Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sla_dreamer" data-source="post: 6617863" data-attributes="member: 6795363">I think you have some valid points and the real crux is coming up with the new mechanic. Trying to justify a new class without a new mechanic seems meaningless. But can that really be done on a forum like this? Do you want people who think it should be its own class to submit new mechanical ideas? It just seems like you've made up you mind that it should just be a sub-class. The reasons that people give you that it should be a class you say are superficial (and I don't entirely disagree with you either. Proficiencies alone aren't enough to make a new class. I think it should be its own class but am at a loss at how to make that happen. I think that the fact that they have qualities of a wizard, a cleric, a bard, and a rogue makes it hard to assign them to a single class)What, in your mind, justifies the druid or the paladin as full classes?  Why couldn't they have just been sub-classes as well? What unique qualities do they bring? Why couldn't they just have been expansions of the cleric or fighter? And while I don't want to get off the subject of Artificers, with the requirements that you (seem to) want to see as a justification for an Artificer class I look at those 2 classes and wonder why they were made full classes and not just sub-classes, if the requirements for making a new class are as stringent as you are making it appear. (to a certain extent a bard could've been a sub-class as well)</blockquote>

Verification