My "personal definition" seems to work for most of the people in this thread.
Don't mistake silence for agreement. Silence means silence.
There was anything but silence. I've had more people say they like the concept/theme of the occultist class than the group of people saying that it shouldn't exist.
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.
I disagree. Runes are more than reflavoring, just like artificers are more than a reflavored wizard.
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.
Not in 5e. That would have to be in 6e. In 5e, if a paladin and ranger deserve their own classes, so does an arcane gish.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The logic of 'you can't have played every single option so you don't need anything else' is awful logic. There are certain characters I really want to build but can't, while there are many options I will never try, and never want to try.
I will never ever play a bard for example. I hate the concept and everything about it.
You may have all the options you want to make your preferred character, but many of us are completely left out in the dark compared to prior editions. I'm not trying to find more powerful options, simply those which match the characters I have in my head and cannot build.
Witches: You and a couple others may have agreed on a definition. Someone comes along with a different definition and you insist that their's is not the 'right' one. How many constitute 'the rest of us,' exactly?
Rune Caster: Runes were etched in stone only because the civilization that used them had no ready source of paper. As soon as they did, the runes were also written on paper. Writing magical runes on paper is the whole basis for the existence of scrolls. The costs of writing spells in spell books is due to them being runes that can only be scribed with the correct inks.
Warlord: A Battlemaster is a tactical fighter. They literally learn tactics, even if they are called 'maneuvers.' Other than 'being intelligence based' how would a warlord be different? Why would they learn all these melee maneuvers yet be weaker in basic maneuvers?
Gish (which is a horrible name, by the way): Define balanced. Perfectly? How do you measure that? On a more practical level, I suggested an arcane version of a ranger and your only response was to say 'like a paladin or ranger but arcane.' Are you just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? You also went with 'no comment' rather than so much as acknowledge me agreeing with you with respect to the Shaman.
Occultist/Witch: More than a couple, but that's besides the point. Only those who are vehemently against adding more classes for the sake of more classes seem to not agree on the definition of witch/occultist that has been tossed around for scores of pages in this thread. The "rest of us" is those who think Witches/Occultists deserve their own class.
Runecaster: I am aware of the history of runes and paper. Also, is there anything in the PHB that says spellbooks are inscribed with runes?
Warlord: A battlemaster is a tactical fighter. It's a fighter, not a warlord. Its prime purpose is being good at fighting. That wouldn't be the purpose of a Warlord. Its purpose would be nonmagical intelligence-based tactics that support and empower allies. Warlords wouldn't have maneuvers that would allow them to push around allies or deal extra damage with their own attacks or disarm anyone. A warlord would be able to have another character move across the battlefield and act outside their own turn, and other such abiliites.
Gish (I know, the name's a work in progress. You can go to my thread on the class if you want to help select one): That's a strawman. Of course a new class should be balanced, as new features in D&D 5e should be, but the concept at this point is more important. I am working to balance the class, as well balanced as it can be. I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, I'm disagreeing for the sake of having an arcane gish class. And what I meant by "like a paladin or ranger, but arcane" I meant it being its own class and being a martial half-caster.
Also, do I have to say "I agree" instead of "no comment" in regards to the Shaman? It seems a bit immature to need affirmation for something you know we're mostly aligned in agreement towards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
If you want to make constant story - write a book of prose. I know it can be done - I've done it - but, c'mon! D&D 5e is only fun for those who want to play it. Those who don't are just being pains, inflicting their painful opinion on the wider multiverse.
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
Thanks for telling me how to play the game. I agree the game isn't all about fighting, but the rules mostly focus around it. I have had fun with no combat in D&D, as well, but saying that those who want more combat focused classes or rules don't belong in the hobby is gatekeeping.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also, a note - anyone here watched Critical Role and High Rollers and other live-play podcasts? Good. Now they have a considerable amount of roleplay. Not every table is like them... Of course not! They are trained voice actors. But you can still have a bit of goofy fun, attempting to copy them. THIS IS A GAME. If you want infallible stories, go watch a film or read a book. They might be more of your cuppa tea.
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
Combat is expected to be about 1/3rd of the times spent playing. Exploration and Social/RP are the other 2/3rds.
Exploration pillar is fairly non-existent in most games. While I wish more games utilized it is mostly entirely nullified by spells/abilites.
Because 90% of a kit of a player is combat....that means that RP and combat likely share a 50% split. I too have gone sessions without combat but rarely go multiple sessions without it.
Honestly imagine being a fighter in a game with little to no combat....99% of your abilities would be useless!
5e is a versatile system but its core has a heavy focus on combat.
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
Thanks for telling me how to play the game. I agree the game isn't all about fighting, but the rules mostly focus around it. I have had fun with no combat in D&D, as well, but saying that those who want more combat focused classes or rules don't belong in the hobby is gatekeeping.
Have you been listening to the thread above? The argument was for LESS combat needy classes!
Also, a note - anyone here watched Critical Role and High Rollers and other live-play podcasts? Good. Now they have a considerable amount of roleplay. Not every table is like them... Of course not! They are trained voice actors. But you can still have a bit of goofy fun, attempting to copy them. THIS IS A GAME. If you want infallible stories, go watch a film or read a book. They might be more of your cuppa tea.
I don't understand how this relates to the thread, and it mostly sounds like ordering people on how to play the game, which is unwarranted.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Also, a note - anyone here watched Critical Role and High Rollers and other live-play podcasts? Good. Now they have a considerable amount of roleplay. Not every table is like them... Of course not! They are trained voice actors. But you can still have a bit of goofy fun, attempting to copy them. THIS IS A GAME. If you want infallible stories, go watch a film or read a book. They might be more of your cuppa tea.
Funny you mention that because they almost never go more than one session without a combat...and actually have fairly long and interactive combat.
The major issue people forget too: You can have roleplay in combat!
You can have interesting combat with stakes and story!
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
Thanks for telling me how to play the game. I agree the game isn't all about fighting, but the rules mostly focus around it. I have had fun with no combat in D&D, as well, but saying that those who want more combat focused classes or rules don't belong in the hobby is gatekeeping.
Have you been listening to the thread above? The argument was for LESS combat needy classes!
I am the one person in this thread who has posted the most frequently. I have read practically every post in this thread. And, no, I have never seen anyone argue for less combat-based classes. If we made new classes that were less combat-focused, they would be severely underpowered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
Combat is expected to be about 1/3rd of the times spent playing. Exploration and Social/RP are the other 2/3rds.
Exploration pillar is fairly non-existent in most games. While I wish more games utilized it is mostly entirely nullified by spells/abilites.
Because 90% of a kit of a player is combat....that means that RP and combat likely share a 50% split. I too have gone sessions without combat but rarely go multiple sessions without it.
Honestly imagine being a fighter in a game with little to no combat....99% of your abilities would be useless!
5e is a versatile system but its core has a heavy focus on combat.
Yes. But then again - exploration is important. Only high level players get teleport spells, remember, and they go awry half the time! Roleplay is important - there is a class called Bard, my friend. True, fighters are all combat focused - but that is in the name! Want something exploration focused? Go ranger. Want something divine-focused? Go Cleric. Want something that makes friends with higher powers? Go warlock. There's a slice of character for everyone, if you just look for it. And also - yes, D&D is combat heavy - but then again, we here all find conversation easy!
How's about this. You wanna type in a nasty reply (or a nice one): roll me a d20. Natural 1? YOU CAN'T WRITE. MWA HA HA!
That's why RP is difficult to put rules to - talking is easy. Fighting is hard. Exploration - half the DMG is made up of world building rules, most of which require exploration. See! If you want more, you can download homebrew. It's that simple!
The logic of 'you can't have played every single option so you don't need anything else' is awful logic. There are certain characters I really want to build but can't, while there are many options I will never try, and never want to try.
I will never ever play a bard for example. I hate the concept and everything about it.
You may have all the options you want to make your preferred character, but many of us are completely left out in the dark compared to prior editions. I'm not trying to find more powerful options, simply those which match the characters I have in my head and cannot build.
Honestly, I've never understood that kind of reasoning. What kind of character would you like to play and cannot ? Because I'm pretty sure that you can do some kind of approximation, it's just that it is probably not optimal...
An arcane elemental caster which can imbue their weapon with a ton of spell effects. It existed in prior editions, it exists in pathfinder, and via paladin exists in this edition but it got ported to a different class instead of an arcane caster.
A true gish doesn't do half as good casting or half as good fighting. They put their magic into their combat. That is why eldritch knight and bladesinger are not good or satisfying gish subclasses. Paladin does this perfectly, but is so thematically forced that many character concepts don't work on it. If I pick paladin i'm forced into healing, radiant damage, divine spell lists instead of elemental ones, and have to have an oath.
That is why I keep suggesting the half class feature variants idea. A proper gish overlaps with paladin and ranger too much to be its own class, but is too unique to fit into a subclass.
There is this entire thematic and mechanical black hole for several class concepts which fit this description, which is why people argue for 61 pages over them.
Okay, folks, this is a conversation about classes and whether or not there needs to be more of them, not adventure modules or role play. If you want to talk about those subjects, take them elsewhere. This isn't the thread for them.
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
If you want to make constant story - write a book of prose. I know it can be done - I've done it - but, c'mon! D&D 5e is only fun for those who want to play it. Those who don't are just being pains, inflicting their painful opinion on the wider multiverse.
Is it so hard to understand that you can like something while still seing its flaws and wanting them to be fixed?
D&D is a combat focused rule book. Coins have no value since there's nothing you can buy for them and I honestly don't know if there's even an official book of the gods... all I remember is a table in the PHB which I used to pick a god for my Paladin only to later read on a wiki page that this god is actually dead.
There's nothing wrong with it being a combat focused rule book, and playing combat encounters is actually quite a bit of fun. Having more options to customize our characters would be even more fun, which is kinda the topic of this thread.
This is not about Pathfinder either (although I'll gladly admit that I consider Pathfinder 2 to be a better RPG in absolutely every way but with 5 ongoing D&D campaigns it's hard to find room for yet another group).
It's simply about whether there should be more options (note: as in *optional*) so we can build the characters we want to enjoy *this* game (not PF or anything else, the forums there have similar discussions about less than ideal aspects of their respective systems,), or if there shouldn't be any more options, because there is only 50 possible characters that one can think of so the 50 subclasses are enough for everyone.
And, sorry to say it, but looking to other systems and their pros and cons is kinda the most reasonable thing to do if you want more in a discussion than blind fanboyism. And I personally find it very interesting to read the posts from BigLizard, Lyxen and others who've played older versions of the game that I don't know.
Other systems went down the hole of a gazillion classes (e.g. PF1, D&D 3.5) and it didn't work that well because there were too many rules to track and several combinations broke the balance of the game. Games like Shadowrun and GURPS go for the other extreme, removing classes altogether and replacing it with an "à la carte menu selection" where you pay for your skills with points you earn. These systems arguably offer the most flexible ways to create a character while also being not as insanely overloaded as the gazillion class variants, but are harder to learn for new players because you have to first have a picture of your character and then assemble them mechanically, instead of tapping on the image with "shiny knight" or "wise wizard".
5e is perfect for new players, because it allows to just tap on the archetype you want, making another tap at 3rd level for your specific subclass and that's basically all the choice you have to make.
Perfect for new players, but if you have a certain idea for a character you probably won't be able to achieve it in this system. Tasha's CFVs sound like an interesting copy of PF2's class features, so maybe we'll actually get the customization options we want. Incidentally it indicates that WotC probably did exactly what I mentioned above: looking around the market and checking what might be nice to have in their game.
Okay, folks, this is a conversation about classes and whether or not there needs to be more of them, not adventure modules or role play. If you want to talk about those subjects, take them elsewhere. This isn't the thread for them.
The problem with the limitation you're trying to impose, and I appreciate and sympathize with the desire to do so, is that for many "how the game is played" ("adventure modules or role play") probably strongly influences a discussant's thinking around their answer to the question "do we need more classes (and if so, what should they be)?" The fact that the thread is going through a moment where it's being largely realized that for many "classes" are listings of largely combat features (as opposed to some of the AD&D class options I posted about awhile back) is another splint in the "what is D&D?" question that is begged when you suggest a resolution to game needs by expanding player class options by at minimum over 10% (which is what you do by adding a single class).
I think the largely problem is that everyone needs to upgrade their skill set when it comes to respectfully disagreeing and letting the conversation go from there accepting objections. Deliberative work is a lost art these days even in arenas whose whole point is suppose to be deliberation. Add that a few late to the game or regular commenters with a high noise to signal ratio I can sympathize, but I wouldn't exclude the current tact in the discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The logic of 'you can't have played every single option so you don't need anything else' is awful logic. There are certain characters I really want to build but can't, while there are many options I will never try, and never want to try.
I will never ever play a bard for example. I hate the concept and everything about it.
You may have all the options you want to make your preferred character, but many of us are completely left out in the dark compared to prior editions. I'm not trying to find more powerful options, simply those which match the characters I have in my head and cannot build.
Honestly, I've never understood that kind of reasoning. What kind of character would you like to play and cannot ? Because I'm pretty sure that you can do some kind of approximation, it's just that it is probably not optimal...
An arcane elemental caster which can imbue their weapon with a ton of spell effects. It existed in prior editions, it exists in pathfinder, and via paladin exists in this edition but it got ported to a different class instead of an arcane caster.
A true gish doesn't do half as good casting or half as good fighting. They put their magic into their combat. That is why eldritch knight and bladesinger are not good or satisfying gish subclasses. Paladin does this perfectly, but is so thematically forced that many character concepts don't work on it. If I pick paladin i'm forced into healing, radiant damage, divine spell lists instead of elemental ones, and have to have an oath.
That is why I keep suggesting the half class feature variants idea. A proper gish overlaps with paladin and ranger too much to be its own class, but is too unique to fit into a subclass.
There is this entire thematic and mechanical black hole for several class concepts which fit this description, which is why people argue for 61 pages over them.
Maybe in 6th edition it would be satisfying to have a Gish class that can be split into Rangers, Paladins, and Magus/Arcane-Gishes, but I don't think it would work in 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am very well aware that you are speaking about classes, BigLizard. I wasn't talking about you in the slightest, because I can see that you are still conversing about classes, which this thread is about. Please, continue to speak about classes, which this thread is about, and what you think what should be at their core. Other folks, however, have started veering the conversation away from classes entirely towards other topics, like how RP is played out on streamed shows such as Critical Role. I am asking those people, to please take that conversation elsewhere.
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?
There was anything but silence. I've had more people say they like the concept/theme of the occultist class than the group of people saying that it shouldn't exist.
I disagree. Runes are more than reflavoring, just like artificers are more than a reflavored wizard.
Not in 5e. That would have to be in 6e. In 5e, if a paladin and ranger deserve their own classes, so does an arcane gish.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The logic of 'you can't have played every single option so you don't need anything else' is awful logic. There are certain characters I really want to build but can't, while there are many options I will never try, and never want to try.
I will never ever play a bard for example. I hate the concept and everything about it.
You may have all the options you want to make your preferred character, but many of us are completely left out in the dark compared to prior editions. I'm not trying to find more powerful options, simply those which match the characters I have in my head and cannot build.
Occultist/Witch: More than a couple, but that's besides the point. Only those who are vehemently against adding more classes for the sake of more classes seem to not agree on the definition of witch/occultist that has been tossed around for scores of pages in this thread. The "rest of us" is those who think Witches/Occultists deserve their own class.
Runecaster: I am aware of the history of runes and paper. Also, is there anything in the PHB that says spellbooks are inscribed with runes?
Warlord: A battlemaster is a tactical fighter. It's a fighter, not a warlord. Its prime purpose is being good at fighting. That wouldn't be the purpose of a Warlord. Its purpose would be nonmagical intelligence-based tactics that support and empower allies. Warlords wouldn't have maneuvers that would allow them to push around allies or deal extra damage with their own attacks or disarm anyone. A warlord would be able to have another character move across the battlefield and act outside their own turn, and other such abiliites.
Gish (I know, the name's a work in progress. You can go to my thread on the class if you want to help select one): That's a strawman. Of course a new class should be balanced, as new features in D&D 5e should be, but the concept at this point is more important. I am working to balance the class, as well balanced as it can be. I am not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, I'm disagreeing for the sake of having an arcane gish class. And what I meant by "like a paladin or ranger, but arcane" I meant it being its own class and being a martial half-caster.
Also, do I have to say "I agree" instead of "no comment" in regards to the Shaman? It seems a bit immature to need affirmation for something you know we're mostly aligned in agreement towards.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Dungeons and dragons ain't all about fighting. That's why backgrounds, and coins, and gods exist. True, the rulebooks are mostly about fighting, but that's because fighting is inherently complex. I have had huge fun in D&D games where no fighting occurred at all. So.. If you want to play Pathfinder, leave! Go to Pathfinder Beyond, or whatever. Because... This website is for d&d players. It's in the name.
If you want to make constant story - write a book of prose. I know it can be done - I've done it - but, c'mon! D&D 5e is only fun for those who want to play it. Those who don't are just being pains, inflicting their painful opinion on the wider multiverse.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Thanks for telling me how to play the game. I agree the game isn't all about fighting, but the rules mostly focus around it. I have had fun with no combat in D&D, as well, but saying that those who want more combat focused classes or rules don't belong in the hobby is gatekeeping.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Also, a note - anyone here watched Critical Role and High Rollers and other live-play podcasts? Good. Now they have a considerable amount of roleplay. Not every table is like them... Of course not! They are trained voice actors. But you can still have a bit of goofy fun, attempting to copy them. THIS IS A GAME. If you want infallible stories, go watch a film or read a book. They might be more of your cuppa tea.
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Combat is expected to be about 1/3rd of the times spent playing. Exploration and Social/RP are the other 2/3rds.
Exploration pillar is fairly non-existent in most games. While I wish more games utilized it is mostly entirely nullified by spells/abilites.
Because 90% of a kit of a player is combat....that means that RP and combat likely share a 50% split. I too have gone sessions without combat but rarely go multiple sessions without it.
Honestly imagine being a fighter in a game with little to no combat....99% of your abilities would be useless!
5e is a versatile system but its core has a heavy focus on combat.
Have you been listening to the thread above? The argument was for LESS combat needy classes!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
I don't understand how this relates to the thread, and it mostly sounds like ordering people on how to play the game, which is unwarranted.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Funny you mention that because they almost never go more than one session without a combat...and actually have fairly long and interactive combat.
The major issue people forget too: You can have roleplay in combat!
You can have interesting combat with stakes and story!
I am the one person in this thread who has posted the most frequently. I have read practically every post in this thread. And, no, I have never seen anyone argue for less combat-based classes. If we made new classes that were less combat-focused, they would be severely underpowered.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Yes. But then again - exploration is important. Only high level players get teleport spells, remember, and they go awry half the time! Roleplay is important - there is a class called Bard, my friend. True, fighters are all combat focused - but that is in the name! Want something exploration focused? Go ranger. Want something divine-focused? Go Cleric. Want something that makes friends with higher powers? Go warlock. There's a slice of character for everyone, if you just look for it. And also - yes, D&D is combat heavy - but then again, we here all find conversation easy!
How's about this. You wanna type in a nasty reply (or a nice one): roll me a d20. Natural 1? YOU CAN'T WRITE. MWA HA HA!
That's why RP is difficult to put rules to - talking is easy. Fighting is hard. Exploration - half the DMG is made up of world building rules, most of which require exploration. See! If you want more, you can download homebrew. It's that simple!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
Hmm. I bow out. Good day! Good argument! Hazzah!
Frequent Eladrin || They/Them, but accept all pronouns
Luz Noceda would like to remind you that you're worth loving!
An arcane elemental caster which can imbue their weapon with a ton of spell effects. It existed in prior editions, it exists in pathfinder, and via paladin exists in this edition but it got ported to a different class instead of an arcane caster.
A true gish doesn't do half as good casting or half as good fighting. They put their magic into their combat. That is why eldritch knight and bladesinger are not good or satisfying gish subclasses. Paladin does this perfectly, but is so thematically forced that many character concepts don't work on it. If I pick paladin i'm forced into healing, radiant damage, divine spell lists instead of elemental ones, and have to have an oath.
That is why I keep suggesting the half class feature variants idea. A proper gish overlaps with paladin and ranger too much to be its own class, but is too unique to fit into a subclass.
There is this entire thematic and mechanical black hole for several class concepts which fit this description, which is why people argue for 61 pages over them.
Okay, folks, this is a conversation about classes and whether or not there needs to be more of them, not adventure modules or role play. If you want to talk about those subjects, take them elsewhere. This isn't the thread for them.
Is it so hard to understand that you can like something while still seing its flaws and wanting them to be fixed?
D&D is a combat focused rule book. Coins have no value since there's nothing you can buy for them and I honestly don't know if there's even an official book of the gods... all I remember is a table in the PHB which I used to pick a god for my Paladin only to later read on a wiki page that this god is actually dead.
There's nothing wrong with it being a combat focused rule book, and playing combat encounters is actually quite a bit of fun. Having more options to customize our characters would be even more fun, which is kinda the topic of this thread.
This is not about Pathfinder either (although I'll gladly admit that I consider Pathfinder 2 to be a better RPG in absolutely every way but with 5 ongoing D&D campaigns it's hard to find room for yet another group).
It's simply about whether there should be more options (note: as in *optional*) so we can build the characters we want to enjoy *this* game (not PF or anything else, the forums there have similar discussions about less than ideal aspects of their respective systems,), or if there shouldn't be any more options, because there is only 50 possible characters that one can think of so the 50 subclasses are enough for everyone.
And, sorry to say it, but looking to other systems and their pros and cons is kinda the most reasonable thing to do if you want more in a discussion than blind fanboyism. And I personally find it very interesting to read the posts from BigLizard, Lyxen and others who've played older versions of the game that I don't know.
Other systems went down the hole of a gazillion classes (e.g. PF1, D&D 3.5) and it didn't work that well because there were too many rules to track and several combinations broke the balance of the game. Games like Shadowrun and GURPS go for the other extreme, removing classes altogether and replacing it with an "à la carte menu selection" where you pay for your skills with points you earn. These systems arguably offer the most flexible ways to create a character while also being not as insanely overloaded as the gazillion class variants, but are harder to learn for new players because you have to first have a picture of your character and then assemble them mechanically, instead of tapping on the image with "shiny knight" or "wise wizard".
5e is perfect for new players, because it allows to just tap on the archetype you want, making another tap at 3rd level for your specific subclass and that's basically all the choice you have to make.
Perfect for new players, but if you have a certain idea for a character you probably won't be able to achieve it in this system. Tasha's CFVs sound like an interesting copy of PF2's class features, so maybe we'll actually get the customization options we want. Incidentally it indicates that WotC probably did exactly what I mentioned above: looking around the market and checking what might be nice to have in their game.
The problem with the limitation you're trying to impose, and I appreciate and sympathize with the desire to do so, is that for many "how the game is played" ("adventure modules or role play") probably strongly influences a discussant's thinking around their answer to the question "do we need more classes (and if so, what should they be)?" The fact that the thread is going through a moment where it's being largely realized that for many "classes" are listings of largely combat features (as opposed to some of the AD&D class options I posted about awhile back) is another splint in the "what is D&D?" question that is begged when you suggest a resolution to game needs by expanding player class options by at minimum over 10% (which is what you do by adding a single class).
I think the largely problem is that everyone needs to upgrade their skill set when it comes to respectfully disagreeing and letting the conversation go from there accepting objections. Deliberative work is a lost art these days even in arenas whose whole point is suppose to be deliberation. Add that a few late to the game or regular commenters with a high noise to signal ratio I can sympathize, but I wouldn't exclude the current tact in the discussion.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Maybe in 6th edition it would be satisfying to have a Gish class that can be split into Rangers, Paladins, and Magus/Arcane-Gishes, but I don't think it would work in 5e.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am very well aware that you are speaking about classes, BigLizard. I wasn't talking about you in the slightest, because I can see that you are still conversing about classes, which this thread is about. Please, continue to speak about classes, which this thread is about, and what you think what should be at their core. Other folks, however, have started veering the conversation away from classes entirely towards other topics, like how RP is played out on streamed shows such as Critical Role. I am asking those people, to please take that conversation elsewhere.
Right, and there is nothing wrong with that!
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."