Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 9820627" data-attributes="member: 7035894">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.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.</blockquote>