Several pages ago there was a discussion on what D&D is and what it isn't and here we are, reading about a class whose utility is tied to a gameplay from which D&D specifically wanted to go away. I mean - maneuvers for units of 10+ people? Who is going to take that unless you are doing a very specific campaign?
5e has very little rules for war for the same reason it doesn't have dogfighting rules and lightsaber duels.
It's not a tactical war game.
As a homebrew you are welcome to do whatever you like but don't try to convince people that it's one of the classes that D&D needs from WotC.
Well... it is. 5e is a tactical war game. Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters... oh, and there's 10% more that tell the DM "it's not all about combat, so make the rest up yourself. Basically roll a D20 for everything and pick an ability you think suits it".
If you want a real focus on RP there are far better systems for that. 5e's strength is that it's simple enough to explain and understand in less than 5 minutes, but it totally is a combat focused game.
Those things have absolutely nothing to do with large scale conflicts. Your movement is counted in feet, you create a single character, you roll a single initiative for your character and attack at most few times per round.
Your spells affect few creatures at most.
I am not talking about focusing on RP - I am talking about the fact that D&D was specifically created so as NOT to be a tactical war game. It is a game where combat plays a large role but the combat is very specific. When I say war game, I mean a type of game where a single miniature can represent several dozens of creatures. The whole point of D&D was not to get rid of miniatures or combat - the novelty was that one miniature equals one character and each players gets one.
Players can take part in wars and large scale conflicts but as "special ops units" - go behind enemy lines, take out enemy general. Ie. create a situation where a classical encounter is made. Your character creation is not geared properly to handle large scale conflicts, neither are skill descriptions. I am not talking about combat vs. roleplay, I am talking combat vs. combat here.
Anyway, this thread has grown big. It has everything - a discussion of history of DnD, quality of 5ed, quality of Basic, philosophical discussions about some classes, naming conventions, some homebrew. It's a wonderful pot with a bit of everything :D
No, it is not. 4e was, much more. 3e to a slightly lesser extent. But 5e certainly is not. The rules are not precise enough for that. TotM is actually used quite a lot, for example, see here.
If you want it to be, it can be of course, but it does not have to be.
Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters...
This is true of any fairly detailed RPG system. Try having a look at Runequest, it would be even worse if not for the fact that Runequest has so much specific background that it rebalances things, whereas the corebook of D&D do not present in depth more background because they want to leave it open for all the various worlds. But if you add sourcebooks about universes, the ratio of D&D drops quite a bit. Even Amber Diceless Roleplaying has a longer section about Warfare than about the other stats. That's because combat is inherently more complex and some people think that it has greater stakes, that's all. And a large number of the spells and quite a bit of the powers can be used outside of combat.
My groups and I have been playing for a very long time with all the editions, and we are certainly spending a lot less than 1/3 of the time playing combat, except for 3e and 4e because it grew so complex it was bloated and every combat took one evening at level 8+. But 5e has streamlined all that and even at high level, it was certainly not the case for us.
Thats kinda the weird aspect of 5e to me...its marketed and actually plays fairly simply compared to a lot of TTRPGs. Its a crunch level or 2 below things like Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder when it comes to combat but it still the most complex part of the game with a lot of specific rules.
Honestly if you are playing 90% of the game outside of combat....why play 5e? It's not really the best at engaging in the social/exploration arm other than rolling a d20 and applying a modifier. I know people like to say its more complex than that....but its really not. You either succeed or fail and the RP moves ahead accordingly.
Several other games offer more streamlined combat to help get you back to the RP quicker if that is your focus. FATE and other systems are much much much better for these types of games.
No, it is not. 4e was, much more. 3e to a slightly lesser extent. But 5e certainly is not. The rules are not precise enough for that. TotM is actually used quite a lot, for example, see here.
If you want it to be, it can be of course, but it does not have to be.
Be honest, 90% of the rules cover combat, equipment for combat, actions in combat, spells you can use in combat, balancing concerns for combat encounters...
This is true of any fairly detailed RPG system. Try having a look at Runequest, it would be even worse if not for the fact that Runequest has so much specific background that it rebalances things, whereas the corebook of D&D do not present in depth more background because they want to leave it open for all the various worlds. But if you add sourcebooks about universes, the ratio of D&D drops quite a bit. Even Amber Diceless Roleplaying has a longer section about Warfare than about the other stats. That's because combat is inherently more complex and some people think that it has greater stakes, that's all. And a large number of the spells and quite a bit of the powers can be used outside of combat.
My groups and I have been playing for a very long time with all the editions, and we are certainly spending a lot less than 1/3 of the time playing combat, except for 3e and 4e because it grew so complex it was bloated and every combat took one evening at level 8+. But 5e has streamlined all that and even at high level, it was certainly not the case for us.
It may be true for any RPG system, but other systems encourage solutions and out-of-combat play a lot more.
Some friends and I were playing Shadowrun 4 for ~6 years or something like that, on average one session every two weeks. Throughout that campaign we had roughly a dozen combat encounters, the rest was theatre of the mind and roleplaying social interactions.
We then switched to 5e and find ourselves in a combat at least once per session, sometimes twice. Same DM, same players, the only difference is the system that offers little to no options outside combat. And I'm pretty sure Shadowrun's combat rules aren't any less detailed than 5es.
It's not the setting either. I'm running a fantasy campaign in a german RPG system and the group there is much more roleplaying and making use of skills than we're in D&D.
So at least to our group D&D definitely strongly encourages combat over roleplaying.
No, it is not. 4e was, much more. 3e to a slightly lesser extent. But 5e certainly is not. The rules are not precise enough for that. TotM is actually used quite a lot, for example, see here.
That doesn't mean it's not a tactical wargame, it just means it's pretty low res as tactical wargames go. It's not purely a tactical wargame (because, like all RPGs, it does include elements that are not relevant to tactical wargaming), but the reality is that the majority of the game rules are about combat, which tells us that the game expects combat to be a high percentage of what you do (also, the base experience system doesn't even consider non-combat achievements).
It's hardly the only RPG like that, of course. The main reason D&D has more battles per session than many game systems (e.g. Shadowrun, referenced above) is because combat resolution in D&D is fast enough that you can actually run a combat in under an hour.
So, gonna be honest. I only read to page, like 12 of the thread because there are 59 pages and that is too much for me.
From what I've seen, I think most of the suggestions that have been made can be done in the game already. For example, If you want a character that can cast leveled spells and make an attack in the same turn? Sounds like a sorcerer to me, with quickened spell you can cast a spell and attack on the same turn. This will work with any spellcasting class if the current UA Metamagic initiate feat becomes official.
Don't get me wrong, there are defiantly some things that are missing. Like, I hate wild shape but I love Spores druid because it takes a resource that is already in the class and changes the way it can be used. I like Valor and Sword bard for the same reason. Alternatively, a new class could be warranted if they explore already established mechanics in a different way. Like how warlocks do with spell casting. I cant really think of any examples of this, (perhaps having a new class that allows for multiclassing within its own subclasses). I also think the establishment of a new mechanic (Like Psionics) would work best if established through subclasses and feats first then when the mechanic is fully established then to add it as an official class so that further unique explorations could be done.
At the end of everything though, the rules are supposed to be a starting point for the players and the DM. The more complicated it gets, well the more complicated it gets.
Thats kinda the weird aspect of 5e to me...its marketed and actually plays fairly simply compared to a lot of TTRPGs. Its a crunch level or 2 below things like Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder when it comes to combat but it still the most complex part of the game with a lot of specific rules.
Honestly if you are playing 90% of the game outside of combat....why play 5e? It's not really the best at engaging in the social/exploration arm other than rolling a d20 and applying a modifier. I know people like to say its more complex than that....but its really not. You either succeed or fail and the RP moves ahead accordingly.
Because we like D&D, been playing it for more than 40 years now and have never found anything like it. It's the combination which is nice, the balance between all the elements feels just right. the fact that you start as adventuring noobs but end up like gods, and that you can play in so many different styles. And of course all the universes that have developed around it, which we love (exactly like I love Glorantha, for example, and keep buying all the RQ editions although I don't get much chance to play it). In the end, it's simply the best that we've found to actually play high fantasy, just like RQ is the best one that we've found for low fantasy.
I could ask you the same question, by the way, if you're looking for a tactical war game, why 5e ? It not designed for it, it's too fluffy and imprecise compared to the previous editions and systems like pathfinder ?Why do you want to complexify a system that has been designed and simplified to be streamlined ?
Several other games offer more streamlined combat to help get you back to the RP quicker if that is your focus. FATE and other systems are much much much better for these types of games.
We have tried lots of different systems, including two diceless ones, but we always come back to D&D, all the other systems come up as a bit empty for us. Note that I had to design something like that to finish our biggest ever D&D campaign because 3.5 had become such a pain to manage at high level, and it worked OK because we loved the homebrew universe and the characters we had developed, but it still did not feel the same.
90% of character abilities are combat focused...5e is obviously built with combat being a core component. It is more simple for combat for sure compared to PF and the like...however that doesn't mean you have less combat. In fact that likely means you have much more. Random encounters/combats can be dealt with rather quickly.
Just because the combat is streamlined in no way suggests its not a core focus of the system.
This whole idea of creating classes is to continue to advance the game towards a crunchier path I think...people get comfortable in the system and want more options (Class Feature Variants popularity is a huge indicator). Adding classes and combat mechanics is where I see the game going in the next few years. I suspect Tasha's will sell enormously well due to this. Xanthars was hugely popular because it offered new subclasses, feats, and spells the core of the vast majority of these was combat.
Tasha's will have even more of the same....Ultimately the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons....not talking and walking.
Too bad to hear about your group not liking the other systems though. They are much more focused on the RP side of things.
How can you build an Artificer on D&D Beyond? I've clicked to include all the different sources but Artificer never shows up as a Class Option. Am I doing something wrong?
How can you build an Artificer on D&D Beyond? I've clicked to include all the different sources but Artificer never shows up as a Class Option. Am I doing something wrong?
Do you have Wayfinders Guide to Eberron or Eberron: Rising from the Last War purchased through DnD Beyond?
It's really the adventures that give it that "adventure game" feel, but if you look at some of the more modern modules, there are ways to bypass or evead most of this (pathfinder are good examples), but, as you say, they still include dungeons because some part of the playing base is looking for that combat game. Not that it is wrong in itself, of course, but it's not the rules themselves that pull these players in that direction, it's the way they want to play it, as expressed, fairly clearly to me as well, by people who place rules above all else and insist that it's a wargame even when the design of the game moves away from it as 5e did.
The game system pulls people towards combat solutions because of Maslow's Law ( "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.") -- most of the tools it offers you are combat tools, and it thus encourages you to think of most problems as combat problems. This does not mean you can't use it for other purposes, but it's not really very good at them.
It's really the adventures that give it that "adventure game" feel, but if you look at some of the more modern modules, there are ways to bypass or evead most of this (pathfinder are good examples), but, as you say, they still include dungeons because some part of the playing base is looking for that combat game. Not that it is wrong in itself, of course, but it's not the rules themselves that pull these players in that direction, it's the way they want to play it, as expressed, fairly clearly to me as well, by people who place rules above all else and insist that it's a wargame even when the design of the game moves away from it as 5e did.
The game system pulls people towards combat solutions because of Maslow's Law ( "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.") -- most of the tools it offers you are combat tools, and it thus encourages you to think of most problems as combat problems. This does not mean you can't use it for other purposes, but it's not really very good at them.
Bingo....the non-combat routes are much less travelled.
If you are a Monk/Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian why wouldn't you want to use 90% of your kit?
Witches: The biggest problem in this entire thread regarding discussion of any given class has been and seems to still be a lack of a common definition of 'witch.' There really seems to be no consensus. For me, they are hybrid arcane/divine with an emphasis on potions, curses (and blessings) and enchanting people, but everyone seems to see them differently. Fey-linked is as good a definition as mine or anyone else's.
Occultists have a fairly well laid out definition. They practice White Magic, Grey Magic, or Black Magic, and use their abilities to charm others. Different subclasses would do different things (potion brewing, blood magic, earth magic, etc).
You keep saying there's no "common definition of witch/occultist" and from what I've seen, it's only you and a couple others who disagree with the rest of us' definition of it. And you use this disparity in your mental image as an excuse for this not becoming a real thing.
Rune Caster: Runes are by definition a written thing. Why would they not have written lore / spell documentation?
Runes are carved into stone. A spellbook is a stack of papers bound with leather with magic ink.
Mystic and other classes: When you use the word 'broken' please articulate better. Broken as in UP? Or as in OP? or something else? A different concept than expected or desired does not in and of itself equal 'broken.'
Do I really have to clarify that? The Mystic was broken. It was too good, and a mess.
Shaman: I agree with you completely that they should be divine and NOT arcane. An arcane or hybrid arcane / divine equivalent concept would be better described as a version of Witch.
No comment, really.
Warlord: Here again there is a definition problem. People seem to be equating Warlord with some sort of powered up Battlemaster. To me a Warlord would specialize in leadership and large unit tactics, i.e. War instead of Battle.... Just my opinion, but nevertheless... As for your comment regarding mastermind rogues, think of sneak attack in terms of being a flanking tactic. It is not a concept only associated with rogues. Also with respect to purple dragon knights, how can a warlord be too 'fighter-y?' Major definition gap there. Can you explain, please?
No, it's not a powered up Battlemaster. It's an intelligence based battle tactician support character. It would have some fighting abilities (probably only one extra attack like Paladins, Rangers, etc), but overall use its features to power their allies in combat.
Gish: Again the insistence that unless it is a perfect balance, it doesn't count. I agree that rangers would not count but the other examples do. And one could pretty easily make an arcane version of Ranger, i.e. one that uses wizard spells instead of 'ranger' spells as a new class.
It has to be balanced between fighting and magic power, that's kind of the definition of a gish. They blend arcane magic and weapon combat together, like a paladin or ranger blends their spells and magic into their attacks.
Also, some have mentioned making a Paladin variant as a Gish class, but I already disagree with that. Making it a ranger variant is even worse of an idea, IMO.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think Lyxen is right about the adventures. In the newest module "Rime of the Frostmaiden" chapter 5 proposes two solutions to deal with the everlasting winter:
- kill the goddess
- kill the goddess' pet
... including stats for the goddess as CR 11 creature that should be fought around level 9.
So... after reading that I'm a bit disappointed at the rather uncreative solution.
I think Lyxen is right about the adventures. In the newest module "Rime of the Frostmaiden" chapter 5 proposes two solutions to deal with the everlasting winter:
- kill the goddess
- kill the goddess' pet
... including stats for the goddess as CR 11 creature that should be fought around level 9.
So... after reading that I'm a bit disappointed at the rather uncreative solution.
I think anything other then that is up to the DM and the players to come up with. I look at the adventures as a script and since DND is such a game of group storytelling and improv going off script happens sometimes. I think an adventure becomes immeasurably better when the solution is something that the players come up with or notices when a DM hints at something throughout the game, especially if they don't like the ending of "Kill thing, win game." As far as writing an adventure goes, the writers cant assume that the players will do the very specific thing to solve the puzzle, so I understand wanting to write in the solution of "Well yes, if you kill her then things will stop being bad" because its simple and what people would probably expect the easy solution to be.
I think it would be interesting if one of the party members was a cleric and would offer to give up there devotion to there original deity if the Goddess would stop the everwinter, or if said cleric used a divine intervention to find out about some ritual to stave off the winter within a localized area.
Witches: The biggest problem in this entire thread regarding discussion of any given class has been and seems to still be a lack of a common definition of 'witch.' There really seems to be no consensus. For me, they are hybrid arcane/divine with an emphasis on potions, curses (and blessings) and enchanting people, but everyone seems to see them differently. Fey-linked is as good a definition as mine or anyone else's.
Occultists have a fairly well laid out definition. They practice White Magic, Grey Magic, or Black Magic, and use their abilities to charm others. Different subclasses would do different things (potion brewing, blood magic, earth magic, etc).
That appears to be your personal definition. The most common real-world usage for occultist is probably using it for spirit summoners (someone who would run a seance). The distinction between white, grey, and black is just "good, neutral, evil" and doesn't tell you anything about what it can do. Charm type effects are present in pretty much every magical tradition.
Rune Caster: Runes are by definition a written thing. Why would they not have written lore / spell documentation?
Runes are carved into stone. A spellbook is a stack of papers bound with leather with magic ink.
Runes are an alphabet. A spellbook is a written set of spells. The normal fantasy use of 'runes' would be as material or somatic components when casting a spell (e.g. when you are casting Daylight you might write the rune ᛞ (day) on the object that you are making glow), which isn't anything more than a reskin.
Witches: The biggest problem in this entire thread regarding discussion of any given class has been and seems to still be a lack of a common definition of 'witch.' There really seems to be no consensus. For me, they are hybrid arcane/divine with an emphasis on potions, curses (and blessings) and enchanting people, but everyone seems to see them differently. Fey-linked is as good a definition as mine or anyone else's.
Occultists have a fairly well laid out definition. They practice White Magic, Grey Magic, or Black Magic, and use their abilities to charm others. Different subclasses would do different things (potion brewing, blood magic, earth magic, etc).
That appears to be your personal definition. The most common real-world usage for occultist is probably using it for spirit summoners (someone who would run a seance). The distinction between white, grey, and black is just "good, neutral, evil" and doesn't tell you anything about what it can do. Charm type effects are present in pretty much every magical tradition.
My "personal definition" seems to work for most of the people in this thread. It's specific enough to not be part of another class, and wide enough to have a variety of characters and playstyles. And, yes. Practicing white magic is typically done by good occultists, grey for neutral, and black for evil, but that is not necessarily true. You could play a lawful good black magic blood witch. Black is just dark and spooky, which lets them curse people as witches are know to do, grey is neutral which fits the theme of creating ephemeral wards to protect themselves, and white is used to spread blessings, which fits the theme of white magic in folklore.
Rune Caster: Runes are by definition a written thing. Why would they not have written lore / spell documentation?
Runes are carved into stone. A spellbook is a stack of papers bound with leather with magic ink.
Runes are an alphabet. A spellbook is a written set of spells. The normal fantasy use of 'runes' would be as material or somatic components when casting a spell (e.g. when you are casting Daylight you might write the rune ᛞ (day) on the object that you are making glow), which isn't anything more than a reskin.
Except it can (IMHO, should) be more than just a reskin. Go and reskin a Battlemaster as a Wizard for me and see if you're satisfied by the end result.
It has to be balanced between fighting and magic power, that's kind of the definition of a gish.
The problem here is that you've rejected any attempt at solving the problem with existing tools.
Just like I reject making the Paladin merely a subclass of fighter or a ranger a subclass of fighter. If Paladins and Rangers get to exist as their own classes in 5e, so should an Arcane Gish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Except it can (IMHO, should) be more than just a reskin. Go and reskin a Battlemaster as a Wizard for me and see if you're satisfied by the end result.
Runes are not a class. Runes are a style. If I were building a rune-themed character I'd probably use a Forge domain cleric, because 'runesmith' and 'runesword' are things, but that's still entirely about cosmetics.
Just like I reject making the Paladin merely a subclass of fighter or a ranger a subclass of fighter. If Paladins and Rangers get to exist as their own classes in 5e, so should an Arcane Gish.
There's a decent argument for making the paladin and ranger subclasses. Though actually more functional multiclassing seems like it might do the job.
I think Lyxen is right about the adventures. In the newest module "Rime of the Frostmaiden" chapter 5 proposes two solutions to deal with the everlasting winter:
- kill the goddess
- kill the goddess' pet
... including stats for the goddess as CR 11 creature that should be fought around level 9.
So... after reading that I'm a bit disappointed at the rather uncreative solution.
I think anything other then that is up to the DM and the players to come up with. I look at the adventures as a script and since DND is such a game of group storytelling and improv going off script happens sometimes. I think an adventure becomes immeasurably better when the solution is something that the players come up with or notices when a DM hints at something throughout the game, especially if they don't like the ending of "Kill thing, win game." As far as writing an adventure goes, the writers cant assume that the players will do the very specific thing to solve the puzzle, so I understand wanting to write in the solution of "Well yes, if you kill her then things will stop being bad" because its simple and what people would probably expect the easy solution to be.
I think it would be interesting if one of the party members was a cleric and would offer to give up there devotion to there original deity if the Goddess would stop the everwinter, or if said cleric used a divine intervention to find out about some ritual to stave off the winter within a localized area.
While this is cool I am not sure most characters think as outside the box as you describe. Honestly they will likely look at their kits and say "yeah lets take her on!" Its not a bad thing either...I mean the system is built with combat in mind for sure...why NOT use it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those things have absolutely nothing to do with large scale conflicts. Your movement is counted in feet, you create a single character, you roll a single initiative for your character and attack at most few times per round.
Your spells affect few creatures at most.
I am not talking about focusing on RP - I am talking about the fact that D&D was specifically created so as NOT to be a tactical war game. It is a game where combat plays a large role but the combat is very specific. When I say war game, I mean a type of game where a single miniature can represent several dozens of creatures. The whole point of D&D was not to get rid of miniatures or combat - the novelty was that one miniature equals one character and each players gets one.
Players can take part in wars and large scale conflicts but as "special ops units" - go behind enemy lines, take out enemy general. Ie. create a situation where a classical encounter is made. Your character creation is not geared properly to handle large scale conflicts, neither are skill descriptions. I am not talking about combat vs. roleplay, I am talking combat vs. combat here.
Anyway, this thread has grown big. It has everything - a discussion of history of DnD, quality of 5ed, quality of Basic, philosophical discussions about some classes, naming conventions, some homebrew. It's a wonderful pot with a bit of everything :D
Thats kinda the weird aspect of 5e to me...its marketed and actually plays fairly simply compared to a lot of TTRPGs. Its a crunch level or 2 below things like Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder when it comes to combat but it still the most complex part of the game with a lot of specific rules.
Honestly if you are playing 90% of the game outside of combat....why play 5e? It's not really the best at engaging in the social/exploration arm other than rolling a d20 and applying a modifier. I know people like to say its more complex than that....but its really not. You either succeed or fail and the RP moves ahead accordingly.
Several other games offer more streamlined combat to help get you back to the RP quicker if that is your focus. FATE and other systems are much much much better for these types of games.
It may be true for any RPG system, but other systems encourage solutions and out-of-combat play a lot more.
Some friends and I were playing Shadowrun 4 for ~6 years or something like that, on average one session every two weeks. Throughout that campaign we had roughly a dozen combat encounters, the rest was theatre of the mind and roleplaying social interactions.
We then switched to 5e and find ourselves in a combat at least once per session, sometimes twice. Same DM, same players, the only difference is the system that offers little to no options outside combat. And I'm pretty sure Shadowrun's combat rules aren't any less detailed than 5es.
It's not the setting either. I'm running a fantasy campaign in a german RPG system and the group there is much more roleplaying and making use of skills than we're in D&D.
So at least to our group D&D definitely strongly encourages combat over roleplaying.
That doesn't mean it's not a tactical wargame, it just means it's pretty low res as tactical wargames go. It's not purely a tactical wargame (because, like all RPGs, it does include elements that are not relevant to tactical wargaming), but the reality is that the majority of the game rules are about combat, which tells us that the game expects combat to be a high percentage of what you do (also, the base experience system doesn't even consider non-combat achievements).
It's hardly the only RPG like that, of course. The main reason D&D has more battles per session than many game systems (e.g. Shadowrun, referenced above) is because combat resolution in D&D is fast enough that you can actually run a combat in under an hour.
So, gonna be honest. I only read to page, like 12 of the thread because there are 59 pages and that is too much for me.
From what I've seen, I think most of the suggestions that have been made can be done in the game already. For example, If you want a character that can cast leveled spells and make an attack in the same turn? Sounds like a sorcerer to me, with quickened spell you can cast a spell and attack on the same turn. This will work with any spellcasting class if the current UA Metamagic initiate feat becomes official.
Don't get me wrong, there are defiantly some things that are missing. Like, I hate wild shape but I love Spores druid because it takes a resource that is already in the class and changes the way it can be used. I like Valor and Sword bard for the same reason. Alternatively, a new class could be warranted if they explore already established mechanics in a different way. Like how warlocks do with spell casting. I cant really think of any examples of this, (perhaps having a new class that allows for multiclassing within its own subclasses). I also think the establishment of a new mechanic (Like Psionics) would work best if established through subclasses and feats first then when the mechanic is fully established then to add it as an official class so that further unique explorations could be done.
At the end of everything though, the rules are supposed to be a starting point for the players and the DM. The more complicated it gets, well the more complicated it gets.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
90% of character abilities are combat focused...5e is obviously built with combat being a core component. It is more simple for combat for sure compared to PF and the like...however that doesn't mean you have less combat. In fact that likely means you have much more. Random encounters/combats can be dealt with rather quickly.
Just because the combat is streamlined in no way suggests its not a core focus of the system.
This whole idea of creating classes is to continue to advance the game towards a crunchier path I think...people get comfortable in the system and want more options (Class Feature Variants popularity is a huge indicator). Adding classes and combat mechanics is where I see the game going in the next few years. I suspect Tasha's will sell enormously well due to this. Xanthars was hugely popular because it offered new subclasses, feats, and spells the core of the vast majority of these was combat.
Tasha's will have even more of the same....Ultimately the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons....not talking and walking.
Too bad to hear about your group not liking the other systems though. They are much more focused on the RP side of things.
How can you build an Artificer on D&D Beyond? I've clicked to include all the different sources but Artificer never shows up as a Class Option. Am I doing something wrong?
Do you have Wayfinders Guide to Eberron or Eberron: Rising from the Last War purchased through DnD Beyond?
Do you own the books that it is in?
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
The game system pulls people towards combat solutions because of Maslow's Law ( "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.") -- most of the tools it offers you are combat tools, and it thus encourages you to think of most problems as combat problems. This does not mean you can't use it for other purposes, but it's not really very good at them.
Bingo....the non-combat routes are much less travelled.
If you are a Monk/Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian why wouldn't you want to use 90% of your kit?
Occultists have a fairly well laid out definition. They practice White Magic, Grey Magic, or Black Magic, and use their abilities to charm others. Different subclasses would do different things (potion brewing, blood magic, earth magic, etc).
You keep saying there's no "common definition of witch/occultist" and from what I've seen, it's only you and a couple others who disagree with the rest of us' definition of it. And you use this disparity in your mental image as an excuse for this not becoming a real thing.
Runes are carved into stone. A spellbook is a stack of papers bound with leather with magic ink.
Do I really have to clarify that? The Mystic was broken. It was too good, and a mess.
No comment, really.
No, it's not a powered up Battlemaster. It's an intelligence based battle tactician support character. It would have some fighting abilities (probably only one extra attack like Paladins, Rangers, etc), but overall use its features to power their allies in combat.
It has to be balanced between fighting and magic power, that's kind of the definition of a gish. They blend arcane magic and weapon combat together, like a paladin or ranger blends their spells and magic into their attacks.
Also, some have mentioned making a Paladin variant as a Gish class, but I already disagree with that. Making it a ranger variant is even worse of an idea, IMO.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think Lyxen is right about the adventures. In the newest module "Rime of the Frostmaiden" chapter 5 proposes two solutions to deal with the everlasting winter:
- kill the goddess
- kill the goddess' pet
... including stats for the goddess as CR 11 creature that should be fought around level 9.
So... after reading that I'm a bit disappointed at the rather uncreative solution.
I feel like the best use of a half caster class would be a Blackguard/Dark Knight/Antipaladin or whatever as opposed to a gish
it brings something new to the table, with debuffing auras and survivability as opposed to Gish which is pretty much a buffed eldritch knight
But it is not a buffed eldritch knight, and was not intended to be one, and does not replace an eldritch knight.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think anything other then that is up to the DM and the players to come up with. I look at the adventures as a script and since DND is such a game of group storytelling and improv going off script happens sometimes. I think an adventure becomes immeasurably better when the solution is something that the players come up with or notices when a DM hints at something throughout the game, especially if they don't like the ending of "Kill thing, win game." As far as writing an adventure goes, the writers cant assume that the players will do the very specific thing to solve the puzzle, so I understand wanting to write in the solution of "Well yes, if you kill her then things will stop being bad" because its simple and what people would probably expect the easy solution to be.
I think it would be interesting if one of the party members was a cleric and would offer to give up there devotion to there original deity if the Goddess would stop the everwinter, or if said cleric used a divine intervention to find out about some ritual to stave off the winter within a localized area.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
That appears to be your personal definition. The most common real-world usage for occultist is probably using it for spirit summoners (someone who would run a seance). The distinction between white, grey, and black is just "good, neutral, evil" and doesn't tell you anything about what it can do. Charm type effects are present in pretty much every magical tradition.
Runes are an alphabet. A spellbook is a written set of spells. The normal fantasy use of 'runes' would be as material or somatic components when casting a spell (e.g. when you are casting Daylight you might write the rune ᛞ (day) on the object that you are making glow), which isn't anything more than a reskin.
The problem here is that you've rejected any attempt at solving the problem with existing tools.
My "personal definition" seems to work for most of the people in this thread. It's specific enough to not be part of another class, and wide enough to have a variety of characters and playstyles. And, yes. Practicing white magic is typically done by good occultists, grey for neutral, and black for evil, but that is not necessarily true. You could play a lawful good black magic blood witch. Black is just dark and spooky, which lets them curse people as witches are know to do, grey is neutral which fits the theme of creating ephemeral wards to protect themselves, and white is used to spread blessings, which fits the theme of white magic in folklore.
Except it can (IMHO, should) be more than just a reskin. Go and reskin a Battlemaster as a Wizard for me and see if you're satisfied by the end result.
Just like I reject making the Paladin merely a subclass of fighter or a ranger a subclass of fighter. If Paladins and Rangers get to exist as their own classes in 5e, so should an Arcane Gish.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Don't mistake silence for agreement. Silence means silence.
Runes are not a class. Runes are a style. If I were building a rune-themed character I'd probably use a Forge domain cleric, because 'runesmith' and 'runesword' are things, but that's still entirely about cosmetics.
There's a decent argument for making the paladin and ranger subclasses. Though actually more functional multiclassing seems like it might do the job.
While this is cool I am not sure most characters think as outside the box as you describe. Honestly they will likely look at their kits and say "yeah lets take her on!" Its not a bad thing either...I mean the system is built with combat in mind for sure...why NOT use it?