log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Frozen_Heart

Explorer
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.
I mean yeah I'd prefer that, but in DnD 5e that's simply not true. Every single class has a description and story which shapes at least some of the characters background. There is no class which just gives you a set of mechanics with no in built description.

Even fighter, rogue, and wizard have some suggestions about who they are and how they got their abilities.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


ECMO3

Adventurer
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.
Rogues are the most versatile characters in the game and my favorite class, but they are not the most competent martials nor really even close to fighters in that regard.

I think most of the people who claim fighters are "dumb jocks" have never tried to play one that isn't. Fighters are the least MAD class. You really only "need" 1 good stat to play a fighter effectively (either strength or dex). This lets you put the rest of the points whereever you want for your theme. For example, If you are going to be playing a Samurai you will probably not be dumping Wisdom.

Also while I am at it an EK can be built to outdamage any other fighter, or probably any other class at most levels (without using any limited use abilities), while also sporting a 23AC. I have never understood or agreed with the arguement that they are not good GISH characters.
 
Last edited:

ECMO3

Adventurer
half of those abilities you only get super late game which means that you still will be going attack attack.
The things I mentioned are available at 3rd, 3rd, 3rd 3rd, 7th, 7th, 3rd and that is assuming you don't take superb technique fighting style (available to all fighters) which can actually give you limited-use out of combat buff at 1st level.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
Eldritch Knight is just use regular attacks and spam shield for most of its playthrough. Not really comparable in gameplay to the duskblade/magus/swordmage.
Yeah, if you don't bother to take spells like friends, charm person, silent image, minor illusion, mending, identify, suggestion ........

Also in terms of melee damage it is generally better to use a cantrip as an action for "most of its playthrough". Attacking is only generally a better option from levels 1-2 (before they have any cantrips). After they get cantrips at level 3 using GFB is generally they highest damage option "always available". At level 5-6 it depends on the enemy you are fighting, solo attacking is better, groups the cantrip is better. At level 7+ the cantrip is generally superior in most cases. With some builds that is not the case, especially if you pick up hex through a feat, but with most builds it is.
 
Last edited:

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
Also while I am at it an EK can be built to outdamage any other fighter, or probably any other class at most levels (without using any limited use abilities), while also sporting a 23AC. I have never understood or agreed with the arguement that they are not good GISH characters.
I don't think anyone is saying EK is weak. People aren't saying the Bladesinger is weak either. It just lacks the playstyle people want.
 

The things I mentioned are available at 3rd, 3rd, 3rd 3rd, 7th, 7th, 3rd and that is assuming you don't take superb technique fighting style (available to all fighters) which can actually give you limited-use out of combat buff at 1st level.
I wasn't aware I was Mind of tempest.

Rogues are the most versatile characters in the game and my favorite class, but they are not the most competent martials nor really even close to fighters in that regard.
Because they can't attack attack? Nevermind sneak attack and having actual tactics, the sort of things that are so difficult for fighters that the tactical fighter build has limited uses of them.
I think most of the people who claim fighters are "dumb jocks" have never tried to play one that isn't. Fighters are the least MAD class. You really only "need" 1 good stat to play a fighter effectively (either strength or dex). This lets you put the rest of the points whereever you want for your theme. For example, If you are going to be playing a Samurai you will probably not be dumping Wisdom.
Yeah, you're not going to need Constitution for anything. just put your stats in a minor boost given to your class as a table scrap. This is why the stabnerd can't be built off the fighter; because the impetous is to keep fighters bad and boring.
Also while I am at it an EK can be built to outdamage any other fighter, or probably any other class at most levels (without using any limited use abilities), while also sporting a 23AC. I have never understood or agreed with the arguement that they are not good GISH characters.
DPS is not the point. DPS is never the point and I suspect DPS is why you think the fighter is fine as is.

But look at the actual discussion of what people want out of the stabnerd and you'll see that it's more about the style than DPS. The EK is a fighter who also casts spells. The stabnerd blends spellwork with combat. Blend not hybrid.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
Because they can't attack attack? Nevermind sneak attack and having actual tactics, the sort of things that are so difficult for fighters that the tactical fighter build has limited uses of them.
Because they can't do as much damage, take as much damage or have as high an AC. A Rogue can optimize himself to be good at one of those things, but at the cost of others.

Yeah, you're not going to need Constitution for anything. just put your stats in a minor boost given to your class as a table scrap. This is why the stabnerd can't be built off the fighter; because the impetous is to keep fighters bad and boring.
Your AC is high enough and hit dice are high enough that you can play with a 10 constitution just fine. Most of the fighters I play using point buy have a 10 or 11 constitution at 1st level, I rarely take an ASI in constitution and they have all played just fine.

Taking the magic initiate feat with shield spell is generally going to be more survivable than taking a constitution ASI. Shield, even cast only once a day will generally save more hps than 2 points of constitiution. It stops one attack which in general against an appropriate CR foe will prevent more than 1hp per level damage. Even false life cast once a day within an hour of battle is worth 2 points of constitution at 6th level.

The reason your fighters are one-dimensional is because you build them to be one-dimensional. If you do that they are going to be outstanding in combat and weak out of combat. A different build would make them good out of combat while still being good or even great in combat.

But look at the actual discussion of what people want out of the stabnerd and you'll see that it's more about the style than DPS. The EK is a fighter who also casts spells. The stabnerd blends spellwork with combat. Blend not hybrid.
Every suggested build I have seen has been way overpowered and far more powerful than any other class (even more than bladesinger which is already OP). When I suggest abilities that limit damage to be more inline with other GISH characters while keeping the "theme" people don't want to do it.

For example allow mixing spells and attacks but limit spells cast in this fashion to affecting no more than 1 enemy and doing a max of 1d8+spell slot level damage (which makes it comparable to but still more powerful than Paladin's smite). The same people who say they want this theme don't want such damage limits on the class. They want to hit with full weapon damage and follow that with a 8d6 fireball damaging all enemies in a 20 feet wide circle instead of hitting with weapon and casting a fireball that only affects one enemy for 4d8.
 
Last edited:

The same people who say they want this theme don't want such damage limits on the class. They want to hit with full weapon damage and follow that with a 8d6 fireball damaging all enemies in a 20 feet wide circle instead of hitting with weapon and casting a fireball that only affects one enemy for 4d8.
This assertion isn't even on the same planet as this thread.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
This assertion isn't even on the same planet as this thread.
You say you want to "blend spellwork with combat" if that means casting a full leveled action spell on the same turn you attack, that is 2 actions in one turn, and doing it repeatedly while having access to heavy armor and martial weapons it is WAY, WAY overpowered compared to other 5E classes. That is essentially 2 actions on a turn and will far, far eclipses the damage a Paladin can do with smite.

There is math involved here. A 3rd-level spell as part of a melee attack action should be worth 4d8 in 5e. In earlier versions of d&d, without bounded accuracy, doing more than this would not have been as big a deal but in 5E it is.

Now if by blend you just want to be able to do both in the same fight - then just attack one turn and then cast a spell on your next turn. Wouldn't this meet the theme - Attack and then 6 seconds later cast a spell? If this still does not fit the theme, another alternative is to use ready action on your turn to attack right before your next turn. So your reaction attack would come out and then your action would follow immediately. Thematically you could even say your attack is releasing the spell without changing the actual game mechanics and if you miss you could use your action to ready again instead of casting. You can do these things already, they fit the alleged "theme" people claim they are looking for, and they are balanced with the other classes in the game.
 
Last edited:

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
You said you want to "blend spellwork with combat" if that means casting a full leveled action spell on the same turn you attack, that is 2 actions in one turn
2 turns, from my version of the feature, as well as requiring concentration, and a requirement for the imbued weapon to hit within 2 turns of the first attack roll, or else the spell is wasted. It takes a bonus action at level 12+. Also, putting a fireball in a melee weapon would force yourself to take the damage from the fireball as a part of that.

Stop telling me and others that any version of a Spell Strike feature is going to be OP, especially when you haven't even seen the current version of the feature.
 

cbwjm

Hero
Eldritch Knight and valour bard already have the ability to make an attack (as a bonus action) and cast a spell. It doesn't kick in until levels 18 or 14 but it is still already in the game and should be fine to add to the mage knight as an ability at an earlier level since this is what they are focused on.
 

if that means casting a full leveled action spell on the same turn you attack,
And that's where we go offroad.

No.

Not looking to cast wizard spells.

What I and a lot of other people are looking for is to swing a sword and it catches fire in midswing, or smack someone with a hammer that became suddenly super dense and it sends them flying, or fire an arrow and it turns into a thunderbolt that dodges around obstacles to hit the target or said arrows splits into a Macross Missile Massacre.

There's like five spells across six classes that sort of do that; paladin smites, ranger spells, bladelock spells.

I want to do the power rangers thing and bring those zords together; create a class built around it rather than have it be an incidental thing my character can do along with a lot of extraneous and/or boring crap.
 

okay, we have our smite equivalent.
do we give them something more passive to add options at a low level (the equivalent of paladin healing but obviously something else)?

ideas both mechanical and thematic for basic subclasses? I say four of the bat.

and a basic thematic plot to explain what they are and how they come about?

also, does the weapon investment look like this or am I up the wrong tree?
 

Frozen_Heart

Explorer
You say you want to "blend spellwork with combat" if that means casting a full leveled action spell on the same turn you attack, that is 2 actions in one turn, and doing it repeatedly while having access to heavy armor and martial weapons it is WAY, WAY overpowered compared to other 5E classes. That is essentially 2 actions on a turn and will far, far eclipses the damage a Paladin can do with smite.

There is math involved here. A 3rd-level spell as part of a melee attack action should be worth 4d8 in 5e. In earlier versions of d&d, without bounded accuracy, doing more than this would not have been as big a deal but in 5E it is.

Now if by blend you just want to be able to do both in the same fight - then just attack one turn and then cast a spell on your next turn. Wouldn't this meet the theme - Attack and then 6 seconds later cast a spell? If this still does not fit the theme, another alternative is to use ready action on your turn to attack right before your next turn. So your reaction attack would come out and then your action would follow immediately. Thematically you could even say your attack is releasing the spell without changing the actual game mechanics and if you miss you could use your action to ready again instead of casting. You can do these things already, they fit the alleged "theme" people claim they are looking for, and they are balanced with the other classes in the game.
I mean what I've been asking for is a half caster with two attacks, an arcane/elemental theme, no RP baggage unlike the warlock/paladin/artificer, and a ton of spell options like searing smite and thunderous smite in order to make exiting magical weapon attacks their signature feature.

I fact I think the ideal arcane gish wouldn't even have fireball in their list at all. In the same way paladin doesn't have spirit guardians.

If you think that's overpowered, I'm sure you think paladin, cleric, hexblade, ranger, and bard are all far too powerful for 5e.
 

This assertion isn't even on the same planet as this thread.
I think that ECMO3 might be reading several different versions of the suggested class and claiming that the intent is that the class will have all of those abilities, rather than just the abilities of one of those versions.

You say you want to "blend spellwork with combat" if that means casting a full leveled action spell on the same turn you attack, that is 2 actions in one turn, and doing it repeatedly while having access to heavy armor and martial weapons it is WAY, WAY overpowered compared to other 5E classes. That is essentially 2 actions on a turn and will far, far eclipses the damage a Paladin can do with smite.
What level would the suggested class be able to be combining the weapon attack and spell, and how many times would they be able to do it?
Does the suggested class have multiple attacks with additional damage riders like a Paladin, and thus have effective damage on those rounds when it isn't burning spell slots? Does the class get access to heavy armour as part of the base class like a Paladin, or does it have to expend resources to get that?

Once you have understood all of those, do you still thin that the suggested subclass would be overpowered, and if so, why?
(The class as a whole; not a single ability taken in isolation with no context.)

There is math involved here. A 3rd-level spell as part of a melee attack action should be worth 4d8 in 5e. In earlier versions of d&d, without bounded accuracy, doing more than this would not have been as big a deal but in 5E it is.
What level spell do you think would be needed for a fireball that does an extra d8+5 to one of its targets?

Now if by blend you just want to be able to do both in the same fight - then just attack one turn and then cast a spell on your next turn. Wouldn't this meet the theme - Attack and then 6 seconds later cast a spell? If this still does not fit the theme, another alternative is to use ready action on your turn to attack right before your next turn. So your reaction attack would come out and then your action would follow immediately. Thematically you could even say your attack is releasing the spell without changing the actual game mechanics and if you miss you could use your action to ready again instead of casting. You can do these things already, they fit the alleged "theme" people claim they are looking for, and they are balanced with the other classes in the game.
There are already five or six classes/subclasses that work by casting spells and making attacks separately, and at least two that can do that in the same round.
Certainly when I designed my suggestion, I was working on the basis of something a little different.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
I mean what I've been asking for is a half caster with two attacks, an arcane/elemental theme, no RP baggage unlike the warlock/paladin/artificer, and a ton of spell options like searing smite and thunderous smite in order to make exiting magical weapon attacks their signature feature.

I fact I think the ideal arcane gish wouldn't even have fireball in their list at all. In the same way paladin doesn't have spirit guardians.

If you think that's overpowered, I'm sure you think paladin, cleric, hexblade, ranger, and bard are all far too powerful for 5e.
No that is not OP, but I don't understand why a Paladin doesn't already meet that requirement. I get why Warlock doesn't, but you can play a Paladin without any "RP baggage".
 

No that is not OP, but I don't understand why a Paladin doesn't already meet that requirement. I get why Warlock doesn't, but you can play a Paladin without any "RP baggage".
a paladin is a divine caster plus it is all melee much like ranger is mostly range we want the in-between.
 

ECMO3

Adventurer
What level would the suggested class be able to be combining the weapon attack and spell, and how many times would they be able to do it?
Does the suggested class have multiple attacks with additional damage riders like a Paladin, and thus have effective damage on those rounds when it isn't burning spell slots? Does the class get access to heavy armour as part of the base class like a Paladin, or does it have to expend resources to get that?
I think once a day at 11th level or higher would be ok provided the specific spell to be used was selected and expended ahead of time (at the end of a long rest or as its own independaet action out of combat).

What we are talking about is essentially the equivalent of a contingency spell without using a spell slot, but with one discharge option (the attack). Since a full caster can't do that until 11th level and can never use more than one 6th level slot per LR, this class should also not be available before 11th level and should never be available more than once per long rest.

Even at 11th level this is still very powerful for a half caster IMO.

Does the suggested class have multiple attacks with additional damage riders like a Paladin, and thus have effective damage on those rounds when it isn't burning spell slots? Does the class get access to heavy armour as part of the base class like a Paladin, or does it have to expend resources to get that?
If they are a half-caster and if they stay within the Paladin damage limits per spell slot yes, but I would also suggest they have no cantrips like most other half-casters and nerf the other ribbon abilities since their higher-level feature is so good.
What level spell do you think would be needed for a fireball that does an extra d8+5 to one of its targets?
For a martial character with extra attack and heavy armor as part of their class - never unless limited to like once per day.

There are already five or six classes/subclasses that work by casting spells and making attacks separately, and at least two that can do that in the same round.
They do not allow you to cast action spells and use an attack action in the same turn. The only subclass that allows this are bladesinger and EK and they only allow cantrips with it, not leveled spells.

No if you are going to limit this to cantrips or to spells with a bonus action casting time then it would be fine, but I would argue you have a bunch of options already if that is the case.
 
Last edited:

Frozen_Heart

Explorer
Paladin, Ranger, or Hexblade is definitely closest in pure mechanics imo.

Paladin has to have an oath, instantly limiting its RP background in a serious way. Some DM's will allow reskinning the class though. Others won't.

Its abilities are very divine themed. Divine sense, lay on hands, etc. The same with its spell list being heavily divine themed with the spell picks (just like how ranger and paladin don't have the same spell list). The varying smite spells definitely do suit though, apart from maybe those inflicting radiant damage as arcane classes rarely get that.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top