log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Giving the arcane gish an identity.

Why use this cant
Should it scale? Yes, however, as Minigiant (I believe) pointed out above, most of your damage will be coming from the weapon. If that is accurate, then no, it doesn't need to scale.
Why use this cantrip rather than a weapon cantrip that does scale? - As the class is written currently, using this cantrip would be less effective than other options.

Arcane channelling with a touch cantrip like shocking grasp will deal more damage, as will simply making two mundane weapon attacks.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Why use this cant
Why use this cantrip rather than a weapon cantrip that does scale? - As the class is written currently, using this cantrip would be less effective than other options.

Arcane channelling with a touch cantrip like shocking grasp will deal more damage, as will simply making two mundane weapon attacks.
the class is currently incomplete. There are other enhancements.

Essentially via your cantrip choice and enhancement choice you are supposed to graft your attack routine.

Swordmage: Aegis and Green flame Blade or Booming Blade
Action- Base Weapon Cantrip

Duskblade: Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp.
Action- Arcane Channel Touch Cantrip through Weapon.

INCOMPLETE Jedi: Mage Hand and Blade Ward
Action- Attack with weapon twice. Bonus Action Blade Ward.

INCOMPLETE Acidaxe: Acid Splash and Whatever
Action- Action with weapon then Acid Splash

INCOMPLETE Gishblade: Gishblade and whatever
Action: Use gishblade twice turn

INCOMPLETE OS ELF:
Whatever
Action: Attack with longsword then Ray of Frost
 

Xeviat

Hero
There still seems to be no concensus on a theme for this Arcane Warrior class. It makes it tough to design without a direction because we don't even have any mythic or legendary characters to draw comparisons to. It's self referential, a very modern character trope created by D&D and present within things inspired by D&D.

And that's OK, I think. It just makes it hard to direct it.

For mechanics, thinking along the paladin and ranger angle, I'd like to see an Arcane Warrior have an item enhancement base ability. Yes, this sort of leans into the Artificer territory, but the trope is very different from the inventor (which was not covered well by existing classes, so it needed its own). It could be a secondary specialization within the class, like warlocks have, but imagine differences in an Arcane Warrior based on if they're enhancing their weapon, their shield, their armor, themselves ...

Spell strikes just sound like the strike/smite spells we already have.
 

cbwjm

Hero
Seems easy enough for plenty of others to design one. I'm doing okay on mine, I've been giving feedback on one on reddit, I've seen a number of others created each with the creatirs on spin on the fighter/Mage theme.
 

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
There still seems to be no concensus on a theme for this Arcane Warrior class. It makes it tough to design without a direction because we don't even have any mythic or legendary characters to draw comparisons to. It's self referential, a very modern character trope created by D&D and present within things inspired by D&D.

And that's OK, I think. It just makes it hard to direct it.

For mechanics, thinking along the paladin and ranger angle, I'd like to see an Arcane Warrior have an item enhancement base ability. Yes, this sort of leans into the Artificer territory, but the trope is very different from the inventor (which was not covered well by existing classes, so it needed its own). It could be a secondary specialization within the class, like warlocks have, but imagine differences in an Arcane Warrior based on if they're enhancing their weapon, their shield, their armor, themselves ...

Spell strikes just sound like the strike/smite spells we already have.

I like the basis of what you're saying. I would suggest the base ability being a technique/style type thing rather than an item enchantment which flavor-wise do move into artificer territory. Note here that I am suggesting exactly the same thing you are suggesting mechanically but flavored differently to maintain its own flavor.

Being technique-based I would then say the Spell Strike should flow outwardly from that. I would like to implement it not as a damage spike but a bettering of technique through magic (which also can be nicer for balance purposes, see any paladin saving smites for their random crits).

Spellstrike Proposal: When you cast a spell you maintain that magical energy in your weapon. For the next minute your weapon attacks deal an additional 1d4 damage of one of the damage types dealt by that spell. If the spell does not deal damage your subclass determines your spellstrike damage. This effect ends early if you drop your weapon or become incapacitated.

The goal of this is for the optimal playstyle to be combining spellcasting and weapon use as a battle progresses. It should also add a flavor from your subclass into your basic playstyle by the damage type (and the subclass should probably be descriptive about what it looks or sounds like to sell the idea to the player.)

Combining this with your Arcane Enhancements feels like it would make a really distinct character concept. An armor-focused shadow knight should feel different from an axe-focused shadow knight. A versatile-focused psychic warrior should feel different from a versatile-focused element-slinger.

Also someone way-earlier was asking about what a spellstrike even is in the fiction and while it's a more modern example I think the visuals portrayed in this clip are pretty close to what I'm imagining (though I would expect all types of elements, not just water):
<>
inb4 weaboo fighting magic because I am literally promoting fighting magic in a gish thread.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
There still seems to be no concensus on a theme for this Arcane Warrior class. It makes it tough to design without a direction because we don't even have any mythic or legendary characters to draw comparisons to. It's self referential, a very modern character trope created by D&D and present within things inspired by D&D.

Actually I think there is consistency on the concept. There are many examples from other works.

The issues are:

Where do they fit in the narrative of worlds with small arcane communities?
Which mechanics are left for the class to use that aren't in others?

Personally Spell Strikes and Smite are different. Smites are using slots to get a single effect. Mostly damage and minor debuffing.

Spell strikes/Arcane Channeling is allows for different effects. Heavy debuffs and AOE
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I like the basis of what you're saying. I would suggest the base ability being a technique/style type thing rather than an item enchantment which flavor-wise do move into artificer territory. Note here that I am suggesting exactly the same thing you are suggesting mechanically but flavored differently to maintain its own flavor.

Being technique-based I would then say the Spell Strike should flow outwardly from that. I would like to implement it not as a damage spike but a bettering of technique through magic (which also can be nicer for balance purposes, see any paladin saving smites for their random crits).

Spellstrike Proposal: When you cast a spell you maintain that magical energy in your weapon. For the next minute your weapon attacks deal an additional 1d4 damage of one of the damage types dealt by that spell. If the spell does not deal damage your subclass determines your spellstrike damage. This effect ends early if you drop your weapon or become incapacitated.

The goal of this is for the optimal playstyle to be combining spellcasting and weapon use as a battle progresses. It should also add a flavor from your subclass into your basic playstyle by the damage type (and the subclass should probably be descriptive about what it looks or sounds like to sell the idea to the player.)

Combining this with your Arcane Enhancements feels like it would make a really distinct character concept. An armor-focused shadow knight should feel different from an axe-focused shadow knight. A versatile-focused psychic warrior should feel different from a versatile-focused element-slinger.

Also someone way-earlier was asking about what a spellstrike even is in the fiction and while it's a more modern example I think the visuals portrayed in this clip are pretty close to what I'm imagining (though I would expect all types of elements, not just water):
<>
inb4 weaboo fighting magic because I am literally promoting fighting magic in a gish thread.

To Be Fair

Demon Slayer is all fighters. The Water is just colorful illustration of skillful weapon attacks.

1st form is Attack for double/triple damage
2nd form is Attack with advantage
3rd from is Basic charge attack
4th form is Move and make an attack on every adjacent enemy
5th Form is Coup de grace on immobilized target
6th form is Whirlwind Attack
7th form is Attack that lowers the target's speed to 0.
8th form is Attack and Adding falling damage to weapon damage
9th form is Attack with spider climb
10th for is Basic charge attack and add you attack roll to your AC and damage roll
11th form is Your AC is now 50

I should make a fighter subclass for it. My cousin would love it.
 

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
To Be Fair

Demon Slayer is all fighters. The Water is just colorful illustration of skillful weapon attacks.

1st form is Attack for double/triple damage
2nd form is Attack with advantage
3rd from is Basic charge attack
4th form is Move and make an attack on every adjacent enemy
5th Form is Coup de grace on immobilized target
6th form is Whirlwind Attack
7th form is Attack that lowers the target's speed to 0.
8th form is Attack and Adding falling damage to weapon damage
9th form is Attack with spider climb
10th for is Basic charge attack and add you attack roll to your AC and damage roll
11th form is Your AC is now 50

I should make a fighter subclass for it. My cousin would love it.
Sure, but the thing I'm proposing would be a literal version.

Also true, what I really want is just a cool Fighter redesigned from the ground up. In lieu of that I'll try to nudge others into making weapon-users that are cool and not just "Okay, now do a basic attack twice or with a bigger damage number."
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Sorry that I didn't respond earlier, just got back from a vacation. Here we go:
I did mean sorcerer not warlock when I said sorcerery points, but to further my point a warlock can summon any of the normal familiars in find familiar, a wizard does not even have to take that as a spell and a sorcerer (or any other class) can get it through a feat. A Warlock, Sorcerer or Wizard (or any other spellcaster) can get up to 4 1st level spells from any other casters spell list. So even if I cast find familiar, you would not necessarily know I was a wizard or a warlock or something else simply form that. Sure you can make an educated guess.
They can summon any normal familiar, but have additional options that are superior in practically every way. As soon as you say "I turn my familiar into a Pseudodragon/Imp/Quasit/Sprite", I know that you're a Pact of the Chain Warlock.
You would know what class I was automatically if I said things like "arcane recovery" or mentioned a specific subclass at the table. Any character can have a spellbook which they cast rituals from. If we sat down to rest and you asked the DM specifically if my character was studying a spellbook then sure you would know (or at least have a pretty good idea).
Ritual books aren't spellbooks, and neither are Books of Shadow. If you're using the correct nomenclature to refer to your book that's filled with magic, I would eb able to tell.
To give an extreme example using someone who is not even a caster; I have a 4th level Arcane trickster and she can cast as many spells per day as a 4th level full caster (7) and her spells include spells unique to the the Warlock, Cleric and Wizard lists (Hex, charm person, tashas laughter, silent image, shield, inflict wounds, misty step, invisibility). Most of the time she sarries a staff (staff of defense), although she rarely attacks with it, but it gives her even 1 more spell (mage armor). Can you figure out how I made that build? I am sure you can, and if you were at the table you would probably guess what class she was pretty quickly, or even know it outright if a fight broke out but that is by focusing on mechanics, not personality or role playing.
Probably Fey Touched to get Hex and misty step, and probably Shadow Touched or Magic Initiate to get Inflict Wounds and Invisibility.

But again, those are feats, not a part of your class's identity.
You can lean into a theme with a class, but you can also lean away from it. I will grant that there is a limit in a lot of classes. For example you can't play a barbarian that is a powerful spell caster. That is impossible. Even playing one with a lot of combat spells at low level (below level 5) is problematic because of the mechanics that get in the way of using them. But even with a Barbarian you can take subclasses like Guardian, wild magic or zealot that mix in magic with your fighting.
So you agree with me that there is a line. You just think that the line is "barbarians that are adept spellcasters" instead of my own line.
For this post my position and argument is that the available classes enable you to do a GISH very well. I think Sorcerer would be pretty darn difficult to GISH (maybe there is a way I am not thinking of). But with the right choices you can make a very viable GISH with any other class using class, subclass and optional rules as presented. There are limits, certainly and not every class can do a specific themed GISH. But the Bladesinger and EK in particular do it very well with a lot of different options and play styles on the table to include heavily melee focused GISH, heavy spell focused GISH and in between and there is overlap available in these subclassess too. An all out melee focused bladesinger is going to be more of a "melee build" GISH than an all out "magic focused" EK. Of the two the available tradespace is substantially larger with the wizard.
Let's see why none of the classes work for what I and others want (specifically a spell-striking, intelligence-based, arcane gish):
  1. Artificer doesn't spell strike, and is a half-caster with cantrips instead of Extra Attack, weapons, and a Fighting Style. Sure, one subclass does give a similar theme, but it is still weighed down by the core theme of the class and subclass. (Why would an Arcane Gish that just wants to Spell Strike have to have a Steel Defender and inventions?)
  2. Barbarian can't spell strike, isn't Intelligence focused, can't cast 3rd-5th level spells, and so on.
  3. Bard is Charisma focused, is a full caster, can't spell strike, etc
  4. Cleric is divine in both mechanics and theme, is a full caster, and is Wisdom focused.
  5. Druid is primal in mechanics and theme, shapechanges instead of spellstrikes, and is a Wisdom focused full caster.
  6. Fighter is a complete martial character without the ability to be a half-caster or spell strike.
  7. Monk is a Dexterity and Wisdom focused non-casting class.
  8. Paladin is a Charisma based divine class with mechanics that don't fit spell strike (sure, some of the spells fit, but Channel Divinity, other spells, and Auras don't fit most of idea of an Arcane Gish).
  9. Ranger is a Wisdom based primal class with mechanics that don't fit spell strike and is too stuck in its niche of being a warrior of nature.
  10. Rogue is a rogue. It can't use fighting styles, spell strike, extra attack, and a plethora of other features that an Arcane Gish would have.
  11. Sorcerer is a Charisma based full caster with no martial or spell-striking feature.
  12. Warlock is a Charisma based full-caster-equivalent that has to make a pact with a powerful magical entity to get power, is stuck in theme and mechanics to this identity, and can't spell strike or have many martial features.
  13. Wizard is a full caster that is at its core non-martial (and the martial subclass doesn't get all the martial options that an Arcane Gish character should get at its base), and is tied to its spellbook, which an Arcane Gish wouldn't have.
I am saying you can use all those things to make a fruit salad if you want or you can use those things to make a smoothie and just because you grow and intend your apples to be used in fruit salad, does not mean I can't use them in my smoothie if I buy them from you.
An apple smoothie isn't a fruit salad, it's an apple smoothie. That's my point. You're trying to tell someone that wants a fruit salad that they have to have an apple smoothie.
Rogues can be better at any skill they choose than any other character. I play more Rogues than anything else and most of Rogues I play have proficiency in stealth but few have proficiency in SOH (there are simply better abilities available).

Almost all of the Rogues I play have expertise in athletics (even those with 8 strength, which is common). This makes them "good" at many strength-focused tasks right out of the gate and downright awesome at higher levels. With cunning action stealth or steady aim these characters can be as good as a raging barbarian at in-combat athletics checks at low level and better at high levels (assuming the Barbarian does not get expertise through a feat).

That is without using any feats and while building a pretty "standard" Rogue in terms of ability scores. Optimize a Rogue for this kind of fighting with a 14 strength, an Arcane trickster subclass a feat that gets him hex (to give the enemy disadvantage strength/dex checks) and a feat that gets him advantage to attack grappled creatures and a Rogue can outdue any other character in this type of "brutish" fighting style. Open up with hex and grapple and then you have automatic advantage every round there after while you stab him with a Rapier until the enemy uses an action to break it. No need to roll to hide or to stop moving for advantage and with cunning action you can drag the grappled enemy anywhere around the battlefield up to your full movement. The automatic advantage every turn and the hex damage are going to make up for the missed potential first turn sneak attack pretty quick (and the first turn is when sneak is most difficult to get anyway).

Now that is a Rogue optimized for that combat style, he probably dumped Charisma and maybe Wisdom so is not going to be the awesome face that most of my Rogues tend to be, but it is a very viable build.
I don't see how this is relevant to what I stated. Yes, rogues can be amazing at any skill, as is part of their theme (with their class granting the ability to take 4 skill proficiencies with a huge list of options to take). There's a difference between telling a Rogue that they're allowed to be excellent at almost any skill that they want (as is a part of their theme) and telling an Arcane Gish that they have to spend their Feats and/or race to match their theme that they want.
Most tables that do not allow feats are not going to allow homebrew classes either. Feats are in the rules. A reimagined GISH is not. So I think if we are arguing about how to enable a certain type of character, arguing to use the rules that are already available is a viable argument.
This is completely besides the point. The argument isn't about a homebrew class, it's about a class identity/idea that could be made official. If it was official, it would be more official than feats (as they are optional and the core of 5e doesn't depend on them, though it does depend on the Class system).
I don't see it as a big tradeoff for the kind of character you are building.
So you're saying that the thing I see as a big tradeoff isn't actually a big tradeoff. Thank you so much for telling me that me and my feelings are wrong. :rolleyes:

You may not see giving up 2-3 feats a major tradeoff to emulate a part of your character's core identity, but I do. I wouldn't play a Cleric if I had to spend 8 levels and 2 feats in order to get access to Channel Divinity.
The tradeoff is not as big as you are making it out to be. At 20 intelligence you are talking about +3AC in bladesong as compared to medium armor with no shield. That is also only in bladesong, out of bladesong your AC is worse, but I admit you will be in bladesong for most of the tough fights. Typically it requires 2 ASIs to get to 20, so someone taking feats (assuming they are available) would have medium armor and GWM by the same time you have a 20 INT.

So just looking at the tradeoff here you are talking bout 3 less AC to do 2d6 base weapon damage, the option to do+10 weapon damage, plus have a bonus action attack on every crit or every time you kill an enemy. That is hardly an overwhelmingly bad trade.

Yes when you would be in bladesong you also lose 10 feet of movement, advantage on acrobatics and the bonus to conentration saves as well as the higher-level abilities. If those things matter to you then don't do a Greatsword wielding build, but I have not seen anyone talking about a GISH mention those things as being important and they are really only relevant for 6 minutes a day or less (albeit the 6 minutes you really want them).

The whole point I am trying to make is that you can bring a viable armored heavy weapon GISH mixing melee and spells to the table. I did not say there were not more powerful builds available, but that is there in the rulees as presented.
You completely keep missing the point. The point isn't whether or not the tradeoff is bad (it is), it's whether or not you should have to do the trade in the first place.

Paladins don't have to make any trade like that. Neither do Rangers, Artificers, or any other class. An Arcane Gish class wouldn't force a character to make that choice. That's the point.
A Barbarian has unarmored defense, which is similar to an always on bladesong in terms of AC boost. That said a lot of barbarians wear armor and completely ignore this ability. Are they "giving up too much" if they wear medium armor?
No, because none of the Barbarian's main features (ie Rage) cease to work when they're wearing medium armor. A major complaint that people have about the Battlerager barbarian is that their core features only work if they're Spiked Armor, which can cause them to have a worse AC than if they weren't wearing armor. This is a similar situation.
Yes a heavy armor barbarian is probably not viable, but other atypical Barbarian builds are.
This is irrelevant to the argument. The point was that Rage and Bladesong are comparable. If someone wants there to be a heavily armored barbarian subclass, it would not be a valid argument to tell them "just play an official subclass and wear heavy armor! You're not giving up that much in exchange!!!"
We have talked earlier about a sneaky Barbarian build or one that fights a lot like a Rogue. Among other things, Rage gives a damage bonus on strength-based attacks, but I think it would be entirely viable to do an 8 Strength Barbarian with maxed con and dex and good social abilities and be a finesse weapon/archer character and just not take this extra damage. They would still get the other benefits like reckless attack, damage resistance, danger sense, and the advantage on strength checks would compensate some for their strength score meaning they could still be "good" with Athletics proficiency and advantage. Sure they would lose the Rage damage bonus, but they could do a lot other things.

Pulling this "Rogish Barbarian" thread a little more, with the right subclass they could get dash as a bonus action and give enemies disadvantage on all AOOs (no action required). Not quite the same as cunning action but covering a lot of the same ground thematically and actually mechanically better if you want to melee attack and dash on the same turn. You can give yourself advantage on every attack in a turn, not just the first after you succeed on a hide check or don't move. To add insult to injury you can actually give yourself advantage at will AND even take dash as a bonus action to double your already higher movement rate. They don't have the Sneak attack the Rogue gets, and at high levels that is going to leave some damage on the table (mitigated substantially by extra attack and reckless attack) but they have better AC, a ton more hps, generally better damage resistance, better saves including most dex saves, and comparable mobility.

For the finale let's bring up an eagle totem Goblin barbarian. Now with a bonus action you can do every single thing that a base Rogue can do with cunning action. On top of that you still give enemies disadvantage on AOOs even if you do not take disengage as an action or bonus action. You have a higher movement rate than Rogues, meaning BA dash is worth more and your overall mobility in combat is flat better than most Rogues and comparable to a swashbuckler. That is before you add any feats to lean further into this build.

So what were you saying again that I can't play my pirate Barbarian like a Rogue in combat?
Didn't I drop this line of arguing last post?
Keep in mind both weapon master and moderately armored are half feats, so a character that takes these two instead of ASIs are one ASI behind another character, not two ASIs behind and someone who takes these and heavily armored are 1.5 ASIs behind another character who took 3 ASIs. With that in mind, these three feats are 30% of your ASIs, not 60%.
Keep in mind that Weapon Master and Moderately Armored are both restrictive half-feats. A character that takes those feats is restricted to the ASIs that they allow, instead of the base ASI allowing any ability score to be increased.
It is two feats for a Gith/Dwarf if they want shields - moderately armored and heavy armored. These classes get weapons with their race. And again these are both half feats, so they are down 1 ASI to do it. It is three feats for another character, including a V. human or custom who get weapon master at 1st.

Moreover, yes if you puprosely go out of your way to choose a race that does not have weapon proficiencies or armor proficiencies relevant to the character you want to build; then it will take more feats or class features to build that character. This is kind of a strawman though because you need to make specific choices counter to the mechanics you say you are looking for. Even if you do that though you can still build that character. It will not be as optimized, but it is still on the table.

Just like building a greatsword-wielding character of any class and you decide to you pick a Halfling, Goblin, Kobold or Gnome as your race. It will be very hard to make that character even decent in combat and it will never be optimized. It will take a ton of levels and specific class/subclass choices and spells to make it work "ok" even. Similarly, if you are building a greatsword bladesinger and you go out of your way to pick a race that does not work well with that class, then you will have a harder time making it viable.


So you are going to give this character a fighting style (something even a Barbarian does not get as a full martial). Then you are going to give him heavy armor proficiency which can be stacked with many spells on his list, most notably shield. At second level, this character could have an effective 26AC without concentrating, so he can stack a concentration spell on top of that! By comparison a Paladin (the top martial half caster) has 23 max AC while concentrating at 2nd level. You have a character that is already over the top right here and you are going to put icing on the cake by letting him cast full blown leveled spells as part of the attack action?

All the Arcane GISH suggestions I have seen are WAY more powerful than any classes currently on the table, this one included. Bladesinger itself is already OP if you lean into a defensive play style, this would be way on top of that even.

If you want a balanced arcane GISH bladesinger can do that and EK does do that.
I'm not doing this anymore. If you can't see why telling someone that they have to give up multiple ASIs, multiple class features, and their race/background choices in order to play an Arcane Gish isn't a reasonable argument, I'm never going to be able to convince you otherwise.
Except the class would have way too much if it got those things for free and ASIs on top of that which could be used to bump abilities.
Have you even read the Paladin or Ranger Class? Paladins get All Armor proficiencies, Shields, and Simple/Martial weapon proficiency. Rangers get all of that, but don't get Heavy Armor (which I feel is a mistake). They both get the same amount of ASIs as every non-Fighter, non-Rogue class in the game.
FEATS ARE (optional) CLASS FEATURES
FEATS ARE OPTIONAL FEATURES THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH CLASS FEATURES. They are not class features anymore than the Ravnica backgrounds' spell lists are.
In terms of theme, what exactly do you mean by "spellstrike", because I think that theme is already there.
Merging a spell with a weapon attack. More specifically, being able to cast a spell, but instead of releasing it, trapping it inside your weapon to be released when you next hit a target with the magic weapon you're wielding.
Allowing an action spell to be cast as a bonus action at any level without using a limiting feature, such as sorcery points, is by itself is OP IMO. This breaks action economy and this is one of three areas the game designers have said should not be altered (along with I think concentration rules and something else). Classes, races and even spells that break action economy do this either by severely limited uses (action surge, metamagic), or they severely limit what can be done (cunning action, Goblin race, charger feat, haste ....) or both.

If you cast it as an action and limit it to a minute of concentration before it is released I think that it is OK but still pretty powerful. If you make it more than a minute before 10th level then yes it becomes OP because you are doing something similar to what an 11th level full caster can do and something they can do at most twice a day. There is a reason you can only cast contingency once a day until level 19.

In older editions this would not be as big a deal, but in 5E I think these two things are very powerful if not nerfed with a very short duration and limited uses.
There would be a limiting feature (action economy, concentration, and spell slots), but it would eventually get better as you reach higher levels, just like how Divine Smite is limited by spell slots until Improved Divine Smite comes along at level 11.

Don't criticize a feature for being OP that you haven't seen yet, please. If you want me to show you the rough draft feature, just ask, and I'll freely give it. However, I'm not very inclined to do so with you bashing it for being OP with absolutely no idea on how I'd actually implement it.
 

Frozen_Heart

Explorer
I'd argue that ranger, paladin, and hexblade can spellstrike. Albeit with much fewer options than the 4e swordmage had. Spells like searing smite are near enough direct 4e conversions of abilities which functioned the same as the swordmages abilities. It's just that their strong thematics and the rest of their spell lists prevent them being an arcane/elemental warrior except with a lot of DM permission and tweaking.

If you're thinking of the 3e spellstrike, it just doesn't work with how spells are set out in 5e. I've tried wording it to make it work. But there are so many exceptions and edge cases that it becomes a complete mess of an ability.
 

on the reason of why I think the class needs a basic story as without one, you fall into the human fighter problem which is unless you know how to make an interesting character right off the bat you will end up dull and have nothing to lean on to make a character thus at lest the how they are generated and what they a primarily for needs to be hammered out so people can subvert it if they want or ignore it if they got a better idea.
 

ECMO3

Explorer
Sorry that I didn't respond earlier, just got back from a vacation. Here we go:

They can summon any normal familiar, but have additional options that are superior in practically every way. As soon as you say "I turn my familiar into a Pseudodragon/Imp/Quasit/Sprite", I know that you're a Pact of the Chain Warlock.
Only if they are pact of the chain. Pact of the tome are limited to normal familiars.

Probably Fey Touched to get Hex and misty step, and probably Shadow Touched or Magic Initiate to get Inflict Wounds and Invisibility.

But again, those are feats, not a part of your class's identity.
They are feats, one of which I took instead of an ASI with the Rogue feature. The point is I can cast a wide variety of spells off multiple spell lists and about the same number of castings as a full caster.


So you agree with me that there is a line. You just think that the line is "barbarians that are adept spellcasters" instead of my own line.
There is a line, but your example is not it IMO. Barbarians do not make good spellcasters but bladesingers do make good Gish characters.


There's a difference between telling a Rogue that they're allowed to be excellent at almost any skill that they want (as is a part of their theme) and telling an Arcane Gish that they have to spend their Feats and/or race to match their theme that they want
This is not true, there are 17 skills. A Rogue has 11 skills to choose from and another 2 he can get IF he takes the scout subclass. If he wants to be great at any of the other 6/4 skills in the game he is going to need a race, background and/or feat to do it.

The point is he can and he can do that relatively easily.

You may not see giving up 2-3 feats a major tradeoff to emulate a part of your character's core identity, but I do. I wouldn't play a Cleric if I had to spend 8 levels and 2 feats in order to get access to Channel Divinity.
You are not "giving up" any feats, you are building your character.

Paladins don't have to make any trade like that. Neither do Rangers, Artificers, or any other class. An Arcane Gish class wouldn't force a character to make that choice. That's the point.
Yes they do. They give up things all the time to get what you want. Someone who takes GWM "gives up" +2 in an abilty. Someone who takes PAM "gives up" the ability to do +10 on damage, someone who takes +2 in strength "gives up" the ability to make a BA attack with the back of his polearm.

This is no different than those choices.

The Rogue who takes mobile feat (which is very, very common) gives up a third of his cunning action and in an example that is completely appropriate if he is a swashbuckler subclass he gives up the "main core feature" of his subclass.

No, because none of the Barbarian's main features (ie Rage) cease to work when they're wearing medium armor. A major complaint that people have about the Battlerager barbarian is that their core features only work if they're Spiked Armor, which can cause them to have a worse AC than if they weren't wearing armor. This is a similar situation.
No unarmored defense, which is a core feature, ceases to work.


This is irrelevant to the argument. The point was that Rage and Bladesong are comparable. If someone wants there to be a heavily armored barbarian subclass, it would not be a valid argument to tell them "just play an official subclass and wear heavy armor! You're not giving up that much in exchange!!!"
Unarmored defense and bladesong are similar. Rage is not mechanically similar at all. Unarmored defense and bladesong both give another ability as a bonus to AC. Bladesong is weaker though because it is limited use. Yet the Barbarian gives up unarmored defense and that is not a problem.

Keep in mind that Weapon Master and Moderately Armored are both restrictive half-feats. A character that takes those feats is restricted to the ASIs that they allow, instead of the base ASI allowing any ability score to be increased.
Yes. But this presumes you are going to take it instead of increasing strength.


Have you even read the Paladin or Ranger Class? Paladins get All Armor proficiencies, Shields, and Simple/Martial weapon proficiency. Rangers get all of that, but don't get Heavy Armor (which I feel is a mistake). They both get the same amount of ASIs as every non-Fighter, non-Rogue class in the game.
The Paladin has an extremely limited number of smites and they are far inferior to casting a spell as part of an attack. Being able to do this just once a day below level 10, while also having all weapons and armor would make such a character substantially more powerful than a Paladin.


Merging a spell with a weapon attack. More specifically, being able to cast a spell, but instead of releasing it, trapping it inside your weapon to be released when you next hit a target with the magic weapon you're wielding.

There would be a limiting feature (action economy, concentration, and spell slots), but it would eventually get better as you reach higher levels, just like how Divine Smite is limited by spell slots until Improved Divine Smite comes along at level 11.

Don't criticize a feature for being OP that you haven't seen yet, please. If you want me to show you the rough draft feature, just ask, and I'll freely give it. However, I'm not very inclined to do so with you bashing it for being OP with absolutely no idea on how I'd actually implement it.
I am going by what you used as an example. You are taking a spell that does MORE damage then a smite and letting it be loosed as part of any attack (not just a melee attack), that spell is one example of many as you can do basically anything that a spell you have can do and you are breaking action economy to do it. It is heads and tails above divine smite.

If you compare this to the Paladin smite:
1. The Paladin smite can only do radiant damage to one target, they can't do anything else with their smites. It is limited. The ability you propose is limited only by the effects of the spells you have.
2. The example you gave already does more damage than a smite and this is going to be more lopsided at higher levels (fireball 8d6 vs many foes or smite 4d8 against 1 foe)

If you really want something that is balanced, how about this as a template:
Use the Paladin template, but have "spellstrike" and a unique spell list and let you use a weapon as a focus.

Spellstrike: After you hit with an attack you can cast one of your spells as part of the attack, the attack gives the visuals and appearance of the spell cast (i.e. the theme) but it only damages or affects the target you hit and any damage caused by the spell is capped at 1d8+1d8 per spell slot expended.

This gives you mechanics that are only a little more powerful than one of the best martial classes in the game while having the theme you are looking for because you will actually have a fireball blowing up (it will just only be damaging one person)

Replace Lay on Hands with ritual casting. Get rid of divine sense since your smite has varied uses and damage types and is more powerful than standard divine smite. Replace Aura of protection with a bonus on your saves vs magic.

That would be actually be pretty balanced with a Paladin through the first 10 levels or so, but my guess is it is not powerful enough for you.
 
Last edited:

on the reason of why I think the class needs a basic story as without one, you fall into the human fighter problem which is unless you know how to make an interesting character right off the bat you will end up dull and have nothing to lean on to make a character thus at lest the how they are generated and what they a primarily for needs to be hammered out so people can subvert it if they want or ignore it if they got a better idea.
Rogues never have this problem because they have evocative abilities to hang their style on. Fighters have 'I attack' 'I attack again'.

So I'm not so worried about not forcing the player to have our (as the designers) story shoved down their throat until their uvula detaches.
 

Rogues never have this problem because they have evocative abilities to hang their style on. Fighters have 'I attack' 'I attack again'.

So I'm not so worried about not forcing the player to have our (as the designers) story shoved down their throat until their uvula detaches.
how will this be any different plus this is not pure combat but what they are and why such a class exists.
 

My philosophy of classes is that they're mechanical tool boxes to build your character with, and the stabnerd is a set of mechanics we don't have yet/exists in shattered piecemeal across the face of the game.
 

My philosophy of classes is that they're mechanical tool boxes to build your character with, and the stabnerd is a set of mechanics we don't have yet/exists in shattered piecemeal across the face of the game.
a basic refluffable story would help guide inexperienced players so they have some roleplay help also helps better integrate them in settings which is desireable.
 

ECMO3

Explorer
Fighters have 'I attack' 'I attack again'.

This is objectively untrue, many of the fighter subclasses have engaging, evocative abilities. Battlemaster and Rune Knight have a bunch of different options including in and out of combat. Cavalier and Samurai have new proficiencies, and the Samurai gets a wisdom bonus on all charisma checks. Purple Dragon has a new proficiency and the equivalent of expertise in it (albeit at high level). The Eldritch Knight has a compliment of both spells and cantrips.

That is in addition to being the most competent martial character in the game and being able to "attack" and "attack again" like it is no one's business.
 

That is in addition to being the most competent martial character in the game
That's rogues. You're thinking of rogues.

A bunch of sad table scraps like half a suite of tactics you can't even use consistently, half a background or adding a dump stat bonus to a few rolls do not competence make.

And this thread exists due to the Eldritch Knight failing to follow through with the promise of the premise.
 

This is objectively untrue, many of the fighter subclasses have engaging, evocative abilities. Battlemaster and Rune Knight have a bunch of different options including in and out of combat. Cavalier and Samurai have new proficiencies, and the Samurai gets a wisdom bonus on all charisma checks. Purple Dragon has a new proficiency and the equivalent of expertise in it (albeit at high level). The Eldritch Knight has a compliment of both spells and cantrips.

That is in addition to being the most competent martial character in the game and being able to "attack" and "attack again" like it is no one's business.
half of those abilities you only get super late game which means that you still will be going attack attack.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top