D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[Parmandur]

Whatever. I don't agree that new classes need to hit a higher standard of narrative specificity than existing ones.

They ought to at least hit the existing benchmark.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But "can fight" is all fighters have in common. There's subsets of that, but there's nothing else to the Fighter class. But lookig at the others: "can fight by getting angry" and "can fight with fists because magic" and "can fight with holy magic" and "can fight and do woodsy stuff" are the other fighty options - why does "can fight with arcane magic" not pass the test?

At least to me it is because 'can do magic' is more tightly defined in other cases where classes can do magic, so I feel it should be here. Especially as this magic capability is what sets this class apart from the fighter, so it is thematically important to the class. Alternatively we could make other classes more vague too, but then I would argue we don't end up with a new gish class, because if we strip the specific focus paladin's magic has, it becomes the gish.

 

[Aldarc]

I say building around a magic weapon is a bad idea for anything other than a warlock, I say go full witcher make them artificially engineered people made to fight.

Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a massive turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character.

I'd say my understanding of what defines a Swordmage at their core would be 'combines and synergises both magic and martial ability into a single battle style to a degree beyond someone else who merely 'uses' both' rather than anything about their origins.

It seems like the sort of potential profession that would probably come about naturally in a world of sword and sorcery in order to adequately deal with people wielding either swords and/or sorcery.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a massive turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character.


It seems like the sort of potential profession that would probably come about naturally in a world of sword and sorcery in order to adequately deal with people wielding either swords and/or sorcery.

A pure narrative less class does not work either it needs somehow to have gotten magic which is not an easy thing for most people to get.
of course it is a profession but how does a random nobody like me become such a thing it needs to have something iconic about it plus you can always re-fluff it but it needs some fluff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ugh. No thank you. A main hook as "an artificially-engineered people" would be a massive turn-off for me to play a gish, similar to how all WoW death knights being undead is a massive turn-off for me to play them: it substantially restricts the range of character story that a player can impart into the character.

I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to the table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.

And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.

 

[Aldarc]

I get the sentiment, but I feel kinda opposite. Both Death Knights and Witchers instantly bring something interesting to table narratively. Generic gish is just multiclass fighter/wizard, so nothing particularly new or interesting.

And I think "altered by some ritual to become a magical super soldier" is pretty decent theme, and still gives room to vary what sort of ritual exactly and what sort of changes, in order to build differently flavoured characters.

If you got the sentiment, then you would know that this would toss one of my favorite archetypes (the gish) straight to my unplayable list. If you think that's a decent theme, but also think that the warlock and sorcerer are better off combined, then I am seriously skeptical about your sense of taste and judgment.

A pure narrative less class does not work either it needs somehow to have gotten magic which is not an easy thing for most people to get.
of course it is a profession but how does a random nobody like me become such a thing it needs to have something iconic about it plus you can always re-fluff it but it needs some fluff.

There is a lot between "a pure narrative less class" and the overly restrictive narrative that you are imposing. If you can't find anything between that, then please don't bother at all because I wouldn't play a class forced into "an artificially engineered people" for it and all its subclasses.

 

[jmartkdr2]

They ought to at least hit the existing benchmark.

"Can fight" is the benchmark.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Because Arcane Magic isn't really a rules concept in 5E. Slap a few level appropriate spells of the right flavor in a subclass spellist for a Paladin, insto presto, it "can fight with arcane magic." And again, the Artificer is a martial half-caster who fights with "arcane magic" as far as that goes. What distinguishes this concept from those existing "fights with magic" Classes thst can't be reduced to a homrbrew Spell...?

You'd also want to swap out the more divine-magic-flavored options like Lay on hands, divine sense, smites, aura of protection, and most of the spell list.

So yeah, it would be a lot like a paladin, if you changed everything.

And while divine magic isn't a rules concept, the idea that clerics and wizards have the same flavor and mechanics is way to much of a stretch for me. I hard disagree with that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If you got the sentiment, then you would know that this would toss one of my favorite archetypes (the gish) straight to my unplayable list.

Such is life. The game cannot replicate everything that could potentially be imagined. Not that I really get what it is that you want. You have just said what you do not want.

If you think that's a decent theme, but also think that the warlock and sorcerer are better off combined, then I am seriously skeptical about your sense of taste and judgment.

I'd argue that "Imbued with magical power by a greater being to become a intuitive spellcaster" and "Altered by a a ritual to become a magical super soldier" are roughly on par with thematic specificity. So I feel I'm being consistent enough.

There is a lot between "a pure narrative less class" and the overly restrictive narrative that you are imposing. If you can't find anything between that, then please don't bother at all because I wouldn't play a class forced into "an artificially engineered people" for it and all its subclasses.

There is between. That's what I offered. What you offered was basically fluffless mechanics. I get that's what some gish aficionados want, but that's also the reason why it is unlikely to go anywhere, as it simply doesn't feel compelling to most people.

 

[Minigiant]

Like I said, there are many Arcane warrior themes

Light armored teleporting Swordmage.
Heavy armored touchsprll Dusk blade
Antimage warrior
Elemental Swordsmen
Magic Police
Portal Guards
Elite Magic Defense Force