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.
Well, you've just made it very clear that you haven't even read the class. Artificers don't get to make magic items at level 1. At least, they don't get any features that would make them better/more likely to become rich from making magic items at level 1 than Wizards or any other class.
And, no, you can absolutely have a setting with artificers and argue that magic is rare.
Question for you: Is magic rare in Middle Earth?
Yes, it is.
However, Sauron would probably be closest to an Artificer in D&D terms.
Therefore, it is possible for there to be a character in a world that can create magic items while still having magic be rare in the world.
Well - you're absolutely right, I haven't. That's how little interest I have in the class. But I played one in Eberron 3.5, and they do get magic items from level 1. Just not permanent ones.
Anyway, my dude, Sauron is a god. Not an artificer. He's just an example, but not an example of an artificer - he's an example of the rarity of legendary magic items.
Is magic rare in Middle Earth? Well hell yes - to my knowledge, a single magic item is (re)created in the entire age of man, or whatever you call the age the books take place in. Anduril, as far as I know, is the only magic item that comes into existance for thousands of years, and it's quite, quite possibly the last. Men cannot do that shit. Elves barely so.
Anyways, who cares about ME. My point is just that artificers have magic items spewing out of their caboose, and you cannot have that in any sort of magic is rare-to-limited world. It only makes sense if legendary magic items are made in all the shops down on Legendary Magic Item Lane.
Artificers fit well in Exandria too, again cause of the whole “magical crafter” concept.
So I guess “my dude” is meant to be an insult? (A guy called me that when we were arguing on the Onyx Path forums, where my username doesn’t make it obvious I’m a girl.)
So I guess “my dude” is meant to be an insult? (A guy called me that when we were arguing on the Onyx Path forums, where my username doesn’t make it obvious I’m a girl.)
I wonder - can you imagine any conceivable reason why I'd want to insult you?
Anyways, I've heard both guy and dude used for either gender interchangably - but the truth is, I haven't read your user name .... why would I? Let me tell you something: I'm the least sexist person you'll never meet. And as proof I submit, I don't even care enough about your gender to have taken the time to read and ponder the meaning of your nick. I absolutely positively couldn't care less.
But if I'd noticed, it's likely I'd have used .. some other word. Maybe, right now I can't think of one.
If I've caused you grief or insult - I'm sorry, and I apologize.
But I want to be clear: You are someone in (I guess?!) America, and I'm someone in Denmark, and to me, you're text on a screen. I respond to your arguments, not to your nick.
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.
So I guess “my dude” is meant to be an insult? (A guy called me that when we were arguing on the Onyx Path forums, where my username doesn’t make it obvious I’m a girl.)
I wonder - can you imagine any conceivable reason why I'd want to insult you?
Anyways, I've heard both guy and dude used for either gender interchangably - but the truth is, I haven't read your user name .... why would I? Let me tell you something: I'm the least sexist person you'll never meet. And as proof I submit, I don't even care enough about your gender to have taken the time to read and ponder the meaning of your nick. I absolutely positively couldn't care less.
But if I'd noticed, it's likely I'd have used .. some other word. Maybe, right now I can't think of one.
If I've caused you grief or insult - I'm sorry, and I apologize.
But I want to be clear: You are someone in (I guess?!) America, and I'm someone in Denmark, and to me, you're text on a screen. I respond to your arguments, not to your nick.
I apologize. I overreacted. I was really more mad at the guy on the Onyx Path forum who really was being rude and insulting to me.
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.
You know the little hovering soul gems in Skyrim which fire spells at you when you get too close?
Could have something similar to that for flavour for an artillerist cannon.
What I like about artificers is that if you want your artificer to be sci-fi, then you can build and flavor them as sci-fi.
However, artificers have so much variety and different ways to build and play them, that they can be whatever type of magic object infusers you want them to be.
an example of having magic items in your world just lying around, but not knowing at first where they came from until you trace it back to someone, and that someone is an artificer.
I wasn't going to jump into this thread, but the idea that "someone who makes a magic item must by default be an artificer" is, umm, baffling? Let's go with baffling
If that were the case, how did magic items exist before the artificer class existed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
an example of having magic items in your world just lying around, but not knowing at first where they came from until you trace it back to someone, and that someone is an artificer.
I wasn't going to jump into this thread, but the idea that "someone who makes a magic item must by default be an artificer" is, umm, baffling? Let's go with baffling
If that were the case, how did magic items exist before the artificer class existed?
If you're talking about Fëanor, that is literally the closest thing to what he was, at least in my opinion. He specialized heavily in craftsmanship and made several magic items, not just one. I wasn't claiming that anyone who makes a magic item must be that. I'm saying that the magic items you find in the world are typically unknown as to who made them, and Fëanor is an example of how an artificer could be responsible for them.
So I guess “my dude” is meant to be an insult? (A guy called me that when we were arguing on the Onyx Path forums, where my username doesn’t make it obvious I’m a girl.)
I wonder - can you imagine any conceivable reason why I'd want to insult you?
Anyways, I've heard both guy and dude used for either gender interchangably - but the truth is, I haven't read your user name .... why would I? Let me tell you something: I'm the least sexist person you'll never meet. And as proof I submit, I don't even care enough about your gender to have taken the time to read and ponder the meaning of your nick. I absolutely positively couldn't care less.
But if I'd noticed, it's likely I'd have used .. some other word. Maybe, right now I can't think of one.
If I've caused you grief or insult - I'm sorry, and I apologize.
But I want to be clear: You are someone in (I guess?!) America, and I'm someone in Denmark, and to me, you're text on a screen. I respond to your arguments, not to your nick.
I apologize. I overreacted. I was really more mad at the guy on the Onyx Path forum who really was being rude and insulting to me.
No problem at all. I swear it's never my intention to insult or deride - but on the other hand I can be dreadfully ... just, oblivious. Like, I really never did pay any attention to your nick, but it does provide a nice hint 🤣
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.
What gets to me about the class is the fact that they get to create magic items almost instantly when all the other classes have to jump through hoops to get the very same thing done.
What spells would a magician use to create a simple bag of holding?
How about a simple set of armor from a Cleric?
Or a permanent shillelagh for a druid?
Why does my party need an artificer in it just to get those simple magic items? It doesn't. Either the casters should be able to make their own, find them, or find an NPC for the job.
It would have been simpler to add a few spells that allowed casters to create items easier and a better write up for item creation.
As everyone admits the class was created to explain the magic items in the various worlds around D&D. A task that should have been done by all other pure casters.
I can understand (personally not really but) the designers not wanting to make creation abilities easier for the pure casters but then they turn around and break their own ideas by creating the artificer to fill it the space they purposely left empty. Its not logical according to the other older established rules.
Personally I am also not a fan of Barbarians or Bards so do not feel like I am attacking your personally favorite class.
There are rules to making magic items that anyone can do in the official sourcebooks, but the one I prefer is in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
The long and short of it is that you need proficiency in Arcana or the right tool proficiency, a special component (which obviously you have to consult the DM on in terms of where and how to get it), the recipe or formula for the item (also DM-dependent), and a certain amount of time and gold.
The artificer class gives you a discount on the time and gold for common and uncommon items at 10th level, which means you can actually make magic items of common or uncommon rarity the way anyone else would have to, but on a somewhat more reasonable timescale. Which is kinda funny to me because the UA version of the class gave you this discount for specific types of magic items right at 3rd level depending on your subclass. Alchemists in the UA for example had a time and gold discount for brewing potions.
If you're talking about Fëanor, that is literally the closest thing to what he was, at least in my opinion. He specialized heavily in craftsmanship and made several magic items, not just one. I wasn't claiming that anyone who makes a magic item must be that. I'm saying that the magic items you find in the world are typically unknown as to who made them, and Fëanor is an example of how an artificer could be responsible for them.
The problem isn't Faenor. It's the fact that in a world with artificers, who cares about Faenor. He wasn't special, what he did, anyone with a few class levels could also do.
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.
The problem isn't Faenor. It's the fact that in a world with artificers, who cares about Faenor. He wasn't special, what he did, anyone with a few class levels could also do.
That's a fair point. I can understand the idea that the class, at least with its infusion feature, does serve to trivialize the importance of magic items in a low-magic world.
The problem isn't Faenor. It's the fact that in a world with artificers, who cares about Faenor. He wasn't special, what he did, anyone with a few class levels could also do.
That's a fair point. I can understand the idea that the class, at least with its infusion feature, does serve to trivialize the importance of magic items in a low-magic world.
Actually, it’s entirely feasible that relatively low magic worlds like Greyhawk might have no artificers at all (or at least a fairly low number) and higher magic worlds like Forgotten Realms might have a lot more of them. But I’m still glad they created the class and I still hope they include it in the PHB in 2024.
The problem isn't Faenor. It's the fact that in a world with artificers, who cares about Faenor. He wasn't special, what he did, anyone with a few class levels could also do.
That's a fair point. I can understand the idea that the class, at least with its infusion feature, does serve to trivialize the importance of magic items in a low-magic world.
Actually, it’s entirely feasible that relatively low magic worlds like Greyhawk might have no artificers at all (or at least a fairly low number) and higher magic worlds like Forgotten Realms might have a lot more of them. But I’m still glad they created the class and I still hope they include it in the PHB in 2024.
Maybe there can be a compromise of sorts, where the infusion feature is limited to common magic items, since those are pretty trivial to make, typically don't break games (there are a few, but they're outliers), and Replicate Magic Item includes all of them right from the get-go. Obviously that will require some of the artificer levels to do a bit more than they currently do, but I don't think that would be too much of a challenge.
If you're talking about Fëanor, that is literally the closest thing to what he was, at least in my opinion. He specialized heavily in craftsmanship and made several magic items, not just one.
Right, but nothing about that in particular says "artificer", which is my point. Other classes create magic items too. If anything, the fact that he created unique, legendary, irreplaceable items argues against him being an artificer, since that's not really what they do. Artificers in 5e mostly bash out beta versions and prototypes
For the record though, Feanor also invented a written language, which sounds pretty wizard-y, and swore an oath of vengeance, which is pure paladin. Trying to shoehorn Tolkien's more mythological figures into D&D classes is a stretch at the best of times
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The artificer class gives you a discount on the time and gold for common and uncommon items at 10th level, which means you can actually make magic items of common or uncommon rarity the way anyone else would have to, but on a somewhat more reasonable timescale. Which is kinda funny to me because the UA version of the class gave you this discount for specific types of magic items right at 3rd level depending on your subclass. Alchemists in the UA for example had a time and gold discount for brewing potions.
The fact that alchemists are no better at making potions than any other artificer is deeply weird
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you're talking about Fëanor, that is literally the closest thing to what he was, at least in my opinion. He specialized heavily in craftsmanship and made several magic items, not just one. I wasn't claiming that anyone who makes a magic item must be that. I'm saying that the magic items you find in the world are typically unknown as to who made them, and Fëanor is an example of how an artificer could be responsible for them.
The thing is, "the closest thing to what he was" doesn't really mean much, at least in the context of saying that Artificers exist in that lore. To make the point - nearest thing to what I am is probably a Wizard, but that doesn't meant that we can infer that Wizards exist in our reality or make deductions from it. I'm not a Wizard. That it's the closest thing to what he was says more to th lack of applicability of 5e to LotR than it does about Feanor.
Artificers don't exist in LotR. Sure, people make magic items, but you don't need to be an Artificer to do that in 5e. I can't think of anyone in LotR that would just.pick things up and make gadgets and gizmos out of them, or put together strange and experimental concoctions or make robots etc.
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.
I can't think of anyone in LotR that would just.pick things up and make gadgets and gizmos out of them, or put together strange and experimental concoctions or make robots etc.
There's a suggestion in LOTR that Saruman/Sharkey is heading in that direction by the end, but it's hardly presented as a good thing
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
Well, you've just made it very clear that you haven't even read the class. Artificers don't get to make magic items at level 1. At least, they don't get any features that would make them better/more likely to become rich from making magic items at level 1 than Wizards or any other class.
And, no, you can absolutely have a setting with artificers and argue that magic is rare.
Well - you're absolutely right, I haven't. That's how little interest I have in the class. But I played one in Eberron 3.5, and they do get magic items from level 1. Just not permanent ones.
Anyways, who cares about ME. My point is just that artificers have magic items spewing out of their caboose, and you cannot have that in any sort of magic is rare-to-limited world. It only makes sense if legendary magic items are made in all the shops down on Legendary Magic Item Lane.
You seem like a reasonable person, so let's step back for a minute. Your statements in blue are about an imaginary class that doesn't exist. 5e artificers get literally zero class features that concern the creation of permanent magical items until level 10, and that one simply reduces the time and money cost for a small subset of items.
They can infuse a very limited amount of items, but those are not permanent and the feature was designed so that you couldn't just make them and sell them.
There is a lot of misunderstanding here around what artificers can do compared to every other class. If you allow magic item crafting in your game, artificers follow exactly the same rules as everyone else until level 10. If you don't allow magic item crafting in your game, artificers still work fine and the integrity of your setting is maintained. You guys are arguing about strawmen, not artificers.
What gets to me about the class is the fact that they get to create magic items almost instantly when all the other classes have to jump through hoops to get the very same thing done.
What spells would a magician use to create a simple bag of holding?
How about a simple set of armor from a Cleric?
Or a permanent shillelagh for a druid?
Why does my party need an artificer in it just to get those simple magic items? It doesn't. Either the casters should be able to make their own, find them, or find an NPC for the job.
Again, it seems like you're arguing against rules that don't exist. A wizard can absolutely make a bag of holding. They do it using the exact same rules that an artificer would use.
If you're talking about infusions, those are not permanent. Since you brought it up, infusions are effectively equivalent to shillelagh. A temporary enchantment.
And for your initial statement, this could be applied to any class. Can you believe that clerics get to heal their allies at level 1 while Fighters have to jump through all these hoops to do the same thing? Can you believe rogues get to Sneak Attack? Why can't every class get Sneak Attack?! Classes boil down to their specialties. They are defined by the fact that they can do things the other classes can't do right off the bat. Artificers are no different in that regard.
Artificers fit well in Exandria too, again cause of the whole “magical crafter” concept.
So I guess “my dude” is meant to be an insult? (A guy called me that when we were arguing on the Onyx Path forums, where my username doesn’t make it obvious I’m a girl.)
I wonder - can you imagine any conceivable reason why I'd want to insult you?
Anyways, I've heard both guy and dude used for either gender interchangably - but the truth is, I haven't read your user name .... why would I? Let me tell you something: I'm the least sexist person you'll never meet. And as proof I submit, I don't even care enough about your gender to have taken the time to read and ponder the meaning of your nick. I absolutely positively couldn't care less.
But if I'd noticed, it's likely I'd have used .. some other word. Maybe, right now I can't think of one.
If I've caused you grief or insult - I'm sorry, and I apologize.
But I want to be clear: You are someone in (I guess?!) America, and I'm someone in Denmark, and to me, you're text on a screen. I respond to your arguments, not to your nick.
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.
I apologize. I overreacted. I was really more mad at the guy on the Onyx Path forum who really was being rude and insulting to me.
You know the little hovering soul gems in Skyrim which fire spells at you when you get too close?
Could have something similar to that for flavour for an artillerist cannon.
What I like about artificers is that if you want your artificer to be sci-fi, then you can build and flavor them as sci-fi.
However, artificers have so much variety and different ways to build and play them, that they can be whatever type of magic object infusers you want them to be.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I wasn't going to jump into this thread, but the idea that "someone who makes a magic item must by default be an artificer" is, umm, baffling? Let's go with baffling
If that were the case, how did magic items exist before the artificer class existed?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If you're talking about Fëanor, that is literally the closest thing to what he was, at least in my opinion. He specialized heavily in craftsmanship and made several magic items, not just one. I wasn't claiming that anyone who makes a magic item must be that. I'm saying that the magic items you find in the world are typically unknown as to who made them, and Fëanor is an example of how an artificer could be responsible for them.
No problem at all. I swear it's never my intention to insult or deride - but on the other hand I can be dreadfully ... just, oblivious. Like, I really never did pay any attention to your nick, but it does provide a nice hint 🤣
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.
What gets to me about the class is the fact that they get to create magic items almost instantly when all the other classes have to jump through hoops to get the very same thing done.
What spells would a magician use to create a simple bag of holding?
How about a simple set of armor from a Cleric?
Or a permanent shillelagh for a druid?
Why does my party need an artificer in it just to get those simple magic items? It doesn't. Either the casters should be able to make their own, find them, or find an NPC for the job.
It would have been simpler to add a few spells that allowed casters to create items easier and a better write up for item creation.
As everyone admits the class was created to explain the magic items in the various worlds around D&D. A task that should have been done by all other pure casters.
I can understand (personally not really but) the designers not wanting to make creation abilities easier for the pure casters but then they turn around and break their own ideas by creating the artificer to fill it the space they purposely left empty. Its not logical according to the other older established rules.
Personally I am also not a fan of Barbarians or Bards so do not feel like I am attacking your personally favorite class.
There are rules to making magic items that anyone can do in the official sourcebooks, but the one I prefer is in Xanathar's Guide to Everything.
The long and short of it is that you need proficiency in Arcana or the right tool proficiency, a special component (which obviously you have to consult the DM on in terms of where and how to get it), the recipe or formula for the item (also DM-dependent), and a certain amount of time and gold.
The artificer class gives you a discount on the time and gold for common and uncommon items at 10th level, which means you can actually make magic items of common or uncommon rarity the way anyone else would have to, but on a somewhat more reasonable timescale. Which is kinda funny to me because the UA version of the class gave you this discount for specific types of magic items right at 3rd level depending on your subclass. Alchemists in the UA for example had a time and gold discount for brewing potions.
The problem isn't Faenor. It's the fact that in a world with artificers, who cares about Faenor. He wasn't special, what he did, anyone with a few class levels could also do.
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.
That's a fair point. I can understand the idea that the class, at least with its infusion feature, does serve to trivialize the importance of magic items in a low-magic world.
Actually, it’s entirely feasible that relatively low magic worlds like Greyhawk might have no artificers at all (or at least a fairly low number) and higher magic worlds like Forgotten Realms might have a lot more of them. But I’m still glad they created the class and I still hope they include it in the PHB in 2024.
Maybe there can be a compromise of sorts, where the infusion feature is limited to common magic items, since those are pretty trivial to make, typically don't break games (there are a few, but they're outliers), and Replicate Magic Item includes all of them right from the get-go. Obviously that will require some of the artificer levels to do a bit more than they currently do, but I don't think that would be too much of a challenge.
Right, but nothing about that in particular says "artificer", which is my point. Other classes create magic items too. If anything, the fact that he created unique, legendary, irreplaceable items argues against him being an artificer, since that's not really what they do. Artificers in 5e mostly bash out beta versions and prototypes
For the record though, Feanor also invented a written language, which sounds pretty wizard-y, and swore an oath of vengeance, which is pure paladin. Trying to shoehorn Tolkien's more mythological figures into D&D classes is a stretch at the best of times
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The fact that alchemists are no better at making potions than any other artificer is deeply weird
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The thing is, "the closest thing to what he was" doesn't really mean much, at least in the context of saying that Artificers exist in that lore. To make the point - nearest thing to what I am is probably a Wizard, but that doesn't meant that we can infer that Wizards exist in our reality or make deductions from it. I'm not a Wizard. That it's the closest thing to what he was says more to th lack of applicability of 5e to LotR than it does about Feanor.
Artificers don't exist in LotR. Sure, people make magic items, but you don't need to be an Artificer to do that in 5e. I can't think of anyone in LotR that would just.pick things up and make gadgets and gizmos out of them, or put together strange and experimental concoctions or make robots etc.
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.
There's a suggestion in LOTR that Saruman/Sharkey is heading in that direction by the end, but it's hardly presented as a good thing
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You seem like a reasonable person, so let's step back for a minute. Your statements in blue are about an imaginary class that doesn't exist. 5e artificers get literally zero class features that concern the creation of permanent magical items until level 10, and that one simply reduces the time and money cost for a small subset of items.
They can infuse a very limited amount of items, but those are not permanent and the feature was designed so that you couldn't just make them and sell them.
There is a lot of misunderstanding here around what artificers can do compared to every other class. If you allow magic item crafting in your game, artificers follow exactly the same rules as everyone else until level 10. If you don't allow magic item crafting in your game, artificers still work fine and the integrity of your setting is maintained. You guys are arguing about strawmen, not artificers.
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
Again, it seems like you're arguing against rules that don't exist. A wizard can absolutely make a bag of holding. They do it using the exact same rules that an artificer would use.
If you're talking about infusions, those are not permanent. Since you brought it up, infusions are effectively equivalent to shillelagh. A temporary enchantment.
And for your initial statement, this could be applied to any class. Can you believe that clerics get to heal their allies at level 1 while Fighters have to jump through all these hoops to do the same thing? Can you believe rogues get to Sneak Attack? Why can't every class get Sneak Attack?! Classes boil down to their specialties. They are defined by the fact that they can do things the other classes can't do right off the bat. Artificers are no different in that regard.
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