Artificer as a class is the least broadly compatible with fantasy tropes as whole. That is not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with aetherpunk, magitek, or suchlike in fantasy, but it's not really a concept that's compatible with say a Tolkien-esque setting, while all of the classes currently in the PHB are. So, yeah, I think it's appropriate it's at one remove from the core books. It's not like the current iteration is incompatible with the update, and frankly Artificer is the least in need of a tune-up in any case.
This mentality is destroying Artificer it can do more then steampunk but cuz it came out in Ebberon dnd hasn't made much effort implying Artificer really is the 'mad science' class which can frankly be themed to be anything. The vid I linked earlier by one of my fave YouTubers explains the stereotypes and what you can do to enjoy Artificer without steampunk
Okay, and how exactly do you fit any of the subclasses from Tasha's into Middle-Earth? Plus, people like Artificer as "the science class", so the fact that you can rebrand the features to not be tech-/science-associated doesn't mean WotC is going to do that, because those associations are part of the draw.
Okay, and how exactly do you fit any of the subclasses from Tasha's into Middle-Earth? Plus, people like Artificer as "the science class", so the fact that you can rebrand the features to not be tech-/science-associated doesn't mean WotC is going to do that, because those associations are part of the draw.
Just rebrand it like Bard now just a magic artist and can use any art form to cast spells
Okay, and how exactly do you fit any of the subclasses from Tasha's into Middle-Earth? Plus, people like Artificer as "the science class", so the fact that you can rebrand the features to not be tech-/science-associated doesn't mean WotC is going to do that, because those associations are part of the draw.
Just rebrand it like Bard now just a magic artist and can use any art form to cast spells
Umm, I haven't seen anything for that yet; as of the last UA they still specifically needed a musical instrument as their focus and I don't believe they've discussed changes to the Bard class in the upcoming PHB yet. Also, "just rebrand it" is not a good counterargument to "part of the draw is a particular branding".
Umm, I haven't seen anything for that yet; as of the last UA they still specifically needed a musical instrument as their focus and I don't believe they've discussed changes to the Bard class in the upcoming PHB yet. Also, "just rebrand it" is not a good counterargument to "part of the draw is a particular branding".
Actually you can rebrand a class to appeal to more ppl. Bards are not just musicians, Shakespeare called The Bard of Avon and he didn't write musicals.
If I were going to do a Middle-Earth campaign using D&D, I'd be tearing multiple classes out of the PHB, and a whole load of other things to the point there wouldn't be much of a PHB left... there's a very good reason why Lord of the Rings: Roleplaying (5e) did precisely that.
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.
If I were going to do a Middle-Earth campaign using D&D, I'd be tearing multiple classes out of the PHB, and a whole load of other things to the point there wouldn't be much of a PHB left... there's a very good reason why Lord of the Rings: Roleplaying (5e) did precisely that.
Exactly dnd is for cgi high fantasy lotr is subtle high fantasy
The Tolkeinesque take is odd considering how hyper terrestrial that setting is in contrast to D&D. Even wizards ride horses in Middle Earth. But D&D has fae and tons of teleportation. People bampf about all over the place. I'm not sure how the Warlock really fits, or Tieflings...
The funny thing about wizards in Middle Earth is that some argument could be made that they are closer to druids in D&D than to wizards, despite being the inspiration for the wizard class. And Artificers are a blend that includes a good bit of Druid. Thinking about it a bit, I could make a case for Gandalf as an Artificer.
The DM for the Gandalf player has allowed the player to reflavor their armor to appear as wizard robes. When trapped at the top of Orthanc, Gandalf still has his spellcasting abilities and artisan tools because he's still wearing his robes (his infused armor). If we aren't satisfied with Gwaihir showing up randomly/ reporting news and go with the movie version with the moth - well, we don't have to be satisfied with a random moth appearance, either. Gandalf the Artificer was able to chip the stone and shape it into a tiny flying creature with their robe-tools, record a message in it via the Magical Tinkering feature, and cast animate objects on it, sending it to deliver a message - possibly to Shadowfax. Gandalf's subclass may well be a battle smith, not only for proficiency in martial weapons and for using INT for attack and damage rolls, but also to say Shadowfax is his steel defender. He could cast Enlarge to use it as his mount and cast longstrider to increase it's speed (though sadly it would still be slower than a riding horse, so we might imagine it to have horseshoes of speed, which an Artificer could easily install when creating their steel defender.) The Radiant Weapon infusion is a great take on the ability Gandalf used to scatter the Nazgul with the light emanating from his staff.
I love the Artificer class. One of the little things I love is having both Catapult and Faerie Fire as level 1 spells. I feel prepared for a huge variety of situations with just those two spells. Utility, support, and damage intertwined. I like flavoring familiar spells as Skydancer Barbies, whittled garden gnomes that animate when I channel spells into them, runic magic, and all manner of whimsical approaches.
I would have loved to see it in the PHB. I'm guessing one factor for it not appearing in the PHB is the psionics subclasses, which the Artificer doesn't have. Maybe it would be something focused around metacreativity, with features to create a psionic double or other psionics constructs that could deliver touch attacks like the homunculus. I'm not a fan of psionics, so I would have traded all the psionics subclasses for the other classes for the Artificer.
Since artificers were original to Ebberon, I think they are holding off to make sure there is another reason to buy that campaign book whenever it gets updated. Yes, artificers could fit into many settings, putting it out before a new Ebberon book feels like it would be a bad move.
Edit: and you can still play the artificer in the new rule set. I don’t see any big conflicts between the class and using the new rules. Of course I could be missing something.
Artificer as a class is the least broadly compatible with fantasy tropes as whole. That is not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with aetherpunk, magitek, or suchlike in fantasy, but it's not really a concept that's compatible with say a Tolkien-esque setting, while all of the classes currently in the PHB are. So, yeah, I think it's appropriate it's at one remove from the core books. It's not like the current iteration is incompatible with the update, and frankly Artificer is the least in need of a tune-up in any case.
This mentality is destroying Artificer it can do more then steampunk but cuz it came out in Ebberon dnd hasn't made much effort implying Artificer really is the 'mad science' class which can frankly be themed to be anything. The vid I linked earlier by one of my fave YouTubers explains the stereotypes and what you can do to enjoy Artificer without steampunk
Don’t have a chance to watch that vid now, at work, but will try later.
But….personally I mainly look at classes as just a bag of mechanics that you can flavor how you want. But I think most players go by the writing on the tin. You read Swashbuckler and a certain type of character comes into mind. You can flavor it however you like but many players probably play to the trope. And I think Artificer falls into the same category, no matter what Ginny Di might say. The history of the class carries with it certain expectations that some, probably many, cannot or will not look beyond.
Edit: I mean, this typically is a high fantasy game where magic items are in almost every dungeon. And for the most part creating magic items is a lost art from the distant past (I know there are some crafting rules but it seems most magic items are something that’s been around many many years). Artificers are kind of like wizards researching this lost art. But steampunk has been imbedded too much into the class.
If I were going to do a Middle-Earth campaign using D&D, I'd be tearing multiple classes out of the PHB, and a whole load of other things to the point there wouldn't be much of a PHB left... there's a very good reason why Lord of the Rings: Roleplaying (5e) did precisely that.
Exactly dnd is for cgi high fantasy lotr is subtle high fantasy
LotR isn't High Fantasy, it's more Epic Fantasy. And dnd is really more Pulp Fantasy.
Don’t have a chance to watch that vid now, at work, but will try later.
But….personally I mainly look at classes as just a bag of mechanics that you can flavor how you want. But I think most players go by the writing on the tin. You read Swashbuckler and a certain type of character comes into mind. You can flavor it however you like but many players probably play to the trope. And I think Artificer falls into the same category, no matter what Ginny Di might say. The history of the class carries with it certain expectations that some, probably many, cannot or will not look beyond.
I know but more me linking it was that artificer is harmed by stereotypes it has to be steampunk and if we think more about what it's mechanics offer aesthetically it can be cooler
Artificer as a class is the least broadly compatible with fantasy tropes as whole. That is not to say there's anything fundamentally wrong with aetherpunk, magitek, or suchlike in fantasy, but it's not really a concept that's compatible with say a Tolkien-esque setting, while all of the classes currently in the PHB are. So, yeah, I think it's appropriate it's at one remove from the core books. It's not like the current iteration is incompatible with the update, and frankly Artificer is the least in need of a tune-up in any case.
You don't need magitek or any kind of punk for artificer to fit in a campaign though. Artificers can be wandsmiths, scrollmasters, runecarvers, gemcutters and the like just fine. The important thing about them is their magic comes from tools, so just stick with the more rustic/medieval tools and they'll fit in just fine.
You don't need magitek or any kind of punk for artificer to fit in a campaign though. Artificers can be wandsmiths, scrollmasters, runecarvers, gemcutters and the like just fine. The important thing about them is their magic comes from tools, so just stick with the more rustic/medieval tools and they'll fit in just fine.
Exactly Artificer so underrated cuz ppl think even art insists on steampunk
Why do all these hysterical threads not realize that the PHB is core and the Artificer has never been core? That doesn't mean it's being "abandoned."
Also the poll is heavily slanted. I can think Artificer is cool (and do) without thinking it belongs in the PHB.
What does it really matter if its core or not? they could of added it if they chose too "core" stuff has been changing and getting stuff added to it since the start of dnd
alot of races were "core" in 5e but they were added in 2024 because players loved them. PsyrenXY do they have a race chart so we can see the most played races?
That's what you dont seem to understand; There's not a lot of people who love artificers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That's what you dont seem to understand; There's not a lot of people who love artificers.
there was a post that showed the numbers and for a class that came out 5 to 6 years after the PHB and never got anymore love after? i think it did really well it had like 80k (ish) people that play them. imagine if fighter came out with only the PHB classes its getting right now and never got another one? welcome to being an artificer main :P
That's what you dont seem to understand; There's not a lot of people who love artificers.
there was a post that showed the numbers and for a class that came out 5 to 6 years after the PHB and never got anymore love after? i think it did really well it had like 80k (ish) people that play them. imagine if fighter came out with only the PHB classes its getting right now and never got another one? welcome to being an artificer main :P
I have to agree - a class that has existed for half the time and has....(goes and checks quickly)...just over half of the available subclasses as the two next lowest options (if you are wondering, that's Druid and Sorcerer, with 7 subclasses each), only tied with a 3rd party option, well, that's gonna skew the data a bit.
Granted, it was never a core class, and will likely show up in either the next "Of Everything" guide or the re-release of Eberron, but I agree it would be nice to see it get a little more support after the initial release. When new spells are released - don't forget the Artificer exists, and when another "Of Everything" guide is released after the Artificer is updated, please include at least one Artificer subclass to go along with the two or more for everyone else.
Okay, and how exactly do you fit any of the subclasses from Tasha's into Middle-Earth? Plus, people like Artificer as "the science class", so the fact that you can rebrand the features to not be tech-/science-associated doesn't mean WotC is going to do that, because those associations are part of the draw.
Just rebrand it like Bard now just a magic artist and can use any art form to cast spells
Umm, I haven't seen anything for that yet; as of the last UA they still specifically needed a musical instrument as their focus and I don't believe they've discussed changes to the Bard class in the upcoming PHB yet. Also, "just rebrand it" is not a good counterargument to "part of the draw is a particular branding".
Actually you can rebrand a class to appeal to more ppl. Bards are not just musicians, Shakespeare called The Bard of Avon and he didn't write musicals.
If I were going to do a Middle-Earth campaign using D&D, I'd be tearing multiple classes out of the PHB, and a whole load of other things to the point there wouldn't be much of a PHB left... there's a very good reason why Lord of the Rings: Roleplaying (5e) did precisely that.
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.
Exactly dnd is for cgi high fantasy lotr is subtle high fantasy
Artificer is the best, OK?
The Tolkeinesque take is odd considering how hyper terrestrial that setting is in contrast to D&D. Even wizards ride horses in Middle Earth. But D&D has fae and tons of teleportation. People bampf about all over the place. I'm not sure how the Warlock really fits, or Tieflings...
The funny thing about wizards in Middle Earth is that some argument could be made that they are closer to druids in D&D than to wizards, despite being the inspiration for the wizard class. And Artificers are a blend that includes a good bit of Druid. Thinking about it a bit, I could make a case for Gandalf as an Artificer.
Cantrips: Prestidigitation and Light
Infusions: Armor of Tools and Radiant Weapon
Feats: Dual Wielder, Fighting Initiate (Two-weapon fighting)
The DM for the Gandalf player has allowed the player to reflavor their armor to appear as wizard robes. When trapped at the top of Orthanc, Gandalf still has his spellcasting abilities and artisan tools because he's still wearing his robes (his infused armor). If we aren't satisfied with Gwaihir showing up randomly/ reporting news and go with the movie version with the moth - well, we don't have to be satisfied with a random moth appearance, either. Gandalf the Artificer was able to chip the stone and shape it into a tiny flying creature with their robe-tools, record a message in it via the Magical Tinkering feature, and cast animate objects on it, sending it to deliver a message - possibly to Shadowfax. Gandalf's subclass may well be a battle smith, not only for proficiency in martial weapons and for using INT for attack and damage rolls, but also to say Shadowfax is his steel defender. He could cast Enlarge to use it as his mount and cast longstrider to increase it's speed (though sadly it would still be slower than a riding horse, so we might imagine it to have horseshoes of speed, which an Artificer could easily install when creating their steel defender.) The Radiant Weapon infusion is a great take on the ability Gandalf used to scatter the Nazgul with the light emanating from his staff.
I love the Artificer class. One of the little things I love is having both Catapult and Faerie Fire as level 1 spells. I feel prepared for a huge variety of situations with just those two spells. Utility, support, and damage intertwined. I like flavoring familiar spells as Skydancer Barbies, whittled garden gnomes that animate when I channel spells into them, runic magic, and all manner of whimsical approaches.
I would have loved to see it in the PHB. I'm guessing one factor for it not appearing in the PHB is the psionics subclasses, which the Artificer doesn't have. Maybe it would be something focused around metacreativity, with features to create a psionic double or other psionics constructs that could deliver touch attacks like the homunculus. I'm not a fan of psionics, so I would have traded all the psionics subclasses for the other classes for the Artificer.
Since artificers were original to Ebberon, I think they are holding off to make sure there is another reason to buy that campaign book whenever it gets updated. Yes, artificers could fit into many settings, putting it out before a new Ebberon book feels like it would be a bad move.
Edit: and you can still play the artificer in the new rule set. I don’t see any big conflicts between the class and using the new rules. Of course I could be missing something.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Don’t have a chance to watch that vid now, at work, but will try later.
But….personally I mainly look at classes as just a bag of mechanics that you can flavor how you want. But I think most players go by the writing on the tin. You read Swashbuckler and a certain type of character comes into mind. You can flavor it however you like but many players probably play to the trope. And I think Artificer falls into the same category, no matter what Ginny Di might say. The history of the class carries with it certain expectations that some, probably many, cannot or will not look beyond.
Edit: I mean, this typically is a high fantasy game where magic items are in almost every dungeon. And for the most part creating magic items is a lost art from the distant past (I know there are some crafting rules but it seems most magic items are something that’s been around many many years). Artificers are kind of like wizards researching this lost art. But steampunk has been imbedded too much into the class.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
LotR isn't High Fantasy, it's more Epic Fantasy. And dnd is really more Pulp Fantasy.
I know but more me linking it was that artificer is harmed by stereotypes it has to be steampunk and if we think more about what it's mechanics offer aesthetically it can be cooler
You don't need magitek or any kind of punk for artificer to fit in a campaign though. Artificers can be wandsmiths, scrollmasters, runecarvers, gemcutters and the like just fine. The important thing about them is their magic comes from tools, so just stick with the more rustic/medieval tools and they'll fit in just fine.
Exactly Artificer so underrated cuz ppl think even art insists on steampunk
What does it really matter if its core or not? they could of added it if they chose too "core" stuff has been changing and getting stuff added to it since the start of dnd
I mean Dragonborns weren't a core race till 4e and now it's in 5e and 5.5
alot of races were "core" in 5e but they were added in 2024 because players loved them. PsyrenXY do they have a race chart so we can see the most played races?
That's what you dont seem to understand; There's not a lot of people who love artificers.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
there was a post that showed the numbers and for a class that came out 5 to 6 years after the PHB and never got anymore love after? i think it did really well it had like 80k (ish) people that play them. imagine if fighter came out with only the PHB classes its getting right now and never got another one? welcome to being an artificer main :P
I have to agree - a class that has existed for half the time and has....(goes and checks quickly)...just over half of the available subclasses as the two next lowest options (if you are wondering, that's Druid and Sorcerer, with 7 subclasses each), only tied with a 3rd party option, well, that's gonna skew the data a bit.
Granted, it was never a core class, and will likely show up in either the next "Of Everything" guide or the re-release of Eberron, but I agree it would be nice to see it get a little more support after the initial release. When new spells are released - don't forget the Artificer exists, and when another "Of Everything" guide is released after the Artificer is updated, please include at least one Artificer subclass to go along with the two or more for everyone else.