Group Project Time: Gish Handbook

[CyberThread]

I think with how many questions we get as a forum, we need to pool togeather and do a Gish Handbook, of all the various divine and arcane melee caster options. It is a rather huge project, that I think would be better done as a group then a single person trying to do it solo.


CURRENT TOPIC


Chapter 1: What makes a gish, what should we cover. Lets agree on what counts as a gish before we divy up who may do what yet.

[Rfkannen]

Sounds like a worthy goal. Personally I have been trying to figure out bladelocks, and so far I have come up with around 50 ideas for bladelocks that could be put as bad ideas in the guide.


So how would you set up this guide?

[CyberThread]

The way I look at it the following classes/sublcasses qualify.


Pact of Blade Warlock, College of Valor Bard, Eldritch Knight Fighter, Paladins , Rangers.

[Yorrin]

Sounds good to me. Perhaps different writers could each contribute a chapter on a single class, with somebody covering multiclassing (as opposed to simply dips- e.g. Fighter2/Wizard 18 would be covered under Wizard) and somebody covering a general introduction section to Gishes and general Gish principles (which would probably be written last after reflecting on the individual class sections).


Pact of Blade Warlock, College of Valor Bard, Eldritch Knight Fighter, Paladins , Rangers.

Cleric, Druid, and Wizard could all be built as Gishes as well (and maybe Sorcerers? Haven't looked into it)

[Rfkannen]

Adding on to yorin I would say that a arcane trickster may qualify. Also a sorcerrer can work.... kinda

[Zweisteine]

The first-level feature of Dragon Sorcerers is very conducive to gishing, especially at low levels.

My quick, not-optimized, gish build would be Warlock 12/Sorc 8. I'd guess this build peaks around level 10 with Warlock 5/Sorcerer 5.

[mabriss lethe]

Start with a clear definition of the qualities that make a gish in 5e.
An example of suitable criteria might be:

-Better than average physical attack options
-Some degree of non-ritual spellcasting
-Class features that enable the use of both of the above
-Reliable method for high Armor Class.

With even these definitions both the Way of Shadow and Way of Elements monks could qualify somewhere on the gish spectrum.

[MeeposFire]

Start with a clear definition of the qualities that make a gish in 5e.
An example of suitable criteria might be:

-Better than average physical attack options
-Some degree of non-ritual spellcasting
-Class features that enable the use of both of the above
-Reliable method for high Armor Class.

With even these definitions both the Way of Shadow and Way of Elements monks could qualify somewhere on the gish spectrum.

This is an important consideration because classically "gish" is supposed to be a fighter/mage, others link it it to arcane magic only, and others expand it to anybody that casts spells of some sort and uses weapons.

Heck at times in 3e I remember people saying a fighter/mage was not a gish if he was a blaster. I personally found that silly but that is how different people can see this ill defined term. What exactly are we using as the definition of gish in this discussion?

[Yorrin]

What exactly are we using as the definition of gish in this discussion?

I would posit the following three conditions:

Martial Weapon Proficiency OR Class feature that substitutes (e.g.- Pact Blade, Shillelagh)
Class Based Spellcasting (as opposed to feat-based)
In-class support for 18+ AC without feat or magic items

[MrUberGr]

Why would the Ac have to be so high? Given that you no longer provoke AoO you won't get hit more often than usual.

[Submortimer]

It seems to me that a dex based blade pact warlock is one of the easiest gishes to make, not even counting in a possible level of fighter for proficiencies and armor. The only downside is that they don't really get off the ground till level 3, wehn they get their pact blade

It goes like this (I'll only be getting into stat increases, feats, and invocations here):

Variant Human, Fiend Pact
+2 dex, +2 Cha, Moderately Armored Feat

8 str, 18 dex, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 16 cha

1 Cantrips, Spells, etc, Dark one's blessing
2 Fiendish Vigor, Armor of Shadows
3 Blade pact
4 Dex +2
5 Thirsting Blade
6 Dark One's own luck
7 Agonizing blast
8 War Caster feat
9 Otherworldy Leap
10 Fiendish Resiliance
11 -
12 Lifedrinker, +2 Cha

Gear
Rapier (Pact weapon)
Shield

By level 12, you are doing two attacks a turn, both hitting for 1d8+9, with a +9 to the attack roll, and it's a magic weapon. By going sword and board and rocking armor of shadows, you have a constant 20 AC (13+dex bonus+2). With Fiendish Vigor, Dark One's Blessing, and spells, you have a constant stream of Temp HP. With Agonizing blast, you'll be able to throw out a Eldritch blast that hits three times at a +9 attack for 1d10+4, and with war caster, you can do it as an Opportunity attack.

If you throw a level of fighter in there, there's a few more options. Keep the build mostly the same, swap out Moderately armored for Defensive Duelist and get the defensive Fighting style, and you'll be at a 21 with a possible 25 AC all the time. Get TWF and Dual Wielding, your AC goes to 19 but you're swinging a pair of rapiers for 1d8+9, 1d8+5, and 1d8+9 each round. Or take Dueling and Resilient (Dexterity), and be hitting for 1d8+11 twice in the round with the same 20 AC.

[MeeposFire]

I personally think too many of us are using a far too broad definition of gish. For some almost any class becomes a gish which kind of defeats the purpose. For instance if your definition allows the arcane trickster to be a gish then it needs to be reevaluated. Now I like that class concept but that is really a thief/mage combo and not a warrior /mage combo which is what the gish actually represents.

To me I a would go back and look at what makes a gish before. Basic had the elf while 1e and 2e had the fighter/mage. In 3e the concept is actually started to be applied to the archetype of the fighter mage (in 1e and 2e talks before then gish was only used for a fighter/mage githyanki and I had never seen it used to describe all F/M) and then it seems to be broadened again to include any class that fights in melee while using arcane spells. Even later you see some trying to include divine casters like clerics in the mix despite being divine characters. In 4e the name gish is virtually never used as you don't need class combos or prestige classes to create a fighter/mage like combo.

Personally I don't like adding the divine classes into the gish model because 1. gishes were a mage concept to start with and 2 dvine caster types were always part warriors who were able to wield decent weapons, good armor, and cast spells. The reason people talked about playing a gish type was to play a mage type with weapons (and in many editions armor as well). Clerics and paladins have always been warriors who cast priestly magic and thus the term gish has never been needed for them so I think using it for them is not needed and partly defeats the purpose of the term.

IN addition I think it is also the type of spells that divine characters tend to get. They tend to get support, divination, and healing type spells. I personally think a gish should be using more wizard type spells which include spells like blasting in addition to buffing and the like. In this case you may be able include various psionic classes like the psion since while not arcane it is similar in use.

To me these are the things that make a gish rather than some other caster who uses a weapon for some reason (this list will probably be controversial to some)...

1. Arcane type caster from class levels (or similar type spell casting ideas). This is what specifically makes it different from the standard paladin, cleric, druid, and ranger concept ie the divine crusader type. Now this is malleable for instance I would be willing to include the elemental monk as it emulates arcane type spells (particularly blasting spells a hallmark of the wizard class that the cleric mostly does not).

2. Must be able to make two attacks per attack action natively without magic. It seems that in order to be a "warrior" type in this edition the game gives you two attacks per action. This is similar to the warrior table in AD&D, fighter combat options in basic, and high BAB in 3e. I also feel that you should be using weapons as one of your primary attack forms.

3. Must be able to survive in melee without the use of magic (even if you plan to be ranged most of the time). This means that you should have fair HP (I will let you decide the actual level though you probably should average about a d8 per level) and AC that is fairly high (should not matter how though I am inclined to count mage armor since it is close to permanent especially for a warlock).


Part 2 eliminates things like the arcane trickster and wizard 18/fighter 2. Yes you have fighter levels but you are not really fighting with a weapon as you are more likely just playing a caster with heavy armor (and of course uses action surge to cast more spells) and for the arcane trickster it is the perfect archetype for the thief/mage rather than the warrior/mage. Why it works in 2e for a fighter/mage to be a gish but not a 2/18 fighter/mage in 5e is that in 2e an actual multiclassed (and not dual classed which honestly with only 2 levels of fighter would feel more like just a really buff wizard rather than a true fighter/wizard) gish could fight almost as well as a full class warrior and cast almost as well as a full wizard.

Part also eliminates the shillelagh wielding tome warlock and lore bard since while it is a decent weapon you really are not good enough in melee to be a true gish whereas the blade lock and valor bard I feel iare just specialized enough to be a gish.

I think using this as a base (and perhaps adding other stipulations if I have forgotten any) will make a list where you have several clear types while eliminating enough classes that you are not overwhelmed by nearly every class in the game.

[Cambrian]

So if Clerics and Paladins are exempt (I would agree), what about Rangers and Valor Bards?

Is it safe to say Druids are out too being divine casters, and Warlocks are in as Arcane casters?

How much spellcasting is necessary? Is a straight Eldritch Knight enough of a caster?

When it comes to multiclassing it feels like things are more versatile now. A 5/5 Paladin/Wizard certainly would feel like a gish. Perhaps it would be better to discuss the casting classes and martial classes as separate components and what you get for each level investment.

Also, just a general preference for the guide:
With the builds there should be a great amount of attention to how builds function throughout leveling and not just snapshots at level 20. Most characters never reach that level and those that do spend a minority of their time there.

[MrUberGr]

Variant Human, Fiend Pact
+2 dex, +2 Cha, Moderately Armored Feat

By going sword and board and rocking armor of shadows, you have a constant 20 AC (13+dex bonus+2).

Moderately Armored isn't necessary.

Assuming a 20 Dex at level 20 (possibly earlier) you have a +5 modifier. Wearing Studded leather you will have 12(base) + 5 (dex) + 2 (invocation) +?2 (shield)? Adding up to a total of 21.
If however you go medium armor you end up with 1 more AC. Using a Breastplate the math goes: 15 + 3 + 2 +2, total 22. This happens because from medium armor you can only get a 2 (3 with the feat) dexterity bonus. Plus you end up with a Disadvantage in stealth, which since you're a rogue, you don't want. Instead of using the feat to get Medium armor, you could use it for dual wielding and be off to a great start.

I'm pretty sure it's worth to end up with 18 or 20 Dex instead of using a feat to do the same thing, mainly because Dexterity is added in attack and damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks etc. I guess this could be a slightly more offensive itteration of the blade-lock.

Personally I like think the ideal gish is the 3.5 Duskblade. Channeling spells into his blade, getting them across while he swings. He did have survivability but he wasn't a metal box. Also, his damage was quite good, and I think I was hitting with +13 or something around that at level 6. Dunno if the goal here is a metal box that can cast spells.:smallannoyed:

[Yorrin]

Well, if we're restricting to Arcane only and innate second attack only we need to define a handful of things.

First of all we need to ask "what is an arcane caster?" since 5e does not distinguish between arcane and divine magics anymore. Certainly those of us with experience from previous editions can pick them out instantly based on the history of the game, but in 5e it's a legacy concept with no mechanical backing that's not even in the books.

Second we do indeed need to ask "how much casting?" If we have as a goal to include the EK we'd want to say 4th level casting or better. If we're trying to hold to 3.5 standards we'd require 9th level spells (and only Valor Bard would qualify). My gut instinct wants to say 5th or 6th level spells.

Finally, since we're talking about innate second attack, we need to ask if 5+ level dips still count for the concept. Certainly a Battlemaster 11/Wizard 9 has more casting than EK 20, and is arguably a better build. Is this an acceptable "Gish?"

[MrUberGr]

Well, if we're restricting to Arcane only and innate second attack only we need to define a handful of things.

First of all we need to ask "what is an arcane caster?" since 5e does not distinguish between arcane and divine magics anymore. Certainly those of us with experience from previous editions can pick them out instantly based on the history of the game, but in 5e it's a legacy concept with no mechanical backing that's not even in the books.


This is not true. The distinction between the two is there. You can find it on page 205 on the block of text to the right! It's what the Angry DM was ranting about PHB not being a PHB but a rule/mechanics book.

[mabriss lethe]

Legacy aside, I don't think it's really needful to eliminate divine magic from the guide. 5E is built with a significantly different dynamic than previous editions. (One of the reasons that nailing down a standard metric for a 5E gish is required for this project in the first place.) Much of the same advice that would go toward building an arcane only gish would be relevant to divine casting.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you know the rest.

Besides, even in the PHB, there are gishy class options that, as far as I can recall, are not defined as either divine or arcane. (ie: Monk traditions w/ ki based spellcasting)

[Yorrin]

This is not true. The distinction between the two is there. You can find it on page 205 on the block of text to the right! It's what the Angry DM was ranting about PHB not being a PHB but a rule/mechanics book.

Ah, I skipped over that box because I thought it was just FR lore, which I'm not interested in. Thanks for pointing that out.


Legacy aside, I don't think it's really needful to eliminate divine magic from the guide. 5E is built with a significantly different dynamic than previous editions. (One of the reasons that nailing down a standard metric for a 5E gish is required for this project in the first place.) Much of the same advice that would go toward building an arcane only gish would be relevant to divine casting.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you know the rest.

Besides, even in the PHB, there are gishy class options that, as far as I can recall, are not defined as either divine or arcane. (ie: Monk traditions w/ ki based spellcasting)

Yeah, I guess that was kinda my point. I think Arcane/Divine is a false distinction in 5e since they play by largely the same rules.

[CyberThread]

I would like to propose.


That this be a overview guide, not something that gets super deep. Let others who will eventually make full blown guides that cover classes through the various subclasses, and we cover what separates the various classes on the sliding scale of Sword.................Magic




So with that in mind, I make a second suggestions



We make a guide, instead of a handbook

[Submortimer]

Moderately Armored isn't necessary.

Moderately Armored gets you shield proficiency, so it is indeed necessary.


Assuming a 20 Dex at level 20 (possibly earlier) you have a +5 modifier. Wearing Studded leather you will have 12(base) + 5 (dex) + 2 (invocation) +?2 (shield)? Adding up to a total of 21.

I'm not sure where you're getting the extra +2 from, but the AC I figured in was this: mage armor(Armor of Shadows) makes your AC 13 + dex mod. At 20 dex, that's an 18 ac. Add +2 for the shield, and you get 20. To get a 21, you'd need to take a level of fighter, wear some half plate, take medium armor mastery to bump the max dex to 3, and take the defensive style. 15 (armor)+3(dex)+2(shield)+1(style) = 21 ac, just a point below an ancient red dragon. Not bad, all told :-)

[MrUberGr]

Moderately Armored gets you shield proficiency, so it is indeed necessary.
*facepalm* I confused moderately armored for medium armor master.



I'm not sure where you're getting the extra +2 from, but the AC I figured in was this: mage armor(Armor of Shadows) makes your AC 13 + dex mod. At 20 dex, that's an 18 ac. Add +2 for the shield, and you get 20. To get a 21, you'd need to take a level of fighter, wear some half plate, take medium armor mastery to bump the max dex to 3, and take the defensive style. 15 (armor)+3(dex)+2(shield)+1(style) = 21 ac, just a point below an ancient red dragon. Not bad, all told :-)

What I meant is:

(20 dex, no feats)
Studded Leather: 12
Dexterity Bonus: 5
Armor of Shadows: 2
(mistake)Shield: 2
Total: 19

(20 dex, moderately armored)
Half Plate: 15
Dexterity Bonus: 2
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 21 and disadvantage on stealth


(20 dex, moderately armored & medium armor master)
Half Plate: 15
Dexterity Bonus: 3
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 22 no disadvantage on stealth, but using two feats

A good choice would be:
(20 dex, moderately armored)
Breastplate: 14
Dexterity Bonus: 2
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 20

Since it's using up a single feat and has a really solid AC.

[MeeposFire]

Legacy aside, I don't think it's really needful to eliminate divine magic from the guide. 5E is built with a significantly different dynamic than previous editions. (One of the reasons that nailing down a standard metric for a 5E gish is required for this project in the first place.) Much of the same advice that would go toward building an arcane only gish would be relevant to divine casting.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... you know the rest.

Besides, even in the PHB, there are gishy class options that, as far as I can recall, are not defined as either divine or arcane. (ie: Monk traditions w/ ki based spellcasting)

Then I propose that this be called a cleric's, ranger's, or paladin's guide rather than gish. Those classes have always been part or full time warriors with casting which is why nobody ever really bothered stealing a githyanki term to describe them so you might as well use the archetype with more pull. Heck in previous editions when you could have fighter/clerics you did not even notice a difference in tactics because clerics already would stand in melee and hit things with a mace, adding fighter just made them better at it.

Compare that to the fighter/wizard which added a whole new angle by adding fighter to it. Unlike clerics most wizards did not want to be in melee especially without spell buffs ( a cleric wants buffs of course but could live without for a while).

To me saying a cleric is a gish is like saying a druid is a fighter. I mean sure a druid can be tanky and rip off your face but the druid is doing it as an animal and the fighter does it with weapons. They are different concepts even if the basic idea behind them in this case (big, buff, melee menace) is the same. Same with a gish while both a cleric and a valor bard share similarities in that they are both armored casters but clerics are (un)holy crusader types and the valor bard is an arcane warrior type (aka the gish).

Besides the term really seems to lose value if it applies to nearly every class in the game. Right off the top of my head if we go with "melee caster" type about the only class that does not automatically fill the type on its own is the barbarian. That does not seem to make the term all that useful.

I would however count the elemental monk as being gish worthy. While it may not technically be standard magic the types of effects that it makes are very similar to arcane type casters so I think it applies.

The divine classes may have feathers (spells), and it may make obnoxious sounds that sound sort of like a duck (have melee prowess) but they are not a duck to me they are a goose which is similar but not quite the same.

Of course this is just how I feel since I happen to like the idea of the term not being so incredibly broad but if the group for this wants to make the term even more broad then of course it isn't really that big of a deal.

[Submortimer]

*facepalm* I confused moderately armored for medium armor master.



What I meant is:

(20 dex, no feats)
Studded Leather: 12
Dexterity Bonus: 5
Armor of Shadows: 2
(mistake)Shield: 2
Total: 19

(20 dex, moderately armored)
Half Plate: 15
Dexterity Bonus: 2
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 21 and disadvantage on stealth


(20 dex, moderately armored & medium armor master)
Half Plate: 15
Dexterity Bonus: 3
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 22 no disadvantage on stealth, but using two feats

A good choice would be:
(20 dex, moderately armored)
Breastplate: 14
Dexterity Bonus: 2
Armor of Shadows: 2
Shield: 2
Total: 20

Since it's using up a single feat and has a really solid AC.

a few issues:

Mage armor(Armor of Shadows) is not 12 +dex, it's 13+dex. And Mage armor explicitly states that the spell ends if you don armor. Again, the best AC you're gonna get is 20, with a 20 dex, Armor of shadows, and a shield. (13 from mage armor, 5 from dex bonus, and 2 from the shield)

Are you pulling your info from the actual book or from a playtest version?

[MrUberGr]

:smalleek::smalleek:

Never really read Mage armor... I remembered from 3.5 that it would basically add 2 to your AC, so I assumed it was the same. Sorry...

[Submortimer]

No worries, friend of friends. My group and i have been finding all sorts of things that we have been messing up, to include but not limited to:
- Cantrips not at-will
- Sneak attack damage on every attack (when"Flanking", or whatever the term is for it now)
- Damage dice for GWF continuously re-rolling 1s and 2s
- Adding proficiency bonus to attack AND damage

And others. It's still a learning curve :)

That being said, I'd rule that you can certainly cast mage armor on someone who is wearing armor, but that it will certainly not stack.

[Beleriphon]

I think we need a sliding scale as noted. Maybe a 1 to 10 thing.

1 is no primary melee combat functionality beyond (that is to say, run if if happens) and relying entirely on magic to get the job done, while a 10 is no magic and using only melee combat to get the job done.

Thus the wizard would be a 1 and the fighter, or rogue, would be a 10.