D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 3)

In my first look at converting the Artificer into a 5e playable option, I considered how best to make it happen. After settling on Artificer as a 5e class (instead of a sub-class or archetype), I considered how to solve the problem of the Artificer being a permanent magic item craftsman in the Part 2. In this third installment, I'd like to consider the much fussier and probably less easily balanced art of Artificer "spells." In other words, how should infusions work in 5e?

In 3e, infusions (as cast by Artificers) had a few key characteristics that are worth remembering:

• Infusions are not spells, though they often mimic spell effects
• Infusions only go up to 6th level/circle; the Artificer was a hybrid class with a similar progression to a 3e Bard, where 6th tier spells are the cap.
• Infusions often have a casting time of one minute.
• Infusions often have costly material components or even experience point costs.

When we think about what "pitfalls" we might encounter when converting to 5e, a few things spring to mind:

• There are no more "6-circle" spellcasters. There are full casters (9 tiers/circles/levels), hybrid casters (5 tiers/circles/levels), and "faux" casters (4 tiers/circles/levels).
• Many of the original infusions were mimicking a system in which wizards/clerics buffed the party before combat with a variety of overlapping spells; this was a system without 5e's concentration rules.
• Many of the Artificer's spells reference Use Magic Device; a skill that no longer exists.
• At least in the playtest documents, warforged (usually the primary recipient/target of the Artificer's construct-related abilities) are now considered fully alive; healing spells cast on them are no longer halved in value, making Artificers less necessary in a warforged-heavy party. In fact, I'm not even sure that the "repair" line of spells/infusions is necessary in this environment.

So to reconcile these disparate pieces:

1. Should an Artificer be a full caster (9 levels of infusions) or a hybrid caster (5 levels)? (I'm assuming that an Artificer's infusions are more important to the class than an Arcane Trickster's few wizard spells, or an Eldritch Knight's offensive repertoire.)
2. Should infusions still be "separate" from spellcasting, or are infusions to be treated as spells that happen to only target items?
3. Should infusions continue to hold fast to the cost/experience model?
4. What replaces Use Magic Device, if anything?

Finally, since we're still dealing with just a base class (and not any archetypes yet) we can afford to allow the Artificer to be a tad underpowered compared with other classes; the gap can allow for some flexibility in the archetypes.

My first instinct tells me to try Artificers as hybrid casters, and to give them more infusions per day to compensate for them note being "full casters". After all, the Bard has been upgraded, why not the Artificer? Unfortunately, I think that ruins a very elegant system by adding another variable. Similarly, the original infusion progression is quite light; I think we either need to commit to Artificers being "full" spellcasters and assign them a full spell list (for example, give them access to Cleric spells or  Wizard spells) or commit to them using the hybrid progression. For now, let's consider the hybrid progression, but we'll assign them a single 1st level infusion slot at first level (hybrid casters don't start casting until second level).

If we stick to that idea, Artificers (under the current class model) will have light armor, simple weapons, no offensive spells, no cantrips, and only a scant few infusions per level even at the upper echelons of play.

All right, clearly that won't work.

On the other hand, if we assign a full spell list (say, the Cleric list), we're assigning a huge role (healing) that didn't exist in the 3e Artificer.  Of course, this did exist in 4e, so it's not entirely out of reach. If we make Artificers spellcasters, and give them the clerical spellcasting type (cleric spell list, cantrips, progression, and preparation procedure and number of spells), we're basically back to the Artificer as an archetype of the Cleric class. Not ideal!

Back to the drawing board.

This may be where the Warlock's unorthodox spellcasting can come in handy.  If we assume that Artificers are spellcasters, but that unlike Wizards (whose studies are formal, and whose manipulation of the Weave is based on training in an artful science) or Sorcerers (whose studies are of the self, and whose manipulation of the Weave is natural and based on the science of art), the Artificer is a muddled, idiosyncratic mimicry of other spellcasters--some science, some art, all based on research and observation (rather than tradition or talent).

Perhaps as a Wizard has a spellbook, a Cleric has a holy symbol, and a Warlock has a pact item, an Artificer could have an implement/weapon that is the focus of all spellcasting. For example, an Artificer doesn't "cast" Ray of Frost, but would rather be imbuing his staff, wand, or other implement with the power to cast it--and cast it. Cantrips become (for the Artificer) spells that are stored in the implement until needed by the Artificer, which can only be called forth by the Artificer.

An Artificer could have an implement (reminiscent of 4e) which could be the focus of most Artificer spellcasting. This particular object could be mundane or magical, but it is in some way bound to the Artificer (like attunement? short rest required to change implements?). In this way, the Artificer would not (for example) be casting  the spell straight out, but would actually be funneling magic through the implement.

Another piece of Warlock spellcasting that would probably make sense for the Artificer is the reset of spell slots each short rest rather than long rest. A smaller number of slots combined with the quick recovery of those slots means that Artificers are less likely to be able to break the new concentration rules because they won't have the means to do so (all at once, anyway).

Since this discussion is already well into deep water, let's finish out this theory and see where it takes us. For 5e:

• Artificers are spellcasters. They "cast" their infusions. For our purposes, Artificers casting spells is identical to casting infusions. (With the following restriction...)
• Artificers still may not cast spells directly, but rather must infuse an object with the spell. This can either be in the form of a "buff" (spell stays in the object) or in the form of a temporary magic item creation (as in the case of making a one-charge wand to cast magic missile).
• This will need some clarification down the line. Do Artificers both infuse and cast the spell from the focus item at the same time? Is there a delay?
• Artificers use the Wizard spell list to learn spells from.
• Artificers "know" certain spells from the Wizard list.
• Artificers use the Warlock progression for spells, with a few key differences.
• Artificers know their "Cantrips Known" from the Wizard list.
• Artificers know their "Spells Known" from the Wizard list.
• Artificers use the "Invocations Known" list to choose spells from any spell list. This functions like the Bard's "Magical Secrets" ability, but comes much sooner. 
• Similar to what is stated in the Warlock entry, one spell per Artificer level gained may be swapped out as the Artificer gains experience points/levels.
•  Spells learned must be of a spell level the Artificer is capable of casting.
• Artificers may choose to learn an additional cantrip, however only this cantrip may be changed out later. (Artificers cannot use this ability to learn a new cantrip then get rid of one they learned as a first level Artificer.)
• Artificers' "Spell Slots" and "Slot Level" mechanics function as a Warlock.
• Artificers may only cast spells if they have a spell slot remaining (except cantrips)
• Spell slots recharge after a short rest 
• One small change: beginning at 13th level, the Artificers spell slots become 6th level.
• Artificers use their implement as a focus for spellcasting.
• The implement may be a weapon, shield, or other handheld object.
• It may be magical or mundane.
• For the Artificer to cast spells, he/she must be attuned (as with a magic item, although this attunement doesn't count against the limit of three magic items. If, however, the chosen item must already be attuned in order to be used, that attunement must be done separately--and in that case counts against the total of 3).

Just a few more items to consider--the ones that break the bank, so to speak.

• Artificers ignore concentration. Because the Artificer is infusing an item with magic, once a spell is cast, it remains in the item and doesn't need to be concentrated on for the duration.
• After a short or long rest, any spells cast expire, even if their duration would normally be longer than that short/long rest.

 I am hopeful that the limited spell slots granted to an Artificer make this (concentration) less of an issue. Can an Artificer make four people invisible simultaneously? Sure, but only if they're 17th level or above, and even then they have no other magical powers until they've taken a rest (except cantrips). Can an Artificer heal? Sure, but only if they use one of their (total of) eight out-of-list spells on learning a healing spell. Can an Artificer cast fireball? Sure, but it'll use up one of the Artificer's scant few spell slots!


So let's return to our questions:

1. Should an Artificer be a full caster (9 levels of infusions) or a hybrid caster (5 levels)?
   An Artificer should be based on the Warlock model, ending with six tiers of spells, at drastically reduced spell slots.
2. Should infusions still be "separate" from spellcasting, or are infusions to be treated as spells that happen to only target items?
   Both. Infusions are spells, but Artificers still focus their castings through a particular implement item.
3. Should infusions continue to hold fast to the cost/experience model?
   Not for the moment. If we bring in some of the old infusions from the 3e class, it may be prudent to do so.
4. What replaces Use Magic Device, if anything?
   For now, since we're not using any of the old infusions, we don't need this skill. If (as in an archetype) we discover a need for this, it's possible that an Arcana skill will be functional.

To round things out, I think all we'll need are some archetypes. I'll try to consider one (or more) of those in a future post. For now, I think we need one that makes the Artificer more of an implement user (think of the old wand specialists), one that makes the Artificer more of a skill user (closer to a bard/rogue with a variety of skills and/or languages), and one that makes the Artificer more of a constructer (i.e. the old-school Artificer who used homunculi and build machines).

The last thing to be ironed out before we delve into archetypes (and therefore likely the topic of the next post) will be starting proficiencies and basic class features. Until then, please feel free to comment below with any suggestions for tweaking this "alpha draft" Artificer build!

D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 2)

In the last post, I examined the problems with casting the Artificer as a subclass of one of the existing classes, eventually proposing that while that may be the most pleasing solution in terms of limiting game bloat, that it is not the best solution for the Artificer. Indeed, (I proposed) the best solution appears to be the exceptional one: the Artificer should be its own class.

After examining the first level abilities of the Artificer in the last post, we can continue to examine its other abilities. I'm going to set aside the much bigger question of infusions for now; we'll come back to it later.

Technically, I had left out the "Scribe Scroll" portion of the Artificer's first level abilities, but I'd like to address that alongside the general "Item Creation" extraordinary ability at second level.

 The basic outline is this: as Artificers level up, they gain the ability to craft magic items of each tier with greater and greater ease. The qualities to be considered are: the type (scroll, armor, weapon, wondrous, etc.) and the rarity (common, uncommon, rare, ultra rare). A third category may be the permanence of an item (one-use versus persistent), but that's often taken care of in the other two categories. 

• Item Creation: Starting at second level, an Artificer gains insight into the creation of permanent (both one-use and persistent) magical items. As the Artificer gains experience and  power, these insights become more numerous and more valuable. As with all magical item creation, it is up to the DM to outline the necessary parts/features required to create magic items.
• At 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th, Artificers gain access to new rarities of item creation.
• At 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th, Artificers gain the ability to ignore one ingredient to the magic item recipe at the various levels of rarity.
• At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th, Artificers' item creation costs are discounted by 25% at the various levels of rarity.
• At 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th, Artificers gain the ability to ignore a second ingredient in the magic item recipes at the various levels of rarity. (Legendary-tier items cannot have more than one ingredient ignored.)
• These item creation bonuses apply only to item types for which the Artificer can craft.

Using the third edition progression as a baseline, the new item creation round-up might look something like this:

• Scribe Scroll: Starting at second level, an Artificer's close association with magical and pseudo-magical scripts gives him the ability to create magical scrolls. These scrolls may only be of levels for which the Artificer can cast infusions. [This will need tweaking as we deal with the infusions mechanics]. An Artificer may scribe a scroll for a spell which he has an existing copy or demonstration of only. For example, an Artificer may duplicate a scroll in his possession, may mimic a spell from a wizard's spellbook, or may scribe a scroll from a spell known by a cooperating and ever-present spellcaster who is assisting in the preparation and crafting of the scroll.
• Brew Potion: Starting at fourth level, an Artificer is capable of brewing magical potions and elixirs. 
• Craft Wondrous Item: At fifth level, an Artificer gains the ability to craft wondrous items.
• Craft Magic Arms and Armor: At sixth level, an Artificer gains the ability to craft magical arms and armor.
•  Craft Wand: At eighth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic wands.
• Craft Rod: At tenth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic rods.
• Craft Staff: At thirteenth level, an Artificer may begin crafting magic staffs.
• Forge Ring: At fifteenth level, an Artificer may begin forging magic rings.

We can abridge our earlier chart and add the new information to it:

With all of this in mind, there are a few things that still need to be discussed (or at least mentioned).

First, I've left out a few items on this original list: craft homunculus seemed somewhat unnecessary, as did the ability to take ten on a skill that doesn't really exist anymore. Retaining essences is an interesting idea, but I think it doesn't have a place in a magic item creation system that doesn't run on experience points. I also left out all discussion of metamagic feats and magical items. It seems to me that metamagic has been made the exclusive domain of the Sorcerer--one of the few things that has been given to a class that (at this point anyway) seems to be shunned in favor of the other primary spellcasting classes. Taking metamagic creation and giving it to the Artificer would just be mean.

Second, I removed all of the bonus feats. Those bonus feats are (in 5e lingo) the kind of specialization that should be left to archetypes. I'll have to develop a basic archetype for the Artificer, but until I do, I'm going to leave him without the bonus feats (or the "craft reserve").

Third, as you may have noticed, I bumped all of the item creation "feats" by exactly one level. 
I thought about bumping the earlier ones by two levels in honor of the first few levels of 5e being "apprentice" levels, but decided against it in order to preserve the elegance of the original design. The single-level bump still makes it so Artificers are not necessary for item creation, but rather strongly encouraged.

Fourth, while there are definite guidelines for magical item creation in the Dungeon Master's Guide, I'm giving DMs a lot of latitude with these rules. Nowhere does it spell out exactly what is needed to create a given magic item. For now, that's up to the DM--though I could see a system easily falling into place. (For example, maybe the costs in the DMG represent only the gold costs for magical powders and inks used in the creation of all magical items, but different rarities of magic item also call for different numbers of additional ingredients. A common potion of cure wounds might need only the base cost and two additional items; an uncommon potion of cure wounds might need three.) These requirements could easily be scaled by the DM to fit whatever level of magic is required for the campaign. (In this respect, I could even see Artificers in non-Eberron settings--just jack up the requirements per magic item. Having said that, I think it may be so punishing that it's not worth it for players to pursue it. More on that later.) A high-magic Eberron campaign might lower the number of ingredients required, while a "standard" campaign might find the numbers I propose to be functional. Each DM can calibrate by adding or subtracting ingredients across the board.

Fifth (and finally?), it should be mentioned that this entire (series of) post(s) is devoted to how to make a 5e magic-item-crafting Artificer. In a non-Eberron campaign, I am uncertain that such a class has a place. For example, I don't think I'll be allowing my own players to playtest this class in our Forgotten Realms campaign; it's not the right flavor/fit. If we accept that the Artificer is an Eberron-only (or at least, primarily Eberron-exclusive) class, a lot of the balance issues start to fall away in favor of the higher magic environment.

Next time, we'll tackle another piece of the puzzle. In the meantime, let me know what your own thoughts are on the initial magic-item-line of the Artificer's repertoire!

D&D 5e: Solving the Artificer Problem (Part 1)

Eberron's beauty lies in many things. To make that beauty accessible, I think we have to articulate two iconic components: the warforged race and the artificer class.

The warforged race is (comparatively) easy to shoe-horn into an existing campaign. Many, many, people have already made excellent--even exceptional--attempts to come up with appropriate ports for the warforged. One of them would likely suit anyone's game! As such, I think we can set the warforged aside and focus on the much more peculiar conundrum of the Artificer class.

At least three solid "hacks" of existing character classes have been put forward to address the void: Cleric, Warlock, and the "official" option--Wizard. Some have bandied about the idea of a Bard hack--promising, but I have yet to see anyone make the attempt.

I'm least partial to the "official" Wizard option.  Using a Wizard Tradition to create super-temporary magical effects just turns the Artificer into a wizard with a few delayed spell effects. This seems neither in keeping with Keith Baker's original vision for the class nor with a hearty sense of fun!

The Warlock option has some interesting merits, but it's still lacking the full flavor and it still seems weaker in many respects.

Baker's playtest-worthy hack is built on the Cleric chassis, using the idea of "Artifice" as a new cleric domain. This seems somewhat reasonable, particularly considering his list of features. According to Baker (as the inventor/creator of the Eberron), the 3.5 Artificer had several key features:

• "Simple weapon proficiency
• Light and Medium armor proficiency, proficient with shields
• The ability to disable traps like a rogue.
• An exceptional talent for creating permanent magic items.
• The ability to create temporary magic items using infusions. This system had some similarities to spellcasting. The basic list of infusion effects was very limited, focusing on effects to enhance the abilities and equipment of the artificer and allies and the ability to disable or repair constructs and objects… and the unique abilities I mentioned before.
• Many of the artificer’s most useful and versatile infusions had a base casting time of 1 minute; this could be reduced to 1 round by burning an action point."

The first three options are easily taken care of whether we "hack" an old class or jump-start a new one.

The last one is also easily remedied. Under the core rules, one might even use inspiration instead of an action point. (Though action points would be easily re-entered if the setting of the campaign is Eberron.)

The second to last one is fussy, but not insurmountable. Because the list is so limited, a dedicated look at the Artificer infusions list (combined with some soul-searching about the new concentration rules and how not to completely break them) may yield some positive results. Maybe we'll come back to this one.

The real humdinger is lodged squarely in the middle: "an exceptional talent for creating permanent magic items." In the 3.X universe where every item had a cost that was easily referenced, the formula used to help Artificers fulfill this function as magic item factories were stable and accessible. In the 5e universe where (at best) items belong to vague categories (common, uncommon, rare, etc.) with loose price ranges attached, this becomes more cumbersome.

I think that while the most elegant solution would be to create a bard sublcass (the jack-of-all-trades feel and utility spell list seem to mesh much better than the flashy, offensive spells of a wizard or the healing-heavy, divine-tempered list of a cleric), the exceptional solution may be the preferred one here: creating (re-creating) the Artificer as a new 5e base class.

If we model the Artificer on its 3e counterpart and simply update to to 5e, we can probably find a clear track to make it happen.

A look at the first level reveals the following:

• Artificer Knowledge was a great way for Artificers to have (what would now be) the Detect Magic ritual: (no spell slots required, but it also couldn't be done in a round). I think we can replace this with something similar:
• Ritual Caster: You have a "ritual tome" which mimics a wizard's spellbook with several key differences. You may only scribe new spells into it that have the ritual tag. These spells must be scribed from scrolls containing the spell (they are not learned from any other means). Even another Artificer's ritual tome cannot be used to gain additional rituals. Artificer ritual tomes use unique codes and cyphers to explain the way to mimic a spell in the idiosyncratic science of artifice, and is therefore uniquely useful only to the Artificer who scribed it. The artificer may scribe spells from any list (provided that they contain the ritual tag). When casting rituals from the ritual tome, the spell takes roughly twice as long as a normal ritual (i.e. initial casting time, plus twenty minutes). This additional time represents the difference between an active spellcaster manipulating arcane/divine energies to cast a spell and the artificers tinkered, ad hoc mimicry of those same energies. At first level, your ritual tome starts with Detect Magic scribed into it.
•  Craft Reserve was absolutely the way that Artificers were able to create any magic items without immediately falling behind the rest of their party in experience points. In a post-formula magic item creation environment, the role of this feature is less clear. More to come on this in later level discussions.
• Weapon and Armor proficiencies are a stickier wicket. Most people want to give Artificers the same proficiencies they had in 3e. That might be possible, but I suspect that they're going to have a lot going for them already. To counteract this, I'm going to start by proposing that Artificers are proficient with light armor and shields (but not medium armor), and all simple weapons. Racial backgrounds or multiclassing can still pick up some slack here for those who desperately desire the slightly heavier armor, but the base class will be that much less overpowered.
• Artisan Bonus is another throwback. Perhaps it can be combined with another former ability?
• Disable Trap would make a fine admixture.
• Tools: Artificers are proficient in thieves tools and one artisan's tool set of their choice.
• Infusions can possibly work the same way they do in 3e, with some adjustments for concentration rules and (of course) the actual porting of the infusions into 5e.

What are your own thoughts on this conundrum? Feel free to toss in a comment if you have something constructive to add! Look forward to Part 2 for how my 5e Artificer class shapes up in levels beyond the 1st.