NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7028380" data-attributes="member: 1465">To design a new base class, it should both be a concept large enough to deserve a full-class design effort, different enough so that it can't easily be represented by an existing class, and generic enough so that it shouldn't be siloed under a specific existing class.The Psion could have been a Monk or Sorcerer/Wizard subclass, but it would have carried too much martial or magic baggage respectively. Psionics would lose their narrative edge and tactical interest if made equivalent to spells. In addition, there have been traditionally multiple psion concepts (for instance, each based on a different key ability among the 6). Making it a base class is a very good idea.The Artificer could have been a Wizard subclass, but it would make it very strong on spells, and thus leaving much less space for actually creating stuff, which is what defines this character concept. IMHO this is the main reason why they are now trying to design it as its own class, although it's not necessarily what will become their final choice. I actually believe that it would be even better if the Artificer didn't technically have spells at all, and this could make it suitable for example to being a MacGyver-inspired Rogue's subclass.But the main questions the designers should ask themselves are: should every Artificer actually be a Wizard (or Rogue, or else)? Is there enough narrative uniqueness, mechanical difference, and gamer's interest to promote this character concept to a fully-fledged class, or will it always be a niche option that only a few players will ever play? Can it ever hold up besides classes that have been around for decades?It's hard to tell, because for my personal tastes even the Warlock was a long-shot and I would not have missed it, if they had left it out of 5e or demoted it to a subclass. But that was before I saw the 5e version of it, since IMHO the 3e and 4e versions sucked... once the 5e Warlock came out, I was happy it had become a core class! So currently I have zero interest in a Warlord or Warden or Shaman and most of the non-core base classes of previous editions, which I largely hated. Even tho I am not a fan of Psionics, I totally see how they add a huge theme to the game as a whole, and as such I think they deserve their own system and associated base class. For the Artificer, they still have to win my favour, because it still feels too much like a spellcaster's hobby, but if they pull it right and make it such that it opens up a significant addition to a D&D campaign, then I will endorse its design as a core class.But Warlord? Warden? Shaman? Those would be difficult to endorse, because they do not add any major theme at all, they always end up being marginal. Perhaps only the Shaman has the potential to enable a major theme, but it would have to be done very well and with some bold design choices, so that it would be clearly different from any other spellcaster.</blockquote>

Verification