Considering that there is a feat for a crafter I'm guessing there will be a dedicated UA for Artificer and crafting rules.
Also, Steampunk is a theme ppl place on it but in reality, it's a crafter that has gone beyond simply crafting to learning how to use what he can craft. Armorer and Battle smith are the more mechanized centric but in reality, the armorer is just a blacksmith that learned how to have a magic system in his armor and the battle smith is a complex golem maker which to me are Arcane researcher.
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.
The funny thing is, you actually have to reskin and reflavor the abilities and spells to get to the 'steampunk aesthetic'
I'll use the Armorer example, clearly this thing was based on Iron Man right? But If I described a Dwarf with a suit of thick plate armor covered in glowing runes sparking and emanating a blue magical luminescent smoke you certainly wouldn't think 'Steam Punk'.
Or Artillerist, must be guns or something right, surprisingly no! But really you've got a Elven Wand Carver with a bandolier of wands that she pulls out and fires for various magical effects.
Alchemist is just self explanatory considering magical concoctions are perfectly viable in a fantasy setting and the Battlesmith is just a spell caster with a Construct pet.
And all the other effects are spells, cast no differently than any other caster would unless you go out of your way to describe the effects as having a mechanical or engineering origin, but even with all that, Counterspell still stops them in their tracks.
Alot of the steampunk vibe comes from their eberron origin flavor, very little of it comes from the actual class.
EDIT: Oh and 'what about the guns?' only the Battlesmith even has any reason to use a gun given the rules and options since the rest are either cantrip slingers are limited to their custom weapons, and they have the ability to make a 'gun' that doesn't even fire bullets or use blackpowder of any kind, just magical force projectiles after the infusion, that they will absolutely apply to it, is applied.
Personally I consider the concept behind the artificer class to be one of the most interesting ones across all 5e classes. I really like the idea of a class that focuses on tinkering and manifests its magic through their creations. And that's not even considering the mechanical standpoint, which is also very well implemented. Artificers add so much to the game without simply replicating stuff already covered by other classes.
I honestly don't see any good reason why artificers should not be included in the new PHB, but there are several issues that arise from not treating them as equal to the other twelve fundamental D&D classes. So yes, I really hope that artificers will be included in the One D&D PHB.
I reckon the sooner WotC make the Artificer a PHB class, the sooner we can get out of this 5E mindset of 'there can only be these classes', some of which can justifiably be folded into others, and 'the only additions to the game are subclasses' which, err, can justifiably be folded into each other. It might well harken back to the time when the Warlock was new, or when becoming a Bard was no small feat. It might open the door to classes being thrown into Unearthed Arcana to be playtested and more liberally published. What's there to lose if they don't work out? It's not like setting books get developed these days, why not extend that to experimental classes? One D&D appears to be the perfect time to do such a thing: if the class survives, give it some subclasses; if not, well players now have a new class option. To Wizards I say get the 5E thinking caps off: either treat this like One D&D, or just call it 5.25E.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
While I'm all for adding Artificer to the new PHB, I don't think Artificer being or not being in it will have any bearing on whether they want to design more classes or not.
I think the Artificer ought to be included, though I anticipate that it won't be changed much from its current incarnation. If we compare it to the Ranger and Bard, the only thing you'd need to do is change the rules a bit on its spellcasting.
I think it should pick spells from the Arcane list
For cantrips they can be from any school
For spells of 1st level or higher they could be restricted to Abjuration, Illusion, and Transmutation.
They could gain a feature called "Restorative Formulae" or some such that grants cure wounds, lesser restoration, and similar spells to them (like the Bard's Songs of Restoration).
They might also gain a feature that lets them cast Detect Magic and Identify as rituals or PB times per day.
As it currently is, the Artificer should play alongside the PHB classes without an update, but they will need to update in some way as more spells are added into the game.
If they add the Ardling they have to add the Artificer.
No they don't. That kind of kindergarden playground logic has never worked with any company let alone a gaming one. You desire they add it. But why would they do that? When they could add Artificer to an expansion book and sell that? Business logic says the latter is more likely.
If they add the Ardling they have to add the Artificer.
No they don't. That kind of kindergarden playground logic has never worked with any company let alone a gaming one. You desire they add it. But why would they do that? When they could add Artificer to an expansion book and sell that? Business logic says the latter is more likely.
That and the Ardling has nothing to do with the Artificer. It's a race they're adding to act as an Upper Planes counterpart to the Tiefling.
Whereas the Artificer still has an "odd one out" vibe to it as far as WoTC seems to be concerned.
Or add animal headed race with abilities NOT related to animals That plus I thought Asimar are descendants of celestial beings. While Artificers are an established class printed in more than one book.
Artificer is not going to be part of the 1DD playtest because the 1DD documents we've had so far point rather strongly towards Wizards making class design more uniform and systematic in ways that allows them to much more easily create new classes in the future. When the 1DD artificer is released in the future, it will likely be accompanied by other new classes to fill in the gaps. That is why they're doing spells by 'Arcane, Primal, or Divine' as well as class groupings - many of the big block-change systems are in place specifically to allow for smoother introduction and integration of new classes in the future.
Artificer is not going to be part of the 1DD playtest because the 1DD documents we've had so far point rather strongly towards Wizards making class design more uniform and systematic in ways that allows them to much more easily create new classes in the future. When the 1DD artificer is released in the future, it will likely be accompanied by other new classes to fill in the gaps. That is why they're doing spells by 'Arcane, Primal, or Divine' as well as class groupings - many of the big block-change systems are in place specifically to allow for smoother introduction and integration of new classes in the future.
This is most likely true. I know a lot of people want artificer included, even me, but I don't think it's in the cards. The first page of the latest UA has a section called "What's Ahead in the One D&D Playtest?" and the first point is "Revised versions of every Class from the 2014 Player's Handbook." I think it is worded that way on purpose.
The page count for the new book already seems like it will be high. As much as I want artificer to be there, I think it will have to be delayed. (same opinion as some others have stated)
An interesting thing I noticed when glancing through the UA again.
Expertise as written only applies to Skills Proficiencies, and not Tool Proficiencies. This means that Rogues cannot gain Expertise in Thieves' Tools and that Artificers aren't truly Experts in the way the UA describes their characteristics:
Polymaths who have the Expertise feature and elements of other Classes
Artificers get Tool Expertise, not Expertise. And considering how they are defining Tool Proficiency as it's own thing and not referencing Tools in the glossary definition of Ability Checks I get the impression they wouldn't consider these two kinds of expertise to be the same under the rules.
It's possible that a 1DD revamped Artificer could now get Expertise as a feature either in addition to or instead of Tool Expertise but I don't think that's at all likely. Instead I think It's just yet another reason for WOTC to list Artificers separately from the other Experts along with them not appearing in the PHB.
Hmmm, that is a good point. I had figured they left out Tool Expertise in general because it was kind of unnecessary. Since they said that being proficient in both the skill and the tool would grant you advantage on the roll. I hadn't thought of the other way around, since they appear to be saying there is always an applicable skill anyway.
But that does make you wonder what skill would be used to say... forge a sword? Or brew a potion?
Maybe Artificers will be the only ones who get to be experts in tools, but that feels a little strange too. Surely there are normal artisans in the world. The regular blacksmiths, musicians, and potters all around. Odd...
Hmmm, that is a good point. I had figured they left out Tool Expertise in general because it was kind of unnecessary. Since they said that being proficient in both the skill and the tool would grant you advantage on the roll. I hadn't thought of the other way around, since they appear to be saying there is always an applicable skill anyway.
But that does make you wonder what skill would be used to say... forge a sword? Or brew a potion?
Maybe Artificers will be the only ones who get to be experts in tools, but that feels a little strange too. Surely there are normal artisans in the world. The regular blacksmiths, musicians, and potters all around. Odd...
If I remember right, The inverse is true with zanathars rules as well expertise in the tool and prof in the skill also grants advantage.
And depending on the situation you may prefer the tool over the skill. Bard instruments is an example I've seen where I've seen it assist with non performance checks.
I can't wait for the feedback response video jc said was incoming.
Should they be? This is asking our opinion and my answer is no.
Will they be? I'm betting they likely won't be part of the next PHB but will be part of a planned supplement. The class is too popular to be left out entirely.
Artificers fit fairly well into Eberron-style campaigns but I personally don't care for the flavor. I especially dislike the Armorer subclass, which is Iron Man in all but name. I have no desire to push D&D further into superhero/video game territory, and, for me, Armorer does exactly this. I think it's overpowered and I don't allow it in my game (the other Artificer subclasses are allowed).
Considering that there is a feat for a crafter I'm guessing there will be a dedicated UA for Artificer and crafting rules.
Also, Steampunk is a theme ppl place on it but in reality, it's a crafter that has gone beyond simply crafting to learning how to use what he can craft. Armorer and Battle smith are the more mechanized centric but in reality, the armorer is just a blacksmith that learned how to have a magic system in his armor and the battle smith is a complex golem maker which to me are Arcane researcher.
WoTC should definitely make it a part of the standard classes
The funny thing is, you actually have to reskin and reflavor the abilities and spells to get to the 'steampunk aesthetic'
I'll use the Armorer example, clearly this thing was based on Iron Man right? But If I described a Dwarf with a suit of thick plate armor covered in glowing runes sparking and emanating a blue magical luminescent smoke you certainly wouldn't think 'Steam Punk'.
Or Artillerist, must be guns or something right, surprisingly no! But really you've got a Elven Wand Carver with a bandolier of wands that she pulls out and fires for various magical effects.
Alchemist is just self explanatory considering magical concoctions are perfectly viable in a fantasy setting and the Battlesmith is just a spell caster with a Construct pet.
And all the other effects are spells, cast no differently than any other caster would unless you go out of your way to describe the effects as having a mechanical or engineering origin, but even with all that, Counterspell still stops them in their tracks.
Alot of the steampunk vibe comes from their eberron origin flavor, very little of it comes from the actual class.
EDIT: Oh and 'what about the guns?' only the Battlesmith even has any reason to use a gun given the rules and options since the rest are either cantrip slingers are limited to their custom weapons, and they have the ability to make a 'gun' that doesn't even fire bullets or use blackpowder of any kind, just magical force projectiles after the infusion, that they will absolutely apply to it, is applied.
I think they should be in the PHB as WotC has stated they want the PHB to be rules, while remaining setting free.
Personally I consider the concept behind the artificer class to be one of the most interesting ones across all 5e classes. I really like the idea of a class that focuses on tinkering and manifests its magic through their creations. And that's not even considering the mechanical standpoint, which is also very well implemented. Artificers add so much to the game without simply replicating stuff already covered by other classes.
I honestly don't see any good reason why artificers should not be included in the new PHB, but there are several issues that arise from not treating them as equal to the other twelve fundamental D&D classes. So yes, I really hope that artificers will be included in the One D&D PHB.
I reckon the sooner WotC make the Artificer a PHB class, the sooner we can get out of this 5E mindset of 'there can only be these classes', some of which can justifiably be folded into others, and 'the only additions to the game are subclasses' which, err, can justifiably be folded into each other. It might well harken back to the time when the Warlock was new, or when becoming a Bard was no small feat. It might open the door to classes being thrown into Unearthed Arcana to be playtested and more liberally published. What's there to lose if they don't work out? It's not like setting books get developed these days, why not extend that to experimental classes? One D&D appears to be the perfect time to do such a thing: if the class survives, give it some subclasses; if not, well players now have a new class option. To Wizards I say get the 5E thinking caps off: either treat this like One D&D, or just call it 5.25E.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
While I'm all for adding Artificer to the new PHB, I don't think Artificer being or not being in it will have any bearing on whether they want to design more classes or not.
Yes.
I think the Artificer ought to be included, though I anticipate that it won't be changed much from its current incarnation. If we compare it to the Ranger and Bard, the only thing you'd need to do is change the rules a bit on its spellcasting.
As it currently is, the Artificer should play alongside the PHB classes without an update, but they will need to update in some way as more spells are added into the game.
If they add the Ardling they have to add the Artificer.
No they don't.
That kind of kindergarden playground logic has never worked with any company let alone a gaming one.
You desire they add it.
But why would they do that? When they could add Artificer to an expansion book and sell that?
Business logic says the latter is more likely.
Or add animal headed race with abilities NOT related to animals That plus I thought Asimar are descendants of celestial beings. While Artificers are an established class printed in more than one book.
Artificer is not going to be part of the 1DD playtest because the 1DD documents we've had so far point rather strongly towards Wizards making class design more uniform and systematic in ways that allows them to much more easily create new classes in the future. When the 1DD artificer is released in the future, it will likely be accompanied by other new classes to fill in the gaps. That is why they're doing spells by 'Arcane, Primal, or Divine' as well as class groupings - many of the big block-change systems are in place specifically to allow for smoother introduction and integration of new classes in the future.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is most likely true. I know a lot of people want artificer included, even me, but I don't think it's in the cards. The first page of the latest UA has a section called "What's Ahead in the One D&D Playtest?" and the first point is "Revised versions of every Class from the 2014 Player's Handbook." I think it is worded that way on purpose.
The page count for the new book already seems like it will be high. As much as I want artificer to be there, I think it will have to be delayed. (same opinion as some others have stated)
An interesting thing I noticed when glancing through the UA again.
Expertise as written only applies to Skills Proficiencies, and not Tool Proficiencies. This means that Rogues cannot gain Expertise in Thieves' Tools and that Artificers aren't truly Experts in the way the UA describes their characteristics:
Artificers get Tool Expertise, not Expertise. And considering how they are defining Tool Proficiency as it's own thing and not referencing Tools in the glossary definition of Ability Checks I get the impression they wouldn't consider these two kinds of expertise to be the same under the rules.
It's possible that a 1DD revamped Artificer could now get Expertise as a feature either in addition to or instead of Tool Expertise but I don't think that's at all likely.
Instead I think It's just yet another reason for WOTC to list Artificers separately from the other Experts along with them not appearing in the PHB.
Hmmm, that is a good point. I had figured they left out Tool Expertise in general because it was kind of unnecessary. Since they said that being proficient in both the skill and the tool would grant you advantage on the roll. I hadn't thought of the other way around, since they appear to be saying there is always an applicable skill anyway.
But that does make you wonder what skill would be used to say... forge a sword? Or brew a potion?
Maybe Artificers will be the only ones who get to be experts in tools, but that feels a little strange too. Surely there are normal artisans in the world. The regular blacksmiths, musicians, and potters all around. Odd...
If I remember right, The inverse is true with zanathars rules as well expertise in the tool and prof in the skill also grants advantage.
And depending on the situation you may prefer the tool over the skill. Bard instruments is an example I've seen where I've seen it assist with non performance checks.
I can't wait for the feedback response video jc said was incoming.
Should they be? This is asking our opinion and my answer is no.
Will they be? I'm betting they likely won't be part of the next PHB but will be part of a planned supplement. The class is too popular to be left out entirely.
Artificers fit fairly well into Eberron-style campaigns but I personally don't care for the flavor. I especially dislike the Armorer subclass, which is Iron Man in all but name. I have no desire to push D&D further into superhero/video game territory, and, for me, Armorer does exactly this. I think it's overpowered and I don't allow it in my game (the other Artificer subclasses are allowed).