D&D 5E (2024) So, what does the Artificer "replace"?

[Paul Farquhar]

That seems like a pretty unlikely hypothetical to me. One fewer character contributing to damage output or casting control spells per round is always going to be a pretty significant difference in 5e’s system, unless the group was already greatly overperforming. I would question if the DM in that scenario was providing the players with sufficiently challenging encounters.

You could throw twenty tarasques at the party and it still wouldn’t be a particularly difficult encounter. But that’s because combat isn’t the point, it’s just an interlude between plot decisions.

Okay, it’s possible for the monsters to win if they can one shot the entire party before the players get a turn, but in any remotely fair fight a party of four unoptimised tactical duffers over level 2 will always win. That’s why I find all this talk of optimisation silly. If you need to bother with that in order to win you must be really appallingly bad at tactics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Artificer would struggle to replace the Wizard. You might be able to pull it off, but it wouldn't be a clean fit.

Artificer probably cannot replace a Fighter, even with the appropriate subclass. I could see them being a decent "off-Fighter" if we wish to view it that way.

That leaves Healer and Lurker/Skillmonkey. The spell list makes healing doable, but not nearly at the level of a Cleric....but subclasses fill that hole. So yes, an Artificer can replace a Cleric, I'd say, based on their spell list. I can also see an Artificer that replaces a Rogue, and is focused on utility effects and spells, scouting, stealth, etc. The Armorer subclass can fill parts of the Fighter role, namely the defensive parts, to some degree. In 4e terms, the Artificer can "flex" into a defensive direction, but will have to do a lot of the heavy lifting themselves (or from other sources, e.g. physiological features, background, equipment, etc.)

So...yeah. Artificer fits into Cleric and/or Rogue space. It has certain similarities to Bard.

Also, just to point out...these are extremely close to the roles of 4e. Bard and Ranger are the only two classes listed which appear on multiple lists. 4e Bard could MC into any other class--thus giving it amazing flexibility for building into any role the player wanted. Rangers were surprisingly hardy for a Striker...and did do skill-y things in addition to fight-y things.

Just find it so funny that people rail and rail and rail against roles....and then everyone goes back to agreeing that roles do in fact exist in practice, that the game is in fact designed with such thoughts and expectations, and that despite this fact, people have always been able to play what they want and not give a damn about it. It's just bitterly hilarious that we all TALK about classes as having roles....but having the books in any way recognize that they have roles? You've just destroyed everything good and right and true! How dare you! Nerf darts at dawn!!!

 

[Zardnaar]

Artificer would struggle to replace the Wizard. You might be able to pull it off, but it wouldn't be a clean fit.

Artificer probably cannot replace a Fighter, even with the appropriate subclass. I could see them being a decent "off-Fighter" if we wish to view it that way.

Also, just to point out...these are extremely close to the roles of 4e. Bard and Ranger are the only two classes listed which appear on multiple lists. 4e Bard could MC into any other class--thus giving it amazing flexibility for building into any role the player wanted. Rangers were surprisingly hardy for a Striker...and did do skill-y things in addition to fight-y things.

Just find it so funny that people rail and rail and rail against roles....and then everyone goes back to agreeing that roles do in fact exist in practice, that the game is in fact designed with such thoughts and expectations, and that despite this fact, people have always been able to play what they want and not give a damn about it. It's just bitterly hilarious that we all TALK about classes as having roles....but having the books in any way recognize that they have roles? You've just destroyed everything good and right and true! How dare you! Nerf darts at dawn!!!

Its more the roles aren't as rigid as 4E.

Sorcerer was a striker in 4E, 5E you can build controller, striker, hybrid etc. Even a bit of leader. Cant do all 3 at once at least not well.

Fighter can do striker or tank or archer. Defender a little bit.

That was 4E big screw up. 2E onwards to 4.5 fighters had s lot of flexibility. A bit in 1E snd BECMI as well.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its more the roles aren't as rigid as 4E.

Roles aren't rigid in 4e to begin with.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Artificer would struggle to replace the Wizard. You might be able to pull it off, but it wouldn't be a clean fit.

They can replace the out-of-combat stuff a wizard does if your party is stuck with a “I only blow sh*t up” sorcerer.

They also share with the wizard the ability to change their loadout if they know what kind of mission to expect.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Roles aren't rigid in 4e to begin with.

This is an example of the “presentation” issues that 4e had. The way the rules explained things certainly gave that impression. I’m happy to take you at your word that it was a false impression.

 

[Zardnaar]

Roles aren't rigid in 4e to begin with.

Fighter had to be a defender. Sucked as an archer in the phb.

 

[Mephista]

Do people like the class?

I think we're still in the Paladins-suck-with-new-changes!! phase of online discourse. The Artificer class did change. Tool expertise is flat out gone. Generalized tinkering is gone, with a stronger focus on specialization. Limits on firearms. Low-level cantrip reliance. Homuculus Servant part of dps calculations.

Gonna take time for the actual-play results to drown out naysayers.

 

[Mephista]

Roles aren't rigid in 4e to begin with.

They pretty much were. Defender roles had Marks from level 1 - effectively pseudo taunt powers. Strikers had damage boosting traits on single targets. Leaders had effects that boosted healing and/or buffs. Controllers were defined by battlefield control, AoEs, and debuffs. Each group had powers that tied into their role mechanics.

You could adopt, and often did, secondary roles, but your main role was very much set in stone. Having an paladin in the party was no replacement for a full Leader. Paladins and Fighters were never NOT defenders. Rogues were always strikers. This was unavoidable.

In 5e, classes are defined more by their class fantasy / trope / story archetype than they are their tank/dps/support/CC mechanical role.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is an example of the “presentation” issues that 4e had. The way the rules explained things certainly gave that impression. I’m happy to take you at your word that it was a false impression.

Let me put it this way: All Clerics have the capability of casting cure wounds and healing word in 5e; it's simply a matter of whether they, y'know, actually elect to do so or not. Does that mean Clerics are "rigid[ly]" locked into being healers?

Every Fighter has Extra Attack and gets up to 4 attacks/round eventually. Does that mean the Fighter is "rigid[ly]" locked into being a Striker, since that's pretty clearly a Striker-type feature?

Fighter had to be a defender. Sucked as an archer in the phb.

Fighters had to start with Defender-focused features. Both as the class evolved, and as characters gained levels, they could easily branch out in new directions or supplement.