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

[Minigiant]

The true is many classes of the past didn't deserve classes until the design created that right.

The fighter didn't deserve a class because it had no unique features. It was just proficiencies, then proficiencies and feats, then proficiencies and powers. The BARBARIAN had better claim to a class. Mearls and Co gave it a claim for a class with Action Surge, Second Wind, and 2 extra levels of Extra Attack.

The 3e Bard is just a mutliclass and feat in 5e. Same with the 4e one and every other one. Then they add Magical Secrets and buffed Songs an Spells to "not suck" levels.

Same with the many old classes as they were slot fillers and multiclass patches. The binder had better claims than some core classes.

Proficiencies aren't special not powerful in 5th edition. They don't grant a class claim.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I actually think that the wizards spellcasting mechanics perfectly reflect what an artificer should do.

Start the day, craft a bunch of limited use magic items (ie - prepare a limited set of spells), and if you've got 10 minutes, pick from a more limited set and make those.

I do think that having some armor proficiency would be good but far from necessary. While it was a thing that artificers did in previous editions, I don't consider it a defining feature.

I think that some weapon proficiencies would be good too, but again it's not a defining feature.

I also think that the benefit of pact of the chain shouldn't be a warlock class ability, but rather baked into the find familiar spell, which would fill the artificer's "create a robo dog" power from 3.5, not to mention a heap of other character concepts involving spellcasters with magical companions.

 

[Staffan]

I actually think that the wizards spellcasting mechanics perfectly reflect what an artificer should do.

Start the day, craft a bunch of limited use magic items (ie - prepare a limited set of spells), and if you've got 10 minutes, pick from a more limited set and make those.

Except artificers were spontaneous casters in 3e. They had access to their whole spell list, and could cast any of the spells on it without needing to prepare spells. And if they had some time to prepare, or wanted to blow an Action Point, they could fashion the exact tool for the moment - either via weapon or armor augmentation allowing them to add a special ability to their weapon or armor on the fly (______ bane was always a hit to add to weapons), or via spell storing item letting them make a one-shot wand of any spell up to 4th level.

Abilities like these are essential to the proper artificer feel. If the wizard is Batman (careful preparation makes sure he always has the appropriate gadget for the job), the artificer is MacGyver (creating a welding torch out of a racing bike).

 

[Li Shenron]

*He's a spellcaster... yes. But shouldn't be able to cast as well as a wizard - the class used to emulate part of this through magic items.
*He's a skill/tool monger... yes. But less than, say, the Rogue or Bard.
*He had a "familiar" in the form of a homunculus... yes. But it was also another magic item, and could be tailored to be more akin to Ranger Animal Companion
*He's a capable combatant... kind of. Could be a second liner if build in that way.
*He was a great 5th-party-member that could fill in the gaps

The artificer should not be Gandalf, Merlin, or Elminster. He should, at low levels, be MacGyver, and at high levels Tony Stark.

Again, I've never seen an Artificer in the game so I don't know how it "should be like", but reading comments like these makes me think it probably deserves its own class, and possibly a half-caster only (like Paladin or Ranger).

But... in lieu of the MacGyver comparison, what would really make it unique and separate from Wizard, would be if it had NO spellcasting capabilities at all. Make it someone whose expertise is really about items and zero spells (in the sense that she has no spell slots that could be cast as a spellcaster normally does), so her magic effects go exclusively into items. Emphasize this by not giving her any chance to create stuff in a single round, except for the very minor of effects (otherwise, it's pretty much the same as casting spells again).

 

[Shasarak]

Personally I think that if you can justify having Warlock and Sorcerer as separate classes to the Wizard then you can also justify having Artificer has a separate class.

Likewise Druid and Paladin from the Cleric class.

 

[nomotog]

Again, I've never seen an Artificer in the game so I don't know how it "should be like", but reading comments like these makes me think it probably deserves its own class, and possibly a half-caster only (like Paladin or Ranger).

But... in lieu of the MacGyver comparison, what would really make it unique and separate from Wizard, would be if it had NO spellcasting capabilities at all. Make it someone whose expertise is really about items and zero spells (in the sense that she has no spell slots that could be cast as a spellcaster normally does), so her magic effects go exclusively into items. Emphasize this by not giving her any chance to create stuff in a single round, except for the very minor of effects (otherwise, it's pretty much the same as casting spells again).

No spell casting is a good idea. The old artificer wasn't really big on spells. Most of the time if you were casting a spell it was because you had a wand. The old artificer was more based around making/modifying/using magic items. It's a different mechanic then casting spells.

If you made the artficer a sub class, then I whould want to make it part of the rogue. It always felt more like a rouge class without sneak attack. You could also maybe do a wizard who puts all their spells into objects that they can pass around to others.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally I think that if you can justify having Warlock and Sorcerer as separate classes to the Wizard then you can also justify having Artificer has a separate class.

Likewise Druid and Paladin from the Cleric class.

The issue is not justifying the idea of a artificer, warlord, or psion.

Its making them significantly different from the wizard, fight, and wizard again respectively.

For example, to make a psion feel different from a wizard I'd bring back psionic attacks and defenses.

Ego whip is a Charisma save cantrip for psychic damage
Psychic Crush is a Wisdom save cantrip for psychic damage

Mind Blank grants advantage on Charisma saves and Disadvantage on Wisdom saves.

Psions can enter defense modes to alter their saves by spending power points.

THEN if a psion hits enough times with psionic cantrips, they open the target's mind for X rounds. Psionic spells on it are FREE and augment costs are HALVED on open minds.

Now a psion is special. It can get free spells if it breaks the enemy's mind first. Too big for a subclass, big enough for a class.

 

[Leatherhead]

THEN if a psion hits enough times with psionic cantrips, they open the target's mind for X rounds. Psionic spells on it are FREE and augment costs are HALVED on open minds.

Most monsters have a life expectancy of 3 rounds.

A class feature that grants bonuses on the next attack when you hit with a cantrip level attack, so that you would have a "one two punch", is ideal.

 

[77IM]

First and foremost, a class represents a major character archetype in the genre. We have paladins instead of fighter/clerics only because paladins are popular in the genre and players immediately grasp what it means to be a paladin. Likewise, barbarian is a muscular melee class because that's the popular conception of it. Druid differs from nature-cleric not because of Wild Shape (it could have been their Channel Divinity option) but because people see druids as a distinct and well-defined archetype.

There's confusion around artificer precisely because it is not a major archetype. The artificer in fantasy stories is typically an NPC. That's changing somewhat with steampunk, and Eberron is sort of its own unique sub-genre, but for a concept to be worth an entire class I think it needs to be so strong that most D&D players understand what it's like just from the name. I am not sure artificer fits that bill.

(And yes, by this standard, sorcerer is a bit iffy, being too hard to distinguish from wizard or warlock.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except artificers were spontaneous casters in 3e. They had access to their whole spell list, and could cast any of the spells on it without needing to prepare spells.

While this is pretty trivial mechanically (I make X items that recharge each day with a level Y spell = "I know X spells"), it's not a bad point for them being exported to a bard subclass or a rogue subclass or something. One of a Wizard's key points is that they know more spells than they can prepare at one time. It's one of their advantages - they can produce the right spell for the right situation when necessary, and they aren't limited by artificial upper limits like other classes. If you want the artificer to not have that ability, that's a good case for making them not a wizard.

But I've gotta say, the flavor of the artificer (a builder of items) and the playstyle of the artificer that keeps cropping up ("they always have the right tool for the job!") is more a vote against them having a hard list of spells known, in my mind. I mean, if you only know 6 spells, you literally cannot always have the right tool for the job (though other features may mitigate that, as the Favored Soul does).

And if they had some time to prepare, or wanted to blow an Action Point, they could fashion the exact tool for the moment - either via weapon or armor augmentation allowing them to add a special ability to their weapon or armor on the fly (______ bane was always a hit to add to weapons), or via spell storing item letting them make a one-shot wand of any spell up to 4th level.

"I know the elemental weapon spell" (or whatever new spell might add a particular special ability to a given armor or weapon - there's plenty of room for new spells in that avenue) isn't big enough to be the basis for an entire class.

Abilities like these are essential to the proper artificer feel. If the wizard is Batman (careful preparation makes sure he always has the appropriate gadget for the job), the artificer is MacGyver (creating a welding torch out of a racing bike).

Ritual Caster is being MacGyver. "Give me 10 minutes and I can make an invisible servant / understand languages / set up an alarm / etc. " is that impromptu creation of a solution. Wizards do this out of the box. Artificers with spontaneous casting wouldn't be a great fit for that because, of course, they wouldn't know that many spells