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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Eberron: The Artificer in 4e...
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="LightPhoenix" data-source="post: 4102130" data-attributes="member: 115"><p>Well yes, Artificers <em>could</em> be everything, due to some rediculously wonky and broken mechanics... as people have demonstrated anecdotally many times. And as D.Shaffer stated, if you go by the fluff, it's readily apparent they are meant to be Leaders, as a role. Now, 3E didn't have roles, and the general 3E philosophy towards "support" classes was to pile stuff on until they were overpowered and people would want to play them (see Cleric). Granted, the next logical place to take them is from allied support to enemy frustration - ie, from buffing to cursing. So yes, I agree that by piling on abilties for the support players, they made a class that could in fact be a controller.</p><p></p><p>However, now we're talking 4E, and in 4E classes have defined roles. So taking the Artificer back to it's original concept - Leader.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is probably why it's limited to wands.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm inclined to agree. The problem with a multi-role class is, IMO, that it is exceedingly difficult to make a class where the two roles would mesh together without making the character weaker. In the end what I think would end up happening is that players would choose one path or the other. Which begs the question - why not just make it two classes and flesh out both of the concepts? </p><p></p><p>D&D has almost always been a game of specialization over generality. That is to say, doing one thing well is worth much more than doing a lot merely "okay". This is simply because of the nature of the game played as a cooperative group, and it's inherent to every version of D&D. It's better for each person to do one thing well. That was the biggest problem with the 3E Bard - it could do a lot "okay," but it took a lot of work to make it do anything well.</p><p></p><p>So, rather than try to cover a whole group of bases with the Artificer, I'm of the opinion they should stick to one and do it right.</p><p></p><p>As an aside (to others), there's no rule that there can only be one source/role combination. There's no real need to come up with a new power source for the artificer. Make them Arcane, and avoid having to come up with new classes to justify a power source when it's not necessary.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="LightPhoenix, post: 4102130, member: 115"] Well yes, Artificers [i]could[/i] be everything, due to some rediculously wonky and broken mechanics... as people have demonstrated anecdotally many times. And as D.Shaffer stated, if you go by the fluff, it's readily apparent they are meant to be Leaders, as a role. Now, 3E didn't have roles, and the general 3E philosophy towards "support" classes was to pile stuff on until they were overpowered and people would want to play them (see Cleric). Granted, the next logical place to take them is from allied support to enemy frustration - ie, from buffing to cursing. So yes, I agree that by piling on abilties for the support players, they made a class that could in fact be a controller. However, now we're talking 4E, and in 4E classes have defined roles. So taking the Artificer back to it's original concept - Leader. Which is probably why it's limited to wands. I'm inclined to agree. The problem with a multi-role class is, IMO, that it is exceedingly difficult to make a class where the two roles would mesh together without making the character weaker. In the end what I think would end up happening is that players would choose one path or the other. Which begs the question - why not just make it two classes and flesh out both of the concepts? D&D has almost always been a game of specialization over generality. That is to say, doing one thing well is worth much more than doing a lot merely "okay". This is simply because of the nature of the game played as a cooperative group, and it's inherent to every version of D&D. It's better for each person to do one thing well. That was the biggest problem with the 3E Bard - it could do a lot "okay," but it took a lot of work to make it do anything well. So, rather than try to cover a whole group of bases with the Artificer, I'm of the opinion they should stick to one and do it right. As an aside (to others), there's no rule that there can only be one source/role combination. There's no real need to come up with a new power source for the artificer. Make them Arcane, and avoid having to come up with new classes to justify a power source when it's not necessary. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
Eberron: The Artificer in 4e...
Top