Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Artificer Class, Revised: Rip Me A New One
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RealAlHazred" data-source="post: 6749908" data-attributes="member: 25818"><p><strong>Originally posted by rampant:</strong></p><p></p><p>My entire point is that the open ended number of schema known is inherently unbalancing the class. IF you reduce the number of schema known for the base class then it's dependent on the DM to give them opportunities to expand that list, iif you don't and the class gets the opportunity it's unbalanced. What part of this do you disagree with or not understand? It's plain old bad design because the class fails to establish an evaluatable baseline of competence. The artificer sin one game can be drastically less mechanically powerful/versatile than a similar artificer in another game because of whether or not magic items/scrolls are avaliable or not. You're trying to make the artificer run on setting rather than it's own power. The class is unbalanceable as long as it's powers remain undefined.</p><p> </p><p>As for magic used on non-mages my point was that the spells that would actually help being a weapon user more interesting are self only buffs used by classes like the ranger. A lot of th ebuffs used by a dedicate dmagic class are kind of boring.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RealAlHazred, post: 6749908, member: 25818"] [b]Originally posted by rampant:[/b] My entire point is that the open ended number of schema known is inherently unbalancing the class. IF you reduce the number of schema known for the base class then it's dependent on the DM to give them opportunities to expand that list, iif you don't and the class gets the opportunity it's unbalanced. What part of this do you disagree with or not understand? It's plain old bad design because the class fails to establish an evaluatable baseline of competence. The artificer sin one game can be drastically less mechanically powerful/versatile than a similar artificer in another game because of whether or not magic items/scrolls are avaliable or not. You're trying to make the artificer run on setting rather than it's own power. The class is unbalanceable as long as it's powers remain undefined. As for magic used on non-mages my point was that the spells that would actually help being a weapon user more interesting are self only buffs used by classes like the ranger. A lot of th ebuffs used by a dedicate dmagic class are kind of boring. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Artificer Class, Revised: Rip Me A New One
Top