(Refreshing the quotes as they're getting too long)
I've looked at the other editions and pathfinder, but there are a few reasons I stick with 5e:
- Core rules are streamlined and easy to learn. Things like bounded accuracy just make the game more pleasant. No one likes having to added and subtract 50 different modifiers or work out the exact dimensions and mass of every object in the inventory.
- DnD beyond. Yeah I'm lazy, but having this completely OP digital tool blows everything else out of the water. I couldn't face going back to doing it manually.
- Everyone else plays DnD. I live in a low population area, and it took years to even find a 5e group. Finding a pathfinder or 3e group wouldn't be possible.
There was actually a martial sorcerer (stone sorcerer) with access to the smite spells which went through UA. Everyone loved it and it was the closest thing to an arcane gish yet, so naturally WotC axed the thing alongside all the other elemental sorcerers apart from storm. Now every time there is a reddit thread on 'which UA class do you want to return', it's the elemental sorcerers which get spammed the most.
Imo the smite and strike spells are far better than the scagtrips like green flame blade. The scagtrips cause endless balance issues with homebrew classes I've seen and are badly designed, while the smite and strike spells work brilliantly to seamlessly feel like you're empowering your weapon ready to discharge.
@Jhananech: Well, yes and no. Conceptually, it's similar in that a spell is stored in an item. However, Third_Sundering's (current) version is limited to a one-and-done casting of the spell, whereas SSI effectively grants 10 free castings of a single 1st or 2nd level spell, which, depending on the spell used, can be incredibly powerful in it's own right.
Imo the smite and strike spells are far better than the scagtrips like green flame blade. The scagtrips cause endless balance issues with homebrew classes I've seen and are badly designed, while the smite and strike spells work brilliantly to seamlessly feel like you're empowering your weapon ready to discharge.
Of course, you don't need to have a new class to have smite and strike spells. You just need new spells.
(Refreshing the quotes as they're getting too long)
I've looked at the other editions and pathfinder, but there are a few reasons I stick with 5e:
- Core rules are streamlined and easy to learn. Things like bounded accuracy just make the game more pleasant. No one likes having to added and subtract 50 different modifiers or work out the exact dimensions and mass of every object in the inventory.
- DnD beyond. Yeah I'm lazy, but having this completely OP digital tool blows everything else out of the water. I couldn't face going back to doing it manually.
- Everyone else plays DnD. I live in a low population area, and it took years to even find a 5e group. Finding a pathfinder or 3e group wouldn't be possible.
There was actually a martial sorcerer (stone sorcerer) with access to the smite spells which went through UA. Everyone loved it and it was the closest thing to an arcane gish yet, so naturally WotC axed the thing alongside all the other elemental sorcerers apart from storm. Now every time there is a reddit thread on 'which UA class do you want to return', it's the elemental sorcerers which get spammed the most.
Imo the smite and strike spells are far better than the scagtrips like green flame blade. The scagtrips cause endless balance issues with homebrew classes I've seen and are badly designed, while the smite and strike spells work brilliantly to seamlessly feel like you're empowering your weapon ready to discharge.
Gotcha, gotcha. I don't usually take homebrew into account when thinking about this sort of thing because homebrew doesn't require any sort of balancing to be used. I didnt know about the stone sorcerer UA. Here's hoping to a martial sorcerer class that can fulfill our hopes and dreams.
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.
But it's not like that ability. It uses spell slots, you have to use your action to use it, and is mostly different, other than the fact you can put a spell in an object/weapon. It has more similarities with Divine Smite or the Smite Spells than Spell Storing Item.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Imo the smite and strike spells are far better than the scagtrips like green flame blade. The scagtrips cause endless balance issues with homebrew classes I've seen and are badly designed, while the smite and strike spells work brilliantly to seamlessly feel like you're empowering your weapon ready to discharge.
Of course, you don't need to have a new class to have smite and strike spells. You just need new spells.
It's the opposite.
We've got the spells in game (though some new ones which work in a similar manner would be cool anyway)
It's just the only classes which can use them are thematically charged in a particular way. If EK or sorcerer got those particular spells, or ones which worked the same way, I'd be happy.
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:
So basically, you want a whole new class for ONE feature that sort of defines the character that you want ? I still don't understand why you need another full class. An eldritch knight base with something similar as a Magus would work perfectly well.
Spell Strike
Similar to a PF Magus spell strike but somehow totally overpowered.
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.
This is unbalanced, very much.
Had you implemented word for word the Magus' power, it might have been believable, but there is so much potential abuse about what you are proposing...
And that's why I said it was a work in progress and needs tweaking. I am aware of its problems, and will fix them in the next draft of the class.
Also, I did not design this class around one ability, anymore than a paladin is completely designed around Divine Smite or a Ranger is Hunter's Mark. They are core parts of the classes' identity, but are not the class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
This is what i think some people don't understand. From people on this thread, I've heard 1- absolute tops 7 classes thrown around. Would four new classes really break the game? Maybe. How many classes do you consider a class explosion? Finally, this is a question for anyone who does not want any new classes. If a new book was published, that implemented new classes in a way that was balanced and mechanically unique. would you use it? Allow it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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.
Again, the class explosion of 3e is considered almost universally to be a big mistake, and this is a feature that never existed in the main classes of the game. So basing a request on mistakes of a previous edition does not make it very valid in my opinion.
I'm not basing this off of a mistake, and I am not asking for a class explosion. I said before, I want 7 more classes, personally, which would fill most of the larger unfilled niches in the game. Just over half a dozen more classes in the game will not destroy or ruin D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
This is what i think some people don't understand. From people on this thread, I've heard 1- absolute tops 7 classes thrown around. Would four new classes really break the game? Maybe. How many classes do you consider a class explosion? Finally, this is a question for anyone who does not want any new classes. If a new book was published, that implemented new classes in a way that was balanced and mechanically unique. would you use it? Allow it?
I think that's the big thing is the mechanical uniqueness. I cant think of anything that is unique enough to warrant a full new class, aside from psionics but i think that would be more interesting if explored in the form of subclasses like what they are doing right now.
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
I agree, and it's less risky in 5e because of bounded accuracy and the limits on multiclassing, but I'm still not convinced that really new classes are needed. The gish certainly is not, considering the latest discussion.
And that's your opinion, that no new classes are needed. Of course new classes aren't "needed," it's not a matter of life or death. However, it is a matter of fun, which is the point of D&D. Having an arcane gish class, or other recommended classes, in 5e would be fun for a section of the community. You may not want or need to play an arcane Gish class in D&D 5e, but some do, and adding an Arcane Gish Class will not ruin D&D 5e for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I want 7 more classes, personally, which would fill most of the larger unfilled niches in the game. Just over half a dozen more classes in the game will not destroy or ruin D&D.
Just seven? That's all? Just a little short of doubling the total number of classes? Do you work for the Onion?
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
I agree, and it's less risky in 5e because of bounded accuracy and the limits on multiclassing, but I'm still not convinced that really new classes are needed. The gish certainly is not, considering the latest discussion.
There is absolutely room for a "gish" class. You may have disagreements with Third_Sundering's approach, and that's fine, but that's hardly proof that design space for a similar class is unneeded/does not exist. Besides, that was only one part of what he'd been working on. It's unfair to base judgement of a WIP solely on a single feature (FYI, there's more that he has posted in the homebrew forum).
This is what i think some people don't understand. From people on this thread, I've heard 1- absolute tops 7 classes thrown around. Would four new classes really break the game? Maybe. How many classes do you consider a class explosion?
Honestly, the current 13 we have is already pushing it.
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
This is what i think some people don't understand. From people on this thread, I've heard 1- absolute tops 7 classes thrown around. Would four new classes really break the game? Maybe. How many classes do you consider a class explosion?
4 new classes will not be a class explosion, that's a slight expansion of D&D classes. A class explosion happens when there are multiple dozens of classes in an edition, which is what has happened in previous editions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I want 7 more classes, personally, which would fill most of the larger unfilled niches in the game. Just over half a dozen more classes in the game will not destroy or ruin D&D.
Just seven? That's all? Just a little short of doubling the total number of classes? Do you work for the Onion?
Yes, only 7, which is kind of generous, as well. Also, maybe you need help with math, because 13 + 7 = 20, which is 6 away from doubling the current. An even 20 would be preferable, for me. We have a d20 as the main dice of D&D, why not have 20 classes? Also, no, I do not work for the Onion, and am not completely aware of what that is (some news thing, I'm assuming).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
(Refreshing the quotes as they're getting too long)
I've looked at the other editions and pathfinder, but there are a few reasons I stick with 5e:
- Core rules are streamlined and easy to learn. Things like bounded accuracy just make the game more pleasant. No one likes having to added and subtract 50 different modifiers or work out the exact dimensions and mass of every object in the inventory.
- DnD beyond. Yeah I'm lazy, but having this completely OP digital tool blows everything else out of the water. I couldn't face going back to doing it manually.
- Everyone else plays DnD. I live in a low population area, and it took years to even find a 5e group. Finding a pathfinder or 3e group wouldn't be possible.
There was actually a martial sorcerer (stone sorcerer) with access to the smite spells which went through UA. Everyone loved it and it was the closest thing to an arcane gish yet, so naturally WotC axed the thing alongside all the other elemental sorcerers apart from storm. Now every time there is a reddit thread on 'which UA class do you want to return', it's the elemental sorcerers which get spammed the most.
Imo the smite and strike spells are far better than the scagtrips like green flame blade. The scagtrips cause endless balance issues with homebrew classes I've seen and are badly designed, while the smite and strike spells work brilliantly to seamlessly feel like you're empowering your weapon ready to discharge.
@Jhananech: Well, yes and no. Conceptually, it's similar in that a spell is stored in an item. However, Third_Sundering's (current) version is limited to a one-and-done casting of the spell, whereas SSI effectively grants 10 free castings of a single 1st or 2nd level spell, which, depending on the spell used, can be incredibly powerful in it's own right.
Of course, you don't need to have a new class to have smite and strike spells. You just need new spells.
Gotcha, gotcha. I don't usually take homebrew into account when thinking about this sort of thing because homebrew doesn't require any sort of balancing to be used. I didnt know about the stone sorcerer UA. Here's hoping to a martial sorcerer class that can fulfill our hopes and dreams.
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."
There...there is a middle ground between class explosion and having no new classes ever. Just to throw that out there.
But it's not like that ability. It uses spell slots, you have to use your action to use it, and is mostly different, other than the fact you can put a spell in an object/weapon. It has more similarities with Divine Smite or the Smite Spells than Spell Storing Item.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It's the opposite.
We've got the spells in game (though some new ones which work in a similar manner would be cool anyway)
It's just the only classes which can use them are thematically charged in a particular way. If EK or sorcerer got those particular spells, or ones which worked the same way, I'd be happy.
And that's why I said it was a work in progress and needs tweaking. I am aware of its problems, and will fix them in the next draft of the class.
Also, I did not design this class around one ability, anymore than a paladin is completely designed around Divine Smite or a Ranger is Hunter's Mark. They are core parts of the classes' identity, but are not the class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There isn't even a magic initiate paladin or ranger to nab the 1st level ones.
They're some of the most gated spells in the game.
This is what i think some people don't understand. From people on this thread, I've heard 1- absolute tops 7 classes thrown around. Would four new classes really break the game? Maybe. How many classes do you consider a class explosion? Finally, this is a question for anyone who does not want any new classes. If a new book was published, that implemented new classes in a way that was balanced and mechanically unique. would you use it? Allow it?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I'm not basing this off of a mistake, and I am not asking for a class explosion. I said before, I want 7 more classes, personally, which would fill most of the larger unfilled niches in the game. Just over half a dozen more classes in the game will not destroy or ruin D&D.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think that's the big thing is the mechanical uniqueness. I cant think of anything that is unique enough to warrant a full new class, aside from psionics but i think that would be more interesting if explored in the form of subclasses like what they are doing right now.
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."
I'm sad about the psi die apparently not being a thing anymore.
That was a really unique and fun psionics mechanic which nothing else in the game had.
And that's your opinion, that no new classes are needed. Of course new classes aren't "needed," it's not a matter of life or death. However, it is a matter of fun, which is the point of D&D. Having an arcane gish class, or other recommended classes, in 5e would be fun for a section of the community. You may not want or need to play an arcane Gish class in D&D 5e, but some do, and adding an Arcane Gish Class will not ruin D&D 5e for you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Just seven? That's all? Just a little short of doubling the total number of classes? Do you work for the Onion?
There is absolutely room for a "gish" class. You may have disagreements with Third_Sundering's approach, and that's fine, but that's hardly proof that design space for a similar class is unneeded/does not exist. Besides, that was only one part of what he'd been working on. It's unfair to base judgement of a WIP solely on a single feature (FYI, there's more that he has posted in the homebrew forum).
Honestly, the current 13 we have is already pushing it.
4 new classes will not be a class explosion, that's a slight expansion of D&D classes. A class explosion happens when there are multiple dozens of classes in an edition, which is what has happened in previous editions.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Wren, stop it. There's no call for stooping to insults.
Yes, only 7, which is kind of generous, as well. Also, maybe you need help with math, because 13 + 7 = 20, which is 6 away from doubling the current. An even 20 would be preferable, for me. We have a d20 as the main dice of D&D, why not have 20 classes? Also, no, I do not work for the Onion, and am not completely aware of what that is (some news thing, I'm assuming).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms