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

[Undrave]

Imo it should still be compatible with spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike, as those replicate spellstrike very well. Definitely scale with class level too, as otherwise it sounds like a dipping disaster.

If it counts as a weapon then it could still be used with regular Extra Attacks and for Fighting Style purposes.

There was also a mention of an 'unarmoured defence' several posts back like monk and barbarian. When not wearing armour, you can make up a limited amount of AC. Not as powerful as those though, as both those classes have additional abilities which don't work with armour.

How about 'INT in place of DEX if you wear Light Armour'? Makes their AC automatically comparable to Rogues. You probably wouldn't want 0 DEX, obviously, especially if you decide to use a finesse weapon.

I don't think 'blaster' spells like fireball should be available to an arcane gish. If they want to fight ranged, they should be using weapons. Paladin and Ranger don't have access to the blaster spells of druid and cleric.

Ranged Weapons spells should be available for ranged Gish, with its own spin on the Arcane Archer available I guess.

If we're trying to find an identity for the gish, wouldn't a good first step be to identify a number of characters from movie, tv, books and other fiction that embody the target concept? Do we have such a list?

How about a whole show filled with them...

Interestingly, it seems that despite being a common trope, they're often not named.

We're not the only ones struggling to name them.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This is literally the most Gish friendly edition of all the editions.

Between Bladelocks, Sorcaladins, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, Swords/ Valor Bards, your only choice is what flavor of Gish you want.

Quantity ≠ Quality

None of the arcane themed gishes capture the feel of gishes in prior editions. Instead just feeling like you multiclassed fighter and wizard. You're half a fighter and half a caster. Rather than being a magic warrior.

And we have zealot barb, war cleric, sun soul monk, sorcadins, and the celestial bladelock. Why do we need paladin? The argument works that way too. Paladin could easily be a 1/3 caster fighter subclass.

But it's not, because people want it to function in its own unique manner.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

How about 'INT in place of DEX if you wear Light Armour'? Makes their AC automatically comparable to Rogues. You probably wouldn't want 0 DEX, obviously, especially if you decide to use a finesse weapon.

In 4e, the feature gave a bonus to AC if you only had a weapon in one hand and didn't have a shield.

A lvl 1 class feature which gives a +1 to AC if you fill those conditions is an easy replacement for that. I think u/fanatic66 uses that for his homebrew swordmage.

 

[Parmandur]

Quantity ≠ Quality

None of the arcane themed gishes capture the feel of gishes in prior editions. Instead just feeling like you multiclassed fighter and wizard. You're half a fighter and half a caster. Rather than being a magic warrior.

And we have zealot barb, war cleric, sun soul monk, sorcadins, and the celestial bladelock. Why do we need paladin? The argument works that way too. Paladin could easily be a 1/3 caster fighter subclass.

But it's not, because people want it to function in its own unique manner.

They did try to make the Paladin a Figrer Subclass, but the trope was too strong and rooted in tradition. A Gish doesn't even have a proper name, if Artif I version are excluded for Reasons.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The old Blood Hunter's Diabolic Strike feature would pretty much solve that problem. It's literally the 5E version of the Duskblade's Arcane Channeling/Pathfinder's Spell Strike feature.

Interestingly, it seems that despite being a common trope, they're often not named.

There is of course the 'main characters' of a series who will be like a max level fighter and wizard all in one (Rand al'Thor, Wheel of Time). But that's not not conductive to balance. Lirael (Old Kingdom book series) is a very clear example of a swordmage. Wearing medium armour and casting runes through her blade to fight monsters and demons. The Toa from Bionicle use weapons and cast magic. The Elder Scrolls also has unnamed battlemages and spellswords who tend to die in droves. WoW shamans use elemental magic and channel it through their weapon strikes. WoW Death Knights could also be more necromancy based swordmages.

destiny's guardians and warframe's tenno could also work.
witchers could also work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Very true, but the primary issue is that people want a dedicated arcane half-caster (that's not an artificer), instead of having it spread across various subclasses.

Similar to how the inclusion of a Psion class remains a major point of debate. For many, subclasses aren't enough.

I think that’s more because the Paladin ended up so good.

The problem with arcane spells is that low level ones scale much better and have better action economy than anything the Paladin gets outside divine smite (which is t the best scaling thing in the first place)

 

[FrogReaver]

In terms of thematics, sure, but not in terms of abilities. If my character was described as wearing no or light armor, knocking aside arrows with their sword, pushing enemies with telekinesis, and jumping 20 feet in the air, I don't think anyone would think "oh, must be a paladin subclass".

Concept is Paladin. Throw together a subclass with some arcane spells and fewer subclass aura effects and you probably have it covered.

Jedi subclass for Paladin would be cool.

 

[FrogReaver]

Quantity ≠ Quality

None of the arcane themed gishes capture the feel of gishes in prior editions. Instead just feeling like you multiclassed fighter and wizard. You're half a fighter and half a caster. Rather than being a magic warrior.

And we have zealot barb, war cleric, sun soul monk, sorcadins, and the celestial bladelock. Why do we need paladin? The argument works that way too. Paladin could easily be a 1/3 caster fighter subclass.

But it's not, because people want it to function in its own unique manner.

A lot of the classes we have are due to us having them in D&D for so long. That doesn’t mean we should create new mechanical first classes just for the sake of mechanics though. To me it should be concept first.

I don’t ever recall a Gish class outside of 4e. There were ways to build a magical warrior, but that usually involved multiclassing.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To me, the difference between the half casters is this:

Paladin: Beeline the biggest, juiciest enemy, and apply critical existence failure.
Ranger: Deal with larger groups of enemies (often from range), while providing survival and wilderness support.
Artificer: Buff allies and their gear before combat/during, and then throw in spells and cantrips from the second line as a blaster.
Swordmage: Jump in and out, or appear in the enemy backline to disrupt and tie up squishy targets like casters.

Paladin, Ranger, and Artificer have their own spell lists designed specifically to work with their intended aims. Something similar would make a gish play much better. It doesn't need stuff like fireball, as it's not meant to be sitting there blasting as a wizard lite.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

A lot of the classes we have are due to us having them in D&D for so long. That doesn’t mean we should create new mechanical first classes just for the sake of mechanics though. To me it should be concept first.

I don’t ever recall a Gish class outside of 4e. There were ways to build a magical warrior, but that usually involved multiclassing.

A gish existed in 3e, called the duskblade. It's where the spellstrike mechanic came from (called arcane channelling back then). When pathfinder appeared, this got ported over as the magus (with arcane channelling being renamed spellstrike).

Then in 4e many of the duskblades mechanics got ported to the swordmage. With most of its 'powers' being magical effects applied through weapon attacks.

Now in 5e we have the duskblade/magus/swordmage theme with the bladesinger and eldritch knight. While its mechanics got moved to the paladin and ranger spell lists. This separation of its signature mechanics and its theme is the issue many of us have with the current gishes. If bladesinger and eldritch knight had been given suitable spell lists, this wouldn't be an issue.

So the concept has existed as long as the sorcerer and warlock have in DnD. But the name has failed to ever stick, which imo is one of the main reasons for it failing to gain a proper identity.