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

[Frozen_Heart]

even if the paladin also exists i think we can manage to produce two simultaneous but distinct magical-weapon classes, if the paladin is a striker-supporter make the swordmage a controller-defender, or some other role.

I totally agree, but it probably needs to work in a different way to paladin's smites, and have a different end effect.

Every class in 5e has a 'signature mechanic', which becomes a major part of its identity. No two classes have the same signature mechanic.

A gish class would need its own signature mechanic, but one that somehow doesn't contradict all the varied identities people want to place onto the class.

Another big challenge would be the fact that 5e has so many attempts to throw half hearted attempts at the concept to the gish players, that any dedicated class would have to work around them. Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, BattleSmith and Hexblade lore/mechanics would have to be avoided.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I totally agree, but it probably needs to work in a different way to paladin's smites, and have a different end effect.

Every class in 5e has a 'signature mechanic', which becomes a major part of its identity. No two classes have the same signature mechanic.

A gish class would need its own signature mechanic, but one that somehow doesn't contradict all the varied identities people want to place onto the class.

I think you could do something closer to “cast a spell to enhance your weapon attacks for one minute.”

“A spell” could be one of dozens as you gain levels, and then let each subclass define how you actually cast spells. (Tricky with the 2024 structure)

I do agree that one of the issues is that there are four or five flavors that are half as broad as needed for a class but if you put all of them together you get something to vague, but trying to make gish subclasses of full casters isn’t working either.

 

[Maxperson]

With 5E, the Paladin's fluff changed to be less reliant on a deity and more reliant on an oath. Conviction in said oath unlocks all kinds of supernatural powers for the Paladin; essentially, their Charisma -- their Force of Will -- enables them to create miracles, smite enemies of their oath, heal the sick, and so on.

But what if the Paladin embraced this generic oath idea more? An oath doesn't have to be divine magic, and the Paladins IRL aren't that far apart from the Knights of the Round. In this way, perhaps "Lay on Hands" could be turned into one of a few potential options the Paladin picks, and their choice of subclass has a greater impact on their spell list. A Paladin in service of a lich would essentially be a Death Knight, and have more necromancy spells; a Paladin in service to an Archmage is your more generic spellblade. The best part is that by giving Smite a customizable damage type, you could easily flex the Paladin's flavor any number of ways. And of course you can still have a Paladin who serves gods or whatever.

Anyway, this is just a little idea, not one I'm sure I'll pursue as I enjoy my own Pendragon class, but the Paladin-as-Magic Knight could potentially better address the many varied tastes D&D players are meant to have.

No. If you did that, you'd have to create a paladin class all over again for the masses of us who like paladins. You're better off just making a magical knight class to fit those other types of magical melee folks.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think you could do something closer to “cast a spell to enhance your weapon attacks for one minute.”

“A spell” could be one of dozens as you gain levels, and then let each subclass define how you actually cast spells. (Tricky with the 2024 structure)

I do agree that one of the issues is that there are four or five flavors that are half as broad as needed for a class but if you put all of them together you get something to vague, but trying to make gish subclasses of full casters isn’t working either.

Yeah I like that one, as it's still focusing on the option for imbuing weapon strikes with magic, but it's a sustained rather than nova approach. The opposite of a paladin. Though it then does risk running into hunter's mark mechanically.

It also doesn't conflict at all with the elven arcane swordmages, the elemental genasi swordmages, the death/blood knight swordmages, or the githyanki swordmages.

Making the 'spells' into 'runes' could be good in theory, but annoyingly DnD lore doesn't allow that. Runes are so specific to giants that it then doesn't allow subclasses which aren't giant. Which is a shame as the WoW Death Knight is all about runes.

 

[Shardstone]

But if you make something which completely ignores all the people asking for a magus/swordmage/duskblade/hexblade/eldritch knight/bladesinger class, you just end up creating gish camp number 17.

While all the people from every other gish camp continue asking for when the class they once enjoyed is being added.

You need something which can incorporate both the missing gish identities from prior editions, while also establishing an overall class lore and mechanics which doesn't invalidate those.

If we're being honest, anything that WotC makes becomes the norm. It doesn't matter what a bunch of factions online makes; you think everyone agrees with the definiton of Sorcerer and Warlock? I sure don't. But WotC made it so, and thus it was. If they made a Swordmage that was a Pendragon or something more Anime or maybe like a Cosmere-style character, people would enjoy it and play it and call that the new official Swordmage lore. The only reason this doesn't happen with Ranger is because the mechanics aren't that fun to play. It's never been a problem about identity, no matter how much people pretend otherwise; it's always a matter of making fun enough mechanics, which WotC doesn't like investing in as an idea anymore.

As for homebrew and third party, it's always better to realize your personal vision then to cater to the audience. Catering to the audience is the curse of WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If we're being honest, anything that WotC makes becomes the norm. It doesn't matter what a bunch of factions online makes; you think everyone agrees with the definiton of Sorcerer and Warlock? I sure don't. But WotC made it so, and thus it was. If they made a Swordmage that was a Pendragon or something more Anime or maybe like a Cosmere-style character, people would enjoy it and play it and call that the new official Swordmage lore. The only reason this doesn't happen with Ranger is because the mechanics aren't that fun to play. It's never been a problem about identity, no matter how much people pretend otherwise; it's always a matter of making fun enough mechanics, which WotC doesn't like investing in as an idea anymore.

As for homebrew and third party, it's always better to realize your personal vision then to cater to the audience. Catering to the audience is the curse of WotC.

Agreed. Find a version you like to play at your table, or make your own.

Nothing else matters IMO. WotC is no one's friend.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah I like that one, as it's still focusing on the option for imbuing weapon strikes with magic, but it's a sustained rather than nova approach. The opposite of a paladin. Though it then does risk running into hunter's mark mechanically.

It also doesn't conflict at all with the elven arcane swordmages, the elemental genasi swordmages, the death/blood knight swordmages, or the githyanki swordmages.

Making the 'spells' into 'runes' could be good in theory, but annoyingly DnD lore doesn't allow that. Runes are so specific to giants that it then doesn't allow subclasses which aren't giant. Which is a shame as the WoW Death Knight is all about runes.

i think an interesting approach to make them their own thing would be to make all their sustained spells all have repeatable triggers typically taking the form of 'whenever X happens, do Y', often alongside 'your weapon instead deals X damage' on apropriate spells
"whenever an enemy attacks an ally within 30ft you can use your reaction to teleport to an empty adjacent space and make a melee weapon attack, your weapon attacks count as magic damage"
"whenever you make a weapon attack to an enemy lightning arcs to hit another enemy within 15ft and both take d8 lightning damage, your weapon attacks deal fire damage"
"whenever you successfully make a weapon attack against an enemy you set them on fire dealing an additional d6+MOD fire damage, they take d6 fire damage at the end of each of their turns until they take an action to extinguish the fire, your weapon attacks deal fire damage"

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Agree to disagree then. I just don't see the value to non-WotC gamers to WotC being all-powerful in the industry. I'm not pretending anything. I just don't think you're right.

Agreeing to disagree is the best path forward in that case. It's always nice to be challenged even if the end state is disagreement.

 

[Senior_WotC_Janitor]

no

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am going to be making some big updates soon (moving some features, adding a ribbon or two) but this is the 1.0 Pendragon. Also comes with a bunch of spells I made for it.

All feedback is appreciated!

Running commentary:

Firstly, great name.

Mythic weapon, paragraph 2, simpler to just say "This choice is permanent."

Reading through this, I'm getting the sense that you took at least some inspiration from Hades, the roguelite, which is a good choice.

Hammer: "You wield a heavy that was too heavy for anyone else to lift..." Presumably it should say "a hammer that was too heavy" etc.

I like Arcane Tactics. Sorta somewhere between Invocations and Maneuvers, which is a good space to be in.

Honestly? No further notes on the core class. It's a solid baseline, and I didn't notice any other typos. Will check out the subclasses later.