Preview: Artificer 2.0 (Infusionsmith)

If it's the weapon making the attack instead of the character then that would mean you could do stuff like cast sanctuary on yourself and attack without breaking it.

Maybe bake in the -Prof/+2*Prof values in an upgrade, like Impact Gauntlets do for Gadgetsmith (at least as of 1.7)?

Matthew Gesus

You could go the Dancing Sword route where the animated weapon itself makes the attack, using your modifiers, instead of you making it. "When you do so, the sword begins to hover, flies up to 30 feet, and attacks one creature of your choice within 5 feet of it. The sword uses your attack roll and ability score modifier to damage rolls." That leaves infused weapon open to these kind of things still, but infused weapon needs some love anyways.

Mike Hughes

Yea, it's tough. Usually the best way to counter GWM/SS is to tack on bonus damage and lower the number of possible attacks, (I mean, no one is going to bother with GWM/SS on a rogue or a Thundersmith.) The feedback from above about BB/GFB would be one way to alleviate that pressure for Infused Weapon, or maybe some Infusionsmith custom cantrips that can synergize with Animated Weapon?

Matthew Gesus

This might be why it was a ranged spell attack originally, now that I think about it. I knew there was a reason I did that, but couldn't think of why. GWM should not work with animated weapon I don't think. I would have to nerf too much about Infusionsmith to make that a viable path. I would rather it didn't work with Infused Weapon, but I don't think there is any reasonable way to stop that particular interaction. The problem is the presence of those feats mean you have to balance for their existence, meaning anyone that doesn't take them (which will be many people) are going to be left a little underpowered. I will have to give this some thought. The old version was pretty safe against these feats as it's mixed weapon attack types made them pretty lack luster and they did not work with Animated Weapon, but I can see that the more I review it, the new version is ripe for abuse with those feats. I will have to think about something there.

KibblesTasty

Question: Assuming an animated greatsword, does Animated Weapon being a melee spell attack now mean it qualifies for Great Weapon Master? If it does, then Infused Weapon might need a little boost.

Matthew Gesus

It's definitely good feedback, and I will consider as I dig into the numbers a bit. I've come the conclusion that while I liked Booming Blade + Animated Weapon attack, it was too good, particularly at level 5, and a lot of people wanted Extra Attack on the Infused Weapon, though I certainly understand the thematic benefit of Booming Blade, Booming Blade/Green Flame don't play nice with Extra Attack, and enough weaker that the choice between them isn't necessarily meaningful. I could buff BB/GFB with an infusion benefit that would equalize that, but I suspect many people don't like the feel of making one attack, because it's basically "all in" and it feels bad to miss (the Cannonsmith has the same problem, but tries to mitigate it with Devastating Blasts). I'll consider it, but it's definitely harder tricky as I BB/GFB + Attack is too strong, and BB/GFB is too weak for someone that focuses on that. Skilled Animation was not intentionally made incompatible with Infused Weapon, so I'll see if I can tweak that one to bring it back. The branching option for mixed technique was to make it so people didn't feel like they had to have an animated weapon. While Empowered Weapon won't wasted too often, as you get both attacks to try to hit; and the weapon enchantment line has it's own risks, since you can lose concentration or something before you get enough attacks out of it to make it better than 4d4, but I'll take another pass at the numbers. All this aside, I think you're right that Infused Weapon needs something a bit more, as currently it's pretty much just you attack with Int, which is sort of a wash compared to animated weapon.

KibblesTasty

Love the merge overall! I think that's a great idea and makes a lot of sense. The Infused Weapon option definitely needs some TLC though. These are my opinions as a DM and as having played an Infusion Smith for close to a year now. - Losing the bonus damage means that you sacrifice the range from Animated weapon for no gain. - Changing it to give a 2nd attack with the attack action means the melee cantrips are no longer useful. Having Booming/Greenflame Blade no longer be useful is a big loss of flavor as I felt those spells were especially thematic to this style of play on Infusionsmith. I'd rather see them get these spells at level 5. - Infused Weapon lost it's access to a lot of useful upgrades like Deflecting Weapon, Skilled Animation and a 3rd attack via Third Animated Weapon. - Empower Weapon is mutually exclusive to Mixed Technique as they are both bonus actions. In most cases making another attack with an animated weapon (especially with Weapon Enchantment Expertise) will almost always be more damage than empowering an infused weapon without the risk of wasting a spell slot. If you are trying to avoid Boomingblade + Multiattack with Animated Weapons shenanigans, perhaps give the Weapon Cantrips at level 5 instead of multiattack and bake Empower Weapon into Infused Weapon. Possibly removing Empower Weapons bonus action cost (even via upgrade) to make it more like a paladin smite as wasted spell slots on a missed attack are never fun. If it's baked into Infused Weapon you could just make the damage scale over time.

Mike Hughes

Ah yes. I forgot to add that one, but that is an intentional change. It's a slightly more elegant system, and puts slightly more value on lighter weapons.

KibblesTasty

I really like this merge. Wandsmith felt pretty shallow, and they mesh nicely. I think your changelog left out lowering the range of the animated weapons? Looks like heavy went from 20 to 15 and normal went from 40 to 30.

1) I understand what you mean here. I think there is a side bar about letting them use tools as a focus if they want. I think the forging equipment makes more sense to be smith tools. I may have just been a little paranoid on that front, so I will consider. No other class runs the same degree of risk of "losing their class" as the Artificer, so I think I erred on the side of caution in getting back your stuff when possible. 2) I see what you mean, but I think this might vary a bit. A blacksmith isn't going to know a lot about alchemy problem in a D&D setting. I think if there was a spot that needed a feature like this, I might slot in some sort of feature, but the Artificer is already sort of stuffed full. I think between background and class tools, you can probably get quite a lot. The background tools aren't doubled, but they at least serve to broaden the range. 3) This is probably one of those were the media you consume influences your take on it. I would like to expand things like the AI integration of Warsmith, but I don't currently have a plan for a stand alone AI class. That said, I think it's a reasonable idea if there's a good way to frame it. I have quite a few objections to the mechanics WotC used, but maybe there is a cool idea there. Not the next item on the list, but I won't say never there if people are interested... after all while I give my hot takes on things, the will of the people is what drives this all forward! Appreciate the thoughts! :)

KibblesTasty

1) Ok so my observation was that the UA Artificer is much more explicitly reliant on the use of tools than your version. For example, the Spellcasting feature and the various pet creation features all require tools. In your Artificer, there's a lot of features that imply that they use tools but don't actually make it explicit. For example, the Mechanical Golem feature says you can recreate your golem with four days work and 100gp of raw materials but doesn't mention smith's tools or tinker's tools. By RAW a Golemsmith could be locked in a room naked with just the raw materials and come out of it four days later with a golem. Then there's the Warplate feature that says you need a place to forge, some platemail and 1000gp but doesn't mention smith's tools or tinker's tools at all. (Incidentally, shouldn't Warsmith get proficiency in tinker's tools? It seems more appropriate than smith's tools for creating a lot of their upgrades.) In fact I did a quick scan through the 1.7 document and I couldn't find any features that explicitly require the use of tools. I can see how this might be intentional in order to cater to Artificers who are of a more magical persuasion (as opposed to mechanical) but it still feels a little odd to me. For your Spellcasting feature I'd suggest letting people continue to use a standard arcane focus or components but add in that artisan tools also count as a spellcasting focus for the Artificer. Maybe also add something in there about using your core subclass feature as a focus in some way. That might be a bit wonky for some of the subclasses though (I'm looking at you Golemsmith). In terms of the rest of the features I think it makes sense to add tools requirements to a lot of them but I can also see how you might not want to. 2) In my experience, experts in a field usually have a better than average understanding of related fields so I was thinking you could add this on top of the existing expertise... but that was probably my inner munchkin coming out. Maybe it could get slotted in somewhere at a higher level though. 3) Ok so I understand the psionics connection but to me the Archivist feels more like a science fantasy crafter. For example, I could absolutely see the Archivist fitting in as a crafter in the Numenera setting. It's got a bit of that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" vibe to me. I do think the name Archivist isn't a great fit for it though. And yes, spammable stun on an INT save is kinda bonkers. 4) I can't really argue with any of that...

Ritual Casting is a class feature/feat which the Artificer does not have, so without anything further, you wouldn't have any way of ritual casting spells besides Indentify/Detect Magic as ritual casting for those is given in a feature for Artificer. I would have to read the feat to confirm, but you could probably cast them with the Ritual Caster feat; I would say that you could combine your ritual book and spell manual, but worst comes to worst, you could just copy them over as you have them in written form. But by default, no. Just infuse them.

KibblesTasty

> 1) I am curious what you mean with this one. My understand of the UA Artificer casting via tools was basically fluff, it does not have any mechanical impact, which is why many people weren't particularly happy with it. In my view, spells casted with upgrades casted with inventions, while spells from the spell list mainly represent the Artificers own magical talent - after all, they are a very smart person with a lot of experience with magic, it sort of makes sense they can use it, even if that's not really their focus. > 2) I have considered this one, but I don't know that it actually makes sense. Why would a Potionsmith be particularly good at using blacksmithing tools? I'm not sure making the variations less specialized really improves the theme. An Artificer to me doesn't quite fit the "jack of all trades, master of none" approach as they definitely are the master of their field, and seem like they are an excellent candidate for someone that would have fairly specialized knowledge. > 3) Hmmm. Probably not, at least, not in the form it is. To me, that feels more like a Psion thing or perhaps a Wizard integration for a Psion. The idea of an archivist that uses scrolls and knowledge, perhaps, but the actual floating AI, probably not. That feels more like a Psi Crystal thing to me, and I don't really like the link between AI and Telepathy. That said, it's possible that once Psionics are better fleshed out, something like that would make a more appropriate take on the Mindsmith if I revisit that idea in the future, though personally I think I would need to think how it better ties into the rest of the Artificer's kit before I went down that path. The actually Archivist flavor to me seems best suited to a Wizard, though the mechanics... I probably wouldn't use an exact port of the mechanics, as I have quite a few objections to them (an Int saved smite stun is a very potent action that carries far too much weight in an action cycle - that ability dominates their attack/cantrip dynamic into something that is almost always the best idea in any given situation). > 4) This is probably the most requested one, and it's something I've considered, and will continue to consider. I know that opinions will vary on this one quite a bit, but I don't add anything to the Artificer i wouldn't allow in my game. It's just sort of a basic principle in order to ensure that DMs don't have to be the mean person banning too much stuff, and personally there's basically no chance I would allow the current version of many handed pouch. It's cool, but it's way too cool, and used cleverly invalidates way too many non-combat challenges. A bag of holding is a powerful adventuring item because it makes storage a sort of non-issue, but the sheer engine of destruction that is a many-handed pouch is terrifying; it would very hard to stop that from being used for mass larceny, and is just way too convient, even in combat, but particularly out of combat. I try to avoid things that are going to make it significantly harder for the DM to present interesting challenges, and that sort of falls into the category. If I can think of a concise set of limitations that makes it more managable I will definitely bring it over, though I imagine the nature of those limitations would make people want it less. I am pretty sure a lot of people will think I am crazy, but the sheer out of combat utility represented by that item is insane. Making players lives easier is a good thing - making characters lives easier is not always a good thing. A large part of the game is challenging the characters, and many of those challenges are not combat :) Appreciate the thoughts! These are definitely things I have/will give thought to. I know that sometimes I have a habit of saying "no" to something than doing it anyway, and the simple reason there is when I answer, I'm answering why I've done what I've done so far, and sometimes I'll change my mind based on what I see, or have a good idea how to implement something, but hopefully all the rationale above at least makes some sense.

KibblesTasty

Hello, sorry for another question, but can you ritual cast spells from the manual with the ritual tag or just infuse them?

I just finished filling out the survey for the latest UA Artificer and had a couple of random thoughts for you to consider: 1) I'd love to see your sidebar on using tools as spellcasting foci merged more explicitly into the mechanics. The mechanical focus on using tools as a means of producing magical effects was one of the things I actually really liked about the UA Artificer. 2) What about adding a Jack of All Trades like bonus to their Tool Expertise feature? Have it only apply to tools (or maybe just artisan tools) as opposed to all ability check. 3) Have you considered an Archivist like subclass for your Artificer? It was really the only subclass for the latest UA Artificer that got me even vaguely excited (anything with telepathy usually does that for me) and I'd be interested to see what your take on it looked like. 4) Please steal the Many-Handed Pouch infusion...

It is less of a matter necessarily of breaking it in a global context, and more of a matter of breaking it in a comparative context; it would be better than the other options if I allow that. I used to intentionally allow it (i.e. it said "when you attack with" rather than "when you take the attack action") so I can close that loophole, but doing that in addition to the option to attack twice feels awkward. I will consider it, but in general the reason the Extra Attack there is most people seemed to prefer the option to go full gish over the option to have 1 animated sword + 1 infused sword; if it seems like a lot of people miss the 1 animated sword + 1 infused sword (or crossbow, in most cases) I'll consider. It seems like there is few cases where splitting them is particularly superior if Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade isn't allowed, and that seems too much better than the other options to include. I guess that's the heart of the matter - if I do exclude SCAG Cantrip + Animated Sword, is there still a significant number of people that would want to use that combo over double animated swords or extra attack, considering its more awkward in most cases? I will keep an eye on feedback. I think some people will always want more options, but if its not adding anything interesting, I don't want to go too far down the road. That said, if I do see a way to add SCAG Cantrip + Animated Weapon in a way that makes sense, I think a fair number of people would want to do that, so it's worth considering, but given their current situation, it would only be good at certain break points which would fall into the awkwardness the EK has.

KibblesTasty

For 2 couldn't you just tie it to the attack action? Also Rogue can do BB + Sneak Attack so it's not really breaking anything compared to that.

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my comment. I was referring to the lost of the store magic features ability to not take a spell slot. You are right at later levels you can have tons of wands with a lot of variety so I can see how it wouldn't be a one trickpony issue. Most of my complaints are from my experience so far in early levels with the stored spell feature being the only thing allowing my level 4 infusionsmith stand out in a high magic party. EDIT: Thank you for answering my question.

You mean this in reference for the conversion of the Store Magic to Spell Manual/Infuse Magic as the 3rd level feature? Infuse Magic can do pretty much anything Store magic could, but it trades the 1 free spell per short rest for more flexibility. I would think that after you pick up a few different wands, you would be a many-trick pony! But in general you are still a half caster with your normal spell slots, so you have quite a bit of casting, particularly if you focus on wands for your upgrades, and have decent casting with pretty good damage/utility if you focus on other infusionsmith items. > "I also have a question about the spell manual does it mean I can just forgo an artificer spell when I level up to 5 with a second level wizard spell that I just added to the manual if I don't take an artificer spell?" Yes, you could that. You add new spells from the Wizard list to your Spell Manual, and can pick from your Spell manual spells instead of the Artificer spells when you level up. EDIT: Just to clarify, the Artificer is still a half caster with the same spell list as previously, I just haven't ported the spell list for Artificer into 2.0 yet. The only spell casting the Infusionsmith lost was the Store Magic used to give you a "free" cast 1/short rest and doesn't anymore. I think you know this, but after re-reading your post wanted to clarify there.

KibblesTasty

With the Artificer being a halfcaster the version of the infusionsmith allowed you to always have a spell in your back pocket but with this new version it seems more situational. Having three casting of a spell is nice with the wand but makes it feel more like a one trick pony. I also have a question about the spell manual does it mean I can just forgo an artificer spell when I level up to 5 with a second level wizard spell that I just added to the manual if I don't take an artificer spell?

Oh it's worth noting that some of the Golemsmith upgrades are pretty close in power to a full feat/ASI (Fine Tuned Dexterity, Structural Constitution, Systematic Strength).

I'm not sure; I'll keep it in mind, but if it remains a half ASI, I'll make it so you can take it multiple times for different upgrades (which would make it round it out with 2).

KibblesTasty

Can't wait for the Warsmith!

I think you mentioned somewhere that with 2.0 you'll be moving the feats into the main document. Any plans to make non-half-feat versions of Inventor's Mind and Warforged Customization for those of us that hate odd numbers?

1) Yeah; I think that's a good call. 2) This is something that might change, but I couldn't think of a way to do that I liked, and it's a fairly niche case; the "problem" with this is that people find a way to do Booming Blade + Animated Weapon attack; I don't have a fundamental problem with that, but I don't want this approach to just be better than the alternative (which is a problem the current version had). It does require investment to get Booming Blade somewhere, but that's not that hard. I think I've recently soured a bit more on that interaction coming online at level 5, as that was a little too good compared to everything else, even if probably not fundamentally bonkers; the problem is I sort of want to keep the option, but haven't decided how much I want to invest in keeping the SCAG cantrips viable and/or if I want to seperate that out from the Animated + Infused combo. 3) I see your point, but I also don't think people will actually swap on long rest all that often, and if they are specialized in one direct and chose to swap, I feel that doesn't break anything, they are making the choice they still want to go that direction in that case; it allows for there be strengths and weaknesses to more specific and more generalist builds. People that focus on support can more freely swap, while people that specialize in a particularly method of hitting things are more tied to the method of hitting things. most things aren't really that specialized anyway, as almost all animated/infused weapon share upgrades (besides animated archer and a few others) and blasting rod doesn't really have direct upgrades (as basically taking wands is its upgrade). Appreciate the thoughts and feedback! Will consider!

KibblesTasty

Hmmm, yup, RAW it would. I don't know if that is a problem. Cross Disciplinary Knowledge was written before I decided to merge Wandsmith and Infusionsmith. I think that's fine, you can't really leverage them both at the same time that well, and choosing between the two isn't a huge advantage (as you are giving up a potentially useful other upgrade to get that). Cross Disciplinary knoweldge will probably evolve a bit as the other subclasses are finished and I decide what I can give access to that will be fun but not break things. I think that interaction though... I'm probably okay with that. I don't see it as breaking anything horribly currently.

KibblesTasty

Weird question: If I take Infused Weapon, and then take Blasting Rod as my Cross Disciplinary Knowledge at 6th level, does Improved Armaments apply to both?

Matthew Gesus

I think merging Infusionsmith and Wandsmith makes a lot of sense. A few notes from my read through so far: 1) The Infusionsmith's Proficiency feature should probably give proficiency in woodcarving tools and maybe also a reduction in crafting time/cost of wands instead of scrolls. Perhaps Runesmith could get the scroll crafting. 2) You can no longer have an infused weapon and an animated weapon at the same time before level 11. This makes me sad. 3) Having the ability to swap Infused Armament variants on a long rest but only being able to swap upgrades on a level up feels a bit odd. The Infused Armament feature makes it seems like you can choose playstyles at the start of each adventuring day but the way the Specialization Upgrade feature interacts with this subclass doesn't really support that unless you only select variant agnostic upgrades. Maybe make it a permanent choice or find a way to give all the variants at the same time. Overall happy with the direction 2.0 is headed in. Keep it up!

I'm still going through all the upgrade combinations, but as someone who is/was a big fan of the Wandsmith, I really like this! I can keep the best parts of the Wandsmith and add the parts of Infusionsmith I like.

Matthew Gesus