Quote from: HappyDaze;941153Some of the bits are weird, like "Starting at 2nd level,   your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses any of the tool proficiencies you gain from this class." So now you have to keep track of which tool proficiencies come from class vs. background or other training. Great.

I think its supposed to mean any tool proficiencies, not just the class only.

But since whomever wrote this seems to have totally forgotten the crafting rules allready in the PHB and DMG... All bets are off wether they even know theres backgrounds.

Quote from: Ashakyre;941155I'm thinking about doing an artificer class for my own game so these criticisms are interesting to me. My hunch is that you need to make the building and usage of magic items / artifacts /machines really interesting / vast for the whole business to work.

Unfortunatly thats not what this class is about. Its all wham bam here you go.

But to be fair the character is supposed to be working on this stuff on their off time. Constantly tinkering, experimenting till they hit a breakthrough. Or in the paths cases, gradually concocting more formulas and slowly improving their gun over time.

Quote from: Opaopajr;941140I would have made the Artificer a Background focused on Tools and a specialty of easier friendship to fellow professional craftsmen.

Then I would compile new recipe lists by Setting > Tech/Time Period > Racial/Cultural Conceits > Kingdom/Nation/Tribal Preferences. That would give example of how broad, diverse, and juicy you could really make your world. AND it gives reason to travel, to adventure!

Find legendary components! Learn cultural secrets and attitudes! See how new tech solves new problems! Trade, discover, apprentice, collect!

(Or reduce all this into unshared exception-based widgets and compare your PC DPS! whee!)

This is exactly how I would have done it. Now they're churning out these... "Prestige Classes" that do nothing for the system but segregate things further.

YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells.

EVERY CLASS GETS MAGIC SPELLS!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]645[/ATTACH]

Quote from: tenbones;941192This is exactly how I would have done it. Now they're churning out these... "Prestige Classes" that do nothing for the system but segregate things further.

Not yet. But I'd lay good odds someones bitching to have those added in too.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;941206YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells. And YOU get magic spells.

EVERY CLASS GETS MAGIC SPELLS!

Not quite. But damn close. The Barbarian, Fighter and the Rogue are the only ones who dont have magic. Technically the Monk doesnt either.

They all though get at least one path that can use a little magic.

Though honestly I prefer this to the alternative of 50 classes.

I suspect the impact of 3.x/PF/4e has left an indelible mark on the D&D populace going forward.

I've let that ship sail on without me. The last several UA posts have made my eyebrow twitch at the direction(s) they apparently are considering for 5e. It's like the gravity of the worst parts of 3.x/PF/4e are pulling what seemed to be the stable platform that 5e seemed to promise, back towards the abyss inch by inch.

Quote from: tenbones;941219I suspect the impact of 3.x/PF/4e has left an indelible mark on the D&D populace going forward.

I've let that ship sail on without me. The last several UA posts have made my eyebrow twitch at the direction(s) they apparently are considering for 5e. It's like the gravity of the worst parts of 3.x/PF/4e are pulling what seemed to be the stable platform that 5e seemed to promise, back towards the abyss inch by inch.

Which UA stuff would you ban from your table?

Quote from: Omega;941210Not quite. But damn close. The Barbarian, Fighter and the Rogue are the only ones who dont have magic. Technically the Monk doesnt either.

They all though get at least one path that can use a little magic.

Though honestly I prefer this to the alternative of 50 classes.

Wait until we get to 50 or sub-classes. Same problem with a different coat of paint. Fuck that noise.

And while we're at it. The Artificer was one of the things holding me back from really pushing for an Eberron game with my group. I could fudge the Dragon Marks and races easily enough, but I wanted that class.

But if my choices are alchemical grenadier or freaking long gunner, my interest has dropped so far as to bit negative numbers.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;941225Which UA stuff would you ban from your table?

Quick example. The Fighter UA introduces the Arcane Archer, Knight, Samurai, and Sharpshooter. Aside from the arcane archer. Why do these others even exist? Cant the fighter be a knight without a whole path?

The Monk has the Kensei and Tranquility paths. Essentially making the monk a Fighter and healer respectively.

Bards get the college of Glamour which is actually pretty interesting, and the college of Whispers which is kinda not.

Clerics get the Forge domain which allows enchanting items for a day, kind of like the Artificer. The Grave, which feels both redundant and could have been called another Life domain. And Protection. Which at least makes some small sense.

And so on.

Though there are also some interesting points like the aformentioned Bard Glamour college and the whole UA for the Druid introduces some interesting, though two not very nature themed new paths and one that doesnt quite fit its title. But more importantly has new rules for Druids acquiring forms that WOTC took from our submitted suggestions.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;941252Wait until we get to 50 or sub-classes. Same problem with a different coat of paint. Fuck that noise.

And while we're at it. The Artificer was one of the things holding me back from really pushing for an Eberron game with my group. I could fudge the Dragon Marks and races easily enough, but I wanted that class.

But if my choices are alchemical grenadier or freaking long gunner, my interest has dropped so far as to bit negative numbers.

Still better than 50 whole classes. The paths work. They might not work great. But still preferrable.

One interesting thing about 5e is that you could totally remove every path from every class and still have overall classes that play just fine. One or two might loose some tricks the class would normally get. Thief path for the Rogue for example, but still function without.

For the me, the big issue is 5e really, really doesn't need another class that primarily range attacks. Granted, the class is easy enough to ignore...but am I really the only guy who commonly sees adventuring parties with 1, maybe 2, melee characters while everyone else zips all over the place pew-pewing away? I'm going to start making some monsters abilities like "can't be wounded by attacks originating more than 10' away" just so some fights aren't weird kite battles.

Quote from: Doom;941278For the me, the big issue is 5e really, really doesn't need another class that primarily range attacks. Granted, the class is easy enough to ignore...but am I really the only guy who commonly sees adventuring parties with 1, maybe 2, melee characters while everyone else zips all over the place pew-pewing away? I'm going to start making some monsters abilities like "can't be wounded by attacks originating more than 10' away" just so some fights aren't weird kite battles.

Agree! The meat of the fight should be melee imo. Bit of ranged at the start, or by hanging back or something, but GET IN THERE AND FIGHT should be the mainstay, imo.

edit - otherwise you get a ranged/cover/kite battles more suited to a modern/future gun toting RPG like shadowrun or whatever

Quote from: Doom;941278For the me, the big issue is 5e really, really doesn't need another class that primarily range attacks.

Well to be fair any class could go ranged if they wanted even in older versions of D&D. Either mundane stuff like slings and arrows, darts and thrown weapons. Or play lazer gun with wands of magic missile.

5e still has that. But now all the main caster classes have at least one at will ranged cantrip. Some arent very ranged. But there they are right out the gate. Though only the Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard have any sort of broad selection.

The only classes without are the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin and Thief. The Ranger has a batch of range trick spells so YMMV if the Ranger is in column A or Column B or in between.

So three strongly with. Three or four minorly with, 5 or six without. The Artificer will bring that up to four strongly with.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;941225Which UA stuff would you ban from your table?

It's not a case of "banning" simply because they exist. I think the UA stuff (generally) is a step in the wrong design direction of creating sub-classes where abilities are being ever segregated into things they shouldn't be. Omega's examples are spot-on. It's like they seem to decide arbitrarily what is a class vs. what is a background vs. what is an archetype - when they could create sub-systems that allow *all* of the classes to interact with these things without forcing them down a specific design path.

This is the same crap they did in 3.x/PF and branched off designwise into 4e. Both results were bad.