The class that mechanically fits the best is Warlock imo but thematically it doesnt work as a subclass. Then I would say Sorcerer. Again doesn't work.
Thematics are really all that matter. Everything else, from proficiencies to spell lists, can be put into any class that needs 'em. Why can't the artificer just use spell slots like every other class that creates magical effects? Or perhaps another way of thinking about it: what do warlocks and sorcerers have that you feel an artificer
must have to be an artificer?
how bout bard? Why would they have a song of rest?
Bard is just a close fit mechanically, not thematically (which is why I didn't use that as my go-to). Mechanically, healing poultices and tonics are well within the wheelhouse of an artificer, and "heal extra hp during a short rest" easily fits with the flavor of the artificer repairing everyone, applying some painkillers, and the like.
and why does his bardic die mechanic doesnt seem to fit very well, and musically instruments as tools?
Mechanically, inspiration dice are just "+1dx to certain checks." In the artificer's hands, that is what enchanting your helmet to boost your Int for your Int checks (for instance) looks like. Mechanically, musical instruments as tools is just "I can use a spellcasting focus instead of material components." In the artificer's hands, that becomes a wand or a wrench or something.
Your suggestion wizard. Which on the surfaces thematically could work. But, it breaks down. Artificers dont have spell books,
It's not out of character for an artificer to have their formulas written in a book. I mean, where else are they going to write them down?
The whole section on preparing and casting spells goes out the window when you pick arcane tradition:artificer and then have to replace the entire spellcasting section.
The difference between using a wand that lets you cast a spell at will and using a cantrip, or using a potion or scroll that you can make each day and using a spell slot, or being able to infuse a buff into an item and casting a buff on someone wearing the item, is merely cosmetic. No need to replace the spellcasting mechanics. You just give artificers an extra, interesting way to represent their item-based casting (like being able to have anyone in the party trigger their spells).
Now if you've got a different spellcasting mechanic, that is likely WORTHY of an extra class! But artificers from 3e and 4e don't really have that.
Artificers instead of having spell books and casting spells prepare and cast spells differently... they can only infuse items with spells and make other magic items better.
That's pretty indistinguishable, mechanically, from just casting a spell. It needn't be, but the difference between "I cast mage armor on him!" and "I enchant his clothing with a force field!" is cosmetic without further development.
then as they level they have to add in how they make items, oh and they get different skill, armor and tool proficiencies.
Seems like a new class to me.
Skill, armor, and tool proficiencies aren't enough to make a new class. Neither is item creation (which anyone in 5e can do if the DM allows it).
W[/QUOTE]