Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8925097" data-attributes="member: 18">It really does not.For example, a level 11 Fighter with a longbow and STR20 has three attacks doing 1d8+5 damage. That's far better than any cantrip at that level.That's with zero build and no subclass. Just literally pulling out a longbow.So that's just a nonsensical claim.I have no idea what this means.No. This is just flatly untrue.Hexblade was a Warlock sub-type. There was already a "new class", Swordmage, so that's a nonsensical claim. And claiming that something has been "shoehorned" for the last 15 years isn't a very good argument.Both could and should be class features. So how about yes?It's not impossible but realistically it's going to probably be worse at damage than a Paladin (unless you just rip off Smite) and it's going to be incredibly hard to resist spamming Shield unless you take if off their list, which, for 1D&D, you probably cannot even do, because of the way lists work (and it would obviously be mad to ban them from Abjuration spells).Also, like, why? What's the benefit?You're still engaging with the fetish. That you need the class for the purposes of symmetry. You need to propose a concept FIRST, and only THEN do you propose how it works. So far the concepts proposed have largely been ones which would work much better with a Warlock-based chassis.So explain the class you envision in detail. Justify its existence with something other "it's symmetrical!". Paladins are an extremely loreful class (NPI lol) with a detailed and complex reason to exist. Rangers are a goddamn mess who probably shouldn't be half-casters, but that's a separate discussion. Explain why you need "Arcane half-caster" specifically for the concept you're proposing, and why a variant on the Warlock chassis wouldn't work better.So far all you're presenting is a circular argument.</blockquote>

Verification