Tiny question, if you use the cleric's Holy Warrior ability option out of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting campaign book, and describe your magic differently; how is this not a gish?
|
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.
I disagree there, at least in terms of the Pathfinder system; both of the "arcane warrior" prestige classes, Eldritch Knight & Arcane Archer, are available by 6th & 7th level (respectively) with the utilization of the Magical Knack talent (absolutely invaluable for anyone who wants to do anything remotely arcane and warriory at the same time). Ultimately you can do whatever it is you want to do, and do it well, by no later than level 8, that's without any real investment in feats, and only one of your two talents, but I digress on something better spoken of in another topic.
Back on topic, then.
Man in Black: If you're looking for a conceptual definition of the gish (which I will henceforth call an "arcane warrior"), you need only ask yourself what you want to achieve within the confines of the rules. That should suffice as your definition. Back in 3.5 I didn't ever buy into any one particular "right way" to make an arcane warrior, either conceptually or mechanically, with the advent of Pathfinder, all I have are more options, which is to say more feats (both available to use, and to purchase), and more talents.
More or less I don't think that an arcane warrior can be defined in one sentence, the possible combos - much less the sheer versatility - is beyond ridiculous, and I doubt a new class needs to be introduced when all someone needs to do is flex the brain a bit and figure it out by way of multi-classing.
Tiny question, if you use the cleric's Holy Warrior ability option out of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting campaign book, and describe your magic differently; how is this not a gish?
]
They are wanting arcane spells|
|
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?
Because a gish is a githyanki fighter/magic user. A "gish" is anything that isn't a githyanki fighter/magic user.
|
|
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
Well, the word has a very specific meaning. People try to make a specific word mean general stuff. Deserves to be made fun of, frankly.
|
|
So anything that isn't possible in PF's written rules doesn't exist? I am skeptical, especially since several people offered something like a half-dozen to a dozen gish or gish-like classes in various 3e or 3e-compatible works.
I don't recall ever saying that, actually. So this question/comment is a bit confusing to me. If you're referencing the paragraph above the one you quoted, I'll just refer to the the line "...at least in terms of the Pathfinder system..." and hope that clears up any issue you might have with my opinion.
Instead, I'm looking for the essential qualities of the characters people are trying to make when they ask for a "gish" class or PrC or build or whatever.
I could say "A warrior that incorporates arcane skill in conjunction with his martial prowess." But I doubt that would satisfy your curiosity. Which is why I'm asserting that you're asking a question that cannot really be answered in one sentence, as per the various different methods of mixing and matching arcane and martial powers, not to mention the qualities each individual who might do so would desire out of any given build.
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.I disagree there, at least in terms of the Pathfinder system; both of the "arcane warrior" prestige classes, Eldritch Knight & Arcane Archer, are available by 6th & 7th level (respectively) with the utilization of the Magical Knack talent (absolutely invaluable for anyone who wants to do anything remotely arcane and warriory at the same time). Ultimately you can do whatever it is you want to do, and do it well, by no later than level 8, that's without any real investment in feats, and only one of your two talents, but I digress on something better spoken of in another topic.
Back on topic, then.
Man in Black: If you're looking for a conceptual definition of the gish (which I will henceforth call an "arcane warrior"), you need only ask yourself what you want to achieve within the confines of the rules. That should suffice as your definition. Back in 3.5 I didn't ever buy into any one particular "right way" to make an arcane warrior, either conceptually or mechanically, with the advent of Pathfinder, all I have are more options, which is to say more feats (both available to use, and to purchase), and more talents.
More or less I don't think that an arcane warrior can be defined in one sentence, the possible combos - much less the sheer versatility - is beyond ridiculous, and I doubt a new class needs to be introduced when all someone needs to do is flex the brain a bit and figure it out by way of multi-classing.
Getting into Eldritch Knight is one thing. What Man in Black and myself are after is more akin to the capstone, though we only want to cast spells to augment our melee prowess i.e. buffs, enemy debuffs, and touch spells.
And OK you can get into EK at level 7. Paladin can get into his class at lvl 1. Where's the love?!
Well, the word has a very specific meaning. People try to make a specific word mean general stuff. Deserves to be made fun of, frankly.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
I do, I can't take anyone seriously who uses that name in the wrong way. If they want to talk about a fighter/mage class say so other wise they keep babbling about fish
Getting into Eldritch Knight is one thing. What Man in Black and myself are after is more akin to the capstone, though we only want to cast spells to augment our melee prowess i.e. buffs, enemy debuffs, and touch spells.
And OK you can get into EK at level 7. Paladin can get into his class at lvl 1. Where's the love?!
an arcane class based heavily off a paladin would be cool. Would have to do some massive revamps but still niffty
names get banned about, yet power gamers and optimizers latched on to a term they did not understand and one that sounded stupid really. Arcane warrior works just as well yet no one uses it F/M would work yet no ones uses it..The fish name gets banned about and I think fish when ever you guys say it
And if ya don't like it, well your prob not mine I'll keep making fun and being amused at you guys using a term wrong. If I want to say something I will if I do not want to say something I will not but anyone who uses that term wrong will be nothing more to me then kids at the mall with a trendy new saying they have no clue what it means
Really no nice way to say it, but thats not something you worry with anyhow so why should I?
|
|
I do, I can't take anyone seriously who uses that name in the wrong way. If they want to talk about a fighter/mage class say so other wise they keep babbling about fish
That's half the problem. Nobody has a name for this niche better than an in-joke from a now-defunct forum, and that's sad. If you don't like the term of the moment, stop spamming nonsense (five contentless posts? Seriously?) and do better for crying out loud.
Gish is a perfectly good name for what it is. It's a lousy name for what people want it to be.
And the niche it is trying to fill was perfectly valid pre-3x. 3x multi-classing rules more or less eliminated the niche, created goofy crap to fill the niche or forced gestalt on the game to fill it, but at the cost of eliminating the brakes the older version put on it (i.e. a slight lag behind single class, not a leap ahead).
Runeblades, eldrich knights, duskblades, whatever, none of them do what the original gish did (you'd actually have to throw psionics into the mix if you want to do that, anyway). There is no class outside of gestalt rules that combine full arcane casting and full martial combat ability. So, the only option is playing a gestalt campaign.
But, if you just want to use a cute shorthand word that has little to do with the actual meaning of the word, eldritch knights, runeblades, duskblades, whatever, all work fine, I suppose.
|
|
names get banned about, yet power gamers and optimizers latched on to a term they did not understand and one that sounded stupid really. Arcane warrior works just as well yet no one uses it F/M would work yet no ones uses it..The fish name gets banned about and I think fish when ever you guys say itBandied. The word you want is "bandy." And yes. Everyone who has read this thread knows "gish" makes you think of "fish." There is no need for you to repeat that a ninth time, we're good.
The reason I don't use fighter/mage (or foo/bar) is because it immediately implies multiclassing, be it the white box elf, 1e/2e multiclassing, or 3e multiclassing. It also implies that you have a character who is trying to be both a fighter and a mage. It's not a name for a niche, but a name for a construct.
Anyway. Why is arcane warrior better? What imagery does it conjure? Is your mental image of this concept a warrior first, who has arcane...something? Origin, power source (in the 4e sense of the term or the general sense), abilities, what? Can you think of a one-word alternative?
See, the problem with the word "gish" is it implies multiclassing. Specifically fighter/magic user multiclassing. Because, by definition, the word means something trying to be a fighter AND a mage. Because "gish" was never a niche, it was a construct.
Well alright to put a name on it, and I doubt anyone else will like it but: Spellthane.
Whenever I play an Elder Scrolls game where you can make/name your own calss I call my hybrid fighter/caster a Spellthane.
Arcane Warrior is a generic enough term. The problem I see is that there are a miriad of ways to coombine fighter and caster and people assume strange things when you bring up the hybrid, like that you want full casting but get to wear armor and better hit dice which is not MY goal but certainly it's a valid multiclassing goal.
Arcane Warrior is the term they use in Dragon Age, and the problems with the hybrid ftr/wiz in D&D are unfortunately carried over. Namely you start as a mage and around level 7 (if you've unlocked it) you get to start actually playing the way you wanted to from level one :)
What defines this archetype for me is that you wade into melee and rely on self-cast buffs and damaging spells with no cast time so that they don't interfere with your sword-swinging. It works better with a point system, but another big part for me is changing magical energy into physical more akin to the old Arcane Strike.
Fictional archetypes I think of as inspiration are Elric of Melnibone, Rand al'Thor and Kain from the Legacy of Kain games.
|
|
Well alright to put a name on it, and I doubt anyone else will like it but: Spellthane.
Whenever I play an Elder Scrolls game where you can make/name your own calss I call my hybrid fighter/caster a Spellthane.
Arcane Warrior is a generic enough term. The problem I see is that there are a miriad of ways to coombine fighter and caster and people assume strange things when you bring up the hybrid, like that you want full casting but get to wear armor and better hit dice which is not MY goal but certainly it's a valid multiclassing goal.
Arcane Warrior is the term they use in Dragon Age, and the problems with the hybrid ftr/wiz in D&D are unfortunately carried over. Namely you start as a mage and around level 7 (if you've unlocked it) you get to start actually playing the way you wanted to from level one :)
What defines this archetype for me is that you wade into melee and rely on self-cast buffs and damaging spells with no cast time so that they don't interfere with your sword-swinging. It works better with a point system, but another big part for me is changing magical energy into physical more akin to the old Arcane Strike.
Fictional archetypes I think of as inspiration are Elric of Melnibone, Rand al'Thor and Kain from the Legacy of Kain games.
I actually kind of dig spellthane, actually. No baggage from earlier editions, describes the concept well enough.
I can live with it.
I'm looking for simple character concepts that people would actually want to play, and then worrying about how to make them playable afterward.
Bard 7/fighter 1/eldritch knight X. Starts with the ability to wear (and cast spells in) light armor, while using a shield, and can fight with swords (and multiclassing for the one level of fighter can be done relatively early without too much pain if you want more weapon choices). Take Perform (Oratory) for "pep-talks" and concentrate on battlefield control and buff/debuff spells. Take the PF RPG feat Arcane Strike to boost damage. The character has a BAB only two less than full (which the 2nd level bard spell heroism covers) and loses only 2 levels of spellcasting progression (which can be partially covered with the trait Magical Knack, to retain full CL).
Done.
|
|
See, the problem with the word "gish" is it implies multiclassing. Specifically fighter/magic user multiclassing. Because, by definition, the word means something trying to be a fighter AND a mage. Because "gish" was never a niche, it was a construct.I agree that it's a lousy name, both for attached imagery and attached history. I'm hoping someone can give us a replacement term that covers at least a good chunk of the associated concepts.
I am kind of bemused by the hostility on this board for the term, however, because its in-joke use on the old WOTC CO boards was kicked off by a Paizo publication. (Specifically, Dragon #300/Dungeon dual-sider with the big Githyanki invasion theme. It was timely, at the time, and the name stuck.)
My first exposure to the term was in late '07. I didn't subscribe to Dragon (had a sub to Dungeon, though) and didn't have access to a computer for seven years, so my first reaction was confusion, as in, why is everyone playing githyanki?
Only afterward did I find out is was cutsie, trendy crap.
Mechanically, the only difference between arcane and divine magic (ignore their spell lists) is that arcane is saddled with arcane spell failure. Since the gish wears armor, that obviously means we're dumping that difference.
And if the cleric is not a gish because of their spell list, then that means the difference between arcane and divine is a matter of effects available on their respective lists.
So 'true' arcane magic isn't summoning, healing, mind-control, divination, illusion, buffing (including self-transformation)? That is all magic heavily featured by bards, clerics, and druids. This largely leaves us with evocation & teleportation.
So should a gish be a melee fighter that uses evocation spells?
What if you tweaked the ranger's bonus feats (switch out archery for sword and board), switched out the animal companion with something more wizard-y like a demon/undead/golem/elemental (similar stats, mind you), and made the spell list be more offense oriented?
Spellthane isn't a bad name. The issue is any type of Arcane warrior is hardwired in most people to be a fighter/mage hybrid and really that is just what it is. Getting away from that is nearly impossible in many ways. To make something thats not a hybrid, something that stands on it's own then your no longer the "classic" arcane warrior type. Your something else, something that may not have much in common with the multi class hybrid that spawned it
Another thing is no one really wants the same thing from an "arcane warrior" some want a hybrid F/M, other want more a bard middle ground, still others want more of a paladin/ranger type less caster more warrior and then you have the group that wants something with little in common with the classic style something new and different
Making a class that gets even half on board with it as "right" is an epic challenge I do not envy
|
|
It's a start. How does this character incorporate arcane skill? What are its arcane skills? What's the essential quality of a skill that makes it arcane? Rather than worrying about how everyone else might define things, I'm curious how people define it for themselves.
For me it is a matter of mechanical synergy. I reverse engineer, trying to work together starting stats, advancing (every 4th level) stats, class Features/BAB/HD, as well as Caster Level into an actionable character. Once I establish the parameters with which I have to work, I make a character based around a concept.
I'm about to get very mechanical here, forgive me, as it is how my mind works, and the only way I can explain it to you without feeling like I made a fool of myself. If nothing else, it only goes to show you how the answers are bound to vary from person to person.
STR:14 DEX:14+2=16 CON:14-2=12 INT:15+2=17 WIS:10 CHA:8 ends up with a +17 BAB, 6d6+9d10+20 HP, and access to level 7 Spells by level 20.
Add in the 5 stat point advances, 4 going to dexterity at levels 4, 8, 12 & 16, and 1 going to intelligence at level 20, and, disregarding magic items, or even feats taken either at level 1 or down the line, the character looks a bit more like so:
STR:14 DEX:20 CON:12 INT:18 WIS:10 CHA:8, +17 BAB, 6d6+9d10+20 HP, and access to level 8 Spells.
We then consider the class features, the as-of-yet not-quite-chosen second trait, feats, and, of course, spell selection. We won't get into it, of course, but, in the end the dude is a fairly well-rounded character only +3 BAB and 1 Spell Level behind the Pure-Class Fighter and Wizard (respectively).
This is where concept, and "what you want your arcane warrior to be" comes into play. We'll say that the concept is a Protector, not a tank per-se, but a Defender nonetheless, and he utilizes his magic to better aid himself and his allies in their conflicts, striving to safeguard their lives and bolster their fighting capacity. A nimble swift-footed elven warrior who can get inside enemy lines and take out ranged threats
So, mixing Fighter and Abjurer, we get access to four bonus feats, and nifty class features, Arcane Bond is a winner when it comes to your favorite weapon, the Fighter levels bolster the character with Bravery +1, and Armor training 1 (if he can get a hand on some magical Mithril chainmail, he's in business), and The Abjurer's Protective Ward is particularly nice. With access to 14 feats total (17, counting Eldritch Knight), the character can easily buy into things that improve accuracy, and damage, metamagic like Quicken Spell enables fast reaction and near-immediate buffery for allies and the self, feats that allow unimpeded or concealed movement to get within enemy spellcaster range, things that increase the critical threat range and success rating tie in directly with Eldritch Knight's Critical Spell talent. The spells themselves would be of a defensive, protecting nature, or would be spells capable of undoing harm done to one's self and/or allies.
The tl;dr of it all, a direct answer to your question: The character utilizes his arcane skill as form of protection for himself and his allies. His arcane skills are focused on Abjuration, and he is so focused on it that his own weapon has become a focus for his spellcasting. As for the "essential quality" of the skill, well, its rather inherent, really, he simply does what he does, and the rest comes naturally.
All in all, and long story short, and at the risk of seeming redundant, I view the creation of an arcane warrior as a practice in synergy. You want to make every thing he does count for something, and tie into something else, a wall of blades and a tidal wave of magic made as unto one, crashing into one's enemies screaming "May their living be dead in our wake!"
I truly, deeply, hope to God this whole reply wasn't too incoherent.
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? While considering this point, consider what swording must involve, and what qualities are inherent to arcane magic. What fictional characters would you want to simulate? (Moorcock's Elric and Corwin of Amber have been mentioned.)
The Psychic warrior from the XPHB is where I would start. I would like to add bonded weapon that works similar to the SoulKnife's that levels with you. I guess the Psychic Warrior could step on the toes of the fighter, but I think with the added Armor Training and Weapon Training and specific fighter feats a fighter gets this is a mute point. If it must be arcane than it wouldn't be hard to give the psychic warrior the bards spells per level pergression and use the Psychic Warriors powers known and power list and then call them arcane spells.
I don't know if I am trying to similate any fictional character. What comes to mind though would be Richard Raul with the Bonded Weapon and spontaneous casting.
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.
|
Because a gish is a githyanki fighter/magic user. A "gish" is anything that isn't a githyanki fighter/magic user.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?
Best Post Ever!
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 sword, or arrow, stuff like that.
Mine would be a better caster then yours, yours would be better at fighting. If you went with d10 hit die I would cut the armor back, I figure upping the armor means you can build one not dependent on dex at all. The Arcane Warrior already has Int as a required stat, likely strength or dex, and of course as all classes con. But if you limit the armor to only medium at best, well that does put pressure on your to have a solid dex. Why not allow for a dwarven rune caster type in full plate using strength on his primary melee stat as opposed to an elf with a short sword using dex on his? Just a more flexible class then but at a cost.
Best Post Ever!Because a gish is a githyanki fighter/magic user. A "gish" is anything that isn't a githyanki fighter/magic user.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?
I would agree, execpt it contains the vile g word in it......
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, I thought I put it in this thread, but I'm confused...
wow, apparently I've more time at work then Crimson Jester ;-)
Ahem.
I think there are three 'levels' of caster to look at with a base armoured mage (spellthane).
1) Full caster level average BAB, d8 HD, 9th level spells reduced spells known cast, few, if any, bonuses (Battle Sorcerer, Wilder, we'll stick Complete Arcane's Warmage and PHB II Beguiler as well)
2) Full caster level, average BAB, d8 HD, 6th level spells known, some deviation. (Bard, my aformentioned classes, Psychic Warrior, Arcana Evolved's Mage Blade, PHB II Duckblade*)
3) Reduced caster level** Good BAB, d10 HP 4th level spells known, special effects (Complete Arcane Hexblade [writer's suggested corrections] Advanced Player's Manual's Thaneblade)
Now for Pathfinder, the mark is level 20 Figher X/Mage X/Eldrich Knight 10
1) vs. Fighter 1/Sorcerer 9/EK 10 - BAB is a wash, both get 9th level spells, caster level advantage battle sorcerer. Both in CL and in getting spells from first level on. (assuming that the BatSor gets all the bloodline perks too)Approx 97 HP for the EK 90-110 for the BatSorc (depending on favoured class distribution)
2) vs. Fighter 5/Sorcerer5/EK 10 - BAB goes to the EK (+17 v +15) EK gets 7th level spells but a CL of only 14 vs 20 for the spellthane. Average 105 HP for EK, 90-110 for the thaneblade, as above
3) vs same as 2. BAB goes to thaneblade (+20 vs +17) Caster level is a wash (between 10-17 depending on the system for the thaneblade, 14 for the EK) Spells known 7th for the EK vs 4th for the thaneblade, HP 115-135 vs 105, advantage thaneblade.
One and two reward the caster with spells from the get-go, the 1/9/10 is going to rely on class features to pull ahead, else there's only the 4th attack and a slight edge in HP. Against thaneblade type 2, the multiclass may seem to lag, but it pays off in the end with the higher level spells.
Thaneblade 3 needs the 'special effects' that Heathenson was talking about in his post to balance out, IMNSHO.
As to spells known/spell list, it is going to vary from build to build. The psychic warrior is known for its BYOB (bring your own buffs) approach, while the duskblade is known for its direct damage and limited buffs. The Mage Blade, meshing with AE's different system, knows a bunch of 'simple spells' But stuff like 'Flesh to plush' require a feat cost.
It's okay, quotes are like surgical gloves.
|
|
Well, the word has a very specific meaning. People try to make a specific word mean general stuff. Deserves to be made fun of, frankly.
This is wrong. The word had a very specific meaning, which people then adapted to a more general meaning, and you know what? That's how language works. Words don't have implicit meanings. They have the meanings they're ascribed. And a game designer (in an open-ended gaming system that encourages the development of custom home-content) deciding that "gish" means "githyanki fighter/wizard" doesn't have the same authority that a legion of players of the game have when they decide that it means "arcane sword-wielder of virtually any sort."
The fact that you know what people intend when they say "gish" means that the definition of the word that they intended has entered the public consciousness within this subculture of language-users, and the public consciousness always has final say on the meaning of a word. Why do you think Webster's prints new editions? New words are born and old words die or change meaning.
Now, let's get one thing straight: I don't like the word either, but I also don't like the words "pimple," "pantaloon," or "bonobo." That doesn't mean I don't know what they mean or that I feel the need to enter into asinine semantics discussions every time I hear or use them. For the sake of practicality I use the words that most directly get me from concept to comprehension. That's how language works.
Can we just end the pointless debate and heckling about the meaning of this word? Those of you who think the word is being misused shouldn't be speaking English anyway. There isn't a word in our language that hasn't evolved from something else.
Personally I think the bard is a good starting point for this kind of class.
Like others I think if you have a strong casting progression (but not equal to full casters) you should probably have an average bab and hd.
So we have bard spell progression bab and HD, maybe making fort a strong save instead of reflex? Spells should be retooled for a more offensive route. I think the Arcane Bond with weapons only makes alot of sense for the class.
And i think the ability to cast through an attack is pretty classic fighter mage (in my opinion ofcourse). The question is how to do this? I think the idea of 'storing' spells in a weapon is better then casting as part of an attack. Casting as part of an attack essentially allows the player to do 2 actions in one, casting a spell and attacking. Instead I would say that the (insert name for class here) is able to cast a spell into their weapon as the normal action for casting, and then it activates on the next successful attack. I would recomend that at higher levels the class should be able to cast as a swift action a very limited number of times per day (capping at maybe 3 at 20th level). Maybe a progression of move action 1 per day, move action 2 per day, swift 1 per day, swift 2 per day, and swift 3 per day over the whole of 20 levels. This would only apply to casting INTO the weapon, not casting a spell, and only apply to standard action spells.
I would also recommend the ability to expend spell slots for bonuses to attack and damage, probably equal to the spell level for a short duration (something like rounds per primary caster stat bonus).
So to sum it up, 3/4 bab, d8 hd, bard spell progression with a retooled spell list. The arcane bond with a weapon that you can cast into with a progression of being able to cast into it a little faster a limited number of times per day.
Any thoughts?
having played several gish in 2e and 3.x, I'll add another vote to the idea that the gish is a guy who self-buffs and then stabs the badguys in the eye.
Imo, a gish needs light armor proficiency, full or limited martial weapon proficiency, medium BAB/HP and bard-like spell progression with spells primarily drawn from 2-3 wizard/sorcerer schools. Spell selection should focus heavily on buffs. Class abilities should focus towards casting buff spells faster, a limited time per day (basically, as a swift action.)
A buffing gish functions a bit like a cleric, and doesn't need full BAB, as buff spells make up the difference quite well.
I'm on board with arcane strike.
In my home game, our gish is basically the old battle sorcerer variant from 3.x's UE tacked onto the Pathfinder ruleset.
And arguments about language are silly. Go join a semiotics forum or become a resident of Iceland if language purity is your focus. It serves no meaningful function in this thread.
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.
And more is the pity as a gish is a specially trained member of a race of astral creatures and not a player option. Wanting this type of character in my game would be akin to wanting to breathe fire like a dragon, breathing underwater like a sea devil or flying like a griffon, all of these as natural abilities and not spells. Even with 2e, where the Githyanki were a possible player race, their abilities were dampened from a normal member of their race.
I removed a post that didn't seem to be in the right thread.
Edit: And some off-topic derailing.
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 understand where you're coming from. The concept in my mind is to put most characters with this class concept directly on the front line of battle, so I am compelled to go more fighty than casty. I'd like to see a lot of the class's power come from empowering its weapon attacks with magical abilities rather than the spellcasting itself.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the focus I'd expect from the class is different from yours. I think your general notes would be balanced for the concept you're looking for.
Yours is more of a fighter/mage where mine is definitely a warrior who uses the arcane to enhance fighting abilities. Not that you couldn't do that with your concept, but you'd have to really tailor your spell choices to do it. The benefit of yours would be flexibility I think.
|
|
This is such a power-gaming idea. The OP(and all the other "Gish" groupies) want the best of both worlds with a hybrid. I doubt any official build will ever live up to what the OP envisioned.
The best balanced bet would be to modify the bard class. Strip all the spell lists down and replace it with a new spell list or just use the sorcerer/wizard list. Strip down all the class abilities and add equivalent abilities. Change them from spontaneous to prepared casters if that flavor is needed. Their BAB is inline with a full hybrid (Paladins and Rangers are more like 80/20 hybrid fighter/casters so they get higher BAB).
From what all the people wanting the fighter mage types, they want equal fighting and magic. With that, there will need to be balance. If you don't do that, the fighter class would look even more boring (why be a fighter when you can have better saves, same BAB, near the same armor use, same weapons, full arcane spell casting).
Also, the word Gish is getting worse the more I see it, and it's the word of the month for November. ack.
I understand where you're coming from. The concept in my mind is to put most characters with this class concept directly on the front line of battle, so I am compelled to go more fighty than casty. I'd like to see a lot of the class's power come from empowering its weapon attacks with magical abilities rather than the spellcasting itself.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that the focus I'd expect from the class is different from yours. I think your general notes would be balanced for the concept you're looking for.
Yours is more of a fighter/mage where mine is definitely a warrior who uses the arcane to enhance fighting abilities. Not that you couldn't do that with your concept, but you'd have to really tailor your spell choices to do it. The benefit of yours would be flexibility I think.
Neither of our concepts is wrong, both are valid. I still like the name for yours though. Arcane Warrior certainly evokes the right feel for the class. And having a love of 1st ed and all I tend to think of well fighter/magic-users as pretty much equal parts of both.
Personally I think the bard is a good starting point for this kind of class.
Absolutely. Everything is there right now except for spells. . . and perhaps alternative bardic music abilities.
Like others I think if you have a strong casting progression (but not equal to full casters) you should probably have an average bab and hd.
Absolutely. Let's be honest -- you can't have a strong caster progression (that is, anything beyond ranger/paladin) and a full BAB progression. The bard really is the perfect balance; it's just the bard flavor needs to be more flexible. Even Elan, the iconic OotS bard, had to venture away from the bard class purely because of the lack of combat options.
So we have bard spell progression bab and HD, maybe making fort a strong save instead of reflex? Spells should be retooled for a more offensive route. I think the Arcane Bond with weapons only makes alot of sense for the class.
This is going the right direction -- maybe instead of inspire courage, there could be something that functions like an Arcane bond except using the bardic music mechanic. I don't think we can get around the Reflex + Will progression, but surely something like the fighter's Bravery would be nice -- a flat bonus versus poison and disease? This could be an alternative instead of certain bardic music options. . . maybe instead of the maligned inspire greatness?
And i think the ability to cast through an attack is pretty classic fighter mage (in my opinion ofcourse). The question is how to do this?
I think the mechanics are already present in the spell system. We could do a lesser/regular/greater spellsword line -- a swift action to add a lower level spell's effect to the next attack. Perhaps this spell gets a flat DC bonus.
I would also recommend the ability to expend spell slots for bonuses to attack and damage, probably equal to the spell level for a short duration (something like rounds per primary caster stat bonus).
Bardic music could work here -- a self-inspiration for quicker buffs, kind of like paladin lay on hands (swift action for self, standard action for others).
Any thoughts?
The bard definitely has the framework in place for the classic fighter/wizard combo. It just needs to have a few more offensive options.
1- What do people think of a full BAB with no iterative Attacks?
So the Arcane Warrior is as good as the Fighter on one attack, then he backseats to the natural fighting prowess.
2- In the absence of a crafted spell list what do people think of allowing Abjuration and Evocation only.
The AW still gets a heap of spells and most of them are physical attack and defense spells. He can't cast all the utility and plot device spells that are reserved for full casters. If he wants necromancy he has to find a necromancer. Other magic he needs magic items for.
2.1- UMD is a class skill.
[b]3- Bardic spell progression with a bonded weapon and stat bonus exception.
The Arcane Warrior must have a spellbook and receives no natural spells above 6th level. They may however use their intelligence bonus to gain limited access to these spells. They gain these bonus spells in the same level that a Sorcerer would. They may also use the bonded weapon to cast one spell from these levels.
They must learn these upper level spells normally but cannot cast them except through these two methods.
This makes the bonded weapon, presumably the sword or whatever, an important part of the class.
4- Armor like the bard.
If they want heavy armor let them burn a feat or give it to them at 9th level.
Sigurd
Here's a longer write-up of my concept, but still the short short version. Again, this is more of a fighter who has their attacks infused by magic rather than a true fighter/mage.
Even though the Arcane Defenses and Arcane Combat are not spelled out, I'd expect them to be on par with Smite as far as current class abilities are concerned.
Please note that I wasn't too sure of the Arcane School Focus ability, but to be honest it still doesn't make this character as good a true spellcaster as any Bard, let alone a Wizard. It will just make sure that the Arcane Warrior's favorite school's spells actually affect enemies. Keep in mind I want to make sure this class can use offensive spells at least some of the time, but not have the full access that Bards do and Arcane School Focus seemed to be the way to do that.
This class would focus on the concept of a front-line combatant who summons arcane forces to improve their attacks and defenses.
Hit die: d10
Skills per level: 2
Class skills: Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), and Swim (Str).
Base Attack Bonus: 1/level
Fort Save: good
Reflex Save: poor
Will Save: good
Spellcasting:
Class Level (Spell Levels 1-4):
1 ()
2 ()
3 ()
4 (0)
5 (1)
6 (1)
7 (1,0)
8 (1,1)
9 (2,1)
10 (2,1,0)
11 (2,1,1)
12 (2,2,1)
13 (3,2,1,0)
14 (3,2,1,1)
15 (3,2,2,1)
16 (3,3,2,1)
17 (4,3,2,1)
18 (4,3,2,2)
19 (4,3,3,2)
20 (4,4,3,3)
Special Abilities:
1 Arcane School Access, Armored Casting, Spellcasting, Arcane Combat,
2 Arcane Defenses
3 Bonus Combat Feat
4 Arcane School Access
5 Improved Arcane Combat
6 Greater Arcana (Level 3)
7 Arcane School Focus
8 Improved Arcane Defenses
9 Greater Arcana (Level 4)
10 Arcane School Access
11 Greater Arcane Combat
12 Greater Arcana (Level 5)
13 Arcane School Access
14 Greater Arcane Defenses
15 Greater Arcana (Level 6)
16 Arcane School Focus
17 Bonus Combat Feat
18 Greater Arcana (Level 7)
19 Arcane School Access
20 Master Arcane Combat and Defenses
Arcane School Access: Every time the Arcane Warrior gains this ability, they choose a school of magic. The only spells an Arcane Warrior may scribe to their spellbook are those from the schools they have access to. Additionally, which Arcane Combat and Arcane Defenses which the character has access to are based on which schools they have chosen.
Armored Casting: An Arcane Warrior may use light armor, medium armor, and shields without suffering a spell failure chance.
Spellcasting: Casts spells as a Wizard with the limitation that the only spells an Arcane Warrior may scribe to their spellbook are those from the schools they have access to.
Arcane Combat: These abilities will be based on school. Each one will be an ongoing effect that pertains to the character's weapon attacks. I don't have time to go into creating these abilities at the moment, but you can get the idea. These abilities improve at level 5, 11, and 20. For example, Evocation might add energy damage to all attacks or enchantment might have a chance to charm or intimidate with strikes.
DCs, if needed, would be based on Intelligence. Each ability would require a move action to activate and would be spell-like and thus subject to anti-magic fields and dispelling.
While using any Arcane Combat ability, the Arcane Warrior need not have a free hand to cast spells with somatic components as long as they are holding a weapon.
Arcane Defenses: These abilities would further take advantage of the character's Intelligence and school choices. For example, Divination might grant a Dodge bonus to AC based on Intelligence on a scaling basis, and evocation might create a fire shield of some kind. This improves at levels 8, 14, and 20. Defenses would be a full-round action to activate, but would remain "up" until the character changes it. These abilities would also be spell-like and thus subject to anti-magic fields and dispelling.
Bonus Combat Feat: At levels 3 and 17.
Greater Arcana: You may cast a single spell of the listed level as a spell-like ability once per day using your level and intelligence to set the caster level and save DC respectively. All components and foci are required as normal and this spell must be of a school to which you have access.
Arcane School Focus: Increase the caster level by 3 and save DCs by 2 of all spells cast from one of the schools to which you have access. This ability may be applied multiple times to a single school.
Well, the word has a very specific meaning. People try to make a specific word mean general stuff. Deserves to be made fun of, frankly.
That's called metonymy, and of course, it's nothing to laugh at. Donut to name a toroid is another example. Many polysemic words have two or more meanings because of this figure and nobody laughs at those who use them by their not-original meaning.
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.
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