D&D 5E Concepts for an arcane half-caster/gish

[Einlanzer0]

Whoa. That's uncalled for. I'll be blocking you.

Look, you're creating meaning for "Argonaut" that has never existed before. For your home campaign, do whatever you like! But if you're hoping to gain broader traction, it is nonsensical because it's your invented association of "Argonaut" to "magic knight person." No such correlation exists in myth, books, or film. Lots of us are telling you this.

My recommendation to do research into the underlying mythical/literary/film sources of the "magic knight person" archetype was coming from a very sincere place, but not only didn't you didn't care to pursue that recommendation, but you completely misconstrued my advice and got personal.

In the future, I hope you can engage with constructive criticism on these boards with a more positive outlook, so that other posters have a better experience with you than I have.

Maybe you should not call someone else's idea "terrible nonsensical" with no provocation if you expect productive conversation. Quite a double standard you have there.

 

[Zardnaar]

People on message boards are notorious for attacking novel ideas about anything, all the time. It's virtually all you see - someone presents an idea, and it gets nitpicked to hell and back by people who didn't originate the idea and are usually just being pedantic, often using fallacious arguments to support their unfounded criticism. The only time this doesn't happen is when people put an interesting spin on an established idea or concept that has had sufficient time to develop.

If you can imagine D&D without the existing paladin class, and someone posted an idea to use the Knights of Charlemagne to model what was basically just a fighter/cleric, do you think that concept would get universal support? No. It wouldn't - people would complain about what purpose there was in creating a fighter/cleric class when you could just use a subclass or multiclass, or how arbitrary and silly it was to name them after a group of 12 courtiers that served an emperor hundreds of years ago. It's only accepted and praised because it's become an established part of D&D canon. It's defended now simply as an appeal to authority or tradition without those defending it realizing it.

So, forgive me for not taking the random complaints of pedantic D&D nerd forum posters seriously when my OP was intended to generate discussion of different concepts and sources of inspiration for an arcane half-caster that could become as much an established part of D&D canon over time as the paladin is now.

I should have known better than to have any confidence that's how the conversation would actually evolve.

Paladin has been around long enough to catch on though and have you wondered why it caught it? It was not a massive leap of faith from the what it was based on into the game rules.

There have been literally hundreds of classes that have been made in D&D yet only 3 have caught on to make it into the PHB since AD&D. They are the Sorcerer, Warlock, Barbarian and I think a lot of it has to do with the names as you have a reasonable assumption what you are getting off the name. A name doesn't have to be perfect (see Druid), but the tie in has to be somewhat reasonable IMHO (see arguments over the Warlord name). Druid Celtic priest- D&D priest not a massive jump.

THe gish concept is fine the name is really hard IMHO, Duskblade and Swordmage for example not great names although Swordmage is better than Duskblade at least from a naming PoV IMHO.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Paladin has been around long enough to catch on though and have you wondered why it caught it? It was not a massive leap of faith from the what it was based on into the game rules.

There have been literally hundreds of classes that have been made in D&D yet only 3 have caught on to make it into the PHB since AD&D. They are the Sorcerer, Warlock, Barbarian and I think a lot of it has to do with the names as you have a reasonable assumption what you are getting off the name. A name doesn't have to be perfect (see Druid), but the tie in has to be somewhat reasonable IMHO (see arguments over the Warlord name). Druid Celtic priest- D&D priest not a massive jump.

THe gish concept is fine the name is really hard IMHO, Duskblade and Swordmage for example not great names although Swordmage is better than Duskblade at least from a naming PoV IMHO.

I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the idea that you can't link the usage of arcane magic to a group of people who didn't actually use arcane magic, especially since the overall story they were involved in had a mystical tone that translates well into arcane magic in D&D terms.

I'm not exactly married to the idea of using that name, but what I'm trying to stress here is something a lot of people are missing, and that's what's informing their arguments - the concept for the Argonaut is not "fighter-mage", in the exact same way that the concept of the paladin is not "fighter-cleric". It's something altogether different that can best be approximated by calling them professional adventurers in the same way that paladins are chivalrous knights. IMO, having training in both fighting and magic (and tools as well) is sort of implied in the skillset of being a professional adventurer, and being a magic-user is a small part of the overall identity, not the defining aspect of the class. Hence why they are half-casters and not full casters.

The reason that Paladin has stuck around while no fighter-mage class has is entirely because the paladin is build off of a really inspired concept, while fighter/mages never have been. This is the crux of what I'm trying to discuss here, and the majority of posters in this thread are simply not getting it. They are instead understandably encountering cognitive dissonance in trying to link the term Argonaut to their established ideas of what a fighter-mage class looks like (i.e. 4e's swordmage), which is completely missing the point. Or, rather, it's demonstrating the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'm not sure with the Argonaut either. Maybe for some kind of rogue specialized in artifact recovery, like the treasure hunters from AiME, but not for a mageknight. I think you would need to explain better what is your thought process when creating classes so that people may understand better the theme you want. For my part, a class is a theme or a flavor element in a specific lore and the mechanics are the means to achieve such theme. So, to me, a class doesnt need to have their mechanical function in the name. A gish doesnt need to be named with the word ''magic'' ''arcane'' ''knight'' etc in it. But some people prefer to have a class with a name that says: ''this is what I do''. Just a matter of design preference.

So, what is a ''swordmage'' in your lore?

 

[Einlanzer0]

I'm not sure with the Argonaut either. Maybe for some kind of rogue specialized in artifact recovery, like the treasure hunters from AiME, but not for a mageknight. I think you would need to explain better what is your thought process when creating classes so that people may understand better the theme you want. For my part, a class is a theme or a flavor element in a specific lore and the mechanics are the means to achieve such theme. So, to me, a class doesnt need to have their mechanical function in the name. A gish doesnt need to be named with the word ''magic'' ''arcane'' ''knight'' etc in it. But some people prefer to have a class with a name that says: ''this is what I do''. Just a matter of design preference.

So, what is a ''swordmage'' in your lore?

That's the thing - swordmage is not an inspired concept. It's just a class that represents combining martial combat with arcane spellcasting, which is something that can be done with a fighter/wizard or a dozen other things. Sure, you can give it some lore in your setting, but that doesn't make it a class with a complex identity. It's just a simple way of having fighter-mages that don't have to multiclass. Its identity is literally just weapons + magic, which is insufficient, and why no arcane half-caster has ever become fully canonized in D&D.

The idea I was going with the Argonaut is that it's a professional adventurer, trained by venturing companies that help fund and organize adventurers. As professional adventurers, they have very diversified training to be be as versatile and self-reliant as possible. It's a very straightforward concept, but one that gives them a thematic identity that includes a lot more than just "swords and spells", giving them some potential for staying power. It's literally no different than how the paladin was conceptualized and built. Of course, it's a concept that needs a lot of fleshing out. I'm not anywhere near there yet, but nothing anyone has said in this thread has given me doubt that it can be done, and done well.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm starting to think gish might be the best name for a fighter.mage at least in the D&D context (see Jedi in Star Wars).

The concept has not been as strong as it used to be say in AD&D. 3E, 4E, 5E kind of made it extinct although the 4E swordmage was good what it was I don't really associate it with the classic fighter/mage type.

An arcane Paladin would be more along the lines of an AD&D gfighter/mage. The closest I have seen in 5E is a paladin 6/Sorcerer XYZ which comes on late or a Fighter 1/warlock XYZ which switches on around level 3.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I'm starting to think gish might be the best name for a fighter.mage at least in the D&D context (see Jedi in Star Wars).

The concept has not been as strong as it used to be say in AD&D. 3E, 4E, 5E kind of made it extinct although the 4E swordmage was good what it was I don't really associate it with the classic fighter/mage type.

An arcane Paladin would be more along the lines of an AD&D gfighter/mage. The closest I have seen in 5E is a paladin 6/Sorcerer XYZ which comes on late or a Fighter 1/warlock XYZ which switches on around level 3.

I've actually had that thought as well. But the only problem I see is that it has a racial origin, which places restrictions on how the concept could be fleshed out. Ultimately, it feels to me like it would just be a fighter-mage with no other real identity other than originating with a particular race. I don't think that's sufficient grounds for whole class. It might actually be a good Paladin subclass.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm starting to think gish might be the best name for a fighter.mage at least in the D&D context (see Jedi in Star Wars).

The concept has not been as strong as it used to be say in AD&D. 3E, 4E, 5E kind of made it extinct although the 4E swordmage was good what it was I don't really associate it with the classic fighter/mage type.

An arcane Paladin would be more along the lines of an AD&D gfighter/mage. The closest I have seen in 5E is a paladin 6/Sorcerer XYZ which comes on late or a Fighter 1/warlock XYZ which switches on around level 3.

I quite like the name Zerth since back in 2e a Zerth was a fighter-mage. However, that name was taken for the githzerai monk from 3e so might not mean the same thing to everyone. I hate the term gish but it is definitely recognisable.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Zardnaar]

I quite like the name Zerth since back in 2e a Zerth was a fighter-mage. However, that name was taken for the githzerai monk from 3e so might not mean the same thing to everyone. I hate the term gish but it is definitely recognisable.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Yeah I am working on a gish class myself the name is a problem (placeholder is Mageknight that is an old minis game from 2001 or so).

Eldritchknight 6/wizard XYZ is not awful but its outclassed by the Paladin 6/Sorcerer XYZ and it switches on even latter. I want something around level 3 or 4 that feels like a fighter/mage without being broken so I have been looking at various 5E classes and some 3E ideas to make it a bit different from the Paaldin.

A Fighter1/fiendpact warlock is the best MC one I have come across in actual play. The warlock abilites+hex more or less match up to the Paladins aura and smites in terms of tnaking and extra damage and its good in a different way (better ranged options EB/fireball).

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Ok, now we're talking. Let's brainstorm ideas on the theme/flavor/niche, then we'll fit them into abilities for the class.
You said:
Professional adventurer: you are the delver, the explorer, this is your job and you were trained to do it. You dont fight for justice, a nation, an oath, nature or anything else, you fight because sometime obstacles need a good sword hit between the eyes.
Versatile, but works as a team synergist: The reason the guys you take inspiration from were remembered as the Argonauts were because they were all part of the same ''team'' (ship) called the Argo, so your class is one who thrive in an adventuring party.
Magic as a mean: Your class use magic, not because they seek arcane knowledge or are born from magic, but because magic is a convenient tool and there's always a possibility your adventuring party will not have a wizard, so you will be able to help in this department if need be (just like the paladin can dabble in healing should the need arise).

This could be a good base concept, I like it. When the released the artificer, I made a Delver archetype for the fighter by stealing the ''magic item acquisition'' from the artificer and creating an archetype where your character was the classic ''dungeon crawl fighter who stabs orc, get loot and buy magic item to stab more orc''. Magic was given to this archetype by the means of magic items, more magic attunement slots and an Use Magic Item feature much like the Thief. I think you could base your design on the idea of a class that adventures for magic items and artifact of powers and specialize in their usage.