D&D General Experts type PCs, Magic Items, and Higher Fantasy

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Back at the start of the One D&D Playtest survey process, WOTC tried out an idea of class grouping. One of the first grouping displayed was the experts. This grouping consisted of the Bard, Ranger, and Rogue. Speculation suggested a possible future inclusion of the Artificer. The main unifier of these classes would be their base inclusion of Skill Proficiency.

Outside of that, the classes were very different. The Bard is a full caster. The Rogue had no base spells. And the Ranger and Artificer were half casters of different end of the warrior caster spectrum. Their chassis were very different.

But there was one thing that IMHO they had similar between them. In the fantasy, both in D&D fantasy and broader adventure fantasy, the four were associated with items.

Artificers are of course tied to magic items. The Bard is linked to musical instruments and games. Rangers have herbs, salves, special arrows and hunting traps, as well a history of their spells being flavored as items by some players. And Rogue are known from disguise kits and poisons in their assassins and tricks like caltrops and ball bearings for thieves. And all 4 could be associated with potions and scroll use.

Which the rerelease of the Artificer, my belief that these Expert classes would be better served if the Item use was a more core element of Dungeon and Dragons and then linking them to the Item line of fantasy than the Spell line. At low levels, these experts would combine their superior skills with their better usage of mundane items of their worlds. Then at higher levels, they could craft temporary magic items that fit their archetype. Possibly this could be their in into the Spellcasting system and exclusive iconic magic spells. Finally at highest levels, they could be linked to class specific magic items and special ways to use general ones.

A bard storing his spells in their lite. A ranger summoning their real animal beast companions from a gem or figurine and communicating via a ring of animal influence. A rogue looking for their guild leader so she can learn how to combine caltrops with poison and where the charm which could recall them after use.

What are your thoughts?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Which the rerelease of the Artificer, my belief that these Expert classes would be better served if the Item use was a more core element of Dungeon and Dragons and then linking them to the Item line of fantasy than the Spell line. At low levels, these experts would combine their superior skills with their better usage of mundane items of their worlds. Then at higher levels, they could craft temporary magic items that fit their archetype. Possibly this could be their in into the Spellcasting system and exclusive iconic magic spells. Finally at highest levels, they could be linked to class specific magic items and special ways to use general ones.
this part i agree with, both in that items and tools should be a far more fleshed out system as one of cornerstones for the martial's equivalent to casting and that the experts would excel in their use, i'm less behind them being the 'item crafter' group, like i get what you're going for but i don't see it as a good theme for the expert archetype even if '24 is leaning more into crafting as a system, i thought the point of the expert group was meant to be y'know...expertise(though i also feel that Wizards is very stingy with it and needs to give out more expertise so i don't love the idea of a group having sole claim to it, but i don't mind the experts being the ones who get more of it than anyone else), flesh out the skill system and what can be achieved with it
 

What are your thoughts?
Instruments are to bards as books are to wizards. The way that you're looking to define the Expert classes? It feels like its the same thing that defines wizards.

And, should we flip it, the Fighter as well - they're defined, for the most part, by being weapon experts. Those are tools too. D&D tends to make a distinction between combat and non-combat stuff, but realistically, weapons are just tools meant to kill things.

I don't know. I remember the bards of the pre-4e era, and how they had become a laughable meme. Spoony bards being terrible at everything. 4e made them average, but 5e making them full casters is probably the first time in living memory for many people that bards are actively super popular as a class.
 

And, should we flip it, the Fighter as well - they're defined, for the most part, by being weapon experts. Those are tools too. D&D tends to make a distinction between combat and non-combat stuff, but realistically, weapons are just tools meant to kill things
Well actually I think ...
 

I like the idea of focusing the warrior/mage/expert divide on weapons, spells, and tools respectively. Pretty neat way to look at it.
 


Enchanted Trinkets Complete

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top