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

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

"Just the first phb" isnt a meaningful qualifier. That isnt how 4e works. the first phb does not represent the base game. if ypu dislike that, fair, but it is a fact. The first phb isnt more important than the second phb.

The 5e fighter cannot be effecfive in any role than front line damage tank. Archer? They're garbage archers. 4e had much more actual versatility and flexibility.

The only thing 5e fighters are naturally good at is hitting hard and being tough enough to withstand enemy reprisal, ie tanking.

Garbage archers? A Battlemaster fighter with Sharpshooter and Precision Attack is possibly the best archer build in 5e. High and consistent damage, and can be combined with other tricks, like Crossbow Master.

Not as good in 5.5 because of the nerf to Sharpshooter, but I bet it can still work.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Just the first phb" isnt a meaningful qualifier. That isnt how 4e works. the first phb does not represent the base game. if ypu dislike that, fair, but it is a fact. The first phb isnt more important than the second phb.

The 5e fighter cannot be effecfive in any role than front line damage tank. Archer? They're garbage archers. 4e had much more actual versatility and flexibility.

The only thing 5e fighters are naturally good at is hitting hard and being tough enough to withstand enemy reprisal, ie tanking.

Reality works that way. Buy more content isnt a great argument for how limited the 4E phb actually is.

 

[Charlaquin]

You can do the main 4 styles fighters have been good at since 2E fighters handbook. Sword and board, two handed, two weapon, archery. You have 4 archetypes 4E had 2.

That’s just weapon choice. That has next to no impact on gameplay. Archery is slightly different because you’re at range. That’s why for non-casters, 4e classes were actually much more versatile than other editions’ equivalents, because they actually play differently in a real gameplay sense depending on your power selection, instead of just doing the same actions with slightly different descriptions.

Its better at killing stuff. Defender made the fighter worse at protecting stiff. Death is the best debuff every edition.

4e fighter was significantly better at preventing enemies from attacking your allies. Slightly worse at making enemies dead. I’m not interested in silly arguments about whether offense or defense is more tactically optimal, point is the 4e fighter could fill more different strategic roles.

Outside the fighter you had missing classes, and every 5E class is more versatile as youre not locked into control of defenders etc. Eg Sorcerer can easily be built to do control or striker.

You really weren’t locked in in 4e either. If anything, you had more flexibility because different roles actually did different things instead of just making attack rolls and damage rolls with different irrelevant damage types.

I said earlier that was 4E big screw up. Rigid roles that no one asked for. They wanted a fixed 3.5.

And you were wrong then too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Garbage archers? A Battlemaster fighter with Sharpshooter and Precision Attack is possibly the best archer build in 5e. High and consistent damage, and can be combined with other tricks, like Crossbow Master.

Not as good in 5.5 because of the nerf to Sharpshooter, but I bet it can still work.

Yup.

Lots of 4E fans (who don't actually play 5E) make statements like this lol.

Fighters are the best archer in 5E. That extra feat at 5th is great. Bathlemaster in particular. Champions also good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yup.

Lots of 4E fans (who don't actually play 5E) make statements like this lol.

Fighters are the best archer in 5E. That extra feat at 5th is great. Bathlemaster in particular. Champions also good.

Lol what 4e fans who don’t play 5e are you talking to? Nobody in this thread!

 

[Zardnaar]

That’s just weapon choice. That has next to no impact on gameplay. Archery is slightly different because you’re at range. That’s why for non-casters, 4e classes were actually much more versatile than other editions’ equivalents, because they actually play differently in a real gameplay sense depending on your power selection, instead of just doing the same actions with slightly different descriptions.

4e fighter was significantly better at preventing enemies from attacking your allies. Slightly worse at making enemies dead. I’m not interested in silly arguments about whether offense or defense is more tactically optimal, point is the 4e fighter could fill more different strategic roles.

You really weren’t locked in in 4e either. If anything, you had more flexibility because different roles actually did different things instead of just making attack rolls and damage rolls with different irrelevant damage types.

And you were wrong then too.

4E died fast because it was rejected en masses. Words like disaster and D&D being sold is a thing.

People hate the 4E power and role system in particular. Pathfinder reheated 3.5 and went another decade with it.

Kind of indicates what im talking about. 3.5, Pathfinder and 5.0 and 5.5 all had that missing stuff. No I dont want to pay extra for content that should be in the phb to begin with.

They didnt have the time or room to put it in the 4E phb. That's a design problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

4E died fast because it was rejected en masses. Words like disaster and D&D being sold is a thing.

People hate the 4E power and role system in particular. Pathfinder reheated 3.5 and went another decade with it.

Kind of indicates what im talking about. 3.5, Pathfinder and 5.0 and 5.5 all had that missing stuff. No I dont want to pay extra for content that should be in the phb to begin with.

They didnt have the time or room to put it in the 4E phb. That's a design problem.

4e died fast because it was rejected by already-enfranchised players. It was extremely popular with new players, but at the time enfranchised players were still a major bottleneck. If 4e had come out a decade later and otherwise been the same, it would have sold gangbusters just like 5e did.

 

[Zardnaar]

4e dies fast because it was rejected by already-enfranchised players. It was extremely popular with new players, but at the time enfranchised players were still a major bottleneck. If 4e had come out a decade later and otherwise been the same, it would have sold gangbusters just like 5e did.

Its to complicated for newer players unmasked like 5.0 was.

It wouldn't get them en masses. It didnt get enough players to offset the enfranchised players.

All the newer metrics indicate the opposite sessions are getting shorter, games are getting less complicated/ten levels things like that.

If 5.5 doesn't make it i suspect its going to be because its more complicated than 5.0 (and a bit stale). They've aimed it more at established players imho. Revisions usually do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Its to complicated for newer players unmasked like 5.0 was.

It wouldn't get them en masses. It didnt get enough players to offset the enfranchised players.

All the newer metrics indicate the opposite sessions are getting shorter, games are getting less complicated/tend levels things like that.

we’re never going to agree on this. It’s fine that you don’t like 4e. But saying classes were less flexible than 5e classes is just not factually accurate.

 

[Zardnaar]

we’re never going to agree on this. It’s fine that you don’t like 4e. But saying classes were less flexible than 5e classes is just not factually accurate.

Well 4E phb fighter basically had two paths snd the defender but was locked in.

That's not flexible. It's a straight jacket. You cant really dual eield very well or use a bow. You have to play a different class. And that class isn't sword and board or great weapon very well correct?

We even had a claim the 5E fighter sucks at archery lol.