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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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)
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!
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!
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)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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!
I mean, if you want to get into the world-building of it all - fireworks and gunpower solved a problem that was encountered in warfare. They also took centuries to develop into something with any relability. The real question a good worldbuilder asks themselves is if these types of items would serve any kind of purpose? In a high-magic world the answer is almost always - no. In a low magic world where fewer people have magic, then the answer can be yes. It's about the world and the setting.
Which brings me back round to the Artificer. My personal issue with the artificer in Tashas was that it immediately rendered other classes obsolete. This is a major D&D issue. As others have pointed out - I can reskin the artificer to fit into my world if needs be. What is more difficult is fixing the classes such that they have reason to exist. In a rules system where so many GMs allow multi-classing, it is more difficult for a single class to really stand out and serve a purpose. My experience across three campaigns was that the artificer rendered my the characters of my players running fighters and rangers absolutely pointless. They even overshadowed the rogue in many occasions.
The UA is pleasingly pulling back the power of the Artificer. Something that in my opinion was desperately needed. Though it still doesn't overcome the core problem that D&D now has - classes don't really feel unique. Compare the classes in D&D 5e and 5.5e with those in the Pathfinder 2e Remaster, and WOW do you notice the difference. With no option to effectively multiclass in the way D&D does it the characters not only have more options to tailor to create a really unique character, but also each class serves a legitimate purpose. No one class steps on the toes of any other.
I think this is the core of the issue with the artificer though. It can do a lot of things sure, but it kinda burns out around tier 3 after having been very overpowered. Though, the overpowered nature I do think is largely a problem of poor guidance for DMs. I figured out for myself that if there is an artificer in the party there have to be fewer magic items and fewer potions around to give the Alchemist Artificer a reason to exist whilst keeping them similarly powered to everyone else. I also didn't allow infusion of magic items 'off list'. Allowing otherwise just spirals the power of the Artificer beyond where it realistically needs to be in order to match the other classes.
For the Artillerist it took me longer than I'm proud to recall to have my monsters actually target the cannon. Once that happened, boy the artillerist is a real weakling. Take out that cannon and the Artillerist is fairly pointless in combat for the rest of the adventuring day! This isn't guidance that was offered for the DMs out there though. So, you suddenly had a character walking around with a cannon that was way more powerful than what other characters had. The description of the cannon didn't do itself favours for those who care about how its skinned either. Imagine if the cannon was actually shaped like a magic staff or magic wand. Had that guidance have been given for GMs to help them situate Artificers in their worlds - I think it would be less of an issue.
Then we have the battle smith. Again poorly described. Why couldn't it have been a clay golem? Why couldn't it have been described simply as a construct? I feel that would have helped more people to accept them. I had a player want their Steel Defender to instead be a Golem made of stone. You know what? That's awesome and an immediate yes. Same stats as the Steel Defender of course.
Ultimately, what I feel about the perceived overpowered nature of the Artificer was as a result of the ham-handed and amateurish attempts of the writing team to describe the Artificer class. Some actual thought and consideration, paired with some notes specifically to assist DMs with the task of integrating the artificer into High Magic or non-steampunk aesthetic worlds and so much of the discussion could have been avoided.
To me then, the Artficer's biggest problems is with the writing team at WotC being incapable of describing or providing assistance on worldbuilding and effectively re-skinning things in the rules. That is of course just my opinion on the matter.
- 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.
I'm 100% on board with low-tech artificers and support your suggestion of varied art for the class.
- 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.
Being a jack-of-all-trades IS an identity though. If I'm in a group that is missing a frontliner and a skillmonkey/loremonkey, Artificer can fit that bill nicely in a way that neither a Paladin nor Rogue cleanly can on their own. Sure, a Valor Bard or a tanky Ranger can probably do that too if built the right way, but options are good.
- 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 agree that 2014 Alchemist is weak, but that looks to be something they're trying to address in 2024. This is a good time for us to review and give feedback.
Hand cannons were in use in Europe in the first half of the fourteenth century - around the time plate armour was being developed. Before anyone says anything...no, don't bring Middle-Earth into it. Having an Artificer in the party wouldn't be in the top ten problems with using D&D to recreate Middle-Earth.
The reason why people don't like Artificers thematically is not because they don't belong in a historical sense or that they don't theme well with a LotR aesthetic (lol), it's because...they don't like the feel, because they're not traditional. I used to be like that, but I've changed my mind and decided that I'd rather my players play what they want to play than trying to maintain a pseudo-medieval theme that isn't even based on medieval premises.
In short, the Kardashians are popular and everywhere because they're popular and are therefore everywhere. Artificers are the anti-Kardashians (at least from a thematic point of view) - they're unpopular because they're unpopular and therefore unsee.
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.
- 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.
I'm 100% on board with low-tech artificers and support your suggestion of varied art for the class.
- 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.
Being a jack-of-all-trades IS an identity though. If I'm in a group that is missing a frontliner and a skillmonkey/loremonkey, Artificer can fit that bill nicely in a way that neither a Paladin nor Rogue cleanly can on their own. Sure, a Valor Bard or a tanky Ranger can probably do that too if built the right way, but options are good.
- 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 agree that 2014 Alchemist is weak, but that looks to be something they're trying to address in 2024. This is a good time for us to review and give feedback.
I can totally agree with you on that, but I think that they screwed the armorer over by removing the ability to echant it's weapons. In my opinion they made the arteficer worse in many cases. In some areas the 2024 ua from the Artificer is stronger than the 2014th one, but the tradeoff wasn't worth it in my opinion. They although missed many opportunities to improve and reflavour things. Let's hope that the next ua is better than this one and maybe they let themselves be inspired by the community and take their suggestions. (Before the take comes with do it better or yourself, I already posted a link on my take off a arteficer. I went a little bit crazy on some parts, but it's a ua, so it's soposed to risk something and I would appreciate some feedback on it)
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.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
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!
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!
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)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
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
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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
Well, they just posted the UA for the 2024 Artificer.
I mean, if you want to get into the world-building of it all - fireworks and gunpower solved a problem that was encountered in warfare. They also took centuries to develop into something with any relability. The real question a good worldbuilder asks themselves is if these types of items would serve any kind of purpose? In a high-magic world the answer is almost always - no. In a low magic world where fewer people have magic, then the answer can be yes. It's about the world and the setting.
Which brings me back round to the Artificer. My personal issue with the artificer in Tashas was that it immediately rendered other classes obsolete. This is a major D&D issue. As others have pointed out - I can reskin the artificer to fit into my world if needs be. What is more difficult is fixing the classes such that they have reason to exist. In a rules system where so many GMs allow multi-classing, it is more difficult for a single class to really stand out and serve a purpose. My experience across three campaigns was that the artificer rendered my the characters of my players running fighters and rangers absolutely pointless. They even overshadowed the rogue in many occasions.
The UA is pleasingly pulling back the power of the Artificer. Something that in my opinion was desperately needed. Though it still doesn't overcome the core problem that D&D now has - classes don't really feel unique. Compare the classes in D&D 5e and 5.5e with those in the Pathfinder 2e Remaster, and WOW do you notice the difference. With no option to effectively multiclass in the way D&D does it the characters not only have more options to tailor to create a really unique character, but also each class serves a legitimate purpose. No one class steps on the toes of any other.
I think this is the core of the issue with the artificer though. It can do a lot of things sure, but it kinda burns out around tier 3 after having been very overpowered. Though, the overpowered nature I do think is largely a problem of poor guidance for DMs. I figured out for myself that if there is an artificer in the party there have to be fewer magic items and fewer potions around to give the Alchemist Artificer a reason to exist whilst keeping them similarly powered to everyone else. I also didn't allow infusion of magic items 'off list'. Allowing otherwise just spirals the power of the Artificer beyond where it realistically needs to be in order to match the other classes.
For the Artillerist it took me longer than I'm proud to recall to have my monsters actually target the cannon. Once that happened, boy the artillerist is a real weakling. Take out that cannon and the Artillerist is fairly pointless in combat for the rest of the adventuring day! This isn't guidance that was offered for the DMs out there though. So, you suddenly had a character walking around with a cannon that was way more powerful than what other characters had. The description of the cannon didn't do itself favours for those who care about how its skinned either. Imagine if the cannon was actually shaped like a magic staff or magic wand. Had that guidance have been given for GMs to help them situate Artificers in their worlds - I think it would be less of an issue.
Then we have the battle smith. Again poorly described. Why couldn't it have been a clay golem? Why couldn't it have been described simply as a construct? I feel that would have helped more people to accept them. I had a player want their Steel Defender to instead be a Golem made of stone. You know what? That's awesome and an immediate yes. Same stats as the Steel Defender of course.
Ultimately, what I feel about the perceived overpowered nature of the Artificer was as a result of the ham-handed and amateurish attempts of the writing team to describe the Artificer class. Some actual thought and consideration, paired with some notes specifically to assist DMs with the task of integrating the artificer into High Magic or non-steampunk aesthetic worlds and so much of the discussion could have been avoided.
To me then, the Artficer's biggest problems is with the writing team at WotC being incapable of describing or providing assistance on worldbuilding and effectively re-skinning things in the rules. That is of course just my opinion on the matter.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I'm 100% on board with low-tech artificers and support your suggestion of varied art for the class.
Being a jack-of-all-trades IS an identity though. If I'm in a group that is missing a frontliner and a skillmonkey/loremonkey, Artificer can fit that bill nicely in a way that neither a Paladin nor Rogue cleanly can on their own. Sure, a Valor Bard or a tanky Ranger can probably do that too if built the right way, but options are good.
I agree that 2014 Alchemist is weak, but that looks to be something they're trying to address in 2024. This is a good time for us to review and give feedback.
Hand cannons were in use in Europe in the first half of the fourteenth century - around the time plate armour was being developed. Before anyone says anything...no, don't bring Middle-Earth into it. Having an Artificer in the party wouldn't be in the top ten problems with using D&D to recreate Middle-Earth.
The reason why people don't like Artificers thematically is not because they don't belong in a historical sense or that they don't theme well with a LotR aesthetic (lol), it's because...they don't like the feel, because they're not traditional. I used to be like that, but I've changed my mind and decided that I'd rather my players play what they want to play than trying to maintain a pseudo-medieval theme that isn't even based on medieval premises.
In short, the Kardashians are popular and everywhere because they're popular and are therefore everywhere. Artificers are the anti-Kardashians (at least from a thematic point of view) - they're unpopular because they're unpopular and therefore unsee.
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 can totally agree with you on that, but I think that they screwed the armorer over by removing the ability to echant it's weapons. In my opinion they made the arteficer worse in many cases. In some areas the 2024 ua from the Artificer is stronger than the 2014th one, but the tradeoff wasn't worth it in my opinion. They although missed many opportunities to improve and reflavour things. Let's hope that the next ua is better than this one and maybe they let themselves be inspired by the community and take their suggestions. (Before the take comes with do it better or yourself, I already posted a link on my take off a arteficer. I went a little bit crazy on some parts, but it's a ua, so it's soposed to risk something and I would appreciate some feedback on it)
Here it is, for evryone who is intrested in it:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zk8ay72w9tht4gpt5wu5n/mein-finaler-UA-arteficer.pdf?rlkey=2w59jokpego2ep7f73sqlw645&st=dahmpapo&dl=0