Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e - What do we want?
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="Jester David" data-source="post: 6891307" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>I'd argue that's what it *did* not what it *is*. It's how they implemented the concept in a very different game system.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>One of the problems with the artificer was that making full use of it required knowledge of both spells and magic items, especially magic armour and weapon bonuses. That required a metric eff-tonne of system mastery, and use of material in a DM product. Plus it could be broken, as it allowed easy access to situational magic items that were otherwise inoptimal (my favourite example being infusing weapons with ghost touch).</p><p>It's significantly easier if those options are spells and/ or class features that imparts a bonus. Replicate the *feel* at the table of the artificer infusing magic into a weapon to make it better without actual just crafting a +1 sword. </p><p></p><p>Additionally, classes take a LOT of work to do right, requiring balancing and playtesting. 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. </p><p></p><p>A 5e artificer shouldn't be shackled to a fifteen-year-old design quirk of a dead edition. </p><p></p><p></p><p>To me, "doing it right" is making a class that takes the concept and hook of the artificer and reinterprets it to work in a different and more elegant way, that feels like the best parts of playing an artificer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6891307, member: 37579"] I'd argue that's what it *did* not what it *is*. It's how they implemented the concept in a very different game system. 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. 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. One of the problems with the artificer was that making full use of it required knowledge of both spells and magic items, especially magic armour and weapon bonuses. That required a metric eff-tonne of system mastery, and use of material in a DM product. Plus it could be broken, as it allowed easy access to situational magic items that were otherwise inoptimal (my favourite example being infusing weapons with ghost touch). It's significantly easier if those options are spells and/ or class features that imparts a bonus. Replicate the *feel* at the table of the artificer infusing magic into a weapon to make it better without actual just crafting a +1 sword. Additionally, classes take a LOT of work to do right, requiring balancing and playtesting. 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. A 5e artificer shouldn't be shackled to a fifteen-year-old design quirk of a dead edition. To me, "doing it right" is making a class that takes the concept and hook of the artificer and reinterprets it to work in a different and more elegant way, that feels like the best parts of playing an artificer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Eberron 5e - What do we want?
Top