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.
The only class your argument has any strength in is a psionic. But every time D&D tries to create said class, they end up wiping it out. And the reason is the same thing as before: You want to create a new combat mechanics outside of martial abilities or spellcasting. Sorry, but the dev's, for 40 years, and 5 editions, can't make it work. If it could be a working design, it would be in 5e. And yes, again, the proof is the Mystic class, which they started fiddling with in 2017 and officially killed off 4 months ago. (I have no idea what is going to happen with subclasses like SoulKnife, but I am betting they will be strangled in their crib as well).
You can stamp your feet as much as you like. The player base has spoken, and WOTC agreed. (Looking forward to that statement being used against me when Tasha's is officially the only way to create chars).
The only class your argument has any strength in is a psionic. But every time D&D tries to create said class, they end up wiping it out. And the reason is the same thing as before: You want to create a new combat mechanics outside of martial abilities or spellcasting. Sorry, but the dev's, for 40 years, and 5 editions, can't make it work. If it could be a working design, it would be in 5e. And yes, again, the proof is the Mystic class, which they started fiddling with in 2017 and officially killed off 4 months ago. (I have no idea what is going to happen with subclasses like SoulKnife, but I am betting they will be strangled in their crib as well).
From what I know, WotC has only owned D&D for 23 years, and have only made official psionics twice. Third time's the charm, as the saying goes.
Also, Mystics don't prove anything. They were poorly designed, and WotC didn't even come back to that monstrosity. Artificers when first playtested in UA were broken and awful, but they were fixed and playable.
You can stamp your feet as much as you like. The player base has spoken, and WOTC agreed. (Looking forward to that statement being used against me when Tasha's is officially the only way to create chars).
I don't give a shit what the player base thinks. Psionics needs a class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
- 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.
There's no real compromise between "no new classes" and "new classes" and all attempts to compromise that will fail.
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.
LOL....I am sure Bladesingers, Hexblades, EK's might have a word with you. But that has been explained to you already.
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.
LOL....I am sure Bladesingers, Hexblades, EK's might have a word with you. But that has been explained to you already.
Hexblades are not really a gish, they are a melee focused warlock. They dont have the 'spellcasting' feature. neither EKs or Bladesingers are half casters. We want a half caster with signature abilities not a wizard, a warlock and a fighter, who are kinda but not really a gish. We also dont care what you think about what we want, cause we will want it regardless :)
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.
LOL....I am sure Bladesingers, Hexblades, EK's might have a word with you. But that has been explained to you already.
Can you just stop, please. You know what I meant. Class. An arcane gish class. There are subclasses with similar themes, but they don't properly fill the role. We've already proved why multiple times. Go back and read them, I'm not spoon-feeding you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
As at this point it's circular insults with neither side willing to compromise or move an inch. I think it's ran its course.
Maybe those of us that wish to continue shooting ideas to each other can move over to the thread about New Class Idea?
I think we have all established our opinions on the matter and aren't interesting in being swayed, causing things to get heated. I don't want this thread to get locked as the discussion has been interesting but it might happen if things continue as is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Third, It's alright, let it go. At this point, it's obvious that numerous individuals are arguing solely in bad faith.
Yeah, fine. It's clear there are multiple people in this thread who are just stirring the pot. I guess it's best to ignore them.
Farewell, and I honestly don't care if this thread becomes locked. I think in the 77 pages and 15 hundred posts, only 2 people were persuaded of anything. It's sad this became a flamewar.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
There seems to be a daunting amount of new subclasses added every year, so that if you don't stay on top of the released publications...you miss out on a LOT. That said, why would we need more classes added when each class has a TON of subclasses already? Personally, I'd rather WotC focus more on Shake 'n Bake adventure modules than more added races, classes and subclasses. Granted, I get why they do it...if it wasn't for fear of missing out on the continually added classes and such, would people really buy the books? Probably not.
As at this point it's circular insults with neither side willing to compromise or move an inch. I think it's ran its course.
Maybe those of us that wish to continue shooting ideas to each other can move over to the thread about New Class Idea?
I think we have all established our opinions on the matter and aren't interesting in being swayed, causing things to get heated. I don't want this thread to get locked as the discussion has been interesting but it might happen if things continue as is.
Honestly probs the the best. We've all said our opinions.
Those of us wanting more classes can brainstorm ideas in a new thread with a less confrontational nature.
There seems to be a daunting amount of new subclasses added every year, so that if you don't stay on top of the released publications...you miss out on a LOT. That said, why would we need more classes added when each class has a TON of subclasses already? Personally, I'd rather WotC focus more on Shake 'n Bake adventure modules than more added races, classes and subclasses. Granted, I get why they do it...if it wasn't for fear of missing out on the continually added classes and such, would people really buy the books? Probably not.
Sorry, I would normally respond with an answer, but since I've done that so many times already, I'll just recommend you go back and read any 10 pages of the thread, preferably the beginning 10. That will probably explain why some things need classes, not subclasses.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
A Githyanki Gish does not blend spellcasting and melee combat, other than having the War Magic feature, which is identical to the Improved War Magic capability of an Eldritch Knight. It does combine psionics with its melee fighting (in the form of adding psionic damage to its melee attacks), but that has nothing to do with being a gish, all githyanki do that whether or not they're spellcasters.
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.
A Githyanki Gish does not blend spellcasting and melee combat, other than having the War Magic feature, which is identical to the Improved War Magic capability of an Eldritch Knight. It does combine psionics with its melee fighting (in the form of adding psionic damage to its melee attacks), but that has nothing to do with being a gish, all githyanki do that whether or not they're spellcasters.
And Archmages get resistance to spell damage. Sometimes monster stat blocks are not identical to what a class version of that concept would do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
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.
A Githyanki Gish does not blend spellcasting and melee combat, other than having the War Magic feature, which is identical to the Improved War Magic capability of an Eldritch Knight. It does combine psionics with its melee fighting (in the form of adding psionic damage to its melee attacks), but that has nothing to do with being a gish, all githyanki do that whether or not they're spellcasters.
ahh yes, but that is a githyanki gish. Third's point stands
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.
There seems to be a daunting amount of new subclasses added every year, so that if you don't stay on top of the released publications...you miss out on a LOT. That said, why would we need more classes added when each class has a TON of subclasses already? Personally, I'd rather WotC focus more on Shake 'n Bake adventure modules than more added races, classes and subclasses. Granted, I get why they do it...if it wasn't for fear of missing out on the continually added classes and such, would people really buy the books? Probably not.
Sorry, I would normally respond with an answer, but since I've done that so many times already, I'll just recommend you go back and read any 10 pages of the thread, preferably the beginning 10. That will probably explain why some things need classes, not subclasses.
Be fair. There are arguments some have made that some things need classes rather than subclasses. That is not the same thing as the arguments being anything more or less than stated opinions.
Did I say they were anything more than stated opinions? 99% of what was said in this thread was just a stated opinion. That doesn't make it any less valid of an argument.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The only class your argument has any strength in is a psionic. But every time D&D tries to create said class, they end up wiping it out. And the reason is the same thing as before: You want to create a new combat mechanics outside of martial abilities or spellcasting. Sorry, but the dev's, for 40 years, and 5 editions, can't make it work. If it could be a working design, it would be in 5e. And yes, again, the proof is the Mystic class, which they started fiddling with in 2017 and officially killed off 4 months ago. (I have no idea what is going to happen with subclasses like SoulKnife, but I am betting they will be strangled in their crib as well).
You can stamp your feet as much as you like. The player base has spoken, and WOTC agreed. (Looking forward to that statement being used against me when Tasha's is officially the only way to create chars).
Can a moderator lock the thread?
As at this point it's circular insults with neither side willing to compromise or move an inch. I think it's ran its course.
From what I know, WotC has only owned D&D for 23 years, and have only made official psionics twice. Third time's the charm, as the saying goes.
Also, Mystics don't prove anything. They were poorly designed, and WotC didn't even come back to that monstrosity. Artificers when first playtested in UA were broken and awful, but they were fixed and playable.
I don't give a shit what the player base thinks. Psionics needs a class.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There's no real compromise between "no new classes" and "new classes" and all attempts to compromise that will fail.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
LOL....I am sure Bladesingers, Hexblades, EK's might have a word with you. But that has been explained to you already.
Hexblades are not really a gish, they are a melee focused warlock. They dont have the 'spellcasting' feature. neither EKs or Bladesingers are half casters. We want a half caster with signature abilities not a wizard, a warlock and a fighter, who are kinda but not really a gish. We also dont care what you think about what we want, cause we will want it regardless :)
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Can you just stop, please. You know what I meant. Class. An arcane gish class. There are subclasses with similar themes, but they don't properly fill the role. We've already proved why multiple times. Go back and read them, I'm not spoon-feeding you.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Third, It's alright, let it go. At this point, it's obvious that numerous individuals are arguing solely in bad faith.
Maybe those of us that wish to continue shooting ideas to each other can move over to the thread about New Class Idea?
I think we have all established our opinions on the matter and aren't interesting in being swayed, causing things to get heated. I don't want this thread to get locked as the discussion has been interesting but it might happen if things continue as is.
"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
Yeah, fine. It's clear there are multiple people in this thread who are just stirring the pot. I guess it's best to ignore them.
Farewell, and I honestly don't care if this thread becomes locked. I think in the 77 pages and 15 hundred posts, only 2 people were persuaded of anything. It's sad this became a flamewar.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
There seems to be a daunting amount of new subclasses added every year, so that if you don't stay on top of the released publications...you miss out on a LOT. That said, why would we need more classes added when each class has a TON of subclasses already? Personally, I'd rather WotC focus more on Shake 'n Bake adventure modules than more added races, classes and subclasses. Granted, I get why they do it...if it wasn't for fear of missing out on the continually added classes and such, would people really buy the books? Probably not.
Honestly probs the the best. We've all said our opinions.
Those of us wanting more classes can brainstorm ideas in a new thread with a less confrontational nature.
Sorry, I would normally respond with an answer, but since I've done that so many times already, I'll just recommend you go back and read any 10 pages of the thread, preferably the beginning 10. That will probably explain why some things need classes, not subclasses.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
A Githyanki Gish does not blend spellcasting and melee combat, other than having the War Magic feature, which is identical to the Improved War Magic capability of an Eldritch Knight. It does combine psionics with its melee fighting (in the form of adding psionic damage to its melee attacks), but that has nothing to do with being a gish, all githyanki do that whether or not they're spellcasters.
And Archmages get resistance to spell damage. Sometimes monster stat blocks are not identical to what a class version of that concept would do.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
ahh yes, but that is a githyanki gish. Third's point stands
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Did I say they were anything more than stated opinions? 99% of what was said in this thread was just a stated opinion. That doesn't make it any less valid of an argument.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Guys, let the thread die. The OP has already asked for moderators to come in.
Even the Lorax wants it to die at this point....
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This thread is being locked at the request of the original poster
Find my D&D Beyond articles here