Yes, they should be included. As someone that is currently playing one in a 1-20 campaign and is currently 18th level in said campaign, Artificer is probably one of the best designed classes in the game. Every level up feels substantial. Honestly, the only change that needs to happen is moving the level 20 capstone to 18th level and giving them the epic boon feature at 20th level. Otherwise, you really could just include them as is.
They should add them, and also add them to the licensing that allows third parties to publish content for them. Do I think they will? No. They see the class love and will use that to sell an extra book to everyone to gain access.
A question that one would hope has a well thought out and carefully considered answer instead of something arbitrary.
That is actually an easy answer. They're a class that mainly invokes the themes of Eberron. Complete with the whole magi-tek magic items being heavily present, along with a mad scientist vibe, and a bit of gunpowder suggestions. Introducing Artificer as a core class potentially has far more impact and implications on every setting than, say, Sorcerer and Warlock.
That said, I do think its time we bit the bullet and made the addition. The presence of the Sorcerer, Bard, and Warlock all do weird things to the assumptions of Dark Suns arcane magic, especially since all three are tecnically arcane classes that are also psionic. How does a warlock or a bard fit into the moon-magic of Dragonlance? Monks into any euro-centric setting? We already have to either ban or tweak classes (or the setting), so what's one more?
Well, there's a large portion of the D&D fan base that are resistant to change, so there might be some upheaval there. That's another reason why they might hesitate to make artificers core.
That said... there's a curious factoid I ran across. Not sure how true it is, but...High tech / soft science fiction? Most kids see zero problems with mixing it into fantasy shows with magic. In fact, studies have shown that not only do they find it preferable, there's actually some dislike when there -isn't- some high tech mixed with magic. You see it in western cartoons, anime, etc. Everywhere in growing numbers.
EDIT - So newer, younger players probably won't bat an eye at it, and likely will be happier for it. Which is a very good reason to test it. Lets find out if it is popular enough to be core.
Honestly, when I play an artificer, I don't even try to make them look or feel technological. I roleplay them as an arcane caster whose forte is magic items rather than spells. Why are they only a half caster? Maybe they are spending a good deal of energy maintaining their infusions.
Yes, they should be included. As someone that is currently playing one in a 1-20 campaign and is currently 18th level in said campaign, Artificer is probably one of the best designed classes in the game. Every level up feels substantial. Honestly, the only change that needs to happen is moving the level 20 capstone to 18th level and giving them the epic boon feature at 20th level. Otherwise, you really could just include them as is.
As someone who is fond of the artificer and is playing one I agree. And this be why Artificer isn't I'm this playtest file as it won't need as much playtesting to convert to one DnD. And likely it will be covered in a different playtest before they produce the new one dnd book since otherwise you can't use them in one dnd and thus the claim that all 5th edition content could still be used would become invalid. Although they might release the artificer as a free PDF like the spelljammer monster compendium they have on DND beyond for free if the class does not make it into the new player handbook.
I would love for Artificers to be in the PHB. It'd be wonderful to have them be fully embraced the same way the other 5E classes were.
But what I would love even more is for WOTC to fix or address whatever underlying policies, issues, etc that prevented them from printing new subclasses for the Artificer or new infusions, etc unless the entire class itself were also reprinted in the same book. Pulling the Artificer into the PHB would solve that issue for Artificers... but it wouldn't solve that issue for any new classes added to D&D in the future. I get the impression the issue would just repeat itself again and then we'd have people calling for [new class] to be ported to the PHB to fix the issue.
So far with One D&D it seems with class groups and the three base spell lists WOTC are providing themselves with a bit of a framework to allow things to be more expandable in that regard.
Feats and Magic Items can have class groups as prerequisites instead of specific classes. And a new spellcasting class can just state what existing spell list and schools it pulls from.
But this doesn't resolve subclasses or expandable class features like infusions, maneuvers, pact boons or eldritch invocations (granted Warlocks and Fighters don't have to worry about this since they will be in the new PHB).
Granted, infusions could be made expandable by providing rules for what qualifies an item to be an option for the Replicate Magic Item infusion instead of a static curated list of items, thus as new magic items are added the options for infusions expand. We currently have something like that with common magic items, but oddly enough common magic items aren't commonly added in new books.
And subclasses could be made expandable by adding group based subclasses, a subclass that would work with all the classes within a group (something they toyed with once in a Strixhaven UA). It's possible WOTC is considering this option since it seems all the Expert classes revealed so far now get subclass features at the same levels. It remains to be seen how viable this might be for the other groups but I have my doubts that this would work well for Expert classes since the only things Experts seem to have in common is expertise and features that aid ability checks.
I think Wizards is wanting artificer to have more subclasses before it gets into the PHB. Also, there are definitely some issues to hammer out, like Magical Tinkering; the most useless class feature ever created.
They also need to have a defined set of rules for crafting equipment and magic items, since Artificer kinda revolves around the idea of artisanship.
It feels like a step in the right direction to have them hang out with the Experts in One DnD, but they'll need to make changes to the whole class since it has so few options for subclasses as it is. This isn't really a hard fix, just brainstorm a few subclasses that are themed around other tools; I suggest the Wire Weaver by Tulak the Barbarian as a good starting point. We've also had a ton of people in these forums try the Simic Combine biomancer so many times.
I don't feel like it does any harm. If they wanted to give artificers an additional feature they would. No game designer is going to be like 'well this class clearly needs something else here, but unfortunately there's already a feature here so I guess we can't.'
They could get something else without having to take away magical tinkering.
I think the reason the artificer is not included in the UA is because of the magic item creation ability.
The document was already a monster, and including them + the new rules for their infusions + the magic items being changed would have just driven it over the top.
My guess is that once the other classes get locked in, we'll see a UA solely focused on the Artificer and the magic items they can make.
I like them and I would be very much in favor of them being in the PHB. I do fear, though, that a lot of people would be upset since they see D&D as being firmly 'mediveal' and having a core class that's pretty... steampunk... would destroy that notion.
I think it is time they become a baseline class and start showing up in the PHBs.
Yes, they should be included. As someone that is currently playing one in a 1-20 campaign and is currently 18th level in said campaign, Artificer is probably one of the best designed classes in the game. Every level up feels substantial. Honestly, the only change that needs to happen is moving the level 20 capstone to 18th level and giving them the epic boon feature at 20th level. Otherwise, you really could just include them as is.
I hope you’re right.
They should add them, and also add them to the licensing that allows third parties to publish content for them. Do I think they will? No. They see the class love and will use that to sell an extra book to everyone to gain access.
That is actually an easy answer. They're a class that mainly invokes the themes of Eberron. Complete with the whole magi-tek magic items being heavily present, along with a mad scientist vibe, and a bit of gunpowder suggestions. Introducing Artificer as a core class potentially has far more impact and implications on every setting than, say, Sorcerer and Warlock.
That said, I do think its time we bit the bullet and made the addition. The presence of the Sorcerer, Bard, and Warlock all do weird things to the assumptions of Dark Suns arcane magic, especially since all three are tecnically arcane classes that are also psionic. How does a warlock or a bard fit into the moon-magic of Dragonlance? Monks into any euro-centric setting? We already have to either ban or tweak classes (or the setting), so what's one more?
Well, there's a large portion of the D&D fan base that are resistant to change, so there might be some upheaval there. That's another reason why they might hesitate to make artificers core.
That said... there's a curious factoid I ran across. Not sure how true it is, but...High tech / soft science fiction? Most kids see zero problems with mixing it into fantasy shows with magic. In fact, studies have shown that not only do they find it preferable, there's actually some dislike when there -isn't- some high tech mixed with magic. You see it in western cartoons, anime, etc. Everywhere in growing numbers.
EDIT - So newer, younger players probably won't bat an eye at it, and likely will be happier for it. Which is a very good reason to test it. Lets find out if it is popular enough to be core.
I think they will keep quiet and surprise us with them being in the PHB.
Honestly, when I play an artificer, I don't even try to make them look or feel technological. I roleplay them as an arcane caster whose forte is magic items rather than spells. Why are they only a half caster? Maybe they are spending a good deal of energy maintaining their infusions.
As someone who is fond of the artificer and is playing one I agree. And this be why Artificer isn't I'm this playtest file as it won't need as much playtesting to convert to one DnD. And likely it will be covered in a different playtest before they produce the new one dnd book since otherwise you can't use them in one dnd and thus the claim that all 5th edition content could still be used would become invalid. Although they might release the artificer as a free PDF like the spelljammer monster compendium they have on DND beyond for free if the class does not make it into the new player handbook.
I would love for Artificers to be in the PHB. It'd be wonderful to have them be fully embraced the same way the other 5E classes were.
But what I would love even more is for WOTC to fix or address whatever underlying policies, issues, etc that prevented them from printing new subclasses for the Artificer or new infusions, etc unless the entire class itself were also reprinted in the same book. Pulling the Artificer into the PHB would solve that issue for Artificers... but it wouldn't solve that issue for any new classes added to D&D in the future. I get the impression the issue would just repeat itself again and then we'd have people calling for [new class] to be ported to the PHB to fix the issue.
So far with One D&D it seems with class groups and the three base spell lists WOTC are providing themselves with a bit of a framework to allow things to be more expandable in that regard.
Feats and Magic Items can have class groups as prerequisites instead of specific classes. And a new spellcasting class can just state what existing spell list and schools it pulls from.
But this doesn't resolve subclasses or expandable class features like infusions, maneuvers, pact boons or eldritch invocations (granted Warlocks and Fighters don't have to worry about this since they will be in the new PHB).
Granted, infusions could be made expandable by providing rules for what qualifies an item to be an option for the Replicate Magic Item infusion instead of a static curated list of items, thus as new magic items are added the options for infusions expand. We currently have something like that with common magic items, but oddly enough common magic items aren't commonly added in new books.
And subclasses could be made expandable by adding group based subclasses, a subclass that would work with all the classes within a group (something they toyed with once in a Strixhaven UA). It's possible WOTC is considering this option since it seems all the Expert classes revealed so far now get subclass features at the same levels. It remains to be seen how viable this might be for the other groups but I have my doubts that this would work well for Expert classes since the only things Experts seem to have in common is expertise and features that aid ability checks.
I think Wizards is wanting artificer to have more subclasses before it gets into the PHB. Also, there are definitely some issues to hammer out, like Magical Tinkering; the most useless class feature ever created.
They also need to have a defined set of rules for crafting equipment and magic items, since Artificer kinda revolves around the idea of artisanship.
It feels like a step in the right direction to have them hang out with the Experts in One DnD, but they'll need to make changes to the whole class since it has so few options for subclasses as it is. This isn't really a hard fix, just brainstorm a few subclasses that are themed around other tools; I suggest the Wire Weaver by Tulak the Barbarian as a good starting point. We've also had a ton of people in these forums try the Simic Combine biomancer so many times.
I hope they'd include them simply because they just don't support the artificer since it's not a PHB class.
If they where better about that i wouldn't mind as much if they made it or not
I don't feel like it does any harm. If they wanted to give artificers an additional feature they would. No game designer is going to be like 'well this class clearly needs something else here, but unfortunately there's already a feature here so I guess we can't.'
They could get something else without having to take away magical tinkering.
I think the reason the artificer is not included in the UA is because of the magic item creation ability.
The document was already a monster, and including them + the new rules for their infusions + the magic items being changed would have just driven it over the top.
My guess is that once the other classes get locked in, we'll see a UA solely focused on the Artificer and the magic items they can make.
I like them and I would be very much in favor of them being in the PHB. I do fear, though, that a lot of people would be upset since they see D&D as being firmly 'mediveal' and having a core class that's pretty... steampunk... would destroy that notion.