Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Marandahir" data-source="post: 8535058" data-attributes="member: 6803643">Based on your three assumptions at the top - which I whole-heartedly agree with - I'm not sure there is room for any additional classes except MAYBE a Psionic one - which I would unify with the Mystic concept, and make its focus on Occultism.Other classes' subs like the College of Spirits Bard and the Divination Wizard, as well as the Aberrant Mind and Psi Warrior and Soulknife, and a few of the Monk subs like Way of the Astral Self would essentially then be subclass-style multiclassing into this, the way that the Eldritch Knight is essentially a subclass method of doing Fighter/Wizard and Scout Archetype is martial Ranger/Rogue. This can be an Int class, which makes Aberrant Mind the "Wilder" equivalent to the Mystic's Psion, in 3.5e terms.But beyond that, I don't think any of the other ideas hold water with the three big assumptions.Arcane Fighter Gish are Artificers in 5e, or else they're Eldritch Knights or College of Valour/Swords Bards, or Hexblades (or I guess, Wild Magic Barbarians). There's no room for a separate Swordmage. The Artificer killed it and took its stuff, and I say good, because no one was able to think of a prominent example that wasn't just Fighter-Mage. It doesn't have the same narrative pulse and commonality to sci-fi and fantasy lit the way the Paladin and Ranger have. And that's FINE. Artificer captures the essence of this in its more martial incarnations like Armourer and Battle Smith and Forge Adept. These are not like Eldritch Knight, they're like if 4e Runepriests and Invokers were rolled into one class (significant narrative overlap, but one side is martial and one side is more castery). In fact, the Cleric, Bard, and Druid already function this way, but are full casters. Perhaps its best compared to the Warlock, which has more limited spellcasting than the three above, and also has more martial variations (Hexblade, Undead, Pact of the Blade any patron) and more castery versions (Pact of the Tome, Talisman, Chains, any Patron but Hexblade and Undead).I just don't see how Warlord is able to exist in a world where Fighters include all non-magical (and some magical) ranged and melee warriors. 5e Fighter is a very broad concept. 4e was able to have a full Warlord class because it split up the Martial Warriors into Fighter, Warlord, and non-magical Ranger. But 5e unified these concepts, and there's already several subclasses that adequately portray this concept (especially when you add in feats and fighting styles that help support the Warlord concept).Magic of Incarnum was always fiddly and stepped on the shoes of other concepts without feeling like it had a unified identity of its own. I just don't see that as able to define itself in contrast to everything else.Scholar I've like the idea of, but I ultimately come down to, why is it just Intelligence skills? What about Courtiers, who are charismatic? What makes this character not just an NPC-class Expert? How is this an adventuring class and not a background? Where do we draw the line between background and adventuring class? I'd say the same thing about Knights, by the way - it just seems more like a concept that Fighters, Paladins, and a handful of other characters MIGHT have in their backstory but aren't their own thing that stands out as why they totally couldn't be these other classes.Ultimately, Scholar also begs the question that if we have adventuring Scholars who are balanced in combat and adventuring capacity with Wizards, why do we have Wizards? What are they bringing to the table in terms of wisdom and lore if the Scholar brings the same thing? What is the role of Wizards in the world if not the scholars? If you say that they're magic and the scholars are not, we're getting into the definition of magic and its function in society. The pseudo-medieval setting that fills D&D often uses magic instead of tech, and in Eberron, it uses Magic instead of the Industrial revolution. Wizards ARE the scientists of D&D. Not the only ones - Artificers, Druids, Bards, Sorcerers, even Clerics could be scientists. But magic and science and knowledge are functionally equivalent in D&D (as a corellary to Arthur C. Clarke's laws). I don't see a game where I can run a scholar without stepping on the Wizards toes and also feel like I have a reason to exist.And then I think of the Expert NPC class and how it could possibly be fleshed out into a full player class, but then I'm like, what are the subclasses? Every single background fleshed out with subclass abilities? Why aren't these just more robust backgrounds a la Strixhaven? I could see a 6E where all backgrounds give you features akin to Strixhaven's or akin to 4E's Heroic-tier character Themes. So I then think, this doesn't make sense either.And finally, looping back to the Mystic, if we could swap out Cha for Int on Sorcerers, I don't know if I would need a Mystic/Psion class. Aberrant Mind with a key ability of Int would suffice. But that's a bigger question about the relationship of class to abilities, and I'm not sure I fully agree with separating class from key ability. We already do so with Str vs Dex in regards to the Fighter and Ranger, which is the primary reason I'd wonder if Ranger should be JUST Dex/Wis like Paladin is JUST Str/Cha, and then Fighter could be split into melee and ranged. But then I come down to, what are the ranged options other than "Archer?" I guess Arcane Archer, yes. But why not have Cavaliers be both lance/sword/warhammer users and ranged cavalry (a la bowknights/oliphantiers/horesback archers)? Would these two classes just share most of their subclasses, but not all? It starts to drive at what is a class?I see so many attempts at making independent classes, whether in En5ider or on DMs Guild or individual blogs, reddit, etc, and nearly every single one seems to be stepping on the toes of another class or not broad enough of a concept to stand on its own two feet. It needs to be able to accomodate at least 10 subclasses that are narratively and functionally distinct from each other without wholescale overstepping another classes' key concepts. I just don't see that with anything other than POSSIBLY the Psion/Mystic.</blockquote>

Verification