I'm working on a homebrew tabletop RPG, based off of D&D since that's what I'm familiar with, and I am having trouble seeing the difference between an Enchanter and an Artificer. So here's my question: Across the various versions of D&D out there, what is the difference between an Artificer and an Enchanter?
[RPG] the difference between an Artificer and an Enchanter
artificerdungeons-and-dragons
Related Solutions
We know nothing “D&D official” about the Vale of Shadows, because it's not an official D&D place. It was made up for the show. It's normal for real DMs to create unique worlds for their groups to adventure in (the 5th edition DMG even says that the official D&D settings and planes are only suggestions that a DM could use), and that's all that the Vale of Shadows is: a place made up by the DM in the show that's tailor-made for the campaign they want (er, the script writers wanted to portray him wanting) to run.
Yes, the article speculates that if you squint at it you can sorta imagine that it's supposed to be the Shadowfell or something like it, but it's a stretch to start with. The more obvious answer of “it's made up” is far less of a stretch. Even if it's inspired by the Shadowfell, it's going to be different enough to become unrelated, because of inconvenient legal reasons…
The “it's made up” resolution is also supported by a simple practical point: they likely aren't paying Hasbro dumptrucks of money for the right to use D&D Intellectual Property in the show. The concept of Demogorgon, by comparison, is not owned by Hasbro, nor are troglodytes — and notice that the kids' dialogue carefully avoids describing any details about troglodytes or Demogorgon that would uniquely describe the D&D version of those concepts (hence why that Geek and Sundry article explaining what the show implies to D&D players needed to be written). Everything about D&D in the show is going to be implied by common words or un-owned names or new made-up names, and the dialogue carefully tailored to not let any of it uniquely match anything owned by Hasbro.
In terms of the Balance of the class, I'd say you don't have a ton to worry about. Artificers only gain access to spells up to spell-level 4, and even then they only gain access to those spells around level 19 anyways, so regardless of which lists they can pull spells from, they're not going to get tremendously powerful magicks irrespective of their level.
There is one important consideration though: by vanilla, Artificers don't gain access to Evocation Spells. The only two evocation spells they get are Cure Wounds, a healing spell, and Continual Flame, a non-damaging spell. In fact, if you iterate over their list of spells, you'll see that there isn't a single spell they can cast that directly deals damage to anything. The closest is Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound, which summons a spectral dog which can attack enemies.
Meanwhile, Artificers do get spells like Haste, a very powerful spell that greatly improves a creature's damage potential, but which doesn't itself directly deal damage. All of the spells they get are utility in nature: healing, ability improvements, invisibility, flight, etc. Now, I can't speak to designer intent, but my sense is that this is a deliberate choice, that Artificers aren't meant to be Offensive Spellcasters.
Your change, which would effectively be allowing Artificers to gain access to offensive spells, would have pretty significant implications on the balance of the class. I hesitate to suggest it would make them overpowered at all, because A) they'd get a lot of the really powerful low-level spells way after their prime, and long after they'd be tide-turning, and B) Artificers are generally regarded as being underpowered in the first place.
But it would change how they play, and how they treat their spellcasting abilities. My general advice, then, is that you shouldn't change their spell list.
I do like the ability of giving them some cantrips, though I'd advise you continue the practice established by their spell list, and only allow them to pick non-damaging cantrips. Note that stuff like True Strike would probably be permitted, since it doesn't directly deal damage, and fits the theme of spells like Haste, which is already in the Artificer Spell List.
Related Topic
- [RPG] What about the ranger keeps making it weak
- [RPG] When an artificer uses its action to create two Cannons, how can it easily expend a spell slot between the creation of the first and second cannon
- [RPG] What creatures exist (besides the Githzerai) that associate psionics with anything besides Intelligence
Best Answer
The first use of “enchanter” as a primary character option in D&D came in The Complete Wizard’s Handbook (TSR, 1990) for 2e AD&D. That included the wizard kit, introduced the notion of spell schools as having mechanical significance, and included a school of “Enchantment/Charm” that covered both mind-affecting spells (charm spells) and object-enhancing spells (enchantments). Enchanters were the mages who focused on this school.
Player’s Option: Spells & Magic (TSR, 1996), also for 2e AD&D, created a new specialty for “artificers” that consisted solely of the effects from the Enchantment/Charm school that affected non-living objects. This was still a specialization of the wizard kit. At this point, enchanters and artificers were quite related: there was heavy overlap between the artificer spells and the enchantment side of the enchanter’s spells. The distinction was that the artificer was entirely specialized on these effects, while the enchanter also devoted half his emphasis to effects that were very much about living creatures rather than items.
With Player’s Handbook (WotC, 2000) for 3e, “Enchantment” came to replace “Enchantment/Charm” and focused solely on mind-affecting magic (which was originally the province of the Charm half of Enchantment/Charm). Temporarily enhancing magic items through spells was done mostly through the school of Transmutation, and Enchantment had basically nothing to do with it. Magic items were consistently said to be enhanced rather than enchanted, since enchantment referred to charms and compulsions. An enchanter is a type of specialist wizard, focusing on these spells.
And then when Eberron Campaign Setting (WotC, 2004) for 3.5e came out, we got the artificer class, this time wholly independent of wizards. The artificer class had unique and powerful talent when it came to the crafting of magic items, and their magic came in “infusions” rather than “spells”—and the primary difference between the two is that an infusion can only be cast on an item, and cannot affect creatures at all (except for constructs).
In both 4e1 and 5e, the 3(.5)e definitions of these terms persisted: the enchanter was someone who focused on mind-affecting magic, and the artificer was a master of magical items.