Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6606663" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>What's being misunderstood here is that nobody's saying the artificer doesn't <em>deserve a class inherently</em>, just that if all an artificer class offers is "I'm a wizard with different proficiencies and spell lists", that <em>that expression of what an artificer is does not deserve a class</em>. An artificer that is "I am a unique mechanical system" might deserve it. The issue is not with some grudge against the very concept of an artificer class, but with the fact that there hasn't been a lot of people actually offering ways beyond proficiencies and spell lists to make it distinct.</p><p></p><p>Minigiant's had some ideas. Staffan seems to be engaging thoughtfully. I haven't seen much more than that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, it's just that this would be something new given to artificers, that they didn't have in 3e or 4e, and it would have to pass a much higher threshold for time and effort spent on the design to be worthwhile. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If being able to cast every noncombat spell in the game (at some inflated cost) is required for a truly representative version of the artificer to you, I'm afraid that you will likely never again see such a representation. That certainly wasn't an essential part of the artificer that I played. I also think such an ability is far too powerful (it certainly beats out <em>Action Surge</em>, <em>Sneak Attack</em>, <em>Wild Shape</em>, and other class-defining features!).</p><p></p><p>That said, if you are willing to have an artificer with an expanded spell list complete with ritual casting - that would seem to do a similar job of being a noncombat MacGyver.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So their spells known work like a cleric. That could replace a spellbook. Unfortunately, as you note, it limits the versatility of the artificer. If one of the critical elements of an artificer is that MacGyver tendency, and "I can use every noncombat spell in the game" is too powerful, why not split the difference and give them an expanded spell list that they can learn some subset of and give them Ritual Caster so they can MacGyver with it on the fly? </p><p></p><p>"I have a tiny focused spell list and also with my class feature I can basically use every noncombat spell in the game" is a very swingy character. It is a cleric on steroids. "I have a robust spell list and also with my class feature I can use some noncombat spells on the fly" is much more viable in many more adventuring situations.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6606663, member: 2067"] What's being misunderstood here is that nobody's saying the artificer doesn't [I]deserve a class inherently[/I], just that if all an artificer class offers is "I'm a wizard with different proficiencies and spell lists", that [I]that expression of what an artificer is does not deserve a class[/I]. An artificer that is "I am a unique mechanical system" might deserve it. The issue is not with some grudge against the very concept of an artificer class, but with the fact that there hasn't been a lot of people actually offering ways beyond proficiencies and spell lists to make it distinct. Minigiant's had some ideas. Staffan seems to be engaging thoughtfully. I haven't seen much more than that. Sure, it's just that this would be something new given to artificers, that they didn't have in 3e or 4e, and it would have to pass a much higher threshold for time and effort spent on the design to be worthwhile. If being able to cast every noncombat spell in the game (at some inflated cost) is required for a truly representative version of the artificer to you, I'm afraid that you will likely never again see such a representation. That certainly wasn't an essential part of the artificer that I played. I also think such an ability is far too powerful (it certainly beats out [I]Action Surge[/I], [I]Sneak Attack[/I], [I]Wild Shape[/I], and other class-defining features!). That said, if you are willing to have an artificer with an expanded spell list complete with ritual casting - that would seem to do a similar job of being a noncombat MacGyver. So their spells known work like a cleric. That could replace a spellbook. Unfortunately, as you note, it limits the versatility of the artificer. If one of the critical elements of an artificer is that MacGyver tendency, and "I can use every noncombat spell in the game" is too powerful, why not split the difference and give them an expanded spell list that they can learn some subset of and give them Ritual Caster so they can MacGyver with it on the fly? "I have a tiny focused spell list and also with my class feature I can basically use every noncombat spell in the game" is a very swingy character. It is a cleric on steroids. "I have a robust spell list and also with my class feature I can use some noncombat spells on the fly" is much more viable in many more adventuring situations. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?
Top