Swordmage Class

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Oh, we all know its going to be a Duskblade.

As long as they don't name it Duskblade, that's OK. Or that other term ...

I think this is the ideal concept for the "arcane defender" role. But somehow I doubt we'll see it in the first PHB if the rumor about 8 classes proves to be true.

 

[Blackwind]

I must say, I think the name "swordmage" is dumb. I really hope they call it something else, like Mageblade or (my current favorite) Spellsword. In the podcast they said they were working on "a swordmage class" (IIRC); that doesn't mean it's actually going to be called that.

EDIT: "There will be such a class... because there is a novel Swordmage by R. Baker to be released in Mah 2008 as far as I remember."

Ugh.

 

[Traycor]

...But somehow I doubt we'll see it in the first PHB if the rumor about 8 classes proves to be true.

I agree, but I honestly don't understand why. The way I've always seen it, the starting classes in the player's handbook should cover all the bases to allow at least the basic type of character you want to make. Most any idea can be fluff adjusted to fit into the basic classes of the PHB.

But not an arcane martial character. This can only be done through multiclassing. This is frustrating because at lvl 1, my character either doesn't know magic, and studies it right fast for lvl 2, or my character doesn't know how to fight, then all of the sudden is proficient with 40 weapons.

In my groups we level up slow, and we play at lvl 1. I don't need an uber char, but I would at least like to be able to play the basic character concept I want out of the box... someone who has studied magic and martial skills for years.

 

[Glyfair]

Are you trying to suggest that Wizards isn't doing BLAH BLAH BLAH?

No, he just doesn't want anyone going around saying that.

After all we know:

Okay, it appears those initial books will include -
FR campaign setting
Dragon-related book
Magic item book
Magic book <Actually, arcane book>
Martial arts book.

 

[Celebrim]

But not an arcane martial character. This can only be done through multiclassing.

I'm not sure why this is a problem.

This is frustrating because at lvl 1, my character either doesn't know magic, and studies it right fast for lvl 2, or my character doesn't know how to fight, then all of the sudden is proficient with 40 weapons.

In my groups we level up slow, and we play at lvl 1. I don't need an uber char, but I would at least like to be able to play the basic character concept I want out of the box... someone who has studied magic and martial skills for years.

Wasn't there a section on apprentice level characters that covered exactly this special case?

It seems to me that this is a very minor problem with the current multi-classing rules compared to the power drop of for multi-classing if you are a spellcaster, and I've never liked the attempts to use PrC's to fix the problem.

 

[Merlion]

It seems to me that this is a very minor problem with the current multi-classing rules compared to the power drop of for multi-classing if you are a spellcaster, .

Thats kind of dependent on your point of view. I dont see any reason why they shouldnt change both.

 

[Traycor]

Wasn't there a section on apprentice level characters that covered exactly this special case?

Yes there was, and I almost tore my hair out looking for it a couple of months ago until I realized it was removed from the 3.5 DMG. So I had to dust off my old 3.0 version for the rules.

This leads me to believe that 4E will have no optional apprentice rules in the DMG to make up for this deficiency. T_T

 

[Celebrim]

Yes there was, and I almost tore my hair out looking for it a couple of months ago until I realized it was removed from the 3.5 DMG. So I had to dust off my old 3.0 version for the rules.

Ahh... yet another way that 3.0 is a superior ruleset than 3.5 Color me unsurprised and glad I didn't waste my money.

 

[Merlion]

Ahh... yet another way that 3.0 is a superior ruleset than 3.5 Color me unsurprised and glad I didn't waste my money.

"superior ruleset" is largely a matter of opinion. Most rulesets simply have good points and bad points...and which is which will vary from person to person.

 

[Klaus]

The Fighter+Wizard class has been lacking for quite some time in the core books.

Fighter + Cleric = Paladin
Fighter + Druid = Ranger with spells

Why no arcane-dabbling warriors?