D&D 5E Giving the arcane gish an identity.

[Stormonu]

I'm not sure that's an option either, since gish is such a broad mechanical concept. The subclasses need to both provide the bulk of the mechanics and the bulk of the story - and you need a ton of options outside of that.

Imagine trying to build a warlock class, except you need to include prepared, spellbook, and known spells variants as well, with each having a choice of spell lists.

Well, I got it to work to my satisfaction for my homebrew, but others can judge how much of a "story" the class has. I posted my homebrew thoughts a few posts prior.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For example, letting loose a GWM/GWF greatsword Green Flame Blade

...is mostly the feats talking, not the EK talking. You're conflating "a character who spent 2 feats to do a thing" with "a character's baseline capabilities." The two aren't the same, and you'll get divergent results if you act as though they are. Same applies to GWF+Fey Touched. If sinking two feats (out of the maximum 9 you can possibly have, if you're a 19th-level Fighter and got a feat from your race) didn't make you do fairly well at the core function those feats provide....then those feats would be really bad feats, and you shouldn't have taken them.

This baffles me? Why wouldn’t the DM let the player have their choice if it has no mechanical effect? But I agree reflavoring can’t be the ultimate answer

Oh, it baffles me too, but there are an awful lot of people who will get very irate about players doing anything even remotely like this. If I had to guess, it's because doing this verges on DM power: describing the nature of the world. That, along with most other player-positive approaches, is lumped into "player entitlement," and thus anathema.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

I think of all the options currently available the Artificer is by far the best at representing what I'm looking for so far.

I even think if there was a Tasha's option to swap out certain class abilities like it did with the ranger it would be a good chassis.

Change "Magical Tinkering" to a bonus cantrip or a weapon ribbon ability.
Change "Tools Required" to "Weapons Required".
Change "Infuse Item" to something akin to maneuvers but explicitly magical that may or may not spend a spell slot.
Add a few weapon-focused subclasses.
Change "The Right Tool for the Job" into another weapon ribbon.
Change "Tool Expertise" into...well, you get the point.

The Artificer has 11 subclass abilities and of those two (Spellcasting and Flash of Genius) are not based around magic items (what I'd refer to as gadgeteering but I understand some folks might not.) Now I do think if you build specifically for being a melee combatant and you reflavor all your magic item stuff as martial technique stuff and maybe grab a feat for a Fighting Style you'd be able to make a pretty good Swordmage for sure. Just as I think reflavoring a specific Paladin build could make a good swordmage or reflavoring a Ranger could make a good Arcane Archer.
My major thoughts, though, are that if it were codified as a class it would open up a new it will open up new thought-processes for subclass design and fill out more options from there.

Now, I do understand people worried about class bloat and I will say that I am usually in the "more options=better" category for the sake of building options to make an idea come to life. I'll start worrying about class bloat when we exceed...let's say 16 classes.

My initial thought was no way basing anything on Artificer/Battle Smith as it's thematically all wrong, but I'm starting to come around to agreeing with you and Cap'n Kobold that using it as a starting point might be the most expedient way to get something close to what we want to play mechanically.

So maybe the approach is we copy-n-paste the Artificer/Battle Smith into an empty new class shell and then swap out / refluff all the gear-related stuff into arcane fighting stuff instead.

Pros of this approach are: Basic Artificer chassis has most of the things you'd want on a gish: d8 HD, prof with medium armor & shields, Int & Con Saves, most of the skills you'd want, and is an Arcane half-caster with cantrips, ritual casting and it's own dedicated spell list. Battle Smith adds most of the rest with proficiency with martial weapons, Int for atk/dmg, Extra Attack and bonus magic dmg on wpn attacks.

Cons of this approach are: The major gear-focus of the class needs some serious class feature swapping in order to really reflect the martial/magic core concept we're looking for. Healing & support spells on the artificer lists would need swapping out. We'd be taking a base class + subclass and turning that into a base class which we'd presumably want subclasses for ... so would need careful balancing.

I like the starting list Tinker started above. Maybe we double-down on that ?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

An artificer subclass with subclass spells drawn from the paladin/ranger strike spell lists, extra attack, and no robo dog would definitely be a reasonable option. Maybe with teleport based subclass features.

Still a long way from the spellstriking arcane gish of prior editions. I'd probably still pick and reflavour hexblade, paladin, or ranger over it though. The infusion and tinkering stuff is extremely mechanically overpowering.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

As a conceptual question, do people see this class as focusing on using a single weapon (one or two-handed), or do they think that dual-wielding (and channelling spells through both weapons) has a place in it?

 

[Mind of tempest]

As a conceptual question, do people see this class as focusing on using a single weapon (one or two-handed), or do they think that dual-wielding (and channelling spells through both weapons) has a place in it?

yes

 

[Lycurgon]

Personally I think "A studious pursuer of martial and magical techniques and how to combine them" is a good enough story to base a class on. Further flavour can be added with subclasses.

There are enough fans to the Archetype since 1e and before, that it deserves to be a class of its own. WotC know it is a popular concept which is why they have continued to make subclasses that play to that theme. But I and obviously many others (based on the number of forum threads and numerous Homebrew attempts on DMGuild and elsewhere on the net) have found all of them to be unsatisfactory so far, for one reason or another.
Personally it is my preferred play style to have a magically enhanced warrior. So I would love a good class to put it off well.

Unfortunately I don't think WotC will make one because they are reluctant to add base classes this edition. So homebrew is probably the best we will get.

Also I love stabnerd as a replacement for Gish. Obviously not as a class name but as an expression of the concept.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think that adding a few lines to the Eldritch Knight's Weapon Bond would be a good start:

1 - The Bonded Weapon can be used as a spell focus.
2 - As an Action on your turn, you can cast a Cantrip you know with a spell casting time of 1 Action and that requires an attack roll by imbuing your bonded weapon. Make a single attack with that weapon using the range of the Bonded weapon instead of the cantrip's. If that attack hits, all attack rolls for the imbued cantrip hit the target automatically and are considered part of the single weapon attack. The target takes weapon damage, and is subject to the effects of the cantrip.

7 - When you use the Attack action, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of the attacks.

 

[Tinker-TDC]

My initial thought was no way basing anything on Artificer/Battle Smith as it's thematically all wrong, but I'm starting to come around to agreeing with you and Cap'n Kobold that using it as a starting point might be the most expedient way to get something close to what we want to play mechanically.

So maybe the approach is we copy-n-paste the Artificer/Battle Smith into an empty new class shell and then swap out / refluff all the gear-related stuff into arcane fighting stuff instead.

Pros of this approach are: Basic Artificer chassis has most of the things you'd want on a gish: d8 HD, prof with medium armor & shields, Int & Con Saves, most of the skills you'd want, and is an Arcane half-caster with cantrips, ritual casting and it's own dedicated spell list. Battle Smith adds most of the rest with proficiency with martial weapons, Int for atk/dmg, Extra Attack and bonus magic dmg on wpn attacks.

Cons of this approach are: The major gear-focus of the class needs some serious class feature swapping in order to really reflect the martial/magic core concept we're looking for. Healing & support spells on the artificer lists would need swapping out. We'd be taking a base class + subclass and turning that into a base class which we'd presumably want subclasses for ... so would need careful balancing.

I like the starting list Tinker started above. Maybe we double-down on that ?

I think taking the base chassis, customizing the spell list, and then using the subclasses for combat styles (a sword and board, great weapons, dual-wielder, and arcane archer probably to start, adding in different armor methods like an unarmored defense for the Jedi type or a heavy armor proficiency for the Elder Scrolls type) would mostly be able to get things across. I might even say give it custom cantrips that work in concert with multiattack for imbuing spells, though that's probably better as a class ability.

Looking at the Artificer Infusions it seems like a lot of things that they do are just cool things that a magical swordsman could do using their supernatural skill. Upside is you don't need an item, downside is you can only use on self, not an ally. Examples:
Armor that replaces limbs.
Increased speed.
Increased Strength.
Bonus action Teleportation.
Bonus to spell attack rolls.
Ability to ignore cover.
Bonus to weapon attack rolls.
Bonus to AC.
Advantage on Initiative.
Cannot be surprised.
Increased CON.
Weapon produces light.
You have a friendly homonculus.
Ignore the loading property.
Weapon creates its own magical ammunition.
Shield pushes back enemies.
Resistance to a damage type.
A thrown weapon returns to your hand after being thrown.

Looks like a bunch of cool magic warrior stuff to me as long as it's decoupled from being based on having a magic item.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

As a conceptual question, do people see this class as focusing on using a single weapon (one or two-handed), or do they think that dual-wielding (and channelling spells through both weapons) has a place in it?

With the way the spells via weapon attacks are implemented, two weapon fighting might struggle with action economy.

The blade cantrips allow one attack, followed by the effect of the cantrip. So this could allow a second weapon

The spells like searing smite and ensnaring strike require a bonus action to cast, and then allow the full number of attacks. The spell goes off when one attack hits.

A mixture of levelled spells following both formula would probably be best. Keeping two weapon fighting and a weapon in one hand on even ground. However the 4e swordmage did have a focus on a weapon in one hand. But keeping it open for people to build how they want is always nice. Someone might want a two handed weapon, or even a ranged weapon.

 

[Xeviat]

This would lead me to lean, for an Arcane-powered warrior, to their central/base archetype to be dependent on having and using power to defeat enemies that are supernatural, defending the physcial world from the supernatural, on supernatural terms with knowledge/training/experience in supernatural means. This could be "witch-hunter/the Witcher" types of specially trained "hunters." Could be "knightly" orders of Jedi-esque Elves keeping a magically eye on the functioning and safety of sorcery and sorcerous/otherplanar threats upon the world. Could be someone trained out of personal motivations (or plain greed) to find and master various arcane items and creatures...purely for the increase of their own power/ends (akin to the iconic Magus from Pathfinder). All of these characters could be the arcane-warrior. Some "feel/look" like a paladin with arcane magic. Some feel/look like a ranger with arcane magic. Some look like "Bladesingers" or "Magi" or "Duskblades" or <insert preferred specific name here>. But they are all just different flavors of the spell-wielding weapon-trained combatant....the name/title of this class is what the real issue is. Not its 'identity," per se.

"Swordmage" is so "blah" generic. This also applies to all of the "just put two words together" nonsense: "Spellsword, Duskblade, Hexblade,"...even "Bladesinger," etc... Besides several of those are too specific in flavor/story to be a base archetype class name.

"Magus" is kinda taken.

"Gish" is just made up non-word nonsense horrible that should only ever be used in reference to githyanki...if at all.

"Guardian?" I like! But it does, rather, put a stranglehold on what the explicit presumption of this character is to be. "I don't want to be a Guardian! I want to be a magical marauder!" Now, if you were very clear that the class name was in reference to a character who is looking to "safeguard" magic/the supernatural to any cause: from keeping arcane magic and creatures in the world to eradicating it entirely [so you are the only one left with arcane knowledge and power] are all plausible for someone calling themselves a "Guardian." I guess it could work.

My own version of this class is called a Sentinel. Rangers range. Sentinels "keep watch." They are alert and paying attention [to magical things] and "watching"...but are they watching to defend magic in the world? Sure. Alert to magical goings-on for their own purposes/selfish ends? Yup, that too. Paying attention/learning about magic to stop its encroachment or possible destruction of the world? Could be that too. Are they the "sacred" order of magical [arcane] archers from the high-elf kingdom responsible for the direct protection of the elfin sorcerers council? Sure are! Are they medium armor-wearing "battlemages" -more interested in flinging spells than swordplay, but they still carry/know what to do with a sword if needed- from the nation of the Archmagus Imperialis? Yup, them too.

So, the concept/identity is simply: a weapon-trained combat-capable (melee and/or ranged!) warrior who knows arcane spells, possesses arcane knowledge, and expertise encountering/dealing with/defeating "arcane creatures" and magical threats.

The problem is that the Fighter/Mage -from D&D's incarnation- has never HAD its own base class. It doesn't have a "name."

Say "Ranger" and all D&D (and any fantasy RPGers, computer and table) know what/who you're talking about. NOW, those imaginings can be wildly different depending on one's age, game, style preferences, all kinds of things. But everyone will have some image/idea, automatically, of what "Ranger" means. Same with Paladin. Same with Bard, and so on. For "Fighter/Mage" character concept...we don't and have never had a convenient 'Label" like that.

Basically, the solution is, D&D developers need to PICK something and just stick to it. Just use it over and over and over until it is just an assumed part of D&D/fantasy game-play. ...but, preferably, not something "hokey" like "Spellsword" or "Swordmage."

"One who fights arcane threats" is a theme that a class could be based around. The Ranger has strong themes of monster hunting, but being a mage hunter, witch hunter, or a guardian of magical secrets and mage orders, we're starting to get a theme.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around.

 

[Garthanos]

"One who fights arcane threats" is a theme that a class could be based around. The Ranger has strong themes of monster hunting, but being a mage hunter, witch hunter, or a guardian of magical secrets and mage orders, we're starting to get a theme.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around.

That was a paragon path for Swordmages btw. And likely one of the Cleric themes at some point (See Vampire Hunters with holy symbols and the like)

 

[ECMO3]

...is mostly the feats talking, not the EK talking. You're conflating "a character who spent 2 feats to do a thing" with "a character's baseline capabilities." The two aren't the same, and you'll get divergent results if you act as though they are. Same applies to GWF+Fey Touched. If sinking two feats (out of the maximum 9 you can possibly have, if you're a 19th-level Fighter and got a feat from your race) didn't make you do fairly well at the core function those feats provide....then those feats would be really bad feats, and you shouldn't have taken them.

The fighter has an ASI at 4th and 6th level, meaning you should already be at 20 strength before your 8th level ASI, so it is take a feat at 8th level or take an ASI in abilities that are less relevant.

But even if we assume no feats, an 11th level eldritch knight using a greatsword and NOT using GWM is doing 4d6+4d8+10+int total damage on GFB+BA attack, and he probably has an 18 intelligence since he did not take a feat at 8th level! If he has GWF (which is a fighting style available to all fighters) that is an average of 54 DPR without using a single limited use ability, it is 90 if he uses Action Surge

An 11th level dueling eldritch knight going sword and board with shadow blade/GFB and a BA attack is doing 8d8+14+int or 14d8+21+intx2 using action surge. Again assuming an 18 int since he did not take any feats and he is doing an average of 54DPR and 92DPR using action surge. He is doing this while also getting advantage in darkness or dim light.

Those numbers account for rerolling 1s and 2s for the GWF and for crits for both characters but they assume no feats at all.

 

[Garthanos]

The fighter has an ASI at 4th and 6th level, meaning you should already be at 20 strength before your 8th level ASI, so it is take a feat at 8th level or take an ASI in abilities that are less relevant.

The original reference was to "weapon-magic?" stylistically action surge certainly makes a fighter periodically stronger but is just a fighter hitting it again (and restricted from being a cantrip or am I recalling wrong) not particularly magical in my opinion.

 

[ECMO3]

The original reference was to "weapon-magic?" stylistically action surge certainly makes a fighter periodically stronger but is just a fighter hitting it again (and restricted from being a cantrip or am I recalling wrong) not particularly magical in my opinion.

You are recalling wrong. For the guy with the greatsword it is using the cast a spell action and Green Flame Balde which is "weapon magic". That is where the damage for both the attack and the action surge are coming from. On AS you are doing 4d6+8d8+10+2Xint "weapon magic" using the cast a spell action and the cast a spell actions surge action and then you are doing another 2d6+5 in bonus action "attack" damage using the war magic ability.

For the guy with shadow blade the entire thing is weapon magic as the weapon he is using itself is magic, but again here it is using a cast a spell action with most of the damage dice coming from the cantrip (twice with AS) and a bonus action war magic attack with the shadowblade.

 

[Vaalingrade]

"One who fights arcane threats" is a theme that a class could be based around.

Subclass only please.

A mage hunter focus is going to run afoul of the problem of limiting what campaigns the class can be worthwhile in.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Subclass only please.

A mage hunter focus is going to run afoul of the problem of limiting what campaigns the class can be worthwhile in.

That is precisely why I did not bake that identity into my Arcknight class, and had a subclass (called the "Study of the Eldritch Nullifier") that focused on draining the life and magic from enemies (focusing on necrotic damage, and dispel magic/counterspell). However, I did give the whole class a level 14 feature called "Spell Siphon" where it could steal spell slots from enemies casters (anyone with spell slots, so Bards, Clerics, Druids, etc).

 

[Garthanos]

You are recalling wrong.

Yes that is correct I was recalling this "You cannot cast two cantrips during one action. "

For the guy with the greatsword it is using the cast a spell action and Green Flame Balde which is "weapon magic".

"offensive weapon-magic options" OK then we really see you gave what you considered 3 options green flame blade and one and you then wait till what level 7/8? and get "shadowblade" because it can come from another non preferred school of magic? However that is a concentration spell? regardless of when you get it is this recommended for a melee combatant? Also you mentioned fey touched to take Hex but basically that means you are not using a EK feature as hex is not really part of the EK.

That really seems like quite limited options to me.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

"One who fights arcane threats" is a theme that a class could be based around. The Ranger has strong themes of monster hunting, but being a mage hunter, witch hunter, or a guardian of magical secrets and mage orders, we're starting to get a theme.

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around.

Interesting, I must admit I always thought of the Gish / stabnerd identity was using magic to make one better at weapon fighting, but you're right, fighting against magic could also be a part of that concept.

Example : a magic school would need guards, and it would be wise to teach those guards some magic, because it's likely that threats to the school would be magical, and guards without any magic would be easily overcome by them. Hence stabnerd guards would be more effective in this situation, would use magic to improve their combat capabilities, and would likely be trained specifically in combating magical threats.

I like it.

 

[TheOneGargoyle]

As a conceptual question, do people see this class as focusing on using a single weapon (one or two-handed), or do they think that dual-wielding (and channelling spells through both weapons) has a place in it?

My preference I think is that weapon & armour choices would be influenced by the subclass.

Eg.

• Subclass similar to / inspired by OD&D Elf race - lightly armoured (proper elven chain anyone?), long sword + short sword
• Subclass similar to / inspired by 4e Assault Sword mage - lightly armoured, 2H Sword
• Subclass similar to / inspired by Jedi - unarmoured (improved mage armour?), Sunblade / radiant version of shadowblade / lightsaber
• Subclass similar to / inspired by dusk blade - medium or (potentially at higher levels) heavy armour, any weapons
• Subclass similar to / inspired by Shielding Swordmage - light or medium armour, 1H weapon + magical warding (magical shield effect from one empty hand)
• Subclass similar to / inspired by The Witcher - no armour (superhuman stats & pure skill baby!), any weapon

Etc...

Whatcha think?