Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

New Official UA Artificer, yay or nay. (Patreon)

Published:
2019-03-01 00:17:07
Edited:
2019-03-01 04:36:39
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Poll

Official Artificer, yay or nay.

  • Yay to new UA Artificer; You will use the new UA Artificer, and don't need the Revised Artificer anymore. 1
  • Nay to new UA Artificer; You will not use the new UA Artificer, and Revised Artificer development should continue toward a 2.0 42
  • 2019-03-01
  • 43 votes
{'title': 'Official Artificer, yay or nay.', 'choices': [{'text': "Yay to new UA Artificer; You will use the new UA Artificer, and don't need the Revised Artificer anymore.", 'votes': 1}, {'text': 'Nay to new UA Artificer; You will not use the new UA Artificer, and Revised Artificer development should continue toward a 2.0', 'votes': 42}], 'closes_at': None, 'created_at': datetime.datetime(2019, 3, 1, 0, 17, 7, tzinfo=datetime.timezone.utc), 'description': None, 'allow_multiple': False, 'total_votes': 43}

Content

So the official Artificer is here, you can read it here:

https://media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer-2019.pdf

As promised, I will leave it to you guys to vote what I should do from here.

Considering it is a pretty different take, I'm going with a simple up/down yay/nay as far as if development needs to continue on the Revised Artificer, or if you'll be switching to the Official and I should focus attention elsewhere (like making maybe subclasses for the official one)

In addition to the poll, I'd love to hear your opinions. If you vote Yay, are there subclasses you'd want brought over? If you vote Nay, are there ideas in the new one you want brought over to my version?

If you vote nay. Do you think I should change the name of my version if keep it going?

Note that regardless of the vote, the current Revised Artificer will remain up, this is mostly a vote if I should push forward to a 2.0 revision, or if it's job here is done with the new UA Version.

Comments

Austin Fox

Without a doubt, your Artificer had much more flavour and fun to it, much more customisable even if the "infusions" look an awful lot like your upgrades!

Corgi

Some interesting stuff in the new one, but I definitely don't feel any great desire to convert mine away from your version.

KibblesTasty

Since it is looking like Revised Artificer is here to stay as a parallel version... should I rename it? I am learning toward yes to reduce long term confusion and make a clean break as it is no longer related to the official one with that them ditching all their old design. Something simple like the "Magicsmith", "Crafter", "Builder", "Wielder", "Engineer", "Creator"... If people think I should, I'll put up a pull with new names... so give me any name ideas you have if you if you think I should.

Spenser Birney

I agree with Austin and Corgi both. There are a couple of interesting Ideas but for the most part it feels terribly uninspired. It almost feels like the "dragging your feet" version of the class. I'm kind of split on renaming it. The Artificer name is thematic and fits perfectly for the class, but I totally see the point about avoiding confusion of having a "Revised Artificer" and an "UA Artificer" (two of those actually). "Magicsmith" doesn't necessarily sound bad. I like "Enchanter" as a class title, but there is already a wizard school of enchantment and the artificer does more than just that. Maybe something generic like "Innovator" or "Maker"? Then theres the stuff thats slightly off-key like "Arcanist" and "Tinkerer." All of them feel a little bit off mark. Leaving it the "Revised Artificer" feels like the best option so far to me.

DonQuixoteIncarnate

I definitely feel like the UA came short, but has some really awesome ideas that are worth exploring. Tool Expertise is an elegant and appropriate implementation. The Right Cantrip for the Job is unique and on flavor. Magical Tinkering is fluff, but good fluff (though I don't see the problem with lifting the limited uses altogether so that I can graffiti up my Spelljammer Ship). Spell Storing Item is maybe an alternative option for some feature. Replicate Magic Item feels.... really really bad, actually. Not all of the ideas are winners, but it certainly has some ideas to consider

Corgi

I like Artificer as a class name as well, but fighting for visibility with WotC doesn't sound fun! I'm partial to Engineer myself, but that may be because I put an unreal amount of hours into TF2 back in the day.

Zibani

Like everyone else, the UA has some interesting Ideas, but ultimately falls flat, and doesn't inspire me.

Matthew Gesus

I see very little in the UA Artificer that needs to be kept. The pets are a little too much, and the other features are just kind of average. The tinkering ability at level 1 has some good flavor, though. I think a new name might be wise, as then you're not putting yourself in a space where you're arguing over WotC's design, you're just presenting your own. Maybe change the name to "Smith"? :)

Thought-Knot

I actually really like the UA Artificer, but agree it has some issues. I would like the continued development of KT's Artificer, at least until they refine the WotC one.

Marc Wilebski

I rather enjoy the Infuse Items, Magical Tinkering, and tools of the trade features of the new artificer, but aside from that i much prefer using your artificer. along with the expanded spell list for each subclass. which i fully intend to implement into your subclasses, likely taking from the upgrades of each subclass.

Mike Hughes

The only thing I would really like to see come out of the new UA Artificer is the spell they included.