Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6622427" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Again: you keep stating that they are distinct experiences, without actually demonstrating that they are. And my point wasn't that the implementation is not different now, but that the implementations are MORE than sufficiently similar that you could get nearly identcial or even identical implementation, of the thing you consider the key difference, if the (Devotion) Paladin HAD been a Cleric subclass.And none of that actually responds to the (IMO much more important) point that, if Smite is what meets your definition of a sufficiently-different mechanic, it's not a particularly high bar because that is quite literally a common Cleric mechanic (Divine Strike) beefed up with &quot;spend spell slots to add damage.&quot; If *that's* all we need to justify a new class, why couldn't the Artificer spend spell slots to do some *other* thing, which could be differentiated based on subclass? E.g. a &quot;Golemancer&quot; Artificer spends spell slots to heal and supercharge her golem; a &quot;Grenadier&quot; can spend slots to add special effects to grenades, not in a &quot;metamagic&quot; way but in a &quot;Auntie's Special Blend - hit creatures are knocked down&quot; kind of way. You could even (theoretically) have an Artificer who recaptures some of the 4e Artificer, an &quot;Alchemist&quot; or the like, who could spend spell slots on &quot;Infusions&quot; that give some healing ~or~ boost stats in some way (or, hell, use them *offensively* to debuff enemies). Heck, maybe not even have the Artificer be a &quot;spellcaster&quot; at all, and just go with &quot;Infusions&quot; that are magical in nature but NOT spells, and you avoid this whole ridiculous &quot;It's just a Wizard with a new name and fluff&quot; rigmarole. Well, pardon me if I see those as being an incredible splitting of hairs, particularly when one could easily rephrase your whole paragraph to describe the difference between devotion to pure academic study, and practical-mechanical solutions. That is, &quot;magic-physics&quot; vs. &quot;magic-engineering.&quot; (I'm also not entirely sold on the difference between &quot;narrative emphasis on gods&quot; and &quot;narrative emphasis on oaths,&quot; when Clerics have LONG been able to have domains without worshiping any god at all.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6622427, member: 6790260"] Again: you keep [I]stating[/I] that they are distinct experiences, without actually [I]demonstrating[/I] that they are. And my point wasn't that the implementation is not different [I]now[/I], but that the implementations are MORE than sufficiently similar that you could get nearly identcial [I]or even identical[/I] implementation, of the thing you consider the key difference, if the (Devotion) Paladin HAD been a Cleric subclass. And none of that actually responds to the (IMO much more important) point that, if Smite is what meets your definition of a sufficiently-different mechanic, it's not a particularly high bar because that is quite literally a common Cleric mechanic (Divine Strike) beefed up with "spend spell slots to add damage." If *that's* all we need to justify a new class, why couldn't the Artificer spend spell slots to do some *other* thing, which could be differentiated based on subclass? E.g. a "Golemancer" Artificer spends spell slots to heal and supercharge her golem; a "Grenadier" can spend slots to add special effects to grenades, not in a "metamagic" way but in a "Auntie's Special Blend - hit creatures are knocked down" kind of way. You could even (theoretically) have an Artificer who recaptures some of the 4e Artificer, an "Alchemist" or the like, who could spend spell slots on "Infusions" that give some healing ~or~ boost stats in some way (or, hell, use them *offensively* to debuff enemies). Heck, maybe not even have the Artificer be a "spellcaster" at all, and just go with "Infusions" that are magical in nature but NOT spells, and you avoid this whole ridiculous "It's just a Wizard with a new name and fluff" rigmarole. Well, pardon me if I see those as being an incredible splitting of hairs, particularly when one could easily rephrase your whole paragraph to describe the difference between devotion to pure academic study, and practical-mechanical solutions. That is, "magic-physics" vs. "magic-engineering." (I'm also not entirely sold on the difference between "narrative emphasis on gods" and "narrative emphasis on oaths," when Clerics have LONG been able to have domains without worshiping any god at all.) [/QUOTE]

Verification