Banning Artificer?

I have no objection to a DM making choices about what's in the world or not, but I just want to echo that there's no reason the Artificer has to be steampunk. I realize all the WOTC artwork is steampunk but you have to pretty aggressively flavor everything that way if that's how you want it to be.

I didn't want my artillerist to be especially gunpowder themed and so it isn't. The cannon doesn't look like a gun (gunpowder-driven healing seemed weird, for example). Even a Repeating Shot pistol - it doesn't have bullets so it doesn't need gunpowder. It's just ranged magic. If using it with True Strike it's even less gunpowder-y, because now it's radiant damage.

My cartographer is just a mage who has a strong affinity for maps.

If anything, because of the way that magic items the Artificer can make aren't crafted but are in 2014 just have some magic added or in 2025 are instantly created from nothing, they're really just tangible spells. You don't need to acquire parts. No reason anything at all has to be expressed as clockwork.

I have heard of Alchemists flinging weaponized baked goods (or using them for healing) and Battle Smiths knitting or biologically growing their 'steel defenders.' 

I've been wanting to make a paper mage and a thread/textile mage, and I haven't decided if those are better as Artificers or Wizards mechanically.

The only reason I can see to ban Artificers is if your world requires magic to be from the caster directly and cannot be stored in items at all.

I think it's less about the flavoring and more about the players. They sometimes aren't willing to deviate from that path of generic artificer, even if they say they will. Those options are all perfectly viable, it just takes a certain kind of player to do them effectively and break through that layer of stereotypical artificer.

If its in a book I allow it. If it in partnered content I allow it - some things are highly discouraged and I tell the player upfront if you are picking this class to abuse this mechic please know that there will be a steep price to pay and you may spend 1/2 the adventure taking a dirt nap. If they then take the classs and use mechanic x - in a resposible way we are all good. 

I think the outright banning of classes, races, items, spells, feats, etc handcuffs players visions and creativity - we arent splitting the atom its a bunch of folks dedicating some time to have some fun. By and large I let them have fun. Not everything needs to make sense in a world where there are magical creatures  and demons etc etc. 

Its not the DM's game its a group adventure - I think too often as DM's that is forgotten. 

Quote from FoolishMortal18588 >>

If anything, because of the way that magic items the Artificer can make aren't crafted but are in 2014 just have some magic added or in 2025 are instantly created from nothing, they're really just tangible spells. You don't need to acquire parts. No reason anything at all has to be expressed as clockwork.

 

This though does bring up an interesting side note. The artificer through their infusions can effectively create a magic item which is pretty cool. I'd love to know if other DMs restrict the magic items creatable to only those given in the lists in Tasha's or if they allow the creation of any magic item from the source books. 

I could certainly see how, if magic items aren't common in a world some DMs might shy away from Artificers because they by their existence make magic items much more accessible. Though I suppose its in the same vein as druid wild shapes. Do you allow access to all beasts, or only the beasts present in a particular setting. If the player character couldn't have reasonably encountered a creature because they lived a life underground prior to the adventure, should they be able to wild shape into creatures usually found up in the mountains or in forests for example?

Typically, I've limited artificer infusions to only the items found on the replicable magic items tables in Tashas, though I am aware of some DMs who change up those lists depending on the setting of the adventures. I'm sure other DMs are cool with any magic items from the books though. 

It's quite frustrating how WotC absolutely refuses to provide more traditional fantasy depictions of artificers in their official material. It's always magipunk, with no exceptions.

At some point I'm tempted to play a hexblood alchemist, just for the classic 'bubble bubble toil and trouble' style of witch character.

Quote from martintheactor >>

Quote from FoolishMortal18588 >>

If anything, because of the way that magic items the Artificer can make aren't crafted but are in 2014 just have some magic added or in 2025 are instantly created from nothing, they're really just tangible spells. You don't need to acquire parts. No reason anything at all has to be expressed as clockwork.

 

 

This though does bring up an interesting side note. The artificer through their infusions can effectively create a magic item which is pretty cool. I'd love to know if other DMs restrict the magic items creatable to only those given in the lists in Tasha's or if they allow the creation of any magic item from the source books. 

I could certainly see how, if magic items aren't common in a world some DMs might shy away from Artificers because they by their existence make magic items much more accessible. Though I suppose its in the same vein as druid wild shapes. Do you allow access to all beasts, or only the beasts present in a particular setting. If the player character couldn't have reasonably encountered a creature because they lived a life underground prior to the adventure, should they be able to wild shape into creatures usually found up in the mountains or in forests for example?

Typically, I've limited artificer infusions to only the items found on the replicable magic items tables in Tashas, though I am aware of some DMs who change up those lists depending on the setting of the adventures. I'm sure other DMs are cool with any magic items from the books though. 

 If they might have seen it they can make it

Quote from martintheactor >>

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.

 Just out of curiosity, why don't you ban rune knight. It is very giant themed?

This though does bring up an interesting side note. The artificer through their infusions can effectively create a magic item which is pretty cool. I'd love to know if other DMs restrict the magic items creatable to only those given in the lists in Tasha's or if they allow the creation of any magic item from the source books.

I restrict to the lists in Tasha's, there are so many poorly balanced items in the books that I don't allow my players to pick their own magic items at any point in the campaign. There are magic items shops but they have a relatively small selection to pick from, otherwise they get them as loot when they explore the world. 

Quote from FlameOutsideOfStaff >>

 Just out of curiosity, why don't you ban rune knight. It is very giant themed?

 
Largely because in the world in question, Giants still exist. The exist in the mountain ranges maybe 10 days travel away. Conceivable then that a character could have come to the starting city from those mountain settlements and cultures. If I were running a setting where giants didn't exist then yeah, I'd rule out rune knight. For the particular example the flavour is tweaked a little, but because giants are in the setting then rune knight makes sense.

Quote from Agilemind >>

 

I restrict to the lists in Tasha's, there are so many poorly balanced items in the books that I don't allow my players to pick their own magic items at any point in the campaign. There are magic items shops but they have a relatively small selection to pick from, otherwise they get them as loot when they explore the world. 

 
Makes me feel a little better about restricting to just those in Tashas then.

In general, I have no problem with removing specific classes or species from availability in a campaign if they don't fit the setting. The DM and players are creating a story but the DM is setting the scene and is responsible for world building and some options may not be available if they don't fit the world appropriately. 

Artificer is one example where the flavour may not match the setting the DM is looking for. However, from a more practical perspective, I find the problem with the artificer is that it tends to define a rate for magic item progression. In a high magic game world, the baubles an artificer can create are typically pretty useless. The DM may make far better and more attractive items available in the game world and the key feature of artificers that makes them more interesting is that they can attune more of these powerful items. Most of the semi-interesting items that an artificer can produce only become available at level 10 or 14 based on the printed options. 

On the other hand, in a magic limited or low magic world, the artificer can have access to more and more varied magic items than the rest of the party. If magic items are that rare, how can a level 2 character create equivalents of even low level magic items? If there were a significant number of artificers in the world then magic items would not be that rare. This is perhaps another world building situation where an artificer might not fit the game world. 

The OP also asked about banning a forge cleric if one banned and artificer and personally, I don't see the equivalence. Blacksmithing has been an element of D&D and medieval role playing games since their inception. They can make weapons and armor of varying quality - some of which might deserve an in game bonus due to their exceptional quality. The forge cleric abilities are also far more limited and do not extend to the creation of a wide variety of magic items ... so No, I would not treat an Artificer in the same way as a forge cleric in terms of fitting into a specific game world concept. 

Quote from James_Bard >>

Its not the DM's game its a group adventure - I think too often as DM's that is forgotten. 

 That is an excellent point, definitely something that I think people (including myself) should remember more.

At the end of the day, is an Artificer with a repeating shot weapon that different from a Wizard casting firebolt?