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

[Crimson Longinus]

They learned a special kind of magic. One that is designed to work with weapons.

That's vague and generic. And paladins kinda already do that.

 

[Aldarc]

You offered a concept that lacks unique fluff, and implied that you like it that way. So that's what you offered and by doing so you didn't offer anything new or inspired. Goal posts have not been moved; sorry if I was unclear though.

And now you are back to saying that I offered something? Round and round we go. It feels like you are playing a game with me using invisible rules that I’m not privy to and I don’t like it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And now you are back to saying that I offered something? Round and round we go. It feels like you are playing a game with me using invisible rules that I’m not privy to and I don’t like it.

Well, if you have such hared time following normal conversation, even after it has been explained to you what was meant, there isn't much point in continuing.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's vague and generic.

So are all the other classes.

And paladins kinda already do that.

Kinda. But not really, which is why people want a new class.

I mean, do you think I don't know paladins exist? That I played a few, felt they represented the concept I want well but somehow didn't notice that I felt that way? Or that when I tried it I was totally satisfied but unaware of that satisfaction and felt unsatisfied while secretly feeling satisfied?

I mean, what is your standard?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.

Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, if you have such hared time following normal conversation, even after it has been explained to you what was meant, there isn't much point in continuing.

Normal conversations for online discussions have antecedents. You came out swinging by claiming that I offered something that I didn’t and then went dosey-do by then accusing me of not offering anything. Both times you appear to be under the presumption that I was obligated to offer something without any indication from my side about this. I have engaged with others who clearly asked. As I said, if you could keep your goal posts still without dancing around claims that I have or haven’t offered something, maybe we could get anywhere. Until then? There’s a snowball’s chance in the sun.

 

[jmartkdr2]

'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.

Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.

It's more than some classes get, so it's an odd choice for a minimum.. And fights with magic through weapons isn't core to any existing class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So are all the other classes.

I don't agree. And I think that you reject paladin as a gish proves it. It is not generic enough to satisfy your gish desires, even though it can fight, cast spells even combine those. It comes with it's own implied fluff and mechnics tied to those. So what I am asking that the gish has that level of definition too. But some people don't want it. All they can say what they don't want, which seems to be any flavour or metaphysics.

Kinda. But not really, which is why people want a new class.

I mean, do you think I don't know paladins exist? That I played a few, felt they represented the concept I want well but somehow didn't notice that I felt that way? Or that when I tried it I was totally satisfied but unaware of that satisfaction and felt unsatisfied while secretly feeling satisfied?

I mean, what is your standard?

Well, it definitely isn't "perfectly satisfy personal expectations every individual on the planet" because that's not going to happen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

'Fights with magic and weapons' is definitely not enough of a baseline for a new class. Paladin does that, and ranger, and hexblade, and battlesmith. There are plenty of classes and subclasses which fit that description.

Trouble is every lore option proposed is seemingly disliked.

Exactly this.

 

[Scribe]

Interesting, but I do think that the 5e paladin is sitting in the Gish design space.

What I think of, is the PF1 Magus, and I can see some clashing with 5e Paladins and how they function.