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
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 mean, they kind of needed to re-release the Artificer anyway to make it official for use outside of Eberron; while you always had the option of using it outside that setting anyway, now it's a first-party class in the Forgotten Realms etc. as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
As a fan of the giant monster type; this UA is a love letter.
And kudos to the Runecrafter Wizard not necessarily being limited to giant-magic…celestial words of power, Infernal curse marks, or eldritch babble all become valid character concepts. I cannot wait.
I kind of resent that the Runecrafter is a Wizard. Only Cleric has more subs as it is (Cleric has 14 vs. Wizard's 13, next closest is Fighter/Monk at 10), and Artificer is right there, sitting in a lonely corner with its 4 subclasses. It's just another INT caster focused on crafting, tools, knowledge, and creativity, that's also lacking in subs, no big deal.
They should give us a Giant Mecha subclass for Artificers. Basically Billy the Blue Ranger: a super genius inventor that can also fight and call down a huge "Zord" to ride in. But the really cool feature would come on line at level 15, where you can combined your Zord those of up to four others Artificers' to make a Gargantuan "Megazord" (obviously using a different name).
This would be a perfect subclass for my Warforged Paladin, Deus Vultron!
So, we got some Dragonlance material followed by interesting giant/primeval material. What comes next? Do you think they will release a second version of the last UA with some updates like they did for the Dragonlance content? I know alot of people were displeased with one or two of the subclasses
Any inkling of an idea what might be coming after?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
So, we got some Dragonlance material followed by interesting giant/primeval material. What comes next? Do you think they will release a second version of the last UA with some updates like they did for the Dragonlance content? I know alot of people were displeased with one or two of the subclasses
Any inkling of an idea what might be coming after?
Either that or another teaser about one of the upcoming releases.
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
I mean, they kind of needed to re-release the Artificer anyway to make it official for use outside of Eberron; while you always had the option of using it outside that setting anyway, now it's a first-party class in the Forgotten Realms etc. as well.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They should give us a Giant Mecha subclass for Artificers. Basically Billy the Blue Ranger: a super genius inventor that can also fight and call down a huge "Zord" to ride in. But the really cool feature would come on line at level 15, where you can combined your Zord those of up to four others Artificers' to make a Gargantuan "Megazord" (obviously using a different name).
This would be a perfect subclass for my Warforged Paladin, Deus Vultron!
I wouldn't mind a bard subclass that shreds on a lute and summons giant lizards in armor.
Go go power rangers.
It's ok Ranger, you'll always be cool to me.. Unless druid gets another use for its wild shape charges.
I for one could go for a Rita Repulsa warlock patron.
Its honestly all I wanted the Ranger class to be when I first started playing D&D
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
So, we got some Dragonlance material followed by interesting giant/primeval material. What comes next? Do you think they will release a second version of the last UA with some updates like they did for the Dragonlance content? I know alot of people were displeased with one or two of the subclasses
Any inkling of an idea what might be coming after?
Four-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Either that or another teaser about one of the upcoming releases.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
no Otherworldly Patron option is so specific that it refers to a specific individual, and i don't think they will start now
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