Swordmage as an Arcane Tradition?

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

So, I love the "Magic Knight" archetype. I cut my D&D on a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard in Baldur's Gate, and ever since then, I've been hooked on the idea of a character being equally adept with both sword and sorcery.

When 4th edition came out, the Swordmage had me hooked; this was the cleanest, smoothest translation of the Fighter/Wizard I'd seen since AD&D. Best of all, it was so thematically versatile! Yes, it could be the elven Bladesinger of Faeruns past. But it could also be a githyanki's Gish, or a githzerai's Zerth, it could be a soldier from a magocratic empire, a prodigy in the arts of war and magic, the Arcane equivalent of a Paladin charged with hunting down witch-finders and other mage-abusers, or any of a plethora of other things. I absolutely adored it.

When the SCAG came out, I tried to take the Bladesinger with an open mind. I mean, yes, the fluff had moved explicitly back, but the book also explicitly told you to ignore the whole "elves only" garbage, and it seemed, at a glance, to be a fair enough translation of the Swordmage.

Indeed, for the longest time, my complaint about the Bladesinger is that it's an archetype which is severely lacking in tools. The Swordmage came out with a bevvy of spells specifically for its niche, which is close to medium-range combat. The Bladesinger of 5e, however, relies entirely upon the Wizard's spell-list... which is problematic, given the Wizard's spell-list is focused around the idea that you will try to hang away from the combat and snipe from a distance with your magic. This makes Bladesingers feel far more like wizards with a little emergency melee training than the full-fledged warrior-wizard of the Swordmage.

Still, I can't help but wonder... do folks think that the Swordmage is inherently different enough to the Bladesinger that it could be its own Arcane Tradition for Wizards? I've not been able to stop thinking about this since I compared the Swordmage to the Bladesinger throughout the editions... there's a reason the Swordmage is Int/Str and the Bladesinger is traditionally Int/Dex...

For comparison...
The Bladesinger has:
Training in War and Song: Free proficiency with Performance, Light Armor, and 1 single-handed melee weapon of your choice.
Bladesong: 2/short rest, for 1 minute, gain +10 speed, +Int modifier bonus to AC, Advantage on Acrobatics checks, +Int modifier bonus to Concentration checks.
Extra Attack
Song of Defense: Whilst in Bladesong, expend spell-slots to reduce incoming damage.
Song of Victory: Whilst in Bladesong, your melee attacks inflict bonus damage equal to your Int modifier.

The Swordmage, meanwhile, had the following traits:
Light Armor Proficiency
Proficiency with all Light Blade & Heavy Blade category weapons
Use Light/Heavy Blades as Implements for Swordmage powers
Swordbond: You can form a mystical bond with your weapon, allowing you to summon it to your hand from 50 feet away or recreate it if it is destroyed.
Swordmage Warding: Gain a bonus to AC whilst wielding a Light/Heavy Blade, which is increased if you are using a one-handed weapon.
Aegis: The basis of the 4e equivalent to subclasses, a Swordmage's Aegis is the special at-will power they can use to mark a creature and punish it in specific ways for attacking beings other than the swordmage.

Swordmages with the Aegis of Assault can, as a reaction, teleport to a marked creature and strike it.

Swordmages with the Aegis of Shielding can, as a reaction, negate the damage being inflicted on their ally.

Swordmages with the Aegis of Ensnarement can, as a reaction, teleport the marked creature to them ad cause it to grant Combat Advantage to themselves and all other party members for 1 turn.

[Kryx]

Wizard is the wrong class to base a martial class off of. Putting Bladesinger in it was a mistake imo.

I think an arcane half caster (like the Magus in my signature or the myriad of them elsewhere) is the prime place to house subclasses based on arcane casting and martial aptitude.

[DivisibleByZero]

Eldritch Knight was basically 5e's original version of the Swordmage.
Stone Bloodline Sorcerer from UA is basically 5e's newest version of the Swordmage.

[Spiritchaser]

Wizard is the wrong class to base a martial class off of. Putting Bladesinger in it was a mistake imo.

I think an arcane half caster (like the Magus in my signature or the myriad of them elsewhere) is the prime place to house subclasses based on arcane casting and martial aptitude.

I'd agree that a bladesinger is not a sword Mage, but it's a fun valid thing on its own...

That being said, I'd also agree that some type of half caster is best.

Given how many home brew options there are, there's clearly enough interest

[rbstr]

If the intent is to be in the thick of it the Swordmage should really either be half-caster, or Fighter Archetype (The Arcane Archer but melee might be a place to go). Maybe, maybe, a warlock patron.
If you want to get nuts I could see like a 2/3rds or 3/4ths caster or some funky way to do a spell-slot table.

Full casters, particularly the Wizard, aren't a good place to base an up-close and personal class. You just can't give them too much beyond the powerful spell casting - they'll just walk all over martial classes (and that's already a problem).
That's why each Spell Level basically counts as a class feature. So you get 4 arcane tradition features to build your Swordmage - there's no escaping being a Wizard with a bit of melee attached unless you want to be way too powerful.

[DivisibleByZero]

there's no escaping being a Wizard with a bit of melee attached unless you want to be way too powerful.

Which is precisely why the "Swordmage of 5e" began as an EK and was later introduced as a Sorc.
Wizard is too powerful to attach to the kind of melee capability that a Swordmage should have, so they made it a 1/3 caster on the Fighter.
But then people didn't like that, so one of the UAs made it as a Sorcerer.
An Arcane half caster would be perfect, but we don't have one of those. The closest we have is that Paladin, which works exceptionally well if you reflavor it a bit. It works amazingly well if you reflavor it and create an Oath for it with subclass abilities and Oath spells from the arcane side appropriately. But then you'd just have people crying that it wasn't Int based as it traditionally has been, just like they did for the Stone Sorc.

[Kryx]

I'd agree that a bladesinger is not a sword Mage, but it's a fun valid thing on its own...
It entirely fits in the flavor of a bard (which I also do as part of my houserules), but the debate if a bladesinger is wizard or bard is perhaps beyond the discussion of this thread.

[kingheff1]

The valour bard is a pretty good Gish in terms of melee and spellcasting. Not great in terms of blasting spells but still a big improvement overall compared to the eldritch knight, at the cost of a lot of melee power.

[Pichu]

Wizard is the wrong class to base a martial class off of. Putting Bladesinger in it was a mistake imo.

I think an arcane half caster (like the Magus in my signature or the myriad of them elsewhere) is the prime place to house subclasses based on arcane casting and martial aptitude.

Question Kryx (big fan, don't think i hate your houserules): Why does Magus get cantrips at 1st but paladin and ranger don't?

[Kryx]

Question Kryx (big fan, don't think i hate your houserules): Why does Magus get cantrips at 1st but paladin and ranger don't?
Paladins get cantrips. For followup or further discussion so we don't cause this thread to go offtopic please take all further discussion about my houserules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535488-Kryx-s-Houserules) to that thread.

[Theodoxus]

Which is precisely why the "Swordmage of 5e" began as an EK and was later introduced as a Sorc.
Wizard is too powerful to attach to the kind of melee capability that a Swordmage should have, so they made it a 1/3 caster on the Fighter.
But then people didn't like that, so one of the UAs made it as a Sorcerer.
An Arcane half caster would be perfect, but we don't have one of those. The closest we have is that Paladin, which works exceptionally well if you reflavor it a bit. It works amazingly well if you reflavor it and create an Oath for it with subclass abilities and Oath spells from the arcane side appropriately. But then you'd just have people crying that it wasn't Int based as it traditionally has been, just like they did for the Stone Sorc.

This scratches at the surface of the problem, but I think it's systemic and goes quite further. The primary problem is no one has really defined a "swordmage" that gets even 60% agreement on. Requesting a half-caster arcane "paladin/ranger" is all well and good - but is it supposed to be defensive/offensive like the Abjur/Evo EK? Is it supposed to be sneaky and tricky like a beguiler?

I think most would agree that taking the EK and boosting it to a 1/2 caster would be detrimental to the game. Heavy armor, martial proficiency, shield, d10 HD and access to a faster spell progression and most spells? Even without added class abilities, this is a pretty powerful combination. That you could hamfist something like EK 10/Wiz 10 for similar (if fewer hit points) is only mitigated by the lack of spellslots (13th caster level, effective @20th) - and hence why I've never seen it proposed.

Then there's the 'what does a Gish actually do' question. From casual reading, it would seem most people interested in an arcane gish want it to be OP. Attack 'Dude A' with a sword in melee range and then cast a fireball at 'Group B' swarming the cleric, while granting Evocation School style holes in the AOE so the cleric can ignore the save... OR, the want to be able to channel the offensive power of a fireball into their shield and shieldbash a group of baddies and release the fireball's energy into a cone effect ala burning hands... (or onto the tip of their sword, or as a fistload... lots of ideas on this part.)

Melding of sword and sorcery into some weird fluid motion that makes anyone reading it say "why would I want to be a fighter or a wizard, when I can be better than both at the same time!"

Probably 70% of gish concepts can be done either using Paladin dipped with bard (for better HPs) or Draconic Sorc (for same HP average, but more options). Another (different) group of people could probably just play an EK, grabbing Ritual Caster, Spell Sniper and/or MI: Wizard; or a 3-5 levels of wizard (depending on how many HP they're willing to lose) and be 80% satisfied with how their gish plays.

Then there's the melding of EK/Wiz/Warlock/Sorc/Bard in various amounts that can massage most of the desired results out of them. But nothing will ever really scream 'true gish' - unless a Gish Class is actually brewed up - and then you can have subclasses that specialize in whatever it is that the individual thinks a 'gish' is.

[DivisibleByZero]

This scratches at the surface of the problem, but I think it's systemic and goes quite further. The primary problem is no one has really defined a "swordmage" that gets even 60% agreement on.

{etc etc, gish this gish that}

You're right. There isn't 60% agreement on it. There is 100% agreement on it.
The people that want a Swordmage know exactly what they're looking for, and they're all in agreement as to what it should be, conceptually. They're looking for a 5e equivalent to 4e's class named Swordmage (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Swordmage).
I think you're mixing up the term Swordmage with the more general Gish.

As I said, EK was originally the subclass for this (as well as for a few other things, like the EK itself, the Duskblade, etc) and was intended to be all encompassing for these concepts. The EK's Sword Bond was pulled directly from the Swordmage.
The player base didn't like it.
So Stone Sorc (https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/26_UASorcererUA020617s.pdf) was then added via UA to try to quell the masses. The subclass features are extremely closely knit with the Swordmage. Stone's Durability is 5e's Swordmage Warding placed onto a Sorc and increases HD to an effective d8. Stone Aegis is dual purpose Assault/Shielding Aegis. Stone's Edge is meant to increase melee DPR. The entire subclass is screaming "Hey, we know you don't like that EK is the Swordmage for 5e, so here's another take on it!" But they didn't really take to that either, as they saw it as 1) not an Int caster, 2) being too caster oriented, and 3) didn't get Extra Attack or anything like War Magic when it was supposed to be a gish.
Back to the drawing board for them, I guess.
But if you are in the camp of those unhappy with the EK and the Stone Sorc, then as I said, a refluffed Paladin with a custom arcane Oath is the closest we're going to get, and doing so works amazingly well for a Swordmage.

[Sir cryosin]

My favorite gish for 5e is got to be Arcane cleric. It gives me everything I want and things it lacks I can easily get. Like it's a d8 hit dice. It's not a d10 but it's not a d6. You get med armor and few weapons if you want heavy armor just take a feat or start as fighter or paladin. What a different weapon be a Dwarf, elf, or human, or feat or MC.

Now why I like it for a gish it gives two free wizard cantrips I pick green flame blade. Then with spiritual weapon I'm doing nice melee damage. If I'm getting to hurt I can step back and start blasting with a ranged cantrips, magic missile, guiding bolt. If I need to do a bit of AoE well everyone knows about the clerics spirit guardians. I have a few control spells like hold person, etc. And I have access to healing spells. And I'm still a full caster.

[Easy_Lee]

Something exactly like a Swordmage doesn't exist in 5e, curious as it fills a somewhat unique role and is relatively easy to import. We may get something like this in the future, but it seems like WotC has other things planned right now.

You can build a defensive EK Fighter to fill basically the same role, possibly with the Sentinel feat and some levels of Bladesinger for additional defenses and a far larger spell list. It isn't a bad build. But it's not the same, either.

[Regulas]

In 5e you just need to go Fighter/Wizard multiclass again, balancing the ratio according to how much spellcasting and melee power you want.

While things like EK and Blade-lock and Baldesinger and Stone sorcerer all alow for some level of Gish they tend to be overly niche or focused in one area (sorc/wiz are still pure casters, EK is still a full fighter and Bladelock just needs a redesign).

It's worth noting that levels 3/6/7 are the main targets for fighter given both the abilities you get and the caster level from EK. And then mix in other levels of wizard depending on your ideal targets.

[Dimers]

You can also make a credible Int-based swordmage through Mystic class. Immortal, Soulknife and Wu Jen fit in different ways (though only Soulknife gets martial weapon proficiency right out of the box).

[Shadow_in_the_Mist]

Don't have the time to elaborate on things, but I had to post this or it was going to drive me mad...

What a Gish/Swordmage IS, quite simply, is:
* A class that displays roughly equal capabilities with Magic and Melee skills.
* That uses Training in Arcane Magic.
* And Does Not fall into "Master of None" pitfall.

The original Gish was the 2e Multiclassed Fighter/Wizard. This is not something that 3e or 5e can replicate, because of the different ways multiclassing works. In 2e, multiclassers divided their XP between their classes. This meant that a Fighter/Wizard might lag one or two levels behind the rest of the party's total level, but its individual levels would both still be pretty close to that point.

The Swordmage pulled off that Gish feel perfectly, because all of its spells were themed at conveying that martial/magical blend. It was no more powerful than either a fighter or a wizard, but it felt like a true melding of elements from both.

The Eldritch Knight is seen as a "Gish-lite" because it is a dabbler. It is a class that is predominantly martial and adds minor arcane spellcasting abilities at a fairly high level; it does not give the same "equally capable" feel that people associate with the Swordmage.

The Stone Sorcerer is rejected as the Swordmage because, 1, the Sorcerer is a awful class in 5e to begin with, and 2, it's schizophrenic; it's true that its class features are fairly close to the original Swordmage's, but the Stone Sorcerer's background fluff and even its very name suggests that it's supposed to be an earth elementalist. It's like octopus icecream; two tastes that weren't supposed to go together and just leave most people confused.

The Bladesinger... actually is pretty close to what people want from a Swordmage. The problem is, 1, that damn racial restriction because you know the gaming world is full of pedantic DMs who will say "no, the book says it has to be restricted to elves, so no deal", 2, Adventurer's League likewise reinforces problem 1 with absolutely no hope of a reprieve, and 3, as I brought up in my opening post, we don't have that many close-quarters-useful spells.

When I have the time, I will put my own draft of what a Swordmage Arcane Tradition could look like, but, really, I think a huge help to pulling it off would be to just convert over as many Swordmage spells from 4e as possible. Would anyone be interested in that project? I have all the 4e books, I have the desire, but I'm always worried about the end result. I don't find 5e's "build a spell" rules in the DMG to be particularly clear.

[Nifft]

Bladesinger really ought to have been a type of Valor Bard. That would suit the flavor of the 5e class and the 2e kit. Making it a Wizard was a poor decision.


Swordmage could be a Warlock (if you ignore some Warlock flavor), or a new half-caster which gets the SCAG cantrips as a class feature -- instead of making them generally available Cantrips, they're only available to Blade Pact Warlocks and this new Swordmage class.

[Malifice]

We've never had more warrior-mages off the bat than in 5th.

Bladelocks, Eldritch Knights, Valor Bards, Bladesingers etc.

Plus MCing Sorc-aladins and Fighter-Wizards.

Do we really need more?

Im struggling to see what cant be done already with exisiting MC and archetypes.

[Haldir]

We've never had more warrior-mages off the bat than in 5th.

Bladelocks, Eldritch Knights, Valor Bards, Bladesingers etc.

Plus MCing Sorc-aladins and Fighter-Wizards.

Do we really need more?

Im struggling to see what cant be done already with exisiting MC and archetypes.


But these classes all have weaknesses! Why shouldn't there be a class that can do everything without any weaknesses so that we can powergame!

Seriously though, this thread is filled with Lightning Warriors. https://www.myth-weavers.com/wiki/index.php/Lightning_Warrior

[Easy_Lee]

But these classes all have weaknesses! Why shouldn't there be a class that can do everything without any weaknesses so that we can powergame!

I know it's sarcasm, but I think you're mocking a mentality that doesn't exist. Swordmage filled a specific niche of a half-arcane defender. The existing arcane Gish types are generally strikers or controllers (to use 4e lingo), with none of them having the kind of protection power and party-support focus that, say, a Devotion Paladin possesses.

[alchahest]

I'm with Easy_Lee on this, nobody is looking for overpowered cheese, they want a feel that doesn't exist currently in 5E. Swordmage was a mobile melee defender with arcane options. If you're dismissing the desire for this because you're assuming everyone who wants it wants a wizard with fighter attack progression and toughness, or a fighter with 9th level spells, you're probably not going to get a lot from / add a lot to this conversation.

[Haldir]

I'm currently playing in a game with a Hexblade, a Bladesinger, and an EK, and every single one of them is filling the role of spellmage just fine. Literally everyone here is saying "why shouldn't I have more spells?!" or "Why shouldn't I be better at Melee!?" Hell, the optimized EK suggested build is almost exactly what you suggested. Defensive spells with melee capabilities. Using War Magic for GFB or BB nets you two melee attacks and a spell damage in the same round. Exactly what you're saying you want but "nothing else does"

Definitely not trying to have more power on already finely balanced concepts.

Suppose I shouldn't be surprised nobody got the Lightning Warrior reference. She's a little dated.

Edit- Also seeing that people want mobility. Well, isn't that just dandy! Defensive, Strong Spells, Strong Melee, Mobile.... They probably also need a method for self healing too!

[Easy_Lee]

I'm currently playing in a game with a Hexblade, a Bladesinger, and an EK, and every single one of them is filling the role of spellmage just fine. Literally everyone here is saying "why shouldn't I have more spells?!" or "Why shouldn't I be better at Melee!?" Hell, the optimized EK suggested build is almost exactly what you suggested. Defensive spells with melee capabilities. Using War Magic for GFB or BB nets you two melee attacks and a spell damage in the same round. Exactly what you're saying you want but "nothing else does"

Definitely not trying to have more power on already finely balanced concepts.

Suppose I shouldn't be surprised nobody got the Lightning Warrior reference. She's a little dated.

Swordmage isn't what it sounds like. It's more of a spell-shield than anything. Like I said, none of the arcane options play the same way as a Devotion Paladin, which is the closest thing in role that 5e has.

[Haldir]

Swordmage isn't what it sounds like. It's more of a spell-shield than anything. Like I said, none of the arcane options play the same way as a Devotion Paladin, which is the closest thing in role that 5e has.

EK plays exactly like this if built in such a way. Is there just a fetish for system bloat or is it some compulsive need to have something published exactly like your ideal? Like some kind of self-insert fantasy between your concepts and official material?

[alchahest]

I think you might be projecting. I suppose if you can't actually pay attention to what people are telling you, and the idea of a 4e style swordmage isn't interesting for you as something to explore, maybe this isn't the thread for you. Best of luck finding threads that are interesting to you though!

[Waterdeep Merch]

EK plays exactly like this if built in such a way. Is there just a fetish for system bloat or is it some compulsive need to have something published exactly like your ideal? Like some kind of self-insert fantasy between your concepts and official material?
Your same criticisms could apply to the paladin and ranger classes. They're *just* half-fighter half-cleric/druids. If you wanted to play one, why not just multiclass? Paladin's especially egregious, might as well play a war/tempest cleric. You get the same basic flavor, right? There's clearly no need for paladins. Kick it out, I say! No one likes playing them anyway.

I've got a problem with monks and barbarians, too. Fighters are the fighting class. Make those two subclasses of the fighter, and bam! Two less classes! Screw 'em, everyone hates unarmored defense.

Sorcerer gets the axe out of spite. You're just a poor man's wizard.

We've got nature clerics. Druid is redundant. Buh-bye!

What's a warlock even supposed to be achieving, conceptually? Arcane magic guy? Wizard's better. Get off my lawn, warlocks!

Bard's for power gamers that want all the spells, skills, and maybe even melee. You should have to multiclass for that. Nice try, munchkins.

Cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. We've done it, ladies and gentlemen. We've fixed D&D.

[Tanarii]

You're right. There isn't 60% agreement on it. There is 100% agreement on it.
The people that want a Swordmage know exactly what they're looking for, and they're all in agreement as to what it should be, conceptually. They're looking for a 5e equivalent to 4e's class named Swordmage (http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Swordmage).
I think you're mixing up the term Swordmage with the more general Gish.

As I said, EK was originally the subclass for this (as well as for a few other things, like the EK itself, the Duskblade, etc) and was intended to be all encompassing for these concepts. The EK's Sword Bond was pulled directly from the Swordmage.
The player base didn't like it.I loved the sword mage. I love the EK with SCAG. Because with 2 out of the cantrips Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade, Lightning Lure or Sword Burst, you've got the At-will part of a Sword Mage. And periodic explosions of elemental AoE (aka Evocation) captures the feel of many of their Encounter and Daily powers.

What's missing is the ability to mark and the ability to teleport. I mean, marking is generally missing in 5e, and IMO it kinda suffers for it. But what really kills the EK as a swordmage for me is you aren't teleporting all over the battlefield constantly. Or maybe that was just my favorite build.

[miburo]

Your same criticisms could apply to the paladin and ranger classes. They're *just* half-fighter half-cleric/druids. If you wanted to play one, why not just multiclass? Paladin's especially egregious, might as well play a war/tempest cleric. You get the same basic flavor, right? There's clearly no need for paladins. Kick it out, I say! No one likes playing them anyway.

I've got a problem with monks and barbarians, too. Fighters are the fighting class. Make those two subclasses of the fighter, and bam! Two less classes! Screw 'em, everyone hates unarmored defense.

Sorcerer gets the axe out of spite. You're just a poor man's wizard.

We've got nature clerics. Druid is redundant. Buh-bye!

What's a warlock even supposed to be achieving, conceptually? Arcane magic guy? Wizard's better. Get off my lawn, warlocks!

Bard's for power gamers that want all the spells, skills, and maybe even melee. You should have to multiclass for that. Nice try, munchkins.

Cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard. We've done it, ladies and gentlemen. We've fixed D&D.

Haha I was gonna respond to Haldir around these sort of lines but you did it beautifully. :smallbiggrin:.

A rewired Paladin oath works decently well as a swordmage. That said a true dedicated "arcane" half-caster with the marking and teleporting abilities would be awesome as an official class, but I don't see that happening with WotC anytime soon. Stone Sorc is likely the closest thing, let's see if it make it to Xenathar's Guide.

I have homebrews for both the arcane paladin archetype (swordmage) and a dedicated arcane half caster (spellsword) in my sig below.

[alchahest]

I really miss marking. It was a great low-GM-investment way for defenders to engage in defending. Teleporting Swordmage was my favorite sort of Swordmage, too. I liked it so much I also played a teleporting ardent for a different take on the idea!

Swordmage was nowhere near the top of the damage or control charts, but was great at keeping squishier characters alive, in a unique and interesting way.

-Edit-
I have been working on a half casting martial class recently, I'll be posting it for fine-toothed combing soon. It caps at two attacks, and 5th level spells, like paladins, but I've included more of the 4e swordmage flavor (and it doesn't use cantrips, as I wanted to try something different for the arcane swordiness). once the rough is up I'll start a new thread for it, and link to it with a post in this thread. I would love to have some input, especially from people who played Swordmage in 4e

[Waterdeep Merch]

I really miss marking. It was a great low-GM-investment way for defenders to engage in defending. Teleporting Swordmage was my favorite sort of Swordmage, too. I liked it so much I also played a teleporting ardent for a different take on the idea!

Swordmage was nowhere near the top of the damage or control charts, but was great at keeping squishier characters alive, in a unique and interesting way.

-Edit-
I have been working on a half casting martial class recently, I'll be posting it for fine-toothed combing soon. It caps at two attacks, and 5th level spells, like paladins, but I've included more of the 4e swordmage flavor (and it doesn't use cantrips, as I wanted to try something different for the arcane swordiness). once the rough is up I'll start a new thread for it, and link to it with a post in this thread. I would love to have some input, especially from people who played Swordmage in 4e
I created a half-arcane caster that I posted here years ago under the name 'gish'. It was flavored based on the races of gith, but the mechanics were more directly inspired by 4e swordmages.

I haven't updated it here for the most recent form I use in my own games. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?382872-Gish-The-Class) It really lacks damage in this form- an intentional deficit, but more extreme than I first imagined after I got plenty of experience playtesting it. I think I'll post my newest version soon, which makes direct use of the SCAG cantrips.

[alchahest]

my design goals were:

- No SCAG cantrips (other classes already use these, my goals are to make the class work with just the PHB)
- No Smites (covered by paladins and hexblades just fine)
- Limited spell selection with very few, if any, damage spells
- Novel use of Spell slots for something other than smiting
- Marking enemies
- Mobile defending (teleport or otherwise)
- Not topping damage charts, but also not a class the enemy can just ignore

I'll work to get the rough finished when I get home from work. the ideas are all there I'm just cleaning up the wording and adding intent popouts so criticism can be directed with RAI in mind (rather than "I think this idea stinks" I'd rather see "This idea doesn't fit your intent for ____ reason")

[Tanarii]

- No SCAG cantrips (other classes already use these, my goals are to make the class work with just the PHB)Without these, it won't really feel like a swordmage. Of course, if swordmage isn't your design goal, that's a moot point.

In fact, I would have been much happier if these cantrips had been restricted to EKs only. Or maybe EKs and bladesingers. Not that it's really a problem on Wizards in general or Warlocks or Sorcs ... right up until you allow multiclassing or Feat poaching. It is a problem on single-class ATs though.

[alchahest]

I've been working on ways to get the feel without using the cantrips. I may not have been 100% successful, but that's part of why I'm looking for feedback.

[Yakk]

If I was to write a 4e inspired Swordmage, I would probably start with a half-caster that steals from the Warlock style.

You get spell slots that recover on a short rest. Maybe make them level-based unlike Warlock slots?

Ah; what if they are level capped, but you have "points" (like sorcerers) to boost their level. So your higher level Swordmage spells are "dailies" at low levels, and become "per-encounter" at higher levels.

You use cantrips as your basic at-will attack option.

Swordbond, Intelligent Blademaster, a Warding and/or Aegis should be core features.

[Spiritchaser]

Perhaps we should hold some manner of home brew competition, with everyone submitting their swordmage design for discussion and suggestions.

Actually nix the competition bit. No ones going to have time to playtest so many...

[Nifft]

Without these, it won't really feel like a swordmage. Of course, if swordmage isn't your design goal, that's a moot point.

In fact, I would have been much happier if these cantrips had been restricted to EKs only. Or maybe EKs and bladesingers. Not that it's really a problem on Wizards in general or Warlocks or Sorcs ... right up until you allow multiclassing or Feat poaching. It is a problem on single-class ATs though.

Yeah +1 on this thinking.

Swordmage-specific toys belong with the Swordmage, and the SCAG cantrips were exactly that.

I'd eliminate Bladesingers entirely, and give some of their perks to Blade-Locks instead, who need more love than the Wizard does.

So, the SCAG cantrips would become class features for:
- Swordmage (a new class)
- Warlock (Blade)
- Maybe EK, it does fit the theme, but he really doesn't need them.


The more I think about it, though, the more I feel like Marking is the missing piece which needs to be added to 5e in order to faithfully render the Swordmage.

[Malifice]

The existing arcane Gish types are generally strikers or controllers (to use 4e lingo), with none of them having the kind of protection power and party-support focus that, say, a Devotion Paladin possesses.

Sorc-aladin is a Gish. There is no such thing as 'divine' or 'arcane' magic anymore, or for a Paladin to have anything to do with a Deity, so zero reason a Paladin/ Sorcerer doesnt enter into the 'warrior mage' discussion.

And any Warrior-Wizard (abjuration) makes for a defender type. Take Protection F/S and use your Arcane Ward.

[MeeposFire]

Bladesinger really ought to have been a type of Valor Bard. That would suit the flavor of the 5e class and the 2e kit. Making it a Wizard was a poor decision.


Swordmage could be a Warlock (if you ignore some Warlock flavor), or a new half-caster which gets the SCAG cantrips as a class feature -- instead of making them generally available Cantrips, they're only available to Blade Pact Warlocks and this new Swordmage class.

There was no way they would make the bladesinger a type of bard. Being at least part wizard is one of the traditional trappings of what a bladesinger is. Yes it has singing in the title but as we know they value at the least the appearance of tradition and that is a major facet of the bladesinging tradition in almost every iteration (only the 3e did not require wizard in some way and even then the default assumption was still using wizard and it did try to push you in that direction). You could certainly make a bladesinger like concept for the bard and it would be cool but in D&D the actual name of bladesinger is really attached in concept to the wizard class.

[MeeposFire]

We've never had more warrior-mages off the bat than in 5th.

Bladelocks, Eldritch Knights, Valor Bards, Bladesingers etc.

Plus MCing Sorc-aladins and Fighter-Wizards.

Do we really need more?

Im struggling to see what cant be done already with exisiting MC and archetypes.

I would agree that 5e has a number of ways of making a warrior/mage type character and that is nice.

I would also say that adding another one is not REQUIRED but by the same token I see that there is room for more if one creates a good concept mechanically and thematically.

While you can multiclass a warrior type class and a full caster to get that half and half not eveyrbody wants to play that sort of 3e style multiclass character (I for one usually prefer paying single class characters so having options to pull of many versions of a concept is very helpful). Some people want to play something closer to AD&D fighter/mages which has both classes which would really require a single class and I do think there is room mechanically for a class to fit the paladin/ranger type niche but with a warrior/wizard rather than cleric or druid (I also happen to think that there is room for 1/3 caster types using druid or cleric type spells and the like as well though there is less clamoring for that I think).

Paladins and rangers offer examples of how this could be done conceptually it really only requires a thematic reason to exist and to create something that mechanically fits that theme and makes something new for the game because just making an arcane ranger for instance would not be worth making an actual for (though it is an option for a DM to make an arcane warrior class in a quick and dirty fashion).

[Haldir]

Still yet to see something that a "Swordmage" needs that the EK doesn't have, except for "more spells" which would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see something that Swordmage needs that Bladesinger doesn't have, except for better melee abilities and a loosened restriction on the race. More melee for that would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see anything but a bunch of crying that we're not allowed to break the game.

The arcane spells had to be hand-massaged into near-oblivion in order to make arcane spellcasters on par with everything else. Treating those amazing powers the same as being half a cleric or half a druid is a bad case of false equivalence, because Clerics and Druids aren't huge blasters with massive control and mobility options inherent in their spell lists, at least not on the level that the Arcane spell lists provide.

"I don't get more of the BEST SPELL LIST. Why do those other classes get more spells from objectively less powerful spell lists!?"

Honestly, if they tried to truncate it in a way similar to Rangers and Paladins, you'd just be complaining about why your high-INT characters can't learn Fireball or some other junk.

I mean, I get it. I started in the 2e days and cut my teeth in 3.P, and I'm talking to a bunch of 4e fans, and the sheer power/versatility of the arcane spell lists isn't something you're used to, because the systems you're used to take great pains to try and equalize it.

Have any of you actually played with a decently leveled Bladesinger or EK? They're already a dominant force, throwing around Misty Steps and SCAG cantrips and doing everything everyone in this thread has asked for. Yes, if you remove those two things, I agree they might not fit into what you want. But damn, just... can't even imagine what I'd have to do to challenge someone with the melee ability of an EK but with more spells.

Edit- Just going to use Shield and Misty Step as examples. There is almost nothing comparable in power-for-spell level on the cleric or Druid lists, especially considering bounded accuracy. So either you give a half arcane caster MORE of these super powerful spells, or you tell them they can't take them. Neither one of these is a good solution, either in balance or in play.

[MeeposFire]

Still yet to see something that a "Swordmage" needs that the EK doesn't have, except for "more spells" which would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see something that Swordmage needs that Bladesinger doesn't have, except for better melee abilities and a loosened restriction on the race. More melee for that would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see anything but a bunch of crying that we're not allowed to break the game.

The arcane spells had to be hand-massaged into near-oblivion in order to make arcane spellcasters on par with everything else. Treating those amazing powers the same as being half a cleric or half a druid is a bad case of false equivalence, because Clerics and Druids aren't huge blasters with massive control and mobility options inherent in their spell lists, at least not on the level that the Arcane spell lists provide.

"I don't get more of the BEST SPELL LIST. Why do those other classes get more spells from objectively less powerful spell lists!?"

Honestly, if they tried to truncate it in a way similar to Rangers and Paladins, you'd just be complaining about why your high-INT characters can't learn Fireball or some other junk.

I mean, I get it. I started in the 2e days and cut my teeth in 3.P, and I'm talking to a bunch of 4e fans, and the sheer power/versatility of the arcane spell lists isn't something you're used to, because the systems you're used to take great pains to try and equalize it.

Have any of you actually played with a decently leveled Bladesinger or EK? They're already a dominant force, throwing around Misty Steps and SCAG cantrips and doing everything everyone in this thread has asked for. Yes, if you remove those two things, I agree they might not fit into what you want. But damn, just... can't even imagine what I'd have to do to challenge someone with the melee ability of an EK but with more spells.

Edit- Just going to use Shield and Misty Step as examples. There is almost nothing comparable in power-for-spell level on the cleric or Druid lists, especially considering bounded accuracy. So either you give a half arcane caster MORE of these super powerful spells, or you tell them they can't take them. Neither one of these is a good solution, either in balance or in play.

Considering your example involves SCAG cantrips and things like misty step (a spell an EK can choose if you really want it) or shield I think your concern of adding spells to the EK as breaking it is way overblown especially since I think any talk or creating a 1/2 caster type warrior would certainly not be getting the warrior type features that a fighter gets.

Remember the difference between a high level EK and a hypothetical 1/2 caster is around 2 4th level spells in a day and two 5th level spells. Also consider that this class would have a tailor made spell list so it may not have the spells that would make you fearful in the first place.

The only point in making this class would be to make a class that is not as good of a warrior as an EK and not as good of a caster as a wizard but better than a wizard at fighting and better than the EK at casting. Essentially it would be an alternative to a character evenly leveling fighter and wizard but with a smoother progression and with alternative class abilities that would hopefully fill a theme that has not been done yet too much.

Funny enough while you seem to be really worried about balancing the class I really think that is not that difficult to do here at least in regards on the basic concept of 1/2 caster with an arcane caster leaning spell list of some sort with 1/2 caster type warrior ability. The harder thing to do would be to craft a thematic concept that is broad enough to need to be its own class and requires a thematic set of unique abilities and depending on what those are then maybe you have to worry about balance based on what those abilities are since they could be a new concept.

[Nifft]

There was no way they would make the bladesinger a type of bard. Being at least part wizard is one of the traditional trappings of what a bladesinger is. Yes it has singing in the title

Just to clarify this misunderstanding:

The reason why Bladesinger ought to be a type of Bard is not just because the class has "song" in its name.

It's because it has significant Bardic overlap in its features.

For example:

Training in War and Song: Free proficiency with Performance, Light Armor, and 1 single-handed melee weapon of your choice.

Bladesong: 2/short rest, for 1 minute, gain +10 speed, +Int modifier bonus to AC, Advantage on Acrobatics checks, +Int modifier bonus to Concentration checks.


These Bladesinger features also have "song" in the name, sure, but the important thing is that the mechanical benefits overlap in both flavor and role with the Bard.

[miburo]

Still yet to see something that a "Swordmage" needs that the EK doesn't have, except for "more spells" which would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see something that Swordmage needs that Bladesinger doesn't have, except for better melee abilities and a loosened restriction on the race. More melee for that would break the hell out of the thing.

Still yet to see anything but a bunch of crying that we're not allowed to break the game.


The Straw Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is strong with this one. You're refuting a bunch of points nobody actually made.

The EK is a great fighter who can cast a couple of decent spells. But it's best at that--focus on making lots of attacks, use things like shield every once in awhile, etc. The Bladesinger is an awesome mage who can do a couple cool tricks combat, but you can actually use its bladesinging abilities (high AC, advantage on concentration checks, damage absorption, etc.) better as a full on mage then you can as a melee fighter-mage gish type.

Nobody says they want 9th level spells and four attacks. Lower the number of attacks, and slightly increase the spell level to 5th level progression. Really, it's not that hard.




The arcane spells had to be hand-massaged into near-oblivion in order to make arcane spellcasters on par with everything else. Treating those amazing powers the same as being half a cleric or half a druid is a bad case of false equivalence, because Clerics and Druids aren't huge blasters with massive control and mobility options inherent in their spell lists, at least not on the level that the Arcane spell lists provide.

"I don't get more of the BEST SPELL LIST. Why do those other classes get more spells from objectively less powerful spell lists!?"

Honestly, if they tried to truncate it in a way similar to Rangers and Paladins, you'd just be complaining about why your high-INT characters can't learn Fireball or some other junk.



No one here is asking for the full arcane spell list. The 4E swordmage never even had fireball or anything like it. And even if a 5E version of it did have that spell, would that somehow break the game? When pretty much every other gish has access to it (Fiend Bladelock, Valor Bard, Bladesinger, EK) or something similar (Ancient Paladin Ice Storm, etc.)? What other spells are you worried about? Misty Step, which two Paladin archetypes and Bladelocks get? Shield, which Hexblades, Stone Sorcs, Bladesingers, EKs, etc. all get? Would having 5th level spells on a theoretical arcane halfcaster somehow blunt the balance against these others classes?

The Paladin is cool because it fits the flavor of a holy warrior who can smite the crap out of enemies and still have cool healing/buffing effects. That's not objectively worse than arcane spells, it's just different. There is certainly room in the game to have a half-caster with more of an offensive + buffing focus.

As a side note, Clerics and Druids have some amazing control options, like Spirit Guardians. And even Light Clerics get arcane AoE favorites like Fireball. .



I mean, I get it. I started in the 2e days and cut my teeth in 3.P, and I'm talking to a bunch of 4e fans, and the sheer power/versatility of the arcane spell lists isn't something you're used to, because the systems you're used to take great pains to try and equalize it.


Nice of you to make assumptions, but I'm not sure you get it. Some of us have been playing since well into the AD&D days. I've played fighter-mage types in every edition--Elven Fighter/Mage in 2E, Eldritch Knight/Abjurant Champion and Duskblade in 3.5E, Swordmage in 4E. The 5E options are nice, but don't strike an even balance between melee and spellcasting (notice, I didn't say exceedingly awesome at both). The swordmage was great because it had a balanced theme and stuck to it very well. Unlike, say, the 5E Bladesinger, it didn't punish you for playing the class the way the flavor was intended (see below).



Have any of you actually played with a decently leveled Bladesinger or EK? They're already a dominant force, throwing around Misty Steps and SCAG cantrips and doing everything everyone in this thread has asked for. Yes, if you remove those two things, I agree they might not fit into what you want. But damn, just... can't even imagine what I'd have to do to challenge someone with the melee ability of an EK but with more spells.


Yes, Bladesingers can do a lot of cool things and they are dominant because they are wizards. Unfortunately, as a wizard they are simply just better off using bladesinging + control/AoE spells then playing around with SCAG cantrips. EK's are good too, and yes you can give them Misty Step if you so choose. But for the most part you're still just slinging around extra attacks like most fighters, and occasionally burning your precious few spell slots on, for what is most of your career, 1st and 2nd level spells.

And again, all these are valid play options, but not exactly what people here are looking for.



Edit- Just going to use Shield and Misty Step as examples. There is almost nothing comparable in power-for-spell level on the cleric or Druid lists, especially considering bounded accuracy. So either you give a half arcane caster MORE of these super powerful spells, or you tell them they can't take them. Neither one of these is a good solution, either in balance or in play.

The fact that you consider Misty Step and Shield as super powerful compared to Cleric/Druid spells is a bit hilarious. Shield is +5 AC for 1 round. Shield of Faith is +2 AC for 10 minutes, and Bless breaks bounded accuracy with 1d4 to attack for a 1 minute (across three subjects!). Misty Step, yay you can teleport. So can many classes, like Shadow Monk or Nomad Mystic. Meanwhile your cleric is using a bonus action for concentration free damage from Spiritual Weapon or picking half-dead folks off the ground from a distance with Healing Word. And probably using concentration to Bless multiple teammates at the same time.

But darn, it would just be too unbalanced to have a dude who at 20th level might have 5th level spells, some melee cantrips, and maybe teleports around or puts up a shield every once in awhile. Yup, that's just horrible.

tl;dr: There's a pretty widespread agreement that an arcane halfcaster like the swordmage would be useful and not unbalancing. You disagree, which is fair, but justify by accusing folks of arguments they don't use, which is not.

[alchahest]

I'm pretty sure nobody here is saying swordmage should just be a fighter subclass but with more spells than eldritch knight.

we're looking at 2 attacks, half casting. like a paladin. but arcane and with different novel concepts (like marking and mobility, very defendery stuff)

[Nifft]

I'm pretty sure nobody here is saying swordmage should just be a fighter subclass but with more spells than eldritch knight.

we're looking at 2 attacks, half casting. like a paladin. but arcane and with different novel concepts (like marking and mobility, very defendery stuff)

I'd honestly prefer a one-attack class, using big single-hit damage (via SCAG cantrips), Bonus action spells, and Marking + Reaction attacks to make up the difference.

[alchahest]

that's cool too!

[MeeposFire]

Just to clarify this misunderstanding:

The reason why Bladesinger ought to be a type of Bard is not just because the class has "song" in its name.

It's because it has significant Bardic overlap in its features.

For example:

Training in War and Song: Free proficiency with Performance, Light Armor, and 1 single-handed melee weapon of your choice.

Bladesong: 2/short rest, for 1 minute, gain +10 speed, +Int modifier bonus to AC, Advantage on Acrobatics checks, +Int modifier bonus to Concentration checks.


These Bladesinger features also have "song" in the name, sure, but the important thing is that the mechanical benefits overlap in both flavor and role with the Bard.

That is not bardic favor that is bladesinging flavor which once again is a wizard based flavor since its inception. Take the song name out of it if you asked me if 1 melee weapon, light armor, +10 speed, and +int modifier to several combat related abilities I certainly would not say that screams bard by default. The only outside of song names is that they threw the performance skill in there but that is also something that any character of any class can get already if they want it just by taking a back ground so it really is not a bard only thing. Also notice that most bard related abilities affect others in part or in major ways but the bladesinger abilities affect the baldesinger only. The abilities really are not bardic type though with a few changes it could be such as using the singing blade to boost allies in a similar fashion THAT would be more like a bard type class.

[Spiritchaser]

I'd honestly prefer a one-attack class, using big single-hit damage (via SCAG cantrips), Bonus action spells, and Marking + Reaction attacks to make up the difference.

I personally prefer multi attack, but there is no particular reason your way couldn't work so... by all means enjoy your way

I think single attack would need to appear very strong indeed to make up for stacking the various bonuses that are possible, from magical weapons and GWM etc. But I'm absolutely sure you could do it.

You could even go so far as an "arcane strike" once per turn a-la sneak attack...

[DivisibleByZero]

That is not bardic favor that is bladesinging flavor which once again is a wizard based flavor since its inception.

This.
The name Bladesinger comes not from any singing, but from the exotic dance-like style and arcane rhythm. There is no song or singing. They are traditionally wizards, not bards.
Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't work as a bard. On the contrary. I'm just saying that it would be a deviation from the lore.

[MeeposFire]

This.
The name Bladesinger comes not from any singing, but from the exotic dance-like style and arcane rhythm. There is no song or singing. They are traditionally wizards, not bards.
Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't work as a bard. On the contrary. I'm just saying that it would be a deviation from the lore.

I think it could work too but it would have to be changed slightly. For instance using this blade performance to enhance allies or to directly influence enemies would be more closely aligned with how I see bard specialties. It should not have the bladesinger name for history sake but I think it would make a good idea.

[Nifft]

That is not bardic favor that is bladesinging flavor Perform and Acrobatics are indeed Bardic flavor.

They are not Wizard flavor.


The name Bladesinger comes not from any singing, but from the exotic dance-like style and arcane rhythm.

Those two things which I bolded?

Those two things taste exactly like slow-roasted Bard.

Dancing is a type of Perform check. Arcane rhythm is what a Bard does all day, pretty much exactly.

As mentioned in my original post, the name is NOT why the class screams, "I'M A BARD!" like the fat lady at the end of the opera. It's the mechanics that scream.

[MeeposFire]

Perform and Acrobatics are indeed Bardic flavor.

They are not Wizard flavor.



Those two things which I bolded?

Those two things taste exactly like slow-roasted Bard.

Dancing is a type of Perform check. Arcane rhythm is what a Bard does all day, pretty much exactly.

As mentioned in my original post, the name is NOT why the class screams, "I'M A BARD!" like the fat lady at the end of the opera. It's the mechanics that scream.

Bards are not the only class that gets acrobatics or perform and when I see a character that can do either of those two things I do not immediately think "bard". Neither of those skills are bard only and there are numerous character concepts that use one or both of those skills and are clearly not bards heck both of those skills were found listed under gladiators in other versions of the game and they are clearly not a bard (though one could make a gladiator using the bard class which can be fun).

You can bold the word mechanics all day and I am telling you that the mechanics are your weakest argument because the mechanics do not show bardic flavor at all. Bonus to AC and concentration checks how are those bardic? Light armor and a melee weapon is bardic how they would not even need them? All the mechancis are self only and do not affect allies or enemies how is that in any way related to the bard? Look at what the bard tries to do it uses performance (though not really the sill by the way) to influence others in various ways the bladesinger does not. How is +10 feet of movement a bard ability shouldn't you be saying it should be a barbarian then since unlike the bard the barbarian actually does give boosted mobility or perhaps the monk since it boosts mobility AND uses acrobatics and even gives prof in musical instrument like a bard does so perhaps baldesinger should be a monk instead.

Bladesingers are wizards for the same reason that enchanters, illusionists, and invokers are all wizards despite the fact you can make some arguments that they could have been paired with other classes and that is due to D&D tradition, history, and lore where all of these things have been wizard concepts. Even if you think it screams bard (I do not agree but hey you can have that feeling regardless) the idea of a sub class taking ideas from other classes and meshing it with another class already exist. An EK takes some casting concepts from the wizard class and marries it to the fighter (you got chocolate in my peanut butter) so if you think it really is bard like then just think of it as getting some bardic flavor (it really is not bardic mechanics and honestly I do not see bardic flavor here either) with your wizard class (you got your peanut butter in my chocolate).

[Tanarii]

Blade singers definitely should have been Bards. The only reason they're Wizards under lore is because of Elf class restrictions in older editions. In fact, in 5e classes with no racial restrictions, there wasn't even a need for a bladesinger. It already existsed when the PHb was released. A Bladesinger is a Valor Bard.

[Nifft]

Bards are not the only class that gets acrobatics or perform and when I see a character that can do either of those two things I do not immediately think "bard".

Okay.

You're claiming that you see an arcane spellcaster with Perform and Acrobatics, and you don't think Bard -- instead you think Wizard, or Gladiator.

Gladiators do not have Arcane spellcasting.
Wizards do not have Perform, nor Acrobatics.

The union of those class features -- not any single feature -- is what draws the arrow that points to Bard.

Trying to pick at individual class features is not a valid counter-argument.


Do you have any positive arguments which might support why you think a Bladesinger ought to be a Wizard in this edition, outside of historical (and generally poor) implementations from previous editions?

[MeeposFire]

Blade singers definitely should have been Bards. The only reason they're Wizards under lore is because of Elf class restrictions in older editions. In fact, in 5e classes with no racial restrictions, there wasn't even a need for a bladesinger. It already existsed when the PHb was released. A Bladesinger is a Valor Bard.

This is actually incorrect though I can see where you can get this idea. The original bladesinger (or at least as far as my knowledge go back to this is the case) was in the Complete Book of elves in 2e AD&D. That book had a bladesinging fighting style which almost ANY class could potentially take (though realy it was expensive so really warriors were probably your biggest bet) and the bladesinger kit aka the true bladesinger that was for the fighter/mage at the same time there was a bard kit specifically for elves called the minstrel and there were several other kits from teh complete book of bards could take and noticeably none of them were the bladesinger. Indeed these kits were known by the author of the Complete Book of Elves because he specifically mentions them in the book.

The creators of the Bladesinger knew of the existence of full elven bards, mentions them, and then decided to make the kit of the true bladesinger fighter/mage only anyway while allowing the fighting style to be used by warriors, bards, and others. They had an option of making it a bard kit from the start and chose not to. THey were designed to be THE cultural expression of the elven fighter/mage which is a concept really drawn from the old elf class.

In the next edition where elves could be bards straight up no questions once again the bladesinger PRC was designed with wizards in mind though it was possible to get in there with no wizard (though that was common in 3e in general where class archetypes were weakened and became more of a way of how do I pick up this one ability).

In 4e the bladesinger was a wizard and lastly in 5e the tradition continues. From the start and continuing from there they have always had an option to change the fluff of the archetype to being a bard and they never have.



I would also say that the valor bard mimics certain aspects OK it fails in the most important way in that it is not a wizard and for anybody that actually liked the actual original concept they would not be happy unless it could cast like a wizard. Remember a bladesinger was never the only way to play a character that fights and casts arcane type spells so people that want to play a bladesinger wanted to for other reasons and the valor bard can adequately do the fighting and casting but it does not do really anything for what a bladesinger is outside of that. The valor bard gets bard abilities that were never part of being a blade singer and does not get any other abilities that act like anything the bladesinger used to get.

As for needing to have this in general I could see an argument that we did not need for it now as we could just make a multiclass fighter/wizard and I will say that is true to an extent though due to how multiclassing is different in 5e than AD&D you could not start play as feeling like a bladesinger that way like you could in AD&D which is unfortunate.

[MeeposFire]

Okay.

You're claiming that you see an arcane spellcaster with Perform and Acrobatics, and you don't think Bard -- instead you think Wizard, or Gladiator.

Gladiators do not have Arcane spellcasting.
Wizards do not have Perform, nor Acrobatics.

The union of those class features -- not any single feature -- is what draws the arrow that points to Bard.

Trying to pick at individual class features is not a valid counter-argument.


Do you have any positive arguments which might support why you think a Bladesinger ought to be a Wizard in this edition, outside of historical (and generally poor) implementations from previous editions?

The onus is on you to prove that the bladesinger should be a bard the fact you cannot make a good argument for it outside of "it has a couple of skills a bunch of classes get and are not required to be a bard and it has song/music titles in its ability names" is not my problem.

You declared it should be a bard and it is up to you to convince me it is a needed change. Bladesinging as a wizard has precedent in D&D while for bard it has none. Clearly the designers also decided to continue in that tradition and felt no reason to change it. THey clearly did not feel entitled to fill your need to have the only class with reference to dance or song to have to be a bard regardless of everything else.

Other characters who are not bards get acrobatics and performance. Neither of those make you a bard. Bards are not the only characters that dance. Bards are not the only class that can play a musical interments or otherwise perform. That is why I brought up gadiators because in many cases in the past they had access to essentially acrobatics and performance related skills or abilities yet they were never designed to be a bard. If that is ok why does a wizard class that has those skills all of a sudden need to become a bard?

How is it that none of the mechanics of the class actually work like how bards work or really show off being like a bard yet you insist that they are bard like? The class gives you the ability to buff yourself with a bonus on concentration checks, AC, and helps your maneuverability none of those scream bard to me. A bard could use them but they would not be abilities that would only fit a bard. You say you are not being influenced by just a name but you have not shown any real justification outside of the name of the abilities and just insisting that the abilities belong to the bard with no real justification.

[Tanarii]

This is actually incorrect though I can see where you can get this idea. The original bladesinger (or at least as far as my knowledge go back to this is the case) was in the Complete Book of elves in 2e AD&D. That book had a bladesinging fighting style which almost ANY class could potentially take (though realy it was expensive so really warriors were probably your biggest bet) and the bladesinger kit aka the true bladesinger that was for the fighter/mage at the same time there was a bard kit specifically for elves called the minstrel and there were several other kits from teh complete book of bards could take and noticeably none of them were the bladesinger. Indeed these kits were known by the author of the Complete Book of Elves because he specifically mentions them in the book. Thats precisely my point. There wasn't a 'Bard' kit, there were a Fighter Wizard kit called Bladesinger and a Mage Wizard one called Elven Minstrel. And the reason was racial class restrictions.

Those don't exist any more, and a Valor Bard fits the Bladesinger conceptually great right out of the book. Good combat ability (better than the Bladesinger Tradition) and good casting ability.

Edit: ah, I went and looked at the Elves Handbook, and I get your point the Elven Minstrel refers to the kit from the Bards handbook. But it's still not a Bard, because Elves couldn't be Bards. Which is my point. That's no longer the case. A Fighter/Wizard kit isn't needed anymore. However, a 'minor melee capabilities' Wizard subclass isn't a bad concept to fill the gap on the other end of the line connecting Fighter (with EK to splash caster), Bard in the middle (with more fighter and more caster subclasses) and Wizard. There was just no special reason to call it Bladesinger, or for Bladesinger to be a Wizard subclass.

[MeeposFire]

Thats precisely my point. There wasn't a 'Bard' kit, there were a Fighter Wizard kit called Bladesinger and a Mage Wizard one called Elven Minstrel. And the reason was racial class restrictions.

Those don't exist any more, and a Valor Bard fits the Bladesinger conceptually great right out of the book. Good combat ability (better than the Bladesinger Tradition) and good casting ability.

The Elven Minstrel kit was a bard kit which means they knew about the option of having bard kits for full blooded elves and chose to make it a fighter/mage anyway.

Valor bard can fit the warrior caster part but that is it. If you played a badesinger in other editions then you would probably be unhappy not having wizard casting since it was an important part of being one traditionally. Remember that none of the bard abilities were part of it before either so you are not gaining hardly any part of what made a bladesinger a bladesinger before and gaining a number of abilities that have nothing to do with it instead.

Also note that there were a number of bard kits allowed to elves such as loremaster too so there were several options before they made the bladesinger kit.

[Nifft]

This is actually incorrect though I can see where you can get this idea. The original bladesinger (or at least as far as my knowledge go back to this is the case) was in the Complete Book of elves in 2e AD&D. Just so you know, amongst players and DMs who were active at (and before) that book was published, The Complete Book of Elves has got one of the worst reputations for balance in the entire edition.

It's a book full of bad elf-wank.

The main writer was forced to apologize on YouTube.



The onus is on you to prove that the bladesinger This is actually incorrect, though I think I can see where you might get this idea.

You seem to have no argument other than historical precedent, specifically the precedents of one brokenly powerful 2e book and one brokenly sub-par 3.5e prestige class. (Not sure how 4e did this, so I'm going to let that pass.)

That means you've got an opinion, and you like your opinion -- yet a lot of other people on this thread have different opinions! You can't accept that, so you need to make them "prove" their opinions.

I mean, it's not like two different opinions could exist, right?

And you have history on your side! All I have is a better understanding of class flavor and game mechanics. How could I possibly challenge your opinion?


Well, sorry, there's no such onus on me.

I've got my opinion. It's not just mine, of course -- several others have chimed in with similar opinions. I think my opinion well-reasoned, and I think it can be supported by my arguments. I think the game mechanics and flavor, both of them, are in support of my opinion.

You can continue to try to dismiss or ignore this evidence. I can't force you to see my reasoning.

But you are not the court of truth, and your opinion is not immune to criticism.


So far you've got nothing to support your opinion except "this is what the designers did" (yes, we know, and we feel they were wrong), and "this is what other designers did in other editions" (and that's nice, but it's a different edition and things work differently here).

If you feel there's an onus of proof on any opinion, then I want you to accept responsibility for delivering on that onus first, rather than trying to hold others to a higher standard than you hold your own arguments.

I suspect you can't support your opinion. That's not an onus, but it is a challenge.

[MeeposFire]

Just so you know, amongst players and DMs who were active at (and before) that book was published, The Complete Book of Elves has got one of the worst reputations for balance in the entire edition.

It's a book full of bad elf-wank.

The main writer was forced to apologize on YouTube.


This is actually incorrect, though I think I can see where you might get this idea.

You seem to have no argument other than historical precedent, specifically the precedents of one brokenly powerful 2e book and one brokenly sub-par 3.5e prestige class. (Not sure how 4e did this, so I'm going to let that pass.)

That means you've got an opinion, and you like your opinion -- yet a lot of other people on this thread have different opinions! You can't accept that, so you need to make them "prove" their opinions.

I mean, it's not like two different opinions could exist, right?

And you have history on your side! All I have is a better understanding of class flavor and game mechanics. How could I possibly challenge your opinion?


Well, sorry, there's no such onus on me.

I've got my opinion. It's not just mine, of course -- several others have chimed in with similar opinions. I think my opinion well-reasoned, and I think it can be supported by my arguments. I think the game mechanics and flavor, both of them, are in support of my opinion.

You can continue to try to dismiss or ignore this evidence. I can't force you to see my reasoning.

But you are not the court of truth, and your opinion is not immune to criticism.


So far you've got nothing to support your opinion except "this is what the designers did" (yes, we know, and we feel they were wrong), and "this is what other designers did in other editions" (and that's nice, but it's a different edition and things work differently here).

If you feel there's an onus of proof on any opinion, then I want you to accept responsibility for delivering on that onus first, rather than trying to hold others to a higher standard than you hold your own arguments.

I suspect you can't support your opinion. That's not an onus, but it is a challenge.

Lol brokenly powerful it really was not that powerful but yest he guy did apologize though how that is actually relevant here is beyond me. By the way the bigger sin was that it gave bonuses with only roleplaying hindrances to balance it rather than true power. It really was not that powerful and if you look at in depth anaysis on it you will see that born out. Sadly that sort of balancing was all to common in that period of D&D the same thing occured with the swashbuckler in a later book which kept the +2 AC from Complete book of fighters but had the same hindrance of RP but for any class. It is par the course back then. As for 4e it did not have a great reputation. They tried some new concepts on it that could have been interesting but in the end the concepts made it better for things that were not what they wanted to make it for so I would say it failed in doing what they wanted. As for 3e it was a bad prc which is true for about what 80% or more of all PRCs in 3e so not really much of an indictment of it specifically and once again how does that have any bearing on whether a 5e bladesinger should be a bard.

As for others there have been others who have agreed that it should be a wizard so that is a bit of a bad point and further since we are not talking about popularity contests it is not really a point at all.


You are welcome to have your opinion and if you want to keep it go ahead that is not a problem. I get to have an opinoin too and yes I support it with the history of the game and the fluff and you support it with well nothing except that you feel it fits better on the bard. Frankly I have not found any of your reasoning for that compelling and even when you insist it is not because of the name your reasoning existentially goes back to that.


And yes the onus is on you. You think it should be changed so it is up to you to show that it actually needs to be changed. If your arguments for the change are not convincing to me why should I have to even consider going any further? Your lack of an effective argument is not my problem. The fact you cannot make an argument that trumps the history of the game is also not my problem.

Tanarii is at least trying to create an argument for why it actually should be a bard by at least trying to address the point against it being a bard. I personally think the point is countered effectively in the fluff of the original and the fact that the designer at the time knew about the elven bard option and chose not to do it but Tanarii's attempt at least is a valid attempt. Yours is essentially trying to fight an opinion or a feeling and that never really works out which is why I was attempting to use history because regardless of how we feel (you say it feels bard I say it does not so how are we really going to resolve that effectively?) those are actual facts and ones I think shows what the designers were looking at when making it.

If you want me to argue against your feelings I am not going to do that because it won't get us anywhere. If that is the only way to convince you then I would say we should just agree to disagree.

[MeeposFire]

Thats precisely my point. There wasn't a 'Bard' kit, there were a Fighter Wizard kit called Bladesinger and a Mage Wizard one called Elven Minstrel. And the reason was racial class restrictions.

Those don't exist any more, and a Valor Bard fits the Bladesinger conceptually great right out of the book. Good combat ability (better than the Bladesinger Tradition) and good casting ability.

Edit: ah, I went and looked at the Elves Handbook, and I get your point the Elven Minstrel refers to the kit from the Bards handbook. But it's still not a Bard, because Elves couldn't be Bards. Which is my point. That's no longer the case. A Fighter/Wizard kit isn't needed anymore. However, a 'minor melee capabilities' Wizard subclass isn't a bad concept to fill the gap on the other end of the line connecting Fighter (with EK to splash caster), Bard in the middle (with more fighter and more caster subclasses) and Wizard. There was just no special reason to call it Bladesinger, or for Bladesinger to be a Wizard subclass.

Elves could be bards they just could not use the true bard kit (which essentially means they could not use the standard bard kit).

Elves could be bards with the kits gypsy, herald, loremaster, meistersinger, and minstrel.

They could also multiclass with bard as a mage/minstrel or a thief/gypsy.

I can agree that there is room for a splash or warrior in a wizard and that it did not need to be a bladesinger but I would disagree on the bladesinger part. Being a wizard in at least part is one of the traditional defining characteristics of the title. If one was going to have a subclass named bladesinger and it were to be true to what it always has been it would either have to be a wizard class or it would have to be part of another warrior class and have access to wizard casting. I actually think pre-bladesinger that the EK did the basic concept overall justice though it was weaker than the concept really likes on casting and obviously lacked some of the traditional few abilities that the concept was known for. Multiclassing with wizard helped with that too but as I said before it sadly did not work like a 1-20 concept like it did back in AD&D and that is not ideal though still workable.

[Haldir]

The Straw Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is strong with this one. You're refuting a bunch of points nobody actually made.

The EK is a great fighter who can cast a couple of decent spells. But it's best at that--focus on making lots of attacks, use things like shield every once in awhile, etc. The Bladesinger is an awesome mage who can do a couple cool tricks combat, but you can actually use its bladesinging abilities (high AC, advantage on concentration checks, damage absorption, etc.) better as a full on mage then you can as a melee fighter-mage gish type.

Nobody says they want 9th level spells and four attacks. Lower the number of attacks, and slightly increase the spell level to 5th level progression. Really, it's not that hard.

Not even two posts after you called Straw Man on me someone literally made the argument that EK doesn't get enough spells. Which is exactly what everyone in this thread has been saying. What you go on to say actually.


The fact that you consider Misty Step and Shield as super powerful compared to Cleric/Druid spells is a bit hilarious. Shield is +5 AC for 1 round. Shield of Faith is +2 AC for 10 minutes, and Bless breaks bounded accuracy with 1d4 to attack for a 1 minute (across three subjects!). Misty Step, yay you can teleport. So can many classes, like Shadow Monk or Nomad Mystic. Meanwhile your cleric is using a bonus action for concentration free damage from Spiritual Weapon or picking half-dead folks off the ground from a distance with Healing Word. And probably using concentration to Bless multiple teammates at the same time.

But darn, it would just be too unbalanced to have a dude who at 20th level might have 5th level spells, some melee cantrips, and maybe teleports around or puts up a shield every once in awhile. Yup, that's just horrible.

tl;dr: There's a pretty widespread agreement that an arcane halfcaster like the swordmage would be useful and not unbalancing. You disagree, which is fair, but justify by accusing folks of arguments they don't use, which is not.

I think comparing Shield of Faith to Shield is hilarious. A concentration spell for a tiny flat bonus, when Cleric concentration is one of the most valuable in the game, next to a bonus action gigantic boost of AC. Not even close. They'd laugh you right out of an optimization thread for this. You might be able to compare Bless to Shield in terms of power, but even with a Spiritual Weapon you're not even coming close to the power of things like Hideous Laughter, Fireball, Mirror Image. Goes on and on.

I mean, there's really no debating. The cleric and druid lists were designed with other features- like armor and healing- that aid these classes in survivability and melee capability. Wizards had no such restriction and so they get a better spell list. Asking for Less than EK melee capabilities? What are you gonna take away? Extra attack. Then its too weak, you'd complain. Action Surge? Using this for a spell anyway probably. Armor proficiecy and heavy hitting weapons? Well, then you'd just have bladesinger.

Gonna say it again- if you want 5th level spells and good melee ability play a Bladesinger or Valor Bard and be even more powerful than whatever goony version of the spellsword you have in your head.

[alchahest]

Not even two posts after you called Straw Man on me someone literally made the argument that EK doesn't get enough spells. Which is exactly what everyone in this thread has been saying. What you go on to say actually.


You forgot to finish - they are talking about more spells at the expense of multiple attacks. And one of the biggest things people are talking about is a marking mechanic / way to actually play a defender. If you aren't going to engage the conversation honestly, why even bother?

[MeeposFire]

Not even two posts after you called Straw Man on me someone literally made the argument that EK doesn't get enough spells. Which is exactly what everyone in this thread has been saying. What you go on to say actually.



I think comparing Shield of Faith to Shield is hilarious. A concentration spell for a tiny flat bonus, when Cleric concentration is one of the most valuable in the game, next to a bonus action gigantic boost of AC. Not even close. They'd laugh you right out of an optimization thread for this. You might be able to compare Bless to Shield in terms of power, but even with a Spiritual Weapon you're not even coming close to the power of things like Hideous Laughter, Fireball, Mirror Image. Goes on and on.

I mean, there's really no debating. The cleric and druid lists were designed with other features- like armor and healing- that aid these classes in survivability and melee capability. Wizards had no such restriction and so they get a better spell list. Asking for Less than EK melee capabilities? What are you gonna take away? Extra attack. Then its too weak, you'd complain. Action Surge? Using this for a spell anyway probably. Armor proficiecy and heavy hitting weapons? Well, then you'd just have bladesinger.

Gonna say it again- if you want 5th level spells and good melee ability play a Bladesinger or Valor Bard and be even more powerful than whatever goony version of the spellsword you have in your head.

I am sorry you are really wrong about this concept that you cannot be good in melee and have 5th level spells or the wizard type. You can have a character with 3 attacks on a single attack action with ALL of the fighter's best abilities (outside of getting 4 attacks on an attack action but 3 is better than anybody else) with 5th level wizard spells and obviously more spells than an EK or I think than what a 1/2 caster gets by default.

So already the multiclass that is 100% legit already and you seem to have no problems with is already better than what most people are even positing to create.

Most people (if not all) who want to make a 1/2 caster class would take just extra attack on it like a paladin and that is one less attack than the multiclass. This swordmage would have less spells and less features that directly boost casting than the multiclass (the multiclass for instance can create disadvantage on saves the swordmage would likely not). The swordmage would likely have less HP less AC (unless they gave it a class ability specifically to buff it which they could choose to do) and would lack abilities like action surge. The swordmage class may or may not have all the spells that the multiclass has (paladins and rangers have unique spell lists so it would be likely that if created that the swordmage would too) which means that it would likely would have less power in its list as well.

THe only thing the swordmage class would gain is much smoother progression that lets you do your thing from level 1 which is not powerful but rather more fun for those that want this and the possibility of new class gmimicks and abilities whose balance would depend on the exact nature of the abilities created in question.

The basic class structure of a 1/2 caster with access to wizard spells is not overpowered in and of itself.

[Sigreid]

I just thought I'd pop in to say I would have no problem with a fighter magicuser class that had an even split between the fighter and the magicuser baked in.

And that I'm personally glad that marked is an option referred to only in the DM's guide. One of the things I hated about 4E when I looked through the PHB for it was the defender's abilities to force opponents to stay on them. I think that sort of thing just leads to lazy tactics.

Just my opinions.

[Theodoxus]

We already have Hunter's Mark, why not Defender's Mark?

Defender's Mark
2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, M (worn shield)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute.

You can place a magical mark on a foe, allowing you to respond to attacks against your allies with counter-assaults or timely protection. When your marked target hits a creature other than yourself with an attack and is within 60 feet of you, you can use one of the following effects:
Defender's Shield: You use your reaction to provide the hit creature resistance to damage from that attack.
Defender's Assault: You use your reaction to teleport to an unoccupied spot within 5 feet of the marked target, and you may make an immediate melee attack against it.

I'd add the spell to the base Cleric, Paladin and Wizard lists (Maybe sorcerer, for those who've gained the ability to wield a shield...)
I placed it at 2nd level because of the 1/round "free" teleport, and made it transmutation. This does limit EKs to gaining it at 8th level; though that's only 1 level later than they'd gain their 2nd level spells... so, switching it to Abjuration or 1st level would be a boost, if that's desirable... Unsure if you'd want to grant it "At Higher Levels", ala Hunter's Mark, where it gains a longer duration. I can see pros and cons both ways.

Thanks to GITP member miburo for his version of The Spellsword, where I shamelessly ripped the idea of the spell from.

[Tanarii]

And that I'm personally glad that marked is an option referred to only in the DM's guide. One of the things I hated about 4E when I looked through the PHB for it was the defender's abilities to force opponents to stay on them. I think that sort of thing just leads to lazy tactics.It didn't force anything. It gave the Devils choice. It was one of the many ways 4e opened up tactical play like no tomorrow, especially for Fighters. And I'll be clear: no edition of D&D has been as good at battle mat tactical play as 4e was. It's issues lay on other areas. Like an extreme focus on battle mat tactical play. :smallwink:

Mark still kinda sorta exist even without the DMG optional rule. You can see where they tried to put it in, in the form of things like Protection Fighting Style and the Sentinel Feat.

[Sigreid]

It didn't force anything. It gave the Devils choice. It was one of the many ways 4e opened up tactical play like no tomorrow, especially for Fighters. And I'll be clear: no edition of D&D has been as good at battle mat tactical play as 4e was. It's issues lay on other areas. Like an extreme focus on battle mat tactical play. :smallwink:

Mark still kinda sorta exist even without the DMG optional rule. You can see where they tried to put it in, in the form of things like Protection Fighting Style and the Sentinel Feat.

I understand that lots of people like it. I prefer it not be there.

[Tanarii]

I understand that lots of people like it. I prefer it not be there.i had a long thing to say about why I liked 4e style at the time, and why I like 5e style now, but then I realized that's not what you meant. :smallbiggrin:

I understand why some people didn't like it. It feels artificial. Not as bad as Taunt. But it feels like somehow compelling the enemy. The other problem people commonly have is envisioning it descriptively.

Anyway, your opinion is your opinion. Not trying to sell you on the idea, was just pointing out that the (general) way it was designed to work was influencing enemy decisions by a Devils choice, not by directly compelling. And like I said, it's still effectively in 5e, in a Fighting Style and a Feat.

But on topic (/gasp), in regards to the Swordmage and Marking, it's not Mark in particular I care about. It's the Assault Mage Aegis I want. The ability to choose an enemy target, and if it attacks an ally, teleport over and attack it.

To me, the core of a Sword Mage is teleporting all over the battlefield with every 'encounter power' (in 5e, probably a spell that requires a melee attack as part of it), including your retributive strikes when an enemy attacks an ally. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

But on topic (/gasp), in regards to the Swordmage and Marking, it's not Mark in particular I care about. It's the Assault Mage Aegis I want. The ability to choose an enemy target, and if it attacks an ally, teleport over and attack it.

To me, the core of a Sword Mage is teleporting all over the battlefield with every 'encounter power' (in 5e, probably a spell that requires a melee attack as part of it), including your retributive strikes when an enemy attacks an ally. :smallbiggrin:

Now this I would have no issue with. As you had put it it would feel less artificial (or more appropriately artificial 😁).

[DracoKnight]

But on topic (/gasp), in regards to the Swordmage and Marking, it's not Mark in particular I care about. It's the Assault Mage Aegis I want. The ability to choose an enemy target, and if it attacks an ally, teleport over and attack it.

To me, the core of a Sword Mage is teleporting all over the battlefield with every 'encounter power' (in 5e, probably a spell that requires a melee attack as part of it), including your retributive strikes when an enemy attacks an ally. :smallbiggrin:

This is exactly what I want out of a Sword Mage. And it's what the Stone Sorcerer gave me. I know it's not INT, like a lot of people wanted, but I would love it if the Stone Sorcerer made it into XGtE, more or less as-is. There's only one thing I'd change: I'd remove the complicated (for 5e) formula for calculating Stone's Aegis. Make it equal to CHA mod. Done.

[alchahest]

Is there more than one version of Stone Sorc? I can't find one that has the teleporting around to hit people hitting your allies power in the UA version. The version I can see is a reasonably tough close range sorceror, with a little bit of buffing allies, but doesn't really fit the rest of the bill.

[DivisibleByZero]

Is there more than one version of Stone Sorc? I can't find one that has the teleporting around to hit people hitting your allies power in the UA version. The version I can see is a reasonably tough close range sorceror, with a little bit of buffing allies, but doesn't really fit the rest of the bill.

Level 6:


Starting at 6th level, your command of earth
magic grows stronger, allowing you to harness it
for your allies’ protection.
As a bonus action, you can grant an aegis to
one allied creature you can see within 60 feet of
you. The aegis is a dim, gray aura of earth magic
that protects the target. Any bludgeoning,
piercing, or slashing damage the target takes is
reduced by 2 + your sorcerer level divided by 4.
This effect lasts for 1 minute, until you use it
again, or until you are incapacitated.
In addition, when a creature you can see
within 60 feet of you hits the protected target
with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to
teleport to an unoccupied space you can see
within 5 feet of the attacker. You can teleport
only if you and the attacker are on the same
surface. You can then make one melee weapon
attack against the attacker. If that attack hits, it
deals an extra 1d10 force damage. This extra
damage increases to 2d10 at 11th level and 3d10
at 17th level.

[alchahest]

well I definitely missed that! thanks!

[MeeposFire]

Funny enough everybody is talking about the assault SM but in practice most people played shielding swordmages back in 4e though they too had some encounter based attacks that would allow them to attack via a teleport (often on a reaction attack).

[Easy_Lee]

Stone Sorcerer / Eldritch Knight looks pretty good for it, if you have the stats and levels for it. Not perfect, but would work in a Tier 3 or 4 game.

[DivisibleByZero]

well I definitely missed that! thanks!

As I said previously, EK was the first iteration of 5e's Swordmage.
The masses didn't like it, so Stone Sorc was born to quite literally be 5e's Swordmage.

Weapons and shields? Check.
Better HP than normal (to account for SM's d8)? Check.
Better AC than normal (to account for SM Warding)? Check.
Full caster? Check.
Enhanced spell list for better gishing? Check.
Aegis of Shielding equivalent? Check.
Aegis of Assault equivalent? Check.
Ability to deal extra damage to your melee target? Check.
Eventual improvement for your Aegis? Check.

Stone Sorc is 5e's Swordmage. They weren't even subtle about it. They just changed the name to make it a Bloodline/Origin. This is the Swordmage.

[DracoKnight]

As I said previously, EK was the first iteration of 5e's Swordmage.
The masses didn't like it, so Stone Sorc was born to quite literally be 5e's Swordmage.

Weapons and shields? Check.
Better HP than normal (to account for SM's d8)? Check.
Better AC than normal (to account for SM Warding)? Check.
Full caster? Check.
Enhanced spell list for better gishing? Check.
Aegis of Shielding equivalent? Check.
Aegis of Assault equivalent? Check.
Ability to deal extra damage to your melee target? Check.
Eventual improvement for your Aegis? Check.

Stone Sorc is 5e's Swordmage. They weren't even subtle about it. They just changed the name to make it a Bloodline/Origin. This is the Swordmage.

And honestly, it does damn good as a sorcerer. You have the possibility of 4 attacks per round at higher levels (twinned booming blade, quicken a green-flame blade for extra damage on the targets of your booming blades and then an additional weapon attack from haste), you have proficiency in Con saves, the whole package makes an amazing gish.

[DivisibleByZero]

And honestly, it does damn good as a sorcerer. You have the possibility of 4 attacks per round at higher levels (twinned booming blade, quicken a green-flame blade for extra damage on the targets of your booming blades and then an additional weapon attack from haste), you have proficiency in Con saves, the whole package makes an amazing gish.

Yep.

But it doesn't have Extra Attack!
So what? Its supposed to use the SCAG cantrips. You know, the ones that were modeled after the Swordmage at-wills?

But it's a Cha caster!
So what? This is literally irrelevant.

But it doesn't get enough spells known!
So what? It's a melee range defender type who uses magic to attack and defend. It doesn't need a crapload of spells. And remember, it still gets metamagic.

Stone Sorc did a great job of recreating the Swordmage under 5e's ruleset.
It's also fantastic with a Pally dip for smites, or a Hexblade dip to reduce MAD (if your DM allows multiclassing from UA).

[Tanarii]

Weapons and shields? Check.Sword mages had some kind of magic AC bonus for having an empty hand, not shields. Plus Leather armor.
(I'd forgotten what their armor level was, and noticed the empty hand magic AC bonus when looking up the armor this morning.)

Edit: Obviously your general thingy is right, the UA sorc is definitely a swordmage replacement.

[DracoKnight]

Yep.

But it doesn't have Extra Attack!
So what? Its supposed to use the SCAG cantrips. You know, the ones that were modeled after the Swordmage at-wills?

But it's a Cha caster!
So what? This is literally irrelevant.

But it doesn't get enough spells known!
So what? It's a melee range defender type who uses magic to attack and defend. It doesn't need a crapload of spells. And remember, it still gets metamagic.

Stone Sorc did a great job of recreating the Swordmage under 5e's ruleset.
It's also fantastic with a Pally dip for smites, or a Hexblade dip to reduce MAD (if your DM allows multiclassing from UA).

Exactly everything you just said.

I get that people want more INT casters, but if I can get the mechanics I want on a CHA caster, I'll ask my DM about swapping to INT this one time.

[alchahest]

Yeah, Stone Sorc looks like a good fit! hopefully it makes it through to Xanathar's.

The int/cha thing I think is less that people REALLY care which mental stat they use for casting and more that there's so very little for Int currently.

With that being said I'll still keep tooling away on a martial half-caster, because I like the challenge of it. But instead of making a straight up swordmage, perhaps instead I'll make a base class that can be swordmage-like with a subclass (And maybe warden-like with another?)

[DivisibleByZero]

With that being said I'll still keep tooling away on a martial half-caster, because I like the challenge of it. But instead of making a straight up swordmage, perhaps instead I'll make a base class that can be swordmage-like with a subclass (And maybe warden-like with another?)

I have a doc at home somewhere doing exactly that from before Stone Sorc appeared in UA.
General half caster gish template, named Magius. There was a general Magius spell list which was relatively small, and each subclass got its own list added to that base list.
Subclasses were:
Swordmage - teleporting defender type, exactly what you'd expect. Swordmage got more defensive and some of the weapon spells (like the Stone Sorc gets) added.
Duskblade - heavily armored striker type, with Arcane Strike (arcane version of Divine Smite). Duskblade got more offensive/AoE spells added.
Daggerspell Mage - stealthy, lightly armored striker type, with 7d6 sneak attack progression (@ 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, & 20). Daggerspell Mage got more control/utility added.
This helped differentiate the subclasses while retaining a similar theme. They were all Magi built from the same foundation, but all played *extremely* differently. It was one of my better homebrews.

[miburo]

+1 for Stone Sorcerer being the closest thing to a swordmage we are ever likely to see officially from WotC. You can do burst Extra Attacks using Quickened Booming Blades or Greenflame Blades. It's a bit low on HP for a Defender and a bit MAD but it gets the job done. I hope it makes it to Xenathar's, although I imagine it will need some rebalancing work.

A small Hexblade dip does wonders for the class too (reduce MADness, access to Eldritch Blast). I'm not hopeful that will make it to Xenathar's Guide though, it's too much of a blatant rules patch over the current Pact of the Blade shortcomings. Maybe they add an Invocation for Charisma to attack rolls instead?

[alchahest]

I'm thinking of making a sort of "best of 4e concepts" martial class

single attack on the base class, marking, something to boost their reactions (perhaps gaining an extra reaction at 2nd, 8th, 11th, 16th?) making it scale with class levels rather than character levels)
swordmage subclass for teleporting and small selection of spells up to level 5 (int based casting)
warden for personal shapeshifting and terrain based shenanegans (Wisdom based casting, even though 4e used con)
and... combo warlord/4e fighter type. gains a second attack, and provides benefits to allies in a non-spell way. int based benefits

[miburo]

I'm thinking of making a sort of "best of 4e concepts" martial class

single attack on the base class, marking, something to boost their reactions (perhaps gaining an extra reaction at 2nd, 8th, 11th, 16th?) making it scale with class levels rather than character levels)
swordmage subclass for teleporting and small selection of spells up to level 5 (int based casting)
warden for personal shapeshifting and terrain based shenanegans (Wisdom based casting, even though 4e used con)
and... combo warlord/4e fighter type. gains a second attack, and provides benefits to allies in a non-spell way. int based benefits

That's...really interesting actually. I am not sure at all how you would tie these together thematically into a single class (as opposed to the mechanics, which make sense) but it would be cool. Thematically I'd focus on how each class is some kind of protector or guardian (swordmage via magic, warden via nature, warlord via tactics/inspiration).

Putting spellcasting at 5th (half-caster) seems a bit high for an archetype. Maybe as short rest spell slots, like a Warlock? So a high-level swordmage ends up with maybe 2 5th level short rest spell slots, along with various aegis abilities? Otherwise would probably err towards 1/3 spellcasting progression like EK, unless the base class chassis was weak enough that the archetype holds most of the classes' power.

Don't know much about the Warden, but using Wis makes sense. A Warlord would definitely be awesome. If the Swordmage archetype is Int based, the Warlord should probably be Cha-based. Which kinda makes sense--they are leaders whose presence is what inspires troops to do better.

Edit: I wouldn't give too many reactions, that kinda breaks action economy and makes the swordmage aegis extremely powerful.

[alchahest]

yeah - I'll be playing around with things, but, I think to best reflect the idea of the 4e defender, instead of increasing # of reactions, I'll tie marking to an non-action type of reaction, especially as these guys won't have multiple attacks (on their own turn). The swordmage type would have teleport-capability for marked enemies, the warden would be able to pull (like vine whip) or push (there's a stone catapult type of earthbendery move they had in 4th) marked enemies, and the warlord type would have some sort of bonus to an ally being attacked by the marked enemy.

the spell lists will be very tight, the up-to-fifth level spell slots will largely be used for fuelling whatever effects (shapeshifting for warden, maybe some type of arcane smite for swordmage) and I think the warlord will not use spells at all?

just been dumping ideas in a notepad for when I get off work

[miburo]

yeah - I'll be playing around with things, but, I think to best reflect the idea of the 4e defender, instead of increasing # of reactions, I'll tie marking to an non-action type of reaction, especially as these guys won't have multiple attacks (on their own turn). The swordmage type would have teleport-capability for marked enemies, the warden would be able to pull (like vine whip) or push (there's a stone catapult type of earthbendery move they had in 4th) marked enemies, and the warlord type would have some sort of bonus to an ally being attacked by the marked enemy.

the spell lists will be very tight, the up-to-fifth level spell slots will largely be used for fuelling whatever effects (shapeshifting for warden, maybe some type of arcane smite for swordmage) and I think the warlord will not use spells at all?

just been dumping ideas in a notepad for when I get off work

Super interesting. Extra reactions could probably work if they don't get multiple attacks. Though only problem is that it would be too easy to grab SCAG cantrips to boost single damage output in that case (via Magic Initiate, Multiclassing, or Racial abilities).

Alternatively, you could have a a passive marking effect and an active (i.e. uses a reaction) marking effect, and these both get stronger at various levels. For example, you could increase the number of people you are able to mark at various levels, which each grants a passive effect, but can still only use your reaction once (although that also gets stronger). In that case you could give a single Extra Attack and probably still be okay. Or maybe just Extra Attack to the nonmagic archetypes like the Warlord.

The best class name might in fact be...Defender :smallbiggrin:. Though Guardian works too.

This is probably getting off-topic for this Swordmage thread but still really interesting. If you end up posting something on the Homebrew thread let me know and I'll gladly help evaluate/brainstorm.

[alchahest]

sounds good! expect something... soonish

[Suichimo]

Honestly, my biggest problem with the Stone Sorceror is that it's smashing both the Shielding and Assault Swordmages together. I played, when I was able to, a hardcore Shielding Swordmage and didn't touch any of the teleporty stuff, one of my favorite abilities was the Shielding Fire daily. Block damage and then returning it to where it came from was awesome. I do agree with whoever said that the Swordmage was a lot like an Arcane Paladin, though.

The only other gripe that I have with it, outside of flavor based gripes, is with the AC function of Stone's Durability. As it stands, it replaces armor where Swordmages couldn't use shields, or at least not use shields and still function to their fullest extent. Defensively, my idea of a Swordmage is leather armor, a long sword, and either a magic aura around the body or a force shield above one of the arms.