Dinosaur druids sound dope. I don't have any further input, Though I agree that runecrafter should be an artificer.
I see a lot of people saying that. And yes, it could be an artificer. However, it can also be a wizard. Why not? Another thing is to argue that there are many wizards, while there are few artificers. Ok, I understand that. But thematically, a wizard seems perfect for the runecrafter as it is proposed. If the problem is "crafter", the complaint should be the name (something like rune mage, or rune sage, or something like that). But the description of the subclass, and the things it gives you, are thematically for a wizard.
However, I do think that rune feats would be ideal as the "core" of a runecrafter artificer. That, in my opinion, should be a subclass of artificer and not two feats.
The whole rune-based Wizard / Artificer thing really stirred things up.
Personally, my worry is that the Wizard will lose this pretty neat subclass in response to this feedback; when the answer should be to give the Artificer their own rune subclass, with features appropriate to…well…actually building things with runes etched into them.
(snaps) Like a gem carver! They could make ioun stones! That’d be kind of cool.
Seriously, though…a Wizard who studies the history of ancient symbols of power has such broad application for different creature types, and character concepts…I don’t want that potential thrown away over a disagreement.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I hope we get some UA on a wizard subclass with some more HP, but maybe access to less powerful spells. Either way, I want a less traditional, more HP wizard and I want WotC to try a balanced way of achieving that in UA.
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 just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
Well, it's the whole Eberron setting that is treated as the red-headed stepchild of DnD. And it is probably my favourite in 5e at the moment.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I still don't get that argument. Being non-SRD means it's the only class they get 100% profit from, and it would make sense that they'd make as many as possible, given that people can only legally use it by paying for it. People have been talking a lot about Wizard's greed post-Multiverse, but it seems to me that the properly greedy (or just "profitable" if you're being charitable) move would be to pump out as many arties as possible so people would buy them, given they can't legally play them any other way.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I still don't get that argument. Being non-SRD means it's the only class they get 100% profit from, and it would make sense that they'd make as many as possible, given that people can only legally use it by paying for it. People have been talking a lot about Wizard's greed post-Multiverse, but it seems to me that the properly greedy (or just "profitable" if you're being charitable) move would be to pump out as many arties as possible so people would buy them, given they can't legally play them any other way.
All subclasses (outside the srd) must be purchased to use and the more popular the core class the more subclasses they will sell for it.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I still don't get that argument. Being non-SRD means it's the only class they get 100% profit from, and it would make sense that they'd make as many as possible, given that people can only legally use it by paying for it. People have been talking a lot about Wizard's greed post-Multiverse, but it seems to me that the properly greedy (or just "profitable" if you're being charitable) move would be to pump out as many arties as possible so people would buy them, given they can't legally play them any other way.
They got a rule that says anything they publish only needs the core 3 books to be compatible. That means, since Tasha’s Cauldron isn’t one of the core 3 that they would have to reprint the entire Artificer base class in any book that contains an Artificer subclass. They don’t wanna.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
Well, it's the whole Eberron setting that is treated as the red-headed stepchild of DnD. And it is probably my favourite in 5e at the moment.
With Tasha’s Cauldron, the Artificer is now no longer an Eberron specific class.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
I still don't get that argument. Being non-SRD means it's the only class they get 100% profit from, and it would make sense that they'd make as many as possible, given that people can only legally use it by paying for it. People have been talking a lot about Wizard's greed post-Multiverse, but it seems to me that the properly greedy (or just "profitable" if you're being charitable) move would be to pump out as many arties as possible so people would buy them, given they can't legally play them any other way.
They got a rule that says anything they publish only needs the core 3 books to be compatible. That means, since Tasha’s Cauldron isn’t one of the core 3 that they would have to reprint the entire Artificer base class in any book that contains an Artificer subclass. They don’t wanna.
My only awareness of it was related to Adventurer's League, and that link...mostly just backs that up? The first post mentions it in that context then seems to...guess (?) that it applies otherwise, but several of the comments following say it's an AL thing, and even there it's largely optional and most home tables aren't even aware of it, and the ones that are mostly ignore it. I also seem to remember hearing that the League had abolished it even for their play. The only poster that I saw say they believed it applied elsewhere even says it "seems" to be a rule WotC uses internally without any backing evidence or argument. Just looks like a lot of speculation based on a rule meant to simplify official, organized games without any tangible basis.
I'd take it a little more seriously if there were any notable firsthand statements on it from WotC or anyone directly affiliated with them.
My only awareness of it was related to Adventurer's League, and that link...mostly just backs that up? The first post mentions it in that context then seems to...guess (?) that it applies otherwise, but several of the comments following say it's an AL thing, and even there it's largely optional and most home tables aren't even aware of it, and the ones that are mostly ignore it. I also seem to remember hearing that the League had abolished it even for their play. The only poster that I saw say they believed it applied elsewhere even says it "seems" to be a rule WotC uses internally without any backing evidence or argument. Just looks like a lot of speculation based on a rule meant to simplify official, organized games without any tangible basis.
I'd take it a little more seriously if there were any notable firsthand statements on it from WotC or anyone directly affiliated with them.
AL got it from the WotC policy. I believe Crawford or Mearls stated it once in an interview. If you look hard enough I’m sure you’ll find it.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
Well, it's the whole Eberron setting that is treated as the red-headed stepchild of DnD. And it is probably my favourite in 5e at the moment.
With Tasha’s Cauldron, the Artificer is now no longer an Eberron specific class.
No but still not a core class if I can go by the post just above this one, I trust that poster ;)
Do I want a rune wizard? Hell yea, runes are sick dude. But I'd prefer a rune-based artificer over a rune wizard, and if we can only get one, I'd prefer the artificer. That being said, Wizard is one of the most popular classes as I'm sure someone has said by now, so if they can make a subclass work for it, they'll publish it. If I really want a rune artificer or my players think its an interesting idea I'll just homebrew it using some similar classes as a baseline or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
Do I want a rune wizard? Hell yea, runes are sick dude. But I'd prefer a rune-based artificer over a rune wizard, and if we can only get one, I'd prefer the artificer. That being said, Wizard is one of the most popular classes as I'm sure someone has said by now, so if they can make a subclass work for it, they'll publish it. If I really want a rune artificer or my players think its an interesting idea I'll just homebrew it using some similar classes as a baseline or something.
WotC will really make an "rune carving" subclass that is intelligence- based and make it anything other than an artificer (ok they changed the rune knight to be based on constitution in the final release but still).
My only awareness of it was related to Adventurer's League, and that link...mostly just backs that up? The first post mentions it in that context then seems to...guess (?) that it applies otherwise, but several of the comments following say it's an AL thing, and even there it's largely optional and most home tables aren't even aware of it, and the ones that are mostly ignore it. I also seem to remember hearing that the League had abolished it even for their play. The only poster that I saw say they believed it applied elsewhere even says it "seems" to be a rule WotC uses internally without any backing evidence or argument. Just looks like a lot of speculation based on a rule meant to simplify official, organized games without any tangible basis.
I'd take it a little more seriously if there were any notable firsthand statements on it from WotC or anyone directly affiliated with them.
AL got it from the WotC policy. I believe Crawford or Mearls stated it once in an interview. If you look hard enough I’m sure you’ll find it.
it's sorta implied one of the reason(s) why they re-released the artificer for tasha's cauldron was becuase they would be unable to post just the armorer as it's own subclass
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The prehistoric part could point to Chult, but I don't remember a Giant presence in that setting for FR.
Folk of the Feywild comes to mind.
Dinosaur druids sound dope. I don't have any further input, Though I agree that runecrafter should be an artificer.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I see a lot of people saying that. And yes, it could be an artificer. However, it can also be a wizard. Why not?
Another thing is to argue that there are many wizards, while there are few artificers. Ok, I understand that. But thematically, a wizard seems perfect for the runecrafter as it is proposed. If the problem is "crafter", the complaint should be the name (something like rune mage, or rune sage, or something like that). But the description of the subclass, and the things it gives you, are thematically for a wizard.
However, I do think that rune feats would be ideal as the "core" of a runecrafter artificer. That, in my opinion, should be a subclass of artificer and not two feats.
The whole rune-based Wizard / Artificer thing really stirred things up.
Personally, my worry is that the Wizard will lose this pretty neat subclass in response to this feedback; when the answer should be to give the Artificer their own rune subclass, with features appropriate to…well…actually building things with runes etched into them.
(snaps) Like a gem carver! They could make ioun stones! That’d be kind of cool.
Seriously, though…a Wizard who studies the history of ancient symbols of power has such broad application for different creature types, and character concepts…I don’t want that potential thrown away over a disagreement.
I just don't want any more Wizards while they still have three more subs than even the next-closest runners-up, Fighters and Monks. The only class with more subs than Wizards is the Clerics at 14. Would Runecrafter be a pretty rad wizard? Probably! But does the strongest class in the game also need to have the most spells and subs, while many other classes (9, in fact, everything other than Cleric/Fighter/Monk/Wizard) are still in the single digits? If Runecrafter remains a Wizard, then Wiz will have ten more subclasses than Artificer, 14 vs. 4.
Rework the idea. Keep the cool Comprehend Languages things, massage the other features into something a bit more artie-appropriate, and move on. It'd be a nice turnaround for what happened with Archivist and Order of Scribes.
Wizard is one of, if not the most popular class in the game. Wizard subclasses sell books, it’s that simple. Believe me, I want way more Artificer subclasses too, that’s why I’ve written so many to present as playable options to my players. (I doubled their selection to eight subclasses.) But as the only non SRD class, Artificer is the redheaded stepchild of D&D.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hope we get some UA on a wizard subclass with some more HP, but maybe access to less powerful spells. Either way, I want a less traditional, more HP wizard and I want WotC to try a balanced way of achieving that in UA.
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.Well, it's the whole Eberron setting that is treated as the red-headed stepchild of DnD. And it is probably my favourite in 5e at the moment.
I still don't get that argument. Being non-SRD means it's the only class they get 100% profit from, and it would make sense that they'd make as many as possible, given that people can only legally use it by paying for it. People have been talking a lot about Wizard's greed post-Multiverse, but it seems to me that the properly greedy (or just "profitable" if you're being charitable) move would be to pump out as many arties as possible so people would buy them, given they can't legally play them any other way.
All subclasses (outside the srd) must be purchased to use and the more popular the core class the more subclasses they will sell for it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
They got a rule that says anything they publish only needs the core 3 books to be compatible. That means, since Tasha’s Cauldron isn’t one of the core 3 that they would have to reprint the entire Artificer base class in any book that contains an Artificer subclass. They don’t wanna.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
With Tasha’s Cauldron, the Artificer is now no longer an Eberron specific class.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Where is that rule printed? I've never seen it.
It’s WotC’s Core +1 rule they hold themselves to.
Here’s the first link I could find: https://www.enworld.org/threads/core-1.641250/#post-7426312
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My only awareness of it was related to Adventurer's League, and that link...mostly just backs that up? The first post mentions it in that context then seems to...guess (?) that it applies otherwise, but several of the comments following say it's an AL thing, and even there it's largely optional and most home tables aren't even aware of it, and the ones that are mostly ignore it. I also seem to remember hearing that the League had abolished it even for their play. The only poster that I saw say they believed it applied elsewhere even says it "seems" to be a rule WotC uses internally without any backing evidence or argument. Just looks like a lot of speculation based on a rule meant to simplify official, organized games without any tangible basis.
I'd take it a little more seriously if there were any notable firsthand statements on it from WotC or anyone directly affiliated with them.
AL got it from the WotC policy. I believe Crawford or Mearls stated it once in an interview. If you look hard enough I’m sure you’ll find it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No but still not a core class if I can go by the post just above this one, I trust that poster ;)
Do I want a rune wizard? Hell yea, runes are sick dude. But I'd prefer a rune-based artificer over a rune wizard, and if we can only get one, I'd prefer the artificer. That being said, Wizard is one of the most popular classes as I'm sure someone has said by now, so if they can make a subclass work for it, they'll publish it. If I really want a rune artificer or my players think its an interesting idea I'll just homebrew it using some similar classes as a baseline or something.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
WotC will really make an "rune carving" subclass that is intelligence- based and make it anything other than an artificer (ok they changed the rune knight to be based on constitution in the final release but still).
it's sorta implied one of the reason(s) why they re-released the artificer for tasha's cauldron was becuase they would be unable to post just the armorer as it's own subclass
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes