Talk:Artificer (3.5e Prestige Class)

Comment

While this class is an interesting idea, giving the character +1 level of existing spell casting class every level seems too powerful. And isn't there already a base class Artificer in the Eberron Campaign Setting book? MasterBowman 11:41, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Retort; you're wrong (but there is the artificer base class in ECS, but this is different, obviously). --TK-Squared 11:55, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Agreed. If anything, this class is probably a bit below the curve (but not so much that it needs to be rebalanced). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aarnott (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Why is it going to be deleted. Its seems to be a balanced class and my DM is even letting me use it in our game.

Maybe its just me but I think a few spell like abilities thrown in would add to the class. Identify, Analyze Dweomer, and Legend Lore would be a good fit. At 10th lvl you would end up with say Identify 3/day, Analyze Dweomer 1/day, and Legend Lore 1/month

(to the "why delete" comment") Short answer? The owner of this site had a flip-out, and most everyone who uses the site, the author of this page included, have left and are taking their stuff with them to a new site. Here is a much longer answer. But, go figure, the owner has stated he will not fulfil author deletion requests, which is not only changing a policy that's always been in effect (author delete requests were always handled immediately), but it also may be legally questionable that the owner will not fulfill these wishes.

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it remains well balanced with most other wizard PrCs out there by giving a cool powerful niche, but nothing terribly broken (that other wizards can't do). --Aarnott 12:14, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is clear and concise. Easy to read and easy to understand. --Aarnott 12:14, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is linked properly, follows the preload (even though I only skimmed it), and follows the preload. --Aarnott 12:14, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it fulfills the niche role an artificer should of being able to make stuff. I would have moved disenchanting to first level since it seems like a good reason for an artificer to adventure. It isn't really a powerful ability either, more of a flavor thing. Besides that minor thing -- which isn't really a flavor thing in particular, I just wanted to comment on it -- I really like this class. --Aarnott 12:14, 29 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --142.22.16.59 14:31, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Wording - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --142.22.16.59 14:31, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --142.22.16.59 14:31, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --142.22.16.59 14:31, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Rating removed; no justification. -- Jota 17:46, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Another Comment

I really think you should move disenchant up to first level. Perhaps stagger its power over several levels. It seems almost like a core ability to the class (like rage is to a barbarian). Right now, the class isn't an artificer at level 1 -- it is still a wizard. As a bonus, it also allows characters to kick start their career as an artificer by junking all of the stupid feather tokens they have accumulated (especially if they have a DM that gives random treasure). --Aarnott 15:34, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Will do! I just threw it in at level 7 because it was a dead level. Movin' to level 1. --TK-Squared 16:18, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

Edits by Jeeves

Once again, your edits haven't even been anything meaningful. You just adopt the class and chop off its balls by cutting the numerical effects of the abilities down to size. This class is supposed to be competitive with a wizard, not just some pussy craftsman with some goofy gadgets. - TG Cid 08:13, 25 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems well thought out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.160.59.185 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Not a valid reason for a power rating. -- TG Cid 18:15, 16 September 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because is easy to read —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.160.59.185 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.160.59.185 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Rating negated; no justification. -- TG Cid 18:15, 16 September 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is exactly what i am looking for —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.160.59.185 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Good to know that at least one person's happy with it. - TG Cid 18:15, 16 September 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it makes item creation less painfull at an early game stage without taking a toll on your growth as a spell caster --201.191.5.89 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it was very easy to read --201.191.5.89 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems to follow proper format as in all other classes i've seen --201.191.5.89 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because It was indeed exactly what you would expect from an artificer while not being a game breaker --201.191.5.89 18:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)