Well, we're starting a new series of posts and we'll have to see if we actually follow through (unlike that subclass one with the Sorcerer). The updated core rulebooks coming in 2024 are in a slightly ambiguous place, edition-wise. It'll be the 10th anniversary of 5th edition, which is a pretty standard span of time to just get a new edition out the door (4th edition was the shortened one, as the reaction that was fairly negative - though I've heard some defenders advocate on its behalf). Still, 5th Edition has been more popular by far than any previous edition of the game, and so I think WotC is reticent to alienate a huge playerbase that knows D&D only by its 5th incarnation (myself included).
5th Edition was seen, after all, as a return to form, so a deviation from its general vibe would be a risk. But there are things that now seem hoary as we've seen the edition iterate on existing systems. Many of the original subclasses need significant work, and some of the baseline classes could use a real tune-up (it's actually kind of shocking how many of them don't, really).
Character classes are the big way in which players interface with the game, so I think that it would be wise to start there.
Philosophically, the idea of subclasses has allowed WotC to be pretty conservative with its core classes - there's a solid framework on which they can build much less conventional ideas. Fighters and Rogues, for instance, had two pretty conventional takes on their class with the Battlemaster and Champion on one hand and the Assassin and Thief on the other, with each class getting a "the class, but with magic" subclass as its third option in the PHB. Subsequent publications, however, allowed the classes to go outside of their conventional comfort zones, giving such varied ideas as the Rune Knight and the Soulknife, which each still play within their class' overarching fantasy even as they provide a new flavor that is decidedly outside of the conventional conception of that class.
As such, the presence of subclasses allows for some great variation in the existing classes, which makes the need for new classes a rarity.
So, here comes the Artificer.
The Artificer was initially intended as a subclass for the Wizard, but clearly, at some point in development, the designers found a hook that could be a much broader archetype, and one that could fit multiple concepts within it. The Artificer is not purely the "steampunk" class - we get a more classically medieval vibe in the Alchemist, and there are plenty of ways to re-think the other subclasses to go outside of the more narrow steampunk aesthetic.
As a key to the class, though, the Artificer is the crafter, the builder. In addition to all of its tool proficiencies, the idea that it can effectively make magic items as a core element of its gameplay gives it something unique compared to the other classes.
The obvious move, here, is to make the Artificer one of the classes in the Player's Handbook. This would free them up to (and also, yes, obligate them to) add new subclasses in any big rules expansion "of Everything"-style book, and also potentially add them in campaign setting books. Being able to just assume any table has access to the Artificer would allow them to build on the class in the same way that they've done with other classes.
That is, of course, a commitment. But I personally believe the Artificer is strong enough both in concept and in mechanics to be worthy of a full edition's worth of iteration. Obviously, WotC decided it warranted being more than just an oddity of the Eberron setting, reprinting it in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, and I suspect that its inclusion in future material would be welcome.
That all out of the way, what might they change?
Honestly, probably not a lot. The huge benefit of the Artificer is that it came about after several years of familiarity with 5th Edition. It has a solid mix of useful abilities and those that are more of a venue for creativity (Magical Tinkering at level 1 is a very strong "this might not seem powerful, but a clever player can exploit it" sort of ability).
The Artificer only has four subclasses total, and I don't know if you'd just print all four in the PHB or if you'd choose one (perhaps the Armorer, given that it's the newest) to leave out.
Of the four subclasses, only the Alchemist, in my mind, feels like it might fall a little flat. While the flavor of the Alchemist is fantastic, and I like the way it incentivizes you to use spells that deal damage that you could imagine being the result of some fantastical chemical reaction (if I ever play one, his spells will all be tossing vials of various substances). To me, the only thing that really holds the subclass back, conceptually, is its Experimental Elixir. Random effects can be very fun (see the College of Spirits Bard) but they can also mean getting the wrong thing at the wrong time. (See also the College of Spirits Bard.) Granted, the ability to choose which elixir you create when you spend a spell slot on it does mitigate this significantly.
As I said, the class is very solid as it stands - I think I'd just like to see more iteration. Give us more subclasses and more infusion options. I would also really like to see some Artificer-only spells - they're the only class that doesn't have any, and their inclusion in the PHB would be a great way to open an opportunity to allow it. Making Artificer-only spells would also allow for some bending of their power level. While letting a Wizard or Warlock get 5th level spells that do really crazy things might be too powerful, if you knew that only a 17th level character was going to have access to them, it might allow for some bigger options.
As for the core class, I think the only really crucial thing here isn't for the class itself, but for the DMG - giving a really solid and laid-out rule system for crafting magical items. I might also think that there could be some system for making infusions permanent (though I recognize that the limits on infusions is one of the checks on an Artificer's power). One thing that might be nice is if you could allow for infusions in magical armor. If your Armorer gets a set of Mithral Plate, it seems like they ought to be able to infuse the weapon, boots, and helmet as separate items even if the mithral elements are taking up that slot.
But, more importantly, to come back to crafting magical items: the Artificer has a class feature that cuts the time and money cost for crafting common and uncommon magical items, and as far as I know, the only book with rules for that is Xanathar's. Getting that in the DMG would be very helpful (along with some mechanism to allow DMs to prevent the party from getting items that are too off-the-wall, like a Sun Blade, ahem.)
Also, I'd like to see clearer guidance on how tool proficiencies should be handled. Gotta give Artificers a reason to get excited for that tool expertise outside of lockpicking.
No comments:
Post a Comment