Alright. I have been convinced that we could use some more classes. What those would be, I still don't know. I'm sure there are some mechanically unique things that could be done within the current system or even added to the system. I don't think the Gish, which I think I'm unclear on the definition of, would fit that in a way that allows for several unique subclasses. At the very least I haven't seen it yet.
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).
The Onion is a satirical new organization. And add 7 new classes would only amount to a 54% increase. That is nowhere close to doubling.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
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).
The Onion is a fantastically well-written humor "newspaper" known for writing extremely keen sarcasm.
Remember way back when the Colbert Report was funny? The Onion is the print variant of something like that.
Given that you very much prefer a system with a class explosion (you said yourself that you'd prefer a system with 20 classes), I don't understand why you want to make 5e like PF instead of just play PF.
And not having it is ruining D&D for you ? Especially that,as absolutely demonstrated in the previous posts, there are already four gish classes, and what is needed is possibly a few spells or a feat, or at best a subclass.
You keep saying it wrong. Subclasses. There are 4ish arcane gish subclasses.
Also, no, my D&D is not ruined by the lack of an arcane gish class, but my creativity when designing characters is certainly hindered by this design space gap.
My problem is that, if a new class is produced (and the more are produced the greater the danger), it will probably be overpowered and exploited and will therefore cause a further power gap between casuals and powergamers. And if, by some miracle, it's not, then no one will be playing it because it's not "lame".
Slippery slope, strawman, jumping to conclusions, and ad hominem. 4 logical fallacies in one section of your post. Let's go through them individually.
First, this is not a slippery slope. There is a balance between class bloat and not enough classes.
Second, you're misinterpreting my argument. You think I want this to be overpowered, I do not. I am an advocate for class balance. I am in the first stages of designing the arcane gish class, so if there are balance issues, don't point and say "you want this OP!" Instead, please understand that I am not an professional game designer and am merely trying to take up the task of filling this niche through the same process that WotC would: by releasing a rough draft that hits the theme and basic concepts of the class, and then fix the minor problems to balance it.
Third, you're assuming that this is bound to be OP. You are not a seer, so stop pretending like you are one. Artificers were created without being overpowered, so there is evidence directly contradicting your claim that a new class is bound to be super powerful and broken.
Fourth, there's no need to attack powergamers as if their playstyle is lesser than yours, or if they're a bad thing. This has nothing to do with the Gish class, so that comment really isn't needed.
The balance, so far, is actually fairly good, why ruin it for details when they are alternatives that satisfy most of the players ?
And where are you getting this evidence of "satisfying most players?" That seems like a baseless claim just made to pad your argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Alright. I have been convinced that we could use some more classes. What those would be, I still don't know. I'm sure there are some mechanically unique things that could be done within the current system or even added to the system. I don't think the Gish, which I think I'm unclear on the definition of, would fit that in a way that allows for several unique subclasses. At the very least I haven't seen it yet.
Potential gish subclass ideas drawn from prior editions and other media:
Elemental: Draws power from one of the elements and embodies its themes. Stone is resilient, water is flexible, air is mobile, fire is unstable.
Death Knight: Classic WoW class which uses necromatic powers and rune casting.
Blood Knight: Lots of HP draining to stack on temp hit points. Vampire themed (but not actually a vampire as that's op)
4e swordmage: Teleport spam and being annoying (wasn't a fan of this one)
Guardian: Lots of warding capabilities. Maybe even being able to spam 5ft walls of force to block enemies movement and create cover.
Adding classes will not make 5e like Pathfinder, for that you'd need a system overhaul. Nor is it going to break the game, assuming the dev team puts care into the design process; it's certainly possible to break it through bad design, but saying it's guaranteed to break the game is presumption, not fact.
Because, as has been stated at least thirty or forty times throughout this thread, Pathfinder comes with twenty tons of unnecessary baggage. Nobody wants to run Pathfinder, least of all Pathfinder GMs.
Really. The amount of sheer whinge in this thread, of people absolutely convinced that any new thing anybody adds anywhere for any reason will RUIN THEIR D&D FOREVER(!!!) is both gobmsacking and disgusting. Especially given the amount of times folks get told "Will you PLEASE just homebrew things and stop trying to RUIN D&D FOREVER?"
Like...how the hell is homebrewing shit not adding something new to the game? Does anyone here not understand that UA is just homebrew written by Wizards own people for shits? Did nobody catch how half the UA Feats document was just Wizards codifying/co-option/outright stealing extremely popular player-created homebrew?
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).
The Onion is a fantastically well-written humor "newspaper" known for writing extremely keen sarcasm.
Remember way back when the Colbert Report was funny? The Onion is the print variant of something like that.
Given that you very much prefer a system with a class explosion (you said yourself that you'd prefer a system with 20 classes), I don't understand why you want to make 5e like PF instead of just play PF.
Strawman. I do not want a class explosion. Is an increase in 54% an explosion? It's a swelling in size, but not an explosion by any means.
Also, I don't know what Pathfinder is exactly like, and don't want to change D&D. Adding 7 more classes will not turn D&D into Pathfinder.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Alright. I have been convinced that we could use some more classes. What those would be, I still don't know. I'm sure there are some mechanically unique things that could be done within the current system or even added to the system. I don't think the Gish, which I think I'm unclear on the definition of, would fit that in a way that allows for several unique subclasses. At the very least I haven't seen it yet.
Potential gish subclass ideas drawn from prior editions and other media:
Elemental: Draws power from one of the elements and embodies its themes. Stone is resilient, water is flexible, air is mobile, fire is unstable.
Death Knight: Classic WoW class which uses necromatic powers and rune casting.
Blood Knight: Lots of HP draining to stack on temp hit points. Vampire themed (but not actually a vampire as that's op)
4e swordmage: Teleport spam and being annoying (wasn't a fan of this one)
Guardian: Lots of warding capabilities. Maybe even being able to spam 5ft walls of force to block enemies movement and create cover.
I like most of those ideas, not a big fan of the swordmage but only because we have something like that in the horizonwalker ranger. I'm still not sure what the unique mechanic would be for the basis of the class though. The thing that Third Sundering shared is cool but doesn't seem like it alone is enough to warrant a full class.
There is no actual singing skill. It is 'performance,' which can be witty banter or dry humour, or even interpretive dance, which, frankly is not that different from conventional spellcaster thumb-twiddling, just more artistic.
I am quite certain that I mentioned this earlier in the thread but to me, the biggest barrier to the form of Gish that seems to be desired is that pretty much every buff in 5e is concentration, meaning only at most one at a time. So no stacking defenses let alone stacking defenses with offenses.
And that is a core design principal of the game, so tricky to get around.
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
What does buffing concentration spells have to do with arcane gishes? Also, they could get buffing/shielding abilities other than concentration spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I keep seeing the word class explosion when referring to Third_Sundering's desire for 7 classes, but its not even like they are suggesting to add all these classes at once anyways. They could certainly be spread over different books as optional class options in the settings they are released in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
There is no actual singing skill. It is 'performance,' which can be witty banter or dry humour, or even interpretive dance, which, frankly is not that different from conventional spellcaster thumb-twiddling, just more artistic.
I am quite certain that I mentioned this earlier in the thread but to me, the biggest barrier to the form of Gish that seems to be desired is that pretty much every buff in 5e is concentration, meaning only at most one at a time. So no stacking defenses let alone stacking defenses with offenses.
And that is a core design principal of the game, so tricky to get around.
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
What does buffing concentration spells have to do with arcane gishes? Also, they could get buffing/shielding abilities other than concentration spells.
"Typically." However it is not actually a requirement of casting as a bard. Heck, even the performance skill itself is not a requirement to cast or fight.
You are placing artificial barriers to make excuses.
I'm placing artificial barriers? You literally just made up the argument that you can't have a gish because of concentration! I'm not making up excuses, I'm explaining why the arcane gish should be a class and how it would fill a role that doesn't exist now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
You can play a bard that never sings or touches a musical instrument; just use a component pouch. As for your second question, because that's what a gish is -- it's a stabby spellcaster, and while it might be nice to have more freedom to alter the ratio of stabby to spellcaster, what we have does the job.
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
You can play a bard that never sings or touches a musical instrument; just use a component pouch. As for your second question, because that's what a gish is -- it's a stabby spellcaster, and while it might be nice to have more freedom to alter the ratio of stabby to spellcaster, what we have does the job.
It might do the job for you, but not for a chunk of the community. An arcane gish, like a paladin or ranger, should blend magic and physical prowess in combat, which is not accomplished by the current subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
You can play a bard that never sings or touches a musical instrument; just use a component pouch. As for your second question, because that's what a gish is -- it's a stabby spellcaster, and while it might be nice to have more freedom to alter the ratio of stabby to spellcaster, what we have does the job.
My bard which I've played for years now doesn't sing and the only reason he carries a musical instrument is because it is an instrument of the bards. He is patterned after Nick Fury.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Onion is a satirical paper that presents comedic material in the form of fake news stories.
Alright. I have been convinced that we could use some more classes. What those would be, I still don't know. I'm sure there are some mechanically unique things that could be done within the current system or even added to the system. I don't think the Gish, which I think I'm unclear on the definition of, would fit that in a way that allows for several unique subclasses. At the very least I haven't seen it yet.
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."
The Onion is a satirical new organization. And add 7 new classes would only amount to a 54% increase. That is nowhere close to doubling.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The Onion is a fantastically well-written humor "newspaper" known for writing extremely keen sarcasm.
Remember way back when the Colbert Report was funny? The Onion is the print variant of something like that.
Given that you very much prefer a system with a class explosion (you said yourself that you'd prefer a system with 20 classes), I don't understand why you want to make 5e like PF instead of just play PF.
You keep saying it wrong. Subclasses. There are 4ish arcane gish subclasses.
Also, no, my D&D is not ruined by the lack of an arcane gish class, but my creativity when designing characters is certainly hindered by this design space gap.
Slippery slope, strawman, jumping to conclusions, and ad hominem. 4 logical fallacies in one section of your post. Let's go through them individually.
First, this is not a slippery slope. There is a balance between class bloat and not enough classes.
Second, you're misinterpreting my argument. You think I want this to be overpowered, I do not. I am an advocate for class balance. I am in the first stages of designing the arcane gish class, so if there are balance issues, don't point and say "you want this OP!" Instead, please understand that I am not an professional game designer and am merely trying to take up the task of filling this niche through the same process that WotC would: by releasing a rough draft that hits the theme and basic concepts of the class, and then fix the minor problems to balance it.
Third, you're assuming that this is bound to be OP. You are not a seer, so stop pretending like you are one. Artificers were created without being overpowered, so there is evidence directly contradicting your claim that a new class is bound to be super powerful and broken.
Fourth, there's no need to attack powergamers as if their playstyle is lesser than yours, or if they're a bad thing. This has nothing to do with the Gish class, so that comment really isn't needed.
And where are you getting this evidence of "satisfying most players?" That seems like a baseless claim just made to pad your argument.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Potential gish subclass ideas drawn from prior editions and other media:
Elemental: Draws power from one of the elements and embodies its themes. Stone is resilient, water is flexible, air is mobile, fire is unstable.
Death Knight: Classic WoW class which uses necromatic powers and rune casting.
Blood Knight: Lots of HP draining to stack on temp hit points. Vampire themed (but not actually a vampire as that's op)
4e swordmage: Teleport spam and being annoying (wasn't a fan of this one)
Guardian: Lots of warding capabilities. Maybe even being able to spam 5ft walls of force to block enemies movement and create cover.
Adding classes will not make 5e like Pathfinder, for that you'd need a system overhaul. Nor is it going to break the game, assuming the dev team puts care into the design process; it's certainly possible to break it through bad design, but saying it's guaranteed to break the game is presumption, not fact.
Because, as has been stated at least thirty or forty times throughout this thread, Pathfinder comes with twenty tons of unnecessary baggage. Nobody wants to run Pathfinder, least of all Pathfinder GMs.
Really. The amount of sheer whinge in this thread, of people absolutely convinced that any new thing anybody adds anywhere for any reason will RUIN THEIR D&D FOREVER(!!!) is both gobmsacking and disgusting. Especially given the amount of times folks get told "Will you PLEASE just homebrew things and stop trying to RUIN D&D FOREVER?"
Like...how the hell is homebrewing shit not adding something new to the game? Does anyone here not understand that UA is just homebrew written by Wizards own people for shits? Did nobody catch how half the UA Feats document was just Wizards codifying/co-option/outright stealing extremely popular player-created homebrew?
What the actual ****, guys?
Please do not contact or message me.
RPGs are a very, very, very extremely scarlet red water.
In such a market, competitors need to distinguish themselves by being different from their competitors.
We already have a DnD with a huge number of classes. We really shouldn't strive to have another one. 5e needs to be different.
Strawman. I do not want a class explosion. Is an increase in 54% an explosion? It's a swelling in size, but not an explosion by any means.
Also, I don't know what Pathfinder is exactly like, and don't want to change D&D. Adding 7 more classes will not turn D&D into Pathfinder.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I like most of those ideas, not a big fan of the swordmage but only because we have something like that in the horizonwalker ranger. I'm still not sure what the unique mechanic would be for the basis of the class though. The thing that Third Sundering shared is cool but doesn't seem like it alone is enough to warrant a full 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."
Bards typically sing/play instruments. The 3 gish subclasses of bard are singing gishes, and aren't bladesingers supposed to sing? Also, why should a gish be limited to being a stabby bard, a stabby wizard, or a fighty magicker?
What does buffing concentration spells have to do with arcane gishes? Also, they could get buffing/shielding abilities other than concentration spells.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
5e is different, and adding 7 more classes is not a doorway to hundreds more. Stop repeating strawmen.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I keep seeing the word class explosion when referring to Third_Sundering's desire for 7 classes, but its not even like they are suggesting to add all these classes at once anyways. They could certainly be spread over different books as optional class options in the settings they are released in.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
7 is a class explosion
I'm placing artificial barriers? You literally just made up the argument that you can't have a gish because of concentration! I'm not making up excuses, I'm explaining why the arcane gish should be a class and how it would fill a role that doesn't exist now.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
It really isn't. Previous editions with class explosions had dozens of classes.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You can play a bard that never sings or touches a musical instrument; just use a component pouch. As for your second question, because that's what a gish is -- it's a stabby spellcaster, and while it might be nice to have more freedom to alter the ratio of stabby to spellcaster, what we have does the job.
It might do the job for you, but not for a chunk of the community. An arcane gish, like a paladin or ranger, should blend magic and physical prowess in combat, which is not accomplished by the current subclasses.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
My bard which I've played for years now doesn't sing and the only reason he carries a musical instrument is because it is an instrument of the bards. He is patterned after Nick Fury.