D&D 5E Volo's 5e vs Tasha's 5e where do you see 5e heading?

[tetrasodium]

Look in Tasha's or Rising from the Last War: the Artificer is the Arcane half-caster.

except problems surface in the arrtificer from trying to force a 2/3 caster into a half caster chassis . They could have avoided a lot of things like leveled spells that scale equal or worse than cantrips at the levels they are gained by making it a 3/3 caster but that would have required something new to be added to 5e's mechanics.

 

[Marandahir]

Oh cmon. Just one more copy of temple of elemental evil and against the giants. How about another in search of the unknown. I want to see the whole B series

Against the Giants was scene-for-scene* reprinted in Tales from the Yawning Portal. I wouldn't mind a "More Tales from the Yawning Portal" release, but they could also just give the rest of the B series to Goodman Games to print in their "Original Adventures Reincarnated" series of 5e hardcovers.

*Edit: the additional stories written by Perkins for 4e's reprint of the adventures in Dragon Magazine were not included.

 

[Parmandur]

except problems surface in the arrtificer from trying to force a 2/3 caster into a half caster chassis . They could have avoided a lot of things like leveled spells that scale equal or worse than cantrips at the levels they are gained by making it a 3/3 caster but that would have required something new to be added to 5e's mechanics.

The Artificer isn't really a damage Spell kind if Class: that's why they have weapons. The Spells chosen ought to be more support based, with the Martial half supplying the damage with assistance from guaranteed magical weaponry and armor.

 

[Parmandur]

Against the Giants was scene-for-scene reprinted in Tales from the Yawning Portal. I wouldn't mind a "More Tales from the Yawning Portal" release, but they could also just give the rest of the B series to Goodman Games to print in their "Original Adventures Reincarnated" series of 5e hardcovers.

Some things fit Cilumn A, some fit in Column B.

 

[Marandahir]

except problems surface in the arrtificer from trying to force a 2/3 caster into a half caster chassis . They could have avoided a lot of things like leveled spells that scale equal or worse than cantrips at the levels they are gained by making it a 3/3 caster but that would have required something new to be added to 5e's mechanics.

What do you mean by 2/3 caster or 3/3 caster?

Artificer is still a half-caster, it just gets cantrips and it gets spells at first rather than 2nd like Paladin and Ranger. But it's the same spell progression otherwise.

The Artificer isn't really a damage Spell kind if Class: that's why they have weapons. The Spells chosen ought to be more support based, with the Martial half supplying the damage with assistance from guaranteed magical weaponry and armor.

This. And for all intents and purposes, Battle Smiths, Armorers, and Forge Adepts are specifically in the same power camp as Rangers and Paladins. It's just that their martial-prowess comes from the subclass rather than the core class while their core class gives them more roguish and wizardly abilities to draw on. Rangers are the best comparison really; they're a fusion of Druid, Fighter, AND Rogue.

 

[Parmandur]

except problems surface in the arrtificer from trying to force a 2/3 caster into a half caster chassis . They could have avoided a lot of things like leveled spells that scale equal or worse than cantrips at the levels they are gained by making it a 3/3 caster but that would have required something new to be added to 5e's mechanics.

That being said, a 3/4 caster is absolutely mechanical design space that could be filled: but what's the theme?

 

[Parmandur]

What do you mean by 2/3 caster or 3/3 caster?

Artificer is still a half-caster, it just gets cantrips and it gets spells at first rather than 2nd like Paladin and Ranger. But it's the same spell progression otherwise.



This. And for all intents and purposes, Battle Smiths, Armorers, and Forge Adepts are specifically in the same power camp as Rangers and Paladins. It's just that their martial-prowess comes from the subclass rather than the core class while their core class gives them more roguish and wizardly abilities to draw on. Rangers are the best comparison really; they're a fusion of Druid, Fighter, AND Rogue.

He is suggesting that instead of a half-caster like the Ranger or Paladin, WotC could have made a 3/4 Caster progression Class. Which is an interesting unexplored potential design space in the game.

 

[Hatmatter]

Oh cmon. Just one more copy of temple of elemental evil and against the giants. How about another in search of the unknown. I want to see the whole B series

All right, Sith, you know a sucker when you see one...I'm sold.

 

[Marandahir]

That being said, a 3/4 caster is absolutely mechanical design space that could be filled: but what's the theme?

He is suggesting that instead of a half-caster like the Ranger or Paladin, WotC could have made a 3/4 Caster progression Class. Which is an interesting unexplored potential design space in the game.

Gotcha, I misunderstood the 3/3 which you rightfully caught as 3/4. Thanks.


The question: "What is the theme?" is the main reason why the Swordmage and the Mystic/Psion don't exist (yet, as separate classes) in 5e.

A class cannot be just a bundle of mechanics. An Artificer is not just a half-caster wizard-rogue. It has a specific theme as a magitechnician, a technosorcerer. Like how the Paladin is not just half-caster Cleric+Fighter; it's an oath-sworn knight empowered to smite their enemies with the power of their conviction, which may or may not be tied to an actual deity like the Cleric but is certainly divine in nature unlike the rousing battle cries of a Purple Dragon Knight (or Banneret).

The Mystic failed because it was a delivery mechanism for a whole host of concepts that were vaguely psionic in nature, not a singular idea. One might compare the Wizard and Cleric as massive classes with massively disparate subclasses, but both classes have very clear core archetypal storytelling concepts they're founded on and just happen to have a huge potential for disparate takes on that story (Yer a Wizard Harry or The Power of My God Compels You).

So what story reason should a class have 2/3 or 3/4 the magic of a Wizard or Cleric? Figure out the story first, not just the combo of this plus that, divided by the difference. In my mind, the Bladesinger is already the 3/4 Wizard, 1/4 Fighter, giving up some of the magical firepower of the other Wizard subclasses to gain some martial abilities that other Wizards lacks. So you have a sliding scale of Bladesinger to Artificer to Eldritch Knight to Rune Knight, and any amount of multiclassing can let you fiddle with the dials to achieve more specific gradations of combination.

 

[Hatmatter]

Gotcha, I misunderstood the 3/3 which you rightfully caught as 3/4. Thanks.


The question: "What is the theme?" is the main reason why the Swordmage and the Mystic/Psion don't exist (yet, as separate classes) in 5e.

A class cannot be just a bundle of mechanics. An Artificer is not just a half-caster wizard-rogue. It has a specific theme as a magitechnician, a technosorcerer. Like how the Paladin is not just half-caster Cleric+Fighter; it's an oath-sworn knight empowered to smite their enemies with the power of their conviction, which may or may not be tied to an actual deity like the Cleric but is certainly divine in nature unlike the rousing battle cries of a Purple Dragon Knight (or Banneret).

The Mystic failed because it was a delivery mechanism for a whole host of concepts that were vaguely psionic in nature, not a singular idea. One might compare the Wizard and Cleric as massive classes with massively disparate subclasses, but both classes have very clear core archetypal storytelling concepts they're founded on and just happen to have a huge potential for disparate takes on that story (Yer a Wizard Harry or The Power of My God Compels You).

So what story reason should a class have 2/3 or 3/4 the magic of a Wizard or Cleric? Figure out the story first, not just the combo of this plus that, divided by the difference. In my mind, the Bladesinger is already the 3/4 Wizard, 1/4 Fighter, giving up some of the magical firepower of the other Wizard subclasses to gain some martial abilities that other Wizards lacks. So you have a sliding scale of Bladesinger to Artificer to Eldritch Knight to Rune Knight, and any amount of multiclassing can let you fiddle with the dials to achieve more specific gradations of combination.

Well said. Of course (and I suspect that you would not preclude this), there is the opportunity in the future for such a class should the appropriate story element resonate with fans and designers.