D&D 5E Dragon Talk: subclasses confirmed for the Artificer.

[Tales and Chronicles]

At approx. 29 minutes, it is confirmed that the archetypes for the artificer at release with be the alchemist, the battle smith and the artillerist.

Looks like the archivist did not make the cut, or was maybe saved for a ''psionic archetype'' for the artificer, just like I'm getting a psi-barbarian and psi-monk from the latest UA"

 

[Shardstone]

Shame, the archivist didn't make the cut because of this weird crusade against new ideas IMO. This is just me talking with a tin foil hat though

 

[Parmandur]

Shame, the archivist didn't make the cut because of this weird crusade against new ideas IMO. This is just me talking with a tin foil hat though

Well, we know from Crawford's own statements that the Archivist did better than the Alchemist: I would posit that they have plans for the Artificer beyond this one book, and more further afield archetypes might play into that.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The psionic artificer was canon in 3rd Ed.

Sometimes I imagine something like a runecaster, the incarnum equivalent of artificer. The runes would be buffers, or some like metamagic effect on item, no only wore by the runecaster, but also by allies, for example the paladin's shield or the ranger's gloves. Other incarnum artificer would be like a construct pilot, and the chakras wouldn't be in his own body but in the runes on the construct, or mecha.

Have you imagined an anchelmist class based in the manganime "Full Metal Alchemist", or the TTRPG "Prometheus: the created"?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the Alchemist has to be in, basically, but the Archivist will see print at a later date.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, we know from Crawford's own statements that the Archivist did better than the Alchemist: I would posit that they have plans for the Artificer beyond this one book, and more further afield archetypes might play into that.

The alchemist is the default artificer (equivalent to Champion, Thief, etc), and the one that slips most easily into a standard D&D setting.

There where two problems with the archivist:

1) It had the potential to break the game: why risk yourself in a dungeon when you can lurk in a safe place near by and send in an invulnerable projection to clear it first?

2) It felt too much like a clumsy internet parody. Parodies can be distracting if you want to take a setting seriously.

 

[gyor]

Well, we know from Crawford's own statements that the Archivist did better than the Alchemist: I would posit that they have plans for the Artificer beyond this one book, and more further afield archetypes might play into that.

Perhaps Wayfarer's will have the Archivist.

 

[gyor]

Or perhaps the upcoming book with Psionics rules will have the Archivist along side Aberrant Mind.

 

[Blackrat]

Or perhaps the upcoming book with Psionics rules will have the Archivist along side Aberrant Mind.

I keep hearing references to such a book on various sites, but I can’t seem to find anything solid. All google gives me is the Mystic from two years ago and some third party stuff... I admit, I don’t follow any podcasts or such, but is there an actual confirmation for such a book?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not yet. But most rumors have psionics appearing inside a Dark Sun setting book, just like artificers are inside the Eberron book. So if they are perhaps gearing up for Dark Sun in Autumn 2020, they are now going about figuring out how/where to take psionics.

These new psionic subclasses make it look like they have decided to move away from the Mystic idea of having all the various types of psionic classes under a single class heading, and instead are putting psionic subclasses inside the other classes. There might still be a 'Psion' class (with a couple subclasses-- probably the telepath and tekekinetic if I had to posit), but all the other types-- psychic warrior, soulknife, these new ones we've seen in UA etc. etc. will perhaps appear as subclasses to their respective main classes.