D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?

I'm A Banana · Apr 29, 2015

So with the survey result for the Eberron material out, it looks like WotC is taking another look at Artificer. And they probably should - Mearls's perspective that they were "too conservative" seems accurate from where I'm sitting.

But in all the conversations about if the artificer should be its own class or a subclass of something else, a theme keeps recurring that personally drives me a little batty. It comes up in other places too - in discussing psionic classes or warlords. It is some variation on this:

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers have skills like using thieves' tools and artisan's tools!

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because its spells are about buffs not fireballs!

It's about the artificer recently, but it's beyond that, too. It happens with psionics when it comes up. It happened with the warlord wars. Every time I see someone make the case that Character Type X can't be part of Class Y because of how Class Y is somehow limited or insufficient or weak in terms of its proficiencies, skills, or spells, a little part of me facepalms hard enough to leave a mark.

Because usually I don't buy it. Or at least, it takes more than that lack to convince me.

From where I'm sitting proficiencies don't matter much. Call it a cantrip or call it a martial weapon, at the end of the day, we're all doing ~1d10 damage at range and ~2d6 damage in melee with level scaling. From where I'm sitting, skills are flexible. Get the right background or take some downtime or have a decent ability score bonus and use bounded accuracy and your proficiency bonus can go screw. From where I'm sitting spell lists aren't niche protection anymore. Listen, my sorcerer can heal, my mage can buff, my paladin can blast, and my bard can cast niche rituals. There's a continuum of how WELL they can do these things, but we are no longer in a world where if you want a healing spell you suddenly have to be a different class.

Also from where I'm sitting classes are huge. Each level in a class precludes taking another class, meaning with 12 classes and 20 levels each, each level only lets you experience one part of the game out of *two hundred and fourty possible parts*. That's a lot of competition, a lot of alternate choice, and a lot of things locked out if you don't select it. Using your class abilities occupies a HUGE chunk of your play time and is perhaps the biggest, most defining choice you can make about your character.

None of this means that there can't be new classes - or, hell, that the artificer or the psion or the warlord can't be one of 'em. It just means they need to go big or go home. They can't just be little tweaks to existing classes. They need to earn their size. This isn't 2e with its canonical and only classes. But this isn't 3e or 4e where spellthieves and at least three different samurai and seekers and battleminds and runepriests galumphed through our class selection process.

It does means that the reason you have a new class isn't because of an armor proficiency or a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency or a spell selection. You need bigger than that. You need a narrative distinction. You need to fire on all three pillars of play. You need to have a role in the world that is special. You need to have a mechanic that is defining. You need to be huge.

Because if you show up at my table and say, "I'm not a wizard because I wear heavy armor, use a hammer, know how to use thieves' tools, and cast buff spells," I might say, "Well, my friend here the mountain dwarf abjurer with the urchin background wonders what makes you such a special unique snowflake?"

I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement to be had, because what should or should not be a class is a big friggin' deal to lots of people. I'm interested in counterpoints and points of support, but I'm more interested in using this to get at what makes a class distinction in someone's mind - what warrants a new class? What finds a home somewhere else? Why? What is your personal logic?

Staffan · Apr 29, 2015

I agree to some degree, but not entirely.

For example, take the psion. You could probably make a convincing psion by building on the sorcerer "skeleton" and picking appropriate spells - charm person, sleep, detect thoughts, enhance ability, and so on. So if all you're looking for is a single psion-like character for use in a one-shot, sure.

But the sorcerer spell list doesn't really support multiple different psions the way the 3.5 psionics rules did. If you want psionics to play a large part in your setting, you probably need to make that into a class of its own, perhaps with multiple sub-classes.

Similarly, you could perhaps build something that approximates an artificer by playing a mountain dwarf urchin abjurer. But what if you want a human guild artisan artificer (which pretty much is the classic type from Eberron)? Or if you want restorative magic (which was always part of the artificer's toolkit - only for constructs in 3e, but since 4e made them leaders they got to heal fleshlings too)?

So sure, some things can be left to flavor or, at most, a subclass. But some need more than that, and Wizards shouldn't be afraid to provide it.

Minigiant · Apr 29, 2015

@Kamikzae_Midget
I agree for the most part.

A class isn't a collection of proficiencies.
A class does something special with it's stuff.

That's why the "ranger with no spells" is wonky. It lost the specialness of all the magic.
That's why the warlock is a "full pact caster" and it's a just an eldritch blast spammer. Doesn't you can't build a class of a cantrip.

Staffan said:
I agree to some degree, but not entirely.

For example, take the psion. You could probably make a convincing psion by building on the sorcerer "skeleton" and picking appropriate spells - charm person, sleep, detect thoughts, enhance ability, and so on. So if all you're looking for is a single psion-like character for use in a one-shot, sure.

But the sorcerer spell list doesn't really support multiple different psions the way the 3.5 psionics rules did. If you want psionics to play a large part in your setting, you probably need to make that into a class of its own, perhaps with multiple sub-classes.

Similarly, you could perhaps build something that approximates an artificer by playing a mountain dwarf urchin abjurer. But what if you want a human guild artisan artificer (which pretty much is the classic type from Eberron)? Or if you want restorative magic (which was always part of the artificer's toolkit - only for constructs in 3e, but since 4e made them leaders they got to heal fleshlings too)?

So sure, some things can be left to flavor or, at most, a subclass. But some need more than that, and Wizards shouldn't be afraid to provide it.

Why can't the psion be a sorcerer origin? All it needs is more "psionicky" spells add to its spell list or spells known. That's easy.
Why can't the artificer be a wizard tradition? 2 more proficiencies are trivial. Creature an infustion school of spells.

The issue is power.
It's a matter of wanting something too big to be a subclass and unique enough to not work under current base classes.

The Human Target · Apr 29, 2015

What warrants anything being a class?

Interest and fun ideas for mechanics.

A Ranger in 5e could a been a fighter who takes Animal Handling or multi classes into druid a little, but people wanted a Ranger class. There really isn't a huge unique destinction.

The Sorcerer could have easily been a wizard build.

The Assassin could have been its own class.

Its all arbitrary.

Leatherhead · Apr 30, 2015

How about:

The Artificer shouldn't be a Wizard because the Artificer doesn't use spellbooks, they use items.
The counterpoint will naturally be "Wizards can use items!" Well Wizards can use weapons too, that doesn't make them a Fighter. The class features make them different, and the Wizards primary class feature is the spellbook.

The "spells" that an Artificer has are more of a mechanical hang over, it wasn't meant to be a full caster, just to have limited magical resources. The fact that people can easily see the Artificer as a 1/2 or 1/3 caster speaks volumes to exactly how important spells are to the Artificer package: A side note really. I Belive that the Artificer could be a sub-class of the Rogue or Bard, because they are the best at tinkering and using items currently. However, I wouldn't be disappointed if they made a new 1/2 Caster just as long as they got the tinkering bits down right.

For the Psion, it's obvious people want them to use power points instead of spell slots. Which is a significant departure from all the existing classes. Even the Sorcerer, who despite their metamagic, still has to primarily use spell slots. The Psycic Warrior is could be just another Fighter Subclass, but the Psion would require a different core mechanic, and thus a new class.

The Warlord is mostly a matter of people adjusting to scale. Any character with a full suite of Warlord powers would simply break 5e over their pinky finger. When they look at the Battlemaster, it seems anemic in comparison. But at-will healing doesn't exist, actions are tightly limited, and numeric bonuses are tied down or traded away for advantage where ever possible. The alternative to a Battlemaster would be to make an Alternate Bard, like the Alternate Ranger, that runs off of superiority dice instead of spells. And that would be a lot of work.

And incidentally, your dwarf can't use heavy armor without a feet.

Minigiant · Apr 30, 2015

The Human Target said:
What warrants anything being a class?

Interest and fun ideas for mechanics.

A Ranger in 5e could a been a fighter who takes Animal Handling or multi classes into druid a little, but people wanted a Ranger class. There really isn't a huge unique destinction.

The Sorcerer could have easily been a wizard build.

The Assassin could have been its own class.

Its all arbitrary.

The key is they found and idea which cold be too big to be dones as a mutilclass or subclass. Ranger had an unique mix of basic warrior techniques, magic, and special combat techniques with special exploration features on the side. Sorcerer got Metamagic.

The Assassin could have received a mix of extra Attacks and Sneak Attacks with something else. I have a custom class which does this.

But it wasn't just proficiencies or adding spells to a spell list. A new class needs something other than new spells, added proficiencies, and HD. We left that behind with previous editions.

The Human Target · Apr 30, 2015

Minigiant said:
The key is they found and idea which cold be too big to be dones as a mutilclass or subclass. Ranger had an unique mix of basic warrior techniques, magic, and special combat techniques with special exploration features on the side. Sorcerer got Metamagic.

The Assassin could have received a mix of extra Attacks and Sneak Attacks with something else. I have a custom class which does this.

But it wasn't just proficiencies or adding spells to a spell list. A new class needs something other than new spells, added proficiencies, and HD. We left that behind with previous editions.

Sure, to a point I agree with that.

But I'd say you could come up with an interesting mechanic for any class idea.

The artificer has a bunch of obvious stuff that could go with it.

You could maker a pastry chef class with a unique mechanic.

And you can still boil a lot of classes down to "like class x but with different spells." I mean is the druid that different from a cleric in most ways?

What is and isn't a class is pretty ephemeral.

Psikerlord# · Apr 30, 2015

Kamikaze Midget said:
So with the survey result for the Eberron material out, it looks like WotC is taking another look at Artificer. And they probably should - Mearls's perspective that they were "too conservative" seems accurate from where I'm sitting.

But in all the conversations about if the artificer should be its own class or a subclass of something else, a theme keeps recurring that personally drives me a little batty. It comes up in other places too - in discussing psionic classes or warlords. It is some variation on this:

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers have skills like using thieves' tools and artisan's tools!

or

The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because its spells are about buffs not fireballs!

It's about the artificer recently, but it's beyond that, too. It happens with psionics when it comes up. It happened with the warlord wars. Every time I see someone make the case that Character Type X can't be part of Class Y because of how Class Y is somehow limited or insufficient or weak in terms of its proficiencies, skills, or spells, a little part of me facepalms hard enough to leave a mark.

Because usually I don't buy it. Or at least, it takes more than that lack to convince me.

From where I'm sitting proficiencies don't matter much. Call it a cantrip or call it a martial weapon, at the end of the day, we're all doing ~1d10 damage at range and ~2d6 damage in melee with level scaling. From where I'm sitting, skills are flexible. Get the right background or take some downtime or have a decent ability score bonus and use bounded accuracy and your proficiency bonus can go screw. From where I'm sitting spell lists aren't niche protection anymore. Listen, my sorcerer can heal, my mage can buff, my paladin can blast, and my bard can cast niche rituals. There's a continuum of how WELL they can do these things, but we are no longer in a world where if you want a healing spell you suddenly have to be a different class.

Also from where I'm sitting classes are huge. Each level in a class precludes taking another class, meaning with 12 classes and 20 levels each, each level only lets you experience one part of the game out of *two hundred and fourty possible parts*. That's a lot of competition, a lot of alternate choice, and a lot of things locked out if you don't select it. Using your class abilities occupies a HUGE chunk of your play time and is perhaps the biggest, most defining choice you can make about your character.

None of this means that there can't be new classes - or, hell, that the artificer or the psion or the warlord can't be one of 'em. It just means they need to go big or go home. They can't just be little tweaks to existing classes. They need to earn their size. This isn't 2e with its canonical and only classes. But this isn't 3e or 4e where spellthieves and at least three different samurai and seekers and battleminds and runepriests galumphed through our class selection process.

It does means that the reason you have a new class isn't because of an armor proficiency or a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency or a spell selection. You need bigger than that. You need a narrative distinction. You need to fire on all three pillars of play. You need to have a role in the world that is special. You need to have a mechanic that is defining. You need to be huge.

Because if you show up at my table and say, "I'm not a wizard because I wear heavy armor, use a hammer, know how to use thieves' tools, and cast buff spells," I might say, "Well, my friend here the mountain dwarf abjurer with the urchin background wonders what makes you such a special unique snowflake?"

I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement to be had, because what should or should not be a class is a big friggin' deal to lots of people. I'm interested in counterpoints and points of support, but I'm more interested in using this to get at what makes a class distinction in someone's mind - what warrants a new class? What finds a home somewhere else? Why? What is your personal logic?

I think proficiencies still matter, and spells have niche protection. As for what makes a class, it has to come with some pretty unique mechanics that back up the flavor. Like psionics and a psionic class. On the other hand I personally think artificer is perfectly fine as a wizard subclass.

El Mahdi · Apr 30, 2015

I think Kamikaze has a big part of it when he said "You need a narrative distinction." Along with that, I think you also need a Purpose.

To me, classes are a lot like career fields. The example I always give new players is military MOS's or AFSC's (Job Specialties and Career Paths). These can be things like Infantry, Artillery, Civil Engineer, Aircraft Maintenance, etc.

Take my military experience as an example. My career field was Avionics Maintenance in the Air Force. I received specialized training for my career field, and even specialized in a sub-category called Instruments and Flight Control Systems (as opposed to Communication/Navigation Systems, or Electronic Counter Measures Systems, etc.) - much like an archetype within a class.

However, even though ALL Air Force go through the same Basic Training, that doesn't also make me an SP (Security Police), or a PJ (special ops trained Pararescue Jumpman), or a TACP (Tactical Air Control Party specialist - used to be called Combat Controller or Forward Air Controller).

I also received weapons training: M16 and M9; but that doesn't make me a Soldier (Warrior).

A class has to have a narrative distinction, and it also has to have a Distinctive Purpose. That Class - or Fantasy Medieval Career Field - did not develop in a vacuum. It developed because it had a Purpose. There's a Need for it. A Purpose or Need over and above mere exploitation of a mechanical rule aspect.

Without that purpose, it's just a collection of mechanics waiting for an opportunity to be needed, waiting for an opportunity to look cool; as opposed to a class that IS cool because it has a purpose, and therefore a reason to do cool things.

A class must have a raison d'etre.

Minigiant · Apr 30, 2015

The Human Target said:
Sure, to a point I agree with that.

But I'd say you could come up with an interesting mechanic for any class idea.

The artificer has a bunch of obvious stuff that could go with it.

You could maker a pastry chef class with a unique mechanic.

And you can still boil a lot of classes down to "like class x but with different spells." I mean is the druid that different from a cleric in most ways?

What is and isn't a class is pretty ephemeral.

But the point of the topic is that's more than a few proficiencies.
More than a few more spells.
More than a higher HD.

An artificer need more than a few spells and proficiencies to warrant being its own class. This isn't 2nd or 3rd edition.