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

[Einlanzer0]

https://www.amazon.com/Warrior-Cults-Mystical-Murderous-Organizations/dp/0713727292

I bet this book would offer a lot of interesting ideas.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

My Swordmage design on DMsGuild is a half-caster warrior that combines magic with martial technique from 1st level onwards.

Each archetype is based on magically facilitating different aspects of combat for a warrior, such as mobility or versatility (the Aegis of Armament lets you swap equipment like Erza from Fairy Tail).

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/208329/The-Swordmage-5e-Class

 

[Einlanzer0]

My Swordmage design on DMsGuild is a half-caster warrior that combines magic with martial technique from 1st level onwards.

Each archetype is based on magically facilitating different aspects of combat for a warrior, such as mobility or versatility (the Aegis of Armament lets you swap equipment like Erza from Fairy Tail).

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/208329/The-Swordmage-5e-Class

I actually like a lot of what you've done here mechanically, especially keeping a lot of what filled out the 4e swordmage. I would probably do some reflavoring of this and try it out pretty much as-is in my campaign. Thanks for the link!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't see how the flavor link isn't intuitively obvious to people.

The fact remains that it isn't. This idea simply isn't clicking as you're presenting it. Ignoring that helps no one. Complaining about it helps no one. Arguing about it helps no one. And blaming the audience definitely helps no one. I get that you're frustrated. Really. I've been in your shoes, trying to sell what I thought was a wonderful idea that everyone else just... didn't... get. But sometimes you have to back off, take a deep breath, and consider the possibility that your idea really does need revisions before it'll communicate with your readers the way you want it to.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, and the D&D Argonaut would be an idealized version of the group of mythical adventurers and soldiers who sailed with Jason to recover a magical artifact. I don't see how the flavor link isn't intuitively obvious to people.

Finding a magic item is a trope of fantasy/myth. Leaping from there to casting spells is a different thing.

Obviously using magic IRL doesn't exist at least in D&D terms but you can extrapolate. Clerics obviously are more or less a priest of any religion. A Magi of Persia could be done as a wizard. The tricksters in the bible that could not turn sticks to snakes well in D&D their spells work.

An Argonaut class or archetype could work in an Age of Heroes game (buy that PDF for 2E if interested).

 

[Einlanzer0]

The fact remains that it isn't. This idea simply isn't clicking as you're presenting it. Ignoring that helps no one. Complaining about it helps no one. Arguing about it helps no one. And blaming the audience definitely helps no one. I get that you're frustrated. Really. I've been in your shoes, trying to sell what I thought was a wonderful idea that everyone else just... didn't... get. But sometimes you have to back off, take a deep breath, and consider the possibility that your idea really does need revisions before it'll communicate with your readers the way you want it to.

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.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes, and the D&D Argonaut would be an idealized version of the group of mythical adventurers and soldiers who sailed with Jason to recover a magical artifact. I don't see how the flavor link isn't intuitively obvious to people.

I think it's because none of the Argonauts seemed in any way magical to those who have read the story. And those who have link the name to those warriors that travelled on the Argo. There just doesn't seem to be anything about the name that screams fighter-mage.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[steeldragons]

Also, clearly, good ideas are always universally accepted as such when they first emerge.

No one is assailing you concept. Many, if not most, of your respondents have stated they agree the concept deserves a class, if not having homebrewed one themselves. You class concept isn't in question here.

All it is is egotistical, pedantic people nitpicking a concept they didn't create as if it objectively doesn't work when virtually any concept that's fleshed out can work.

No one is nitpicking the concept because we haven't seen any specifics of it yet. People ARE, specifically and almost universally, telling you -because you asked [started the thread for comment on]- the name you've come up with, which you clearly take as personal triumph in creativity, doesn't inspire the proposed class' abilities or concept. They are saying, simply, the name doesn't fit/work.

That hardly should be resulting in rude and defensive name-calling.

Hey, I've done it. Post something you are really jazzed about and then get annoyed/defensive when other people want what you've put up some other way. And that's fine. You're totally entitled to put up whatever you want in these threads. You're certainly entitled to defend your ideas and views.

I make posts about all kinds of topics basically saying, "Look what I did. Isn't this awesome? I think it's awesome!" or "This is what I think about <topic>. Period." You -anyone- can totally do that. But you don't really have a leg to stand on is saying, "Hey what do you guys think?" and then get mad and fling insults when they tell you something you didn't want to hear.

I've seen it a million times on message boards, I know what it looks like. I can't help it if everyone is simply using appeals to authority while believing them to be good arguments.

I have zero idea what you mean by people making "appeals to authority" and/or how/why it somehow negates any validity to what people are telling you.

 

[Quickleaf]

Thanks for your childish hyperbole, but I kindly disagree - in part because the concept is more than just "fighter/mage".

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.

 

[Einlanzer0]

No one is assailing you concept. Many, if not most, of your respondents have stated they agree the concept deserves a class, if not having homebrewed one themselves. You class concept isn't in question here.



No one is nitpicking the concept because we haven't seen any specifics of it yet. People ARE, specifically and almost universally, telling you -because you asked [started the thread for comment on]- the name you've come up with, which you clearly take as personal triumph in creativity, doesn't inspire the proposed class' abilities or concept. They are saying, simply, the name doesn't fit/work.

That hardly should be resulting in rude and defensive name-calling.

Hey, I've done it. Post something you are really jazzed about and then get annoyed/defensive when other people want what you've put up some other way. And that's fine. You're totally entitled to put up whatever you want in these threads. You're certainly entitled to defend your ideas and views.

I make posts about all kinds of topics basically saying, "Look what I did. Isn't this awesome? I think it's awesome!" or "This is what I think about <topic>. Period." You -anyone- can totally do that. But you don't really have a leg to stand on is saying, "Hey what do you guys think?" and then get mad and fling insults when they tell you something you didn't want to hear.



I have zero idea what you mean by people making "appeals to authority" and/or how/why it somehow negates any validity to what people are telling you.

See above.