Artificers: casting is strange
The artificer is the only class that ever got printed in 5.0 besides the ones in the Player's Handbook. A psion went through several revisions and got dropped; they are trying again with that one in 5.5.
The artificer was ported to 5e because it is a core part of the Eberron setting, and it simply cannot be substituted with a wizard subclass (or several)- the class must create magical items that have moderate permanence, and a line like "crafting magic items costs half as much!" doesn't make sense in a game where crafting is optional and not an assumed piece of every game world. So they didn't really have a choice but to make this class once they decided that they wanted Eberron.
Artificer's cast spells differently. I'm gonna discuss three things:
1- The WotC version of artificer casting.
2- The changes I made to it.
3- The WotC thing about alchemist spells
Eberron - Rising From The Last War Page 54 wrote:
You have studied the workings of magic and how to channel it through objects. As a result, you have gained the ability to cast spells. To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you look as if you're producing wonders using mundane items or outlandish inventions.
This is the first section under spellcasting, meaning it's the thing they want you to take away most. This is followed immediately by a feature that provides further insight into this restriction:
Eberron - Rising From The Last War Page 54 wrote:
TOOLS REQUIRED
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus-specifically
thieves' tools or some kind of artisan's tool-in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature.
You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See chapter 5, "Equipment," in the Player's Handbook
for descriptions of these tools. After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus.
The later printing in Tasha's made it clear that this explicitly adds a material component to all spells that artificers cast.- "(meaning the spell has an "M" component when you cast it)".
So we start by pointing out that everything has to be cast out of a tool you are proficient with and holding. Then we point out that actually the focus can be anything you have infused. Since artificers know how to use shields and shields can be infused (as can a lot of things), this means you don't actually need to hold a tool. It even means that you could be holding a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other and you can cast all your spells that way. If you do so, you still need to explain how you use the shield to cast the spell, of course- that first rule under spellcasting says that.
This created what I viewed as a problem. We started with something that promised us we could cast cure wounds with a tricorder we made, but it turns out it needs to be a tool we are proficient in- except really it's just gonna be a shield. I added the
reclaimer's kit to my game as a kind of meta-tool that artificers get, and made sure it works with the infusion bit. But I was still faced with an issue: if the item is supposed to serve as the origin for the spell effect, why would the artificer have to speak?
Now to what I added:
Classes N1.odt wrote:
Components: As above, every artificer spell you cast has an “M” component due to using a spellcasting focus. If the spell would normally have a verbal “V” component, it does not, but instead has an audio manifestation that cannot be mundanely muffled and can be used to identify a spell just a verbal component can. If silenced magically, the spell can still be cast normally.
The artificer rules still prevent us from casting cure wounds from a tricorder or fire bolt from a phaser- the idea behind the class apparently being that you would make a cool gadget that would, in your hands, be able to serve as the apparent origin for the spell that you cast. Instead, we cast it from smith's tools, or alchemist's tools, or like, lockpick. I figured this was good enough. I had already added stuff to the artificer and changed some subclass things, I didn't want to add whatever was needed for this. This is also because unless I nerfed it substantially by removing the ability to use the shield as a focus, everyone except an alchemist would do exactly that.
Why not the alchemist? The alchemist of course can do so, but has this blurb:
Classes N1.odt wrote:
Alchemical Savant
At 5th level, you've developed masterful command of magical chemicals, enhancing the healing and damage you create through them. Whenever you cast a spell using your alchemist's supplies as the spellcasting focus, you gain a bonus to one roll of the spell. That roll must restore hit points or be a damage roll that deals acid, fire, necrotic, or poison damage, and the bonus equals your Intelligence modifier (minimum of +1).
Since you are one-handing a chemistry set, your options are somewhat limited for spellcasting. Mostly, you will be swirling something around in beaker, which is what your alchemist has done. You also can't be using a shield here.
Also, lets pretend you are any artificer except an alchemist. You might take "Enhanced Arcane Focus" which by default works on a rod, staff, or wand (things you can't use as a focus), to which I have added the reclaimer's kit. If you are holding this thing (which is not a focus and to which you have attached "enhanced arcane focus") in your right hand and holding your shield in your left hand (which is a focus and which you are using to cast the spell), then you are set- you get a plus to hit, and you get your shield.
The alchemist, however, needs to give something up if they want that extra perk about the +Int. I simply avoided "Enhanced Arcane Focus".
But if anyone reading this gives a damn at all, let me know your thoughts. Should I rename things, shuffle things, is this weird stuff ok or... what? I have it set up so that healing word involves Imali doing something one handed with a beaker and doesn't have to speak. Would it make more sense if she had to speak? It already doesn't work if she doesn't have a focus in her hand, because the spell has V,M components for her.
I'd be more interested in anything whose total results doesn't nerf the Artificer and whose execution is simpler than the book has. I think what we have now is fine, but you gotta admit, all that stuff isn't exactly intuitive.
