Rich Baker on the Swordmage

[Mistwell]

I think there is a little confusion in this thread between the words "Swordmage" and "Swordsage". The first is speculated to be a replacement for the Duskblade, a Wizard-Fighter type. The later is a BO9S class that, despite the name, is mostly not a magic-themed character, but more akin to a Rogue-Fighter.

 

[Firevalkyrie]

I think there is a little confusion in this thread between the words "Swordmage" and "Swordsage". The first is speculated to be a replacement for the Duskblade, a Wizard-Fighter type. The later is a BO9S class that, despite the name, is mostly not a magic-themed character, but more akin to a Rogue-Fighter.

Rich Baker specifically pointed out in the last D&D Podcast that a swordsage is mostly a Striker with some Controller features.

 

[Voss]

How is "flavorless" a bad thing in a base class?

I meant that it wasn't a strong concept. Warrior, Barbarian, Wizard, Rogue, etc have some strong antecedents, to the point that they're genre archetypes. Duskblade was 'guy who stabs and blast things, but not as well as a real warrior or real wizard'.

Plus, it can only stab or blast. Instead of taking a strong concept and making people want it, its taking a concept that people want (the warrior-mage) and making what is essentially a two dimensional parody. Its a kludge to get around the multi-classing issues of 3rd edition.


I think Cadfan is right to extent, though the binder didn't need to be bound so tightly to specific mechanics or setting. Vestiges could have been vague, ill-defined entities, and I think it would have made the class stronger than some of the fairly goofy named vestiges we were presented. Or the specific arrays of powers which seemed to alternate between very good and completely useless. Nothing quite like giving fear immunity to someone who already is.

But both the Shadowcaster and the Binder have a strong... concept (a better term than flavor, I think), that makes them appealing despite the mechanical problems (or disasters in the case of the Shadowcaster).

The samurai, is of course a very specific case. Its a strong concept in its own right, that has a fair amount of dedicated fans. Part of the problem with the complete warrior version is that it is both an utter failure mechanically and fails to fit what people expect out of samurai.


An interesting point that Firevalkyrie brings up. it seems that often when they talk about classes, the role concept seems to be giving them trouble. The seem to keep drifting into multiple roles by default.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Are you sure? Perhaps the problem is that people prefer when base classes can be used for what they want to use them for. So when a base class has flavor that people like, they love the base class. When it doesn't have flavor they like, they don't like the class, and sometimes channel that into a dislike of the class' "lack of versatility."

Maybe the solution is something like what we know about warlocks. The same, single base class can be themed Star pact, devil pact, or shadow pact*. Presumably the choice determines not only RP flavor but mechanical abilities as well.

Similar to (uh oh) World of Warcraft. For example, a Shaman can be focussed on elemental, enhancement, or healing. Same class, different theme and somewhat different play experience (particularly at high levels).

I could see them doing something like this with Fighter. Maybe offer three choices like Thug (light armor, shady skills), Mercenary (medium armor, social skills), or soldier (heavy armor, campaign/durability skills).





* not sure on the exact names, but you get the idea.

 

[Fifth Element]

They're fun as hell to play.

Agreed. I'm running a duskblade right now and combat is a ball.

 

[Fifth Element]

For all intensive purposes, the Samurai IS a Fighter.

I don't normally comment on grammar, but this one always makes me laugh. "For all intents and purposes".

Unless you were trying to be funny, in which case, well done.

 

[Cadfan]

I could see them doing something like this with Fighter. Maybe offer three choices like Thug (light armor, shady skills), Mercenary (medium armor, social skills), or soldier (heavy armor, campaign/durability skills).

We know that fighter powers focus on basically three paths- offense, defense, and control. Probably means two handed fighting, sword and shield, and reach weapon, but that part is speculation.

 

[tombowings]

We know that fighter powers focus on basically three paths- offense, defense, and control. Probably means two handed fighting, sword and shield, and reach weapon, but that part is speculation.

I would assume reach weapons to be part of the two handed weapons category.

 

[Terramotus]

One aspect that really bothered me about many of the new Base classes in 3e was they had their own spell list instead of using an existing one. So if I wanted to play a Duskblade, I was limited* to the spell list printed in PHB2. Future books would contain new spells for Sorc/Wiz, but would never expand the spell list for the Duskblade.

Thus I ended up playing a Fighter 1/Wiz X anyway, since it gave me far more choices in new spells.

Hopefully 4e will get away from this trap and just add new spells that any class can take, and let the player pick his own spell list. For example: Instead of having a spell list for each class have an "Arcane Defender" spell list, and an "Arcane Striker" spell list, and any class that uses those archetypes can draw from those lists.

*Yes, part of the Duskblade's balance was its limited spell list, but my primary argument here is not about balancing the Duskblade.

I agree, and I'm at least hopeful that they'll go that way, given their seeming intention to make stuff outside of the big three core. After all, they've got to fill the splatbooks with something. Without prestige classes, I expect that the new books will be an even split between a few new classes, new spells for existing classes, talent trees, Paragon Paths, and even a few Epic Destinies here and there.