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

Gadget

Adventurer
Duskblades were not core in 3e, and I don't recall them being that popular. There were literally dozens, if not hundreds, of base/prestige classes that were produced for that edition with the d20 glut. I also remember the spellsword being a class that many seemed to like as well.

That said, I agree that it is the unique mechanics and spell lists that make the Paladin, (and to a lesser extent) Ranger, & Swordmage work, rather than being just fighter/cleric-lite, fighter/druid-light, or fighter/wizard-lite. I've been somewhat sad to see WOTC back slightly away from this as time goes on (particularly with the paladin), as there is more and more overlap and sharing of spells with full caster classes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Duskblades were not core in 3e, and I don't recall them being that popular. There were literally dozens, if not hundreds, of base/prestige classes that were produced for that edition with the d20 glut. I also remember the spellsword being a class that many seemed to like as well.

That said, I agree that it is the unique mechanics and spell lists that make the Paladin, (and to a lesser extent) Ranger, & Swordmage work, rather than being just fighter/cleric-lite, fighter/druid-light, or fighter/wizard-lite. I've been somewhat sad to see WOTC back slightly away from this as time goes on (particularly with the paladin), as there is more and more overlap and sharing of spells with full caster classes.
Yeah the 3e class bloat is definitely not the way to go at all. Half of them were basically complete reskins with a single feature swapped out. However the Duskblade did stay in the cultural memory enough to survive as the Pathfinder Magus, and is present in both 1e and coming to 2e of that game. Considering Pathfinder 2e has drastically cut down on classe to less than 20, it's clearly got something going for it that 99% of the DnD 3e 'classes' didn't.

In my current game (lvl 11) we have both a paladin and a 50/50 fighter cleric. The difference in how both play is huge, which really demonstrates what a spell list can do. The fighter/cleric is tanking the hordes, while sitting in the middle of a spirit guardians blender while spamming healing word on whoever goes down. The paladin is beelining the boss monsters, and taking advantage of the fact that the mobs are no longer in the way to get close and let loose a ton of smites.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
In 4e, the feature gave a bonus to AC if you only had a weapon in one hand and didn't have a shield.

A lvl 1 class feature which gives a +1 to AC if you fill those conditions is an easy replacement for that. I think u/fanatic66 uses that for his homebrew swordmage.
u/fanatic66's swordmage is the closest homebrew I've seen to nailing the concept.
 

u/fanatic66's swordmage is the closest homebrew I've seen to nailing the concept.
It was definitely a bit overloaded when I last checked. But I've heard that his latest revision has toned down the power levels.

But yeah it gets the theme and playstyle across perfectly.
 





Parmandur

Book-Friend
It would in the context of what was available back then when races were used as classes.
I mean that a Class that functioned like the. Asic Elf would not met the narrow criteria found in this thread, same as the 5E Bladesinger, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, Artificer, etc.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
If we look at the Paladin...the divinely powered warrior...existing to defend their faith, to bring the battle to their enemies, not just "living up to," but embodying their ideals/dogma/alignment/oath (however you flavor your paladin's devotion these days), meting out "divine justice" (again, from whichever aligned perspective you sit). You have your power to champion your cause/faith/deity/ideal in the physical world.

If we look at the Ranger...the [arguably] "nature-powered" warrior [though I am prone to a less magical dependent, more skill-focused rendition of the borderland warrior]...existing to defend their lands/people from recurring/common threat -things they are specifically trained to fight, vs. power they can apply to any/all enemies-, striving to survive in a wilderness that seeks their destruction and/or that of their realm/friends/people/civilization, meting out "man's [or any sentients'] justice." You have power to successfully find, encounter (languages ,knowledge of their culture/behaviors, etc...), survive, and defeat (as necessary) your physical enemies in the physical world.

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."
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top