Keep in mind that I am not against any new classes at all, merely presenting caution. And you are sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of 'pro-more' posters earlier in the discussion.
I think it should be done cautiously, too. We don't need dozens of more classes, we can fill some of the roles with subclasses, but there are niches that need filling by classes, and I think WotC should make those classes and publish them slowly.
As for 'something that will make them more money,' well that is the thing, isn't it? It is not a given that it would. It is not a given that any given new class idea would make them money. Publishing costs, so it would definitely cost them money. And it is very easy to insist that it would make them more money than the costs when you are not the one who would be paying the costs.
They paid money making the Artificer, and it's so popular that they're reprinting it so it can be more widely available. It's fair to assume that if they create a new class with the same amount of caution as the artificer, it will make money.
Again, that is not saying they should publish no new classes, merely that it is important to understand that aspect of doing so.
And I understand that, and agree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
We are well aware that there are costs to producing books. We are also aware that the player base is very, very large. I think it'd be fair to say that even if a majority of the consumer base didn't buy such materials, the possibility still exists for them to turn a healthy profit, assuming they didn't blow an exorbitant amount of money on development costs. On that note, I still think the focus on books is a bit archaic when the presence of digital media on venues such as DM's Guild also exist.
You are also sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of "no-more" posters earlier in the discussion, thank you very much.
I think on the line between caution and bloat, 5e is way too far in the side of caution.
5e has been around as long as 4e, and only has a single new class in its entire lifetime. At this pace it would take 30 years for an additional 5 classes. And I doubt 5e will be around that long.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
If you can't make a char that suits you out of the myriad classes, species, and subclass combination, you are simply too demanding. There are already more combinations and permutations that any one person can play in a lifetime. All I hear from many in this forum are "I want...I want...I want." How about working with the current structure, which already provides variation upon variation.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
And even that mixture requires being a sorcerer, which sucks, and being a fighter. It just doesn't work like it should.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
If you can't make a char that suits you out of the myriad classes, species, and subclass combination, you are simply too demanding. There are already more combinations and permutations that any one person can play in a lifetime. All I hear from many in this forum are "I want...I want...I want." How about working with the current structure, which already provides variation upon variation.
D&D is meant to be a modular system, capable of creating many fantasy and sci-fi archetypes. If they can provide rules for antimatter guns, why not common fantasy tropes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
If you can't make a char that suits you out of the myriad classes, species, and subclass combination, you are simply too demanding. There are already more combinations and permutations that any one person can play in a lifetime. All I hear from many in this forum are "I want...I want...I want." How about working with the current structure, which already provides variation upon variation.
And there's the same BS argument you made in the beginning of the thread. YOU DO NOT NEED TO PLAY EVERY SINGLE OPTION IN THE GAME IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT! (Not angry, just emphasizing my point.)
That is absolute horsecrap, Vince, and you know it. Before the Artificer came out, I knew that I wanted to play an Artificer. And of course this is "I want!" That's the purpose of adding things to the game! I wanted a Lizardfolk race before Volo's came out, I wanted a Gith race before Mordenkainen's, and I have wanted a racial feature switcheroo system before Tasha's has come out.
There are 80+ races in the game, 13 classes, and hundreds of classes, as well as hundreds of spells. Now, go play all of the millions of different combinations, analyze what is lacking from the game, and then you can say that nothing is missing from it. Your stupid BS argument can be used against you.
There are classes missing from the game, whether you agree or not.
There's not a Psion class. I don't care if you think it should be spellcasting or not. Even if it was, which it shouldn't be, it should at least have its own class. There's a class for divine fullcasters, a class for primal fullcasters, and 3 classes for arcane fullcasters. Even if you don't want a new system for psionics, it at least needs a new class.
There's not an arcane gish class. There is a divine gish class and a primal gish class, which means there is a void in the arcane gish class's design space. And stop shouting "reflavor and homebrew" down my face, anti-classers. If you want to play a wizard, just go play a fighter and reflavor your attacks to spells, and tell me if that's a satisfactory system.
There's voids in many other class-sized design spaces.
Stop repeating the same BS argument. I'm sick of it.
We have done our side of work, and only 2 of you have attempted to do your fair share. Get off your ass, stop whining, and make yourself useful, instead of trying to destroy the things we want in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
If you can't make a char that suits you out of the myriad classes, species, and subclass combination, you are simply too demanding. There are already more combinations and permutations that any one person can play in a lifetime. All I hear from many in this forum are "I want...I want...I want." How about working with the current structure, which already provides variation upon variation.
How is wanting to play a class which once existed and no longer does fussy and demanding? Saying 'oh you haven't tried every subclass ever' is a bad faith argument and a strawman. There are many classes I will intentionally never play. I don't like bards, so why should I have to play one along with every bard subclass before being qualified to ask for more options? In fact pretty much everyone has never played all options in the game. Lets never add any UA, subclasses, or content to dnd 5e ever again, because no one can have played all of it right?
People want to play things which suit their character. You could remove all classes but fighter, rogue, and wizard, and then just reflavor to make everything else. That doesn't mean it's satisfying as people want mechanics which suit their character.
Are barbarian players fussy and demanding as they want a rage ability, rather than just saying their fighter is angrily swinging their weapon? Are ranger players fussy and demanding for wanting a survival based class when they can just pick survival skills for rogue?
There is a reason there is about 3 homebrew swordmages posted across the various sites per day. It's because many people want to play an extremely common fantasy trope in a satisfying manner, which 5e does not manage to include in a satisfying manner.
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
D&D is meant to be a modular system, capable of creating many fantasy and sci-fi archetypes. If they can provide rules for antimatter guns, why not common fantasy tropes?
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
For me, the only official gish is this one: it's a githyanki Fighter/Magic User level 4/4 (Fiend Folio Page 43). Even at the time, (AD&D) it was not an optimised build by any mean.
For me, the Eldritch Knight is a "gish" more than the requests that I've seen here. Once more, since you want something so specific and find the paladin acceptable, you have a much greater chance of just reskinning it with arcane magic than ever to have it being created by WotC. Tons of advice have been given about ways to do this, but honestly repeating the same thing over and over again does not make the discussion progress in any way.
Sci-Fi can be done with Spelljammer, or simply using setting a campaign in space. It isn't super difficult to turn D&D into a Sci-Fi game, but that wasn't the focus of my post.
A gish is a fantasy archytype; it is not called a gish, but the idea of a person who wields blade and spell equally is very common. For example, Rand'Al Thor from the Wheel of Time. And not just gishes, but Psions, Shaman's, brilliant tacticians, and many other tropes aren't currently in D&D's ruleset.
- I suggested an arcane version of paladin/ranger: apparently unacceptable as niche already take and can just reflavor.
- I suggested more implementation of class feature variants to allow certain paladin features to be replaced with features which suit an arcane/elemental character better.: Apparently unacceptable and dilutes the real class theme and flavor.
- I suggested just letting sorcerer have the strike spells in its spell list, as in the playtest it was a melee caster: Apparently unacceptable as dilutes paladins and rangers theme and identity.
I've offered every solution and compromise. Yet I'm told every one is not acceptable. Funnily enough i'm told just to retheme and reflavor, but every other option isn't acceptable because it dilutes the other classes theme and flavor... funny that.
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
My friend, I think it's time for you to actually read some fantasy. You put your own label and your own definition, but honestly it's supported by nothing in text anywhere. All that you are saying here is totally inconsistent and at odds with the only description actually found in the game. Eldritch knights or Bladesingers (which for some reason are not in your list) are actually much closer to what a gish is (it's simply a fighter/magic-user).
I mean....a pally is a fighter magic user. So is a ranger. And a magus.
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.
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
Paladins are gish? Then, why do we need another one?
DIVINE gish. We want an ARCANE gish. Even if you dont :)
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.
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
Paladins are gish? Then, why do we need another one?
A wizard is a magic user? Then, why do we need another five?
Lyxen, I suggest you read up on some fantasy yourself. I highly recommend looking into the Wheel of Time series, as well as older works about Elric of Melnibone, Jirel of Joiry, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
My friend, I think it's time for you to actually read some fantasy. You put your own label and your own definition, but honestly it's supported by nothing in text anywhere. All that you are saying here is totally inconsistent and at odds with the only description actually found in the game. Eldritch knights or Bladesingers (which for some reason are not in your list) are actually much closer to what a gish is (it's simply a fighter/magic-user).
I know what a gish is. A gish is someone who combines magic and martial fighting. It doesn't have to be arcane to be a gish. Anyone who uses magic to power their weapons, or blends martial prowess and spells, counts as a gish. I have read plenty of fantasy, and seen multiple examples of a magical sword/bow fighter.
It is not my own definition, go look up what a gish is.
Also, we have stated why Eldritch Knights and Bladesingers don't work on many occasions. I suggest you actually read our past arguments before you ask us to repeat it for about the 10th time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Huh, no. Where does this SciFi think come from ? And since when is a "gish" a fantasy archetype? Just because one edition of the game went nova in imagining classes more imbalanced and untested than anything else before does not make it a' "fantasy archetype".
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
Paladins are gish? Then, why do we need another one?
Stop. Being. So. Dense.
Paladins are divine. Rangers are primal. We don't have an arcane gish class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I think it should be done cautiously, too. We don't need dozens of more classes, we can fill some of the roles with subclasses, but there are niches that need filling by classes, and I think WotC should make those classes and publish them slowly.
They paid money making the Artificer, and it's so popular that they're reprinting it so it can be more widely available. It's fair to assume that if they create a new class with the same amount of caution as the artificer, it will make money.
And I understand that, and agree.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
We are well aware that there are costs to producing books. We are also aware that the player base is very, very large. I think it'd be fair to say that even if a majority of the consumer base didn't buy such materials, the possibility still exists for them to turn a healthy profit, assuming they didn't blow an exorbitant amount of money on development costs. On that note, I still think the focus on books is a bit archaic when the presence of digital media on venues such as DM's Guild also exist.
You are also sounding more reasonable at the moment than the general tone of "no-more" posters earlier in the discussion, thank you very much.
EDIT: Also, what Third_Sundering said.
I think on the line between caution and bloat, 5e is way too far in the side of caution.
5e has been around as long as 4e, and only has a single new class in its entire lifetime. At this pace it would take 30 years for an additional 5 classes. And I doubt 5e will be around that long.
At this point I'm just hoping something appears to 5e which is what pathfinder was to 3e. All the smooth and streamlined core game rules of 5e, with actual in depth character creation like pathfinder 2e.
I don't think you can have "in depth character creation" when the game rules are all streamlined.
I feel that there are already enough character options to be able to create any reasonable character.
Except if you want to make an arcane elemental themed gish, without a hint of divine theme, which can spellstrike with a nice big variety of spells, you can't. And I resent EK, paladin, and ranger for luring the swordmage down a back-ally, before murdering and dismembering it in order to each take a limb home for personal consumption.
If you want to make a psion, you can't.
If you want to make a primal caster which can't wildshape, you can't.
There are endless characters which can't be made with the current system in a satisfying manner.
Also the idea that streamlined rules and character options are opposed isn't true. Adding another class doesn't require removing bounded accuracy, the disadvantage/advantage system, and adding volume to every item in your inventory.
As I've stated several times, simply adding smite/strike type spells to the sorcerer spell list before taking half levels of fighter would make a more satisfying gish to me than anything currently in game. But WotC keeps those spells under exclusive lock and key to only a tiny few classes.
If you can't make a char that suits you out of the myriad classes, species, and subclass combination, you are simply too demanding. There are already more combinations and permutations that any one person can play in a lifetime. All I hear from many in this forum are "I want...I want...I want." How about working with the current structure, which already provides variation upon variation.
And even that mixture requires being a sorcerer, which sucks, and being a fighter. It just doesn't work like it should.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
D&D is meant to be a modular system, capable of creating many fantasy and sci-fi archetypes. If they can provide rules for antimatter guns, why not common fantasy tropes?
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
And there's the same BS argument you made in the beginning of the thread. YOU DO NOT NEED TO PLAY EVERY SINGLE OPTION IN THE GAME IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT! (Not angry, just emphasizing my point.)
That is absolute horsecrap, Vince, and you know it. Before the Artificer came out, I knew that I wanted to play an Artificer. And of course this is "I want!" That's the purpose of adding things to the game! I wanted a Lizardfolk race before Volo's came out, I wanted a Gith race before Mordenkainen's, and I have wanted a racial feature switcheroo system before Tasha's has come out.
There are 80+ races in the game, 13 classes, and hundreds of classes, as well as hundreds of spells. Now, go play all of the millions of different combinations, analyze what is lacking from the game, and then you can say that nothing is missing from it. Your stupid BS argument can be used against you.
There are classes missing from the game, whether you agree or not.
There's not a Psion class. I don't care if you think it should be spellcasting or not. Even if it was, which it shouldn't be, it should at least have its own class. There's a class for divine fullcasters, a class for primal fullcasters, and 3 classes for arcane fullcasters. Even if you don't want a new system for psionics, it at least needs a new class.
There's not an arcane gish class. There is a divine gish class and a primal gish class, which means there is a void in the arcane gish class's design space. And stop shouting "reflavor and homebrew" down my face, anti-classers. If you want to play a wizard, just go play a fighter and reflavor your attacks to spells, and tell me if that's a satisfactory system.
There's voids in many other class-sized design spaces.
Stop repeating the same BS argument. I'm sick of it.
We have done our side of work, and only 2 of you have attempted to do your fair share. Get off your ass, stop whining, and make yourself useful, instead of trying to destroy the things we want in the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
How is wanting to play a class which once existed and no longer does fussy and demanding? Saying 'oh you haven't tried every subclass ever' is a bad faith argument and a strawman. There are many classes I will intentionally never play. I don't like bards, so why should I have to play one along with every bard subclass before being qualified to ask for more options? In fact pretty much everyone has never played all options in the game. Lets never add any UA, subclasses, or content to dnd 5e ever again, because no one can have played all of it right?
People want to play things which suit their character. You could remove all classes but fighter, rogue, and wizard, and then just reflavor to make everything else. That doesn't mean it's satisfying as people want mechanics which suit their character.
Are barbarian players fussy and demanding as they want a rage ability, rather than just saying their fighter is angrily swinging their weapon? Are ranger players fussy and demanding for wanting a survival based class when they can just pick survival skills for rogue?
There is a reason there is about 3 homebrew swordmages posted across the various sites per day. It's because many people want to play an extremely common fantasy trope in a satisfying manner, which 5e does not manage to include in a satisfying manner.
Gish has been in fantasy for a long time. Swordmages, Duskblades, Magus, Paladins, Rangers are all gish. Gish classes belong in D&D as much as a fighter or cleric does.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sci-Fi can be done with Spelljammer, or simply using setting a campaign in space. It isn't super difficult to turn D&D into a Sci-Fi game, but that wasn't the focus of my post.
A gish is a fantasy archytype; it is not called a gish, but the idea of a person who wields blade and spell equally is very common. For example, Rand'Al Thor from the Wheel of Time. And not just gishes, but Psions, Shaman's, brilliant tacticians, and many other tropes aren't currently in D&D's ruleset.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
- I suggested an arcane version of paladin/ranger: apparently unacceptable as niche already take and can just reflavor.
- I suggested more implementation of class feature variants to allow certain paladin features to be replaced with features which suit an arcane/elemental character better.: Apparently unacceptable and dilutes the real class theme and flavor.
- I suggested just letting sorcerer have the strike spells in its spell list, as in the playtest it was a melee caster: Apparently unacceptable as dilutes paladins and rangers theme and identity.
I've offered every solution and compromise. Yet I'm told every one is not acceptable. Funnily enough i'm told just to retheme and reflavor, but every other option isn't acceptable because it dilutes the other classes theme and flavor... funny that.
I mean....a pally is a fighter magic user. So is a ranger. And a magus.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
DIVINE gish. We want an ARCANE gish. Even if you dont :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
A wizard is a magic user? Then, why do we need another five?
Lyxen, I suggest you read up on some fantasy yourself. I highly recommend looking into the Wheel of Time series, as well as older works about Elric of Melnibone, Jirel of Joiry, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.
I know what a gish is. A gish is someone who combines magic and martial fighting. It doesn't have to be arcane to be a gish. Anyone who uses magic to power their weapons, or blends martial prowess and spells, counts as a gish. I have read plenty of fantasy, and seen multiple examples of a magical sword/bow fighter.
It is not my own definition, go look up what a gish is.
Also, we have stated why Eldritch Knights and Bladesingers don't work on many occasions. I suggest you actually read our past arguments before you ask us to repeat it for about the 10th time.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Stop. Being. So. Dense.
Paladins are divine. Rangers are primal. We don't have 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
Pro tip: Take nature cleric, and replace its entire cleric spell list with the druid spell list. (if your DM is cool with it)
Rename the class shaman. It's instantly a more satisfying shaman than druid.
I wish we still had the labels on the power sources like prior DnDs and pathfinder. It's only taken 1 edition for people to forget their meaning.