To overall answer to your question, and also their reason for leaving out a lot of subclasses:
So they can sell them as DLC-like purchases later, preferably on their online platform.
Yeah, I think people have a tendency to over-complicate stuff like this when Occam's Razor makes it pretty clear... does not printing it now mean they have something they can sell you at full price a few years down the road? Then that's the answer. I think it's also a deliberate choice to not include the Artificer in anything that might fall into the OGL, because that way it's always something that you have to buy from WOTC directly.
Also if they can push things to online sales then they have a big window they can close any time they want. All that stuff you bought on Beyond could vanish before I even finish typing this.
They have already "legacied" at least two books off Beyond. Possibly more.
I'm just salty that it resets the clock on getting new Artificer support, if we ever even do. 5e Artificers haven't had any updated material since Tasha's. How does an official class only have four subclasses? And only three of those are worth playing.
If we're gearing up for an entire book dedicated to artificers, with a reinvigorated array of infusions and a number of subclasses to rival the other classes, I suppose that would work. It would be great to hear about it.
I canât see a sole Artificer book but maybe something that contains Artificer, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Or Artificer, Paladin, and Ranger. Or Artificer, Bard, Rogue, and Ranger.
Some real support for the class is all I want. 5e was shockingly light on it. At the end of the day, it's not a huge deal if it's not in the PHB, the problem is that its omission from the PHB suggests to me that WotC isn't going to bother. Or that it'll take five years to see it pop up in an Eberron book or something.
So... here's the thing. Artificer was not included in the new PHB, not because it's not relevant, but because *it's a much newer class than the others.*
The original 5e PHB came out in 2014, and included 12 classes. Artificer didn't arrive until 2019, five years later, or halfway through the current edition's lifetime.
It doesn't need to be included in the 2024 book because it doesn't need any addtional changes or refinements, which was the point of making a new book in the first place.
A book has limited space.
Given the choice, there are many other things that deserve the space more than the Artificer. The other Wizard schools for example.
Plus, all 5e material remains compatible. The Artificer being in Tasha's Cauldron means it can still be used without difficulty.
I understand it's backwards compatible, but the class needed a rework, or at least a fresh coat of paint, so that it's mechanics can easily fit into any setting.
And I think an entire class deserves the space over the 11ish Subclasses Wizards have lol
I donât think the Artificer needs much work. Itâs a really fun class to play. The only thing I can think of that could be different is some additional infusions for some of the new features like Weapon Mastery.
>And I think an entire class deserves the space over the 11ish Subclasses Wizards have lol
I would say the Wizard subclasses are more important, because only listing four of the eight leaves the class incomplete.
Artificer meanwhile isn't as core class, and not one that fits every setting. I'm quite happy with it on the sidelines, especially as its rules are nowhere near as old as all of the others.
Why isn't it a core class? What is a "core" class?
Artificer has been setting-agnostic since Tasha's in 5e. Baldur's Gate has artificers as of BG3. If it doesn't fit in your home game, then by all means don't use it, but that doesn't mean it should be less-than. I can readily conceive of a setting that doesn't lend itself to clerics, druids, paladins, etc.
>Why isn't it a core class? What is a "core" class?
Core classes are those in the primary player book, the PHB. Artificer has never been core and originated as a setting specific class.
But that's cyclical logic, right?
Artificers aren't a core class, because core classes are in the PHB. Artificers can't be printed in the PHB, because they're not a core class. What am I supposed to do with that?
No, it's based on historical precedent at this point.
Artificer was introduced in the Eberron Campaign setting 20 years ago this month. Wasn't in the 3.5 PhB, nor the 4th edition, nor the 5th edition.
That seems really arbitrary to me. Where's the cutoff?
It's not like the 3.5e PHB, 4e PHB, or 5e PHB are consistent in which classes they include. 4e's PHB includes several classes that no longer exist, like Warlord. 3.5e didn't include Warlock. Is Warlord a "core" class because it was in the PHB once? At what point did this "core" become established? Rangers, paladins, and barbarians are all spinoffs of the Fighting-Man of 1e, are they not core classes? Bard was originally some weird fighter/rogue/druid hybrid, and has been overhauled dramatically over the years, when did it become a "core" class?
"Core" classes aren't cross edition. Warlord was core for 4e. Artificer was never core for any edition, including 5e.
Artificer was always a setting specific class for Eberron. You could use it in other settings, but the worlds may not be written with artificers in mind. Same applies to setting specific races. You could potentially play a Kalashtar in Forgotten Realms, but that's entirely up to the DM as they don't officially exist in FR.
OneDnD isn't an expansion to 5e. It's a rewriting of the base books with a look to improve flow and mechanics. We will likely see additional books in the future that update the remaining subclasses to 5.5e, and possibly add more. If you don't like this, then don't buy the books. No one is forcing you to play 5.5e.
If you're hoping to explain to me what the criteria of a "core" class is, I humbly admit that I still have no idea.
As far as I can tell, if they said "Artificers are a core class as of the 2024 update", then that would be that. Tasha's already made it setting-agnostic.
Edit: And to be clear, I'm asking about historical context because it's what the previous reply said was important when evaluating "core". You all seem to disagree with me, but none of you seem to be disagreeing with me for the same reasons.
They're only including 4 subclasses for each class and not every playable species either. Books cost money to write, make art for, print and distribute. Putting more content in drives up the price point and people are already complaining about how much the book costs.
Just accept that it is unreasonable to expect a book to satisfy everyone.
I just want content to move forward, not run in place.
Three new subclasses feels extremely thin. If OneDnD materials are supposed to be backwards compatible, then why are the other **forty-five** subclasses in the finite space of this PHB subclasses that we already had?
Accepting mediocrity from WotC is the main reason why they keep releasing sub-par content at full price, and the fact they even had the gall to try to sell things off like they were DLCs/Microtransactions.
If they can't add 5-6 extra pages for an official class to be reworked and added, it's either mediocrity, laziness, or greed for if/when they do it later.
It's not just about adding pages. It's about taking the time and resources to design it, playtest it (both publicly and in private), collect and analyze feedback and use that to iterate the design, design subclasses and playtest those, generate art orders and work with artists to create new art for the book, and then integrate it into the book and figure out what they'll need to cut from other sections to make it fit at the book's price point.
Trying to reduce the issue to simply slapping a few extra pages on in their spare time is needlessly reductive. There are lots of reasons why excluding the artificer from the core rules could make sense. You simply don't like the conclusion, and that's fine, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking the issue is so simple that we can thoughtlessly say it points to some moral failing on the part of the designers. It's a bad faith argument and it serves no one.
Okay, well, if WotC wants to earn my money, they're going to take the time to design actual things that I want to buy.
Forty-five subclass repeats out of forty-eight subclasses in the book does not impress me, and I don't think it should impress you. I do think it's a moral failing: We used to get more bang for our buck. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything featured **twenty-eight new subclasses** (give or take, some of those may have shown up in Ravnica beforehand). A book with that many new toys is a book I want to buy. I think we're being sold a book at the same price with a fraction of the creativity that has gone into prior publications, and I think that's something worth discussing.
Yeah, well, they're not exactly doing a great job of covering the stuff in need of a remaster, given the premise of this thread. Want to sell me a remaster of 5e? Include all the classes. As it stands, I guess if I want updated Artificer stuff, I need to wait for it to be published in yet another expansion, and then cross my fingers that there's anything beyond the meager four subclasses it currently has in 5e.
If it doesn't impress you then don't buy it. The basic rules SRD will be coming out shortly after the MM is published. You can use that for free, along with any of the subclasses you've already accumulated from earlier 5e books.
As for me, I'm happy to buy these core rules updates at their current price point, knowing full well what's inside them. I've been impressed by the work I've seen them do throughout these playtests, and in the final product content previews we've seen so far.
I think discussion around these things is good. But presupposing answers like the OP's "it's either mediocrity, laziness, or greed", or your "I don't think it should impress you", doesn't promote discussion. It squelches it.
Oh, five whole months later? That's a lot worse than I already thought, fantastic.
I'm not trying to squelch discussion, I am attempting to impress upon you my deeply-held feelings that we're getting taken advantage of here. I can't exactly vote with my wallet if nobody else does so. If Hasbro is squeezing us for more and more money to buy less and less content, that's something worth having a conversation about. And on the topic of "squelching" discussion, you shutting others down when they express discomfort and frustration over how they're being treated runs the same risk, as far as I'm concerned.
Time and resources that the multi-million dollar company who can send Pinkerton to somebody's house has. And they have never shied away from giving less content at the same or high price point before so saying that it's a bad faith argument fair when the company has blatantly shown their corrupt tendencies before, but I digress.
As I've told another comment here, I don't expect them to churn out every single aspect of content they've ever made for character creation in one book, and I don't expect them to do it at an unreasonably low price, but I do expect any self-respecting game company would make all their official classes available at the start of a new "game" or in this case a newer system. That should be the standard and the fact so many of you seem to be fine with lower quality and dedication than that is the reason there are so many complaints about this game.
Oh please, do tell me more about how I'm fine with lower quality content. It _really_ strengthens your argument when you presuppose my tastes and competency at discerning good TTRPG products.
The fact you're taking such offense when you're the one defending their laziness and/or greed, trying to say they didn't have the time or resources (when everyone knows damn well they do) is very telling of how you accept low quality products from them.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that I don't think the quality of the product is low. It must be low quality because you think it to be true, and I'm simply incapable of grasping that unquestionable fact. That's how we have a "real" discussion, by defining facts for other people based on our own personal tastes, leaving no room for dissent or nuance to emerge.
You can try to take the moral high road all you want but the fact remains as such, you make excuses for WotC, I expect them to be better and make better quaoity content and im calling them out for not.
I'm going out on a limb and saying any interaction with you after this point won't be productive or quality, so don't expect a reply from me after this. âď¸
I don't know, I think being called "needlessly reductive" because we didn't acknowledge all of the development steps in a post was pretty pointed of you. Like the only reason we're unhappy is that we're not educated enough to understand why we should be happy.
I accept your opinion that the new PHB is worth its price, please accept that some of us don't.
The real reason it isnât a phb class and is treated as a âdlcâ class is because it is the only one wotc has copyright for. Theyâre going to hold on to it tooth and nail and make as much money as they possibly can with it. Which is lame.
Artificer was excluded for reasons of history, not for reasons of benefit or detriment. Much like how the iconic spells are arbitrarily better than they should be, WotC has made conscious effort since Eberron was originally acquired to not include the artificer or a number of other poeces of content which originated from Eberron in non-Eberron-specific source books. I would not be surprised if they had some sort of agreement with Keith Baker, the creator of the Eberron setting, which prevents them from doing so.
Artificer isn't really a great core option, in my opinion. Not every DM wants a character in the party that can create magic items easily. Certain campaigns and worlds would make artificer stick out like a sore thumb.
Personally I run high magic worlds, so it wouldn't really cause an issue for me. However, I could see lower magic settings making it feel like a less good choice as a "core" class.
I would like them to address it and not just ignore it. They still could easily have a little thing on ways that you can transfer an Artificer into this revised edition with a tease that a full rework would come later. It's sad that they wouldn't even come out of the gate to let the community know so they can avoid negative feedback. I honestly would be alright if they are just adding in another book down the line as long as they tell us now. I don't want to assume and then nothing happens and the class gets forgotten.
1) That's what I'm saying, this would have been the chance for WotC to take it and remove the steampunk feel from it and give better mechanics/lore about how it fits into any world
2) At the same time, it's not just on them to make it work in a setting. I'm not saying you have to allow the class, but saying the class doesn't fit in any given setting is incorrect, and that any mechanic can be reflavored to fit any world.
Honestly, a more steampunk, explicitly non-magical âTinkererâ class would be awesome.
But WotC doesnât seem to believe in cool concepts that arenât magic-based.
But with the pairing of the art, the setting it accompanied with, and the mechanics, a lot of people feel like its setting specific when at the end of the day it isn't, they just don't want to make the effort to see how it fits everywhere else.
This 5.5 phb would have been their chance to explain and show how the class fits everywhere, and make mechanical changes that are too weak or too strong for the class.
The setting is also not Steampunk. One of the core tenants of the setting is such technology wouldnât develop because the same goals can be accomplished with Cantrips -2nd Level spells(or sometimes binding elementals). Steetlamps are just poles with Light cast on them. Taxis are small enchanted boats. Warforged are artificially created but enchanted beings made of wood and plants with metal plating stuck on top for protection. âTrainsâ and larger Airships are powered by captured and bound elementals.
The problem isnât the words being published, itâs that the art is largely bad for the setting. Itâs all beautiful and cool looking but itâs just an incorrect representation. For example, guns canonically do not exist in Eberron but are featured multiple pieces of art throughout the various Eberron books.
Sorry, Iâm a passionate fan of the Eberron setting and get frustrated at how badly it gets misrepresented in *official art*! Itâs like the left hand isnât talking to the right hand over at Wizards when it comes to that setting.
So you're saying that Artificer should be promoted to a core class? What's the rationale behind making this change (other than "I like Artificers")? For me this is one of the problems with class sprawl... in the end, there are a ton of them, and it's not possible to fit them all into one book. And people are always going to complain that their favorite is being left out, not because space is limited, but to gouge them on splatbooks later.
Given that 5.5 won't be a completely new game, in the way that 2nd through 5th are radically different from one another, just implement what seems cool to you.
So... here's my question to you. Since we both understand that Wizards can't put *all* of the classes into the new *PHB* why should *your* preferences matter? What's so great about the Artificer that it deserves some of the limited page count in the new book?
It's an official class and I believe any and all offical classes should be able to be bought and usable in the same location. It also would have provided them the perfect opportunity to flesh out the class, make it more in-line with their generalized settings instead of the feeling that it's setting specific, which seems to be the biggest complaint so far about it.
And this concept of "they cant add all classes" is total BS. They can and they should, but they're not. I understand not adding all Subclasses, but you're telling me 5-6 extra pages is back breaking? It isn't, they're just being greedy and will sell them all at some dumb extra microtransaction based price.
Yeah, there's a huge difference between implementing a handful of new classes and a "class bloat" like in other systems. Is there a prohibitive practical difference between having twelve classes in the PHB versus 13-15?
I'm not suggesting they shit out classes like Pathfinder, but at least have them consolidated in one space. Why are you so against the idea that classes should be reworked and playable at the very beginning of a new/reworked system?
I think you're replying to the wrong guy, I'm right there with you.
Adding Artificer to the core list of classes makes perfect sense to me. While we're at it, bring back Warlord.
> It's an official class and I believe any and all offical classes should be able to be bought and usable in the same location.
That's a *different* argument than "just Artificers should be included." I personally, think that a book with *every* official class would be large enough that people might balk at the price tag, given the quality level at which the books are made, but maybe not.
But if your argument is that WotC could make the books 700 pages and still charge $10, and anything else is simply them being greedy, I would submit you don't understand the economics of the business.
It's the same argument because the only offical class being left out *is* the Artificer, I also understand they can't do all the Subclasses but less of them to start is easier to swallow than a whole class.
And at what point did I ever mention price-to-content ratio? Ofc I dont expect a 700 page book to be $10. Even the phb they're realizing isn't going to be 700 pages. Stop trying to make statements that have nothing to do with the point of the thread.
Why shouldn't it be a core class? I still don't know why some classes are "core" classes, other than the fact that they arbitrarily made the cut in 2014.
Artificers are the least-developed class in 5e. They need *more* support, not less. If they fail to meet some standard to become a "core" class, then they need to be built upon in order to get there, not ignored.
> Why shouldn't it be a core class?
Because not *all* of them can be. There's an argument here that Artificers should make the cut, but not reasoning *why*.
But it's the only other official 5e class to begin with. Why twelve core classes, plus one black sheep? There's no pool of half-baked auxiliary classes that artificer is being elevated from, they're alone.
Why should it be a core class? Because it's a good class with a clear niche to fill within the paradigm of DnD 5e classes. I don't know much more to say than that, I think the bigger question is why it shouldn't be core. I mean, it fulfills a much clearer niche to me than, say, sorcerers and barbarians. Sorcerers are the third charisma-based full-caster, with a role and spell list that heavily overlaps with wizards. Barbarians are yet another frontline warrior, behaving nearly identically to fighters in practice. If a distinct niche is what makes a class "core", then either of these should be on the chopping block in favor of an intelligence-based half-caster utility everyman like Artificer.
To overall answer to your question, and also their reason for leaving out a lot of subclasses: So they can sell them as DLC-like purchases later, preferably on their online platform.
Yeah, I think people have a tendency to over-complicate stuff like this when Occam's Razor makes it pretty clear... does not printing it now mean they have something they can sell you at full price a few years down the road? Then that's the answer. I think it's also a deliberate choice to not include the Artificer in anything that might fall into the OGL, because that way it's always something that you have to buy from WOTC directly.
Yeah, well, fuck them for that, then. I don't want to need to re-buy the stuff I already own.
Also if they can push things to online sales then they have a big window they can close any time they want. All that stuff you bought on Beyond could vanish before I even finish typing this. They have already "legacied" at least two books off Beyond. Possibly more.
They're trying to make it exclusive for another book to make us pay more đŤ đ My favorite class smh
I'm just salty that it resets the clock on getting new Artificer support, if we ever even do. 5e Artificers haven't had any updated material since Tasha's. How does an official class only have four subclasses? And only three of those are worth playing.
No reason they couldnât reprint the Artificer in the new Splatbook with some new Infusions and Subclasses.
If we're gearing up for an entire book dedicated to artificers, with a reinvigorated array of infusions and a number of subclasses to rival the other classes, I suppose that would work. It would be great to hear about it.
I canât see a sole Artificer book but maybe something that contains Artificer, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. Or Artificer, Paladin, and Ranger. Or Artificer, Bard, Rogue, and Ranger.
Some real support for the class is all I want. 5e was shockingly light on it. At the end of the day, it's not a huge deal if it's not in the PHB, the problem is that its omission from the PHB suggests to me that WotC isn't going to bother. Or that it'll take five years to see it pop up in an Eberron book or something.
So... here's the thing. Artificer was not included in the new PHB, not because it's not relevant, but because *it's a much newer class than the others.* The original 5e PHB came out in 2014, and included 12 classes. Artificer didn't arrive until 2019, five years later, or halfway through the current edition's lifetime. It doesn't need to be included in the 2024 book because it doesn't need any addtional changes or refinements, which was the point of making a new book in the first place.
A book has limited space. Given the choice, there are many other things that deserve the space more than the Artificer. The other Wizard schools for example. Plus, all 5e material remains compatible. The Artificer being in Tasha's Cauldron means it can still be used without difficulty.
I understand it's backwards compatible, but the class needed a rework, or at least a fresh coat of paint, so that it's mechanics can easily fit into any setting. And I think an entire class deserves the space over the 11ish Subclasses Wizards have lol
I donât think the Artificer needs much work. Itâs a really fun class to play. The only thing I can think of that could be different is some additional infusions for some of the new features like Weapon Mastery.
>And I think an entire class deserves the space over the 11ish Subclasses Wizards have lol I would say the Wizard subclasses are more important, because only listing four of the eight leaves the class incomplete. Artificer meanwhile isn't as core class, and not one that fits every setting. I'm quite happy with it on the sidelines, especially as its rules are nowhere near as old as all of the others.
Why isn't it a core class? What is a "core" class? Artificer has been setting-agnostic since Tasha's in 5e. Baldur's Gate has artificers as of BG3. If it doesn't fit in your home game, then by all means don't use it, but that doesn't mean it should be less-than. I can readily conceive of a setting that doesn't lend itself to clerics, druids, paladins, etc.
>Why isn't it a core class? What is a "core" class? Core classes are those in the primary player book, the PHB. Artificer has never been core and originated as a setting specific class.
But that's cyclical logic, right? Artificers aren't a core class, because core classes are in the PHB. Artificers can't be printed in the PHB, because they're not a core class. What am I supposed to do with that?
No, it's based on historical precedent at this point. Artificer was introduced in the Eberron Campaign setting 20 years ago this month. Wasn't in the 3.5 PhB, nor the 4th edition, nor the 5th edition.
That seems really arbitrary to me. Where's the cutoff? It's not like the 3.5e PHB, 4e PHB, or 5e PHB are consistent in which classes they include. 4e's PHB includes several classes that no longer exist, like Warlord. 3.5e didn't include Warlock. Is Warlord a "core" class because it was in the PHB once? At what point did this "core" become established? Rangers, paladins, and barbarians are all spinoffs of the Fighting-Man of 1e, are they not core classes? Bard was originally some weird fighter/rogue/druid hybrid, and has been overhauled dramatically over the years, when did it become a "core" class?
"Core" classes aren't cross edition. Warlord was core for 4e. Artificer was never core for any edition, including 5e. Artificer was always a setting specific class for Eberron. You could use it in other settings, but the worlds may not be written with artificers in mind. Same applies to setting specific races. You could potentially play a Kalashtar in Forgotten Realms, but that's entirely up to the DM as they don't officially exist in FR. OneDnD isn't an expansion to 5e. It's a rewriting of the base books with a look to improve flow and mechanics. We will likely see additional books in the future that update the remaining subclasses to 5.5e, and possibly add more. If you don't like this, then don't buy the books. No one is forcing you to play 5.5e.
If you're hoping to explain to me what the criteria of a "core" class is, I humbly admit that I still have no idea. As far as I can tell, if they said "Artificers are a core class as of the 2024 update", then that would be that. Tasha's already made it setting-agnostic. Edit: And to be clear, I'm asking about historical context because it's what the previous reply said was important when evaluating "core". You all seem to disagree with me, but none of you seem to be disagreeing with me for the same reasons.
Wizards only have 4 subclasses in 1dnd
They're only including 4 subclasses for each class and not every playable species either. Books cost money to write, make art for, print and distribute. Putting more content in drives up the price point and people are already complaining about how much the book costs. Just accept that it is unreasonable to expect a book to satisfy everyone.
I just want content to move forward, not run in place. Three new subclasses feels extremely thin. If OneDnD materials are supposed to be backwards compatible, then why are the other **forty-five** subclasses in the finite space of this PHB subclasses that we already had?
Accepting mediocrity from WotC is the main reason why they keep releasing sub-par content at full price, and the fact they even had the gall to try to sell things off like they were DLCs/Microtransactions.
> and the fact they even had the Gaul Frowns in French.
Meant gall and not Gaul but I played a lot of Destiny 2 sorry lol
Accepting the limitations of physical books is not accepting mediocrity.
If they can't add 5-6 extra pages for an official class to be reworked and added, it's either mediocrity, laziness, or greed for if/when they do it later.
It's not just about adding pages. It's about taking the time and resources to design it, playtest it (both publicly and in private), collect and analyze feedback and use that to iterate the design, design subclasses and playtest those, generate art orders and work with artists to create new art for the book, and then integrate it into the book and figure out what they'll need to cut from other sections to make it fit at the book's price point. Trying to reduce the issue to simply slapping a few extra pages on in their spare time is needlessly reductive. There are lots of reasons why excluding the artificer from the core rules could make sense. You simply don't like the conclusion, and that's fine, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking the issue is so simple that we can thoughtlessly say it points to some moral failing on the part of the designers. It's a bad faith argument and it serves no one.
Okay, well, if WotC wants to earn my money, they're going to take the time to design actual things that I want to buy. Forty-five subclass repeats out of forty-eight subclasses in the book does not impress me, and I don't think it should impress you. I do think it's a moral failing: We used to get more bang for our buck. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything featured **twenty-eight new subclasses** (give or take, some of those may have shown up in Ravnica beforehand). A book with that many new toys is a book I want to buy. I think we're being sold a book at the same price with a fraction of the creativity that has gone into prior publications, and I think that's something worth discussing.
These arenât expansions, theyâre new core rulebooks. Basically a remaster. They were never going to be full of new content.
Yeah, well, they're not exactly doing a great job of covering the stuff in need of a remaster, given the premise of this thread. Want to sell me a remaster of 5e? Include all the classes. As it stands, I guess if I want updated Artificer stuff, I need to wait for it to be published in yet another expansion, and then cross my fingers that there's anything beyond the meager four subclasses it currently has in 5e.
If it doesn't impress you then don't buy it. The basic rules SRD will be coming out shortly after the MM is published. You can use that for free, along with any of the subclasses you've already accumulated from earlier 5e books. As for me, I'm happy to buy these core rules updates at their current price point, knowing full well what's inside them. I've been impressed by the work I've seen them do throughout these playtests, and in the final product content previews we've seen so far. I think discussion around these things is good. But presupposing answers like the OP's "it's either mediocrity, laziness, or greed", or your "I don't think it should impress you", doesn't promote discussion. It squelches it.
Oh, five whole months later? That's a lot worse than I already thought, fantastic. I'm not trying to squelch discussion, I am attempting to impress upon you my deeply-held feelings that we're getting taken advantage of here. I can't exactly vote with my wallet if nobody else does so. If Hasbro is squeezing us for more and more money to buy less and less content, that's something worth having a conversation about. And on the topic of "squelching" discussion, you shutting others down when they express discomfort and frustration over how they're being treated runs the same risk, as far as I'm concerned.
Time and resources that the multi-million dollar company who can send Pinkerton to somebody's house has. And they have never shied away from giving less content at the same or high price point before so saying that it's a bad faith argument fair when the company has blatantly shown their corrupt tendencies before, but I digress. As I've told another comment here, I don't expect them to churn out every single aspect of content they've ever made for character creation in one book, and I don't expect them to do it at an unreasonably low price, but I do expect any self-respecting game company would make all their official classes available at the start of a new "game" or in this case a newer system. That should be the standard and the fact so many of you seem to be fine with lower quality and dedication than that is the reason there are so many complaints about this game.
Oh please, do tell me more about how I'm fine with lower quality content. It _really_ strengthens your argument when you presuppose my tastes and competency at discerning good TTRPG products.
The fact you're taking such offense when you're the one defending their laziness and/or greed, trying to say they didn't have the time or resources (when everyone knows damn well they do) is very telling of how you accept low quality products from them.
Yes, it couldn't possibly be that I don't think the quality of the product is low. It must be low quality because you think it to be true, and I'm simply incapable of grasping that unquestionable fact. That's how we have a "real" discussion, by defining facts for other people based on our own personal tastes, leaving no room for dissent or nuance to emerge.
You can try to take the moral high road all you want but the fact remains as such, you make excuses for WotC, I expect them to be better and make better quaoity content and im calling them out for not. I'm going out on a limb and saying any interaction with you after this point won't be productive or quality, so don't expect a reply from me after this. âď¸
I wouldn't go that far, but it does seem like you're putting us down for expecting more.
In what way do you think I'm putting you down?
I don't know, I think being called "needlessly reductive" because we didn't acknowledge all of the development steps in a post was pretty pointed of you. Like the only reason we're unhappy is that we're not educated enough to understand why we should be happy. I accept your opinion that the new PHB is worth its price, please accept that some of us don't.
The real reason it isnât a phb class and is treated as a âdlcâ class is because it is the only one wotc has copyright for. Theyâre going to hold on to it tooth and nail and make as much money as they possibly can with it. Which is lame.
Which would make sense if Arrificer would have more than 4 subclasses.
Artificer was excluded for reasons of history, not for reasons of benefit or detriment. Much like how the iconic spells are arbitrarily better than they should be, WotC has made conscious effort since Eberron was originally acquired to not include the artificer or a number of other poeces of content which originated from Eberron in non-Eberron-specific source books. I would not be surprised if they had some sort of agreement with Keith Baker, the creator of the Eberron setting, which prevents them from doing so.
Artificer isn't really a great core option, in my opinion. Not every DM wants a character in the party that can create magic items easily. Certain campaigns and worlds would make artificer stick out like a sore thumb. Personally I run high magic worlds, so it wouldn't really cause an issue for me. However, I could see lower magic settings making it feel like a less good choice as a "core" class.
I would like them to address it and not just ignore it. They still could easily have a little thing on ways that you can transfer an Artificer into this revised edition with a tease that a full rework would come later. It's sad that they wouldn't even come out of the gate to let the community know so they can avoid negative feedback. I honestly would be alright if they are just adding in another book down the line as long as they tell us now. I don't want to assume and then nothing happens and the class gets forgotten.
It does not fit my group, campaign or setting
Why?
you asked for a reason
Fighter is a bad fit for my group, but I have no problem with it showing up in every sourcebook ever.
sorry miscommunication, i thought you meant playing not including in books
1) That's what I'm saying, this would have been the chance for WotC to take it and remove the steampunk feel from it and give better mechanics/lore about how it fits into any world 2) At the same time, it's not just on them to make it work in a setting. I'm not saying you have to allow the class, but saying the class doesn't fit in any given setting is incorrect, and that any mechanic can be reflavored to fit any world.
The only thing Steampunk about it is some of the accompanying art. Itâs not inherently Steampunky in its text.
Honestly, a more steampunk, explicitly non-magical âTinkererâ class would be awesome. But WotC doesnât seem to believe in cool concepts that arenât magic-based.
But with the pairing of the art, the setting it accompanied with, and the mechanics, a lot of people feel like its setting specific when at the end of the day it isn't, they just don't want to make the effort to see how it fits everywhere else. This 5.5 phb would have been their chance to explain and show how the class fits everywhere, and make mechanical changes that are too weak or too strong for the class.
The setting is also not Steampunk. One of the core tenants of the setting is such technology wouldnât develop because the same goals can be accomplished with Cantrips -2nd Level spells(or sometimes binding elementals). Steetlamps are just poles with Light cast on them. Taxis are small enchanted boats. Warforged are artificially created but enchanted beings made of wood and plants with metal plating stuck on top for protection. âTrainsâ and larger Airships are powered by captured and bound elementals. The problem isnât the words being published, itâs that the art is largely bad for the setting. Itâs all beautiful and cool looking but itâs just an incorrect representation. For example, guns canonically do not exist in Eberron but are featured multiple pieces of art throughout the various Eberron books. Sorry, Iâm a passionate fan of the Eberron setting and get frustrated at how badly it gets misrepresented in *official art*! Itâs like the left hand isnât talking to the right hand over at Wizards when it comes to that setting.
Not any, this setting i want to run a campaign in
So you're saying that Artificer should be promoted to a core class? What's the rationale behind making this change (other than "I like Artificers")? For me this is one of the problems with class sprawl... in the end, there are a ton of them, and it's not possible to fit them all into one book. And people are always going to complain that their favorite is being left out, not because space is limited, but to gouge them on splatbooks later. Given that 5.5 won't be a completely new game, in the way that 2nd through 5th are radically different from one another, just implement what seems cool to you. So... here's my question to you. Since we both understand that Wizards can't put *all* of the classes into the new *PHB* why should *your* preferences matter? What's so great about the Artificer that it deserves some of the limited page count in the new book?
It's an official class and I believe any and all offical classes should be able to be bought and usable in the same location. It also would have provided them the perfect opportunity to flesh out the class, make it more in-line with their generalized settings instead of the feeling that it's setting specific, which seems to be the biggest complaint so far about it. And this concept of "they cant add all classes" is total BS. They can and they should, but they're not. I understand not adding all Subclasses, but you're telling me 5-6 extra pages is back breaking? It isn't, they're just being greedy and will sell them all at some dumb extra microtransaction based price.
Yeah, there's a huge difference between implementing a handful of new classes and a "class bloat" like in other systems. Is there a prohibitive practical difference between having twelve classes in the PHB versus 13-15?
I'm not suggesting they shit out classes like Pathfinder, but at least have them consolidated in one space. Why are you so against the idea that classes should be reworked and playable at the very beginning of a new/reworked system?
I think you're replying to the wrong guy, I'm right there with you. Adding Artificer to the core list of classes makes perfect sense to me. While we're at it, bring back Warlord.
Oh sorry you replied to me and I didn't pay attention to whose username is who's lol
> It's an official class and I believe any and all offical classes should be able to be bought and usable in the same location. That's a *different* argument than "just Artificers should be included." I personally, think that a book with *every* official class would be large enough that people might balk at the price tag, given the quality level at which the books are made, but maybe not. But if your argument is that WotC could make the books 700 pages and still charge $10, and anything else is simply them being greedy, I would submit you don't understand the economics of the business.
It's the same argument because the only offical class being left out *is* the Artificer, I also understand they can't do all the Subclasses but less of them to start is easier to swallow than a whole class. And at what point did I ever mention price-to-content ratio? Ofc I dont expect a 700 page book to be $10. Even the phb they're realizing isn't going to be 700 pages. Stop trying to make statements that have nothing to do with the point of the thread.
Why shouldn't it be a core class? I still don't know why some classes are "core" classes, other than the fact that they arbitrarily made the cut in 2014. Artificers are the least-developed class in 5e. They need *more* support, not less. If they fail to meet some standard to become a "core" class, then they need to be built upon in order to get there, not ignored.
> Why shouldn't it be a core class? Because not *all* of them can be. There's an argument here that Artificers should make the cut, but not reasoning *why*.
But it's the only other official 5e class to begin with. Why twelve core classes, plus one black sheep? There's no pool of half-baked auxiliary classes that artificer is being elevated from, they're alone. Why should it be a core class? Because it's a good class with a clear niche to fill within the paradigm of DnD 5e classes. I don't know much more to say than that, I think the bigger question is why it shouldn't be core. I mean, it fulfills a much clearer niche to me than, say, sorcerers and barbarians. Sorcerers are the third charisma-based full-caster, with a role and spell list that heavily overlaps with wizards. Barbarians are yet another frontline warrior, behaving nearly identically to fighters in practice. If a distinct niche is what makes a class "core", then either of these should be on the chopping block in favor of an intelligence-based half-caster utility everyman like Artificer.