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

[Charlaquin]

The whole replacement class idea is kinda silly IMO. It implies a much greater importance to party balance than I think really bears out in gameplay. Artificers are artificers. Play one because that’s what you want to play, not because your party “needs a rogue replacement.”

 

[Zardnaar]

The whole replacement class idea is kinda silly IMO. It implies a much greater importance to party balance than I think really bears out in gameplay. Artificers are artificers. Play one because that’s what you want to play, not because your party “needs a rogue replacement.”

Up to a point they need to carry their weight on a party.

If they can do something well (skills, healing, damage etc) its decent

 

[Clint_L]

The whole replacement class idea is kinda silly IMO. It implies a much greater importance to party balance than I think really bears out in gameplay. Artificers are artificers. Play one because that’s what you want to play, not because your party “needs a rogue replacement.”

I agree. As well, it is almost impossible to discuss artificers without emphasizing how much difference subclass makes, more than for any other class IMO. (Druids are probably second). A battlesmith plays a very different role than an artillerist, etc.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Up to a point they need to carry their weight on a party.

If they can do something well (skills, healing, damage etc) its decent

Here is an interesting observation: a player doesn’t make it to the session, so their character sits it out. The combat encounters are not noticeably any more difficult. It’s the contribution the player makes that is missed - for puzzle solving, decision making, and banter.

 

[Zardnaar]

Here is an interesting observation: a player doesn’t make it to the session, so their character sits it out. The combat encounters are not noticeably any more difficult. It’s the contribution the player makes that is missed - for puzzle solving, decision making, and banter.

Some of my encounters have split encounters based on how many turn up. I'll write it up and have something like (6 pkayers add....).

Usually someone runs their character.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Some of my encounters have split encounters based on how many turn up. I'll write it up and have something like (6 pkayers add....).

Usually someone runs their character.

Have done that, but found it’s not necessary. Four characters can just as easily handle combat encounters as five. It’s still easy. It would probably matter if the number of PCs was less than four.

 

[Zardnaar]

Have done that, but found it’s not necessary. Four characters can just as easily handle combat encounters as five. It’s still easy. It would probably matter if the number of PCs was less than four.

Yeah I usually have 5 or 6.

5.5 monsters hit harder though.

I'll probably do another RAW encounter experiment but make bigger encounters occasionally test things out.

Theory crafting various artificers out level 1-6 and I think they'll pass muster.

Might go tits up with AoE is the great unknown.

Thinking of a playtest tomorrow all artificers level 3, 5 or 11.

 

[Charlaquin]

Up to a point they need to carry their weight on a party.

If they can do something well (skills, healing, damage etc) its decent

Good thing they can do those things then.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here is an interesting observation: a player doesn’t make it to the session, so their character sits it out. The combat encounters are not noticeably any more difficult. It’s the contribution the player makes that is missed - for puzzle solving, decision making, and banter.

That seems like a pretty unlikely hypothetical to me. One fewer character contributing to damage output or casting control spells per round is always going to be a pretty significant difference in 5e’s system, unless the group was already greatly overperforming. I would question if the DM in that scenario was providing the players with sufficiently challenging encounters.

 

[Zardnaar]

That seems like a pretty unlikely hypothetical to me. One fewer character contributing to damage output or casting control spells per round is always going to be a pretty significant difference in 5e’s system, unless the group was already greatly overperforming. I would question if the DM in that scenario was providing the players with sufficiently challenging encounters.

Its harder than 5.0. But still not hard due to power creep.

If you know what you're doing its still kinda easy to clown on encounters.

That lvl 1-2 adventure in new Farrun book has a couple of stinkers but level 1-3 can be rough.