If you ban artificer because it doesn't fit for flavor, do you also ban forge cleric? If your player wants to play an artificer, perhaps try coming to an agreement about a flavorfully non-intrusive way to play one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
If I'm running an official adventure I'll usually have all classes and subclasses available. The exception being the starter sets or essentials kit which I limit to only PHB content.
If I'm running a setting or adventure that I've designed, then yes I do sometimes ban artificer and some other classes or subclasses. Here's an example of how that works:
In my Burning Hunger Campaign, Elves and Feykind are the baddies. They had this big empire and oppressed all other peoples. As a result any creatures or abilities which derive or are in any way thematically linked to the Feywild (called Faege in my setting) required discussion with the DM. Largely this was so that the players didn't choose a class or race that caused friction with local NPCs who have a burning mistrust of Feykind. I outright banned all Psionics. They were just eliminated from the game entirely. So, players were required to speak to me to work through how their class choice might affect their play style if they chose any of the following:
Artificer - Alchemist, Armourer, Artillerist, Battle Smith - Not thematically appropriate for the setting
Barbarian - Giant - Giants were never present in this world.
Bard - Glamour - Linked to Feykind, friction with NPCs
Cleric - Death, Nature, War - friction with NPCs
Druid - Dreams, Spores, Stars, Land, Moon, Shepherd, Wildfire - Druids are heavily associated with the Feykind, friction with NPCs
Ranger - Fey Wanderer
Warlock - Archfey, Undead, Hexblade - Links to Feykind and 'creepy' so possible frictions with NPCs.
There were 37 subclasses that required a discussion on how the subclass would work in this low magic setting where 'creepy' or Feykind magical abilities might be perceived as 'evil' by the populous of nearby settlements. The players were free to choose them as long as they understood that social encounters might be more difficult, or casting their magic in public might have people fleeing from them scared and panicked.
Outright disallowed in the setting were
Fighter - Psi Warrior - Psionics are deleted
Ranger - Beast Master - Pointless subclass that is done far better with spells and different subclasses. Happy to provide a pet for a different class if you wish.
Rogue - Soulknife - Psionics deleted
Sorcerer - Abberant Mind - Psionics are deleted.
In my current setting the world has moved on a few decades, and all subclasses except psionics are available again. Personally I still absolutely hate how bafflingly silly the Artificer class is, but if players want to run it fine. The only exception is Artillerist which has cosmetic changes because in my world firearms simply do not exist. Magic can achieve the same result far easier so the likelihood of gunpowder ever being developed is very low. I do have explosives in the form of something like Greek Fire, but no guns. That's a thematic approach that most players appear to agree with. In fact its often US based players who have the biggest problem with that ruling.
In any event, yes - if I'm banning a class or subclass there's usually a good reason and its likely to do with the worldbuilding. If I were building a world without gods or deities I'd entirely delete the Cleric class for example. The point is that it's rarely arbitrary. Usually there's a worldbuilding or a challenge based reason behind it - except Beast Master Rangers which entirely suck and should have actually have been fixed.
If you ban artificer because it doesn't fit for flavor, do you also ban forge cleric? If your player wants to play an artificer, perhaps try coming to an agreement about a flavorfully non-intrusive way to play one.
Ummm, no. Some things don’t fit in some worlds, and just don’t work. Often some re-skinning can make things ok, but not always. And that’s coming from a DM who allows literally everything WotC publishes in my campaigns.
This really seems like maybe an issue between a person and their DM, not sure why the discussion isn’t happening more privately.
I generally don't allow artificers in my games. I run a fantasy game and I feel that artificers bring too much of a steampunk aesthetic. I don't allow warforged or firearms either. I would probably allow the alchemist and maybe even the cartographer but nobody has ever asked for those (because they don't fit the steampunk idea the player who wants to be an artificer is usually looking for... and they're also not great).
If you want to be a blaster, become a sorcerer. You want to be a tank, there are lots of choices. You want to have a fighting pet, become a warlock (or a ranger, but...).
I would happily allow a Forge Domain, because it is coded blacksmith and that fits my world.
I suppose I might be open to hearing out a player but they usually want to choose the artificer because they have a steampunk fantasy. I have run an Eberron campaign and it just doesn't float my boat.
That's just me - as a DM, worldbuilding is one of my great joys and I want to help tell the stories that I find interesting.
I run a not quite steampunk but almost Industrial Revolution time game. So trains, guns and airships are not readily available except in some regions like where the inventors live and where piracy is common. Also I play them as magical blacksmiths as their description states “they infuse mundane items with magical power” magic blacksmith
Good approach, but how is the Alchemist not thematically appropriate?
Artificers tend to fit more into worlds that are analogous to the European Renaissance era. Sure there are examples from the Early Modern Arabic cultures of automaton attempts and other such tinkering. We might also make claims that there were also some fun inventors in Ancient Greece, but if you're setting your world up to be closer to the technology of the 100BC to 350AD era (from a European and North African point of view Roman era) then an artificer really just doesn't fit. Of course then neither does heavy plate armour.
Honestly though, for my money artificers when they first came out seemed like an attempt to appeal to the WoW players and steampunk lovers and my impression really hasn't shifted. I've yet to meet a player whose done anything interesting or cool with an artificer. Mostly they're overpowered characters that stick out like sore thumbs among the average party.
Now, if I were to be running an adventure in an analogous Renaissance era I might discuss with players that Artificers might work well for characters in a similar vein to DaVinci or suchlike.
I've yet to meet a player whose done anything interesting or cool with an artificer.
It's hard to break it out of the "magic as technology" vibe, but it's not impossible
I have one character concept I haven't busted out yet, potentially as a multiclass with Oath of the Ancients paladin, where the artificer features would be flavored as magic crystals and stones attached to his armor -- more along the lines of the power crystals from Land of the Lost than "gadgets"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Alchemists are interesting because they aren't so much as steampunk-coded (which I blame on the art) and can fit extremely well in most pure fantasy settings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
I don't ban the artificer, but I do require players discuss with me how they will fit into the world, same goes for the Autognome, Warforged, Thrikreen, and Giff species (and a few of the Ravnica species). An artificer can be flavoured to fit within a classical fantasy setting - e.g. I used Battlesmith Artificer to make Rincewind from Discworld for a one-shot - but the default flavour just doesn't fit in many worlds, especially the Armorer. We've had a couple Alchemists in our games but honestly.. that subclass just isn't very good, and one Artillerist who reflavoured everything as animated objects like what you see in the Sorcerer's Apprentice. We had one person try a Guardian Armorer for a one-shot but it quickly stood out like a sore thumb.
I also ban the flying bird species - Owlin, Aarackora - and the fish species - Triton, Locanth, and the frog one - because they break my world building since their cultures would be so different from terrestrial species that you really have to build the world from the start with them in mind.
Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Alchemists are interesting because they aren't so much as steampunk-coded (which I blame on the art) and can fit extremely well in most pure fantasy settings.
A steel defender I'm sorry does require a specific tech level within the setting. I does tilt less toward pure magic fantasy and more toward the steampunk aesthetic. Take a moment and think about the Will Smith film Wild Wild West. Big mechanical spiders and other similar anachronistic tech weren't the biggest flaw but did make the adventure seem silly and that was a lot more recent than most fantasy settings.
Most players I've seen run armourer want a 'fantasy Iron Man' character - I've seen it 8 times to date and am SO bored of it. That is inevitably where that subclass ends up going in my experience. I literally haven't seen a fun interpretation of that subclass.
Artillerist can work in a fantasy setting depending on the influences. I works particularly well in settings inspired from Chinese culture. However, when themed with the artillery being a magic scorpion or ballista or something it can fit into setting inspired by post Early Modern Europe tech levels.
Alchemist for my money is the least problematic of the subclasses and does seem to work very well. But even then the core infusions and replicable magic items does heavily lean toward a greater tech level than most players are comfortable with.
Don't misunderstand, in most cases I have no problem with allowing artificer, but if the setting makes them feel out of place then they go bye-bye like other out of place subclasses. Imagine a world in which music was never developed - the D&D 5e bard simply never exists. 5.5e does a slightly better job of helping with other versions of a bard, but in a world without music I could see why a DM might ban bards. Likewise, a world without gods I could see banning clerics. This isn't a 'I don't like the class so they get deleted', rather it's 'these things don't thematically fit so please do not choose them.
Steel defender only requires a specific tech level if you insist it actually be made out of steel. Swap out the 3rd-level tool proficiency, and it could easily be, say, a reanimated creature of some kind
"Fantasy Iron Man" still leaves room for a very wide range of options. A dwarf artificer might have designed their armor to combat giants, and lean heavily on Dreadnaught mode, making it sort of the artificer version of Rune Knight. Guardian mode just gives extra tanking options -- I already suggested a non-tech way to flavor that above. Infiltrator could be reflavored to emphasize channeling lightning or general sky-themed magic (you get Stealth advantage because it's actually floating a half-inch above the ground)
There's always ways to reflavor a subclass to make it fit a more traditional D&D setting
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The common misconception with the artificer is that it is tech based.
"Masters of invention, Artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
The steel defender isn't a robot, it's a construct. It's no more high tech than a stone golem.
The armorer, yes, is definitely the subclass that is directly Iron Man. I agree with that point.
Artillerist is a wandslinger, no more futuristic than a warlock spamming eldritch blast. The abilities are just named "cannon" and "artillery" and "firearm" which attracts all the people who like guns.
My point is that there's more to the artificer than a steampunk tinkerer. They use artisan's tools to make magic items, and it shouldn't be limited to only tinker's tools.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Look don't get me wrong, I appreciate the reskinning and the alterations that can be done. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be what's in the mind of most players. As I've said even when suggesting that Steel Defenders are made of some other metal it's always come back to the same old nonsense. My experience over the last ten years of 5e has literally been that artificer players are some of the least inventive and least interesting characters created. And all of them, all of them that I'd had at my tables in that time have stuck out like a sore thumb.
While there are ways to shake up the aesthetic, or to reconsider the class I here in the UK (with some European and Middle-Eastern players) just haven't seen those shake-ups be effective. That I find artificer incongruous was never the point however.
The point was that yes, the setting of an adventure can and should dictate the availability of classes, background and races. If you've got a setting which is a landlocked country then a 'Sailor' background isn't going to be appropriate, and if you as a DM allow it then the character backstory need to do something to explain that. Now that can lead to some amazing storytelling opportunities, but sadly it doesn't guarantee it. My point then is less about the specific thing being banned and more about there being good reasons why DMs can and should ban some things that they don't think work in the setting.
I will always at the beginning of each new campaign ask the question of firearms and explosives. Do my players want them despite my lack of interest in them in a fantasy setting. For 5e only, over 100+ players and thirty level 1-20 campaigns, I've had exactly three players want firearms included. All three of whom effectively wanted to play some character from Critical Role. Now granted my player base has skewed European so that may explain it somewhat, but still that tells me that there are many out there who don't feel that some things fit from a thematic perspective. That we can disagree is great. I hope though that we agree that availability of character options should be grounded in the setting of the world and not just what books the group have access to. In my opinion it makes for a more immersive world.
I think it's all about how you flavor your class. Like MartinTheActor said, some players are unwilling to do that, and that's okay. That's what session zero is for. If your players say that they want to play a steampunk artillerist in your high fantasy world, then steer them away from it. But if their idea for their artificer is a creepy witch/alchemist that hucks around magic potions and it fits in your world, then that's perfectly fine.
For example, the next game that I'm going to play, I'm doing a Cartographer Harengon who ties knots out of ropes for his maps and uses a macuahuitl, taking on a skirmisher/support role. He certainly isn't what comes to mind when you think "artificer", but he'll likely fit in most worlds in a way that doesn't disrupt the vibe you're going for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
Agreed with above. All the rules to the world are yours to settle on, and ultimately you can say "no" if you feel it's too far outside the rules. This is a game, but it's structured play, not Calvinball.
I'm DMing an epic campaign where at the start, for "reasons I would disclose later", I told my table that certain classes and subclasses would not be available – which included Artificer. Nothing against artificers, but when I was designing the world for this campaign there were certain cross-cutting criteria I developed for which classes/subclasses would be available, if at all, and when. A couple players wanted to try something outside of the list, and I worked with them to see what we could do to make a satisfying character that fit into the world setting – including tweaking those same criteria, but with me giving that player a peek behind the screen to explain why certain classes/subclasses would be challenging.
A couple players wanted to try something outside of the list, and I worked with them to see what we could do to make a satisfying character that fit into the world setting – including tweaking those same criteria, but with me giving that player a peek behind the screen to explain why certain classes/subclasses would be challenging.
I think this is the thing that for the longest time I was weakest at. I used to use the excuse that we can only use PHB character options because everyone had a copy...which to be fair was the real reason. Everyone was on a level playing field and I didn't have the money at the time to expand my collection of books. As I did collect more books for the game groups though it felt like asking the players to trust me without being able to explain why.
These days I find it a lot easier with groups because I have more familiarity with them. My current group are about to launch into campaign three, and the first where they won't start at level 1. My hope is always if I tell them that something won't thematically fit they'll trust that I have a reason. Often if I do offer them a peek behind the screen they're pretty keen not to take that peek.
The thing to remember is that we're all players at the table – even the DM in god mode. What players want to know is what the rules are. If you say "because in this campaign, we're going to homebrew a rule/world/setting etc where X is no longer available", I gotta think the overwhelming majority of players will be like "oh okay, cool." As the DM, you are asking the players to trust you. Players, most players, get that the tradeoff for not having to spend hours prepping for a session or a campaign is not getting to nitpick about it.
And the percent that don't? Hey, great – they're self-actualized, they know what they want, they'll go find it. One of my favorite PCs is a half-orc artificer. If I was dead set on playing her at your table, and you were like "no artificers", I'd either find another table or play another PC. "BUT WHY THOUGH?!" is a red flag you should pay attention to, for a number of reasons.
I think it'd be different if you were like "no healing ever except for long-rests" or something real Iron-man like that, you'd need the right kind of player mindset for that sort of thing. But christ on a taco if there aren't already a ridiculous amount of classes and subclasses in WotC – let alone homebrews and UA – to choose from. It's like looking at the entirety of the anime series One Piece and thinking "oh man would I love to start that epic journey but I want to have kids someday". Limiting your players to *just* PHB classes isn't likely something anyone would really scoff at.
I agree with most of the the (I wouldn't necessarily have the same rules in a campaign of mine but given your world it makes sense).
The outright banning of beastmater ranger does seem a little odd however.
Yes the original beastmaster was weak, but there are plenty of weaker classes (I think sun soul monk is the weakest subclass in the game) but the changes in Tasha's made it a decent middle of the road subclass very similar to the drakewarden. Given your list of subclasses I am assuming you are using 2014 rules there are issues with all the ranger subclasses in 2024 rules, for example the main class has lots of features relying on hunters mark that uses your bonus action a lot and commanding your beast also requires a bonus action but such issues apply to all ranger subclasses, I wouldn't say the breastmaster is weaker than other
Flavor wise summons are very different to pets and in mechanical terms usually only last an hour. A ranger with an animal companion is thematically strong, I am not sure if the "happy to provide a pet for a different class" means you also ban the drakewarden but I do not think a subclass should be banned because it is "pointless" in the mind of the DM (it obviously isn't in the mind of the player who wants to play them. Also using official rules for pet mechanics is a lot easier than homebrewing something both for the DM and the player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you ban artificer because it doesn't fit for flavor, do you also ban forge cleric? If your player wants to play an artificer, perhaps try coming to an agreement about a flavorfully non-intrusive way to play one.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
If I'm running an official adventure I'll usually have all classes and subclasses available. The exception being the starter sets or essentials kit which I limit to only PHB content.
If I'm running a setting or adventure that I've designed, then yes I do sometimes ban artificer and some other classes or subclasses. Here's an example of how that works:
In my Burning Hunger Campaign, Elves and Feykind are the baddies. They had this big empire and oppressed all other peoples. As a result any creatures or abilities which derive or are in any way thematically linked to the Feywild (called Faege in my setting) required discussion with the DM. Largely this was so that the players didn't choose a class or race that caused friction with local NPCs who have a burning mistrust of Feykind. I outright banned all Psionics. They were just eliminated from the game entirely. So, players were required to speak to me to work through how their class choice might affect their play style if they chose any of the following:
There were 37 subclasses that required a discussion on how the subclass would work in this low magic setting where 'creepy' or Feykind magical abilities might be perceived as 'evil' by the populous of nearby settlements. The players were free to choose them as long as they understood that social encounters might be more difficult, or casting their magic in public might have people fleeing from them scared and panicked.
Outright disallowed in the setting were
In my current setting the world has moved on a few decades, and all subclasses except psionics are available again. Personally I still absolutely hate how bafflingly silly the Artificer class is, but if players want to run it fine. The only exception is Artillerist which has cosmetic changes because in my world firearms simply do not exist. Magic can achieve the same result far easier so the likelihood of gunpowder ever being developed is very low. I do have explosives in the form of something like Greek Fire, but no guns. That's a thematic approach that most players appear to agree with. In fact its often US based players who have the biggest problem with that ruling.
In any event, yes - if I'm banning a class or subclass there's usually a good reason and its likely to do with the worldbuilding. If I were building a world without gods or deities I'd entirely delete the Cleric class for example. The point is that it's rarely arbitrary. Usually there's a worldbuilding or a challenge based reason behind it - except Beast Master Rangers which entirely suck and should have actually have been fixed.
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.
Good approach, but how is the Alchemist not thematically appropriate?
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
Ummm, no. Some things don’t fit in some worlds, and just don’t work. Often some re-skinning can make things ok, but not always. And that’s coming from a DM who allows literally everything WotC publishes in my campaigns.
This really seems like maybe an issue between a person and their DM, not sure why the discussion isn’t happening more privately.
I generally don't allow artificers in my games. I run a fantasy game and I feel that artificers bring too much of a steampunk aesthetic. I don't allow warforged or firearms either. I would probably allow the alchemist and maybe even the cartographer but nobody has ever asked for those (because they don't fit the steampunk idea the player who wants to be an artificer is usually looking for... and they're also not great).
If you want to be a blaster, become a sorcerer. You want to be a tank, there are lots of choices. You want to have a fighting pet, become a warlock (or a ranger, but...).
I would happily allow a Forge Domain, because it is coded blacksmith and that fits my world.
I suppose I might be open to hearing out a player but they usually want to choose the artificer because they have a steampunk fantasy. I have run an Eberron campaign and it just doesn't float my boat.
That's just me - as a DM, worldbuilding is one of my great joys and I want to help tell the stories that I find interesting.
I run a not quite steampunk but almost Industrial Revolution time game. So trains, guns and airships are not readily available except in some regions like where the inventors live and where piracy is common. Also I play them as magical blacksmiths as their description states “they infuse mundane items with magical power” magic blacksmith
Artificers tend to fit more into worlds that are analogous to the European Renaissance era. Sure there are examples from the Early Modern Arabic cultures of automaton attempts and other such tinkering. We might also make claims that there were also some fun inventors in Ancient Greece, but if you're setting your world up to be closer to the technology of the 100BC to 350AD era (from a European and North African point of view Roman era) then an artificer really just doesn't fit. Of course then neither does heavy plate armour.
Honestly though, for my money artificers when they first came out seemed like an attempt to appeal to the WoW players and steampunk lovers and my impression really hasn't shifted. I've yet to meet a player whose done anything interesting or cool with an artificer. Mostly they're overpowered characters that stick out like sore thumbs among the average party.
Now, if I were to be running an adventure in an analogous Renaissance era I might discuss with players that Artificers might work well for characters in a similar vein to DaVinci or suchlike.
As I say it all depends on your specific setting.
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.
It's hard to break it out of the "magic as technology" vibe, but it's not impossible
I have one character concept I haven't busted out yet, potentially as a multiclass with Oath of the Ancients paladin, where the artificer features would be flavored as magic crystals and stones attached to his armor -- more along the lines of the power crystals from Land of the Lost than "gadgets"
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Alchemists are interesting because they aren't so much as steampunk-coded (which I blame on the art) and can fit extremely well in most pure fantasy settings.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
I don't ban the artificer, but I do require players discuss with me how they will fit into the world, same goes for the Autognome, Warforged, Thrikreen, and Giff species (and a few of the Ravnica species). An artificer can be flavoured to fit within a classical fantasy setting - e.g. I used Battlesmith Artificer to make Rincewind from Discworld for a one-shot - but the default flavour just doesn't fit in many worlds, especially the Armorer. We've had a couple Alchemists in our games but honestly.. that subclass just isn't very good, and one Artillerist who reflavoured everything as animated objects like what you see in the Sorcerer's Apprentice. We had one person try a Guardian Armorer for a one-shot but it quickly stood out like a sore thumb.
I also ban the flying bird species - Owlin, Aarackora - and the fish species - Triton, Locanth, and the frog one - because they break my world building since their cultures would be so different from terrestrial species that you really have to build the world from the start with them in mind.
A steel defender I'm sorry does require a specific tech level within the setting. I does tilt less toward pure magic fantasy and more toward the steampunk aesthetic. Take a moment and think about the Will Smith film Wild Wild West. Big mechanical spiders and other similar anachronistic tech weren't the biggest flaw but did make the adventure seem silly and that was a lot more recent than most fantasy settings.
Most players I've seen run armourer want a 'fantasy Iron Man' character - I've seen it 8 times to date and am SO bored of it. That is inevitably where that subclass ends up going in my experience. I literally haven't seen a fun interpretation of that subclass.
Artillerist can work in a fantasy setting depending on the influences. I works particularly well in settings inspired from Chinese culture. However, when themed with the artillery being a magic scorpion or ballista or something it can fit into setting inspired by post Early Modern Europe tech levels.
Alchemist for my money is the least problematic of the subclasses and does seem to work very well. But even then the core infusions and replicable magic items does heavily lean toward a greater tech level than most players are comfortable with.
Don't misunderstand, in most cases I have no problem with allowing artificer, but if the setting makes them feel out of place then they go bye-bye like other out of place subclasses. Imagine a world in which music was never developed - the D&D 5e bard simply never exists. 5.5e does a slightly better job of helping with other versions of a bard, but in a world without music I could see why a DM might ban bards. Likewise, a world without gods I could see banning clerics. This isn't a 'I don't like the class so they get deleted', rather it's 'these things don't thematically fit so please do not choose them.
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.
Steel defender only requires a specific tech level if you insist it actually be made out of steel. Swap out the 3rd-level tool proficiency, and it could easily be, say, a reanimated creature of some kind
"Fantasy Iron Man" still leaves room for a very wide range of options. A dwarf artificer might have designed their armor to combat giants, and lean heavily on Dreadnaught mode, making it sort of the artificer version of Rune Knight. Guardian mode just gives extra tanking options -- I already suggested a non-tech way to flavor that above. Infiltrator could be reflavored to emphasize channeling lightning or general sky-themed magic (you get Stealth advantage because it's actually floating a half-inch above the ground)
There's always ways to reflavor a subclass to make it fit a more traditional D&D setting
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The common misconception with the artificer is that it is tech based.
"Masters of invention, Artificers use ingenuity and magic to unlock extraordinary capabilities in objects. They see magic as a complex system waiting to be decoded and then harnessed in their spells and inventions."
The steel defender isn't a robot, it's a construct. It's no more high tech than a stone golem.
The armorer, yes, is definitely the subclass that is directly Iron Man. I agree with that point.
Artillerist is a wandslinger, no more futuristic than a warlock spamming eldritch blast. The abilities are just named "cannon" and "artillery" and "firearm" which attracts all the people who like guns.
My point is that there's more to the artificer than a steampunk tinkerer. They use artisan's tools to make magic items, and it shouldn't be limited to only tinker's tools.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
Look don't get me wrong, I appreciate the reskinning and the alterations that can be done. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be what's in the mind of most players. As I've said even when suggesting that Steel Defenders are made of some other metal it's always come back to the same old nonsense. My experience over the last ten years of 5e has literally been that artificer players are some of the least inventive and least interesting characters created. And all of them, all of them that I'd had at my tables in that time have stuck out like a sore thumb.
While there are ways to shake up the aesthetic, or to reconsider the class I here in the UK (with some European and Middle-Eastern players) just haven't seen those shake-ups be effective. That I find artificer incongruous was never the point however.
The point was that yes, the setting of an adventure can and should dictate the availability of classes, background and races. If you've got a setting which is a landlocked country then a 'Sailor' background isn't going to be appropriate, and if you as a DM allow it then the character backstory need to do something to explain that. Now that can lead to some amazing storytelling opportunities, but sadly it doesn't guarantee it. My point then is less about the specific thing being banned and more about there being good reasons why DMs can and should ban some things that they don't think work in the setting.
I will always at the beginning of each new campaign ask the question of firearms and explosives. Do my players want them despite my lack of interest in them in a fantasy setting. For 5e only, over 100+ players and thirty level 1-20 campaigns, I've had exactly three players want firearms included. All three of whom effectively wanted to play some character from Critical Role. Now granted my player base has skewed European so that may explain it somewhat, but still that tells me that there are many out there who don't feel that some things fit from a thematic perspective. That we can disagree is great. I hope though that we agree that availability of character options should be grounded in the setting of the world and not just what books the group have access to. In my opinion it makes for a more immersive world.
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 guess I'm not in the majority of the people who want to play artificer.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
I think it's all about how you flavor your class. Like MartinTheActor said, some players are unwilling to do that, and that's okay. That's what session zero is for. If your players say that they want to play a steampunk artillerist in your high fantasy world, then steer them away from it. But if their idea for their artificer is a creepy witch/alchemist that hucks around magic potions and it fits in your world, then that's perfectly fine.
For example, the next game that I'm going to play, I'm doing a Cartographer Harengon who ties knots out of ropes for his maps and uses a macuahuitl, taking on a skirmisher/support role. He certainly isn't what comes to mind when you think "artificer", but he'll likely fit in most worlds in a way that doesn't disrupt the vibe you're going for.
He doesn't have much besides the skin on his bones. Me: I'll take the skin on his bones, then.
"You see a gigantic, monstrous praying mantis burst from out of the ground. It sprays a stream of acid from it's mouth at one soldier, dissolving him instantly, then it turns and chomps another soldier in half with it's- "
"When are we gonna take a snack break?"
Agreed with above. All the rules to the world are yours to settle on, and ultimately you can say "no" if you feel it's too far outside the rules. This is a game, but it's structured play, not Calvinball.
I'm DMing an epic campaign where at the start, for "reasons I would disclose later", I told my table that certain classes and subclasses would not be available – which included Artificer. Nothing against artificers, but when I was designing the world for this campaign there were certain cross-cutting criteria I developed for which classes/subclasses would be available, if at all, and when. A couple players wanted to try something outside of the list, and I worked with them to see what we could do to make a satisfying character that fit into the world setting – including tweaking those same criteria, but with me giving that player a peek behind the screen to explain why certain classes/subclasses would be challenging.
I think this is the thing that for the longest time I was weakest at. I used to use the excuse that we can only use PHB character options because everyone had a copy...which to be fair was the real reason. Everyone was on a level playing field and I didn't have the money at the time to expand my collection of books. As I did collect more books for the game groups though it felt like asking the players to trust me without being able to explain why.
These days I find it a lot easier with groups because I have more familiarity with them. My current group are about to launch into campaign three, and the first where they won't start at level 1. My hope is always if I tell them that something won't thematically fit they'll trust that I have a reason. Often if I do offer them a peek behind the screen they're pretty keen not to take that peek.
Still DM neuroses I guess.
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.
The thing to remember is that we're all players at the table – even the DM in god mode. What players want to know is what the rules are. If you say "because in this campaign, we're going to homebrew a rule/world/setting etc where X is no longer available", I gotta think the overwhelming majority of players will be like "oh okay, cool." As the DM, you are asking the players to trust you. Players, most players, get that the tradeoff for not having to spend hours prepping for a session or a campaign is not getting to nitpick about it.
And the percent that don't? Hey, great – they're self-actualized, they know what they want, they'll go find it. One of my favorite PCs is a half-orc artificer. If I was dead set on playing her at your table, and you were like "no artificers", I'd either find another table or play another PC. "BUT WHY THOUGH?!" is a red flag you should pay attention to, for a number of reasons.
I think it'd be different if you were like "no healing ever except for long-rests" or something real Iron-man like that, you'd need the right kind of player mindset for that sort of thing. But christ on a taco if there aren't already a ridiculous amount of classes and subclasses in WotC – let alone homebrews and UA – to choose from. It's like looking at the entirety of the anime series One Piece and thinking "oh man would I love to start that epic journey but I want to have kids someday". Limiting your players to *just* PHB classes isn't likely something anyone would really scoff at.
I agree with most of the the (I wouldn't necessarily have the same rules in a campaign of mine but given your world it makes sense).
The outright banning of beastmater ranger does seem a little odd however.
Yes the original beastmaster was weak, but there are plenty of weaker classes (I think sun soul monk is the weakest subclass in the game) but the changes in Tasha's made it a decent middle of the road subclass very similar to the drakewarden. Given your list of subclasses I am assuming you are using 2014 rules there are issues with all the ranger subclasses in 2024 rules, for example the main class has lots of features relying on hunters mark that uses your bonus action a lot and commanding your beast also requires a bonus action but such issues apply to all ranger subclasses, I wouldn't say the breastmaster is weaker than other
Flavor wise summons are very different to pets and in mechanical terms usually only last an hour. A ranger with an animal companion is thematically strong, I am not sure if the "happy to provide a pet for a different class" means you also ban the drakewarden but I do not think a subclass should be banned because it is "pointless" in the mind of the DM (it obviously isn't in the mind of the player who wants to play them. Also using official rules for pet mechanics is a lot easier than homebrewing something both for the DM and the player.