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

[Frozen_Heart]

It's true that many tables allow players to ignore all the class theme. You could have a cleric without a god, a warlock without a patron, or a paladin without an oath.

But just as many enforce the theme in a strict manner, as seen by numerous threads on here and reddit. Many tables consider class to be central to the classes identity, and will not allow it to be reflavoured. This can be seen with the "I hate hexblades" thread going on right now.

So sure, with my current DM I have completely reflavoured my hexblade into a frost themed swordmage (to the point where eldritch blast does cold damage). But if I tried playing something similar as a different table, I'd be told that I had to have a shadowfell patron and be all edgy as the class fluff demands.

That is why 'just reflavour' isn't a valid argument. Because in many tables that's largely not allowed.

 

[Garthanos]

That is why 'just reflavour' isn't a valid argument. Because in many tables that's largely not allowed.

Separating flavor and function is not as easy in this edition on purpose

 

[Minigiant]

That is why 'just reflavour' isn't a valid argument. Because in many tables that's largely not allowed.

Many people forget that the DM makes the lore and the player creates a character within that lore.

Reflavoring doesn't always work as you can't be the DM and the player.

Getting a DM to accept a whole class can sometimes be easier than injecting world-changing lore into a DM's world and hoping they accept it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Many people forget that the DM makes the lore and the player creates a character within that lore.

Reflavoring doesn't always work as you can't be the DM and the player.

Getting a DM to accept a whole class can sometimes be easier than injecting world-changing lore into a DM's world and hoping they accept it.

Yep. Like in Eberron, in my world it's easier to just make up new lore to add a race that doesn't exist in it than change the main lore to squeeze in a character idea from the already existing lore.

 

[Redwizard007]

Here's a quote from the PHB's "Classes" section:

*See the emboldened parts that prove my point, and then the examples below it for even more proof that theme/flavor is a part of your class. If you need even more, see the table below that shows the 12 different classes and gives a completely theme/flavor-based "Description" section of the table.

Your table runs it differently from how the game is written. That's fine. Just don't try to use your table's playstyle/houserule to try and invalidate my argument anymore, please.

I think you got that confused, as Warlocks recharge spells on a short rest and don't have sorcery points. I would know what class you are automatically when you use one of your abilities. Even if you went out of your way to avoid saying them, I could eventually narrow it down based on the spells you cast and how you recharged your spell slots.

Even if you mentioned absolutely no class features or spells, made no mention of your hit dice or anything else mechanical that could give you away, if you played it by the books, I could figure out what class you were at the first time you or anyone else said "Spellbook", "Tome of Shadows", "Imp/Quasit/Sprite/Pseudodragon familiar", "Pact Weapon", "Talisman", or "Otherworldly Patron".

Classes are a thing because of flavor. If there was no flavor or theme, it would just be mechanics and characters would only be chosen based on who was the most mechanically effective. Classes were made not to give a pool of different mechanics, they were made to give mechanics to fulfill a theme/idea that someone had for a class. This isn't some "chicken or the egg" riddle (the answer to that is egg), it's "do people create classes to have different mechanics, or do they create mechanics to fill different classes' thematic niches?", to which the answer is undeniably the latter.

Dude (and I mean this as a gender-neutral dude, I was raised by a Californian mother), you're comparing Apples (Classes), Oranges (backgrounds), Bananas (feats), Blueberries (skills), and Strawberries (race), and trying to replace all parts of a fruit salad with just one or two fruits.

Like in my example, if the Rogue class said "Rogues are sneaky and good at sleight of hand", but gave them no features that let them take the Stealth or Sleight of Hand skills, and someone was complaining about that, it would not be a valid argument to say "well, just choose X-background/race/feat!". Dude, just no. That's not how it works. The class says that it's sneaky and quick with their hands, so the class should have a mechanic that let's them do that. It would be even more disingenuous to say "well, just wait X-levels to choose X-feat instead of actually improving your rogue features if you want that part of the rogue theme!", hopefully for obvious reasons. If a class's flavor text gives you a theme, the class's mechanics should give you that theme.

I'm a little late to the party, but couldn't help but notice you bolded the wrong part of the PHB.

Class is the prirnary definition of what your character
can do. It's more than a profession; it's your character's
calling. Class shapes the way you think about the
world and interact with it and your relationship with
other people and powers in the multiverse.

Class defines what you can do, and how you can do it. It is far more than a profession. It is your tool set, but it doesn't make you your tools. We don't call everyone who uses a wrench a mechanic, and we don't call everyone who swings a sword a fighter.

See the next couple lines from the PHB.

A fighter, for example, might view the world in pragmatic terms
of strategy and maneuvering, and see herself as just a
pawn in a much larger game. A cleric, by contrast, might
see himself as a willing servant in a god's unfolding plan
or a conflict brewing among various deities.

Did you notice the words I bolded? Might. Your character might see themselves that way. Then again, they might not.

Class can be everything in the PH, but it can also be modified by settings, new books (Tasha, etc.,) table preference, 3rd party expansions, errata, JC's twitter, and any other darn thing that a particular group wants to toy with. What remains the same through the majority of those tweaks is the mechanics far more often than the fluff. I have never once run into a DM that wouldn't happily let me adjust fluff to match a character concept. That's in 30 years playing this game. Class is the chassis we use for the mechanical base of our character and nothing more.

 

[Garthanos]

Many people forget that the DM makes the lore and the player creates a character within that lore.

I built my game world with loads of open spaces to fit new player concepts ... Creating a new class flavor wise no biggy ... creating one mechanically sound can be a bigger deal.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

I built my game world with loads of open spaces to fit new player concepts ... Creating a new class flavor wise no biggy ... creating one mechanically sound can be a bigger deal.

You sound like a solid DM. Not all are so accommodating.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Step one of giving a gish identity would be tying it to a setting

The base game is purposely generic, and there's already the eldritch knight and bladesinger (or a fighter/ wizard multiclass) that does generic
Flavor that isn't generic adds a role and lore to the world. Which may not fit people's homebrew or existing settings. If they're "elite guardians of an ancient elven empire" then the world needs an ancient elven empire

What made the artificer the only modern class with legs is the strong tie to Eberron that might fit other settings. It didn't try to do everything

Looking at Dark Sun or Dragonlance and looking at what a gish there would look like might give the best inspiration

 

[Minigiant]

I built my game world with loads of open spaces to fit new player concepts ... Creating a new class flavor wise no biggy ... creating one mechanically sound can be a bigger deal.

Not every DM does that.and many DMs dont like you messing with their baby if they do make one.

This is why it is important that the arcane warrior has a story identity that can fit into many settings. This allows players an edge into getting a concept into a setting.

My two suggestions are

1) the Gish is a warrior who uses discarded warrior magic unused but crated by full casters. Spells a wizard could or woud never use find a home in this arcane warriors. Weapon and armor enhancements with a few defensive and utility spells.

Subclasses are Arcane Heritages
Swordmage
Duskblade
Runic Hammer
Gith Blade


2) the Gish are experiment of arcanists. Creation of the Perfect Soldier TM with the power of arcane magic. Arcane magic is used to infuse warriors with special abilities and they are taught some magic as a way to understand their powers

Subclasses are Arcane Specialization

Librarian Arcana Specialization
Techmarine Artifice Specialization
Chaplain Divine Specialization
Apothecary Potion Specialization
Chaos Curse Specialization

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm a little late to the party, but couldn't help but notice you bolded the wrong part of the PHB.

I bolded the part meant to prove my point against that specific argument. The other is also important for another part of the argument, but wasn't pertaining to the discussion.

Class defines what you can do, and how you can do it. It is far more than a profession. It is your tool set, but it doesn't make you your tools. We don't call everyone who uses a wrench a mechanic, and we don't call everyone who swings a sword a fighter.

It's your toolset. Different classes have different toolsets. You don't call someone that uses a wrench a coder. You don't call someone that uses a sword a psychologist. You don't call someone that uses a jackhammer a brain surgeon, or someone that has a scalpel a sniper. Different toolsets determine what tools you have available, and your profession determines that toolset, thus some version of the inverse is also true (that what tools you have/use can determine/show what category/profession you fit in).

See the next couple lines from the PHB.

Did you notice the words I bolded? Might. Your character might see themselves that way. Then again, they might not.

Might, as in suggesting that members of that class are more inclined to those viewpoints than members of other classes and that the generalizations, although not absolutely true all of the time, bear some significant amount of truth to them.

Class can be everything in the PH, but it can also be modified by settings, new books (Tasha, etc.,) table preference, 3rd party expansions, errata, JC's twitter, and any other darn thing that a particular group wants to toy with. What remains the same through the majority of those tweaks is the mechanics far more often than the fluff. I have never once run into a DM that wouldn't happily let me adjust fluff to match a character concept. That's in 30 years playing this game. Class is the chassis we use for the mechanical base of our character and nothing more.

And like I said, I overall agree with that, but again, like I said, there is a line. To me, reflavoring Paladins/Rangers as an Arcane Gish is crossing that line, because it isn't just the theme that's different, it's the mechanics.