So, I really do not understand why some people are panicking about the Artificer not being included, when the class was specifically mentioned in the video. Sure it won't be included in this UA document, but there will be plenty more coming out and it seems ridiculous to think they will be dropped from the game. The very worst that could happen is that they are not included in the Player's Handbook, but are then put in a supplement released nearly immediately afterwards. I could also envision special supplements for each of the categories (Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior) coming out along with or soon after the Player's Handbook and containing additional subclasses (a little like the 2e class supplements). As for the question that someone above posed, as to which skills Artificers will get expertise in, it seems pretty likely that they will get their expertise in tools/kits.
Also, I do not think that every class will be limited to being in one single category of Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior. They even hinted at this, with some classes having access to items (and possibly abilities) of multiple categories. Due to this, I expect that to some extent a class like the Paladin will count as both Warrior and Priest, Rangers will be Warriors and Experts, Artificers will be Experts and Mages, or something along those lines. In addition, certain subclasses such as Arcane Trickster, Divine Sorcerer, etc. may open up a kind of cross-category classification.
I have also heard people talking about how quickly they reacted to folks not liking the critical hit rules from the previous UA, and so due to that they have already backtracked. I think this is untrue, as it seemed that they knew in the first video they were going out on a limb in the first place with that change, and they will probably have a playtest of various "controversial" rules changes (not just with critical hits) that get rotated through (such as with Inspiration on a 20 or on a 1). I wouldn't necessarily say that some rule that has been changed from the first to the second playtest has been entirely abandoned.
The reason there are so few Artificer subclasses is because the base class is not in the SRD or PHB, and WotC has a rule that you will never need anything but the core three books to use any supplement. So if they print the Artificer in Book X, they can’t publish a subclass for it in Book Y without reprinting the entire base class again. That eats up pages and WotC is getting stingy AF with those lately. However, if the base class is included in the new PHB, then they can print subclasses for it wherever just like they do for the other 12 classes. That’s why people are anxious about it, we want it in the PHB so it can get more official support by way of subclasses.
What does everyone think that the unifying theme amongst the class groups will be? We already know that all Experts (probably excluding Artificers) will get Expertise, but what will the other class groups get? Here's my current best guess:
Warriors - Fighting Styles and/or Battlemaster Maneuvers. I hope both, but knowing Wizards of the Coast, they'll probably just give them Fighting Styles. However, Barbarians and Monks getting Fighting Styles and maybe Battlemaster Maneuvers will be interesting to see, if it happens.
Priests - Channel Divinity. This one is obvious, as Paladins and Clerics already get Channel Divinity, and Druids get a really similar ability (Wildshape). They could also make it so all Druid, Cleric, and Paladin subclassses get automatically prepared spells based on their subclass (which is true for all Cleric and Paladin subclasses, but isn't true for a few Druid subclasses).
Mage - Maybe something like the Warlock Pact Boons could work? So Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards all get to choose between being a Gish (Pact of the Blade), Spellcaster+ (Pact of the Tome), Support Spellcaster (Pact of the Talisman), or Pokemon Master (Pact of the Chain)? Or Eldritch Invocations/Metamagic could be what they use to unite the Mages? Or they could say that spellcasting is the thing that all Mages have in common, which would be just bland enough for WotC to do it.
My Predictions:
Warriors (Barb, Fighter, Monk) will be Fighting Style at level 1, and hopefully extra feats/ASIs (Barbarian & Monks would really really appreciate that). Mages (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock) will be Arcane Spell List + Arcane Recovery, and possibly a Ritual book (a la Pact of the Tome / Spellbook) Priests (Paladin, Druid, Cleric) will be Divine Spell List + Channel Divinity, with WS being subsumed into CD.
Paladin & Ranger will get a class feature making them count as Warriors for items & feats and gain a Fighting Style at level 2, Gish subclasses - Swords Bard, Bladesinger, Pact of the Blade - will get this feature when that subclass is taken.
Bonus predictions: All spellcasters are now preparation casters, just as they are now all ritual casters. All spellcasting classes will get 2 bonus spells that are "always prepared", for Bards these will be of their choice from any spell list, for everyone else they will be subclass specific and locked (Ranger may have 1/2 class specific an 1/2 subclass specific).
Actual bloody subclasses instead of the anemic and unimpactful garbage the class is currently stuck with?
You just listed three of my four favorite wizard subclasses. So as long as Diviner, or something similar to it stays as well, then I'm fine with that change:) But what would not having schools of magic as subclasses do to help wizard be a cooler class? I honestly liked having so many subclasses to pick from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
One thing mentioned was experts take features from other types. Bardic inspiration is like a channel divinity, rangers get fighting styles, rogues get specialized abilities(stretch for comparison but maybe)
I can see bards with magic secrets stealing things, but paladins (priest) also get Fighting Styles and two thirds of warriors don't, so I'm not really seeing a feature taken from other types in Ranger or Rogue... I can kinda see how the psi knife rogue archetype steals a bit of warriorness, since that touches on being similar to the psi knight and monk ki usage...
So, I really do not understand why some people are panicking about the Artificer not being included,
I think its more that people are upset the Artificer is unlikely to be in 1D&D PHB, as its not a core class. Its hard not to feel disappointed that your favorite class is not good enough to be "core." Especially with the popularity rise of alchemists and adventurer-blacksmith types in modern fantasy.
Its also annoying to have to wait a year or three for your favorite class to come out. That's not a short amount of time.
Also, I do not think that every class will be limited to being in one single category of Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior.
Maybe not, but Fighters/Monks/Barbarians have things in common the Paladin does not - Paladin combat prowress is derived primarily from their spells and spell slots, they're healers, they have Channel Divinity - traits that clerics and druids share. Warriors rely on things like ki pools, rage pools, superiority dice pools, psi points, etc.
From a thematic standpoint, it makes sense for paladins to be considered a tanky warrior class. But mechanically, they have so little in common with them, and feat groups will want to interact with things based on said mechanics first and foremost. And, no, Fighting Style does not count. There's one warrior, one expert and one priest with it, so you can't say Fighting Styles are a Warrior thing. I know its counter intuitive based on names, but mechanically it seems to hold up.
And the magic item thing really feels like it enforces one-per-class division rather than multiple - there would be no need to have multiple roles on the magic item if every class that wanted to use it was already a Warrior.
I maintain that the Alchemist Artificer does not really adequately represent the Alchemist archetype from a fantasy point of view, since alchemy (both in works of fiction and even in real-world occultism) is far more than just brewing potions and making salves. It has this whole other spiritual angle to it that the Alchemist Artificer simply lacks. The Transmutation Wizard was an attempt at capturing that, but they didn't really put as much thought into its features as they should have, so it also kinda fell flat for me. But I hope one gets my point.
Fair. Though i disagree that modern fantasy alchemists must have internal alchemy - I look at alchemists in video games or fantasy stories like The Wandering Inn, and there's more of a mad scientist vibe than spiritual refining.
I personally want to see the alchemist and blacksmth archetypes folded into Rogue (similar / upgrades to poison rules) and Fighter (Rune Knight is a good start, but only a start), respectively. But most people I know are more interested in the artificer class than anything. So... YMMV
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
Different groups do not need "unifying traits". Experts just-so-happen to line up under Expertise since 5e is actually f@#$ing terrible at representing "really good at something", so Expertise is the ONLY way they ever do that. The other groupings are thematic, with classes that fulfill similar class fantasies or thematic needs grouped together. The Unifying Trait for 'Warriors' is that their primary job is Melee Bonk and give primacy to physical combat. The Unifying Trait for mages is magecraft, i.e. centering on the use of spells and giving primacy to magic. 'Priests', which seriously need a new group name, are unified by their connection to a force beyond themselves that empowers them.
I have always felt like subclasses for the eight school of magic, while not a worthless idea, were all pretty underwhelming and could be combined into a single wizard subclass like a "scholar of magic" or something like that.
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
I think people are getting too stuck up on this stuff, first off, I don't think each group is just getting 1 thing, I suspect it'll be a couple of features over the levels and I don't think they necessarily have to be already existing features either.
Fighting style I think is actually unlikely to be the Warrior feature, for a simple reason, fighting styles in 5E went to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and I don't think they are going to pull fighting styles away from Paladin or Ranger (tho we should get confirmation on Ranger shortly). I think what we will see is something to improve Warrior endurance in some way and some additional form of nova damage, but will have to see.
Channel Divinity could work for Priests, Clerics channeling the power of their deity, paladins channeling the power of their oath and druids channeling the power of nature. So I won't dismiss that one.
Favorite school of magic doesn't seem likely to me, schools of magic was always a wizard thing, sorcerers are natural/innate casters and warlocks get their power and knowledge from their patron in one method or another. What I think might be more likely is metamagic, it'd require a significant redesign for sorcerer but metamagic could be applicable to all three, however my guess is that we will see something new there instead of a fundamental sorcerer re-working.
EDIT: BIIIIIG UPDATE! Looks like new playtest is here!
I mean kinda? But isn't Magical Secrets the more obvious feature here? They're literally stealing spells from other classes.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So, I really do not understand why some people are panicking about the Artificer not being included, when the class was specifically mentioned in the video. Sure it won't be included in this UA document, but there will be plenty more coming out and it seems ridiculous to think they will be dropped from the game. The very worst that could happen is that they are not included in the Player's Handbook, but are then put in a supplement released nearly immediately afterwards. I could also envision special supplements for each of the categories (Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior) coming out along with or soon after the Player's Handbook and containing additional subclasses (a little like the 2e class supplements). As for the question that someone above posed, as to which skills Artificers will get expertise in, it seems pretty likely that they will get their expertise in tools/kits.
Also, I do not think that every class will be limited to being in one single category of Expert, Priest, Mage, and Warrior. They even hinted at this, with some classes having access to items (and possibly abilities) of multiple categories. Due to this, I expect that to some extent a class like the Paladin will count as both Warrior and Priest, Rangers will be Warriors and Experts, Artificers will be Experts and Mages, or something along those lines. In addition, certain subclasses such as Arcane Trickster, Divine Sorcerer, etc. may open up a kind of cross-category classification.
I have also heard people talking about how quickly they reacted to folks not liking the critical hit rules from the previous UA, and so due to that they have already backtracked. I think this is untrue, as it seemed that they knew in the first video they were going out on a limb in the first place with that change, and they will probably have a playtest of various "controversial" rules changes (not just with critical hits) that get rotated through (such as with Inspiration on a 20 or on a 1). I wouldn't necessarily say that some rule that has been changed from the first to the second playtest has been entirely abandoned.
The reason there are so few Artificer subclasses is because the base class is not in the SRD or PHB, and WotC has a rule that you will never need anything but the core three books to use any supplement. So if they print the Artificer in Book X, they can’t publish a subclass for it in Book Y without reprinting the entire base class again. That eats up pages and WotC is getting stingy AF with those lately. However, if the base class is included in the new PHB, then they can print subclasses for it wherever just like they do for the other 12 classes. That’s why people are anxious about it, we want it in the PHB so it can get more official support by way of subclasses.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My Predictions:
Warriors (Barb, Fighter, Monk) will be Fighting Style at level 1, and hopefully extra feats/ASIs (Barbarian & Monks would really really appreciate that).
Mages (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock) will be Arcane Spell List + Arcane Recovery, and possibly a Ritual book (a la Pact of the Tome / Spellbook)
Priests (Paladin, Druid, Cleric) will be Divine Spell List + Channel Divinity, with WS being subsumed into CD.
Paladin & Ranger will get a class feature making them count as Warriors for items & feats and gain a Fighting Style at level 2, Gish subclasses - Swords Bard, Bladesinger, Pact of the Blade - will get this feature when that subclass is taken.
Bonus predictions:
All spellcasters are now preparation casters, just as they are now all ritual casters.
All spellcasting classes will get 2 bonus spells that are "always prepared", for Bards these will be of their choice from any spell list, for everyone else they will be subclass specific and locked (Ranger may have 1/2 class specific an 1/2 subclass specific).
Cawford has already said anyone can cast a spell as a ritual, so long as the spell has the ritual tag.
You just listed three of my four favorite wizard subclasses. So as long as Diviner, or something similar to it stays as well, then I'm fine with that change:) But what would not having schools of magic as subclasses do to help wizard be a cooler class? I honestly liked having so many subclasses to pick from.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I can see bards with magic secrets stealing things, but paladins (priest) also get Fighting Styles and two thirds of warriors don't, so I'm not really seeing a feature taken from other types in Ranger or Rogue... I can kinda see how the psi knife rogue archetype steals a bit of warriorness, since that touches on being similar to the psi knight and monk ki usage...
I think its more that people are upset the Artificer is unlikely to be in 1D&D PHB, as its not a core class. Its hard not to feel disappointed that your favorite class is not good enough to be "core." Especially with the popularity rise of alchemists and adventurer-blacksmith types in modern fantasy.
Its also annoying to have to wait a year or three for your favorite class to come out. That's not a short amount of time.
I maintain that the Alchemist Artificer does not really adequately represent the Alchemist archetype from a fantasy point of view, since alchemy (both in works of fiction and even in real-world occultism) is far more than just brewing potions and making salves. It has this whole other spiritual angle to it that the Alchemist Artificer simply lacks. The Transmutation Wizard was an attempt at capturing that, but they didn't really put as much thought into its features as they should have, so it also kinda fell flat for me. But I hope one gets my point.
Fair. Though i disagree that modern fantasy alchemists must have internal alchemy - I look at alchemists in video games or fantasy stories like The Wandering Inn, and there's more of a mad scientist vibe than spiritual refining.
I personally want to see the alchemist and blacksmth archetypes folded into Rogue (similar / upgrades to poison rules) and Fighter (Rune Knight is a good start, but only a start), respectively. But most people I know are more interested in the artificer class than anything. So... YMMV
The simplest solution is usually the correct one.
Warriors: Barbarian, Fighters and Monks. Characteristic trait: Fighting Style.
Priests: Clerics, Druids and Paladins. Characteristic trait: Channel Divinity.
Mages: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks. Characteristic trait: Favorite school of magic.
What causes me the most doubts is the characteristic trait of the Mages. Right now there is no such thing as "Favorite School of Magic", but I think they are going to go that way. They're not going to give everyone Arcane recovery, or Eldritch invocations, or any other craziness I've read about. The only other possibility I see is metamagic (which in fact had always been a thing for Wizards until 5e).
And what I also believe is that there will be feats that give you the characteristic trait of a group. What I don't think they do is give the characteristic trait to a class that is in another group. For example, I don't think Rangers or Paladins have a fighting style if it's a Warriors thing. They will be able to choose it by feat. That is my prediction.
Y'all are overthinking this.
Different groups do not need "unifying traits". Experts just-so-happen to line up under Expertise since 5e is actually f@#$ing terrible at representing "really good at something", so Expertise is the ONLY way they ever do that. The other groupings are thematic, with classes that fulfill similar class fantasies or thematic needs grouped together. The Unifying Trait for 'Warriors' is that their primary job is Melee Bonk and give primacy to physical combat. The Unifying Trait for mages is magecraft, i.e. centering on the use of spells and giving primacy to magic. 'Priests', which seriously need a new group name, are unified by their connection to a force beyond themselves that empowers them.
Thematic ties, not "a specific mechanic" ties.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have always felt like subclasses for the eight school of magic, while not a worthless idea, were all pretty underwhelming and could be combined into a single wizard subclass like a "scholar of magic" or something like that.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think people are getting too stuck up on this stuff, first off, I don't think each group is just getting 1 thing, I suspect it'll be a couple of features over the levels and I don't think they necessarily have to be already existing features either.
Fighting style I think is actually unlikely to be the Warrior feature, for a simple reason, fighting styles in 5E went to Fighter, Paladin and Ranger and I don't think they are going to pull fighting styles away from Paladin or Ranger (tho we should get confirmation on Ranger shortly). I think what we will see is something to improve Warrior endurance in some way and some additional form of nova damage, but will have to see.
Channel Divinity could work for Priests, Clerics channeling the power of their deity, paladins channeling the power of their oath and druids channeling the power of nature. So I won't dismiss that one.
Favorite school of magic doesn't seem likely to me, schools of magic was always a wizard thing, sorcerers are natural/innate casters and warlocks get their power and knowledge from their patron in one method or another. What I think might be more likely is metamagic, it'd require a significant redesign for sorcerer but metamagic could be applicable to all three, however my guess is that we will see something new there instead of a fundamental sorcerer re-working.
EDIT: BIIIIIG UPDATE! Looks like new playtest is here!