# What New Classes Should Be Added One D&D PHB?



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 21, 2022)

Artificer is obvious. I'd like a Divine Spellcasting Summoner Class, Psion, and Swordmage.


----------



## Cold Iron Bound (Aug 21, 2022)

I expect to see the artificer, would like to see the psion, and if they'd include any class I wanted, I'd pick the diabolist.


----------



## Scribe (Aug 21, 2022)

Psion, and Gish.

Oh, and just add the Warlord or 'Support Martial that doesnt do as much Damage' as long as the "I shout you back to life" is just Temp HP.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 21, 2022)

I only _think _the Artificer will be in it (but we don't know yet), and I think the Eldritch Knight should be removed and expanded into a Swordmage/Arcane Gish class. The Arcane Archer, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, and other similar concepts can be its subclasses.

A Psion, preferably not using Spellcasting, but that's not going to happen. I'd be fine if it were a spellcaster that used Spell Points and had subclasses focusing on Telepathy, Telekinesis, Mind Control, and other aspects of D&D Psionics. I'd be fine with Warlord being a subclass if they made it actually good.

And, if possible, another shot at the Blood Hunter (made official) would be cool. But I extremely doubt that's on the table.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 21, 2022)

Artificer. Just promote it to the PHB already.

Psion. As long as the DMG still has a spell point option, then, fine, make it based on slots (and then we can sub in the spell point system ourselves). Make the subclasses based on the disciplines so we have nomads, shapers, telepaths, seers, egoists, etc.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 21, 2022)

Artificer. Psion. Warlord. I’d also be up for an arcane half-caster.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I only _think _the Artificer will be in it (but we don't know yet), and I think the Eldritch Knight should be removed and expanded into a Swordmage/Arcane Gish class. The Arcane Archer, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, and other similar concepts can be its subclasses.
> 
> A Psion, preferably not using Spellcasting, but that's not going to happen. I'd be fine if it were a spellcaster that used Spell Points and had subclasses focusing on Telepathy, Telekinesis, Mind Control, and other aspects of D&D Psionics. I'd be fine with Warlord being a subclass if they made it actually good.
> 
> And, if possible, another shot at the Blood Hunter (made official) would be cool. But I extremely doubt that's on the table.



Oh, wow, I came into the thread to say exactly all of this.

Given the extent of the testing they are doing, if they are ever going to do a Psion or a stab at Blood Hunter, now would be the time.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 21, 2022)

_Should_ be? Artificer, unquestionably. It already exists as part of the game, that would just be a formality.

I, personally, also count Warlord in that space. It may be a decade late, but finally giving even that one small olive branch to 4e fans would do a lot of good. It would help mend the one major schism in the (old) fanbase that was intentionally ignored or even widened by the original developers.



Scribe said:


> Oh, and just add the Warlord or 'Support Martial that doesnt do as much Damage' as long as the "I shout you back to life" is just Temp HP.



This will never actually work for implementing a Warlord, and would be a slap in the face for Warlord fans.

Besides, _even Mike Mearls_, the guy who literally cracked jokes about "shouting hands back on" _as a reason to not include a Warlord class_, explicitly said that martial healing was fine as far as the devs were concerned, and that if DMs did not like that, they were free to not let players play that in their games.


----------



## Yaarel (Aug 21, 2022)

Add:


Psion
Warlord
Artificer
Swordmage (melee range fullcaster)


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 21, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I only _think _the Artificer will be in it (but we don't know yet), and I think the Eldritch Knight should be removed and expanded into a Swordmage/Arcane Gish class. The Arcane Archer, Bladesinger, Swordmage, Duskblade, and other similar concepts can be its subclasses.
> 
> A Psion, preferably not using Spellcasting, but that's not going to happen. I'd be fine if it were a spellcaster that used Spell Points and had subclasses focusing on Telepathy, Telekinesis, Mind Control, and other aspects of D&D Psionics. I'd be fine with Warlord being a subclass if they made it actually good.
> 
> And, if possible, another shot at the Blood Hunter (made official) would be cool. But I extremely doubt that's on the table.




 Blood Hunter would be cool, a very bold choice.


----------



## Scribe (Aug 21, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Besides, _even Mike Mearls_, the guy who literally cracked jokes about "shouting hands back on" _as a reason to not include a Warlord class_, explicitly said that martial healing was fine as far as the devs were concerned, and that if DMs did not like that, they were free to not let players play that in their games.



The Dev's are fine with a lot of things I'm not.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 21, 2022)

Scribe said:


> The Dev's are fine with a lot of things I'm not.



I mean, that's fair. But the other criticism you cut out remains. I've never seen a proposal for a THP-based Warlord that isn't (a) stupidly overpowered because it means enemy damage output literally never matters, or more commonly (b) totally worthless because it can do diddly-squat _nothing_ to fix the HP loss that is _absolutely guaranteed_ to happen due to 5e's math.

I don't want an overpowered Warlord any more than I want a weaksauce one. I want one that is cool, flavorful, and effective, but not overwhelming--that will just make the voices of hatred for the class even stronger, and convince neutral parties that it's a bad idea.


----------



## Scribe (Aug 21, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, that's fair. But the other criticism you cut out remains. I've never seen a proposal for a THP-based Warlord that isn't (a) stupidly overpowered because it means enemy damage output literally never matters, or more commonly (b) totally worthless because it can do diddly-squat _nothing_ to fix the HP loss that is _absolutely guaranteed_ to happen due to 5e's math.
> 
> I don't want an overpowered Warlord any more than I want a weaksauce one. I want one that is cool, flavorful, and effective, but not overwhelming--that will just make the voices of hatred for the class even stronger, and convince neutral parties that it's a bad idea.



Much like the "I want a better Fighter" discussions, I dont think a Warlord is as impossible a task as its made out to be.

Can 100% of 4e fans of the Warlord be satisfied? Doubtful. Can 80% with a Warlord with 5e designs? I think so.

There are issues with how 5e math works out in a lot of areas, but I think it could be solved.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 21, 2022)

I know things will be thrown at me, but I honestly think they should get rid of Artificer, not make it a base class. It doesn't fit a lot of settings, it doesn't fit a particularly common or unsupported _fantasy_ archetype (UNLIKE Swordmage and Psion!), and the current design is an absolute disaster which benefits insanely from system mastery and knowing a ton about D&D's rules (in a way literally no other single class does - only some really wacky MC combos). Either get rid of it, or burn it to the ground and start over.

Add Swordmage (or Eldritch Knight expanded into a class, that's a fine idea) and Mystic/Psion to the PHB.

I'm totally over Warlord at this point. Despite being a fan in 4E, if it never comes back I won't actually care.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 21, 2022)

I don't think they will add any, except Artificer as a formality of support. Even then, I wouldn't bet.

I don't think WotC will add warlords, psions, swordmages, or any other base classes beyond. I think if they felt there was a clamouring for it, they'd have playtested it before now. Granted, we have a year of updates between here and then, and if they aren't revising the PHB classes as much as expected/hoped then they might try to fit a new class in. I just don't see it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Given the extent of the testing they are doing, if they are ever going to do a Psion or a stab at Blood Hunter, now would be the time.



Definitely though I hope they don't do Blood Hunter in any form that even resembles the current 5E implementation, because it's just overpowered jank that basically invalidates a bunch of other classes/subclasses. It's particularly funny because it both has a ridiculous number of baseline class features AND the subclasses all give it a bunch more stuff, often totally unbalanced. For example, a single level 3 ability from Order of the Lycan - Hybrid Transformation - is basically better than ALL the subclass abilities a Beast Barbarian gets - and includes stuff that's baseline Barbarian, but here lasts 1 hour per short rest instead of "up to 10 rounds". It's like some horrible Gestalt class from late 3E!

Also because it burns HP, the main limiting factor isn't "The Blood Hunter's HP", it's "How much is the rest of the party able to pump the Blood Hunter full of heals". Great way to force the rest of the party to be your battery!

What a bad design. I'd forgotten how very bad it was.


----------



## Aeson (Aug 21, 2022)

Jedi


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Definitely though I hope they don't do Blood Hunter in any form that even resembles the current 5E implementation, because it's just overpowered jank that basically invalidates a bunch of other classes/subclasses. It's particularly funny because it both has a ridiculous number of baseline class features AND the subclasses all give it a bunch more stuff, often totally unbalanced. For example, a single level 3 ability from Order of the Lycan - Hybrid Transformation - is basically better than ALL the subclass abilities a Beast Barbarian gets - and includes stuff that's baseline Barbarian, but here lasts 1 hour per short rest instead of "up to 10 rounds". It's like some horrible Gestalt class from late 3E!
> 
> Also because it burns HP, the main limiting factor isn't "The Blood Hunter's HP", it's "How much is the rest of the party able to pump the Blood Hunter full of heals". Great way to force the rest of the party to be your battery!
> 
> What a bad design. I'd forgotten how very bad it was.



Yeah, I wouldn't expect it as-is, but a Witcher clone that plays with the design space of HP as a resource is interesting. 

If it doesn't happen now, I don't evlxpect it ever will. Indeed, if they don't try any new Class now...not sure they will ever bother.


----------



## Lycurgon (Aug 21, 2022)

What should they add? 
They should add a Swordmage/Gish/Stabnerd class. It is very obvious that this is a popular concept and WotC obviously know it, which is why they keep designing subclasses that play around with the concept but haven't don't it well yet. Take Eldritch Knight from Fighter and make it the heavy armour subclass for the Swordmage, take the Bladesinger and make it a light/no armour subclass. Make it a class and make it balanced. 

I really hope they don't add Artificer because it doesn't suit all settings and styles of fantasy. But I think it is the most likely to be added. 
Other than Artificer I don't see them adding anything else.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 21, 2022)

split the 3 subclasses of fighter into 3 fully formed classes...

CHampion keeps the fighter name and now gets 1 or 2 simple sub class choices
Eldritch knight becomes a half caster swordmage
Battlemaster becomes the WARLORD...

BRING BACK THE WARLORD!!!!

oh and artificer


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

Warlord and Swordmage


----------



## HammerMan (Aug 21, 2022)

Warlord and sword mage


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 21, 2022)

Scribe said:


> Oh, and just add the Warlord or 'Support Martial that doesnt do as much Damage' as long as the "I shout you back to life" is just Temp HP.





EzekielRaiden said:


> This will never actually work for implementing a Warlord, and would be a slap in the face for Warlord fans.
> 
> Besides, _even Mike Mearls_, the guy who literally cracked jokes about "shouting hands back on" _as a reason to not include a Warlord class_, explicitly said that martial healing was fine as far as the devs were concerned, and that if DMs did not like that, they were free to not let players play that in their games.



yes, I am fine with warlords having to choose abilities that heal, and them being limited... then DMs can just say "no warlords" or "Warlords can't take X ability" but give us a REAL working warlord...

healing, buffing, granting attacks, and or movement, descent HD all weapon and armor prof, no extra attacks (well maybe 1 at 11th but I'm not sold on that).


I mean Leading the attack. make an attack if you hit do double weapon damage, hit or miss all allies gain advantage on attacks against this target until the end of your next turn. Once a warlord does this he can't do it again until he takes a long rest. 

inspiring word... range 30ft 1 target. Creature spends a HD and gains a bonus to the hp recovered equal to your cha or int mod. at level 5 this increases to 1d6+ your cha or int mod at level 11 it increases to 2d6+ your cha or int mod, and at 17th it increases to 3d6+ your cha mod +your int mod.  Once a target has been healed by your inspiring word they can not be healed by it again until they take a short rest.  You can use inspiring word a number of times equal to your prof and regain all uses on a long rest.

Rub some dirt on it. Range touch. An alley spends up to a number of HD equal to your prof. Once you do this you can't do so again until you take a short or long rest.

Wolf Pack Tactics choose a target to make a melee attack against, before you do you or an ally adjacent to the target can move up to 10ft without provoking an attack of op. Then make your attack

Commander strike You use your action to grant an ally within 30ft an attack (melee, range, or cantrip) if the attack deals damage they get a bonus equal to your int mod.

Knights move as a bonus action if you have not moved this turn you can make your speed 0 an let an ally use there reaction to disengage and move up to half there movement.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2022)

I mean, I played a Warlord in 4E and liked it, but...what it brought was really tied to the miniatures combat aspect of the game which just doesn't  seem relevant  now.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 21, 2022)

I'd like to see the current 5e classes (including artificer). With swordmage, warlord, psion, and summoner added to the roster.

I'd also like to see blood hunter, but as a setting specific class which isn't in the PHB.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, I played a Warlord in 4E and liked it, but...what it brought was really tied to the miniatures combat aspect of the game which just doesn't  seem relevant  now.



yeah because no one disengages in 5e, no one needs healing in 5e and no one granting an ally an attack off turn with a small damage bonus would be worth it... and as I showed above granting advantage is still an amazing ability


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> yeah because no one disengages in 5e, no one needs healing in 5e and no one granting an ally an attack off turn with a small damage bonus would be worth it... and as I showed above granting advantage is still an amazing ability



Whoever you're arguing with isn't discussing in good faith. Your best move is to not engage.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 21, 2022)

One reason I'm very happy about 5.5e is that it's 'reset' the chances of getting some more classes. We no longer have 694783 half baked subclasses to point at as reasons to not add them.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> One reason I'm very happy about 5.5e is that it's 'reset' the chances of getting some more classes. We no longer have 694783 half baked subclasses to point at as reasons to not add them.



I actually think we may see a lot of Subclasses in these teats.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2022)

In roughly this order of priority: 

Artificer
Psion
Warlord
Swordmage/Gish



Parmandur said:


> I mean, I played a Warlord in 4E and liked it, but...what it brought was really tied to the miniatures combat aspect of the game which just doesn't seem relevant  now.



It brought a tactically interesting non-magical warrior, which seems as relevant as ever.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 21, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> In roughly this order of priority:
> 
> Artificer
> Psion
> ...



Still seems nore.likely as a Subclass, as anything.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 21, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Still seems nore.likely as a Subclass, as anything.



I wouldn't be opposed to (a) the Warlord as a Fighter subclass if they could rework the Fighter a bit OR (b) the Warlord was a subclass that could be added to ANY class, as per the remote possibility of non-class specific subclasses. (Though I would be worried that the Warlord would work better as a subclass on a magical class.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 21, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It brought a tactically interesting non-magical warrior, which seems as relevant as ever.



Another Int class alone is needed (too many classes have no need for it) but having a mental heavy warrior is the best IMO


----------



## OakenHart (Aug 21, 2022)

A "spell sword"-type martial character supplementing their fighting with arcane spells halfcaster.  It's such a common archetype that people try to emulate that I'm surprised that there hasn't been a default class created in D&D at this point.  Artificer is a different sort of feel and is a different archetype, even if it mechanically fits the bill in some subclass cases.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 21, 2022)

A pet class (ala a Pokémon trainer), where the focus on the classes power is on the secondary creatures

That is a huge flavor area of modern animes and some fantasies that has little class support in dnd right now


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 21, 2022)

I was going to say "None", but you all have convinced me.

IF they add any, the four they should add (a nice 16 classes, NEVER MORE).

Artificer, Psion, Swordmage, Warlord. 

That _would_ be some sweet, sweet D&D right there.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 21, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> A pet class (ala a Pokémon trainer), where the focus on the classes power is on the secondary creatures
> 
> That is a huge flavor area of modern animes and some fantasies that has little class support in dnd right now



Hmm... I kinda like the idea that instead of having a pet that you constantly have to worry about dying (or making immortal like most the current pet rules sort-of do to avoid that).

The other-way-around! The pet is the powerhouse and the PC is the weaker one that you have to worry about keeping alive. Give the pet ways to "lick you back to life" or something.


----------



## Frozen_Heart (Aug 21, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> A pet class (ala a Pokémon trainer), where the focus on the classes power is on the secondary creatures
> 
> That is a huge flavor area of modern animes and some fantasies that has little class support in dnd right now



Beastmaster as its own unique class would be great. like the pathfinder summoner.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 21, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I know things will be thrown at me, but I honestly think they should get rid of Artificer, not make it a base class. It doesn't fit a lot of settings, it doesn't fit a particularly common or unsupported _fantasy_ archetype (UNLIKE Swordmage and Psion!), and the current design is an absolute disaster which benefits insanely from system mastery and knowing a ton about D&D's rules (in a way literally no other single class does - only some really wacky MC combos). Either get rid of it, or burn it to the ground and start over.



Artificers work in most settings, as there's a place for "arcane crafter" in most official 5e settings (Theros because of Purphoros, Ravnica because of Izzet, Toril because of Lantan, Spelljammer because Mercane and Tinker Gnomes, Exandria because they're confirmed to exist there, and Greyhawk has a few historical "artificer-type" characters, like Lum and Leuk-O). And Alchemists exist in basically every D&D world. And there could be more subclasses that would help it fit in more settings (Dr. Frankenstein-style fleshstitcher for Ravenloft, Portal-based Artificer for Planescape, Runecarver for basically any setting with Giants, etc).

And I've played in a 3-year long campaign with a Battle Smith Artificer, and they're not OP. Definitely weaker than a Paladin, about on par with a Tasha's-version Ranger. What do you mean by "they benefit insanely from system mastery"? Crafting bonuses, maybe?


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> Beastmaster as its own unique class would be great. like the pathfinder summoner.



Shaman. Primal caster with a spirit companion.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 21, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Shaman. Primal caster with a spirit companion.



Could be folded into the Druid class, using Wild Shape as basically "Primal Channel Divinities" that let you transform yourself or summon an ally. Some subclasses already do that (Circle of Wildfire).


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Could be folded into the Druid class, using Wild Shape as basically "Primal Channel Divinities" that let you transform yourself or summon an ally. Some subclasses already do that (Circle of Wildfire).



Well that's the thing with a concept as narrow as "summoner". It can be a sub for literally any spellcasting class.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 21, 2022)

Alchemist (split out from Artificer)
Arcane Warrior (Half-Caster)
Psychic (look at both Green Ronin's 3e Psychic's Handbook and KibbleTasty's)
Scholar (look at Kyle Grant's)
Shaman (look at both Michael Wolf's Shaman and also blend ideas with  Green Ronin's 3e Shaman's Handbook)
Warlord
Witch (look at Walrock Homebrew or PC Spinner's and blend ideas with  Green Ronin's 3e Witch's Handbook)


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 21, 2022)

Frozen_Heart said:


> One reason I'm very happy about 5.5e is that it's 'reset' the chances of getting some more classes. We no longer have 694783 half baked subclasses to point at as reasons to not add them.



But, since the upcoming revision is going to be backwards compatible, doesn’t that mean all those subclasses are still going to be usable with the new rules?


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> But, since the upcoming revision is going to be backwards compatible, doesn’t that mean all those subclasses are still going to be usable with the new rules?



Technically sure. But the new corebooks will be a soft reset, much like 3.5 was.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 21, 2022)

Thinking about it some more, here is my official list of classes I want re-added:


Assassin
Witch
Dragon Shaman
Runecaster
Samurai
Spellthief
Lurk
Shadow Mage

Do it WotC or you're a coward!!!


----------



## Haplo781 (Aug 21, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Thinking about it some more, here is my official list of classes I want re-added:
> 
> 
> Assassin
> ...



Factotum or we riot


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 21, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Artificers work in most settings, as there's a place for "arcane crafter" in most official 5e settings (Theros because of Purphoros, Ravnica because of Izzet, Toril because of Lantan, Spelljammer because Mercane and Tinker Gnomes, Exandria because they're confirmed to exist there, and Greyhawk has a few historical "artificer-type" characters, like Lum and Leuk-O). And Alchemists exist in basically every D&D world. And there could be more subclasses that would help it fit in more settings (Dr. Frankenstein-style fleshstitcher for Ravenloft, Portal-based Artificer for Planescape, Runecarver for basically any setting with Giants, etc).



Hard disagree, because the vague lore doesn't match the mechanics or how they actually work at all.

The idea that the crafters from Lantan match up with Artificers for example is absolutely a joke (and yes I'm aware the book claims it, it's still nonsense).

If you banned the only actually-good subclass of Artificer (Armorer) and the mediocre ones (Artillerist, Battlesmith), and you only had the Alchemist subclass, then you might almost be able to make this argument, but not really because they're too weird in terms of real mechanics. Maybe on a really good day, if you squinted your eyes and basically reflavoured it, you could argue Battlesmith kinda sorta fit too. But it's not good. And Armorer and Artillerist are just a hard "no" for most settings. Basically Fantasy Iron Man and some dude with a gun turret following at his heels are just not fitting most settings.

More subclasses as you describe would probably just give more subclasses that wouldn't fit in most settings, because the class is fundamentally problematic.

But that's not the only problem they have by any stretch of the imagination.

1) They're not filling in a gap for a popular missing fantasy archetype. They totally fail to fill in the gunslinger gap some settings have, because the artillerist is terrible at that, even if he makes the hand-held turret. He's at by far his most powerful just ramming THP up the entire party's bums 24-7.

2) Their current design is an absolute disaster.

Unlike all the other 5E classes, which cluster in the like 68%-100% effective range, and stay in that cluster even with really basic/bad optimization by players, Artificers rely extremely heavily on system mastery, and indeed knowledge most players shouldn't really have and more importantly - don't have (like, a detailed understanding of all magic items). With their weird way of doing things, the difference between good spell selection and ability selection and disastrously bad is absolutely huge. And the subclasses vary insanely in power, with the Alchemist being pretty trash, and the Armorer potentially being extremely powerful if you know what you're doing.

As for system mastery, unless you pick the right spells, and the right effects and magic item effects from your infusions and so on, you're absolutely stuffed, but if you do, they can shine very brightly. They're not remotely balanced or anywhere near equal. And it's extremely complicated and absolutely full of "trap" options and mistakes you can make that will ensure you're a mediocre performer at best.

You know how some MMOs have difficulty ratings for the classes? Well, if D&D 5E had them, none would be above three stars out of five, except Artificer, which would be five out of five maximum difficulty.


----------



## Remathilis (Aug 21, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Factotum or we riot



For the life of me, I could not think of this class's name. Well done and seconded.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 21, 2022)

I would prefer a PHB with only the classic classes

BUT THEN

make PHB2 with all the weirdoes we all love!


Joke aside, I'd add:

Warden (Archetype: shapeshifting primal defender, spirit companion support (shaman), magical archer/thrown weapons (seeker) )
Swordmage
Invoker (divine armor-less blaster/curse/control old-testament-style mage)
Psion (ardent, battlemind/egoist, telekenicist, empath, anathema)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 21, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Hard disagree, because the vague lore doesn't match the mechanics or how they actually work at all.
> 
> The idea that the crafters from Lantan match up with Artificers for example is absolutely a joke (and yes I'm aware the book claims it, it's still nonsense).
> 
> If you banned the only actually-good subclass of Artificer (Armorer) and the mediocre ones (Artillerist, Battlesmith), and you only had the Alchemist subclass, then you might almost be able to make this argument, but not really because they're too weird in terms of real mechanics. Maybe on a really good day, if you squinted your eyes and basically reflavoured it, you could argue Battlesmith kinda sorta fit too. But it's not good. And Armorer and Artillerist are just a hard "no" for most settings. Basically Fantasy Iron Man and some dude with a gun turret following at his heels are just not fitting most settings.



How do Artificers not fit Lantan? It's an island of magical crafters that make guns, submarines, and magic gunpowder. And that's only one example I listed you take issue with. 

Battle Smith is good. They get what basically amounts to a permanent Spiritual Weapon that can also deflect and take attacks, are a SAD "gish" character, and (with the DMs permission) can use firearms . 


Ruin Explorer said:


> More subclasses as you describe would probably just give more subclasses that wouldn't fit in most settings, because the class is fundamentally problematic.



Plenty of classes have gotten subclasses in setting books tailored to suit that setting. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> But that's not the only problem they have by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> 1) They're not filling in a gap for a popular missing fantasy archetype. They totally fail to fill in the gunslinger gap some settings have, because the artillerist is terrible at that, even if he makes the hand-held turret. He's at by far his most powerful just ramming THP up the entire party's bums 24-7.



Artificer-like characters are included in The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, The Cosmere, and a lot of other popular fantasy series/games. 

I agree that Artillerist is hard to justify in a lot of settings. But Battle Smiths, Alchemists, and Armorers don't have that problem. Steel Defenders can easily be pet golems, Alchemists are a staple of fantasy, and Armorers design specific magical armor. Nothing inherently "sci-fi" about any of those. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> 2) Their current design is an absolute disaster.
> 
> Unlike all the other 5E classes, which cluster in the like 68%-100% effective range, and stay in that cluster even with really basic/bad optimization by players, Artificers rely extremely heavily on system mastery, and indeed knowledge most players shouldn't really have and more importantly - don't have (like, a detailed understanding of all magic items). With their weird way of doing things, the difference between good spell selection and ability selection and disastrously bad is absolutely huge. And the subclasses vary insanely in power, with the Alchemist being pretty trash, and the Armorer potentially being extremely powerful if you know what you're doing.
> 
> ...



They do have some trap options (just like most other classes), and their useful spells/infusions are dependent on what build you're making, but it's really not hard to use the Artificer's versatility to maximize your power. Battle Smiths just need a magic weapon infusion, Artillerists and Alchemists want the Enhanced Arcane Focus, and Armorers want Enhanced Defense. And spell selection also depends on your subclass, with Alchemists and Battle Smiths focusing more on support while Armorers and Artillerists focusing more on damaging spells. 

Every spellcasting class has trap spells and other trap options. Warlocks arguably don't have it any worse than the Artificer does.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Artificer-like characters are included in The Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, The Cosmere, and a lot of other popular fantasy series/games.



This is simply not true in any meaningful fashion.

You're stretching ridiculously to find deep-lore enemy NPCs, often from far in history, to justify one of the party members being Iron Man. It doesn't work. I'm unable to even think of who you're referring to re: Dragon Age though.

The same is true for a lot of the D&D settings. I only argued re: Lantan because it's so obviously bollocks. You described what Lantan artificers actually do. What they _don't_ do is run around with magical gun-turrets or dress up as Iron Man in super-duper magic armour.

And the Battle smith pet pretty much always requires reflavouring as well, to not a bloody robot to fit into most settings without changing the tone of the setting.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Armorers design specific magical armor



Except they absolutely DO NOT.

They find an existing suit of specific magical armour and make it More Magicker. Or existing suit of armour period. There's no design, no creation.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Nothing inherently "sci-fi" about any of those.



I didn't say it was "sci-fi", did I?

I said it _didn't fit_. It doesn't fit because it's ultra-heavy-duty magitech, not "sci-fi". It turns Dragon's Dogma into Final Fantasy 13. That's fine if you want to run Final Fantasy 13, but if you want to run Dragon's Dogma, it doesn't work.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> They do have some trap options (just like most other classes)



This is just beneath you, dude.

Many classes in 5E have basically no options, or no real trap options. A mediocre subclass is not a trap option, so that's most classes in D&D already out as not having trap options. No Divine caster has any trap options because they get all spells. So they're out too. What does that leave us, Arcane casters? Except Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards get enough spells and a good enough spell list it's almost impossible to trap yourself -  and they don't have anything like Infusions or the magic-item-simulator stuff.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Warlocks arguably don't have it any worse than the Artificer does.



I would challenge you to actually argue that "arguable", because I don't think it is.

Warlocks are far more obvious - for starters all their choices are openly and obviously presented to them, which is flatly not the case for Artificers.

And to be a "good Warlock" you need two things - Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast. Boom, done, you're great. You don't need any system mastery. After that the differences are small. That is not true at all with Artificers. And certainly no other class is even arguable.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 22, 2022)

Controversial option:

Add a Mage class, with Bard, Sorcerer and Wizard as subclasses.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 22, 2022)

HammerMan said:


> Warlord and sword mage




Counterpoint-

Swordlord and Warmage.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 22, 2022)

For me its less about what classes, and what "spheres or mechanics or flavor" are not well represented by our current list.

Take the witch for example. Frankly I think there are tons of ways to make a witch right now. A sorceror or warlock I think can make very serviceable witches, or even a circle of the land druid. Even a basic "psion" can be done with a sorc and subtle spell, though the sorc subclass that focuses on that augments it a bit more. If you want a Warlord as a "fighter that can inspire", the battle master already has inspiring manuevers, just add a few more to the list and bam your there.

So to me its really about, what are the rules dropping the ball on? What archetypes just don't have great support, because they require the rules to stretch in ways that they just don't do well right now? I mentioned the pet focused class because right now classes are all about the person, and so there is little design space to make a strong pet...its simply too OP. The solution is a new class that intentionally weakness the character, and therefore gives more space to allow for a strong pet without upsetting balance.

If you want a psion that has a completely different way to cast spells....ok now we are talking. but if its just a psion that "doesn't use components"....no reason to reinvent the wheel.

The artificer makes sense to me because crafting (especially fast and temporary crafting) doesn't have a lot of rules support right now.


----------



## SakanaSensei (Aug 22, 2022)

I'm conflicted on this question the more I think about it. What should be in the PHB? I think generally the list we have now works. I'd even say still keep the artificer out to keep things to only the most broadly applicable class archetypes.

But man oh man do I want them to be more liberal with adding more classes to the game over time. One of the things that's great about the better 3PP classes (like Mage Hand Press' Gunslinger, Witch, Necromancer, Gadgeteer, etc.) is that they have so much embedded flavor in the way they handle the world around them. They have mechanics enforcing their themes all over the place. Subclasses, especially as they've been designed so far, often feel like they don't do enough to differentiate the play experience. There are some outliers, of course, but how much cooler would Echo Knight have been as a fully developed class? How much less cool would Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter have been if it was just a Ranger subclass?


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 22, 2022)

A good one I think is a priest class, aka a non-martial more spellcaster focused cleric. While the warlock chassis could be serviceable here, the warlock invocations are generally too "darkly themed" to serve the more relgious clerical flavor to me.

the other option here is to just push the cleric to a spellcaster core, and strip away a lot of the martial pieces....leaving the paladin as the true martial "cleric" (I think the two classes have always had too much overlap anyway. The cleric should be the heart of the faith, the paladin the fist).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is simply not true in any meaningful fashion.
> 
> You're stretching ridiculously to find deep-lore enemy NPCs, often from far in history, to justify one of the party members being Iron Man. It doesn't work. I'm unable to even think of who you're referring to re: Dragon Age though.



Rune-carving dwarves is what I'm referring to from Dragon Age. Specifically, Sandal Feddic, who uses Lyrium to carve magical runes into mundane objects that (off screen) allows him to kill a lot of enemies, and he can enchant the main character's armors/weapons

Artifabrians in the Cosmere use tuning forks, specific metals, stormlight, and gems to trap magical creatures (similar to elementals and fey) in devices that can harness their magical energy and produce a variety of effects (which may or may not be connected to the Surges). That's a pretty similar concept to D&D Artificers, which use objects to tap into the Weave and cast "spells" and make magic items. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> The same is true for a lot of the D&D settings. I only argued re: Lantan because it's so obviously bollocks. You described what Lantan artificers actually do. What they _don't_ do is run around with magical gun-turrets or dress up as Iron Man in super-duper magic armour.
> 
> And the Battle smith pet pretty much always requires reflavouring as well, to not a bloody robot to fit into most settings without changing the tone of the setting.



Nimblewrights and guns come from Lantan. A Lantan Battle Smith with a gun that has a Steel Defender that looks like a Nimblewright would fit in the Forgotten Realms. Or if they reflavored their blasting spells as Smokepowder, an Artillerist could fit. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> Except they absolutely DO NOT.
> 
> They find an existing suit of specific magical armour and make it More Magicker. Or existing suit of armour period. There's no design, no creation.



"Design" is flavoring the mechanics of the class/subclass, which is explicitly encouraged in the class. The Armorer has different "models" of their Arcane Armor that they can customize with infusions. The subclass says "your metallurgic pursuits have led to you making armor a conduit for your magic". They are designing armor that channels their magic in different styles, which they can modify in multiple ways. The mechanics are a simplification of the "research" process, just like wizards automatically receiving new spells in their spellbook is a simplification of them discovering how to access higher level magic. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> I didn't say it was "sci-fi", did I?
> 
> I said it _didn't fit_. It doesn't fit because it's ultra-heavy-duty magitech, not "sci-fi". It turns Dragon's Dogma into Final Fantasy 13. That's fine if you want to run Final Fantasy 13, but if you want to run Dragon's Dogma, it doesn't work.



Apologies if you didn't mean sci-fi, I guess I misread your "it doesn't fit a popular _fantasy _archetype" post from earlier. I thought you were implying with the italicization that there was another genre that artificers are better for (and people commonly complain that they're "too sci-fi for D&D"). 


Ruin Explorer said:


> This is just beneath you, dude.
> 
> Many classes in 5E have basically no options, or no real trap options. A mediocre subclass is not a trap option, so that's most classes in D&D already out as not having trap options. No Divine caster has any trap options because they get all spells. So they're out too. What does that leave us, Arcane casters? Except Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards get enough spells and a good enough spell list it's almost impossible to trap yourself -  and they don't have anything like Infusions or the magic-item-simulator stuff.



Martial characters choose their subclass, combat-enhancing feats/ASIs, and fighting styles (except barbarians). Battle Masters get to choose maneuvers, too. There are "trap" fighting styles (Great Weapon Fighting and Protection come to mind), trap feats (Savage Attacker, for example), and trap subclasses (Battlerager and Berserker Barbarian, Purple Dragon Knight, Arcane Archer, and Champion Fighters, Way of the Four Elements Monks, PHB Ranger subclasses)


Ruin Explorer said:


> I would challenge you to actually argue that "arguable", because I don't think it is.
> 
> Warlocks are far more obvious - for starters all their choices are openly and obviously presented to them, which is flatly not the case for Artificers.
> 
> And to be a "good Warlock" you need two things - Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast. Boom, done, you're great. You don't need any system mastery. After that the differences are small. That is not true at all with Artificers. And certainly no other class is even arguable.



That's only if you know how good Agonizing Blast is. Which requires familiarity with the system. Pact of the Blade is a trap option, the Eldritch Invocations that give you a spell you can cast once a day with a spell slot are traps compared to many other options, and some of the subclasses are bad (Undying is the most egregious). And with how few spells Warlocks get to learn/cast, some of the spell options are traps, too. 

The optimal option for different Artificer subclasses is just as simple as "Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast". Battle Smiths need one of the Magic Weapon infusions, and they're good. Armorers need armor-increasing ones and eventually a magic weapon one, and they're good. Alchemists and Artillerists need an Enhanced Arcane Focus, and they're good. 1-2 infusions required to be as optimal in your role as the Warlock is in the Eldritch Blast spamming.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 22, 2022)

Tangent: @Ruin Explorer has pretty good videogames tastes.

re: artificers,

My main problem with them is that a fullcaster is already a good ''make my party magical'' buffer if they want too.  Just in terms of half-casters, a paladin has better defenses, better saves (for the whole party), deas more damage and heals as-much (or better) than an artificer!


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I actually think we may see a lot of Subclasses in these teats.




 I'm also certain that the classes will have subclasses features at the same levels that they do now, so that XGtE, TCoE, FToD, and the upcoming Bigsby Giant Book and Book of Many Things are completely compatible with One D&D.


----------



## MonsterEnvy (Aug 22, 2022)

I will request the revival of the Warlord come the class survey.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> I'm also certain that the classes will have subclasses features at the same levels that they do now, so that XGtE, TCoE, FToD, and the upcoming Bigsby Giant Book and Book of Many Things are completely compatible with One D&D.



They're already putting out stuff with a sidebar for compatibility, that tre d may continue.


----------



## delericho (Aug 22, 2022)

Given that Tasha's is going to remain current with the new version, I'd actually be surprised to see Artificer move to the PHB. Though I certainly wouldn't object.

IMO, they should try their absolute best to include all the classes that have appeared in the PHB for each edition (PHB1 for 3.5e and 4e). So add an Assassin _class_, the Warlord, and a Mageblade class (the old 'elf' class from BECMI). I'd also drop multiclassing from the game - it's better represented by allowing limited access to some features from other classes and/or using feats, IMO.

And, incidentally, I think there's about a 0% chance of _any_ of that happening.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Martial characters choose their subclass, combat-enhancing feats/ASIs, and fighting styles (except barbarians). Battle Masters get to choose maneuvers, too. There are "trap" fighting styles (Great Weapon Fighting and Protection come to mind), trap feats (Savage Attacker, for example), and trap subclasses (Battlerager and Berserker Barbarian, Purple Dragon Knight, Arcane Archer, and Champion Fighters, Way of the Four Elements Monks, PHB Ranger subclasses)



None of which are traps remotely on the same level as the traps an Artificer can get into.

And I don't agree re: "trap sublcasses", especially as you just listed two actually-good Fighter subclasses as "traps" lol. Champions are an anti-trap. They're basically designed (reasonably well) to prevent you being trapped so listing them as a trap is bizarre. And you're kind of illustrating my point. A Barbarian who picks Berserker, at worst, basically only gets to use Frenzy 1/day, which makes it one of the worse Barbarian subclasses.

But that's it. He's still a Barbarian with all the other good Barbarian abilities, and the other subclass abilities are still really strong. It's not like an Artificer where you can make many times as many choices, and where a vastly higher proportion of them are bad.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> That's only if you know how good Agonizing Blast is. Which requires familiarity with the system.



No, it doesn't require any meaningful level of familiarity. No system mastery. Just basic "+damage = good". It's obvious even more than +AC or to hit (esp. as the value is higher - new people often think of +3 damage as the same as +3 to hit - hell I've seen experienced people think that way). I've seen people who've never played D&D before pick it immediately IRL for goodness sake.

Pact of the Blade is a trap without Hexblade I agree, but it's a fairly meaningless (if annoying) trap, because it doesn't impair your performance significantly because the baseline is so strong, which is different to Artificers. I'm not saying Warlocks have no trap options - I'm saying they're vastly easier to avoid, and more importantly, the good options don't require much system mastery to pick out. Whereas the best infusions do.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> The optimal option for different Artificer subclasses is just as simple as "Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast". Battle Smiths need one of the Magic Weapon infusions, and they're good. Armorers need armor-increasing ones and eventually a magic weapon one, and they're good. Alchemists and Artillerists need an Enhanced Arcane Focus, and they're good. 1-2 infusions required to be as optimal in your role as the Warlock is in the Eldritch Blast spamming.



I don't really agree that one is enough, and it's nowhere near as obvious. If you only pick the 1-2 you're suggesting, no you won't be that good, because you don't have anywhere near as well-defined of a role nor as strong a base (unless you pick Armorer, which does have a very strong base, but unfortunately is the worst fit for most settings).

I do agree that Warlocks can screw up with the spell selection, but it's harder to do, and requires less in the way of counter-intuitive spell selection.

Overall I think it's a pretty pointless argument, because even you aren't really disagreeing, just trying to nuance the points and looking for the next-worst offenders

I mean, on the flip-side, if they include a class like Artificer, which is:

A) A bad fit for countless settings, particularly with certain subclasses (of which it only had four).

and

B) The most system-mastery dependent and messily-designed class in 5E by some margin.

Then it certainly means they'd have zero excuse not to include stuff like Psion/Mystic and Swordmage, which fit far more setting thematically and would be almost impossible to make as messy.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I know things will be thrown at meIf having to , but I honestly think they should get rid of Artificer, not make it a base class. It doesn't fit a lot of settings



If having to fit every setting is the criteria, we're getting a PHB with the Fighter, Rogue and Ranger. None of the others with the way they work in D&D work in the way they need to for a great many settings. Pretty thin class list in the next PHB.



I don't think there will be any new ones. Artificer, some sort of Warrior-Mage that functions at 1st level, a functional Warlord (and as for shouting hands back on, it restores hit points and last I checked losing hit points didn't lead to loss of body parts; and besides, Cure Wounds also won't put a lost hand back on), and they could probably do with a mystical rogue type. As I say I don't think there'll be any new full classes in the PHB.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Bluenose said:


> If having to fit every setting is the criteria, we're getting a PHB with the Fighter, Rogue and Ranger. None of the others with the way they work in D&D work in the way they need to for a great many settings. Pretty thin class list in the next PHB.



I'm talking largely about D&D settings, not "all fantasy settings".

If you go broad with "absolutely all fantasy settings" Artificer's _concept_ does better because outside of D&D-style fantasy, heavy magitech is more common. It's implementation is even worse in that context though - the whole "replicating specific magic items" thing and general "infusions and spells" deal is a total disaster. That's just not how characters like that work in most fantasy.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is simply not true in any meaningful fashion.
> 
> You're stretching ridiculously to find deep-lore enemy NPCs, often from far in history, to justify one of the party members being Iron Man. It doesn't work. I'm unable to even think of who you're referring to re: Dragon Age though.
> 
> ...




 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. 

 If your going to argue that artifcers don't make sense in D&D One PHB, don't use a setting with so much mixing of magic and tech, use like Darksun or Ghostwalk or Jandor or Council of Wyrms or something.

 WotC over uses Lantan as an example for Artificers, there is a TON of examples all over the place in FR.


----------



## Bluenose (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I'm talking largely about D&D settings, not "all fantasy settings".



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.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

delericho said:


> I'd also drop multiclassing from the game - it's better represented by allowing limited access to some features from other classes and/or using feats, IMO.
> 
> And, incidentally, I think there's about a 0% chance of _any_ of that happening.



I think we might see multiclassing get dropped, based on the Beyond statistics for how often that variant is used (not very), and what a design headache it causes for making new options. Also, Crawford was at great pains in the UA video when discussing higher Level Feats to emphasize that Feats are basically Class features by other means. I wouldn't be surprised if the Background 1st Level Feat is step one to soupijg up the Feat system to replace multiclassing entirely.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Aug 22, 2022)

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)


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Bluenose said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


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



Do all of your questions come this heavily loaded?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> 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?


Twiggly the Gnome said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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 (Aug 22, 2022)

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 (Aug 22, 2022)

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 (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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).


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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).



I mean, D&D's aesthetic is pretty diverse? Eberron, Ravnica, Spelljammer, Acquisitions Incorporated...


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, D&D'Souza aesthetic is pretty diverse? Eberron, Ravnica, Spelljammer, Acquisitions Incorporated...



Not to mention Radiant Citadel, Beyond the Witchlight, Strixhaven, or Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus. 

It's not like Dark Sun adheres to Dragon's Dogma style aesthetics either.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I mean, D&D'Souza aesthetic is pretty diverse? Eberron, Ravnica, Spelljammer, Acquisitions Incorporated...



???? Dinesh D'Souza ???? I am so confused. 

For my money Acquisitions Incorporated is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY outside the D&D aesthetic into "someone's weirdass homebrew campaign so overloaded with injokes and self-references that it's in danger of vanishing up it's own bum at any moment". I'd also say Ravnica was a poor fit for D&D, which is part of why it's basically been forgotten for years.

But YMMV.

If they want to add in more new settings that have a more FF13-ish aesthetic, well, first off I think they need to bring in Swordmages or similar lol, but second off, they should actually do it, it'd be cool, but currently it's not really the case.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's not like Dark Sun adheres to Dragon's Dogma style aesthetics either.



Which is an entirely different argument to what I made, and in serious danger of turning into a giant Straw Man and rampaging through New York. Also call me back when 5E has Dark Sun as an official setting book again, I'll be pleased to hear from you.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> ???? Dinesh D'Souza ???? I am so confused.
> 
> For my money Acquisitions Incorporated is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY outside the D&D aesthetic into "someone's weirdass homebrew campaign so overloaded with injokes and self-references that it's in danger of vanishing up it's own bum at any moment". I'd also say Ravnica was a poor fit for D&D, which is part of why it's basically been forgotten for years.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I don't know where the D'Souza came from in my autocorrect, I haven't thought about thst guy in years.

Acquisitions Incorporated has been a major cornerstone of D&D marketing for years, amd Ravnica brought a huge number of people into D&D from what I have seen in the MtG community. Neither aesthetic is out of line with D&D as such, in terms of their brand. And the core brand aesthetic, the Forgotten Realms,  definitely has Artificers!


----------



## Lakesidefantasy (Aug 22, 2022)

Take some class options out of the new Player's Handbook, this allows them to introduce those classes as optional classes in future publications.

It's a tough list to make with many pitfalls, but here goes...


Fighter
Rogue
Sorcerer

These just about cover all of your bases. I chose sorcerer over wizard because it is an easier class to play for new Players.

Also include...


Cleric

Now nobody will be happy with such a short list, so add...


Bard
Barbarian
Ranger
Wizard

Now that may please enough people to be successful, but we could always add...


Paladin

...to make sure.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Which is an entirely different argument to what I made, and in serious danger of turning into a giant Straw Man and rampaging through New York. Also call me back when 5E has Dark Sun as an official setting book again, I'll be pleased to hear from you.



Okay, but maybe I am unclear what your argument is. If it is a strawman, then now is your time to correct my misconception of your argument rather than simply telling me that I made a strawman using an insulting hyperbolic exaggeration. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> *For my money Acquisitions Incorporated is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY* *outside the D&D aesthetic *into "someone's weirdass homebrew campaign so overloaded with injokes and self-references that it's in danger of vanishing up it's own bum at any moment". I'd also say Ravnica was a poor fit for D&D, which is part of why it's basically been forgotten for years.



This feels a bit like "No True Scotsman" but with applying some imaginary purity test for D&D's aesthetic. Acquisitions Incorporated forms part of the D&D collage like other official settings that contribute to the tapestry of the D&D multiverse and its various aesthetics.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> This feels a bit like "No True Scotsman" but with applying some imaginary purity test for D&D's aesthetic. Acquisitions Incorporated forms part of the D&D collage like other official settings that contribute to the tapestry of the D&D multiverse and its various aesthetics.



It's an opinion. I said "For my money", which I means that I am actually allowed to have an opinion, right?

I think you're very keen for there to be a "purity test" you can argue with, when in fact people have opinions about aesthetics and are allowed to. So this is another case of you looking for something that isn't there.

Also, it's just unrealistic to pretend D&D's aesthetics at any given time don't tend to centre around a certain (moving) point. That point has definitely changed since 1E, multiple times, but it's still a thing. It's changed even between 5E's launch and 2022 I note. But not really towards more magitech, interestingly, rather towards a sort of more modern clothing/hairstyle/weapons aesthetic.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> It's an opinion. I said "For my money", which I means that I am actually allowed to have an opinion, right?



"For my money, no true Scotsman would ever..." 

It's an opinion. I'm entitlted to it. No one has argued otherwise. But I'm still making a True Scotsman fallacy regardless of whether I am couching it as an opinion.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




 Honestly  Spellfire screams Sorcerer subclass to me.

 There enough simularities to preexisting stuff to justify Artifacers. If you use your logic we could call 5e clerics clerics because they have spells if 8th abd 9th level, couldn't call 5e Wizards Wizards because they have spontasy casting, etc..., which was not the case in earlier edition. The question is is Artificer within the magical and technology capcity of FR abd the answer is yes. Imaskar was ruled by a Lord Artificer.

 And your right, you could justify almost any class with FR lore which is why it's not a good choice when looking for arguments against a class or race in D&D, almost any other setting would be a better choice. I mean FR lore by itself is probably bigger then anything short of Star Trek, Marvel, and DC, and FR absorbs other D&D lore that gets to close to it.

 It's only a matter of time before Artificers start popping up in novels and source books for FR, maybe even future movies, TV shows, and Comic books.

 And Ironman is inspired by Hephaestian mythology, which while not fantasy, has inspired fantasy and Sci Fi.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> "For my money, no true Scotsman would ever..."
> 
> It's an opinion. I'm entitlted to it. No one has argued otherwise. But I'm still making a True Scotsman fallacy regardless of whether I am couching it as an opinion.



No. That's just blather. You're going from a rational argument into that sad internet behaviour of slapping "X fallacy" on everything, which completely shuts down all aesthetic discussion.

God it would be funny if you tried that line in the middle of an Art History lesson. You'd have basically been screamed at by even the nicest of Art History teachers and probably told to hop it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> If you use your logic we could call 5e clerics clerics because they have spells if 8th abd 9th level, couldn't call 5e Wizards Wizards because they have spontasy casting, etc..., which was not the case in earlier edition.



I'm curious, which bit of my logic requires that?


Henadic Theologian said:


> And Ironman is inspired by Hephaestian mythology, which while not fantasy, has inspired fantasy and Sci Fi.



Would you like to elucidate further on that? I'm kind of fascinated. Links which discuss it are fine.


Henadic Theologian said:


> Honestly Spellfire screams Sorcerer subclass to me.



Yeah, in a better world maybe.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 22, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> No. That's just blather. You're going from a rational argument into that sad internet behaviour of slapping "X fallacy" on everything, which completely shuts down all aesthetic discussion.



Calm down.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 22, 2022)

What _should_ be added?  No new classes.
What I think _will_ be added?  No new classes.
What I'd fine with if they did?  Any of them.

Artificer is an Eberron class for the Eberron setting and thus I don't feel needs to be in the new PHB (especially after being re-printed in Tasha's.)  The Psion I do not believe would get enough space and page count in the new PHB to make people happy with it (especially if they want the Psion to not use spells and instead want a whole new system for it).  So it should be saved for the Dark Sun campaign setting if/when that happens (as it'll be able to get more page count attributed to it.)

Summoner and Swordmage are two classes in my personal opinion that do not have a specific story, flavor or "job" for their place in the game world, which is why we haven't seen them stick around from times past and I don't think we will see them going forward.  Other than the Core Four (which can afford to be more generic)... any other class added to the game appears to me to need a story reason to exist in the PHB.  And something like a Summoner-- a class that can summon all manner of different types of creatures-- is more a mechanic to be used by existing classes than needing to be a class on its own.  And as far as the Swordmage, the one consistent story of the class I always seemed to see has been "Arcane half-caster", which to me isn't a story, it's an empty space in a grid.  And thus is no better than the Eldritch Knight and thus doesn't have a reason to exist in my own opinion.  But if they were to get made and appear in the new PHB it's no skin off my nose.

And Warlord?  It's fine.  It's a fine class idea.  Was fine in 4E to fill out the grid, and it's fine now.  If they add it, okay, if they don't, won't bother me.


----------

