Dear Paizo, please give us a gish base class!

[Benn Roe]

I don't need it super soon. I know you're busy with the APG and I know you aren't planning on releasing a billion books every year. I respect what you all are doing, and I'm a loyal fan at this point, just based on what little you've released and your company's general philosophy as I understand it.

It's just that I'm a gish-player. I can't get enough of fighter/arcane spellcaster hybrids. And there isn't much for this archetype in your otherwise awesome RPG.

On the other hand, I'm also mostly a home campaign player, and my groups are mostly fine with home content, so it's generally not an issue that the only option in Pathfinder so far is the eldritch knight. There're still duskblades in 3.5, along with spellswords, abjurant champions, etc., and those are all fine in home games even if I don't feel like making up my own material.

The issue really is organized play. We're running Pathfinder Society at my store now, and our monthly 3.5 pit battle is likely switching over to Pathfinder. Now, we may or may not make the pit battle into 3.5/Pathfinder hybrid, but that still doesn't solve the PFS problem. In PFS, if I want to play a gish, I have to take a level of fighter and five levels of wizard, and then start hammering away at eldritch knight, and both as a wizard who's behind a level and a fighter with d6 HD for most of my levels, I'm not really pulling off the concept until I start into eldritch knight, which means I have to survive for 18 adventures as a fairly terrible character, not to mention, I have to come up with weird roleplaying excuses in my mind why I can't cast spells at first level and why I'm not a very good fighter between levels 2 and 8 or whatever.

I know this isn't your problem, I know Pathfinder's backwards compatible with 3.5, I know you can't reprint or rewrite duskblade, spellsword, or abjurant champion. However, there are a lot of gish fans out there, and it would be great if they could get tossed a bone at some point for PFS since they aren't allowed to use their 3.5 books for that. Anything for a gish (that doesn't step on WotC's intellectual property, of course) would be fantastic, but a base class would be especially awesome because it's the most open in terms of roleplaying concepts for the character, since it would presumably be a reasonably good fighter with some spellcasting ability right from level 1.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw this out there and see what you guys thought. Hell, even a battle sorcerer type sorcerer variant would be incredible. Find a way to give the sorcerer a good BAB, d10 HD, and a way around arcane spell failure in light or medium armour, at the expense of some other stuff, and publish some sort of class variant! I'm all for it!

Thanks for your time!

[Xum]

I was gonna say, dear Paizo, please don't do it. But after some thought I came to the conclusion that this is not a bad idea at all. Although you guys really should work a little more on prestige classes for Divine casters, that however is another issue.

I think something like the ranger and paladin would be pretty neat. But instead of divine spells, arcane ones, I think it's pretty workable.

And I remember with extreme joy the good old days of the Bladesinger... how I miss it...

[Gworeth]

Xum wrote:

And I remember with extreme joy the good old days of the Bladesinger... how I miss it...

Ohhh.. The Bladesinger... Yeah... Those were the days... :)

[Jadeite]

There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).

[Moro]

Jadeite wrote:

There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).

The bard would be fine as a Fighter/Mage type base class, if they would get rid of the fruity singing and dancing stuff and give it a little something else in return.

[Anburaid]

Just a suggestion for a different gish concept. What about a spellcaster who has to fulfill somatic components by striking in combat (or at least performing a martial arts kata when not in combat).

Lets say, maybe, 1 successful hit/move per spell level to be cast as a base. They build up a pool of energy in combat and then use it cast. Probably a spontaneous caster, with either spells known. Perhaps if its a more rigid style of spellcaster-martial warrior, it might have a small spell list instead of spells known.

Perhaps other types of spells are charged with other tactical stances, such as total defense, trip attacks, charging, or maybe at higher levels some feats like power attack are used.

Anyway, that's just something I think would be cool to see.

[MisterSlanky]

James Jacobs made a post here (it's a linky!) regarding this very question about two days ago.

He has several comments, but I might suggest starting with this one:

James Jacobs wrote:

It always boggles me that there's such a strong desire for a fighter/wizard type character (I HATE the word gish, btw... pet peeve of mine), but at the same time there's such a low opinion of the bard.

The bard is pretty much the best option outside of the Eldritch Knight for the fighter/wizard route. The upcoming Advanced Player's Guide will hopefully help to drive this fact home a bit more, with several new bard spells that work well with the fact that he's basically a weapon-wielding armor-wearing spellcaster... something that 3.5's lazy bard spell selection didn't encourage and unfortunately got grandfathered in to PFRPG.

But if you want to play the character that's TWO main characters in one (the super bad-ass fighter and the hard-core explosive wizard), one thing to keep in mind is that the game is built with checks and balances for a purpose. It's hard to do that kind of character for a reason.

[GentleGiant]

Moro wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).

The bard would be fine as a Fighter/Mage type base class, if they would get rid of the fruity singing and dancing stuff and give it a little something else in return.

What's "fruity" about singing* and dancing?

*insert your favourite male singer here

[KnightErrantJR]

I'm just not a big fan of making a base class out of something that is pretty much the reason multi-classing, and at least two PrCs, exist. That's all I'll say on the topic, as I respect that others have different preferences.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I'm just not a big fan of making a base class out of something that is pretty much the reason multi-classing, and at least two PrCs, exist. That's all I'll say on the topic, as I respect that others have different preferences.

+1

[A Man In Black]

You know, there is the Duskblade.

[James Jacobs]

There are already a few options in WotC books for a fighter/wizard type base class (I really hate using the word "gish" for anything but a githyanki fighter wizard), and those options remain compatible for play in the Pathfinder RPG.

We probably WON'T make a class like this though, since a full on fighter/wizard type base class would destroy the niches already inhabited by the fighter and the wizard, for one, and would also really hurt the niches provided by classes like the bard.

There are a few prestige class options to handle this class combo already (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane archer), but as for base classes the bard is pretty much it—a class that combines some elements of combat (relatively good weapon selection and armor wearing) and limited spellcasting. The Advanced Player's Guide is going to introduce (among other things) many new bard spells that will help define the class's role; spells that work well in combat to aid a swashbuckling style of fighting, for example.

But we have no plans to do something like the duskblade.

[Frostflame]

Well there is the oracle class which can be made into various gish classes. An oracle with battle focus can function as a Fighter/Cleric. An oracle with the Bone focus functions as Oracle/Necromancer...

[kyrt-ryder]

Here's a thought.

Martial Bard:

Gains

All Martial Weapon Proficiencies (keep the whip)

Full BAB

A bonus combat feat every 4th level (or some other progression)

Limited access to 'combat' wizard spell list, such as touch attacks, ranged touch attacks, 'Personal' range buffs, etc

Loses:

Bardic Music

Bardic Knowledge

Any other 'bardy' things other than spellcasting.

Something like that, though of course that's just off the top of my head and not intended to be a full recomendation as written.

[Frostflame]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Here's a thought.

Martial Bard:

Gains

All Martial Weapon Proficiencies (keep the whip)

Full BAB

A bonus combat feat every 4th level (or some other progression)

Limited access to 'combat' wizard spell list, such as touch attacks, ranged touch attacks, 'Personal' range buffs, etc

Loses:

Bardic Music

Bardic Knowledge

Any other 'bardy' things other than spellcasting.

That's martial sorcerer not bard
Something like that, though of course that's just off the top of my head and not intended to be a full recomendation as written.

[Netromancer]

While I understand that an Eldritch Knight takes time and patience to reach it's potential, I feel that is the point of it. It's a very rewarding path, but it's not meant to be instant gratification. I hear people talk of hitting level 10 or 15 and the rewards for it in one thread, but then hear people unable to wait beyond level 1 for a character to come into his/her own in another.

While the MTV, Microwave dinner set might not have the patience, a good player who understands the game mechanics and wants to invest time and play into a character would feel that the path to Eldritch Knight is working exactly as intended.

And believe me, I know that rules differ at all tables and no game is "right" or "wrong" as long as all included have fun. I play 2 different groups a week and they are like night and day. But for me, if one of my players wanted a warrior/mage build, I'd open the page to Eldritch Knight and say, "Here you go."

[seekerofshadowlight]

Moro wrote:

Jadeite wrote:

There's already the bard (who will get more combat oriented spells in the APG).

The bard would be fine as a Fighter/Mage type base class, if they would get rid of the fruity singing and dancing stuff and give it a little something else in return.

Easy done, profrom: Chants. Mystic chants easily covers this...but the spell list however

[A Man In Black]

Netromancer wrote:

While I understand that an Eldritch Knight takes time and patience to reach it's potential, I feel that is the point of it. It's a very rewarding path, but it's not meant to be instant gratification. I hear people talk of hitting level 10 or 15 and the rewards for it in one thread, but then hear people unable to wait beyond level 1 for a character to come into his/her own in another.

Most people would like their character to be doing level-appropriate things at every level, rather than doing Sudoku in combat for 9 levels. The whole point of a level system is that each character is contributing in a level-appropriate way.

Describing the desire to have fun while playing a game as part of some sort of "MTV, Microwave dinner" mindset should make you feel ashamed.

[Netromancer]

You'll have to forgive me if I roll my eyes a bit everytime I hear "I want a warrior/Mage build". These requests don't usually mean "build" so much as "fight like a warrior/cast like a mage". This is an existing option in the Pathfinder system. It isn't, however, something that pays off instantly, but something to work towards. And more than likely you will need to sacrifice something to reach it. Usually time.

What I meant by my MTV statement was the "I want it NOW!" arguement that I hear almost everytime this is brought up. The system itself has no plans to include anything else along these lines. So to be honest, for those who don't want to wait, there is the Bard, or those who can wait a few levels there is the Eldritch knight, which can be a few combinations of martial and arcane classes.

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

There are already a few options in WotC books for a fighter/wizard type base class (I really hate using the word "gish" for anything but a githyanki fighter wizard), and those options remain compatible for play in the Pathfinder RPG.

We probably WON'T make a class like this though, since a full on fighter/wizard type base class would destroy the niches already inhabited by the fighter and the wizard, for one, and would also really hurt the niches provided by classes like the bard.

There are a few prestige class options to handle this class combo already (eldritch knight, dragon disciple, arcane archer), but as for base classes the bard is pretty much it—a class that combines some elements of combat (relatively good weapon selection and armor wearing) and limited spellcasting. The Advanced Player's Guide is going to introduce (among other things) many new bard spells that will help define the class's role; spells that work well in combat to aid a swashbuckling style of fighting, for example.

But we have no plans to do something like the duskblade.

Those options are all decent, but they are lacking. Bard has the singing and dancing silliness as I stated before, and the Eldritch Knight and Dragon Disciple PrCs have the issue of leaning much further towards the caster side of things.

The Arcane Archer is a great example of a Fighter/Mage type, but is very restricted on entry, and is (obviously) more focused on Archery.

What is lacking is a Fighter/Mage type of class, be is Base or Prestige, that leans more heavily towards the martial side of the deal, something to parallel the Ranger or Paladin, but with an Arcane bent as opposed to the Divine. Of course, as the Paladin smites evil and has a bit of healing and protection, and the Ranger gets some cool Favored Enemy/Terrain bonuses and an Animal Companion, some thematic powers and abilities could be added to give it a lot of flavor.

I don't think these types of requests/questions will be going awy anytime soon if we DON'T see something along these lines - the Fighter/Mage is far too iconic to be left out in the cold altogether.

[seekerofshadowlight]

A Man In Black wrote:

Most people would like their character to be doing level-appropriate things at every level, rather than doing Sudoku in combat for 9 levels. The whole point of a level system is that each character is contributing in a level-appropriate way.

See 0th level class from 3.0 would be killer here. I allow it(had to upgrade it) so at level 1 you can be a fighter/mage 0/0. Sure your not as good as a 1st level fighter or a 1st level wizard and you must level wizard/fighter like normal until you can take EK however you get to start as a fighter/mage from day 1

I miss this and really wish they would put it in the AGP it only takes 2 pages max, you could fit it on one

[James Jacobs]

This is a very good interpretation of our design philosophy, in fact. It's not good game design to let a character contribute to a party everything that two different classes can contribute. A class that casts spells as a wizard by has the fighter's combat abilities would result in no need ever for a fighter or a wizard, and that'd basically waste and disrespect all the work that went into building the fighter and the wizard.

Instead, if you want to be a fighter/wizard, you have to sacrifice something. And that something is basically a delay to your abilities.

Think of classes as cups. As you gain experience, you fill your class (cup) with powers (delicious chocolate milk or orange juice, say). If you want to have TWO flavors, you have to mix it up. If the single classed character gets six ounces of drink, the multiclass one has to split his six ounces so he gets, say, three ounces of chocolate milk and three of orange juice. And in some cases, mixing those flavors creates something distasteful or gross.

Having a class that lets you have equal amounts of chocolate milk and orange juice in the cup at the same time AND that keeps both flavors equally delicious is not balanced game design, and it's not something Paizo's interested in doing.

[Balor]

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

[A Man In Black]

Netromancer wrote:

You'll have to forgive me if I roll my eyes a bit everytime I hear "I want a warrior/Mage build". These requests don't usually mean "build" so much as "fight like a warrior/cast like a mage". This is an existing option in the Pathfinder system. It isn't, however, something that pays off instantly, but something to work towards. And more than likely you will need to sacrifice something to reach it. Usually time.

What I meant by my MTV statement was the "I want it NOW!" arguement that I hear almost everytime this is brought up. The system itself has no plans to include anything else along these lines. So to be honest, for those who don't want to wait, there is the Bard, or those who can wait a few levels there is the Eldritch knight, which can be a few combinations of martial and arcane classes.

No, it doesn't work. There's no build that gives you a capable melee character who supplements their martial abilities with arcane magical ones in a level-appropriate way except at a very narrow level range specific to that build. And sitting on your thumb until (or worse, after) you hit that level range isn't very fun, and this is a game.

And it's not like you can't make a class that does this, because PF core already has a capable melee class that supplements their martial abilities with divine magical ones in a level-appropriate way. Two classes, in fact, and arguably three.

Since the EK doesn't work to accomplish the stated goal at all, it's not really a solution to what is being asked for, at any level, and pretending that impatience is the problem just makes you look silly.

James Jacobs wrote:

This is a very good interpretation of our design philosophy, in fact. It's not good game design to let a character contribute to a party everything that two different classes can contribute. A class that casts spells as a wizard by has the fighter's combat abilities would result in no need ever for a fighter or a wizard, and that'd basically waste and disrespect all the work that went into building the fighter and the wizard.

But what about the cleric? We have a perfectly reasonable class that does something like the OP is asking for, so it's not like the concept is inherently broken. He's asking for a martial character who supplements their martial abilities with arcane magic in a level-appropriate way, and we totally already have a core PF class that supplements martial abilities with divine magic in a level-appropriate way.

An arcane/martial gish base class could easily be slotted into either the fighter's or the cleric's slot in a party if properly designed, rather than being inherently a two-slot concept.

[Netromancer]

I agree whole heartedly. It's not like you "can't" make a warrior/mage class. But as we just read, it's not something Paizo is doing. If you want to stick to Pathfinder rules, it is what it is. If you want to add other systems, by all means do so. I'm just pointing out what's in the core rulebook for the fighter/mage. You don't have to like it. I however, do.

[James Jacobs]

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

Actually... the Pathfinder game supports a figher/wizard or fighter/sorcerer option a LOT better than a fighter/cleric option, as there's not really an "eldritch knight" or "arcane archer" type class for divine spellcasters.

But since a cleric's combat power is already pretty good, there's less of a need for it. A fighter/cleric only needs one or two or a few levels of fighter overall; they do quite well without making it an even split between levels.

And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.

[SirUrza]

I was ALWAYS unhappy with how the Bladesinger turned out in 3.x

The concept of a graceful sword wielding spellcaster is much most desirable then an arcane paladin to me. And I don't mean dancing graceful, I mean elven graceful. :P

[A Man In Black]

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

Actually... the Pathfinder game supports a figher/wizard or fighter/sorcerer option a LOT better than a fighter/cleric option, as there's not really an "eldritch knight" or "arcane archer" type class for divine spellcasters.

The point is that a paladin is a fighter/cleric, and that you can totally take "martial class with divine flavor" and make it a separate and unique base class.

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

Instead, if you want to be a fighter/wizard, you have to sacrifice something. And that something is basically a delay to your abilities.

I wholeheartedly agree on this concept, I just disagree with your thought that the Bard, Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, or Arcane Archer cover the entirety of the Fighter/mage concept in the same manner as the Paladin or Ranger cover the old Fighter/Cleric theme.

[seekerofshadowlight]

A Man In Black wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

Actually... the Pathfinder game supports a figher/wizard or fighter/sorcerer option a LOT better than a fighter/cleric option, as there's not really an "eldritch knight" or "arcane archer" type class for divine spellcasters.

The point is that a paladin is a fighter/cleric, and that you can totally take "martial class with divine flavor" and make it a separate and unique base class.

Yeah but he casts 4th level spells. Really I have seen a few people want all the power of a wizard and all the power of a fighter. I agree thats a bit much.

[James Jacobs]

A Man In Black wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

Actually... the Pathfinder game supports a figher/wizard or fighter/sorcerer option a LOT better than a fighter/cleric option, as there's not really an "eldritch knight" or "arcane archer" type class for divine spellcasters.

The point is that a paladin is a fighter/cleric, and that you can totally take "martial class with divine flavor" and make it a separate and unique base class.

Ah, I agree. But a paladin doesn't get all of the cleric spells; she gets a relatively small fraction of them. We could certainly build some sort of "arcane fighter" that follows the paladin or ranger's use of spells, but such a class would, like those classes, not get much in the way of spells, and if I'm understanding the point of this discussion, that'd be a major disappointment for folks looking for a class that can excel at fighting and casting high level stuff like chain lightning.

[A Man In Black]

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Yeah but he casts 4th level spells. Really I have seen a few people want all the power of a wizard and all the power of a fighter. I agree thats a bit much.

Well, you can beat up that strawman all you like, but since the OP wasn't asking for that and nobody but I think James Jacobs was suggesting that anyone was asking for that, I don't really think it's relevant. And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that.

James Jacobs wrote:

Ah, I agree. But a paladin doesn't get all of the cleric spells; she gets a relatively small fraction of them. We could certainly build some sort of "arcane fighter" that follows the paladin or ranger's use of spells, but such a class would, like those classes, not get much in the way of spells, and if I'm understanding the point of this discussion, that'd be a major disappointment for folks looking for a class that can excel at fighting and casting high level stuff like chain lightning.

There are lots of niches and approaches for this concept. The paladin/ranger, bard, and cleric are all places to start, since they all have very different approaches to problem solving but all are "melee with a magical schtick". Soulknife, duskblade, psywarrior, hexblade, wildshape ranger, paladin, regular ranger, druid, CW samurai, and cleric are all good things to look at, to consider how they succeed and how they fail.

It's not reasonable to have a character who throws Chain Lightning and fights with swords not because that's overpowered; power is an easy slider to adjust, relatively. Instead, it's not reasonable because those are two conflicting schticks; they're things you can't reasonably do at the same time. (Nevermind that PF core has a character who throws holy fireballs and fights with maces.) While it be throwing chain lightning as their main combat schtick because that's not in any sense a martial thing to do, what's wrong with a class that, say, fires off Chain Lightning when they crit? Or a martial class that uses weapons made of lightning? Or a character who teleports around the battle to set up melee by turning into chain lightning?

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.

Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.

A Man In Black wrote:

The point is that a paladin is a fighter/cleric, and that you can totally take "martial class with divine flavor" and make it a separate and unique base class.

Very well said, and is definitely the point I am getting at as well.

I think the problem, James, is that when you see people asking for a Fighter/Mage or "Gish" option, you immediately conjure thoughts of a 3.5 Abjurant Cheese or somesuch monstrosity that ends up with +18-19 base attack bonus and 9th level spells.

I don't think that that is what we are asking for at all. Ranger or Paladin spell progression with a limited selection of Arcane spells would be perfect. Something akin to the Bard BAB and Spell progression would work very nicely as well, as long as it came with it's own thematic class-specific extras, and not the Performance and Bardic Knowledge stuff.

[James Jacobs]

Moro wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Instead, if you want to be a fighter/wizard, you have to sacrifice something. And that something is basically a delay to your abilities.

I wholeheartedly agree on this concept, I just disagree with your thought that the Bard, Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, or Arcane Archer cover the entirety of the Fighter/mage concept in the same manner as the Paladin or Ranger cover the old Fighter/Cleric theme.

I think that the bard, eldritch knight, etc. give their associated multiclass options MORE power and options than a paladin or ranger does for a fighter/cleric or fighter/druid. The spells that paladins and rangers get are more akin to flavor and minor class abilities. Their spellcasting doesn't DEFINE the class the way a truly multiclassed spellcaster's powers are defined by a combination of spellcasting and fighting.

[James Jacobs]

Moro wrote:

Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.

So make a bard who's a storyteller or a military commander who enables his bardic performances via Perform (oratory). Problem solved.

If folks are indeed asking for an arcane ranger or something like that, then I think that it's only a matter of time before we build a base class along those lines. In my experience, though, this is NOT what folks are asking for. They're looking back at how multiclassing worked in 1st or 2nd edition and wanting something like that, which works more like how Unearthed Arcana's gestalt classes worked. And that option is so cheesy and invalidates so much of the balance and design work we've done and the 3rd edition designers have done that I'm just very very very opposed to the idea, really.

But yeah, the concept of an "arcane ranger" is pretty compelling.

ALSO: Some of us (particularly editors in chief) really really like bards, and get bristly when folks call them "Crap" and the like. Just sayin'. :P

[King of Vrock]

Moro wrote:

I think the problem, James, is that when you see people asking for a Fighter/Mage or "Gish" option, you immediately conjure thoughts of a 3.5 Abjurant Cheese or somesuch monstrosity that ends up with +18-19 base attack bonus and 9th level spells.

That's exactly what Man In Black asked for in the post above yours! LOL!

--Vrocking strong mints!

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

Moro wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Instead, if you want to be a fighter/wizard, you have to sacrifice something. And that something is basically a delay to your abilities.

I wholeheartedly agree on this concept, I just disagree with your thought that the Bard, Eldritch Knight, Dragon Disciple, or Arcane Archer cover the entirety of the Fighter/mage concept in the same manner as the Paladin or Ranger cover the old Fighter/Cleric theme.

I think that the bard, eldritch knight, etc. give their associated multiclass options MORE power and options than a paladin or ranger does for a fighter/cleric or fighter/druid. The spells that paladins and rangers get are more akin to flavor and minor class abilities. Their spellcasting doesn't DEFINE the class the way a truly multiclassed spellcaster's powers are defined by a combination of spellcasting and fighting.

I see what you are saying, and I can see how the Bard can be fashioned to fit that niche, but as I said above (in an edit, I apologize) I, and I would imagine many of the others who are constantly asking for this type of class, would be perfectly happy with a class that has Bard-style progression options, but some flavorful extras that fit more of the classic Fighter/Mage theme.

[A Man In Black]

King of Vrock wrote:

Moro wrote:

I think the problem, James, is that when you see people asking for a Fighter/Mage or "Gish" option, you immediately conjure thoughts of a 3.5 Abjurant Cheese or somesuch monstrosity that ends up with +18-19 base attack bonus and 9th level spells.

That's exactly what Man In Black asked for in the post above yours! LOL!

"And it's not even broken to have a class with, say, a full nine levels of spellcasting, plus good BAB, HP, and proficiencies, with extra abilities on top of that." So you've never played a cleric or a druid, then, huh.

The point is that an arcane cleric wouldn't be inherently broken, so when you're making a martial class with real arcane spellcasting it doesn't necessarily need to have the martial and spellcasting sliders turned down as far as they are on a bard.

[James Jacobs]

Moro wrote:

I see what you are saying, and I can see how the Bard can be fashioned to fit that niche, but as I said above (in an edit, I apologize) I, and I would imagine many of the others who are constantly asking for this type of class, would be perfectly happy with a class that has Bard-style progression options, but some flavorful extras that fit more of the classic Fighter/Mage theme.

Well then! I suspect that they'll probably be pretty happy with some of the variant bard class abilities and stuff we'll be doing in Advanced Player's Guide. I can't say much about them now, of course... but stay tuned!

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

Moro wrote:

Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.

ALSO: Some of us (particularly editors in chief) really really like bards, and get bristly when folks call them "Crap" and the like. Just sayin'. :P

I'm just troll...er, pushing buttons with comments along those lines. I actually very much like what you've done with the Bard class; it is an awesome support class and buffing beast, and I mourn mine that perished in our game 2 or 3 sessions ago.

However I feel that trying to fit the idea of the good old Fighter/Mage archetype into a Bard character is like trying to squeeze the proverbial square peg into the round hole.

[Moro]

James Jacobs wrote:

Moro wrote:

I see what you are saying, and I can see how the Bard can be fashioned to fit that niche, but as I said above (in an edit, I apologize) I, and I would imagine many of the others who are constantly asking for this type of class, would be perfectly happy with a class that has Bard-style progression options, but some flavorful extras that fit more of the classic Fighter/Mage theme.

Well then! I suspect that they'll probably be pretty happy with some of the variant bard class abilities and stuff we'll be doing in Advanced Player's Guide. I can't say much about them now, of course... but stay tuned!

I look forward to it, though I must admit I am skeptical. If you are completely rearranging the class skill list and rebuilding the abilities for more of a martial arcane caster theme to the degree I am hoping for, why even call it a variant Bard instead of making it it's own base class?

On a side note, I would like to say that it is indeed truly awesome to see a forum like this where you can speak directly to the Editor-In-Chief, and not only know your requests are being heard, but receive feedback in this manner.

And on a Sunday afternoon no less! Thank you very much!

[James Jacobs]

Moro wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Moro wrote:

Blech, Bards. No singing and/or dancing crap, please.

ALSO: Some of us (particularly editors in chief) really really like bards, and get bristly when folks call them "Crap" and the like. Just sayin'. :P

I'm just troll...er, pushing buttons with comments along those lines. I actually very much like what you've done with the Bard class; it is an awesome support class and buffing beast, and I mourn mine that perished in our game 2 or 3 sessions ago.

However I feel that trying to fit the idea of the good old Fighter/Mage archetype into a Bard character is like trying to squeeze the proverbial square peg into the round hole.

I obviously disagree. If you said, "a fighter/mage who specializes in flashy fireball type spells or a fighter/necromancer," then yeah. But a fighter/mage who specializes in illusions or enchantments? The bard fits the bill quite well. And if all it takes to make the bard fit the bill even better is to do some variants to the spell list... that's an attractive option as well.

But yeah; a bard who focuses on spells like confusion and domination and charm and mirror image and invisibility and the like makes for a pretty good combat menace. They don't HAVE to sit in the background buffing their allies and supporting their friends.

[James Jacobs]

Moro wrote:

And on a Sunday afternoon no less! Thank you very much!

GAH! It IS already afternoon! I gotta get rolling and working on some freelance work!

[Aelryinth]

The classic test of Gish-dom, from the CO boards at WotC, is +16 BAB (ergo, 4 attacks) and 9th level spells by level 20.

This is why the one person wants a Gish class with full BAB. He doesn't need all the extras from the other Melee classes...he just wants the attacks. He can take care of the rest with buffs that increase his Str to the stratosphere,using his unlimited spell selection.

Really, you could swap out the bard's music for some fixed benefits, design a short spell list, and you've got a very workable fighter/wizard.

In no way should any class getting higher then level 4 spells EVER get Full BAB. Full BAB is the rightful domain of those classes that do not get spellcasting (i.e., my Duskblade revision has 3/4 BAB as is proper for his casting ability). Spellcasters get SPELLCASTING. Non-spellcasters get Full BAB. It may only be +1 to +5 over 20 levels, but it is theirs and it should be theirs alone. That 4th attack may almost never land, but it IS a 4th attack, by gum!

It's also another reason why I believe multiple attacks should be a class feature, and not a function of BAB. Stops this silliness right in its tracks.

Note that a considerable amount of thought went into the later 'blend' classes, and their power is muchly restricted because of their limited spell lists. It should come as no suprise that by spell list alone, mages are still the #1 'power' class, with clerics right below them because of their full casting ability. All classes with restricted spell lists, lesser casting ability, etc, wind down the ranks, with those without useful spellcasting tending to stick down at the bottom.

If you truly want a gish class, strip the bard of everything but casting in armor. give him martial weapons. give him the arcane spell list through level 6. And you're DONE. You've got a marvelous gish basis, who's subpar in both melee and magic, but he can perform either job, and he can still BUFF. Only now, it's a neccessity to perform the Melee role, instead of merely an option.

I'd direct you to the psychic warrior, but they have limited psi powers, not the whole list...and really, they shouldn't be getting bonus feats, either. Psi Powers more then make up for the three feats they lose vs. taking a straight fighter, I'm sure you'd agree. Actually, I'm pretty sure their psi powers make up for ALL the bonus feats a fighter gets, and then some.

===Aelryinth

[Epic Meepo]

James Jacobs wrote:

But a paladin doesn't get all of the cleric spells; she gets a relatively small fraction of them. We could certainly build some sort of "arcane fighter" that follows the paladin or ranger's use of spells, but such a class would, like those classes, not get much in the way of spells, and if I'm understanding the point of this discussion, that'd be a major disappointment...

I think you've misunderstood the OP's point. He wants a full warrior with a small selection of arcane spells, not a gestalt fighter/wizard.

Full BAB + a handful of cleric spells = paladin
Full BAB + a handful of druid spells = ranger
Full BAB + a handful of arcane spells = ???

Bards, arcane archers, and eldritch knights don't have the option of selecting an even more limited spell list in exchange for a full BAB, and therefore fail to fill the niche the OP is looking to fill. As I understand it, the OP wants a duskblade or hexblade analogue for PFS play. Something using the paladin/ranger BAB and spell progression, with a few supernatural abilities thrown in on the first few levels (a la the paladin) to give it a slighty magical flavor from the start.

[A Man In Black]

James Jacobs wrote:

I obviously disagree. If you said, "a fighter/mage who specializes in flashy fireball type spells or a fighter/necromancer," then yeah. But a fighter/mage who specializes in illusions or enchantments? The bard fits the bill quite well. And if all it takes to make the bard fit the bill even better is to do some variants to the spell list... that's an attractive option as well.

The bard has the classic fighter/mage problem of two different conflicting schticks, though, assuming you concede that its melee abilities are even a schtick. Bards have no "enchanting strike" or "illusory attack"; they simply can cast an illusion or hit a dude with a sword.

The reason the bard is a bad gish class is because the goal is not to have a caster who can also stab dudes, but a class where you stab dudes magically. There are lots of different takes on what it means to stab people magically, but it doesn't mean "Okay, this turn do I spell a dude or stab a dude?"

Quote:

But yeah; a bard who focuses on spells like confusion and domination and charm and mirror image and invisibility and the like makes for a pretty good combat menace. They don't HAVE to sit in the background buffing their allies and supporting their friends.

Casting Confusion, Dominate whatever, or Charm is standing in the background. You can do it in the front line, but it's something you do instead of melee.

[Balor]

James Jacobs wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Balor wrote:

So it's okay to create a "fighter/cleric" hybrid, but not a "fighter/mage"? Paladins are okay, but duskblades are overpowered? That makes sense how? What I would like to see is an Arcane version of a Paladin that I can take as a base class.

Actually... the Pathfinder game supports a figher/wizard or fighter/sorcerer option a LOT better than a fighter/cleric option, as there's not really an "eldritch knight" or "arcane archer" type class for divine spellcasters.

The point is that a paladin is a fighter/cleric, and that you can totally take "martial class with divine flavor" and make it a separate and unique base class.

Ah, I agree. But a paladin doesn't get all of the cleric spells; she gets a relatively small fraction of them. We could certainly build some sort of "arcane fighter" that follows the paladin or ranger's use of spells, but such a class would, like those classes, not get much in the way of spells, and if I'm understanding the point of this discussion, that'd be a major disappointment for folks looking for a class that can excel at fighting and casting high level stuff like chain lightning.

That would be exactly what I am looking for. If you look at the original Duskblade class, it gets to learn 1 apell per level from a list that is far more limited than either ranger or paladin, and only gets up to 5th level spells. As is, the duskblade would be underpowered in comparison to the paladin or ranger in Pathfinder.

You are probably correct, James, in that this would be a major disappointment to many players looking for a "gish-type" (BTW, I hate that phrase too.) Personally, I am looking for a base-class "Arcane Warrior" paladin equivalent. I completely understand that they couldn't be full casters and full fighters. But Paladins get Heavy armor, full BAB, and a host of other abilities at the expense of full casting and fighter bonus feats.

Yes, there are many ways to go once you open up into prestige classes. Some of the prestige classes have extreme balance issues (abjurant champion, anyone?). And Bard isn't fighter/mage. It's Fighter/mage/rogue with some healing ability.

You could even directly translate some of the Paladin Abilities into Arcane abilities. Detect Magic instead of Detect Evil, Arcane bond working like Divine bond, being able to imbue a bonded weapon. Channel touch spells instead of smite evil . . .

Anyways, that's my two cents. I will say that this is not meant as an attack. For the most part I have been extremely pleased with Paizo and Pathfinder, particularly in the willingness to listen and respond to suggestions.

Thank you.

[SirUrza]

James Jacobs wrote:

If folks are indeed asking for an arcane ranger or something like that, then I think that it's only a matter of time before we build a base class along those lines. In my experience, though, this is NOT what folks are asking for.

It's kinda what I'm asking for.. though to be honest I'm thinking more along the lines of an arcane swashbuckler.

[MerrikCale]

KnightErrantJR wrote:

I'm just not a big fan of making a base class out of something that is pretty much the reason multi-classing, and at least two PrCs, exist. That's all I'll say on the topic, as I respect that others have different preferences.

I agree which is why Monte Cook's runeblade makes a lot of sense. The character is martial and uses runes engraved on the blade to produce different spell like effects.

Its not just a fighter with a spell book