MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
But an artificer should do all of that, out of the box, without effort to build and without doing anything else.
D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
But an artificer should do all of that, out of the box, without effort to build and without doing anything else.
But don't grant a claim for a class anymore. 5e doesn't do Jack of all Trades as a class because anyone can do it. If you can do it with PHB classes and DMG options, it doesn't deserve a class.
Especially in 5e with skill, tool, armor, and weapon proficiencies cheap and spellcasting stacks.
Every class does something unique and major from low level. So every class must as well.
Sure, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect people who want WotC to design them an artificer class to have to either drop that request, or design the class themselves!
It wasn't fans of the ranger as a separate class who designed the 5e ranger, after all: WotC did.
There have been a lot of ideas posted. [MENTION=907]Staffan[/MENTION] seems to me to have given the most detail, using bard as a model for the class design. You seem not to have responded to those posts.
People have mostly given reasons why the artificer is not a wizard: no spell book, different spell list, different HD, different proficiencies, different class features (eg infusing items). [MENTION=12037]ThirdWizard[/MENTION] gave a pretty comprehensive list upthread. Given that 5e doesn't support "refluffing", and given that 5e sub-classes are additive but not subtractive, these are good reasons to think that the artificer is not a wizard subclass.
The claim to be a bard sub-class is cleary stronger, but [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] and others have made a flavour-based case against this; and in 5e flavour is integral ("refluffing" is not part of the game).
What would the class actually look like? That's for WotC to say, just as, knowing that fans wanted a ranger that wasn't just a fighter with Archery or TWF prof plus some nature profs, they provided a ranger that was its own thing.
One option for 5th level, though potentially a bit reckless for reasons [MENTION=907]Staffan[/MENTION] has given, would be the ability to place a Concentration spell in an item and hand it over to an ally. Though I'm not sure that this would entirely fill the roll of extra attack or fireball as the basic standards for 5th level power.
So, what I'm getting here is that a couple people calling for an artificer class aren't actually calling for an artificer class. They're asking for the 3e class pretty much exclusively, nevermind the 2e alchemist or the 4e artificer. I suspect that's going to lead to bitter disappointment. Access to multiple spell lists is insanely powerful. The Tome warlock gets access to every ritual spell in the game, and its insanely potent.
The 3e artificer was considered to be a top tier class, one of the most powerful, leaving the old wizard (one of the dominant forces in the game) in the dust, and the create-any-spell-on-the-fly was a large part of that. 5e has gone to great length to prevent caster domination. People are saying that Favored Soul is overpowered for simply getting 10 extra known spells in the sorcerer. Tome warlock has access to every ritual in the game, and that's insanely potent. How much more should we consider access to every spell in the game at once?
I find that to be horrifyingly broken. "I can do everything a wizard can, plus the cleric and the druid" is insanely powerful. With the way DCs and saves are calculated now, even saying that the spells "are slightly weaker" is pretty meaningless now.
An artificer class would need to be balanced against the existing classes, and if you're going to be giving them pretty much every spell in the game...? They won't be.
WotC also promised that all core book classes would make it into the 5e core. They also designed the subclass system to handle any new classes that pop up, since most new classes are just variations on older ones. So, considering the goal and promise of the design team, I think that comparing the design of the Ranger and the Artificer are comparing apples to oranges.
There are plenty of reasons why a bard is inappropriate beyond flavor based cases. In fact, the list is longer than the wizard-rejection one. But that's not important. I don't see how the mechanics really shape up to a number of aspects people are trying to associate with a new artificer, but to each their own.
Actually, this is kind of missing a lot, and just an attempt to pass the buck when the only strong idea is "able to create magic item with any spell in the game." Much of the ranger's design was made with feedback from fans about what they wanted to see in the class, and it was a major part of the default promise they made about the style of 5e.
Artificer, on the other hand, would be breaking from the design if it made its own class.
That depends on how it is handled. Bards get to choose from every spell in the game. Does that make them broken?
Yet we have Mearls posting on ENworld that artificer could be its own class:
I don't see how this would be any sort of "breaking from the design" of 5e. I'm not really into artificers or alchemists, but I've always had a soft spot for rune-magic types.
And it seems to me that the feedback from most artificer fans is that the Eberron UA draft wasn't up to scratch, and they want something deeper and richer.
I'm guessing that it is that feedback which is informing Mearls's thoughts.
I should add - I say all this as someone who has never played an artificer or seen one in play. I'm just noticing that the argument that they should be a wizard sub-class seems to come predominantly from those who aren't artificer fans. While the predominant view of fans seems to be that, for the sorts of reasons [MENTION=12037]ThirdWizard[/MENTION] gave, they don't fit under the wizard's umbrella.
Fralex
Explorer
That's just an engineering problem that can be overcome with good game design. There are plenty of ways to offset that power! Limit the rate at which they learn new spells rather than let them start off knowing every spell of their level. Make them half-casters so the "real" casters still get their stuff first. Somewhere in the realm of possibility, there exists a way to do this that allows for both player freedom AND balanced power levels. No point in assuming something won't work without trying!
Fralex
Explorer
In fact I'm actually kind of liking the idea of making them half-casters. It would help emphasize the fact that artificers use magic to enhance weapons rather than as a weapon on its own, and learning ANY class's spell, but at half the speed, sounds like a good place to start in terms of balancing that ability (because let's face it, spell-storing item was awesome, but it was WAY too good). Maybe I'll give homebrewing the artificer a second shot. The cleric hack one I did here was OK, but I feel like I tried to hard to perfectly mimic the way the class used to be instead of remaking it for 5e.
One reason to make the artificer their own class is that you can spin other classes off it. The artificer has a unique flavor and mechanic in that they are basically the tech class. They are guy who makes stuff and that is kind of a common archetype. You can spin off alchemists, mad science, engineers, ect.
I think there are enough abilities to fill a class. You have the item crafting that could include more then just the items that everyone can craft. You don't have to limit their crafting to just the items in the DMG (In fact it might be smart to give them their own personal list of items they can craft to help control balance.) Give them their crafting reserve to help pay for it. Add in the ability modify items by switching out elements, or even temporary change the entire item. (With the right shake, I'll turn this stone skin potion into a healing one.) Give them abilities to use items better the old meta magic wand ability, or the duel wielding wand feat. Add in a dash of proficiency expertise to taste and don't forget the homunculi.
The tricky part would be balancing a class who's main power is in an item that can be mass produced and given out. (You could do something like make the items temporary, or make it so they can only have so many made at once, but that would just end up not feeling right. Don't do a potions crafted per day thing. It just screams artificial game mechanic.)
I think there are enough abilities to fill a class. You have the item crafting that could include more then just the items that everyone can craft. You don't have to limit their crafting to just the items in the DMG (In fact it might be smart to give them their own personal list of items they can craft to help control balance.) Give them their crafting reserve to help pay for it. Add in the ability modify items by switching out elements, or even temporary change the entire item. (With the right shake, I'll turn this stone skin potion into a healing one.) Give them abilities to use items better the old meta magic wand ability, or the duel wielding wand feat. Add in a dash of proficiency expertise to taste and don't forget the homunculi.
The tricky part would be balancing a class who's main power is in an item that can be mass produced and given out. (You could do something like make the items temporary, or make it so they can only have so many made at once, but that would just end up not feeling right. Don't do a potions crafted per day thing. It just screams artificial game mechanic.)
Leatherhead
Possibly a Idiot.
Here are some spit-balled subclasses:
Alchemist, focuses on buffing/healing people. Gains proficiency in throwing alchemical items. Ability; Admixture, allows you to mix two potions so you can drink while you drink (for action economy) Also allows you to get better results from the potion miscibility table if you use it.
Master of Puppets, focuses on constructs. Gets to make a permanent golem/doll/clockwork pet, like a Ranger. Unlike a Ranger they can add/subtract wings or flippers or hands from their construct to customize them during a rest. Ability: clockwork mind, lets their construct maintain concentration for a spell.
Engineer, focuses on traps/weapons. Gets proficiency in siege weapons and traps, and maybe better armor. Ability, Wartime Production, allows them to enhance all the weapons of the party at once.
Obviously, they would need more thought, abilities, and tweaking.
Similar Threads
