We have to look at the data with a couple.of things in mind:
Every other class is available for free.
Every other class comes in the PHB with multiple subclasses.
Artificers are the only official premium class.
As we've seen on the forums, it's not uncommon for people to even know how to get the Artificer.
That's a massive handicap...and the numbers aren't that far behind. I was expecting the Artificer to be a quarter of the lowest PHB class or lower. If the Artificer can get close to 80k uses with all those disadvantages while the Monk breaks 100k with those advantages...then really, we should be removing the Monk class from the PHB and maybe replacing it with the Artificer.
The discussion needs to move away from "the Artificer is not in the PHB, how can we justify that?" and move to whether it's objectively something that should be included. Seeing those usage numbers was enlightening, I didn't realise that it was that popular.
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.
"It's not in the phb so that makes it unpopular by default"
Ya but did you know 1e Bards were a prestige class and you had to be like a level 5 fighter, a level 3 cleric and some other details and I think exclusive to elfs?
"Every Class has multiple subclasses"
And so what that mean
And 100 pages for spells to me is crazy they could've maybe used 12 pages for artificer and the other 88 for spell chapter. How hard is it? Oooh we cut 70 spells DARN.
"It's not in the phb so that makes it unpopular by default"
Ya but did you know 1e Bards were a prestige class and you had to be like a level 5 fighter, a level 3 cleric and some other details and I think exclusive to elfs?
"Every Class has multiple subclasses"
And so what that mean
And 100 pages for spells to me is crazy they could've maybe used 12 pages for artificer and the other 88 for spell chapter. How hard is it? Oooh we cut 70 spells DARN.
The book is already at the publisher. To me, it's far more productive to ensure the artificer gets into the next book than arguing about how it could or should have been in this one.
"It's not in the phb so that makes it unpopular by default"
Ya but did you know 1e Bards were a prestige class and you had to be like a level 5 fighter, a level 3 cleric and some other details and I think exclusive to elfs?
I'm not sure where you're coming from here, to be honest. Being in the PHB is going to boost usage numbers, being outside will suppress those numbers. I'm not sure what 1e convoluted rules has to with 5e Artificers?
"Every Class has multiple subclasses"
And so what that mean
If a class has lots of subclasses, it boosts its popularity as people try it out (plus it's more likely to have something to appeal to players). That every other class has multiple subclasses available with the PHB means that their usage stats will be boosted compared to the expansion class Artificer.
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.
"It's not in the phb so that makes it unpopular by default"
Ya but did you know 1e Bards were a prestige class and you had to be like a level 5 fighter, a level 3 cleric and some other details and I think exclusive to elfs?
"Every Class has multiple subclasses"
And so what that mean
And 100 pages for spells to me is crazy they could've maybe used 12 pages for artificer and the other 88 for spell chapter. How hard is it? Oooh we cut 70 spells DARN.
The book is already at the publisher. To me, it's far more productive to ensure the artificer gets into the next book than arguing about how it could or should have been in this one.
I know THAT I was saying that saying "Oh it's not a core class so of course not in the book" isn't a good argument imo. There a LOT of things that weren't in core book in every edition change
Edit: I'm saying bards didn't used to be a core class now they are so insisting Artificer shouldn't be is a silly argument
We have to look at the data with a couple.of things in mind:
Every other class is available for free.
Every other class comes in the PHB with multiple subclasses.
Artificers are the only official premium class.
As we've seen on the forums, it's not uncommon for people to even know how to get the Artificer.
That's a massive handicap...and the numbers aren't that far behind. I was expecting the Artificer to be a quarter of the lowest PHB class or lower. If the Artificer can get close to 80k uses with all those disadvantages while the Monk breaks 100k with those advantages...then really, we should be removing the Monk class from the PHB and maybe replacing it with the Artificer.
The discussion needs to move away from "the Artificer is not in the PHB, how can we justify that?" and move to whether it's objectively something that should be included. Seeing those usage numbers was enlightening, I didn't realise that it was that popular.
going beyond all the numbers and to talk about the feel of the class and if it fits in DnD (as someone whos mained artificer)
DnD as a whole has moved from a more mid fantasy to a higher fantasy (which i enjoy alot) so a maker of magic items who adventures using the items they make isnt such a crazy thing to me
the art that artificers got pushed it heavy into this steampunk style feel but when you play the class you dont feel that at all even when you do play in a high fantasy campaign
iv found that most people who dont like artificer mostly just havent played it because its the "DLC" class and too steampunk for them
if someone who makes magic items doesnt exist in dnd then i do think its a little weird we have classes like wizard and sorcerer who do the same thing expect one just does it better then the other (no hate on either of the classes)
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?
D&D is absolutely terrible at fitting Middle-Earth. ME is, for most of its residents, a no-magic world. Magic comes from two sources:
Beings who are ancient, and wise, and just are magic. Gandalf is a minor angel. Galadriel is so old that she saw the light of the Two Trees in the West.
Objects of fine craftsmanship, usually ancient, and usually made by the above beings or Dwarves.
If you get right down to it, the classes that would be available in a ME D&D game should probably be:
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
Maybe Warlock
Very Maybe Artificer
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.
The artificer does magic by making things. That's all they're defined to do.
If you get right down to it, the classes that would be available in a ME D&D game should probably be:
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
Maybe Warlock
Very Maybe Artificer
Even theb...some Barb subclasses would have to be cut. Warlock? Nah. Again, too high magic. Even the Istari (LotR wizards) don't do magic like that, and Warlocks throw Eldritch Blast around like no tomorrow. As for Artificer...the class is fine and is probably the most attuned to Middle-Earth out of all of them (except for very vanilla Fighters etc) if you reflavoured some of it. The problem comes from the subclasses that are far too steampunk to cover over. If there were a more down to earth subclass, it could fit right it.
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 you get right down to it, the classes that would be available in a ME D&D game should probably be:
Fighter
Rogue
Barbarian
Maybe Warlock
Very Maybe Artificer
Even theb...some Barb subclasses would have to be cut. Warlock? Nah. Again, too high magic.
I was thinking the Mouth of Sauron, who IIRC is stated to be some kind of magic dude.
Even the Istari (LotR wizards) don't do magic like that, and Warlocks throw Eldritch Blast around like no tomorrow. As for Artificer...the class is fine and is probably the most attuned to Middle-Earth out of all of them (except for very vanilla Fighters etc) if you reflavoured some of it. The problem comes from the subclasses that are far too steampunk to cover over. If there were a more down to earth subclass, it could fit right it.
Really the "too much magic being thrown around" problem exists for both Artificers and Warlocks. Artificers might be made to fit, but their power activation times would be in the days to weeks or longer.
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
Sure they can modify core, but it still should set your expectations appropriately. If they decide to add Artificer to core, fine, but you shouldn't expect them to do that, or be upset when they don't.
And I already listed several reasons why it makes sense that they wouldn't. I love the class too, but there's no denying that it's both controversial thematically (no matter how many times we yell about it not being science-based, there is a sizeable contingent of the playerbase that will never see it as anything else), as well as more complex than others mechanically; no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality. Combine those two things with the fact that they have 48 other subclasses to juggle in core and keeping it on the shelf until later just makes sense.
I mean Dragonborns weren't a core race till 4e and now it's in 5e and 5.5.
This is also why the "Dragonborn and Goliaths weren't core, now they are, see??" comparisons don't hold water. Races are mechanically very simple compared to classes, especially classes that, again, expect you to understand a whole new chapter other classes don't (magic items), and that's on top of the spellcasting and equipment chapters. Artificers are the only class in the game where you need all three just for them to function.
I was an artificer for a strahd campaign never built an item
Never using Infuse Item means you were gimping yourself. You have every right to do that of course, but it's not exactly a reasonable expectation for everyone.
I was an artificer for a strahd campaign never built an item
Never using Infuse Item means you were gimping yourself. You have every right to do that of course, but it's not exactly a reasonable expectation for everyone.
infuse just says this item I'm already carrying now does x and is a magic item that requires no crafting rules?
I was an artificer for a strahd campaign never built an item
Never using Infuse Item means you were gimping yourself. You have every right to do that of course, but it's not exactly a reasonable expectation for everyone.
infuse just says this item I'm already carrying now does x and is a magic item that requires no crafting rules?
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
Sure they can modify core, but it still should set your expectations appropriately. If they decide to add Artificer to core, fine, but you shouldn't expect them to do that, or be upset when they don't.
And I already listed several reasons why it makes sense that they wouldn't. I love the class too, but there's no denying that it's both controversial thematically (no matter how many times we yell about it not being science-based, there is a sizeable contingent of the playerbase that will never see it as anything else), as well as more complex than others mechanically; no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality. Combine those two things with the fact that they have 48 other subclasses to juggle in core and keeping it on the shelf until later just makes sense
true but those are just your reasons not the companies. do you know their reason or just making more guesses?
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
Sure they can modify core, but it still should set your expectations appropriately. If they decide to add Artificer to core, fine, but you shouldn't expect them to do that, or be upset when they don't.
And I already listed several reasons why it makes sense that they wouldn't. I love the class too, but there's no denying that it's both controversial thematically (no matter how many times we yell about it not being science-based, there is a sizeable contingent of the playerbase that will never see it as anything else), as well as more complex than others mechanically; no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality. Combine those two things with the fact that they have 48 other subclasses to juggle in core and keeping it on the shelf until later just makes sense
true but those are just your reasons not the companies. do you know their reason or just making more guesses?
WotC is both notoriously and historicaly silent on the why of pretty much anything they do, as such speculation and rumors are king.
I was an artificer for a strahd campaign never built an item
Never using Infuse Item means you were gimping yourself. You have every right to do that of course, but it's not exactly a reasonable expectation for everyone.
infuse just says this item I'm already carrying now does x and is a magic item that requires no crafting rules?
I didn't say anything about crafting rules?
You said me not crafting is not using infuse which I used but never crafted anything
You said me not crafting is not using infuse which I used but never crafted anything
I don't understand what you're not getting. Infuse Item makes magic items. Magic items have their own rules, even if you're not crafting them. So it's another chapter to read.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There's not a lot of people who love Artificers?
We have to look at the data with a couple.of things in mind:
That's a massive handicap...and the numbers aren't that far behind. I was expecting the Artificer to be a quarter of the lowest PHB class or lower. If the Artificer can get close to 80k uses with all those disadvantages while the Monk breaks 100k with those advantages...then really, we should be removing the Monk class from the PHB and maybe replacing it with the Artificer.
The discussion needs to move away from "the Artificer is not in the PHB, how can we justify that?" and move to whether it's objectively something that should be included. Seeing those usage numbers was enlightening, I didn't realise that it was that popular.
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.
Your argument for it I have a few points
"It's not in the phb so that makes it unpopular by default"
Ya but did you know 1e Bards were a prestige class and you had to be like a level 5 fighter, a level 3 cleric and some other details and I think exclusive to elfs?
"Every Class has multiple subclasses"
And so what that mean
And 100 pages for spells to me is crazy they could've maybe used 12 pages for artificer and the other 88 for spell chapter. How hard is it? Oooh we cut 70 spells DARN.
The book is already at the publisher. To me, it's far more productive to ensure the artificer gets into the next book than arguing about how it could or should have been in this one.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here, to be honest. Being in the PHB is going to boost usage numbers, being outside will suppress those numbers. I'm not sure what 1e convoluted rules has to with 5e Artificers?
If a class has lots of subclasses, it boosts its popularity as people try it out (plus it's more likely to have something to appeal to players). That every other class has multiple subclasses available with the PHB means that their usage stats will be boosted compared to the expansion class Artificer.
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 know THAT I was saying that saying "Oh it's not a core class so of course not in the book" isn't a good argument imo. There a LOT of things that weren't in core book in every edition change
Edit: I'm saying bards didn't used to be a core class now they are so insisting Artificer shouldn't be is a silly argument
going beyond all the numbers and to talk about the feel of the class and if it fits in DnD (as someone whos mained artificer)
D&D is absolutely terrible at fitting Middle-Earth. ME is, for most of its residents, a no-magic world. Magic comes from two sources:
If you get right down to it, the classes that would be available in a ME D&D game should probably be:
The artificer does magic by making things. That's all they're defined to do.
Even theb...some Barb subclasses would have to be cut. Warlock? Nah. Again, too high magic. Even the Istari (LotR wizards) don't do magic like that, and Warlocks throw Eldritch Blast around like no tomorrow. As for Artificer...the class is fine and is probably the most attuned to Middle-Earth out of all of them (except for very vanilla Fighters etc) if you reflavoured some of it. The problem comes from the subclasses that are far too steampunk to cover over. If there were a more down to earth subclass, it could fit right it.
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 was thinking the Mouth of Sauron, who IIRC is stated to be some kind of magic dude.
Really the "too much magic being thrown around" problem exists for both Artificers and Warlocks. Artificers might be made to fit, but their power activation times would be in the days to weeks or longer.
Sure they can modify core, but it still should set your expectations appropriately. If they decide to add Artificer to core, fine, but you shouldn't expect them to do that, or be upset when they don't.
And I already listed several reasons why it makes sense that they wouldn't. I love the class too, but there's no denying that it's both controversial thematically (no matter how many times we yell about it not being science-based, there is a sizeable contingent of the playerbase that will never see it as anything else), as well as more complex than others mechanically; no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality. Combine those two things with the fact that they have 48 other subclasses to juggle in core and keeping it on the shelf until later just makes sense.
This is also why the "Dragonborn and Goliaths weren't core, now they are, see??" comparisons don't hold water. Races are mechanically very simple compared to classes, especially classes that, again, expect you to understand a whole new chapter other classes don't (magic items), and that's on top of the spellcasting and equipment chapters. Artificers are the only class in the game where you need all three just for them to function.
I was an artificer for a strahd campaign never built an item
Never using Infuse Item means you were gimping yourself. You have every right to do that of course, but it's not exactly a reasonable expectation for everyone.
infuse just says this item I'm already carrying now does x and is a magic item that requires no crafting rules?
I didn't say anything about crafting rules?
true but those are just your reasons not the companies. do you know their reason or just making more guesses?
WotC is both notoriously and historicaly silent on the why of pretty much anything they do, as such speculation and rumors are king.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
I don't work for WotC if that's what you're asking 😂
There are definitely more reasons for them to leave the Artificer out of the PHB than to put it in.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
You said me not crafting is not using infuse which I used but never crafted anything
I don't understand what you're not getting. Infuse Item makes magic items. Magic items have their own rules, even if you're not crafting them. So it's another chapter to read.