the same criteria could be applied to ANY class outside of a 2 class system (caster/non-caster) to show it doesn't deserve to be fleshed out mechanically.
What's being misunderstood here is that nobody's saying the artificer doesn't
deserve a class inherently, just that if all an artificer class offers is "I'm a wizard with different proficiencies and spell lists", that
that expression of what an artificer is does not deserve a class. An artificer that is "I am a unique mechanical system" might deserve it. The issue is not with some grudge against the very concept of an artificer class, but with the fact that there hasn't been a lot of people actually offering ways beyond proficiencies and spell lists to make it distinct.
Minigiant's had some ideas. Staffan seems to be engaging thoughtfully. I haven't seen much more than that.
Shasarak said:
I think it would be easy for a good designer to make those classes significantly different.
Sure, it's just that this would be something new given to artificers, that they didn't have in 3e or 4e, and it would have to pass a much higher threshold for time and effort spent on the design to be worthwhile.
Staffan said:
Ritual Caster is limited to the spells normally available to the character. Spell-storing item lets you go beyond that - the artificer can make a spell-storing item of pass without trace, control water, dimension door, or tongues. In 3e it was balanced by an XP cost, I'm instead balancing it by requiring a higher-level spell slot.
If being able to cast every noncombat spell in the game (at some inflated cost) is required for a truly representative version of the artificer to you, I'm afraid that you will likely never again see such a representation. That certainly wasn't an essential part of the artificer that I played. I also think such an ability is far too powerful (it certainly beats out
Action Surge,
Sneak Attack,
Wild Shape, and other class-defining features!).
That said, if you are willing to have an artificer with an expanded spell list complete with ritual casting - that would seem to do a similar job of being a noncombat MacGyver.
Staffan said:
My artificer has all the spells on his class list as spells known. It is a rather small and single-minded spell list, however (and I couldn't figure out any 8th or 9th level spells that belonged on it).
So their spells known work like a cleric. That could replace a spellbook. Unfortunately, as you note, it limits the versatility of the artificer. If one of the critical elements of an artificer is that MacGyver tendency, and "I can use every noncombat spell in the game" is too powerful, why not split the difference and give them an expanded spell list that they can learn some subset of and give them Ritual Caster so they can MacGyver with it on the fly?
"I have a tiny focused spell list and also with my class feature I can basically use every noncombat spell in the game" is a very swingy character. It is a cleric on steroids. "I have a robust spell list and also with my class feature I can use some noncombat spells on the fly" is much more viable in many more adventuring situations.