So a sponsored vid says Artificers can't cast Cure Wounds (what does 5.5 book say "these changes are for anyone using Blood Hunter from CR and Artificer from Ebberon) their not in phb and naturally we won't hear any supplements till next year so... One of my fave classes is dead... It didn't even get ANY subclasses EVER after introduction and I heard legally no 3rd party can make subclasses cuz Ebberon's designer owns them. So it feels like making Artificer was entirely pointless cuz no one can make subclasses and dnd didn't update it...
The 2024 Player's Handbook is an update to content found in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Artificer wasn't part of the 2014 Player's Handbook, hence why it's not in the 2024 version. It will still be usable post-release of the 2024 Player's Handbook, either with that version or the 2014 version.
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
Not can't, so much as won't.
The issue is that they include subclasses to sell books. Since everyone has the Wizard because it's in the PHB (which everyone should theoretically have access to) or at the very least they'd have access to the Basics Rules, if you create a subclass for a Wizard, everyone can benefit from it, so it has some appeal to every player. On the other hand, because not everyone has access to the Artificer (being in neither the PHB or BR), you're already limiting who it appeals to. So why would you write a subclass for the Artificer that can only appeal to say 50% of players before we even get to whether the subclass or even the class appeals ro them, when you can write a Wizard subclass that could appeal to everyone?
Hence, I'm fully expecting the only subclasses they'll have for the Artificer will be released alongside the class itself. I'm hoping they go to town and do a whole bunch.
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.
So a sponsored vid says Artificers can't cast Cure Wounds (what does 5.5 book say "these changes are for anyone using Blood Hunter from CR and Artificer from Ebberon) their not in phb and naturally we won't hear any supplements till next year so... One of my fave classes is dead... It didn't even get ANY subclasses EVER after introduction and I heard legally no 3rd party can make subclasses cuz Ebberon's designer owns them. So it feels like making Artificer was entirely pointless cuz no one can make subclasses and dnd didn't update it...
The 2024 Player's Handbook is an update to content found in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Artificer wasn't part of the 2014 Player's Handbook, hence why it's not in the 2024 version. It will still be usable post-release of the 2024 Player's Handbook, either with that version or the 2014 version.
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
I didn't say that, I just said that because it wasn't in the Player's Handbook, it wasn't part of the Player's Handbook content being updated.
It did actually see an update when it was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It received some errata and a new subclass
So a sponsored vid says Artificers can't cast Cure Wounds (what does 5.5 book say "these changes are for anyone using Blood Hunter from CR and Artificer from Ebberon) their not in phb and naturally we won't hear any supplements till next year so... One of my fave classes is dead... It didn't even get ANY subclasses EVER after introduction and I heard legally no 3rd party can make subclasses cuz Ebberon's designer owns them. So it feels like making Artificer was entirely pointless cuz no one can make subclasses and dnd didn't update it...
The 2024 Player's Handbook is an update to content found in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Artificer wasn't part of the 2014 Player's Handbook, hence why it's not in the 2024 version. It will still be usable post-release of the 2024 Player's Handbook, either with that version or the 2014 version.
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
I didn't say that, I just said that because it wasn't in the Player's Handbook, it wasn't part of the Player's Handbook content being updated.
It did actually see an update when it was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It received some errata and a new subclass
ok thats fair i was wrong about it not getting updated but by not being in the players handbook it makes it alot less likely to get any new official subclasses which is the bad part
So a sponsored vid says Artificers can't cast Cure Wounds (what does 5.5 book say "these changes are for anyone using Blood Hunter from CR and Artificer from Ebberon) their not in phb and naturally we won't hear any supplements till next year so... One of my fave classes is dead... It didn't even get ANY subclasses EVER after introduction and I heard legally no 3rd party can make subclasses cuz Ebberon's designer owns them. So it feels like making Artificer was entirely pointless cuz no one can make subclasses and dnd didn't update it...
The 2024 Player's Handbook is an update to content found in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Artificer wasn't part of the 2014 Player's Handbook, hence why it's not in the 2024 version. It will still be usable post-release of the 2024 Player's Handbook, either with that version or the 2014 version.
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
I didn't say that, I just said that because it wasn't in the Player's Handbook, it wasn't part of the Player's Handbook content being updated.
It did actually see an update when it was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It received some errata and a new subclass
To be fair, there are a lot of things in the 2024 players handbook that were not in the 2014 players handbook that got updates in the 2024 players handbook. Like the Aasimar. The exclusion of the Artificer in the player's handbook in 2024 feels pretty bad and does not bode well for the class in the future.
So a sponsored vid says Artificers can't cast Cure Wounds (what does 5.5 book say "these changes are for anyone using Blood Hunter from CR and Artificer from Ebberon) their not in phb and naturally we won't hear any supplements till next year so... One of my fave classes is dead... It didn't even get ANY subclasses EVER after introduction and I heard legally no 3rd party can make subclasses cuz Ebberon's designer owns them. So it feels like making Artificer was entirely pointless cuz no one can make subclasses and dnd didn't update it...
The 2024 Player's Handbook is an update to content found in the 2014 Player's Handbook. Artificer wasn't part of the 2014 Player's Handbook, hence why it's not in the 2024 version. It will still be usable post-release of the 2024 Player's Handbook, either with that version or the 2014 version.
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
I didn't say that, I just said that because it wasn't in the Player's Handbook, it wasn't part of the Player's Handbook content being updated.
It did actually see an update when it was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It received some errata and a new subclass
To be fair, there are a lot of things in the 2024 players handbook that were not in the 2014 players handbook that got updates in the 2024 players handbook. Like the Aasimar. The exclusion of the Artificer in the player's handbook in 2024 feels pretty bad and does not bode well for the class in the future.
Artificers get added later on in alot of editions so why didnt they just add it in if we all know its coming back later? (im not saying they are doing this) but it feels like they are just holding the class back just to add it into another book to increase the chances of people buying it
Since its not in the PHB it cant get updates once it comes out right? just a one and done DLC
Not can't, so much as won't.
The issue is that they include subclasses to sell books. Since everyone has the Wizard because it's in the PHB (which everyone should theoretically have access to) or at the very least they'd have access to the Basics Rules, if you create a subclass for a Wizard, everyone can benefit from it, so it has some appeal to every player. On the other hand, because not everyone has access to the Artificer (being in neither the PHB or BR), you're already limiting who it appeals to. So why would you write a subclass for the Artificer that can only appeal to say 50% of players before we even get to whether the subclass or even the class appeals ro them, when you can write a Wizard subclass that could appeal to everyone?
I keep seeing the argument that it can't or won't get subclasses, but we don't really know.
Since Tasha's, how many subclasses, total, have they made? Three that are tightly themed, plus whatever's in Dragonlance? If there'd been another book like Xanathar's or Tasha's, and there was no Artificer support, sure, but there hasn't been.
Still think they should've added it to the new PHB, though. They did acknowledge it when they were doing the class groupings during playtest, so there's evidence they're not abandoning it.
By dead I meant it never had subclasses EVER since it came out and it's not in phb and legally no one can make any subclasses or 'advanced rules' supplements for it
Alchemist & Armorer are the "specialists" aka "subclasses". It wasn't in the original PhB, it was added as an expansion. And that is likely going to happen again. That way they can sell more books. Sure, you might have to wait awhile but until then just use the 5th Edition version.
Or make your own subclass for it. Homebrew has always been legal.
Artificers get added later on in alot of editions so why didnt they just add it in if we all know its coming back later? (im not saying they are doing this) but it feels like they are just holding the class back just to add it into another book to increase the chances of people buying it
Because it's not a core class. And frankly I doubt it ever will be. This is the most straightforward version of it they've ever made, and it still centers around infusing magic items - which is cool, but is also something that not every table will be fine with. Some tables prefer magic items to be rare and special, while others don't use them at all. So making it a supplemental class instead of a core one makes sense.
Artificers get added later on in alot of editions so why didnt they just add it in if we all know its coming back later? (im not saying they are doing this) but it feels like they are just holding the class back just to add it into another book to increase the chances of people buying it
Because it's not a core class. And frankly I doubt it ever will be. This is the most straightforward version of it they've ever made, and it still centers around infusing magic items - which is cool, but is also something that not every table will be fine with. Some tables prefer magic items to be rare and special, while others don't use them at all. So making it a supplemental class instead of a core one makes sense.
My impression is that Artificer is not terribly popular with the player base, though that is 100% based on anecdotal evidence and not published data. This doesn't mean some people don't love it, just that it's generally less embraced than most if not all of the core classes. Not squeezing it into the PHB when it wasn't in the original makes sense to me.
And yes, to UnkKnellnapper's comment there is likely some future marketing here. Publishing DnD is obviously a business based around a big brand name. A future supplement with a full playable class in it, even if just an update to the Artificer, is something that will appeal to a fair # of people. If you don't want to buy it and already have Tasha's you're set. I'd actually much prefer a full gish arcane class, a psion, or a variety of other class ideas that 3rd parties have done over Artificer, but for those who enjoy the class I hope you get an updated take on it in the future.
I keep seeing the argument that it can't or won't get subclasses, but we don't really know.
Since Tasha's, how many subclasses, total, have they made? Three that are tightly themed, plus whatever's in Dragonlance? If there'd been another book like Xanathar's or Tasha's, and there was no Artificer support, sure, but there hasn't been.
There have been 11 subclasses released since Tasha's. Bear in mind also that the Artificer is also the most fertile ground for new material, given that it only has four subclasses.
The financial incentive just isn't there. Subclasses are only included to tempt players to buy the book. A core class is more effective at that than an optional one.
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.
My impression is that Artificer is not terribly popular with the player base, though that is 100% based on anecdotal evidence and not published data. This doesn't mean some people don't love it, just that it's generally less embraced than most if not all of the core classes. Squeezing it into the PHB when it wasn't in the original makes sense to me.
Again anecdotally, I've seen more Artificers than Bards, Clerics and Sorcerers combined. I'm not saying my experience is more valid than yours, but I'd want to see numbers before concluding anything. I think Artificers appeal to certain personalities, and are much more marmite than the other classes. Encountering them would be more "clumpy".
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 keep seeing the argument that it can't or won't get subclasses, but we don't really know.
Since Tasha's, how many subclasses, total, have they made? Three that are tightly themed, plus whatever's in Dragonlance? If there'd been another book like Xanathar's or Tasha's, and there was no Artificer support, sure, but there hasn't been.
There have been 11 subclasses released since Tasha's.
Two in Fizban's, one in Bigby's, and one in Dragonlance. Two in Van Richten's, which I missed. Which am I missing? (Theros, Ravincia, and Wildemont all predate it.)
More importantly, these are all strongly setting and theme correlated. Artificers aren't strongly horror, dragon, or giant-linked.
Bear in mind also that the Artificer is also the most fertile ground for new material, given that it only has four subclasses.
The financial incentive just isn't there. Subclasses are only included to tempt players to buy the book. A core class is more effective at that than an optional one.
I'm less convinced that subclasses in particular are a big selling point. Player options in general have some appeal, but I don't think players are a significant market for these books. GMs who want to run in a setting, or with a theme, are the target audience. (I will admit to not getting the appeal of Bigby's or Fizban's at all.) Barring a big pile of stuff for players like Xanathar's or Tasha's, you won't get enough player sales that having one of your subclasses be for artificer might be noticeable.
But neither of us has WotC's marketing and sales data, so this is just speculation, likely based on personal preference.
I never said that subclasses are a big selling point, I said that the reason why they're included is to help sell the book. The difference is subtle, but important for the discussion. They're not adding subclasses to DM books out of the goodness of their hearts.
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.
I'm less convinced that subclasses in particular are a big selling point. Player options in general have some appeal, but I don't think players are a significant market for these books. GMs who want to run in a setting, or with a theme, are the target audience.
I don't have proper market data handy, but I've repeatedly heard that "more player crunch options" is the single biggest seller for the books. (Which is why things like the PHB and Xanathar's and Tasha's sell so well.)
I've also heard that it's policy that they don't sell new options for things that depend on more than the core books...e.g. since Artificer isn't in the PHB, they don't sell Artificer subclasses in books that don't reprint all of Artificer. Which is, I think, the percieved issue with the class not being in the core.
I'm less convinced that subclasses in particular are a big selling point. Player options in general have some appeal, but I don't think players are a significant market for these books. GMs who want to run in a setting, or with a theme, are the target audience.
I don't have proper market data handy, but I've repeatedly heard that "more player crunch options" is the single biggest seller for the books. (Which is why things like the PHB and Xanathar's and Tasha's sell so well.)
I've also heard that it's policy that they don't sell new options for things that depend on more than the core books...e.g. since Artificer isn't in the PHB, they don't sell Artificer subclasses in books that don't reprint all of Artificer. Which is, I think, the percieved issue with the class not being in the core.
it not being in the PHB and there for not able to get anything else is the huge problem all together. why even allow a CLASS to not get anymore subclasses or items made for it by limiting like that? the only thing it hurts are the players that enjoy that class and WOTC leaves them out to dry by doing that.
Artificer is cool and I played it despite not having more updates to look forward to. I'd prefer it in the PHB so we can get a chance of new stuff...but I'd prefer it to exist versus not existing, even if it has to be outside the PHB.
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.
Artificer is cool and I played it despite not having more updates to look forward to. I'd prefer it in the PHB so we can get a chance of new stuff...but I'd prefer it to exist versus not existing, even if it has to be outside the PHB.
TBH if they dont add it then its pretty much being left out to die because no other books can talk about it. i get what you mean but it feels like a pity gift just to get us to say "hey at least its still here"
My impression is that Artificer is not terribly popular with the player base, though that is 100% based on anecdotal evidence and not published data. This doesn't mean some people don't love it, just that it's generally less embraced than most if not all of the core classes. Squeezing it into the PHB when it wasn't in the original makes sense to me.
And yes, to UnkKnellnapper's comment there is likely some future marketing here. Publishing DnD is obviously a business based around a big brand name. A future supplement with a full playable class in it, even if just an update to the Artificer, is something that will appeal to a fair # of people. If you don't want to buy it and already have Tasha's you're set. I'd actually much prefer a full gish arcane class, a psion, or a variety of other class ideas that 3rd parties have done over Artificer, but for those who enjoy the class I hope you get an updated take on it in the future.
I'm sure knowing they can sell it in a future book and people would pay for it (twice) was part of their calculus, but my personal take is that they probably felt they had their hands full with the core 12 as it was.
My impression is that Artificer is not terribly popular with the player base, though that is 100% based on anecdotal evidence and not published data. This doesn't mean some people don't love it, just that it's generally less embraced than most if not all of the core classes. Squeezing it into the PHB when it wasn't in the original makes sense to me.
And yes, to UnkKnellnapper's comment there is likely some future marketing here. Publishing DnD is obviously a business based around a big brand name. A future supplement with a full playable class in it, even if just an update to the Artificer, is something that will appeal to a fair # of people. If you don't want to buy it and already have Tasha's you're set. I'd actually much prefer a full gish arcane class, a psion, or a variety of other class ideas that 3rd parties have done over Artificer, but for those who enjoy the class I hope you get an updated take on it in the future.
I'm sure knowing they can sell it in a future book and people would pay for it (twice) was part of their calculus, but my personal take is that they probably felt they had their hands full with the core 12 as it was.
them having their hands full is fine but i would have rather waited and the Artificer to be officially added. dont quote me on this but didnt they say they were done with editions? its just 5e from now on and just stuff added on? (5.5e or whatever you wanna call it) so unless they make another PHB or just make 6E Artificer mains are the outcasts again. for me the artificer was the whole reason i got into DnD and is what i main in most campaigns. it wouldnt have been a problem to add to the book for the people who like artificer to have new stuff
That's actually decently popular. There is a quite large bias in character creation based on where a subclass is published (presumably based on who owns a book and how long they've had it, subclasses in the basic rulers are consistently around 3x as common as anything else) so a similar pattern would be expected for classes. Give the artificer a similar factor of 3 and it's middle of the pack, somewhere close to bard and ranger.
Not can't, so much as won't.
The issue is that they include subclasses to sell books. Since everyone has the Wizard because it's in the PHB (which everyone should theoretically have access to) or at the very least they'd have access to the Basics Rules, if you create a subclass for a Wizard, everyone can benefit from it, so it has some appeal to every player. On the other hand, because not everyone has access to the Artificer (being in neither the PHB or BR), you're already limiting who it appeals to. So why would you write a subclass for the Artificer that can only appeal to say 50% of players before we even get to whether the subclass or even the class appeals ro them, when you can write a Wizard subclass that could appeal to everyone?
Hence, I'm fully expecting the only subclasses they'll have for the Artificer will be released alongside the class itself. I'm hoping they go to town and do a whole bunch.
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 didn't say that, I just said that because it wasn't in the Player's Handbook, it wasn't part of the Player's Handbook content being updated.
It did actually see an update when it was reprinted in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. It received some errata and a new subclass
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
ok thats fair i was wrong about it not getting updated but by not being in the players handbook it makes it alot less likely to get any new official subclasses which is the bad part
To be fair, there are a lot of things in the 2024 players handbook that were not in the 2014 players handbook that got updates in the 2024 players handbook. Like the Aasimar. The exclusion of the Artificer in the player's handbook in 2024 feels pretty bad and does not bode well for the class in the future.
Artificers get added later on in alot of editions so why didnt they just add it in if we all know its coming back later? (im not saying they are doing this) but it feels like they are just holding the class back just to add it into another book to increase the chances of people buying it
I keep seeing the argument that it can't or won't get subclasses, but we don't really know.
Since Tasha's, how many subclasses, total, have they made? Three that are tightly themed, plus whatever's in Dragonlance? If there'd been another book like Xanathar's or Tasha's, and there was no Artificer support, sure, but there hasn't been.
Still think they should've added it to the new PHB, though. They did acknowledge it when they were doing the class groupings during playtest, so there's evidence they're not abandoning it.
Alchemist & Armorer are the "specialists" aka "subclasses". It wasn't in the original PhB, it was added as an expansion. And that is likely going to happen again. That way they can sell more books. Sure, you might have to wait awhile but until then just use the 5th Edition version.
Or make your own subclass for it. Homebrew has always been legal.
Because it's not a core class. And frankly I doubt it ever will be. This is the most straightforward version of it they've ever made, and it still centers around infusing magic items - which is cool, but is also something that not every table will be fine with. Some tables prefer magic items to be rare and special, while others don't use them at all. So making it a supplemental class instead of a core one makes sense.
My impression is that Artificer is not terribly popular with the player base, though that is 100% based on anecdotal evidence and not published data. This doesn't mean some people don't love it, just that it's generally less embraced than most if not all of the core classes. Not squeezing it into the PHB when it wasn't in the original makes sense to me.
And yes, to UnkKnellnapper's comment there is likely some future marketing here. Publishing DnD is obviously a business based around a big brand name. A future supplement with a full playable class in it, even if just an update to the Artificer, is something that will appeal to a fair # of people. If you don't want to buy it and already have Tasha's you're set. I'd actually much prefer a full gish arcane class, a psion, or a variety of other class ideas that 3rd parties have done over Artificer, but for those who enjoy the class I hope you get an updated take on it in the future.
There have been 11 subclasses released since Tasha's. Bear in mind also that the Artificer is also the most fertile ground for new material, given that it only has four subclasses.
The financial incentive just isn't there. Subclasses are only included to tempt players to buy the book. A core class is more effective at that than an optional one.
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.
Again anecdotally, I've seen more Artificers than Bards, Clerics and Sorcerers combined. I'm not saying my experience is more valid than yours, but I'd want to see numbers before concluding anything. I think Artificers appeal to certain personalities, and are much more marmite than the other classes. Encountering them would be more "clumpy".
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.
Two in Fizban's, one in Bigby's, and one in Dragonlance. Two in Van Richten's, which I missed. Which am I missing? (Theros, Ravincia, and Wildemont all predate it.)
More importantly, these are all strongly setting and theme correlated. Artificers aren't strongly horror, dragon, or giant-linked.
I'm less convinced that subclasses in particular are a big selling point. Player options in general have some appeal, but I don't think players are a significant market for these books. GMs who want to run in a setting, or with a theme, are the target audience. (I will admit to not getting the appeal of Bigby's or Fizban's at all.) Barring a big pile of stuff for players like Xanathar's or Tasha's, you won't get enough player sales that having one of your subclasses be for artificer might be noticeable.
But neither of us has WotC's marketing and sales data, so this is just speculation, likely based on personal preference.
Strixhaven.
I never said that subclasses are a big selling point, I said that the reason why they're included is to help sell the book. The difference is subtle, but important for the discussion. They're not adding subclasses to DM books out of the goodness of their hearts.
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 don't have proper market data handy, but I've repeatedly heard that "more player crunch options" is the single biggest seller for the books. (Which is why things like the PHB and Xanathar's and Tasha's sell so well.)
I've also heard that it's policy that they don't sell new options for things that depend on more than the core books...e.g. since Artificer isn't in the PHB, they don't sell Artificer subclasses in books that don't reprint all of Artificer. Which is, I think, the percieved issue with the class not being in the core.
it not being in the PHB and there for not able to get anything else is the huge problem all together. why even allow a CLASS to not get anymore subclasses or items made for it by limiting like that? the only thing it hurts are the players that enjoy that class and WOTC leaves them out to dry by doing that.
Artificer is cool and I played it despite not having more updates to look forward to. I'd prefer it in the PHB so we can get a chance of new stuff...but I'd prefer it to exist versus not existing, even if it has to be outside the PHB.
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.
TBH if they dont add it then its pretty much being left out to die because no other books can talk about it. i get what you mean but it feels like a pity gift just to get us to say "hey at least its still here"
We do have Artificer data.
I'm sure knowing they can sell it in a future book and people would pay for it (twice) was part of their calculus, but my personal take is that they probably felt they had their hands full with the core 12 as it was.
them having their hands full is fine but i would have rather waited and the Artificer to be officially added. dont quote me on this but didnt they say they were done with editions? its just 5e from now on and just stuff added on? (5.5e or whatever you wanna call it) so unless they make another PHB or just make 6E Artificer mains are the outcasts again. for me the artificer was the whole reason i got into DnD and is what i main in most campaigns. it wouldnt have been a problem to add to the book for the people who like artificer to have new stuff
That's actually decently popular. There is a quite large bias in character creation based on where a subclass is published (presumably based on who owns a book and how long they've had it, subclasses in the basic rulers are consistently around 3x as common as anything else) so a similar pattern would be expected for classes. Give the artificer a similar factor of 3 and it's middle of the pack, somewhere close to bard and ranger.