Swordmage Class

[jasin]

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

I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".

 

[Klaus]

I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".

Yes, but you have to start somewhere. The role/source combo provides an easy-to-notice open niche, making it easier to come up with a cool concept to fill that niche.

 

[Jer]

I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".

Hear, hear! I agree with this. There's no need to generate classes just to fill some somewhat arbitrary slots. They're finally getting rid of the nine-slot alignment grid that was often used as a crutch to fill in monsters arbitrarily, let's not replace it with another grid.

That said, there is something to be said about pondering what types of classes could fill certain slots. I'd love to see a concept that could fit into a "martial Controller" slot, personally. How would that work? Some of the class/slot combos just don't scream "archetypal combo" to me, and that's one of them.

 

[Jer]

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.

...

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.

First, I'd like to say that I've never personally seen any Fighter/Wizard combos in play that didn't fall into the role of what I would call a Tank/Controller in any edition of the game - including the Elf class from the B/X D&D set. In combat these characters either wade into battle swinging their sword and taking hits like a Fighter OR they stand back and throw Fireballs and Lightning Bolts and Sleep and Charm Person spells at the opposition. I'd like to see a concept for a multiclass Fighter/Wizard that didn't operate this way in combat, personally, because I'd like to believe that multiclassing is more flexible than that, but I've never seen one played any other way at the table.

Second, it sounds like you're saying that this is exactly what most players that want to play a "Gish" are actually asking for anyway - a Fighter/Wizard character that can fight like a Fighter or throw area of effect spells around like a Wizard. That's fine - I guess it's kind of like Gandalf in a lot of ways - but I would hope those players would understand that they're never going to be as good a Fighter as a single class Fighter of the same character level or as good a Wizard as a single class Wizard of the same character level.

But the other concept I was talking about - a fighter that uses magic to make himself a more effective fighter - is exactly why you can't do this stuff entirely by multiclassing - it's a concept that doesn't fit with the traditonal roles of the Wizard or the Fighter (though it's close to that of a Fighter). The argument was that you could do it all with multiclassing, but I contend that there are some concepts that just aren't going to work well with multiclassing because the very nature of the class system already has archetypal roles assumed for each class - and has stretching all the way back to OD&D's "Fighting Man" and "Magic-User" distinctions. (Though I agree - something like that should be in a future supplement and doesn't need to be in the core of the game at all. I think the closest we've seen so far in print to the concept is actually the Psychic Warrior from the Psionics Handbook, but I don't know much about the Duskblade - it may be the same type of class.)

 

[jasin]

That said, there is something to be said about pondering what types of classes could fill certain slots. I'd love to see a concept that could fit into a "martial Controller" slot, personally. How would that work? Some of the class/slot combos just don't scream "archetypal combo" to me, and that's one of them.

Something along the lines of the tripping spiked chain fighter?

 

[GreatLemur]

What I really like about duskblade is that it's designed to be a warrior who uses magic as part of his combat technique, not just a second-rate warrior who can cast some second-rate spells when he's not fighting. The magic and fighting skill are actually integrated. The best you can do with most warrior/mage combinations is to cast some buffs on yourself before wading in, or maybe set your sword aside for a turn to cast a spell.

This comment is extremely correct. This is exactly why this character concept needs its own class (be it Duskblade or Swordmage or whatever), and cannot be effectively emulated through multiclassing. (Unless maybe they want to introduce a more flexible magic system where it's "cheaper" or easier to buff yourself than others, or to deliver attack spells at touch range than at a distance, etc. Then there'd be some real synergy between Fighter and Wizard levels, I guess...)

 

[Klaus]

For argument's sake:
Martial:
Leader - Warlord
Controller - Knight
Defender - Fighter
Striker - Rogue

Divine:
Leader - Cleric
Controller - Druid
Defender - Paladin
Striker - ???

Arcane:
Leader - Bard
Controller - Wizard
Defender - Swordmage
Striker - Sorcerer

?

 

[jasin]

Yes, but you have to start somewhere. The role/source combo provides an easy-to-notice open niche, making it easier to come up with a cool concept to fill that niche.

But it seems to me when you design like that it's easy to fall into the trap of not bothering to come up with a concept that's cool when described in plain language, because it can seem that filling the empty slot justifies the concept in itself.

For example, the favored soul: it's a divine spontaneous caster. OK, neat. But what is it for people who don't play D&D, who don't know what the words "divine" and "spontaneous" mean in this context? A guy who performs miracles in his god's name? Isn't that already covered by the cleric?

IMO, it's a bit like alignment: the power source/role thing is good for describing what a class does and how they do it, but I wouldn't want the designers to be saying "wait, X cannot be a martial striker, we already have that one; let's make it a divine striker, because that's still open".

 

[Glyfair]

Rich referred to this in his latest blog.

I've noticed that some people over at ENWorld picked up on the class name "swordmage" that was mentioned in my playtest report a couple of days ago. I'm amazed at how much you folks can divine from such a thin reference. Some of the later posts in the thread were uncannily accurate predictions. I hope to say some more about it soon, because I used a swordmage as the protagonist in my upcoming novel "Swordmage." I'd like to tell you how I saw the character and his capabilities working, at least as told through the lens of fiction as opposed to game rules. I'm checking now with my boss to see if I can.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For argument's sake:
Martial:
Leader - Warlord
Controller - Knight
Defender - Fighter
Striker - Rogue

Divine:
Leader - Cleric
Controller - Druid
Defender - Paladin
Striker - ???

Arcane:
Leader - Bard
Controller - Wizard
Defender - Swordmage
Striker - Sorcerer

?

That'd be pretty cute, though I'd feel a little sick irl if the Knight had "mind-control"-type abilities (if he "controlled" people by smashing them around, stunning them, charging them and so on though, awesome).

A Divine striker is a cool concept. Don't let it be the Monk, D&D Jesus, don't let it be the Monk! <prays fervently>

The Druid could make a decent Divine striker, too, although I admit controller is more "obvious".

This also allows for four different Psionic classes, which I heartily approve of.