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

[Frozen_Heart]

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

(Also in doing some looking into I was reminded there was a good Pugilist class out there so non-magical fist fighter is another archetype)

Thing is a gish wouldn't be 'eldritch knight but better'. Sure they would get 5th level spells and be able to enchant their melee attacks, but the advantages stop there.

Eldritch Knight would probably have higher hit die, and better armour. It would have 4 attacks, which can then be action surged up to 8 attacks. It would have more ASI increases in order to get its scores and feats in place faster. Those are the advantages an eldritch knight would have over an arcane gish class.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead.

Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.

I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.

 

[Mind of tempest]

When talking about what classes should exist, it also matters are we talking about potentially adding things to the game as it currently exists, or what classes should exist in the next bigger update (The anniversary update?) In the latter case some of the issues of duplication do not need to exist. For example, if it is felt that there should be a dedicated gish class, then they simply can not have Eldritch Knight subclass at all and have a separate gish class instead.

Personally I feel that class design starts to be bit of a mess at this point, as design paradigms have shifted, so I'd rather look at this in the context of clean slate reboot (still assuming the basic mechanics remain roughly the same and compatible of course.) In such context the role of classes as whole can be reassessed. Some can be merged or removed, new ones can be added.

I am not necessarily opposed of dedicated gish class in such a context, though I feel it should have more thematic focus going for it than a generic multiclass build as one class.

thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.

 

[Aldarc]

thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.

However, it's not as if there is a shortage of video games, cartoons, books and the like with prominent gish-style characters in them. Throw a stone in any given direction, however far or short away you like, and you're bound to hit a "gish" in some piece of fantasy media.

 

[Minigiant]

thematics has always been the arcane gish's downfall as no one has been able to build a thematic framework properly.

Actually it's not that bad.

The gish has plenty of Themes. The fight is which are core and which are subclasses.

 

[Mecheon]

Thing is a gish wouldn't be 'eldritch knight but better'. Sure they would get 5th level spells and be able to enchant their melee attacks, but the advantages stop there.

Oh, I'm talking about the 3rd party attempts at getting one going.

Its a delicate balance game

 

[Crimson Longinus]

However, it's not as if there is a shortage of video games, cartoons, books and the like with prominent gish-style characters in them. Throw a stone in any given direction, however far or short away you like, and you're bound to hit a "gish" in some piece of fantasy media.

Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.

Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.

Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.

then go less inherent darkness and not beholden to a power, made to fight fire with fire is a popular character concept

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. But you need to choose some core theme. And whilst I like class themes to be relatively broad, "can fight and do magic" is still way too vague; it needs to be more focused than that.

Gishy concepts that speak to me are Withcer, Death Knight from WoW and Dark Knight from FFXIVIV. Common theme to all is that they're edgy and dark and in the case of first two somehow altered by dark magics for a personal cost. This is decently compelling, but also already pretty much the warlock, hexblade in particular.

I agree, but that also may be what the subclass helps establish in a more concrete manner: i.e., the flavor, method, and theme of how that mageknight goes about their business and/or purpose. Much in the same way, for example, that the domains help establish the cleric beyond being a magical priest. In the same way that there are magical traditions for wizards centered around the categorization of spells, a gishy mageknight may have their own disciplines: e.g., mage/magic hunters, edge lords, war/battlefield magic, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree, but that also may be what the subclass helps establish in a more concrete manner: i.e., the flavor, method, and theme of how that mageknight goes about their business and/or purpose. Much in the same way, for example, that the domains help establish the cleric beyond being a magical priest. In the same way that there are magical traditions for wizards centered around the categorization of spells, a gishy mageknight may have their own disciplines: e.g., mage/magic hunters, edge lords, war/battlefield magic, etc.

Sure, to a degree. But I feel at minimum it should be at least established at the base class level what the source of their magic is. Is it learned, innate, what? Are they fluff wise just fighty wizards? Fighty sorcerers? Something else?