As the title says, with time ticking on 5e's time in the sun, do you think we will get any more Specialist (subclasses) before the move to the next version of D&D? I get the feeling that once Wizards moves to 5.x or whatever it's going to be, that we'll need to wait for another Ebberon supplement for there to be any additions. I love that we have the Artificer, and think that it's one of the more unique additions to modern D&D, but because of its release timing, it is woefully under supported. I've personally decided to add Kieth Baker's "Exploring Ebberon" material to buff out some of the support for the class, but it would be nice to see Wizards give a bit more official support. Or at the very least give it the "Critical Role" treatment, and give us D&D Beyond access to setting creator content.
Would be nice, but who knows. WOTC is very slow when it comes to publishing new material at all. Consider that Tasha's is almost two years old and since then we've gotten... what, four or five new subclasses total?
Best bet might be for a third and final "Everything" book, probably in late 2023, for this kind of thing.
I think my biggest issue is that it feels like such a tack-on. They made Artificers setting agnostic and included Armorer in TCOE. But since then, no items, no exclusive spells, no new infusions (although technically any common item that's come out can be an infusion I suppose). I actually like that we've gotten more setting books and some DM specific things as there was a ton of player stuff for a while, but if you are going to include a whole new class from the core books, then at least give them something.
Spelljammer would be good reason to release one. The new subclass could be a pilot for a spaceship, maybe called Ethernaut. While such a class would be of limited use in other settings, it would be a useful addition for any Spelljammer campaign.
Another possible route would be a Frankenstein-esque mad scientist, who crafts a pet from living or undead matter instead of metal. While this would be mechanically similar to the Battlesmith, it would be very different in tone. Instead of an extra attack, I'd make the monster a bit more powerful and maybe give the character a sort of rebuke undead feature. I'd call it a Necrotech.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
While Spelljammer would be an ideal fit, have we seen any UA for it at all? I would have thought if it was going to have new sub-classes then wouldn't we have have seen them by now?
For Artificer sub-classes in general I kind of feel like Tasha's Cauldron was the exception, i.e- they only released one because they were also re-releasing the class in the same book. I know it's pessimistic, but I'm not sure we'll see new sub-classes until Artificer is released as part of a new Player's Handbook, because Wizards seem to have this thing about releasing content that relies upon another book (other than PHB/DMG).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
While Spelljammer would be an ideal fit, have we seen any UA for it at all? I would have thought if it was going to have new sub-classes then wouldn't we have have seen them by now?
For Artificer sub-classes in general I kind of feel like Tasha's Cauldron was the exception, i.e- they only released one because they were also re-releasing the class in the same book. I know it's pessimistic, but I'm not sure we'll see new sub-classes until Artificer is released as part of a new Player's Handbook.
There was a Multiverse UA a few releases back, it had some race options that will probably show up in Spelljammer like Giff, plasmoid, & thri-kreen, but I don't recall there being any new class options.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All generalizations are false.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As the title says, with time ticking on 5e's time in the sun, do you think we will get any more Specialist (subclasses) before the move to the next version of D&D? I get the feeling that once Wizards moves to 5.x or whatever it's going to be, that we'll need to wait for another Ebberon supplement for there to be any additions. I love that we have the Artificer, and think that it's one of the more unique additions to modern D&D, but because of its release timing, it is woefully under supported. I've personally decided to add Kieth Baker's "Exploring Ebberon" material to buff out some of the support for the class, but it would be nice to see Wizards give a bit more official support. Or at the very least give it the "Critical Role" treatment, and give us D&D Beyond access to setting creator content.
Would be nice, but who knows. WOTC is very slow when it comes to publishing new material at all. Consider that Tasha's is almost two years old and since then we've gotten... what, four or five new subclasses total?
Best bet might be for a third and final "Everything" book, probably in late 2023, for this kind of thing.
IMO.
I think my biggest issue is that it feels like such a tack-on. They made Artificers setting agnostic and included Armorer in TCOE. But since then, no items, no exclusive spells, no new infusions (although technically any common item that's come out can be an infusion I suppose). I actually like that we've gotten more setting books and some DM specific things as there was a ton of player stuff for a while, but if you are going to include a whole new class from the core books, then at least give them something.
Spelljammer would be good reason to release one. The new subclass could be a pilot for a spaceship, maybe called Ethernaut. While such a class would be of limited use in other settings, it would be a useful addition for any Spelljammer campaign.
Another possible route would be a Frankenstein-esque mad scientist, who crafts a pet from living or undead matter instead of metal. While this would be mechanically similar to the Battlesmith, it would be very different in tone. Instead of an extra attack, I'd make the monster a bit more powerful and maybe give the character a sort of rebuke undead feature. I'd call it a Necrotech.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Spelljammer seems like a likely place for them to add one.
I was really disappointed that UA had a wizard Rune Carver, should have called that one Rune Caster and made an artificer Runecarver.
All generalizations are false.
While Spelljammer would be an ideal fit, have we seen any UA for it at all? I would have thought if it was going to have new sub-classes then wouldn't we have have seen them by now?
For Artificer sub-classes in general I kind of feel like Tasha's Cauldron was the exception, i.e- they only released one because they were also re-releasing the class in the same book. I know it's pessimistic, but I'm not sure we'll see new sub-classes until Artificer is released as part of a new Player's Handbook, because Wizards seem to have this thing about releasing content that relies upon another book (other than PHB/DMG).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
There was a Multiverse UA a few releases back, it had some race options that will probably show up in Spelljammer like Giff, plasmoid, & thri-kreen, but I don't recall there being any new class options.
All generalizations are false.