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

[Frozen_Heart]

we would also need ways to make it simply easy to tell it apart from its equivalents the ranger and paladin, what about armourless like monk and barbarian?

Duskblade had access to all armour. Magus and Swordmage have access to light armour. D8 Hit die seems standard, which is already different from ranger and paladin.

So simply preventing any armour kind of goes against the precedent which prior gishes have set. It also makes it even more of a bladesinger clone.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I like the janissary idea a lot. Though the name being tied up with slavery does leave a bad taste. But then again, almost all medieval inspired things have some dark history the second you start digging. 'Guardian' could be an alternative? Though it's incredibly generic.

Gish would also be pretty brave to name the class. Though it does tell people what it is straight off.

Swordmage is ok, and has continuity with 4e which is nice. But it also gives off the impression that they should only use swords which I dislike.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Duskblade had access to all armour. Magus and Swordmage have access to light armour. D8 Hit die seems standard, which is already different from ranger and paladin.

So simply preventing any armour kind of goes against the precedent which prior gishes have set. It also makes it even more of a bladesinger clone.

precedent does not infer good, you what at the end of the day a bunch of icons so breaking the mould is something you must do in some element of it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Minor point, but the "gish" (that name is so terrible as a generic) dates from 1E. So no, not "all prior."

One possible answer sounds like an enhanced wizard spell list, assuming we're not talking about a new base class.

It would be really hard to do this with the wizard list:

1. You'd add a bunch of spells to the wizard list that aren't supposed to be used by wizards. Trap options, of a sort.

2. You'd have a bunch of spells on the swordmage list that aren't really appropriate for swordmages, and likely a lot better than playing according to the advertised playstyle (bladesingers and swords bards already have this problem - actually stabbing is generally a bad idea for them)

3. Even if you avoid problem 2, you have players of either class needing to wade through a spell list with a bunch of spells on it they're not supposed to take.

I'm convinced that the reason the 4e swordmage works so well is they couldn't use the wizard list, and therefore had to make a swordmage spell list.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It would be really hard to do this with the wizard list:

1. You'd add a bunch of spells to the wizard list that aren't supposed to be used by wizards. Trap options, of a sort.

2. You'd have a bunch of spells on the swordmage list that aren't really appropriate for swordmages, and likely a lot better than playing according to the advertised playstyle (bladesingers and swords bards already have this problem - actually stabbing is generally a bad idea for them)

3. Even if you avoid problem 2, you have players of either class needing to wade through a spell list with a bunch of spells on it they're not supposed to take.

I'm convinced that the reason the 4e swordmage works so well is they couldn't use the wizard list, and therefore had to make a swordmage spell list.

paladin has a list all its own so why not just make a new one?

 

[jmartkdr2]

paladin has a list all its own so why not just make a new one?

That is, by far, the easiest answer.

 

[Yora]

I usually see people wanting to have a magical warrior.
But I think the best way to combine fighters and wizards is actually a wizard who can fight in the front line and defend himself.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I usually see people wanting to have a magical warrior.
But I think the best way to combine fighters and wizards is actually a wizard who can fight in the front line and defend himself.

I mean that's the bladesinger. Which many people don't consider as the proper successor to the gish classes in other editions.

The problem with 5e classes/subclasses, is that 90% of the power budget is with the core class. So if you want to turn a prior edition class into a subclass, you have to remove all its mechanics and abilities or it's too powerful.

You would see the same issue if you tried to make barbarian a fighter subclass. You could get the theme, but if you tried to add the rage mechanic to a fighter chassis you would end up with something far too powerful.

 

[Steampunkette]

we would also need ways to make it simply easy to tell it apart from its equivalents the ranger and paladin, what about armourless like monk and barbarian?

With the likes of spells like Mage Armor and Shield available, the default should probably be no or light armor proficiency (and no shield) - they can pick up the spell(s) for protection. Subclasses could add in heavier armor proficiencies like some domains do for clerics.

How about giving them their Proficiency Bonus to AC while unarmored as a "Magic Shell" that improves as they level?

So early on they might be better off wearing something in the Medium Armor range, but by mid-level to late-game it's better to play unarmored. It'd play into the "Unarmored Defense" that Barbarians and Monks enjoy, but do it in a different way and absolutely differentiate them from Fighters and Paladins with their heavy armor.

Alternatively... make it entirely Reactive.

Arcane Shielding
Gish learn how to defend themselves in some of their most basic lessons. As a reaction to being attacked you can choose to gain a bonus to your armor class equal to your Proficiency Bonus until the start of your next turn. To use this class feature you must not be wearing armor of any kind or using a shield though you may use this feature while you have the Mage Armor spell active.

Eats up their reaction to make them choose whether to be better defended or to attack enemies that flee or try to bypass them. Tieflings also have to choose between defense buffs or retributive damage.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Gish would also be pretty brave to name the class. Though it does tell people what it is straight off.

No, it doesn't. You have to either know the 1E Fiend Folio or have already been acquainted with the term, which was popularized on 3E optimization boards. "Gish" is a made-up term that means nothing.

If WotC created a core class of this sort, there's zero chance they'd name it something impossible to parse.