So, big question in the room regarding this class. As the team at WotC decided to leave it out of the new PHB and have given no indication on how long we will have to wait for it to be re-printed with the new rules changes, what is to happen with the Artificer?
Some things remain unaffected, such as picking your subclass at Level 3, as all classes will be doing so moving forward. However, with so many changes and updates to subclass features, spell lists, and even Spells themselves, not to mention Magical Items for Infusions, it seems running/playing the class is going to be more complicated, even with any sort of backwards compatibility that may exist.

So, question I ask is, how is everyone going to move forward with this class? Most interested in answers from folks actively allowing/using it. If the class already isn’t in your game and will continue to not be, I can’t stop any responses, but not exactly the target audience of the thread topic.

Few things, WotC is digging more on the planes, so I anticipate that is where they will be going in the future instead of lingering in high fantasy. The Artificer will most likely be a draw in a future book about the planes and adding sci-fi to the hard fantasy as they did through Eberron.

As for the power creep, I would see what spells get added and adjust their list accordingly. I noticed that they felt the core philosophy of the class was bound into certain abilities and they have moved the to earlier levels, but the Artificer is already nicely balanced. They might move one of the extra attunement slot to an earlier level and shift the power of something else to compensate.

As for the the subclasses, well there are four, so they will probably tweak them slightly to balance the power deficiencies and creep to meet their philosophy better. For instance, the spell lists have never made sense to me and should be retooled to feel like something they would have. If you read the description, then look at the spell list, a lot of the spells just don't line up with the description.

At the moment, I can’t see anything that should stop you playing a current Artificer alongside 5.24 characters. There may be some odd interactions with new rules, spells or magic items, but I don’t think we can predict those yet and most will probably have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Artificer will get a little bump in power from the new character background rules. 

One of the changes not really discussed much in the 2024 edition is that Wizards will be losing a number of sub-classes that are effectively redundant.

These include Enchanters which are covered by Bards, or some Warlocks and charm-based Sorcerer designs, Conjurers which could just be built from the Evoker subclass depending on design again (the choice of spells, really), along with Necromancers and Transmuters. 

Transmuters basically are Alchemists, so have effectively been redacted by the Artificer subclass and, if you think about re-animation, the Necromancer could actually be a Artificer sub-class too. Rather than focussing on magical items, they are making making magic items out of dead flesh!

If they ever do get round to presenting a revised Artificer Class, they really ought to integrate these concepts fully. If they were going to choose four subclasses, I’d like to see the Artillerist, Alchemist, and Necromancer as three of the choices. 

I don’t think the Wizard is actually losing those subclasses. They just didn’t make it into the new PHB, as they decided that there would be four subclasses for every class in the book. They’re still available to play with the 2014 Wizard and should only need a little tweaking to work with the 2024 version. I imagine, but don’t know, that they’ll re-appear in revised versions in another sourcebook in future. 

Nevertheless, a Necro-artificer creating flesh golems would be a very cool subclass. 

Quote from ThelenyiWhinlaw >>

I don’t think the Wizard is actually losing those subclasses. They just didn’t make it into the new PHB, as they decided that there would be four subclasses for every class in the book. They’re still available to play with the 2014 Wizard and should only need a little tweaking to work with the 2024 version. I imagine, but don’t know, that they’ll re-appear in revised versions in another sourcebook in future. 

Nevertheless, a Necro-artificer creating flesh golems would be a very cool subclass. 

 I think that is true, but I just see these subclasses as being redundant.

As I say, what really is the appeal of playing an Enchanter when you could just play a Bard or either a Sorcerer/Warlock (with CHA as the spell-casting Ability) that specialises in enchantments and charms? I don’t have any stats to refer to but I wouldn’t be surprised that most Wizard players tended to coalesce over the four sub-classes prioritised in the 2024 PHB and Enchanters, Transmuters, Conjurers and Necromancers weren’t as popular. 

It is similar with the Cleric chopping Nature and Tempest Priests when you can see that the archetypes are already there with Druids. 

But, yeah, my real point is that I’d like to see Necromancers shifted to being an Artificer subclass along with Alchemists (Transmuters) that are already there. 

I think you may be right regarding overlap with other classes being a factor in the decisions about which Cleric and Wizard subclasses didn’t get into the new PHB. I think the Nature and Tempest domains suffering from being too adjacent to the Druid is very plausible. I’m not sure that overlap with the Artificer was as much of a consideration, as the Artificer isn’t in the PHB. 

Overlap with other classes isn’t actually a no-no for subclass design: there are several subclasses in the new PHB which occupy similar niches to other classes: e.g. College of Dance Bard vs Monk, Fey Wanderer Ranger vs Bard, Celestial Warlock vs Cleric, Zealot Barbarian vs Paladin, Glory Paladin vs Champion Fighter.  I think having different options for building broadly similar character archetypes is a deliberate choice. A Transmuter and an Alchemist do overlap considerably in theme but play quite differently. The idea of a necromantic, flesh-crafting artificer doesn’t exclude also having a scholarly wizard necromancer, nor the College of Spirits Bard, Grave Domain Cleric, Circle of Spores Druid or Undead Patron Warlock. 

Ah, I see what you are going for. I would not make that a Necromancer based Artificer, I would reskin an existing subclass to be used on the dead as a part of its construction. You are basically building fleshy versions of the Steel Defender or even worse a fleshy eldritch cannon...GROSS!!!! but awesome. Adjust some of the spells to be more in line with the fleshy apotheosis of the concept.

YOU ARE CORRECT, in that an artificer should make kick butt golems and they do if you add a different spin to the names of their abilities. Heck an alchemist is basically a storybook witch with a bubbling cauldron mixing strange brews. The armorer is just Ironman, well he is more like a subclass gestalt of armorer and battlesmith.

I do see that there is arguably more than one way to make different character concepts but I just see it as how the PHB prioritised available archetypes. I would’t be surprised, for another example, that the College of Dance Bard meant that the Rogue Swashbuckler subclass wasn’t such a pressing inclusion anymore while the BattleMaster Fighter covers a load of swashbuckling archetypes anyway. It meant the creators could include more Psychic subclasses instead. 

I mean, there may be more subclasses to come - but not everybody will buy more than the core three for a ‘complete game', don’t forget. I am still holding out hope that they may try to squeeze in the Artificer into the DMG as an example alternative Class....

Anyway, if they were to redo the Artificer with four subclasses, then Alchemist, Armourer, Artillerist and Necromancer would be my choice! :)  

One big question I have...
In the current rule set: Armorer has Thunder Gauntlets which are not light weapons. If you take the Dual Wielder feat you can use non-light weapons so you can punch with both Thunder Gauntlets.

With the new 2024 dual wielding rules even with the feat you can only wield one non-light weapon. Does that mean that in the 2024 rules its impossible for the Armorer to attack with both gauntlets?

I don't see anytying that would actually need to change to use an artificer.  They are probably just going to feel weak since every class got buffed overall and artificers weren't exactly super powerful 5e.

-You'd need to use updated spells 
-You'd probably want to add weapon masteries to battlesmith and armorer
-I'd probably give them the crafter origin feat for free just to keep the theme

I'd warn players that alchemist and artillerist is going to feel pretty weak

I think the Artificer might appear in the 5e24 DMG. I'm not really sure if the class actually needs any updates as it's fairly balanced and new. It's spells are already updated with the new core rules as will Magic Items be when the new DMG comes out. 

Maybe Artificer might get Weapon Masteries? I think that's the only thing I would like to see.

i highly doubht they will put a class in the DMG since it isnt player facing content,

it will either come out when they release the first Tashas/Xanathars style splat book.

Honestly I haven't seen anything that would need any changes to have them work with the new phb.  

The only issue I see is that Artificers (other than maybe the battlesmiths), are going to feel pretty weak in comparison to the new stuff.

Basically every other class has bee buffed, some things that were a little over powered towned down but as a whole PCs will be stronger.  Artificers were never really powerhouses, and some of the subclasses were actually pretty weak, so without some homebrew they will probably feel like they are a bit out classed by others.

Seems the Artificer is stuck with 2014 Spells unless I'm missing something. 

Quote from Fatewalker1 >>

Seems the Artificer is stuck with 2014 Spells unless I'm missing something. 

 Yep. Seems so. Checking the character sheet any PHB spells the class grants you are the legacy versions of those spells. Putting a new background on an Artificer can get you the non-legacy versions, through Magic Initiate, but that's 2 cantrips and 1 1st level spell.

I'm guessing that due to Artificer falling under "Expanded Rules" instead of "Core Rules" it's going to be low priority to fix too. So it might be a while.

It will probably stay under Expanded rules because Core rules only includes what's published in a PHB, unless they surprise us and drop it with the DMG.

I know a lot of people wished the artificer had better theming that was more consistent with the fantasy setting, me included. I'm hoping that the next update pivots more around the artificer methods than the results. Making a gun that's a spellcasting focus seems like something you could achieve with flavoring rather than something that needs to take up an entire subclass, especially now that firearms are in the PHB. Same with Battle Smith and their "find familiar robot".

I've seen lots of really great ideas on the forums and on reddit over the years, and I think a lot of them would make much better subclasses than what we have now. Stuff like a Runecrafter (a la fighter's Rune Knight), a magic item expert (coax an extra charge or two out of that enchanted staff). There's lots of weapon buff and smite-like spells now too, it would be great to have someone who knows those and could stick them into your weapons ahead of time.

My believe is that, like a lot of the other classes "alternate" rule introduced in TCoE, was a test bed from some of the bigger features. For example, its was the first half cast that gets it spell casting  feature at level 1. 

 I don't think that they will be doing much changes to the class in the coming years. 

I really don't understand the issue with the Artificer Theme, but that's probably because I was into MTG before DnD where Artificer was a main them of the setting and they typically are not very Sci-fi. I think DnD leaned heavily into wording based off of the Ebberon Setting which also isn't Sci-fi to me but more so than MTG Artificers. 

Quote from Bodanger >>

I don't see anytying that would actually need to change to use an artificer.  They are probably just going to feel weak since every class got buffed overall and artificers weren't exactly super powerful 5e.

-You'd need to use updated spells 
-You'd probably want to add weapon masteries to battlesmith and armorer
-I'd probably give them the crafter origin feat for free just to keep the theme

I'd warn players that alchemist and artillerist is going to feel pretty weak

Tool Expertise isn't a thing in 2024 so the Level 6 class feature will need to be replaced.

College of Valor Bard is similar to Battle Smith or Armorer and doesn't get Weapon Mastery so I don't think Artificer would when/if updated. The current trend is the class gets it at level 1 or never.

As an aside, Magical Tinkering is basically a collection of cantrips and could probably be replaced with the Wizard's cantrip feature, but it's not necessarily. Also, based on the changes to Warlock, we could see infusions bumped up to a level 1 feature with 2 known and 1 infused item.