I think it will. I'm rather cynical about One D&D beyond the release of its core books (PHB, DMG, MM), but even then I can't see them selling the Artificer seperately again. Who knows, there might be some more Artificer Specialists thrown in too.
What do you think? Yay or nay on Artificers being added, @eightyocho?
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
It makes sense. The major problem with Artificers was that they didn't get the subclasses like other classes did, most likely because writers couldn't assume that players had the class and so was less attractive to write subclasses for than, say, Wizards, who everyone has access to.
Having them in the PHB solves that problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In my opinion the artificer was such a good idea it should belong to the core rule set as much as a wizard and fighter. It is still broad enough that additional rule sets would be easy to craft and sell off. I could just imagine some adventure sets loosely based off a Dark Sun mixed with west world. Or even a Mechanica or Steam Victorian set. I have been following TSR and other table top based games since around 1985. The writers have been fabulous and have spawned some really great series over the years!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am not sure what my Spirit Animal is. But whatever that thing is, I am pretty sure it has rabies!
If Warlock can be added the Artificer should be too
Both classes first appeared in 3.5, artificer in the original Eberron and Warlock in the splat book The Complete Arcane (fun fact the hexblade was a core class from The Complete Warrior before being adapted to a warlock subclass in 5e). In 5e (because 4e is better not mentioned) WotC made the warlock an base class in the PHB and they did not do that with any other additional core classes, and 3.5 had at least a full dozen full core classes that were added after the PHB (notably three in each of the Complete [X] books but iirc there were a few more from other things, might be wrong I'm getting old). Many of those other classes eventually became 5e subclasses (samurai, hexblade, swashbuckler, scout, favored soul [renamed divine soul] to name a few).
Artificer was not included in any of the first phase of 5e books that were written in house by WotC; it arrived via the Eberron setting again and WotC added it to Tasha's to get people to shut up about making it "official," tacked on one extra subclass and has very conspicuously ignored it since. It's the redheaded stepchild of D&D classes. WotC never asked for it, has never really showed any real interest in it or any other core classes for that matter. 5e was designed from the ground up to use subclasses and backgrounds for customization, not more core classes. I seriously doubt artificer will be legitimized and honestly I'm good with that.
Who thinks this Class will be included in the next iteration of the PHB?
I think it will. I'm rather cynical about One D&D beyond the release of its core books (PHB, DMG, MM), but even then I can't see them selling the Artificer seperately again. Who knows, there might be some more Artificer Specialists thrown in too.
What do you think? Yay or nay on Artificers being added, @eightyocho?
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
I hope so
If Warlock can be added the Artificer should be too
Wizards of the Coast Feedback/Support
https://support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
It makes sense. The major problem with Artificers was that they didn't get the subclasses like other classes did, most likely because writers couldn't assume that players had the class and so was less attractive to write subclasses for than, say, Wizards, who everyone has access to.
Having them in the PHB solves that problem.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If they do.. they need to fix that class.. kind of sucks to be honest.
Enjoy your slop. I'll be enjoying good products elsewhere.
In my opinion the artificer was such a good idea it should belong to the core rule set as much as a wizard and fighter. It is still broad enough that additional rule sets would be easy to craft and sell off. I could just imagine some adventure sets loosely based off a Dark Sun mixed with west world. Or even a Mechanica or Steam Victorian set. I have been following TSR and other table top based games since around 1985. The writers have been fabulous and have spawned some really great series over the years!
I am not sure what my Spirit Animal is. But whatever that thing is, I am pretty sure it has rabies!
Both classes first appeared in 3.5, artificer in the original Eberron and Warlock in the splat book The Complete Arcane (fun fact the hexblade was a core class from The Complete Warrior before being adapted to a warlock subclass in 5e). In 5e (because 4e is better not mentioned) WotC made the warlock an base class in the PHB and they did not do that with any other additional core classes, and 3.5 had at least a full dozen full core classes that were added after the PHB (notably three in each of the Complete [X] books but iirc there were a few more from other things, might be wrong I'm getting old). Many of those other classes eventually became 5e subclasses (samurai, hexblade, swashbuckler, scout, favored soul [renamed divine soul] to name a few).
Artificer was not included in any of the first phase of 5e books that were written in house by WotC; it arrived via the Eberron setting again and WotC added it to Tasha's to get people to shut up about making it "official," tacked on one extra subclass and has very conspicuously ignored it since. It's the redheaded stepchild of D&D classes. WotC never asked for it, has never really showed any real interest in it or any other core classes for that matter. 5e was designed from the ground up to use subclasses and backgrounds for customization, not more core classes. I seriously doubt artificer will be legitimized and honestly I'm good with that.
I just casted my vote in my own poll
I voted for a very hopefully "Yeah" 🤞🏾
I didn't know the Warlock was added
I'm still fairly new here & doing my best to keep up
And research the Lore through the other D&D sourcebooks
I currently own about 27 D&D adventure & sourcebooks but have only thumbed through the source books so far
Each time I crack those books open, my mind explodes
I love this game 🥰📚
What don't you like about them so far?
I've created on of my own but hadn't really taken the "deep dive" into studying them just yet
...forever the DM 😔