D&D 5E (2024) Homunculus Servant, Conjure Constructs, Deryan's Helpful Homunculi have class restrictions that make no sense

[TravDoc42]

BG3 has a lot of (implied) artificers, even though the class isn’t implemented for PCs.

And the high priest of Gond is the High Artificer. Most of his worshippers are inventors who are definitely Artificers, even if not called that explicitly.

 

[Mephista]

Wizards need to keep their filthy hands off other classes' pets. Seriously, they don't wash hands after ruffling through that lich's tome. Gross.

Until they learn proper hygiene and to properly care for their own familiar, they get no more spells or subclasses.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

BG3 has a lot of (implied) artificers, even though the class isn’t implemented for PCs.

Yeah its very much entrenched that Artificers are in the Forgotten Realms (and by way of FR, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Spelljammer).

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah its very much entrenched that Artificers are in the Forgotten Realms (and by way of FR, Ravenloft, Planescape, and Spelljammer).

Yep. - Artificers fit in pretty much all current D&D settings.
I would not be surprised if the class is reprinted in a later "of Everything" book, probably with an updated spell list.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Yep. - Artificers fit in pretty much all current D&D settings.
I would not be surprised if the class is reprinted in a later "of Everything" book, probably with an updated spell list.

Really it should have been in the PHB.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yep. - Artificers fit in pretty much all current D&D settings.
I would not be surprised if the class is reprinted in a later "of Everything" book, probably with an updated spell list.

I suspect we will have both artificers and psions in a 2026 core rules supplement book. Although whether the psion is a reprint depends on if it comes out before or after Dark Sun.

I suspect one artificer subclass will remain exclusive to this book though - probably Cartographer. With one exclusive to the new book (Reanimator).

 

[Distracted DM]

Regarding "artificers would fit into most settings," is there a magic item creation conflict of identity?

A setting may be:
magic is everywhere, artificers fit in, magic item creation is common enough to justify it. Forgotten realms and eberron are big callouts for this, they have very common magic.

Or:

Magic items were largely created in the past, by greater civilizations, that's why we delve into dangerous dungeons, for treasures of the past including magics that are greater than anything we can create now (lost knowledge, post post apocalypse, forgotten Roman tech analogue). Artificers don't make a lot of sense here, unless your artificer is relatively unique.

I'm always torn between these two for my own games. I like the romanticism of the latter but the former is more desirable by players and practical from certain GM standpoints.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Regarding "artificers would fit into most settings," is there a magic item creation conflict of identity?

A setting may be:
magic is everywhere, artificers fit in, magic item creation is common enough to justify it. Forgotten realms and eberron are big callouts for this, they have very common magic.

Or:

Magic items were largely created in the past, by greater civilizations, that's why we delve into dangerous dungeons, for treasures of the past including magics that are greater than anything we can create now (lost knowledge, post post apocalypse, forgotten Roman tech analogue). Artificers don't make a lot of sense here, unless your artificer is relatively unique.

I'm always torn between these two for my own games. I like the romanticism of the latter but the former is more desirable by players and practical from certain GM standpoints.

I think the thing to bear in mind is that Artificers can be regarded as low-magic.
Wizards are capable of far more powerful effects, and creating far more powerful items than artificers for example.
They don't have to always use items as props or crutches: they can generate far more powerful effects than an artificer can just with words, gestures and occasionally a minimal amount of components.

The alchemist hedge-wizard is a common archetype in low-magic settings where most of the rest of D&D's full casters would stand out.
Remember too that most of the artificer's magic items are not true items like might be unearthed from ancient civilisations. They run off the artificer's own power and lose enchantment if the artificer stops maintaining them. This might be because they are kludged together from barely understood arcane tech that requires constant maintenance, or because the magic is so basic that it is relying mostly on the natural magical properties of the materials the items are constructed of as much as the artificer's own power.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

WotC is also inconsistent about whether or not the artificers of Imaskar in Faeryn were wizards who just called themselves artificers for some reason or if they're eberron style artificers as a class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Magic items were largely created in the past, by greater civilizations, that's why we delve into dangerous dungeons, for treasures of the past including magics that are greater than anything we can create now (lost knowledge, post post apocalypse, forgotten Roman tech analogue).

You don't need to be an artificer to create magic items, pretty much anyone can do it. Artificers are the guys who can make magic items on the fly whilst in a dungeon.

Artificers don't make a lot of sense here, unless your artificer is relatively unique.

Player characters being exceptional has always been a core assumption of D&D, no matter how hard some people try to deny it.

But yeah, D&D settings not making sense if you start to think about them - nothing new here.