Swordmage Class

[Merlion]

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?

Well first, clutter is a matter of perspective. next, because you may want to be that class, not a mixture of others. I dont see any of the current classes as "hybrids" in any way. And also due to the issue, which could of course be changed, of wanting to start out as what you want to be.

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

the 3.x Cleric is a semi-competent warrior and a very powerful spellcaster who can use spells to turn into a full blown warrior at need. He fits neither the martial champion nor the spellcasting priest very well conceptually.

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

As well as being ridiculesly overpowered. Thats why the Cleric needs to become a pure spellcaster, and the Paladin expanded to be a more versatile Champion class.

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

the Hexblade was an ok attempt at the warrior-mage deal, but they had to add in the alignment restriction and the negative/evil/dark flavour and abilities, thus making it far to specific.

 

[Li Shenron]

YES!

This was mentioned the most recent playtest: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070907a&authentic=true

I really, really, really hope this makes it into the Player's Handbook. It's always so frustrating to need to multi/prestige class to play the type of character I wanted in the first place. I'm assuming this new class would bear some resemblance to the Duskblade. Overall, that class was fairly solid.

The Swordmage name is highly fitting. It's generic enough to allow a wide range of concepts.

Hopefully I can play that elven bladesinger at lvl 1

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 :\

 

[Glyfair]

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 :\

As has been mentioned before, 1st level (barring a major pardigm shift).

Now, if you want to play a fighter/wizard at first level you either have to start knowing no magic and "suddenly" pick up all your magic abilities at 2nd level, or start with no melee abilities and "suddenly" learning at 2nd level how to use all weapons, armor, and gaining a decent fighting skill.

The apprentice levels of 3.0 might work reasonably well if implemented again. They weren't bad for 3.0, it was just being a multi-classed wizard that was a problem in 3.X.

 

[Jhaelen]

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..

Ha! Just what I think
The Paladin as a champion of his faith or a principle is a MUCH stronger archetype than the cleric. I think the cleric lacks focus. Maybe it's because there's so much variance depending on the cleric's deity/faith. Even the Favored Soul is in my opinion a stronger archetype than the cleric. I think a spontaneous caster makes a lot more sense for a divine spellcaster.

So, if a class should be relegated to the status of a prestige class, it's the cleric, not the paladin!

I really think, people believe the cleric is one of the basic archetypes only because the cleric has been present as a class in every edition.

 

[Merlion]

Ha! Just what I think
The Paladin as a champion of his faith or a principle is a MUCH stronger archetype than the cleric. I think the cleric lacks focus. Maybe it's because there's so much variance depending on the cleric's deity/faith. Even the Favored Soul is in my opinion a stronger archetype than the cleric. I think a spontaneous caster makes a lot more sense for a divine spellcaster.

So, if a class should be relegated to the status of a prestige class, it's the cleric, not the paladin!

I really think, people believe the cleric is one of the basic archetypes only because the cleric has been present as a class in every edition.

Basically yes. People always bring up the Templars and the Bishop guy from Song of Roland or whatever, but I find little basis for the totality of what the Cleric is in 3e. The Cleric in particular, and the whole "divine" spiel in D&D in general have a lot of conceptual issues.

In the end, the best way would be to have the concept of "priest" divorced from being a class entirely, since "priest" is really more a cultural role. And Divorce the notion of "god magic" from "healing and protection."

Chances are, the idea of a warrior-mage is a stronger archtype than any one of the ones contributing to the Cleric class.

 

[Li Shenron]

As has been mentioned before, 1st level (barring a major pardigm shift).

Now, if you want to play a fighter/wizard at first level you either have to start knowing no magic and "suddenly" pick up all your magic abilities at 2nd level, or start with no melee abilities and "suddenly" learning at 2nd level how to use all weapons, armor, and gaining a decent fighting skill.

The apprentice levels of 3.0 might work reasonably well if implemented again. They weren't bad for 3.0, it was just being a multi-classed wizard that was a problem in 3.X.

A 1st level wizard could be ok enough. Wear light armor instead of heavy (which perhaps you cannot even afford at 1st level) and eat up some arcane spell failure. The BAB difference is only +1, weapon proficiency is not nice but...

...but frankly I don't care: with 30 levels of game, having to suffer for 1 level is a fair price for a player that wants the best of both worlds. Or play a gish only when the game starts at 2nd level (most groups start higher than 1st after a couple of campaign anyway).

 

[Howndawg]

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

-The Gneech

Actually, no. I just don't want any unfounded rumors being traced back to me, even if they happen to be true .

Howndawg

 

[Howndawg]

Man, I hope they come up with a better name. "Swordmage" is probably the worst name for that concept I've yet heard. The syllables just don't flow together at all; no matter how you say it just sounds like two separate words. Plus it sounds more like a wizard who specializes in making magic swords, or uses a sword to focus his magic the way other wizards use wands, or something, and not like a magic-wielding warrior at all.

What else have we got... "duskblade" is kinda cool, but almost as awkward to say as "swordmage", and until you're used to it it sounds like some kind of evil blackguard type of dude. "Hexblade" flows nicely and is more evocative, but it also ties the concept to curses which isn't so great. "Spellsword" works great as a word, but as a name it sounds more like a magic item than a person... and it's just asking for someone to say "S-W-O-R-D" and then giggle wildly. "Mageblade" is probably the best so far, but it's still awkward to say and not terribly evocative.

Coming up with a good name for a generalized warrior-mage class is hard!

"Dweomercraft Myrmidon"

Howndawg

 

[Mercule]

I really think, people believe the cleric is one of the basic archetypes only because the cleric has been present as a class in every edition.

Actually, I assume that the priest is archetypal because of the implied polytheistic setting in D&D.

In a psuedo-Medieval setting that is a bit lighter on the "pseudo", the paladin is much more iconic. That's not what we have. D&D has moved, socially, quite a bit earlier to large Greco-Roman cities, temple districts, etc.

Either way, the cleric, as written, isn't archetypal, iconic, or otherwise representative of much of anything. It's a wart of beef. It fails to represent any sort of general priest, instead leaving that to the role of less proficient (in every way) adepts. It shoe-horns any PC priest into a warrior mold.

Worst of all, the healer aspect of the class has so ingrained itself into the body of D&D rules that it sucks down a broad gamut of play. People get hurt, so you need a healing mechanism for those desperate combats and so you don't feel stupid for facing the next battle with a gaping chest wound. The cleric is the only class that really heals well, so that's what is expected of it. Because good healing is a superior tactic to inferior healing, groups make heavy efforts to have a cleric with them and designers have to balance damage to assume a certain level of healing. That requires clerics to heal that level of damage or more. Which also makes it unreasonable to continue adventuring after your cleric has dumped all his healing into you. Which results in two-hour adventuring days. Which spawns a boatload of fixes, none of which seem to actually address this whole crazy healing/health thing.

Thus, 4E. If 4E doesn't fix the way healing works at a pretty fundamental level, we'll end up seeing a lot of the same issues in a couple of years. I can't remember the last time my players stopped the day because the wizard ran out of spells (though, I'm sure they have). More often, they stop because the healer is done.

Anyway, the shorter response to what you said is that the cleric isn't inherently an archetype in itself. But, in the implied D&D setting and the published settings, some sort of priestly class is called for. Hopefully 4E includes one, for a change.

 

[Merlion]

Actually, I assume that the priest is archetypal because of the implied polytheistic setting in D&D.

In a psuedo-Medieval setting that is a bit lighter on the "pseudo", the paladin is much more iconic. That's not what we have. D&D has moved, socially, quite a bit earlier to large Greco-Roman cities, temple districts, etc.

Either way, the cleric, as written, isn't archetypal, iconic, or otherwise representative of much of anything. It's a wart of beef. It fails to represent any sort of general priest, instead leaving that to the role of less proficient (in every way) adepts. It shoe-horns any PC priest into a warrior mold.

Worst of all, the healer aspect of the class has so ingrained itself into the body of D&D rules that it sucks down a broad gamut of play. People get hurt, so you need a healing mechanism for those desperate combats and so you don't feel stupid for facing the next battle with a gaping chest wound. The cleric is the only class that really heals well, so that's what is expected of it. Because good healing is a superior tactic to inferior healing, groups make heavy efforts to have a cleric with them and designers have to balance damage to assume a certain level of healing. That requires clerics to heal that level of damage or more. Which also makes it unreasonable to continue adventuring after your cleric has dumped all his healing into you. Which results in two-hour adventuring days. Which spawns a boatload of fixes, none of which seem to actually address this whole crazy healing/health thing.

Thus, 4E. If 4E doesn't fix the way healing works at a pretty fundamental level, we'll end up seeing a lot of the same issues in a couple of years. I can't remember the last time my players stopped the day because the wizard ran out of spells (though, I'm sure they have). More often, they stop because the healer is done.

Anyway, the shorter response to what you said is that the cleric isn't inherently an archetype in itself. But, in the implied D&D setting and the published settings, some sort of priestly class is called for. Hopefully 4E includes one, for a change.

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.

In Arcana Evolved, the implied setting of course is not the same, but there is no priest type class...theres a priest *feat* that gives you social benefits. And the Magister is very capable of filling the idea of a spellcasting priest.