A 5e Swordmage?

[Mouseferatu]

Remember, you said "for the most part A third level spell is a third level spell". That's the notion that I was inquiring about. It looks like nicely you stepped back from that over-statement with your comment below.

I'm not stepping back from that, and it's not just "my" assertion. That, too, is part of what the developers have said, with the specific possible exceptions of a few "classic" spells they say they deliberately made a little more tempting, like fireball.

I said it would imbalanced to throw wizards (or anyone else) open to the entire spell selection because of unexpected combinations of spells. And because variety can, indeed, lead to increased power.

But that doesn't change the fact that, on a one-for-one basis, yes, for the most part a 3rd-level spell is a 3rd-level spell (or at least was intended to be, possible errors in balance notwithstanding) in 5E, when it comes to overall balance.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not stepping back from that, and it's not just "my" assertion. That, too, is part of what the developers have said, with the specific possible exceptions of a few "classic" spells they say they deliberately made a little more tempting, like fireball.

I said it would imbalanced to throw wizards (or anyone else) open to the entire spell selection because of unexpected combinations of spells. And because variety can, indeed, lead to increased power.

But that doesn't change the fact that, on a one-for-one basis, yes, for the most part a 3rd-level spell is a 3rd-level spell (or at least was intended to be, possible errors in balance notwithstanding) in 5E, when it comes to overall balance.

Go check out any guide. Everyone knows that some spells are good and some are bad and they all attempt to rate them as such. If the developers said that, they are wrong, not all same leveled spells are equal in power and it's common knowledge that such is the case.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Obviously, yes, there's some variation. It's absolutely impossible to make all spells perfectly balanced against others of the same level. There are contextual matters, there are character who can better take advantage, there are completely immeasurable differences (such as trying to judge an offensive spell vs. a utility spell), and there are flat-out mistakes.

But, and this is the point I was trying to make...

The differences between spells of the same level are matters of degree, they are mostly not deliberate, they are mostly insignificant except for the most extreme optimization, and (most importantly), they are not factors in class balance as assumed by the game itself.

The developers didn't give clerics spell X but wizards spell Y as part of any effort to make one class more or less powerful than the other. They did it because spell X felt more appropriate--thematically, flavor-wise, or traditionally--for a cleric, and spell Y for a wizard. If you therefore gave the wizard access to spell X instead of Y, you will not have changed the class balance in any meaningful sense. And in fact, if you decided to play a wizard who used the cleric spell list instead of the wizard spell list in its entirety, the class would play very differently, but it wouldn't inherently be more or less powerful or "unbalanced."

That's what I was getting at.

 

[cbwjm]

Currently I think the best way to make a swordmage in 5e, to capture the feel of the 4e class is as an eldritch knight/abjurer. The problem is that it takes a while to really get the feel of the swordmage. Eldritch knight gets weapon bond and, eventually, war magic. Abjurer gets arcane ward and at 6th level can use it to protect others.

Multiclassing can do a lot but sometimes you need a dedicated class to really get the feel of previous editions from when you first start playing your character.

 

[NaturalZero]

I would say paladin with a level dip into hexblade actually gets closer. Maybe add some sorcerer or fighter on there as well. Smite Spells the "15 different magical powers". Hexblade gives you booming blade and allows you to get straight for charisma as a main stat (much like the real swordmage used a single stat of int for his attacks).

There's various ways to get misty step for you. Thunderstep can be a very thematic spell. With quicken spell you can even use it and booming blade on the same turn.

Sure, Paladin6/Hexblade3/Sorc11 is my jam! Teleporting every round to get off-turn attacks isn't really a thing, of course, but I've resigned myself to the fact that they've defenestrated most of the defender's toys in 5e.

 

[Xeviat]

By the way a fighter also fits the concept of a chivalrous knight and a resourceful woodsman.

The fighter fits these concepts in a non-magical world. In a magical world, there are things that those two archetypes do that aren't really covered by the fighter. Yes, you could make a subclass, and we have them sort of (I argue the woodsman is better in the rogue, and we have the scout; fighter has the cavalier). We have the Paladin and Ranger as classes because there are a number of varied character builds and types that fit into them, because they're concepts that have been around for a long time.

Now, I didn't play back in the day of the "Elf" class, so I don't know if it got anything interesting to weave magic and martial. The Gish is a very old D&D concept. I just think a class needs more of a story than "warrior that uses arcane magic", because the paladin and ranger both have more weight to their history than "warrior that uses divine magic" and "warrior that uses nature magic".

That's all I'm saying here.

I'm not saying that the existing options in the game allow you to play this properly, not by a long shot. I'm saying that I haven't been convinced it's not something that couldn't be built with a Fighter/Wizard multiclass with likely two new subclasses.

What separates a "Swordmage" from a "Fighter/Wizard"? Because I can feel what separates a "Paladin" from a "Fighter/Cleric". I'd like a "Swordmage" class. I just want to know it's story and it's place in the world.

 

[FrogReaver]

The fighter fits these concepts in a non-magical world. In a magical world, there are things that those two archetypes do that aren't really covered by the fighter. Yes, you could make a subclass, and we have them sort of (I argue the woodsman is better in the rogue, and we have the scout; fighter has the cavalier). We have the Paladin and Ranger as classes because there are a number of varied character builds and types that fit into them, because they're concepts that have been around for a long time.

Now, I didn't play back in the day of the "Elf" class, so I don't know if it got anything interesting to weave magic and martial. The Gish is a very old D&D concept. I just think a class needs more of a story than "warrior that uses arcane magic", because the paladin and ranger both have more weight to their history than "warrior that uses divine magic" and "warrior that uses nature magic".

That's all I'm saying here.

I'm not saying that the existing options in the game allow you to play this properly, not by a long shot. I'm saying that I haven't been convinced it's not something that couldn't be built with a Fighter/Wizard multiclass with likely two new subclasses.

What separates a "Swordmage" from a "Fighter/Wizard"? Because I can feel what separates a "Paladin" from a "Fighter/Cleric". I'd like a "Swordmage" class. I just want to know it's story and it's place in the world.

Here's a question. Suppose there was no and never had been a Paladin class, couldn't every argument you make against a "Swordmage" also be made against a "Paladin"?

You say you can feel a difference in Paladin and Fighter/Cleric but I think that's only because Paladin officially exists and it's concreteness allows you to differentiate the Paladin and the Fighter/Cleric. Instead of some Amorophous concept like a Swordmage currently is, the Paladin is a concrete thing in the game world so you can actually compare and contrast it's differences to a Fighter/Clerics. Once a Swordmage was actually a concrete thing in the game you could compare and contrast it's differences as well and I think you would be able to feel what separates a Swordmage and a Fighter/Wizard at that time just like you can with the Paladin and Fighter/Cleric now.

 

[Xeviat]

Here's a question. Suppose there was no and never had been a Paladin class, couldn't every argument you make against a "Swordmage" also be made against a "Paladin"?

Sort of. But that's ignoring my position that "Paladin" is based on a broader concept and archetype, the "Knight in Shining Armor", than the "Swordmage" is. I'd also argue that the "Samurai" deserves to be it's own class in some settings, if you were to follow it in the same progression as the paladin grows from the knight in shining armor. The Knight in Shining Armor isn't just a fighter, because the fantastical interpretation is that they gain power from their devotion (typically to Christianity, in the European traditions it is drawn from).

Many people do argue that the more narrow classes don't need to exist. I've seen plenty of arguments that we could reduce the classes down to the Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. But I believe the classes we have, along with a few others, are more than just specializations or blending of the "core four".

So, again, what is the story of the Swordmage? How are they different from a Fighter/Wizard multiclass with unique subclasses? Is their magic a magical interpretation of a "martial artist"? Are they learning to wield pure magic as a weapon, rather than shaping it into spells? That's the kind of thinking I mean. What are they?

 

[cbwjm]

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to have some great story for why a class should exist beyond "This is what I want to play." Creating a swordmage, that is a half-caster arcane class, should be as simple as that. We've had a fighter/mage in each edition (whether a single class, multiclass or multiclass+prestige class), it is a popular archetype, why not give it its own class in 5e? Maybe you want the archetype because your table doesn't use multiclassing and the eldritch knight doesn't quite cut it as the swordmage you want to play (Too much sword, not enough mage). Maybe your table does use multiclassing but it takes too long for your fighter/wizard to reach the stage that you feel like you are playing your old character from an earlier edition. Basically, if the paladin is able to be a class because it fits the "Knight in shining armour" archetype, then the swordmage can be class because it fits the "knight entwining sword and spell" archetype. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.

 

[Xeviat]

I'm of the opinion that you don't need to have some great story for why a class should exist beyond "This is what I want to play." Creating a swordmage, that is a half-caster arcane class, should be as simple as that. We've had a fighter/mage in each edition (whether a single class, multiclass or multiclass+prestige class), it is a popular archetype, why not give it its own class in 5e? Maybe you want the archetype because your table doesn't use multiclassing and the eldritch knight doesn't quite cut it as the swordmage you want to play (Too much sword, not enough mage). Maybe your table does use multiclassing but it takes too long for your fighter/wizard to reach the stage that you feel like you are playing your old character from an earlier edition. Basically, if the paladin is able to be a class because it fits the "Knight in shining armour" archetype, then the swordmage can be class because it fits the "knight entwining sword and spell" archetype. It doesn't really need to be more complicated than that.

I've never said I was arguing anything but my opinion. But looking through 3E and 4E, we got the duskblade and the hexblade and the swordmage and none of those really gained enough traction for the designers to choose to keep them as a full class in 5E. The Warlock was the only one that really held on. Maybe that's because they wanted to try their short rest recovery spellcaster in 5E like the sorcerer grew out of the notion of spontaneous casting. Maybe it's because the Warlock fit a flavor that wasn't really covered by the existing classes.

The other classes all have story. They're all part of the world. 4E had class bloat because it's system required classes to differentiate characters. 5E's subclass system kind of makes that less necessary.

I'm fully open to being convinced, I would just like to see more than mechanics for a class. I feel the same way about the Artificer, that it could maybe be handled through subclasses, but even it feels like it's based on something bigger (marrying the alchemist and the technologist into a single class feels like the beginnings of something). Where, while I liked it, I never quite got why the Psychic Warrior and Soul Knife were separate classes and not just prestige classes on Fighter/Psions or Rogue/Psions, and why I'm hoping to see the Mystic completed some time (maybe for the Eberon or Dark Sun book?)