Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8742963" data-attributes="member: 18">None of which are traps remotely on the same level as the traps an Artificer can get into.And I don't agree re: "trap sublcasses", especially as you just listed two actually-good Fighter subclasses as "traps" lol. Champions are an anti-trap. They're basically designed (reasonably well) to prevent you being trapped so listing them as a trap is bizarre. And you're kind of illustrating my point. A Barbarian who picks Berserker, at worst, basically only gets to use Frenzy 1/day, which makes it one of the worse Barbarian subclasses.But that's it. He's still a Barbarian with all the other good Barbarian abilities, and the other subclass abilities are still really strong. It's not like an Artificer where you can make many times as many choices, and where a vastly higher proportion of them are bad.No, it doesn't require any meaningful level of familiarity. No system mastery. Just basic "+damage = good". It's obvious even more than +AC or to hit (esp. as the value is higher - new people often think of +3 damage as the same as +3 to hit - hell I've seen experienced people think that way). I've seen people who've never played D&D before pick it immediately IRL for goodness sake.Pact of the Blade is a trap without Hexblade I agree, but it's a fairly meaningless (if annoying) trap, because it doesn't impair your performance significantly because the baseline is so strong, which is different to Artificers. I'm not saying Warlocks have no trap options - I'm saying they're vastly easier to avoid, and more importantly, the good options don't require much system mastery to pick out. Whereas the best infusions do.I don't really agree that one is enough, and it's nowhere near as obvious. If you only pick the 1-2 you're suggesting, no you won't be that good, because you don't have anywhere near as well-defined of a role nor as strong a base (unless you pick Armorer, which does have a very strong base, but unfortunately is the worst fit for most settings).I do agree that Warlocks can screw up with the spell selection, but it's harder to do, and requires less in the way of counter-intuitive spell selection.Overall I think it's a pretty pointless argument, because even you aren't really disagreeing, just trying to nuance the points and looking for the next-worst offendersI mean, on the flip-side, if they include a class like Artificer, which is:A) A bad fit for countless settings, particularly with certain subclasses (of which it only had four).andB) The most system-mastery dependent and messily-designed class in 5E by some margin.Then it certainly means they'd have zero excuse not to include stuff like Psion/Mystic and Swordmage, which fit far more setting thematically and would be almost impossible to make as messy.</blockquote>

Verification