D&D 5E My Swordmage Homebrew, Any thoughts On It?

[Yaarel]

Misty Step too.

Also, various Aegises did other things. So Arcane Power's Aegis of Ensnaring teleported the enemy to the Swordmage, allowing them to whack it instead of teleporting the Swordmage to the enemy to whack it (like the default Aegis of Assault).

I see the Swordmage as the up-close-and-personal caster.

Heh, even the "distance whack" feels too much like a ranged attack to me.

If I was building a 5e Swordmage, I'd want to have all three Aegises as default core class features that all Swordmages could choose, rather than have them locked as alternate features behind subclasses. Maybe subclasses might focus on one or more of them, though.

Sounds solid.

 

[Marandahir]

For the Fighter class, it is easy to create a Fighting Style that grants a cantrip and a spell like Mage Armor. This helps the level 1 Eldritch Knight feel more on purpose and part of a magical knightly community, perhaps specifically an elven one.

Heck, I've already homebrewed a Fighting Style that grants 2 Wizard cantrips a la Druidic Warrior and Sacred Warrior (Arcane Warrior). Not sure if Mage Armour + cantrip is balanced against other fighting styles, though. Maybe just Mage Armour alone or 2 cantrips alone?

 

[Yaarel]

Heck, I've already homebrewed a Fighting Style that grants 2 Wizard cantrips a la Druidic Warrior and Sacred Warrior (Arcane Warrior). Not sure if Mage Armour + cantrip is balanced against other fighting styles, though. Maybe just Mage Armour alone or 2 cantrips alone?

The cantrip plus (at-will!) Mage Armor is balanced − if swapping out the medium and heavy armor proficiency for it. Even if one doesnt actually swap, it defacto happens because the Mage Armor cant stack with them.

The flavor is: Mage Armor = Elven Chain. What is called "elven chain" is actually a spell. Which is why the AC benefit of chain lacks any weight constraints.

The Fighting Style can make the Mage Armor appear as any armor that one wishes, including luxurious fabrics, or as an invisible force, but the high elf culture has the formal custom to make it appear as very fine silk-like chain armor. The appearance of fabric over or under the chain has colors and embroidery to signify the elven combat unit.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd argue it's the opposite - that 5e's reductionism is what allows it a breath of fresh air; that we don't have to get stuck in the details of mechanics and can focus on story. Can my 5e Oath of the Ancients Paladin do the exact same thing and have the same ability score array as my 4e Warden? No, but they're fundamentally the same character. It just made a lot of mechanical simplicity to merge the narrative into the Paladin class, as Warden was essentially a Green Knight Paladin with Wisdom instead of Charisma (and combining in Fey stuff makes an argument for the Paladin's Charisma instead). If I REALLY wanted my Warden to stay particularly Wise and not Charismatic at all, I later got the option to translate it as a Path of the Ancestral Guardian Barbarian (or could have just gone Path of the Totem Warrior Barbarian back in 2014).

But that's my opinion. I know plenty of folks who feel this reductionism bothers them and they come from a mechanics-first perspective in building or translating their character. I just don't think that's the mainstream audience of D&D, and here on the forums of Enworld, we're pretty marginal compared to the massive new audience of the game.

The thing is I like a lot of the reductionism. 3.5e with its literally hundreds of classes, and its painful rules where you had to add up 50+ and - modifiers for each and every role was obscene. 5e gameplay rules are its best part imo.

I just think that they went way too far with character building. Where it got reduced down so much that some popular archtypes can only be replicated in sub par ways compared to prior editions. A 5e paladin is the most fun it's ever been. But a 5e swordmage equivalent is probably the least satisfying of any edition which I know the rules for. Same with the warlord.

I don't think that 13 classes and hundreds of classes is a strict binary. There are more options than one or the other. 15-20 would have been my ideal.

 

[Yaarel]

@Marandahir

Maybe one of the aegises can function as the primary healer, with arcane healing flavor.

 

[Marandahir]

The thing is I like a lot of the reductionism. 3.5e with its literally hundreds of classes, and its painful rules where you had to add up 50+ and - modifiers for each and every role was obscene. 5e gameplay rules are its best part imo.

I just think that they went way too far with character building. Where it got reduced down so much that some popular archtypes can only be replicated in sub par ways compared to prior editions. A 5e paladin is the most fun it's ever been. But a 5e swordmage equivalent is probably the least satisfying of any edition which I know the rules for. Same with the warden.

I don't think that 13 classes and hundreds of classes is a strict binary. There are more options than one or the other. 15-20 would have been my ideal.

I guess we all have our own cut offs for what should be a class and what should be an archetype?

I personally wouldn't add anything but MAYBE a Psion. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5e canon that had a Swordmage (or whatever) in it, and there are some good ideas above and in doctorbadwolf's thread and elsewhere; but ever since I saw martial Artificers, I feel like that was the perfect solution to this issue. It's the same reason I don't think a Warlord should be its own class. I think Battle Master, Banneret, and Samurai Fighter, as well as the Mastermind Rogue, are good non-magical takes on this, and Bard and Paladin capture the magical versions. I don't think the game NEEDS a full Warlord class. But your mileage may vary!

 

[CreamCloud0]

I wouldn't be opposed to a 5e canon that had a Swordmage (or whatever) in it, and there are some good ideas above and in doctorbadwolf's thread and elsewhere; but ever since I saw martial Artificers, I feel like that was the perfect solution to this issue.

What makes you feel that martial artificer perfectly fills the narrative space of the swordmage? and i ask that sincerely, having only read the PHB so i don't know how the artificer is really structured martial or otherwise, I'm aware of their infusions in a general sense from a DnD liveplay podcast but beyond that it's all a bit vague, the artificer in my mind has always fallen more into the conceptual space of 'magitech' even if what they're enchanting is weapons and armour, relying on things to do their casting for them-even things that they made themselves, separates the magic from the user in a way that doesn't fit my idea of what a swordmage is.

A good question to ask here is probably 'what image is brought to mind for you when someone mentions a swordmage?' not in the context or fitting it into a narrative for DnD but the archtypical idea of what a swordmage is, for me it's a warrior trained in the arts of both battle and the mystical, combining them into something more powerful than the two separately, flowing seamlessly between them and channeling magic directly through their weapons for combat.

 

[FallenRX]

What makes you feel that martial artificer perfectly fills the narrative space of the swordmage? and i ask that sincerely, having only read the PHB so i don't know how the artificer is really structured martial or otherwise, I'm aware of their infusions in a general sense from a DnD liveplay podcast but beyond that it's all a bit vague, the artificer in my mind has always fallen more into the conceptual space of 'magitech' even if what they're enchanting is weapons and armour, relying on things to do their casting for them-even things that they made themselves, separates the magic from the user in a way that doesn't fit my idea of what a swordmage is.

A good question to ask here is probably 'what image is brought to mind for you when someone mentions a swordmage?' not in the context or fitting it into a narrative for DnD but the archtypical idea of what a swordmage is, for me it's a warrior trained in the arts of both battle and the mystical, combining them into something more powerful than the two separately, flowing seamlessly between them and channeling magic directly through their weapons for combat.

Eh my favorite take on a Swordmage type class, was the Warmage from Valdas spire of secrets.

Where they gave it something unique from every other class in 5e by making it a Cantrip only caster, that uses weapon focused cantrips, and has subclasses that broaden it

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I think that an artificer subclass could be closer to a swordmage than anything we've got in 5e so far. Except the the two artificer gish subclasses for it are either Iron Man, or Wendolene and her robodog Preston.

Both are very cool subclasses don't get me wrong. But not exactly what I'm looking for.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

What makes you feel that martial artificer perfectly fills the narrative space of the swordmage? and i ask that sincerely, having only read the PHB so i don't know how the artificer is really structured martial or otherwise, I'm aware of their infusions in a general sense from a DnD liveplay podcast but beyond that it's all a bit vague, the artificer in my mind has always fallen more into the conceptual space of 'magitech' even if what they're enchanting is weapons and armour, relying on things to do their casting for them-even things that they made themselves, separates the magic from the user in a way that doesn't fit my idea of what a swordmage is.

A good question to ask here is probably 'what image is brought to mind for you when someone mentions a swordmage?' not in the context or fitting it into a narrative for DnD but the archtypical idea of what a swordmage is, for me it's a warrior trained in the arts of both battle and the mystical, combining them into something more powerful than the two separately, flowing seamlessly between them and channeling magic directly through their weapons for combat.

One pro about using artificer as a base, is that their subclasses are extremely strong next to their base class early on. You have 5 or 6 subclass features up until level 9, including the level 5 one which is a huge chunk of your power. Additionally, the level 3 features change how they play a huge amount. A hexblood alchemist can play as a healer/witch type character, slinging spells from the backline. Meanwhile a dwarf battlesmith is in front line combat fighting side by side with an animated golem with multiple weapon strikes.

There is less to offer in the later levels, but getting to tier 3 is so rare almost no one does.

A theoretical swordmage subclass under artificer could offer a crazy amount more than something such as the eldritch knight or bladesinger. Both of which get almost all their power from their main class, leaving their subclass as an insignificant part of their power budget and abilities. Meanwhile an artificer swordmage subclass could be given things like spellstrike, teleports, and a list of automatically learnt spells which actually suit it, without having to worry as much about the base class being too overwhelming.

I still think that a dedicated swordmage class would be better. But if I had to pick a place to put it as a subclass, artificer would be the place to be. However WotC 'won't' make a swordmage themed artificer, as each subclasses theme is about 'making' something. Therefore a generic swordmage doesn't fit that theme.