Swordmage Class

[Olgar Shiverstone]

"Dweomercraft Myrmidon"

Howndawg

OOOH! Dweomerblade!

 

[hong]

OOOH! Dweomerblade!

Dweomerblade +5!

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Myrmiwarrior!

 

[Klaus]

Myrmiwarrior!

Mimirwarrior!

 

[Masquerade]

"Dweomercraft Myrmidon"

Nice ring to it.

I have used the term "myrmidon" by itself to refer to a fighter/spellcaster. It's a nice fit..you know, if you ignore the word's history and connotations. ^_^

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Lets simply call it "ninja" and be done with it. We all know that ninja are the secret masters of martial AND mystical arts, after all.

 

[Mercule]

I dont think the setting calls for a priest class. In the Realms, which is about as polytheistic and god/church focused as it gets, the "clergies" already include non-priest classes.

In fact, most gods in most D&D worlds would it seems to me have their clergies best represented by members of other classes anyway.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, either. But, if you have divine magic, I find it odd that the only guy who gets the favor of his god is the one who knows how to wear heavy armor and crush skulls.

Either have priests unrelated to casting, or make a priestly class that can represent a cross-section of priests.

 

[Jer]

4e multiclassing is going to make a fighter/wizard perfectly viable at all level. There is no reason for a core class like a swordmage or bladesinger :\

I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.

If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells. The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.

But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does? What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank? That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way. In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could. I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.

 

[Klaus]

I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.

If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells. The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.

But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does? What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank? That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way. In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could. I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.

Ideally, there should be one class for each role/power source combination. I hope they do this and put 12 classes in the PHB1.

 

[Li Shenron]

I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.

If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells. The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.

I absolutely hope this is not the case. Those roles should not become straight-jacket for classes, therefore as a fighter/wizard you won't be shoehorned into being a tank/controller, but that would just be an option. If the roles became straight-jacket during the development process, then the ruleset would be badly rigid IMHO.

But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does? What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank? That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way. In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could. I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.

Mystic warrior, like a Monk? Or a Hexblade? Possibly, but this is quite an advance concept compared to the more traditional classes, so I definitely think it belongs to a PHB2. But the fact is, most of the players that want to play a Gish, they really just want to get the best of both worlds. Fair enough, if the game can support their "needs" then it's better for everyone, but I would put the needs of more general and basic concepts always before.