Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 6624813" data-attributes="member: 7635">You could probably say that about a bunch of different classes (hell, I recall during the playtest the sheer number of &quot;barbarian/ranger/monk/bard/druid/paladin/sorcerer/warlock should be a subclass&quot; threads.) 5e is the compromise edition; one of its strengths has been that its classes can certainly be played like their predecessors. The fighter, for example, can be played like an AD&amp;D fighter (pick a weapon and go), like a 3e/4e style fighter (tactical and complex), as a striker (damage baby) a defender, even a bit like a leader (as a poor-mans warlord). I have no problem converting a fighter from earlier editions and having him feel like he did before. I want the 5e artificer to do that too. I want him to be able to emulate the 3e style &quot;builder&quot; or the 4e style &quot;leader&quot; as well as some new ideas (alchemist? homoculus master?) It needs to evoke the feel of those kinds of artificer; buffer, healer, combatant. You know what doesn't emulate that feel? a wizard who makes potions. There is no artificer I've played, seen played, or such that felt like that. There is no way to &quot;convert&quot; any of said artificers to 5e and keep them feeling right. Imagine (for a moment) there was no monk class in 5e and someone said &quot;oh, you want to play your monk in 5e? Make him a battlmaster-fighter and at 4th level take Tavern Brawler&quot; I'm sure you would agree that was a poor substitute for the real monk class. Through all these debates of &quot;unique mechanics&quot; and &quot;niche protection&quot; and &quot;refluffing&quot;, the one thing I keep falling back to is that; does it &quot;feel&quot; like the class of old even if the mechanics are different. The UA subclass did not. I'm sure any sublcass of wizard won't either without some HEAVY rejiggering of the wizard class. Therefore, I find the best solution to keeping the &quot;feel&quot; of said class is with a new class.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Remathilis, post: 6624813, member: 7635"] You could probably say that about a bunch of different classes (hell, I recall during the playtest the sheer number of "barbarian/ranger/monk/bard/druid/paladin/sorcerer/warlock should be a subclass" threads.) 5e is the compromise edition; one of its strengths has been that its classes can certainly be played like their predecessors. The fighter, for example, can be played like an AD&D fighter (pick a weapon and go), like a 3e/4e style fighter (tactical and complex), as a striker (damage baby) a defender, even a bit like a leader (as a poor-mans warlord). I have no problem converting a fighter from earlier editions and having him feel like he did before. I want the 5e artificer to do that too. I want him to be able to emulate the 3e style "builder" or the 4e style "leader" as well as some new ideas (alchemist? homoculus master?) It needs to evoke the feel of those kinds of artificer; buffer, healer, combatant. You know what doesn't emulate that feel? a wizard who makes potions. There is no artificer I've played, seen played, or such that felt like that. There is no way to "convert" any of said artificers to 5e and keep them feeling right. Imagine (for a moment) there was no monk class in 5e and someone said "oh, you want to play your monk in 5e? Make him a battlmaster-fighter and at 4th level take Tavern Brawler" I'm sure you would agree that was a poor substitute for the real monk class. Through all these debates of "unique mechanics" and "niche protection" and "refluffing", the one thing I keep falling back to is that; does it "feel" like the class of old even if the mechanics are different. The UA subclass did not. I'm sure any sublcass of wizard won't either without some HEAVY rejiggering of the wizard class. Therefore, I find the best solution to keeping the "feel" of said class is with a new class. [/QUOTE]

Verification