Will we ever get a proper Fighter-Mage class?

[andhaira]

Fighter-Mages (gish) have always been a problem with WOTC. They were horrribly done in 3e, with the closest thing being the Eldritch Knight PRC. Even that had problems with the PRC kicking in at level 6-7 at least & extremely low hp. Pathfinder has tackled the problem with introducing the Magus, which is a good step in the right direction, but still not there.

5e gives us the Eldritch Knight subclass. It is a fun class, but again, it suffers from extremely poor spell progression. You can cast fireball at level 13 onwards only. Few games ever get that high in level, much less progressing beyond that point.

The best way to do this would be either or both of the following:

-Introduce a Wizard subschool that specializes in warrior skills. So Fighters get EK, while Wizards would get their own martial oriented subschool. Let's call it Battlemage for convenience. It's abilities could all deal with gaining weapon proficiencies and/or armor proficiencies and a moderate hp boost.

-Introduce a new warrior-mage base class. You can offer multiple subclasses within to offer different variations of the fighter-mage. You can even limit the class by limiting access to spell schools, like the EK already does. It's spell progression should be similar to a Wizard though, it can be balanced by numerous methods, such as the above mentioned limiting access to schools, less hp than a warrior, less spells prepared per level, less slots per spell level, etc. I just want to be able to swing a sword and cast fireball at level 5.

Thoughts?

[Giant2005]

I just want to be able to swing a sword and cast fireball at level 5.

Thoughts?

Play a Fiend/Blade Warlock.

[ChubbyRain]

4e Swordmage was awesome.

Do that, except under the 5e system. Make it its own class, much like the ranger except arcane and armor. Then give them specific class features.

The problem with this general class with specific subclasses is that you can't actually make all the types of classes effectively.

I would rather have 100 classes, as long as they are done correctly, than have this mashup where crap is flung at walls and hope it sticks.

[Occasional Sage]

How does the Magus fall short for you? In my experience a Magus consistently outperforms any melee class's damage and adds utility and defensive spells on top. Sufficient spell slots aren't a problem even.

[silveralen]

There are about a half dozen ways to do this effectively as is.

EK: low spell ability, high combat ability.

Valor bard: the opposite, lots of spells only a little bit of basic melee ability.

Blade lock: between the two above. More melee ability than valor bard, more casting than a EK.

Paladin/sorcerer multiclass: use spells to buff, cast spells while hitting things in the face with quicken spell, use smites to channel magic energy into your sword, and you have a pretty decent collection of blasting spells with the slots to fuel them. Oh and you are still a solid combatant at base (for a small paladin dip oathbreaker works best I think).

[da_chicken]

If you're not happy with what's already available, especially through multi classing, then you're unlikely to ever be satisfied.

[mephnick]

I would rather have 100 classes, as long as they are done correctly, than have this mashup where crap is flung at walls and hope it sticks.

This system covers a lot of character concepts already. It took 3.5 five years to get all the options it had. Give them a chance.

[themaque]

I actually like your subclass for the Wizard idea and think that has some merrit.

Less Direct combat ability than the mage, but gives a little melee boost for the wizard without requiring a multi-class. Moe Mage than fighter, but not a bad idea.

[andhaira]

4e Swordmage was awesome.

Do that, except under the 5e system. Make it its own class, much like the ranger except arcane and armor. Then give them specific class features.

The problem with this general class with specific subclasses is that you can't actually make all the types of classes effectively.

I would rather have 100 classes, as long as they are done correctly, than have this mashup where crap is flung at walls and hope it sticks.

This. So much this


How does the Magus fall short for you? In my experience a Magus consistently outperforms any melee class's damage and adds utility and defensive spells on top. Sufficient spell slots aren't a problem even.

I don't want to make this a PF discussion, but as I outlined in my OP I want faster spell progression. The Magus also can cast spells like fireball very late. Too late in my opinion. But I do like the class very much and am currently playing it in a game.


There are about a half dozen ways to do this effectively as is.

EK: low spell ability, high combat ability.

Valor bard: the opposite, lots of spells only a little bit of basic melee ability.

Blade lock: between the two above. More melee ability than valor bard, more casting than a EK.

Paladin/sorcerer multiclass: use spells to buff, cast spells while hitting things in the face with quicken spell, use smites to channel magic energy into your sword, and you have a pretty decent collection of blasting spells with the slots to fuel them. Oh and you are still a solid combatant at base (for a small paladin dip oathbreaker works best I think).

No. Please read my OP, I have already covered the EK, and the rest do not count for reasons I have outlined in my OP.


If you're not happy with what's already available, especially through multi classing, then you're unlikely to ever be satisfied.

Wrong, please read my OP. It outlines what I want.

Everyone is free to post their own opinion, but I really do not understand people who immediately veto any idea. But if Wizards does release new classes, they will be among the first to quickly say this is a great thing Wizards has done.

[silveralen]

Bladelock is literally what you described. Fireballs and sword swinging. Very limited spells known from a restricted list, especially high level spells. Your HP isn't quite fighter level and you don't have quite as much profs but you have enough.

If Bladelock doesn't work you'll need to explain why.

[mephnick]

I'm confused as well. Do you want a blade lock with the ability to cherry pick your favourite spells, while being a better front-liner?

[Chronos]

Heck, just straight paladin also works. If you want it to be arcane, OK then, it's arcane.

[ChubbyRain]

This system covers a lot of character concepts already. It took 3.5 five years to get all the options it had. Give them a chance.

The issue I see is that WotC hinks that class bloat was a problem. The problem in 3.5 wasn't class bloat since they actually got more balanced as time went on. The issue was the organization of said classes and not bringing out a Book of PCs or whatever to compile and fix the classes.

What we have now will be 100's of subclasses. But because they will be tied to classes you get that bloat but you will be missing key items that really makes the class shine. Why? Because you can't dedicate enough of the class to the archetype in order to really pull it off or make it balanced.

The EK is terrible representation of the arcane magic knight. Not only is it a very limited subclass but access o the fighter's extra attack feature holds the magic part back and forces you to balance the abilities around extra attack rather than being able to focus on making a balanced sword mage.

So if we strip extra attack from the EK we could give them more Sword Mage abilities and magic usable through weapons and other cool stuff.

Their plan of using subclasses just won't work for most cases... Unless they go back on their word (I hope so) and make specific classes which other classes may get a sub class of.

So they come out with an Eldritch Knight class that isn't just a fighter with a splash of magic but a warrior who learned to use sword and magic at the same time.

Even the warlock blade pact doesnt represent the sword mage very well since their magic and weapon abilities are separate. A Swordmage would combine their two abilities much like how the Paladin combines smite with weapon attacks but instead of amitea you get a swing of a sword and fireball.

This could be done under 5e, we have the ground work we just have to realize that class bloat isn't a bad thing. Make them balanced and organized and things will go over nicely.

Oh, another issue was when they brought out new classes in 3.5 they didn't warn people not to have tier 1 wizards with warmages or binders. Or fighters with warblades and crusaders.

[themaque]

Oh, another issue was when they brought out new classes in 3.5 they didn't warn people not to have tier 1 wizards with warmages or binders. Or fighters with warblades and crusaders.

They didn't need the warning. I WISH I had a straight Wizard next to my Warmage. Get people to stop pestering me.

Can you make me fly?
No.
Can you turn me invisible?
No
Can you..
WAIT! Are you aksing me to blow something up?
no...
then NO I can't do it!

[ChubbyRain]

They didn't need the warning. I WISH I had a straight Wizard next to my Warmage. Get people to stop pestering me.

Can you make me fly?
No.
Can you turn me invisible?
No
Can you..
WAIT! Are you aksing me to blow something up?
no...
then NO I can't do it!

Well the problem then is that the Wizard could not only do his job but yours too and your waage wouldn't be needed. Even with the boost to damage a war mage gets (eh) the wizard can keep up.

I've see so many times where two players would show up for a game. One had a wizard and the other had (insert damage based magic class) and the wizard would have to change tactics or else overshadow the other class.

:smallannoyed:

And it sucks coming to a game as a wizard and having to change tactics because you will completely overshadow another player by accident.

[themaque]

Well the problem then is that the Wizard could not only do his job but yours too and your waage wouldn't be needed. Even with the boost to damage a war mage gets (eh) the wizard can keep up.

I've see so many times where two players would show up for a game. One had a wizard and the other had (insert damage based magic class) and the wizard would have to change tactics or else overshadow the other class.

:smallannoyed:

And it sucks coming to a game as a wizard and having to change tactics because you will completely overshadow another player by accident.

Well, The best part of being a wizard is how easy changing tactics can be.

I suppose I don't see it to often, because Direct damage is almost never my "go to" build for wizards anyways. There is always someone else in the party who wants to do that, and it's almost awlays better for everyone for the wizard to be doing something else with his time.

Anything that is a Wizard + something is going to be more specialized than most wizards. You are not going to get a good Wizard + Fighter gish that fights as good as the fighter and has the same spell casting potential as a straight wizard without breaking down... well EVERYTHING.

Personaly I liked the Magus for what it was. and I think your best source of making a Spellsword is an alternate path in the Wizard Class.

[Rowan Wolf]

Probably the only way for the OP to be happy would be to play in a gestalt style game at that point you could have a Fighter/Mage that would work for how I am understanding what you are wanting.

[strangebloke]

In 3.5, a 'gish' was a caster of some variety holding a sword and covered in 12 different buffs that let him be all kinds of sexy, invincible, and deadly.

In 5th, a 'gish' is a swordsman who also has magic, or a mage who can swing a sword. The 'concentration slot' mechanic ensures that you never really have that many buffs on yourself at once. So you might be able to burn spells to get extra damage (smite) or block (shield spell) but you simply won't be able to just let your buffs carry you through combat after combat.

Although you can sort of still do this, if you had a pair of sorceror/fighters or something similar. They both twin-spell different buffs on each other and themselves so that both of them can fly and be hasted at the same time.

People need to remember also that arcane gish support was really weak in 3.5e core.

[Eloel]

People need to remember also that arcane gish support was really weak in 3.5e core.

Arcane gishes, compared to the Divine ones, sucked so bad that they were rarely mentioned, in 3.5e

[Pex]

How does the Magus fall short for you? In my experience a Magus consistently outperforms any melee class's damage and adds utility and defensive spells on top. Sufficient spell slots aren't a problem even.

Magus is Pathfinder, not D&D, but it is a well done gish. D&D has Duskblade, which is also a well done gish. Abjurant Champion prestige class has its fans even without the suggested house rule to the admitted designer goofed-up forgot that Mage Armor is Conjuration not Abjuration to allow the prestige class's abilities to work on Mage Armor. 5E Eldritch Knight subclass for fighter is fine. Warlock Blade Pact can also do well. Easier to do single class with Dexterity as your fighting ability than Strength, but Strength is doable on a good rolling for ability scores array. Multiclassing provides options.

[Shining Wrath]

I am thinking that it would be difficult to do what the OP wants and not have a class significantly more powerful than any other.

[da_chicken]

Wrong, please read my OP. It outlines what I want.

You're not asking for anything that's not already present. You just don't like what's present, and have decided to categorize that as "not proper" to make your own opinion sound more objective. It's not your opinion, it's the game's fault.

Sorry. I don't buy it.


Everyone is free to post their own opinion, but I really do not understand people who immediately veto any idea. But if Wizards does release new classes, they will be among the first to quickly say this is a great thing Wizards has done.

I'm not vetoing your idea. I'm saying it's flawed. I'm saying that the either a) you haven't considered the depth of diversity that multiclassing gives you in 5e, or b) you're looking for something that will be overpowered, but you don't think it's overpowered. Either way, you're never going to be satisfied.

I can make a character that has the major abilities you want with the existing classes. The problem is that you'll complain that it has mechanics that "you had to pay for" that don't "reinforce the character concept." In other words, you think you deserve to get a refund for abilities that you're not planning to exploit. Or you'll complain that is has significant failings, like can't cast spells as quickly as other classes, or doesn't get extra attacks like a Fighter, or doesn't have enough HP to survive in combat. You're not going to get full spell progression, d8 hit dice, and effective melee combat class abilities.

Seriously, there's Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger for melee abilities. There's Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard for arcane abilities. Monk and Rogue arguably fit in there somewhere, too, and you could take War Cleric as well. You have the largest number of classes to mix and match abilities with. Fighter/mage has the most support of any character concept.

If you want to make a class like the one you propose, that's fine. Nobody's going to stop you. But saying you have to do it because the game doesn't support your character concept is incredible.

[Galen]

I just want to be able to swing a sword and cast fireball at level 5.

Thoughts?Play an elf Wizard. Elven Weapon Training FTW. Or any kind of race, actually, as long as you remember to take the Weapon Master feat. There you go. Sword. Fireball. Level 5.

[Sidmen]

It sounds like you want to be playing Gestalt Fighter/Wizard (or Sorcerer). Just take the two classes and keep both abilities, use the highest hit die, and proficiencies from both classes.

Throwing a fireball at level 5 is THE iconic feature of pure casters at level five. That is, they get to have the earliest access to third level spells specifically because they don't get to be good in melee combat.

[ChubbyRain]

Well, The best part of being a wizard is how easy changing tactics can be.

I suppose I don't see it to often, because Direct damage is almost never my "go to" build for wizards anyways. There is always someone else in the party who wants to do that, and it's almost awlays better for everyone for the wizard to be doing something else with his time.

Anything that is a Wizard + something is going to be more specialized than most wizards. You are not going to get a good Wizard + Fighter gish that fights as good as the fighter and has the same spell casting potential as a straight wizard without breaking down... well EVERYTHING.

Personaly I liked the Magus for what it was. and I think your best source of making a Spellsword is an alternate path in the Wizard Class.

A specialist caster should be better at what they specialize in that a wizard who doesn't specialize in it. Many times I've seen (and played) wizards who specialized in illusion but wanted to blast and put specialized blasters to shame. Without really trying.

I think it sucks more for the player who has the wizard sometimes than the one who has say the warmage. It makes it look like you are trying to overshadow others when you really wasn't trying to.

In 5e I would be been much happier if they just split the wizard into multiple classes that focused on 2 or 3 schools. Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Bard, Warmage, and whatever else you would like to make.

I knew they would never get rid of the Wizard but I think that would be a better, and more balanced, approach to the game.



Arcane gishes, compared to the Divine ones, sucked so bad that they were rarely mentioned, in 3.5e

Well yes and no.

If you used Tome of Battle, the book that put non-casters on the map (without the noncaster being too horribly unbalanced, I'm looking at the ubercharger on this one) then you could make a good gish character. Tier 3 or 4 is what I would consider a good character.

Jade Phoenix Mage, if I recall correctly, is one such prestige class build that would make you a decent arcane gish... But I might be wrong about the name. It has been a while since I cracked open my copy of Tome of Battle.



Magus is Pathfinder, not D&D, but it is a well done gish. D&D has Duskblade, which is also a well done gish. Abjurant Champion prestige class has its fans even without the suggested house rule to the admitted designer goofed-up forgot that Mage Armor is Conjuration not Abjuration to allow the prestige class's abilities to work on Mage Armor. 5E Eldritch Knight subclass for fighter is fine. Warlock Blade Pact can also do well. Easier to do single class with Dexterity as your fighting ability than Strength, but Strength is doable on a good rolling for ability scores array. Multiclassing provides options.

Pathfinder is D&D, just not WotC's D&D. The copy and paste they did with the SRD alone shows this.

Hell, you can heal people by drowning them in Pathfinder... If that isn't D&D I don't know what is.


Edit:

If you wanted a 3.5 gish that didn't suck you could make a Ubercharger 12 (9k damage per round on the low side) and then take the rest of your levels in Wizard. Boost your Int with magic items or tomes and what knot... You would have a very capable sword swinging death machine that could effectively cast fireball. You would be a high level but still a good gish.

Also, play a dragonborn (insert race) so you can fly without magic.

[RulesJD]

1. Create a Variant Human with the Toughness Feat. Start with Fighter level 1. Max Dex/Con/Int, screw the rest.

2. Take rest of your levels in Wizard.

3. Congrats, you're a heavy armor wearing, all weapon trained, still decently HP Fighter/Wizard. Go Abjuration school to have the infinitely rechargable ward for even more tankiness.


Seriously, stop complaining. There's about 10 different ways to be a melee spell caster.

[calebrus]

Make your own.
Take the EK subclass, port it onto Wizard at the appropriate levels where they get their subclass abilities (remove the one which requires you to Action Surge, because you don't have AS, and the number is right).
Give them light & medium armor and simple & martial weapons at level 2.
Bam! You got yourself a Spellblade. More caster than fighter.

If you want to give him more melee, give him Extra Attack at level 6 and take away his spellbook (use the Sorcerer spells known progression).
But if you want equal parts caster and fighter, then a refluffed Paladin with special/arcane-style spells on his Oath spells list is all you need.

[hecetv]

You're not asking for anything that's not already present. You just don't like what's present, and have decided to categorize that as "not proper" to make your own opinion sound more objective. It's not your opinion, it's the game's fault.

Sorry. I don't buy it.



I'm not vetoing your idea. I'm saying it's flawed. I'm saying that the either a) you haven't considered the depth of diversity that multiclassing gives you in 5e, or b) you're looking for something that will be overpowered, but you don't think it's overpowered. Either way, you're never going to be satisfied.

I can make a character that has the major abilities you want with the existing classes. The problem is that you'll complain that it has mechanics that "you had to pay for" that don't "reinforce the character concept." In other words, you think you deserve to get a refund for abilities that you're not planning to exploit. Or you'll complain that is has significant failings, like can't cast spells as quickly as other classes, or doesn't get extra attacks like a Fighter, or doesn't have enough HP to survive in combat. You're not going to get full spell progression, d8 hit dice, and effective melee combat class abilities.

Seriously, there's Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger for melee abilities. There's Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard for arcane abilities. Monk and Rogue arguably fit in there somewhere, too, and you could take War Cleric as well. You have the largest number of classes to mix and match abilities with. Fighter/mage has the most support of any character concept.

If you want to make a class like the one you propose, that's fine. Nobody's going to stop you. But saying you have to do it because the game doesn't support your character concept is incredible.

100% this. People saying they don't like the gish classes that are available just want something broken. The reason 5e doesn't have a fighter with wizard spell progression is because that would be incredibly overpowered. You can already go valor bard and poach smites and magic weapon if you want. That's basically what you want but you ALSO want more attacks. In that case you can already go fighter 11 lore bard 6 and have three attacks and poach a smite. Just as an example. Or war cleric 1 valor bard x to get your wid modifier in third attacks. Or...... Endless possibilities.

Every gish class available has tradeoffs somewhere between being a wizard or a fighter. Why would it make sense to have a class that gets two classes worth of abilities. Which in that case again just pick a valor bard or multiclass.

[bloodshed343]

I made a base class called the Janissary for this very reason. Check it out and see if it's gishy enough:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?402012-Homebrew-classes-to-replace-Cleric-and-Paladin-in-custom-setting

[charcoalninja]

Play a light cleric.
Solved the problem.
You're welcome.

[Madfellow]

1) College of Valor Bard
2) Eldritch Knight Fighter
3) Four Elements Monk
4) Paladin
5) Ranger
6) Arcane Trickster Rogue
7) Blade Pact Warlock
8) Multiclass
a) Bard + Fighter
b) Bard + Paladin
c) Bard + Sorcerer
d) Bard + Warlock
e) Fighter + Sorcerer
f) Fighter + Warlock
g) Fighter + Wizard
h) Monk + Cleric
i) Monk + Druid
j) Paladin + Sorcerer
k) Paladin + Warlock
l) Ranger + Cleric
m) Ranger + Druid
n) Rogue + Sorcerer
o) Rogue + Warlock
p) Rogue + Wizard

No, we will never get a proper Fighter-Mage class.

[ChubbyRain]

1) College of Valor Bard
2) Eldritch Knight Fighter
3) Four Elements Monk
4) Paladin
5) Ranger
6) Arcane Trickster Rogue
7) Blade Pact Warlock
8) Multiclass
a) Bard + Fighter
b) Bard + Paladin
c) Bard + Sorcerer
d) Bard + Warlock
e) Fighter + Sorcerer
f) Fighter + Warlock
g) Fighter + Wizard
h) Monk + Cleric
i) Monk + Druid
j) Paladin + Sorcerer
k) Paladin + Warlock
l) Ranger + Cleric
m) Ranger + Druid
n) Rogue + Sorcerer
o) Rogue + Warlock
p) Rogue + Wizard

No, we will never get a proper Fighter-Mage class.

Look at the 4e sword mage, none of those comes close to what the sword mage does. The sword mage isn't sword and magic but swordmagic.

The closest thing on that list is the paladin smites or some of the rangers spells... But they still fall short.

Your level of sarcasm is way beyond your level of understanding, not a good way to go about when someone asks a serious question.

[Madfellow]

Look at the 4e sword mage, none of those comes close to what the sword mage does. The sword mage isn't sword and magic but swordmagic.

The closest thing on that list is the paladin smites or some of the rangers spells... But they still fall short.


In what way?



Your level of sarcasm is way beyond your level of understanding, not a good way to go about when someone asks a serious question.

Okay, I'm not appreciating that tone. My response was not meant to belittle the OP; I was simply trying to make a point with a bit of humor.

[mephnick]

Look at the 4e sword mage, none of those comes close to what the sword mage does. The sword mage isn't sword and magic but swordmagic.

The OP doesn't want "swordmagic" (whatever that means). He wants to fight like a fighter and throw fireballs at the same level as a sorcerer.

[mephnick]

Also reading the swordmage, it seems to be based around at will teleports. So no thanks.

[Forrestfire]

Many things in 4e were based around at-will teleports. Overall, the game had much more tactical movement in fights than any edition before or after. In 5e, it'd likely be less about the teleports and more about the elemental effects and mixing melee and close range combat.

I had a similar problem as the OP of the thread, where I wanted something that was more of an in-between. Right now for Arcane gishes in 5e, you've got "good at swordplay and okayish at magic, I guess" (Eldritch Knight), "good at magic and decent at swordplay, and even then, you're better off Cantrip blasting" (Blade Warlock), "good at magic, with options to be decent at swordplay" (Wizard with feats spent on fighting), and "can use multiclassing to be okay at both". In a game I was in, I ended up homebrewing a hack on Warlock that was basically Bladelock with abilities themed around one of a few of the more fun gish archetypes from 3.5, instead of a normal pact.


Arcane gishes, compared to the Divine ones, sucked so bad that they were rarely mentioned, in 3.5e

In my experience, in 3.5, Arcane gishes were actually quite fun. There were several decent prestige classes and combinations you could use (including one of the best PrCs ever, Swiftblade). You could build characters that got full casting and full-enough BAB, or sacrificed one for the other, or various other possibilities. If you rarely saw them mentioned, you were looking in the wrong threads and boards.

[foolinc]

It's really hard to convert 4e classes into 5e due to all of the different powers that they get, a lot of them which are really tailored to it's combat system.

It's not a fighter/mage, but maybe the Nature Cleric might be able to fill the role you are looking for. You get armor, a magical weapon via the Shillelagh cantrip, resistance to elemental damage, and a Divine Strike that let's you choose it's element.

If you need the fighter/mage, then what about a Fighter 2/Wizard X taking the conjuration school (teleport), the war caster feat, and taking close range/touch magic attacks like Shocking Grasp? You are missing a magical sword though, which brings me to...

Warlock 2/Wizard X with Pact of the Blade. Magic weapon attuned to you and light armor.

[bloodshed343]

Casting spells + using a sword does not equal swordmage.

To model a swordmage properly, you need at-will spell-like-abilities that enhance your melee ability. These abilities shouldn't necessarily translate into more damage. Mobility and defense should be considered also.

The Four Elements monk is the best example of a swordmage, and reflavoring the monk is a good option, but many people want a swordmage who can use a greatsword.

[mephnick]

Casting spells + using a sword does not equal swordmage.

Since when? 4e?

Because the concept of a spellblade/swordmage/gish is pretty old and that's exactly what it means.

[Forrestfire]

Since when he is specifically referring to the 4e swordmage for inspiration. And so were the previous seven posts. A sub-conversation based around how the 4e-style swordmage isn't really doable with spells. I like the idea of using an Elements Monk for it, though. Refluff quarterstaff as sword (maybe swap damage type, too; 5e is meant to be houseruled after all) or just allow the monk to use more weapons and you're golden.

[MeeposFire]

If you want to get the swordmage part going just take the eldritch knight and remove the attack and spells abilities and add an ability to grant resistance to an attack as a reaction at will and if you want to include the iconic swordmage at will just have an ability that as an action you deal force damage to all enemies 5 feet from you with damage equal to your weapon damage as a spell attack.

[bloodshed343]

Since when he is specifically referring to the 4e swordmage for inspiration. And so were the previous seven posts. A sub-conversation based around how the 4e-style swordmage isn't really doable with spells. I like the idea of using an Elements Monk for it, though. Refluff quarterstaff as sword (maybe swap damage type, too; 5e is meant to be houseruled after all) or just allow the monk to use more weapons and you're golden.

That could work for some people, but for me, the Swordmage has features that cant be replicated without heavy-handed revision, such as sword bond. The swordmage is also Int based, and has a different skill-set. I always played swordmages as extremely well-educated types that used rituals and fought with a dueling style.

That's the inspiration for my Janissary class.

[Madfellow]

I like the idea of using an Elements Monk for it, though. Refluff quarterstaff as sword (maybe swap damage type, too; 5e is meant to be houseruled after all) or just allow the monk to use more weapons and you're golden.

You realize monks can use shortswords, right?


If you want to get the swordmage part going just take the eldritch knight and remove the attack and spells abilities and add an ability to grant resistance to an attack as a reaction at will and if you want to include the iconic swordmage at will just have an ability that as an action you deal force damage to all enemies 5 feet from you with damage equal to your weapon damage as a spell attack.

The Elemental Evil Player's Companion just introduced the Absorb Elements spell. Reaction to cast, grants resistance to one type of damage, and then lets you deal extra damage of the same type on your next attack. It's an abjuration spell on the wizard's list, so the Eldritch Knight can pick it up. Rangers get it as well.


That could work for some people, but for me, the Swordmage has features that cant be replicated without heavy-handed revision, such as sword bond. The swordmage is also Int based, and has a different skill-set. I always played swordmages as extremely well-educated types that used rituals and fought with a dueling style.

Take 3-5 levels of eldritch knight and then multiclass into wizard for the rest of your career.

Come on, guys, this isn't difficult. It just requires a little imagination.

[bloodshed343]

You realize monks can use shortswords, right?



The Elemental Evil Player's Companion just introduced the Absorb Elements spell. Reaction to cast, grants resistance to one type of damage, and then lets you deal extra damage of the same type on your next attack. It's an abjuration spell on the wizard's list, so the Eldritch Knight can pick it up. Rangers get it as well.



Take 3-5 levels of eldritch knight and then multiclass into wizard for the rest of your career.

Come on, guys, this isn't difficult. It just requires a little imagination.

3-5 EK/ Wizard x is a fighter who casts spells. That's not the same thing as fighting with magic. You can't refluff plate armor as a magical ward unless your DM lets you remove its penalties.

Other iconic features of the swordmage:

Magical melee attacks. This is different than "regular attack + regular spell"
Aegis Reactions
High Mobility
Sword Burst
Being able to make ranged attacks with swords

[pwykersotz]

Sounds to me like we need to remake the Lightning Warrior for 5e. It will be balanced because his spell list won't include Find Familiar. :smalltongue:

[Madfellow]

3-5 EK/ Wizard x is a fighter who casts spells. That's not the same thing as fighting with magic. You can't refluff plate armor as a magical ward unless your DM lets you remove its penalties.

Other iconic features of the swordmage:

Magical melee attacks. This is different than "regular attack + regular spell"
Aegis Reactions
High Mobility
Sword Burst
Being able to make ranged attacks with swords

You know what that sounds like to me? A Way of the Four Elements Monk. Seriously, it has all of those features you just listed built right into it. Go give it a look.

Come on, guys. The tools are already there in the Player's Handbook. All you have to do is use them. You do not need to go through the time or energy to homebrew a whole new class or write angry letters to WotC about this. Of the 12 base classes we have, 7 of them can be a gish all on their own. If you open yourself up to multiclassing, your options triple. Whatever your personal character concept is, or whatever your vision of what the gish should be, odds are very good that the tools are already there for you to build one.

[hecetv]

You know what that sounds like to me? A Way of the Four Elements Monk. Seriously, it has all of those features you just listed built right into it. Go give it a look.

Come on, guys. The tools are already there in the Player's Handbook. All you have to do is use them. You do not need to go through the time or energy to homebrew a whole new class or write angry letters to WotC about this. Of the 12 base classes we have, 7 of them can be a gish all on their own. If you open yourself up to multiclassing, your options triple. Whatever your personal character concept is, or whatever your vision of what the gish should be, odds are very good that the tools are already there for you to build one.

I feel bad that you are catching such shade for this (and your other) solid, solid advice. People just want to throw tantrums I guess....

[TheDeadlyShoe]

One thing I played around with was a wizard variant that banned cantrips but had extra attack.

--> I like how Cantrips solved a number of mechanical problems, but am not a fan of them conceptually.

[bloodshed343]

You know what that sounds like to me? A Way of the Four Elements Monk. Seriously, it has all of those features you just listed built right into it. Go give it a look.

Come on, guys. The tools are already there in the Player's Handbook. All you have to do is use them. You do not need to go through the time or energy to homebrew a whole new class or write angry letters to WotC about this. Of the 12 base classes we have, 7 of them can be a gish all on their own. If you open yourself up to multiclassing, your options triple. Whatever your personal character concept is, or whatever your vision of what the gish should be, odds are very good that the tools are already there for you to build one.

And I've already mentioned the four elements monk as an option. Do you read much?

In the first part of this conversation we talked about why the Eldritch Knight wasn't swordmagey enough. We settled on the Four Elements Monk as being the best built-in candidate for refluffing into a swordmage. I expounded upon some of the reasons merely refluffing wouldn't work, such as the class not being int based, the skill list, the lack of certain weapon proficiencies, the lack of rituals and certain spells, and the lack of features like Sword Bond or the iconic Aegis mechanics.

You responded to this by telling me to build an EK, so I reiterated why EK isn't much like a swordmage to which you reply by telling me to build a monk.

Yes, monks are the best option for making a swordmage without homebrew, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't 'brew a better one.

[Blue_C.]

I feel bad that you are catching such shade for this (and your other) solid, solid advice. People just want to throw tantrums I guess....
Just reading this thread, both sides seem a little over the top. I don't know why the OP's question is sparking such condescension.

I don't think a wizard subschool or sorcerer origin would be too difficult to brew. Gradually increasing armor/shield proficiency, a health bonus similar to a draconic sorcerer, your casting modifier as a bonus to spell damage, and done. Perhaps the extra attack too, but finding a spot for it would be difficult without unbalanced front-loading. Its not something I'd want to play, as it seems like you'd probably just wind up staying in the back-row until medium armor proficiency kicked in anyways, but eh.

Something like this, I guess:
Sorcerer Origin: Gith (or Battle)
1st: Proficiency - Light Armor, 1 weapon; +1 per HD to max health.
6th: Proficiency- Medium Armor and Shields
14th: Potent Spellcasting (or Extra Attack, can't decide. Or both! At this point, you're already pretty deep and dips aren't a concern anymore)
18th: Proficiency- Heavy Armor

I'm not sure what a new base class could add to the game that isn't already covered by paladins, warlocks, and monks. Then again, all three are present now, why not a fourth, or heck, tenth?


In 5e I would be been much happier if they just split the wizard into multiple classes that focused on 2 or 3 schools. Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Bard, Warmage, and whatever else you would like to make.

I'm not sure I agree with this, but I admit I'm curious how that would have turned out.

[silveralen]

Okay, let us say elemental monk could have its ki abilities based on INT instead of WIS. Then what is the issue?

Most of the requests seem, to me, to either want the exact same abilities present in a previous edition with no variation or flat out more powerful variations of existing abilities/classes. Or both.

[calebrus]

Most of the requests seem, to me, to either want the exact same abilities present in a previous edition with no variation or flat out more powerful variations of existing abilities/classes. Or both.

Exactly.
It's like when people cry for Psion, but can't accept that a spell point variant wizard IS a psion.
But no, they don't prepare spells!
OK, so never change your prepared spells.
But no, they have a psicrystal!
OK, so refluff your familiar.
But no, <insert other argument here>!

If it isn't exactly, 100%, to the letter, what was given before, then they aren't happy with it. 5e should have apparently released with 60 different classes, even though a huge portion of those classes were some derivation of what we already had and now have.

People, it's a fantasy role playing game.
Use your imagination, fantasize a bit, and play the role that you want to play.
It's not that hard.

[JAL_1138]

...For a single-class build, Valor Bard pretty much is exactly what OP wants--which was not the 4e swordmage tangent the thread went on, but someone who can cast spells and stab people but with better casting progression than EK.


-Introduce a new warrior-mage base class. You can offer multiple subclasses within to offer different variations of the fighter-mage. You can even limit the class by limiting access to spell schools, like the EK already does. It's spell progression should be similar to a Wizard though, it can be balanced by numerous methods, such as the above mentioned limiting access to schools, less hp than a warrior, less spells prepared per level, less slots per spell level, etc. I just want to be able to swing a sword and cast fireball at level 5.


With the exception of the particular spell Fireball at 5 (can get it through Secrets at 10 though), that's Valor Bard. Schools limited except at Magical Secrets, full-caster, less HP than Fighter, light & medium armor, fewer spells known, swings a sword, has a bucketload of skills. Can build for melee at higher levels with Dex or Str and poaching Smites; at lower level, doing reasonably decent at melee anyway, if not quite as good as a Fighter (because if it was as good as a Fighter with a sword, who'd play a Fighter? Sword-ing things in the face is their thing). If you don't want the musical aspect, use a component pouch instead of an instrument, and call Inspiration a buff spell.

Warlock has better spell progression than it's getting credit for, but of you want something with a larger number of known spells than 'lock, go bard.

I do not understand why this does not work for the OP's definition unless you just want a blastier spell list. Want to be better with weapons than the VB, you'll need to delay casting (because, again, otherwise who would play a Fighter, even an EK, if you could be just as good at stabbing people as they are AND get fullcaster spell progression).

EDIT: I'll fully admit I'm biased toward Bards, because they were my go-to class in AD&D and are again in 5th. They do a little of everything. Or in 5e, a lot of everything.

[miburo]

IMO 5E is pretty great, but people will always want to play something similar to old editions. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. The Swordmage class was one of the coolest things that came out of 4E. However, any requirements do have to be balanced with a new edition, though. Keeping that in mind, let's look at what fans of the Swordmage, Bladesinger, Duskblade, or any similar old Fighter/Mage classes might like:

- 50/50 fighter/mage (in this edition, best translated as one extra attack and 5th level spells, like a Paladin)
- More of arcane-focused spells (e.g. fireball, fly, magic missile) than divine-focused ones (cure wounds, bless, etc.).
- Int-based, not Cha-based
- Ability to simulcast or channel spells into attacks (like the Duskblade or Bladesinger)

Are these requirements really so overpowered?

Why the current classes are problematic:
Eldritch Knight: 4 attacks and super-gimped spell list means this is, as expected, more of a fighter subclass than a proper fighter mage. You are almost always better attacking than you are casting a spell, even with simulcast.
Bladelock: Good abilities, but Cha-based and no simulcast. And much of the flavor is built around Pacts which is not really Fighter/Mage-esque. You could make it work by heavily refluffing and converting from Cha to Int-based, especially if you go Fighter 1/Bladelock X.
Paladin - Has all the useful elements except Cha-based and spells and abilities are support and healing in nature. No simulcast but smiting is a good channeling effect. The oaths also limit you significantly in how you can orient your character. (An Arcane Oath has been explored in homebrew as a way to make this work, and to add the right spells. It's somewhere on the official WotC forum and is pretty good)
Eldritch Knight/Wizard multiclass: Gets you most of what you need, except the simulcast. Also, rather clunky to play at low levels
Valor Bard: Cha-based, and usually relegated to Dex-based weapons. A Valor Bard is a better simulcast class but does not get the ability until way late in teh game. They also make much better Archers than Melee.

Based on this, I made my own Swordmage class (in my sig), and went through several rounds of WotC forum discussion in order to balance it. I hope WotC eventually releases something official, but given the myriad options above I think they have a host of other character concepts to get around to first. With official material though, I'd probably do the Fighter 1/Warlock X option.

[bloodshed343]

Okay, let us say elemental monk could have its ki abilities based on INT instead of WIS. Then what is the issue?

Most of the requests seem, to me, to either want the exact same abilities present in a previous edition with no variation or flat out more powerful variations of existing abilities/classes. Or both.

Basing it off int and adding arcana to its skill list would be a good start. In fact, it would serve quite well as a swordmage. But you have some other inconsistencies, such as using unarmed attacks (you could reflavor these as quick slashes) and being limited to shortswords (but you could always just describe it as a greatsword).

The pro to this approach vs homebrew is that the character is almost certainly balanced. The con is that the mechanics don't support a unique identity. If you're reflavoring this heavily, you might as well only have one generic class that players reflavor however they want. It's guaranteed to be balanced!

While home brewing a new class might result in something under or over powered, you get something that matches the character theme exactly and gives it a unique identity. In my mind, swordmages strike with one precise, calculated motion while monks use a flurry of blows. Yes, I could always just say that the damage done by flurrying is from one careful strike, but I could also just call myself a hypnotoad and say I made the enemy punch itself in the groin. I'd still be playing a monk mechanically.

Also, home brewing is fun. Having fun is the goal.

[MrStabby]

...For a single-class build, Valor Bard pretty much is exactly what OP wants--which was not the 4e swordmage tangent the thread went on, but someone who can cast spells and stab people but with better casting progression than EK.




With the exception of the particular spell Fireball at 5 (can get it through Secrets at 10 though), that's Valor Bard. Schools limited except at Magical Secrets, full-caster, less HP than Fighter, light & medium armor, fewer spells known, swings a sword, has a bucketload of skills. Can build for melee at higher levels with Dex or Str and poaching Smites; at lower level, doing reasonably decent at melee anyway, if not quite as good as a Fighter (because if it was as good as a Fighter with a sword, who'd play a Fighter? Sword-ing things in the face is their thing). If you don't want the musical aspect, use a component pouch instead of an instrument, and call Inspiration a buff spell.

Warlock has better spell progression than it's getting credit for, but of you want something with a larger number of known spells than 'lock, go bard.

I do not understand why this does not work for the OP's definition unless you just want a blastier spell list. Want to be better with weapons than the VB, you'll need to delay casting (because, again, otherwise who would play a Fighter, even an EK, if you could be just as good at stabbing people as they are AND get fullcaster spell progression).

EDIT: I'll fully admit I'm biased toward Bards, because they were my go-to class in AD&D and are again in 5th. They do a little of everything. Or in 5e, a lot of everything.

I think the interesting approach is to imagine a silly hypothetical class that contains all of the features of both the wizard and the fighter. Full spell progression, full attack progression etc.. In order to get this wonderful class what would people be prepared to sacrifice in terms of features from each list? How many levels of spell progression are you prepared to sacrifice to get a second attack? How many attacks relative to a fighter are you prepared to sacrifice to get level 3 spells? to get level 5 spells?

Now some features I imagine are easy (although may change depending on what people are looking for) - spell selection being much more limited for example to spells focussed on close combat and mobility (probably not a big deal). On the fighter side people may be happy to do things like sacrifice armour proficiency (although this probably isn't a big sacrifice either) or sacrifice extra feats. The big problem is the features people are happy to lose are very likely not enough to make the class balanced.

At the moment it is very easy to build a huge range of character concepts that match lots of different definitions of a spellcasting fighter type person. There are only two problems: at present they are not overpowered and so people feel their spell slots are falling behind pure casters or martial prowess is falling behind pure fighters: they want MOAR POWER. The other problem, which I am sympathetic to, is that multiclass options do mean that for a number of early character levels they cannot play as their chosen concept till they get both classes (or more).

[bloodshed343]

Miburo: I compare and contrast your Swordmage with my Janissary. The Janissary seems underpowered by comparison. Or it could be OP due to the warlock-like casting. I'm not sure.

Has your Swordmage been play tested? Is it balanced against the paladin?

One thing is that I felt teleportation to be too powerful, so I gave the Janissary force jump instead.


Link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1034BZuTAT-8cLGse7D7bZZswOBp-hdGs1Vl8HiOIRwI/edit?usp=sharing

[Blue_C.]

Also, home brewing is fun. Having fun is the goal.

I admit, I love homebrewing. I'll cheerfully toss my creations aside once something more official comes out, but I like filling in blank spaces where I see them. I could go the route of reflavoring the existing options, but if I'm going to use my imagination either way, why not use it in the way I choose?


Yes, I could always just say that the damage done by flurrying is from one careful strike, but I could also just call myself a hypnotoad and say I made the enemy punch itself in the groin. I'd still be playing a monk mechanically.

This made me crack up.

[silveralen]

Basing it off int and adding arcana to its skill list would be a good start. In fact, it would serve quite well as a swordmage. But you have some other inconsistencies, such as using unarmed attacks (you could reflavor these as quick slashes) and being limited to shortswords (but you could always just describe it as a greatsword).

The pro to this approach vs homebrew is that the character is almost certainly balanced. The con is that the mechanics don't support a unique identity. If you're reflavoring this heavily, you might as well only have one generic class that players reflavor however they want. It's guaranteed to be balanced!

While home brewing a new class might result in something under or over powered, you get something that matches the character theme exactly and gives it a unique identity. In my mind, swordmages strike with one precise, calculated motion while monks use a flurry of blows. Yes, I could always just say that the damage done by flurrying is from one careful strike, but I could also just call myself a hypnotoad and say I made the enemy punch itself in the groin. I'd still be playing a monk mechanically.

Also, home brewing is fun. Having fun is the goal.

I'm not a fan of homebrewing new classes from the ground up, I prefer modifying existing classes piece by piece until you have something unique and flavorful. That's why I asked for the next specific issue.

Of course I struggle to really see anyway to balance a class like what is being suggested regardless. It's honestly just a more powerful variation of existing classes being partially obscured by unique mechanics.

[miburo]

Miburo: I compare and contrast your Swordmage with my Janissary. The Janissary seems underpowered by comparison. Or it could be OP due to the warlock-like casting. I'm not sure.

Has your Swordmage been play tested? Is it balanced against the paladin?

One thing is that I felt teleportation to be too powerful, so I gave the Janissary force jump instead.


Link:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1034BZuTAT-8cLGse7D7bZZswOBp-hdGs1Vl8HiOIRwI/edit?usp=sharing

I don't think the your Janissary is underpowered at all compared to the Swordmage, quite the opposite. I am likely biased though so probably better for someone else to comment. A longer discussion may be effectively derailing the thread, however...

Swordmage has been play-tested in one-offs, but not in an entire campaign. I play an Oath of Ancients Paladin as well, and they operate quite differently. While both classes are pretty versatile, the Paladin is much more of a tank (due to d10 hit dice and healing abilities). Swordmage is surprisingly fragile, because I try to spend most of my time in melee range and don't have the self-healing or hit points to back it up. It's certainly not a fighter replacement; you have to be much more tactical and judicious about your battles. You also don't have the higher-level spell slots compared to a Valor Bard or Warlock. Also, teleportation ability already exists for Eldritch Knight, so I didn't think it was too powerful.

[MeeposFire]

That could work for some people, but for me, the Swordmage has features that cant be replicated without heavy-handed revision, such as sword bond. The swordmage is also Int based, and has a different skill-set. I always played swordmages as extremely well-educated types that used rituals and fought with a dueling style.

That's the inspiration for my Janissary class.

Wait sword bond? You mean the ability to bond to a sword and have it come to your hand from a short distance away? That is not that different from the eldritch knight ability that we already have.

[Gritmonger]

Wait sword bond? You mean the ability to bond to a sword and have it come to your hand from a short distance away? That is not that different from the eldritch knight ability that we already have.

...nor from the Warlock Pact of the Blade...

[JAL_1138]

...nor from the Warlock Pact of the Blade...

Can even be faked (somewhat poorly) with Mage Hand.

[Forrestfire]

Honestly, I'd just give it to someone who wanted to be a swordmage. It's not really that strong of an ability unless you're constantly fighting disarmers. Or if something must be swapped, as a custom Background power.

[bloodshed343]

Wait sword bond? You mean the ability to bond to a sword and have it come to your hand from a short distance away? That is not that different from the eldritch knight ability that we already have.

To put the quote in context, I was specifically talking about monks not having sword bond. Making a warlock/ek/monk might be an option to get most of the features.

[bloodshed343]

I don't think the your Janissary is underpowered at all compared to the Swordmage, quite the opposite. I am likely biased though so probably better for someone else to comment. A longer discussion may be effectively derailing the thread, however...

Swordmage has been play-tested in one-offs, but not in an entire campaign. I play an Oath of Ancients Paladin as well, and they operate quite differently. While both classes are pretty versatile, the Paladin is much more of a tank (due to d10 hit dice and healing abilities). Swordmage is surprisingly fragile, because I try to spend most of my time in melee range and don't have the self-healing or hit points to back it up. It's certainly not a fighter replacement; you have to be much more tactical and judicious about your battles. You also don't have the higher-level spell slots compared to a Valor Bard or Warlock. Also, teleportation ability already exists for Eldritch Knight, so I didn't think it was too powerful.

If you care to indulge me in a discussion of gish theory, I'll start a new thread in the homebrew section. I have a lot of questions about your Swordmage, and would very much like to know what you think makes Janissary op. However, that's for a different thread, as it's not on topic here.

[andhaira]

Once more a topic about warrior-mages has resulted in some emotions. This ALWAYS happens, which is why I sounded a little contrite in my OP and the following post. I respect everyone here, and I play RPGs to have fun not to get into emotional debates. But it always irks me that people get so defensive about Fighter-Mages, especially the parts about such a class if properly built will be 'overpowered'. I ask you: Suppose the 5e Paladin was not built like it was, and someone suggested the current 5e build. Would people have ganged up on that person and said that this version would be 'overpowered'? Honestly I bet they would have.

Anyhow, the current 5e options are not sufficient in my opinion. For instance:

-Bard: I don't want a musician. Furthermore, the Bard's spell list is not what I want in a warrior-mage, especially the healing spells and the illusion and enchantment spells.
-Warlock: The flavor of the class and the fact that the fluff is incorporated with the mechanics is not what I want. It fits the warlock class well, and I appreciate that, but it is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
Paladin: A well designed class, and something I would not mind being modeled for the design of a Fighter-Mage class. But again, it's spell list is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
-So on and so forth

Regarding the subclass for Wizard, I am considering designing for myself a Battlemage subschool, which will be for the Wizard what EK is for the Fighter. Would anyone here be interested in seeing it?

[Gritmonger]

I don't think anybody from a 3. background is going to be satisfied with anything in 5th. Nothing will feel that tier, so nothing will be satisfactory, or if it is will probably not be near the same tier of other classes or multiclasses.

In short, depending on your definition of "proper" and its seemingly totally subjective measure, the answer to the title is still likely "no."

[Forrestfire]

At the risk of being needlessly contrary, as someone who first got introduced to gaming back when 3.0 came out and still greatly enjoys 3.5, I'd say I'm fairly satisfied with 5th edition. There are things that need word (especially monster design), but I like it.

Overall, I think that from a game design standpoint, 4e > 5e >>>> 3.5 (bar so low it's buried; I feel like 3.5 wasn't designed so much as happened). 4e's combat system, classes, monsters, and the like are incredibly well-made, the game flows well, and it's not actively deceptive about how to handle out-of-combat things like earlier editions were. 5e, thankfully, seems to have followed that last bit by making a significant portion of noncombat freeform stuff based around the skill checks.

From my experiences playing the editions, I would say, if given a choice between playing in the systems, with all else equal, I'd go 5e = 3.5 > 4e. If given a choice of DMing in them, 5e > 3.5 > 4e. I've enjoyed DMing 5e more because it flows really well, but I'm still most comfortable with 3.5. I enjoy playing 4e, but it's not as fun for me to DM, because I like to go mapless when DMing.

As far as systems I like, I'd say 3.5 > 4e = 5e. I've spent so much time playing D&D 3.5 that it's second-nature to me, and the character-building minigame is incredibly fun. I like 4e and 5e both, and think that 4e is incredibly fun and does great at getting the "D&D" feel (combat-heavy, dungeon crawls, not bogging you down with needless simulationism and attrition-based battles), and 5e flows really nicely, combat is fun, and I like the tone the rules set. I would not play the same sorts of campaigns in these games, though. 3.5 runs best as Fantasy Superheroes, 4e starts off with action movie level characters and goes from there, and 5e seems like it fits a more down-to-earth type thing, character-power-level-wise.

[Madfellow]

I don't think anybody from a 3. background is going to be satisfied with anything in 5th.

I would amend this to, "anybody who was satisfied with 3.x." Starting in 3.x doesn't necessarily mean that one will always see it as the One True Game. I offer myself as a counter-example.

[MrStabby]

Once more a topic about warrior-mages has resulted in some emotions. This ALWAYS happens, which is why I sounded a little contrite in my OP and the following post. I respect everyone here, and I play RPGs to have fun not to get into emotional debates. But it always irks me that people get so defensive about Fighter-Mages, especially the parts about such a class if properly built will be 'overpowered'. I ask you: Suppose the 5e Paladin was not built like it was, and someone suggested the current 5e build. Would people have ganged up on that person and said that this version would be 'overpowered'? Honestly I bet they would have.

Anyhow, the current 5e options are not sufficient in my opinion. For instance:

-Bard: I don't want a musician. Furthermore, the Bard's spell list is not what I want in a warrior-mage, especially the healing spells and the illusion and enchantment spells.
-Warlock: The flavor of the class and the fact that the fluff is incorporated with the mechanics is not what I want. It fits the warlock class well, and I appreciate that, but it is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
Paladin: A well designed class, and something I would not mind being modeled for the design of a Fighter-Mage class. But again, it's spell list is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
-So on and so forth

Regarding the subclass for Wizard, I am considering designing for myself a Battlemage subschool, which will be for the Wizard what EK is for the Fighter. Would anyone here be interested in seeing it?

I would be interested in seeing what comes out (also working on a similar concept for the Pale Master - but I know that isn't the style many people want.

I think that there is a lot of scope to add martial features to a wizard without upsetting balance too much and then there is the point at which small changes quickly become very nasty indeed.

For example if you gave a wizard an extra attack at 11th level I would kind of shrug. The Wizard doesn't get many damage bonuses and by 11th level it isn't really doing much more damage than the wizard's cantrips. Yes an attack action may be the right choice sometimes and it is very nice to have in the bag vs magic immune characters but it isnt game breaking. Likewise adding armor is nice, very nice but probably not a game breaking exchange for the benefits of say the evocation school (but given that the wizard is a pretty high priority target for intelligent opponents this bonus should not be underrated). A lot of the time the game is possibly not that badly balanced as a character needing fighter and wizard stats could be a bit MAD

The problem comes if you take a wizard, add a fighting style, AND armor AND a second attack and still maintain progression to high level spells.

A lot of the time the game is possibly not that badly balanced as a character needing fighter and wizard stats could be a bit MAD and as long as the class was not rich in ASI levels you might be fine. The big problem is that the wizard school has a LOT of spells that don't need intelligence and these are often the powerful ones at high level. If the character is not needing to multiclass it may not be MAD at all if Int could still be dumped.

[archaeo]

This ALWAYS happens, which is why I sounded a little contrite in my OP and the following post. I respect everyone here, and I play RPGs to have fun not to get into emotional debates.

Man, this is an Internet forum; overemotional debates are the whole point.


Anyhow, the current 5e options are not sufficient in my opinion. For instance:

-Bard: I don't want a musician. Furthermore, the Bard's spell list is not what I want in a warrior-mage, especially the healing spells and the illusion and enchantment spells.
-Warlock: The flavor of the class and the fact that the fluff is incorporated with the mechanics is not what I want. It fits the warlock class well, and I appreciate that, but it is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
Paladin: A well designed class, and something I would not mind being modeled for the design of a Fighter-Mage class. But again, it's spell list is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.
-So on and so forth

Regarding the subclass for Wizard, I am considering designing for myself a Battlemage subschool, which will be for the Wizard what EK is for the Fighter. Would anyone here be interested in seeing it?

Frankly, if none of the options sit right for you, homebrewing a solution is the only way to go. If you've gotten pushback, it's because a fair number of people feel like 5e is rich with options, and letting yourself be held back by flavor or the totality of a class' spell list is creating an undue amount of work for yourself.

I think it's pretty clear that, if you put together a fighting-based subclass for Wizard, many would be interested in seeing it. Pop over to the homebrew forums first, though, as it's also pretty clear from this thread that a bunch of people have had your same problem and have already considered solutions. Good luck!

[silveralen]

Once more a topic about warrior-mages has resulted in some emotions. This ALWAYS happens, which is why I sounded a little contrite in my OP and the following post. I respect everyone here, and I play RPGs to have fun not to get into emotional debates. But it always irks me that people get so defensive about Fighter-Mages, especially the parts about such a class if properly built will be 'overpowered'. I ask you: Suppose the 5e Paladin was not built like it was, and someone suggested the current 5e build. Would people have ganged up on that person and said that this version would be 'overpowered'? Honestly I bet they would have.

The 5e paladin is pretty borderline imo, though many people don't share the same feelings (thinking anything that isn't a full caster can't be overpowered).


-Warlock: The flavor of the class and the fact that the fluff is incorporated with the mechanics is not what I want. It fits the warlock class well, and I appreciate that, but it is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.

Okay, mechanically, what do you think needs to change on warlock (fiend I'd assume) to fit your vision.

What I see: INT casting I take as a given, changes to a few features, mainly hurl through hell the rest seem to work mechanically.

What does this lack that you'd like, and what are you going to give up to get it? What makes starting with wizard and adding a new subclass better? Because if you plan on limiting slots and spell selection it should be dropping to warlock level (complete with no ritual casting) if you want to be a decent melee combatant.

[rollingForInit]

-Bard: I don't want a musician. Furthermore, the Bard's spell list is not what I want in a warrior-mage, especially the healing spells and the illusion and enchantment spells.


You don't have to take the healing spells. At level 10 and 17 (or is it 18?) you can steal two spells from any lists. So you could grab Fireball and whatever you want. Or you could go Valor Bard 6, then multiclass into Wizard, and get lots of Wizard spells. You wouldn't get spells 8-9, though, but you'd get full caster spell slots. The Bard has a lot of decent buffs as well.

And ... you don't have to be a musician. Flavour the class in another way. There's no harm whatsoever in letting the Bard use Intelligence instead of Charisma, for instance. It even goes really well with the fluff text of the class. Maybe your bard gained his magic through rigorous study of ancient lore. Maybe he's studied the use of words and how they shape the universe. He's learnt how to use the right word at the right time for maximum effect. Basically, you could say that he's learnt True Name magic, and casts spells as such. Perhaps he's well-versed in stories. He doesn't have to sing or dance. Hell, he doesn't even have to want to share those stories.

Or maybe your Bard really likes puzzles and riddles (hence, Intelligence). Singing or playing music? No way. He tells intelligently constructed stories with several layers of meaning. He tells riddles, he's always got mysteries for the party members to solve. He's great at Investigation. And his magic? Well, he's studied the universe from a very scientific point of view, and has learnt secrets that allow him to nudge it in just the right direction.

Or come up with some other concept. Changing ability scores isn't really a big deal. It allows you to MR into Wizard, but with Charisma, you could MR into Sorcerer and Warlock (Warlock is especially great for Eldritch Blast), and the Int-skills aren't better than the Cha skills.



-Warlock: The flavor of the class and the fact that the fluff is incorporated with the mechanics is not what I want. It fits the warlock class well, and I appreciate that, but it is not what I am looking for in a fighter-mage.

The pact isn't incorporated with the mechanics. The pact can work in whatever way you want. It doesn't have to be a "you sold your soul" or "you're obliged to do whatever your patron wants". Perhaps your parents formed a pact with a Great Old One, and by some alien, magical phenomenon you inherited some connection. Every now and then you have dreams where you glimpse magical secrets. The Patron might not even care about you at all, if neither you nor your DM wants that.

Perhaps you've got a fiend pact, but instead of actually serving a fiend, you're fighting them. You've unlocked the secrets of stealing powers from demons and devils. So by killing them, you're stealing some of their energies, which allows you to unlock fiendish powers.

Perhaps earlier in your life, you got lost in a forest, stumbled into a Fey and ended up staying there (willingly or not) for a while. Perhaps you kept an old, dragon-like being company. Perhaps you ended up being the lover of some Elfish fey king or queen. Perhaps you were tortured by a powerful hag. Either way, you gained power from this.

Or just play it as if the price has already been paid. Perhaps the fiend patron required you to kill someone (perhaps even an evil rival). A finite act - done, now you have the powers of a Warlock. Perhaps a Great Old One required you to share some information. You did it and was rewarded.

If you don't want the pact to affect your gameplay for RP, there's nothing saying it has to.



Really, I wouldn't mind seeing an Arcane half-caster. Would be great if they released an arcane variant Ranger, for instance. That's probably the easiest way to go (or Paladin).

But the game already allows for a lot of fighter-mages. If you don't like anything that's offered, you probably won't like anything that will be, so go ahead and homebrew something. Change some spells on the Ranger or Paladin list, and you've got yourself another fighter/mage.

[Madfellow]

Really, I wouldn't mind seeing an Arcane half-caster. Would be great if they released an arcane variant Ranger, for instance. That's probably the easiest way to go (or Paladin).

Just to point something out, the arcane/divine dichotomy doesn't exist in 5th. Magic is magic; the source doesn't matter.

[BaconChest]

I think it's a legitimate complaint to a certain extent (although maybe not in the way the OP intended). We got the Paladin and the Ranger for the 'Charismatic/Religious' Fighter/Caster and the 'Wise/Nature' Fighter/Caster, but there's no 'Intelligent/Arcane' Fighter/Caster outside the EK. Which I would say is a fine sub-class, but not as well-integrated as the first two.

An aside: In transitioning one of my games from 4th to 5th edition, a player and I had to build from scratch the Swordmage class because there legitimately wasn't a way of replicating the way the class focused on utility and tactics-based combat magic rather than fireballs and magic shielding. There is ~some~ stuff about Bonded Blades, but considering it's literally in the name for Swordmages we decided this aspect of the class needed to be emphasized more than would be possible using the EK (or even Blade-Pact Warlock, which is nice but has lots of non-thematic aspects to it). Instead of simply a sub-set of what Wizards can learn, we instead focused on giving the Swordmage only spells with combat utility, and specifically ones which augmented their mobility/attacks/ability to contain enemies rather than blasting spells or more general utility. What we ended up with is probably a little OP in terms of combat *options* compared to your average 5e character, but without MCing (I've banned it specifically for this character since it's homebrew) the damage output has proven totally reasonable (less than the barbarian/fighter for example) and the lack of utility and spell options makes the character distinctive from the wizard (or even a potential EK or Arcane Trickster).

EDIT: Woops, missed the fact this thread has three pages and that the last page and a half has literally been having this exact discussion. Sorry friends >.> Still, stand by the idea that no-one class in the PHB covers enough of the Swordmage at once, and that if you are going to grab-bag a bunch of a features and graft them onto an existing class you might as well make an entirely new one which doesn't include features that seem out of character.

[bloodshed343]

I think it's a legitimate complaint to a certain extent (although maybe not in the way the OP intended). We got the Paladin and the Ranger for the 'Charismatic/Religious' Fighter/Caster and the 'Wise/Nature' Fighter/Caster, but there's no 'Intelligent/Arcane' Fighter/Caster outside the EK. Which I would say is a fine sub-class, but not as well-integrated as the first two.

An aside: In transitioning one of my games from 4th to 5th edition, a player and I had to build from scratch the Swordmage class because there legitimately wasn't a way of replicating the way the class focused on utility and tactics-based combat magic rather than fireballs and magic shielding. There is ~some~ stuff about Bonded Blades, but considering it's literally in the name for Swordmages we decided this aspect of the class needed to be emphasized more than would be possible using the EK (or even Blade-Pact Warlock, which is nice but has lots of non-thematic aspects to it). Instead of simply a sub-set of what Wizards can learn, we instead focused on giving the Swordmage only spells with combat utility, and specifically ones which augmented their mobility/attacks/ability to contain enemies rather than blasting spells or more general utility. What we ended up with is probably a little OP in terms of combat *options* compared to your average 5e character, but without MCing (I've banned it specifically for this character since it's homebrew) the damage output has proven totally reasonable (less than the barbarian/fighter for example) and the lack of utility and spell options makes the character distinctive from the wizard (or even a potential EK or Arcane Trickster).

EDIT: Woops, missed the fact this thread has three pages and that the last page and a half has literally been having this exact discussion. Sorry friends >.> Still, stand by the idea that no-one class in the PHB covers enough of the Swordmage at once, and that if you are going to grab-bag a bunch of a features and graft them onto an existing class you might as well make an entirely new one which doesn't include features that seem out of character.

Do you mind if I examine your Swordmage for educational purposes? Could you make suggestions for the spell list of my Janissary class? I don't have any books right now, so I've had to sorta guess what the spells do based on name and the 3.5 equivalent spells. This has made homebrewin' a balanced spell list that fits the Swordmage theme pretty hard.

[Mara]

So what is wrong with an EK/Wizard multi class?

You could go EK 11 and 9 Wizard right? You get 3 attacks (only one less than a full fighter) and you get 5th level spells.

[rollingForInit]

Just to point something out, the arcane/divine dichotomy doesn't exist in 5th. Magic is magic; the source doesn't matter.

I know it doesn't technically exists, but it exists in thematic way. It's very clear that they've intended the Paladin, Cleric, Ranger and Druid to have access to similar spells, each with their own niche, and for the Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard to share similar spells. The Bard is something in-between. I mean, that's why Wizards 100% arbitrarily don't have access to healing spells, and why Clerics and Druids don't have Wish.

And the Ranger is very much on the divine/nature side of magic, which is distinctly different from the spells available to traditionally arcane classes. The Eldritch Knight gets much more wizardly spells than the Ranger.

[Symphony]

IMO, if you were going to create a swordmage type character, starting with a Paladin is the right way to go.

Divine Sense -> Some kind of magic sense
Lay on Hands -> Some kind of scaling weapon bond
Fighting Style -> Fighting Style
Spellcasting -> Spellcasting with a different spell list, maybe learned from scrolls as well?
Divine Smite -> Arcane/Elemental Smite
Channel Divinity -> Channel Magic/Teleporting
etc.

Paladin has a LOT of class features that can be replaced with swordmage appropriate stuff.

The spell list could keep stuff like the smites and magic/elemental weapon, but also get spells like shield, misty step, dimension door, haste, fireball, mirror image, etc. It's a half caster, so you won't be casting Fireball until level 9, but I think that's pretty balanced.

[JAL_1138]

You don't have to take the healing spells. At level 10 and 17 (or is it 18?) you can steal two spells from any lists. So you could grab Fireball and whatever you want. Or you could go Valor Bard 6, then multiclass into Wizard, and get lots of Wizard spells. You wouldn't get spells 8-9, though, but you'd get full caster spell slots. The Bard has a lot of decent buffs as well.

And ... you don't have to be a musician. Flavour the class in another way. There's no harm whatsoever in letting the Bard use Intelligence instead of Charisma, for instance. It even goes really well with the fluff text of the class. Maybe your bard gained his magic through rigorous study of ancient lore. Maybe he's studied the use of words and how they shape the universe. He's learnt how to use the right word at the right time for maximum effect. Basically, you could say that he's learnt True Name magic, and casts spells as such. Perhaps he's well-versed in stories. He doesn't have to sing or dance. Hell, he doesn't even have to want to share those stories.

Or maybe your Bard really likes puzzles and riddles (hence, Intelligence). Singing or playing music? No way. He tells intelligently constructed stories with several layers of meaning. He tells riddles, he's always got mysteries for the party members to solve. He's great at Investigation. And his magic? Well, he's studied the universe from a very scientific point of view, and has learnt secrets that allow him to nudge it in just the right direction.

Or come up with some other concept. Changing ability scores isn't really a big deal. It allows you to MR into Wizard, but with Charisma, you could MR into Sorcerer and Warlock (Warlock is especially great for Eldritch Blast), and the Int-skills aren't better than the Cha skills.




The pact isn't incorporated with the mechanics. The pact can work in whatever way you want. It doesn't have to be a "you sold your soul" or "you're obliged to do whatever your patron wants". Perhaps your parents formed a pact with a Great Old One, and by some alien, magical phenomenon you inherited some connection. Every now and then you have dreams where you glimpse magical secrets. The Patron might not even care about you at all, if neither you nor your DM wants that.

Perhaps you've got a fiend pact, but instead of actually serving a fiend, you're fighting them. You've unlocked the secrets of stealing powers from demons and devils. So by killing them, you're stealing some of their energies, which allows you to unlock fiendish powers.

Perhaps earlier in your life, you got lost in a forest, stumbled into a Fey and ended up staying there (willingly or not) for a while. Perhaps you kept an old, dragon-like being company. Perhaps you ended up being the lover of some Elfish fey king or queen. Perhaps you were tortured by a powerful hag. Either way, you gained power from this.

Or just play it as if the price has already been paid. Perhaps the fiend patron required you to kill someone (perhaps even an evil rival). A finite act - done, now you have the powers of a Warlock. Perhaps a Great Old One required you to share some information. You did it and was rewarded.

If you don't want the pact to affect your gameplay for RP, there's nothing saying it has to.



Really, I wouldn't mind seeing an Arcane half-caster. Would be great if they released an arcane variant Ranger, for instance. That's probably the easiest way to go (or Paladin).

But the game already allows for a lot of fighter-mages. If you don't like anything that's offered, you probably won't like anything that will be, so go ahead and homebrew something. Change some spells on the Ranger or Paladin list, and you've got yourself another fighter/mage.

Agreed. Heck, just use a component pouch instead of an instrument, take some different tool proficiencies with DM approval, and call Inspiration and the various Songs of Whatevers buff spells instead. Say "abracadabra" instead of singing "toora loora loora."

For Warlock, refluff so that instead of a Pact (and I get not wanting the 'lock fluff, I'm not a fan either) you learned those abilities through magical study.

I suggested VB as the ideal because adding more Fighter than that to a fullcaster--or even the same amount of Fighter as VB to a Wizard's greater spells known and broader list--is pushing it to breaking point. OP had initially asked for Wizard spell progression IIRC, but if OP's keener on a fighty-er halfcaster, then yeah, refluff 'lock or homebrew.

Arcane blasty paladin-esque...is pretty much Warlock, but what the heck, 'brewing one with more stab and less spell shouldn't end up OP.

[charcoalninja]

Take a Light Cleric and refluff your powers to be arcane magic.
You can smash people with weapons.
You can wear heavy armour and a shield
You can throw Fireballs at level 5
You can summon
You can enhance your allies making them supernaturally strong.
You can summon weapons of force to kill your enemies.
You can lay down large areas of death and doom to wipe out your enemies.

[rollingForInit]

I suggested VB as the ideal because adding more Fighter than that to a fullcaster--or even the same amount of Fighter as VB to a Wizard's greater spells known and broader list--is pushing it to breaking point. OP had initially asked for Wizard spell progression IIRC, but if OP's keener on a fighty-er halfcaster, then yeah, refluff 'lock or homebrew.


I like the idea of a Valor Bard as well. Since their capstone is crap, you could also MR 1 level into Fighter and grab an appropriate fighting style for great effect. Especially if you're going Archery, where that's worth two ABI's. So you get even more figthing strength. Lose out on a 7th level spell, but I think that's very worth it.

[mephnick]

So what is wrong with an EK/Wizard multi class?

You could go EK 11 and 9 Wizard right? You get 3 attacks (only one less than a full fighter) and you get 5th level spells.

Because he wants his spells at the same level a wizard gets them. He doesn't want to wait until level 10 to get 3rd level wizard spell slots, but he also wants to be a capable fighter. He wants to get two things and sacrifice nothing.

[BaconChest]

Do you mind if I examine your Swordmage for educational purposes? Could you make suggestions for the spell list of my Janissary class? I don't have any books right now, so I've had to sorta guess what the spells do based on name and the 3.5 equivalent spells. This has made homebrewin' a balanced spell list that fits the Swordmage theme pretty hard.

Ok, so this is a little out of date since the player has mostly taken over home-brew duties ever since I realised she had a WAY better handle on game-balance issue than I do, but here's what our original brainstorm came up with:

Level 1 Spells
Armor of Agathys
Compelled Duel
Detect Magic
Ensnaring Strike*
Find Familiar
Identify
Sanctuary
Searing Smite
Shield
Thunderous Smite
Wrathful Smite

Level 2 Spells
Aid
Cloud of Daggers
Flame Blade
Heat Metal
Magic Weapon
Misty Step
Warding Bond

Level 3 Spells
Blink
Conjure Barrage*
Dispel Magic*
Elemental Weapon
Lightning Arrow* Lightning Sword
Protection from Energy


Level 4 Spells
Aura of Life*
Banishment*
Conjure Minor Elementals
Death Ward
Dimension Door
Fire Shield
Otiluke’s Resilient Sphere
Staggering Smite* Staggering Sword

Level 5 Spells
Circle of Power*
Telekinesis
Teleportation circle
Wall of Force

Some of these are made up, and with the new Elemental Evil stuff we'd probably add/substitute some of those in, but we generally focused on teleportation, attack buffs and protective spells. We then added class features like the ability to use your blade as a short-ranged boomerang, limited-use teleportation starting at 5th Level and a lot of fluffy stuff relating to bonded blades. Symphony definitely has it spot on, using the Paladin, Monk and Ranger (generally the classes that have limited, combat-focused 'casting') as base-line comparisons to see what you're getting at each level is a good way of keeping it relatively balanced.

[Beowulf DW]

Personally, I think that simply giving EK greater access to spells, or at least the Smite spells would be good enough.

The classic Spellstrike abilities of the Duskblade and Magus don't quite fit so well into 5e's action economy, at least not in their deliver-spells-through-an-attack iterations.