Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Tempest_Stormwind Feb 04, 2015 19:14:43	Artificers are a vital part of Eberron, as a character archetype, a thematic element, and a way of maintaining verisimilitude for simulationists. The test rules presented for them in Unearthed Arcana are disappointing - I say that while they are definitely an artificer, they aren't the Eberron artificer. As such, this is my take on the class.    The introduction and design notes are in post #2, below; this post is the crunch. The only note I'm posting in advance is that basic item creation rules are present already (DMG p.128) - see Post #2 for more details on how this works with them.   I'm asking for harsh criticism on this - survival of the fittest, let's see how this survives. Hence, "rip me a new one".     See HERE for a nicely-formatted PDF of the entire class, with three Eberron-exclusive races (Warforged, Shifter, and Changeling) as a bonus.   ==========================================
#42 rampant Mar 01, 2015 13:52:29	It's not a matter of too many Spells per day, it's a problem of too many different spells.   Having the ability to cherry pick from any spell in the game within the reach of their spell levels offers them too much versatility, especially since if they ever find out there's a spell they really need they can go back aand get it without giving up anythign valuable unlike a sorceror who has to devote one of his limited number of spells known. The sorceror has an upper limit on his personal versatility because while the sorceror class as a whole has a large spell list any specific sorceror can only learn so many spells. Wizards and clerics are certainly broken as hell because they don't have that limit but at least they have a limit in the form of a defined class list which creates gaps in their capabilities, wizards have very limitied if any ability to heal, and clerics tend to be less efficient blasters, and have less access to certain kinds of magic, especially if it falls outside their domains and the general cleric selection of healy-buffy stuff.   Without either of those limitations the artificer, even with the limits imposed by the craft reserve gains the ability to be good at anything and everythign as an individual. It's ok fooor a class to be versatile as long as individuals still have gaps and weaknesses, generally created by forcing the payment of an opportunity cost, or in the case of the broken stuff by having a limited spell list (at least to start).    As for the artificer turning everyone into casters, no that's not it at all. I expect him to put a little magic in their tool boxes is all. Furthermore I have a problem with the spell scroll model because it makes him massively more versatile and influential based on party composition. Not significantly mor eefficient like a rogue who has melee party members, but total paradigm changer. It's  unavaoidable that some abilities are going to synergize better with some characters than others. What I'm saying is that there is a whole lot of swing here and that steps should be taken to even things out a bit. You have an excellent point when you mention that the weapon buffs work better with weapon classes, however I'm not sure that those are anywher as useful or versatile as the spell scrolls or the opportunities they create.   As for playing a 5e wizard, well that's just not going to happen any time soon, I have no group right now, and 9 time sout of 10 I end up as the DM when I do have one. I admit upfront that 3rd edition was way easier to upgrade a wizard's spells known count in. The problem isn't a matter of ease, it's far more binary than that. If it happens once it's too much. It was a bad idea to begin with and has been grandfathered in since. It's somewhat vaguely tolerable at the start of an edition because there are simply fewer spells, and 5e has done a decent job of controlling the versatility of each class list. You have thrown the gates wide open to any and all spells, including spells originating from gods and demons and nature (cleric and warlock and druid/ranger).    Furthermore it's not really the combat spells I get too worried about when dealing with the artificer's over-versatility, although that can cause issues mind it's just not the big concern in my mind. The big issue is the non-combat spells that can still be pretty potent over the long term, find familiar for example.   As for 3e non-casting leaders, you may be one of the first people I've met online who doens't either lump the martial adepts in as casters, or try to pretend they don't exist. Well it's good to know we agree on something at least.
#43 Tempest_Stormwind Mar 02, 2015 16:23:17	rampant wrote:
#82 Tempest_Stormwind May 14, 2015 18:28:58	LordCorwin wrote:
#83 Xanchairothoss May 15, 2015 11:48:26	My issues with the Artificer in previous editions were that it pitted the DM against the party. Artificers were great for the party, but a head-ache for the DM. Treasure leveling is a pretty important aspect to maintaining party effectiveness and ensuring you don't end up in a game where every encounter is a cake-walk. Artificers threw CR out the window by making it exceedingly difficult to determine party effectiveness against a challenge. From a DM’s perspective it wasn’t the Artificer, specifically, that one needed to be worried about. It was the creation of super optimized Magic Items that limited the DM’s ability to challenge the party effectively -- potentially causing a DM to fumble in either over-estimating, or under-estimating. Most multi-use magic items often trumped spells and offered unprecedented combos. Spellcasters had limitations in spell selection, however rapid magic-item creation restrained by only amount of gold eliminated those limitations by placing control in the hands of a PC. When ability selection for said magic items was open to creative fiddling by anyone but the DM, nearly anyone in a party could eventually acquire the abilities of a high level caster due to the Artificer constructing any item without a real leash.   Secondly, with specific classes I knew what level to scale a challenge at. Magic items gaining a reduction in cost to produce really called all of that into question. I could limit the amount of treasure a party gained, but doing so nerfed the Artificer. Not doing that made it totally unbalanced. It was a scaling issue. I could plan for 'X' magic item, but what happens at high levels when I've effectively got a party of 5 Gestalt characters who can individually hold their own against a Tarrasque, due to full optimization via magic items through the Artificer? Artificers as PCs were either game breaking or super-lagging. They weren’t limited by spells the same way spellcasters were. If a player told me they wanted 'X' item, I could make said item, tweak as necessary and surprise them a bit too. That kind of discovery was no longer present with the Artificer. There was no DM to player relationship. The model, conceptually, for an Artificer PC very much suited a DM vs. the PC style game. I felt that there either needed to be a lot of communication and trust, or a pre-established antagonism couched in a mutual agreement of fair-play and RAW between an Artificer and DM.   In 5E, the Artificer, conceptually, is anathema to the themes and focus of the game, ergo you're working against the fundamental backdrop of the game's design when building this class. For the Artificer to play like it did in previous editions requires extensive mechanics for magic item construction that aren't present in 5E. Where does that leave us? DM fiat -- which actually resolves the main problems with the class in previous editions, but creates new ones.   Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#84 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 12:36:45	Xanchairothoss wrote:
#85 Xanchairothoss May 15, 2015 13:37:31	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#86 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 15:37:46	Xanchairothoss wrote:
(Reply to #86) Xanchairothoss	Vis Craft Reserve. I meant Spell Points (p. 288 DMG), not Sorcery points. Have it scale like that. i.e. increase the amount of Craft Reserve. Gut spellcasting entirely, instead dig through all magic items, evaluate their core elements and turn those into Schema that may be activated via Infusions of Craft Reserve points. This still permits the creative versatility and "fun" element that I sought and we thought was important. Your "pick any spell" ability for the Artificer totally encroaches on Magical Secrets (which is limited for a reason). You've turned this class into the most optimal and utilitarian class in the game. Sure, it's balanced mechanically. However, what are the drawbacks to playing this class? I'm not seeing many, if any. It's the perfect generalist and does the Bard's job better than the Bard. We already have a fully optimized Bard class (which is arguably the best class in the game). Having your Artificer be on par with the Bard is fine, but this guy outshines everyone, and that's a problem. This is a super class, and it shouldn't be. What it should do is allow creative tactical strategy for infusions, but it shouldn't be able to do EVERYTHING any class could conievably do, and then some, with spellcasting on top of that. I worry that you're emotionally biased by your own creation and what I recommend is counter to what you've already built, and thus is not at all the direction you wish to go in. A well reasoned arguement does not mean the direction you're proposing is correct. I challenge you to take on my point of view and argue for it. I further challenge you to argue against what you've built.
#88 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 17:37:36	Xanchairothoss wrote:
#89 Xanchairothoss May 15, 2015 18:56:05	"Note that none of these are against that specific implementation of the artificer, particularly as a DM or player - it's against the scope of this undertaking as a designer. " Want to give it a shot? If not, if you're set on your design, it looks good to go from what I poked through (I think it might be too good, but I don't think it's broken). I think it could be more streamlined via what I propose, but you seem to believe that the building block method would be overly complex to test. I really don't think it would be, we'd be pulling core concepts from the baseline magic item list, which have been tested. As well, how it scales will make it fairly evident if something is busted. I'm not going to justify my recipe via running it through your design goals, mainly because I take many of those as a given. You can do the mental gymnastic to twist logic to suit whatever argument you want when running your assumptions on my proposed build through parameters of your own design. I'm not interested in that intellectual pissing contest (my tone is neutral, not harsh -- internet does not convey tone well; don't take me the wrong way) of arguing and justifying. I'd rather spend the time and energy on building something cool.
#90 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 18:57:48	I'd also like to apologize for my tone today - I've been having a really, really rough week, and upon a re-read, it seems I was being more than a little dickish, which you don't deserve. Xanchairothoss wrote:
#91 Xanchairothoss May 15, 2015 19:55:48	"A standalone Masters of Artifice module could serve so many potential purposes" Not interested. Personally. "I'd also like to apologize for my tone today - I've been having a really, really rough week, and upon a re-read, it seems I was being more than a little dickish, which you don't deserve." FWIW I didn't get that read from you at all (dickishness). "Perhaps due to the immense limits on my time, when I get an idea, my first thought is always "Is this idea necessary?". If something is close enough that a bit of reflavoring handles it, then I don't need to redesign it, or can re-imagine my idea as a tweak to an existing rule." That pretty much sums up part of my inherent philosophy per supplemental material, post core books. So thumbs up! "Don't get me wrong - by no means do I think this is unworthy. I just think that if the project can't solve problems like this early, it's going to have bigger problems later on. That, combined with the same philosophy behind Rip Me A New One, should explain why I sound pessimistic." It's apparent that it's more of a time thing, than anything else. If you're busy, rest assured that I did scrutinize the hell out of your build. There's not much wrong with it, at all, mechanically speaking. As an aside, I'm not a fan of the Artificer class as a concept to begin with (I thought I'd dabble in a rough for a cognitive exercise, but even my proposed rough I wouldn't introduce to any sort of game, outside of the intent to test it; unnecessary now, as you already did the leg-work on many of the issues that would've come up). 1. It has to be playable with standard 5e assumptions about magic items (the rest is unnecessary addendum as all future settings are dependent upon this supposition; if they aren't that will be clearly stated, unless the designers are sloppy, in which case they won't sell books). 2. It has to feel like the original artificer. <--- ie. it has to fulfill the inherent trope, which in this case is ability to rapidly craft magic items. Anything alse can be erased, short of particular edition aspects that were popular (hard metric to incorporate, but easy if you have a forum with threads dedicated to such to pull your market research from). 3. It has to be at least as simple to play as 5e's spellcasters, and presentable without an incredible amount of text. (I would propably include "it has to be fun, accessible, and open to creative flexing".) Have you achieved these 3? Yes. Move on. Congratulations ;) "my idea was to use an analogous system to domains to attach appropriate divine influence to thematic characters" That sounds brilliant.