Perfectly fine, but what you did in your home game is not a representation of the D&D culture at the time nor how it was designed to be played. I mean you do understand that D&D was a competitive tournament game for decades right? It was a player centric game in which "player skill" was a measurement. If you wanted to get into a game of D&D in the 80's it was common to be asked, what level characters do you have? Are you any good? What dungeons have you beaten? These were common conversations people had about D&D. No one gave crap about story, that was just backdrop.
Escuse me? Do tell me more about this competitive racket attached to D&D "tournament's" for decades. Sure when I went to conventions, people would play a session, hopefully finish it in the allotted time, sometimes there'd be a vote for best contribution to the game (and that could have been through mechanics or role playing) and they'd receive some sort of swag bag; but you make D&D tourneys sound like Magic, and while I was not the most active member of the RPGA (early analog to Adventurers' League) before and after the founding to the Living City structure, I just don't remember things being so ranked and cutthroat. Maybe I'll read about these elite D&D champions of lore in some Dragon back issues' write ups of the GenCon.
Role Playing conventions grew out of and cohabited with war-games, so yes there was a tournament culture with winners in battle games and thing in between role playing and tactic games like Car Wars etc. Big crowds for Star Fleet Battles. But the RPG events, including some really tactics heavy games like Twilight 2000 and Phoenix Command ... there just wasn't a ranked leaderboard. I think the RPGA might have had some sort of "rankings" but those were largely participation awards for playing in RPGA sanctioned events, so bragging rights more than skill or talent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
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.
I can understand and appreciate that, but the problem is that some of these conversations have started to veer waaay off from the subject. This is not the place to talk about roleplay in High Rollers and Critical Role. That is a conversation that needs to be held elsewhere.
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.
But, Dnd is a role playing game. The amount of classes is intrinsically tied to role playing. Two people can play the exact same class, with the exact same race and stats but end up with wildly different characters. The discussion about introducing new classes seems to be asking what is missing, but what we currently have available to us give us a lot more then what is on the surface. I recently had my characters join a circus and let me tell you the interactions with there abilities that they came up with was amazing.
I used this example before but sorcerer with metamagic can cast a leveled spell as a bonus action with quicken spell. Sure, you don't get multi-attack natively with sorcerer but that could lend itself to a new sorcerer subclass. Or do you want a character that uses magically infused weapon attacks perhaps? Horizon Walker Ranger gives you the ability to as a bonus action make your attacks deal force damage if you are within 30 feet of a target, and rangers do get multi attack. There is also the Haste spell, which gives you an additional attack action. You can cast a spell, then take your attack action.
What I'm getting at is depending on what and how you RP can inform what you play. If you want to play character X because they are mechanically cool, that's awesome. If you want to do character Y because of a backstory you've come up with, great! But there is a lot available to us currently, so unless something explores a mechanic in a unique way (Like Spores Druid with Wild shape) or introduces an entirely new mechanic (Like Psionics) there really isn't a reason for it to be a subclass, let alone a new class.
@Jhananech: And again, there's no issue with talking about RP in the context of class discussion, but once it starts veering away from that entirely and towards subjects like livestreamed play, then it needs to move to a different thread.
In any event, this conversation is also starting to derail the thread, so I'll try to just leave it at that.
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
Because there's a primal gish class (ranger) and a divine gish class (paladin), but no arcane one. Also, the paladin is far to divine in flavor to work as an arcane gish class, even if you make an arcane subclass (which I've done).
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
A true gish class would blend their magic and fighting together perfectly, focusing their spells and magic through their attacks to make up for their deficiency in fighting power. An Eldritch Knight is not good at blending their vast fighting power with their arcane power, a bladesinger is broken and not good enough in melee combat and too limited in armor and weapon choices, and hexblades are too much warlocks, too much casters, and not good enough at filling the gish role.
If paladins and rangers deserve to exist in 5e, so does an arcane gish class.
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.
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.
This sounds to me like we need more cantrips like Green Flame Blade.
Also, it sounds like you subscribe to character normality, where in because something is usually that way it will always have to be that way. You've basically said that Clerics are heal bots.
You're definition of a Gish also just so happens to be a Nature Cleric, who can imbue elements into there attacks using divine strike, are crazy melee fighters while also being a primary casting class.
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.
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
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 nd 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.
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play. One connected to the elemental planes, with absolutely zero connections to the divine or oaths or healing or radiant damage. It's like asking why someone wants to play wizard when they can just reskin cleric. We have an arcane cleric, why not remove wizard altogether? Or why do we need paladin if you could just have a fighter subclass which was a 1/3 caster with some cleric spells?
Its hard to flavour healing people as setting them on fire or draining their health via a vampiric strike.
It's unrelated to the power of bladesinger or EK. Both of those classes are perfectly balanced and functional in their own right. EK is balanced because it has 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASIs, while bladesinger is balanced because it's a 9th level caster wizard which can summon meteor storms, turn into a dragon, or simply wish the problem away. Neither is a true gish or capable of incorporating fighting/magic together in a decent manner.
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.
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
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 nd 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.
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play. One connected to the elemental planes, with absolutely zero connections to the divine or oaths or healing or radiant damage. It's like asking why someone wants to play wizard when they can just reskin cleric. We have an arcane cleric, why not remove wizard altogether? Or why do we need paladin if you could just have a fighter subclass which was a 1/3 caster with some cleric spells?
Its hard to flavour healing people as setting them on fire or draining their health via a vampiric strike.
It's unrelated to the power of bladesinger or EK. Both of those classes are perfectly balanced and functional in their own right. EK is balanced because it has 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASIs, while bladesinger is balanced because it's a 9th level caster wizard which can summon meteor storms, turn into a dragon, or simply wish the problem away. Neither is a true gish or capable of incorporating fighting/magic together in a decent manner.
I think I understand. My question becomes, how is that vague enough to warrant being a class with unique subclasses, and what (potentially new) mechanic would you want to explore to make that happen?
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play.
In the end, this is an argument for going classless. Fundamentally, the role of classes is to limit players to a small number of common archetypes, and players with unusual concepts must conform. I could build the character you want just fine in Fantasy Hero, or Mutants and Masterminds, or Tri-Stat, and to a lesser degree in GURPS, because they're powers-based systems, not class-based systems. There are reasons D&D does not go there (power-based character building is a lot of effort for the players and a complete nightmare to balance), but if you want exactly your character concept and your concept is remotely unusual, there isn't another way of doing it.
(While we're at it, there are actually 4 gish classes -- Sword and Valor bards are also gishes).
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
Because there's a primal gish class (ranger) and a divine gish class (paladin), but no arcane one. Also, the paladin is far to divine in flavor to work as an arcane gish class, even if you make an arcane subclass (which I've done).
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
A true gish class would blend their magic and fighting together perfectly, focusing their spells and magic through their attacks to make up for their deficiency in fighting power. An Eldritch Knight is not good at blending their vast fighting power with their arcane power, a bladesinger is broken and not good enough in melee combat and too limited in armor and weapon choices, and hexblades are too much warlocks, too much casters, and not good enough at filling the gish role.
If paladins and rangers deserve to exist in 5e, so does an arcane gish class.
There are 3 arcane gish classes, but look at your words "not good enough" every time. I think this makes my point extremely clear...
Subclasses, not classes. And there are more than that (Swords Bards, Valor Bards, Whispers Bards, Four-Elements Monks, etc). It's just like how there's a War Cleric in 5e, but it does not replace the Paladin class.
Yes, they are not good enough at being a gish. A gish class is supposed to blend their attacks with their magic, which only one of those does to any extent, and certainly not in a satisfying way.
There is no Arcane Gish class, and there should be. No amount of condescending snark will change my mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
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 nd 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.
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play. One connected to the elemental planes, with absolutely zero connections to the divine or oaths or healing or radiant damage. It's like asking why someone wants to play wizard when they can just reskin cleric. We have an arcane cleric, why not remove wizard altogether? Or why do we need paladin if you could just have a fighter subclass which was a 1/3 caster with some cleric spells?
Its hard to flavour healing people as setting them on fire or draining their health via a vampiric strike.
It's unrelated to the power of bladesinger or EK. Both of those classes are perfectly balanced and functional in their own right. EK is balanced because it has 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASIs, while bladesinger is balanced because it's a 9th level caster wizard which can summon meteor storms, turn into a dragon, or simply wish the problem away. Neither is a true gish or capable of incorporating fighting/magic together in a decent manner.
I think I understand. My question becomes, how is that vague enough to warrant being a class with unique subclasses, and what (potentially new) mechanic would you want to explore to make that happen?
The thing is with the 5e system, I don't actually think it's possible.
The old arcane gishes were built around the spellstrike abilities, which have now been translated into the strike/smite spells of ranger and paladin, while the arcane gish got removed. This means that the pure mechanical aspect has made it into 5e, while being tied up with thematic aspects which don't suit trying to recreate an arcane elemental gish. It's like sorcerer in a way. Sorcerers special thing was spontaneous casting, and now all casters got that it's left sorcerer in a weird spot with lots of people unhappy with it.
Imo there either needed to be lots of classes, with each having a very focused theme. e.g. ranger, paladin, swordmage, psi knight.
or
There needed to be fewer classes which were completely designed to be blank slates, with the subclasses then allowing a massive influence on how the base class played. e.g. you would have a 'half caster' class, which then completely changed depending on whether you want down an arcane, divine, primal, or psionic route.
DnD 5e chose the worst of both worlds. Having very few classes, many of which are extremely thematic and resistant to reflavoring. The subclasses provide very little influence and are more rolling the class in glitter than really change anything.
So my gripes aren't really about the lack of arcane gish. They're about 5e's entire class and character system from the ground up.
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play.
In the end, this is an argument for going classless. Fundamentally, the role of classes is to limit players to a small number of common archetypes, and players with unusual concepts must conform. I could build the character you want just fine in Fantasy Hero, or Mutants and Masterminds, or Tri-Stat, and to a lesser degree in GURPS, because they're powers-based systems, not class-based systems. There are reasons D&D does not go there (power-based character building is a lot of effort for the players and a complete nightmare to balance), but if you want exactly your character concept and your concept is remotely unusual, there isn't another way of doing it.
(While we're at it, there are actually 4 gish classes -- Sword and Valor bards are also gishes).
Subclasses, not classes. And what should the person who wants to play an arcane gish do when they don't want to play a singing gish, or a cursing gish, or another singing gish, or a fighter gish, or another freaking singing gish?
Also, this concept as a class is not a baseless aberration that has no place in D&D or fantasy games. In previous editions, there were Swordmages, and Duskblades, in Pathfinder there's the Magus.
So, stop pretending like this concept is not allowed in the game or genre. This isn't a Sci-Fi class, it's not a superhero class, and it's not a difficult concept to imagine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
^^ This indeed, for me it is so specific a request not falling with already 5 subclasses of the genre that I don't see how a specific class doing exactly this would be justified.
It's justified because it has a place in the history of D&D, has an open design space large enough for a class, and is vague, yet specific enough to have its own themes while still having a variety of subclasses and diverse types of characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
@Jhananech: I'm afraid my brain is too tired to understand the first part of your question, but to the second part: This was discussed a looooooooooooooooong while back in the thread, but a couple suggestions for mechanics were made. Some people mentioned a feature that allowed "storing" spells into a weapon and triggering them on an attack. I myself floated the idea of adding a feature that worked similarly to the Paladin's smite, but rather than focusing on raw damage of a particular type, this one would instead deal less damage with a wider range of elemental damages to choose from, and a number of control effects that would ride on them as well. I'm sure there's other suggestions that were made, but again, my brain is too tired to recall what they were.
Here's the feature I've currently been using for the Arcane Gish class. It definitely still has problems and needs tweaking, but this is the general concept:
Spell Strike
At level 2, you can imbue magic weapons you hold with your spells. When you cast a gish spell that has a casting time of an action that targets another creature with a harmful effect, you can instead cast it, trapping it in your weapon instead of instantly releasing it. This temporarily delays the spell's effects, trapping them inside one magical melee weapon you are holding. The effects of the spell are unleashed the next time you hit a creature with the weapon. The spell remains inside the weapon for 1 minute, until you lose concentration, or until you hit a creature with this melee weapon, whereupon the spell is released and come it comes into effect.
If the spell required a saving throw, the creature you hit with this magical melee weapon while the spell is trapped inside automatically fails its saving throw. If the spell required an attack roll, if you hit a creature with the initial attack, you do not have to attack that creature again, and it becomes the target of one of the spell's attacks. If the spell required more than one attack roll, one of these attacks must be targeting the hit creature, and the others come into effect as normal. If the spell creates an area of effect, you can designate your weapon or the hit creature (your choice) as the origin of the area of effect.
If the spell would immediately cause damage when you cast it, this damage is added to the weapon attack's damage. Additionally, if you must use an action or bonus action on further turns to maintain the effects of the spell, you may continue to keep the spell inside your magic weapon, continuing this effect until the duration of the spell ends.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Subclasses, not classes. And what should the person who wants to play an arcane gish do when they don't want to play a singing gish, or a cursing gish, or another singing gish, or a fighter gish, or another freaking singing gish?
Also, this concept as a class is not a baseless aberration that has no place in D&D or fantasy games. In previous editions, there were Swordmages, and Duskblades, in Pathfinder there's the Magus.
So, stop pretending like this concept is not allowed in the game or genre. This isn't a Sci-Fi class, it's not a superhero class, and it's not a difficult concept to imagine.
I'd say "You're too picky to be playing class-based games". And the class explosion in 3e/PF was the worst part of both worlds, because it managed to combine the complexity and balance problems of classless systems with still being pretty limited in what you could build. And I never said that it's not an allowed concept, it's just that more classes is not the way to add flexibility to a game system.
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.
And why do you need it arcane ? Some of the Oaths have very little divine connotation in them and you don't have any alignment limitations.
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 nd 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.
This is just flavor. It seems to me that you are mostly complaining about the lack of power of the gish as implemented today. EK does this quite well, or bladesinger, or even hexblade, but arguably, they are not tier 1...
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play. One connected to the elemental planes, with absolutely zero connections to the divine or oaths or healing or radiant damage. It's like asking why someone wants to play wizard when they can just reskin cleric. We have an arcane cleric, why not remove wizard altogether? Or why do we need paladin if you could just have a fighter subclass which was a 1/3 caster with some cleric spells?
Its hard to flavour healing people as setting them on fire or draining their health via a vampiric strike.
It's unrelated to the power of bladesinger or EK. Both of those classes are perfectly balanced and functional in their own right. EK is balanced because it has 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASIs, while bladesinger is balanced because it's a 9th level caster wizard which can summon meteor storms, turn into a dragon, or simply wish the problem away. Neither is a true gish or capable of incorporating fighting/magic together in a decent manner.
I think I understand. My question becomes, how is that vague enough to warrant being a class with unique subclasses, and what (potentially new) mechanic would you want to explore to make that happen?
The thing is with the 5e system, I don't actually think it's possible.
The old arcane gishes were built around the spellstrike abilities, which have now been translated into the strike/smite spells of ranger and paladin, while the arcane gish got removed. This means that the pure mechanical aspect has made it into 5e, while being tied up with thematic aspects which don't suit trying to recreate an arcane elemental gish. It's like sorcerer in a way. Sorcerers special thing was spontaneous casting, and now all casters got that it's left sorcerer in a weird spot with lots of people unhappy with it.
Imo there either needed to be lots of classes, with each having a very focused theme. e.g. ranger, paladin, swordmage, psi knight.
or
There needed to be fewer classes which were completely designed to be blank slates, with the subclasses then allowing a massive influence on how the base class played. e.g. you would have a 'half caster' class, which then completely changed depending on whether you want down an arcane, divine, primal, or psionic route.
DnD 5e chose the worst of both worlds. Having very few classes, many of which are extremely thematic and resistant to reflavoring. The subclasses provide very little influence and are more rolling the class in glitter than really change anything.
So my gripes aren't really about the lack of arcane gish. They're about 5e's entire class and character system from the ground up.
I see, That is a very helpful distinction to make. If that's the way you feel about it, would it be worth playing a different edition? I don't think that saying "jUsT PlAy a DiFfErEnT GaMe" is a good way to go about it, but if dnd 5e isn't able to scratch an itch that you've been having or has a fundamental system in place that you disagree with, perhaps a different game is the answer.
That being said, I think it would be possible to make a Gish subclass, assuming the definition I got from google is what people have been referring to. I think that the introduction of a martially focused sorcerer could remedy the problem. They have a wide array of damaging and buffing spells, and with metamagic they can cast a leveled spell and make an attack on the same turn. You can have the source of there magic be from the elemental planes and even have some bloodhunter-esk abilities that allow you to coat your weapons with certain elemental effects. This, with the addition of more cantrips like green flame blade, would allow someone to, in theory, attack with a weapon and then make another weapon attack with their spell.
Does that sound like something that would be similar to what you are getting at? @comrade_jenkens
Subclasses, not classes. And what should the person who wants to play an arcane gish do when they don't want to play a singing gish, or a cursing gish, or another singing gish, or a fighter gish, or another freaking singing gish?
Also, this concept as a class is not a baseless aberration that has no place in D&D or fantasy games. In previous editions, there were Swordmages, and Duskblades, in Pathfinder there's the Magus.
So, stop pretending like this concept is not allowed in the game or genre. This isn't a Sci-Fi class, it's not a superhero class, and it's not a difficult concept to imagine.
I'd say "You're too picky to be playing class-based games". And the class explosion in 3e/PF was the worst part of both worlds, because it managed to combine the complexity and balance problems of classless systems with still being pretty limited in what you could build. And I never said that it's not an allowed concept, it's just that more classes is not the way to add flexibility to a game system.
Adding an arcane Gish class won't cause a class explosion. Also, I don't think it's being picky to want something that has existed in previous editions, pathfinder, and should exist based on the current class design system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Here's the feature I've currently been using for the Arcane Gish class. It definitely still has problems and needs tweaking, but this is the general concept:
Spell Strike
At level 2, you can imbue magic weapons you hold with your spells. When you cast a gish spell that has a casting time of an action that targets another creature with a harmful effect, you can instead cast it, trapping it in your weapon instead of instantly releasing it. This temporarily delays the spell's effects, trapping them inside one magical melee weapon you are holding. The effects of the spell are unleashed the next time you hit a creature with the weapon. The spell remains inside the weapon for 1 minute, until you lose concentration, or until you hit a creature with this melee weapon, whereupon the spell is released and come it comes into effect.
If the spell required a saving throw, the creature you hit with this magical melee weapon while the spell is trapped inside automatically fails its saving throw. If the spell required an attack roll, if you hit a creature with the initial attack, you do not have to attack that creature again, and it becomes the target of one of the spell's attacks. If the spell required more than one attack roll, one of these attacks must be targeting the hit creature, and the others come into effect as normal. If the spell creates an area of effect, you can designate your weapon or the hit creature (your choice) as the origin of the area of effect.
If the spell would immediately cause damage when you cast it, this damage is added to the weapon attack's damage. Additionally, if you must use an action or bonus action on further turns to maintain the effects of the spell, you may continue to keep the spell inside your magic weapon, continuing this effect until the duration of the spell ends.
That seems really similar to the artificer spell storing ability but better. I do see what people have been talking about with that not being in the game though.
Escuse me? Do tell me more about this competitive racket attached to D&D "tournament's" for decades. Sure when I went to conventions, people would play a session, hopefully finish it in the allotted time, sometimes there'd be a vote for best contribution to the game (and that could have been through mechanics or role playing) and they'd receive some sort of swag bag; but you make D&D tourneys sound like Magic, and while I was not the most active member of the RPGA (early analog to Adventurers' League) before and after the founding to the Living City structure, I just don't remember things being so ranked and cutthroat. Maybe I'll read about these elite D&D champions of lore in some Dragon back issues' write ups of the GenCon.
Role Playing conventions grew out of and cohabited with war-games, so yes there was a tournament culture with winners in battle games and thing in between role playing and tactic games like Car Wars etc. Big crowds for Star Fleet Battles. But the RPG events, including some really tactics heavy games like Twilight 2000 and Phoenix Command ... there just wasn't a ranked leaderboard. I think the RPGA might have had some sort of "rankings" but those were largely participation awards for playing in RPGA sanctioned events, so bragging rights more than skill or talent.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I can understand and appreciate that, but the problem is that some of these conversations have started to veer waaay off from the subject. This is not the place to talk about roleplay in High Rollers and Critical Role. That is a conversation that needs to be held elsewhere.
But, Dnd is a role playing game. The amount of classes is intrinsically tied to role playing. Two people can play the exact same class, with the exact same race and stats but end up with wildly different characters. The discussion about introducing new classes seems to be asking what is missing, but what we currently have available to us give us a lot more then what is on the surface. I recently had my characters join a circus and let me tell you the interactions with there abilities that they came up with was amazing.
I used this example before but sorcerer with metamagic can cast a leveled spell as a bonus action with quicken spell. Sure, you don't get multi-attack natively with sorcerer but that could lend itself to a new sorcerer subclass. Or do you want a character that uses magically infused weapon attacks perhaps? Horizon Walker Ranger gives you the ability to as a bonus action make your attacks deal force damage if you are within 30 feet of a target, and rangers do get multi attack. There is also the Haste spell, which gives you an additional attack action. You can cast a spell, then take your attack action.
What I'm getting at is depending on what and how you RP can inform what you play. If you want to play character X because they are mechanically cool, that's awesome. If you want to do character Y because of a backstory you've come up with, great! But there is a lot available to us currently, so unless something explores a mechanic in a unique way (Like Spores Druid with Wild shape) or introduces an entirely new mechanic (Like Psionics) there really isn't a reason for it to be a subclass, let alone a new class.
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."
@Jhananech: And again, there's no issue with talking about RP in the context of class discussion, but once it starts veering away from that entirely and towards subjects like livestreamed play, then it needs to move to a different thread.
In any event, this conversation is also starting to derail the thread, so I'll try to just leave it at that.
Because there's a primal gish class (ranger) and a divine gish class (paladin), but no arcane one. Also, the paladin is far to divine in flavor to work as an arcane gish class, even if you make an arcane subclass (which I've done).
A true gish class would blend their magic and fighting together perfectly, focusing their spells and magic through their attacks to make up for their deficiency in fighting power. An Eldritch Knight is not good at blending their vast fighting power with their arcane power, a bladesinger is broken and not good enough in melee combat and too limited in armor and weapon choices, and hexblades are too much warlocks, too much casters, and not good enough at filling the gish role.
If paladins and rangers deserve to exist in 5e, so does 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
This sounds to me like we need more cantrips like Green Flame Blade.
Also, it sounds like you subscribe to character normality, where in because something is usually that way it will always have to be that way. You've basically said that Clerics are heal bots.
You're definition of a Gish also just so happens to be a Nature Cleric, who can imbue elements into there attacks using divine strike, are crazy melee fighters while also being a primary casting class.
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
That's Fine, Lyxen. Just don't start talking about things entirely unrelated to the thread.
I want it arcane/elemental because that's the type of character I want to play. One connected to the elemental planes, with absolutely zero connections to the divine or oaths or healing or radiant damage. It's like asking why someone wants to play wizard when they can just reskin cleric. We have an arcane cleric, why not remove wizard altogether? Or why do we need paladin if you could just have a fighter subclass which was a 1/3 caster with some cleric spells?
Its hard to flavour healing people as setting them on fire or draining their health via a vampiric strike.
It's unrelated to the power of bladesinger or EK. Both of those classes are perfectly balanced and functional in their own right. EK is balanced because it has 4 attacks, action surge, and a ton of ASIs, while bladesinger is balanced because it's a 9th level caster wizard which can summon meteor storms, turn into a dragon, or simply wish the problem away. Neither is a true gish or capable of incorporating fighting/magic together in a decent manner.
I think I understand. My question becomes, how is that vague enough to warrant being a class with unique subclasses, and what (potentially new) mechanic would you want to explore to make that happen?
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."
In the end, this is an argument for going classless. Fundamentally, the role of classes is to limit players to a small number of common archetypes, and players with unusual concepts must conform. I could build the character you want just fine in Fantasy Hero, or Mutants and Masterminds, or Tri-Stat, and to a lesser degree in GURPS, because they're powers-based systems, not class-based systems. There are reasons D&D does not go there (power-based character building is a lot of effort for the players and a complete nightmare to balance), but if you want exactly your character concept and your concept is remotely unusual, there isn't another way of doing it.
(While we're at it, there are actually 4 gish classes -- Sword and Valor bards are also gishes).
Subclasses, not classes. And there are more than that (Swords Bards, Valor Bards, Whispers Bards, Four-Elements Monks, etc). It's just like how there's a War Cleric in 5e, but it does not replace the Paladin class.
Yes, they are not good enough at being a gish. A gish class is supposed to blend their attacks with their magic, which only one of those does to any extent, and certainly not in a satisfying way.
There is no Arcane Gish class, and there should be. No amount of condescending snark will change my mind.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The thing is with the 5e system, I don't actually think it's possible.
The old arcane gishes were built around the spellstrike abilities, which have now been translated into the strike/smite spells of ranger and paladin, while the arcane gish got removed. This means that the pure mechanical aspect has made it into 5e, while being tied up with thematic aspects which don't suit trying to recreate an arcane elemental gish. It's like sorcerer in a way. Sorcerers special thing was spontaneous casting, and now all casters got that it's left sorcerer in a weird spot with lots of people unhappy with it.
Imo there either needed to be lots of classes, with each having a very focused theme. e.g. ranger, paladin, swordmage, psi knight.
or
There needed to be fewer classes which were completely designed to be blank slates, with the subclasses then allowing a massive influence on how the base class played. e.g. you would have a 'half caster' class, which then completely changed depending on whether you want down an arcane, divine, primal, or psionic route.
DnD 5e chose the worst of both worlds. Having very few classes, many of which are extremely thematic and resistant to reflavoring. The subclasses provide very little influence and are more rolling the class in glitter than really change anything.
So my gripes aren't really about the lack of arcane gish. They're about 5e's entire class and character system from the ground up.
Subclasses, not classes. And what should the person who wants to play an arcane gish do when they don't want to play a singing gish, or a cursing gish, or another singing gish, or a fighter gish, or another freaking singing gish?
Also, this concept as a class is not a baseless aberration that has no place in D&D or fantasy games. In previous editions, there were Swordmages, and Duskblades, in Pathfinder there's the Magus.
So, stop pretending like this concept is not allowed in the game or genre. This isn't a Sci-Fi class, it's not a superhero class, and it's not a difficult concept to imagine.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's justified because it has a place in the history of D&D, has an open design space large enough for a class, and is vague, yet specific enough to have its own themes while still having a variety of subclasses and diverse types of characters.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
@Jhananech: I'm afraid my brain is too tired to understand the first part of your question, but to the second part: This was discussed a looooooooooooooooong while back in the thread, but a couple suggestions for mechanics were made. Some people mentioned a feature that allowed "storing" spells into a weapon and triggering them on an attack. I myself floated the idea of adding a feature that worked similarly to the Paladin's smite, but rather than focusing on raw damage of a particular type, this one would instead deal less damage with a wider range of elemental damages to choose from, and a number of control effects that would ride on them as well. I'm sure there's other suggestions that were made, but again, my brain is too tired to recall what they were.
Here's the feature I've currently been using for the Arcane Gish class. It definitely still has problems and needs tweaking, but this is the general concept:
Spell Strike
At level 2, you can imbue magic weapons you hold with your spells. When you cast a gish spell that has a casting time of an action that targets another creature with a harmful effect, you can instead cast it, trapping it in your weapon instead of instantly releasing it. This temporarily delays the spell's effects, trapping them inside one magical melee weapon you are holding. The effects of the spell are unleashed the next time you hit a creature with the weapon. The spell remains inside the weapon for 1 minute, until you lose concentration, or until you hit a creature with this melee weapon, whereupon the spell is released and come it comes into effect.
If the spell required a saving throw, the creature you hit with this magical melee weapon while the spell is trapped inside automatically fails its saving throw. If the spell required an attack roll, if you hit a creature with the initial attack, you do not have to attack that creature again, and it becomes the target of one of the spell's attacks. If the spell required more than one attack roll, one of these attacks must be targeting the hit creature, and the others come into effect as normal. If the spell creates an area of effect, you can designate your weapon or the hit creature (your choice) as the origin of the area of effect.
If the spell would immediately cause damage when you cast it, this damage is added to the weapon attack's damage. Additionally, if you must use an action or bonus action on further turns to maintain the effects of the spell, you may continue to keep the spell inside your magic weapon, continuing this effect until the duration of the spell ends.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I'd say "You're too picky to be playing class-based games". And the class explosion in 3e/PF was the worst part of both worlds, because it managed to combine the complexity and balance problems of classless systems with still being pretty limited in what you could build. And I never said that it's not an allowed concept, it's just that more classes is not the way to add flexibility to a game system.
I see, That is a very helpful distinction to make. If that's the way you feel about it, would it be worth playing a different edition? I don't think that saying "jUsT PlAy a DiFfErEnT GaMe" is a good way to go about it, but if dnd 5e isn't able to scratch an itch that you've been having or has a fundamental system in place that you disagree with, perhaps a different game is the answer.
That being said, I think it would be possible to make a Gish subclass, assuming the definition I got from google is what people have been referring to. I think that the introduction of a martially focused sorcerer could remedy the problem. They have a wide array of damaging and buffing spells, and with metamagic they can cast a leveled spell and make an attack on the same turn. You can have the source of there magic be from the elemental planes and even have some bloodhunter-esk abilities that allow you to coat your weapons with certain elemental effects. This, with the addition of more cantrips like green flame blade, would allow someone to, in theory, attack with a weapon and then make another weapon attack with their spell.
Does that sound like something that would be similar to what you are getting at? @comrade_jenkens
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."
Adding an arcane Gish class won't cause a class explosion. Also, I don't think it's being picky to want something that has existed in previous editions, pathfinder, and should exist based on the current class design system.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That seems really similar to the artificer spell storing ability but better. I do see what people have been talking about with that not being in the game though.
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."