Do we really need an Artificer class?

[Luke Porter]

The artificer is an integral part of Eberron and ubiquitous to the feel of any stories told about Korvarre and beyond. I would argue, that we already have several versions of the Artificer under different names.
The High Magic Artificer (Wizard any school)
Your cantrips are small artifacts, your Flame Bolt is a blasting rod, your Shocking Grasp is a glove studded with small eberron shards, and your fireball is a pea shot form an enchanted tube that you must blow through. In short, lean into your spell component pouch and eschew an implement and you are an artificer.
If you are more of a weapon and armor enchanting artificer, look no further than the Eldritch Knight. Even those fighter abilities like 2nd Wind and Action Surge can easily be described as a scarab of life force and boots of hasting.
An Arcane Trickster fills the roll of that artificer who deals with traps and ancient tombs. All that it requires is proficiency with Arcana and, perhaps history.
This is what it is to think of the suite of powers and abilities and how they fit your character, as opposed to how your character fits the powers of their class.
Going further with this concept we can get a whole new grouping of characters, an infernal pact warlock who gains power for their aberrant Dragonmark – as well as dark and disturbing impulses, a warforged Druid, who’s shape changing was built into their warforged nature, even a magebread human – an illegal experiment from House Vidalis in the last days of the war – mechanically they are a draconic sorcerer, but their story has nothing to do with dragons, rather the magic infused in their being.
How do the things your character does reflect who they are? Are their powers and abilities skills they learned or are they talents from some deeper heritage.

[markw]

Let me preface by saying I have no interest in playing an Artificer. Haven't even read up on them much.

Also, so far, I don't believe anyone has expressed an interest in playing one in this campaign.

However...if you're going to try to naysay an entire class because of some twists of words...

Saying that Wizards' cantrips make them something of an Artificer, and Eldritch Knights are are something of an Artificer because they have some magic ability & armor, is like saying Wizards are a kind of Fighter because they can use magical giant fists to grab or crush a target, so we don't need Fighters, or a Bard is a kind of Cleric because they can cast a cure spell & can buff other characters, so we don't need Clerics, and Barbarians can speak with animals so we don't need Druids.

You can pick and choose pieces and parts of any class and say they aren't necessary because some other class can do one of the things that class can do. Laying it down as changing your philosophy of how you think of each class is a specious argument.

An Artificer is an Artificer because it can do all those things in one package. It doesn't take an entire party of other classes to make up one because they can all do one thing the Artificer can do. The Artificer has the builtin ability to do all those little things. That's what makes them an Artificer.

If you have decided you have no use for being an Artificer, then don't be one.

If Ken has decided he doesn't like the Artificer class is developed wrong and because of the potential of "breaking" the game, then he can just ban the class as the GM. Strange arguments and twisted logic don't need to be created to eliminate it. Just say "I don't like it" and eliminate it. This is exactly what Ken has already done with the Psionic classes, because he doesn't believe their mechanics are properly developed.

[Kenneth New]

I think Luke was just discussing the class from a game design, or narrative point of view, saying that anyone who wanted to play an artificers before we had a (semi-) official version, has some options for doing so.

I am not fond of the current artificer class, mainly due to the fact that it forces every artificer to be a "pet class" character type, and it inhibits player options. I also strongly suspect that it will experience a massive revision with the next ua next month. I would hate for someone to build a character only to have major revisions come down the road in the near future.

If someone wants to construct an artificer character using one of the work arounds Luke mentioned, I'm fine with it. If someone wants to make one using the last UA artificer, they can, but they should expect the rules for the class to change. The former option requires no later rebuild.

If players want to stretch their minds to construct a character that follows a specific game mechanic, but wants to change the flavor text without changing the mechanics, I'm also fine with that.

The same works for any potential psion. I have a sorcerer origin I use to convert Arcanis psions when running for the kids. I can share it if anyone needs it. It's more of an algorithm right now than a class write up.

I don't like what I've seen of the potential psion/mystic so far, but if WOTC goes that way, I prefer not to disallow official player options that others want or like.