I think that's the part I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. Runes as flavor you add to something as part of the character concept = awesome. Runes as an actual mechanic to fuel a subclass... kind of clunky
I am not sure what is clunky about it. It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
Cast a spell, expend one use of the ability, add 1 of 3 effects.
At 6th level you can expend 1 use as a reaction to do 1 thing.
I think that's the part I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. Runes as flavor you add to something as part of the character concept = awesome. Runes as an actual mechanic to fuel a subclass... kind of clunky
I am not sure what is clunky about it. It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
Cast a spell, expend one use of the ability, add 1 of 3 effects.
At 6th level you can expend 1 use as a reaction to do 1 thing.
At level 10 regain some uses on a short rest.
None of which is particularly intuitive or connected. You cast a spell and then also tack on some other effect that might have nothing at all to do with the spell you just cast. "I cast Knock and then, uhh, here, have some temp HP"
Metamagic does what it says on the box. You're tweaking the parameters of spells as you cast them. This subclass just feels like a collection of mechanics trying to find a good excuse to hang out together
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)
It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
Cast a spell, expend one use of the ability, add 1 of 3 effects.
At 6th level you can expend 1 use as a reaction to do 1 thing.
At level 10 regain some uses on a short rest.
What's hard about sorcery points and metamagic? Mechanically it's a pool of uses, and then some things you can do with them, same as most other classes. Thematically it's the sorcerer manipulating their innate magical power to bend their spells to their will, cast more of them etc., it's what makes them different to a wizard who tends to learn to do a particular type of casting well via study and intellect rather than force of will.
The tricky thing with runes is they don't fit either super well, though I'd argue they fit sorcerer more, since runes are usually described like a kind of "innate" or "fundamental" control over magic, plus giants themselves tend to be sorcerers if they're traditional casters (though in the lore runecasters are their own thing entirely). On the other hand, it's more control of magic in general, rather than magic within yourself, so doesn't fit sorcerer super well either.
Strictly speaking, runecaster could be its own class entirely, which is a part of the problem with Wizards of the Coast bolting it into sub-classes as none of them quite fit, and it's the same problem they had bringing back Mystic and psionics. But thematically I'd still say artificer is the closest match, as placing enchantments on items is basically their whole deal, so doing it with runes is fully on brand.
While the flavour for the Runecrafter at least mentions putting the runes on stones, it also suggests a "scribble [...] on scraps of paper" is enough, which feels like trivialising them. Plus mechanically you just get all the runes that you get, there's no choosing the ones you want to make your Runecrafter different from anybody else's, and my thoughts on how the features work pretty much mirror IamSposta's from earlier.
IMO it's definitely the weaker of the three sub-classes in terms of theme and how that's enacted mechanically. The reason why I like the Path of the Giant and am kind of okay with Circle of the Primeval (though I still have my doubts on the latter since it's basically Druid Beast Master) is that they're not rune centric at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think that's the part I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. Runes as flavor you add to something as part of the character concept = awesome. Runes as an actual mechanic to fuel a subclass... kind of clunky
I am not sure what is clunky about it. It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
Cast a spell, expend one use of the ability, add 1 of 3 effects.
At 6th level you can expend 1 use as a reaction to do 1 thing.
At level 10 regain some uses on a short rest.
None of which is particularly intuitive or connected. You cast a spell and then also tack on some other effect that might have nothing at all to do with the spell you just cast. "I cast Knock and then, uhh, here, have some temp HP"
Metamagic does what it says on the box. You're tweaking the parameters of spells as you cast them. This subclass just feels like a collection of mechanics trying to find a good excuse to hang out together
You got it right on the first try, so it is a very simple ability to understand. You cast a spell, expend a use, spell gains 1 of 3 secondary features. Easy Peasy. No clunk at all.
I think that's the part I have the hardest time wrapping my head around. Runes as flavor you add to something as part of the character concept = awesome. Runes as an actual mechanic to fuel a subclass... kind of clunky
I am not sure what is clunky about it. It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
Cast a spell, expend one use of the ability, add 1 of 3 effects.
At 6th level you can expend 1 use as a reaction to do 1 thing.
At level 10 regain some uses on a short rest.
None of which is particularly intuitive or connected. You cast a spell and then also tack on some other effect that might have nothing at all to do with the spell you just cast. "I cast Knock and then, uhh, here, have some temp HP"
Metamagic does what it says on the box. You're tweaking the parameters of spells as you cast them. This subclass just feels like a collection of mechanics trying to find a good excuse to hang out together
You got it right on the first try, so it is a very simple ability to understand. You cast a spell, expend a use, spell gains 1 of 3 secondary features. Easy Peasy. No clunk at all.
We mean completely different things by clunky here
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)
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Artificers aren't just "constructing machines or potions". Their whole base concept is imbuing objects with magic, whether that be a potion, set of armor, a weapon/cannon, or a construct. Which, historically, has been the main use of runes in fantasy (especially D&D 5e, just take a look at Storm King's Thunder).
And in D&D terms, runes really aren't "primal". Sure, they are "primitive", but in D&D, those really aren't synonymous. Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians are "primal", but not necessarily "primitive". Runes are primitive "without" necessarily being "primal".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Artificers aren't just "constructing machines or potions". Their whole base concept is imbuing objects with magic, whether that be a potion, set of armor, a weapon/cannon, or a construct. Which, historically, has been the main use of runes in fantasy (especially D&D 5e, just take a look at Storm King's Thunder).
And in D&D terms, runes really aren't "primal". Sure, they are "primitive", but in D&D, those really aren't synonymous. Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians are "primal", but not necessarily "primitive". Runes are primitive "without" necessarily being "primal".
Euhm hard disagree on the Fantasy part. Seidr is associated with Divination and poetry. So a Skald Bard would fit better than an artificer. Heck, even a Cleric would fit better. The way runes have been used in DnD is as a shortcut to bypass scholarly Wizardry. And is a Primal form of Magic. I would say it would have been the first written form of Magic in some settings. Where a concept i.e. a spell is captured by a Runic representation.
That is possible. I use clunky to mean awkward or difficult to use.
Awkward yes, in the same way Frankenstein's monster is awkward. Clumsy and ungainly, not necessarily difficult to figure out
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)
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Artificers aren't just "constructing machines or potions". Their whole base concept is imbuing objects with magic, whether that be a potion, set of armor, a weapon/cannon, or a construct. Which, historically, has been the main use of runes in fantasy (especially D&D 5e, just take a look at Storm King's Thunder).
And in D&D terms, runes really aren't "primal". Sure, they are "primitive", but in D&D, those really aren't synonymous. Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians are "primal", but not necessarily "primitive". Runes are primitive "without" necessarily being "primal".
Euhm hard disagree on the Fantasy part. Seidr is associated with Divination and poetry. So a Skald Bard would fit better than an artificer. Heck, even a Cleric would fit better. The way runes have been used in DnD is as a shortcut to bypass scholarly Wizardry. And is a Primal form of Magic. I would say it would have been the first written form of Magic in some settings. Where a concept i.e. a spell is captured by a Runic representation.
Not just this, but spellcasters of all kinds have been engraving runes upon items to enchant them since the dawn of D&D. I don't know where the idea that some how ONLY Artificers should be using runes came from, but it is a ridiculous concept.
Also, if you wanted an Artificer that uses runes to infuse items with magic, look no further than ALL existing Artificer subclasses because the Core class does just that. However, they are not the origin of runes nor are they the sole users of runes.
That is possible. I use clunky to mean awkward or difficult to use.
Awkward yes, in the same way Frankenstein's monster is awkward. Clumsy and ungainly, not necessarily difficult to figure out
Edit: At this point, we have moved outside the original discussion. Sorry I will stop. I understand that you don't like the concept of adding additional effects onto spells as a class feature. I can understand that, I just don't happen to agree.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Machines fit across all technology levels and predate the formalization of the written word. The wheel and axle is a simple machine and that's been around since the stone age if not before. Machines are just as old, if not older, than runes.
Even a prehistoric artificer can be fully thematically coherent. Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Machines fit across all technology levels and predate the formalization of the written word. The wheel and axle is a simple machine and that's been around since the stone age if not before. Machines are just as old, if not older, than runes.
Even a prehistoric artificer can be fully thematically coherent. Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine.
But it is something the class already does. Why would they need a "rune" subclass? What would it do that the class can't already do using infusions?
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
Neither does an Artificer most of the time; they touch something and it becomes magical. The "crafting" part of Artificer is figuring it out in the first place, if they could learn how to harness runes to do it then it fully makes sense that they would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
Neither does an Artificer most of the time; they touch something and it becomes magical. The "crafting" part of Artificer is figuring it out in the first place, if they could learn how to harness runes to do it then it fully makes sense that they would.
Artificers use a variety of tools to channel their arcane power. To cast a spell, an artificer might use alchemist’s supplies to create a potent elixir, calligrapher’s supplies to inscribe a sigil of power, or tinker’s tools to craft a temporary charm. The magic of artificers is tied to their tools and their talents, and few other characters can produce the right tool for a job as well as an artificer.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Machines fit across all technology levels and predate the formalization of the written word. The wheel and axle is a simple machine and that's been around since the stone age if not before. Machines are just as old, if not older, than runes.
Even a prehistoric artificer can be fully thematically coherent. Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine.
But it is something the class already does. Why would they need a "rune" subclass? What would it do that the class can't already do using infusions?
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
They don't need it, sure, but precisely the same logic applies to Wizards. Wizards don't need a runic subclass either. Wizards are marking their spellbooks with all kinds of arcane symbology all the time simply as an act of writing spells into their spellbook.
If Artificer mechanics can easily be flavored as marking runes, so too can a Wizard's spellbook be flavored exactly the same way. The ability of the base mechanics of a class to be flavored as something else doesn't mean that a subclass centered around that kind of flavor is at all out of place or shouldn't exist.
Why should Wizards get a thing they don't need while Artificers should not get a thing they don't need? Especially considering when it comes to subclass options Artificers already have less.
I've already conceded (perhaps not explicitly in text) that the Runecrafter is fine as a wizard subclass. I don't have any thematic issue with it. And if Artificers don't get a runic subclass I can live with that.
However, I staunchly disagree that the Wizard has any higher claim to runes as a subclass than the Artificer does, especially when the Order of Scribes (heavily writing and inscription themed) already exists. They have equal claim.
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Machines fit across all technology levels and predate the formalization of the written word. The wheel and axle is a simple machine and that's been around since the stone age if not before. Machines are just as old, if not older, than runes.
Even a prehistoric artificer can be fully thematically coherent. Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine.
But it is something the class already does. Why would they need a "rune" subclass? What would it do that the class can't already do using infusions?
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
They don't need it, sure, but precisely the same logic applies to Wizards. Wizards don't need a runic subclass either. Wizards are marking their spellbooks with all kinds of arcane symbology all the time simply as an act of writing spells into their spellbook.
If Artificer mechanics can easily be flavored as marking runes, so too can a Wizard's spellbook be flavored exactly the same way. The ability of the base mechanics of a class to be flavored as something else doesn't mean that a subclass centered around that kind of flavor is at all out of place or shouldn't exist.
Why should Wizards get a thing they don't need while Artificers should not get a thing they don't need? Especially considering when it comes to subclass options Artificers already have less.
I've already conceded (perhaps not explicitly in text) that the Runecrafter is fine as a wizard subclass. I don't have any thematic issue with it. And if Artificers don't get a runic subclass I can live with that.
However, I staunchly disagree that the Wizard has any higher claim to runes as a subclass than the Artificer does, especially when the Order of Scribes (already heavily writing and inscription themed) already exists. They have equal claim at best.
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
Also the argument has nothing to do with whether Artificers need a new subclass or not. It is about whether they need THIS subclass. Nothing about this subclass makes it a better option for Artificer over Wizard.
As for what a runic themed Artificer subclass would do that can't already be done through infusions well, let's look at how the Runecrafter enhances a Wizard's spellcasting.
Oversimplifying things their inscription of runes cause additional effects when the wizard casts a spell.
Let's apply the same logic to a hypothetical runic Artificer.
Their inscription of runes cause additional effects when a creature uses one of their infused items.
There, that was easy.
Simply allowing an Artificer to apply an additional magical effect to an already magical or infused item would be great since that's something only specific subclasses can do with very specific items.
Artillerist can make a magic rod/wand/staff into their arcane firearm granting the 1d8 bonus to (Artificer) spells cast through that item. Armorer can apply up to four infusions to their arcane armor and get an additional bonus 2 infusions to their count if two of those infusions are on their armor.
And that's it. Every other subclass/infusion can have just one magical effect because the Artificer cannot place an infusion into an already magical item.
So there's PLENTY of room for a runic subclass to provide new or interesting twists on mechanics for the Artificer.
I am not sure what is clunky about it. It is actually easier to use and understand than Meta Magic and Sorcery Points.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
None of which is particularly intuitive or connected. You cast a spell and then also tack on some other effect that might have nothing at all to do with the spell you just cast. "I cast Knock and then, uhh, here, have some temp HP"
Metamagic does what it says on the box. You're tweaking the parameters of spells as you cast them. This subclass just feels like a collection of mechanics trying to find a good excuse to hang out together
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)
What's hard about sorcery points and metamagic? Mechanically it's a pool of uses, and then some things you can do with them, same as most other classes. Thematically it's the sorcerer manipulating their innate magical power to bend their spells to their will, cast more of them etc., it's what makes them different to a wizard who tends to learn to do a particular type of casting well via study and intellect rather than force of will.
The tricky thing with runes is they don't fit either super well, though I'd argue they fit sorcerer more, since runes are usually described like a kind of "innate" or "fundamental" control over magic, plus giants themselves tend to be sorcerers if they're traditional casters (though in the lore runecasters are their own thing entirely). On the other hand, it's more control of magic in general, rather than magic within yourself, so doesn't fit sorcerer super well either.
Strictly speaking, runecaster could be its own class entirely, which is a part of the problem with Wizards of the Coast bolting it into sub-classes as none of them quite fit, and it's the same problem they had bringing back Mystic and psionics. But thematically I'd still say artificer is the closest match, as placing enchantments on items is basically their whole deal, so doing it with runes is fully on brand.
While the flavour for the Runecrafter at least mentions putting the runes on stones, it also suggests a "scribble [...] on scraps of paper" is enough, which feels like trivialising them. Plus mechanically you just get all the runes that you get, there's no choosing the ones you want to make your Runecrafter different from anybody else's, and my thoughts on how the features work pretty much mirror IamSposta's from earlier.
IMO it's definitely the weaker of the three sub-classes in terms of theme and how that's enacted mechanically. The reason why I like the Path of the Giant and am kind of okay with Circle of the Primeval (though I still have my doubts on the latter since it's basically Druid Beast Master) is that they're not rune centric at all.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Nothing, but it is still a more complex and "clunky" system than the fairly straight forward ability presented in the Runecrafter subclass.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You got it right on the first try, so it is a very simple ability to understand. You cast a spell, expend a use, spell gains 1 of 3 secondary features. Easy Peasy. No clunk at all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
We mean completely different things by clunky here
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)
That is possible. I use clunky to mean awkward or difficult to use.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
While I agree that Wizard has enough subclasses, especially compared to the poor Artificer, I don't see any reason to make a Runecrafter an Artificer. Runes are a more primal form of Magic and or Divination, not constructing machines or potions. Making it a class on its own is a better solution, not that that is going to happen, but I can dream.
Artificers aren't just "constructing machines or potions". Their whole base concept is imbuing objects with magic, whether that be a potion, set of armor, a weapon/cannon, or a construct. Which, historically, has been the main use of runes in fantasy (especially D&D 5e, just take a look at Storm King's Thunder).
And in D&D terms, runes really aren't "primal". Sure, they are "primitive", but in D&D, those really aren't synonymous. Druids, Rangers, and Barbarians are "primal", but not necessarily "primitive". Runes are primitive "without" necessarily being "primal".
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Euhm hard disagree on the Fantasy part. Seidr is associated with Divination and poetry. So a Skald Bard would fit better than an artificer. Heck, even a Cleric would fit better. The way runes have been used in DnD is as a shortcut to bypass scholarly Wizardry. And is a Primal form of Magic. I would say it would have been the first written form of Magic in some settings. Where a concept i.e. a spell is captured by a Runic representation.
Awkward yes, in the same way Frankenstein's monster is awkward. Clumsy and ungainly, not necessarily difficult to figure out
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)
Not just this, but spellcasters of all kinds have been engraving runes upon items to enchant them since the dawn of D&D. I don't know where the idea that some how ONLY Artificers should be using runes came from, but it is a ridiculous concept.
Also, if you wanted an Artificer that uses runes to infuse items with magic, look no further than ALL existing Artificer subclasses because the Core class does just that. However, they are not the origin of runes nor are they the sole users of runes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Edit: At this point, we have moved outside the original discussion. Sorry I will stop. I understand that you don't like the concept of adding additional effects onto spells as a class feature. I can understand that, I just don't happen to agree.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Machines fit across all technology levels and predate the formalization of the written word. The wheel and axle is a simple machine and that's been around since the stone age if not before. Machines are just as old, if not older, than runes.
Even a prehistoric artificer can be fully thematically coherent. Artificers are about imbuing the magic in the mundane. They'd fit with runes just perfectly fine.
But it is something the class already does. Why would they need a "rune" subclass? What would it do that the class can't already do using infusions?
Literally the only reason people start saying that the subclass should have be an Artificer is because the name has "crafter' in it. The subclass doesn't "craft" anything at all.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Neither does an Artificer most of the time; they touch something and it becomes magical. The "crafting" part of Artificer is figuring it out in the first place, if they could learn how to harness runes to do it then it fully makes sense that they would.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
They don't need it, sure, but precisely the same logic applies to Wizards. Wizards don't need a runic subclass either.
Wizards are marking their spellbooks with all kinds of arcane symbology all the time simply as an act of writing spells into their spellbook.
If Artificer mechanics can easily be flavored as marking runes, so too can a Wizard's spellbook be flavored exactly the same way. The ability of the base mechanics of a class to be flavored as something else doesn't mean that a subclass centered around that kind of flavor is at all out of place or shouldn't exist.
Why should Wizards get a thing they don't need while Artificers should not get a thing they don't need? Especially considering when it comes to subclass options Artificers already have less.
I've already conceded (perhaps not explicitly in text) that the Runecrafter is fine as a wizard subclass. I don't have any thematic issue with it. And if Artificers don't get a runic subclass I can live with that.
However, I staunchly disagree that the Wizard has any higher claim to runes as a subclass than the Artificer does, especially when the Order of Scribes (heavily writing and inscription themed) already exists. They have equal claim.
No one said that Wizard has a higher claim, only that all casters use runes not just Artificers.
Also the argument has nothing to do with whether Artificers need a new subclass or not. It is about whether they need THIS subclass. Nothing about this subclass makes it a better option for Artificer over Wizard.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
As for what a runic themed Artificer subclass would do that can't already be done through infusions well, let's look at how the Runecrafter enhances a Wizard's spellcasting.
Oversimplifying things their inscription of runes cause additional effects when the wizard casts a spell.
Let's apply the same logic to a hypothetical runic Artificer.
Their inscription of runes cause additional effects when a creature uses one of their infused items.
There, that was easy.
Simply allowing an Artificer to apply an additional magical effect to an already magical or infused item would be great since that's something only specific subclasses can do with very specific items.
Artillerist can make a magic rod/wand/staff into their arcane firearm granting the 1d8 bonus to (Artificer) spells cast through that item.
Armorer can apply up to four infusions to their arcane armor and get an additional bonus 2 infusions to their count if two of those infusions are on their armor.
And that's it. Every other subclass/infusion can have just one magical effect because the Artificer cannot place an infusion into an already magical item.
So there's PLENTY of room for a runic subclass to provide new or interesting twists on mechanics for the Artificer.