Magic Initiate: Artificer?

[nickl_2000]

It's got some great cantrips and that that new level 1 weapon spell is pretty powerful. What are your feelings in allowing this as an option for Magic Initiate?

[AgenderArcee]

That would be cool, considering aside from arcane weapon it also has a couple cantrips not available to the wizard, like guidance and thorn whip. It is a half-caster though, so I kind of doubt it'd end up being allowed, considering ranger and paladin aren't.

[nickl_2000]

That would be cool, considering aside from arcane weapon it also has a couple cantrips not available to the wizard, like guidance and thorn whip. It is a half-caster though, so I kind of doubt it'd end up being allowed, considering ranger and paladin aren't.

Other than Artificer's have cantrips, but Rangers and Paladin don't.

[DracoKnight]

I would not allow it. Magic Initiate specifies which spell lists you can choose from. I don’t see them issuing an Errata to include the Artificer list. The thing I WOULD do is add their Arcane Weapon spell to the Wizard list because it would be phenomenal for an Eldritch Knight. And putting it on the Wizard list would let you grab it with the feat that way.

[Dork_Forge]

It's got some great cantrips and that that new level 1 weapon spell is pretty powerful. What are your feelings in allowing this as an option for Magic Initiate?

Because it's so cross class in it's nature for the cantrips I'd probably rule it out. It isn't a fullcaster and the weapon spell is pretty potent on top of that, it wouldn't break the game but they'd get a lot more out of the feat than probably intended.

[Damon_Tor]

I would not allow it. Magic Initiate specifies which spell lists you can choose from. I don’t see them issuing an Errata to include the Artificer list. The thing I WOULD do is add their Arcane Weapon spell to the Wizard list because it would be phenomenal for an Eldritch Knight. And putting it on the Wizard list would let you grab it with the feat that way.

It's already hard enough to be a ranger and compare yourself to a fighter. Giving fighters easy access to a spell that's strictly superior to hunter's mark... Well that would just be another nail in that already well constructed coffin.

[DracoKnight]

It's already hard enough to be a ranger and compare yourself to a fighter. Giving fighters easy access to a spell that's strictly superior to hunter's mark... Well that would just be another nail in that already well constructed coffin.

I’ve seen all of three rangers in all my time playing 5e; all of them beast masters. Rangers in general don’t play into the fantasies our players want to capture, the only reason Beastmaster sees play is because a player wants a pet.

But YMMV.

[Toadkiller]

It does.

I have seen several rangers. They are the ones that tend to run right up to the big bad, hit it with respectable damage and then get their ass handed to them before the tank’s initiative comes up.

[Chronos]

Yes, Magic Initiate lists the specific classes it applies to. The list consists of every class that has cantrips, as of the time that Magic Initiate was written. It's probably not about balance, given that the classes that are allowed now are vastly different in value as Magic Initiate choices (who would ever pick MI: bard?). And while, yes, MI: Artificer would be a strong choice, would it be any stronger than (say) MI: warlock?

The rules in general were not designed with the possibility of entirely new classes in mind, so any time you introduce an entirely new class, some things will need to be tweaked. I believe this is such a case, and so if you're allowing the Artificer, you should also allow MI: Artificer.

[intregus]

Yes, Magic Initiate lists the specific classes it applies to. The list consists of every class that has cantrips, as of the time that Magic Initiate was written. It's probably not about balance, given that the classes that are allowed now are vastly different in value as Magic Initiate choices (who would ever pick MI: bard?). And while, yes, MI: Artificer would be a strong choice, would it be any stronger than (say) MI: warlock?

The rules in general were not designed with the possibility of entirely new classes in mind, so any time you introduce an entirely new class, some things will need to be tweaked. I believe this is such a case, and so if you're allowing the Artificer, you should also allow MI: Artificer.

I agree with this post