Second 5th Edition Survey! Plus Results of the First Survey: The Ranger Gets Some Attention!

A new survey is up on the official D&D website. It looks like its covering the classes not in the last survey and the recent Eberron material. WotC also reports on what was learned from the last survey. "For our second survey, we’re focused on the final six classes in the game and the Eberron material that we rolled out in last month’s Unearthed Arcana. If you haven’t looked at that article and want to provide feedback, read it over and come back to the survey later. Even if you don’t have a chance to use the Eberron material in your game, your reactions to it are helpful. You can also skip over the Eberron questions if you don’t want to give feedback on that material."

Here's the overall feedback from the first survey:

"So, what did we learn from our last survey? Let’s take a look at some trends:

To start with, there are a lot of you. We had more people respond to this survey than any of our playtest surveys. A lot of people are into D&D these days!

There are a lot of new players and DMs out there. Welcome to D&D!

You are playing the game in droves. Only about 10 percent of you have read the books without yet playing.

Your campaigns are just getting started. Most of you are playing at 6th level and below.

You love the fifth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, and we’re overjoyed to be able to write that. The overall assessment was incredibly positive, surpassing our results from the playtest by a significant margin."
​

The ranger, in particular, is getting some focus:

"To start with, a majority of players and Dungeon Masters are happy with the ranger overall. The game as a whole is grading well, so we don’t want to make a huge, sudden change to that class. But taking a deeper dive into the ranger, we can see that favored enemy and the beast master archetype received the lowest ratings. Our next step is to take a closer look at why that is.

We’ll start with an internal assessment mixed with feedback from our closed circle of testers. From there, we’ll work up some options and present them to you, most likely in the Unearthed Arcana column. That process allows us to determine if the track we’re on answers your concerns with the class.

The critical step is making sure that any changes we make genuinely improve the class. Remember, plenty of people are happy with the ranger, so any changes need to cover a number of options:

People who like the ranger as it is can simply keep playing their current characters.

People who don’t like the ranger should feel as though the new options allow them to play the ranger they want to create.

The new options are exactly that—new choices for ranger players to select from, as opposed to a rewrite of the Player’s Handbook.

DMs should always feel that they can take or leave the new options, just like any other material in the game beyond the Basic Rules."
​

Hop on over here to take the new survey!

 

[TrippyHippy]

One of the aspects that Ifind lacking in the Beastmaster is the restriction on beast sizes. Primarily, what I’d like is being able to have a beast you can ride - a Horse Master, as you will.

 

[Ranes]

I suppose we have 3e to "thank" for showing that pretty much any/every concept any/everyone can some up with can be turned into/"deserves" a class, no matter how minor/meaningless the distinction. And, as we all know, that way lies bloated madness.

I agree with most of what you've said throughout this thread but I have to take issue with this. The edition we have to thank for meaningless class bloat is in fact first edition. In the first three years of White Dwarf alone, there were more than twelve new classes published (including the all-important 'houri'). Multiply that by Dragon, Fantasy Gamer, et al, not to mention the flourishing of D&D fanzines back then, and you most certainly had madness and bloat long before 3e was a twinkle in WotC's corporate eye.

The solution, of course, has always been to be discerning.

Back on topic, more interesting than WotC's feedback on the first survey are the concerns and ideas expressed in this very thread.

Yippee, etc.

 

[vongarr]

So, they are stealthy, agile, skilled at ambushes and flank attacks, masters of evasion and deceit? I'm not an Eberron fan, but I didn't have the impression any of that described artificers.


You've made a case for artificers not being wizards. Why does that make them rogues?

I would prefer they be a distinct class. Barring that, it becomes a process of elimination, seeing which classes have the most in common. Ultimately, it has to do with feel.

The starting point for me is the blue collar aesthetic of an artificer. Wizards may have a blue collar period when they are an apprentice, but it is a phase they thematically leave behind. The artificer never does. The most similar in mentality and outlook is the Rogue. See the below images:

View attachment 67223
View attachment 67224

Those are artificers (in the middle on the second). Scrappy types who work better with others than they do alone. That to me sounds like a rogue. The stealth and back stabbing bit does not fit, but they did have the detect traps ability in 3.5. That's a clear rogue trait.

 

[steeldragons]

I agree with most of what you've said throughout this thread but I have to take issue with this. The edition we have to thank for meaningless class bloat is in fact first edition. In the first three years of White Dwarf alone, there were more than twelve new classes published (including the all-important 'houri'). Multiply that by Dragon, Fantasy Gamer, et al, not to mention the flourishing of D&D fanzines back then, and you most certainly had madness and bloat long before 3e was a twinkle in WotC's corporate eye.

The solution, of course, has always been to be discerning.

Back on topic, more interesting than WotC's feedback on the first survey are the concerns and ideas expressed in this very thread.

Yippee, etc.

Well, yes. And 2e was the edition of a Thousand Kits. But they were acknowledged as being specific...specifications/specializations of a particular type of class or for a particular creature. Called out as completely optional/additive, as I recall, and modifications to existing classes...not [in most cases] classes in/of themselves.

But yes, in 1e there was a new class to be found in various non-PHB or guidebook sources every day. Our group bitd came up with our fair share of homebrew classes. But I would not say, for example, our homebrewed shapeshifting ranger-type guys based on the Visionaries 80's cartoon ("Knights of the Magical Light", y'all) ought to be its own class in 5e...cuz...well, they were a ranger or druid or paladin subtype [and incredibly "broken/OP" by today's standards, as I recall ;P]...at best.

Whereas the 3e model says: Hexblade, Soulknife, Spellthief, Duskblade, Beguiler, Binder, Warlock, Shadowcaster, etc..etc.. ad nauseum all warrant their own classes...or "prestige" tier classes.

It was more a comment on mindset and expectations I was attempting to address than the "what was in actual print" of any particular edition...if that makes sense?

 

[Dausuul]

Those are artificers (in the middle on the second). Scrappy types who work better with others than they do alone. That to me sounds like a rogue. The stealth and back stabbing bit does not fit, but they did have the detect traps ability in 3.5. That's a clear rogue trait.

The "blue-collar" thing strikes me as a very thin reed on which to hang the artificer's hat (though a good spoon to mix metaphors with). First of all, blue-collar versus white-collar is a question of background, not class. Second, a PC wizard is no ivory-tower philosopher. They're out there in the muck, slogging through dungeons and battling monsters right alongside the fighters and rogues, and that continues far up the level range. In 3E, a high-level wizard could scry'n'die everything, then retreat to his or her extraplanar fortress for tea and crumpets. That doesn't work in 5E--you just don't have the spell slots, and some of the key spells are much less reliable. There ain't no greater teleport in 5E. Even if you manage to pull off a scry'n'die attack, you better be prepared to camp out at the target location afterward. More likely, you'll have to infiltrate the enemy stronghold on foot like anyone else. NPC wizards may sit in their towers watching the stars, but PC wizards are hard-bitten mercenaries, explorers, and tomb robbers.

So, what's that leave? Trapfinding and lockpicking, which in 5E mostly comes down to "Expertise in thieves' tools." That's hardly a basis for picking a whole class full of features (Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, et cetera, et cetera) that don't match the artificer at all.

The best approach IMO would be to go through the class spell lists and see whose spells best approximate what artificers do. Then make a heavily modified version of that class for the artificer... that is, if the artificer simply can't be made into its own class.

 

[Staffan]

For narrative, I don't know what is the original concept of Artificer from Eberron. If it was something similar to an alchemist specialist, but alchemy was still based on spells, then it makes sense as a Wizard tradition. In other settings, alchemy/artifice might be a rival alternative, completely separated from magic (or in 4e terms, another "power source") and thus it would seem more appropriate to make it a separate class, even if mechanics aren't that different.

The Eberron artificer had numerous abilities, some of which are more adaptable than others to 5e.

1. Spellcasting with a slightly better progression than a bard. The artificer maxes out at 6th level spells, but does so two levels before the bard does. The artificer does not need to prepare spells, and is not limited in spells known - they have the whole class list ready at all times. However, their spell list is very, very buff-focused - the only spell that deals direct damage to anything other than constructs is blade barrier, and their direct damage versus constructs is based on the cleric's inflict _____ wounds spells and harm. Oh, and they get heat/chill metal as well. Their spell list does have a few cool tricks, however. One of the big players is spell storing item which essentially creates a one-shot wand of any spell of level (caster level/2) or lower, but at a small XP cost. Another one is personal weapon augmentation which lets the artificer give any weapon a +1-equivalent ability - this includes bane, which is a very nice ability to be able to imbue on the fly. However, both of these, and some of their other cool spells, have a 1-minute casting time, which the artificer can lower to 1 round by spending an action point, making them somewhat limited when it comes to combat.

2. Moderate combat ability. Medium BAB, simple weapons, medium armor, and shields. Hit Die d6.

3. Moderate skills. 4 skill points per level, one of which basically has to be spent on Use Magic Device since many class abilities are based on it. They can also find and disable traps like a rogue.

4. Crafting magic items. They get a lot of item-crafting feats for free as part of their class progression. They also get a "Craft Reserve" based on level which they can use instead of XP when crafting items. They do not need to know prerequisite spells for crafting items, but they do have to roll Use Magic Device in order to craft them successfully (but they get one attempt per day of crafting time, and are likely to be pretty good at it, so that's more of a formality). They also get some bonus feats they can use to either craft items more cheaply (in time, gold, or XP), or to use the items more effectively.

And yeah, their spellcasting is called "infusions". But that's nonsense - if it walks like a spell, talks like a spell, and acts like a spell, it's a spell.

 

[Klaus]

Let's take a quick look at the 3.5e ECS artificer infusion list, and see what it shows us of the class' spell prowess:

Level 1
Armor Enhancement, Lesser
Energy Alteration
Enhancement Alteration
Identify
Repair/Inflict Light Damage (also on higher levels)
Light
Magic Stone
Magic Vestment
Magic Weapon
Resistance
Shield of Faith
Skill Enhancement
Spell-Storing Item
Weapon Augmentation, Personal

Level 2
Align Weapon
Armor Enhancement
Ability Increase Spells (Bear's Endurance, etc)
Heat/Chill Metal
Toughen Construct
Weapon Augmentation, Lesser

Level 3
Armor Enhancement, Greater
Construct Energy Ward
Magic Weapon, Greater
Metamagic Item
Power Surge
Stone Construct
Supress Requirement

Level 4
Construct Energy Ward, Greater
Globe of Invulnerability, Lesser
Iron Construct
Item Alteration
Minor Creation
Rusting Grasp
Shield of Faith, Legion's
Weapon Augmentation

Level 5
Disrupting Weapon
Fabricate
Major Creation
Wall of Force
Wall of Stone

Level 6
Blade Barrier
Disable Construct
Globe of Invulnerability
Move Earth
Total Repair
Wall of Iron
Greater Weapon Augmentation

So, the artificer's actual spellcasting was very limited, dealing mostly with imbuing temporary enchantments into weapons/armor, creating stuff out of thin air and reapiring/damaging/protecting constructs. The rest of the class' capabilities came from the XP pool it could use to create items, and from the ability to bypass item requirements. And then mundane stuff, like decent armor, simple weapons, and good skills. So basically a half-caster skill monkey.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Let's take a quick look at the 3.5e ECS artificer infusion list, and see what it shows us of the class' spell prowess:



So, the artificer's actual spellcasting was very limited, dealing mostly with imbuing temporary enchantments into weapons/armor, creating stuff out of thin air and reapiring/damaging/protecting constructs. The rest of the class' capabilities came from the XP pool it could use to create items, and from the ability to bypass item requirements. And then mundane stuff, like decent armor, simple weapons, and good skills. So basically a half-caster skill monkey.

that's an awesome list, I liked the way they did "Magic Weapon" in 4e as well... but I think crafting minor one time use items is there main thing

 

[Fralex]

Sorcerers have the Metamagic feature. This gives them a set of tools for modifying the properties of their spells.
Artificers, then, should have a set of tools for modifying the properties of their party's equipment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The starting point for me is the blue collar aesthetic of an artificer.

Aesthetic isn't a great basis for a class in 5e. Any one class fits multiple aesthetics. I can be a "blue collar" wizard quite easily, even at high levels. I can be a "blue collar warlock" or a "blue collar shadow monk" or "blue collar paladin," too. Aesthetic isn't a matter of class, it's a matter of role-playing. There's no class feature one can point at and say "this is a working-class mechanic." "Feel" isn't something a class feature can give you.

And yeah, their spellcasting is called "infusions". But that's nonsense - if it walks like a spell, talks like a spell, and acts like a spell, it's a spell.

As I work out the "magewright," I'm more and more finding no need for item crafting to be a central class feature distinct from spellcasting.

A character who builds magic items instead of casts spells might still have a book that contains their formula (spellbook). They then infuse items according to the formula in this book (prepare int + lv spells each day). The infused items unleash their spells by spending spell slots (casting a spell). Everything else is just a serach-and-replace for terminology that has no real effect on how the game is played. I could take my wizard tomorrow and make them an item-inventor with pure re-fluffing.

So, the artificer's actual spellcasting was very limited, dealing mostly with imbuing temporary enchantments into weapons/armor, creating stuff out of thin air and reapiring/damaging/protecting constructs.

I can't tell the difference between "Imbuing temporary enchantments into weapons/armor, creating stuff out of thin air, and repairing/damaging/protecting constructs" and "I memorize and cast buff spells, conjurations, and mending."

I could be more systematic about it, but lets just do level one:
[sblock]
The first-level artificer infusions that don't appear on the wizard spell list already can be handled with a few class features.

Combat Magic
At X level (suggested: 2nd - casting buffing spells is a big part of artificer identity), you become an artificer and learn to use spells most wizards can't learn. Add the following spells to your spell list, at the levels indicated. You must still learn these spells normally, by finding them or learning them when you gain a wizard level.

• Cantrips: Resistance
• 1st level: Shield of Faith, Cure Wounds
• 2nd level: Enhance Ability
• ...etc...

(the above is probably slightly stronger than but close to the cheaper copying of school-specific spells that most specialists get at 2nd level - it doesn't increase the raw power of the class much, but it encourages them to use specialty spells)

Alter Item
Starting at level X (suggested: 6th; this is when the party is likely to have a few magic items), your mastery of magic items allows you to shift and change their enchantments. During a short or long rest, you can change the properties of one magic item that you have identified the properties of. You can take any bonus an item gives to attacks and damage or armor class and apply it to the other. You can also change the type of energy or element the item is associated with. These modifications last until you finish your next long rest, at which time the item's inherent magic comes to the fore again.

For instance, a suit of +1 Chain Mail can be made to grant a +1 bonus to attacks and damage for a character wearing it rather than a +1 bonus to AC. A javelin of lightning can be made to deal thunder damage, fire damage, or radiant damage instead of lightning damage.

(the above is probably a slightly weak 6th level trait - combined with the slightly strong level 2 trait, it's pretty on balance)
---------------
Original spell list in 5e ultimately looks like...

• Armor Enhancement, Lesser = Problematic conceptually in 5e as it is very broad and adds to AC. Better as a series of spells that grant various armor traits (a fortification spell or a sneak spell, for instance).
• Energy Alteration = Goes into the Alter Item feature
• Enhancement Alteration = Goes into the Alter Item feature
• Identify = Identify
• Repair/Inflict Light Damage (also on higher levels) = Mending, flavor-wise. Mechanics-wise, cure X wounds, or potions as per the WotC artificer ability
• Light = light
• Magic Stone = magic weapon
• Magic Vestment = Similar problem with armor enchantment. But, again, possibly room for a new spell!
• Magic Weapon = magic weapon
• Resistance = Resistance cantrip; goes into the Combat Magic feature
• Shield of Faith = shield of faith; goes into the Combat Magic feature
• Skill Enhancement = enhance ability; goes into the Combat Magic feature
• Spell-Storing Item = basic spellcasting mechanics
• Weapon Augmentation, Personal = Similar problem with armor enhancement, but it'd work as a few new spells.

[/sblock]

Spellcasting with a slightly better progression than a bard.
...
Moderate combat ability.
...
Moderate skills.
...
Crafting magic items.

Pretty easily handled with class features.
[sblock]
Practical Magician
You are quite familiar with arms and armor. At level X (recommended: 2), you gain proficiency in light and medium armor, with simple weapons, with any two skills of your choice, and two sets of tools of your choice.

(this is probably roughly on par with any other specialty's level 2 ability)

Magic Crafter
You can imbue magic into an item. At level X (recommended: 10; it's a nice higher-level ability), you can spend a spell slot of 5th level to grant an item the ability to use a 1st-level spell that you know once at the will of the item's wielder. You can spend higher-level slots to imbue more powerful spells: a 6th-level slot imbues a 2nd-level spell, a 7th-level slot imbues a 3rd-level spell, an 8th-level slot imbues a 4th level spell, and a 9th-level slot imbues a 5th-level spell. You can spend multiple spell slots of the indicated level, if you have them, to grant additional uses of the spell or to imbue a separate item. You regain the spent slot when you finish a long rest, and, at the same time, the imbued item loses its imbued spell.

(this allows you to trade higher-level slots for more flexible lower-level slots that anyone can trigger; the big power feature here is that you could potentially give everyone a concentration spell and let party members that usually couldn't concentrate on a spell fill that slot so to speak, but it lets you pull off shenanigans like giving the rogue invisibility or suchlike).
[/sblock]

...in fact, you could combine all these features into the same class without much of an issue.