Help Me Update Artificer for KQ

[Dario Nardi]

Hi. I'm one of the 3rd-party folks offering Pathfinder RPG compatible material in August. I've seen the new book and am very pleased. Anyway...

I'm writing an article for Kobold Quarterly's fall issue. The topic: Offering an artificer for PfRPG. This is unrelated to Adamant's announced book.

In the spirit of beta-testing... what would YOU would like to see in an artificer?

Motivations: You likely know from the Pathfinder Beta that converting the WotC Eberron artificer requires more than a quick once-over. Also, Pathfinder RPG is about options. My aim is a flexible class (with varied paths of specialization) that requires only the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook to use. Because this is a magazine article, space is limited. I can include several (2 to 4) new spells / feats to fill essential holes but that's it.

This is what I have so far:

Artificer
--d8 with medium BAB and good Will save
--4 skill points per level, with appropriate class skills
--simple weapons, and light and medium armor proficiency

Focus: The artificer's focus is crafting and using alchemical and magical items, including armaments, constructs, poisons, traps (definitely traps!), and so forth. In some ways it is like a wizard / thief, but with a strong creation focus, mostly utilitarian magic, and less stealth.

Spells: Creation spells span various existing class lists. This is a main reason for the class. So the artificer gets a class-specific list of its own with spells like identify, magic weapon, detect snares and pits, align weapon, wood shape, keen edge, glyph of warding, tiny hut, etc all the way to 9th level spells (though I am hard pressed to select relevant 9th-level spells). In contrast, the Eberron artificer had access only up to 6th level spells and a bunch of new spells that can't be included here.

Room for More Spells: I would like room for artificers to add spells to their spell list from other relevant supplements such as the two-dozen construct-related spells in the Free City of Zobeck Gazetteer. I'm exploring how to do this in a balanced way.

Spellcasting Style: The artificer feels like a prepared caster with reliance on Intelligence. Charisma and Dexterity are also important.

Bonus Craft Feats: I like the idea of slightly early access to magic item craft feats but that's not essential.

Item Creation: An artificer can use scrolls and such easily enough with Use Magic Device to craft items involving spells from other spell lists.

Menu of Tricks: In the spirit of the rogue's menu of tricks, artificers select from their own menu of options. I like the idea of two menus, one for lower levels and one for higher levels.

Mixed Feelings: I am tempted (but not convinced) to let the artificer shadow the cleric and act as a minor medic and food provider. This might lead into fleshcrafting and monster creation later (ha!). Wait, can artifice include making undead war-machines?!

Surprise! There is something incidentally relevant in the Pathfinder rules that makes binding of souls into magic items a breeze by just adding a little class feature. I suspect Jason didn't intend this. But I would love to suggest this option for (naughty) artificers (perhaps in a sidebar).

Constructs and a Construct familiar: I am waiting on more info about the Bestiary before addressing this.

OK, Your Turn!

[Paul Watson]

As you asked, a couple of random suggestions:

1) Abilities that reduce the penalties for creating items, i.e. You reduce the penalty for quick crafting by one for every 4 levels. Or just give a general crafting bonus.

2) Ignore spell requirements for crafting. The Artificer can craft anything and is assumed to have all spells on his spell list, so he doesn't take the penalty for not knowing a spell. his whole schitck is to be good at crafting magic, might as well make it work.

3) No spells. Instead, the artificer gets the equivalent of spell slots that power temporary magic items. These items only last for one hour/level and take ten minutes to infuse. This gives him a lot of flexibility, but means he won't overshadow everybody else. (Items with charges are not fully charged, say 20% maximum charge/five levels). It also rewards the artificer who plans and prepares properly.

4) Bonus item creation feats (obviously).

For special abilities, possibly the ability to add metamagic for reduced cost (if they have the metamagic feat). Like metamagic mastery but for item creation. Or an ability to increase the cap on what spells can be put into items by one so you get level 4 potions and the like.

Those are some thoughts.

[Herald]

Since the Artificer is not OGL, can you do this?

[Dario Nardi]

Paul Watson, great ideas.

As for the IP status of the artificer, WotC didn't invent the word and this implementation will differ enough to stand on its own. I say "update the artificer" only to make it clear to folks what I'm asking for. :-)

[Herald]

Dario Nardi wrote:

Paul Watson, great ideas.

As for the IP status of the artificer, WotC didn't invent the word and this implementation will differ enough to stand on its own. I say "update the artificer" only to make it clear to folks what I'm asking for. :-)

If you plan on creating your own Artificer from scratch, then I'm sure you will be fine. But you can't say you're going "update" the artificer. That sounds like your going to modify WOTC's IP.

In case I'm not being clear, I mean this not as a personal attack, just to clear things up. I actually look forward to your article.

[psionichamster]

What an artificer should be able to do, IMO:

Create various non-magical things, a la fabricate, minor creation, and the like. Bonuses to Craft (x,y,z) Skills?

Enhance self and others via magic items. I like the 10 min casting, 1 hr/lvl duration buffs. They take up a magic item slot, but can be tailored to specifically what you want.

Use any magic item under the sun. Wand of Divine spell, sure. Scroll of 9th lvl Arcane spell, ok. Staff that requires a Lawful Elf with levels in Rogue, no problem.

Reduction in time/cost of crafting. This is already possibly via beta-rules item crafting, perhaps codify it a bit better, or give skill bonuses to Spellcraft for purposes of item creation.

Trapfinding. There needs to be another class, other than rogue, that can do this. It fits, I think, although perhaps not at 1st lvl (5th? 7th?)

Overcharge items. Whether through Metamagic feats on wands/staffs, or some other kind of ability (Wand Mastery, with its +4 CL on wand cast spells, for example) that results in similar "higher cost for higher yield" effects.

Bonus crafting feats, 'nuff said.

Alchemical/Poison/Drug crafting. Depending on how you write it up, could have bonuses to making alchemical/mundane items, could substitute ingredients or combine certain things (like Alch Fire + Tanglefoot bag, or Poison + Acid Flask).

3/4 BAB, good Will&Fort, d8 HD, 4+Int Skills, with craft, knowledge, spellcraft, perception, disable device, and linguistics. Maybe some others kicking around in there.

Yeah, that's something my friend Thom would play in PF; he pretty much defaults to the Artificer class whenever possible.

-t

[Takamonk]

I always felt the requirements for crafting critters were always a hodgepodge of craft skills that nobody would think to take, unless they specifically wanted to manufacture a specific monster from the outset.

The artificer should have free skill points specifically for the purpose of crafting, or having one crafting skill that translates to other types. E.G. "sculpture" is general enough to cover pottery, metal-working (a la metal scuptures), woodwork, etc.

Furthermore, artificers should be on their own speed scale for crafting using the crafting skill.

Additionally, an artificer can disassemble magic equipment and devices into raw components, claiming 100% of the gold value for purposes of creating new magic items, armor, etc.

Instead of using the term "infusion," simply state they get their own meager magic list they can only cast into non-living matter, but otherwise act accordingly.

Perhaps for making game mechanics easier, make the item-based magic last a full day (considering the long casting time).

There was originally a means by which to increase the time to cast magic into items to a standard action. I would suggest saying that an artificer may do the same once per day at level 1, twice per day at level 2, and one additional time for every 3 levels beyond 2 (to a maximum of eight times at level 20). As a result, these sudden magic bursts last only as long as the equivalent wizard/cleric spell.

[Watcher]

I'm going to go back and re-read this thread and give some specific feedback..

..but may I tell you my very first free association thought?

I'd like to see you write the Magesmith class, and not only have it be for the Pathfinder RPG.. I'd like it to be licensed to the Pathfinder Campaign setting.

Before you or anybody else says that's not possible, I'll point out that Wolfgang has gotten special permission to publish Golarion setting materials before. He just has to go through the process and get it approved and then vetted.

Next, you might be asking, 'what the heck is a Magesmith?' Well, back in the day, and specifically back in Pathfinder Chapter #2, the Magesmith was just a reference. Dwarven wizards who specialized in crafting magical items, some of who could be found in Janderoff. For context, when pressed the Editorial Team (James, Wes, and that time Mike McArtor) have said that they throw out concepts and ideas that are sometimes nothing more than names. They just mention something in the flavor text, and if people get excited about it, they consider developing it more. Hellknights for example. As for the Magesmith, to my knowledge, has never been expanded further. Though we do have more cryptic references to Golemworks and the like.

Then you might say to yourself, 'Yeah, that's cool, but that's not what I want to write. I want to write something like the Artificer, but not like the Ebberron Artificer."

And, that might be valid. But I've been trying to get the Editorial Team to consider the Magesmith ever since they tossed the idea out there in the first place.

So yeah.. if you're going to make a magic item class, I'd do the Magesmith. I wouldn't necessarily limit it to dwarves. And, I'd ask Wolfgang to ask Paizo if they would vet it to be art of the Golarion Campaign.. as they have in special cases in the past.

It would be an original foundation for the class, and a basis for why it’s not like the Eberron Class. Plus what a selling point! Another official Pathfinder Campaign article in KQ, and a father in the cap for the person who wrote it.

Now.. I'll look over the thread. Thanks for listening.

[Watcher]

Hmmm.. Need to think on this. I am concerned that the initial brainstorm you posted does sound like the Eberron class with the serial numbers filed off. That's not an attack, that's a good natured note of caution. I do want to see *some* kind of crafting class.

[KnightErrantJR]

I do worry both with this and the Tome of Secrets, that while various class names may not be invented by WOTC, that using the name of one of their classes and making that class do the same thing as WOTC's version is kind of skirting a line.

I agree with watcher that making a Magesmith that is good at crafting and modifying magic on the fly would be a great class. Or even if you don't go the route of making the class match up with the Magesmith from Pathfinder, making sure "Artifacer" isn't too close to the class name isn't a bad idea.

I think its funny that many of us really are interested in seeing this class, and we're really concerned that the 3rd party folks willing to bring it to us have their rear ends covered.

[Watcher]

Thanks KnightErrantJr! I always appreciate a vote of support.

I was wrong about where the Mage Smith is referenced. It is the RuneLords Players Guide. Since that is a free product, I am going to reference the relevant passages here:

RuleLords Players Guide wrote:

Golemworker: The golemworks of Magnimar is haunted by flocks of ravens, the favorite familiars of the construct creators who work within. The most obsessed golemworkers create their own homunculus familiars using the Improved Familiar feat (DMG, 200)

Mage Smith: In their fanatical devotion to crafting and imbuing the most perfect magical items, these dwarven magic-users frequently summon many types of owl familiars for their alert eyes in typically dimly lit forges.

Now the Mage Smith wouldn't be the first concept that evolved since it was mentioned. You could take it outside of being a strictly dwarven idea.

However, I am also going to mention this in the Dwarves of Golarion thread. I'd really like to see this idea considered, so I'm going t throw some mud at the wall and see where it sticks.

[Dario Nardi]

KnightErrantJr and Watcher, thanks for your posts.

I started off thinking I'd create something fairly similar to the WotC artificer, but since this thread began I've gone in a direction that looks a lot more like a Pathfinder class (akin to the rogue's basic and advanced talents).

I like the idea of linking it to the larger Golarion campaign setting. I guess we'll see. Tomorrow, I'll post a PDF for folks to comment on.

[Watcher]

Dario Nardi wrote:

KnightErrantJr and Watcher, thanks for your posts.

I started off thinking I'd create something fairly similar to the WotC artificer, but since this thread began I've gone in a direction that looks a lot more like a Pathfinder class (akin to the rogue's basic and advanced talents).

I like the idea of linking it to the larger Golarion campaign setting. I guess we'll see. Tomorrow, I'll post a PDF for folks to comment on.

Well, I posted a similiar plea in this thread. . It's not that I don't want you to write such a thread, but sometimes one really has to push an idea on multiple fronts before it starts to get considered.

And if Hank & David and Reynold/Wiker clan are going to take a comprehensive look at dwarves, there's an excellent opportunity in doing a Golarion Mage Smith Class.. because the article could include a promotion like "for more fun and information, see Dwarves of Golarion at Paizo publishing." That's a win win scenario.

*******************

I guess before I get too deep into specifics, my first thought is what is your objective in writing this character class?

Meaning, the Eberron Artificer was half a crafting class, and half a buffing class. Often the buffing aspects were criticized as broken.

Are you going to try to follow both paths in one class, or are you going to emphasize one over the other?

And consider how does PF RPG address buffing? Does it try to limit or control it more so than 3.5? I honestly don't know myself, you're in a better position to know having access to the book.

I guess I bouncing the thought to make sure you're not re-introducing anything that Pathfinder tried to curtail. Because exception based mechanics work very well in 4E (and buffing as a concept on the whole), but they might not so easily translate to this new system.

Sorry I'm not jumping right on the stuff you mentioned, but I am curious what you come up with and am looking forward to any previews you offer.

Oh.. and yeah.. I like the Rogue basic and advanced talents too. :)

[JoelF847]

I only skimmed the other suggestions, but the one thing that I think would be essential for an artificer class would be the ability to make temporary magic items, given a small amount of time (maybe 10 minutes). Something that would allow them to have just the right item whenever they needed it, as long as they had some advanced notice. Obviously, this shouldn't allow creation of 1 charge items like potions or scrolls, and probably have a limit on multiple charge items like wands. To balance a power like this, I would imagine that there would be a gp value cap on temporary items an artificer could have at any one time.

[Majuba]

I've played an Artificer from 1st to 15th or so:

First, WOTC didn't invent the Artificer class - it was released as one of those thin fold-over classes - Master Classes? (from Mongoose maybe?, I don't remember.) I played one of those for a while. It was very different however, and there is still some worrying to be done about IP, but a bit less.

Item Creation - with Pathfinder's item creation system, not having a spell doesn't hinder much already - only adding +5 to the DC (unless that's changed) - so shouldn't need scrolls to complete items. I would halve any increase to DC for rushing item creation.

Spells/Infusions/Whatevers: Spontaneous is better for a class like this, but perhaps spontaneous from a spellbook/craftbook?

Skills: You could do 6 skill points per level, and give the Master Craftsman feat for free @ 1st or 2nd level, and essentially require the Artificer to take ranks in whatever craft or other skill check would apply (alchemy, weaponsmithing, etc.) to the item they want to craft.

Choices: You might combine the "menu of tricks" with bonus item creation feats - so any particular Artificer might focus rather strongly on one or two types to start.

Construct Companion: Yes! - the craft homunculus version was very interesting, but hard to implement. The PF Companion rules provide a much better basis for this.

As much as I adored abusing it, no "Spellcraft to do crazy things with metamagic, etc" - anything that let me quicken scrolls of teleport at like 10th level was silly.

I like Takamonk's "bonus skill point" idea, similar to the Beta Bardic Knowledge. If you can figure out a "Versatile Craftmanship" ability instead - go for it.

Oh, and very much need a "fast infusion" ability to replace Action Points. My Artificer *didn't* play with action points and it was painful at times (took the Heroic XXX feat to get +3 per level just to do that).

Good luck!

[Dario Nardi]

A demo version of the artificer is here.

If you don't see a particular feature off the bat such as the construct companion, it is likely listed as a trick.

I'm concerned the class might be weak. I'm certainly open to offering more tricks or converting some tricks into class features and/or offering more skill points.

Another option is to make the craft book more explicit. Right now, the imbue item ability specifies it must be a spell the artificer has cast or used, or produced from a magic item, or applied in the item creation process. My concern is what happens if the artificer loses his craft book.

Design Notes: I've focused on magic item creation and self-buffing. Tricks are either ability neutral or involve Intelligence OR Charisma. I haven't seen or considered the 4E artificer. A number of metamagic buffs are full-round actions to limit abuse.

Anyway, critique away!

And thank you everyone for your great comments. I truly wish to offer a class folks will enjoy using.

PS. I don't think I've disclosed anything that differs from the beta version of Pathfinder RPG.

[Mike Welham]

This is an interesting take on the artificer.

I've got a couple of comments:

With regard to the Item Creation class ability, how does the artificer get access to spells normally? I'm guessing it's through a arcane/divine spellcaster friend, since the artificer doesn't have a spell list. I'm not sure if this is still in vogue, but I'd suggest making it so, after three failures, the item is beyond the artificer's ability to create until he/she gains a level.

Advanced tricks confused me, the way they are written. Can an artificer take an advanced trick without the basic trick, or must he/she take the basic trick and then the advanced trick?

I like that the imbue item requires the artificer to have used the spell previously before using the class ability.

I have a couple of presentation/grammar nitpicks, but I'm not sure if this is the place for those.

Overall, I like the class a lot.

[toyrobots]

Changes I just made to my brother's artificer PC:

No more minutes long casting times. Long casting time infusions have a length of rounds. Usually only "one full round" (we call that a two-round casting time in my group to disambiguate). This change still makes the Artificer an ambush-centric character, not too useful in surprise encounters. However, he's not totally useless if the party has to regroup and they have a new plan. In my experience, there is little difference between CT in rounds and minutes, except the CT in rounds occasionally is worth the effort to cast during a combat. Very occasionally.

New ability. "Shared Infusion". At fifth level, the artificer can share his infusion with one other PC as a touch effect. Every five levels thereafter, he may share the effect with an additional touched ally. At 20th level, as a capstone, the Artificer can share an infusion with all allies within 30 feet.

This ability helps make the later levels more interesting, and solves the potential problem of a hands-on player in a buffer party role. Also, a 20th level artificer would make a great villain with that capstone power.

[Matthew Morris]

Ok, checked the SoPM page to see if you were discussing it there.

Things I'd like to see in a Nardificer ;-)

A way to build, and overbuild magic items.

A way to modify an existing magic items

Some way to integrate pact magic.

Some kind of improvisational ability. Like improvising a wand that just shoots raw magic.

[Majuba]

Review of Demo:

Biggest issue: Bonus Feats should definitely *not* be on the odd levels - you already get feats every odd level. I'd suggest just every even level (plus 1st?), and considered to have Artificer level +1 as caster level. Bump tricks to the odd levels.

Rest spoilered for length:

Spoiler:

I like trapfinding at 2nd level, good move.

I'm not sure about shield proficiency - they seem more hands-free to me, but a gizmo-shield would be interesting.

You have 'Artificer bonus' in the chart and Artifice bonus in the text. Perhaps make this like Track - + 1/2 level, min 1.

I don't like the "Item Creation" ability. The "not having spell prereq" counter using UMD doesn't fit to me. It's too much like the WOTC version, and is unnecessary given the Beta item creation rules, which to from the Banquet preview appear to have remained mostly intact. I also don't see how the "three chances" thing works as anything but a heck of a lot of rolling (though you did include "Luck" in the flavor text so.. maybe.. ) Also being limited to 0 level spells at first level is odd.

Imbue Item is a good new mechanic, I like it for the most part. Time to do needs to be whatever (10 min currently) OR the casting time, whichever is longer (for spells like Hallow or something). Otherwise activating as a standard action is quite bad (and still Instant Hallow's are a bit odd).

Extract Essence seems a bit strong to me... well.. no... I guess that's just how it works in Pathfinder - you sell for half, no xp involved, so you basically can endlessly exchange. Okay - looks good. I like the type and max gp limits. *Maybe* make it 1k x artificer level - that'll kick in at ... 15th or so level (I can't imagine selling that many items worth more than 2000xlevel before that).

Metamagic Overcharge has "ward or staff". Ability is fine.

Metamagic Enhancement is really really too powerful. I've used it to horribly devastating effect before. It *has* to have a cost associated with it of some kind, other than per day uses. (I will admit for clarity that I had a 30 Int by 10th level). It's also far too similar to the WOTC version IMHO.

You have "Form of Magic" on the chart, "Eldritch Form" in the text.

Tricks:
Homunculus - I don't know the Final version of familiar rules, but if they are not based on the Animal Companion rules, I would suggest making the Homunculus based on those - I think it would work a lot better in that way than as a familiar, IMHO.

Alchemical Synergy: +0% or +50% - +25% is too odd.

I object to Energy Transformation to Sonic.

Hidden Devices: it's potion "vial" not vile. [I like by the way, very nice.]

Spell Thief: "The spell must be used within 24;" ... hours? :) Also - does it count as used if the save is made?

Wand Mastery: Needs a name change perhaps.

Bonus Receptacles: Is that additional receptacles equal to half level? Otherwise this could be fewer than the normal ability.

Fast Infusion: This is a bit much to grant at-will for one trick (kinda an auto-take at 10th level as it is).

Master Poisoner: Does the +2 to make or use stack with each other (using a poison the artificer made).

Master Trap Smith: I'm not sure of the total impact of this - it sounds rather strong. That could be good or bad.

All told, the Tricks are pretty darn good - they very a good bit in power, but perhaps not in usefulness.

Umm..

Spoiler:

No way for us to be sure, but you may have spoiler'd the Rogue's Trapfinding ability.

[Dario Nardi]

toyrobots,
Wonderful idea for shared infusion ability. Allows for support and keeps the buffing manageable.

I'm not sure about the infusion time. Some folks say 10 minutes is great. Others say 1 minute or less. I'm open to 1 minute, bump-able down to full round action with an advanced trick.

Matthew Morris
Love the idea of altering an item to shoot raw magic, sort of a warlock artificer. :-)
Not sure how to integrate pact magic, except summoning a spirit into an item, usable for 2 minutes or something, or gain a single ability of a spirit. I'll think about it. It would be in a sidebar in any case along with info about Zobeck, etc.

Majuba,
Thank you for your thorough analysis. A lot of good points I need to integrate.

Some thoughts:
--I can rejigger the feat progression.

--Shield proficiency is to allow for gizmo-related options.

--Item Creation addresses some important issues. Namely, certain common items now require the spell to be known. For those items, you can't just skip it and suffer a penalty. Personally, I don't mind the similarity to the WotC version or the access to 0-level spells at 1st-level because the artificer has some nice armor and hit points that arcane casters don't have. But I might still change it and am keeping an open mind about folks' comments.

--Imbue Item, 10 minutes or spell casting time, whichever is longer... good catch! Will fix.

--I've tried to limit metamagic enhancement by making it a full-round action, but yeah, it still might be too much. Maybe require 2 rounds, or maybe limit it one metamagic feat of the player's choice (cannot be changed). Or...?

--Interesting idea about the homunculus. I can't say more.

--For energy transformation, I debated about sonic. In retrospect, an alternative is to require a second trick to gain access to sonic. This begs the question of whether, like the 3.5 warlock, the artificer can add additional kinds of damage, such as a fear effect, slowness, blinding effect, etc.

-- All the others. Good catches and will address.

I've been battling an adult recurrent of chicken pox for the past 5 days and my mind is a little foggy with meds and the incredible shooting (phantom) pain that come with this horrid illness. It's like a symbol of pain affixed to my back! Or better to say it's a great example of the unpleasantness of a bestow curse spell.

[Mike Welham]

Awww! My comments got skipped or ignored. :)

Sorry to hear about your ailment, though. That sounds most unpleasant.

[Dario Nardi]

taig wrote:

This is an interesting take on the artificer.

I've got a couple of comments:

With regard to the Item Creation class ability, how does the artificer get access to spells normally? I'm guessing it's through a arcane/divine spellcaster friend, since the artificer doesn't have a spell list. I'm not sure if this is still in vogue, but I'd suggest making it so, after three failures, the item is beyond the artificer's ability to create until he/she gains a level.

Advanced tricks confused me, the way they are written. Can an artificer take an advanced trick without the basic trick, or must he/she take the basic trick and then the advanced trick?

I like that the imbue item requires the artificer to have used the spell previously before using the class ability.

I have a couple of presentation/grammar nitpicks, but I'm not sure if this is the place for those.

Overall, I like the class a lot.

Taig, sorry I missed you earlier. :-(

:-)
Normally, the artificer would access spells from an allied spellcaster. I've now rewritten the ability somewhat.

An advanced trick only requires a basic trick as a prerequisite if a prerep is mentioned in the description. I've changed the wording of all such tricks to now read, "this trick requires and improves..."

The document is still in a rough state editing-wise. It's not due to Wolfgang until Wednesday so I'll polish it for sure.

Thank you for reading and commenting!

[Dario Nardi]

Here is a revised version that incorporates today's feedback.

[Takamonk]

Dario Nardi wrote:

Here is a revised version that incorporates today's feedback.

Minor Creation:Shouldn't minor creation instead be major creation? I prefer the idea of my artificer providing swords to my party/army, rather than tables and chairs. (There's only so much fun to be had with Throw Anything and Caught Off Guard.)

Soul Bind:Looks broken/incomplete to me.

Spoiler:

Do you pay for the creature's ability score or not? This isn't clear. It merely matches the prisoner soul. This is further complicated by Pathfinder's screwy non-scaling pricing scheme for intelligent item ability scores.

Furthermore, this essentially requires you to a) keep a detention cell for your chosen subjects to reside in for months on end while you craft their new cell, or b) have someone willingly become an intelligent item, or c) have someone "willingly" become an intelligent item. If you go with option a, you have the problem of a 5% botch chance and your most hated enemy is this sharp pointy thing that wants nothing more than to explore your internal organs. If you go with option b, you really don't have much in the way of control there; you're at DMs discretion. Finally, option c tends to run you into alignment issues anywhere north of evil.

Finally, you have severe balance issues when you have a 20th level character with a lot of relatively cheap intelligent items (some that are almost free based on the discount) that act as NPCs under his control.

Example 1: You can have an intelligent item whose purpose is to protect all those who are the race of the maker. Its ability? Dimension Door at will. So, you have an artificer who can be anywhere he wants to be once per round, in addition to his own actions. This trumps dimensional hop as broken capability. This is a broken feature of Intelligent Items, but is exacerbated by the fact that this thing costs nearly 0 gp if you find the right soul.

Example 2: Same as above, but give it an attack spell. One of my favorites? Or if you want to spend some money, use Mage's Sword. There's something about building up to having 13 mage's swords at one time (that's 13 @ 4d6+3 each).

Spell thief: I think it an interesting ability, but one that requires you to keep Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion), and Knowledge (Planes) quite up to snuff so that you know what you can steal from an enemy. You may wish to specify that this does or does not incur an attack of opportunity, and if so, what are the ramifications of being hit. Note that this potentially gives an Artificer access to bardic performances...

Capstone Ability: If this is a repeat of the monk ability Perfect Self, you're going to find a lot of resistance.
Perfect Self rant:

Spoiler:

Perfect Self basically makes you weaker. Yes, you're immune to the foul effects of lawful spells, but they generally didn't hurt you much to begin with, but now you have a weakness to chaotic subtype spells. It is not otherwise apparent what other effects "Perfect" Self grant.

Furthermore, as a monk, you have spell resistance (which helps AND hurts you), but you enjoy partial immunity to magic. But wait, they give you DR 10/magic as a capstone ability? Great. Another monkey for my back, because I have to keep track of this under the very rare situation that my monk goes after a hoard of animals/vermin/mundane weapon wielding creatures. (And don't take that to mean creatures wielding animals/vermin/mundane weapons.) Me, I'd rather say "screw it" and just ignore my own DR so that I'll enjoy the game better.

If, however, it actually gives you the Native/Outsider subtype/type as per the SRD, this makes you indeed powerful. You're a magic user that fights practically as well (if not better as you're definitely better optimally equipped) than a 20th level fighter with full BAB progression. Furthermore, you gain darkvision 60, and HD d8 (in case you decide to multiclass as something that gets a d6... but then again, why would you?) You also get 8 Skill points per level, and now outcompete rogues.

Finally... DR 10/magic? See Perfect Self rant in the spoiler. A double slap to the face of the supposed master of magic item who is undone by a simple +1 stone slung into his head. Nobody likes a monkey for their back for level 20. Either omit the DR, or give them DR that actually means something for a 20th level character. Chances are they'll buy their own form of Damage Reduction, anyways.

[Watcher]

Dario Nardi wrote:

Here is a revised version that incorporates today's feedback.

It feels like the old Artificer, but that is not a condemnation. The old Artificer was a cool concept for the campaign setting it was intended for..

But having said that, first observation from my first read through..

Spell Thief Basic Ability:

Quote:

Spell Thief (Su): Once daily, the artificer can acquire a spell or spell-like ability by touching a creature or item as a standard action. He must know by name the spell to pilfer; otherwise, he gains nothing. Also, the trick fails if the spell's level is more than 1/2 the artificer's level. Unwilling creatures enjoy a Will save to resist theft and keep their spell. The DC equals 10 + 1/2 the artificer's level + his Charisma modifier. On a failed save, the target loses the spell and the artificer gains it. The spell must be used within 24 hours; otherwise, it dissipates harmlessly. The artificer uses the spell as if he were the creature or item that possessed it.

I'm not a mechanics guru, so at a glance this looks okay (how you determined the DC and so forth). And before you read any damning criticism in my words, I *like* this premise. I *want* you to keep it somehow.

Here's my issue with it. The mechanic seems to founded on meta-game mechanics. For example: Is there actually any power in the words 'magic missle', that the artificer must know in order to steal the magic missle spell? Or 'teleport' for that matter? I can also see player abuse in 'guessing what spells and spell-like ability a monster has'. That is, the player claims his character would know the name and the GM is in the adverserial prosecutorial role of trying to argue the player wouldn't know (or just give in). Lastly, I'm scratching my head over the notion that a spell-like ability has a specific name. Because a spell-like ability seems like an innate ability. You don't really address spell-like abilities except to mention they can be stolen too.

I hope you don't think I'm being a jerk, but if I take it out of the fantasy genre altogether it might seem clearer. 'Jump' is a label on an action I can do, it isn't the essence of jumping. Likewise, if Lex Luthor were to steal Superman's Heat Vision, I don't think it would really matter if Supes called it 'Heat Vision' or 'Laser Vision' or even 'Infra-Red Vision'.

In conclusion, the ability seems to rest too much on what the character (not the player, but you could argue that point too) would know from the rulebook.

[Watcher]

Okay.. Before you respond to my previous post, I completely forgot that you could adjudicate how someone knew the name a spell from Knowledge Arcana.

Good point from the poster right above me (Takamonk).

That would correct my complaint, but in that case I think you should mention that application of Knowledge Arcana in the Spell Thief Ability.

[Dario Nardi]

Here are some responses that are sort of me talking out loud and an invention to more ideas.

----------------------------------

I'm not sure what to say about similarity to the Eberron artificer. This version lacks spells and has numerous options that a player can select for whatever campaign setting. I'm not sure what else I could do that would make it more open-ended.

----------------------------------

The Soul Binding trick... I agree it can use clarification.

First, I'm using the intelligent item creation rules in the core rulebook. Some things may differ from what you all have seen until now.

The artificer is charged for all the item's features including ability scores. I'll clarify that.

Most uses of soul binding are definitely evil. I'll mention that. The idea is that, yes, you have to keep someone in a detention cell or trick them (dominate person, anyone?) or .... Sounds like an exciting adventure to rescue a kidnapped prince/ss from an evil artificer BBEG before being turned into a magic item. :-)

The 2000 gp / Hit Die remuneration only offsets the intelligent features, not the overall cost of the item. That said, there should probably be less offset or some other kind of limitation (besides the usual time and evilness).

An intelligent item with many features (gained from a high level creature) will have a high ego score, and the item/creature knows you murdered it or tricked it. It is likely hostile to the creator and requires careful management. I wouldn't describe such items as convenient instant minions. Perhaps an item might be made from a fanatical cult follower who sacrificed his life for a greater cause--what a nice idea for an adventure! But that's GM purview.

The examples mentioned are issues associated with intelligent items in general. Perhaps the concern is that this ability makes it easier to have intelligent items, when one is probably more than enough?

I could say that soul binding takes something (besides gold and a clear conscience) from the artificer. It would be minor enough to be worth using the trick once or twice but not more than that. it might be interesting if the trick allow the artificer to only do this once. Ideas???

Since this is an article, this section may be cut anyway to fit word limits. Although I like how it suggests adventure ideas.

----------------------------------

For spell thievery, yeah I'll mention the use of Knowledge (arcana).
I realize the mechanic is somewhat, well, mechanical. The alternative is to allow the artificer to only steal something he has seen used. But what if he wants to research it first? I'm sort of torn here.

Spell thievery is marked (Su), so it doesn't provoke AoO.

Regarding spell-like abilities, abilities marked (Sp) usually mention a specific spell. When not, the ability still has a name. I'll clarify that.

----------------------------------

The monk's perfect ability changes the monk's type "for the purpose of spells and magical effects." The type change doesn't change Hit Dice or skill points or anything like that. I'll be sure to add to the wording of the artificer to clarify that.

My understanding is that perfect self and similar capstones are mainly for flavor, not combat. A nearly (nearly) demi-god like 20th-level character can safely ignore the general rabble.

That said, it might be interesting to give darkvision and DR 5/magic and adamantine, or something like that.

----------------------------------

Thanks for the great feedback!

[Takamonk]

Crafting intelligent items is certainly a conundrum. You don't require high ability scores in order to give its nice abilities (that I am aware of), yet you pay more for them, and get kicked in the rump by your ego-tripping item for throwing the money in. So why a PC create a weapon with higher stats for anything but flair?

I would say cap out the stats at 20 for terms of price, but let it keep those 3 stats for purposes of item ability. Also, the item keeps all skills it had before, although you can certainly prune those if the price turns out much too high. Note that even though an intelligent item might not be able to move, it can certainly still understand how to climb. And if it can sprout legs, well, maybe it should be able to climb, too? And if it can fly... well, by all means, should it not maintain skills in fly? And if it can have locomotion, it can certainly try to move stealthily...

A caveat you might add in addition to an intelligent item would extend to awaken a construct? Perhaps not QUITE what the wealthy merchant had in mind when he got strapped in for a procedure to grant immortality, (and is the likeliest of scenarios if you ask a warforged for immortality, for sure). Likewise, any bodyless soul that's willing to stick around in order to become soul bound is acceptable. Unwilling souls can escape within 3 rounds, however.

You may wish to use a different term from "awaken construct."

[Watcher]

Dario Nardi wrote:

I'm not sure what to say about similarity to the Eberron artificer. This version lacks spells and has numerous options that a player can select for whatever campaign setting. I'm not sure what else I could do that would make it more open-ended.

Don't worry about it. I think it's more my problem than yours. I don't exactly want anything open-ended, generic and universal. It isn't that I'm against it, its just not what was hoping for. I've been wanting something campaign specific for a long time now, but I can't seem to get any traction in that direction. And the reality is there just might not be enough support for that. It's not as flashy as 'hellknights' was. :(

In any case, that's not your problem. Its not very fair to give you a hard time for writing an open-ended class. You're trying to write something that can be used in any setting, and that is a laudable goal. Please disregard the Eberron comment. I'll stick to what you're actually doing henceforth.

Dario Nardi wrote:

For spell thievery, yeah I'll mention the use of Knowledge (arcana).

I realize the mechanic is somewhat, well, mechanical. The alternative is to allow the artificer to only steal something he has seen used. But what if he wants to research it first? I'm sort of torn here.

No, I'm in agreement with you here. You DO want to allow research.

A Knowledge Arcana skill roll would constitute something that the 'character' would know as opposed to the 'player'. A deeper understanding of what the spell or spell-like ability actually is, above and beyond what it is actually called.

But with a Knowledge Arcana roll, a GM can actually adjudicate it. It ceases to be entirely subjective.

And if the GM isn't bothered by the subjectivity, they can disregard the Knowledge roll and handle how they understand the spell or spell-like ability in a simpler manner.

As soon as I read what Takamonk wrote, the problem was already solved by me, but I think it will help your article if you do remind the reader of the Knowledge Arcana skill.

Dario Nardi wrote:

Spell thievery is marked (Su), so it doesn't provoke AoO.

Regarding spell-like abilities, abilities marked (Sp) usually mention a specific spell. When not, the ability still has a name. I'll clarify that.

Should be fine, by using the same methodology, application of Knowledge Arcana. Here's one thing to consider: how would calculate the DC of a Spell-like Ability with Knowledge Arcana? How you do it with a spell is well documented in the rules. The closest description for understanding a spell-like ability is

PF RPG BETA wrote:

"identify a monster's abilities and weakness" = 10 + monster's CR.

And it might be as simple as that.

[Wolfthulhu]

I like the Artificer. One of the coolest things I have seen for D&D in many years.

However, a couple of things spring to mind immediately. The biggest is that you have enabled for PFRPG the god-aweful Blastificer. I'd personally be happier if Dual Wand Wielding never again saw the light of day. Especially in conjunction with Metamagic applied to wands/staffs. If you must go this route, consider limiting the Metamagic usage to x times per day. Maybe 1/day for every 3 or 4 levels. Or he can apply each Metamagic feat 2 times per day. The numbers are arbitrary, but you get my point?

Spell casting, I like the idea of spontaneous casting coupled with the need for reading the instructions from their 'recipe' book.

Magic item creation, so as not to steal the Item Crafting Mages thunder completely, the artificer should be limited in the maximum caster level of items created. This is specifically meant for Spell Trigger/Completion items. A Mage could craft a Wand of Fireballs with a CL of whatever his level is, but an artificer could only craft a CL 5 WoFB. With the max level going up somehow so as not to end up totally sucking. The main point is that he can already craft any magic item that a Mage or Cleric could and more. They shouldn't be able to make them as good. Kind of a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' approach.

Edit: Skills, Sleight of Hand? I get the Disable Device, but why Sleight of Hand?

Another Edit: Metamagic Enhancement. I LIKE this one. Maximized potions are cool. And when they're used they're gone.

[Takamonk]

I would also like to point out that quicken spell is left in the dust when metamagic feats being employed at full-round options.

Perhaps some clarification that Quicken Spell either can't be used or is the exception to the rule.

[Wolfthulhu]

Takamonk wrote:

I would also like to point out that quicken spell is left in the dust when metamagic feats being employed at full-round options.

Perhaps some clarification that Quicken Spell either can't be used or is the exception to the rule.

I'd actually missed the full-round action bit. That in a way addresses my concern since it means you can only apply one meta-magic feat in a round. And losing Quicken Spell doesn't bother me at all.

[Shisumo]

There are a couple of references to a daily use limit on Imbue Item, but no such limit actually appears in Imbue Item's text.

Also,

Spoiler:

I think you accidentally spoiled us on what the PFRPG version of Trapfinding does.

[Bitter Thorn]

JoelF847 wrote:

I only skimmed the other suggestions, but the one thing that I think would be essential for an artificer class would be the ability to make temporary magic items, given a small amount of time (maybe 10 minutes). Something that would allow them to have just the right item whenever they needed it, as long as they had some advanced notice. Obviously, this shouldn't allow creation of 1 charge items like potions or scrolls, and probably have a limit on multiple charge items like wands. To balance a power like this, I would imagine that there would be a gp value cap on temporary items an artificer could have at any one time.

The arcane gadgeteer concept intrigues me.

[Dario Nardi]

Watcher,

Thank you for your thoughtful post. Yeah, the article's aim is fundamentally generic. I like your reasoning about the spell thievery and creating flex space for GM. I've now rewritten spell thievery to remind the reader of the core rule to make a Knowledge check to determine a creature's abilities. As for how to calculate the DC of a spell-like ability with Knowledge (arcana)... let's just say your suggestion is a lot like Jason's B's thinking.

A general comment (not directed to you)... although spell thievery and soul binding may feel complex and somewhat "extra" for the class, the revised Pathfinder classes cover numerous 3.5 edition variants and options. I felt the WotC spell thief was a sketchy idea on its own. Now the artificer has his stuff.

Darkwolf,

Glad you like the artificer!

I must honestly say that have I limited first-hand exposure to the class concept in actual play. I was in a campaign with an artificer PC but the player was not a power-gamer so I never saw him abuse the class. In another campaign, we did a whole sequence of adventures against an artificer BBEG with duel wand wielding, but in the big showdown our monk got lucky and stunned him and then he died real quick like!

Right now, metamagic enhancement has a daily limit of 3 + the artificer's Intelligence modifier. I admit that this may still be too liberal but I think it's OK. Each attempt requires a full round action (for charged items) or 1 minute (for non charged items). Similarly, duel wand wielding is also a full round action, so the artificer is fundamentally prevented from applying metamgic on two wands at once.

I included Slight of Hand to allow an archetype that is a poisoner or stage magician or just plain sneaky. As a practical matter, an artificer without his items is a nearly useless artificer. He's the opposite of a monk in that respect. But Slight of Hand allows him in an emergency to secret a vial, wand or whatever (whether up his sleeve or up his b$##). Anyway, an artificer will likely invest in other more important skills first.

I'm not sure about a hindered level limit. The Eberron artificer was actually better than a spellcaster. That I didn't like. What do others think?

[Dario Nardi]

Shisumo wrote:

Also,
** spoiler omitted **

Maybe, maybe not. The artificer isn't a rogue, and I felt free to implement it however it might work best. Sorry for being coy.

Think of the PDF of the class as a "preview."

I must say I'm totally stoked after working on this class to do a whole supplement on artificers, gadgets, and mechanical flying pigs (that cover heroes in oily mud and burp carbolic acid at them).

[Shisumo]

Dario Nardi wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The artificer isn't a rogue, and I felt free to implement it however it might work best. Sorry for being coy.

No, no, be coy! I just didn't want you to get into trouble is all. :D

[Wolfthulhu]

Dario Nardi wrote:

Darkwolf,

Glad you like the artificer!

I must honestly say that have I limited first-hand exposure to the class concept in actual play. I was in a campaign with an artificer PC but the player was not a power-gamer so I never saw him abuse the class. In another campaign, we did a whole sequence of adventures against an artificer BBEG with duel wand wielding, but in the big showdown our monk got lucky and stunned him and then he died real quick like!

Right now, metamagic enhancement has a daily limit of 3 + the artificer's Intelligence modifier. I admit that this may still be too liberal but I think it's OK. Each attempt requires a full round action (for charged items) or 1 minute (for non charged items). Similarly, duel wand wielding is also a full round action, so the artificer is fundamentally prevented from applying metamgic on two wands at once.

I included Slight of Hand to allow an archetype that is a poisoner or stage magician or just plain sneaky. As a practical matter, an artificer without his items is a nearly useless artificer. He's the opposite of a monk in that respect. But Slight of Hand allows him in an emergency to secret a vial, wand or whatever (whether up his sleeve or up his b$##). Anyway, an artificer will likely invest in other more important skills first.

I'm not sure about a hindered level limit. The Eberron artificer was actually better than a spellcaster. That I didn't like. What do others think?

An abused Artificer was fairly rare in actual play, mainly because it was cost prohibitive. But if it's possible, someone will do it. Best to keep those doors closed. Which, I think you have done nicely. I didn't see the 3+int limit. I think that in conjunction with the full-round action is fine.

Sleight of Hand makes sense when you put it like that.

And that's exactly my point about the Eberron Artificer being better than casters at crafting. They're already more versatile, I don't think they should be better at it as well.

From experience: In my last high-level campaign my Swordsage/Dervish had an Artificer cohort. (Coincidentally our Cleric's cohort ended up being one as well. We did this mutually ignorant of the others actions when we took the Leadership feat at the same level.) Neither of us really used the damage aspect of the class much, but we had the absolute top of the line magic items at all times. And a heck of a lot cheaper than we would have gotten them from the party mage.

[Matthew Morris]

Ramnbling outloud to your rambling...

No comment about 'Nardificer'?

I think for spellthief you want to look at the language for feat leach from the d20srd

Spoiler:

You can use another’s psionic or metapsionic feats for yourself. You make a melee touch attack against a target. [i]If successful, you immediately are familiar with the target’s psionic and metapsionic feats, if any, and you can choose a number of these feats to “leech” equal to your Wisdom modifier (minimum one)[i].

That would give the Nardificer the perk of knowing his entire inventory, and allowing him to pick what spells to borrow/disable.

As to the metamagic/blastificer worry. Why not make a chance of the wand going boom? Some kind of level check/UMD check or something?

[Wolfthulhu]

Matthew Morris wrote:

As to the metamagic/blastificer worry. Why not make a chance of the wand going boom? Some kind of level check/UMD check or something?

Boom? Boom as in breaking a Staff of Power boom? For a failed UMD? Man, I thought I was harsh. ;-)

[Matthew Morris]

Darkwolf wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

As to the metamagic/blastificer worry. Why not make a chance of the wand going boom? Some kind of level check/UMD check or something?

Boom? Boom as in breaking a Staff of Power boom? For a failed UMD? Man, I thought I was harsh. ;-)

Well I was thinking d6 per charge spent, 10' radius. Not staff of power boom, but still 'ouch' boom.

[Dario Nardi]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ramnbling outloud to your rambling...

No comment about 'Nardificer'?

I think for spellthief you want to look at the language for feat leach from the d20srd

** spoiler omitted **

That would give the Nardificer the perk of knowing his entire inventory, and allowing him to pick what spells to borrow/disable.

As to the metamagic/blastificer worry. Why not make a chance of the wand going boom? Some kind of level check/UMD check or something?

Great idea. Sort of like this:

Spell Leach (Su): At any time, the artificer can make a melee touch attack against a target. If successful, he is immediately familiar with the target’s spells and spell-like abilities, if any, and may choose a number of these to steal up to his Charisma modifier (minimum 1). His daily limit of stolen magic still applies. This trick requires the spell thievery trick.

As for Nardificer...

For most of my childhood, I didn't grow up with Nardi as my last name. Instead, I was Dario Power, using my step-dad's last name. But I never actually changed my name, and since high school graduation I've used Nardi (which is a common family name in Naples, Italy). Sadly, my younger brother was Nardi all his childhood and bore the brunt of many jokes. Some tried to make jokes about Power, but really, how funny is POWER?

To make it more complicated, I wasn't born Dario either. But everyone called me that since I was a fetus, and when I was 3 the whole family agreed to make Dario official. (Like Nardi, Dario is Italian, but I got a job interview once because someone thought I was Hispanic.) A free book for anyone who knows my birth name!

[seekerofshadowlight]

I haven''t had time to go over it one by one but 2 things that jump out at me.
1: To front loaded
2: to many feats

Also you many have to many talents. This class at a glace seems very loaded and may be to much

[Vic Wertz]

Dario Nardi wrote:

A free book for anyone who knows my birth name!

Nuclear Power?

[Dario Nardi]

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I haven''t had time to go over it one by one but 2 things that jump out at me.

1: To front loaded
2: to many feats

Also you many have to many talents. This class at a glace seems very loaded and may be to much

1. Most of the abilities have level-dependent caps (so if someone takes 1 level of artificer, they'll be stuck with an unusual but puny low-level ability). That said, you have a point about one-level dips. The imbue item ability, for example, could easily be moved to 2nd level. Or better yet, the maximum number of receptacles should start smaller and progress.

Which reminds me, the imbue item ability now says, "The trick fails when the spell's level is more than 1/2 the artificer's level."
I don't want a high level spellcaster taking 1 level of artificer and thinking he can store whatever spells he likes!

2. There are 8 bonus feats. Against this, there 9 item creation feats and 9 metamagic feats. The Eberron artificer gets 13 feats (8 item creation feats hardwired in plus 5 bonus feats usable toward metamagic and craft related feats). And unlike the Eberron artificer, this version has no spellcasting to speak of. So I feel the number of feats is OK.

3. There are 25 basic trick options and 15 advanced trick options. In contrast, the PfRPG rogue has 15 basic options and 8 advanced options. So yes, you are right, there are probably too many trick options. Some of these tricks should be feats, but writing them as tricks takes up less space (in the article) compared to feats (which are space hogs--no allusions about British pop singers intended).

I'm open to pruning the tricks list. Basically, I'd keep the tricks most relevant to the class's abilities and present the others are feats later on, after the article appears. For example, among the advanced tricks, bonus receptacles is more important than bonus rings. Bonus receptacles is meaningless to non-artificers, while anyone might want to have more rings (though they might need to meet high prerequisites to take such a feat!)

Edit: I just went through the tricks and quickly picked out 15 and 8 that were more essential than the others. The poison related tricks can be gained by taking one or more levels in assassin. The spell-like abilities aren't strictly necessary. And so forth.

This feedback is really useful, thanks!!!

[seekerofshadowlight]

I need to really read it before I can fully comment. But that was at a glance But the level 1 dip was the big issue. Also I should have read over what kind of feats you granted. I t does not seem that bad now. I will look over it before giving fead back a bit more.

Another thing is this pathfinder? if so his HD is off

[Dario Nardi]

Here is version 3 of the Pf artificer

As for Hit Dice, I've been using d8 Hit Die and average BAB progression.

[Dario Nardi]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Dario Nardi wrote:

A free book for anyone who knows my birth name!

Nuclear Power?

Dario "genshi ryoku" Nardi

Hmm...

[seekerofshadowlight]

But in PF HD is tied to BAB. So with that BAB he would be a d6 not a D8

Also just what does the craft log do? And for me the craft dc should be 5 per every spell your missing. And just where does the spell crom from with Imbue Item:?

Another thing for me I dislike them becomeing a magic item...and it really does not explain or fit with the rest of the theme to me