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

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorry, I care about actual definitions of words too much to do that.

I will say that the Ranger very much does have stuff past level 5 to stay in-class for. I will argue that pure Ranger is just as competitive as the best multi-class out there. That the damage output of Ranger is close enough to Fighter to make neither one feel weak in comparison.

But i won't say they're doing that because of their archery skills, because its not. Half is bow, but the other half is summoning magic.

If the Ranger's spells and skills don't count, then the Battlemaster's manuevers don't either. Period. Both are useful regardless of weapon, both make the class more effective as an archer than they'd been without them.

If we strip out anything that isn't specific to archery, the fighter has literally nothing that the ranger doesn't also have, while the Ranger has archery spells that are purely about archery.

 

[Clint_L]

No, I mean factually. It’s my opinion that the designs were more interesting. It’s factual that they offered more different game actions to take on your turns.

Your statement that I responded to was "But saying its classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate." You can see it; it's right up there. It is your opinion that its classes were less homogenous; mine is the opposite. I have no idea what point you are making now about actions.

This has nothing to do with character versatility. For the hundredth time, it’s fine if you thought it felt like WoW and didn’t like it for that reason. But trying to claim “all 4e classes played the same” is just incorrect. Period.

Why are you putting something in quotations that I didn't write? What I actually wrote is that 4e emphasized role over class. Again, it's right there.

If you are going to argue with some other positions that you have made up for the sake of argument, have at it. But please don't attribute them to me. I chose my words carefully, and you are not responding to them. Again, I am not judging either edition as better or worse, but pointing out that 5e swerved from 4e's design philosophy, and to me artificer feels like the most 5e class. Specifically because there is no real role that it necessarily fits into. Which is why I think the notion of it replacing another class, per the thread title, doesn't really work.

This is a really 5e thing (not that other editions don't do it to some degree, just not as much) - to make it so that every class can be built to fit multiple niches. I think the artificer, in particular, can fit almost any niche or role.

 

[Charlaquin]

Your statement that I responded to was "But saying its classes were more homogeneous than 5e classes is just factually inaccurate." You can see it; it's right up there.

Yes. I said that because it is the case.

It is your opinion that its classes were less homogenous; mine is the opposite. I have no idea what point you are making now about actions.

This is not a matter of opinion. That I like the way 4e’s classes were designed and you do not are opinions. Whether they are more or less homogeneous than 5e classes is a matter of fact, and the fact is they are less, which I point to the greater variety of game actions they are able to perform as evidence.

Why are you putting something in quotations that I didn't write? What I actually wrote is that 4e emphasized role over class. Again, it's right there.

You interjected into an ongoing conversation. I therefore regarded you as a participant in the conversation. Which was about the relative homogeneity of 4e classes compared to that of 5e classes.

Once again: if you don’t like 4e classes, that is fine. But claiming they are more homogeneous than their 5e counterparts is simply incorrect. If you are not making that claim, then you are trying to have a different conversation than the one you interjected into.