IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
Yes, artificers can definitely work in any setting. WotC tried hard to make them look more like magical crafters than steampunk engineers. If you lean into the magic-item-forger element, it can fit almost anywhere. I played an Alchemist artificer (I know, I'm a glutton for punishment) that was a forest gnome that made everything from twigs and bugs and herbs. Nothing high tech at all.
It's a problem with the preconceived notions that are already in place. They'll have to try harder to overcome them. It will mostly come down to the descriptions, examples, and art used.
That's basically what I was saying. I can see how they could fit anywhere. I like them. The current campaign I run has one. But it also has spelljamming.
Whether every table accepts them in the future comes down to their presentation.
That's basically what I was saying. I can see how they could fit anywhere. I like them. The current campaign I run has one. But it also has spelljamming.
Whether every table accepts them in the future comes down to their presentation.
Yeah, that makes sense, but personally, I think that putting Artificer in a class group for "world-specific" classes wouldn't be a good way to present it as something that could work in any world.
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.
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building.
That defeats the stated purpose of the 4 "over-classes" of standardizing as much of the character building mechanics as possible to make additions of "new" classes simpler.
I concede that an artificer could fit into any world. However, the core element of DnD is exploring dungeons (and sometimes traveling the planes or saving the world from an epic threat). An artificer could be a fine NPC in most worlds (I have one in mine) but would be considered out of place as a PC because their main utility is done at a workbench, which implies some level of civilization (and a lot of down-time). I could just as easily create a class for scholars or nobles or blacksmiths or morticians (yes, done that) since they, too, can exist in most playable worlds. But I think a lot of people feel like the artificer does not belong because it is hard to see it as a dungeon explorer/ plane walker/ world saver class within most world settings.
As much as I like the idea of the classes being mentioned, they already - for better or for worse - either exist in spell lists or subclasses. Take the Shaman for instance, who I want to be its own thing: I could just play a Bard of the College of Spirits, or a Druid who has lots of spiritual/elemental manifestation abilities in their spell list. How does the Warlord function without stepping on the toes of the Bard (I'm going to have to see how in my current game my new seventh level Artificer's Flash of Genius is going to affect the party's Bard's want to Inspire people, for instance)? I appreciate the demand for the Witch or Psionics, but if backwards compatibility is the goal, how do you make them their own class when their features are already in multiple classes elsewhere in 5E?
I think it's just a fundamental problem with 5E, and eventually One D&D: there's too much overlap between the classes as is, and the more subclasses that come about, the fewer classes and subclasses can be added (bearing in mind they have to be good value for money). The design of new classes in the current framework must be akin to walking on eggshells, and there's a lot of them to traverse as more subclasses are introduced.
While I would like new classes to be added, I don't know where they fit in.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
How does the Warlord function without stepping on the toes of the Bard
There is no fundamental problem with two classes doing similar things with somewhat different mechanics; it's not like sorcerer/wizard or barbarian/fighter aren't pretty redundant.
IMO there ought to be a 5th class group. One that is more about world-building. That would be where the artificer and other world-specific classes can go.
Consider how diverse the various worlds of DnD are and it kind of makes sense to put the more steampunk characters in their own class group--or basically any other class type that might feel out of place in a standard DnD campaign unless the background for that home-world explains why they exist.
Then again, if there's magical arifacts in your fantasy setting, there's people who make them. Artificers aren't necessarily steampunk, they're more of magic engineers, while wizards are magic scientists.
How does the Warlord function without stepping on the toes of the Bard
There is no fundamental problem with two classes doing similar things with somewhat different mechanics; it's not like sorcerer/wizard or barbarian/fighter aren't pretty redundant.
The way I see it is that the Barbarian could quite comfortably be merged with the Fighter, and again, subclasses folded into the base class. Someone even suggested that Rage be a background feature, which I could easily get behind. As for the Sorcerer and Wizard, I struggle to see a significant loss if the Wizard was just given Sorcery Points and Metamagic, and Sorcerer quietly removed from the game to be replaced by something else. But then I don't regularly play those classes, so I lack the emotional attachment and experience to say why they're the square peg in the round hole of class design. The crossover would be fine if there were tons of classes with a handful of subclasses such as Pathfinder, but then I know at some stage the question is "why don't you play Pathfinder," and for that I really don't have an answer. I just dislike WotC's selection of classes and piling subclasses into them that really don't satisfy the archetype I'm going for.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
If we had to look at it from a fantasy perceptive then Wizards and Sorcerers do end up crossing over each at a certain point, Wizards eventually become powerful enough that they hold magic within themselves better and use metamagic while Sorcerers begin learning new spells outside of what their innate magic provides. Best Examples of these outcomes would be the Archmage for the Wizard and the Magnus for the Sorcerer.
I think Sorcerers should have more features that make it easier for them to be a gish, it was always odd to me how this class is the magic user that didn't need to spend years of studying to perform their first cantrip. The magic just awoke and erupted from them, so they just need time to adjust and use it often which can give them enough time to acquire some martial skills. Here's a feature I found in an old class from 3.5e that I think would fit the Sorcerer:
Channel Spell (Sp): At 4th level, can channel any spell they can cast into there melee weapon. Using this ability requires a move action, and the spell slot just as if he had cast the spell. The channeled spell affects the next target that the spell successfully attacks with their weapon (saving throws and spell resistance still apply). Even if the spell normally affects an area or is a ray, it affects only the target. The spell is discharged from the weapon, which can then hold another spell. Can only channel their spells into only one weapon at a time. Spells channeled into a weapon are lost if not used in 8 hours.
This can be a metamagic too but would be great as a feature for Sorcerers.
It makes sense imo for Wizards to have Metamagic, because these are the folks who study how arcane magic works for who knows how long. So it stands to reason they'd then be equipped to twist that magic in different ways to suit their needs. We do that in the real world with technology made off the back of scientific investigation and research.
The problem is that Sorcerers would still need something all their own to distinguish them from Wizards, so giving Wizards the Metamagic feature (and not just a feat) would be problematic.
I see it rather as wizards spinding their lifetimes perfecting just a couple of formulae - fixed, complicated formulae that can't be altered without years of research. Sorcerers live by magic, feel the magic, that's why they can bend it on the fly instinctively without understanding the whole underlying science behind the process. Which is why sorcerers have the power to bend the spells, while wizards have access to more sophisticated ones that sorcerers can't replicate with their raw power. Well, at least that was the case before unified spell lists.
It makes sense imo for Wizards to have Metamagic, because these are the folks who study how arcane magic works for who knows how long. So it stands to reason they'd then be equipped to twist that magic in different ways to suit their needs. We do that in the real world with technology made off the back of scientific investigation and research.
The problem is that Sorcerers would still need something all their own to distinguish them from Wizards, so giving Wizards the Metamagic feature (and not just a feat) would be problematic.
I see it rather as wizards spinding their lifetimes perfecting just a couple of formulae - fixed, complicated formulae that can't be altered without years of research. Sorcerers live by magic, feel the magic, that's why they can bend it on the fly instinctively without understanding the whole underlying science behind the process. Which is why sorcerers have the power to bend the spells, while wizards have access to more sophisticated ones that sorcerers can't replicate with their raw power. Well, at least that was the case before unified spell lists.
Making Sorcs prep casters takes from their individuality if you ask me. The Idea that a sorc just "knows" or intuits their new spells was a a big draw for me. Making them no better than a wiz by letting them change their list daily? why be one then? Maybe the Arcane Magic Users Playtest will make the class unique again.
Yeah, I think for me anyways, the best analogy for a sorcerer is a mutant from the X-men universe. Their powers are something they are born with, they often unlock them later in life, and they slowly learn to control them and focus them.
I don't even necessarily think of a Sorcerer's fireball as being the same thing as a Wizards. Maybe they are naturally drawing on the same formulas in the weave, or it could be an entirely individual expression of magic. It might just happen to look the same because it makes the game mechanics simpler.
Because of this association with mutant powers, I definitely think Sorcerers should stick with known spells and not prepared. And they should lean more into the metamagic. There should be higher level options that increase their mastery of their powers.
If we are talking about new classes we would like to see, I would honestly like a class whose whole mechanic is based around "transforming" Itd be nice to have a class where you could play out the fantasy someone whose body and mind are reshaped or empowered without having to rely on reflavoring Rage or Wildshape or things like that. I think there are enough distinct instances of transforming heroes in fiction to merit a class with that mechanic as the primary focus. I feel like it would primarily be a martial class which is heavily designed around its subclasses. Could give it a unique mechanic that maybe lets you swap your ability scores or something to give off a Jekyll/Hide or Banner/Hulk vibe. Could have subclasses related to Lycanthropy, becoming a brute, maybe a spiritual/fiendish possession, or heck, even a magical girl/power ranger suit-type transformation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My preference for sorcerer vs wizard is that there should be a tradeoff between power and flexibility; the problem with sorcerer has always been that they lost a lot of flexibility without actually gaining an appreciable amount of power, probably because wizards started at such a high power level that there wasn't really room to have something superior.
Making Sorcs prep casters takes from their individuality if you ask me. The Idea that a sorc just "knows" or intuits their new spells was a a big draw for me. Making them no better than a wiz by letting them change their list daily? why be one then? Maybe the Arcane Magic Users Playtest will make the class unique again.
My point exactly. With unified spell lists, what is even the difference between sorcerer and wizard? Prepared casting for sorcerers will completely erase the difference.
Making Sorcs prep casters takes from their individuality if you ask me. The Idea that a sorc just "knows" or intuits their new spells was a a big draw for me. Making them no better than a wiz by letting them change their list daily? why be one then? Maybe the Arcane Magic Users Playtest will make the class unique again.
My point exactly. With unified spell lists, what is even the difference between sorcerer and wizard? Prepared casting for sorcerers will completely erase the difference.
The unified spell list was never an issue to me. If anything I always felt Sorcs should have access to all spells (arcane, divine, and primal) but only have a select handful of them at any one time. Note: I am not opposed to letting Sorcs switch out their entire set of spells at level up just not daily.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artificers aren't world-specific, they can be played in any setting. Personally, I think that Artificers would make a great Expert.
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.The link doesn't work for me.
Yes, artificers can definitely work in any setting. WotC tried hard to make them look more like magical crafters than steampunk engineers. If you lean into the magic-item-forger element, it can fit almost anywhere. I played an Alchemist artificer (I know, I'm a glutton for punishment) that was a forest gnome that made everything from twigs and bugs and herbs. Nothing high tech at all.
It's a problem with the preconceived notions that are already in place. They'll have to try harder to overcome them. It will mostly come down to the descriptions, examples, and art used.
Dang, does this link work: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/148447-read-before-you-say-artificers-are-too-sci-fi-for
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.Yep, that one works!
That's basically what I was saying. I can see how they could fit anywhere. I like them. The current campaign I run has one. But it also has spelljamming.
Whether every table accepts them in the future comes down to their presentation.
Yeah, that makes sense, but personally, I think that putting Artificer in a class group for "world-specific" classes wouldn't be a good way to present it as something that could work in any world.
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.That defeats the stated purpose of the 4 "over-classes" of standardizing as much of the character building mechanics as possible to make additions of "new" classes simpler.
I concede that an artificer could fit into any world. However, the core element of DnD is exploring dungeons (and sometimes traveling the planes or saving the world from an epic threat). An artificer could be a fine NPC in most worlds (I have one in mine) but would be considered out of place as a PC because their main utility is done at a workbench, which implies some level of civilization (and a lot of down-time). I could just as easily create a class for scholars or nobles or blacksmiths or morticians (yes, done that) since they, too, can exist in most playable worlds. But I think a lot of people feel like the artificer does not belong because it is hard to see it as a dungeon explorer/ plane walker/ world saver class within most world settings.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
As much as I like the idea of the classes being mentioned, they already - for better or for worse - either exist in spell lists or subclasses. Take the Shaman for instance, who I want to be its own thing: I could just play a Bard of the College of Spirits, or a Druid who has lots of spiritual/elemental manifestation abilities in their spell list. How does the Warlord function without stepping on the toes of the Bard (I'm going to have to see how in my current game my new seventh level Artificer's Flash of Genius is going to affect the party's Bard's want to Inspire people, for instance)? I appreciate the demand for the Witch or Psionics, but if backwards compatibility is the goal, how do you make them their own class when their features are already in multiple classes elsewhere in 5E?
I think it's just a fundamental problem with 5E, and eventually One D&D: there's too much overlap between the classes as is, and the more subclasses that come about, the fewer classes and subclasses can be added (bearing in mind they have to be good value for money). The design of new classes in the current framework must be akin to walking on eggshells, and there's a lot of them to traverse as more subclasses are introduced.
While I would like new classes to be added, I don't know where they fit in.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
There is no fundamental problem with two classes doing similar things with somewhat different mechanics; it's not like sorcerer/wizard or barbarian/fighter aren't pretty redundant.
Then again, if there's magical arifacts in your fantasy setting, there's people who make them. Artificers aren't necessarily steampunk, they're more of magic engineers, while wizards are magic scientists.
The way I see it is that the Barbarian could quite comfortably be merged with the Fighter, and again, subclasses folded into the base class. Someone even suggested that Rage be a background feature, which I could easily get behind. As for the Sorcerer and Wizard, I struggle to see a significant loss if the Wizard was just given Sorcery Points and Metamagic, and Sorcerer quietly removed from the game to be replaced by something else. But then I don't regularly play those classes, so I lack the emotional attachment and experience to say why they're the square peg in the round hole of class design. The crossover would be fine if there were tons of classes with a handful of subclasses such as Pathfinder, but then I know at some stage the question is "why don't you play Pathfinder," and for that I really don't have an answer. I just dislike WotC's selection of classes and piling subclasses into them that really don't satisfy the archetype I'm going for.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
If we had to look at it from a fantasy perceptive then Wizards and Sorcerers do end up crossing over each at a certain point, Wizards eventually become powerful enough that they hold magic within themselves better and use metamagic while Sorcerers begin learning new spells outside of what their innate magic provides. Best Examples of these outcomes would be the Archmage for the Wizard and the Magnus for the Sorcerer.
I think Sorcerers should have more features that make it easier for them to be a gish, it was always odd to me how this class is the magic user that didn't need to spend years of studying to perform their first cantrip. The magic just awoke and erupted from them, so they just need time to adjust and use it often which can give them enough time to acquire some martial skills. Here's a feature I found in an old class from 3.5e that I think would fit the Sorcerer:
Channel Spell (Sp): At 4th level, can channel any spell they can cast into there melee weapon. Using this ability requires a move action, and the spell slot just as if he had cast the spell. The channeled spell affects the next target that the spell successfully attacks with their weapon (saving throws and spell resistance still apply). Even if the spell normally affects an area or is a ray, it affects only the target. The spell is discharged from the weapon, which can then hold another spell. Can only channel their spells into only one weapon at a time. Spells channeled into a weapon are lost if not used in 8 hours.
This can be a metamagic too but would be great as a feature for Sorcerers.
I'm actually cool with the ideas of wizards having to cast spells by the book so to speak and not be able to use metamagic without a feat .
I see it rather as wizards spinding their lifetimes perfecting just a couple of formulae - fixed, complicated formulae that can't be altered without years of research. Sorcerers live by magic, feel the magic, that's why they can bend it on the fly instinctively without understanding the whole underlying science behind the process. Which is why sorcerers have the power to bend the spells, while wizards have access to more sophisticated ones that sorcerers can't replicate with their raw power. Well, at least that was the case before unified spell lists.
Making Sorcs prep casters takes from their individuality if you ask me.
The Idea that a sorc just "knows" or intuits their new spells was a a big draw for me.
Making them no better than a wiz by letting them change their list daily? why be one then?
Maybe the Arcane Magic Users Playtest will make the class unique again.
Yeah, I think for me anyways, the best analogy for a sorcerer is a mutant from the X-men universe. Their powers are something they are born with, they often unlock them later in life, and they slowly learn to control them and focus them.
I don't even necessarily think of a Sorcerer's fireball as being the same thing as a Wizards. Maybe they are naturally drawing on the same formulas in the weave, or it could be an entirely individual expression of magic. It might just happen to look the same because it makes the game mechanics simpler.
Because of this association with mutant powers, I definitely think Sorcerers should stick with known spells and not prepared. And they should lean more into the metamagic. There should be higher level options that increase their mastery of their powers.
If we are talking about new classes we would like to see, I would honestly like a class whose whole mechanic is based around "transforming" Itd be nice to have a class where you could play out the fantasy someone whose body and mind are reshaped or empowered without having to rely on reflavoring Rage or Wildshape or things like that. I think there are enough distinct instances of transforming heroes in fiction to merit a class with that mechanic as the primary focus. I feel like it would primarily be a martial class which is heavily designed around its subclasses. Could give it a unique mechanic that maybe lets you swap your ability scores or something to give off a Jekyll/Hide or Banner/Hulk vibe. Could have subclasses related to Lycanthropy, becoming a brute, maybe a spiritual/fiendish possession, or heck, even a magical girl/power ranger suit-type transformation.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My preference for sorcerer vs wizard is that there should be a tradeoff between power and flexibility; the problem with sorcerer has always been that they lost a lot of flexibility without actually gaining an appreciable amount of power, probably because wizards started at such a high power level that there wasn't really room to have something superior.
My point exactly. With unified spell lists, what is even the difference between sorcerer and wizard? Prepared casting for sorcerers will completely erase the difference.
The unified spell list was never an issue to me.
If anything I always felt Sorcs should have access to all spells (arcane, divine, and primal) but only have a select handful of them at any one time.
Note: I am not opposed to letting Sorcs switch out their entire set of spells at level up just not daily.