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

[Horwath]

I liked the mechanics behind Samurai. I'm not sure if we could realistically translate it to 5e24 without it being underpowered, since advantage is so much more common now, though I think it might be worth considering how to update the subclass to 2024. Its was a fun subclass.

more usages, maybe add that you can spend Second wind if you run out.
temp HP could be healing 1st and then leftover as temp HP.

add that you can make one weapon attack as part of Bonus action activating fighting spirit.
adding +1d8 damage to each attack during fighting spirit is an option.

expanding critical to 19-20 at levels 15 or 18.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've been told by others, and have come to agree with, that expecting a single short rest but a total of 12 rounds of combat a day (3~4 combats with 3~4 rounds each) is a good benchmark to discuss this kind of thing.

So, the Fighter will have 10 superior dice uses per day, but between action surge and the fact you can use one die per attack, you can concentrate your maneuevers over a short time. Especially if you burn four of your five per short rest on the same turn you action surge. In 2024, though, power-attack aspect is gone, though overall damage is actually higher over time thanks to Masteries. Speaking of, with Tactical Master and Tactical Shift, the Fighter is actually better at using bows to control the battlefield while maintaining equal damage through Push and repositioning themselves.

Meanwhile, the Ranger has less nova ability, but more sustained damage and tricks. Hunter's Mark is the best 1st level spell for raw damage, and Entangling Strike is a great trick-arrow ability. Lightning Arrow can turn misses into AoEs. Conjure Barrage and Conjure Volley are AoEs full of arrows. Swift Quiver, Elemental Weapon and Fire Arrows are dps boosts over larger time frames. These are the archer based spells - I'm not going to count Spike Growth and Summon Beasts towards being an "archer" as they might contribute to fights, but they're more related to the trap-setting and animal-empathy aspects of Ranger. Ranger can use Longstrider for better positioning, but then we're not using any of the archer-magics, so kind of a wsh.

So, who's the better Archer? I honestly think that Fighter is probably better at being a raw "archer" - most of the best Ranger tricks to be great in combat involve skills and magics that aren't directly related to archery, while Fighter is better at accuracy, trick shots, and pure speed. This probably shouldn't be a surprise, since "master of weapons" is kind of Fighter's gig.

Meanwhile, I'd say that Ranger is probably better at being a bow hunter. Having magical hunting dogs via Summoned Beast, setting traps via Spiked Growth, etc. Definitely great hunter skills, but I wouldn't call them archer skills.


I liked the mechanics behind Samurai. I'm not sure if we could realistically translate it to 5e24 without it being underpowered, since advantage is so much more common now, though I think it might be worth considering how to update the subclass to 2024. Its was a fun subclass.

Conjure barrage is kinda weak by the time you get it. Hunter Ranger is very competitive for best archer lvl 1-4.

Ranger has issues tripping over to many bonus actions depending on subclass. Being an Archer makes it a bit smoother.

Fighters get that extra attack at 11 and rangers dont scale well level 10 or 11 onwards.

 

[Zardnaar]

That’s precisely the point.

What about rolling a d20 followed by rolling a fewer-faced die turn after turn is “versatile?” They can literally only do one thing.

You have more versatility in build options. The hard coded roles were a disaster imho.

If you were selling a game would you strip archery from fighters? Its a basic and reasonably popular choice. Ive seen them every edition.

 

[Charlaquin]

You have more versatility in build options.

Who cares when all of the builds do the exact same things as each other?

The hard coded roles were a disaster imho.

See, this is a different complaint than “they weren’t versatile.” Like I said, it’s fine if you didn’t like 4e. But saying it’s classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate.

If you were selling a game would you strip archery from fighters? Its a basic and reasonably popular choice. Ive seen them every edition.

“Archery” is fluff. What matters is what the actual gameplay mechanics do.

 

[Mephista]

Conjure barrage is kinda weak by the time you get it. Hunter Ranger is very competitive for best archer lvl 1-4.

Ranger has issues tripping over to many bonus actions depending on subclass. Being an Archer makes it a bit smoother.

Fighters get that extra attack at 11 and rangers dont scale well level 10 or 11 onwards.

AoEs are demonstratively something Fighter archers cannot do. Its definitely a point in Ranger's favor, no matter if you think its weak or not.

Tier 3 scaling for Ranger is subclass dependent in addition to their level 4 spells. Beastmasters, for instance, effectively get 4 attacks as well as a whole bundle of effective HP at level 11. A Ranger with one of the Summon or Conjure spells up is dealing quite a bit of extra damage as well. Nature's Veil is like a discount Greater Invisibility for free.

That's nothing to sneer at, even compared to the Fighter's 3 attacks. Yes, I agreed that Fighters are better are purely bow-stuff, but saying that Ranger scaling is bad too is a bit much. There's enough ways to increase Ranger damage that they stay viable characters; its just not bow-based damage all the time.

 

[Mephista]

“Archery” is fluff. What matters is what the actual gameplay mechanics do.

No offense, but "archery is fluff" and all but saying it doesn't matter is an incredibly hot take. Putting aside the fact that this is a role playing game and the class fantasy is incredibly important to people...

Being a ranged weapon user is a pretty clear mechanical archetype. There may be overlap between "throwing weapons" and "guns" with bows, but as a whole when someone talks about "archery" in a ttrpg, the mechanics have pretty clear requirements.

 

[TwoSix]

If you were selling a game would you strip archery from fighters? Its a basic and reasonably popular choice. Ive seen them every edition.

Seemed to work okay for World of Warcraft.

I've seen a lot of fantasy/litRPG systems separate out melee warriors from ranged warriors precisely because they're very different tropes.

 

[Charlaquin]

No offense, but "archery is fluff" and all but saying it doesn't matter is an incredibly hot take. Putting aside the fact that this is a role playing game and the class fantasy is incredibly important to people...

Being a ranged weapon user is a pretty clear mechanical archetype. There may be overlap between "throwing weapons" and "guns" with bows, but as a whole when someone talks about "archery" in a ttrpg, the mechanics have pretty clear requirements.

Archery is literally fluff. Being able to attack a target from a distance, having disadvantage while attacking a target within 5 feet, those are real, meaningful mechanical differences between ranged and melee attacks, but whether that ranged attack is being made with a bow, a gun, a blast of magic, or whatever else is fluff. Complaining that the 4e PHB fighter lacked variety because it couldn’t dual-wield or use bows first of all isn’t even true, but assuming you mean they wouldn’t have been very effective builds, it’s still silly when the class had orders of magnitude more different gameplay actions available to take with meaningful mechanical differences between them than the 5e fighter is just absurd. You wanted to play an archer and were mad you couldn’t? That’s a valid critique. Saying the 4e fighter lacked variety is just incorrect. Yes, even out of the PHB.