D&D 5E Eberron 5e - What do we want?

[SkidAce]

That's a hell lot of ever, huh?!

I still think the Artificer is it's own thing and could easily have a few archetypes: a melee self buffer type, a pet master of sorts for humunculus/iron dog (way to fix Ranger too) and something more cater-y.

Besides the Artificer, I also think the major setting archetypes should be easily obtainable as I said before.

Anyway, someone gave a nice idea of a "setting gazetteer" with basic stuff from many settings, for me that's an amazing idea - it's also nice that WotC could spread knowledge of less known settings like Birthright for new players.

XP for Birthright.

I tried converting the system for domain management, doable but clunky. A redesign with the 5E aesthetic would be nice.

 

[delericho]

I'd argue that's what it *did* not what it *is*.

They're inextricably linked. An Artificer without item crafting makes no more sense than a Wizard without spellcasting.

The artificer as a class shouldn't assume the DM wants lots of permanent magic items. Or uses action points for that matter. Classes shouldn't require optional content to play.

Why shouldn't an optional class rely on an optional subsystem in the same rulebook? Other than your arbitrary declaration that it should be so?

The class still *needs* to be the 5e update of the artificer. You can't just tweak the math thrust the old artificer into 5e. That's not converting the class, that's just remaking the 3e artificer. A good update should emulate the original but fix its problems. It should start with the concept and create that, not just convert mechanics. The intent should be to make a better artificer.

Yes, but you still need to support the concept. Otherwise you're not supporting the Artificer, you're supporting some other concept and giving it the same name.

Additionally, classes take a LOT of work to do right, requiring balancing and playtesting.

Yes. So do that work.

Given the effort required, if WotC designs a brand new class, it should be something the majority of players will want in their settings, and something they can use in the Realms and Adventurer's League. But a class that makes permanent magic items breaks the math of 5e and changes the conventions of the game. It's an unnecessary shift.

It's necessary for Eberron. Again, if they choose not to support that setting, that's their prerogative.

It's easy to say "well, one isn't bloat" but everyone has a preference of their "one class". ENWorld sees a lot of Eberron love because it's a recent world and there's less of an Eberron fan community: its fans just used the official forums. Other worlds and settings often have their own forums, where these requests are made.

This thread pre-supposes that they've decided to support Eberron. If they choose not to, that's their prerogative.

 

[Ahglock]

While the artificer was a interesting class I don't think it's inclusion or removal from the setting would have any impact on the setting in 3e as the item creation feats already existed and made it cheap, quick and easy to enchant. So I don't need a class for this to make Eberon work. An alternate item creation system yes, a specific class not really.

 

[Jester David]

They're inextricably linked. An Artificer without item crafting makes no more sense than a Wizard without spellcasting.

Putting magic in items is needed. Making permanent uncommon or rarer magic items is not.

Why shouldn't an optional class rely on an optional subsystem in the same rulebook? Other than your arbitrary declaration that it should be so?

Every class in optional. Only the classes and options in Basic are really assumed to exist.
Why should the artificer be given different design considerations other then your arbitrary decision that it be so?

A 3e style system just makes the class more complicated and slow. It goes against the "simple and fast" design goals of the edition while adding little beyond compliance to older design constraints. It might as well have skill ranks, multiclass xp penalties, and die at -10hp.

 

[delericho]

Every class in optional. Only the classes and options in Basic are really assumed to exist.

So? Just because some optional classes don't use optional mechanics doesn't mean that none can.

Why should the artificer be given different design considerations other then your arbitrary decision that it be so?

Because the system as it stands doesn't support it. Similarly, if and when they implement optional Psionic classes those classes will necessarily rely on the optional Psionic subsystems.

A 3e style system just makes the class more complicated and slow.

They don't need to use the same system. They just need a system to do the same job.

It goes against the "simple and fast" design goals of the edition while adding little beyond compliance to older design constraints.

No, it adds support for the class.

And just because parts of the system are "simple and fast" doesn't mean that all elements need to be including those optional elements. During the 5e design the teams talked at significant length about supporting different playstyles including those who prefer greater complexity.

 

[Gradine]

I guess this, coupled with a comment a few back about divorcing the marks from feats, begs the question: How should the dragonmarks be done? I'd prefer they not be a feat as well; I'd like to see them tied to the character in some way as opposed to just picking one up at the DragonmarkMart.

I'll throw in my two cents, since I think you're referring to my comments. I've never been quite comfortable with the idea of using feats to gain Dragonmarks. Don't get me wrong, mechanically they worked well enough (though every major Dragonmarked NPC suddenly had to have a dozen levels in Expert or some other NPC class to be represented mechanically); from a flavor perspective I always felt what Feats represented were something entirely different from what Dragonmarks actually were, and how they're presented as developing.

In 5e there's a host of reasons why even mechanically Feats are a bad choice for Dragonmarks. They're optional, for a start. You get way less of them, if you get any at all, and the opportunity cost for selecting them is quite large. As they've been presented in UA has created a Feat which grows with the character's level, which if I'm not mistaken (don't have my PHB handy) is an entirely new mechanic for a Feat. This in turn means there's no such thing as a high-level PC with a least Dragonmark. Because feats are so scarce and costly in 5e (and so much more powerful than in previous editions), you also can't break up the different levels of Dragonmarks with their own feat either.

I've toyed with a lot of different ideas for what to do with Dragonmarks in 5e instead. I started, as you did, with the idea of using sub-races. This is, mechanically, a tricky thing to do with races that do not already have sub-races. It also, again, tends to tie dragonmark power directly with character level. I get that this correlation is typical, but I don't like the idea of making it mandatory. The one thing that 5e's UA Dragonmark Feats do that no other system for PC dragonmarks (including the theory of 5e sub-races) has accomplished so far is made it possible for a PC to immediately manifest a Lesser or Greater True Dragonmark, which is canonically supposed to be possible, if extremely rare.

I ultimately landed on the DMG's Blessings as a way to add Dragonmarks to my game. That idea has been accused in the past of taking away player agency, and that is both kind of the point and also not entirely true. My intention was that the DM would take input from players who would like their PC to develop a Dragonmark and then choose a relevant situation (a stressful situation where the dragonmark's abilities would prove useful) for it to manifest, as a way to represent a version of the Test of Siberys "on-screen" (rather than "Oh, I took this feat when we leveled up at the end of last session, now I have Dragonmark.")

I particularly like the suggestion of having the Blessing take up an attunement slot. This helps balance it somewhat, since a Blessing doesn't really cost the player anything to get now. This permanent attunement slot can also be used to "attune" to Siberys dragonshard items, since only bearers of the mark can actually use those items in Eberron.

This is also the funnest way to spring an Aberrant Dragonmark on someone. In a heated argument that's about to get physical? Surprise! You just melted that guy's face off. Granted, this isn't going to be every player's cup of tea, but I still think it feels truest to the setting.

 

[Onslaught]

I ultimately landed on the DMG's Blessings as a way to add Dragonmarks to my game. That idea has been accused in the past of taking away player agency, and that is both kind of the point and also not entirely true. My intention was that the DM would take input from players who would like their PC to develop a Dragonmark and then choose a relevant situation (a stressful situation where the dragonmark's abilities would prove useful) for it to manifest, as a way to represent a version of the Test of Siberys "on-screen" (rather than "Oh, I took this feat when we leveled up at the end of last session, now I have Dragonmark.")

I like that idea, even if it takes a bit of player agency regarding his charcter (but this is 5e, to the heck with player's dictatorship!)

I still think this is "giving" one player a benefit and other might a) be jealous; b) want to get a dragonmark too (so hey dragonmarked party!)

On the other hand... Bless to get, Feat to evolve the mark?!?

Anyway... I also think them evolving automatically is a bit lame, but then again it could be a change due to system paradigm...

Or it could be a modular feat: you get [spell] and +1 ASI now, or [spell] now and [major spell] later... Well, just dumping ideas hehe

 

[Gradine]

I'll be honest; getting the Artificer "right" is probably one of my lowest priorities, personally. 3.X's permanent magic item creation rules were not really my cup of tea, and they weren't a great fit for 4e's abundant magic economy and make a worse fit for 5e's magic economy.

How I've always viewed the Artificer is as a sort of magical swiss army knife. I liked the idea of an Artificer with a batch of mundane items and equipment that they can then use their infusions to enchant those items to make them the right tool for whatever obstacle they've encountered. I think that's certainly feasible within 5e's framework, but it would take, as with the original class, its own kind of set of infusions. Should certainly be its own class. Archetypes could include the above-mentioned swiss-army-knife/explorer, as well as a Zil Binder for your elementalist/khyber dragonshard specialist (since SCAG already introduced us to racially restricted class archetypes). Probably would want to come up with a third option to give non-gnomes an actual choice, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

Edit: A thought occurred to split that first archetype in two, i.e; Warsmith and Prospector; whereas the Warsmith gets class features to boost their weapon/armor infusions, while Prospector's class features allow them to excel more in the exploration/social pillars. The Zil Binder, meanwhile, doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to gnomes, but that kind of work is a pretty closely guarded secret.

 

[Jester David]

So? Just because some optional classes don't use optional mechanics doesn't mean that none can.

But it doesn't mean they have to either.

Because the system as it stands doesn't support it. Similarly, if and when they implement optional Psionic classes those classes will necessarily rely on the optional Psionic subsystems.

The "psionic subsystem" is entirely self-confined to the class. It changes the world, but doesn't really change the game. It does not affect balance, nor does it affect the other classes or characters. And you can insert a psionic character into an established module easily and effortlessly.
A character that can make permanent magic items and craft items change the game. It break organized play, changes the balance, and has a dramatic impact on storyline modules. It requires the DM to adjust the game and not just the world.

That is bad design, plain and simple. As poor design of an option as something with blatant power creep.

And it's telling DMs how to play. The artificer as a concept doesn't require permanent magic items, potentially beyond potions or maybe scrolls. That's a fun concept that can fit many worlds without the magitech of Eberron, such as Ravenloft alchemists or Dragonlance tinkerer gnomes, both of which have rare magic items.

It's a hefty change for the sole benefit of matching the design of 3e.
Heck "artifice" first appeared in 2nd Edition, in Spells & Magic. Why not use that class as the basis? It's just as valid a source of inspiration. So no magic item creation and spells of the Enchantment and Necromancy school are banned.

They don't need to use the same system. They just need a system to do the same job.

Eberron was always a world of common convenience and low-powered magic. Commonplace mundane items like lamps and magic brooms. Higher powered magical items like +1 swords aren't part of that. They were there for math reasons.
There's no problem with allowing the artificer to create small cosmetic magical items and effects, like the rock gnome. Making common magical items that have no heavy game effect. Ditto making potions, wands, scrolls, and similar consumables.

They could have an "infusion" ability that lets them impart magical abilities into an item for a time. Spend a short rest to give a sword bonus fire damage or the like. Have a list of known infusions that allow some customization. Something that's different from the crafting rules but doesn't allow the artificer to just set-up a magic sword store or give the party stat boosting items or turn the DMG into a shopping list. Or force the artificer to have endless days of downtime to be effective (by equating a party's power level to the pace of the campaign and amount of disposable gold).
But that's very, very different than "crafting". It has similar weight at the table, as the artificer chooses an enchantment to apply to an item from a list, but it can be more carefully balanced.

And just because parts of the system are "simple and fast" doesn't mean that all elements need to be including those optional elements. During the 5e design the teams talked at significant length about supporting different playstyles including those who prefer greater complexity.

And when making something as big as a class, it should accommodate different playstyles and types of campaign. It should have as broad appeal as possible to justify the investment of time.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

They're inextricably linked. An Artificer without item crafting makes no more sense than a Wizard without spellcasting.

The Artificer's schtick that they have had in both editions has always been their ability to temporarily infuse magical properties into items.

Why shouldn't an optional class rely on an optional subsystem in the same rulebook? Other than your arbitrary declaration that it should be so?

Because it means that the class loses out a lot in games where those optional rules aren't being used.
Its better for the class to not rely on optional rules because then its fully playable whether the DM is using those rules or not. Any class interaction with those optional rules should be "ribbon" (ie of minor/flavour impact).
The bonus an Artificer gets to magic item crafting shouldn't be of the magnitude that the class is too powerful if the game includes magic item crafting or too weak if the game doesn't.

Yes, but you still need to support the concept. Otherwise you're not supporting the Artificer, you're supporting some other concept and giving it the same name.

The Artificer concept gets tricky because that changed a bit over 3.5 and 4e. 3.5 was a jack-of all trades that could handle traps like a rogue, could fight fairly well, and apply buffs to other party members. Healing non-constructs relied on using magic items or burning XP in general. In 4e it was much more of a support character, with healing built right in as well as buffs and rather similar to the Bard indeed.

The fluff didn't change much: the Artificer as a class imbued temporary magical properties into items. How that was reflected in the game mechanics in terms of role and capabilities however did change.

It's necessary for Eberron. Again, if they choose not to support that setting, that's their prerogative.

Given magic item crafting can require long periods of downtime, which isn't always available to adventurers, you can easily support Eberron using magewrights as the primary item-makers. Eberron requires some method of creating magical items, but does not require automatic and easy access to player-character creation of adventuring-level magical items.