D&D 5E Giving the arcane gish an identity.

[doctorbadwolf]

One thing which is brought up often when talking about 5e is the lack of a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class. Both of the two prior editions of DnD have had a dedicated arcane gish, as well as the current and prior editions of pathfinder. All have been centred around a spellstrike type mechanic, and all have had a clear focus on arcane type magic, rather than divine or occult links like Paladin or Warlock. As a result it has strongly associated mechanics and themes, but no 'story' to it unlike many other classes.

However one thing I've seen mentioned around this forum in particular is the lack of identity for the class, which may by one of the reasons for it failing to stick in the collective consciousness of the playerbase in the same way as a paladin. Even the class name has failed to last more than a single edition. Duskblade in 3e, swordmage in 4e, and magus in pathfinder. The only identifying feature it has consistently had is 'person who uses magic and weapon'. But this description applies to many other classes as well. I've seen some argue that it doesn't need an identity, in the same way a fighter doesn't. But unlike a fighter the class is a lot more specific.

The duskblade is mentioned as 'elite guardians of an ancient elven empire'. Which could provide some starting point. However it has a lot of overlap with the bladesinger, which as a 5e subclass lacks any of the features those wanting a gish class are asking for from a spellstriking gish. The swordmage from 4e is mentioned as being common among genasi, and the magic employed as being often but not always elemental in nature.

What do people think the identity should be for a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class should be if it did exist in the current edition? Or does it not need an identity beyond what it's previously had? How would you give it a story in a way which gives it a strong theme without preventing players from having their own background for characters using the class?

My take is to use the name Swordmage, thought I don’t really care about the name all that much, and to focus on the identity of the the traveling esoteric swordmaster. So, take aesthetic elements and terminology from hermetic sword manuals like that of Thibault and a few others in Europe that combined ideas of mysticism with practical swordplay and fairly advanced mathematics and body mechanics, and various other traditions of “sword sages” and other “wandering or secluded masters” who have learnt secrets that make them more than simple sword fighters, and then think about how that looks in a world with arcane magical traditions that take the place of the real world alchemist.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean that's the bladesinger. Which many people don't consider as the proper successor to the gish classes in other editions.

The problem with 5e classes/subclasses, is that 90% of the power budget is with the core class. So if you want to turn a prior edition class into a subclass, you have to remove all its mechanics and abilities or it's too powerful.

You would see the same issue if you tried to make barbarian a fighter subclass. You could get the theme, but if you tried to add the rage mechanic to a fighter chassis you would end up with something far too powerful.

The Wizard, I think, could be added to in a way that makes the Bladesinger really work.

First of all, I’d have allowed them to gain an additional Bladesing usage by spending a spell slot.

Second, rather than the extra attack cantrip thing, I’d have considered other ideas casting a spell as part of an attack as an action, so you stab and then the target and all other creatures within a cone starting from the target save vs Cone of Cold.

Another idea would be to simply add some spells that take the format of the SCAG cantrips and level it up into full spells.

Another would be to spend spell slots on a “smite” that is less direct damage than divine smite but does something else.

 

[see]

No, it doesn't. You have to either know the 1E Fiend Folio or have already been acquainted with the term, which was popularized on 3E optimization boards. "Gish" is a made-up term that means nothing.

Actually, if you "know the 1E Fiend Folio", the name is worse than one that means nothing, because it's actively misleading. AD&D 1st edition fighter/magic-users, including 4th/4th level githyanki fighter/magic-users, didn't have any special mechanics for fighting and casting at the same time or access to any special spells. The definition of "gish" being used by the OP categorically excludes the original example of the term.

Which is why you've got people coming into the thread wondering why a bladesinger or a hexblade or a swords bard or an eldritch knight isn't already good enough; "gish" only identifies the OP's concept to a subset of the people who discuss D&D class design in forums like this (which is already a rarefied subset of the D&D playerbase).

So, no, don't call it a "gish".

 

[cbwjm]

I prefer zerth to gish though that doesn't convey the idea of a class mixing sword and spell any better than gish. I've always hated the term gish, just a terrible name for something. I'd like a name that blends things like swordmage, mage knight, arcane blade or something to that effect. Something so that when players hear or read it, it conjures up an image of a warrior wielding weapon and spell.

I should check my last attempt at making a class like it, called the placeholder of fighter-mage, I got so far but I think I need to limit my scope a bit, focus on only one or two subclasses at a time instead of trying to come up with every subclass I can think of.

As for story, the only story, all I really need is that they are an order of warriors that also learn arcane magic.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Aren't "arcane gishes" like this in Magic: the Gathering called Battlemages? I think that name fits fairly well, as it at least gets across the idea of an arcane spellcaster that focuses on battle.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Aren't "arcane gishes" like this in Magic: the Gathering called Battlemages? I think that name fits fairly well, as it at least gets across the idea of an arcane spellcaster that focuses on battle.

Battlemage is, I think, the best (or least bad) of the commonly accepted terms in terms of naming a whole 5e class. It's relatively simple, and it doesn't tie them to any particular weapon or any particular culture. I find it somewhat more evocative of a full-on wizard in heavy armor than of some sort of half-caster, which seems to be what we are talking about, but I don't think people would have too much trouble accepting it as a halfcaster class.

 

[Vaalingrade]

How about stabnerd?

But seriously, there's a great name that will call to mind more of a monk with a wand to the right people: Rune Soldier.

 

[cbwjm]

How about stabnerd?

But seriously, there's a great name that will call to mind more of a monk with a wand to the right people: Rune Soldier.

A stabnerd is just a well-read rogue.

 

[Stormonu]

Battlemage is, I think, the best (or least bad) of the commonly accepted terms in terms of naming a whole 5e class. It's relatively simple, and it doesn't tie them to any particular weapon or any particular culture. I find it somewhat more evocative of a full-on wizard in heavy armor than of some sort of half-caster, which seems to be what we are talking about, but I don't think people would have too much trouble accepting it as a halfcaster class.

Warmage?

Wizard --> Warzid, if you rearrange the letters...

 

[Mind of tempest]

The issue with not allowing them armour, is it goes against the fantasy many people have of playing a half caster battlemage. If you try to bring up images of swordmages, battlemages, or similar terms, many are wearing armour.

You essentially end up with a wizard with a sword, which isn't what's wanted.

well, it is a concept that has not solidified yet, it is at present a wizard plus warrior, not an icon itself.

on name it would help if we had an exact concept of who they are and how they got arcane magic to half caster levels.
then we need some interesting subclasses at least conceptually.

I say we go with int for casting stat as it only has two classes that use it.