Should "arcane gish" be possible without devoting an archetype to it? [Archive]

Boci

2023-08-25, 04:59 PM

So, divine gets two classes that get both extra attack and spell casting, all without touching their archetype, which grants a plethora of options for such a character. They can have meaningful mechanical abilities that tie them to the fey, drakes, the sea, ect. Meanwhile arcane has...well...eldritch knight and arcane trickster are both archetypes, and wizard and bards aren't too useful with weapons without locking in blades singer and college of battle / swords respectively. A notable exception is Warlock, who does get pact of the blade. Sure it pales in comparison to hexblade, but that what happens when you don't devote an archetype to doing something.

In core part of the problem may well be that, outside of archetypes, all arcane options take you to 9th level caster. Ranger and paladin as base classes sacrificed 9th level spells to be good at combat whilst still having some spell casting. Artificer from splat is of interest here, it doesn't get 9th level casting, but the trade off there is more magical item related, though plenty of those abilities are basically combat buffs.

So, a player wants to play an arcane gish without devoting an archetype to it. Do you?

1. Do nothing. Existing options (pact of blade warlock, artificer or multiclassing) are fine
2. Tweak pact of blade warlock to be a little better (this is likely assuming hexblade is undesired or perhaps even not available, which I know is an existing houserule)
3. Rework the bard class to be less music focused in return for some better martial abilities in the base class. Now this may sound crazy, what's a bard without music? Well, a lot of the class doesn't have a whole lot to do with music. They have decent weapon proficiency, and their archetpes for example are typically unrelated (secrets, battle, social manipulation), so it might not be that strange to make the base class itself cater to social manipulation and factotum rather than music.
4. Create a new arcane base class. This could be based on 3.5's duskblade, 4th ed swordmage, pathfinders magus or bloodrager, or something entirely new. The point would be it gets extra attack, and arcane spell casting, not necessarily 9th level though. However since freeing up an archetpe was the whole point of this, you'd also need to make a good number of archetypes to go with it, so this is definitely the most labour intensive one.

Unoriginal

2023-08-25, 05:26 PM

So, a player wants to play an arcane gish without devoting an archetype to it. Do you?

1. Do nothing. Existing options (pact of blade warlock, artificer or multiclassing) are fine

I'll do that one, yes.

There are costs for whatever one wants to do. If not a subclass, then multiclassing or feats are needed for such a concept.

Why should the Gish get things for free?

JackPhoenix

2023-08-25, 05:28 PM

Arcane and divine is meaningless distinction in 5e. Any arcane caster can cast in armor, and healing spells are not exclusive to divine casters. Sure, damage types and spell lists differ (but the difference got increasingly muddled as the time goes), but nothing stops you from fluffing a bard as a divine caster or a paladin as an arcane warrior.

Boci

2023-08-25, 05:35 PM

I'll do that one, yes.

There are costs for whatever one wants to do. If not a subclass, then multiclassing or feats are needed for such a concept.

Why should the Gish get things for free?

Because divine does? As I said, ranger and paladin both get spell casting and extra attack without needing to touch an specific archetype, so clearly this about something other than a cost that must be paid or wanting something for free.

GeneralVryth

2023-08-25, 05:46 PM

Should there have been an Arcane Half-Caster as a core class? Yes.

- Someone whom 2 of his favorite sub-classes are Bladesinger, and Swords both re-flavored to avoid the music.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-25, 05:46 PM

I mean, I'm creating one in my fork of 5e. But at the same time I'm basically making spellcasting always be a function of the base class. So no eldritch knight. And warlock is very different (more 3e than 5e) and not a real spell-caster (can get spells via invocations, but doesn't have native access).

The "arcane gish" is a light-armored, "anti-bard" (replacing the bard entirely). Gets to mix spells and attacks--it learns to cast spells on its weapon to trigger on strike. One subclass gets more support stuff. More of a striker/debuffer (compared to the paladin's (support or tank)/striker and the ranger's more balanced, striker-heavy operation). But that's because I've refocused arcane towards control/aoe/debuffing--it doesn't have very much buffing left.

Boci

2023-08-25, 05:54 PM

Should there have been an Arcane Half-Caster as a core class? Yes.

- Someone whom 2 of his favorite sub-classes are Bladesinger, and Swords both re-flavored to avoid the music.

An ideas/preferences for the direction the class would take flavour-wise? Any obvious/necessary archetypes?

I mean, I'm creating one in my fork of 5e. But at the same time I'm basically making spellcasting always be a function of the base class. So no eldritch knight. And warlock is very different (more 3e than 5e) and not a real spell-caster (can get spells via invocations, but doesn't have native access).

The "arcane gish" is a light-armored, "anti-bard" (replacing the bard entirely).

And nothing of value was lost...

But no seriously this is an interesting approach, kinda the idea solution, minus the work involved, but if you were already up to that. Any chance one of the anti-bard's archetypes could be an actual bard, or do you want to cut all traces of the character concept from the game?

RandomPeasant

2023-08-25, 06:12 PM

An ideas/preferences for the direction the class would take flavour-wise? Any obvious/necessary archetypes?

Just call it a "Gish". They've been a part of D&Dland ever since Charles Stross stole the Githyanki from George RR Martin. There are a ton of potential archetypes you could do. Some sort of Death Knight is tempting, as is something with draconic flavor/thematics. If you were designing from the perspective of having a Gish in the game to start with, Rune Knight would probably be a Gish archetype as well (though to be honest, "Rune Guy" is workable as its own class). Past that I think it starts depending on what mechanics you have for the class, but there are a ton of potential options to choose from. 3e alone has probably a dozen gish PrCs you can plunder for ideas. Maybe you want Abjurant Champions or Knights Phantom or Jade Phoenix Mages.

GeneralVryth

2023-08-25, 06:12 PM

An ideas/preferences for the direction the class would take flavour-wise? Any obvious/necessary archetypes?

I would start by taking my queues from the current Paladin (one the most popular classes).
1. Need to have some way of mixing attacks with magic. Applying a touch or attack spell through a hit is an obvious approach.
2. Instead of buffing allies, it should focus on controlling/de-buffing enemies. I would envision some kind of collection of lesser control effects (single square webs, 1 turn blinds, etc...) applied as bonus actions at the cost of some kind of resource, likely a short rest recharge.
3. At least one of the sub-classes would likely have a teleporter theme, because character bampfing around like Nightcrawler stabbing people is pretty fun character concept. Another being a speed theme (short duration Hastes without lethargy), could work as well.
4. The default class should be light armor only, with a couple of sub-classes focusing on heaving armor.
5. Int as casting stat.

The reality is a lot of the pieces already exist and are just spread out amongst several classes. Start with a mix of Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Bard and you get pretty close. Maybe sprinkle in some Battlemaster, and then just focus on sub-classes

As for theme, that's tougher. There is no natural thematic slot like there is for Paladins. Of course this is probably the class Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Arcane Archer should be from instead of those existing sub-classes, so it would take a theme similar to those.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-25, 06:23 PM

And nothing of value was lost...

But no seriously this is an interesting approach, kinda the idea solution, minus the work involved, but if you were already up to that. Any chance one of the anti-bard's archetypes could be an actual bard, or do you want to cut all traces of the character concept from the game?

Yeah, I'm reworking...most of the classes. Only paladin is basically untouched, other than a rename (Oathbound).

The "spellblade" (anti-bard) has two (so far) focuses (subclasses): Inspiration and War (needs a rename). The core "inverse bardic inspiration" mechanic is Arcane Manipulation--target an enemy, save or get marked. The spellblade can trigger the mark (as a free action) when the target makes an ability check, saving throw, or attack roll. The target then has to subtract the die from the roll (removing the mark). Their other main feature is "Channeling" (6+)--when you take the Attack action, you can cast a damaging cantrip on your weapon--a hit from the weapon is also a hit with the cantrip. This increases to 2nd level spells or lower at 11, 3rd at 13th, and 4th at 17th. But if you miss, the resource is wasted.

Inspiration is a "bard" (minus the actual music dependency). It gets an alternate use for AM--give it to an ally (no save) to add to an ability check or damage roll[1]. It also gets a mini-quicken ability, but only for 1st level (equivalent) spells that target an ally other than yourself. And a few other, supportive abilities.

[1] until much later, when it adds to saves and attack rolls. The system is much more careful about adding stuff to attack rolls especially.

RandomPeasant

2023-08-25, 06:52 PM

As for theme, that's tougher. There is no natural thematic slot like there is for Paladins. Of course this is probably the class Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and Arcane Archer should be from instead of those existing sub-classes, so it would take a theme similar to those.

You don't really need a strong theme for a class. The Wizard is "guy who learns magic from books". The Rogue is "guy who's sneaky". "Guy who uses spell and sword" is an instantly recognizable character concept on its own, you don't need to figure out some additional fluff for it to have.

LudicSavant

2023-08-25, 07:16 PM

"Using weapons" isn't so much of a role as it is a skin for a role -- often one that spellcasters can already do without weapons, if they're so inclined.

People often talk about classes getting their toes stepped on, but I think this is a misidentification of the root issue. After all, a Cleric doesn't complain about a Druid "stepping on its toes," nor a Wizard complain about a Bard borrowing its strongest spells with Magical Secrets.

When people complain about getting their toes stepped on, the issue is usually that they weren't especially good at their job in the first place. They don't need exclusivity, they just need to be good at their job.

Luccan

2023-08-25, 07:32 PM

If all the player wants is to cast spells and swing swords, I am liable to point them to existing options, yes. If they want something specific they're gonna have to actually describe their desires

gloryblaze

2023-08-25, 07:51 PM

My table uses this (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/7IjRjmLFFXAN), which is heavily based on 4e's Swordmage.

If I recall correctly, I was originally inspired to make this by a homebrew Swordmage I saw here on the forums several years ago, though I changed quite a lot to better tune it for my table. I think the author of that original 5e Swordmage conversion was miburo, based on a quick search of the Homebrew forum, since miburo's class is also named Spellsword and at this point I have no idea why I named my class Spellsword instead of Swordmage, haha. But I'm not 100% sure since the link in minburo's thread is dead for me at this point so I can't actually look at their class and see if the mechanics are similar at all. Oh, and in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, all the art in the document is from the Shadowverse digital card game.

LudicSavant

2023-08-25, 07:55 PM

If all the player wants is to cast spells and swing swords, I am liable to point them to existing options, yes. Yeah, there's tons of solutions for that as is.

RogueJK

2023-08-25, 08:30 PM

Yeah, there's tons of solutions for that as is.

Indeed. Let's see...

Rangers
Paladins
Artificers
Eldritch Knights
Arcane Tricksters
Mountain Dwarf, Legacy Hobgoblin, or Legacy Gith Abjuration "Iron Wizards"
Bladesinger Wizards
Valor Bards
Swords Bards
SCAGtrip Moderately Armored Other Bards
Hexblade Warlocks
Blade Pact Other Warlocks
SCAGtrip Moderately Armored Tomelocks
Arcana Cleric Frontliners
Other SCAGtrip Clerics (especially Death, War, Tempest, Forge, or Twilight)
Four Elements Monks (okay, so it's not a great option, but it's an option)
Etc.

And that's not even counting multiclassing combos. Or non-spellcaster martial classes combining racial spellcasting with several spellcasting feats in order to have some spellcasting options.

Kane0

2023-08-25, 08:34 PM

Yeah with the plethora of existing options i find it hard to justify more classes/subclasses for more wizardly extra attackers

RandomPeasant

2023-08-25, 08:52 PM

Yeah with the plethora of existing options i find it hard to justify more classes/subclasses for more wizardly extra attackers

I think the plethora of existing options is pretty clearly indicative that this is an option that should exist as a class. Imagine if there was a "Beastform Ranger" and a "Spirit Speaker Barbarian" and a "Vine Priest Cleric" and a "Elementalist Monk" and a "Naturalist Bard", but no Druid. That would not be indicative of the "has nature magic" being full, but of it being something that deserves to be served by its own class (the Druid that is absent in this hypothetical).

Honestly, I'm sort of surprised WotC promoted Warlock to PHB class before they wrote one.

tKUUNK

2023-08-25, 09:01 PM

My table uses this (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/7IjRjmLFFXAN), which is heavily based on 4e's Swordmage.

That homebrew seems like a good solution, or a springboard for ideas.

IMO- There's space in the game for something like this. I was always a fan of the red mage in the Final Fantasy series, and D&D doesn't quite have one. Close but not exactly. Like you said, some subclasses / warlock builds almost do it.

From my playing experience though-

Paladin in 5e has a very gishy feel when you're actually playing one. It's a blast. As long as you're not too hung up on being an arcane caster, which seems like an arbitrary requirement to me personally.

Also, with the right multiclass of Eldritch Knight & Wizard, you can make a pretty dang fun gish with the rules right out of the box.

But hey, the great thing about a TTRPG is: if you want it in your game, you can. Brew something up and play it!!

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-25, 10:12 PM

How is bladesinger not a gish?

Kyovastra

2023-08-25, 10:31 PM

I think it should be possible and it'd make sense to have a gish class, but in terms of if it should be possible in 5e, I lean toward no at this point in its lifecycle with all the splatbooks and subclass options, since I think it'd feel tacked on and like it was added too late rather than something the game was designed around. A lot of subclasses could have fit into it instead, for example. It's potentially doable in spite of all that, artificer was a good late edition, but it'd be hard to pull off and I tend not to care for homebrew classes (usually, for my taste, they have narrow flavour, overly complex design that's likely to break 5e conventions, and there's no telling how well playtested they are).

That being said, although gishes are my favourite playstyle, I actually find gish classes are rarely appealing to me in practice. Their magic tends to be too focused on enhancing their fighting abilities with weapons, rather than actually fighting with both weapons and magic. Pathfinder's magus is an extreme example that doesn't appeal to me at all. I also don't find the idea of a gish half-caster very appealing; I quite like each of 5e's half-casters and find paladin one of the most fun classes to play, but they don't fill the same niche to me and I don't think of them as being gishes. Half-casters get too little magic to where it ends up being for utility or to enhance fighting with weapons, rather than being part of its own fighting style.

I find 5e's options limiting for the concept of a gish class. Half-caster doesn't get enough magic, but a full caster with martial abilities on the other hand tends to end up being a caster than can attack with a weapon if they have to. I didn't really play 3e, but it sounds like it had some better ideas in this respect, like its bard sounds kind of like a 3/4 caster which is really appealing to me. The only 5e option that's almost exactly what I'd want from a gish is the bladesinger, except you have to go out of your way to build them with a focus on melee in order to be decent at it. But it lets you be effective both fighting with weapons and casting spells offensively in melee. The Tasha's version is especially cool for its cantrip extra attack, but go figure they had to make bladesong itself unreliable by changing it to be based on long rest rather than short. Still, I wish it had a little less wizard and a little more warrior!

Honestly, I'd settle for another subclass or two like bladesinger, with flexible flavour. What feels most missing to me is that sorcerer doesn't have a gish option like it. It may be hard to design and balance, but it seems like it'd be perfect for a generic, easy-to-flavour gish subclass, and they make the most sense to gish in the first place, since they have natural ability with magic, so why not spend more time training with weapons instead? Metamagic would be fun with it, and I could see there being a gish metamagic option or two, too. But WotC seems to have something against the idea of sorcerers gishing for some reason.

Amnestic

2023-08-26, 04:05 AM

If you want a gish you've got options.
Full caster? Bladesinger wizard, swords/valour bard, bladelock.
Half-caster? Armourer/Battlesmith artificer.
1/3rd caster? Eldritch Knight fighter, Arcane Trickster rogue.

And with multiclassing you can mix and match these with some decent stacking. Some combo of Arcane Trickster and Bladesinger is probably pretty fun, and ends up with a decent whack of spells and slots on top of some moderate sneak attacking and scagtripping.

Could you make an arcane gish class as a standalone? Sure you could, if you wanted to, but with the options already available via subclasses/multiclassing it needs to be a more specific want than just "arcane sword guy" because we've already got those covered across a decent variety of options.

Brookshw

2023-08-26, 04:37 AM

How is bladesinger not a gish?

Strikes me as there are already more gishes than straight martials.

Unoriginal

2023-08-26, 04:43 AM

Because divine does? As I said, ranger and paladin both get spell casting and extra attack without needing to touch an specific archetype, so clearly this about something other than a cost that must be paid or wanting something for free.

But a Paladin or Ranger do pay a cost. For starter, as you note in your OP, they can't reach the heights of magic a dedicated caster can.

For second, considers the subclasses Paladin and Rangers do have access to. Sure, those subclasses sre flavorful and give interesting abilities, but you don't have any "this subclass will make you better as a spellcsster" or "this subclass will make you better at fighting straightfowardly".

In other words, the cost of a class that does both martial fighting and spellcasting is that they're stuck doing so from A to Z.

Now if you think that is more acceptable a cost than a subclass, I'd say it comes down to preferences.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-26, 02:10 PM

Infernally Clay

2023-08-26, 02:37 PM

Maybe Eldritch Knight should simply be a base class rather than a Fighter subclass and take a leaf out of the old Duskblade book and let them use a standard action to cast any touch spell they know and deliver the spell through their weapon with a melee attack or ranged attack. Then when they get Extra Attack they can do it twice per turn. Throw in a bunch of other features, like the Wizard’s Spell Mastery, and of course give them all the existing Eldritch Knight features and I think you’d be onto something there.

A heavily armoured, sword and shield wielding knight who has various subclasses that focus on specific schools of magic or leans more heavily towards martial prowess or spellcasting or being more of a tank or even just leader stuff (like the 4e Marshal). I think it’d work.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-26, 03:09 PM

It is terribly old-fashioned of me, but I'd go with something like

If your HD is d10 (or d12), you have no more than 4 spell levels, but you should probably have extra attack as a class feature.

If your HD is d8, you are limited to 6 spell levels, but you might have extra attack as a subclass feature.

If your HD is d6, then you can get 9 spell levels, but you're not going to have extra attack as a feature.

Yes, I know what this does to Clerics, Druids, and Bards, but I don't care.

RogueJK

2023-08-26, 03:17 PM

Maybe Eldritch Knight should simply be a base class rather than a Fighter subclass and take a leaf out of the old Duskblade book and let them use a standard action to cast any touch spell they know and deliver the spell through their weapon with a melee attack or ranged attack.

That's basically what the Magus class in Pathfinder can do.

But in order for that to be useful, 5E would have to seriously bulk out the available "touch attack" type spells, because currently there's only around 6, and only 3 of those are Arcane spells:

Primal Savagery
Shocking Grasp
Inflict Wounds
Vampiric Touch
Contagion
Plane Shift

LibraryOgre

2023-08-26, 03:21 PM

That's basically what the Magus class in Pathfinder can do.

But in order for that to be useful, 5E would have to seriously bulk out the available "touch attack" style spells, because currently there's only about 6, and only 3 of those are Arcane spells:

Primal Savagery
Shocking Grasp
Inflict Wounds
Vampiric Touch
Contagion
Plane Shift

Consider the Paladin's Smite line of spells, and the Ranger's spells like Ensnaring Strike, that enchant arrows and weapons for short periods. Sure, they're not "arcane" now, but as others pointed out above, that's largely a moot distinction these days.

Amnestic

2023-08-26, 04:44 PM

That's basically what the Magus class in Pathfinder can do.

But in order for that to be useful, 5E would have to seriously bulk out the available "touch attack" type spells, because currently there's only around 6, and only 3 of those are Arcane spells:

Primal Savagery
Shocking Grasp
Inflict Wounds
Vampiric Touch
Contagion
Plane Shift

One mechanic I've played with on an artificer subclass is delivering any spell as part of a weapon attack:-

From 5th level once per turn when you fire your Personal Pistol you can choose to imbue it with an artificer spell you know that has a casting time of 1 action, expending the appropriate spell slot. Instead of the spell's normal range, it instead uses your pistol's attack range, allowing you to deliver short range spells at a distance.

If the attack hits and the spell uses an attack roll, it deals normal weapon damage with the full spell's effects to the target. If it misses, the spell still hits, though only does half its usual damage, with no weapon damage.

If the spell requires a saving throw then hitting with the pistol shot causes the struck target to take normal weapon damage and subtract your proficiency bonus from their initial saving throw. If the attack misses, the spell still takes effect and the saving throw is made as normal.

If the spell targets a point, it must be centred on the target of the attack, and otherwise takes effect as normal. For instance, you could shoot a fireball at a target with your Spell Bullet. If you miss, the Fireball still detonates centred on the target creature, but if you hit then not only does the fireball take effect but the target also takes 1d10 piercing damage and has their saving throw reduced by your proficiency bonus.

You could probably adapt a similar thing to a hypothetical gish class, possibly with a BA action cost instead of just being automatic. Would save you having to write up a whole bunch of new spells.

Kane0

2023-08-26, 04:49 PM

If anything id like the bladelock to become the proper gish in future, with the chainlock becoming a half caster binder/summoner type and the tomelock the more funky 'full' caster.
But there are a million and one other things id like to see changed before that though.

tKUUNK

2023-08-26, 06:51 PM

I was just thinking "Gee, I wonder what happened to 3e's duskblade? Why didn't that concept stick around?" And playing Kingmaker, trying to figure out what character I want to play, I see its descendant, the Magus.

An arcane half-caster warrior-type? I'd lean towards something like that, a specialist in touch spells, swift actions, and buffs. Your basic spell list would probably include some of the Paladin's smite spells, and maybe you'd have a ranged subclass that let you get some ranger arrow-enhancement spells.

Not sure what you'd call it. The Wizardry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizardry) in me keeps popping up with Samurai, but that's not a good one for obvious reasons... too long in the Proving Grounds, I suppose.

added red for emphasis in the quote. This captures the spirit of such a class well.

Also...Wizardry? Ha! Blast from the past! Their Samurai class was very potent with the combination of swordplay and evocation, and yet, NOT the perfect model for gish class. A gish should (imo) integrate the magic & swordplay, rather than do one or the other each turn.

RSP

2023-08-27, 04:46 AM

I tend to play gish characters and will say that plenty of options exist for builds, with the main “flaw” in those options being you have to choose to stay dedicated to the play style when just being a straight back row caster is a safer option.

The most prominent example being a Bladesinger, which, as a Wizard, could have plenty of spell options that start the Player thinking, “why am I standing in the front and getting hit when I could be in the back and being more effective.”

A few may run out of steam as they level (see Bladelock, around level 10) and enemy hits start proving them to be the glass cannon they are, forcing them to change their tactics. But most campaigns don’t go much further than that so they’re mostly fine.

But something like the Magus could have a place in 5e, where it’s limited by design, as opposed to player commitment.

Kane0

2023-08-27, 06:28 AM

I tend to play fish characters and -

Hahaha dont edit that out my guy

Amnestic

2023-08-27, 06:35 AM

World's strongest Locathah player.

RSP

2023-08-27, 06:41 AM

Hahaha dont edit that out my guy

Ugh. Might be straw that breaks the autocorrect on my phone…

Chronos

2023-08-27, 07:02 AM

GeneralVryth

2023-08-27, 09:41 AM

Boci

2023-08-27, 12:57 PM

Some interesting ideas about a gish for a class. Spellsword works, yeah yeah, you don't have to wield a sword, but its just a name.

So what we'd need for a class with spells, we need a casting stat, proficiencies, and a spell list. Casting stat makes sense to have Int, there are a lot of Cha already. For proficiencies I'm partial to martial weapons and light armour myself. For a spell list, we can have debuffing enemies being the focus. The exact mechanics of how they combine spells and weapon attack would need to worked out, and some other class features need to be thrown in. 5th level casting, extra atatck, and some other stuff.

Then we can have an archetype that allows for a ranged weapons instead of melee, another could allow for heavier armour, and maybe one could be for unarmed combat and no armour, though this is awkward to fight with weapons and armour until level 3 (assuming that's when the archetype is chosen) and then drop those things, plus I dunno how popular it is over all. Another option would be to tap into a race's aesthetic. Elves already have bladesinger, so an unconventional one could be fun, dwarves or orcs, or the gith. They did unofficially name the archetype, so perhaps they deserve an archetype modelled on them, psychic magic and astral silver stuff.

I would personally also then like at least 3 archetypes, though obviously the more the merrier, that aren't necessary focused on being a gish, and more on the flavour or essence of the character. Could be themed off the land, Desert or River. Another could tap into some iconic creature type of D&D, say the fey, or fiend/celestial. And the third one could be related to something urbanized. The scholar/gentlemen. Really the important thing here is the archetype is not "you are a gish", because the class already does that.

Obviously I'm just spit-balling here, I don't expect others to make a base class for me to my custom design, just laying out the foundation of how I would do it.

stoutstien

2023-08-27, 01:11 PM

Boci

2023-08-27, 01:21 PM

The issue with a flat out mix of spell and sword is that if it's not worse in a fight than sword alone, there's no reason for just sword to exist. If a gish doesn't have a worse attack/damage progression , HP/mitigation, or otherwise an unavoidable reduction in effectiveness , then adding spellcasting abilities to them, doubly so for the "pick the best option approach of 5e, constantly makes them altogether superior to a non-magical options.

So at minimal it should cost a class/subclass that has some built in governing in place.

I mean yeah but, I think that's fairly basic game design that has literally never been an issue. 3.5, PF, 4e and 5e have all managed to make classes that have casting and decent combat skills without rendering purely martial classes redundant. Unless you feel that's not the case?

stoutstien

2023-08-27, 01:26 PM

I mean yeah but, I think that's fairly basic game design that has literally never been an issue. 3.5, PF, 4e and 5e have all managed to make classes that have casting and decent combat skills without rendering purely martial classes redundant. Unless you feel that's not the case?

It's been a reoccurring issue in all of those systems besides 4e and PF2 but they just remove success via homogeneous features to the point it doesn't matter.

You can safely replace practically any martial with a gish and come out ahead so much so that the "gish" option of those Martials are usually in the running for best progression paths consistently.

Boci

2023-08-27, 01:30 PM

It's been a reoccurring issue in all of those systems besides 4e and PF2 but they just remove success via homogeneous features to the point it doesn't matter.

And yet people still play straight martial characters in 3.5, PF 1 and 5e. Its been a reoccuring issue for some, it has not been an issue ever for others.

stoutstien

2023-08-27, 01:37 PM

Nagog

2023-08-27, 01:38 PM

Because divine does? As I said, ranger and paladin both get spell casting and extra attack without needing to touch an specific archetype, so clearly this about something other than a cost that must be paid or wanting something for free.

I think the primary reason this archtype doesn't exist is because Arcane casters (specifically Wizards) already get some interesting stuff that can mimic the capacities of martial classes (Tenser's Transformation, SCAGtrips, Mage Armor, Steel Wind Strike) as well as their full casting suite and archtype.

Furthermore, the Cleric and Druid spell lists are a lot more combat focused than the Wizard spell list (which seems odd but as a devoted utility caster I can verify that playing Cleric or Druid for anything but combat doesn't work very well), so having a class that focuses on combat abilities have a spell list that is full of tons of utility vs. one with a spell list full of combat stuff is an easy choice to make. Furthermore, the two primary Arcane casters (Sorcerer and Wizard) have a LOT of their class identity pulled from their spell lists and the act of casting spells, so granting a whole other class that has that flavor and more severely weakens the appeal to play either of those base classes.

Clause

2023-08-27, 01:38 PM

Boci

2023-08-27, 01:43 PM

Being played and being playable isn't the same as being good or having sound design principles. I can eat a steak with a spoon but a knife and fork would probably make the experience better.

So everyone playing fighting isn't enjoying the game as much as they would be if they just mixed some spell into their character concept instead? You understand why this can be a problematic line of thinking right?

Besides, this is a design philosophy line of discussion that's too broad for this thread. As has been noted, there's already so many ways you can be a gish in 5e, adding another baseclass is unlikely to upset anything new.

so granting a whole other class that has that flavor and more severely weakens the appeal to play either of those base classes.

I feel like the flavour of wizard casting holds way less appeal if you have to wait till level 9 to cast fireball. So a base class of "spell book but also good with swords" shouldn't detract too much from the appeal of playing a wizard.

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 07:33 AM

So everyone playing fighting isn't enjoying the game as much as they would be if they just mixed some spell into their character concept instead? You understand why this can be a problematic line of thinking right?

Besides, this is a design philosophy line of discussion that's too broad for this thread. As has been noted, there's already so many ways you can be a gish in 5e, adding another baseclass is unlikely to upset anything new.

To continue with the analogy it's not a big deal if somebody stuck eating a steak with a spoon unless somebody else at the dinner has the full cutlery set. The table level relationship is the only thing that matters here.

This is particularly blatant in systems like 5e where there's not necessarily any serious niche protection but some classes are limited to said niches. They also tend to fall into the exact same traps where if you want to add that niche back in you just use magic. magic here could be spellcasting or it could be else along the same lines like room night which is explicitly pretty magical but not spells.

It's not really outside the realm of the conversation because you're talking about adding more things that is going to exasperate the issue. The "baseline" (PHB with no optional/variant rules) doesn't really have an issue here as the gish concepts do have some built in check in the form of opportunity costs but adding in content and optional rules dials it all the way up. You cannot remove this issue by adding more content.

Corran

2023-08-28, 08:07 AM

So, a player wants to play an arcane gish without devoting an archetype to it. Do you?

1. Do nothing. Existing options (pact of blade warlock, artificer or multiclassing) are fine
2. Tweak pact of blade warlock to be a little better (this is likely assuming hexblade is undesired or perhaps even not available, which I know is an existing houserule)
3. Rework the bard class to be less music focused in return for some better martial abilities in the base class. Now this may sound crazy, what's a bard without music? Well, a lot of the class doesn't have a whole lot to do with music. They have decent weapon proficiency, and their archetpes for example are typically unrelated (secrets, battle, social manipulation), so it might not be that strange to make the base class itself cater to social manipulation and factotum rather than music.
4. Create a new arcane base class. This could be based on 3.5's duskblade, 4th ed swordmage, pathfinders magus or bloodrager, or something entirely new. The point would be it gets extra attack, and arcane spell casting, not necessarily 9th level though. However since freeing up an archetpe was the whole point of this, you'd also need to make a good number of archetypes to go with it, so this is definitely the most labour intensive one.
1. Most likely, but because I wouldn't want to spend the time trying to make something new and not because I believe that anything new would be a waste.

2. Definitely not. Either make the warlock a half caster and fix pact if the blade, or remove it entirely. Can't have it all. Hexblade is thrown into the bin too.

3. No opinion here.

4. Probably not. Too many classes and subclasses are magic users already.

Boci

2023-08-28, 09:12 AM

To continue with the analogy it's not a big deal if somebody stuck eating a steak with a spoon unless somebody else at the dinner has the full cutlery set. The table level relationship is the only thing that matters here.

This analogy works so well, in a rather stupid way.

There is nothing wrong with eating stake with a spoon at a table with a full cutlery set, because the purpose of eating steak as a group is typically to enjoy good food and company, not to have a race to see who can finish first.

It's not really outside the realm of the conversation because you're talking about adding more things that is going to exasperate the issue. The "baseline" (PHB with no optional/variant rules) doesn't really have an issue here as the gish concepts do have some built in check in the form of opportunity costs but adding in content and optional rules dials it all the way up. You cannot remove this issue by adding more content.

This seems like a very premature concern. The purpose of a gish is to acknowledged the existence as a character archetype (hence why multiple people in this thread has expressed support of the idea), and to unify the concept and allow for archetypes that more than just "you are a gish". There's no guarantee that mechanically the class will be better than exist, in which case the new base class wouldn't exasperate the issue.

You are talking about something beyond the scope of this thread, because you are talking about redesigning 5e, which this thread isn't.

2. Definitely not. Either make the warlock a half caster and fix pact if the blade, or remove it entirely. Can't have it all. Hexblade is thrown into the bin too.

Eh, don't think so. I've seen talk of buffing pact of the blade just in conversations about the warlock class, independent of any gish potential. Is seems widely regarded to be the weakest of the 3, so I don't think buffing the weakest option is wanting to "have it all".

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 09:37 AM

This analogy works so well, in a rather stupid way.

There is nothing wrong with eating stake with a spoon at a table with a full cutlery set, because the purpose of eating steak as a group is typically to enjoy good food and company, not to have a race to see who can finish first.

This seems like a very premature concern. The purpose of a gish is to acknowledged the existence as a character archetype (hence why multiple people in this thread has expressed support of the idea), and to unify the concept and allow for archetypes that more than just "you are a gish". There's no guarantee that mechanically the class will be better than exist, in which case the new base class wouldn't exasperate the issue.

You are talking about something beyond the scope of this thread, because you are talking about redesigning 5e, which this thread isn't.

The entire angel of "it's a team game so it ok to be bad at stuff" only works if the rest of the team is equally bad at stuff. That's literally the concept of niche protection.
This in inherently one of the flaws of the Gish in most games because they are equally good at two things so there's no purpose of having the options to only be good at one of the things. There's not a lot of space for gradual success because it's usually binary resolutions.

Nothing here is actually changing the design of the game before a bunch of stuff was slapped on it that doesn't work that well. If you go look at the player handbook you basically have 6 options for the Gish that are all fine.
Pact of the blade is wonky but it's just awkwardly designed. it doesn't really play outside it's set range to an extent that is a problem.
Paladins/ranger are probably some of the most well put together classes because they are built from the ground up as a gish with an eye on the fact they do need certain limits. Rangers fall off a little bit on the back end but it's not to the point where it's noteworthy.
Then you have the valor bard that is probably the closest thing that people think about in terms of being one due to having full spell access. This is also kept in check with ability score requirements and needing to be more judicial with their inspiration dice. They're not out fighting a fighter or out wizarding a wizard.
It's mirror options with AT and EK also fall well with this range. They're different and still good options but not to the extent where it makes others obsolete.

Toss in multi-classing this all goes out the window. All those built -in governing features are gone and then if you add in stuff like blade cantrip you can make a "Gish" with something as simple as a cantrip on a cleric.

So to sum up to your original question should somebody be able to get <Gish> without substantial opportunity cost the answer is a firm NO unless you're okay with excluding other tropes.

Boci

2023-08-28, 09:51 AM

The entire angel of "it's a team game so it ok to be bad at stuff" only works if the rest of the team is equally bad at stuff.

That's simply not true. Not every group demands everybody be equal. Based on your posts, I think you might be surprised by how much inequality some groups will be fine with, hell, the might not even notice it, because its really that important to them and so they don't focus on it.

So to sum up to your original question should somebody be able to get <Gish> without substantial opportunity cost the answer is a firm NO unless you're okay with excluding other tropes.

In my opening post I noted the gish class likely wouldn't get 9th level spells, so that feels like the opportunity cost was covered from the get go.

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 10:03 AM

That's simply not true. Not every group demands everybody be equal. Based on your posts, I think you might be surprised by how much inequality some groups will be fine with, hell, the might not even notice it, because its really that important to them and so they don't focus on it.

If anything I'm specifically pointing out that things should explicitly not be equal but should be fair. If you want to do two different things well you shouldn't be able to do them both as well as someone who can only do one of those things.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-28, 10:04 AM

So to sum up to your original question should somebody be able to get <Gish> without substantial opportunity cost the answer is a firm NO unless you're okay with excluding other tropes.

This. The whole 3e "9ths and 4 attacks" gish was a horrible horrible idea and it's even worse in 5e. No one who can dabble in multiple areas should be able to be better than a specialist in one of those areas and should have to expend significant resources (build and play time) to even draw equal. Generalization should have its costs. Yes, this means wizards need refactoring. And spell-casters generally.

If anything I'm specifically pointing out that things should explicitly not be equal but should be fair. If you want to do two different things well you shouldn't be able to do them both as well as someone who can only do one of those things.

Yeah. "I can do everything you can do and things you can't do as well" is a sign that one class has vastly exceeded its power budget or the other class has vastly undershot its power budget. All classes should have the same budget, but distributed differently.

-------------

More generally, I've got an ad hoc model I call SDCT. Support, Damage, Control, Toughness. Four different buckets a class can put their "combat power budget" into.

Support helps teammates. Buffing, healing, etc.
Damage actively reduces enemy HP. It can be broken further into AoE and Single Target, but meh.
Control is the inverse of Support--it hampers enemies. Debuffs, battlefield control, etc.
Toughness is the ability to survive enemy Damage. HP + all the defensive stuff (whether static or active).

Each one is rated on an (abstract) scale from 0-10. And each class's power budget is roughly 20 total points to distribute (so that a "balanced" class would have middle marks in all areas).

My basic design principles are that

1. No class should have a 0 or a 10. Every class should be capable of all things, even if they're way better at other things.
2. Toughness is somewhat important for all--generally a 4 is as low as I go. I don't think that glass cannons really have a great place in a game where you're playing a single character--they're great in war games where you are playing an entire squad/army/etc. Because there individuals are sacrificial.
3. If two classes have the same SDCT ratings, they should differ strongly in how they do it (maybe one has more AoE damage or one has lots of HP and the other high AC).
4. Weaknesses should be meaningful. If a class is designed to have a low rating (<5) in an area, then they shouldn't have any skills that let them bypass that weakness cheaply. Squishy classes should be squishy. No RPG "drawbacks" here that you can shove off to where they'll never affect you.
5. Hybrids should be broader than "pure" classes...but much less deep. This could ether be versatility or power (or maybe both)--the "fighter" (a pure martial) should have lots of ways to do martial stuff, and switching should be cheap. Because that's his main focus (combat-wise). A pure caster, similarly. A "gish"? Fewer options that come on later.

So for my (in progress) system, you've got pure casters (3 of them), all of whom are strong at one of S, D, or C but all are "squishy" (low T). You've got pure martials[1] (4 of them) who vary, but generally have higher T and lower S (generally and high values for one of D/C. And then you have 3 "gish" half-casters. Who have a more balanced profile.

The arcane "gish" (spellblade) is 3/6/6/5. The primal gish (ranger) is 4/7/4/5. The divine gish (paladin) is 6/5/4/5.

By contrast, the "fighter" is 3/7/4/6. The "barbarian" is 3/6/4/7. The rogue is 3/7/5/5, and the "monk" is 4/5/6/5 (coming closest to balanced of the "martials"). The "wizard/sorcerer" is 3/7/6/4, the "cleric" is 7/4/5/4, and the "druid" is 5/4/7/4.

Of course, my pattern pisses off a lot of people because everyone is explicitly fantastic, with "magical" abilities (at least at higher levels). Just not spells.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-28, 10:07 AM

Strikes me as there are already more gishes than straight martials. Yeah.

It is terribly old-fashioned of me, but I'd go with something like

If your HD is d10 (or d12), you have no more than 4 spell levels, but you should probably have extra attack as a class feature.

If your HD is d8, you are limited to 6 spell levels, but you might have extra attack as a subclass feature.

If your HD is d6, then you can get 9 spell levels, but you're not going to have extra attack as a feature.

Yes, I know what this does to Clerics, Druids, and Bards, but I don't care. Not a bad idea, and FWIW cleric was limited to level 7 spells in AD&D 1e, and level 6 spells in the Original game before Greyhawk. :smallsmile: I like your line of thinking, but I'd keep the Ranger and Paladin's level 5 spells ... as they are both divine-ish casters.

Boci

2023-08-28, 10:08 AM

If anything I'm specifically pointing out that things should explicitly not be equal but should be fair. If you want to do two different things well you shouldn't be able to do them both as well as someone who can only do one of those things.

And plenty of people this is not a problem in 5e. Hell, it wasn't a problem for some groups in 3.5, and that was so much worse. Some groups either don't know or don't care about this problem you say, so for them at least, fixing it is likely a waste of time.

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 10:21 AM

And plenty of people this is not a problem in 5e. Hell, it wasn't a problem for some groups in 3.5, and that was so much worse. Some groups either don't know or don't care about this problem you say, so for them at least, fixing it is likely a waste of time.

And some people sleep on beds of nails but I wouldn't recommend it to my grandma.

When you're talking about designing a new player option you can make this adjustment on the table level and it would probably be fine if you know your group but when you are deferring to the public for resources you have to consider the entire system design as it's applied to the table level.

The concept of the spell sword or Gish is inherently one of the most difficult ones to pull off in the dnd-esque format. Probably why they never quite gotten it right.

RogueJK

2023-08-28, 10:26 AM

You can use

Dwarf
Gitzerai
Robgoblin

This 3 races give you medium armor proficience add some MARTIAL weapons too.

Making that abjurant wizard, a good frontliner, knowledge bard make a bit more saucer and clockwork sorcerrer so far durable

2 of those 3 are no longer an option, unless your DM happens to be lenient enough to allow older legacy content that has been superseded with newer releases. Githzerai and Hobgoblin both lost their racial weapon/armor proficiencies in their newest MotM iterations, and Mountain Dwarf will almost certainly get the same treatment when the new PHB is released.

However, if you're still wanting to do the old "Iron Wizard" Abjurer build, a Variant Human/Custom Lineage can still end up with the same armor proficiencies at the same rate as the old version of the Hobgoblin race:

The Legacy Hobgoblin Iron Wizard build would start with racial light armor at Level 1, and then take the Moderately Armored feat at Level 4 for medium armor and shield.

A VHuman/CLineage Iron Wizard can take the Lightly Armored feat at Level 1 for light armor, and then take the Moderately Armored feat at Level 4 for medium armor and shield.

So both iterations would have Light Armor from Levels 1 and Medium Armor from Level 4.

... Or just play a Tortle, whose racial 17 AC is the same as a Mountain Dwarf/Githzerai Wizard wearing Half Plate armor, without having to invest in DEX at all.

... Or just start with a level of Artificer, save the feat(s), open up your racial options, and get CON save proficiency too.

Boci

2023-08-28, 10:26 AM

And some people sleep on beds of nails but I wouldn't recommend it to my grandma.

Sleeping is a medical necessity. You can absolute;y, objectively criticising someone's sleeping habits as not being the best, but D&D and other roleplaying games are played to have fun. It is very tricky to criticise how other people play a game without ending up in "you're having badwrongfun" territory. There's nothing wrong with floating the idea of an alternative playstle or game, but you cannot do so with examples of your playstyle. A little self awareness is rather important here. Sure, maybe they would enjoy the game more if they played a different, but who knows, maybe if you played the game their way, gave it a chance, you've learn to not be concerned with the problems you currently have and you'd end up having more fun. Or maybe its just 2 different play styles, which your examples so far do not imply you have accounted for.

RSP

2023-08-28, 10:34 AM

And yet people still play straight martial characters in 3.5, PF 1 and 5e. Its been a reoccuring issue for some, it has not been an issue ever for others.

Being played and being playable isn't the same as being good or having sound design principles. I can eat a steak with a spoon but a knife and fork would probably make the experience better.

This, to me is an “optimization” pov as opposed to an “RP” pov.

The reason, in my opinion, as to why so many people play “less than optimal” classes/subclasses/races is because they’re playing what they want to play in the story.

If you want to play a swordsman who doesn’t do magic, it’s not “wrong” to play a BM or Champion Fighter.

The majority of players I’ve played with care more about the story of their character than the optimization of it.

Boci

2023-08-28, 10:37 AM

The majority of players I’ve played with care more about the story of their character than the optimization of it.

Yeah, I've played in both groups. I've absolutely had games were I wouldn't bring a straight martial character, but in most of the games I play and DM, they'll do fine. In most fights, they'll take some hits that therefor don't land on other players, and they'll deal some damage back to the enemy. Ergo they contributed in combat, everyone is happy, even if they could have contributed more if they had made a martial with some spellcasting / magical ability.

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 10:40 AM

Sleeping is a medical necessity. You can absolute;y, objectively criticising someone's sleeping habits as not being the best, but D&D and other roleplaying games are played to have fun. It is very tricky to criticise how other people play a game without ending up in "you're having badwrongfun" territory. There's nothing wrong with floating the idea of an alternative playstle or game, but you cannot do so with examples of your playstyle. A little self awareness is rather important here. Sure, maybe they would enjoy the game more if they played a different, but who knows, maybe if you played the game their way, gave it a chance, you've learn to not be concerned with the problems you currently have and you'd end up having more fun. Or maybe its just 2 different play styles, which your examples so far do not imply you have accounted for.

No. I explicitly stated that each table has their own version of fun but that doesn't change the the parameters of what good design would be for a given system. This is especially true when you are talking about adding qualitative differences(armor prof) then removing them at a lower budget then the initial opportunity cost.

Note: I didnt bring up anything like how much damage X attack should do or does Y spell make Z class more powerful in purpose. Those are table level factors where things like having an entire class/trope nullified by adding a new subclass is a system level problem.

You're not discussing play here. You're discussing design.

Boci

2023-08-28, 10:44 AM

You're not discussing play here. You're discussing design.

They're not separate issues. You design stuff you will enjoy playing that won't upset the tables you play if. Therefor if you have different play style, you will likely design different stuff to add to your game.

stoutstien

2023-08-28, 10:52 AM

They're not separate issues. You design stuff you will enjoy playing that won't upset the tables you play if. Therefor if you have different play style, you will likely design different stuff to add to your game.

And by fielding a very generalized question to the hive mind you're going to get a wide range of responses. Responses usually coming from mistakes made.

Gnome Alone

2023-08-28, 11:09 AM

Gonna throw my two cents in the soup:

Some people enjoy the challenge of eating steak with a spoon (metaphorically and possibly, like, 12 people ever literally.)

To answer the original question, I would either do nothing and use existing options, or follow the clever advice of poster and repurpose the paladin, changing the spells to be arcane, with a heavy emphasis on debuffs instead of buffs.

Also, one existing option, Arcane Trickster, has served me well. (Especially using an owl-form familiar's Help action to gain advantage and increase the success rate of Sneak Attack to the point that it's worth it.) Now combining it with Bladesinger and it's hella fun. (If I'd thought of it sooner, I coulda mixed it in more organically instead of going Rogue 7/Wizard 1/Rogue 1/Wizard 1/Rogue 1; only reached Bladesinger at level 10.)

It's probably less effective than being a straight wizard would have been, but see steak analogy.

I think the way to look at this stuff isn't pointing out that wizzrobes can do everything better, it's recognizing that if someone wants to be a martial, gish-ing can help them do it more effectively. It's not "why should a noble caster to dirty herself with combat" it's "my character IS a swordfighter and she's learned to use magic to aid it."

Psyren

2023-08-28, 12:21 PM

1. Do nothing. Existing options (pact of blade warlock, artificer or multiclassing) are fine
2. Tweak pact of blade warlock to be a little better (this is likely assuming hexblade is undesired or perhaps even not available, which I know is an existing houserule)
3. Rework the bard class to be less music focused in return for some better martial abilities in the base class. Now this may sound crazy, what's a bard without music? Well, a lot of the class doesn't have a whole lot to do with music. They have decent weapon proficiency, and their archetpes for example are typically unrelated (secrets, battle, social manipulation), so it might not be that strange to make the base class itself cater to social manipulation and factotum rather than music.
4. Create a new arcane base class. This could be based on 3.5's duskblade, 4th ed swordmage, pathfinders magus or bloodrager, or something entirely new. The point would be it gets extra attack, and arcane spell casting, not necessarily 9th level though. However since freeing up an archetpe was the whole point of this, you'd also need to make a good number of archetypes to go with it, so this is definitely the most labour intensive one.

Options 1 and 4 would be preferred for me. Bard is fine as-is. Bladelock/Hexblade isn't, but it needs more substantial changes than I'd be willing to try doing when a new version is on the horizon.

Concerning option 4, they have a ton of options that they can reach back to prior editions for, such as Duskblade and Swordmage.

Just call it a "Gish". They've been a part of D&Dland ever since Charles Stross stole the Githyanki from George RR Martin.

I think "gish" should remain a category term, even in-universe (one used primarily by Gith) rather than referring to one specific class.

Being played and being playable isn't the same as being good or having sound design principles. I can eat a steak with a spoon but a knife and fork would probably make the experience better.

I'd say making the steak is a superior analogy. You can go all out with a dry-aged wagyu ribeye sous vide or a controlled smoker for perfect internal temp into a reverse sear crust (the gish build) - but for the majority of people who want a "steak dinner", just slapping a strip from Walmart onto a flat top or grill for a few minutes works perfectly fine and is a hell of a lot easier for them to pick up.

This. The whole 3e "9ths and 4 attacks" gish was a horrible horrible idea and it's even worse in 5e. No one who can dabble in multiple areas should be able to be better than a specialist in one of those areas and should have to expend significant resources (build and play time) to even draw equal. Generalization should have its costs. Yes, this means wizards need refactoring. And spell-casters generally.

Which 5e gish has 9ths and 4 attacks? The closest I can envision is the Moon Druid, and they don't get to do both at once until pretty much the end of the game, and have significant costs and drawbacks even/until then.

Corran

2023-08-29, 03:31 AM

Eh, don't think so. I've seen talk of buffing pact of the blade just in conversations about the warlock class, independent of any gish potential. Is seems widely regarded to be the weakest of the 3, so I don't think buffing the weakest option is wanting to "have it all".
Yeah, buffing pact of the blade makes sense when looking only at the warlock. But let's think where a warlock gish would fit when also looking at the other classes.

It's not like that the warlocks dont trade anything to deserve some gish potential. Like halfcasters and 1/3 casters they do trade spell power, as pact magic and mystic arcanum are generally more restrictive than spellcasting, but they do trade less, so they should end up with smaller melee potential than halfcasters, even smaller than 1/3 casters and a lot smaller than non casters. And here lies the problem. The warlock's spell list is such that it's difficult to justify placing the warlock at risk in the front lines. Their primary cantrip can be bumped with damage and control and it's a long range one. And their relative lack of spell slots makes it costly to have them jump away from danger. This makes me think that you'd have to bump pact of the blade significantly if you want it to move away from being a trap option (when everything is taken into account and you give a scrutinous look to the new pact of the blade - you could bump it moderately to feel less of a trap option while still actually being one). And if you do so, then you look at your 1/X casters and at your non casters and you may start thinking that now they need a buff. And once you buff them you then may look at your gish warlock and revert to the conclusion that it's not good enough. It's power creep.

I dont think it's impossible to have a fullcaster gish (or gish like character if you prefer, dont want to dwell on the definition of gish). The cleric seems to accomplish that and it doesn't bother too many people. But the cleric probably does that because its spell list has many close range options (healing word, revivify, heal, spirit guardians, holy aura) so that it makes sense to have this fullcaster close to where the fighting is thick. I think the best way to make pact of the blade viable is to make significant changes to the warlock's spell list. Reducing its max spell level just seems like the easier way to accomplish it. Throwing it away is even simpler.

Boci

2023-08-29, 05:03 AM

Yeah, buffing pact of the blade makes sense when looking only at the warlock. But let's think where a warlock gish would fit when also looking at the other classes.

It's not like that the warlocks dont trade anything to deserve some gish potential. Like halfcasters and 1/3 casters they do trade spell power, as pact magic and mystic arcanum are generally more restrictive than spellcasting, but they do trade less, so they should end up with smaller melee potential than halfcasters, even smaller than 1/3 casters and a lot smaller than non casters. And here lies the problem. The warlock's spell list is such that it's difficult to justify placing the warlock at risk in the front lines. Their primary cantrip can be bumped with damage and control and it's a long range one. And their relative lack of spell slots makes it costly to have them jump away from danger. This makes me think that you'd have to bump pact of the blade significantly if you want it to move away from being a trap option (when everything is taken into account and you give a scrutinous look to the new pact of the blade - you could bump it moderately to feel less of a trap option while still actually being one). And if you do so, then you look at your 1/X casters and at your non casters and you may start thinking that now they need a buff. And once you buff them you then may look at your gish warlock and revert to the conclusion that it's not good enough. It's power creep.

I dont think it's impossible to have a fullcaster gish (or gish like character if you prefer, dont want to dwell on the definition of gish). The cleric seems to accomplish that and it doesn't bother too many people. But the cleric probably does that because its spell list has many close range options (healing word, revivify, heal, spirit guardians, holy aura) so that it makes sense to have this fullcaster close to where the fighting is thick. I think the best way to make pact of the blade viable is to make significant changes to the warlock's spell list. Reducing its max spell level just seems like the easier way to accomplish it. Throwing it away is even simpler.

Sounds a lot of fear and the slippery slope fallacy over nothing. And can buff blade warlock and then NOT buff anything else. It is possible.

Arkhios

2023-08-29, 05:52 AM

Boci

2023-08-29, 05:55 AM

Well, if I were to look at previous editions for reference, they were possible even without prestige classes before. The following come to mind immediately (from 3.5: Duskblade, Hexblade, and Warmage, and from 4th edition: Swordmage), and I'm pretty sure there were more in 3.0 and 3.5.

Dusblade and Hexblade sure, but warmage? I don't think that was a gish. They could cast in light armour, but so could beguiler. I don't think they got anything else to support martial combat.

Arkhios

2023-08-29, 06:17 AM

Dusblade and Hexblade sure, but warmage? I don't think that was a gish. They could cast in light armour, but so could beguiler. I don't think they got anything else to support martial combat.

Whatever, maybe I got one example wrong, so what? There were still several options in those editions that would qualify for being called a gish without devoting an archetype (or a prestige class or a paragon path, depending on edition), which was my actual point.

Also, if we're going back even further, being an Elf used to mean you were both a warrior and a wizard. If that's not a gish, I don't know what is.

Boci

2023-08-29, 06:19 AM

Whatever, maybe I got one example wrong, so what? There were still several options in those editions that would qualify for being called a gish without devoting an archetype (or a prestige class or a paragon path, depending on edition).

Yeah I know, I mentioned several of them in the opening post. I was just checking because I couldn't remember Warmage supporting a gish build but then I never played much with the class. No need to get so defensive.

Arkhios

2023-08-29, 06:34 AM

Yeah I know, I mentioned several of them in the opening post. I was just checking because I couldn't remember Warmage supporting a gish build but then I never played much with the class. No need to get so defensive.

Sorry, it just felt like I was being accused of falsehoods.

Edit: I realise that I took your words a bit more harshly than I should have, and I apologise for the attitude from my part.

To rephrase my previous post, my intention was to make a case 'for' (as opposed to 'against') that there definitely should be an arcane "gish" class at equal footing with paladin and ranger. Artificer does make an attempt but their extra attack feature still requires a subclass, instead of being a baseline feature for all of them. As such, they're not equal. Likewise, warlocks (even hexblade) isn't equal because they don't get the extra attack unless they a) have chosen the Pact of the Blade and b) have taken the right Eldritch Invocation. It's not a baseline feature for a warlock (hexblade or not) either; it's an option.

Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster are also subclasses, and they're even less spell-dependent than paladins or rangers are (having even lower spell level cap).

As such, what I would do, is to take on the more labourous task and create a new class, complete with appropriate subclasses.

Corran

2023-08-29, 08:06 AM

Sounds a lot of fear and the slippery slope fallacy over nothing. And can buff blade warlock and then NOT buff anything else. It is possible.
It could even sound like Christmas carols. The why is interesting. Tell me why.

Mongobear

2023-08-29, 11:21 AM

All of your presented options are valid choices. The correct answer depends on the player(s) and what they want to get out of their build.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-29, 12:34 PM

arnin77

2023-08-29, 01:44 PM

Is a Gish maybe what a Bard should be? I remember in 2e they seemed like a magical Rogue; then I took a long break and in 5e they seem like a skilled supporter.

I feel like Bards having 9th level spells and expertise isn’t really how I’d like to view them - as a jack of all trades. But I believe the quote is “jack of all trades, master of none”.

So I feel like the Bard could have 2 attacks, half casting, medium armor and more skill proficiencies with each subclass enhancing a certain aspect of those abilities but never getting to “mastery levels”. But this would also be a major rework of the class and I personally like 5e right where it is. So maybe not.

So I’d agree that the closest thing to what the OP is asking is the Paladin (a divine Gish) or Ranger (a primal/ranged Gish) but there isn’t actually a class that is an arcane Gish without using subclasses. I’d say Warlock is probably the next closet because feats could get them medium armor and they can do pact of the blade without the use of subclasses?

There are certainly a lot of Gish builds with the use of subclasses but the OPs question was if there is a full class that is a Gish… so that would be interesting for sure. I feel like you could have a full class arcane Gish in the classes but balancing it might be very tough and I’m not sure the Paladin chassis would be the best building block?

LibraryOgre

2023-08-29, 04:16 PM

Is a Gish maybe what a Bard should be? I remember in 2e they seemed like a magical Rogue; then I took a long break and in 5e they seem like a skilled supporter.

The 2e bard, as much as I love it, is an outlier for bards across editions, being the only one that uses wizard magic, and having some of the weakest musical abilities of every edition.

Theodoxus

2023-08-29, 05:25 PM

It exists. It's called the paladin. It's a class with extra attack, large HD, full weapon and armor proficiencies, spells, and a spell list that includes a bunch of combat buffs and spells for adding elemental damage to their weapon attacks. What more do you want?

This, or reworking the D&Done Warlock, seems the easiest to mold into a "true" gish. If I were to go that route, I'd give Paladin the Artificer spell list, along with the 5E paladin specific spells (smites, mounts, etc.) Then, I'd grant either an unlimited option, or at worst, the ability to use CD, to split Extra Attack into allowing casting of a cantrip in exchange for one or both attacks. (Going this route, one would need to limit or eliminate their access to EB... 8 attacks with two castings in a single turn is insane.) So, they could make a weapon attack and cast a cantrip (probably with the added benefit that if they attack in melee, a ranged cantrip isn't made at disadvantage.) Or make weapon attacks twice, or cast two cantrips (I suppose one way to limit EB cheese would make it so that the cantrips have to be different in the same turn...)

For Warlock, I'd use the D&Done chassis, giving them full casting progression through 9th level (5th level spells) so they can cast Fireball at 5th level, but they're still limited to 5th level spells overall - kinda of the best of both worlds for a half-caster. But I'd an invocation to replicate the arcane paladin proposal for extra attack. Basically, one invocation grants bog standard extra attack, and other invocation (not a chained invo, but standalone), that allows the Warlock to make a melee attack, and cast a cantrip in the same turn. (I don't think I'd include a 3rd invocation that granted dual cantrip casting, but I'm not wholly against the idea).

But really, my problem with the gish is that if you ask 10 people what a gish is, and what abilities epitomize one, you'll get 215 different answers... So it's super hard to nail down something that everyone will say 'yes, that's a gish!'

Mongobear

2023-08-29, 09:46 PM

Arkhios

2023-08-30, 01:39 AM

So, thinking about names and such:

Base Class: Spellsword. Half-caster with arcane type spells. Probably start at Medium Armor, all martial weapons (maybe no ranged weapons?), no shield. Likely has Paladin-like smite abilities, maybe with some defensive reactions drawing from the same pool.

Main draw is using touch spells as part of normal combat.

Subclasses:
Duskblade: Sneaky type
Sword mage: Self-buffer, leaning into defensive reactions and single-target controls (maybe can burn spellslots for some battlemaster manuevers?)
War mage: Bonuses with big spells. Heavy armor.

Not sure if I actually want to try to stat this out.

This aligns pretty well with what I've been thinking about. In fact I might even have a work-in-progress Spellsword in my naturalcrit.homebrewery.com account, but I need to first figure out what was my password, before I can verify this (and maybe even continue the work). :smalltongue:

IIRC, I did start with the paladin base chassis, including smite, but I'm not sure where I went from there, back then. Now I got an idea: Spellsword would naturally have a spellbook, like a wizard, and like the Scribe Wizard, maybe their "smite" (maybe Arcane Charge/Discharge, or something of the sort?) could deal varying damage based on the spells you have prepared (your choice between the options you have prepared). In that vein, it would make sense that Spellsword would know all the Smite Spells available for paladin.

As a bonus action, you can expend a spell slot and charge your weapon with a spell of appropriate level. You must have that spell prepared in order to do so. While the weapon is charged in this way, the weapon is magical if it wasn't already, and has a Spell Charge Bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to one-third of the level of the expended spell slot (rounded down, minimum 1).

Before you finish a short or long rest, when you hit with an attack using that weapon, you can choose to discharge the spell as part of the attack roll (no action required), casting the spell and ending the Spell Charge on your weapon. In addition, the spell gains all the following benefits that apply to it:

If the spell has a target other than yourself, the target of your attack must be included by the spell's area or targets.
If the spell requires a spell attack roll, you add the Spell Charge Bonus to that roll.
If the spell requires a saving throw, you add the Spell Charge Bonus to that save DC.

Kane0

2023-08-30, 01:42 AM

There are plenty of gish classes already out there, mind. Laserllama's and Kibblestasy's come to mind.

Arkhios

2023-08-30, 02:09 AM

There are plenty of gish classes already out there, mind. Laserllama's and Kibblestasy's come to mind.

But where's the fun in that, when you can try to design your own! :smallcool:

Mongobear

2023-08-30, 12:30 PM

This aligns pretty well with what I've been thinking about. In fact I might even have a work-in-progress Spellsword in my naturalcrit.homebrewery.com account, but I need to first figure out what was my password, before I can verify this (and maybe even continue the work). :smalltongue:

IIRC, I did start with the paladin base chassis, including smite, but I'm not sure where I went from there, back then. Now I got an idea: Spellsword would naturally have a spellbook, like a wizard, and like the Scribe Wizard, maybe their "smite" (maybe Arcane Charge/Discharge, or something of the sort?) could deal varying damage based on the spells you have prepared (your choice between the options you have prepared). In that vein, it would make sense that Spellsword would know all the Smite Spells available for paladin.
[/SPOILER]

The way my ancient version did things was along these lines. I used Paladin as a base for features/spell slots, etc. Instead of Smite, they could burn a spell slot to gain a bonus to attack rolls and +1d4 damage per spell level until the start of their next turn. Instead of the various auras, they had features similar to Eldritch Knight that let them overcome saves easier, and some Short Rest recharging spell slots.

My archetypes were going to be a more Martial Focused option that could turn any spell with an attack roll into a weapon attack. (think Booming/Greenflame Blade, but on higher leveled spells); the other one was more heavily spell based, that could summon weapons similar mechanically to Spiritual Weapon, but of different elemental damage types, and it could benefit from your "smite replacement". I never got around to finishing it, i sorta got lost in the balancing iterations.

Arkhios

2023-08-31, 12:08 AM

The way my ancient version did things was along these lines. I used Paladin as a base for features/spell slots, etc. Instead of Smite, they could burn a spell slot to gain a bonus to attack rolls and +1d4 damage per spell level until the start of their next turn. Instead of the various auras, they had features similar to Eldritch Knight that let them overcome saves easier, and some Short Rest recharging spell slots.

My archetypes were going to be a more Martial Focused option that could turn any spell with an attack roll into a weapon attack. (think Booming/Greenflame Blade, but on higher leveled spells); the other one was more heavily spell based, that could summon weapons similar mechanically to Spiritual Weapon, but of different elemental damage types, and it could benefit from your "smite replacement". I never got around to finishing it, i sorta got lost in the balancing iterations.

I had a go with spellsword musings yesterday and came up with an one of many alternative ideas for the "smite", that would do the same: turn any cantrip into Booming/Green-Flame -esque weapon attack.

Isn't it odd, that there seem to be so many separate iterations for the proposed class that seem to all align pretty well with each other, AND still wotc hasn't done anything of the sort officially?

Clearly there is a whole community out there sharing similar idea of the class what it should be like.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-31, 10:38 AM

GeneralVryth

2023-08-31, 12:35 PM

I think "repurposing the Paladin" is not necessarily the easiest thing to do, because while some ideas mesh, some of the basic paladin powers don't, really.

Like Sense Divine and Lay on Hands. You might refluff the auras, even maybe Divine Health or Channel Divinity, but I think the Paladin is going to need a lot more reworking than "just use the paladin" serves as usable advice.

I would agree re-purposing the Paladin isn't necessarily right. However the Paladin is a natural template, being a generally well liked class that is already relatively close to the goal (half caster, martial, some additional tricks and bonuses).

Look at it this way, here are the non-spell Paladin features form levels 1 to 10:
1: Profiencies (Remove Heavy and maybe Medium armor, saves should be Int and Dex? Con?)
1: Divine Sense (Turn in to Ritual Casting and Spellbook)
1: Lay on Hands (Dump and move Spellcasting to 1st level, have initial 1st level spells 4ish? similar to Wizard, ability to make weapon a spellcasting focus)
2: Fighting Style (Unchanged)
2: Divine Smite (Make Force damage, or apply touch spells through weapon or just dump increase later power budget)
3: Divine Health (dump for later power budget)
3: Sacred Oath (initial subclass feature, likely adding back Heavy Armor prof as appropriate, in general should address armor and weapon style for a given subclass, and some kind bonus to it)
4: ASI (Unchanged)
5 Extra Attack (Unchanged, or make Bladesinger extra attack)
6: Aura of Protection (Replace with core feature, I would have it be something like Int mod per short rest can apply 1 turn limited control effects, single square web, single creature blind, 2 by 2 smoke cloud, the "Swordmage" would only choose some of these to know and would learn more later)
7: Sacred Oath (Feature 2) (Build off core feature, I can imagine a speedster subclass handing out single turn haste effects for example)
8: ASI
10: Aura of Courage (replace, initial idea would be something that makes counterspelling easier)

Theodoxus

2023-08-31, 12:40 PM

Kane0

2023-08-31, 04:09 PM

Hell even I made a gish class years ago. Havent touched it for ages though.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?526515-Prototype-class-Int-Half-Caster

RSP

2023-08-31, 08:20 PM

Of course, if your definition of gish is something nuts, like 4 attacks, 9th level spell casting and the ability to teleport around the battlefield at will... then yeah, Paladin in any iteration won't cut it (or any other option in 5E).

So, like, any 17+ Wizard TP’d into a Marilith…

Arkhios

2023-09-01, 02:37 AM

Note, this isn't intended to sound bitter or anything, I just felt like I should clarify.

When I said I'm using a class chassis (such as Paladin) as the base, I don't mean that I'm just going to copy everything and reflavor them. I use the chassis as a template and a guideline for a semblance of balance between the one I'm designing and the one I'm trying to balance it against.

In other words, I prefer not to simply copy Divine Smite, add some different color on it, and paste it, saying it's a different thing (especially if it's not).

When I was designing the warlord, the way I began was as follows:

First I made it clear to myself what I wanted to accomplish. I felt like both the Valor Bard and Battle Master Fighter make a good attempt at being a Warlord but both fall short of the actual feel. Thus, I used them as guideline.
Since they're two different classes, first I made a 10/10 multiclass of them.
Next, I moved the relevant bits to their expected level range, such as extra attack to 5th level, spell progression to match with half-casters, and of course ability score increases to their standard levels (4,8,12,16,19), ignoring the one extra a fighter gains.
Then I began the actual process of fitting the pieces together. My intent was to make the Warlord a non-caster but capable combat support class, so I emphasized my focus to use something along the lines of Battle Master maneuvers. So, I dropped spells from the build but kept the progress pace for new abilities.

Long story short, when I finished, I was actually quite proud of the results, though after some time I realized I probably should try to differentiate the current "maneuvers" a bit further away from Battle Master maneuvers. Until then, however, the current system is okay-ish.

tokek

2023-09-01, 03:33 AM

So, like, any 17+ Wizard TP’d into a Marilith…

Shapechange rather than TP but yes.

Funny thing is that unless you want to exploit a gimmick like a reaction spell every turn it’s not a very appealing choice. Just not as good as a dragon as a form to shift into.

RatElemental

2023-09-02, 01:40 AM

An arcane half-caster warrior-type? I'd lean towards something like that, a specialist in touch spells, swift actions, and buffs. Your basic spell list would probably include some of the Paladin's smite spells, and maybe you'd have a ranged subclass that let you get some ranger arrow-enhancement spells.

If no one's mentioned it, the pf1e Magus has a lot one could draw inspiration from for this. They can "dual wield" with a one action cast time spell and a light weapon at low levels, and at later ones deliver touch spells through their melee weapon attacks. Just that first thing would make for a solid core for a 5e class I feel. Something along the lines of after making an attack with a light weapon, you can then use a bonus action to cast a touch spell that deals damage regardless of its usual cast time.

Then you can sprinkle in a few subclasses that focus on one big swingy spell imbued into your sword that crits with it, one that plays into the base dual wielding thing, one to let you magic up ranged weapons or something, maybe one that focuses on blending defensive spells with traditional armor.

Arkhios

2023-09-02, 02:07 AM

If no one's mentioned it, the pf1e Magus has a lot one could draw inspiration from for this. They can "dual wield" with a one action cast time spell and a light weapon at low levels, and at later ones deliver touch spells through their melee weapon attacks. Just that first thing would make for a solid core for a 5e class I feel. Something along the lines of after making an attack with a light weapon, you can then use a bonus action to cast a touch spell that deals damage regardless of its usual cast time.

Then you can sprinkle in a few subclasses that focus on one big swingy spell imbued into your sword that crits with it, one that plays into the base dual wielding thing, one to let you magic up ranged weapons or something, maybe one that focuses on blending defensive spells with traditional armor.

Which in turn took a lot from the 3.5 Duskblade. Paizo didn't invent Pf1e Magus from nothing. They did add a lot more of course, but at it's core Magus wasn't something entirely new.

RatElemental

2023-09-02, 02:13 AM

Which in turn took a lot from the 3.5 Duskblade. Paizo didn't invent Pf1e Magus from nothing. They did add a lot more of course, but at it's core Magus wasn't something entirely new.

I can only speak of things I know about, apologies.

Mongobear

2023-09-03, 11:57 PM

Kane0

2023-09-04, 12:11 AM

Some sort of spellstrike is the singular feature I keep seeing come up for Gish classes, in lots of different variations.

Witty Username

2023-09-04, 12:32 AM

How is bladesinger not a gish?

I think the idea, is gish best as a subclass of an existing class, bladesinger or hexblade, or better constructed as a base class with support for multiple archetypes, like say paladin, but for more arcane magic feeling.

Like say a Eldritch Knight base class, with subclasses representing different archetypes of how characters use martial skill and magical talent in combination.

I personally think the EK and bladesinger model is fine. But I did like 3.5s duskblade, and that was somewhat different from both. And War cleric, Moon Druid, Plaladin and Ranger all coexist fairly comfortably already.

Theodoxus

2023-09-04, 01:04 AM

Some sort of spellstrike is the singular feature I keep seeing come up for Gish classes, in lots of different variations.

Yeah, that's basically the gist - though how you separate it from the Divine Smite of Paladins is the crux. If Paladins didn't have that already, it would be THE go to power for an arcane Gish. One could consider making it feel more arcane leaning by changing the damage type from radiant to another energy type (perhaps even on the fly) but then it feels like you're just stealing from the Nature domain. And there just aren't a lot of touch range spells in 5E for some reason (at least offensive ones).

I never really liked the idea of turning spells into 'touch via weapon'. We already have SCAGtrips for that - A High (half) Elf with Booming Blade as their chosen cantrip on a Tempest Cleric is nigh the epitome of Gish. Heavy armor, sword and board, decent damage that ramps up with level and synergizes with all your subclass abilities... couple it with Mobile, and you can dart in, BB a fool and then dance out without an OA and get them to chase you, letting off more fireworks.

So, I think a standalone Gish should be able to do something like a Tempest Cleric and a Paladin, mashed together, but using the Sorcerer's spell list rather than the Clerics. Do that, and you're golden. Until then, though, all my Gish needs are represented already as above. (Now, if I can just talk my DM into letting me swap Call Lightning for Lightning Bolt so I feel more arcane :smallbiggrin:)

Kane0

2023-09-04, 04:05 AM

Theodoxus

2023-09-04, 07:35 AM

The ones ive seen most commonly are:

- Deliver spell with weapon attack, ala Bladetrips
- Attack and Bonus Action cast (or the reverse), ala War Magic
- Attack action + cast (or the reverse), ala Bladesinger
- Expend spell slot (or class resource) for extra damage, ala Smite

Which are all valid, i do like the idea of a second primarily attack based class that doesnt get extra attack but personally im more interested in ways to mix in buff, debuff and control effects with my attacks rather than pumping the damage.

So, something like BG3 magic items that can Bane the target on a hit, but as an ability of the class rather than an item...

I could see a few different ways to make that happen.

Mongobear

2023-09-04, 01:24 PM

The ones ive seen most commonly are:

- Deliver spell with weapon attack, ala Bladetrips
- Attack and Bonus Action cast (or the reverse), ala War Magic
- Attack action + cast (or the reverse), ala Bladesinger
- Expend spell slot (or class resource) for extra damage, ala Smite

Which are all valid, i do like the idea of a second primarily attack based class that doesnt get extra attack but personally im more interested in ways to mix in buff, debuff and control effects with my attacks rather than pumping the damage.

Maybe a class that doesnt natively have Extra Attack, but gains it from a few Archetypes? Like a half-caster Bard, or the 1DND Warlock (before they canceled all of those plans)?

Some of the archetypes could get Extra Attack and have "Arcane Smite," some could get the Bladesinger's Cantrip EA, other could not get EA and instead can turn attack spells into Blade-trip style actions.

Witty Username

2023-09-05, 02:23 AM

So, something like BG3 magic items that can Bane the target on a hit, but as an ability of the class rather than an item...

I could see a few different ways to make that happen.

Arcane Archer had a thing in 3.5 where they could imbue arrows with spells, it would use the range of the bow shot, and use where the arrow landed as point of orgin or target the creature hit with the arrow as applicable.

One of my favorite sessions a buddy got shot with a protection from evil to break a mind control effect.

Fighter types are already good at dealing damage, adding magic should allow for other things, imo.

LudicSavant

2023-09-05, 02:45 AM

Arcane Archer had a thing in 3.5 where they could imbue arrows with spells, it would use the range of the bow shot, and use where the arrow landed as point of orgin or target the creature hit with the arrow as applicable.

One of my favorite sessions a buddy got shot with a protection from evil to break a mind control effect.

Fighter types are already good at dealing damage, adding magic should allow for other things, imo.

I wish 5e Arcane Archers were allowed to be fun...

tokek

2023-09-05, 03:33 AM

Yeah, that's basically the gist - though how you separate it from the Divine Smite of Paladins is the crux. If Paladins didn't have that already, it would be THE go to power for an arcane Gish. One could consider making it feel more arcane leaning by changing the damage type from radiant to another energy type (perhaps even on the fly) but then it feels like you're just stealing from the Nature domain. And there just aren't a lot of touch range spells in 5E for some reason (at least offensive ones).

I never really liked the idea of turning spells into 'touch via weapon'. We already have SCAGtrips for that - A High (half) Elf with Booming Blade as their chosen cantrip on a Tempest Cleric is nigh the epitome of Gish. Heavy armor, sword and board, decent damage that ramps up with level and synergizes with all your subclass abilities... couple it with Mobile, and you can dart in, BB a fool and then dance out without an OA and get them to chase you, letting off more fireworks.

So, I think a standalone Gish should be able to do something like a Tempest Cleric and a Paladin, mashed together, but using the Sorcerer's spell list rather than the Clerics. Do that, and you're golden. Until then, though, all my Gish needs are represented already as above. (Now, if I can just talk my DM into letting me swap Call Lightning for Lightning Bolt so I feel more arcane :smallbiggrin:)

Arcane Jolt on the Battle Smith Artificer is another great example of the smite-like mechanic but with a more arcane feel to it. Its also very good.

I think Artificer gets overlooked too often in arcane gish discussions, two of its four subclasses do fine gish work. One offensively the other more defensive minded. My eladrin battle smith feels extremely gish when she has Haste up and gets to work with her greatsword.

What I would say in general is that full caster gishes are going to be next to impossible to balance if you let them have a real gish feel. They are just going to overshadow everything. We already see a bit too much of that in 5e for my taste. Half caster gishes are the way to go IMO.

Mongobear

2023-09-05, 11:51 AM

Theodoxus

2023-09-06, 03:36 PM

Here is one of my favorite Feats from 3.5e:

Arcane Strike [General]

You can channel arcane energy into your melee attacks.

Prerequisite
Ability to cast 3rd-level arcane spells, base attack bonus +4,

Benefit
When you activate this feat (a free action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity), you can channel arcane energy into a melee weapon, your unarmed strike, or natural weapons. You must sacrifice one of your spells for the day (of 1st level or higher) to do this, but you gain a bonus on all your attack rolls for 1 round equal to the level of the spell sacrificed, as well as extra damage equal to 1d4 points x the level of the spell sacrificed. The bonus you add to your attack rolls from this feat cannot be greater than your base attack bonus.

For example, Yarren the bladesinger has a base attack bonus of +11 and the ability to cast 4th-level arcane spells. On his turn, he chooses to sacrifice one of his 4th-level spells for the day, marking it off as if he had cast it. Until his next turn, Yarren gains an extra +4 bonus on his attack rolls and an extra 4d4 points of damage with a single melee weapon of his choice (his rapier).

It is basically Divine Smite, but less damage in exchange for a hit bonus, which also lasts the whole round. Could this get repurposed into 5e? It is effectively Elemental Weapon, for 1 round, but at any spell slot level.

Totally forgot about that feat, but I was thinking at first blush that an 'arcane smite' should boost the To Hit... though to make it 5E relevant, probably not more than 1/2 your PB, rounded down. That keeps it firmly in bounded accuracy range. It probably makes something like a Bladesinger a bit more OP, at least as a feat, as they'll have both the slots and the levels to burn on arcane smiting. But if it was part of a Gish class build, it'd be less problematic (outside of multiclassing, but that's a problem with MC, nothing else). [Speaking of MC, would probably want/need to add some verbiage about Paladin smites not using the same slot to fuel both smites.]