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

[Leatherhead]

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.

You need to go back and look at the artificer infusion lists.
They are extremely limited. The full wizard package is only required for classes that get oodles of spells, and then plan on getting all the spells. Even sorcerers, who use most of the wizards spell list, don't use all the spells thus and don't borrow their mechanics.

The Artificer infusion list is:
I can mess around with magic items
I can make a temporary magic item on the spot ( mostly just +x enhancement, elemental flavoring, or granting the equivalent of advantage)
I can mess around with constructs (replaced by summoning in 4e)
And they get some healing/temp hp stuff in 4e.

Then it's padded out with some things like the "wall" spells and what amounts to the enhance ability spell in 5e.

Yeah you could do most of that with a wizard, you could also do all of that with a druid, or a ranger. But nobody is clamoring for the Rangificer despite it being something you could do tomorrow.

 

[I'm A Banana]

the same criteria could be applied to ANY class outside of a 2 class system (caster/non-caster) to show it doesn't deserve to be fleshed out mechanically.

What's being misunderstood here is that nobody's saying the artificer doesn't deserve a class inherently, just that if all an artificer class offers is "I'm a wizard with different proficiencies and spell lists", that that expression of what an artificer is does not deserve a class. An artificer that is "I am a unique mechanical system" might deserve it. The issue is not with some grudge against the very concept of an artificer class, but with the fact that there hasn't been a lot of people actually offering ways beyond proficiencies and spell lists to make it distinct.

Minigiant's had some ideas. Staffan seems to be engaging thoughtfully. I haven't seen much more than that.

I think it would be easy for a good designer to make those classes significantly different.

Sure, it's just that this would be something new given to artificers, that they didn't have in 3e or 4e, and it would have to pass a much higher threshold for time and effort spent on the design to be worthwhile.

Ritual Caster is limited to the spells normally available to the character. Spell-storing item lets you go beyond that - the artificer can make a spell-storing item of pass without trace, control water, dimension door, or tongues. In 3e it was balanced by an XP cost, I'm instead balancing it by requiring a higher-level spell slot.

If being able to cast every noncombat spell in the game (at some inflated cost) is required for a truly representative version of the artificer to you, I'm afraid that you will likely never again see such a representation. That certainly wasn't an essential part of the artificer that I played. I also think such an ability is far too powerful (it certainly beats out Action Surge, Sneak Attack, Wild Shape, and other class-defining features!).

That said, if you are willing to have an artificer with an expanded spell list complete with ritual casting - that would seem to do a similar job of being a noncombat MacGyver.

My artificer has all the spells on his class list as spells known. It is a rather small and single-minded spell list, however (and I couldn't figure out any 8th or 9th level spells that belonged on it).

So their spells known work like a cleric. That could replace a spellbook. Unfortunately, as you note, it limits the versatility of the artificer. If one of the critical elements of an artificer is that MacGyver tendency, and "I can use every noncombat spell in the game" is too powerful, why not split the difference and give them an expanded spell list that they can learn some subset of and give them Ritual Caster so they can MacGyver with it on the fly?

"I have a tiny focused spell list and also with my class feature I can basically use every noncombat spell in the game" is a very swingy character. It is a cleric on steroids. "I have a robust spell list and also with my class feature I can use some noncombat spells on the fly" is much more viable in many more adventuring situations.

 

[Remathilis]

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

There is no reason a rogue couldn't take expertise in Survival and Arcana/Nature/Religion (as appropriate) and get an equal benefit (assuming advantage = expertise). Everything else is fluff; I can hate orcs or hunt undead without needing this.

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.

Wanderer (Outlander feature) does many of the same things, such as avoiding getting lost and finding food.

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.

A druid or barbarian/totem warrior can use commune with nature as a ritual, as often as he likes.

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

Hunter is nothing much but a few combat bonuses, and beastmaster (in concept) could easily go with a druid and neither would be much missed.

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)

Heh, just like item creation; relies on DM interpretation to create magic items and it rather arbitrary. Much like how a ranger can take a bunch of arbitrary "up to survival checks" and turn them into concrete advantages, an artificer could take the arbitrary "up to formulas" magic item creation and turn it into something more concrete.

The ranger's niche COULD be done by a variety of classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, druid, nature cleric) with proper proficiency, background, and/or spells. That doesn't mean the ranger is not a compelling blend on those elements nor an illegitimate concept; the same is true of the artificer. Its a unique idea (master crafter) built out of hybrid of elements (combat, spells, skills, etc)

 

[Fralex]

...I'm not familiar with "spell-storing item" from the 3e or the 4e artificer. From the sounds of it, though, the intent of the feature seems to be "the artificer can use spells outside of combat." Putting aside more specific design considerations, what's the conceptual difference between this and Ritual Caster? Ritual caster is what most classes (including the wizard!) use to access a variety of spells outside of combat.

Ah, OK, I think this is the key issue here. Spell-Storing Item was in many respects the heart of the class. It gave you access to EVERY spell in the game, at the expense of it being more inconvenient and slightly weaker. For me and many others, this sort of total freedom is essential to the class, and without it any attempt to create an artificer will feel watered down. There are several ways one could go about doing this, including turning that spell into a class feature. For instance, that UA artificer would've been greatly improved if it said you could add non-wizard spells to your spellbook each level, but couldn't cast them except when incorporated into a magic item like a scroll.

That said, I feel it IS a robust enough core concept to be made into its own class. I don't know if you took a look at it, but this homebrewed artificer someone on GitP made is a good example of how it could be done.

 

[Shasarak]

Sure, it's just that this would be something new given to artificers, that they didn't have in 3e or 4e, and it would have to pass a much higher threshold for time and effort spent on the design to be worthwhile.

Yeah, I think you have two options:

1. You have a designer that champions a class, race, etc and keeps pushing for it. A good example of this would be Heinsoo and the Warlord.

2. You have a product that needs a class, race etc and a designer has to put in the time to develop something.

Unfortunately in this case the product obviously did not warrant spending a lot of time on the design process so you just default to the easiest option.

 

[Hussar]

I agree that a spell storing item - one shot magic items - is probably the biggest aspect of Artificers that needs to be included in the class.

So, why not simply allow artificers to use any spell that can be cast as a ritual and turn them into SSI's? Limit the number per long rest that he can have, and they have a duration of "Until the end of your next long rest". Wouldn't that capture things fairly well. And since most of the spell rituals are more in the realm of utility spells anyway, it shouldn't be terribly OP.

At that point though, you could probably use that power as a Bard subclass and call it a day. Take out the singing stuff, add in some more knowledge stuff and done.

 

[Remathilis]

At that point though, you could probably use that power as a Bard subclass and call it a day. Take out the singing stuff, add in some more knowledge stuff and done.

Nonononononono!

The problem is that for two levels, he has to be a singing, dancing, inspiring bard. Sure, devoid of all fluff the bard works as a skeleton, but the class in the PHB has meat on it, and an artificer subclass has to mesh with it. Subclasses are at best like paragon-paths/prestige classes; they further define a class. They can't make new classes out of old ones. This is true of making them a sorcerer origin/cleric domain/warlock pact; you can't without redefining the base class they are attached to. Which is why the wizard class was the best class to attach it to, but it doesn't match in any other element (HD, proficiencies, spell list, etc). That said, if you were building a new class, bard, warlock, or cleric provide a convienent starting point, but it can't be just "slap a subclass on it and call it a day."

 

[Minigiant]

The ranger's niche COULD be done by a variety of classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, druid, nature cleric) with proper proficiency, background, and/or spells. That doesn't mean the ranger is not a compelling blend on those elements nor an illegitimate concept; the same is true of the artificer. Its a unique idea (master crafter) built out of hybrid of elements (combat, spells, skills, etc)

The major aspect is that they made the ranger unique and gave it mechanics. The ranger has access to healing spells, exploration spells, AOE spells, and hunter's mark while at the same time having combat bonuses from Extra Attack and skill bonuses for Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, HIPS, and Vanish.

For example, if the core 3e class if directly converted to 5e are unique you'd only end up with the barbarian, cleric, rogue, and wizard. Maybe the druid (if you don't make wild shape into a channel divinity) and bard (if you think bardic music is powerful.) Mutliclassing rules and current feats replicate the rest.

To me, the first thing you do when you make a class after creating its story and background is design its 1st, 2nd, and 5th level class features. You define the first few class features that the class uses all the time that others cant and the first upgrade of that.

 

[Remathilis]

The major aspect is that they made the ranger unique and gave it mechanics. The ranger has access to healing spells, exploration spells, AOE spells, and hunter's mark while at the same time having combat bonuses from Extra Attack and skill bonuses for Favored Enemy, Natural Explorer, HIPS, and Vanish.

Which is my point of artificer: an artificer can fight, can buff, can create temp items, can create permanent items, can open locks and find traps, can disable or repair constructs, can make items out of thin air, and can even heal to a limited amount. No class currently can do all that; even with a subclass. Much like how you could cobble together a ranger out of other classes with enough ingenuity, you could probably make one out of a spellcaster, but like having the survival skill doesn't make you a ranger, being able to make potions and scrolls doesn't make you an artificer.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is my point of artificer: an artificer can fight, can buff, can create temp items, can create permanent items, can open locks and find traps, can disable or repair constructs, can make items out of thin air, and can even heal to a limited amount. No class currently can do all that; even with a subclass. Much like how you could cobble together a ranger out of other classes with enough ingenuity, you could probably make one out of a spellcaster, but like having the survival skill doesn't make you a ranger, being able to make potions and scrolls doesn't make you an artificer.

But a rogue (arcane trickster)/wizard can do most of that.

Fight
Buff
Craft a magic item
Open Lock/Find Traps/Repair Items
Make items
Heal

None of that is unique. You have to say exact what the class can do uniquely and layer it over 20 level. I WANT an artificer class. But I don't know what makes it unique. The artificer in my 3rd edition game was a backup character. Tell me what the class can do that I can't do already or replicate with few created spells or by adding proficiencies.

Can a artificer/psion/warlord/whatever fan please write up a homebrew class feature?