Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8332810" data-attributes="member: 7023887">Theme is a part of the class. Certain classes are more open with their theme (Fighter, Artificer, Wizard), and some are more closed off/strict (Warlock, Paladin, Cleric). I'm not saying that wizards have to be the literal embodiment of every D&D wizard stereotype in the game, I'm saying, as 5e is written, they have to have studied magic to get their power. Warlocks have to make a pact with an otherworldly being to get their magic. Sorcerers have to be born with their magic/transformed by magic in order to get their powers. There are thematic differences between classes, while there are also space for plenty of different character options using these classes. However, that is no argument against adding a new class. "Reflavor it" is not and never has been a valid argument against adding a new class. If it were, we would only need one class in the game, and every ability could literally be anything you want it to be, you just have to reflavor it to be what you want.The sorcerer and warlock classes literally would not be a thing if thematic differences weren't an important part of class identity. There would be absolutely no reason to have them. Mechanics is how you differentiate the classes based on their theme. Theme is how you make a class, mechanics is how you get it to work.Like I said above, mechanics are how your class shows its theme. If the Rogue was said to be "sneaky and good at sleight of hand" but had absolutely no mechanics to show this bit of flavor text, that would be a problem. IMO, the same applies to Sorcerers, with their magic coming innately, and CON being the ability score that best shows "innate ability", IMO. It is a mechanical effect to help show the theme of the class. Mechanics exist to show the theme of the class. That's why Wizards are Intelligence based, that's why Bards are Charisma based, and that's why Rogues are Dexterity based.Reflavoring is all fine and dandy, but there is a line to draw. If I reflavored the Attack action to being psionic-attacks and a Greatsword to be a mental focus, that's entirely possible through reflavoring, but that seems like crossing that line to me. I also feel that reflavoring another class as an Arcane Gish class is crossing the line, especially when the mechanics of the class/subclass that is being used that way to also be crossing the line of "great reflavoring!" to "that's too far/too much reflavoring".You can definitely have a brutish, melee rogue, but they still have the rogue abilities. You can have a stealthy, silent barbarian, but they still have the barbarian abilities. There's only so much reflavoring that you can do before it is too much. Sure, Conan the Barbarian works as either a Rogue or Barbarian (even a Fighter), but others don't work.I mean, yeah, that's like the definition of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts#:~:text=Moving%20the%20goalposts%20%28or%20shifting%20the%20goalposts%29%20is,goal%20offers%20one%20side%20an%20advantage%20or%20disadvantage." target="_blank">Moving the Goalposts</a>.Yes, spellcasters are different from non-spellcasters. It is also easier to differentiate spellcasting classes from other spellcasting classes than it is to differentiate non-spellcasting classes from other non-spellcasting classes in 5e (different spellcasting abilities, different spell lists, different amount of spell slots and how to regain spell slots, etc), but that doesn't make what I said wrong.More goalposts being moved.1) No, they're not. If they were, they would be in your class. That's like saying dunamancy spells are a part of the Wizard class, because they're an option that certain types of wizards can take.2) Yep! It's an option. Not all tables use them, and I have seen tables that don't use them (even though I personally do). Furthermore, no other class identity relies on feats to be played. In the PHB, in the Ranger class section, they don't just have a sticky note that says "just play the Rogue with the Magic Initiate (Druid) and Fey Touched (Wis, Hunter's Mark) feats". Or, it's like saying "no classes should get armor/weapon proficiencies, because they can just take feats to get them!"3) I also assume you think it would be a "lame excuse" to say "not all tables allow/use multiclassing" if someone said that they wanted an arcane gish class, and you or someone else said "just multiclass Wizard 10/Fighter 10". Also, if you argue against adding a class because it isn't official yet . . .  <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> that's a never-ending circular argument. If "we shouldn't add a new class because you can use these optional features to do something similar to that, and then you would be adding a class that would be optional" is true, we never would have gotten the Artificer, and we will never get any more new classes in D&D 5e ever. That's just . . . not a valid argument.1) Yes. "All it stops is Bladesong" (and Song of Defense and Song of Victory). It literally stops you from being able to use 3/5ths of the subclass's features (and that is counting Training in War and Song as one that they get to use, which is a very minor feature).2) I mean, yeah, I would like to be able to use the main feature of my subclass if I'm going to play that subclass. No one plays Rogue and then chooses to only use melee weapons without the Finesse property, unless they're playing it ironically. No one is like "ooh! That subclass/class feature is awesome! I can't wait to never use it!". It's absolutely not like saying "fighters have to use blowguns because they have blowgun proficiency", it's like saying "fighters should be able to take the Attack action while wielding their weapon(s)".3) But in order to get the benefits of a Bladesinger's Extra Attack (which then is limited to only using two cantrips to fit this theme, and only those two cantrips), they have to give up their main subclass feature (Bladesong), and their level 10 and level 14 features, as well as a ton of feats to get proficiency with medium/heavy armor and two-handed weapons.<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤦‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f926-2642.png" title="Man facepalming    :man_facepalming:" data-shortname=":man_facepalming:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Is it really so unreasonable for you to accept my suggestion that if you're choosing a subclass in order to replicate the theme of an Arcane Gish, that you should at least be able to use all of that subclass's main features while replicating the theme of the Arcane Gish? Really? That's the hill you choose to die on? "Just be a Bladesinger, but only use one of the Bladesinger's feature!/Literally change out of your weapons/armor whenever you want to use those abilities."Yeah, I did, you just chose to make the stance that it is totally reasonable for a Bladesinger to not be able to use 60% of their features while being the Arcane Gish that they want to be.Contingency is a 6th level spell, it takes prep ahead of time to be able to use a theme that is very common for Arcane-Gish type characters, and it takes resources from a beforehand to use later on. Full casters get that at level 11. Now you're doing the equivalent of demanding that a Paladin waits until level 11 to be able to use Divine Smite (their main class feature), or that an Artificer be unable to create Infusions until level 11, and only if they spend a week of downtime beforehand to create a +1 weapon for a minute.Also, there are only 2 attack cantrips in the game, and those are only cantrips, so they can never be the same in power and scope that a true spell-strike feature would (like I detailed above, by merging a spell like lightning bolt or fireball with a weapon).</blockquote>

Verification