D&D 5E Should 5e have more classes (Poll and Discussion)?

[Crimson Longinus]

Depends.
Many forms of technology can only be operated by specially trained individuals. If the loremaster is needed for their ability to safely operate new tech or reliably recall info, that explains why they are pare of the party.

Give some concrete examples. Black powder weapon proficiency is only a feat choice and so is expertise in any lore skill. I have super hard time seeing how one could compose a full class from such elements, a subclass I could perhaps see.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I fully agree. And know you know I feel about most of your class ideas.

But ultimately in a world where paladins exist as a separate class, one battlemage class is not an utterly terrible idea. However, that would definitely require deleting Eldritch Knight, because this would pretty much be the Eldritch Knight the except as a full class. It is also thematically super similar to the Hexblade, though Hexblade is only an awkward attempt to patch the blade pact.

I do know how you feel. You dislike adding any more classes.

Except, no. You wouldn't have to delete the Eldritch Knight, this isn't intended to delete it. An Eldritch Knight is a fighter that can cast some spells, a hexblade is a warlock who can curse people and be good at gishing (but don't have to). Both paladins and war clerics exist, and both this Gish class and an Eldritch Knight can exist.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My point is that the rogue gets zero lore skills. So Doubling zero is still zero.

But they can have two from background, both of which they can apply their expertise to.

Rogue: 4 skills plus two lore skills at +6 each (with INT 14, which IME is reasonable) (still has 4 non-lore skills to enjoy ).
Fighter: up to 4 lore skills at +4 each (if they want no other non-lore skills... unlikely but possible).

Depth vs. Breadth. I favor depth for a loremaster concept, but as I said YMMV.

No you as in you the poster.

Thought so, but wanted to clarify. I thought maybe someone else had proposed a "system" in the thread I missed and you might have mistakenly thought it was my idea. No worries.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I do know how you feel. You dislike adding any more classes.

It's not really even that. I dislike duplicating already existing concepts with tiny variation as full new classes. My first question for adding a new class is whether the concept is thematically distinct from already existing options (gish is not, there already exists ways to build fighty-casters) and secondly whether that concept supports enough mechancal design space for a new class (that is where the mundane expert class fails.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

It's not really even that. I dislike duplicating already existing concepts with tiny variation as full new classes. My first question for adding a new class is whether the concept is thematically distinct from already existing options (gish is not, there already exists ways to build fighty-casters) and secondly whether that concept supports enough mechancal design space for a new class (that is where the mundane expert class fails.)

There are many ways to make a fighty arcane spellcaster, but not many of them are satisfying. A gish may not be a distinct concept, but the class that I made is definitely unique among the current gish-types.

 

[Cadence]

Except, no. You wouldn't have to delete the Eldritch Knight, this isn't intended to delete it. An Eldritch Knight is a fighter that can cast some spells, a hexblade is a warlock who can curse people and be good at gishing (but don't have to). Both paladins and war clerics exist, and both this Gish class and an Eldritch Knight can exist.

It's not really even that. I dislike duplicating already existing concepts with tiny variation as full new classes. My first question for adding a new class is whether the concept is thematically distinct from already existing options (gish is not, there already exists ways to build fighty-casters) and secondly whether that concept supports enough mechancal design space for a new class (that is where the mundane expert class fails.)

Is the point of a Gish that it's a fighter/caster = caster/fighter, and not just a fighty-caster or casty-fighter? (That is, is fundamental balance to its core part of what the Disciples of Gish are questing for?).

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Is the point of a Gish that it's a fighter/caster = caster/fighter, and not just a fighty-caster or casty-fighter? (That is, is fundamental balance to its core part of what the Disciples of Gish are questing for?).

Yes. It has to blend arcane spells and martial fighting as seamlessly as a paladin blends divine magic and martial fighting and a ranger should blend nature spells and martial fighting. A proper true gish would be a half-caster, like a paladin or ranger, but with arcane magic. If a gish is merely a wizard, warlock, or fighter subclass, it will not be a true pure gish.

 

[Minigiant]

Give some concrete examples. Black powder weapon proficiency is only a feat choice and so is expertise in any lore skill. I have super hard time seeing how one could compose a full class from such elements, a subclass I could perhaps see.

Surgery
Drugmaking
Eectricity
Battlefield tactics
Law
Speechwriting
Truenaming
Frankenstein's Monsters

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There are many ways to make a fighty arcane spellcaster, but not many of them are satisfying. A gish may not be a distinct concept, but the class that I made is definitely unique among the current gish-types.

I just think it is bizarre to fix an under-performing concept by designing a completely new class. Like if I thought the rangers were not working quite as well as I hoped my first step wouldn't certainly be to design a separate huntsman class.

 

[Cadence]

Yes. It has to blend arcane spells and martial fighting as seamlessly as a paladin blends divine magic and martial fighting and a ranger should blend nature spells and martial fighting. A proper true gish would be a half-caster, like a paladin or ranger, but with arcane magic. If a gish is merely a wizard, warlock, or fighter subclass, it will not be a true pure gish.

My only problem is that I still picture a Ranger as a Fighter with Druidy stuff and Paladin as Figher with Clericy stuff. I always wonder why there aren't d6 full-caster Divines, and then a half-Caster in the middle. (So in PF, you could have the a d6/9lvl Ecclesitheurge-like Cleric, the d8/6lvl War Priest, and the d10/4lvl Paladin).