It does, thank you. I forgot that Runes are very much connected to giants, but making their sub-classes be based on the different types of giant is a solid Idea.
I could see the Witch then having sub-classes based on a couple of concepts. One could be based on shape-shifting (both themselves and others), many witches are known for doing so and having another class that can morph into different creatures would be interesting. Having a more alchemist-style witch would be fun (And being the more nature style alchemist to the Artificers more magical/science alchemist). Maybe a witch subclass that enhances the base classes ability to use curses, hexes and other debuffs spells. Some interesting possibilities.
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I've also been thinking (since before this thread, actually) of how a non-martial divine half-caster might work, and by and large I am kinda stumped. However, one thought that did occur is that the Channel Divinity mechanic is *seriously* underutilized in 5e. I think if I were to approach it, I'd lean more heavily into that and give a broader range of options you could choose from, rather than tying them to class/subclass. I'm not sure if that's enough, but I think that's a start.
That could be cool. Maybe give them a list of 6-10 Channel Divinities that they can pick and choose from, taking 2 options, maybe later getting more (not being able to change them, though). They could get 1 use of Channel Divinity up until level 11, when they would get 2 uses. The subclasses could be: Oracle, Wanderer, Hallowed, and Gloam.
Maybe the class could be called the Herald? Seer? Blessed?
It wouldn't as much focus on the cleric-y things as much as it would on utility support spells.
The one I had kinda started on a while back was something I had written down as "The Friar" (since Monk was taken) and the ideas I had was that it would be a supportive half-caster, with subclasses based more on an occupational role one might find in a monastery; "Master of Brews" for one that makes tinctures/distillations to bolster their allies, "Master of Books" for one with a touch of arcane flair that bolsters their spellcasting, and a "Master of Staves" for one that's more martially inclined.
Now that I'm thinking on it again, the idea I'm having is to make the base class a supportive half-caster with an expanded pick-and-choose list of Channel Divinities and a couple other features to nail it down, and have the aforementioned subclasses work on something of a charge-based system to use their abilities: "Master of Brews" could use their charges to give different effects to their allies (like the Alchemist only without sucking ass), the "Master of Books" could use their charges to cast a small selection of spells from the Wizard spell list, and the "Master of Staves" could use theirs for something similar to maneuvers/blade flourishes to bolster their attacks.
This is all off the top of my head, mind, but I think I'll play around with this too.
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Of course. Druids are the Morphing class, but having a subclass dedicated to shape changing outside of a druid would be cool. Maybe there could be a mechanic where you can choose between a list of beasts and maybe even a monstrosity that you can change into, kind of like how a totem barbarian chooses their totem effects at different levels.
It would also be nice to see another sub-class utilize familiars in interesting ways.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Of course. Druids are the Morphing class, but having a subclass dedicated to shape changing outside of a druid would be cool. Maybe there could be a mechanic where you can choose between a list of beasts and maybe even a monstrosity that you can change into, kind of like how a totem barbarian chooses their totem effects at different levels.
It would also be nice to see another sub-class utilize familiars in interesting ways.
Those are cool ideas. I don't know how I'd do the mechanics for shapeshifting as a witch, but I'll keep that in mind.
I agree. Familiars are cool, and witches in folklore use them for different purposes. (Unrelated, the Witch spell list could have create homunculus on it.)
Another class that would be interesting to me is a "Mystic Theurge". In Pathfinder it's a prestige class, but I like the idea of a person to be able to wield both arcane and divine spells and combine them. Something like a prepared caster, access to both the cleric and the wizard list and features to e.g. use a slot of a higher level to combine two spells from the list. Like a fireball that burns enemies while simultaneously healing allies. In Pf that was a capstone limited to once per day, but I think it could be balanced by making the combined spell consume a slot roundUp (higher of the two spell levels +0.5*lower of the two spell levels) or something like that.
Subclasses could be focused on mixing Evocation with healing, Conjuration with buffing, Abjuration with debuffing, etc. So, healing fireballs, summoning a horde of buffed up extraplanar beings, or blessing allies while cursing the enemy.
(Anyone have ideas for subclasses for the Magus that I'm currently making? I've currently made an Arcane Striker that focuses even more on Spell Strike than the base class, and am designing a subclass called the Eldritch Nullifier who gets counterspell, and can stop others magic and spells. Anyone have any other ideas?)
Pathfinder has a "Kensai" (the CRPG calls it "Sword Saint"). That subclass gets proficiency with only one specific weapon, no armors and receives less spells.
On the other hand, it also gets a permanent bonus to AC equal to the intelligence modifier from level 1, gets to add intelligence to initiative checks from level 10, increases the crit range for melee attacks and later on always starts initiative with a 20 on the D20.
It's kinda hard to describe what makes them different narratively... it just feels like the Samurai or asian sword masters from (probably western) legends, who become one with their blade and move so fast and precise that they can hold back a whole SWAT team of soldiers while wearing only their night gown. With a serious sprinkle of fantasy mixed in since they also can snip with their fingers to blow a room up in a fireball.
Pathfinder has a "Kensai" (the CRPG calls it "Sword Saint"). That subclass gets proficiency with only one specific weapon, no armors and receives less spells.
5e has Kensei.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Of course. Druids are the Morphing class, but having a subclass dedicated to shape changing outside of a druid would be cool. Maybe there could be a mechanic where you can choose between a list of beasts and maybe even a monstrosity that you can change into, kind of like how a totem barbarian chooses their totem effects at different levels.
It would also be nice to see another sub-class utilize familiars in interesting ways.
Those are cool ideas. I don't know how I'd do the mechanics for shapeshifting as a witch, but I'll keep that in mind.
I agree. Familiars are cool, and witches in folklore use them for different purposes. (Unrelated, the Witch spell list could have create homunculus on it.)
Maybe a witch can pick one CR 0 beast at first level but at later levels, they can pick a CR 1-2 monstrosity. To keep it separate from the druids list of beasts.
I like your take on subclasses, but I think it should be kept open how dark a witch's powers are.
One thing all witches should get is a coven mechanic. Where the witch can in some way spend their own spell slots to empower the spells of their allies, or vice versa.
Pathfinder has a "Kensai" (the CRPG calls it "Sword Saint"). That subclass gets proficiency with only one specific weapon, no armors and receives less spells.
5e has Kensei.
Yes, it has a subclass called Kensai that has absolutely zero overlap with the Magus subclass. No weapon specialization, not int based armor, no spellcasting, no initiative boosts. Not sure about the increased crit range, but probably it doesn't have that either.
How is that relevant to the question about subclasses for a homebrew Magus class?
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It's not just thematic niches though. It's easy to reflavor anything as anything.
It's mechanical niches from prior editions which are still missing.
I could reflavor a paladin or barbarian as a witch if I wanted. It still doesn't match the mechanics and playstyle the witch class used to have. And neither does warlock, druid, or cleric.
It's the same with a swordmage class. Yes, it fills the same party niche as a paladin, blending magic and combat. But not everyone wants to be some holy knight who does healing, radiant damage, and divine magic. Some people want to be an int based half caster who enchants their sword with the elements or tons of other cool effects via spell slots. You physically cannot make this in game, and so for the people who enjoyed playing duskblade, magnus, and swordmage in prior edition, not all niches are filled.
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
but the thing is...... we want them.
mechanically, a witch would have some form of pact magic, a list of invocation-like curses, a cackling laugh, and a whole ton of rules on brewing potions. Currently, we dont have a class with those mechanics. IMO a subclass for warlock with an expanded Invo list and potion brewing would be fine, but we still want it. I want a utility class that isn't magic (Non-magical healing, the Flash of Genius from artificer, jack of all trades etc.). I want a dragon knight/ magus/ spellblade with a unique mechanic for a pseudo smite (Possibly you enchant your sword with 'charges'?), who can be an arcane paladin, without the channel divinity.
we may not need them, but goddamn do we want them.
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.
I mean I agree. Multiclassing in in 5e is downright awful. Then again I consider the entire 5e character building/class system as a whole as completely awful and in need of deleting completely and starting over. Pathfinder 2e is so much better than that regard that's it's laughable.
I was just replying to the person saying all niches are filled. All niches were filled long ago just with those four classes. Yet we have more classes than that. We don't technically need more, but having more is enjoyable, especially to those people unable to build a character how they want in the current system.
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
Hey, it's someone else who doesn't seem to get the root of the problem.
In older editions or say pathfinder subclasses could do what you are describing but not in 5e. In 5e you couldn't just reflavor druids, warlocks, or clerics to be witches because the core class doesn't modify to that extent. You literally are left with a druid of the land or stars, a nature cleric, and a warlock (don't get bogged down playing gotchas with definitions.) Those aren't the same as a witch class, which as far as I understand are Int based casters, or the ones I have played are and that's just core mechanics.
The closest you could possibly get right now would be a warlock subclass that gets some cleric and druid spells on its spell list and took pact of the chain for a familiar. But that's not the same as the witch class people are describing.
The core rules of 5e dictate that the base class has a very strong and unavoidable influence on the subclass, not the other way around. The theme, flavor, mechanics all are dominated by it.
We clearly don't have all the main thematic niches filled. I don't know if reading is boring to you but it has been repeated a none zero number of times that there are both thematic and mechanical niches left wide open that are not covered by any of the core classes. arcane, martial focused half caster (magus), int based, martial, support class (warlord), divine, spell focused, half caster (oracle), nature, spell focused half caster (shaman). These are mechanical and thematic niches left unfilled or poorly filled by 5e's attempt to crowbar their roles into classes that cannot take them without major alterations, alterations that were not made. e.g. Eldritch knight is not a replacement for Magus, it's a fighter that can cast some spells, it can never get out from underneath the fighter class because it must always be balanced around having 4 attacks and action surge.
Am I being clear about this? is this so difficult to understand that it needs repeating again?
I think it's worth noting that we're technically getting three entire new classes in Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot. The Warrior, Expert, and Spellcaster. Wizards retooled the Sidekick classes to become their own valid PC classes, so incredibly over-simplified that the only way I manage to avoid being actively insulted by Wizards' assumption of our overall intelligence levels is by forcing myself to remember that these are not built for the Dumbest Dumb People who Ever Dumbed a Dumb, but for people who just do not speak the language of tabletop nerds and need a course in Remedial Gaming.
Nevertheless. Three entirely new classes, outside of and independent from the Sacred Twelve of the PHB. People screeched and pitched fits over the artificer, we got that anyways, and the five years of game analysis Wizards got from seeing where they ****ed up in 5e's design means the artificer is one of the best designed classes in the game. Maybe that's a clue. And frankly, we've answered the "Just reflavor existing classes you stupid shits, I don't wanna have to put up with new mechanics in my mechanical ruleset" argument so often I'm tempted to just start ignoring it from now on. It's not even a legitimate point of debate anymore, just a bad-faith attempt to suppress any character that isn't a direct clone of a Lord of the Rings character.
The issue seems to be a rift between newer players who've come from an era of nigh-infinite variation in what constitutes 'Fantasy', across a smorgasbord of different media, who want to mix and match those elements to create something they find novel and exciting or pursue an archetype that formulated in the last few years of media mixing pot, and grognards (using the term quite deliberately this time, thank you) for whom there were maybe three fantasy stories in about a dozen books back when D&D was REAL D&D, and figure that if a given character type was not codified, vetted, explored, and fully realized by 1964, it has no business in their D&D game. It's usually expressed as an 'appreciation for the classics', 'honoring the traditions of the game', and such - and in many cases those are very much a part of it. People have a nostalgic fondness for the Old Ways. But it's also knee-jerk instinctive hostility for anything they're not familiar with from eighty years of gaming, the "I don't know that so it SUCKS!" reaction disguised as anger towards those who "disrespect the foundation of the game".
The problem there is that a majority of players these days are apparently 25 and under. Heavy social stigma and mishandling of the property kept D&D and other TTRPGs more or less on life support until the Internet boom of the last fiveish years, and most of the influx is from younger folks who want to play this cool game they saw their favorite Internet show doing. To them, fantasy is so much broader than JUST freaking Conan of the Rings, but D&D is still mired in the muck of fifty years of its players forcing it to be this one narrow slice of 'Fantasy'. Just look at the vicious pushback against Eberron in these forums, and the even more vicious pushback against Exandria - which is the SAME FREAKING TYPE of fantasy, just without a thousand years of Older Edition Baggage!
Of course people are going to argue against new classes. They're the same people who argued against anything beyond fighter, wizard, thief, and priest. The question is why people should listen, if the only argument they can present is "that's just the way it's always been so it's the only way it should ever be".
That could be cool. A "Morpher" subclass, but I wouldn't include it in the whole class. The other ideas are cool, too. I would probably make the subclasses be Blood Magic, Bone Magic, Familiar Magic, Morphing Magic, Hex Magic, Brewing Magic, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The one I had kinda started on a while back was something I had written down as "The Friar" (since Monk was taken) and the ideas I had was that it would be a supportive half-caster, with subclasses based more on an occupational role one might find in a monastery; "Master of Brews" for one that makes tinctures/distillations to bolster their allies, "Master of Books" for one with a touch of arcane flair that bolsters their spellcasting, and a "Master of Staves" for one that's more martially inclined.
Now that I'm thinking on it again, the idea I'm having is to make the base class a supportive half-caster with an expanded pick-and-choose list of Channel Divinities and a couple other features to nail it down, and have the aforementioned subclasses work on something of a charge-based system to use their abilities: "Master of Brews" could use their charges to give different effects to their allies (like the Alchemist only without sucking ass), the "Master of Books" could use their charges to cast a small selection of spells from the Wizard spell list, and the "Master of Staves" could use theirs for something similar to maneuvers/blade flourishes to bolster their attacks.
This is all off the top of my head, mind, but I think I'll play around with this too.
Of course. Druids are the Morphing class, but having a subclass dedicated to shape changing outside of a druid would be cool. Maybe there could be a mechanic where you can choose between a list of beasts and maybe even a monstrosity that you can change into, kind of like how a totem barbarian chooses their totem effects at different levels.
It would also be nice to see another sub-class utilize familiars in interesting ways.
"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
Those are cool ideas. I don't know how I'd do the mechanics for shapeshifting as a witch, but I'll keep that in mind.
I agree. Familiars are cool, and witches in folklore use them for different purposes. (Unrelated, the Witch spell list could have create homunculus on it.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Another class that would be interesting to me is a "Mystic Theurge". In Pathfinder it's a prestige class, but I like the idea of a person to be able to wield both arcane and divine spells and combine them. Something like a prepared caster, access to both the cleric and the wizard list and features to e.g. use a slot of a higher level to combine two spells from the list. Like a fireball that burns enemies while simultaneously healing allies. In Pf that was a capstone limited to once per day, but I think it could be balanced by making the combined spell consume a slot roundUp (higher of the two spell levels +0.5*lower of the two spell levels) or something like that.
Subclasses could be focused on mixing Evocation with healing, Conjuration with buffing, Abjuration with debuffing, etc. So, healing fireballs, summoning a horde of buffed up extraplanar beings, or blessing allies while cursing the enemy.
Pathfinder has a "Kensai" (the CRPG calls it "Sword Saint"). That subclass gets proficiency with only one specific weapon, no armors and receives less spells.
On the other hand, it also gets a permanent bonus to AC equal to the intelligence modifier from level 1, gets to add intelligence to initiative checks from level 10, increases the crit range for melee attacks and later on always starts initiative with a 20 on the D20.
It's kinda hard to describe what makes them different narratively... it just feels like the Samurai or asian sword masters from (probably western) legends, who become one with their blade and move so fast and precise that they can hold back a whole SWAT team of soldiers while wearing only their night gown. With a serious sprinkle of fantasy mixed in since they also can snip with their fingers to blow a room up in a fireball.
5e has Kensei.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
1: Psion/Mystic, 2: Magus/Duskblade, 3: Warlord, 4: Witch
Are the ones I can think of which could be pretty unique.
Maybe a witch can pick one CR 0 beast at first level but at later levels, they can pick a CR 1-2 monstrosity. To keep it separate from the druids list of beasts.
I like your take on subclasses, but I think it should be kept open how dark a witch's powers are.
One thing all witches should get is a coven mechanic. Where the witch can in some way spend their own spell slots to empower the spells of their allies, or vice versa.
Yes, it has a subclass called Kensai that has absolutely zero overlap with the Magus subclass. No weapon specialization, not int based armor, no spellcasting, no initiative boosts. Not sure about the increased crit range, but probably it doesn't have that either.
How is that relevant to the question about subclasses for a homebrew Magus class?
I keep seeing people be like "we need a witch class." We have three witch classes. Warlock, which is defined as a "male practitioner of witchcraft," druid (which is based on the Celtic druids and bears parallels to Wiccan practices, particularly with herbs and other natural sources of magic. Circle of Land and Stars especially), and Nature Cleric. We don't need a witch class, because you can literally reflavor one or all three of the classes I just mentioned into witches.
The key thing to remember about new classes: How do you make them unique, fill a niche that doesn't already exist, or otherwise not step on the toes of the existing classes? How do you make something that wouldn't just be better as a subclass? That's why I don't think we really *need* new classes in 5e right now. We have all the main thematic niches filled.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
It's not just thematic niches though. It's easy to reflavor anything as anything.
It's mechanical niches from prior editions which are still missing.
I could reflavor a paladin or barbarian as a witch if I wanted. It still doesn't match the mechanics and playstyle the witch class used to have. And neither does warlock, druid, or cleric.
It's the same with a swordmage class. Yes, it fills the same party niche as a paladin, blending magic and combat. But not everyone wants to be some holy knight who does healing, radiant damage, and divine magic. Some people want to be an int based half caster who enchants their sword with the elements or tons of other cool effects via spell slots. You physically cannot make this in game, and so for the people who enjoyed playing duskblade, magnus, and swordmage in prior edition, not all niches are filled.
but the thing is...... we want them.
mechanically, a witch would have some form of pact magic, a list of invocation-like curses, a cackling laugh, and a whole ton of rules on brewing potions. Currently, we dont have a class with those mechanics. IMO a subclass for warlock with an expanded Invo list and potion brewing would be fine, but we still want it. I want a utility class that isn't magic (Non-magical healing, the Flash of Genius from artificer, jack of all trades etc.). I want a dragon knight/ magus/ spellblade with a unique mechanic for a pseudo smite (Possibly you enchant your sword with 'charges'?), who can be an arcane paladin, without the channel divinity.
we may not need them, but goddamn do we want them.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I mean technically you don't 'need' any more classes than fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric. With multiclassing that is all niches filled.
I mean I agree. Multiclassing in in 5e is downright awful. Then again I consider the entire 5e character building/class system as a whole as completely awful and in need of deleting completely and starting over. Pathfinder 2e is so much better than that regard that's it's laughable.
I was just replying to the person saying all niches are filled. All niches were filled long ago just with those four classes. Yet we have more classes than that. We don't technically need more, but having more is enjoyable, especially to those people unable to build a character how they want in the current system.
Hey, it's someone else who doesn't seem to get the root of the problem.
In older editions or say pathfinder subclasses could do what you are describing but not in 5e. In 5e you couldn't just reflavor druids, warlocks, or clerics to be witches because the core class doesn't modify to that extent. You literally are left with a druid of the land or stars, a nature cleric, and a warlock (don't get bogged down playing gotchas with definitions.) Those aren't the same as a witch class, which as far as I understand are Int based casters, or the ones I have played are and that's just core mechanics.
The closest you could possibly get right now would be a warlock subclass that gets some cleric and druid spells on its spell list and took pact of the chain for a familiar. But that's not the same as the witch class people are describing.
The core rules of 5e dictate that the base class has a very strong and unavoidable influence on the subclass, not the other way around. The theme, flavor, mechanics all are dominated by it.
We clearly don't have all the main thematic niches filled. I don't know if reading is boring to you but it has been repeated a none zero number of times that there are both thematic and mechanical niches left wide open that are not covered by any of the core classes. arcane, martial focused half caster (magus), int based, martial, support class (warlord), divine, spell focused, half caster (oracle), nature, spell focused half caster (shaman). These are mechanical and thematic niches left unfilled or poorly filled by 5e's attempt to crowbar their roles into classes that cannot take them without major alterations, alterations that were not made. e.g. Eldritch knight is not a replacement for Magus, it's a fighter that can cast some spells, it can never get out from underneath the fighter class because it must always be balanced around having 4 attacks and action surge.
Am I being clear about this? is this so difficult to understand that it needs repeating again?
I think it's worth noting that we're technically getting three entire new classes in Tasha's Allspice Soup Pot. The Warrior, Expert, and Spellcaster. Wizards retooled the Sidekick classes to become their own valid PC classes, so incredibly over-simplified that the only way I manage to avoid being actively insulted by Wizards' assumption of our overall intelligence levels is by forcing myself to remember that these are not built for the Dumbest Dumb People who Ever Dumbed a Dumb, but for people who just do not speak the language of tabletop nerds and need a course in Remedial Gaming.
Nevertheless. Three entirely new classes, outside of and independent from the Sacred Twelve of the PHB. People screeched and pitched fits over the artificer, we got that anyways, and the five years of game analysis Wizards got from seeing where they ****ed up in 5e's design means the artificer is one of the best designed classes in the game. Maybe that's a clue. And frankly, we've answered the "Just reflavor existing classes you stupid shits, I don't wanna have to put up with new mechanics in my mechanical ruleset" argument so often I'm tempted to just start ignoring it from now on. It's not even a legitimate point of debate anymore, just a bad-faith attempt to suppress any character that isn't a direct clone of a Lord of the Rings character.
Please do not contact or message me.
The funniest part about it is apparently Gary Gygaz hated LotR. 😂😂 When he wrote D&D he was thinking pulp hero’s like Conan.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The issue seems to be a rift between newer players who've come from an era of nigh-infinite variation in what constitutes 'Fantasy', across a smorgasbord of different media, who want to mix and match those elements to create something they find novel and exciting or pursue an archetype that formulated in the last few years of media mixing pot, and grognards (using the term quite deliberately this time, thank you) for whom there were maybe three fantasy stories in about a dozen books back when D&D was REAL D&D, and figure that if a given character type was not codified, vetted, explored, and fully realized by 1964, it has no business in their D&D game. It's usually expressed as an 'appreciation for the classics', 'honoring the traditions of the game', and such - and in many cases those are very much a part of it. People have a nostalgic fondness for the Old Ways. But it's also knee-jerk instinctive hostility for anything they're not familiar with from eighty years of gaming, the "I don't know that so it SUCKS!" reaction disguised as anger towards those who "disrespect the foundation of the game".
The problem there is that a majority of players these days are apparently 25 and under. Heavy social stigma and mishandling of the property kept D&D and other TTRPGs more or less on life support until the Internet boom of the last fiveish years, and most of the influx is from younger folks who want to play this cool game they saw their favorite Internet show doing. To them, fantasy is so much broader than JUST freaking Conan of the Rings, but D&D is still mired in the muck of fifty years of its players forcing it to be this one narrow slice of 'Fantasy'. Just look at the vicious pushback against Eberron in these forums, and the even more vicious pushback against Exandria - which is the SAME FREAKING TYPE of fantasy, just without a thousand years of Older Edition Baggage!
Of course people are going to argue against new classes. They're the same people who argued against anything beyond fighter, wizard, thief, and priest. The question is why people should listen, if the only argument they can present is "that's just the way it's always been so it's the only way it should ever be".
Please do not contact or message me.
Heck, I still have my AD&D 1e PHB. Heck, I still have my OD&D PHB too. Even I want new classes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting