Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8343671" data-attributes="member: 7023887">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. 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. 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. 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. Let's see why none of the classes work for what I and others want (specifically a spell-striking, intelligence-based, arcane gish):<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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?)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Barbarian can't spell strike, isn't Intelligence focused, can't cast 3rd-5th level spells, and so on. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bard is Charisma focused, is a full caster, can't spell strike, etc</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cleric is divine in both mechanics and theme, is a full caster, and is Wisdom focused. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Druid is primal in mechanics and theme, shapechanges instead of spellstrikes, and is a Wisdom focused full caster. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Fighter is a complete martial character without the ability to be a half-caster or spell strike. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Monk is a Dexterity and Wisdom focused non-casting class. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Sorcerer is a Charisma based full caster with no martial or spell-striking feature. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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. </li> </ol>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. 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. 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). 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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":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. 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. 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. 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!!!"Didn't I drop this line of arguing last post? 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. 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. 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 FEATURES THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH CLASS FEATURES. They are not class features anymore than the Ravnica backgrounds' spell lists are. 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.</blockquote>

Verification