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

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

That is not true for wizards and sorcerers as long as you meet the mechanical rues for the class and subclass you can make the character any theme you want.

You are making things up if you think the wizard has to be some guy with a Robe a pointy hat and a beard who spends his spare time studying and pouring over books.

Theme is a part of the class. Certain classes are more open with their theme (Fighter, Artificer, Wizard), and some are more closed off/strict (Warlock, Paladin, Cleric). I'm not saying that wizards have to be the literal embodiment of every D&D wizard stereotype in the game, I'm saying, as 5e is written, they have to have studied magic to get their power. Warlocks have to make a pact with an otherworldly being to get their magic. Sorcerers have to be born with their magic/transformed by magic in order to get their powers. There are thematic differences between classes, while there are also space for plenty of different character options using these classes. However, that is no argument against adding a new class. "Reflavor it" is not and never has been a valid argument against adding a new class. If it were, we would only need one class in the game, and every ability could literally be anything you want it to be, you just have to reflavor it to be what you want.

Not true. The mechanics are entirely different and there is nothing in the rules that states your sorcerer did not experiment to learn how to use his abilities.

The sorcerer and warlock classes literally would not be a thing if thematic differences weren't an important part of class identity. There would be absolutely no reason to have them. Mechanics is how you differentiate the classes based on their theme. Theme is how you make a class, mechanics is how you get it to work.

Or you could make all 6 full caster classes strength based and make the exact same argument. This bit of homebrew is fine, but it is words in the rules with a secondary mechanical effect. It has nothing to do with the theme of the character or how you play them.

Like I said above, mechanics are how your class shows its theme. If the Rogue was said to be "sneaky and good at sleight of hand" but had absolutely no mechanics to show this bit of flavor text, that would be a problem. IMO, the same applies to Sorcerers, with their magic coming innately, and CON being the ability score that best shows "innate ability", IMO. It is a mechanical effect to help show the theme of the class. Mechanics exist to show the theme of the class. That's why Wizards are Intelligence based, that's why Bards are Charisma based, and that's why Rogues are Dexterity based.

You can have either player be a bruising mass of destruction and you can have barbarians use finesse weapons and both Rogues and Barbarians can use strength for damage on melee weapons. I did not say you had to play the characters essentially the same, and the Rogue has a lot more options but you can play the characters essentially the same. It is technical words only related to the mechanics that separates them.

How they are played is entirely up to you, but you can have a bruising melee Rogue who does just fine.

Reflavoring is all fine and dandy, but there is a line to draw. If I reflavored the Attack action to being psionic-attacks and a Greatsword to be a mental focus, that's entirely possible through reflavoring, but that seems like crossing that line to me. I also feel that reflavoring another class as an Arcane Gish class is crossing the line, especially when the mechanics of the class/subclass that is being used that way to also be crossing the line of "great reflavoring!" to "that's too far/too much reflavoring".

You can definitely have a brutish, melee rogue, but they still have the rogue abilities. You can have a stealthy, silent barbarian, but they still have the barbarian abilities. There's only so much reflavoring that you can do before it is too much. Sure, Conan the Barbarian works as either a Rogue or Barbarian (even a Fighter), but others don't work.

Ok. Characters who are not spellcasters can not cast spells. That is true. Call it moving the goalposts if you want.

I mean, yeah, that's like the definition of Moving the Goalposts.

Yes, spellcasters are different from non-spellcasters. It is also easier to differentiate spellcasting classes from other spellcasting classes than it is to differentiate non-spellcasting classes from other non-spellcasting classes in 5e (different spellcasting abilities, different spell lists, different amount of spell slots and how to regain spell slots, etc), but that doesn't make what I said wrong.

1) Again feats are part of your class!

2) Ok then you have the "option" to use your class abilities to take feats and develop the character you want to develop.

3) Whether it is optional or not it is rules as written and I find it disingenuous to use the lame excuse that something RAW is "optional" in an arguement on why we need an entirely new homebrew class that isn't RAW added to the game.

More goalposts being moved.

1) No, they're not. If they were, they would be in your class. That's like saying dunamancy spells are a part of the Wizard class, because they're an option that certain types of wizards can take.

2) Yep! It's an option. Not all tables use them, and I have seen tables that don't use them (even though I personally do). Furthermore, no other class identity relies on feats to be played. In the PHB, in the Ranger class section, they don't just have a sticky note that says "just play the Rogue with the Magic Initiate (Druid) and Fey Touched (Wis, Hunter's Mark) feats". Or, it's like saying "no classes should get armor/weapon proficiencies, because they can just take feats to get them!"

3) I also assume you think it would be a "lame excuse" to say "not all tables allow/use multiclassing" if someone said that they wanted an arcane gish class, and you or someone else said "just multiclass Wizard 10/Fighter 10". Also, if you argue against adding a class because it isn't official yet . . . that's a never-ending circular argument. If "we shouldn't add a new class because you can use these optional features to do something similar to that, and then you would be adding a class that would be optional" is true, we never would have gotten the Artificer, and we will never get any more new classes in D&D 5e ever. That's just . . . not a valid argument.

1) Nothing stops a bladesinger from using a heavy weapon, using medium (or even heavy) armor or a shield. All it stops is the bladesong and song defense ability while in/using these.

2) Now if you think the "theme" of your bladesinger must absolutely include using the bladesong ability, then you are right you can't do that but nothing says your bladesinger must use bladesong. It is a myth that a bladesinger has to be played that way. Saying a bladesinger MUST use bladesong because she has that ability is like saying a fighter MUST use a blowgun because he has blowgun proficiency. It is not true. Yes it is an ability every bladesinger has, but it is not something you need to use and with medium armor the bladesinger can still have a very high AC without ever using bladesong.

3) What a bladesinger does have while using armor and a heavy weapons is what you say matters - mixing attacks and spells with their special extra attack feature.

1) Yes. "All it stops is Bladesong" (and Song of Defense and Song of Victory). It literally stops you from being able to use 3/5ths of the subclass's features (and that is counting Training in War and Song as one that they get to use, which is a very minor feature).

2) I mean, yeah, I would like to be able to use the main feature of my subclass if I'm going to play that subclass. No one plays Rogue and then chooses to only use melee weapons without the Finesse property, unless they're playing it ironically. No one is like "ooh! That subclass/class feature is awesome! I can't wait to never use it!". It's absolutely not like saying "fighters have to use blowguns because they have blowgun proficiency", it's like saying "fighters should be able to take the Attack action while wielding their weapon(s)".

3) But in order to get the benefits of a Bladesinger's Extra Attack (which then is limited to only using two cantrips to fit this theme, and only those two cantrips), they have to give up their main subclass feature (Bladesong), and their level 10 and level 14 features, as well as a ton of feats to get proficiency with medium/heavy armor and two-handed weapons.

Again I am not wrong, you are. RAW the only class (or subclass) restricted from certain armors is the Druid and none of the classes are restricted from using certain weapons.

Please cite the page number and exact text where it states someone who has taken the bladesong subclass can never use medium/heavy armor or any two-handed weapon.

I even said in my post above "There are other abilities she can't use, but if this is the character you want to build those other abilities she can't use are not really important anyway."

Is it really so unreasonable for you to accept my suggestion that if you're choosing a subclass in order to replicate the theme of an Arcane Gish, that you should at least be able to use all of that subclass's main features while replicating the theme of the Arcane Gish? Really? That's the hill you choose to die on? "Just be a Bladesinger, but only use one of the Bladesinger's feature!/Literally change out of your weapons/armor whenever you want to use those abilities."

No you haven't, not really. You cited something that is not true about the bladesinger and then articulated that you don't think you should have to use class-given feats to build the character you want.

Yeah, I did, you just chose to make the stance that it is totally reasonable for a Bladesinger to not be able to use 60% of their features while being the Arcane Gish that they want to be.

Yes you can do this RAW.

Cast contingency with lighting bolt or fireball and make the stipulation "released when the weapon hits" or "releases a fireball when I hit something in the face while screaming merging arcane spell and weapon with each other". It is totally doable, and gets you exactly what you say you are after in both thematics AND mechanics.

In terms of thematics I think you get the same effect from the attack cantrips or for that matter absorb elements.

Contingency is a 6th level spell, it takes prep ahead of time to be able to use a theme that is very common for Arcane-Gish type characters, and it takes resources from a beforehand to use later on. Full casters get that at level 11. Now you're doing the equivalent of demanding that a Paladin waits until level 11 to be able to use Divine Smite (their main class feature), or that an Artificer be unable to create Infusions until level 11, and only if they spend a week of downtime beforehand to create a +1 weapon for a minute.

Also, there are only 2 attack cantrips in the game, and those are only cantrips, so they can never be the same in power and scope that a true spell-strike feature would (like I detailed above, by merging a spell like lightning bolt or fireball with a weapon).

 

[Mind of tempest]

And really only in D&D. Many TT, TCG, or VG RPGs have created narratives for the arcane gish..

And it think its really ddue to the hostility to swordmagc, bowmagic, shieldmagic and all forms or weaponmagic and armormagic.

Like I aid before, it makes total sense for wizards to sell knowledge of spells that would be in better user for the physically fit to warriors.

If the D&D wizard is a scrawny little nerd or feeble old man, do you think he's gonna be the one casting the "make my sword boomerang" 1st level spell he invented? No, he's teach it to the fighter.

That happens 12 more times and some knight is gonna collect all these swordbuffs, armor buffs, and whatever to protect the Empire/Kingdom from the forces of Evil/Chaos or something. Gishes in video games tend to be extraplanar slayers but that crosses with rangers and paladins a lot.

But I still think D&D could use a Constitution based Super Soldier class. Hoping dudes up with arcane spells, runes, artifice and potions to make a bunch of Captain Arcanas is another option.

The returning rebounding shield makes sense as a gish spell.

so a spell like the destiny Sentinal titan ability? I have a video for it but it is a bit grainy
has anyone taken stock of what we have so far as going through 19 pages is difficult for condensing ideas wise?

 

[Minigiant]

so a spell like the destiny Sentinal titan ability? I have a video for it but it is a bit grainy
has anyone taken stock of what we have so far as going through 19 pages is difficult for condensing ideas wise?

Something like that.

In my mind:
The paladin smites. They channel magic into divine damage to harm the enemy.
The ranger marks. They channel magic into a mark to better find and kill the enemy.
The gish (insert word). They channel magic into their weapon and armor to protect themselves and their allies.

Buffing your shield into a throwable weapon that ricochets around the battlefield and returns after hit or miss feels very gish.

That feels like a 2nd level spell or what you'd get for burning one.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Something like that.

In my mind:
The paladin smites. They channel magic into divine damage to harm the enemy.
The ranger marks. They channel magic into a mark to better find and kill the enemy.
The gish (insert word). They channel magic into their weapon and armor to protect themselves and their allies.

Buffing your shield into a throwable weapon that ricochets around the battlefield and returns after hit or miss feels very gish.

That feels like a 2nd level spell or what you'd get for burning one.

how spectacular can we make it?

 

[steeldragons]

I think a difference between the ranger and paladin and the arcane gish is the ranger and paladin found their thematic and lore footing.

The ranger has magic to deal with supernatural wilderness and supernatural nondetection. The paladin is martial arm of a deity, church, oath, or ideology against its enemies. The paladin smites. The ranger marks.

I think finding the organic place and niche for the Arcane gish is extremely important to find its mechanical skeleton.

If I may follow a bit on this... I think one can safely -and accurately- trace the "arcane warrior" archetype back to Moorcock's "Elric of Melnibone." What, if any, literary inspirations there might be before that falls into the realm of myths and legends, I think.

The mystical/magical connections of King Arthur (though we can all agree, Arthur, himself, is not trained in magic use). Gilgamesh was said to be a powerful magic worker along with his physical prowess. (It's early and I've only on coffee one, so that's all coming to mind at the moment.) Oo! The mythic Yellow [first] Emperor of China was said to possess magic powers (along with command armies and battlefields). From there, really, there's no where to go except deific beings who wielded what could be translated into D&D/fantasy RPG terms as "arcane" magic and weapons.

So, working from Elric - we've got "special connection/relationship with their sword" [not that all arcane warriors should have a soul-stealing uber weapon]. We've got conjurer/dealer with elementals, and accomplished worker of spells. We've got armor, nimble/fast around the battlefield, and deft in hand-to-hand combat (specifically swordplay).

Sounds pretty arcane warrior fighter/magey to me.

I also like/appreciate you note "paladins smite. rangers mark." Which leads me immediately to, you're quite right, the arcane warrior class (whatever its name, which is still a problem), needs it's own "signature" feature/mechanic for its flavor damage boosting.

Naturally, this needs to include the use of magic/sorcery/energy to increase their effectiveness/damage output. Falling back into Elric lore, plus the added bonus of a term familiar and immediately recognized by D&D players, what immediately came to my mind was "Evocation." Damage dealing magic.

"The Swordmage [for example's sake] evokes." Calling upon/out the supernatural to do your bidding/assistance.

Signature feature [again, name is purely for example's sake]: "Spellstrike Evocations": add energy types to your damage. Add bonuses to your attack roll! Add bonus to your initiative or give yourself a burst of speed [extra movement] to "get the jump" on a foe. Zap prone or magically trip or shove a target on a successful hit. etc... But you get them when paladins/rangers get their signature moves. Increases/choose new ones at whatever levels rangers add enemies or smite damage increases. So, really doesn't have to be a long list of options built into the class (always leave the DMs/players room to homebrew up their own)

All of them need to be directly related to actions you take while in combat. All of them the direct reaction of applying arcane energy to your attack/move.

The paladin smites. The ranger marks. The swordmage evokes.

 

[Garthanos]

The Bard and Sorcerer are both Charisma-based casters, but you can build almost any theme around either of them. Changing a sorcerer to Constitution doesn't really change the theme at all IMO, it just changes their spellcasting ability.

I agree it is not a theme but it can be part of demonstrating/showing a theme for instance it implies the sorcerers power has more to do with biology ie as in a bloodline concept. Changing a Warlock/Channelers casting ability to con might be used to imply it has a physical element for instance maybe the power is painful/pleasurable and that holding focus precision is a physiological.

 

[jmartkdr2]

how spectacular can we make it?

Depends on the spell level.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Something like that.

In my mind:
The paladin smites. They channel magic into divine damage to harm the enemy.
The ranger marks. They channel magic into a mark to better find and kill the enemy.
The gish (insert word). They channel magic into their weapon and armor to protect themselves and their allies.

Strikes/Spell Strikes. Paladins use Divine Smite, Rangers use Hunter's Mark, Arcane Gishes Spell Strike.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Strikes/Spell Strikes. Paladins use Divine Smite, Rangers use Hunter's Mark, Arcane Gishes Spell Strike.

okay, do we have anything else to bulk up the concept beyond the purely mechanical and ideally theme subclasses around?

 

[Minigiant]

okay, do we have anything else to bulk up the concept beyond the purely mechanical and ideally theme subclasses around?

I still say arcane enhanced super soldiers.

Each subclass is another Arcanist or Arcane culture (Elvish spells, Dwarves Runes, Gnomish Artifice) attempting to enhance the warrior artificially.

Sorta like warlocks but the parton is a tradition and you use swords and axes.