Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8525874" data-attributes="member: 7023887">Do you not see the contradiction here? Besides the fact that the Artificer class was never designed as an Arcane Gish Class (it was designed to be a magic item crafter, like is core to the idea of Eberron), simultaneously saying &quot;there is an arcane gish class&quot; and &quot;arcane magic doesn't exist in 5e&quot; is a hell of a paradox.Even if the rules are not based around arcane magic . . . that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's like saying &quot;alignment doesn't exist&quot; because there aren't any mechanics for it in the PHB.The Artificer is not an Arcane Gish class. Just because it has one or two subclasses that are gish-like does not mean that it is a Gish class. It is not a &quot;half-martial&quot; that the Paladin and Ranger are. If the Artificer were an Arcane Gish class, every subclass would be an Arcane Gish. Neither the Alchemist nor the Artillerist are Arcane Gishes, so the class is not an Arcane Gish.The Artificer is a magical tinkerer/inventor class. Not a magical warrior. The paladin (and every subclass of it) is a divine-magic warrior. The ranger (and every subclass of it) is a nature-magic warrior. There is no arcane-magic warrior class, as the Artificer was not designed around that concept, and does not have the base theme or capabilities of that a class designed around the theme of being an Arcane Gish would have (fighting style, magic starting at 2nd level without cantrips, extra attack as a base class feature, a spell-strike ability, etc).You're trying to force a square peg through a round hole. As much as I absolutely love the Artificer class (it is by far my favorite class in D&amp;D 5e, thematically and from a design stand-point), it is no Arcane Gish class. It was not intended to be one, it is not one mechanically or thematically, it has too much baggage from its amazing but distinct theme to be one, and there is still a design space in the game for one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 8525874, member: 7023887"] Do you not see the contradiction here? Besides the fact that the Artificer class was never designed as an Arcane Gish Class (it was designed to be a magic item crafter, like is core to the idea of Eberron), simultaneously saying "there is an arcane gish class" and "arcane magic doesn't exist in 5e" is a hell of a paradox. Even if the rules are not based around arcane magic . . . that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's like saying "alignment doesn't exist" because there aren't any mechanics for it in the PHB. The Artificer is not an Arcane Gish class. Just because it has one or two subclasses that are gish-like does not mean that it is a Gish class. It is not a "half-martial" that the Paladin and Ranger are. If the Artificer were an Arcane Gish class, every subclass would be an Arcane Gish. Neither the Alchemist nor the Artillerist are Arcane Gishes, so the class is not an Arcane Gish. The Artificer is a magical tinkerer/inventor class. Not a magical warrior. The paladin (and every subclass of it) is a divine-magic warrior. The ranger (and every subclass of it) is a nature-magic warrior. There is no arcane-magic warrior class, as the Artificer was not designed around that concept, and does not have the base theme or capabilities of that a class designed around the theme of being an Arcane Gish would have (fighting style, magic starting at 2nd level without cantrips, extra attack as a base class feature, a spell-strike ability, etc). You're trying to force a square peg through a round hole. As much as I absolutely love the Artificer class (it is by far my favorite class in D&D 5e, thematically and from a design stand-point), it is no Arcane Gish class. It was not intended to be one, it is not one mechanically or thematically, it has too much baggage from its amazing but distinct theme to be one, and there is still a design space in the game for one. [/QUOTE]

Verification