Fifth Edition Gishes

[Rhaegar14]

Is anybody else disappointed by the options that we've been given for warrior/wizard types?

The Eldritch Knight's casting almost seems like a joke to me; they only get 4th-level spells in an edition where Paladins and Rangers get 5th and Bards get 9th, and their selection is excessively restricted. Plus, their features are incredibly lackluster; War Magic is basically useless (past 11th level, most Fighters are going to do more damage with the two extra attacks than they will with a cantrip), their spells aren't threatening enough for Eldritch Strike to be that good, and Improved War Magic comes too late to save the rest of the subclass.

Your only other option is multiclassing, and this works pretty well on paper; by 10th level, a Fighter 5/Wizard-or-Sorcerer 5 has similar casting and attack abilities to a Paladin or Ranger, and from there their casting is only going to get better (assuming you only stay in Fighter or whatever else long enough to get Extra Attack), but their progression until then is awkward; if you alternate levels, your casting is no better than the Paladin or Ranger's and you don't pick up Extra Attack until level 9 or 10, and if you stay in one until level 5 then go to the other, it takes a few "dead" levels before your new abilities really become relevant. It also costs them a precious Ability Score Increase (because let's not pretend that staying for another level of Fighter in order to get the second Ability Score Increase is better than eventual access to 8th-level spells).

The worst part, in my opinion, is that because we already have the Eldritch Knight subclass for the Fighter, we're not very likely to get a dedicated class for this archetype, or even a more martially-minded subclass for the Wizard or Sorcerer.

Thoughts? Am I right? Am I making this worse than it is?

P.S. I love, love, love the Warlock in this edition and the Pact of the Blade build is awesome, but Warlock casting works very differently from Wizard or Sorcerer, and Warlocks have a lot of in-class fluff beyond being an arcane spellcaster. These two factors, to me, disqualify the Warlock as a "traditional" gish.

[pwykersotz]

I'm having a ton of fun with my Eldritch Knight so far, even though I can't tell how it will be in several levels. The casting may be stunted, but the base fighter abilities complement it nicely.

Don't get me wrong, full casters have more world-shaping power. But it doesn't feel like 3.5 where Paladins and Rangers were jokes because they got such meager spells. The damage capacity of the base class makes the casting feel like an upgrade to an existing solid chassis, not a nerf from being a caster.

So far. Time will tell.

[Rhaegar14]

I'm having a ton of fun with my Eldritch Knight so far, even though I can't tell how it will be in several levels. The casting may be stunted, but the base fighter abilities complement it nicely.

Don't get me wrong, full casters have more world-shaping power. But it doesn't feel like 3.5 where Paladins and Rangers were jokes because they got such meager spells. The damage capacity of the base class makes the casting feel like an upgrade to an existing solid chassis, not a nerf from being a caster.

So far. Time will tell.

Emphasis mine. This is pretty much exactly my problem with the Eldritch Knight, and I should have communicated this better in the opening post. The casting is an upgrade to an existing chassis. It's an add-on, an afterthought. Compare this to, for instance, the Paladin, where the class is built from the ground up to make use of their spellcasting: Divine Smite uses spell slots, and they have lots of bonus action spells so that they can cast and swing at the same time. When I think of an ideal gish I think of something more like Pathfinder's Magus or 4e's Swordmage, where the spellcasting and martial prowess are two halves of the same whole, and I don't think that the Eldritch Knight really captures that.

[pwykersotz]

Emphasis mine. This is pretty much exactly my problem with the Eldritch Knight, and I should have communicated this better in the opening post. The casting is an upgrade to an existing chassis. It's an add-on, an afterthought. Compare this to, for instance, the Paladin, where the class is built from the ground up to make use of their spellcasting: Divine Smite uses spell slots, and they have lots of bonus action spells so that they can cast and swing at the same time. When I think of an ideal gish I think of something more like Pathfinder's Magus or 4e's Swordmage, where the spellcasting and martial prowess are two halves of the same whole, and I don't think that the Eldritch Knight really captures that.

Oh, definitely not. There have even been posts already that the Eldritch Knight is more of a Fighter/Wizard than a true hybrid. But that, we believe, is its intended role.

[Madfellow]

Emphasis mine. This is pretty much exactly my problem with the Eldritch Knight, and I should have communicated this better in the opening post. The casting is an upgrade to an existing chassis. It's an add-on, an afterthought. Compare this to, for instance, the Paladin, where the class is built from the ground up to make use of their spellcasting: Divine Smite uses spell slots, and they have lots of bonus action spells so that they can cast and swing at the same time. When I think of an ideal gish I think of something more like Pathfinder's Magus or 4e's Swordmage, where the spellcasting and martial prowess are two halves of the same whole, and I don't think that the Eldritch Knight really captures that.

Hmm... what about this? For the first 6 levels, go Eldritch Knight. For the next 4, go Wizard. The 4 after that, back to Eldritch Knight. The last 6, Wizard.

Or there's always the bard.

[HorridElemental]

The warlock blade option is actually not needed. If you go pact of the tome then you can grab the druid Cantrip shillelagh and wade into melee with your club.

The EK Fighter I played was more of abhybrid because I went Int>Dex>Con and grabbed the best armor and shield possible. I was still a fighter but my spell DCs still were high enough to drop them on enemies and not worry about being ignored.

There was an argument of fighter versus flaming sphere when it comes to damage... Well a deulist fighter who cast flaming sphere and using it in conjuncture with melee bashing (prof and advantage with con saves to keep concentrating) or ranged attacks makes for a happy fighter and very dead enemies.

[da_chicken]

Is anybody else disappointed by the options that we've been given for warrior/wizard types?

[...]

Thoughts? Am I right? Am I making this worse than it is?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, you're making it worse than it is.

The basic problem with a gish is that people think that a fighter/mage should be better at fighting than a Fighter because they have magic, but should also be able to cast spells as well as a Wizard because they've studied magic. Invariably, IMX, this is what gish arguments boil down to. That you're not powerful enough of a fighter and not powerful enough of a mage. That you get outclassed by the Fighter in melee, and outclassed by the Wizard at magic. That the sum of your abilities doesn't bring you up to the power level of either Fighter or Wizard.

The reality is that's what's supposed to happen. In a class-based, team-oriented RPG, you should ideally be the most powerful by focusing your limited resources in a single area. Ideally, that means single classing. That reinforces the reason that classes exist within the game, and structures the game in a more natural fashion (i.e., you don't have to multiclass just to keep up). A gish, however, is necessarily dividing his focus between fighting and spellcasting. You're sacrificing power for versatility. You're sacrificing one type of power for another type of power. That's just how that works.

All this is exacerbated by the fact that everybody has their own definition of what a gish is.

In 5e, you have Fighter with Eldritch Knight, Rogue with Arcane Trickster, Bard with College of Valor and College of Lore, and Warlock with Blade Pact as gish options. Beyond that, you have multiclassing and pulling from Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Monk, and Barbarian and can combine that with Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlord, and Bard for arcane casting. Additionally, since your attack bonus is based on your character level and not the class levels, and because your spellcasting is only loosely tied to your casting ability (only save DCs, not spells known or slots available or spell levels available) and because ability scores are limited to 20, it's much easier to maintain parity as a multiclass character with single classed party members compared to previous editions. The power ceiling is much lower. You're also not required to keep up one class over the other. What you have will remain effective at level 20 even if you only have 2 levels of Fighter or Wizard (i.e., your proficiency bonus and ability score are based on your character level, not class level). Furthermore, spellcasting in armor is essentially unrestricted in 5e. Finally, you can always expand your definition of gish to include divine magics, and suddenly you get to add Paladin, Cleric, and Druid to your list of classes meaning that essentially every class is available to a gish. Multiclassing between dissimilar classes and in particular between dissimilar spellcasters functions better in 5e than any previous edition, too.

So if you come to me and say that your options are too narrow in 5e, then my immediate response would be one of:


You're trying to get a multiclass character to be both more versatile and more powerful than a single class character. This should not be feasible in a class-based RPG, or, honestly, even in a point based RPG like GURPS. Versatility must have a cost because versatility itself is powerful.
Your character concept is too narrow. You have 4 natural single class builds, and for multiclass you have 3-5 martial focused classes and 4 arcane classes. The gish character is literally the concept with the most options in 5e.

[MeeposFire]

It also doesn't help that every edition due to what works best in each changes what tactics a gish would do.

AD&D a fighter/mage would highly consider blasting spells. The reason was that their caster level would be perhaps 1 behind a full fledged mage and blasting was much more effective back in the day (saving throws made SoDs too unpredictable and enemies had much lower HP meaning that blasting was more likely to quickly kill them).

3e emphasized buffing.

4e is harder to quantify but I would say you would work a character that is highly effective at melee range with the ability to use effective control effects or other blatant magical effects as well.

Depending on what version you used you could be looking for very different things.

[rlc]

I don't think they should have to cater to the crowd that wants to play an unbalanced character, but maybe that's just me.

[Falka]

Life's about choices. A character shouldn't be able to do everything right. Actually, I think it's already a bit strong to give a full fleged Fighter the capability of being able to cast 4th level spells. Low level spells aren't bad at all, unlike in 3e where you had minor(crap) versions of some spells.

Shield is one of the best reactive spells of the game, period.

Also, I think that a Fighter who is capable of casting Stoneskin and Greater Invisibility while being able to hit 4 attacks per round isn't precisely... weak.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't think they should have to cater to the crowd that wants to play an unbalanced character, but maybe that's just me.

Gishes are not intrinsically imbalanced. I'm sure OP would be fine with a subclass or class that sacrificed quite a bit from the base Fighter chassis for better casting.

[pwykersotz]

Actually, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, I think PMRhaegar14 was mentioning that the spellcasting and fighting don't hybridize as well. A paladin has a melee ability that uses spell slots all the way up. I think the ability he was looking for was something a little more mechanically interwoven than swing and cast, cast and swing. Especially because anything other than a cantrip comes online at such late levels.

I'm fine with it myself, but I see his point.

[rlc]

Gishes are not intrinsically imbalanced. I'm sure OP would be fine with a subclass or class that sacrificed quite a bit from the base Fighter chassis for better casting.

they're not intrinsically unbalanced, but unbalanced sounds like exactly what he wants.

[Demonic Spoon]

they're not intrinsically unbalanced, but unbalanced sounds like exactly what he wants.

And where, exactly, did you get that?

[rlc]

The Eldritch Knight's casting almost seems like a joke to me; they only get 4th-level spells in an edition where Paladins and Rangers get 5th and Bards get 9thhere, because he's comparing a fighter based subclass to a magic based class

Your only other option is multiclassing, and this works pretty well on paper...but their progression...is awkward; ...and you don't pick up Extra Attack until [a later level than a melee based class would]..., and if you stay in one until level 5 then go to the other, it takes a few "dead" levels before your new abilities really become relevant. here, because he wants all of the benefits of a pure fighter and a pure magic user at the same time.


P.S. I love, love, love the Warlock in this edition and the Pact of the Blade build is awesome, but Warlock casting works very differently from Wizard or Sorcerer, and Warlocks have a lot of in-class fluff beyond being an arcane spellcaster. These two factors, to me, disqualify the Warlock as a "traditional" gish.

and i just thought this was funny because he says that he loves something and then says it's not traditional because it doesn't feel right.

[Demonic Spoon]

here, because he's comparing a fighter based subclass to a magic based class


He is demonstrating that the Eldritch Knight subclass does not qualify as a true gish. Which is true. Eldritch knight is weighted more towards fighter than wizard, whereas he is clearly asking for something more balanced.


here, because he wants all of the benefits of a pure fighter and a pure magic user at the same time.


No, he offered multiple paths of multiclassing and explained why they weren't good - the first because you end up with similar spellcasting to a paladin/ranger while getting important fight-y features much later, and the second because you have "dead levels" which are bad.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with him, but you're not addressing anything he actually said.


and i just thought this was funny because he says that he loves something and then says it's not traditional because it doesn't feel right.


The lore and fluff behind the warlock is far different than the lore and fluff behind a fighter/wizard. Playing a warlock is not the same as playing a fighter who casts spells or a wizard who hits things with swords.

[Dark Tira]

He is demonstrating that the Eldritch Knight subclass does not qualify as a true gish. Which is true. Eldritch knight is weighted more towards fighter than wizard, whereas he is clearly asking for something more balanced.


Right, no true scotsman gish would ever lack 9th level spells! Seriously though, if he can't find a gish somewhere between a Bard and Eldritch Knight that he likes then he is looking for something overpowered.

[captpike]

the thing is that a gish is not just a fighter with a little wizard or a wizard with a little fighter. he is someone who can do melee combat and magic at the same time. who can do things no fighter or caster can do.

meaning they need their own spells and mechanics, not for wotc to be lazy and just copy the other classes stuff and call it a day after half an hour of work.

[Zeuel]

Having access to 4th level spells gives so many options for a Fighter. Most of them are Evocation/Abjuration but 4 of them are from any school. It helps if you stop looking for blasty spells to increase your DPR(except for one or two to give you versatility in helping out your team clear minions) and look at spells that make you more survivable or that shut people down or that buff your offensive output. I absolutely love the Eldritch Knight.


Right, no true scotsman gish would ever lack 9th level spells! Seriously though, if he can't find a gish somewhere between a Bard and Eldritch Knight that he likes then he is looking for something overpowered.

I agree. There are so many options it's crazy. Two of the gish options even have full spellcasting(Blade pact Warlock and College of Valor Bard). :/

[Zeuel]

the thing is that a gish is not just a fighter with a little wizard or a wizard with a little fighter. he is someone who can do melee combat and magic at the same time. who can do things no fighter or caster can do.

meaning they need their own spells and mechanics, not for wotc to be lazy and just copy the other classes stuff and call it a day after half an hour of work.

So you want a class that is basically the Eldritch Knight/College of Valor Bard but with it's own unique spell list?

[Grynning]

the thing is that a gish is not just a fighter with a little wizard or a wizard with a little fighter. he is someone who can do melee combat and magic at the same time. who can do things no fighter or caster can do.

meaning they need their own spells and mechanics, not for wotc to be lazy and just copy the other classes stuff and call it a day after half an hour of work.

Except that...in 3rd edition, where most of the most famous "gish" builds were created, there weren't specific classes for it until PHBII's Duskblade. Every other attempt, including the Eldritch Knight and spellsword PrC's, just advanced another class's casting and usually didn't let you cast and attack in the same turn. It was usually pretty sub-optimal to emphasize the melee side of the build, and they mainly relied on the broken-ness of 3.5's spell selection to function in melee.

[captpike]

So you want a class that is basically the Eldritch Knight/College of Valor Bard but with it's own unique spell list?

yes, and with mechanics that were made to work with the gish playstyle. as oposed to spells like fireball that were made for wizardly types.

I don't think wanting unique spells is a big deal.



Except that...in 3rd edition, where most of the most famous "gish" builds were created, there weren't specific classes for it until PHBII's Duskblade. Every other attempt, including the Eldritch Knight and spellsword PrC's, just advanced another class's casting and usually didn't let you cast and attack in the same turn. It was usually pretty sub-optimal to emphasize the melee side of the build, and they mainly relied on the broken-ness of 3.5's spell selection to function in melee.


exactly, that kind of gish does not work. a gish is just a worthy of support as a wizard or fighter and should be treated as such

[Zeuel]

yes, and with mechanics that were made to work with the gish playstyle. as oposed to spells like fireball that were made for wizardly types.

Like a class ability that gives you an attack as a bonus action on turns you buff yourself with Haste, Blur, Mirror Image, Enlarge, Fly, Haste, Fire Shield, Greater Invisibility, Magic Weapon, or Stoneskin? Spells that make a high AC character even higher in the AC department as a reaction like Shield? Spells that let you try and shut down spellcasters who would try and target your weakest saves to take you out of the fight like Counterspell? Even spells like Fireball are good because it lets you play backup controller when the field is flooded with enemies.


I don't think wanting unique spells is a big deal.

As far as I can tell only classes get their own unique spells which would kind of require that gish be a full class. Maybe they'll make a full on gish class at some point but there are so many gish subclasses and builds that I can't imagine it's a priority.

[rlc]

He is demonstrating that the Eldritch Knight subclass does not qualify as a true gish. Which is true. Eldritch knight is weighted more towards fighter than wizard, whereas he is clearly asking for something more balanced. It's fine as is. Most of your spells are from specific schools, but you can learn a few of any school. And you're not getting higher levels because the fighter portion is still really awesome.




No, he offered multiple paths of multiclassing and explained why they weren't good - the first because you end up with similar spellcasting to a paladin/ranger while getting important fight-y features much later, and the second because you have "dead levels" which are bad.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with him, but you're not addressing anything he actually said.Dead levels are bad, sure, but other than that, this just sounds like a pretty robust system to me.




The lore and fluff behind the warlock is far different than the lore and fluff behind a fighter/wizard. Playing a warlock is not the same as playing a fighter who casts spells or a wizard who hits things with swords.So you refluff it if it feels weird. Spellcasting is spellcasting. Fighting is fighting.




yes, and with mechanics that were made to work with the gish playstyle. as oposed to spells like fireball that were made for wizardly types.

I don't think wanting unique spells is a big deal.We have that.






exactly, that kind of gish does not work. a gish is just a worthy of support as a wizard or fighter and should be treated as such
There already is support for it. You just can't have your all powerful, does everything better than everybody else character. And this is all with just one core book.

:cool: = mfw the things people complain about make me like something even more

[Serafina]

Okay, so here is what we actually have so far:

- A full spellcaster with medium armor, martial weapons and two attacks.
- A half-caster with full proficiencies and three class features that combine attacks and spellcasting in some way.
- A full-caster with either two attacks, or using their spellcasting ability for attacking.

And that's just for arcane casters, if we include Divine Casters we get four more classes who combine weapon combat and spellcasting abilities.

And we haven't even counted Multiclassing yet, in an addition that is quite friendly to combining spellcasting abilities from multiple classes.
If you want a more caster-centric Gish without taking one of the two classes that provide that natively, you could just multiclass Eldritch Knight with Wizard - 7 levels will give you two attacks and the ability to combine cantrips with one attack, while still getting 8th-level spells.
Or you could combine 6 levels of Paladin with Sorcerer - you still get two attacks, but also 9th-level spells, the abilitiy to burn spell slots for extra weapon damage and significant protection against spells. Heck, if you are willing to combine it with Wizard (if you have the attributes for it), you can be almost immune to spells at 20th level.


Really, this edition is the most Gish-friendly so far.
You no longer have to worry about BAB, since proficiency raises at the same rate for everyone.
You no longer have to worry about compatibility with armor, since arcane spell failure is no longer a thing.
You have several options that provide gish-capability without any multiclassing, PrCs or anything else, right out of the box.
You are free to multiclass half-casters with full-casters to combine their abilities and still progress your spellcasting.

[Grynning]

If you want a more caster-centric Gish without taking one of the two classes that provide that natively, you could just multiclass Eldritch Knight with Wizard - 7 levels will give you two attacks and the ability to combine cantrips with one attack, while still getting 8th-level spells.
Or you could combine 6 levels of Paladin with Sorcerer - you still get two attacks, but also 9th-level spells, the abilitiy to burn spell slots for extra weapon damage and significant protection against spells. Heck, if you are willing to combine it with Wizard (if you have the attributes for it), you can be almost immune to spells at 20th level.


I agree with your points, one small correction though - you will not know any 8th or 9th level spells with those builds, you will just have the slots for them, meaning you have to cast other spells at those levels. Not that that's a bad thing, multiclassing should make you give up your capstone abilities.

[Millennium]

yes, and with mechanics that were made to work with the gish playstyle.
What is "the gish playstyle"?

[captpike]

There already is support for it. You just can't have your all powerful, does everything better than everybody else character. And this is all with just one core book.

:cool: = mfw the things people complain about make me like something even more

when did I say I wanted the gish to be more powerful then the wizard? I said he should have unique spells and abilities, that he should have his own spell list because not having one means that you are shoe horning in wizard or cleric spells into a role they were not mean to have.

a gish does not just attack with a weapon then cast a spell. he can do both at the same time. and do so without being overpowered.

EDIT: also gish's need to work from level 1, becuase I see no good reason to make gish's wait for half the game to play their characters the way they want.


What is "the gish playstyle"?

combining magic and mundane melee abilities, not simply having some of each.

for example being able to spin around with your weapon and cause a wave of force to knock everyone back is good. being able to use a low level wizard spell then a too weak fighter attack is not.

[Serafina]

combining magic and mundane melee abilities, not simply having some of each.

for example being able to spin around with your weapon and cause a wave of force to knock everyone back is good. being able to use a low level wizard spell then a too weak fighter attack is not.I'm sorry, how is that not just a "it's not powerful enough for me"-complaint?
Because that can totally be used to maintain a magical shield while in melee, or blast back enemies with magic while surrounded, or weave magical frost around you to slow down your enemies.

Which is exactly what you asked for, except not as a high-level spell - so again, how is this anything but "it's not powerful enough for me"?

[captpike]

I'm sorry, how is that not just a "it's not powerful enough for me"-complaint?
Because that can totally be used to maintain a magical shield while in melee, or blast back enemies with magic while surrounded, or weave magical frost around you to slow down your enemies.

Which is exactly what you asked for, except not as a high-level spell - so again, how is this anything but "it's not powerful enough for me"?

...what? are you just making up things to read to yourself? I am asking for something different not more powerful.

spells made to cast from the back do not always work in melee. you could easily run into issues like being interrupted (when a gish should not be) or just feel like a weak wizard in melee.

a gish SHOULD be as powerful as a wizard, just like every other build of every other class should. just like every class should be unique and do things only they can do. there should never be a case where class A can do everything class B can and more. every class deserves things made only for it, be it spells, maneuvers whatever. things made to work well with the playstyle that class encourages.

[Thrudd]

What class in what edition is the perfect "gish"? There wasn't anything like what you're describing pre 2000, and nothing in the core 3/3.5e game that I can think of (but plenty of fighter/magic-user combos). Is this an exclusively 4e thing?

[Scirocco]

Sounds like the demand for a "gish" play style (as framed) is best satisfied by either a) 4th edition or b) Tome of Battle.

Also, "gish" is such and icky sounding word. Tradition be damned, it's a fighter-mage, 'nuff said.

[Malifice]

Paladin of Vengance 6/ College of Lore Bard 11/ Fighter EK 3 Human (bonus feat and skill), Criminal background

Spells plundered with 'Magical Secrets'
Branding smite, Mirror image (6th level), Raise Dead, Counterspell, (10th level)

Feats: (Total of 4)
Resilient (Con), Warcaster, Dual weilder, 1 ability score improvement

Skills:
Proficent in 9 skills
Expertise (double bonus) with 4 of them (i.e Perception, Athletics, and two others)
Proficent in 3 instruments, a gaming set and thieves tools
Jack of all trades (half prof bonus in anything not already trained in)
Peerless skill: Add bardic inspiration dice (d10) to skill check after rolling check. Inspiration resets on short rest.

Defences:
Mundane: Heavy armor, shields, Fighting style (defence) + shield and mirror image (neither require or break concentration): AC 20 (25 W Shield as a reaction). Magic armor drives AC up further. Mirror image makes AC moot every 2/3 attacks anyway (for a 2nd level slot) and doesnt affect concentration. 'Cutting words' bard ability will also reduce any attack roll made against you by bardic inspiration dice result (d10). Inspiration resets on short rest.

Magical: Three good saves (Wisdom, Strength, Constitution). Adds Cha to all saves. Counterspell as a reaction. Also countersong. Immune to disease.

Offence:
TWF combat style, Action surge, Extra attack, Advantage on Melee attacks 1/day. Smite (+5d8) from Paladin. Spells (hunters mark, branding smite).

Spellcasting:
8 Paladin spells per day ready, 15(+4) Bard spells known. 3 Wizard spells known. Also has Ritual casting. Max spell slot level: 8th. Slots/ day: 4+2 Cantrips plus 4/ 3/ 3/ 3/ 2/ 1/ 1/ 1.

Advantage on Con saves to maintain concentration, cast with hands full. Cast spell as AoO.

Summary:
A skill monkey to make the rogue cry (also uses thieves tools), it fights as well as the party Paladin (and for much longer), CL 15th = 8th level spell slots, knows 6th level Bard spells (and 2nd level Paladin spells, and 3 1st level Wizard spells), almost unhittably high AC, amazing defences vs spells. Amazing spellcasting utility with tons of SOS and Utility spells. Heals (via lay on hands, song of rest, cure wounds, second wind, restoration and raise dead). Also has party buffing with inspiration and aura from Paladin.

Ritual caster for anything it cant crack through with its ridiculous skills or amazing utility spells (or beat to a bloody pulp in melee).

DPR = 2-3 attacks per round doing 1d8 plus Strength plus Xd8 (smite) plus Xd6 (branding smite) with advantage 1/day for 10 rounds.

Action surge for nova strike 5 x attacks (d8 plus d6 hunters mark plus strength plus magic plus [2-6d8] per attack with smite), or nova strike 2 x SoS Spells.

Also rides an amazing Horse thanks to Paladin :)

Tier 1. Solidly.

[rlc]

when did I say I wanted the gish to be more powerful then the wizard? I said he should have unique spells and abilities, that he should have his own spell list because not having one means that you are shoe horning in wizard or cleric spells into a role they were not mean to have.

a gish does not just attack with a weapon then cast a spell. he can do both at the same time. and do so without being overpowered.

EDIT: also gish's need to work from level 1, becuase I see no good reason to make gish's wait for half the game to play their characters the way they want.



combining magic and mundane melee abilities, not simply having some of each.

for example being able to spin around with your weapon and cause a wave of force to knock everyone back is good. being able to use a low level wizard spell then a too weak fighter attack is not.

Yep, we have that already. Paladins at level 1, a bunch of classes at level 3.


Sounds like the demand for a "gish" play style (as framed) is best satisfied by either a) 4th edition or b) Tome of Battle.

Also, "gish" is such and icky sounding word. Tradition be damned, it's a fighter-mage, 'nuff said.

I cringe every single time.

[Thrudd]

I cringe every single time.

Yes, I always wonder if people using this term even knew where it came from before they started saying/writing it. And I wonder who in the heck started using it in the first place. Why has an obscure term from the fiend folio come to represent fighter/magic-users of all sorts?

Yes, I suppose Tome of Battle has classes with their own unique magic that they can use as a part of their combat actions rather than casting like wizards. But that isn't what Githyanki are, they have normal multiclass fighter/magic-users who fight like fighters and cast spells like wizards.

Are 4e Githyanki some kind of special awesome, that their term has come to mean the epitome of all fighter/magic users?

[Millennium]

combining magic and mundane melee abilities, not simply having some of each.
Which means having some of each, plus a little creativity for use and flavor. The fact that the rules don't hold your hand and tell you how to do do this is irrelevant. Use your brain.

for example being able to spin around with your weapon and cause a wave of force to knock everyone back is good.
So research a spell with a somatic component (the spin) and a focus (the sword). No reasonable DM is going to say that a basic knockback effect would constitute a high-level spell.

being able to use a low level wizard spell then a too weak fighter attack is not.
Only because you don't choose to flavor your own abilities. That is your problem, not D&D's.

[Falka]

What class in what edition is the perfect "gish"? There wasn't anything like what you're describing pre 2000, and nothing in the core 3/3.5e game that I can think of (but plenty of fighter/magic-user combos). Is this an exclusively 4e thing?

He is basically asking for a 4e Swordmage, and I wouldn't call that a 'gish'. It's more like a Fighter that can teleport and force people to attack him. It's kinda weird, as it should be played like a tank when a magical knight for me feels like he should be obliterating the battlefield with fire and steel.

[da_chicken]

What class in what edition is the perfect "gish"? There wasn't anything like what you're describing pre 2000, and nothing in the core 3/3.5e game that I can think of (but plenty of fighter/magic-user combos). Is this an exclusively 4e thing?

The origin of the term is a githyanki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Githyanki) fighter/mage, so that'd be 1e/2e AD&D.

[captpike]

Sounds like the demand for a "gish" play style (as framed) is best satisfied by either a) 4th edition or b) Tome of Battle.

Also, "gish" is such and icky sounding word. Tradition be damned, it's a fighter-mage, 'nuff said.

fighter-mage implies someone who is both fighter and mage, a gish is neither. while I agree there could be a better term for it, fighter-mage is not it.


What class in what edition is the perfect "gish"? There wasn't anything like what you're describing pre 2000, and nothing in the core 3/3.5e game that I can think of (but plenty of fighter/magic-user combos). Is this an exclusively 4e thing?

I am not aware of any good 3.x gish's correct. it was something that was only done well in 4e.

that said, they know how to do it, and the gish is a large and popular enough archetype to be worth the effort.


Yes, I always wonder if people using this term even knew where it came from before they started saying/writing it. And I wonder who in the heck started using it in the first place. Why has an obscure term from the fiend folio come to represent fighter/magic-users of all sorts?

Yes, I suppose Tome of Battle has classes with their own unique magic that they can use as a part of their combat actions rather than casting like wizards. But that isn't what Githyanki are, they have normal multiclass fighter/magic-users who fight like fighters and cast spells like wizards.

Are 4e Githyanki some kind of special awesome, that their term has come to mean the epitome of all fighter/magic users?

words change meaning over time in any living language



Which means having some of each, plus a little creativity for use and flavor. The fact that the rules don't hold your hand and tell you how to do do this is irrelevant. Use your brain.

So research a spell with a somatic component (the spin) and a focus (the sword). No reasonable DM is going to say that a basic knockback effect would constitute a high-level spell.

Only because you don't choose to flavor your own abilities. That is your problem, not D&D's.

but they should hold the hands of wizards and clerics and druids? why should gish's have to make their own spells from scratch but everyone else gets to have books full of spells?

[Dark Tira]

fighter-mage implies someone who is both fighter and mage, a gish is neither. while I agree there could be a better term for it, fighter-mage is not it.

I am not aware of any good 3.x gish's correct. it was something that was only done well in 4e.



This is the exact opposite of my opinion.

[rlc]

fighter-mage implies someone who is both fighter and mage, a gish is neither. while I agree there could be a better term for it, fighter-mage is not it.then can you give an example of what you want? because a fighter-mage so far sounds like exactly what you want.

[MeeposFire]

Yes, I always wonder if people using this term even knew where it came from before they started saying/writing it. And I wonder who in the heck started using it in the first place. Why has an obscure term from the fiend folio come to represent fighter/magic-users of all sorts?

Yes, I suppose Tome of Battle has classes with their own unique magic that they can use as a part of their combat actions rather than casting like wizards. But that isn't what Githyanki are, they have normal multiclass fighter/magic-users who fight like fighters and cast spells like wizards.

Are 4e Githyanki some kind of special awesome, that their term has come to mean the epitome of all fighter/magic users?

Oddly most 4e players I know do not use the term "gish" because all the gish type classes are single classes in that game for the most part (such as swordmage) and thus negates the primary reason to use the term (to be able to describe a fighter/mage without using a multiclass term).

Gish was used far more in the 3e optimization forums where the term is more useful because it describes what you want (a fighter mage) without calling for specific classes (such as fighter and wizard) which is important because many kinds of gish lack any fighter or wizard levels what so ever in 3e.

I am not so sure it was used much in 2e though it could be from my lack of experience over the internet during that time. As far as I know the gish term being popularly used is primarily a 3e term.

What the poster probably wants is close to the 4e swordmage which is not a tank (in the traditonial sense). Swordmages had great up close control due to status effects and close range AOE. These supplemented their true calling of defending the party which they primarily did by marking one target and then leaving that target to engage a different one (this is the shielding type which is the most popular and most powerful overall). When the enemy attacked somebody other than the swordmage he had a penalty to attack and would have his damage reduced if he hit.

I don't have the books but I would think a bard or warlock could do these basic concepts except perhaps the defending abilities since those may not exist in 5e.

[da_chicken]

I am not so sure it was used much in 2e though it could be from my lack of experience over the internet during that time. As far as I know the gish term being popularly used is primarily a 3e term.

As I said above, it dates to 1e. I don't know if it is present in White Dwarf, but it's in the Fiend Folio entry for Githyanki, page 43. When it details a war band, they specifically call githyanki fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level as "gish". Keep in mind that Githyanki also had a very high psionic ability which gave them the ability to plane shift among other things, and usually wore magical armor and carried magical greatswords (not all of them silver swords), so being level 4/4 doesn't really describe their power level since 1e psionics were rather overwhelming. The 2e Monstrous Manual does the same thing as the Fiend Folio and refers to Fighter 4/Magic-User 4 characters as "gish" using a table that was copied from the Fiend Folio. The 3.0 Psionics Handbook calls all multiclass Githyanki "gish" as does the Manual of the Planes and the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. The 3.5 Monster Manual IV presents a Githyanki Gish as a Fighter 2/Evoker 5. The 4e Monster Manual 1 presents the Githyanki Gish as a Level 15 Elite Skirmisher with at-will teleportation, very limited magical/psionic blasting, and a melee silver sword attack.

Canonically, the term has ever been linked to the githyanki.

[Thrudd]

Canonically, the term has ever been linked to the githyanki.

Yes, the term was invented in the 1e fiend folio, and no printed material has ever used it in reference to anything other than githyanki. I just wonder who thought the githyanki were so awesome that they decided to use the term for every fighter/magic user, and when. Certainly this use of the term was popularized by internet forums and can't be much older than 2000, if it is even that old. I had never heard anyone use it that way until I joined this forum. I thought everyone was talking about playing githyanki characters, and I thought to myself "when did that become a thing, are they a playable race in some book I've never seen?"

I've played every edition from Basic until 3.5e and never heard anybody refer to their multiclass character as a "gish" before this forum (though I've also never frequented RPG forums until now).

[MeeposFire]

As I said above, it dates to 1e. I don't know if it is present in White Dwarf, but it's in the Fiend Folio entry for Githyanki, page 43. When it details a war band, they specifically call githyanki fighter/magic-users of 4th/4th level as "gish". Keep in mind that Githyanki also had a very high psionic ability which gave them the ability to plane shift among other things, and usually wore magical armor and carried magical greatswords (not all of them silver swords), so being level 4/4 doesn't really describe their power level since 1e psionics were rather overwhelming. The 2e Monstrous Manual does the same thing as the Fiend Folio and refers to Fighter 4/Magic-User 4 characters as "gish" using a table that was copied from the Fiend Folio. The 3.0 Psionics Handbook calls all multiclass Githyanki "gish" as does the Manual of the Planes and the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. The 3.5 Monster Manual IV presents a Githyanki Gish as a Fighter 2/Evoker 5. The 4e Monster Manual 1 presents the Githyanki Gish as a Level 15 Elite Skirmisher with at-will teleportation, very limited magical/psionic blasting, and a melee silver sword attack.

Canonically, the term has ever been linked to the githyanki.

Yea I know where the term comes from my question was when did using that term become common in terms of describing generic warrrior mages in online discussions. I know it was common in 3e but I think itwas not used in 2e or 1e discussions despite the fact that the term existed. I think its use is directly attributable to 3e's multiclass phenomenon where you could have many options to create such a character outside of the single fighter/mage.

[captpike]

then can you give an example of what you want? because a fighter-mage so far sounds like exactly what you want.

a fighter mage has some spells, and some melee attacks.

a gish uses both at the same time. he interweaves them so much you cant tell which is which. he can do spells that no wizard can because they require knowledge of sword work, and maneuvers no fighter could do because they require knowledge of spells.

for example
http://i.imgur.com/OY6Zvif.png

this is something no wizard would know how to do, could a fighter do it. yet it is not overpowered.

its not just mashing a fighter and a wizard together and hoping to have something playing come out

[Dark Tira]

a fighter mage has some spells, and some melee attacks.

a gish uses both at the same time. he interweaves them so much you cant tell which is which. he can do spells that no wizard can because they require knowledge of sword work, and maneuvers no fighter could do because they require knowledge of spells.

for example
http://i.imgur.com/OY6Zvif.png

this is something no wizard would know how to do, could a fighter do it. yet it is not overpowered.

its not just mashing a fighter and a wizard together and hoping to have something playing come out

So you want Elemental Weapon?

[captpike]

So you want Elemental Weapon?

that was just one example.

[MeeposFire]

a fighter mage has some spells, and some melee attacks.

a gish uses both at the same time. he interweaves them so much you cant tell which is which. he can do spells that no wizard can because they require knowledge of sword work, and maneuvers no fighter could do because they require knowledge of spells.

for example
http://i.imgur.com/OY6Zvif.png

this is something no wizard would know how to do, could a fighter do it. yet it is not overpowered.

its not just mashing a fighter and a wizard together and hoping to have something playing come out

I do not think that word means what you think it means...

In regards to "Gish".

What you want is a swordmage or possibly duskblade if that works for you. Only a couple classes ever made essentially do what you want and none of them were called a "gish". Heck during 3.5 days people would argue that a duskblade was not a gish because it did not buff and attack like "a normal gish" would. You shouldn't say you want a gish and then ask for something that isn't even really a gish. If you asked for what you really want at least you could stop getting as many answers that try to give you what was a gish in other contexts considering that what you want is limited to about a number of classes you can count on one hand.

Also couldn't something like that be made as a spell and given to an EK, bard, or warlock? It isn't like making new spells won't happen.

[archaeo]

that was just one example.

Just out of idle curiosity, is it too much personal work for you to flavor the EK mechanics (or whichever class you like) to do this kind of swordmagery?

[captpike]

Just out of idle curiosity, is it too much personal work for you to flavor the EK mechanics (or whichever class you like) to do this kind of swordmagery?

no it is not but for an archetype as major as a gish I expect the game to come with one ready made and working.

[Noldo]

Just out of idle curiosity, is it too much personal work for you to flavor the EK mechanics (or whichever class you like) to do this kind of swordmagery?

Without access to PHB, would refluffing elemental monk (perhaps exchanging monk weapons to single suitable weapon) work better?

[Thrudd]

no it is not but for an archetype as major as a gish I expect the game to come with one ready made and working.

When did it become a major archetype? It hasn't existed in the core books of any edition of D&D until 4th, and even then it wasn't in the initial PHB (where you'd think the "major archetypes" would be found).

I can appreciate that this is a type of character you like, but it is not as prevalent in D&D as you seem to think. You might as well say "I'm disappointed they didn't bring over this one class from 4e that I liked" and save yourself from twenty more posts trying to explain what you think a "gish" is.

As far as fighter/magic-users, which is what a "gish" actually is (and has existed since the Elf in Basic D&D), 5e is full of possibilities for them, I think more so than any other core book.

Unless 4e has also redefined the githyanki gish into a class other than multiclass fighter/magic-user, and made them their own special class. Were there githyanki in 4e? In which case, my main point still stands: "They should have put this one class I liked from 4e in the new edition." I guess you'll have to homebrew something, or wait a couple years to see if it comes out in a supplement (like it did for previous editions). Or just keep playing 4e.

[Yuukale]

I understand the gish concept as:

- a "weapon combatant" who's capable of casting spells - more specifically: arcane spells
- able to deliver said spells through his weapon attacks
- able to use some spells (mostly, buff himself) while he performs an attack .

* I wrote "weapon combatant" instead of fighter so it wouldn't be confused with the actual fighter class.

All of this in a single _______ (class/prestige class/paragon path/archetype/insert name)

IMHO any other multiclass combination is just this. a multiclass.

I think the class that came closer to being this was the Duskblade from 3.5's PHB 2.

[rlc]

no it is not but for an archetype as major as a gish I expect the game to come with one ready made and working.
I don't have the phb, but from what people on here have said, Rangers have spells that utilize their ranged weapons and Paladins can use spell slots to do extra damage, so there's already a little bit of what you want. But, we're only one book in and you're wanting something that came after a few books in an earlier edition. People do this with every new game that uses the expansion method, so I'll tell you the same thing I tell everyone else, which is that you're expecting a full game right away from something that's not using that release method.

[Lord Raziere]

Eh, personally if I were designing the Eldritch Knight, I'd give them up to 6th level spells and make their specialization be any two schools of their choice without being able to cast any other magic aside from what they choose. same with Arcane Trickster. they kinda dropped the ball on that.

[Millennium]

a gish uses both at the same time. he interweaves them so much you cant tell which is which. he can do spells that no wizard can because they require knowledge of sword work, and maneuvers no fighter could do because they require knowledge of spells.
You say that gish needs a new word, and I agree. Might I suggest "Mary Sue"?

[captpike]

When did it become a major archetype? It hasn't existed in the core books of any edition of D&D until 4th, and even then it wasn't in the initial PHB (where you'd think the "major archetypes" would be found).

I can appreciate that this is a type of character you like, but it is not as prevalent in D&D as you seem to think. You might as well say "I'm disappointed they didn't bring over this one class from 4e that I liked" and save yourself from twenty more posts trying to explain what you think a "gish" is.

As far as fighter/magic-users, which is what a "gish" actually is (and has existed since the Elf in Basic D&D), 5e is full of possibilities for them, I think more so than any other core book.

Unless 4e has also redefined the githyanki gish into a class other than multiclass fighter/magic-user, and made them their own special class. Were there githyanki in 4e? In which case, my main point still stands: "They should have put this one class I liked from 4e in the new edition." I guess you'll have to homebrew something, or wait a couple years to see if it comes out in a supplement (like it did for previous editions). Or just keep playing 4e.

the melee character who uses some magic to great effect is not minor, its almost as major as the wizard.

and again I am talking about gish, not githyanki. the word at one point meant githyanki but now it does not.

I could understand not including a real gish in the PHB if every class was its own archetype and there was no room for a gish.

is there only one ranged weapon user build? only one ranged caster build? only one melee marshal build? if there is more then one of either of those then it should be replaced with a gish. the PHB should not have any redundancy of archetypes when they still lack any of the most basic of them.


You say that gish needs a new word, and I agree. Might I suggest "Mary Sue"?

is a wizard a marry sue because no fighter can cast their spells? is a fighter a mary sue because a wizard can not do their maneuvers?

[Arzanyos]

No. They become a Mary Sue when they can do both, better than those who can only do one.

[MeeposFire]

When did it become a major archetype? It hasn't existed in the core books of any edition of D&D until 4th, and even then it wasn't in the initial PHB (where you'd think the "major archetypes" would be found).

I can appreciate that this is a type of character you like, but it is not as prevalent in D&D as you seem to think. You might as well say "I'm disappointed they didn't bring over this one class from 4e that I liked" and save yourself from twenty more posts trying to explain what you think a "gish" is.

As far as fighter/magic-users, which is what a "gish" actually is (and has existed since the Elf in Basic D&D), 5e is full of possibilities for them, I think more so than any other core book.

Unless 4e has also redefined the githyanki gish into a class other than multiclass fighter/magic-user, and made them their own special class. Were there githyanki in 4e? In which case, my main point still stands: "They should have put this one class I liked from 4e in the new edition." I guess you'll have to homebrew something, or wait a couple years to see if it comes out in a supplement (like it did for previous editions). Or just keep playing 4e.

There was no gish class in 4e there was a swordmage class but it is in a splat similar to the duskblade was in 3e. What the poster wants is very specific and could probably be attainable with some additional new spells that replicates specific abilities he wants.

The description also makes it sound like that swordmages and duskblades were more equal casters and warriors but that really isn't true either. Duskblades are more warriors with the ability to use spells mostly in augmenting their melee attack. That sounds a lot like the current paladin. The swordmage sounds like it was more equal (since all of its powers are arcane even when striking with a sword) but if you actually look at its power repertoire you would see that the class operates as a warrior that can boost its melee with powers that teleport, add elemental effects, and add some status effects. For the most part I think you could do this with one of the current classes perhaps by creating a few new spells to use. The class itself does not really require anything outside of new spells as swordmage class features did not mean much outside of their defender mechanic (which could also be replicated by a spell if you really wanted).

So really what should happen is pick which base you want to use and figure out how many new spells you need to recreate what you want and go with it.

[Seerow]

No. They become a Mary Sue when they can do both, better than those who can only do one.

Please avoid intentionally insulting language.

What is being described isn't someone who fights with a sword better than a Fighter, or who casts spells better than a Wizard. It takes a special level of self delusion to believe that is what is being described or asked for. What is being described is someone who blends the two together into something distinct. While that blend produces unique effects that neither Fighter nor Wizard could do, that doesn't mean that a Gish is capable of the same stuff as the Fighter or the Wizard.

...okay maybe all the same stuff as the Fighter, but that's mostly because D&D hates giving Fighters anything unique or interesting, so it's impossible to create a competent martial combatant that doesn't do everything it does. That's a problem with the Fighter, not with the Gish concept.

[Sartharina]

fighter-mage implies someone who is both fighter and mage, a gish is neither. while I agree there could be a better term for it, fighter-mage is not it.You want a Swordmage (Pathfinder's term was Magus), not a Gish. Swordmage is the term you're looking for. Saying a Gish is anything other than a fighter/mage is wrong.


I am not aware of any good 3.x gish's correct. it was something that was only done well in 4e.

that said, they know how to do it, and the gish is a large and popular enough archetype to be worth the effort.No, Gishs weren't done at all in 4e. And a Githyanki Hybrid Fighter/Wizard sucked. Gishes were effective in AD&D (Due to only being a gestalt one or two levels behind the party) and as Elves in OD&D. They were also effective in 3e - Sorcadin/Abjurant Champions come to mind.

The power of a character is determined by campaign performance, not round-to-round performance. Ideally, a party of four Generalists can be as effective as a party of four specialists IF they all cooperate on tasks.

Paladin, Blade Pact Warlock, College of Valor Bard, Mountain Dwarf Wizard, and Eldritch Knight all provide ample options for any flavor of Gish you want.


... I wonder if D&D 5e made a mistake in not allowing spell slots to be universal like Proficiency Bonus is, and allowed noncasters to use spell slots for auxiliary functions, like boosting items.


But even then... I'd say a Competent Gish has ~d10 hit dice, proficiency with all martial weapons, a combat style, at least 6th-spell-level casting, and two attacks.


The problem with giving a Gish its own spell list is that it stops it from poaching spells from other spell lists. Sure, you may not want the wizard casting Gish Spell X - but do you really want to hold the Gish back from casting Wizard Spell Y?

Frankly, I see FIreball as a pretty iconic Gish spell.

That said - 5e isn't really friendly to True Gishes but easily could have been - unfortunately, they made the Fighter's source of level-based damage require new class features instead of scaling old ones, and Wizards also need to keep getting new class features (Higher level spell slots) for non-cantrips to scale with level.

[Caelic]

Paladin, Blade Pact Warlock, College of Valor Bard, Mountain Dwarf Wizard, and Eldritch Knight all provide ample options for any flavor of Gish you want.



If anything, I'm a little concerned that the CoV Bard will be TOO good at the job. (Particularly as an archer, unless and until the Swift Quiver issue is addressed.) About as much basic fighting power as most of the other options, with full ninth level spellcasting and expertise to boot. I love me some bards in general, but I feel like they gave the class a bit TOO much love in this edition.

[Sartharina]

Yeah... but now I'm in meandering mode.

Captpike - While words may change over time, you're using the wrong term here, and it hasn't been accepted as a whole. Use Swordmage instead of Gish. Gish, while no longer referring to Githyanki, refers to people who want fighter-style combat proficiency (Usually taken to mean "Greater than d8 HD and almost full BAB" in 3.5) and wizard spellcasting for utility. In AD&D, when wizards had fewer spells than they did in 3.5, and multiclassing was different from 3.5's mess of dips, a fighter/wizard wasn't a bad addition to a party because he could support the front line (But not take it over) while providing magical support.

D&D 5e's cantrips, revamped casting rules (No more OAs of AFS, IIRC) and universal proficiency, combined with front-loaded Combat Style, Armor Proficiencies, and cantrips, do give traditional gishes some good functionality, though.

[pwykersotz]

... I wonder if D&D 5e made a mistake in not allowing spell slots to be universal like Proficiency Bonus is, and allowed noncasters to use spell slots for auxiliary functions, like boosting items.

...This is an amazing idea. You win my internet cookie of favor.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtgS1iJROd3OFPnLV0J1TEi8K99oAEn giTH7T_XIy_VAikKDZubw

[captpike]

No. They become a Mary Sue when they can do both, better than those who can only do one.

i have said like 3 times I only want the gish to be as good as the fighter or the wizard.

again, yes the gish can do magic and weapon stuff, no they are not more powerful because they don't do the same things they work magic and weapon use together into something new.

honestly if you still don't get it I suggest you go back to first grade and learn how to read again, you obviously don't understand how to do it well enough.


a Githyanki Hybrid Fighter/Wizard sucked.

I am talking about a gish, not a Githyanki Hybrid

I am using the term correctly, you simply are holding onto how the term was started, rather then what it means today (all the matters when using it)

[Lord Raziere]

Paladin, Blade Pact Warlock, College of Valor Bard, Mountain Dwarf Wizard, and Eldritch Knight all provide ample options for any flavor of Gish you want.


So lets see:
1a. holy warrior
b. nature warrior
c. avenger
2.a fey warrior
b. infernal warrior
c. Cthulhu warrior
3. singing warrior
4. full caster with plate
5. Evocation and Abjuration warrior

Missing:
pure divination warrior that is not a dwarf
pure summoner warrior that is not a dwarf
pure illusion warrior that is not a dwarf
pure enchantment warrior that is not a dwarf
pure necromancy warrior that is not a dwarf
pure transmutation warrior that is not a dwarf
psychic warrior
Fate Warrior

Total archetypes playable: 9
Total archetypes not playable: 8

That is just the possible gish archetypes missing that I can think of off the top of my head. what we currently have is not sufficient to cover half of the archetypes I just thought of. it is too limited and needs expanding.

[Dark Tira]

So lets see:
1a. holy warrior
b. nature warrior
c. avenger
2.a fey warrior
b. infernal warrior
c. Cthulhu warrior
3. singing warrior
4. full caster with plate
5. Evocation and Abjuration warrior

Missing:
pure divination warrior that is not a dwarf
pure summoner warrior that is not a dwarf
pure illusion warrior that is not a dwarf
pure enchantment warrior that is not a dwarf
pure necromancy warrior that is not a dwarf
pure transmutation warrior that is not a dwarf
psychic warrior
Fate Warrior

Total archetypes playable: 9
Total archetypes not playable: 8

That is just the possible gish archetypes missing that I can think of off the top of my head. what we currently have is not sufficient to cover half of the archetypes I just thought of. it is too limited and needs expanding.

Is there a reason Eldritch Knight/Wizard doesn't cover these?

[Lord Raziere]

Is there a reason Eldritch Knight/Wizard doesn't cover these?

Eldritch Knight:
can only use Abjuration and Evocation. Inadequate.

Wizard: can only achieve gish status as dwarf. not flexible enough.

unless you are speaking of multiclassing, which I do not know how that works.

[Dark Tira]

Eldritch Knight:
can only use Abjuration and Evocation. Inadequate.

Wizard: can only achieve gish status as dwarf. not flexible enough.

unless you are speaking of multiclassing, which I do not know how that works.

Multiclassing combines levels for spell slots (1/3rd level for EK). Each class learns and prepares spells as single classes. It makes for a very flexible system to create gishes.

[MeeposFire]

Eldritch Knight:
can only use Abjuration and Evocation. Inadequate.

Wizard: can only achieve gish status as dwarf. not flexible enough.

unless you are speaking of multiclassing, which I do not know how that works.

Are your divinations covered by the ritual rules? If so take ritual caster as a feat and go nuts.

[Sartharina]

So lets see:
1a. holy warrior
b. nature warrior
c. avenger
2.a fey warrior
b. infernal warrior
c. Cthulhu warrior
3. singing warrior
4. full caster with plate
5. Evocation and Abjuration warrior

Missing:
pure divination warrior that is not a dwarf
pure summoner warrior that is not a dwarf
pure illusion warrior that is not a dwarf
pure enchantment warrior that is not a dwarf
pure necromancy warrior that is not a dwarf
pure transmutation warrior that is not a dwarf
psychic warrior
Fate Warrior

Total archetypes playable: 9
Total archetypes not playable: 8

That is just the possible gish archetypes missing that I can think of off the top of my head. what we currently have is not sufficient to cover half of the archetypes I just thought of. it is too limited and needs expanding.You could also play an Alternative Human wizard(Free feat to acquire weapon or armor proficiency), or Elf Wizard (Sword+Bow proficiency) wizard to be a gish, or just go the traditional path of the Gish - the multiclass Fighter/Wizard.


i have said like 3 times I only want the gish to be as good as the fighter or the wizard.

again, yes the gish can do magic and weapon stuff, no they are not more powerful because they don't do the same things they work magic and weapon use together into something new.

honestly if you still don't get it I suggest you go back to first grade and learn how to read again, you obviously don't understand how to do it well enough.



I am talking about a gish, not a Githyanki Hybrid

I am using the term correctly, you simply are holding onto how the term was started, rather then what it means today (all the matters when using it)A gish is a Githyanki Wizard/Fighter. So, I guess a fighter Multiclass wizard also could count, or wizard

Gish means Fighter-wizard - someone who uses arcane spells, and also hits things with a sword (I can't remember if they could wear armor in AD&D, but they can in 5e). You are the only person who tries defining it as something different from a fighter-wizard multiclass of some sort (And the reason we use Gish instead of Fighter-Wizard is because Fighter-Wizard is 15 letters and 4 syllables, while Gish is 4 letters and 1 syllable to mean the same thing). Gish is shorthand for something mechanically complex to combine martial and arcane power. In 4e, a Swordmage would not be a Gish - a Fighter/Ranger/Warlord/Barbarian multiclassed or hybrid to Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard (Or vice versa) for expanded options (But the math of 4e breaks such a character because of how stats scale, and how powers require feats to swap, for some reason >.<).

It's not "Voila - I am master of the magic of the sword!" - It's someone who trades the power of dedicated study of one discipline for the flexibility of dabbling in two disciplines - the The Wizard who's fighterly enough to Stab The Golem, or fighter Wizardly enough to put the enemy band of Goblins to sleep.

[MeeposFire]

In 1e a multiclass fighter/mage could cast in armor (such as an elf) but not a dual classed fighter/mage (such as a human).

In 2e neither could cast in armor unless they had a special type of armor (elven chain for instance) or something similar that allowed it. OF course there were bracers of armor which were nearly as good (or better if you were part rogue).

[Yorrin]

A gish is a Githyanki Wizard/Fighter. So, I guess a fighter Multiclass wizard also could count, or wizard
...
You are the only person who tries defining it as something different from a fighter-wizard multiclass of some sort

Sarth... that's no longer the accepted usage of the word. As has been stated, that's its origin, but gish in common usage means anyone who can cast well and fight well in melee on the same build. So COVBards are definitely a gish, as are Blade Pact Warlocks and all those other examples.

[Sartharina]

Sarth... that's no longer the accepted usage of the word. As has been stated, that's its origin, but gish in common usage means anyone who can cast well and fight well in melee on the same build. So COVBards are definitely a gish, as are Blade Pact Warlocks and all those other examples.I have sort of been acknowledging that in other posts and part of that post, dropping the Githyanki (Though I should have put that in purple or something to indicate I was being facetious). But as you stated - it's someone who can fight well in melee and cast spells on the same build - not someone who somehow combines magic and martial prowess into something else entirely.

Yes, it IS a class that has to decide whether to be a second-rate fighter or wizard each round - but his combination of being second-rate at both of those puts him back at first-rate. And - a Gish with Minor Illusion, Sleep, and Fireball feels more like a 'classic gish' than one with True Strike, Mage Armor, and Haste (And only targetting himself).

[captpike]

A gish is a Githyanki Wizard/Fighter. So, I guess a fighter Multiclass wizard also could count, or wizard

Gish means Fighter-wizard - someone who uses arcane spells, and also hits things with a sword (I can't remember if they could wear armor in AD&D, but they can in 5e). You are the only person who tries defining it as something different from a fighter-wizard multiclass of some sort (And the reason we use Gish instead of Fighter-Wizard is because Fighter-Wizard is 15 letters and 4 syllables, while Gish is 4 letters and 1 syllable to mean the same thing). Gish is shorthand for something mechanically complex to combine martial and arcane power. In 4e, a Swordmage would not be a Gish - a Fighter/Ranger/Warlord/Barbarian multiclassed or hybrid to Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard (Or vice versa) for expanded options (But the math of 4e breaks such a character because of how stats scale, and how powers require feats to swap, for some reason >.<).

It's not "Voila - I am master of the magic of the sword!" - It's someone who trades the power of dedicated study of one discipline for the flexibility of dabbling in two disciplines - the The Wizard who's fighterly enough to Stab The Golem, or fighter Wizardly enough to put the enemy band of Goblins to sleep.

a gish did mean that yes, but not anymore. I don't know if you know this but words change meaning, it's surprising I know but its true.


I have sort of been acknowledging that in other posts and part of that post, dropping the Githyanki (Though I should have put that in purple or something to indicate I was being facetious). But as you stated - it's someone who can fight well in melee and cast spells on the same build - not someone who somehow combines magic and martial prowess into something else entirely.

Yes, it IS a class that has to decide whether to be a second-rate fighter or wizard each round - but his combination of being second-rate at both of those puts him back at first-rate. And - a Gish with Minor Illusion, Sleep, and Fireball feels more like a 'classic gish' than one with True Strike, Mage Armor, and Haste (And only targetting himself).

a class that gets to choose from one round to the next what to suck at still sucks.

try playing a fighter 5/wizard 5 in 3.5 and tell me if you were as useful as a wizard 10.

[Dark Tira]

a gish did mean that yes, but not anymore. I don't know if you know this but words change meaning, it's surprising I know but its true.



a class that gets to choose from one round to the next what to suck at still sucks.

try playing a fighter 5/wizard 5 in 3.5 and tell me if you were as useful as a wizard 10.

No one has ever argued that a gish in 3.5 was ever as useful as a wizard. Might as well point out that the Variant Sorcerer type gish in 3.5 totally trounces fighters.

[Keko]

I'll stop lurking to add my 2 cents

About the "Gish" word
Is very interesting (and important) to know where this word come from but as someone stated lenguage is in costant evolution, and this happens really fast on the internet. I understand Satharina's "purist" position but I think there should be a distinction: in game and out game.

In game: people of Toril, Eberron or Whateve-random-setting-you're-playng-in will use the "Gish" word only referring to Githyanki combatants that blends their melee skills with innate psionic abilities and noone else (that this is specifically represented by wizard/fighter is because these were the tools available in older editions, even if imprecise I suppose, as magic =/= psionic even back then, but the latter had no rule implementig it. My knowledge of older editions is extremely limited though so I may be wrong).

Out game: it is undeniable that this word has expanded its meaning to include the character concept captpike is referring to (at least to my understanding of the world around me, even if my perception may be limited by my low wisdom score :smallsmile:).

You and others may not agree with that and may don't like it (and I'm fine with that, actually I could agree with you) but this is a fact (evolution is survival of the fittest not survival of the correctest :smallwink:).

I may not like calling biscuits "socks" because I want to call them "cookies" and I may be right (like in this case), but if everyone calls them "socks" I need to use this term to make myself understood by others.

Actually, after a while, "socks" will be the correct name for biscuits, that's why we're not speaking Latin any more.

This generalization (gish meaning all arcane combatants instead of Githyanki wizard/fighter) is a common phoenomenon in language: for example here in Italy "jeep" is a term referred to all cross-country vehicles, not only those produced by this specific brand, and TomTom is referred to all GPS navigation devices. It just takes something archetypal for the whole kind.

Back on Topic:
I understand captpike feeling, so I'll try to reelaborate with other words what I think he is saying.

Let's pretend wizard is blue for his mana, and Fighter is red for the blood of the enemy.

What we have is wizard, fighter, and eldritch Knight, who alternates magic and fighting, is clearly a part of the wizard innested on the fighter

What we want is the Gish (or swordmage or whatever) who mixes and blends the two arts, is made of blue and red but is neither.

Other classes are too fluff specific (I mean a Bard in its concept is a scoundrel with some magic ability, who happens to have decent melee skill, but is an extra, not the goal*) or too bland (a wizard with heavy armor proficiency doesn't get the point at all).

*Similar things can be said for rangers, warloks, paladins etc., they have a roleplaying "burden" the fighter (or this hypotetical gish/swordmage class) doesn't need and doesn't deserves.

This doesn't mean Eldritch Knight is a bad class (actually may be the one I'm most impatient to try) but is not enough, or better, not all.

As a side note I really don't get EK having evocation instead of transmutation: is ok to have some blast but the point is not having magic kill for you, but magic making you better at killing *tries not to repeat color stuff*

P.S. Darn it ended longer than expected, sorry :smallsmile:

[Dark Tira]

I'll stop lurking to add my 2 cents

Let's pretend wizard is blue for his mana, and Fighter is red for the blood of the enemy.

What we have is wizard, fighter, and eldritch Knight, who alternates magic and fighting, is clearly a part of the wizard innested on the fighter

What we want is the Gish (or swordmage or whatever) who mixes and blends the two arts, is made of blue and red but is neither.



It should be gish then since traditionally they are made up of multiple classes. A "gish" would be a single class but those tend to be inferior to an actual gish since they tend to not be as optimized and are balanced at a lower powerlevel. To avoid confusion "gishs" should probably just be called by individual classes (like swordmage, spellsword, etc) since there are very few of them and they have never been core.

[Thrudd]

I'll stop lurking to add my 2 cents

About the "Gish" word
Is very interesting (and important) to know where this word come from but as someone stated lenguage is in costant evolution, and this happens really fast on the internet. I understand Satharina's "purist" position but I think there should be a distinction: in game and out game.

In game: people of Toril, Eberron or Whateve-random-setting-you're-playng-in will use the "Gish" word only referring to Githyanki combatants that blends their melee skills with innate psionic abilities and noone else (that this is specifically represented by wizard/fighter is because these were the tools available in older editions, even if imprecise I suppose, as magic =/= psionic even back then, but the latter had no rule implementig it. My knowledge of older editions is extremely limited though so I may be wrong).



Githyanki Gish are multiclass fighter/magic users, period. At least through 3.5e. In AD&D, all Githyanki have psionic ability, which is separate from and in addition to any character class.

Also, Githzerai have fighter/magic users, too, called "zerths". Why did "gish" take off and not "zerth"? I think I'm going to start using "zerth" to refer to all fighter/magic users. "Gish" sounds like early 90's Smashing Pumpkins. So grunge/emo. And Githzerai are cooler anyway. Zerths ftw!

[Keko]

It should be gish then since traditionally they are made up of multiple classes. A "gish" would be a single class but those tend to be inferior to an actual gish since they tend to not be as optimized and are balanced at a lower powerlevel. To avoid confusion "gishs" should probably just be called by individual classes (like swordmage, spellsword, etc) since there are very few of them and they have never been core.

IMHO what matters is the result not the way. I mean, the important thing is the character concept that is rapresented (and what abilities it gains) not if it is achieved by base or prestige classes or multiclassing or a mix of these (not all editions have PrCs).
From what I understood 1st Ed elves were gishes and they were a base class as the 5th Ed EK (a mix of fighter and wizard).

Also my point is that I don't understand why they keep doing gishes when (at least in my mind) a "magi-fighter" is someone who uses magic primarily to enhance his fighting (and, once in a while, for utility stuff), not to alternate magic and fighting (so a gish, not a gish)

I mean, a ranger is not supposed to use his slots to be poors man's druid* but to use them in his unique way to enhance his fighting (magic arrows and so), nor paladin poor man's cleric*, why not gish?

*and a poor man's fighter when he doesn't use spells :smallconfused:

Because if you say a gish should alternate being poor man's wizard or poor man's fighter I just don't agree
:smallsmile:

To Thrudd: Interesting, I thought Githyanki gishes fluffwise were fighter/psion ruled as fighter/wizard as there where no psions in earlier editions

[captpike]

Githyanki Gish are multiclass fighter/magic users, period.

do you only use old english, after all everyone knows that the words we use now are incorrect, the "Real" words they come from are more important the meaning they have now

[Dark Tira]

Because if you say a gish should alternate being poor man's wizard or poor man's fighter I just don't agree
:smallsmile:



Actually I'm saying that gish is a general term used for any type of martial/spellcaster combination. If you want want to exclude gishes from the definition then you should use some other term and not try to redefine what is generally understood. Not that I particularly like the word "gish" but it is usually a convenient shorthand, except in the cases where there are dozens of posts trying to figure out what someone's problem with gishes are only to find out that he doesn't understand the term 'gish" and actually just wants a swordmage!

[captpike]

Actually I'm saying that gish is a general term used for any type of martial/spellcaster combination. If you want want to exclude gishes from the definition then you should use some other term and not try to redefine what is generally understood. Not that I particularly like the word "gish" but it is usually a convenient shorthand, except in the cases where there are dozens of posts trying to figure out what someone's problem with gishes are only to find out that he doesn't understand the term 'gish" and actually just wants a swordmage!

the biggest problem is the number of people handicapied by 3.x, they are so hung up on it being the standard, even though by any rational measure it was a horrible game, they refuse to see past it.

and of course the hypocrites who refuse to admit that the term "gish" can change meaning, but still use modern english (even though every word of modern English is change from what it meant in middle and old english)

[Grynning]

I do just want to jump in here and say something - a lot of this discussion is comparing 5E - for which we currently have 1 book, the PHB, to editions like 3.5 and 4th where we have 20+ books. While I get that the OP is saying he thinks that the archetype is central to D&D and should have been supported right off the bat, I think we need to pump the brakes and remember a couple things:
A) Not everything can fit in one book. There are a few RPG's that can pull this off, but D&D has never been one of them. If this edition is going to stick around, which I hope it does, WotC had to leave themselves some room to grow.
B) One of the goals of the PHB was to make all of the races and classes that were in the core of 3.5 and 4th represented. They were largely successful with that goal. The Warlord is the only class we didn't get because it was subsumed by the Battlemaster Fighter and the Battle College Bard.
C) No core book from the last two editions had support for a "gish" type character that didn't involve multiclassing. Despite a lot of the disagreement going on here, 5th is the only edition that actually supports hybrid arcane casting and melee from the get go, and this player's handbook probably supports more options than any previous edition's equivalent. I mean, I find it really hard to believe that someone can't make at least one character that they like with what's there. If you really don't like the lack of a no-assembly-required swordmage/spellblade/duskblade/gish/whateverthehellyouwanttocallit, keep playing 4th ed or Pathfinder that have that in their splatbooks, I guess.

[Dark Tira]

the biggest problem is the number of people handicapied by 3.x, they are so hung up on it being the standard, even though by any rational measure it was a horrible game, they refuse to see past it.

and of course the hypocrites who refuse to admit that the term "gish" can change meaning, but still use modern english (even though every word of modern English is change from what it meant in middle and old english)

Except that "gish" hasn't changed meaning. It still means both the original Githyanki definition and a slang term for any type of martial/spellcaster. You can try to commandeer the term and redefine it to your whim, but that's something that tough to make other people accept. So in other words, stop trying to make "gish" happen. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stop-trying-to-make-fetch-happen)

[Soras Teva Gee]

Seems a bit like complaining there's no psionics to me. Or minor race X or Y.

Why would one expect that in the PHB right from the get go?

[MeeposFire]

the biggest problem is the number of people handicapied by 3.x, they are so hung up on it being the standard, even though by any rational measure it was a horrible game, they refuse to see past it.

and of course the hypocrites who refuse to admit that the term "gish" can change meaning, but still use modern english (even though every word of modern English is change from what it meant in middle and old english)

It has not changed meaning in the way that you describe that is why nobody is really getting your request. You have decided that it has a much more specific meaning than most anybody I have ever seen. What you describe is an example of a specific type of gish not of the term in general and this is the problem because gish was used precisely because it was a shorthand way to describe the very general description of a warrior caster (usually arcane) and not any one particular class or build.

I am coming at this with a 4e perspective and you still make no sense to me. In 4e we did not tend to use the word gish because it was really not needed anymore as we had actual class names to work with and the generic caster warrior combo is so common that the term really lost its value.

You can try to change the meaning of a word but you shouldn't expect everybody to go with it just because you use it that way and if you haven't noticed so far you are in the vast minority in how you use therm compared to how the rest of us do.

Also there was no class like you describe in 4e iether at launch but they got one eventually why don't you give this some time and see if they give you one.

Heck right now I am thinking of making a bard that uses cantrips to attack and then uses his bonus actions to hit with a weapon every round. Seems to fit near equal casting with weapon attacks for me.

[captpike]

Except that "gish" hasn't changed meaning. It still means both the original Githyanki definition and a slang term for any type of martial/spellcaster. You can try to commandeer the term and redefine it to your whim, but that's something that tough to make other people accept. So in other words, stop trying to make "gish" happen. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/stop-trying-to-make-fetch-happen)

I am no more do that then I am trying to make home mean someplace you live.

that is what the word means now, for some same reason if I said "Doctor" it could mean male or female doctor, even though once it only meant a male doctor.

I am sorry if you all are simply ignorant of how such things work but I can not change the word to mean what you want.

even in the 4e PHB1 we have the paladin and the cleric, both allowed you use magic/weapons at the same time to great effect. much better then the 3.x solution of being bad at several things, but its ok because you got to pick what to suck at.

[MeeposFire]

I am no more do that then I am trying to make home mean someplace you live.

that is what the word means now, for some same reason if I said "Doctor" it could mean male or female doctor, even though once it only meant a male doctor.

I am sorry if you all are simply ignorant of how such things work but I can not change the word to mean what you want.

even in the 4e PHB1 we have the paladin and the cleric, both allowed you use magic/weapons at the same time to great effect. much better then the 3.x solution of being bad at several things, but its ok because you got to pick what to suck at.

I like to point out the problems of 3e but are you sure you are not just using this as a way to bash that edition when we are supposed to be talking about 5e here?

And if you thought the 4e paladin did the job for this in that edition why does not the current paladin? He casts spells and sues them to smite others. From what I hear he does not look like a bad class overall so why not use the paladin?

Also if you say that the 5e paladin is too weak make note that the PHB only paladin in 4e was also considered to be relatively weak especially at defending compared to the much more pwoerful fighter in that edition. The paladin did not become particularly good until Divine Power came out. So it may pay off to be a little bit patient.

[Arzanyos]

captpike, I sense much rage inside you. You might want to calm down.

Also, you mention a fighter5/wizard5 being worse than a wizard 10 in 3.5. That's odd, since this is not about 3.5. This is about 5e, where a wizard5/fighter5 sounds like a pretty good combo.

Lastly, you are right. the word gish has changed. It no longer refers solely to Githyanki. It now means any fighter/mage combination. But that, and no more, is the length of it's commonly excepted change.

[Falka]

So lets see:
1a. holy warrior
b. nature warrior
c. avenger
2.a fey warrior
b. infernal warrior
c. Cthulhu warrior
3. singing warrior
4. full caster with plate
5. Evocation and Abjuration warrior

Missing:
pure divination warrior that is not a dwarf
pure summoner warrior that is not a dwarf
pure illusion warrior that is not a dwarf
pure enchantment warrior that is not a dwarf
pure necromancy warrior that is not a dwarf
pure transmutation warrior that is not a dwarf
psychic warrior
Fate Warrior

Total archetypes playable: 9
Total archetypes not playable: 8

That is just the possible gish archetypes missing that I can think of off the top of my head. what we currently have is not sufficient to cover half of the archetypes I just thought of. it is too limited and needs expanding.

Have you tried Anima?

[Falka]

you mention a fighter5/wizard5 being worse than a wizard 10 in 3.5.

What, is it supposed to be the other way around? I thought that if you tried to study many things at the same time, you shouldn't be able to become an expert in both. Because otherwise, the Wizard 10 character must be really stupid if he only has studied magic when he could also wield a sword with skill with no opportunity cost whatsoever!

A gish shouldn't be as good as a Wizard of the same character level. That's just stupid. He is trying to do several stuff at the same time and so, his expertise in both fields (martial skill and arcane arts) should be more limited compared to a specialist character in one of those fields. The gish will need to resort to magic if he wishes to duel a pure Fighter of his same character level. He will not be able to invoke the same powerful effects that a Wizard can cast, but he will be better in melee combat.

[Lord Raziere]

Have you tried Anima?

Beyond Fantasy? oh yeah. have that. have you tried making a character with that? 600 build points. three different magic subsystems. whole lotta math. granted, I have made one character that actually got into a game and had fun with before it died, and sure its like only a bunch of ability checks after char creation, but its one of those games where its all frontloaded at chargen, and thus its a tiring ordeal on your mind. I can do it, but I don't relish the prospect, and character creation is one of those parts that can make or break things y'know? because you try to get new people in, and if they can't get past chargen....well. you can see the problem there.

and sure I made a second character with it that is a Duk'zarist fire/dark magic gish, but it never got into a game, even though its like totally this awesome female nordic warrior type of character concept who has to use a bronze sword cause iron causes illness to her, and is kind of trying to figure out why she is so weird and supernatural. man, I wish I could play her someday.

[Millennium]

do you only use old english, after all everyone knows that the words we use now are incorrect, the "Real" words they come from are more important the meaning they have now
There is linguistic evolution, and there is rank ignorance. Your arguments might carry more weight if they weren't such a transparent attempt to paint the second in the colors of the first.

[Sartharina]

a gish did mean that yes, but not anymore. I don't know if you know this but words change meaning, it's surprising I know but its true.Yes, Gish has lost the "Githyanki" race requirement, and as of 3e no longer requires a specific Arcane Caster Class or Specific Martial Combat class. It still requires Good HD, Extra Attacks, and At Least 6th-level Spellcasting




a class that gets to choose from one round to the next what to suck at still sucks.

try playing a fighter 5/wizard 5 in 3.5 and tell me if you were as useful as a wizard 10.First off - you're looking at it wrong. Of course a Fighter 5/Wizard 5 (Actually, you want to go some PrC multiclassing monstrosity in 3.5) isn't as effective at being a Wizard as a Wizard 10, and because of how broken 3.5 is, it's arguably not as good at being a Fighter as a Wizard 10 is... however, it's a MUCH better wizard than a Fighter 10 is, and THAT'S the important distinction. And, it might be a better Fighter than a Fighter 10 is, because of how broken 3.5 is. (Our Wizard/Fighter hybrid has just as many attacks as a fighter, but at -3 to-hit, yet also has 3rd level spellcasting.)

Something that bothers me about the 3.5 Char Op atomosphere is the doublethink involved by trying to accept two truths:
1. A spellcaster can punch well above its weight
2. Anyone who casts spells is a spellcaster and CANNOT SACRIFICE Caster Levels.

Out game: it is undeniable that this word has expanded its meaning to include the character concept captpike is referring to (at least to my understanding of the world around me, even if my perception may be limited by my low wisdom score :smallsmile:).

You and others may not agree with that and may don't like it (and I'm fine with that, actually I could agree with you) but this is a fact (evolution is survival of the fittest not survival of the correctest :smallwink:).

I may not like calling biscuits "socks" because I want to call them "cookies" and I may be right (like in this case), but if everyone calls them "socks" I need to use this term to make myself understood by others.

Actually, after a while, "socks" will be the correct name for biscuits, that's why we're not speaking Latin any more.Except nobody but Captpike is calling Cookies/Biscuits "socks", and everyone else is calling them Biscuits or Cookies.


This generalization (gish meaning all arcane combatants instead of Githyanki wizard/fighter) is a common phoenomenon in language: for example here in Italy "jeep" is a term referred to all cross-country vehicles, not only those produced by this specific brand, and TomTom is referred to all GPS navigation devices. It just takes something archetypal for the whole kind.[/SPOILER]But those Lost Brand Names still refer to cross-country vehicles and GPS devices. Captpike's stance is like calling an ATV or Dune Buggy a Jeep, or Cell Phone a TomTom.

Back on Topic:
I understand captpike feeling, so I'll try to reelaborate with other words what I think he is saying.

Let's pretend wizard is blue for his mana, and Fighter is red for the blood of the enemy.

What we have is wizard, fighter, and eldritch Knight, who alternates magic and fighting, is clearly a part of the wizard innested on the fighter


What we want is the Gish (or swordmage or whatever) who mixes and blends the two arts, is made of blue and red but is neither.

Other classes are too fluff specific (I mean a Bard in its concept is a scoundrel with some magic ability, who happens to have decent melee skill, but is an extra, not the goal*) or too bland (a wizard with heavy armor proficiency doesn't get the point at all).

*Similar things can be said for rangers, warloks, paladins etc., they have a roleplaying "burden" the fighter (or this hypotetical gish/swordmage class) doesn't need and doesn't deserves.

This doesn't mean Eldritch Knight is a bad class (actually may be the one I'm most impatient to try) but is not enough, or better, not all.

As a side note I really don't get EK having evocation instead of transmutation: is ok to have some blast but the point is not having magic kill for you, but magic making you better at killing *tries not to repeat color stuff*

P.S. Darn it ended longer than expected, sorry :smallsmile:As others have pointed out, It's Gish, Gish, or Gish, or, at most, Gish. If you have complete blending, then it's Swordmage.

A fighter with Evocation is a Tank in the MBT sense, not MMO sense. He doesn't use Magic to make himself better at fighting - he uses Fighting to make himself better at Fighting. He uses Magic to make him better at Being Magical.
Missing:
pure divination warrior that is not a dwarf
pure summoner warrior that is not a dwarf
pure illusion warrior that is not a dwarf
pure enchantment warrior that is not a dwarf
pure necromancy warrior that is not a dwarf
pure transmutation warrior that is not a dwarf
psychic warrior
Fate Warrior
Psychic warrior will be available when we get Psionics.

Pure Necromancy Warrior that's not a Dwarf is called Cleric, or possibly Blackguard.
Pure Divination Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Warlock or Bard that grabs Divination spells.
Pure Illusion warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Bard that grabs Illusions.
Pure Enchantment Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Bard that grabs Enchantments.
Pure transmutation Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Warlock that grabs Transmutation spells
Pure Summoner Warrior that's not a dwarf is a Warlock that grabs Conjuration spells.

And the only reason you want "Pure (School of Magic) Warrior" is because schools of magic are called out for the sake of Wizard Subclasses, and legacy. You also can't have a Pure Wildmagic Warrior that's not a Dwarf, or a Pure DragonMagic warrior that's not a Dwarf, or a Pure Champion Wizard, or Pure Battlemaster Wizard, or Pure Lightbringer Wizard, or Pure Healing Warrior, or Pure Healing Wizard, or Pure Thief Fighter, or Pure Thief Wizard, or Pure Assassin Fighter, or Pure Assassin Wizard or Pure Cleric Rogue or Pure Rager Rogue or...

[captpike]

What, is it supposed to be the other way around? I thought that if you tried to study many things at the same time, you shouldn't be able to become an expert in both. Because otherwise, the Wizard 10 character must be really stupid if he only has studied magic when he could also wield a sword with skill with no opportunity cost whatsoever!

A gish shouldn't be as good as a Wizard of the same character level. That's just stupid. He is trying to do several stuff at the same time and so, his expertise in both fields (martial skill and arcane arts) should be more limited compared to a specialist character in one of those fields. The gish will need to resort to magic if he wishes to duel a pure Fighter of his same character level. He will not be able to invoke the same powerful effects that a Wizard can cast, but he will be better in melee combat.

you are suppose to be equal, otherwise the gish build serves no purpose.

they should not be able to do everything a fighter can, nor everything a wizard can.

again a gish needs to be more then someone who can pick what to suck at from one round to another.

[Sartharina]

you are suppose to be equal, otherwise the gish build serves no purpose.

they should not be able to do everything a fighter can, nor everything a wizard can.

again a gish needs to be more then someone who can pick what to suck at from one round to another.Nah. He's just choosing what he sucks less at being one round to another. A wizard that an adventure thrusts into needing to be a fighter sucks really hard. Same with a fighter who gets thrust into needing to be a wizard. Also - a character's effectiveness isn't measured against their round-by-round performance, but through their performance across an entire campaign.

[Soras Teva Gee]

you are suppose to be equal, otherwise the gish build serves no purpose.

they should not be able to do everything a fighter can, nor everything a wizard can.

again a gish needs to be more then someone who can pick what to suck at from one round to another.

Your first and second sentences operate as direct contradictions of one another.

If you can't do everything a Fighter can you're not equal, if you can't do everything a Wizard can you aren't equal. A Wizard and Fighter aren't equivalent anymore then apples are equal to oranges, they are very different fruits even if you have the same number. Of course at the same time having 10 apples and oranges when everyone else has only either 10 apples or oranges is still clearly getting much more for no sacrifice.

The challenge of the Gish is finding a hypothetical sweet spot where having fewer (and therefore unequal) numbers of both apples and oranges is almost as good as having more of either one. This is still never going to be equal, and that "almost" is easier said then done. Unless you accept a Gish "should" just be flat out better.

[Sartharina]

The problem with 3.5 was that a Fighter 5/Wizard 5 isn't a 50% Fighter/50% Wizard (Which is just as effective as a 100% fighter or 100% wizard), but ~35% Fighter, 25% wizard, due to power level/effectiveness doubling every two levels in the game's math (Fighter gets bonuses because Wizard provides HP, BAB, and a few Bonus Feats to the Fighter)

[pwykersotz]

Your first and second sentences operate as direct contradictions of one another.

If you can't do everything a Fighter can you're not equal, if you can't do everything a Wizard can you aren't equal. A Wizard and Fighter aren't equivalent anymore then apples are equal to oranges, they are very different fruits even if you have the same number. Of course at the same time having 10 apples and oranges when everyone else has only either 10 apples or oranges is still clearly getting much more for no sacrifice.

The challenge of the Gish is finding a hypothetical sweet spot where having fewer (and therefore unequal) numbers of both apples and oranges is almost as good as having more of either one. This is still never going to be equal, and that "almost" is easier said then done. Unless you accept a Gish "should" just be flat out better.

I normally don't agree with captpike, but I do here. I can see it being hard to initially create and balance, but it should be very possible. Every class is (theoretically) balanced according to damage, versatility, and other factors. The idea is that a gish would be able to compete with these other characters the way a Level 10 Wizard and a Level 10 Barbarian would be on the same playing field. Then make sure that their abilities feed each other and synergize, exactly unlike the 3.5 Monk. Bam. Gish class.

[Sartharina]

Actually - you don't need their abilities to synergize and feed each other - that gives a chance of giving you 120% of a character if you manage to balance the two 'halves' to give you a 100% character alone (Again - 3e had a math problem where 2 levels = double power, meaning dual-classing came at tremendous cost, and why the most effective PRC Gish monstrosities only sacrifice two levels of Full BAB+HD Fightery Goodness and 2 levels of Caster - giving them a 50% Fighter/50% Caster character).

[pwykersotz]

Actually - you don't need their abilities to synergize and feed each other - that gives a chance of giving you 120% of a character if you manage to balance the two 'halves' to give you a 100% character alone (Again - 3e had a math problem where 2 levels = double power, meaning dual-classing came at tremendous cost, and why the most effective PRC Gish monstrosities only sacrifice two levels of Full BAB+HD Fightery Goodness and 2 levels of Caster - giving them a 50% Fighter/50% Caster character).

:smallsigh: The idea is that when the abilities DO synergize and feed each other then you end up with 100%. Naturally you don't want expected use of the abilities to make you vastly more powerful than everyone else.

Shoutout to obryn's skeletons.

:smallwink:

[Sartharina]

:smallsigh: The idea is that when the abilities DO synergize and feed each other then you end up with 100%. Naturally you don't want expected use of the abilities to make you vastly more powerful than everyone else.Synergy glue needs to be taken separately when designing a character concept. Someone who's Synergy between two abilities accounts for 20% of that character's power means he's only a fraction of 80%, not 100%, when using either side independently (Such as a 40% Fighter, 40% Wizard). Meanwhile, if you have ability discord instead, detracting from the effectiveness of a power, you can, while designing the class, put more power into the two halves, so you can be, say, a 60% fighter when just being a fighter, and 60% wizard when just being a wizard, but the discord leaves you at 100% when being a Fighter Wizard.

[pwykersotz]

Synergy glue needs to be taken separately when designing a character concept. Someone who's Synergy between two abilities accounts for 20% of that character's power means he's only a fraction of 80%, not 100%, when using either side independently (Such as a 40% Fighter, 40% Wizard). Meanwhile, if you have ability discord instead, detracting from the effectiveness of a power, you can, while designing the class, put more power into the two halves, so you can be, say, a 60% fighter when just being a fighter, and 60% wizard when just being a wizard, but the discord leaves you at 100% when being a Fighter Wizard.

This is desired. The ideal is that most times one can use ones abilities in synergy. The rare times you cannot, you can still function as a partial member of one of your two parent classes.

[Lord Raziere]

Psychic warrior will be available when we get Psionics.

Pure Necromancy Warrior that's not a Dwarf is called Cleric, or possibly Blackguard.
Pure Divination Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Warlock or Bard that grabs Divination spells.
Pure Illusion warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Bard that grabs Illusions.
Pure Enchantment Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Bard that grabs Enchantments.
Pure transmutation Warrior that's not a Dwarf is a Warlock that grabs Transmutation spells
Pure Summoner Warrior that's not a dwarf is a Warlock that grabs Conjuration spells.

And the only reason you want "Pure (School of Magic) Warrior" is because schools of magic are called out for the sake of Wizard Subclasses, and legacy. You also can't have a Pure Wildmagic Warrior that's not a Dwarf, or a Pure DragonMagic warrior that's not a Dwarf, or a Pure Champion Wizard, or Pure Battlemaster Wizard, or Pure Lightbringer Wizard, or Pure Healing Warrior, or Pure Healing Wizard, or Pure Thief Fighter, or Pure Thief Wizard, or Pure Assassin Fighter, or Pure Assassin Wizard or Pure Cleric Rogue or Pure Rager Rogue or...

1. Too divine
2. too tied to singing or various outer entities
3. too tied to singing
4. too tied to singing
5. too tied to various outer entities
6. too tied to various outer entities

by gods, your right! thanks, you really expanded the list!

[Sartharina]

This is desired. The ideal is that most times one can use ones abilities in synergy. The rare times you cannot, you can still function as a partial member of one of your two parent classes.
But it really, really sucks when you find yourself in a situation where one of your parent classes are completely disabled, and you suddenly find yourself fighting as 40% of a Fighter, more likely, casting as a 40% wizard.
1. Too divine
2. too tied to singing or various outer entities
3. too tied to singing
4. too tied to singing
5. too tied to various outer entities
6. too tied to various outer entities

by gods, your right! thanks, you really expanded the list!

Magic is all about outer entities. And you are WAY overstating the role of singing on a bard.

[pwykersotz]

But it really, really sucks when you find yourself in a situation where one of your parent classes are completely disabled, and you suddenly find yourself fighting as 40% of a Fighter, more likely, casting as a 40% wizard.

Agreed. But it's like the Wizard / Antimagic Field argument. It probably shouldn't come up too often, but when it does, aren't you glad you have some fighting skills to rely on?

[Soras Teva Gee]

The problem with 3.5 was that a Fighter 5/Wizard 5 isn't a 50% Fighter/50% Wizard (Which is just as effective as a 100% fighter or 100% wizard), but ~35% Fighter, 25% wizard, due to power level/effectiveness doubling every two levels in the game's math (Fighter gets bonuses because Wizard provides HP, BAB, and a few Bonus Feats to the Fighter)

Near as I can tell D&D has never been such where 20 level 1 characters could take 1 level 20 character with any regularity. Well general rule I'm sure something could be cheesed up but that's not an everyday play sort of thing.

Point being its always been rather threshold oriented where below that you sink to useless. And there's virtue to that as its harder to argue your this legendary hero if you can't carve through legion of mooks like every fictional hero ever.

So for a Gish you always need something that next to like a Fighter 10 or a Wizard 10 has 7-8 of each to be modestly effective but not useless at both. Or is some kind of hybrid case using the two together to close the gap.


I normally don't agree with captpike, but I do here. I can see it being hard to initially create and balance, but it should be very possible. Every class is (theoretically) balanced according to damage, versatility, and other factors. The idea is that a gish would be able to compete with these other characters the way a Level 10 Wizard and a Level 10 Barbarian would be on the same playing field. Then make sure that their abilities feed each other and synergize, exactly unlike the 3.5 Monk. Bam. Gish class.

Except that on its own is still fundamentally flawed because you different classes that have different mechanics and have different purposes.

You can't be equally good at two different purposes and still reach the collective delusion of balance, you're better because your 1 character can do 2 things as well as 2 characters can do 2 things. Everyone "should" cut the party in half numerically or double their ability to do everything with the same numbers.

This is why I think a lot of synergizing classes have tended to go with being a "Fighter via magic" as their synergy, you fight essentially as well, or better, then a Fighter but you do it with different means. You solve the dilemma by picking a single purpose to fulfill. Which if you are still balanced will involve considerable sacrifice to other things you could have done.

(Also since conceptually magic can do anything its easier to make a caster into something else. And why wizards are probably getting more encouraged to specialize but that's all another matter...)

Otherwise you have to be less effective then the specialists, but hope that's good enough most of the time.

[Lord Raziere]

But it really, really sucks when you find yourself in a situation where one of your parent classes are completely disabled, and you suddenly find yourself fighting as 40% of a Fighter, more likely, casting as a 40% wizard.

Magic is all about outer entities. And you are WAY overstating the role of singing on a bard.

No, summoning and necromancy is about outer entities. everything else is yourself.

the singing is still there. its not a universal chassis class, its a specific concept class like the paladin, it doesn't work for other concepts unless you include "inexplicably sings magical songs out of nowhere" in the concept! it clashes completely with an illusionist warrior who was warrior in the military and had no time of any of that stupid singing, busy using illusions to turn the battlefield in his favor.

[pwykersotz]

Near as I can tell D&D has never been such where 20 level 1 characters could take 1 level 20 character with any regularity. Well general rule I'm sure something could be cheesed up but that's not an everyday play sort of thing.

Point being its always been rather threshold oriented where below that you sink to useless. And there's virtue to that as its harder to argue your this legendary hero if you can't carve through legion of mooks like every fictional hero ever.

So for a Gish you always need something that next to like a Fighter 10 or a Wizard 10 has 7-8 of each to be modestly effective but not useless at both. Or is some kind of hybrid case using the two together to close the gap.



Except that on its own is still fundamentally flawed because you different classes that have different mechanics and have different purposes.

You can't be equally good at two different purposes and still reach the collective delusion of balance, you're better because your 1 character can do 2 things as well as 2 characters can do 2 things. Everyone "should" cut the party in half numerically or double their ability to do everything with the same numbers.

This is why I think a lot of synergizing classes have tended to go with being a "Fighter via magic" as their synergy, you fight essentially as well, or better, then a Fighter but you do it with different means. You solve the dilemma by picking a single purpose to fulfill. Which if you are still balanced will involve considerable sacrifice to other things you could have done.

(Also since conceptually magic can do anything its easier to make a caster into something else. And why wizards are probably getting more encouraged to specialize but that's all another matter...)

Otherwise you have to be less effective then the specialists, but hope that's good enough most of the time.

This is where we diverge. If you read my above conversation with Sartharina, the goal is not to have a class with (for example) 9th level casting and 3 extra attacks. Its to have defining class features that perhaps use new mechanics to create effects that are perhaps not as versatile as 9th level casting nor as damaging as a fighter's full attack, but that has it's own place.

As I mentioned upthread, the Paladin's Smite is an excellent example of this. captpike seems to want more classes with features like this, and I find myself in agreement that there easily could be and maybe even should be.

[Dark Tira]

This is where we diverge. If you read my above conversation with Sartharina, the goal is not to have a class with (for example) 9th level casting and 3 extra attacks. Its to have defining class features that perhaps use new mechanics to create effects that are perhaps not as versatile as 9th level casting nor as damaging as a fighter's full attack, but that has it's own place.

As I mentioned upthread, the Paladin's Smite is an excellent example of this. captpike seems to want more classes with features like this, and I find myself in agreement that there easily could be and maybe even should be.

Actually, Paladin Gishes are the perfect example of where captpike gets completely off base, smite is already effectively a gish class feature to whoever want to build gish with smite. A paladin 11/Sorcerer 9 is a fantastic gish that has access to improved divine smite, gets elemental weapon, 7th level spell slot, and elemental affinity which all combine in a very synergistic way that no single class can duplicate.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is where we diverge. If you read my above conversation with Sartharina, the goal is not to have a class with (for example) 9th level casting and 3 extra attacks. Its to have defining class features that perhaps use new mechanics to create effects that are perhaps not as versatile as 9th level casting nor as damaging as a fighter's full attack, but that has it's own place.

As I mentioned upthread, the Paladin's Smite is an excellent example of this. captpike seems to want more classes with features like this, and I find myself in agreement that there easily could be and maybe even should be.

And I'm telling you what that actually means.

You are either less effective at 2 purposes (eg: 7th level casting, 2 attacks) but it doesn't matter often enough to be useless, or you are actually fulfilling 1 purpose (eg: 2 attacks + 1 Haste attack = 3 attacks, screw casting level) via some different means. Or are equally good at 2 purposes (9th level casting, 3 attacks) which most will call broken.

It all boils down to that though I did over simplify (eg: 1 BIG attack = 3 attacks) the potential variation the underlying points don't change from that, there simply aren't other options while still proscribing to the vague set of expectations that are balance.

So sounds like you aren't actually in disagreement with me you just aren't following your own implications.

[pwykersotz]

Actually, Paladin Gishes are the perfect example of where captpike gets completely off base, smite is already effectively a gish class feature to whoever want to build gish with smite. A paladin 11/Sorcerer 9 is a fantastic gish that has access to improved divine smite, gets elemental weapon, 7th level spell slot, and elemental affinity which all combine in a very synergistic way that no single class can duplicate.

There ya go then. :smallsmile: I was mostly trying to understand the vehement naysayers who said such a thing wasn't possible.


And I'm telling you what that actually means.

You are either less effective at 2 purposes (eg: 7th level casting, 2 attacks) but it doesn't matter often enough to be useless, or you are actually fulfilling 1 purpose (eg: 2 attacks + 1 Haste attack = 3 attacks, screw casting level) via some different means. Or are equally good at 2 purposes (9th level casting, 3 attacks) which most will call broken.

It all boils down to that though I did over simplify (eg: 1 BIG attack = 3 attacks) the potential variation the underlying points don't change from that, there simply aren't other options while still proscribing to the vague set of expectations that are balance.

So sounds like you aren't actually in disagreement with me you just aren't following your own implications.

I'm not in total disgreement with you, no. The things you say are definitely possible. It's just there are options you aren't considering.

Take damage for example. Say the balance point for the level you're shooting for is, on average, 30 DPR. The fighter can do 30 DPR. The Wizard can do 20 DPR, but can do it to multiple enemies at range a limited number of times per day. A Gish might be able to do 25 to adjacent enemies.

Now take damage types. The Fighter does bludgeoning/slashing/piercing. The Wizard does the various magical damage types. The Gish could perhaps apply the magic damage type to a weapon.

Now take battlefield control. The Fighter can use Shove, Grapple, and taking HP. The Wizard can Maze or Hold Person. Perhaps the Gish could use whips of fire to entangle a limited number of foes.

These examples are by no means exhaustive, and fairly off the cuff. You can come up with new mechanics. They can be played on the same field as Mundane or Magical. They don't have to be locked down to doing either two things as well or two things worse.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'm not in total disgreement with you, no. The things you say are definitely possible. It's just there are options you aren't considering.


I considered them and disregarded them

If you have 5 purposes and 3 classess then you can indeed achieve a different mix between the three. This doesn't change the basic conflict of the Gish as a Fighter/Mage sharing purposes, its avoiding it by making it a distinct class in its own right.

Which can be a reasonable solution for gameplay but runs the risk of not being what somebody wanting a gestalt was looking for.

[pwykersotz]

I considered them and disregarded them

If you have 5 purposes and 3 classes then you can indeed achieve a different mix between the three. This doesn't change the basic conflict of the Gish as a Fighter/Mage sharing purposes, its avoiding it by making it a distinct class in its own right.

Which can be a reasonable solution for gameplay but runs the risk of not being what somebody wanting a gestalt was looking for.

Ah, that would have been good to know earlier. Since we have baselines, I guess there's no more for me to say on it that would be productive. Good discussion. :smallsmile:

[rlc]

Your first and second sentences operate as direct contradictions of one another.


well, no, they're not. what he's saying is that the swordmage (or a multiclassed fighter-wizard) should be just as good as a pure fighter or wizard in general, not that they should be just as good at each particular skill. he's not saying that a level 10 swordmage should be as good at fighting as a level 10 fighter or as good at casting as a level 10 wizard, but just that he thinks they should be able to compete.
that being said, i am of the opinion that we already have this stuff in the game (at least in terms of single classes and i don't care about multiclassing) and it's not about a need for new classes in order to make this work, but it would nice if we had more classes that make this work. but that's for another book.

[Keko]

What I mean (and what I suppose also pwykersotz meant) is that we already have
-paladin, which is conceptually fighter+cleric but with his own niche (unique spells, smite, lay on hands, divine grace)
-bard, which is conceptually sorcerer+rogue but again with unique spells, bardic music etc.
-ranger which is conceptually fighter+druid but has unique spells, animal companion (at least in 5th edition)
why not a *random-cool-name* which is conceptually a fighter+wizard with his own niche (unique spells, spellstrike/whatever)?

If hybrid concept classes are not worth having their own features I agree they should not exist. Why bother playing a paladin that is a shade of both cleric and fighter coolness, who feels inferior both when casting and when fighting?

Just play a multiclass. Actually every class concept can be achieved by multiclassing only fighter-caster-expert in various way so no other class is needed.

Next step is switching to a class-less game like Vampire TM or Mutants and Masterminds, which is not wrong, is just another game :smallsmile:.

That's why I say a *random-cool-name-fighter/wizard-hybrid-with-his-own-niche* is worth existing.
5th Ed EK is cool but is not that, is just a multiclass-in-a-can.

[Ivellius]

well, no, they're not. what he's saying is that the swordmage (or a multiclassed fighter-wizard) should be just as good as a pure fighter or wizard in general, not that they should be just as good at each particular skill. he's not saying that a level 10 swordmage should be as good at fighting as a level 10 fighter or as good at casting as a level 10 wizard, but just that he thinks they should be able to compete.
that being said, i am of the opinion that we already have this stuff in the game (at least in terms of single classes and i don't care about multiclassing) and it's not about a need for new classes in order to make this work, but it would nice if we had more classes that make this work. but that's for another book.

Actually, captpike is suggesting that the "swordmage" should be as good at fighting or as good at casting as a comparable fighter or wizard, considering one criticism is "I don't want a class that gets to be worse at those things than the full class." The thing is, magic in 3e and 5e is so versatile that you can't really give a character magic that only does X, Y, or Z unique (that isn't also available to other magic-using characters). That's more of a systemic flaw.

Glad you do agree that there are some already, though.


What I mean (and what I suppose also pwykersotz meant) is that we already have
-paladin, which is conceptually fighter+cleric but with his own niche (unique spells, smite, lay on hands, divine grace)
-bard, which is conceptually sorcerer+rogue but again with unique spells, bardic music etc.
-ranger which is conceptually fighter+druid but has unique spells, animal companion (at least in 5th edition)
why not a *random-cool-name* which is conceptually a fighter+wizard with his own niche (unique spells, spellstrike/whatever)?


There are unique options available, though. My book should be arriving today, but isn't the Blade Warlock essentially a fighter+wizard with a unique mechanic? (I'm not entirely clear about how the warlock options work yet.) And a College of Valor Bard is arcane + martial class with unique abilities. "But what about the singing?" What, fighters can't shout encouragement to their allies? Even the Elemental Monk mixes martial and magical skills, though admittedly with an "Eastern" flavor.

The problem isn't that the Player's Handbook has no representatives from this archetype--captpikeis just looking for an incredibly specific niche (4e Swordmage) in the first book published for the new edition and not the more generic "gish."

[rlc]

Actually, captpike is suggesting that the "swordmage" should be as good at fighting or as good at casting as a comparable fighter or wizard, considering one criticism is "I don't want a class that gets to be worse at those things than the full class."

difference of interpretation, maybe. i guess he's the only one who can confirm (but he tends to be all over the place in his arguments).
but, either way, i think we already have a few classes that are equal overall to the full fighters and casters. some people would even argue that we have at least one or two classes that are equal in both categories to the full versions.

[Ivellius]

difference of interpretation, maybe. i guess he's the only one who can confirm (but he tends to be all over the place in his arguments).
but, either way, i think we already have a few classes that are equal overall to the full fighters and casters. some people would even argue that we have at least one or two classes that are equal in both categories to the full versions.

Agreed. I was going off this comment:


a class that gets to choose from one round to the next what to suck at still sucks.

But yeah, there are plenty of options within this 12-class system, both in mixing spells and swords and doing unique things with their own niches.

[Malifice]

But yeah, there are plenty of options within this 12-class system, both in mixing spells and swords and doing unique things with their own niches.

This.

Between Bards, Eldrich Knights, Bladelocks, and Multiclassing I dont think we have ever seen so much support for Gishes in a core DnD PHB.

Even Monks can spam spellcasting with Ki now, and Rogues and Fighters get a spellcasting option out of the can.

[Soras Teva Gee]

This.

Between Bards, Eldrich Knights, Bladelocks, and Multiclassing I dont think we have ever seen so much support for Gishes in a core DnD PHB.

Even Monks can spam spellcasting with Ki now, and Rogues and Fighters get a spellcasting option out of the can.

Also if I'm understanding the way Proficiency works its fairly easy with feat/racial abilities to pick up weapons and armor for a casting class at no actual penalty and the same base to-hit bonus. No extra attacks and buffing is a lot harder now but its not active discrimination in need of a special class just to wear martial gear now.

There may not be an exact sweet spot for every desire (yet) but there are ample options for spell and sword on a single character

[Sartharina]

No, summoning and necromancy is about outer entities. everything else is yourself.

the singing is still there. its not a universal chassis class, its a specific concept class like the paladin, it doesn't work for other concepts unless you include "inexplicably sings magical songs out of nowhere" in the concept! it clashes completely with an illusionist warrior who was warrior in the military and had no time of any of that stupid singing, busy using illusions to turn the battlefield in his favor.Actuallly... I think I see where you're coming from, and apologize. No, I don't get why the Eldritch Knight's spell selection is restricted to two specific schools either. And, if anything, I'm concerned that they don't give fighters the freedom to choose two of their own schools, because it implies the schools aren't equal in power. In any games I run, I'd rule the EK can grab any two schools, and request the same for any games I'm in.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Actuallly... I think I see where you're coming from, and apologize. No, I don't get why the Eldritch Knight's spell selection is restricted to two specific schools either. And, if anything, I'm concerned that they don't give fighters the freedom to choose two of their own schools, because it implies the schools aren't equal in power. In any games I run, I'd rule the EK can grab any two schools, and request the same for any games I'm in.

It is easier to ensure your intentions on how the build works mechanically are followed that way.

And D&D classes have also never been purely mechanical contrivances, but generally including some thematic story elements to them that tell you about your character's life.

[captpike]

Actually, Paladin Gishes are the perfect example of where captpike gets completely off base, smite is already effectively a gish class feature to whoever want to build gish with smite. A paladin 11/Sorcerer 9 is a fantastic gish that has access to improved divine smite, gets elemental weapon, 7th level spell slot, and elemental affinity which all combine in a very synergistic way that no single class can duplicate.

except such things need to work from level 1, making someone wait half the game to play what they want to play (a major problem of PRC's) is a non-starter

also you all are assuming that a gish would just be somewhere between a fighter and a wizard, he should not be there. he should be doing his own thing in the same way a fighter is, or a wizard is.


difference of interpretation, maybe. i guess he's the only one who can confirm (but he tends to be all over the place in his arguments).
but, either way, i think we already have a few classes that are equal overall to the full fighters and casters. some people would even argue that we have at least one or two classes that are equal in both categories to the full versions.

he is quite correct.

and no, I am quite consistent in my views its just that I only use logic and reason. Not nostalgia and assumptions (like that someone only makes the best decisions just because he works for Wotc)

[Sartharina]

also you all are assuming that a gish would just be somewhere between a fighter and a wizard, he should not be there. he should be doing his own thing in the same way a fighter is, or a wizard is....No, that's NOT what a Gish is. A Gish is a shorthand way of saying "Soldier-Spellcaster" (To cut away specific class names), because it's One Syllable to say and Four Characters to write, as opposed to Four(Fighter-Wizard) or Five (Soldier-Spellcaster) Syllables to say and Fifteen or Seventeen characters to write. If you try re-defining Gish as something other than Soldier-Spellcaster, then we go back to needing a new easy-to-use word that's less of a mouthful to say or handful to type than Soldier-Spellcaster. And, you divorce Gish away from its commonly-accepted definition.


and no, I am quite consistent in my views its just that I only use logic and reason. Not nostalgia and assumptions (like that someone only makes the best decisions just because he works for Wotc)No, you don't. You use the same brand of (And insistence of your use of) "logic" and "reason" Brian Hall used in making and defending his famous RPG.

[Ivellius]

he is quite correct.

and no, I am quite consistent in my views its just that I only use logic and reason. Not nostalgia and assumptions (like that someone only makes the best decisions just because he works for Wotc)

Well, I'm glad you agree that we have some classes that fit what you think we should have. Glad everyone could help you with that.

[rlc]

he is quite correct.

and no, I am quite consistent in my views its just that I only use logic and reason. Not nostalgia and assumptions (like that someone only makes the best decisions just because he works for Wotc)

you must have a different definition of these words than i do. "logic and reason" implies that you read things and think about them, not that you disregard everything that everybody says, regardless of how much sense it makes.
and you're obviously nostalgic for 4e. that's not a bad thing, but it is what it is.