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

[TwoSix]

while I enjoyed parts of almost all splat books that were printed for 3/3.5e, there was a lot of garbage materials in there.

over half of prestige classes, feats, spell, gear were complete garbage tier, about 10% were brokenly overpowered, so you really needed to look really good to avoid trash and avoid game breaking.

even now there is disbalance in the game, but in 5E bell curve is higher and a lot is more closer to the average.

Yes, but I still BOUGHT them. I haven't bought a WotC product on my own since 2021 (Mordenkainen's MotM).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would not mind ONE, PHB style book per year.

possible one new class,
4-5 subclasses per already printed class.
50ish feats
100ish spells
1 or 2 alternate class feature per class(get rid of mandatory HM for rangers).

Per year??

That would be terrible, IMO...

 

[CreamCloud0]

I would not mind ONE, PHB style book per year.

possible one new class,
4-5 subclasses per already printed class.
50ish feats
100ish spells
1 or 2 alternate class feature per class(get rid of mandatory HM for rangers).

personally IMO for a book a year this is pushing out FAR too much and would end up with a ton of filler and rushed content.

i would personally go for the expectation of, if a book a year:
-1 new class with 4-6 subclasses (for the first few years).
~5 to 8 new subclasses or alternate class features for existing classes (3 alternate class features = 1 subclass).
~15 feats.
~30-50 assorted new spells and magic items.
-an assortment of several expanded rule subsystems and/or bundles of new monsters.

 

[Clint_L]

Yes. I said that because it is the case.

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…

Creating a definition of a word to turn your opinion into a fact does not make it so. You seem to think having more buttons makes two things less alike in some quantifiable way, but in my opinion when the outcome is broadly the same, there is no real difference. That is why emphasizing role first creates homogeneity. In my opinion. It’s as true in 4e as in World of Warcraft: you can fiddle with the details, but what really matters is whether you can use them to pull off the key elements of that role, or not.

5e, and the artificer in particular, put class and subclass identity first. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not going to continue arguing with you about why your beliefs are facts but mine are opinions.

 

[Charlaquin]

Creating a definition of a word to turn your opinion into a fact does not make it so. You seem to think having more buttons makes two things less alike in some quantifiable way, but in my opinion when the outcome is broadly the same, there is no real difference. That is why emphasizing role first creates homogeneity. In my opinion. It’s as true in 4e as in World of Warcraft: you can fiddle with the details, but what really matters is whether you can use them to pull off the key elements of that role, or not.

5e, and the artificer in particular, put class and subclass identity first. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not going to continue arguing with you about why your beliefs are facts but mine are opinions.

It’s not about buttons to push, it’s about meaningfully distinct game actions. I actually think your suggestion of outcome being the defining factor on whether two given game actions are meaningfully different is a great one. And by that metric, 4e had more such meaningfully distinct game actions available to a character than 5e does.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s not about buttons to push, it’s about meaningfully distinct game actions. I actually think your suggestion of outcome being the defining factor on whether two given game actions are meaningfully different is a great one. And by that metric, 4e had more such meaningfully distinct game actions available to a character than 5e does.

By a huge margin. Like...massive.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s not about buttons to push, it’s about meaningfully distinct game actions. I actually think your suggestion of outcome being the defining factor on whether two given game actions are meaningfully different is a great one. And by that metric, 4e had more such meaningfully distinct game actions available to a character than 5e does.

Sometimes i still consider taking 4e and hacking the math and action economy to be more like 5e. Not the same as, but just no stacking bonuses, smaller numbers overall, maybe use advantage and a "reroll but take the second result" like Star Wars Saga, etc.

Then simplify basic attacks to use "your primary weapon or spelcasting modifier, and some other little tweaks.

I miss 4e classes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sometimes i still consider taking 4e and hacking the math and action economy to be more like 5e. Not the same as, but just no stacking bonuses, smaller numbers overall, maybe use advantage and a "reroll but take the second result" like Star Wars Saga, etc.

Then simplify basic attacks to use "your primary weapon or spelcasting modifier, and some other little tweaks.

I miss 4e classes.

Get rid of the +1/2 level to everything in favor of a Bounded Accuracy system like 5e, replace all the miscellaneous 1 and 2 point bonuses and penalties with a clean advantage/disadvantage style mechanic, and make sure each class has an Essentials-style “simple” build option and a 4e Classic-style “complex” build option and you might just have my ideal form of D&D there. Maybe steal PF2’s 3-action economy too while you’re tinkering under the hood anyway.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They really aren't.

There is nothing wrong with having specific tastes. It just means you are less easily pleased than people who are more conformist.

3e and 4e managed to put out multiple books a year that I was interested in for their entire product line.

I didn’t buy much 3e stuff (the FR book was good though), and nothing at all for 4e. So that’s about 15 years of WotC not producing anything that appealed to me.

But I don’t really expect my every whim to be catered to. If a company produces something I like at a price I can afford, that’s a nice bonus, not an entitlement.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Get rid of the +1/2 level to everything in favor of a Bounded Accuracy system like 5e,

bounded accuracy is good and all but i don't think the 1/2 level bonus is something to get rid of either, one of the criticisms against 5e i think has merit is that a 20th level character likely still has exactly the same bonuses to their non-primary skills and saves as they did at 1st level, i think experienced adventurers should have enough field knowledge that you can expect the barbarian will of picked up some arcana, the cleric knows how to disarm a basic trap or the sorcerer knows how to swing a club.