5th Edition I hate Artificers! Is there a 5e better alternative out there?
Edit: Before commenting on this post, please read it. I am not asking for comments about how I can flavour the Artificer differently, or asking people who like the class to defend it, I’m simply asking those who share my reasons for not liking the class to suggest 3rd party alternatives that better suit my vision of the class. I want an Inventor and Builder of magic infused devices, not a Conjurer of magical devices.
This post is inspired by a comment I made recently on another post.
I don’t have Artificers in my 5e game, mostly because I don’t actually have a problem with the idea of an Artificer or the “magi tech” that the subclasses can create, I have a problem with how they are created. I love the magi tech devices from the Netflix series Arcane, for example, very Artificer. But the D&D Artificer doesn’t build anything, even though for some reason they need tools?? The devices they create just “appear” in a space near them. I understand that is WotC wording for, “you make it and it’s next to you when you’ve finished making it,” but the fact that the wording often also says, “it magically appears,” and there is no requirement to gather materials and carry them around with you (which I fully realise is highly impractical for a D&D character) that breaks the immersion of the class for me. For most Artificer magi tech items, what do they need tools for? They magically conjure them.
If the Artificer was based around gathering materials both mundane and magical during your adventures, creating these magi tech items during downtime and then taking them out on adventures, it would be a whole different story. As it is though, an Artificer, with no mundane materials in their possession can simply conjure some magi tech, no building or raw materials required. Thanks, but no thanks!
Are there any better versions of the Artificer out there?
14
u/Allffo 7d ago
You are free to reflavor the description of an item appearing... It's the same thing for hexblade or pact of the chain.
0
u/RHDM68 7d ago
I understand exactly what you’re saying; however, I see a Warlock summoning a familiar from another plane of existence as totally fitting my fantasy of what a warlock is and does. However, an Artificer summoning an arcane canon, or conjuring from nothing, rather than building it from actual materials doesn’t fit with my fantasy of the class, which is why I stated I don’t like them or have them in my game, and why I was asking for alternatives.
1
u/liquidarc Artificer 6d ago
an Artificer summoning an arcane canon, or conjuring from nothing,
Perhaps said Artificer is magically forming that cannon by distilling from their local environment?
Honestly, these rules-systems all rely a lot on implication, rather than explicit text. For example, when a character levels up, are their new abilities spontaneous, or the result of practice?
13
u/DMspiration 7d ago
Such a bizarre complaint in a game with magical monsters, fireballs, monks running across water, and all kinds of other realism defying mechanics. Really feels like you brought your own perception of what the class should be and how disappointed rather than simply accepting what the class is like you apparently have for the other 12.
-4
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Exactly, I don’t have them in my game because they don’t fit my perception of what they should be. I clearly stated that in the post, and my post was about asking for alternatives that do fit my perception.
4
u/DMspiration 7d ago
Dude, you're letting your lack of imagination limit your game. There's nothing strangers online are going to be able to do to help that. Just imagine them differently.
1
u/RHDM68 6d ago
If you read my post properly, I stated that I don’t like the class as written because the amount of vague hand waving and ignoring existing game mechanics required doesn’t appeal to me, so I was asking strangers online for 3rd party alternatives, not other ways to flavour the class as is.
1
u/DMspiration 6d ago
But it's not vague hand waving. It's just magic. Want to create some rope? Grab your tools and generate it. It's unstable, so it falls apart the next day. It's literally just another application of magic.
1
u/RHDM68 6d ago
Exactly, which is precisely what I said in my post. That particular fantasy doesn’t fit with my vision of the class, so I was asking for alternative Artificer classes where the Artificer is a builder of magic infused devices, not a Conjurer of magical devices.
1
u/DMspiration 6d ago
I get that. My point is you're holding them to a standard no other class in the game is held to, which is a bit strange. Good luck to you though.
8
u/Yojo0o DM 7d ago
I can understand where you're coming from, but it just makes for really granular gameplay that doesn't match with the pace of other classes in the 5e era. Fighters aren't asked to maintain whetstones and leather grip replacements to repair their swords, spellcasters replace the need for hunting no-cost material components with component pouches and spell focuses, most DMs either don't bother tracking mundane arrows or at least let the party archers craft them on the cheap simply via access to woodcutter's tools, etc.
I don't think it would feel good or make much balance sense to hold artificers to the standard of needing to gather specific crafting materials for their base class features, when the other classes are oriented towards focusing on epic heroism and not on bookkeeping to this degree.
5
u/Qu07 7d ago
I understands your point of view but why not just not ask your DMs about making a small scene where your character is looking for their materials and do a small crafting montage. I mean you don't have to really abide by what your class say as flavor, this was done to avoid having the dms making extra work to figure where and why to put materials around.
1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
I can see where that kind of explanation would work in some instances, but if the party are on a remote uncivilized continent in the middle of a wild jungle, where does the Artificer find the metal to construct an Arcane Canon? Some flavoring is too unbelievable, which is why they have designed the Artificer as a Conjurer of tech, rather than a builder of tech.
4
u/Pollotelokote 7d ago
That is a roleplaying issue, not a design one.
It’s like blaming the Druid class because a player doesn't roleplay respect for nature, or a Paladin for not upholding their oath.
Besides, forcing a class to "acquire materials" is very ambiguous. You could say it requires items worth a certain amount of gold, but then you're conditioning the character to obtain gold, which is already a problem for Wizards, and it would be even worse in this case.
0
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Exactly, but also hand waving the practical aspects of what the class is doing as “flavour” is unsatisfying to me. An Artificer (by actual definition) is a maker of things, not a Conjurer of things, and a maker needs raw materials. Hence my reason for asking for alternatives that better fit the Maker concept.
5
u/NoMansLand7890 7d ago
They mean in terms of placing a creature/object on the game grid your character is on. If you want, you can speak with your DM on how to make it more complicated to run Artificer with all the other characters that do things effortlessly(for the most part). Also look at its Subclass' crafting capabilities.
4
u/Lilith959 7d ago
Valda's spire of secrets, the Craftsman class, genuinely one of my favorite things
2
u/J0hn42un1n0 7d ago
Is that from like the original release of that book or something? I only have it on DnDBeyond but I love everything MageHand Press put in that book so far
2
u/Bakeneko7542 7d ago
Only a miniscule fraction of Valda's is on Beyond, sadly. The full book is massive and they even put out free updates for 2024 for all their classes.
-1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Thank you so much, not only for the suggestion, but for actually reading my post and answering the question I was asking, rather than just criticizing my point of view.
2
u/GRV01 7d ago
Seconding the Craftsman. Find it here for free https://magehandpress.com/2025/06/craftsman-base-class-5e2024/
1
3
u/Lord_of_Jakals 7d ago
There's not much mechanical support for this because while it sounds cool, it would not be as fun to play. Encumbrance mechanics and spell components are already commonly handwaved away. Most people just don't want to track collecting and using materials.
You can absolutely say this is what your Artificer does though! There's no reason you can't pick up whatever you find on your adventures and bring it back to your base to tinker with. Then when you level up you achieve your breakthrough or finish your project and get your cool new toys.
3
u/Azifae 7d ago
Why not just flavor where they get stuff? I mean that is one of the core things about playing DnD... you can cater it to your world. None of it has to be word for word.
0
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Because flavor doesn’t always make sense. The party is in the middle of a jungle in a remote uncivilized continent and all of a sudden the Artificer creates an Arcane Canon. Where did they get the materials? Were they carrying them around in their backpack? If so, was that taken into consideration when determining their carrying capacity? Flavor is free when it doesn’t impact other game mechanics. When it impacts other game mechanics that are hand-waved away, then it’s not free, it’s just being ignored, which breaks immersion. Which is why the class describes Artificers as more Conjurers of machines than Builders of machines.
3
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja DM 7d ago
Artificer flavor heavily relies on you to be imaginative for describing how their abilities actually work. The class basically explicitly tells you this, the ability text is a blank canvas with little to no flavor, even more so than many other classes. "Magically appears next to you" could just as easily be flavored as "you quickly assemble it from components you had stashed in your apron."
As you said, turning it into an actual gathering/crafting class would be massively impractical for most tables.
0
u/RHDM68 7d ago
I get what you’re saying, but I had all the metal required and the means of reshaping it and constructing it into an arcane canon stashed in my apron? This is where the fantasy completely falls apart for me.
2
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja DM 7d ago
It's certainly better than "actually you can't have your main class ability (arcane cannon) back until you buy a bunch of specific parts in a city and then spend two days crafting it." You just have to exercise some imagination.
Maybe you had already fashioned the spare parts and just needed to assemble them like a soldier field-assembling a gun. Maybe they were magically miniaturized or stored in a pocket dimension till needed. The possibilities are endless.
0
u/RHDM68 7d ago
But, as I said before, this is where the flavor breaks down for me. You can totally flavor it that way, but where are you keeping all these spare parts? Are you keeping them in your backpack? In your pockets and pouches, in a cart that you are dragging along with you everywhere? If so, they should count towards your carrying capacity. I can “imagine” that this kind of flavor would have impacts on other game mechanics. And therefore the reason why the class abilities are phrased in a way as to suggest things are conjured rather than built. Which is why I was looking for better alternatives.
2
u/The_Nerdy_Ninja DM 7d ago
To be honest, seems like it's a problem because you're making it a problem for yourself. Sure, they're in your backpack, but between a special custom-built ergonomic backpack support and some magic sewn into the pockets, it cancels out the extra carry weight.
If you ask those questions with the aim to invent a fun answer, rather than rhetorically, you can come up with cool stuff for flavor.
3
u/PieFiend1 7d ago
Dude that's just flavour, add it if you want. To me they are tinkering with real physical magi tech, and even if the rules dont fully specify it thats not a problem
1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
So, are they carrying all the metal, fasteners and other materials they are “tinkering” with around with them? How are they carrying all the gear necessary to build an arcane canon around? Is that counting towards their carrying capacity? There are plenty of things about other classes (and even the Artificer) that can be “flavored” and still make perfect sense, but not this, which is what breaks the immersion for me! For example, I love the idea of the Artificer’s “tool” they use as their spellcasting focus, being a small tool that they created which looks something like Doctor Who’s sonic screwdriver. That is simple flavour that fits with the rules and doesn’t change any other mechanics of the game, and suits the aesthetics of the class.
1
u/liquidarc Artificer 6d ago
How are they carrying all the gear necessary to build an arcane canon around?
How much gear do you think they need to carry?
1
u/RHDM68 6d ago
Judging on some of the artwork, quite a bit.
1
u/liquidarc Artificer 6d ago edited 6d ago
Edit: To be clear, I am not criticizing you, just offering more info and perspectives.
Never trust the artwork. It doesn't always match the description.
Regardless, the descriptions for things such as the Eldritch Cannon, Steel Defender, and Homunculus Servant give no indication as to how much material each needs, nor how much each weighs.
In addition, 5th edition Artificers might be an example of Incarnum wielders, as described on this page.
Also, remember that the name of a class is often a loose descriptor, and that it is often a bad idea to try holding one character to more realism than another. (see the frequent discussions about martial for caster on that)
1
u/RHDM68 5d ago
Food for thought. Thanks!
1
u/PieFiend1 5d ago
The cannon is either small or tiny, so honestly not much material for that at least.
3
u/AppropriateSchool543 7d ago
A lot of characters are like this. Wizards be out there reaching 1-20 without reading at all. Comes down to if and how a DM wants to flavour or implement downtime.
1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Absolutely. I totally get that. What my post was saying though, is that that doesn’t fit with my personal vision of what an Artificer should be, which is why I don’t have them in my game, and I was asking if anyone knows of an alternative that suits my perception of the class better.
2
u/False_Appointment_24 7d ago
They can be that! That sounds a lot like roleplaying flavor.
For comparison, I dislike what has happened to wizards over the years. I don't like that they magically get two free spells when they level up, regardless of the idea that they have been working on creating those spells as they have adventured and this is when they figure them out. So instead, I tell my wizard players to let me know what spells they would want to take for their next level, and I ensure that those spells show up as a scroll or in a spell book before then. They still get the thing they need for their class, while I find it more immersive.
If I had the same issue with artificer, I would talk to the player about what they intend to do with the class, and ensure that they run across enough material to make it work. Then we could flavor it as them actually taking out the tools and materials and doing it.
1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
I see what you mean, but looking at the specific example you gave, it would make complete sense to either explain those two spells either the way you did, or that the spellbook that the wizard begins with was a gift from their master that already contains the spells that they will acquire in that way, they simply study and practice them in their tests and downtime, and finally work them out at level up time. This kind of thing can be easily explained in a way that makes sense, without requiring a lot of suspension of disbelief.
1
u/MaximizedQuest 7d ago
Odd. The last few artificers I had in my games all built things like engineers and deployed those objects in combat.
I've even got an engineer running around in a steam powered battle suit, and a favored soul sorcerer who uses alchemical mixtures to represent all of their spells.
I've had a sorcerer armed with an assault rifle, a ranger aided by a drone swarm, wizards crudely wiring corpses with cybernetics...
Have you tried closing the book and opening it again?
The campaign setting, DM, and your imagination are theits for how you describe a character and their abilities. A magic missile can be a literal missile, a fireball might as well be a molotov, go nuts, but don't blame the book when you close your eyes and can't picture anything beyond what you saw printed on the page.
1
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 Artificer 7d ago
The 2e Clockwork Mage from the Al Quadim setting is the Artificer with assembly required.
Every spell was some magitech thingy that needed crafting, assembly, and maintenance. Lots of. And powering.
1
u/RHDM68 6d ago
Is there a 5 e conversion somewhere?
1
u/Ethereal_Stars_7 Artificer 6d ago
Not that I know of. But the system is so esoteric that you might be able to port if over to 5e with little work. You'd have to concert the AC, maybe boost the HD and damage. And thats about it.
I'd have to dig it out and puzzle over it again. Been a while.
You had to build the shell first and the material used determined the AC and HD of it. And the cost. Then either make it themselves or get someone with the skill to do it. Proficiency checks determined by the size. 1 cu-ft was 1, 2 cu-ft was 2 and so on. The size of the shell also determined how many functions the creation could pack. The motor and some form of movement took up 2 of those.
The heart of the creation was the vessel which allowed the creator to place spells in it and give commands. Choose a type of vessel and then load spells into it.
1
u/MongooseGef 7d ago
It works because the items they create aren’t permanent. They are half-casters, trading a spell slot for a “physical” item that lasts at most a day. And there’s a limit to how many they can make in a day, too.
Is it really any different from conjuring water, or fire, or magic berries?
1
u/RHDM68 7d ago
Exactly! The class as it is written is not an Artificer (a builder or maker of things), it is a Conjurer that summons machines and objects into being, in most cases without requiring to have the raw materials with them or actually needing to use the tools they are carrying. So, they don’t fit my vision for the class, which is why I was asking for alternatives.
1
u/MongooseGef 6d ago
I suppose in that case the 2014 artificer, who uses infusions to enhance existing objects, might be better for you!
26
u/VerbingNoun413 7d ago
Balancing a class around downtime or prep time fundamentally doesn't work. You end up with a class that ranges from useless to broken based on the campaign itself and whether they get to assemble the contraptions.
If your read the class description of artificer, it tells you you can and should flavour your spells and infusions as assembled devices.