D&D (2024) New Classes for 5e. Is anything missing?

[bedir than]

My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. That's a big deal. A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.

All the damage of a fighter and better magical effects than a wizard. So a gish is just better, in every way, than the merge of the classes its based on?

 

[Minigiant]

Swordmages/Gishes have that problem where the EK is a strong baseline for what their stuff would hypothetically do, so a lot of stuff out there tends to be "EK but better". Its an absolutely fine line to balance

Frankly. Balance isn't an issue.

The real reason why people are upset with the EK is it's a 1/3 caster. So what's the difference between a 1/3 caster and 1/2 caster. A 1/3 caster's spells are always behind the curve. Scorcing ray at level 7? Weak.

A 1/2 caster is behind the curve but not as badly. And it's easier to fix because you have a class's full 20 level to put class features in.

Whereas a Fighter with 1/3 casting will alway be too far back. And you'll never catch up.This is why most EK and AT players use self buffs. You cannot furfill the image or dream of the Magic Knight as a 1/3rd spellcaster subclass.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not a flavor of Smite.
That's the point.

Smite just does damage.
Smite spells does damage and have little effects on hit and forces big effects on failed saves

My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. That's a big deal. A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.

O mean, it sounds like you could just homebrew a Spell thet does that? It doesn't seem that far out there?

 

[Parmandur]

Frankly. Balance isn't an issue.

The real reason why people are upset with the EK is it's a 1/3 caster. So what's the difference between a 1/3 caster and 1/2 caster. A 1/3 caster's spells are always behind the curve. Scorcing ray at level 7? Weak.

A 1/2 caster is behind the curve but not as badly. And it's easier to fix because you have a class's full 20 level to put class features in.

Whereas a Fighter with 1/3 casting will alway be too far back. And you'll never catch up.This is why most EK and AT players use self buffs. You cannot furfill the image or dream of the Magic Knight as a 1/3rd spellcaster subclass.

Behind a Mage in Spells, but ahead of a Mage in martial prowess. An Eldritch Knight gets huge damage output and can take a besting before even considering Spells. Indeed, the EK trades extra martial prowess to get Magic. And you won't ever see a Class that isn’t balanced from the HP input/output economy.

 

[Minigiant]

All the damage of a fighter and better magical effects than a wizard. So a gish is just better, in every way, than the merge of the classes its based on?

(reread his post)
When did I say that?
The Gish isn't getting Action Surge or Second Wind. And Heavy armor would likely be subclass. And only get up to 5th level.

I mean... Are the Ranger and Paladin better casters than Wizards, Druids, and Clerics? Or beter pound for pound warriors than Fighters and Barbarians?

 

[Minigiant]

O mean, it sounds like you could just homebrew a Spell thet does that? It doesn't seem that far out there?

Sure...If you double dog promise not to put it on the any current spell list.

Because such a spell is broken in the hands of a wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock or a fighter.

That's why you have to create a new class with said effect in mind.

Behind a Mage in Spells, but ahead of a Mage in martial prowess. An Eldritch Knight gets huge damage output and can take a besting before even considering Spells. Indeed, the EK trades extra martial prowess to get Magic. And you won't ever see a Class that isn’t balanced from the HP input/output economy.

bolded for emphasis

I think you missed the point of a Arcane Warrior. Their offense and defense comes from the combination of Weapons and Magic.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Just saying.

People would understand Warlocks better if there were a Warrior class with Invocations.

I mean 40k fans understand the difference between a Chaos Marine and a Chaos Psyker.

Hexblade as it's own class: you could even use existing warlock patrons as-is in most cases.

Just some base weapon stuff and fewer cantrips.

 

[Parmandur]

I think you missed the point of a Arcane Warrior. Their offense and defense comes from the combination of Weapons and Magic.

Then the Artificer is there to fill that role. Half-Caster, Half-Combatant, makes their own weapons magical and do all sorts of neat tricks with then.

Also, any such Spell should work for any Class. Gating it behind Proficiency would suffice for flavor purposes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not at all useful, I would say, because the D&D Wizard is not modelled on Gandalf as an archetype. Or, if it is, then the developers clearly did not have any familiarity with Gandalf when they did their work.

That's my point. I'm hearing people saying that EK and other existing options don't meet their needs for a Swordmage class. I'm suggesting that having models for what the Swordmage looks like is useful, so that we can understand what is missing.

The thing is, Gandalf is ONE archetype the D&D Wizard draws on. It also draws on a whole mess of OTHER Wizard archetypes too. Basically all of them, though particularly Jack Vance (hence the term "Vanican" spellcasting, though it rather quickly diverged away from his work too, because Vance's wizards use swords.)

As I said before, one of the problems with D&D class design is that there's almost nothing that works as an actual throughline for the design of all classes, even if you restrict yourself to just the "core four." Wizards take a smattering of the tropes from basically every fantasy wizard ever (that is, up to the point that D&D was published), which is why they're such a sprawling tangle of ideas and so difficult to both balance and make flavorful. (Well, that and there's a subtle, possibly not-fully-conscious effort to boost Wizard power, per Rob Heinsoo's comments from the 4e design period, but that's a different issue.) Meanwhile Clerics have a bunch of really specific features like Turn Undead and Domains and stuff that are pretty much unique to the way D&D does things, and which have little to no representation in fiction that doesn't arise from D&D itself (directly or indirectly).

 

[Irlo]

My concept of the Gish would have big effects on hit with no save. On hit Blind. On hit knocked 50feet or 100feet away. On hit you feet are frozen/sunk to the ground. That's a big deal. A feature so powerful and different that it can't ever be allowed to another class. So it can't ever be a spell.

Your proposed big-or-go-home class features (exploding swords and no-save effects on a hit here and the auto-kill feature discussed in the Assassin thread) just seem (to me) to outclass most everything else available to others. Maybe that's because they're out of context of a full class write-up, or maybe you want something very different from your D&D characters than I do. Probably both things are true.

I was the one person who voted "It depends on the mechanical importance at the table." I'm more convinced of this now than when I voted. If these types of classes are what your table wants, I'm all for you to develop them. But I'm glad they're not published official options. My table doesn't need them.