D&D (2024) I think they should add the Artificer, Aasimar, and Genasi

[Mirrorrorrim]

I don't see the need for the Artificer to get published a 3rd time... but would have no issues whatsoever with turning the Tiefling species page into a Planetouched species page that would cover Tiefling, Aasimar and Genasi (since we would be using the pagecount for Tieflings anyway.)

But then again, we just had Aasimar and Genasi reprinted in the Monsters of the Multiverse book, so I don't know how necessary reprinting those are either.

I will say though that I do not believe it is necessary to reprint something in the new PHB purely for "esteem" purposes. The idea that for something to be considered actually "important" to the game that it has to be in the PHB. People put way too much stock and ego into things like that.

I am normally in agreement about all this. But I have taken a hard, long look from another perspective. Before I address each design element, I now think the primary reason to add something to the 2024 book is to make something Core that can be included in the SRD, and therefore riffed off of in Creative Commons.

The justification for the Ardling, Goliath, and Orc being reprinted in the 2024 PH tells me that they care about Core representation and some hole-filling. With Ardling out, the Aasimar can be brought to the core as the opposite of the Tiefling, which is really how most people see it anyway, as that's how they were originally introduced back in the day. If Ardling was considered, Aasimar is certainly worthy of the SRD spot due to its popularity, and they can tweak heritages within the Aasimar if they feel there is Ardling pieces worth absorbing.

I absolutely LOVE Genasi, and they are a species with interesting, deep, diverse design opportunities, like the Goliath, Dragonborn, and Tiefling. I believe they deserve to be Core in the SRD.

And finally, do the designers want Artificers in the SRD or not? I think some players want that, and I think I would be cool with it too, with tweaks (maybe test out an amalgamation of the old Artificier and playtest Warlock progression?). @Knight_Marshal also has a point in that the Artificer is the only class that has built in affinity for guns which are now in the PH. But the big issue here is the number of pages that the Artificer and 4 subclasses would take up in the book. It may just not have the room.

 

[WanderingMystic]

We might be able to get in one more race into the phb but as much as I desperately want the artificer in the phb it won't happen.

The artificer needs access to higher levels spells at an earlier l vel, I think it is compleatly approrate for them to not have high level spells so the cap of 5thblevel is fine by me. Also infusion while a great idea would be much better if they had more options because right now they feel very limited.

Give me infusions that improve your steel defender, let the alchemist creat potions, give me infusions that enhance my artillerist.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

WotC has to choose how to add the new core classes. Adding later new things to a no-core class isn't very easy. For example if the translated edition of "Psionic Handbook" isn't sold very well, then the next title "the complete psionic" will be not translated. Or I want to buy the number of Dragon Magazine with new Vestiges (pact magic) or incarnum powers, but those articles aren't translated.

WotC said something about in the 5E they didn't want to repeat the same schedule of 4th Ed about PH2 and PH3. I guess if this happens, it will be with a different title.

 

[TheSword]

As a later class to be added, does the Artificer need many more changes? What would be done to it that is currently wrong? Is it incompatible in some way with what we’re seeing?

 

[tetrasodium]

As a later class to be added, does the Artificer need many more changes? What would be done to it that is currently wrong? Is it incompatible in some way with what we’re seeing?

It's pretty good overall but there are a few things that feel -off- about it in play. Most of them some level from 5e'sfailure to include usable crafting rules for it to hook into & the system math assuming no feats no magic weapons. You see similar with the extra spellslot that is called a scroll in the scribes wizard.

Spoiler: both halves of Infusions RAW

INFUSING AN ITEM
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch a
nonmagical object and imbue it with one of your
artificer infusions, turning it into a magic item. An
infusion works on only certain kinds of objects, as
specified in the infusion's description. If the item re
quires attunement, you can attune yourself to it the
instant you infuse the item. If you decide to attune to
the item later, you must do so using the normal pro
cess for attunement (see the attunement rules in the

---

INFUSIONS KNOWN
When you gain this feature, pick four artificer in
fusions to learn, choosing from the "Artificer Infu
sions" section at the end of the class's description.
You learn additional infusions of your choice when
you reach certain levels in this class, as shown in
the Infusions Known column of the Artificer table.
Whenever you gain a level in this class, you can re
place one of the artificer infusions you learned with
a new one.
Dungeon Master's Guide).

It feels less like crafting than drawing a doodad from hammerspace. Instead of warlock invocation style swap they should have had an actual crafting system using gold & dragonshards or something rare that the GM could control & more of a journal (ie spellbook analog) that allowed them to learn to craft things. Free unlimited cast self scaling cantrips chargen to campaign end also eliminates the niche of someone who really delivers by crafting low level wands too.

The core elements (crafting & an expectation for magic items in system math) are lacking the foundational touchstone in the core rules for it to build off & it's not really possible for as mere class to add some of them back in after the fact without hacks like using the invocation style rather than hooking into a relevant system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As a later class to be added, does the Artificer need many more changes? What would be done to it that is currently wrong? Is it incompatible in some way with what we’re seeing?

The Artificer (and this applies to the D&Done Warlock, and I fear will also apply in practice to the Ranger) is all utility, no top line. There are plenty of times when they will get patted on the back and told "good job" - but there is no time beyond about level 4 when the rest of the party is going to turn to the Artificer and say "Wow! We'd have been toast without you!" for something that's part of the artificer's class abilities unless the specific adventure was written to them. And they get further behind as they level up.

It's easy to see how the primary casters (including the old warlock) consistently get these moments of awesome. Top level spells have options that make people say "wow" every new time they come in. Things like Revivify or Fireball spring to mind as level 5 moments of awesome. It's easy to see how the Paladin can (mixing their attacks with Smite so they get very powerful, and with their situational auras so everyone huddles round them for saves). Or the barbarian can (by tanking unholy amounts of damage between their d12 and resistance to physical damage - this of course falls off at higher levels when other damage types become common). The new fighter can with a very high damage output and by being able to bring themselves back hard. (I have serious criticisms of the T3-4 fighter not really scaling in ways other than "Number go up" but that's another issue).

But the Artificer? Not so much. Their spellcasting falls behind and their ability to create magic items is cool - but everyone is cool if they are built that way. They are persistent so they never actually grab the awesome. They are bad at MacGuyvering their way out of problems compared to a primary arcane caster because they don't have the range of options. (And the alchemist is particularly bad because their baseline is cleric level rather than having an extra attack or pseudo-extra-attack).

 

[Vael]

Yeah, I'm hoping One DnD does right by the Artificer, as I'm not a fan of the current version.

Ultimately, I think they may need to go back to their 3.5 roots and have Infusions instead of Spell slots, but some infusions can replicate spells.

But that's a more complicated and thorough rebuild of the class, which means I'd rather wait for the, hopefully, improved core ruleset will make it easier to add new classes that break out of the Core class molds.