So, this topic has come up recently through the "Least Favorite Classes of D&D" poll thread on this forum, so to avoid further derailment of that thread, I decided to move that topic to a thread of its own.
Ever since Eberron first came out nearly 20 years ago in 3.5e D&D, it has received criticism from a lot of people in the hobby that feel that it doesn't fit the "fantasy" aspects of the game. People have derided Warforged as "just robots", called the setting "steampunk", and said that Artificers, the class that was designed for the setting, are too "Sci-Fi for D&D". Over time, there seem to be less people that make these complaints, but they still come up fairly regularly and it's clear that some people are still salty about Eberron being added to the game. However, this thread isn't about defending Eberron, because there have been over discussions about that over the past couple decades, I'm just explaining the original root of this thread's topic. This thread is specifically about Artificers, and how they're both not specific to Eberron in concept and also are not "too Sci-Fi for D&D".
Let's get started!
Artificers Aren't Sci-Fi. So What Are They?
For people who either haven't played the class or aren't familiar with them, I'll summarize what Artificers are like, quoting parts of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything to support my claims.
The core idea of artificers are not a new idea in D&D. Though they were introduced to D&D through Eberron in 3.5e, their main concept predates it by at least another decade. And the aspects of D&D that ended up combining into the class have been around for even longer.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything states:
Masters of invention, artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions.
Artificers are, simply put, "magical crafters". They are people that combine "crafting" and "magic" in D&D. Essentially, they are a meta-explanation for why magic items, magical constructs, and any magical technology in D&D exist. Before Artificers existed, most of these things were created by mages, or gods/demigods, or alchemists, or tinker gnomes. However, Artificers came along and decided to combine them all into one class idea and explain how these creatures and items were being made.
And due to this, the Artificer is a very diverse class in the amount of archetypes it can include. They cover everything from Alchemists to wandslingers to magic armorers to construct-crafters just officially in D&D 5e. There are also additional concepts that would make sense to fit underneath the Artificer class, like Dr. Frankenstein-style Flesh-stitchers (which would be a great fit for Ravenloft), to magic vehicle crafters/pilots (which would be amazing for Spelljammer, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and Descent into Avernus), to magic toy-makers, to famous inventors (Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci), to gods of historical pantheons (Hephaestus/Vulcan, Goibniu, and possibly Odin and Athena), to Dwarven Smiths from Norse Mythology, and plenty of other concepts.
So, very obviously, artificers aren't any more "Sci-Fi" than base D&D, just like Forge Domain Clerics and Tinker Gnomes aren't. If anything, they're "magitek", and only for some versions of them (it would be hard to argue that Alchemists or Battle Smiths are "magitek" for example). And, in case "magitek" isn't your thing, you can always tone down that part of their theme and make the class more of an anomaly in your world.
Artificers Aren't Specific to Eberron
Now, while Eberron was created under the assumption that magic is this setting's version of technology, so magic crafters that design new races and weapons of war absolutely fit the setting, Eberron is definitely not the only setting you could find an Artificer in. In fact, I would argue that basically any official D&D setting from the history of the hobby could just as easily include Artificers as any other class, if not more easily for certain options (it's pretty hard to justify having Monks in Theros, just for one example). And here's why: If the setting you're playing/running a campaign in includes D&D's standard magic items, magical constructs, and/orany other magical technology,it also makes sense for Artificers to be present in that setting. They certainly don't have to be as common or world-changing in the setting as they are in Eberron, but they definitely make sense for more official settings than they don't make sense for.
Artificers were designed to explain why most of the magical objects (and objects-turned-creatures) in D&D exist. Do Golems, helmed horrors, and awakened flying swords exist in your D&D world? Do standard magic items, such as a flame tongue, daern's instant fortress, or potion exist in your D&D world? Do magical vehicles (such as Spelljamming Ships or airships), Eldritch Machines (or any similar items), or any other powerful magic structures exist in your D&D world? If you answered yes to any of these questions, it also makes sense for Artificers to exist in your D&D world.
If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, the worshippers of Gond and Lantan exist (and Netheril used to). If you're playing in Spelljammer, the Arcane, Tinker Gnomes (and Autognomes), and energy weapons exist. If you're playing in Dragonlance, the Tinker Gnomes and magic items exist. If you're playing in Greyhawk, Rock Gnomes, Leuk-O, Kwalish, Lum the Mad, and the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks come from that setting. If you're playing in Ravnica, the Izzet and Simic Guilds exist. If you're playing in Theros, Purphoros and his automata exist. If you're playing in Ravenloft, basically everything about Lamordia justifies Artificers existing in the setting (although there's no official "Dr. Frankenstein" artificer subclass yet). Planescape has Mechanus and permanent magical gates to other worlds/planes. Mystara has flying cities and skygnomes.
In my opinion, it would be just as hard to argue that Artificers only belong in Eberron as it would be to argue that Psionics only belongs in Dark Sun. Sure, Artificers are more prominent in Eberron just like Psions are more prominent in Dark Sun, but there are a ton of ways to include both classes/concepts in basically any other setting in the game and the fact that they're more important in one setting doesn't mean they have no place in another.
In Conclusion . . .
You don't have to like Artificers, but they're not Sci-Fi and they're not (and shouldn't be) specific to Eberron. I'm fine if you don't like them or include them in your campaigns/worlds, however, they do fit thematically in basically every official D&D setting in 5e, and most settings from previous editions.
I don't get complaints about "too sci-fi." One of the classic D&D modules, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, had the heroes find a crashed space ship and included items like powered armor, laser rifles, and vibroblades. Then there are things like the entire Spelljammer setting. Sci-fi, steampunk, and magitech have all been part of D&D since the beginning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Artificers are explicitly an attempt at creating sci-fi flavor while saying "but it's actually magic!" It's casting a basic spell, like cure wounds, but adding in the explanation that you mix up an alchemical solution and inject it into the person instead of just casting the freaking spell. The entire class is just an elaborate and overly complex excuse to shoehorn Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne into an otherwise traditional fantasy setting. It works fine with Eberron because Eberron was designed to have that sort of flavor. If you want that in your homebrew setting then the same goes there. In most settings, however, it pretty much comes off with all the narrative smoothness of "Doctor Who in Middle Earth" except instead of the blatant lamp shading and eyerolling as part of the humor it's being played straight which makes it painfully obvious that nothing about that character belongs there.
The problem with artificers and their magitech flavor is (a) it only works in settings that actually have that flavor and (b) most of the time you see people playing artificers is because they want that flavor in settings that don't have it. There are other rules for other classes that just straightforwardly cast magic to create magic items without the trappings of a "mad scientist." And that's not to say it's an attempt at introducing science fiction because the classic mad scientist tropes aren't really based in science it all. It's just a different flavor of fantasy. You don't need artificers to explain the existence of golems and magic swords because a wizard did it, literally. My go to examples of artificer inspiration/archetype characters are Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne, and allow me to be clear that those characters come from works that I absolutely love. If you haven't read Mary Shelley's original novella Frankenstein then your knowledge of classic literature is severely lacking. And if you're at all interested in this subject at all you should read the web comic Girl Genius by Phil and Kaja Foglio because that's what happens when very creative people who have read Shelley and other classic authors from when science fiction and fantasy were functionally indistinguishable (Jules Verne, and HG Wells also come to mind). And if you have read Frankenstein and Girl Genius then you will notice that those works very auspiciously lack freaking wizards.
What you usually get with somebody bringing an artificer character into a setting that was not designed with them and there flavor in mind is their desire to force their flavor on the setting by pulling nonsense like saying "it says I'm proficient in firearms so I can totally be the one person who invents guns in the setting. Also, just wait until you hear about my death ray that's just a reskinned lightning bolt but since the flavor doesn't really make sense with only being able to fire it a few times per day I think it would work a lot better if it has unlimited uses don't you agree?"
Artificers are mechanically fine, as a magic using class. Their flavor just doesn't fit in a lot of settings. It's also the kind of flavor that doesn't even need to exist in any setting that already has other magical classes. Any official material for artificers should be packaged with an actual shoehorn to remind DMs that they're going to have to figure out a way to cram the entire mad scientist flavor into their campaigns.
And as far as I'm concerned, psionics and Dark Sun can both stay where they currently are in relation to cannon 5e D&D: not in it. I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again here, psionics is just a different way of flavoring magic or the same kind of stuff that magic does while screaming "it's not magic!" It's the same deal as shoehorning in a completely different flavor as artificers tend to be, but it also comes with additional and unnecessarily complex rules that only exist for the purpose of saying "it's not magic!" As to Dark Sun I just don't like it, and I'm pretty sure if more than a few random screaming people on forums really wanted it we'd have already seen it.
I just personally find “oh but I have a cannon also” to be a playstyle that does not appeal to the elements of D&D I want to roleplay as a character—and certainly not enough to play a class which is already suboptimal. That’s not to say the class cannot work in a D&D campaign—dwarves and artificery have always been pretty closely tied—nor that I would not let a player choose artificer if I were DMing, just that none of its subclasses appeal to me, particularly Artillerist, which is generally regarded as the best in a mostly mediocre class.
Which, of course is my opinion. I am sure someone who spent dozens of pages making the same point and then still saw fit to make a whole new thread on the topic, might have a different set of flavour preferences. Which is A-okay and exactly what makes D&D great—the only wrong way to play D&D is the way where you make your own personal table miserable.
Artificers are explicitly an attempt at creating sci-fi flavor while saying "but it's actually magic!" It's casting a basic spell, like cure wounds, but adding in the explanation that you mix up an alchemical solution and inject it into the person instead of just casting the freaking spell. The entire class is just an elaborate and overly complex excuse to shoehorn Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne into an otherwise traditional fantasy setting. It works fine with Eberron because Eberron was designed to have that sort of flavor. If you want that in your homebrew setting then the same goes there. In most settings, however, it pretty much comes off with all the narrative smoothness of "Doctor Who in Middle Earth" except instead of the blatant lamp shading and eyerolling as part of the humor it's being played straight which makes it painfully obvious that nothing about that character belongs there.
"Typical fantasy setting"? What the hell do you mean? D&D does not have just one fantasy setting, and most of its settings are definitely not "typical".
And, no, this part of the post is so wrong that it hurts. Did you even read my post? Because, to me it feels like you only read the thread's title and decided to rant about it. As I stated in the OP, Artificers work for Eberron, the Forgotten Realms (there's even a whole island nation devoted to it, Lantan), Greyhawk (because it already has powerful magical inventors), Ravenloft (because of Lamordia), Spelljammer (Arcane, Tinker Gnomes, and Autognomes), Theros (because Purphoros), Ravnica (because Izzet and Simic), Dragonlance (Tinker Gnomes), and a bunch of other settings.
How in the world would "magical crafters" as a class feel out of place in any of those settings? "Magical Crafters" already exist in literally all of the ones I listed.
The problem with artificers and their magitech flavor is (a) it only works in settings that actually have that flavor and (b) most of the time you see people playing artificers is because they want that flavor in settings that don't have it.
A) So, most settings, as I demonstrated in the OP. It makes sense in literally every official setting in D&D 5e to include Artificers. All of them. Read the OP before you respond to the thread, please.
B) That's entirely table dependent and, as I demonstrated already, it's really hard to find official settings where Artificers don't fit.
There are other rules for other classes that just straightforwardly cast magic to create magic items without the trappings of a "mad scientist." And that's not to say it's an attempt at introducing science fiction because the classic mad scientist tropes aren't really based in science it all. It's just a different flavor of fantasy. You don't need artificers to explain the existence of golems and magic swords because a wizard did it, literally. My go to examples of artificer inspiration/archetype characters are Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne, and allow me to be clear that those characters come from works that I absolutely love. If you haven't read Mary Shelley's original novella Frankenstein then your knowledge of classic literature is severely lacking. And if you're at all interested in this subject at all you should read the web comic Girl Genius by Phil and Kaja Foglio because that's what happens when very creative people who have read Shelley and other classic authors from when science fiction and fantasy were functionally indistinguishable (Jules Verne, and HG Wells also come to mind). And if you have read Frankenstein and Girl Genius then you will notice that those works very auspiciously lack freaking wizards.
And there are rules for casting spells without you having to play a Wizard. Doesn't mean that the Wizard class shouldn't exist, though. Also, I know this is a nitpick, but "mad scientist" is not the default flavor of artificers. It fits into the diverse array of character concepts that the class includes, but it is definitely not assumed or a "trapping" in the class.
Also, if your mind immediately leaps to Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne (who I am not that familiar with, though I do understand the base premise of the webcomic you're referencing), you are correct that those characters would probably fall under the Artificer class, but they are definitely not the best examples and the class is much more diverse than just those two. Here are some more examples of characters/people that would fall into this class:
Nicolas Flamel would be an Alchemist.
Archimedes would probably be an Artillerist.
Hephaestus would be a Battle Smith.
Daedalus
Navani Kholin and other artifabrians from the Stormlight Archive
Most Dwarves from Norse Mythology (Blitz from the Magnus Chase series is a good example, and is probably an Armorer)
Leo from the Heroes of Olympus is definitely a Battle Smith
Varric from Dragon Age (probably Sandal, Branka, and Caridin, too)
Leonardo Da Vinci
You are right that "mad scientist" or "artificer" is a different type of fantasy from "wizard". However, that is not a bad thing, because D&D incorporates a lot of different fantasy into the game (Ravenloft for Horror, Theros for Mythic, Eberron for Magitek, Dark Sun for Sword and Sorcery Psionics, Spelljammer for Space Fantasy, Planescape for Planar Fantasy, Dragonlance for Epic Fantasy, et cetera) and the fact that "artificer" is a different type of fantasy from "wizard" further justifies it being a separate class.
What you usually get with somebody bringing an artificer character into a setting that was not designed with them and there flavor in mind is their desire to force their flavor on the setting by pulling nonsense like saying "it says I'm proficient in firearms so I can totally be the one person who invents guns in the setting. Also, just wait until you hear about my death ray that's just a reskinned lightning bolt but since the flavor doesn't really make sense with only being able to fire it a few times per day I think it would work a lot better if it has unlimited uses don't you agree?"
If you're getting those kinds of questions, it's the player that's the problem, not the class. The class makes it clear that firearm proficiency is optional and dependent on the DM's approval, and the player trying to justify having infinite spell slots would work just as easily on literally any other spellcasting class. This is not specific to or the fault of the Artificer class. That's you playing with problem players.
1) Artificers are mechanically fine, as a magic using class. 2) Their flavor just doesn't fit in a lot of settings. 3) It's also the kind of flavor that doesn't even need to exist in any setting that already has other magical classes. 4) Any official material for artificers should be packaged with an actual shoehorn to remind DMs that they're going to have to figure out a way to cram the entire mad scientist flavor into their campaigns.
1) Artificers are a magic using class, so . . . I'm not sure what your point is. The class is literally designed around the assumption that they're magic, create magic items and companions, and cast spells. So, no problem here. 2) Demonstrably untrue, as I proved in the OP. They fit the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Planescape, Ravenloft, Exandria, Theros, Ravnica, and practically every other official setting in the history of D&D. 3) This logic can be applied to every class in the game. We already have an arcane caster (Wizard), so we don't need Bards, Sorcerers, or Warlocks. However, people like those classes and the niches they fill, want to play them, and include them in their world design, so they're in the hobby. Also "need" is a strong word when it comes to D&D. Nothing in the game "needs" to exist. Plenty of things do exist because people "want" them, though. 4) Artificers are not restricted to being "mad scientists", and the class already comes packaged with a bunch of different justifications to how it can exist in not just your homebrew settings but a bunch of official ones, too.
And as far as I'm concerned, psionics and Dark Sun can both stay where they currently are in relation to cannon 5e D&D: not in it. I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again here, psionics is just a different way of flavoring magic or the same kind of stuff that magic does while screaming "it's not magic!" It's the same deal as shoehorning in a completely different flavor as artificers tend to be, but it also comes with additional and unnecessarily complex rules that only exist for the purpose of saying "it's not magic!" As to Dark Sun I just don't like it, and I'm pretty sure if more than a few random screaming people on forums really wanted it we'd have already seen it.
So . . . do you not use Aberrations, either? Do you not include Telepathy or Telekinesis? You don't think Psionics should exist in the game, even just as spellcasting? Because I never said that the Psion needs to be a separate class in 5e. I personally would like to have one and know several people that agree, but I was more addressing the idea of having Psionics as a playable archetype (whether it's spellcasting or a new system), while specifically designed to fit Dark Sun really well, also has a bunch of justifications for existing in other settings (Aberrations and the Far Realm, the Astral and Ethereal Planes, Dal Quor in Eberron, Sardior and Gem Dragons/Dragonborn in most D&D settings, et cetera).
This thread really isn't a place to rehash the psionics debate. I was more referencing the fact that Psionics, while important to Dark Sun, definitely isn't/should be restricted to that setting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Alchemist is definitely the easiest to flavour as belonging to a lower magic setting. Start as hexblood and take homunculus servant and you've basically got a classic 'witch'.
I'm surprised this thread is needed over some rather... un-needed commentary, but Artificer is extremely fantasy flavoured, and Third Sundering is wholly correct in his calculated guesses in my mind.
But I guess its like the lineage rules, the Tasha's Cauldron debacle, the Psion, MP: MotM's controversy, and similar - it seems like everyone is getting very opinionated around D&D topics, including myself, and we need to reconsider whether it is actually needed: it is a fantasy game, not American politics!
FWIW, I totally agree with Third Sundering and Yamana_Eajii. I think the Artificer adds a lot of depth to almost any 5e setting where magical craftspeople could conceivably exist. If the DM doesn’t like them, they don’t have to use them, but I’m really glad the option is there.
I wonder if people have a similar reaction as I did. The subclass I read first was Artillerist, and I'm really not a fan of guns in D&D. Not that they exist in people's games, but having them in my games. I like swords and sorcery rather than guns. The idea of a cannon was not what I wanted, and was put off of the class. Later, I read the other subclasses and warmed up to the class overall. Not a fan of having the Artillerist, although a reskin would probably solve the tone issues.
Other than being a PC class, it's not particularly egregious example, though. In RotFM, you can get bona fide laser guns. It is a different tone to what most people think when they think of D&D, but magitek and advanced technology is a part of fantasy now whether they like it or not - eg Deemed in The Elder Scrolls.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Quote from Third_SunderingD&D does not have just one fantasy setting, and most of its settings are definitely not "typical".
Whaddaya mean?
D&D settings basically define what is typical. Also, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk are as bog standard as anything imaginable, and Raveloft is only very slightly off in that it has a shade deeper shadows than most. Dark Sun is darker, like Ravenloft, but otherwise differs only in climate. Planescape isn't official these days, which really only leaves Spelljammer, and Eberron.
Anyways, on the artificer thing: The artificer matches a particular niche in storytelling. The one ring was crafted by Sauron, Mjøner was crafed by the dwarves, Narsil was forged by Telchar - and so on. I don't know all RPG's, but I know quite a few, and the crafting of magic items has always been kept carefully controlled - and mostly away from players. Or, alternatively, utterly broken.
So the artificer isn't just a natural fit for any setting. If you want your legendary magic items to be legendary - rather than made by that guy down the street - you cannot have artificers in a setting. And conversely, if you feel magic is best served by being common as muck, basically a fantasy equivalent of electricity, then yes, artificers are great.
Whether you find that 'sci-fi'-ish or not is semantics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Quote from Third_SunderingD&D does not have just one fantasy setting, and most of its settings are definitely not "typical".
Whaddaya mean?
D&D settings basically define what is typical. Also, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Greyhawk are as bog standard as anything imaginable, and Raveloft is only very slightly off in that it has a shade deeper shadows than most. Dark Sun is darker, like Ravenloft, but otherwise differs only in climate. Planescape isn't official these days, which really only leaves Spelljammer, and Eberron.
Anyways, on the artificer thing: The artificer matches a particular niche in storytelling. The one ring was crafted by Sauron, Mjøner was crafed by the dwarves, Narsil was forged by Telchar - and so on. I don't know all RPG's, but I know quite a few, and the crafting of magic items has always been kept carefully controlled - and mostly away from players. Or, alternatively, utterly broken.
So the artificer isn't just a natural fit for any setting. If you want your legendary magic items to be legendary - rather than made by that guy down the street - you cannot have artificers in a setting. And conversely, if you feel magic is best served by being common as muck, basically a fantasy equivalent of electricity, then yes, artificers are great.
Whether you find that 'sci-fi'-ish or not is semantics.
Adventurers are extraordinary people. It doesn’t make magic items super common to have one artificer in the party out of millions of people.
Also, artificers are everywhere in Eberron and if anything, legendary magical items are rarer there than they are in the Forgotten Realms. The artificers produce mostly cheap things because that's what people can afford to buy- there's no market for a Staff of the Magi, nor are there many artificers capable of crafting one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think this is an issue of what artificers are, but rather how they have been presented. They are the poster child for settings that lean more towards steampunk or sci-fi, and their art really plays this up. I agree that this is just one possible description of an artificer's powers, but it's the one WotC keeps using in its artwork and presentation. So it's not that surprising that many people pigeonhole them into that category.
I think it would help a lot if they got a few subclasses that were default fantasy that you could reflavor as steampunk instead of the other way around. Like a Golem Keeper or Enchanter or something.
Personally I like them a lot and I love the breadth of concepts you can explore by reflavoring their features.
I don't think this is an issue of what artificers are, but rather how they have been presented. They are the poster child for settings that lean more towards steampunk or sci-fi, and their art really plays this up. I agree that this is just one possible description of an artificer's powers, but it's the one WotC keeps using in its artwork and presentation. So it's not that surprising that many people pigeonhole them into that category.
I think this perfectly sums them up. If you were to cast aside how they are presented, I think I see Artificers as the 'Scientists' of D&D. In a world of Gods, Monsters, Magic and Myths, I like the idea that Artificers are a Class that have learned to study how the (fictional) world works. Consequently, they become a master of chemistry, Iron Man, Magic Turret user or Droid Builder thanks to their commitment to invention.
Plus, it's nice that there's a Class that makes use of Intelligence as a stat - unless you are a Wizard or some Rogue/Blood Hunter build, Intelligence is 5E's forgotten ability.
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Adventurers are extraordinary people. It doesn’t make magic items super common to have one artificer in the party out of millions of people.
Well - that's debatable. I'll say sure, not necessarily. But I'd argue that while a wizard needs quite a bit of experience and work to begin making real money from crafting, an artificer can make a fortune starting at level 1.
And that's different. You cannot really have a setting with artificers, and still argue that magic is rare. It's selfcontradictory. I mean you could, but I for one wouldn't be convinced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Adventurers are extraordinary people. It doesn’t make magic items super common to have one artificer in the party out of millions of people.
Well - that's debatable. I'll say sure, not necessarily. But I'd argue that while a wizard needs quite a bit of experience and work to begin making real money from crafting, an artificer can make a fortune starting at level 1.
And that's different. You cannot really have a setting with artificers, and still argue that magic is rare. It's selfcontradictory. I mean you could, but I for one wouldn't be convinced.
Artificers are rare. And in Eberron, magic is not rare at all. Even in Forgotten Realms it’s relatively common, at least for the upper classes, which include adventurers (at least adventurers who have been around long enough to reach mid-level and become local celebrities).
Even in low-magic settings, all you need to do to fix the problems is have artificers be a rare breed, like nuclear engineers. There are only a few of them and it takes years of study to become an artificer and they can’t just mass produce magic items.
Adventurers are extraordinary people. It doesn’t make magic items super common to have one artificer in the party out of millions of people.
Well - that's debatable. I'll say sure, not necessarily. But I'd argue that while a wizard needs quite a bit of experience and work to begin making real money from crafting, an artificer can make a fortune starting at level 1.
And that's different. You cannot really have a setting with artificers, and still argue that magic is rare. It's selfcontradictory. I mean you could, but I for one wouldn't be convinced.
Artificers are rare.
Speaking as someone who personally has little interest in the class, it really, really is not hard to come up with ways to argue “setting with artificers where magic is rare.”
A world with very little magic that requires some kind of mechanical system that is more efficient at channeling scant magic than a wizard could ever be?
Or there’s the old adage that a creator puts their soul into everything they create; have artificers be able to draw upon the power of that soul to power their skills without drawing on magic itself?
Or just reskin them to not use magic at all, only using spell slots for their mechanical purpose, not as a representation of magical energy?
Or any number of other ways someone with even a modicum of imagination could come up with to solve the nonexistent contradiction you suggest.
I don't think that the Artificer is "too scifi" mechanically speaking, but automated cannons, robot dogs and power armor don't exactly scream fantasy to me either. I think the class is perfectly fine in most campaigns if you take the time to design the character to fit within the "flavor" of the setting.
BUT
I don't like Artificer because none of the subclasses appeal to me as a player. I like Battle Master, but don't generally like to play pet classes, which is kind of where Artillerist fails for me as well. Armor is too far towards scifi for me to "not see it" even when I have tried to, but I have heard some good examples of "reskinning" that are cool, but again I will always just see Iron Man. Alchemist is not a bad choice when it come to theme, but kind of fails to interest me mechanically. Hopefully one day there will be a new subclass or four that comes out that makes me want to play the class. Fingers crossed, but I am not holding my breath.
I'm not into artificers myself, but I do think in general players don't get creative enough with re-skins, re-flavors, and alternate explanations. You can play a warlock who does not have a patron. You can come up with countless alternate explanations for why you have your gifts. You can play a Barbarian who dips into fighter, and you're just a Barbarian who has extra skills. With Artificers you don't even have change anything.
A direct copy & paste of the written Artificer lore: "Throughout the D&D multiverse, artificers create inventions and magic items of peace and war."
Inventions are not a unique concept to futuristic sci-fi settings. Another poster brought up Leonardo da Vinci, which I think is a brilliant reference. From Wikipedia:
Revered for his technological ingenuity, he conceptualized flying machines, a type of armored fighting vehicle, concentrated solar power, a ratio machine that could be used in an adding machine, and the double hull. Relatively few of his designs were constructed or even feasible during his lifetime, as the modern scientific approaches to metallurgy and engineering were only in their infancy during the Renaissance. Some of his smaller inventions, however, entered the world of manufacturing unheralded, such as an automated bobbin winder and a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire. He made substantial discoveries in anatomy, civil engineering, hydrodynamics, geology, optics, and tribology,
One objection could be the part in red, but now consider that the D&D world contains magic. Combined with the Artificer's ingenuity, this bridges the gap between what existed during that period in the real world, and what artificers produce in the D&D fantasy world. Now also consider the fantasy world does contain a plethora magic items. Someone had to have produced them, and usually there is no explanation. You just plundered that +1 longsword off of the Orc's corps and move on. Well, now there's an explanation.
As for the Alchemist, being able to hand out bottled 1st-level spell equivalents is pretty cool. If one actually looks at the Alchemical lore behind “The Elixir,” it’s made from scrapings off of a Philosophers’ Stone, so the randomness actually kinda makes sense. And then being able to expend spell slots to channel which variation you get makes more sense, as does the speed at which you can whip them up.
So, this topic has come up recently through the "Least Favorite Classes of D&D" poll thread on this forum, so to avoid further derailment of that thread, I decided to move that topic to a thread of its own.
Ever since Eberron first came out nearly 20 years ago in 3.5e D&D, it has received criticism from a lot of people in the hobby that feel that it doesn't fit the "fantasy" aspects of the game. People have derided Warforged as "just robots", called the setting "steampunk", and said that Artificers, the class that was designed for the setting, are too "Sci-Fi for D&D". Over time, there seem to be less people that make these complaints, but they still come up fairly regularly and it's clear that some people are still salty about Eberron being added to the game. However, this thread isn't about defending Eberron, because there have been over discussions about that over the past couple decades, I'm just explaining the original root of this thread's topic. This thread is specifically about Artificers, and how they're both not specific to Eberron in concept and also are not "too Sci-Fi for D&D".
Let's get started!
Artificers Aren't Sci-Fi. So What Are They?
For people who either haven't played the class or aren't familiar with them, I'll summarize what Artificers are like, quoting parts of Tasha's Cauldron of Everything to support my claims.
The core idea of artificers are not a new idea in D&D. Though they were introduced to D&D through Eberron in 3.5e, their main concept predates it by at least another decade. And the aspects of D&D that ended up combining into the class have been around for even longer.
Tasha's Cauldron of Everything states:
Artificers are, simply put, "magical crafters". They are people that combine "crafting" and "magic" in D&D. Essentially, they are a meta-explanation for why magic items, magical constructs, and any magical technology in D&D exist. Before Artificers existed, most of these things were created by mages, or gods/demigods, or alchemists, or tinker gnomes. However, Artificers came along and decided to combine them all into one class idea and explain how these creatures and items were being made.
And due to this, the Artificer is a very diverse class in the amount of archetypes it can include. They cover everything from Alchemists to wandslingers to magic armorers to construct-crafters just officially in D&D 5e. There are also additional concepts that would make sense to fit underneath the Artificer class, like Dr. Frankenstein-style Flesh-stitchers (which would be a great fit for Ravenloft), to magic vehicle crafters/pilots (which would be amazing for Spelljammer, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and Descent into Avernus), to magic toy-makers, to famous inventors (Archimedes and Leonardo Da Vinci), to gods of historical pantheons (Hephaestus/Vulcan, Goibniu, and possibly Odin and Athena), to Dwarven Smiths from Norse Mythology, and plenty of other concepts.
So, very obviously, artificers aren't any more "Sci-Fi" than base D&D, just like Forge Domain Clerics and Tinker Gnomes aren't. If anything, they're "magitek", and only for some versions of them (it would be hard to argue that Alchemists or Battle Smiths are "magitek" for example). And, in case "magitek" isn't your thing, you can always tone down that part of their theme and make the class more of an anomaly in your world.
Artificers Aren't Specific to Eberron
Now, while Eberron was created under the assumption that magic is this setting's version of technology, so magic crafters that design new races and weapons of war absolutely fit the setting, Eberron is definitely not the only setting you could find an Artificer in. In fact, I would argue that basically any official D&D setting from the history of the hobby could just as easily include Artificers as any other class, if not more easily for certain options (it's pretty hard to justify having Monks in Theros, just for one example). And here's why: If the setting you're playing/running a campaign in includes D&D's standard magic items, magical constructs, and/or any other magical technology, it also makes sense for Artificers to be present in that setting. They certainly don't have to be as common or world-changing in the setting as they are in Eberron, but they definitely make sense for more official settings than they don't make sense for.
Artificers were designed to explain why most of the magical objects (and objects-turned-creatures) in D&D exist. Do Golems, helmed horrors, and awakened flying swords exist in your D&D world? Do standard magic items, such as a flame tongue, daern's instant fortress, or potion exist in your D&D world? Do magical vehicles (such as Spelljamming Ships or airships), Eldritch Machines (or any similar items), or any other powerful magic structures exist in your D&D world? If you answered yes to any of these questions, it also makes sense for Artificers to exist in your D&D world.
If you're playing in the Forgotten Realms, the worshippers of Gond and Lantan exist (and Netheril used to). If you're playing in Spelljammer, the Arcane, Tinker Gnomes (and Autognomes), and energy weapons exist. If you're playing in Dragonlance, the Tinker Gnomes and magic items exist. If you're playing in Greyhawk, Rock Gnomes, Leuk-O, Kwalish, Lum the Mad, and the Expedition to the Barrier Peaks come from that setting. If you're playing in Ravnica, the Izzet and Simic Guilds exist. If you're playing in Theros, Purphoros and his automata exist. If you're playing in Ravenloft, basically everything about Lamordia justifies Artificers existing in the setting (although there's no official "Dr. Frankenstein" artificer subclass yet). Planescape has Mechanus and permanent magical gates to other worlds/planes. Mystara has flying cities and skygnomes.
In my opinion, it would be just as hard to argue that Artificers only belong in Eberron as it would be to argue that Psionics only belongs in Dark Sun. Sure, Artificers are more prominent in Eberron just like Psions are more prominent in Dark Sun, but there are a ton of ways to include both classes/concepts in basically any other setting in the game and the fact that they're more important in one setting doesn't mean they have no place in another.
In Conclusion . . .
You don't have to like Artificers, but they're not Sci-Fi and they're not (and shouldn't be) specific to Eberron. I'm fine if you don't like them or include them in your campaigns/worlds, however, they do fit thematically in basically every official D&D setting in 5e, and most settings from previous editions.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I don't get complaints about "too sci-fi." One of the classic D&D modules, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, had the heroes find a crashed space ship and included items like powered armor, laser rifles, and vibroblades. Then there are things like the entire Spelljammer setting. Sci-fi, steampunk, and magitech have all been part of D&D since the beginning.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Artificers are explicitly an attempt at creating sci-fi flavor while saying "but it's actually magic!" It's casting a basic spell, like cure wounds, but adding in the explanation that you mix up an alchemical solution and inject it into the person instead of just casting the freaking spell. The entire class is just an elaborate and overly complex excuse to shoehorn Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne into an otherwise traditional fantasy setting. It works fine with Eberron because Eberron was designed to have that sort of flavor. If you want that in your homebrew setting then the same goes there. In most settings, however, it pretty much comes off with all the narrative smoothness of "Doctor Who in Middle Earth" except instead of the blatant lamp shading and eyerolling as part of the humor it's being played straight which makes it painfully obvious that nothing about that character belongs there.
The problem with artificers and their magitech flavor is (a) it only works in settings that actually have that flavor and (b) most of the time you see people playing artificers is because they want that flavor in settings that don't have it. There are other rules for other classes that just straightforwardly cast magic to create magic items without the trappings of a "mad scientist." And that's not to say it's an attempt at introducing science fiction because the classic mad scientist tropes aren't really based in science it all. It's just a different flavor of fantasy. You don't need artificers to explain the existence of golems and magic swords because a wizard did it, literally. My go to examples of artificer inspiration/archetype characters are Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne, and allow me to be clear that those characters come from works that I absolutely love. If you haven't read Mary Shelley's original novella Frankenstein then your knowledge of classic literature is severely lacking. And if you're at all interested in this subject at all you should read the web comic Girl Genius by Phil and Kaja Foglio because that's what happens when very creative people who have read Shelley and other classic authors from when science fiction and fantasy were functionally indistinguishable (Jules Verne, and HG Wells also come to mind). And if you have read Frankenstein and Girl Genius then you will notice that those works very auspiciously lack freaking wizards.
What you usually get with somebody bringing an artificer character into a setting that was not designed with them and there flavor in mind is their desire to force their flavor on the setting by pulling nonsense like saying "it says I'm proficient in firearms so I can totally be the one person who invents guns in the setting. Also, just wait until you hear about my death ray that's just a reskinned lightning bolt but since the flavor doesn't really make sense with only being able to fire it a few times per day I think it would work a lot better if it has unlimited uses don't you agree?"
Artificers are mechanically fine, as a magic using class. Their flavor just doesn't fit in a lot of settings. It's also the kind of flavor that doesn't even need to exist in any setting that already has other magical classes. Any official material for artificers should be packaged with an actual shoehorn to remind DMs that they're going to have to figure out a way to cram the entire mad scientist flavor into their campaigns.
And as far as I'm concerned, psionics and Dark Sun can both stay where they currently are in relation to cannon 5e D&D: not in it. I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again here, psionics is just a different way of flavoring magic or the same kind of stuff that magic does while screaming "it's not magic!" It's the same deal as shoehorning in a completely different flavor as artificers tend to be, but it also comes with additional and unnecessarily complex rules that only exist for the purpose of saying "it's not magic!" As to Dark Sun I just don't like it, and I'm pretty sure if more than a few random screaming people on forums really wanted it we'd have already seen it.
I just personally find “oh but I have a cannon also” to be a playstyle that does not appeal to the elements of D&D I want to roleplay as a character—and certainly not enough to play a class which is already suboptimal. That’s not to say the class cannot work in a D&D campaign—dwarves and artificery have always been pretty closely tied—nor that I would not let a player choose artificer if I were DMing, just that none of its subclasses appeal to me, particularly Artillerist, which is generally regarded as the best in a mostly mediocre class.
Which, of course is my opinion. I am sure someone who spent dozens of pages making the same point and then still saw fit to make a whole new thread on the topic, might have a different set of flavour preferences. Which is A-okay and exactly what makes D&D great—the only wrong way to play D&D is the way where you make your own personal table miserable.
"Typical fantasy setting"? What the hell do you mean? D&D does not have just one fantasy setting, and most of its settings are definitely not "typical".
And, no, this part of the post is so wrong that it hurts. Did you even read my post? Because, to me it feels like you only read the thread's title and decided to rant about it. As I stated in the OP, Artificers work for Eberron, the Forgotten Realms (there's even a whole island nation devoted to it, Lantan), Greyhawk (because it already has powerful magical inventors), Ravenloft (because of Lamordia), Spelljammer (Arcane, Tinker Gnomes, and Autognomes), Theros (because Purphoros), Ravnica (because Izzet and Simic), Dragonlance (Tinker Gnomes), and a bunch of other settings.
How in the world would "magical crafters" as a class feel out of place in any of those settings? "Magical Crafters" already exist in literally all of the ones I listed.
A) So, most settings, as I demonstrated in the OP. It makes sense in literally every official setting in D&D 5e to include Artificers. All of them. Read the OP before you respond to the thread, please.
B) That's entirely table dependent and, as I demonstrated already, it's really hard to find official settings where Artificers don't fit.
And there are rules for casting spells without you having to play a Wizard. Doesn't mean that the Wizard class shouldn't exist, though. Also, I know this is a nitpick, but "mad scientist" is not the default flavor of artificers. It fits into the diverse array of character concepts that the class includes, but it is definitely not assumed or a "trapping" in the class.
Also, if your mind immediately leaps to Victor Frankenstein and Agatha Heterodyne (who I am not that familiar with, though I do understand the base premise of the webcomic you're referencing), you are correct that those characters would probably fall under the Artificer class, but they are definitely not the best examples and the class is much more diverse than just those two. Here are some more examples of characters/people that would fall into this class:
You are right that "mad scientist" or "artificer" is a different type of fantasy from "wizard". However, that is not a bad thing, because D&D incorporates a lot of different fantasy into the game (Ravenloft for Horror, Theros for Mythic, Eberron for Magitek, Dark Sun for Sword and
SorceryPsionics, Spelljammer for Space Fantasy, Planescape for Planar Fantasy, Dragonlance for Epic Fantasy, et cetera) and the fact that "artificer" is a different type of fantasy from "wizard" further justifies it being a separate class.If you're getting those kinds of questions, it's the player that's the problem, not the class. The class makes it clear that firearm proficiency is optional and dependent on the DM's approval, and the player trying to justify having infinite spell slots would work just as easily on literally any other spellcasting class. This is not specific to or the fault of the Artificer class. That's you playing with problem players.
1) Artificers are a magic using class, so . . . I'm not sure what your point is. The class is literally designed around the assumption that they're magic, create magic items and companions, and cast spells. So, no problem here.
2) Demonstrably untrue, as I proved in the OP. They fit the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Planescape, Ravenloft, Exandria, Theros, Ravnica, and practically every other official setting in the history of D&D.
3) This logic can be applied to every class in the game. We already have an arcane caster (Wizard), so we don't need Bards, Sorcerers, or Warlocks. However, people like those classes and the niches they fill, want to play them, and include them in their world design, so they're in the hobby. Also "need" is a strong word when it comes to D&D. Nothing in the game "needs" to exist. Plenty of things do exist because people "want" them, though.
4) Artificers are not restricted to being "mad scientists", and the class already comes packaged with a bunch of different justifications to how it can exist in not just your homebrew settings but a bunch of official ones, too.
So . . . do you not use Aberrations, either? Do you not include Telepathy or Telekinesis? You don't think Psionics should exist in the game, even just as spellcasting? Because I never said that the Psion needs to be a separate class in 5e. I personally would like to have one and know several people that agree, but I was more addressing the idea of having Psionics as a playable archetype (whether it's spellcasting or a new system), while specifically designed to fit Dark Sun really well, also has a bunch of justifications for existing in other settings (Aberrations and the Far Realm, the Astral and Ethereal Planes, Dal Quor in Eberron, Sardior and Gem Dragons/Dragonborn in most D&D settings, et cetera).
This thread really isn't a place to rehash the psionics debate. I was more referencing the fact that Psionics, while important to Dark Sun, definitely isn't/should be restricted to that setting.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Alchemist is definitely the easiest to flavour as belonging to a lower magic setting. Start as hexblood and take homunculus servant and you've basically got a classic 'witch'.
I'm surprised this thread is needed over some rather... un-needed commentary, but Artificer is extremely fantasy flavoured, and Third Sundering is wholly correct in his calculated guesses in my mind.
But I guess its like the lineage rules, the Tasha's Cauldron debacle, the Psion, MP: MotM's controversy, and similar - it seems like everyone is getting very opinionated around D&D topics, including myself, and we need to reconsider whether it is actually needed: it is a fantasy game, not American politics!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
FWIW, I totally agree with Third Sundering and Yamana_Eajii. I think the Artificer adds a lot of depth to almost any 5e setting where magical craftspeople could conceivably exist. If the DM doesn’t like them, they don’t have to use them, but I’m really glad the option is there.
I wonder if people have a similar reaction as I did. The subclass I read first was Artillerist, and I'm really not a fan of guns in D&D. Not that they exist in people's games, but having them in my games. I like swords and sorcery rather than guns. The idea of a cannon was not what I wanted, and was put off of the class. Later, I read the other subclasses and warmed up to the class overall. Not a fan of having the Artillerist, although a reskin would probably solve the tone issues.
Other than being a PC class, it's not particularly egregious example, though. In RotFM, you can get bona fide laser guns. It is a different tone to what most people think when they think of D&D, but magitek and advanced technology is a part of fantasy now whether they like it or not - eg Deemed in The Elder Scrolls.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Adventurers are extraordinary people. It doesn’t make magic items super common to have one artificer in the party out of millions of people.
Also, artificers are everywhere in Eberron and if anything, legendary magical items are rarer there than they are in the Forgotten Realms. The artificers produce mostly cheap things because that's what people can afford to buy- there's no market for a Staff of the Magi, nor are there many artificers capable of crafting one.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't think this is an issue of what artificers are, but rather how they have been presented. They are the poster child for settings that lean more towards steampunk or sci-fi, and their art really plays this up. I agree that this is just one possible description of an artificer's powers, but it's the one WotC keeps using in its artwork and presentation. So it's not that surprising that many people pigeonhole them into that category.
I think it would help a lot if they got a few subclasses that were default fantasy that you could reflavor as steampunk instead of the other way around. Like a Golem Keeper or Enchanter or something.
Personally I like them a lot and I love the breadth of concepts you can explore by reflavoring their features.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Before I give my opinion, I should state I've never played an Artificer myself but I've been in campaigns where a Player has played one.
I think this perfectly sums them up. If you were to cast aside how they are presented, I think I see Artificers as the 'Scientists' of D&D. In a world of Gods, Monsters, Magic and Myths, I like the idea that Artificers are a Class that have learned to study how the (fictional) world works. Consequently, they become a master of chemistry, Iron Man, Magic Turret user or Droid Builder thanks to their commitment to invention.
Plus, it's nice that there's a Class that makes use of Intelligence as a stat - unless you are a Wizard or some Rogue/Blood Hunter build, Intelligence is 5E's forgotten ability.
#Open D&D
Have the Physical Books? Confused as to why you're not allowed to redeem them for free on D&D Beyond? Questions answered here at the Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You FAQ
Looking to add mouse-over triggered tooltips to such things like magic items, monsters or combat actions? Then dash over to the How to Add Tooltips thread.
Well - that's debatable. I'll say sure, not necessarily. But I'd argue that while a wizard needs quite a bit of experience and work to begin making real money from crafting, an artificer can make a fortune starting at level 1.
And that's different. You cannot really have a setting with artificers, and still argue that magic is rare. It's selfcontradictory. I mean you could, but I for one wouldn't be convinced.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Artificers are rare. And in Eberron, magic is not rare at all. Even in Forgotten Realms it’s relatively common, at least for the upper classes, which include adventurers (at least adventurers who have been around long enough to reach mid-level and become local celebrities).
Even in low-magic settings, all you need to do to fix the problems is have artificers be a rare breed, like nuclear engineers. There are only a few of them and it takes years of study to become an artificer and they can’t just mass produce magic items.
Speaking as someone who personally has little interest in the class, it really, really is not hard to come up with ways to argue “setting with artificers where magic is rare.”
A world with very little magic that requires some kind of mechanical system that is more efficient at channeling scant magic than a wizard could ever be?
Or there’s the old adage that a creator puts their soul into everything they create; have artificers be able to draw upon the power of that soul to power their skills without drawing on magic itself?
Or just reskin them to not use magic at all, only using spell slots for their mechanical purpose, not as a representation of magical energy?
Or any number of other ways someone with even a modicum of imagination could come up with to solve the nonexistent contradiction you suggest.
I don't think that the Artificer is "too scifi" mechanically speaking, but automated cannons, robot dogs and power armor don't exactly scream fantasy to me either. I think the class is perfectly fine in most campaigns if you take the time to design the character to fit within the "flavor" of the setting.
BUT
I don't like Artificer because none of the subclasses appeal to me as a player. I like Battle Master, but don't generally like to play pet classes, which is kind of where Artillerist fails for me as well. Armor is too far towards scifi for me to "not see it" even when I have tried to, but I have heard some good examples of "reskinning" that are cool, but again I will always just see Iron Man. Alchemist is not a bad choice when it come to theme, but kind of fails to interest me mechanically. Hopefully one day there will be a new subclass or four that comes out that makes me want to play the class. Fingers crossed, but I am not holding my breath.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not into artificers myself, but I do think in general players don't get creative enough with re-skins, re-flavors, and alternate explanations. You can play a warlock who does not have a patron. You can come up with countless alternate explanations for why you have your gifts. You can play a Barbarian who dips into fighter, and you're just a Barbarian who has extra skills. With Artificers you don't even have change anything.
A direct copy & paste of the written Artificer lore: "Throughout the D&D multiverse, artificers create inventions and magic items of peace and war."
Inventions are not a unique concept to futuristic sci-fi settings. Another poster brought up Leonardo da Vinci, which I think is a brilliant reference. From Wikipedia:
One objection could be the part in red, but now consider that the D&D world contains magic. Combined with the Artificer's ingenuity, this bridges the gap between what existed during that period in the real world, and what artificers produce in the D&D fantasy world. Now also consider the fantasy world does contain a plethora magic items. Someone had to have produced them, and usually there is no explanation. You just plundered that +1 longsword off of the Orc's corps and move on. Well, now there's an explanation.
As for the Alchemist, being able to hand out bottled 1st-level spell equivalents is pretty cool. If one actually looks at the Alchemical lore behind “The Elixir,” it’s made from scrapings off of a Philosophers’ Stone, so the randomness actually kinda makes sense. And then being able to expend spell slots to channel which variation you get makes more sense, as does the speed at which you can whip them up.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting