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

[Thunder Brother]

The best name I've heard is "eldritch knight" -

But you could decide the "base" flavor is something and name them after that. Or dive fully into tradition and call them Gishes.

An Eldritch Knight is just an Arcane Warrior with a thesaurus.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You cast a spell and deliver it by hitting with a weapon, as opposed to shooting a laser or having the target make a save. Detail are a matter of balance which isn't what this thread is about, just whether or not such a thing is viable and/or fully covered by existing options.

Isn't that very similar to smites?

The thing people consistently like about psionics is that it's not spellcasting. Therefore, you need something other than spellcasting. I'd argue it doesn't matter all that much what it is, so long as it's not Spellcasting.

Right. An if you have checked the recent psionics tread, I think that is not a sensible or coherent definition. If you are using a power of you mind levitate rocks, you're using magic. Basing entire concept on thesaurus is just a no go.

Which is why fighters ruined DnD, because having the flavor in the subclass is totally unworkable. Clearly this is a major flaw, which is why they're the most popular class in every survey. People hate having flavor in the subclass.

Like it or not, as generic as 'fighter' is, it is actually a pretty recognisable and popular archetype. Mageknight is not.

It's really hard to make the spellcasting feature not spellcasting while still leaving it as spellcasting. Probably not worth the effort either.

Right. So just accept that psions are spellcasters and we can actually get it done.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

How does the spellstrike work?

It's changed over the editions.

In DnD 3.5e, along with Pathfinder 1e and 2e, it's the ability to channel touch spells through your weapon strikes. So you would hit with your sword and apply something like vampiric touch through that attack by using a spell slot.

In DnD 4e this got turned into encounter and at will powers, the same as every class. The swordmages were all themed around hitting people and magical effect happen.

In DnD 5e, touch spells got reworked and now there are barely any at all, with many attack spells which used to be touch no longer being touch. The closest this edition are spells like searing smite or ensnaring strike. Where you cast as a bonus action, and then the spell effect is let off next time you hit with a weapon attack.

However in 5e, every. single. one of these weapon attack type spells is not available to the subclasses which are based on prior edition gishes (eldritch knight and swordmage). Essentially cutting off the core mechanic from the theme people enjoyed that mechanic with.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Isn't that very similar to smites?

Similar, but not the same. You could achieve the result with a lot of smite spells, but it's a lot. And a new spell list.

Right. An if you have checked the recent psionics tread, I think that is not a sensible or coherent definition. If you are using a power of you mind levitate rocks, you're using magic. Basing entire concept on thesaurus is just a no go.

Magic, yes. Spellcasting, no.

The degree of difference isn't huge, but its's not zero.

Like it or not, as generic as 'fighter' is, it is actually a pretty recognisable and popular archetype. Mageknight is not.

Hard disagree - I can see a mage knight a mile away.

Right. So just accept that psions are spellcasters and we can actually get it done.

Magic users, not spellcasters.

It's been done in every edition thus far, why can't it be done now?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

However in 5e, every. single. one of these weapon attack type spells is not available to the subclasses which are based on prior edition gishes (eldritch knight and swordmage). Essentially cutting off the core mechanic from the theme people enjoyed that mechanic with.

That sounds annoying, but also easy to fix: give those subclasses access to those spells.

 

[cbwjm]

Just going off what I can recall from Reddit or DMsguild for additional classes, the ones I see the most are the fighter-mage (whether called a swordmage, arcane knight, or magus, etc), the witch, the warlord, and the scholar. Particularly the fighter-mage and the witch since I've seen so many iterations by different people that I think these would be good additions by WotC.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Just going off what I can recall from Reddit or DMsguild for additional classes, the ones I see the most are the fighter-mage (whether called a swordmage, arcane knight, or magus, etc), the witch, the warlord, and the scholar. Particularly the fighter-mage and the witch since I've seen so many iterations by different people that I think these would be good additions by WotC.

I feel like witch would have the same problem ranger already does: it has neither clear flavor nor mechanics, or even a 'thing' that all witches do.

Which isn't to say there isn't a good idea for a class that could be called a witch (it might make a good name for a summoner/pet class).

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Isn't that very similar to smites?

Yep it is, which is why the 4e swordmage also introduced several varieties of reaction based teleports in as a signature mechanic. Both the swordmage and the paladin were competing for a similar niche.

In 3.5e the spellstrike was the focus of the duskblade (their version of a swordmage) and it offered a huge variety of magic effects, and the paladin smite was a lot more narrowly focused than it is now (damage only, no other effects). 4e introduced a ton of 'powers' for both and so both paladin and swordmage ended up in the 'hit things and magic happens' niche.

And then in 5e this kept going to the paladin having all the smite spells. While the arcane gish class got cut.

Essentially the growth and expansion of the paladins smite mechanic from a 'once a day a bit of extra damage' to a 'hit and have your magic effect of choice to off' slowly overran the arcane gishes niche.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

That sounds annoying, but also easy to fix: give those subclasses access to those spells.

I would if I could, but it's not my choice, it's the DM's.

Also as eldritch knight is a fighter with 4 attacks + action surge, I'm not convinced it would be balanced giving it those spells. 4 attacks + action surge + max upcast smite spells all at once is just a stupid amount of damage. For the same reason paladin and ranger have 2 attacks and not 4.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We've given both. A bunch of examples. You've shot all of them down.

Mechanical differences from the base gish classes/subclasses:

• Martial Arcane Half-Caster (wizard-version of a Paladin) that gets Spellcasting and a Fighting Style at level 2, most/all armor and weapon proficiencies, and Extra Attack at level 5
• A "Spell-Strike" ability, where they somehow merge offensive spellcasting with weapon attacks (putting lightning into Thor's hammer, teleporting when you attack to lock down enemies as a Swordmage, etc)
• Using your main weapon as a Spellcasting Focus automatically
• Subclasses that promote different styles of being an Arcane Gish (Swordmage, Duskblade, Mage-Slayer, Witcher, Elementalist, etc)

Thematic Differences:

• You are especially trained to perfectly merge spell and blade. You're not like an Eldritch Knight, which is a fighter trained in some magic, or a Bladesinger, which is a Wizard trained to have some martial capabilities. Your training was unique and specialized to properly integrate both spellcasting and martial fighting into your style of fighting, making you an elite arcane warrior (typically existing in societies that are both militaristic and have some style of arcane training, like Netheril, many Elven societies, and similar cultures)
• You choose a specific discipline to combine your style of fighting with a style of spellcasting. You could be a Mage Hunter, a type of bounty hunter that is specifically trained to track down mages and use your magic to counter their abilities, or an Elite Bodyguard that uses both Abjuration magic and physical protection (Shields, Armor) to be an arcane bulwark that protects your liege from harm, and so on
• You are to the Wizard as the Paladin is to the Cleric and the Ranger is to the Druid. You're trained to master more Arcane types of spellcasting (evocation, abjuration, necromancy, anti-magic, conjuration), instead of the Ranger's focus on nature magic (entangling prey, goodberry, pass without trace) or the Paladin's focus on divine magic (healing, warding off the unholy, resurrection).
• You don't have to swear an oath or live in the wilds to get your powers, instead, you have to undergo rigorous training and possibly even bodily modifications to properly merge spell and blade. You didn't study a book like the Wizard, and didn't just learn martial training like the Fighter, but instead learned how to unlock magic through certain movements of your blade as somatic spell components, or arcane war chants that act as verbal spell components, or using the magic of your blade to fuel your casting (allowing it to be a spellcasting focus, ignoring many material components of your spells). It's a long, grueling process that takes years to master, and makes up for the normal restrictions of getting similar powers (becoming one with nature, worshipping a god/swearing an oath, unlocking the secrets of the universe by spending a decade in a library, etc).

Is that really not enough? You said that you liked the idea of an arcane gish (until we somehow convinced you otherwise), what kind of difference do you think would be good enough to set it apart from existing classes/subclasses?

What I see is mechanically very similar to paladins and fluff wise effectively an eldritch knight. Also a lot about what they are not (no oaths, no wilderness, no books) and very little about what they are. I'd also like to point out that in 5e arcane/divine divide exist in one fluff box about Forgotten Realms, so I don't think 'arcane paladin' is enough, just like 'divine bard' wouldn't.

Now if in a reboot eldritch knight subclass wouldn't exist, then at least that overlap would be avoided, and perhaps eldritch knight could be its own class. But it still seems super thin to me. I just don't find this compelling. Mind you, this is very much a preference thing. If enough people finds it compelling, then it could be a class. But then again, I'm not only one here asking these questions nor has WotC added such a class even though they've had plenty of time, so I don't think I'm alone in this.

Personally I would like the class to be defined less by what it is not and by it's relationship with other classes. I want it be something else than just a wizard/fighter multiclass with smoother mechanics. I don't think 'combines fighting with magic' alone is enough, it needs to come with metaphysics and a narrative. I find things like Death Knights and Witchers compelling. They're their own things, not just hybrids of other things and come with an interesting story.