NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6608233" data-attributes="member: 2067">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.</blockquote>

Verification