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

[TorgoTheWhite]

Artificer is like the girl who can grow her fingernails at a rapid speed, and everyone else is the JLA.

Or, "The Bat", in the The Hard-Rocking Quartet of: Gene Simmons, Paul Stanley, Ace Frehley, and.. "The Bat"

 

[Zardnaar]

You, also, are dismissing what’s a big deal for 4e fans. Turns out, different people value different things in the game. Archery is importamt to you. Ok, that’s fine. Like I keep saying, it’s ok that you didn’t like 4e. It’s when you make objective statements like “4e fighters were less versatile” that you get pushback, because it just ain’t true. That they couldn’t do the specific thing you wanted them to do, doesn’t mean they could actually do fewer things. That the more things they could do weren’t what you care about doesn’t mean the number of things they could do wasn’t greater.

Well 4E had 1 archer phb.

5.5 phb

Rogue with crossbow+ true strike
Various ranger builds
Various fighter build

3 classes there all doing different things. Theres at least 2 different fighter books as well with champion and battlemaster.

Rogues doing rogue stuff and casting true strike.

Ranger adds spells and there's at least 3 (hunter, fae wanderer, beastmaster)builds in the class

So 6 different builds all doing something a bit different using your criteria. One is brute damage the champion fighter. 4E has 1 build in the phb.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well 4E had 1 archer phb.

5.5 phb

Rogue with crossbow+ true strike
Various ranger builds
Various fighter build

3 classes there all doing different things. Theres at least 2 different fighter books as well with champion and battlemaster.

Rogues doing rogue stuff and casting true strike.

Ranger adds spells and there's at least 3 (hunter, fae wanderer, beastmaster)builds in the class

So 6 different builds all doing something a bit different using your criteria. One is brute damage the champion fighter. 4E has 1 build in the phb.

All of these are doing basically the same thing. Really the only ones that are significantly different are the Battlemaster fighter specifically, which was intentionally designed to appeal to 4e fans, and the in 2024 the rogue thanks to Cunning Strike.

 

[Zardnaar]

All of these are doing basically the same thing. Really the only ones that are significantly different are the Battlemaster fighter specifically, which was intentionally designed to appeal to 4e fans, and the in 2024 the rogue thanks to Cunning Strike.

Ranger casting spells on arrows isnt different?

That's at least 3 builds in any event. I'm fighter, rogue and limping all the others togather.

 

[Clint_L]

Who cares when all of the builds do the exact same things as each other?

See, this is a different complaint than “they weren’t versatile.” Like I said, it’s fine if you didn’t like 4e. But saying its classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate.

I think by “factually” you mean “in my opinion.” In MY opinion, the opposite is true with 4e’s emphasis on role over class making it feel more like WoW. Which was the designers express intent.

Which is neither good nor bad in itself, but is a reason that to me it didn’t feel like D&D. And I was already playing WoW. I don’t think my opinion here is exactly a hot take; numerous fans voiced similar feelings and WotC went hard on D&D nostalgia for 5e. Also neither good nor bad in itself, but probably a huge factor in 5e’s enormous success.

The artificer offers a ton of versatility, but the jury is still out on how competitive they are, or if battlesmith will remain the go-to subclass. The battlesmith itself offers a pretty unique experience; I kind of love it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think by “factually” you mean “in my opinion.” In MY opinion, the opposite is true with 4e’s emphasis on role over class making it feel more like WoW. Which was the designers express intent.

No, I mean factually. It’s my opinion that the designs were more interesting. It’s factual that they offered more different game actions to take on your turns.

Which is neither good nor bad in itself, but is a reason that to me it didn’t feel like D&D. And I was already playing WoW. I don’t think my opinion here is exactly a hot take; numerous fans voiced similar feelings and WotC went hard on D&D nostalgia for 5e. Also neither good nor bad in itself, but probably a huge factor in 5e’s enormous success.

This has nothing to do with character versatility. For the hundredth time, it’s fine if you thought it felt like WoW and didn’t like it for that reason. But trying to claim “all 4e classes played the same” is just incorrect. Period.

 

[Zardnaar]

No, I mean factually. It’s my opinion that the designs were more interesting. It’s factual that they offered more different game actions to take on your turns.

This has nothing to do with character versatility. For the hundredth time, it’s fine if you thought it felt like WoW and didn’t like it for that reason. But trying to claim “all 4e classes played the same” is just incorrect. Period.

I didnt claim they all played tge same. I said theres more versatility phb vs phb.

You dismissed the differences in archers as just damage. Theres 3-6 good archer builds in 5.5 phb. 3 classes vs one I think theres 4 didn't builds with another 2-4 variants on those (mainly sub classes).

4E phb has 1 class, 2 paths but only 1 is archery.

Good Archers
Battlemaster Fighter (2 builds)
Champion Fighter (2 or 3 builds)
Assassin Rogue(two builds)
Rangers (3 or 4 builds)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Espicially since you had around 30 years of fighters being good at archers going back to 1E.

This was 4e’s big mistake. If you are designing a game from scratch you can separate out the melee class from the archery class. But when you are updating a 30 year old ruleset players expect a class to be able to do the same things they always have been able to do.

 

[Zardnaar]

This was 4e’s big mistake. If you are designing a game from scratch you can separate out the melee class from the archery class. But when you are updating a 30 year old ruleset players expect a class to be able to do the same things they always have been able to do.

Yup. Fighters were both. Same as ranger but they were more melee 2E at least.

Not sure what best variant is between the weapons but that extra feat is handy for great weapon master or 20 dex with shortbow.

I did like the champion accuracy build via vex at 10. That was dual wielding but would work with a bow.

 

[Charlaquin]

I didnt claim they all played tge same. I said theres more versatility phb vs phb.

You dismissed the differences in archers as just damage. Theres 3-6 good archer builds in 5.5 phb. 3 classes vs one I think theres 4 didn't builds with another 2-4 variants on those (mainly sub classes).

4E phb has 1 class, 2 paths but only 1 is archery.

Good Archers
Battlemaster Fighter (2 builds)
Champion Fighter (2 or 3 builds)
Assassin Rogue(two builds)
Rangers (3 or 4 builds)

But of those builds, seven of them all take the exact same game actions as each other every turn. The two rogue builds do something different than the rest, but the same as each other. The two builds of the fighter subclass that specifically mimics 4e mechanics do have some actual variety in the game actions they take.

Number of builds doesn’t matter. What they can actually do matters, and 5e characters can mostly only do the same thing turn after turn.