I think you got that confused, as Warlocks recharge spells on a short rest and don't have sorcery points. I would know what class you are automatically when you use one of your abilities. Even if you went out of your way to avoid saying them, I could eventually narrow it down based on the spells you cast and how you recharged your spell slots.
Even if you mentioned absolutely no class features or spells, made no mention of your hit dice or anything else mechanical that could give you away, if you played it by the books, I could figure out what class you were at the first time you or anyone else said "Spellbook", "Tome of Shadows", "Imp/Quasit/Sprite/Pseudodragon familiar", "Pact Weapon", "Talisman", or "Otherworldly Patron".
I did mean sorcerer not warlock when I said sorcerery points, but to further my point a warlock can summon any of the normal familiars in find familiar, a wizard does not even have to take that as a spell and a sorcerer (or any other class) can get it through a feat. A Warlock, Sorcerer or Wizard (or any other spellcaster) can get up to 4 1st level spells from any other casters spell list. So even if I cast find familiar, you would not necessarily know I was a wizard or a warlock or something else simply form that. Sure you can make an educated guess.
You would know what class I was automatically if I said things like "arcane recovery" or mentioned a specific subclass at the table. Any character can have a spellbook which they cast rituals from. If we sat down to rest and you asked the DM specifically if my character was studying a spellbook then sure you would know (or at least have a pretty good idea).
To give an extreme example using someone who is not even a caster; I have a 4th level Arcane trickster and she can cast as many spells per day as a 4th level full caster (7) and her spells include spells unique to the the Warlock, Cleric and Wizard lists (Hex, charm person, tashas laughter, silent image, shield, inflict wounds, misty step, invisibility). Most of the time she sarries a staff (staff of defense), although she rarely attacks with it, but it gives her even 1 more spell (mage armor). Can you figure out how I made that build? I am sure you can, and if you were at the table you would probably guess what class she was pretty quickly, or even know it outright if a fight broke out but that is by focusing on mechanics, not personality or role playing.
Classes are a thing because of flavor. If there was no flavor or theme, it would just be mechanics and characters would only be chosen based on who was the most mechanically effective. Classes were made not to give a pool of different mechanics, they were made to give mechanics to fulfill a theme/idea that someone had for a class. This isn't some "chicken or the egg" riddle (the answer to that is egg), it's "do people create classes to have different mechanics, or do they create mechanics to fill different classes' thematic niches?", to which the answer is undeniably the latter.
You can lean into a theme with a class, but you can also lean away from it. I will grant that there is a limit in a lot of classes. For example you can't play a barbarian that is a powerful spell caster. That is impossible. Even playing one with a lot of combat spells at low level (below level 5) is problematic because of the mechanics that get in the way of using them. But even with a Barbarian you can take subclasses like Guardian, wild magic or zealot that mix in magic with your fighting.
For this post my position and argument is that the available classes enable you to do a GISH very well. I think Sorcerer would be pretty darn difficult to GISH (maybe there is a way I am not thinking of). But with the right choices you can make a very viable GISH with any other class using class, subclass and optional rules as presented. There are limits, certainly and not every class can do a specific themed GISH. But the Bladesinger and EK in particular do it very well with a lot of different options and play styles on the table to include heavily melee focused GISH, heavy spell focused GISH and in between and there is overlap available in these subclassess too. An all out melee focused bladesinger is going to be more of a "melee build" GISH than an all out "magic focused" EK. Of the two the available tradespace is substantially larger with the wizard.
Dude (and I mean this as a gender-neutral dude, I was raised by a Californian mother), you're comparing Apples (Classes), Oranges (backgrounds), Bananas (feats), Blueberries (skills), and Strawberries (race), and trying to replace all parts of a fruit salad with just one or two fruits.
I am saying you can use all those things to make a fruit salad if you want or you can use those things to make a smoothie and just because you grow and intend your apples to be used in fruit salad, does not mean I can't use them in my smoothie if I buy them from you.
Like in my example, if the Rogue class said "Rogues are sneaky and good at sleight of hand", but gave them no features that let them take the Stealth or Sleight of Hand skills, and someone was complaining about that, it would not be a valid argument to say "well, just choose X-background/race/feat!". Dude, just no. That's not how it works. The class says that it's sneaky and quick with their hands, so the class should have a mechanic that let's them do that. It would be even more disingenuous to say "well, just wait X-levels to choose X-feat instead of actually improving your rogue features if you want that part of the rogue theme!", hopefully for obvious reasons. If a class's flavor text gives you a theme, the class's mechanics should give you that theme.
Rogues can be better at any skill they choose than any other character. I play more Rogues than anything else and most of Rogues I play have proficiency in stealth but few have proficiency in SOH (there are simply better abilities available).
Almost all of the Rogues I play have expertise in athletics (even those with 8 strength, which is common). This makes them "good" at many strength-focused tasks right out of the gate and downright awesome at higher levels. With cunning action stealth or steady aim these characters can be as good as a raging barbarian at in-combat athletics checks at low level and better at high levels (assuming the Barbarian does not get expertise through a feat).
That is without using any feats and while building a pretty "standard" Rogue in terms of ability scores. Optimize a Rogue for this kind of fighting with a 14 strength, an Arcane trickster subclass a feat that gets him hex (to give the enemy disadvantage strength/dex checks) and a feat that gets him advantage to attack grappled creatures and a Rogue can outdue any other character in this type of "brutish" fighting style. Open up with hex and grapple and then you have automatic advantage every round there after while you stab him with a Rapier until the enemy uses an action to break it. No need to roll to hide or to stop moving for advantage and with cunning action you can drag the grappled enemy anywhere around the battlefield up to your full movement. The automatic advantage every turn and the hex damage are going to make up for the missed potential first turn sneak attack pretty quick (and the first turn is when sneak is most difficult to get anyway).
Now that is a Rogue optimized for that combat style, he probably dumped Charisma and maybe Wisdom so is not going to be the awesome face that most of my Rogues tend to be, but it is a very viable build.
And, again, you keep pretending like feats aren't optional, or at least are accepting it in the most grating way possible. I've been in campaigns where feats weren't allowed, I have friends that don't allow feats in their campaigns, and I've even met some players that hate playing with feats (which I absolutely cannot fathom from the standpoint of a PC).
Most tables that do not allow feats are not going to allow homebrew classes either.
Feats are in the rules. A reimagined GISH is not. So I think if we are arguing about how to enable a certain type of character, arguing to use the rules that are already available is a viable argument.
First off, you're highly understating the tradeoff. You're trading bladesong (+10 movement speed, +INT mod to AC, +INT to Concentration saves, and the minor benefit of advantage on Acrobatics), Song of Defense (negating damage with spell slots as a reaction), and Song of Victory (+Int to damage while bladesinging). It matters because you're trading all of that in order to get one feature (two if you count the minor benefit of the light armor proficiency to make it easier to get medium/heavy armor proficiency). That's a huge tradeoff to be able to kind-of replicate your theme, and not even in the way that I want. I don't want to play a bladesinger, if I did, I would play one. I want to play a spell-striking Gish, which the Bladesinger does not do a good job at replicating.
I don't see it as a big tradeoff for the kind of character you are building.
The tradeoff is not as big as you are making it out to be. At 20 intelligence you are talking about +3AC in bladesong as compared to medium armor with no shield. That is also only in bladesong, out of bladesong your AC is worse, but I admit you will be in bladesong for most of the tough fights. Typically it requires 2 ASIs to get to 20, so someone taking feats (assuming they are available) would have medium armor and GWM by the same time you have a 20 INT.
So just looking at the tradeoff here you are talking bout 3 less AC to do 2d6 base weapon damage, the option to do+10 weapon damage, plus have a bonus action attack on every crit or every time you kill an enemy. That is hardly an overwhelmingly bad trade.
Yes when you would be in bladesong you also lose 10 feet of movement, advantage on acrobatics and the bonus to conentration saves as well as the higher-level abilities. If those things matter to you then don't do a Greatsword wielding build, but I have not seen anyone talking about a GISH mention those things as being important and they are really only relevant for 6 minutes a day or less (albeit the 6 minutes you really want them).
The whole point I am trying to make is that you can bring a viable armored heavy weapon GISH mixing melee and spells to the table. I did not say there were not more powerful builds available, but that is there in the rulees as presented.
2) There's a huge mechanical advantage to Bladesong (+INT mod to AC and Concentration checks, +10 speed, access to the 10th and 14th level features), too. Maybe Sneak Attack isn't a good comparison, I think Rage is more equivalent. Someone that wants to play a barbarian with a high AC almost definitely won't wear Heavy Armor, because that prevents them from using Rage, Relentless Rage, and a ton of subclass features.
A Barbarian has unarmored defense, which is similar to an always on bladesong in terms of AC boost. That said a lot of barbarians wear armor and completely ignore this ability. Are they "giving up too much" if they wear medium armor?
Yes a heavy armor barbarian is probably not viable, but other atypical Barbarian builds are.
We have talked earlier about a sneaky Barbarian build or one that fights a lot like a Rogue. Among other things, Rage gives a damage bonus on strength-based attacks, but I think it would be entirely viable to do an 8 Strength Barbarian with maxed con and dex and good social abilities and be a finesse weapon/archer character and just not take this extra damage. They would still get the other benefits like reckless attack, damage resistance, danger sense, and the advantage on strength checks would compensate some for their strength score meaning they could still be "good" with Athletics proficiency and advantage. Sure they would lose the Rage damage bonus, but they could do a lot other things.
Pulling this "Rogish Barbarian" thread a little more, with the right subclass they could get dash as a bonus action and give enemies disadvantage on all AOOs (no action required). Not quite the same as cunning action but covering a lot of the same ground thematically and actually mechanically better if you want to melee attack and dash on the same turn. You can give yourself advantage on every attack in a turn, not just the first after you succeed on a hide check or don't move. To add insult to injury you can actually give yourself advantage at will AND even take dash as a bonus action to double your already higher movement rate. They don't have the Sneak attack the Rogue gets, and at high levels that is going to leave some damage on the table (mitigated substantially by extra attack and reckless attack) but they have better AC, a ton more hps, generally better damage resistance, better saves including most dex saves, and comparable mobility.
For the finale let's bring up an eagle totem Goblin barbarian. Now with a bonus action you can do every single thing that a base Rogue can do with cunning action. On top of that you still give enemies disadvantage on AOOs even if you do not take disengage as an action or bonus action. You have a higher movement rate than Rogues, meaning BA dash is worth more and your overall mobility in combat is flat better than most Rogues and comparable to a swashbuckler. That is before you add any feats to lean further into this build.
So what were you saying again that I can't play my pirate Barbarian like a Rogue in combat?
I did say "heavy armor", didn't I? Just checked. Yes, I did. That's 3 feats. Wizards get 5 ASIs. That's 60% of your ASIs and 12 levels that you have to use to just get the armor/shield/weapon proficiencies that an Arcane Gish class would give you in 1 level. Even if you say "just be a Variant Human/Mountain Dwarf/Githyanki/Custom Lineage!", that's 2 feats (well, still three for a Mountain Dwarf or Githyanki that wants Shields)
Keep in mind both weapon master and moderately armored are half feats, so a character that takes these two instead of ASIs are one ASI behind another character, not two ASIs behind and someone who takes these and heavily armored are 1.5 ASIs behind another character who took 3 ASIs. With that in mind, these three feats are 30% of your ASIs, not 60%.
It is two feats for a Gith/Dwarf if they want shields - moderately armored and heavy armored. These classes get weapons with their race. And again these are both half feats, so they are down 1 ASI to do it. It is three feats for another character, including a V. human or custom who get weapon master at 1st.
Moreover, yes if you puprosely go out of your way to choose a race that does not have weapon proficiencies or armor proficiencies relevant to the character you want to build; then it will take more feats or class features to build that character. This is kind of a strawman though because you need to make specific choices counter to the mechanics you say you are looking for. Even if you do that though you can still build that character. It will not be as optimized, but it is still on the table.
Just like building a greatsword-wielding character of any class and you decide to you pick a Halfling, Goblin, Kobold or Gnome as your race. It will be very hard to make that character even decent in combat and it will never be optimized. It will take a ton of levels and specific class/subclass choices and spells to make it work "ok" even. Similarly, if you are building a greatsword bladesinger and you go out of your way to pick a race that does not work well with that class, then you will have a harder time making it viable.
that you have to use that otherwise could have gone to GWM, Crusher/Slasher/Piercer, Fey-Touched, capping out your INT score, or another feat. Additionally, an Arcane Gish class would give you a Fighting Style at level 2, so in order to replicate that, you'd have to expend another feat (and that wouldn't include the Arcane Warrior fighting style that the class would get, which would be a Wizard version of Divine/Druidic Warrior from TCoE).
So you are going to give this character a fighting style (something even a Barbarian does not get as a full martial). Then you are going to give him heavy armor proficiency which can be stacked with many spells on his list, most notably shield. At second level, this character could have an effective 26AC without concentrating, so he can stack a concentration spell on top of that! By comparison a Paladin (the top martial half caster) has 23 max AC while concentrating at 2nd level. You have a character that is already over the top right here and you are going to put icing on the cake by letting him cast full blown leveled spells as part of the attack action?
All the Arcane GISH suggestions I have seen are WAY more powerful than any classes currently on the table, this one included. Bladesinger itself is already OP if you lean into a defensive play style, this would be way on top of that even.
If you want a balanced arcane GISH bladesinger can do that and EK does do that.
Even so, this is completely besides the point. The nitpick in me forced myself to point out your error with counting the amount of feats required. This tangent is now becoming a red herring, because a class would solve all of this with one level and not require any ASIs to be used on the class identity.
Except the class would have way too much if it got those things for free and ASIs on top of that which could be used to bump abilities.
FEATS ARE NO SUBSTITUTION FOR CLASS FEATURES
FEATS ARE (optional) CLASS FEATURES
Why? Why is that a "reasonable stance"? I cannot understand it at all. By the same argument, why aren't Rangers a Druid or Rogue or Fighter subclass? Why aren't Paladins a Cleric or Fighter subclass? Why is it reasonable to let a Primal Gish class exist (Ranger), a Divine Gish class exist (Paladin), but not an Arcane Gish?
First off a Paldin and a Ranger can be an Arcane GISH, and an Artificer is by any measure, so I can argue thereare already mutliple full classes built that support this. Generally spells in 5E are not broken into arcane and divine, they are based on specific classes.
Now I do get that Paladin and Ranger probably don't have the spells you want on your spell list, and that for all these classes, some of their non-casting abilities probably don't lend themselves easily to the theme you are looking for.
No, because I didn't say that. I said that they should be able to Spell-Strike before level 11, not that they have to be able to use Lightning-Bolt in Spell Strike before 11th level (or if I did say that, I misspoke, and meant that spellstrike should be available before level 11, not the specific "lightning bolt-spell strike" combination).
In terms of theme, what exactly do you mean by "spellstrike", because I think that theme is already there.
It would not be OP unless you made it be so. I already have a rough-draft for a Spell-Strike feature that would make the feature not be OP (taking an action (eventually just a bonus action) beforehand to cast the spell, requiring concentration, giving the option of losing the spell if you miss enough, etc). Chromatic Orb is just one d8 higher in damage than a Divine Smite (and it's a more commonly-resisted/immune damage type), so I don't think that allowing a level 2 Arcane Gish use an action beforehand to store Chromatic Orb inside of their weapon to automatically deal its damage on the next turn to any target it hits would be OP.
Allowing an action spell to be cast as a bonus action at any level without using a limiting feature, such as sorcery points, is by itself is OP IMO. This breaks action economy and this is one of three areas the game designers have said should not be altered (along with I think concentration rules and something else). Classes, races and even spells that break action economy do this either by severely limited uses (action surge, metamagic), or they severely limit what can be done (cunning action, Goblin race, charger feat, haste ....) or both.
If you cast it as an action and limit it to a minute of concentration before it is released I think that it is OK but still pretty powerful. If you make it more than a minute before 10th level then yes it becomes OP because you are doing something similar to what an 11th level full caster can do and something they can do at most twice a day. There is a reason you can only cast contingency once a day until level 19.
In older editions this would not be as big a deal, but in 5E I think these two things are very powerful if not nerfed with a very short duration and limited uses.
