Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xanchairothoss May 13, 2015 20:40:17	College of Artifice Bonus Proficiencies When you join the College of Artifice at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with one set of Artisan’s tools of your choice, and Artificer’s supplies. Any ability check you make that requires the use of Artisan’s tools you are proficient with is doubled. Additionally, the time it takes you to craft any non-magical item is halved.   Artificer’s Knack Also at 3rd level, you can create consumable magic items such as potions and scrolls. To create a potion, select any spell with a range of touch from any class list. The potion grants the effects of that spell to whoever consumes it within 1 hour of its creation, after which time the potion loses its effectiveness. The crafting of a potion requires Artificer’s supplies, and a number of turns plus the expense of a spell slot equal to the spells level. You can also tap into your magical abilities to rapidly inscribe spell scrolls. A scroll inscribed in this way lasts indefinitely, but is attuned to you and may only be cast by you. The spell you inscribe must be chosen from those you know and you must have a free spell slot to cast it into the scroll. Each scroll takes 10 minutes per spell level to create with the use of parchment, quill, ink, and Artificer’s supplies totaling an amount in gp equal to the level of the spell according to the Artificer Magic Item Creation Table.   Craft Magic At 6th level, you may now temporarily imbue items, enchanting them for a limited time. To create temporary magic items requires Artificer’s supplies, a mundane or magical item to be imbued, and a number of turns plus the expense of a spell slot equal to the items rarity according to the Max Spell Level column on the Artificer Magic Item Creation Table. Temporary magic items do not require a formula, special materials, or cost in gp to produce, and can not have a maximum bonus higher than their rarity. They may duplicate the effects of a single spell, or existing magic item, but are not capable of casting spells. Items temporarily imbued remain enchanted for 1 day, after which time they revert to their normal state.   Master Crafter At 14th level, you gain the ability to forge permanent magic items with unmatched speed, including Armor, Rings, Rods, Staffs, Wands, Weapons, and Wondrous Items. If you possess the formula for a magic item, have all the special materials required on hand, and an amount in Artificer’s supplies equivalent to the gp cost of the item, you may construct a permanent magic item in a fraction of the time it would normally take. You may even take an existing magic item and imbue it with more magical power, combine two or more magic items into a single item by transferring the abilities of one item into the other, or create entirely new magic items of your own devising. Enhancing an existing magic item and combining items increases the item’s rarity by one step for each item or level of enhancement, whichever is greater. The process costs an amount in Artificer’s supplies and time equal to the items new enhancement level based on its rarity. Legendary magic items have a minimum character level required for their construction. Artificer Magic Item Creation Table Item Rarity              Creation Cost          Max Bonus             Max Spell Level     Time        Minimum Level Common                  100 gp                     -                               1st                            1 hour       - Uncommon              500 gp                     +1                            3rd                            1 day         - Rare                           5,000 gp                 +2                            6th                            1 week      - Very rare                    50,000 gp               +3                            8th                            2 weeks    - Legendary                500,000 gp             +4                            9th                            1 month    17th
#2 Marandahir May 14, 2015 6:45:26	Looks fine, but still doesn't deal with the fact that Artificers are to Bards wha what Rangers are to Paladins. A Ranger can be seen in the expression [Druid+Fighter]. It's not precise, because the Ranger does its own thing, and deserves its own class. But the concept comes from that. A Paladin is thus [Cleric+Fighter]. As you can see, both are derivatives of the Fighter, both use Divine magic, but with different conceptual bases – one more in line with Clerics and one more in line with Druids. Bear with me that the Ranger also adds in a bit of the Rogue shtick, that's okay. The core of the class ties in with Fighting – such as Fighting Styles. Moving on to Bards and Artificers, both are derivatives of the Cleric, switched over into the Arcane realm. In fact, both the Bard and Artificer can be understood as [Cleric+Wizard], but with a focus on different Wizard schools. Much like the Arcane Trickster only uses Illusion and Enchantment, and the Eldritch Knight only uses Evocation and Abjuration, the majority of the Bard and Artficer spells come from specific colleges of the Wizard, or else come from the Cleric. Similarly to the Ranger, there does seem a bit of Roguishness in both classes, but the key point is that they're supportive casters who heal, buff, and enhance the survival of the party. That's the Cleric's role, and as I said, many of the spells on their lists come from the Cleric. Wizards don't do that healing thing. But both Bards and Artificers do. But in addition to the conjuration/evocation/necromancy healing/buffing they both get from the Cleric, Bards mostly get Illusions, Enchantments, and Divinations, with a few sound-based evocations. In contrast, Artificers should have a wealth of abjurations, conjurations, evocations, and most importantly transmutations. Divination only comes if they're playing a sort of geomancer's role, but I'm not sure that really fits the class as well as it does for Bards, Druids, Clerics, and Diviner Wizards. Furthermore, while some Bards are more castery-castery (College of Lore) and some are more militant-weapony (College of Valour), all Bards can use weapons and armor effectively, and this is something Artificers have always been able to do as well. Remember the comparison with the Ranger and the Paladin? Both come out of the fighter base, and thus use half-casting becuase they're too-effective with weapons otherwise. But Bards get full-casting AND an extra attack and a good amount of weapons and armour. This is because there is at least one Bard subclass that provides these options at the expense of other things. Artificers fit into that chassis there. They need to have the OPTION of being able to wade into the front lines or snipe from the back line.    So where does that leave us? Both the Artificer Tradition of Wizard (from UA) and this College of Artifice FAIL to provide the essential spells that the Wizard can't cast, because they don't do anything about the Artificer's spell list. Furthermore, both FAIL to provide the ability for these classes to wade into combat. Wizards have the smallest hit die and no armour proficiencies and minimal weapon proficiencies. Artificers just don't fit as clothed staff-users. So you can redesign features for a Wizard to slap on Artificer all you want, but it's not going to do what people want for an Artificer. Artificer really has trouble being designed as a subclass for all these reasons. It's an Intelligence-based Bard with a mostly different spell-list and swapping out the music/knowledge/dilettante stuff for the crafting/infusions stuff like what you're trying to do. That doesn't work as a Wizard subclass, hell, it wouldn't work as a Bard subclass, because it would be making all these exceptions and changes. It's really class design territory, not subclass design territory.
(Reply to #2) Xanchairothoss	Marandahir wrote:
#4 Marandahir May 14, 2015 7:41:49	Sorry, that was a silly way to emphasize it, and your attempt is a noble cause. Furthermore, your attempt IS better than the Wizard Tradition one, just, in my opinion, not by much. I still see the Artificer as having a different set of spells than the Bard, and having the option of military weapons and such that the Valor-Bard gets. Furthermore, they're not Charisma, they're Intelligence, and that's a key difference for the two of them. Their entire world-view is different, even if they're doing very similar things. Is the same reason people are arguing that Psion really can't be a Sorcerer subclass. While the mechanics of the Sorcerer fit the Psion near-perfectly, as does the spell-list, the Sorcerer just is too Charismatic-focused, and there's no tool in the edition for making a subclass completely change the ability score dependence (the most they could do with that is have the Psion subclass highlight Intelligence by putting Intelligence riders into subclass features, like 4e didn't for practically every subclass). But Bards/Artificers have it worse off: while your features combined with Bard capture the healing bit a lot better than the Wizard version WotC presented, it loses everything else that the Wizard version provided: the Trasmutations, Abjurations, Evocations, Conjurations which the Bard lacks. The Wizard lacks key spells, and the Bard lacks key spells. IF I were you, and wanted to do this, I would also be inclined to swap one of these abilities for something akin to Magical Secrets, but locked into the Wizard class; allowing the Artificer to choose a Wizard School from Transmutation/Evocation/Abjuration/Conjuration and specialize in it, granting something like Domain spells for Clerics. I also have to say that the subclass capstone ability you've provided still hits the problem of directly supporting the magic item economy, which is something this edition wants to keep away with a 10-foot pole. I'm not sure how to deal with that though, since that very economy is kinda the Artificer's main schtick in 3.5e. In 4e, at least, they decided to do more with transmutations and abjurations, enhancing the power and abilities of normal items or magical items, or else do the tinkering thing. It might be worth reassessing that ability. Ultimately, I understand the desire to reduce class bloat. But Psion and Artificer are the two classes that really can't quite fit well as subclasses to anything, in my opinion. Swordmage almost qualifies too, and it depends on whether you're satisfied with Eldritch Knight or not (to me, I see the E-K as more akin to the difference betwen a War Cleric and a Paladin; ideally, we'd have War Cleric with full casting, but some combat abilities, Paladin with half-casting, but good mix of casting and martial combat; and a Crusader Fighter with 1/3 casting but mostly fightery stuff. E-K is like that third wing, but a Swordmage fits in the center, while we have Valorous Bards, Blade Warlocks, and weapon-using Artificers on the far wing for it, with Eldritch Knight Fighters on the near wing). Just as the Assassin class could be expressed as an Assassin Rogue or as a Shadow Monk, and the Lupin-type magical thief could be an Arcane Trickster, a Lore Bard, a Shadow Monk, there is room to split these concepts up. I could see your Artifice tradition living alongside a full Artificer class, but I don't know if people would be satisifed without the full class in this case. It's just a bit hard to cut through the concept of Artificer, even using something like Bard – the Charisma just does NOTHING for the subclass, and really makes it out to feel more like a snake-oil salesman than a magical engineer.
#5 Xanchairothoss May 14, 2015 11:07:29	Yes! The issue with economy per magic items and their creation is a huge roadblock for an easy Artificer build in this edition. You hit the nail right on the head. I agree, Master Crafter is lackluster, thus combining it with Craft Magic was a stronger option, imo. I don’t really see Swordmage as a necessity. However, I’ve never even read the splat, let alone played one. My personal issue with EK is that I would've preferred its focus as casting Touch Spells through its weapon ala Pathfinder Magus, this also would allow the class to fill the role of the Arcane Archer by doing so. Secondly, a Smite ability to sacrifice spells for damage would've been a nice touch. Arcane Smite: Sacrifice a spell to deal an extra 1D6 per spell slot level of a damage type of your choosing (fire, cold, thunder, lightning, force, necrotic etc). For Psions, since Spellcasting and Sorcerous Origin are both level 1 Features, changing the base attribute dependency for a Psion Bloodline doesn’t seem too hard a stretch – it’s a single line change that would occur right at character creation and be a ribbon feature of that Bloodline. Based on your astute analysis, I’m considering how the archetype would look as a Fighter EK or Rogue AT. We’d still get some of the clerical spells via the potion ability in Artificer’s Knack. EK Template: -Transmutation, with choice of either Abjuration, Conjurations, or Evocation. Instead of both Enchantment and Illusion. -Trade Weapon Bond for Bonus Proficiencies -Trade War Magic for Artificer’s Knack (Scrolls) -Trade Eldritch Strike for Artificer’s Knack (Potions) -Trade Arcane Charge for Craft Magic -Trade Improved War Magic for Master Crafter AT Template: -Remove Artificer’s supplies as a tool option. -Transmutation, with choice of either Abjuration, Conjurations, or Evocation. Instead of both Abjuration and Evocation. -Trade Legerdemain for Martial Weapons, shields, and Medium Armor -Trade Magical Ambush for Artificer’s Knack (Potions) -Trade Versatile Trickster for Master Crafter & Spell Scroll rolled into one -Trade Spell Thief for Craft Magic   For keeping the class as a Bard College: -Remove Artificer’s supplies as a tool option, and create a ribbon that flavors Artificers as “re-forging” themselves to swap their Charisma and Intelligence stats, and change spellcasting and Bard abilities to Int. -Go with Valor Bard proficiencies, rather than Bonus tool proficiencies. -Keep Artificer’s Knack -Trade Craft Magic for Bard Spells Known to include choice of Transmutation, Evocation, Abjuration, or Conjuration spells from all spell-lists. -Combine Craft Magic and Master Crafter For keeping the class as a Wizard School: -Trade Savant and 2nd Level ability for Bonus tool proficiencies, and include Martial Weapons, shields, and Light Armor. -6th level: Artificer’s Knack -10th level: Medium Armor proficiency & Master Crafter -14th level: Craft Magic Which of the four seems the best fit?
#6 Tempest_Stormwind May 14, 2015 11:41:51	Full disclosure, I've got an artificer project of my own and, as such, may not be entirel neutral here. That said, I think we're on similar wavelengths regarding artificers, so I think this might prove helpful. (I'd also like to hear your thoughts on my version, if you feel up to it.)   Xanchairothoss wrote:
#7 Captain_Kobold May 14, 2015 11:01:18	While some people think Artificers should be able to wade into combat like Fighters, a lot also think that they should be able to handle traps and similar like Rogues as well.   With this sort of thing, multiclassing is generally the best way to handle it, but many do not want to give up caster levels.    Its a question of differing ideas of what the class actually represents, and whether you're going for the base concept or trying to replicate how the class worked in a previous edition.
#8 Xanchairothoss May 14, 2015 16:42:03	@Tempest_Stormwind, that’s a 3500 word filibuster wall of text, mate 0_0 I just checked out your thread. Your enthusiasm about your work is to be commended. Diving into that thread half-cocked after not reading everything seems unwise on my part, and a potential waste of everyone’s time due to the likelihood of redundancy. If perhaps you might be willing to encapsulate with brevity the main points still open for debate, as well as points that you intend to revise, I’d be eager to play and build. As it stands, I don’t feel inclined to jump on board if the engagement will result in a series of prolonged exegesis over 3k words each for which I’ll be obligated to wade in order to remain relevant, lol. And I am in no way trying to be snarky, it’s simply daunting – not attempting to discourage, merely pointing out that others (myself) may feel the barrier to entry via wall of text is not constructive for, nor conducive to, game design. Because you can collaborate with other workers for crafting, "halving" the time is a bit awkward (my suggestion is to say you complete as much work as two workers; same effect, but combines better. Otherwise, this looks fine; artisan's tools are hard to break. Hmmph, that’s a really good point. Thank you, I’m going to tweak that in. Great insight! You don't specify how long this takes to craft; it's apparently one round per level of the spell but I'm having to imply that. Also, what demands does this place on your attention, i.e. can it be disrupted if you try this in combat? (Suggestion: Creating items requires concentration, as if casting a spell with a casting time longer than 1 action. Decide whether the spell slot cost comes at the start or at the end (i.e. do you lose the slot if you're disrupted?), and let the spellcasting rules take care of the rest for you.) Sorry for the chunkiness of the phrasing, I appreciate you pointing it out. I didn’t think it was unclear, though usually I leave that kind of semantic tinkering to editors (grammar etc is not my strong suit; I focus on ideas, mechanics, and systems). That’s well put vis the suggestion, I’ll play with it for the re-draft. Second, am I reading this right: you basically just gave bards Magical Secrets: Every Single Touch Spell Ever, On Any List Ever, at level 3, which you can give to anyone else on the party to cast at an unspecified later time within the next hour, with the slight drawback of a few rounds of preparation? Is that right? That is absolutely correct. If I’m sacrificing a spell to allow another to cast it, I don’t see any problems with a delayed casting by a third party. Nor for the ability rooting in every touch spell, as the amount of them is in no way massive. If that's the case, what about hostile spells? Is the imbiber the target of the spell (i.e. if I swig a Cure Wounds potion, I'm healed; if I swig an Inflict Wounds potion, I'm hurt), or the subject of the spell (i.e. if I swig either potion, I can then touch someone to heal or harm them, respectively)? Also, how does this interact with various Use An Object effects (i.e. thieves), and does that match with your expectations?   I fail to see how a thief would be required to activate Use Magic Device in order to un-cork a potion and drink its contents. I mean, the Barbarian does just as fine interacting with potions without Use Magic Device. The way I’d envisioned this is that I’d intuited players would assume downing a healing potion would cure their wounds, whereas consuming an Inflict potion would duplicate the effects of casting that spell themselves.   As written, this lets you give spell scrolls of any spell that is both a bard and wizard spell to your wizard and have them copy it, since that's not casting the spell. Nope “A scroll inscribed in this way lasts indefinitely, but is attuned to you and may only be cast by you.” If a Wizard can’t cast it, copying it isn’t going to help them to. Furthermore, if you are the only one who can use them, and there's no limit on how long they last or how many of them you can make (apart from their cost), this in effect lets you carry over spell slots from several days earlier in the adventure. (Be advised that you get lots of gold in this edition, and part of the problem is finding ways to spend it.) Sounds great to me! Seems like a good benefit for picking up levels in this class, or dipping. EDIT: Wait, there's two possible costs here. Does a 4th level spell scroll cost 5000gp (as listed on the table and the general item creation rules), or does it cost 4 GP ("an amount in GP equal to the level of the spell")? If it's the latter, then sign me up for scribing an entire library of the things every night, refreshing my spell slots the following morning for another round, then buying a cart to haul all the scrolls around and a clerk on retainer to retrieve them for me.   […]totaling an amount in gp equal to the level of the spell according to the Artificer Magic Item Creation Table. If you read that as 4gp, rather than 5,000, I’m not certain it’s the wording that’s at fault. However, would this be clearer: “totaling an amount in gp for the level of the spell on the Max Spell Level column in the Artificer Magic Item Creation Table.”   If this is compared to standard item creation, it's like having the formulas for spell scrolls of any spell you know, and being able to complete the work in ~hours instead of days. Is that what you intend? Yes.   "Can duplicate the effects of a single spell.... but are not capable of casting spells" is a contradiction. Really? Because I thought it merely meant that an item might not be able to (for example) cast fireball, but it could hit for an “explosion of flame that spreads around corners. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw (which would, yes, include the user of the weapon, thus making it not very attractive to employ in this manner). A creature takes fire damage equal to the total accumulated damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one. The spell’s base damage is 12d6. If at the end of your turn the bead has not yet detonated, the damage increases by 1d6.” etc. Let's see if I'm getting this right. Assuming a 6th level bard... I can pick up a regular sack, spend three rounds and a 3rd level spell slot, and have a Bag of Holding for a day; in effect every single Uncommon situational magic item ever is now in your hands (because, let's face it, how often are you going to need a Folding Boat?), and it's not too many more levels before the same is true of Rare items. The only cost is a spell slot. Yup. I can pick up a Flame Tongue, spend three rounds and a 3rd level spell slot, and turn it into a +1 Flame Tongue for a day (even though the Flame Tongue itself is Rare and I can't normally make Rare items), in effect turning Magic Weapon into a 3rd level spell that lasts a day without taking up Concentration and can be cast on already-magical weapons. Yup, these are some great examples of what this ability might be capable of!   I can pick up a stick and spend... let's see, one round and a 1st level spell slot to turn it into a ghetto Wand of Chromatic Orb (or any other 1st level spell I can imagine) that works once? (After all, that's duplicating the effect of a single spell....). It can’t cast, so you wouldn’t be hurling it, nor would this ability make for very compelling wands. But you could imbue a sword to smack with that damage, or an Arrow. However, wouldn’t it be much more efficient to simply cast the spell? This ability doesn’t need to be optimal for every possible spell, enabling players the fun of building tactics creatively in play is the intent. If this is the case, what DC and attack bonus do we use for spells that require them, and what do we do for spells that have costly components? Well, considering you’re not casting the spell, and the item is capable of duplicating the effects of a spell, I would assume (as I would expect others to) that the DC and attack bonus would be dependent on what the item is and how it’s being used. If it’s a weapon with this ability, damaging with the weapon after a standard attack would likely suffice. For costly components, the point you’re driving at is “can I make a staff that hits people and grants wishes?” the answer is yes. How would you recommend fixing that? I don’t want to scrap the ability, but reigning it in is certainly helpful. And thanks for helping me idiot-proof this! I can do all of these using any remaining spell slots left over as we camp for the night, and the item will last for 24 hours (in effect letting yesterday's spell slots work for today's adventuring, making the slot cost less than significant)?   I’ll insert the caveat: “last for 1 day, or up until you finish a long rest, after which time they revert to their normal state.”   It seems that this ability gives you every magic item ever (up to a particular rarity), costing only a spell slot and a bit of extra setup time, and the last bit opens that up to unusual items that can duplicate the effects of any spell on any list ever (up to a limit set by your maximum spell level, but not limited by class). Yeah, I think this is a bit poorly written and open to all kinds of abuse.   I’ll think on it, unless you (or anyone else) have a suggestion?   The bit about "levels of enhancement" is weird and hard to follow, but the basic idea - crafting magic items in a fraction of the time, if you have the formula and the requirements - is a sound one. You just need to refine a bit about what the rules are for putting new items together.   Yeah, as I wrote that I was thinking it myself, but it’s pretty much paraphrased from the DMG. I didn’t want to go refining the rules Mearls wrote in a simple sub-class – it’d be better to refine the rules as variants, then present the class as dependent on incorporation of said variant rules.   Also, you need to consider what this does for a class in a world where the artificer is allowed, but item creation is not (or if it is allowed but formulas are really rare). For instance, your world might have artificers as masters of using and maintaining ancient technology, but the methods of actually creating such items were lost to the ages. The 6th level ability basically says "I can outright ignore formulas for short bursts" (which destroys that hypothetical world, and forces every world into a high-magic-item environment, even if the magic item in question is inappropriate - say, a Decanter of Endless Water in Dark Sun) and the 14th level ability only works if formulas and crafting are allowed (with no fallback if you never find a formula).   Oh man, you’re making me want to drop the concept entirely, or at least the interesting portions of it. Craft Magic is the highlight.   (I got around this in my own game by giving the artificer a way to discover formulas (rather than bypassing them), based on which items the DM was already comfortable handing out and without any extra work on the DM's part. If the DM wanted to allow item creation but block the PC's use of that ability, all he needs to do is add a difficult or impossible requirement to the formula. If a DM wants to block item creation for your artificer, he can't do anything except ban it.)   Excellent point. Ok, you’ve pretty much convinced me I need to beat the piss out of this sub-class ability, perhaps the formula approach is best, yet, that really destroys creativity in the hands of the player – which is foremost in my mind.   I would be torn between Bard and Cleric either way if I was forced to make a subclass - Keith did something similar by modifying a Cleric slightly, then creating an "Artifice" domain to bolt onto it. However, that still involved a base class modification.   Yeah, I’m almost wondering if it might be better to just simply create a template that can be slotted into multiple different classes, but that almost seems cumbersome and indicating the archetype wants to be its own class.   Do note that just because it's a "College" doesn't mean that it's academic or anything. “Thematically appropriate” is what I was driving at.   The name of something is different from something. Also, Oratory isn't a thing in 5e; they have musical foci instead (which replace the material components with strumming on a musical instrument; notably, your voice isn't one of these. The singing accompaniment is the verbal component.)   Spellcasting Ability: “Charisma is your spellcasting ability for your bard spells. Your magic comes from the heart and soul you pour into the performance of your music or oration.” Song of Rest: “Beginning at 2nd level, you can use soothing music or oration to help revitalize your wounded allies during a short rest.”   If you want, one thing to consider is that the subclass abilities should use Intelligence, the primary artificer score, for item creation things. This introduces some MAD on par with the arcane trickster or eldritch knight, but it remains a viable route nonetheless (this subtly reinforces you if you pick support spells that don't rely on DCs or attack rolls, i.e. those artificers typically use).   Double attribute dependency upon two non-physical attributes? Absolutely not.   Regarding Bard, consider how this subclass links up with other bard abilities (i.e. not at all). You can try tapping into your bardic inspiration as a resource to power your items (both other bard subclasses give a new use for inspiration dice, via Cutting Words or Combat Inspiration; you could call it Inspired Engineering or something. One of the few good things about the UA artificer is how it prevented Arcane Recovery capacity from returning while the items were still around; imagine something similar for bards, where an item that took up 3 Inspiration meant that you had 3 fewer Inspiration dice to pass out as long as the item existed?), or require ability checks that aren't linked to any specific skill to activate them (so Jack of All Trades subtly helps this, while rogues (who share Expertise) can't steal your thunder). Rather than cementing your specific mechanics (which need some work, as I think I showed), you can start from the ground up as a bard subclass and work it in that direction. That might actually a better idea than sacrificing a spell. Mechanically the UA was repulsively sound, but it felt very clunky and was completely unattractive -- failing to achieve what it was intent on being. Note that if you do this, I'd suggest supplying flavor. Rather than the engineer (which really only works in Eberron or high-magic settings), I'd suggest tapping into the "archaeologist" angle. Bards already explore lost worlds for inspiration or knowledge, but Artifice bards explore them for lost magical technology and tools. In settings where item creation is commonplace, this expertise translates into engineering, but with enough of the "ancient knowledge" fluff to it that it remains compatible with 5e's general take on magic items. In settings where item creation is impossible, "Artifice" bards instead become scholars of what few devices can be found, almost like museum curators. This is consistent with some forms of artificer and many forms of bard, and it gives the subclass a specific narrative niche to go with the mechanical niche.     Damn, skippy. That’s some good advice, much appreciated!   (Full disclosure: The "archaeologist" angle is one of the major fluff lines running through my artificer, most prominent in my magitechnician subclass. I called it that because I wanted it to match both the "student of ancient magical devices" angle as well as the "guy who applies that knowledge to solve practical problems today in creative magical ways" engineer angle, depending on what world was being used.) I concur with your reasoning (which shows good designer instinct), although I would dispute using multiclassing here. Ideally, you shouldn't need to multiclass to capture a concept you're designing - that's why you're designing it. Also, multiclassing is a variant; you shouldn't have a variant relying on another variant.   I’m mostly trying to distill the essence of the class, actualizing it fully would require an entire base class, which I’m not entirely sure I’d like to build alone.   If you want good multiclassing options, consider it from the other angle. I can see artificer dips appealing, thematically, to arcane tricksters and eldritch knights in particular, and bards and warlocks as secondary focuses, possibly followed by wizards or Knowledge clerics. The trick is to make those choices, specifically, appealing if multiclassing is allowed, while still letting it stand on its own if it isn't.   Noted. [quote\Aside from base-class issues, I found the abilities of the UA Artificer extremely limited in action economy, or indeed advantages. They, as well, failed to seize the fundamental essence of what people seek in an Artificer; I tried to, at least, capture that.[/quote] I concur completely; I wrote at length about that here. I summed it up as "It may be an artificer, but it certainly isn't the Eberron artificer."    *thumbs up* Note, however, that there's a way to make the UA version ~200% better simply by changing a bit of description. I incorporated that idea into my own artificer and the tone of discussion instantly shifted for the better.    This: “I feel that too. It just feels.... confused.” Well, after reading all of this and wading through it (your generous analysis and commentary on my build), I can see that people much more interested in the Artificer than myself, and equally, if not more capable, are tackling the issue. As it stands, if you need help with yours, I’d likely be more interested in lending you a hand, than continuing down this road. My first comment still stands – I’d prefer not to have to climb over 76, 3.5k word (exaggerating, but only a little) messages on a thread, though.   Xanchairothoss wrote: For Psions, since Spellcasting and Sorcerous Origin are both level 1 Features, changing the base attribute dependency for a Psion Bloodline doesn’t seem too hard a stretch – it’s a single line change that would occur right at character creation and be a ribbon feature of that Bloodline. That's been my instinct too - the psion and a few other psionic archetypes can be created as Sorcerous Origins without too much hassle. THe biggest issue is handling the specific powers they need (at a bare-bones level, that's telepathy, telekinesis, and visions; either all in the same archetype or in subforms of the same origin) rather than the overall mechanics. Recall that the sorcerer list has no unique spells on it (all of them appear on at least one other class' list!).   Meh. Building a Psion would be a piece of cake, it’s merely the laboriousness of picking appropriate specialty spells that would be a turn-off.   Regarding the rest of this reply, please see my comments above. You need to clarify and fix a few things on those abilities before we can plug-and-play with other classes. (I'd also suggest reading my artificer, including the second post full of design notes, as I went over many of the same issues regarding interfacing this class with assorted expectations on magic items and campaign settings.) I’d be happy to help you, but again, I don’t want to have to read a short novel to do so. I'm mainly working on this at the moment.   Captain_Kobold wrote:
#9 Tempest_Stormwind May 14, 2015 18:25:03	Xanchairothoss wrote:
(Reply to #9) Xanchairothoss	I did read through all of the above. You're abviously further along, and have a firm grip on the ins and outs. I feel to continue down this road is a waste of time, as I'm repeating the same mistakes you've already worked past. I'll read your thread and give you a hand instead if I see anything that might stick out as helpful.
#11 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 11:13:38	Xanchairothoss wrote:
#12 Xanchairothoss May 15, 2015 12:52:04	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#13 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 13:08:02	Xanchairothoss wrote:
(Reply to #13) Xanchairothoss	Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
#15 Marandahir May 15, 2015 14:32:48	I also think that in that article, why he does say that the healing infusion thing is something that was put in by 4e designers that aren't him, and you should ask them (do I hint a bit of frustration? This was a few years ago, and I assume they want him back on board for 5e's direction for it, just like they've refocused with Ed Greenwood and other FR writers for 5e, well, Keith does say that it becomes a discussion of what is a hitpoint and what purpose healing infusions are – I believe the healing infusion concept of the Artificer really does speak to the concept of HP as abstractions that are only really relevant to heroes and monsters/villains, and not the general populace who go to House Jorasco or to the Church for healing (he suggests perhaps even limiting the healing profession from the various Churches). Unfortunately, Cure Wounds now lacks the material components it once had, in order to better compete with Healing Word (which, further, has no somatic components). This makes the spell a bit more unconvincing from an Artificer, where in the past healing spells that were like a ritual of using herbs and such weaved with magic might have been. At this point, making potions of cure wounds may be the best direction for dealing with the healing infusion, but I think it should be one of the fast-tap spells. It might be worthwhile deciding that there are certain potions that Artificers can make offhand or easily compared to making just about anything. But maybe that restriction defeats the idea of them being outside-the-box genii like Nikola Tesla. My comparison of them as engineering students was slightly incorrect: all of those "students" were students in their backgrounds, it was a description of how they were Sages if they chose the Sage background, essesntially. The Artificer was a mechanics/alchemy/engineering student, but now is a genius inventor/chemist/technosorceror. It's a fine line to walk to create the class accurately, and I find it a little bit too limiting to place it here as a Bardic College, but also too free-form in the way it was portrayed in the full-class homebrew thread. :/
#16 Tempest_Stormwind May 15, 2015 15:20:57	Marandahir wrote:
(Reply to #15) Xanchairothoss	Marandahir wrote: