Defining Gishes and Their Function

[Palanan]

In another current thread there’s been a side discussion which turns on the definition of “gish,” and not surprisingly people have different things in mind when they use the term. Everything from the magus to the Eldritch Scoundrel has been considered a “gish” in one way or another, and the term covers a broad spectrum of classes, archetypes, PrCs and features.

So I thought it might be helpful to move that discussion here, to sort out the various subspecies of gish to enable better comparison between them. Since Pathfinder has a number of gish and gish-like options, it’s probably better to focus on comparing options within PF, with outside comparison to 3.5 where necessary.

So, what exactly is a “gish,” and where do the various Pathfinder options fall on the spectrum of gish function? For me, the magus and the Arrowsong Minstrel are at the high end of both function and elegance, since they imbue their physical attacks with magic of one form or another, including spell channeling. I see the Eldritch Knight as clunkier and much less functional, and to me the Eldritch Scoundrel is even less so, since it doesn’t have any specific way to fuse magic and physical combat.

But these are just my impressions of a few of the options. How else do people define “gish,” and how would they sort the Pathfinder options on the gish spectrum?

.

[Kurald Galain]

To me, a Gish means being able to cast a spell and melee attack in the same turn, at an early level.

The obvious Gish is of course the Magus.
Bloodrager counts because several bloodlines activate a spell of your choice when you rage.
Duskblade counts because of its swift-action spells, and free quicken ability.
Since the distinction between arcane and divine magic is basically invisible during gameplay, I consider the Warpriest a Gish as well.

Restriction on spellcasting: you have to be able to cast a variety of spells, not just touch attacks spells (any caster can cast a touch spell and attack with that in the same turn, that's what touch spells do) and not just a single SLA (e.g. ninja invisibility).
Restriction on melee: you have to be decent at melee, which basically means full BAB (bloodrager/duskblade) or in-class bonuses to make up for that (magus/warpriest). And enough AC/HP to actually survive in melee, which rules out most wizard/sorc builds (although it can be made to work).

If you can attack or cast on your turn, then you're basically a wizard-with-a-sword-in-his-hand. A problem with several +16/9th builds is that while they can attack in melee, they have no reason for doing so.

[Cosi]

A Gish is a character that uses (traditionally Arcane) casting to enhance (traditionally melee) weapon combat capability. That can be something like the Duskblade (which uses Arcane Channeling to use a spell and an attack simultaneously) or it can be something like the Swiftblade (which uses arcane spells to provide itself with combat buffs). Arguably the Cleric Archer counts as a Gish.

[PhantasyPen]

The bare minimum for a gish to me is "can fight with weapons equally as well as they can cast spells." To that end, one of the biggest things I look for is BAB 16+ and 9th level spells on the same build as the benchmark for a truly decent gish build, but only 16+ BAB is what I would call mandatory for a true and proper build, you can get away with only having 5th-level spells as your highest spells to cast, depending on your spell list, but the whole point of a gish is to be a skill martial combatant as well as a spellcaster. Ways to cast spells and attack at the same time are what make for the most exceptional builds, but are not necessarily mandatory, but you do need some way to consistently empower yourself and attack in the same turn even if it's not actually casting a spell per say.

[Serafina]

If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks). And ideally, you want to combine those two abilities in one of three ways:
- Buff yourself to be better at fighting. To be worthwhile, you either need short-duration buffs that benefit from an improved action economy (because you don't want to waste rounds buffing yourself up most of the time), or long-term buffs that only apply to the caster (because otherwise, someone else might as well cast them on you)
- Cast a spell at the same time as you're attacking. In other words, break the action economy - though there's ways to design it as to not be broken. Obviously, this can also be combined with the former, but can also pull off all the other caster tricks.
- Deliver a spell via a weapon attack. Aka what the Magus does. It's one of the best ways to express this blend of abilities, and can be a nice boost to damage as well.

So you can be a Gish by virtue of class features that change how you can cast your spells, or how you deliver them - but in my opinion, you could also call a character without any of those, and just the right sort of spells (some swift-action defensive ones, and some long-duration self-only ones cast in advance of combat) a Gish.

[Psyren]

My definition is much broader than Kurald's - for me, it's just a character concept that combines casting and martial prowess in combat. Doing both in the same round is preferable, but requiring that (especially at low levels) would toss out several iconic concepts like Eldritch Knights, Slayers, and even Druids from consideration. Heck, even Psychic Warriors have a hard time doing that early on, barring a handful of swift-action powers.

[Kurald Galain]

Doing both in the same round is preferable, but requiring that (especially at low levels) would toss out several iconic concepts
Fair point, but doing both in the same round is the most visible thing, in actual gameplay, that sets a Gish apart from literally any medium-BAB spellcaster.


Aka what the Magus does.
Magus does all three of the things you mention :smallcool:

[ezekielraiden]

For my part, a gish comes in three flavors. Making up my own names for them.

-- "Jedi/Sith." More or less full fighting and combat-useful casting, ideally simultaneous. Additional utility is useful but not strictly necessary. Skimping a little on the highest echelons of spellcasting can be okay if you get something strong enough in exchange (e.g. Swiftblade).

-- Sword wizard, aka "Wizard of the Spiral Tower" (a 4e PP that could use longswords as if they were wand implements). Pure caster, but with some lesser, augmented fighting capability. E.g. if you had a build that could double its BAB but got no extra attacks for doing so. Clerics almost automatically fit this, of course.

-- Magic thief, aka "Grey Mouser." Someone who has turned magic into another tool in the "skill and deadly attacks" toolbox. But because the rogue relies on sneak attack dice and stealth, rather than armor and iterative attacks per se, it's much more important to have the utility magic here rather than the offensive oomph.

Some will go hardcore and assert that only my Jedi/Sith is a true gish, and that's fine. I think that belief is misplaced, but not unwarranted. To my eyes, the 'Arcane Trickster' fits best into the gish archetype, and I think it's not warping anything to include it there. If you prefer being totally unambiguous and using rigidly defined categories, there's nothing wrong with limiting it to only the first category.

Incidentally, this is why Bard/SC makes such a good gish basis. Your Bard levels give great skills and abilities (which can even aid your combat side), you get basically full casting progression, and depending on your choice of BAB+casting PrC you can get some real nice benefits (e.g. Abjurant Champion). It can really fit into any of the above 3 lists.

[ATalsen]

Serafina's Post comes closest to what I'm looking for in a Gish, so I'll quote it (with a nod toward PhantasyPen's post as well for begin of the same mind as me):


If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks).

Yes, that's how I see a Gish as well.

To give my personal benchmarks, to be relevant in melee I need BAB +16 by 20th level.
To be relevant in casting, I need to have 8th level spells by 20th level.
(I prefer 9th casting, and 7th level is the bare minimum)

Obviously these criteria for me mean that the Pathfinder Magus (or 3.5's Duskblade, etc) doesn't fit the term 'Gish' any more than, say, a Bard does.

Heck, I can almost say that a Gish to me is a PC who is better in melee and better (and more versatile) in casting than the Bard class.




And ideally, you want to combine those two abilities in one of three ways:
- Buff yourself to be better at fighting. To be worthwhile, you either need short-duration buffs that benefit from an improved action economy (because you don't want to waste rounds buffing yourself up most of the time), or long-term buffs that only apply to the caster (because otherwise, someone else might as well cast them on you)

Supporting Melee with self buffing is certainly something I expect from a Gish PC; this tends to require relevant and versatile casting.



- Cast a spell at the same time as you're attacking.
- Deliver a spell via a weapon attack.

For me, simultaneous casting and delivering via weapon are 'nice to have' items, but not what I require out of I Gish PC.
Though, I won't turn them down if I can get them on the build too!

[dude123nice]

To me it means: The ability to meaningfully use both martial and magical combat against enemies in the same encounter. By that i mean that there has to be a certain advantage to using both spells and attacks against enemies, not just one or the other. A spellcaster who either can only attack or only cast a spell in a single turn can still count if there is a good reason to alternate between the two. Still, that mostly won't be happening according to pathfinder rules. That is the problem with 3.5 action economy and the power of spells, unless a special mechanic is created that allows you to both cast and attack in the same round, it's best to either use your most powerful spell, or an attack with comparative or greater strength, and there is little use to trying to use a weaker spell (like a quickened spell) and a weaker attack in the same round.

[Kurald Galain]

That is the problem with 3.5 action economy and the power of spells, unless a special mechanic is created that allows you to both cast and attack in the same round, it's best to either use your most powerful spell, or an attack with comparative or greater strength, and there is little use to trying to use a weaker spell (like a quickened spell) and a weaker attack in the same round.

That hits the nail on the head. A +16/9th gish is nice when you're theorycrafting, but in actual gameplay it has no reason to use its melee attacks, because 9th-level spells are just that much more powerful.

[dude123nice]

That hits the nail on the head. A +16/9th gish is nice when you're theorycrafting, but in actual gameplay it has no reason to use its melee attacks, because 9th-level spells are just that much more powerful.

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it? You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point. How many feats and abilities do you have that help you at Melee? Is it even worth attacking unless you get an AOO ore something? Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

[Serafina]

The +16 BAB benchmark very much says you want to be full-attacking, because you're clearly really desperate for that one extra attack (it's the only difference between +15 and +16 after all, other than another +1 to attack). But just being restricted to full-attacks is really restrictive - all they do is damage (and not even necessarily competetive damage), and you only get to execute them in quite narrow circumstances.

And there's a lot of other ways to get a good melee/spellcasting blend. The Magus aside, you can just go for a Reach Cleric build (which can also work with other classes, of course).
Basically, you take a class like the cleric with medium BAB progression, and good casting progression. You get good attributes for melee, and invest feats into it, and do it traditionally at lower levels - but as you level up, you progress into using your spellcasting more and more. And while you do that, you'll still get value out of your melee capabilities by making attacks of opportunity - whether that be from enemy movement, enemy casters that provoke, or all the various synergies that you can unlock.
Sure, that build might not be "the best" at melee - but you're getting a lot more value out of your melee than if you're using it in lieu of casting spells.

And the same goes for the Magus - they might not be "the best" at melee or spellcasting, but they're getting a lot more value out of it than a build who gets higher numbers for each individually. And the same can go for a well-build Bard-gish, or a Hunter with a combat buddy, or any other number of builds like that.



Also, it strikes me as very silly to insist that a Gish must cap out at +16 BAB. "Chase this 20th-level build" mentality aside, it also means that the Druid or Cleric - two classes who very much blend fighting and spellcasting - aren't "Gishes", which is quite silly indeed. (Well, they aren't arcane spellcasters, but that doesn't mean much).

[Eldariel]

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it? You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point. How many feats and abilities do you have that help you at Melee? Is it even worth attacking unless you get an AOO ore something? Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

Eh. You can just walk around with Shapechange and go full attacking/abilitying people as a gish and you'll be more than fine. In that, the 16 BAB is more than fine. You don't need to invest another 9th level slot and since that one lasts for hours it allows for pretty good all day clearing of all but the toughest of challenges (for which you have all your spell slots since you're just bludgeoning most things to death effortlessly). Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options; it's not like getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 is somehow obsolete and something like Contingency is of great use to a Gish. Just because you aim for a certain goal doesn't mean that each step in the way isn't also valuable. Sure, you're still worse than a Wizard 20 but that's a given if you're playing 3.5/PF.

[ATalsen]

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it?

To me the point of a Gish is to be self-sufficient.

In games where treasure is not reliably select-able, you can use appropriate buff spells to overcome the deficit without needing to rely on other characters to supply you. In games where crafting is available or desirable you can craft (maybe not everything you want, depending on feats available and build).

If you need magic to overcome an encounter, you have it, if you need to self-buff (or even buff the party instead) and go melee, you have it.
Just the ability to cast spells that provide long duration resistance to energy is a huge step toward self-sufficiency that a typical martial character can't provide themselves.



You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point.

A well-optimized Gish will have made sacrifices in areas the game is not designed to focus on, or the player is ok with other characters handling.
Gishes typically let you engage with more areas of the game - casters engage with much of the game, and martial engage with much less, so even if you just use your magic in combat to make you equivalent to a martial, during non-combat portions you can use yoru magic resources to do more than they can.

I just don't see that as much of a sacrifice, though there will be some, I agree.



Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

Generally I tend toward long term buffs when I use Gishes, so they are up and running when the encounter begins. I'd agree that more than 1 round buffing is probably not effective in many cases.

A Gish can be a powerful martial, and/or a powerful caster as the need arises - and that ability to switch off at will allows a Gish to successfully engage in more of what a game has available to engage in than just a caster or just a martial.

You pay a bit in power, perhaps, depending on precise build, but I've learned from other systems that more resources you can 'shift around' to fit the current situation the overall more power (in terms of combat OR ability to direct the narrative) your PC possesses.


To me, a Gish is not better at begin a martial than a dedicated martial is, nor better at casting than a dedicated caster is, but by being most of both, they are more effective at dealing with the entire scope of the game than either one.

[ATalsen]

The +16 BAB benchmark very much says you want to be full-attacking, because you're clearly really desperate for that one extra attack (it's the only difference between +15 and +16 after all, other than another +1 to attack). But just being restricted to full-attacks is really restrictive - all they do is damage (and not even necessarily competetive damage), and you only get to execute them in quite narrow circumstances.

I concede that going for +16 does make it appear that for Gishes I want to be full attacking, and for some builds I probably do.

However its really just a goal that's designed to keep the build 'on track' to have a good BAB throughout the build.



Also, it strikes me as very silly to insist that a Gish must cap out at +16 BAB. "Chase this 20th-level build" mentality aside, it also means that the Druid or Cleric - two classes who very much blend fighting and spellcasting - aren't "Gishes", which is quite silly indeed. (Well, they aren't arcane spellcasters, but that doesn't mean much).

That's the other part of defining Gish as needing +16 - it effectively says "no full 20 base classes are Gishes". And that helps narrow the field of what I consider Gishes.

Gish started as a term for Psionic/Marital cross, and became Magic/Martial, but I, myself, never refer to Divine Magic/Martial PCs as Gishes - they just aren't to me. To me a Gish needs to be Arcane or Psionic.

3.5 Druids are very awesome in casting and melee, and I enjoyed the heck out of the time I played one, but I never thought of the PC as a Gish.

[Quertus]

If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks).

"Gish" is kinda an oldschool term, and, if memory serves, it pretty much means this. The character can competently engage the "fighting" minigame, and is capable of competently engaging the "casting" minigame.

In the original Elder Scrolls, I built a character who spread her talents rather thin. In melee, her cadence was something like "miss miss hit miss hit" (whereas my brother's character was more like "hit crit crit hit crit"). She could cast spells, which I mostly used to survive combat (+100 HP per caster level made for quite the tank), but also for random utility. And she could make an attempt - and generally fail - at every lock / trap / whatever.

Was this character a Gish? IMO, no, because, while I could engage every minigame, I could not do so competently.

That is how I define the term.

EDIT

Mr definition is independent of how quickly one attains this capability. A character who went straight Fighter 20, then took 20 levels of Wizard is, at that point, a Gish. Even if they were not a Gish for the first 20+ levels.

[Kurald Galain]

However its really just a goal that's designed to keep the build 'on track' to have a good BAB throughout the build.
Good to hear that. The thing is that if your goal is to have an attack bonus (instead of BAB) at a certain rate, then you do have to take class-based self-buffs into account, such as rage, or a swift-action weapon enchant.


Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options
That's a good point, getting N-th level spells as early as possible is a useful goal.

Interestingly, if you apply this goal to the levels most commonly played at (as opposed to the hypothetical level 20), single-class gishes suddenly become very competitive over prestige classed ones.

[ExLibrisMortis]

For me, the quintessential gish is a character that prefers to fight and deal damage with (physical) weapons, and most of its ability to do so is supplied by magic. That is, a gish is way worse at melee combat than at spellcasting, until they start spellcasting. The Dragon Age Arcane Warrior is a perfect example: mostly sucks at melee (having exactly zero melee skills and low strength), but the ability to activate combat magic/haste/rock armour/arcane shield/shimmering shield makes for a pretty effective overall fighter.

In 3.5, for example, I wouldn't consider a war mage/havoc mage/spellsword a gish, even though they are "battle mages" intended to be in melee wielding a sword. The war mage list just doesn't have enough buff spells to call this character a gish.

That said, it wouldn't take much to make a war mage into a gish, only a few spells would do it (bite of the werebear, haste, that sort of thing). Anyone who supplies their own spells (and doesn't just UMD some wands or wear some magic items), to improve their combat prowess has something of a gish about them, even if it's not their primary trick, so they could be called "gish" if you wanted to talk about that part of their abilities.

[tadkins]

A Gish, to me, is something to play if you want to look competent with a sword but also want to reshape reality to your whim.

[Faily]

For me, a gish is a character who uses both magic and weapons equally, usually Arcane or Psionic but in cases of Pathfinder's Inquisitor and Warpriest I'd include those under that umbrella too. If I were to pinpoint mechanical aspects, it would be at least 6th level spells and around 3/4 BAB progression (can be a mix of full and 1/2 BAB from different classes).

A gish fights with weapons, enhanced by magic, but also wields magic to solve problems that their weapons cannot (utility stuff like Knock, Invisibility, Scrying, Dimension Door, Teleport). They're tough enough to stand with the martials on the frontlines (but might not be able to tank it all on their own). Without their magic they tend to lag behind the martials, but with magic they can outpace them easily.

I've never been one to chase that 16BAB/9th spells since... well, if I got 9th level spells, why should I worry about using weapons?

[tadkins]

well, if I got 9th level spells, why should I worry about using weapons?

To portray the look you want for your character. Sometimes you want a wizard that swings an awesome-looking magically-charged blade, rather than blasting them with a spell. The great thing about being a gish wizard is that you can teleport to a plane, beat some stuff up, and head back home to your personalized magical demiplane to have a cold one.

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.

[dude123nice]

Eh. You can just walk around with Shapechange and go full attacking/abilitying people as a gish and you'll be more than fine. In that, the 16 BAB is more than fine. You don't need to invest another 9th level slot and since that one lasts for hours it allows for pretty good all day clearing of all but the toughest of challenges (for which you have all your spell slots since you're just bludgeoning most things to death effortlessly). Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options; it's not like getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 is somehow obsolete and something like Contingency is of great use to a Gish. Just because you aim for a certain goal doesn't mean that each step in the way isn't also valuable. Sure, you're still worse than a Wizard 20 but that's a given if you're playing 3.5/PF.

Getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 makes everything else obsolete. The problem with walking around in Shapechange and melee-ing people is: WHY WOULD YOU? Even in shapechange a wizard focused on spellcasting is still better off spellcasting. Shape change is best to get defences and special abilities, not melee. Except if you did something like intentionally take feats and prestige classes that improved your melee at the expense of your casting, and in that case that could in fact be considered a Gish.


To portray the look you want for your character. Sometimes you want a wizard that swings an awesome-looking magically-charged blade, rather than blasting them with a spell. The great thing about being a gish wizard is that you can teleport to a plane, beat some stuff up, and head back home to your personalized magical demiplane to have a cold one.

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.

Problem with that is that if your DM is giving you anything remotely close to appropriately challenging encounters, your Wizard/EK Knight would be the one getting beat up, not the other way around. A EK Knight is probably worse than a bard with no archetypes at melee. And if you try to mitigate the problem by focusing A LOT on your physical stats.... well you will still be sub par melee, and now your DCs and spells per day will be poor to. Saying " I am a Gish because my DM is lenient " is a pretty poor argument, since I am sure this thread assumes that a Gish should be at least basically competent for their level.

[Kurald Galain]

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.
Challenge accepted :smallcool:

Turns out the Magus can do this, because it can pick some spells from the wizard list. Spend a feat to get the Janni's Jaunt spell and you're all set. If you don't need to go cross-planar, Teleport is already on the Magus list (although a wizard/EK can cast this two levels earlier than a Magus could). HTH!

[tadkins]

Problem with that is that if your DM is giving you anything remotely close to appropriately challenging encounters, your Wizard/EK Knight would we the one getting beat up, not the other way around. A EK Knight is probably worse than a bard with no archetypes at melee. And if you try to mitigate the problem by focusing A LOT on your physical stats.... well you will still be sub par melee, and now your DCs and spells per day will be poor to. Saying " I am a Gish because my DM is lenient " is a pretty poor argument, since I am sure this thread assumes that a Gish should be at least basically competent for their level.

But wouldn't those 9th level spells kind of even things out?


Challenge accepted :smallcool:

Turns out the Magus can do this, because it can pick some spells from the wizard list. Spend a feat to get the Janni's Jaunt spell and you're all set. If you don't need to go cross-planar, Teleport is already on the Magus list (although a wizard/EK can cast this two levels earlier than a Magus could). HTH!

I mean, hell, if it was possible for a Magus to do that, then I would be 100% behind that class. You'd probably know better than anyone if it was possible, but I've always been embarassed to ask. I just have an overactive imagination and want a character that can do the craziest things. :D

-Travel to different planes, different worlds, and through space.
-Create its own personal dreamhome demiplane that reflects its mindset/tastes/personality.

Everything else I would want, I know the Magus could do already. It really is a great class. It's just that the Wizard could do pretty much anything, including what I posted above. And making it into an EK doesn't hurt that.

[dude123nice]

But wouldn't those 9th level spells kind of even things out?

If you choose good 9th level spells then you are solving everything with magic, and so the whole EK thing is wasted on the character, and, if you pick bad spells, then no, they don't even things out. And what do you do UNTIL you get those spells? Or do you only play characters starting from 19th level?

[tadkins]

If you choose good 9th level spells then you are solving everything with magic, and so the whole EK thing is wasted on the character, and, if you pick bad spells, then no, they don't even things out. And what do you do UNTIL you get those spells? Or do you only play characters starting from 19th level?

Which is totally fine. You choose the EK route if you want to be a wizard that holds a sword (and doesn't look like a fool swinging it).

It's true that most campaigns don't reach that high, but generally don't you plan on a character that might get there? I always look at the capstones and think "it'll be neat if this character gets it one day!".

[dude123nice]

Which is totally fine. You choose the EK route if you want to be a wizard that holds a sword (and doesn't look like a fool swinging it).

It's true that most campaigns don't reach that high, but generally don't you plan on a character that might get there? I always look at the capstones and think "it'll be neat if this character gets it one day!".

But there is no meaning to the wizard to hold sword. And you still DO have to slog through those low levels. I mean you are entitled to your own opinion, but, as I've already said, I think many people in this thread, like me, are looking for a mechanically viable way to be a Gish. For a build where combining spellcasting and physical fighting is an optimal choice, not a deliberate limiting of one's potential. I just don't see any point in being a wizard who flaunts around a sword he can't use effectively. It's like a real life soldier intentionally running at enemy lines with a bayonet these days when he still has a good angle to shoot at them.

EDIT: what I mean to say is, just like the bayonet soldier, a wizard with EK levels still looks like a fool against any serious opposition, because he has much better options. Your build only really works with a lenient DM ant that's the hard truth.

[tadkins]

But there is no meaning to the wizard to hold sword. And you still DO have to slog through those low levels. I mean you are entitled to your own opinion, but, as I've already said, I think many people in this thread, like me, are looking for a mechanically viable way to be a Gish. For a build where combining spellcasting and physical fighting is an optimal choice, not a deliberate limiting of one's potential. I just don't see any point in being a wizard who flaunts around a sword he can't use effectively. It's like a real life soldier intentionally running at enemy lines with a bayonet these days when he still has a good angle to shoot at them.

The only meaning you need is whether or not you envision your wizard holding a big two-handed sword instead of a staff. I don't think the EK is as bad as you describe either. It would run at the enemy lines with a magically charged weapon, cutting down squadrons that can't even move because time itself has been commanded to stop for them. Certainly would take a long time to get there though, no question.

It sounds like what you're looking for is the Magus. That's the class that's designed from the ground up to combine magic with martial fighting, and it does it very well. I've already described what I want in a character and the Magus doesn't have that sadly (as far as I know). But for your purposes it would be perfect.

[dude123nice]

The only meaning you need is whether or not you envision your wizard holding a big two-handed sword instead of a staff. I don't think the EK is as bad as you describe either.

Yes it is that bad . Almost any of the 3/4 Bab 3/4 casting classes are better martials than it is. And I can assure you I already am well acquainted with the magus. It is because I know what a TRUE Gish is that I can confidently say that EK is just bad.

[OgresAreCute]

The thing with gish-in-a-can options is that they are really behind on spell progression and never get the big boy spells. Bonking things in melee isn't all that useful to a fullcaster, so if I'm a caster who bonks things, I'm not willing to give up a significant amount of spellcasting for it.

As for the arcane/psionic/divine thing, if we're talking definitions I'd only consider arcane casters to be gishes. Colloquially I might use "gish" to mean "casting/manifesting + bonkage" though, just because it's convenient that way.

Also, regarding clerics and getting 16+ BAB: Divine Power has you covered.

[Kurald Galain]

The thing with gish-in-a-can options is that they are really behind on spell progression

Not particularly. A bard or magus or warpriest gets 3rd- and 4th-level spells (as well as its secondary attack) earlier than a sorcadin does. And your campaign will probably end before either gets 5th level spells.

[Mordaedil]

What about a sorc/abjchamp/eldknight? Is that worse or better than a Magus?

[OgresAreCute]

What about a sorc/abjchamp/eldknight? Is that worse or better than a Magus?

A Fighter 1/Wizard 3 has second level spells at level 4, just like a Magus. It's a point of BAB behind and doesn't really have class features though.

Fighter 1/Wizard 5 has 3rd level spells while a Magus only has 2nd level. Still a point of BAB and some class features behind.

Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 2 still has 3rd level spells, and now Magus has caught up in that regard. Magus is still a point of BAB ahead and now gets an iterative attack, unlike the EK.

Fighter 1/Wizard 5/EK 2/Abjurant Champion 5 now has 6th level spells at ECL 13. Most campaigns probably won't go past this. The EK build starts pulling ahead spell-wise at ECL 9, and has full spell progression from then on. Magus caps out at 6th level spells but doesn't get them before 16, 3 levels after the EK build. The EK build gets 9th level spells at ECL 19.

Magus has a lot more class features and doesn't end up stunted on certain levels due to dropping caster levels, so it gets a smoother progression most likely. EK build gets much more spellcasting, but has much less synergy between bonking people's heads and casting spells.
Better or worse? Guess it depends what you're going for (cop out answer, I know).

[Mordaedil]

No, thank you, that was quite elaborate. (Well, pertaining to my question anyway. I guess the Magus' class abilities might make a big difference depending on who you ask and what they do and if you lean into making them useful.)

[Kurald Galain]

What about a sorc/abjchamp/eldknight? Is that worse or better than a Magus?

Well that depends on what you're measuring.

As Ogres points out, your campaign will probably not go further than level 13. Assuming identical ability scores and equipment, at level 13, the Magus has
+3 better to-hit, thanks to its enchant weapon ability
+2 better fort and ref saves, because Magus has two strong saves and AC/EK don't
+18 more hp, because of favored class bonuses
three more bonus feats
cast any spell in the same round as full-attacking (AC can only do this with a 2nd-level abjuration spell)
fifth-level spells


At level 13, the AC/EK has
sixth-level spells

[Peat]

I use "Can magic and maul face to a useful level" as my definition. I get that a lot of people prefer/use a tighter definition, but more people seem not to, and there's multiple mutually exclusive tighter definitions.


Incidentally, the one time I got to use an EK gish in PF was in the same party as a Magus. Now, I was using the now banned early entry trick, but I still felt useful and fun like a functional T3 character. GM wasn't pulling his punches either. The Magus is better, by and large, for most purposes, but the EK isn't terribad if that's the flavour you want.

[Quertus]

Well that depends on what you're measuring.

As Ogres points out, your campaign will probably not go further than level 13. Assuming identical ability scores and equipment, at level 13, the Magus has
+3 better to-hit, thanks to its enchant weapon ability
+2 better fort and ref saves, because Magus has two strong saves and AC/EK don't
+18 more hp, because of favored class bonuses
three more bonus feats
cast any spell in the same round as full-attacking (AC can only do this with a 2nd-level abjuration spell)
fifth-level spells


At level 13, the AC/EK has
sixth-level spells


Hmmm... So, I create a new d20 system, named "Power Creep". I create a new class, called "Gish". I give it everything either of those has, plus reactive abjurations, Crusader stances / maneuvers, and a few unique class features. Oh, and, in my system, you get more treasure, which can do better things than in 3e or pf. So my Gish is clearly better, right?

Yet, somehow, I feel that this misses the point.

Personally, I think that the point is as follows: what roles do you want the character to play? How well does it play those roles in its environment?

People have as many visions for "Gish" as they do for Fighter or Wizard. I stand by my personal definition of "engage the casting minigame competently, and engage the fighting minigame competently".

Can the Magus fight competently? Can the Magus cast competently? If the answer to both is "yes", then I consider it a Gish. With some cool bonuses.

Can the EK fight competently? Can the EK cast competently? If the answer to both is "yes", then I consider it a Gish. With some cool bonuses.

[OgresAreCute]

Well that depends on what you're measuring.

As Ogres points out, your campaign will probably not go further than level 13. Assuming identical ability scores and equipment, at level 13, the Magus has
+3 better to-hit, thanks to its enchant weapon ability
+2 better fort and ref saves, because Magus has two strong saves and AC/EK don't
+18 more hp, because of favored class bonuses
three more bonus feats
cast any spell in the same round as full-attacking (AC can only do this with a 2nd-level abjuration spell)
fifth-level spells


At level 13, the AC/EK has
sixth-level spells


My sample progression thingy was also based only on a cursory look. I based it on the 3.5 versions of fighter/wizard/abj.champ/EK, which pretty much have no class features (except for abjurant champion). Seems those have more stuff to play with in PF, which I didn't consider. Also didn't consider the magus' features beyond mentioning they exist because I didn't feel like reading a whole new class. In addition, I totally forgot favored class bonuses and stuff even existed (I've never played PF).

Other than that, at least in 3.5 I believe you can get into EK at level 2 by using early entry tricks (at least works with spontaneous casters) though it might require flaws for all the feats you need. That'd help with your laggy BAB compared to the magus. You should also get a race with a type that gives martial weapons so you don't need a level of a martial class. Savage progression tieflings and aasimar, the froggy outsider guys (neraphim?) and half-giants all work for that. That way you could go Wizard 1/EK 5/Abj.Champ 5/EK +5 and have a level 16 character with +15 BAB and 15th level Wizard casting, though you burn like half your feats for it.

What I'm trying to say is I don't actually know what I'm talking about that well.

As for what's better like Mordaedil asked about with a bit less of a cop out answer:
If you're starting in the double digits of ECL and/or you really want high level spells, go eldritch knight.
If you're playing a more standard campaign from 1-10 or so, Magus will cast more-or-less the same spells while requiring less finagling and also actually has class features that help you with both casting and fighting.

[upho]

Hmm... I think I'd prefer a "tiered" definition shaped not only by tradition or feelings but also by pragmatic usefulness. Meaning questions such as:

"How useful is a definition including more than half of the 1PP 1-20 level PF classes?"

should really have an impact on what is labeled a gish and what is not, or the definition will simply remain subjective and ultimately of little use in communication.

Speaking of subjectivity, I personally found Serafina's eloquent first post a very good starting place for mentioned "tiered" definition. A few thoughts and suggestions (my comments in red):

1. Capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks) = Typical PF Class Yes, I'm serious. There are definitely a larger number of 1PP classes in PF doing this than there are classes which don't. IIRC, the same is true - or close enough - also in 3.5.

2. Buff yourself to be better at fighting. To be worthwhile, you either need short-duration buffs that benefit from an improved action economy (because you don't want to waste rounds buffing yourself up most of the time), or long-term buffs that only apply to the caster (because otherwise, someone else might as well cast them on you) = Typical PF Class Serious yet again, though this time there's at least potentially a bit more room for debate. Specifically questions such as "How long does the duration of a self-buff have to be in order to make the buffer fit the gish definition?" and "At what minimum/maximum level does this start to count? How many times per day at minimum?" Without a more precise definition, every single class included in #1 above is still with us, 'cause I believe they can all sure do "long-term buffs that only apply to the caster", at least if going by a generous interpretation.

3. Cast a spell at the same time as you're attacking. In other words, break the action economy - though there's ways to design it as to not be broken. Obviously, this can also be combined with the former, but can also pull off all the other caster tricks. = Magus and Warpriest (plus Battletemplar if including PoW), and to some limited extent also Abjurant Champion, Bladecaster, Bloodrager, Duskblade and... Swiftblade? Seems this kinda suffers from the opposite problem. Very few classes qualify, and only two PF classes do so in a more general, less spell-dependent sense, while all the 3.5 classes and other PF classes having anything similar are all limited to a a) few uses/day at relatively high level, b) specific type of spell (abjuration), and/or c) only one specific spell (haste). These don't really feel comparable IMO. I mean, these are some of the most defining core features of especially the Magus and Warpriest (and Abjurant Champion, if a 5-level PrC even counts), but hardly for any of the other classes.

4. Deliver a spell via a weapon attack. Aka what the Magus does. It's one of the best ways to express this blend of abilities, and can be a nice boost to damage as well. = Magus and Duskblade (and Bladecaster to some extent if including PoW). Same problem here, and even more so it seems.

Seems my "tiering" isn't exactly smooth... But if we for example add the casting type to the above #1 and #2, it might serve for the definition of "arcane/divine/psionic gish" in the most generic sense? Although that might "divine gish" would be kinda pointless then, since at least all of divine caster base classes are designed to be gishes to begin with anyways...

And then a class/build meeting #3 in some sense would be an "action-gish"? Or "single-turn-gish"? Eh... Anyways, point #4 could be called a "weapon-gish". Or an "attack-gish"? And finally, meeting both #3 and #4 would of course be a "true gish"!

[Raxxius]

It's a bit weird that many definitions of gish here exclude the actual Gish.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Raxxius
It's a bit weird that many definitions of gish here exclude the actual Gish.

What, to your mind, is the actual Gish?

[Psyren]

Hmm... I think I'd prefer a "tiered" definition shaped not only by tradition or feelings but also by pragmatic usefulness. Meaning questions such as:

"How useful is a definition including more than half of the 1PP 1-20 level PF classes?"

should really have an impact on what is labeled a gish and what is not, or the definition will simply remain subjective and ultimately of little use in communication.

I agree with the need for this kind of taxonomy wholeheartedly. My only caveat is that labeling the categories as "tiers" implies that one form of gish is superior to another. For example, a Druid 20 or Cleric 20 likely fall into categories 1 or 2, but that doesn't make them inferior to a class like Magus or Duskblade down in category 4. It also doesn't define the vectors on which you would rate them - action economy? DPR? utility? etc. Labeling them purely as categories obviates the need for all that.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

What, to your mind, is the actual Gish?

"Gish" was originally the term for AD&D multiclassed githyanki fighter/magic-users. Multiclassing in AD&D was something like gestalt in 3e, advancing simultaneously in two or three classes (3e-style multiclassing was "dual-classing" and human-only), so a fighter/magic-user 10 would have all the abilities of a fighter 10 and a wizard 10 (though slightly lower HP and other stats) and would be in parties with level 11-13ish single-classed characters.

So the archetypal gish was as good at swording things as a pure fighter of his level and as good at casting at things as a pure wizard of his level, but didn't have any special ability to combine the two beyond casting buffs and then swording people. It would hit the "be competent at both martial and magical stuff above and beyond a partial caster or hybrid class" benchmark, but not the "cast and sword in the same round with channeling, quickened spells, etc." benchmark.

[Serafina]

It would however the "buff yourself with self-only spells" benchmark, at least if I remember my experience of playing a dual-classed Fighter/Mage in Baldurs Gate correctly (the only 2E experience I have). Sure, obviously you can argue about build efficiency, but it's pretty clear that "be a fully-optimized build" shouldn't be a benchmark.

Well, not quite. You need to make some efficiency comparisons. Or else, any Wizard would count as a Gish because hey they have some BAB and could in theory pick up a sword, right? But still, we shouldn't rule out characters from being a Gish just because there's better Gishes out there, or even better non-Gish builds - just as long as they can perform competently, whatever that means for us.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

It would however the "buff yourself with self-only spells" benchmark, at least if I remember my experience of playing a dual-classed Fighter/Mage in Baldurs Gate correctly (the only 2E experience I have).

Yep, I was including that under "be competent at both" because buffing yourself and then attacking isn't qualitatively different than what a paladin or bard or melee-focused wizard does, it just lets you do the buff-and-attack routine quantitatively better because you have more and better spells and higher base stats.

I don't think any particular tactic or capability (such as self-buffing, but also things like "can cast in heavy armor" or "can cast and attack with one action") is necessary to be considered a gish, but having synergistic abilities like that would certainly compensate for lower base stats or fewer spells or the like, and if you don't have such abilities you should be good enough at the basics to be able to sub in for a dedicated martial character and a full caster of close to your level.

[ManicOppressive]

I really don't want to get into any of the mumbo-jumbo "what should a Gish be" crap right now, but I consider myself kind of an expert on gishing and wanted to chime in with a couple of reasonably high-op build tips. In short, these builds assume you want to be a secondary melee combatant (on par with your friendly neighborhood ranger or perhaps assassin) who can cast spells about as well (though perhaps not quite as often) as an equally leveled caster.

Duskblade 9/Prestige Bard 1 (Warrior Skald also works)/Sublime Chord 1/Whatever PrC 9/

Whatever PrC being definitely Abjurant Champion, but the first 11 levels are the point. This gets you BAB -1 (or -2 if you're not using fractional because your DM is a morally flawed person) and catches you up to the full casters in progression, albeit with fewer /day. You can even go Swiftblade 3 without losing 9ths, so that's good times.

If your DM is cool, or maybe gullible, the 3.0 class Spellsinger from Racists of Faerun or one of those books I can't remember is poorly written and can be interpreted to grant Bardic Music even if you didn't have it before. If you can pull this off with your DM, or if your DM is maybe just not so tight with the Bardic Music ability, you can advance your Duskblade casting and have a free level before 11 to take whatever class you want, even if it doesn't advance, without messing up your progression in the slightest. You can either grab the first level of EK if you're uncreative and want options later in your build, or you can be a cool kid and take the first level of Jade Phoenix Mage or Swiftblade. (You'll need to get Haste on your list as a Duskblade. This is easy. One method is to ask your DM "Can I take Haste on my Duskblade?" Most will say yes because that seems like a really obvious omission from their list. If this doesn't work, just take Arcane Disciple (Celerity).)

Dragonslayer is a really bad class! Half casting is never worth it for a Gish. Fortunately there is printed an alternate version of the class where you ignore everything below the first row on the table, because the first level of the class has full BAB, advances casting, and gives you complete Fear immunity. Dragons are pushovers, so get that first level.

And now for something fairly similar.

Jade Phoenix Mages are really, really good. Here's a really simple way to be an awesome one:

Sorcerer 4/Crusader 2/Jade Phoenix Mage 10/Abjurant Champion 4

The main trick here is to slide those Abjurant Champion levels in sometime before taking the last few JPM, because that way you get higher level maneuvers and stances.

This build has 18 BAB, 8th level spells, and nothing remotely weird about it. It's basically an intended entry. But it's also really, really good at gishing. You lose a full spell level of progression, but the JPM's class features are definitely worth it. Crusader 2 gets you CHA to will, but if you don't need that or don't view that as worth losing 9ths then you can go Wizard 4/Crusader 1/Spellsword 1/JPM 10 and only drop three casting levels. Personally I prefer spontaneous casting on gishes and I'm maybe not so concerned about getting 9ths in 20 levels. (I've never played a game that went 20 levels that didn't also go 21 levels.)

As a few general cases and Tl;DR:

Spellsword and Dragonslayer are useful 1 level classes. Spellsword has easy entry requirements and can be entered a level before Abjurant Champion. Dragonslayer has the aforementioned fear immunity.

Swiftblade is a great 3 level dip for only one level lost on spellcasting. It's also a great class to take for 9 levels if your chassis is a Wizard and you can still have 9ths, or even 10 levels if 9ths aren't the end of the world.

Duskblade is a great starting chassis if you can get a different spell list to work off of later, like Sublime Chord, because its class features are actually pretty sweet and it gets fast Fort and Will.

Ultimately, a Gish is never going to be equal to a fully optimized arcane caster who didn't bother with the melee. Using levels, feats, or even spells to make your full caster better at melee combat is never the best decision from a pure optimization standpoint. But then, neither is playing anything but Druids and Wizards, yet people still do it. A fully optimized Gish can definitely hang pace with even a high-op party, so who cares that you might have won the encounter with 4.8% less risk to self if you'd summoned a monster? Gishing is fun.

[upho]

/snip/ from Racists of Faerun or one of those books I can't remember is poorly written /snip/ So it's a poorly written book about people with poor values? And supposedly damn good at singing about those values...? Like some kinda fantasy version of a [insert race] supremacist underground music scene? :smallamused:

Sorry! The typo was just too good for me to resist...

[Raxxius]

It's a bit weird that many definitions of gish here exclude the actual Gish.

In 3.5 the actual Gish is in the monsters manual 4. Fighter/invoker. Ain't great as far as optimization goes.

I'm all for expansion of concept, and things like the Duskblade and Magus make for great Gish style classes. But if the definition changes to the point where the actual named monster ceases to qualify for, then we need to take a step back and gather perspective.

As for a wizard being a Gish. Most Gish builds are principally wizard classes with full or near full casting prestige classes. People only take fighter classes to gain weapon proficiency and feats. So it's not really that flippant a comment.

As for clerics and druids being gishes, in 3.5 they certainly can be, both were heavily buffed in the smacking things area in the 2nd to 3rd edition jump.

[JMS]

I personally, am of the opinion that a Gish needs to do two things, though theycan be done a few ways.
1)Spells and fighting must blend - this can be buffing your character up, DMM cleric style, or throwing a spell one round to make your sword better and vis-versa (4e swordmage had feats for this, to encouraged a switch-hitter style), or finally, some form of cast while you swing, be it 3.5s battle blessing for swift action spells, a PF magus casting with a full attack, or a duskblade channeling vampiric touch.

2)It must make sense to be doing what you do in combat. If you are horrible at swinging a sword, but have 9th lv. spells, why swing it? If your 11 int fighter dipped wizard, why cast? This basicly says that you shouldn't stupidly nerf your character to be a Gish. For example, if you focus on blasting and CC spells you violate the first category, even with good BaB. But if you have buff spells, you can be a very good Gish.
Basic optimization 101 - everything you do should be beneficial, even if it isn't the strictly best option.

[DarkSoul]

As far as defining a Gish goes, how they fit into Githyanki society seems to be the most appropriate place to start:


The caste system of the Githyanki recognizes that many githyanki do not fit easily into the githwarrior or warlock caste. The gish ("skilled") caste includes those soldiers of the Lich-Queen who are accomplished in combat both with weapons and with spells. These multi-talented githyanki include multiclass characters with one githwarrior class and one warlock class, such as fighter/wizards and barbarian/sorcerers. In addition, single-class bards (and psychic warriors) are members of the gish caste, since their class abilities include both the skills of a warrior and the spells of a warlock. The gish caste was actually the last caste to develop, appearing a few centuries after the birth of the githyanki race.

As far as I know this is the earliest appearance, and definition, of the term. Around here it seems to be any combination of non-divine spellcasting and martial prowess that reaches at least 2 iterative attacks and at least 5th-6th level spells. Ideally it's three iteratives and 9th-level spells.

Their function would be similar to a switch-hitter ranger in that they can be a defensive front-liner reasonably well, or a self-buffing damage dealer reasonably well, or a caster with a sword reasonably well, but can't do the job as well as a character dedicated to any of those three roles.

[zergling.exe]

As far as defining a Gish goes, how they fit into Githyanki society seems to be the most appropriate place to start:



As far as I know this is the earliest appearance, and definition, of the term. Around here it seems to be any combination of non-divine spellcasting and martial prowess that reaches at least 2 iterative attacks and at least 5th-6th level spells. Ideally it's three iteratives and 9th-level spells.

Their function would be similar to a switch-hitter ranger in that they can be a defensive front-liner reasonably well, or a self-buffing damage dealer reasonably well, or a caster with a sword reasonably well, but can't do the job as well as a character dedicated to any of those three roles.

"Gish" goes all the way back to I believe 1981, along with "Geth" or "Gith" for the Githzerai. I don't remember the exact name or constituent for theirs but I know that a Gish was specifically a fighter/mage. I believe it was a 3/3 split of each for the monster entry? I know someone emailed one of the writers of the book it was in a number of years ago asking about it. Of course with the long period of time since it was originally made the details I don't think were super clear, but that info is somewhere. I remember seeing the discussion on this forum, but I don't remember when it was.

[DarkSoul]

"Gish" goes all the way back to I believe 1981, along with "Geth" or "Gith" for the Githzerai. I don't remember the exact name or constituent for theirs but I know that a Gish was specifically a fighter/mage. I believe it was a 3/3 split of each for the monster entry? I know someone emailed one of the writers of the book it was in a number of years ago asking about it. Of course with the long period of time since it was originally made the details I don't think were super clear, but that info is somewhere. I remember seeing the discussion on this forum, but I don't remember when it was.Yup, there it is in the Fiend Folio. Githzerai called them "zerths". Learn something new every day.