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

[EzekielRaiden]

What if beast transformation were a type of channel divinity? I mean, it would require some slight juggling of features, but the Druid would end up in a very similar place. You could, quite easily, have made Druidry a Domain. You might have to give up the Land/Moon distinction, but demoting a class to a subclass is probably going to do that no matter what.

I can see the Paladin being distinct from the Fighter, but not from the Cleric. The Paladin--or, at least, the Devotion Paladin--is pretty much a careful selection of things from various Cleric Domains (mostly Life, Light, and War). I'm pretty sure you could capture the vast majority--including Divine Smite, which already has simpler analogues in the Cleric--with a Domain as well. Like the Druid, it would probably lose the distinctions between the Oaths (or, more likely, simply shed the Ancients and Vengeance oaths entirely) but I'm pretty sure it could work. You could almost certainly do a similar thing with the Ranger and the Fighter--a Fighter subclass that gets stuff from the Druidry domain and unique "nature fighter-y" features, instead of what an EK gets, for instance.

Which is pretty much the whole point of the argument: Other than the "core four," *most* of the classes COULD be boiled down to special subclasses. You might lose some of the finer distinctions, but most of the mechanics would translate over fairly well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if beast transformation were a type of channel divinity? I mean, it would require some slight juggling of features, but the Druid would end up in a very similar place. You could, quite easily, have made Druidry a Domain. You might have to give up the Land/Moon distinction, but demoting a class to a subclass is probably going to do that no matter what.

Conceptually, you'd be fine (just as you'd be fine with a smite-fighter), but in their current incarnations, these two things are quite mechanically distinct - wild shape is an exploration trait that gets turned into a combat trait in one particular druid subclass and that mechanical element would be difficult to preserve in the case of a domain, which serves a more centrally combat purpose. Basically, wildshape as a domain would look very different from the wildshape we have now and serve different purposes. That's part of why wild shape is something distinct, and part of the druid's mechanical identity.

You hit the same issues with a wild shape domain as you hit with a wizard school of metamagic - these things could be made to be shades of the same thing, but they'd be very different from what we have now.

Which is pretty much the whole point of the argument: Other than the "core four," *most* of the classes COULD be boiled down to special subclasses. You might lose some of the finer distinctions, but most of the mechanics would translate over fairly well.

Even the core four don't need to be their own classes. As I've said before, what is or is not a class is largely arbitrary. It's about what you want to be a class.

My objection is when people insist that because the class has different proficiencies/spells/skills/etc that this alone makes them a separate class. It clearly doesn't. And if you WANT your character type to be a class, it's going to need more than that to earn its position. And yet for artificers, for warlords, for psions...there's not much aside from this that is presented as what these characters would have. Don't just tell me they're different, show me, give me a big, defining mechanic. Because "I wear different armor and use different spells and have different skills" doesn't cut it.

 

[ThirdWizard]

My objection is when people insist that because the class has different proficiencies/spells/skills/etc that this alone makes them a separate class. It clearly doesn't.

Don't you think it is reasonable for people not to want to use a subclass as a "subtractive" class element when no subclass actually takes away class features at the moment?

If one of the things people want is for the artificer to have distinct spell list, then they absolutely cannot be a subclass and have to be their own class. There is simply no mechanism in place in 5e to change spell lists after 1st level. Forget unique abilities, distinct class features, and all that other stuff for a moment and consider that you simply cannot lose anything going from a 1st level to a 2nd level wizard by the way the rules have been presented thus far. It doesn't make sense to go from having a spell book at 1st level to none at 2nd level. It doesn't make any sense to go from being able to cast magic missile at 1st level to not having it on your spell list at 2nd level. Other questions that have to be answered are what happens if your subclass has a different size HD? What happens if your subclass has different skills available?

Before one can say "Make it a subclass" these questions need answering just as much as the questions you are asking!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Don't you think it is reasonable for people not to want to use a subclass as a "subtractive" class element when no subclass actually takes away class features at the moment?

It's a finer point. I think there, you need to be able to persuasively make the case that the character type is actually incompatible with the elements you're hoping to subtract. And it can be a hard case to make.

Like, if you proposed the artificer as a subclass of cleric or rogue or bard, this would probably come into play. Above and beyond the story/conceptual reasons (which might not even really apply to rogues or bards), you'd just need to subtract so much of the class's features that are not good for artificers - clerics without turn undead, rogues who can't hide using cunning action, bards who can't countercharm, etc. It's clearly not a comfortable fit.

But there's nothing incompatible with the concept of an artificer and a spellbook equipment manual (arguably, it makes MORE sense like this than with everything just being in their heads at all times). And the same applies to higher level spells - if artificers can craft things akin to the well of many worlds or the ring of three wishes, there's nothing incompatible with the idea that they can cast infuse gate or wish into an item. This is especially true if you're just going to give them these capabilities by the some other mechanic anyway.

If one of the things people want is for the artificer to have distinct spell list, then they absolutely cannot be a subclass and have to be their own class. There is simply no mechanism in place in 5e to change spell lists after 1st level. Forget unique abilities, distinct class features, and all that other stuff for a moment and consider that you simply cannot lose anything going from a 1st level to a 2nd level wizard by the way the rules have been presented thus far. It doesn't make sense to go from having a spell book at 1st level to none at 2nd level. It doesn't make any sense to go from being able to cast magic missile at 1st level to not having it on your spell list at 2nd level. Other questions that have to be answered are what happens if your subclass has a different size HD? What happens if your subclass has different skills available?

Yeah, the case would need to be made that an artificer cannot have the spells a current wizard does in the way that they can't have turn undead or sneak attack. It's a harder case to make in the case of "I have this book of spells manual of little tweaks I can make to things to make them magical."

If artificers can infuse magic missile into a wand, then they can cast magic missile. If artificers can infuse wish into a ring, they can cast wish. In fact, one of my big issues is that making an item that can cast Spell X isn't very distinct in play from just casting Spell X (certainly not in the way that smite and action surge are distinct, for instance).

 

[ThirdWizard]

But there's nothing incompatible with the concept of an artificer and a spellbook equipment manual (arguably, it makes MORE sense like this than with everything just being in their heads at all times). And the same applies to higher level spells - if artificers can craft things akin to the well of many worlds or the ring of three wishes, there's nothing incompatible with the idea that they can cast infuse gate or wish into an item. This is especially true if you're just going to give them these capabilities by the some other mechanic anyway.

It depends. For some it might not make sense that their character uses a spellbook at 1st level then uses an equipment manual at 2nd level. What happened to the spellbook?

But, aren't you backtracking just a bit. Your quote above says you don't see why a class with different "proficiencies/spells/skills/etc" must be a different class. That's a different argument than artificers should have the same proficiencies/spells/skills/etc as a wizard so make them a wizard subclass. I'm in agreement that if you want all those things to be the same, then you can probably use a subclass.

Even the simple idea that artificers should have, for the sake of argument, Sleight of Hand on their skill list but not Religion becomes problematic. What would that mean? How would that work? You choose all your skills at 1st level, so would the wizard lose Religion? How could they obtain Sleight of Hand?

So, what I am saying is simply, if someone who wants an artificer (or whatever) class would prefer to have a different spell list, different size HD, different casting mechanism, or different skills, then by definition it must be its own class and the subclass rules cannot emulate this. That's the question posed in this thread, correct? So, my response is that "Proficiencies" don't necessarily make the class, but all of that other stuff does.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It depends. For some it might not make sense that their character uses a spellbook at 1st level then uses an equipment manual at 2nd level. What happened to the spellbook?

It's still a spellbook. It's always been a spellbook. You could call it an equipment manual from Level 1 if you want. We don't need a full 20 level class to show us how to how to change words if we don't like the idea of calling it a spellbook for whatever reason.

But, aren't you backtracking just a bit. Your quote above says you don't see why a class with different "proficiencies/spells/skills/etc" must be a different class. That's a different argument than artificers should have the same proficiencies/spells/skills/etc as a wizard so make them a wizard subclass. I'm in agreement that if you want all those things to be the same, then you can probably use a subclass.

I'm not saying that artificers should have the same profs/skills/spells/etc. as a wizard? I AM saying that the narrative and mechanical trappings of an artificer are a closer match for wizard than they are for, say, bard or sorcerer or rogue or cleric and that this is part of what makes wizard the best parent for them if they are to be a subclass.

Even the simple idea that artificers should have, for the sake of argument, Sleight of Hand on their skill list but not Religion becomes problematic. What would that mean? How would that work? You choose all your skills at 1st level, so would the wizard lose Religion? How could they obtain Sleight of Hand?

All it would mean is that they have a class feature that gives them proficiency with Sleight of Hand (presuming you don't want to help this along with a Magewright background or somesuch). And if your artificer-wizard doesn't want to know religion, she doesn't take the Religion skill (leaving plenty of room for, say, the artificer-wizard who worships Onatar, for instance).

So, what I am saying is simply, if someone who wants an artificer (or whatever) class would prefer to have a different spell list, different size HD, different casting mechanism, or different skills, then by definition it must be its own class and the subclass rules cannot emulate this. That's the question posed in this thread, correct? So, my response is that "Proficiencies" don't necessarily make the class, but all of that other stuff does.

And I disagree - if someone wants to have specific spells (like a domain), more HP (like anything that gives access to healing abilities), a casting mechanism that's only really different cosmetically (like wild magic vs. slot-based magic), and additional skills (like a rogue archetype), then they should be a subclass that gives them those things, and part of a broader class that gives them a solid core mechanic to hang all that off of.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think, for instance, there's a fundamental difference between handing out Sleight of Hand to all members of a class and having that skill on the class list of skills. You want to do the former using subclases, where others would rather see the latter which can't be done using subclasses. You may say that this is a negligible difference or semantics or whatnot, but for others it is the very heart of the matter and see it as trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. That's what I'm trying to get at.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think, for instance, there's a fundamental difference between handing out Sleight of Hand to all members of a class and having that skill on the class list of skills. You want to do the former using subclases, where others would rather see the latter which can't be done using subclasses. You may say that this is a negligible difference or semantics or whatnot, but for others it is the very heart of the matter and see it as trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. That's what I'm trying to get at.

I think you're right in that this is the disagreement, but I don't see the difference in play between "Artificers know Sleight of Hand because their subclass says so" and "Artificers know slight of hand because their class says so" and "Artificers know slight of hand because their background says so" and whatever else comes along.

As far as I'm concerned, this seems to be not much more than another distinction without a true difference. And adding an entire class just so someone can pick Sleight of Hand or medium armor proficiency or a buff spell from list A instead of list B seems like a sure-fired recipe for clutter and cruft to me.

 

[MoonSong]

I think you're right in that this is the disagreement, but I don't see the difference in play between "Artificers know Sleight of Hand because their subclass says so" and "Artificers know slight of hand because their class says so" and "Artificers know slight of hand because their background says so" and whatever else comes along.

As far as I'm concerned, this seems to be not much more than another distinction without a true difference. And adding an entire class just so someone can pick Sleight of Hand or medium armor proficiency or a buff spell from list A instead of list B seems like a sure-fired recipe for clutter and cruft to me.

But this is more than just proficiencies. The point is the experience, smashing things with a hammer, creating mechanical and magical stuff, not sitting there in a dark room reading esoteric formulas and exploring the mysteries of cosmos, artificers are creators not discoverers. Maybe it isn't that much sense to you, but among drawing artists there is a deep difference between "heroic" -I discover the shapes from among my stock- and "divine" -I imagine the shapes, I don't copy- that is the same difference between wizards and artificers. I'm not opposed to artificer as a subclass, as long as that subclass can give that experience, if it doesn't well, that is not an artificer, that is a wizard who can craft magic items as a class feature. Maybe wizard is the best match on story, but wizard subclasses are way too limited, an evoker and a transmuter are more similar to each other than two clerics of different domains, or a wild mage and a favoured soul, or an eldritch knight and a champion, or even two bards from different colleges. There isn't a lot of room in arcane traditions for the full artificer experience.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You hit the same issues with a wild shape domain as you hit with a wizard school of metamagic - these things could be made to be shades of the same thing, but they'd be very different from what we have now.

I really don't think you've established that they would be as different as you're saying they would be. And I'm pretty dang sure that the difference would be of degree, and not kind. That's why I mentioned them; they *do not* seem like they would be "very different from what we have now."

Even the core four don't need to be their own classes. As I've said before, what is or is not a class is largely arbitrary. It's about what you want to be a class.

But that's sort of my point: what we make a "key mechanic" or just a "subclass differentiator" is an incredibly arbitrary, elastic thing. The Battlemaster's Maneuvers are a unique mechanic shared by no other class (except the "officially unofficial" spell-less Ranger)--yet those maneuvers are acceptable as a subclass. Meanwhile, the difference between the (Devotion) Paladin and the Cleric is comparatively quite thin; Divine Smite is basically a merger/slight upgrade of the (multiple-domain) Divine Strike and the War Cleric's War Priest with a different resource pool (your spells, rather than X times per day); Guided Strike is a per-attack alternative to Bless Weapon; etc. The vast majority of what makes Paladins unique IS Divine Strike and the Paladin spell list, but both of those COULD easily have been meshed into a domain with little change--if any, seeing as how most Paladin abilities are very similar to Cleric ones.

In that sense, how is the Paladin NOT primarily differentiated by spells, default proficiencies (martial weapons and heavy armor), and tweaked (but not by much) abilities?

As a note, I'd like to add that I have always found the 5e Paladin far too Cleric-like for my taste; I adored the 4e Paladin, and was very sad to see it become so...well, in my opinion, watered-down and Cleric-ized.

As for the rest...I'm not a designer. I don't have the time or inclination to actually try to come up with a core mechanic. But I'm pretty damn sure the WotC people have both. And that's my point. I *don't* have to come up with a special fancy core mechanic for the Artificer; I just have to say that I'm pretty sure there COULD be one, if WotC puts their heads together on it, and that there should be further differentiation via "spell" list (or "maneuver" list, "schematic" list, or whatever it is Artificers get) and other things.

Or, to put this another way: What if the Artificer class *already* existed separately? Would you argue for its demotion to a Wizard subclass?

And finally--by your own admission, the Wizard is more or less the only class that would reasonably fit with an Artificer subclass. Thus, all one really would have to do is show that it wouldn't fit there, either, and the point is made, unless I have misunderstood what you meant by "the narrative and mechanical trappings of an artificer are a closer match for wizard than they are for, say, bard or sorcerer or rogue or cleric and that this is part of what makes wizard the best parent [class]." And I definitely feel like MoonSong has got a good argument for it not being sufficient: Wizard subclasses can be powerful, but they are very subtle benefits that almost entirely lie atop "I cast spells." Other classes--even other casting classes--get substantially more differentiation between their subclasses, and I agree that I don't think a Wizard subclass is meaty enough to actually contain enough of a difference to make a "School of Artifice" actually feel different from Wizards generally.

Perhaps another way of putting it: Right now, you look at the Artificer concept and say, "I don't see enough here to justify stretching it into a full class." We, on the other hand, look at it and say, "I see far too much here to shoehorn it into a (tiny) subclass." You appear to be setting a floor for how much a class needs to be A Distinct Class, while we are feeling constrained by a perceived ceiling on what a subclass can do--two different angles to approach the problem.

You won't be satisfied unless, and until, someone bravely puts forward a mechanic that meets your (naturally) subjective perception of what a "distinct core mechanic" would look like. We won't be satisfied unless you (or, I suppose, someone who agrees with you) can demonstrate that the thin subclasses of the Wizard (thin in differentiation, not power--for some, anyway! ) can hold onto enough of "The Artificer." Since neither side has obliged yet, and I have no intention of doing so, we remain at an impasse.