worse attack. I would also say that the aura on the scout is way worse than the aura on the iron defender, because it's more likely that people can generate their own combat advantage (say, by flanking with the iron defender) then they are to generate their +2 to all defenses (even if it is a power bonus).
I'm not sure why you put charisma as the secondary stat. I don't really get the mechanics->flavor connection there.
Hm.
Healing Infusion is the same as it is for druids in Essentials. It's actually somewhat more powerful now in some ways (it can be remote-detonated, so you can prep someone for healing a round ahead of time, and then dive behind a corner and still heal them without line of sight). In comparison to the 4E artificer... yeah, well, I was trying to differentiate. And as I just described, I gave it a lot in return; it's now a fairly unique method of healing, which doesn't rely upon line of sight or range so long as you can touch your ally once before he needs to be healed.
I don't think it's "Noob Mode" at all, considering it's actually fairly more complex to handle than a standard healing power. Though I'll keep in mind your perspective on Essentials when thinking about your reply...
Homunculi... the iron defender has a huge damage and average attack bonus. The Clay Scout has a huge attack bonus thanks to the fact anyone he's adjacent to (read: attacking) grants him combat advantage. In addition, he doesn't need to flank in order to provide the rogue combat advantage; he could be adjacent to the rogue for all that matters. And, he can provide combat advantage to several creatures at once without needing to flank--so cooperation with the wizard could involve sending the clay scout into the middle of a crowd, then having the wizard nuke the crowd with a huge attack bonus.
They're very equal. And, they're based on the druid Essentials animal companion, tweaked to be more artificerish, but otherwise almost plagiaristically based on them. They're fine and balanced as they are.
The scout does not have lower defenses by the way, their defenses are equal: the iron defender is extremely susceptable to will attacks or reflex attacks, but nearly invulnerable to fortitude or AC attacks. The clay scout is highly vulnerable to AC, Fortitude, and Will, but is very strong against Reflex.
Charisma... because that's always been a secondary stat for artificers in 3.5. Use Magic Device (Charisma) has always been the #1 critical skill for artificers to succeed at their jobs. Artificers base their abilities on their force of personality and cleverness backed by their intellect... so Intelligence is their primary stat, and not Constitution (force of personality, what?).
You say you don't understand why Charisma is connected to their flavor... I don't really get how anything else is.
In any case, thanks for the input, I guess.
Keep Healing Infusion the same as in the book. You've changed it; but there's no real reason for doing so. Just because you're using an essential design plan doesn't mean you should make everything "Noob Mode". You've removed the uniqueness of it and you really haven't given anything in return.
I would also say that the homunculi are nowhere near equal in power. The scout does lower damage, has lower defenses, and has a worse attack. I would also say that the aura on the scout is way worse than the aura on the iron defender, because it's more likely that people can generate their own combat advantage (say, by flanking with the iron defender) then they are to generate their +2 to all defenses (even if it is a power bonus).
I'm not sure why you put charisma as the secondary stat. I don't really get the mechanics->flavor connection there.
Hm.
Healing Infusion is the same as it is for druids in Essentials. It's actually somewhat more powerful now in some ways (it can be remote-detonated, so you can prep someone for healing a round ahead of time, and then dive behind a corner and still heal them without line of sight). In comparison to the 4E artificer... yeah, well, I was trying to differentiate. And as I just described, I gave it a lot in return; it's now a fairly unique method of healing, which doesn't rely upon line of sight or range so long as you can touch your ally once before he needs to be healed.
I don't think it's "Noob Mode" at all, considering it's actually fairly more complex to handle than a standard healing power. Though I'll keep in mind your perspective on Essentials when thinking about your reply...
Homunculi... the iron defender has a huge damage and average attack bonus. The Clay Scout has a huge attack bonus thanks to the fact anyone he's adjacent to (read: attacking) grants him combat advantage. In addition, he doesn't need to flank in order to provide the rogue combat advantage; he could be adjacent to the rogue for all that matters. And, he can provide combat advantage to several creatures at once without needing to flank--so cooperation with the wizard could involve sending the clay scout into the middle of a crowd, then having the wizard nuke the crowd with a huge attack bonus.
They're very equal. And, they're based on the druid Essentials animal companion, tweaked to be more artificerish, but otherwise almost plagiaristically based on them. They're fine and balanced as they are.
The scout does not have lower defenses by the way, their defenses are equal: the iron defender is extremely susceptable to will attacks or reflex attacks, but nearly invulnerable to fortitude or AC attacks. The clay scout is highly vulnerable to AC, Fortitude, and Will, but is very strong against Reflex.
Charisma... because that's always been a secondary stat for artificers in 3.5. Use Magic Device (Charisma) has always been the #1 critical skill for artificers to succeed at their jobs. Artificers base their abilities on their force of personality and cleverness backed by their intellect... so Intelligence is their primary stat, and not Constitution (force of personality, what?).
You say you don't understand why Charisma is connected to their flavor... I don't really get how anything else is.
In any case, thanks for the input, I guess.
The big thing between scout and iron homunculus is that Combat Advantage is easy to generate. The bonus is going to get worse and worse over time because there's going to be more ways to get CA (more dazes, stuns, blinds, restrains, easier movement to get into flanking), where the defense bonus is going to be really good all the time because a buff to defense is always going to have the effect of "Monsters % chance to hit -10%". I would say that if you're going to do the Combat Advantage Aura, you need to make combat advantage better. If the aura was "The target grants combat advantage and the bonus from combat advantage is instead +3 or +4", then I'd totally be on board. But combat advantage alone isn't enough.
I see that you have taken most of that straight from the Sentinel; and I would say that the Wolf and Bear are not balanced against each other either and that Wizards messed up on that account.
As for Essentials, it's been said directly from Wizards during DDX that they wanted to make essentials simplier and it's directed at new players. My point still stands; you've changed it; but the bonuses of what you've changed can be replicated by Resistive Formula, except with temp hp instead of true healing. You've also made it really tough to use Healing Infusion as a "spot on heal", because of it's melee range. If someone is going down or about to go down and you don't have a healing infusion on it, you've got to get over there immediately. I think you're going to find that this is a rather severe limitation in combat. If you look at community.wizards.com/realadventures/go/...; (starting at post 61) if the leader had been your artificer instead of a shaman, Flash would have died because he wouldn't have been easy to get to to heal and at the start of combat, he wouldn't have been a person you would lay a healing infusion down on first (The normal culprits of those needing healing are defenders). If someone locks down your artificer, the party is going to be in a terrible situation if someone needs healed.
Keep Healing Infusion the same as in the book. You've changed it; but there's no real reason for doing so. Just because you're using an essential design plan doesn't mean you should make everything "Noob Mode". You've removed the uniqueness of it and you really haven't given anything in return.
I would also say that the homunculi are nowhere near equal in power. The scout does lower damage, has lower defenses, and has a worse attack. I would also say that the aura on the scout is way worse than the aura on the iron defender, because it's more likely that people can generate their own combat advantage (say, by flanking with the iron defender) then they are to generate their +2 to all defenses (even if it is a power bonus).
I'm not sure why you put charisma as the secondary stat. I don't really get the mechanics->flavor connection there.
Hm.
Healing Infusion is the same as it is for druids in Essentials. It's actually somewhat more powerful now in some ways (it can be remote-detonated, so you can prep someone for healing a round ahead of time, and then dive behind a corner and still heal them without line of sight). In comparison to the 4E artificer... yeah, well, I was trying to differentiate. And as I just described, I gave it a lot in return; it's now a fairly unique method of healing, which doesn't rely upon line of sight or range so long as you can touch your ally once before he needs to be healed.
I don't think it's "Noob Mode" at all, considering it's actually fairly more complex to handle than a standard healing power. Though I'll keep in mind your perspective on Essentials when thinking about your reply...
Homunculi... the iron defender has a huge damage and average attack bonus. The Clay Scout has a huge attack bonus thanks to the fact anyone he's adjacent to (read: attacking) grants him combat advantage. In addition, he doesn't need to flank in order to provide the rogue combat advantage; he could be adjacent to the rogue for all that matters. And, he can provide combat advantage to several creatures at once without needing to flank--so cooperation with the wizard could involve sending the clay scout into the middle of a crowd, then having the wizard nuke the crowd with a huge attack bonus.
They're very equal. And, they're based on the druid Essentials animal companion, tweaked to be more artificerish, but otherwise almost plagiaristically based on them. They're fine and balanced as they are.
The scout does not have lower defenses by the way, their defenses are equal: the iron defender is extremely susceptable to will attacks or reflex attacks, but nearly invulnerable to fortitude or AC attacks. The clay scout is highly vulnerable to AC, Fortitude, and Will, but is very strong against Reflex.
Charisma... because that's always been a secondary stat for artificers in 3.5. Use Magic Device (Charisma) has always been the #1 critical skill for artificers to succeed at their jobs. Artificers base their abilities on their force of personality and cleverness backed by their intellect... so Intelligence is their primary stat, and not Constitution (force of personality, what?).
You say you don't understand why Charisma is connected to their flavor... I don't really get how anything else is.
In any case, thanks for the input, I guess.
The big thing between scout and iron homunculus is that Combat Advantage is easy to generate. The bonus is going to get worse and worse over time because there's going to be more ways to get CA (more dazes, stuns, blinds, restrains, easier movement to get into flanking), where the defense bonus is going to be really good all the time because a buff to defense is always going to have the effect of "Monsters % chance to hit -10%". I would say that if you're going to do the Combat Advantage Aura, you need to make combat advantage better. If the aura was "The target grants combat advantage and the bonus from combat advantage is instead +3 or +4", then I'd totally be on board. But combat advantage alone isn't enough.
I see that you have taken most of that straight from the Sentinel; and I would say that the Wolf and Bear are not balanced against each other either and that Wizards messed up on that account.
As for Essentials, it's been said directly from Wizards during DDX that they wanted to make essentials simplier and it's directed at new players. My point still stands; you've changed it; but the bonuses of what you've changed can be replicated by Resistive Formula, except with temp hp instead of true healing. You've also made it really tough to use Healing Infusion as a "spot on heal", because of it's melee range. If someone is going down or about to go down and you don't have a healing infusion on it, you've got to get over there immediately. I think you're going to find that this is a rather severe limitation in combat. If you look at community.wizards.com/realadventures/go/...; (starting at post 61) if the leader had been your artificer instead of a shaman, Flash would have died because he wouldn't have been easy to get to to heal and at the start of combat, he wouldn't have been a person you would lay a healing infusion down on first (The normal culprits of those needing healing are defenders). If someone locks down your artificer, the party is going to be in a terrible situation if someone needs healed.
Could always cast healing infusion on a rock and use a sling to bonk your ally in the head with it XD
Could always cast healing infusion on a rock and use a sling to bonk your ally in the head with it XD
Yean, but then you'd have to be good enough to stick it on the ally, or your ally would need terrific timing to use the free action right as it hits him on the head.
I think the artificer needs a Melee Training feat as a bonus feat to use Int instead of str for melee basic attacks, or Int instead of dex for crossbow attacks. First then does this stop sounding just interesting and actually sound fun to play :D
I'm gonna go read the thread now, I'll get back to you :D
I understand why you made the healing fusion like you did, but it makes it really hard to use in combat. I also miss the true heal-part of it, and how anyones healing surges can be used to fuel the infusion. I like what you've done with it, I just wonder if that's the right thing to do.
Q: How much HP does my +1 longbow have?
I have not read this whole thread, but I am very interested.
I think the artificer needs a Melee Training feat as a bonus feat to use Int instead of str for melee basic attacks, or Int instead of dex for crossbow attacks. First then does this stop sounding just interesting and actually sound fun to play :D
I'm gonna go read the thread now, I'll get back to you :D
Incidentally, check my signature for a more up-to-date conversion.
Yes, the "pets" are unbalanced. I think the defender should do lower damage and the "skirmisher/lurker" should do more damage. That way you can choose to go for suvivability of pet and party, or go for high damage output using a hi damaging pet and maximize use of a thief's sneak attack. I think the pets should use soldier and lurker -style attributes.
I understand why you made the healing fusion like you did, but it makes it really hard to use in combat. I also miss the true heal-part of it, and how anyones healing surges can be used to fuel the infusion. I like what you've done with it, I just wonder if that's the right thing to do.
I'm not particularly prone to changing the homunculi around, mostly because they are simply reflavored druid companions with less damage output to make up for the increased damage output they get from infusions.
They are meant to replace an entire at-will; except unlike an at-will it's possible to kill them, flank them, or cripple them, so it makes sense they're pretty damn great when they are functioning.
The healing infusion is both harder and easier to use in combat. On one hand, yeah, it's basically a touch version of Healing Word. Except it can be prepared ahead of time, and it can be prepared ahead of time on a secondary object--thus, if the artificer anticipates he'll need to heal the fighter, he can cast healing infusion on a rock, hand it to the fighter, and even from a quarter mile away and out of line of sight he can spontaneously heal the fighter, so long as teh fighter has the rock. Or the fighter could see the rogue in peril, throw it to the rogue (or hand it off, since a fighter's liable to survive opportunity attacks from wading through the battle), or maybe the artificer just keeps a rubber ball that he uses with his sling to use it at ranged.
It's weaker in some areas, and much more versatile in others, capable of healing in situations no cleric could ever heal; I think it's a fair tradeoff.
Repair Object: Effect: The target heals 1 + your Intelligence modifier damage. Q: How much HP does my +1 longbow have?
10 (Rules Compendium 177). However, as DMs are loathe to damage player gear in 4E, that power is more for the fact that players frequently encounter terrain objects getting damaged, such as a door getting battered down or a leaky cauldron. I could've just written "You repair minor damage to an object!" except that's not very mechanical, and people seem to prefer it if it has clear-cut mechanics behind it, and they can figure out the flavor and uses for it themselves.
Same with Detect Magic. At first glance, useless, but in the right circumstances can be rather potent.
What about the Infuser's melee basic attacks? Still based on strength, and therefor still ****?
Why would they be ****? There are basically two artificer builds in the infuser:
First build is a homunculus user. Intelligence/Charisma as two high statisics.
Second build is a weapon user. Intelligence/Strength or Intelligence/Dexterity as high statistics, with Charisma as a good third.
Either way, I designed most of his abilities to be rather ability-score independent. If you want to make an Artificer who has his highest stat Strength and his second stat Dexterity, your homunculus will still hit as much for slightly less damage, and in return you yourself will be able to pretend you're a Fighter (giving yourself stance-like buffs while fighting on the front lines with a strong attack roll and strong damage bonus).
I'll give it some thought, but as far as my design goal was concerned, I always had envisioned the Infuser having some good choices whether he wanted to go support-back-line infuser or melee-front-line infuser.
In many ways, this goes back to the 3.5 Artificer: he needed Charisma for UMD, needed Intelligence for spellcasting... but he had the option to take some mediocre spellcasting stats and buff himself up for front-line assault, or he could take some high spellcasting stats and sit in the rear using crossbows or constructs.
PS I have a player who's picked your class up at 1st level, so I could give you some playtest information.
Magic Weapon and Healing Infusion shouldn't count towards your infusion total. You still enchant an object, but it does not count towards your infusion limit.
This is because if you count them as infusions it leads to strange situations where you have to turn off your at-will infusions to heal somebody and then turn it on again, leading to action waste, headaches, and having to be constantly adjacent to your teammates.
Maybe rephrase the infusion rule as: «you can have only one at-will infusion active at a time», or remove the infusion keyword from MW and HI.
Add a feature: you can cast spells and infusions from your homunculus. This alleviates the need to constantly touch your temmates.
The Staff Expertise feat increases the melee range of staff attacks. It would be great if you added that it could be used to increase the melee range of infusions made with a staff as an implement.
First of all, on the topic of defenses. +x reflex is not considered equivalent to +x AC for a PC or a PC's companion, because AC will be targeted more often. If you want the defenses of the creature to balance out, you need to throw in an additional +1 in there somewhere.
That being said, the defenses do not need to be even for the creatures to be even, but these creatures abilities are also disparate. I think if you playtest both these companions (note:you should not be the DM for an impartial playtest), you will find that iron will work out better, because it has higher defenses and doesn't need to be adjacent to enemies to provide its bonus. The clay will be destroyed much more frequently, because it has to be next to an enemy for its aura to do anything, and since it has lower defenses, it is going to get shanked unless the DM is playing nice.
Also, is this class intended to be entirely passive? I notice that it has no attacks at all, nor the ability to allow allies to make extra attacks. It is very difficult to achieve balance with this drastic change to 4e action economy.
Magic Weapon, as an encounter power, doesn't count toward your at-will infusion limit. I do agree with the healing infusion, however--I want the artificer to be able to switch around his healing power though and not be stuck with the "healing rock" being in the fighter's inventory and saying "Well, I already cast that infusion twice, if the thief needs a heal throw the rock at him." I guess the solution is tacking on a 'this does not count toward at-will infusion limit'? Maybe.
But yeah. From the ifusions text: "At-will infusions do not end at the end of the encounter, but you can only have one at-will infusion active at a time, as they end when you cast another one." At-will infusions are already the only thing that you can have one at a time. I might have to modify the text to specifically reiterate that encounter and daily infusions don't count toward that limit.
The homunculus already has this ability, somewhat: you can cast on your homunculus at a range of 5 (though I bet I can rephrase that better, perhaps make it a minor power or something?) and the homunculus can offload its infusions to someone else.
Hm. My own playtest with a player is currently having some interaction problems with staff expertise. I'll think about it--currently I have a very odd situation where the attacks aren't "melee touch" they're "melee 1"--technically you're not touching your ally right now, you're just staring at him rather aggressively while adjacent :P If I made it "Melee weapon" that could be interesting--it would mean artificers who bother to get training in super-long weapons would actually benefit, as you say, and it would also create the image of an artificer using a longsword or dagger or something to tap his ally's sword (sword-tapping is a cool image). And it would mean that if the artificer randomly receives a buff to his size or something to give him a range boost even to his unarmed attack, his touch range would increase.
Good insights though, keep 'em coming! Also, one point, something I've temporarily errata'd but hasn't made it to the PDF because I wanted to do more playtesting first: thundering armor at-will (or whatever it's called) now only affects one adjacent enemy 1/round because I had one player eradicate like 6 high-level minions in one go. I might improve it slightly again, make it so there's no 1/round limit, but it only affects the person who hits the enhanced armor (so for those 6 minions to die, all 6 would have to hit the artificer's enhanced armor). That sounds good but I'll have to think about it more, too. So it's not really official errata either way yet :P
I also see an imbalance between clay and iron.
First of all, on the topic of defenses. +x reflex is not considered equivalent to +x AC for a PC or a PC's companion, because AC will be targeted more often. If you want the defenses of the creature to balance out, you need to throw in an additional +1 in there somewhere.
:P I love how everyone always shakes their fists at my homunculi, when they're almost exactly rip-offs in terms of stats of the wolf and bear from the Sentinel druid :P
That being said, the defenses do not need to be even for the creatures to be even, but these creatures abilities are also disparate. I think if you playtest both these companions (note:you should not be the DM for an impartial playtest), you will find that iron will work out better, because it has higher defenses and doesn't need to be adjacent to enemies to provide its bonus. The clay will be destroyed much more frequently, because it has to be next to an enemy for its aura to do anything, and since it has lower defenses, it is going to get shanked unless the DM is playing nice.
Since the clay guy is based partially, in my mind at least, off of the dedicated wright (the clay scout is for 'construction'-ee artificers) I wonder if I could offset his 'lesser' usefulness with a bonus to skills or something. But overall, I agree but am loathe to change it much due to the fact that, except for a couple tweaks, its mostly a reflavored animal companion.
Nonetheless, I'll take your advice and try to think up some ways to make him a bit more balanced. Looking back, I may have tipped his defenses too much toward NADs.
Also, is this class intended to be entirely passive? I notice that it has no attacks at all, nor the ability to allow allies to make extra attacks. It is very difficult to achieve balance with this drastic change to 4e action economy.
The artificer, like the fighter, is a creature of basic attacks. A spear, a crossbow, whatever--the artificer's meant to pick a role and fight with it using his strength or dexterity score, as appropriate. Since all of his powers are both a) minor actions and b) last until end of encounter or longer, you should think of them as Stances, except these 'stances' can be applied to other people.
In that way, his action economy is no different than a fighter: no 'special attacks', simply enhancements to his basic attacks. At its core, the artificer is simply a magical essentials fighter who can choose to enhance allies, step back, and use his crossbow with no enhancements. Mathematically, therefore, he's just as good as the essentials fighter, except he's a ton more versatile (since he can give elemental damage boosts, do daily spells with profound effects, use a homunculus to help shape the battlefield, etc.)
The artificer isn't passive at all--far from it, he's meant to fight alongside the archer or fighter. He's just supposed to do it while spellcasting out of the corner of his mouth, which is where the root of his strength comes from.
I also see an imbalance between clay and iron.
First of all, on the topic of defenses. +x reflex is not considered equivalent to +x AC for a PC or a PC's companion, because AC will be targeted more often. If you want the defenses of the creature to balance out, you need to throw in an additional +1 in there somewhere.
:P I love how everyone always shakes their fists at my homunculi, when they're almost exactly rip-offs in terms of stats of the wolf and bear from the Sentinel druid :P
If everyone is shaking their fists at it, there is probably a good reason. Just because its based off a WotC design does not make it balanced. The company has been putting out more and more material lately that people just flat out ignore because it is so bad. Have you seen the vampire class? Or read through the 100+ pages of errata? Trust me, WotC makes mistakes. (Unless they are using something I designed, in which case everything is 100% golden ;) )
That being said, the defenses do not need to be even for the creatures to be even, but these creatures abilities are also disparate. I think if you playtest both these companions (note:you should not be the DM for an impartial playtest), you will find that iron will work out better, because it has higher defenses and doesn't need to be adjacent to enemies to provide its bonus. The clay will be destroyed much more frequently, because it has to be next to an enemy for its aura to do anything, and since it has lower defenses, it is going to get shanked unless the DM is playing nice.
Since the clay guy is based partially, in my mind at least, off of the dedicated wright (the clay scout is for 'construction'-ee artificers) I wonder if I could offset his 'lesser' usefulness with a bonus to skills or something. But overall, I agree but am loathe to change it much due to the fact that, except for a couple tweaks, its mostly a reflavored animal companion.
Nonetheless, I'll take your advice and try to think up some ways to make him a bit more balanced. Looking back, I may have tipped his defenses too much toward NADs.Also, is this class intended to be entirely passive? I notice that it has no attacks at all, nor the ability to allow allies to make extra attacks. It is very difficult to achieve balance with this drastic change to 4e action economy.
The artificer, like the fighter, is a creature of basic attacks. A spear, a crossbow, whatever--the artificer's meant to pick a role and fight with it using his strength or dexterity score, as appropriate. Since all of his powers are both a) minor actions and b) last until end of encounter or longer, you should think of them as Stances, except these 'stances' can be applied to other people.
Ah. By fighter, I assume you mean slayer? If you are going that route, keep in mind that slayers have strength and dexterity as primary stats, so are very good at basic attacks. Your artificers have intelligence and charisma... so they have to put additional points into strength and/or dex to be good at basic attacks. This can work out marginally at heroic, but eventually will cause massive MAD, which is bad. If you look through all the classes that rely on basic attacks, you will notice that they either already have strength as a primary stat, or have a weapon finesse-type ability. ALWAYS. I highly, HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend giving your artificer a feature similar to the Thief's weapon finesse, but with intelligence. (You could practically copy/paste the swordmage's intelligent blademaster feat.)
In that way, his action economy is no different than a fighter: no 'special attacks', simply enhancements to his basic attacks. At its core, the artificer is simply a magical essentials fighter who can choose to enhance allies, step back, and use his crossbow with no enhancements. Mathematically, therefore, he's just as good as the essentials fighter, except he's a ton more versatile (since he can give elemental damage boosts, do daily spells with profound effects, use a homunculus to help shape the battlefield, etc.)
The artificer isn't passive at all--far from it, he's meant to fight alongside the archer or fighter. He's just supposed to do it while spellcasting out of the corner of his mouth, which is where the root of his strength comes from.
Ok, well, again, the artificer definitely needs a class feature to support that then.
The Infuser has 2 builds: a lazy support build that uses the homunculus for attacks, and an active fighting build that uses basic attacks.
The first is Intelligence/Charisma.
The second is Strength/Intelligence.
Charisma only affects your homunculus' damage, and the riders of a couple of powers. You can dump it if you do a Strength build and use the homunculus just for support.
Intelligence affects your major riders and the damage of the few powers that deal damage. You need to keep this stat high.
Strength affects your basic attacks. You may dump it if you wanna do the lazy support guy as your homunculus will be attacking in your place.
Either way, you end up with 2 abilities.
Ok, it's kind of a V class, but consider that it's not like the oPaladin, that had half his powers with one ability and the other half with the other. You can choose the same powers whether you dump Strength or Charisma. Your ability choice only determines how you use your powers.
BTW, my player managed to do a farly balanced dwarf artificer, with 16 Char, 16 Int and 14 Str. It's not optimized, but it's not weak either.
Anyway, if some issues come out in real play, I'll let you know.
Really, it's not difficult to understand.
Oh, well gee, Ferdil, I wish I was a smart as you! Narf!
The Infuser has 2 builds: a lazy support build that uses the homunculus for attacks, and an active fighting build that uses basic attacks.
The first is Intelligence/Charisma.
The second is Strength/Intelligence.
Charisma only affects your homunculus' damage, and the riders of a couple of powers. You can dump it if you do a Strength build and use the homunculus just for support.
Intelligence affects your major riders and the damage of the few powers that deal damage. You need to keep this stat high.
Strength affects your basic attacks. You may dump it if you wanna do the lazy support guy as your homunculus will be attacking in your place.
Either way, you end up with 2 abilities.
Ok, it's kind of a V class, but consider that it's not like the oPaladin, that had half his powers with one ability and the other half with the other. You can choose the same powers whether you dump Strength or Charisma. Your ability choice only determines how you use your powers.
BTW, my player managed to do a farly balanced dwarf artificer, with 16 Char, 16 Int and 14 Str. It's not optimized, but it's not weak either.
Anyway, if some issues come out in real play, I'll let you know.
Except, from the OP's answer, it seems that she wants the Charisma/Int artificer to be making attacks, not being a 'lazy build': "The artificer isn't passive at all--far from it, he's meant to fight alongside the archer or fighter. He's just supposed to do it while spellcasting out of the corner of his mouth, which is where the root of his strength comes from."
Hence my suggestion that this class really needs a class feature to apply int to basic attacks.
Really, it's not difficult to understand.
Oh, well gee, Ferdil, I wish I was a smart as you! Narf!
Sorry, that was kind of rude of me.
Well, I see your point. My main concern with it is that it would turn the class into a monodimensional Int/Char class, and there are already a bunch of those. On the other hand, a smart artificer player would pick Melee Training anyway, so maybe you're right. Let's see what the OP says.
The artificer was less of a 'class' as we imagine it, and more of a 'magical template' to slap onto an archer, spellslinger, sword fighter, spearman, whatever. It was the items and stats which made the artificer and picked his role, not the class.
* * * *
Skipping to today, I made my artificer in a very similar manner. I want him to able to choose between weapon wielding (and melee or ranged), or sitting back and slinging spells/enchanting his homunculus. I wanted you to have a wide variety of play styles compacted into one class. And most of all, I didn't want the awkwardness of Paladins or Clerics or Warlocks, where the split between ability scores made it so if you mix and match powers (strength attack and a wisdom attack, for instance) you're weaker overall. Notice how as few as possible of his powers are based on an ability score? That's intentional, so that you can be a high-Int artificer, and rely more on your homunculus and standing back touching people with spells, or a high-Str artificer, and stil be able to use those spells, but on the front lines.
* * * *
I currently have in my group an artificer with no intelligence or charisma to speak of. He decided he wanted to roll all of his stats in order, and randomly roll which class to take--so, high strength, high con artificer, low int, low cha :P
The result is that he has pretty decent armor, chainmail, a shield, and a spear, lots of hit points, decent damage, and so on. And his character plays perfectly well: his homunculus isn't as useful, lacking anything beyond a basic d8 of damage, but since he has his basic attacks and his ability to enhance himself/others with infusions and cantrips, and since he has a clever mind for traps and manipulating the battlefield, the result is a very well-rounded, powerful character who can survive many, many sorts of traps, puzzles, and high level monsters through sheer player wit, high hit points, and a bit of spellcasting.
On the other hand, I've done practice runs with artificers who have no strength, no constitution, nothing but Intelligence, Charisma, and their 'remote control basic attack', their homunculus. These guys also prove to be very powerful, but are obviously a bit more frail and try to hide in the back of the combat lines rather than wade out front. But they're equally effective, which is the whole point of my class design: the player picks what kind of artificer he is, and decides whether he needs a high Intelligence stat or not.
* * * *
The short of it is, I don't particularly want to add a "you use your Intelligence modifier for basic attacks" because if I don't put it in, the artificer doesn't lose any power--he's just as good as before--but if I do put it in then I lose the ability for people to make Dexterity artificers or Strength artificers or Charisma artificers or, indeed, optional Intelligence artificers.
If I can get a class to work just fine without reducing people's choices? I prefer it like that. And I have yet to see any evidence that forcing artificers to choose between Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence is any detriment to the class (of course, you could try to split your stats evenly between them all, but such characters suck regardless of class, so, it's still good)
So with an artificier theme, I could be a rogue, have some nifty spells tucked away in my infused lighting socks, and sneak into places. Or I could be a fighter, have some nifty quickly infused armor of bad assery to kick butt, all of which would almost be served as a theme.
In a way, the way an artificer would play, like all classes, based on builds. Even the E-classes have builds within them; there are slight play variations between let's say the Evocation Mage and the Enchanment Mage, or within the Weaponmaster.
These are my personal thoughts on the matter:
If a class doesn't actually have focused abilities and powers that don't correlate, is it a class? Sure your class sort of falls into leader, all it's powers are very much leader-y buff types, but if its powers don't actually fall into the playing of the class, couldn't you just make it an add on to let's say... a fighter?
You player that's currently playing the High Str, High Con character, wouldn't they be more suited to being a Fighter? that somehow has some nifty magical items?
I like the class, I like the idea of on the fly create magical items, but I feel that it sort of breaks the rules, even in the old paradigm. It can essentially be any class, with the added benefit of extra magic items; because you can certainly have a defender style, striker style, even controller style, and a little leader style.
It's allowing a person to play all four roles within one class; not even an umbrella class like fighter or ranger; but as single class.
I'm not saying it can phase out other classes, or anything; but in a way the old and new paradigm focused on the ideas that you're doing something, namely attacking, and that you be fulfilling your primary role; so that the party works as a group. To me, it feels that you built it in such a way that it could fulfull any roll, not particularly well in some cases, but with little tweaking it can.
I mean these are my thought on it. They may not be necessarily right. It just feels that way, especially after you mentioned your old experiences in 3.5