What does the Artificer, Seeker and Runepriest need?

[Vael]

To be honest, I don't think retconning the Artificer into the Mage or any other class is particularly viable. Same for the Runepriest and Seeker. They're already published, I don't really see Wizards doing such a dramatic rewrite of them. Maybe in 5e ...

 

[interwyrm]

Given the general consensus on swordmages being a bit underpowered, smushing them with artificers might not be a terrible idea.

Of course, a shielding swordmage with static shock is a bit scary.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be honest, I don't think retconning the Artificer into the Mage or any other class is particularly viable. Same for the Runepriest and Seeker. They're already published, I don't really see Wizards doing such a dramatic rewrite of them. Maybe in 5e ...

Maybe. They could be added as builds of another class under the Essentials-style organization, without the originals actually being updated/errata'd away. That hasn't been done yet, but there's no reason it couldn't be done. Actually, the martial-primal Essentials Ranger (Hunter) is a bit like a Seeker, already, so it may already have happened. For that matter, the Slayer is a bit like a Barbarian, and could be though of as a Barbarian grafted to the Fighter class as a build/sub-class.

Really, though, even before Essentials, archetypes were being recycled. Avengers aren't really /that/ different from Avenging Paladins when it comes right down to the archetype they represent - a violent, divinely-empowered religious zealot. Artificers are bookish arcanists who make stuff for their buddies instead of throwing balls of fire. Runepriests are physcially strong warrior-priests, so are Battle Clerics. Battlerager Fighters are feirce berserker warriors - so are Barbarians. Rangers, Rogues, and Executioners are all guys who sneak up and stab you.