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

[Micah Sweet]

I saw the news for dnd beyond which is as likely to keep customers away as it is to get money from them.

If folks have to buy 5.5 because 5.0 is going out of print and a PITA to utilize online, they will flock to the walled garden of DDB.

Customers are only kept away if they know any better.

 

[Mind of tempest]

If folks have to buy 5.5 because 5.0 is going out of print and a PITA to utilize online, they will flock to the walled garden of DDB.

Customers are only kept away if they know any better.

it is more the crop of dms as if those are slashed or leave sales will go down as you will have less people staying and a ai dm is still a while away from anything past the most basic stuff

 

[DEFCON 1]

personally i don't think it's unique mechanics...

because there's no true synergy between the two sides, you're casting half the time and warrioring the other half, not swordmaging all the time,

As it stands in the game with the rules as currently written... for a warrior/arcanist you can't have the latter without making the former. Without making new mechanics (or refluffing existing mechanics) there is no way to create a class that does both fighting and magic-using at the same time. The game has no options for that. To get what the pro-half-caster players apparently want that is more than just the Eldritch Knight... they need a new design paradigm. If they didn't, they'd be happy using the Blade-pact Warlock or the College of Swords Bard, or the Bladesinger Wizard, or refluffing the Battlemaster Fighter such that all the maneuvers they can do were "magical effects" rather than "martial effects". Don't call them "maneuvers", call them "incantations"... don't call them "superiority dice", call them "glamour dice"... a creature doesn't get knocked prone due to "Trip Attack" maneuver, but to the "Aetheran Stumble" incantation (or whatever name you want to call it.) Or else do what the thread purports and refluff the Paladin and rename all their features to arcane names rather than divine or oath-based ideas.

But I don't think this is what those people want, is it? If it was, they'd have been just doing it themselves for themselves this entire decade. Or going to any of the 3rd Party creators and using all the material the internet has generated on this concept this entire time.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As it stands in the game with the rules as currently written... for a warrior/arcanist you can't have the latter without making the former. Without making new mechanics (or refluffing existing mechanics) there is no way to create a class that does both fighting and magic-using at the same time. The game has no options for that. To get what the pro-half-caster players apparently want that is more than just the Eldritch Knight... they need a new design paradigm. If they didn't, they'd be happy using the Blade-pact Warlock or the College of Swords Bard, or the Bladesinger Wizard, or refluffing the Battlemaster Fighter such that all the maneuvers they can do were "magical effects" rather than "martial effects". Don't call them "maneuvers", call them "incantations"... don't call them "superiority dice", call them "glamour dice"... a creature doesn't get knocked prone due to "Trip Attack" maneuver, but to the "Aetheran Stumble" incantation (or whatever name you want to call it.) Or else do what the thread purports and refluff the Paladin and rename all their features to arcane names rather than divine or oath-based ideas.

But I don't think this is what those people want, is it? If it was, they'd have been just doing it themselves for themselves this entire decade. Or going to any of the 3rd Party creators and using all the material the internet has generated on this concept this entire time.

no, i hold that you could make a perfectly viable swordmage that satisfies the concept built entirely with existing mechanics, the components exist, the issue is just that they're scattered throughout several different classes

the issue with 'just refluffing' is the existing sub/classes never managed to get the swordmage thing right, if they did we wouldn't be asking for one, in all their attempts the issue is either that the two sides are imbalanced to one side or the other(5 blue and 1 yellow does not make proper green) or not synergised together well enough(alternating blue and yellow also doesn't make green), the eldritch knight is a conceptually good baseline but leans too hard on the martial side of things, 1/3rd caster just isn't enough, swords bard, bladepact and bladesinger on the other hand have too much caster design in them, BM maneuvres aren't counted as magical damage, and the paladin is taking it's gish thing in a slightly different direction, it's a good thing, but it's not the swordmage thing - feeling the concept is more than just fluff but that doesn't mean we need NEW mechanics, i admit there could probably be a few more spells to support the archetype too but i wouldn't consider those new mechanics so much as just more of an existing one.

just give us a foundation that's like, d8 arcane halfcaster, the rogue's weapon list, extra attack, the bladepact feature that lets you use your casting stat for attacks and damage with your chosen weapon, the EK feature that lets you sub out an attack for a cantrip-maybe even let the cantrip damage type bleed over to the weapon attack damage, let them use their weapon as an arcane focus and their weapon counts as magic damage like monk's unarmed if it's not already, a non-radiant smite would likely fit well but that'd probably infringe on paladin's style a little too much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

no, i hold that you could make a perfectly viable swordmage that satisfies the concept built entirely with existing mechanics, the components exist, the issue is just that they're scattered throughout several different classes

the issue with 'just refluffing' is the existing sub/classes never managed to get the swordmage thing right, if they did we wouldn't be asking for one, in all their attempts the issue is either that the two sides are imbalanced to one side or the other(5 blue and 1 yellow does not make proper green) or not synergised together well enough(alternating blue and yellow also doesn't make green), the eldritch knight is a conceptually good baseline but leans too hard on the martial side of things, 1/3rd caster just isn't enough, swords bard, bladepact and bladesinger on the other hand have too much caster design in them, BM maneuvres aren't counted as magical damage, and the paladin is taking it's gish thing in a slightly different direction, it's a good thing, but it's not the swordmage thing - feeling the concept is more than just fluff but that doesn't mean we need NEW mechanics, i admit there could probably be a few more spells to support the archetype too but i wouldn't consider those new mechanics so much as just more of an existing one.

just give us a foundation that's like, d8 arcane halfcaster, the rogue's weapon list, extra attack, the bladepact feature that lets you use your casting stat for attacks and damage with your chosen weapon, the EK feature that lets you sub out an attack for a cantrip-maybe even let the cantrip damage type bleed over to the weapon attack damage, let them use their weapon as an arcane focus and their weapon counts as magic damage like monk's unarmed if it's not already, a non-radiant smite would likely fit well but that'd probably infringe on paladin's style a little too much.

I still don't see why the insistence on WotC doing that work though. Lots of different 3pp out there to try, and there's always homebrew beyond that. Your table should be able to find a solution that works for it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I still don't see why the insistence on WotC doing that work though. Lots of different 3pp out there to try, and there's always homebrew beyond that. Your table should be able to find a solution that works for it.

because it's their game, and their VTT which IIRC doesn't incorporate HB classes, and this is what we're paying them money for, not so we can go home and do the work ourselves, and they're the ones who removed the class in the edition crossover, and many DMs don't allow HB classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

because it's their game, and their VTT which IIRC doesn't incorporate HB classes, and this is what we're paying them money for, not so we can go home and do the work ourselves, and they're the ones who removed the class in the edition crossover, and many DMs don't allow HB classes.

Work on convincing those DMs, don't use technology that doesn't suit your needs, and seek out or create material that does. All of those course of action are far more likely to produce results than waiting for WotC to make anything a particular person or table wants.