Sword-wielding Arcanists

[Plane Sailing]

Elric of Melniböne is the Fighter-Mage that stands out the most in my mind.

I think he was clearly the inspiration for the 4e essentials warlock infernal hexblade. Black sword? check. Sucks life? check. Guy binds demons? check. Funny it took so long for someone to do it really!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I like the multifaceted approach of multiclassing and having a selection of classes that mix the roles.

Also, FWIW, somebody forgot the Bard, Beguiler, Stalwart Sorcerer and Battle-Sorcerer, all of which do the Warrior-Mage to some extent. (And if we ad Psi as a kind of magic, we get the SoulKnife and Psychic Warrior.)

And that's before looking at 3.5's PrCls...and the game's close cousins.

 

[Mokona]

When I think of a magic-using swordsman, I think of a warrior who fights in melee with physical weapons (like a bastard sword) and casts spells to make ranged attacks (like dropping a fireball now and then). The 4e swordmage class is cool but it feels nothing like a mixed-use warrior/wizard. It would also be cool if the 5e version got a flavorful magical feel such as when he picks up a melee weapon it bursts into FLAME and becomes a flaming weapon just because he's holding it.

I'm not that interested in weapon channeling where you cast all your spells through your weapon or only have spell selection designed to "synergize" with your swordsmanship.

 

[kitsune9]

I vote for decent multiclassing.

Bladesinger = elf fighter/wizard.
Duskblade = elf fighter/wizard, take two.
Hexblade = fighter/warlock.
Swordmage = fighter/sorceror.

I like those suggestions.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Here's the problem. A wizard with a sword. If you are a wizard, while waste your time using the sword when you could cast spells?

Swords/Daggers have quite a lot of magical symbolism associated with them, but it's generally more in the terms of a sword as an "implement".

Taking the game history into account, I think that fighter/wizard has been one of the most popular multiclass combos. However those other classes popped up when that sort of combo became a weak class combo starting from 3e.

But of those classes I'm most in favour of the Swordmage and 4e Essentials Hexblade. They have their flavour and archetypes, and were certainly the best designed out of all of those.

The Swordmage certainly deserves to be a unique class, as I don't see the wizard or sorcerer having much in the way of elemental melee spells and short range teleports. While it's possible the Monk may have some of that magical melee niche, I feel there's a lot of room for it to be separate from other such magical melee classes.

The Hexblade, probably does deserve to be a Warlock subclass like it is in essentials. They have some of the same background story, so why not.

 

[Andion Isurand]

I think the Swiftblade PrC should have been included as an option.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I voted Duskblade, though I don't really see what is so elven about it... It's just a good magical warrior class. It wasn't on the poll, but some of the magical swordplay stuff seen by the non-Warblade Tome of Battle classes like the Swordsage worked pretty well too. 4E's Warden is also a very good magical warrior class, though not really an "arcanist".

Anyways, I don't buy the argument that multiclassing should take care of this kind of thing, simply because it really can't. A multiclassed Fighter/Wizard will have a Fighter's strength and a Wizard's spells, but will have no real way to create true synergy between the two. You need new mechanics to create that synergy, and multiclassing doesn't provide them. This is why multiclassing tends to be a pretty poor system. It works better as a way to supplement archetypes rather than as a way to actually create them.

An ideal magical warrior class should be able to use magic and weapons at the same time. Basically, such a class needs to be able to imbue every attack with magical effects. It should be the class that can light its sword on fire and enchant its shield to defend against any form of magic. It should have the power to create a giant blade of darkness out of pure magical energy and wield it like a sword. For such a class, spells should be weapon-like and weapons should be spell-like. Any attack should have traits of both.

 

[Dausuul]

Anyways, I don't buy the argument that multiclassing should take care of this kind of thing, simply because it really can't. A multiclassed Fighter/Wizard will have a Fighter's strength and a Wizard's spells, but will have no real way to create true synergy between the two. You need new mechanics to create that synergy, and multiclassing doesn't provide them.

Only if you restrain yourself to the implementations of multiclassing we've seen so far.

For instance, I could see a system in which 3E-style multiclassing is supplemented by special feats which have two or more class prereqs. There could be a feat that requires both fighter and wizard, with the effect:

When you use a standard action to make a melee attack, you can cast one of the following spells on yourself as a free action first: <list of short-duration wizard buffs>. You must still know the spell and have it prepared.

That would create plenty of synergy without requiring a whole other class. Furthermore, it answers the question I posed above--if the fighter/wizard multiclass can't perform the "magical warrior" role adequately, what good is it?

 

[TwinBahamut]

That depends on the multiclassing system and how it's supported. I could see a system in which traditional 3E-style multiclassing is supplemented by special feats which have two or more class prereqs, like a feat that requires both fighter and wizard and lets you cast certain buffing spells on yourself as part of a melee attack. A couple of feats like that and you get the synergy without having to build a whole other class.

That has the problem, though, of forcing the multiclassed character to pay feat taxes in order to approach the heart of what the character concept is about. This is on top of the problem that 3E-style multiclassing is generally very poor for characters of two different archetypes. The reason many fighter/mage PrCs and things like the Mystic Theurge existed is because that kind of multiclassing just doesn't work without patches and bandages. If you add feat taxes on top of those kinds of problem, it just makes the entire concept worse.

If you repeat 3E's mistakes, you'll eventually just repeat all of its problems. If you use 3E-style multiclassing, you'll eventually need to make classes to either patch it (like PrCs of old) or ignore it entirely in order to make a concept that actually works (like the 3E Duskblade). Ultimately, 3E multiclassing really only served to make terrible characters or allow optimizers to break the game. If you ask me, it would be better to either take a totally different approach to multiclassing, or to drop it entirely and simply create classes to fill in the different archetypes that were classically left for multiclassing.

That would create plenty of synergy without requiring a whole other class. Furthermore, it answers the question I posed above--if the fighter/wizard multiclass can't perform the "magical warrior" role adequately, what good is it?

I don't think that would really be sufficient. Self-buffing, particularly taking buffs from the normal wizard spell list, is generally not enough to fill the more iconic magical warrior archetype.

Also, well, as the rest of my post indicated, if magic/warrior multiclassing can't pull this off, then it really isn't any good. I don't think multi-classing is essential to a class system, after all.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I love the hexblade(4e) and swordmage, the thing is I prefer if it isn´t a fighter with wizard spells or a wizards that uses a sword, it need to have unique powers.