Of gishes and arcane defencers and whatnot: Is 4th ed. language for everyone?

[Shalimar]

"I would like to play a gish"

This only works if everyone knows what a Gish is and from this thread that just isn't so.

You could also just say: I want to play a magic warrior (or swordsman or whatever). Both words are already in common usage and do not require any assumptions of knowledge on another person's part and are evocative.

 

[Piratecat]

What's the point of this thread?

I'm really hoping that people who hate it when folks threadcrap pro-4e threads AREN'T doing it to others.

Don't like this topic? We have lots of other threads to read instead! So please don't go poop in someone else's Wheaties by just swinging by a thread to offer non-productive, negative comments.

That goes for everyone in every thread, please.

Email me if this is somehow unclear.

 

[Wolfspider]

"I would like to play a gish"

or

"I would like to play a multiclass (or even single-class, post PH II) character which combines spellcasting and martial fighting in a manner that allows me to function effectively in the typical D&D party."

or

"I would like to play a F/MU (except I don't actually need to take levels in fighter - any other class with martial prowess will do) (also, I want to play an arcane spellcaster, not just any user of magic) (also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a multiclass)"

Strawgish...err, man.

I could just as easily come up with this scenario:

Player: "I want to play a gish."

DM: "Ah, very good. A psychic warrior will do nicely in the game."

Player: "No, no. A gish, not a psychic warrior."

DM: "Hmmm...a ranger then?"

Player: "No! A gish, for gishness sake!"

DM: "Oh, I see. A hexblade."

Player: "Sigh. No. I want to play a duskblade."

DM: "Well, why didn't you just say so?"


Boy, that jargon sure did save a lot of time and confusion!

 

[Wolfspider]

This only works if everyone knows what a Gish is and from this thread that just isn't so.

You could also just say: I want to play a magic warrior (or swordsman or whatever). Both words are already in common usage and do not require any assumptions of knowledge on another person's part and are evocative.

You have summed up pretty much how I feel about this term.

 

[Wolfspider]

"I would like to play a gish"

or

"I would like to play a multiclass (or even single-class, post PH II) character which combines spellcasting and martial fighting in a manner that allows me to function effectively in the typical D&D party."

or

"I would like to play a F/MU (except I don't actually need to take levels in fighter - any other class with martial prowess will do) (also, I want to play an arcane spellcaster, not just any user of magic) (also, it doesn't necessarily have to be a multiclass)"

By the way, if the word "gish" encompasses the latter two definitions, then it is not a very useful term at all.

It's like going to a car salesman and telling him that you want to buy a car. When he askes what kind of car, you reply, "A car. You know, one with four wheels. You know just the one I want, right?"

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Is it really important that a word have a single absolute definition? Aren't there already words that have multiple - oftentimes similar - definitions? And don't we (apparently) muddle along just fine when using those?

Likewise, is it really all that important that we reduce the amount of... discussion... in our discussions? Must every conversation have a goal of reducing the number of words or keystrokes that are used to convey our meaning?

I don't find the term gish to be in any way inferior to any of the other ways of expressing one's desire to play a fighting, magic-using character. Plus, it is tasty to say. Gish.

Those of you who don't like to say it can certainly refrain from doing so (although I can think of lots of other words that it might be useful to expend energy on refraining from using, and I bet Eric's Grandma can, as well), but there's no reason o deride the folks who do choose to use the term.

Later
silver

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Considering this thread was clearly started by a one-shot drive-by troll - join date December 2007, posts: 1 - I'm not sure why it's still going.

 

[Vysirez]

By the way, if the word "gish" encompasses the latter two definitions, then it is not a very useful term at all.

It's like going to a car salesman and telling him that you want to buy a car. When he askes what kind of car, you reply, "A car. You know, one with four wheels. You know just the one I want, right?"

So by your definition the word car is useless. Since it includes many different kinds of car, and obviously one can never use anything except the word car.

I have no problem with the word gish. Since it is a more general term that includes several different kinds of builds, it's not always the best one to use. However this does not make it useless. There is a kind of default assumption, that a gish is a figher/mage. But other builds fall under the same umbrella..

 

[Khuxan]

Strawgish...err, man.

I could just as easily come up with this scenario:

Player: "I want to play a gish."

DM: "Ah, very good. A psychic warrior will do nicely in the game."

Player: "No, no. A gish, not a psychic warrior."

DM: "Hmmm...a ranger then?"

Player: "No! A gish, for gishness sake!"

DM: "Oh, I see. A hexblade."

Player: "Sigh. No. I want to play a duskblade."

DM: "Well, why didn't you just say so?"


Boy, that jargon sure did save a lot of time and confusion!

StrawF/MU.

If the player knew he wanted to play a duskblade, he would have just said duskblade. Gish is a larger category than duskblade, ranger, hexblade. Using it as a synonym for duskblade is as futile as using mammal as a synonym for human.

Clearly, someone who uses the term gish wants a fighting arcane spellcaster (or an arcane spellcasting warrior), but not a specific class. Why is this DM suggesting a psionic class and a divine class? That'd be like me saying: "I want to play a mammal" and you suggesting aboleths and lizardfolk, and then declaring that the term 'mammal' wastes time and causes confusion.

 

[small pumpkin man]

If that were the case, you'd regularly hear people say things like "afake, the bus leaves every half-hour", "Michael Jackson is an abhuman freak. O-to, I quite like "Thriller"" and "E-irk, Spock is half human. Correct me if I'm wrong."

Most of those abbreviations are ways of saying "how cool am I at this internet stuff?" as much as they're conveniences of communication.

Basic understanding of linguistic evolution would have told you that this not the case, while any terms understood only by a clique or subculture become emplamatic of that subculture, words are very rarely made up because of this, they are created because there is no word with the needed definition or the current word is too long, so one is created, stolen or shortened.

Note that many of the examples you're using are used in internet conversations to input amounts of certainty or tone, things which aren't needed in real life because you can tell from body language and the speakers voice.

And yes, I do know people people who say lol, rofl, pown, and geegee, it was also a minor plot point on Californication, so no, it's not limited to my personal group, personally I think they sound like morons, but people do do it, and it's becoming more popular everyday.