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.
would be nice if they would just give reasons to why when a part of the community asks
...no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality.
On this point, it's worth pointing out that the Artificer is not the most egregious class for this problem (taking the issue in its generalist form). The Druid, from 2014 to about two months from now:
Required you to know additional materials above the others, but that material isn't stuff that would already be good for any player to know regardless (every player should learn how magic items work because they'll be using them eventually regardless of class, enemy statblocks? Players generally don't use them)
Unlike the Artificer, that material wasn't even satisfactorily covered by the PHB (and for the Moon Druid, still won't be in September).
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 that hard to look at Beast stats, particular with the advent of D&DB; there's a good spread just in the content that's covered under Basic Rules, so it takes an internet connection and maybe an hour of time to pick out a few go-to forms.
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.
would be nice if they would just give reasons to why when a part of the community asks
Oh yes, because if there's one thing the community has proven, it's that it will always engage with WotC in a thoughtful, courteous, and productive manner. Not saying WotC is as pure as the driven snow, but I've seen enough people try to spin minor things into horror stories that I can appreciate why they'd feel regularly giving outlines of their reasoning will just encourage more attacks on that front from segments disaffected by their decisions.
It's not that hard to look at Beast stats, particular with the advent of D&DB; there's a good spread just in the content that's covered under Basic Rules, so it takes an internet connection and maybe an hour of time to pick out a few go-to forms.
Right, but if someone's complaining that it's too much to look over the magic item rules that are in the same book and are semi-mandatory anyway, then it's way too much for what the Druid needs.
Also, unless you use DDB app (not really a concern for us), it is a pain. My LGS charges (way too much) for internet (which renders the encounter builder useless, boo), and the only way is via the Monster Manual, that most players won't have (unless they buy it specifically for the Druid). I actually regret buying the MM physically, it's just too inconvenient.
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.
...no other class expects you to understand the magic items chapter as part of its basic functionality.
On this point, it's worth pointing out that the Artificer is not the most egregious class for this problem (taking the issue in its generalist form). The Druid, from 2014 to about two months from now:
Required you to know additional materials above the others, but that material isn't stuff that would already be good for any player to know regardless (every player should learn how magic items work because they'll be using them eventually regardless of class, enemy statblocks? Players generally don't use them)
Unlike the Artificer, that material wasn't even satisfactorily covered by the PHB (and for the Moon Druid, still won't be in September).
Sure, Druid is absolutely complicated too. Couple of things though:
Unlike Magic Items, there are plenty of Beasts in the PHB even in 2014, and 2024 will have an even bigger selection. And while you won't be able to go 1-20 with Moon from the PHB, there will definitely be enough Beasts in the new PHB to get a new Druid player (especially non-Moon) over the learning curve without needing to crack open a separate book.
Regarding the "not enough forms in the PHB" issue, that only applies to the Moon subclass. Every other Druid likely will be able to just use the PHB forms for their wildshape and have plenty of utility options, and even a decent number for low-level combat. EVERY Artificer meanwhile needs to look at the DMG or else leave a big chunk of their class on the table.
Despite their difficulty being comparable, laving the Druid out of core would be a much harder sell than the Artificer, both for reasons of tradition as well as the other things I highlighted previously. There's no controversy about druid's theming for example.
Fair enough. I feel like artificers have a place in low magic settings similar to Middle Earth, after all someone has to be making all the magic items lying around. But the alchemist and maybe the artillerist the only ones that would fit is such as setting, the other two are REALLY pushing the whole robot thing. It would be hard to justify that yee olde runecarver can just casually make a robot or a suit of power armor.
Fundamentally, the Artificer is basically just a wizard that uses magic items instead of spells. The description of the Artificer in Ebberon basically says so. Now admittedly a lot of the subclasses don’t fit into the low magic setting of Middle Earth, it would be pretty hard to fit in the Battle Smith for example because of the lack of golems, but the Alchemist could fit in pretty well, and so could the Artillerist since all you need for them is a magic wand or something similar to act as an Eldritch Cannon.
would be nice if they would just give reasons to why when a part of the community asks
On this point, it's worth pointing out that the Artificer is not the most egregious class for this problem (taking the issue in its generalist form). The Druid, from 2014 to about two months from now:
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 that hard to look at Beast stats, particular with the advent of D&DB; there's a good spread just in the content that's covered under Basic Rules, so it takes an internet connection and maybe an hour of time to pick out a few go-to forms.
Oh yes, because if there's one thing the community has proven, it's that it will always engage with WotC in a thoughtful, courteous, and productive manner. Not saying WotC is as pure as the driven snow, but I've seen enough people try to spin minor things into horror stories that I can appreciate why they'd feel regularly giving outlines of their reasoning will just encourage more attacks on that front from segments disaffected by their decisions.
Right, but if someone's complaining that it's too much to look over the magic item rules that are in the same book and are semi-mandatory anyway, then it's way too much for what the Druid needs.
Also, unless you use DDB app (not really a concern for us), it is a pain. My LGS charges (way too much) for internet (which renders the encounter builder useless, boo), and the only way is via the Monster Manual, that most players won't have (unless they buy it specifically for the Druid). I actually regret buying the MM physically, it's just too inconvenient.
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.
Sure, Druid is absolutely complicated too. Couple of things though:
Fair enough. I feel like artificers have a place in low magic settings similar to Middle Earth, after all someone has to be making all the magic items lying around. But the alchemist and maybe the artillerist the only ones that would fit is such as setting, the other two are REALLY pushing the whole robot thing. It would be hard to justify that yee olde runecarver can just casually make a robot or a suit of power armor.
Fundamentally, the Artificer is basically just a wizard that uses magic items instead of spells. The description of the Artificer in Ebberon basically says so. Now admittedly a lot of the subclasses don’t fit into the low magic setting of Middle Earth, it would be pretty hard to fit in the Battle Smith for example because of the lack of golems, but the Alchemist could fit in pretty well, and so could the Artillerist since all you need for them is a magic wand or something similar to act as an Eldritch Cannon.
Put your spoiler here.
is Tasha’s