They require the player to dive into a non-player-facing book (the DMG) to understand all their features. And unlike Druid's Wildshape changes, they can't change that with a generic statblock. The major offender here is Replicate Magic Item, but even without that infusion, you still need the DMG to understand the general rules behind magic items and attunement. I can understand them wanting to keep that out of core so that only groups that feel they're experienced enough to cross that threshold have to be expose to it.
By the same logic the Thief Subclass should be considered "exotic" as well. Its 10th level feature "Use Magic Device" requires precisely the same knowledge of the general rules of magic items as infusions require. Actually it requires further knowledge considering it adds an exception to how magic item charges work that the Artificer class does not. It even has special rules for how thieves interacts with spell scrolls. Yet, apparently there's plenty of room for the Thief Subclass in the PHB despite that it relies on game mechanics not covered in the PHB.
It's not the same logic at all. Thieves can't make any magic items, they're still purely dependent on the DM for whatever they might come across even with UMD. Artificers however can, both temporary/consumable and permanent. Any group they're in will be faced with those rules whether the DM is ready to do so or not.
They require the player to dive into a non-player-facing book (the DMG) to understand all their features. And unlike Druid's Wildshape changes, they can't change that with a generic statblock. The major offender here is Replicate Magic Item, but even without that infusion, you still need the DMG to understand the general rules behind magic items and attunement. I can understand them wanting to keep that out of core so that only groups that feel they're experienced enough to cross that threshold have to be expose to it.
By the same logic the Thief Subclass should be considered "exotic" as well. Its 10th level feature "Use Magic Device" requires precisely the same knowledge of the general rules of magic items as infusions require. Actually it requires further knowledge considering it adds an exception to how magic item charges work that the Artificer class does not. It even has special rules for how thieves interacts with spell scrolls. Yet, apparently there's plenty of room for the Thief Subclass in the PHB despite that it relies on game mechanics not covered in the PHB.
It's not the same logic at all. Thieves can't make any magic items, they're still purely dependent on the DM for whatever they might come across even with UMD. Artificers however can, both temporary/consumable and permanent. Any group they're in will be faced with those rules whether the DM is ready to do so or not.
It's the logic that you presented.
Artificers being capable of infusing items doesn't require any DMG knowledge of how to create magic items. Infusing items doesn't follow the same rules as magic item crafting, it has its own rules fully described in the Infuse Item section of the Artificer description.
Replicate Magic Item is a singular specific exception that can just as easily be printed in the same book where all of its magic items listed get printed.
To address your new argument (which includes info you didn't state before) you're stating that the fact that Artificer PC being in control of what magic item they infuse makes them exotic. Sure, but the answer to that is the same. Remove Replicate Magic Item and the only thing that remains are items specifically designed to be infusions, a.k.a an Artificer's class features, all the necessary text of which is included in the same book as the Artificer. PCs have always been responsible for their class features, that's nothing new.
Artificers being capable of infusing items doesn't require any DMG knowledge of how to create magic items. Infusing items doesn't follow the same rules as magic item crafting, it has its own rules fully described in the Infuse Item section of the Artificer description.
Replicate Magic Item is a singular specific exception that can just as easily be printed in the same book where all of its magic items listed get printed.
To address your new argument (which includes info you didn't state before) you're stating that the fact that Artificer PC being in control of what magic item they infuse makes them exotic. Sure, but the answer to that is the same. Remove Replicate Magic Item and the only thing that remains are items specifically designed to be infusions, a.k.a an Artificer's class features, all the necessary text of which is included in the same book as the Artificer.
1) Replicating items might not be the same rules as crafting items, but it still requires knowing what kind of item you can infuse and what the end result's properties will be, all of which is DM-facing information. A spell scroll meanwhile has the effect... of casting a spell, the details of which are in the PHB and therefore player-facing.
2) Even if you remove Replicate Item (which, you know, "solves" the issue by making artificer quite boring), you're still forcing your DM and group to become familiar with things like attunement and charges and slots at level 2, long before they might be ready to deal with that. Thief Rogue - the comparison you made, not me - doesn't get UMD until Tier 3, by which point the group can be expected to have a lot more experience with play.
1) Replicating items might not be the same rules as crafting items, but it still requires knowing what kind of item you can infuse and what the end result's properties will be, all of which is DM-facing information. A spell scroll meanwhile has the effect... of casting a spell, the details of which are in the PHB and therefore player-facing.
2) Even if you remove Replicate Item (which, you know, "solves" the issue by making artificer quite boring), you're still forcing your DM and group to become familiar with things like attunement and charges and slots at level 2, long before they might be ready to deal with that. Thief Rogue - the comparison you made, not me - doesn't get UMD until Tier 3, by which point the group can be expected to have a lot more experience with play.
1) Replicate Magic Item is only one infusion. If its the greatest barrier preventing Artificer from being included is just one infusion the simpler solution is to drop the infusion (or better delay that one infusions inclusion until the DMG) instead of dropping the class. Otherwise this would be like dropping the entire Warlock class because Pact of the Chain lets you Cast Find Familiar with additional options listed in the MM.
2) Fair argument. I still don't agree that that's a sufficient enough reason for not including Artificer though.
For charges, every magic item that includes charges describes how its charges work, you don't need knowledge of general rules for that. For attunement, you got me. That is available at level 2.
So there's a single topic of information that requires further understanding to run the Artificer properly not presented in the PHB that is included in the DMG, and the Basic Rules (free), and in some select introductory D&D adventure books such as Lost Mines of Phandelver (also free) but not actually in the PHB itself.
1) Replicating items might not be the same rules as crafting items, but it still requires knowing what kind of item you can infuse and what the end result's properties will be, all of which is DM-facing information. A spell scroll meanwhile has the effect... of casting a spell, the details of which are in the PHB and therefore player-facing.
2) Even if you remove Replicate Item (which, you know, "solves" the issue by making artificer quite boring), you're still forcing your DM and group to become familiar with things like attunement and charges and slots at level 2, long before they might be ready to deal with that. Thief Rogue - the comparison you made, not me - doesn't get UMD until Tier 3, by which point the group can be expected to have a lot more experience with play.
1) Replicate Magic Item is only one infusion. If its the greatest barrier preventing Artificer from being included is just one infusion the simpler solution is to drop the infusion (or better delay that one infusions inclusion until the DMG) instead of dropping the class. Otherwise this would be like dropping the entire Warlock class because Pact of the Chain lets you Cast Find Familiar with additional options listed in the MM.
2) Fair argument, but I was still initially operating on your presented logic which boiled down to "Because this class includes this thing from outside the PHB it's exotic." I was only following that specific line of logic. Not trying the gradate their difference of inclusion based on tiers of play.
For charges, every magic item that includes charges describes how its charges work, you don't need knowledge of general rules for that. For attunement, you got me. That is available at level 2.
So there's a single topic of information that requires further understanding to run the Artificer properly not presented in the PHB that is included in the DMG, and the Basic Rules, and some select introductory D&D adventure books like Lost Mines of Phandelver but not actually in the PHB itself.
1) I agree that dropping Replicate Magic Item would help (possibly even a great deal) but am still making the point that it might not be enough for Artificer to be appealing to them as a core class. With that said however, if they changed their minds on doing so I'd certainly play one.
2) You tried to follow that line of logic by comparing a 2nd-level ability to one that comes online at 13th level in 5e and 14th level in OneD&D. How you could possibly see that as a reasonable juxtaposition is beyond me.
1) I agree that dropping Replicate Magic Item would help (possibly even a great deal) but am still making the point that it might not be enough for Artificer to be appealing to them as a core class. With that said however, if they changed their minds on doing so I'd certainly play one.
2) You tried to follow that line of logic by comparing a 2nd-level ability to one that comes online at 13th level in 5e and 14th level in OneD&D. How you could possibly see that as a reasonable juxtaposition is beyond me.
I based it on what your logic seemed to be not on tiers of play. You made no mention of tiers of play until like the third post in the discussion.
Your initial post boiled down to "Because this class requires knowing how attunement works and that is defined in the DMG not in the PHB the class should be considered exotic"
So I applied the same exact reasoning to the Thief subclass which also requires knowledge of how attunement works.
When I said, "By the same logic" I meant exactly and explicitly by that logic and no other additional assumed logic. Tiers of play wasn't even on my mind in the slightest at that point, I don't know why you find that surprising.
Edit: I'll add that maybe I was operating under the assumption that a DM has already read the entirety of the DMG before beginning a campaign instead of reading bits and pieces of dungeon master material and figuring out the rules as they're going on. In my mind a DM that is planning to include magic items in their campaign will have already read up on how attunement works. Whereas a DM who isn't planning on any magic items in their campaign would likely have already banned the Artificer to begin with. And if a player needs to know how attunement works to run their character they can easily just ask the DM.
I'm sorry but this whole complexity or dm facing arguments are bs. there are huge complaints about the current designing not being challenging enough. Simple design doesn't have to equate to Simple choices. Classes can be complex as long as there is clarity of use. It's the interpretation fighting that causes problems not complexity.
Frankly, I thing the game needs options that have both player and dm facing parts. It allows bridging between dm and players. Players that are thinking of dm can "trial run it" by experiencing bits of the dm experience. Conversely dms that become players can have a bit of that complexity to help avoid issues like boredom or trying to take charge of aspects not their own.
Druid, ranger and artificer help serve such roles.
1) I agree that dropping Replicate Magic Item would help (possibly even a great deal) but am still making the point that it might not be enough for Artificer to be appealing to them as a core class. With that said however, if they changed their minds on doing so I'd certainly play one.
2) You tried to follow that line of logic by comparing a 2nd-level ability to one that comes online at 13th level in 5e and 14th level in OneD&D. How you could possibly see that as a reasonable juxtaposition is beyond me.
I based it what your logic seemed to be not on tiers of play. You made no mention of tiers of play until like the third post in the discussion.
Your initial post boiled down to "Because this class requires knowing how attunement works and that is defined in the DMG not in the PHB the class should be considered exotic"
So I applied the same exact reasoning to the Thief subclass which also requires knowledge of how attunement works.
When I said, "By the same logic" I meant exactly and explicitly by that logic and no other additional assumed logic. Tiers of play wasn't even on my mind in the slightest at that point, I don't know why you find that surprising.
Yes, how silly of me to actually think through the implications of the comparison you made... Okay then, glad we're on the same page now at least.
I don’t think that Artificer will be in the new PHB, for two primary reasons:
1. The new PHB seems to be pretty specifically a refresh of the old PHB, without introduction of newer species, classes or features.* In fact, the UA explicitly states (in a footnote) that although the Artificer is an Expert, the class is detailed in Tasha’s/Eberron, not the PHB. And Monsters of the Multiverse - which came out relatively recently - updated a lot of the other species previously added as player character options, but notably omitted the PHB species, presumably because they were due for an imminent update in PHB 2.0. If this is the approach that they took with species, I expect that they will do similar with classes, giving the artificer a refresh in a future supplement rather than the new PHB.
*Exception: the Goliath got an UA update and will this presumably appear in PHB 2.0, so it’s not entirely unprecedented for non-PHB material to be “promoted” - although I still think this is unlikely. In part because of…
2. Adding the artificer to the PHB would throw off the class balance of having 3 Experts, 3 Mages, 3 Priests and 3 Warriors. That seems to me like something that developers might like to preserve - at least for newcomers and casual gamers - to maintain a sense of internal balance and identity to the class archetypes.
That said, I would be delighted to be proven wrong. I think that it would be great for Artificers to get a similar refresh to the other classes, if for no other reason than to make sure that they are internally balanced and updated with other, universal class features. Especially since PHB 2.0 is going to release with four subclasses per class - and the Artificer conveniently has only four subclasses to consider.
For instance, the newer PHB classes currently get their previous “capstone” ability earlier in order to make room for the Epic Boon feature at level 20. If Artificers don’t get at least a token refresh to align them with this new standard, do they still have to wait until 20 to get the capstone that everyone else now gets at 18? Do they not get an Epic Boon - with its built-in ASI that can now exceed a score of 20 - at all?
And what about spellcasting? PHB 2.0 appears to be doing away with class spell lists altogether in favor of broader, shared spell lists: Arcane (Mages and Bards), Divine (Clerics and Paladins), and Primal (Druids and Rangers). The Bard spell list previously was very Mage-like, but also had a lot of overlap with spell now restricted to Priests; to compensate for this, the 2.0 Bard has had several of its core class features (e.g., Bardic Inspiration, Song of Restoration, Magical Secrets) reworked to provide more of the healing, utility and flexibility that they would otherwise be losing as a strict Mage.
Where does this leave Artificers? Much like the Bard, the previous UA lists them as Arcane spellcasters, despite them also currently pulling liberally from the Cleric and Druid spell lists. If the Artificer doesn’t get a rework along the lines of the Bard to account for this change, it could significantly change the feel and play of the class, simultaneously limiting their current selection while expanding it in other, perhaps unintentional ways.
Yes, how silly of me to actually think through the implications of the comparison you made... Okay then, glad we're on the same page now at least.
You asked. I explained. I still don't agree with the "exotic" classification for Artificer. But I understand what you meant within your post at least.
Any DM who's inclined to include magic items in their campaign is probably going to look up how attunement works if they don't already know what it is. A prospective Artifcer in such a campaign can just ask their DM what "attunement" means and then be informed. Any DM who doesn't want to include magic items in their campaign is probably not going to allow the Artificer in the first place so the problem to me doesn't seem likely to come up.
Quickly here...I alway thought Artificer should just be a Wizard subclass...it really is just a well flavoured, well roleplayed Wizard who chooses to use items for all their Arcane focus...they are really just an Enchanter...
Quickly here...I alway thought Artificer should just be a Wizard subclass...it really is just a well flavoured, well roleplayed Wizard who chooses to use items for all their Arcane focus...they are really just an Enchanter...
An Artificer is very different than a Wizard. Sure, they may have some areas where they overlap. However, saying that they are effectively the same just because they have certain similarities is like saying that Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin are all the same because they're primarily martials.
Artificer's aren't about enchanting people. They're about enchanting objects, tinkering, and magic. All in all, the class feels quite different than a Wizard, to me at least.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
My favority (probably wrong) theory about this is they're hiding an "actually there will be 16 classes in the PHB" surprise. With Artificer as the "new" expert, alongside a new warrior, priest, and mage. With the "48 subclasses" being 3x16 instead of 4x12.
My favority (probably wrong) theory about this is they're hiding an "actually there will be 16 classes in the PHB" surprise. With Artificer as the "new" expert, alongside a new warrior, priest, and mage. With the "48 subclasses" being 3x16 instead of 4x12.
That would be cool. I'm guessing it won't happen, but it would be great to have a few new classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My favority (probably wrong) theory about this is they're hiding an "actually there will be 16 classes in the PHB" surprise. With Artificer as the "new" expert, alongside a new warrior, priest, and mage. With the "48 subclasses" being 3x16 instead of 4x12.
It would be interesting for sure if they added 3 new classes. Outside of a Psionics class (mage) and maybe a shaman/occultist (priest)...I guess maybe a heavy magic influenced marital class like a death knight that focuses on negative energy uses...drain energy from either the world or from those that it attacks. But I guess they could always make Blood Hunters official class too as the other fighter class.
Quickly here...I alway thought Artificer should just be a Wizard subclass...it really is just a well flavoured, well roleplayed Wizard who chooses to use items for all their Arcane focus...they are really just an Enchanter...
An Artificer is very different than a Wizard. Sure, they may have some areas where they overlap. However, saying that they are effectively the same just because they have certain similarities is like saying that Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin are all the same because they're primarily martials.
Artificer's aren't about enchanting people. They're about enchanting objects, tinkering, and magic. All in all, the class feels quite different than a Wizard, to me at least.
I never said they are similar, it is what I believe it should be or have been. Enchanting people or objects...it is Enchanting...the current Wizard Subclass only focuses on enthral/charm, which is way to simple...and lame imo. As an true Enchanter, there would be so many other options. The subclass would open up tinkering and other proficiencies to add making objects, and give them same Enchanting parameters for objects, etc., etc...but from the Wizard Base. It should be a proper Wizard Subclass, a better one than what is there now.
It is just an opinion, but most of the original Wizard Subclasses are unplayed/unused, due to lack of depth. Merging Artificer into the Wizard Enchanter Subclass would fix that one completely.
Maybe, but then you're losing what is a class in its own right withe four full subclasses...to salvage one subclass (among many) for the Wizard.
Just fix the Wizard subclasses rather than dismantling four others to make one of them work better. There'd be so much mangling in changing a half-caster to fit into a full-caster frame, there'd be little point anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My favority (probably wrong) theory about this is they're hiding an "actually there will be 16 classes in the PHB" surprise. With Artificer as the "new" expert, alongside a new warrior, priest, and mage. With the "48 subclasses" being 3x16 instead of 4x12.
It would be interesting for sure if they added 3 new classes. Outside of a Psionics class (mage) and maybe a shaman/occultist (priest)...I guess maybe a heavy magic influenced marital class like a death knight that focuses on negative energy uses...drain energy from either the world or from those that it attacks. But I guess they could always make Blood Hunters official class too as the other fighter class.
My particular guesses would be for an arcane-gish warrior, a psionic mage, and a necromancer priest. But, again, this all seems very unlikely.
IMO there is no way to not include the artificer in the new PHB and not make everyone who's favorite class is the artificer feel like they had something taken away by WTOC. Even more the artificer needs a few buffs and customization options, especially the Alchemist and Armorer IMO. I realize that WOTC already has a lot on its plate with just PHB content, but the artificer fills a niche flavor that no other class fills. So even if it doesn't make it into the new PHB (which i think i should) it still needs these changes.
As to the artificer itself I believe firmly that they should be 3\4 casters that all get the mending cantrip for free as part of the ribbon feature magical tinkering, and the artificer creates a magical tinker by casting mending on a non-magical object. This gives the artificer more of an identity as a class, being the only 3/4 caster and improve the synergy with the wizard multi-class options. I would also add a feature to this that allows artificers to cast mending on broken common magical items that scales as you level up in the class. Finally they should be able to swap out expended subclass spells like all the newer designed classes.
The Alchemist should be able to make its elixirs as a bonus action and the elixirs should also scale with spell slots used to create them. (Making the elixirs a much more viable combat option)
The Armorer should be able to choose damage types for both Infiltrator and Guardian and the damage for both the ranged and melee options should be 2d6 (maybe 2d4) on a hit. Infiltrator should be able to choose lightning, necrotic, or radiant. Guardian should be able to choose cold, thunder, or force. (This improves optimization as well as let u decide if you wanna be more like; Iron man, Dr Doom, Ant Man, Mr Freeze, or The Mando)
These changes improve the artificers overall function and flavor by solving mechanical shortcomings by adding more versatility, which IMO fits the flavor of a expert class perfectly. As I said before this also gives the artificer more of an identity as a class. Plus there is no better time to make these changes then when changing all the other classes anyways and the list of changes is so small that it would take almost no time to implement basically redesign the artificer spell scaling chart and add a few lines of text to already existing features. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this but I felt I had to share it.
Just a little aside here Jedi are probably the most well known artificers, a person with a connection to magic that uses that magic to create a super powerful weapon or create devices that store information only be accessible by other Jedi. They fly space ships and have droid buddys, that's an artificer if Ive ever seen one. Next artificer subclass idea lol
It's not the same logic at all. Thieves can't make any magic items, they're still purely dependent on the DM for whatever they might come across even with UMD. Artificers however can, both temporary/consumable and permanent. Any group they're in will be faced with those rules whether the DM is ready to do so or not.
It's the logic that you presented.
Artificers being capable of infusing items doesn't require any DMG knowledge of how to create magic items. Infusing items doesn't follow the same rules as magic item crafting, it has its own rules fully described in the Infuse Item section of the Artificer description.
Replicate Magic Item is a singular specific exception that can just as easily be printed in the same book where all of its magic items listed get printed.
To address your new argument (which includes info you didn't state before) you're stating that the fact that Artificer PC being in control of what magic item they infuse makes them exotic. Sure, but the answer to that is the same. Remove Replicate Magic Item and the only thing that remains are items specifically designed to be infusions, a.k.a an Artificer's class features, all the necessary text of which is included in the same book as the Artificer. PCs have always been responsible for their class features, that's nothing new.
1) Replicating items might not be the same rules as crafting items, but it still requires knowing what kind of item you can infuse and what the end result's properties will be, all of which is DM-facing information. A spell scroll meanwhile has the effect... of casting a spell, the details of which are in the PHB and therefore player-facing.
2) Even if you remove Replicate Item (which, you know, "solves" the issue by making artificer quite boring), you're still forcing your DM and group to become familiar with things like attunement and charges and slots at level 2, long before they might be ready to deal with that. Thief Rogue - the comparison you made, not me - doesn't get UMD until Tier 3, by which point the group can be expected to have a lot more experience with play.
1) Replicate Magic Item is only one infusion. If its the greatest barrier preventing Artificer from being included is just one infusion the simpler solution is to drop the infusion (or better delay that one infusions inclusion until the DMG) instead of dropping the class. Otherwise this would be like dropping the entire Warlock class because Pact of the Chain lets you Cast Find Familiar with additional options listed in the MM.
2) Fair argument. I still don't agree that that's a sufficient enough reason for not including Artificer though.
For charges, every magic item that includes charges describes how its charges work, you don't need knowledge of general rules for that.
For attunement, you got me. That is available at level 2.
So there's a single topic of information that requires further understanding to run the Artificer properly not presented in the PHB that is included in the DMG, and the Basic Rules (free), and in some select introductory D&D adventure books such as Lost Mines of Phandelver (also free) but not actually in the PHB itself.
1) I agree that dropping Replicate Magic Item would help (possibly even a great deal) but am still making the point that it might not be enough for Artificer to be appealing to them as a core class. With that said however, if they changed their minds on doing so I'd certainly play one.
2) You tried to follow that line of logic by comparing a 2nd-level ability to one that comes online at 13th level in 5e and 14th level in OneD&D. How you could possibly see that as a reasonable juxtaposition is beyond me.
I based it on what your logic seemed to be not on tiers of play. You made no mention of tiers of play until like the third post in the discussion.
Your initial post boiled down to "Because this class requires knowing how attunement works and that is defined in the DMG not in the PHB the class should be considered exotic"
So I applied the same exact reasoning to the Thief subclass which also requires knowledge of how attunement works.
When I said, "By the same logic" I meant exactly and explicitly by that logic and no other additional assumed logic. Tiers of play wasn't even on my mind in the slightest at that point, I don't know why you find that surprising.
Edit: I'll add that maybe I was operating under the assumption that a DM has already read the entirety of the DMG before beginning a campaign instead of reading bits and pieces of dungeon master material and figuring out the rules as they're going on. In my mind a DM that is planning to include magic items in their campaign will have already read up on how attunement works. Whereas a DM who isn't planning on any magic items in their campaign would likely have already banned the Artificer to begin with. And if a player needs to know how attunement works to run their character they can easily just ask the DM.
I'm sorry but this whole complexity or dm facing arguments are bs. there are huge complaints about the current designing not being challenging enough. Simple design doesn't have to equate to Simple choices. Classes can be complex as long as there is clarity of use. It's the interpretation fighting that causes problems not complexity.
Frankly, I thing the game needs options that have both player and dm facing parts. It allows bridging between dm and players. Players that are thinking of dm can "trial run it" by experiencing bits of the dm experience. Conversely dms that become players can have a bit of that complexity to help avoid issues like boredom or trying to take charge of aspects not their own.
Druid, ranger and artificer help serve such roles.
Yes, how silly of me to actually think through the implications of the comparison you made... Okay then, glad we're on the same page now at least.
I don’t think that Artificer will be in the new PHB, for two primary reasons:
1. The new PHB seems to be pretty specifically a refresh of the old PHB, without introduction of newer species, classes or features.* In fact, the UA explicitly states (in a footnote) that although the Artificer is an Expert, the class is detailed in Tasha’s/Eberron, not the PHB. And Monsters of the Multiverse - which came out relatively recently - updated a lot of the other species previously added as player character options, but notably omitted the PHB species, presumably because they were due for an imminent update in PHB 2.0. If this is the approach that they took with species, I expect that they will do similar with classes, giving the artificer a refresh in a future supplement rather than the new PHB.
*Exception: the Goliath got an UA update and will this presumably appear in PHB 2.0, so it’s not entirely unprecedented for non-PHB material to be “promoted” - although I still think this is unlikely. In part because of…
2. Adding the artificer to the PHB would throw off the class balance of having 3 Experts, 3 Mages, 3 Priests and 3 Warriors. That seems to me like something that developers might like to preserve - at least for newcomers and casual gamers - to maintain a sense of internal balance and identity to the class archetypes.
That said, I would be delighted to be proven wrong. I think that it would be great for Artificers to get a similar refresh to the other classes, if for no other reason than to make sure that they are internally balanced and updated with other, universal class features. Especially since PHB 2.0 is going to release with four subclasses per class - and the Artificer conveniently has only four subclasses to consider.
For instance, the newer PHB classes currently get their previous “capstone” ability earlier in order to make room for the Epic Boon feature at level 20. If Artificers don’t get at least a token refresh to align them with this new standard, do they still have to wait until 20 to get the capstone that everyone else now gets at 18? Do they not get an Epic Boon - with its built-in ASI that can now exceed a score of 20 - at all?
And what about spellcasting? PHB 2.0 appears to be doing away with class spell lists altogether in favor of broader, shared spell lists: Arcane (Mages and Bards), Divine (Clerics and Paladins), and Primal (Druids and Rangers). The Bard spell list previously was very Mage-like, but also had a lot of overlap with spell now restricted to Priests; to compensate for this, the 2.0 Bard has had several of its core class features (e.g., Bardic Inspiration, Song of Restoration, Magical Secrets) reworked to provide more of the healing, utility and flexibility that they would otherwise be losing as a strict Mage.
Where does this leave Artificers? Much like the Bard, the previous UA lists them as Arcane spellcasters, despite them also currently pulling liberally from the Cleric and Druid spell lists. If the Artificer doesn’t get a rework along the lines of the Bard to account for this change, it could significantly change the feel and play of the class, simultaneously limiting their current selection while expanding it in other, perhaps unintentional ways.
You asked. I explained. I still don't agree with the "exotic" classification for Artificer. But I understand what you meant within your post at least.
Any DM who's inclined to include magic items in their campaign is probably going to look up how attunement works if they don't already know what it is. A prospective Artifcer in such a campaign can just ask their DM what "attunement" means and then be informed.
Any DM who doesn't want to include magic items in their campaign is probably not going to allow the Artificer in the first place so the problem to me doesn't seem likely to come up.
It's an ankle-high barrier at best.
Quickly here...I alway thought Artificer should just be a Wizard subclass...it really is just a well flavoured, well roleplayed Wizard who chooses to use items for all their Arcane focus...they are really just an Enchanter...
An Artificer is very different than a Wizard. Sure, they may have some areas where they overlap. However, saying that they are effectively the same just because they have certain similarities is like saying that Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin are all the same because they're primarily martials.
Artificer's aren't about enchanting people. They're about enchanting objects, tinkering, and magic. All in all, the class feels quite different than a Wizard, to me at least.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.My favority (probably wrong) theory about this is they're hiding an "actually there will be 16 classes in the PHB" surprise. With Artificer as the "new" expert, alongside a new warrior, priest, and mage. With the "48 subclasses" being 3x16 instead of 4x12.
That would be cool. I'm guessing it won't happen, but it would be great to have a few new classes.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It would be interesting for sure if they added 3 new classes. Outside of a Psionics class (mage) and maybe a shaman/occultist (priest)...I guess maybe a heavy magic influenced marital class like a death knight that focuses on negative energy uses...drain energy from either the world or from those that it attacks. But I guess they could always make Blood Hunters official class too as the other fighter class.
I never said they are similar, it is what I believe it should be or have been. Enchanting people or objects...it is Enchanting...the current Wizard Subclass only focuses on enthral/charm, which is way to simple...and lame imo. As an true Enchanter, there would be so many other options. The subclass would open up tinkering and other proficiencies to add making objects, and give them same Enchanting parameters for objects, etc., etc...but from the Wizard Base. It should be a proper Wizard Subclass, a better one than what is there now.
It is just an opinion, but most of the original Wizard Subclasses are unplayed/unused, due to lack of depth. Merging Artificer into the Wizard Enchanter Subclass would fix that one completely.
Maybe, but then you're losing what is a class in its own right withe four full subclasses...to salvage one subclass (among many) for the Wizard.
Just fix the Wizard subclasses rather than dismantling four others to make one of them work better. There'd be so much mangling in changing a half-caster to fit into a full-caster frame, there'd be little point anyway.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My particular guesses would be for an arcane-gish warrior, a psionic mage, and a necromancer priest. But, again, this all seems very unlikely.
IMO there is no way to not include the artificer in the new PHB and not make everyone who's favorite class is the artificer feel like they had something taken away by WTOC. Even more the artificer needs a few buffs and customization options, especially the Alchemist and Armorer IMO. I realize that WOTC already has a lot on its plate with just PHB content, but the artificer fills a niche flavor that no other class fills. So even if it doesn't make it into the new PHB (which i think i should) it still needs these changes.
As to the artificer itself I believe firmly that they should be 3\4 casters that all get the mending cantrip for free as part of the ribbon feature magical tinkering, and the artificer creates a magical tinker by casting mending on a non-magical object. This gives the artificer more of an identity as a class, being the only 3/4 caster and improve the synergy with the wizard multi-class options. I would also add a feature to this that allows artificers to cast mending on broken common magical items that scales as you level up in the class. Finally they should be able to swap out expended subclass spells like all the newer designed classes.
The Alchemist should be able to make its elixirs as a bonus action and the elixirs should also scale with spell slots used to create them. (Making the elixirs a much more viable combat option)
The Armorer should be able to choose damage types for both Infiltrator and Guardian and the damage for both the ranged and melee options should be 2d6 (maybe 2d4) on a hit. Infiltrator should be able to choose lightning, necrotic, or radiant. Guardian should be able to choose cold, thunder, or force. (This improves optimization as well as let u decide if you wanna be more like; Iron man, Dr Doom, Ant Man, Mr Freeze, or The Mando)
These changes improve the artificers overall function and flavor by solving mechanical shortcomings by adding more versatility, which IMO fits the flavor of a expert class perfectly. As I said before this also gives the artificer more of an identity as a class. Plus there is no better time to make these changes then when changing all the other classes anyways and the list of changes is so small that it would take almost no time to implement basically redesign the artificer spell scaling chart and add a few lines of text to already existing features. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks this but I felt I had to share it.
Just a little aside here Jedi are probably the most well known artificers, a person with a connection to magic that uses that magic to create a super powerful weapon or create devices that store information only be accessible by other Jedi. They fly space ships and have droid buddys, that's an artificer if Ive ever seen one. Next artificer subclass idea lol
Realistically wotc will probably add it in a new book just for the extra sales.
When they add artificer to experts it will be the perfect time to add 1 more to each group(like psionics to mages).