Why is the Gish so popular with players?

[Warpiglet-7]

Well I have mostly played what I think are gishes in 5e.

That is I have generally played blade boon warlocks occasionally with a dip for more magic or better armor.

I do not have any desire to be the star. Rather I like being involved in the action. I have found most complaints about boredom in D&D for example are from blasters who stay back. For example, eldritch blast with hex, repeat.

I like fighting up close, dropping impactful spells when least expected and blasting when stuck where I can greatsword them.

It’s all about options. Misty stepping past bad guys right to the evil priest on the dais is fun.

But it’s also “Elric cool” too.

It’s cool imagery and more varied play. Next up for me is the Paladin. Using smites and smite spells has its appeal..

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Popularity of githyanki?

If only.

 

[bloodtide]

I would just add the Rebel Factor...Codified by my Generation.....Generation X.

We don't care. Rules, laws, social standards, and that long list of things you "can't do or say". We Don't Care.

Show me a rulebook...a "suggestion book in my eyes" that says something on page 11....and I will simply ignore it and do whatever I want.

My wizard can't be an athletic spell sword master...because page 22 says so......hahahahahah!


We're gonna make it
Give us any chance we'll take it
Read us any rule we'll break it
We're gonna make our dreams come true
Doing it our way
There is nothing we won't try
Never heard the word impossible
This time there's no stopping us
We're gonna make it
Make all our dreams come true
And we'll do it our way, yes our way
Make all our dreams come true for me and you

 

[overgeeked]

You could ask the same question of clerics and paladins.

Why divine caster and fighter? Why not just one or the other?

The fighter/magic-user is simply the arcane version.

Also, Elric.

 

[pawsplay]

Why do we say gish? I remember the first time it was said on the old Character Optimization board and I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. It's a pointlessly opaque phrase, a shibboleth. It can also lead to funny situations with actual githyanki where you have gishes that aren't gishes, but also gishes that aren't gishes.

Anyway. Fighter/magic-users are cool. Most literary wizards are actually fighter/magic-users. Gandalf, Elric, the Grey Mouser, Harry Potter, all of them not only fight but use a sword. It's like asking why a dashing fencer is cool, or a shining knight. That's the archetype. There are more FMU protagonists in literature than there are pure, robe-style wizards.

It's a better question to ask why robe style wizards have had such longevity. I can picture a robe wizard in a laboratory, but an adventuring wizard should wear pants or a skirt, and should probably be able to handle a weapon, and needs to be fast and tough.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Why do we say gish?

Githyanki fighter/magic-users from the Fiend Folio are known as gish. It's not the first occurence of the archetype in D&D -- BD&D elves can use both magic and weapons -- but githyanki were a huge phenomenon when the Fiend Folio came out, and justly so. So the term stuck.

But yes, it's an insanely opaque term and both makes it hard for newcomers to know what the conversation is about (which is bad), but it also disguises that not everyone who wants to play a "gish" wants to play the same type of character (also bad).

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of better choices that more clearly explain the various sub-archetypes.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

For me, being a bit younger than most of the board, spellswords were everywhere just like regular Fighters and Wizards, and it usually wasn't a matter of getting both-- it was either so firmly integrated that they just kinda fought that way to be equal to fighters and wizards, or everyone/almost everyone could do it. In fact, in early World of Warcraft, hybrid tax meant the specialists were always stronger.

 

[Bacon Bits]

In a recent Matt Colville livestream, he mused a little bit about the Gish, to wit, he noted he feels to some degree, the Gish arises out of the following:

1. In a class-based RPG, you are usually asked to pick one thing you are an expert at (your class). For instance, you can be great at swords (fighter) OR spells (mage).

2. Matt stated his belief is there is always some percentage of the population that react to the choice "pick A or B" with a reflexive "I refuse! I MUST have both A AND B!"

He's entirely correct. It's a combination of wanting to do everything, and with basic recognition of how horrifyingly bad the balance is on AD&D multiclass rules in practice. Because until name level the XP requirement basically doubles, you're rarely more than 1 level behind.

In 1e AD&D at 120,000 XP, you could have:

• A level 8 Fighter (just)
• A level 9 (almost 10) Thief
• A level 9 Magic-User

Or:

• A Fighter 6/Thief 8
• A Fighter 6/Magic-User 7
• A Thief 8/Magic-User 7
• A Fighter 6/Thief 7/Magic-User 6

This is just silly. And this is one of the most advantageous points in the game for the single-class character! Within the next ~10,000 XP the multiclass characters will catch up to 1 level behind their single-class counterparts.

So of course you want to be a Gish. It's silly to be anything else. Especially because class level limits were [IMX] routinely ignored, and anyways in AD&D 2e they were raised into the mid teens for most classes, making them actually just a waste of time because you never get to those levels anyways.

Now when people think of a Gish, this is what they think of. The character that is so close to keeping up that they're essentially not paying any cost at all.

Realistically, the Valor Bard is a Gish. So is the Battlesmith Artificer. So is the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger. So is the Hexblade Warlock and the Arcane Trickster. Indeed, it's arguable that even Ranger, Paladin, and Cleric each have Gish subclasses. And you can play a Fighter 1/Wizard X, or a Warlock/Sorcerer, or a dozen other combinations. Quite simply Gish is the most universally represented class archetype in all of D&D. But, quite often, when you present these as a valid Gish they get rejected. People still complain... there's no Gish!

Well, what they want is character that's 1-2 levels behind the Fighter and 1-2 levels behind the Wizard at the same time. They want a God class.

Well, no. It's not that kind of game anymore.

 

[TiQuinn]

But, quite often, when you present these as a valid Gish, and they get rejected. People still complain... there's no Gish!

Well, what they want is character that's 1-2 levels behind the Fighter and 1-2 levels behind the Wizard at the same time. They want a God class.

 

[Undrave]

It's about mixing and matching "what I do" and "what's my power source". We don't blink an eye at a ranger with a bow "I'm good with ranged attacks with a WEAPON" and a warlock "I'm good with ranged attacks with MAGIC". Matt's #2 statement is no more true then it is with them.

And then the Ranger uses spells!

Same for the Battle Cleric or the Paladin or the Sword Bard too...