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

[The Human Target]

Paladins are a thing from decades of being in D&D.

 

[The Human Target]

Show, don't tell.

If I have a spell book from which I prepare a certain number of spells in my head and the later release them with spellcasting...

...or if I have a book of recipes from which I craft a few temporary magic items and then later release their energy through item use...

...this isn't actually any different, just with that.

So show, don't tell. Don't say "this is different because it's magitek," show that with a mechanic. In what way is it actually different because it's magitek?
.

So you want me to build a 20 level D&D 5e artificer class so convince you (a random person on the internet) that the artificer should be a 20 level D&D class?

I guess I don't understand the point of the thread.

Why don't you write me a 5000 word essay about why the ranger should be a class?

 

[Minigiant]

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.

That is a issue.

How about thus.

Ego Whip cantrip: Target makes Charisma save or take 1d6 psychic damage and their mind is opened until the end of your next turn

Kineticist school class feature: You can use "control body* on a creature with an opened mind without spending a spell slot.

Nomad school class feature: You can cast "dismissal" on a creature with an opened mind without expending a spell slot

Too powerful to paste on a wizard. Powerful and unique enough for a class.

 

[Remathilis]

KM,

It's clear you have a hard-on against the artificer-as-class idea, so no proof anyone is going to say will sway you. Agendas blind people to other experience (cf edition wars). Therefore, I'm not going to waste my time reexplaining what others have said and instead address the fallacy of your premise.

Proficiency matters. Disagree? Give all classes proficiency in all weapons and armor and see which classes people gravitate towards. HD matters. Spell selection matters. Some classes (ranger especially) live by those distinctions. An artificer isn't a wizard with a crossbow and a set of artisan's tools. It's a mix of spell selection, HP, weapons, and item creation. It's no more a subclass than ranger would be to fighter (ah, those old "four classes and everything else a subclass" days, wonder where this people are now?)

No subclass so far offers the radical changes needed to make such a class. Wizard lacks the HP and proficiencies, and his spell selection is wildly inappropriate (artificers don't use magic missile, sleep, or animate dead. Sorcerer has the same problem (plus artificer isn't an origin per se). Warlock has a better mechanical expression but didn't fit the fluff (who forges an artificer pact?) Cleric is the same problem, plus their spells don't for for the opposite reasons. Bards same deal. Subclasses augment a base class, even the eldritch knight is still a fighter. They don't change spell lists or reflavor warlocks. They don't replace normal class abilities, they augment them. And don't bring up spellless ranger; it didn't change the ranger's role or flavor. If you need to reflavor a class AND change his mechanics, I think it's safe to say you're in new class territory.

So does it matter? For fans of the class, absolutely. The same as fans of rangers, sorcerers, and barbarians would say of those classes.

 

[MoonSong]

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).



"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.



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

You make some good arguments, but there is a fatal flaw, your proposal requires three things: Self-impossed limits, some kind of system mastery and Strong refluffing as the default to get an Artificer, and that is the problem, whatever form the artificer takes it should provide the artificer out of the box, without extra effort. (And I would say that strong refluffing won't sit too well with 3.5 fans by going with their massive exodus from 4e, and 3.5 fans are the main target for Eberron)

 

[Minigiant]

So you want me to build a 20 level D&D 5e artificer class so convince you (a random person on the internet) that the artificer should be a 20 level D&D class?

I guess I don't understand the point of the thread.

Why don't you write me a 5000 word essay about why the ranger should be a class?

But you have to.
In 5th edition, you need to plan out what every class has on level 1,6, 11, 16, and 20.

You have to be able to write 20 levels of a class and have it be different and unique from other classes while being the same power level.

You have to be able to answer:

What is the X classes unique first level class feature?

What is the X class's unique 5th-6th level thing?

What is its unique 11th level paragon thing.

What is its original 16th level early epic thing?

What is its 20th level capstone ability?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So you want me to build a 20 level D&D 5e artificer class so convince you (a random person on the internet) that the artificer should be a 20 level D&D class?

Nah, I'd settle for a solid core differentiating mechanic and a lack of snarky strawmen.

Again, if you take away the proficiencies, the spell list, and the "I prepare infusions, not spells!" cosmetic change, on the grounds that none of those are sufficient for a class distinction, what is an artificer left with? Or, what would you give them? How does being an item master matter in the mechanics of the game? How is it distinct? What does it offer?

Paladins are different from fighters not because of spellcasting (eldritch knights), but because of smites and divine senses and divine domains. Rangers are different from fighters not because of an emphasis on bows (dex-based fighter) but because of their semi-magical wilderness survival abilities (which even spell-less rangers get!). Sorcerers are different from wizards because of sorcery points and metamagic. Meanwhile, assassins are rogues because they don't have a big distinctive mechanic in them - they're just rogues with great weapon support and a particular approach to fighting. Battlemasters are fighters because manuevers don't achieve that escape velocity either - variations on "I hit it with a rider" aren't distinctive enough.

What is this for the artificer? Or the psion (@Minigiant 's idea of psionic attacks/defenses has legs!)? Or the warlord? What would it be?

It's clear you have a hard-on against the artificer-as-class idea

If that's what you think this is, then you don't understand what I'm saying. I apparently can't repeat "an artificer that earned that position would be great" or "this is also a problem with psionics and warlords when it comes up" often enough for people to rid themselves a Manichean perspective here.

your proposal requires three things: Self-impossed limits, some kind of system mastery and Strong refluffing as the default to get an Artificer

There's no need for self-imposed limits (a wizard-artificer player who wants buffs focuses on abjurations; a wizard-artificer player who wants to throw grenades focuses on evocation; a wizard-artificer player who wants construct buddies focuses on conjuration; et al), system mastery (what, suddenly using Rituals as they were intended is advanced D&D?), or that much refluffing (changing "prepare a spell" to "make an item" is pretty cosmetic).

...so I don't really concur. Though I agree that if something required those three things, it would probably not be sufficient.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Paladins are a thing from decades of being in D&D.

However as far as I can tell, per the OP's POV, they shouldnt exist. Neither should barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, rangers, warlocks, etc. There should be 2 classes: magic and non-magic, since skills, weapons, armor, style, are all meaningless. A cleric is just a caster with a few level of non-caster to get the skills to use maces and chainmail. A fighter is a non-magic who uses his training to get combat perks. A rogue is a non-magic who splits between combat and non-combat perks.

The artificer sub-class they crapped out was so bland and nondescript as to not even be worth the effort to print. You don't have the design space in the 3-4 features you get from a subclass to make it fit what fans want.

On the other hand,a 20 level class does have possibilities. Let them maintain multiple concentration spells with devices. Give the infusion subclass Reliable Device at 6th level that grants advantage on concentration checks.
Giving that feature to a wizard subclass can be dangerous, because the wizard's spell list bloats with every supplement and you have unintended consequences and combos. Giving it to a class with a more restrictive spell list can work better.

Then there's the issue of the homonculus. There's not enough room in wizard to build in a decent pet, but you could rig up a subclass similar to the beastmaster (just you know, actually good) with an iron defender.

Make a more martial subclass, granting an extra attack at 6th and an infused attack later on with a damage type and minor status effect that is changable on each short rest. At X level they add Y evocation spells known to their list. Let them use the crossbows range for the spell's range.

There's plenty of design space to make them unique if you are open to them being anything other than a wizard with gears on their pointy hat instead of stars and moons. Or at least as unique as a paladin is over a multiclass fighter/cleric combo. Paladin casting, d8 HD, infusions similar to warlock invocations, expertise with a skill and a tool of your choice, etc.

 

[The Human Target]

But you have to.
In 5th edition, you need to plan out what every class has on level 1,6, 11, 16, and 20.

You have to be able to write 20 levels of a class and have it be different and unique from other classes while being the same power level.

You have to be able to answer:

What is the X classes unique first level class feature?

What is the X class's unique 5th-6th level thing?

What is its unique 11th level paragon thing.

What is its original 16th level early epic thing?

What is its 20th level capstone ability?

I believe you could do that with almost any class idea.

However I am not a professional game designer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

However as far as I can tell, per the OP's POV, they shouldnt exist. Neither should barbarians, bards, clerics, druids, rangers, warlocks, etc. There should be 2 classes: magic and non-magic, since skills, weapons, armor, style, are all meaningless. A cleric is just a caster with a few level of non-caster to get the skills to use maces and chainmail. A fighter is a non-magic who uses his training to get combat perks. A rogue is a non-magic who splits between combat and non-combat perks.

You don't understand my argument if this is what you think.

All existing 5e classes have earned their place because they have more than proficiencies and spell lists to differentiate them.

It's not much to ask that any proposed artificer/psion/warlord/whatnot has that, too.