D&D 5E The Problem With Gish 2.0

[doctorhook]

the 3.0 Arcane Archer and Bladesinger to things like 3.5’s Hexblade, Duskblade, and prestige classes such as the Eldritch Knight, Abujurant Champion ans probably some others I have missed.

Understatement of the year when you consider that there were literally hundreds of PrCs.

Apologies for only replying to one tiny comment from your post, but I actually laughed out loud at it, so a comment of my own was necessary.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

OK, so first I like that the term gish has grown from "1 type of gith yanki sword and magic character" to "People who use magic and martial power" it makes it easier to have 1 group term for all of them.

I think the eldritch knight single classed is a little odd... it doesn't have enough unique feel to become this editions swordmage (4e) but is also not wizard enough to be the 2e or 3e fighter/mage.

When multi classed though the eldritch knight and arcane trickster are both great for gish builds...

start level 1-3 as a fighter and take eldritch knight and there is your con save prof... at the cost of 2 levels where you are not playing what you want (unless your DM lets you start 3rd or higher) then take wizard levels and alternate.

I saw a player of mine (who no longer plays with us) who toke the paladin oath of vengeance and multied it with valor blade bard up till 10th level (6/4) then took his 11th level and 12th level as wizard... because the wording of wizards gaining spells says they can learn a level they can cast, at 12th level his 2 new spells were 4th and 5th level... it really made him feel like a great gish... but he left that game and will most likely never come back, so even though the game made it to 14th level before we beat the main bad guy and had our happy ever after (not really but close) we never got to see him at 13th or 14th

 

[abelmort]

I saw a player of mine (who no longer plays with us) who toke the paladin oath of vengeance and multied it with valor blade bard up till 10th level (6/4) then took his 11th level and 12th level as wizard... because the wording of wizards gaining spells says they can learn a level they can cast, at 12th level his 2 new spells were 4th and 5th level...

That's an incorrect interpretation of the rules, actually. He forgot to take into account the wording for multiclassing. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Monster Manual pg 158, 159? has both gith.

Pages were stuck together for some reason -- the prior owner must have been a gith fan. No gish there, though, so the point stands.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What was the problem with the 3.5 eldritch knight?

It was only exactly 2 levels behind a pure wizard in spellcasting and was only 3 points behind in base attack bonus. That is not exactly horrible.

The big problem was the way 3.5 handled stats and magical items. Before you account for stats, it is as you say, and the EK doesn't seem so bad - two caster levels and 3 points of BAB aren't the end of the world.

But the EK suffered from multiple-ability-dependency in the worst way possible. Since items gave a flat +bonus, and there was no upper limit on stats, the real difference was much larger. There is no such thing as enough Strength, or enough Int, because they just gave you more and more benefit as you stacked them. Compared to a regular Fighter, the EK was down ~6 points to hit (and ~12 to damage) and a bunch of feats. Compared to a pure Wizard, the EK was down ~5 points to its save DCs and a good chunk of spells per day.

Don't get me wrong, you could put together a functional EK if you focused on buff-type spells to make up for your lower stats, and there were enough tricky gimmick spells by the end of 3.5 that you could even outshine a Fighter in straight combat, but out of the gate it was just a mess.

The stat cap goes a long way toward evening the playing field.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's an incorrect interpretation of the rules, actually. He forgot to take into account the wording for multiclassing. "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually, as if you were a single-classed member of that class."

I don't think it is missing anything... arg let me type it up

Each time you gain a wizard level, you can add two wizard spells of your choice to your spellbook. Each of these spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots

so I gain a wizard level, and I can add 2 wizard spells to my spell book, each must be a level for which I have a spell slot for.

You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

so I compare my levels to the multi class chart for the level I can cast...


You can interpret that how ever you want at your table... but I have not seen anyone in real life that disagrees with me.

 

[Greg K]

start level 1-3 as a fighter and take eldritch knight and there is your con save prof... at the cost of 2 levels where you are not playing what you want (unless your DM lets you start 3rd or higher) then take wizard levels and alternate.

Of course, there are two problems with multi-classing as you describe. First, multi-classing is an optional rule so there is no guarantee that a player has access to it. Second, it is hoop jumping and as almost exclusively a DM, I hate having to make my players jump through hoops for certain fantasy archetypes (which, in my opinion, was a problem with 3e as well). It is better, in my opinion, just to have a base class and then have bladesinger, duskblade, spellsword, etc. as possible subclasses.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I don't think it is missing anything... arg let me type it up



so I gain a wizard level, and I can add 2 wizard spells to my spell book, each must be a level for which I have a spell slot for.



so I compare my levels to the multi class chart for the level I can cast...


You can interpret that how ever you want at your table... but I have not seen anyone in real life that disagrees with me.

Per the RAW, because your paladin/bard/wizard is only a 2nd level wizard he can't actually prepare wizard spells higher than 1st level (although he can use his spells slots to cast prepared 1st level spells as higher level spells).

PHB 164 states that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually... if you are a ranger 4/wizard 3... your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd level spells."

Specific (multiclassing) rules beat general (wizard) rules, and the multiclassing rules are quite clear on this, actually using the wizard as the example.

You're of course free to play as you wish, but the rules seem clear on the matter.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Per the RAW, because your paladin/bard/wizard is only a 2nd level wizard he can't actually prepare wizard spells higher than 1st level (although he can use his spells slots to cast prepared 1st level spells as higher level spells).

PHB 164 states that "You determine what spells you know and can prepare for each class individually... if you are a ranger 4/wizard 3... your spellbook contains ten wizard spells, two of which (the two you gained when you reached 3rd level as a wizard) can be 2nd level spells."

Specific (multiclassing) rules beat general (wizard) rules, and the multiclassing rules are quite clear on this, actually using the wizard as the example.

You're of course free to play as you wish, but the rules seem clear on the matter.

I belive you are wrong, they are clear, and the wizard is limted by his slots, and the slots of the multi class table trump the wizard table...

so one of your two statements is false at least, it is either not clear, or I am not wrong... if you think A is correct and I think B is correct it can not be clear because we both read the same thing differently... I play in 2 regular groups (with a bit of overlap) so I am regularly in contact with 7 people who play, 6 of them own PHBs... (plus me so 8 total 7 own PHBs when you add me) we all read it the same way... One of those regulars works at my FLGS (and comic book shop) and he has had this discussion before, with others at the store... I am yet to hear anyone claim it is BOTH clear and that EVERYONE I KNOW IS READING THE CLEAR STATEMENT WRONG, although to be fear were we think it is clear and we are correct, some people do think it is badly worded and we are reading it wrong...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Of course, there are two problems with multi-classing as you describe. First, multi-classing is an optional rule so there is no guarantee that a player has access to it. Second, it is hoop jumping and as almost exclusively a DM, I hate having to make my players jump through hoops for certain fantasy archetypes (which, in my opinion, was a problem with 3e as well). It is better, in my opinion, just to have a base class and then have bladesinger, duskblade, spellsword, etc. as possible subclasses.

well multi classing is optional, I would say that is just a non starter... that is how every gish previously was made so if you are in a game without multi classing that is pretty much the end of a full gish...

as for the hoope jumping thing... I completely agree, I wish there was a better swordmage class, and a better warlord class, and a better artificer class, and a psion class as well... but so far WotC is very stingy on new content....