I'm lost here. Are we discussing what we would individually do to make a gish, or are supposed to be coming to a consensus as to what the concept is? One delves into the nitty gritty like how big a gish's hit dice should be, while the other delves into the concept to better understand the role, which will lead to a more cohesive/consistent set of stats to match that role.

Well mister metonymy :) both are methods of defining what a gish is. Concept informs example as example informs concept.

Even if confusing, I hope this thread is useful.

Sigurd

Loopy wrote:

This is more of a fighter who has their attacks infused by magic rather than a true fighter/mage.

I like this as an option.

What is the effective caster level for these spells? His full level? That would make even the low level spells pack some punch by later levels.

Sigurd

Thanks for pointing out the glaring omission, Sigurd. No, caster level would be class level-3 like the Ranger and Paladin, hence the need for the School Focus. I didn't spell everything out in my post as I normally would with a new class because... well, I should be doing work right now. LOL

I wonder if I should remove the caveat that multiple School Foci may be applied to the same school?

I'd like to point out that this discussion involves two entirely different class concepts, each of which might get lumped into the "gish" category. My humble suggestion for categorizing the two concepts would be the following:

1) Arcane Warrior: A warrior (full BAB) who uses arcane magic to supplement his skill at arms (ranger spell progression). The emphasis of this class would be on filling a fighter's role using low-level spells instead of bonus feats to improve one's melee combat capabilities.

2) Combat Arcanist: A modest arcane spellcaster (bard spell progression) whose spellcasting is coupled with respectable martial prowess (bard BAB). The emphasis of this class would be versatile attack, buff, and utility spellcasting combined with cleric-like combat potential. Preferably without the bard's performance-related fluff.

Both would probably get a weapon-only arcane bond ability.

My personal favorite alternative to "gish" is "spellsword", but I know that is taken for a 3.X prestige class.

However, what about a more old-english treatment, a "Weirbrand"?

Here is a rough draft of my Sword Mage class. It still needs a fair amount of work. I definately need to give the spell list another run through, its kind of arbitrary at the moment. I also need to do some thinking of my 'weapon channel' ability. I am not certain how I should shape it so any constructive criticism is more then welcome. I used the Bard as my Initial standard, but obviously I changed out the class abilities.

The Swordmage

Role: The swordmage’s focus is using magic to bring the fight to the enemy. Their combat prowess is less then that of dedicated combatants, but when they combine that with their arcane talents they can be a match for most any foe.
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d8.
Class Skills
The swordmage's class skills are Acrobatics (Dex), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (Arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha)

Skill Ranks per Level: 2 + Int modifier.

BAB Average
Saves: Good Fort, Good Will

1. Weapon Bond, Weapon Channeling, Armored Casting (Light Armor), Cantrips
2. Spell Channel
3. Weapon Channel (Move 1/day)
4.
5. Armored Casting (Light Shields)
6. Weapon Channel (Move 2/day
7.
8. Defensive Spell Channel
9. Weapon Channel (Swift 1/day)
10.
11. Armored Casting (Medium Armor)
12. Weapon Channel (Swift 2/day)
13.
14. Armored Casting (Heavy Shields)
15. Spell Channeling (Swift 3/day)
16.
17. Weapon Channel (2 spells)
18. Mass Spell Channel
19. (Armored Casting Heavy Armor)
20. Weapon Channel (full attack)
Weapon and armor Profficiencies: Swordmages are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, with all types of armor (heavy, medium, and light), and with shields (except tower shields).

Spells: A swordmage can cast arcane spells drawn from the Sword Mage Spell List. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time. To learn or cast a spell the sword mage must have an intelligence score equal to at least 10+the level of the spell. The Difficulty for the saving throw of the spell is 10+the spell level + the swordmage’s intelligence modified.

Like other spell casters the sword mage can only cast a certain number of spells of each level per day. This is the same as that on the Bard’s spell table. In addition he receives bonus spells for a high charisma score if applicable.

The swordmage’s selection spells is extrememly limited. They begin play knowing 4 level 0 spells and 2 first level spells of their choices. At each new level they gain new spells based on the bard’s spells known table.
Upon reaching 5th level, and at every third swordmage level after that (8th, 11th, and so on), a bard can choose to learn a new spell in place of one he already knows. In effect, the bard “loses” the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged, and it must be at least one level lower than the highest-level swordmage spell the bard can cast. A swordmage may swap only a single spell at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that he gains new spells known for the level.
A swordmage need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his allotment of spells per day for the spell's level.

Cantrips: A sword mage can learn a number of cantrips or 0-level spells as noted in the Bard Spells known table. These spells are cast like any other spell but they do not consume any spell slots and may be used again.

Weapon Bond:
A Sword mage forms a bond with his weapon. Though bladed weapons are common, any weapon that the sword mage is proficient with can be bonded with. The sword mage beings play with this weapon which is always of masterwork quality. It is not made of any special material. If the sword mage attempts to cast a spell without holding his bonded weapon he must make a concentration check or lose the spell. The DC for this check is 20+ the spells level. A bonded weapon can be used once per day to cast any one spell the sword mage knows and is capable of casting. This spell is treated like any other spell cast by the wizard, including casting time, duration, and other effects dependent on the wizard's level. This spell cannot be modified by metamagic feats or other abilities. This spell can be used along with the Spell Channel Ability.

A swordmage can add additional magic abilities to his bonded weapon as if he has the required item creation feats and if he meets the level prerequisites of the feat. For example, a swordmage with a bonded dagger must be at least 5th level to add magic abilities to the dagger (see the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat in Feats). The magic properties of a bonded weapon, including any magic abilities added to the weapon, only function for the swordmage who owns it. If a bonded weapon's owner dies, or the item is replaced, the object reverts to being an ordinary masterwork item of the appropriate type.

If a bonded weapon is damaged, it is restored to full hit points the next time the sword mage prepares his spells. If the weapon is lost or destroyed, it can be replaced after 1 day in a special ritual that costs 200 gp per swordmage level plus the cost of the masterwork item. This ritual takes 8 hours to complete. Weapons replaced in this way do not possess any of the additional enchantments of the previous bonded item. A sword mage can designate an existing magic weapon as his bonded weapon. This functions in the same way as replacing a lost or destroyed weapon except that the new magic weapon retains its abilities while gaining the benefits and drawbacks of becoming a bonded item.

Armored Casting:
At first level the sword mage does not suffer arcane spell failure for light armor. At 5th level this also includes light shields. When wielding a light shield the swordmage is considered to have a hand free for somatic components of spells. At 11th level this expands to include medium armor. At 14th level this also includes heavy shields, and the sword mage is considered to have a hand free for somatic components when wielding a heavy shield. At 19th level the sword mage no longer suffers arcane spell failure for Heavy armor.

Weapon Channel: The sword mage is able to store a spell in their weapon. This involves casting the spell as normal but the spell does not take affect. It instead takes affect on the next successful hit delivered with their bonded weapon. Touch and ranged touch spells count as having hit, saves apply as normal. Channeled spells are still subject to spell resistance were applicable. If the spell has multiple targets, it only affects the subject struck by the attack. If the effect is an area effect the area must include the subject struck by the attack as the center or point of origin for the effect. Area effect spells such as this exclude the swordmage’s square from their effects. At 3rd level the sword mage can do this with a spell that normally takes a standard action as a move action once per day. At 6th level he can do this twice per day. At 9th level he can also do this once per day as a swift action. At 12th and 15th levels he can do this an additional time per day as a swift action.

At 17th level the swordmage can store 2 spells in his weapon, though still on separate actions. On his next two successful hits with his weapon he decides which spell is used. Despite being able to have 2 spells stored at the same time, the swordmage can only ever deliver a single spell with each attack.

At 20th level sword mage has reached the peak of combining swordplay with arcane arts. Every time the sword mage takes a full attack action he may channel a single spell he could normally cast as a standard action. The sword mage may never use this ability in the same round he expends a stored spell from his weapon.

Spell Channel:
At 2nd level the swordmage can sacrifice arcane energy to increase his combat prowess. As a swift action the sword mage can sacrifice any unused spell slot for a temporary bonus. This bonus applies to either attack or damage at the sword mage’s choice and is equal to the level of the sacrificed slot. This bonus lasts for rounds equal to the swordmage’s intelligence modifier (minimum 1).

Defensive spell channel:
At 8th level the sword mage is able to channel arcane energies to protect himself. The sword mage as a move action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity may sacrifice an unused spell slot to grant him damage reduction equal to the level of the slot. This damage reduction lasts for a number of rounds equal to the sword mages intelligence modifier (minimum 1). For instance if a sword mage with a 16 intelligence were to sacrifice a 3rd level spell slot he would gain DR 3/- for 3 rounds.

Mass Spell channel
At 18th level the sword mage can direct his offensive arcane abilities to some of his allies. This ability functions the same as the spell channeling ability (but not defensive spell channel) except it requires a standard action and it can be applied to a number of targets within 30 feet of the sword mage equal to his intelligence modifier (minimum 1). The swordmage must include himself as one of the targets of this ability.

Spell list

0
Resistance
Acid Splash
Detect Magic
Read Magic
Daze
Light
Ray of Frost
Bleed
Disrupt Undead
Touch of Fatigue
Prestidigitation

1
Protection from Chaos/Evil/Good/Law
Shield
Mage Armor
Mount
Obscuring Mist
True Strike
Burning Hands
Magic Missile
Shocking Grasp
Color Spray
Cause Fear
Ray of Enfeeblement
Enlarge Person
Expeditious Retreat
Jump
Magic Weapon
Reduce Person
Inflict Light Wounds

2
Protection From Arrows
Resist Energy
Acid Arrow
Web
Daze Monster
Touch of Idiocy
Blur
Blidness Deafness
False Life
Scare
Bears Endurance
Bulls Strenth
Cats Grace
Foxs Cunning
Inflict Moderate Wounds

3
Dispell Magic
Magic Circle against Chaos/Evil/Good/Law
Phantom Steed
Heroism
Hold Person
Rage
Fireball
Lightning Bolt
Ray of Exhaustion
Vampiric Touch
Fly
Haste
Magic Weapon Greater
Slow
Inflict Serious Wounds

4
Stoneskin
Black Tentacles
Dimension Door
Crushing Despair
Fire Shield
Wall Of Fire
Wall of Ice
Phantasmal Killer
Bestow Curse
Contagion
Enervation
Fear
Inflict Critical Wounds

5
Dismissal
Dominate Person
Feeblemind
Hold Monster
Cone of Cold
Wall of Force
Blight
Waves of Fatigue
Baleful Polymorph
Overland Flight
Heroism Greater

6
Chain Lighting
Acid Fog
Freezing Sphere
Eyebite
Bears Endurance Mass
Bulls Strength Mass
Cats Grace Mass
Foxs Cunning Mass
Disintegrate
Flesh to stone
Stone to flesh

For the record, the "again, we're not asking for just a magic-user who has martial abilities. We're asking for a fighter who uses interwoven swordplay and magical energy" sentences meant to me--and apologies if I wasn't as clear and concise as I intended--"we want a fighter with some arcane abilities."

A guy who stabs dudes magically.

A class-by-committee is a fine idea. I'm skeptical that design-by-committee can actual work, though, and would be more interested in seeing how a project like this pans out than I would be in seeing the final results of the design process, actually.

Committees aren't very good at making final works of art, but they are excellent at brainstorming.

Loopy wrote:

An Arcane Warrior ought not be as good at traditional martial combat as the Fighter.

An Arcane Warrior ought not be as good at traditional spellcasting as a Wizard or Sorcerer.

What an Arcane Warrior ought to be better at than both of those classes is combining the two.

This is what I would do:

1) d10 hit die
2) medium armor and shield proficiency
3) armored casting up to medium and shields - like the bard so the character wouldn't benefit from the feat, thus all but destroying chances of an easy heavy armor casting
4) full base attack bonus
5) Paladin-like progression in arcane spells
7) Choose a school of magic to be able to access at 1st lvl and every 3 levels
6) NO bonus combat feats
7) Special abilities entirely focused on combining combat with magic, each school grants specific abilities. For example, energy damage with your weapon for evocation or beguiling strike for enchantment. These abilities need to be the meat and potatoes of the class and should be as good as Smite and a fighter's bonus feats.
8) Access to a few higher arcana spells over time - not a lot but I think it's important that the class have SOME access to higher-level spells.

I like calling it an Arcane Warrior, certainly beats the silly name being used by others to discribe a fighter/magic-user.

But I wouldn't build it quiet like that.

1) d8 hit die
2) Heavy armor is fine, with some feats built for the class, one for light is free, one for medium they need to buy if they want it and one more for heavy. So if you want to cast in heavy pay a two feat tax.
3) 3/4 Base Attack Bonus, same as rogue or cleric your not a full fledged all you do is melee guy
4) More spell access, closer to bard level but much more limited spell selection and I wouldn't use spontanious casting, take 3 schools from the wizard list and that is about it.
5) Some few bonus combat feats
6) I'm game for some special abilities at combining casting and fighting, casting touch spells through your...

I definitely like the name Arcane Warrior. Bravo to Loopy and Thurgon as champions of that. Mind if I give my own slant on what you wrote?

1) Yes, d8 hit die sounds reasonable to me. I see the arcane warrior as more of a killer than a tank, personally -- someone who can fight, but isn't necessarily going to be the one to block the doorway unless the heavier fighters are already taken out. Tough enough to handle combat, but not a front-line smash-in-the-enemy-line type of guy.

2) As long as the appropriate shields go along with the armor, then this seems good to me, to. In other words, I don't want to see the light armor wearer using a tower shield ;) -- that should be for the heavy armor wearer.

3) 3/4 BAB sounds fine also. Clerics and rogues are plenty dangerous with that

4) Again, solid stuff. No healing for the arcane warrior -- healing is divine, not arcane. I wouldn't mind a few weird arcane-warrior spells thrown in (see also #6).

5) Yes, a few might prompt some more diversity in the class (rather than, say, all of them defaulting to sword and board for more AC, even though I'd probably play a sword and board myself ;).)

6) A few special abilities would really help to make the class stand out as distinct from the others. As a random idea off the top of my head -- how about if you confirm a critical with a weapon attack, you can choose to cast a spell in the same round as your attack, rather than getting the extra damage?

And a point of my own --

Since some people want the class to be more "arcane with a few combat tricks" and some want it to be more "fighter with a spell or two," couldn't there be two or three variants, like the ranger's twf/archery stuff, the cavalier's different orders, etc.? Might make the class a little more appealing if people could slant the abilities more heavily one way or another depending on their concept.

Zmar wrote:

Ftr/Sor/Eldritch Knighte is gish enough for me...

otherwise I'd go with a gestalt class.

What does "gish" mean in this sentence? What is that character's unique schtick that makes it a gish?

Gish is the person who combines arcane spellcasting and martial prowess into one blend. I don't think that we need another class to do that, unless you can think of some feature, that would be truly interesting and unique. Otherwise it's all about spell selection and feats.

We could have just another feat tree or two, but do we really need yet another base class?

A Man In Black wrote:

Zmar wrote:

Ftr/Sor/Eldritch Knighte is gish enough for me...

otherwise I'd go with a gestalt class.

What does "gish" mean in this sentence? What is that character's unique schtick that makes it a gish?

Gish is the person who combines arcane spellcasting and martial prowess into one blend. I don't think that we need another class to do that, unless you can think of some feature, that would be truly interesting and unique. Otherwise it's all about spell selection and feats.

We could have just another feat tree or two, but do we really need yet another base class?

I would say we do need another base class because this concept (within current rules) does not come together untill later levels. At low levels a fighter mage doesnt do anything well (no i do not mean better or as well as a fighter or mage, i mean well enough to contribute to combat). Relying on prestige classes to fill this gap ignore low level play, which the bulk of material and playtime (in my experience) is based around.

Why is everyone suddenly so interested in me?

I'd like to see what this sort of thing does in actual combat. I like the choice you offer between broad spells and deep spells. I would not be averse to a structure that let the character build beyond level 4 by specializing in the same school but it probably should be diminishing returns.

ie.
1-4 level in 3 types of magic.
or 1-6 level in 2 types of magic
and 1-7 level in one type of magic.

I do however think that the best way would be a carefully selected spell list.

btw - You say level 1-4. Does that exclude cantrips?

Sigurd

Thanks for pointing out the glaring omission, Sigurd. No, caster level would be class level-3 like the Ranger and Paladin, hence the need for the School Focus. I didn't spell everything out in my post as I normally would with a new class because... well, I should be doing work right now. LOL

I wonder if I should remove the caveat that multiple School Foci may be applied to the same school?

Loopy wrote:

This is more of a fighter who has their attacks infused by magic rather than a true fighter/mage.

I like this as an option.

What is the effective caster level for these spells? His full level? That would make even the low level spells pack some punch by later levels.

Sigurd

Give him caster level -3 maybe? If you design his spell progression to be like a bard. Maybe sacrifice a spell slot to give your weapons an energy bonus i.e. flaming for a number of rounds equal to the spell level you sacrificed.

THe fighter who has their attacks infused by magic or "stabs dudes magically" is what myself Man in Black and some others are really looking for. A better balanced Duskblade or an arcane equivalent to Paladin.

Loopy, I really like your base concept. For starters, I'm in the "why not bard?" camp with regards to a spell-heavy hybrid; so what's missing IMO is a melee-heavy alternative. On top of that, I've always wanted to see a functional Hexblade.

Not sure about the school restriction mechanic. I would rather see a single school focus, chosen at 1st level, which gives access to one specific cantrip from that school as a spell-like ability. Within your focused school (and therefore also for e.g. Arcane Strike) you have full caster level; for all other schools you have CL -3, but access isn't limited in any way. Meanwhile, you gain class abilities based on your selected school. For various reasons, I would allow only Abjuration, Evocation, Necromancy and Transmutation as focused schools, granting resistance, ray of frost, touch of fatigue and message respectively. Read magic would be added as a freebie (also spell-like) at 4th level, when the spellbook becomes relevant.

So - Edited!

1. Arcane Strike, school focus, cantrip, warding arcana I
2. Combat arcana I
3. School power
4. Armored casting, read magic, spells, warding arcana II
5. Spell trick
6. Combat arcana II
7. School power
8. Warding arcana III
9. Spell trick
10. Combat Arcana III
11. School power
12. Warding arcana IV
13. Spell trick
14. Combat Arcana IV
15. School power
16. Warding arcana V
17. Spell trick
18. Combat arcana V
19. School power
20. High arcana

Dervish

Like a whirlwind of intellectual arrogance, belief and violence they decend from the forgotten places between the edifices of civilisation from the ruins of the old.

You are not loaned power like your divine contemporaries, or reliant on mumblings and easily restricted gestures, you are power. A titan that spins their own path across the world.

Non-Lawful

D10, Full BAB, Ref and Will saves.

4+int skills.
Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), Ride (Dex), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).

Thru horrible experiments, fell pacts, debauched acts you are more than mortal. Examples: The aghori, the sifu, the taoist, the cultist, the mad scientist.

1st: Dervishes Fury. You believe in yourself and in secret knowlege that drives you with a fury bordering on insanity. This fury lasts for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + your intelligence modifier. At each 'Trancend your Birth' level you can go into a fury for 2 additional rounds. The total number of rounds of fury per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.

While in fury, a arcane dervish gains a +2 morale bonus to Strength and Dexterity, as well as a +2 morale bonus on intelligence checks. In addition, you take a –3 penalty to will saves.
While in fury, a dervish cannot use any Charisma-, or Wisdom-based skills.

A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and keeps the will save penalty for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the fury.

2nd: Depraved Knowledge: Having intellectually probed depths of depravity none should you are hard to break and impossible to impress. Immune to fear effects, Add int bonus to all will saves.

4th: +1 feat or barbarian rage power (that lacks a level limit) as abominations whisper secrets in the shadows of your dreams.

6th: Trancend your Birth: choose one sorcerer bloodline or cleric domain gaining all powers of such (int is the relevant stat). Bonus spells are not recieved (you have no casting) but you can use spell completion items of these spells and are for all purposes considered to be a caster of your level - 6 and gain +1 saves vs these spells each Trancedential Level.

8th: +1 feat or barbarian rage power (that lacks a level limit)as abominations whisper secrets in the shadows of your dreams.

10th: +1 feat or barbarian rage power (that lacks a level limit) or lesser rogue talent as abominations whisper secrets in the shadows of your dreams OR double the bonuses and penalties from dervishes fury and add 4 rounds to the duration.

12th: +1 feat or barbarian rage power (that lacks a level limit) or lesser rogue talent as abominations whisper secrets in the shadows of your dreams.

14th: Trancend your Birth: Choose one sorcerer bloodline or cleric domain gaining all powers of such (int is the relevant stat). Bonus spells are not recieved (you have no casting) but you can use spell completion items of these spells and are for all purposes considered to be a caster of your level - 4 and gain +1 saves vs these spells each Trancedential Level.

16th: +1 feat or barbarian rage power (that lacks a level limit) or lesser rogue talent as abominations whisper secrets in the shadows of your dreams.

18th: Trancend your Birth: Choose one sorcerer bloodline or cleric domain gaining all powers of such (int is the relevant stat). Bonus spells are not recieved (you have no casting) but you can use spell completion items of these spells and are for all purposes considered to be a caster of your level - 2 and gain +1 saves vs these spells each Trancedential Level.

20th: You percieve the flimsy fabric of reality. Once per day you can as a standard action cut, pierce or tear it with a weapon as the gate spell.

Design considerations: I wanted it to stand appart from the paladin/ranger as divine should have its own MO, I wanted it to fit into a unique but supportive cosmology, I wanted it to be acceptable to those that prefered barbarian sorcerer rage mages AND fighter wizard eldrich knights as base classes should be flexible, I wanted a unique magic ability mechanic that would be added to in future supplements, I wanted to fill the hole that exists for a int based warrior archetype as barb has con, fighter str, ranger wis, pal chr. I wanted it basically flexible so imagination can take flight and to open up options so players can craft what they wish not be served power on a platter like a secret insult. I also wanted subtlety that the more you ponder the class the more you realise little things.

Just weighing in.....

3/4 BAB (D8 HD natch)
4 skill points per level
Reflex good, the rest..whatever
Martial weapons, light armour

Class abilities: Pretty much like a Ki pool (not called that. perhaps a pool called 'reserves' or 'essence'. probably enhaced by the character's charisma score.

Spent points can be used ina number of ways, which expand in a level by level basis with suggestions like:

* Buffing his armour
* temporaryilly turning a held weapon into a magicall one
* temporary access to feats
* temporary HP

Then throw on a late onset arcane casting ability, say, around 5th or so level. Possibly earlier access to cantrips.

As for 'role' he's an able combatant with the ability to be flexible through optional and tactically decided auto buffs. His higher skill points give him the leeway to be of use outside battle in more tangible ways (though not so much that he impinges on the rogue)

slap on some ability to command (rallying cry - allies within 30 feet gain one temporary HP per level for one minute per level?) or and this quickly becomes a battlefield commander (considering the higher charisma, that's not such a bad addition.

Batts

Zmar wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Zmar wrote:

Ftr/Sor/Eldritch Knighte is gish enough for me...

otherwise I'd go with a gestalt class.

What does "gish" mean in this sentence? What is that character's unique schtick that makes it a gish?

Gish is the person who combines arcane spellcasting and martial prowess into one blend. I don't think that we need another class to do that, unless you can think of some feature, that would be truly interesting and unique. Otherwise it's all about spell selection and feats.

We could have just another feat tree or two, but do we really need yet another base class?

I would say we do need another base class because this concept (within current rules) does not come together untill later levels. At low levels a fighter mage doesnt do anything well (no i do not mean better or as well as a fighter or mage, i mean well enough to contribute to combat). Relying on prestige classes to fill this gap ignore low level play, which the bulk of material and playtime (in my experience) is based around.

Please define contribution to combat. The warrior/caster mix contributes about as much as the Bard does, or as much as a caster with a sword. It really depends on what path do you pursue toward the gish (yes I'm fond of this word and I'm going to continue to use it). If you want to enter the EK as soon as possible, then you probably rush it all with 6 levles of sorcerer or 5 levels of wizard, and a dip into one of the combat classes. This really doesn't work well in combat. You may also try the ballanced approach, altering levels of caster and warrior, which essentially averages out as d8 HD and moderate attack progression. You also get some minor caster and warrior class abilities to play with and on latter levles you get an additional combat prowess and spellcasting, which in raw power should be a ballancing factor for the the other class abilities that are provided by standard classes at appropriate levels.

Then it all probably comes down toward favoured class bonuses.

If the APG book provides some aditional feats and perhaps alternate class abilities for the basic classes, the I see no reason to support yet another class that is essentially two classes mashed together. Unless there is some interesting game mechanic for the class of course.

We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.

why do we need a gish (I mean Jedi)? we just need to remove the racial restrictions on the arcane archer. and now you have 3 flavors, the buffer (Bard) The archer (Arcane archer) and the arcane swordsman (Eldritch knight) just take your fighter level first, don't dump con and suffer for 7 levels. the divine payoff will balance you in the end. if you want another gish class. adapt the abjurant champion. do we really need any more bloat? if you want to play the badass warrior with mystical powers, use whats already available. do we really need 108 ways to represent the same concept. the samurai could've just been a fighter (or paladin) the ninja could've been a rogue. the swashbuckler (Duelist) or (Rogue). base classes should be more generic and adaptable. as to not need the bloat of 108 base classes when 27 (1/4) could've worked just as well.

what i am saying is "Do we really need extra redundant classes?" just make them alternate class features. or take the classes that had 1 or 2 "Special" features (like the champion of correlons graceful strike) and convert it into a feat per unqiue feature.

heres my example of such a conversion (using CoCL's graceful strike) (also using Iaijutsu master's katana finesse)

Improved Weapon Finesse (Combat)
Prerequisites; Weapon finesse
Benefit; to any weapon which recieves the benefit of the weapon finesse feat. such as light weapons, rapier, whip and spiked chain (or others outside of core) you may in addition to the standard benefits, add your dexterity modifier instead of your strength modifier to the damage roll (as well as the attack roll)

Expanded finesse;
Prerequisites; Weapon finesse
Benefit; Choose one weapon to which weapon finesse doesn't normally apply, you may apply the weapon finesse feat's effect to the chosen weapon (including the benefits of improved weapon finesse if you have it)
Special; you can take this feat multiple times, it's effects do not stack, each time you take it, apply it to a new weapon in addition to the choices from before.

Redneck Ralph wrote:

We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.

why do we need a gish (I mean Jedi)? we just need to remove the racial restrictions on the arcane archer. and now you have 3 flavors, the buffer (Bard) The archer (Arcane archer) and the arcane swordsman (Eldritch knight) just take your fighter level first, don't dump con and suffer for 7 levels. the divine payoff will balance you in the end. if you want another gish class. adapt the abjurant champion. do we really need any more bloat? if you want to play the badass warrior with mystical powers, use whats already available. do we really need 108 ways to represent the same concept. the samurai could've just been a fighter (or paladin) the ninja could've been a rogue. the swashbuckler (Duelist) or (Rogue). base classes should be more generic and adaptable. as to not need the bloat of 108 base classes when 25 could've worked just as well.

What payoff?

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Redneck Ralph wrote:

We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.

why do we need a gish (I mean Jedi)? we just need to remove the racial restrictions on the arcane archer. and now you have 3 flavors, the buffer (Bard) The archer (Arcane archer) and the arcane swordsman (Eldritch knight) just take your fighter level first, don't dump con and suffer for 7 levels. the divine payoff will balance you in the end. if you want another gish class. adapt the abjurant champion. do we really need any more bloat? if you want to play the badass warrior with mystical powers, use whats already available. do we really need 108 ways to represent the same concept. the samurai could've just been a fighter (or paladin) the ninja could've been a rogue. the swashbuckler (Duelist) or (Rogue). base classes should be more generic and adaptable. as to not need the bloat of 108 base classes when 25 could've worked just as well.

What payoff?

the payoff of being a hybrid, only visible if you are the 5th wheel. the benefits of being 3/4 both. the payoff of adaptability and flexibility.

This adds nothing to the conversation, but my favorite Gish is

Monte Cook did a nice job of it with the Mageblade in his Arcane Unearthed/Evolved... might want to take a look at that.

EDIT:Apparently I started my post before you edited yours with more.

Redneck Ralph wrote:

We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.

why do we need a gish (I mean Jedi)? we just need to remove the racial restrictions on the arcane archer. and now you have 3 flavors, the buffer (Bard) The archer (Arcane archer) and the arcane swordsman (Eldritch knight) just take your fighter level first, don't dump con and suffer for 7 levels. the divine payoff will balance you in the end. if you want another gish class. adapt the abjurant champion. do we really need any more bloat? if you want to play the badass warrior with mystical powers, use whats already available. do we really need 108 ways to represent the same concept. the samurai could've just been a fighter (or paladin) the ninja could've been a rogue. the swashbuckler (Duelist) or (Rogue). base classes should be more generic and adaptable. as to not need the bloat of 108 base classes when 25 could've worked just as well.

Not to be a jerk and answer a question with another question but, why do we not?

To be more fair and try to answer your question a bit more to your liking, your game isn't everyone else's. You mention not suffering for 7 levels and the abjurant champion, some peoples games don't have those. Some DM's or groups like certain levels and games start and stop through that level range. Other games don't have access to PrC's like the abjurent champion because they either don't have the book, they aren't allowed by the DM or the game is CORE only. In cases like that your arguement that we "don't need more bloat" or to "use what is available" isn't valid, because it doesn't apply. If your game is going to end once you hit 7th level, you will never be able to see that concept in play, ever. The only way you can see some concepts at lower levels is to have them implemented from the get go. Look at the Soulknife, it was based on a PrC (which I loved) but was so popular that WotC decided to make it a full on class because it had some pretty severe requirements and took several levels to qualify for. Basically the new class was junk but those players could have that cool weapon from the get go if that was the concept they wanted,the ability was available and the character concept could be played at any level range.

With CORE there are some concepts that are just incredibly hard to pull off (requiring several classes to get the abilities) or when done are just completely neutered due to the way the mechanics of the system works currently (usually multiclassing). Part of the reason PrC's exist is to combat that issue, the same with new classes. If you have no problem show horning a concept into the current CORE system then good, you enjoy your game, that is what matters. Some people don't, some can't. The rogue class could be a ninja you say, well ok, you can force it into that if you want. The classes in CORE were designed to be generalists, not be too focused on anything so they could possibly be used in other concepts than what they are designed for. The building blocks if you will. But a ninja wasn't your typical rogue off the streets, it was a specially trained killer, the concept of the ninja had more to it than was available to the rogue as designed. It could be more clearly defined by the ninja class, it could fit the concept better by being designed to do what it was supposed to do, instead of shoe horning the general rogue into that role. And it is only "bloat" if you have access to it... As we already have more than 108 ways to represent a similar concept what is the problem with more? We don't have 108 base classes, hell I'm not even sure if there are 25 core classes at this point even counting the 3.5 classes, so I'm not quite sure where you'd go with that. The game wasn't designed with that at its core, so we have PrC's and new classes. Maybe it wasn't the best design and maybe you are right 25 classes as building blocks would have been better, but that isn't what it is now and there isn't anyway to get there as things stand. If you have enough for your game, or if you don't need anything else, this discussion isn't for you or your game in all likelihood as you won't have anything constructive to provide. Obviously some others feel differently, as does Paizo as they are implementing 3 new classes, this discussion is for them.

EDIT:Apparently I started my post before you edited yours with more.

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

Redneck Ralph wrote:

We don't need no stinkin Jedi! we need more beer! we need rules for drunkeness and hangovers and different types of beer.

why do we need a gish (I mean Jedi)? we just need to remove the racial restrictions on the arcane archer. and now you have 3 flavors, the buffer (Bard) The archer (Arcane archer) and the arcane swordsman (Eldritch knight) just take your fighter level first, don't dump con and suffer for 7 levels. the divine payoff will balance you in the end. if you want another gish class. adapt the abjurant champion. do we really need any more bloat? if you want to play the badass warrior with mystical powers, use whats already available. do we really need 108 ways to represent the same concept. the samurai could've just been a fighter (or paladin) the ninja could've been a rogue. the swashbuckler (Duelist) or (Rogue). base classes should be more generic and adaptable. as to not need the bloat of 108 base classes when 25 could've worked just as well.

Not to be a jerk and answer a question with another question but, why do we not?

To be more fair and try to answer your question a bit more to your liking, your game isn't everyone else's. You mention not suffering for 7 levels and the abjurant champion, some peoples games don't have those. Some DM's or groups like certain levels and games start and stop through that level range. Other games don't have access to PrC's like the abjurent champion because they either don't have the book, they aren't allowed by the DM or the game is CORE only. In cases like that your arguement that we "don't need more bloat" or to "use what is available" isn't valid, because it doesn't apply. If your game is going to end once you hit 7th level, you will never be able to see that concept in play, ever. The only way you can see some concepts at lower levels is to have them implemented from the get go. Look at the Soulknife, it was...

they were exaggerations. to explain the huge bloat of 3.5. most "convert a prestige class to a base class" attempts fail to meet the desired mark. either too strong or too weak.

So. Without getting into elaborate, specific examples of implementation, how would you go about making a character class that handles swording and casting arcane spells in a way that doesn't step on the toes of classes who specifically sword or specifically cast arcane spells?

Call me kooky, but I would just start with a level of fighter, then take a level of wizard or sorcerer. Rinse and repeat. Sure, he won't be an uber-badass, but then I'm not a munchkin.

Man In Black wrote:

So. Without getting into elaborate, specific examples of implementation, how would you go about making a character class that handles swording and casting arcane spells in a way that doesn't step on the toes of classes who specifically sword or specifically cast arcane spells?

Call me kooky, but I would just start with a level of fighter, then take a level of wizard or sorcerer. Rinse and repeat. Sure, he won't be an uber-badass, but then I'm not a munchkin.

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

Why is everyone suddenly so interested in me?

You where always interesting, and loved by thousands of people.

The Gish wrote:

Why is everyone suddenly so interested in me?

You where always interesting, and loved by thousands of people.

Till you hit level 16 anyhow then only one person you need to worry about. But your death at level 16 is an honor after all

Shadowborn wrote:

Man In Black wrote:

So. Without getting into elaborate, specific examples of implementation, how would you go about making a character class that handles swording and casting arcane spells in a way that doesn't step on the toes of classes who specifically sword or specifically cast arcane spells?

Call me kooky, but I would just start with a level of fighter, then take a level of wizard or sorcerer. Rinse and repeat. Sure, he won't be an uber-badass, but then I'm not a munchkin.

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

Bingo.

I've relayed this tale a few times, but I'll say it again. Trying to build a bladesinger. Fighter1/Swashbuckler3/Wizard2. It sucks horribly right now. My level 1 Color Spray does very little against most monsters, though my Ray of Enfeeblement is doing okay. My HP and AC are too low to handle monsters with +10 or higher attacks. So I am forced into hanging back with my longbow shooting my 1 attack. Once I hit the next level, I'll do better, since I will have level 2 spells. But it'll be another 3 levels before I get the full bladesinger package of rapid casting and AC bonus. But then, I will be a level 10 character with level 3 spells. Woot.

If I want to play a bladesinger, I need to not play a bladesinger. And I have no interest in using duskblade to do massive amounts of damage because a bladesinger is about finesse, and duskblade is all about brute force with Power Attack + channeling.

Bladesingers are up there on the finesse stakes as Rage Mages are on the damage stakes. Its a poor class. Given my favorite character that got to epic was a Arcane Archer/Bladesinger/Wizard/Swashbuckler it was a slow dissapointing slog that was nonetheless interesting (as non-optimisation often is). If you desire a finesse warrior just call yourself a blade singer and be a int based hex blade or even better a swashbuckler3, bard 4, suel arcanmath 10 as a player did who had better vision than me..... it was a remarkably bladesingerish bladesinger and great at taking down traditional elven enemies and a skill monkey to boot. A classes name need not limit you !

Call me kooky, but I would just start with a level of fighter, then take a level of wizard or sorcerer. Rinse and repeat. Sure, he won't be an uber-badass, but then I'm not a munchkin.

That dude is not contributing to level-appropriate challenges. "I don't making a terrible character that needs to be protected while contributing nothing" is the opposite of being a munchkin, and just as annoying.

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

I've never noted a major problem with a multiclassed fighter/wizard at level 12, or level 18 for that matter.

Sure, my munchkin comment was off the cuff, and possibly inappropriate, but the sudden bumrush of "gish" threads on the boards seems peculiar to me.

If your need is so great, why not create your own? Seems to be the easiest way to go about it.

Moro wrote:

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

I've never noted a major problem with a multiclassed fighter/wizard at level 12, or level 18 for that matter.

Sure, my munchkin comment was off the cuff, and possibly inappropriate, but the sudden bumrush of "gish" threads on the boards seems peculiar to me.

If your need is so great, why not create your own? Seems to be the easiest way to go about it.

Which is exactly what we're brainstorming in this thread, pretty much, other than spending our time answering people who are making snide comments about everyone interested in the class being munchkins and generally trying to derail things.

Which is exactly what we're brainstorming in this thread, pretty much, other than spending our time answering people who are making snide comments about everyone interested in the class being munchkins and generally trying to derail things.

Ouch. If I had any feelings left, that would have likely hurt them.

Moro wrote:

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

I've never noted a major problem with a multiclassed fighter/wizard at level 12, or level 18 for that matter.

Sure, my munchkin comment was off the cuff, and possibly inappropriate, but the sudden bumrush of "gish" threads on the boards seems peculiar to me.

If your need is so great, why not create your own? Seems to be the easiest way to go about it.

I would certainly agree that at higher level the multiclass fighter wizard works just fine. There are already pathfinder prestige classes that help this work out.

But at low levels you really dont get the feel of a combatant who can wield some magic. And at least at my table levels 1-6 can take months of ACTUAL time to get through in a campain. I dont want to have to suck for 3 months of games in order to follow the concept I want. Which is why I advocate base classes over prestige classes.

It also prevents alot of munchkining that was a 3.5 problem. Prestige classes tend to condense abilities. They have at most 10 levels to get them out, and usually people have been 'waiting' a long time for those abilities. They tend to be front loaded for that reason. Base classes under pathfinder are far less front loaded, and have more things based on total class level then there used to be. New Base classes are gauranteed to be less game breaking then new prestige classes. There are always less ways to exploit them, and people get to use them for the characters entire career.

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

I think the duskblade had alot of potential but fell victim to power creep. I like the concept but I think a class like this should be based on either the paladin/druid (full bab very limited casting) or the bard (stronger casting but average bab).

A person with my low levels of patience ("Patience" is not my favored class, let's say) should probably not participate in a thread like this, but I'll try to be good, and also not ramble. Too much. I ramble a lot. Like this, see? Anyway.

As a base class, I think a lot of people are on a good path by taking the bard "chassis" as one user put it and refitting it. Take away the performance fluff and related abilities and swap in some sword and/or arcane tricks. I would keep the HD, non-heavy armor proficiency and the ability to cast only up to 6th level...

...in part, honestly, because I'm vaguely (and possibly incorrectly) recalling the OD&D and BECMI "Elf" class that was a Swordy-Magic-Guy, and I think they learned spells more slowly and couldn't wear heavy armor--and despite the fact that we're essentially talking about very different game systems, I think the reasons for that still apply, beyond for any kind of tradition's sake. If you want your character with strong buffing or magic damage power, scaling back the armor capability, etc. makes sense to me. There are of course other ways to balance the class too, but this is the direction I'd be personally inclined to go with it. Besides which, I'd imagine a new swordy-magic base class as swift and hard to hit more than a tanky character, as that niche I think is already better filled by the Eldritch Knight or maybe Dragon Disciple.

I would build a spell list largely of buffs, both personal and party. Debuffs as well. As for special abilities, I like the idea of imbuing one's weapon with magic. Use the Arcane Archer for general inspiration--obviously that class's specific class abilities have a number of features suited for ranged attacks only, but I think the basic idea applies, especially the Imbue abilities like being able to make your weapon do magic or elemental damage.

I think the last part is important because IMO there needs to be a way to synergize the swordy-magicness of the class---Eldritch Knight is already "soldier that also knows how to cast spells." I think the magic needs to be the support of the fighting style (and vice versa), which is also where you'll be able to provide the class some flavor.

I'll note that as both a GM and player, I am often loathe to bring in new base classes (heck, I'm stubborn about new prestige classes)--and I don't think there should be new base classes where current base classes already do the job fine. But I am sympathetic (even if reluctantly) to the desire for a Swordy-Magic-Guy/Gal (henceforth referred to as SMG) base class for two reasons: first, because I always liked them BECMI Elves (ETA: by the way, this is a note intended to be humorous, not meant to be a serious argument for the reason). And second and more seriously, because of Caster Level issues. Caster Level issues can really screw over a multiclass type of SMG especially at high levels--I've seen this happen in my own games--and all the more so in Pathfinder because of the new Concentration rules (I like the new Concentration rules, mind; I just understand how they screw over multiclass casters).

And sure, you certainly could argue that the game is designed like that on purpose, that that's just the breaks you have to roll with if you want to multiclass. But the problem is, a good SMG should be good at stuff like debuffing an enemy before they attack, and that means beating SR and being able to successfully cast Dispel Magic. So, I think I would rather rebalance the SMG in another way, by say, letting them cast only up to level 6 like the Bard and/or restricting their spell list or number of spells cast per day. That way they still have what they need to play their role in the party, and don't feel like third wheels at high levels, which many less-than-optimally built multiclass SMGs will do.

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

Well I ws playing a duskblade who could hit with her +1 frost longsword while channeling shocking grasp for 1d8 plus 6d6+3 damage. That qualified her for membership in the Lolliepop Guild.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

I think the duskblade had alot of potential but fell victim to power creep. I like the concept but I think a class like this should be based on either the paladin/druid (full bab very limited casting) or the bard (stronger casting but average bab).

I hate the duskblade because it pushed the gish design into "I cast things to hit harder". I have no desire to do that, and I knew people would cling to it as a savior that answered all questions. I am interested in having utility spells, not damage spells. The bard in PF has definitely opened some doors, but unfortunately, they don't have much synergy.

I think this raises the question that perhaps fighting types are just flat out unattractive to most people, and why ToB is so popular, even with players who are not munchkins.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

Well I ws playing a duskblade who could hit with her +1 frost longsword while channeling shocking grasp for 1d8 plus 6d6+3 damage. That qualified her for membership in the Lolliepop Guild.

What level was this Duskblade, what was the save DC for that Shocking Grasp damage, and how comparable is that damage to an equal level Rogue who can do their backstab multiple times in a round and unlimited times per day?

a few thoughts on caster level, since this has come up a couple of times in the thread.

Caster level for a gish is really dependent on what spells are in the gish's spell list.

If spell selection is comprised primarily of self- or ally-only buffs or "no save" spells, caster level is immaterial.

On the other hand, if most spells on the list are targeted at enemies (debuffs, nukes) then caster level is crucial. level -3 doesn't cut it for that kind of a spell list, as the gish will be unable to affect his targets at higher levels, even with heavy feat investment.

Further, if feat investment is required to reasonably affect tagets (50% of the time +/- 10%), then it's really not an option, but a requirement and should be presented as a class feature.

Finally, i don't think UMD is that key for that class, especially as there are a number of character traits that grant access to the skill.

David Fryer wrote:

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

Well I ws playing a duskblade who could hit with her +1 frost longsword while channeling shocking grasp for 1d8 plus 6d6+3 damage. That qualified her for membership in the Lolliepop Guild.

What level was this Duskblade, what was the save DC for that Shocking Grasp damage, and how comparable is that damage to an equal level Rogue who can do their backstab multiple times in a round and unlimited times per day?

In the most recent game I ran with a duskblade in it, that amount of damage could be done by level 7 or 8. Compared to the rogue, it was a killing machine. He didn't need a flanker, could "sudden" cast fly to get anywhere he needed to be, and could crank that out 4-5 times a day if I recall. There is no DC to avoid the shocking grasp damage. The character threw off the power scale so badly encounters were either a cake walk, or the monsters that could survive his damage could easily kill the squishy characters in one hit.

I should never have allowed that class.

David Fryer wrote:

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Loopy wrote:

In the defense of the dissenters, a lot of these conversations do trend munchy. Some people want to play an effective warrior while also being able to cast effectively. What really matters is the defenition of the word "effectively. Sometimes people think limiting factors such as spell selection are a major balancing technique, but it's really only a minor one.

I'd agree that perhaps a Prestige Class is really what's warranted here. Every other amalgam concept except the Bard is, but the Bard might be considered a different animal entirely. I'm not sure if the Arcane Warrior is a different animal. It feels a lot more like an Arcane Archer or a Mystic Theurge than a Bard.

I think a lot of people are just not happy with how Paizo is doing Prestige classes and don't want to accept the PrCs we have for this concept. I disagree, actually. I hope all the prestige classes follow in the same vein as the ones in the core rulebook.

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

Well I ws playing a duskblade who could hit with her +1 frost longsword while channeling shocking grasp for 1d8 plus 6d6+3 damage. That qualified her for membership in the Lolliepop Guild.

What level was this Duskblade, what was the save DC for that Shocking Grasp damage, and how comparable is that damage to an equal level Rogue who can do their backstab multiple times in a round and unlimited times per day?

5th level, there is no save for Shocking Grasp, and an equal level rogue does +3d6 sneak attack and because they don't have a +5 BAB at that point, cannot sneak attack more than once per round.

Edit: ninja'd

I'm reading through the duskblade class and it says, that it only draws spells from the duskblase spell list, which doesn't contain shocking grasp... Do I have some updated PHB II?

I'm reading through the duskblade class and it says, that it only draws spells from the duskblase spell list, which doesn't contain shocking grasp... Do I have some updated PHB II?

Which spell list are you looking at? The one that the book is refering to is on page 24, and Shocking Grasp certainly is on the list.

Shadowborn wrote:

Man In Black wrote:

So. Without getting into elaborate, specific examples of implementation, how would you go about making a character class that handles swording and casting arcane spells in a way that doesn't step on the toes of classes who specifically sword or specifically cast arcane spells?

Call me kooky, but I would just start with a level of fighter, then take a level of wizard or sorcerer. Rinse and repeat. Sure, he won't be an uber-badass, but then I'm not a munchkin.

And apparently only munchkins play at levels 12 and above, right? Try out your 6/6 Fighter/Wizard in a few CR 12 appropriate encounters, and let me know when you're fed up with feeling like a bump on a log.

Just because some people would like a valid* way to play a classic character archetype that has permeated this game from the beginning doesn't make them a munchkin.

*valid in this sentence means "mechanically able to effectively contribute to the party in a combat situation"

In my game I added in feats for multi-classing that makes them more workable. But they are race dependent.

So say an elf wants to be a fighter/mage as in your example. He takes the feat and his effective caster level for mage is 9, as is his spells known, spells per day, and feat requirements. He would also have an effective fighter level for feat requirements and number of bonus fighter feats.

I've used this feat for two games now, one got to level 16 one to level 12, both times the multiclass did not become a beast but was very playable. I basically opened up my 1st ed PHB and made feats for all the multiclass combos and the races allowed were based on that. Humans ofcourse could not take any of the feats, sorry, but it wouldn't break the system if they could. It just was I wanted some of the old flavor back and this is how I got it. I should have done this years ago with 3.5 but since pathfinder is so in need of house rules well I just figured why not try some things.

In my game I added in feats for multi-classing that makes them more workable. But they are race dependent.

So say an elf wants to be a fighter/mage as in your example. He takes the feat and his effective caster level for mage is 9, as is his spells known, spells per day, and feat requirements. He would also have an effective fighter level for feat requirements and number of bonus fighter feats.

I've used this feat for two games now, one got to level 16 one to level 12, both times the multiclass did not become a beast but was very playable. I basically opened up my 1st ed PHB and made feats for all the multiclass combos and the races allowed were based on that. Humans ofcourse could not take any of the feats, sorry, but it wouldn't break the system if they could. It just was I wanted some of the old flavor back and this is how I got it. I should have done this years ago with 3.5 but since pathfinder is so in need of house rules well I just figured why not try some things.

So you used something along the lines of the Swift and Ascetic Feats from the 3.5 completes? Like swift hunter or ascetic mage, but for a wizard fighter combo?

So, in your opinion, would you say that the duskblade was "munchy"?

No one in my game or game that I've been a part of has ever used this class and I'm not allowing non-Pathfinder PrCs in my campaign so I'm not qualified to answer that question.