A 5e Swordmage?

I'd support the creation of a true arcane half caster if you could explain how it is a different class from a wizard/fighter multi class with custom subclasses. Like unique class abilities or tying them into the world like the other classes.

Xeviat said:

I'd support the creation of a true arcane half caster if you could explain how it is a different class from a wizard/fighter multi class with custom subclasses. Like unique class abilities or tying them into the world like the other classes.

Click to expand...

How's a paladin a different class than a fighter/cleric? How's a ranger any different than a fighter/druid? The concepts provided by multiclassing overlap quite a bit with the current half caster classes IMO. Basically all you are actually doing is making a Fighter/Wizard that primarily uses spells to enhance their fighting capability instead of fighting some rounds and casting spells other rounds.

I feel like you could create this pretty well with an eldritch knight just by ignoring or changing the spell school limitations, couldn't you? There aren't any major balance considerations; the designers have already said those school limitations are for flavor, and for the most part a 3rd-level spell is a 3rd-level spell.

Maybe two levels of high elf wizard (bladesinger) and the remainder as fighter (eldritch knight)?

Mouseferatu said:

I feel like you could create this pretty well with an eldritch knight just by ignoring or changing the spell school limitations, couldn't you? There aren't any major balance considerations; the designers have already said those school limitations are for flavor, and for the most part a 3rd-level spell is a 3rd-level spell.

Click to expand...

Curious, do you think would be imbalanced for a wizard to pick any spell from any class in the game?

FrogReaver said:

Curious, do you think would be imbalanced for a wizard to pick any spell from any class in the game?

Click to expand...

1) I'm not saying the eldritch knight should be able to pick from any class. They'd still be limited to wizard spells, just not the two schools. (Which, I should point out, they already aren't 100% limited to; they can pick exceptions at several levels even as it is.) And again, the fact that this wouldn't imbalance them isn't my position, it's the developers'.

2) Just throwing it wide open might be unbalanced, simply by virtue of unanticipated combinations, but making specific trades or exceptions would not be.

Could this general issue be (soft) solved by the introduction of higher-level spells that affect and/or can be used alongside melee attacks (much like the SCAG cantrips and paladin smite spells)?

FrogReaver said:

How's a paladin a different class than a fighter/cleric? How's a ranger any different than a fighter/druid? The concepts provided by multiclassing overlap quite a bit with the current half caster classes IMO. Basically all you are actually doing is making a Fighter/Wizard that primarily uses spells to enhance their fighting capability instead of fighting some rounds and casting spells other rounds.

Click to expand...

The really short answer is tradition. The slightly longer short answer is that the paladin and the ranger draw upon the concepts of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and the resourceful woodsman. They're their own archetype in our minds.

The "magic knight" isn't quite the same. We haven't had decades of gaming to give us a more unified idea of what this is.

From a game perspective, the cleric and druid both have features that don't fit on the paladin and ranger. But, 3E did have variant bard, paladin, and rangers as 15 level PrCs, and I really liked them for a while.

At the moment, for me, the "magic knight" does not feel like a fully fleshed out class in my mind. I can't envision enough variety within said characters, aside from spell selection, to fit them in my mind as a class and not a multi class or a subclass of another.

I'm open to being surprised. The Warlock (one who makes a pact with a non-deific entity for power) has become big enough to feel distinct from a cleric or sorcerer. The Warlord, on the other hand, still feels like it could be handled with Bard or Fighter subclasses to me.

What concept does the Swordmage draw upon? I'm eager to hear other's thoughts because I'm struggling to find my own here.

Mouseferatu said:

1) I'm not saying the eldritch knight should be able to pick from any class. They'd still be limited to wizard spells, just not the two schools. (Which, I should point out, they already aren't 100% limited to; they can pick exceptions at several levels even as it is.) And again, the fact that this wouldn't imbalance them isn't my position, it's the developers'.

Click to expand...

It wasn't your overall point I was disagreeing with, it's the specific notion that spells of the same level are roughly balanced with each other.

Remember, you said "for the most part A third level spell is a third level spell". That's the notion that I was inquiring about. It looks like nicely you stepped back from that over-statement with your comment below.

2) Just throwing it wide open might be unbalanced, simply by virtue of unanticipated combinations, but making specific trades or exceptions would not be.

Click to expand...

Thanks, for the much more reasonable assertion.

Allowing the eldritch knight to take spells from any wizard school will make him stronger. Personally for most of the game he feels fairly weak and restricted so I think it's a good suggestion specifically for him.

Xeviat said:

The really short answer is tradition. The slightly longer short answer is that the paladin and the ranger draw upon the concepts of the chivalrous knight in shining armor and the resourceful woodsman. They're their own archetype in our minds.

The "magic knight" isn't quite the same. We haven't had decades of gaming to give us a more unified idea of what this is.

From a game perspective, the cleric and druid both have features that don't fit on the paladin and ranger. But, 3E did have variant bard, paladin, and rangers as 15 level PrCs, and I really liked them for a while.

At the moment, for me, the "magic knight" does not feel like a fully fleshed out class in my mind. I can't envision enough variety within said characters, aside from spell selection, to fit them in my mind as a class and not a multi class or a subclass of another.

I'm open to being surprised. The Warlock (one who makes a pact with a non-deific entity for power) has become big enough to feel distinct from a cleric or sorcerer. The Warlord, on the other hand, still feels like it could be handled with Bard or Fighter subclasses to me.

What concept does the Swordmage draw upon? I'm eager to hear other's thoughts because I'm struggling to find my own here.

Click to expand...

It's simply a warrior that is able to use arcane magic to enhance his fighting. Instead of mastering spells like a wizard he masters intertwining magic with his attacks. The eldritch knight was a nudge in this direction, but the eldritch knight failed to provide enough magical support because he had to much fighter coded into the main class. That's the same issue many of us have with warlords as subclasses, there's to much in the fighter main class and bard main class that prevent enough warlord or arcane warrior from being added in.

If you look at the paladin, it's a fairly loosely defined class, divine warrior who gets power from oath and then each oath mostly uses similar resources to other oaths but in interesting ways. The Channel Divinity powers are all unique. The subclass spell lists are all unique. When they get a subclass aura it's unique. The main class design elements make sense for all paladins and the subclass ones enhance that with similar mechanics between them. The oath itself isn't about combat but it's about defining the character in the world and then providing some combat abilities themed around that.

Fighter's don't have that. The fighter and it's subclasses are all to general purpose, the only identifier for any fighter is the different ways that they fight in combat.

By the way a fighter also fits the concept of a chivalrous knight and a resourceful woodsman.