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

[ThirdWizard]

Are you willing to go to 9 levels of infusions. Half casters don't have enough power to not go into weapon focus in 5th edition.

Are you willing to make artificers to focus on weapons over infusions. Haft caster focus more on weapons over magic.

Are you willing to have artificers cantrip spam by default for artificers? Without 9th level magic or extreme weapon combat focus, all their is left are cantrip spam.

I disagree.

On Point #1, we have warlocks that have few spells but go up to 9th level, but I wouldn't call them full casters. A little out of the box thinking can easily fix whatever problem you might have there. Remember, an artificer can use any spell in the game under limited conditions. Any spell.

On Point #2 and Point #3, artificers would have a combination of hammers, ranged weapons, and magic items. Lots of magic items! Also, possibly golems. The golemficer was a thing in 3e. The hammerficer was also a thing in 3e. We're talking quite a few subclasses here that would focus on different things. Maybe one artificer subclass focuses on wands and scrolls and can spam low level spells all day. Another has a golem or two that augment his combat offensiveness, another uses magically imbued weapons and armor to be a front line combatant. Another could be a healer and buffer, focusing on improving other party members power. These are all things that were possible in 3e, and I don't see why they can't be things in 5e.

An artificer can do a lot. A whole lot. I think you're selling them short.

 

[steeldragons]

Unfortunately it won't fix the problem.

*shrug* Seems to as far as I'm concerned.

The crux of the issue is the 3rd and 4th artificer lore is great but the mechanics directly translated are unpowered, wonky, and unbalanced.

This is only a crux if you think you want/should be replicated a 3rd or 4th edition artificer. Thankfully, we're talking about a 5th edition artificer. So....I don't really see this as hat much of an issue at all, let alone "the crux."

The easiest solution is to adjust lore and make artificers into a wizard subclass and give them bonus spells and proficiencies instead of normal school based power.

This makes sense. But seems to be a good deal of railing against this.

The hard solution is for artificer fans to create a unique mechanic which retains all lore and playstyle.

1. You can not write a class to playstyle. Sorry. It's 5e. You can't [EDIT: Sorry. "...you don't" /EDIT]. Playstyle is a matter of play...and style. How YOU [general "you, the individual"] will/"want to" play this class/subclass/archetype is not relevant to how the class is constructed.

2. More importantly, I think people are getting hung up on this idea of "unique mechanic". It doesn't have to be a totally made up from scratch separate thing. It just has to be something that other classes can't do. A class needs to have its OWN mechanics...yes. Not "unique." How many classes are casting spells? How many classes are gaining proficiencies in xyz. How many classes are getting martial/use-in-melee-combat features?

So...take the Sorcerer Points mechanic for that "innate magic" feel. Take the Warlock's invocation mechanic and call them "Infusions." Take some spells from any spell list to make an "Infuser" spell lift that makes sense to the kind of flavor you want to present. Throw them together somehow with a "spell point & infusion progression chart."

POOF! You have a class that has its OWN [though not "unique"] mechanics -that no other class can do- with the flavor and fluff of putting magic into stuff. Add varying features at the "subclass" level to make this innate magic user who puts magic into weapons, items and stuff, "the artificer."

It actually wasn't "hard" to do at all...I just came up with that off the top of my head just now. Hammer it out (heh. Pun unintended, but you can make it intended). Playtest it. Change what doesn't work for you. Move on.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree.

On Point #1, we have warlocks that have few spells but go up to 9th level, but I wouldn't call them full casters. A little out of the box thinking can easily fix whatever problem you might have there. Remember, an artificer can use any spell in the game under limited conditions. Any spell.

On Point #2 and Point #3, artificers would have a combination of hammers, ranged weapons, and magic items. Lots of magic items! Also, possibly golems. The golemficer was a thing in 3e. The hammerficer was also a thing in 3e. We're talking quite a few subclasses here that would focus on different things. Maybe one artificer subclass focuses on wands and scrolls and can spam low level spells all day. Another has a golem or two that augment his combat offensiveness, another uses magically imbued weapons and armor to be a front line combatant. Another could be a healer and buffer, focusing on improving other party members power. These are all things that were possible in 3e, and I don't see why they can't be things in 5e.

An artificer can do a lot. A whole lot. I think you're selling them short.

A warlock has THE most powerful at will in the game and can shoot over a dozen high power 9th leve slot spells an adventure day.

Are artificers going to go toe to toe with smite paladins or out at-will blast warlocks?

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

By play style I meant is it going to by primarily wartiorish, roguey, or castery, all the 5the edition classes give the power in one direction by default and its up to the player to opt out. Even valor bards and bladelocks get 9th level spell slots.
I'm not saying the mechanic has to be completely new, just different and theirs.

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=13085]Steel[/MENTION]dagons.

By play style I meant is it going to by primarily wartiorish, roguey, or castery, all the 5the edition classes give the power in one direction by default and its up to the player to opt out. Even valor bards and bladelocks get 9th level spell slots.
I'm not saying the mechanic has to be completely new, just different and theirs.

I don't see how this refutes anything I said.

They will be "castery", obviously, since "arcane magic" is kinda their shtick [they're not getting magic from the gods, non-divine extradimensional entities, or nature], and "roguey", since that seems to be what people are asking for and their traditional lore/fluff goes that way. Skills...with magic. Magic...with skills.

What does "9th level slots" have to do with anything? According to the 5e model for classes, a "full caster" class gets up to 9th level slots. So, if we design the "infuser" class to be full casters, then artificer/alchemist/whatever other subclasses, as [yet another] primarily "using arcane magic" based class, they would have access -albeit probably limited choice- to 9th level magics. If you design it to be a "half caster" then they wouldn't...but could easily still do/maintain their shtick into higher character levels through the use of "infusing[spell] points" and "infusions [invocations]." But as you [or someone] note, in the 5e pattern, making then half-caster would make them far more melee/combat based...and that doesn't seem to mesh well with the flavor/lore I'm seeing repeated over and over...

So, full caster it is....with your light armor...with your simple weapons [including hammers]...with your ability to tinker with your thieves' tools/pick locks and disarm your devices...and here is your pool of Infuser[spell] points to use as you see fit to buff other's weapons and armor in some basic way...and pick a new Infusion [from this list] at this level and these later levels.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see how this refutes anything I said.

They will be "castery", obviously, since "arcane magic" is kinda their shtick [they're not getting magic from the gods, non-divine extradimensional entities, or nature], and "roguey", since that seems to be what people are asking for and their traditional lore/fluff goes that way. Skills...with magic. Magic...with skills.

What does "9th level slots" have to do with anything? According to the 5e model for classes, a "full caster" class gets up to 9th level slots. So, if we design the "infuser" class to be full casters, then artificer/alchemist/whatever other subclasses, as [yet another] primarily "using arcane magic" based class, they would have access -albeit probably limited choice- to 9th level magics. If you design it to be a "half caster" then they wouldn't...but could easily still do/maintain their shtick into higher character levels through the use of "infusing[spell] points" and "infusions [invocations]." But as you [or someone] note, in the 5e pattern, making then half-caster would make them far more melee/combat based...and that doesn't seem to mesh well with the flavor/lore I'm seeing repeated over and over...

So, full caster it is....with your light armor...with your simple weapons [including hammers]...with your ability to tinker with your thieves' tools/pick locks and disarm your devices...and here is your pool of Infuser[spell] points to use as you see fit to buff other's weapons and armor in some basic way...and pick a new Infusion [from this list] at this level and these later levels.

I'm not refuting it.

There just seems to be an element of the artificer fan community who won't decide how they want it. You asks if infusions are most important. They say "yes". Then you say it is a full caster, some of them shout "No". Then you suggest half caster, they seem fine with it. Then you inform them that you cannot form on level effects with only half power and the artificer will have to nudge heavy into weapons combat. Some fans shout "No" since they want golems and bombs. Then you suggest a roguish class and inform them how terrible their attacks will be if they get infusion. And...

There are many ways to do the artificer class as the main features of the past are minor now. And artificer fans will have to want a lot of time as WotCs does survey after survey until they form a consensus or abandon recreating the old class to accept a new artificers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

everyone who comes in and says "artificers are just a subclass" CANNOT justify why other classes like druid, bard, or ranger are, except "PHB1 rule" or "WotC chose to make them unique".

I feel like this is part of the breakdown in communication here. I think that any character concept that becomes a class essentially does so arbitrarily - that is, you decide what you want to be a class before you design the class. We decide we want fighters and druid and paladins and clerics, and then we design these things as different classes because we've already decided that these are the classes we want to make.

We can decide that about artificers, psions, warlords, and assassins, too. That's fine. We could decide this about pig-farmers and cobblers and janitors and valkyries and stage magicians and truffle-sniffers or whatever, too. The character types we decide this about are essentially arbitrary. Anything you want to, do it. So yeah, PHB1 rule / Wizard Just Wanted to, these are fine reasons to make a class, and they'd be fine for artificers, too. There's no reason you need any higher criteria.

But when we design fighters and paladins and druids and clerics as different classes, we give them meaningfully distinct mechanics (as I illustrated with the difference between pillar-support in wild shape vs. channel divinity, for instance, or the difference in play psychology and narrative between how action surge lets you nova with multiple attacks at no real cost and how divine smite lets you nova with a single attack by spending healing/buffing resources and how sorcery points leads to a different play experience than spellbooks) so that they earn this distinction, so that playing these classes is a significantly different experience from playing any other class. This isn't just proficiencies and a spell list.

An artificer, warlord, psion, assassin, that lacks this mechanical division - that is only different because it has different proficiencies and a slightly custom spell list and maybe a reskin for spellcasting - is a class that sucks as a class. It's cruft and clutter, distinction without difference, little more than a reskin and some ribbons. It's shades of 4e same-ness and 3e system-bloat all in the same bucket.

You could make an artificer that has this division. It's not trivial, but the basic idea-seed isn't exactly a high bar, either. As ambivalent as I am about an artifcer class, I tossed off a half-baked idea that could be turned into something worthwhile maybe ("infusion dice": get some dice you can trade for magical effects like healing or energy resistance or whatever).

But we don't have a lot of those. 3e/4e didn't really have those. This entire convo could be people talking about what makes or breaks a good artificer class ability, one that's big and different and interesting and defining.

If the artificer needs to be its own class, it also needs to have at a defining mechanic. It needs to fire on all pillars. It needs to have a reason to be in an active party rather than left at home, to have interesting decisions to make in play (not just during down time), to do something other than making items in the DMG.

This also means that it's not enough to just reskin warlocks or whatever. That's not distinct or defining, it's "I'm a warlock with a different coat of paint."

These are all struggles. Not insurmountable by any means, but certainly things that the most ardent fans of artificers-as-a-class have not been able to show me are clear things that the artificer concept has. It's certainly not something inherent to the 3e/4e versions of the artificer class.

It might be something WotC can overcome - they've got something like 5 game designers, yeah? They can probably do better than a half-baked looting of fighter mechanics. I'd be at least interested to see what they might come up with.

But it's kind of disappointing to see all this clamor for classes without any real sense of the cost and work that a 5e class really needs to not suck. It looks like repeating the mistakes of history that we haven't really learned from - that a class isn't just a thing you toss off because someone wears different armor and uses different weapons and has different skills and occupies a different party role. A class can be anything, but in play, it needs to be meaningfully distinct, and the idea that we can have an artificer or warlord or a psion or an assassin without that distinction is a little frustrating. Like we've decided on one immutable vision and word choice and it doesn't matter if it's good, as long as it's aesthetically pleasing, or fits some pre-concieved view of how things should work.

I suppose that's reality though.

Anyway, as long as WotC's next stab at artificer, if it is a class, has that distinction (and given that they've made that distinction for fighters and sorcerers, I'd imagine they would keep making it for artificers), I'll be appeased.

 

[Remathilis]

But when we design fighters and paladins and druids and clerics as different classes, we give them meaningfully distinct mechanics (as I illustrated with the difference between pillar-support in wild shape vs. channel divinity, for instance, or the difference in play psychology and narrative between how action surge lets you nova with multiple attacks at no real cost and how divine smite lets you nova with a single attack by spending healing/buffing resources and how sorcery points leads to a different play experience than spellbooks) so that they earn this distinction, so that playing these classes is a significantly different experience from playing any other class. This isn't just proficiencies and a spell list.

Agreed, but there in lies the rub. The artificer needs a mechanic to reflect its "tinker" with magic items ability. The question is really "How". The problem is twofold: the magic item/creation rules in the DMG are broad, vague, and nothing to hang a class on (they barely work for a PC wanting to craft something in their spare time, much less a character dedicated to it.) At the moment, most people haven't gotten an idea that they can spit-ball and say works because right now, most people haven't yet grocked to class building. There is obviously an art to it, but right now we lack enough examples (the PHB, 2 sorcerer subclasses, and a UA article) to really go off of. As a result, most people are feeling comfortable cribbing what's been done before as a starting point.

So yes, the artificer needs a strong central mechanic. I think the "build magic items temporarily/permanently" is a strong core concept; it just needs a good mechanical expression. Some have suggested a point-based system akin to sorcerer metamagic, some suggest magic items filling the role of the warlocks invocations. Some think something like a battlemaster's superiority dice or a bard's inspiration dice might work. Other's think pure spellcasting can do it. Maybe it will look like some, all, or none of these. WotC probably has a few ideas tossing around.

However, the idea that since nobody has suggested such a system (yet) is indicative that the class cannot work as a stand-alone though is annoying and plain wrong; because nothing HAS been suggested doesn't mean it WON'T be. I have great faith that artificer will come up with something that can satisfy fans of the 3e and 4e versions. The wizardficer subclass is NOT it though.

For the record, I think the Psion is in the same boat; we might not need wilders, ardents and eurdites again, but a strong base psion (and a few psionic subs for psychic warriors, lurks, etc) with a unique list of powers and some power point mechanic is on target. I fully expect this to happen as well.

Because IMHO, these two classes might not have the strength of bards or rangers in lineage, but they have strong bases and are pretty popular among fans; enough so that a simple wizard subclass will not scratch the itch of either classes fans.

So lets quit trying to prove they are wizards in funny costumes and focus on what these "unique mechanics" can look like. You suggested infusion dice, I suggested magic item "invocations", lets build on those.

 

[Minigiant]

However, the idea that since nobody has suggested such a system (yet) is indicative that the class cannot work as a stand-alone though is annoying and plain wrong; because nothing HAS been suggested doesn't mean it WON'T be. I have great faith that artificer will come up with something that can satisfy fans of the 3e and 4e versions. The wizardficer subclass is NOT it though.

I don't think that is what is being said.

The issue is that the fans of the old artificer version say don't want a wizardficer. Then they go on to describe what they want and it sounds a lot like a full classed wizardficer (one better than the UA one but still a wizardficer). I see the same with psion fans describing wiazrds with "psion spells" and assassins which are just rogues with better weapons.

That's why when I tossed out my idea for a psion, I described how it has psionic combat again. Their cantrip deal damage and open minds. And their cantrips have extra effects to open minds and their spells are cheaper against the opened. My assassin would have Sneak Attack (at a slower 1d6/3level rate) but it also would get Death Attack which triggers separately and has to charge up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Agreed, but there in lies the rub. The artificer needs a mechanic to reflect its "tinker" with magic items ability. The question is really "How". The problem is twofold: the magic item/creation rules in the DMG are broad, vague, and nothing to hang a class on (they barely work for a PC wanting to craft something in their spare time, much less a character dedicated to it.) At the moment, most people haven't gotten an idea that they can spit-ball and say works because right now, most people haven't yet grocked to class building. There is obviously an art to it, but right now we lack enough examples (the PHB, 2 sorcerer subclasses, and a UA article) to really go off of. As a result, most people are feeling comfortable cribbing what's been done before as a starting point.

So yes, the artificer needs a strong central mechanic. I think the "build magic items temporarily/permanently" is a strong core concept; it just needs a good mechanical expression. Some have suggested a point-based system akin to sorcerer metamagic, some suggest magic items filling the role of the warlocks invocations. Some think something like a battlemaster's superiority dice or a bard's inspiration dice might work. Other's think pure spellcasting can do it. Maybe it will look like some, all, or none of these. WotC probably has a few ideas tossing around.

That's part of the problem though - if you're just gonna crib what's been done before, it's not really different or distinct. I'd be stoked to see folks proposing new, solid mechanical elements. But "It's like X, but you use different jargon!" is not gonna cut it.

However, the idea that since nobody has suggested such a system (yet) is indicative that the class cannot work as a stand-alone though is annoying and plain wrong; because nothing HAS been suggested doesn't mean it WON'T be. I have great faith that artificer will come up with something that can satisfy fans of the 3e and 4e versions. The wizardficer subclass is NOT it though.

No one's suggesting that it's impossible. But I am suggesting that this repeated insistence on "IT CAN'T BE A SUBCLASS OF WIZARD!" is a little pointlessly myopic when every description of how it is different seems to boil down to proficiencies and a spell list. If that is the only distinction, it IS a subclass of wizard. If there is more distinction, show it.

For the record, I think the Psion is in the same boat; we might not need wilders, ardents and eurdites again, but a strong base psion (and a few psionic subs for psychic warriors, lurks, etc) with a unique list of powers and some power point mechanic is on target. I fully expect this to happen as well.

If all it is is a unique powers list (that mostly duplicates spells) and the power point mechanic from the DMG, it is going to suck. It is going to be cruft and clutter. If it has a unique mechanical element, it might earn its place.

Because IMHO, these two classes might not have the strength of bards or rangers in lineage, but they have strong bases and are pretty popular among fans; enough so that a simple wizard subclass will not scratch the itch of either classes fans.

Again, it's not an argument about what we decide can be a class - we can decide ANYTHING can be a class. It's an argument about the work you actually need to do to make it a class and that seems to be what a lot of the artificer-as-a-class crowd seems to be blithely ignoring in favor of insisting that buffs and medium armor and Thieves' Tools proficiency are somehow forbidden from Wizards.

So lets quit trying to prove they are wizards in funny costumes and focus on what these "unique mechanics" can look like. You suggested infusion dice, I suggested magic item "invocations", lets build on those.

I think the first question we need to answer (because it has level 1 ramifications) is this: does the artificer class (a) essentially use Spellcasting to infuse items, or does it (b) use some other mechanic to infuse items and ALSO cast spells to infuse items, or does it (c) never use Spellcasting to infuse items and ONLY uses some infusion mechanic?

The 3e/4e artificer essentially took option A. The most direct conversion would keep that. What direction do we want this design to explore?

And if we go with B or C, what is the difference in play between infusion and spellcasting? Because it needs to be significant.

 

[MoonSong]

Ok, how about something like this:

Artificer, HD: d8
Profs: all simple weapons, medium armor, shields. Skills: -something tools: thieves tools, and another set of tools.

1st level
Infusions: Artificers can cast infusions they know as Rituals, and only as Rituals, those infusions act as if they were spells. An artificer learns all infusions available to him/her at the given levels. (1st level at 1st, 2nd level at third, and so on)
Magical tinkering: Artificers can use all magic items, including those that require an specific spell list, or class level. When using such an item, the artificer makes a UMD check (Cha-mod + prof bonus)
Scribe Scroll: Artificers can scribe scrolls, each scroll needs a material support (costing 50 gp for a 1st level spell), an artifier needs an hour to scribe a scroll, if the scroll has a spell not in the Artificer infusion list, the artificer must make an UMD check (DC 15+spell level) or he/she fails. If the spell has a costly component, it must be spent when scribing the scroll. scroll writing fades after a day, unless the artificer keeps it. After the scroll is used or the writing fades, the support can be reused. ARtificers can only keep up to 3 scrolls at the same time.
2nd level
Slots: artificers gain spell slots -like a paladin/ranger-. The slots regenerate with a long rest, but only those that aren't in current use. those slots can be used for the following activities:
Wand crafting: The artificer can craft wands containing a single spell, each charge on a wand requires devoting a spell slot of the appropriate level for the spell. If the artificer cannot cast the spell, he/she must make the UMD check. Wands have a limit of 7 charges, and these don't regenerate. During a long rest the artificer can choose to let go of a wand and regain the slots.
Wand charging: The artificer can move a slot to add a single charge to a wand, whether it is a permanent one or a wand he/she crafted.
3rd level
Expertise
subclass pick (golems/homunculus, melee like combat style-mediumarmor-eventualsecond attack, crazy stuff with wands, more castery feel with cantrips...)
5th level
Craft permanent magic items...
SPend twice the slots to quickly cast an infusion in combat...
6th level
Spend a slot to cast an infusion in a superior slot level when ritual casting.....

and soo on