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

[Fralex]

So, I'm starting to get the feeling that before we can come up with something that will satisfy most, we need to be on the same page about what's important in the artificer class. What makes it feel like an artificer.

On that note, I ask those of you still following this discussion: What, in your view, is the "heart" of the artificer class?

For me, the biggest thing was not actually the ability to craft magic items. At least, not exactly. I have always loved characters with a focus on crafting, but that's really because of the freedom being allowed to make stuff brings, not necessarily the power or utility of crafting. That's what was so important to me about unrestricted access to every spell. I love the feeling of making something just how I want it, of creating something new using the rules of a game. Like... deckbuilding in Magic: the Gathering. It's the same feeling. Sure, I'm not inventing new cards, but there are so many cards to choose from that my decisions about which ones to include in a deck feel very much my own ideas. I'm bringing things together in ways not specifically planned for in the game's mechanics.

That wizard subclass is like being told to let my imagination run wild and make whatever deck I want, then being limited to like five different cards with no synergy. I want to be a magical inventor, not just a magic user. Selecting some pre-made options off a short list doesn't allow creativity! I'm just using someone else's ideas.

Like I said, the way artificers could use any spell is what provided that creative freedom in the first artificer class. If we do that again, it would probably be a good idea to make it a little more constraining than before, as being able to just automatically know every spell felt a bit too easy. Maybe have a spell-gathering mechanic similar to a wizard's spellbook.

Or, we could create an entirely new list of special artificer spells, designed specifically for synergy and openendedness (in a way similar to how cards in deckbuilding games are designed, but not (obviously) in an overpowered way). Maybe a special artificer feature could allow you to concentrate on multiple spells at once, as long as they were all artificer spells. I don't want tons of options so my stuff can be way powerful, I just want enough that my stuff really feels like it's mine.

(TL;DR) So yeah. I say creative freedom is the most essential quality of the artificer class. Things like magic item crafting, using armor, and wielding cleric-level weapons are all important parts of the class that fill out its feel, but if you have all that stuff without any options that encourage creativity, it won't feel like an artificer to me. From what I've seen Keith Baker say about the class, it seems he feels this aspect is important as well.

Is this the general consensus among artificer fans, or do some enjoy it for an entirely different reason? I'm curious to know!

 

[Hussar]

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.

And that's fair too. But, my point is, in this thread at least, there are a number of people talking about how a 3e artificer can do X, Y and Z and therefore the 5e artificer must be able to do the same thing. I'm not sure that's a realistic goal.

 

[MoonSong]

And that's fair too. But, my point is, in this thread at least, there are a number of people talking about how a 3e artificer can do X, Y and Z and therefore the 5e artificer must be able to do the same thing. I'm not sure that's a realistic goal.

Ok, fair enough, an artificer keepin the freedom at heart and that does x&y, y&z, or x&z is good, but you tell me that I have unrealistic expectations because the artificer now has to do a, b and c -nothing of which it has done before- and there's no room for not even one of xyz because wizards...

 

[Hussar]

It would not be the first time. I'm a huge summoner fan in 3e. Wizards can barely summon anything in 5e. Never minding any poor bugger that likes 4e warlords. Some classes just don't translate too well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Never minding any poor bugger that likes 4e warlords. Some classes just don't translate too well.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop people from doggedly insisting that the 4e Warlord, and indeed the 4e Fighter, are perfectly well-represented in 5e, and that it's only purists and haters who think otherwise.

 

[Minigiant]

Ok, fair enough, an artificer keepin the freedom at heart and that does x&y, y&z, or x&z is good, but you tell me that I have unrealistic expectations because the artificer now has to do a, b and c -nothing of which it has done before- and there's no room for not even one of xyz because wizards...

I think the issue is x and y are minor in 5e and z is not enough to build a class in 5th as other classes do it. It's not just the artificer, but the warlord, assassin, and psion have that problem.

Think about if someone wanted the fighter to just have high hp, lots of attacks, and all armor and weapon proficiencies in 3rd because that's what it have in 2nd. Well they even gave it feats and the class still stunk in that edition because every edition has different priorities.

 

[Remathilis]

It would not be the first time. I'm a huge summoner fan in 3e. Wizards can barely summon anything in 5e. Never minding any poor bugger that likes 4e warlords. Some classes just don't translate too well.

There is zero reasons why wizards can be summoners in 5e save lack of summon options. Druids can do so well enough thanks to conjure animals/fey, I don't see why a summon monster spell (with a carefully curated list) can't be done in a supplement. Except for the fact we aren't getting supplements. All the mechanics are in place, you just need the spells.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop people from doggedly insisting that the 4e Warlord, and indeed the 4e Fighter, are perfectly well-represented in 5e, and that it's only purists and haters who think otherwise.

Yeah, the battlemaster is my fear; a subclass that kinda sorta looks like the class if you squint. The problem is that 4e warlords had a very toxic element (martial healing of another) that ended it.

I think the issue is x and y are minor in 5e and z is not enough to build a class in 5th as other classes do it. It's not just the artificer, but the warlord, assassin, and psion have that problem.

The assassin was never anything more than Thief + Death attack. It was a kit in 2e, a prestige class in 3e, and an online supplement in 4e and to be fair was fine as all those things. If any class didn't need a full 20 level progression, assassin in your poster child.

Warlord could use some love. Battlemaster is a start, but more maneuver options and (yes) even a healing option would patch MOST the issues.

Like artificer though, I fail to see how psion (and psionics) isn't its own thing. Psionics has a very distinct flavor*: telepathy (messing with your brain), psychokinetic (that's telekinesis Kyle), psychometabolic (healing, shapechanging); psychopotive (moving stuff) and Clairsentience (aura reading). There is some cross over between wizards and psions, but a psion should get some abilities sooner (mind reading and telepathy at level one for example) and some they shouldn't gain at all (necromancy, conjuration, and visual illusions) A psion using the wizard spell list is redundant.

Which runs my problem with psion and artificer subclasses; once you remove their unique spell lists (and to an extent, the unique mechanics of their spellcasting) what do you have left? Practically nothing worth saving. It isn't even "X, Y Z", its "A B C, but call C "X" if you want." At that point, why even bother. I'd probably rather they forget psionics or artifice in 5e (and leave them in the dustbin with truenamers and incarnum) than give some watered-down wizard-wearing-their-clothes crap.

I hold out faith from Mearl's tweets though that we'll see REAL psionics and REAL artificers though.

* Distinct until Complete Psion; which tried really hard to cram everything under the sun into psionics. Good for DMs doing an all psionics campaign, bad for people who wanted a distinction between psionics and magic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, the battlemaster is my fear; a subclass that kinda sorta looks like the class if you squint. The problem is that 4e warlords had a very toxic element (martial healing of another) that ended it.

It makes me cry on the inside that "martial healing" can--validly, even--be considered a "very toxic element."

Warlord could use some love. Battlemaster is a start, but more maneuver options and (yes) even a healing option would patch MOST the issues.

I'm...honestly unsure. Part of my problem with the maneuvers is that none of them seem to scale; perhaps that's a "reading vs. playing" thing, but the only way most of them scale is (essentially) an average +1/+2 extra damage from the larger die size. The actual effects seem to be pretty much fixed, for a lot of stuff--it's the "TWF problem" just in a modified form.

Having true healing and true save-granting would help a ton, to be sure. The 4e Warlord was a "full Cleric replacement," to use the term I've heard elsewhere.

That's a bit off-topic, though. I agree in general with the rest of your post: Assassin is, was, and (perhaps?) always will be the poster child of "idea too narrow for a full class," with 4e being the only edition where it's made sense as more than that (and even that was something of a stretch, from what I've heard). Fully agreed on the Artificer being like the Psion: It's supposed to have its own casting mechanic and genuinely unique, different ways of working.

Makes me wonder if part of the problem is, as has come to me so many times before, that "magic" (or rather "arcane magic") is so incredibly broad that it really becomes more like "every supernatural thing." And whether the "Beguiler"-type fix might not be the way to go: make "regular magic" a much narrower thing, so that other narrow-magic concepts make sense by comparison.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6790260]EzekielRaiden[/MENTION]
[MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION]

I think the key is the wizard. The D&D wizard has been master of all supernatural magic of the arcane. So every full class has to "do something a wizard can't do.

The cleric has healing and restoration magic, armor, and channel divinity.
The druid has healing and nature magic, armor, and wide shape.
The bard originally had nothing as its healingagic was weak as a half caster. So they were given inspiration, expertise, and secrets.
The sorcery got its gimmick stolen by the core casting system. So it was given sorcery points and robbed wrzards of metamagic.
The warlock was weak to so it got "encounter magic" and.the best damage cantrip.

The artificer and psion need a gimmick that the wizard hasn't snatched up.

Any class can be justified with enough fluff and a good enough mechanical gimmick. I did one for my assassin class with its Death Attack gimmick and shadow magic or shadow strike.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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?

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.