Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Hidden references to the Artificier class as core class

Inspired by my statement in the German subforum, I thought again about the missing core classes. The Paladin, Monk and IMO the Artificer are still missing.

To be upfront about it: Yes I am well aware that the Artificer is not a Faerûn typical or PHB class. Regardless, I speculate and hope that the class will still be available at release simply because it fits best to all the crafting, trickery and "Larianism". Further hints are:


1. To my knowledge, it would be the only completely new core class (everything else are subclasses).

2. In the game you can find different blacksmith and alchemy stations as well as recipes (blacksmith) and materials (e. g. plants, vials).

3. The probably clearest hint, if one can assume it, is the Guild Artisan background, which is predestined for the producing trade. Actually, I would quite like to have the Guild Merchant background for services like music making from the bard. It's okay for my female daintily elf bard to make an antidote, but physically demanding blacksmithing? - That always bothered me. So the Guild Artisan background doesn't fit 100 %.


However, the absence of the Guild Merchant background, perhaps in favor of the Guild Artisan background, has given me great hope for the Artficier class. Still, I hope that the Guild Merchant background will be added for non-producing services and more immersion variety as well.

Not a D&D specialist but I don't remember seeing this class in the handbook - meaning it probably won't make it to the game on launch.

Quick research in and I really do hope it will get added in the future though, looks awesome. It would need a special set of items in the world though, can't pull the stuff this class deals with from thin air.

About the Artificier
It's fairly unlikely. Like you said, they are mainly focusing on the PHB in term of content and Artificiers come with the "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything".

Having Githyanki* as a playable race is an exception to the that rule but it makes a lot of sense since we are dealing with Mindflayers from the get-go.
*They are not found in the PHB but in "Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes" or "Mordenkainen's Monsters of the Multiverse".

Furthermore : crafting, background and classes are all different things. You don't need to be a Guild Artisan or Artificier to craft things.

About Guild Artisans and Guild Merchants
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and I'm by no means an expert (just love doing research) but...I think you're confusing the two when you said :

Guild Artisan = master in a certain craft (PHB | in BG3)

Guild Merchant = expert in trading/selling (PHB (Variant) | not in BG3)

So Guild Merchants don't make musical instruments, Guild Artisans might**, which is what I'm guessing you meant by "for services like music making from the bard"?
**See Guild Business. Musical instruments are not on the list but it could fall under "Woodcarvers, coopers, bowyers".

Conclusion
I'm not against having the Artificier class. I'm just not convinced but the potential clues you are giving.
That being said. I'm still hoping for non-PHB content as well Like Eladrins or Satyrs as playable race

anyone could craft, but artificer has built in crafting based features.

I grabbed this screencap a while back to troll someone to tell them that Artificers are coming.

Since you asked about it, I guess it is mentioned in the game currently (though I don't think that means anything)

I'm aware. I'm just don't find the potential clues given here (for example the existence of crafting stations) to be convincing.


That's actually slightly more convincing as a hint to say that Artificiers could be coming.
But yes, nothing's concrete.

I would say that this is actualy quite common missconception ...

At least in the way i understand it main focus is certainly not the only focus ...
Not even mentioning that statement is slightly more than 2y old ...

Dont get me wrong, i dont say that Artificer is anyhow "more probable", i just think its certainly not "less probable" ... i mean in therms of probability, i would hardly recomend coming any futher than simply state that its possibility is non-zero.

Sure ... some could argue that Larian would do better if they would focus on PHB classes first ...
But as we know ... for one, we have no idea what Larian actualy "have done", since our and their versions are quite different ... and for two, Larian dont really seem to care in what order they "should do things" (or if as the matter of fact).

All im trying to say is: I wouldnt dismiss it.

Fair. Fair.
I should have been more nuanced as well. They seem to be focusing on PHB when it comes to CC.
But yes, that does not 100% dismiss the probability for more.

I stand for the rest of what I've said though :p
As in, I need more that what's presented here to be convinced by that theory but I would love to be wrong as I would like some non-PHB content to be added as well.

So Larian's stance has always been that they'll be focusing on PHB content - though they have definitely bent that rule with player races (makes sense given their story importance).

There hasn't been anything concrete, but there was some huge HOPIUM a while back due to people datamining content for a 3rd Barbarian Class (wild magic) when Patch 7 released. I don't know how reputable Techraptor is, but there was this article:
https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/baldurs-gate-3-datamine-reveals-non-phb-material

I'm not aware of any updates since from dataminers though (I wouldn't be surprised if this was wiped in Patch 8)

Almost. Indeed, I didn't mean the instruments, but the musical performance for entertainment. Fun fact: I noticed that the list of guild businesses is missing a 21st item for (intangible) services. I'm thinking, for example, of musicians, caravan guides, letter carriers, or mercenaries (such as those hired by the Zhents or Baldur's Gate) or even "borderline trade" like slave trade or prostitution. Last but not least, trade itself is also a service. That is what I meant. I hope it is a bit clearer now. And as I stated I speculate and hope for it and for many other stuff.



I'm going to go out on a limb and say that not all PHB (sub)classes are necessary and that the newer (sub)classes could have been added or adopted more flexibly. For example, the Paladin of Ancient Oath is for me just like a Ranger from BG 1 & 2. Why a second Ranger as a Paladin? You can create the normal Ranger as a Ranger Knight. Here you could give preference to one of the more popular subclasses instead. Or you could make the Eldritch Knight as a Paladin subclass and add the Arcane Archer or Echo Knight or another Fighter subclass instead. The last two at least have more specific class abilities that set them apart from their core class. I can't say the same for the Paladin of Ancient Oath.