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

[EzekielRaiden]

Making Artificer into a second Pact Magic class would be pretty interesting. Actually, it'd be pretty thematic, fluffed as giving time for your magic items to "cool down" or "recharge their batteries" so to speak.

It certainly could, though again I would like to note that I'm not (specifically) wed to the particular implementation there--just the idea that the Warlock has sharply different progressions for spell levels 1-5, vs. levels 6-9, and that this COULD be leveraged by making ONLY the 1-5 part a core class feature, while the 6-9 part is a (very important!) subclass feature. Of course, that might be a little too much power concentrated in the late stages of a subclass, but I'd like to think it could work out.

Magitek is just technology powered by magic.

I'm afraid I was unclear. I was not trying to say that the setting element definition of "magitek" is something people disagree on--that's pretty much uniform, much like "hermetic magic" is pretty much uniform. I had thought, given that I immediately described mechanics, it would be clear that I was speaking of the mechanical definition of "magitek." That is: we already know what "magic" is, in several different forms, as a mechanical expression--and mechanical expression does factor into how people feel about a class (frex, why the playtest Fighter went through 4-5 different mechanical writeups, instead of iteratively improving on the original design, and why the original Sorcerer got totally scrapped).

Keeping with the cleric comparison, the alchemy, golem, and gunner would be the equivalent of the Life, Nature, and War Domains, lets say. Explosives would be equivalent to the Light Domain, which focuses on more powerful magic spells, not Divine Strike.

The point is that forcing everyone to consider themselves a user of the crossbow or runic hammer is detrimental to class design in the long run.

Perhaps it's my experience with GW2 speaking, but I honestly don't see the problem with a "grenadier"-type still having Divine Strike. That is, the Engineer "profession" (GW2's term for "class") is very, very much a magitek user, and many of its abilities are about hitting something with a weapon--specifically a pistol or rifle, as those are the only weapons they can use. (They make up for their lack of 'normal' weapons by having Weapon Kits, skills that replace their equipment with a different set of abilities, though still dependent on their equipment stats--a Flamethrower for damage, an Elixir Gun for healing, and a Tool Belt for utility and defense). So I have no problem with them having a "Divine Strike"-equivalent. In fact, making it a base skill and then doing some kind of replacement seems a simpler solution to me--e.g. all Artificers might get [Melee Strike Booster], but Gunners apply it to ranged attacks rather than melee, and Grenadiers apply it to "Toolkit Abilities" (Cantrips?) instead. But then again, I'm of the opinion that it's better and easier to make general rules and then highlight the rare exception, rather than setting defaults and then mentioning how 75%+ of the categories deviate from the default in (essentially) exactly the same way.

As an aside, I would like to point out that I consider the two Ranger subclasses to be divided into 3e style and 4e style. The Beastmaster is a nod to the core book 3e ranger, and the Hunter (with their Marks) a nod to the 4e style of play. The class, as a whole, has issues, but I can feel the two difference.

So, while we might not get a core class that's definitively styled off 4e, I do think that, in the case of the Artificer, we should have one subclass that does the Healing Infusions and recharging stuff that the 4e class did, while the 3e didn't.

I think we were talking past each other. I agree that the 5e "Hunter's Mark" spell has similarities to the 4e "Hunter's Mark" ability, but I strongly disagree that having that spell means the 5e Hunter "takes into account 4e class design." The mere fact that it's a spell, requiring a slot, and that it's a concentration spell (and therefore trivially easy to lose--especially beyond level 6 or so) is why I don't really see it as "taking into account 4e class design." But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't much care for several of the mechanical ways 5e implements things, so this shouldn't really be a surprise.

My contention throughout has been that a class must have BOTH. Nowhere have I said that Narrative is all that's important, or even primarily important. My point has been directed at those that believe it's not important at all.

Well, I took "Classes are far more than just a collection of mechanics" to mean that mechanics were only the smallest (or at least only one small) contribution; I suppose that was more than the strictest reading of your words would allow. Still, there's definitely an implication that the other parts are of primary importance: "Functionally, another class may be able to fill the mechanical role that a Ranger does, but Narratively, for many, they never will." (Emphasis in original) Strong implication that the narrative element is the primary concern. Not an explicit statement, to be sure, but I don't think my reading was unwarranted either.

Not true. If this were so, there'd never be an inclusion of a narrative description for a class. Why waste print space on narrative descriptions unless it's needed? It may not be needed by all players, but it's certainly needed by enough to warrant its inclusion.

The Game is more than just mechanics.

I do not, at all, mean to deny that the game is more than just its mechanics, though I am not exactly enthused with your unnecessary italics-and-bolding. My point was simply this:

Why would anyone write narrative descriptions of things that have zero existence within the mechanics of the game?

If you can find an answer to that question, then you will have proven me wrong, and I'll accept that. However, I don't think there IS a reason for it. Unless, an until, there is SOMETHING mechanical to receive description, such description is not "part of the game." Once a mechanical component does exist within the game, it then absolutely requires a description of some kind--I completely agree with that. But all the description in the world would be meaningless if the thing described doesn't exist. That's why you don't see descriptions of Rangers, Druids, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Bards, etc. in 0e; they just flat-out don't exist, mechanically, and so there's no reason to describe them in special terms. Those things began to exist later, because external-to-the-game descriptions begged inclusion; thus, mechanics were drafted so that those descriptions could meaningfully apply to the game. D&D has no mechanical meaning for "accountant," so there is nothing for a description of "accountant" to hang from, and thus there is no present-within-the-rules narrative description of what "an accountant" is or means. (I should say, nothing pre-5e; it's possible that 5e implements a very very loose hook-point for such a description through its Backgrounds.)

Another way to say this, in philosophical terms, is that for games, existence precedes essence, and existence emphatically is mechanics. Essence is narrative. Things do not exist within "The Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game," as an entity of rules prior to being played, unless they have some kind of representation within its mechanics. Things without mechanics do not exist prior to play; non-mechanical things totally can (and often do) exist once play begins, because the DM and/or group thinks they should, but prior to play, nothing exists "in The Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game" unless it has mechanical meaning. However, JUST having mechanical meaning is not enough for the vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of things: they must also have essence, narrative meaning, because a Roleplaying Game has a narrative as a necessary component (even if the "narrative" is just the Orc-and-Pie scenario!) But those narratives only become part of The Roleplaying Game because something within the game needs that description. It could be--and I'd say it often is!--that the mechanical implementation only exists because someone had a narrative they really wanted to tell, but the narrative only becomes part of The Game once it has a mechanical hook to hang from.

Before there are mechanics for "Bard," there is no Bard, even though people very much want to tell stories about minstrel heroes. The narrative about Bard only becomes part of the game once Bard is mechanically implemented; until then, it's just a fluffy bit externally applied to the game by the players, as an artefact of play.

I don't restate everything I've posted throughout a thread in every post of that thread. It would be a waste of space, confuse the point of individual posts, and likely mean nobody would take the time to read them.

Well, I did say previously that I missed most of the middle of the thread (in the very post you quoted, actually, though I said it to someone other than you). I apologize for missing your previous words--though I still feel that you did not really say much about mechanics being important, while saying a great deal about how narrative is extremely important.

Beyond that, though, I think you are either taking one thing as though it were really two different things, or treating another thing as though it were one when it really should be two. By which I mean: either I don't buy your distinction between "Narrative" and "Purpose," or I don't buy your characterization of "Mechanics." Purpose, as I see it, is a proper subset of Narrative: part of the "story told" by a particular class. If, however, you're going to fork "Purpose" into its own category, even though I would call it "purpose within the narrative," then I think you need to explain why you aren't (or at least do not seem to be) also forking "purpose within the mechanics," aka Role, into its own category.

Of course, the more natural way to view this (IMO) is to say that every class has a Narrative, and that a Narrative should include a teleology (Purpose), and furthermore that every class should have Mechanics, and those Mechanics should include a teleology as well (Role). Just as Purpose may serve multiple masters, e.g. the Ranger-as-hunter vs. Ranger-as-scout, Role may also serve multiple masters, e.g. the Paladin-as-healer vs. the Paladin-as-smiter.

All classes have combat ability in 5th edition. A player can choose not to use it but it's there. All 5th classes have combat, exploration, and interaction features.

Except the Fighter, or more specifically the Champion. The baseline Fighter class gives no features that exist in the exploration or interaction pillars. (It may give skills for those pillars--or may not, depending on player choice--but skills are not features.) The Champion furthermore gets no interaction features, and at least IMO only barely qualifies as getting exploration features (it can jump Str mod feet further than most people! Oooh aaah, so featurey!) The Battlemaster, honestly, isn't much better; Know Your Enemy is all about combat statistics (stats, AC, HP, level), so it has Artisan's Tools and...even that isn't purely non-combat (e.g. Leatherworker's Tools wouldn't do much good other than (a) earning money to live, which isn't any of the pillars, or (b) making armor, which is mostly combat-facing). And then the EK's default spell list limits make it mostly focused toward protecting or blasting.

Mearls really wasn't kidding when he said "if the Fighter is 100% combat, then the Rogue might be..." etc. (possible paraphrase there).

 

[Minigiant]

An artificer can swing a weapon he enchanted, he can use a scroll to cast a spell not on his list, or he can infuse a temp item for him or his allies to use. All of which can kill the orc.

The swing of a enchanted weapon by himself or another could work. An uncommon weapon at level 1, rare at 5, very rare at 9-11, legendary at 16-19. It could work but would be limiting for damage.

The scroll one I can't see without being underpowered or overpowered if not done just right. It would have to be a level under what a full caster can do and have a harsh limitation. If a level 5 artificer can mix up a 3rd level fireball anytime they want without it being on the prepared list, most DMs with straight but ban it for being Batman.

Except the Fighter, or more specifically the Champion. The baseline Fighter class gives no features that exist in the exploration or interaction pillars. (It may give skills for those pillars--or may not, depending on player choice--but skills are not features.) The Champion furthermore gets no interaction features, and at least IMO only barely qualifies as getting exploration features (it can jump Str mod feet further than most people! Oooh aaah, so featurey!) The Battlemaster, honestly, isn't much better; Know Your Enemy is all about combat statistics (stats, AC, HP, level), so it has Artisan's Tools and...even that isn't purely non-combat (e.g. Leatherworker's Tools wouldn't do much good other than (a) earning money to live, which isn't any of the pillars, or (b) making armor, which is mostly combat-facing). And then the EK's default spell list limits make it mostly focused toward protecting or blasting.

Mearls really wasn't kidding when he said "if the Fighter is 100% combat, then the Rogue might be..." etc. (possible paraphrase there).

The Champion Fighter has Remarkable Athlete for exploration.
The EK has straight up magic.
And the Battlemaster has Student of War and Know Your Enemy which can be used many ways.

And the fighter has 2 more ability increase than other classes which can be used for +2 Intelligence/Charisma/Wisdom or Exploration or Interaction feats. It's not even a tax.

No class lacks interaction or exploration class features. But a player can opt out of it for some.

 

[Fralex]

Re: the whole "A class is more than the sum of its mechanics" thing:

Every class has unique mechanics and a unique narrative. Both of them strengthen each other.
You need to be able to feel how a class's mechanics are tied to its narrative for it to be successful.
Both are factors in whether something should be its own class or a subclass of a pre-existing class. But there is a third factor: Breadth, or potential for specialization.

For example, the druid and cleric have several similarities one could point out as an argument for making druid a cleric subclass. They have the same spellcasting mechanic, and both have a powerful class feature that can be used a small number of times between rests. Both have a spiritual flavor to their magic. You could simply make Wild Shape a Channel Divinity feature and make "Druid Domain" spells be a small selection of all the most iconic spells druids have. Use the domain's narrative to add in the druid's flavor. That would definitely result in something which could be described as "the druid option." But few would be happy with it.

The reason, of course, is that demoting the druid class to a small part of another class stifles all the potential it has for interesting variations. The narrative of a druid calls forth many interpretations, and the existing mechanics aren't expansive enough to support them all. You could really only be one kind of druid, even if in your head you have a very specific idea that differs from someone else's idea. And that's no fun!

So, a druid is not just a kind of cleric because it has similar mechanics and narrative, but both are still distinct enough that they invite many varying interpretations of the core mechanics and narrative.

It is for the same reason I feel the artificer should be made into its own class. Yes, mechanically it has enough in common with many other spellcasters to have the unique parts be covered by a subclass. And in terms of narrative, well, it could be thought of as a kind of wizardry. But the core concept of "guy who builds magical things and relies on them for power" invites many more narrative ideas than can be covered in the space of a subclass's supportive mechanics, and that combined with the uniqueness of the narrative and mechanics causes it to cross the threshold into "full class" territory.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The Champion Fighter has Remarkable Athlete for exploration.
The EK has straight up magic.
And the Battlemaster has Student of War and Know Your Enemy which can be used many ways.

...so...I covered all of this. Remarkable Athlete does nothing except giving you extra jump distance, or +2 to stuff you aren't proficient in (for most of the game). It's a feature, certainly, but the amount of benefit it gives to exploration is terribly scanty. The EK gets magic, sure, and the cantrips can be great for pretty much any pillar--but the higher-level magic, AFAICT, has to come from the combat-related schools (Evocation and Abjuration, IIRC?) The cantrips are really the heavy lifters there. And, as stated, Know Your Enemy only applies to combat. It has literally zero use for anything not related to combat: you cannot learn anything about the target except its physical stats, HP, AC, general level, and Fighter level--and even then you have to pick just two, AND you only learn how it compares to you (higher/same/lower). It's NOT an interaction feature, nor is it an exploration feature. It's a combat feature, because it gives you information exclusively about combat and nothing else.

So, in summary: Champions can jump 1-5 feet further and get a +1 to +3 bonus on certain stuff they aren't proficient in, some of which is exploration. The absolute barest minimum you could possibly have and still call it an "exploration feature."
EKs get cantrips. They're good. 'Nuff said. Most of their magic won't be that useful outside of combat, but enough will.
Battlemasters get proficiency in one set of artisan's tools, which may be useful outside of combat. Or may not! It may not ever have any use at all, in fact--a lot of the options are pure fluff, like painter's supplies or brewer's supplies. Know Your Enemy doesn't do a single thing about non-combat stuff--you will never learn anything about a person's psyche, motives, etc. Unless you're house-ruling, of course, in which case the entire subject is moot anyway.

And if that is the standard we're setting for "having features," then simply having weapon proficiencies and the ability to make attacks should be plenty sufficient. Hell--a weapon proficiency is equivalent to artisan tool proficiency AND more broadly useful (since a weapon works in all combats ever, more or less, while artisan's tools are only useful in a narrow selection of exploration or interaction situations), and furthermore, it'll give a bigger bonus than Remarkable Athlete (twice as big, to be specific).

And the fighter has 2 more ability increase than other classes which can be used for +2 Intelligence/Charisma/Wisdom or Exploration or Interaction feats. It's not even a tax.

No class lacks interaction or exploration class features. But a player can opt out of it for some.

Feats are not a core feature of the game, for one. For two, I'm never, ever going to accept "You can boost your Int/Cha/Wis!" as an "Exploration or Interaction" feature--particularly if I'm not going to accept class skills as "features." Yes, Fighters get 4 extra stat points to play around with--eventually. For the majority of the game, though, they're only 2 points ahead (starting at level 6; next 'extra' one is at level 14). And if I consider Remarkable Athlete a pittance, an extra +1 to your Int/Cha/Wis mod is even less. It's not an "exploration" or "interaction" *feature.* It's a stat boost. The stat boost may be workable to your favor in such situations, but that's not what it's "for." They're for boosting your stats. I wouldn't consider adding to your Str/Con/Dex to be a "combat" feature either. Now, something that lets you add your modifiers *to a combat action*? That's a combat feature. "Half your proficiency, round up" to stuff you're *not* proficient at? Barely a drop in the bucket. It's something, I cannot deny that, but (as stated above) if that's the bar we have to meet, the bar is very, very, VERY low indeed.

 

[pemerton]

Here's the question?

How does it kill orcs? What class feature does the class use to kill orcs?

How does an artificer kill orcs?

how does a level 6 artificer kill an orc?
Cast fireball?
Make a wand of fireball?
Attack twice with a +1 sword via Extra Attack?
Attack once with a +1 sword and 3d6 Sneak Attack?

When it comes to orc-killing, I would expect an artificer to be closer to the cleric than the fighter end of the spectrum (ie not a maximum-potency orc killer).

And I think the answer would be buffs (eg anointing a blade with essence of orc-killing) or items (wands of fireball, alchemical fire etc). The tricky thing, it seems to me, is (i) balancing buff and items for allies with self-buffing and using one's own items, and (ii) to the extent that buffs and items for allies are involved, making sure the action economy aspects of that work.

How does a warlord kill orcs?

In 4e, two ways: weapon attacks, and giving allies attacks as free actions. In 5e, weapon attacks is fairly straightforward, but the warlord looks like s/he should't get more than one extra attack.

The tricky thing is the free action attacks. I'm not sure these work as part of 5e in quite the same way as they do in 4e.

 

[Minigiant]

...so...I covered all of this. Remarkable Athlete does nothing except giving you extra jump distance, or +2 to stuff you aren't proficient in (for most of the game). It's a feature, certainly, but the amount of benefit it gives to exploration is terribly scanty. The EK gets magic, sure, and the cantrips can be great for pretty much any pillar--but the higher-level magic, AFAICT, has to come from the combat-related schools (Evocation and Abjuration, IIRC?) The cantrips are really the heavy lifters there. And, as stated, Know Your Enemy only applies to combat. It has literally zero use for anything not related to combat: you cannot learn anything about the target except its physical stats, HP, AC, general level, and Fighter level--and even then you have to pick just two, AND you only learn how it compares to you (higher/same/lower). It's NOT an interaction feature, nor is it an exploration feature. It's a combat feature, because it gives you information exclusively about combat and nothing else.

So, in summary: Champions can jump 1-5 feet further and get a +1 to +3 bonus on certain stuff they aren't proficient in, some of which is exploration. The absolute barest minimum you could possibly have and still call it an "exploration feature."
EKs get cantrips. They're good. 'Nuff said. Most of their magic won't be that useful outside of combat, but enough will.
Battlemasters get proficiency in one set of artisan's tools, which may be useful outside of combat. Or may not! It may not ever have any use at all, in fact--a lot of the options are pure fluff, like painter's supplies or brewer's supplies. Know Your Enemy doesn't do a single thing about non-combat stuff--you will never learn anything about a person's psyche, motives, etc. Unless you're house-ruling, of course, in which case the entire subject is moot anyway.

And if that is the standard we're setting for "having features," then simply having weapon proficiencies and the ability to make attacks should be plenty sufficient. Hell--a weapon proficiency is equivalent to artisan tool proficiency AND more broadly useful (since a weapon works in all combats ever, more or less, while artisan's tools are only useful in a narrow selection of exploration or interaction situations), and furthermore, it'll give a bigger bonus than Remarkable Athlete (twice as big, to be specific).



Feats are not a core feature of the game, for one. For two, I'm never, ever going to accept "You can boost your Int/Cha/Wis!" as an "Exploration or Interaction" feature--particularly if I'm not going to accept class skills as "features." Yes, Fighters get 4 extra stat points to play around with--eventually. For the majority of the game, though, they're only 2 points ahead (starting at level 6; next 'extra' one is at level 14). And if I consider Remarkable Athlete a pittance, an extra +1 to your Int/Cha/Wis mod is even less. It's not an "exploration" or "interaction" *feature.* It's a stat boost. The stat boost may be workable to your favor in such situations, but that's not what it's "for." They're for boosting your stats. I wouldn't consider adding to your Str/Con/Dex to be a "combat" feature either. Now, something that lets you add your modifiers *to a combat action*? That's a combat feature. "Half your proficiency, round up" to stuff you're *not* proficient at? Barely a drop in the bucket. It's something, I cannot deny that, but (as stated above) if that's the bar we have to meet, the bar is very, very, VERY low indeed.

Well it's something. You can size up everyone you want to challenge to arm wrestling, darts, archery, and drinking contests.

Something old fighters didn't have. Exploration and Interaction features for the class is weak. But it's something.

The thing is the "default assumption" in D&D is 70-80% combat, 20-30% of exploration and interaction. Sure a group can make a 50% interaction A Song of Ice and Fire or Dresden game but that's not the base idea of the game.

If Joe asks to play in his D&D game, you'd assume a lot of combat but you'd also there would enough interaction and Exploration to not ignore those skills and to be mindful on how to use class features. You can't have all combat classes or no combat classes in the "default".

 

[I'm A Banana]

From my perspective, the vast majority of the differences between 5e Wizards and Sorcerers come down to paint as well.

Wanderer (Outlander feature) does many of the same things, such as avoiding getting lost and finding food.

I think this is part of the argument that I haven't really appreciated before - a significant number of people clamoring for the artificer to be its own class based on proficiencies might not really understand how some of 5e's "could be a subclass" classes achieve that escape velocity for themselves.

Like a lot of 5e, this kind of knowledge is resistant to "just reading the books" to discover. In play, a sorcerer and a wizard in 5e are VERY distinct, even if on paper you wouldn't really know it. Same with a fighter and a paladin, or a warlock and a sorcerer or a ranger and a rogue. Natural Explorer is far beyond what an Outlander can do ("Hi, I have expertise in 80% of my skills."). These aren't niche-protection mechanics, but they are absolutely niche-enhancement mechanics.

So if you don't see a lot of difference between these classes already, you're not going to see the threshold that an artificer or a psion or a warlord needs to meet as being all that high. That would make sense in a context where the class differences weren't really all that significant to begin with. And of course there I would look like I'm demanding more of an artificer or a psion or a warlord than I would of other classes.

But I think the mistake there is in assumption that these classes aren't distinct in their mechanics - that anything wizards can do sorcerers can do and vice-versa. That simply does not match my experience with this game even a little bit. It is a claim I see little evidence for, and a wealth of counter-evidence against.

So the first thing I might have to do is a little more of a deep dive into the 5e class distinctions, to find out if I'm full of crap, or not.

 

[El Mahdi]

Well, I took "Classes are far more than just a collection of mechanics" to mean that mechanics were only the smallest (or at least only one small) contribution

You were incorrect.

I suppose that was more than the strictest reading of your words would allow.

It was.

Still, there's definitely an implication that the other parts are of primary importance: "Functionally, another class may be able to fill the mechanical role that a Ranger does, but Narratively, for many, they never will." (Emphasis in original) Strong implication that the narrative element is the primary concern. Not an explicit statement, to be sure, but I don't think my reading was unwarranted either.

No, there is no implication. I explicitly state that it's of primary importance to many, not everyone, nor did I state if it was of primary importance to me. Check that: Actually what I said there is that narrative importance is just as important as mechanics. That without the mechanics, a class doesn't do what they want, and without the narrative distinction they're looking for, it won't do what they want. Your reading was unwarranted. It only says what you interpreted it to say, if that's what one expected it to say. It's rarely a good idea to try and determine intent and implication from postings in a medium devoid of face to face interaction. In other words, a medium lacking in vocal tone, facial expressions and other body language. It's an attempt at mind-reading, and a lose-lose endeavor.

I'd suggest sticking to the strict reading.

...though I am not exactly enthused with your unnecessary italics-and-bolding.

With all due respect, I think I'll be the arbiter of what is necessary or not in my posts. If my use of italics and bolding bothered you, that was wholly your choice of interpretation. There was no such intention in my choice of language or accents.

If it bothers you that much, perhaps you shouldn't read my posts.

Why would anyone write narrative descriptions of things that have zero existence within the mechanics of the game?

I didn't say they did; but since you bring it up, I will now say that they do. Cultural aspects of races, histories, and purely role-playing prompts without mechanical support or enforcement are all common in RPG's, and certainly in D&D.

However, I do believe the best is achieved when mechanics support narrative, and narrative expands mechanics beyond mere function.

Can a game be done purely with mechanics? Of course. Can a game be done purely with narrative? Yes, and it's been done.

However, I would think most RPG fans would agree that RPG's are best when both narrative and mechanics support and inform each other. A synergy occurs that's greater than the parts.

Designers approach game design from multiple different points of view. Sometimes, they devise a mechanic to explain or enable a function. Sometimes they devise a narrative to describe mechanics. Sometimes they devise mechanics to inform a narrative.

Neither are necessarily always a starting point, or always the end point.

Like with your example of the Bard, the Bard most certainly did exist before the mechanics. The Bard first existed as a concept; both historical and fictional. Then someone decided to express it mechanically for inclusion in a game. As a game construct, it's grown beyond it's historical and fictional origins. Designers have added mechanical functionality that is wholly original to RPG's. Designers have also created narratives to inform and expand those unique mechanics.

It's the chicken and egg question, where the answer is Yes to both.

 

[Mephista]

I think this is part of the argument that I haven't really appreciated before - a significant number of people clamoring for the artificer to be its own class based on proficiencies might not really understand how some of 5e's "could be a subclass" classes achieve that escape velocity for themselves.

Personally, I thought it was "could be a group of subclasses" because 1) I'm used to thinking of starting the game at level 3, standard for me. 2) The main ability when people talk about artificer, the whole "I'm flexible with spells" thing is pretty much the whole point of a wizard over anyone else.

When you start looking at people who are saying that they want artificer to be defined by being flexible with magic through items... its pretty easy to compare the two. From a design standpoint, they DO share a lot in common.

In play, a sorcerer and a wizard in 5e are VERY distinct, even if on paper you wouldn't really know it. Same with a fighter and a paladin, or a warlock and a sorcerer or a ranger and a rogue. Natural Explorer is far beyond what an Outlander can do ("Hi, I have expertise in 80% of my skills."). These aren't niche-protection mechanics, but they are absolutely niche-enhancement mechanics.

To be fair, a lot of the sorcerer shares a list with the wizard. This is a direct result of people complaining that the sorcerer wasn't enough like its alternative-wizard manifestation in 3e. So, sorcerer as a whole was made more like the evoker wizard.

This narrow definition works for the dragon sorcerer, but if we're to look at Favored Soul and possibly Psion and Shaman as subclasses, its clear that the Sorcerer needs to spread out more in terms of the spell list. Favored Souls need more cleric spells and the Shaman.... actually, no idea what they'd need other than more spirits/summons than we do have.

If we consider the dragon sorcerer the only viable sorcerer (ignoring wild magic, which many do), then yes, it could have just been a wizard subclass. We need tweaking and more spells for the various subclasses for the Sorcerer to really stand apart.

I personally consider the Sorcerer to have more in common with the Psion than its namesake of previous editions. Its effectively taken the Psion mechanics (power points by another name) and narrative (magic through internal power source). The only thing missing are crystals (a new focus and some magic items), some appropriate spells, and an INT casting stat, easily reassigned through an Origin trait.


I really think that the plans were to present a sorcerer that looked like the wizard with the core book for those that wanted a "wizard like sorcerer," and then expand after. Could be wrong, but that's my impression. Personally, I wish they'd done the Favored Soul as part of the core book Sorcerer. It would have given us a lot better look at her and what spells to put in her list.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The swing of a enchanted weapon by himself or another could work. An uncommon weapon at level 1, rare at 5, very rare at 9-11, legendary at 16-19. It could work but would be limiting for damage.

Best way would be to have an Artificer cantrip similar to Shillelagh that works off Intelligence. Giving them a weapon works out to the party being better off with the artificer handing the bonus they got from their class feature to another character that can fight better.