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

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I care about actual definitions of words too much to do that.

I will say that the Ranger very much does have stuff past level 5 to stay in-class for. I will argue that pure Ranger is just as competitive as the best multi-class out there. That the damage output of Ranger is close enough to Fighter to make neither one feel weak in comparison.

But i won't say they're doing that because of their archery skills, because its not. Half is bow, but the other half is summoning magic.

If the Ranger's spells and skills don't count, then the Battlemaster's manuevers don't either. Period. Both are useful regardless of weapon, both make the class more effective as an archer than they'd been without them.

If we strip out anything that isn't specific to archery, the fighter has literally nothing that the ranger doesn't also have, while the Ranger has archery spells that are purely about archery.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

Your statement that I responded to was "But saying its classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate." You can see it; it's right up there. It is your opinion that its classes were less homogenous; mine is the opposite. I have no idea what point you are making now about actions.

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.

Why are you putting something in quotations that I didn't write? What I actually wrote is that 4e emphasized role over class. Again, it's right there.

If you are going to argue with some other positions that you have made up for the sake of argument, have at it. But please don't attribute them to me. I chose my words carefully, and you are not responding to them. Again, I am not judging either edition as better or worse, but pointing out that 5e swerved from 4e's design philosophy, and to me artificer feels like the most 5e class. Specifically because there is no real role that it necessarily fits into. Which is why I think the notion of it replacing another class, per the thread title, doesn't really work.

This is a really 5e thing (not that other editions don't do it to some degree, just not as much) - to make it so that every class can be built to fit multiple niches. I think the artificer, in particular, can fit almost any niche or role.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your statement that I responded to was "But saying its classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate." You can see it; it's right up there.

Yes. I said that because it is the case.

It is your opinion that its classes were less homogenous; mine is the opposite. I have no idea what point you are making now about actions.

This is not a matter of opinion. That I like the way 4e’s classes were designed and you do not are opinions. Whether they are more or less homogeneous than 5e classes is a matter of fact, and the fact is they are less, which I point to the greater variety of game actions they are able to perform as evidence.

Why are you putting something in quotations that I didn't write? What I actually wrote is that 4e emphasized role over class. Again, it's right there.

You interjected into an ongoing conversation. I therefore regarded you as a participant in the conversation. Which was about the relative homogeneity of 4e classes compared to that of 5e classes.

Once again: if you don’t like 4e classes, that is fine. But claiming they are more homogeneous than their 5e counterparts is simply incorrect. If you are not making that claim, then you are trying to have a different conversation than the one you interjected into.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Part of the problem 4e had with roles was trying to use the classic MMO roles (tank, DPS, healer) and place them on the classic D&D roles (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue). They don't align right. First, there are only three MMO roles so a fourth had to be invented (controller) that felt ill defined. Wizards in D&D either buff (a support role done by healers) or control space (the job of a tank) with a hearty side dish of damage (the DPS role).

People keep saying this.

It is not as true as they would like it to be.

The roles did not originally come from MMOs. That they have similarities is not surprising--MMO roles came from D&D, originally! But the most centrally important source, much more than MMOs, was soccer, as I said previously. That's where the names come from, everything except Controller. That's where the idea of "marking" comes from--it's literally called that in soccer. AND where "zone" defending comes from, as that's a different style of defensive play in soccer--one locks down particular enemy players, the other locks down specific areas.

4e looked at stuff MMOs were doing. Why wouldn't it? WoW was and is an absolute juggernaut in terms of finances. If there's anything to be learned from it, wouldn't you want to at least try? But MMOs weren't even the primary source, let alone the only source. MMOs were not "copied" in any meaningful way--they were studied and folks tried to take useful information from them. Raising their specter as though it were some critical error or grievous sin or whatever, instead of being one fairly small part of 4e's design.

Further? "Control" absolutely already is a role in some MMOs! It's not there in all of them, but it definitely is there. GW1's Mesmer is a control and resource specialist, for instance, which meant few people played main-class Mesmers, but LOTS of people played <any other profession>+secondary Mesmer, because having those resource-restoring skills is super helpful as a dabble.

And..."control" doesn't describe what MMO tanks do, except in one very narrow sense that flatly doesn't apply to D&D. The MMO tank kit is 100% centered around damage mitigation and aggro generation. That second bit--aggro generation--is outright mind control. Do more threat than anyone else, and the monster is mind controlled into attacking you and no one else. Someone else overtakes your threat? Sucks to be them, because now they're getting all the damage and you, the tank, aren't taking any (other than AoE damage). Different games handle healing in various ways, but nearly all MMOs have tanks taking crazy amounts of damage, which means healers have to spend most or all of their time purely focused on pouring HP into the tank(s).

"Control" in MMOs refers to things like "sheeping" in WoW, "binding" in GW2, "sleep" in FFXIV, etc.--which are all effects directly inspired by the D&D Magic-User/Wizard.

The problem, of course, is that the D&D Wizard is the "I literally do EVERYTHING (except heal)" class, so any role it gets assigned will always be a narrowing of scope. Which is a good thing, because the Wizard as it exists is outright bad design because that degree of versatility is harmful to the overall gameplay experience. But the Wizard Supremacists don't like being told that.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll just say this.

4e classes were complained about because they were very very focused on creating the specific gameplay their favored archetypes suggest.

5e classes were complained about because they were very very focused on allowing every type of gameplay their many archetypes suggest.

4e Ranger focused on providing the Hunter and then Beastmaster archetypes and hit the mark dead on. But it didn't allow for the Nature Warrior or the World Wanderer.

5e Ranger allowed for Hunter, Beastmaster, Stalker, Nature Warrior, and World Wanderer but you weren't great at any of them

3e did both but with system mastery and capitalistic book bloat.

And that's the rub with TTRPGs.

Provide a few specific experiences very well.
OR
Provide a lot of related experiences decently.
(EDIT) OR
Provide a lot of specific experiences very well but have it cost a lot of time, frustration, and money.

This is the eternal struggle of RPG design.

 

[Mephista]

If the Ranger's spells and skills don't count, then the Battlemaster's manuevers don't either. Period. Both are useful regardless of weapon, both make the class more effective as an archer than they'd been without them.

If we strip out anything that isn't specific to archery, the fighter has literally nothing that the ranger doesn't also have, while the Ranger has archery spells that are purely about archery.

Kindly stop twisting my words. I was very clear that Conjure Barrage and Lightning Arrow count as archery spells, for instance. Furthermore, the majority of my argument was primarily based around Fighter's core features, not any specific subclass.

I'm done. Have a good one.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Kindly stop twisting my words.

I didn't.

I was very clear that Conjure Barrage and Lightning Arrow count as archery spells, for instance.

Okay. You still dismissed class resources that directly make the ranger better at using a bow in combat.

Furthermore, the majority of my argument was primarily based around Fighter's core features, not any specific subclass.

Which is literally switching weapon masteries and othing else that isn't either shared by rangers or just a nonspecific damage boost. So if being able to control the battlefield doesn't count as part of archery, neither does any of that.

I'm done. Have a good one.

Sure. Just understand that if you make arguments, the other person is entitled to reply to them.

 

[Mephista]

Sure. Just understand that if you make arguments, the other person is entitled to reply to them.

My argument: "Here's a list of all archer-y abilities Ranger has, and that I'm considering."
Your response: "You didn't take the Ranger abilities into account!"

Respond to my actual points instead of made up ones, and I will happily discuss.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'll just say this.

4e classes were complained about because they were very very focused on creating the specific gameplay their favored archetypes suggest.

5e classes were complained about because they were very very focused on allowing every type of gameplay their many archetypes suggest.

4e Ranger focused on providing the Hunter and then Beastmaster archetypes and hit the mark dead on. But it didn't allow for the Nature Warrior or the World Wanderer.

5e Ranger allowed for Hunter, Beastmaster, Stalker, Nature Warrior, and World Wanderer but you weren't great at any of them

3e did both but with system mastery and capitalistic book bloat.

And that's the rub with TTRPGs.

Provide a few specific experiences very well.
OR
Provide a lot of related experiences decently.
(EDIT) OR
Provide a lot of specific experiences very well but have it cost a lot of time, frustration, and money.

This is the eternal struggle of RPG design.

I mean, if you just let the first one run a bit longer, it eventually catches up.

And it's not like 5e fans have even the slightest bit of room to complain about things not getting included. If you wanted something that wasn't present in the PHB, you'd have to wait literal years just to see if there was a chance you'd get it. Divine Soul and Storm? Took three years to get those Sorcerer subclasses. Psionic options? Didn't show up until Tasha's, which was late 2020, more than six years after 5e's launch.

So like...did it do "a lot of related experiences decently"? Or did it do a fairly small set, and only very, very slowly expand that set?

I'm not saying we need the breakneck publication pace that 3e/4e used. But there's got to be a better way than ONE meaningful mechanics book per year.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My argument: "Here's a list of all archer-y abilities Ranger has, and that I'm considering."
Your response: "You didn't take the Ranger abilities into account!"

Respond to my actual points instead of made up ones, and I will happily discuss.

That is objectively not what happened.

If you cannot defend your arguments, just stop accusing me of nonsense.