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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8523423" data-attributes="member: 7025508">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. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification