Hussar
Legend
Sorry, but, what's the difference in play? What is the difference between a crafting wizard and an artificer. I always thought "crafting wizard" was what an artificer was.
What distinguishes an artificer from "crafting wizard"?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
Sorry, but, what's the difference in play? What is the difference between a crafting wizard and an artificer. I always thought "crafting wizard" was what an artificer was.
What distinguishes an artificer from "crafting wizard"?
I think the point KM and I have been saying is...
You can make anything into a class.
A artficer
A psion
A warlord
A shapeshifter
An assassin
A thief
A shaman
A cobbler
A blacksmith
A hacker
The key is the class has to have a primary mechanical operation must be unique and altered proficiencies and minor magic isn't enough.
You can make anything into a class.
A artficer
A psion
A warlord
A shapeshifter
An assassin
A thief
A shaman
A cobbler
A blacksmith
A hacker
The key is the class has to have a primary mechanical operation must be unique and altered proficiencies and minor magic isn't enough.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Honestly, IMO the fact that in D&D 5e there is practically no concept of players crafting magic items should be enough to distinguish them from everybody.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
(Based on 3.5, haven't 4e artificers as PCs) Wizards are all pewpew, more so in 5e. A wizard is always fighting with spells and doing flashy stuff with their spells. Artificers don't, it's rare for an artificer to use an infusion in combat, and they are practically only buffs. Yes artificers can be noisy and flashy too when they use wands and scrolls, but those wands and scrolls can be given to anybody in the party and they get to be flashy too, in fact an enemy can down an artificer and use that wand to be flashy against the party. And that's the key point, items, artificers make and use magic items and those can be used by the party too, and they can use wands in ways nobody else can. Without magic items, an artificer is too busy hitting stuff with hammers, and can risk it because they are at least somewhat sturdy and have good armor and shields, so they fear less being in melee (d6, it would be d8 in 5e). Oh yes, int is important for infusions -again a more off-combat ability-, but charisma is more important for use magic device, and UMD is all over the place in the artificer class features.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
The DMG has rules for crafting magic items. What else ya got?
Moonsong(KaiiLurker) said:
Moonsong(KaiiLurker) said:
This is another part that kind of steams my buns - people have an overly narrow definition of what CLASS X is that rules out way more than it should. I can play a Wizard tomorrow as a crafter in medium armor with a hammer and a healthy HP pool and even Slieight of Hand and Thieves' Tools proficiency without even getting into multiclassing or feats. I can play this character as creating mechanical and magical stuff, not sitting in a dark room with esoteric formulas (because really when as a D&D night EVER been about doing that with ANY character). "Wizards are all pewpew" completely misses the exceptionally granular customization options already on offer in 5e. It imagines a stark divide where there are really layers of shading already in the system.
EzekielRaiden said:
Just because you can make a cleric in heavy armor that hits things hard doesn't mean you've replicated the experience of nova hits that paladins get with smite, and just because you can make a paladin who is heal-y and buff-y doesn't mean that you've replicated the experience of a cleric domain. These things shade into similar, but they are still distinct experiences (else why would anyone choose one or the other?).
And narratively, just because you worship a war-god doesn't mean you're replicating the oath-bound warrior aspect of a paladin, and just because you swear an oath of devotion doesn't mean you tap into the gods of life and protection like a cleric. This is actually part of why my dragonborn "knight" character is a cleric, not a paldin - the narrative emphasis on gods, rather than on oaths.
Last edited:
ThirdWizard
First Post
I disagree. It gives monetary values that often have no relation to the power of the item being crafted, gives no specifics on how to craft other than DM's discretion (maybe specific locations, or items, make it up!), and takes so long that it isn't worth the half a page they actually gave to it in the DMG (25 gp/day). There is no way you could have a dedicated magic item crafter in the game by those rules. Too many "Mother May I's," too much downtime requirement, and too little direction.
I mean, when you end up with a rule that it costs 100 gp and four days to create an item that sells for 50 gp in the PHB, something is waaay off. Want to make a spell scroll of stoneskin? 5000 gp and it will take 200 days, or 100 days if you have a partner working with you! Really? Really??
So, there is absolutely no way that the DMG enables magic item creation in any meaningful way.
If you wanted to have an actual artificer, you would need completely new rules for magic item crafting that actually worked, whether it is artificer-specific crafting rules or whether the system is overhauled completely.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
If you don't like the rules, that's fine, but they are there, and so it's not correct to say that there's no concept of this in 5e. Also, they do have prices that relate to item power levels, so I don't know what you're on about there. It's also entirely possible that this system works better than you posit for a lot of tables, but I'm not really trying to convince you it's fine. It doesn't work for you, clearly.
But we don't need a PC class to patch a magic item crafting system that doesn't work for you. We could just get a better magic item crafting system, and then folks who wanted that could use that (and folks who are fine with it as it is could use the existing system). It's a clumsy patch to try and rectify that situation via some optional class. It'd be like "here's this feat you can take to fix beastmaster rangers." Lets just get better beastmaster rangers (or whatever).
ThirdWizard
First Post
I'm going to need you to clarify here. We are talking about a class dedicated to crafting magic items as their major reason for existing in a system where scribing a scroll of stoneskin takes 200 days. And you're saying that's just fine?
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I'm saying that if the existing system takes to long, you should solve problem with a different system (one that takes less time), not a new class.
ThirdWizard
First Post
I think you're misunderstanding. I'm not trying to solve the system through the artificer class or subclass.
What I am saying is that you could not faithfully emulate the 3.5 Eberron Artificer in the current D&D 5e game as the rules stand right now without modifying the current crafting system as presented in the DMG.
By corollary, whether you implement the artificer as its own class or as a subclass, then the current magic item crafting rules in the DMG are insufficient to reproduce the feel of the 3.5 Eberron Artificer class. It has to be modified if the artificer class is to be faithfully rendered for 5e play in a way that is truly representative of how the class existed in 3.5.
By result, I'm saying that if the artificer can make magic items at a rate and converted equivalent cost in 5e, then this is a departure from 5e large enough for it to absolutely deserve its own class.
