There's also just nothing mechanically or thematically that makes it better suited to Wizard than any other spellcasting class. The main point in favour of Artificers is that they already do something similar to a form of runic magic so it makes much more sense to build upon that rather than add a somewhat weird collection of features to Wizard.
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.
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
If you'd like to know why, then you've got 8 pages of reading to do. 😉
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
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)
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
There have been plenty of arguments made as to why; you may not agree with them but that does not mean they do not exist.
People have also made arguments as to why they think it should be Wizard, I don't agree with those but they still exist.
Personally I think the case for Artificer is stronger than the case for Wizard, but ultimately the sub-class is so generic that it could fit just about any spellcaster with minimal changes. It doesn't fill any niche for Wizard that needs filling, meanwhile it could be adapted (with major changes) into something a lot more interesting for Artificer, maybe Sorcerer, but I expect it more likely just to be dropped in favour of the feats.
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.
2. They gave the Wizard something similar to metamagic, which some felt was unfair to the Sorcerer.
I don’t personally get that one.
More of a “joke” that has been tossed around for a while, since the days of the Lore Wizard UA, all the way to Onomancy UA.
The gist is that a subclass designed around manipulating spell effects is too similar to Sorcerer…which is a class already limited by their available spells.
But when a Wizard is built around slinging spells…well, eventually you have to find new ways to use them. And credit where it’s due; none of the runes copied the metamagic.
Truth he told, the actual “runes” of the Runecrafter subclass were pretty neat; I especially like the one that lets you zip away from danger.
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
There have been plenty of arguments made as to why; you may not agree with them but that does not mean they do not exist.
People have also made arguments as to why they think it should be Wizard, I don't agree with those but they still exist. Personally I think the case for Artificer is stronger than the case for Wizard, but ultimately the sub-class is so generic that it could fit just about any spellcaster with minimal changes. It doesn't fill a niche for Wizard that needs filling, though it could be adapted into something a lot more interesting for Artificer, maybe Sorcerer, but I expect it more likely just to be dropped in favour of the feats.
I... didn't say they didn't exist. I said they failed to make a compelling case
Not reading what the people disagreeing with you actually say is perhaps part of the problem with your arguments
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)
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
If you'd like to know why, then you've got 8 pages of reading to do. 😉
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
What I still don't understand is why there HAS to be a convincing argument as to why Runecrafter should be an artificer subclass, when no such argument is apparently considered necessary to justify it remaining a wizard subclass?
Where's the convincing argument for that? Why is the burden for this subclass to be considered for an artificer higher than for it to be considered for a wizard? What makes this subclass more "wizard" than "artificer?" Or what makes it more "wizard" than a sorcerer, cleric, bard, or warlock?
4. Wizards have subclasses appropriate to their schools of magic, and several intended for specific play styles, accounting for the number similar to Clerics.
This is an entirely fair point to explain why Wizards and Clerics have so many subclasses and it does make sense for those subclasses to exist.
However, if we apply similar logic to Artificers:
There are 17 Artisan's Tools listed in the Basic Rules and PHB. We have 4 Artificer subclasses so far, 1 corresponds to Alchemist's supplies, 1 corresponds to Woodcarver's tools, and 2 correspond to Smith's tools.
By my count we have 14 Artificer subclasses left to go (13 if we consider Tinker's Tools too redundant).
There's also just nothing mechanically or thematically that makes it better suited to Wizard than any other spellcasting class. The main point in favour of Artificers is that they already do something similar to a form of runic magic so it makes much more sense to build upon that rather than add a somewhat weird collection of features to Wizard.
Mmmm, thematically I think it does fit the Wizard a little better. Wizards are supposed to be a more academic class; they learn their spells in a way other classes don't, they are required to write them down, they keep them in a spellbook. Runes are a form of esoteric language, and you inscribe them to gain their effects. While this doesn't necessarily exclude artificer, I do think the class whose whole shtick is learning and writing is a natural fit (interestingly enough, I also think Bards make a good fit for that same reason, if we lean into their lore as plunderers of magical knowledge😜)
4. Wizards have subclasses appropriate to their schools of magic, and several intended for specific play styles, accounting for the number similar to Clerics.
This is an entirely fair point to explain why Wizards and Clerics have so many subclasses and it does make sense for those subclasses to exist.
However, if we apply similar logic to Artificers:
There are 17 Artisan's Tools listed in the Basic Rules and PHB. We have 4 Artificer subclasses so far, 1 corresponds to Alchemist's supplies, 1 corresponds to Woodcarver's tools, and 2 correspond to Smith's tools.
By my count we have 14 Artificer subclasses left to go (13 if we consider Tinker's Tools too redundant).
4. Wizards have subclasses appropriate to their schools of magic, and several intended for specific play styles, accounting for the number similar to Clerics.
This is an entirely fair point to explain why Wizards and Clerics have so many subclasses and it does make sense for those subclasses to exist.
However, if we apply similar logic to Artificers:
There are 17 Artisan's Tools listed in the Basic Rules and PHB. We have 4 Artificer subclasses so far, 1 corresponds to Alchemist's supplies, 1 corresponds to Woodcarver's tools, and 2 correspond to Smith's tools.
By my count we have 14 Artificer subclasses left to go (13 if we consider Tinker's Tools too redundant).
Yup!
It’s a newer class; so I’m waiting for them to make some more subclasses based around those tools.
Tulok on YouTube made an absolutely AWESOME Artificer subclass called the “Wire Weaver”, based around the Weaver’s Tools.
I’d love an Artificer who uses Painter’s Supplies who either cast color-based spells, or who tags their allies with colors to imbue them with magical effects…maybe even a tattoo artificer. Turn people into paintings…paint your way into a place you’ve been before, and re-created from memory.
Mason Tools can create an Artificer who is an Architect who designs buildings…maybe giving them some earth-based spells.
Brewers Tools for a Tavernkeeper Artificer…they keep the drinks coming, filling their comrades with bravery & confidence (and foolishness). Might make for a good “wild magic” subclass.
A bit redundant, but using Woodcarver or Weaver’s Tools to make a puppet artificer would be cool (and a tiny bit creepy).
Gemcutter Tools for designing ioun stones…THAT one is so obvious; it’s a wonder they haven’t done it yet.
Leatherworker’s Tools for an Artificer who finally puts an emphasis on firearms, and uses them to HUNT for pelts.
I dunno how interesting you can make footwear; but Cobbler’s Tools can maybe be modified to grant speed?
Maybe some tools don’t constitute good subclasses.
i've no idea why people want the runes to be artificer, it doesn't fit thematically or mechanically
If you'd like to know why, then you've got 8 pages of reading to do. 😉
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
What I still don't understand is why there HAS to be a convincing argument as to why Runecrafter should be an artificer subclass, when no such argument is apparently considered necessary to justify it remaining a wizard subclass?
Where's the convincing argument for that? Why is the burden for this subclass to be considered for an artificer higher than for it to be considered for a wizard? What makes this subclass more "wizard" than "artificer?" Or what makes it more "wizard" than a sorcerer, cleric, bard, or warlock?
The choice seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Well, you're talking to the wrong person, because as I said earlier in the thread, I don't see why runes -- as they've been set out mechanically in 5e -- would be a good basis for any caster subclass
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)
The first thing I think when I hear "Runes", is Odin.
He sacrificed his eye in Mimir’s well and he threw himself on his spear Gungnir in a kind of symbolic, ritual suicide. He then hanged himself in Yggdrasil, the tree of life, for nine days and nine nights in order to gain knowledge of other worlds and be able to understand the runes.
During his sacrificial actions, he saw visions and received secret wisdom. The magical knowledge he gained made him able to cure the sick, calm storms, turn weapons against his attackers, make women fall in love and render dangerous troll women harmless – often just with a look.
So for me this says, Wizard, Cleric and Bard. Maybe Sorc. But in no way does it say Artificer. Does the Artificer deserve more subclasses? Absolutely. Just not this one.
I... didn't say they didn't exist. I said they failed to make a compelling case
Same difference; declaring them as "not compelling" doesn't make that true, it just means you weren't convinced, or chose not to be.
But my entire point is there's already been 8 pages of this, we don't need 8 pages more of the same circular nothing; I think what is abundantly clear is that it's not a good sub-class, as while mechanically it has some okay ideas, none of them fit Wizard any better than any other spellcaster, and the runes themselves don't feel that special (and the most notable feature is outright broken). It really has no mechanical or thematic justification for being Wizard as it doesn't fill some niche or create a new playstyle for the Wizard, and thematically it's justification for being Wizard isn't strong either (the included flavour text is very weak IMO).
Again, while what I want is a new Artificer sub-class, what I expect is that it will be dropped if anything, because if rune magic is so independent of caster type then they already have a solution for that in the same UA; namely the feats already included, that allow literally anyone to become a minor runecaster. It would make more sense to just add more "levelled" feats to build on top of that, maybe in a way that ties in with spellcasting/pact magic features (for the casters) so it's possible to build any caster as a higher level runecaster if you want to, built properly with a mix of half and full feats that build on each other that could be a really good way to do it. Though really just the one feat is potentially enough, since players are free to reflavour their characters however they wish (if I decide my Armorer Artificer is a "runecaster" there's nothing you can do to stop me, just as I can't stop your Wizard/Warlock/whatever being a self-proclaimed "runecaster" if that's what you want to build).
This is all basically what I said in my feedback on the survey.
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.
Why is the burden for this subclass to be considered for an artificer higher than for it to be considered for a wizard?
Probably because it's a wizard subclass.
Basically this, yeah. The people at WotC already did the groundwork to design it as a wizard subclass. If the community wants them to rework it from the ground up to fit another caster or half-caster chassis, then there should be a reason that class is better than wizard. Otherwise its asking WotC to scrap an already like 85% designed subclass and remake it for something that is only just as good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Basically this, yeah. The people at WotC already did the groundwork to design it as a wizard subclass. If the community wants them to rework it from the ground up to fit another caster or half-caster chassis, then there should be a reason that class is better than wizard. Otherwise its asking WotC to scrap an already like 85% designed subclass and remake it for something that is only just as good.
Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Plenty of UA subclasses have been scrapped in their entirety. It's not like anyone here is clamoring for a change to an already published book.
Ultimately, I was more responding to the perceived desire to make a compelling argument in this thread. This thread where (I presume) none of us are directly working for WOTC and nobody has any direct power or ability to veto an official subclass. This thread that is largely filled with opinions and not (I'm assuming) designed to be practice for someone's high school debate club.
If there's anywhere where a compelling argument would need to be made or not it's in the Unearthed Arcana feedback survey. That's the only place where a convincing or compelling argument would serve any functional purpose. And the results of that survey are not made public.
I haven't read people's post, as i'm to late to the talk. But am i the only one, disappointed that none of the feats gives a bonus to strenght, or maybe con. They are giant themed. Creatures somewhat known for their strenght... That is probaly because of their size, but still. What does "Belt of Giant strenght" do. It sets your strenght to a certain amount, based on it's type
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don’t personally get that one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's also just nothing mechanically or thematically that makes it better suited to Wizard than any other spellcasting class. The main point in favour of Artificers is that they already do something similar to a form of runic magic so it makes much more sense to build upon that rather than add a somewhat weird collection of features to Wizard.
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.
No, that's 8 pages of people saying they want new artificer subclasses. Those 8 pages fail to make a compelling case why this particular idea should be one
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)
There have been plenty of arguments made as to why; you may not agree with them but that does not mean they do not exist.
People have also made arguments as to why they think it should be Wizard, I don't agree with those but they still exist.
Personally I think the case for Artificer is stronger than the case for Wizard, but ultimately the sub-class is so generic that it could fit just about any spellcaster with minimal changes. It doesn't fill any niche for Wizard that needs filling, meanwhile it could be adapted (with major changes) into something a lot more interesting for Artificer, maybe Sorcerer, but I expect it more likely just to be dropped in favour of the feats.
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.
More of a “joke” that has been tossed around for a while, since the days of the Lore Wizard UA, all the way to Onomancy UA.
The gist is that a subclass designed around manipulating spell effects is too similar to Sorcerer…which is a class already limited by their available spells.
But when a Wizard is built around slinging spells…well, eventually you have to find new ways to use them. And credit where it’s due; none of the runes copied the metamagic.
Truth he told, the actual “runes” of the Runecrafter subclass were pretty neat; I especially like the one that lets you zip away from danger.
I... didn't say they didn't exist. I said they failed to make a compelling case
Not reading what the people disagreeing with you actually say is perhaps part of the problem with your arguments
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 I still don't understand is why there HAS to be a convincing argument as to why Runecrafter should be an artificer subclass, when no such argument is apparently considered necessary to justify it remaining a wizard subclass?
Where's the convincing argument for that?
Why is the burden for this subclass to be considered for an artificer higher than for it to be considered for a wizard?
What makes this subclass more "wizard" than "artificer?" Or what makes it more "wizard" than a sorcerer, cleric, bard, or warlock?
The choice seems pretty arbitrary to me.
This is an entirely fair point to explain why Wizards and Clerics have so many subclasses and it does make sense for those subclasses to exist.
However, if we apply similar logic to Artificers:
There are 17 Artisan's Tools listed in the Basic Rules and PHB.
We have 4 Artificer subclasses so far, 1 corresponds to Alchemist's supplies, 1 corresponds to Woodcarver's tools, and 2 correspond to Smith's tools.
By my count we have 14 Artificer subclasses left to go (13 if we consider Tinker's Tools too redundant).
Mmmm, thematically I think it does fit the Wizard a little better. Wizards are supposed to be a more academic class; they learn their spells in a way other classes don't, they are required to write them down, they keep them in a spellbook. Runes are a form of esoteric language, and you inscribe them to gain their effects. While this doesn't necessarily exclude artificer, I do think the class whose whole shtick is learning and writing is a natural fit (interestingly enough, I also think Bards make a good fit for that same reason, if we lean into their lore as plunderers of magical knowledge😜)
I am all here for this😝
Yup!
It’s a newer class; so I’m waiting for them to make some more subclasses based around those tools.
Tulok on YouTube made an absolutely AWESOME Artificer subclass called the “Wire Weaver”, based around the Weaver’s Tools.
I’d love an Artificer who uses Painter’s Supplies who either cast color-based spells, or who tags their allies with colors to imbue them with magical effects…maybe even a tattoo artificer. Turn people into paintings…paint your way into a place you’ve been before, and re-created from memory.
Mason Tools can create an Artificer who is an Architect who designs buildings…maybe giving them some earth-based spells.
Brewers Tools for a Tavernkeeper Artificer…they keep the drinks coming, filling their comrades with bravery & confidence (and foolishness). Might make for a good “wild magic” subclass.
A bit redundant, but using Woodcarver or Weaver’s Tools to make a puppet artificer would be cool (and a tiny bit creepy).
Gemcutter Tools for designing ioun stones…THAT one is so obvious; it’s a wonder they haven’t done it yet.
Leatherworker’s Tools for an Artificer who finally puts an emphasis on firearms, and uses them to HUNT for pelts.
I dunno how interesting you can make footwear; but Cobbler’s Tools can maybe be modified to grant speed?
Maybe some tools don’t constitute good subclasses.
"Now click your heels three times together and yell 'FIREBALL!'"
Well, you're talking to the wrong person, because as I said earlier in the thread, I don't see why runes -- as they've been set out mechanically in 5e -- would be a good basis for any caster subclass
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)
The first thing I think when I hear "Runes", is Odin.
So for me this says, Wizard, Cleric and Bard. Maybe Sorc. But in no way does it say Artificer. Does the Artificer deserve more subclasses? Absolutely. Just not this one.
Same difference; declaring them as "not compelling" doesn't make that true, it just means you weren't convinced, or chose not to be.
But my entire point is there's already been 8 pages of this, we don't need 8 pages more of the same circular nothing; I think what is abundantly clear is that it's not a good sub-class, as while mechanically it has some okay ideas, none of them fit Wizard any better than any other spellcaster, and the runes themselves don't feel that special (and the most notable feature is outright broken). It really has no mechanical or thematic justification for being Wizard as it doesn't fill some niche or create a new playstyle for the Wizard, and thematically it's justification for being Wizard isn't strong either (the included flavour text is very weak IMO).
Again, while what I want is a new Artificer sub-class, what I expect is that it will be dropped if anything, because if rune magic is so independent of caster type then they already have a solution for that in the same UA; namely the feats already included, that allow literally anyone to become a minor runecaster. It would make more sense to just add more "levelled" feats to build on top of that, maybe in a way that ties in with spellcasting/pact magic features (for the casters) so it's possible to build any caster as a higher level runecaster if you want to, built properly with a mix of half and full feats that build on each other that could be a really good way to do it. Though really just the one feat is potentially enough, since players are free to reflavour their characters however they wish (if I decide my Armorer Artificer is a "runecaster" there's nothing you can do to stop me, just as I can't stop your Wizard/Warlock/whatever being a self-proclaimed "runecaster" if that's what you want to build).
This is all basically what I said in my feedback on the survey.
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 it’s supposed to be: There’s no place like home?”
”There won’t be once we’re through!”
Probably because it's a wizard subclass.
Basically this, yeah. The people at WotC already did the groundwork to design it as a wizard subclass. If the community wants them to rework it from the ground up to fit another caster or half-caster chassis, then there should be a reason that class is better than wizard. Otherwise its asking WotC to scrap an already like 85% designed subclass and remake it for something that is only just as good.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Currently it's still in UA. Nothing about it is finalized.
Wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Plenty of UA subclasses have been scrapped in their entirety. It's not like anyone here is clamoring for a change to an already published book.
Ultimately, I was more responding to the perceived desire to make a compelling argument in this thread. This thread where (I presume) none of us are directly working for WOTC and nobody has any direct power or ability to veto an official subclass. This thread that is largely filled with opinions and not (I'm assuming) designed to be practice for someone's high school debate club.
If there's anywhere where a compelling argument would need to be made or not it's in the Unearthed Arcana feedback survey. That's the only place where a convincing or compelling argument would serve any functional purpose. And the results of that survey are not made public.
I haven't read people's post, as i'm to late to the talk. But am i the only one, disappointed that none of the feats gives a bonus to strenght, or maybe con. They are giant themed. Creatures somewhat known for their strenght... That is probaly because of their size, but still. What does "Belt of Giant strenght" do. It sets your strenght to a certain amount, based on it's type