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

[cbwjm]

And yet it seems you’ve nonetheless decided to address this (non-)issue by moving the bladesinger out of the wizard class and into your gish class? You’ve reappropriated the design space taken up by the wizard subclass for your gish, thus partially addressing the issue.To be clear, it’s not an insurmountable problem (as you yourself have demonstrated), but it is a potentially complicating factor.

It doesn't complicate anything though. Even though I'm thinking of adding it to the fighter-mage, it still exists for the wizard. I'm not removing it from the wizard, just also including it in this class.

 

[Bardic Dave]

It doesn't complicate anything though. Even though I'm thinking of adding it to the fighter-mage, it still exists for the wizard. I'm not removing it from the wizard, just also including it in this class.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one! Obviously, we have different design priorities and preferences, and that’s fair enough.

i will say that I was speaking with a hypothetical WotC “official” arcane gish in mind, whereas you’re talking about homebrew. Different contexts, different perspectives, different solutions.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Yeah I definitely think int casting would be the best bet. That's what the class has always been based on, and currently paladin uses cha and ranger uses wis.


Battlemage is a pretty solid one, and does get across what it does extremely well.

I kind of assumed there was some lore reason for not using the term battlemage (and spellsword), as it's super obvious but DnD has always refused to use it. Instead going for really obscure terms instead.

it sounds hype genric it could equally mean a wizard who fights in battles.

Ignoring the class fluff, the Paladin really has everything you want for a Spellsword, in my opinion. If the various smite spells were changed into a proper class feature (and rebranded as "Strikes") and there were good alternatives to the more Paladin-y features such as Lay on Hands, Divine Health, etc., well that's really all you need.

I love the idea of playing a hybrid caster/fighter, as my many hours with Skyrim can attest. I wonder if part of the problem with a Spellsword is that, besides people not being able to agree on a name, it's feels like a concept that works best in a classless system.

Another problem is the lack of fluff. What makes a Spellsword tick, really? What's the obvious fantasy character to base it on? The closest archetypes I can think of are the generic anime protagonists that are so ubiquitous nowadays; the Hero, or the Gary Sue, to be less charitable.

so we need a less obvious power and a concept.

do we have the answer on how they got their magic yet?

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Another problem is the lack of fluff. What makes a Spellsword tick, really? What's the obvious fantasy character to base it on? The closest archetypes I can think of are the generic anime protagonists that are so ubiquitous nowadays; the Hero, or the Gary Sue, to be less charitable.

The are a few, but it's mainly in games rather than main characters. I don't count the main characters with world ending magic as proper battlemages. As a big part of the class is that it's not up to the level of a wizard in pure magic power. Looking at a paladin, ranger, and artificer is a better ballpark for magic levels imo.

Lirael/Sabriel in the old kingdom book series is a good example of a character with magic, armour, and a sword. They're also pretty limited in power and definitely not mary sue levels of stupid. The Toa from bionicle would make good examples of warforged elemental swordmages, though their magic level is a bit high and the amount of hitting is a bit low (their weapons are basically a fancy arcane focus). The elder scrolls has tons of nameless spellswords and battlemages who tend to die in droves.

Most of the mechanical identity comes from DnD 3e/4e and Pathfinder 1e/2e themselves. With both spellstrike and teleporting being common themes. But both of these game systems have never given much in the way of story identity beyond 'person who knows magic and weapons'.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

do we have the answer on how they got their magic yet?

I'd assume through constant training and repetition. Being taught a spell by a mentor and having to just practice it over and over until they know it (often doing physical exertion at the same time).

Rather than sitting in libraries going through old dusty books.

Which would point to being a known caster rather than a prepared caster.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The are a few, but it's mainly in games rather than main characters. I don't count the main characters with world ending magic as proper battlemages. As a big part of the class is that it's not up to the level of a wizard in pure magic power. Looking at a paladin, ranger, and artificer is a better ballpark for magic levels imo.

Lirael/Sabriel in the old kingdom book series is a good example of a character with magic, armour, and a sword. They're also pretty limited in power and definitely not mary sue levels of stupid. The Toa from bionicle would make good examples of warforged elemental swordmages, though their magic level is a bit high and the amount of hitting is a bit low (their weapons are basically a fancy arcane focus). The elder scrolls has tons of nameless spellswords and battlemages who tend to die in droves.

Most of the mechanical identity comes from DnD 3e/4e and Pathfinder 1e/2e themselves. With both spellstrike and teleporting being common themes. But both of these game systems have never given much in the way of story identity beyond 'person who knows magic and weapons'.

we could have the magic-infused into them?

also, it depends on the toa but given they go up WMD as far as combat power they might work for high-level ideas.

it would work for the elemental janissary idea? as at least a subclass?

I feel this might help as it is much the same problem we have

 

[DEFCON 1]

If there is no class story, there is no new class. The game has settled on four classes that might be considered "story generic"... and that's the Core Four. Any other new class will need to have a narrative reason for existence within a game world. And if all you have for a reason to make the class is that you want different game mechanics... then you're never going to get it. Because we already have the half-dozen fighter/wizard combos in the game so narratively there is no reason to make another one. And this is exactly why the game has never had one maintain traction and stick around after all these editions. It's always been an afterthought.

Unfortunately, as has been said, the game had the chance to make a dedicated weapon-caster during the D&D Next period when the Sorcerer was going to be it. Rather than another blaster caster, it was going to be focused (or at least highly leaning) towards the idea that your internal magic would power all the stuff you could possibly do, including fighting with weapons. But apparently enough people weren't crazy about the shift and they went away from the idea. Which is a shame, because Sorcerer could have been a good name to become the fighter-caster identity (or at least part of it).

And if we are talking names... if you can't use Sorcerer I think your next best option is to just commandeer 'Mage' once and for all and use that. Yes, I know in editions past that was what was used as a replacement name for the wizard... but it hasn't been that way for a long time. And since we already had 'swordmage' used in 4E and people seemed to like it... why bother needing to append 'sword' to the name and just use 'Mage'? Turn it into the word we need, rather than leave it as a unused synonym that we don't/ After all, isn't that why Pathfinder went with 'Magus'? Because it was pretty much just using 'Mage' but changing the word slightly just to avoid confusing those people who'd have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that mages now used weapons and weren't just wizard-equivalents? Make the change and force us to learn its new "definition" within D&D. If the class was actually cool, had an interesting flavor and story, and the mechanics supported that story... 'Mages' might actually finally take off.

By the same token... as far as naming conventions are concerned... I really have no idea how we've gone this long without the game ever deciding to create a single word to use to replace 'Sleight of Hand'. Or in fact, why the English language itself hasn't create a single word to mean really good and intricate finger work for that matter. 'Sleight of Hand', 'Fine Manipulation', 'Manual Dexterity', 'Hand/Eye Coordination'... can't we all just decide on or make up a new word to use for this and make it stick? It'd be so much easier.

And let's make it up and call it 'Corraling' rather than 'Animal Handling' too while we're at it.

 

[Aldarc]

Another problem is the lack of fluff. What makes a Spellsword tick, really? What's the obvious fantasy character to base it on? The closest archetypes I can think of are the generic anime protagonists that are so ubiquitous nowadays; the Hero, or the Gary Sue, to be less charitable.

Spellswords guard ancient sites and arcane artifacts of powerful magic; defend wizard towers and/or hunt down rogue mages; and retrieve magic artifacts from dangerous locations.

I think it helps to admit though that the spellsword is a fairly contemporary fantasy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...and/or hunt down rogue mages

Don't you mean 'arcane tricksters'?

Ba-DUM-bum!

 

[Thunder Brother]

Spellswords guard ancient sites and arcane artifacts of powerful magic; defend wizard towers and/or hunt down rogue mages; and retrieve magic artifacts from dangerous locations.

I think it helps to admit though that the spellsword is a fairly contemporary fantasy.

My knowledge of prior editions is pretty poor, but wouldn't this be something of remix of the Warden?

I love the mage hunter angle, fighting fire with fire and all that. Problem is that a lot of this begins to infringe on the Ranger's thematic territory.