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

[EzekielRaiden]

They pretty much were. Defender roles had Marks from level 1 - effectively pseudo taunt powers. Strikers had damage boosting traits on single targets. Leaders had effects that boosted healing and/or buffs. Controllers were defined by battlefield control, AoEs, and debuffs. Each group had powers that tied into their role mechanics.

It's not a "taunt" at all, and is in fact logically and procedurally the exact inverse of a taunt. It forces the actual brain behind the monster--the GM--to make a choice. Taunts are mind control, forcing an opponent to attack one and only one target no matter what it might want to do. "Threat", likewise, is mind control: a creature must attack the target that has the most "threat" (or "enmity" or "hate" etc.) Mark mechanics can only work by requiring choices, forcing the monster to decide which thing is actually worth attacking. As said, it is in both logic and procedure the reverse of a taunt/threat.

And yes, you had one single mechanic that made sure you could do the basics of some role. You could then build in any direction you wanted after that--and it was quite possible to become pretty damn good at something else, Striker most specifically. If that is all it takes for roles to be "rigid", then why aren't Fighters and Paladins rigidly locked into being Strikers, given they get Extra Attack and either more uses of Extra Attack, or buffs that are functionally equivalent to doing additional attacks' worth of damage? That's just as hard-coded as the Sorcerer adding CHA to their magical attacks in 4e, and yet nobody screams from the rooftops that Fighters and Paladins have "rigid" roles of any kind.

You could adopt, and often did, secondary roles, but your main role was very much set in stone. Having an paladin in the party was no replacement for a full Leader. Paladins and Fighters were never NOT defenders. Rogues were always strikers. This was unavoidable.

"Never not X" is not the same as "You are only ever allowed to be X", which is what people have always meant.

And all you needed to be full Leader as a Paladin was taking the Hospitaler PP. That was kind of low-hanging fruit, so I'm not really sure why you used such an easily-disproved example. Would have been much harder to, say, become a Defender as a Wizard--but even that isn't totally beyond the pale.

In 5e, classes are defined more by their class fantasy / trope / story archetype than they are their tank/dps/support/CC mechanical role.

Your problem is using MMO roles, which don't actually map to the 4e roles all that well. Defenders aren't tanks--they mostly cannot taunt, since taunts are literal mind control, and they literally cannot be the only one getting attacked, as they will die very quickly if that happens and no Leader can save them from it.

The roles in 4e didn't come from MMOs, despite all the falsehoods said about them, even from folks who worked on 4e, like Mr. Mearls. They come--names and all, except Controller--from soccer. Even the very idea of having "zone" controllers vs "mark" controllers? Yeah, that comes from soccer. Those are two different styles of being a defense player in soccer: locking down one specific area and trying to aggressively prevent easy motion through that area, and locking down specific opponents whom you're actively hounding to prevent their ability to get the ball where they want it to be.

One part of why Controller struggled--in addition to some of the things Mr. Heinsoo revealed in an interview--is that it is the only role rooted solely in D&D itself, that couldn't build off the soccer analogy. IRL, there's no ability to rework the soccer field itself, physically accelerate your allies, nor rearrange or debilitate your opponents.

 

[Mephista]

Let me put it this way: All Clerics have the capability of casting cure wounds and healing word in 5e; it's simply a matter of whether they, y'know, actually elect to do so or not. Does that mean Clerics are "rigid[ly]" locked into being healers?

YES! That's their core mechanic. They get other heally powers on top of it. Even the laser clerics were healers!

Every Fighter has Extra Attack and gets up to 4 attacks/round eventually. Does that mean the Fighter is "rigid[ly]" locked into being a Striker, since that's pretty clearly a Striker-type feature?

5e doesn't have Striker roles. False equivalence.

Every 5e Fighter gets extra attack, and I absolutely, 100% expect every Fighter to use the Attack Action, their action surges, and Second Winds. They can go Sentinel and be tanky, or go heavy dps, or whatever.

But I find the idea that fighters won't use their core mechanics is silly.

Fighters had to start with Defender-focused features. Both as the class evolved, and as characters gained levels, they could easily branch out in new directions or supplement.

Even at level 30, you're expected to use your defender marks. You are always a defender.

That's literally the basis the entire 4e game is built upon. For everything else you get, you'll always be one

 

[EzekielRaiden]

5e doesn't have Striker roles. False equivalence.

Not at all a false equivalence. Extra Attack is, quite clearly, a damage feature. That's literally what it's for. It has no other use except to deal more damage.

Like you couldn't get a more direct equivalence across editions if you tried.

But I find the idea that fighters won't use their core mechanics is silly.

Silly, sure! But if it is silly to do in 5e and 5e isn't bad because of that, why is 4e different?

Even at level 30, you're expected to use your defender marks. You are always a defender.

You always have them. You are not defined by them. That's what "rigid role" has always meant, what people always use it to mean, and what made people mad.

That's literally the basis the entire 4e game is built upon. For everything else you get, you'll always be one

And that somehow is rigid, but a level 1 Cleric always having healing word isn't rigid. The logic is not present.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Of all the "Core Four" roles, and assuming a decent level of challenge, the Rogue is really the only class that the Artificer replaces based on that

According to the 2024 PHB, certain classes can "replace" others and still be a balanced party. The list they give is this:

Cleric: Replace with Bard or Druid
Fighter: Replace with Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger
Rogue: Replace with Bard or Ranger
Wizard: Replace with Bard, Sorcerer, or Warlock

These more or less make sense. Cleric, Bard and Druid are healers. Wizards, Bards, Sorcerers and Warlocks all are primary casters. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers get multiple attacks. Rogue, Bard and Ranger get Expertise.

So which group would you put the 2024 Artificer in?

They're clearly not Fighter replacements, lacking good weapons or multi-attack naturally. They don't feel like healers or casters either, seeing as they are only half-casters. I guess they are experts, but they're not really heavy skill use characters anymore and don't get expertise. And while subclasses can bend a class towards a given role (such as battle smith making the artificer closer to a Fighter replacment) it doesn't feel like any subclass bends the main class enough to be a viable replacement.

I guess I would say they're a Rogue replacement, but I'd like to hear other people's thoughts.

Of all the "Core Four" roles, and assuming a decent level of challenge, the Rogue is really the only class that the Artificer replaces based on that list. Their magic items give them versatility that the Rogue would use skills for, and they have reasonable consistent damage. Artificer spellcasting is closer to an Arcane Trickster Rogue than an actual full caster.

Looking at the other roles: Battle Smith or Armourer could replace Fighter, particularly if a Ranger also could, but so can Bladesingers, Land Druids and many Clerics.

You could try replacing a Cleric with Alchemist or Artillerist, but Hit Point restoration isn't the only Cleric role, and even the Alchemist does not get access to condition-removing spells like Restorations at the levels at which they are vital.

Likewise while the Artificer has access to lots of magical abilities if they are built that way, they do not have the high-end capabilities of a full caster like the Wizard: No Fireballs or Spirit Guardians at 5th level No Mass Suggestion, or Contingency at 11th level. Tier 3 and 4 Artificers can cast a lot of level 3 spells, but generally these will taper off in usefulness as levels increase other than just a source of damage or Hit Points.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Do people like the class?

Conceptually yes, but the actual implementations less so.
The newest iteration has the same issues as the previous, with some improvements and some degradation.
It can be mechanically effective, but I think to match some other classes, it relies on a few gimmicks (minions spamming Spell Storing items and wands) as a crutch. And not all subclasses get that crutch (decent 3rd level spammable spell for SSI.)
Battle Smith can probably hold their own in most groups, having both Extra Attack, additional minion damage, and very good SSI options. Alchemist or Cartographer may struggle, particularly at higher levels.

You could throw twenty tarasques at the party and it still wouldn’t be a particularly difficult encounter. But that’s because combat isn’t the point, it’s just an interlude between plot decisions.

Okay, it’s possible for the monsters to win if they can one shot the entire party before the players get a turn, but in any remotely fair fight a party of four unoptimised tactical duffers over level 2 will always win. That’s why I find all this talk of optimisation silly. If you need to bother with that in order to win you must be really appallingly bad at tactics.

Maybe, but a fair fight for a party with a decent mix of optimisation and tactical nous will not be the same as that for the "unoptimised tactical duffers". Your experience is obviously different to mine, but if your DM is ensuring that you will "always win", I do not believe that that is a mechanics issue, even if it has lead to you assuming that any group that doesn't always win must be bad.
I, and I believe many others can assure you that your statement is false: It is entirely possible to not win an encounter even when the monsters don't one-shot the party before they can act.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

but if your DM is ensuring that you will "always win"

The DM (who is me) does not ensure the PCs always win, the rules do that. 5e combat is easy mode. Optimising characters is a waste of effort that only serves to make combat less interesting.

 

[Parmandur]

The DM (who is me) does not ensure the PCs always win, the rules do that. 5e combat is easy mode. Optimising characters is a waste of effort that only serves to make combat less interesting.

The challenge is on the level of the whole day, not the encounter. Each encounter may be easy, at first, but they add up.

 

[Mephista]

Relying on a core feature of the class... is a gimmick?

To me, it looks like it's the intended style of play.

Ymmv, I guess

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The challenge is on the level of the whole day, not the encounter. Each encounter may be easy, at first, but they add up.

Except that they don’t, because there is nothing to prevent the party resting without trashing any narrative sense.

 

[Parmandur]

Except that they don’t, because there is nothing to prevent the party resting without trashing any narrative sense.

Oh, it's doable.l, pretty easy really.

I think a major secret of the 5E sauce, however, is that you don't need to push the long term challenge button for people to have fun. That core logistics challenge cam be engaged with, or not, at leisure.