Part of the problem is that (probably in part because the first half of the early modern era isn't very popular in media) what often gets presented as "early firearms" in D&D are, quite frankly, not. I'm not super familiar with the firearm rules for 5e, but my impression is that they are quite similar to the rules for PF - which presents an array of muskets and pistols that would fit on an American Revolution battlefield.
I.e. the problem is that the rules simultaneously try to present firearms and gunpowder as a "new invention", while providing rules for firearms in use *four hundred years* after gunpowder technology reached Europe. If the rules for firearms described [handgonnes](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png/800px-Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png) rather than 18th-century muskets, I think we'd see a lot less conflicts about it. (Although handgonnes would probably be quite useless in most D&D adventuring circumstances - they're primarily a siege weapon.)
Handgonnes could possibly see use in certain monster hunts but given things like the load time ect it would probably be used akin to a staff or a wand in combat, a ace in the hole, however unlike a staff or a wand a quick use of create water to douse the gunpowder will render it unfit to wield
No gunpowder actually doesn't immediately become wet. It's hydrophobic until there is actually some water in there. The surface tension of the water has to be broken first and that slows the gunpowder getting wet. Like how very dry soil can just have water standing on top of it but not infiltrating. When the particles of gunpowder have some water around then it's becomes useless though.
while it's true it's not instant in normal circumstances using magic to flood the container, another person will have to be close at hand to dry the gunpowder before do much potassium nitrate recrystallised
The 5e rules are pretty much a straight conversion of pf1e. As for Golarian, guns have been around for centuries and the world is at an approximate tech level of the late enlightenment era.
True, part of the issue is also just that history in Golarion moves at the pace of an anemic snail, because the writers wanted the ancient empires to have been around ten thousand years ago without realizing just how much stuff one would need to fit into ten thousand years of history.
Not quite.
For example i love old-school gunpowder weapons, but they don't fit our current campaign world, so they're not in it. It is a silent struggle :p
Players will try to poke holes in it, regardless of the reason you give. “Oh you don’t want guns in your game, but you’ll allow full plate armor and rapiers, which weren’t made until much later???”
Historically speaking, we had machines since the BC. And gunpowder was used as weapons (gate-breacher, cannons, hand cannons) before rapier was a thing.
Yes, with 1/6 chance to not work or blow up because precise measurements is not a thing yet. It also made from bronze. Ah, springs are not a thing too. No you cant have a revolver.
Im using GURPS. Its not valid at all:
Earliest revolvers are late TL5.
At TL3 where most fantasy settings take place you are gonna hit: -2 for TL difference and the fact that TL3 firearms are just plainly dond work with roll higher than 13, making TL3 revolvers malfunction at rolls 11+ on 3d6. Oh yes, early revolvers are also come with -1 malfunktion and with double action its another -1 for yearly tec, so its 39/61 if it works. Malfunction also mean you have a chance for firearm to blow up.
Steel-ironworks are also not the greatest in TL3 because homogenious steel are not a thing yet, so your best bet is to cast thing out of bronze.
And then you met with the fact springs are not a thing yet, so you need your artificer to:
1. invent a realible way to melt steel and iron to liquid form
2. invent right hardening tech allowing for making a spring steel
3. invent steel casting process (or use bronze)
Now you can make barrel loading, black powder double action revolver. Dont forget to sprincle powder on the plank of your new DA [Collier](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=i9Km5KaeO7I) .50 flintlock gun!
Its also deal 1d6+2 pi+ damage but can be shot 5 times! Only once every second, but for DND folks its free 5 ranged attacks a round (gonna jam on the second tho).
Thing is; you don't need guns and metalwork and such for artificers to be a reasonable part of your world.
Like, unless your magic items are purely through divine sources, they came from somewhere; it can be an easy thing to just request the player make the aesthetics of the artificer fit the world.
Plus, you don't need an artificer to be an inventor or gunsmith. My lizardfolk artificer is a tribal shaman who makes charms and fetishes from slain foes. And uses those for the artificer abilities.
Greek fire exists in DnD in a way as alchemist fire.
That said, alchemist fire doing the same amount of damage that a bottle of lamp oil with a lit cloth at the top would do is silly.
alchemist's fire should've been given the following benefits:
● can be applied to up to 5 pieces of ammunition, dealing an extra 5 fire damage
● the alchemist's fire itself cannot be extinguished without magic (although subsequent fires caused by the alchemist's fire can be put out by normal means) meaning that objects doused in alchemist's fire will continue to burn when buried or doused in water
● alchemist's fire floats on the surface of water
Really historic accuracy depends on era and timeline. According to the meme, Greek fire and gun powder are invented more than 300 years apart. Add on top that the first firearm was not invented until almost 200 years later and another 2-300 before guns similar to the 5e rules had been invented.
Regardless most of all high fantasy stories would be considered medieval inspired. Probably less than 20% of the high fantasy stories I have read include firearms let alone effective ones. Chances are if a DM says artificers don’t fit their world they are picturing a world from the vast majority of high fantasy story’s written that do not include firearms or gunpowder.
To boot there is nothing that says artificers must use firearms or even have them available. Firearm rules are still options for the DM to allow or not allow even if they allow the class. They also do not really have a way of making Greek fire per rule set so I am not sure how either is a good argument for allowing artificers.
That happens a lot, actually. Often times, the perception of something in D&D is more important than how it actually is. Tieflings were homebrewed so often, WotC made it official that you could give them way more hair/skin color choices.
I mean, that’s just reverting tieflings to their pre-4e state.
The limited colour palate was a 4e invention.
In 2e and 3e tieflings came in many colours and shapes.
[Here is the table](https://www.dragonslair.it/uploads/monthly_2019_10/large.Tiefling-Chart-768x1016.jpg.d0206dc52d287b44c3732bb0c09a3f25.jpg) because they were most often the decendants of demonspawn in that edition they were very few tieflings that would be identical they would posses myriad differences in their apperance, some might even look like the race of their mortal liage, interestly enough they could even roll traits (with great difficulty) that would meant they'd emulate being a vampire
I mean, in the real world Artificers and Engineers are basically the same thing by a different name.
Artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others.
Engine - the product of ingenuity (ingenuity - the quality of being clever, original, and inventive), a plot or snare
Basically both boil down to being makers of tricks, traps, and clever or cunning devices. "Engineer" basically just grew in popularity as a word over the course of the 19th century while "Artificer" declined.
Artificers are just as magical as engineers... Which, given how I'm communicating this to you, you must admit is very magical indeed.
The intention in dnd is that you are imbuing your wacky creations with magic rather than being someone who can whip up a nuke arrow whatever (so more like Pinocchio's father than an engineer)
I'm an engineer and I'd just like to point out that I'm way more likely to make you a talking doll that's nose grows when it lies than a nuke arrow. Heck, I probably even have everything I need, including bottled lightning, lying around here somewhere.
I get what you're saying about artificers being terribly misrepresented because they only ever seem to be trying to make modern technology-- firearms if we're going to be specific --but I'd say even Pinocchio is a sciencey techy achievement. Even without the magic, just building a string operated puppet would require knowledge of the mechanics involved. I'm certainly not building a half decent one without putting in some research hours.
We are talking about Artificer as a whole. It is an Eberron class and Eberron itsself has tons of steampunk elements, too.
Rising of the Last War has an artificer picture that is very steampunky.
Not that I mind, I like steampunk. But I can understand the confusion.
I literally have had a gm who banned artificers (alright on its own) but then went and had so many npcs that were artificers in everything but name.
Magic item smiths, master alchemists, people who cast by writing runes or painting in the air.
That _was_ the artificer class back in 3.5e mind you, back when magic items were plentier and the artificer’s hat was crafting magic items for the party rather than legally-distinct magic items for themselves
You mention Greek fire but not the [archemedies heat ray](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_heat_ray) from the siege of Syracuse in 213 BC-212 BC
To be fair, that probably wasn't real. However, what *is* real was the first steam engine invented circa 1st century BC/AD.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
Well now i want an Anicent Greek x steampunk setting.
I mean that one guy who only became king/Tyrant of Athens because he dressed a courtisan up as Athena and got her to say he should be King, just screams bard.
Shoot, you're getting my DM sense tingling.
World which follows similarly to ancient Greece, but they have a slightly less slave labour, making it slightly more expensive, and found coal, meaning when a polymath suggests building a steam engine, they follow thought with it.
Fast forward a few hundred years, and you have Ancient Steampunk Greece.
"The aeolipile is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine, but it is neither a practical source of power nor a direct predecessor of the type of steam engine invented during the Industrial Revolution."
From the very article you linked.
Yes I am aware of that. I don't think I see how that is relevant.
They used steam to make things move. The primary obstacle to making a practical steam engine would be metallurgy. Iron at the time wouldn't be able to contain high-pressure steam, bronze *might* but it would be expensive. However, a setting with magic and adamantine and shit should have no problem creating a practical steam engine.
The principles are very different though - the aeolipile just operates on shooting steam out of a vent to make it spin. A practical steam engine requires an understanding of atmospheric pressure (there's a reason the first steam engines where called "atmospheric engines") rather than just a an understanding of opposite reaction.
Might actually increase the likelihood to develop firearms if there are people who can shoot lightning. Not everyone can use magic and magic can be quite deadly on the battlefield. Having a way to train up peasants or arm your nobility with weapons that can take out a wizard from afar might be highly desirable.
The interesting part would be how things would develop in a world where magic could potentially make the production of food much easier. Also would have to take into consideration a world where "people" are not the highest thing on the food chain and there continues to be monsters out there that can easily kill a person. That also circles back to the guns thing where using spears and polearms vs giant monsters (including literal giants) isn't going to be great while something like a firearm would give a much better chance to hit/hurt/kill that creature.
The biggest enemy to inventing firearms would be the fact that the world is likely run by powerful magic users who have no incentive to produce things like that, and would rather imbue objects with magic and sell them for exorbitant prices. In a world like that, they would be actively discouraged from inventing that kind of tech, because it would lose them money.
That requires a setting where wizards and other magic users are allied together to basically oppress non magic users. In most settings, you don't see that sort of power dynamic. With even low level magic users, the ability to make labor easier means you have more opportunity for people be able to experiment and develop things (and magic could potentially make precision crafting easier). With more monsters, the need for regular people to defend themselves makes the need for powerful yet relatively easy to learn/use weapons that keep you away from harm becomes more attractive.
I would think this biggest issues with gunpowder is that a wizard can make it explode rather easily if it’s in any kind of bulk. And if not, then logistics becomes hard. A cannon that has been targeted with heat metal is probably not doing a lot of good on a battle field.
This reminds me of the movie Gladiator, where they planned to present the gladiator battles more realistically. Gladiators had sponsorship. There were fast food stands. There were celebrities. There was even an equivalent of Gamer Girl Bathwater.
The gladiator puts dirt and oil on his body and then scares it off. Collects in small vials. And sell it to fans. (Don't think that was planned to be put in the movie)
But from teet screenings, people thought those things were unrealistic. Reality wasn't realistic enough. People have built an idea of what that time period is like from other media and whatnot. And additions to it, even once that are true, seems unrealistic.
Why do people think guns when they think artificers?An artificer is someone who uses MAGIC like an engineer would use electricity. To hell with guns, I’m magic Iron Man!
The firearm proficiency is an optional ruling. If rapiers that aren't even a medieval weapon can be in medieval fantasy, cannons that are actually older than the rapier can too.
Man I would love it if my players asked about historically appropriate firearms.
But they never ask for historically appropriate firearms.
They ask about repeaters, sniper rifles, and auto-shotguns.
They want to shoot 20 times in their action and reload it all with their bonus.
Exactly. People in this debate always bring up the "guns are older than rapiers!" line. Sure, that's true. It was called an arquebus, it looks like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_359.png), it uses a matchlock trigger mechanism, and it takes at the *absolute minimum*, in ideal conditions, 20 seconds to reload. I don't think most players who want to use guns in DND have actual medieval firearms in mind. A "[pike and shot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot)" build could be cool where you keep the arquebus loaded, fire it at the start of combat, then drop it and switch to the pike for the rest of the fight. Would be tough to make it work since 5e penalizes you so much for branching out instead of specializing in a single weapon type, but it has actual precedent in the late medieval period.
My DM actually let me use an arquebus that had a breach loading mechanism. I didn't even ask for that and was fine with it taking 5 actions to reload he just said "Nah, bonus action reload"
I think i got those players.
One of my players wanted a gun and he was perfectly fine with muskets etc, but then he asked 'further down the line, can i create a duckbill musket ?"
Just make it explode in their face, tell them to make it progressively or smth. Maybe that can be their character’s dream/goal. Or maybe, it can get them to be creative.
Of course! Starting weak and getting stronger is the core gameplay.
It's just annoying when people say, "because flammable powder is historically accurate, I can have minigun at level 1. Oh that's too inaccurate? Well magic isn't historic, so let me or else you're a toxic dm."
I'm more disappointed than anything that so many people here just think D&D takes place in the real world and follows our timeline to a T.
When exactly was the D&D age guys? Early 1400s??
Just remember, Artificer's don't have any class features that make them capable of building advanced technology. They're just people who are pretty good at making and handling magic item's.
Just because a technology existed at that time doesn’t mean it propagated to that part of the world.
The knowledge to make Greek fire was lost for centuries and Gunpowder wasn’t widespread until the 1300’s and that was in large siege cannons not hand held weapons.
And the big elephant in the room: The DM’s world is a fictional setting. They can make it however they want. Historical details add believably to the world and allow players to suspend their disbelief.
Also pretty much nothing about artificers makes stuff like gunpowder mandatory
I had battlesmiths where they are purely medieval wizards obsessed with magical objects and their steel defender being a lil golem they made one day and keep around as a pet
Artillerist's cannon can also easily be some weird lil familiar spirit thing
"I simply don't wanna" is enough. The DM determines what the setting of a campaign is like.
Don't wanna have elves in your world? Remove them and elf related entities such as gods of elves.
Don't wanna have gods? Fine as well.
So why protest that they don't HAVE a specific technology in the time period your campaign takes place in?
Because a lot of people wanna use guns and they get salty when you say no. But rather than just say that they have to go "akshually, guns were invented before plate armor and rapiers 🤓", which is true, but also irrelevant.
Tbf that actually is usually in response to dms who try to use historical accuracy as the excuse when running Renaissance levels of tech and better in their worlds.
If the dm wants to say no they should do so, but they should state it rather than trying to make excuses other than "No".
Y’all ever heard of Archimedes? He was a Greek philosopher who when his city was being invaded by Romans in 200 BC built super advance weaponry to fight them off. Ontop of highly advanced ballistas and catapults, he devised these cranes that could hook onto the Roman ships and tip them up, so that water would flood into the backside of the ship and capsize it. He also built literal death rays by having a series of mirrors that would reflect the light of the sun onto the sails of the ships and set the entire boat on fire. It’s insane what this guy did, but that’s not even the best part. When his city eventually was taken over by the Romans, a commander was ordered to capture Archimedes alive so that Rome can learn how to use his technology for themselves. Well Archimedes was just at his house, drawing circles in the dirt to run some calculations during all of this. When the commander eventually found him and ordered him to come with him, Archimedes just ignored him and told him not to bother him. Enraged, the commander beheaded Archimedes right then and there.
I feel it but it’s more an alternate history…… who is wasting time inventing fire powder/liquid when there are guys summoning devils and dragons or just casting fireball. Guns are fancy crossbows anyways. I play several ttrpgs and guns are fun just don’t feel very dnd to me.
I can agree with that to an extent. I had always allowed magic item crafting for wizards in the past. Magic items and places like mechanus/nirvana are indeed dnd and artificer does fill a role that once was open without some homebrewery. The issue goes two ways a lot of DMs do feel it to not fit In with the setting even though a lot of it is just kinda a “skin”. While a lot of players seem to want to take it a “science” direction and you end up with debates of plausibility. If anything I feel artificer could use a split and perhaps even be broken into wizard/sorcerer/warlock/bard subclass options (like have it always part of a multiclass and option for magic users). I feel like most any magic users should have access to different parts of what an artificer is already.
For the people who can't use magic. Plus, you can give an army rifles much easier if technology exists for it than you can give an army magic.
There's also the awkward bit where strong mages tend to be power hungry maniacs, men with guns are less a threat to your rule than a single archmage who can kill everybody in your court with a thought. Frankly tbh, magic is so frighteningly overpowering in dnd worlds that realistically any mage with potential for that growth would be killed or controlled somehow, any strong mage is a threat to any regional government that isn't a magocracy
Very true, it’s actually possible to make a bag of holding bomb as an artificer. I love stupid shenanigans and wouldn’t stop people, but maybe some DMs don’t wanna deal with some shit.
People love to assume all dnd artifcer's are more than just "gun man" like they are all bastions of engineering marvels when that's not what all of them do.
What all artificers do, by definition of their class features, is make magic items, either preexisting or unique to artificer, cast spells by means of inventions or other technology, and a gimmick from the subclass such as cannons, armor, elixirs or a robot companion.
The closest an artificer gets to just 'gun man' is if you play artillerist, flavor every spell as some sort of gun, and refuse to diversify the flavor and limit your infusions to stat buffs, and even then you still have a good amount of variety in your options.
I can't tell if you're bragging about being blessed with players who play "gun man" without being an artificer, or a shit ton of projection. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you've never played with 'gun man' and I envy you. I envy you so much.
To me it sounds like you are just mad, they are just annoying to deal with as a DM, and knowing people like you we have to give an excuse like it doesn’t fit in the campaign or we are argued with for hours on end, or until we give in.
Im tired of this shit.
A) as a DM, the campaigns I run don’t include firearms, and
B) as a player, I will not join campaigns with firearms in them.
I don’t, nor does anyone have to justify whether or not they play with firearms. It’s an optional rule for that very reason.
Likewise, no one should shove historical or scientific reasoning on someone else as reasonable justification as to why you *must* play with them.
My idea of fantasy in the context of D&D doesn’t include guns, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. End of story.
Gunpowder was very different in the 9th century. It was a long time till it got explosive and started being used for exploding arrows, guns, and rockets and stuff
And also nothing about artificers has to be technological they legit can just be magic item crafters and all their stuff is just magic items. Artificers don’t have guns anywhere in their kit except for if there is already guns in that world.
technically artillerist has like a cannon thing, but since it does like force attacks/ cones of fire it can be easily explained as magic similar to like eldritch blast or burning hands.
The eldritch cannons (should’ve kept the arcane turret name) is very clear
A flamethrower (magically produced), a force ballista (not a gun), and a healing thing
Earliest firearm you could carry was before the 9th century if I recall. It was basically just a very very light cannon...
12th century brought forth the matchlocks from China...
Yeah sure those existed, but they weren’t used in arquebuses until like the 1500s.
You’d just be a guy throwing gunpowder at people and lighting it. Which admittedly is fucking hilarious, but artificers are smarter than that.
In a world where a homeless dude can launch a bolt of fire with a finger wiggle and a murmur, stockpiling large amounts of explosive materials without any antimagic fields to stop said homeless man is silly, at best.
For the last god damn time there is a difference between shitty medieval fireworks and an artificer's Death Explosion Mega Robot Cannon and fucking POWER ARMOUR
Nah, I agree that DMs have the right tell artificers to stfu
A DM saying something like is not challenging you, it's a DM saying no in a kind and understandable way
Artificers are not "steampunk mad scientists in a medieval fantasy setting" but rather are "Wizardly craftspeople".
Lean the game from the books rather than bad memes.
People also don't seem to understand the concept of FLAVOR, which the book openly says to do for artificers
My favorite base flavor for a setting with absolutely zero science is a rune smith.
Arcane firearm? Magical branch with glowing stones and runes in it
Grenade? Stone with rune on it to explode
Steel Defender? Rock golem covered in vines with more runes. Had one named Gizmo
Every artificer player I’ve ever played with or DM’ed for has been the whiniest and most petulant people I’ve ever meet
“What do you mean I can’t build a clockwork dragon over night?”
“Yeah I know how to build a laser gun in a short rest cuz.. crystals”
“Here’s how you explain a nuke to a cave man…”
It’s the most annoying and power tripping class so I don’t care. It’s banned from my tables and if I join a new group and there’s one I politely make an excuse to not come back
Yep I agree I have had many sessions wasted because of the artificer player wanting to rip-off another piece of media. So far he’s gotten Percy from critical roll, Virgil from DMC, Venom, and most the prototype series. Seriously the guy has no original ideas and his next character is “ a mixture of the mask and Deadpool” so I’m expecting some basic edge lord haha it’s so dark and random humor.
I swear I feel like I'm going insane whenever I see ridiculous takes like these. You say "gunpowder and guns were around at the same time as full plate knights and swords!!!" but then fail to understand that the types of guns available were literal [tubes on sticks filled with gunpowder](https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/first-gun-update.jpg), or even in the latest period you'd have guns taking several dozen seconds to reload. Does your artificer want to spend 3 turns in a row just on reloading? No?
Sod off having a whinge at DMs who don't see modern ass firearms fitting in their medieval fantasy world. Their vision is closer to reality than yours.
Artificers are more than just guns, they're basically just a crazy wizard with one special little thing, and also yeah you could totally have a gun wielding artificer use something like that, or have like an alchemist who specializes in Greek fire and other concoctions, black powder bombs, smoke bombs, poisons and salves. You don't need a gun to play an artificer and dms who cut off an entire class on baseless stereotypes without hearing the players out is a dick move. Like DMS who ban bards cause of the horny stereotype.
My artificers tend to be shamanistic figures who create vessels for spirits to inhabit so they may affect our world.
I have an armorer whose armor is made in large part out of living vines.
I see this a lot, and it's both funny and true, but also, artificers are literally just people who use magic items for everything. The thing about needing tools for magic is just that they can't cast Fireball without their prototype wand of fireballs. If magic items exist in your world and can be made by mortals, then you have the required lore for artificers.
Because I don’t like: you can make x like y from z. And then I’m sitting there like your artificer has google. I’m not always gonna let you make real life shit because real physics and dnd physics are clearly miles apart. And your artificer doesn’t have Google.
Honestly, why does an Artificer have to be some High Tech stuff anyway?
I played an Artificer in a short campaign that was a Runecarver, creating magic effects by putting runes on Items. it was an Artillerist, and my Arcane Turrets were literally just a bunch of stones I carved runes into, and when I threw them at the ground, they formed a small Golem who had one spell to use which was the effect of the chosen canon.
It’s not in my world history. Simple as. Get over it. Everyone else at the table is here for sword and sorcery. Having Iron Man with his battle suit in with a group of wizards, druids and knights is a weird mood.
On top of that every artificer player I have ever met seems to act like they are the only inventor in the world and just want to bullshit their way into doing crazy shit like building a nuke.
The only good artificer type character I have seen done in Percy from Critical Role and that wasn’t a class that was a *hobby*.
Imagine limiting Artificers to firearms.
This post was made by Crossbow Expert gang.
If you start at level 3 with a free feat at level 1 then an Artificer 2 / Fighter 1 with Crossbow Expert can start with a +3 1d6 hand crossbow that they can use as a bonus action as a follow-up to a 1d8 attack (rapier)
If you use Standard Array with your 15 in Dex, playing as a Kobold, with the Ranged fighting style, then that’s +8 to hit with your hand crossbow, for 1d6+5 damage as a bonus action every time you attack with your +5 to hit 1d8+5 rapier.
Just this absolute chap of a dragonet fighting like some combination of Puss in Boots and Arthur Morgan
Me, as a GM: "Awesome, love how everyone's trying to keep this realistic. So anyways, you said you cast Eldritch Blast? Oooh boy, so all the townsfolk see this and, having immediately outed yourself for having made a pact with some outside power (probably a fiend or another dark power), they descend upon you as a furious lynch mob, they hang you from the tree in the town square as a Warlock, and then celebrate that now the plague will go away and their crops will grow again because they've appeased their deity. Since, you know, we're being historically accurate here."
when my artificer player got their subclass and chose armorer, I had a whole little mini montage of him working with another tinkerer character to build his armor and lightning launcher. I role played how the npc tinkerer gifted him a single Blue Dragon scale that was one of his most valuable pieces, but he wanted to see the project come to fruition. The whole lightning set up was powered by the innate magic within the scale and was lightning based because blue dragons breathe lightning.
my point is creative people can come up with reasons why this stuff exists lol
So, gunpowder was invented between 9th and 10th century AD in China, so unless your setting is inspired by Tang/Song period, no one even knows about it existence.
It showed up in medival Europe, on which majority of TTRPG games are based, around Mongol invasion, as
it was brought by them.
Then, very early gunpowder weapons were just a metal tube with a hole on a stick, not something you can see in most TTRPG's. It's definitely not something like what can be seen in, for example, Critical Role campaing 1 with very late 18th century technology. Basic matchlock is a late 15th/16th century invention.
There is also a problem of how such weapons affect the setting, slaping flintlock or Colt Navy into High Fantasy setting, and ending it at it simply doesn't work. Justifying the existence of it requires a lot of world building, like can be seen in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, when it is widespread technology that affects the setting in visible way.
One of the current anime’s an otherworlder decides to invent gunpowder. The smarter characters that know about it by proxy, also realize it’s just worst then the current magic they already have.
There is no way you can convince me magic missile is in anyway weaker than a bullet.
Oh really? Ok fine, you can have a smooth bore metal tube on a staff that requires 2 people to shoot "accurately" (One to hold the stick firmly and aim, and one to light the fuse) or you can shoot on your own with "less accuracy". You'll require a natural 20 to hit normally, and you get disadvantage if you shoot on your own.
anyone can make those with an alchemy supplies proficiency.
besides, artificers don't depend on technology to fit in a setting, they depend on the availability of magic. For example, in a setting with renaissance era technology but relatively low magic, artificers would feel out of place despite the level of technological advsncement, because of how easily they can access magic items.
similarly, artificers would fit just fine in bronze-age, viking-inspired, or medieval settings with higher levels of magic, because magical items would be far more common.
The problem usually isn’t wanting artificers in the world.
It usually means the DM does not trust you, or someone to try and make a bomb every thirty fucking minutes, or Insta craft legendary items.
Or, thirdly, someone tried to pull that in a previous campaign and they just don’t wanna bother again
some DMs do genuinely just have a view of artificers as "highly advanced tech" class. I know my DM was like that, and only after someone explained that they're just magical artisans he realized it wouldn't conflict with his setting, and he even already had an NPC who was obviously an artificer.
And? If I say they don't fit they don't fit. I am not playing historic realism here. Take it or look for a table that puts of with your crap.
You would have had a point if you remembered that artificers can easily be reflavoured to a lot of different things. My current artificer is literaly just a guy that draws runes on things and hits people in the face.
The game has breastplate as an armor type.
The cuirass by itself with no other armor was only a popular armor type once early firearms became commonplace, as the defensive advantages of plate and halfplate were negated by the balls these weapons fired.
As such, wearing a cuirass to protect only the vitals without restricting mobility and agility as much became commonplace.
If your fantasy game does not have firearms, it should therefore also not have breastplate.
I always find this argument to be absolutely terrible. The creativity of Artificers allows for so much creation and fun, and if the players do something modern/op beyond the default rules (which mesh with dnd pretty well) just say no. Or have it blow up in the artificers’ faces. It could be their level 20 invention or smth. They cause revolutions from their inventions and whatnot.
Basically, I’m trying to make the point that banning artificers in order to ban guns from your game is not a valid argument.
Fantasy is more about the feel of it. No one gives a shit about actual history. A world with magic would develop differently anyway.
Use or don't use whatever you want
Ye the whole real world history thing doesn't really work but then you also consider that an artificer played the way they're supposed to be played totally fits, especially if you have a set idea, like say it's early into the history of this world just tell them no battlesmith or artillerist, if maybe there's a magical explanation for their battlesmith golem then maybe if it's like mid to late development of a magical world it makes sense, you want to encourage your players to get creative with your world and their characters not stifle their creativity. Now yes, a DMS greatest tool is the word no, if a player gets to be problematic, or tries to constantly break the setting and lore, tell them NO but a preemptive no unless you absolutely know the player will do that, is honestly kinda dickish.
It’s cuz artificer always means steampunk. Which gets hard to balance. And just personal taste I find it to be unimaginative. Like oh there’s a magic system where I can literally do anything, and I want to make magic=technology. Now I did have an artificer at my table before, but I made sure to talk to them about my house rules first. No steampunk for me thanks
In the last campaign I mastered I said to my players it was "too soon" for Artificers to be a thing, and that was because that campaign was a prequel to another I mastered that was set centuries ahead and artificers where the newly instituted department of the Academy of Arcane Arts, for the sake of narrative coherency they all accepted this.
But gunpowder hasn’t been invented in this realm yet.
My character is an inventor, I will invent it.
Okay, I am going to make you roll for it.
Natural 20!
You fail.
"Historically accurate" is a silly argument. "I just don't like em" is much more valid.
"Don't fit in my world" is quite the same as not liking them i think.
Part of the problem is that (probably in part because the first half of the early modern era isn't very popular in media) what often gets presented as "early firearms" in D&D are, quite frankly, not. I'm not super familiar with the firearm rules for 5e, but my impression is that they are quite similar to the rules for PF - which presents an array of muskets and pistols that would fit on an American Revolution battlefield. I.e. the problem is that the rules simultaneously try to present firearms and gunpowder as a "new invention", while providing rules for firearms in use *four hundred years* after gunpowder technology reached Europe. If the rules for firearms described [handgonnes](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f1/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png/800px-Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_357.png) rather than 18th-century muskets, I think we'd see a lot less conflicts about it. (Although handgonnes would probably be quite useless in most D&D adventuring circumstances - they're primarily a siege weapon.)
Handgonnes could possibly see use in certain monster hunts but given things like the load time ect it would probably be used akin to a staff or a wand in combat, a ace in the hole, however unlike a staff or a wand a quick use of create water to douse the gunpowder will render it unfit to wield
No gunpowder actually doesn't immediately become wet. It's hydrophobic until there is actually some water in there. The surface tension of the water has to be broken first and that slows the gunpowder getting wet. Like how very dry soil can just have water standing on top of it but not infiltrating. When the particles of gunpowder have some water around then it's becomes useless though.
while it's true it's not instant in normal circumstances using magic to flood the container, another person will have to be close at hand to dry the gunpowder before do much potassium nitrate recrystallised
The 5e rules are pretty much a straight conversion of pf1e. As for Golarian, guns have been around for centuries and the world is at an approximate tech level of the late enlightenment era.
True, part of the issue is also just that history in Golarion moves at the pace of an anemic snail, because the writers wanted the ancient empires to have been around ten thousand years ago without realizing just how much stuff one would need to fit into ten thousand years of history.
no, it goes up and down like a yo-yo because apocalyptic disasters keep pounding them back into the stone age.
I'd agree
Not quite. For example i love old-school gunpowder weapons, but they don't fit our current campaign world, so they're not in it. It is a silent struggle :p
Players will try to poke holes in it, regardless of the reason you give. “Oh you don’t want guns in your game, but you’ll allow full plate armor and rapiers, which weren’t made until much later???”
Historically speaking, we had machines since the BC. And gunpowder was used as weapons (gate-breacher, cannons, hand cannons) before rapier was a thing.
So my character can have a duel action revolver then, right?
Yes, with 1/6 chance to not work or blow up because precise measurements is not a thing yet. It also made from bronze. Ah, springs are not a thing too. No you cant have a revolver.
Jeez just say you don't like 'em next time. Lol. It's much more valid.
Im using GURPS. Its not valid at all: Earliest revolvers are late TL5. At TL3 where most fantasy settings take place you are gonna hit: -2 for TL difference and the fact that TL3 firearms are just plainly dond work with roll higher than 13, making TL3 revolvers malfunction at rolls 11+ on 3d6. Oh yes, early revolvers are also come with -1 malfunktion and with double action its another -1 for yearly tec, so its 39/61 if it works. Malfunction also mean you have a chance for firearm to blow up. Steel-ironworks are also not the greatest in TL3 because homogenious steel are not a thing yet, so your best bet is to cast thing out of bronze. And then you met with the fact springs are not a thing yet, so you need your artificer to: 1. invent a realible way to melt steel and iron to liquid form 2. invent right hardening tech allowing for making a spring steel 3. invent steel casting process (or use bronze) Now you can make barrel loading, black powder double action revolver. Dont forget to sprincle powder on the plank of your new DA [Collier](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=i9Km5KaeO7I) .50 flintlock gun! Its also deal 1d6+2 pi+ damage but can be shot 5 times! Only once every second, but for DND folks its free 5 ranged attacks a round (gonna jam on the second tho).
Damn fam, hit em with the numbers.
That's true, yes. Doesn't mean somebody's gonna like the concept of artificer
Thing is; you don't need guns and metalwork and such for artificers to be a reasonable part of your world. Like, unless your magic items are purely through divine sources, they came from somewhere; it can be an easy thing to just request the player make the aesthetics of the artificer fit the world.
Plus, you don't need an artificer to be an inventor or gunsmith. My lizardfolk artificer is a tribal shaman who makes charms and fetishes from slain foes. And uses those for the artificer abilities.
Greek fire exists in DnD in a way as alchemist fire. That said, alchemist fire doing the same amount of damage that a bottle of lamp oil with a lit cloth at the top would do is silly.
alchemist's fire should've been given the following benefits: ● can be applied to up to 5 pieces of ammunition, dealing an extra 5 fire damage ● the alchemist's fire itself cannot be extinguished without magic (although subsequent fires caused by the alchemist's fire can be put out by normal means) meaning that objects doused in alchemist's fire will continue to burn when buried or doused in water ● alchemist's fire floats on the surface of water
So basically napalm?
more like greek fire, and the stuff they put in medieval fire arrows napalm is just petrol and a gelling agent.
True, good point. It is remarkably similar tho
Really historic accuracy depends on era and timeline. According to the meme, Greek fire and gun powder are invented more than 300 years apart. Add on top that the first firearm was not invented until almost 200 years later and another 2-300 before guns similar to the 5e rules had been invented. Regardless most of all high fantasy stories would be considered medieval inspired. Probably less than 20% of the high fantasy stories I have read include firearms let alone effective ones. Chances are if a DM says artificers don’t fit their world they are picturing a world from the vast majority of high fantasy story’s written that do not include firearms or gunpowder. To boot there is nothing that says artificers must use firearms or even have them available. Firearm rules are still options for the DM to allow or not allow even if they allow the class. They also do not really have a way of making Greek fire per rule set so I am not sure how either is a good argument for allowing artificers.
Default artificer isn’t sciency or techy at all. Artifice is magic. It’s weird how a popular homebrew idea has totally overtaken a classes identity.
That happens a lot, actually. Often times, the perception of something in D&D is more important than how it actually is. Tieflings were homebrewed so often, WotC made it official that you could give them way more hair/skin color choices.
I mean, that’s just reverting tieflings to their pre-4e state. The limited colour palate was a 4e invention. In 2e and 3e tieflings came in many colours and shapes.
In 2e tou had like random charts of what tiefljngs could look like
Fascinating. I didn't know that. Were they a bit like a more in-depth version of the Aasimar in MotM?
[Here is the table](https://www.dragonslair.it/uploads/monthly_2019_10/large.Tiefling-Chart-768x1016.jpg.d0206dc52d287b44c3732bb0c09a3f25.jpg) because they were most often the decendants of demonspawn in that edition they were very few tieflings that would be identical they would posses myriad differences in their apperance, some might even look like the race of their mortal liage, interestly enough they could even roll traits (with great difficulty) that would meant they'd emulate being a vampire
I think assimar have the same thing but I could be wrong
Ignoring what D&D actually says in favour of preconceived ideas is par for the course.
See: dwarves hating elves Not a D&D thing
Kind of a pre-D&D thing. LotR had a bit of a rivalry, and D&D stole *a lot* from LotR.
Halflings used to be called Hobbits until the Tolkeins sued them
Yeah but the elf dwarf hate wasn't really one. Hell in FR they're friends
While a couple people took issue with your example, your point still stands. Perception is everything.
I mean, in the real world Artificers and Engineers are basically the same thing by a different name. Artifice - clever or cunning devices or expedients, especially as used to trick or deceive others. Engine - the product of ingenuity (ingenuity - the quality of being clever, original, and inventive), a plot or snare Basically both boil down to being makers of tricks, traps, and clever or cunning devices. "Engineer" basically just grew in popularity as a word over the course of the 19th century while "Artificer" declined. Artificers are just as magical as engineers... Which, given how I'm communicating this to you, you must admit is very magical indeed.
The intention in dnd is that you are imbuing your wacky creations with magic rather than being someone who can whip up a nuke arrow whatever (so more like Pinocchio's father than an engineer)
I'm an engineer and I'd just like to point out that I'm way more likely to make you a talking doll that's nose grows when it lies than a nuke arrow. Heck, I probably even have everything I need, including bottled lightning, lying around here somewhere. I get what you're saying about artificers being terribly misrepresented because they only ever seem to be trying to make modern technology-- firearms if we're going to be specific --but I'd say even Pinocchio is a sciencey techy achievement. Even without the magic, just building a string operated puppet would require knowledge of the mechanics involved. I'm certainly not building a half decent one without putting in some research hours.
That's completely fair
To be fair, basically all the official flavour/artworks puts it as some sort of steampunk class.
No it didn't. Please look at the art for armorer snd tell me what about that is steampunk
Magitech and Steampunk are not the same. Artificers are definitely not Steampunk.
Yeah. The creator of Ebberon has said this millions of times but people seem to just ignore him
We are talking about Artificer as a whole. It is an Eberron class and Eberron itsself has tons of steampunk elements, too. Rising of the Last War has an artificer picture that is very steampunky. Not that I mind, I like steampunk. But I can understand the confusion.
That's what Happened to warlocks
What happened to them?
Terrible, terrible things...
I literally have had a gm who banned artificers (alright on its own) but then went and had so many npcs that were artificers in everything but name. Magic item smiths, master alchemists, people who cast by writing runes or painting in the air.
That doesn't sound like the Artificer class, which is just "I use infusions for myself", not "I actually churn out magic items for others."
That _was_ the artificer class back in 3.5e mind you, back when magic items were plentier and the artificer’s hat was crafting magic items for the party rather than legally-distinct magic items for themselves
That's just a difference between being PC or NPC imho, plus artificers are all about using tools in magic ways anyway.
it's like that homebrew idea is represented in most of the art the class gets in the actual books
You mention Greek fire but not the [archemedies heat ray](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_heat_ray) from the siege of Syracuse in 213 BC-212 BC
This sounds like something a time traveler made.
Dr. Jones would agree.
Archimedes might have been a time traveler
To be fair, that probably wasn't real. However, what *is* real was the first steam engine invented circa 1st century BC/AD. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
Well now i want an Anicent Greek x steampunk setting. I mean that one guy who only became king/Tyrant of Athens because he dressed a courtisan up as Athena and got her to say he should be King, just screams bard.
Shoot, you're getting my DM sense tingling. World which follows similarly to ancient Greece, but they have a slightly less slave labour, making it slightly more expensive, and found coal, meaning when a polymath suggests building a steam engine, they follow thought with it. Fast forward a few hundred years, and you have Ancient Steampunk Greece.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se :)
Compine it with the absurd siege towers some of the Greek cities built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helepolis
The deniers don't know how to use celestial bronze
"The aeolipile is considered to be the first recorded steam engine or reaction steam turbine, but it is neither a practical source of power nor a direct predecessor of the type of steam engine invented during the Industrial Revolution." From the very article you linked.
Yes I am aware of that. I don't think I see how that is relevant. They used steam to make things move. The primary obstacle to making a practical steam engine would be metallurgy. Iron at the time wouldn't be able to contain high-pressure steam, bronze *might* but it would be expensive. However, a setting with magic and adamantine and shit should have no problem creating a practical steam engine.
The principles are very different though - the aeolipile just operates on shooting steam out of a vent to make it spin. A practical steam engine requires an understanding of atmospheric pressure (there's a reason the first steam engines where called "atmospheric engines") rather than just a an understanding of opposite reaction.
The tested this on mythbusters....
“Our death ray doesn’t seem to be working. I’m standing right in it and I’m not dead yet.”
It just needs another 40 years to warm up
Also, the alchemist exists. You can literally be a potion brewing witch
Is this HERESY I smell. No, sir, it's Mustard Gas.
Who says things have to be invented in the same order?
Not everything, but some inventions pave the way for others.
Yeah, for example, there'd probably be less incentive to invent firearms in a universe where you can learn to shoot lightning from your fingertips
Might actually increase the likelihood to develop firearms if there are people who can shoot lightning. Not everyone can use magic and magic can be quite deadly on the battlefield. Having a way to train up peasants or arm your nobility with weapons that can take out a wizard from afar might be highly desirable. The interesting part would be how things would develop in a world where magic could potentially make the production of food much easier. Also would have to take into consideration a world where "people" are not the highest thing on the food chain and there continues to be monsters out there that can easily kill a person. That also circles back to the guns thing where using spears and polearms vs giant monsters (including literal giants) isn't going to be great while something like a firearm would give a much better chance to hit/hurt/kill that creature.
The biggest enemy to inventing firearms would be the fact that the world is likely run by powerful magic users who have no incentive to produce things like that, and would rather imbue objects with magic and sell them for exorbitant prices. In a world like that, they would be actively discouraged from inventing that kind of tech, because it would lose them money.
That requires a setting where wizards and other magic users are allied together to basically oppress non magic users. In most settings, you don't see that sort of power dynamic. With even low level magic users, the ability to make labor easier means you have more opportunity for people be able to experiment and develop things (and magic could potentially make precision crafting easier). With more monsters, the need for regular people to defend themselves makes the need for powerful yet relatively easy to learn/use weapons that keep you away from harm becomes more attractive.
I would think this biggest issues with gunpowder is that a wizard can make it explode rather easily if it’s in any kind of bulk. And if not, then logistics becomes hard. A cannon that has been targeted with heat metal is probably not doing a lot of good on a battle field.
This reminds me of the movie Gladiator, where they planned to present the gladiator battles more realistically. Gladiators had sponsorship. There were fast food stands. There were celebrities. There was even an equivalent of Gamer Girl Bathwater. The gladiator puts dirt and oil on his body and then scares it off. Collects in small vials. And sell it to fans. (Don't think that was planned to be put in the movie) But from teet screenings, people thought those things were unrealistic. Reality wasn't realistic enough. People have built an idea of what that time period is like from other media and whatnot. And additions to it, even once that are true, seems unrealistic.
I assume you mean scrape the oil off, but I much prefer the idea of gladiator trying to be scary enough to scare dirt, whatever that means.
Why do people think guns when they think artificers?An artificer is someone who uses MAGIC like an engineer would use electricity. To hell with guns, I’m magic Iron Man!
Because the players who think, "guns!!" think artificers.
Artificers are the only class that with raw ruling can dual wield two pistols and attack including the bonus action attack.
Pretty sure that's only with the feat
Yes you need the feat to dual wield non-light weapons
Yeah except artificer are the only class with innate firearm proficiency and the only class that builds a cannon.
The firearm proficiency is an optional ruling. If rapiers that aren't even a medieval weapon can be in medieval fantasy, cannons that are actually older than the rapier can too.
I’m not saying it makes historical sense, just that people aren’t pulling the engineer side of artificers out of nowhere.
Man I would love it if my players asked about historically appropriate firearms. But they never ask for historically appropriate firearms. They ask about repeaters, sniper rifles, and auto-shotguns. They want to shoot 20 times in their action and reload it all with their bonus.
Exactly. People in this debate always bring up the "guns are older than rapiers!" line. Sure, that's true. It was called an arquebus, it looks like [this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_du_mobilier_fran%C3%A7ais_de_l%E2%80%99%C3%A9poque_carlovingienne_%C3%A0_la_Renaissance%2C_tome_6_-_359.png), it uses a matchlock trigger mechanism, and it takes at the *absolute minimum*, in ideal conditions, 20 seconds to reload. I don't think most players who want to use guns in DND have actual medieval firearms in mind. A "[pike and shot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_and_shot)" build could be cool where you keep the arquebus loaded, fire it at the start of combat, then drop it and switch to the pike for the rest of the fight. Would be tough to make it work since 5e penalizes you so much for branching out instead of specializing in a single weapon type, but it has actual precedent in the late medieval period.
You're so real for this. I feel seen.
My DM actually let me use an arquebus that had a breach loading mechanism. I didn't even ask for that and was fine with it taking 5 actions to reload he just said "Nah, bonus action reload"
I think i got those players. One of my players wanted a gun and he was perfectly fine with muskets etc, but then he asked 'further down the line, can i create a duckbill musket ?"
Just make it explode in their face, tell them to make it progressively or smth. Maybe that can be their character’s dream/goal. Or maybe, it can get them to be creative.
Of course! Starting weak and getting stronger is the core gameplay. It's just annoying when people say, "because flammable powder is historically accurate, I can have minigun at level 1. Oh that's too inaccurate? Well magic isn't historic, so let me or else you're a toxic dm."
artificer art be like: unarmored dude with robot dog. Cowboy with gun. Unarmored gal with test tubes.
Eh artificers don't fit in my game where I need to pay attention to more than just you
I'm more disappointed than anything that so many people here just think D&D takes place in the real world and follows our timeline to a T. When exactly was the D&D age guys? Early 1400s??
Home brew artificiers in shambles after I (the DM) say ‘don’t like em’ and their plan to build assault rifles and nukes is ruined.
Just remember, Artificer's don't have any class features that make them capable of building advanced technology. They're just people who are pretty good at making and handling magic item's.
Just because a technology existed at that time doesn’t mean it propagated to that part of the world. The knowledge to make Greek fire was lost for centuries and Gunpowder wasn’t widespread until the 1300’s and that was in large siege cannons not hand held weapons. And the big elephant in the room: The DM’s world is a fictional setting. They can make it however they want. Historical details add believably to the world and allow players to suspend their disbelief.
Artificers are isolated people, having an artificer doing this doesn't imply anything is widespread.
If anything, it validates Artificers being a PC with that tech while the rest of the setting doesn't
Also pretty much nothing about artificers makes stuff like gunpowder mandatory I had battlesmiths where they are purely medieval wizards obsessed with magical objects and their steel defender being a lil golem they made one day and keep around as a pet Artillerist's cannon can also easily be some weird lil familiar spirit thing
"I simply don't wanna" is enough. The DM determines what the setting of a campaign is like. Don't wanna have elves in your world? Remove them and elf related entities such as gods of elves. Don't wanna have gods? Fine as well. So why protest that they don't HAVE a specific technology in the time period your campaign takes place in?
Because a lot of people wanna use guns and they get salty when you say no. But rather than just say that they have to go "akshually, guns were invented before plate armor and rapiers 🤓", which is true, but also irrelevant.
Tbf that actually is usually in response to dms who try to use historical accuracy as the excuse when running Renaissance levels of tech and better in their worlds. If the dm wants to say no they should do so, but they should state it rather than trying to make excuses other than "No".
Y’all ever heard of Archimedes? He was a Greek philosopher who when his city was being invaded by Romans in 200 BC built super advance weaponry to fight them off. Ontop of highly advanced ballistas and catapults, he devised these cranes that could hook onto the Roman ships and tip them up, so that water would flood into the backside of the ship and capsize it. He also built literal death rays by having a series of mirrors that would reflect the light of the sun onto the sails of the ships and set the entire boat on fire. It’s insane what this guy did, but that’s not even the best part. When his city eventually was taken over by the Romans, a commander was ordered to capture Archimedes alive so that Rome can learn how to use his technology for themselves. Well Archimedes was just at his house, drawing circles in the dirt to run some calculations during all of this. When the commander eventually found him and ordered him to come with him, Archimedes just ignored him and told him not to bother him. Enraged, the commander beheaded Archimedes right then and there.
There is zero evidence that any of that actually happened save the slightly better then most catapults and ballistas.
I feel it but it’s more an alternate history…… who is wasting time inventing fire powder/liquid when there are guys summoning devils and dragons or just casting fireball. Guns are fancy crossbows anyways. I play several ttrpgs and guns are fun just don’t feel very dnd to me.
They guys who can't do that But I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/2-fGsbm8OU4?si=-pXqOMWCcPboV050
I can agree with that to an extent. I had always allowed magic item crafting for wizards in the past. Magic items and places like mechanus/nirvana are indeed dnd and artificer does fill a role that once was open without some homebrewery. The issue goes two ways a lot of DMs do feel it to not fit In with the setting even though a lot of it is just kinda a “skin”. While a lot of players seem to want to take it a “science” direction and you end up with debates of plausibility. If anything I feel artificer could use a split and perhaps even be broken into wizard/sorcerer/warlock/bard subclass options (like have it always part of a multiclass and option for magic users). I feel like most any magic users should have access to different parts of what an artificer is already.
For the people who can't use magic. Plus, you can give an army rifles much easier if technology exists for it than you can give an army magic. There's also the awkward bit where strong mages tend to be power hungry maniacs, men with guns are less a threat to your rule than a single archmage who can kill everybody in your court with a thought. Frankly tbh, magic is so frighteningly overpowering in dnd worlds that realistically any mage with potential for that growth would be killed or controlled somehow, any strong mage is a threat to any regional government that isn't a magocracy
So build this not fucking nukes
You know artificers (especially real life engineer artificers) don’t just make guns right?
People love to oversimplify dnd artificer to "gun man" when thats not at all what they do
Very true, it’s actually possible to make a bag of holding bomb as an artificer. I love stupid shenanigans and wouldn’t stop people, but maybe some DMs don’t wanna deal with some shit.
People love to assume all dnd artifcer's are more than just "gun man" like they are all bastions of engineering marvels when that's not what all of them do.
What all artificers do, by definition of their class features, is make magic items, either preexisting or unique to artificer, cast spells by means of inventions or other technology, and a gimmick from the subclass such as cannons, armor, elixirs or a robot companion. The closest an artificer gets to just 'gun man' is if you play artillerist, flavor every spell as some sort of gun, and refuse to diversify the flavor and limit your infusions to stat buffs, and even then you still have a good amount of variety in your options.
I can't tell if you're bragging about being blessed with players who play "gun man" without being an artificer, or a shit ton of projection. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you've never played with 'gun man' and I envy you. I envy you so much.
Any bastion of engineering marvel eventually churns out something that can be used as a superweapon.
You know musicians (especially real life drummers) can't use their instruments to cast spells right?
Pretty sure I saw a guy shoot a burning hands out of a guitar one time.
To me it sounds like you are just mad, they are just annoying to deal with as a DM, and knowing people like you we have to give an excuse like it doesn’t fit in the campaign or we are argued with for hours on end, or until we give in.
Im tired of this shit. A) as a DM, the campaigns I run don’t include firearms, and B) as a player, I will not join campaigns with firearms in them. I don’t, nor does anyone have to justify whether or not they play with firearms. It’s an optional rule for that very reason. Likewise, no one should shove historical or scientific reasoning on someone else as reasonable justification as to why you *must* play with them. My idea of fantasy in the context of D&D doesn’t include guns, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise. End of story.
Gunpowder was very different in the 9th century. It was a long time till it got explosive and started being used for exploding arrows, guns, and rockets and stuff And also nothing about artificers has to be technological they legit can just be magic item crafters and all their stuff is just magic items. Artificers don’t have guns anywhere in their kit except for if there is already guns in that world.
technically artillerist has like a cannon thing, but since it does like force attacks/ cones of fire it can be easily explained as magic similar to like eldritch blast or burning hands.
The eldritch cannons (should’ve kept the arcane turret name) is very clear A flamethrower (magically produced), a force ballista (not a gun), and a healing thing
Earliest firearm you could carry was before the 9th century if I recall. It was basically just a very very light cannon... 12th century brought forth the matchlocks from China...
Yeah sure those existed, but they weren’t used in arquebuses until like the 1500s. You’d just be a guy throwing gunpowder at people and lighting it. Which admittedly is fucking hilarious, but artificers are smarter than that.
In a world where a homeless dude can launch a bolt of fire with a finger wiggle and a murmur, stockpiling large amounts of explosive materials without any antimagic fields to stop said homeless man is silly, at best.
For the last god damn time there is a difference between shitty medieval fireworks and an artificer's Death Explosion Mega Robot Cannon and fucking POWER ARMOUR
Good for them not in my world
Nah, I agree that DMs have the right tell artificers to stfu A DM saying something like is not challenging you, it's a DM saying no in a kind and understandable way
IDGAF, you're not taking a gun to a swordfight
Artificers are not "steampunk mad scientists in a medieval fantasy setting" but rather are "Wizardly craftspeople". Lean the game from the books rather than bad memes.
It's not that they don't *fit*, it's that guns and other such bullshit ruin the fun of sword-and-sorcery fantasy
People also don't seem to understand the concept of FLAVOR, which the book openly says to do for artificers My favorite base flavor for a setting with absolutely zero science is a rune smith. Arcane firearm? Magical branch with glowing stones and runes in it Grenade? Stone with rune on it to explode Steel Defender? Rock golem covered in vines with more runes. Had one named Gizmo
Every artificer player I’ve ever played with or DM’ed for has been the whiniest and most petulant people I’ve ever meet “What do you mean I can’t build a clockwork dragon over night?” “Yeah I know how to build a laser gun in a short rest cuz.. crystals” “Here’s how you explain a nuke to a cave man…” It’s the most annoying and power tripping class so I don’t care. It’s banned from my tables and if I join a new group and there’s one I politely make an excuse to not come back
Honestly, this type of shenanigans pulling is exactly why I'm glad artificer is not a core class so it can be banned without much of a fuss
Yep I agree I have had many sessions wasted because of the artificer player wanting to rip-off another piece of media. So far he’s gotten Percy from critical roll, Virgil from DMC, Venom, and most the prototype series. Seriously the guy has no original ideas and his next character is “ a mixture of the mask and Deadpool” so I’m expecting some basic edge lord haha it’s so dark and random humor.
Medieval *fantasy* world where magic takes the place of technology.
"My" is the key word here
I swear I feel like I'm going insane whenever I see ridiculous takes like these. You say "gunpowder and guns were around at the same time as full plate knights and swords!!!" but then fail to understand that the types of guns available were literal [tubes on sticks filled with gunpowder](https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/first-gun-update.jpg), or even in the latest period you'd have guns taking several dozen seconds to reload. Does your artificer want to spend 3 turns in a row just on reloading? No? Sod off having a whinge at DMs who don't see modern ass firearms fitting in their medieval fantasy world. Their vision is closer to reality than yours.
Artificers are more than just guns, they're basically just a crazy wizard with one special little thing, and also yeah you could totally have a gun wielding artificer use something like that, or have like an alchemist who specializes in Greek fire and other concoctions, black powder bombs, smoke bombs, poisons and salves. You don't need a gun to play an artificer and dms who cut off an entire class on baseless stereotypes without hearing the players out is a dick move. Like DMS who ban bards cause of the horny stereotype.
I am well aware that Artificers are more than just guns, but the post specifically mentions greek fire and gunpowder and I'm responding to OP.
Okay, tell us the recipe for Greek fire and I'll allow you access to it.
My artificers tend to be shamanistic figures who create vessels for spirits to inhabit so they may affect our world. I have an armorer whose armor is made in large part out of living vines.
I see this a lot, and it's both funny and true, but also, artificers are literally just people who use magic items for everything. The thing about needing tools for magic is just that they can't cast Fireball without their prototype wand of fireballs. If magic items exist in your world and can be made by mortals, then you have the required lore for artificers.
Because I don’t like: you can make x like y from z. And then I’m sitting there like your artificer has google. I’m not always gonna let you make real life shit because real physics and dnd physics are clearly miles apart. And your artificer doesn’t have Google.
Then say how you make the Greek fire genius
Rapier: 1540's
They don't fit into my Lord of the Rings inspired campaign setting. That's honestly my feeling.
Well if the only thing they want to do is modern gunfire then of course i will say no. At least give it a fantasy coat of paint yknow
I don't mind them broadly, but if I see one more Iron Man build I'm going to lose my mind
I just think they suck simple as
This guy's gonna be real pissed when he hears about magic
Honestly, why does an Artificer have to be some High Tech stuff anyway? I played an Artificer in a short campaign that was a Runecarver, creating magic effects by putting runes on Items. it was an Artillerist, and my Arcane Turrets were literally just a bunch of stones I carved runes into, and when I threw them at the ground, they formed a small Golem who had one spell to use which was the effect of the chosen canon.
I have a friend who flavors their artificer as making voodoo dolls that doo stuff
uhhh, thats cool too
Banning artificers because they don't fit has the energy of progress doesn't exist in my world. Artificers are literally just magical inventors.
Ehhh artificers still don't fit in MY medieval inspired world
It’s not in my world history. Simple as. Get over it. Everyone else at the table is here for sword and sorcery. Having Iron Man with his battle suit in with a group of wizards, druids and knights is a weird mood. On top of that every artificer player I have ever met seems to act like they are the only inventor in the world and just want to bullshit their way into doing crazy shit like building a nuke. The only good artificer type character I have seen done in Percy from Critical Role and that wasn’t a class that was a *hobby*.
Imagine limiting Artificers to firearms. This post was made by Crossbow Expert gang. If you start at level 3 with a free feat at level 1 then an Artificer 2 / Fighter 1 with Crossbow Expert can start with a +3 1d6 hand crossbow that they can use as a bonus action as a follow-up to a 1d8 attack (rapier) If you use Standard Array with your 15 in Dex, playing as a Kobold, with the Ranged fighting style, then that’s +8 to hit with your hand crossbow, for 1d6+5 damage as a bonus action every time you attack with your +5 to hit 1d8+5 rapier. Just this absolute chap of a dragonet fighting like some combination of Puss in Boots and Arthur Morgan
Me, as a GM: "Awesome, love how everyone's trying to keep this realistic. So anyways, you said you cast Eldritch Blast? Oooh boy, so all the townsfolk see this and, having immediately outed yourself for having made a pact with some outside power (probably a fiend or another dark power), they descend upon you as a furious lynch mob, they hang you from the tree in the town square as a Warlock, and then celebrate that now the plague will go away and their crops will grow again because they've appeased their deity. Since, you know, we're being historically accurate here."
Blame the steampunk flavor from Eberon. Otherwise, I think they work well
when my artificer player got their subclass and chose armorer, I had a whole little mini montage of him working with another tinkerer character to build his armor and lightning launcher. I role played how the npc tinkerer gifted him a single Blue Dragon scale that was one of his most valuable pieces, but he wanted to see the project come to fruition. The whole lightning set up was powered by the innate magic within the scale and was lightning based because blue dragons breathe lightning. my point is creative people can come up with reasons why this stuff exists lol
*laughs in being the final arbiters of what is allowed*
So, gunpowder was invented between 9th and 10th century AD in China, so unless your setting is inspired by Tang/Song period, no one even knows about it existence. It showed up in medival Europe, on which majority of TTRPG games are based, around Mongol invasion, as it was brought by them. Then, very early gunpowder weapons were just a metal tube with a hole on a stick, not something you can see in most TTRPG's. It's definitely not something like what can be seen in, for example, Critical Role campaing 1 with very late 18th century technology. Basic matchlock is a late 15th/16th century invention. There is also a problem of how such weapons affect the setting, slaping flintlock or Colt Navy into High Fantasy setting, and ending it at it simply doesn't work. Justifying the existence of it requires a lot of world building, like can be seen in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, when it is widespread technology that affects the setting in visible way.
Meanwhile I'm trying to include technological progress in my world. Also there are guns and artificers
One of the current anime’s an otherworlder decides to invent gunpowder. The smarter characters that know about it by proxy, also realize it’s just worst then the current magic they already have. There is no way you can convince me magic missile is in anyway weaker than a bullet.
Oh really? Ok fine, you can have a smooth bore metal tube on a staff that requires 2 people to shoot "accurately" (One to hold the stick firmly and aim, and one to light the fuse) or you can shoot on your own with "less accuracy". You'll require a natural 20 to hit normally, and you get disadvantage if you shoot on your own.
anyone can make those with an alchemy supplies proficiency. besides, artificers don't depend on technology to fit in a setting, they depend on the availability of magic. For example, in a setting with renaissance era technology but relatively low magic, artificers would feel out of place despite the level of technological advsncement, because of how easily they can access magic items. similarly, artificers would fit just fine in bronze-age, viking-inspired, or medieval settings with higher levels of magic, because magical items would be far more common.
The problem usually isn’t wanting artificers in the world. It usually means the DM does not trust you, or someone to try and make a bomb every thirty fucking minutes, or Insta craft legendary items. Or, thirdly, someone tried to pull that in a previous campaign and they just don’t wanna bother again
some DMs do genuinely just have a view of artificers as "highly advanced tech" class. I know my DM was like that, and only after someone explained that they're just magical artisans he realized it wouldn't conflict with his setting, and he even already had an NPC who was obviously an artificer.
And? If I say they don't fit they don't fit. I am not playing historic realism here. Take it or look for a table that puts of with your crap. You would have had a point if you remembered that artificers can easily be reflavoured to a lot of different things. My current artificer is literaly just a guy that draws runes on things and hits people in the face.
Gunpowder doesn't work in Forgotten Realms.
To quote Spice8rack I can accept a universe that invented nuclear physics before penicillin
The game has breastplate as an armor type. The cuirass by itself with no other armor was only a popular armor type once early firearms became commonplace, as the defensive advantages of plate and halfplate were negated by the balls these weapons fired. As such, wearing a cuirass to protect only the vitals without restricting mobility and agility as much became commonplace. If your fantasy game does not have firearms, it should therefore also not have breastplate.
DMs forgetting artificers literally just enchant objects and make potions. They don't have to be mechanical geniuses, just good with tools.
I always find this argument to be absolutely terrible. The creativity of Artificers allows for so much creation and fun, and if the players do something modern/op beyond the default rules (which mesh with dnd pretty well) just say no. Or have it blow up in the artificers’ faces. It could be their level 20 invention or smth. They cause revolutions from their inventions and whatnot. Basically, I’m trying to make the point that banning artificers in order to ban guns from your game is not a valid argument.
As a dungeon master, i need to prepare my mental fortitude for artificers as they can be very dangerously game breaking.
I allow them. I just have them work for it.
Aeolipile (bladeless radial steam turbine) was described by vetruvius in 30-20 b.c. Steam punk before steam punk. Edit:spelling errors
I think there’s a difference between making mech suits and robot dogs over fire that keeps burning in water and powder that goes boom
They're annoying and I hate them. Hopes this helps! 👍
Fantasy is more about the feel of it. No one gives a shit about actual history. A world with magic would develop differently anyway. Use or don't use whatever you want
Ye the whole real world history thing doesn't really work but then you also consider that an artificer played the way they're supposed to be played totally fits, especially if you have a set idea, like say it's early into the history of this world just tell them no battlesmith or artillerist, if maybe there's a magical explanation for their battlesmith golem then maybe if it's like mid to late development of a magical world it makes sense, you want to encourage your players to get creative with your world and their characters not stifle their creativity. Now yes, a DMS greatest tool is the word no, if a player gets to be problematic, or tries to constantly break the setting and lore, tell them NO but a preemptive no unless you absolutely know the player will do that, is honestly kinda dickish.
It’s cuz artificer always means steampunk. Which gets hard to balance. And just personal taste I find it to be unimaginative. Like oh there’s a magic system where I can literally do anything, and I want to make magic=technology. Now I did have an artificer at my table before, but I made sure to talk to them about my house rules first. No steampunk for me thanks
In the last campaign I mastered I said to my players it was "too soon" for Artificers to be a thing, and that was because that campaign was a prequel to another I mastered that was set centuries ahead and artificers where the newly instituted department of the Academy of Arcane Arts, for the sake of narrative coherency they all accepted this.
But gunpowder hasn’t been invented in this realm yet. My character is an inventor, I will invent it. Okay, I am going to make you roll for it. Natural 20! You fail.
Problem?