Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6605273" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>And you would win that bet <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ...in my case, I mean. Can't say for anyone else. What I know is what I've read about them. I am of the mind that the archetype presented needs to keep with/be true to the flavor and (as others have talked about) "narrative reasons/purposes" of the class. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I, personally, have never justified the existence of the sorcerer as a class. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms we need not open here. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What "feats" are you talking about? In 5e feats are optional. You can't build a class (or sub-class), theoretically usable at any table playing in Eberron (or any other setting), around an optional system.</p><p></p><p>Let me see if I can make this clear without being flamey/warry...because I really do not intend it that way. Play as you like. S'no skin off my back...but you will not get a 3e artificer with everything a 3e artificer<em> was.</em> This is not 3e.</p><p></p><p>This is 5e. 5e is not the same game as 3e. It does things differently. It tries to get things similar or allow a play <em>experience </em>close to -not "the same as"- 3e, if that's what you want...but it is not and will not be 3e. That's what 3e is for. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes! Right. Very good. And the proposals being made [seem to me] is: An artificer is [best portrayed/most closely seems to be] a customization of the wizard class. Someone who works with [arcane] magic to "infuse" items with magical abilities. A "crafter." A magical "tinker."</p><p></p><p>Since you pick a wizard specialization at 2nd level...an artificer is not "suffering" anything by spending 1 level casting mage spells before they delve into their "magical tinkery smithish almost rogue guy" pursuits. 1 level (that is a<em> remarkably </em>short amount of game play if played btb) before you refluff/re-flavor your magic spells into "infusions" and start accumulating your sub-class specific skills & features [whatever they may be] that other wizards do not have.</p><p></p><p>I just don't see the logic of this argument...or how it lands on the conclusion "They can't/shouldn't be a wizard subclass."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except that that is exactly what the Arcane trickster is. Isn't it? A rogue who learned a little magic at level 3? Why is the concept of a wizard learning a little roguey stuff (light armor, thieves' tools, trap finding/disarming...is there an artisan "tinker tools", I don't recall?) so impossible or unreasonable?</p><p></p><p>EDIT TO ADD: All of that said, as others have pointed out, I could see it done as a subclass of Bard as well...and perhaps it is a better/shorter jump flavor/fluff- wise and for adding proficiencies (since the bard would already have some of it built in). But that, too, would be a sub-class. So most of the above points, I guess, still apply...as does my conclusion that there isn't a need for a whole separate class.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6605273, member: 92511"] And you would win that bet :) ...in my case, I mean. Can't say for anyone else. What I know is what I've read about them. I am of the mind that the archetype presented needs to keep with/be true to the flavor and (as others have talked about) "narrative reasons/purposes" of the class. Well, I, personally, have never justified the existence of the sorcerer as a class. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms we need not open here. ;) What "feats" are you talking about? In 5e feats are optional. You can't build a class (or sub-class), theoretically usable at any table playing in Eberron (or any other setting), around an optional system. Let me see if I can make this clear without being flamey/warry...because I really do not intend it that way. Play as you like. S'no skin off my back...but you will not get a 3e artificer with everything a 3e artificer[I] was.[/I] This is not 3e. This is 5e. 5e is not the same game as 3e. It does things differently. It tries to get things similar or allow a play [I]experience [/I]close to -not "the same as"- 3e, if that's what you want...but it is not and will not be 3e. That's what 3e is for. Yes! Right. Very good. And the proposals being made [seem to me] is: An artificer is [best portrayed/most closely seems to be] a customization of the wizard class. Someone who works with [arcane] magic to "infuse" items with magical abilities. A "crafter." A magical "tinker." Since you pick a wizard specialization at 2nd level...an artificer is not "suffering" anything by spending 1 level casting mage spells before they delve into their "magical tinkery smithish almost rogue guy" pursuits. 1 level (that is a[I] remarkably [/I]short amount of game play if played btb) before you refluff/re-flavor your magic spells into "infusions" and start accumulating your sub-class specific skills & features [whatever they may be] that other wizards do not have. I just don't see the logic of this argument...or how it lands on the conclusion "They can't/shouldn't be a wizard subclass." Except that that is exactly what the Arcane trickster is. Isn't it? A rogue who learned a little magic at level 3? Why is the concept of a wizard learning a little roguey stuff (light armor, thieves' tools, trap finding/disarming...is there an artisan "tinker tools", I don't recall?) so impossible or unreasonable? EDIT TO ADD: All of that said, as others have pointed out, I could see it done as a subclass of Bard as well...and perhaps it is a better/shorter jump flavor/fluff- wise and for adding proficiencies (since the bard would already have some of it built in). But that, too, would be a sub-class. So most of the above points, I guess, still apply...as does my conclusion that there isn't a need for a whole separate class. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
Top