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

[steeldragons]

Please add this to the downloads. I'm lazy.

lol. So am I!

We might be f**d. lol.

But thanks for the XP. I'll see what I can do...it's not really totally finished, though. Need to come up with a few capstone abilities first.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, it was just something I wrote in the spot between doing the dishes and a quick grocery shopping. A quick idea.

Right, my main point is getting at the conceptual issues, not fiddly mechanical bits. If we can't agree conceptually that an artificer should not use other class's spell lists as an essential part of the class, then we might just have to agree to disagree - there will never be an artificer class that satisfies both of us.

But that is what a 3e artificer can do, craft any item despite not fulfilling the requisites (spell known/class/race) They could substitute any of them with an UMD check (Charisma based and yes a skill check) The core mechanic I was thinking was making, charging and using wands, then have a bunch of ritual only spells/infusions dedicated to infuse objects and constructs, I think it's ok if they know the full list of 10 or so per level infusions, infusions are a minor part of the artificer.

"I can use any spell in the game if you give me a night and a Charisma boost" is, at the very least, going to make other party spellcasters feel a little milquetoast (especially if they're a lore bard), and "3e did it" isn't really a good enough reason to keep it in 5e - magic items are different, classes are different, skills are different, spells are different...

And if wand-use is to be the core idea, why not just let them use a wand arcane focus and give 'em a bunch of cantrips?

 

[Remathilis]

If Infusion = cantrip, why not give them cantrips?
If Gadget = concentration spell, why not give them concentration spells?
If Magic Items = magic item crafting, they can do this already if they can cast spells (though maybe we would like a better crafting system)

(and if any of these abilities loot DMG magic items wholesale...)

Infusion: limited spell-like abilities that only target or create objects. They can make a weapon become flaming, make a cloak grant resistance to fire, or create a wall of stone, but it can't charm a mind, fireball a room, or heal a wound.
Gadget: An ability that acts like a magic item, but "wears out" unless the artificer is there to recharge it. It can create a crossbow that ignores cover/concealment for an hour, a chime of opening that works 1/day, or a cloak that grants advantage on steath checks for 8 hours before becoming non-magical (unless the artificer recharges it). No spell slots, no concentration, but limited to only a few able to be active at a time.
Magic Item: The PC can use the magic item creation rules, but is better at them then typical casters due to his expertise at magic item making.

As [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] said, there is only so many potential "pools" of power you can use (dice pools, points, spell slots, uses per day/rest etc). On a macro-scale, a druid and a cleric are similar (spell slots, limited use abilities that recharge on short rest) but nobody thinks the druid is a rip-off the cleric's mechanics. There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm really not on this boat of "significantly different defining mechanic"...nor have a horse in this race as I do not play in Eberron and/or use an artificer in my games...[nor, apparently, a problem with mixing metaphors]. I mean, what is a Warlock's Invocation if not just "Channel Divine" with a refluff? What do they do? Oh, arcane magical effects...SO it's like Channeling the Arcane? No. They're invocations. So they're spells, then? No no! They're invocaaationnns. Warlocks only, man! Ah boogedy boogedy boo!

There are, what 47 out of 50 class/subclasses [hyperbolic but not by much] that have spell use? What's the significantly defining feature there? Oh look! Different spell list. Really major defining there. Martial types are getting some combat something and Extra Attack. Barbarian:"Reckless Attack" at 2nd, Extra Attack at 5th. Fighter: "Action Surge" @ 2nd, Extra Attack @ 5th. Ranger & Paladin both: Fighting Style @ 2nd, Extra Attack @ 5th.

Basically, everyone is getting some minorly different mechanic with a refluffing and new name as their features...with, then, one "thing that is theirs" that other classes don't get...Be that something major, like Rage or Sorcery Points or Domain spells, or something minorly different and flavorful (but nowhere else) like Invocations, Bardic Inspiration or Paladin Oath Channels ...and then, in the vastly overwhelming majority, an individualized class spell list on top of all of that.

So, here's what I'm thinking...really quickly and trying to follow the PHB format...

[all titles, names and abilities are subject to change for coolness, preference, and/or to protect the innocent.]

INFUSENATOR
You infuse stuff with magic. Blah blah yada yada fluffy bits. [digression note to self for future adventure: mad uber witch named "Blahblah Yada". Moving on...]
Arcane Tinker: You have an innate knack for harnessing and weaving magical energies into mundane items and objects, moreso than other spellcasting/item-crafter folks. Blah blah yada yada fluffy bits.
Arts and Crafts: You are especially crafty, cunning, and can come up with ideas and plans given what seems to others completely hopeless situations. Blah blah yada yada fluffy bits.

That looks like my Tinker class. But instead of dice, you get Genius points. You spend points to create, recharge, or maintain a gadget. Some gadgets use more than one point.
And no spellcasting outside of subclass.

"But Minigiant, why won't parties leave the tinker home where it is safe?"

Because the tinker uses their gadgets better than anyone else. While a tinker can make a flameslinger that casts burning hands for 2 Genius points, only the tinker can understand the fuel gauges to cast it as a 2nd level or higher spell. Or his repeating crossbow crits on a 18-20 in his hands.


Gadgets:

FiLAMESLINGER (Magic)
Base cost: 2 Genius Points. 100gp of materials.
Base charges: 2 plus 2 for every addition Genius Point
This is a two handed gadget. The weilder can use an action to spend a charge to cast burning hands as a 1st level spell.
Tinker only- A tinker can use more than one charge to cast burning hands as a 2nd level or higher spell.

REPEATING CROSSBOW (Gnomish)
Base cost: 1 Genius Points. a heavy crossbow, 10gp of materials.
Base charges: None
This crossbow loses the loading property and gains reload 5.
Tinker only- A tinker scores a critical hit with this crossbow on a roll of 18, 19, or 20.

PISTOL (Renaissance)
Base cost: 5 Genius Points, 250gp of materials.
Base charges: None
This gadget is a pistol (MM)
Tinker only- A tinker scores a critical hit with this pistol on a roll of 19, or 20.

SPRING BOOTS (Gnomish)
Base cost: 1 Genius Points. 10gp of materials.
Base charges: 5 points
These pair of shoes. Their wearer can use a bonus action to spend a charge and increase the wearers long jump distance by 10 ft and their high jump distance by 5 ft until the end of their next turn.
Tinker only- You can spend 2 charges and increase the wearers long jump distance by 30 ft and your high jump distance by 15 ft until the end of your next turn.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Infusion: limited spell-like abilities that only target or create objects. They can make a weapon become flaming, make a cloak grant resistance to fire, or create a wall of stone, but it can't charm a mind, fireball a room, or heal a wound.

These still sound like cantrips (or perhaps low-level spell effects) to me. A flaming weapon cantrip that made a weapon deal fire damage (and maybe some extra fire damage) or that granted momentary resistance to fire would be well within the sphere of cantrips, I think. And there's no reason other cantrips can't be considered object-based - friends is actually cast on a pocketwatch you wave around, but mechanically it is the same; firebolt is cast on a stick of burnt charcoal, etc.

Gadget: An ability that acts like a magic item, but "wears out" unless the artificer is there to recharge it. It can create a crossbow that ignores cover/concealment for an hour, a chime of opening that works 1/day, or a cloak that grants advantage on steath checks for 8 hours before becoming non-magical (unless the artificer recharges it). No spell slots, no concentration, but limited to only a few able to be active at a time.

That kind of has legs (especially in that they're based on DMG magic item effects, but NOT THE SAME AS those effects, giving us some room to do things that spells can't really do but also not putting us on board for just replicating DMG items wholesale), but there's a big concern there with bypassing concentration. One of the jobs of concentration is to stop buffs from getting 3e-style onerous mathematical deelies that everyone forgets to apply (in part because the caster is constantly reminded that they're on). Having more than one buff on you at a time that you need to remember gets fiddly fast - ESPECIALLY since this would combo with Concentration spells that would do kind of the same thing.

Of course, you could also just make new spells that have the Concentration requirement for any item-like effects you might want the artificer to loot...which gets us back to this being kind of the same as spells once the concerns are addressed....

Magic Item: The PC can use the magic item creation rules, but is better at them then typical casters due to his expertise at magic item making.

Okay, but that's a ribbon, it's something the artificer does in their downtime, not part of how they contribute to a party on the regular.

As [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] said, there is only so many potential "pools" of power you can use (dice pools, points, spell slots, uses per day/rest etc). On a macro-scale, a druid and a cleric are similar (spell slots, limited use abilities that recharge on short rest) but nobody thinks the druid is a rip-off the cleric's mechanics. There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

The wild shape feature is much different than the channel divinity feature in practice. If we just take turn undead for the latter, you have on the one hand a power that is useful for travel and information-gathering, and on the other, one that is good for fighting a particular type of enemy. While these powers COULD both be spells, they are each bigger than spells, with scaling built in by level and the fact that all members of the class have them leading to a strong class identity. A cleric of nature and a druid play differently in part because of these effects. As a class, the artificer needs to play differently from other classes, too. If all it's doing is casting spells - "using limited spell like abilities that only target or create objects" - then that's pretty much nothing special.

 

[transtemporal]

This is kind of a weird discussion. I'm sure in the game world, wizards would furiously debate amongst themselves whether an Artificer was a true wizard and whether to let them in the wizards club etc etc. The same debates emerge in the real world when a new variation of a profession appears.

For our purposes though, who cares? When you get down to it, a class is a bundle of abilities with a theme and later, a focus on manipulating one of those abilities (sub-class). The Fighter (for example) has a theme of hitting things in personal combat and the Champion has a focus on critical hit mechanics. The more levels you have in fighter, the more "hitty" you become until you achieve "peak hitty" at 20 fighter levels.

If you think of it even more mechanically, you might say that fighter is about sustained single-target DPR and champion is about focussing on burst DPR.

 

[Remathilis]

These still sound like cantrips (or perhaps low-level spell effects) to me. A flaming weapon cantrip that made a weapon deal fire damage (and maybe some extra fire damage) or that granted momentary resistance to fire would be well within the sphere of cantrips, I think. And there's no reason other cantrips can't be considered object-based - friends is actually cast on a pocketwatch you wave around, but mechanically it is the same; firebolt is cast on a stick of burnt charcoal, etc.

1.) No, they are spell equivalent. A flaming weapon is equal to the Elemental Weapon spell. Resistance to Fire is equal to Protection from Energy. Now, I know thats going to elict a "lol infusions = spellz so therefore wizard!" response, but bare in mind I'm assuming something akin to a warlocks caster progression (5th level, limited slots, recharge on short rest) so yes, 1/2 of the artificer's power comes from spells already. I'm fine with that.
2.) If you want to make artificer cantrips have a material component, that's fine. I DON'T want a subclass saying "Your spells now work differently because you took the artificer sublcass." Imagine for a moment a wizard starts out at level 1. He casts sleep on an orc, uses magic missile on some goblins, and spams firebolt. Now, he gains 2nd level and picks artificer. All of a sudden, his sleep spell requires a strange arcane regent, his magic missile needs a special stick, and firebolt needs a magical crossbow with infused ammo. Huh? Why? Why did his magic change so radically in 1 level? Because he opted to learn to scribe scrolls and brew potions? I don't think so! So saying "artificers are just wizards who intentionally gimp themselves because flavor" isn't going to fly. Build a class around that idea or accept than that an artificer is really a wizard who makes scrolls on the side and that the Eberron artificer concept is dead.

That kind of has legs (especially in that they're based on DMG magic item effects, but NOT THE SAME AS those effects, giving us some room to do things that spells can't really do but also not putting us on board for just replicating DMG items wholesale), but there's a big concern there with bypassing concentration. One of the jobs of concentration is to stop buffs from getting 3e-style onerous mathematical deelies that everyone forgets to apply (in part because the caster is constantly reminded that they're on). Having more than one buff on you at a time that you need to remember gets fiddly fast - ESPECIALLY since this would combo with Concentration spells that would do kind of the same thing.

Of course, you could also just make new spells that have the Concentration requirement for any item-like effects you might want the artificer to loot...which gets us back to this being kind of the same as spells once the concerns are addressed....

You'd have to build them so that they are balanced without concentration. One way to do that is to use abilities that aren't direct buffs (like bless and haste) but instead open new options like the crossbow that ignores cover. It'd be a balancing act, and one that would require copious playtesting, but its doable. Like infusions or metamagic, remember these would be options on a list, rather than funky "make your own" systems. So it can be done, as long as one watches for abusable options and avoids them when designing the gadget list.

Okay, but that's a ribbon, it's something the artificer does in their downtime, not part of how they contribute to a party on the regular.

Ribbons are people too ya know! Admittedly, it'd be a small piece to the pie, but that's why there is gadgets; to give the artificer a feeling of creating something without resorting the DMG item rules and the potential headaches of it. If the DM allows those rules, then artificers have an advantage to them.

The wild shape feature is much different than the channel divinity feature in practice. If we just take turn undead for the latter, you have on the one hand a power that is useful for travel and information-gathering, and on the other, one that is good for fighting a particular type of enemy. While these powers COULD both be spells, they are each bigger than spells, with scaling built in by level and the fact that all members of the class have them leading to a strong class identity. A cleric of nature and a druid play differently in part because of these effects. As a class, the artificer needs to play differently from other classes, too. If all it's doing is casting spells - "using limited spell like abilities that only target or create objects" - then that's pretty much nothing special.

Ecactly my point; its easy to birds eye and say "wild shape could just be a channel divinity" because we are looking at things in broad strokes; if I had enough time in my life to write up said artificer above with concrete examples of what an infusion is or what a gadget entails, you could see more clearly. Alas, I'm busy and still not comfortable with 5e balance yet. However, I can see a class that may broadly look similar to a warlock, but once you get into the specifics is very different (devil's in the details). Much like how WS and CD look vaguely similar on paper but are very different in the details of the power. Or how a sorcerer is really more than a wizard with metamagic abilities. We haven't gotten to that level to detail yet, so its really hard to visualize it.

 

[MoonSong]

Right, my main point is getting at the conceptual issues, not fiddly mechanical bits. If we can't agree conceptually that an artificer should not use other class's spell lists as an essential part of the class, then we might just have to agree to disagree - there will never be an artificer class that satisfies both of us.

"I can use any spell in the game if you give me a night and a Charisma boost" is, at the very least, going to make other party spellcasters feel a little milquetoast (especially if they're a lore bard), and "3e did it" isn't really a good enough reason to keep it in 5e - magic items are different, classes are different, skills are different, spells are different...

And if wand-use is to be the core idea, why not just let them use a wand arcane focus and give 'em a bunch of cantrips?

Part of the good of they being actual magical items, is they can be shared and passed around. Just refluffing cantrips into it is kind of a let down, you cannot lend your friend rogue a cantrip, but a wand, that is different. Sharing the fun is part of the fun of being an artificer. And then, under my suggestion, an artificer can produce any spell on a wand/scroll, but not with certainty, and there's another check to use that wand/scroll, but give the wand of invisibility to your spell-known starved sorcerer and I don't think he/she would complain.

 

[Hussar]

Well, it was just something I wrote in the spot between doing the dishes and a quick grocery shopping. A quick idea.


But that is what a 3e artificer can do, craft any item despite not fulfilling the requisites (spell known/class/race) They could substitute any of them with an UMD check (Charisma based and yes a skill check) .

At what point though do we step back and accept that 5e is a different game and a 3e style Artificer can't work? After all, most of the core classes changed significantly from 3e to 5e. Why should we be forced to use the 3e version of this class?

 

[Remathilis]

At what point though do we step back and accept that 5e is a different game and a 3e style Artificer can't work? After all, most of the core classes changed significantly from 3e to 5e. Why should we be forced to use the 3e version of this class?

You could probably say that about a bunch of different classes (hell, I recall during the playtest the sheer number of "barbarian/ranger/monk/bard/druid/paladin/sorcerer/warlock should be a subclass" threads.)

5e is the compromise edition; one of its strengths has been that its classes can certainly be played like their predecessors. The fighter, for example, can be played like an AD&D fighter (pick a weapon and go), like a 3e/4e style fighter (tactical and complex), as a striker (damage baby) a defender, even a bit like a leader (as a poor-mans warlord). I have no problem converting a fighter from earlier editions and having him feel like he did before.

I want the 5e artificer to do that too. I want him to be able to emulate the 3e style "builder" or the 4e style "leader" as well as some new ideas (alchemist? homoculus master?) It needs to evoke the feel of those kinds of artificer; buffer, healer, combatant. You know what doesn't emulate that feel? a wizard who makes potions. There is no artificer I've played, seen played, or such that felt like that. There is no way to "convert" any of said artificers to 5e and keep them feeling right. Imagine (for a moment) there was no monk class in 5e and someone said "oh, you want to play your monk in 5e? Make him a battlmaster-fighter and at 4th level take Tavern Brawler" I'm sure you would agree that was a poor substitute for the real monk class.

Through all these debates of "unique mechanics" and "niche protection" and "refluffing", the one thing I keep falling back to is that; does it "feel" like the class of old even if the mechanics are different. The UA subclass did not. I'm sure any sublcass of wizard won't either without some HEAVY rejiggering of the wizard class. Therefore, I find the best solution to keeping the "feel" of said class is with a new class.