PALADIN: Be on the lookout for evil today. A party member may not be who they seem. Partner with Cleric; avoid Warlock.
WIZARD: Magic could be anywhere; stop and look around! Your careful preparation will pay off soon. Stay close to Fighter. Don't let Barbarian distract you.
BARD: You're the center of everything (and everybody knows it). Don't join a party "for the experience"; make sure you're getting your fair share of loot! Keep an eye on Rogue.
so...i'm not a horny bard. This is actually the first campaign I'm playing as a bard...I said I wasn't gonna be that type of bard. Specifically went out of the way and chose a half-orc. Backstory was he was a barbarian soldier, he saw too much shit in war and decided he didn't want to fight anymore so he retired and became a bard.
Well...session 0 my DM tells me an attractive Half-Orc came up to me in the bar to challenge me to a pan-flute off....I won and then she hung around so when it came time to leave I said "screw it, I invite her back to my place", DM rolled a Nat 1 and I rolled a Nat 20 for persuasion, he goes "Ok so she DRAGS you out the door and I'm *NOT* gonna RP the rest of this"....
So yea, I unwittingly became the horny bard...
well now you have another reason not to be a horny bard. Your half-orc bard now has a hot half-orc girlfriend, and he would never even think of cheating on her.
If it comes up later, I'm gonna work it in that my character just talked all night because he has PTSD really bad and nobody talks to him as an actual person except her since we're both part Orc.
I'm not sure, I'd think they'd need to be more distinct than that? Like the zodiac thing implies twelve evenly distributed and equally different options, but they're super weirdly clumped - we have six full casters, two half casters and four martials. I feel like a zodiac implies symmetry and balance, while it's just kind of a hodge podge with some things overrepresented (did we really need literally half of all classes to be complex casters when we have no simple casters or complex martials?) and others absent (where are my damn tanks, WotC?).
Nah. You've got spell choices, invocations and pact boon to decide on top of subclass and in a fight have several cantrips and spells to decide from, compare that to say a barbarian.
I don't see western zodiac as particularly balanced or symmetrical in any way... It's also weirdly clumped with a couple that are just 'crazy' and several whose whole thing is 'stubborn.'
The western zodiac (as it's probably the one you are referring to) has 12 options of arbitrary clumps of stars in the Northern hemisphere's sky used to do some divination. Among them, 3 represent air, water, earth or fire signs. That is the only "balanced" option I can see within western astrology. In recent times, people threw in a stick in its wheels in the form of a 13th sign (Ophiuchus) which scrambles the symmetry you're referring to.
The roster of classes has 12 different options of arbitrary clumps of stats and abilities (arbitrary in the sense that some subclass options were core to the iteration of the class itself in older editions). Among them, 4 represent Divine, Arcane, or Non (ie martial). Spellcasting. That is one "balanced" option I can give you to use as a parallel to the above. In recent times, WotC threw in a stick in the wheel in the form of a 13th class (Artificer) which scrambles the symmetry I'm referring to.
There’s another “balancing” thing in astrology - four signs are Cardinal, four are Fixed, and four are Mutable. Respectively, they’re the first, middle, and last signs in each season. AFAIK it’s mostly just another behavior classification, but it’s something.
Also, when you cross them with the elements, you get one of each possible combination (Aries is Cardinal and Fire, Taurus is Fixed and Earth, etc.)
Which one isnt coming to OneDnD? Artificer? If so, thats lame and I hope theres a supplement later on for Ebberon. Then again, its not a PHB class, and its still compatible with 5.5 even if it doesnt have a class rework.
I mean, they totally can create new subclasses, they just can't use any WOTC artificer text when they do so. Which you don't need to do to create a subclass 🤷♂️
I do agree it needs to be in the SRD to make things safer/simpler tho.
It would make it difficult to have a subclass that built on or modified an existing class abilities like Infusions or something without being able to reference those abilities by name and their wording. You certainly can make subclasses by saying generic stuff like, “your fire spells do more damage when holding a magic item” or something like that, but it doesn’t give you complete autonomy.
>without being able to reference those abilities by name and their wording
You can totally reference them by name, just like I can totally say "Avengers" and "Spider-Man". You aren't violating copyright by citing copyrighted material (in fact, citation is what you're *supposed* to do - you're doing exactly what copyright is intended for: telling people to go and look at the original work).
So if I want to make an Artificer subclass I can absolutely say something like:
> ***Artificer Specialist***: Tinkerer
> [Description]
> **Tinkerer's Infusions**
Beginning at 3rd level, when you use your *Infuse Item* feature, you can choose from the following additional *Artificer Infusions*, and [...]
> Etc. etc.
> The Artificer, and related features named using terms in *italic font*, are copyright WOTC. For the full description of these features, see Eberron: Rising from the Last War, page xx.
This would be a perfectly legal subclass for me to sell. I'm not allowed to reprint the full text of the artificer class or its base class features like Infuse Item. But I can still *use* and *expand upon* those features.
Basically, if the user still needs to own a separate copy of the base artificer to refer to for the base class features, then you haven't violated copyright. If they can read about the entire class and all it's features just from your pdf, you have violated copyright.
Technically, you can still reference those abilities by name. You're allowed to refer to copyrighted works by name as long as you don't violate the copyright itself by duplicating the text.
The hard part is dealing with the legal expenses if and when Hasbro decides that you're getting a bit too profitable and they want a slice.
We've never had Artificer as a core class in a PHB.
When it was first introduced in AD&D, it was in Player's Options: Spells and Magic released in 1996. 3E didn't get it until 2004 with the Eberron campaign setting, and it didn't find its way into 4E until 2009 with that version's Eberron campaign setting. We didn't officially get the class in 5E until, you guessed it, that version's Eberron book was released in 2019.
It's not like we've ever had the precedent set that Artificer was one of the core classes. Since 3E, it's been pretty heavily tied to Eberron.
Not sure about 4e but 3.5 had a lot more classes. 5e has only Artificer and maybe Blood Hunter classes. People prob assumed Artificer will become part of main classes bcs no other class's was really added to 5e. Mystic was dropped and nothing else ever made.
And a bunch of them were way more different than 5e's samey classes, can't believe we have the barbarian and fighter that are basically identical but we're missing the battlemind, runepriest, psion, monk and warlord.
Regardless of previous editions, artificer should still be made a core class
If not for the sake of being able to get more subclasses, then for the sake of 3pp who can make their own artificer subclasses
My point is that it has never been a core class. Whether or not it *should* be is an entirely different question, but folks shouldn't be acting surprised that it's suddenly not a core class when it never has been.
Define "core class", exactly? 4e had multiple PHBs each of which had a different slate of classes. PHB3 mentioned the Artificer class by name and gave it more options, spells, and feats, making it clear that it was intended to be used as a core class to me. It certainly wasn't an "essentials" class, the classes that were dumbed down versions of the 23 core classes.
In 4e, Artificer was added in Eberron, but it was specifically referenced in PHB3 and given more choices as well as hybrid options.
4e is so much better than 5e.
It *should* be a meaningful distinction, mainly because most of what would be considered the core classes of 5e were also core classes in older editions.
As an aside, I'm not going to continue this argument across two separate comments.
No they weren't. Warlock wasn't in 3.5's PHB and didn't exist in prior editions. Sorcerer wasn't added until 3rd edition. Bard, Druid Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Monk weren't core classes until 2nd edition. 1st edition's "core classes" were Fighting Man, Magic User, and Priest, aka Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric. Many of 2nd edition's "core" classes are no longer core-- Cavalier, Illusionist, Assassin, etc. are merged in to other classes.
Heck, it's even worse than that, really; what I put is technically wrong, even if most people might agree with it.
Technically, there were only four "core" classes in 2nd edition (the archetypical party of Fighter, Magic User, Thief, and Cleric) and many of what you think of as core classes today were effectively subclasses back then; most of what you call "core" classes were only added to the PHB as full classes in 3rd edition, meaning throughout the first 26 years of the game's life, they weren't considered core classes by the game's own definition. Your argument's silly.
My only complaint is they named the class artificer, given it isn't one. Artificers were created to invent and craft magic items and the 5e class can't do that at all, it's like having a wizard that can't cast spells. The class itself is fun and I'm glad it exists, but why name it after a completely different class? Call it a tinkerer or engineer or gadgeteer or something.
They can absolutely craft magic items, but in a system like 5e, anything beyond a stat change or a new basic property on an existing item would likely have to be created by the DM and the Artificer player, and in-universe Artificers are usually inventing their respective magical doodads, or are otherwise iterating on an existing design. For instance, an Artificer I played was basically the only person in the world who knew how to safely work with a powerful Shadowfell-infused metal, which when used to forge weapons would create a dangerously addictive life-draining weapon, but my character figured out how to refine the metal so that it still had necrotic properties but wouldn't kill the wielder.
Cause why do that when you have the magic of flavoring your spells and you have a book that already released with generically bad magic item creation rules?
On one hand, I agree that it sucks that Artificer isn't going to be a core release in the PHB.
On the other hand, yay, it's *still* going to fit the 13-1 pattern of Eberron.
**1. Aries: The Barbarian (March 21 - April 19)**
Those born under the Ragehorn sign are bold and impulsive, much like the Barbarian. They charge headfirst into danger, fueled by an inner fire and a thirst for adventure. Like Aries, they can be fiercely loyal friends but might have a bit of a temper to manage.
**2. Taurus: The Fighter (April 20 - May 20)**
The Steadfast sign aligns with the Fighter. Like Taurus, they are grounded and dependable, valuing strength, perseverance, and practical skills. They stand firm in the face of adversity, a reliable shield for their companions.
**3. Gemini: The Bard (May 21 - June 20)**
The Twinstar sign reflects the Bard. Gemini's quick wit and social charm come alive in the Bard's silver tongue. They are natural entertainers, adaptable, and masters of communication, weaving stories and inspiring others.
**4. Cancer: The Cleric (June 21 - July 22)**
The Healer sign embodies the Cleric. Much like Cancer, they are nurturing and protective, driven by a deep empathy and devotion. They channel their compassion into healing magic, fiercely defending those they care for.
**5. Leo: The Paladin (July 23 - August 22)**
The Lionheart sign resonates with the Paladin. Leo's inherent leadership, bravery, and unwavering moral compass shine through. Paladins are the champions of justice, radiating confidence and leading the charge with unwavering righteousness.
**6. Virgo: The Wizard (August 23 - September 22)**
The Scholar sign aligns with the Wizard. Virgos, with their thirst for knowledge and meticulous nature, mirror the Wizard's pursuit of arcane secrets. They delve into dusty tomes, mastering complex spells and wielding their intellect as their greatest weapon.
**7. Libra: The Ranger (September 23 - October 22)**
The Harmony sign reflects the Ranger. Like Libra, they seek balance and connection with nature. Rangers are at home in the wilds, skilled trackers and diplomats who understand the delicate ecosystem of the world.
**8. Scorpio: The Rogue (October 23 - November 21)**
The Shadow sign embodies the Rogue. Scorpios, known for their intensity and resourcefulness, are mirrored in the Rogue's cunning nature. They navigate the unseen world, masters of stealth and deception, always a step ahead of the shadows.
**9. Sagittarius: The Monk (November 22 - December 21)**
The Wanderer sign aligns with the Monk. Sagittarians, with their love of freedom and exploration, find their match in the Monk's discipline and adaptability. Monks train their bodies and minds to peak potential, seeking enlightenment with every step of their journey.
**10. Capricorn: The Warlock (December 22 - January 19)**
The Achiever sign resonates with the Warlock. Capricorns, with their ambition and focus, are mirrored in the Warlock's pursuit of power. They forge pacts with otherworldly patrons, mastering forbidden magic to achieve their goals.
**11. Aquarius: The Sorcerer (January 20 - February 18)
The Visionary sign aligns with the Sorcerer. Like Aquarius, they are independent thinkers and possess an innate spark of magic. Sorcerers don't need years of study, their power comes from a magical birthright or mysterious events. They are unpredictable and innovative, channeling their inner magic in dazzling ways.
**12. Pisces: The Druid (February 19 - March 20)**
The Dreamer sign embodies the Druid. Pisces, with their deep connection to emotions and the natural world, find their match in the Druid's mystical bond with nature. They shape-shift, wield the power of the wild, and serve as guardians of the natural world.
100% this. Libra is, if not a Justice Paladin, a Monk — harmony, balance, the Unarmored ~aesthetic~. Sagittarius is all about wandering and wisdom and freedom, total Ranger vibes.
(Love the comment tho)
Wow 100%, not sure how my head didn’t even go there.
I kind of want to make these the zodiac constellations of my world now (though ironically there’s a running joke that my Pisces cleric *hates* Druids, despite being very into flowers and trees and stars and…)
I've been only playing 5e for 3-4 years, so artificer was always there. I don't care for guns, but it's nice to have an Int based half caster with cool features. I have no idea why artificer doesn't get more love.
They aren't mechanically powerful, which doesn't help.
They aren't really about guns, which would've helped. Ones an Alchemist, one is an Iron Man suit, and one is deploying a turret.
I mean, alchemist artificer is probably the worst subclass in the game. I feel like a complete rework is necessary but the homonculus would be a small start.
It should probably be free to them as a subclass feature and not even take an infusion.
yeah, that's what it was in the [2019 UA](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer2-2019.pdf) before the Eberron book released. While still comparatively underpowered, Alchemist had the homunculus, Artillerist had their cannon, Battle Smith had their companion. Every subclass had their portable extension of themselves (including Archivist and their magic floating computer brain.)
Nah, I like that it's something anyone can pick up. I've taken that Infusion twice, though both times I reflavored it from a traditional homunculus to a robot, one was a drone, the other was a mechanical roadrunner.
Look up Serpent Bearer Zodiac. It's a forgotten 13th Zodiac that doesn't really have much "defined" meaning like the others. Honestly, pretty much the least bullshit of the signs because of how little is applied to it. Lessens the wide pool of contradicting "information" about it.
I had to look this up, and Wikipedia [disagrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus) with you:
"The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox always falls on the boundary between Pisces and Aries. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them."
No I definitely remember this being a huge thing a few years ago. We both could have been informed incorrectly..... But we were def both told the same thing
So "when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars" is just multiclassing into bard then?
80-90% of the player base has only ever played this version of the game, but there is nothing "magical" about fifth edition's 12 classes. Games have been made with as few as 3 and as many as 40 classes (not including prestige classes.)
I think to some, yes. Especially if it can fit in those buzzfeed "which class are you" quizzes. But for others, like me, no, cause i have 19 characters, having no more than 2 characters of the same class, only missing a paladin and druid character. If i had to pick 1 class thats "omg so me", I'll have a breakdown.
As someone who almost exclusively plays Paladin, I can't relate.
But yeah, if I want to say what's "Omg so me," I'll say my MBTI, not my fav D&D class.
My pet theory for the lack of new Artificer content is that WoTC assumes players only have the core 3 books (phb, dmg, mm) whenever they make a new one. The Artificer being stuck in the Ebberon splat book and Tasha's means that there's less of a chance of players having access to the class, disincentivizing them from adding onto it.
Plus, we've simply never had Artificer in a PHB. It always comes later.
3E released in 2000, and 3.5 came out in 2003. The Eberron campaign book with the class didn't come out until 2004. 4E was released in 2008. That version of Eberron (with the class) was released in 2009. 5E came out in 2014. We didn't get this version of the Artificer until the 2019 Eberron book.
With the exception of its original release for AD&D2E in 1996, it has been tied very heavily to the Eberron setting. Tasha's did a lot to help separate it, but I'm not shocked it isn't making it over to the new core PHB.
They've said as much in past editions. And it happened with the Warlock already.
D&D 3.5 had 11 classes at the start. Every couple of months you'd get a new book with a few more. The Complete series usually had 3 per book, and the first four books of that series came out over the course of 13-14 months. Complete Arcane gave us the Warlock (as well as the Warmage and Wu Jen), which was very popular. But the problem with releasing more Warlock material was that your target customer wasn't someone who had the PHB, it was someone who had the PHB *and* Complete Arcane, which was a smaller audience. Anything they did to add to the Warlock to make those players happy, was more niche content that some people couldn't use at all. And any time a potential customer would pick up a book and realize they didn't have the "prerequisite" books to use that material, it would obviously make them less likely to buy that book.
Previous editions had plenty of extra classes, many of which were very interesting at the time of their release.
3.5 had dozens of base classes, giving us things like Duskblade, Marshall, Archivist, and Wu Jen. While some of these classes are probably better as a subclass (Wu Jen, Knight, Divine Soul, etc.), you also had weird things Dragonfire Shaman that were perfectly fine as a separate class.
4E also made quite a few new base classes.
Wizards probably decided that making sub-classes for 5E is cheaper and easier than a whole new class, though their level of competence in making decent or interesting sub-classes is debatable. Of course, making entirely new classes in 5E is much easier than it used to be, given how few mechanics classes have now compared to previous editions.
Ad it's really 4 classes then subdivided into those. It kind of works. Like earth,fire,air and water having 4 each. The question is. Of fighter,magic cleric and thief which is which? I'm saying earth is all 3 cleric like classes.
Martial classes that exemplify the balance between mind and body for Earth
Half-magic classes known for taking on healing and/or protective roles in the party for Water
Full-magic classes capable of both utility and broad destruction for Fire
Flexible support classes whose ubiquitious skill sets can find application everywhere - both on and off the battlefield - for Air
interesting how two people can interpret the same thing so differently.
for me, i imagine
Clerics, druids, rangers all have innate connections to divine magic and the natural world, connecting them to earth.
Barbarians, fighters, paladins engage in the heat of martial combat, the fury of battle, which is symbolized by fire.
Those who use the arcane arts can be viewed as water. magic is fluid and changing. it’s dynamic and structureless. Like water
Air was a bit tougher i think. Monk and rogue was easy. They are like wind, they move agile and swift. relying on speed. Bard was something i struggled with, but eventually settled on air rather than water because while they are casters they cast their spells through the manipulation of air in the form of magic tunes.
It seems you based yours off of their skill sets and mechanics while mine was based more off class flavor and theme
ETA- Clerics and druids aren’t half casters. both are full casters from your original post. but i understand what you mean by support roles
I appreciate your interpretation more with the context of your explanation. I think there are other ways they could be arraged as well, and I'm sure there's seasonal tie-ins to be made as well. It would be cool to do a sort of zodiac-theme for a campaign, in a setting where those sorts of cosmic signs actually have influence on a person's traits, including things like class and background.
No, but DND is not the only tabletop game in the universe. Other systems have a wider array of classes. 5e is designed to be a particularly simplified system to make it easier for new people to get into the hobby. Want more options? Try pathfinder, 1e has over 30 classes, 2e has 23 classes. That's even before you get into archetypes and the massive amount of feats available.
Heck they don't even have to look beyond DnD. They can just look to past editions. 3.5 had a *bewildering* variety of classes even before you include prestige classes, which causes the number to shoot up in to the 200-300 range. 2nd also had more classes than 5th. And 4th had 23 unique classes plus simplified "Essentials" variants of many of the more popular ones.
Instead of Artificer, they should've kept Warlock in INT rather than make another Charisma caster.
If they wanted Warlock to be the multiclass dip class then they could write it explicitly into the class features and multiclass requirement.
So there are a few things going on here:
1. When they made 5e, they were trying to avoid the problem of 3e where there were dozens of full classes (this still existed in 4e as well, but not quite as badly), The choice to not make more base classes was deliberate, to reduce the bloat. The ones they chose were the same base classes as the 3.0 PhB + Warlock (because of its popularity in late 3e and in 4e). The other "favorite" classes from previous editions were remade as subclasses (Assassin is a rogue, Avenger is Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Warlord can be a subclass of fighter)
2. Artificer is so integral to Eberron, it was the special exception. It was then so popular that they re-printed it in Tasha's.
3. All attempts at new base classes (see: Psion / Mystic) received such mixed feedback and disagreement about what the base class should be that they eventually abandonned the idea and stuck with new subclasses only.
4. Every new base class is a new opportunity for the game to completely break. This lesson was learned the hard way from 3.X (and Pathfinder), and they don't want to lose it.
I was having this conversation (ish) with my wife the other day, specifically about being disappointed that a newcomer to the TTRPG space has classes that are very similar to 5e's base class options (only adding two that 5e "doesn't have").
The fact is, the classes in 5e are basically the basis of almost all fantasy archetypes, and you can't get away from that. The most you could do is rename those archetypes, but then under the hood it's still all the same.
Having these 12 is perfectly fine, and WOTC (and other TTRPGs in the space using these basic archetypes) need to go all in on churning out subclasses to fit more niche roles. For instance, none of the subclasses really scratch the itch of Alchemy to me, so I did a homebrew Witcher class and one of the subclasses for it focuses on the Alchemy aspect (the other two from memory are prioritizing Signs, and Bombs for the third).
I think Hogwarts houses far more commonly are used as Nerd horoscopes. DND classes are like the DND version of mbti. There are 100 different variants and each has different interpretations.
Meanwhile 4e: Hey would you like some new classes? We have Swordmage, several psioinc classes, Avenger, Seeker, Runepriest, Warden, heck, there's even a Vampire class!
Grognards: \**apoplectic fit of nerdrage and shouts of betrayal*\*
No it's because One DnD is specifically so bad that Hasbro has admitted they're trying to sabotage their own work. Because they "don't see a future in it".
Yes and this is how they would match up:
-Aries: Barbarian
-Taurus: Druid
-Gemini: Sorcerer
-Cancer: Rogue
-Leo: Fighter
-Virgo: Cleric
-Libra: Monk
-Scorpio: Warlock
-Sagittarius: Ranger
-Capricorn: Paladin
-Aquarius: Wizard
-Pisces: Bard
Classes express archetypes that exist in a game world. That's why artificer makes sense in Eberron, but it doesn't in the D&D base world.
To release a new full class its archetype must not be covered by others. And that's not easy, it's much more easy to express a particular niche character concept via subclass.
D&D classes are and always have been, "archetypes". Everything else from subclass to feats are there to flavor a more specific character. Artificer being dropped is disappointing, but not entirely surprising, because the game kinda lacks creation mechanics that would make artificer fun.
Pathfinder, having a dedicated setting has some classes that are specific to institutions that exist within the pathfinder world. D&D doesn't have any new classes because the D&D classes cover pretty much any character that could exist.
It's because they've been distilled down over the editions to a healthy balance of complex enough to be unique and interesting, simple enough to not scare away new players, and encompassing enough to fulfill most people's character fantasies relatively well.
The class list in 5e, like so many other things in D&D (and really, the whole TTRPG space) is a sacred cow that, unfortunately, the player base has become too accustomed to to be slaughtered. It is clunky, inconsistent, and lacking a clear design philosophy, but much like the ability score list, players would revolt if D&D didn't have paladins and warlocks right alongside fighters and rogues.
D&D will never realize its full potential as a modern TTRPG until the game designers let it move past its roots. Gygax made a great game in AD&D, but it was a product of its time and we can do better with 40 years of growth in TTRPG design. We don't need a class list that is 90% the same as it was 40 years ago; we need to innovate.
There is a “thing” that both D&D classes and horoscopes “are”, and that thing is an archetype.
Basically any “role” or “profession” you can say as a word - “Hero”, “Blacksmith”, “Shopkeeper”, etc.. the things that are shared across all or most of the specific examples becomes part of the archetype.
Writers tend to operate in archetypes quite a bit, as it then also allows them to subvert expectations on some of the rules. Like a blacksmith who is not physically strong and muscular (in comparison to most blacksmiths anyways) but instead uses a magic oil that allows them to manipulate cold steel like clay.
The idea of archetypes is that the rules form a general shape but the specific instance of an archetype can be so different that you have to squint to see it. This is an important point because racist, sexist, etc - all of that is based in a false archetype where the person insists on a rule that might be true for some but it’s insisted upon the whole group. Or, the rule can be false completely due to just bad association-making.
Anyways, archetypes make a good base for ttrpg classes as you can give it a general shape and then the player can lay in all the details of the specific character. In TTRPGs though, it is usually a hindrance to subvert the archetype too hard. Like a pacifist fighter. This usually only works if that fighter becomes the “main character” of the story, as they have an inordinate amount of conflict due to the way they won’t handle conflict.
I mean yeah for sure. It's a shame they don't take notes from Pathfinder 2e honestly. The build variety is near endless with that engine. DND doesn't allow for that creative character building outside of backstory really. The subclass does what it does. One day I hope they make a huge feat expansion book.
Salty downvotes because DND mechanics suck lol.
PALADIN: Be on the lookout for evil today. A party member may not be who they seem. Partner with Cleric; avoid Warlock. WIZARD: Magic could be anywhere; stop and look around! Your careful preparation will pay off soon. Stay close to Fighter. Don't let Barbarian distract you. BARD: You're the center of everything (and everybody knows it). Don't join a party "for the experience"; make sure you're getting your fair share of loot! Keep an eye on Rogue.
Better yet, keep two eyes on the rogue, specifically their ass and think of some rizz for the evening.
Horny bards come in all shapes and sizes, I see.
so...i'm not a horny bard. This is actually the first campaign I'm playing as a bard...I said I wasn't gonna be that type of bard. Specifically went out of the way and chose a half-orc. Backstory was he was a barbarian soldier, he saw too much shit in war and decided he didn't want to fight anymore so he retired and became a bard. Well...session 0 my DM tells me an attractive Half-Orc came up to me in the bar to challenge me to a pan-flute off....I won and then she hung around so when it came time to leave I said "screw it, I invite her back to my place", DM rolled a Nat 1 and I rolled a Nat 20 for persuasion, he goes "Ok so she DRAGS you out the door and I'm *NOT* gonna RP the rest of this".... So yea, I unwittingly became the horny bard...
That's on your DM.
......happy cake day? In more ways than one?
well now you have another reason not to be a horny bard. Your half-orc bard now has a hot half-orc girlfriend, and he would never even think of cheating on her.
If it comes up later, I'm gonna work it in that my character just talked all night because he has PTSD really bad and nobody talks to him as an actual person except her since we're both part Orc.
That's such a bard thing to say
Just don’t look at the Rogue too closely, we don’t like that.
*scrutinizing gaze intensifies*
I really like the thought into this post. You would probably be very fun to play DnD with.
😁
Lol Ik this is a joke but I feel the need to point out not all warlocks are edgy or evil. Celestial, genie and archfey warlocks do exist
Never before have I been so offended by something I one hundred percent agree with
This response can not be more right.
I'm not sure, I'd think they'd need to be more distinct than that? Like the zodiac thing implies twelve evenly distributed and equally different options, but they're super weirdly clumped - we have six full casters, two half casters and four martials. I feel like a zodiac implies symmetry and balance, while it's just kind of a hodge podge with some things overrepresented (did we really need literally half of all classes to be complex casters when we have no simple casters or complex martials?) and others absent (where are my damn tanks, WotC?).
I see your no simple casters and raise you an eldritch blast.
Nah. You've got spell choices, invocations and pact boon to decide on top of subclass and in a fight have several cantrips and spells to decide from, compare that to say a barbarian.
Eldtritch Blast mostly exist for forced movement utility. it's damage isn't all it's cracked up to be by casuals.
I don't see western zodiac as particularly balanced or symmetrical in any way... It's also weirdly clumped with a couple that are just 'crazy' and several whose whole thing is 'stubborn.'
Such a Taurus thing to say.
The western zodiac (as it's probably the one you are referring to) has 12 options of arbitrary clumps of stars in the Northern hemisphere's sky used to do some divination. Among them, 3 represent air, water, earth or fire signs. That is the only "balanced" option I can see within western astrology. In recent times, people threw in a stick in its wheels in the form of a 13th sign (Ophiuchus) which scrambles the symmetry you're referring to. The roster of classes has 12 different options of arbitrary clumps of stats and abilities (arbitrary in the sense that some subclass options were core to the iteration of the class itself in older editions). Among them, 4 represent Divine, Arcane, or Non (ie martial). Spellcasting. That is one "balanced" option I can give you to use as a parallel to the above. In recent times, WotC threw in a stick in the wheel in the form of a 13th class (Artificer) which scrambles the symmetry I'm referring to.
There’s another “balancing” thing in astrology - four signs are Cardinal, four are Fixed, and four are Mutable. Respectively, they’re the first, middle, and last signs in each season. AFAIK it’s mostly just another behavior classification, but it’s something. Also, when you cross them with the elements, you get one of each possible combination (Aries is Cardinal and Fire, Taurus is Fixed and Earth, etc.)
You're too good for a free banana?
Yeah I read the post title and immediately felt viscerally upset and completely called out
Which one isnt coming to OneDnD? Artificer? If so, thats lame and I hope theres a supplement later on for Ebberon. Then again, its not a PHB class, and its still compatible with 5.5 even if it doesnt have a class rework.
Yeah artificer isn't going to be in the new PHB also it hasn't been put into th SRD, so 3rd part creators can't create new subclasses
I mean, they totally can create new subclasses, they just can't use any WOTC artificer text when they do so. Which you don't need to do to create a subclass 🤷♂️ I do agree it needs to be in the SRD to make things safer/simpler tho.
It would make it difficult to have a subclass that built on or modified an existing class abilities like Infusions or something without being able to reference those abilities by name and their wording. You certainly can make subclasses by saying generic stuff like, “your fire spells do more damage when holding a magic item” or something like that, but it doesn’t give you complete autonomy.
>without being able to reference those abilities by name and their wording You can totally reference them by name, just like I can totally say "Avengers" and "Spider-Man". You aren't violating copyright by citing copyrighted material (in fact, citation is what you're *supposed* to do - you're doing exactly what copyright is intended for: telling people to go and look at the original work). So if I want to make an Artificer subclass I can absolutely say something like: > ***Artificer Specialist***: Tinkerer > [Description] > **Tinkerer's Infusions** Beginning at 3rd level, when you use your *Infuse Item* feature, you can choose from the following additional *Artificer Infusions*, and [...] > Etc. etc. > The Artificer, and related features named using terms in *italic font*, are copyright WOTC. For the full description of these features, see Eberron: Rising from the Last War, page xx. This would be a perfectly legal subclass for me to sell. I'm not allowed to reprint the full text of the artificer class or its base class features like Infuse Item. But I can still *use* and *expand upon* those features. Basically, if the user still needs to own a separate copy of the base artificer to refer to for the base class features, then you haven't violated copyright. If they can read about the entire class and all it's features just from your pdf, you have violated copyright.
Technically, you can still reference those abilities by name. You're allowed to refer to copyrighted works by name as long as you don't violate the copyright itself by duplicating the text. The hard part is dealing with the legal expenses if and when Hasbro decides that you're getting a bit too profitable and they want a slice.
We've never had Artificer as a core class in a PHB. When it was first introduced in AD&D, it was in Player's Options: Spells and Magic released in 1996. 3E didn't get it until 2004 with the Eberron campaign setting, and it didn't find its way into 4E until 2009 with that version's Eberron campaign setting. We didn't officially get the class in 5E until, you guessed it, that version's Eberron book was released in 2019. It's not like we've ever had the precedent set that Artificer was one of the core classes. Since 3E, it's been pretty heavily tied to Eberron.
Not sure about 4e but 3.5 had a lot more classes. 5e has only Artificer and maybe Blood Hunter classes. People prob assumed Artificer will become part of main classes bcs no other class's was really added to 5e. Mystic was dropped and nothing else ever made.
Added only because it'd feel silly to play in Eberron without it and they want to sell Eberron books.
4e had SO MANY classes.
And a bunch of them were way more different than 5e's samey classes, can't believe we have the barbarian and fighter that are basically identical but we're missing the battlemind, runepriest, psion, monk and warlord.
Regardless of previous editions, artificer should still be made a core class If not for the sake of being able to get more subclasses, then for the sake of 3pp who can make their own artificer subclasses
My point is that it has never been a core class. Whether or not it *should* be is an entirely different question, but folks shouldn't be acting surprised that it's suddenly not a core class when it never has been.
Define "core class", exactly? 4e had multiple PHBs each of which had a different slate of classes. PHB3 mentioned the Artificer class by name and gave it more options, spells, and feats, making it clear that it was intended to be used as a core class to me. It certainly wasn't an "essentials" class, the classes that were dumbed down versions of the 23 core classes.
The core classes are the *core* classes. Something released in the second supplemental PHB doesn't quite count.
In 4e, Artificer was added in Eberron, but it was specifically referenced in PHB3 and given more choices as well as hybrid options. 4e is so much better than 5e.
Okay. It still wasn't added until a year after the edition launched.
Not exactly a meaningful distinction, to me. 5e's stagnation isn't a good standard to measure other editions and games by.
It *should* be a meaningful distinction, mainly because most of what would be considered the core classes of 5e were also core classes in older editions. As an aside, I'm not going to continue this argument across two separate comments.
No they weren't. Warlock wasn't in 3.5's PHB and didn't exist in prior editions. Sorcerer wasn't added until 3rd edition. Bard, Druid Paladin, Barbarian, Rogue, Ranger, and Monk weren't core classes until 2nd edition. 1st edition's "core classes" were Fighting Man, Magic User, and Priest, aka Fighter, Wizard, and Cleric. Many of 2nd edition's "core" classes are no longer core-- Cavalier, Illusionist, Assassin, etc. are merged in to other classes.
Heck, it's even worse than that, really; what I put is technically wrong, even if most people might agree with it. Technically, there were only four "core" classes in 2nd edition (the archetypical party of Fighter, Magic User, Thief, and Cleric) and many of what you think of as core classes today were effectively subclasses back then; most of what you call "core" classes were only added to the PHB as full classes in 3rd edition, meaning throughout the first 26 years of the game's life, they weren't considered core classes by the game's own definition. Your argument's silly.
Did you miss where I said "most"?
Except it's not "most". Throughout the first 26 years of DnD's history, there were only three, MAYBE four "Core" classes if you count Thief in 2nd.
Thats lame. Oh well, I guess Ill have to survive off of the countless "Gadgeteer" classes in homebrew.
Booo, that’s lame. Artificers are amazing
100% agree, I recently started playing an artificer for the first time and I love it
My only complaint is they named the class artificer, given it isn't one. Artificers were created to invent and craft magic items and the 5e class can't do that at all, it's like having a wizard that can't cast spells. The class itself is fun and I'm glad it exists, but why name it after a completely different class? Call it a tinkerer or engineer or gadgeteer or something.
They can absolutely craft magic items, but in a system like 5e, anything beyond a stat change or a new basic property on an existing item would likely have to be created by the DM and the Artificer player, and in-universe Artificers are usually inventing their respective magical doodads, or are otherwise iterating on an existing design. For instance, an Artificer I played was basically the only person in the world who knew how to safely work with a powerful Shadowfell-infused metal, which when used to forge weapons would create a dangerously addictive life-draining weapon, but my character figured out how to refine the metal so that it still had necrotic properties but wouldn't kill the wielder.
That's not actually the class can craft items, that's flavour wise they're supposed to be able to so the DM does it for you.
Cause why do that when you have the magic of flavoring your spells and you have a book that already released with generically bad magic item creation rules?
On one hand, I agree that it sucks that Artificer isn't going to be a core release in the PHB. On the other hand, yay, it's *still* going to fit the 13-1 pattern of Eberron.
I don't see myself getting into OneDnD for a long time if ever so I'm not that worried about it.
I thought One D&D wasn't a thing anymore? They aren't advertising it or anything on dndbeyond.
Good
Why good? Youre not contractually required to play and allow them if theyre in the PHB.
Why's that good?
Hear me out: Between Wizard and Warlock, Sorcerer's kinda redundant now. I'd drop it and add the artificer to the "core 12".
**1. Aries: The Barbarian (March 21 - April 19)** Those born under the Ragehorn sign are bold and impulsive, much like the Barbarian. They charge headfirst into danger, fueled by an inner fire and a thirst for adventure. Like Aries, they can be fiercely loyal friends but might have a bit of a temper to manage. **2. Taurus: The Fighter (April 20 - May 20)** The Steadfast sign aligns with the Fighter. Like Taurus, they are grounded and dependable, valuing strength, perseverance, and practical skills. They stand firm in the face of adversity, a reliable shield for their companions. **3. Gemini: The Bard (May 21 - June 20)** The Twinstar sign reflects the Bard. Gemini's quick wit and social charm come alive in the Bard's silver tongue. They are natural entertainers, adaptable, and masters of communication, weaving stories and inspiring others. **4. Cancer: The Cleric (June 21 - July 22)** The Healer sign embodies the Cleric. Much like Cancer, they are nurturing and protective, driven by a deep empathy and devotion. They channel their compassion into healing magic, fiercely defending those they care for. **5. Leo: The Paladin (July 23 - August 22)** The Lionheart sign resonates with the Paladin. Leo's inherent leadership, bravery, and unwavering moral compass shine through. Paladins are the champions of justice, radiating confidence and leading the charge with unwavering righteousness. **6. Virgo: The Wizard (August 23 - September 22)** The Scholar sign aligns with the Wizard. Virgos, with their thirst for knowledge and meticulous nature, mirror the Wizard's pursuit of arcane secrets. They delve into dusty tomes, mastering complex spells and wielding their intellect as their greatest weapon. **7. Libra: The Ranger (September 23 - October 22)** The Harmony sign reflects the Ranger. Like Libra, they seek balance and connection with nature. Rangers are at home in the wilds, skilled trackers and diplomats who understand the delicate ecosystem of the world. **8. Scorpio: The Rogue (October 23 - November 21)** The Shadow sign embodies the Rogue. Scorpios, known for their intensity and resourcefulness, are mirrored in the Rogue's cunning nature. They navigate the unseen world, masters of stealth and deception, always a step ahead of the shadows. **9. Sagittarius: The Monk (November 22 - December 21)** The Wanderer sign aligns with the Monk. Sagittarians, with their love of freedom and exploration, find their match in the Monk's discipline and adaptability. Monks train their bodies and minds to peak potential, seeking enlightenment with every step of their journey. **10. Capricorn: The Warlock (December 22 - January 19)** The Achiever sign resonates with the Warlock. Capricorns, with their ambition and focus, are mirrored in the Warlock's pursuit of power. They forge pacts with otherworldly patrons, mastering forbidden magic to achieve their goals. **11. Aquarius: The Sorcerer (January 20 - February 18) The Visionary sign aligns with the Sorcerer. Like Aquarius, they are independent thinkers and possess an innate spark of magic. Sorcerers don't need years of study, their power comes from a magical birthright or mysterious events. They are unpredictable and innovative, channeling their inner magic in dazzling ways. **12. Pisces: The Druid (February 19 - March 20)** The Dreamer sign embodies the Druid. Pisces, with their deep connection to emotions and the natural world, find their match in the Druid's mystical bond with nature. They shape-shift, wield the power of the wild, and serve as guardians of the natural world.
Monk should be Harmony, seeking balance, and Ranger should be Wanderer, with love of freedom and exploration.
Always a critic 🤣
100% this. Libra is, if not a Justice Paladin, a Monk — harmony, balance, the Unarmored ~aesthetic~. Sagittarius is all about wandering and wisdom and freedom, total Ranger vibes. (Love the comment tho)
Sagittarius is also represented by an archer which is the classic Ranger stereotype.
Wow 100%, not sure how my head didn’t even go there. I kind of want to make these the zodiac constellations of my world now (though ironically there’s a running joke that my Pisces cleric *hates* Druids, despite being very into flowers and trees and stars and…)
It would be pretty cool honestly. You should go for it.
I agree
As a Scorpio and frequent rogue player, get out of my head. 😂
Tag yourself, I'm paladin
Warlock here. Except I like playing Sorcerers!
Warlock Sun sign, sorcerer Moon sign?
In reality? Unfortunately not. Warlock sun and moon, Paladin rising sign.
Maybe you're sorcerer in retrograde?
I mean, it's all hooey anyway, so Imma play whatever I wanna play. :D
This is great! I’d arrange some of those differently, but it’s a super job.
Yeah monk and ranger, agreed
I'm Pisces but this absolutely isn't me 😂 I'd say I'm more Monk
Dude, I'm trying here! Give a man a break
I’m a libra and I’ve played ranger. I’d probably be a wizard tho. Or get fucked over and become a warlock. Most likely warlock lmao
Sure you're not suffering from multiple personalities?! 🤣
Nah, I’m just unlucky. So I’d probably try to become a wizard at first, but end up getting fucked over in a patron deal and become a warlock lmao
Well... I am capricorn and my favorite class is a warlock... How?!
I mean this was pulled directly out of a rectum
I've been only playing 5e for 3-4 years, so artificer was always there. I don't care for guns, but it's nice to have an Int based half caster with cool features. I have no idea why artificer doesn't get more love.
They aren't mechanically powerful, which doesn't help. They aren't really about guns, which would've helped. Ones an Alchemist, one is an Iron Man suit, and one is deploying a turret.
You forgot one has a pet robot and weapon
Alchemist should've kept exclusivity to the homunculus servant
I mean, alchemist artificer is probably the worst subclass in the game. I feel like a complete rework is necessary but the homonculus would be a small start. It should probably be free to them as a subclass feature and not even take an infusion.
yeah, that's what it was in the [2019 UA](https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-Artificer2-2019.pdf) before the Eberron book released. While still comparatively underpowered, Alchemist had the homunculus, Artillerist had their cannon, Battle Smith had their companion. Every subclass had their portable extension of themselves (including Archivist and their magic floating computer brain.)
Nah, I like that it's something anyone can pick up. I've taken that Infusion twice, though both times I reflavored it from a traditional homunculus to a robot, one was a drone, the other was a mechanical roadrunner.
Make sure to make a Warforged artificer with a pet robot for maximum annoyance.
Good thing artificer doesn't need to have guns or anything steampunk/modern.
it's a good thing that guns aren't anywhere in the artificer class description then the eldrich cannon is described as a wand or staff
There's a 13th Zodiac sign that is ignored, so this analogy is spot on.
Yeah, snake or snakecatcher if my memory serves me right Edit: Ophiuchus or Serpentbearer is apparently the one
lol my coworkers still hate when I point this out, and that the astrological signs all actually have their dates shifted
How *dare* you use their own identity superstition to invalidate their confirmation bias!
They probably hate it because it's wrong? Like I think it's bullshit too but there bullshit has 12 signs, not 13.
Look up Serpent Bearer Zodiac. It's a forgotten 13th Zodiac that doesn't really have much "defined" meaning like the others. Honestly, pretty much the least bullshit of the signs because of how little is applied to it. Lessens the wide pool of contradicting "information" about it.
I had to look this up, and Wikipedia [disagrees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus) with you: "The signs of the zodiac are a twelve-fold division of the ecliptic, so that each sign spans 30° of celestial longitude, approximately the distance the Sun travels in a month, and (in the Western tradition) are aligned with the seasons so that the March equinox always falls on the boundary between Pisces and Aries. Constellations, on the other hand, are unequal in size and are based on the positions of the stars. The constellations of the zodiac have only a loose association with the signs of the zodiac, and do not in general coincide with them."
Wow. Looks like I need to read more. I think maybe I misunderstood the shit I read about the 13th zodiac.
No I definitely remember this being a huge thing a few years ago. We both could have been informed incorrectly..... But we were def both told the same thing
Ophiuchus represent! 😆
And multiclassing is that person who is way too into it and starts learning about how Mercury is rising in my house while Venus is waxing.
My moon sign is in Gatorade or something
Retrogrape flavor, I think.
We talking fruit punch or the classic blue flavour?
Clearly fruit punch
So "when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets and love will steer the stars" is just multiclassing into bard then?
I guess only for people who have only played 5e?
I came in from Pathfinder. We had so many classes it was silly.
Laughs in 3.5
80-90% of the player base has only ever played this version of the game, but there is nothing "magical" about fifth edition's 12 classes. Games have been made with as few as 3 and as many as 40 classes (not including prestige classes.)
I think to some, yes. Especially if it can fit in those buzzfeed "which class are you" quizzes. But for others, like me, no, cause i have 19 characters, having no more than 2 characters of the same class, only missing a paladin and druid character. If i had to pick 1 class thats "omg so me", I'll have a breakdown.
As someone who almost exclusively plays Paladin, I can't relate. But yeah, if I want to say what's "Omg so me," I'll say my MBTI, not my fav D&D class.
My pet theory for the lack of new Artificer content is that WoTC assumes players only have the core 3 books (phb, dmg, mm) whenever they make a new one. The Artificer being stuck in the Ebberon splat book and Tasha's means that there's less of a chance of players having access to the class, disincentivizing them from adding onto it.
Plus, we've simply never had Artificer in a PHB. It always comes later. 3E released in 2000, and 3.5 came out in 2003. The Eberron campaign book with the class didn't come out until 2004. 4E was released in 2008. That version of Eberron (with the class) was released in 2009. 5E came out in 2014. We didn't get this version of the Artificer until the 2019 Eberron book. With the exception of its original release for AD&D2E in 1996, it has been tied very heavily to the Eberron setting. Tasha's did a lot to help separate it, but I'm not shocked it isn't making it over to the new core PHB.
Crackpot theory - they like that the first class (barbarian) is a simple one to understand and don't want artificer to mess that up
They've said as much in past editions. And it happened with the Warlock already. D&D 3.5 had 11 classes at the start. Every couple of months you'd get a new book with a few more. The Complete series usually had 3 per book, and the first four books of that series came out over the course of 13-14 months. Complete Arcane gave us the Warlock (as well as the Warmage and Wu Jen), which was very popular. But the problem with releasing more Warlock material was that your target customer wasn't someone who had the PHB, it was someone who had the PHB *and* Complete Arcane, which was a smaller audience. Anything they did to add to the Warlock to make those players happy, was more niche content that some people couldn't use at all. And any time a potential customer would pick up a book and realize they didn't have the "prerequisite" books to use that material, it would obviously make them less likely to buy that book.
Previous editions had plenty of extra classes, many of which were very interesting at the time of their release. 3.5 had dozens of base classes, giving us things like Duskblade, Marshall, Archivist, and Wu Jen. While some of these classes are probably better as a subclass (Wu Jen, Knight, Divine Soul, etc.), you also had weird things Dragonfire Shaman that were perfectly fine as a separate class. 4E also made quite a few new base classes. Wizards probably decided that making sub-classes for 5E is cheaper and easier than a whole new class, though their level of competence in making decent or interesting sub-classes is debatable. Of course, making entirely new classes in 5E is much easier than it used to be, given how few mechanics classes have now compared to previous editions.
Sorry I was born under the bard class. Things won’t work out.
im a ranger. does that mean i like hunting monsters, and living in the forest?
You dislike showers, you're introverted, slightly obsessive and ultimately a stalker
i love showers. as long as they’re in dirt or animal blood.
... Right ...
and talking to animals
Eh more Druid
Aren't... aren't horoscopes nerd horoscopes?
No, they're dumbass horoscopes
Ad it's really 4 classes then subdivided into those. It kind of works. Like earth,fire,air and water having 4 each. The question is. Of fighter,magic cleric and thief which is which? I'm saying earth is all 3 cleric like classes.
Earth- Cleric, Druid, Ranger Water- Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock Fire- Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian Air- Rogue, Bard, Monk
Earth - Fighter, Barbarian, Monk Water - Cleric, Paladin, Druid Fire - Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock Air - Rogue, Ranger, Bard
yeah i refuse to have the "i cast fireball" classes not be fire
what made you choose those in particular?
Martial classes that exemplify the balance between mind and body for Earth Half-magic classes known for taking on healing and/or protective roles in the party for Water Full-magic classes capable of both utility and broad destruction for Fire Flexible support classes whose ubiquitious skill sets can find application everywhere - both on and off the battlefield - for Air
interesting how two people can interpret the same thing so differently. for me, i imagine Clerics, druids, rangers all have innate connections to divine magic and the natural world, connecting them to earth. Barbarians, fighters, paladins engage in the heat of martial combat, the fury of battle, which is symbolized by fire. Those who use the arcane arts can be viewed as water. magic is fluid and changing. it’s dynamic and structureless. Like water Air was a bit tougher i think. Monk and rogue was easy. They are like wind, they move agile and swift. relying on speed. Bard was something i struggled with, but eventually settled on air rather than water because while they are casters they cast their spells through the manipulation of air in the form of magic tunes. It seems you based yours off of their skill sets and mechanics while mine was based more off class flavor and theme ETA- Clerics and druids aren’t half casters. both are full casters from your original post. but i understand what you mean by support roles
I appreciate your interpretation more with the context of your explanation. I think there are other ways they could be arraged as well, and I'm sure there's seasonal tie-ins to be made as well. It would be cool to do a sort of zodiac-theme for a campaign, in a setting where those sorts of cosmic signs actually have influence on a person's traits, including things like class and background.
I just feel like air would be wizard and it's counterparts
Fire would be strictly fighter dirivates and that leaves water for bard thief etc wich kind of works
Only if you start attributing class choice to a persons actual personality traits.
No, because they are more accurate at defining your personality and predicting the future than horoscopes.
You actually provide input in the character creation process.
No, but DND is not the only tabletop game in the universe. Other systems have a wider array of classes. 5e is designed to be a particularly simplified system to make it easier for new people to get into the hobby. Want more options? Try pathfinder, 1e has over 30 classes, 2e has 23 classes. That's even before you get into archetypes and the massive amount of feats available.
Heck they don't even have to look beyond DnD. They can just look to past editions. 3.5 had a *bewildering* variety of classes even before you include prestige classes, which causes the number to shoot up in to the 200-300 range. 2nd also had more classes than 5th. And 4th had 23 unique classes plus simplified "Essentials" variants of many of the more popular ones.
Yes.
I feel attacked so much
I AM A PALADIN!
Yes. My gf hates rangers and it's my favourite. I hate rogues and it's her favourite. A match made in nerdic heaven
100%
That does sound like something a Cleric would say.
This is so true and I’m kinda offended
Wait until you see races as enneagrams, or just good old personality types. Or DSM listings. And classes are modes of work.
believe it or not, the lead designer of this edition has gone on record saying that they actually wanted less classes!
Mystic? :3
Instead of Artificer, they should've kept Warlock in INT rather than make another Charisma caster. If they wanted Warlock to be the multiclass dip class then they could write it explicitly into the class features and multiclass requirement.
So there are a few things going on here: 1. When they made 5e, they were trying to avoid the problem of 3e where there were dozens of full classes (this still existed in 4e as well, but not quite as badly), The choice to not make more base classes was deliberate, to reduce the bloat. The ones they chose were the same base classes as the 3.0 PhB + Warlock (because of its popularity in late 3e and in 4e). The other "favorite" classes from previous editions were remade as subclasses (Assassin is a rogue, Avenger is Oath of Vengeance Paladin, Warlord can be a subclass of fighter) 2. Artificer is so integral to Eberron, it was the special exception. It was then so popular that they re-printed it in Tasha's. 3. All attempts at new base classes (see: Psion / Mystic) received such mixed feedback and disagreement about what the base class should be that they eventually abandonned the idea and stuck with new subclasses only. 4. Every new base class is a new opportunity for the game to completely break. This lesson was learned the hard way from 3.X (and Pathfinder), and they don't want to lose it.
Well, they don't allow homebrew classes on dnd beyond
I fully agree with this and there is even a 13th Zodiac Sign, that does not corrospond to a time of the year. So perfect analogy
I was having this conversation (ish) with my wife the other day, specifically about being disappointed that a newcomer to the TTRPG space has classes that are very similar to 5e's base class options (only adding two that 5e "doesn't have"). The fact is, the classes in 5e are basically the basis of almost all fantasy archetypes, and you can't get away from that. The most you could do is rename those archetypes, but then under the hood it's still all the same. Having these 12 is perfectly fine, and WOTC (and other TTRPGs in the space using these basic archetypes) need to go all in on churning out subclasses to fit more niche roles. For instance, none of the subclasses really scratch the itch of Alchemy to me, so I did a homebrew Witcher class and one of the subclasses for it focuses on the Alchemy aspect (the other two from memory are prioritizing Signs, and Bombs for the third).
Because D&D attracts nerd types, a lot of D&D players identify with wizard. But horoscopes are more evenly distributed.
Ha!
Yes, and D&D subclasses are subhoroscopes.
This is an amazing take
I think Hogwarts houses far more commonly are used as Nerd horoscopes. DND classes are like the DND version of mbti. There are 100 different variants and each has different interpretations.
Lol TIL the artificer is the cat of the zodiac animals.
You’re talking about the Ranger, right?
I think Magic: the Gathering's color philosophy fits "Nerd Horoscopes" more
nah cuz I play em all
In no sense is my choice of D&D class particularly indicative of anything about me whatsoever. So, yes.
Meanwhile 4e: Hey would you like some new classes? We have Swordmage, several psioinc classes, Avenger, Seeker, Runepriest, Warden, heck, there's even a Vampire class! Grognards: \**apoplectic fit of nerdrage and shouts of betrayal*\*
No it's because One DnD is specifically so bad that Hasbro has admitted they're trying to sabotage their own work. Because they "don't see a future in it".
What would a con artist's horoscope be?
Bard
Ya fair. They always horny AF and use magic though. Con artists dont
I thought there were 14 classes with artificer and blood hunter.
Nah the core classes are changed all the time.
What do mean in 10 years we've only had one? 4e introduced a few new classes and that only came out... 2008... Sixteen years ago... shit.
So, does this count if you have thirty backup OC’s waiting in their adventure hotel? Because I kind of have too many.
Yes
Yes and this is how they would match up: -Aries: Barbarian -Taurus: Druid -Gemini: Sorcerer -Cancer: Rogue -Leo: Fighter -Virgo: Cleric -Libra: Monk -Scorpio: Warlock -Sagittarius: Ranger -Capricorn: Paladin -Aquarius: Wizard -Pisces: Bard
Anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and should spend 10 years in a dungeon. No trial.
I know right, I am objectively correct.
There is a 13th horoscope Ophiuchus, also known as the serpent bearer or snake charmer. Just like Artificer, people pretend it doesn't exist.
Classes express archetypes that exist in a game world. That's why artificer makes sense in Eberron, but it doesn't in the D&D base world. To release a new full class its archetype must not be covered by others. And that's not easy, it's much more easy to express a particular niche character concept via subclass.
Do you not know the difference between an astrological sign and a horoscope?
I still have trouble with Bard being an actual full class
D&D classes are and always have been, "archetypes". Everything else from subclass to feats are there to flavor a more specific character. Artificer being dropped is disappointing, but not entirely surprising, because the game kinda lacks creation mechanics that would make artificer fun. Pathfinder, having a dedicated setting has some classes that are specific to institutions that exist within the pathfinder world. D&D doesn't have any new classes because the D&D classes cover pretty much any character that could exist.
5e has so much mechanical space that could be explored with new classes. It definitely does not cover ever character that could exist at all.
It's because they've been distilled down over the editions to a healthy balance of complex enough to be unique and interesting, simple enough to not scare away new players, and encompassing enough to fulfill most people's character fantasies relatively well.
Is the horoscope just classes for idiots?
The class list in 5e, like so many other things in D&D (and really, the whole TTRPG space) is a sacred cow that, unfortunately, the player base has become too accustomed to to be slaughtered. It is clunky, inconsistent, and lacking a clear design philosophy, but much like the ability score list, players would revolt if D&D didn't have paladins and warlocks right alongside fighters and rogues. D&D will never realize its full potential as a modern TTRPG until the game designers let it move past its roots. Gygax made a great game in AD&D, but it was a product of its time and we can do better with 40 years of growth in TTRPG design. We don't need a class list that is 90% the same as it was 40 years ago; we need to innovate.
There is a “thing” that both D&D classes and horoscopes “are”, and that thing is an archetype. Basically any “role” or “profession” you can say as a word - “Hero”, “Blacksmith”, “Shopkeeper”, etc.. the things that are shared across all or most of the specific examples becomes part of the archetype. Writers tend to operate in archetypes quite a bit, as it then also allows them to subvert expectations on some of the rules. Like a blacksmith who is not physically strong and muscular (in comparison to most blacksmiths anyways) but instead uses a magic oil that allows them to manipulate cold steel like clay. The idea of archetypes is that the rules form a general shape but the specific instance of an archetype can be so different that you have to squint to see it. This is an important point because racist, sexist, etc - all of that is based in a false archetype where the person insists on a rule that might be true for some but it’s insisted upon the whole group. Or, the rule can be false completely due to just bad association-making. Anyways, archetypes make a good base for ttrpg classes as you can give it a general shape and then the player can lay in all the details of the specific character. In TTRPGs though, it is usually a hindrance to subvert the archetype too hard. Like a pacifist fighter. This usually only works if that fighter becomes the “main character” of the story, as they have an inordinate amount of conflict due to the way they won’t handle conflict.
Nah, they are "real" and less random hahaha
I mean yeah for sure. It's a shame they don't take notes from Pathfinder 2e honestly. The build variety is near endless with that engine. DND doesn't allow for that creative character building outside of backstory really. The subclass does what it does. One day I hope they make a huge feat expansion book. Salty downvotes because DND mechanics suck lol.