D&D 5E (2024) So, what does the Artificer "replace"?

But of those builds, seven of them all take the exact same game actions as each other every turn. The two rogue builds do something different than the rest, but the same as each other. The two builds of the fighter subclass that specifically mimics 4e mechanics do have some actual variety in the game actions they take.

Number of builds doesn’t matter. What they can actually do matters, and 5e characters can mostly only do the same thing turn after turn.

Even then theres still 4.

The "boring" ones that use a variety of weapons and subclasses. Mostly non battlemaster fighters.

Rangers adding in magic and subclass

Rogue (2 variants)

Battlemaster fighter.

Youre not locked into one class. There's builds for 4 different weapons and you get bigger effects via subclasses.

4 is more than 1 and more ways to customize those 4. Vs 1 option with 1 variant.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Youre basically dismissing what's a big deal for people.

Espicially since you had around 30 years of fighters being good at archers going back to 1E.
As someone who came into the game in 3E, the idea of fighters being good at archers is against everything I have ever learnt and is not what a new player would assume, so frankly I consider it a big deal that people complained about it at the time.

Not like, due to them being bad archers, but because all of my experience of pre-D&D video games tells me no, you do not give the class that's the best at melee fighting, the knight, the warrior, you do not also give them the best at being the ranged combatant. This is just basic game balance. Nuts to 30 years of history, say hello to 'niche protection' so other classes can stand out more, not that 3.5e would have factored much there

If I made my own edition I'd absolutely cripple fighters in terms of ranged combat as well. They have all the melee specialties, they don't need the range ones as well. Other classes can have that.
 

Remove ads

Top