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

[Garthanos]

Someone suggested 'Arknight' as a name, but what about Arcaknight? It's like a portemanteau of 'Arcanist' and 'Knight'? You could even stylize it as Arcanite if you wanted.

Hmmm Arcadian Knight is familiar sounding

 

[Undrave]

Hmmm Arcadian Knight is familiar sounding

Apparently there's a comic book by that name

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The identity for the ranger was always the same: Aragorn Adapted for a High Magic Setting

The issue was always mechanical execution of that identity. Only 0e, 4e, and 5e sort of succeeded.

The Gish is opposite. It is mechanics with no flavor.

I mean the 'Aragorn' people are just one group of people wanting a ranger. Some are still wanting it to be the pet class, with all the subclasses being different types of companions. Meanwhile others don't want any magic for it at all, with all its abilities being martial in nature.

Ranger has definitely had identity issues. With the only consistent themes being wilderness survival and martial prowess. However the 100% rock solid name from the moment the class was introduced is what has allowed it to remain as a solid concept in peoples minds.

Admittedly that's a lot more solid than the gishes identity, which has had nothing consistent. Apart from being arcane and having martial prowess. This is partially due to duskblade and bladesinger trying to force the 'elven' theme initially. And then attempts being made to swing the class away from that change it into something else.

Thematically when I picture swordmages, I picture the battlemages and spellswords seen in Oblivion and Skyrim. However due to the turn based nature of DnD, I enjoy the mechanics of being able to magically stab things with my spell slots. Rather than cast and then hit separately. I see the ideal arcane gish as a magic warrior, rather than a fighter and then a wizard separately. A bit like a paladin is a holy warrior, and not just a fighter and then a cleric.

 

[see]

A monk is theoretically not magic.

Um, no, in 5th edition, they are absolutely, totally, and quite explicitly magic.

Seriously, Player's Handbook, page 76. Under the heading "The Magic of Ki".

Anyone who is under the impression that monks don't use magic has failed to read and understand the class.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean the 'Aragorn' people are just one group of people wanting a ranger. Some are still wanting it to be the pet class, with all the subclasses being different types of companions. Meanwhile others don't want any magic for it at all, with all its abilities being martial in nature.

Ranger has definitely had identity issues. With the only consistent themes being wilderness survival and martial prowess. However the 100% rock solid name from the moment the class was introduced is what has allowed it to remain as a solid concept in peoples minds.

Admittedly that's a lot more solid than the gishes identity, which has had nothing consistent. Apart from being arcane and having martial prowess. This is partially due to duskblade and bladesinger trying to force the 'elven' theme initially. And then attempts being made to swing the class away from that change it into something else.

Thematically when I picture swordmages, I picture the battlemages and spellswords seen in Oblivion and Skyrim. However due to the turn based nature of DnD, I enjoy the mechanics of being able to magically stab things with my spell slots. Rather than cast and then hit separately. I see the ideal arcane gish as a magic warrior, rather than a fighter and then a wizard separately. A bit like a paladin is a holy warrior, and not just a fighter and then a cleric.

You misunderstood me. The ranger as D&D describes it has always been the same thing.

It just screws up the mechanics and allows fans to create new definitions based on actual mechanical focus, actual play experience, or outside sources.

The stance half caster half warrior on the other hand is halfway unsupported in lore. It doesn't exist in fluff outside of very specific cases. And each case their own mechanics.

That's why scout rogues and fighters with Nature proficiency work for many for rangers. Because what they want is already defined as something outside of the definition. But for the half caster, there is barely any unifying definition for it outside of the niche versions.

 

[Bolares]

I'm also a big fan of reflavouring, so if my player wants to make a Sorcadin or Paladock and reflavour the paladin parts to be arcane I'm certain I'd find a way to make it work. I know reflavouring is not the answer to this thread but I think it's something we tend to overlook as a simple solution.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Anyone who is under the impression that monks don't use magic has failed to read and understand the class.

Or they are familiar with the concept of Ki.

One or the other.

 

[Bolares]

Or they are familiar with the concept of Ki.

One or the other.

Yeah, I didn't know we were required to read stuff BEFORE the class stats...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I feel like the fighter/mage archetype has a big enough identity in the history of DnD to justify the class over trying to force the artificer into the position. I'd rather not try and force the artificer into being the fighter/mage archetype.

That is perfectly correct. Artificers are more the class that channels magic through their weapon than the class that fights like a Fighter then casts spells like a Wizard.

Ooh, now I really gotta think of how exactly to describe a gish because just saying "It's not a gadgeteer" isn't a fair argument (though it is part of the argument). This is a good thing.

So mechanically in tune with the Paladin and Ranger in that it is:
A variably armored warrior with a d10 hit-die, fighting style, spellcasting up to level 5 that includes specialty spells, and class abilities that reinforce it's central theme.

Mechanically central theme of:
Channeling magic through your weapon, spells to buff or maneuver yourself around the battlefield.
Likely has weapon use as an arcane focus, extra attack at 5th level, an ability to sacrifice a spell slot to activate a central theme (I'm thinking turning on the arcane strike but that's a bit specific for this post), an 11th level that is akin to but not quite an extra attack.

Tentatively I think calling it Battlemage or Spellsword or something more in the line of generic would get the point across about what it is and what it does and then have the subclass determine it's 'Theme' like the Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, or Sorcerer. There seem to be enough variations that there is a thematic need for a gish but the variations don't have a throughline that lends the class as a whole a theme.

So, unhelpfully, I must say what it is clearly not trying for is a gadgeteer.

I mean if you want to insist that in your head, the artificer is only a gadgeteer, that is fine.
But mechanically and thematically, the artificer is the arcane half-caster class that channels magic through objects, like weapons. Including having specific abilities to cast spells through their weapon, use Intelligence as a weapon attack/damage stat, having weapon attacks that deal elemental damage etc.

I'm actually thinking of something a little like the Guardian Armourer, but layering infusions on a weapon instead. Focus on mobility and damage rather than tanking, with a rearranged spell list with less buffs and support, and more smites.
Add a few more infusions to grant capabilities like unarmoured AC, Elemental attacks and suchlike, and it is sounding fairly close to what it seems a lot of people want the Stabnerd to be capable of.

 

[Bolares]

I'd like to make clear that I used the Battlesmith as ONE example of a good Gish that already exists and uses Int... It does not, and should not represent all expectations of a Gish.