Swordmage Class

[Merlion]

The AE mageblade's weapon (which he also uses to cast spells) gets a special enhancement bonus for him only. So his BAB is not fighter progression (it's rogue IIRC), but he gets about the equivalent to hit as a fighter and he can cast spells in his armor.

I like the Mageblade a lot, in a lot of ways.

However, I can personally take or leave the "bonded weapon" thing. And, the Mageblade does, to a lesser extent than many other similar classes, have the issue of being a warrior-mage class who's spells consist mainly of combat buffs, and seems to be built around this type of strategy.

Now of course a Mageblade can improve his spell access with feats, which puts it above most other attempts at such classes.


If they do a base-class warrior-mage, I hope its more like the Spellsword, with a broad general spell selection, so you can have the warrior-mage who basically uses magic to be a better warrior, or more of a mage who knows how to fight as well.

 

[Stalker0]

I like the Mageblade a lot, in a lot of ways.

However, I can personally take or leave the "bonded weapon" thing. And, the Mageblade does, to a lesser extent than many other similar classes, have the issue of being a warrior-mage class who's spells consist mainly of combat buffs, and seems to be built around this type of strategy.

Now of course a Mageblade can improve his spell access with feats, which puts it above most other attempts at such classes.

Mageblades are my favorite gi....I mean fighter/mage that I've seen to date for a couple of reasons:

1) There spells are well suited to the style. They get combat buffs, a lot of touch attack spells, and UNIQUE SPELLS that only they can do.

2) They get unique abilities in the class, not just fighter and mage slapped together. They intergrate the styles into something completely new.

 

[GhostTiger]

The AE mageblade's weapon (which he also uses to cast spells) gets a special enhancement bonus for him only. So his BAB is not fighter progression (it's rogue IIRC), but he gets about the equivalent to hit as a fighter and he can cast spells in his armor.

What I don't like about the Med BAB is the loss of an iterative attack as compared to the Fighter. The to hit bonus will be roughly the same, true, and the Mageblade will have a +2 weapon at 6th level, which most Fighters will not, but the Fighter wil have a second attack, which the MgB will not. And AE classes advance slower, so at 15K xps a 6th level Ftr with a +1 weapon will have a to hit bonus of +7 (6+1) and a second attack while a 5th level MgB of equal strength will have a to hit bonus of +5 (3+2) and only that attack.

I like the idea of an arcane fighter class that equals the fighter in BAB, but is lesser in versatility (no bonus feats) and uses his own power to buff himself and his weapon, rather than relying on party spellcasters and a looted or purchased weapon. Similar result, different means.

But I do like the Mageblade and the idea of the Athame in particular.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I did post this in the house rules thread Olgar opened already, but it does seem it's warranted to do so here, too, since this discussion spawned the whole idea, so here's the result of what I proposed further upstream.

Altered Mage Blade

 

[jasin]

I can't agree with that. Light armor, Medium BAB and HD d8 is equal to a Cleric. Simple weapons plus one Martial weapon is *better* that the cleric. What the cleric gets on top of that is Medium and Heavy armor and shields. And why does the clerc get that? because he gets non-exciting spells.

Like divine power?

I'm a battle sorcerer fan myself, but the cleric is both more powerful and more versatile.

But than, that's the cleric, who is commonly accepted to be both more powerful and more versatile than most anything.

 

[jasin]

If they do a base-class warrior-mage, I hope its more like the Spellsword, with a broad general spell selection, so you can have the warrior-mage who basically uses magic to be a better warrior, or more of a mage who knows how to fight as well.

Mageblades are my favorite gi....I mean fighter/mage that I've seen to date for a couple of reasons:

1) There spells are well suited to the style. They get combat buffs, a lot of touch attack spells, and UNIQUE SPELLS that only they can do.

2) They get unique abilities in the class, not just fighter and mage slapped together. They intergrate the styles into something completely new.

It seems to me that there are two different concepts that different warrior-mage fans want to see implemented.

There's something like the eldritch knight (particularly of the wizardly variety), a guy who does most of the wizardly duties like teleporting and scrying and conjuring magnificent mansions, but fights with a sword instead of a scorching ray.

And then there's something like the duskblade, who has his own peculiar spell list and is more like an arcane counterpart to the paladin (as a divinely powered warrior), than to the cleric (a spellcaster who also fights and a fighter who also casts spells).

I'm more interested in the former, which ideally I don't think should be a base class. I'd rather have just have good multiclassing rules than a fighterwizard class. A new class won't cover fighter/druids or druid/rogues or monk/wizards, and it should be easier to model the more specific duskblade-like concept if you have generic fighter/wizard rules that work, than it would be to model a hybrid concept fighter/wizard with a duskblade-like class.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'm more interested in the former, which ideally I don't think should be a base class. I'd rather have just have good multiclassing rules than a fighterwizard class. A new class won't cover fighter/druids or druid/rogues or monk/wizards, and it should be easier to model the more specific duskblade-like concept if you have generic fighter/wizard rules that work, than it would be to model a hybrid concept fighter/wizard with a duskblade-like class.

I think a part of the differences in how folks approach this problem is the preference in how the game system feels. Going for a "base class" approach emphasizes, in my opinion, the effect of classes as archetypes (meaning class as a solid career path in a game world) and the effect of niche protection, while a strong multi-class approach emphasizes a system of modularity and the effect of classes as "toolbox" (meaning a class as a package of abilities that can be added, swapped and modified). I like the base class approach, which is why I puzzled together a base class. Incidentally, I'm pretty convinced that you will get a working multiclass system if you reduce the archetype emphasis of classes a lot more, and turn further toward a skills and feats based character creation system. Maybe somebody will one day come along and prove me wrong, but so far I've seen great systems on the "strong classes" side as well as the "strong modularity" side of the spectrum, but no system that really manages to combine them equally. D&D 3.X shows that clearly, since there are multiple approaches in the last 8 years to make the strong classes much more malleable, with the drawback that the characters themselves can become a lot more unwieldly.

 

[Mercule]

The trouble with this is, many classes that some see as existing to facilitate a cross between two other classes are in fact there own classes and there own archtype seperate from any similar to a whatever/whatever.

Not every hybrid is an archetype of its own. Or, more properly, if the archetype is a blend of two other archetypes, it doesn't warrant its own class. That said, I have no problems with new base classes, so long as they are more than just an implementation of a multiclass or a powered-up multiclass.

What I hope to see is the absolute prohibition on armored arcane casting disappear. Apply a penalty to the magical attack bonus, if need be, or make Armored Caster a feat/talent. "Can cast in armor" does warrant its own class or archetype.

Now, if you want to throw in Arcane Strike, bonding and auto-enchanting a signature weapon, and some similarly themed abilities, you might have enough to differenciate a mageblade from a fighter/mage multiclass. In fact, I'd really dig on that.

 

[Merlion]

Not every hybrid is an archetype of its own. Or, more properly, if the archetype is a blend of two other archetypes, it doesn't warrant its own class. That said, I have no problems with new base classes, so long as they are more than just an implementation of a multiclass or a powered-up multiclass.

What I hope to see is the absolute prohibition on armored arcane casting disappear. Apply a penalty to the magical attack bonus, if need be, or make Armored Caster a feat/talent. "Can cast in armor" does warrant its own class or archetype.

Now, if you want to throw in Arcane Strike, bonding and auto-enchanting a signature weapon, and some similarly themed abilities, you might have enough to differenciate a mageblade from a fighter/mage multiclass. In fact, I'd really dig on that.

Well, I'm talking more about conceptual distinctness than mechanical distinctness, although the two often overlap.

For instance, many consider Ranger and Paladin to be simply "implementations of a multiclass". I don't, especially in the case of the Paladin. The Paladin doesn't represent a fighter/cleric multiclass, he represents the archtype of a ...well, a paladin. A Champion. A holy/unholy/whatever warrior who's mostly a warrior with a few extra powers. Whereas a fighter is a fighter, and a Cleric is some hairbrained attempt by Gary Gygax to create a fantasy-fied version of the Knights Templar, who would actually just be fighters..

Of the 11 3.x PH classes, the only three I consider in any way not worthy of a base class is Barbarian (which even if you change the name to Berzerker is more of a fighting style than a class), Sorcerer (which as it is is simply a slightly less Vancian wizard) and too a much lesser extent Monk, although I think a meditative warrior is probably overall a strong enough archtype for its own class.

Now things like Favored Soul, Spellthief, arent really strong enough archtypes to warrant a class. And things like Warlock and Hexblade might would be, but they insist on locking them into a specific flavour (in this case a dark/evil theme.)

 

[Mercule]

Well, I'm talking more about conceptual distinctness than mechanical distinctness, although the two often overlap.

I'm talking a bit of both. I agree that some tweeners exist that are practically archetypes of their own. But, if they would be, mechanically, pretty much identical to a multiclass, why clutter things up with a separate class?

The ranger-as-multiclass is something I've never understood. Then again, I figure the archetypal ranger is more of a professional (in the loosest meaning of the word) warrior who is toughened by lots of time in the wilds than the military branch of a druid circle or an explorer.

I think the cleric, as written, provides a fair model for the champion paladin. Without the backing of his god (i.e. spells), he's probably not as good as the fighter. But with that backing, he shines quite brightly. That said, I still think the cleric is a bit light on the sword and a bit heavy on the prayer side. Thus, the added fighter levels. But, I wouldn't object to a dedicated paladin/divine champion class in 4E, so long as it's much better done than 3x. They should also make the cleric a bit softer and generically "priesty". If the cleric is kept as a psuedo-Templay, it's going to continue to push on the champion's niche in the same way the unfortunate barbarian pushes on the ranger.

Now things like Favored Soul, Spellthief, arent really strong enough archtypes to warrant a class. And things like Warlock and Hexblade might would be, but they insist on locking them into a specific flavour (in this case a dark/evil theme.)

Agreed. The warlock could easily be rewritten to exemplify calling on any pact or blood power. Actually, it would be interesting to see it combined with the binder in a way. The hexblade was a very interesting concept, but was poorly implemented. That's definitely the sort of tweener base class/concept that I would consider worthwhile, though.