D&D (2024) How should the Swordmage be implemented in 1DnD?

[mellored]

Swordmage
HD: d8 +Con mod
SAVES: Int & Dex:
Armor: None
Weapons: All Simple and Martial weapons that lack the 2 handed trait.

Level 1
Arcane Defense: while not wearing any armor or wielding a shield, your AC is equal to 10+ Dex + Int and you can spend an action to gain temporary hit points equal to 5+ your Swordmage level.

Swordmage Arcanum: Select a first level spell. You can cast your arcanum spell once without expending a spell slot. You must finish a long rest before you can do so again.
At higher levels, you gain more Swordmage spells of your choice that can be cast in this way, according to the chart (up level 9).
When you gain a level, you can replace one of your arcanums.

Basic Aegis
As a bonus action, select a creature within 10' of you. Until the end of your next turn, when the creature makes an attack that doesn't include you, you can use your reaction to give that attack disadvantage.

Basic Magic:
Learn 2 cantrips, and 2 rituals.

Level 2
First Sword Art: Choose on of the following.
*Thunderous Smite
*Searing Smite
*Wrathful Smite
*Misty Step
*Elemental Burst (3d8 damage within 10', choice of cold, lightning, thunder, fire. +1d8 per spell level).
You can cast your Sword Art once without expending a spell slot. You must finish a Short rest before you can do so again. The spell is cast at a level equal to half your Swordmage level (rounded down).
When you gain a level, you can replace one of your arcanums.

Level 3
Aegis Specialty. Choose a subclass
Aegis of Shielding
Aegis of Assault
Aegis of Ensnarement
Aegis of Teamwork

Swordmage Arcanum, 2nd level spell.

Level 4: ASI

Level 5:
Second Sword Art
You learn a second Sword Art chose from this list or a of lower level.
*Elemental Weapon
*Compel Duel
*Vampiric Touch
*Blur

Swordmage Arcanum, 3nd level spell.

...

Level 11
Quick Arcane Armor:
You can gain the temporary hit points from Arcane Armor as a bonus action instead of an action.

Swordmage Arcanum, 6th level spell.

3rd Sword Art
...

 

[Quickleaf]

My opinion is that "swordmage" should exist as its own class that is distinct (both mechanically & story-wise) from adjacent versions like eldritch knights, bladesingers, sword bards, and hexblade warlocks. It should follow the following design precepts:

• Roughly parallels spell progression/class feature structure of paladins & rangers, but gets access to cantrips – some of which are unique to the class.
• Has its own spell list that draws upon spells like Warding Bond and Magic Weapon and Steel Wind Strike, but also includes a few more "melee weapon attack spells."
• Imbues its attacks with magic in a unique non-spell way. Potentially tying into its cantrip selection.
• Derives inspiration from both the 3e duskblade in Player’s Handbook II, from the Tome of Battle, and the 4e swordmage, but isn't beholding to a 1:1 translation of those concepts.
• More than other classes, integrates teleportation either as core feature or option across a range of levels.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I know little of balance or how it should be structured so I will not even try that.

it had better not be another charisma caster I am sick of them

it will have to contrast itself against the other two martial and magic options thematically I would suggest int casting and lean into it being a smart guy option.

it needs ways to have cool sub classes with interesting themes.

it needs a name that is less dumb that swordmage it needs something which has staying power

 

[Corinnguard]

My opinion is that "swordmage" should exist as its own class that is distinct (both mechanically & story-wise) from adjacent versions like eldritch knights, bladesingers, sword bards, and hexblade warlocks. It should follow the following design precepts:

• Roughly parallels spell progression/class feature structure of paladins & rangers, but gets access to cantrips – some of which are unique to the class.
• Has its own spell list that draws upon spells like Warding Bond and Magic Weapon and Steel Wind Strike, but also includes a few more "melee weapon attack spells."
• Imbues its attacks with magic in a unique non-spell way. Potentially tying into its cantrip selection.
• Derives inspiration from both the 3e duskblade in Player’s Handbook II, from the Tome of Battle, and the 4e swordmage, but isn't beholding to a 1:1 translation of those concepts.
• More than other classes, integrates teleportation either as core feature or option across a range of levels.

Like this one by Laser Llama? https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ

 

[Quickleaf]

Like this one by Laser Llama? https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Mslo6ktmq1Yg5WTSjDQ

Cool stuff! There are some good ideas there... some pretty faulty/underworked ideas... and some conceptual mismatches that aren't good/bad but just different from my own vision.

The general framework, Spell Sunder, Arcane Strikes, Mystic Aegis – that's all working really well. I haven't read the subclasses in depth, but the concepts/narrative behind them seem well conceived.

The Spellstrike core idea is the one that feels faulty/underworked. I understand why that decision was made – let's use existing spells and integrate those into attacks – but there are just too many corner cases. And it leads to some narrative weirdness depending on the spell. A cleaner approach would be jettisoning the idea of "delivering a spell via sword blow" and designing either class features or new spells with this approach in mind. That's more design work, so I get why the messy shortcut approach.

Conceptual mismatches for me:

• This version lacks cantrips, and I'm not sure why
• Arcane Armory is the sort of thing that optimizers/power-gamers love (nothing wrong with that), but it constrains the fantasy space IMO - it's one of those "looks fun on paper, but less great in play"
• Spellsight is... this is the kind of feature I'd imagine a sorcerer having, but not this class

Finally, I get why Blade of the Magic (cutting through "force" spells) is there – but that's an example of being constrained by the system and ending up with a niche/constrained high level ability that might not come up much & might be better served by something with broader appeal.

 

[TwoSix]

The Spellstrike core idea is the one that feels faulty/underworked. I understand why that decision was made – let's use existing spells and integrate those into attacks – but there are just too many corner cases. And it leads to some narrative weirdness depending on the spell. A cleaner approach would be jettisoning the idea of "delivering a spell via sword blow" and designing either class features or new spells with this approach in mind. That's more design work, so I get why the messy shortcut approach.

To be fair, the Spellstrike concept is very much a "will of the crowd" thing. I've gone over several variations of the Magus/Swordmage concept, and that concept of "imbuing spells into the melee strike" is something a LOT of people require to accept the design, even though it's always awkward to actually design rules for.

None of the creators I've seen are thrilled with the design, but sometimes you have to bend to the whims of your Patreon/Discord/what have you.

 

[Quickleaf]

To be fair, the Spellstrike concept is very much a "will of the crowd" thing. I've gone over several variations of the Magus/Swordmage concept, and that concept of "imbuing spells into the melee strike" is something a LOT of people require to accept the design, even though it's always awkward to actually design rules for.

None of the creators I've seen are thrilled with the design, but sometimes you have to bend to the whims of your Patreon/Discord/what have you.

Totally get that.

In this context, where I'm not beholding to a customer, I can say what's really on my mind. One of the principles of RPG design is that what a player/user says they want, may not in actuality be what they enjoy at the table. Examples include Conjure Animals (great for one player, frequently a time suck for others), Natural Explorer (great on paper, sucks fun out of certain exploration to reduce ranger's spotlight in play at moment's when player wants that spotlight), and anything overly complex that provokes rules discussion mid-game. Another example would be a player saying "I want all fights to be balanced" being confronted by hill giants at 1st level that are in an antagonistic role, and having a great time figuring out how to trick, manipulate, and evade the giants... which are clearly not balanced for their level.

The responsibility of a RPG designer is not to solve/create in isolation for one player/user, but to expand their design thinking to the group's gaming experience holistically and across multiple game sessions / circumstanaces. To put this succinctly: Great RPG design sneakily encourages the better angels of players.

/Rant

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Let's first start by clarifying terms. Do you want a swordmage that alternates spells and weapon strikes, or do you want a swordmage that imbues their weapon strikes with something that could loosely be defined as magic?

Neither, as written here.

The attack is the somatic component of the spell in some cases, in others spells are being turned into weapon attacks that normally target some other way (ie if you hit the target is subjected to the effects of the spells as if they’d failed their saving throw), and some spells are just spells.

Add magical damage types to your basic attacks is fine, but in the new phb we will have multiple “replace one attack as part of the attack action with a cantrip” subclasses, so having a base class also do it is no big deal.

What I don’t want is a swordmage that isn’t casting spells. IMO, that’s a different concept.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

To be fair, the Spellstrike concept is very much a "will of the crowd" thing. I've gone over several variations of the Magus/Swordmage concept, and that concept of "imbuing spells into the melee strike" is something a LOT of people require to accept the design, even though it's always awkward to actually design rules for.

None of the creators I've seen are thrilled with the design, but sometimes you have to bend to the whims of your Patreon/Discord/what have you.

That's why I like the paladin smite spells so much. They emulate spellstrike in a more modern and streamlined way.

It's just they're completely gated to paladin, and 1dnd is doubling down on this. If you want to play a non-divine themed elemental swordmage using a nice selection of smite type spells, that's just not allowed.

 

[Yaarel]

I liked lots of individual aspects of 4e, but the 'everything is spellcasting powers' part is one of the things I disliked the most.

Heh, I honestly cant tell the difference between a cantrip that uses a weapon versus a "weapon mastery" benefit that uses a weapon.

4e is historically significant because it is the first D&D edition to understand and quantify how an "ecology" of the rules of a game engine work. A game engine is like a self-contained biodome.

Some of the 4e advancement table was weirdly rigid. Example, daily spells needed to balance for a specific level, and utility spells balance for a different specific level. 4e players became dependent on the 4e designers to create balanced options − a complex and difficult effort.

5e kept the awareness of the 4e balance, but also tried to accommodate a more flexible ad hoc approach to options. Example, creating a spell can be ... anything! Just try to figure out which level the spell is most appropriate for, and put it there.