Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7662504" data-attributes="member: 92511">Agreed.The thing here, [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], is...I'm reminded of that Star Trek quote, &quot;Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should.&quot;I suppose we have 3e to &quot;thank&quot; for showing that pretty much any/every concept any/everyone can some up with can be turned into/&quot;deserves&quot; a class, no matter how minor/meaningless the distinction. And, as we all know, that way lies bloated madness.CAN the artificer (or a &quot;Pet Class&quot;, as another discussion here is pursuing) be a stand alone class with various minor tweaks to flavor and ability making its own subclasses? Sure.Should it be? ...Looking at it through my understanding and interpretation of the [apparent] 5e design space, the answer there is &quot;No.&quot; You have the &quot;chassis&quot; of flavor and ability already in the Wizard [and I'll add that I am perfectly happy with seeing the artificer presented this way]. The artificer doesn't do anything that is foreign to/outside that &quot;class umbrella.&quot; Craft items, essentially. Learn and apply formulae (artificer's are not &quot;innate magic producers/creators&quot;, are they?) that produce reliable magic effects. That's the wizard shtick. A separate class all its own is...again, taken in/through the 5e design lens, is redundant and/or unnecessary. But, ya know, hey. We have 8 schools of wizardry. I'm sure if one put their mind to it, you could tweak 4 or 5 types of [still wizard subclass] artificers, if that's what you like/want in your game. But the game really only needs to give us the one &quot;typical/archetypal Eberron artificer.&quot; Individual tables can play with/make up the rest as suits tastes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7662504, member: 92511"] Agreed. The thing here, [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION], is...I'm reminded of that Star Trek quote, "Just because we [I]can [/I]do a thing doesn't mean we [I]should[/I]." I suppose we have 3e to "thank" for showing that pretty much any/every concept any/everyone can some up with can be turned into/"deserves" a class, no matter how minor/meaningless the distinction. And, as we all know, that way lies bloated madness. CAN the artificer (or a "Pet Class", as another discussion here is pursuing) be a stand alone class with various minor tweaks to flavor and ability making its own subclasses? Sure. Should it be? ...Looking at it through my understanding and interpretation of the [apparent] 5e design space, the answer there is "No." You have the "chassis" of flavor and ability already in the Wizard [and I'll add that I am perfectly happy with seeing the artificer presented this way]. The artificer doesn't do anything that is foreign to/outside that "class umbrella." Craft items, essentially. Learn and apply formulae (artificer's are not "innate magic producers/creators", are they?) that produce reliable magic effects. That's the wizard shtick. A separate class all its own is...again, taken in/through the 5e design lens, is redundant and/or unnecessary. But, ya know, hey. We have 8 schools of wizardry. I'm sure if one put their mind to it, you could tweak 4 or 5 types of [still wizard subclass] artificers, if that's what you like/want in your game. But the game really only needs to give us the one "typical/archetypal Eberron artificer." Individual tables can play with/make up the rest as suits tastes. [/QUOTE]

Verification