I'd actually gladly trade sorcerer for a spellblade. The game is begging for an actual arcane gish class to happen.
Isn't that basically the artificer? They're the arcane half casters that can also melee to go along with the holy half caster (Paladin) and the nature half caster (Ranger). They probably need one new subclass that leans into the spell aspect more and they're good.
To a degree, yes, though it is about the purpose of a class. Artificer is for the people who like to mess with a whole bunch of artifacts and gizmos, outfitting themselves like a christmas tree, the class is about managing items and enhancements. And spellblade is for people who like to just bash people on the head magically.
Because there's an extremely limited amount of space in the PHB and every piece of content that gets into it is five pieces of content that can't be shoved in. Book printing is not an infinite game; the higher a book's page count gets the more it costs to print, and the cost-to-page-count ratio is not linear. The PHB can't get anymuch bigger than it already is, so adding three hundred and seventeen new Ultra Simple Classes for People Who Hate Rules and Don't Want to Learn D&D is a nonstarter.
I'm not very good at math, so take this with a grain of salt even though I am using a calculator. That being said, there are 67 pages devoted to the 12 classes in 5e, which means that the average class is 5.583333333333 pages.The Player's Handbook is 320 pages, so we divide 5.583333333333 by 320, and then multiply by 100. This shows us that adding one more class - such as Artificer - to the core rules only raises the total page count by approximately 1.74%.
I am sorry to bore you with numbers, but I think this clearly shows that adding a small amount of material, such as another class, is perfectly doable and not all that burdening. There are likely thousands of fans who would buy the new books because they know that Artificer is in there, which makes up for additional printing costs at a minimum. On top of that, more pages will likely be opened up for another class via the fact that there are less required background templates due to the build-a-bear formula and the fact that there may not be tables for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Also, if you actually read the post you were carefully responding to, you would realize that my proposal was never to add loads of simple classes to the core rules. It was to not remove the simple classes in the Player's Handbook, and possibly add classes with less complexity - as well as classes with more complexity - to potential future books and supplements.
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.
I'd rather lose sorcerer than warlock, since Warlock is different to wizard while Sorcerer and Wizard are too similar but I don't think Artificer is a good replacement, while I think there is room for another INT based class, Artificer isn't really a great theming for the Forgotten Realms setting. I think a more specialized spellblade type class would fit better, something that could replace the niche of subclasses like Hexblade and Bladesinger.
I'd love it if they ditched hexblade and blade singer for the next edition and either made a new spell blade class or retooled the sorcerer into a half casting spell blade. I'm not a fan when they take a full arcane caster and slap solid melee onto it.
Because there's an extremely limited amount of space in the PHB and every piece of content that gets into it is five pieces of content that can't be shoved in. Book printing is not an infinite game; the higher a book's page count gets the more it costs to print, and the cost-to-page-count ratio is not linear. The PHB can't get anymuch bigger than it already is, so adding three hundred and seventeen new Ultra Simple Classes for People Who Hate Rules and Don't Want to Learn D&D is a nonstarter.
I'm not very good at math, so take this with a grain of salt even though I am using a calculator. That being said, there are 67 pages devoted to the 12 classes in 5e, which means that the average class is 5.583333333333 pages.The Player's Handbook is 320 pages, so we divide 5.583333333333 by 320, and then multiply by 100. This shows us that adding one more class - such as Artificer - to the core rules only raises the total page count by approximately 1.74%.
I am sorry to bore you with numbers, but I think this clearly shows that adding a small amount of material, such as another class, is perfectly doable and not all that burdening. There are likely thousands of fans who would buy the new books because they know that Artificer is in there, which makes up for additional printing costs at a minimum. On top of that, more pages will likely be opened up for another class via the fact that there are less required background templates due to the build-a-bear formula and the fact that there may not be tables for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Also, if you actually read the post you were carefully responding to, you would realize that my proposal was never to add loads of simple classes to the core rules. It was to not remove the simple classes in the Player's Handbook, and possibly add classes with less complexity - as well as classes with more complexity - to potential future books and supplements.
I'm not a fan of them as I like it when crafting is more core to the game and all casters can make magic items and not some vague DM advice stuff but actual rules around crafting. And while the artificer exists it feels like crafting as a general game concept gets punted letting a class pick up that slack.
That being said, odds are they are never going to add crafting into 1d&d so what the heck add the class even if I think its lame. And while they add it, put it in the PH, we are going to have to rebuy enough stuff as is at least give people the artificer.
I know the warlock isn’t going anywhere. It’s wishful thinking on my part. It’s too popular and wizards wants to keep its players happy. It’s why I don’t think an INT based warlock will happen either. One of the main reasons people love the warlock is for a quick multi-class dip and an INT warlock won’t work with the popular builds. Which in my mind is another reason it’s not a good concept as a class. Again mechanically fun but the concept doesn’t feel right at all.
If a character takes a dip into rogue it means they spend a little time skill training and practicing precision combat. If they take a dip into fighter they hit the gym and do some weapon and armor training. A dip into barbarian means developing some temper issues. Wizard and artificer, hit the books. Cleric and Druid, get in touch with their spiritual side or with nature. All minor ideas easy to fit into a narrative.
Dip into warlock means they make a pact with a near all powerful entity that presumably demands their service for what might well be dark and evil purposes, possibly endangering their mortal soul, for a cantrip. Narratively that seems a bit much. And if that aspect of the pact isn’t played with at all. Then what is the point of this class.
It also won’t happen because Wizards has had three editions to get the artificer right and they haven’t quite gotten there yet.
If a character takes a dip into rogue it means they spend a little time skill training and practicing precision combat. If they take a dip into fighter they hit the gym and do some weapon and armor training. A dip into barbarian means developing some temper issues. Wizard and artificer, hit the books. Cleric and Druid, get in touch with their spiritual side or with nature. All minor ideas easy to fit into a narrative.
Dip into warlock means they make a pact with a near all powerful entity that presumably demands their service for what might well be dark and evil purposes, possibly endangering their mortal soul, for a cantrip. Narratively that seems a bit much. And if that aspect of the pact isn’t played with at all. Then what is the point of this class.
I think the issue here is more to do with your conception of the class and means of entering it (which are needlessly narrow) than the class itself. For example, the PHB states a warlock can stumble into a pact without being fully aware of having done so, and it also states that even if the being who ultimately holds your pact might be powerful, you might only ever deal with them through intermediaries, or even have no real contact at all. In short, what this means is that you can easily explain a warlock dip as granting a fraction of the power of a full warlock's pact, - e.g. by having the former treat you as the low-level contractor you are, providing you direction through low-level agents if they deign to do even that.
TL;DR if you want your character who only dabbles in Warlock to be treated differently by their patron or have lesser expectations/responsibilities than a dedicated one would be, you and your DM have all the justification you need to make that happen.
My primary problem with the class is I think it’s unnecessary, and it or the sorcerer should go. Both are very similar concepts and if the ‘pact’ really means so little, so little you might not even be aware of it then the class seems even more unnecessary. The concept is covered well enough with sorcerer or cleric anyway. Sorcerer as power from mysterious source and cleric as power from conscious commitment to some greater power.
Whereas the core game doesn’t have a magical crafter as a core class. And that is a concept that works in all the current settings and in fantasy fiction in general and if the artificer could be tweaked to be a bit more fun to play then it would certainly be better than the kinda-cleric, kinda-sorcerer warlock. I’d like the players handbook to cover a wider range of concepts.
nothing necessarily wrong with either concept but having both and the bard in the players handbook focuses too much on one type of caster and doesn’t give the game a wider range of concepts. In 5e the artificer didn’t come out until 2018. Four years after the game first came out. That’s a long wait for something fresh.
A few pointed out the warlord and I agree a command specialist character would also be more interesting than a sorcerer or a warlock. I’d have thought by now a fighter subclass would have filled that role but so far not really.
As for a spell-blade type I can’t help think the paladin has that covered well enough. Especially since they are no longer tied to a church or deity necessarily. But I’ve played a paladin for the past year and cast a spell exactly once so I could see how one might not call it a spell-blade.
My primary problem with the class is I think it’s unnecessary, and it or the sorcerer should go. Both are very similar concepts and if the ‘pact’ really means so little, so little you might not even be aware of it then the class seems even more unnecessary.
Honestly I feel sorry for ANYONE that has deliberately ignored the concept of a warlock's pact and/or patron. The Warlock pact ISN'T meant to be ignored as all the white-room theory crafters would have you believe. The warlock pact is instant storytelling and usable game plothooks. I kid you not, Warlock is my favourite class (thematically) because of this. When I first read through the PHB as a new player I was obsessed with the warlock. No other casters come remotely close to the embedded story hooks that the Warlock has going for it. Certainly not the Sorcerer, Definitely not the Wizard and even if the Cleric is slightly better than the Sorcerer and Wizard combined, it still pales in comparison to the Warlock. This however takes work. Work on behalf of the player not to take a two level dip just for eldritch blast and devil's sight. And work on behalf of the DM to make the pact dynamic meaningful.
And if you take my full meaning of the above statement, you would find that removing the warlock would be a terrible idea.
Lyle, I see your point. I’ve played a few warlocks and warlock builds. Fun to play and the idea of being beholden to some dark power should be interesting.
As a DM I’m not fond of them though. There seems to be this built in assumption this character gets a direct or even indirect line to some very very powerful patron. One that probably doesn’t fit the published adventures that well. Whereas the cleric, who often plays up their religion, and the paladin who has oaths that affect how they play their characters don’t have this expectation of special treatment.
Also the default fiend warlock, I have seen as an excuse to play an evil disruptive jerk. But mainly I see the class as vanilla. A dip for some power with no real thought to the concept.
So I haven’t changed my mind but I appreciate your fondness for the class. However the arcane crafter, the commander, the spell-sword are all unique and important concepts not well represented and won’t be anytime soon. Warlocks could be blended with sorcerers, and if a player really wants to play a servant to the dark forces, they can play an evil cleric.
That being said maybe I should have started the thread with ‘yes artificer, no sorcerer’. Without Eldritch blast and agonizing blast I doubt the sorcerer has many defenders. Concept-wise other than wild magic they all seem more like species than classes.
Because there's an extremely limited amount of space in the PHB and every piece of content that gets into it is five pieces of content that can't be shoved in. Book printing is not an infinite game; the higher a book's page count gets the more it costs to print, and the cost-to-page-count ratio is not linear. The PHB can't get anymuch bigger than it already is, so adding three hundred and seventeen new Ultra Simple Classes for People Who Hate Rules and Don't Want to Learn D&D is a nonstarter.
Have you checked out the size of the Pathfinder 2e core rule book? It's almost twice the size of the 5e PHB and last I checked the PF2e Core Rule book is sold at $60USD on the Paizo website. According to WotC's own website the listed price of the 5e PHB ALONE is $49.95!!! What gives? Surely Paizo isn't taking a loss on those core rule books because they would have gone out of business by now if they were! Maybe the real point to be made here is that given the "economies of scale" involved in manufacturing the untold number of 6e core rule books, WotC could haggle the price down per book for more than 300 pages to be in and around $60 to not have to skimp on content.
WotC COULD release a larger PHB with all 13 classes (14 even, if they were to go wild and include the blood hunter), they choose not to. They could even move the magic item section from the DMG and transfer it into the PHB along with the few practical elements that can be found in the DMG (related to game rules), but WotC chooses not to. Clearly to force you to pay for a second book at full retail price.
The nonstarter here is WotC's willingness to provide "all" the content we need because clearly they cut content just to stick to artificially imposed page count.
Let's not take things literally. Obviously WoTC could make the book a bit longer, and it wouldn't lose money. But publishing a book involves many decisions, and many things to consider. Including one more class in the book, with its subclasses, etc... It takes up space, and that is one reason for deciding to include "only" 12 classes. This does not mean that it is not economically viable to include 13 classes. But it is a decision that cannot be taken lightly. It's not saying "well, include it". There are many things to consider. Also keep in mind that leaving the Artifice out of the PHB means that it may be one of the claims of another later book. Who knows if a book for each group, that includes a fourth class for that group.
A) If space is still so limited as you suggest, then why include 12 classes? Why not 10 or 7 or some other smaller number? Saying that there is only room for 12 classes is about as arbitrary as saying you could have up to 13 classes!
B) The only reason we got the updated artificer for 5e was because they released Eberron Rising for the Last War. It has been stated that the only time they would consider adding a new class was if it was pivotal to the setting. Now that was a few years back, but it shows the thought process of WotC. To that end, I think that suggesting that they would leave content out of the new core PHB just so they can "add it into a new book down the line" for a product line (6e) that doesn't exist yet and might implode WotC on launch day is completely stupid. 6e as a ruleset doesn't even exist yet, so do you really expect that they have content lists for future books?
A) If space is still so limited as you suggest, then why include 12 classes? Why not 10 or 7 or some other smaller number? Saying that there is only room for 12 classes is about as arbitrary as saying you could have up to 13 classes!
B) The only reason we got the updated artificer for 5e was because they released Eberron Rising for the Last War. It has been stated that the only time they would consider adding a new class was if it was pivotal to the setting. Now that was a few years back, but it shows the thought process of WotC. To that end, I think that suggesting that they would leave content out of the new core PHB just so they can "add it into a new book down the line" for a product line (6e) that doesn't exist yet and might implode WotC on launch day is completely stupid. 6e as a ruleset doesn't even exist yet, so do you really expect that they have content lists for future books?
I mean... I wouldn't actually object to 8 classes in the PHB (two from each class group). As long as that meant the quality of those classes in the PHB went up, and when the missing classes were reintroduced later they also benefitted from the additional development time.
Certain classes in 5e could certainly have done with a bit longer in the oven (ranger, sorcerer, and monk).
Adding pages to a book is not easy. You can’t just add one or two. For example, take a piece of paper and fold it in half, which is basically what book pages are, you’ll see you now have 4 pages. But books don’t work that simply, and depending on the binding, typically go up in either increments of 16 or 32. Sure, they could find stuff to fill all those pages, but I’m sure they have a budget to work with which only allows a certain number. Also, the pages are usually the cheaper part, there’s the extra binding cost, and the ink cost for full color pages is astounding.
And keep in mind, they are planning 4 subclasses per class in this version, compared to many classes only having 2 in the current PHB. And it seems like there will be more feats, since those are going to be more common, there’s talk of these new weapon powers, they’re adding at least one species with the goliath (though removing the “half-“ species as well, so maybe that’s a wash), the new default custom background options may actually take less space, depending on how many samples they give, also there’s that “bastion system” they keep teasing in the videos, probably something I’m forgetting, and maybe more we don’t know about. They’re already adding quite a bit. So to add artificer, they’d almost definitely need to cut something else. I’m not trying to argue what that something should be. Everyone is going to have their own priorities and preferences, and I’m not going to say mine are right and yours aren’t. This is just a little publishing perspective, that we can’t have it all.
The Artificer and the Warlock share an interesting place outside the scheme for other spellcasting classes.
“Super-casters”: Wizard, Sorcerer - hit dice d6; 1 spell level per 2 class levels; no armour and very restricted weapons; access to the highest damage spells (arcane evocation in 1D&D)
”Full casters”: Bard, Cleric, Druid - hit dice d8; 1spell level per 2 class levels; more weapons (simple weapons in 1D&D); access to Divine, Primal or restricted Arcane lists.
“Half Casters”: Paladin, Ranger - hit dice d10; 1spell level per 4 class levels; martial weapons.
The Artificer and Warlock have spell-casting that’s more restricted than the full caster classes, but share the d8 HD. Both compensate for their spell-casting limitations with their other features: Artificer Infusions and Eldritch Invocations.
The Artificer’s 1 spell level per 4 class levels structure mirrors the half casters, but currently those lack cantrips and first level spell-casting. 1D&D has now given those features to the half casters, so essentially the Artificer has become a half caster by assimilation, but still lacks the d10 hit dice. I wonder if that affects how it balances against the other half caster classes.
The artificer fits the expert mold more than the mage mold so I really doubt they would drop one of the mage classes and they aren't dropping a expert. I'd like if they had it so people don't have to pay for a supplement to gain something they already have but i think its is unlikely and for spells/sub classes etc its already happening. And despite the backwards compatibility claims we can see they are balancing spells differently so spells from Tashas probably will need to be rebalanced before being added back. One thing I wonder though they tried to have some symmetry in the PH 3 classes per group, 4 subclasses per class. Will they try to keep that going in supplements so like whenever they add the artificer they also add a priest, warrior etc as well.
A) If space is still so limited as you suggest, then why include 12 classes? Why not 10 or 7 or some other smaller number? Saying that there is only room for 12 classes is about as arbitrary as saying you could have up to 13 classes!
B) The only reason we got the updated artificer for 5e was because they released Eberron Rising for the Last War. It has been stated that the only time they would consider adding a new class was if it was pivotal to the setting. Now that was a few years back, but it shows the thought process of WotC. To that end, I think that suggesting that they would leave content out of the new core PHB just so they can "add it into a new book down the line" for a product line (6e) that doesn't exist yet and might implode WotC on launch day is completely stupid. 6e as a ruleset doesn't even exist yet, so do you really expect that they have content lists for future books?
Either I have not explained myself, or you have not understood me. I am not saying that there can only be 12 classes, or 13, or 25. What I am saying is that it is a very complex editorial decision, and that we must avoid simplistic arguments. WoTC has decided that the PHB will have 12 classes, and modifying that to include a thirteenth class is not as easy as saying "hey, okay, let's include it". There are economic, commercial, creative reasons, etc... that must be taken into account to make this change. It could be 8, it could be 15, it could be 13; but WoTC has decided that 12 will be included in the PHB, and it is something that they have discussed from different departments. Including more classes occupies space in the book, making it either have to sell more expensively, or have to cut the benefit, or have to reduce other content (for example, including fewer subclasses per class). It could also be that they were planning to publish a book afterwards with that class. It is possible that they will do it with each of the four groups. It could also be that they wanted to include the same number of subclasses for each class, and the 13th class did not have enough subclasses prepared. It could be that they wanted each group to have 3 classes, and for that new class to break that logic. It could be that they don't have time to test 13 classes. And there could be a lot of reasons that we don't know about, but that WoTC has taken into account when assessing whether to include 12 classes, or include another number.
Edit: O, and of course they have a release plan for 6e. I have no doubt about it. I don't know how you think a publishing company works, but obviously things are planned several years from now. The books that are being published now were written many months ago. And they were planned over a year ago. And now publications are being planned for 2024 and 2025 and beyond.
The way that spell lists seem to be implemented in 1D&D looks particularly awkward for the Artificer. They have explicitly said that it is an Arcane caster, which thematically fits well. However, it has a substantial proportion of spells from the other lists, and considerable omissions from the Arcane list. Having skimmed the current list of Artificer spells, only enchantment spells are unrepresented. Evocation spells are common among the cantrips but the big hitters like Fireball are missing from the main list. Conjuration spells are present but not the teleport spells or many of the summoning spells. There isn’t an obvious way to neatly convert the current list into a 1D&D “choose spells from the Arcane list, but only from the W, X, Y and Z schools”, and there’d have to be a long list of “you also have these spells”, like the Bard’s Songs of Restoration feature.
A lot of work, it would seem, to fit the Artificer into the PHB. The work will have to be done at some point, but they’ve got a lot on their plates with the PHB without adding that.
A) If space is still so limited as you suggest, then why include 12 classes? Why not 10 or 7 or some other smaller number? Saying that there is only room for 12 classes is about as arbitrary as saying you could have up to 13 classes!
B) The only reason we got the updated artificer for 5e was because they released Eberron Rising for the Last War. It has been stated that the only time they would consider adding a new class was if it was pivotal to the setting. Now that was a few years back, but it shows the thought process of WotC. To that end, I think that suggesting that they would leave content out of the new core PHB just so they can "add it into a new book down the line" for a product line (6e) that doesn't exist yet and might implode WotC on launch day is completely stupid. 6e as a ruleset doesn't even exist yet, so do you really expect that they have content lists for future books?
Either I have not explained myself, or you have not understood me. I am not saying that there can only be 12 classes, or 13, or 25. What I am saying is that it is a very complex editorial decision, and that we must avoid simplistic arguments. WoTC has decided that the PHB will have 12 classes, and modifying that to include a thirteenth class is not as easy as saying "hey, okay, let's include it". There are economic, commercial, creative reasons, etc... that must be taken into account to make this change. It could be 8, it could be 15, it could be 13; but WoTC has decided that 12 will be included in the PHB, and it is something that they have discussed from different departments. Including more classes occupies space in the book, making it either have to sell more expensively, or have to cut the benefit, or have to reduce other content (for example, including fewer subclasses per class). It could also be that they were planning to publish a book afterwards with that class. It is possible that they will do it with each of the four groups. It could also be that they wanted to include the same number of subclasses for each class, and the 13th class did not have enough subclasses prepared. It could be that they wanted each group to have 3 classes, and for that new class to break that logic. It could be that they don't have time to test 13 classes. And there could be a lot of reasons that we don't know about, but that WoTC has taken into account when assessing whether to include 12 classes, or include another number.
Edit: O, and of course they have a release plan for 6e. I have no doubt about it. I don't know how you think a publishing company works, but obviously things are planned several years from now. The books that are being published now were written many months ago. And they were planned over a year ago. And now publications are being planned for 2024 and 2025 and beyond.
Woe is me, publishing is hard!!!
And you know what, for all those "what ifs" you threw out there, what if the moon is made of cheese?
Maybe I am a layman in this arena, but don't you actually need a COMPLETED TTRPG RULESET in order to publish a TTRPG book? You see, before they can actually determine how many pages will need to be printed, they are going to need the text of the book. Which they sure as hell didn't have planned two years ago. Which then leads you into layout to determine not only the final page count, but art required for the book. Etc Etc Etc.
Point is, they clearly don't have their 6e rule set complete, so how can you stand there making such grandiose statements of fact that something, so arbitrary, is impossible? HOW CAN YOU MAKE EDITORIAL DECISIONS WHEN YOUR BASE TEXT DOESN'T EXIST YET!
Further to this point, if you don't have a finalised game ruleset (because they don't), how can you legitimately plan future products? Last I checked, not even WotC can predict the future. You can base your plans off of all design, maybe, but when 6e is so radically different you end up redoing all that work. We are not talking about novels here. We aren't even talking about 5e as it was in 2014 where a roadmap is possible.
Also, unless otherwise proven, you really ought not assume the company we are talking about is at all competent or will be in existence in 5 years time. Neither of those things might be true so all that matters is the 6e core rulebook. Then, and only then, will "what if" future projects mean a damned thing.
Hopefully 5.5e is more open to new classes coming in later supplements than 5e was. That way a class can still make it in even if it's not in the PHB.
To a degree, yes, though it is about the purpose of a class. Artificer is for the people who like to mess with a whole bunch of artifacts and gizmos, outfitting themselves like a christmas tree, the class is about managing items and enhancements. And spellblade is for people who like to just bash people on the head magically.
I'm not very good at math, so take this with a grain of salt even though I am using a calculator. That being said, there are 67 pages devoted to the 12 classes in 5e, which means that the average class is 5.583333333333 pages.The Player's Handbook is 320 pages, so we divide 5.583333333333 by 320, and then multiply by 100. This shows us that adding one more class - such as Artificer - to the core rules only raises the total page count by approximately 1.74%.
I am sorry to bore you with numbers, but I think this clearly shows that adding a small amount of material, such as another class, is perfectly doable and not all that burdening. There are likely thousands of fans who would buy the new books because they know that Artificer is in there, which makes up for additional printing costs at a minimum. On top of that, more pages will likely be opened up for another class via the fact that there are less required background templates due to the build-a-bear formula and the fact that there may not be tables for personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Also, if you actually read the post you were carefully responding to, you would realize that my proposal was never to add loads of simple classes to the core rules. It was to not remove the simple classes in the Player's Handbook, and possibly add classes with less complexity - as well as classes with more complexity - to potential future books and supplements.
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.I'd love it if they ditched hexblade and blade singer for the next edition and either made a new spell blade class or retooled the sorcerer into a half casting spell blade. I'm not a fan when they take a full arcane caster and slap solid melee onto it.
I'm not a fan of them as I like it when crafting is more core to the game and all casters can make magic items and not some vague DM advice stuff but actual rules around crafting. And while the artificer exists it feels like crafting as a general game concept gets punted letting a class pick up that slack.
That being said, odds are they are never going to add crafting into 1d&d so what the heck add the class even if I think its lame. And while they add it, put it in the PH, we are going to have to rebuy enough stuff as is at least give people the artificer.
I know the warlock isn’t going anywhere. It’s wishful thinking on my part. It’s too popular and wizards wants to keep its players happy. It’s why I don’t think an INT based warlock will happen either. One of the main reasons people love the warlock is for a quick multi-class dip and an INT warlock won’t work with the popular builds. Which in my mind is another reason it’s not a good concept as a class. Again mechanically fun but the concept doesn’t feel right at all.
If a character takes a dip into rogue it means they spend a little time skill training and practicing precision combat. If they take a dip into fighter they hit the gym and do some weapon and armor training. A dip into barbarian means developing some temper issues. Wizard and artificer, hit the books. Cleric and Druid, get in touch with their spiritual side or with nature. All minor ideas easy to fit into a narrative.
Dip into warlock means they make a pact with a near all powerful entity that presumably demands their service for what might well be dark and evil purposes, possibly endangering their mortal soul, for a cantrip. Narratively that seems a bit much. And if that aspect of the pact isn’t played with at all. Then what is the point of this class.
It also won’t happen because Wizards has had three editions to get the artificer right and they haven’t quite gotten there yet.
I think the issue here is more to do with your conception of the class and means of entering it (which are needlessly narrow) than the class itself. For example, the PHB states a warlock can stumble into a pact without being fully aware of having done so, and it also states that even if the being who ultimately holds your pact might be powerful, you might only ever deal with them through intermediaries, or even have no real contact at all. In short, what this means is that you can easily explain a warlock dip as granting a fraction of the power of a full warlock's pact, - e.g. by having the former treat you as the low-level contractor you are, providing you direction through low-level agents if they deign to do even that.
TL;DR if you want your character who only dabbles in Warlock to be treated differently by their patron or have lesser expectations/responsibilities than a dedicated one would be, you and your DM have all the justification you need to make that happen.
My primary problem with the class is I think it’s unnecessary, and it or the sorcerer should go. Both are very similar concepts and if the ‘pact’ really means so little, so little you might not even be aware of it then the class seems even more unnecessary. The concept is covered well enough with sorcerer or cleric anyway. Sorcerer as power from mysterious source and cleric as power from conscious commitment to some greater power.
Whereas the core game doesn’t have a magical crafter as a core class. And that is a concept that works in all the current settings and in fantasy fiction in general and if the artificer could be tweaked to be a bit more fun to play then it would certainly be better than the kinda-cleric, kinda-sorcerer warlock. I’d like the players handbook to cover a wider range of concepts.
nothing necessarily wrong with either concept but having both and the bard in the players handbook focuses too much on one type of caster and doesn’t give the game a wider range of concepts. In 5e the artificer didn’t come out until 2018. Four years after the game first came out. That’s a long wait for something fresh.
A few pointed out the warlord and I agree a command specialist character would also be more interesting than a sorcerer or a warlock. I’d have thought by now a fighter subclass would have filled that role but so far not really.
As for a spell-blade type I can’t help think the paladin has that covered well enough. Especially since they are no longer tied to a church or deity necessarily. But I’ve played a paladin for the past year and cast a spell exactly once so I could see how one might not call it a spell-blade.
Honestly I feel sorry for ANYONE that has deliberately ignored the concept of a warlock's pact and/or patron. The Warlock pact ISN'T meant to be ignored as all the white-room theory crafters would have you believe. The warlock pact is instant storytelling and usable game plothooks. I kid you not, Warlock is my favourite class (thematically) because of this. When I first read through the PHB as a new player I was obsessed with the warlock. No other casters come remotely close to the embedded story hooks that the Warlock has going for it. Certainly not the Sorcerer, Definitely not the Wizard and even if the Cleric is slightly better than the Sorcerer and Wizard combined, it still pales in comparison to the Warlock. This however takes work. Work on behalf of the player not to take a two level dip just for eldritch blast and devil's sight. And work on behalf of the DM to make the pact dynamic meaningful.
And if you take my full meaning of the above statement, you would find that removing the warlock would be a terrible idea.
Lyle, I see your point. I’ve played a few warlocks and warlock builds. Fun to play and the idea of being beholden to some dark power should be interesting.
As a DM I’m not fond of them though. There seems to be this built in assumption this character gets a direct or even indirect line to some very very powerful patron. One that probably doesn’t fit the published adventures that well. Whereas the cleric, who often plays up their religion, and the paladin who has oaths that affect how they play their characters don’t have this expectation of special treatment.
Also the default fiend warlock, I have seen as an excuse to play an evil disruptive jerk. But mainly I see the class as vanilla. A dip for some power with no real thought to the concept.
So I haven’t changed my mind but I appreciate your fondness for the class. However the arcane crafter, the commander, the spell-sword are all unique and important concepts not well represented and won’t be anytime soon. Warlocks could be blended with sorcerers, and if a player really wants to play a servant to the dark forces, they can play an evil cleric.
That being said maybe I should have started the thread with ‘yes artificer, no sorcerer’. Without Eldritch blast and agonizing blast I doubt the sorcerer has many defenders. Concept-wise other than wild magic they all seem more like species than classes.
Have you checked out the size of the Pathfinder 2e core rule book? It's almost twice the size of the 5e PHB and last I checked the PF2e Core Rule book is sold at $60USD on the Paizo website. According to WotC's own website the listed price of the 5e PHB ALONE is $49.95!!! What gives? Surely Paizo isn't taking a loss on those core rule books because they would have gone out of business by now if they were! Maybe the real point to be made here is that given the "economies of scale" involved in manufacturing the untold number of 6e core rule books, WotC could haggle the price down per book for more than 300 pages to be in and around $60 to not have to skimp on content.
WotC COULD release a larger PHB with all 13 classes (14 even, if they were to go wild and include the blood hunter), they choose not to. They could even move the magic item section from the DMG and transfer it into the PHB along with the few practical elements that can be found in the DMG (related to game rules), but WotC chooses not to. Clearly to force you to pay for a second book at full retail price.
The nonstarter here is WotC's willingness to provide "all" the content we need because clearly they cut content just to stick to artificially imposed page count.
Let's not take things literally. Obviously WoTC could make the book a bit longer, and it wouldn't lose money. But publishing a book involves many decisions, and many things to consider. Including one more class in the book, with its subclasses, etc... It takes up space, and that is one reason for deciding to include "only" 12 classes. This does not mean that it is not economically viable to include 13 classes. But it is a decision that cannot be taken lightly. It's not saying "well, include it". There are many things to consider.
Also keep in mind that leaving the Artifice out of the PHB means that it may be one of the claims of another later book. Who knows if a book for each group, that includes a fourth class for that group.
Two points there Irrelevant_Guy;
A) If space is still so limited as you suggest, then why include 12 classes? Why not 10 or 7 or some other smaller number? Saying that there is only room for 12 classes is about as arbitrary as saying you could have up to 13 classes!
B) The only reason we got the updated artificer for 5e was because they released Eberron Rising for the Last War. It has been stated that the only time they would consider adding a new class was if it was pivotal to the setting. Now that was a few years back, but it shows the thought process of WotC. To that end, I think that suggesting that they would leave content out of the new core PHB just so they can "add it into a new book down the line" for a product line (6e) that doesn't exist yet and might implode WotC on launch day is completely stupid. 6e as a ruleset doesn't even exist yet, so do you really expect that they have content lists for future books?
I mean... I wouldn't actually object to 8 classes in the PHB (two from each class group). As long as that meant the quality of those classes in the PHB went up, and when the missing classes were reintroduced later they also benefitted from the additional development time.
Certain classes in 5e could certainly have done with a bit longer in the oven (ranger, sorcerer, and monk).
Adding pages to a book is not easy. You can’t just add one or two. For example, take a piece of paper and fold it in half, which is basically what book pages are, you’ll see you now have 4 pages. But books don’t work that simply, and depending on the binding, typically go up in either increments of 16 or 32. Sure, they could find stuff to fill all those pages, but I’m sure they have a budget to work with which only allows a certain number. Also, the pages are usually the cheaper part, there’s the extra binding cost, and the ink cost for full color pages is astounding.
And keep in mind, they are planning 4 subclasses per class in this version, compared to many classes only having 2 in the current PHB. And it seems like there will be more feats, since those are going to be more common, there’s talk of these new weapon powers, they’re adding at least one species with the goliath (though removing the “half-“ species as well, so maybe that’s a wash), the new default custom background options may actually take less space, depending on how many samples they give, also there’s that “bastion system” they keep teasing in the videos, probably something I’m forgetting, and maybe more we don’t know about.
They’re already adding quite a bit. So to add artificer, they’d almost definitely need to cut something else. I’m not trying to argue what that something should be. Everyone is going to have their own priorities and preferences, and I’m not going to say mine are right and yours aren’t. This is just a little publishing perspective, that we can’t have it all.
The Artificer and the Warlock share an interesting place outside the scheme for other spellcasting classes.
“Super-casters”: Wizard, Sorcerer - hit dice d6; 1 spell level per 2 class levels; no armour and very restricted weapons; access to the highest damage spells (arcane evocation in 1D&D)
”Full casters”: Bard, Cleric, Druid - hit dice d8; 1spell level per 2 class levels; more weapons (simple weapons in 1D&D); access to Divine, Primal or restricted Arcane lists.
“Half Casters”: Paladin, Ranger - hit dice d10; 1spell level per 4 class levels; martial weapons.
The Artificer and Warlock have spell-casting that’s more restricted than the full caster classes, but share the d8 HD. Both compensate for their spell-casting limitations with their other features: Artificer Infusions and Eldritch Invocations.
The Artificer’s 1 spell level per 4 class levels structure mirrors the half casters, but currently those lack cantrips and first level spell-casting. 1D&D has now given those features to the half casters, so essentially the Artificer has become a half caster by assimilation, but still lacks the d10 hit dice. I wonder if that affects how it balances against the other half caster classes.
The artificer fits the expert mold more than the mage mold so I really doubt they would drop one of the mage classes and they aren't dropping a expert. I'd like if they had it so people don't have to pay for a supplement to gain something they already have but i think its is unlikely and for spells/sub classes etc its already happening. And despite the backwards compatibility claims we can see they are balancing spells differently so spells from Tashas probably will need to be rebalanced before being added back. One thing I wonder though they tried to have some symmetry in the PH 3 classes per group, 4 subclasses per class. Will they try to keep that going in supplements so like whenever they add the artificer they also add a priest, warrior etc as well.
Either I have not explained myself, or you have not understood me. I am not saying that there can only be 12 classes, or 13, or 25. What I am saying is that it is a very complex editorial decision, and that we must avoid simplistic arguments. WoTC has decided that the PHB will have 12 classes, and modifying that to include a thirteenth class is not as easy as saying "hey, okay, let's include it". There are economic, commercial, creative reasons, etc... that must be taken into account to make this change. It could be 8, it could be 15, it could be 13; but WoTC has decided that 12 will be included in the PHB, and it is something that they have discussed from different departments. Including more classes occupies space in the book, making it either have to sell more expensively, or have to cut the benefit, or have to reduce other content (for example, including fewer subclasses per class). It could also be that they were planning to publish a book afterwards with that class. It is possible that they will do it with each of the four groups. It could also be that they wanted to include the same number of subclasses for each class, and the 13th class did not have enough subclasses prepared. It could be that they wanted each group to have 3 classes, and for that new class to break that logic. It could be that they don't have time to test 13 classes. And there could be a lot of reasons that we don't know about, but that WoTC has taken into account when assessing whether to include 12 classes, or include another number.
Edit: O, and of course they have a release plan for 6e. I have no doubt about it. I don't know how you think a publishing company works, but obviously things are planned several years from now. The books that are being published now were written many months ago. And they were planned over a year ago. And now publications are being planned for 2024 and 2025 and beyond.
The way that spell lists seem to be implemented in 1D&D looks particularly awkward for the Artificer. They have explicitly said that it is an Arcane caster, which thematically fits well. However, it has a substantial proportion of spells from the other lists, and considerable omissions from the Arcane list. Having skimmed the current list of Artificer spells, only enchantment spells are unrepresented. Evocation spells are common among the cantrips but the big hitters like Fireball are missing from the main list. Conjuration spells are present but not the teleport spells or many of the summoning spells. There isn’t an obvious way to neatly convert the current list into a 1D&D “choose spells from the Arcane list, but only from the W, X, Y and Z schools”, and there’d have to be a long list of “you also have these spells”, like the Bard’s Songs of Restoration feature.
A lot of work, it would seem, to fit the Artificer into the PHB. The work will have to be done at some point, but they’ve got a lot on their plates with the PHB without adding that.
Woe is me, publishing is hard!!!
And you know what, for all those "what ifs" you threw out there, what if the moon is made of cheese?
Maybe I am a layman in this arena, but don't you actually need a COMPLETED TTRPG RULESET in order to publish a TTRPG book? You see, before they can actually determine how many pages will need to be printed, they are going to need the text of the book. Which they sure as hell didn't have planned two years ago. Which then leads you into layout to determine not only the final page count, but art required for the book. Etc Etc Etc.
Point is, they clearly don't have their 6e rule set complete, so how can you stand there making such grandiose statements of fact that something, so arbitrary, is impossible? HOW CAN YOU MAKE EDITORIAL DECISIONS WHEN YOUR BASE TEXT DOESN'T EXIST YET!
Further to this point, if you don't have a finalised game ruleset (because they don't), how can you legitimately plan future products? Last I checked, not even WotC can predict the future. You can base your plans off of all design, maybe, but when 6e is so radically different you end up redoing all that work. We are not talking about novels here. We aren't even talking about 5e as it was in 2014 where a roadmap is possible.
Also, unless otherwise proven, you really ought not assume the company we are talking about is at all competent or will be in existence in 5 years time. Neither of those things might be true so all that matters is the 6e core rulebook. Then, and only then, will "what if" future projects mean a damned thing.