D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?

[Hussar]

I guess my question would be, why not combine all three of Leatherhead's ideas and call it a new class? I mean Artificers weren't that specialized before.

 

[Mephista]

That depends on how it is handled. Bards get to choose from every spell in the game. Does that make them broken?

Access to any spell in the game at once is different from adding two to its list. And its is a very, very powerful feature, make no mistake. Being able to have any spell in the game, like the 3e version some are asking for, is more powerful than the Bard's version. It'll have to be "watered down" and limited, simply for the sake of not overshadowing the other classes; that's seems to be a sticking point for some people.

One thing about the 5e classes -even the subclasses- is that each is unique. Even the necromancer-styled cleric, wizard, and Oathbreaker all feel and work differently from each other, giving vastly different playstyles. The Bard gets access to other class spells only at milestones, and only in limited quantities. The Tome Warlock gets access to other rituals and limited cantrips. The two don't overlap.

For an artificer, that means that any cross-class casting will need to be markedly different enough from our previous examples, but still balanced, so there's neither overlap, nor overshadowing. Both are critical.

Yet we have Mearls posting on ENworld that artificer could be its own class:

Make no mistake, I never said it wasn't possible.
1) I'm opposed to the idea that its entirely on the D&D teams' shoulders.
2) That the subclass features were created so that we could avoid class bloat. Making the artificer its own class requires greater weight than any of the core classes, which are "grandfathered" in.

I'm simply saying that going "Well, the Ranger or Paladin got in!!!!" is a false comparison, a distraction, that doesn't matter. The artificer, as its own class, needs to stand on its own two legs with its own design plan. You want a more robust class? Then we should be talking about ideas here. Simply saying "I want more, go make it for me!" is disingenuous.

I don't find the argument of "create magic items" to be a strong one for a new class. Technically, we have rules for every class to create magic items. They're optional, yes, but that's something that will likely be turned on in Eberron by default.

As well, if we're discussing putting Rune Magic under the Artificer class, remember that the Artificer won't be Eberron only at that point. Rune magic is a classical dwarven style of cleric that's been around for a long time in a lot of settings. So the Artificer will need to be something that fits into the general game, even in low magic item settings. That's going to have to be a consideration as well. Which is why I suspect it won't make it as an artificer, because fans will want it as its own class that shines in the Eberron setting, but doesn't fit anywhere else.

I should add - I say all this as someone who has never played an artificer or seen one in play. I'm just noticing that the argument that they should be a wizard sub-class seems to come predominantly from those who aren't artificer fans. While the predominant view of fans seems to be that, for the sorts of reasons @ThirdWizard gave, they don't fit under the wizard's umbrella.

For the record, I don't think they fit perfectly under the wizard either. I don't think that it fits under any class at the moment. Part of the reason I'm actually advocating a series of subclasses; that, and I admit to being excited over running a game with the entire party with access to artifice in some way. I could get the people interested in a grenadier fighter, magic gunner rogues, alchemist bards, golemancer wizards, and a rune cleric with an artifice theme going, but no way I could get them to all play a single class, even if they'd all be different subclasses.

I admit to being the minority here. No one seems to be interested in discussing that idea. This thread seems to be highly polarized with few discussing other options.

I get the feeling that too many just aren't interested in anything BUT the 3e class. I hear talk about it getting ways around the built in limitations of casters, avoiding Concentration and the like. That's not something I think will work.

 

[Hussar]

Well, there's a question isn't it? Would people be happy if we took the baseline artificer, divided it up into three or four "blocks" and then created a number of subclasses for each block? So, you get a gun fighter, a clockwork rogue, whatever? That might be the way to go if the baseline artificer is too powerful for the system.

 

[Mephista]

Here are some spit-balled subclasses:
Alchemist, focuses on buffing/healing people. Gains proficiency in throwing alchemical items. Ability; Admixture, allows you to mix two potions so you can drink while you drink (for action economy) Also allows you to get better results from the potion miscibility table if you use it.

Master of Puppets, focuses on constructs. Gets to make a permanent golem/doll/clockwork pet, like a Ranger. Unlike a Ranger they can add/subtract wings or flippers or hands from their construct to customize them during a rest. Ability: clockwork mind, lets their construct maintain concentration for a spell.

Engineer, focuses on traps/weapons. Gets proficiency in siege weapons and traps, and maybe better armor. Ability, Wartime Production, allows them to enhance all the weapons of the party at once.

Obviously, they would need more thought, abilities, and tweaking.

Traditional artificer classses from various games (TT, video, etc) tend to have five branches -
Alchemist (healing tonics)
Explosives (explosive wands in 3e)
Golem/mechanical pets
Magic Gun (enchanted crossbow bolts in this case) - if you want melee, this can be made generic enough to not care if your weapon is ranged or melee. However, the design of this branch should focus on crossbows and hammers as the "ideal" weapons for an artificer, much like barbarian favors the greataxe by design.

Traps (along with poison) don't feel very artificer-y to me; I personally would expect that to be more of a rogue thing, myself. However, if you put rune magic into the artificer, I would expect Symbol magics, which are kinda trap-ish.



--------------------------------


A side note about half- (and third-) casters while we're here. Paladins, Rangers, as well as the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster, aren't just warriors + cleric/druid/wizard spells tacked on. Well, it might seem like it, but there's an important synergistic aspect that these classes have, especially the Paladin and Ranger, designed to be half-caster from the ground up. Bonus action spells to go with the weapons.

I cannot emphasize enough how important that is. It takes a while for the E.K. and A.T. to reach the level where they're doing it consistantly with their cantrips, but its a core part of these less-than-full-caster class.

Making an artificer, as a whole, a half-caster is going to need to emphasize that as well. And, as we saw with the bard play test, that kind of design gets in the way of a subclass path that wants to focus on more magical combat (like the explosive grenadier types). You can make a full caster into a magic-weapon-user fairly easily (valor, blade pact, moon circle, war cleric, favored soul), but the reverse is not true.

So, while the magic crossbow/hammer style works with half caster, I submit that other styles will not. I don't see any way around an alchemist class needed full spell slot progression.

 

[Fralex]

Well, there's a question isn't it? Would people be happy if we took the baseline artificer, divided it up into three or four "blocks" and then created a number of subclasses for each block? So, you get a gun fighter, a clockwork rogue, whatever? That might be the way to go if the baseline artificer is too powerful for the system.

I don't know, it just seems sorta counterintuitive to me. If we're making a bunch of new, similar subclasses, we might as well just put them all in one place, yeah? The way of the shadow adds a stealth option for monks, making them a little more like rogues. The arcane trickster archetype makes rogues a little more like wizards. It just seems logical to follow that lead, and make the gun fighter, clockwork rogue, and so on all part of the same class. Although your idea DOES sound kinda neat, I must say.

With psionics, now, I'm totally in favor of doing that, because there are a whole bunch of different psionic classes that resemble base classes and could be made to fit. Artificers, though, I'm still not convinced they ARE too powerful. Like I said, there are lots of ways to put limits on power without putting limits on creativity. We just need to try out different ideas and see how they work.

 

[Fralex]

Here are some spit-balled subclasses:
Alchemist, focuses on buffing/healing people. Gains proficiency in throwing alchemical items. Ability; Admixture, allows you to mix two potions so you can drink while you drink (for action economy) Also allows you to get better results from the potion miscibility table if you use it.

Master of Puppets, focuses on constructs. Gets to make a permanent golem/doll/clockwork pet, like a Ranger. Unlike a Ranger they can add/subtract wings or flippers or hands from their construct to customize them during a rest. Ability: clockwork mind, lets their construct maintain concentration for a spell.

Engineer, focuses on traps/weapons. Gets proficiency in siege weapons and traps, and maybe better armor. Ability, Wartime Production, allows them to enhance all the weapons of the party at once.

Obviously, they would need more thought, abilities, and tweaking.

Funny, those are basically the three subclasses I came up with when I was thinking about this yesterday. I take that as a good sign!

I was thinking maybe a special feature of the alchemy build could be the ability to let your allies use your stuff (anyone can drink a potion), and maybe some way to put spell effects of your choice into potions like in 3.5e, within limits. The weapon-enhancing build could get access to the paladin/ranger spell lists, since they have all those spells for making special weapon attacks.

 

[Leatherhead]

So, while the magic crossbow/hammer style works with half caster, I submit that other styles will not. I don't see any way around an alchemist class needed full spell slot progression.

Why? Rangers already have Beast Mastery, so a Golem Master should be just as prime. Granted, Beast Masters are a bit chunky right now, but there is no time like the present to get a working set of pet rules.

You could theoretically add full casting to an existing half-caster, but buffs don't need to scale nearly as much as damage does. In fact, things like advantage or resistance don't need to scale at all (because they are just as effective at level 1 as they are at level 20) and things like +AC or +Hit shouldn't scale much (because that would break things). Hit points are weird kind of binary thing. Temporary hit points would need some scaling, and an Alchemist would need some way to scale their personal damage, but that could potentially be handled with abilities, or just giving them some cantrips instead of level 9 spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So show, don't tell. Don't say "this is different because it's magitek," show that with a mechanic. In what way is it actually different because it's magitek?

Sorta requires a definition of how "magitek" works, which not everyone will agree with. Might be worth trying to adapt the Dungeon World casting system (you only expend memorized spells if you roll poorly, there are no "slots" to expend, just prepared spells). Beyond that, I don't really know; I very much like the idea of having magical "battery" type mechanics, but can't seem to find a way to phrase them into a mechanic I like. (Not that I much care for a number of 5e mechanics anyway...)

The thing is, the 3e artificer doesn't really have that (it was all unique spell list and item crafting buffs and proficiencies), and the 4e artificer doesn't really have that (it was all leader arcane powers with tech-paint), so this would be a brand new addition. Entirely possible - even welcome! - but notably not about proficiencies and spell lists. In 3e and 4e, proficiencies and spell lists pretty much defined the artificer. That can't stay true in 5e if it wants to earn its own class.

You'll have to pardon me for not being particularly enthused by "arcane leader powers with tech-paint." From my perspective, the vast majority of the differences between 5e Wizards and Sorcerers come down to paint as well.

That said, it sounds to me like this "asking" thread is really more a matter of you staking a claim on the position you've already assumed is true. Your title implies you're open to the idea that proficiencies might "make the class," but don't currently believe that; your arguments in the OP and here, however, speak very much the opposite, that you've assumed it's a given and expect others to do so as well.

 

[Minigiant]

I think I can explain it with a neutral... class.

The shaman class from Warcraft

It has tons of fluff and story. It's a full caster with proficency medium armor, martial weapons, and a few skills. It has areas for subclasses: elemental (ranged blaster), enhancement (melee warrior), and restoration (healer). But it's not special enough as it is similar to a cleric. Just a new domian really.

But if you take the totem aspect and made it into a class feature. One where you place your spells into a totem and the totem automatically casts the spell X times. Not the concept is too strong for a feat or subclass and powerful and unique enough for a class. The "shaman" can drop a totem and blast nearby enemies with burning hands or heal allies with cure wounds.

---

So if the artificer could store lower level spells in items to get extra uses and convert higher level spells into empowering item, then it is powerful enough and unique enough to be a class.

Such a thing would be too powerful to use wizard or sorcerer type casting. Half casting is too weak unless you give it Extra Attack. So I see a sorcerer base with even fewer spells.

 

[El Mahdi]

Please tell me what unique niche a ranger fills that a properly done fighter, rogue, or druid subclass could not.

Classes are far more than just a collection of mechanics. Functionally, another class may be able to fill the mechanical role that a Ranger does, but Narratively, for many, they never will. There are certain narrative conceits that are automatically envisioned when the words Fighter, Rogue, and Druid are expressed. Ranger also generates a unique narrative vision when voiced, just as Artificer does for those that are fans of it. The very existence of the words...the very labels themselves...such as Ranger, Paladin, Sorcerer, Warlord...and Yes...Artificer, proves the existence and validity of these narrative conceits.

That unique Narrative niche, a niche that I fully admit lives only in the mind and perceptions of those that enjoy them, is not satisfied by a sub-class of a class with an incompatible narrative niche.

RPG's majoritively live inside the mind...inside our unique perceptions. Viewing this simply as a matter of mind over mind, that someone simply needs to shift their thinking so they can be satisfied with a subclass rather than a unique class, minimizes the narrative vision inside other player's minds.

Viewing a class as only a collection of mechanics, as only a functional construct, ignores its other aspects. That's certainly not wrong, if that's an individual choice. However, expecting others to think that way is taking away that choice for them; and that is not right.