mlenser
commented
4 years ago Open mlenser opened 4 years ago
mlenser
commented
4 years ago 
shemetz
commented
4 years ago I'd like to also praise Kibbles' artificer - I've been playing a gadgetsmith artificer for half a year now and it's been a blast (sometimes literally).
Here are my thoughts:
Original: https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tabletop-homebrew/issues/206/create-artificer-engineer-option
Mark Lenser REPO OWNER created an issue 2018-11-19 Class based on technology
Artificer who is a full caster Engineer who has a pet construct (See Summoner/Beastmaster) Comments (33) Mark Lenser REPORTER marked as proposal 2018-11-19 Marcloure Looks like February UA will be about the Artificer. Something useful ought be there
2019-01-12 Mark Lenser REPORTER KibblesTasty also has a highly praised artificer which I can use for reference.
2019-01-12 Sebastian Gruber Side note, as the Alchemist seems to be in a long-term Draft mode, and something has occurred to me while looking at what I like and dislike about the class. What, functionally, separates an Engineer/Artificer idea from an Alchemist in my mind is that one uses engineering to create things, and the other uses chemistry to do the same - albeit with perhaps a slightly different theme. Ultimately I feel that an Artificer (note: "a skilled craftsman or inventor" in the English language) is simply to 3.5 what Alchemist was to Pathfinder - someone who infuses a substance or item with magic/mana in order to utilize it differently, perhaps even giving the item to someone else.
My suggestion is to consider that the Artificer is the class, with the specific methods of creation being either archetypes or subclasses - such as Alchemist, Engineer, Grenadier, and Forgemaster. A further example breakdown as follows:
Alchemist could be for creating general alchemical items and formulae, such as throwing out glue traps, producing balms and oils for weapons, and creating poisons. They would serve a more support/control role, specifically by creating items that anyone in their party could use (perhaps without requiring concentration, but at the cost of potency).
Engineer could be your maker of trinkets, gadgets, and other clockwork/steampunk/hex-tech devices, such as automatic grappling hooks, goggles to let those without darkvision see in the dark, parachutes that allow for feather-fall, etc. They would primarily serve a scouting and support role, with the option of being either a ranged damage dealer or front line skirmisher through having higher mobility and potential answers to environmental hazards (heights, water, darkness, fire, poisonous gas...).
Grenadier could be the gun and bomb specialist, creating their own magic-firing firearm/wand/staff in addition to grenades/bombs/magically charged objects meant for throwing or shooting (such as arrows/bolts/bullets). Alternatively, Grenadier could be two further-separated categories that I am unable to come up for names with on the fly, but would in essence be mid-range damage dealers focused on controlling the battlefield through area attacks, altering the terrain (such as pools of acid, patches of ice, or burning oil), and generally more capable of dealing with large groups of weak enemies.
Finally, the Forgemaster could focus on the arms-and-armaments end of the spectrum by creating unique pieces of permanent gear that only they could use effectively. Examples could include a whip-sword that gives them either higher damage or reach, a bracer that can expand into a full shield at a moment's notice, armor that is capable of deploying claws and spikes, and a bow that could separate into two scimitars for when enemies get a little too close.
Mind you, the above are just ideas, but ultimately it seems to me that both an Artificer and an Alchemist focus on pushing the magic into items that they or others may use, and are thus not entirely distinct from one another (in terms of being separate classes), but are distinct enough in how they specialize (justifying them being under the same overall class).
2019-02-21 Mark Lenser REPORTER Alchemist seems to be in a long-term Draft mode It's waiting for WotC to release their Artificer. At that point I'll either use that or KibblesTasty's version. Alchemist might be combined in or not - I haven't decided.
KibblesTasty's Artificer is similar in idea to your suggestions above.
2019-02-21 Marcloure Revisited Artificer UA: https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf
It can enchant magic items, craft wands, and create a homunculus or a turret depending on subclass. It is not much of a engineer, more of a magic items crafter.
2019-03-01 Robert M The new Artificer UA is...not good. Very disjointed class features and archetypes.
2019-03-01 Lamorak Agreed Robert. Overall it seems... well, boring really. Just super uninspired, bland abilities.
I don't see much there that is worth utilising for this homebrew imo.
The turret is decent, and it might be cool to add a version of it into the companion system as a perk option for artificers, but that's about it.
2019-03-01 Robert M I do like the flavor of their spellcasting, and if nothing else would like to see that carried over. The idea of all your spells being little gizmos that you've created to do the job is really cool.
The infusions are kinda neat, but there's almost no choice other than just making specific magic items. I'm totally fine with a class that can craft magic items (or better yet, just a consistent crafting system), but some of the choices on there make no sense, like the fact that a ring of protection requires you to be 16th level, whereas a cloak of protection is only 12th level, when they are functionally the same item. It also bugs me that the rarities are different despite them doing the exact same thing. But that's a whole different issue with the handling of magic items in 5th edition.
2019-03-02 Lamorak KibblesTasty's artificer seems a lot more complete to me. His archetypes are great, and each pairs very nicely with the core chassis.
2019-03-02 Mark Lenser REPORTER I'm going to wait until KibblesTasty decides the future of his Artificer.
2019-03-04 Mark Lenser REPORTER Archetypes:
Augmentor (self augmentation), engineer Possible external version of augmentor who builds equipment, like the suggested forgemaster above Cannoneer, engineer Alchemist, alchemy Metamorph, alchemy alter self through chemicals. 2019-05-31 Parker Abbott Definitely go with Kibble’s version over WotC’s, Middle Finger of Vecna also has a Craftsman and Alchemist that might be worth looking in to
2019-05-31 Mark Lenser REPORTER Man… this project has balooned. I’ve got a super rough class draft, but I’m now adventuring down the path of firearms and technological items. I’ve ventured down this path when I played Iron Gods so I have some ground work done, but… there is a lot to do..
2019-06-02 Wherf Sounds like its going in an interesting direction! Its always been a complex class so I hope you can figure it out.
2019-06-02 Mark Lenser REPORTER The direction I was going was really just allowing the class to craft technological items and those items could have upgrades. A class isn’t needed for the armor/weapons/items. Those can be part of some technological rules which the Artificer can then use.
So I think I’ll pause the main class, focus on those items, and then come back.
2019-06-02 Mark Lenser REPORTER I’m working on a version that offers the following archetypes:
Alchemist (Full progression concoction user, same as current) Augmentor (augments body with tech) Mutant (Drinks mutagens to transform, same as current) X (Power source of Tech and Alchemy that also has extra attack, can focus on one or both). Devices:
Some guns Concoction launcher to launch concoctions up to 120 feet instead of throwing them 30 feet. Something along those lines is what I’m currently working on. I’m not sure magic has a place in the artificer. Perhaps It’ll just be alchemy and a tech system that can imitate magic a bit (cloaking device for invisibility, seeing visor for seeing, etc).
2019-07-29 Marcloure I’m not sure magic has a place in the artificer. I think this is good. While the fantasy of people shooting spell-imbued bullets is a thing, it can be accomplished by any caster through Spell Strikes. For crafting wands and magic items, the newest UA Artificer kinda does that by enhancing mundane items, but I don’t see the necessity of a class specialized in it. I think that a “caster” class with no magic has more charm.
2019-07-30 Ian David Ownby A suggestion for that X archetype might be the Gunslinger. I understand that having an archetype centered around a particular type of weapon might not be a sound idea, but I think you did a great job of it with the soulknife archetype. Maybe have the Gunslinger craft an “armament” as an archetype feature, which they then “build” off of (no pun intended there) at later levels. The armament could use the statistics of a standard firearm, modeling the feature more after the bonded weapon feature, treating the armament as your preferred weapon.
Matthew Mercer makes a point of saying in his Gunslinger archetype for the fighter that it is through experimentation with alchemical components and rare metals that the secrets of controlled explosions can be achieved. That particular line is what got me thinking about this possibility.
2019-09-17 Mark Lenser REPORTER The Gunslinger should not exist as a concept anymore than the Daggermaster or Bowman should exist. Guns, if used, should be available to all classes, not one specific class. That’s a large reason that the Artificer has not advanced in concept: much of it is based on using advanced technology. If advanced technology is an option then the Artificer is nothing but a statblock with some equipment.
2019-09-17 Dalen Brauner I think a compromise there is easy enough to see: whatever cool features that people would love to see in a Gunslinger could likely exist as Feats or Maneuvers. The tricky part would then be picking just the right class to compliment them!
Gunslingers do typically have a cool, unique aesthetic/fantasy, though.
2019-09-17 Ian David Ownby Gunslinger is also an individual class in pathfinder, where as daggermaster and bowman are not. The primary reason I really gave this idea much thought is because I am trying to convert a friend’s pathfinder Gunslinger character to this system, but there isn’t a class or archetype that fits the bill. If they were playing a daggermaster or bowman, I would make them a rouge or ranger respectively. I figured gunslinger could fit the niche of being the alchemist’s equivalent to the ranger or magus, a d8 martial half-caster that made use of weapons, rather than undergo a transformation like with the mutanist.
You were also looking for an archetype that blended tech and alchemy, while making use of weapons. Maybe you don’t have to call it gunslinger, but I think however the archetype ends up shaping, it has a particular weapon that some of its features are centered around, like the soulknifes’s mindblades.
Again, just want to clarify that this is my opinion, and ultimately the decision is up to you.
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER Gunslinger will not exist in my system due to reasons listed above. They are not a class, but a means to bring technology to games. If the technology exists then it is a skill for gunsmithing/gunpowder and money to buy an item. It is not a class.
2019-09-18 Marcloure I am trying to convert a friend’s pathfinder Gunslinger character to this system, but there isn’t a class or archetype that fits the bill Wouldn’t a gunslinger be a Warrior with ranged maneuvers and a gun? Or a rogue, depending on your style of character?
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER Wouldn’t a gunslinger be a Warrior with ranged maneuvers and a gun? Or a rogue, depending on your style of character? Indeed. There are many maneuvers in the skirmish theme that suit a ranged character.
2019-09-18 Dalen Brauner I think you guys are overlooking the mechanical suggestion Ian made.
the alchemist’s equivalent to the ranger or magus, a d8 martial half-caster that made use of weapons, rather than undergo a transformation like with the mutanist.
You were also looking for an archetype that blended tech and alchemy, while making use of weapons. Maybe you don’t have to call it gunslinger What's wrong with a “weaponsmith” class?
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER What's wrong with a “weaponsmith” class? You mean the Warrior?
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER the alchemist’s equivalent to the ranger or magus, a d8 martial half-caster that made use of weapons, rather than undergo a transformation like with the mutanist. This concept doesn’t exist except as a pre-buffer. The Magus and Ranger work as they can cast as part of their normal attacks methods (either via a cantrip or smite/strike like spell). A melee weapon-wielding Alchemist cannot do so. Therefore it is just a worse Magus without something to fill that gap.
2019-09-18 Dalen Brauner My interpretation of the suggestion was a class that would start with the Mutant as a base- an Alchemist with Maneuvers- that, instead of shapechanging, would have abilities that enhance their usage of weapons (or maybe a particular weapon), not unlike a magus, a warrior, a rogue or a ranger.
The concept is simple enough: a half-Martial half-Alchemy class. Give them a bit of "engineer" flavor and you have a class that can cover not just the fantasy of a gunslinger, but of plenty other technology-leaning tropes that are often covered in the concept of the artificer.
(It's possible I'm being thrown off by the phrase "half-caster" and whether people are using it here in place of "half-concoctionist".)
2019-09-18 Marcloure I am fine with a half-martial half-alchemist. Not necessarily a gunsmith, but someone who can add or change properties of weapons, armor, and other equipment. The problem would really be how to implement the mechanics for that, and whether or not it should be an archetype of the alchemist or a whole new class.
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER The problem would really be how to implement the mechanics for that Exactly. It’s not simple.
If people have something to define the archetype and fill the gap that I mentioned then an alchemist archetype could be made.
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER Martial alchemist has already been talked about here though: https://bitbucket.org/mlenser/tabletop-homebrew/issues/627/blood-hunter-identity
Please try to give actionable feedback that fits within a system, not one-off feedback that is a simple desire.
But TBH the feedback is a bit wasted at the moment as I’m in WoW Classic mode. I don’t want to grab bigger projects for this at the moment, but probably will in a few weeks or more.
2019-09-18 Mark Lenser REPORTER Artificer should be a purely mechanical class with no spells. They can create spell-like effects by creating equipment (belt of shrink/growth for example), or by creating chemical reactions (absorb Alchemist).
The class will need to have a new system to create items (bombs, or jetpacks, etc) instead of spells. I expect it’ll require some preparation of certain things (potions, creation of the items) with some leway for how much energy to put into each.
2019-12-24