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

[DND_Reborn]

can see that logic. And it is indeed a bit lopsided that the fighter/clerics and fighter/druids get their full classes, whereas fighter/wizards only get a fighter subclass.

But that is because the legacy of Paladin and Ranger changed over editions. The original Paladin in AD&D didn't get cleric spells until level 9. The original Ranger got Druid spells starting at 8th level and Magic-User spells at level 9. They were Fighter subclasses--primarily fighters with some spell and/or magical abilities.

So, like the original Paladin and Ranger, the EK is a fighter who can cast some spells...

At eldritch knight is a fighter that can cast some spells. A bladesinger is a wizard that can do some fighting. This Gish is someone combining both aspects, mostly in equal terms.

Even if you look at them now, they (Paladins and Rangers) are not even mostly on equal terms in how well they fight and how well they cast spells. They fight more or less as good as the fighter, but are NO WHERE near as good at casting as the Cleric or Druid.

But, when 3E came out, they carried over the Paladin and Ranger, but since there was never a Fighter subclass in AD&D which focused on the magic-user spells (the Ranger barely touched on them, only getting 2nd level spells), there was nothing to bring over.

I find it a bit funny that the EK is considered a 1/3 caster when they get 4th level spells, closer to being a half-caster IMO really. Anyway, I've never found the Paladin subclasses compelling at all and neither has anyone in our groups. I made up a homebrew subclass for it just to give us one people actually found some interest in. The Ranger's lack of coherent identity has led it to be considered one of the worse classes (for design, that is) in 5E.

I still say both Paladin and Ranger (along with with the EK) could have been returned to subclasses of the Fighter and worked well. Then you would have your gish for arcane, divine, and primal on an equal footing. I won't be surprised to see a full arcane gish class someday, but it really needs to be unique for me to feel it is justified...

 

[Undrave]

Once the electrify is discovered it stops being medieval era. It is completely implausible that this wouldn't happen. That's the thing with science and technology. They produce repeatable effects that anyone can use.

The word 'electricity' comes from the Greek word for amber, which the Greeks would use to produce static sparks by rubbing it on surfaces. Considering a fantasy world has tons of fantasy material, its possible a material exists that produces more potent sparks.

and technology doesn't always spread wide without proper communication method, or without someone clever enough to come up with a use for it. See the Aeolipile for exemple, which was never put to practical use.

Yeah, just a design preference. I envision it as an arcane knight who can master any type of armor, as well as any type of melee weapon. I've purposefully made the class be an open concept, not focused on Dex or Strength. I personally think a plate-armored, maul-wielding, fireball-striking gish should be as viable a character in this class as a studded leather-wearing, dual-scimitar bladed, dexterous swordmage type.

I don't know what Duskblades or Swordmages did, and may take some inspiration from them, but that's not really the purpose of the class I'm making.

I've always wanted to see a character that channel magic through their armor, transmutating it and changing its shape and property...

As for the 4e Swordmage, it was an Arcane Defender that married weapon and magic in the same action. One of its neatest trick was its Aegis, a magical effect it put on an enemy and if they DARED attack somebody other than the Swordmage, the Swordmage would TELEPORT right next to them and punish them for it! It was pretty neat. They could place their Aegis at a distance so one moment they'd be fighting dudes over there and the next they would kick the crap of whoever dared to attack the Cleric or something.

 

[Cadence]

I still say both Paladin and Ranger (along with with the EK) could have been returned to subclasses of the Fighter and worked well. Then you would have your gish for arcane, divine, and primal on an equal footing. I won't be surprised to see a full arcane gish class someday, but it really needs to be unique for me to feel it is justified...

I'm not 100% onboard with everything they did, but I kind of like in PF that the Magus has it's own spell list and special abilities that kind of go along with what you would get if people trained to merge fighter and wizard, instead of just multi-classing them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not 100% onboard with everything they did, but I kind of like in PF that the Magus has it's own spell list and special abilities that kind of go along with what you would get if people trained to merge fighter and wizard, instead of just multi-classing them.

This reminds me of my idea a while ago of making subclasses that were templates for each class and using that to replace the idea of multiclassing.

The basic premise was you would get the core class features of a second class as your subclass for your main class. Instead of being a Fighter (Eldritch Knight) you would be a Fighter (Wizard), and by level 20 would have all the core class features of a 20th level fighter and a 7th level wizard, but that would be your subclass.

 

[Hatmatter]

If rangers don't get heavy armor at base, I don't think the arcane fish should get heavy armor at base.

Add that to the classes that I would like to see: psionicist, maybe warlord (maybe not), but definitely arcane fish. Yeah, that's the class for me!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Even if you look at them now, they (Paladins and Rangers) are not even mostly on equal terms in how well they fight and how well they cast spells. They fight more or less as good as the fighter, but are NO WHERE near as good at casting as the Cleric or Druid.

That is true, but they are half-casters. Fighters get up to 4 attacks in an action, Rangers, Paladins, and this Gish class only get 2.

A martial half-caster should use their magic to empower their attacks, each in unique ways. A ranger uses Hunter's Mark, Hail of Thorns, Swift Quiver, Zephyr Strike, and other spells to allow their attacks to be better, paladins use divine smites and smite spells to add to individual attacks, and the gish class I made uses spell strikes to imbue their weapons with spells. They're all unique, even if they are using the same magic source (spellcasting) to empower the same way of fighting (martial weapons).

I still say both Paladin and Ranger (along with with the EK) could have been returned to subclasses of the Fighter and worked well. Then you would have your gish for arcane, divine, and primal on an equal footing. I won't be surprised to see a full arcane gish class someday, but it really needs to be unique for me to feel it is justified...

I don't think it would ever happen in 5e. 6e would have to make the balance of the class identity be better. In 5e, about 80% of your character comes from your base class, and 20% of it from your subclass. In 6e, if they can get it to be 50/50, I would not be directly opposed to having these archetypes become "subclasses" if they did it right.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Someone upthread was mentioning a Scholar/Expert class. I personally don't need that class in 5e, but I'm indifferent to adding it. Couldn't it be called the Savant?

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is true, but they are half-casters. Fighters get up to 4 attacks in an action, Rangers, Paladins, and this Gish class only get 2.

Right, but with their spells they become as good at fighting as fighters, despite having half the attacks. So, their ability to fight (enhanced by their magic and features) matches most fighter builds.

But their spells don't even come close to matching most caster builds.

In short, if they are half-casters, they should be half-fighters (in the sense of their "total" fighting ability). Or, just make a MC fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, fighter/wizard of 10/10 each.

That is why I don't feel a new gish class is really needed, or if it is done then with the view that they will be as good at fighting as fighters, but do it via arcane magic (spell strikes, etc. as you suggest).

I don't think it would ever happen in 5e. 6e would have to make the balance of the class identity be better. In 5e, about 80% of your character comes from your base class, and 20% of it from your subclass. In 6e, if they can get it to be 50/50, I would not be directly opposed to having these archetypes become "subclasses" if they did it right.

No, not in 5E. Paladins and Rangers are already here so... I think it would be good way maybe in a later edition. Who knows???

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Right, but with their spells they become as good at fighting as fighters, despite having half the attacks. So, their ability to fight (enhanced by their magic and features) matches most fighter builds.

But their spells don't even come close to matching most caster builds.

In short, if they are half-casters, they should be half-fighters (in the sense of their "total" fighting ability). Or, just make a MC fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, fighter/wizard of 10/10 each.

They are meant to blend their two power sources together to become better in combat. Isn't that the point of the classes? They don't need to be as good at casting spells on enemies as a Wizard or Sorcerer would, because they don't need to focus in combat using only spells. Sorcerers and Wizards can focus on damage dealing, just like Fighters can, they just "fight" in different ways/styles.

That is why I don't feel a new gish class is really needed, or if it is done then with the view that they will be as good at fighting as fighters, but do it via arcane magic (spell strikes, etc. as you suggest).

I'm kind of confused, now. What do you mean by "fighting?" Do you mean martial combat, or combat in general?

No, not in 5E. Paladins and Rangers are already here so... I think it would be good way maybe in a later edition. Who knows???

Only the wizard gods.

 

[Cadence]

They are meant to blend their two power sources together to become better in combat. Isn't that the point of the classes? They don't need to be as good at casting spells on enemies as a Wizard or Sorcerer would, because they don't need to focus in combat using only spells. Sorcerers and Wizards can focus on damage dealing, just like Fighters can, they just "fight" in different ways/styles.

I'm kind of confused, now. What do you mean by "fighting?" Do you mean martial combat, or combat in general?

Only the wizard gods.

Is one of the problems with the Gish that they really want to be an elite Githyanki fighting group that is simply better? Like someone who wants to play an elf because they read about Ecthelion and Fingolfin in Tolkien. But for game balance their combined battlefield prowess + off field utility can't be higher than any of the other classes So if they're just as good on the battle field as the fighter (using both martial skills and magic), then they can't be particularly great off the battlefield because a fighter isn't. And if they have vast utility, then they can't be out there taking the front-line punishment a fighter does.