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

[Fralex]

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.

Exactly! And as I was saying a few pages back,

The druid and cleric have several similarities one could point out as an argument for making druid a cleric subclass. They have the same spellcasting mechanic, and both have a powerful class feature that can be used a small number of times between rests. Both have a spiritual flavor to their magic. You could simply make Wild Shape a Channel Divinity feature and make "Druid Domain" spells be a small selection of all the most iconic spells druids have. Use the domain's narrative to add in the druid's flavor. That would definitely result in something which could be described as "the druid option." But few would be happy with it.

The reason, of course, is that demoting the druid class to a small part of another class stifles all the potential it has for interesting variations. The narrative of a druid calls forth many interpretations, and the existing mechanics aren't expansive enough to support them all. You could really only be one kind of druid, even if in your head you have a very specific idea that differs from someone else's idea. And that's no fun!

So, a druid is not just a kind of cleric because although it has similar mechanics and narrative, both are still distinct enough that they invite many varying interpretations of the core mechanics and narrative.

It is for the same reason I feel the artificer should be made into its own class. Yes, mechanically it has enough in common with many other spellcasters to have the unique parts be covered by a subclass. And in terms of narrative, well, it could be thought of as a kind of wizardry. But the core concept of "guy who builds magical things and relies on them for power" invites many more narrative ideas than can be covered in the space of a subclass's supportive mechanics, and that combined with the uniqueness of the narrative and mechanics causes it to cross the threshold into "full class" territory.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Warlocks originally were all born that way and forcible turned. It was 4th the gave the pact option. But lore is important however so a new artificer should retrain lore.

The thing I've been saying for a while is the mechanics and playstyle of the 3rd edition and 4th edition are subclasses of wizard. In addition, the 3.5 artificer is too weak, too wonky, and too unbalanced to match up with the other 5th edition classes.

So as I said before the options are only to adjust the lore and make it a wizard subclasss with infusion spells OR invent something the artificer didn't have before to not only invalidate its spot but also bring it in line with the other classes.

 

[Fralex]

I feel I should point out that the old lore about artificer spells not really being spells was more of a mechanical thing than a lore thing. If artificers' magic was arcane, then a party wizard could, with time, add every spell in existance to their spellbook by copying wizard spells off the artificer's scrolls. In my view, classifying infusions as their own, completely generic kind of magic only robs them of some of their flavor and always confused me when I tried to roleplay with that information in mind. I never saw any good flavor reason why we can't just think of them as a kind of arcane magic. Their magic comes from knowledge and formulas; it sounds appropriate to me.

 

[MoonSong]

I feel I should point out that the old lore about artificer spells not really being spells was more of a mechanical thing than a lore thing. If artificers' magic was arcane, then a party wizard could, with time, add every spell in existance to their spellbook by copying wizard spells off the artificer's scrolls. In my view, classifying infusions as their own, completely generic kind of magic only robs them of some of their flavor and always confused me when I tried to roleplay with that information in mind. I never saw any good flavor reason why we can't just think of them as a kind of arcane magic. Their magic comes from knowledge and formulas; it sounds appropriate to me.

But infusions aren't spells, they didn't have somatic or verbal components and it wasn't clear what shape they took, but they weren't spells, they could be dispelled, but not counterspelled, they didn't cause AOOs or needed concentration checks. TO me they were more like oils and potions you could use on items and constructs, they were made on the spot by the artificer. Save for a few ones, they weren't castable during combat -more akin to rituals, but not rituals in the full sense-. Nothing against it being arcane, but those weren't truly spells. And again a smaller part of the class. Maybe if the artificer had spell slots -as a half caster?- that couldn't be used to cast spells, but could be stored within items? Those items would be like non-rechargeable wands and scrolls, except the artificer could recharge them? Then maybe make the artificer to make checks using cha and proficiency bonus to put spells on other classes lists on those items? then use ritual casting in place of infusions? you could then give artificers medium armor, shields, simple weapons and a bunch of skills and toolsets, extra attack and maybe even a combat style, and room to create a few permanent magic items/constructs as class features at later levels?

 

[Minigiant]

But infusions aren't spells, they didn't have somatic or verbal components and it wasn't clear what shape they took, but they weren't spells, they could be dispelled, but not counterspelled, they didn't cause AOOs or needed concentration checks. TO me they were more like oils and potions you could use on items and constructs, they were made on the spot by the artificer. Save for a few ones, they weren't castable during combat -more akin to rituals, but not rituals in the full sense-. Nothing against it being arcane, but those weren't truly spells. And again a smaller part of the class. Maybe if the artificer had spell slots -as a half caster?- that couldn't be used to cast spells, but could be stored within items? Those items would be like non-rechargeable wands and scrolls, except the artificer could recharge them? Then maybe make the artificer to make checks using cha and proficiency bonus to put spells on other classes lists on those items? then use ritual casting in place of infusions? you could then give artificers medium armor, shields, simple weapons and a bunch of skills and toolsets, extra attack and maybe even a combat style, and room to create a few permanent magic items/constructs as class features at later levels?

So just don't give spells that are infusions somatic or verbal components and make them only target objects. Infusions were spells of another name like invocations, mysteries, and truenames. They were made different to keep other casters from getting them. The idea of subclasses works even better as the infusions aren't one a class list so bards and knowledge clerics (and magic initiates) can't poach them. Mechanically the 3.5 artificer is just a spellcaster with special spells.

 

[Fralex]

Hm? No, infusions definitely did have somatic and verbal components, as well as material components. Some of them were literally just pre-existing spells reskinned as infusions. Narratively, they were still discrete, expendable magical effects of different levels. The similarities vastly outweigh the differences.

 

[steeldragons]

Or at least material (you need your gadget/liquid/whatever you're "infusing") and somatic (you need to fiddle/tinker with it, etch runes, whatever). I could see an artificer not requiring chanting or arcane phrases.

I don't know if this fixes all the hullabaloo, but I had the idea that may seem to satisfy both sides of this lengthy argument...

The new, full class is called "The Infuser": a PC that is a highly skilled and specialized magic-worker who "infuses" objects and/or targets with their magical know-how and skills.
So, subclass one (the "default" one) is Artificer.
Sub class two: Alchemist.
Subclass three...I'm not sure but I'm sure there is one I just can't think of right now.

New, artificer as full class with some of its general stuff (armor & weapons, maybe skill or two) and specific mechnical niche - "infusin' stuff", done.
New artificer as subclass with their very particularly specific "artificer" stuff, done.
Way to slip in a little alchemist action at the same time for those games/campaigns/settings where an alchemist might be a possibility where Eberron's setting-specific "magi-tech steampunk mechanic" might not be. Done.

All teams win. All players get more options. All implementation makes sense. The general/broader archetype warrants its own mechanics, proficiencies, and some skills while the subclasses cover more specific -flavored skills and features.

 

[Remathilis]

So just don't give spells that are infusions somatic or verbal components and make them only target objects. Infusions were spells of another name like invocations, mysteries, and truenames. They were made different to keep other casters from getting them. The idea of subclasses works even better as the infusions aren't one a class list so bards and knowledge clerics (and magic initiates) can't poach them. Mechanically the 3.5 artificer is just a spellcaster with special spells.

Mechanically, so was the 3.5 bard; they even had a weird "always verbal" restriction which didn't allow you to use silent spell with them. (Seriously)

I'm not going to deny most of the infusions were spells with a few odd restrictions. I'm denying that since infusion : spell :: artificer : wizard. Again, I point to the 3.5 bard. Partial spellcaster? Check. Unique spell list drawing off several other classes? Check. Mechanically, there is little separating the 3.5 bard from the 3.5 artificer, as far as casting goes.

Which means your exact argument could easily turn the bard to a wizard subclass: a collection of song magic unique to wizbards a few weapon/skill proficiencies upon entering the subclass, and inspiration/countersong/song of healing/jack of all trades as subclass abilities. But such a character would not have satisfied people who played bards in 2e, 3e, or even 4e; Its just giving the wizard the bard's toys to play with. People would expect the wizard to still fill the wizardly role; teleporting, fireballing, etc. It wouldn't have the same feel. (KM has actually said that giving clerics the "druid" domain or fighters the "ranger" subtype wouldn't have the same feel of the actual class. I say the same is true of artificers, yet we're still trying to cram him onto the wizard).

The main issue I have here is that there is this notion that the PHB classes are the only classes they are going to produce and everything else HAS to be a sublcass. It might works for some of those hybrid classes of 3e and 4e, but I think a few classes (artificer for one, psion for another) are so different that they cannot be replicated using the existing classes; they are either going to have to be new classes OR be discarded and let another class (wizard, sorcerer) fill that role. We can't have it both ways; subclasses are not versatile enough to fill these roles and make them different from their parent classes.

 

[Minigiant]

Or at least material (you need your gadget/liquid/whatever you're "infusing") and somatic (you need to fiddle/tinker with it, etch runes, whatever). I could see an artificer not requiring chanting or arcane phrases.

I don't know if this fixes all the hullabaloo, but I had the idea that may seem to satisfy both sides of this lengthy argument...

The new, full class is called "The Infuser": a PC that is a highly skilled and specialized magic-worker who "infuses" objects and/or targets with their magical know-how and skills.
So, subclass one (the "default" one) is Artificer.
Sub class two: Alchemist.
Subclass three...I'm not sure but I'm sure there is one I just can't think of right now.

New, artificer as full class with some of its general stuff (armor & weapons, maybe skill or two) and specific mechnical niche - "infusin' stuff", done.
New artificer as subclass with their very particularly specific "artificer" stuff, done.
Way to slip in a little alchemist action at the same time for those games/campaigns/settings where an alchemist might be a possibility where Eberron's setting-specific "magi-tech steampunk mechanic" might not be. Done.

All teams win. All players get more options. All implementation makes sense. The general/broader archetype warrants its own mechanics, proficiencies, and some skills while the subclasses cover more specific -flavored skills and features.

Unfortunately it won't fix the problem.

The crux of the issue is the 3rd and 4th artificer lore is great but the mechanics directly translated are unpowered, wonky, and unbalanced. The easiest solution is to adjust lore and make artificers into a wizard subclass and give them bonus spells and proficiencies instead of normal school based power. The hard solution is for artificer fans to create a unique mechanic which retains all lore and playstyle.

Basically the "fighter problem". The old class features (hp and weapon/armor proficincies) are minor in this edition. You have to make new ones or drop the class to subclass.

Mechanically, so was the 3.5 bard; they even had a weird "always verbal" restriction which didn't allow you to use silent spell with them. (Seriously)

I'm not going to deny most of the infusions were spells with a few odd restrictions. I'm denying that since infusion : spell :: artificer : wizard. Again, I point to the 3.5 bard. Partial spellcaster? Check. Unique spell list drawing off several other classes? Check. Mechanically, there is little separating the 3.5 bard from the 3.5 artificer, as far as casting goes.

Which means your exact argument could easily turn the bard to a wizard subclass: a collection of song magic unique to wizbards a few weapon/skill proficiencies upon entering the subclass, and inspiration/countersong/song of healing/jack of all trades as subclass abilities. But such a character would not have satisfied people who played bards in 2e, 3e, or even 4e; Its just giving the wizard the bard's toys to play with. People would expect the wizard to still fill the wizardly role; teleporting, fireballing, etc. It wouldn't have the same feel. (KM has actually said that giving clerics the "druid" domain or fighters the "ranger" subtype wouldn't have the same feel of the actual class. I say the same is true of artificers, yet we're still trying to cram him onto the wizard).

The main issue I have here is that there is this notion that the PHB classes are the only classes they are going to produce and everything else HAS to be a sublcass. It might works for some of those hybrid classes of 3e and 4e, but I think a few classes (artificer for one, psion for another) are so different that they cannot be replicated using the existing classes; they are either going to have to be new classes OR be discarded and let another class (wizard, sorcerer) fill that role. We can't have it both ways; subclasses are not versatile enough to fill these roles and make them different from their parent classes.

You noticed how the bard changed in 4e and then in 5e?

Bards
Became full spellcasters with 9 levers of magic
Have inspiration dice
Have expertise
Can learn spells from any class

Bards changed in this edition. They had to get its power up to other real casters. And it gained unique features: inspiration and secrets.

Artificers have to change mechanically in a unique manner as well to be a full class. They also have to get their power to line up with other classes. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS.Failure to do so will get you an unbalanced class.

---
Let's start with the easy questions.

Are you willing to go to 9 levels of infusions. Half casters don't have enough power to not go into weapon focus in 5th edition.

Are you willing to make artificers to focus on weapons over infusions. Haft caster focus more on weapons over magic.

Are you willing to have artificers cantrip spam by default for artificers? Without 9th level magic or extreme weapon combat focus, all their is left are cantrip spam.

 

[Greg K]

All this talk about the Artificer, but I don't recall anyone mentioning that 2e had its own Artificer- a wizard specialist of the Thaumaturgical School introduced in PO: Spells and Magic. Personally, I think that the game needs a wizard subclass and, for the Eberron Artificer, a new class. Let the DM decide which they want to include in their campaign (or even both).