I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
So with the survey result for the Eberron material out, it looks like WotC is taking another look at Artificer. And they probably should - Mearls's perspective that they were "too conservative" seems accurate from where I'm sitting.
But in all the conversations about if the artificer should be its own class or a subclass of something else, a theme keeps recurring that personally drives me a little batty. It comes up in other places too - in discussing psionic classes or warlords. It is some variation on this:
The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!
or
or
It's about the artificer recently, but it's beyond that, too. It happens with psionics when it comes up. It happened with the warlord wars. Every time I see someone make the case that Character Type X can't be part of Class Y because of how Class Y is somehow limited or insufficient or weak in terms of its proficiencies, skills, or spells, a little part of me facepalms hard enough to leave a mark.
Because usually I don't buy it. Or at least, it takes more than that lack to convince me.
From where I'm sitting proficiencies don't matter much. Call it a cantrip or call it a martial weapon, at the end of the day, we're all doing ~1d10 damage at range and ~2d6 damage in melee with level scaling. From where I'm sitting, skills are flexible. Get the right background or take some downtime or have a decent ability score bonus and use bounded accuracy and your proficiency bonus can go screw. From where I'm sitting spell lists aren't niche protection anymore. Listen, my sorcerer can heal, my mage can buff, my paladin can blast, and my bard can cast niche rituals. There's a continuum of how WELL they can do these things, but we are no longer in a world where if you want a healing spell you suddenly have to be a different class.
Also from where I'm sitting classes are huge. Each level in a class precludes taking another class, meaning with 12 classes and 20 levels each, each level only lets you experience one part of the game out of *two hundred and fourty possible parts*. That's a lot of competition, a lot of alternate choice, and a lot of things locked out if you don't select it. Using your class abilities occupies a HUGE chunk of your play time and is perhaps the biggest, most defining choice you can make about your character.
None of this means that there can't be new classes - or, hell, that the artificer or the psion or the warlord can't be one of 'em. It just means they need to go big or go home. They can't just be little tweaks to existing classes. They need to earn their size. This isn't 2e with its canonical and only classes. But this isn't 3e or 4e where spellthieves and at least three different samurai and seekers and battleminds and runepriests galumphed through our class selection process.
It does means that the reason you have a new class isn't because of an armor proficiency or a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency or a spell selection. You need bigger than that. You need a narrative distinction. You need to fire on all three pillars of play. You need to have a role in the world that is special. You need to have a mechanic that is defining. You need to be huge.
Because if you show up at my table and say, "I'm not a wizard because I wear heavy armor, use a hammer, know how to use thieves' tools, and cast buff spells," I might say, "Well, my friend here the mountain dwarf abjurer with the urchin background wonders what makes you such a special unique snowflake?"
I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement to be had, because what should or should not be a class is a big friggin' deal to lots of people. I'm interested in counterpoints and points of support, but I'm more interested in using this to get at what makes a class distinction in someone's mind - what warrants a new class? What finds a home somewhere else? Why? What is your personal logic?
But in all the conversations about if the artificer should be its own class or a subclass of something else, a theme keeps recurring that personally drives me a little batty. It comes up in other places too - in discussing psionic classes or warlords. It is some variation on this:
The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers use better weapons and armor. Maybe it should be a cleric/bard/rogue subclass!
or
The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because artificers have skills like using thieves' tools and artisan's tools!
or
The artificer can't be a wizard subclass because its spells are about buffs not fireballs!
It's about the artificer recently, but it's beyond that, too. It happens with psionics when it comes up. It happened with the warlord wars. Every time I see someone make the case that Character Type X can't be part of Class Y because of how Class Y is somehow limited or insufficient or weak in terms of its proficiencies, skills, or spells, a little part of me facepalms hard enough to leave a mark.
Because usually I don't buy it. Or at least, it takes more than that lack to convince me.
From where I'm sitting proficiencies don't matter much. Call it a cantrip or call it a martial weapon, at the end of the day, we're all doing ~1d10 damage at range and ~2d6 damage in melee with level scaling. From where I'm sitting, skills are flexible. Get the right background or take some downtime or have a decent ability score bonus and use bounded accuracy and your proficiency bonus can go screw. From where I'm sitting spell lists aren't niche protection anymore. Listen, my sorcerer can heal, my mage can buff, my paladin can blast, and my bard can cast niche rituals. There's a continuum of how WELL they can do these things, but we are no longer in a world where if you want a healing spell you suddenly have to be a different class.
Also from where I'm sitting classes are huge. Each level in a class precludes taking another class, meaning with 12 classes and 20 levels each, each level only lets you experience one part of the game out of *two hundred and fourty possible parts*. That's a lot of competition, a lot of alternate choice, and a lot of things locked out if you don't select it. Using your class abilities occupies a HUGE chunk of your play time and is perhaps the biggest, most defining choice you can make about your character.
None of this means that there can't be new classes - or, hell, that the artificer or the psion or the warlord can't be one of 'em. It just means they need to go big or go home. They can't just be little tweaks to existing classes. They need to earn their size. This isn't 2e with its canonical and only classes. But this isn't 3e or 4e where spellthieves and at least three different samurai and seekers and battleminds and runepriests galumphed through our class selection process.
It does means that the reason you have a new class isn't because of an armor proficiency or a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency or a spell selection. You need bigger than that. You need a narrative distinction. You need to fire on all three pillars of play. You need to have a role in the world that is special. You need to have a mechanic that is defining. You need to be huge.
Because if you show up at my table and say, "I'm not a wizard because I wear heavy armor, use a hammer, know how to use thieves' tools, and cast buff spells," I might say, "Well, my friend here the mountain dwarf abjurer with the urchin background wonders what makes you such a special unique snowflake?"
I'm sure there's plenty of disagreement to be had, because what should or should not be a class is a big friggin' deal to lots of people. I'm interested in counterpoints and points of support, but I'm more interested in using this to get at what makes a class distinction in someone's mind - what warrants a new class? What finds a home somewhere else? Why? What is your personal logic?
Last edited: