PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next [Class] Channeler



Garresh
2017-01-22, 04:46 AM
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJ9BF0Zwe

The Channeler is a class designed around shifting its capabilities and fighting style depending upon which spirits it calls upon to infuse itself. You might think of it as a spiritual successor to the 3.5e Binder, but it diverges greatly from that. For one, its more or less completely tossed any semblance of being a caster, and taken itself to be more in line with a fighter who shifts his styles. There are some caster-y traits in there, but it stays away from spell slots in favor of simple one off effects. There's a lot in there, so I'll just let you guys take a look. I tried to make this balanced, and took pains to do DPR analysis of every combination so that it stays slightly behind other classes in a given level range. I expect more changes and nerfs will be needed though.

I look forward to any feedback, advice, suggestions, or criticisms.

Garresh
2017-01-23, 02:00 AM
Quick update. I made a few small tweaks to formatting and text. Mainly I forgot to include Extra attack in its class features(though it is on the class table.

Hillsy7
2017-01-23, 11:42 AM
Overall: This is one of those really weird ones where I’ve read through a new class and absolutely loved the flavour and concept of how it is put together. The idea of overlaying differing aspects to gain benefits has a very distinct feel to it – almost shamanistic in a way. It feels narratively strong before you even think of a race or character you are going to play, but also versatile enough that it would fit straight into almost any background, and any setting. In that, you’ve outdone yourself.

However, it’s the mechanics of the class I’m really struggling with. If D&D was a solo game, then I get this totally. But it’s not. And I think as a consequence it feels like there’s an odd combination of being overpowered in some areas, and kinda vacant in others.
I’ll expand on that more at the end, and mechanically why it grates on me, but I’ll run through the whole thing first.

Great Reflavouring potential: Excellent that you’ve recognised and prompted the player and the GM to work together to bring the concepts in line with the setting. I like that a lot – it really promotes deeper thought about character and backstory and opens up loads of history about the spirits themselves.

The fluff speaks of wisdom, but unless I’m mistaken, it’s a charisma based class. Not that you’d notice as there’s outside the shadow’s shadow traits, I only counted 3 save effects, two of which are to be knocked prone. It doesn’t feel like a class that has a caster’s secondary stat at its heart. Going in with a Charisma of 10 would strip you of some Damage output, but it doesn’t feel like an integral part of the class. It feels like there should be more reason to sacrifice some CON for some CHA, other than damage output.

Spirit Focus: Perhaps a little wordy for what you’re trying to convey, and though I like the idea and the imagery, it feels like it belongs more in the fluff section at the start than as its own distinct power. I think maybe it feels a tad oblique because of what comes next.

Spirit Channeling & Spirit Manifesting Clarity: Ok, you’re going to get differing opinions on this I suspect, but for me this feels like there’s far too many words to convey the core concept of the class mechanics, which are actually pretty simple. There’s a lot dealing with tangential things that might happen, and that obscures the class mechanics a bit. I’m good with this stuff, and it took me three read-throughs to pick out all the important effects. How the weapons behave is not the important part – it’s the channeling and manifestation abilities. My advice is to strip back to the core mechanics, and put them first. If you want to cover other things such as what happens to a weapon if you let go, that goes last or in an indent.

Soul Anchor: A one shot block on death saves per day is quite good, but level 10 does feel a good level to bring this in. The type of game being played I suspect determines how good this ability is. Seems fine though, and thematic.
Wilful Soul: Like the offset boost along with soul point resource management. However, this does really bring into issue the playstyles and the marginalisation of Soul Points. I’ll address that further below

Overall Base class: So this is sort of the first part of my issue with it mechanically. Strip out the traditions, and what do you have left? No death saves on first unconsciousness, and a boost on Will save. Nothing else defines the class up to this point. Every other class has something it does outside of its core mechanic. Fighters self-heal and attack twice, Monks are clearly still martially competent, bards, druids and warlocks have spell options, clerics have channel divinity and martial attacks. Paladins have auras. The base class here is narratively so strong, but feels a little empty mechanically. And as I’ll explain later, I think that’s unfortunately by design.

Traditions & Soul Points: So just a quick point here on the core mechanics. So level 1, you get manifest abilities, but no manifest points to use them. Level 2, you get soul points – Huzzah! Then at level 3, both traditions immediately get ways to ignore spending soul points to use manifest abilities. Which they are always going to do, except perhaps in the first round. For the sake of a little power creep at low levels, I’d simplify how you are spending points. Manifest abilities don’t cost points because, well, you’re making them essentially free anyway. Improved manifest cost a point, unless stated elsewhere. Otherwise your resource economy can get confusing and obscures the mechanics underneath.

Guardian – This is a slightly confusing concept. The point of the class is to be flexible, but the concept here is to focus on a single aspect, but then you can change it out every short rest? While mechanically I see why the distinction is there when comparing the two traditions, but the flavour and fluff clashes a bit with the actual implementation…

Potent Manifestation: Ok – For some spirits this is just about not broken, because of the action economy, but there only just. Crusade gives a permanent temp 15 to all allies, fiend is a decent AOE attack, Veteran is permament disadvantage against you, Hunter is giving advantage and a powered up shot with buckets of damage at high level, and your shadow is borderline broken with shadow spit. And these happen every round, without fail, at no cost. The only drawback is it’s one per short rest.

I get that manifests are supposed to be powerful because you have to spend a resource to use them, but that cost is obsolete as soon as you take the tradition. Therefore, only the improved manifestations cost points – but if I was a level 11 hunter, every turn I can make one shortbow attack that does 7d6+Dex+1d4 damage AND Give an ally within 30 feet advantage. Every Turn, at no cost. Two hunter Channellers give each other advantage and your damage output is getting really big. And that’s without the passive damage boost.

Steady Soul & Soulforged Weapons: There’s a lot of rebalance needed here. I know that a lot of classes have damage boost abilities, but they are normally folded in the class mechanic. This class has the option of damage boost depending on spirit choice (often at no cost), PLUS this passive boost. So if the end game is a maxed Charisma and a maxed Attack stack, you’ve added +7 damage to every attack. That’s on top of attack stat bonus. So to add that to the hunter example above – that’s 7d6 + 1d4 + 12 – or 39 points of damage per turn ON AVERAGE. At no cost. That’s a hell of a lot when you consider that’s ranged as well with a +1 to attack.

Ethereal Guardian: It feels a little tacked on, and frankly in conjunction with the veteran Ability, and a couple of feats, means you’re getting towards unkillable. Especially as you’ll likely be pumping CON as well. A barbarian gets damage mitigation like this at the cost of giving the opponent advantage because of reckless attack.

Shifting soul:

Soul like water: Err, yeah this is broken I’m afraid. At level 3, you can flip between attacking one turn, dropping an AOE from Fiend, and moving, and then the next turn you can move, attack, and give everyone you can see 8 temp hit points. Rinse Repeat. Again because your manifestation abilities are cool, they are overpowered when you can drop them at level 3 at no cost every turn. And they scale.

Rising Soultide & Shifting Strike: Only makes matters worse from the above, and also applies to EVERYTHING. Again, at high levels you’re gaining additional damage or 1d8+10 over 2 attacks every turn – because you are manifesting as a bonus action every turn – AND Every other turn you’re either spitting with your shadow beast for handfuls of d6s, plus 5, or giving everyone disadvantage against you while attacking with your reaction.

One with the spirits: This seems weird considering that with the undervaluing of Charisma, you’re going to be maxed out on STR or DEX anyway depending on your play style. AND you’re going to be getting this every turn in combat anyway. By limiting it to 18 max, you’re nullifying it a bit. Unless the intention was to have Strength and Dex maxed all the time, which isn’t helping tone down the already crazy options available.

Spirits: I’ve touched on a few properties of the individual spirits here and there, and not really on the advanced stuff, but I think it needs reworking anyway, so I won’t say much more about the crunch. However, the individual Spirit concepts themselves sort of highlight the main issue I have with the class – Ironically, it lacks a bit of soul.
The class itself is nothing without the spirits that take over. Now as a player I imagine that can be great at times: I can tank like a paladin, or back off and snipe like a ranger, or more really fast like a rogue, or drop crazy heals like a druid or a cleric. So in order to be kick-ass and cool at all these things, you do something brilliant. But that sort of diminishes the other classes when in combat, but they have the versatility to really live in those classes all through the game. This class, however, will always be someone else, doing their party tricks and the only cost is they can’t do them all at once.


So I’ve sort of over explained my issues, but actually, I think the fixes wouldn’t need to be massive. Firstly, decide what the core class does without the spirits, then tone down their powers and use them to colour the main class, rather than replace it. Maybe put the powers into a spirit companion a la 4e shaman? Or beef up the resource cost so, when they do something that isn’t core class, it feels like it has meaning. At the moment the core mechanic and resource just fade into the background behind these wildly varied abilities, and that makes it largely irrelevant. You’ve got most of the architecture in place and that’s the hard part - it just needs resizing and swapping about here and there.
It’s a great concept, and the imagery is so clear, sharp, and well positioned it just fits in almost any campaign setting I can think of. And the idea of having different aspects available as options I also like. Unfortunately at the moment it feels highly unbalanced, and lacking in something mechanically concrete that defines what it can do – and “being able to do anything” isn’t a mechanical core.

To quote Brandon Sanderson’s Second Law of Magic: Limitations > Powers

Garresh
2017-01-23, 01:04 PM
Edit: I appreciate the criticism. Please do not take my counterpoints as disrespect. I agree wholeheartedly with most of your post. But I want to salvage some of the unusual and potentially broken mechanics by nerfing them in some other way. And since you have a massive amount of insight not just into what is a problem, but WHY its a problem, I want to ask further questions.



Thanks for the feedback. I guess I'll need to do some retuning and toning down. Definitely this is an ongoing work in progress. Before I start rewriting though, I'd like to ask if you can consider some of the reasons behind my decision making. I'm not sure how valid these are, but I would like to know your thoughts...

I'm definitely going to have to fix the issue with manifestation costs I think. Perhaps letting the guardian use manifestation power as an action without cost, as it currently is, but the shifting soul gains the bonus action shift, but it still costs points to manifest.

There is definitely a bit too high numbers on some of those spirits, but the reason I let shifting souls swap around so quickly is because by design it doesn't get to utilize inherent "combos" with spirits, as well as losing damage any turn it *doesn't* change. In a battle where getting up close isn't an option, a shifter cannot just sit on one spirit like hunter, because if it doesn't change every round, it loses a huge chunk of its damage output. I definitely need to adjust its power down, but thats the theory.

A few examples: The Warden gets a bonus action ability to make a creature save or be restrained, if it is standing near thick grass or vines. That combo is completely unavailable to the shifter. Shifter cannot use the Veteran setup for a crit-riposte, and so on.

So... if perhaps I lowered the damage of all the spirits, and made Shifter take penalties for NOT changing at lower levels, would that salvage the idea? I wanted to make the shifter someone who is actively punished for doing the same thing every round, forced to constantly go through change in order to fight.

Anyways, back on point I'll be nerfing a lot of these things, but at I did a lot of these calculations as compared to specialists at the same level. For example, a Ranger at level 11 will be able to fire 2 shots for +6(after sharpshooter, due to archery style), doing 3d8 + 2d6 + 30, which averages to 50.5 damage. And all of the spirits have clauses in there to specifically *block* feats from synergizing. Veteran's halberd isn't heavy so no great weapon master feat. Hunter's bow doesn't benefit from feats or abilities or spells, so no sharpshooter.

I guess what I'm getting at is... if the numbers are nerfed, can the core concept work? I've always kind of compared this class to a valor bard for instance, who can heal, dps, full cast, use expertise to be a frontline grappler, attack at range or melee, CC enemies, or toss out Faerie fire which lasts a minute.

What I'd like to do is remove the free manifestation on shifter, lower the damage steroids they get at level 11, make almost all abilities cost soul points, but give them a few more points per short rest.

But I'm enthralled by the idea of character who is hard locked out of doing one class's abilities for more than one round.

But...as for core mechanic, I'm not sure. It's by nature a jack of all trades, and I was modeling it off the Artificer model of shifting core features to specializations. Should I scrap that and try to consolidate it?

I am not trying to outright shoot down these criticisms. Rather, I've considered most of them and am wondering if they can be resolved without necessarily taking away from some of the design philosophy? Its obvious I'm heavily invested in this. Can numerical adjustments and no free manifestation powers fix the shifter? Or even penalties at level 3 if they don't keep shifting?

Garresh
2017-01-23, 01:27 PM
Hm. I'm also wondering... you mention a unifying mechanic. A previous iteration I had focused less on sets of abilities in favor of one off abilities which get rebuilt and shifted. Essentially take the Shadow spirits Shadow Traits, and imagine a system like that for a whole class, rather than a bunch of seperate spirits. Do you think that might be more balanced, if instead of gaining 5 abilities at once, they gain a set on a short rest, and then cannot change without spending actions. Ths shifter could change ONE trait on a bonus action, rather than 5+ under such a system as well. Anyways that was a previous concept. It could be a better angle if the current system is unbalanced.

Hillsy7
2017-01-23, 06:50 PM
Ok, theres a lot to get through there. So ill try and block it into a few ideas rather then go point for point.

So first off because its easier, the ranger damage calcs.

Sharpshooter takes a feat. Now people will and have argued about if the stat increase or sharpshooter is better, but the fact is if you're doing your calcs against something with a feat and this isnt an expensive resource, you're balance is going to suffer. Plus, rangers hunters mark takes a spell slot, another resource. Also, even with archery style, you're punting at -3, again thats a tradeoff the Channeller isnt making. So as a word of advice, personally I'd run all your numbers first without considering anything that costs a resource, or the GWM or SS feats at all....then once you've got the balance in the right area, look into how certain builds break it, and adjust accordingly. I mean fine, you're blocking GWM for the veteran, but polearm mastery adds another attack.....feats are a resource too.

Ok, that out of the way, lets talk about resources next.

The feel of the manifestation abilities has a whiff of the warlock about them. And personally I dont think this is a bad thing....for me, warlock spell casting feels like throwing a grenade. I only have a few, but they go boom! Now the type of boom the Channeler has is limited to what you're doing at the time, or what you're planning to do in the future. Limitations are a good thing. So that really isn't a problem - and again I like raw concept of shifting tactics a bit, like a druid shapeshifting but without the HP pool bonus. So as a raw mechanic, ignoring execution or balance, its great. I'd play that character.

So from there, you have 2 aspects going on. You want passive changes that promote flexibility, but these should be resource light, and then your kapow abilities that cost point. Unfortunately, without playtest a lot, or ganking the equivalent structure from another class (I did this with my own forray into homebrew), getting that number right is going to be difficult. So to begin with, personally, I'd give nothing that is a triggered ability for free (so no skipping the Soul Point charge for either sub classes), pick a class that does its cool thing about as often as you want the Channeler too (again, my suggestion would be the warlock) and match the resource available there. Then adjust accordingly based on limitations (in this instance, the scaling of the warlock spells - channelers scale slower with some abilities, faster with others - and the limited range of options). Then play test the hell out of it.
So in short, I'd scale back the abilities into 2 types, passive, small and costed by the action economy, versus big, bad and expensive, and that would be a good framework to build a resource mechanic around.

Ok, so moving onto the traditions more specifically. The guardian was just a bit OP because some of the base abilities were worth an action, all the time, e.g. if you were channeling a crusader, every turn all your allies have DR15. In a party of 6, thats equivalent to an ton of extra damage on the table. Free. Therefore if you aren't doing it, its because you dont have to, not because theres something better. That's just tweaking and balancing and playing with numbers. There your action economy is working as your resource management. Fine. All you need to do is bring those actions in line with a 'standard' d&d action, namely hitting things or a cantrip, and you're fine. You can still use your SP resource for your fireworks.

The shifter variety breaks that. As I read the abilities, when you manifest a new spirit, you trigger its ability for free. And changing is only a bonus action....assuming im reading that correctly, thats where its breaking down. The resource of using an action to trigger abilities is being cut to just a bonus action. Now, if you were to make each spirits base bonus, or the cheap resource free cost, about the same in power terms as a bonus action, then that new economy starts to look more balanced, and your SP resource is buying the equivalent of an additional action.

I could go on, but this should be revisited after rebalancing the ability list. You'll have a much better idea then of how the two resource management systems, action economy vs SP economy, work in a game situation.

So that brings me onto the last point I want to touch on, and thats the fundamental core of the class. At the moment, the classes definig point is versatility......that is both appealing, and slightly lacklustre. Why? Well you dont get to be the best at something (this i suspect is why the ranger was so disappointing to a lot of people), and that has drawbacks. The first is more mechanical - if everyone around you is specialised, you get lost in the background. As mike mearls said in one of the podcastsi listened to, you want to be glad you brought someone along. A bard isn't just a great buffer of other players, he's also a skill monkey AND a full caster. Clerics have all the buffing and healing spells. Monks and fighters attack everything. ...etc etc. If your USP is the fact you can do half of what 6 other classes can do, you're the second choice for everything.

The second thing is more notional. A Channeler doesn't feel special to me. Versatility is great in solo games, because you are not locked out of parts of the narrative. Add a bigger cast, such as a d&d party, and the areas where you connect to the game get shouldered out by specialists. This is why in heist movies you rarely see someone who's pretty decent at all the things everyone else does, because they'll ask the specialists first. On the table, you might get away with it, because of resource management. As a concept, you're relying on covering other peoples limitations. For me, I'd always be wishing I was just better at doing the one thing someone else can't do, rather than being adequate across the board.

So when you mention about having a core set of skills, like the shadow traits you listed, I think that's a good thing. The hard part there is tailoring those skills into a package that makes the Channeler into the 'best' at something.....the adding the versatility afforded by channeling as a way of managing the core idea. Again the bard isnt a bad example.....the college of lore branch makes spellcasting more varied, more explosive, while adding to the core functions of insipration. Valour bards also use their inspiration differently, while being more melee focused with their downtime. (Valour bards however suffering cripple action economy until lvl 14, plus being hampered by the VSM requirements. The have to give up a lot to be able to cast and stab....so much so a lot of people argue its a poor choice compared to lore.)

Again, having said all that, the core idea is great, what I feel is missing is the core reality to hang it on. If you could find something that drives the Channeler to a place no other classes sit in, then add on the resource options already in place through channeling, then youve got something there. Unfortunately, it means you will have to make a decision to shut down some options so the class feels like it has a place of its own. And for a class based around versatility, thats a fine balance to strike. But for me, personally, I think the class would be better for it.

Garresh
2017-01-24, 04:34 AM
Thank you for the detailed post. You're the first person who offered in depth explanation of the problems and how to fix them. I have a lot of work ahead of me it seems. It looks like I'll have to be toning down the various free abilities, and the at will stuff to be more on line, in addition to limiting the effects to all require soul points. With that in mind, I think the angle to go here is to somewhat reduce the potency of each spirit, and try to make this thing a "specialist" at being a front line fighter, with some reduction of ranged, cc, and utility powers as a result. Ideally putting it in line with a paladin, though trading auras and damage for a little bit of soft CC and utility. Either way, that is a good analysis. Thank you.

Hillsy7
2017-01-24, 06:12 AM
Thank you for the detailed post. You're the first person who offered in depth explanation of the problems and how to fix them. I have a lot of work ahead of me it seems. It looks like I'll have to be toning down the various free abilities, and the at will stuff to be more on line, in addition to limiting the effects to all require soul points. With that in mind, I think the angle to go here is to somewhat reduce the potency of each spirit, and try to make this thing a "specialist" at being a front line fighter, with some reduction of ranged, cc, and utility powers as a result. Ideally putting it in line with a paladin, though trading auras and damage for a little bit of soft CC and utility. Either way, that is a good analysis. Thank you.

I'd say most of the work is defining the resource theory (What's cheap and useful, whats awesome and pricey), then I reckon you'll find most of the number crunch will drop into place, and you'll know where to push the boundaries.

One last thing I wanted to add to specialist, just for something to think about. You mention "Specialising" in terms of being a "front line fighter", and thus dropping out range/cc/utility etc. See that's not quite what I was trying to get at. Let me try and explain (Also, there's a certain amount of hand-waving here because I'm guessing at the original 5e designers intentions.

So look at the fighter. Traditionally thought of as the front line tank. Except, that's not his specialty. His specialty is the art of fighting - and this is reflected in the Fighting techniques. In fact one of the best DPS builds is a fighter with a hand crossbow. The fighter is the best at Fighting (not necessarily damage) and so they get Manouvres, or crit bonuses, or two types of technique, or a magic tweak. A fighter does not specialise in a narrow role.

You can sort of pick out what they were trying to do with each classes speciality.
Barbarian: Specialises in damage (taking, giving)
Bard: Specialises in buff/debuffing dice and skills
Cleric: Healing
Druid: Control
Fighter: Fighting
Monk: Multiple attacks
Paladin: Burst damage (Smiting)
Ranger: Outdoors
Rogue: Stealth and assassination
Sorceror: Kaboom
Wizard: Casting Spells
Warlock: Cantrips

Now none of these things rely too heavily on how we now think of defining Roles (Healer, DPS, Tank, Melee, Ranged etc), regardless of where they are on the field, this is what they do best. A Barbarian can still rage and fire a bow. Rogues sneak attack just as well from the sidelines, as in a crushing melee. So personally, here is where I'd start the kernal idea of the Channelers Speciality. Drop the versatility for now (that's more of a role, or play style thing), an boil down what the class *does*, not how or where they do it.

For example, I'll use my own homebrew as an example. Quite early in the concept, I identified that I wanted the class to be Tactical (Capital 'T' intended). So what it does is delays damage until it can maximise it, based on the situation. To do that, I added some maneuverability, added on some defense options, built in a rage-type resource, had two archetypes that used tactics differently...and so on. But the pure core of it is intended to be tactical. OK, maybe it didn't work and people don't like it, fine, but I can argue it does something other classes don't do, and I can tweak with that concept in mind.

Anyway - I think I've waffled on more than is polite. It's entirely up to you whether or not you take y advice, and I'd also advise getting more if you can - one opinion doesn't indicate trends - and playtest if you get a chance (maybe join/run a short Play by post game and ask the DM to help with balancing).

Garresh
2017-01-24, 06:45 AM
On the contrary, your "waffling" has been extremely helpful. I've sought other advice but it's mostly been "This is overpowered" or "The core concept doesn't work.", without any justification or useful advice. So excessive detail is exactly what I need. I suppose if I drop the versatility, and go down to the core concept, that concept I would like to be is, simply put, "Change". A character who seems to be fluid, and never static. I suppose the real question becomes how can you make that a specialization. The Shifter was originally designed from such a concept. I wanted to design a class who is constantly changing and flowing between states, without necessarily stepping on others toes.

That's why I designed this with no skill monkey potential, mediocre healing, no spellcasting/utility, and so on. The class in its current iteration does too much for too cheap. At this point that's pretty obvious. But I want to find a way to make a class that seems to be constantly changing, but doing so within a somewhat narrow range. Hence the only 2-3 spirits until high levels, etc. I mean a bard can melee, range, cast, heal, and skill monkey, but it's not overpowered. So the crux of this design needs to be a way to cut it down to only being good at one pillar, while also feeling unpredictable and chaotic, *without* being able to outshine other characters or lack focus. A hard problem, to be sure. Hm.

Edit: And as always, I am super grateful. Your advice is massively useful, and I'm going to be doing a lot of mulling over it as I go back to the drawing board. hehe. Thanks a bunch. You're amazingly helpful.

Hillsy7
2017-01-24, 08:07 AM
A character who seems to be fluid, and never static. I suppose the real question becomes how can you make that a specialization. The Shifter was originally designed from such a concept. I wanted to design a class who is constantly changing and flowing between states, without necessarily stepping on others toes.

Sometimes I find framing the question in another way can crystalise thought......

How do they do, What they do?

Your concept here of "Change", would cover the How, part. What I personally feel is missing is the What part, because for me "a bit of everything" lacks clarity.

Garresh
2017-01-24, 08:38 AM
Sometimes I find framing the question in another way can crystalise thought......

How do they do, What they do?

Your concept here of "Change", would cover the How, part. What I personally feel is missing is the What part, because for me "a bit of everything" lacks clarity.

Hm. So the "What" part to me should be "Fighting". Let's try stripping away all those extra powers and go minimalist. Ditch any healing subclasses, any CC effects or combat utility like the difficult terrain, and just drop back to the very base.

Would a class who focuses on switching spirits every round, but each of them are functionally extremely similar work around that concept? I.e. one round it's a greatsword hit. Next round it's two shortswords. Next round it's a longbow.(Edit: Let's ditch the longbow and all ranged actually) But none of the extra utility, or magic effects. Something more akin to a where the shifting is a bonus action, but there is NO manifestation effects anymore, nor are there any powerful utility effects or anything. Instead, their attacks each have on hit things they can spend soul points for.

Taking it further, ditch all the ranged attacks entirely in that case, bump survivability, and make it all melee. Could you have an ascetic type character who is a frontline bruiser, but each turn his attacks seem to shift unpredictably, while still being constrained heavily to "hits in melee", with riders costing Soul Points. Furthermore, if we make each rider basically as powerful as say, Paladin smite spells, does that feel balanced? Paladins get all their smite spells without switching, so making it just as powerful as that(but requiring a bonus action switch) may be a way to more narrowly focus this into a specific thing.

The Channeler hits people with spiritually infused weapons.

Such a concept would lose a massive amount of utility and flexibility in exchange for some focus, and technically by RAI via Mearls tweet, switching weapons for free is the intended use of the free object interaction each turn(with the exception of Shields, so Crusader would have to lose that). hm...