D&D 5E Giving the arcane gish an identity.

[Laurefindel]

Sounds like that's just a Paladin...? Some of this seems to be investing in a "Arcane"/"Divine" dichotomy that doesn't have much of a basis in the ga.e, other than some fluff. I just don't see the mechanical design space nor the conceptual trope space, with all of the various Gish solutions already on offer.

... or like a ranger, who is also built on the same frame and yet fill distinct roles (although hunter's mark does not compare with divine smite IMO, even if they both are "spend a spell slot to increase damage" features). If there is room for a ranger and a paladin, there should be room for an arcane-d10-halfcaster-extra-attack-at-5th-level-class-with-class-exclusive-spells..

Maybe I should say there would have been room for an arcane paladin/ranger if it weren't for the eldrith knight, who would probably become redundant, just like a divine third-caster fighter sublcass would likely have a hard time distinguishing itself with the paladin.

The eldritch knight could (should?) have been a class of its own, with bladesinger (and maybe even artificer) as subclasses.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'd start by asking what's wrong with the EK?

Not magicky enough. When it gets to cast and attack it has to use a bonus action to attack, whereas the Bladesinger does not.

 

[Parmandur]

... or like a ranger, who is also built on the same frame and yet fill distinct roles (although hunter's mark does not compare with divine smite IMO, even if they both are "spend a spell slot to increase damage" features). If there is room for a ranger and a paladin, there should be room for an arcane-d10-halfcaster-extra-attack-at-5th-level-class-with-class-exclusive-spells..

Maybe I should say there would have been room for an arcane paladin/ranger if it weren't for the eldrith knight, who would probably become redundant, just like a divine third-caster fighter sublcass would likely have a hard time distinguishing itself with the paladin.

The eldritch knight could (should?) have been a class of its own, with bladesinger (and maybe even artificer) as subclasses.

Arcane vs. Divine isn't really a rules distinction in modern D&D: magic is magic, fluff us a Class/Subclass level distinction. It was asked earlier, but what is the literary/cinematic archetype here?

 

[Weiley31]

Eldritch Knight would be fine if it wasn't tied to the wizard list, and instead had its own spell list which included the weapon attack spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike.

The old Blood Hunter's Diabolic Strike feature would pretty much solve that problem. It's literally the 5E version of the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling/Pathfinder's Spell Strike feature.

 

[Bolares]

I think the "problem" with Gish characters is that everyone expects different things from them, so making a definitive class that fits all of that definitions and expectations is near impossible. I particularly like different gishes being subclasses, that explore how different classes interwine magic and pointy metal thingys

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Arcane vs. Divine isn't really a rules distinction in modern D&D: magic is magic, fluff us a Class/Subclass level distinction. It was asked earlier, but what is the literary/cinematic archetype here?

It still kind of is in the spell lists and abilities of the classes. 'Divine' type classes seem to more often to radiant damage, and have access to healing and revives.

If you go through the spell lists, there are certain spells which will generally pop up on different magic source classes.

It's definitely not as clear and defined as in 4e and pathfinder though.

 

[Parmandur]

It still kind of is in the spell lists and abilities of the classes. 'Divine' type classes seem to more often to radiant damage, and have access to healing and revives.

If you go through the spell lists, there are certain spells which will generally pop up on different magic source classes.

It's definitely not as clear and defined as in 4e and pathfinder though.

Something that could be adjusted in a Paladin Subclass, perhaps.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think the "problem" with Gish characters is that everyone expects different things from them, so making a definitive class that fits all of that definitions and expectations is near impossible. I particularly like different gishes being subclasses, that explore how different classes interwine magic and pointy metal thingys

Sounds like a similar issue to the ranger. I made a thread on reddit asking what people expected from the ranger. Every single reply wanted different things. There was absolutely no consistency at all.

Some wanted no magic, and to be a wilderness fighter.
Some wanted a specialist beast class.
Some wanted to a duel wield specialist.
Some wanted a nature themed half caster.
Many said it should be made a fighter and rogue subclass instead.

 

[Undrave]

I think if I was building one, I'd use the ranger as the basis. D10 hit dice; extra attack; light, medium armour and shields; a half-caster spell progression. I think I might use the artificer spell progression though. I'd also start the archetype at level 1 to better define how the class approaches mixing combat and spells. Could probably create a subclass for each school of magic if you wanted. Abjurant champion focuses on abjuration magic creating shields of force for protection, Death Knight focuses on necromancy and summons up an undead minion to aid them. Maybe evocation is the war mage, calling up destructive energies to decimate their foes with sword and spell.

Ranger is a good base, but let's not make the same mistake as they did with the Wizard though... School-based subclasses get really boring really fast.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Something that could be adjusted in a Paladin Subclass, perhaps.

The issue is that subclass abilities don't overwrite main class features. A paladin will always have things like lay on hands, nova damage divine smite, auras, etc.

It's one of the issues I have trying to use oathbreaker as a death knight. It's still doing radiant damage and healing people.