Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist
Tell me you haven't read Artificer without telling me you haven't read Artificer.
If your setting features any magic items whatsoever (so basically 99.99% of all 5e games), then Artificers fit in your setting thematically.
It doesn't fit because many of the subclass features don't make sense in terms of relative power to other spell-casting classes. Let me re-emphasize that my issue with the class is that from a world-building perspective, the subclasses offered largely over-shoot power level (Artillerist and Battlesmith) or are just plain boring (Alchemist). If "magic" is the only thing that allows the Artificer to be wickedawesome, then why is it that a Wizard gets create Homonculous as a 6th level spell, which they have to sacrifice hit points for and spend a bunch of gold and the Homonculous can't do half the cool stuff the Battle-bot can do for the Battlesmith at 3rd level? If they are using Arcane magic, why is the Wizard ability so much worse at a much higher level of magical expertise?
From a mechanics perspective, I get that Arties got to get some cool stuff at lower levels or else no fun for the optimizers, but if you take at face value the idea that all Artificers do is magic and NOT TECH, then you're throwing the believability of magic-scaling out the window with half the Artificer subclasses. So my answer to you is, if the Artificer CAN create (and effective re-summon) a robo-pet or a walking freakin' Cannon that heals people at a far far lower level and for a far far cheaper price than what the supposedly pre-eminent magic-users of the game can do (Wizards, I'm talking Wizards here), then it HAS to depend partly on technology and science, not just magic. Cause if Artificers can get Splat-tastic Megaroid pets at 3rd level with ONLY magic, then so should the Wizard.
For context, here is the Create Homunculus spell I referenced. Note that in Xanathar's Guide, casting time for this spell is 1 Hour, components include a "jewel-encrusted dagger worth at least 1,000 gp", and the caster of the spell must cut themselves for "2d4 piercing damage that can't be reduced in any way." Please also note that the Homunculus cannot increase hit die without the spellcaster decreasing their own hit point maximum.
in his latest video he complained that a handful of feats are vastly outshining other feats (or taking ASI) in power levels
The solution there is to stop giving a fig about "power levels"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'd be curious to see if it unbalanced things too much to give Monks something like... 3x Proficiency Bonus for their Ki instead of Ki equal to their level. It's a huge boost early on, but at max-level they'd have less than what we get in the current game. Maybe even 2x Proficiency Bonus would be enough of a boost... the main problem with monks is that, until they get to around 8th level, they almost never have enough ki to do all the cool stuff they can pull off. Since Ki recovers on a short rest, you don't really need 20 of them, even at max level...
The problem here would be that having that many Ki from the get-go makes the Monk a super-strong multi-class dip option. Considering the stink that people raised about the UA version of Jojo-themed Monk and WotC subsequent hard nerf of that subclass, I don't see WotC allowing for anything near that power level for the base class.
Armorer is a possibility, but only in a campaign in an explicitly futuristic setting. Otherwise, it's also too incongruent with the magic-heavy theme of D&D.
The only thematically consist one that is easy to fit into most D&D settings is the Alchemist
Tell me you haven't read Artificer without telling me you haven't read Artificer.
If your setting features any magic items whatsoever (so basically 99.99% of all 5e games), then Artificers fit in your setting thematically.
It doesn't fit because many of the subclass features don't make sense in terms of relative power to other spell-casting classes. Let me re-emphasize that my issue with the class is that from a world-building perspective, the subclasses offered largely over-shoot power level (Artillerist and Battlesmith) or are just plain boring (Alchemist). If "magic" is the only thing that allows the Artificer to be wickedawesome, then why is it that a Wizard gets create Homonculous as a 6th level spell, which they have to sacrifice hit points for and spend a bunch of gold and the Homonculous can't do half the cool stuff the Battle-bot can do for the Battlesmith at 3rd level? If they are using Arcane magic, why is the Wizard ability so much worse at a much higher level of magical expertise?
From a mechanics perspective, I get that Arties got to get some cool stuff at lower levels or else no fun for the optimizers, but if you take at face value the idea that all Artificers do is magic and NOT TECH, then you're throwing the believability of magic-scaling out the window with half the Artificer subclasses. So my answer to you is, if the Artificer CAN a robo-pet or a walking Cannon that heals people at a far far lower level and for a far far cheaper price than what the supposedly pre-eminent magic-users of the game can do (Wizards, I'm talking Wizards), then it HAS to depend partly on technology and science, not just magic. Cause if Artificers can get Splat-tastic Megaroid pets at 3rd level with ONLY magic, then so should the Wizard.
Regarding the bolded question, it is because pure science is theory based and applied science is results based. Wizards are pure (magical) scientists (magical scientists) and Artificers are applied (magical) scientists. Scientists vs Engineers. There is no contradiction there. Nor is there any contradiction in the engineers being better at general (non-magical) crafting/engineering.
Clarke's Third Law: At sufficiently high technological levels, technology is indistinguishable from magic. This also means that magic is indistinguishable from sufficiently high level technology.
It seems like technology because the basic underlying concepts of applied science are there for both, even if the 'science' for Artificers is using magical rules instead of or in conjunction with conventional physics.
No. Wizards are clearly ALSO results based, as their spells have major consequences in the game world. Not only that, they are some of the most powerful magicks available in the D&D universe or else there would not literally be numerous spells named after particular Wizards in the game lore.
Also you are making a significantly different argument than SemanticAvenger, who said that Artificers can be themed as purely about magic, and not science at all. I was responding to his comment, which was made in a particular context which you are either glossing over or have not read.
I'd be curious to see if it unbalanced things too much to give Monks something like... 3x Proficiency Bonus for their Ki instead of Ki equal to their level. It's a huge boost early on, but at max-level they'd have less than what we get in the current game. Maybe even 2x Proficiency Bonus would be enough of a boost... the main problem with monks is that, until they get to around 8th level, they almost never have enough ki to do all the cool stuff they can pull off. Since Ki recovers on a short rest, you don't really need 20 of them, even at max level...
That's a huge boost at lower levels, but ends up being a nerf at the highest levels, and leads to weird staggering and long fallow periods where you have the same ki for four levels at a time, which doesn't feel like progression at all. And twice prof is just cruel. By 9th you'd already be lagging behind with only 8 ki points, then at 13th you'd have 10, at 17th 12, and you'd stay there until the end of the character.
I think the best ki fix I've heard is just to make it level+WIS mod, so you'd have around 4-5 (2 for level +2-3 for WIS) at 2nd level when you get ki, and by 20th you'd be at 25 (20 for level + 5 from maxed WIS). That said, I have a very simple "fix" for monk that doesn't even touch your bank of ki. Were it me, I'd add one bullet point to Martial Arts that just says "Your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks." Then get rid of Patient Defense, and make Step of the Wind into dodge or dash rather than disengage or dash. Basically what this does is make disengage a permanent part of who you are, frees up the bonus action economy a bit, frees up ki for use with Flurry or Stun or whatever else, and encourages the "skirmisher" playstyle Monk is meant to encapsulate by encouraging (and allowing) you to zip in and out around multiple enemies, taking advantage of your crazy movement speeds to pop in, smack one dude, bail, pop into another cluster of enemies and smack another one, all without issue. This fix addresses ki shortages by reducing the number of things you have to spend ki on rather than bolstering the pool, it encourages the fantasy monk is meant to fulfill, changes the bare minimum of stuff, and doesn't even require you to up the hit die size like so many people want to. It also gives the Monk a cool, always-on thing that's just theirs, rather than being bargain-basement rogue or fighter or whatever. It also reduces MADness by making CON a lower requirement.
I will also debate the hell out of your assertion that short rest recharge means monks don't need as much ki as they get. Given that so few tables actually use short rests that they're likely disappearing entirely from 5.5e/6e, I think it's fair to say that at most tables, even getting 5/SR at 5th level is not enough.
The class I dislike the most is Druid, something about it aggravates me to an unreasonable degree.
The class I'm most disappointed in is Sorcerer. I love the concept, which is why I hate that they are just Wizard but less and using Charisma. I could start another rant about the dndnext sorcerer, but frankly I've ranted enough about that in various places.
Why "using Charisma" is a bad think? asking cause im just curios dont worry i'll not start rant :D
charisma is not just a basic line of soft-skill and charm of person. to me its more like sheer force of perconality, willpower, ability to focus/force your emotion/thoughts to manifest in certain ways . If spellcaster got magic in his blood cause of heritage, so, he "uses" this magic in same principles like we use muscles and joints to extend arm and grab things with fingers. So charisma based caster need to do the same with his magical power, find a way to kinda naturaly-force body/mind in this case to control powers and cast spells so charisma is a good pick ^^
imo monks got very big power spike in the moment that your KI points are >12 points but until then they are always suffering with crude ki points management.
to solve it they should and/or give them on star KI points from table + wisdom modifier (or prof. bonus) to starting value
or to make it more balanced imo KI = prof + wis mod + 1/2 lvl rounded down. this makes u having KI on good lvl thru-out all low level, and also dont boost to milions point on higher lvl (just to hit 20-21)
Something that would make Sorcerers more thematic is if they got a higher die for their HD. They are not the nerds of magic the way Wizards are. They don't spend most of their time studying stuff. They are about action and should at least have hit die equivalent to Bards.
While I agree with a lot of people that Sorcs should have been designed differently, it boils down to a problem of design space. Let's look at their direct Arcane competitors: Wizards and Warlocks. Wizards in previous editions had to memorize every spell and could only cast a spell the number of times they memorized it. Sure, they could put all kinds of neato wowzas stuff in that spellbook, but their spontaneity was heavily limited by the Vancian system. By increasing Wizard spell flexibility, the designers of 5e took a big chunk out of what made older edition Sorcs feel distinctive. Warlocks, meanwhile, have a far narrower spell list than Sorcs, but have a more flexible design in that their Invocations are modular. Invocations mean that Warlocks can be built to be semi-Wizards, decent Gishes or superior spies. But that modularity comes with a price. The good Invocations give the Warlock unlimited use of spells and spell-like abilities, but cannot be swapped out per long rest the way spells can for Wizards. However, there is another issue, which is that having modular Invocations makes the Warlock more difficult to build well. Players who do not pay close attention can easily make a semi-functional, niche-based Warlock who is easily out-done by a half-decent Wizard, Bard or Ranger at the very thing the player intended their PC to be good at.
Sorcerers in 5e are more like a weak Wizard than a strong Warlock. While I sympathize with players who want more flexible Arcane caster, I doubt very much that WotC is going to oblige that because giving them more modularity then makes Warlocks feel less special. Also, WotC is clearly trying to retain the class-based nature of the game for the sake of simplicity, which also hurts anyone who wants to more flexible builds "from the ground up." I'm saying this not just based on my own headcannon, but also based on their scrapping of the UA Mystic.
Ultimately, what I see happening is that either WotC gets rid of the Sorc altogether and replaces it with a true Gish class or we continue to see the Sorc hobble along retaining much of its current form.
It doesn't fit because many of the subclass features don't make sense in terms of relative power to other spell-casting classes. Let me re-emphasize that my issue with the class is that from a world-building perspective, the subclasses offered largely over-shoot power level (Artillerist and Battlesmith) or are just plain boring (Alchemist). If "magic" is the only thing that allows the Artificer to be wickedawesome, then why is it that a Wizard gets create Homonculous as a 6th level spell, which they have to sacrifice hit points for and spend a bunch of gold and the Homonculous can't do half the cool stuff the Battle-bot can do for the Battlesmith at 3rd level?
Because, within the meta of the rules: 1. Arties are half (+) casters and don't get shit like meteor swarm or Wish, and 2. A subclass choice is a hell of a bigger character investment that a single spell you can swap out on a long rest. Never mind that the Steel Defender is on par with most other pet classes like the Wildfire Druid or (revised) Beast Master Ranger. 3. Create Homunculus is a garbage spell I've never even heard of a single person using.
And within the fiction: 1. Artificers are specialists. They don't do nearly as much as wizards and don't have the broad versatility, so what they do should be done well. Their entire deal is creating objects and constructs. They should be better at it than someone whose deal is "studying all magic." They're not a jack of all trades. 2. I don't actually have a second point, it just felt like poor structure not to mirror the above.
From a mechanics perspective, I get that Arties got to get some cool stuff at lower levels or else no fun for the optimizers, but if you take at face value the idea that all Artificers do is magic and NOT TECH, then you're throwing the believability of magic-scaling out the window with half the Artificer subclasses. So my answer to you is, if the Artificer CAN create (and effective re-summon) a robo-pet or a walking freakin' Cannon that heals people at a far far lower level and for a far far cheaper price than what the supposedly pre-eminent magic-users of the game can do (Wizards, I'm talking Wizards here), then it HAS to depend partly on technology and science, not just magic. Cause if Artificers can get Splat-tastic Megaroid pets at 3rd level with ONLY magic, then so should the Wizard.
I think the fact that you're basing all of this on one of the single worst 6th level spells there is indicates kind of a skewed perspective. Find Familiar is better than Create Homunculus in every way that matters, is available to Wizards at 1st level, doesn't damage you, and can be ritual-cast, obviating the expenditure of resources such as spell slots. Compare that to the Artificer equivalent, the "Homunculus Servant" infusion, which isn't available until 2nd level, and takes up one of your very limited number of infusions known and infused items at all times.
Plus, again...you're comparing the core features of an entire subclass to a 6th level spell nobody uses. That's like comparing the entirety of Hexblade or Bladesinger to Mordenkainens Sword or Tenser's Transformation. You can do it, I guess, but it's not really comparable or a sound argument at all.
On your flavor objections...I just don't get that at all. Why does getting something better than one shitty higher-level spell as an entire subclass require the explanation of technology, when Wildshape doesn't, despite being overall better than Polymorph in a lot of ways, and only really comparable to Shapechange? Why can an Evocation Wizard avoid hitting their friends with a fireball when no other caster can? Why can a Bard steal spells off any spell list? Why can only Sorcerers get Chaos Bolt? Why are Arcane Tricksters' mage hands invisible and capable of more actions? It's...literally just a matter of specialization. Most classes or subclasses with any amount of spellcasting or spell-like abilities get something equivalent to or better than what other classes get at higher levels because they're specialized. I mean, Rune Knight fighters get a single-target, concentrationless hypnotic pattern they can use as a reaction at 3rd level Spellcasters need to be 5th to get actual hypnotic pattern.
Using Charisma isn't an issue in and of itself, arguably it makes sense, I disagree but you can argue it. It's just one of the few differences to the Wizard that aren't just straight negative.
in his latest video he complained that a handful of feats are vastly outshining other feats (or taking ASI) in power levels
The solution there is to stop giving a fig about "power levels"
Sure if everyone stopped caring about those things it wouldn't be an issue. And while we're at it, might as well have everyone stop liking the taste of chocolate.
Screw it people are making big posts I'm allowed a little rant. The dndnext playtest sorcerer was just better and cooler, it was the Gish and it was Awesome. They had a d8 hit die as well as actual weapon and armor proficiencies. At the time it used will power instead of spellslots, and you could use willpower to cast certain spells or use abilities linked to you subclass such as hitting with your dragons element (the one I've seen only has Dragon for a subclass), more importantly the more you drew on your magic the more you grew to resemble your source of power. How awesome is that, imagine if your Divine Soul Sorcerer started the day a man touched by celestial magics and ended it as a goddamn Deva, and this is just 5 levels of a playtest, yet it has more mechanical flavour then all of the 20 5e Sorcerer levels combined.
Screw it people are making big posts I'm allowed a little rant. The dndnext playtest sorcerer was just better and cooler, it was the Gish and it was Awesome. They had a d8 hit die as well as actual weapon and armor proficiencies. At the time it used will power instead of spellslots, and you could use willpower to cast certain spells or use abilities linked to you subclass such as hitting with your dragons element (the one I've seen only has Dragon for a subclass), more importantly the more you drew on your magic the more you grew to resemble your source of power. How awesome is that, imagine if your Divine Soul Sorcerer started the day a man touched by celestial magics and ended it as a goddamn Deva, and this is just 5 levels of a playtest, yet it has more mechanical flavour then all of the 20 5e Sorcerer levels combined.
Losing the playtest sorcerer still hurts to this day. Such a unique and fun concept, and now we have nothing like it thematically or mechanically.
It's one of the main reasons I want for DnD Beyond class creation tools. (also spell points, but we all know that pigs flying is more likely than DnD Beyond implementing spell points).
I never cared that much about Monks, mostly because I just prefer spell casters in general, but I'm gonna blame the current discussion about Monks to 50% that I now have an interest in playing a Monk.
The other 50% I blame on this guy (yes, yes, I like anime games, just look at my signature xD)
I love monks thematically. I think it's because I'm old (born in 1973). Ninja movies were huge, Karate Kid, the show Kung Fu, and so on. I want to play test my idea of a Monk with one additional main attack.
Same-ish (I'm born in 1985) I grew up watching Jackie Chan movies with my dad, (who used to be a karate teacher) so I really like that kind of stuff. (also my childhood heroes were the TMNT)
The playtest Sorcerer is appealing to me from an aesthetic standpoint -- like, the design is neat. It's clever. The mechanics of it are economical. That's not necessarily the same thing as a good design though. Not that the two are mutually exclusive -- just that they're not the same. I've never tested it but a lot of people did. I wish any of them had written about it!
I'd still try it, if it was re-tuned to click with the power level of 2022. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and sometimes I just disagree with it.
But I think the odds are pretty good that it just isn't as fun as it looks.
The playtest Sorcerer is appealing to me from an aesthetic standpoint -- like, the design is neat. It's clever. The mechanics of it are economical. That's not necessarily the same thing as a good design though. Not that the two are mutually exclusive -- just that they're not the same. I've never tested it but a lot of people did. I wish any of them had written about it!
I'd still try it, if it was re-tuned to click with the power level of 2022. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and sometimes I just disagree with it.
But I think the odds are pretty good that it just isn't as fun as it looks.
Your allowed to have that opinion of course, but I just fundamentally disagree.
For one thing I believe the playtest sorcerer was one of the things that was rejected due to how different it was from the classic sorcerer, since WOTC was trying to recapture the crowd they'd lost in 4e they tossed out some really awsome ideas, to my knowledge. And I think if this came out today it would be received with applause.
Secondly I am just straight biased, like this is the hill I am willing to die on in terms of dnd. The dndnext sorcerer is the first and only thing I have considered homebrewing in full rather then just altering something that already exists, because it is that much more interesting and I see so much more potential and flavour in every direction with this form of sorcerer.
My math class right now. I love the teacher she is one of my favorite teachers ever but the stuff she is having us do is drop dead useless myfiosgateway.one
I mean gosh, it almost sounds like, between all this ranking of feats and then complaining some feats don't rank highly enough to be worth taking and others rank so highly you "have" to take them, that they're only in it for the clicks
Yeah, it's not really a thing. I've never taken one of those feats you "have" to take, and I've never had an issue. Not once have I touched Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, or Sharpshooter, and my longest-running characters were martials. You don't "have" to take anything unless you just want to play it. D&D is not a competition. You and your party shouldn't be having a pissing match to find out who's the most badass, and your DM shouldn't be your opponent.
Also you are making a significantly different argument than SemanticAvenger, who said that Artificers can be themed as purely about magic, and not science at all. I was responding to his comment, which was made in a particular context which you are either glossing over or have not read.
I missed this when I was replying last night, but I just want to say: That was not my point. My point is that in the official, published, fluffy lore text, artificers are explicitly and entirely magical. They just enchant objects rather than working the weave directly. They're essentially foci specialists. There are flavor options to layer tech stuff on top of that, but the default lore is that they are 100% magical, they just work it through more menial, less esoteric ways. The idea that they're some sort of steampunk machinists rather than just magic item enchanters is entirely based on a bit of official art and a whole lot of memes. It's like the horny bard, in that the official material does not support it, it's a community expectation or projection that's gotten bizarrely out of hand.
It doesn't fit because many of the subclass features don't make sense in terms of relative power to other spell-casting classes. Let me re-emphasize that my issue with the class is that from a world-building perspective, the subclasses offered largely over-shoot power level (Artillerist and Battlesmith) or are just plain boring (Alchemist). If "magic" is the only thing that allows the Artificer to be wickedawesome, then why is it that a Wizard gets create Homonculous as a 6th level spell, which they have to sacrifice hit points for and spend a bunch of gold and the Homonculous can't do half the cool stuff the Battle-bot can do for the Battlesmith at 3rd level?
Because, within the meta of the rules: 1. Arties are half (+) casters and don't get shit like meteor swarm or Wish, and 2. A subclass choice is a hell of a bigger character investment that a single spell you can swap out on a long rest. Never mind that the Steel Defender is on par with most other pet classes like the Wildfire Druid or (revised) Beast Master Ranger. 3. Create Homunculus is a garbage spell I've never even heard of a single person using.
And within the fiction: 1. Artificers are specialists. They don't do nearly as much as wizards and don't have the broad versatility, so what they do should be done well. Their entire deal is creating objects and constructs. They should be better at it than someone whose deal is "studying all magic." They're not a jack of all trades. 2. I don't actually have a second point, it just felt like poor structure not to mirror the above.
From a mechanics perspective, I get that Arties got to get some cool stuff at lower levels or else no fun for the optimizers, but if you take at face value the idea that all Artificers do is magic and NOT TECH, then you're throwing the believability of magic-scaling out the window with half the Artificer subclasses. So my answer to you is, if the Artificer CAN create (and effective re-summon) a robo-pet or a walking freakin' Cannon that heals people at a far far lower level and for a far far cheaper price than what the supposedly pre-eminent magic-users of the game can do (Wizards, I'm talking Wizards here), then it HAS to depend partly on technology and science, not just magic. Cause if Artificers can get Splat-tastic Megaroid pets at 3rd level with ONLY magic, then so should the Wizard.
I think the fact that you're basing all of this on one of the single worst 6th level spells there is indicates kind of a skewed perspective. Find Familiar is better than Create Homunculus in every way that matters, is available to Wizards at 1st level, doesn't damage you, and can be ritual-cast, obviating the expenditure of resources such as spell slots. Compare that to the Artificer equivalent, the "Homunculus Servant" infusion, which isn't available until 2nd level, and takes up one of your very limited number of infusions known and infused items at all times.
Plus, again...you're comparing the core features of an entire subclass to a 6th level spell nobody uses. That's like comparing the entirety of Hexblade or Bladesinger to Mordenkainens Sword or Tenser's Transformation. You can do it, I guess, but it's not really comparable or a sound argument at all.
On your flavor objections...I just don't get that at all. Why does getting something better than one shitty higher-level spell as an entire subclass require the explanation of technology, when Wildshape doesn't, despite being overall better than Polymorph in a lot of ways, and only really comparable to Shapechange? Why can an Evocation Wizard avoid hitting their friends with a fireball when no other caster can? Why can a Bard steal spells off any spell list? Why can only Sorcerers get Chaos Bolt? Why are Arcane Tricksters' mage hands invisible and capable of more actions? It's...literally just a matter of specialization. Most classes or subclasses with any amount of spellcasting or spell-like abilities get something equivalent to or better than what other classes get at higher levels because they're specialized. I mean, Rune Knight fighters get a single-target, concentrationless hypnotic pattern they can use as a reaction at 3rd level Spellcasters need to be 5th to get actual hypnotic pattern.
It isn't just the Homonculus spell. It's also the rules regarding creation of Golems, which, even at their most unreliable, require astronomical resources relative to the benefit of employing one Artificer Battlesmith or Artillerist, but the making a mobile turret or making a robo-pet is relatively super cheap. It's like saying that an "Artificer" engineer can make a Mercedes Benz for $100 but for some reason a "Wizard" engineer takes $500,000 just to make a Fiat. Both engineers are using the same principals of science to do their thing, right? If both the Artie and the Wiz are using Arcane magic principles to do their cool stuff, there shouldn't be that kind of humongous cost-benefit discrepancy even if the Artie is more specialized in a certain area of magic. So the only narratively consistent way to explain the Artie's ridiculous benefits relative to the Wizard trying to create a magic pet with combat capability is to introduce a power + knowledge source that the Wizard doesn't have access to even at high levels, which is technology.
We'll have to agree to disagree, ultimately, because you're very clearly saying you care more about the meta of the rules balance than about worldbuilding whereas I care about them equally and I'm not going to throw out world-building for the sake of game balance. My point is made and as my punctilious attention to detail for how Arcane magic seems to work as whole (not just within one class) demonstrates, you need Artificers to have a power source other than just Arcane magic for a lot of their core mechanics to make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn't fit because many of the subclass features don't make sense in terms of relative power to other spell-casting classes. Let me re-emphasize that my issue with the class is that from a world-building perspective, the subclasses offered largely over-shoot power level (Artillerist and Battlesmith) or are just plain boring (Alchemist). If "magic" is the only thing that allows the Artificer to be wickedawesome, then why is it that a Wizard gets create Homonculous as a 6th level spell, which they have to sacrifice hit points for and spend a bunch of gold and the Homonculous can't do half the cool stuff the Battle-bot can do for the Battlesmith at 3rd level? If they are using Arcane magic, why is the Wizard ability so much worse at a much higher level of magical expertise?
From a mechanics perspective, I get that Arties got to get some cool stuff at lower levels or else no fun for the optimizers, but if you take at face value the idea that all Artificers do is magic and NOT TECH, then you're throwing the believability of magic-scaling out the window with half the Artificer subclasses. So my answer to you is, if the Artificer CAN create (and effective re-summon) a robo-pet or a walking freakin' Cannon that heals people at a far far lower level and for a far far cheaper price than what the supposedly pre-eminent magic-users of the game can do (Wizards, I'm talking Wizards here), then it HAS to depend partly on technology and science, not just magic. Cause if Artificers can get Splat-tastic Megaroid pets at 3rd level with ONLY magic, then so should the Wizard.
For context, here is the Create Homunculus spell I referenced. Note that in Xanathar's Guide, casting time for this spell is 1 Hour, components include a "jewel-encrusted dagger worth at least 1,000 gp", and the caster of the spell must cut themselves for "2d4 piercing damage that can't be reduced in any way." Please also note that the Homunculus cannot increase hit die without the spellcaster decreasing their own hit point maximum.
The solution there is to stop giving a fig about "power levels"
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The problem here would be that having that many Ki from the get-go makes the Monk a super-strong multi-class dip option. Considering the stink that people raised about the UA version of Jojo-themed Monk and WotC subsequent hard nerf of that subclass, I don't see WotC allowing for anything near that power level for the base class.
No. Wizards are clearly ALSO results based, as their spells have major consequences in the game world. Not only that, they are some of the most powerful magicks available in the D&D universe or else there would not literally be numerous spells named after particular Wizards in the game lore.
Also you are making a significantly different argument than SemanticAvenger, who said that Artificers can be themed as purely about magic, and not science at all. I was responding to his comment, which was made in a particular context which you are either glossing over or have not read.
That's a huge boost at lower levels, but ends up being a nerf at the highest levels, and leads to weird staggering and long fallow periods where you have the same ki for four levels at a time, which doesn't feel like progression at all. And twice prof is just cruel. By 9th you'd already be lagging behind with only 8 ki points, then at 13th you'd have 10, at 17th 12, and you'd stay there until the end of the character.
I think the best ki fix I've heard is just to make it level+WIS mod, so you'd have around 4-5 (2 for level +2-3 for WIS) at 2nd level when you get ki, and by 20th you'd be at 25 (20 for level + 5 from maxed WIS). That said, I have a very simple "fix" for monk that doesn't even touch your bank of ki. Were it me, I'd add one bullet point to Martial Arts that just says "Your movement doesn't provoke opportunity attacks." Then get rid of Patient Defense, and make Step of the Wind into dodge or dash rather than disengage or dash. Basically what this does is make disengage a permanent part of who you are, frees up the bonus action economy a bit, frees up ki for use with Flurry or Stun or whatever else, and encourages the "skirmisher" playstyle Monk is meant to encapsulate by encouraging (and allowing) you to zip in and out around multiple enemies, taking advantage of your crazy movement speeds to pop in, smack one dude, bail, pop into another cluster of enemies and smack another one, all without issue. This fix addresses ki shortages by reducing the number of things you have to spend ki on rather than bolstering the pool, it encourages the fantasy monk is meant to fulfill, changes the bare minimum of stuff, and doesn't even require you to up the hit die size like so many people want to. It also gives the Monk a cool, always-on thing that's just theirs, rather than being bargain-basement rogue or fighter or whatever. It also reduces MADness by making CON a lower requirement.
I will also debate the hell out of your assertion that short rest recharge means monks don't need as much ki as they get. Given that so few tables actually use short rests that they're likely disappearing entirely from 5.5e/6e, I think it's fair to say that at most tables, even getting 5/SR at 5th level is not enough.
Why "using Charisma" is a bad think? asking cause im just curios dont worry i'll not start rant :D
charisma is not just a basic line of soft-skill and charm of person. to me its more like sheer force of perconality, willpower, ability to focus/force your emotion/thoughts to manifest in certain ways . If spellcaster got magic in his blood cause of heritage, so, he "uses" this magic in same principles like we use muscles and joints to extend arm and grab things with fingers. So charisma based caster need to do the same with his magical power, find a way to kinda naturaly-force body/mind in this case to control powers and cast spells so charisma is a good pick ^^
imo monks got very big power spike in the moment that your KI points are >12 points but until then they are always suffering with crude ki points management.
to solve it they should and/or give them on star KI points from table + wisdom modifier (or prof. bonus) to starting value
or to make it more balanced imo KI = prof + wis mod + 1/2 lvl rounded down. this makes u having KI on good lvl thru-out all low level, and also dont boost to milions point on higher lvl (just to hit 20-21)
Something that would make Sorcerers more thematic is if they got a higher die for their HD. They are not the nerds of magic the way Wizards are. They don't spend most of their time studying stuff. They are about action and should at least have hit die equivalent to Bards.
While I agree with a lot of people that Sorcs should have been designed differently, it boils down to a problem of design space. Let's look at their direct Arcane competitors: Wizards and Warlocks. Wizards in previous editions had to memorize every spell and could only cast a spell the number of times they memorized it. Sure, they could put all kinds of neato wowzas stuff in that spellbook, but their spontaneity was heavily limited by the Vancian system. By increasing Wizard spell flexibility, the designers of 5e took a big chunk out of what made older edition Sorcs feel distinctive. Warlocks, meanwhile, have a far narrower spell list than Sorcs, but have a more flexible design in that their Invocations are modular. Invocations mean that Warlocks can be built to be semi-Wizards, decent Gishes or superior spies. But that modularity comes with a price. The good Invocations give the Warlock unlimited use of spells and spell-like abilities, but cannot be swapped out per long rest the way spells can for Wizards. However, there is another issue, which is that having modular Invocations makes the Warlock more difficult to build well. Players who do not pay close attention can easily make a semi-functional, niche-based Warlock who is easily out-done by a half-decent Wizard, Bard or Ranger at the very thing the player intended their PC to be good at.
Sorcerers in 5e are more like a weak Wizard than a strong Warlock. While I sympathize with players who want more flexible Arcane caster, I doubt very much that WotC is going to oblige that because giving them more modularity then makes Warlocks feel less special. Also, WotC is clearly trying to retain the class-based nature of the game for the sake of simplicity, which also hurts anyone who wants to more flexible builds "from the ground up." I'm saying this not just based on my own headcannon, but also based on their scrapping of the UA Mystic.
Ultimately, what I see happening is that either WotC gets rid of the Sorc altogether and replaces it with a true Gish class or we continue to see the Sorc hobble along retaining much of its current form.
Because, within the meta of the rules:
1. Arties are half (+) casters and don't get shit like meteor swarm or Wish, and
2. A subclass choice is a hell of a bigger character investment that a single spell you can swap out on a long rest. Never mind that the Steel Defender is on par with most other pet classes like the Wildfire Druid or (revised) Beast Master Ranger.
3. Create Homunculus is a garbage spell I've never even heard of a single person using.
And within the fiction:
1. Artificers are specialists. They don't do nearly as much as wizards and don't have the broad versatility, so what they do should be done well. Their entire deal is creating objects and constructs. They should be better at it than someone whose deal is "studying all magic." They're not a jack of all trades.
2. I don't actually have a second point, it just felt like poor structure not to mirror the above.
I think the fact that you're basing all of this on one of the single worst 6th level spells there is indicates kind of a skewed perspective. Find Familiar is better than Create Homunculus in every way that matters, is available to Wizards at 1st level, doesn't damage you, and can be ritual-cast, obviating the expenditure of resources such as spell slots. Compare that to the Artificer equivalent, the "Homunculus Servant" infusion, which isn't available until 2nd level, and takes up one of your very limited number of infusions known and infused items at all times.
Plus, again...you're comparing the core features of an entire subclass to a 6th level spell nobody uses. That's like comparing the entirety of Hexblade or Bladesinger to Mordenkainens Sword or Tenser's Transformation. You can do it, I guess, but it's not really comparable or a sound argument at all.
On your flavor objections...I just don't get that at all. Why does getting something better than one shitty higher-level spell as an entire subclass require the explanation of technology, when Wildshape doesn't, despite being overall better than Polymorph in a lot of ways, and only really comparable to Shapechange? Why can an Evocation Wizard avoid hitting their friends with a fireball when no other caster can? Why can a Bard steal spells off any spell list? Why can only Sorcerers get Chaos Bolt? Why are Arcane Tricksters' mage hands invisible and capable of more actions? It's...literally just a matter of specialization. Most classes or subclasses with any amount of spellcasting or spell-like abilities get something equivalent to or better than what other classes get at higher levels because they're specialized. I mean, Rune Knight fighters get a single-target, concentrationless hypnotic pattern they can use as a reaction at 3rd level Spellcasters need to be 5th to get actual hypnotic pattern.
Using Charisma isn't an issue in and of itself, arguably it makes sense, I disagree but you can argue it. It's just one of the few differences to the Wizard that aren't just straight negative.
Sure if everyone stopped caring about those things it wouldn't be an issue. And while we're at it, might as well have everyone stop liking the taste of chocolate.
Screw it people are making big posts I'm allowed a little rant. The dndnext playtest sorcerer was just better and cooler, it was the Gish and it was Awesome. They had a d8 hit die as well as actual weapon and armor proficiencies. At the time it used will power instead of spellslots, and you could use willpower to cast certain spells or use abilities linked to you subclass such as hitting with your dragons element (the one I've seen only has Dragon for a subclass), more importantly the more you drew on your magic the more you grew to resemble your source of power.
How awesome is that, imagine if your Divine Soul Sorcerer started the day a man touched by celestial magics and ended it as a goddamn Deva, and this is just 5 levels of a playtest, yet it has more mechanical flavour then all of the 20 5e Sorcerer levels combined.
Losing the playtest sorcerer still hurts to this day. Such a unique and fun concept, and now we have nothing like it thematically or mechanically.
It's one of the main reasons I want for DnD Beyond class creation tools. (also spell points, but we all know that pigs flying is more likely than DnD Beyond implementing spell points).
Same-ish (I'm born in 1985) I grew up watching Jackie Chan movies with my dad, (who used to be a karate teacher) so I really like that kind of stuff. (also my childhood heroes were the TMNT)
The playtest Sorcerer is appealing to me from an aesthetic standpoint -- like, the design is neat. It's clever. The mechanics of it are economical. That's not necessarily the same thing as a good design though. Not that the two are mutually exclusive -- just that they're not the same. I've never tested it but a lot of people did. I wish any of them had written about it!
I'd still try it, if it was re-tuned to click with the power level of 2022. Sometimes the majority is wrong, and sometimes I just disagree with it.
But I think the odds are pretty good that it just isn't as fun as it looks.
Your allowed to have that opinion of course, but I just fundamentally disagree.
For one thing I believe the playtest sorcerer was one of the things that was rejected due to how different it was from the classic sorcerer, since WOTC was trying to recapture the crowd they'd lost in 4e they tossed out some really awsome ideas, to my knowledge. And I think if this came out today it would be received with applause.
Secondly I am just straight biased, like this is the hill I am willing to die on in terms of dnd. The dndnext sorcerer is the first and only thing I have considered homebrewing in full rather then just altering something that already exists, because it is that much more interesting and I see so much more potential and flavour in every direction with this form of sorcerer.
My math class right now. I love the teacher she is one of my favorite teachers ever but the stuff she is having us do is drop dead useless myfiosgateway.one
mobdro
Yeah, it's not really a thing. I've never taken one of those feats you "have" to take, and I've never had an issue. Not once have I touched Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, or Sharpshooter, and my longest-running characters were martials. You don't "have" to take anything unless you just want to play it. D&D is not a competition. You and your party shouldn't be having a pissing match to find out who's the most badass, and your DM shouldn't be your opponent.
I missed this when I was replying last night, but I just want to say: That was not my point. My point is that in the official, published, fluffy lore text, artificers are explicitly and entirely magical. They just enchant objects rather than working the weave directly. They're essentially foci specialists. There are flavor options to layer tech stuff on top of that, but the default lore is that they are 100% magical, they just work it through more menial, less esoteric ways. The idea that they're some sort of steampunk machinists rather than just magic item enchanters is entirely based on a bit of official art and a whole lot of memes. It's like the horny bard, in that the official material does not support it, it's a community expectation or projection that's gotten bizarrely out of hand.
It isn't just the Homonculus spell. It's also the rules regarding creation of Golems, which, even at their most unreliable, require astronomical resources relative to the benefit of employing one Artificer Battlesmith or Artillerist, but the making a mobile turret or making a robo-pet is relatively super cheap. It's like saying that an "Artificer" engineer can make a Mercedes Benz for $100 but for some reason a "Wizard" engineer takes $500,000 just to make a Fiat. Both engineers are using the same principals of science to do their thing, right? If both the Artie and the Wiz are using Arcane magic principles to do their cool stuff, there shouldn't be that kind of humongous cost-benefit discrepancy even if the Artie is more specialized in a certain area of magic. So the only narratively consistent way to explain the Artie's ridiculous benefits relative to the Wizard trying to create a magic pet with combat capability is to introduce a power + knowledge source that the Wizard doesn't have access to even at high levels, which is technology.
We'll have to agree to disagree, ultimately, because you're very clearly saying you care more about the meta of the rules balance than about worldbuilding whereas I care about them equally and I'm not going to throw out world-building for the sake of game balance. My point is made and as my punctilious attention to detail for how Arcane magic seems to work as whole (not just within one class) demonstrates, you need Artificers to have a power source other than just Arcane magic for a lot of their core mechanics to make sense.