D&D (2024) What New Classes Should Be Added One D&D PHB?

[Ruin Explorer]

I feel very confident in saying that people who craft magic 'stuff', whether alchemists or other things, have been around for a long time in D&D. Artificer just seems to codify that in an adventuring class.

But they shouldn't be an "adventuring class", should they? That's well-established in D&D. Many of the people "craft magic stuff" are existing classes - Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, etc. And you're literally describing a NON-adventuring activity. Indeed in fantasy literature and film, these people tend to split into two categories pretty smoothly - people who are just craftspeople, and not adventurers (so shouldn't be Artificers), and people who adventurers who have also crafted things, who universally don't act like Artificers (the only vague exceptions I can think of being in magitech-heavy JRPGs).

So that's obviously nonsensical.

And then instead of taking the concept and making it into a straightforward and effective class like, I dunno, pretty much every 5E class, they made it into a huge mess of microchoices, with a low baseline power level, but which can be highly effective with a ton of system mastery. It's not a good design. It's not a 5E-friendly design. It'll fit even worse into 1D&D.

Now, if they take the concept, and re-work so it's more Dragon's Dogma and less Final Fantasy 13 by default (which could be done), and straighten up the rules, removing the microchoices and fiddly nonsense, and particularly re-work the subclasses, I think it could be viable. But if you'll recall all the way back near the start of this thread, my objection is to how it's actually implemented in 5E. If they can change that hugely, they could have something.

 

[Aldarc]

But they shouldn't be an "adventuring class", should they?

Do all of your questions come this heavily loaded?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Forgotten Realms is a setting where you have nimblewrights, the 3.5e Gondsman subclass with a fantasy robot companion, 2e's Clockwork Mages in Zakhara, the ironman armours Gond built for Cyric, the Steampunk Steam Engines built by Mulhorand, the magical constructs of Imaskar and Raumathar, the crystal magic cyborg like folks in Durpur, and so much more.

By the same logic of digging ultra-deep into FR lore, I doubt there is a single class that we couldn't justify, and probably justify better at that!

Even a lot of your examples support my point, because they're absolutely nothing like Artificers, and Artificers can't do anything like them. This are all pretty obscure things.

What next, we going to bring back Spellfire as a class?

I think a problem with Artificers is that they've been overly flavored as the "guns and gears" class, instead of the "object oriented magic" class. If it were me I'd do this:

Artificer

• Alchemist
• Battlesmith
• Runescribe (Divine crossover subclass)
• Wokan (Primal crossover subclass)

This would definitely help a ton with the theme-ing. I feel like the Battle Smith having a straight-up robot by default is also an issue.

I think they need a top-to-bottom mechanical rework, and no-one has made a single positive argument for their mechanics so far, I note, only negative arguments that "Maybe they're not that bad compared to the very worst stuff in other classes!".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do all of your questions come this heavily loaded or just about things that support your preconceptions?

ROFL. I mean, buddy, you're doing the exact thing you're complaining about, and you're not making an argument, you're just attacking me rather than what I'm saying. Maybe say "No" or something if you disagree? Also what "preconceptions", specifically, are we discussing?

Let me be pretty clear - when I saw Artificer was in 5E, I was pleased. It was fine in 3.XE, with those rules, I assumed it'd make a good transition. It did not. At all. So that wasn't a "preconception" issue.

My point is they should not be an adventuring class, and what we have is a total mess that evolved from a more elegantly-designed class in 3.XE, but one that was very tightly bound to 3.XE specifically (even more tightly than say, the wonderful Avenger class was tightly bound to 4E), and that has transitioned to 5E in a very messy and confused way that relies far too much on system mastery.

 

[Aldarc]

ROFL. I mean, buddy, you're doing the exact thing you're complaining about, and you're not making an argument, you're just attacking me rather than what I'm saying. Maybe say "No" or something if you disagree? Also what "preconceptions", specifically, are we discussing?

Let me be clear: I'm pointing out that you are asking a loaded question that seems to be meant to reinforce your preconception that the artificer should not be an adventuring class. It's hard to imagine that you are asking this with a fair or open mind about artificers in the game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Let me be clear: I'm pointing out that you are asking a loaded question that seems to be meant to reinforce your preconception that the artificer should not be an adventuring class. It's hard to imagine that you are asking this with a fair or open mind about artificers in the game.

I mean, is my position about Artificers unclear or something? I initially approached them not with an open mind but a positive attitude, rather. That they were a total mess and acquired subclasses that are a terrible fit for anything but FF13-or-fancier-style fantasy (which is a totally valid category of fantasy, just not one D&D has messed with so far - the closest being Eberron and Spelljammer, which are still pretty distant imho).

I'm sitting here saying "I am the True Neutral Arbiter of whether Artificers are a good fit". I'm not claiming some perfectly fair mind. I hope no-one here is because that doesn't seem plausible from the arguments I've seen made. Are you saying your mind is perfectly open and fair here?

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, is my position about Artificers unclear or something? I initially approached them not with an open mind but a positive attitude, rather. That they were a total mess and acquired subclasses that are a terrible fit for anything but FF13-or-fancier-style fantasy (which is a totally valid category of fantasy, just not one D&D has messed with so far - the closest being Eberron and Spelljammer, which are still pretty distant imho).

I'm sitting here saying "I am the True Neutral Arbiter of whether Artificers are a good fit". I'm not claiming some perfectly fair mind. I hope no-one here is because that doesn't seem plausible from the arguments I've seen made. Are you saying your mind is perfectly open and fair here?

There was an artificer wizard specialization in 2e as part of the School of Thaumaturgy. The more contemporary understanding of D&D Artificers were designed for the Eberron setting, which is the second most popular official D&D setting other than Forgotten Realms according to WotC. Eberron has been around for 18 years and three editions of D&D. It seems like to me that 18 years and three different iterations of the Eberron-style artificer seems like something that D&D has messed with quite a bit. Is there a place for the Artificer in other D&D settings? I don't see anything inherit about either the artificers or other D&D settings that would suggest that they wouldn't fit in most D&D settings: e.g., Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, etc.

Since then other people have introduced the Artificer into their own D&D games and likewise some people have excluded it (like the Psion or Monk). The game has evolved. The game will evolve. This is how we get legacy classes like the Warlock or Sorcerer, which were likewise new classes that D&D introduced and reiterated. And this is how we get things like core Tieflings, Dragonborn, Drow, and Orcs in the game regardless of whether these races fit people's preconceptions about what the core races should be.

The idea that the Artificer isn't really present in pop fantasy outside of D&D doesn't seem well supported or even casually researched. I have seen players drawn to the Artificer not only because of magitech in games like Final Fantasy, but also because of magitech classes in games like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2 (which I know you have played), Torchlight 2, or even various magitech characters in League of Legends or Dota2. League of Legends made a big splash with Arcane, which has several prominent characters who could be played with a D&D Artificer.

 

[Parmandur]

Maybe it's just my Millenial brain, but I'm confused by making a contradistinction between Final Fantasy style and Dungeons & Dragons style.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Artificer and Psion. If there's a good enough design for a Swordmage then that too.

Psion should have the Telepath and Kineticist as the core subclasses, and then worry about the Shaper, Seer, Nomad and Egotist later.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Maybe it's just my Millenial brain, but I'm confused by making a contradistinction between Final Fantasy style and Dungeons & Dragons style.

If you can't see a distinction between Dragon's Dogma and Final Fantasy 13, style-wise, which is the actual comparator I've been using, then I don't think the comparison that's a problem.

Changing it to Dungeons and Dungeons and Final Fantasy generically changes what I'm saying so may be the point that's confusing you. Perhaps use my actual comparison? Or don't, but don't attribute comparisons I didn't make. There's FF stuff that's 100% within D&D's typical aesthetic. But there's also FF that is like 50% or more outside that. 13 is in the latter category (not to be confused with 14, or 12 - which are both somewhat closer).