D&D 5E (2024) What should the 15th Class be?

[ECMO3]

Not really.

The spells for a Smordmage/Gish currently don't exist.

I think they do exist:

Blink, Mirror Image, Shadow Blade, Shield, Hex (through a feat), blade cantrips, Truestrike, Tasha's Otherworldly Guise, Steel Wind Strike, Conjure Minor Elementals, Fire Shield, Fizban's Shield .....

You could also add Haste and Tensor's Transformation although those two spells are pretty weak.

 

[ECMO3]

How much better at fighting do you see it as the bladesinger? D&D is a level 1-10 game for all intents and purposes. The bladesinger already fights as well as a fighter in 95% of games. Threading that needle is going to be virtually impossible, given there's already a half caster gish (artificer) that fights as well as a fighter.

Part of it is the crappy design of the fighter class, which had to be made so simple a potato could play it.

At level 3-5 an Eldritch Knight is better at fighting with weapons than a Bladesinger.

At level 6-10 a Bladesinger, built for fighting with weapons, is better than an Eldritch Knight.

Above level 10 there are a ton of variables depending on who or what you are fighting, so there is not really a simple answer.

 

[ECMO3]

If this combination third class is as good a warrior as the pure Fighter AND-OR as good a caster as the pure Wizard, you've got a problem because now there's no reason whatsoever to play either the pure Fighter or the pure Wizard: this class completely overshadows one or both.

The issue with this is the Bladesinger is already a better Warrior than a pure Fighter at many levels.

So I don't see how you make a half caster that is less of a Warrior than a Fighter and is not overshadowed in every way by a Bladesinger.

 

[Zardnaar]

The issue with this is the Bladesinger is already is a better than a pure Fighter at many levels.

So I don't see how you make a half caster that is less of a Warrior than a Fighter and is not overshadowed in every way by a Bladesinger.

With weapons theyre not that great.

Shadowblade and SCAG though....

Espicially if its a r round day.

 

[ECMO3]

With weapons theyre not that great.

Shadowblade and SCAG though....

Espicially if its a r round day.

They are pretty great if you build them for using weapons. Truestrike substantially increases their abilties in this regard and they are outdamaging Fighters at many levels.

Shadowblade is one way, but not the only one, and not a spell that is their best IME.

What they don't have is masteries and at high levels indomitable. Those can be significant or meaningless depending on who you are fighting.

 

[Zardnaar]

They are pretty great if you build them for using weapons. Truestrike substantially increases their abilties in this regard and they are outdamaging Fighters at many levels.

Shadowblade is one way, but not the only one, and not a spell that is their best IME.

What they don't have is masteries and at high levels indomitable. Those can be significant or meaningless depending on who you are fighting.

Ah youre mixing 5.0 and 5.5.

Your groups handed out vicious weapons like candy though.

Im probably handing out better than most here not as generous as your group. Somewhat close to 5.5 DMG.

That's the problem with 5.5 magic item rules. Most haven't adapted and there's a big difference in +2 and vicious weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

I think they do exist:

Blink, Mirror Image, Shadow Blade, Shield, Hex (through a feat), blade cantrips, Truestrike, Tasha's Otherworldly Guise, Steel Wind Strike, Conjure Minor Elementals, Fire Shield, Fizban's Shield .....

You could also add Haste and Tensor's Transformation although those two spells are pretty weak.

Those are spells that an arcane halfcaster warrior class could use.

Except for the cantrip donut spells made for the half Arcane caster half warrior class.

All of those spells are better made for either pure Wizards or multi-classed Wizards.

You have to create a level 2 spell for a half caster that is stronger than a level 4 spell of a full caster.

It's kind of like the whole Hunter's Mark, Divine smite, Conjure Volley problem. You have to create low level spells that scale and Power without up casting or have them within a spell list so full casters can never get access to them.

The core issue is that being these designers in every edition except for one is reluctant to create spells that full casters do not have access to.

You'd have to create a class that has on their list a unique level five Arcane spell that is equivalent to a level 9 Arcane spell.

 

[mellored]

Not really.

The spells for a Smordmage/Gish currently don't exist.

The paladin does.
Which attacks with spell-imbuned swords. (I.e. banishing smite).

That always has been the fundamental issue. You would have to create a separate spell list of Arcane spells that a wizard would not have access to. That is something that many fans have issues with existing.

Like staggering smite?

Or just add some elemental "strike" spells to the ranger.

 

[jmartkdr2]

An Arcane Gish ought to be what you get if you multiclassed an Eldritch Knight Fighter with a Bladesinger Wizard and threw in some signature features to make it truly unique.

Kind of like how a paladin is what you get when you multiclass a war cleric with a cavalier fighter and add a couple of signature features to make it more than just a multiclass.

 

[Merlecory]

I do find it a bit interesting that people's way of describing a martial caster fusion mention the paladin, but not the ranger.

As for what I might like to see added, I am most interested in new mechanical identity.

• What if you get 3/4 cater slots, but can only learn spells up to 5th level? Warlock kind of explores upcasting, but this would eb a major focus.
• What kind of explicitly magic/supernatural class could you make, if you don't just use spells? (Not looking at any current UA at all)
• What does the current crop of designers do when asked to make the same concept as an existing class? The ToB:Bo9S sure felt like take 2 on a number of existing concepts, but expressed very differently.

Some harder to do inside a 5e paradigm:

• Separating out the shapeshifter class from the nature full casting. Full casting of any kind is very powerful; it leaves little room for other mechanics.
• Could the Artificer have been a more unique spellcaster? Maybe it is a true Vancian caster, but gets a free meta magic with every spell.

I've seen a lot of comments in this thread about what really needs a base class vs what can be done with a subclass. Do people want to move some of that conversation over to the class vs subclass design thread?