Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
Then don't make general statements, next time. I agree with that, but I don't think magic number 13 is the place to stop. There is a balance, and we're not beginning to tip the scales.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
And Yurei, Third, Mezzurah, Sposta, I, and many others on this thread believe that 5e is currently sitting on the "too few" end of that spectrum, or at least think that a few more could be added to enhance the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
Now can well dial the heat back a little everyone.
Then let the game stand as is. If Third's and My arguments are both equally valid, then there's no reason to spend the effort to change anything.
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore.
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
Wren, frankly I agree with Yurei. The last few threads I've seen you jump in, you haven't been posting constructively. If you disagree, you could be doing so more politely and less immediately hostile. You can disagree with a post without immediately jumping to personal attacks, which you did here and a couple other threads I've seen you post in. This isn't a personal attack, it's just my observation.
I agree that there is a balance between too many and too little of an amount of classes, but I don't think we've reached that turning point, or are even near it. We can respectfully disagree, but before we rehash a huge debate spanning tons of pages and posts, maybe go back and read some of the points already made, because it gets really tiring repeating them over and over again. Please try to keep things civil, I do like this debate, but want it to be a good discussion instead of a flamewar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
What currently existing class/subclass/multiclass in Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition, manages to combine arcane power and martial might in a fluid and synergistic manner? How does one fulfill that design space, that character archetype, with nothing whatsoever save existing mechanics?
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
Not side-tracked, delving into specifics. The viability of adding a gish class falls under the umbrella of this discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I am so gorram done with all the deliberate obtuseness and general bottom-basement 'arguments' on this one, Joel. Absolutely nobody who's telling everyone to shut the **** up and stop asking for new options in D&D is arguing in good faith anymore.
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
We've politely asked multiple times for you guys arguing against new classes to create subclasses that do generally the same thing and fill the same niche as the classes we've designed/proposed. You guys have mostly ignored those, which I am sure you have seen due to the frequency of the request, so what's the holdout? I feel like I'm shouting at a deaf person.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
What currently existing class/subclass/multiclass in Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition, manages to combine arcane power and martial might in a fluid and synergistic manner? How does one fulfill that design space, that character archetype, with nothing whatsoever save existing mechanics?
I mean....Paladin sorcerer is perfect, apart from the divinity. Which sucks. But mechanically, please try it, it is a blast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The game decreases in quality as more classes are added because the number of possible rule combinations increases and it becomes impossible to check them all. That will happen long before another 7 classes are added.
The game depends on being simple so that it can bring in new players. Having 20 classes is going to look overwhelming to a newbie. You might want to look at the principle of over choice.
That's BS. If the game had one class, that would not be better than the 13 it currently has. More options =/= Destruction of D&D. Also, you don't need to introduce new characters to all 20 classes when they start. In fact, you might want to consider having them start with the Sidekick classes if you're so vehemently opposed to more options for new players.
The game can be simple with 20 options for class. There are over 80 races in the game, and I don't see new players not joining the game because of them.
I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
You said that more classes equals a ruined game because too many options would be impossible to keep track of. If you don't like options, just limit your players to one class, then you don't have to keep track of anything.
Again, I never said the game should have one class and I certainly never said that having one class would make it easier than 13. There is a balance between too few and too many.
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
Now can well dial the heat back a little everyone.
Then let the game stand as is. If Third's and My arguments are both equally valid, then there's no reason to spend the effort to change anything.
It could stand as is, but that's on Wizards to decide ultimately. They could have stopped with 12 classes, but they then decided the Artificer was a good enough class to add. Who is to say they won't decide to add more in the future. It's always possible.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
A Warlock doesn't have to curse, a Bard doesn't have to have musical instruments, there's no reason why a Gish wouldn't have a spell book, etc.
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
A Warlock doesn't have to curse, a Bard doesn't have to have musical instruments, there's no reason why a Gish wouldn't have a spell book, etc.
Hexblade Warlocks main feature is their ability to curse. They are, incidentally, the most cited subclass for Gish warlocks. And you would be playing them very suboptimally if you choose to ignore their main feature and not use it.
For bards, why would a gish inspire others, or have features like Countercharm.
And finally, gishes probably shouldn't be able to cast ninth level spells. If they can, they are far emphasizing the magic over martial parts of the character.
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
A Warlock doesn't have to curse, a Bard doesn't have to have musical instruments, there's no reason why a Gish wouldn't have a spell book, etc.
IT IS A F***ING HEX BLADE. A BARD......IS A BARD. I agree with the spell book thing, but come on man, dont be obtuse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
A Warlock doesn't have to curse, a Bard doesn't have to have musical instruments, there's no reason why a Gish wouldn't have a spell book, etc.
Yeah, they do. The subclass we're talking about is a Hexblade, which has an ability at level one called Hexblade's Curse. You literally have to curse, even if you choose to be awful and not have hex.
Yes, bards do. You have to get proficiency in music instruments as a bard. Sure, you may not have to use them, but what's the point of having useless instrument proficiencies?
Ah, yes. The perfect gish, whose ability to weave arcane magic into their weapon attacks depends on a book with some magic words inside of it. Gishes would not have a spellbook as a class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
1.) The Eldritch Knight is objectively terrible. The only method it has for mixing magic and swordplay is SCAG cantrips, and any fighter which utilizes a SCAG cantrip past level 5 is a fighter that does not know how their character works. The Eldritch Knight is not an 'Arcane Warrior', it's a fighter that decided to take Magic Initiate as its entire subclass instead of just one feat. It is extremely bad at utilizing what sparse few heavily restricted spells it's allowed to learn, and it cannot in any way combine its magic with its bladeplay. it is, in every way, inferior to a regular Battlemaster in combat and its restriction to the Evocation and Abjuration schools means its out-of-combat magical utility is almost nonexistent. The Eldritch Knight is a badly designed subclass and whoever wrote it should feel embarrassed over it.
2.) Sword bards are also actually kinda terrible. People claim the sword bard is better than the valor bard, but that's because people overvalue their own personal DPR. Blade flourishes are mostly junk and consume badly needed Bardic Inspirations elsewhere, and again - sword bards cannot utilize magic and bladeplay at the same time. They only ever get to use one or the other, and that is not any kind of 'Arcane Warrior'. Valor bards are better and I actually quite like Valor bards. But they're not 'arcane warriors' either, they cannot combine magic and swordplay. As well: why should anyone who wants to play an Arcane Warrior be required to have extensive musical talent before they can do so? That is serious horseshit, and not okay.
3.) Bladesingers are an abomination. Once again, they cannot combine magic and swordplay, and their entire subclass is built around a mechanic that is simultaneously annoyingly jank and ridiculously overpowered. Yes, Bladesingers can achieve an AC of seventy-three and a movement speed of eight hundred feet per turn. They still fight like slap nerds and are almost never justified in actually using their swords, since the "Blade" song doesn't actually impact their melee whatsoever.
4.) The Hexblade is strictly inferior to a regular warlock who takes one spell - Eldritch Blast - and one invication - Agonizing Blast. An EB spam warlock can do for free what the Hexblade has to expend every possible build resource at their disposal and every single in-game resource they accrue through the day to accomplish. At no point in a Hexblade's existence is that hexblade any better off using their blade than they are the basic tool expected of every warlock ever.
See the through-line here, Pantagruel? None of these characters can use spellcraft and swordplay anywhere neare the same time, and each of them is always better off using one or the other. There's no point in their 'lesser' half. Even the Valor bard, which I'd consider the closest option, is generally held to be better off casting spells than attacking and utilizing its martial capacity. It's not good at fighting. The Sword bard is worse at fighting, the Bladesinger is absolutely terrible at fighting, and the Hexblade has no reason to try and be good at fighting - and even when it decides to try to be good at fighting anyways, a regular-ass fighter beats it every day of the week.
None of these classes you mentioned are an effective combination of arcane power and martial might. They're primarily one with a completely pointless for-flavor splash of the other and that's infuriating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Then don't make general statements, next time. I agree with that, but I don't think magic number 13 is the place to stop. There is a balance, and we're not beginning to tip the scales.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And Yurei, Third, Mezzurah, Sposta, I, and many others on this thread believe that 5e is currently sitting on the "too few" end of that spectrum, or at least think that a few more could be added to enhance the game.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
The problem here is, your metric for how many classes are enough or too many is simply your own opinion. It a valid one that you have every right to have. But it doesn't make Third's own opinion on how many classes are enough any less valid. Or frankly anyone else's opinions on the matter.
For all we know, Wizards could be designing new classes for the future and are just not ready to showcase them or have them play tested yet. We have no way of knowing what they are going to release in the future. I'm sure a lot of people didn't see the things coming to Tasha's as ever being possible but here we are.
Now can we dial the heat back a little everyone.
"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
Telling other people to shut up is a good way to not be arguing in good faith.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Then let the game stand as is. If Third's and My arguments are both equally valid, then there's no reason to spend the effort to change anything.
I think the conversation got sidetracked onto if Gish specifically was going to be a class, when the questions should be and originally was do we need new classes in 5th edition. The answer of which, I believe is yes.
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."
Who's telling people to shut up? Telling someone you disagree with their ideas is not telling them to shut up. It's telling them you disagree.
Wren, frankly I agree with Yurei. The last few threads I've seen you jump in, you haven't been posting constructively. If you disagree, you could be doing so more politely and less immediately hostile. You can disagree with a post without immediately jumping to personal attacks, which you did here and a couple other threads I've seen you post in. This isn't a personal attack, it's just my observation.
I agree that there is a balance between too many and too little of an amount of classes, but I don't think we've reached that turning point, or are even near it. We can respectfully disagree, but before we rehash a huge debate spanning tons of pages and posts, maybe go back and read some of the points already made, because it gets really tiring repeating them over and over again. Please try to keep things civil, I do like this debate, but want it to be a good discussion instead of a flamewar.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Tell me how to do the Arcane Warrior then, Pantagruel. Do not use the words "Eldritch Knight", because if the damned Eldritch Knight was what anyone wanted people wouldn't be having this argument, hm?
What currently existing class/subclass/multiclass in Dungeons and Dragons, Fifth Edition, manages to combine arcane power and martial might in a fluid and synergistic manner? How does one fulfill that design space, that character archetype, with nothing whatsoever save existing mechanics?
Please do not contact or message me.
You do it with an eldritch knight, or a sword bard, or a valor bard, or a bladesinger, or a hexblade. The fact you refuse to use the tools the game gives you doesn't mean the tools don't exist.
Not side-tracked, delving into specifics. The viability of adding a gish class falls under the umbrella of this discussion.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And we have explained so many times why those don't work. This. Seriously. Feels. Like. Banging. My. Head. Against. A. Wall.
A general gish wouldn't curse, wouldn't have instrument proficiencies or most bard things, wouldn't have a spellbook or 9th level spells, and wouldn't have most fighter things.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We've politely asked multiple times for you guys arguing against new classes to create subclasses that do generally the same thing and fill the same niche as the classes we've designed/proposed. You guys have mostly ignored those, which I am sure you have seen due to the frequency of the request, so what's the holdout? I feel like I'm shouting at a deaf person.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I mean....Paladin sorcerer is perfect, apart from the divinity. Which sucks. But mechanically, please try it, it is a blast.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
It could stand as is, but that's on Wizards to decide ultimately. They could have stopped with 12 classes, but they then decided the Artificer was a good enough class to add. Who is to say they won't decide to add more in the future. It's always possible.
"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
A Warlock doesn't have to curse, a Bard doesn't have to have musical instruments, there's no reason why a Gish wouldn't have a spell book, etc.
Hexblade Warlocks main feature is their ability to curse. They are, incidentally, the most cited subclass for Gish warlocks. And you would be playing them very suboptimally if you choose to ignore their main feature and not use it.
For bards, why would a gish inspire others, or have features like Countercharm.
And finally, gishes probably shouldn't be able to cast ninth level spells. If they can, they are far emphasizing the magic over martial parts of the character.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
IT IS A F***ING HEX BLADE. A BARD......IS A BARD. I agree with the spell book thing, but come on man, dont be obtuse.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Yeah, they do. The subclass we're talking about is a Hexblade, which has an ability at level one called Hexblade's Curse. You literally have to curse, even if you choose to be awful and not have hex.
Yes, bards do. You have to get proficiency in music instruments as a bard. Sure, you may not have to use them, but what's the point of having useless instrument proficiencies?
Ah, yes. The perfect gish, whose ability to weave arcane magic into their weapon attacks depends on a book with some magic words inside of it. Gishes would not have a spellbook as a class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
1.) The Eldritch Knight is objectively terrible. The only method it has for mixing magic and swordplay is SCAG cantrips, and any fighter which utilizes a SCAG cantrip past level 5 is a fighter that does not know how their character works. The Eldritch Knight is not an 'Arcane Warrior', it's a fighter that decided to take Magic Initiate as its entire subclass instead of just one feat. It is extremely bad at utilizing what sparse few heavily restricted spells it's allowed to learn, and it cannot in any way combine its magic with its bladeplay. it is, in every way, inferior to a regular Battlemaster in combat and its restriction to the Evocation and Abjuration schools means its out-of-combat magical utility is almost nonexistent. The Eldritch Knight is a badly designed subclass and whoever wrote it should feel embarrassed over it.
2.) Sword bards are also actually kinda terrible. People claim the sword bard is better than the valor bard, but that's because people overvalue their own personal DPR. Blade flourishes are mostly junk and consume badly needed Bardic Inspirations elsewhere, and again - sword bards cannot utilize magic and bladeplay at the same time. They only ever get to use one or the other, and that is not any kind of 'Arcane Warrior'. Valor bards are better and I actually quite like Valor bards. But they're not 'arcane warriors' either, they cannot combine magic and swordplay. As well: why should anyone who wants to play an Arcane Warrior be required to have extensive musical talent before they can do so? That is serious horseshit, and not okay.
3.) Bladesingers are an abomination. Once again, they cannot combine magic and swordplay, and their entire subclass is built around a mechanic that is simultaneously annoyingly jank and ridiculously overpowered. Yes, Bladesingers can achieve an AC of seventy-three and a movement speed of eight hundred feet per turn. They still fight like slap nerds and are almost never justified in actually using their swords, since the "Blade" song doesn't actually impact their melee whatsoever.
4.) The Hexblade is strictly inferior to a regular warlock who takes one spell - Eldritch Blast - and one invication - Agonizing Blast. An EB spam warlock can do for free what the Hexblade has to expend every possible build resource at their disposal and every single in-game resource they accrue through the day to accomplish. At no point in a Hexblade's existence is that hexblade any better off using their blade than they are the basic tool expected of every warlock ever.
See the through-line here, Pantagruel? None of these characters can use spellcraft and swordplay anywhere neare the same time, and each of them is always better off using one or the other. There's no point in their 'lesser' half. Even the Valor bard, which I'd consider the closest option, is generally held to be better off casting spells than attacking and utilizing its martial capacity. It's not good at fighting. The Sword bard is worse at fighting, the Bladesinger is absolutely terrible at fighting, and the Hexblade has no reason to try and be good at fighting - and even when it decides to try to be good at fighting anyways, a regular-ass fighter beats it every day of the week.
None of these classes you mentioned are an effective combination of arcane power and martial might. They're primarily one with a completely pointless for-flavor splash of the other and that's infuriating.
Please do not contact or message me.