Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8743424" data-attributes="member: 18">But they shouldn't be an &quot;adventuring class&quot;, should they? That's well-established in D&amp;D. Many of the people &quot;craft magic stuff&quot; are existing classes - Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, etc. And you're literally describing a NON-adventuring activity. Indeed in fantasy literature and film, these people tend to split into two categories pretty smoothly - people who are just craftspeople, and not adventurers (so shouldn't be Artificers), and people who adventurers who have also crafted things, who universally don't act like Artificers (the only vague exceptions I can think of being in magitech-heavy JRPGs).So that's obviously nonsensical.And then instead of taking the concept and making it into a straightforward and effective class like, I dunno, pretty much every 5E class, they made it into a huge mess of microchoices, with a low baseline power level, but which can be highly effective with a ton of system mastery. It's not a good design. It's not a 5E-friendly design. It'll fit even worse into 1D&amp;D.Now, if they take the concept, and re-work so it's more Dragon's Dogma and less Final Fantasy 13 by default (which could be done), and straighten up the rules, removing the microchoices and fiddly nonsense, and particularly re-work the subclasses, I think it could be viable. But if you'll recall all the way back near the start of this thread, my objection is to how it's actually implemented in 5E. If they can change that hugely, they could have something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8743424, member: 18"] But they shouldn't be an "adventuring class", should they? That's well-established in D&D. Many of the people "craft magic stuff" are existing classes - Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, etc. And you're literally describing a NON-adventuring activity. Indeed in fantasy literature and film, these people tend to split into two categories pretty smoothly - people who are just craftspeople, and not adventurers (so shouldn't be Artificers), and people who adventurers who have also crafted things, who universally don't act like Artificers (the only vague exceptions I can think of being in magitech-heavy JRPGs). So that's obviously nonsensical. And then instead of taking the concept and making it into a straightforward and effective class like, I dunno, pretty much every 5E class, they made it into a huge mess of microchoices, with a low baseline power level, but which can be highly effective with a ton of system mastery. It's not a good design. It's not a 5E-friendly design. It'll fit even worse into 1D&D. Now, if they take the concept, and re-work so it's more Dragon's Dogma and less Final Fantasy 13 by default (which could be done), and straighten up the rules, removing the microchoices and fiddly nonsense, and particularly re-work the subclasses, I think it could be viable. But if you'll recall all the way back near the start of this thread, my objection is to how it's actually implemented in 5E. If they can change that hugely, they could have something. [/QUOTE]

Verification