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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6621721" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I really don't think you've established that they would be as different as you're saying they would be. And I'm pretty dang sure that the difference would be of degree, and not kind. That's why I mentioned them; they *do not* seem like they would be "very different from what we have now."But that's sort of my point: what we make a "key mechanic" or just a "subclass differentiator" is an incredibly arbitrary, elastic thing. The Battlemaster's Maneuvers are a unique mechanic shared by no other class (except the "officially unofficial" spell-less Ranger)--yet those maneuvers are acceptable as a subclass. Meanwhile, the difference between the (Devotion) Paladin and the Cleric is comparatively quite thin; Divine Smite is basically a merger/slight upgrade of the (multiple-domain) Divine Strike and the War Cleric's War Priest with a different resource pool (your spells, rather than X times per day); Guided Strike is a per-attack alternative to Bless Weapon; etc. The vast majority of what makes Paladins unique IS Divine Strike and the Paladin spell list, but both of those COULD easily have been meshed into a domain with little change--if any, seeing as how most Paladin abilities are very similar to Cleric ones.In that sense, how is the Paladin NOT primarily differentiated by spells, default proficiencies (martial weapons and heavy armor), and tweaked (but not by much) abilities?As a note, I'd like to add that I have always found the 5e Paladin far too Cleric-like for my taste; I adored the 4e Paladin, and was very sad to see it become so...well, in my opinion, watered-down and Cleric-ized.As for the rest...I'm not a designer. I don't have the time or inclination to actually try to come up with a core mechanic. But I'm pretty damn sure the WotC people have both. And that's my point. I *don't* have to come up with a special fancy core mechanic for the Artificer; I just have to say that I'm pretty sure there COULD be one, if WotC puts their heads together on it, and that there should be further differentiation via "spell" list (or "maneuver" list, "schematic" list, or whatever it is Artificers get) and other things.Or, to put this another way: What if the Artificer class *already* existed separately? Would you argue for its demotion to a Wizard subclass?And finally--by your own admission, the Wizard is more or less the only class that would reasonably fit with an Artificer subclass. Thus, all one really would have to do is show that it wouldn't fit there, either, and the point is made, unless I have misunderstood what you meant by "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 [class]." And I definitely feel like MoonSong has got a good argument for it not being sufficient: Wizard subclasses can be powerful, but they are very subtle benefits that almost entirely lie atop "I cast spells." Other classes--even other casting classes--get substantially more differentiation between their subclasses, and I agree that I don't think a Wizard subclass is meaty enough to actually contain enough of a difference to make a "School of Artifice" actually feel different from Wizards generally.Perhaps another way of putting it: Right now, you look at the Artificer concept and say, "I don't see enough here to justify stretching it into a full class." We, on the other hand, look at it and say, "I see far too much here to shoehorn it into a (tiny) subclass." You appear to be setting a floor for how much a class needs to be A Distinct Class, while we are feeling constrained by a perceived ceiling on what a subclass can do--two different angles to approach the problem.You won't be satisfied unless, and until, someone bravely puts forward a mechanic that meets your (naturally) subjective perception of what a "distinct core mechanic" would look like. We won't be satisfied unless you (or, I suppose, someone who agrees with you) can demonstrate that the thin subclasses of the Wizard (thin in differentiation, not power--for some, anyway! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue    :P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />) can hold onto enough of "The Artificer." Since neither side has obliged yet, and I have no intention of doing so, we remain at an impasse.</blockquote>

Verification