/5eg/ Fifth Edition General: Artificer edition

>New Unearthed Arcana: Mystic
media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UAMystic3.pdf

>Official /5eg/ Mega Trove v4b:
mega.nz/#F!z8pBVD4Q!UIJWxhYEWy7Xp91j6tztoQ

>Pastebin with resources:
pastebin.com/X1TFNxck

>5etools:
5egmegaanon.github.io/5etools/5etools.html

>Previously, on Veeky Forums
What's the consensus on Artificer? I'll keep asking this question until I get an answer.

Other urls found in this thread:

strawpoll.me/12544152
youtube.com/watch?v=RXtCqI-iMJ4
mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/06/the-machine.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm tossing around an idea that's been done before but I want inspiration for it.

What do you think of the notion that most wizards don't form into large groups, and have a sort of "ronin" or "cowboy" culture. That is, wizards wander the world, dueling other wizards to steal or obtain their spells and scrounging around for bits of arcane lore that they then keep secret from all but their apprentices?

>reposting since I got sniped by the new thread

strawpoll.me/12544152

Very balanced so far.

If I get an attack of opportunity, can I use shield bash from Shield Master feat instead?

Nope.

you can just shove them with the attack, no need for the feat
shoving is a regular thing you can do, Shield Master just lets you do it as a bonus action

Who's my Theurgist brother? He's got good taste.

Takes a bonus action, so no.
Now, if your DM isn't a faggot, he'd let you replace anything that says "you make an attack" with "you perform one of these other actions in place of an attack when you take the Attack action", i.e., grapples, shoves, or knockdowns. That's not really standard and I think Sage Advice once said "no don't do that", but it was probably Crawford the No Fun Faggot trying to stop martials from doing something remotely interesting again.
>you can stab a guy running away from you but you can't trip him

good approach, i like it

definitely helping me fathom my new character's point of view, thanks

I would insult your taste but I just voted for the Lore Master because I want to play one.

You are both scum. Transmutationists for life.

>What's the consensus on Artificer? I'll keep asking this question until I get an answer.
There's some silly stuff you can do with it, but it's overall underwhelming and needs some more archetypes.

I honestly voted for flavor. I loved the Mystic Theurgist from 3e who worshiped Talos and find a blend of Divine and Arcane magic to be fun to play with. Arcana Cleric's also my favorite Cleric Domain.

For mechanics I'd have to vote either Enchanter or Transmutation.

You are all nerd scum, the bladesinger is going to dunk your heads in the toilet and take your lunch money.

You're literally the most boring archetype.

You trade altering the future, making a philosopher's stone and projecting shields over your friends for "me no want the weaknesses of being a wizard."

With that amazing Strength score he has? Oh wait that's right, no one takes Bladesinging seriously and just uses it for AC and Concentration. A Thief has more place in melee then you.

Shouldn't you be watching your wife taking a big Mystic cock?

He just needs to somehow pull off a finesse dunk.

Jelly weiners trying to justify their chicken arms and lack of real skills.

Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself.

I guess if you swing of a chandeler before doing it you might get to use Acrobatics

Bitch I can cast Enlarge person to get your melee skills and just Channel Arcana super Lightning bolts into you.

You can't because magic isn't real.

What do you think the bladesinger can do, stop your pathetic whinging.

How are Insight rolls handled at your table, anons?
Does the DM outright tell you "roll Insight" when talking to an NPC who may be hiding something, or do you as players voluntarily roll it whenever you suspect something is fishy in a dialogue?

I prefer to make them roll when they think someone's lying but I also use a passive insight. If he passive insight is higher then the NPC's passive deception I drop a hint that makes him seem fishy.

>Can I roll Insight to see if this guy is full of shit?

Usually to detect whether someone's lying or if we're suspicious and want to confirm something from behavior.
It hasn't come up a lot but personally I'd impose some kind of advantage/disadvantage based on how long they've known each other for that sort of thing.

Hey guys, I am setting up a campaign and already have a player wanting to play Mystic. I said it was fine, however he brought something up I'm embarrassed for not catching. Obviously this class sorta leads the player in boosting their INT and DEX and it gives all these Psi abilities to increased unarmed damage. Yet unarmed attacks are Str based, not Dex. Am I missing something?

I never elected to roll insight because I find the idea of rolling instead of the DM hinting that something fishy being up to be more game-y than roleplay-y.

Insight is just for reading body language and speech patterns to see if there is some subtle meaning behind something. Passive insight is noticing a difference, rolling is identifying what it means. Just like how the other skills passive bits are since every skill does have a passive version.

These abilities say "(melee) weapon you're holding or unarmed strike" solely to allow for people who multiclass in Monk or are using Tavern Brawler, Lizardman / Minotaur unarmed strikes, or as futureproofing for psionic Monk archetypes or more Monkly Mystic archetypes. You're not really supposed to be making unarmed strikes as a basic Mystic, because as you said, that's Str and you have little reason to pump that.

There are oodles of powers that boost melee weapons that you can be using with your finesse rapier or whatever.

I don't think high rolls should necessarily tell you everything or allow you succeed at everything, even with a good modifier.

a) you assume that your ability to detect falsehoods is as good / bad as your PC's
b) you assume that your DM's ability to lie is as good / bad as an NPC's
c) you assume that your DM is putting the proper effort into accurately portraying the (un)trustworthiness of an NPC

Hey I'm brand new to 5e and was wondering about building saboteur/spy Bard. I found the College of Whispers interesting and am going from there. the biggest thing throwing me is how skills are set up. like all three of my skills are intimidate, persuasion, and deception. I know it's how the game is set up now but it feels weird having such low stealth and perception. Also good spells for a bard are something new. appreciate any tips

Gunsmith is underpowered.

Alchemist is cool. Class as a whole is cool, but the level 6 feature is done poorly in several ways (Such a big power boost at level 6 instead of 5, it doing more damage than you would, cluttering combat, not scaling well and what if you don't want a robot following you around? You become too dependent on it for damage.)
Then there's stuff like having automatic thieves' tools expertise to annoy the rogues. Then infuse magic doesn't have quite a wide enough range of uses, even if there are some and some are pretty neat. Then the spellcasting feels a bit limited. Also healing draught is too powerful compared to everything else, it might as well be one of the concotions you're forced to have at level 1. Attunement abilities feel kinda stupid, because attunement is more of a guideline there to stop you using too many magic items and either it doesn't come into play or it does based on your DM. And depending on how powreful the magic items are, it could be silly. Not to mention what the fuckis up with the level 20 feature.


Also it's kinda weird that it's probably the only class that can wear armour/shields it's not proficient in and still function.

You get two skills from backgrounds, look through the ones in the PHB, or make up your own.

Makes more sense. Well they are playing a High Elf so they already get that proficiency with short swords that he can use. So there is no issue here. Thanks for the tip.

>Also it's kinda weird that it's probably the only class that can wear armour/shields it's not proficient in and still function.
Isn't this true of Mystic as well? Powers aren't spellcasting and if you rely only on stuff that requires no roll on your part, you can get away with it the same as a throwchemist.

It just frustrates me. Do I just roll insight to every single thing someone says just to be sure?

Cuz that's no fun for anyone

Are there any enemies that cause damage to nearby creatures when hit?

I'm making one and I'm trying to work out how to balance it and factor it into CR

makes for a cool mid to low fantasy setting. I feel the more prevalent magic is the more likely people are to from official organizations around it. that doesn't mean two self taught hermits won't engage in cosmic bum fights though. Hell if you're going with the Ronin idea you could flavor schools of magic as favoring only certain kinds and the "renegade" wizards are the dirty sexy mma fighters

They can choose to roll, but if they accuse somebody innocent or roll really poorly then it can cause a faux pas that affects future rolls

Is Gunsmith underpowered like Elemental Monk feels useless or Sorcerer's mechanically weak but it doesn't hurt it that much in real play?

Only when you think a guy might be full of shit or you're talking about something that could have bad consequences.

>man in a hood: hey this asshole stole my shit, get it back for me, it's in his house
>uhhhh this guy might be a thief who just wants this item from its legal owner and wants someone else to go through the risk of stealing it for him, can i roll insight

yes

I'd use this.

I do feel it'd mean Wizards tend to be younger than traditionally portrayed and the older ones are seriously not to be fucked with.

Remorhazes deal Fire damage to creatures that strike them in melee.

If there's no reason at all for a character (and their player) to be suspicious of an NPC I personally just tell them outright.

There's no point beating around the bush.

this

> "I've learned 30 years worth of magic in 5 years by skipping the discipline part, so bring it on!"

Young Wizards are such a turn-off for me I've mandated that your maximum spell level is capped by (Age - 30) / 5. Either come at this shit old or hope there's years of downtime, fucker.

I mean more like if you hit them then everyone within 5ft takes damage, although that's a good starting point.

Maybe if I half the damage or something.

You sound like a fun DM.

The range of random starting ages in 3e for a wizard was 17-27 years old.

There's a background called Criminal which has a variant called Spy. Criminal/Spy gets proficiency in Deception and Stealth. As Bard, take Intimidation, Persuasion and Perception. Then you can have all five, and you're a spy 4 realz.

Also, Bards add half their proficiency to anything they're not proficient in, so they're never "bad" at anything.

>retire from job
>take up wizardry as a hobby
>laugh at wizard undergrads who can't even cast a cantrip while you're casting wishes and avoiding death with simulacra

Reposting. So 2 level 7 Mystics just took out my Young Sea Dragon in two turns. Explain why I should not ban this class? It went like this.

Soul Knife Mystic was able to hit the dragon with the Animate Weapon + Lethal weapon combo, and delt about 2/3s of its HP, then the Nomad was able to deal 40 points of damage on a psychic blast (60 ft. cone). The Dragon was not able to hit the Soul Knife because it could up its AC to 20+. Then the Soul knife used Ethereal Weapon + Animate weapon to make a dex save and killed it.

I like to think so. The party levitated a train off its rails and crashed it through a castle wall last session so they could stop a ritual being performed by some of the King's key advisors to replace more of the monarchy with their alien mindslaves.

Wait that doesn't make sense.

So a wizard could start at level 1 casting only level 1 spells at either 35 or 75 years of age, but only the older wizard would be able to learn new spells upon leveling up?

If they were at the same level to start despite the 40 year difference, what advantage does the oldster have if they level up at the same rate?

>i started a new campaign in the last four days and session one or two had the party fighting a dragon also they're level 7

>Young Sea Dragon
what?

Good thing you're not my DM, then.

It's magic, it's not supposed to make sense.

Hey, guys, how exactly IS a lich made?

I want to play a class that resembles her but i can't seem to find a class that does the job.
The closest piece of shit that i've found is horizon walker ranger but rangers don't even have the "great weapon fighting" fighting style.
Also after reading a bit it really feels like the class is built for bow-usage which im obviously not looking for.
Do you have any other ideas for me Veeky Forums?

not that guy but
>nobody ever changes characters
>nobody new ever joins groups
>nobody ever starts campaigns at higher levels
also an official campaign starts with a dragon encounter

>sarcasm
The scenario sounds good though.

So do you also only let Females be effective Sorcerers and all Paladins have to be Lawful Good?

youtube.com/watch?v=RXtCqI-iMJ4

Fighter

Here you go you ancient fucking Casual.

I'm thinking about using this mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/06/the-machine.html but i cant understand this:
>Your armor class increases by 2, to a maximum of 20.
does that mean, if i use platemail (18AC) and shield (+2), i will still be at 20 AC? or it will be 22 AC?

My party is level 7 we have been playing for year, I'm just trying to figure out if this class as is is too strong to be allowed for newcomers or if anyone dies.

Ask if you can use Dueling while holding a longsword in two hands.

Also the Witcher's the most overrated game series ever.

You gotta remove your soul from your body and somehow put it in a phylactery.
How this is done varies but it always involves some act of unspeakable evil.
Basically up to the DM.

>Females be effective Sorcerers
Females can't be Sorcerers at all. they're sorceresses, duh
>all Paladins have to be Lawful Good
Naturally.

>Fightesses
>Rangesses
someone do the rest

The bonus attunement isn't really weird, because the class itself automatically gets magic items, and it'd be dumb to get one and not be able to use it due to the typical attunement limit. This alleviates that. Also, it makes the class stand out. I guess the robot does that, too.

The robot could be worked out better. If you don't think it should just be left completely up to the player, they could make it be like Warlock pacts: an extra level of customization that's built-in for you. Like maybe you can choose a bodyguard like robot (like what people would do now), or a Stand-like robot, or a tiny robot with greater magical capabilities. But asking players to just look through the books and copy/paste something is maybe not the best method.

The level 20 capstone sounds like it was made at the last moment. I wonder if this class was actually originally intended to be levels 1-10, but at the last moment they decided to shove the next 10 levels on in fear of people saying it was too little. Conceptually, they look like they wanted to go with something Voldemort-like, but couldn't think of something balanced quickly enough, so they just made something more easily digested.

It's Fightrix, dumbass.

So, what in this screencap supposed to be funny or informative?

My apologies

Alright fuck you, Read Van Richten's Guide and the Blueprint for a Lich Article in the Dragon magazine, Monsters of Faerun, the Web enchanment for the Lich Monster class template, then understand how this all got shafted to Orcus post 4e with no ammount of detail or care to anything set up prior.

Modern Lich transformation is literally just crafting a phylactery, and you put your soul in it as you craft it, so you know, fuck the DM and his discretion fluff.

If you love rules so much why don't you go back to 3.5?

4e had better combat and class balance.

not that guy, but if you don't care about them why are you asking for hard info on something that's up to DMs?

Tome of Beasts pg 136.
How many psi points did they have left over?

I'm not, that is someone else.

>class balance
sure
>better combat
depends what you want, it had deeper combat but it was also a slog

With the right group combat was a fucking blast. Out of combat it wasn't very fun though, lacked creative spells and abilities beyond Damage and Skill bonus.

Couldn't a signle breath attack kill either or both of them outright?

It sounds like you either played bad or they just got lucky.

The Soul Knife had 14, the Nomad had 30

Look up the way alchemists acted, and you'll see a lot of parallels. You can even steal to a lesser extent the charlatan part of it, where alchemists claimed to be able to make life forms, grant eternal life, and transmute gold, you can have Wizards claim to be able to turn people to toads, read people's minds, and communicate with God, when in reality they just know Minor Illusion, and Prestidigitation.

then your opinion on it doesn't matter because they guy posting was looking for hard info or rules you fuckwit

No they split apart and even then they each had 52 Hp.

I'll just assume that you are talking about eldritch knight, and trust me, i have thought about it. The problem is that they would have to use loads of spellslots to dash/teleport around like ciri does and it would also cost to many actions during combat for it to be "viable" so to speak. Or maybe im just picky, who knows?

That probably is the only solution for me. I'll have to look into the ranger spells and see if it works well with melee combat.

Maybe so, but the slavs did a great job creating waifus and the lore for witchers is pretty cool imo

Anons? Does anyone else remember older D&D classes named the Mystic, prior to 5e's new psionicistic generalist?

I mean, I remember Dragonlance had Mystic as a sort of sorcerer casting-style using Cleric back in 3.5, but given D&D has had an actual Witch class, surely the Mystic has been given a couple of different identities over the editions?

I wasn't stating an opinion I was asking a question.

>Fightress
>Rangress
>Artificress
>Nun
>Mystica

Is it rude to ask a DM if you could find a certain Magical Item down the line? I'm not using melee attacks but something that boosts strength would really be cool for my Mystic Gnome who refuses to leave the front-lines.

Honestly if you don't mind some inferior spell choice then you can get pretty much all the Witcher signs on a Ranger eventually with a feat for Magic Initiate. Another option could be the monster hunter fighter if you aren't as focused on the magic side of things.

Honestly I played all the Witcher games and I think it was just my burning hatred of Geralt and how grim everything was. Number 2 was my favorite though.

>You can play X but you have to be a cuck and accept this downside
Do these humans even exist?

You've established they're willing to nova like motherfuckers, so throw more encounters to punish them for blowing all their resources on one or two fights.