What are the boundaries of a Gish, to you?

[cutlery]

I think folks have lots of different ideas on what the Gish is, and people seem to talk past each other on it.

At one end, some magic and swords might be one definition

I think magic + swords is pretty broad; and you can do that most of the classes in the game in one way or another:

four elements monk+ short sword
AT rogue with short sword
EK fighter with all the swords
Bladesinger
Bard
Hexblade Warlock
Paladin
High Elf sorcerer
Ranger
Many clerics
Elf Druids

...so anyone but a Barbarian? would a high elf barbarian with a firebolt cantrip count? That's every class in the game; and is opened up even more if we relax the swords restriction.

Or instead is it fireball (or lightning bolt) and swords?

Eldritch Knight
Bladesinger, also High Elf wizards of other schools
Arcane Trickster
Fiend patron warlock (High elf)
Bard
Sorcerer (High Elf)
Circle of Land druid (elf)
Light cleric (elf)

I'd argue (and this is just me, anyone is free to disagree) a paladin or paladin/sorcerer built for smiting isn't really a Gish - they're a smite machine. They might have fireball, and access to swords, but they might go weeks without casting fireball, and prefer to swing a maul. This seems like a pretty cool holy avenger type character, but not so much Gish. They use magic sometimes and swing melee weapons sometimes, but most of the magical damage they are doing is radiant damage. Casting a fireball isn't really what they do. What they do is smiting; and they've taken some sorcerer levels for more slots to do that smiting.

Hexblades don't get fireball, but do get cone of cold and elemental weapon. They're beholden to a patron from the land of edgetopia, though (and there's nothing wrong with that) but being Edge Cuttington isn't really the same thing as a Gish, either. It's its own cool thing, but once you start surrounding yourself in shadows the occasional bit of necrotic damage, that's not really a Gish.

What's a pure Gish, then? A fighter/wizard? Are there abilities that, while neat, aren't "gishy" (I might suggest rage, inspiring words, anyone casting goodberry)?

Must you be playing a Githyanki to be the real deal?

[Seekergeek]

I think "Gish" has become the dnd version of the term "Kleenex". A term that has grown beyond its once branded origins in use and become, like you said, it's own general term for something that accomplishes a pretty broad range of tasks regardless of its manufacturer.

To me a gish casts spells and swings a weapon to a suitable degree in both directions, but outshines a dedicated user of either only in very rare circumstances, if at all. I agree that a smite-based build does not fit my own personal definition of the term but I also accept that it has become as broad a term as is possible in 5e.

[Man_Over_Game]

What's a pure Gish, then? A fighter/wizard? Are there abilities that, while neat, aren't "gishy" (I might suggest rage, inspiring words, anyone casting goodberry)?

Must you be playing a Githyanki to be the real deal?

Complicated question. I think there's a lot of questions that have to be answered.

Are you required to:
Attack with a weapon?
Deal magic damage?
Spend a Spell Slot?
Cast a Spell?
Spend resources?


For me, it's about having your Default Action be the Weapon Attack, while you use resources/spells to support your default action with circumstantial effects. There should generally not be a competition between your attacks and your resources, since that will almost always mean that you're giving up investments the higher level you go.

For that reason, Shield-spamming Eldritch Knight isn't a Gish to me, Neither is a Paladin from Divine Smite, or Barbarians' Rage. None of these are circumstantial, and are basically just generic and temporary "super modes".

Examples of what an actual Gish means to me include things like a Ranger+Druid multiclass, or an Eldritch Knight utilizing Enlarge/Reduce or Blink or Expeditious Retreat depending on the enemy in front of him.



Or, put another way, I want a Martial that thinks and plays like a Caster, yet solves his problems by attacking them.

[jas61292]

To me a gish casts spells and swings a weapon to a suitable degree in both directions, but outshines a dedicated user of either only in very rare circumstances, if at all.

I agree with this. I would also add that I think it is important for them to be independently good at both. Someone who is good in melee only because they burn spell slots to smite or only because they cast a spell to buff themselves up or give them a cool weapon or whatnot is not a gish to me. If entering an antimagic field makes you useless in melee, you were never a gish at all.

Now, that's not to say you can't use stuff to buff you up or make you better, but that can't be the only thing making you good at it.

For what it's worth though, when I personally think of a gish, I think of someone up in melee who also likes throwing fireballs (or other offensive magic) around. A guy who uses all his spells for buffs or defense or whatever might fall under the category of gish if I was forced to define it, but its not at all what I think of when someone uses that word.

[TrueAlphaGamer]

To me the cutoff is rather simple. Have you ever played Fable? Action RPG for the original Xbox and PC. Basically you can play a guy that can shoot bows, hit stuff, and cast spells - with no restrictions (aside from XP) between doing all three. A gish, for me, should tap into that. It should be a spellwarrior, a dude who goes in, swings his sword, and can also cast a fireball or summon stuff.

For me, paladin is not a gish, neither are most (maybe all, tbh) of the half casters, since there isn't enough room for both sides of that fantasy (hitting stuff and slinging spells) to be realized, at least until very high levels (which I don't get to play often). Multiclassing muddies the waters a bit, but the general idea is that both the martial and magical capabilities of the class should be 'up to par' for whatever level they're currently at.

Clerics work. Hexblades work. Sorcerers work. Bards work. Druids work. Many Martial/Spellcaster multiclasses work, so long as they minimize the hit to spell slots.

Of course, this is just my personal preference, for the most part. Others will think differently based on what they want from a class, and they may be content with casting only 1st and 2nd level spells for the majority of their adventuring career.

[Tvtyrant]

I think "casts like a full caster out of combat, acts like a fighter in combat" is accurate. Sorcadin and Cleric mostly in 5E.

[Dork_Forge]

I hosted a competition for Gish builds a while back, I set the definition as:


A Gish is a character that focuses on using melee weapons as their primary method of combat, but with the use of magic to enhance their abilities, give more utility outside of combat and other options in combat.

Your focus must be on melee combat using a weapon/unarmed strikes and your character must be able to cast spells to be eligible.

I'd agree with statement above about needing to be able to function in an antimagic field though, if you were relying on Shilellagh and a SCAGtrip, you weren't really a Gish to begin with.

[cutlery]

Complicated question. I think there's a lot of questions that have to be answered.

Are you required to:
Attack with a weapon?
Deal magic damage?
Spend a Spell Slot?
Cast a Spell?
Spend resources?



These are good questions, and I think I’d say “yes, sometimes” to all of them. It is obviously pretty hard to do all of that in one round.

I don’t think the particular martial weapon matters, and a hammer+lots of lightning is also a pretty cool theme (https://images.app.goo.gl/tdsFZJm7e1HyQ39c8).


To me the cutoff is rather simple. Have you ever played Fable? Action RPG for the original Xbox and PC. Basically you can play a guy that can shoot bows, hit stuff, and cast spells - with no restrictions (aside from XP) between doing all three. A gish, for me, should tap into that. It should be a spellwarrior, a dude who goes in, swings his sword, and can also cast a fireball or summon stuff.

I think back to old 2e rules; multi class characters could do what you say, but of course it took a much greater pile of experience to get there.

For me, I think it’s unrealistic balance wise for a Gish to do everything a pure martial or pure wizard can do, but some of it, sure. The way spell DCs work in 5e help with that.

[Gtdead]

I mean an offensive spellcaster with high spell dc in a fighter's role. A gish needs to be able to both deal weapon damage and cast offensive spells. Otherwise its not a gish. Just a warrior type with some magic boosters.

Also the gish needs to be reliable in melee. To have high natural defenses, abilities/boosters that can be used reliably in every fight without being easy to shut down.

[Man_Over_Game]

To me, it always seemed silly for the requirement that something needs to cast offensive spells to be a Gish. Damage is literally the most generic form of contribution, with almost every class able to be relevant in dealing it, and what type/source of damage rarely being relevant.

Why is that a criteria?

[Luccan]

Originally, a githyanki Fighter/Wizard. Classically for PCs, any arcane spellcaster/warrior combo (but generally as much of both as possible, so 3.5's Eldritch Knight PrC over Bard). But in 5e it seems to just be accepted as any spellcasting + at least somewhat decent armor and weapons. Which I think is basically fine, since the distinction between arcane and divine spellcasting holds meaning only in lore at this point.

I do think a Githyanki gish would be very disappointing this edition, though, since the only way you can build one that doesn't one up their racial abilities is to play a pure, non-bladesinger wizard and there are otherwise better options for pretty much all class combos.

[cutlery]

To me, it always seemed silly for the requirement that something needs to cast offensive spells to be a Gish. Damage is literally the most generic form of contribution, with almost every class able to be relevant in dealing it, and what type/source of damage rarely being relevant.

Why is that a criteria?

I don’t know - to me, as a player, the second the greatsword wielding plate wearer casts mirror image, blur, shadow of moil, or blink, I know I’m in for it. That’s cool.

But when that same greatsword wielding plate-wearer forgoes melee for a fireball? Meh. Only if they have 6-8 targets. Though Evards Black Tentacles is better for shock factor, there.

There are some spells that blow stuff up as an alternative to smashing things, and I agree that isn’t that awesome (though, situationally, it can shake things up). But spells that make it harder to hit a melee tough guy? Spells that let them bypass the front line? That’s scary.

[Luccan]

To me, it always seemed silly for the requirement that something needs to cast offensive spells to be a Gish. Damage is literally the most generic form of contribution, with almost every class able to be relevant in dealing it, and what type/source of damage rarely being relevant.

Why is that a criteria?

Part of it might come from older editions Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers (gishes in most ways that seem to matter now) not really getting "flashy" spells, at least until higher levels. So it's kinda cool to see/have a warrior that casts fireball and then cuts their foes to ribbons.

[Edea]

In 3.5e? A gish is a build progression that gets all four possible iterative attacks and 9th level arcane spellcasting potential by 20th level at minimum (ideally earlier than that). That's the most fundamental qualification for that edition; if the build misses either of those benchmarks, it's not a gish.

Now flavor-wise, for me anyway, the warrior aspect of the gish is what's focused on; magic is the supplement, and they prefer combat-oriented or survival-oriented spells. Fireball, spell turning and polymorph are gish spells. Planar binding, control weather and analyze dweomer, not so much.

Someone focused on the magical aspects of their own self-improvement's just not going to pay attention to their physicality; they want to master all of that high-falutin' fancy-pants ritual crap that involves raising islands, commanding planar legions, traveling to other worlds, etc. etc.. They don't have the time to care about swinging swords.

[cutlery]

In 3.5e? A gish is a build progression that gets all four possible iterative attacks and 9th level arcane spellcasting potential by 20th level at minimum (ideally earlier than that). That's the most fundamental qualification for that edition; if the build misses either of those benchmarks, it's not a gish.


That sounds more like a gestalt character.

I feel like in 2e at least a fighter/wizard was more of a dilettante than a gestalt character.

There is nothing wrong with being a dilettante, but of course when the chips are down a dilettante won’t be as good at melee in an antimagic field as a champion or battemaster fighter is - that’s okay! They don’t spend their entire careers in an AMF.

[Amechra]

That sounds more like a gestalt character.

You'd think that, but... Look, late-edition 3.5 was kinda insane. Asking for a character to have BAB +16 and a CL/ML/etc of at least 17 by 20th level actually wasn't that extreme.

---

For me, a Gish would basically be Geralt of Rivia.

[cutlery]

---

For me, a Gish would basically be Geralt of Rivia.

As much as I’m totally over the out of nowhere popularity of the Witcher (read those books sometime, gah) I think this is a great archetype.

He has magic, he has martial skills. He only reaches for the signs or sigils or whatever when vastly outnumbered or fighting a monster.

I wanted a better Witcher-esque Ranger archetype *so bad*. Ek is as close as we get. Well, maybe hexblade, but... a hexblade seems more like someone Geralt would have to kill.

[Edea]

Example of a low-effort 3.5 gish: Wizard 6/Crusader 1/Spellsword 1/Jade Phoenix Mage 10/Abjurant Champion 2. +17 BAB, CL 17th, and honestly not that big of a pain-in-the-keester to play from start to finish (a fatal flaw of many gish builds from that period of D&D's history).

[LudicSavant]

I think folks have lots of different ideas on what the Gish is, and people seem to talk past each other on it.

A better question is, who cares what is and is not a gish? (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions)

[Edea]

A better question is, who cares what is and is not a gish? (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions)

That, too. I mean if you want to get really technical, I'm pretty sure you have to be a githyanki in order to even attempt to be an actual gish, and no-one seriously entertains that definition.

There's no real consensus, which is fine. Even if you're nearly a pure fighter with just a few cantrips at your disposal you're still technically a mage-knight, and it's the same story for any elf wizard that ever existed deciding to get just a little bit better at wielding that longsword or longbow than before, and all the possible stops in between those two points on the spectrum.

[cutlery]

Example of a low-effort 3.5 gish: Wizard 6/Crusader 1/Spellsword 1/Jade Phoenix Mage 10/Abjurant Champion 2. +17 BAB, CL 17th, and honestly not that big of a pain-in-the-keester to play from start to finish (a fatal flaw of many gish builds from that period of D&D's history).

I wouldn't call a character with 5 different classes low effort.


A better question is, who cares what is and is not a gish? (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions)

I think if people were more thoughtful about the definition they'd have better conversations. Instead what we often see now is everything from an elf with a cantrip to a two level wizard dip fighter to a mostly melee hexblade to a paladin with sorcerer levels who has no intention whatsoever to cast a single spell with those slots.

These are all things that, to some degree, blend magic and melee, but if Gish means any and all of them it is essentially a useless term. Every class can potentially be gishy, and the thing worth talking about instead would be non-gish builds.

But we don't see that. People have *something* in mind. But different people have different somethings. That seems worth talking about.

[Edea]

It's fun to say, though.

"I'm a sword sorcerer." L-A-M-E.

"I'm a GISH." Badass.

[cutlery]

It's fun to say, though.

"I'm a sword sorcerer." L-A-M-E.

"I'm a GISH." Badass.

I'm not even really a fan of the term, but that's just me.

If gish includes everything from a full mundane fighter (and what is that, really?) to a full progression caster, then there must be subcategories of gish.

[Luccan]

It's fun to say, though.

"I'm a sword sorcerer." L-A-M-E.

"I'm a GISH." Badass.

Only if you have some idea what that means, though. When I first encountered the term I was utterly confused by it and it was well after I learned it meant essentially "magic swordsman" did I find out that it was originally a term for a specific thing in D&D lore. It's actually kind of terrible without context.

[cutlery]

It's actually kind of terrible without context.

Well, it is also a Smashing Pumpins album. I never liked them, either.

The original (https://image.isu.pub/191029144327-c034a18a5ad9c6e792ad6f5ee25aa9d0/jpg/page_1.jpg) is sort of a weird unique thing, and now the term is so expansive it means nearly nothing. Like "rock" or "metal". Or "rpg", with respect to video games, anyway.

The idea that a cleric with a mace and a lot of spells is in the same category is weird. A cleric with a weapon and some spells is a cleric. All of them do that.

[Makorel]

Only if you have some idea what that means, though. When I first encountered the term I was utterly confused by it and it was well after I learned it meant essentially "magic swordsman" did I find out that it was originally a term for a specific thing in D&D lore. It's actually kind of terrible without context.

I agree. It would really help to have a term that has a similar historical weight to "Paladin".

[Ignimortis]

It's fun to say, though.

"I'm a sword sorcerer." L-A-M-E.

"I'm a GISH." Badass.

That's a matter of taste. Seriously, sword sorcerer. Almost as badass as Coldsteel Magus or Blade Wizard. Gish? What's that? Do you mean "fish"?

But on the topic, I think most people take gishes and what they must be able to do way too seriously. EK and AT are barely gishes, but they might still qualify in my view. Having 9th level spells and also martial-level melee/ranged damage isn't something I would aim for in a non-3.5 definition. Someone who can buff themselves effectively with magic and do better damage in melee/range because of that is gish enough. Paladin is a good gish example. Gishes who focus on blasting magic and swords at the same time, while cool, seem rather lacking in purpose to me, but hey, that's still valid.

Basically, to me, a gish is just someone who uses magic to directly (i.e. not summons or CC) supplement their combat damage-dealing or survival prowess while fighting in a non-magical way, i.e. with weapons.

[Edea]

You guys are no fun. I should start casting Fist on the lot of you.

[cutlery]

Basically, to me, a gish is just someone who uses magic to directly (i.e. not summons or CC) supplement their combat damage-dealing or survival prowess while fighting in a non-magical way, i.e. with weapons.

Wouldn't that basically include any class using True Strike? (Setting aside that not many people would because of how the spell actually works).

What about a ranger with lighting arrow or swift quiver?

Pretty often I see people suggesting paladin or a paladin/sorcerer when someone is looking for something in the vague melee-and-spells category, but as often as not, they aren't that interested.

I bet that if there was a class with all the same mechanical abilities as a paladin in the PHB, but with a different name and force or some other elemental damage (cold, lightning, fire) instead of radiant on-tap, folks would love it and there would be far fewer threads (here and elsewhere) about it.

I don't think that people want arcane because "arcane" is inherently better than something else, but I think that the paladin is still suffused with all the ideas from previous versions - they're holy warriors throwing around divine magic. Even if none of those words are really in the PHB in the character section - well, maybe "magic" and "warrior", but...

If paladin did the trick, people would just play paladins instead of come looking for something else.

[Ignimortis]

Wouldn't that basically include any class using True Strike? (Setting aside that not many people would because of how the spell actually works).

What about a ranger with lighting arrow or swift quiver?

Pretty often I see people suggesting paladin or a paladin/sorcerer when someone is looking for something in the vague melee-and-spells category, but as often as not, they aren't that interested.

I bet that if there was a class with all the same mechanical abilities as a paladin in the PHB, but with a different name and force or some other elemental damage (cold, lightning, fire) instead of radiant on-tap, folks would love it and there would be far fewer threads (here and elsewhere) about it.

I don't think that people want arcane because "arcane" is inherently better than something else, but I think that the paladin is still suffused with all the ideas from previous versions - they're holy warriors throwing around divine magic. Even if none of those words are really in the PHB in the character section - well, maybe "magic" and "warrior", but...

If paladin did the trick, people would just play paladins instead of come looking for something else.

I mean, there is some degree of depth to that, which is why I said that EK/AT barely qualify - they have too little magic for most of the game to actually work nicely as a gish.

I suppose flavour is important, too, and gish tends to be arcane most of the time, because if a divine magic user does that, everyone goes "oh, that's just what clerics/paladins do". Though I, myself, would probably still consider paladin a gish, because the mechanics lend themselves to that playstyle pretty well. But for people who want their sword to be on fire and their magic armor to be decidedly magical and not divinely-blessed, I guess a "Fire Paladin" would work better, unless they're content with EK or a Bladesinger.

[Edea]

That IS one sticking point for me: a gish's supernatural abilities should be arcane, or at least psionic. No gods or divine magic (and that does harken back to the githyanki).

Also, 5e bards are gishes (especially War College bards).

I guess one thing that's associated with gishery is 'flashy' magic, like blowing things up or producing bright barriers of energy to protect yourself.

[Kyutaru]

I wanted a better Witcher-esque Ranger archetype *so bad*. Ek is as close as we get. Well, maybe hexblade, but... a hexblade seems more like someone Geralt would have to kill.
I mean technically the closest thing would probably be Pathfinder's alchemist class. A mutant freak who relies way too much on his addiction to potions. They enhance his physical capabilities, his magical prowess, and his monster instincts. To even become a Witcher you need to go through a series of drug-induced rituals and survive. Probably should be a template given how little humanity remains.

[Tanarii]

Has strong physical attack and throws blast spells, wears heavy armor. I tend to think of them as AD&D Elf Fighter/Wizard.

EKs and Valor Bards and Tempest Clerics are the basic no feat single class PHB Gish, as far as I'm concerned. Paladins and most Clerics aren't really Gish because they don't drop thunderwaves and shatters and fireballs/lightning bolts.

Without the armor thing: 4e monks, AT Rogues that pick up blast spells at higher levels, pact of the blazed warlocks.

With multiclassing you get a whole bunch of ways to make a decent weapon user, heavily armored, who drops blasty spells.

[Kyutaru]

DM: What is your offense, spells or swords?

Gish: Yes.

[Gtdead]

To me, it always seemed silly for the requirement that something needs to cast offensive spells to be a Gish. Damage is literally the most generic form of contribution, with almost every class able to be relevant in dealing it, and what type/source of damage rarely being relevant.

Why is that a criteria?

Personally I didnt mean just damage when I said offensive spells. The requirement is to have high spell dc so he can reliably cast like a full caster would. Both Fireball and Fear are offensive spells. It's up to the caster.

The reason I make this distinction is because I don't consider a class that uses magic just for healing/defense or boosting attacks, as a gish. The gish for me needs to fill both the melee and caster roles. Not just be a melee with haste or some other booster.

[Paeleus]

A 5e gish should have lvl 5 (maybe 4) spells available to cast as well as the extra attack feature.

A personal goal of mine when building my first gish was the ability to cash a spell and attack in the same turn, a mark of a true spellsword in my noggin back then. That requirement narrows the choices down to either EK or a Sorcerer multiclass. I opted for a Sorcerer multiclass.

[clash]

For me a gish needs to be able to attack and cast spells on the same turn. Nearly any class can do either on separate turns. Only distinct combos can do both. Bonus action spells like spiritual weapon, wrathful smite, or entangling strike: gish. Smite: just extra damage, doesn't make you a gish. Quicken spell with extra attack: gish. Ek war magic and improved war magic: gish. Valor bard at late levels: gish. If you don't at least have the option of doing both on the same turn then your not a gish in my books.

[cutlery]

A 5e gish should have lvl 5 (maybe 4) spells available to cast as well as the extra attack feature.

A personal goal of mine when building my first gish was the ability to cash a spell and attack in the same turn, a mark of a true spellsword in my noggin back then. That requirement narrows the choices down to either EK or a Sorcerer multiclass. I opted for a Sorcerer multiclass.

Valor bards would meet the spell-and-attack requirement.

The flavor of bards isn't really right, though. They're their own thing - bards.

I think being able to both in one turn is neat, but not a requirement with 5e's action economy; if you aren't an Ek or valor bard you're burning heavy resources to do it.

I wouldn't say a warlock isn't using magic when they sit back and spam eldritch blast, to flip it the other way; they just aren't using big spells until they're useful. I could see an EK or Bard saving a big aoe for when it would be useful, rather than reaching for it first.

[Tanarii]

Personally I didnt mean just damage when I said offensive spells. The requirement is to have high spell dc so he can reliably cast like a full caster would. Both Fireball and Fear are offensive spells. It's up to the caster.

The reason I make this distinction is because I don't consider a class that uses magic just for healing/defense or boosting attacks, as a gish. The gish for me needs to fill both the melee and caster roles. Not just be a melee with haste or some other booster.
It's also worth noting that damage wasn't something anyone could do when the coin was termed. Clerics and Rogues didn't really do damage. And Wizards were limited how often they could do it, and had to use blasty spells to do it Damage was something Fighters did. Gish added blasting magic to that.

[Chronos]

In my group, we have a player who wrote "Witcher" on his character sheet as his class, and just used the mechanics of Hexblade with all of the fluff erased. Which is good, because the default fluff for Hexblade is stupid, vague, and incoherent.

But on topic, to me, a gish needs three things:

He needs martial competence. In 3.x, that'd have meant full or close-to-full BAB. In 5, it probably means the Extra Attack feature or the equivalent. Either way, it should also include proficiency with martial weapons, or something as good as martial weapons (the monk's unarmed strike qualifies, because it ends up better than martial weapons).

He needs spells, or something equivalent to them. The 3rd edition Psychic Warrior's powers count, as do a Four Elements Monk's disciplines that don't directly mimic spells (though Four Elements fails the third criterion below).

And finally, he needs synergy between those two things. Just being able to choose each turn whether you're going to attack or cast a spell isn't enough. At an absolute bare minimum, you'd have spells that buff you for combat. Preferably, you'll have the ability to channel spells through your weapon, like the 3rd edition Duskblade, or spells that work via a weapon attack, like the paladin's smite spells (branding, wrathful, thunderous, etc.). The 5th edition Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, or the Booming Blade spell, almost but don't quite qualify for this, because while both involve magically augmenting a weapon attack, that weapon attack isn't any better than anyone else's weapon attack.

Of course, within this definition, there's a lot of room for different types of gish, with differing amounts of emphasis on weapon or magic. A bladesinger is mostly a spellcaster, and a paladin is mostly a martial, but both can be gishes.

[Unoriginal]

The Githyanki Gish in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes wears half-plate, has two attacks, can cast spells up to 4th level, and has the War Magic ability which let them attack once as a bonus action when they cast a spell.

Make that what you wish, but since the name comes from them I think it's relevant.

[Waazraath]

In 3.5e? A gish is a build progression that gets all four possible iterative attacks and 9th level arcane spellcasting potential by 20th level at minimum (ideally earlier than that). That's the most fundamental qualification for that edition; if the build misses either of those benchmarks, it's not a gish.

Was't this explicitly called the gold standard for gishes on many of these boards? Which seems to imply that others would qualify as a gish as well, only of a lower quality build.

[cutlery]

Was't this explicitly called the gold standard for gishes on many of these boards? Which seems to imply that others would qualify as a gish as well, only of a lower quality build.

If full martial attack bonus (or, extra attacks greater than 2 in 5e) and 9th level spells has become one definition, I think it's a rather flawed one as applied to player characters. Perhaps if the character had a 1d2 hit die and no save proficiencies to compensate.

The fact you could essentially build gestalt characters in 3/3.5 is imho a flaw, not a feature. But again, I don't think that people think (usually) that gish == gestalt, nor that any old magic at all qualifies, or people would stop at valor bard in the description of classes/archetypes in the PHB and be satisfied.

I suspect that many of the folks that look for a melee character with a splash of magic (1) don't expect 9th level spells, (2) have no idea what a gish is, or the etymology, (3) do have some sense of what a paladin is, and they don't want that.

However, because the term has grown to (at least for some) to mean anyone that swings a melee weapon and can also cast a spell, folks interest in one sort of blending of those things get nudged towards very different classes. Folks repeatedly claim the paladin/sorcerer is among the (if not the) best gishes in a PHB game, but that's a smite machine, and can go entire combats without casting a single spell.

[Waazraath]

If full martial attack bonus (or, extra attacks greater than 2 in 5e) and 9th level spells has become one definition, I think it's a rather flawed one as applied to player characters. Perhaps if the character had a 1d2 hit die and no save proficiencies to compensate.

The fact you could essentially build gestalt characters in 3/3.5 is imho a flaw, not a feature. But again, I don't think that people think (usually) that gish == gestalt, nor that any old magic at all qualifies, or people would stop at valor bard in the description of classes/archetypes in the PHB and be satisfied.

I suspect that many of the folks that look for a melee character with a splash of magic (1) don't expect 9th level spells, (2) have no idea what a gish is, or the etymology, (3) do have some sense of what a paladin is, and they don't want that.

However, because the term has grown to (at least for some) to mean anyone that swings a melee weapon and can also cast a spell, folks interest in one sort of blending of those things get nudged towards very different classes. Folks repeatedly claim the paladin/sorcerer is among the (if not the) best gishes in a PHB game, but that's a smite machine, and can go entire combats without casting a single spell.

Hey, I'm not arguing that it was a good definition - I just commented on the the definition, as it was in 3.5. And these were pretty easy to make, didn't require gestalting, and were still weaker than a lot of single class full caster builds that were possible, at least when all possible raw sillyness was allowed at a table.

You can't transfer this definition to 5e tbh, since number of attacks is really different and BAB isn't a thing anymore. You might change it to "extra attack and arcane spells up to 9th level" - in which case, you'd have a few bards, bladelocks and bladesingers who would apply. But I don't see much sense in bringing over the old def to this edition.

[cutlery]

Hey, I'm not arguing that it was a good definition - I just commented on the the definition, as it was in 3.5. And these were pretty easy to make, didn't require gestalting, and were still weaker than a lot of single class full caster builds that were possible, at least when all possible raw sillyness was allowed at a table.

You can't transfer this definition to 5e tbh, since number of attacks is really different and BAB isn't a thing anymore. You might change it to "extra attack and arcane spells up to 9th level" - in which case, you'd have a few bards, bladelocks and bladesingers who would apply. But I don't see much sense in bringing over the old def to this edition.

That's all pretty fair.

I suppose when I think of a martial arcane user I think of a Deathknight before I think of any sort of Githyanki - plate, a big sword, and a nasty fireball once per day, as well as wall of ice at will (yikes).

Apparently the original deathknight was created by the same person that created the Githyanki and Githzerai (Charles Stross), so I guess swords and fireballs were sort of his thing.

[Lille]

Another way to look at it is that a Gish can't use a sword as well as a Fighter, and can't use magic as well as a Wizard, but when a Fighter can't solve a problem with a sword a Gish can do it with magic, and when a Wizard can't solve a problem with magic a Gish can do it with a sword. Versatility, rather than power.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean I have Benjamin Huffman's Magus Class from DM's Guild because I've considered all the gish options core 5e has, and I found none of them personally satisfying:

-EK was too fighter-leaning, Bladesinger too caster leaning
-for some reason I just don't want to play Paladin or Cleric, something about divine magic just doesn't appeal to me for a gish
-Ranger wasn't casty/blasty enough, I consider it more of a melee/archery class with magic support
-arcane trickster wasn't good enough at combat
-I'm not interested in druids for what I want in a gish
-warlock is cool, but sometimes I don't want to deal with its specific baggage and needing to be Hexblade

but the Magus? no weird multiclass combinations, pacts with weird things, having to perform or god-bothering and no 75/25 split in either direction: just straight 50/50 fight and cast spells with various subclasses to take that 50/50 split in many directions, with the Primordial Seal being the blasty elemental gish I always wanted. so my boundaries may be a little strict or at least, I desire a very pure and no-nonsense kind of gish without any interest in weird additions or deviations from it.

[Tanarii]

Was't this explicitly called the gold standard for gishes on many of these boards? Which seems to imply that others would qualify as a gish as well, only of a lower quality build.
Yeah the 3e definition doesn't make sense except in 3e, and even then it requires specific PrCs iirc.

In AD&D multiclassing meant splitting XP, but the xp curve usually meant your were only a few levels behind. For example, a elf fighter/magic-user, the classic Gish-from-another-race, with 70k your single class fighter friends would be 7th, single class magic users 10k into 7th, and you'd be a Fighter 6/Magic-user 5. (I chose 7th because that's the pre-UA Fighter level cap for Elves.)

[cutlery]

Another way to look at it is that a Gish can't use a sword as well as a Fighter, and can't use magic as well as a Wizard, but when a Fighter can't solve a problem with a sword a Gish can do it with magic, and when a Wizard can't solve a problem with magic a Gish can do it with a sword. Versatility, rather than power.

I think that's close to how I tend to think of it; or at least those sorts of characters are the ones I find interesting to play. For a character with decent at-will damage and hit points, a well-placed Levitate or Invisibility can go a long way. I suppose there are rare moments when a martial casting a Fireball is handy - but thats a high resource cost at the level they usually get them (unless we're talking full casters, who will tend to have worse at-will damage), and their save DC isn't likely to be great unless they're playing a game with rather heroic stats.

[Kyutaru]

Yeah the 3e definition doesn't make sense except in 3e, and even then it requires specific PrCs iirc.

In AD&D multiclassing meant splitting XP, but the xp curve usually meant your were only a few levels behind. For example, a elf fighter/magic-user, the classic Gish-from-another-race, with 70k your single class fighter friends would be 7th, single class magic users 10k into 7th, and you'd be a Fighter 6/Magic-user 5. (I chose 7th because that's the pre-UA Fighter level cap for Elves.)

This is also because in AD&D multiclassing didn't mean stacking levels. It averaged out the stats of the classes you had, effectively creating a new class that was a hybrid of the two. Modern D&D makes each level actually mean something and grant the same number increases each time regardless of level but old D&D only gave you half the THAC0/save progression and hitpoints because you were sharing progress with another class.

In a way, the 3e PrCs were a very close approximation to this system. +1 caster level was basically like leveling up in Magic-User too.

[heavyfuel]

A gish, for me, must be able to do melee and spellcasting without these things competing for actions.

Simply having the option to sacrifice your action to attack the enemy twice for 1d8+3 instead of casting a spell does not make you a gish (looking at you Valor Bards and Bladesingers).

This is not to say Valor Bards and Bladesinger can't make good gishes. It just means that, while these subclasses look like Gish-in-a-can options, they actually do require some effort to make work as gishes.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have wanna-be gishes like the 4E Monk, whose attacks are far more powerful than their spells to the point that it raises the question "why would you ever cast a spell with this character?".

Now, to be fair, 5e does make the whole magic+attack thing really easy with the SCAG Weapon Cantrips, unfortunately there are only two such cantrips available and you're unlikely to have both. Personally, I can only say "I cast Booming Blade" so many times before I say my character throws himself off a cliff so that I can roll a new one.

[cutlery]

A gish, for me, must be able to do melee and spellcasting without these things competing for actions.

Simply having the option to sacrifice your action to attack the enemy twice for 1d8+3 instead of casting a spell does not make you a gish (looking at you Valor Bards and Bladesingers).


Valor bards get the full version of war caster earlier than the EK; the main issue for them (other than being bards) is they never get the small version. Level 14 is a long time wait, but it's probably fair that EKs get this and valor bards don't.

That said, in a properly long adventuring day, you will have combat rounds where you do not wish to (or are unable to) spend a spell slot. For wizards, this usually means a cantrip.

1d8+3 (or 4; I'd be pumping dex on a BS too and going for elven advantage) x2 isn't bad at all compared to 2d10 from fire bolt; and you can still cast fire bolt if enemies are at range. That's really what the BS gets; extra attack for some different at-will damage, though as often as not they're better off using extra attack with a bow, until Song of Victory (but as above, 14 is a long time to wait).

For balance reasons, other than something like war caster, or, perhaps a quickened spell, or action surge, a full set of attacks and a spell available every round would be unbalanced - especially if we're talking heavy damage spells like Disintegrate. Of course, when Disintegrate is an option, why do you care about making two melee attacks? Unless, of course, you've burned those slots already, perhaps, and you're in mop-up.

Even a pair of attacks+a spell would be a big problem, save perhaps if it came online around level 18+, and was limited to 4th or 5th level spells. Some monsters can do this, because these monsters are designed to fight 4-6 PCs at once. A PC that can do this regularly would be pretty busted, which is why sorcery points are a long rest resource and quicken costs two of them.

So, big spells and big melee in the same round ought to be very expensive - action surge, sorcery points, that sort of thing. A Fighter5/wizard5 can toss fireball and attack twice in one round, with action surge. An Ek7/wizard 5 can fireball, green flame blade, and regular melee attack with an action surge - that's a fair bit of fire and swords to me.

Being able to multiattack and cast full-action spells with no regard to resources other than spell slots would never work.

[Waazraath]

Yeah the 3e definition doesn't make sense except in 3e, and even then it requires specific PrCs iirc.

1 level of spellsword, 5 levels of abjurant champion, X levels of eldritch knight, or when using tome of battle some levels of jade phoenix mage. Much more, probably. And that silly bard prestige class that went up to 9th level spells, could also make it much easier... but can't remember the name.

[Edea]

1 level of spellsword, 5 levels of abjurant champion, X levels of eldritch knight, or when using tome of battle some levels of jade phoenix mage. Much more, probably. And that silly bard prestige class that went up to 9th level spells, could also make it much easier... but can't remember the name.

Sublime Chord.

[Duff]

To me, a Gish is a character who; When there's an enemy in melee range, hits it with their weapon, When there's no enemy within range they cast a spell (Can be an attack, a debuff/obstacle or a mobility spell).
So they need to be good enough at fighting (or bad enough at spells) for "I hit it" to be the right option in a typical fight, and good enough at spells so that "I move so I can hit it" or "I charge" won't usually be the best option.

They would also tend to be combat focused. A Gish who runs out of spells in a fight because they used them all during exploring or social stages is an embarrassed gish.

[Porcupinata]

To me, a Gish is a character who; When there's an enemy in melee range, hits it with their weapon, When there's no enemy within range they cast a spell (Can be an attack, a debuff/obstacle or a mobility spell).
So they need to be good enough at fighting (or bad enough at spells) for "I hit it" to be the right option in a typical fight, and good enough at spells so that "I move so I can hit it" or "I charge" won't usually be the best option.

They would also tend to be combat focused. A Gish who runs out of spells in a fight because they used them all during exploring or social stages is an embarrassed gish.

That sounds about right to me.

In my mind, a true gish should be using defensive magic rather than relying on heavy armour and shield too, although that's less core to the concept.

[Waazraath]

Sublime Chord.

Ah, yes, that was it, thnx :)

[cutlery]

That sounds about right to me.

In my mind, a true gish should be using defensive magic rather than relying on heavy armour and shield too, although that's less core to the concept.

I think that's a mechanical impossibility in 5e; unless gishes don't swing anything heavier than a rapier.

[Porcupinata]

I think that's a mechanical impossibility in 5e; unless gishes don't swing anything heavier than a rapier.

That's fine because it pretty much lines up with how I think of them anyway. I think of a gish as a swashbuckler with a rapier or similar in one hand and a wand in the other; attacking with the sword and casting defensive spells (or ranged attcks) with the wand.

[cutlery]

That's fine because it pretty much lines up with how I think of them anyway. I think of a gish as a swashbuckler with a rapier or similar in one hand and a wand in the other; attacking with the sword and casting defensive spells (or ranged attcks) with the wand.

I guess I have a different vision in mind (https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/230/942/large/lucas-salcedo-concept-lordsoth7.jpg?1442615579).

[KorvinStarmast]

Originally, a githyanki Fighter/Wizard. :smallwink: Originally, an elf. Original D&D the elf can be a fighter and a magic user. No others could. (This shifted slightly with the introduction of half elf and then got a slight mod later with AD&D ...)

A better question is, who cares what is and is not a gish? (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions) Certainly not I. I like the term to be more vague, not more precise.

"I'm a sword sorcerer." L-A-M-E.
"I'm a GISH." Badass. The second response is supposed to read "Lamer", right? :smallbiggrin: Just a note for you: Jack Vance wrote some stories (Dying Earth) that heavily influenced D&D in two ways: they were swords and sorcery stories, and from Vance cam D&D's first magic system. (Fritz Lieber's swords and sorcery stories were likewise influential). A lot of the wizard / sorcerers / magic users in Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories also used swords. They were the embodiment of Swords and Sorcery. They were gish before there were Gith. About 30 years before.
Hipster gish?
Gishster? :smallconfused:

That IS one sticking point for me: a gish's supernatural abilities should be arcane, or at least psionic. No gods or divine magic (and that does harken back to the githyanki). Arbitrary criteria is arbitrary, see Vance reference above. Gith were late comers. :smallcool:
Has strong physical attack and throws blast spells, wears heavy armor. I tend to think of them as AD&D Elf Fighter/Wizard. See my OD&D ref above. (IIRC, also BX).

EKs and Valor Bards and Tempest Clerics are the basic no feat single class PHB Gish, as far as I'm concerned. Paladins and most Clerics aren't really Gish because they don't drop thunderwaves and shatters and fireballs/lightning bolts. Destructive wave. Paladin spell. :smallwink:

The Githyanki Gish in Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes Seems a nice Gish.

[Luccan]

:smallwink: Originally, an elf. Original D&D the elf can be a fighter and a magic user. No others could. (This shifted slightly with the introduction of half elf and then got a slight mod later with AD&D ...)


Using anything other than the original definition, you are correct. But originally it was a term for gith fighter/magic-users and only them, which players later applied to other characters with similar warrior/spellcaster combinations.

[KorvinStarmast]

Using anything other than the original definition, you are correct. But originally it was a term for gith fighter/magic-users and only them, which players later applied to other characters with similar warrior/spellcaster combinations. Githyanki came into D&D long after the elf was the Fighter - Magic User.
However, if what we want to discuss is a word(which IMO is rather pointless, but YMMV) gish, rather than a play style (the combo of spell casting and sword play) then I agree with you on how that word showed up. :smallsmile:

[cutlery]

Githyanki came into D&D long after the elf was the Fighter Magic User.
However, if what we want to discuss is a word(which IMO is rather pointless, but YMMV) gish, rather than a play style (the combo of spell casting and sword play) then I agree with you on how that word showed up. :smallsmile:

What interests me (in terms of etymology, but also semantics) is how "gish" now means nearly any class with martial weapons and some form of spellcasting.

I'd hazard a guess that this makes the word far less useful than it once might have been in terms of describing character concepts, as it can mean everything from an Ek to a Paladin to a Bladesinger to a Cleric - with zero multiclassing, feat add-ons or racial spells in the mix.

Might as well just say "non-mundane" and be done with it.

[Unoriginal]

Might as well just say "non-mundane" and be done with it.

No D&D character is mundane, if you want to go with it.


They were gish before there were Gith. About 30 years before.
Hipster gish?
Gishster?

Blade Boomers?



Seems a nice Gish.

I agree.

[Goldlizard]

To me, a Gish is a Melee fighter (not an archer or spellslinger) who augments their Melee fightin with spells to deal more damage or gain a defensive or tactical advantage, so If you made a list, it would be:

-Fights in Melee, with a Melee weapon
-Casts spells in combat for an advantage
-Can use both competently, but neither as good as someone dedicated to either side. They instead combine that arts to make up for the difference.

[cutlery]

They instead combine that arts to make up for the difference.

I think that's a pretty important thought. It's a shame there aren't many off-the-shelf classes/archetypes that quite do it (at least offensively). An EK with SCAG cantrips maybe; assuming they multiclass into something else, of course, because if they stay fighter they don't really get much from using them in most rounds.

Having the ability to trade an attack for something like an (unscaled) cantrip would be neat; once per turn you can replace an attack from the attack action with shocking grasp for 1d8+caster stat (but no more d8s), etc. I suppose the only way to make that work well is to basically make it a core class or archetype feature, and then it might not feel spell-casty enough, as it isn't a spell being cast.

[Tanarii]

What interests me (in terms of etymology, but also semantics) is how "gish" now means nearly any class with martial weapons and some form of spellcasting.
Anyone using it that way is showing that they're a young Whippersnapper

Seriously though, i have to wonder when it started to drift so far from "Fighter/Magic-User".

[Kyutaru]

Anyone using it that way is showing that they're a young Whippersnapper

Seriously though, i have to wonder when it started to drift so far from "Fighter/Magic-User".

When Fighter/Magic-User stopped being the only way to make one. Probably 3rd edition.

[Klorox]

Anyone using it that way is showing that they're a young Whippersnapper

Seriously though, i have to wonder when it started to drift so far from "Fighter/Magic-User".

I was surprised the first few times I saw it, and it wasn't describing a githyanki.

[cutlery]

When Fighter/Magic-User stopped being the only way to make one. Probably 3rd edition.

I'm not sure I even saw the term much when 3e was new; folks tended to talk in prestige classes then (when the eldritch knight was core and part of the SRD).


On that topic - the difference between a 5fighter/5wizard (or sorcerer)/10EK in 3e and a 20ek in 5e is amusing.

[Unoriginal]

On that topic - the difference between a 5fighter/5wizard (or sorcerer)/10EK in 3e and a 20ek in 5e is amusing.

Amusing how?

[cutlery]

Amusing how?

The "standard" combo in core 3e had a lot more casting ability than the 5e version (8th level spells!).

Of course if you went 3f/7w/10ek you even had 9th level spells and 4 attacks.

Pretty bonkers, and no wonder so many people were dissatisfied with the 5e Archetype initially.

[Klorox]

The "standard" combo in core 3e had a lot more casting ability than the 5e version (8th level spells!).

Of course if you went 3f/7w/10ek you even had 9th level spells and 4 attacks.

Pretty bonkers, and no wonder so many people were dissatisfied with the 5e Archetype initially.

5e has made an effort, more than any other edition, to keep things balanced between the classes as well.

Removing prestige classes has gone a long way in (mostly) accomplishing this.

[cutlery]

5e has made an effort, more than any other edition, to keep things balanced between the classes as well.

Removing prestige classes has gone a long way in (mostly) accomplishing this.

I'd have to agree. The reduced set of available classes makes the multiclass decision tree several of orders of magnitude smaller, which is nice.

I think, at least when blending martials and casters, the current system ends up a lot closer to the 2e multiclass system, when you factor in the level limits and experience costs for that system.

[Edea]

5e has made an effort, more than any other edition, to keep things balanced between the classes as well.

...um, no. That would be 4th edition. The one that everyone (apparently) despised.

5e went right back to martial/caster disparity. It's not as garishly obvious as it was in 3/3.5, but it's there.

[Tanarii]

...um, no. That would be 4th edition. The one that everyone (apparently) despised.

5e went right back to martial/caster disparity. It's not as garishly obvious as it was in 3/3.5, but it's there.
Maybe at the end of high level play (Tier 3) and by the sounds of at Epic level play (Tier 4). But in Tier 1 and 2, 5 of the 6 martial classes range from middle of the pack to dominant. And since that's where most of the game is played ...

[Kane0]

For me a gish is traditionally a solid martial chassis (extra attacks, weapon/armor profs and hit die) combined with levelled spell progression at half caster rate or better. Spells would be of an arcane orientation and typically use Int as the casting stat. The original was basically 50% fighter, 50% mage after all.

That said, gishes for me can deviate from this, as long as the majority holds true. Different casting stat or spell list, slightly slower casting progression, no extra attack but some other way to blend attacking and casting, etc

[Ortho]

I would classify a gish as someone who uses spells and spellcasting to augment their martial prowess.

It's a lot looser than most of the definitions in this thread, but hey, it works for me.

[SLOTHRPG95]

For me, a gish is a character whose bread-and-butter action is attacking with a weapon, but who has magic as "big guns" they can pull out when the situation is dire. As for general tone, I'd say an Eldritch Knight who uses their spell slots on Shatter/Fireball feels more gish-y (if less optimal) than one spamming Absorb Elements/Shield.


The "standard" combo in core 3e had a lot more casting ability than the 5e version (8th level spells!).

Of course if you went 3f/7w/10ek you even had 9th level spells and 4 attacks.


Point of information: the EK didn't progress your spellcasting at 1st level, it just gave a bonus feat (plus BAB, saves, etc.). Standard build for 8th level spell access would be Fighter 4/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10, which is better anyways since Fighter 5 only gives you three extra hit points relative to Wizard 6, while the latter gets you more spells, more slots, higher CL, and +1 to Fort/Ref/Will. But this isn't the 3e forum, so I'll just leave it at that.

[Bosh]

For me it comes down to subjectively feeling like a TSR D&D elf-as-class or fighter/magic-user multiclass. A lot of people LOVED those characters and had a hard time recreating them when 3e first hit (in 3e a fighter 10/wizard 10 would be hirribly weak) so people have been mucking about with different ways of doing that ever since.

[Chronos]

Some folks are saying that a 3rd edition gish had to have 9th level spells, but I disagree. Everyone agrees that the Duskblade was a gish, right? But it topped out at (IIRC) 6th (though some of its 6th-level spells were at higher levels on other lists). It was also impossible to get both four iteratives and ninth-level spells, for a good chunk of the edition's history (i.e., before Abjurant Champion came out, in the second wave of Complete books in the second version of the edition).

[heavyfuel]

Pretty bonkers, and no wonder so many people were dissatisfied with the 5e Archetype initially.

I had the opposite reaction, in fact. I loved it when I saw it, but was utterly disappointed when my friend played one and I saw how crappy and restrictive its archetype features were.


Some folks are saying that a 3rd edition gish had to have 9th level spells, but I disagree. Everyone agrees that the Duskblade was a gish, right? But it topped out at (IIRC) 6th (though some of its 6th-level spells were at higher levels on other lists). It was also impossible to get both four iteratives and ninth-level spells, for a good chunk of the edition's history (i.e., before Abjurant Champion came out, in the second wave of Complete books in the second version of the edition).

I always heard people mentioning 16 BAB and 9ths by level 20 as a golden standard, not the bare minimum. As such, I agree that not every gish would have 9ths.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

I suspect there are people looking for something like this:

New Wizard Subclass: Gish

Lvl 2: Proficiency with all simple and martial weapons; and all light, medium and heavy armor.
Lvl 6: Second Attack
Lvl 10: Extra ASI *or* a Fighting Style (same as Fighter)
Lvl 14: Extra ASI

If you do not take a Fighting Style, you have 7 ASIs total like a Fighter, but do not get these earlier. You'll need them to grab all the Feats and ability scores you will most likely want, to customize how you fight and probably raise Int to 20. You get a second attack, like any real martial character. You are proficient with all normal weapons and armor, so you can choose the fighting style you want.

I have nothing to say about whether this is too strong or too weak.

Anyway,

Ken

[cutlery]

Hi,

I suspect there are people looking for something like this:

New Wizard Subclass: Gish

Lvl 2: Proficiency with all simple and martial weapons; and all light, medium and heavy armor.
Lvl 6: Second Attack
Lvl 10: Extra ASI *or* a Fighting Style (same as Fighter)
Lvl 14: Extra ASI

If you do not take a Fighting Style, you have 7 ASIs total like a Fighter, but do not get these earlier. You'll need them to grab all the Feats and ability scores you will most likely want, to customize how you fight and probably raise Int to 20. You get a second attack, like any real martial character. You are proficient with all normal weapons and armor, so you can choose the fighting style you want.

I have nothing to say about whether this is too strong or too weak.

Anyway,

Ken

That seems like a bit much; but I suspect it won't matter overmuch as once a wizard has access to 6th level spells their melee abilities aren't that important anymore.

I feel like an EK/Wizard split is the truest available for a player in 5e that lets you do fighter/magic user things from level 2 if you start the mc early; setting aside whatever it is that warlocks do.


I'm still trying to figure out what the right balance of EK/Wizard is for me, but it's almost certainly either ek7/wiz13 or ek11/wiz9. I wish the wizard level 6 abilities didn't all basically suck for this blend (potent cantrip - what?). School of Invention looks amusing, but tends towards the bumbling fool archetype. Abjuration is ok but boring.

A total reflavor of the hexblade could work, but replacing the curse with something entirely different (and reflavoring the specter) would be a must. And Armor of Hexes, and Master of Hexes. ...Ok all of it. Some of the mechanics are mostly fine (though I'm not a fan of a debuff for their big once per rest damage burst). Also maybe making melee somehow worth it relative to EB spam without the same old boring PAM+GWM stuff; while also not making that patron end up an even better eldritch blaster.

So I guess that's more like a ground up rebuild of the hexblade.

[rickayelm]

For me it's simple.
1. Spell caster
2. Descent at melee
3. Spells have to enhance melee abilities
4. Proficient in armor or a armor substitute
5. Class or subclass abilities that enhance both melee and Spell casting.

If you check all the boxes you are a gish.😁