Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6464716" data-attributes="member: 2067">Of course, that's not factually true. The subclass I had, for instance, has a few extra proficiencies (not unlike certain bard or cleric subclasses) and a way that they might use some spell slots (not unlike the way channel divinity allows for new uses of a class feature). None of that rips out anything or re-writes anything. Like any subclass, it sits on top of the wizard.Now, if you DID have to re-write the class, that would be a good case for it to be its own class! But that is demonstrably not what a subclass requires. It is a non-issue. See war clerics and valor bards, for instance. Proficiencies in skills and weapons and armor are comfortably subclass-level material. This is not a "huge exception," it is part of what subclasses do. Proficiencies are largely cosmetic.This doesn't actually require any mechanics to do. As a 1st-level wizard, you prepare oils and potions and scrolls and wands instead of spell slots. Mechanically, it looks the same: choose some recipes you know and whip up some temporary items that you then use in the "casting." There is no functional difference between "I prepare mage armor so that I can cast it later" and "I whip up an oil of mage armor so that I can apply it to my friend's clothes later!"You could invent new mechanics for that, and then, depending on the size of that mechanic, they might warrant a new class. But you could also grab something like my infusion idea which isn't a major overhaul or power-up, just another option for "casting." For all people's insisting that artificers must be a class, I haven't seen anyone propose a viable new central mechanic for that class. The closest we've come is Remathilis's idea of using the DMG as a list of artificer abilities, which...I'm not a big fan of. I think this point bears repeating, because it sounds like it's not exactly going through. Convincing me that the artificer should be its own class isn't hard. It just requires a viable mechanical hook. Proficiencies, skills, and other cosmetic changes are not enough to warrant a whole new class -- give me something bigger. 3e and 4e don't have much of a mechanical hook, but that didn't stop the sorcerer, either. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It doesn't need to stop Artie!  Nah, the subclass vision means that they were never actually using any different mechanics from the wizard in the first place. There is no mechanical difference between "I cast magic missile!" and "I infuse my spell slots into my Universal Wand to shoot forth a magic missile!" For any spell a wizard would cast, you can imagine an artificer making and using an item and producing the spell with the same exact mechanical system.If there IS a mechanical difference, no one has been telling me what it should be or needs to be. Thematics are important to me, too, so you'll get no disagreement from me there. Artifice isn't something that folks on Eberron learn from aliens or gods or are born being able to do. It is something they study and educate themselves to do -- just like a wizard. That is not enough to warrant its own class, I believe. That is enough to warrant a subclass with medium armor, simple weapon, and thieves' tools proficiency, and a bonus skill or two.</blockquote>

Verification