A 5e Swordmage?

[doctorbadwolf]

But what I'm saying is that if your way of casting is to blend sword and spell into a single thing, then it's weird that you would start casting differently out of combat.

Why?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t think I’d want the class to be too strongly in the category of frontliner, tbh. I’d rather see them in the place the Ranger inhabits, but maybe more flexible, where they can stand up front, especially with the right fighting style, spells, and subclass, but they can just as easily specialize as a mobile skirmisher.

I also don’t know if I’d want a half caster, unless we’re going to give them class feature that add magical effects to their normal attacks.

Maybe something odd, like a Warlock style caster.

Also, there’s no reason for them not to have any “normal” spells. That just isn’t the focus of the class. Longstrider, Armor of Agythis, Absorb Elements, Shadow Blade, Spiritual Weapon, Mage Armor, and even Haste, are all Gish spells that don’t interfere with gishing like we’re discussing.

Out of combat, I’d give them rituals, and maybe play up that their class features are essentially rituals. Then look at spells like Enhance Abillity, Enlarge/Reduce, etc, and spells that involve physical objects or just feel right on a case by case, like Alarm, Knock, Rope Trick, etc.

Then I’d split the class like the warlock, with a level 1 Order of The XYZ, and a level 3 Aegis choice.

 

[jmartkdr]

But what I'm saying is that if your way of casting is to blend sword and spell into a single thing, then it's weird that you would start casting differently out of combat.

I guess I was unclear then - blending is your *main* thing, not your only thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why?

Why not?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why not?

That isn’t a genuine response

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess I was unclear then - blending is your *main* thing, not your only thing.

Then your weakening the case for needing this class in the first place. As has been stated, we already have options for attacking or casting.

We don’t have many options that blend the either attack or cast stuff into a single action. If your justification for needing such a class is to have a class that can do the desired blending then saying you aren’t blending out of combat, kind of places the justification that was just used for the class on shaky ground.

 

[FrogReaver]

That isn’t a genuine response

Neither was “why”.

 

[jmartkdr]

Then your weakening the case for needing this class in the first place. As has been stated, we already have options for attacking or casting.

We don’t have many options that blend the either attack or cast stuff into a single action. If your justification for needing such a class is to have a class that can do the desired blending then saying you aren’t blending out of combat, kind of places the justification that was just used for the class on shaky ground.

I disagree. There's really not much a paladin can do out of combat that a cleric can't do - and usually do better. Does that mean the paladin class is unjustified? I could make divine smite and aura of protection spells, after all, and you could multiclass.

There's literally nothing a rogue can do out of combat that a fighter can't do - should we get rid of rogues?

But there's an assumption there that I dislike: if a concept can be realized with multiclassing, that it should be. I disagree. If the concept would play differently than the base class was designed to, and has enough internal variation for three or more subclasses, than it makes sense to have it's own class. No class in the game already is built around blending magic into weapon attacks.

TBF, that means hexblades shouldn't be warlocks - which is part of the justification for this class.

I will accept the idea that if the spells existed then the fantasy could be met without a whole class, but a class is still the best way to get it across. I could describe every class in the game as a fighter/wizard hybrid, but that doesn't mean we should have only two classes - unless you're real argument is the game should be classless, but that's a different thread.

Also, no one gets upgradable bonded weapons.

 

[Xeviat]

I've been convinced that a class could work. I still would like to see a better name, and a story for their placement in the world. I'm looking at Book of Nine Swords for some ideas here. Whatever this class is called, I imagine low level members of it, and maybe one of it's subclasses, are warriors whose skill with their weapon seems (is) supernatural. This could draw inspiration from Kensei, or from anime warriors who can cut fees and trees from yards away. This could make it encroach on the monk's territory, so one would have to be careful.

Rather than deciding whether the class should be a frontline or a skirmisher, I say make this decision in the subclasses.

I say make it a half caster, but give it a smite-like ability to burn spell slots so a player could play the class more simply (and to make it very clear that their spell slots are part of their offensive power).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yea, I played one for about a year, it's a really solid class. The arcane order subclass even has the teleport to attacked allies ability, like one of the 4e swordmages. I believe it's up to 6 subclasses now in its most recent release.

I hesitated to mention it since the OP said no homebrew, but there are several options by reputable homebrew publishers that fit the swordmage niche quite nicely.

I am curious about both, but I wanted to start by talking about how a true swordmage could be built in 5e as it is, and from there see what is still missing. I think a new class with a purpose built spell list, and some new features to make it really sing, would be a fairly small amount of work.
I'd make it an Int caster who chooses between Strength and Dex just like a fighter, gets cantrips, doesn't get Extra Attack and instead gets something like a bonus action attack when casting a cantrip, and get's either a d8 or d10 hit die, with at least one subclass or Aegis option that boosts durability into real tank range, but other options that focus more on mobility and hitting hard, or control, etc.

I'd probably give the base class a Mark ability, but have the Aegis options determine what it does beyond what a Mark does in the DMG optional rule.

Then your weakening the case for needing this class in the first place. As has been stated, we already have options for attacking or casting.

We don’t have many options that blend the either attack or cast stuff into a single action. If your justification for needing such a class is to have a class that can do the desired blending then saying you aren’t blending out of combat, kind of places the justification that was just used for the class on shaky ground.

Nonsense. Firstly, the class can have a spell list that mostly interacts with themselves and objects, and still have plenty of out of combat spell utility. Second, a classes spell list doesn't need to be strictly focused on their main thing. It's fine to have some spells that reach outside that narrow focus. A swordmage with some spells like Unseen Servant isn't less "swordmagey" than one without such spells.

Neither was “why”.

Sure it was. You made an assertion about something being weird without supporting it in any way, so I asked why you think it's weird. "Why not" is a non-response.

Why is it weird? What is weird about it?