D&D 5E Should the Paladin be changed into a more generic half-caster magic knight?

[Quickleaf]

"Should" probably is a marketing question about what most D&D players connect with.

For me? I'm over 40 and like the OG paladin.

For younger players who are the target audience? My guess is the magic knight trope has more traction than the holy knight.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3e's Paladin was one of the most ineffective classes in D&D history.

Not really the point. The class fantasy was on message. You can always fiddle with mechanics.

 

[jmartkdr2]

So my pet theory is that the 4e swordmage only worked as well as it did by accident: because of how 4e is structured, they were required to make a whole spell list for swordmages. They simply could not use the wizard list or the paladin list - all-new list or no class.

This meant they needed to design enough powers explicitly for swordmages to fill a 1-30 level class, with 3-4 choices every other level. That's a lot but that also means they needed to make each spell with "how will a swordmage use this?" in the front of their mind. Which they did, and we got a fun coherent class with plenty of options.

That's why it works - because it wasn't just "like this other class (that has a totally different fantasy and intended playstyle) but with one small difference."

Paladin but with wizard spells would be terrible. It was possible to make EK work but not without making a whole new EK spell list. I can imagine a pretty good weapon-artificer subclass, heck I'm fairly happy with hexblade. But to do it right - if it isn't its own class there's too much temptation to half-donkey it. It's got enough fantasy presence to deserve its own class.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Does the player base as a whole dislike new classes? I always thought that was a WotC thing.

The initial 5e playerbase seemed to like the idea of new classes, up to about Xanathar's.

But since then opinion seems to have turned against the idea. I guess as older players moved on and newer players joined things changed.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

So my pet theory is that the 4e swordmage only worked as well as it did by accident: because of how 4e is structured, they were required to make a whole spell list for swordmages. They simply could not use the wizard list or the paladin list - all-new list or no class.

Yeah agreed. I feel the same with the Duskblade. As 3.5e already had several gishy classes, they had to come up with something new and created 'arcane channeling'. But then moved on from that in later editions without ever realising what they'd done.

Meanwhile Pathfinder could see exactly what they'd done, and ported the class across to their game. The Duskblade became the Magus, and Arcane Channeling became spellstrike.

Meanwhile WotC is still convinced that a gish just just half a fighter glued to half a wizard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The initial 5e playerbase seemed to like the idea of new classes, up to about Xanathar's.

But since then opinion seems to have turned against the idea. I guess as older players moved on and newer players joined things changed.

How sad. If true, that just sounds like an active desire to have a less mechanically interesting experience.

 

[ECMO3]

I personally am against more classes when I am a DM. I think we have plenty and since a lot of players don't understand their abilities, more classes makes it more difficult for the DM.

TBH I would not be upset if they got rid of Fighter completely and rolled Rogue and Barbarian into Ranger adn Druid into Cleric as subclasses. I don't really see a reason for those to be distinct classes in modern 5E.

That said as a player I couldn't care less what another player plays at the table as far as mechanics so having more classes does not bother me at all as a player.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Does anyone use new classes in their 5E games from third-party sources? Anyone have any Warlords or Psions or Shaman or Magi or Occultists that were made by companies other than Wizards of the Coast at their tables?

If the answer is primarily 'No'... that's probably a good indication why WotC hasn't bothered either. If no one can be bothered using new classes that have already been designed, playtested, and published... why would WotC possibly think folks would really want to use ones that they'd have to get around to making? To go through all that effort only to discover it's only a select handful of players who actually want more classes?

As far as the Arcane Half-Caster is concerned... my stance has always been to tell me what the flavor and narrative of this class is in the world that isn't just name-checking game mechanics. The Ranger and the Paladin have narrative placement and a story of who they are in the world, so the gish needs to have one too if there's ever hope to see one get made by WotC. The current game only has three "generic" classes whose flavor and narrative place in the world is defined by the subclasses-- the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Sorcerer-- and I don't believe WotC has any intention of making a fourth any time soon. We already have the Eldritch Knight-- as "generic" and story-less a warrior/arcanist there is-- so making a "full class" to match is unnecessary.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

How sad. If true, that just sounds like an active desire to have a less mechanically interesting experience.

I don't think a lot of 5e players have a mechanical focus in their play. I think that is a disconnect between this forum and the player base as a whole - speaking strictly D&D here. We have some evidence of this. Player character data on DnD beyond doesn't match with power level or mechanical depth expectations.

If we look at actual plays like Critical Role and Dimension 20, these aren't mechanically focused but are huge parts of the 5e culture. If you look at the /r/lfg subreddit, and look at postings for 5e games, you see an awful lot about "roleplay" and "story" with very few with a more combat or mechanical focus in their advertisment.

And this is anecdotal, but in games I've run for strangers off that same subreddit, they come with character concepts. These concepts are never mechanically based. They are always flavor based. Many don't even have a class picked for the concept, just a short story about a person. This is reiterated by the fact that I can restrict classes without meaningfully impacting my response rate. And that on session 1, if I shut up, they just roleplay in character as the norm.

I feel like newcomers to the hobby view it differently than many of the players from older editions. And I think this is reflected in WotC's choice to not indulge with such content to the level they have in prior editions. I also think it's why there is such a stark divide even on this forum, where some times it feels like you play an entirely different game than the one being discussed, even if you dont.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Does anyone use new classes in their 5E games from third-party sources? Anyone have any Warlords or Psions or Shaman or Magi or Occultists that were made by companies other than Wizards of the Coast at their tables?

If the answer is primarily 'No'... that's probably a good indication why WotC hasn't bothered either. If no one can be bothered using new classes that have already been designed, playtested, and published... why would WotC possibly think folks would really want to use ones that they'd have to get around to making? To go through all that effort only to discover it's only a select handful of players who actually want more classes?

One downside to using DnD Beyond is they don't allow homebrew classes on there. It's also why Blood Hunter has ended up so popular, despite being rather... meh.

So many groups which may have otherwise discovered homebrew classes over time, are now purposefully guided away from it and never end up using it, or even knowing it exists.