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

[Minigiant]

The issue I see with DMG magic items are that they were not... balanced for rapid creation. As if the game was made as if PCs don't get or need them automatically.

So the "create DMG items" class or the "make fake version of the DMG items" class straight up doesnt work. It is too wonky and unstable for play.

You have to organized all the items in new categories or create a new set of magic items.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The issue I see with DMG magic items are that they were not... balanced for rapid creation. As if the game was made as if PCs don't get or need them automatically.

So the "create DMG items" class or the "make fake version of the DMG items" class straight up doesnt work. It is too wonky and unstable for play.

You have to organized all the items in new categories or create a new set of magic items.

I do agree with you on this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What I am saying is that you could not faithfully emulate the 3.5 Eberron Artificer in the current D&D 5e game as the rules stand right now without modifying the current crafting system as presented in the DMG.

By corollary, whether you implement the artificer as its own class or as a subclass, then the current magic item crafting rules in the DMG are insufficient to reproduce the feel of the 3.5 Eberron Artificer class. It has to be modified if the artificer class is to be faithfully rendered for 5e play in a way that is truly representative of how the class existed in 3.5.

So far I'm with you (though there's probably room for disagreement on how appropriate the item creation system is).

By result, I'm saying that if the artificer can make magic items at a rate and converted equivalent cost in 5e, then this is a departure from 5e large enough for it to absolutely deserve its own class.

I think it's a departure large enough to deserve a new crafting system. There's no good reason to squirrel that system away in one particular class.

 

[MoonSong]

So far I'm with you (though there's probably room for disagreement on how appropriate the item creation system is).



I think it's a departure large enough to deserve a new crafting system. There's no good reason to squirrel that system away in one particular class.

You don't think the artificer being a thing is good enough reason? We are talking about one of the things that make Eberron, Eberron. The artificer class/subclass should convert all previous artificers -or as many as possible-, again it should provide the artificer experience. Ok, I was very hard on the wizard, but the point stands, the artificer experience requires being able to hammer the baddies while in melee, tell me, can you really convert a 3.5 artificer using the wizard class and the artificer tradition? you cannot assume race, background or feats, but the feel should be the same. The artificer should heal, buff, and hammer things, and blasting is a no-no if it doesn't come from a wand/scroll.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Sorry, but, what's the difference in play? What is the difference between a crafting wizard and an artificer. I always thought "crafting wizard" was what an artificer was.

What distinguishes an artificer from "crafting wizard"?

Not all artificer archetypes are any type of wizard. Frex, I made an engineer homebrew class for my brother to play back in 1E/2E. He was primarily a fighter and had no casting at all. His equipment wasn't magic, but used magic. E.g. his powered battle armor (plate armor +1, +2 strength) used elemental fire he had bought from a wizard as an inexhaustible power source, but was otherwise purely mechanical. (He was a mechanical engineering student at the time, so this appealed to him) Another favorite was a short range weapon that shot multiple vials of more-or-less Greek fire, built into his shield.

The difference in play was his resource management. His equipment cost a lot to build, much of which went into expendables, and he plowed everything he made into it. The limiter was gold, not xp or other resources. In practice this gave him access to novas of varying power but that took a very long time to replenish. If he let loose everything it would probably take him a year of real time play to replenish it.

So, much different in play than anything I would think of as an artificer wizard.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, a BIG issue is that infusions are just spell of another name.

So a 3.5 artificer is just an armored caster with a its own spell list which includes object targeting object. A direct conversion is a wizard subclass.

That's the difference of edition

In 3rd edition, proficiency and spell list both matter A LOT. Everything was gated by class level.
In 4th edition, proficiency didn't matter but power list did. Proficiencies were cheap and mostly cosmetic. Trading powers was expensive.
In 5th edition, neither proficiency nor spell list matter. Proficiencies are cheap, many obtainable from race and background. Spell power is tied to character level and snagging low level spells is so easy it's a joke.

 

[Remathilis]

To me, a BIG issue is that infusions are just spell of another name.

So a 3.5 artificer is just an armored caster with a its own spell list which includes object targeting object. A direct conversion is a wizard subclass.

How many other classes fall into that description? Warlock? Bard? Ignoring the agency of "PHB1 class", the problem has been that everyone who comes in and says "artificers are just a subclass" CANNOT justify why other classes like druid, bard, or ranger are, except "PHB1 rule" or "WotC chose to make them unique".

Lets compare things a wizardficer (UA) can do vs. a 3.5 artificer.

* A 3.5 artificer can fight with simple weapons and wear armor. A wizardficer cannot do either of these without multiclassing or multiple feat sinks.
* A 3.5 artificer can find and disable traps. A wizardficer only gets access to Perception/Thieves tools by picking certain races (elf), backgrounds, or investing 250 days/gp in learning the skill.
* A 3.5 artificer can make and use any wands, staves, rods, rings, wondrous items, and other magical items. A wizardficer can make scrolls, potions, two temporary magical weapons or armors at a time, and a few simple items at 14th level. He can only use the items that any wizard can use.
* A 3.5 artificer can make a hommoculus. A wizardficer cannot.
* A 3.5 artificer and augment magic items (gaining bonuses to use them, or using metamagic on them). A wizardficer cannot alter or change magic items.
* A 3.5 artificer gains bonuses to making items (reducing time, cost, and/or XP). A wizardficer gains no bonuses to making permanent items. (indeed, except for 14th level; the class doesn't even reference the item creation rules in the DMG).
* A 3.5 artificer's spell list is limited: buffs, a few creation spells, some walls, some construct affecting spells, and a few that change magic items properties. His spells take a minute to cast (unless spending an Action Point) and almost always only affects items. A wizardficer has access to all wizard spells; magic missile, charm person, animate dead, etc. Additionally, he lacks spells in 5e that clearly seem artificery (swift quiver, elemental weapon, ability enhancement).

To put it a different way, I ran an Eberron game a while ago. I had three artificers; one who specialized in constructs and buffing, one who was a warforged self-buffer, and one who liked to make items (the batman artificer). The 3.5 artificer artificer handled all three concepts, the 4e one handled two well, and one ok, and the 5e wizardficer handles none of them well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

These things shade into similar, but they are still distinct experiences (else why would anyone choose one or the other?).

Again: you keep stating that they are distinct experiences, without actually demonstrating that they are. And my point wasn't that the implementation is not different now, but that the implementations are MORE than sufficiently similar that you could get nearly identcial or even identical implementation, of the thing you consider the key difference, if the (Devotion) Paladin HAD been a Cleric subclass.

And none of that actually responds to the (IMO much more important) point that, if Smite is what meets your definition of a sufficiently-different mechanic, it's not a particularly high bar because that is quite literally a common Cleric mechanic (Divine Strike) beefed up with "spend spell slots to add damage." If *that's* all we need to justify a new class, why couldn't the Artificer spend spell slots to do some *other* thing, which could be differentiated based on subclass? E.g. a "Golemancer" Artificer spends spell slots to heal and supercharge her golem; a "Grenadier" can spend slots to add special effects to grenades, not in a "metamagic" way but in a "Auntie's Special Blend - hit creatures are knocked down" kind of way. You could even (theoretically) have an Artificer who recaptures some of the 4e Artificer, an "Alchemist" or the like, who could spend spell slots on "Infusions" that give some healing ~or~ boost stats in some way (or, hell, use them *offensively* to debuff enemies). Heck, maybe not even have the Artificer be a "spellcaster" at all, and just go with "Infusions" that are magical in nature but NOT spells, and you avoid this whole ridiculous "It's just a Wizard with a new name and fluff" rigmarole.

And narratively, just because you worship a war-god doesn't mean you're replicating the oath-bound warrior aspect of a paladin, and just because you swear an oath of devotion doesn't mean you tap into the gods of life and protection like a cleric. This is actually part of why my dragonborn "knight" character is a cleric, not a paldin - the narrative emphasis on gods, rather than on oaths.

Well, pardon me if I see those as being an incredible splitting of hairs, particularly when one could easily rephrase your whole paragraph to describe the difference between devotion to pure academic study, and practical-mechanical solutions. That is, "magic-physics" vs. "magic-engineering." (I'm also not entirely sold on the difference between "narrative emphasis on gods" and "narrative emphasis on oaths," when Clerics have LONG been able to have domains without worshiping any god at all.)

 

[Minigiant]

How many other classes fall into that description? Warlock? Bard? Ignoring the agency of "PHB1 class", the problem has been that everyone who comes in and says "artificers are just a subclass" CANNOT justify why other classes like druid, bard, or ranger are, except "PHB1 rule" or "WotC chose to make them unique".

Lets compare things a wizardficer (UA) can do vs. a 3.5 artificer.

* A 3.5 artificer can fight with simple weapons and wear armor. A wizardficer cannot do either of these without multiclassing or multiple feat sinks.
* A 3.5 artificer can find and disable traps. A wizardficer only gets access to Perception/Thieves tools by picking certain races (elf), backgrounds, or investing 250 days/gp in learning the skill.
* A 3.5 artificer can make and use any wands, staves, rods, rings, wondrous items, and other magical items. A wizardficer can make scrolls, potions, two temporary magical weapons or armors at a time, and a few simple items at 14th level. He can only use the items that any wizard can use.
* A 3.5 artificer can make a hommoculus. A wizardficer cannot.
* A 3.5 artificer and augment magic items (gaining bonuses to use them, or using metamagic on them). A wizardficer cannot alter or change magic items.
* A 3.5 artificer gains bonuses to making items (reducing time, cost, and/or XP). A wizardficer gains no bonuses to making permanent items. (indeed, except for 14th level; the class doesn't even reference the item creation rules in the DMG).
* A 3.5 artificer's spell list is limited: buffs, a few creation spells, some walls, some construct affecting spells, and a few that change magic items properties. His spells take a minute to cast (unless spending an Action Point) and almost always only affects items. A wizardficer has access to all wizard spells; magic missile, charm person, animate dead, etc. Additionally, he lacks spells in 5e that clearly seem artificery (swift quiver, elemental weapon, ability enhancement).

To put it a different way, I ran an Eberron game a while ago. I had three artificers; one who specialized in constructs and buffing, one who was a warforged self-buffer, and one who liked to make items (the batman artificer). The 3.5 artificer artificer handled all three concepts, the 4e one handled two well, and one ok, and the 5e wizardficer handles none of them well.

You missed my point.

The UA:E artificer was a bad artificer.
Not because it was a subclass.
It's bad because it was bad for what artificer players wanted.

My mother, bless her heart, can't bake a cake from scratch. Her cake once ruined a dessert.
Her cake was bad, not because it was dessert. It was just bad cake.

The UA:E artificer was just made wrong. The issue was that the design team never included "infusion" spells to the document. Instead they made them as class features. They should have just gave them bonus spells like the storm sorcerer.

A spell that makes a stick into a wand of fireballs.
A spell that makes a chump of matter into a homunculus
A spell that makes a suit of armor into a robot suit
a spell that makes a flask of water into a firebomb or potion

Add some proficiencies and Poof. Problem solved.

SCHOOL OF ARTIFICE

INFUSIONS KNOWLEDGE
Beginning when you select the this at 2nd level, the list of spells you can add or copy into your spellbook increases.

1st: armor enhancement, energy alteration, repair damage, magic vestment,
2nd: create homunculus, lucky blade
3rd: humanoid essence, lucky cape, power surge
4th: stuff
5th: stuff

BONUS PROFICIENCIES
At the 2nd level, you can proficiency with light armor, shields, thieves tools and simple weapons

ARTIFICER KNOWLEDGE
At the 6th level, you can add your proficiencies modifier on Intelligence (Arcane) checks to identify magic items, Wisdom (Perception) checks to spot magic traps, and ability checks to disarm magical traps using thieves tools.

SOMETHING ELSE
At the 10th level you get something

MASTER ARTIFICER
As in the UA:E

After that the only valid complaint is not wanting artificers to cast spells. Which is weak as infusions were just spells which only target items. You could just skip the middle man and make spells that only target items.

 

[Remathilis]

While the UA: Artificer was poorly done, it still fails the most basic element of adhering to the lore; they are spell-like, but not spells in the narrative sense.

For example, take the following quotes from the ECS:

"[...]artificers understand magic on a different level from spellcasters, and do not cast spells as wizards and clerics do."

"They have a limited list of their own spell-like infusions that they can apply to objects, and they can also work with any of the spells on other classes’ spell lists. Their magic is neither arcane nor divine, and they are not bound by that classification: Their trade is magic in its most abstract (they might say purest) form."

"They bring an unparalleled flexibility to both using and creating such items. In a party that doesn’t include a druid, for example, an artificer can use (or scribe) a scroll of barkskin or wield a staff of the woodlands."

A wizardficer (that is, any subclass were you start as a wizard and then at second level specialize in magic item creation) invalidates this lore. At first level, they are bound to all the abilities and hindrances of the wizard. He uses a spellbook, material components, is restricted to wizard only items, and casts magic missile, charm person, and any other spell like a wizard does. The only options is to eject all this lore or practically rewrite the wizard class at 2nd level.

Option 1 basically eliminates the artificer and just gives the wizard its (few remaining) toys. It can work mechanically, but it invalidates a LOT of the original lore. They cease to be Eberron artificers and just become the classic wizard-with-magic-item creation; which if you use the DMG rules we already have.

Option 2 basically says "you play your class totally differently from 2nd level on". Spells that don't target objects are verbotten (and how do we enforce that?) and everything you learn at 1st level becomes invalid. (Well, I can't magic missile the ogre now; you see last level I became an artificer and now my spells only effect objects. If you guys take a short rest, I could build a one shot wand, but just casting it doesn't work anymore.)

Basically, it boils down to either making a new class that adheres the the old lore, or forget the lore and just make wizards fill the artificer niche. I'd rather the new class hold onto the old lore than basically give wizards the last artificer's toys, because I can see no way to keep both the lore and use the wizard as a base.