First, a dose of pessimism.. as far as Wizards adding the Artificer class to the 2024 rules goes, i can't say im very hopeful. As far as i can tell, the whole class has been a point of contention for many since it released, and i cant go more than 2 minutes anywhere on the internet without hearing about how steampunk doesnt belong in the standard D&D setting, and magic items are "supposed to be impossible to make yourself".

HOWEVER! With the advent of the two new rule books, we have seen a shift in focus from wizards. Things feel way more open ended, and it seems to be intentional, opening things up and allowing players to have more freedom with their character options (and crafting magic items). With this being said, i feel like Wizards (i hope) recognizes the void that artificers left behind them, especially when you consider the value they can bring to a world. While i doubt Wizards will add the artificer as they were in 2014, im hopeful that they add something of a spiritual successor to the Artificer! To acomplish this, i feel these things will be required:

- Doing away with the steampunk theme: For some insane reason, a huge chunk of the community refuses to look past the words on the page, and realize that the steampunkyness of the artificer was just flavor! Every time a see someone say the artificer doesnt belong in the dnd setting, i start frothing at the mouth- how uncreative do you need to be to not see the potential here? am i crazy? i cant be the only one seeing it! Steel defender? BOOM- its a wood golem! Alchemist? BOOM- its... ok the alchemist already gets a pass. Armorer? BOOM- youre a cleric that glued spell scrolls to some plate armor! I MEAN COME ON GUYS THIS IS SO COOL! Including some varied art of the class would go a long way in resolving this.

- Reframing the identity: In play they felt like a hodgepodge of all the spellcaster classes, like a pokemon that you dump all the TMs into, i never felt like an artificer with a distinct identity to call my own, always a combo between 2 other classes, and always a jack of all trades that shined at nothing but being versitile for the sake of it. You could get insane AC, but so can paladins. you could get good skill checks, but so can the bard. You can cast spells, but they arent very interesting or powerful choices. You could craft magic items, wich arguably IS their identity, but in practice, your replication table is incredibly limited, swapping a learned infusions is impractical, and the infusion slots are limited in a way that feels like you either hoard all the infusions yourself, or give all of them out to your party with nothing in between. There needs to be a more meaningful identity somewhere in there, especially with all the cool concepts you can fit in the class! Sorcerers have blood, wizards have brains, bards have music, but artificers have skill! The idea that an artificer is so good at their craft that theyve somehow managed to weave magic into it is insanely cool! Perhaps tethering their mechanics to their skill somehow would make for interesting play (other than just reflavoring firebolt). theres surely some awesome concepts here mechanically, im just not a TTRPG god, and i dont have the answers.

- More variety in subclasses: The 3(real) subclass choices were fine, but the identity limitation definitely held the potential options back i think. Maybe all artificers shouldnt craft magic items so simply, maybe that trait belongs to a certain subclass while other subclasses are just "pretty good" at it. Maybe a subclass could focus hard on combat options while another could focus on utility and general roundedness. Maybe one could lean harder into summons than the battlesmith did- again, im not a TTRPG god, but even these general ideas are more interesting than the subclasses we got in the 2014 version- i mean come on, one of them isnt even viable (sorry alchemist)

I dont have the answers, all i can do is get my ideas out here and keep the artificers of the community dreaming and staying hopeful. Comment if you think im an idiot, or shoot some more cool/ practicle ideas in the replies, hopefully it inspires someone to write up a post that Wizards will actually have a chance to see.

So, you are aware that the 2014 Artificer is still a class in 2024, correct?

The class needs to be updated to the new general basis, but is otherwise unchanged and still usable in the 2024 rules. The same applies to any subclass that is not directly carried over for all the classes.

The only things that got dropped are the ones that are directly replaced by the 2024 rules.

The Artificer is an Eberron class -- that's the underlying origin for it, and it's been around for 20 some odd years. THe big thing about it is that in order fo it to work in other settings -- and remember, half of all games are played in a world that is not a published one -- is that a lot of folks don't really have a "magical technology" style thing, and don't find it compelling. In some worlds, magic is not a form of technology, and cannot be harnessed in that way.

but then there is also the folks who do have such a thing, and they tend to do their own twists on it (a D&D fantasy in a pseudo-renaissance-cyberpunk world, for example), that mean a different style. I know one game where they flavored the artificer as a witch -- and the big point of it was that they did not have the "mechanical", "steampunk" type things. they were just wood and straw and the like.

The other thing is that a LOT of folks do not like guns in their D&D, and the artificer is explicitly inclusive of firearms. Yes, you can flavor it however you like, but it is still mechanically a firearm.

It is pretty much doomed to always be a niche class -- which means rather than try to change it, they should lean into it. because especially with the return to the primacy of the DM's creativity in 2024, it is going to depend on the DM to make it work for their world.

I like the idea of the Artificer, and agree with some of what AEDorsay mentioned. Maybe you can un-Eberronize it and have things like a golem maker instead of Battle Smith or subclass focused on wands, staves, and rods instead of Artillerist. But it’s probably too tied to the original setting. 

I could see limiting infusions on the base class and having some infusions tied to the subclasses. 

yeah, shame about the guns thing too. Flintlocks and muiskets were very much a thing back then. Do you think its for the same reasons so many people ban flying races? (also a shame)

Quote from FThrall >>

yeah, shame about the guns thing too. Flintlocks and muiskets were very much a thing back then. Do you think its for the same reasons so many people ban flying races? (also a shame)

 
Which “back then” are we talking about? What is commonly referred to as “Medieval times” covers several centuries, and going by a quick Google guns weren’t even beginning until the 14th century in Europe, with another century before they started becoming military mainstays. Insofar as strict historic realism matters in D&D settings, it’s entirely reasonable to say chemistry and metallurgy haven’t reached a point where firearms are present in a setting.

firearms were a thing since 10th century china, i believe the first ones were literal minature cannons on the ends of long sticks, so easy reflavor options!

Quote from FThrall >>

firearms were a thing since 10th century china, i believe the first ones were literal minature cannons on the ends of long sticks, so easy reflavor options!

 
10th century China, sure, but the traditional D&D model is medieval Europe, which would be why I addressed the development in that part of the world. However you try and spin it, swords and castles and a pretty broad suite of muscle powered engineering predate firearms by centuries, there is no automatic loss of historical verisimilitude in excluding gunpowder from a typical fantasy setting.

you are being the absolute worst kind of nerd right now! This is DND, there are real-world inspired cultures sprinkled throughout this entire setting, not to mention the fact that we have pirates, knights, ogres, and elves all over the place,There are ancient mayan, chinese, english, egyptian, and god knows what else adjacent cultures all over the map.

Your precious real world chronology has no power here!

Quote from FThrall >>

you are being the absolute worst kind of nerd right now! This is DND, there are real-world inspired cultures sprinkled throughout this entire setting, not to mention the fact that we have pirates, knights, ogres, and elves all over the place,There are ancient mayan, chinese, english, egyptian, and god knows what else adjacent cultures all over the map.

Your precious real world chronology has no power here!

In that case, neither does yours, so again the exclusion of firearms from a setting is as valid a design choice as their inclusion.

(this is me hiding the rules for modern firearms in the DMG)

My biggest problem with the 5e artificer is that it's a tangled mess mechanically, not that its flavor doesn't "fit". (Which is my same issue with blood hunter, for that matter)

If they are going to update it for 5e24, it needs a complete overhaul, not a new coat of paint

at this point im inclined to agree. tho the dmg has mention of Vi, and uses the term artificer multiple times, so probably no hope in that regard