Myself I would look at the bard. Medium BAB/d8 HD, small spell list capped at level 6 or maybe 5, class ablitys that boost himself or the group
Seems like a good start to me
...So. We've had a bit of heated discussion lately about what a gish character should be and should be able to do. In particular, James Jacobs has weighed in, with comments including...
** spoiler omitted **
I think the important thing to remember is that a character like this isn't a fighter or a wizard. I really liked the concept of the 3.5 warlock.
A character who learns to incorporate magic in his fighting style can be built different ways. In pathfinder I would use the paladin/ranger spellcasting and class abilities as my benchmark.
I would add at least one, probably multiples, of the following mechanics
1)Arcane strike, full BAB, Full caster level, slow spell progression, limited spell list.
2) The ability to either drop spell slots to increase abilities, skills, attack/damage, defenses, etc.
3) The ability to incorporate spells into physical attacks i.e. imbue arrow, but not the only area spells nonsense
4) The ability to cast in armor without spell failure, either via an automatic still spell ability, or the spellcasting somatic component is the strike.
Obviously it should not get arcane bonds and bonus feats like a wizard, or fighter bonus feats and weapon/armor training like a fighter, so it isn't just a superior choice.
There's probably lots of other great ideas out there, these are some that I like.
I have, the bard is a good starting point.I did not say bard. What I said was the class was a good starting point
You use the bards BAB/HD and spell progression. Redue the spell list , opeing up most of the wizard/sorcer list or maybe just 2 or 3 schools
Give him self boosting or group buffing ablitys. Open up his weapons selection , give him better armor casting as he level
Myself I think thats a good starting point. He should not be as good at fighting as a fighter nor as good at casting as a wizard/sorcerer but should hit a middle ground
Myself I think thats a good starting point. He should not be as good at fighting as a fighter nor as good at casting as a wizard/sorcerer but should hit a middle groundSo your concept of a gish is a guy who's half a fighter and half a wizard? Why?
As I find a full caster with full fighter to be to much. I played a gestalt game once. Not again
You want to master 2 different fields of study your never gonna be as good as the guy who spends his time on one field
A wizard will always be more skilled and more powerful at his magic then you, and a fighter will always be more battle savy then you. You will however have both skills to call upon
But what is his job? Is he a fighter that gets his damage from spells? Is he a wizard that focuses on melee range spells? What sets him apart from other classes? Why did he give up bonus feats for spellcasting? Why limit his spellcasting to be sturdier in melee?
I don't know.. because he's awesome?
I would say that it's most likely because if he gets full BAB, full wizard spell progression, full fighter and wizard class abilities and bonus feats he's now called gestalt.
A fish you say?
A magic fighter can have his own role but that was not what you asked. You asked how would we build such a class. I told you. Class ablitys are for fleshing out his role
Not sure what your asking. How he does not step on toes is not being as good as either in there role. I gave ideals of self and group buffing you seemed not to like that
It seems your asking "How do I make a full fighter and get to be a full arcane caster to" If thats not what your asking sorry, but you seem to except nothing but full BAB and full casting and that's not something a mixed role class should have
Ftr/Sor/Eldritch Knighte is gish enough for me...
otherwise I'd go with a gestalt class.
How about "In combat a Knight Arcane utilizes his bonded weapon, one he forged as an apprentice and has grown in power with him, to sunder mystical defenses of foes." His arcane abilities are designed to strike and penetrate protective magics that limit a warrior's effectiveness, and his martial abilities bypass that bothersome spell resistance.
|
In combat, a gish casts spells and stabs shit.
The gish is not as awe inspiringly skilled as the fighter in combat without his spells.
The gish's spells are not as varied as the straight wizard's either. What they are is maximized benefit for minimal energy expended.
Think about it this way: in our world phyisics is magic. You can throw a grenade or drop a bomb; that's the wizard.
You can stab them with a bayonet; that's a fighter.
Or you can krav maga the shit out of somebody. That's a gish.
To reflect this, take a 5th level wizard: fireball.
A fifth level fighter can pow atk/cleave/ all that good stuff.
A fifth level gish hypothetically can cast magic missile in new and f!~&ed up ways. He can possibly:
1) stab another guy in the hand with his magic missile, making him drop his sword; perhaps a magic sunder role; a mystic cmb/cmd; I.D.K.
2) stab another guy in the shoulder breaking his collarbone with a magic missile, thus making him lose his shield bonus to a.c., then close with him with his sword out...
He's extremely good at using a limited number of low level spells in combat situations that a wizard can't understand because the wizard hasn't been in a fistfight since Bob the Fighter beat him up and took his lunch money when they were kids.
However, he can't summon a pack of wolves or change metal into jello; that's entirely too esoteric.
Try this."In combat, [class] [does stuff]."
What do you think good values of [does stuff] are for a gish? Why?
Again I explained this in the first post.He fights, uses a select grou[p of spells and some buffing ablitys
Not sure a fish however, it should stay in the water and swim though
|
|
I think that could be one flavor of gish. I guess it's just a more metaphysical way of stabbing dudes. He stabs them with magic. He stabs them with swords. Minimum energy for maximum damage.
Just off the top of my head; magic missile, mage armor, shocking grasp with a cherry on top that the wizard doesn't necessarily get on his banana split.
It's not what Elric did per se, though I think he might've been something of a guy in a monty haul campaign.
In combat, a gish casts spells and stabs s!*!.What kind of spells, and how does that go with stabbing dudes?
From the rest of your post, would it be an accurate summary to say "A Heathansson gish creates magical effects that do swordy stuff"?
Example 1 level 20 fighter
stab, stab, stab, stab, stab assuming two handed and hasteexample 2 level 20 wizard
energy drain, 2d4 -levels
example 3 level 20 !Sword mage
Imbue sword as a swift action(enervation)
stab -1d4 levels, stab -1d4 levels, stab -1d4 levels, stab -1d4 levels, stab -1d4 levels assuming two-handed and haste
example 4 level 20 !Sword mage
Drop a level 4 spell as a swift action, add 4 to all attack rolls and 4d6 damage to all damage rolls for one round
example 5 level 20 !Sword mage
Mirrored swordmaster(su) as a full round action, the !sword mage splits as in the mirror image spell. You may make one melee attack against every opponent within 30 feet up to a maximum of your !sword mage level.
Spells or SU/SLA's are really what makes the gish I think.
They should probably have some utility magic but I would limit it to self only, not the mass spells, but then that could be an entirely other gish class's primary purpose.
|
|
I think that could be one flavor of gish. I guess it's just a more metaphysical way of stabbing dudes. He stabs them with magic. He stabs them with swords. Minimum energy for maximum damage.
Just off the top of my head; magic missile, mage armor, shocking grasp with a cherry on top that the wizard doesn't necessarily get on his banana split.
It's not what Elric did per se, though I think he might've been something of a guy in a monty haul campaign.
I think I'll call him a "dusklock." SHEESH!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RoleMaster called these people "semi-spellcasters", which sounds a little more elegant that Gish, a term I associate with Githyanki and, well, fish.
I think a full-bore martial class needs to be versatile in combat. A fighter should be competent in archery and hand-to-hand, or in both two-weapon fighting and mounted jousting.
I think a full-bore spellcaster needs to be versatile in combat. A wizard needs to be able to cast a wide variety of spells: offense, defense, movement, and non-combat.
I think a semi-spellcaster needs to be able to combine her fighting and magic in some way. She should be versatile in combat if she's not quite as good as the martial characters. Or else she should be able to stand toe-to-toe with them in one field but be hapless in others.
The Bard is a good example.
So is the Beguiler.
So is the Spellthief.
The Duskblade and Warmage are effective in combat, but not versatile. The Binder and Factotum are versatile, but not effective in combat.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Can you define "versatile in combat" and "effective in combat" in this context? Because I'm having difficulty coming up with a definition of "versatile in combat" that includes the spellthief (who stabs dudes from flanking; less versatile than even the rogue), or a definition of "effective in combat" that includes the warmage (doing Xd6 damage with spells, generally less damage than even a martial archer) but not the factotum.Continuing on this theme, why does a gish inherently need to impinge on both the wizard and fighter at the same time? Is a character who does only fighter stuff but with magical special effects not a gish? Is a character who casts spells from the back by waving a sword around not a gish?
"Versatile in combat" would mean "able to handle more than one style of combat situation." The spellthief stabs people, steals the magical powers away from supernatural foes, and hangs in the back to cast web she borrows from her ally sorcerer.
"Effective in combat" means "doing about as much damage per round as a fighter." A 3rd-level Warmage with a dwoemered greatsword, the whirling blade spell and a decent Intelligence can deliver 2d6+9 damage to every foe in a 60' line.
If you want to turn this into a debate regarding the pros and cons of 3.5 classes, I'm not interested in that discussion.
Why does everyone keep talking about fish?? I thought we was talking about arcane fighter types not fish
I thought we had this out ages ago. After several score bad puns in a thread, we banished gish from the lexicon when not used of gith.
because gish is completely correct...it's a Githyanki Fighter/Magic-User level 4/4 from the original Fiend Folio, said meaning imported into the Char Opts boards.
In 3E, it basically means the guy who can do a fighter's job equally as well as a wizard's job. Which, quite properly, should be designed so that it CANNOT happen, actually.
"Gosh" is the sarcastic term for a divine version of this. A play on both God and Gish, of course.
I prefer writing Gish to writing '+16 BAB 9th level spells combo multiclasser' or anything similar.
I also think how it's wonderful that a throwoff term from way back in AD&D has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, James, it's just too damn cool to see an invented word take on its own meaning.
In my personal view, a Gish 'class' would be one that has level 20 spellcasting power, 6th level spells, and Medium BAB. Anything else is fluff and additional. Any attempt to do better then those base effects by multiclassing should be shut down, hard.
With level 6 spells, you can get spells that more then make up for your lack of +5 BAB...and you will be required to use them. you also get caster level and the marvelous utility of being a spellcaster.
You want the best of both? Tough.
I think the bard chassis is a perfect gish chassis. Tweak the spell list and some of the level abilities, and you're doing fine. Actually, you could probably take away ALL the per level stuff and just give them the full arcane list, and you'd have a solid gish.
==Aelryinth
Okay, to get this a bit back on track, how does the Duskblade shape up, in your opinion? I've always been rather fond of the gish concept myself, and the duskblade looks fairly sound on paper, but unfortunately, I've never had the chance to actually play one.
===
Duskblade shapes up well. proper attention to feats is crucial, as his power is largely offense, not defense, and you've got to be able to hit things securely. Your spells will take care of offense, focus on getting your weapon bonus and TH ability up, and your cash on your AC, and the Duskblade does marvelously. Empower, Energize, Quicken, and a Arcane Thesis can really make your damage take off, too. mix with true striking power attacks, and Duskblades do marvelously.===Aelryinth
A problem I see in fighters is that their list of options in combat consist of "make attack roll(s), roll damage" (CMBs are explicitly subpar). Meanwhile, wizards have options to do pretty much anything except heal and buff to a large degree, at the cost of having to constantly plan during each session (as opposed to the fighter who only does it once per level). If I were to be descriptive, one is Batman's utility belt, another is Steel's hammer.
But that's sliding into off-topic territory. Gish has become the term many envision differently such that you're not going to ever come to a universal consensus as to exactly how they should be portrayed. It can be simplified to mean someone who fights like a fighter (armor and sword) while retaining arcane spells, with a common expectation of it being in a setting where the two roles are commonly segregated.
A few would be satisfied if the gish was functionally identical to the fighter, but given a 'mystic' air about it. Others need to see an actual spell list, with the iconic wizard spells appearing on the list (fireball, magic missile, etc).
A while back I attempted to make my own gish variant, using the idea that I'd just have work similarly to the difference between a wizard and a fighter at first level and keeping the absolute difference the same through all 20 levels. Aka, a few points behind the fighter, and ~2 offensive spells per day that are as powerful as what any wizard could throw at the same level.
Ah, I see trolling with moronic nonsense is a-okay. If you don't like the thread, there are lots of them in which to post instead of posting garbage.
sorry about that but every time you guys says that word I hear"fish" I so hate that word, I really do
Anyhow sorry to derail
Adding bard spells would easily put the bard "over the threshold" in terms of melee/ranged combat power. One of the core problems with the bard list is that it's missing damage output options. I'm not talking direct damage; something to just up the bard's individual damage contribution.
What 5th level spell are you taking bard using PF core that increases the bard's damage output? Sure, you could take greater heroism, but why not cast it on the fighter? The *bard* needs spells that help him out. Buffing the party is nice and all, but buffs alone don't kill bad guys.
What about 3rd level spells? Haste, ok. . . but that's practically a ubiquitous spell for bards as a *group buff*. Where's the spell that directly increases just the bard's damage output? Is the bard alone not allowed to do damage?
The sonic weapon spell in the Spell Compendium was a massive spell in that it added damage output to either the bard or a party member. It was the most reliable 2nd level damage output spell. . . and again, why wouldn't you cast it on the fighter? Core PF/3.5 doesn't even have that option.
1st level spells - no damage output at all
2nd level spells - no individual damage output spell minus heroism (why not cast on the fighter instead?)
3rd level spells - no individual damage output spell
4th level spells - no individual damage output spell minus improved invisibility (why not cast on the rogue?). Shout is a crap damage output option at this level.
5th level spells - no individual damage output spell minus greater heroism (why not cast on the fighter instead?)
6th level spells - greater shout is the best damage output option, but with crappy DCs why would you bother?
If bards would get at least 1-2 real options per level, they'd quickly become the "gish" class. And by "option", I mean a spell that is bard-only that lets a bard do something neat/nifty in combat to increase individual damage output without saves (bard DCs are too crappy to matter). That's not too out of flavor I think.
I'm looking for simple character concepts that people would actually want to play, and then worrying about how to make them playable afterward.
I'm completely clueless with D&D terminology and nearly so wrt rules so this may be way off base. Nonetheless, the one time I tried to play something similar to what I think people mean by Gish (although it wasnt in D&D as it happens) was a fighter who cast minor magic spells to annoy his opponents, could wear armor while doing so and did most of his magic behind the scenes - enchanting his weapons and armor, scrying, mystic warding and that kind of thing. It was in rolemaster rather than D&D but that would be a list of things I could imagine filling a niche:
A fighter who didnt need to rely on someone else to enchant his stuff and do other out-of-combat arcane services.
A mage who could wear armor and defend themselves in combat - fighting moderately well, even if not matching up to a true fighter.
I would like to play this kind of character, however not in terms of "producing a maximally effective party". In terms of optimisation, you'll always be better (I think) making one mage and one fighter than two mage/fighters - that's why your heart specialist knows next to nothing about your rheumatoid arthritis. Specialisation in a world of relatively low cost trade is always better and a party which cooperates the way adventuring parties tend to is a very good example of free trade.
|
To me, a gish is just a vanilla fighter/wizard. However, his dual abilities allow the pure fighter or the pure wizard to further do their jobs better.
Oh look, here's some orcs that the fighter shouldn't waste time fighting because there's a enlarged orc barbarian champion of Gruumsh he needs to deal with.
Wizard needs all his 2nd level spell slots for acid arrow to handle trolls, so let the gish memorize the buff spells instead.
I do understand that players want and deserve to have some unique abilities since those abilities often highlight the fun or efficiency of a class. I'm not sure where is a good start though.
Some of the abilities should be:
lower arcane spell failure chance
swift casting of spells
channeling spells through a successful attack
using spells to power skills/feats/other abilities
|
|
To me, a gish is a melee fighter that has the ability to supplement his or her fighting with self-buffs (like shield or bull's strength) and ways to provide some sort of combat advantage (like invisibility or mirror image), and also directly infuses arcane magic into his or her attacks in some way.
What that way is, I think could be one of a million things: 1) the character could channel spells through his or her weapon while attacking, like a duskblade or a spellsword or a dude with a spell storing weapon; 2) the character could derive bonuses from having spells active; 3) the character's attacks could simply deliver spell-like effects such as bestowing negative levels or dealing additional damage of a particular energy type; 4) the character could sacrifice spell slots to deal extra damage or bestow extra effects on an enemy upon hitting or critting, or whatever else; etc.
In other words, a gish is a character who seamlessly blends arcane power with martial proficiency. For this reason, some sort of serious resistance to arcane spell failure is pretty essential (and this is my biggest problem with the concept in Pathfinder, as MOST of what I described can be achieved through multi-classing and using magic items, though those both present a difficult and unsatisfying way to address the concept). Sacrificing two feats, and your swift action every single turn you want to cast anything, just doesn't make ignoring 20% spell failure seem worthwhile to me.
What I'd really like to address here, though, is the idea that the gish should be somehow weaker than either a fighter or wizard. That doesn't make any sense to me. I think all classes should be reasonably balanced alongside one another either way, and no class should be intentionally weaker. I certainly don't think a gish should be as versatile or as proficient with spells as a full caster, but I DO think he or she should be as effective of a melee combatant as the fighter, in the same way that I think the barbarian should be as effective of a melee combatant as the fighter. What I also want my gish to be is different from the fighter. The gish gets shield (the spell), the fighter gets full plate and tower shield proficiency, the gish gets ways to infuse spells with attacks, the fighter gets twice as many feats as anybody else and takes power attack and cleave and great cleave, etc., etc. I think they both deserve a full BAB. The gish for me is a melee fighter, and should be as effective in melee as any other melee fighter, he or she just shouldn't be using the same tactics as a fighter to accomplish melee combat. Does that make sense?
This notion that the gish should be a worse combatant than a fighter is just character-optimization-backlash and hysteria. What's worse than a fighter or a wizard? A class not worth playing, that's what! There are ways to be the fighter's equal without invalidating the fighter.
As for the person who asked about duskblades, they're my absolute favourite class and I agree with most people's assessments! They certainly could do with a hit point boost as they lack in that area somewhat, and as a DM I'd give them access to a selection of spells from the Spell Compendium because I feel like their spell list has a few holes, but even if you're playing them straight out of the book, they're a blast. And they're just really well-constructed in general, giving you answers to spell resistance as long as you keep swinging your sword, and giving you a few different, and fun, ways to meld swordplay with spell-slinging, not to mention a suitably restricted spells known cap and a suitably extended spells-per-day limit! Give one a shot!
[a character concept]
I would like to play this kind of character, however not in terms of "producing a maximally effective party".
Your concept is very cool and quite a bit different from what most people have suggested. It reminds me of the CW samurai or the kensai, both of which are not bad ideas but horribly underpowered and thus a tad looked-down-upon. There's no reason a warrior who uses magic rituals to as a power source for his swording couldn't work.
I do want to pick on one thing you said, just because it's a good example of these sorts of things. I don't think there's any reason a gish concept should have to be stronger or weaker than any other base class. I'm all for making a Spellstabber class that is balanced with fighter or wizard or whatever. But before you worry about the particulars of BAB, saves, spell levels, etc. you need to worry about conceptual space. Until you've got a conceptual space for a class, everything else is premature. And I find if you can't describe a class in a sentence, you don't have much of a class. (Hello OA shaman or hexblade!)
I agree with the approach of defining a character first before worrying about how it should be represented within the game. I wasnt suggesting it should be stronger or weaker as such - however it is inevitable that there will be some loss through following a generalist route. I wasnt so much suggesting that a gish class must be weaker than either of the pure-strains. However I think it is necessarily true (if the game is to model reality reasonably effectively) that two gish operating in unison will be weaker than a fighter and a mage operating in unison (except in some particularly carefully crafted situations).
It's probably not germane to the debate as people tend to discuss class balance in terms of "this guy vs that guy" nonetheless, I think it's something to bear in mind when generating the mechanics for a generalist.
Awesome awesome stuff!
I pretty much couldn't agree with you more. A good friend and I hate the 'hysteria' surrounding full BAB partial casters, or gishes, as a base class that we've begun to design an entirely new system to hash out the inequalities.
Duskblade is a fantastic start, but people have this reaction to them based on automatic quickens and their INSANE amount of spell slots per day, without looking at what their actual spell SELECTION is. I'd love to see something that was very close to the Duskblade but fixed its few glaring flaws. However I personally see no problem with it having D8 HD.
There are so many prestige classes that try to get the idea right and end up failing. Eldritch Knight, Spellsword, Abjurant Champion, Bladesinger, etc etc. The problem to me is that the solution is "you can play what you want to play...IF you pick your feats and spells exactly right, and even then not until level 12 or so". A fighter is a fighter from the get go, so too the mage, ranger, paladin etc. I think that forcing this one legitimate playstyle into the proverbial corner does the community no good.