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: 6621463" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's still a spellbook. It's always been a spellbook. You could call it an equipment manual from Level 1 if you want. We don't need a full 20 level class to show us how to how to change words if we don't like the idea of calling it a spellbook for whatever reason. I'm not saying that artificers should have the same profs/skills/spells/etc. as a wizard? I AM saying that the narrative and mechanical trappings of an artificer are a closer match for wizard than they are for, say, bard or sorcerer or rogue or cleric and that this is part of what makes wizard the best parent for them if they are to be a subclass. All it would mean is that they have a class feature that gives them proficiency with Sleight of Hand (presuming you don't want to help this along with a Magewright background or somesuch). And if your artificer-wizard doesn't want to know religion, she doesn't take the Religion skill (leaving plenty of room for, say, the artificer-wizard who worships Onatar, for instance). And I disagree - if someone wants to have specific spells (like a domain), more HP (like anything that gives access to healing abilities), a casting mechanism that's only really different cosmetically (like wild magic vs. slot-based magic), and additional skills (like a rogue archetype), then they should be a subclass that gives them those things, and part of a broader class that gives them a solid core mechanic to hang all that off of.</blockquote>

Verification