One thing which would potentially be a good middle ground would be a system which allowed homebrew to get an official 'WotC stamp of approval'.
If the homebrew got over a certain amount of 'likes' (not sure on exact numbers, 10k? 100k? 1mil?, just make it very very hard so only the top few get to be reviewed), it could be reviewed by wizards for balance, and if it was good enough would get a 'stamp of approval'. It would still count as homebrew unofficial content, but it would just let DM's know that it's not likely to break their game anymore than the official classes do. Basically promoting them to blood hunter level.
It would keep the 'real dnd' free of clutter for the grognard's, while giving more classes for the people who feel not all archtypes are filled.
The CEO forcing the company to pay exorbitant annual payments to maintain publishing rights to games their family owned the IP for that nobody played bankrupted TSR.
Wait, was that the old Buck Rogers tabletop game? because if memory serves me correctly, that *whole* situation was insane...
Basically. Among other things if I recall correctly.
Again, I am NOT suggesting there needs to be unanimous consent. However there does still need to be at least some level of consensus, particularly when producing a requested class.
To repeat, if someone says 'We need class X!' and cannot even give a reasonable idea of what they mean by 'X' then it is nigh impossible to fulfill even their desire let alone produce something that will have much more widespread appeal. We are talking about proposals for official publishing, here, after all. A shotgun approach just ends up with all the prep time being followed up by a lot of wound treatment and a pile of dead ideas.
The shotgun approach is exactly how these types of projects work, at least to start with. Ideas die and get resurrected all the time. The extra attunement slots for the Arificer that saw publishing was absolutely *despised* when it first came out in the initial 2017 draft. It was killed for the 2019 draft, and then they brought it back for the final published draft because people realized their original concensus was wrong.
The point is, there seems to be a disconnect where you appear to think this process is a lot smoother than it really is, when the reality is more like sausage making; it's messy.
Because the Eldritch Knight is objectively awful and Wizards has had five years to observe D&D5e in the wild and discern how to solve issues they may not have wanted to tackle in the game's inception. If the Eldritch Knight were enough, people wouldn't have been insisting on better for five years, would they? The Trickster is not a Spell Striker/physical magician; it's a completely different genre of class reliant on magic for misdirection and trickery rather than combat power. Which, admittedly, means it's actually fantastic and a Trickster with Green Flame Blade is as close as anyone can get to a functional gish in 5e, but it's still not the martial mage people clearly want.
The power of a Spell Strike ability can be managed by specifying that a Magus/Swordmage/Whatever can only Spell Strike with spells from their class, not whichever spells. The fact that it's a half-caster already bars any of the devastating 6th or higher spells, and curating the Striker's spell list to avoid things the designers truly cannot tolerate not getting a saving throw. Again, DMs (and D&D in general) has been leaning on "this boss critter is immune to literally everything that requires a saving throw" for too long as it is. Legendary critters have legendary resistances for a reason; everything else can respect a player's abilities please.
The designers of 5e were also violently against players having any control over what sort of magical items they gained, or being able to craft magical items themselves in any timespan not measured in decades for gold costs with fewer than five digits. Five years ago. Here we are now, with the artificer. Saying 'the Eldritch Knight exists, ergo ALL POSSIBLE FORMS of arcane/martial half-caster are covered and we can ignore that niche forever" sucks as bad as saying "the wizard exists, ergo ALL POSSIBLE FORMS of Intelligence-based spell guy are covered and we never need to make another Intelligence-based class or arcane critter ever again".
When brainstorming, yes, but brainstorming is 'Let's hear all your ideas!' not 'This is my idea and it is precisely this and no other idea is good enough!'
First of all at least a couple posters were saying essentially the former. Second, those refusing to even look at using existing classes as solutions are doing the latter.
"We need a new class for the sake of having a new class" is a far tougher sell than "We need this new class because here are some new ideas that I think would be cool"
That's the problem. You're taking the arguments from posts saying "I want something because it's new" while seemingly disregarding the posts saying "Here's the design spaces that haven't been filled, and here are ideas to help fill them."
In short, I feel like you're cherrypicking from the thread rather than taking the conversation as a whole, because a lot of us who have been arguing that new classes are a necessity have also been giving ideas for how to make unique classes that aren't just a glorified reskin.
I mean seriously, in 2e, The Complete Handbooks are universally known as some of the worst D&D material ever produced by TSR. Even in the OSR, people actually still play AD&D, refuse to allow those books in their games.
It’s rather amusing since a lot of those Players Options went into making 3e.
The problem Yurei (and other people) have with that approach is that the fighter just is not a good fit for what's being asked for; an arcane half-casting gish. There's just too much baggage from the base class, and it gets in the way of trying to fill that niche, so the end result is a subclass that tries to fill that gap, and fails.
Could WotC fill that gap by fixing the subclass? In theory, yes, and I'd be stoked if they tried, but the fact remains that it just doesn't do the trick.
My apologies. I was not aware that I have to (a) comment on everything (b) have to comment positively on anything I do comment on and (c) am forbidden from making the case for anything else.
Can you please explain to me, exactly where in the forum rules these edicts can be found?
Of course I only object to the things I object to. I am not against the concept of new classes generally. If nothing else, I rather like the Artificer and frankly, my favourite system is Rolemaster that has a class for pretty much everything. But it also has a much deeper skill system and combat system and most players consider it too complex a system for them, not so much because of the number of classes, but the overall depth. It is typically nicknamed Chartmaster.
Don't make overly broad statements then. If you only engage in part of the conversation while ignoring everything else, be prepared to get called out for ignoring everything else.
It is also worth noting that for the vast majority of existing classes, choice of subclass has almost no impact on the overall playstyle of the base class. The paladin - i.e. the thing everybody is telling 'Spellblade' sorts to use - is a fantastic example. Not one single Oath on that entire class offers even the slightest variation in the paladin's default playstyle of 'run up, hit thing, trigger Smite, repeat until objective accomplished'. A paladin's choice of Oath offers absolutely no mechanical incentive to vary the way the paladin plays at all; even Oath of the Ancients, which grants one of the most powerful abilities in the game in the form of Aura of Warding, doesn't actually change the way the paladin plays.
The Eldritch Knight is another example - you'd figure that adding magic to a class that doesn't have it would change how that class plays, right? it has to - a character that was previously limited to only what they could accomplish with their two bare hands can now manipulate the very fabric of reality itself, rewrite the universe to produce fantastical and eerie supernatural phenomena. That's gotta be a game-changer, right?
Nah. The Eldritch Knight plays just like any other fighter - run up, spam Attack action until morale improves. Any attempt to actually make use of their spellcasting for what the book itself says they're supposed to use it for is an objectively bad play and shows inexperience with the game. The Eldritch Knight is a trap - it says "be an awesome arcane warrior who wields spell and blade with equal skill!", but in reality any use of the Eldritch Knight's casting that is not out-of-combat utility or pre-battle self buff is going to get the EK killed.
Fighters will always play like fighters. Paladins will always play like paladins. Subclasses in 5e are so limited in what they can do that there is no way for a simple subclass to fill in a niche not covered by a base class. hell, it's so freaking terrible for wizards that many wizard players don't even know what their subclass abilities are, or that their choice of School at second level is anything but a fluff ribbon thing that's mostly for backstory purposes.
And as to your argument that magic in 5e has problematic elements that prevent it from reaching it's full potential: fair enough. I echo the sentiment and agree with it 100%. I disagree that it's the biggest hangup preventing gishes from being able to gish, but hey, personal priorities.
Never heard anyone complain that their warrior mage melees too well, though, so again, curious what the issue is.
That's exactly what Yurei (and others) have been saying. The warrior mage warriors too well and doesn't mage well enough.
Short of them having a penalty on their proficiency modifier of some sort, it is tough to find a way of limiting their melee though. This would be true no matter what. And they cannot be expected to cast as well as a full caster.
They should at least cast as well as a paladin, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Nah. The Eldritch Knight plays just like any other fighter - run up, spam Attack action until morale improves. Any attempt to actually make use of their spellcasting for what the book itself says they're supposed to use it for is an objectively bad play and shows inexperience with the game.
Well, half of what they say is correct (abjuration spells are in fact useful). Conjuration, Divination, Illusion, and Transmutation would all be more useful than Evocation.
I gave you my expectation, and the expectation of most folks who want this design space filled.
I don't want a critter that fights with a blazing flurry of multiattacks, striking three to ten times in a round. I don't want a critter that can choose whether it fights with its sword or with its magic. I want a critter that fights with its sword and its magic at the same time. In the same action. With the same motion. A critter for whom Using Magic and Striking Their Foe is the same thing.
it's why the Arcane Trickster is a better Eldritch Knight than the Eldritch Knight - I can give my Trickster Green Flame Blade, and she can then stab a fool with a shortsword wreathed in flames and deal a ton of damage with it. It's the wrong kind of damage, and the Trickster is honestly better conserving its magic for more subtle work, but unlike the Eldritch Knight who loses the vast majority of its damage if it ever tries to stab someone with a magic'd sword, the Trickster can do this thing.
I told you what my core, off-the-moment notion was. A character with no Multiattack but which got extra magical damage on its attacks similarly to how rogues gain scaling Sneak Attack damage, if not as much of such damage because it's damage of a more valuable sort and because it always happens rather than requiring conditions, like Sneak Attack. This critter has spell slots and spells, but those spells have to be cast by striking a target with the blade rather than normally, and by doing so they improve the accuracy of the spell or degrade the target's ability to resist the spell. Frankly, Pact Magic-style spell slot mechanics would work really well here. Short-rest recharge spell slots that automatically upcast, granting the Spellblade very potent Spell Strike capabilities limited by a small overall number of casts. And no, the Hexblade is not the answer for the same reason the Eldritch Knight is not the answer - Hexblades don't 'warrior' for spit, they're mages with delusions of martial competence.
Honestly? I'd play the shit out of that class, should Wizards ever somehow invent it.
Short of them having a penalty on their proficiency modifier of some sort, it is tough to find a way of limiting their melee though. This would be true no matter what. And they cannot be expected to cast as well as a full caster.
There seems to be some sort of miscommunication here, because I don't recall anyone on this thread asking for a full-casting gish. Just a half-casting gish. Which again, the Eldritch Knight tries to be, but has too much baggage from the Fighter to be able to accomplish.
To add to what Yurei is saying, Hexblade Warlocks are also a full-caster equivalent, which again presents baggage that has to be accounted for in design, just like the fighter.
I expect that what Yurei (and others) want is to have an Eldritch Knight that's more on par with Paladins and Rangers than with Fighter or Wizards.
Umm... on par with rangers? So overall weaker then? Rangers and Paladins get one spells a whopping 1 level sooner, and have one more 1st at 3rd level, but no cantrips. They do eventually get 5ths whereas EK's only get up to 4ths but both Rangers and Paladins are a long way from Druid or Cleric spell progressions. And Paladins are no slouches in combat.
Uggh. Are you purposefully being dense? It feels like you are.
We want a martial half caster. It has the same spellcasting progression as a paladin or ranger. It prepares its spells and has no cantrips in the base class. WE DO NOT WANT A FULL CASTER AS A MAGUS! It would get its own spell list, instead of being limited to 1/4th of another caster's list. They would have unique abilities (imbue weapon, spell strike, etc), their own subclasses and distinct features.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
One thing which would potentially be a good middle ground would be a system which allowed homebrew to get an official 'WotC stamp of approval'.
If the homebrew got over a certain amount of 'likes' (not sure on exact numbers, 10k? 100k? 1mil?, just make it very very hard so only the top few get to be reviewed), it could be reviewed by wizards for balance, and if it was good enough would get a 'stamp of approval'. It would still count as homebrew unofficial content, but it would just let DM's know that it's not likely to break their game anymore than the official classes do. Basically promoting them to blood hunter level.
It would keep the 'real dnd' free of clutter for the grognard's, while giving more classes for the people who feel not all archtypes are filled.
Basically. Among other things if I recall correctly.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The shotgun approach is exactly how these types of projects work, at least to start with. Ideas die and get resurrected all the time. The extra attunement slots for the Arificer that saw publishing was absolutely *despised* when it first came out in the initial 2017 draft. It was killed for the 2019 draft, and then they brought it back for the final published draft because people realized their original concensus was wrong.
The point is, there seems to be a disconnect where you appear to think this process is a lot smoother than it really is, when the reality is more like sausage making; it's messy.
Because the Eldritch Knight is objectively awful and Wizards has had five years to observe D&D5e in the wild and discern how to solve issues they may not have wanted to tackle in the game's inception. If the Eldritch Knight were enough, people wouldn't have been insisting on better for five years, would they? The Trickster is not a Spell Striker/physical magician; it's a completely different genre of class reliant on magic for misdirection and trickery rather than combat power. Which, admittedly, means it's actually fantastic and a Trickster with Green Flame Blade is as close as anyone can get to a functional gish in 5e, but it's still not the martial mage people clearly want.
The power of a Spell Strike ability can be managed by specifying that a Magus/Swordmage/Whatever can only Spell Strike with spells from their class, not whichever spells. The fact that it's a half-caster already bars any of the devastating 6th or higher spells, and curating the Striker's spell list to avoid things the designers truly cannot tolerate not getting a saving throw. Again, DMs (and D&D in general) has been leaning on "this boss critter is immune to literally everything that requires a saving throw" for too long as it is. Legendary critters have legendary resistances for a reason; everything else can respect a player's abilities please.
The designers of 5e were also violently against players having any control over what sort of magical items they gained, or being able to craft magical items themselves in any timespan not measured in decades for gold costs with fewer than five digits. Five years ago. Here we are now, with the artificer. Saying 'the Eldritch Knight exists, ergo ALL POSSIBLE FORMS of arcane/martial half-caster are covered and we can ignore that niche forever" sucks as bad as saying "the wizard exists, ergo ALL POSSIBLE FORMS of Intelligence-based spell guy are covered and we never need to make another Intelligence-based class or arcane critter ever again".
Please do not contact or message me.
That's the problem. You're taking the arguments from posts saying "I want something because it's new" while seemingly disregarding the posts saying "Here's the design spaces that haven't been filled, and here are ideas to help fill them."
In short, I feel like you're cherrypicking from the thread rather than taking the conversation as a whole, because a lot of us who have been arguing that new classes are a necessity have also been giving ideas for how to make unique classes that aren't just a glorified reskin.
It’s rather amusing since a lot of those Players Options went into making 3e.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The problem Yurei (and other people) have with that approach is that the fighter just is not a good fit for what's being asked for; an arcane half-casting gish. There's just too much baggage from the base class, and it gets in the way of trying to fill that niche, so the end result is a subclass that tries to fill that gap, and fails.
Could WotC fill that gap by fixing the subclass? In theory, yes, and I'd be stoked if they tried, but the fact remains that it just doesn't do the trick.
Don't make overly broad statements then. If you only engage in part of the conversation while ignoring everything else, be prepared to get called out for ignoring everything else.
It is also worth noting that for the vast majority of existing classes, choice of subclass has almost no impact on the overall playstyle of the base class. The paladin - i.e. the thing everybody is telling 'Spellblade' sorts to use - is a fantastic example. Not one single Oath on that entire class offers even the slightest variation in the paladin's default playstyle of 'run up, hit thing, trigger Smite, repeat until objective accomplished'. A paladin's choice of Oath offers absolutely no mechanical incentive to vary the way the paladin plays at all; even Oath of the Ancients, which grants one of the most powerful abilities in the game in the form of Aura of Warding, doesn't actually change the way the paladin plays.
The Eldritch Knight is another example - you'd figure that adding magic to a class that doesn't have it would change how that class plays, right? it has to - a character that was previously limited to only what they could accomplish with their two bare hands can now manipulate the very fabric of reality itself, rewrite the universe to produce fantastical and eerie supernatural phenomena. That's gotta be a game-changer, right?
Nah. The Eldritch Knight plays just like any other fighter - run up, spam Attack action until morale improves. Any attempt to actually make use of their spellcasting for what the book itself says they're supposed to use it for is an objectively bad play and shows inexperience with the game. The Eldritch Knight is a trap - it says "be an awesome arcane warrior who wields spell and blade with equal skill!", but in reality any use of the Eldritch Knight's casting that is not out-of-combat utility or pre-battle self buff is going to get the EK killed.
Fighters will always play like fighters. Paladins will always play like paladins. Subclasses in 5e are so limited in what they can do that there is no way for a simple subclass to fill in a niche not covered by a base class. hell, it's so freaking terrible for wizards that many wizard players don't even know what their subclass abilities are, or that their choice of School at second level is anything but a fluff ribbon thing that's mostly for backstory purposes.
Please do not contact or message me.
That's exactly what Yurei (and others) have been saying. The warrior mage warriors too well and doesn't mage well enough.
And as to your argument that magic in 5e has problematic elements that prevent it from reaching it's full potential: fair enough. I echo the sentiment and agree with it 100%. I disagree that it's the biggest hangup preventing gishes from being able to gish, but hey, personal priorities.
They should at least cast as well as a paladin, though.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I expect that what Yurei (and others) want is to have an Eldritch Knight that's more on par with Paladins and Rangers than with Fighter or Wizards.
Well, half of what they say is correct (abjuration spells are in fact useful). Conjuration, Divination, Illusion, and Transmutation would all be more useful than Evocation.
I gave you my expectation, and the expectation of most folks who want this design space filled.
I don't want a critter that fights with a blazing flurry of multiattacks, striking three to ten times in a round. I don't want a critter that can choose whether it fights with its sword or with its magic. I want a critter that fights with its sword and its magic at the same time. In the same action. With the same motion. A critter for whom Using Magic and Striking Their Foe is the same thing.
it's why the Arcane Trickster is a better Eldritch Knight than the Eldritch Knight - I can give my Trickster Green Flame Blade, and she can then stab a fool with a shortsword wreathed in flames and deal a ton of damage with it. It's the wrong kind of damage, and the Trickster is honestly better conserving its magic for more subtle work, but unlike the Eldritch Knight who loses the vast majority of its damage if it ever tries to stab someone with a magic'd sword, the Trickster can do this thing.
I told you what my core, off-the-moment notion was. A character with no Multiattack but which got extra magical damage on its attacks similarly to how rogues gain scaling Sneak Attack damage, if not as much of such damage because it's damage of a more valuable sort and because it always happens rather than requiring conditions, like Sneak Attack. This critter has spell slots and spells, but those spells have to be cast by striking a target with the blade rather than normally, and by doing so they improve the accuracy of the spell or degrade the target's ability to resist the spell. Frankly, Pact Magic-style spell slot mechanics would work really well here. Short-rest recharge spell slots that automatically upcast, granting the Spellblade very potent Spell Strike capabilities limited by a small overall number of casts. And no, the Hexblade is not the answer for the same reason the Eldritch Knight is not the answer - Hexblades don't 'warrior' for spit, they're mages with delusions of martial competence.
Honestly? I'd play the shit out of that class, should Wizards ever somehow invent it.
Please do not contact or message me.
There seems to be some sort of miscommunication here, because I don't recall anyone on this thread asking for a full-casting gish. Just a half-casting gish. Which again, the Eldritch Knight tries to be, but has too much baggage from the Fighter to be able to accomplish.
To add to what Yurei is saying, Hexblade Warlocks are also a full-caster equivalent, which again presents baggage that has to be accounted for in design, just like the fighter.
Uggh. Are you purposefully being dense? It feels like you are.
We want a martial half caster. It has the same spellcasting progression as a paladin or ranger. It prepares its spells and has no cantrips in the base class. WE DO NOT WANT A FULL CASTER AS A MAGUS! It would get its own spell list, instead of being limited to 1/4th of another caster's list. They would have unique abilities (imbue weapon, spell strike, etc), their own subclasses and distinct features.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Quick question to those helping with the Witch. Should it be Charisma or Intelligence based? I'm leaning towards Charisma.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think wis actually.......
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.