Apologies if I came across harsh, GoodBovine, but I'm a gay man with lot's of LGBT friends who deal being disrespected for their gender and identity on a regular basis. It's very raw for me.
not harsh. No harm in not knowing something. It is a british term, and not a very common one at that. It is usually used as a joke.
Unless I am missing something, I only count one...
Reread my post, maybe that will clarify. There's Primal, Divine, and Arcane spellcasting (some group primal and divine together, but that's BS). We have a Primal gish class, a Divine gish class, and we have space for an Arcane gish class.
read it wrong, disregard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Have YOU ever played a hexblade? even if they are not as optimized as an EB warlock (Which IMO they are), they are a blast to play. Also, you do more damage, due to eldritch smite. And PAM helps with dpr. And Lifedrinker.
As I said above, yes, I have played it. They are fun to play, but have an existential crisis of being a gish or blaster. Eldritch Smite takes your spell slots, which does let you do more DPR, like twice. Up until Life Drinker, Hexblades do less damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Have YOU ever played a hexblade? even if they are not as optimized as an EB warlock (Which IMO they are), they are a blast to play. Also, you do more damage, due to eldritch smite. And PAM helps with dpr. And Lifedrinker.
As I said above, yes, I have played it. They are fun to play, but have an existential crisis of being a gish or blaster. Eldritch Smite takes your spell slots, which does let you do more DPR, like twice. Up until Life Drinker, Hexblades do less damage.
Idk about that. Try playing a V.Human, and grab PAM or GWM.....so much fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Hexblades aren't perfect, but if you don't multiclass they aren't to broken and are pretty fun to play. Being in melee also synergizes with Darkness and Devil's Sight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The problem with the other gish classes is mostly that Wizards didn't pay attention to their own action economy; why would you sacrifice a fighter action for a subpar spellcasting, or a spellcaster action for a subpar fighter action. However, the fact that it's a problem with all arcane gish classes tells us that the need isn't for a new class, the need is to fix existing mechanics. Which probably means fixing it with spells and/or feats.
WotC has said they're not fixing subclasses, so that's not going to happen. If they're not going to fix their broken gish subclasses, the next best solution is to make a new class.
Paladins are divine gishes, but are done in a satisfactory way, and normally don't have a bunch of action economy dilemmas.
Rangers are primal gishes, and are done in a way that is a good idea, but executed poorly. With the CFV in TCoE, this problem will hopefully be fixed, and we will have a second satisfactory gish class.
We have the other 2 types of spellcasting, so we need an arcane gish class. They could be done in a satisfactory and balanced way, while still being distinct.
Unless I am missing something, I only count one...
Psionic.....?
Sorry, I was confused like GoodBovine. You meant we already had 2 gish classes, not that there were two more we needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Have YOU ever played a hexblade? even if they are not as optimized as an EB warlock (Which IMO they are), they are a blast to play. Also, you do more damage, due to eldritch smite. And PAM helps with dpr. And Lifedrinker.
As I said above, yes, I have played it. They are fun to play, but have an existential crisis of being a gish or blaster. Eldritch Smite takes your spell slots, which does let you do more DPR, like twice. Up until Life Drinker, Hexblades do less damage.
Idk about that. Try playing a V.Human, and grab PAM or GWM.....so much fun.
(The character was a changeling, and had Actor, GWM, and Warcaster.)
Anyway, Hexblades are fun, can be monsters in combat, but fall short of filling the Gish niche.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The problem with the other gish classes is mostly that Wizards didn't pay attention to their own action economy; why would you sacrifice a fighter action for a subpar spellcasting, or a spellcaster action for a subpar fighter action. However, the fact that it's a problem with all arcane gish classes tells us that the need isn't for a new class, the need is to fix existing mechanics. Which probably means fixing it with spells and/or feats.
WotC has said they're not fixing subclasses, so that's not going to happen.
See 'spells and/or feats'. All you really need is spells that usefully combine with martial attacks (e.g. paladin smites) that are on arcane spell lists.
Have YOU ever played a hexblade? even if they are not as optimized as an EB warlock (Which IMO they are), they are a blast to play. Also, you do more damage, due to eldritch smite. And PAM helps with dpr. And Lifedrinker.
As I said above, yes, I have played it. They are fun to play, but have an existential crisis of being a gish or blaster. Eldritch Smite takes your spell slots, which does let you do more DPR, like twice. Up until Life Drinker, Hexblades do less damage.
Idk about that. Try playing a V.Human, and grab PAM or GWM.....so much fun.
(The character was a changeling, and had Actor, GWM, and Warcaster.)
Anyway, Hexblades are fun, can be monsters in combat, but fall short of filling the Gish niche.
Never said that they were a gish, just that people were hating on them, and that they were fun :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The problem with the other gish classes is mostly that Wizards didn't pay attention to their own action economy; why would you sacrifice a fighter action for a subpar spellcasting, or a spellcaster action for a subpar fighter action. However, the fact that it's a problem with all arcane gish classes tells us that the need isn't for a new class, the need is to fix existing mechanics. Which probably means fixing it with spells and/or feats.
WotC has said they're not fixing subclasses, so that's not going to happen.
See 'spells and/or feats'. All you really need is spells that usefully combine with martial attacks (e.g. paladin smites) that are on arcane spell lists.
I disagree. You would then have to give them to one of the existing spell lists, which would lead to exploits. Even if they fixed them and they were satisfying gish subclasses, that wouldn't get rid of the need for an arcane Gish class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Never said that they were a gish, just that people were hating on them, and that they were fun :)
I know, I wasn't targeting you. There were others saying that they and the other subclasses were good replacements, which I was trying to prove that wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
See 'spells and/or feats'. All you really need is spells that usefully combine with martial attacks (e.g. paladin smites) that are on arcane spell lists.
I disagree. You would then have to give them to one of the existing spell lists, which would lead to exploits.
Just make them not very useful if you aren't trying to mix melee and magic. For example, the only real weakness of Shadow Blade for eldritch knights is that it's an illusion spell (it's a great arcane trickster spell) but most pure wizards won't bother.
See 'spells and/or feats'. All you really need is spells that usefully combine with martial attacks (e.g. paladin smites) that are on arcane spell lists.
I disagree. You would then have to give them to one of the existing spell lists, which would lead to exploits.
Just make them not very useful if you aren't trying to mix melee and magic. For example, the only real weakness of Shadow Blade for eldritch knights is that it's an illusion spell (it's a great arcane trickster spell) but most pure wizards won't bother.
Okay, we've done our fix for the gish gap, can you do yours in a satisfying way of filling it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
In 1977 a movie came out called "Star Wars" and it was Magical. It was fun! Adults enjoyed it. Kids enjoyed it. There were lines running out the theater doors and around the block filled with people waiting to get in to see Star Wars.
In the years since, every effort has been made to capture that magic and make another movie like that. All efforts so far have failed.
D&D is Magical.
Nobody really knows what makes it such a great game. It just is. Wizards of the Coast proved pretty conclusively that they didn't know what made D&D magical. On its own lights 4th Edition was a decent game. Had it been published by some other company under a different name it might have gained a following. It just wasn't D&D. It didn't have the magic.
So we have 5th Edition. It is pretty clear that the 5th Edition of the game was a desperate attempt to go back to the Good Old Days and bring back the magic. I was kind of shocked that they succeeded. Whatever it is that made D&D so great, the 5th Edition of the game seems to have it.
So Wizards has hold of the goose that lays the golden eggs again. They are being *very* careful to avoid anything that might kill the poor bird while at the same time trying to please an audience that constantly clamors for new content. So far, so good. We have not been buried in splat books, or inundated with Prestige Classes. The goose seems healthy enough.
Would a bunch more classes choke the golden goose to death? Nobody knows. Adding more and more Stuff to the game promotes power creep and rules bloat, and those have killed previous editions of the game. Where is the dividing line between enough new classes and too many? Which classes should they add? Just because something appeared in previous editions of the game doesn't mean it was a good idea. An awful lot of stuff that got published was horrible.
I voted in the poll that D&D already has too many classes. I really don't think they should add more. It will just open the floodgates to an overwhelming tidal wave of crap that kills off the golden goose. If you have a character concept that just doesn't fit with what already exists, D&D has a mechanic for that. It's called "homebrew" these days. Used to be called "House Rules". Get with your DM and work together to come up with something that satisfies.
Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
I'm currently in the process of making a Shaman class. Mine is a pact magic user, renamed to Primal Magic. Each subclass summons a different type of spirit, and are my version of the Summoner class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
How's this for an analogy?
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Scoradin doesn't have to be Divine. Paladins don't have to get magic from a god. Also sorcerer is the furthest from Divine.
Scoradin is the best Gish build because you can use slots for magic or smites and with shield, absorb elements, counterspell you are great at defensive magic.
If you want Gish look no further!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
not harsh. No harm in not knowing something. It is a british term, and not a very common one at that. It is usually used as a joke.
read it wrong, disregard.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
As I said above, yes, I have played it. They are fun to play, but have an existential crisis of being a gish or blaster. Eldritch Smite takes your spell slots, which does let you do more DPR, like twice. Up until Life Drinker, Hexblades do less damage.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Idk about that. Try playing a V.Human, and grab PAM or GWM.....so much fun.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Hexblades aren't perfect, but if you don't multiclass they aren't to broken and are pretty fun to play. Being in melee also synergizes with Darkness and Devil's Sight.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Sorry, I was confused like GoodBovine. You meant we already had 2 gish classes, not that there were two more we needed.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
(The character was a changeling, and had Actor, GWM, and Warcaster.)
Anyway, Hexblades are fun, can be monsters in combat, but fall short of filling the Gish niche.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
See 'spells and/or feats'. All you really need is spells that usefully combine with martial attacks (e.g. paladin smites) that are on arcane spell lists.
Never said that they were a gish, just that people were hating on them, and that they were fun :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Yes, exactly. I might have worded that weirdly.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I disagree. You would then have to give them to one of the existing spell lists, which would lead to exploits. Even if they fixed them and they were satisfying gish subclasses, that wouldn't get rid of the need for an arcane Gish class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I know, I wasn't targeting you. There were others saying that they and the other subclasses were good replacements, which I was trying to prove that wrong.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Just make them not very useful if you aren't trying to mix melee and magic. For example, the only real weakness of Shadow Blade for eldritch knights is that it's an illusion spell (it's a great arcane trickster spell) but most pure wizards won't bother.
Okay, we've done our fix for the gish gap, can you do yours in a satisfying way of filling it?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
In 1977 a movie came out called "Star Wars" and it was Magical. It was fun! Adults enjoyed it. Kids enjoyed it. There were lines running out the theater doors and around the block filled with people waiting to get in to see Star Wars.
In the years since, every effort has been made to capture that magic and make another movie like that. All efforts so far have failed.
D&D is Magical.
Nobody really knows what makes it such a great game. It just is. Wizards of the Coast proved pretty conclusively that they didn't know what made D&D magical. On its own lights 4th Edition was a decent game. Had it been published by some other company under a different name it might have gained a following. It just wasn't D&D. It didn't have the magic.
So we have 5th Edition. It is pretty clear that the 5th Edition of the game was a desperate attempt to go back to the Good Old Days and bring back the magic. I was kind of shocked that they succeeded. Whatever it is that made D&D so great, the 5th Edition of the game seems to have it.
So Wizards has hold of the goose that lays the golden eggs again. They are being *very* careful to avoid anything that might kill the poor bird while at the same time trying to please an audience that constantly clamors for new content. So far, so good. We have not been buried in splat books, or inundated with Prestige Classes. The goose seems healthy enough.
Would a bunch more classes choke the golden goose to death? Nobody knows. Adding more and more Stuff to the game promotes power creep and rules bloat, and those have killed previous editions of the game. Where is the dividing line between enough new classes and too many? Which classes should they add? Just because something appeared in previous editions of the game doesn't mean it was a good idea. An awful lot of stuff that got published was horrible.
I voted in the poll that D&D already has too many classes. I really don't think they should add more. It will just open the floodgates to an overwhelming tidal wave of crap that kills off the golden goose. If you have a character concept that just doesn't fit with what already exists, D&D has a mechanic for that. It's called "homebrew" these days. Used to be called "House Rules". Get with your DM and work together to come up with something that satisfies.
Let's try to keep the magic alive.
<Insert clever signature here>
Okay, I'll respond with an analogy. D&D is a plant, a tree for example. This tree needs pruning with errata, sunlight from money that the players give for the hobby, to breathe fresh air, that is the new settings and adventures, and a solid foundation in the ground that is legacy, tradition, and history of D&D. The crunch (rules, classes, races) are the water that keeps the tree alive. D&D needs all of these aspects, but too much of any of them will kill the tree. Too many errata will cause D&D's rules to be fluid and unknown, causing more and more debates of the rules, which will cut away too many branches of the tree. Too much money, and WotC is suddenly only making rules to grab cash, which will scorch the tree. Too many settings and adventures, and they will stop feeling unique and distinct. Too hard a foundation, and the tree is stuck in stone and starved of ever changing or growing. Too much water, and you will drown the hobby with bloated rules, too many classes, and too many options for the races.
But, there is another aspect of this. Too little errata, and the broken aspects will be set in stone, and the hobby/tree can't grow properly. Too little money, and the company goes bankrupt, and the hobby/tree starves. Not enough settings and adventures, and the hobby/tree is suffocated by lack of ideas and concepts. Not enough of a solid foundation, and the tree will be blown over and die by no continuity in the hobby.
But, most importantly to this discussion, D&D needs water. Not too much, or the game/tree will be drowned by content and rot away, and have a new edition take its place. Too little, the hobby/tree is killed by thirst, for lack of content (classes, races, races).
Is the tree drowning right now? No. It's not. It's nowhere close to drowning. Is the tree being killed by thirst? I am not sure. I certainly am thirsty for more content, but I am not being killed by this need right now. Certain parts of the tree are fine and healthy, even prospering, but some parts are thirsty. Paladins are fine, Bards are mostly fine, so are Wizards, Barbarians, Fighters, and most other classes and aspects of the game. But, D&D is thirsty for an arcane gish class. D&D is thirsty for psionics right now. D&D is thirsty for a few more classes, but not too many. We don't want to flood the tree, but we don't want to keep it from drinking.
Now, I don't want these classes to be added immediately. I only want to add maybe one or two at a time, here a little and there a little. Psionics in Dark Sun, Warlords, Occultists, Arcane Gish, and other classes in future books, maybe other setting books. We don't need to go crazy, but we do need more. Just a bit more.
How's this for an analogy?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We definitely need more. being able to create your own character with such detail and meticulation is what makes DnD so great.
Also what ever happened to half mimics? No one ever seems to mention theme anymore.
Personally I would like a deal maker class it would be a subclass of sorcerer.
But that's just my opinion.
I'm currently in the process of making a Shaman class. Mine is a pact magic user, renamed to Primal Magic. Each subclass summons a different type of spirit, and are my version of the Summoner class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's ok ... I'll point out you blur yourself and D&D when it comes to thirst, and I thought you as a player were the thermogenic entity creating the money light.
But also do you really consider, what are you and your working group at now, four classes? Is that really a "bit" more? The powers that be at WotC have never said "no more classes, ever." After all, we have Artificer. We sort of have and sort of have disavowed Blood Hunter. As a member of the player community, you have ideas and have found affinities, and have developed some ideas. Pressure test them, don't just write them up, go have them played, all the way to level 20. And when someone says, "I didn't like the way the occultist magics were divided among white/black/grey, and I _liked_ Twin Peaks. Consequently I don't see myself playing the class." Think on it instead of saying within minutes, "I disagree and am keeping it."
Bottom line, for everyone here, to quote The Dude (and not to misgender anyone on either side of the quote), "Well, that's just your opinion, man." Whatever stakes people are holding here, or think they're holding. No one "wins" this argument here. New classes may come out, or new a new edition comes out where they toss out polyhedrals for a hip new coin flipping mechanic because the d6 system scene went that way. For me, it's fun to read new ideas. It's also fun to see players see concepts put out there before in the game and provide insightful critiques. But slightly above a third in two polls amounting 400ish people (assuming you don't have people who read both forums voting twice) isn't going to really change THE game. It may change the way you do your game. And that's cool.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Scoradin doesn't have to be Divine. Paladins don't have to get magic from a god. Also sorcerer is the furthest from Divine.
Scoradin is the best Gish build because you can use slots for magic or smites and with shield, absorb elements, counterspell you are great at defensive magic.
If you want Gish look no further!