# New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?



## Minigiant

So what's your opinion?

In the shared marketed experience of D&D today, is there a strong argument to add a new class to replicate a fantasy archetype that would be considered normal within the game but it either poorly or not replicated by the current rules?

Basically...

If there was a new _Player's Handbook_ and it included a new class (other than the Artificer), do you think you would be able to say something like "Well you know what? This new class works better than what we were doing with the current rules and variant to play this popular fantasy character archetype?"

Personally, I could make a strong argument for about 3 new classes and 3 weaker arguments for 3 more if the classes' designers are both imaginative and careful.

The classes with the strongest arguments to me are:

The nonmagical Fighter/Rogue class
The Fighter/Wizard half caster class
The non-spellcasting Weapons Warlock/Super Soldier class


----------



## Mind of tempest

I would like at least three new well throughout classes.
a proper arcane half caster that fits the fantasy in our head of being the magic knight but with something to make it own is own thing, not the taster that is the eldritch knight or the artificer with it 2/3 casting.
some sort of none faith-based support caster as I can't replicate faith for money or life, maybe make it the psion.
shaman or warlord just something else


----------



## DEFCON 1

I think we are pretty much okay with what we have, although I personally would re-arrange some stuff if given the chance.  But the ideas I would have would run counter to the default way D&D has been presented so I know it would not actually happen.

Given my druthers I'd genericize more stuff.  For spellcasters for instance I'd let them select which of the three ability scores are their primary, based upon their domain/school etc.  So Enchantment wizards would use CHA, and Knowledge cleric would use INT.  I would also then make "schools" that were thematically based rather than just the type of spells... so you could have a Pyromancer/Aeromancer/Geomancer etc (thus removing the need of the Sorcerer class), or a Psychic (thus removing the need of a Psion class).  By the same token I'd increase and genericize the Combat Maneuvers system of the Battlemaster so that every martial class could take maneuvers, and increase the types of maneuvers so that a more acceptable Warlord type of character could be made without actually needing a Warlord class.

In other words... I'd probably prefer to remove the class system entirely and let people buy and build their "classes" as they see fit so they could attribute any narrative and fluff to it as they want (thus making Backgrounds become more like the "name" of their class).  Now I'd be okay with the game presenting default "class builds" using the system so you could have a base "Cleric" or "Wizard" pre-made in the book (the same way in games like Mutants & Masterminds they give you basic character builds of your "tank" or "speedster" or "energy manipulator")... but I wouldn't expect anyone to ever use them (the same way almost no one ever uses the default build at the top of each class write-up currently.)


----------



## Aldarc

While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system. 

That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - _as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes_. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?


----------



## Aldarc

DEFCON 1 said:


> Given my druthers I'd genericize more stuff.  For spellcasters for instance I'd let them select which of the three ability scores are their primary, based upon their domain/school etc.  So Enchantment wizards would use CHA, and Knowledge cleric would use INT.  I would also then make "schools" that were thematically based rather than just the type of spells... so you could have a Pyromancer/Aeromancer/Geomancer etc (thus removing the need of the Sorcerer class), or a Psychic (thus removing the need of a Psion class).



I mused about splitting casters up into three or so classes that are about their approach to magic: Scholar (Int), Mystic (Wis), Pact (Cha) and possibly Gish (?). Then one would pick an appropriate spell list: Divine, Arcane, Psionic, Primal. So one could have an unarmored priest that used a prayer-book for their spells (i.e., Divine Scholar) while another makes a magical pact with an angel or fiend (i.e., Divine Pact), while another is a war priest (i.e., Divine Gish), etc. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> By the same token I'd increase and genericize the Combat Maneuvers system of the Battlemaster so that every martial class could take maneuvers, and increase the types of maneuvers so that a more acceptable Warlord type of character could be made without actually needing a Warlord class.



Agreed. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> In other words... I'd probably prefer to remove the class system entirely and let people buy and build their "classes" as they see fit so they could attribute any narrative and fluff to it as they want (thus making Backgrounds become more like the "name" of their class).  Now I'd be okay with the game presenting default "class builds" using the system so you could have a base "Cleric" or "Wizard" pre-made in the book (the same way in games like Mutants & Masterminds they give you basic character builds of your "tank" or "speedster" or "energy manipulator")... but I wouldn't expect anyone to ever use them (the same way almost no one ever uses the default build at the top of each class write-up currently.)



This is my jam!


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> While I would definitely make the case for the Psion or a Gish as a new class, there are also a number of fantasy archetypes in the game already that D&D, IMHO, does poorly when it comes to matching some of the popular conceptions of the archetype (e.g., Necromancers, Summoners, Shamans/Animists, etc.). It would be nice if they could revisit and reevaluate how they approach these archetypes in a way that is more intuitive and functional within the system.
> 
> That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - _as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes_. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?



some times you just do not want to refluff stuff you want the real thing.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> That said, one of my gripes with 5e is that it does feel, much like with the 5e Druid, that WotC is trying to have their classes do too much. I would also almost prefer if D&D went back to 4e style design when it comes to roles and powers - though maybe not be so transparent about it with their labels (e.g., primal defender, divine striker, etc.) - _as I think that it permitted greater design space for archetypes_. For example, having the Druid be a Primal Controller helped open up design space for a Shaman to be a Primal Leader. But is there now room in 5e D&D for the Shaman if people will point to the Druid and say, "just play the shepherd druid as a shaman"?




Yeah. While 3e could be accused of class bloat to get around design constraints and 4e could be accused of grid filling and creating classes with weak fluff or crunch, 5e could be accused of subclass bloat and forcing narrow classes to be so broad and fit some many ideas within classes that many archetypes are poorly implemented for those who wanted it.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.



why get rid of monks?


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mind of tempest said:


> why get rid of monks?



Because they are daft.


----------



## Li Shenron

For specific setting and genres. 

For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings


----------



## Aldarc

Mind of tempest said:


> why get rid of monks?



I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> Because they are daft.



and bards are not, beside monks have more fantasy pedigree than even clerics.


Li Shenron said:


> For specific setting and genres.
> 
> For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings



so fighter mage and something we do not seem to have?


Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?



You're correct but that does not infer it should be axed only redone, get me people with game design knowledge and a will to help me and I will bring forth a worthy monk.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mind of tempest said:


> and bards are not, beside monks have more fantasy pedigree than even clerics.



Bards are meant to be comic relief, that is their whole shtick. Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.


----------



## Li Shenron

Mind of tempest said:


> so fighter mage and something we do not seem to have?



The Shugenja is a spellcaster with affinities to a Sorcerer, a Cleric, and a Druid/Shaman. Not so much with Wizard. Anyway there are no Clerics, Druids or Wizards in Rokugan. Shugenja is all you can be for a spellcaster PC, while Sorcerer is more meant for NPC.

All Fighters are narratively Samurai in Rokugan, which implies higher education i.e. knowledge and social abilities. You can represent Samurai with the Fighter class, Noble background and why not the Samurai subclass, but then you have almost no room left to give them enough breadth and variety. Hence the benefit of having their own base class with subclasses. The Fighter class itself is not even needed but can be allowed in multiclassing just for the sake of mechanics.


----------



## Aldarc

Paul Farquhar said:


> Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.



The swordsman?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> Bards are meant to be comic relief, that is their whole shtick. Monks are the guy from Raiders who Indy can't be bothered to fight.



first bards have ended up the deviant so clearly, they are failing at being funny.
secondly, the guy from raiders was a fighter but without wearing armour.



@Li Shenron you forgot to add something in your post.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I do not want more classes, I think there are already too many. I'd at least get rid of one of the arcane trio of wizard, sorcerer and warlock. I think Warlock chassis is cool, but the class is too mechanically and thematically limited. Sorcerer on the other hand is mechanically rather pointless. I'd remove sorcerer, and broaden warlock so that it can also represent sorcerer concepts. I would also try to lessen the impression that warlock is the generic 'creepy arcane caster.' I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.

As with monks bards and monks, I'd make bard less magical and monk more magical. Let the monk be amazing wuxia martial artist with mystic powers, so a half-caster probably. And whilst Bard works pretty well, I think we have too many full casters, and bard now plays too much like wizard or sorcerer. Too casty, not flighty enough. I feel the bard should be a half-caster gish.

Overall, I'd increase the amount of stuff subclasses bring to the table, and ad subclasses to represent missing concepts. However, subclasses should be pretty broad and flexible too, rather than weirdly specific as they often are. Totem barbarian is my go to example of a subclass done well. It is thematically very strong, but mechanically flexible. At every step you get a choice of several features, so you can build many different sorts of totem barbarians.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mind of tempest said:


> secondly, the guy from raiders was a fighter but without wearing armour.



So, a monk then.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Paul Farquhar said:


> So, a monk then.



a monk is more than a fighter without armour.


Crimson Longinus said:


> As with monks bards and monks, I'd make bard less magical and monk more magical. Let the monk be amazing wuxia martial artist with mystic powers, so a half-caster probably. And whilst Bard works pretty well, I think we have too many full casters, and bard now plays too much like wizard or sorcerer. Too casty, not flighty enough. I feel the bard should be a half-caster gish.



finally, so one else who can see what the monk should be.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Mind of tempest said:


> a monk is more than a fighter without armour.



Sometimes they forget their weapon too?


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> I would remove book pact stuff from warlock and give wizard more options to be a creepy occultist messing with forbidden spells.



I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.



Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.



You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.



Yep, that totally was my point... 

Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.

My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Yep, that totally was my point...
> 
> Wizard is so broad, that it is thematically somewhat weak. But they're the book guy. So let's focus on that. Wizard subclasses are incredibly meh. I want them to actually mean something. To me it is thematically confused if we have two separate classes whose thing is having a magical book.
> 
> My merging of sorcerer with warlock would aim to broaden the warlock too. The idea would be that we would have two relatively broad arcane casters, that would still feel mechanically and thematically distinct. Wizard, the intellectual caster who studies books and rituals, represented by being able to collect spells in their book. Warlock, the caster who possesses, or is imbued with, innate magical power represented by fast charging magic and always on magical effects.



I am all for having wizards be bookish scholars. Where I take umbrage is when that is used to justify wizards having all the magical toys. If anything, I would focus/narrow wizards further down in terms of their spell access, though I doubt that would be popular. When devising their four spell lists for PF2, there was a lot of internal pushback within Paizo any time one of the designers proposed moving a wizard spell from the arcane spell list to a more thematically appropriate one.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Wizards write the game, so they are obviously going to give themselves the best toys.


----------



## DND_Reborn

I voted, *No, and some classes could be combined.* 

We have already removed Barbarians, Sorcerers, and Warlocks and merged them into Fighters, Wizards, and Clerics as subclasses. Works for us.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

Minigiant said:


> Rage on a subclass of a fighter or ranger is OP, my friend.



I dont think so, no. We talking of a 1 minute effect per short rest? 

But I'd go for a refluffed Reckless attack to represent Rage.

Berserker (Fighter)

3: *Rage*
You can throw aside all concern for defense to attack with fierce desperation. When you make your first attack on your turn, you can decide to attack recklessly. Doing so gives you advantage on melee weapon attack rolls using Strength during this turn and you can add your Constitution modifier to the damage roll, but attack rolls against you have advantage until your next turn.

3:* Great Might*
You have advantage on STR check. When you grapple a creature, it is also restrained.

7: *Berserker's Vitality*
When you use Rage, you also gain temporary hit points equal to your 1d8+ Constitution modifier (minimum of 1).

10:* Mindless Rage*
You can't be charmed or frightened until the start of your next turn if you use Rage. If you are charmed or frightened when you enter you use Rage, the effect is suspended for the duration of the rage.

15: *Frenzy*
If you take the Attack action on your turn and have advantage on an attack roll against one of the targets, you can forgo the advantage for that roll to make an additional weapon attack against that target, as part of the same action. You can do so no more than once per turn.

18: *Strength Before Death*
If you take damage that reduces you to 0 hit points and doesn't kill you outright, you can use your reaction to delay falling unconscious, and you can immediately take an extra turn, interrupting the current turn. While you have 0 hit points during that extra turn, taking damage causes death saving throw failures as normal, and three death saving throw failures can still kill you. When the extra turn ends, you fall unconscious if you still have 0 hit points.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.


----------



## Seramus

I'm pretty happy with 1 new class per setting book.


----------



## Minigiant

Paul Farquhar said:


> You obviously missed the bit where I said "move some core class features into subclasses".



So you are moving class features to subclasses.

What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?


----------



## Micah Sweet

I don't want any new classes from WotC.  3rd party producers make anything I need.  The Mage Hand Press release Valda's Spire of Secrets has a bunch of new classes, and their strong focus on mechanical balance keeps them from being OP, if that sort of thing matters to you.


----------



## RoughCoronet0

I voted for having a few more classes as I’d like to have options not fully fleshed out by the current classes/subclasses. 

I would like a half arcane caster Gish/Sword-mage like character with a unique list of smite spells and features. We have some classes/subclasses that kind of do this but they are limited in some way.

I would love a class that actually fully focuses on summoning/pet controlling with subclasses focusing on different creature types and their unique qualities. You could also give them a pact boon style feature that lets you pick between controlling a small army of weaker summons/pets, building a single strong and mechanically diverse pet, or maybe even allowing you to have your pet fuse with you like a symbiote or parasite.

I would also love to have a martial support class like the Warlord, one who uses in tactical intel and force of will to inspire and buff allies.

Outside of that I’m content with what we have and would also like for the current classes to remain.


----------



## Eric V

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure if I would axe them, but has D&D ever designed a mechanically viable monk?



4e monk was quite viable, no?


----------



## Rogerd1

Li Shenron said:


> For specific setting and genres.
> 
> For example in my 5e conversion of Rokugan I made classes for Samurai, Shugenja and Courtier, which aren't needed in other settings



Isn't this coming out for 5e...


----------



## Shardstone

@Minigiant, me and you are cut from the same cloth in this regard. I love creating classes, and I think, mechanically and narratively speaking, a lot more classes and ideas can be explored very easily using the 5E* framework. But, most people do not want more classes. They either can't keep up with the options, feel pressured by the amount of options, or are afraid that too many options will make earlier options obsolete. These, by the way, are all fair and valid beliefs, and I do not begrudge anyone who feels this way.

But man, just imagine if 5E added some more unique classes that could be expanded. It'd require making new Fantasy material, but ultimately that's what D&D truly does best — make new Fantasy material for us to imagine. Beholders, Mind Flayers, Gith, etc, all of these things are D&D originals, and as are many class concepts. The Druid and Paladin are wholecloth new concepts, the Sorcerer and Warlock reinventions of old real world ideas. If you can take these concepts and expand them into 2-3 archetypes, I think you can do so with a lot more concepts too.

Alas, this would require a different design team. Not a better one, but a different one. To make a game with 15, 20, 25 or so customizable, balanced classes in it requires a strong commitment to that idea that involves taking a risk to go even further than ever before. That kind or risk might not financially play out for Wizards.

Thus, people like us Mini are left just making up new classes on a rotating biweekly schedule, wishing people could see what we see so that we could play in these kinds of imagination-diverse games. This doesn't mean other games aren't imagination-diverse, btw. I'm checking myself just to make sure no one reads me the wrong way as being condenscending or otherwise.


----------



## Rogerd1

You could go an Fantasy Age route (although Age players hated it), Warrior, Mage, and Rogue.

That said, you could keep classes as unique per setting, so if you were playing in Midgard, or Norse setting you could gave main class of Viking, with a bunch of sub-classes / archetypes.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.


----------



## Rogerd1

Crimson Longinus said:


> Ultimately I feel that a class system should have a limited number of broad and easily recognisable archetypes. I get the desire to have a huge number of varied characters, but I feel that is better served by a classless system that allows you to mix and match and build what you want more freely.



I am working on a point buy idea to allow just that. As some setting will allow characters to possess magic, while some would not.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Minigiant said:


> So you are moving class features to subclasses.



Some.

The obvious one for fighter would be Action Surge. If this was made a Champion feature it would open up a shedload of design space.
I am assuming subclass choice is moved to level 1.


Minigiant said:


> What's the difference between that and having 2 separate classes?



Less duplication.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> The nonmagical Fighter/Rogue class



Covered by Subclasses already.


Minigiant said:


> The Fighter/Wizard half caster class



Artificier already has this covered, maybe the right flavor of Paladin or Ranger could work too.


Minigiant said:


> The non-spellcasting Weapons Warlock/Super Soldier class



The Fighter already has this covered.


----------



## MNblockhead

I don't really have strong feeling on classes. It is not like they are as core to the game as alignment.  ;-)

But I think I would like to have class building to be more a collection of feats and traits that that you can use to build your concept, with a the core, traditional classes provided as examples and for people that just want to get up an running quickly.  They don't even have to rip out the current classes.  Just put new optional character build rules in the DMG that have been play tested and balanced, which if used, would not make the traditional classes and subclasses completely obsolete.


----------



## Asisreo

Mind of tempest said:


> I would like at least three new well throughout classes.
> a proper arcane half caster that fits the fantasy in our head of being the magic knight but with something to make it own is own thing, not the taster that is the eldritch knight or the artificer with it 2/3 casting.



I am once again advocating for a blood Mage class. It's not really a legacy D&D class, but any magic-based blood-ritual user is something I like.

You can get kinda, almost close to that with Warlock using Vampiric Touch and being a gish-type but it's missing so much that it isn't even real.

My current brainstorm for a 5e bloodmage is to have a half-caster with medium armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency and a d6 HD. Every level, they get temporary HP permanently added onto their regular hit points equal to their intelligence modifier. Their temporary hit points recover on a long rest.

They're melee-based with extra attack and Arcane, Sorcerer-like spells. They can expend their temporary hit points to cast a leveled spell as a bonus action equal to the number of temporary hit points they expend.

By level 11, they get a feature that let's them collect blood from non-undead/construct/elemental enemies to fuel their bonus action spellcasting.

This is very hard to balance, though. I really need to scrutinize it further.

Edit: I became my own worse enemy. I wrote their instead of they're.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Aldarc said:


> I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.



Actual dialog from the D&D Next Playtest.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Covered by Subclasses already.



Poorly yes.


Parmandur said:


> Artificier already has this covered, maybe the right flavor of Paladin or Ranger could work too.



Aftificer is more Rogue/Mage. And the arceney Ranger and Paladin subclasses are not very magey at all.



Parmandur said:


> The Fighter already has this covered.



I don't see any Chaos Champion, Samson, Hercules, Achilles, or Grail Knight with super strength, steel skin, and agelessness in any of my books.


----------



## Weiley31

An actual Duskblade even though the Eldritch Knight pretty much handles that role in 5E.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Poorly yes.



Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.


Minigiant said:


> Aftificer is more Rogue/Mage. And the arceney Ranger and Paladin subclasses are not very magey at all.



The Artificer can swing from Fighterish to Rogueish depending on Subcclass, again a feature, not a bug. The Paladin and Ranger can be made Magey with the right festures: see Xanathar's and Tasha's for examples.


Minigiant said:


> Chaos Champion



Path of Wild Magic Barbarian


Minigiant said:


> Samson



Berserker Barbarian


Minigiant said:


> Hercules



Berserker Barbarian


Minigiant said:


> Achilles



Oath of Heroism Paladin


Minigiant said:


> Grail Knight with super strength, steel skin, and agelessness in any of my books.



Oath of the Ancients Paladin.


----------



## Laurefindel

I'm all good with the classes we have. There are a few blind spots, but that's ok with me; a game/setting is defined as much by what it has than what it hasn't.

Which means that a specific setting could have a dedicated class to cover that specific gap (artificer for Eberron, psion for Dark Sun, Warlord for Birthright perhaps), but i'm not even sold on the artificer being open "outside" Eberron.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Path of Wild Magic Barbarian
> 
> Berserker Barbarian
> 
> Berserker Barbarian
> 
> Oath of Conquest Paladin
> 
> Oath of the Ancients Paladin.



Nope

d12 HD
Martial weapons
All armors
Invocations like a Warlock
Choice of  Super Strength, Super Speed, or Steel Skin
Extra Attack at level 5
Power Attack at level 11
Uncapped STR, DEX, CON
Subclasses of Demigod, Chosen, Monsterbood, or Alchemical Soldier

That's how you do Samson, Hercules, Achilles, Louen Leoncoeur, Steve Rogers, and Gilgamesh

That'll be $50k, WOTC. I take payment in rum, cookies, metal dice, painted minis, and steak vouchers. You owe me for coming up with the Hunter subclass.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Nope
> 
> d12 HD
> Martial weapons
> All armors
> Invocations like a Warlock
> Choice of  Super Strength, Super Speed, or Steel Skin
> Extra Attack at level 5
> Power Attack at level 11
> Uncapped STR, DEX, CON
> Subclasses of Demigod, Chosen, Monsterbood, or Alchemical Soldier
> 
> That's how you do Samson, Hercules, Achilles, Louen Leoncoeur, Steve Rogers, and Gilgamesh
> 
> That'll be $50k, WOTC. I take payment in rum, cookies, metal dice, painted minis, and steak vouchers. You owe me for coming up with the Hunter subclass.



Doesn't seem to cover any ground not serviced by the Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin as it is. Ki, Smite, Rage, etc. already cover all of this. 4 attacks per action is already Super speed.


----------



## Vaalingrade

Laurefindel said:


> I'm all good with the classes we have. There are a few blind spots, but that's ok with me; a game/setting is defined as much by what it has than what it hasn't.
> 
> Which means that a specific setting could have a dedicated class to cover that specific gap (artificer for Eberron, psion for Dark Sun, Warlord for Birthright perhaps), but i'm not even sold on the artificer being open "outside" Eberron.



My issue with this philosophy is that not everyone uses official campaign settings and tying new classes to new CS's means tying them to the glacial release schedule. Why not provide a tool box for the homebrewers?


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Doesn't seem to cover any ground not serviced by the Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin as it is. Ki, Smite, Rage, etc. already cover all of this. 4 attacks per action is already Super speed.



It does if you want mechanics to match flavor.

There are so many "What class is X" videos and articles out there that push concepts into ill-fitting classes.

"Warrior with Invocations and Uncapped STR/DEX/CON" solves the problem so easily and is more satisfying to many.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> It does if you want mechanics to match flavor.
> 
> There are so many "What class is X" videos and articles out there that push concepts into ill-fitting classes.
> 
> "Warrior with Invocations and Uncapped STR/DEX/CON" solves the problem so easily and is more satisfying to many.



Mechanics don't and can't "match" flavor. They are math constructs.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I'd start by shuffling some things around, then add some classes to fill the gaps.

1) Rangers   Ranger as the strider, ambusher, monster slayer will be move to a fighter's archetype.
1.1) The 1/2 spellcasting nature guys becomes the Warden and brings the whole Primal barbarian with them. Lightly armored, a mountain of HP, infused by nature primal warriors.

2) Artificer. The 5e's one is pretty bad. Move their features around. Infusions should be a Transmuter thing (that archetype is so...empty...). Crafting bombs/poison/potion should be thing any character with the good tool's & skill prof. can do. Storing magical essence in items could be moved to sorcerers, same with Soul of Artifice: consuming raw magic from items would be a nice sorcerer thing to do!
2.1) The 1/2 int-caster is moved to Swordmage/spellblade etc

3) Bards. I'm a big fan of moving bards to short-rest based ala warlock. 

4) Remove warlock: pact making should be a mix of background (ala Stryxhaven) and adventurer patron/faction (Ravnica Guild). Fighter could have a hexblade archetype, and a hex sorcerer and a summoner/alienist wizard or a fiend domain cleric could all still be a thing. The Boon thing should be for cleric, deciding if they are Warpriest (blade pact), Archivist (tome pact) or Messenger (Chain lock).

5) Monk. Double down of the self buffing, half-psionic caster.

6) Move Paladin/Blackguard to fighter and add Avenger instead for the unarmored, stealthy slayer of faith. There's already a heavy-armored holy-guy.

7) Barbarian. Move the the overtly-magical themes to the Warden and keep the more ritualistic primal slayer for the barbarian: totem, berserker, battlerager, dervish etc

6) Add

Psion
Scholar (non-magical support. Warlord as Scholar of War could go here).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I think most classes are covered, but there are still a few which could be added which are not currently available in 5e. And even with those missing ones, you can make crude/janky approximations of them.

That is warlord, swordmage, and psion.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

I'd like to see Warlord and Swordmage. Not into psionics personally but would make sense to have a Psion class for those who like it.


----------



## Aldarc

Eric V said:


> 4e monk was quite viable, no?



We're not supposed to talk about that.


----------



## Eric V

Aldarc said:


> We're not supposed to talk about that.



Apologies.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Eric V said:


> 4e monk was quite viable, no?



It was, and so is the 5e monk. It just isn't high on the CharOp DPR calculators.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Doesn't seem to cover any ground not serviced by the Monk, Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin as it is. Ki, Smite, Rage, etc. already cover all of this. 4 attacks per action is already Super speed.



None of those serve the same purpose without multiclassing, having to dip into feats, and/or heavy reworking of class features that make no sense for the archetype in question.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Is anyone keeping a list of what is desired?


----------



## Scribe

A proper Psion, Gish, and Warlord.

That's it.


----------



## aco175

I voted that fixing the multi-classing rules would fix things.  Baring that I would have 100 classes- one for each combo.  If I cannot make a rogue/wizard that is viable I want a rogue/wizard class named something.  This can have resemblance to each class and be similar but enough different than the wizard/rogue class.  

Feats and a choice of abilities at certain levels would make each PC enough unique among the classes.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Other: there's nothing that _can't_ be done with the existing options, but a few concepts that would work a lot _better_ if they were their own class.

Okay, one: Eldritch Knight would be better as it's own class.


----------



## bedir than

Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Shardstone said:


> @Minigiant, me and you are cut from the same cloth in this regard. I love creating classes, and I think, mechanically and narratively speaking, a lot more classes and ideas can be explored very easily using the 5E* framework. But, most people do not want more classes. They either can't keep up with the options, feel pressured by the amount of options, or are afraid that too many options will make earlier options obsolete. These, by the way, are all fair and valid beliefs, and I do not begrudge anyone who feels this way.
> 
> But man, just imagine if 5E added some more unique classes that could be expanded. It'd require making new Fantasy material, but ultimately that's what D&D truly does best — make new Fantasy material for us to imagine. Beholders, Mind Flayers, Gith, etc, all of these things are D&D originals, and as are many class concepts. The Druid and Paladin are wholecloth new concepts, the Sorcerer and Warlock reinventions of old real world ideas. If you can take these concepts and expand them into 2-3 archetypes, I think you can do so with a lot more concepts too.
> 
> Alas, this would require a different design team. Not a better one, but a different one. To make a game with 15, 20, 25 or so customizable, balanced classes in it requires a strong commitment to that idea that involves taking a risk to go even further than ever before. That kind or risk might not financially play out for Wizards.
> 
> Thus, people like us Mini are left just making up new classes on a rotating biweekly schedule, wishing people could see what we see so that we could play in these kinds of imagination-diverse games. This doesn't mean other games aren't imagination-diverse, btw. I'm checking myself just to make sure no one reads me the wrong way as being condenscending or otherwise.



I think that there's a sort of inertia here: 5e doesn't have a strong structure for classes, but there's a soft implied structure and a lot of tradition going on. _If we're keeping that_, any new class is a big deal and easier to do poorly than well.

Especially since classes are really hard to balance, and unbalanced classes are a bigger problem than unbalanced races, spells, or items.

What would probably go over well enough is a total reset of the class structure to do something very different - as you suggested with a new team - but since everyone's idea of what would be cool is totally different, it's really hard to get past "something totally different could be cool."


----------



## jmartkdr2

Weiley31 said:


> An actual Duskblade even though the Eldritch Knight pretty much handles that role in 5E.



Which is the other problem: most suggested classes are "an existing subclass, but it doesn't suck." 

Note that the argument against making a new class is rarely if ever "the subclass don't suck." No one really defends Eldritch Knight or says Battlemaster makes a perfect Warlord - they usually just don't see a whole new class as the solution.


----------



## Mind of tempest

bedir than said:


> Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.



the cleric is born of no pattern but was hammered to fill one, the range built of a single example and mutated into its present form, is it so bad for us to ask for an icon born from scraps and hopes?
one of these days I need to work with someone to create an example of all these ideas just so they can be made.


----------



## Shiroiken

The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Shiroiken said:


> The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.



I think what we need is some fictional examples of the magic warrior hurl them in a metaphorical blender and see what comes out?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Shiroiken said:


> The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.



Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I'm currently working on 

*Assassin- *Between a rogue and a monk in terms of design ethos and combat style. Can damage like a frontliner but needs to duck out before reprisals, and has the features to do just that. 

*Swordmage-* Currently undergoing a ground up rewrite to be less specifically elemental, less needlessly complex, and more punchy. Has a bonded weapon called an Aetherblade, an aegis that gives them a unique AC calculation and the ability to absorb energy, and I'm working on balancing a combination of martial manuevers and spells. This may instead end up as the Mystic, which is an esoteric warrior rewrite of the Monk. 

*Captain- *Martial character with a "presence" aura that gets wider with levels, help as a bonus action with the aura, and "gambits" that are support-oriented abilities that cost Mettle.  May change Mettle and the Swordmage's Aether to Focus. 

Has some ideas that might be best served in a separate class, the Scholar, but I need a hook for that class that makes sense of it being a combatant. The tactician subclass is a very scholarly captain, who gets to build their own library and have people do Research for them. All captains can reduce the time and cost of Training, and can train someone with a weapon or tool while adventuring.

*Binder- *A full on summoner and binder of supernatural powers and creatures. Very little blasting ability, but strong control and access to most summoning spells. Gets a special familiar that they can spend spell slots to turn into a combatant, or cast summoning spells on to transform it into what they summon, with certain buffs compared to a normal summon, like advantage on concentration checks to maintain the spell, more HP, and Wild Shape style keeping of the familiar's mind and mental stats, as well as proficiencies and features intact while in the other form. Subclasses are "Goetic Seals" and the whole class is very much a ritualist that has figured out how to use ritual magic to bind power to themselves, gaining pact magic casting and ritual casting

Casting above 6th level spells is optional, as some Vestiges (similar mechanically to invocations) grant spells, and high level Vestiges include options to learn a 6+ level spell and gain the ability to cast 1 spell per day of that level. 

You also gain Ritual Tools, which are the Blade, The Bowl, and The Bell. 

The whole thing is like a mix of the warlock and wizard, and the Abhorsen from the series of the same name, and the mysticism of western alchemical traditions. 

*Archer- *Archer should be a class, so now it will be. base class features Focus points or dice, ranged attack trick shots, and stuff that allows you to concentrate in order to gain a state of greater lethality, stuff like that. Subclasses include Dragoon (mounted archer, something of a ranged combat focused knight), Trickshot (mix of gunslinger and knife thrower, expert in 1-handed ranged weapons and melee weapons with the thrown property, faster and tougher than most Archers), as-yet unnamed mystical archer that combines arcane archer with zen archer, more or less, and the Deepwood Sniper which has wilderness lore and stealth mechanics and can ignore long range when using the concentration mechanic of the base class. 

and I'm at a concept phase with some other ideas

*Jack-* replaces the rogue, the actual jack of all trades, leaning on the "professional of a craft" usage of the term Jack. Something between a rogue without the sneaky stabby focus and a mundane cousin to the artificer. Gets expertise and the jack of all trades feature bards get, and a feature that allows you to hamper enemies with your attacks, dealing small extra damage and leaving them with reduced speed, unable to use reactions, blinded, causing them to move in a random direction, etc, as you confuse, trick, kneecap, throw a stinging powder you learned about while learning to do some sort of smithing, etc. 

*Scholar- *As stated above, I may take some of what the captain is doing and move it here. Key features would be the ability to impart and gain proficiency more quickly than the normal downtime rules allow, the ability to do research during a long rest, a [cool latin name] that is basically a "mind palace" they can enter to perfectly recall information. 

Maybe a class that has ritual casting _but no spell slots or cantrips_, and the ability to study a creature and give allies extra damage against them? 

I'm just not sure what you'd do in a fight other than give bonus damage to allies. Maybe that would come through with the subclasses.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."



Well, not really. It's much more magical than the EK, but can't be quite as good a warrior without magic as the fighter. It could be more powerful overall, like the Paladin probably is, but it could also be more in line with Battlesmith Artificers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

The Bladesinger is closer to a Swordmage than the Eldritch Knight is.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> Alternatively: there's no reason you couldn't make a fighter subclass or two to cover the swordmage narrative space. But to do so you'd invalidate the EK as an option, because the swordmage really is just "an EK but better."



does it invalidate something, the zealot barbarian and the paladin live sufficiently well together why could it not be the same?


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> Well, not really. It's much more magical than the EK, but can't be quite as good a warrior without magic as the fighter. It could be more powerful overall, like the Paladin probably is, but it could also be more in line with Battlesmith Artificers.



I generally feel that the *best* way to do a swordmage (as a baseline for general gishes) is to make it it's own class. I'm just noting that the *minimum* to make a swordmage is a subclass.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Mind of tempest said:


> does it invalidate something, the zealot barbarian and the paladin live sufficiently well together why could it not be the same?



Zealot barbarian is still a barbarian with rage and all - a paladin getting rage would be unbalanced.

Mechanics do matter.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> I generally feel that the *best* way to do a swordmage (as a baseline for general gishes) is to make it it's own class. I'm just noting that the *minimum* to make a swordmage is a subclass.



Oh for sure, I was just trying to communicate the the EK isn't even a swordmage subclass, really. Especially before SCAG gave it weapon based cantrips.


----------



## Minigiant

I still really thinkk D&D is missing a Super Soldier class. The Warrior version of the Warlock where you pick up minor powers and focus on classic super powers.

Mythology, Religion, Comics, Literature, TV, and Movies are filled with heroes with super powers

Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus, Atalanta, Jason, Perseus, Samson, Gigamesh, Enkidu, DC Metas, Marvel Mutants, Captian Amerian and all his wannabes, Warhammer's Chaos knight, Grail Knights, and Spess Mahreens, almost every super soldiers, seft mad scientist creations, and almost all people "Blessed by the Gods"


----------



## bedir than

Mind of tempest said:


> the cleric is born of no pattern but was hammered to fill one,



Completely untrue.
While you could claim the idea that the inspirations for the cleric and paladin are the same, claiming that there are no clerics in the literature means ignoring history


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Shiroiken said:


> The only non-setting specific archetype 5E can't currently do using the existing classes is the psion. Psionic subclasses work well enough for a few subtypes, but the core concept of a psion doesn't fit into any of the classes neatly enough. I wouldn't mind a true half-caster warrior-mage, but this is a nit-pick difference between a 1/2 caster and the 1/3 caster eldritch knight.



It's less the difference between a 1/3 and 1/2, and more a load of other abilities which set them apart.

As eldritch knight is tied to the fighter power budget, all the things which set the gishes apart in prior editions have had to be axed, nerfed, or delayed to high level.

Like for example due to being a subclass it has to just use the wizard list, which is awful for martial combat blended with weapons. A single class swordmage would have its own list, full of spells which it can integrate into its weapon strikes. Look at the paladin and ranger lists, and compare them to the cleric and druid lists. The theme is the same, but the spells have a different focus.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

jmartkdr2 said:


> Which is the other problem: most suggested classes are "an existing subclass, but it doesn't suck."
> 
> Note that the argument against making a new class is rarely if ever "the subclass don't suck." No one really defends Eldritch Knight or says Battlemaster makes a perfect Warlord - they usually just don't see a whole new class as the solution.



Trouble is in 5e, the subclass is quite minor in the power budget next to the main class. So sure you can say eldritch knight or battlemaster isn't that good at replicating the swordmage or warlord.

But it doesn't matter what subclass you come up with, it still needs to be balanced against the main classes power. You can't have something with the support power a warlord should have, because it will also be getting 4 attacks, action surge, and tons of ASI increases.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> It's less the difference between a 1/3 and 1/2, and more a load of other abilities which set them apart.
> 
> As eldritch knight is tied to the fighter power budget, all the things which set the gishes apart in prior editions have had to be axed, nerfed, or delayed to high level.
> 
> Like for example due to being a subclass it has to just use the wizard list, which is awful for martial combat blended with weapons. A single class swordmage would have its own list, full of spells which it can integrate into its weapon strikes. Look at the paladin and ranger lists, and compare them to the cleric and druid lists. The theme is the same, but the spells have a different focus.



The big one is
No designer or DM designs spells for subclasses.

If ranger and paladin were subclasses, there'd be no hunter's mark, lightning arrow, beast sense, find steed, or any of the smite spells.


----------



## bedir than

Minigiant said:


> The big one is
> No designer or DM designs spells for subclasses.
> 
> If ranger and paladin were subclasses, there'd be no hunter's mark, lightning arrow, beast sense, find steed, or any of the smite spells.



I do wish the Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger had access to the Smite and Strike spells


----------



## Aldarc

bedir than said:


> I do wish the Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger had access to the Smite and Strike spells



The idea of smite - using spell slots to supply damage - is so Gish that's almost criminal that it's part of the Paladin and not a Swordmage.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> I still really thinkk D&D is missing a Super Soldier class. The Warrior version of the Warlock where you pick up minor powers and focus on classic super powers.
> 
> Mythology, Religion, Comics, Literature, TV, and Movies are filled with heroes with super powers
> 
> Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus, Atalanta, Jason, Perseus, Samson, Gigamesh, Enkidu, DC Metas, Marvel Mutants, Captian Amerian and all his wannabes, Warhammer's Chaos knight, Grail Knights, and Spess Mahreens, almost every super soldiers, seft mad scientist creations, and almost all people "Blessed by the Gods"



that witcher guy would also count as he is augmented to be super.


----------



## bedir than

Aldarc said:


> The idea of smite - using spell slots to supply damage - is so Gish that's almost criminal that it's part of the Paladin and not a Swordmage.



I'm talking the spells rather than the feature.
But having a spell mimic that feature (kinda like Hex and Hunter's Mark) for Bladesinger and Eldritch Knight makes sense


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Aldarc said:


> The idea of smite - using spell slots to supply damage - is so Gish that's almost criminal that it's part of the Paladin and not a Swordmage.



Thing is it suits both classes a lot.

So there is an argument that there is too much overlap for them to both be classes.

But then that opens up the argument that in that case the class should have been designed to be able to satisfy both the divine and arcane gish characters, rather than being super thematically and mechanically focused on the divine theme.

Though the arcane gish was never about damage and only damage from their magic attacks. There were tons of other possible effects.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Frozen_Heart said:


> Thing is it suits both classes a lot.
> 
> So there is an argument that there is too much overlap for them to both be classes.
> 
> But then that opens up the argument that in that case the class should have been designed to be able to satisfy both the divine and arcane gish characters, rather than being super thematically and mechanically focused on the divine theme.
> 
> Though the arcane gish was never about damage and only damage from their magic attacks. There were tons of other possible effects.



would it perhaps benefit from getting a power that leans into the alternatives?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

The two classes I would like to see added are Warlord and Summoner. The former because it would be an olive branch to 4e fans, the latter because I just like summoning, but am aware that a summoning-specialized subclass is almost always going to either be underpowered (e.g. Pact of the Chain) or stupidly broken (thankfully no extant examples in 5e AIUI). A dedicated class allows the power of summoning to be a core thematic and gameplay focus without falling into either the Beast Master Ranger or PF "ALL the summoned minions" Master Summoner holes.

These are, not so coincidentally, the classes I've taken at least a partial swing at developing for 5e. My summoner remains woefully incomplete and the warlord has never left the "high concept" stage, but I _have_ spent time thinking about it.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

EzekielRaiden said:


> The two classes I would like to see added are Warlord and Summoner. The former because it would be an olive branch to 4e fans, the latter because I just like summoning, but am aware that a summoning-specialized subclass is almost always going to either be underpowered (e.g. Pact of the Chain) or stupidly broken (thankfully no extant examples in 5e AIUI). A dedicated class allows the power of summoning to be a core thematic and gameplay focus without falling into either the Beast Master Ranger or PF "ALL the summoned minions" Master Summoner holes.
> 
> These are, not so coincidentally, the classes I've taken at least a partial swing at developing for 5e. My summoner remains woefully incomplete and the warlord has never left the "high concept" stage, but I _have_ spent time thinking about it.



Pathfinder 2e has a good summoner design. It's more of a focus on a single summon which is improved over time. Almost like a dedicated pet class.


----------



## Rogerd1

Why not have-
1. Fighter
2. Ranger
3. Rogue
4. Magic-User

Then the first three could have sub-classes split into: Archetypes, or Powered. These latter ones have access to magic in some form.

Now the fourth class type, Magic-User, could be further subdivided, into-

Magic

Arcane
Bloodlines
Chi
Gifted: 
Innate
Pact
Superpowers / Metas.


----------



## Weiley31

In regard to the Swordmage, there is, _technically,_ a 5E Swordmage. However, the issue is......





__





						Sorcerer: Stone Sorcery - DND 5th Edition
					






					dnd5e.wikidot.com
				




And yes: I know that's not the answer to the lack of a Swordmage. It just happens that this pretty much jacked the Swordmage's most defining trait, the Aegis, and suddenly changed the identity of the whole class from Swordmage to an Earth Bender knock-off trying to pretend to be a Swordmage.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I want more classes. Not a ton more, but at least a few. An official Blood Hunter (rebalanced to be less MAD), a Warlord, an Arcane Gish class, a Psion, maybe an Oracle or Occultist/Witch class, too. Ideally, there would be 20 classes so you could easily roll to randomly decide a PC/NPC's class (D&D is a d20 system that has 20 levels, so 20 classes would also be nice), but that's not necessary.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Frozen_Heart said:


> Thing is it suits both classes a lot.
> 
> So there is an argument that there is too much overlap for them to both be classes.
> 
> But then that opens up the argument that in that case the class should have been designed to be able to satisfy both the divine and arcane gish characters, rather than being super thematically and mechanically focused on the divine theme.
> 
> Though the arcane gish was never about damage and only damage from their magic attacks. There were tons of other possible effects.



Perhaps the Swordmage should flip it around then: using your attacks to cast spells, rather than using your spells to perform attacks.

You could potentially do something like Spell Combat, where with each attack you make, you add an extra "rune word" or "arcane sigil" or whatever. High-level swordmage spells require three or even four runes, while low-level ones only require a single rune. You can empower a certain number of attacks with runes per long rest (possibly with a once-a-day boost from taking a short rest, like the Wizard's Arcane Recovery). Early on, you have few runes and few attacks, so you tend to use only a small handful of spells; perhaps to liven things up, if your offhand is empty or only carrying a spellcasting focus such as a wand, you can take a bonus action to make an attack that deals lower damage (perhaps PB damage?) but counts for stringing runes together, so that you have a better chance of getting out your two- or three-rune spells.

If order matters, and especially if you must declare your runes before you roll, it becomes a very high-complexity and yet still attack-focused class. If order doesn't matter, especially if you declare your runes only for successful attacks (the way Smites work), it becomes a lot more fluid, somewhat more resembling a Sorcerer than a Wizard, and having fewer total spells but much greater flexibility in what they can use at any given time. Alternatively, perhaps multiple spells correspond to the same sequences of runes, so you have a choice as to what you cast--small spell list but most of it is regularly accessible kind of thing.



Frozen_Heart said:


> Pathfinder 2e has a good summoner design. It's more of a focus on a single summon which is improved over time. Almost like a dedicated pet class.



That's the core of my own summoner design as well. I even found an actual name that _truly fits the concept_ and isn't just a word-salad invention: "Visitant," literally a word for a supernatural being believed to have crossed over from some spiritual plane. My summoner studies the secret, recondite constellations to draw power out of distant and esoteric planes. Visitants are residents of these distant planes that wish to visit the mortal world--whether out of curiosity, hunger, ambition, or desire to help. They tend to have blue-and-orange morality, even the friendly ones, so dealing with them is a complex affair.

I haven't written up the summoner spell list, but my intent would be to have the bulk of the spells that summon creatures or create entities to perform tasks, to emphasize that fluff of working through proxies. The three subclasses--Astral Signs, the "hidden constellations through which you channel the magic of the cosmos"--that I decided on were the Muses (support-heavy, likely gaining access to healing magic not available to other summoners), the Chimaera (merging with your Visitant to make one more-powerful being instead of two separate beings), and the Protean (more about skill, adaptation, and foresight/divination; ultra-flexible Visitant).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

EzekielRaiden said:


> Perhaps the Swordmage should flip it around then: using your attacks to cast spells, rather than using your spells to perform attacks.



This is actually exactly how I did it in my Homebrew Arcane Gish class (which I named the "Arcknight"). You can cast a spell, but choose to "Spell Strike" it in order to store it in a weapon you're wielding and delay the spell's effects until you hit with that weapon (with restrictions on how long the spell stays in the weapon, requiring concentration, a full action to store the spell until higher levels, etc). You can do it with spells like Levitate, Hold Person, Fireball, Scorching Ray, and Banishment, but not for spells that would buff them.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

I think by salvaging the discarded Prismari Mage features, the ones from Quandrix mage, the ones from the Stone Sorcerer and a few from the Mystic, we can manage a pretty decent spell blade, whether on a full class or subclass. 

This is the fun part about creating player options: just by mix-matching features that did make the cut in UA, you can create pretty decent stuff.


----------



## Asisreo

Frozen_Heart said:


> Pathfinder 2e has a good summoner design. It's more of a focus on a single summon which is improved over time. Almost like a dedicated pet class.



It's funny because that's exactly how I perceive "Beastmaster" for 5e. A summon/commander class that splits their strength with an NPC. 

Whether you think they did it well is up to personal opinion, but if a player wanted me to homebrew a true summoner character, I'd absolutely use beastmaster as a base.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Asisreo said:


> It's funny because that's exactly how I perceive "Beastmaster" for 5e. A summon/commander class that splits their strength with an NPC.
> 
> Whether you think they did it well is up to personal opinion, but if a player wanted me to homebrew a true summoner character, I'd absolutely use beastmaster as a base.



I mean yeah I agree. That's exactly what the Beastmaster is in 5e.

It's also a very clear demonstration that a subclass cannot fill a concept in a manner as unique or interesting as a full class, simply because it has to balance its power budget against that of the main class.

The Pathfinder 2e summoner lets you select what creature type and abilities it has, and then develop them from there. It's not just a beast, you could select a celestial, a construct, a demon, a dragon, or tons of other options each with their own quirks and abilities. (this is permanently selected at the start, like a subclass).

From there you can upgrade it, allowing it to fly, become large enough to ride, use ranged attacks, actually merge your character into it, and lots of other traits.

Meanwhile in 5e you're just a ranger who can tell their beast to bite occasionally.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

EzekielRaiden said:


> Perhaps the Swordmage should flip it around then: using your attacks to cast spells, rather than using your spells to perform attacks.
> 
> You could potentially do something like Spell Combat, where with each attack you make, you add an extra "rune word" or "arcane sigil" or whatever. High-level swordmage spells require three or even four runes, while low-level ones only require a single rune. You can empower a certain number of attacks with runes per long rest (possibly with a once-a-day boost from taking a short rest, like the Wizard's Arcane Recovery). Early on, you have few runes and few attacks, so you tend to use only a small handful of spells; perhaps to liven things up, if your offhand is empty or only carrying a spellcasting focus such as a wand, you can take a bonus action to make an attack that deals lower damage (perhaps PB damage?) but counts for stringing runes together, so that you have a better chance of getting out your two- or three-rune spells.
> 
> If order matters, and especially if you must declare your runes before you roll, it becomes a very high-complexity and yet still attack-focused class. If order doesn't matter, especially if you declare your runes only for successful attacks (the way Smites work), it becomes a lot more fluid, somewhat more resembling a Sorcerer than a Wizard, and having fewer total spells but much greater flexibility in what they can use at any given time. Alternatively, perhaps multiple spells correspond to the same sequences of runes, so you have a choice as to what you cast--small spell list but most of it is regularly accessible kind of thing.



I really like this. It still holds true to the swordmage identity established by other editions, but switches it up and gives it a 'signature mechanic' separate from that of the Paladin.

What's also cool is that it wouldn't get in the way of the other established mechanics of a swordmage, like teleports and aegis. In fact both could even link into the rune system.


----------



## Mecheon

bedir than said:


> Completely untrue.
> While you could claim the idea that the inspirations for the cleric and paladin are the same, claiming that there are no clerics in the literature means ignoring history



I mean, it is kinda true. The D&D cleric was born to counter a vampire character and all of its stuff came from justification of countering said vampire character

Anywho, I'm all for new classes. Warlord/battlefield commandery type who does the leading and not necessarily the fighting and Psion are the two big archetypes with some more room to them, but I could see other things being split off.  There's enough Witch classes out there that I'd argue there's enough demand it could be looked into, the idea of a summoner sort also has a lot of promise (Even if I know balancing it would be a nightmare), and that recent thread on assassins has gotten me pretty on-board with it being its own thing

On the removing monk/sorcerer stuff from earlier, I do disagree. Firstly, Fighter is not so strong an archetype it can consume everything else in its wake, getting rid of the stuff split off from it like Barbarian or Paladin just weakens those archetypes. Secondly, I'd argue the solution is to make sorcerer more mechanically its own thing, as the fantasy arcetypes of "Born with magical power flowing through your blood" and "Make a pact with an entity for power" are so far from each other I find the idea to mechanically combine them moreso a failing of D&D in making them mechanically distinct. I remember people making a push for sorcerer to be Con based which, would be interesting and fitting with the theme


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mecheon said:


> Secondly, I'd argue the solution is to make sorcerer more mechanically its own thing, as the fantasy arcetypes of "Born with magical power flowing through your blood" and "Make a pact with an entity for power" are so far from each other I find the idea to mechanically combine them moreso a failing of D&D in making them mechanically distinct.



I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.


----------



## Rogerd1

You could easily combine Paladin and Cleric into one making each one a sub-class.

Plus Battle Master is in Tasha's I believe with a variety of builds within it.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.



Archetypes have nothing directly to do with mechanics though, so I can definitely understand a desire not to lump everything in with the same rules just because you can.  The fact that D&D is a class-based system might be the only unkillable sacred cow.  I know it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I couldn't play a "level 2 cleric", for example.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Micah Sweet said:


> Archetypes have nothing directly to do with mechanics though, so I can definitely understand a desire not to lump everything in with the same rules just because you can.  The fact that D&D is a class-based system might be the only unkillable sacred cow.  I know it wouldn't feel like D&D to me if I couldn't play a "level 2 cleric", for example.



But the archetype is basically the same: an arcane caster that is imbued with power due some sort of connection to a magical being. Making it different class depending on the exact nature of the connection seems like splitting hairs.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> But the archetype is basically the same: an arcane caster that is imbued with power due some sort of connection to a magical being. Making it different class depending on the exact nature of the connection seems like splitting hairs.



Well, presumably the pact-maker had a choice in the matter (not usually the case with infants), and the magical being presumably got something out of the deal in exchange for granting power, so there are a few differences.


----------



## Mecheon

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.



I'd argue they shouldn't be sharing the same mechanics, though. They'te two vastly different things, they shouldn't just have the same powers.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mecheon said:


> I'd argue they shouldn't be sharing the same mechanics, though. They'te two vastly different things, they shouldn't just have the same powers.



And I'd argue that they're effectively the same thing and whether the demon you got your powers from is your boss or your grandad is a matter of character background, not mechanics.


----------



## Hussar

I would love to see a psionic class. 

I want psionics to be part of core, built right into core and part of the game from the get go. None of this bolting on later that never really works. 

Make psionics a solid part of the game just opens up so many design options. Some classes, like monk, could become “psionic adjacent”. 

The specifics of the mechanics is obviously debatable but I’d really like the psionic to be the twelfth class.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.



Would you put clerics and druids in the same category?


----------



## Minigiant

Crimson Longinus said:


> And I'd argue that they're effectively the same thing and whether the demon you got your powers from is your boss or your grandad is a matter of character background, not mechanics.



Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.

Sorcerers came from dragons, minor celestials/fends/undead or freak accidents.

Warlock came from Arches and Elders. Archfey, Archdevils, Archangels, Demon princes(ses), Elder gods, Archliches,


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> Would you put clerics and druids in the same category?



I'd say the difference here is that they are intermediaries for a greater powers, channelling it from somewhere, the divine being active participant, rather than just imbuing the character with power. Or that would be my justification. Warlock fluff is super vague, and it is indeed unclear what makes them district from clerics.


----------



## Asisreo

Frozen_Heart said:


> It's also a very clear demonstration that a subclass cannot fill a concept in a manner as unique or interesting as a full class, simply because it has to balance its power budget against that of the main class.



Yep. I understand beastmaster was almost pigeon-holed either into being a Ranger or druid subclass, but a "master/commandee/summoner" class where beastmaster is a subclass choice would have been nice. 


Frozen_Heart said:


> The Pathfinder 2e summoner lets you select what creature type and abilities it has, and then develop them from there. It's not just a beast, you could select a celestial, a construct, a demon, a dragon, or tons of other options each with their own quirks and abilities. (this is permanently selected at the start, like a subclass).



Yeah, if I ever homebrew a summoner class, that's how I'd make it. I'd keep it half-caster and I'd probably have to homebrew some appropriate cr monsters. 

But I would have subclass gimmicks like the elemental summoner having the same resistances/immunities as their summoned elemental or the devil summoner taking HP damage as payment for re-summoning a devil. 

But like all unique homebrew mechanics, it's very difficult to balance it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Minigiant said:


> Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.
> 
> Sorcerers came from dragons, minor celestials/fends/undead or freak accidents.
> 
> Warlock came from Arches and Elders. Archfey, Archdevils, Archangels, Demon princes(ses), Elder gods, Archliches,



That's super vague and weak distinction. Also not even true. Dragons are are not less powerful than genies, for example.


----------



## Mecheon

Minigiant said:


> Since 3e, the core difference in story between the warlock and sorcerer is that the warlock patron is waaaaaaaay stronger.



I'd argue its moreso the sorcerer's power is inherant to them and they should be able to do more with that, rather than the warlock power that's gifted

I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.

look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.


----------



## Minigiant

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's super vague and weak distinction. Also not even true. Dragons are are not less powerful than genies, for example.



The genies that could make pacts were stronger than dragons.



Mecheon said:


> I'd argue its moreso the sorcerer's power is inherant to them and they should be able to do more with that, rather than the warlock power that's gifted
> 
> I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.
> 
> look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.




The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.

Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.


----------



## Yaarel

For me, the missing classes include:

• Psion
• Warlord

If I would design from scratch today, I would make a heavy-infantry "Knight" class, and use it for various subclasses including: Cavalier, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, and so on. Then create a separate light-infantry "Skirmisher" class, and use it for subclasses including: Dex-Fighter, nonmagic Ranger, spellcaster Ranger, as well as nonmagical Athlete, and ki Monk.


----------



## Asisreo

Minigiant said:


> The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.
> 
> Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.



If players can't understand something like a playstyle, they call it weak. It astonishes me how certain players can be so positive about how bad an idea is before they ever try it. It's frustrating at times.


----------



## Hussar

Yaarel said:


> For me, the missing classes include:
> 
> • Psion
> • Warlord
> 
> If I would design from scratch today, I would make a heavy-infantry "Knight" class, and use it for various subclasses including: Cavalier, Paladin, Eldritch Knight, and so on. Then create a separate light-infantry "Skirmisher" class, and use it for subclasses including: Dex-Fighter, nonmagic Ranger, spellcaster Ranger, as well as nonmagical Athlete, and ki Monk.




I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.


----------



## Yaarel

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.



Judging by premodern military history, four classes:

• Knight (heavy infantry)
• Skirmisher (light infantry)
• Rogue (covert)
• Archer (artillery)

There is also a fifth category, cavalry, but it is odd.


----------



## Irlo

Minigiant said:


> Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas.



Oh, please.

Edit: I retract the comment. Not a rewarding topic of conversation.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Mecheon said:


> look I liked that one weird playtest sorcerer, it was good.






Minigiant said:


> The weird playtest sorcerer displayed the difference between the clsses better.
> 
> Too bad the D&D community hated new ideas



The playtest sorcerer was excellent, and when the designers got scared off by initial feedback...yeah that pretty much told me all I needed to know about what 5e was going to become.

Seriously though the whole "born with two souls" and "constant internal struggle for dominance" thing was _rad as hell_ and a _clear_ archetypal difference between Warlock and Sorcerer for those that want one (not that I even remotely buy the idea that Faust and old-school Merlin, back when he was a cambion, are remotely the same character archetype).


----------



## Minigiant

Irlo said:


> Oh, please.



It's true.

During the playtest, anytime WOTC offered a new idea it got downvoted. With the sorcerer it was

WOTC: Here's a cool new idea for the sorcerer.
Community:  Ew. That's too different. Can't you like just make a variant of the wizard?
WOTC: If that's what you want

(Spongebob 2 years later)

Some of the Community:  Does anyone else think the sorcerer is boring? It is just a wizard variant. It shoulda been a wizard subclass.
Others of the Community: Well then you guys shouldn't have downvoted the playtest sorcerer andd asked for the 3e sorcerer if you thought 3e sorcerer is boring!


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Irlo said:


> Oh, please.



If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to _completely abandon them _and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> Judging by premodern military history, four classes:
> 
> • Knight (heavy infantry)
> • Skirmisher (light infantry)
> • Rogue (covert)
> • Archer (artillery)
> 
> There is also a fifth category, cavalry, but it is odd.



That's more or less what 4e did.


Fighter (heavy infantry)
Ranger (light infantry)
Rogue (covert and irregulars)
Hunter (missile)
Warlord (command)
Skald (flagbearer and horns)
Berserker (shock infantry)


----------



## Yaarel

Regarding gaming archetypes.

I feel the 5e Forgotten Realms concept of the "Weave" is adequate.

The multiverse is inherently capable of magical phenomena, and this capacity is called the "Weave".



There are different methods to manipulate the Weave.

• Arcane manipulates the Weave by means of magical properties inherent in natural objects.
• Divine manipulates the Weave by means of archetypal symbols, language, and meaning.
• Psionic manipulates the Weave directly by means of the mind: intentions, thoughts and emotions, as well as ethereal souls and force.
• Primal is a kind of psionic, but focuses less on human souls and more on the inherent personality of elements: earth, air, fire, water, and plants.
• Healing might deserve to be its own power source, focusing on anatomy and shapeshifting.



The Wizard is clearly arcane, wielding magic inherent in material objects, whether special ingredients or a special tool.

The Sorcerer pilots a magically modified body, transformed according to a bloodline. This more like arcane, but ones own body is a kind of magic item that has inherent magical properties. (Probably, the Sorcerer should lack material components, at least when thematically appropriate according the bloodline.)

The Warlock has an identity crisis − sometimes like Wizard who must study magic and sometimes like Sorcerer being transformed by the patron. The Warlock pretty much never has the patron doing the magical effects directly.

The Cleric is clearly divine, wielding symbols, belonging to an ideological community, and emphasizing ethical affinity.

The Paladin is clearly divine, where the language of oaths and ethics have inherent power.

The Druid is mainly Primal − forming relationships with plants and elemental creatures. But animals relate to the emotions and instincts of humans, thus kinda sorta psionic.

And so on.


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> If you have a better explanation for why the two most-flavorful and honestly best-constructed playtest classes apparently got such negative feedback that the designers felt they had to _completely abandon them _and start over, never to be seen again until official release, I'm listening.



Okay, you’re right.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Irlo said:


> Okay, you’re right. The community hated new ideas. Otherwise, everyone would have shared your opinions.



Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened _a lot_ during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried _very hard_ to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)


----------



## Yaarel

Minigiant said:


> That's more or less what 4e did.
> 
> 
> Fighter (heavy infantry)
> Ranger (light infantry)
> Rogue (covert and irregulars)
> Hunter (missile)
> Warlord (command)
> Skald (flagbearer and horns)
> Berserker (shock infantry)



1 to 5 are great.

Heh, as a Norwegian, I object to 6 and 7.

Horns? It seems the Viking Period lacks musical instruments. They know about the Saami shamanic drums, but dont use these themselves. Mostly, the Norse of this time sing vocally. In England, York has musical instruments, but that is Roman town.

The skald is a recent import from the Celtic tradition of the bard, under Christian influence, and functions similarly as court historians and legal experts. Unlike the Celts whose bards speak in verse, the skald probably sing musically.

Berserkar are a kind of shamanic warrior, with a reputation for being crazy, animalistic, and antisocial. They can function as bodyguards, but to employ them is somewhat scandalous.


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened _a lot_ during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried _very hard_ to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)



I retracted my statement.


----------



## Aldarc

Hussar said:


> I have to admit, taking the fighter and maybe splitting it up a bit isn’t a bad idea. Or maybe fighter and rogue combine to make three base classes.



So tell me if you heard this before: There was this game that essentially did this. It took a look at the magicless martial warrior archetypes, and it split them up into four base classes defined by their fighting style: the defender/bruiser (the Fighter), the archer (the Ranger), the skirmisher (the Rogue), and the commander (the Warlord). Hmmmm... I wonder if the Warlord may have gotten more leverage if it was renamed as "the Knight."

Alternatively, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved combined and then split the Fighter and Rogue. Instead AE had the _heavily-armored fighter_ (the Warmain) and the _lightly-armored fighter_ (the Unfettered). The skill/proficiency-monkey was the mystical Akashic who tapped into the akashic memory for their abilities.

Also instead of making the Monk based on ki and orientalist tropes, Monte Cook took inspiration from the Haruchai of _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ and designed the Oathsworn, who gain their powers from swearing oaths against using weapons and armor, eating, breathing, sleeping, riding horses/mounts, aging, etc.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I miss the martial adepts from "Tome of Battle: Book of the Nine Swords". But the martial maneuvers were too complicated to be used with nPCs.

Warlord could appear in the future return of Birthright, at least this as a strategy videogame. I imagine it like a class to play mass battles or skirmishes and that needs a lot of special playtesting. 

You can't say there is enough classes, it is like saying Barbie has got enough clothes. Always there is a player who wants something different to feel her character is special.

If WotC doesn't publish new classes then these will be created by the 3PPs. 

The vestige pact binder was an interesting idea, but maybe too complex. 

I don't miss the incarnum soulmelder classes, but the totemist shaman.


----------



## Hussar

Aldarc said:


> So tell me if you heard this before: There was this game that essentially did this. It took a look at the magicless martial warrior archetypes, and it split them up into four base classes defined by their fighting style: the defender/bruiser (the Fighter), the archer (the Ranger), the skirmisher (the Rogue), and the commander (the Warlord). Hmmmm... I wonder if the Warlord may have gotten more leverage if it was renamed as "the Knight."
> 
> Alternatively, Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved combined and then split the Fighter and Rogue. Instead AE had the _heavily-armored fighter_ (the Warmain) and the _lightly-armored fighter_ (the Unfettered). The skill/proficiency-monkey was the mystical Akashic who tapped into the akashic memory for their abilities.
> 
> Also instead of making the Monk based on ki and orientalist tropes, Monte Cook took inspiration from the Haruchai of _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ and designed the Oathbound, who gain their powers from swearing oaths against using weapons and armor, eating, breathing, sleeping, riding horses/mounts, aging, etc.



Yeah, heh.  Funny enough, I'm just starting a reread of Thomas Covenant and I'm so looking forward to seeing the Cords again.  

But, yeah, I'm not quite sure what the three classes of "fighty types" I had in mind.  Just sort of spit balling.  Melee, ranged and other?  Something like that.  So your infantry, cavalry, heavy types go into the melee category for subclasses, your skirmishers, high mobility, lightly (or at least lighter) armored fighty types go ranged with subclasses, and the Other covers anything that got missed - gish, warlord/controller type, that sort of thing.  Not that you couldn't have overlap between them as well.

But, I do think there is enough legs on the idea to split fighter up a bit.  I know that the Dev's have talked about how the fighter is just too broad and it makes it hard to design around.  It's trying to do too many things at once so, it becomes hard to make it more focused.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mecheon said:


> I'd also take that to then go "Sorcerers don't care about the meaning of spells and could twist magic in Strange Ways based upon their bloodline", like draconic ones being able to get wings or other elements of their bloodline, celestial ones getting angelic features, and so on.



Yes, they should have a feature that let's them get always-on magical effects and features that represent their bloodline. You could call them _invocations..._


----------



## Rogerd1

You could do away with certain spells requiring components, and make it so that spells can be a cast a number of ways.

Gestures / Somatic: I would make this like The Magicians tv series

Incantation: I would make these into weird phrases, kind of like you see in comics sometimes where the caster speaks but the language is composed of strange symbols.

Mental / Psychic: You could make this akin to partial ascension from Stargate.


----------



## Tallifer

I still want a Friar like in Dark Age of Camelot. I have tried unsuccessfully to use feats and multiclasses to recreate the feel in every edition.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Tallifer said:


> I still want a Friar like in Dark Age of Camelot. I have tried unsuccessfully to use feats and multiclasses to recreate the feel in every edition.
> 
> View attachment 150513



is that not a monk cleric?


----------



## Li Shenron

bedir than said:


> Almost every suggestion so far has been quite narrow. They don't fit, at all, the philosophy of 5e with classes being broad archetypes that fit a spectrum of characters from the inspirational literature (stories, books, films, games, comics, etc). Some are so narrow that there's only been a single character outside of the game that's fit.



Yep. That is why I voted "only for specific settings". My Rokugan examples give three different ways why a new class may be better than fitting a core class:

Samurai: every fighter in the setting is already supposed to belong to a narrower archetype than in vanilla settings, so you make that narrow archetype into its own class, and then expand it back via new subclasses, feats and backgrounds in order to guarantee a large character variety on the long term 

Shugenja: a spellcaster with a little bit of many existing classes, again every caster in the setting is supposed to be a Shugenja, so instead of forcing a ridiculous multiclass combo you combine what you need from various casters into a new class 

Courtier: a character largely focused on non-combat scenarios, especially the social pillar, to avoid getting the combat baggage of essentially every core class it's best to make a class from scratch 

Keep in mind that Rokugan is a very special settings where many core classes just don't exist (Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, Bard, Druid). Essentially everyone is either a Samurai, Shugenja, Courtier or Monk. Other classes can be allowed for multiclassing but are treated as mechanical additions without narrative implications (Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue), and Sorcerer can be used for NPCs.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Something I'd personally like to see is a proper Swordmage class, Not the Bladelock's 'Caster with a magical weapon' or the Eldrich Knight's 'Fighter with some magic on the side' but a class that actually focuses on them using their melee weapon as their mechanism for channeling spells and using weapon strikes in place of a spell's regular to-hit conditions.

They'd be capable of enchanting their weapon strikes to deal their chosen types of any of the 6 elemental damage types as standard (so their mace would be doing 1D6+STR damage that is both of the bludgeoning and say, acid type) or imbuing a spell for the rest of their turn/the round/start of next turn? (casting/imbuing Ray of Sickness and every attack made until it ran out would functionally be like casting RoS on the target every time they made a weapon attack instead of regular weapon damage) but in exchange would functionally remove all their ranged casting capacity (not that they couldn't learn ranged spells just that as they'd be inflicted through weapon strike the range factor would be a moot point), They'd also get to pick a handfull of techniques similar to the Sorcerer's Metamagic or the Fighter's Maneuvers but with more magical effects.

I'd probably put them around a D10 Half-caster with Medium Armour, Simple Weapons plus Rapiers, Scimitars and Shortswords, Then have double pronged subclasss options a-la the Warlock's Pacts and Patrons:
One subclass choice would determine their Mental Ability Score for their casting each with expanded subclass spell lists specialising in different areas, The INT subclass might focus on the more damaginge spells, WIS gets illusions and debuffs whereas CHA might get more charm spells perhaps, The variable casting stat might not be essential but I think it'd be good for keeping open the potential character concepts/builds.
The other subclass would decide the melee side of their capabilities, A Mageknight that gets Heavy Armour and full Martial Weapon proficiencies, An Arcane Archer that can imbue spells into thrown and ranged weapons getting the Martial Ranged Weapon proficiencies and a third subclass that instead focuses more on their version of Metamagic/Maneuvers or like the Hunter-Ranger's battle techniques to hit more foes with their spell-empowered blade.

Unrelated but this is my first time posting here, Hello to everyone!


----------



## UngeheuerLich

MNblockhead said:


> I don't really have strong feeling on classes. It is not like they are as core to the game as alignment.  ;-)
> 
> But I think I would like to have class building to be more a collection of feats and traits that that you can use to build your concept, with a the core, traditional classes provided as examples and for people that just want to get up an running quickly.  They don't even have to rip out the current classes.  Just put new optional character build rules in the DMG that have been play tested and balanced, which if used, would not make the traditional classes and subclasses completely obsolete.



I think the class structure is actually what makes DnD special. I don't like chose your own abilities games. I do think multiclassing does fill that gap in the 5e rules. I could also see subclasses that can be taken by every class, or I could see bringing back DnDnext "Themes" which were reverted back to feats. I was very fond of this particular playtest.


----------



## Aldarc

Tallifer said:


> I still want a Friar like in Dark Age of Camelot. I have tried unsuccessfully to use feats and multiclasses to recreate the feel in every edition.
> 
> View attachment 150513



Can you elaborate on that with more than a doodle please?


----------



## Minigiant

Yaarel said:


> Heh, as a Norwegian, I object to 6 and 7.
> 
> Horns? It seems the Viking Period lacks musical instruments. They know about the Saami shamanic drums, but dont use these themselves. Mostly, the Norse of this time sing vocally. In England, York has musical instruments, but that is Roman town.
> 
> Berserkar are a kind of shamanic warrior, with a reputation for being dangerous, animalistic, and antisocial. They can function as bodyguards, but to employ them is somewhat scandalous.




Don't blame me.
I didn't name the classes.



Aldarc said:


> Can you elaborate on that with more than a doodle please?



IIRC

The Friar was basely a cleric that wore light armor and wielded a staff.
Basically a Cleric with a version of Martial Arts that allow light armor.

DOAC was a weird game that had 3 realms each with their own versions of the same classes.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

LuisCarlos17f said:


> You can't say there is enough classes, it is like saying Barbie has got enough clothes. Always there is a player who wants something different to feel her character is special.



That seems needlessly dismissive. I look for solid mechanical support for a theme and concept in classes. If the mechanical support isn't workable as a subclass, but the theme is still worth exploring, it should be considered (not automatically pursued, just considered) for development as its own class. E.g. Ranger has shown how hard it is to design a good pet-focused subclass (I believe the Drakewarden is considered decent, so it only took them 8 years to write a decent pet-focused subclass). If, instead, the pet is the core of the class and the other parts are where you tone down the power, you can get a much more effective



LuisCarlos17f said:


> The vestige pact binder was an interesting idea, but maybe too complex.



This, for example, is why things like Warlock exist. I could totally see a Pact of the Binder that modifies Invocations or has a lot of specialized ones, which should work as a reasonable approximation of what the Binder class did in 3e.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Yes, they should have a feature that let's them get always-on magical effects and features that represent their bloodline. You could call them _invocations..._



Oh please. Are you really claiming Cambion Merlin and Faust are the same archetype? You don't "invoke" wings, they're an essential part of your being. And if Sorcerers are just Warlocks, then the Book of Shadows, that lets you cast a bunch of ritual spells, is apparently just a thing people can spontaneously fart out because great-grandma was a succubus? Or being the distant descendant of a dragon allows you to spontaneously manifest a magical necklace that you can give to friends to power them up? And if for some reason you decide "eh, I don't really like the magic book I spontaneously manifested because I have vampire blood...I'd prefer to stab people instead" you can just _do_ that every 4 levels, changing the blood-inheritance you got. Because that _totally_ makes sense for a person with a magical bloodline to do.


----------



## Minigiant

Just saying.

People would understand Warlocks better if there were a Warrior class with Invocations.

I mean 40k fans understand the difference between a Chaos Marine and a Chaos Psyker.


----------



## Aldarc

Let's admit it. The spellcasting classes of 5e are a bit of a garbled mess mechanically and thematically, either being too narrow or too broad. [Followed by the usual quip: "Um, actually... that's a feature, not a flaw."]


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> Your sarcasm is not productive. I was genuinely hoping you had an answer besides "you're dumb for thinking that people voted against something because it was new." Because yeah, that sort of thing happened _a lot_ during the playtest. It wasn't just confined to things I liked, e.g. Mearls tried _very hard_ to get the community to go for proficiency dice instead of proficiency bonus but eventually relented. (AIUI, he loves rolling fistfuls of dice, so he overruled the normal response to anything that wasn't polling supermajority positive, but it stayed unpopular over time.) Nor to things I had any real feelings about at all, as that's what killed Specialties (and thus the Warlord-style Fighter, which had originally had explicit support...but then was turned into a Specialty, and when Specialties got dropped it had nowhere else to manifest so they quietly stopped talking about it.)



I apologize for the sarcasm earlier. It felt to me that opinions were being dismissed as invalid, and that bothers me. I don't need to react to it. 

In this case, there are a few valid reasons to dislike proficiency dice. It's not necessarily a gut reaction against a new idea. Proficiency dice slow down the game, complicate calculations of roll results, and add randomness to a system that already has a d20 worth of randomness. That's what I was trying to get across. What appealed to Mearls didn't appeal to a wide swath of gamers. I think it's possible that what appeals to you, to me, and to some others can be rejected without dismissing the criticism as a hating new ideas or some other failing.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Aldarc said:


> Let's admit it. The spellcasting classes of 5e are a bit of a garbled mess mechanically and thematically, either being too narrow or too broad. [Followed by the usual quip: "Um, actually... that's a feature, not a flaw."]



Oh, for sure. "Wizard" collects the spellcasting traditions of dozens of different works all under one umbrella, while Warlock is pretty narrowly focused on the Faustian Bargain archetype and its tropes. Sorcerer _should_ have a ton of lore elements to it because "born with special powers" is a very broad category, but because 5e is aiming for "traditional" (read: 3e) versions of classes/mechanics, in practice it's "Wizard, but Limited." Cleric is essentially unique to D&D, as divine spellcasters are usually more robe-and-sandals _prophet_ types than heavy-armored-warrior types, and even games rooted in the D&D tradition often break back to that older concept (e.g. _Final Fantasy_'s White Mages_, Warcraft_'s Priests, _Dragon Age_'s "basically all magic-users are Mages," etc.) Druid and Bard technically have historical roots, but are so far removed from most of those trappings that it's more accurate to call them loosely inspired by historical things than actually supported by tropes or tradition that predates D&D, though both have won a bit more cultural cachet than the Cleric has, since "vaguely-priest-y person able to transform into animals" and "roguish ne'er-do-well with a dollop of every major skill" have both found support in fantasy more widely.

There is no single common thread across the various classes in terms of what grounds them or why they're included. Some are well-focused on single archetypes, others are highly generic, and a few don't really have archetypes that they weren't responsible for creating in the first place--meaning "does it represent an _existing_ archetype" isn't a useful metric for determining a class's staying power. Some are absolutely sprawling in terms of what approaches they support, while others are a lot more narrow unless you engage in some heavy reskinning, so versatility alone isn't a useful metric either. Even if you restrict things to just the "core four," the problem persists: Cleric is pretty idiosyncratic to D&D itself and works rooted in it, while Fighter, Rogue/Thief, and Wizard/Magic-User are about as generic as things come _thematically_. Yet Fighter and Thief are pretty narrow in terms of what particular things they're focused on _doing_, while Wizard (and to a lesser extent Cleric) sample from basically the _entire spectrum_ of fantastical things that magic-powered protagonists or supporting characters have been able to do.



Irlo said:


> I apologize for the sarcasm earlier. It felt to me that opinions were being dismissed as invalid, and that bothers me. I don't need to react to it.
> 
> In this case, there are a few valid reasons to dislike proficiency dice. It's not necessarily a gut reaction against a new idea. Proficiency dice slow down the game, complicate calculations of roll results, and add randomness to a system that already has a d20 worth of randomness. That's what I was trying to get across. What appealed to Mearls didn't appeal to a wide swath of gamers. I think it's possible that what appeals to you, to me, and to some others can be rejected without dismissing the criticism as a hating new ideas or some other failing.



Apology accepted. It's entirely valid to dislike things, my beef has been more with WotC's (at least during the playtest/the first few years of 5e) apparent fear of doing _anything_ that isn't objectively popular. I have heard reports--obviously secondhand, since we'll never truly know exactly how things were done internally--that anything which didn't poll at least a solid majority positively (edit: during the playtest) would be canned, no matter how much work had been put into it, with the proficiency-dice thing being a rare exception specifically because Mearls was so fond of the idea. Hence, we saw just one, very-early version of a Sorcerer that worked rather differently, and because it wasn't an instant hit, it got deleted forever and will never see professional publication.

As a Dragon Sorcerer, it was more of a gish-type, and as you spent your spell points for the day, you'd slowly transform, taking on characteristics of your second soul. It was mostly a fluff thing, but the text spoke of poor sods who had fully lost control and been _consumed_ by their second soul, leaving them as twisted monsters that could only be put down because the person they used to be had literally been eaten from the inside. That was a ton of really evocative, interesting flavor, and I strongly suspect that the vocal minority that spoke out against these things is why we got relatively flavor-light classes in 5e. It very much came across as people thinking that, because _this specific type_ of Sorcerer was more gish-like (gaining armor, resistances, and melee attacks as it burned through SP), that ALL types of Sorcerer would ALWAYS be gishes, and that erroneous conflation plus the newness of the concept led to a massive overreaction. It seemed perfectly obvious to me that this was _just one flavor_ of Sorcerer and that they would provide additional options.

And at least for my part...I was there and active on various places at the time. I saw the responses. A _lot_ of people--many of them not even Sorcerer fans in the first place--took one look at this new and different thing and said, "No, that's weird and bad, just make the Sorcerer like what it was before." That sentiment, phrased a dozen different ways, was the common refrain, that both the Sorcerer and Warlock were too "weird" and needed to be made simpler and more straightforward. So WotC listened...and that gave us a Sorcerer that looks a lot like a weaker Wizard. And now we have these calls to delete the Sorcerer (or Warlock, or both) entirely, because it doesn't do enough to justify its independent existence. It's a vicious cycle; classes that justify their independent existence are "too narrow" or "don't fit" or whatever; classes that pass that bar are "too generic" and "should just be an X."

In other words, class reductionism pushes a Morton's Fork: "if the class is generic, it should be merged with other, similar classes to save space, 'cause we don't need redundant generalists; if the class is specific, it doesn't allow people to play it as they like, so it should be deleted to save room for classes with broad appeal."


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Ironic that after the gish styled playtest sorcerer, the sorcerer is now the only caster with no melee options.

It's like they were so scared of the idea that they won't put a melee subclass on the sorcerer even years later.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

EzekielRaiden said:


> In other words, class reductionism pushes a Morton's Fork: "if the class is generic, it should be merged with other, similar classes to save space, 'cause we don't need redundant generalists; if the class is specific, it doesn't allow people to play it as they like, so it should be deleted to save room for classes with broad appeal."



I never understood the extreme dislike of redundancy and overlap.

So you want to play a 'divine' themed spellcasting warrior in DnD 5e. You could pick paladin. Or maybe a war cleric. Or you could multiclass a cleric and a fighter. Or pick celestial blade pact warlock. Or maybe multiclass a divine soul sorcerer and a fighter. And then there is sun soul monk, or circle or stars druid mixed with fighter.

There are so many ways to play the same concept, and every single one will act completely differently in mechanics and gameplay. If you don't enjoy the mechanics of one of them, but really like the theme, you can just choose another. And yet people see this as a bad thing for some reason.


----------



## bedir than

Mecheon said:


> The D&D cleric was born to counter a vampire character and all of its stuff came from justification of countering said vampire character



And then it was built using so many tropes from the European Middle Ages it's practically an advertisement for the Crusades.


----------



## Minigiant

EzekielRaiden said:


> As a Dragon Sorcerer, it was more of a gish-type, and as you spent your spell points for the day, you'd slowly transform, taking on characteristics of your second soul. It was mostly a fluff thing, but the text spoke of poor sods who had fully lost control and been _consumed_ by their second soul, leaving them as twisted monsters that could only be put down because the person they used to be had literally been eaten from the inside. That was a ton of really evocative, interesting flavor, and I strongly suspect that the vocal minority that spoke out against these things is why we got relatively flavor-light classes in 5e. It very much came across as people thinking that, because _this specific type_ of Sorcerer was more gish-like (gaining armor, resistances, and melee attacks as it burned through SP), that ALL types of Sorcerer would ALWAYS be gishes, and that erroneous conflation plus the newness of the concept led to a massive overreaction. It seemed perfectly obvious to me that this was _just one flavor_ of Sorcerer and that they would provide additional options.
> 
> And at least for my part...I was there and active on various places at the time. I saw the responses. A _lot_ of people--many of them not even Sorcerer fans in the first place--took one look at this new and different thing and said, "No, that's weird and bad, just make the Sorcerer like what it was before." That sentiment, phrased a dozen different ways, was the common refrain, that both the Sorcerer and Warlock were too "weird" and needed to be made simpler and more straightforward. So WotC listened...and that gave us a Sorcerer that looks a lot like a weaker Wizard. And now we have these calls to delete the Sorcerer (or Warlock, or both) entirely, because it doesn't do enough to justify its independent existence. It's a vicious cycle; classes that justify their independent existence are "too narrow" or "don't fit" or whatever; classes that pass that bar are "too generic" and "should just be an X."
> 
> In other words, class reductionism pushes a Morton's Fork: "if the class is generic, it should be merged with other, similar classes to save space, 'cause we don't need redundant generalists; if the class is specific, it doesn't allow people to play it as they like, so it should be deleted to save room for classes with broad appeal."



Another problem was that during the playtest, most classes only had one subclass. Except for the ranger and I think the cleric, there was only one displayed option for a class. So anytime a new idea was given, it was the only option shown.

Due to the fact that vocal community isn't that mechanically creative, this lead to a lot of "it's different. I don't want all the X to look like that. I don't like it."

If the playtest Sorcerer had a traditional Wild Mage along with the gishy Dragon Mage, the playtest sorcerer might have survive. I wrote speculative version of a healer/paladiny Celestial Sorcerer and a necrotic/vampiric Shadow Sorcerer on here or the WOTC forums and it was popular. But it was too late to prevent the "It's different. I don't like" survey responses.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Ironic that after the gish styled playtest sorcerer, the sorcerer is now the only caster with no melee options.
> 
> It's like they were so scared of the idea that they won't put a melee subclass on the sorcerer even years later.




And ironically the main classes missing from 5e are the Gish and the Warrior on Magic Steroids.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Minigiant said:


> And ironically the main classes missing from 5e are the Gish and the Warrior on Magic Steroids.



Entirely because of the playtest sorcerer. As that was meant to be the arcane half caster gish, they didn't make a separate gish class.

Then when playtest sorcerer got axed, nothing then filled that void.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Frozen_Heart said:


> Entirely because of the playtest sorcerer. As that was meant to be the arcane half caster gish, they didn't make a separate gish class.
> 
> Then when playtest sorcerer got axed, nothing then filled that void.



and that is a void that people have tried to fill before without real luck, plus video games have made such a thing common so it is more lack an archetype than roots to draw on.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mind of tempest said:


> and that is a void that people have tried to fill before without real luck, plus video games have made such a thing common so it is more lack an archetype than roots to draw on.



I think the issue is that Paladin and Ranger had an identity, and then had the 'divine/primal magic warrior' mechanics placed on them later.

While the swordmages theme is just 'mixes arcane magic and combat', without having a strong identity beyond that.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Frozen_Heart said:


> I think the issue is that Paladin and Ranger had an identity, and then had the 'divine/primal magic warrior' mechanics placed on them later.
> 
> While the swordmages theme is just 'mixes arcane magic and combat', without having a strong identity beyond that.



identity is its major problem as we could make mechanics for it right now.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Thing is it suits both classes a lot.
> 
> So there is an argument that there is too much overlap for them to both be classes.
> 
> But then that opens up the argument that in that case the class should have been designed to be able to satisfy both the divine and arcane gish characters, rather than being super thematically and mechanically focused on the divine theme.
> 
> Though the arcane gish was never about damage and only damage from their magic attacks. There were tons of other possible effects.



Yeah I think the smite _spells_ are more gish than the smite _mechanic_ would be.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah I think the smite _spells_ are more gish than the smite _mechanic_ would be.



And yet all the arcane swordmage type subclasses don't get them. You can't even get them through feats as magic initiate doesn't cover paladin and ranger.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> I think the issue is that Paladin and Ranger had an identity, and then had the 'divine/primal magic warrior' mechanics placed on them later.
> 
> While the swordmages theme is just 'mixes arcane magic and combat', without having a strong identity beyond that.



I think the swordmage/gish has a pretty strong identity, actually. It’s more like the fighter than like the paladin, in that each archetype is an archetype, whereas paladin is the archetype and the subclasses are variations of that archetype.  

What I mean is, the identity _is _“warrior whose traditions are both martial and arcane”, with the single most important aspect being that the character _doesn’t feel like a multiclass. _ 

EK isn’t a good gish because it very strongly feels like a fighter who learned some spells in an exchange program. An actual gish should feel like a graduate from a school where you learn spells with sword in hand, and the sparring ring hums with magic, because the two elements _are not separate in any way_.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> And yet all the arcane swordmage type subclasses don't get them. You can't even get them through feats as magic initiate doesn't cover paladin and ranger.



Okay?


----------



## bedir than

Frozen_Heart said:


> And yet all the arcane swordmage type subclasses don't get them. You can't even get them through feats as magic initiate doesn't cover paladin and ranger.






doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay?



The solve is pretty simple -- give your Bladesinging and Eldritch Knights to those 11 spells.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think the swordmage/gish has a pretty strong identity, actually. It’s more like the fighter than like the paladin, in that each archetype is an archetype, whereas paladin is the archetype and the subclasses are variations of that archetype.
> 
> What I mean is, the identity _is _“warrior whose traditions are both martial and arcane”, with the single most important aspect being that the character _doesn’t feel like a multiclass. _
> 
> EK isn’t a good gish because it very strongly feels like a fighter who learned some spells in an exchange program. An actual gish should feel like a graduate from a school where you learn spells with sword in hand, and the sparring ring hums with magic, because the two elements _are not separate in any way_.



Absolutely, 100% earned question: what are the narrative examples for this archetype from fiction?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

bedir than said:


> The solve is pretty simple -- give your Bladesinging and Eldritch Knights to those 11 spells.



Hey if BS had smite spells I might agree with some others that they can make decent AC-based tanks.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> Absolutely, 100% earned question: what are the narrative examples for this archetype from fiction?



Does the Witcher count? Maybe the Heralds/Knights Radiant from the Stormlight Archive? Spellswords from the Elder Scrolls? The Forgemasters from Castlevania? Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender? Danny Phantom when he uses a sword? Mystic Knights from Final Fantasy V? Gandalf could possibly count, as he uses a Sword and Staff. Eragon from the Inheritance Cycle? 

There's quite a few examples from pop culture similar to this concept, and some in D&D's history (Duskblades and Swordmages). 

And if there aren't any that perfectly match up . . . D&D can create its own stuff, can't it? It's been doing this for nearly 50 years already.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> Absolutely, 100% earned question: what are the narrative examples for this archetype from fiction?



I’ve never seen an example of a cleric in fiction that wasn’t a terrible fit for the class in any edition. Nor most of the classes.  

But I also don’t care, nor do I view the “justify wanting a thing” mentality as at all valid.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Does the Witcher count? Maybe the Heralds/Knights Radiant from the Stormlight Archive? Spellswords from the Elder Scrolls? The Forgemasters from Castlevania? Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender? Danny Phantom when he uses a sword? Mystic Knights from Final Fantasy V? Gandalf could possibly count, as he uses a Sword and Staff. Eragon from the Inheritance Cycle?
> 
> There's quite a few examples from pop culture similar to this concept, and some in D&D's history (Duskblades and Swordmages).
> 
> And if there aren't any that perfectly match up . . . D&D can create its own stuff, can't it? It's been doing this for nearly 50 years already.



Exactly.  

In addition, identity and direct precedent aren’t the same thing, so the question wasn’t even strongly relevant to what it replied to.


----------



## Irlo

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve never seen an example of a cleric in fiction that wasn’t a terrible fit for the class in any edition. Nor most of the classes.
> 
> But I also don’t care, nor do I view the “justify wanting a thing” mentality as at all valid.



Still, it's useful to know the narratative examples of the archetype (from whatever the source) to use as a basis to build a class or sub-class.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Absolutely, 100% earned question: what are the narrative examples for this archetype from fiction?



There are several.


Tzeentch Warriors of 40k and WHFB
Elven Might Knights of many series
Dragon Age Arcane Warriors
The hero in most of Dragon Quest
Heraldic Knights in Star Ocean
Way too many in Anime and Manga
Witchers
ES spellswords
Typically they are the Dept of Badassery of the Military in a high magic setting.


----------



## bedir than

doctorbadwolf said:


> Hey if BS had smite spells I might agree with some others that they can make decent AC-based tanks.



Adding 11 spells seems simpler than making a new class


----------



## Minigiant

bedir than said:


> Adding 11 spells seems simpler than making a new class



Simpler =/= Better

It's better to make a new swordmage class. It's just not braindead easy.


----------



## Mind of tempest

bedir than said:


> Adding 11 spells seems simpler than making a new class



simpler is not the same as better.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Asha'man from Wheel of Time are another potential example.


----------



## Minigiant

Overall Gishes are popular in High Magic use Fantasy. Magocracies, civilizations of the "magic race", and cults of the God of Magic often spew out squads of magic using swordsmen

The issue before was in the 70s, 80s, and 90s,all the settings were almost all low magic.

Then 00s hit and it became HIGH MAGIC BABY! 
Now that 9 of the 13 classes are spellcasters, it's time.


----------



## bedir than

Minigiant said:


> Simpler =/= Better
> 
> It's better to make a new swordmage class. It's just not braindead easy.






Mind of tempest said:


> simpler is not the same as better.



if all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have, then yes, simpler is better than new.
Because for all the compelling statements about the need for the class, in the end it runs into issues of "like the Bladesinger but..." and then we have multipage threads about it like we do the Ranger.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

bedir than said:


> Completely untrue.
> While you could claim the idea that the inspirations for the cleric and paladin are the same, claiming that there are no clerics in the literature means ignoring history



It may be more a matter of different strictness of definition. I can’t think of any clerics in fiction that actually look like a D&D cleric, but aren’t better made as paladins. 


Frozen_Heart said:


> It's less the difference between a 1/3 and 1/2, and more a load of other abilities which set them apart.
> 
> As eldritch knight is tied to the fighter power budget, all the things which set the gishes apart in prior editions have had to be axed, nerfed, or delayed to high level.
> 
> Like for example due to being a subclass it has to just use the wizard list, which is awful for martial combat blended with weapons. A single class swordmage would have its own list, full of spells which it can integrate into its weapon strikes. Look at the paladin and ranger lists, and compare them to the cleric and druid lists. The theme is the same, but the spells have a different focus.



Exactly. When they did what was actually needed to make a spellcaster (Hexblade Warlock) into a working gish (kinda, still has too low HP), half the community freaked out that it was super broken! And it’s still just not tough enough and too much of your actions are spent choosing between weapon-attacking and Spellcasting. 


Irlo said:


> Still, it's useful to know the narratative examples of the archetype (from whatever the source) to use as a basis to build a class or sub-class.



Idk about that. How useful is familiarity with Gandalf when designing the Wizard? 


bedir than said:


> Adding 11 spells seems simpler than making a new class



Simpler, but also won’t make the Bladesinger a swordmage. Maybe if you could also spend spell slots to extend the Bladesong, it’d get closer than nearly anything else in 5e, but it’s still gonna mostly just be a Wizard.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’ve never seen an example of a cleric in fiction that wasn’t a terrible fit for the class in any edition. Nor most of the classes.
> 
> But I also don’t care, nor do I view the “justify wanting a thing” mentality as at all valid.



It's not so much "justifying" as I can't envision the proposal as laid out being distinct from existing options (all of @Minigiant and @AcererakTriple6  suggestions being doable as is, at any rate).


----------



## Minigiant

bedir than said:


> if all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have, then yes, simpler is better than new.
> Because for all the compelling statements about the need for the class, in the end it runs into issues of "like the Bladesinger but..." and then we have multipage threads about it like we do the Ranger.



Well the D&D community is good at designing characters but *not* at creating classes. That's something I've learned over the years. Many can describe what they want but few know how to put it down on paper and make something. It's why game designer is a job.

Typically many wont even attempt to grok a new proposal until its official and they have to. Many can't even envision new ideas. So it takes passion or skill to head off the "It's different. I don't like it" instinct

Personally, I'd lean on comics and manga as a source and rely more on custom attacking spells and boosting low level spells.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Simpler =/= Better
> 
> It's better to make a new swordmage class. It's just not braindead easy.



As a general rule of design, less is more: elegance trumps many considerations.

5E could afford to be more elegant in the Class structure, but theybhit upon a pretty hood balance of options and elegance. I could see room for a Gish in the game...but I'm not sure the Artifficer, Ranger and Paladin don't have the space covered.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Frozen_Heart said:


> Ironic that after the gish styled playtest sorcerer, the sorcerer is now the only caster with no melee options.
> 
> It's like they were so scared of the idea that they won't put a melee subclass on the sorcerer even years later.





Minigiant said:


> And ironically the main classes missing from 5e are the Gish and the Warrior on Magic Steroids.





Frozen_Heart said:


> Entirely because of the playtest sorcerer. As that was meant to be the arcane half caster gish, they didn't make a separate gish class.
> 
> Then when playtest sorcerer got axed, nothing then filled that void.



Yeah, I think "put their eggs in one basket, then that basket got cut and never replaced" is sort of a theme for the Next playtest. That is, exactly the same thing happened to the Warlord Fighter; despite the crappy edition-warrior rhetoric used in that one podcast, Mearls did explicitly say in a tweet that martial healing was in, and if DMs didn't like that, they could just forbid people from playing it. But then they said, "Hey, this makes more sense as a thing ANY Fighter could opt into, so let's use this cool new Specialties mechanic!" Aaaaand...then Specialties were not particularly popular (I didn't mind, personally, but I get why they were disliked), so they axed them. At which point, they were almost certainly aware that there just wasn't enough time to playtest any new stuff...so they just quietly dropped the subject and never spoke about it again.

The perils of outright _dropping_ mechanics when people don't respond well to them, rather than at least _trying_ to make them work: you're constantly going back to the drawing board, despite time being a rather finite resource.



AcererakTriple6 said:


> And if there aren't any that perfectly match up . . . D&D can create its own stuff, can't it? It's been doing this for nearly 50 years already.



Oh it _can_, sure. The issue is getting people to _accept_ creating stuff. See also: dragonborn being widely panned and mocked by critics of 4e upon release, yet as of 2020, they were the third most popular race in D&D (after human and half-elf, assuming you split Elf into its various sub-races; if you don't, Elf-combined rises to third, and Dragonborn is fourth overall.)



bedir than said:


> if all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have, then yes, simpler is better than new.
> Because for all the compelling statements about the need for the class, in the end it runs into issues of "like the Bladesinger but..." and then we have multipage threads about it like we do the Ranger.



See, it's exactly this kind of logic that's incredibly frustrating.

Why would you even _bother_ making something where "all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have"? Of course that would be pointless, even foolish. A proper Swordmage should actually have _its own mechanics_. Ideally, they should be ones where you can see some kind of relationship to what Bladesingers or Eldritch Knights do, because that enhances the lore of the situation (making EK and BS more like half-steps toward Swordmage, rather than half-steps from Fighter to Wizard or vice-versa), but that's an ideal that may not always be workable.

Hence why I suggested the "Spell Combat" proposal earlier, using runes that ride on top of physical attacks to deliver spells. Or perhaps you literally dual-wield, with a sword in one hand and a spell in the other like how it's done in Elder Scrolls games, and Swordmage blends the two together in its own unique way. Maybe if you hold a spell focus in your offhand, you can shape magical energy into various forms for a round, e.g. a shield of force _or_ a bonus-action attack _or_ a temporary utility effect like "pull one enemy into melee range" or "ensnare one foe within 15 feet" or whatever.

It's not _that_ hard to come up with actually-interesting but reasonably-straightforward mechanics to play around with in this space, ones that differ from EK, BS, _and_ Paladin. But what can be really, really hard is getting some folks to even consider the possibility that something with new mechanics could actually be interesting to engage with.

Edit:
And, on the subject of D&D Clerics in fiction: I challenge you to find any example in fiction, let's say before 1960, of a holy warrior wearing relatively heavy armor (doesn't have to be plate precisely, but shouldn't be parsed as light armor, e.g. not just leather), who fights abominations in the name of their deity, but _does not_ fit the mantle of Paladin. I have set the date specifically so that we avoid picking up fiction that has its roots in the Cleric, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.

If I were a betting man, I'd put real money on the idea that the vast majority, if not the entirety, of your examples will come from Crusader-related literature or King Arthur's knights, both of which _very much_ look more like Paladins than D&D Clerics.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> As a general rule of design, less is more: elegance trumps many considerations.
> 
> 5E could afford to be more elegant in the Class structure, but theybhit upon a pretty hood balance of options and elegance. I could see room for a Gish in the game...but I'm not sure the Artifficer, Ranger and Paladin don't have the space covered.



The point is that strict adherence to simple elegance can lead to bad ideas and shunning of good ideas

The 3e Fighter was simple and elegant. It also was a bad class with bad design because of it.

I'm sure a Gish that can designed that is different than the Artifficer, Ranger and Paladin. The key is getting the people who don't see it to not instinctively hate it for being different.

I mean the easiest laziest way to design the class is to have a class that has spells use weapon hit rolls over saving throws. Guy hits you with _Exploding Sword_, there is an explosion, you fly back 50 ft and take bonus fire damage.* No saving throw*. Classic Comics/Manga/VideoGame move.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> The point is that strict adherence to simple elegance can lead to bad ideas and shunning of good ideas
> 
> The 3e Fighter was simple and elegant. It also was a bad class with bad design because of it.
> 
> I'm sure a Gish that can designed that is different than the Artifficer, Ranger and Paladin. The key is getting the people who don't see it to not instinctively hate it for being different.
> 
> I mean the easiest laziest way to design the class is to have a class that has spells use weapon hit rolls over saving throws. Guy hits you with _Exploding Sword_, there is an explosion, you fly back 50 ft and take bonus fire damage.* No saving throw*. Classic Comics/Manga/VideoGame move.



Of course, which is why there over 100 basic Class/Subclass combinations, with about a quarter of those being Gishes by my quick conservative count.

Exploding Sword could be a new spell easily enough, or a reflavor of Smite.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

bedir than said:


> Completely untrue.
> While you could claim the idea that the inspirations for the cleric and paladin are the same, claiming that there are no clerics in the literature means ignoring history



It may be more a matter of different strictness of definition. I can’t think of any clerics in fiction that actually look like a D&D cleric, but aren’t better made as paladins.


Frozen_Heart said:


> It's less the difference between a 1/3 and 1/2, and more a load of other abilities which set them apart.
> 
> As eldritch knight is tied to the fighter power budget, all the things which set the gishes apart in prior editions have had to be axed, nerfed, or delayed to high level.
> 
> Like for example due to being a subclass it has to just use the wizard list, which is awful for martial combat blended with weapons. A single class swordmage would have its own list, full of spells which it can integrate into its weapon strikes. Look at the paladin and ranger lists, and compare them to the cleric and druid lists. The theme is the same, but the spells have a different focus.



Exactly. When they did what was actually needed to make a spellcaster (Hexblade Warlock) into a working gish (kinda, still has too low HP), half the community freaked out that it was super broken! And it’s still just not tough enough and too much of your actions are spent choosing between weapon-attacking and Spellcasting.


Irlo said:


> Still, it's useful to know the narratative examples of the archetype (from whatever the source) to use as a basis to build a class or sub-class.



Idk about that. How useful is familiarity with Gandalf when designing the Wizard?


bedir than said:


> Adding 11 spells seems simpler than making a new class



Simpler, but also won’t make the Bladesinger a swordmage. Maybe if you could also spend spell slots to extend the Bladesong, it’d get closer than nearly anything else in 5e, but it’s still gonna mostly just be a Wizard.


EzekielRaiden said:


> See, it's exactly this kind of logic that's incredibly frustrating.
> 
> Why would you even _bother_ making something where "all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have"? Of course that would be pointless, even foolish. A proper Swordmage should actually have _its own mechanics_. Ideally, they should be ones where you can see some kind of relationship to what Bladesingers or Eldritch Knights do, because that enhances the lore of the situation (making EK and BS more like half-steps toward Swordmage, rather than half-steps from Fighter to Wizard or vice-versa), but that's an ideal that may not always be workable.
> 
> Hence why I suggested the "Spell Combat" proposal earlier, using runes that ride on top of physical attacks to deliver spells. Or perhaps you literally dual-wield, with a sword in one hand and a spell in the other like how it's done in Elder Scrolls games, and Swordmage blends the two together in its own unique way. Maybe if you hold a spell focus in your offhand, you can shape magical energy into various forms for a round, e.g. a shield of force _or_ a bonus-action attack _or_ a temporary utility effect like "pull one enemy into melee range" or "ensnare one foe within 15 feet" or whatever.



Or an “aegis” that can be temporarily weakened in order to do a damage spike. Or that can be used 1/round to either reduce damage as a reaction, or boost damage as a bonus action. Yeah there is a a lot of stuff. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> It's not _that_ hard to come up with actually-interesting but reasonably-straightforward mechanics to play around with in this space, ones that differ from EK, BS, _and_ Paladin. But what can be really, really hard is getting some folks to even consider the possibility that something with new mechanics could actually be interesting to engage with.



Yeah basically. And this is a thing where sometimes designers are best served by taking the chance and just making the cool new thing. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Edit:
> And, on the subject of D&D Clerics in fiction: I challenge you to find any example in fiction, let's say before 1960, of a holy warrior wearing relatively heavy armor (doesn't have to be plate precisely, but shouldn't be parsed as light armor, e.g. not just leather), who fights abominations in the name of their deity, but _does not_ fit the mantle of Paladin. I have set the date specifically so that we avoid picking up fiction that has its roots in the Cleric, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
> 
> If I were a betting man, I'd put real money on the idea that the vast majority, if not the entirety, of your examples will come from Crusader-related literature or King Arthur's knights, both of which _very much_ look more like Paladins than D&D Clerics.



Exactly.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> It's not so much "justifying" as I can't envision the proposal as laid out being distinct from existing options (all of @Minigiant and @AcererakTriple6  suggestions being doable as is, at any rate).



Okay. 


Parmandur said:


> As a general rule of design, less is more: elegance trumps many considerations.



Elegance isn’t the same thing as simplicity, first off all. Second, that’s a preference, not a rule. 


Parmandur said:


> 5E could afford to be more elegant in the Class structure, but theybhit upon a pretty hood balance of options and elegance. I could see room for a Gish in the game...but I'm not sure the Artifficer, Ranger and Paladin don't have the space covered.



Unless you’ve got a homebrew artificer subclass that lets it use its weapon in a magical way most round (preferably every round), then no, they don’t.


----------



## Irlo

doctorbadwolf said:


> Idk about that. How useful is familiarity with Gandalf when designing the Wizard?



Not at all useful, I would say, because the D&D Wizard is not modelled on Gandalf as an archetype. Or, if it is, then the developers clearly did not have any familiarity with Gandalf when they did their work. 

That's my point. I'm hearing people saying that EK and other existing options don't meet their needs for a Swordmage class. I'm suggesting that having models for what the Swordmage looks like is useful, so that we can understand what is missing.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Elegance isn’t the same thing as simplicity, first off all. Second, that’s a preference, not a rule.



They are kissing cousins, most of the time. And certainly, all game design principles are about preferences 


doctorbadwolf said:


> Unless you’ve got a homebrew artificer subclass that lets it use its weapon in a magical way most round (preferably every round), then no, they don’t.



I'm a little taken aback by this, because there are multiple ways to this straight out of the first Eberron book through Infusions, and even more with Tasha's. Absolutely no homebrew or refluffing needed for this. I'm particularly a fan of the magical returning weapon Infusion a la Mjolnir, though that's not what you are going for here.


----------



## bedir than

The Battle Smith has access to most of the Smites. They're really made for the gish-fan


----------



## Mecheon

Swordmages/Gishes have that problem where the EK is a strong baseline for what their stuff would hypothetically do, so a lot of stuff out there tends to be "EK but better". Its an absolutely fine line to balance

(Also in doing some looking into I was reminded there was a good Pugilist class out there so non-magical fist fighter is another archetype)


----------



## Parmandur

bedir than said:


> The Battle Smith has access to most of the Smites. They're really made for the gish-fan



I just checked and Tasha's also adds the melee weapon Cantrips to the Srtificer spell list. So a Battle Smith makes his own magic sword, and can use magical cantrips with the sword in addition to Smite Spells with the usual Spell Slots? Feels pretty Swordmagey.


----------



## bedir than

Mecheon said:


> (Also in doing some looking into I was reminded there was a good Pugilist class out there so non-magical fist fighter is another archetype)



Tasha's has a path towards this, and lots of other Fighter builds.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Of course, which is why there over 100 basic Class/Subclass combinations, with about a quarter of those being Gishes by my quick conservative count.
> 
> Exploding Sword could be a new spell easily enough, or a reflavor of Smite.



It's not a flavor of Smite.
That's the point.

Smite just does damage.
Smite spells does damage and have little effects on hit and forces big effects on failed saves

My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. *That's a big deal.* A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.


----------



## bedir than

Minigiant said:


> My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. *That's a big deal.* A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.



All the damage of a fighter and better magical effects than a wizard. So a gish is just better, in every way, than the merge of the classes its based on?


----------



## Minigiant

Mecheon said:


> Swordmages/Gishes have that problem where the EK is a strong baseline for what their stuff would hypothetically do, so a lot of stuff out there tends to be "EK but better". Its an absolutely fine line to balance




Frankly. Balance isn't an issue.

The real reason why people are upset with the EK is it's a 1/3 caster. So what's the difference between a 1/3 caster and 1/2 caster. A 1/3 caster's spells are always behind the curve. Scorcing ray at level 7? Weak.

A 1/2 caster is behind the curve but not as badly. And it's easier to fix because you have a class's full 20 level to put class features in.

Whereas a Fighter with 1/3 casting will alway be too far back. And you'll never catch up.This is why most EK and AT players use self buffs. You cannot furfill the image or dream of the Magic Knight as a 1/3rd spellcaster subclass.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> It's not a flavor of Smite.
> That's the point.
> 
> Smite just does damage.
> Smite spells does damage and have little effects on hit and forces big effects on failed saves
> 
> My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. *That's a big deal.* A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.



O mean, it sounds like you could just homebrew a Spell thet does that? It doesn't seem that far out there?


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Frankly. Balance isn't an issue.
> 
> The real reason why people are upset with the EK is it's a 1/3 caster. So what's the difference between a 1/3 caster and 1/2 caster. A 1/3 caster's spells are always behind the curve. Scorcing ray at level 7? Weak.
> 
> A 1/2 caster is behind the curve but not as badly. And it's easier to fix because you have a class's full 20 level to put class features in.
> 
> Whereas a Fighter with 1/3 casting will alway be too far back. And you'll never catch up.This is why most EK and AT players use self buffs. You cannot furfill the image or dream of the Magic Knight as a 1/3rd spellcaster subclass.



Behind a Mage in Spells, but ahead of a Mage in martial prowess. An Eldritch Knight gets huge damage output and can take a besting before even considering Spells. Indeed, the EK trades extra martial prowess to get Magic. And you won't ever see a Class that isn’t balanced from the HP input/output economy.


----------



## Minigiant

bedir than said:


> All the damage of a fighter and better magical effects than a wizard. So a gish is just better, in every way, than the merge of the classes its based on?



(reread his post)
When did I say that? 
The Gish isn't getting Action Surge or Second Wind. And Heavy armor would likely be subclass. And only get up to 5th level.

I mean... Are the Ranger and Paladin better casters than Wizards, Druids, and Clerics? Or beter pound for pound warriors than Fighters and Barbarians?


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> O mean, it sounds like you could just homebrew a Spell thet does that? It doesn't seem that far out there?



Sure...If you double dog promise not to put it on the any current spell list.

*Because such a spell is broken in the hands of a wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock or a fighter.*

That's why you have to create a new class with said effect in mind.



Parmandur said:


> Behind a Mage in Spells, but ahead of a Mage in martial prowess.* An Eldritch Knight gets huge damage output and can take a besting before even considering Spells. *Indeed, the EK trades extra martial prowess to get Magic. And you won't ever see a Class that isn’t balanced from the HP input/output economy.



bolded for emphasis

I think you missed the point of a Arcane Warrior. Their offense and defense comes from the combination of Weapons and Magic.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Minigiant said:


> Just saying.
> 
> People would understand Warlocks better if there were a Warrior class with Invocations.
> 
> I mean 40k fans understand the difference between a Chaos Marine and a Chaos Psyker.



Hexblade as it's own class: you could even use existing warlock patrons as-is in most cases. 

Just some base weapon stuff and fewer cantrips.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> I think you missed the point of a Arcane Warrior. Their offense and defense comes from the combination of Weapons and Magic.



Then the Artificer is there to fill that role. Half-Caster, Half-Combatant, makes their own weapons magical and do all sorts of neat tricks with then.

Also, any such Spell should work for any Class. Gating it behind Proficiency would suffice for flavor purposes.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Irlo said:


> Not at all useful, I would say, because the D&D Wizard is not modelled on Gandalf as an archetype. Or, if it is, then the developers clearly did not have any familiarity with Gandalf when they did their work.
> 
> That's my point. I'm hearing people saying that EK and other existing options don't meet their needs for a Swordmage class. I'm suggesting that having models for what the Swordmage looks like is useful, so that we can understand what is missing.



The thing is, Gandalf is ONE archetype the D&D Wizard draws on. It also draws on a whole mess of OTHER Wizard archetypes too. Basically _all_ of them, though particularly Jack Vance (hence the term "Vanican" spellcasting, though it rather quickly diverged away from his work too, _because Vance's wizards use swords._)

As I said before, one of the problems with D&D class design is that there's almost nothing that works as an actual throughline for the design of _all_ classes, even if you restrict yourself to just the "core four." Wizards take a smattering of the tropes from basically _every fantasy wizard ever_ (that is, up to the point that D&D was published), which is why they're such a sprawling tangle of ideas and so difficult to both balance and make flavorful. (Well, that and there's a subtle, possibly not-fully-conscious effort to boost Wizard power, per Rob Heinsoo's comments from the 4e design period, but that's a different issue.) Meanwhile Clerics have a bunch of really specific features like Turn Undead and Domains and stuff that are pretty much unique to the way D&D does things, and which have little to no representation in fiction that doesn't arise from D&D itself (directly or indirectly).


----------



## Irlo

Minigiant said:


> My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. *That's a big deal.* A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.



Your proposed big-or-go-home class features (exploding swords and no-save effects on a hit here and the auto-kill feature discussed in the Assassin thread) just seem (to me) to outclass most everything else available to others. Maybe that's because they're out of context of a full class write-up, or maybe you want something very different from your D&D characters than I do. Probably both things are true.

I was the one person who voted  "It depends on the mechanical importance at the table." I'm more convinced of this now than when I voted. If these types of classes are what your table wants, I'm all for you to develop them. But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> They are kissing cousins, most of the time. And certainly, all game design principles are about preferences
> 
> I'm a little taken aback by this, because there are multiple ways to this straight out of the first Eberron book through Infusions, and even more with Tasha's. Absolutely no homebrew or refluffing needed for this. I'm particularly a fan of the magical returning weapon Infusion a la Mjolnir, though that's not what you are going for here.



What magical thing are you doing with your weapon via infusions? You’ve listed one thing that doesnt even allow throwing weapons that aren’t normally thrown, or extend their thrown range, or allow attacking as if you were within 5ft of the target, which are all things I’d put forth in a design process for a swordmage. It just…returns when you throw it. Cool.  

Mjolnir summons lightning, and deals incredible damage. What artificer can significantly boost the damage of a single attack with a weapon? Which infusion lets you do Extra elemental damage on top of a weapon attack?  

They barely even get smite spells!

The only that assumes weapon use is the Battlemaster, and it just…gives you the ability to use Int when using a magic weapon. The rest of the subclass is about the pet (as it should be).


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Irlo said:


> But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.



So, the only things that should be published are the ones _your_ table needs?

Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for _your_ needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable _intent_ of your statement is "they should only make things that _most people_ need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading.

The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever _needs_ anything. Necessity is a bad standard for _leisure-time activities_. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans _need_ for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we _want_, which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing.

Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to _be_ generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC _always_ avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism _uber alles_ is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.)

Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually _worsens_ your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

doctorbadwolf said:


> Exactly. When they did what was actually needed to make a spellcaster (Hexblade Warlock) into a working gish (kinda, still has too low HP), half the community freaked out that it was super broken! And it’s still just not tough enough and too much of your actions are spent choosing between weapon-attacking and Spellcasting.



Why isn't it tough enough? The DnD 3.5e duskblade, the Pathfinder 1e and 2e Magus, and the DnD 4e Swordmage are all D8 hit die, same as the Warlock. Hexblades are also proficient in light/medium armour and shields, same as the prior editions arcane gishes.

Sure I don't think that Hexblade makes a good replacement for an arcane gish class for many reasons. But being 'tough enough' definitely isn't one of them.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Then the Artificer is there to fill that role. Half-Caster, Half-Combatant, makes their own weapons magical and do all sorts of neat tricks with then.
> 
> Also, any such Spell should work for any Class. Gating it behind Proficiency would suffice for flavor purposes.



I dmed to artificers. Artificer's magical buffs are very minor.


----------



## Minigiant

Irlo said:


> Your proposed big-or-go-home class features (exploding swords and no-save effects on a hit here and the auto-kill feature discussed in the Assassin thread) just seem (to me) to outclass most everything else available to others. Maybe that's because they're out of context of a full class write-up, or maybe you want something very different from your D&D characters than I do. Probably both things are true.
> 
> I was the one person who voted  "It depends on the mechanical importance at the table." I'm more convinced of this now than when I voted. If these types of classes are what your table wants, I'm all for you to develop them. But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.



Well that's the point.
If you don't go *BIG, *there's no point in the class existing.
There is no point to create a class that doesn't do _something_ better than every of class.

All 13 current classes have 1-3 BIG class features. The Fighter litterally takes 2 actions on their turn. Clerics raise the dead. Wizards open portals.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

It's not just as easy as "if you don't like it, don't use it." Class bloat affects the game as a whole. Designers have limited amount of time and resources. Also, having too many classes limits the conceptual and thematic space of the other classes. Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed and it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes. I rather have fewer broader, more flexible and better supported classes, than loads of narrow, gimmicky and thematically thin classes.


----------



## Mecheon

Crimson Longinus said:


> Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed, it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes.



But equally on this, you then get the issue that you may pigeonhole concepts together to the point you erase what makes them archetypally unique. A valid criticism could be made this is the problem the Fighter has, and leads to that "Everything becomes a fighter subclass" thing that tends to go on. In pidgeonholing, you lose a lot of the individual flavour that classes had when individual.

There's enough stuff out there I can see more classes being justified. Heck, in my homebrew pile I've got an (Untested) Truenamer that's completely seperate from the Wizard subclass attempt and does its own thing. The most popular 3rd party class around is basically easy to describe as "Edgy ranger", but folks love it as its own thing to the point they've requested it to be official for yonks


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> So, the only things that should be published are the ones _your_ table needs?
> 
> Because that's the implication of what you're saying here--that WotC should only publish things for _your_ needs, not anyone else's. I know that the more probable _intent_ of your statement is "they should only make things that _most people_ need," but...well, there's some big problems with that, even if I grant you that charitable reading.
> 
> The first is the word "need." Properly speaking, nobody ever _needs_ anything. Necessity is a bad standard for _leisure-time activities_. We don't, for example, determine meal plans purely based on what humans _need_ for nutrition, otherwise we'd all be eating standardized nutrient supplements. Instead, we make meal plans based on what we _want_, which includes things like varying flavors or different sources of protein, avoiding disliked flavors, that sort of thing.
> 
> Second, if the only official provisions are the ones generically needed....then they're going to need to _be_ generic, and that's exactly what people are complaining about now. And what I called out earlier with the Morton's Fork: if a class is specific, it shouldn't be offered because then a more general class can be offered instead; if a class is general, well then it should be folded into whatever the most-similar and more-traditional class is, since there's no need for two generalists that cover the same space. Why should WotC _always_ avoid options that are maybe a little more specific than others? That's what Paladin is, a rather specific archetype, but it's one a lot of people like, so it's uncommon to hear requests for its removal. (You still do, of course, because reductionism _uber alles_ is a thing, but it's not as common a target in 5e as Sorcerer and/or Warlock.)
> 
> Third, why does the publication of new classes your table doesn't need negatively affect you? You seem to be making rather a strong statement here, albeit implicitly, that creating rules elements that some peple (perhaps a majority) don't need actually _worsens_ your/their gaming experience. That's a bit surprising, and I'd like to know how and why that happens.



I'm sure I typed hastily, but .... really? I answered the survey question. Whether the game needs more classes depends on the needs of the table. If one doesn't want me to say that the game doesn't need more classes, one shouldn't ask me the question.

Every table should tweak the rules and classes and add and delete as they see fit.

Yes, I'm glad that there are not officially published options for the assassin's auto-kill and the swordmage class features that are so powerful and different that they can't be allowed to be used by anyone else. It's my opinion. I'm not doing anything to keep you from having them. I don't need them. I won't boycott WotC if they publish them.

I'm glad they're not published options because they outshine other existing class options (insert all the caveats -- as I understand them, in my opinion, based on my experience, taken out of context, etc.). I want my players to thumb through the books and find stuff that works that won't leave them far behind or put others far ahead of them in character capability.

Nothing that happens at your table makes my game better or worse. Unless you share a cool, balanced class write up for swordmage that I can use, in which case you've made it better. A few years ago one of my players looked online for a homebrew swordmage class to run by me to see if I'd include it. That was a hard no. More powerful than any other published class. I'd love to see something along these lines. Until then, we do fine with the published classes and subclasses.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> What magical thing are you doing with your weapon via infusions? You’ve listed one thing that doesnt even allow throwing weapons that aren’t normally thrown, or extend their thrown range, or allow attacking as if you were within 5ft of the target, which are all things I’d put forth in a design process for a swordmage. It just…returns when you throw it. Cool.
> 
> Mjolnir summons lightning, and deals incredible damage. What artificer can significantly boost the damage of a single attack with a weapon? Which infusion lets you do Extra elemental damage on top of a weapon attack?
> 
> They barely even get smite spells!
> 
> The only that assumes weapon use is the Battlemaster, and it just…gives you the ability to use Int when using a magic weapon. The rest of the subclass is about the pet (as it should be).



That's what the weapon cantrips and the Smites provide, mechanically. Turning any Weapon into a  magic weapon is pretty great by itself.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mecheon said:


> But equally on this, you then get the issue that you may pigeonhole concepts together to the point you erase what makes them archetypally unique. A valid criticism could be made this is the problem the Fighter has, and leads to that "Everything becomes a fighter subclass" thing that tends to go on. In pidgeonholing, you lose a lot of the individual flavour that classes had when individual.
> 
> There's enough stuff out there I can see more classes being justified. Heck, in my homebrew pile I've got an (Untested) Truenamer that's completely seperate from the Wizard subclass attempt and does its own thing. The most popular 3rd party class around is basically easy to describe as "Edgy ranger", but folks love it as its own thing to the point they've requested it to be official for yonks



And frankly, most of such additional classes are not needed and are just bloat. The subclass system is great, people should utilise it more. With it you can have both broad and flexible classes and more specific themes represented via subclasses.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> I dmed to artificers. Artificer's magical buffs are very minor.



No more nor less minor thsn any other Gosh Class would 9t could be, within the bounds of the rules. And they get Spells.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> If you don't go *BIG, *there's no point in the class existing.



Quod erat demonstratum.


----------



## Asisreo

EzekielRaiden said:


> Yeah, I think "put their eggs in one basket, then that basket got cut and never replaced" is sort of a theme for the Next playtest. That is, exactly the same thing happened to the Warlord Fighter; despite the crappy edition-warrior rhetoric used in that one podcast, Mearls did explicitly say in a tweet that martial healing was in, and if DMs didn't like that, they could just forbid people from playing it. But then they said, "Hey, this makes more sense as a thing ANY Fighter could opt into, so let's use this cool new Specialties mechanic!" Aaaaand...then Specialties were not particularly popular (I didn't mind, personally, but I get why they were disliked), so they axed them. At which point, they were almost certainly aware that there just wasn't enough time to playtest any new stuff...so they just quietly dropped the subject and never spoke about it again.
> 
> The perils of outright _dropping_ mechanics when people don't respond well to them, rather than at least _trying_ to make them work: you're constantly going back to the drawing board, despite time being a rather finite resource.
> 
> 
> Oh it _can_, sure. The issue is getting people to _accept_ creating stuff. See also: dragonborn being widely panned and mocked by critics of 4e upon release, yet as of 2020, they were the third most popular race in D&D (after human and half-elf, assuming you split Elf into its various sub-races; if you don't, Elf-combined rises to third, and Dragonborn is fourth overall.)
> 
> 
> See, it's exactly this kind of logic that's incredibly frustrating.
> 
> Why would you even _bother_ making something where "all the features are just renamed versions of what the EK and BS have"? Of course that would be pointless, even foolish. A proper Swordmage should actually have _its own mechanics_. Ideally, they should be ones where you can see some kind of relationship to what Bladesingers or Eldritch Knights do, because that enhances the lore of the situation (making EK and BS more like half-steps toward Swordmage, rather than half-steps from Fighter to Wizard or vice-versa), but that's an ideal that may not always be workable.
> 
> Hence why I suggested the "Spell Combat" proposal earlier, using runes that ride on top of physical attacks to deliver spells. Or perhaps you literally dual-wield, with a sword in one hand and a spell in the other like how it's done in Elder Scrolls games, and Swordmage blends the two together in its own unique way. Maybe if you hold a spell focus in your offhand, you can shape magical energy into various forms for a round, e.g. a shield of force _or_ a bonus-action attack _or_ a temporary utility effect like "pull one enemy into melee range" or "ensnare one foe within 15 feet" or whatever.
> 
> It's not _that_ hard to come up with actually-interesting but reasonably-straightforward mechanics to play around with in this space, ones that differ from EK, BS, _and_ Paladin. But what can be really, really hard is getting some folks to even consider the possibility that something with new mechanics could actually be interesting to engage with.
> 
> Edit:
> And, on the subject of D&D Clerics in fiction: I challenge you to find any example in fiction, let's say before 1960, of a holy warrior wearing relatively heavy armor (doesn't have to be plate precisely, but shouldn't be parsed as light armor, e.g. not just leather), who fights abominations in the name of their deity, but _does not_ fit the mantle of Paladin. I have set the date specifically so that we avoid picking up fiction that has its roots in the Cleric, which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
> 
> If I were a betting man, I'd put real money on the idea that the vast majority, if not the entirety, of your examples will come from Crusader-related literature or King Arthur's knights, both of which _very much_ look more like Paladins than D&D Clerics.



It's not the mechanics that is the problem, it's the playstyle. Wizards and Sorcerers can be mechanically similar, but the wizard's playstyle revolves around managing and studying spell descriptions IRL. You have to know how Unseen Servant works before you can use it to its potential. Sorcerers are resource-managers with granular control over their spellcasting. They are flexible in their magical prowess. 

What's a swordmage other than a Paladin or other almost-gish in playstyle? Stand there, do good damage, take good damage, and apply effects. That's the problem with currently-designed swordmage homebrews and why people call it redundant to paladins and eldritch knights. 

Honestly, the two existing half-casters are too broad for a swordmage to comfortably exist. Paladins are budget tanks, healers, support, and single-target attackers. Rangers are budget strikers, controllers, expert, and AoE attackers.


----------



## Parmandur

Asisreo said:


> Honestly, the two existing half-casters are too broad for a swordmage to comfortably exist. Paladins are budget tanks, healers, support, and single-target attackers. Rangers are budget strikers, controllers, expert, and AoE attackers.



And don't forget the Artificer playing in the same space.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Crimson Longinus said:


> It's not just as easy as "if you don't like it, don't use it." Class bloat affects the game as a whole. Designers have limited amount of time and resources. Also, having too many classes limits the conceptual and thematic space of the other classes. Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed, it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes. I rather have fewer broader, more flexible and better supported classes, than loads of narrow, gimmicky and thematically thin classes.



Given the comparatively slow pace of published books in 5e, I sincerely doubt that design time is a factor in whether or not they add new classes. Hell, they even actively playtested several psionic class things before eventually scrapping the idea. I mean, do you feel that the books published during the months (was it years?) that they were working on the psionic stuff were dramatically worse than those from before? If not, that objection would seem to be far more theoretical than practical.

Absolutely disagree on the "limits the conceptual and thematic space of other classes." Why should it? Particularly if we're _adding_ new classes to what already exists? It's not like the addition of a Swordmage can _take away_ the Eldritch Knight, Echo Knight, Battlesmith, Hexblade/Blade Pact, Arcane Trickster, or _the entire Paladin class_, after all. Making classes that share thematic elements is, if anything, par for the course, it's why people see similarities in the Druid and Ranger, the Cleric and Paladin, etc. The Cleric neither ceased to exist nor got sidelined because of the existence of the Paladin. They evolved in parallel to one another, both growing and changing as time went on. Again, _in practice_, this concern seems to be largely inapplicable; _actual classes_ don't get trodden over just because there are thematic or conceptual similarities. (If anything, what _actually_ causes that trodden-over effect is people balking at classes being made too different!)

As for the Warlock and Sorcerer, I see it exactly the reverse. Both archetypes--Faust and classic Merlin--would be necessarily watered down, forced to both express the same fundamental tools. It would be ridiculous to merge the classes only to then make a whole mess of tangled exceptions for how you can't use X pact with Y patron or vice-versa. So you end up with "Pact of the Dragon" Sorcerers-as-Warlocks who, as noted, can apparently belch up a Book of Shadows because great-great-great-great grandma got busy with a bus-sized lizard. Instead of actually expressing those archetypes meaningfully, you'd be _taking away_ the ability to address that struggle with an innate part of yourself, or the struggle against imposed authority--and those are two very different struggles. Trying to pretend that "I _sold_ my soul to the devil" is the exactly the same as "I _am_ a devil inside" just makes both stories weaker.



Irlo said:


> Yes, I'm glad that there are not officially published options for the assassin's auto-kill and the swordmage class features that are so powerful and different that they can't be allowed to be used by anyone else. It's my opinion. I'm not doing anything to keep you from having them. I don't need them. I won't boycott WotC if they publish them.



Frankly, this sounds like arguing in bad faith; if you assume that the stuff that others want is broken, and _that's_ why you don't want it published, then you're assuming from the get-go that publishing them is bad. I, and others, have given easily half a dozen different potential approaches that do not in any way sound inherently broken and out of line with the rest of the game. So, since it apparently needs to be said: _assuming a Swordmage that is actually reasonably balanced_, what harm does it cause to the table of Irlo and friends when published as an official document?



Crimson Longinus said:


> And frankly, most of such additional classes are not needed and are just bloat. The subclass system is great, people should utilise it more. With it you can have both broad and flexible classes and more specific themes represented via subclasses.



And there are some things where it simply doesn't work. People have told me--_repeatedly_, and I want to say you're among them--that the kind of features Warlord fans desire are simply unacceptable as part of the Fighter kit. That alone indicates it needs its own class, if it can be implemented in a balanced way. Given the number of attempts to make it happen (including from Level Up, as I understand it),  that certainly doesn't seem to be a wild notion.

You're also begging the question, as an aside. "Not needed and just bloat" is literally just repeating yourself, because all it means is "more classes bad, less classes good." "Bloat" is a pejorative to mock and insult any increase someone doesn't like. If you want to make an _argument_ out of it, you actually have to defend _why_ adding another class means things suddenly become "bloated," rather than just pointing the finger and shouting the insult.


----------



## Minigiant

Crimson Longinus said:


> It's not just as easy as "if you don't like it, don't use it." Class bloat affects the game as a whole. Designers have limited amount of time and resources. Also, having too many classes limits the conceptual and thematic space of the other classes. Like how if sorcerer and warlock were one class, the resulting class could be mechanically and thematically less pigeonholed and it would have a greater number of subclasses when the designers wouldn't need to waste time writing duplicate subclasses for similar themes. I rather have fewer broader, more flexible and better supported classes, than loads of narrow, gimmicky and thematically thin classes.




Think with the printing of TCOE that WotC is close to the point of subclass bloat as they force themselves to provie more and more subclasses to the current 13.

The New Cleric Subclasses are OP. They couldn't get the Strixhaven ones to work. And they choose the weakest base classes to support in Fizban's. And they don't know what to do

The addition of 2-3 classes would open fresh windows of design and remove the onus to provide tons of subclasses for the lore-stretced current ones.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Asisreo said:


> Honestly, the two existing half-casters are too broad for a swordmage to comfortably exist. Paladins are budget tanks, healers, support, and single-target attackers. Rangers are budget strikers, controllers, expert, and AoE attackers.



Again, completely disagreed. It requires creativity, sure, but all you've really said is "_people who have tried_ just copied X or Y, and that would leave us with X, copy-X, and Y, which isn't worth it."

And I'd agree with that! If, of course, that was what I wanted to do. Obviously, this means that anyone who wants these classes has the onus to articulate how to make them in a way that ISN'T just a copy of X or Y, _but I and others have already proposed those things_. My proposed "Spell Combat" thing--no spell slots, uses-per-day runes that ride on weapon attacks and get strung into spells--has gone over well with other Swordmage fans in the thread. I proposed specifically to be a _reversal_ of what Paladins do, so it couldn't just be a playstyle copy of Paladin or EK. Because if it were, then yes, I completely agree that it would be a waste of time--just reskin those other classes and go. But I don't want a reskin of either of them. I want a class that is built, from the ground up, on the principle that fighting _is_ magic--that you're limited if you try to do one without the other.


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> Frankly, this sounds like arguing in bad faith; if you assume that the stuff that others want is broken, and _that's_ why you don't want it published, then you're assuming from the get-go that publishing them is bad. I, and others, have given easily half a dozen different potential approaches that do not in any way sound inherently broken and out of line with the rest of the game. So, since it apparently needs to be said: _assuming a Swordmage that is actually reasonably balanced_, what harm does it cause to the table of Irlo and friends when published as an official document?



One more time, then I'll let it be.

I don't want the proposed assassin's auto-kill class feature (described in detail in another thread) and the proposed swordmage's big-effects-with-no-save class features to be published because, as described, they do not appear reasonably balanced. It's not an assumption. It's an observation and judgment.


----------



## Mecheon

Crimson Longinus said:


> And frankly, most of such additional classes are not needed and are just bloat. The subclass system is great, people should utilise it more. With it you can have both broad and flexible classes and more specific themes represented via subclasses.



And I argue against it. Exploring new mechanical spaces in a self-contained space, that's what classes are trying to do. You're expanding sideways to give each thing a unique space and carving pieces off to explore on their own, rather than piling more on top of archetypes that may not apply to it.

The assassin is oft considered a weaker rogue class. What if rather than just shrugging and left it be, we, instead, carved it off to explore what makes it an assassin and try to get it to a baseline degree it works with other classes, without being weighed down by no longer needed expectations from being a rogue. On the Gish side of things, the EK has its problem that, even without all of its spells, its a perfectly usuable fighter, and therefore you've gotta give it a low amount of spells to counter this. What if instead, you made a specific chassis to work for the Gish idea, so you didn't have "Fighter but can throw out some spells" or "Caster who can get into melee but is mostly effective either being an unhittable tank or just blasting like any other wizard"

Subclasses are as much bloat as classes, its just they have to carry the weight put on them from their raw class. Sometimes it can work fine and lead to fun things, like a lot of the Warlock ones. Other times, the sheer root of the class just interferes with what's trying to happen and doesn't give it its full  mechanical allowance to explore fully. And then other times we get the Strixhaven experiment.

Its just like that the whole thing with the racial stuff. Just like how ever dwarf apparently comes out of the womb knowing about stoneworks, even if he's Urist McBeachaxe, the beach-living dwarven lifeguard who's never set foot in a building made of anything but wood, apparently every battlefield commander has to be a skillful fighter, because everyone remembers that time Alexander the Great carved a dude up with his action surge.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Quod erat demonstratum.



Artificer infusions
Barbarian Rage
Bard magic
Cleric magic
Druid magic
Paladin Divine Smite
...


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> Artificer infusions
> Barbarian Rage
> Bard magic
> Cleric magic
> Druid magic
> Paladin Divine Smite
> ...



Any such further option has to fit in the same general design framework, and if it can't "go big" as you say, there's not a lot of point to making a new option. 

All of those festures do work well already, ues


----------



## Minigiant

Irlo said:


> One more time, then I'll let it be.
> 
> I don't want the proposed assassin's auto-kill class feature (described in detail in another thread) and the proposed swordmage's big-effects-with-no-save class features to be published because, as described, they do not appear reasonably balanced. It's not an assumption. It's an observation and judgment.



You can balance any individual concept. It's just numbers..

90% of imbalance in D&D is due to either forcing yourself to use a specific number in design OR designing two concepts seperately but allowing them to combine OR trying to balance one benefit concept with another penalty concept.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Irlo said:


> Not at all useful, I would say, because the D&D Wizard is not modelled on Gandalf as an archetype. Or, if it is, then the developers clearly did not have any familiarity with Gandalf when they did their work.
> 
> That's my point. I'm hearing people saying that EK and other existing options don't meet their needs for a Swordmage class. I'm suggesting that having models for what the Swordmage looks like is useful, so that we can understand what is missing.



We have many threads archived in this forum wherein people have gone into detail on the subject. 


bedir than said:


> The Battle Smith has access to most of the Smites. They're really made for the gish-fan



This is false. They get 2. 


Frozen_Heart said:


> Why isn't it tough enough? The DnD 3.5e duskblade, the Pathfinder 1e and 2e Magus, and the DnD 4e Swordmage are all D8 hit die, same as the Warlock. Hexblades are also proficient in light/medium armour and shields, same as the prior editions arcane gishes.
> 
> Sure I don't think that Hexblade makes a good replacement for an arcane gish class for many reasons. But being 'tough enough' definitely isn't one of them.



The 4e swordmage could stand at the frontline and _tank. _The Hexblade cannot. 


Parmandur said:


> That's what the weapon cantrips and the Smites provide, mechanically. Turning any Weapon into a  magic weapon is pretty great by itself.



So two smite spells, and cantrips. And a magic weapon that does the _least_ of what such a weapon would do in a story about such a character. That costs one of your two infusions. 

If artificers had a subclass that took that and replaced the pet with a magic weapon that didn’t need an infusion to be magical, and could hold two infusions, and upgraded as you level, using bonus actions to add effects or activate magical shielding, or share an offensive buff with allies (stand in a circle with your weapons facing in, and a flame dances from your weapon around the circle. 1 hour all the weapons touched do XYZ extra fire damage), and got more smite spells, then we’d be close enough to bridge the remaining gap with a couple new infusions and some new spells.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> Any such further option has to fit in the same general design framework, and if it can't "go big" as you say, there's not a lot of point to making a new option.
> 
> All of those festures do work well already, ues



My point is every class has something big in it. They were designed with a big feature and the feature was pared down to fit the expectations.

So a Gish, Warlord, Assassin, Psion, or Carpenter class would need something Big as well.

The point is that if a person can't think of a big idea, they should not design the class. They can give feedback after. But if you "can't see the idea", you've already kicked yourself out of Initial Design and into Quality.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> My point is every class has something big in it. They were designed with a big feature and the feature was pared down to fit the expectations.
> 
> So a Gish, Warlord, Assassin, Psion, or Carpenter class would need something Big as well.
> 
> The point is that if a person can't think of a big idea, they should not design the class. They can give feedback after. But if you "can't see the idea", you've already kicked yourself out of Initial Design and into Quality.



Yeah one thing I realized while developing the assassin was that I had made shrouds too small a feature. So I got into the weeds on the math of a rogue and a Wizard, both doing just single target damage, and figured out the number of rounds it takes a rogue to do the same damage a Wizard can do before running out of spell slots, and then used that math to figure out how much damage I could put on a 1/level short rest recharge resource.  Now you put 1 shroud on a target to mark them, gain crits on a 19 against them, and you can spend the shroud when you hit to deal roughly (half level round down)d10 extra damage.  

Now the Wizard has subclass features, spells that are more powerful than single target damage of the same spell level, and arcane recovery, and the rogue had a bunch of stuff, so obviously there is room for more, so I also gave them “when you reduce an enemy to hp equal to your assassin level or lower, you can drop them to 0hp instead” and a specialized tool feature that gives one of;


Hidden weapon and tinkers tools
Special poisons and poisoners kit
Special disguises with papers and such and disguise kit 
And “shadow moves” which lets them do certain things as a bonus action or in place of one attack as part of the attack action.

The rest of the class supports all that. When I played out their combat round, it’s on par with the better classes, but not with the most highly optimized builds, and they do a few things no one else can.


----------



## cbwjm

Parmandur said:


> I just checked and Tasha's also adds the melee weapon Cantrips to the Srtificer spell list. So a Battle Smith makes his own magic sword, and can use magical cantrips with the sword in addition to Smite Spells with the usual Spell Slots? Feels pretty Swordmagey.



I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.


----------



## Faolyn

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think it is pointless to differentiate between "was imbued with demonic power via a pact" and "was imbued with demonic power at birth." The end result is the same. Also, there already are mechanics that perfectly capture being an inherently magical being: the warlock mechanics.



It wouldn't be pointless _if _there were consequences for breaking the pact, like with the paladin. But, sadly, 5e didn't include such a thing.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Irlo said:


> One more time, then I'll let it be.
> 
> I don't want the proposed assassin's auto-kill class feature (described in detail in another thread) and the proposed swordmage's big-effects-with-no-save class features to be published because, as described, they do not appear reasonably balanced. It's not an assumption. It's an observation and judgment.



I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not _perfectly_ equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff.

But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a _sequence_ of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a _harder_ requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually _leverages_ the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result.

So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find _this_ proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine?


----------



## Irlo

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, there are already spells that do this exact thing--where they have a spell attack roll, rather than forcing a saving throw. And, mathematically, it should be pretty much the same thing either way: someone rolls a d20 and adds bonuses, which are usually soft-capped. It's not _perfectly_ equivalent since (for example) it's usually easier to gain advantage on your own rolls than to force disadvantage on an enemy's rolls, but plenty of features apply symmetrically. Since, yes, attack rolls tend to be easier to juice up, that would warrant keeping the numbers more modest on the proposed stuff.
> 
> But...well, you seem to be fixating on "this ONE SPECIFIC proposal, which can be read as being unbalanced-as-stated," rather than considering the whole thing in bulk. Again, I've mentioned my own proposal, which requires a _sequence_ of successful attack rolls in order to access the powerful spells. That is, in principle, actually a _harder_ requirement than saving throws, because even if you have a 90% chance to succeed on any given attack, and you need 4 hits in order to cast a particular spell, you only have (0.9^4) = 0.6561, a 65.61% chance to succeed. If you have a more normal ~65% chance to succeed on any given attack, your chance to pull off the overall spell drops to only 17.85%. And most enemies don't have more than an 80% chance to pass a save! That's the whole reason I made that proposal, it actually _leverages_ the difficulty of iterative probability to make big spells costly but justifiably powerful, while smaller spells are nearly guaranteed to work but far less powerful as a result.
> 
> So, ignoring the thing that you found innately problematic (though I disagree with that assessment), would you find _this_ proposal close enough to the realm of reasonable that, if genuinely iterated on and playtested and not simply yeeted onto the page with reckless abandon, it might actually be fine?



Sure, yes, it might be fine. I'm not making the argument that you think I'm making.

I'm not _fixated _on one specific proposal. I commented on it, said I didn't want it and the class revolving around it in my game. I feel like I'm being held to accounted because you may have extrapolated that I was dismissing the _whole notion_ of a swordmage class as over-powered. Have at it. Make your class. It won't bother me. If you come up with something good, I might use it.

Can we be friends now? I really don't understand what this is all about.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> If artificers had a subclass that took that and replaced the pet with a magic weapon that didn’t need an infusion to be magical, and could hold two infusions, and upgraded as you level, using bonus actions to add effects or activate magical shielding, or share an offensive buff with allies (stand in a circle with your weapons facing in, and a flame dances from your weapon around the circle. 1 hour all the weapons touched do XYZ extra fire damage), and got more smite spells, then we’d be close enough to bridge the remaining gap with a couple new infusions and some new spells.



And that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Parmandur

cbwjm said:


> I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.



So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> It's not so much "justifying" as I can't envision the proposal as laid out being distinct from existing options (all of @Minigiant and @AcererakTriple6  suggestions being doable as is, at any rate).



Are they? 

Can you build a Witcher in 5e's current class system. Eragon? The Knights Radiant (thematically, they're paladins, but ability-wise, almost all of them are Arcane Gishes)? Isaac and Hector from Castlevania (they cover their weapons in unholy fire that transforms the people they kill with those weapons into demons/undead monsters under their control)? Zuko from the last Airbender (a master of dual wielding swords that makes his attacks even better using Firebending)? 

Can you truly build any of those without multiclassing so much that you no longer have a functional character? 

I'm not saying that an "Arcane Warrior" class has to be able to make all of those different types of characters playable . . . but I am saying that there are character options in other fantasy settings that don't currently have a good way of translating them to D&D 5e. 

If there were an Arcane Warrior class, and it were at least as open up to different fighting styles as the Paladin is, you could play characters similar to those concepts. A dual-wielding pyromancy-focused Arcane Warrior that has the Noble Background and a class feature that lets them heat up their weapons with magical fire would be a satisfying way to play a Zuko-like character in 5e. A subclass in the Arcane Warrior class that focuses on "dark magic", like Necromancy and communing with Demons could be similar in concept to a Forgemaster and fulfill the playstyle of "I stab people with flaming weapons that transform their corpses into horrible monsters when they die". An Arcane Warrior that uses a throwing hammer and stores lightning spells in their weapon could evoke the feeling of being a character like Thor in ways that the current options cannot (Storm Herald Barbarian? Tempest Cleric? Paladin?). A subclass inspired by the Swordmage that casts teleporation spells in order to lock down enemies and protect their allies could also be included. 

Do you see any way that those could be played in 5e without having to take several feats, multiclassing with bad class-combinations, and being held back in progress when compared to the rest of the party?


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Faolyn said:


> It wouldn't be pointless _if _there were consequences for breaking the pact, like with the paladin. But, sadly, 5e didn't include such a thing.



Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into "as generic as can be managed"--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up "minor" aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive.

If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they _won't get back_ if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be _possible_ to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? _Right?_



Irlo said:


> Sure, yes, it might be fine. I'm not making the argument that you think I'm making.
> 
> I'm not _fixated _on one specific proposal. I commented on it, said I didn't want it and the class revolving around it in my game. I feel like I'm being held to accounted because you may have extrapolated that I was dismissing the _whole notion_ of a swordmage class as over-powered. Have at it. Make your class. It won't bother me. If you come up with something good, I might use it.
> 
> Can we be friends now? I really don't understand what this is all about.



Alright. It definitely had sounded like you were speaking in much broader terms before. If your only intent was to say "hey, that idea sounds...not great" then I may even agree with you. (Haven't seen anything about the Assassin stuff so I can't comment on that.) My apologies for taking something further than you intended.


----------



## Minigiant

@Irlo @Parmandur 

If you were tasked to create a Arcane Half Caster, how would you do it? Suppose the High Elves and the Human Magocracy City State both had magic knights to defend against the Roaming Forces of Evil. Besides All weapons, Light and Medium Armor, and half casting up to 5th level spells... what else would you give it?

What would its Magic Spell Sink like Divine Smite or Primeval Awareness?
What else would you give it?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.



How would you refluff a Steel Defender in a way that would fit a generic Arcane Warrior-themed character? Because having a Steel Defender is kind of the main part of being a Battle Smith, and it does not at all fit the general theme of an Arcane Warrior/Swordmage/whatever-you-call-it. 

Oh, and the whole "you can only cast spells when you have tools on hand", and all of the features that go into increasing your usage of tools and creating magic items. An "Arcane Warrior" as a general concept, does not include "magical tinker". You cannot reflavor "you are an expert with tools and cast spells/create magic items with them" in a reasonable manner. 

Also, the Artificer is not a "half-martial, half-caster" class. Paladins and Rangers are. Artificers are "half-casters", but are more half-rogue than half-fighter. They don't get fighting styles, heavy armor, a d10 hit die, or Extra Attack, and instead get spell slots at level 1 and cantrips.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

cbwjm said:


> I think the issue is, for me at least, that you also have all of the other artificer baggage. I don't want a magical tinkerer, a I want a magical warrior. The artificer may be able to do well in combat, but it still isn't a warrior-mage, they're an artificer, someone with plenty of skills and tools and such that don't really fit a warrior-mage type of class.



This, also. The Artificer is a really good magical maker because it’s class features are all bent toward that purpose.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> And that's all I'm saying.



It’s not significantly less work than just making a damn class, and it _still_ wouldn’t work as well as a purpose built class.


----------



## beancounter

I would love for WoTC to bring back the Illusionist as it's own separate class, and a "psionicist" with it's own mechanic (not just spell like effects) - because without it's own mechanics, it would essentially be a sorcerer.


----------



## cbwjm

Parmandur said:


> So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.



You end up with a lot of mechanics and flavour for the artificer though. Why is this warrior-mage amazing with every tool they learn, for instance. Magical tinkering, the right tool for the job, you can attune to more magical items for some reason... A refluff just doesn't quite cut it for the story. I'm generally fine with refluffing a few things, but the higher in level you go as an artificer, the less like a warrior-mage you feel.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> So refluff it, and it's mechanically a martial half-caster who does cool stuff with a weapon.



Refluff it how?  

This is why I only post +threads about new classes and the like. If “refluff it” was sufficient…the thread wouldn’t have been posted, and none of us would be trying to propose or build a swordmage class. Obviously. 


AcererakTriple6 said:


> A subclass inspired by the Swordmage that casts teleporation spells in order to lock down enemies and protect their allies could also be included.



Yeah I’ve been tinkering with that as either a spell (pick target, they’re marked, disad on attacks against anyone but you, you have advantage on Concentration checks when they damage you, and if they attack anyone but you or end their turn more than 10ft from you, you can teleport and attack them as a reaction.) or a class feature that is part of your protective aegis.


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Can you build a Witcher in 5e's current class system.



I did a quick search, admittedly  ot being overl familiar beyond a handful of episodes, and Eldritch Knight and Ranger seem to be popular suggestions. It's trikes me that Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter is playing in thst space, operating on the assumption that The Last Witch Hunter is an unsuited ripoff.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Eragon?



I only made it through the first two books, but I'm going with Bladesinger and a drzgon NPC friend.


AcererakTriple6 said:


> The Knights Radiant (thematically, they're paladins, but ability-wise, almost all of them are Arcane Gishes)?



Not familiar, but "Arcane" isn't a mechanical term in 5E, so I'd say a new PaladinSubclass possibly....?


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Isaac and Hector from Castlevania (they cover their weapons in unholy fire that transforms the people they kill with those weapons into demons/undead monsters under their control)?



Warlocks?


AcererakTriple6 said:


> Zuko from the last Airbender (a master of dual wielding swords that



Monk.


----------



## Parmandur

Minigiant said:


> @Irlo @Parmandur
> 
> If you were tasked to create a Arcane Half Caster, how would you do it? Suppose the High Elves and the Human Magocracy City State both had magic knights to defend against the Roaming Forces of Evil. Besides All weapons, Light and Medium Armor, and half casting up to 5th level spells... what else would you give it?
> 
> What would its Magic Spell Sink like Divine Smite or Primeval Awareness?
> What else would you give it?



I am, all in good faith, suggesting that I wold make this a Paladin Subclass, perhaps a very bold Subclass. Artificer or Ranger would also work, pros and xons for each.

If you hold a gun to my head about a Class, a mutant hybrid of the Artificer and Paladin


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Oh, and the whole "you can only cast spells when you have tools on hand", and all of the features that go into increasing your usage of tools and creating magic items. An "Arcane Warrior" as a general concept, does not include "magical tinker". You cannot reflavor "you are an expert with tools and cast spells/create magic items with them" in a reasonable manner.



 If I'm the DM, I'd letter Artificer's qeapon with which they are proficient count as a material component, similar to the College of Blades. Mightbe enough for a whole non-pet Subclass.


----------



## Parmandur

cbwjm said:


> You end up with a lot of mechanics and flavour for the artificer though. Why is this warrior-mage amazing with every tool they learn, for instance. Magical tinkering, the right tool for the job, you can attune to more magical items for some reason... A refluff just doesn't quite cut it for the story. I'm generally fine with refluffing a few things, but the higher in level you go as an artificer, the less like a warrior-mage you feel.



Lugh, Master of All the Arts, is probably the best Gish I can think of in mythology, frankly. This all fits the concept of a weapon based Gish, since weapons are just tools.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s not significantly less work than just making a damn class, and it _still_ wouldn’t work as well as a purpose built class.



But would it not...? I just don't see it as being as difficult as a ground up build, and gets the ballover the goal line.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> This is why I only post +threads about new classes and the like. If “refluff it” was sufficient…the thread wouldn’t have been posted, and none of us would be trying to propose or build a swordmage class. Obviously.



Yet this is a poll.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Refluff it how?



Demphasize the tools in play, focus on the mastery of weapons and arcane master over physical matter.


----------



## Minigiant

Parmandur said:


> I am, all in good faith, suggesting that I wold make this a Paladin Subclass, perhaps a very bold Subclass. Artificer or Ranger would also work, pros and xons for each.
> 
> If you hold a gun to my head about a Class, a mutant hybrid of the Artificer and Paladin



Paladin is already the 2nd or 3rd most powerful class. Giving it tons of arcane spells would break it.
And there is no point of a mutant Artificer/Paladin. That would be a bad answer with a gun to your head,

It is possible and fine to say you can't think of a unique mechanic or feature for an Arcane Warrior. I'm not pointing a gun to your head.

But when designing a class or subclass, a designer must come up with new ideas. It's the 1980s where game design was in its infancy and rehashing old ideas is passable outside of your own table.


----------



## Irlo

Parmandur said:


> I am, all in good faith, suggesting that I wold make this a Paladin Subclass, perhaps a very bold Subclass. Artificer or Ranger would also work, pros and xons for each.
> 
> If you hold a gun to my head about a Class, a mutant hybrid of the Artificer and Paladin



The Paladin chassis would certainly work (for me), but -- completely off the top of my head -- I'd take it a bit farther than a just a new subclass. Re-work the whole spell list with more wizardly options, swap out divine sense for detect magic, replace lay on hands with something else (maybe a reaction to reduce damage?), rename channel divinity to arcane aegis and define a set up new uses suited to the arcane warrior, change the auras to something a bit more flashy. It would depend on what my players wanted, since I'd be designing a class for them rather than for publication.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> But would it not...? I just don't see it as being as difficult as a ground up build, and gets the ballover the goal line.



Building a class isn’t especially difficult, but a subclass, several infusions, several new subclasses, and probably a few variant alt features to replace the “you’re a tinker” stuff, is just as much work. 


Parmandur said:


> Yet this is a poll.



Okay. What’s that got to do with my expression frustration at the relentless, dismissive, responses to anyone discussing the idea of a new class?


Parmandur said:


> Demphasize the tools in play, focus on the mastery of weapons and arcane master over physical matter.



So don’t use a significant amount of your class features. That isn’t a tenable attempt at a solution, for many of us.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay. What’s that got to do with my expression frustration at the relentless, dismissive, responses to anyone discussing the idea of a new class?



The poll topic was "does the game need a new Class?" As in, from wotC in Core books. I haven't seen, for me, compelling reason to see much more design space that needs filling.


----------



## Irlo

Minigiant said:


> @Irlo @Parmandur
> 
> If you were tasked to create a Arcane Half Caster, how would you do it? Suppose the High Elves and the Human Magocracy City State both had magic knights to defend against the Roaming Forces of Evil. Besides All weapons, Light and Medium Armor, and half casting up to 5th level spells... what else would you give it?
> 
> What would its Magic Spell Sink like Divine Smite or Primeval Awareness?
> What else would you give it?



How would I do it? Not to your liking, I imagine. I don't say that to be snide, but I'm sure it's true. I don't have the "big idea" to set the class apart. I'm not a game designer and I haven't created classes for a long time (as in more than 30 years for AD&D) and then again more recently playing around with Prestige Classes in 3E. For me, there are enough options on the table to tweak and edit to my liking without creating a new class. And I know that doesn't appeal to you. 

A few years back my son wanted a heavily armored heavy hitter melee-type with lots of magic to throw around, so he set himself up as a Tempest Cleric. I created a feat he needed to be able to shield bash more effectively and gave him a little more flexibility -- he didn't need more than a little -- in his spell list. He was happy enough. I could easily have re-keyed the magic to intelligence, refluffed all the focus on religion, and called him a full caster gish.

That's not the half-caster you asked for, though, so I guess I'd do something similar with the paladin. If you don't like the heavy armor proficiency, I'd drop that. And I'd probably re-write the smite spells to be reactions to a successful hit rather than concentration spells (but I'm going to do that for my next campaign with a paladin anyway).


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> I did a quick search, admittedly  ot being overl familiar beyond a handful of episodes, and Eldritch Knight and Ranger seem to be popular suggestions. It's trikes me that Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter is playing in thst space, operating on the assumption that The Last Witch Hunter is an unsuited ripoff.



The Blood Hunter was based at least partially off of the Witcher, from what I've heard, but it isn't official. This whole discussion is "we don't need more classes", right? So why refer to an unofficial class to back up that position? 


Parmandur said:


> Warlocks?



Nope. They don't make pacts, aren't particularly charismatic, and are implied to have been born with their powers (at least, their powers can't be granted to Vampires). They're bound to a specific weapon that they have to specially forge to channel their powers. If anything, that's closer to the Artificer, and even then it isn't at all a good fit. 


Parmandur said:


> Monk.



Four Elements Monk? Not in a million years. It sucks mechanically, and does not fit the abilities that Zuko is shown to have in the show. 

Again, there are characters in the "Arcane Gish" theme that do not fit with an existing archetype in 5e. Those were just a few examples (I provided more in a previous comment, too). 

There is a niche for an Arcane Warrior class that is thematically and mechanically distinct from already existing D&D 5e classes and subclasses, that has enough of a niche to have as many subclasses as the existing classes have. (Teleporting swordmage-style subclass, phantom knight, antimage, bound-weapon summoner, elementalist, etc.)


----------



## Parmandur

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Four Elements Monk? Not in a million years. It sucks mechanically, and does not fit the abilities that Zuko is shown to have in the show.



It wucks less than you might think, and it is a warrior with Mystical powers. It's designed to be a Bender, and does the job. The Sun Sould Mayfield better for Zuko as presented.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Parmandur said:


> The poll topic was "does the game need a new Class?" As in, from wotC in Core books. I haven't seen, for me, compelling reason to see much more design space that needs filling.



Okay.


----------



## Parmandur

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay.



Glad that we are agreed on the topic of the thread, which explains my comments therein.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> Otsuka less than you might think, and it is a warrior with Mystical powers.



I've played in a campaign with one, and run a campaign with another Four Elements Monk. It sucks.


Parmandur said:


> It's designed to be a Be Der, and does ot.



Poorly, both thematically and mechanically. It might work for the Avatar, but not for just a generic firebender (the Avatar can bend all of the elements, but benders tied to just one are more powerful in that specific skill). 


Parmandur said:


> The Sun Sould Mayfield better fir Zuko as presented.



Which is radiant damage, not fire, and does not have the very ability that I was referencing when I earlier posted "Zuko when he uses his firebending to complement his dual wielding". Monks are bad at dual wielding, the Four Elements monk is less powerful than the other monk subclasses and don't fit the theme, and neither it nor the Sun Soul monk have a way to infuse a weapon with fire to be a proper gish.


----------



## Faolyn

EzekielRaiden said:


> Absolutely. Part of the (as I said, IMO fear-driven) avoidance of heavy thematics on classes--leaning heavily into "as generic as can be managed"--is that they've made a lot of the archetypes toothless. The Playtest Warlock was a genuinely somewhat creepy person, actually giving up "minor" aspects of themselves in order to gain greater power. But that got deleted with extreme prejudice when the feedback wasn't overwhelmingly positive.
> 
> If they'd actually kept the intended fluff of Sorcerer--a being with two souls, always struggling at least a little bit against that pull--and the Warlock--a person continually sacrificing little bits and pieces of who they are, pieces they _won't get back_ if they break their contract--then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. The two would be so clearly distinct it wouldn't be _possible_ to conflate them. But 5e was the edition of taking as few chances as possible, and it looked potentially risky to include actual flavor in these. So they watered them down as much as possible, because surely no one can complain if they're inoffensively generic, right? _Right?_



I didn't take part in the 5e playtest (or rather, I only read a couple of docs, which had the basic four classes, not the warlock or sorcerer), so I had no idea what they were going for. It's a terrible shame, because both of those sound great. I can only guess that they (both developers and playtesters) were afraid of being too wild after 4e. I hope that when 6e comes around--or even the 50Ae version--they bring back that flavor.


----------



## Paul Farquhar

Parmandur said:


> If I'm the DM, I'd letter Artificer's qeapon with which they are proficient count as a material component, similar to the College of Blades. Mightbe enough for a whole non-pet Subclass.



So long as the weapon is infused, that's RAW anyway.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I started trying to homebrew one a while ago (and abandoned it pretty fast, ADHD goes brrr).

The initial parts were d8 hit die, arcane half caster (tons of strike/smite type spells), light armour, simple weapons, martial weapons.


1st level ability was being able to increase their AC by +2 as a reaction (creating an arcane ward), useable 1+Int modifier per long rest.
Their 1st level 'fluff' ability was being able to make a magic light and make it float around up to 60ft away.
Fighting Style at 2nd level.
Spellcasting at 2nd level.
Subclass and reaction based teleports at 3rd level.
ASI at 4th level.
Extra attack at 5th level.

That's as far as I got. I'd probably change things if I did it now. I'm still torn on cantrips or no cantrips. And the rune system mentioned by EzekielRaiden is very interesting, and a lot more unique.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mecheon said:


> Swordmages/Gishes have that problem where the EK is a strong baseline for what their stuff would hypothetically do, so a lot of stuff out there tends to be "EK but better". Its an absolutely fine line to balance
> 
> (Also in doing some looking into I was reminded there was a good Pugilist class out there so non-magical fist fighter is another archetype)



Thing is a gish wouldn't be 'eldritch knight but better'. Sure they would get 5th level spells and be able to enchant their melee attacks, but the advantages stop there. 

Eldritch Knight would probably have higher hit die, and better armour. It would have 4 attacks, which can then be action surged up to 8 attacks. It would have more ASI increases in order to get its scores and feats in place faster. Those are the advantages an eldritch knight would have over an arcane gish class.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead. 

Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.

I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Crimson Longinus said:


> When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead.
> 
> Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.
> 
> I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.



thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.


----------



## Aldarc

Mind of tempest said:


> thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.



However, it's not as if there is a shortage of video games, cartoons, books and the like with prominent gish-style characters in them. Throw a stone in any given direction, however far or short away you like, and you're bound to hit a "gish" in some piece of fantasy media.


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.



Actually it's not that bad.

The gish has plenty of Themes. The fight is which are core and which are subclasses.


----------



## Mecheon

Frozen_Heart said:


> Thing is a gish wouldn't be 'eldritch knight but better'. Sure they would get 5th level spells and be able to enchant their melee attacks, but the advantages stop there.



Oh, I'm talking about the 3rd party attempts at getting one going.

Its a delicate balance game


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> However, it's not as if there is a shortage of video games, cartoons, books and the like with prominent gish-style characters in them. Throw a stone in any given direction, however far or short away you like, and you're bound to hit a "gish" in some piece of fantasy media.



Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that. 

Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.
> 
> Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.



then go less inherent darkness and not beholden to a power, made to fight fire with fire is a popular character concept


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.
> 
> Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.



I agree, but that also may be what the _subclass_ helps establish in a more concrete manner: i.e., the flavor, method, and theme of how that mageknight goes about their business and/or purpose. Much in the same way, for example, that the domains help establish the cleric beyond being a magical priest. In the same way that there are magical traditions for wizards centered around the categorization of spells, a gishy mageknight may have their own disciplines: e.g., mage/magic hunters, edge lords, war/battlefield magic, etc.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I agree, but that also may be what the _subclass_ helps establish in a more concrete manner: i.e., the flavor, method, and theme of how that mageknight goes about their business and/or purpose. Much in the same way, for example, that the domains help establish the cleric beyond being a magical priest. In the same way that there are magical traditions for wizards centered around the categorization of spells, a gishy mageknight may have their own disciplines: e.g., mage/magic hunters, edge lords, war/battlefield magic, etc.



Sure, to a degree. But I feel at minimum it should be at least established at the base class level what the source of their magic is. Is it learned, innate, what? Are they fluff wise just fighty wizards? Fighty sorcerers? Something else?


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure, to a degree. But I feel at minimum it should be at least established at the base class level what the source of their magic is. Is it learned, innate, what? Are they fluff wise just fighty wizards? Fighty sorcerers? Something else?



I suspect that it's something between bard and wizard or even the eldritch knight, where it's learned but not involving spellbooks or rituals. (We don't need another Charisma class.)


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead.
> 
> Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.
> 
> I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.



For generic gish: I'd actually start with Hexblade as a base flavor, then expand the ways you connect with it, adding in battlesmith sans puppy and bladesinger and maybe swords bard.

But the underlying story is "you're someone with a magical weapon and that's how you do adventuring stuff." (assuming, for the sake of argument that such a thing is necessary)


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.



The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.



Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.
> 
> Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.



I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> The counter argument is that "can fight" is plenty, but adding to that makes it insufficient.



Well, 'can fight' is divided between several classes depending on how you fight. Also, I feel that in a game that already differentiates 'can do magic' into several classes depending on how and why they do magic, the how and why should be answered.



jmartkdr2 said:


> Hexblade should probably not be a warlock if a gish class exists.



Definitely. And that's why I feel that potential new classes make more sense in a clean slate reboot, where you can holistically asses what each class is about and what should they do.


----------



## CreamCloud0

I'd say my understanding of what defines a Swordmage at their core would be 'combines and synergises both magic and martial ability into a single battle style to a degree beyond someone else who merely 'uses' both' rather than anything about their origins.


----------



## Parmandur

Paul Farquhar said:


> So long as the weapon is infused, that's RAW anyway.



Well, there you go.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> Well, 'can fight' is divided between several classes depending on how you fight. Also, I feel that in a game that already differentiates 'can do magic' into several classes depending on how and why they do magic, the how and why should be answered.



But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?


Crimson Longinus said:


> Definitely. And that's why I feel that potential new classes make more sense in a clean slate reboot, where you can holistically asses what each class is about and what should they do.



Thinking a bit more I could argue for two gish classes (basically hexblade and swordmage). But that way could lead to bloat, so I'd rather pick one and use subclasses to distinguish.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Mind of tempest said:


> I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.



Whatever. I don't agree that new classes need to hit a higher standard of narrative specificity than existing ones.


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?
> 
> Thinking a bit more I could argue for two gish classes (basically hexblade and swordmage). But that way could lead to bloat, so I'd rather pick one and use subclasses to distinguish.



Because Arcane Magic isn't really a rules concept in 5E. Slap a few level appropriate spells of the right flavor in a subclass spellist for a Paladin, insto presto, it "can fight with arcane magic." And again, the Artificer is a martial half-caster who fights with "arcane magic" as far as that goes. What distinguishes this concept from those existing "fights with magic" Classes thst can't be reduced to a homrbrew Spell...?


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> Whatever. I don't agree that new classes need to hit a higher standard of narrative specificity than existing ones.



They ought to at least hit the existing benchmark.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?



At least to me it is because 'can do magic' is more tightly defined in other cases where classes can do magic, so I feel it should be here. Especially as this magic capability is what sets this class apart from the fighter, so it is thematically important to the class. Alternatively we could make other classes more vague too, but then I would argue we don't end up with a new gish class, because if we strip the specific focus paladin's magic has, it becomes the gish.


----------



## Aldarc

Mind of tempest said:


> I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.



Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a _massive_ turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character. 



CreamCloud0 said:


> I'd say my understanding of what defines a Swordmage at their core would be 'combines and synergises both magic and martial ability into a single battle style to a degree beyond someone else who merely 'uses' both' rather than anything about their origins.



It seems like the sort of potential profession that would probably come about naturally in a world of sword and sorcery in order to adequately deal with people wielding either swords and/or sorcery.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a _massive_ turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character.
> 
> 
> It seems like the sort of potential profession that would probably come about naturally in a world of sword and sorcery in order to adequately deal with people wielding either swords and/or sorcery.



A pure narrative less class does not work either it needs somehow to have gotten magic which is not an easy thing for most people to get.
of course it is a profession but how does a random nobody like me become such a thing it needs to have something iconic about it plus you can always re-fluff it but it needs some fluff.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a _massive_ turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character.



I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to the table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.

And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.
> 
> And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.



If you got the sentiment, then you would know that this would toss one of my favorite archetypes (the gish) straight to my unplayable list. If you think that's a decent theme, but also think that the warlock and sorcerer are better off combined, then I am seriously skeptical about your sense of taste and judgment. 



Mind of tempest said:


> A pure narrative less class does not work either it needs somehow to have gotten magic which is not an easy thing for most people to get.
> of course it is a profession but how does a random nobody like me become such a thing it needs to have something iconic about it plus you can always re-fluff it but it needs some fluff.



There is a lot between "a pure narrative less class" and the overly restrictive narrative that you are imposing. If you can't find anything between that, then please don't bother at all because I wouldn't play a class forced into "an artificially engineered people" for it and all its subclasses.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Parmandur said:


> They ought to at least hit the existing benchmark.



"Can fight" is the benchmark.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Parmandur said:


> Because Arcane Magic isn't really a rules concept in 5E. Slap a few level appropriate spells of the right flavor in a subclass spellist for a Paladin, insto presto, it "can fight with arcane magic." And again, the Artificer is a martial half-caster who fights with "arcane magic" as far as that goes. What distinguishes this concept from those existing "fights with magic" Classes thst can't be reduced to a homrbrew Spell...?



You'd also want to swap out the more divine-magic-flavored options like Lay on hands, divine sense, smites, aura of protection, and most of the spell list.

So yeah, it would be a lot like a paladin, if you changed everything. 

And while divine magic isn't a rules concept, the idea that clerics and wizards have the same flavor and mechanics is way to much of a stretch for me. I hard disagree with that.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> If you got the sentiment, then you would know that this would toss one of my favorite archetypes (the gish) straight to my unplayable list.



Such is life. The game cannot replicate everything that could potentially be imagined. Not that I really get what it is that you want. You have just said what you do not want.



Aldarc said:


> If you think that's a decent theme, but also think that the warlock and sorcerer are better off combined, then I am seriously skeptical about your sense of taste and judgment.



I'd argue that "Imbued with magical power by a greater being to become a intuitive spellcaster" and "Altered by a a ritual to become a magical super soldier" are roughly on par with thematic specificity. So I feel I'm being consistent enough.



Aldarc said:


> There is a lot between "a pure narrative less class" and the overly restrictive narrative that you are imposing. If you can't find anything between that, then please don't bother at all because I wouldn't play a class forced into "an artificially engineered people" for it and all its subclasses.



There is between. That's what I offered. What you offered was basically fluffless mechanics. I get that's what some gish aficionados want, but that's also the reason why it is unlikely to go anywhere, as it simply doesn't feel compelling to most people.


----------



## Minigiant

Like I said, there are many Arcane warrior themes

Light armored teleporting Swordmage.
Heavy armored touchsprll Dusk blade
Antimage warrior
Elemental Swordsmen
Magic Police
Portal Guards
Elite Magic Defense Force


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Minigiant said:


> Like I said, there are many Arcane warrior themes
> 
> Light armored teleporting Swordmage.
> Heavy armored touchsprll Dusk blade
> Antimage warrior
> Elemental Swordsmen
> Magic Police
> Portal Guards
> Elite Magic Defense Force



Most of these really do not seem like themes to me. Some are description of playstyle others are jobs.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> If you got the sentiment, then you would know that this would toss one of my favorite archetypes (the gish) straight to my unplayable list. If you think that's a decent theme, but also think that the warlock and sorcerer are better off combined, then I am seriously skeptical about your sense of taste and judgment.
> 
> 
> There is a lot between "a pure narrative less class" and the overly restrictive narrative that you are imposing. If you can't find anything between that, then please don't bother at all because I wouldn't play a class forced into "an artificially engineered people" for it and all its subclasses.



wait how is gish an archetype it is a class structure or type of thing, not an archetype itself is it?

do you have a better narrative that is more than is magic and can fight as we need something?


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> You'd also want to swap out the more divine-magic-flavored options like Lay on hands, divine sense, smites, aura of protection, and most of the spell list.
> 
> So yeah, it would be a lot like a paladin, if you changed everything.
> 
> And while divine magic isn't a rules concept, the idea that clerics and wizards have the same flavor and mechanics is way to much of a stretch for me. I hard disagree with that.



Cleric and Wizard are different from each other, the same that the Cleric and Druid are different from achieving inherent, or the Wiz a rd and the Sorcerer. "Arcane" and "Divine" have no real meaning in the rules or mechanics anywhere.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Parmandur said:


> Cleric and Wizard are different from each other, the same that the Cleric and Druid are different from achieving inherent, or the Wiz a rd and the Sorcerer. "Arcane" and "Divine" have no real meaning in the rules or mechanics anywhere.



Okay. Well then what's missing is _mostly_ a blended fighter-wizard class; something to fill that space the way paladin fills the fighter-cleric space.

The "blended" part is what's missing mechanically (divine smite isn't quite right because it only does one type of damage, and changing that up goes beyond a "refluff") - thematically it's just another way to study magic alongside what wizards, bards, and artificers do. 

Once you have that, you can readily make subclasses for other arcane (et al) magic traditions.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Minigiant said:


> Like I said, there are many Arcane warrior themes
> 
> Light armored teleporting Swordmage.
> Heavy armored touchsprll Dusk blade
> Antimage warrior
> Elemental Swordsmen
> Magic Police
> Portal Guards
> Elite Magic Defense Force



Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes.  The other ones are merely how a magical fighter mage is doing what they are doing.

The most basic difference in 5E between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric is the theme of this person believing so strongly in a cause that they swear an Oath that actually gives them magical ability.  The difference between a Ranger and a Fighter/Druid is that the Ranger is specifically a tracker and one who is meant to lead others through the wilderness safely.  So for a similar gish... we need something that this class does or belongs to that isn't the same as what a Fighter/Wizard is.  Those ones I pointed out would definitely work in that regard, because they are all specifically something that this magical warrior does that a baseline Wizard does not, just like the Ranger specifically does tracking and survival for themselves and others that a baseline Druid does not.

The question then being whether a magical warrior that is a planar guard or a noble defensive knight that stands next to Kings and Queens to protect them, or a cop that goes out to take down unlawful magic-users are themes that other gish fans would want.  But it doesn't sound like it though... it always seems like they want completely fluffless warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics.  And that's why the identity has never gone any farther, because the Fighter and the Rogue are the only two classes in the game that are just umbrella terms for a bunch of thematic identities that come out of the subclasses. Every other class has a theme built in, and I don't see WotC ever creating another fluffless "umbrella" class.


----------



## jmartkdr2

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes.  The other ones are merely how a magical fighter mage is doing what they are doing.
> 
> The most basic difference in 5E between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric is the theme of this person believing so strongly in a cause that they swear an Oath that actually gives them magical ability.  The difference between a Ranger and a Fighter/Druid is that the Ranger is specifically a tracker and one who is meant to lead others through the wilderness safely.  So for a similar gish... we need something that this class does or belongs to that isn't the same as what a Fighter/Wizard is.  Those ones I pointed out would definitely work in that regard, because they are all specifically something that this magical warrior does that a baseline Wizard does not, just like the Ranger specifically does tracking and survival for themselves and others that a baseline Druid does not.
> 
> The question then being whether a magical warrior that is a planar guard or a noble defensive knight or a cop that goes out to take down unlawful magic-users is a theme that other gish people would want.  It doesn't sound like it though... it always seems like they want completely fluffless warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics.  And that's why the identity has never gone any farther, because the Fighter and the Rogue are the only two classes in the game that are just umbrella terms for a bunch of thematic identities that come out of the subclasses. Every other class has a theme built in.



The idea never goes far, but it keeps coming back. Every edition has at least one attempt at the concept, because player keep asking for it. 

Swordmage seemed to work fine, was storied enough (each school had it's own backstory but that's okay for wizards)but it's a 4e name so obviously we can't do that.


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> Okay. Well then what's missing is _mostly_ a blended fighter-wizard class; something to fill that space the way paladin fills the fighter-cleric space.
> 
> The "blended" part is what's missing mechanically (divine smite isn't quite right because it only does one type of damage, and changing that up goes beyond a "refluff") - thematically it's just another way to study magic alongside what wizards, bards, and artificers do.
> 
> Once you have that, you can readily make subclasses for other arcane (et al) magic traditions.



Still don't see hie the Artificer doesn't have that space on lockdown.


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> The idea never goes far, but it keeps coming back. Every edition has at least one attempt at the concept, because player keep asking for it.
> 
> Swordmage seemed to work fine, was storied enough (each school had it's own backstory but that's okay for wizards)but it's a 4e name so obviously we can't do that.



By my count, 5E already has about 26 such attempts, just as Subclasses


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> The idea never goes far, but it keeps coming back. Every edition has at least one attempt at the concept, because player keep asking for it.
> 
> Swordmage seemed to work fine, was storied enough (each school had it's own backstory but that's okay for wizards)but it's a 4e name so obviously we can't do that.



it is a terrible name by all editions standards swordmage sound like a description, not a proper name.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Parmandur said:


> Still don't see hie the Artificer doesn't have that space on lockdown.



Because it's flavor is too restrictive, not wizardy, and you saddled with a robopuppy.


Parmandur said:


> By my count, 5E already has about 26 such attempts, just as Subclasses



And all of them disappoint.


----------



## Parmandur

jmartkdr2 said:


> Because it's flavor is too restrictive, not wizardy, and you saddled with a robopuppy.
> 
> And all of them disappoint.



They may disappoint some percentage of people looking for a Gish, but if 26 options each satisfies a certain percentage of Gish fans...they might have newr total coverage already.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Parmandur said:


> They may disappoint some percentage of people looking for a Gish, but if 26 options each satisfies a certain percentage of Gish fans...they might have newr total coverage already.



That's a statistical claim - that the people consistently asking are a few weirdos and not a vocal minority. I'll ask you to back that up.

Otherwise "we shouldn't listen to these people because they might not be representative" is a really weak claim - in general, most people don't complain on forums but they do vote in opinion polls - and based on those, WotC has added 26 different gish subclasses. Which suggests to me that people are still voting "more gishes please."

I don't have the numbers to back it up, but I'm not making numerical claims. I'm saying that there's a constant set of people asking for the same thing and not satisfied with the current offerings.

Also, the argument that 26+ subclasses is better, more elegant or simpler than one class is... hard for me to accept. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning for that.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Such is life.



Such is unnecessary condescension.



Crimson Longinus said:


> The game cannot replicate everything that could potentially be imagined. Not that I really get what is that you want. You have just said what you do not want.



Knowing what one doesn't like or want out of a gish is valid input, as is saying that I would find such a highly specific hook for an entire gish class (i.e., an artifically created people) to be overly restrictive, especially in comparison to other classes. 



Crimson Longinus said:


> There is between. That's what I offered. *What you offered was basically fluffless mechanics.* I get that's what some gish aficionados want, but that's also the reason why it is unlikely to go anywhere, as it simply doesn't feel compelling to most people.



I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer? And when did this offering you claim I have done transpire?



Mind of tempest said:


> wait how is gish an archetype it is a class structure or type of thing, not an archetype itself is it?



I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying or asking here. I find your phrasing unclear.



Mind of tempest said:


> do you have a better narrative that is more than is magic and can fight as we need something?



Do you have anything other than a Witcher or WoW Death Knight rip-off? 

One can peel back these ideas into something more manageable without forcing characters into being "an artificially-engineered people." It may be as simple as a monster-hunter or a rune knight. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes.  The other one are merely how a magical fighter is doing what they are doing.



These are incidentally ones that I have proposed to you before. 

I do think, however, that the whole "warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics" can be insightful to understanding the angle for such a class. I see Swordmages/Mageknights as adopting a utilitarian approach to magic and combat, a pragmatic reality to the sort of "high magic" and "high swords" worlds that D&D envisions, along with the associated supernatural threats. The Wizard entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of magical spells. Likewise, the Fighter entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of martial combat. But the Mageknight? Forget that. Dangers out there in the world don't care about your commitment to mastering an arcane tradition or a combat style. The best way to survive and get by in such a world is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Using both is practical and sensible, while neglecting either leaves one ill-equipped to deal with the realities of the world. 

Moreover, their various themes would cover what issues, problems, and scenarios that such approaches are meant to address (e.g., weird magical monsters, planar threats, rogue mages, etc.) or even what their preferred methods are (e.g., runes, bypassing magical wards, magical physical enhancement, battlefield magic, etc.). 

These Mageknights may be (elite) shocktroopers that kings and queens are trying to train and incorporate into their army. They may not have the high degree of bookish learning or education as a wizard, but their magical arts are turned to more pragmatic uses (i.e., warfare, defense, and combat), which allows them to get by and adapt in situations requiring either swords or sorcery. This would also make them useful mercenaries. 

The Mageblade - a class in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (3e d20 System) - focuses a lot of their magical ability around their Athame, which is their weapon and spell focus of choice. In their hands it becomes magical, and it becomes a way to slice through magical wardings/protections, parry spells, or even slice through spells as if they cast Dispel Magic. 

(One can also see how this Mageblade class likely influenced the Eldritch Knight, such as its ability to summon their bound weapon. Mearls did make a big break through writing for Malhavoc Press, both Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes, so he definitely would be familiar with this class.)


----------



## Werehamster

Paul Farquhar said:


> I would merge classes and add subclasses, moving some stuff from core class to subclass. Specifically, Barbarian is split between an "berserker" fighter subclass and "totem warrior" ranger subclass; sorcerer and warlock are merged; druid goes to nature cleric; and artificer and bard are folded into rogue (sneak attack becomes a subclass ability). Oh, and monk is axed.



Why axe the Monk?  I see a lot of people don't care for the class, but I haven't seen reasons behind this dislike.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Werehamster said:


> Why axe the Monk?  I see a lot of people don't care for the class, but I haven't seen reasons behind this dislike.



Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of  the class.

By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.

Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.

Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.


----------



## DEFCON 1

jmartkdr2 said:


> Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.



And yet the Monk is the closest class we have to the psionic classes, and it seems like whole swathes of people keep wanting to get those added to D&D too.  It'd be kind of funny to take out the Monk and then add in the Psion et. al.


----------



## Remathilis

jmartkdr2 said:


> Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of the class.
> 
> By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.
> 
> Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.
> 
> Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.



I mean, classically monks didn't fit a niche, but I think the current 5e monk is very much a decent rogue replacement. They swap out the one-big-hit (sneak attack) for flurry of blows (many smaller hits) but I think the monk can easily fill the rogue's combat role and with the right skills even the rogue's exploration role. 

If I was designing with no need to uphold historical lineage, I'd make the monk fill a more generic skirmisher role rather than strict martial artist and allow this skirmisher class to represent monks, rogues, rangers, swashbucklers, dancers/dervishes, ninja, and other light/no armor mobile hit and run types.


----------



## Minigiant

DEFCON 1 said:


> Of this list, I would say that Antimage Warrior, Magic Police, Portal Guards, and Elite Magic Defense Force are actual themes.  The other ones are merely how a magical fighter mage is doing what they are doing.
> 
> The most basic difference in 5E between a Paladin and a Fighter/Cleric is the theme of this person believing so strongly in a cause that they swear an Oath that actually gives them magical ability.  The difference between a Ranger and a Fighter/Druid is that the Ranger is specifically a tracker and one who is meant to lead others through the wilderness safely.  So for a similar gish... we need something that this class does or belongs to that isn't the same as what a Fighter/Wizard is.  Those ones I pointed out would definitely work in that regard, because they are all specifically something that this magical warrior does that a baseline Wizard does not, just like the Ranger specifically does tracking and survival for themselves and others that a baseline Druid does not.
> 
> The question then being whether a magical warrior that is a planar guard or a noble defensive knight that stands next to Kings and Queens to protect them, or a cop that goes out to take down unlawful magic-users are themes that other gish fans would want.  But it doesn't sound like it though... it always seems like they want completely fluffless warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics.  And that's why the identity has never gone any farther, because the Fighter and the Rogue are the only two classes in the game that are just umbrella terms for a bunch of thematic identities that come out of the subclasses. Every other class has a theme built in, and I don't see WotC ever creating another fluffless "umbrella" class.




There are themes.

It's tough to admit it.

WOTC designers are too old.

Gishes are popular and thematic in modern media. However the popular media of the typical D&D designer's childhood is too low magic and human centric for the Arcane Warriors to have a theme.


----------



## Micah Sweet

jmartkdr2 said:


> Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of  the class.
> 
> By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.
> 
> Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.
> 
> Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.



Level Up's adept is a better representation of the concept than the monk, by far.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> *Fishes are popular and thematic in modern media.* However the popular media of the typical D&D designer's childhood is too low magic and human centric for the Arcane Warriors to have a theme.



Indeed:


----------



## Werehamster

Micah Sweet said:


> Level Up's adept is a better representation of the concept than the monk, by far.



I had never heard of Level Up until reading your post.  They did a great job with the Monk.  Were I in the market for more materials, this would be my first purchase.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Remathilis said:


> I mean, classically monks didn't fit a niche, but I think the current 5e monk is very much a decent rogue replacement. They swap out the one-big-hit (sneak attack) for flurry of blows (many smaller hits) but I think the monk can easily fill the rogue's combat role and with the right skills even the rogue's exploration role.
> 
> If I was designing with no need to uphold historical lineage, I'd make the monk fill a more generic skirmisher role rather than strict martial artist and allow this skirmisher class to represent monks, rogues, rangers, swashbucklers, dancers/dervishes, ninja, and other light/no armor mobile hit and run types.



It's a half step off: it's close to a skirmisher and can be stealthy, but doesn't really have the skill-monkey aspect. Not that that would be hard to add. 

For myself: I'd rather just leave it as an odd duck and make sure it multiclasses well. (however multiclassing is handled.)


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> Not a full answer but: monks have a hard time fitting in. They don't fit the vaguely-Eurocentric default setting tropes, and they don't fit into any of the game roles. Their role (mage-stunner) is emergent rather than core to the themes of  the class.
> 
> By game roles: most classes fit easily into one or more of "cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard" - which aren't just combat roles (leader/support, defender/tank, striker, and controller) but are also skillsets (religion/healing, soldiering, stealth, knowledge) and social roles (religious, warrior, skilled outsider, loremaster). A barbarian is a warrior form a certain kind of culture, a ranger is a wilderness rogue-type, a paladin is a fighter/cleric (role-wise), and so on.
> 
> Monks aren't really any of these things. They have religious overtones but don't do cleric things, they can fight but aren't soldiers or a society's main warriors, they can be stealthy but aren't skill-monkeys, and they may be smart but aren't loremasters. It's easy to shift them into any such role with one or two mechanics and a little added fluff, but the base monk is just there, slightly to the side because it doesn't quite fit into the the boxes in front of us.
> 
> Plus they have some wonky/poor design choices in 5e, but the reason people are more likely to call for removal rather than fixing them(like a ranger) is the lack of fit. I believe, anyways.



have none of them considered the lack of fitting is a benefit it means it has its own fundamental identity it need work mechanically but that is more lack of it fill its destined role as a mystical martial artist.


Aldarc said:


> Such is unnecessary condescension.
> 
> 
> Knowing what one doesn't like or want out of a gish is valid input, as is saying that I would find such a highly specific hook for an entire gish class (i.e., an artifically created people) to be overly restrictive, especially in comparison to other classes.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer? And when did this offering you claim I have done transpire?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying or asking here. I find your phrasing unclear.
> 
> 
> Do you have anything other than a Witcher or WoW Death Knight rip-off?
> 
> One can peel back these ideas into something more manageable without forcing characters into being "an artificially-engineered people." It may be as simple as a monster-hunter or a rune knight.
> 
> 
> These are incidentally ones that I have proposed to you before.
> 
> I do think, however, that the whole "warrior mages that are like Fighter/Wizards except they get their own special mechanics" can be insightful to understanding the angle for such a class. I see Swordmages/Mageknights as adopting a utilitarian approach to magic and combat, a pragmatic reality to the sort of "high magic" and "high swords" worlds that D&D envisions, along with the associated supernatural threats. The Wizard entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of magical spells. Likewise, the Fighter entails an elevated understanding, study, and mastery of martial combat. But the Mageknight? Forget that. Dangers out there in the world don't care about your commitment to mastering an arcane tradition or a combat style. The best way to survive and get by in such a world is a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. Using both is practical and sensible, while neglecting either leaves one ill-equipped to deal with the realities of the world.
> 
> Moreover, their various themes would cover what issues, problems, and scenarios that such approaches are meant to address (e.g., weird magical monsters, planar threats, rogue mages, etc.) or even what their preferred methods are (e.g., runes, bypassing magical wards, magical physical enhancement, battlefield magic, etc.).
> 
> These Mageknights may be (elite) shocktroopers that kings and queens are trying to train and incorporate into their army. They may not have the high degree of bookish learning or education as a wizard, but their magical arts are turned to more pragmatic uses (i.e., warfare, defense, and combat), which allows them to get by and adapt in situations requiring either swords or sorcery. This would also make them useful mercenaries.
> 
> The Mageblade - a class in Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved (3e d20 System) - focuses a lot of their magical ability around their Athame, which is their weapon and spell focus of choice. In their hands it becomes magical, and it becomes a way to slice through magical wardings/protections, parry spells, or even slice through spells as if they cast Dispel Magic.
> 
> (One can also see how this Mageblade class likely influenced the Eldritch Knight, such as its ability to summon their bound weapon. Mearls did make a big break through writing for Malhavoc Press, both Arcana Unearthed/Evolved and Iron Heroes, so he definitely would be familiar with this class.)



okay let me put my question another way what is an arcane gish to you?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:


Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.

What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What did I offer?



It's not really about what you did offer, it is what you didn't: I.E. a compelling new theme beyond another take on multiclass wizard/fighter. And the later part of your post basically confirms that. This is probably the main reason why gishes are not happening. What a certain gish fans want is bland and uninspired to most people and if any flavour is actually added, those gish fans don't like it anymore, as what they want is plain vanilla.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:
> 
> 
> Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
> Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
> Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.
> 
> What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.



All these are OK, but they still are just jobs. That is, things such a mage-warrior would do. I feel that in addition to that we need to answer what these mage-warriors metaphysically are. And I would strongly prefer it to be something a tad more original that "They learned to do magic...somehow."


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> *It's not really about what you did offer, it is what you didn't:* I.E. a compelling new theme beyond another take on multiclass wizard/fighter. And the later part of your post basically confirms that. This is probably the main reason why gishes are not happening. What a certain gish fans want is bland and uninspired to most people and if any flavour is actually added, those gish fans don't like it anymore, as what they want is plain vanilla.



I was responding to what you were writing and asking. You have now claimed both that I have offered something and that I have somehow failed in offering something. If you expect me to address anything more, then I would kindly request that you keep the goal posts in one place.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> All these are OK, but they still are just jobs. That is, things such a mage-warrior would do. I feel that in addition to that we need to answer what these mage-warriors metaphysically are. And I would strongly prefer it to be something a tad more original that "They learned to do magic...somehow."



They learned a special kind of magic. One that is designed to work with weapons.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> I was responding to what you were writing and asking. You have now claimed both that I have offered something and that I have somehow failed in offering something. If you expect me to address anything more, then I would kindly request that you keep the goal posts in one place.



You offered a concept that lacks unique fluff, and implied that you like it that way. So that's what you offered and by doing so you didn't offer anything new or inspired. Goal posts have not been moved; sorry if I was unclear though.


----------



## cbwjm

Crimson Longinus said:


> I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to the table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.
> 
> And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.



Thing is, this class should be able to support the generic gish. I'd want the classic elven or githyanki fighter/mage concept to be supported by this class and put the "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" as something supported by the subclasses.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> They learned a special kind of magic. One that is designed to work with weapons.



That's vague and generic. And paladins kinda already do that.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> You offered a concept that lacks unique fluff, and implied that you like it that way. So that's what you offered and by doing so you didn't offer anything new or inspired. Goal posts have not been moved; sorry if I was unclear though.



And now you are back to saying that I offered something? Round and round we go. It feels like you are playing a game with me using invisible rules that I’m not privy to and I don’t like it.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> And now you are back to saying that I offered something? Round and round we go. It feels like you are playing a game with me using invisible rules that I’m not privy to and I don’t like it.



Well, if you have such hared time following normal conversation, even after it has been explained to you what was meant, there isn't much point in continuing.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> That's vague and generic.



So are all the other classes.



Crimson Longinus said:


> And paladins kinda already do that.



Kinda. But not really, which is why people want a new class.

I mean, do you think I don't know paladins exist? That I played a few, felt they represented the concept I want well but somehow  didn't notice that I felt that way? Or that when I tried it I was totally satisfied but unaware of that satisfaction and _felt_ unsatisfied while secretly feeling satisfied?

I mean, what is your standard?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.

Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Well, if you have such hared time following normal conversation, even after it has been explained to you what was meant, there isn't much point in continuing.



Normal conversations for online discussions have antecedents. You came out swinging by claiming that I offered something that I didn’t and then went dosey-do by then accusing me of not offering anything. Both times you appear to be under the presumption that I was obligated to offer something without any indication from my side about this. I have engaged with others who clearly asked. As I said, if you could keep your goal posts still without dancing around claims that I have or haven’t offered something, maybe we could get anywhere. Until then? There’s a snowball’s chance in the sun.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Frozen_Heart said:


> 'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.
> 
> Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.



It's more than some classes get, so it's an odd choice for a minimum.. And fights with magic _through_ weapons isn't core to any existing class.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> So are all the other classes.



I don't agree. And I think that you reject paladin as a gish proves it. It is not generic enough to satisfy your gish desires, even though it can fight, cast spells even combine those. It comes with it's own implied fluff and mechnics tied to those. So what I am asking that the gish has that level of definition too. But some people don't want it. All they can say what they don't want, which seems to be any flavour or metaphysics.



jmartkdr2 said:


> Kinda. But not really, which is why people want a new class.
> 
> I mean, do you think I don't know paladins exist? That I played a few, felt they represented the concept I want well but somehow  didn't notice that I felt that way? Or that when I tried it I was totally satisfied but unaware of that satisfaction and _felt_ unsatisfied while secretly feeling satisfied?
> 
> I mean, what is your standard?



Well, it definitely isn't "perfectly satisfy personal expectations every individual on the planet" because that's not going to happen.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> 'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.
> 
> Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.



Exactly this.


----------



## Scribe

Interesting, but I do think that the 5e paladin is sitting in the Gish design space.

What I think of, is the PF1 Magus, and I can see some clashing with 5e Paladins and how they function.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Crimson Longinus said:


> Exactly this.



Looks like the psionics problem all over again.  We need to accept that no ideas are going to be universally popular, or nothing is going to get done.  This is why I just look for 3rd party content I like, or homebrew my own.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> Normal conversations for online discussions have antecedents. You came out swinging by claiming that I offered something that I didn’t and then went dosey-do by then accusing me of not offering anything. Both times you appear to be under the presumption that I was obligated to offer something without any indication from my side about this. I have engaged with others who clearly asked. As I said, if you could keep your goal posts still without dancing around claims that I have or haven’t offered something, maybe we could get anywhere. Until then? There’s a snowball’s chance in the sun.



I explained to you what I interpreted that you offered, and what by that I can conclude you didn't If you feel I misunderstood or misinterpreted you in some way, you're perfectly free to clarify. Now that is as much I will say about the meta discussion about discussing; I know you like to derail things into that, but I've no interest in it, nor, I suspect, most of the other posters. So if you want to engage with the the actual matter, do so, if you find the way I express myself intolerable, then don't.


----------



## Remathilis

Frozen_Heart said:


> 'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.
> 
> Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.



This is pretty much the problem with any class based system: there are only so many ways to define "fights with weapons and/or magic". I mean, on a meta-level, an EK, paladin, bladesinger, war bard, hexblade and battlesmith all are variants of "fights with weapons and magic" but I don't think anyone would say they play similar or are replaceable with one another. 

Personally, I have no problems with multiple classes doing the name niche as long as they're either have a mechanical or narrative hook. I think it game stagnates when people get too hung up on niche protection. It's not a bad thing when a few different people can do the same role as long as a class doesn't invalidate the need for that role (the classic 'wizards can do everything a rogue can more reliability with a few wands' issue).


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Remathilis said:


> Personally, I have no problems with multiple classes doing the name niche as long as they're either have a mechanical or narrative hook.



I think they should at least have_ both._


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't agree. And I think that you reject paladin as a gish proves it. It is not generic enough to satisfy your gish desires, even though it can fight, cast spells even combine those. It comes with it's own implied fluff and mechnics tied to those. So what I am asking that the gish has that level of definition too. But some people don't want it. All they can say what they don't want, which seems to be any flavour or metaphysics.



Because if you change the paladin enough to cover the space, you're making a new class.

And the flavor has been spelled out: they use a special school of magic that works through weapons but is otherwise wizard-like. That's already more specific than wizards get, or bards, or druids, or warlocks...


Crimson Longinus said:


> Well, it definitely isn't "perfectly satisfy personal expectations every individual on the planet" because that's not going to happen.



But "satisfies at least one person" is just as unreasonable a standard.


----------



## CreamCloud0

The thematic niche I think I would personally put a Swordmage into would be a that of an arcane themed paladin: An order of elite warriors with a special battle style combining swordplay and magical learning that's been passed down and cultivated through the generations but without the oaths or religious aspects, maybe a splash of rangers/the Witcher with them going around hunting down some of the nastier monsters or aberrations like the way paladins hunt fiends/devils/demons.


----------



## The Hierophant

Aldarc said:


> I agree. We should give ALL the cool magic stuff to wizards. ALL of it. No non-wizard magical class should have anything unique or cool in its own right. Give everything magical to those spoiled wizarding brats! In fact, wizards should just be gods.




Correct, get rid of the Sorcerer and the Warlock.

(If you must have them make the Sorcerer a Wizard sub-class and the Warlock a Cleric sub-class.)


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:
> 
> 
> Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
> Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
> Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.
> 
> What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.




Typically in manga, cartoons, and video games.. the arcane warriors were monster killers.

Not monster hunters like rangers.

Arcane warriors slew known threats. They either were defensive bodyguards that let enemies come to them. Or they were offensive vanguards attacking a huge known threat or group of threats. Diplomacy and Espionage went to other people.


----------



## jmartkdr2

I should note: I absolutely don't think WotC will ever release a proper Swordmage class for 5e. They _should_, but that might "invalidate" existing options, so they won't.

But the game would be better if there was one, because trying to do it through subclasses just ain't working.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I am usually highly sceptical about adding new classes, but I was actually starting to think here that a bespoke gish class might be worth adding and it could be made to be interesting. Gish fans however quickly convinced me otherwise...


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> I am usually highly sceptical about adding new classes, but I was actually starting to think here that a bespoke gish class might be worth adding and it could be made to be interesting. Gish fans however quickly convinced me otherwise...



As a gish fan, I 100% understand how you feel about gish fans.


----------



## Remathilis

The Hierophant said:


> Correct, get rid of the Sorcerer and the Warlock.
> 
> (If you must have them make the Sorcerer a Wizard sub-class and the Warlock a Cleric sub-class.)



I fail to see why warlock would end up a cleric, save for the tiny factor that they both deal with extraplanar entities. The nature of the relationship and the magic provided are diametrically opposite and any class that tried to house both under the same roof would be so vague and generic it could probably house 5/6th of the PHB under it as well.


----------



## Aldarc

Frozen_Heart said:


> The three ideas of an arcane gish flavour which I've seen and like are:
> 
> 
> Warrior built to kill things normal humans can't. Something like a witcher.
> Elite 'magic guards' of important individuals and items. The type of person who would be used by an order of wizards to guard all their precious stuff. A bit like the jedi temple guard. Obviously a bit restrictive as if you're sitting guarding something, you're not adventuring.
> Alternatively elite warriors which are often sent out to retrieve items of power and knowledge for safekeeping by said order of wizards.
> 
> What I'd dislike as the entire class lore is 'person who magics and combats'. That isn't a class lore or theme, that's just a description of how they fight.



It may help to switch the emphasis slightly from "guards" to "specialists." Their responsibilities may include guardianship of important individuals and items but may also include acting as battlefield shock troopers responsible for taking down either non-magical mooks with magic or even magical mooks with anti-magic or martial arms as their talents call for. 

That said, I don't think that a Mageknight / Spellbreaker / Whatever requires that they guard a library or temple any more than a paladin or cleric does or a wizard requires being in a college library. It may provide a starting point or hook, but it does not have to be the destination. 

Why might a Mageknight quest? I suspect the usual reasons: e.g., revenge, money, honor, lost item, power, etc. Or like many a character backstory, "I am questing to improve my art in [class]." Again, I think that much like a Fighter, Ranger, or Rogue, a Mageknight's skill set would likely be useful as a wandering mercenary or dungeon delver. This is not to say that a Mageknight should just be about fighting with swords and magic, but simply that we should recognize that their motivations for adventuring will likely still fall in line with the usual reasons that players may provide their PCs.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> I am usually highly sceptical about adding new classes, but I was actually starting to think here that a bespoke gish class might be worth adding and it could be made to be interesting. Gish fans however quickly convinced me otherwise...



I think the big secret is: just make a good one with decent enough flavor and people can and will refluff form there. It's just  bridge too far from the existing options, mostly because the core mechanical aspect (let's face it - Spellstrike like PF magus) isn't there.

It doesn't matter if they're flavored as magically enhanced or use weapon runes or have a weapon-patron - those are easy to switch. The basic playstyle is the thing, refluffing (actually just refluffing, not changing any mechanics) can carry the rest.

Because what's missing is a mechanical niche, not a flavor one. And waiting to add one until you can do both is... not necessary.

(Psions are kind of the opposite - the flavor is already well defined enough, all they need to do is pick a mechanical expression that isn't the Spellcasting feature and make it work.)


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think they should at least have_ both._



We've given both. A bunch of examples. You've shot all of them down. 

Mechanical differences from the base gish classes/subclasses:

Martial Arcane Half-Caster (wizard-version of a Paladin) that gets Spellcasting and a Fighting Style at level 2, most/all armor and weapon proficiencies, and Extra Attack at level 5
A "Spell-Strike" ability, where they somehow merge offensive spellcasting with weapon attacks (putting lightning into Thor's hammer, teleporting when you attack to lock down enemies as a Swordmage, etc)
Using your main weapon as a Spellcasting Focus automatically
Subclasses that promote different styles of being an Arcane Gish (Swordmage, Duskblade, Mage-Slayer, Witcher, Elementalist, etc)
Thematic Differences: 

You are especially trained to perfectly merge spell and blade. You're not like an Eldritch Knight, which is a fighter trained in some magic, or a Bladesinger, which is a Wizard trained to have some martial capabilities. Your training was unique and specialized to properly integrate both spellcasting and martial fighting into your style of fighting, making you an elite arcane warrior (typically existing in societies that are both militaristic and have some style of arcane training, like Netheril, many Elven societies, and similar cultures)
You choose a specific discipline to combine your style of fighting with a style of spellcasting. You could be a Mage Hunter, a type of bounty hunter that is specifically trained to track down mages and use your magic to counter their abilities, or an Elite Bodyguard that uses both Abjuration magic and physical protection (Shields, Armor) to be an arcane bulwark that protects your liege from harm, and so on 
You are to the Wizard as the Paladin is to the Cleric and the Ranger is to the Druid. You're trained to master more Arcane types of spellcasting (evocation, abjuration, necromancy, anti-magic, conjuration), instead of the Ranger's focus on nature magic (entangling prey, goodberry, pass without trace) or the Paladin's focus on divine magic (healing, warding off the unholy, resurrection). 
You don't have to swear an oath or live in the wilds to get your powers, instead, you have to undergo rigorous training and possibly even bodily modifications to properly merge spell and blade. You didn't study a book like the Wizard, and didn't just learn martial training like the Fighter, but instead learned how to unlock magic through certain movements of your blade as somatic spell components, or arcane war chants that act as verbal spell components, or using the magic of your blade to fuel your casting (allowing it to be a spellcasting focus, ignoring many material components of your spells). It's a long, grueling process that takes years to master, and makes up for the normal restrictions of getting similar powers (becoming one with nature, worshipping a god/swearing an oath, unlocking the secrets of the universe by spending a decade in a library, etc). 
Is that really not enough? You said that you liked the idea of an arcane gish (until we somehow convinced you otherwise), what kind of difference do you think would be good enough to set it apart from existing classes/subclasses?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> I think the big secret is: just make a good one with decent enough flavor and people can and will refluff form there. It's just  bridge too far from the existing options, mostly because the core mechanical aspect (let's face it - Spellstrike like PF magus) isn't there.



How does the spellstrike work? 

Also, I feel like with the psion, here too demanding some specific mechanical interpretation is folly. If all the class has going for it is: "It kinda already is in the game, but I want the same thing with different mechanics" then it absolutely shouldn't be added. You cannot just add parallel mechanics because some people don't like the existing ones. 



jmartkdr2 said:


> Because what's missing is a mechanical niche, not a flavor one. And waiting to add one until you can do both is... not necessary.



Hard disagree. Class based system lives or dies by the classes being evocative and compelling.



jmartkdr2 said:


> (Psions are kind of the opposite - the flavor is already well defined enough, all they need to do is pick a mechanical expression that isn't the Spellcasting feature and make it work.)




Or much more easily, use the spellcasting feature to make it work. But then the psion fans will reject it...


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> How does the spellstrike work?



You cast a spell and deliver it by hitting with a weapon, as opposed to shooting a laser or having the target make a save. Detail are a matter of balance which isn't what this thread is about, just whether or not such a thing is viable and/or fully covered by existing options.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Also, I feel like with the psion, here too demanding some specific mechanical interpretation is folly. If all the class has going for it is: "It kinda already is in the game, but I want the same thing with different mechanics" then it absolutely shouldn't be added. You cannot just add parallel mechanics because some people don't like the existing ones.



The thing people consistently like about psionics is that it's not spellcasting. Therefore, you need something other than spellcasting. I'd argue it doesn't matter all that much what it is, so long as it's not Spellcasting.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Hard disagree. Class based system lives or dies by the classes being evocative and compelling.



Which is why fighters ruined DnD, because having the flavor in the subclass is totally unworkable. Clearly this is a major flaw, which is why they're the most popular class in every survey. People hate having flavor in the subclass.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Or much more easily, use the spellcasting feature to make it work. But then the psion fans will reject it...



It's really hard to make the spellcasting feature not spellcasting while still leaving it as spellcasting. Probably not worth the effort either.


----------



## King Babar

Make a swordmage* class, give them all the underutilized Paladin smite spells (maybe even as weaker cantrips), call them "strikes" instead.

Lean into Paladin as a "leader" type class instead of a striker to give the swordmage a clear niche.

_dodges chairs and tomatoes._

*One issue I have with an arcane half-caster is a lack of a distinct name. Spellblade, spellsword, swordmage, duskblade, whatever; they all lack a certain oomph.


----------



## jmartkdr2

King Babar said:


> *One issue I have with an arcane half-caster is a lack of a distinct name. Spellblade, spellsword, swordmage, duskblade, whatever; they all lack a certain oomph.



The best name I've heard is "eldritch knight" -

But you could decide the "base" flavor is something and name them after that. Or dive fully into tradition and call them Gishes.


----------



## cbwjm

I wouldn't worry about defining a separate niche, plenty of overlap already and many classes can handle multiple niches anyway.

I think the best way to hit everyone's flavour issues is with subclasses. Level 1 for the class might be subclass and spellcasting. This way you can have the aegis wielding swordmage, the magic ritual super soldier guy, or the stealthy shadow magic wielding guy.


----------



## King Babar

jmartkdr2 said:


> The best name I've heard is "eldritch knight" -
> 
> But you could decide the "base" flavor is something and name them after that. Or dive fully into tradition and call them Gishes.



An Eldritch Knight is just an Arcane Warrior with a thesaurus.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> You cast a spell and deliver it by hitting with a weapon, as opposed to shooting a laser or having the target make a save. Detail are a matter of balance which isn't what this thread is about, just whether or not such a thing is viable and/or fully covered by existing options.



Isn't that very similar to smites?



jmartkdr2 said:


> The thing people consistently like about psionics is that it's not spellcasting. Therefore, you need something other than spellcasting. I'd argue it doesn't matter all that much what it is, so long as it's not Spellcasting.



Right. An if you have checked the recent psionics tread, I think that is not a sensible or coherent definition. If you are using a power of you mind levitate rocks, you're using magic. Basing entire concept on thesaurus is just a no go.



jmartkdr2 said:


> Which is why fighters ruined DnD, because having the flavor in the subclass is totally unworkable. Clearly this is a major flaw, which is why they're the most popular class in every survey. People hate having flavor in the subclass.



Like it or not, as generic as 'fighter' is, it is actually a pretty recognisable and popular archetype. Mageknight is not.



jmartkdr2 said:


> It's really hard to make the spellcasting feature not spellcasting while still leaving it as spellcasting. Probably not worth the effort either.



Right. So just accept that psions are spellcasters and we can actually get it done.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> How does the spellstrike work?



It's changed over the editions.

In DnD 3.5e, along with Pathfinder 1e and 2e, it's the ability to channel touch spells through your weapon strikes. So you would hit with your sword and apply something like vampiric touch through that attack by using a spell slot.

In DnD 4e this got turned into encounter and at will powers, the same as every class. The swordmages were all themed around hitting people and magical effect happen.

In DnD 5e, touch spells got reworked and now there are barely any at all, with many attack spells which used to be touch no longer being touch. The closest this edition are spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike. Where you cast as a bonus action, and then the spell effect is let off next time you hit with a weapon attack.

However in 5e, every. single. one of these weapon attack type spells is not available to the subclasses which are based on prior edition gishes (eldritch knight and swordmage). Essentially cutting off the core mechanic from the theme people enjoyed that mechanic with.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> Isn't that very similar to smites?



Similar, but not the same. You could achieve the result with a lot of smite spells, but it's a lot. And a new spell list.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. An if you have checked the recent psionics tread, I think that is not a sensible or coherent definition. If you are using a power of you mind levitate rocks, you're using magic. Basing entire concept on thesaurus is just a no go.



Magic, yes. Spellcasting, no.

The degree of difference isn't huge, but its's not zero.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Like it or not, as generic as 'fighter' is, it is actually a pretty recognisable and popular archetype. Mageknight is not.



Hard disagree - I can see a mage knight a mile away.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Right. So just accept that psions are spellcasters and we can actually get it done.



Magic users, not spellcasters. 

It's been done in every edition thus far, why can't it be done now?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> However in 5e, every. single. one of these weapon attack type spells is not available to the subclasses which are based on prior edition gishes (eldritch knight and swordmage). Essentially cutting off the core mechanic from the theme people enjoyed that mechanic with.



That sounds annoying, but also easy to fix: give those subclasses access to those spells.


----------



## cbwjm

Just going off what I can recall from Reddit or DMsguild for additional classes, the ones I see the most are the fighter-mage (whether called a swordmage, arcane knight, or magus, etc), the witch, the warlord, and the scholar. Particularly the fighter-mage and the witch since I've seen so many iterations by different people that I think these would be good additions by WotC.


----------



## jmartkdr2

cbwjm said:


> Just going off what I can recall from Reddit or DMsguild for additional classes, the ones I see the most are the fighter-mage (whether called a swordmage, arcane knight, or magus, etc), the witch, the warlord, and the scholar. Particularly the fighter-mage and the witch since I've seen so many iterations by different people that I think these would be good additions by WotC.



I feel like witch would have the same problem ranger already does: it has neither clear flavor nor mechanics, or even a 'thing' that all witches do. 

Which isn't to say there isn't a good idea for a class that could be called a witch (it might make a good name for a summoner/pet class).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> Isn't that very similar to smites?



Yep it is, which is why the 4e swordmage also introduced several varieties of reaction based teleports in as a signature mechanic. Both the swordmage and the paladin were competing for a similar niche.

In 3.5e the spellstrike was the focus of the duskblade (their version of a swordmage) and it offered a huge variety of magic effects, and the paladin smite was a lot more narrowly focused than it is now (damage only, no other effects). 4e introduced a ton of 'powers' for both and so both paladin and swordmage ended up in the 'hit things and magic happens' niche.

And then in 5e this kept going to the paladin having all the smite spells. While the arcane gish class got cut.

Essentially the growth and expansion of the paladins smite mechanic from a 'once a day a bit of extra damage' to a 'hit and have your magic effect of choice to off' slowly overran the arcane gishes niche.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> That sounds annoying, but also easy to fix: give those subclasses access to those spells.



I would if I could, but it's not my choice, it's the DM's.

Also as eldritch knight is a fighter with 4 attacks + action surge, I'm not convinced it would be balanced giving it those spells. 4 attacks + action surge + max upcast smite spells all at once is just a stupid amount of damage. For the same reason paladin and ranger have 2 attacks and not 4.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

AcererakTriple6 said:


> We've given both. A bunch of examples. You've shot all of them down.
> 
> Mechanical differences from the base gish classes/subclasses:
> 
> Martial Arcane Half-Caster (wizard-version of a Paladin) that gets Spellcasting and a Fighting Style at level 2, most/all armor and weapon proficiencies, and Extra Attack at level 5
> A "Spell-Strike" ability, where they somehow merge offensive spellcasting with weapon attacks (putting lightning into Thor's hammer, teleporting when you attack to lock down enemies as a Swordmage, etc)
> Using your main weapon as a Spellcasting Focus automatically
> Subclasses that promote different styles of being an Arcane Gish (Swordmage, Duskblade, Mage-Slayer, Witcher, Elementalist, etc)
> Thematic Differences:
> 
> You are especially trained to perfectly merge spell and blade. You're not like an Eldritch Knight, which is a fighter trained in some magic, or a Bladesinger, which is a Wizard trained to have some martial capabilities. Your training was unique and specialized to properly integrate both spellcasting and martial fighting into your style of fighting, making you an elite arcane warrior (typically existing in societies that are both militaristic and have some style of arcane training, like Netheril, many Elven societies, and similar cultures)
> You choose a specific discipline to combine your style of fighting with a style of spellcasting. You could be a Mage Hunter, a type of bounty hunter that is specifically trained to track down mages and use your magic to counter their abilities, or an Elite Bodyguard that uses both Abjuration magic and physical protection (Shields, Armor) to be an arcane bulwark that protects your liege from harm, and so on
> You are to the Wizard as the Paladin is to the Cleric and the Ranger is to the Druid. You're trained to master more Arcane types of spellcasting (evocation, abjuration, necromancy, anti-magic, conjuration), instead of the Ranger's focus on nature magic (entangling prey, goodberry, pass without trace) or the Paladin's focus on divine magic (healing, warding off the unholy, resurrection).
> You don't have to swear an oath or live in the wilds to get your powers, instead, you have to undergo rigorous training and possibly even bodily modifications to properly merge spell and blade. You didn't study a book like the Wizard, and didn't just learn martial training like the Fighter, but instead learned how to unlock magic through certain movements of your blade as somatic spell components, or arcane war chants that act as verbal spell components, or using the magic of your blade to fuel your casting (allowing it to be a spellcasting focus, ignoring many material components of your spells). It's a long, grueling process that takes years to master, and makes up for the normal restrictions of getting similar powers (becoming one with nature, worshipping a god/swearing an oath, unlocking the secrets of the universe by spending a decade in a library, etc).
> Is that really not enough? You said that you liked the idea of an arcane gish (until we somehow convinced you otherwise), what kind of difference do you think would be good enough to set it apart from existing classes/subclasses?



What I see is mechanically very similar to paladins and fluff wise effectively an eldritch knight. Also a lot about what they are not (no oaths, no wilderness, no books) and very little about what they are. I'd also like to point out that in 5e arcane/divine divide exist in one fluff box about Forgotten Realms, so I don't think 'arcane paladin' is enough, just like 'divine bard' wouldn't.

Now if in a reboot eldritch knight subclass wouldn't exist, then at least that overlap would be avoided, and perhaps eldritch knight could be its own class. But it still seems super thin to me. I just don't find this compelling.  Mind you, this is very much a preference thing. If enough people finds it compelling, then it could be a class. But then again, I'm not only one here asking these questions nor has WotC added such a class even though they've had plenty of time, so I don't think I'm alone in this.

Personally I would like the class to be defined less by what it is not and by it's relationship with other classes. I want it be something else than just a wizard/fighter multiclass with smoother mechanics. I don't think 'combines fighting with magic' alone is enough, it needs to come with metaphysics and a narrative. I find things like Death Knights and Witchers compelling. They're their own things, not just hybrids of other things and come with an interesting story.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

One thing I'm pretty adamant about for an arcane gish class, is that it should not have access to spells like fireball, scorching ray, and other blaster spells.

Same reason paladins don't get spirit guardians and rangers don't get lightning bolt. They're not wizard + fighter. They're something else.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> What I see is mechanically very similar to paladins and fluff wise effectively an eldritch knight. Also a lot about what they are not (no oaths, no wilderness, no books) and very little about what they are. I'd also like to point out that in 5e arcane/divine divide exist in one fluff box about Forgotten Realms, so I don't think 'arcane paladin' is enough, just like 'divine bard' wouldn't.
> 
> Now if in a reboot eldritch knight subclass wouldn't exist, then at least that overlap would be avoided, and perhaps eldritch knight could be it's own class. But it still seems super thin to me. I just don't find this compelling.  Mind you, this is very much a preference thing. If enough people finds it compelling, then it could be a class. But then again, I'm not only one here asking these questions nor has WotC added such a class even though they've had plenty of time, so I don't think I'm alone in this.
> 
> Personally I would like the class to be defined less by what it is not and by it's relationship with other classes. I want it be something else than just a wizard/fighter multiclass with smoother mechanics. I don't think 'combines fighting with magic' alone is enough, it needs to come with metaphysics and a narrative. I find things like Death Knights and Witchers compelling. They're their own things, not just hybrids of other things and come with an interesting story.



Out of curiosity: would "death knight but the subclass can totally change the magic" work for you? Kinda like how the base warlock fluff doesn't apply to half the Patrons?


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Death Knights and Witchers are both evocative and have a strong theme. The overall augmented to use their powers and fight does provide a unique class story. And the refluffing opportunity is pretty wide too. Could have been done intentionally by an organisation, or by a magic accident, or even the character could have just been born being innately like that.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

jmartkdr2 said:


> Out of curiosity: would "death knight but the subclass can totally change the magic" work for you? Kinda like how the base warlock fluff doesn't apply to half the Patrons?



Perhaps. Depends on what exactly we mean by "totally changes the magic." I think some warlock subclasses feel kinda off. I guess I might be fine with "changes the magic quite a bit?" I probably wouldn't make the death knight the base class. If we would start with something more witcher-like as the base base class I.E. "a person changed by some magic ritual to become an arcane super warrior" then we could still have subclasses with quite different flavours. For example, if the ritual is more necromantic flavoured, we can end up with something akin to a death knight. And I guess there could be all sorts of wholesome boring rituals for those who don't like silly edgy stuff.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I'd also argue that the WoW demon hunter could fall into the category as well.


----------



## cbwjm

jmartkdr2 said:


> I feel like witch would have the same problem ranger already does: it has neither clear flavor nor mechanics, or even a 'thing' that all witches do.
> 
> Which isn't to say there isn't a good idea for a class that could be called a witch (it might make a good name for a summoner/pet class).



Yeah, I agree, I'm not 100% sure what the specific flavour/mechanic would be either. I tend to use the current spellcaster classes interchangeably as a witch (sometimes druid fits, sometimes wizard, or warlock, or even cleric), but there does seem to be a lot of people writing up their own versions. I've looked through a few of them, I think they hit a few of the pop culture tropes of witches with the subclasses. It's kind of like the swordmage homebrew classes I see, they all have something different going on with each creator giving a different main feature to them.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Realised that even Eragorn, a boring and vanilla arcane gish, is augmented too. His link to dragons has changed him which both gives him magic and gives him physical prowess beyond regular humans.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

cbwjm said:


> Yeah, I agree, I'm not 100% sure what the specific flavour/mechanic would be either. I tend to use the current spellcaster classes interchangeably as a witch (sometimes druid fits, sometimes wizard, or warlock, or even cleric), but there does seem to be a lot of people writing up their own versions. I've looked through a few of them, I think they hit a few of the pop culture tropes of witches with the subclasses. It's kind of like the swordmage homebrew classes I see, they all have something different going on with each creator giving a different main feature to them.



Weirdly I think that the current best fit for a witch might be a hexblood artificer alchemist. Especially if you pick the homunculus servant infusion and flavour it as a reanimated crow or something.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> may help to switch the emphasis slightly from "guards" to "specialists." Their responsibilities may include guardianship of important individuals and items but may also include acting as battlefield shock troopers responsible for taking down either non-magical mooks with magic or even magical mooks with anti-magic or martial arms as their talents call for.



In stories with Magic Knight, arcane warriors are guards due to necessity. It's often "Oh Snap, Demon invasion. Brothers, guard the Empress/Prince(ses)/Master. Demetrius and I will engage the enemy" then they fly, teleport, Skyrim, or iceskate headfirst into an enemy. They are often shook troopers with a minor in protection and tanking tools designed to straight duel magical monsters and buffed up casters.

But against it's typically higher magic settings than your Greyhawks and Middle Earth clones


----------



## Mind of tempest

Crimson Longinus said:


> Perhaps. Depends on what exactly we mean by "totally changes the magic." I think some warlock subclasses feel kinda off. I guess I might be fine with "changes the magic quite a bit?" I probably wouldn't make the death knight the base class. If we would start with something more witcher-like as the base base class I.E. "a person changed by some magic ritual to become an arcane super warrior" then we could still have subclasses with quite different flavours. For example, if the ritual is more necromantic flavoured, we can end up with something akin to a death knight. And I guess there could be all sorts of wholesome boring rituals for those who don't like silly edgy stuff.





Frozen_Heart said:


> I'd also argue that the WoW demon hunter could fall into the category as well.



okay, we got two edgy ones we got anything more good guy?
divination could be used for luck manipulation which any fighter worth their salt would kill for.
conjuration could make you an elemental double act?
avoid hell as a theme as devils already have their claws into many things stick with demons and yugoloths


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mind of tempest said:


> okay, we got two edgy ones we got anything more good guy?



Eragon? Knights Radiant (Stormlight)? Eldar Warlocks (Warhammer)? Toa (Bionicle)?


----------



## cbwjm

Frozen_Heart said:


> Weirdly I think that the current best fit for a witch might be a hexblood artificer alchemist. Especially if you pick the homunculus servant infusion and flavour it as a reanimated crow or something.



Whatever works, there seem to be plenty of ways in 5e to make one and that sounds like it'd make for a classic "fire burn and cauldron bubble" kind of witch.


----------



## Minigiant

Crimson Longinus said:


> Perhaps. Depends on what exactly we mean by "totally changes the magic." I think some warlock subclasses feel kinda off. I guess I might be fine with "changes the magic quite a bit?" I probably wouldn't make the death knight the base class. If we would start with something more witcher-like as the base base class I.E. "a person changed by some magic ritual to become an arcane super warrior" then we could still have subclasses with quite different flavours. For example, if the ritual is more necromantic flavoured, we can end up with something akin to a death knight. And I guess there could be all sorts of wholesome boring rituals for those who don't like silly edgy stuff.



I posted a magically empowrered super soldier idea in the first post.

Permanent Stoneskin and Barkskin baby.
When is 5e gonna grow up and make Ironskin?

You could do one based on every spell school if you want the simple "Anime Cast of Characters" method.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Might be best to avoid the subclasses simply being spell schools. Just copy and pasting the wizard subclasses isn't ideal.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Might be best to avoid the subclasses simply being spell schools. Just copy and pasting the wizard subclasses isn't ideal.



It wouldn't be copy and paste as the these classes would not be focused on casting and buff spells alone. Especially if you are not even going for a caster but an enhanced warrior.

But another cool idea is combo schools. New "Schools" of Magic made from the bits of other schools that are better attuned for martial combat

Nethermancy (Shadow Magic)- illusion + necromancy
Astromancy (Cosmic Magic)- divination + conjuration
Ferralchemy (Metal Magic)- adjuration + transmutation
??? (Light Magic)- evocation + illusion


----------



## Mecheon

The Hierophant said:


> Correct, get rid of the Sorcerer and the Warlock.
> 
> (If you must have them make the Sorcerer a Wizard sub-class and the Warlock a Cleric sub-class.)



This is one I'm going to strongly disagree on. That's basically saying the learned scholar who's studied extensively to learn magic and has extensive research and book smarts is the same as firebrand seventh daughter of a seventh son who doesn't so much control magic as she vaguely points it in the right direction and hops on for the ride. They're completely different archetypes and there's easy justification in saying they should be so different as to be unrecognisable from one another. Trying to merge them together would either destroy one of those archetypes, or weaken them both in the process by watering down what makes them stand out.

Likewise Cleric and Warlock only have "Deal with someone else", the nature of their transactions are completely different



jmartkdr2 said:


> I feel like witch would have the same problem ranger already does: it has neither clear flavor nor mechanics, or even a 'thing' that all witches do.



The most hilarious concept I heard on just how many witch classes are out there was that someone did a one-shot where everyone played a different Witch class


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Hmm another gish 'class story' idea could be something like the eldar aspect warriors. Training to embody a particular creature or force in their manner of fighting and casting?

So things like Aspect of Death (Death Knight), Aspect of the Beast (Witcher), Aspect of the Elemental (Toa), Aspect of the Dragon (Eragon), Aspect of the Demon (Demon Hunter), Aspect of Fate (Eldar Warlock).


----------



## Aldarc

Frozen_Heart said:


> Might be best to avoid the subclasses simply being spell schools. Just copy and pasting the wizard subclasses isn't ideal.



I can't recall: are there any classes whose subclasses use the classification of "Order"? (e.g., Paladins=Oaths, Bards=Colleges, Druids=Circles, etc.) Because then the [Gish Class] be conceptualized around each subclass being a distinct Order.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Crimson Longinus said:


> What I see is mechanically very similar to paladins and fluff wise effectively an eldritch knight. Also a lot about what they are not (no oaths, no wilderness, no books) and very little about what they are.



Every class is at least partially defined by what they aren't. Druids are like Clerics without holy spells, being replaced with nature spells, that can't wear metal armor/shields, and can turn into animals. A Warrior Mage class would be like Paladins without holy spells, instead with arcane magic (wizard-style magic), protection features instead of healing, and capable of using their main weapon as a spellcasting focus. That's the same level of differentiation between a Paladin and Warrior Mage and the Cleric and Druid.

A part of a class's identity in 5e is always what they can't do. Rogues usually can't attack more than once a turn and make up for it in Sneak Attack, paladins can't use ranged weapons with most of their class features, Wizards can't heal like Clerics/Druids/Bards can, Barbarians can't cast spells while raging, Monks can't wear armor or use most weapons, et cetera. What a class cannot do is just as big a part of their identity as what they can do.


Crimson Longinus said:


> I'd also like to point out that in 5e arcane/divine divide exist in one fluff box about Forgotten Realms, so I don't think 'arcane paladin' is enough, just like 'divine bard' wouldn't.



I didn't list that as the only identifier of them. Arcane is a part of their identity, just like it is for the Wizards, but it's not the only one.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Now if in a reboot eldritch knight subclass wouldn't exist, then at least that overlap would be avoided, and perhaps eldritch knight could be its own class. But it still seems super thin to me.



If it were up to me, there would be no Eldritch Knight in the next edition/update of D&D, at least not as a Fighter subclass. Probably no Bladesinger or Arcane Trickster, either. Yes, there is overlap there, and it would make things confusing.


Crimson Longinus said:


> I just don't find this compelling.  Mind you, this is very much a preference thing. If enough people finds it compelling, then it could be a class. But then again, I'm not only one here asking these questions nor has WotC added such a class even though they've had plenty of time, so I don't think I'm alone in this.



I think the main reason why they haven't added such a class is because they're generally hesitant to add new classes in the first place and they need a good reason to add it. The only new class since the PHB came out 5 years after 5e had started, and that's only because having an Artificer is core to the idea of Eberron. They tried to have it as just a subclass of the Wizard at first, but when that didn't work out, they eventually took a few shots at making it its own class, and eventually succeeded.

If they end up making a product that really needs to have a Swordmage-style class in it (which I don't think there is one yet, but they could make a setting that requires it), that's when they would add it. Not just in a Xanathar's/Tasha's book.

Now, do I think this is likely to happen? Not at all. I do not think that a Swordmage class will ever come to D&D 5e, as much as I want it and believe that there is a place for one. It's just not necessary for any settings or worlds in the way that an Artificer is for Eberron or a Psion is for Dark Sun. But it could happen, and I firmly believe that they could make one that would be different enough from existing classes/subclasses that it could function as its own class.


Crimson Longinus said:


> Personally I would like the class to be defined less by what it is not and by it's relationship with other classes. I want it be something else than just a wizard/fighter multiclass with smoother mechanics. I don't think 'combines fighting with magic' alone is enough, it needs to come with metaphysics and a narrative. I find things like Death Knights and Witchers compelling. They're their own things, not just hybrids of other things and come with an interesting story.



I personally like classes that can tell a lot of different stories and themes in them. The Rogue has everything from a swashbuckling pirate, to a stealthy assassin, to a burglar, to master tricksters that use illusions and enchantments to scam others, and even to a murderer that steals the souls of his victims and uses them to become incorporeal. Barbarians have shamanistic-Totem Warriors, Nordish Berserkers, warriors that draw power from the spirits of their ancestors, lycanthropic beastmen, and spiky-armored juggernauts. Rangers have people that wander the Feywild, underground ambushers that become one with the shadows, protectors of this plane of existence, and monster hunters. Warlocks have people that have sold their soul to the Devil, insane cultists to Elder Gods beyond the stars, heralds of watery beings from oceanic abysses, people that serve Genies and become like them, and edgy warriors that are bonded to cursed swords from the Shadowfell. I could go on.

I'm fine with having a base class that's fairly bland theme-wise, but subclasses that are extremely focused on different themes. In my opinion, every class should be like this. The base class is mainly there for the mechanics and basics of what sets you apart from the other classes, with the subclasses doing the heavy-lifting in the story department. Class is generic ("Fighter", "Rogue", "Barbarian", "Cleric", "Ranger"), but subclass is specific ("Rune Knight", "Arcane Tricksters", "Path of the Beast", "Twilight Domain", "Fey Wanderers").


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Aldarc said:


> I can't recall: are there any classes whose subclasses use the classification of "Order"? (e.g., Paladins=Oaths, Bards=Colleges, Druids=Circles, etc.) Because then the [Gish Class] be conceptualized around each subclass being a distinct Order.



Only Blood Hunter, and that's not an official class.

'Aspects' and 'Orders' could both work.


----------



## CreamCloud0

Frozen_Heart said:


> 'Aspects' and 'Orders' could both work.



'Stances' might work too? leaning more into the swordsmaster side of things linguistically.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

CreamCloud0 said:


> 'Stances' might work too? leaning more into the swordsmaster side of things linguistically.



"Conclave" could work, too. I personally prefer "Order", I feel like that evokes the theme that I would want for this sort of class quite well, but "Aspects", "Stances", or even "Style" could work. "Aspect of the Dragon", "Stance of the Swordmage", "Style of the Duskblade", "Battlemage Conclaves". Either one of those four could work, IMO.


----------



## Asisreo

EzekielRaiden said:


> I proposed specifically to be a _reversal_ of what Paladins do, so it couldn't just be a playstyle copy of Paladin or EK.



I still don't know what playstyle you're going for. For example, a wizard goes through all their spell descriptions to find the correct one. The Barbarian recklessly attacks to bait enemies into attacking them and mitigating the damage. The Paladin attacks in melee and carefully pays attention for opportunities to use their rare resources to their maximum effect. 

What's the swordmage's playstyle? And would it be unique enough to justify playing it?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Asisreo said:


> What's the swordmage's playstyle? And would it be unique enough to justify playing it?



Swordmages specifically can teleport to and lock down enemies, to serve as a tank. Aegis spells, teleporting abilities, and high defense capabilities could all work well to evoke the theme of a Swordmage. I would make the Swordmage a subclass of a base "Battlemage" class, to allow for more playstyles in the one class. Different subclasses would support different playstyles, with different abilities that modified Spell Strike. 

Also, a minor trait that I think could help differentiate its playstyle from Paladins and Rangers . . . Spell Striking with Thrown Weapons. Paladins are mostly restricted to melee (can't divine smite with melee weapons) and most of a Ranger's combat spells only work for ranged weapons (Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver, Flame Arrows, etc). If the other "Martial Half-Caster Class" had abilities to support using thrown weapons (spears/tridents/javelins, handaxes, Dwarven Throwers, etc) that could make a unique playstyle, too. (Imagine when Thor calls down lightning to his hammer, throws his hammer, and it explodes with lightning. Stuff like that.)


----------



## Asisreo

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Swordmages specifically can teleport to and lock down enemies, to serve as a tank. Aegis spells, teleporting abilities, and high defense capabilities could all work well to evoke the theme of a Swordmage.



So what's the difference to Vengeance Paladins who have misty step and can use their channel divinity to prevent an enemy's movement? Is it that this class can do it more? 



AcererakTriple6 said:


> If the other "Martial Half-Caster Class" had abilities to support using thrown weapons (spears/tridents/javelins, handaxes, Dwarven Throwers, etc) that could make a unique playstyle, too. (Imagine when Thor calls down lightning to his hammer, throws his hammer, and it explodes with lightning. Stuff like that.)



Well most Ranger spells actually don't have a problem with thrown weapons. Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns. Actually, Lightning Arrow does exactly what your Thor idea does. Hammer and all. You could even do it with a Hammer of Thunderbolts and get the ultimate "Bring me Thanos!" Experience.


----------



## Minigiant

Asisreo said:


> So what's the difference to Vengeance Paladins who have misty step and can use their channel divinity to prevent an enemy's movement? Is it that this class can do it more?



in 4e, Swordmages did their tricky defense magic so that it works the opponents turn

Assault style teleports the swordmage to the foe to make themselves the threat.
Ensaring style teleport the foes away after they hit
Shielding style puts up a shield between the foe and a target to lower damage.

If a Swordmage subclass got Assault Aegis AND Ensnaring Aegis, it would the gish and their foe teleporting all over the place.

Less "Teleport and Slash!"  and "teleport slash teleport slash teleport slash"


----------



## Scribe

Crimson Longinus said:


> Isn't that very similar to smites



Yep.

An ability pool (arcane pool) that buffs their weapon.
A Smite like ability.
An ability to get all their attacks + 1 spell (with penalty)
An ability to use their pool of resource (arcane pool) for various boosts.

Its very fun.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Asisreo said:


> I still don't know what playstyle you're going for. For example, a wizard goes through all their spell descriptions to find the correct one. The Barbarian recklessly attacks to bait enemies into attacking them and mitigating the damage. The Paladin attacks in melee and carefully pays attention for opportunities to use their rare resources to their maximum effect.
> 
> What's the swordmage's playstyle? And would it be unique enough to justify playing it?



Well, just out the gate, "unique enough to justify playing it" is rather in the eye of the beholder, so I'm a bit leery of the question simply from that. "Recklessly attacks to bait enemies into attacking them and mitigating the damage" might be adequate for some and utterly inadequate for others.

But, for my part, if you want a response in the same vein--focused on the mechanics rather than thematics--I'm taking a lot of inspiration from FFXIV's Ninja job. That is, in that game, Ninjas learn mudras, "hand seals" if you're familiar with the terms from Naruto (IRL, "mudra" refers to ritual gestures in Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions); specifically you learn Ten ("heaven"), Chi ("earth"), and Jin ("man.") Using these mudras, you access various magical "ninjutsu" abilities; the number and sequence of mudras used before the Ninjutsu action determines which one happens. Using a single mudra always produces a thrown, fiery-looking shuriken ("Fuma Shuriken"). Two- and three-mudra combinations have a bunch of different effects, e.g. Ten->Chi or Jin->Chi produces a lightning bolt ("Raiton"), while Chi->Ten or Jin->Ten produces a short-range fireburst ("Katon"). This creates a playstyle where you have only a few discrete actions, but can potentially have a large number of effects, and chaining them together successfully is vital; if you use an invalid combination, you lose that opportunity to do anything (and instead get a small rabbit dancing on your head; this is a reference to past FF games).

So, the goal of the swordmage is to _build up to_ the best magic they can achieve with the attacks they have available. A Paladin is looking to exploit any particular successful attack, and expends their magic in the doing. A Swordmage is viewing the whole attack holistically and trying to assemble the best thing they can. So, for example, perhaps when they use Spell Combat they must declare a _sequence_ of runes before the attacks are rolled. To execute the spell they want, they must get enough successful attacks to actually cast it; if not, they only get a partial sequence and must make do with what they get. This leads to a much more precision-focused playstyle. The Paladin wants to hit _hard_ when she hits at all, but is fine with missing some so long as those hard hits happen. The Swordmage wants to hit _well_, even if each individual hit is weaker, because success is dependent on hits of any kind.

This leans into the idea of a precise duelist (very appropriate, given how Swordmage is usually presented as being akin to an _épée_ or sabre fencer), and can be enhanced by adding thematically appropriate actions or incentives. Fencers usually have one hand free, hence why I suggested rewarding players with a free hand or who  hold a spell focus (like a wand) in their off-hand. They also tend to exploit mobility as their best defense, which would be made into a serious contender against heavy armor by layering in some ability to teleport, levitate, or otherwise move across the battlefield in ways no other martial character does. _Shield_ is a staple spell of D&D, so perhaps that could be factored in as well, taking cues from the 3e PrC Abjurant Champion.

So: the Swordmage is a preternaturally mobile precision attacker who must build up a sequence of attacks in order to unleash the full potential of their magic.

As stated, I fully expect at least one person to scoff at this and call it inadequate to justify its existence, but it looks to me like something not well-served by any of the existing options. Neither Paladin nor Eldritch Knight _builds up_ their power, and both are mechanically and thematically encouraged to go for heavier defense and generally (though not _absolutely_) do not receive particularly significant support for mobility or precision. If a Paladin could choose to miss twice as often but make every melee attack a crit, they almost certainly would choose to do so; a Swordmage would _never_ make that trade. If a Barbarian could always deal retaliation damage for times where enemies deal any amount of damage to them, they'd take it in a hearbeat, whereas a Swordmage would almost certainly refuse such a thing because they don't have the hardness or hardiness to withstand such attention. The Barbarian takes stupid risks because for them, the risk is no longer totally stupid. The Paladin hunts for hard hits that can be magically upgraded into telling blows. The Swordmage makes calculated assaults and prefers to wear enemies down by a thousand cuts...or, y'know, the lightning bolt that follows after that.

Others have mentioned the aegis and off-turn effect stuff; that would be an ideal inclusion if one can fit _everything_, but I understand that what is ideal and what is practical do not always meet, particularly in the more limited mechanical space of 5e classes and the brevity of most 5e combats.



Asisreo said:


> Well most Ranger spells actually don't have a problem with thrown weapons. Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns. Actually, Lightning Arrow does exactly what your Thor idea does. Hammer and all. You could even do it with a Hammer of Thunderbolts and get the ultimate "Bring me Thanos!" Experience.



Making something like this dependent on a specific magic item is pretty much right out. Waaaaaaay too many DMs seem to think that giving players a magic item they like is one of the most offensive things a player could desire. This is, however, a great idea for a one- or two-step lightning-based spell for a Swordmage. Perhaps the first rune is something like "Speed" and the second is "Lightning." Also, sorry, Ranger is simply flat not going to cut it with its massive emphasis on nature and survival stuff--that's far too baked into the core, and has nothing whatsoever to do with being a Swordmage other than a player specifically desiring that flavor.

Though I have to love how """natural""" the language used in 5e is here. Thrown weapons _are not_ ranged weapons, ever, regardless of their use-case; they are always melee weapons no matter how they are used. But when you use a thrown weapon to make an attack against a target _by throwing said weapon_, that attack is a ranged weapon attack _but not_ an attack with a ranged weapon. Because of course it would be the former and not the latter, that's by far the most obvious and natural reading!


----------



## Asisreo

EzekielRaiden said:


> As stated, I fully expect at least one person to scoff at this and call it inadequate to justify its existence, but it looks to me like something not well-served by any of the existing options.



Personally, I like that idea, but I know it wouldn't be popular, it'd probably be called the worse class similar to Monks. Because people wouldn't understand its playstyle and get frustrated when they can't put their cube in the circle hole. Again, it's a good design, but momentum-based playstyles will probably not satiate our monkey-brains because they'll see that the fighter or wizard does their best thing round 1 and we're hoping combat gets to round 4 for us to do the cool thing, which it might not. 

But you gave me a similar idea for a swordmage class. A class that has aforementioned "stances" but that choice is made once per combat and you fill out that role. Subasses could be based on themes of overall "types" of magic. So Warding Subclass could give you and allies a boost to saving throws equal to your Intelligence modifier and your AC gets a +1. Then you choose either abjuration style to give your allies magic Resistance and you can use your action to dispel magic at-will (probably higher-level feature) or you could go Shield style and give your allies the ability to use Shield once for free. 

But I'm only fiddling around with the idea. 


EzekielRaiden said:


> Making something like this dependent on a specific magic item is pretty much right out.



To be clear, you don't need the specific hammer. It would boost the overall damage and coolness, but the spell would make you a budget Thor even with a mundane hammer.


----------



## Mind of tempest

we could always change the warrior part to barbarian if we really want to push way from fighter and paladin?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I actually think there is room for 2 gish classes, that are meaningfully different.

While it would be quite a time-sink, @Parmandur and others’ comments about artificers and runes has me wondering if the artificer’s chassis isn’t a good starting point for a swordmage. Runes in place of Infusions, cantrips and round up half casting, maybe no extra attack in the base class, etc. Or, just to encourage some new ideas with nomenclature 5e isn't using yet, call the infusion inspired features Dweomers, and make sure the class has spells like Glyph of Warding and Magic Circle. This Dweomer Mage would have a lot of abjuration, and a lot of stuff that boosts them or creates areas, and rely on weapons boosted by magic for offense. This speaks to the "get ready for battle and then wreck it" gish. Maybe boosted versions ofthe SCAG cantrips instead of a choice of cantrips? So when Booming Blade goes off, it's a 5ft radius, and green flame blade hits multiple targets with the secondary burn or it has greater reach. Something like that.


My other idea is still to rewrite the monk as a swordmage, because a lot of what the monk does is swordmagey stuff, and the thing they have in common is that they’re all mystical/esoteric warriors. 

This allows both the inclusion of a gish base class that feels like the very good and well received Swordmage, and is a rework of the monk that is less orientalist, while still having room for all the existing subclass concepts. If I can design it to be able to use those subclasses with minimal conversion (Ki will have a rename, for instance, but will still be 1/class level. Probably spend 10 minutes to regain all Focus, PB/Long Rest)

Instead of Unarmored Defense, you'd have an Aegis ability that at it's base is you using your intellect and awareness to avoid attacks, meaning you choose Intelligence or Wisdom as your spellcasting ability modifier, and add that ability score modifier to your AC, with a static number replacing dexterity. This is because you will still need a physical stat to attack with like most gishes, and doing it this way allows you to more easily make that Strength or Dexterity. If instead we are using Int for attacks, leave the AC calculation as 10+dex+int or wis. 

You'd still get martial arts, I think, but with a less restricted weapon list, and you can either make an unarmed strike or a melee spell attack as a bonus action. Basically, you'd gain a 1d4+stat bonus action attack that can either be unarmed or a blast of magical energy. This is where I'd put the bonded weapon feature. Perhaps 3 features to choose from, so you don't have to be weapon based but you can be. Regardless, you can make some kind of bonus action attack that deals 1d4+stat.

Deflect Arrows would broaden to work against any attack, and you can counter-attack with a melee or ranged spell attack if you reduce the damage to 0. I might also buff Patient Defense somehow, but I wouldn't combine them.

Flurry of Blows would remain the same, which means that it can use an unarmed strike or spell attack. You'd also have more options, including a smite-style damage boost, a line attack where you throw your weapon, a reaction teleport when an ally takes damage within x feet of you, and a couple others. Step of The Wind definitely stays. 

You also get spellcasting at level 2, which the kifeatures are folded into. ie, "you can spend Focus to cast a spell, or use an Esoteric Technique. Esoteric Technique costs are listed in their description, and spells cost Focus equal to the level at which the spell is being cast. The Swordmage class table tells you how many Focus points you have, what level spells you can learn and prepare, and the limit to the number of Focus you can use to upcast spells."

Unarmored Movement might become an at-will teleportation ability that uses your speed rather than an action or bonus action? idk. needs workshopping. 

Keep Slow Fall. Drop Stunning Strike entirely. Maybe add it back in as a spell, but it's not as needed now, and could even live in the Open Hand Subclass. 

6th level all your attacks are magical, why not. 

Keep Evasion. Stillness of Mind is fine I guess. Definitely willing to ditch it. 

9th level either as is, or upgrade the teleport ability to allow bringing a friend. Or choose one. 

Tongue of The What is The Deal With This Feature can actually stay, but with a new name. 

Diamond Soul could also use a rename, but is fine. Replace if something better comes up. 

Timeless Body becomes a choice of 3 ability, for sure. 

Perfect self rename but keep. 

Something in the last few levels needs a boost IMO. 


Spell list would be decent, and include some new spells for all the gish characters, but some would be just for the Swordmage. These would be spells that are cast as an action, include a weapon attack, and apply a magical effect to that weapon attack. This is how the Swordmage does a nova. Bonus Action damage boost, action attack spell, boom goes the dynomite. 

Should be closer to the upper tiers of classes, but still under the Paladin.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Oh I’d also give both gish classes ritual casting.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Why would you rewrite monk? Monks are awesome?

Only think I'd change about monk is give them an ability to disengage as a bonus action like the rogue.


----------



## Aldarc

AcererakTriple6 said:


> "Conclave" could work, too. I personally prefer "Order", I feel like that evokes the theme that I would want for this sort of class quite well, but "Aspects", "Stances", or even "Style" could work. "Aspect of the Dragon", "Stance of the Swordmage", "Style of the Duskblade", "Battlemage Conclaves". Either one of those four could work, IMO.



One could also lean harder into "orders" by having the class and its subclasses understand themselves as a sort of "knighthood" with "knightly orders."

Order of the Duskblade
Order of the Spellbreaker
Order of the Rune Sword
Order of the Dragon's Blood 
Order of the Gate Wardens



Frozen_Heart said:


> Why would you rewrite monk? Monks are awesome?
> 
> Only think I'd change about monk is give them an ability to disengage as a bonus action like the rogue.



As I believe that I may have mentioned in this thread already, I would probably shift their orientalist flavor (and some abilities with it) so monks are not about "ki" but, rather, their powers come from swearing vows and oaths abstaining from weapons, armor, eating, sleeping, breathing, aging, riding mounts, etc.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I admit I've never seen a monk played with an oriental flavour. The current one a player has in my group is a masked wood elf from some deep forest conclave.

While the one I've got as a backup character is an actor and acrobat who got lost and ended up adventuring. Monk mechanics but no fluff from them.

The 'Friar Tuck' also seems like a western themed monk.


----------



## Aldarc

Frozen_Heart said:


> I admit I've never seen a monk played with an oriental flavour.



Regardless of how you've seen it there, the orientalism is baked in the class with "ki," martial arts, monasticism, etc. (This is a sum of all parts thing rather than elements in isolation.) 



Frozen_Heart said:


> The 'Friar Tuck' also seems like a western themed monk.



Ah, yes. Who can forget the stories of Friar Tuck deflecting arrows with his fist, running at a horse-like speed, and then placing a flurry of blows on the Sheriff of Nottingham's men?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> Regardless of how you've seen it there, the orientalism is baked in the class with "ki," martial arts, monasticism, etc. (This is a sum of all parts thing rather than elements in isolation.)
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. Who can forget the stories of Friar Tuck deflecting arrows with his fist, running at a horse-like speed, and then placing a flurry of blows on the Sheriff of Nottingham's men?



the concepts rather mangled and strange roots are fundamentally east Asian by nature to remove the orientalism is likely to destroy the class


----------



## Minigiant

Orientalism isn't necessary for the monk but I think the concept of ki or life energy is. 

It's kinda required that you need something "extra" to fight without armor and weapon as well as those with them. That's why I like the kensai moving to monk. The cloth armor swordsmen needs ki or magic spells to make sense next to the armored knights.


----------



## Aldarc

Mind of tempest said:


> the concepts rather mangled and strange roots are fundamentally east Asian by nature to remove the orientalism is likely to destroy the class



Again, it's difficult for me to parse the phrasing of your post. However, considering the rough shape of the monk anyway, destroying and remaking the class would not be the worst thing imaginable. 



Minigiant said:


> Orientalism isn't necessary for the monk but I think the concept of ki or life energy is.
> 
> It's kinda required that you need something "extra" to fight without armor and weapon as well as those with them. That's why I like the kensai moving to monk. The cloth armor swordsmen needs ki or magic spells to make sense next to the armored knights.



The "something extra" would potentially come from the power of their vows.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> The "something extra" would potentially come from the power of their vows.



Well that more spells to my super soldier class than a monk class.

A powerful patron empowers you with martial prowess and supernatural powers instead of spellcasting.

The fact that Patrons only create casters when casters are the Squishiest Grunts is baffling.

That's why Warhammer does it Right. Less than 10% of a Chaos Gods, Elven Gods, Ork Gods, and Human Gods chosen champions are casters or have any spells. They hand out Super Strength and Hard Skin first and most often.

A Friar Tuck PC would get Enhanced Grace,  Regeneration, and Enhanced Strength.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> Well that more spells to my super soldier class than a monk class.
> 
> A powerful patron empowers you with martial prowess and supernatural powers instead of spellcasting.
> 
> The fact that Patrons only create casters when casters are the Squishiest Grunts is baffling.
> 
> That's why Warhammer does it Right. Less than 10% of a Chaos Gods, Elven Gods, Ork Gods, and Human Gods chosen champions are casters or have any spells. They hand out Super Strength and Hard Skin first and most often.
> 
> A Friar Tuck PC would get Enhanced Grace,  Regeneration, and Enhanced Strength.



I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought, and I suspect that you're not following what I am suggesting regarding the power of vows. Though I would nevertheless point out this would align with the concept of "monastic vows."


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I don't really see why the monk being Asian-inspired is a problem. You could perhaps change some terminology to make it more generic, but I really don't feel there is need to try to obfuscate what's the class's inspiration is. D&D doesn't need to be just European inspired fantasy, but if you feel some classes don't fit your setting, don't put them there.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> I'm having a difficult time following your train of thought, and I suspect that you're not following what I am suggesting regarding the power of vows. Though I would nevertheless point out this would align with the concept of "monastic vows."



To me the power of vows come from something external whereas I see monks as the masters of their own internal energies.

Only if the true power of vows comes from a ultrahealthy lifestyle and a near mystical diet, breathing, and exercise regiment, I can't really see the power of vows being monk. 

It feels more like the warrior equivalent of celestial warlocks.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> To me the power of vows come from something external whereas I see monks as the masters of their own internal energies.
> 
> Only if the true power of vows comes from a ultrahealthy lifestyle and a near mystical diet, breathing, and exercise regiment, I can't really see the power of vows being monk.
> 
> It feels more like the warrior equivalent of celestial warlocks.



It feels like you are intentionally precluding the possibility that a monk could be empowered by the vows they swear because you have already determined that their powers must be about ki and internal energies. The reasoning is a bit circular. 

_The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ by Stephen Donaldson: the monk-like Haruchai are empowered by their vows. 

Monte Cook's _Arcana Unearthed/Evolved_: the monk equivalent Oathsworn (inspired by the above) entails swearing gaining powers through their oaths and vows. 

Kevin Crawford's _Worlds Without Numbe_r: the monk equivalent is called "the Vowed." 

So it's not as if I am pulling this idea of a monk-like class associated with vows from out of my rear here. I understand that there are also many monk classes that use "ki," but I think that vows (or even psionics) potentially open up more conceptual design space while also moving it away from a certain undercurrent of orientalism.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> It feels like you are intentionally precluding the possibility that a monk could be empowered by the vows they swear because you have already determined that their powers must be about ki and internal energies. The reasoning is a bit circular.
> 
> _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant_ by Stephen Donaldson: the monk-like Haruchai are empowered by their vows.
> 
> Monte Cook's _Arcana Unearthed/Evolved_: the monk equivalent Oathsworn (inspired by the above) entails swearing gaining powers through their oaths and vows.
> 
> Kevin Crawford's _Worlds Without Numbe_r: the monk equivalent is called "the Vowed."
> 
> So it's not as if I am pulling this idea of a monk-like class associated with vows from out of my rear here. I understand that there are also many monk classes that use "ki," but I think that vows (or even psionics) potentially open up more conceptual design space while also moving it away from a certain undercurrent of orientalism.




I'm not saying it has to be ki. 

I'm saying the monk has been powered by an internally flavored system that ran on points for the last 3 editions.

An Oath based class than simply gets power from it's oaths feels like _another_ class. It feels more like my idea for a Paragon class with the Chosen subclass and Celestial Patron.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> I'm not saying it has to be ki.
> 
> I'm saying the monk has been powered by an internally flavored system that ran on points for the last 3 editions.
> 
> An Oath based class than simply gets power from it's oaths feels like _another_ class. It feels more like my idea for a Paragon class with the Chosen subclass and Celestial Patron.



And I'm saying that I would change that. Capiche?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Oaths are already a paladin thing. If you want to get rid of the word 'ki', rename it 'energy', 'focus', 'breath, etc.


----------



## Aldarc

Crimson Longinus said:


> Oaths are already a paladin thing. If you want to get rid of the word 'ki', rename it 'energy', 'focus', 'breath, etc.



An armored divine warrior was also already a thing when the paladin was introduced. And arcane magic was already a wizard thing. How many of those classes do we have running around? If you can rename "ki" to energy, focus, or breath and still feel like it's different, then it should be more than possible to have monks use "vows."


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Aldarc said:


> An armored divine warrior was also already a thing when the paladin was introduced. And arcane magic was already a wizard thing. How many of those classes do we have running around? If you can rename "ki" to energy, focus, or breath and still feel like it's different, then it should be more than possible to have monks use "vows."



You could do that. But it would be a bigger change, as it is a change to the underlying metaphysics, rather than just to the nomenclature. And I see no reason for making such a change, as I feel that the current metaphysical model is more evocative, unique and compelling. I get that your idea is to make the class more generic, and want to avoid it instantly conjuring up images of Shaolin monks and fictional mystical Asian martial artists. But to me those clearly recognisable and iconic connections  are a feature, not a bug.


----------



## Hussar

Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't really see why the monk being Asian-inspired is a problem. You could perhaps change some terminology to make it more generic, but I really don't feel there is need to try to obfuscate what's the class's inspiration is. D&D doesn't need to be just European inspired fantasy, but if you feel some classes don't fit your setting, don't put them there.



Yeah, not really seeing the issue.  I wonder how much of that is just misunderstanding the issues around things like Oriental Adventures.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> And I'm saying that I would change that. Capiche?



I'm saying oaths are mostly external but the monk is flavored as the master of the internal.

We can have European, African, and American stylized monks. But Oaths feel off in monks and belonging to either paladins or a new class flavorwise.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> I'm saying oaths are mostly external but the monk is flavored as the master of the internal.
> 
> We can have European, African, and American stylized monks. But Oaths feel off in monks and belonging to either paladins or a new class flavorwise.



(1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of _vows_. Are you going to tell me that _monastic vows _are somehow inappropriate for _monks_?


----------



## Mecheon

Aldarc said:


> Are you going to tell me that _monastic vows _are somehow inappropriate for _monks_?



I mean, in they way they are in D&D.... Yeah? Its just applying a western monk idea to a chassis for something completely different. The western monk doesn't really fight, aside from the one big exception.

The warrior using Ki as a weapon is a longstanding thing that's representated as the monk, but includes plenty of varied stuff that fits the general theme. A warrior using vows as their strength, I gotta be honest, I'd think that'd be more "Barbarian" because that's Cu Chullain and his geas' right there


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> (1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of _vows_. Are you going to tell me that _monastic vows _are somehow inappropriate for _monks_?



monastic vows have never had a to gain power thing to them, get closer to the divine or enlightenment but sacrifice sure but not abilities, besides I would rather just change the name to matter express it, mystical martial artist than go completely back to the drawing board.
now housing your idea for a hashashin might work.


----------



## Aldarc

Mecheon said:


> I mean, in they way they are in D&D.... Yeah?* Its just applying a western monk idea* to a chassis for something completely different. The western monk doesn't really fight, aside from the one big exception.



Western monk? Monastic vows are also part of other non-Christian monastic traditions across the globe. 



Mind of tempest said:


> monastic vows have never had a to gain power thing to them,



Neither were Oaths until 5e.


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> (1) I don't care about your internal/external dichotomy you are making here with vows, because it won't necessarily hold up. (2) I'm framing this primarily in terms of _vows_. Are you going to tell me that _monastic vows _are somehow inappropriate for _monks_?



Please explain the difference between a monk using a vow, a paladin using an oath, and a cleric gaining power though faith. Explain it to me like I'm a child.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> I actually think there is room for 2 gish classes, that are meaningfully different.
> 
> While it would be quite a time-sink, @Parmandur and others’ comments about artificers and runes has me wondering if the artificer’s chassis isn’t a good starting point for a swordmage. Runes in place of Infusions, cantrips and round up half casting, maybe no extra attack in the base class, etc. Or, just to encourage some new ideas with nomenclature 5e isn't using yet, call the infusion inspired features Dweomers, and make sure the class has spells like Glyph of Warding and Magic Circle. This Dweomer Mage would have a lot of abjuration, and a lot of stuff that boosts them or creates areas, and rely on weapons boosted by magic for offense. This speaks to the "get ready for battle and then wreck it" gish. Maybe boosted versions ofthe SCAG cantrips instead of a choice of cantrips? So when Booming Blade goes off, it's a 5ft radius, and green flame blade hits multiple targets with the secondary burn or it has greater reach. Something like that.



That idea could just as easily be an Artificer subclass. Like swords bard to battlesmith's valor bard, which proves it's okay.

That's a minimum answer to making a buffs-weapon-with-runes swordmage, but it works.


----------



## Aldarc

Remathilis said:


> Please explain the difference between a monk using a vow, a paladin using an oath, and a cleric gaining power though faith. Explain it to me like I'm a child.



I would prefer not to explain it to anyone like a child. 

There is certainly overlap between all three terms, particularly given the often solemn, religious, or sacred nature that _faith_, _oaths_, and _vows_ often take. This should hardly be surprising considering that monks, paladins, and clerics have their roots in historical religions. 

Nevertheless, there are distinctions, however fine or neglible one may think, between _oaths_ and _vows_. As to the distinction between a "vow" and an "oath," this is a simple explanation that I found: 


> With the vow to accomplish something, a person dedicates himself to the task wholly. Whoever takes an oath to accomplish something is required to answer for it, for he has named himself or some one of his belongings as a pledge of his commitment and is thus bound by his very life, his honor, and his property.
> 
> Vows and oaths therefore affect a person's whole being; they put one's very existence in pawn. *There is a distinct difference, however, between an oath and a vow: a vow is merely a personal promise, whereas an oath is a promise made before some institutional authority. In taking an oath, a person not only assumes an obligation but also becomes liable to prosecution; the state and society have an interest in his act. Oaths serve as objective guarantees of what is promised. Swearing to tell the truth, one guarantees that what one says is true. Oaths are self-endorsing.*
> 
> The practice of oath taking by which a person places his very life at risk is an extremely ancient one. It is an institution of coercion, "the most powerful coercion known to primitive man" (Thurnwald, 1925, vol. 2, p. 39). Oaths are encountered among all peoples and in all cultures. They are a primal symbol of religion.
> 
> Because they are absolutely binding by nature, and because they are subject to both misuse and overuse, oaths are nevertheless looked upon with some suspicion in the fields of ethics, politics, and jurisprudence. They have to be judged in themselves, in relation to the particular substance of the promise they contain and the nature of the guarantee, as both tend to vary considerably depending on the level of the given culture and the conventions of the applicable code of law.



It's the reason why we don't talk of "monastic oaths" but, rather, of "monastic vows." Vows are found across monastic traditions in Christianity, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. People already associate monks, in general, with the language of _vows_. That's one reason why I personally IMHO like tying monks with "vows," something that reinforces the already present idea of "monastic traditions" that we see with the 5e monk. 

This is a personal preference reflecting the whole "why/how would you rewrite the monk?" bit earlier. I personally would prefer the flavor monks shifted to either Vows or Psionics. With the former, it moves Monks closer to the religious sphere (e.g., Clerics, Paladins) whereas the latter moves Monks closer to the psionic sphere (e.g., Psions, Psychic Warrior, etc.).


----------



## Mind of tempest

Aldarc said:


> Western monk? Monastic vows are also part of other non-Christian monastic traditions across the globe.
> 
> 
> Neither were Oaths until 5e.



bargain with heaven is a trope hence the paladin but it is not really a monastic thing


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> That idea could just as easily be an Artificer subclass. Like swords bard to battlesmith's valor bard, which proves it's okay.
> 
> That's a minimum answer to making a buffs-weapon-with-runes swordmage, but it works.



I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.

So could every other class.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.
> 
> So could every other class.



True, but every subclass could be a class as well, but any absolute is going to create more problems than it solves.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m pretty much never going to be interested in an “answer” to a class concept that is just “it could just be a subclass”.
> 
> So could every other class.



Ultimately it can be narrowed down to: fighty person, skills person, magic person. Everything else could be a subclass.

Of course that would be awful and have such a poor diversity of game mechanics and themes available compared to the many classes approach.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> True, but every subclass could be a class as well, but any absolute is going to create more problems than it solves.



This feels like sophistry, and our current exchange isn’t adding anything to the discussion.  

not every subclass could reasonably have several subclasses that make sense. The Dweomer Knight or whatever one calls it could.  One could instead add several related subclasses to artificer, and a bunch of new infusions, and be pretty close, sure. But why do so when one would rather do a class?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Ultimately it can be narrowed down to: fighty person, skills person, magic person. Everything else could be a subclass.



Even they are subclasses of Hero or Adventurer. 


Frozen_Heart said:


> Of course that would be awful and have such a poor diversity of game mechanics and themes available compared to the many classes approach.



Oh it would be terrible for a game like modern D&D. Even Dragon Age has you basically grow into a more specific class over time.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> This feels like sophistry, and our current exchange isn’t adding anything to the discussion.
> 
> not every subclass could reasonably have several subclasses that make sense. The Dweomer Knight or whatever one calls it could.  One could instead add several related subclasses to artificer, and a bunch of new infusions, and be pretty close, sure. But why do so when one would rather do a class?



Depends on why you'd rather do a class, I suppose. If it's more work to get the same result - I hope you enjoy the work.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

For me the first question when making a class is: Does it have a unique mechanical and thematic niche?

The second one is: Would making it a subclass take away the things which make people want to play this class?

Sorcerer for example has a unique thematic niche, but has struggled to carve out a mechanical one. Its mechanic was spontaneous casting, which now all casters get. Now it's just the metamagic feat turned into a class. As such it's one of the classes people suggest axing the most.

Warlord has both a clear thematic and unfilled mechanical niche, as such it's absurd that it's not a class.

Psion has a clear thematic niche, but with psionic powers all turned into spells, and a spell points casting option, it's mechanical niche has been heavily eaten into.

Swordmage is the most troubled of the lot. It's theme is muddy, just being something of an 'arcane version' of a paladin or ranger. Its mechanics have also heavily been eaten into with both the paladin and ranger now having a bunch of magic abilities which they can utilise via weapon strikes. The reaction based teleporting isn't really touched on much this edition though.

But the swordmage also has the issue of not really fitting into a subclass. If you pick eldritch knight or bladesinger you lose the entire spellstrike thing which is open to paladin and ranger. If you pick paladin or ranger all your spells, theme, and class abilities are wrong. Or you have to have an oath. You pick bladelock you're forced into swearing your soul to a patron. If you pick battlesmith you end up with Preston following you everywhere.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Depends on why you'd rather do a class, I suppose. If it's more work to get the same result - I hope you enjoy the work.



I mean, it won’t be the same result, because a class isn’t a subclass, but sure. 


Frozen_Heart said:


> For me the first question when making a class is: Does it have a unique mechanical and thematic niche?
> 
> The second one is: Would making it a subclass take away the things which make people want to play this class?
> 
> Sorcerer for example has a unique thematic niche, but has struggled to carve out a mechanical one. Its mechanic was spontaneous casting, which now all casters get. Now it's just the metamagic feat turned into a class. As such it's one of the classes people suggest axing the most.
> 
> Warlord has both a clear thematic and unfilled mechanical niche, as such it's absurd that it's not a class.
> 
> Psion has a clear thematic niche, but with psionic powers all turned into spells, and a spell points casting option, it's mechanical niche has been heavily eaten into.
> 
> Swordmage is the most troubled of the lot. It's theme is muddy, just being something of an 'arcane version' of a paladin or ranger. Its mechanics have also heavily been eaten into with both the paladin and ranger now having a bunch of magic abilities which they can utilise via weapon strikes. The reaction based teleporting isn't really touched on much this edition though.
> 
> But the swordmage also has the issue of not really fitting into a subclass. If you pick eldritch knight or bladesinger you lose the entire spellstrike thing which is open to paladin and ranger. If you pick paladin or ranger all your spells, theme, and class abilities are wrong. Or you have to have an oath. You pick bladelock you're forced into swearing your soul to a patron. If you pick battlesmith you end up with Preston following you everywhere.



This is precisely why I suggest using the monk and swordmage to fix each others problems. The monk is an unarmed gish, with most of its subclasses, anyway. If the primary ID of the monk is the martial arts, then it has no legs separate from other classes. Being good at punching should never have been a niche big enough for a class. But if you instead view the mysticism as the key element, you can lean into that and find a class that just does what a lightly armored swordmage needs anyway.  

 The heavily armored swordmage is, I feel, just as big and benefits from a more fear focused, less mobility focused, mindset.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.

The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Frozen_Heart said:


> If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.
> 
> The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.



the game does not need a more martial monk, now a warlord might work but a pure martial monk no way.

the sword mage really needs a cooler name.


----------



## Asisreo

Mind of tempest said:


> the game does not need a more martial monk, now a warlord might work but a pure martial monk no way.
> 
> the sword mage really needs a cooler name.



Pugilist seems to be popular, though. I generally agree but I think people really do want a strong, punchy-guy thematically.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

One thing I've noticed about 5e is that it really struggles to handle concepts which are too redundant to be a class, but too unique and large to be a subclass.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Asisreo said:


> Pugilist seems to be popular, though. I generally agree but I think people really do want a strong, punchy-guy thematically.



ideally we want monk to be like the fighter and work of both str and dex


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> If anything happened to the monk I'd rather see it go more martial, and not more gish like. DnD has barely any martials as it is and needs more.
> 
> The 'classic' 4e swordmage has light armour and teleports around the battlefield, being extremely movement based itself.



How is the martial artist distinct from the fighter? Why would it not be miles better to give he fighter a variant level 1 class feature that loses heavy armor and shields but gains Unarmored defense?

That, Unarmed fighting style, and Battlemaster, is a better martial artist than most monk subclasses, as it is!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I will say this, if there is enough demand for different kinds of martial artists, that picking different maneuvers to build your style wouldn’t cut it, fine, make a class.  

But it isn’t the Monk, guys. If you remove the mysticism from the monk, you have…only the level 1 features, and extra attack, left. That’s a different class.  

So sure, Martial Artist can hang out with my Archer and someone else’s Knight and another person’s Swashbuckler, and my Captain, in a whole suit of martial classes.  

 And then the monk can be rewritten as a mystic warrior without the orientalism. And maybe bigger subclasses.


----------



## Faolyn

jmartkdr2 said:


> But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?



Paladins don't "fight with holy magic." They fight with the fervor of their convictions. In earlier editions, those convictions _were _always divine in nature; now, their convictions stem from the oaths they take. Even monks don't really fight _with _magic; they "fight with their fists" and use magic (ki) to enhance their physical abilities.

So a swordmage or gish or whatever you want to call it doesn't pass the test because "can fight with arcane magic" doesn't explain _how _they fight. An eldritch knight as well as several other Fighter archetypes can fight with arcane magic--and so can bladesingers and swords bards, as well as any martial/arcane spellcaster multiclass.

Now, take a page from the hexblade and say that they fight because of a mystical bond with a blade-spirit, and that bond manifests as a magical energy construct which they don't actually hold, effectively turning them into a summoner class (maybe at 5th+ level they can attack both physically and with this construct as their form of Extra Attack). That might be different enough to be its own thing and not just a different type of fighter. I have no idea what this class' archetypes would be like, though.


----------



## Minigiant

A Pugilist feel much like a Fighter subclass with maneuvers and bonus Unarmed Fighting fighting style and Unarmored Defenses.

Unless you go full Street Fighter Ii through V


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> A Pugilist feel much like a Fighter subclass with maneuvers and bonus Unarmed Fighting fighting style and Unarmored Defenses.
> 
> Unless you go full Street Fighter Ii through V



A Paladin feels like a Fighter subclass with divine magic. A Barbarian feels like a Fighter subclass with rage powers.


----------



## Rogerd1

On the monk front, why not remove chi, and call their abilities Heroic abilities  similar to Legend. So you could say their powers come from anywhere in game. This should remove the oriental flavour.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> A Paladin feels like a Fighter subclass with divine magic. A Barbarian feels like a Fighter subclass with rage powers.



They don't have Action Surge.

You make a Pugilist not feel like a Fighter, you need it's replacement for Action Surge and Second Wind.

It can be done. But you need the mechanics to justify it not being a subclass. Like I said you could go full Street Fighter or King of Fighters.


----------



## Scribe

Its all right here for the Gish, trust me, its fun and interesting.





__





						Magus – d20PFSRD
					






					www.d20pfsrd.com


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> They don't have Action Surge.



They both would if they were Fighter subclasses.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Aldarc said:


> Again, it's difficult for me to parse the phrasing of your post. However, considering the rough shape of the monk anyway, destroying and remaking the class would not be the worst thing imaginable.
> 
> 
> The "something extra" would potentially come from the power of their vows.



Again, the adept from Level Up is an excellent reinterpretation of the class.


----------



## Weiley31

Perhaps it's not the best idea, but since the Artificer got thrown around alot in this thread: the _Forge Adept_ from Exploring Eberron has been liked/stated a few times on this website that it does a good job of being "gish" with the basic concept. (Of course your millage may vary due to strict RAW only DMs and how one feels about the 5E Artificer.)

All I know is, Gish wise, the Tasha's Bladesinger's Extra Attack seems like a good start for a 5E Gish. Heck I'd update the Eldritch Knight to have that version too once it unlocks that normally via features.


Anywho: another class I wouldn't mind getting added to 5E is _the Witch._


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Weiley31 said:


> Anywho: another class I wouldn't mind getting added to 5E is _the Witch._



Agreed. I even considered changing the name of my Binder to Witch.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> They both would if they were Fighter subclasses.



Then the would not get spells.

One or the other.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> Then the would not get spells.
> 
> One or the other.



Like how the Eldritch Knight doesn’t get spells as a Fighter subclass?


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> Like how the Eldritch Knight doesn’t get spells as a Fighter subclass?



The Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster.
The Paladin and Ranger are 1/2 casters.

Let's say we made a Paladiny subclass of the fighter: the Astral Weapon (stealing from 4e)

First we would have to decide which major class feature to *lose. *Most subclasses give you 1-2 features at low levels. And you get your 3rd at level 7:
Lay on Hands
Channel Divinity
Divine Smite
Auras
Spellcasting

Let's say you choose Auras and CD. No Auras of Protection nor Courage.  No Channels.

Second we would have to decide which 2 major class features to *nerf. *Th Paladin gets these features because it doesn't get Action Surge, Second Wind, and a bonus ASI/feat. You will only get one at full strength.

Lay on Hands
_Channel Divinity
Divine Smite- down to 2d4 for level 1 spell_
Auras
_Spellcasting- down to 1/3 caster_

Spellsacsting is a given. And you might as well nerf Smite with it.

Here's your paladin subclass. A shell of the full class really.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Minigiant said:


> The Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster.
> The Paladin and Ranger are 1/2 casters.
> 
> Let's say we made a Paladiny subclass of the fighter: the Astral Weapon (stealing from 4e)
> 
> First we would have to decide which major class feature to *lose. *Most subclasses give you 1-2 features at low levels. And you get your 3rd at level 7:
> Lay on Hands
> Channel Divinity
> Divine Smite
> Auras
> Spellcasting
> 
> Let's say you choose Auras and CD. No Auras of Protection nor Courage.  No Channels.
> 
> Second we would have to decide which 2 major class features to *nerf. *Th Paladin gets these features because it doesn't get Action Surge, Second Wind, and a bonus ASI/feat. You will only get one at full strength.
> 
> Lay on Hands
> _Channel Divinity
> Divine Smite- down to 2d4 for level 1 spell_
> Auras
> _Spellcasting- down to 1/3 caster_
> 
> Spellsacsting is a given. And you might as well nerf Smite with it.
> 
> Here's your paladin subclass. A shell of the full class really.



Sounds pretty fine actually.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Crimson Longinus said:


> Sounds pretty fine actually.



And if that replaced paladin next edition, you would get a thread a week asking "where paladin class?"

Like yeah, it would be a perfectly functional and balanced subclass. But it wouldn't be a paladin. It would have lost half the mechanics which define a paladin, with the rest being super dumbed down.


----------



## cbwjm

What they need is for subclasses to carry more weight. The benefit of the fighter is that they have 5 slots for subclass abilities, but I think that you could probably add more so that a fighter paladin subclass still feels like a paladin while also picking up some of the main fighter class abilities. I think having 6 or 7 levels where you gain subclass abilities would better help define the differences between subclasses. It would also help those classes that have a large gap between subclass abilities like the rogue and bard.


----------



## Laurefindel

Frozen_Heart said:


> And if that replaced paladin next edition, you would get a thread a week asking "where paladin class?"
> 
> Like yeah, it would be a perfectly functional and balanced subclass. But it wouldn't be a paladin. It would have lost half the mechanics which define a paladin, with the rest being super dumbed down.



a thread about "where's the paladin"?

my friend, there would be a new one twice every week!


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Frozen_Heart said:


> And if that replaced paladin next edition, you would get a thread a week asking "where paladin class?"
> 
> Like yeah, it would be a perfectly functional and balanced subclass. But it wouldn't be a paladin. It would have lost half the mechanics which define a paladin, with the rest being super dumbed down.



Sure, sure! But it would be perfectly functional and would feel paladiny; good enough for me. But then again, I've never really got the appeal of paladins. I think I would like them a lot better if they were reflavoured to be witchers. I think the mechanics are like 85% there already. Which kinda is a problem for gishes. It's rather hard to differentiate them from paladin mechanics-wise.


----------



## Bacon Bits

This is from a much older part of the thread, but.... it doesn't look like a whole lot has changed, so....



AcererakTriple6 said:


> Are they?
> 
> Can you build a Witcher in 5e's current class system. Eragon? The Knights Radiant (thematically, they're paladins, but ability-wise, almost all of them are Arcane Gishes)? Isaac and Hector from Castlevania (they cover their weapons in unholy fire that transforms the people they kill with those weapons into demons/undead monsters under their control)? Zuko from the last Airbender (a master of dual wielding swords that makes his attacks even better using Firebending)?
> 
> Can you truly build any of those without multiclassing so much that you no longer have a functional character?
> 
> I'm not saying that an "Arcane Warrior" class has to be able to make all of those different types of characters playable . . . but I am saying that there are character options in other fantasy settings that don't currently have a good way of translating them to D&D 5e.




Eh, I think the trouble with that is mainly that the trouble is theming and perceived power level.

The Witcher could easily be a Hunter or Monster Slayer Ranger re-themed to arcane instead of divine, a Valor Bard or Bladesinger Wizard re-themed to monster lore instead of Performance, or an Eldritch Knight basically as-is. Tell me that the _mechanics_ of the class actually fail here and not just the _theming_ of them. The Witcher is from a setting where there is _no_ divine magic. That doesn't mean the existing class mechanics don't represent what the character can do. It just means some of the theming is wrong. That's really just a refluff.

Additionally, Witchers are superheroic, all-around characters in the Witcher series precisely because they operate alone as solo protagonists. They don't translate well to D&D where you can't have a PC class do that. This has always been a narrative problem, because gishes are always experts at _everything. _It's exactly why people roll their eyes at Drizzt or Artemis Entreri. They're faster, stronger, smarter, and better prepared than everyone else and that just doesn't work in a cooperative game where PCs need to share the spotlight and rely on each other for survival. That means it's easy to see why people don't like Eldritch Knight for a Witcher: because we all know it sucks and gets it's signature abilities _far_ too late to matter. It's a criticism of how poor EK is as a class because 1/3 casters are godawful gishes, 1/2 casters are only marginally better, and the full casters that still get extra attack have obvious things they gave up on. Unfortunately, when Superman and Martian Manhunter join the Justice League, they have to share the spotlight with Flash, Batman and Aquaman. (Which is precisely why people roll their eyes at Batman's power level, now.)

People don't just want to play a character that isn't just from an alien setting, they want to play characters from alien settings with _wholly incompatible_ magic systems. No, you probably can't make a elemental bender in D&D. Magic doesn't work that way in D&D. You probably can't be like an allomancer or a feruchemist from Mistborn, either. Brandon Sanderson has built a career on writing novels about wholly incompatible magic systems that all reside in the same universe. Magic is a lot different in Harry Potter, Dresden Files, Magic: The Gathering, Alex Verus, Seven Blades in Black, Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, The Blade Itself, etc. There are so many different ways magic can work. You're just not going to be able to put all of them into D&D. That's _not_ automatically a failing of D&D. D&D really can't be the everything game.

There are decisions that certainly do affect things that are worth exploring. The fact that concentration is crippling for melee spellcasters just fundamentally alters the viability of many different types of characters. Either way, it's not just about getting a new class. You'd need _a new system_ to make them really work. That's going to change the settings drastically.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Here's a rough draft of a swordmage that incorporates the ideas of the Monk. It's short on flavour compared to what I prefer, and only has one subclass, and no spell list yet, but I think the bones are good. 

And please don't tell me about grammar mistakes on this draft, unless you need clarification of something in order to understand the intent. I wrote this all in one go over several hours on my day off, today.


----------



## Minigiant

Just thought of something,

Why can't Wizards and Clerics jut buff themselves into being warriors like in many fantasy settings?

Concentration.

What if the Arcane Warrior is the class that goes over the 1 spell Concentration cap?

How? By focusing the spell inward and having the body hold the spell. A wizard can't do it because their bodies are weak.

However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.

Now all the players who love spending 5 minutes buffing before they kick a dungeon door open have a class.


----------



## Asisreo

Minigiant said:


> However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.



This was exactly the mechanic I used for a hpmebrew bloodmage a while ago. You definitely need to curate their spell list because even with the damage sacrifice, certain combos get really strong. 

Them being a half-caster means they'd be able to make all their spells non-con by level 15, which is before they even get all their slots. 

I'd change it to 1/5 their level and they take damage twice to the spell's level. At level 17, 5 damage for a non-con 5th-level spell is really _really_ good especially for a halfer. Really, this keeps the max damage (technically its now 6 damage per spell) but it reduces the max to something less powerful.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Just thought of something,
> 
> Why can't Wizards and Clerics jut buff themselves into being warriors like in many fantasy settings?
> 
> Concentration.
> 
> What if the Arcane Warrior is the class that goes over the 1 spell Concentration cap?
> 
> How? By focusing the spell inward and having the body hold the spell. A wizard can't do it because their bodies are weak.
> 
> However an Arcane Warrior can cast a spell and remove concentration by taking damage. They can direct spells to their body equal to 1/3 their level and taking 1 damage per spell level upon casting.
> 
> Now all the players who love spending 5 minutes buffing before they kick a dungeon door open have a class.




Now I know everyone will hate this name, but I really think my concept Dweomerwright (it really is a bad name dangit) could leverage some of that idea, but I'm not sure it needs to break concentration to do it. I mean, it could just have Dweomers that mimic spells but aren't (and thus can't be counterspelled) and don't require concentration, instead being limited by the limit to active Dweomers. 

IE, a Dweomer that mimics Divine Favor, but requires no concentration. Another could allow you to mimic a smite spell without concentration. These would be usable 1/day without spending power, and then be usable by burning spell slots after that.

Then also give them buff spells that don't require concentration anyway, like mirror image, mage armor, false life, etc. 

Then _finally_ make some action spells that involve a weapon attack.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> Here's a rough draft of a swordmage that incorporates the ideas of the Monk. It's short on flavour compared to what I prefer, and only has one subclass, and no spell list yet, but I think the bones are good.
> 
> And please don't tell me about grammar mistakes on this draft, unless you need clarification of something in order to understand the intent. I wrote this all in one go over several hours on my day off, today.



It is pretty good.

I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?


----------



## Faolyn

Rogerd1 said:


> On the monk front, why not remove chi, and call their abilities Heroic abilities  similar to Legend. So you could say their powers come from anywhere in game. This should remove the oriental flavour.



In Level Up, _ki _has been removed and replaced with exertion, which all martials get. Monks--renamed Adepts for them--just get some extra exertion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> It is pretty good.
> 
> I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?



It’s in the Spellcasting feature description, but somewhat buried. You choose Int or wisdom at level 1. I’ll make it it’s own heading (like ritual casting has)


----------



## EzekielRaiden

I do find it rather interesting that, despite the fact that it sure seems like people prefer class reductionism on this board, the votes are pretty clearly in favor of new classes, or at least the contextual possibility thereof. Across the various explicit "yes" votes for at least a single new class, you've got 52.1%; if you count all those that aren't a hard "_absolutely_ no" (so counting the first option that begins with "No," since it at least allows for new setting-specific classes, and all previous options in the list), it rises to 63.9%, nearly an absolute majority.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> It is pretty good.
> 
> I can't find where you set your spellcasting ability modifier, but maybe I just missed it?



Also, there are a few points where “choice of 2-4 features” may be appropriate. At each of the Aegis of the X Circle levels, a choice of a few different defensive features would probably make sense. 

Also Also, Unarmored movement could be a choice between the standard monk feature and an at-will teleport.


----------



## Scribe

EzekielRaiden said:


> I do find it rather interesting that, despite the fact that it sure seems like people prefer class reductionism on this board, the votes are pretty clearly in favor of new classes, or at least the contextual possibility thereof. Across the various explicit "yes" votes for at least a single new class, you've got 52.1%; if you count all those that aren't a hard "_absolutely_ no" (so counting the first option that begins with "No," since it at least allows for new setting-specific classes, and all previous options in the list), it rises to 63.9%, nearly an absolute majority.



I've yet to see any kind of reason why we should not have a Psion, Gish, and Warlord.

These are not classes which to me, can just be refluffed subclasses, and the real issue is that 5e mechanically is neutered, and is really just too simple.


----------



## cbwjm

Warlord is about the only class I don't really want to see. My preference for them is to have their kit spread around the various classes as subclasses. I wouldn't scream bloody murder if it was introduced, but I'd be unlikely to use it, which, I guess, is pretty much the response for many others when other classes are brought up.


----------



## Aldarc

Minigiant said:


> The Eldritch Knight is a 1/3 caster.
> The Paladin and Ranger are 1/2 casters.
> 
> Let's say we made a Paladiny subclass of the fighter: the Astral Weapon (stealing from 4e)
> 
> First we would have to decide which major class feature to *lose. *Most subclasses give you 1-2 features at low levels. And you get your 3rd at level 7:
> Lay on Hands
> Channel Divinity
> Divine Smite
> Auras
> Spellcasting
> 
> Let's say you choose Auras and CD. No Auras of Protection nor Courage.  No Channels.
> 
> Second we would have to decide which 2 major class features to *nerf. *Th Paladin gets these features because it doesn't get Action Surge, Second Wind, and a bonus ASI/feat. You will only get one at full strength.
> 
> Lay on Hands
> _Channel Divinity
> Divine Smite- down to 2d4 for level 1 spell_
> Auras
> _Spellcasting- down to 1/3 caster_
> 
> Spellsacsting is a given. And you might as well nerf Smite with it.
> 
> Here's your paladin subclass. *A shell of the full class really.*



Regardless of any quibbles anyone may have about what features you think the paladin subclass would have, you are so close to seeing the actual point of our recent back and forth but not quite there.


----------



## Mind of tempest

cbwjm said:


> Warlord is about the only class I don't really want to see. My preference for them is to have their kit spread around the various classes as subclasses. I wouldn't scream bloody murder if it was introduced, but I'd be unlikely to use it, which, I guess, is pretty much the response for many others when other classes are brought up.



may I ask why as spreading it around would be a good idea why not just centralise it?


----------



## hbarsquared

I love magic and spellcasting.  But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses.  Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes.  The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.

I's love to see:

the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
a non-spellcasting ranger!
an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
a generic Hero
None of these are too thought-out, just ideas.  I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.


----------



## Aldarc

hbarsquared said:


> I love magic and spellcasting.  But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses.  Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes.  The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.
> 
> I's love to see:
> 
> the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
> less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
> a non-spellcasting ranger!
> an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
> A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
> a generic Hero
> None of these are too thought-out, just ideas.  I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.



It's almost impossible to imagine that one of the main designers of 5e D&D - with its magical classes and subclasses galore - was also the same designer who made a huge splash in the d20 system with his _Iron Heroes_ RPG, which had nine non-magical classes* and one magical class.**  

* Archer, Armiger, Berserker, Executioner, Harrier, Hunter, Man-at-Arms, Thief, and Weaponmaster. 
** Arcanist 

Or that the edition that people complained about everyone being a wizard actually had more non-magical classes/archetypes (i.e., fighter, rogue, warlord, ranger) than the edition that followed it (i.e., fighter, rogue).


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.

I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish fans who want something blatantly overpowered, but it's not really an argument against the class existing.


----------



## Aldarc

Frozen_Heart said:


> I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.



What's also bizarre are how many classes there are who hit things and use magic up to 9th level spells whether as part of the core package or subclasses. But somehow it's overpowered if there was a half-caster arcane gish? 



Frozen_Heart said:


> I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish *fans who want something blatantly overpowered, *but it's not really an argument against the class existing.



...otherwise there would be no wizard.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Frozen_Heart said:


> I never understood the 'arcane gish is a power fantasy' argument. It's like somehow a person who hits things and uses divine magic is fine. A person who hits things and uses primal magic is fine. But a person who hits things and uses arcane magic is overpowered.
> 
> I understand that there is a worryingly large number of gish fans who want something blatantly overpowered, but it's not really an argument against the class existing.



Fully agreed. I don't entirely get the "it needs to be based off of another IP's gish class" argument, either. D&D pretty much invented many of the core tropes for the main archetypes of its classes (Raging Barbarians, Magic Druids, Armed Clerics, etc). "It doesn't exist yet" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against it not existing. Someone earlier mentioned 4e's take on Dragonborn and Tieflings originally being unpopular, but the very same changes in 5e making them some of the most popular races in the game. 

It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

AcererakTriple6 said:


> It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.



And the swordmage never has, as it's changed names and identity every edition despite keeping some core mechanics. :/

DnD 3e: Duskblade
Pathfinder 1e and 2e: Magus
DnD 4e: Swordmage

One reason why I wouldn't mind it keeping the swordmage name, despite that name being pretty awful, is that it just establishes some continuity in peoples minds, and gives it time to form an identity. If the name is changed every edition, it will never carve out a place for itself.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

AcererakTriple6 said:


> Fully agreed. I don't entirely get the "it needs to be based off of another IP's gish class" argument, either. D&D pretty much invented many of the core tropes for the main archetypes of its classes (Raging Barbarians, Magic Druids, Armed Clerics, etc). "It doesn't exist yet" doesn't seem like a particularly compelling argument against it not existing. Someone earlier mentioned 4e's take on Dragonborn and Tieflings originally being unpopular, but the very same changes in 5e making them some of the most popular races in the game.
> 
> It may take awhile, but classes and races can create their own niche.



It's not really that it needs to be based on other IP's version of gishes, I wouldn't expect D&D gish to be exactly like a witcher or WoW death knight etc, even if it had some similarities. But the point really was that many popular gishes in other media have a strong identity of their own, instead of just being a blend of two other things, and I think something like that is needed to sell the concept. But any suggestions for such seem to get rejected.


----------



## Minigiant

Aldarc said:


> Regardless of any quibbles anyone may have about what features you think the paladin subclass would have, you are so close to seeing the actual point of our recent back and forth but not quite there.




I understand the point 

The fact over the matter it that you really can't say "I want an X class" by itself. You have to also mention a unique combination of class features or describe an all new major class feature.

You can't say "I want a Pugilist class" and convince many;when Monk and Fighter both exist with unarmed styles.

You have to say "I want a Pugilist class that has a Combo and Super Combo system".


----------



## cbwjm

Mind of tempest said:


> may I ask why as spreading it around would be a good idea why not just centralise it?



I don't know 100% why, I just like not having a single class as the "in charge, do this" class, I like any class being able pick up the leader position rather than having a single class as the leader. I'm a little drunk as I write this, if it doesn't make sense then that could be why.


----------



## Aldarc

cbwjm said:


> I don't know 100% why, I just like not having a single class as the "in charge, do this" class, I like any class being able pick up the leader position rather than having a single class as the leader. I'm a little drunk as I write this, if it doesn't make sense then that could be why.



There wasn't even a single "in charge, do this" class in 4e. The Warlord was one of many classes in the Leader role: i.e., Cleric, Bard, Artificer, Shaman, and Ardent. And the "Leader" was just a euphemism for "Support" (or worse yet: "Healbot" or "Band-Aid"), which is typically a moniker that is viewed a little more negatively. 

That said, I would not be opposed to rebranding the warlord as "the Knight." It would likely be more palpable for those who argue about the absurdity of a "level 1 warlord."


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Psion/Psionicst/Mystic/whatever a full-blown psychic with some flexibility. Look at the Warlock chassis for inspiration.

A proper Martial Artist/largely unarmed anime combatant class. The Monk is not it. Look at fighting games for inspiration.

A proper full-formed perma-Gish like the Swordmage or Arcana Unearthed's Mage Blade.

Those are off the top of my head. We do not particularly need a warlord per se but it would nice to have more classes which had a sort of leader-ish role. 5E could easily incorporate this. I also think 5E could do with an actual, focused, designed "Swashbuckler" class, but currently there's basically no design space between Fighter, Rogue, and Ranger all trying to occupy that ground somewhat inadequately (tbf the Rogue Swashbuckler isn't terrible).


----------



## jmartkdr2

hbarsquared said:


> I love magic and spellcasting.  But I would love to see more non-magic classes and subclasses.  Fighter and Rogue are really the only two non-spellcasring classes.  The monk is distinctly "magical" with ki, and all but the Basic Rules barbarian subclasses distinct magical special abilities.
> 
> I's love to see:
> 
> the 4e warlord, something more than just battlemaster abilities
> less magical monk, purely physical boxer/brawler
> a non-spellcasting ranger!
> an archivist/factotum/non-spellcasting alchemist.
> A non-Str, non-Dex, Wis-based or Int-based warrior (non-spellcasting!).
> a generic Hero
> None of these are too thought-out, just ideas.  I do feel there are fun and interesting abilities and classes that can be a part of the game that don't require magic.



Yet another reason to break up the fighter: swashbuckler, warlord, gladiator, gunslinger, and knight could all be classes if we really wanted. 

I'm not exactly saying they should be in my own opinion, but there's a logically valid argument for it.


----------



## Vaalingrade

jmartkdr2 said:


> Yet another reason to break up the fighter: swashbuckler, warlord, gladiator, gunslinger, and knight could all be classes if we really wanted.
> 
> I'm not exactly saying they should be in my own opinion, but there's a logically valid argument for it.



I'm saying they should. The fighter being overly broad and not a good chassis to build subclasses off of just makes every martial combatant that's not a skill monkey who sneak attacks a liability design-wise.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I used to be in favour of the fighter being a a class which covers all the variations of 'fighty person'. But the more I think about it the more that doesn't make sense.

It's like trying to condense every 'magic user' class into just a single caster. You could do it, but at the expense of what makes clerics, druids, bards, etc unique.


----------



## Bacon Bits

Scribe said:


> I've yet to see any kind of reason why we should not have a Psion, Gish, and Warlord.




Psions are difficult. Most of the time we see that people say they _should_ have a system separate from magic, but the balance of the magic system (such as it is) is actually pretty difficult. It's going to be very difficult to retain the existing magic system and add another system on top of it. The proof here is that there's barely a mechanical system for martial classes at all, and it's just outclassed by magic. Magic has a bunch of artificial drawbacks (concentration, spell slots, costly components, spell level requirements) to try to keep it in line with martials, and it doesn't entirely work successfully. The martial systems (extra attack, sneak attack, feats, class-specific damage bonuses) are simply designed to not scale as well as magic. Adding a _third _system to that is going to be quite difficult, because you probably can't make it more restrictive than magic or more freeform than martials, and threading the needle between the two risks eclipsing one or both systems. Which is exactly what happened with 1e AD&D psionics (they were either irrelevant or busted) and the solution for 3e was that psionics were just magic but with more math. Further, you have the problem that Basic D&D, AD&D, Dark Sun, 3e, and 4e all have completely incompatible ideas of what psionics are or how they work, so there is _nothing_ to draw from for a psionics class that will satisfy everyone. WotC will have to pick something and go with it, and the current development teams are built around _not_ doing that. They're built around accepting nearly infinite feedback before publishing. That design model is incompatible with such a diverse mechanical history as D&D's psionics. It can't be done by WotC until they set that aside.

Warlords are probably not workable at all. Or, rather, it you made one it would probably work more like Miniatures Handbook's Marshall from 3e. Warlord works well in a high tactical system like 4e, and in a system where the Basic attack is a relatively fixed constant independent of class. It means the class has a lot to do, and the tight balance of 4e means you have an interesting choice each round. In 5e, movement, positioning, and tactics are markedly less potent. Whole classes exclusively rely on the standard attack roll, too. This means not only is it going to be less interesting or beneficial to grant bonus movement, it means that granting an additional attack allows you to deal damage is even better. In other words, your action makes you deal as or more much damage as the Rogue or Paladin does on their normal turn, only you also get to do everything else that a Warlord can which presumably has to be more interesting than just clone Sneak Attack or clone Smite. That makes the class incredibly difficult to balance, since it also has to function in parties that _don't_ have one of those two classes. The obvious solution to have the Warlord's Commander's Strike use it's own fixed damage and have no benefits from the PC would be balanced... and also so incredibly boring and disappointing that nobody would be happy.

Gish could exist, but is unlikely to do so in a significantly different form than what currently exists. Ranger But Arcane, Paladin But Arcane, Bard But Vanilla, Cleric But Arcane, Bladesinger But Fighter, Bladelock But Different, Artificer But Different, Echo Knight But Better, or Eldritch Knight But Better are not really character class design concepts. That's really all I see when people ask for a gish: Explanations for why X isn't a gish. Well, it's rather tough to define something by what it isn't. The trouble is that "gish" is a different concept not just in every setting, but for every player. There is no such thing as a generic universal gish that will satisfy every player. Even if they literally publish a class named "Gish" and people will _still_ say, "We don't really have a good Gish." It's a broader concept than Ranger is, and just like ranger the Gish always has unique trappings in every portrayal. It's one of the reasons Rangers kind of fail in 5e; they're too complex to lack a single vision because the concept is too broad now. Simply put, the game already supplies multiple classes and subclasses to support a mixed martial-spellcaster. It's overwhelmingly the most common example of a D&D character type in 5e to the extent that nearly every party will consist of characters capable of using weapons and spells in tandem.


----------



## Scribe

Bacon Bits said:


> Psions are difficult. Most of the time we see that people say they _should_ have a system separate from magic, but the balance of the magic system (such as it is) is actually pretty difficult. It's going to be very difficult to retain the existing magic system and add another system on top of it. The proof here is that there's barely a mechanical system for martial classes at all, and it's just outclassed by magic. Magic has a bunch of artificial drawbacks (concentration, spell slots, costly components, spell level requirements) to try to keep it in line with martials, and it doesn't entirely work successfully. The martial systems (extra attack, sneak attack, feats, class-specific damage bonuses) are simply designed to not scale as well as magic. Adding a _third _system to that is going to be quite difficult, because you probably can't make it more restrictive than magic or more freeform than martials, and threading the needle between the two risks eclipsing one or both systems. Which is exactly what happened with 1e AD&D psionics (they were either irrelevant or busted) and the solution for 3e was that psionics were just magic but with more math. Further, you have the problem that Basic D&D, AD&D, Dark Sun, 3e, and 4e all have completely incompatible ideas of what psionics are or how they work, so there is _nothing_ to draw from for a psionics class that will satisfy everyone. WotC will have to pick something and go with it, and the current development teams are built around _not_ doing that. They're built around accepting nearly infinite feedback before publishing. That design model is incompatible with such a diverse mechanical history as D&D's psionics. It can't be done by WotC until they set that aside.
> 
> Warlords are probably not workable at all. Or, rather, it you made one it would probably work more like Miniatures Handbook's Marshall from 3e. Warlord works well in a high tactical system like 4e, and in a system where the Basic attack is a relatively fixed constant independent of class. It means the class has a lot to do, and the tight balance of 4e means you have an interesting choice each round. In 5e, movement, positioning, and tactics are markedly less potent. Whole classes exclusively rely on the standard attack roll, too. This means not only is it going to be less interesting or beneficial to grant bonus movement, it means that granting an additional attack allows you to deal damage is even better. In other words, your action makes you deal as or more much damage as the Rogue or Paladin does on their normal turn, only you also get to do everything else that a Warlord can which presumably has to be more interesting than just clone Sneak Attack or clone Smite. That makes the class incredibly difficult to balance, since it also has to function in parties that _don't_ have one of those two classes. The obvious solution to have the Warlord's Commander's Strike use it's own fixed damage and have no benefits from the PC would be balanced... and also so incredibly boring and disappointing that nobody would be happy.
> 
> Gish could exist, but is unlikely to do so in a significantly different form than what currently exists. Ranger But Arcane, Paladin But Arcane, Bard But Vanilla, Cleric But Arcane, Bladesinger But Fighter, Bladelock But Different, Artificer But Different, Echo Knight But Better, or Eldritch Knight But Better are not really character class design concepts. That's really all I see when people ask for a gish: Explanations for why X isn't a gish. Well, it's rather tough to define something by what it isn't. The trouble is that "gish" is a different concept not just in every setting, but for every player. There is no such thing as a generic universal gish that will satisfy every player. Even if they literally publish a class named "Gish" and people will _still_ say, "We don't really have a good Gish." It's a broader concept than Ranger is, and just like ranger the Gish always has unique trappings in every portrayal. It's one of the reasons Rangers kind of fail in 5e; they're too complex to lack a single vision because the concept is too broad now. Simply put, the game already supplies multiple classes and subclasses to support a mixed martial-spellcaster. It's overwhelmingly the most common example of a D&D character type in 5e to the extent that nearly every party will consist of characters capable of using weapons and spells in tandem.




These are great points, but they just cry out to me '5e is flawed!' either in mechanics, or as with the Psion as you describe, Development will to make a choice and stand behind it.

Good post though.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Bacon Bits said:


> Gish could exist, but is unlikely to do so in a significantly different form than what currently exists. Ranger But Arcane, Paladin But Arcane, Bard But Vanilla, Cleric But Arcane, Bladesinger But Fighter, Bladelock But Different, Artificer But Different, Echo Knight But Better, or Eldritch Knight But Better are not really character class design concepts. That's really all I see when people ask for a gish: Explanations for why X isn't a gish. Well, it's rather tough to define something by what it isn't. The trouble is that "gish" is a different concept not just in every setting, but for every player. There is no such thing as a generic universal gish that will satisfy every player. Even if they literally publish a class named "Gish" and people will _still_ say, "We don't really have a good Gish." It's a broader concept than Ranger is, and just like ranger the Gish always has unique trappings in every portrayal. It's one of the reasons Rangers kind of fail in 5e; they're too complex to lack a single vision because the concept is too broad now. Simply put, the game already supplies multiple classes and subclasses to support a mixed martial-spellcaster. It's overwhelmingly the most common example of a D&D character type in 5e to the extent that nearly every party will consist of characters capable of using weapons and spells in tandem.



The thing is you could easy reverse that logic and use it on the paladin or ranger too. Say it was the paladin which hadn't got in, but the spellstriking swordmage had got in.

You could pick war cleric. Or you could go cleric/fighter. Or you could mix divine soul sorcerer and fighter. Or pick celestial bladelock. You could easily have a 'crusader' fighter subclass which can pick some cleric spells as a 1/3 caster. If you wanted a smite like experience, you could pick swordmage or ranger to cast spells through weapon strikes. Sun soul monk has a divine theme with healing, melee, and casting bolts of radiant damage. So does stars druid. Even the zealot barbarian is described as channelling divine power.

So why would you ever, possibly, need a paladin class?

Because people would enjoy it and want one. That's why you would have a paladin class. And without it you would see the same as with the swordmage in 5e. You would get threads on a regular basis asking for it, and you would get people saying we don't need a paladin as you can make divine martial caster person with xyz subclasses and multiclassing. And none of those combinations would offer the experience in the same quality that the actual paladin class does, as every one would carry thematic or mechanical baggage, or miss the things out which actually define a paladin.


----------



## Faolyn

Bacon Bits said:


> Warlords are probably not workable at all. Or, rather, it you made one it would probably work more like Miniatures Handbook's Marshall from 3e. Warlord works well in a high tactical system like 4e, and in a system where the Basic attack is a relatively fixed constant independent of class. It means the class has a lot to do, and the tight balance of 4e means you have an interesting choice each round. In 5e, movement, positioning, and tactics are markedly less potent. Whole classes exclusively rely on the standard attack roll, too. This means not only is it going to be less interesting or beneficial to grant bonus movement, it means that granting an additional attack allows you to deal damage is even better. In other words, your action makes you deal as or more much damage as the Rogue or Paladin does on their normal turn, only you also get to do everything else that a Warlord can which presumably has to be more interesting than just clone Sneak Attack or clone Smite. That makes the class incredibly difficult to balance, since it also has to function in parties that _don't_ have one of those two classes. The obvious solution to have the Warlord's Commander's Strike use it's own fixed damage and have no benefits from the PC would be balanced... and also so incredibly boring and disappointing that nobody would be happy.



Level Up did the Warlord, renamed the Martial, and it seems to work just fine. I haven't played one yet, but I haven't seen anyone say that it fails in some way. So I think that it's definitely workable.


----------



## TwoSix

Faolyn said:


> Level Up did the Warlord, renamed the Martial, and it seems to work just fine. I haven't played one yet, but I haven't seen anyone say that it fails in some way. So I think that it's definitely workable.



Yea, I've seen multiple homebrew examples of the Warlord concept that work just fine.  It's totally doable.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Faolyn said:


> Level Up did the Warlord, renamed the Martial, and it seems to work just fine. I haven't played one yet, but I haven't seen anyone say that it fails in some way. So I think that it's definitely workable.



Likewise, Kibbles has a very popular homebrew Warlord.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Scribe said:


> I've yet to see any kind of reason why we should not have a Psion, Gish, and Warlord.



Psion: Last time I was a part of this conversation and asked people what they wanted at least 95% of it was covered by the aberrant mind sorcerer. The only coherent objections to that seemed to be a lack of the class name and that there were tentacles involved sometimes. The big thing is that one of the largest historical draws for the Psion is that it was a non-Vancian power point caster, and that's no longer as needed.

Gish: The Gish isn't just _one_ thing. There are already at least half a dozen gish subclasses doing Gish things in different ways (Eldritch Knight, Valor/Swords bard, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Battlesmith, arguably Arcane Trickster, Armourer, Rune Knight, and Paladin). What the remaining people are asking for is too overlapping with these subclasses conceptually and seems to be centered round a couple of abilities that could come from polishing the EK or even as warlock invocations.

Warlord: The anti-4e lobby will rage? Seriously I do see a _possibility _of doing it through expanding the fighter - starting off by a couple of Warlord fighting styles that make the warlord better at supporting rather than increasing their combat potential. The warlordy subclass (PDK/Banneret) is terrible and needs a rewrite. And actual warlordy battlemaster maneuvers including ones that give the ability to spend hit dice in combat are wanted.


----------



## TwoSix

Frozen_Heart said:


> Likewise, Kibbles has a very popular homebrew Warlord.



Yea, that was the first one that came to mind; it's my personal favorite take on the Warlord.  The subclasses let it support multiple stats, and it has what I think is the best mechanism for attack granting.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Bacon Bits said:


> Psions are difficult. Most of the time we see that people say they _should_ have a system separate from magic, but the balance of the magic system (such as it is) is actually pretty difficult. It's going to be very difficult to retain the existing magic system and add another system on top of it. The proof here is that there's barely a mechanical system for martial classes at all, and it's just outclassed by magic. Magic has a bunch of artificial drawbacks (concentration, spell slots, costly components, spell level requirements) to try to keep it in line with martials, and it doesn't entirely work successfully. The martial systems (extra attack, sneak attack, feats, class-specific damage bonuses) are simply designed to not scale as well as magic. Adding a _third _system to that is going to be quite difficult, because you probably can't make it more restrictive than magic or more freeform than martials, and threading the needle between the two risks eclipsing one or both systems. Which is exactly what happened with 1e AD&D psionics (they were either irrelevant or busted) and the solution for 3e was that psionics were just magic but with more math. Further, you have the problem that Basic D&D, AD&D, Dark Sun, 3e, and 4e all have completely incompatible ideas of what psionics are or how they work, so there is _nothing_ to draw from for a psionics class that will satisfy everyone. WotC will have to pick something and go with it, and the current development teams are built around _not_ doing that. They're built around accepting nearly infinite feedback before publishing. That design model is incompatible with such a diverse mechanical history as D&D's psionics. It can't be done by WotC until they set that aside.
> 
> Warlords are probably not workable at all. Or, rather, it you made one it would probably work more like Miniatures Handbook's Marshall from 3e. Warlord works well in a high tactical system like 4e, and in a system where the Basic attack is a relatively fixed constant independent of class. It means the class has a lot to do, and the tight balance of 4e means you have an interesting choice each round. In 5e, movement, positioning, and tactics are markedly less potent. Whole classes exclusively rely on the standard attack roll, too. This means not only is it going to be less interesting or beneficial to grant bonus movement, it means that granting an additional attack allows you to deal damage is even better. In other words, your action makes you deal as or more much damage as the Rogue or Paladin does on their normal turn, only you also get to do everything else that a Warlord can which presumably has to be more interesting than just clone Sneak Attack or clone Smite. That makes the class incredibly difficult to balance, since it also has to function in parties that _don't_ have one of those two classes. The obvious solution to have the Warlord's Commander's Strike use it's own fixed damage and have no benefits from the PC would be balanced... and also so incredibly boring and disappointing that nobody would be happy.
> 
> Gish could exist, but is unlikely to do so in a significantly different form than what currently exists. Ranger But Arcane, Paladin But Arcane, Bard But Vanilla, Cleric But Arcane, Bladesinger But Fighter, Bladelock But Different, Artificer But Different, Echo Knight But Better, or Eldritch Knight But Better are not really character class design concepts. That's really all I see when people ask for a gish: Explanations for why X isn't a gish. Well, it's rather tough to define something by what it isn't. The trouble is that "gish" is a different concept not just in every setting, but for every player. There is no such thing as a generic universal gish that will satisfy every player. Even if they literally publish a class named "Gish" and people will _still_ say, "We don't really have a good Gish." It's a broader concept than Ranger is, and just like ranger the Gish always has unique trappings in every portrayal. It's one of the reasons Rangers kind of fail in 5e; they're too complex to lack a single vision because the concept is too broad now. Simply put, the game already supplies multiple classes and subclasses to support a mixed martial-spellcaster. It's overwhelmingly the most common example of a D&D character type in 5e to the extent that nearly every party will consist of characters capable of using weapons and spells in tandem.



the problem with the gish is all the subclasses are just not able to cut it so it is always going to be asked for.

I could live with a spell slot psion if I got to have the stranger subtypes of the spells as most types of magic I like come under psionic, not wizard schools, and I am not allowed to be a lawful good necromancer and have fun at the same time.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> I used to be in favour of the fighter being a a class which covers all the variations of 'fighty person'. But the more I think about it the more that doesn't make sense.
> 
> It's like trying to condense every 'magic user' class into just a single caster. You could do it, but at the expense of what makes clerics, druids, bards, etc unique.






Vaalingrade said:


> I'm saying they should. The fighter being overly broad and not a good chassis to build subclasses off of just makes every martial combatant that's not a skill monkey who sneak attacks a liability design-wise.



I've recently been a fan of splitting the fighter into 3 more parts.

The smart fighter
The athletic fighter 
The lordly fighter

Each with different mechanics and foci. But that's a hard sell.


----------



## Neonchameleon

Frozen_Heart said:


> Because people would enjoy it and want one. That's why you would have a paladin class. And without it you would see the same as with the swordmage in 5e. You would get threads on a regular basis asking for it, and you would get people saying we don't need a paladin as you can make divine martial caster person with xyz subclasses and multiclassing. And none of those combinations would offer the experience in the same quality that the actual paladin class does, as every one would carry thematic or mechanical baggage, or miss the things out which actually define a paladin.



The thing is that with adding new classes there is also a cost. This cost is paid by everyone who comes to the game fresh and gets lost in all these classes. It's paid by a whole lot of DMs who need to know what their PCs can do. In short it's paid by those most vulnerable. And 5e has been very disciplined about not adding to the burden of the number of classes in the game, and it's one of the things they do well. By adding a class that would make _some_ people have a better experience you're also adding something that would make a lot of peoples' experiences slightly but meanignfully worse.

The call for the Gish appears to not be "we can't mix spell and blade" because as mentioned there are at least half a dozen methods of doing so using different subclasses. It appears to be "I want this one hyper-specific class ability" (spell strike). For which you want to make everyone else put up with adding an entire class to the game. It's not, unlike the Warlord, a _concept_ with almost no meaningful support. It's a hyper specific implementation that isn't on the list of things a newbie would be looking for.

Could the Eldritch Knight and the Pact of the Blade be higher quality? Definitely. And I hope that the 2024 version of the PHB does overhaul a number of classes (and makes the Tasha's Ranger the default). But when what's missing is one single class feature that appears not to be a reason to add an entire new class to the game.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that with adding new classes there is also a cost. This cost is paid by everyone who comes to the game fresh and gets lost in all these classes. It's paid by a whole lot of DMs who need to know what their PCs can do. In short it's paid by those most vulnerable. And 5e has been very disciplined about not adding to the burden of the number of classes in the game, and it's one of the things they do well. By adding a class that would make _some_ people have a better experience you're also adding something that would make a lot of peoples' experiences slightly but meanignfully worse.
> 
> The call for the Gish appears to not be "we can't mix spell and blade" because as mentioned there are at least half a dozen methods of doing so using different subclasses. It appears to be "I want this one hyper-specific class ability" (spell strike). For which you want to make everyone else put up with adding an entire class to the game. It's not, unlike the Warlord, a _concept_ with almost no meaningful support. It's a hyper specific implementation that isn't on the list of things a newbie would be looking for.
> 
> Could the Eldritch Knight and the Pact of the Blade be higher quality? Definitely. And I hope that the 2024 version of the PHB does overhaul a number of classes (and makes the Tasha's Ranger the default). But when what's missing is one single class feature that appears not to be a reason to add an entire new class to the game.



You say that like having hundreds of subclasses adds nothing for DM's and players to have to learn and look through. And when you say 'put up' with a class, do you have to 'put up' with the existence of other classes?

And yes, I do enjoy certain mechanics of that those prior class iterations. But ultimately that's what classes are. A barbarian is a fighter with a rage mechanic. Why not get rid of rage and just make barbarian a fighter subclass with an 'angry person' theme. A paladin is based around its smite mechanic. But you could just get rid of smite and make it a fighter subclass with 1/3 casting cleric spells. A cleric is just a wizard with healing spells. Why not just make a 'restoration wizard' subclass, and axe cleric?

The most simple thing for players and DM's to learn would be 'fighty person', 'skills person', 'magic person'. 3 classes are all that's needed. Why not do that?


----------



## Scribe

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that with adding new classes there is also a cost. This cost is paid by everyone who comes to the game fresh and gets lost in all these classes. It's paid by a whole lot of DMs who need to know what their PCs can do. In short it's paid by those most vulnerable. And 5e has been very disciplined about not adding to the burden of the number of classes in the game, and it's one of the things they do well. By adding a class that would make _some_ people have a better experience you're also adding something that would make a lot of peoples' experiences slightly but meanignfully worse.
> 
> The call for the Gish appears to not be "we can't mix spell and blade" because as mentioned there are at least half a dozen methods of doing so using different subclasses. It appears to be "I want this one hyper-specific class ability" (spell strike). For which you want to make everyone else put up with adding an entire class to the game. It's not, unlike the Warlord, a _concept_ with almost no meaningful support. It's a hyper specific implementation that isn't on the list of things a newbie would be looking for.
> 
> Could the Eldritch Knight and the Pact of the Blade be higher quality? Definitely. And I hope that the 2024 version of the PHB does overhaul a number of classes (and makes the Tasha's Ranger the default). But when what's missing is one single class feature that appears not to be a reason to add an entire new class to the game.



This is fair too. The ramp up time on picking up a game with many classes, many feats, many subclasses, is way way higher than 5e. Almost daunting.

But when you come to grips with the system, not even mastery just a baseline comfort level? Man does it feel good.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Parmandur said:


> There is already an* Arcane Gish,* the Artificer. Though *Arcane magic isn't based in the rules* in 5E, at all. Not like it was in earlier Editions.



Do you not see the contradiction here? Besides the fact that the Artificer class was never designed as an Arcane Gish Class (it was designed to be a magic item crafter, like is core to the idea of Eberron), simultaneously saying "there is an arcane gish class" and "arcane magic doesn't exist in 5e" is a hell of a paradox.

Even if the rules are not based around arcane magic . . . that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. That's like saying "alignment doesn't exist" because there aren't any mechanics for it in the PHB.

The Artificer is not an Arcane Gish class. Just because it has one or two subclasses that are gish-like does not mean that it is a Gish class. It is not a "half-martial" that the Paladin and Ranger are. If the Artificer were an Arcane Gish class, every subclass would be an Arcane Gish. Neither the Alchemist nor the Artillerist are Arcane Gishes, so the class is not an Arcane Gish.

The Artificer is a magical tinkerer/inventor class. Not a magical warrior. The paladin (and every subclass of it) is a divine-magic warrior. The ranger (and every subclass of it) is a nature-magic warrior. There is no arcane-magic warrior class, as the Artificer was not designed around that concept, and does not have the base theme or capabilities of that a class designed around the theme of being an Arcane Gish would have (fighting style, magic starting at 2nd level without cantrips, extra attack as a base class feature, a spell-strike ability, etc).

You're trying to force a square peg through a round hole. As much as I absolutely love the Artificer class (it is by far my favorite class in D&D 5e, thematically and from a design stand-point), it is no Arcane Gish class. It was not intended to be one, it is not one mechanically or thematically, it has too much baggage from its amazing but distinct theme to be one, and there is still a design space in the game for one.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

I just have some name recommendations here:


Minigiant said:


> The smart fighter



The Strategist or Warlord


Minigiant said:


> The athletic fighter



The Champion or Gladiator


Minigiant said:


> The lordly fighter



The Knight


----------



## Neonchameleon

Frozen_Heart said:


> You say that like having hundreds of subclasses adds nothing for DM's and players to have to learn and look through. And when you say 'put up' with a class, do you have to 'put up' with the existence of other classes?
> 
> And yes, I do enjoy certain mechanics of that those prior class iterations. But ultimately that's what classes are. A barbarian is a fighter with a rage mechanic. Why not get rid of rage and just make barbarian a fighter subclass with an 'angry person' theme. A paladin is based around its smite mechanic. But you could just get rid of smite and make it a fighter subclass with 1/3 casting cleric spells. A cleric is just a wizard with healing spells. Why not just make a 'restoration wizard' subclass, and axe cleric?
> 
> The most simple thing for players and DM's to learn would be 'fighty person', 'skills person', 'magic person'. 3 classes are all that's needed. Why not do that?



Apparently you don't know what the 5e classes are and are going by the 3.5 or Pathfinder versions of them.

If the barbarian were simply a fighter with a rage mechanic the way the 3.0 and 3.5 ones were then I would fully agree that it should be a subclass of fighter. But it isn't. The barbarian is a warrior with specific types of temporary empowerment; if the 5e barbarian were _just_ the Path of the Berserker it should have been a subclass. Instead the Path of the Storm Herald and the Path of the Beast fit together pretty well but would be pretty faffy to put into the fighter class.

The Paladin isn't based round the _Smite_ mechanic but the _Oath_ one conceptually. The fact that Pact of the Blade Warlocks with the right invocation can use their spell slots to smite doesn't somehow make the paladin redundant. Almost all 3.5 and earlier Paladins fit under a single oath - the Oath of Devotion. (And the classic paladin rules sucked). There is strong conceptual space for a determinator as a fighterish type. 

As for making the wizard and cleric one class when one of them is intended to be unarmoured and squishy and the other has to cover the plate armoured front liner, nope.

And yes you could have just three classes as it was in the beginning. There is an advantage to more classes in terms of having more detailed characters. But there is a very good reason that since the launch of 5e there has been a grand total of _one_ new class added - and that for a popular archetype that none of the existing classes covered or even really could cover. Meanwhile the gish is covered in half a dozen different ways by half a dozen different subclasses already. If you propose leaving those subclasses then you've caused a lot of confusion, and if you propose tearing them out then it's unlikely your singular gish will cover as much as they did because they come from so many angles even if there's a narrow gap that isn't covered.


Scribe said:


> This is fair too. The ramp up time on picking up a game with many classes, many feats, many subclasses, is way way higher than 5e. Almost daunting.
> 
> But when you come to grips with the system, not even mastery just a baseline comfort level? Man does it feel good.



Hitting yourself in the head feels great when you stop.

Yes, I'm aware that system mastery feels good - but it also puts newbies off.


----------



## Scribe

Neonchameleon said:


> Hitting yourself in the head feels great when you stop.
> 
> Yes, I'm aware that system mastery feels good - but it also puts newbies off.



Yeah its a balance.


----------



## Neonchameleon

AcererakTriple6 said:


> You're trying to force a square peg through a round hole. As much as I absolutely love the Artificer class (it is by far my favorite class in D&D 5e, thematically and from a design stand-point), it is no Arcane Gish class. It was not intended to be one, it is not one mechanically or thematically, it has too much baggage from its amazing but distinct theme to be one, and there is still a design space in the game for one.



The _artificer_ isn't an arcane gish class, agreed. The alchemist and artillerist certainly aren't gish. But both the battle smith and the armourer do mix arcane magic and swordplay and thus are classified as types of gish. Other arcane gish include hexblade warlocks, college of valour and swords monks, eldritch knights, and bladesingers.

And making a single gish class treads on the toes of _all_ those half dozen classes. The hole for the gish isn't round. It might have been if you were starting from scratch, but with all those parts of the gish already filled from different directions in the existing 5e rules what's left is an exceptionally weird shape that you need to be fairly deeply into D&D lore to see as a problem.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> The _artificer_ isn't an arcane gish class, agreed. The alchemist and artillerist certainly aren't gish. But both the battle smith and the armourer do mix arcane magic and swordplay and thus are classified as types of gish. Other arcane gish include hexblade warlocks, college of valour and swords monks, eldritch knights, and bladesingers.
> 
> And making a single gish class treads on the toes of _all_ those half dozen classes. The hole for the gish isn't round. It might have been if you were starting from scratch, but with all those parts of the gish already filled from different directions in the existing 5e rules what's left is an exceptionally weird shape that you need to be fairly deeply into D&D lore to see as a problem.



I talked about this in an earlier post. If I were in charge, I'd get rid of those redundant subclasses. We don't need an Eldritch Knight (which barely functions mechanically as a gish), a Bladesinger (super restricted in armor/weapon types), and possibly even an Arcane Trickster if there is a base class for the "Arcane Gish" idea. There is still a design space for the Arcane Gish class in D&D 5e, but there also is too much overlap with subclasses that don't fulfill that niche. 

It's like the Warlord scenario. We have subclasses/options for the Martials in 5e that fill the same design space as the Warlord (PDK, some Battlemaster maneuvers, maybe Valor Bards), but they still aren't a Warlord. They don't fulfill the role well, and there is space for something else. Those subclasses would probably have to be dropped to make way for this space to fit more comfortably, but there is still a place for it. 

The same applies to the Arcane Gish.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I do fully understand that 5e has no room for a dedicated swordmage class, simply because each part of the swordmage has been done elsewhere either themewise or mechanic wise. Just in lots of individual bits which can't be stuck together as a whole anymore. No gish subclass in 5e fills the role as well as the duskblade, swordmage, or magus has in the past. But adding those classes would invalidate all the gish subclasses in the game now.

It's one of the reasons why I'm frustrated with 5e's approach to classes as a whole. They're so desperate to make everything a subclass that it's causing option bloat due to the sheer number of subclasses, while they're still doing it worse than a full class would.

Hopefully the 2024 edition gives a chance to rejig the classes from scratch.


----------



## Neonchameleon

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I talked about this in an earlier post. If I were in charge, I'd get rid of those redundant subclasses. We don't need an Eldritch Knight (which barely functions mechanically as a gish), a Bladesinger (super restricted in armor/weapon types), and possibly even an Arcane Trickster if there is a base class for the "Arcane Gish" idea. There is still a design space for the Arcane Gish class in D&D 5e, but there also is too much overlap with subclasses that don't fulfill that niche.



The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class _can_ cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.

And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.

And @Frozen_Heart I can't agree that the duskblade, that capped at 4th level spells, was anything other than very slightly better than the Eldritch Knight. Meanwhile the swordmage was pretty good - and is an entirely different class and approach from the magus. And a duskblade _certainly_ didn't cover the same sort of gish as the bladesinger.


----------



## cbwjm

I'd actually be tempted to move the bladesinger from wizard into a fighter-mage class, I think that would work well.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class _can_ cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.




I don't think anyone really wants to make sure _all_ gish-like options fit into one class, though. Any more than people are arguing that divine soul sorcerers and celestial warlocks should be clerics. 

The argument is there's a lot of subclasses, but they all largely fail to do what's being asked for. Someone counted 26 gishy subclasses - I don't think the idiom is "27th time's the charm." It seems that to build a good gish class, you need to build it to be a gish from the ground up. That's why duskblade, swordmage, and magus work, is the theory. 


Neonchameleon said:


> And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.



And it could be a swordmage subclass, or stay a kind of wizard if that works better. (But the opinion I most often hear is it's so restricted on fighting and so open on magic it actually doesn't make sense to use your weapon at all.)


Neonchameleon said:


> And @Frozen_Heart I can't agree that the duskblade, that capped at 4th level spells, was anything other than very slightly better than the Eldritch Knight. Meanwhile the swordmage was pretty good - and is an entirely different class and approach from the magus. And a duskblade _certainly_ didn't cover the same sort of gish as the bladesinger.



So maybe duskblade stays a rogue subclass or whatever, if that more accurately reflects the concept.


----------



## Minigiant

Making the Bladesinger a Gish subclass with Swordmage and Duskblade would have been the best option.

My personal crack theory is that the Bladesinger subclass only exists because designing subclasses for Wizard is hard due to its inherent power. So the Bladesinger was used as a cheap and easy lore source for a wizard that doesn't buff its magic.


----------



## edosan

I voted "Other" as in "rebalance all the classes and subclasses first, and then we'll talk."

I liked 5E's original design aesthetic of broad classes with the ability to customize but I think they fell down when it came to making every class and subclass not suck. It got even worse as new subclasses came in. They've gotten close to ten years of data and they need to use that to rebalance the subclasses to make them viable.


----------



## Neonchameleon

jmartkdr2 said:


> The argument is there's a lot of subclasses, but they all largely fail to do what's being asked for.



And the counterargument is that for the overwhelming majority of people they _don't_. On messageboards like ENWorld there are a _few_ people, almost all of whom were playing in the 3.X days asking for a "Gish". I'm more than old enough to remember that back in the 3.X days one of the bigger challenges on the CharOp boards was making an actually good Gish. But to the general D&D playing population and especially those with 5e I don't think that there is a gap here because there are so many different ways it's being covered. And possibly the Eldritch Knight could do with a bit of polishing - but I don't think most players would see it as a lack or the existing subclasses as "largely failing".


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Neonchameleon said:


> The thing is that there's enough variety between the classes that you propose removing that I don't think that a single hypothetical class _can_ cover them all. It's never existed in any edition (although some Gish-types have) and the balance between spell and sword is so different for the different subclasses that you'd need something very fiddly.
> 
> And you say the bladesinger is "super restricted". I'd say that's part of why it works thematically. A sword in one hand and spell in the other is iconic. And that even most sword wielding mages don't wear much armour either because they can't wear it because the armour interferes or simply because they are protected by magic. It's an iconic combination - and if it didn't have to do this most wouldn't.



I listed three. The Eldritch Knight, the Arcane Trickster, and the Bladesinger.

A single class can _easily _cover all of those archetypes. If the class were as bland as possible (which I'm not advocating for, I'm just saying that it _is_ possible), they could easily copy the Wizard and have the theme be largely determined by which subclass, and heavily link each subclass to at least one school of magic. There could be a Loki-themed Arcane Trickster subclass for the base class that stabs people with blades that create illusions. There could be an Evocation-themed Eldritch Knight/Duskblade that spell strikes purely using evocation magic. There could be a Conjuration-magic Swordmage that hops around the battlefield using teleportation spells and locks down enemies. There could be a Necromancy-based Death Knight that uses spells like Inflict Wounds, Vampiric Touch, and Enervation to drain the lives of their enemies and heal themselves with that life force. All of these could be a part of the same class, just like the Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, Echo Knight, and Samurai are all a part of the same base class in 5e.

The class doesn't even have to be that bland to fit all of those ideas in it. If it just has the same thematic identity in its core as, say, a Sorcerer (born with magic, warps spellcasting using metamagic, gets more powers based on their source of magic as they get higher level), it can still easily fulfill a vast variety of different playstyles and characters (Divine Soul Sorcerers, Draconic Bloodline, Aberrant Mind, Clockwork Soul, and Shadow Magic are all a part of the same base class).


----------



## doctorbadwolf

*Green Knight *or Hedgeknight. Minor magics of protection, growth, animal husbandry, and healing. I’d almost accept the Ancients Paladin, if it didn’t feel a bit too Fey Knight (and Paladin oaths are much too small to fit any robust concept. You’ll always be a XYZ flavored Paladin), and no Ranger feels right.
Probably give it some manner of curse affinity, as well. Equal parts witch, knight, and forest creature.  Turn into a Treant or Dryad, maybe.


----------



## FrogReaver

IMO multiclassing is a poor tool for creating class hybrids but works well for dips and total change of direction for characters.

So more classes can almost always be used to fill in those hybrid style classes.


----------



## Minigiant

AcererakTriple6 said:


> I listed three. The Eldritch Knight, the Arcane Trickster, and the Bladesinger.
> 
> A single class can _easily _cover all of those archetypes. If the class were as bland as possible (which I'm not advocating for, I'm just saying that it _is_ possible), they could easily copy the Wizard and have the theme be largely determined by which subclass, and heavily link each subclass to at least one school of magic. There could be a Loki-themed Arcane Trickster subclass for the base class that stabs people with blades that create illusions. There could be an Evocation-themed Eldritch Knight/Duskblade that spell strikes purely using evocation magic. There could be a Conjuration-magic Swordmage that hops around the battlefield using teleportation spells and locks down enemies. There could be a Necromancy-based Death Knight that uses spells like Inflict Wounds, Vampiric Touch, and Enervation to drain the lives of their enemies and heal themselves with that life force. All of these could be a part of the same class, just like the Rune Knight, Psi Warrior, Echo Knight, and Samurai are all a part of the same base class in 5e.
> 
> The class doesn't even have to be that bland to fit all of those ideas in it. If it just has the same thematic identity in its core as, say, a Sorcerer (born with magic, warps spellcasting using metamagic, gets more powers based on their source of magic as they get higher level), it can still easily fulfill a vast variety of different playstyles and characters (Divine Soul Sorcerers, Draconic Bloodline, Aberrant Mind, Clockwork Soul, and Shadow Magic are all a part of the same base class).




The Arcane Trickster to me doesn't fit.

The Archetypes could see for the class (I'd calll it Adept)

Arcane Archer/Elf- ranged adept that extends spell range and boosts DCs with bows.
Swordmage- light armored teleporting adept with an aegis
Deathknight- heavy tanking adept focus on vampiric/ghoulish/mummy strikes.
Dragonfire- adept focused on red/gold dragons. Claws, Wings, Scales, Firebreath
Duskblade- medium/heavy armored adept with evocation tipped strikes.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Yeah arcane trickster should definitely stay under rogue, and not get put as a theoretical swordmage sublass. It's not about blending magic and combat at all. It's about being sneaky and pulling empowered mage hand shenanigans.

I'd put it under artificer before I put it under swordmage. And I wouldn't put it under artificer.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah arcane trickster should definitely stay under rogue, and not get put as a theoretical swordmage sublass. It's not about blending magic and combat at all. It's about being sneaky and pulling empowered mage hand shenanigans.
> 
> I'd put it under artificer before I put it under swordmage. And I wouldn't put it under artificer.



Yeah I'd keep the arcane tricker and eldritch knights under their current parent classes. They each are there just to give a tiny bit of magic and infuse magic into the class's main gimmick (their and attacking respectively)

The Gish class to me be magic and martial intwinned.

Again my personal idea would be burning spell slots to add riders to attacks. Different weren't subclasses would have bonus riders.


Fire- Fire damage plus AOE Knockback
Ice- Cold Damage plus immobilize then slow
Lightning- Lightning damage plus daze and disarm
Thunder- Thunder damage plus deafened and knockback (Duskblade only)
Acid- Acid damage plus Attack disadvantage (Duskblade only)
Vampiric- Necrotic damage plus HP drain (Duskblade and Death knight only)
Ghoulish- Necrotic damage plus paralyzed (Death knight only)
Poison - High poison damage (Death knight only)
Ghostly- Necrotic Damage plus frightened (death knight)
Dragon breath- Fire Damage AOE cone (dragonfire)
Dragon Fear- Psychic damage plus frightened (dragonfire)
Dragon Wings- Bludgeoning plus launcher into AIRCOMBOOOOOO
gishes should be able to air combo it's the only class that makes sense doing it.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Ok aircombo sounds awesome. Also goes with the whole mobility teleporting theme.

It's also something which doesn't really exist as a mechanic.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah arcane trickster should definitely stay under rogue, and not get put as a theoretical swordmage sublass. It's not about blending magic and combat at all. It's about being sneaky and pulling empowered mage hand shenanigans.
> 
> I'd put it under artificer before I put it under swordmage. And I wouldn't put it under artificer.



I’ve often seen ATs used as a gish, especially since SCAG came out. Lots of using magic to get advantage on attacks and lock an enemy down. Recently I saw a Shadowtouched Elf Arcane Knight that was quite lethal.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Yeah I'd keep the arcane tricker and eldritch knights under their current parent classes. They each are there just to give a tiny bit of magic and infuse magic into the class's main gimmick (their and attacking respectively)
> 
> The Gish class to me be magic and martial intwinned.
> 
> Again my personal idea would be burning spell slots to add riders to attacks. Different weren't subclasses would have bonus riders.
> 
> 
> Fire- Fire damage plus AOE Knockback
> Ice- Cold Damage plus immobilize then slow
> Lightning- Lightning damage plus daze and disarm
> Thunder- Thunder damage plus deafened and knockback (Duskblade only)
> Acid- Acid damage plus Attack disadvantage (Duskblade only)
> Vampiric- Necrotic damage plus HP drain (Duskblade and Death knight only)
> Ghoulish- Necrotic damage plus paralyzed (Death knight only)
> Poison - High poison damage (Death knight only)
> Ghostly- Necrotic Damage plus frightened (death knight)
> Dragon breath- Fire Damage AOE cone (dragonfire)
> Dragon Fear- Psychic damage plus frightened (dragonfire)
> Dragon Wings- Bludgeoning plus launcher into AIRCOMBOOOOOO
> gishes should be able to air combo it's the only class that makes sense doing it.



Yeah one thing I’m working on in iteration of my swordmage is to have each subclass give different upgrades to the basic techniques and the Aether strike feature, as well as making the Aether strike basically like a SCAG cantrip. Basically, you can throw weapons that aren’t normally thrown, or project the force of the blow over a range, or create missiles of magic and shoot them a greater distance than normal. That’s the basic thing, at will.  

Then, your subclass gives you, for instance, the ability to spend Aether and make the attacks deal Fire, add fire damage equal to your Aether strike die, and set the target on fire. Spend more, and the target also sheds bright light and grants advantage on attacks until the end of your next turn.


----------



## delericho

I'd be inclined to add three classes, to complete the set of "every class from every PHB(1) of previous editions". That would mean promoting the Assassin back to being a class (1st Ed), adding a Warlord class (4e), and adding some sort of Mageblade class (the BECMI Elf 'class').

I'd also remove multiclassing.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

delericho said:


> I'd be inclined to add three classes, to complete the set of "every class from every PHB(1) of previous editions". That would mean promoting the Assassin back to being a class (1st Ed), adding a Warlord class (4e), and adding some sort of Mageblade class (the BECMI Elf 'class').
> 
> I'd also remove multiclassing.



Removing MC is a bold stroke. I’d be for it if there were more feats that give you a little bit of another class’s thing.


----------



## Rogerd1

Faolyn said:


> In Level Up, _ki _has been removed and replaced with exertion, which all martials get. Monks--renamed Adepts for them--just get some extra exertion.



I think this is a step in the right direction.

My idea is that all classes can pick from the same pool for abilities, some monks may use exertion /chi while some others may belong to a church and possess a divine power source.

And have 3-4 main classes with specialisations.

So you could have Magic-User as primary, and specialisation as Martial Artist. Their fighting would be secondary, and magic first.

But also the reverse, Martial Artist / Shugenja. While this would be the opposite.


----------



## Minigiant

Here's a Question

D&D carves out the explanation for a lot of spellcasters. *Are the warrior versions of the other casters missing?*



CasterWarriorBardBardThe Bard is the warrior version of itselfClericPaladinThe Paladin and Cleric both use divine magicDruidRangerAlthough not one to one, the Ranger uses nature magic and a lite magic from unknown sourcesSorcerer????What happens when a PCs bloodline, racial traits, or origin doesn't manifest as spellcasting?Warlock????Can patrons give PCs something other than magic?WizardGish

If you great great great grandfather was a dragon, why must his bloodline show up in you as pew pew powers?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> Here's a Question
> 
> D&D carves out the explanation for a lot of spellcasters. *Are the warrior versions of the other casters missing?*
> 
> 
> 
> CasterWarriorBardBardThe Bard is the warrior version of itselfClericPaladinThe Paladin and Cleric both use divine magicDruidRangerAlthough not one to one, the Ranger uses nature magic and a lite magic from unknown sourcesSorcerer????What happens when a PCs bloodline, racial traits, or origin doesn't manifest as spellcasting?Warlock????Can patrons give PCs something other than magic?WizardGish
> 
> If you great great great grandfather was a dragon, why must his bloodline show up in you as pew pew powers?



what is the monk the warrior for?


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> what is the monk the warrior for?



The wise old mystic on the top of a mountain?

The shaman channeling life and spirit magic?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> The wise old mystic on the top of a mountain?
> 
> The shaman channeling life and spirit magic?



yeah what would those be called?


----------



## Crimson Longinus

I don't really think that "fighty version" and "casty version" of the same concept is a good way to conceptualise classes, but if some sort of psion really needs to exist as a full class, then I would make it as a meditation-based mental power using mystic that would be the caster counterpart to the monk.


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> yeah what would those be called?





Crimson Longinus said:


> I don't really think that "fighty version" and "casty version" of the same concept is a good way to conceptualise classes, but if some sort of psion really needs to exist as a full class, then I would make it as a meditation-based mental power using mystic that would be the caster counterpart to the monk.




Yeah. I could a sublclass of the psion being able to convert or channel ki via psionic energy via meditation.
Less a caster version and more using psi points to power ki abilities. Just not stunning strike thugh.

Sort of how I can see a dragon-blooded warrior spending sorcery points to get dragon scales, grow wings, and ignite his sword to battle a white dragon face to face for the opposite direction.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> Yeah. I could a sublclass of the psion being able to convert or channel ki via psionic energy via meditation.
> Less a caster version and more using psi points to power ki abilities. Just not stunning strike thugh.
> 
> Sort of how I can see a dragon-blooded warrior spending sorcery points to get dragon scales, grow wings, and ignite his sword to battle a white dragon face to face for the opposite direction.



sorcery just needs to be taken back to the drawing board as it needs more of a hook.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Here's a Question
> 
> D&D carves out the explanation for a lot of spellcasters. *Are the warrior versions of the other casters missing?*
> 
> 
> 
> CasterWarriorBardBardThe Bard is the warrior version of itselfClericPaladinThe Paladin and Cleric both use divine magicDruidRangerAlthough not one to one, the Ranger uses nature magic and a lite magic from unknown sourcesSorcerer????What happens when a PCs bloodline, racial traits, or origin doesn't manifest as spellcasting?Warlock????Can patrons give PCs something other than magic?WizardGish
> 
> If you great great great grandfather was a dragon, why must his bloodline show up in you as pew pew powers?



I like the idea of a super powered but not Spellcasting warrior class, but it also feels like maybe a set of barbarians that re-conceptualize the Rage mechanic.  

Also the bard could use a warrior poet variant that isn’t a caster, or maybe just has ritual casting. Just 3.5 style songs in place of inspiration dice, and enemy debuffs, and the basic warrior package, with medium armor, shields, and most weapons. Give the debuffs a common theme and name, and then make any rebuffed enemy take scaling bonus damage, and you’ve got a solid mythical Irish-style heroic warrior poet. 


Minigiant said:


> The wise old mystic on the top of a mountain?
> 
> The shaman channeling life and spirit magic?



Yeah the mystic for sure, which is just the psion IMO.  

Warlock has the Hexblade, which would probably work better as it’s own class, with various pacts to choose from in the style of 4e, to be different but similar to the warlock.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Man now I wanna build a Hexblade. Maybe I’ll combine that idea with my Dweomerknight “heavy arcane” gish concept to sit alongside the lighter, more mystic, swordmage I’ve been building.  

You create a weapon out of magic, power you gained by trading part of your soul and replacing it with whatever you get your power from. I really liked the White Well Hexblade in 4e, and would love to do very specific pacts like that, but it’s definitely more work.


----------



## jmartkdr2

doctorbadwolf said:


> Man now I wanna build a Hexblade. Maybe I’ll combine that idea with my Dweomerknight “heavy arcane” gish concept to sit alongside the lighter, more mystic, swordmage I’ve been building.
> 
> You create a weapon out of magic, power you gained by trading part of your soul and replacing it with whatever you get your power from. I really liked the White Well Hexblade in 4e, and would love to do very specific pacts like that, but it’s definitely more work.



Hexblade already feels like it's own class, it just needs a bit of tweaking to really work.

The real quetion is do you port over the Patron concept wholesale or change the sublcass concepts to something a bit broader?


----------



## Aldarc

jmartkdr2 said:


> Hexblade already feels like it's own class, it just needs a bit of tweaking to really work.
> 
> The real quetion is do you port over the Patron concept wholesale or change the sublcass concepts to something a bit broader?



Most people I know re-fluff the origin of the Hexblade's weapon to whichever other Patron they prefer anyway. The Hexblade is really what the the Boon of the Blade should be.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

jmartkdr2 said:


> Hexblade already feels like it's own class, it just needs a bit of tweaking to really work.
> 
> The real quetion is do you port over the Patron concept wholesale or change the sublcass concepts to something a bit broader?



I'd either  go more broad or more specific. 

Either it's Pact of The White Well, which gives a specific sword and is a very small order of less than a dozen individuals in the whole multiverse who serve this specific archfey, or it's a broad approach to making war or something. "The archfey" is, I think, a good fit for exactly one class. Trying to spread it to two, without changing the focus of it somehow, would be a bad approach. 

I'd go with a general knightly orders vibe. Maybe part of that is that I don't like how much the Paladin has taken over the knighthood space in dnd, but I also think it's just a good hook. So you are a knight of the lady of the white well, or a knight of winter, or a knight of hell. And there are even some gods that would likely have arcane knightly orders dedicated to them, such as Bahamut and Mystra. 

And then you've got the Swordmage on the other side of the gish design space, in light or no armor, members of esoteric orders (ie secrets societies and mystery cults with swords), sort of the nerd foil to the Dweomer Knight's himbo energy. 

Just needs a one word name. Maybe Arcknight, as someone suggested in my "name a gish" thread.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> Hexblade already feels like it's own class, it just needs a bit of tweaking to really work.
> 
> The real quetion is do you port over the Patron concept wholesale or change the sublcass concepts to something a bit broader?



I have never gotten why a sapient magic weapon class is an idea as it seems so dumb, Does anyone know why it is a thing?


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> I like the idea of a super powered but not Spellcasting warrior class, but it also feels like maybe a set of barbarians that re-conceptualize the Rage mechanic.




I thought the same at first. However barbarian subclasses don't do anything for you when you aren't raging. So you'd have none of your dragon blood while in normal mode outside of narrow niche stuff.

See the Path of Wild Magic. Does anyone like that subclass. I haven't see love for it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> I thought the same at first. However barbarian subclasses don't do anything for you when you aren't raging. So you'd have none of your dragon blood while in normal mode outside of narrow niche stuff.
> 
> See the Path of Wild Magic. Does anyone like that subclass. I haven't see love for it.



I've seen quite a lot of love for it. But it's not true that no barbarian subclasses do anything outside of raging. The Totem Warrior gets magic rituals, for instance. Certainly no reason a new subclass couldn't provide more subtle power outside of rage, and just make those features more potent while Raging.

Besides which, I wouldn't want the concept to just be "a dragon guy" all the time. A transformation is exactly the hook I'd be looking for in a presentation of the concept, even if it were a class.


----------



## Scribe

Minigiant said:


> Here's a Question
> 
> D&D carves out the explanation for a lot of spellcasters. *Are the warrior versions of the other casters missing?*
> 
> 
> 
> CasterWarriorBardBardThe Bard is the warrior version of itselfClericPaladinThe Paladin and Cleric both use divine magicDruidRangerAlthough not one to one, the Ranger uses nature magic and a lite magic from unknown sourcesSorcerer????What happens when a PCs bloodline, racial traits, or origin doesn't manifest as spellcasting?Warlock????Can patrons give PCs something other than magic?WizardGish
> 
> If you great great great grandfather was a dragon, why must his bloodline show up in you as pew pew powers?




Sorcerer = Scaled Fist, or Bloodrager from PF1.
Warlock = Hmm...I cant think of anything really, but I dont like how Warlocks are fluffed in 5e anyway.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

Mind of tempest said:


> I have never gotten why a sapient magic weapon class is an idea as it seems so dumb, Does anyone know why it is a thing?



Elric. But yes, it is kinda dumb and limited as a class concept.


----------



## TwoSix

doctorbadwolf said:


> I've seen quite a lot of love for it. But it's not true that no barbarian subclasses do anything outside of raging. The Totem Warrior gets magic rituals, for instance. Certainly no reason a new subclass couldn't provide more subtle power outside of rage, and just make those features more potent while Raging.
> 
> Besides which, I wouldn't want the concept to just be "a dragon guy" all the time. A transformation is exactly the hook I'd be looking for in a presentation of the concept, even if it were a class.



I feel like expending rage uses on other features (like newer druid subclasses do with wildshape) would be a good mechanical hook to explore for barbarians.  The general problem with barbarians is a lot like rogue, the core class kit is strong enough that there isn't a lot of power budget for transformational subclass features.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

TwoSix said:


> I feel like expending rage uses on other features (like newer druid subclasses do with wildshape) would be a good mechanical hook to explore for barbarians.  The general problem with barbarians is a lot like rogue, the core class kit is strong enough that there isn't a lot of power budget for transformational subclass features.



I could see going that way. In general I see no reason that you couldn't do "when you rage, you increase in size and turn green, and gain a damage bonus every time you take damage" or more seriously, "while raging your wings double in size, and you gain a fly speed equal to your speed. Additionally, your draconic breath recharges, if you have already used it, and it deals more damage than while not raging. Finally, at level X, you gain an aura of draconic majesty while raging, and your allies are heartened while your enemies tremble in fear."


----------



## jmartkdr2

Mind of tempest said:


> I have never gotten why a sapient magic weapon class is an idea as it seems so dumb, Does anyone know why it is a thing?



Because that sort of character isn't available through any other class, and is _really_ common in fantasy fiction, especially anime.


----------



## Mind of tempest

jmartkdr2 said:


> Because that sort of character isn't available through any other class, and is _really_ common in fantasy fiction, especially anime.



then it should be an item you can get not a class.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Mind of tempest said:


> then it should be an item you can get not a class.



That means playing the character you want to play is entirely up to the dm deciding to let you, at some point, which is generally not something done in rpgs.

Are there any other classes that have their core concept not a class feature? Like, a wizard that doesn't get any spells except what they find during adventures? Barbarians that can't rage until they have a  traumatic moment during play?


----------



## TwoSix

Mind of tempest said:


> then it should be an item you can get not a class.



The general problem is that 5e could support (but doesn’t) class changes brought about by narrative events like gaining a powerful item.

“Wielder of a Holy Avenger” or “Wielder of Stormbringer” could easily be 5 level prestige-type classes.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

TwoSix said:


> The general problem is that 5e could support (but doesn’t) class changes brought about by narrative events like gaining a powerful item.
> 
> “Wielder of a Holy Avenger” or “Wielder of Stormbringer” could easily be 5 level prestige-type classes.




I think that is one problem with the whole warlock class. "Being offered great power by a questionable entity" has great story potential, but because that's the premise of the whole class, in practice that has already happened when you start the play. And it is unlikely that a character of some other class could be tempted with such eldritch power, unless they wanted to multiclass into a warlock. I feel it would be narratively more useful if "made a deal with the devil for great power" was a template you could put on several classes instead of a class itself.

Subclasses that could be applied to multiple classes were a really cool concept in the Strixhaven UA, but apparently it was deemed too unwieldy and abandoned. I really think that in the next bigger clean up they should make subclasses of all classes follow the same progression pattern, so that this sort of shenanigans would be easier to apply.


----------



## TwoSix

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think that is one problem with the whole warlock class. "Being offered great power by a questionable entity" has great story potential, but because that's the premise of the whole class, in practice that has already happened when you start the play. And it is unlikely that a character of some other class could be tempted with such eldritch power, unless they wanted to multiclass into a warlock. I feel it would be narratively more useful if "made a deal with the devil for great power" was a template you could put on several classes instead of a class itself.
> 
> Subclasses that could be applied to multiple classes were a really cool concept in the Strixhaven UA, but apparently it was deemed too unwieldy and abandoned. I really think that in the next bigger clean up they should make subclasses of all classes follow the same progression pattern, so that this sort of shenanigans would be easier to apply.



Yea.  I'd say the general problem (for me) is that warlock works well with the current predominant paradigm of "Build a character to a specific pre-created vision"; I just don't think that's the best paradigm for D&D style play.

Fundamentally, I don't think sitting down at the table at level 1 knowing exactly what abilities your character will have at level 12 is a good thing; I think there should be a lot more randomness based on narrative events.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Crimson Longinus said:


> I think that is one problem with the whole warlock class. "Being offered great power by a questionable entity" has great story potential, but because that's the premise of the whole class, in practice that has already happened when you start the play. And it is unlikely that a character of some other class could be tempted with such eldritch power, unless they wanted to multiclass into a warlock. I feel it would be narratively more useful if "made a deal with the devil for great power" was a template you could put on several classes instead of a class itself.



I don't so much see it as a "problem with the whole warlock class" as I do "this shows why multiple paths is good." Because it's not like such "narrative-event-heavy" classes are unpopular, Sorcerer is also a now-standard tradition (that even got back-ported into _Baldur's Gate_ with its 2e-inspired rules), even though "revealing your magical heritage/innate power" is also usually a story event in literature. The needs of static, written literature and dynamic, acted play are different, so it really shouldn't be surprising that the two differ in how to best execute the idea.

The Warlock, like the Sorcerer and Paladin, offers a character that has already "gotten started," as it were. Like the difference between the "will they/won't they" of a romantic subplot _getting started_, vs. the "how will they handle this" of _maintaining_ a romantic relationship (which so many authors seem friggin' allergic to writing!) There's good fun and good stories to be had in telling the story of how you got a contract with a great and terrible power, but there's also good fun to be had in all the dynamics produced once you have it, and sometimes it is that latter drama which people wish to focus more upon. Some folks want to play Luke-the-farmer's slow journey to Luke-the-apprentice and finally end with Luke-the-knight passing that final test of character and saving the galaxy. Others prefer to begin with Luke-the-knight and explore what follows after that. Support for both is useful.



Crimson Longinus said:


> Subclasses that could be applied to multiple classes were a really cool concept in the Strixhaven UA, but apparently it was deemed too unwieldy and abandoned. I really think that in the next bigger clean up they should make subclasses of all classes follow the same progression pattern, so that this sort of shenanigans would be easier to apply.



Yeah, I was kind of sad to see those go. If classes don't have roles and are just super-bundles over subclasses, then it makes a lot of sense to me that mutually-applicable subclasses should verge across whatever classes fit the bill. That's one of the reasons I felt I had to design a Silver Pyromancer as a short PrC, rather than a subclass or a feat; subclasses are restricted to single classes, while feats are both far too rare and far too small to encapsulate everything I felt a Silver Pyromancer should have. (I began building it long before Strixhaven was even announced, so I wouldn't have abandoned it even if cross-class subclasses had become a thing purely because I already put all that work into it. The fact that they _didn't_ become a thing certainly makes me more confident I made the right choice though.)

Classes, subclasses, templates, boons, and other things are all tools in the toolbox for representing various themes and experiences. It's useful to have options on that front. For stuff like warlock-style pacts and magical bloodlines, I'll certainly grant that there's a dearth of formal support for those stories where the power/pact/whatever is the _consequence_ of events rather than the inciting incident thereof, unless you just straight multiclass. It would be cool to have more options for that side of things. I just don't want those new options to come along by _replacing_ the options we already have, because...that's just swapping which one is getting special favor.



TwoSix said:


> Yea.  I'd say the general problem (for me) is that warlock works well with the current predominant paradigm of "Build a character to a specific pre-created vision"; I just don't think that's the best paradigm for D&D style play.
> 
> Fundamentally, I don't think sitting down at the table at level 1 knowing exactly what abilities your character will have at level 12 is a good thing; I think there should be a lot more randomness based on narrative events.



And if that's what you want to have, I genuinely agree that current D&D doesn't support that as well as it could, and that it is awesome for you to seek it...so long as that doesn't come with "and now _everyone has_ to play a game where randomness is dominant." Wanting to see support for something that's both perfectly valid and poorly supported is a-okay. Wanting that to be the paradigm everyone has to use is less so.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> I've seen quite a lot of love for it. But it's not true that no barbarian subclasses do anything outside of raging. The Totem Warrior gets magic rituals, for instance. Certainly no reason a new subclass couldn't provide more subtle power outside of rage, and just make those features more potent while Raging.
> 
> Besides which, I wouldn't want the concept to just be "a dragon guy" all the time. A transformation is exactly the hook I'd be looking for in a presentation of the concept, even if it were a class.




Well the issue is that barbarian gets so few rages a day within the first 10 levels of play that if you tied all the major aspects of your monstrous heritage or accidental empowerment that you don't get to display it often.

A level 3 draconic sorcerer has

a resistance
+ 3 HP
and Scales AC
Because great grandma is a gold dragon.That's on top of 6 spells a day 3 sorcery points, and 4 cantrips.

Is Reckless Attack as "great grandma breaths fire" as 4 at-will spells?


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> Subclasses that could be applied to multiple classes were a really cool concept in the Strixhaven UA, but apparently it was deemed too unwieldy and abandoned. I really think that in the next bigger clean up they should make subclasses of all classes follow the same progression pattern, so that this sort of shenanigans would be easier to apply.



I worry they took the wrong lesson form that - it's not that polyclass subclasses in general are a bad idea, it's that _those_ subclasses didn't work well.

Beastmaster, for example, makes sense for barbarians and druids just as much as it does for rangers, and if it doesn't need to be a beast you can justify a pet subclass for everything but sorcerers without stretching - and pet rules wouldn't need to change between classes.


----------



## TwoSix

EzekielRaiden said:


> And if that's what you want to have, I genuinely agree that current D&D doesn't support that as well as it could, and that it is awesome for you to seek it...so long as that doesn't come with "and now _everyone has_ to play a game where randomness is dominant." Wanting to see support for something that's both perfectly valid and poorly supported is a-okay. Wanting that to be the paradigm everyone has to use is less so.



I don't think it would become the dominant paradigm no matter how much I wanted it to.   It's simply where I direct my homebrew efforts, and something I advocate for in topics about design.


----------



## Crimson Longinus

EzekielRaiden said:


> And if that's what you want to have, I genuinely agree that current D&D doesn't support that as well as it could, and that it is awesome for you to seek it...so long as that doesn't come with "and now _everyone has_ to play a game where randomness is dominant." Wanting to see support for something that's both perfectly valid and poorly supported is a-okay. Wanting that to be the paradigm everyone has to use is less so.



It doesn't need to be literal random in "randomise your subclass" sense, merely that the character build options are such that the character can organically grow and branch into different directions depending on what makes most sense in the emerging narrative, instead of it all being preplanned from the get go.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Crimson Longinus said:


> It doesn't need to be literal random in "randomise your subclass" sense, merely that the character build options are such that the character can organically grow and branch into different directions depending on what makes most sense in the emerging narrative, instead of it all being preplanned from the get go.



And that's a good thing - but it shouldn't preclude players having enough control to feel like it's the character they wanted to play.

Which is a tough balance to strike.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> Well the issue is that barbarian gets so few rages a day within the first 10 levels of play that if you tied all the major aspects of your monstrous heritage or accidental empowerment that you don't get to display it often.
> 
> A level 3 draconic sorcerer has
> 
> a resistance
> + 3 HP
> and Scales AC
> Because great grandma is a gold dragon.That's on top of 6 spells a day 3 sorcery points, and 4 cantrips.
> 
> Is Reckless Attack as "great grandma breaths fire" as 4 at-will spells?



That's a general weakness of the class, sure. But 4 at-will spells doesn't feel at all "great grandma breaths fire", to me. Like, 0%. I would never look at the base sorcerer and think "this might be a thing that happens when a dragon shags a human". 

Also, I'd rather get a couple draconic ribbon features and a "couple times a day transform into a more dragonlike being" feature, at level 3, than wait for most of the time I'll ever play the character before I even get wings. 

If there was such a barb subclass, I'd combine that with a draconic gift feat and feel plenty "born of dragons".


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> That's a general weakness of the class, sure. But 4 at-will spells doesn't feel at all "great grandma breaths fire", to me. Like, 0%. I would never look at the base sorcerer and think "this might be a thing that happens when a dragon shags a human".
> 
> Also, I'd rather get a couple draconic ribbon features and a "couple times a day transform into a more dragonlike being" feature, at level 3, than wait for most of the time I'll ever play the character before I even get wings.
> 
> If there was such a barb subclass, I'd combine that with a draconic gift feat and feel plenty "born of dragons".



The cantrips don't scream dragon origin but they display the fact that you have an sorcerous origin.

As a sorcerer, I can display the _results_ of my grandpa seceding a dragon. The magic matches the source of the origin. They just wont be dragon flavored.

However unless dragons are natural rageholic, babrabrians don't have a feature that display dragonness. And f you go to other sorcerous orgins like Shadows, Psioincs, Clockworks or Celestials, barbarians make *no sense*. My dad marched with modrons and it makes me RAGE!!!!


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> The cantrips don't scream dragon origin but they display the fact that you have an sorcerous origin.
> 
> As a sorcerer, I can display the _results_ of my grandpa seceding a dragon. The magic matches the source of the origin. They just wont be dragon flavored.



But how does having spellcasting display the result of grandpa seducing a dragon? IMO, it doesn't. If the idea had never been published in dnd, and you were a PC in a game with any of my PCs, and you said "My grandma is a silver dragon. See, I can cast spells!" I'd just go, "Um, my grandma is a halfling, and I can too." 

IMO there is no connection between the two.


Minigiant said:


> However unless dragons are natural rageholic, babrabrians don't have a feature that display dragonness. And f you go to other sorcerous orgins like Shadows, Psioincs, Clockworks or Celestials, barbarians make *no sense*. My dad marched with modrons and it makes me RAGE!!!!



Rage is a transformation, first of all, so the feature dsplays having an unnatural origin much better than being able to do some stuff that any wizard can do. Second, I literally explicitly mentioned rage being recontextualized for this purpose in a previous post in this discussion. 

Transforming into a draconic creature, essentially becoming a were-dragon, makes a hell of a lot more sense for someone with a draconic ancestor (who clearly had to use some sort of transformative magic in order to accomplish making babies with a human in the first place), than imagining that having a white dragon ancestor makes you a very powerful spellcaster! 

In fact, it makes more sense for nearly every possible "sorcerous" origin to have a limited feature that eventually becomes less limited and then ultimately unlimited wherein you become more like the thing you are born from, than to be born a spellcaster. 

"I was born of shades, and so I can...summon a shadow dog thing and cast absorb elements!" 

vs

"I was born of shades, and a shade I can become, though it taxes me to do so. I worry, though. What does it mean to grow in this power, to become more and more of a shadow myself? Will I someday enter the shadow and never leave it?"


----------



## EzekielRaiden

Crimson Longinus said:


> It doesn't need to be literal random in "randomise your subclass" sense, merely that the character build options are such that the character can organically grow and branch into different directions depending on what makes most sense in the emerging narrative, instead of it all being preplanned from the get go.





jmartkdr2 said:


> And that's a good thing - but it shouldn't preclude players having enough control to feel like it's the character they wanted to play.
> 
> Which is a tough balance to strike.



A better, pithier response I could not make.

I get wanting organic character growth; I do. But every system I've seen for actually _making_ organic character growth tends to produce...well, the kind of stuff that came out of 3e. Skill points were supposed to let you invest in whatever you wanted, and instead ended up being really punishing and meticulous. Feats (in 3e) were supposed to feel like chunky blocks of cool stuff, and instead were either fiddly-nothing (or _worse_), or overwhelmingly powerful and (almost) ne'er the twain shall meet. The two systems specifically intended to encourage variety ended up punishing it instead. Ability scores are at risk of the same, e.g. in 3e you'd rarely see an Int 18 Fighter and _never_ an Int 8 Wizard, the former because they have no use for such high Int apart from skill points, the latter because the game _forbids_ a Wizard from casting spells if they don't have at least 10+spell level Intelligence (meaning an Int 9 or lower Wizard cannot even cast cantrips--and every Wizard worth their salt always aims for at least Int 19 to be able to cast 9th level spells--preferably Int 20.)

It really is an extremely difficult design issue. Keep things loose and open, and people are quite likely to feel punished (whether or not that feeling is accurate or appropriate) for not measuring up. Keep things tight and focused, and people (such as yourself) feel it's "preplanned from the get go." Several middle-of-the-road options have failed miserably, making the situation worse in both directions (heightening the feeling of "punishment" for "falling behind" AND the feeling that things need to be preplanned.)

Personally, I think you are over-reacting at least a little to the existence of classes with levels. Like...that's what having "a class" IS, mechanically. It's something where you can see where it goes going forward, a collection of elements. By fogging, or randomizing, or making vague those things, you are directly disrupting the class-based design of the game. If "organic" growth is what you want, classes will never truly fulfill that desire, you will always be compromising on it to some degree.



doctorbadwolf said:


> Rage is a transformation



It is? That's news to me. People rather play up the fact that Barbarian is one of exactly three classes (it, Fighter, and Rogue) that aren't innately magical to some degree in 5e. Monk ki is magical, and every other class has spells. Rage is one of the few explicitly _non_-magical class features.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

EzekielRaiden said:


> It is? That's news to me.



In the example that was being discussed in that exchange, yes.  

Statements are, more often than not, meaningless without context.


----------



## Remathilis

TwoSix said:


> Yea. I'd say the general problem (for me) is that warlock works well with the current predominant paradigm of "Build a character to a specific pre-created vision"; I just don't think that's the best paradigm for D&D style play.
> 
> Fundamentally, I don't think sitting down at the table at level 1 knowing exactly what abilities your character will have at level 12 is a good thing; I think there should be a lot more randomness based on narrative events.



That's the problem of any class based system though, you know what you're going to look like 5, 10, or 20 levels down the road. I mean, even if my character has a religious epiphany or strikes an eldritch bargain, your probably not going to become a multiclass cleric or warlock unless you made the forethought to have a good wisdom or charisma respectively. 

The only way I could see such freedom is some manner of classes system where you can get features without them being tied to class or influenced by that classes ability modifier. But that stops looking like D&D.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> That's the problem of any class based system though, you know what you're going to look like 5, 10, or 20 levels down the road. I mean, even if my character has a religious epiphany or strikes an eldritch bargain, your probably not going to become a multiclass cleric or warlock unless you made the forethought to have a good wisdom or charisma respectively.
> 
> The only way I could see such freedom is some manner of classes system where you can get features without them being tied to class or influenced by that classes ability modifier. But that stops looking like D&D.



Any class system except Level Up.  Classes have choice points all over the place in that system.


----------



## EzekielRaiden

doctorbadwolf said:


> In the example that was being discussed in that exchange, yes.
> 
> Statements are, more often than not, meaningless without context.



Okay. Even in context, it was confusing--I knew you meant "Rage to represent Sorcerer bloodline stuff," but it very much came across as "Rage is _*already*_ a transformation, so this should all be fine."

As for the rest, I think you're just going to find a very uphill battle for a lot of folks. "Born with magic powers I don't fully understand" is an incredibly common fantasy trope. "Born with the ability to sometimes hulk out and turn into a violent and dangerous creature"...isn't.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> /But how does having spellcasting display the result of grandpa seducing a dragon? IMO, it doesn't. If the idea had never been published in dnd, and you were a PC in a game with any of my PCs, and you said "My grandma is a silver dragon. See, I can cast spells!" I'd just go, "Um, my grandma is a halfling, and I can too."
> 
> IMO there is no connection between the two.



The D&D dragon has been a natural spellcaster for several editions.

One of he default bloodline of a sorcerer is that one of your ancestors was a polymorphed dragon and you inherited their nitural magic.

My question is why can't you inherit their wings, claws, scales, breath weapon, resistance or fear aura? 
Especially since half dragons do. 



doctorbadwolf said:


> Rage is a transformation, first of all, so the feature dsplays having an unnatural origin much better than being able to do some stuff that any wizard can do. Second, I literally explicitly mentioned rage being recontextualized for this purpose in a previous post in this discussion.




Technically. it isn't. Rage can be a transformtion but it isn't automatically. The berserkers rage,  the default barbarian, is natural.

The fact that WOTC dumps magic in everything 5e is a separate point.



doctorbadwolf said:


> In fact, it makes more sense for nearly every possible "sorcerous" origin to have a limited feature that eventually becomes less limited and then ultimately unlimited wherein you become more like the thing you are born from, than to be born a spellcaster.



You have not argument from me that the sorcerer should have a monstrous half and less spellcasting.

But we lost that battle in the playtest. 
The Wildmage should have been a Pure caster. The Dragon Mage shoulda been a Mage/Warrior. The Celestial Mage should have been a Mage/Priest. The Shadowmge a Mage/Thief.


So the sorcerer allows you to inherit a dragon's, abberant's or celestial's spellcasting Nothing allowsyou to inherits a dragon's, abberant's or celestial's monstrous ability.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

I will be eternally salty about losing the playtest sorcerer.

Just so we could be given a bad wizard with the metamagic feat glued on.


----------



## Aldarc

Frozen_Heart said:


> I will be eternally salty about losing the playtest sorcerer.
> 
> Just so we could be given a bad wizard with the metamagic feat glued on.



The 3e Sorcerer had a place, even if it was testing new mechanics. It gave us a spontaneous arcane caster. The 4e Sorcerer had a place. It was an Arcane Striker whereas the Wizard was the Arcane Controller. The 5e Sorcerer? It is spontaneous like everyone else and there are no class roles. It's a hollow, rudderless class. The fantasy archetype it is meant to represent feels so phoned-in.


----------



## Remathilis

Aldarc said:


> The 3e Sorcerer had a place, even if it was testing new mechanics. It gave us a spontaneous arcane caster. The 4e Sorcerer had a place. It was an Arcane Striker whereas the Wizard was the Arcane Controller. The 5e Sorcerer? It is spontaneous like everyone else and there are no class roles. It's a hollow, rudderless class. The fantasy archetype it is meant to represent feels so phoned-in.



I like the idea of a caster who doesn't use/need a spell book and instead draws magic from from a themed bloodline is appealing. I find when I want to design a caster, my eye naturally goes to sorcerer. Which is why it's so frustrating that it doesn't work for that. The spell list is too narrow to support many of the themes it is trying to carry (there aren't enough elemental spells for non-fire draconic, shadow lacks enough illusion and necromancy, there aren't enough psi-flavored spells for aberrant, etc) plus you are capped at such a low amount of spells known, you can't even be versatile and are stuck primary as a goodstuff blaster with maybe a thematic spell every few levels. 

Ideally, the sorcerer should get more spells and access to thematic spells (akin to how aberrant and clockwork do) as a start. They really should have one or two more subclass features that strongly integrate the theme of the bloodline. Beyond that, I'm not sure how to fix it's problems. I just don't want to lose such cool concepts like divine soul, shadow magic or aberrant mind to becoming a traditional book wizard.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> The D&D dragon has been a natural spellcaster for several editions.
> 
> One of he default bloodline of a sorcerer is that one of your ancestors was a polymorphed dragon and you inherited their nitural magic.
> 
> My question is why can't you inherit their wings, claws, scales, breath weapon, resistance or fear aura?
> Especially since half dragons do.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically. it isn't. Rage can be a transformtion but it isn't automatically. The berserkers rage,  the default barbarian, is natural.
> 
> The fact that WOTC dumps magic in everything 5e is a separate point.
> 
> 
> You have not argument from me that the sorcerer should have a monstrous half and less spellcasting.
> 
> But we lost that battle in the playtest.
> The Wildmage should have been a Pure caster. The Dragon Mage shoulda been a Mage/Warrior. The Celestial Mage should have been a Mage/Priest. The Shadowmge a Mage/Thief.
> 
> 
> So the sorcerer allows you to inherit a dragon's, abberant's or celestial's spellcasting Nothing allowsyou to inherits a dragon's, abberant's or celestial's monstrous ability.



Eh, I don’t agree with any of that, so we may as well move on.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Hmm wonder what would have happened if the 'take on traits of your bloodline' had gone the other way and become more martial, rather than being glued to the sorcerer.

Make the physical traits and abilities you take on the primary draw of the class, becoming a combat monster and not through weapons or armour. Some subclasses maybe having casting abilities, but not all of them.


----------



## TwoSix

Remathilis said:


> That's the problem of any class based system though, you know what you're going to look like 5, 10, or 20 levels down the road. I mean, even if my character has a religious epiphany or strikes an eldritch bargain, your probably not going to become a multiclass cleric or warlock unless you made the forethought to have a good wisdom or charisma respectively.
> 
> The only way I could see such freedom is some manner of classes system where you can get features without them being tied to class or influenced by that classes ability modifier. But that stops looking like D&D.



It's not a necessity, though.  Look at a lot of OD&D classes, where there really is no character ability progression outside of attack bonus and hit points.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Hmm wonder what would have happened if the 'take on traits of your bloodline' had gone the other way and become more martial, rather than being glued to the sorcerer.
> 
> Make the physical traits and abilities you take on the primary draw of the class, becoming a combat monster and not through weapons or armour. Some subclasses maybe having casting abilities, but not all of them.



I would have liked that, though not as the sorcerer. The sorcerer should for most be a caster, but I would have had them have some custom effects and abilities that they can boost and modify by spending spell slots, like the 4e psionic classes but less complex.  

The “touched by the power of XYZ” thing would have been the Barbarian, and only some subclasses would have a “you can’t cast while raging” thing.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

doctorbadwolf said:


> I would have liked that, though not as the sorcerer. The sorcerer should for most be a caster, but I would have had them have some custom effects and abilities that they can boost and modify by spending spell slots, like the 4e psionic classes but less complex.
> 
> The “touched by the power of XYZ” thing would have been the Barbarian, and only some subclasses would have a “you can’t cast while raging” thing.



Yeah it definitely shouldn't have been the sorcerer, but the character concept could potentially work as a class. Though the subclass themes might overlap with the sorcerer and warlock.

Could even fold werewolf and vampire under it as players are constantly asking how to play those.


----------



## Vael

Whenever this discussion happens, I always see attempts to "fix" the sorcerer as using a slegehammer when a scalpel would be better. TBH, I'm quite happy with the core of the Sorcerer, giving them metamagic as their thing as a way to be both a spell specialist and as a way to show their more innate connection to magic and how a wide variety of magical origins can fit under one class is a fairly solid idea.

I'd expand the concept of Metamagic to not only be a way to modify a spell, but also a way to attach rider effects to spells. A _Warding Spell _metamagic, for example, could grant the Sorcerer an AC bonus for a few rounds. Some of the Storm Sorcerer abilities like _Tempestuous Magic_ could be enhanced into Metamagic options purely for Storm Sorcerers. Then I'd give Sorcerers more access to Metamagic options.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Frozen_Heart said:


> Yeah it definitely shouldn't have been the sorcerer, but the character concept could potentially work as a class. Though the subclass themes might overlap with the sorcerer and warlock.
> 
> Could even fold werewolf and vampire under it as players are constantly asking how to play those.



Absolutely.


----------



## Minigiant

Frozen_Heart said:


> Hmm wonder what would have happened if the 'take on traits of your bloodline' had gone the other way and become more martial, rather than being glued to the sorcerer.
> 
> Make the physical traits and abilities you take on the primary draw of the class, becoming a combat monster and not through weapons or armour. Some subclasses maybe having casting abilities, but not all of them.





doctorbadwolf said:


> I would have liked that, though not as the sorcerer. The sorcerer should for most be a caster, but I would have had them have some custom effects and abilities that they can boost and modify by spending spell slots, like the 4e psionic classes but less complex.
> 
> The “touched by the power of XYZ” thing would have been the Barbarian, and only some subclasses would have a “you can’t cast while raging” thing.




I believe that these trope really doesn't fit any existing 5e class. You could hint or flavor it in a sorcerer or barbarian.

By the swordsman with white scales breathing fire or a dhampir fully embracing her vampire side doesn't fit the sorcerer or barbarian without either making the class very complicated or harming it base trope trying to make room for the expansions.

It really needs its own class.


----------



## Mind of tempest

Minigiant said:


> I believe that these trope really doesn't fit any existing 5e class. You could hint or flavor it in a sorcerer or barbarian.
> 
> By the swordsman with white scales breathing fire or a dhampir fully embracing her vampire side doesn't fit the sorcerer or barbarian without either making the class very complicated or harming it base trope trying to make room for the expansions.
> 
> It really needs its own class.



a class with what unifying theme?


----------



## Minigiant

Mind of tempest said:


> a class with what unifying theme?



Having a monstrous or supernatural heritage or origin that enhances your martial prowess.

The class would offer classic "superpowers' like super strength or invulnerability that grow with level and are modified or accompanied by the monstrous or supernatural origin of your power.


----------



## Frozen_Heart

Mind of tempest said:


> a class with what unifying theme?



The exact opposite as the sorcerer. Supernatural heritage which enhances your martial abilities with things like transformations.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> I believe that these trope really doesn't fit any existing 5e class. You could hint or flavor it in a sorcerer or barbarian.
> 
> By the swordsman with white scales breathing fire or a dhampir fully embracing her vampire side doesn't fit the sorcerer or barbarian without either making the class very complicated or harming it base trope trying to make room for the expansions.
> 
> It really needs its own class.



As the game is, absolutely. It could have lived in the Barbarian, had they made “rage” more variable even in the most basic effects of it, IMO, and less limited in use. 

Even vampires “vamp out”. An altered state is, IMO, more coherent a class concept than “you are a Dragonborn, as a class”.


----------



## jmartkdr2

Frozen_Heart said:


> Hmm wonder what would have happened if the 'take on traits of your bloodline' had gone the other way and become more martial, rather than being glued to the sorcerer.
> 
> Make the physical traits and abilities you take on the primary draw of the class, becoming a combat monster and not through weapons or armour. Some subclasses maybe having casting abilities, but not all of them.



You could make a subclass with this theme for any class, if sorcerer didn't already claim it.


----------



## Minigiant

doctorbadwolf said:


> As the game is, absolutely. It could have lived in the Barbarian, had they made “rage” more variable even in the most basic effects of it, IMO, and less limited in use.
> 
> Even vampires “vamp out”. An altered state is, IMO, more coherent a class concept than “you are a Dragonborn, as a class”.




I didn't say it couldn't be done. I'm saying it would pull the barbarian away from its core flavor more than the current 5e design does and would make it rather complicated. The barbarian is too much a magical transformation to me in 5e when it always always overtly magical in appearance and had several nonmagical options. The 4e barbarian was outright magical but *waaaaaaaay more grounded* than every barbarian after berserker. I feel it would get stretched so much that the regular hulking rager would look like the anomaly and be complex to even run.

My idea would to combine the Greek demigod, Super Soldier, and Half-"Monster" tropes into a single class. A superhero or mythical hero with a major "always on" power flavored by their origin and possibly other adventurer and ribbon powers. Let you play as Achilles or Alucard.

You start with super speed at level 1. Then level 3, your origin leaks out. You grow your dragon scales or your body stops aging.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Minigiant said:


> My idea would to combine the Greek demigod, Super Soldier, and Half-"Monster" tropes into a single class. A superhero or mythical hero with a major "always on" power flavored by their origin and possibly other adventurer and ribbon powers. Let you play as Achilles or Alucard.
> 
> You start with super speed at level 1. Then level 3, your origin leaks out. You grow your dragon scales or your body stops aging.



Fair enough.


----------

