The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll. Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.
Bonus action spells that channel magic into weapon attacks? Like smites? Large amounts of single target damage of a unique type? Like Divine Smite? Your idea for "Point Blank Casting" would make a spellsword either a spell or a sword, depending on if their sword does more damage or their spell does more damage; it doesn't promote the cooperation of the magical and martial like a half caster's features should. Besides, my main issue is that there's not really any place for a new caster class to draw power from. How do you make it flavorfully separate from a wizard besides "they have martial weapon proficiency?"
Also, what's wrong with asking if you can use your homebrew at other tables? How else would homebrew ever get used?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
Eldritch Knight: The Class is bad...how? Other than the Eldritch Knight fighter being terrible, anyways.
People always shoot down arcane spellblades with the "how do you make it different?" argument and the notion "just play a paladin and call it arcane instead of divine", but the player demand for an arcane spellblade has never dimmed. Paladins cannot be reflavored as "arcane" characters, their every class feature is so steeped in Divine Magic and Holy Power that they cannot ever be anything but holy warriors. Spellblade subclasses clearly haven't hit the mark, since none of them have made an appreciable dent in the requirements for an arcane spellblade.
The requests are common, and often very similar. What's wrong with pursuing options for fulfilling that request?
I mean, with Class Groups as part of the design philosophy, a Spellblade class will probably end up being disappointing to a lot of people who want it, depending on what they want from it.
Because unlike the existing classes, which were semi-arbitrarily thrown into groups together, new classes would most likely be designed from the ground up to fit the specific group they're placed in. (I'm basing this on how it worked for Roles in 4e, where the existing 3.5E PHB classes were allowed to keep some of their original flavour and abilities even if they didn't fit their assigned combat role, but all the classes that were created specifically for 4e, or adapted from pre-3.xE classes and kits with less established identities, were completely pidgeon-holed into their role.)
So a Spellblade class designed under that paradigm would never be a perfect mix of arcane caster and martial fighter, because it would have to skew to one side or the other in order to 'fit' the group it was placed in.
And we already know what a Spellblade designed to fit into the Warrior group and a Spellblade designed to fit into the Mage group look like: The Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger respectively.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll. Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.
An important thing about gishes is how they use spells. They rely on buffs, summons and other effects that don't require you to have a high spell save DC, so that despite being MAD in theory, you can still be effective with your spells even with low spellcasting stat. This is why paladins have Divine Smite - a way to convert spell slots into damage directly and without spell save DC. In other words, Spellblade would have to resort to buffing their attacks, summoning aid (a necromantic subclass first and foremost), using tactical features like teleportation and battlefield manipulation (creating walls and cover), and doing stuff like using equipped melee weapon at range with telekinesis (a subclass based on Elemer of the Briar from Elden Ring, a knight that attacks you with flying sword). It's all indirect spell effects that do not rely on spell save DC, but rather augment the melee and expand tactical capabilities. There could also be a subclass that focuses on Int much like monk's Way of Astral Self puts everything into Wis. This concept will require a couple of new spells, but it's nothing impossible.
So a Spellblade class designed under that paradigm would never be a perfect mix of arcane caster and martial fighter, because it would have to skew to one side or the other in order to 'fit' the group it was placed in.
And we already know what a Spellblade designed to fit into the Warrior group and a Spellblade designed to fit into the Mage group look like: The Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger respectively.
Just like ranger. Oh, wait...)) If we can have an expert class that is part warrior and very likely a priest class that is part warrior as well (paladin), why not a warrior class that is part mage?
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
I'm sorry, but this image just makes me giggle.
"Okay, Jack, I know you're excited to finally get 3rd Circle spells and learn fireball, but remember that its a big spell with a large radius, and you only use melee weapons..."
"Jill, don't worry so much, I got this. Oh, look, a monster! Attack!"
And thus, Jack channeled a fireball through their sword at point blank range, blowing themselves up with the fireball in the process. RIP, Jack.
EDIT - I'm not saying this to say Arcane gish can't work, they could have used lightning bolt instead after all. I just find the image silly.
Just like ranger. Oh, wait...)) If we can have an expert class that is part warrior and very likely a priest class that is part warrior as well (paladin), why not a warrior class that is part mage?
I mean, if you ask me we should be able to. I simply doubt we'd get one in the Class Group design space because we also didn't get a proper one the last time WotC decided to arbitrarily shove classes into narrowly defined categories.
Paladin and Ranger have 'Warrior' elements because they originate as AD&D 2e Fighter variants and they've kept those elements throughout retool after retool. Strictly speaking the Paladin, as a Divine half-caster with heavy 'warrior' elements should also be in neither the 'Priest' nor the 'Warrior' class group (or else equally in both), as it sits square in the middle between the two, but it's been shoved into the 'Priest' group for the sake of symmetry.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll. Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.
Bonus action spells that channel magic into weapon attacks? Like smites? Large amounts of single target damage of a unique type? Like Divine Smite? Your idea for "Point Blank Casting" would make a spellsword either a spell or a sword, depending on if their sword does more damage or their spell does more damage; it doesn't promote the cooperation of the magical and martial like a half caster's features should. Besides, my main issue is that there's not really any place for a new caster class to draw power from. How do you make it flavorfully separate from a wizard besides "they have martial weapon proficiency?"
Also, what's wrong with asking if you can use your homebrew at other tables? How else would homebrew ever get used?
You do realize that the ability I described is from 3.5e. It existed before the 5e version of divine smite. It works similar to a smite spell true, but clearly different. Your argument for unique makes wizard, sorcerer and warlock seem pointless. I guess warlock can stay since it cast spells differently and has a patron, but wizard or sorcerer should go. They are aren’t unique enough for both to exist. Your idea that half caster features promote cooperation of magical and martial is just mistaken. Where are the Ranger features that do this? Other than divine smite that is fueled by spell slots what other half caster features do this?
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
I'm sorry, but this image just makes me giggle.
"Okay, Jack, I know you're excited to finally get 3rd Circle spells and learn fireball, but remember that its a big spell with a large radius, and you only use melee weapons..."
"Jill, don't worry so much, I got this. Oh, look, a monster! Attack!"
And thus, Jack channeled a fireball through their sword at point blank range, blowing themselves up with the fireball in the process. RIP, Jack.
EDIT - I'm not saying this to say Arcane gish can't work, they could have used lightning bolt instead after all. I just find the image silly.
This ability is from 3.5e. I forget some people don’t know about the stuff that came before, but I did say it makes it a single target melee attack. If you channel a spell it’s not an aoe anymore. That’s the drawback or in the situation you proposed the saving grace.
Care must be taken to avoid complaints of IP issues. Final fantasy come to mind as an RPG that could claim such design is borrowed from their classes. probably not but maybe.
Still adding a class would be a simple as following a the established framework and assigning it a group. magic items, new spells and such would automatically be matched to the new class. there is definite potential but I expect at least some in-class tailoring of spells.
On that note I may think a fourth spell list might be appropriate. one designed specifically for warrior spells. druids really don't need some of the ranger specific weapon spells but other such gish classes might appreciate them (cordon of arrows, steel wind strike ect). then again there might not be enough. further design considerations needed.
The thing is, how do you make an arcane spellblade unique? Paladins have their oath to draw power from and rangers draw power from primal hunting tactics, but I can't think of a any new source of power for an arcane martial to tap into without making them Eldritch Knight: the Class. I get the idea of 1 half martial per spell list, but in practice it seems smarter to me to just make subclasses that do a better job of mixing the martial and the arcane.
The Spellsword would be primarily Int based Arcane half caster and could be unique in their ability to Channel spells into their weapons as a bonus action to be released on the next hit. Making Fireball a single target melee attack roll is something no one else can do. It adds flexibility and efficiency. Multiple targets cast fireball as normal. Single target Channel Fireball into your sword and hit with it. They should have things like:
Point blank casting- ranged spells cast in melee range don’t suffer from disadvantage and add your Spellcasting mod to damage roll. Improved Concentration- add Int to concentration checks.
subclasses could be things like:
Swordmage which pays tribute with the aegis abilities from 4e. Making this subclass tanky.
Duskblade which pays tribute to 3.5 class is more melee focused and could let you channel certain types of your spells as part of your attack action freeing your bonus action. But not for a channel spell.
Crusader/Templar could add some divine magic leaning you toward a Paladin feel.
Warden could lean you toward a Ranger feel by giving you some primal magic.
I believe it’s unique enough feel to merit it’s own class, but I’m also sure it will never be. Unless I homebrew it and let my players play one. I still wouldn’t get that opportunity since I’ll never ask someone else to let me play my own homebrew at their table. I hope no one does that.
Bonus action spells that channel magic into weapon attacks? Like smites? Large amounts of single target damage of a unique type? Like Divine Smite? Your idea for "Point Blank Casting" would make a spellsword either a spell or a sword, depending on if their sword does more damage or their spell does more damage; it doesn't promote the cooperation of the magical and martial like a half caster's features should. Besides, my main issue is that there's not really any place for a new caster class to draw power from. How do you make it flavorfully separate from a wizard besides "they have martial weapon proficiency?"
Also, what's wrong with asking if you can use your homebrew at other tables? How else would homebrew ever get used?
You do realize that the ability I described is from 3.5e. It existed before the 5e version of divine smite. It works similar to a smite spell true, but clearly different. Your argument for unique makes wizard, sorcerer and warlock seem pointless. I guess warlock can stay since it cast spells differently and has a patron, but wizard or sorcerer should go. They are aren’t unique enough for both to exist. Your idea that half caster features promote cooperation of magical and martial is just mistaken. Where are the Ranger features that do this? Other than divine smite that is fueled by spell slots what other half caster features do this?
Sorcerers have innate powers that they use to manipulate the world around them. Wizards study their spells heavily despite having no innate powers, instead learning magic through sheer arcane knowledge. Seems like a big enough distinction to me. How would your spellsword get its power?
Half caster features don't promote cooperation of the magical and martial? That is such a weird thing to say. Especially considering...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I mean, if you ask me we should be able to. I simply doubt we'd get one in the Class Group design space because we also didn't get a proper one the last time WotC decided to arbitrarily shove classes into narrowly defined categories.
Paladin and Ranger have 'Warrior' elements because they originate as AD&D 2e Fighter variants and they've kept those elements throughout retool after retool. Strictly speaking the Paladin, as a Divine half-caster with heavy 'warrior' elements should also be in neither the 'Priest' nor the 'Warrior' class group (or else equally in both), as it sits square in the middle between the two, but it's been shoved into the 'Priest' group for the sake of symmetry.
Well, yeah, pretty much. I dislike symmetry, it creates constraints, predictable patterns, and repetitiveness. Though so far, the groups look more like loose tags rather than tight, narrow roles from 4e. Probably gonna be used for artifacts and some select feats. I just don't think WotC will repeat the mistake they made with 4e.
Flavor is all made up and completely free. It only serves one purpose, to justify the mechanics in place. To make them sound reasonable enough that people can buy into the fantasy. If it does its job well, it inspires people to choose the mechanic and design a character with it in mind.
We all have a pretty good mental image of what a holy knight is. The Paladin justifies its mechanics by appealing to that image in our minds. As long as turning undead, smiting them, and laying on hands fits that image, it works for people. The more a subclass deviates from that image, the more work has to be done justifying it with flavor text. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the mechanics are so good that no one cares about the flavor and they make up their own justifications.
I think there is definitely room and demand for an Arcane gish class. Put it in the Mage group, in the same way the Ranger is a Expert, and the Paladin is a Priest. Give it an extra attack at fifth level. Give it access to Warrior feats. Let it use the Arcane spell list with some restrictions. And let it have some cool unique features. The flavor can be added at any time. There are plenty of examples of characters that fit this type in media. The subclasses write themselves.
You do realize that the ability I described is from 3.5e. It existed before the 5e version of divine smite. It works similar to a smite spell true, but clearly different. Your argument for unique makes wizard, sorcerer and warlock seem pointless. I guess warlock can stay since it cast spells differently and has a patron, but wizard or sorcerer should go. They are aren’t unique enough for both to exist. Your idea that half caster features promote cooperation of magical and martial is just mistaken. Where are the Ranger features that do this? Other than divine smite that is fueled by spell slots what other half caster features do this?
The sorcerer, warlock and wizard are all very distinct in their lore and, well, class fantasy. Sorcerers are the born-magic and mutants, sometimes called Will Workers for magic coming from exercising their will and wishing hard to make magic. Wizards are those who study magic and construct magical formula. Warlocks operate on pacts with magical beings, bonding with others and altering themselves.
While, mechanically, sorcerers share too many similarities to wizards, the distinct tropes supporting the three mages (four if you count bard) are very different.
A spellsword class, on the other hand, is literally just a Fighter-Wizard hybrid. That's their trope, their origin, their style of magic, their lore. The desire to have one isn't based on story reasons, its based on a dissatisfaction with the Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger mechanics. They don't even get the distinction that separates Ranger from Druid and Paladin from Cleric - monster hunter and knight in shining armor versus priests (thiesm vs animism).
Rangers, as experts, draw their magic as an extension of their skill use. Tracking, moving quietly, awareness of the world around them, empathy with animals, etc. Paladins are knights that gain power from their oaths, and not even to gods. To royalty, to concepts, to their own desires. Artificers, as an arcane half-caster gish, recieved power from their inventions and gadgets. Spellswords are a fighter / wizard multiclass.
There's nothing wrong with wanting that as a class. I support it. But you have to acknowledge that there's going to be people that don't see the point of it when its fantasy isn't unique.
This ability is from 3.5e. I forget some people don’t know about the stuff that came before, but I did say it makes it a single target melee attack. If you channel a spell it’s not an aoe anymore. That’s the drawback or in the situation you proposed the saving grace.
Yes, I'm aware. The Spellsword PrC from the Complete Warrior supplement, which also contained the Bladesinger PrC. Ironically, these two were half-casters while Eldritch Knight was the full caster, which is effectively the opposite in 5e.
The Spellsword was a prestige class that mainly had three abilities. Reduce Arcane Spell Failure was repeated every other level. You got +1 Arcane Casting every other level. And Channel Spell (through a weapon) up to five times a day.
Presumably, 5e Eldritch Knight's and Valor Bard's War Magic was meant to occupy a similar space with slightly different mechanics, though their execution left much to be desired.
Flavor is all made up and completely free. It only serves one purpose, to justify the mechanics in place.
You have that backwards, I'm afraid. Mechanics exist to support flavor first and foremost. This is story telling game above all else. The overwhelming majority of players come to the table with a story concept and then pick mechanics to support that concept, not the other way around.
Flavor is all made up and completely free. It only serves one purpose, to justify the mechanics in place.
You have that backwards, I'm afraid. Mechanics exist to support flavor first and foremost. This is story telling game above all else. The overwhelming majority of players come to the table with a story concept and then pick mechanics to support that concept, not the other way around.
I meant strictly from a designer perspective. What you are talking about is the other half of my paragraph:
"... to justify the mechanics in place. To make them sound reasonable enough that people can buy into the fantasy. If it does its job well, it inspires people to choose the mechanic and design a character with it in mind."
Players usually pick classes based on a character they have in mind. But the way they pick the mechanics are based on a number of things. They either -
Pick a Warlock because their mental image of a character was something called a warlock
Pick a Warlock because their mental image was someone who made a 'deal with a devil'
Pick a Warlock because the flavor was the best fit for the character in their mind for other reasons (ex. Mage school dropout)
Pick a Warlock because the character they had in mind believes they are a Cleric but the player knows they aren't.
Pick a Warlock because it has the mechanics they want for the character in their mind
Pick a Warlock because they read the flavor and it inspired a character idea in their mind
Pick a Warlock because it's powerful and they'll live with the flavor
Pick a Warlock because they plan to reflavor it anyway
Pick a Warlock because the flavor sounded good, but they regret the mechanics later
Etc
The flavor justification for the Warlock makes the mechanics a believable fantasy. It's interesting and inspires a lot of people. It fills a gap in character concepts. Players have stories in mind. They make characters to live out those stories based on a number of factors. But when designing a mechanic, the flavor only serves to sell it to some of the players. Other people only look at the mechanics and make their own flavor. Or don't even bother doing that.
So if WotC wants to make an Arcane Gish, the flavor isn't a roadblock to the design. There are plenty of character concepts that could use a class like this. They've already tried forcing a lot of subclasses to fill that role for that reason. People want to play element benders, and psychic knights, and spell swords, and magic archers. The players are ready for better mechanics to tell those stories. WotC just needs to write the mechanics (ie. make the class) They can then justify it with any flavor they want. My earlier post was specifically addressing the question of how to explain the power of an arcane gish.
If it exists, some players will find it to be the perfect mechanics for the character they have in their mind. Some will be inspired by the flavor to make new stories they hadn't thought of. Some will take the mechanics to fill character ideas the designers didn't imagine. And some will just take the mechanics because they sound strong. Everyone will adjust the flavor to suit the story they want to tell. The flavor is free and all made up.
I meant strictly from a designer perspective. What you are talking about is the other half of my paragraph:
Nah. I just think you're approaching the matter backwards. Generally, one starts with a story concept and try to make mechanics that support the story.
Flavor isn't a roadblock because it's the raisin d'etre. It's the road itself.
Some might go differently, but we know that D&D team does not, based on previous videos. Such as one that covered the Arcane Archer back in the day. Story first, then design the material round the story
I meant strictly from a designer perspective. What you are talking about is the other half of my paragraph:
Nah. I just think you're approaching the matter backwards. Generally, one starts with a story concept and try to make mechanics that support the story.
Flavor isn't a roadblock because it's the raisin d'etre. It's the road itself.
Some might go differently, but we know that D&D team does not, based on previous videos. Such as one that covered the Arcane Archer back in the day. Story first, then design the material round the story
Okay let me put it another way.
Stories inspire new mechanics. Like your are saying. But the mechanics have to be balanced and unique. The rules are then sold to us with flavor text that tries to mesh the mechanics to the story.
Way back in the day, there were 4 classes. Then someone said, 'hey, I want to play a berserker.' I imagine that if this forum existed then, there would be tons of people telling them to just make a Fighting Man and call it done. But there was enough support for the concept in general that we got Barbarians. The same with every other new class.
Now, WotC could have made any mechanics they wanted for the Barbarian. They might have decided they needed a way to heal themselves instead of reducing damage. They might have given them a self heal every turn they took damage. Then they have to write flavor to justify it. They might have said that a Barbarian's rage was so intense that every wound only increases their fury. And if you take damage that turn you can heal yourself by an amount equal to your PB or something. And we would all think 'sure, that makes enough sense.' And it would become part of what we think of when we think Barbarian. It would become part of the unique fantasy of DnD.
No one in my old game groups ever considered playing what we would call a Warlock now. They didn't exist. And if someone said 'hey, I want to play a character that knows magic, but only because they made a Faustian bargain with a devil,' then we would have probably said 'okay make a Wizard.' That's the kind of magic they wanted. And if they really wanted the flavor to match it, we would have told them something like - instead of studying your spellbook every morning, you have to converse with your patron for the same amount of time. We would reflavor the class to fit their concept. The idea came first, but the flavor justification came after the rules.
Then the Warlock appeared. And now anyone that wants that story usually picks a Warlock. But the mechanics could have been anything. They didn't have to be Pact Magic and Invocations. And the flavor that justified them could have been anything. And now there are millions of characters that made deals with devils just because the Warlock exists. It's not because it was a particularity high demand trope originally. It's because the mechanics and the flavor that explains them exists now. And the trope has now become part of the universal DnD fantasy.
There is a ton of demand for an Arcane gish. We see it in all the subclasses that don't quite get there. People want to play spellswords. They want to play Firebenders and Jedi and even Gandalf swinging a sword as much as he does magic. They want Arcane spells and martial combat. Something they can't get from Paladins and Rangers. They don't want to be holy knights or hippie trackers. They want a martial magic that focuses on the themes that come with Arcane spells It's more than enough reason to make the class. That's what I think we both mean by saying a story idea inspires the need for mechanics. People have stories to tell. They don't have good mechanics for them.
What I'm saying about the flavor justifying the mechanics applies only to how they explain it. Take the Sorcerer. They could have made any mechanics for a class that knows Arcane magic innately like an Xmen mutant. They decided to go with metamagic. Then they explained it with flavor saying the source came from magic bloodlines connected to more powerful creatures. And we all agreed that was pretty good. It's the blood of the dragons, sure, that works. But they could have said it was an innate understanding of the Weave. Or a curse. Or some experimental Wizard stuff. Whatever flavor they decided to us would shape our idea of what a Sorcerer is.
Someone that wants to play a mutant style character today might do so for many reasons. They might like the Xmen. They might like the idea of uncontrolled power. They might want to descend from dragons. They might have read the Sorcerer and liked the flavor. They might just want metamagic. They bring their idea of a mutant to the DM and are directed to the Sorcerer. Because that's the flavor that WotC gave that class. But they might decide a Warlock works better mechanically for them. Or they might not want to have the blood of dragons. We just tend to work with what we are given. For every person that plays a Sorcerer for the Origin flavor, there are a dozen more playing one for different reasons, both mechanical and story driven.
People have ideas for stories. They look for mechanics to match their ideas. Sometimes the mechanics have flavor attached that fits their idea perfectly. Sometimes the flavor is misleading. Sometimes they have to reflavor the mechanics to get them to work. Sometimes the flavor inspired the story idea in the first place.
So WotC can make an Arcane gish because people want one. People want to play a fighter-mage, based on hundreds of examples in popular media. They want the class to be as interesting and mechanically sound as the Paladin and Ranger. WotC can make it. They can then come up with unique abilities for it. Abilities that feel Arcane the way Paladin abilities feel Divine. And they can make up some flavor to justify them. And if everyone thinks it sounds good enough, it becomes part of the DnD fantasy. That's what I mean by all flavor is just made up.
Maybe all Arcane gishes use runic magic, writing symbols on their weapons. Maybe they all just sense the Weave as some energy that flows through all things, and they channel it through their bodies and weapons. Maybe it's a special fighting style that was passed down to mortals by elementals. Maybe it requires intense meditation. Pick the one that can cover the widest range of stories people want to tell. Make rules for it. And justify the rules with whatever flavor they need.
It doesn't matter if Flavor/Story comes first or mechanics come first. First of all, players across the world go both ways - they pick a story they want to play and try to fit the crunch to that story, or they design a story around a piece of mechanical structure they want to try.
Second of all, and far more important, mechanics by themselves are a math test and fluff by itself is bad fanfiction. D&D is a game, and as a game the Fluff and the Crunch need to feed each other. If either bit is off, the whole suffers. Look at the Arcane Archer, i.e. "story first" design mated to an abysmal mechanical structure. Nobody plays it. The handful of adherents it has are people who're so far on the "Story" side of Story vs. Gameplay that their games basically lack gameplay altogether. Same with GOO Patron for the warlock - fluffy narrative-focused features that never see play because they make for bad gameplay. The new Undead warlock is an example the other way - powerful, useful mechanics mated to a really dodgy crappy rewrite of the old Undying patron, crunch very much held back by bad fluff.
Good fluff can't save bad crunch. Good crunch can't save bad fluff - though at least good crunch can be given new fluff by the player in question. It's not as good as Wizards getting it right, but a player can't fix bad crunch the way they can fix bad/wrong fluff.
Either way, if both elements aren't present, the game suffers.
You have that backwards, I'm afraid. Mechanics exist to support flavor first and foremost. This is story telling game above all else. The overwhelming majority of players come to the table with a story concept and then pick mechanics to support that concept, not the other way around.
Flavor is why people may pick the class, but mechanics is why they stay - or drop it. This is my case. I love warlock fantasy. Being a huge fan of HPL, the Great Old One was a perfect choice for me. But then I played it. The actual experience was terrible. Shortrestoholism. Eldritch blast spam. Curses being locked behind a pile of limitations. Awakened mind being a useless ribbon that is worse than even a bloody message cantrip. When fantasy meets constant dissatisfaction and dissonance with mechanics, it feels like a waterslide that turns into a grater under your butt. When Tasha's came out, I realized that I better pull the skin of my fantasy over Aberrant Mind sorcerer, because the mechanics of that class is just so much better for the purpose of invoking the feel I expected from a different class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Bonus action spells that channel magic into weapon attacks? Like smites? Large amounts of single target damage of a unique type? Like Divine Smite? Your idea for "Point Blank Casting" would make a spellsword either a spell or a sword, depending on if their sword does more damage or their spell does more damage; it doesn't promote the cooperation of the magical and martial like a half caster's features should. Besides, my main issue is that there's not really any place for a new caster class to draw power from. How do you make it flavorfully separate from a wizard besides "they have martial weapon proficiency?"
Also, what's wrong with asking if you can use your homebrew at other tables? How else would homebrew ever get used?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Eldritch Knight: The Class is bad...how? Other than the Eldritch Knight fighter being terrible, anyways.
People always shoot down arcane spellblades with the "how do you make it different?" argument and the notion "just play a paladin and call it arcane instead of divine", but the player demand for an arcane spellblade has never dimmed. Paladins cannot be reflavored as "arcane" characters, their every class feature is so steeped in Divine Magic and Holy Power that they cannot ever be anything but holy warriors. Spellblade subclasses clearly haven't hit the mark, since none of them have made an appreciable dent in the requirements for an arcane spellblade.
The requests are common, and often very similar. What's wrong with pursuing options for fulfilling that request?
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, with Class Groups as part of the design philosophy, a Spellblade class will probably end up being disappointing to a lot of people who want it, depending on what they want from it.
Because unlike the existing classes, which were semi-arbitrarily thrown into groups together, new classes would most likely be designed from the ground up to fit the specific group they're placed in. (I'm basing this on how it worked for Roles in 4e, where the existing 3.5E PHB classes were allowed to keep some of their original flavour and abilities even if they didn't fit their assigned combat role, but all the classes that were created specifically for 4e, or adapted from pre-3.xE classes and kits with less established identities, were completely pidgeon-holed into their role.)
So a Spellblade class designed under that paradigm would never be a perfect mix of arcane caster and martial fighter, because it would have to skew to one side or the other in order to 'fit' the group it was placed in.
And we already know what a Spellblade designed to fit into the Warrior group and a Spellblade designed to fit into the Mage group look like: The Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger respectively.
An important thing about gishes is how they use spells. They rely on buffs, summons and other effects that don't require you to have a high spell save DC, so that despite being MAD in theory, you can still be effective with your spells even with low spellcasting stat. This is why paladins have Divine Smite - a way to convert spell slots into damage directly and without spell save DC. In other words, Spellblade would have to resort to buffing their attacks, summoning aid (a necromantic subclass first and foremost), using tactical features like teleportation and battlefield manipulation (creating walls and cover), and doing stuff like using equipped melee weapon at range with telekinesis (a subclass based on Elemer of the Briar from Elden Ring, a knight that attacks you with flying sword). It's all indirect spell effects that do not rely on spell save DC, but rather augment the melee and expand tactical capabilities. There could also be a subclass that focuses on Int much like monk's Way of Astral Self puts everything into Wis. This concept will require a couple of new spells, but it's nothing impossible.
Just like ranger. Oh, wait...)) If we can have an expert class that is part warrior and very likely a priest class that is part warrior as well (paladin), why not a warrior class that is part mage?
I'm sorry, but this image just makes me giggle.
"Okay, Jack, I know you're excited to finally get 3rd Circle spells and learn fireball, but remember that its a big spell with a large radius, and you only use melee weapons..."
"Jill, don't worry so much, I got this. Oh, look, a monster! Attack!"
And thus, Jack channeled a fireball through their sword at point blank range, blowing themselves up with the fireball in the process. RIP, Jack.
EDIT - I'm not saying this to say Arcane gish can't work, they could have used lightning bolt instead after all. I just find the image silly.
I mean, if you ask me we should be able to. I simply doubt we'd get one in the Class Group design space because we also didn't get a proper one the last time WotC decided to arbitrarily shove classes into narrowly defined categories.
Paladin and Ranger have 'Warrior' elements because they originate as AD&D 2e Fighter variants and they've kept those elements throughout retool after retool. Strictly speaking the Paladin, as a Divine half-caster with heavy 'warrior' elements should also be in neither the 'Priest' nor the 'Warrior' class group (or else equally in both), as it sits square in the middle between the two, but it's been shoved into the 'Priest' group for the sake of symmetry.
You do realize that the ability I described is from 3.5e. It existed before the 5e version of divine smite. It works similar to a smite spell true, but clearly different. Your argument for unique makes wizard, sorcerer and warlock seem pointless. I guess warlock can stay since it cast spells differently and has a patron, but wizard or sorcerer should go. They are aren’t unique enough for both to exist.
Your idea that half caster features promote cooperation of magical and martial is just mistaken. Where are the Ranger features that do this? Other than divine smite that is fueled by spell slots what other half caster features do this?
This ability is from 3.5e. I forget some people don’t know about the stuff that came before, but I did say it makes it a single target melee attack. If you channel a spell it’s not an aoe anymore. That’s the drawback or in the situation you proposed the saving grace.
Care must be taken to avoid complaints of IP issues. Final fantasy come to mind as an RPG that could claim such design is borrowed from their classes. probably not but maybe.
Still adding a class would be a simple as following a the established framework and assigning it a group. magic items, new spells and such would automatically be matched to the new class. there is definite potential but I expect at least some in-class tailoring of spells.
On that note I may think a fourth spell list might be appropriate. one designed specifically for warrior spells. druids really don't need some of the ranger specific weapon spells but other such gish classes might appreciate them (cordon of arrows, steel wind strike ect). then again there might not be enough. further design considerations needed.
Sorcerers have innate powers that they use to manipulate the world around them. Wizards study their spells heavily despite having no innate powers, instead learning magic through sheer arcane knowledge. Seems like a big enough distinction to me. How would your spellsword get its power?
Half caster features don't promote cooperation of the magical and martial? That is such a weird thing to say. Especially considering...
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Well, yeah, pretty much. I dislike symmetry, it creates constraints, predictable patterns, and repetitiveness. Though so far, the groups look more like loose tags rather than tight, narrow roles from 4e. Probably gonna be used for artifacts and some select feats. I just don't think WotC will repeat the mistake they made with 4e.
Flavor is all made up and completely free. It only serves one purpose, to justify the mechanics in place. To make them sound reasonable enough that people can buy into the fantasy. If it does its job well, it inspires people to choose the mechanic and design a character with it in mind.
We all have a pretty good mental image of what a holy knight is. The Paladin justifies its mechanics by appealing to that image in our minds. As long as turning undead, smiting them, and laying on hands fits that image, it works for people. The more a subclass deviates from that image, the more work has to be done justifying it with flavor text. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the mechanics are so good that no one cares about the flavor and they make up their own justifications.
I think there is definitely room and demand for an Arcane gish class. Put it in the Mage group, in the same way the Ranger is a Expert, and the Paladin is a Priest. Give it an extra attack at fifth level. Give it access to Warrior feats. Let it use the Arcane spell list with some restrictions. And let it have some cool unique features. The flavor can be added at any time. There are plenty of examples of characters that fit this type in media. The subclasses write themselves.
The sorcerer, warlock and wizard are all very distinct in their lore and, well, class fantasy. Sorcerers are the born-magic and mutants, sometimes called Will Workers for magic coming from exercising their will and wishing hard to make magic. Wizards are those who study magic and construct magical formula. Warlocks operate on pacts with magical beings, bonding with others and altering themselves.
While, mechanically, sorcerers share too many similarities to wizards, the distinct tropes supporting the three mages (four if you count bard) are very different.
A spellsword class, on the other hand, is literally just a Fighter-Wizard hybrid. That's their trope, their origin, their style of magic, their lore. The desire to have one isn't based on story reasons, its based on a dissatisfaction with the Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger mechanics. They don't even get the distinction that separates Ranger from Druid and Paladin from Cleric - monster hunter and knight in shining armor versus priests (thiesm vs animism).
Rangers, as experts, draw their magic as an extension of their skill use. Tracking, moving quietly, awareness of the world around them, empathy with animals, etc. Paladins are knights that gain power from their oaths, and not even to gods. To royalty, to concepts, to their own desires. Artificers, as an arcane half-caster gish, recieved power from their inventions and gadgets. Spellswords are a fighter / wizard multiclass.
There's nothing wrong with wanting that as a class. I support it. But you have to acknowledge that there's going to be people that don't see the point of it when its fantasy isn't unique.
Yes, I'm aware. The Spellsword PrC from the Complete Warrior supplement, which also contained the Bladesinger PrC. Ironically, these two were half-casters while Eldritch Knight was the full caster, which is effectively the opposite in 5e.
The Spellsword was a prestige class that mainly had three abilities. Reduce Arcane Spell Failure was repeated every other level. You got +1 Arcane Casting every other level. And Channel Spell (through a weapon) up to five times a day.
Presumably, 5e Eldritch Knight's and Valor Bard's War Magic was meant to occupy a similar space with slightly different mechanics, though their execution left much to be desired.
I made up my post because, well, it was funny.
You have that backwards, I'm afraid. Mechanics exist to support flavor first and foremost. This is story telling game above all else. The overwhelming majority of players come to the table with a story concept and then pick mechanics to support that concept, not the other way around.
I meant strictly from a designer perspective. What you are talking about is the other half of my paragraph:
"... to justify the mechanics in place. To make them sound reasonable enough that people can buy into the fantasy. If it does its job well, it inspires people to choose the mechanic and design a character with it in mind."
Players usually pick classes based on a character they have in mind. But the way they pick the mechanics are based on a number of things. They either -
The flavor justification for the Warlock makes the mechanics a believable fantasy. It's interesting and inspires a lot of people. It fills a gap in character concepts. Players have stories in mind. They make characters to live out those stories based on a number of factors. But when designing a mechanic, the flavor only serves to sell it to some of the players. Other people only look at the mechanics and make their own flavor. Or don't even bother doing that.
So if WotC wants to make an Arcane Gish, the flavor isn't a roadblock to the design. There are plenty of character concepts that could use a class like this. They've already tried forcing a lot of subclasses to fill that role for that reason. People want to play element benders, and psychic knights, and spell swords, and magic archers. The players are ready for better mechanics to tell those stories. WotC just needs to write the mechanics (ie. make the class) They can then justify it with any flavor they want. My earlier post was specifically addressing the question of how to explain the power of an arcane gish.
If it exists, some players will find it to be the perfect mechanics for the character they have in their mind. Some will be inspired by the flavor to make new stories they hadn't thought of. Some will take the mechanics to fill character ideas the designers didn't imagine. And some will just take the mechanics because they sound strong. Everyone will adjust the flavor to suit the story they want to tell. The flavor is free and all made up.
Nah. I just think you're approaching the matter backwards. Generally, one starts with a story concept and try to make mechanics that support the story.
Flavor isn't a roadblock because it's the raisin d'etre. It's the road itself.
Some might go differently, but we know that D&D team does not, based on previous videos. Such as one that covered the Arcane Archer back in the day. Story first, then design the material round the story
Okay let me put it another way.
Stories inspire new mechanics. Like your are saying. But the mechanics have to be balanced and unique. The rules are then sold to us with flavor text that tries to mesh the mechanics to the story.
Way back in the day, there were 4 classes. Then someone said, 'hey, I want to play a berserker.' I imagine that if this forum existed then, there would be tons of people telling them to just make a Fighting Man and call it done. But there was enough support for the concept in general that we got Barbarians. The same with every other new class.
Now, WotC could have made any mechanics they wanted for the Barbarian. They might have decided they needed a way to heal themselves instead of reducing damage. They might have given them a self heal every turn they took damage. Then they have to write flavor to justify it. They might have said that a Barbarian's rage was so intense that every wound only increases their fury. And if you take damage that turn you can heal yourself by an amount equal to your PB or something. And we would all think 'sure, that makes enough sense.' And it would become part of what we think of when we think Barbarian. It would become part of the unique fantasy of DnD.
No one in my old game groups ever considered playing what we would call a Warlock now. They didn't exist. And if someone said 'hey, I want to play a character that knows magic, but only because they made a Faustian bargain with a devil,' then we would have probably said 'okay make a Wizard.' That's the kind of magic they wanted. And if they really wanted the flavor to match it, we would have told them something like - instead of studying your spellbook every morning, you have to converse with your patron for the same amount of time. We would reflavor the class to fit their concept. The idea came first, but the flavor justification came after the rules.
Then the Warlock appeared. And now anyone that wants that story usually picks a Warlock. But the mechanics could have been anything. They didn't have to be Pact Magic and Invocations. And the flavor that justified them could have been anything. And now there are millions of characters that made deals with devils just because the Warlock exists. It's not because it was a particularity high demand trope originally. It's because the mechanics and the flavor that explains them exists now. And the trope has now become part of the universal DnD fantasy.
There is a ton of demand for an Arcane gish. We see it in all the subclasses that don't quite get there. People want to play spellswords. They want to play Firebenders and Jedi and even Gandalf swinging a sword as much as he does magic. They want Arcane spells and martial combat. Something they can't get from Paladins and Rangers. They don't want to be holy knights or hippie trackers. They want a martial magic that focuses on the themes that come with Arcane spells It's more than enough reason to make the class. That's what I think we both mean by saying a story idea inspires the need for mechanics. People have stories to tell. They don't have good mechanics for them.
What I'm saying about the flavor justifying the mechanics applies only to how they explain it. Take the Sorcerer. They could have made any mechanics for a class that knows Arcane magic innately like an Xmen mutant. They decided to go with metamagic. Then they explained it with flavor saying the source came from magic bloodlines connected to more powerful creatures. And we all agreed that was pretty good. It's the blood of the dragons, sure, that works. But they could have said it was an innate understanding of the Weave. Or a curse. Or some experimental Wizard stuff. Whatever flavor they decided to us would shape our idea of what a Sorcerer is.
Someone that wants to play a mutant style character today might do so for many reasons. They might like the Xmen. They might like the idea of uncontrolled power. They might want to descend from dragons. They might have read the Sorcerer and liked the flavor. They might just want metamagic. They bring their idea of a mutant to the DM and are directed to the Sorcerer. Because that's the flavor that WotC gave that class. But they might decide a Warlock works better mechanically for them. Or they might not want to have the blood of dragons. We just tend to work with what we are given. For every person that plays a Sorcerer for the Origin flavor, there are a dozen more playing one for different reasons, both mechanical and story driven.
People have ideas for stories. They look for mechanics to match their ideas. Sometimes the mechanics have flavor attached that fits their idea perfectly. Sometimes the flavor is misleading. Sometimes they have to reflavor the mechanics to get them to work. Sometimes the flavor inspired the story idea in the first place.
So WotC can make an Arcane gish because people want one. People want to play a fighter-mage, based on hundreds of examples in popular media. They want the class to be as interesting and mechanically sound as the Paladin and Ranger. WotC can make it. They can then come up with unique abilities for it. Abilities that feel Arcane the way Paladin abilities feel Divine. And they can make up some flavor to justify them. And if everyone thinks it sounds good enough, it becomes part of the DnD fantasy. That's what I mean by all flavor is just made up.
Maybe all Arcane gishes use runic magic, writing symbols on their weapons. Maybe they all just sense the Weave as some energy that flows through all things, and they channel it through their bodies and weapons. Maybe it's a special fighting style that was passed down to mortals by elementals. Maybe it requires intense meditation. Pick the one that can cover the widest range of stories people want to tell. Make rules for it. And justify the rules with whatever flavor they need.
It doesn't matter if Flavor/Story comes first or mechanics come first. First of all, players across the world go both ways - they pick a story they want to play and try to fit the crunch to that story, or they design a story around a piece of mechanical structure they want to try.
Second of all, and far more important, mechanics by themselves are a math test and fluff by itself is bad fanfiction. D&D is a game, and as a game the Fluff and the Crunch need to feed each other. If either bit is off, the whole suffers. Look at the Arcane Archer, i.e. "story first" design mated to an abysmal mechanical structure. Nobody plays it. The handful of adherents it has are people who're so far on the "Story" side of Story vs. Gameplay that their games basically lack gameplay altogether. Same with GOO Patron for the warlock - fluffy narrative-focused features that never see play because they make for bad gameplay. The new Undead warlock is an example the other way - powerful, useful mechanics mated to a really dodgy crappy rewrite of the old Undying patron, crunch very much held back by bad fluff.
Good fluff can't save bad crunch. Good crunch can't save bad fluff - though at least good crunch can be given new fluff by the player in question. It's not as good as Wizards getting it right, but a player can't fix bad crunch the way they can fix bad/wrong fluff.
Either way, if both elements aren't present, the game suffers.
Please do not contact or message me.
Flavor is why people may pick the class, but mechanics is why they stay - or drop it. This is my case. I love warlock fantasy. Being a huge fan of HPL, the Great Old One was a perfect choice for me. But then I played it. The actual experience was terrible. Shortrestoholism. Eldritch blast spam. Curses being locked behind a pile of limitations. Awakened mind being a useless ribbon that is worse than even a bloody message cantrip. When fantasy meets constant dissatisfaction and dissonance with mechanics, it feels like a waterslide that turns into a grater under your butt. When Tasha's came out, I realized that I better pull the skin of my fantasy over Aberrant Mind sorcerer, because the mechanics of that class is just so much better for the purpose of invoking the feel I expected from a different class.