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

[Remathilis]

When it comes to artificer spells, there are two important things to remember. First, the actual artificer list of spells is quite small, only affects objects, and generally takes a minute to cast. They're helpful, but they aren't flashy. This would probably be represented in 5e as the half spell progression. Second, artificers are considered to have every spell in the game as far as prerequisites for making magical items are concerned. Which means that an artificer can create a scroll of any spell in the game, even 9th level, and they can craft wands, staves, rods, cloaks, whatever during their downtime. So, he can make that Staff of Healing or Staff of Power or Scroll of Forcecage or Scroll of Wish or whatever, and have access to all that has to offer.

Which is why a re-look at magic item crafting would have to be considered, of course.

And this is where the "revamp" portion comes into play.

The artificer list should remain small and tightly focused, but I'm not entirely sure 1/2 caster is the best method. I was using warlock progression for my idea, but that a bit faster than paladin/ranger. Ultimately, I think the artificer should fill the same niche as a bard; a mix of buffing and healing magic with a side of creation and the like. If bards can be full casters, artificers should be too.

Second, I'm not sure the "ever spell in the game" requirement is needed or wanted. Emulating spells (via UMD) was needed due to how crarfting works. It's not needed anymore; anyone with the formula and proper spellcasting level can do it. Therefore, they don't need to have access to said spells; but they still should be able to use said items. (Giving them a rogue's Use Magic Device fixes that problem easily, the rest is all formulas and levels).

Lastly, I don't see a revision to crafting happening anytime soon. Which is why I suggested making magical "gadgets" that emulate items but are really part of the artificer's class power, rather than actual crafting. That way, the DM can use the artificer class with the DMG crafting rules or not and the artificer still "feels" like he's making cool toys for himself and his friends. (Those toys are paid for in the artificer class itself, rather than with GP or time). Power level wise, he's on par with a warlock (who gets invocations that are paid for in warlock power). So even if the DM doesn't use DMG crafting, the artificer is still "making stuff" since his magical gear is "baked in" the class itself.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Second, I'm not sure the "ever spell in the game" requirement is needed or wanted. Emulating spells (via UMD) was needed due to how crarfting works. It's not needed anymore; anyone with the formula and proper spellcasting level can do it. Therefore, they don't need to have access to said spells; but they still should be able to use said items. (Giving them a rogue's Use Magic Device fixes that problem easily, the rest is all formulas and levels).

For what it's worth, there are still rules in the DMG stipulating that you have to have a spell equivalent known to make a magic item. It says, specifically, you "must be able to cast any spell that the item can produce." So, for example, you need magic missile on your spell list/spells known to make a wand of magic missile. Or your DM may say you need to have disguise self to create a suit of glamoured studded leather. Therefore, in order for the artificer to craft a variety of items, they would still need to have this.


My idea of the artificer would be heavily reliant on magic items to function, though, and I can see how that might not be desirable for a 5e version. I like the idea that their powerful effects (high level spells) come from scrolls or staves, not their own prepared spells. That's why I would peg them at half caster. I would be fine seeing a full 9th level caster version, but I'm just not sure what a 9th level artificer spell would look like in 5e. I'm sure it could be done, though! Actually, I could see a half caster with full caster subclass as well. It just depends on how you want to go.

 

[steeldragons]

If I might digress from the artificer for a second...I keep seeing this list time and again in this thread:
Artificer: I get it. We don't have one and everyone's wondering how to get one that the most people are going to find the most useful/entertaining. This is the bulk of the discussion.
Warlord: I get it. We don't have one that does it 4enough for its fans.
Psion: I get it. We haven't seen it yet and, again, everyone's wondering how to get one that the most people are going to find the most useful/entertaining.

...and...Assassin? Has there been a reprint of the PHB already that I wasn't aware of? It's on page 97. Second Rogue archetype. Right there. In print. We have the assassin. Why is it continually listed with these other classes we don't have/haven't seen yet? It's a rogue...who kills stuff. They can assassinate, infiltrate and impersonate. What else is it supposed to be doing that people don't see/don't like about it that it would be part of this same conversation?

 

[Minigiant]

If I might digress from the artificer for a second...I keep seeing this list time and again in this thread:
Artificer: I get it. We don't have one and everyone's wondering how to get one that the most people are going to find the most useful/entertaining. This is the bulk of the discussion.
Warlord: I get it. We don't have one that does it 4enough for its fans.
Psion: I get it. We haven't seen it yet and, again, everyone's wondering how to get one that the most people are going to find the most useful/entertaining.

...and...Assassin? Has there been a reprint of the PHB already that I wasn't aware of? It's on page 97. Second Rogue archetype. Right there. In print. We have the assassin. Why is it continually listed with these other classes we don't have/haven't seen yet? It's a rogue...who kills stuff. They can assassinate, infiltrate and impersonate. What else is it supposed to be doing that people don't see/don't like about it that it would be part of this same conversation?

There are some fans who want another flavor of assassin.

My cousin wanted a more Assassin's Creed assassin which still has its sneak attack spikey side but tougher and able to brawl. Then there are the assassin of 3.5 and 4e who had shadow magic.

So I invented a full assassin class for him. Its sneak attack is stunted to 1d6 per 3 levels but they get a death attack as well. The subclasses either grants extra attack, bonus defenses, or shadow magic. I named it the slayer class just to avoid reusing names.

 

[steeldragons]

Ah, I see. Thanks. [complete non sequitur: I keep forgetting that D&D is responsible for including blatant rip-offs of any/all cultural references and shoehorning them into the TTRPG of fantasy adventure and imagination. Was kinda hoping 5e would put the brakes on that.]

I always thought the Assassin's Creed guy was represented by the Avenger...wasn't that a class? "I kill people for some cause, so I can still be good/"anti-heroz iz kewl" class. Dunno if that was 3 or 4e. I want to say 3e.

So, granted, no we do not have/haven't seen an Avenger-style assassin, so I get it now.

As for a 4e shadow-magic ninja-assassin guy, I'd say Monk's Way of the Shadow is pretty clearly that: darkness/secret/deceptive magic, shadow-porting...what else is there? But I am hardly an aficionado of 4e.

 

[Minigiant]

To be fair, 3.5 had the assassin prc and the Unearthed Arcana rule to swap bonus feats for sneak attack and 4th had both avengers and shadow assassins. So 5th should support though who start combat with huge spikey damage and don't chicken out right after. Gotta support past archetypes which still fit the game mentality, right?

 

[steeldragons]

Gotta support past archetypes which still fit the game mentality, right?

Sure. I would just submit, in the case of these "assassins" anyway, that it already does.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure. I would just submit, in the case of these "assassins" anyway, that it already does.

Not really. The shadow monk hits for low damage normally and is defenseless when it Flurries. The "assassin" hits like a truck and escapes retaliation. However one can claim you are suppuse to darkness first but that makes you both blind.

If the paladin wasn't so multiple attribute dependent you could add dexterity for stealth.

The best you have are ironically battemasters who can vomit all their dice at once after coming out of hiding.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I always thought the Assassin's Creed guy was represented by the Avenger...wasn't that a class? "I kill people for some cause, so I can still be good/"anti-heroz iz kewl" class. Dunno if that was 3 or 4e. I want to say 3e.

So, granted, no we do not have/haven't seen an Avenger-style assassin, so I get it now.

The Avenger you're talking about probably is the 4e one (I don't know of any from 3.x, but my knowledge of supplements isn't great there). As for the flavor, the 4e Avenger was kinda-sorta the "religious inquisitor" class; they were fluffed as having substantial leeway within their churches, so as to hunt down heresy and, more importantly, anyone who had been Invested and then gone apostate.* In general, though, I would agree that the Avenger is the best choice for an Ezio Auditore type character, with the sole exception that Avengers generally wield big honkin' two-handers (greatswords) rather than daggers; the whole cloak-and-hood, minimal-armor thing fits quite well, as does the semi-religious overtones of both the Templars and the Assassins (and the fact that the whole thing is called Assassin's Creed doesn't hurt either.)

As for a 4e shadow-magic ninja-assassin guy, I'd say Monk's Way of the Shadow is pretty clearly that: darkness/secret/deceptive magic, shadow-porting...what else is there? But I am hardly an aficionado of 4e.

I guess, for me, the problem is that 5e has hewn that particular archetype in two. You have your Shadow Monks on the one hand, who have all the tricksytricksy moves and stealth and such. And then you have your Assassin Rogues, who can drop crazy damage. But the two are hard to mesh together. Ideally you'd find some way to tweak the Way of Shadow to add some more dangerous offense to it--but I wouldn't know how.

*In 4e, a god's gift of power is more permanent than in 3e; all Divine classes receive Investiture, either through ritual or through direct divine intervention, but once Invested, the power is theirs to use. If the deity later finds that their anointed servant has betrayed them, it's up to their other mortal agents to deal with it. With the exception of (rare) direct Investitures, 4e deities have very little direct power in the material plane for story reasons (the Primal Spirits kicked them out because some of them put the world at risk for divine-political gain.)

 

[Minigiant]

It's a actually still into 4.

The shadow monk has tricks but hits like a baby.
The assassin rogue hits hard but folds like chair
The vengence paladin has the power and toughness but can't sneak due to armor reliance.