Best Reasons NOT to Gish

[Gnaeus]

That's probably the biggest reason, if you have someone in the party casting buffs for you... do you really want delayed caster progression instead of more martial goodness?

Mechanically? Yes, absolutely. Your primary caster spends 2 feats in this example, and you spend 1, so that he can carry you. 2 casters means 2 crafters, which increases your mileage from WBL. 2 casters means you can cast twice as many spells in a round. 2 casters means you have twice the potential spell selection. 2 casters means you have twice as many planar allies, skeletal giants, stone golems, eidolons, solars etc. so adding a muggle reduces your total party martial goodness for your buffer to buff. 2 casters means your buddy doesn't have to worry about not casting his best minionmancy spells because they make the fighter look bad. 2 casters means your teammate doesn't have to spend the first couple of rounds in every battle deciding "should I cast the most effective spell option, or should I cast fly on Fred Fighter so that he can take relevant actions at all". 2 casters means that your wizards can have more spells known by specializing without worrying about losing party versatility. 2 casters means your spontaneous casters can choose different spells. 2 casters may mean you can learn spells from allies. 2 casters means that if you get separated or someone is immobilized the other PC isn't without spell support. The more caster you get, the better. But even if you only take one caster level, which isn't much of a gish, your caster can make spell trigger or completion items for you with craft wands or scribe scrolls, you both save a feat, and he winds up with a much stronger feat than Bonded Mind.

And specifically if you are playing in PF, its not even like your gish needs to be a sorcadin or abjurant champion (although sorcadins are fantastic in PF.) If you look at the tier list for pathfinder, you will see that muggles live exclusively in tier 4 and 5, and tier 3 is dominated by half casters, most of which do a great job in fighting while not sacrificing all their utility and versatility.

[Telonius]

Best reason not to gish: Your DM is enforcing favored class penalties, and your favored class isn't in your build.

[icefractal]

It's a bit cheese, but if we're talking optimized - because you already took Leadership, and your cohort has far superior casting to whatever you'd get from a dip.

Magic item crafting is, as mentioned, a case where more casters are better, but if the campaign doesn't have much downtime and/or is awarding more loot than typical at a rapid pace, then crafting may not be possible or important.

[Gnaeus]

It's a bit cheese, but if we're talking optimized - because you already took Leadership, and your cohort has far superior casting to whatever you'd get from a dip.

Magic item crafting is, as mentioned, a case where more casters are better, but if the campaign doesn't have much downtime and/or is awarding more loot than typical at a rapid pace, then crafting may not be possible or important.

Yes, but from a mechanical standpoint, a T1 10 and a T4 8 is stronger than a T4 10 and a T1 8. It's a way to make a more competitive muggle. The barbarian 10 is more forgiving if you have a pet cleric 8. But it's still worse power wise than just making a caster or a mostly caster. And honestly if you are investing in leadership you probably want decent charisma, which only makes casters and partial casters more attractive.

Yes, Higher WBL tends to reduce tier disparity (by giving everyone pseudo casting). Conversely, lower WBL or limited magic mart makes crafting and casting more critical, as noncasters are both more dependent on specific gear and less able to guarantee they can get it.

[pabelfly]

I don't think that's actually true. A Warblade you could build pretty effectively without having to dive through six sourcebooks take ACFs on Barbarian Dip so you can pounce. Like in play a initiator is slightly more complex. But building a Mundane is so involved if you want them to be even a little bit successful. Which is again, part of why you might not want to Gish, because you're doing this whole build exercise. The complexity is what you're looking for. A Fighter in 3.5 is a series of problems for you to figure out ways to solve via optimization. If I slap spellcasting especially good spellcasting on that Fighter, I've solved those problems. They're solved. Which is okay and can be fun, but from the perspective of somebody looking to optimize and challenge themselves that's the easiest solution to the challenge.

Building an effective mundane does require more initial bookwork and prep than an Initiator, yes. However, in the context that it's me that's making the character and I want to give it to someone else to play, something like a Barbarian/Fighter build is quite simple but effective in play. In fact, if you have someone you want to introduce to 3e, it's probably the best martial build while they get a handle on playing.

[AMFV]

Building an effective mundane does require more initial bookwork and prep than an Initiator, yes. However, in the context that it's me that's making the character and I want to give it to someone else to play, something like a Barbarian/Fighter build is quite simple but effective in play. In fact, if you have someone you want to introduce to 3e, it's probably the best martial build while they get a handle on playing.

I would argue that crusader is probably the best build if you want to give somebody an introduction to third edition you don't really get that many abilities you don't get to pick which abilities you have and generally all of your abilities are going to be effective. With a fighter or barbarian you're worried about either setting up conditions for charging, or remembering to do opportunity attacks and remembering to pay attention to a bunch of stuff that's not on your turn. And those are both a lot more involved. And with the crusader if you mess up it's not that big a deal with a barbarian or the fighter if you mess up you could basically might as well not even be there for the combat.

[icefractal]

Yes, but from a mechanical standpoint, a T1 10 and a T4 8 is stronger than a T4 10 and a T1 8. It's a way to make a more competitive muggle. The barbarian 10 is more forgiving if you have a pet cleric 8. But it's still worse power wise than just making a caster or a mostly caster.

Party composition still matters. At most levels of optimization, there's a point where you get more benefit from a high-damage attacker than yet another caster. And sure, Mailmen exist, but they have worse stamina.

Also, very few published monsters are immune to a flying charger with good senses. And most GM's (IME) are not going to be creating custom foes with the intent of screwing over the martials, so seldom immunity there either. So in a party that's caster-heavy and has buffs (and you're throwing free power away if you don't use at least moderate buffs), a well-built martial is a substantial efficiency-boost, allowing much more stamina in terms of spell slots.

Now I think the ideal ratio (for power) is more like "3+ casters per martial" than an even split, but it's not zero martials either.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Technically, you can get wand use with a feat, so I'd argue that that particular aspect of ranger casting is worth exactly 1 bonus feat.

The Ranger variant gives an extremely limited feat list, while as you'd have to use one of your precious general feat slots for what you say, so I still think it's inferior. Not all feat slots are created equal.

That's not untrue I guess. But in general there are a lot more anti mundane monsters that you can bypass or combat with low level spells than specifically anti caster measures. So yes, if the DM is known to hate casters probably don't play one.

I've seen some DMs do that, and I definitely try to implement more anti-caster stuff when I DM. I don't like phrasing it as "hating casters" that I want to make them slightly less overpowered compared to martials, if anything the game itself hates martials w/ as you said how many monsters are anti-melee and how many status effects basically do nothing to a caster.
It's just that as a side-effect of implementing more anti-caster stuff for balance against the full-casters, it has the side effect of making a small foray into casting possibly more of a drawback than a boon to an otherwise non-caster.

In any case, I think DM attempts at reining in or targeting casters to counter their power is common enough for it to be mentioned as a reason not to add that vulnerability to yourself for a few 1st level spells.

[Gnaeus]

I've seen some DMs do that, and I definitely try to implement more anti-caster stuff when I DM. I don't like phrasing it as "hating casters" that I want to make them slightly less overpowered compared to martials, if anything the game itself hates martials w/ as you said how many monsters are anti-melee and how many status effects basically do nothing to a caster.
It's just that as a side-effect of implementing more anti-caster stuff for balance against the full-casters, it has the side effect of making a small foray into casting possibly more of a drawback than a boon to an otherwise non-caster.

In any case, I think DM attempts at reining in or targeting casters to counter their power is common enough for it to be mentioned as a reason not to add that vulnerability to yourself for a few 1st level spells.

Oh, I completely agree. The game does hate martials. It is obvious and axiomatic that if the DM is holding down the scales against you, that changes the math. If you change the game, you change the answer. In 3.5, it is never the optimized choice to play a martial. In 3.StreamOfTheSky, which is not the same game, that may not be true. That depends on what DM attempts to rein in or target casters means. The answer to "which is heavier, a feather or a bowling ball" does not actually change if I am standing on the scale on the feather side.

I'm a caster player. In my local game we have a series of caster limiting rules, including crafting limitations and a restriction on not having a bunch of long term pets, and I still play gishes and theurges and to give my muggles space. My first rule of optimization is "give up 2 caster levels". But thats because I'm trying to play down. And thats in a game dominated by Path of War and other T3 martials.

Party composition still matters. At most levels of optimization, there's a point where you get more benefit from a high-damage attacker than yet another caster. And sure, Mailmen exist, but they have worse stamina.

Also, very few published monsters are immune to a flying charger with good senses. And most GM's (IME) are not going to be creating custom foes with the intent of screwing over the martials, so seldom immunity there either. So in a party that's caster-heavy and has buffs (and you're throwing free power away if you don't use at least moderate buffs), a well-built martial is a substantial efficiency-boost, allowing much more stamina in terms of spell slots.

Now I think the ideal ratio (for power) is more like "3+ casters per martial" than an even split, but it's not zero martials either.

There is no level of optimization at which you get more benefit from a muggle than yet another caster. Pick any level above 7. No martial contributes the level of 0 spell slot damage that an an arbitrary number of bound and allied outsiders + some constructs + charmed or mind controlled or mindraped minions + double or quadruple his HD in controlled undead can yield. A party of 4 casters doesn't suffer from a lack of targets to buff. The only reason they would is if they are intentionally protecting the barbarian's niche by not making or summoning or coercing half a dozen barbarian equivalents before they even walk into the dungeon. Even if for some reason you felt you needed a melee PC, CoDzilla fills the role better than barbarian before you add the allies or undead. As does a barbarian with a single dip of cleric for some wands in wand chambers and free travel devotion. A party of Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Beguiler only loses by replacing any of those slots with a melee muggle. If you have a 5th slot, a Bard, a Dread Necro, or a Sorcadin all bring more to the table than a melee muggle. What fighter/barbarian at ECL 11 are you going to bring to the table that is going to protect me and put bad guys on the floor better than the combined efforts of the Leonal, Ghaele and Trumpet Archon I summoned the day before (and if you figure one out, I will add a stone golem and 22 hd of undead giant or dragon)? And I'm just pulling those from the suggested list in CD. I'm not even dumpster diving. And they are ALL ADDING spell slots, not draining them. I would really rather the barbarian not show up to play, because if he does, dropping my angels in the battle is rude to that player, so we are stronger without him than with him.

I will again refer to Pabelfly's correct answer. I know PLAYERS who cannot utilize the comparative advantages of casting, or don't have the mental space to operate their dread necro and his 7 pets. For that PLAYER the barbarian may be the correct decision. But when is it better on pure mechanics to add a character without casting? Virtually never. MAYBE in a party that already has 7 or 8 casters and you are solely worried about AMFs or magic immune targets that are also immune to SR no spells and have DR too high to be minion swamped.

The point of the Mailman isn't that he does absurd damage. It is that he does absurd damage without giving up much caster utility when he isn't rolling a handful of dice. He can still put the same number of minions in play as any other sorcerer. Meaning that he has arbitrarily better stamina than the charger.

[AMFV]

Oh, I completely agree. The game does hate martials. It is obvious and axiomatic that if the DM is holding down the scales against you, that changes the math. If you change the game, you change the answer. In 3.5, it is never the optimized choice to play a martial. In 3.StreamOfTheSky, which is not the same game, that may not be true. That depends on what DM attempts to rein in or target casters means. The answer to "which is heavier, a feather or a bowling ball" does not actually change if I am standing on the scale on the feather side.

I'm a caster player. In my local game we have a series of caster limiting rules, including crafting limitations and a restriction on not having a bunch of long term pets, and I still play gishes and theurges and to give my muggles space. My first rule of optimization is "give up 2 caster levels". But thats because I'm trying to play down. And thats in a game dominated by Path of War and other T3 martials.

It's worth noting that you can do something God Wizard and go relatively hog wild! Like support caster has that advantage. if you aren't summoning scabs to take the fighter's job, or buffing yourself into a better fighter you can do a lot of stuff where you're supporting the party without having to strip your optimization stuff.

[Anthrowhale]

I will again refer to Pabelfly's correct answer. I know PLAYERS who cannot utilize the comparative advantages of casting, or don't have the mental space to operate their dread necro and his 7 pets. For that PLAYER the barbarian may be the correct decision. But when is it better on pure mechanics to add a character without casting? Virtually never. MAYBE in a party that already has 7 or 8 casters and you are solely worried about AMFs or magic immune targets that are also immune to SR no spells and have DR too high to be minion swamped.

I'm not really disputing the thesis in baseline D&D, but it seems worth noting that there are at least two published locations (Anauroch in Faerun and the Outlands near Sigil) which are dead magic or deeply restricted magic.

[Lorddenorstrus]

I mean.. in a non DM environment like theorycraft. With a blankslate. There basically isn't ever a reason not to build Gishes. They're better Martials than actual Martials are. That's just 3.X in a nut shell though.

If the environment adds a DM they would have to modify something to make magic less desirable. But at that point, I don't see why they'd be playing 3.X. The caster god edition really.

Past that.. personal preference? Maybe player got bored of casters lol?

[AMFV]

I mean.. in a non DM environment like theorycraft. With a blankslate. There basically isn't ever a reason not to build Gishes. They're better Martials than actual Martials are. That's just 3.X in a nut shell though.

There are a couple situations that aren't being touched on here. If you never get enough Caster Levels to actually be doing anything, it might not be worth it. If I'm building a Hulking Hurler/Bloodstorm Blade character I have barely any levels to play with to add casting. That's initiator of course, so that wouldn't be exactly what OP was talking about but it's kind of that sort of situation. If I'm a Frenzied Berserker... I'm never going to be able to cast anyways so why would I spend build resources on something that I'm never going to be good at. And Frenzied Berserker is very strong, uniquely so actually.

But yeah generally the reason why you wouldn't gish is that often casting is really involved and you have to focus on it. Is a Fighter 5/Wizard one better than a Fighter 6 that just picked up the second Dungeon Crasher ACF level? Probably not. I mean sure you're weaker in many ways than a Wizard at that level, but basically if you're not going to be good at it then you're spending build resources on something you suck at, and that's kind of not very valuable.

Now there are ways to add casting/gishing later: Suel Arcanamach, Divine Crusader, Pious Templar, Ur-Priest even... and many others. That are generally very good and strong. But those are also mid to high level things and again if you're doing something like Eternal Blade or Bloodstorm Blade or Halfling Outrider... you're not going to have the levels to make any attempt at gishing good. From an optimization perspective that's when you don't bother with it.

Oh yeah, Ubermount! That's another one that doesn't want to Gish.

If the environment adds a DM they would have to modify something to make magic less desirable. But at that point, I don't see why they'd be playing 3.X. The caster god edition really.

This highlights one of the other reasons people might not want to Gish, because DMs are more likely to be more suspicious of gishy characters or casters and therefore are less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rulings. That's not always the case, but definitely that could be the case.

Past that.. personal preference? Maybe player got bored of casters lol?

This is the other reason why you wouldn't want to. Or just an extra challenge.

[Lorddenorstrus]

There are a couple situations that aren't being touched on here. If you never get enough Caster Levels to actually be doing anything, it might not be worth it. If I'm building a Hulking Hurler/Bloodstorm Blade character snip

I mean I think all of that falls under 3. Not wanting to play a caster so you're deciding to instead do something else. Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really. Keywords "well built gishes." Knowing that what ever you make is just going to be less effective than a theoretically designed Caster/Melee Gish or pure caster. If you're under section 1, you're thinking. I want to play melee, but be as effective as possible. Solution Gish. *shrug* really just depends on what level of optimization your group plays at really. An ungodly min maxed group would probably find a pure martial to be more like a pet at later levels. Lower op groups are more than likely the norm and be completely fine.

I think Functional balance is a delicate tightrope so everyone feels useful with out anyone going to overboard; and outside of board TO discussion Martials have a place at many tables and are of no problem and don't need to be Gished to be functional. Which floats back to just, personal flavor and how/what you want to play for enjoyment. I have no issues w/ the group I'm currently DMing for they're hella low Op. Pure martials for some party members, and they never need to know that I'm lobotomizing most of the enemies I originally planned so they can enjoy the campaign with out dying all the time. Hell lobotimized enemies have still almost killed them a few times zzz. So they feel in danger with out knowing it could've been a lot worse.

[liquidformat]

I actually prefer mundanes in general so I am always sad how nerfed they are in 3.5. Anyways one of my favorites is Primeval I often go with Bear Totem Barb 3/Wild shape Ranger 5/Fist of the Forest 2/Primeval 10
Also going Weretouched Master/War shaper is awesome as long as you have an agreement with your DM to ignore the errata that ruined that PRC. I normally go straight Barbarian 5 into weretouched Master or sometimes barb 3/ranger 2 when I have a DM that lets me take shifter feats in place of combat style feats. On a side note it is a travesty that the shifter ranger didn't do that to begin with.
Black Blood Cultist is another fun one if you are more on the evil side of the spectrum.

A war hulk will probably like war hulk more than whatever gish class can even be entered without mental skills.

My favorite epic level character was a war hulk/hulking hurler build and he was literally picking up castles and throwing them at people it was great and I didn't have to worry about all those complicated spells or nothing.

[icefractal]

No martial contributes the level of 0 spell slot damage that an an arbitrary number of bound and allied outsiders + some constructs + charmed or mind controlled or mindraped minions + double or quadruple his HD in controlled undead can yield. A party of 4 casters doesn't suffer from a lack of targets to buff. The only reason they would is if they are intentionally protecting the barbarian's niche by not making or summoning or coercing half a dozen barbarian equivalents before they even walk into the dungeon.

Ah - ok yes, if full minion-mancy is viable, then it's pretty much the apex of power. But IME, it isn't, not even in high-op games, for two reasons:
1) Practical time constraints. More minions means combat takes longer. A battle of "the five PCs and their 500 minions, vs several hundred foes" is going to take longer than anyone actually wants to play out. So even in a "bring the cheese" game there's always been a formal or informal limit.
2) Without a limit (which doesn't exist RAW) it becomes "arbitrarily large army vs arbitrarily large army" and not even possible to resolve by the rules. I mean, you mention "arbitrarily large number of bound and allied outsiders" right there.

The rules do also have a few choke-point factors on bringing massive armies, such as the fact that Wish is the only way to reach fully locked demiplanes, and it only brings 1 creature / CL.

But you know what? Let's toss all that aside, because it's moot. The key fact is that "arbitrary number" means it doesn't matter how many casters you have, because even with one caster you have an arbitrarily large number of minions. Controlled undead are the only ones limited per caster, all the others you mention are only limited by time and/or money, and since they're unlimited they dwarf the controlled undead into irrelevance when fully exploited.

It kinda suggest that the ideal party in a no-limits environment is "one caster who can generate arbitrarily many minions" and the rest of the party is specialized toward dealing with any situations that would prevent the minions being used, because if the minions are used then they win.

Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really.

By what mechanism though? Because if it's self-buffing, then that's often true but not always - in a world where there are already multiple full casters throwing out Chained buffs, the relatively-puny buffing ability of a gish may not be any improvement.

Although TBF, it's rare that a martial build needs all twenty levels. So it's often true that adding a little bit of casting is basically free and therefore a benefit even if it seldom comes up.

[AMFV]

I mean I think all of that falls under 3. Not wanting to play a caster so you're deciding to instead do something else. Because well built gishes should outperform any pure martial build made no matter what really. Keywords "well built gishes." Knowing that what ever you make is just going to be less effective than a theoretically designed Caster/Melee Gish or pure caster. If you're under section 1, you're thinking. I want to play melee, but be as effective as possible. Solution Gish. *shrug* really just depends on what level of optimization your group plays at really. An ungodly min maxed group would probably find a pure martial to be more like a pet at later levels. Lower op groups are more than likely the norm and be completely fine.

Oh, we're talking TO? What "well built Gish" beats a D2 Crusader at melee damage? What "well built Gish" beats a Hulking Hurler? There's a reason I picked that as my example, bud. Optimized Hulking Hurler is going to outdamage almost anything in the game. 5th level spells ain't gonna beat that man. And with the ways for melee to pick up "gishing" you're like at 5th to 6th level spells tops.

Edit: A "Well Built" Gish is solidly Medium Tier PO. There's nothing wrong with that, you could play that at almost any table, but you're not doing infinite damage. Or an arbitrarily high number of damage.

[pabelfly]

Besides antimagic fields and dispels, casters also have a problem if they face more than four combats a day or going to get disrupted from their long rest. Martials have an advantage that they can go all day, at the same power, and then go the next day without rest and be just as effective. Oh, and they're generally quite effective even from level 1, while casters take a few levels to get online.

The situations where casting isn't as effective as normal may or may not be meaningful, depending on the table and the DM. Still, I don't think it would be bad idea to have at least one martial in a party if you do encounter some of those edge cases.

[AMFV]

Besides antimagic fields and dispels, casters also have a problem if they face more than four combats a day or going to get disrupted from their long rest. Martials have an advantage that they can go all day, at the same power, and then go the next day without rest and be just as effective. Oh, and they're generally quite effective even from level 1, while casters take a few levels to get online.

I think that particular advantage is overstated. There are situations where that can come up, but casters have lots of ways of dealing with them, from Scribing Scrolls to Wands to even just practicing basic spell conservation. Also I would argue that a well played Caster is good from level 1. At least in my experience.

The situations where casting isn't as effective as normal may or may not be meaningful, depending on the table and the DM. Still, I don't think it would be bad idea to have at least one martial in a party if you do encounter some of those edge cases.

Well again with martials you have specific builds that they do relatively well. a Cleric with Righteous Might and Divine Power up is going to be a better fighter than an unoptimized fighter, but he's still probably going to want to spend at least some standard actions casting spells. An Ubercharger/Ubermount/Chain Tripper has a pretty limited focus. Now summoning is kind of the big monkey wrench in that, but abuse of summons tends to be a strategy that raises DM alarm bells.

The big issue is that a "Gish" is a solidly mid-OP thing. You aren't as good as a full caster, and generally you don't have the actions to really be doing much "gishing" You're mostly alternating between being a really decent fighter and a mediocre caster. There are of course exceptions. The main issue is that the full casters in your party can generally cover the casting better than you can.

Like if I'm building a Shock Trooper Spirit Lion Totem Barb 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1, I don't have any levels to "Gish" and I've already lost five levels and practically all my feats towards being good at the thing I'm good at. At mid to high levels that may not be the case, but at lower mid levels I don't have room for it, and at mid to high levels I don't have the resources to do it well.

Like Divine Crusader is thought of as being "mostly bad" for a reason, because it's not enough casting to make you a good caster. Suel Arcanamach is good, but it's something that's going to need to be a character focus from the beginning. There are other options for Gishing like Warmind, but generally dipping a few levels in caster isn't going to get you all that much especially if you have full casters in the party.


Edit (Missed this earlier)

Although TBF, it's rare that a martial build needs all twenty levels. So it's often true that adding a little bit of casting is basically free and therefore a benefit even if it seldom comes up.

Yeah, generally, the big issue is that adding a little bit of casting usually isn't that much of a benefit or is solving problems you've already solved. If you're a martial above level 10, you've already solved your flight issue, probably with items. So spending 3 - 6 levels to get from a Caster "dip" isn't really worth it. Like I love gishes, they are my favorite game archetype and I recognize that generally speaking you're not going to be good enough at casting for it to be all that great.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I was thinking more like a little utility casting for times when the party is split up. Not something that'll come up much, but the difference between BAB +20 and BAB +19 doesn't come up much either. And since this is likely non-combat stuff, it works for a rager too.

Although, there is Mage Slayer and the related feats. Taking those is going to crash your CL enough that a dip no longer gives casting, and they're pretty good feats (depending on the campaign, but if we're assuming high-op then likely applicable).

[pabelfly]

I think that particular advantage is overstated. There are situations where that can come up, but casters have lots of ways of dealing with them, from Scribing Scrolls to Wands to even just practicing basic spell conservation. Also I would argue that a well played Caster is good from level 1. At least in my experience.

Let's take a martial with a greatsword. Their best score was a 16 (which they put in STR), they pick a race that's a +2 to STR and end up with 18 STR. 13 damage per attack is enough to deal with most CR 1 opponents in one hit. No special classes, no special feats, just a half-decent ability score, a race with a STR bonus and a two-handed weapon. Casting can be helpful, but you'd have to do really specific builds to do OHKOs at level one, never mind doing them all day.

As for going for extended periods without rest, yes, casters can use wands all day, but their wands are not going to be as potent as their highest-level spell slots.

Like if I'm building a Shock Trooper Spirit Lion Totem Barb 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1

What is this build? Barbarian 2 is a really odd breaking point, I'd break off at first level or stay long-term in Barbarian. Shock Trooper would prefer the extra feat or a good ACF like Resolute from another two Fighter levels. One level of Warblade only gives you first-level manoeuvres or stances, you would be better using your extra level in Barb for more Warblade levels or to help get that fourth-level Fighter level and get the required feats online or maybe some AC. Or just go full Warblade and not get Shock Trooper, the point of Initiators is that you can be effective with minimal feat expenditure and you don't need strategies like Shock Trooper.

[icefractal]

Lol, just thought of a rather strange but plausible reason -

In a high-op high-level environment, Disjunction is a very powerful tool, as it auto-dispels buff stacks and magic traps (which if you're attacking a prepared location, there could be a lot of). But it carries a terrible risk - the irreversible loss of all casting if you nail an artifact and then fail the save. It's a low chance, but still one that a high-level caster may be loath to risk.

But a non-caster UMDing a scroll doesn't have that risk. Traditionally that's a Rogue, but it doesn't need to be.

Oh and it also pisses off a god, but in such an environment isn't that the norm anyway? Seems like really high-power PCs would be pissing off some gods (and making others happy) on a frequent basis.

[AMFV]

Let's take a martial with a greatsword. Their best score was a 16 (which they put in STR), they pick a race that's a +2 to STR and end up with 18 STR. 13 damage per attack is enough to deal with most CR 1 opponents in one hit. No special classes, no special feats, just a half-decent ability score, a race with a STR bonus and a two-handed weapon. Casting can be helpful, but you'd have to do really specific builds to do OHKOs at level one, never mind doing them all day.

At low level you generally don't want your casters to be focused on killing things. You want them to Sleep or Color Spray half the encounter. If you're fighting tough encounters.

As for going for extended periods without rest, yes, casters can use wands all day, but their wands are not going to be as potent as their highest-level spell slots.

Which is why you would make scrolls. The Scrolls are expensive sure, you can even buy higher level scrolls for emergency stuff. It's just generally good practice. It's not as sustainable, but it will usually get you past that one day when the DM has you do 8 combats without resting.

What is this build? Barbarian 2 is a really odd breaking point, I'd break off at first level or stay long-term in Barbarian. Shock Trooper would prefer the extra feat or a good ACF like Resolute from another two Fighter levels. One level of Warblade only gives you first-level manoeuvres or stances, you would be better using your extra level in Barb for Warblade, or to help get that fourth-level Fighter level and get the required feats online or maybe some AC. Or just go full Warblade and not get Shock Trooper, the point of Initiators is that you can be effective with minimal feat expenditure and you don't need strategies like Shock Trooper.

- Emphasis mine

The Emphasized point is WRONG. You only get first level STANCES. But you can get higher than first level maneuvers. The reason people take two levels in Crusader is to pick up Thicket which is a third level stance. "You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. " That's all it says about maneuvers. If you have 19 levels of Crusader you could pick a 9th level maneuver if you dip Warblade at 20.

One that intends to take more levels of Barbarian... the Warblade and Fighter levels would be the likely dips there. Initiators work GREAT on Uberchargers. Why is that 3.5 people are now saying they aren't Iron Heart to pick up a counter that fixes your AC problem when you charge? IHS to let you charge? It's a fricking great dip on an Ubercharger. Sudden F-ing leap so that you can charge! You get so much from one level there.

You use Sudden Leap to set you up for a charge. Which is often a problem for Uberchargers. You get a stance, some of them are very good. Punishing Stance is great (at low levels). Diamond Mind stuff to fix your bad saves? Like this is an obvious choice for an Ubercharger. Unless you want to be completely stopped because there's rough terrain and you can't jump over it. Or completely stopped because you fail a Will Save.... or completely stopped because you don't have IHS.

The only thing is that you might to want till later to take that Warblade Dip, depending on your leap frogging plan. But you definitely want a dip. Especially towards mid levels.

Edit: Sorry about coming off so strong, I've just seen recently people talking about not dipping on an Ubercharger or a Chain Tripper and you absolutely want to. Being able to Sudden Leap and then Charge when otherwise you'd have spent a round setting up a charge? Being able to IHS away a condition that would stop you from charging? Sure if you're a charger you don't need the super intense damage maneuvers, cause you're already doing that. But the utility, counters, and boosters are really great for you. Diamond Mind save replacers are really hot to have.

Edit 2: The reason that you don't see those dips on builds on Gleemax or Minmax or BG (Archives of course) is because those dips did not exist at that time because ToB came out later. I guarantee that in like 2008 and 2009 everybody was dipping at least a level on every ubercharger build

Edit 3: Wall of Blades is the counter that can keep your Ubercharger alive when they've tanked their AC to zero and they get an AoO. That's the one I was thinking of.

[pabelfly]

At low level you generally don't want your casters to be focused on killing things. You want them to Sleep or Color Spray half the encounter. If you're fighting tough encounters.




Which is why you would make scrolls. The Scrolls are expensive sure, you can even buy higher level scrolls for emergency stuff. It's just generally good practice. It's not as sustainable, but it will usually get you past that one day when the DM has you do 8 combats without resting.

- Emphasis mine

The Emphasized point is WRONG. You only get first level STANCES. But you can get higher than first level maneuvers. The reason people take two levels in Crusader is to pick up Thicket which is a third level stance. "You must meet a maneuver's prerequisite to learn it. " That's all it says about maneuvers. If you have 19 levels of Crusader you could pick a 9th level maneuver if you dip Warblade at 20.

One that intends to take more levels of Barbarian... the Warblade and Fighter levels would be the likely dips there. Initiators work GREAT on Uberchargers. Why is that 3.5 people are now saying they aren't Iron Heart to pick up a counter that fixes your AC problem when you charge? IHS to let you charge? It's a fricking great dip on an Ubercharger. Sudden F-ing leap so that you can charge! You get so much from one level there.

You use Sudden Leap to set you up for a charge. Which is often a problem for Uberchargers. You get a stance, some of them are very good. Punishing Stance is great (at low levels). Diamond Mind stuff to fix your bad saves? Like this is an obvious choice for an Ubercharger. Unless you want to be completely stopped because there's rough terrain and you can't jump over it. Or completely stopped because you fail a Will Save.... or completely stopped because you don't have IHS.

The only thing is that you might to want till later to take that Warblade Dip, depending on your leap frogging plan. But you definitely want a dip. Especially towards mid levels.

Edit: Sorry about coming off so strong, I've just seen recently people talking about not dipping on an Ubercharger or a Chain Tripper and you absolutely want to. Being able to Sudden Leap and then Charge when otherwise you'd have spent a round setting up a charge? Being able to IHS away a condition that would stop you from charging? Sure if you're a charger you don't need the super intense damage maneuvers, cause you're already doing that. But the utility, counters, and boosters are really great for you. Diamond Mind save replacers are really hot to have.

Edit 2: The reason that you don't see those dips on builds on Gleemax or Minmax or BG (Archives of course) is because those dips did not exist at that time because ToB came out later. I guarantee that in like 2008 and 2009 everybody was dipping at least a level on every ubercharger build

Edit 3: Wall of Blades is the counter that can keep your Ubercharger alive when they've tanked their AC to zero and they get an AoO. That's the one I was thinking of.

Some corrections:

The first level of taking an initiator class, regardless of level, you need to take first-level stances and manoeuvres. When you take the second level, that's when you can start adding your various class levels to work out your Initiator level and what level of manoeuvres you'd be able to pick from. That's why the Crusader example you gave took that second level of Crusader. At least your Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1 build makes some sense, if you intend to take Warblade 2 next level and get some second-level manoeuvres. I still think you'd either want to go straight Warblade, or ditch Warblade entirely.

Diamond Mind is good, but only if you are going to be regularly boosting your Concentration check. Barbarian and Fighter don't get Concentration as a skill, so you'll likely be wasting a feat to make it a class skill and a bunch of skill points to make it work. Instead, I would suggest us the Fighter levels to take the Resolute ACF (Complete Champion) which lets you temporarily tank your BAB to boost your Will save. Alternatively (or also), a Fighter might pick up Endurance and Steadfast Determination, and key off your Will save to your much better CON stat. Several Orc races even come with Endurance, and Orc is a pretty good pick for a charging martial.

If you're worried about the consistency of charging (fair), you can get the Leap Attack feat, and skill tricks like Nimble Charge and Twisted Charge make charging much more reliable, making uneven ground and obstacles that much less of a problem. You'd have to get Balance as a class skill (take Martial Study: Stone Dragon to get balance), but that is worth a feat to make sure charging works much better for you.

I wouldn't actually take Shock Trooper. Great for theorycrafting, but really inadequate in-game. You also do enough damage with charging without it if you boost your accuracy enough.

Here's what my version of a mundane charger would look like at level 5, using an ECL 1 race.

Frostblood Orc. Barbarian 1/Fighter 4.
Barbarian has Whirling Frenzy ACF.

B: Endurance
1: Martial Study: Stone Dragon
F1: Weapon Focus
F2: Resolute ACF
3: Extra Rage
F4: Weapon Specialization

Assuming you're using a Greatsword, with a STR of 26 (18 + 4 Orc + 4 Whirling Frenzy), you'd be doing 2d6 + 14 damage twice per turn. And at sixth level, you'll be doing that three times a turn. It isn't the most exciting build, but if you want a martial that's likely putting down one opponent per turn, this will do a pretty solid job.

[AMFV]

Some corrections:

I'm not seeing any corrections here, honestly.

The first level of taking an initiator class, regardless of level, you need to take first-level stances and manoeuvres. When you take the second level, that's when you can start adding your various class levels to work out your Initiator level and what level of manoeuvres you'd be able to pick from. That's why the Crusader example you gave took that second level of Crusader. At least your Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Warblade 1 build makes some sense, if you intend to take Warblade 2 next level and get some second-level manoeuvres. I still think you'd either want to go straight Warblade, or ditch Warblade entirely.

You are again completely ****ing wrong. That is not correct. That applies ONLY to stances.

"Stances Known: You begin play with knowledge of one 1st level stance from any discipline open to warblades" That is the text that makes that the cases for stances. It is not the case for maneuvers.

Edit: Again for Maneuvers the only thing it says is that you must qualify for them. I'm not even sure it's exactly strictly true for stances because it says "you begin play" which you are not doing when you multiclass. I mean I would certainly not object to a DM ruling that but even that's not 100% clear.

And like read "Tome of Battle for Dummies" ToB classes are incredibly dippable, they are the most dippable and desirable dips on a martial class. Show me the text that stops you from gaining 2nd level maneuvers at level one. It is only the case for stances, again. Not maneuvers. There is no text that backs that.

The Crusader example took the second level because the ONLY thing they care about is Thicket of Blades. Thicket of Blades is a stance. Also 2nd level of Crusader isn't bad anyways.

Diamond Mind is good, but only if you are going to be regularly boosting your Concentration check. Barbarian and Fighter don't get Concentration as a skill, so you'll likely be wasting a feat to make it a class skill and a bunch of skill points to make it work. Instead, I would suggest us the Fighter levels to take the Resolute ACF (Complete Champion) which lets you temporarily tank your BAB to boost your Will save. Alternatively (or also), a Fighter might pick up Endurance and Steadfast Determination, and key off your Will save to your much better CON stat. Several Orc races even come with Endurance, and Orc is a pretty good pick for a charging martial.

Concentration is based on Con and Warblade has enough that you can put some points in it. It will be better than your Will Save is likely to be. Usually that's not the reason you're dipping, but if you happen to be able to do that, it might work. Endurance and Steadfast is TWO feats. An Ubercharger at level 6 has to take Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Probably Leap Attack. Prereqs for any Prestige classes you're look into. You might be able to Swing two feats for it. But you might not. And it depends on what other tricks you're looking into.

If you're worried about the consistency of charging (fair), you can get the Leap Attack feat, and skill tricks like Nimble Charge and Twisted Charge make charging much more reliable, making uneven ground and obstacles that much less of a problem. You'd have to get Balance as a class skill (take Martial Study: Stone Dragon to get balance), but that is worth a feat to make sure charging works much better for you.

Leap Attack is MANDATORY for higher optimization Chargers. So you'll be taking that. Those skill tricks you want to snag also.. So you might want Martial Study (IRON ****ING HEART GUY) Like you don't want Stone Dragon on a character that isn't going to be on the ground when they're attacking. You pick up another Iron Heart maneuver. Like the one that makes Shock Trooper work great. Wall of Blades. Then if you have an AC of 0, you just Wall of Blades once and it usually works out pretty good.

I wouldn't actually take Shock Trooper. Great for theorycrafting, but really inadequate in-game. You also do enough damage with charging without it if you boost your accuracy enough.

The problem is that you really want to be able to hit because that's fundamentally your job, and if you have something like Wall of Blades you can do just fine with that AC lowering.

Here's what my version of a mundane charger would look like at level 5, using an ECL 1 race.

Frostblood Orc. Barbarian 1/Fighter 4.
Barbarian has Whirling Frenzy ACF.

B: Endurance
1: Martial Study: Stone Dragon
F1: Weapon Focus
F2: Resolute ACF
3: Extra Rage
F4: Weapon Specialization

Assuming you're using a Greatsword, with a STR of 26 (18 + 4 Orc + 4 Whirling Frenzy), you'd be doing 2d6 + 14 damage twice per turn. And at sixth level, you'll be doing that three times a turn. It isn't the most exciting build, but if you want a martial that's likely putting down one opponent per turn, this will do a pretty solid job.

You should be snagging Martial Study (Iron Heart) not Stone Dragon that also gives you Balance. Weapon Focus and Specialization are just wasted here. Like that +2 is not really worth bothering about.

Let's look at what you've got vs. the way I would build. You have one martial maneuver, and you're just in a really bad place to compete with an optimized charger. Yours is fine for a mid optimization game. But even a practical high optimization game you're gonna want stuff a little differently. To be fair my build was an example of a leveling Ubercharger not "the most optimal build at level 5" Which is actually not a great level for Uberchargers anyways. That third level of fighter really hurts you. Also I don't think I would take extra Rage. I mean maybe but I feel like there are better things you could be doing.

And even then you want that Warblade dip. Like you want that so badly. You want to be able to pick up a couple good maneuvers. Basically Stone Dragon is better on like a tripper or lockdown build because then you're on the ground. You don't want to ever pass up doubling your Power Attack damage on an ubercharger.

Edit: If you're gonna the Endurance Steadfast route, you should probably pick that up earlier, rather than wait.

Edit 2: The only reason you would ever want to take two levels of fighter in a higher optimization context is if you are doing Dungeoncrasher... and Dungeoncrasher is already not good enough for that context. Dungeoncrasher is like a fun mid Optimization build.

Edit 3: It's Steel Wind you'd want actually with your feat. Wall of Blades is a level 2 Counter. I had misremembered the level.

Edit 4: Also you could take Martial Study (Any Diamond Mind Maneuver) and get Concentration as a class skill if you're considering the save remover route, which might be better than the skill trick option.

[Troacctid]

Does it really count as a gish if all you have is utility casting that's completely orthogonal to your combat strategy? Like, is an Ebonmar Infiltrator a gish if her spells are comprehend languages, detect evil, disguise self, invisibility, knock, spider climb, and locate object?

[pabelfly]

Does it really count as a gish if all you have is utility casting that's completely orthogonal to your combat strategy? Like, is an Ebonmar Infiltrator a gish if her spells are comprehend languages, detect evil, disguise self, invisibility, knock, spider climb, and locate object?

I feel like a gish needs to combine spells and melee fighting in combat, whether the spells being used are buffs, debuffs, support, or ranged magical attacks. While you can use Invisibility to give yourself an advantage in combat, I presume you mean that Invisibility is only being used outside of combat and not to gain an advantage in it, and the other spells aren't doing anything to help you in combat.


EDIT: Instead of arguing with AMFV about everything (I will admit that I can't find the rule that initiators have to select first-level manoeuvres, so he's right there at least) I will instead post my damage calcs for both his build, at least what he posted of it, and mine. Let me know where I went wrong.

1) I’ll presume we’re both going Orc, since it’s got such a good STR bonus. I'll presume we both start at 18 STR (so 22 STR after the racial bonus)
2) I’ll assume our theoretical opponent has 20 AC. I’ll presume we both have a +1 greatsword.
3) I'll presume he went Shock Trooper at level 6, and will be doing full Power Attack.

Accuracy (AMFV's ubercharger)
6/1 BAB + 6 STR + 1 weapon + 2 charge
15/10

Damage (ubercharger)
2d6 + 9 (STR x 1.5) + 1 Weapon + 12 (Power Attack x 2)
29 damage

Average Damage (ubercharger)
0.75 x 29 + 0.5 x 29 = average 36.25 damage per round



Accuracy (Barb/Fighter build with Whirling Frenzy)
6/1 BAB + 8 STR + 1 weapon + 1 Weapon Focus – 2 Whirling Frenzy + 2 charge
16/16/11

Damage
2d6 + 8 x 1.5 STR + 1 weapon + 2 Weapon Spec
22 damage

Average damage
0.8 x 22 + 0.8 x 22 + 0.55 x 22 = average 47.3 damage per round

Obviously, I don't know all your feats that you want in your build. Let me know what I'm missing and if I got anything wrong in my calculations.

[AMFV]

I feel like a gish needs to combine spells and melee fighting in combat, whether the spells being used are buffs, debuffs, support, or ranged magical attacks. While you can use Invisibility to give yourself an advantage in combat, I presume you mean that Invisibility is only being used outside of combat and not to gain an advantage in it, and the other spells aren't doing anything to help you in combat.


EDIT: Instead of arguing with AMFV about everything (I will admit that I can't find the rule that initiators have to select first-level manoeuvres, so he's right there at least) I will instead post my damage calcs for both his build, at least what he posted of it, and mine. Let me know where I went wrong.

1) I’ll presume we’re both going Orc, since it’s got such a good STR bonus. I'll presume we both start at 18 STR (so 22 STR after the racial bonus)
2) I’ll assume our theoretical opponent has 20 AC. I’ll presume we both have a +1 greatsword.
3) I'll presume he went Shock Trooper at level 6, and will be doing full Power Attack.

Accuracy (AMFV's ubercharger)
6/1 BAB + 6 STR + 1 weapon + 2 charge
15/10

Damage (ubercharger)
2d6 + 9 (STR x 1.5) + 1 Weapon + 12 (Power Attack x 2)
29 damage

Average Damage (ubercharger)
0.75 x 29 + 0.5 x 29 = average 36.25 damage per round



Accuracy (Barb/Fighter build with Whirling Frenzy)
6/1 BAB + 8 STR + 1 weapon + 1 Weapon Focus – 2 Whirling Frenzy + 2 charge
16/16/11

Damage
2d6 + 8 x 1.5 STR + 1 weapon + 2 Weapon Spec
22 damage

Average damage
0.8 x 22 + 0.8 x 22 + 0.55 x 22 = average 47.3 damage per round

Obviously, I don't know all your feats that you want in your build. Let me know what I'm missing and if I got anything wrong in my calculations.

You're missing every single feat, I mentioned. You're missing the fact that you have an accuracy penalty at 6 and I don't. You can't calculate your chance of hitting as being the same when you are taking away from that for Power Attack. But I guess we'll play. According to Optimization by the numbers the average AC at CR 6 is 19 and the average HP is 69.12. Of course since the DM is picking intentionally the averages are likely to mislead. Let's take the maximums instead... The maximum AC you will see is 29, and the maximum HP is 133. Notably you are by your own calculations doing lower damage than the average CR 6 Monster has.

Why do you have 2 more Strength than I do? Why would you assume that I wouldn't buy a strength item? That's just disingenuous we are into absolutely bull**** stuff here. But let's actually calculate.

We'll take your AC 20 though.

Using the power attack calculator given the factors that you have presented your average damage at AC 20, subtracting 1 is 31ish. That's pretty decent, that's not enough to necessarily kill the average monster but you'll do good damage.

Also important to note that I have Rage also... So Strength would be the same.

So I would probably buy a +1 Valorous Greatsword for double damage on a charge. And I'd probably buy a +2 Belt of Giant Strength, so I might actually have lower Strength here, but we'll calculate it out.

So assuming that I start with 18 Strength, cause of course I would. My strength is going to be:

22 (Starting Orc at 18) + 4 (Rage) + 1 (Stat Adjustment, Sadly odd numbers) + 2 (Gauntlets of Ogre Power). That puts me at 29 Strength with no buffs. That is a +9. I'll alter your calculations to also have that +9 assuming that you would probably make the same choices in that regard. Since that is the fair assumption. Cause I'm assuming you'd also grab power gloves, since that's well within WBL. Now you have explicitly stated that you have a +1 Weapon. So we'll go with that. In a Mid OP environment you wouldn't probably want Valorous.

So we both have a to-hit bonus of:

+9 (For Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement). And you have an additional +1 for Weapon Focus. Now you're highest damage option is actually to take -1 on your PA rather than a big minus. At least according to Donjon's PA calculator which I will be using for this and assuming that it is generally accurate. I will probably have to calculate my own stuff since they don't actually factor in a lot of what I'm doing.

That gives you an attack line of (Including Power Attack, since you can't talk about Power Attack and Shock Trooper and then just ignore the advantage of Shock Trooper... COME ON MAN)

+17 and and +12. (Once you take off the optimal amount for PA (I'll also include full PA cause it'll be edifying here)... Including the charge bonus.

And that gives you a damage of

7 (2d6) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Power Attack) + 13 (9 * 1.5) Strength with an extra +2 for Weapon Specialization.

Your chance to hit AC 20 is 90% on the first hit (you have to roll better than a 3) and 65% on the second (you have to roll better than an 8) so your average damage will be 37.2 on a charge, that's respectable. And assuming you bought a valorous weapon that'd be 74.4 That's damned respectable that is not enough to GAURANTEE you're killing an enemy charge, but it's real close.

Now let's do me!

I have Punishing Stance (Cause why not)... I have Leap Attack (cause I said that was mandatory).

So my to-hit is +9 (Strength) + 1 (Weapon Enhancement) + 2 (Charge) + (6/1). No minuses because we have Shock Trooper. So we're taking those penalties to AC and hoping that Wall of Blades will save us, or the fact that we are actually gonna kill what we hit at CR 6.

So that leaves us with +18 and + 13. So first hit is a 2 up, for 95%. Second is a 7 up for 70%.

My damage per hit will be:

7 (2d6) + 18 (300% Power Attack from Leap Attack, we're eating the whole thing) + 3.5 (Punishing Stance) + 13 (Strength)

So without Valorous Weapon that would be 68.475 damage on a charging full attack. You're at 37.2. With a Valorous Weapon that's 136.95. The highest health in Optimization by the numbers at CR 6 is 133. So basically I am guaranteed to delete a monster with that charge. (Of course if the is optimizing then there might be tougher monsters, but point still stands.)


I wouldn't have done all this but you came out and did super disingenuous math making really negative assumptions about my build and ignoring things I'd said. And our AC is still probably manageable, we're only at a -6 to AC, so we actually might be okay on AC. But yeah, when you're calculating other people's stuff you want to make assumptions that they are not being idiots. That's not at all okay to do

Edit: And that's not the peak Ubercharger that's a build thrown together.

Edit 2: I Also probably would have taken Whirling Frenzy so that's not going to significantly alter the difference, actually would increase the gap between our builds significantly. Recalculated for Whirling Frenzy you are at 51.6 damage by my calculations and I am at 95.45. With Valorous that puts you at [/s]74.4[/s] 103 (EDIT: Was reading off the wrong column). (enough to erase an average enemy but not the toughest) and puts me at 190.9 (Way more than I need to delete the toughest enemies at CR 6 (although possibly not enough to delete optimized DM enemies.)

Edit 3: You'll note that when there's an option that both builds could take to their advantage I've given it to your build as well as mine.

[Sinner's Garden]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle." And, for whatever its worth, muggles really shouldn't equal mages in performance. If you want to play a character that principally refuses to engage with the laws of physics, then you've basically made a cripple, and much in the same way I would give no special consideration to a character to began play in a wheelchair, I don't see why a character who refuses to use magic to his advantage deserves extra benefits and considerations for not engaging in the world in which he lives.

[AMFV]

Related to this thread, it always bugs me when people say "martial." Like, the wizard can pick up a sword too. Someone without magic is a "muggle." And, for whatever its worth, muggles really shouldn't equal mages in performance. If you want to play a character that principally refuses to engage with the laws of physics, then you've basically made a cripple, and much in the same way I would give no special consideration to a character to began play in a wheelchair, I don't see why a character who refuses to use magic to his advantage deserves extra benefits and considerations for not engaging in the world in which he lives.

Nobody has been advocating for that. Or has said it. Or has suggested it. People have been discussing builds that are better suited to not have caster levels. A Wizard can pick up a sword. But they are probably not going to be Ubercharging. Which we've just demonstrated the effectiveness of (even with mid op builds). Ubercharger is a build that usually doesn't have the levels to spare for gishing (also they're usually raging). Which is probably the main reason you wouldn't want to Gish.

The other reason being that "gishing" usually means that you aren't a very good caster, depending on what you're giving up, not being a very good caster might not be worth it.

Warshapers probably don't want to Gish, War Hulks definitely don't. Chain Trippers probably don't. Martial Initiators might, but they don't necessarily need to.