I am working on a campaign setting, and one of the subclasses I have written out is for the Artificer. The legal framework for if this is allowed in a 3rd party published material is unclear. Artificers as a class are not in the SRD, that being said, the word “artificer” is not copyright material of Hasbro or WotC, as it is an old English word, and the concept is not unique to Dungeons and Dragons. The subclass I have written out does not mention the core class mechanics of Artificers, though I am curious if I am allowed to write a subclass for this or if this is not legally allowed. If not, I must ask, why are Artificers not in the SRD? WotC has made it clear they have no interest in updating or adding to the class, and 3rd party content would only benefit their game, and the players who are invested in it. If I am not allowed to use the Artificer class in homebrew, there is nothing stopping me from obfuscating the name in a way where I bypass the legal ownership of the class, while still making it clear this is a subclass for artificers, so this seems very pointless anyways, and I will just straight up loophole out of any obligation if the word “Artificer” is grounds for legal action.
I am not qualified to give legal advice. I believe you can publish Artificer content via the DM's Guild in DriveThruRPG, but I don't know the requirements. Be careful. WotC has been known to employ Pinkertons in addition to legal action. If you can afford legal services, hire some to keep you out of hot water. Some publishers do make 5e content saying it is "Fifth Edition Compatible" without actually mentioning D&D, but you should have a professional ensuring that your position is defensible.
Artificer is a class created by Keith Baker for the Eberron Setting. To the best of my knowledge, WotC fully owns the class and the setting, but has kept the largely tied to the setting. For 5e, it was published in the 5e Eberron book and then republished in Tasha's. I can't say the exact reason it wasn't included, but it would have required significant additional space in the book for what could be considered an advanced class. It would have been nice to have an update, but it makes sense that it wasn't included.
I appreciate the response, and shortly after posting this thread I had decided that even if I could make some kind of legal argument, to avoid the hassle, I have renamed the page I written from “The Carrosier Specialty, Artificer Subclass” to “The Carrossier Specialty, Subclass for the ‘Masters of invention’” as this phrase is easily linkable to artificers, without using the copyright name. It sucks I have to put in this much effort in for content I am writing from scratch but I’d rather put in the extra step to still have this cool idea I made be publishable. DMsGuild is not an option for me because they do not accept homebrew campaign settings, and the book I’m writing does not take place in Faerun, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc. Oh well, hopefully one day WotC and Hasbro realize their greed is why their stock prices are dropping.
I am working on a campaign setting, and one of the subclasses I have written out is for the Artificer. The legal framework for if this is allowed in a 3rd party published material is unclear. Artificers as a class are not in the SRD, that being said, the word “artificer” is not copyright material of Hasbro or WotC, as it is an old English word, and the concept is not unique to Dungeons and Dragons. The subclass I have written out does not mention the core class mechanics of Artificers, though I am curious if I am allowed to write a subclass for this or if this is not legally allowed. If not, I must ask, why are Artificers not in the SRD? WotC has made it clear they have no interest in updating or adding to the class, and 3rd party content would only benefit their game, and the players who are invested in it. If I am not allowed to use the Artificer class in homebrew, there is nothing stopping me from obfuscating the name in a way where I bypass the legal ownership of the class, while still making it clear this is a subclass for artificers, so this seems very pointless anyways, and I will just straight up loophole out of any obligation if the word “Artificer” is grounds for legal action.
I am not qualified to give legal advice. I believe you can publish Artificer content via the DM's Guild in DriveThruRPG, but I don't know the requirements. Be careful. WotC has been known to employ Pinkertons in addition to legal action. If you can afford legal services, hire some to keep you out of hot water. Some publishers do make 5e content saying it is "Fifth Edition Compatible" without actually mentioning D&D, but you should have a professional ensuring that your position is defensible.
Artificer is a class created by Keith Baker for the Eberron Setting. To the best of my knowledge, WotC fully owns the class and the setting, but has kept the largely tied to the setting. For 5e, it was published in the 5e Eberron book and then republished in Tasha's. I can't say the exact reason it wasn't included, but it would have required significant additional space in the book for what could be considered an advanced class. It would have been nice to have an update, but it makes sense that it wasn't included.
How to add Tooltips.
@SmiteMakesRight_3_5
I appreciate the response, and shortly after posting this thread I had decided that even if I could make some kind of legal argument, to avoid the hassle, I have renamed the page I written from “The Carrosier Specialty, Artificer Subclass” to “The Carrossier Specialty, Subclass for the ‘Masters of invention’” as this phrase is easily linkable to artificers, without using the copyright name. It sucks I have to put in this much effort in for content I am writing from scratch but I’d rather put in the extra step to still have this cool idea I made be publishable. DMsGuild is not an option for me because they do not accept homebrew campaign settings, and the book I’m writing does not take place in Faerun, Eberron, Ravenloft, etc. Oh well, hopefully one day WotC and Hasbro realize their greed is why their stock prices are dropping.