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

[The Human Target]

Who is saying the artificer shouldn't have any unique class features?

I don't see how anyone can understand your argument, nor why they would bother to try at this point in the thread.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

To my knowledge, the only one suggesting they anything more than a spell list and proficiency is you. The lack of armor/weapon proficiencies, skills, etc certainly IS a reason why wizard isn't the best fit, but its not the only one. Same as why we wouldn't make the fighter a rogue subclass (or vice versa).

We've given several suggestions... Moreover, as I pointed out, 3 paltry class features of a subclass is insufficient design space. And when you're moving into alt classes, you may as well make a new class, particularly in regards to future proofing it from further wizard spell expansion.

The ranger's schtick is pretty damn minimal over a fighter/druid muticlass. The paladin has smites to differentiate him from a fighter/cleric. So artificers get partial casting and infusions similar to a warlock's invocations, which can be at will spells in an item, long rest recharging gadgets, or always on modifiers to attacks, defenses or their pet. To me, that seems as viable a class feel as the ranger.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Please tell me what unique niche a ranger fills that a properly done fighter, rogue, or druid subclass could not. Do not mention unique spells or proficiencies.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Who is saying the artificer shouldn't have any unique class features?

I didn't say that anyone's saying that, so that's not an issue.

What is an issue is that no one's proposing anything about what those unique class features should be(@Minigiant has a few ideas).

Instead, I'm hearing that artificers can't be wizards because they wear armor and use better weapons and have a different spell list and use different skills. That they should be clerics or bards instead - because those classes wear armor and use better weapons and have a more buff-focused spell list and rely more on skills. Or that they should be their own class with armor and weapons and a buff-focused spell list and more skills.

I'm saying that's a weak argument, because proficiencies and spell lists aren't enough.

Please tell me what unique niche a ranger fills that a properly done fighter, rogue, or druid subclass could not. Do not mention unique spells or proficiencies.

Favored Enemy gives the ranger a mechanical role-playing hook that then comes up in interaction with the chosen enemy.

Natural Explorer is the major one - it gives the ranger the ability to move through difficult terrain without getting lost and while supplying the party with food and drink. It also allows them to enhance their stealth, as long as they scout without the rest of the party.

Primeval Awareness is more niche, but supports the same idea - it enhances the ranger's scouting ability more, allowing them to see what's nearby.

If you just lifted the Beastmaster or the Hunter out of ranger and stuck them in fighter, you'd lose those elements.

If you're a Scout-Fighter, you don't have those abilities, relying instead on "It's up to DM interpretation" Survival checks. So the actual ranger is significantly better at getting along in the wilderness, ambushing enemies, and scouting for trouble, without relying on skills or specific spells or weapon or armor proficiencies.

(Part of the reason I think the ranger looks weak at a lot of tables is because these abilities are less likely to come up during play as relevant than things like second wind and action surge - lots of tables treat the wilderness as the thing to pass through, not as an area that is a challenge all its own, and 5e doesn't really make you consider it the latter)

 

[ThirdWizard]

So, the wizard artificer subclass should have

• A different spell list (maybe even a lower spell progression ala paladin)
• A different sized HD (d8s maybe)
• More weapon and non-weapon proficiencies
• A different skill list with more options
• A unique familiar
• Different casting mechanism (no spellbook)
• Some kind of magic item creation abilities

Ship of Theseus anyone?

 

[I'm A Banana]

• Different casting mechanism (no spellbook)

If it really wants to be its own class, this is the biggest thing I'd have to see to be convinced. That, plus a few unique class features that focus on its true adventuring role, and that would sell it.

Everything else is pretty much "I can do that with a Wizard tomorrow" territory.

 

[Minigiant]

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

However I am not a professional game designer.

You could do it for any class concept.
The only issue is many claim a concept deserves a class but refuse to do it.

 

[MoonSong]

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),

Those are self imposed limits...

system mastery (what, suddenly using Rituals as they were intended is advanced D&D?)

System mastery -you need x race and y bg ,and z feat, to get the artificer you wanted- oh but you wanted a gnome artisan artificer? shut up you munchkin!!

or that much refluffing (changing "prepare a spell" to "make an item" is pretty cosmetic).

But can you hand out a spell to a friend? can it be taken away from you and used against you? can you use it in full silence?

You are calling for heavy refflufing, of the kind that was done by early 4e enthusiasts when only the PHB existed -Want a sorcerer? refluff the wizard, just ignore that you are using Int instead of Cha and that you are bound to books and sccholarly learning. want a bard? refluff the warlord!-. Or the kind you suggested when i complained there was no utility sorcerer -refluff a wizard!!-. FOr the sake of the argument, assume refflufing is a deal breaker.

If it really wants to be its own class, this is the biggest thing I'd have to see to be convinced. That, plus a few unique class features that focus on its true adventuring role, and that would sell it.

Everything else is pretty much "I can do that with a Wizard tomorrow" territory.

Well gather enough pictures and enough evidence of enough players giving their artificers a book. Refluffing the spellbook as some sort of formula book is an after the fact rationalization. But the book itself is not part of the artificer and has never been...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Those are self imposed limits...

...everyone needs to select their own spells, and no one gets every spell, so it's not really a limit. You can choose whatever spells you want, and if you want all the spells you choose, there's not much limiting going on.

System mastery -you need x race and y bg ,and z feat, to get the artificer you wanted- oh but you wanted a gnome artisan artificer? shut up you munchkin!!

The example with the dwarf wasn't to say "this is what everyone who wants an artificer should play," it was to say "this isn't as big a change as you think it is." 5e lets you play it already with no new class required. So expanding the options to include that for more characters isn't something that requires a big change like a new class. It requires a change, but a smaller one - a subclass, a feat, whatever.

But can you hand out a spell to a friend? can it be taken away from you and used against you? can you use it in full silence?

Yeah. As of the UA article. You can make potions and wands automagically. And any wizard can make potions and wands just fine in a campaign that allows it, anyway. So go wild.

You are calling for heavy refflufing, of the kind that was done by early 4e enthusiasts when only the PHB existed -Want a sorcerer? refluff the wizard, just ignore that you are using Int instead of Cha and that you are bound to books and sccholarly learning. want a bard? refluff the warlord!-. Or the kind you suggested when i complained there was no utility sorcerer -refluff a wizard!!-. FOr the sake of the argument, assume refflufing is a deal breaker.

Then give me some mechanical distinction between preparing an infusion and preparing a spell, or between activating an item and casting a spell. Make it significant. Show me what that's like.

The artificer in 4e didn't have that (their power use was the same as any other power use). The artificer in 3e didn't have that ("they function just like spells and follow all the rules for spells"). If the artificer in 5e has that, that'd be a big step toward making me believe it'd be a good class, but it would be something new. What would you have in mind?

Well gather enough pictures and enough evidence of enough players giving their artificers a book. Refluffing the spellbook as some sort of formula book is an after the fact rationalization. But the book itself is not part of the artificer and has never been...

The spellbook wasn't part of any previous artificer, but given the artificer's noted role as being the person with just the right tool for the job, the spellbook is a sensible way to accomplish that playstyle and it doesn't take anything away from them. Spellbooks and ritual casting work to give a character everything they need on the spot, however niche.

If you want to abandon the spellbook as a way to achieve that, that's fine, but what would you replace it with? Because a 3e-style "static list of known spells" doesn't translate well into a character who always has just the right tool for the job.

 

[Mephista]

Thoughts - I fail to see how the Artificer couldn't be made into a group of subclasses instead of a single one painted on top the wizard. One kind of artificer will certainly work on the wizard. I suppose another kind could be on top of the bard. A third as a Rogue, a fourth as a variation of Fighter. Taken together, you'd have several different methods of pulling off the artificer.

Psion, at its base, works very much like the 5e sorcerer does, just with CHA instead of INT. You have the points and metamagic to make it work like a psion. Just need a few more spells, and its very close. Other psionic classes? The monk can have a psychic subclass, as could the paladin, and maybe others.

The warlord? When people talk about the warlord, I've found its not because they can't play the 4e core class warlord, its that they can't make the lazylord specific build - the 4e class in the core book did need to hit stuff still.



See, here's the conclusion that I've come to about the different 5e classes. The only thing that separates them from other classes are mechanics. Flavor isn't enough - that's what individual subclasses are for. The only thing that matters is the class features.

I would have thought that flavor mattered at all, but then they came out with the Favored Soul for the Sorcerer. That alone made me stop and shake my head at my old presumptions. If a class flavored as a divine caster, blessed by the gods, is sitting next to the arcane dragon bloodlines, then the only thing that matters is the mechanics. While there's a feel to each class, its all really flexible. So, for the sorcerer, the only defining features are the full caster-hood, metamagic, spell points, and how to learn spells; neither the spell list and item proficiency even matter much, considering how easily both were added. Hit points? Dragon sorcerer added some easily, the +1 hp a level effectively bumping up the HD.


So, when we look at the warlord, psion, and artificer, I ask myself - what do these three have in the way of unique mechanics? The psion was defined by spell points, which we already have in the sorcerer. That's not enough to make it a new class in 5e. Warlord? Well, the lazy'lord? Never attacking yourself, giving your actions out to others, while never using spells. Surprisingly, a better candidate for its own class over the psion, but at a loss for any variation in its execution, as well as problems related to party composition - asking for a basic attack simply doesn't work in 5e, given the vastly different classes in play and how they work.


Now, the artificer. Its defining feature is "magic item creation / use." Already, we've run into issues with the game. Magic items are meant to be rare. 6 permanent items over the course of 20 levels, plus random consumables. 3e also allowed all crafting feats at once, and just allowing magic item creation in a game that puts it generally in the "optional rule" territory is huge.

In 3e, the artificer could make magic items to do anything, and carry all of them, not a problem. In many ways, they were another symptom of CoDzilla type situations. That is going to have to go. Sorry, but any artificer class will need to be toned down, so it follows the same attunement and concentration rules as everyone else; we're going to have to balance on par with everyone else. If you think that artificers should break those rules? Just... no. Their golems? Its been compared to undead in the past, and I don't see why it can't be a new spell or two for constructs. Bane Weapons? Someone mentioned a variation on the Elemental Weapon spell. Pull out any spell to a problem - actually, this is one of the major defining points of the wizard.

In 4e, we're looking at a healer, a buffer, and a golem master. They get rituals, including the one to make magic items. Magic items that could recharge and heal.

When you combine the two we have... someone that makes magic items (for self or others), golems, and some healing. All of which are effectively just signature spells for the artificer. What else is there out there for the poor guy?

This is the real reason why I'm on the subclass bandwagon. While they ooze flavor, that's not enough for a class. There needs to be mechanics. And I'm hard pressed to come up with some unique mechanics that isn't already covered already, or easily reproduced by a small number of spells.