Arg... gish issues


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 801 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cold Napalm,

If I am understanding correctly, your group has a different interpretation with wielded/in-hand definitions of several others here. Your group also seems to believe that you need extra feats/traits/abilities to be able to use a two-handed weapon as a focus and be able to cast with it.

Would it not be simpler to accept the opposing interpretation if it allows you to use a two-handed weapon as a focus without any additional feats/traits/abilities or house rules? Would it not be easier to accept that this was the intent of the rule and be able to play with character concepts that interest you?


Cold Napalm wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:

FYI, PFRPG seems to equate "in hand" with "wielded":

PFSRD wrote:
If the object is an amulet or ring, it must be worn to have effect, while staves, wands, and weapons must be wielded. If a wizard attempts to cast a spell without his bonded object worn or in hand...
Since they mean the same thing, I think we can assume that a THF/caster can hold the TH focus in one hand while casting with the other.
You can assume that...my group does not. Even my none hardcore RAW players and DMs didn´t assume that and we made houserules/work arounds for it.

Then, with all respect, you are reading it wrong. Take a look at the wording: (logic formatting follows)

"IF [object], then if [jewelry], then [worn], if [weapon] then [wielded]."

"IF [cast], then [worn] or [in hand]."

The second statement can have the subjects inserted:

"IF [cast], then if [jewelry], then [worn], if [weapon] then [in hand].

Note that the two statements are IDENTICAL in form:

"If you have an item, then if it's jewelry it must be worn, if it's a weapon it must be wielded."

"If you cast a spell, then if your bonded item is jewelry it must be worn, if your bonded item is a weapon it must be in hand"

Clearly, the terms "wielded" and "in hand" are equivelant. Under this rule set. I challenge you to show me anywhere in the SRD where this is contradicted.

If it cannot be contradicted, then the interpretation stands. It really is just that simple.


I have a feeling that Cold Napalm's DM has made his ruling and isn't budging on it. Even if we could demonstrate that 'in hand' was what was intended, they could just rule 0 that in their game, it doesn't work like that. If this is the case, CN, then you have my sympathy. Have you considered a bastard sword?


i guess overall the gish is VIABLE i just don't like the aesthetics. I never ever wanted full casting ,full BAB, and super saves. what i really wanted was a fighter/mage base class that could cast from level 1, wear armor, and progressed as such. on top of that i would rather have evoker magic so the bard isn't an option there and no other option for that matter as a base class. limited to 6th or even 7th level spells would be ok by me. i think the arcane armor training and arcane armor mastery prerequisites are too steep. shield and armor is a 1st level spell. so what would be so broken about wearing armor from level one? because it can eventually be enchanted to to surpase armor and shield spell? well by the time you could afford to really start enchanting armor to surpass shield and armor spell you can anyway with the current requirements, so again its just aesthetics. a wand of shield and armor is pretty cheap so you could easily have them both up every combat. a fighter/mage could benefit more from better AC as they have low HP as well. low ac works against being able to fight at all and cast spells.


RunebladeX, I posted up a few classes I played around with a page or two back that might be what you are looking for, or else you could update a version of the Duskblade.

Another solution might be to lose the bard's bardic song and bardic knowledge (and other performance-related class features) and give them sorcerer spells in place of bardic ones and martial weapon proficiency.


RunebladeX wrote:
... what i really wanted was a fighter/mage base class that could cast from level 1, wear armor, and progressed as such. on top of that i would rather have evoker magic so the bard isn't an option there and no other option for that matter as a base class. ...

I think right there you hit on the 2 biggest problems with the gish builds. Either they are limitted to the restricted spell lists, or they don't get to be what you want until too high a level. By the time you hit lvl 10-12, the eldrich knight does pretty much what I want, but its lvls 1-6, when I am pretty much a straight wizard, that bother me.

I would like to see an arcane ranger/paladin variant that gets full BAB and 4th lvl spells, preferably with combat spells, and a bard variant that gets evocation spells.

I would like to see 2 improved arcane strike feats. These, I feel, would fill the gap of of being unable to combine magic and physical combat.
Imrpoved Arcane Strike: Full round action: cast a spell with a single target and make a melee attack. You do not provoke an AoO from the target.
Prereq: arcane strike, BAB + 6

2. When using Improved Arcane Strike, increase the save DC of the spell by 4.
Prereq: improved arcane strike, BAB + 11

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The funny thing about the whole "Gish" talk is that the Eldritch Knight is exactly like the Githyanki Gish in MM 4. It is listed as a fighter 2/Evoker 5. At the first level Eldritch Knight is available, He would be 5 wizard, 1 fighter, 1 Eldritch Knight. That's essentially 2 fighter, 5 wizard.

I think the term "Gish" should be scrapped since that obviously isn't what is wanted.


Caineach wrote:


Imrpoved Arcane Strike: Full round action: cast a spell with a single target and make a melee attack. You do not provoke an AoO from the target.
Prereq: arcane strike, BAB + 6

2. When using Improved Arcane Strike, increase the save DC of the spell by 4.
Prereq: improved arcane strike, BAB + 11

I like these.. perhaps you could call #2 Greater Arcane Strike, and have it increase the DC more like the way you can increase damage with Power Attack. Sacrifice accuracy for spell potency.

Just a thought


Shar Tahl wrote:

The funny thing about the whole "Gish" talk is that the Eldritch Knight is exactly like the Githyanki Gish in MM 4. It is listed as a fighter 2/Evoker 5. At the first level Eldritch Knight is available, He would be 5 wizard, 1 fighter, 1 Eldritch Knight. That's essentially 2 fighter, 5 wizard.

I think the term "Gish" should be scrapped since that obviously isn't what is wanted.

I think the Eldrich Knight mostly succeeds at accomplishing what people want, but they want 1-2 new abilities to actually blend the casting and martial aspects together into a unified character, rather than them being 2 distinct aspects you switch between.


Shar Tahl wrote:

I think the term "Gish" should be scrapped since that obviously isn't what is wanted.

As they are not talking about Githyanki I wish we could just kill the term period


Caineach wrote:
I think the Eldrich Knight mostly succeeds at accomplishing what people want, but they want 1-2 new abilities to actually blend the casting and martial aspects together into a unified character, rather than them being 2 distinct aspects you switch between.

That's where I get lost, to be honest. It really breaks down to a conjunction issue. Currently, members of every class break it down like this: Swing your sword OR cast a spell. Gish players want to replace that OR with AND.

People bring up Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, but I have yet to see a time where even the most martial of those classes does something different than "Buff myself with spells" and then "Hit mans".


Convict #24601 wrote:
People bring up Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, but I have yet to see a time where even the most martial of those classes does something different than "Buff myself with spells" and then "Hit mans".

Paladins used to have a spell that allowed them to sacrifice hp for dmg whenever they hit with a weapon.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
Convict #24601 wrote:
People bring up Cleric, Druid, and Paladin, but I have yet to see a time where even the most martial of those classes does something different than "Buff myself with spells" and then "Hit mans".
Paladins used to have a spell that allowed them to sacrifice hp for dmg whenever they hit with a weapon.

Doesn't look like they have anything like that in Pathfinder. And while spells like Bless Weapon are really, really nasty, they still require you to cast a spell and then swing your sword.


I also fail to see the issue-
Nobody says clerics suck, yet for some reason the BAB 17, Armor wearing, 9th level caster (with better offensive spells) with Gtr Weapon focus/speciallisation/staggering crit guy is WEAK as and is not worth playing.?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Ardenup wrote:

I also fail to see the issue-

Nobody says clerics suck, yet for some reason the BAB 17, Armor wearing, 9th level caster (with better offensive spells) with Gtr Weapon focus/speciallisation/staggering crit guy is WEAK as and is not worth playing.?

Perhaps it's because the EK has few spells which are synergistic with melee, does nothing useful a straight wizard can't do, and has large stretches of levels where he's dead weight.

Grand Lodge

Caineach...I like those feats. If you aren´t house ruling things, maybe add in a clause for using the weapons as somatic components when doing so...otherwise it can get a bit messy with a sword and shield or two weapon fighting or two handed weapons if the DM limits the number of free actions to switch grips.

Runeblade...funny you mentioned the knife...in the RAW group, it was ruled that you can indeed attack with a knife with a small shield but not chop a carrot (actually it was an onion). The knife doesn´t have a damage stat so it does no damage. Unlike the buckler, there is no rules for losing a shield bonus when you do this, so you keep the shield bonus. The knife is not a weapon so you do not suffer the TWF penalties. Yeah...

And actually the two handed weapon thing was a side deal...I actually wanted to go sword and board. Shield slam + wall of fire is a lot of fun...unfortunately the only way to cast a spell within RAW doing this is to sheathe the weapon which draws an AoO, cast, then quick draw the sword back out...unless the DM is REALLY lenient with the regripping free actions since you can go from one handed to holding in two, to holding in shield hand, cast...the reverse the steps...for 6 free actions...yeah I haven´t seen a DM allow that. And the other side issue is still that the cleric is hosed...especially as the tend to use large shields so they can´t even regrip the weapon. Somatic casting is actually an even bigger deal for them. Same for paladins and TWF rangers too actually.


Dabbler, you have some good points. i've checked out the iron mage. it's a good class but far from the basic arcane warrior i prefer,but still a good class. I play a duskblade in a 3.5 campaign right now at 16th level with a dip into favored soul i've played up since level 1. It's a good class and probably my favorite arcane warrior base class to date. it's BAB seems slightly stronger than it needs to be but it balances out quite well with it's very limited spell list. It's a nice one hit wonder beast killer. i would almost rather prefer a lower BAB for more spell choice. If the retraining spell option at every x level allowed you learn spells not on your spell list the class would be perfect. lets face it, there's always at least one certain spell you wish you could learn at each spell level not on your list. i like how they balanced out the full caster levels with attack spells that do a d6 per 2 levels, a nice choice. the class really let me play to the aesthetics i wanted-armor from level one, limited spells, limited spell levels, limited combat prowess. I think the spellblade from tome of secrets is even better, yeah you lose some BAB and arcane strike but your enhancing weapons ability and wizard spell list makes up for it.

with the pathfinder rules i just have a hard time grasping preparing for a class ones whole life but after a few weeks of adventuring picking up enough skills to completely change your character base.

example-i want to be a arcane warrior so i practice magic my whole youth to start out. i'm ready to set out adventuring, make some friends,form a party and head out to save the world. i got some coins,my spell book, my robes, my wizards staff,and to complete it off my wide brimed pointy hat! my party sets out to rescue this town we hear is in trouble. along the way Mr fighter guy starts teaching me how to use weapons, we fight some goblins along the way, rescue some caravans from bandits,and make it to sticktown. we find the town infected with unknown disease from an unknown source(it's never just syphilis from the town brothel). it's a frantic race against time to uncover who's behind it while the town starts going into comas and starts dying off. so we're rushing all over, the whole time i must be practicing my weaponry right?! we eventually find evil insano wizard, infiltrate his liar, bypass his traps,kill him, loot his treasure(well the party rogue loots the treasure cause im busy sparing with the invisible stalker). we save the town a big party is thrown so we all get drunk, i play some darts to master throwing weapons. i wake up in the morning and i now know how to use every martial weapon and how to effectively wear and use all armor, even though i've never put any on and i can't cause my spells will fail.

and that's why i feel pathfinder needs a more viable arcane warrior base class. the whole multi class just does not jive with me from a role play standpoint. but if i must suck it up and except it i would. i just don't feel players should be forced to.

rant over lol

Grand Lodge

RunebladeX wrote:


with the pathfinder rules i just have a hard time grasping preparing for a class ones whole life but after a few weeks of adventuring picking up enough skills to completely change your character base.

example-i want to be a arcane warrior so i practice magic my whole youth to start out. i'm ready to set out adventuring, make some friends,form a party and head out to save the world. i got some coins,my spell book, my robes, my wizards staff,and to complete it off my wide brimed pointy hat! my party sets out to rescue this town we hear is in trouble. along the way Mr fighter guy starts teaching me how to use weapons, we fight some goblins along the way, rescue some caravans from bandits,and make it to sticktown. we find the town infected with unknown disease from an unknown...

You know, that is why I started to start everyone off at level 3. You can only progress in the base classes you have at that starting level...prestige away however.


Caineach wrote:
RunebladeX wrote:
... what i really wanted was a fighter/mage base class that could cast from level 1, wear armor, and progressed as such. on top of that i would rather have evoker magic so the bard isn't an option there and no other option for that matter as a base class. ...

I think right there you hit on the 2 biggest problems with the gish builds. Either they are limitted to the restricted spell lists, or they don't get to be what you want until too high a level. By the time you hit lvl 10-12, the eldrich knight does pretty much what I want, but its lvls 1-6, when I am pretty much a straight wizard, that bother me.

I would like to see an arcane ranger/paladin variant that gets full BAB and 4th lvl spells, preferably with combat spells, and a bard variant that gets evocation spells.

I would like to see 2 improved arcane strike feats. These, I feel, would fill the gap of of being unable to combine magic and physical combat.
Imrpoved Arcane Strike: Full round action: cast a spell with a single target and make a melee attack. You do not provoke an AoO from the target.
Prereq: arcane strike, BAB + 6

2. When using Improved Arcane Strike, increase the save DC of the spell by 4.
Prereq: improved arcane strike, BAB + 11

i agree 100% there's not much on the low end. it does achieve what most

players want of an arcane warrior at mid to high levels but by the time you get the character there (if you even get to play that long!)it just feels like a lot of work for BLEH abilities by then. i would love to see.

-an arcane warrior base class with druid BAB, 2 good saves,light armor to start with medium cap @ around 5th-6th level,apell level capt at 6th preferably 7th level spells, spontaneous casting with more spells per day than a bard, some kind of unique ability, and limit access to 2 schools of the players choice so each player could tailor to the kind of spells they want there character to cast. If there was a base class like this you could achieve the arcane ranger/paladin varient class Caineach and alot of other player want with a simple feat without even having to make a core class around it or just multi class into arcane warrior.

Feat:Arcane devotion
prequisite:ability to cast 1st level arcane spells in armor and ability to cast divine spells in armor.

Effect: you lose all ability to cast divine spells from one class. you may add 1/2 of that classes level to your arcane caster level.

Effect-you lose


The most effective arcane warrior I have seen played was a straight fighter/sorcerer. However, he made use of a lot of Spell Compendium spells to do it, and used a spell-storing weapon. With a lot of swift-action spells like critical strike and wraithstrike, simple buffs like fist of stone and a spell-stored shocking grasp he churned out some serious damage.

What I'm trying to say here is that it isn't necessarily class features or a good class or prestige class, it's good spells that synergise well with combat.

As for your problem with sheathing a weapon to cast, how about this for a solutuion for the sword-and-board arcane fighter: a magnet.

Yes, a lodestone attached to the inside of the shield - placing your sword on the magnet would be a free action, you can cast, and then quickdraw it back from the lodestone, and watch your DM curse you for being a smart-ass.


A Man In Black wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

I also fail to see the issue-

Nobody says clerics suck, yet for some reason the BAB 17, Armor wearing, 9th level caster (with better offensive spells) with Gtr Weapon focus/speciallisation/staggering crit guy is WEAK as and is not worth playing.?
Perhaps it's because the EK has few spells which are synergistic with melee, does nothing useful a straight wizard can't do, and has large stretches of levels where he's dead weight.

You don't need tons of synergistic spells to be good at melee, just a couple- Enlarge Person, Haste, Heroism for exampe: Gtr Heroism (Put this on a BAB17 Gish and your attack equals a Melee Chars.

Your standards may be different. I see most Gish as Equal (or slightly better) than a straight melee cleric. You seem to not like them as they cannot just melee a Balor on the first round with no buffing (not trying to be smart, but you've mentioned this a couple of times).

Clerics can't do this either and that's how I measure Gish. Surprised they have to maybe burn a quicked herosim or just cast Form of the Giant 2 on the first round THEN enter melee.

A cleric would likely go a quickend divine power, with a group buff on the first round THEN enter melee.

A Buffed cleric's DPR is not to dissimilar from a gishes either.

Both would have (for example) High STR (behind thier primary stat) belt of Phys Perfection, Power Attack, 2 handed high crit weapon (the Gish would likely also have Arcane Strike which would offset the clerics slightly better buffs)

I agree the Gish can't take on a CR equal opponent with no prep, I also accept this. Preparation is Key. Taking on a Fighter? Cast waves of exhaustion on his a$$, form of the Giant on yourself and go to town with your now Large sized Elven Curve Blade, blind critting him. Or just SOD him. Fighting a Wiz? Sorry but (in high level play) whomever goes first probably still wins.

Playing a gish, you need to remember a few things-
1. Pathfinder is a team game, arena theoretical comparisions don't mean much.
2. mages have limited spells per day, and your lower level slots mean less when saves get high and SR comes in. Being able to conserve your higher level slots (by meleeing weaker enemies) saves the big guns for later.
3. You are NOT as good as a Raging Barbarian or a Optimised Fighter or a Smiting Paladin at Melee, but you CAN and WILL contribute significantly (much like a meleeing cleric) if you plan your tactics and work together.

Further, most people who like gish don't always play them because it's THE BEST thing to do. But because it's a FUN style for them to play. If you feel Gish are crap don't play them. I don't like ranger's so I don't play em.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Ardenup wrote:
You don't need tons of synergistic spells to be good at melee, just a couple- Enlarge Person, Haste, Heroism for exampe: Gtr Heroism (Put this on a BAB17 Gish and your attack equals a Melee Chars.

All of which are better off cast on someone who isn't inherently bad at melee, by someone who hasn't watered down his spellcasting ability. Contrast with the self-only cleric spells.

If you stand there playing with yourself, sure, anyone can be good at melee.


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
Logically, it's a bonded item so you need to be in contact with it in some way. Whether that is one hand or two shouldn't matter. As a GM, I would never enforce a silly rule that the bond involved both hands at all time. If one of my players has a bonded greatsword and wishes to cast a spell, they will simply be taking a hand off and casting while holding it in the other hand.
I think it's pretty clear that THIS is what the rules intend.

+2

Grand Lodge

Yes a gish that buff the bejeezers out of themselves can be good at melee. Same with the cleric...but you know what in play, by the time you spend 2+ rounds buffing yourself up so you can be as good as a fighter, most fights are either pretty much in mop up stage...or the other party members are starting to get in a bit of a pickle and your probably gonna have to blow more rounds of buff to survive the encounter because since you didn´t help the party for 2+ rounds, your pretty much gonna have to solo the rest of the encounter. This is true for clerics who buff themselves up too. This is why I like having synergy feats like the old arcane strike and abilities like spell channeling and the quicken shield abilities of the abjurant champion. It lets a gish enter combat sooner so the party gets less fubared by me playing a gish. The old cleric had ways to make their buffs lasts or they lasted a while on their own...the PF cleric I do admit is in the same pickle as the PF gish in a lot of ways...just don´t have the delayed casting...which is pretty much 90%+ of the power deal.


Runeblade love it

Liberty's Edge

I wanted to stay quiet on this, especially until officially decided on and announced, but I have a Pathfinder base class currently under consideration for KQ that, after reading this thread, I am very confidant will be very much what many of you are looking for.

I am very excited about the class - I really wish I could say more, but I really can't;)

Grand Lodge

Marc Radle 81 wrote:

I wanted to stay quiet on this, especially until officially decided on and announced, but I have a Pathfinder base class currently under consideration for KQ that, after reading this thread, I am very confidant will be very much what many of you are looking for.

I am very excited about the class - I really wish I could say more, but I really can't;)

KQ?

The Exchange

Kobold Quarterly

Grand Lodge

Hunterofthedusk wrote:
Kobold Quarterly

I actually haven´t heard of that...I assume it´s like dragon...only bigger and put out less often?


Cold Napalm wrote:
Yes a gish that buff the bejeezers out of themselves can be good at melee. Same with the cleric...but you know what in play, by the time you spend 2+ rounds buffing yourself up so you can be as good as a fighter, most fights are either pretty much in mop up stage...

The knack is to either buff yourself in advance, or else use swift-action spells so you can cast and fight in the same round.


Dabbler wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Yes a gish that buff the bejeezers out of themselves can be good at melee. Same with the cleric...but you know what in play, by the time you spend 2+ rounds buffing yourself up so you can be as good as a fighter, most fights are either pretty much in mop up stage...
The knack is to either buff yourself in advance, or else use swift-action spells so you can cast and fight in the same round.

Exactly. With a good sneak and effective communication you can get early notice on fights, plus if you've a versatile spells known/prepped list you can cast like a normal (though better amored and less squishy) mage as a fall back any way. Being 1 spell level lower than straight wiz is not crippling.

Grand Lodge

Dabbler wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Yes a gish that buff the bejeezers out of themselves can be good at melee. Same with the cleric...but you know what in play, by the time you spend 2+ rounds buffing yourself up so you can be as good as a fighter, most fights are either pretty much in mop up stage...
The knack is to either buff yourself in advance, or else use swift-action spells so you can cast and fight in the same round.

And how often does the PF gish have swifts? between no ASF and arcane strike, your not gonna have any swifts. You can risk the ASF...but if your a wizard, that is at least 20% chance of screwage. As for pre casting buffs...yeah a few do last long enough...but most your only gonna get that chance with scry and die. In those cases, it's rather moot what you do really.


In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Grand Lodge

Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....


Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327


Cold Napalm wrote:
And how often does the PF gish have swifts? between no ASF and arcane strike, your not gonna have any swifts. You can risk the ASF...but if your a wizard, that is at least 20% chance of screwage. As for pre casting buffs...yeah a few do last long enough...but most your only gonna get that chance with scry and die. In those cases, it's rather moot what you do really.

That's why they made Pathfinder backward-compatible - so you can take stuff like the Spell Compendium and import spells on the OK of your DM. Then again, with the DM you have mentioned, it's probnably a lost cause to even ask.

Dark Archive

WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327

Interesting...

How many other classes have WotC released just online? This is a bit unusual. I don't remember seeing this class anywhere else other than online.

Grand Lodge

WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327

That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.

In anycase, the gish build I used in 3.5 was a fighter 1/wizard 6/spellsword 5/abjurant champion 5/EK 3. This means that I did NOT get 9th level spells...but I did really like spell channeling.

In anycase, the main issue was more of a feats list issue and less of a class issue. Practiced spell caster REALLY does help out the gish...and any MC casters really...but the MUST have feat that is missing from core is somatic casting. That feat is not only vital to the gish, but the cleric, paladin or ranger who wants to use two weapons or a shield. The simple act of casting one round and fighting the next can´t be effectively done without this feat.


Marc Radle 81 wrote:
I am very excited about the class - I really wish I could say more, but I really can't;)

now i'm excited the ranger rocked!


Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327

That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.

I thought it was interesting at least..

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327
That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.

Funny, for 3.5 it was generally a favorite at the CharOp boards. You generally made a tradeoff between 9th level spells or the capstone ability, depending on whether you wanted full casting or a bit more melee.


Kevin Morris wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327
That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.
Funny, for 3.5 it was generally a favorite at the CharOp boards. You generally made a tradeoff between 9th level spells or the capstone ability, depending on whether you wanted full casting or a bit more melee.

Yeah, Swiftblade is pretty damn good. I'm getting the feeling that you want to be a rules lawyer, but aren't quite good at it.

As for gishes, the biggest issue with them I had is the whole "must be level 7+ to actually be one." I dislike not being able to play a very general or basic character type from early on. Duskblade (kinda) beat this.

Grand Lodge

Kevin Morris wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327
That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.
Funny, for 3.5 it was generally a favorite at the CharOp boards. You generally made a tradeoff between 9th level spells or the capstone ability, depending on whether you wanted full casting or a bit more melee.

I was a regular of the charop...and I never saw this class...and considering how many caster level it lost, I would be very surprised if it was as popular as you claim. Yeah the capstone gives you timestop...but not the other 9th level spells. And if your going into this class with pure mage, then the melee aspect is meaningless. If your combining this class with fighter and EK to be more of a gish, then your gonna be down 6 CL. Which maybe an okay gish...but it certainly wouldn´t have been a CO prefered gish or sure. My build which loses 4 CL is considered a bad build...6 would be considered just awful.


Hey Cold, did you ever decide what you're gonna play?


Cold Napalm wrote:
Kevin Morris wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327
That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.
Funny, for 3.5 it was generally a favorite at the CharOp boards. You generally made a tradeoff between 9th level spells or the capstone ability, depending on whether you wanted full casting or a bit more melee.
I was a regular of the charop...and I never saw this class...and considering how many caster level it lost, I would be very surprised if it was as popular as you claim. Yeah the capstone gives you timestop...but not the other 9th level spells. And if your going into this class with pure mage, then the melee aspect is meaningless. If your combining this class with fighter and EK to be more of a gish, then your gonna be down 6 CL. Which maybe an okay gish...but it certainly wouldn´t have been a CO prefered gish or sure. My build which loses 4 CL is considered a bad build...6 would be considered just awful.

Uh, no. It was very popular as a gish, and it wasn't combined with EK, it was combined with things like Abjurant Champion and Unseen Seer. The abilities are glorious for a gish.

I honestly don't see you ever liking any gishes. You seem to want a full caster that just also happens to have full melee capabilities.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Kevin Morris wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
WWWW wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Ardenup wrote:

In that case, would you consider swiftblade to be an appropiate power level (the free action haste, defensive miss chances and associate class abilities seem to make it quite strong defensively).

Not core but to the Gish and EK knockers- (AMIB in particular) would you say it's balanced?

Swiftblade? I don´t remember that in any 3.5 splatbooks....
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327
That is a horrible PrC. The class is pure shicht. It made me vomit a bit in my mouth.
Funny, for 3.5 it was generally a favorite at the CharOp boards. You generally made a tradeoff between 9th level spells or the capstone ability, depending on whether you wanted full casting or a bit more melee.
I was a regular of the charop...and I never saw this class...and considering how many caster level it lost, I would be very surprised if it was as popular as you claim. Yeah the capstone gives you timestop...but not the other 9th level spells. And if your going into this class with pure mage, then the melee aspect is meaningless. If your combining this class with fighter and EK to be more of a gish, then your gonna be down 6 CL. Which maybe an okay gish...but it certainly wouldn´t have been a CO prefered gish or sure. My build which loses 4 CL is considered a bad build...6 would be considered just awful.

Uh, no. It was very popular as a gish, and it wasn't combined with EK, it was combined with things like Abjurant Champion and Unseen Seer. The abilities are glorious for a gish.

I honestly don't see you ever liking any gishes. You seem to want a full caster that just also happens to have full melee capabilities.

It was also one of the nicer ways to create a sort of Fighter/Mage/Thief by going into it with Beguiler. Their 9th-level spells really aren't that great so they don't lose much by taking the capstone either.

But you don't have to take our word for it. Here's the link to the main handbook ( http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871410/The_Swiftblade_H andbook?pg=1 ) which also includes links to other important Swiftblade-related threads.

Grand Lodge

Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Hey Cold, did you ever decide what you're gonna play?

Yeah, I´m gonna use a sword and shield and just bind the shield. It´s a really less cool and thematic accurate solution since I´m gonna have weapon focus, greater focus, spec and greater spec for the sword and pretty much nil for the shield...but rules are rules. Course this doesn´t solve my issue of drawing an AoO everytime I wanna cast a spell as I have to sheath my weapon. But hey, the cleric is in the same boat as me. We both hate the druid and his natural spell SOOOOOO much right now.

Grand Lodge

Kevin Morris wrote:


It was also one of the nicer ways to create a sort of Fighter/Mage/Thief by going into it with Beguiler. Their 9th-level spells really aren't that great so they don't lose...

Although I can see it being useful with beguiler. I still don´t like prestige classes like the swiftblade though.

Grand Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:


Uh, no. It was very popular as a gish, and it wasn't combined with EK, it was combined with things like Abjurant Champion and Unseen Seer. The abilities are glorious for a gish.

I honestly don't see you ever liking any gishes. You seem to want a full caster that just also happens to have full melee capabilities.

Well since the write up doesn´t mention swifts I assumed it´s heyday was before the AC and US. Because honestly, I doubt it would have seen much talk outside of when it first came out. Although with the AC, it could be fairly nice with no fighter req and no dead levels. You would just take 9 levels of this PrC and you can end up pretty well ahead actually. I take it back, it can be a good gish PrC mechanically...the class still makes me wanna vomit.

Oh and in case you missed it, my preferred build in 3.5 actually didn´t even get 9th level spells.


Hell yes it's good- 50% miss vs melee and targeted spells AND +3 hasted attack (free action) AND casting stat to initiative AND bounding assault AND Extra standard actions and you can still get 9th level spells. Wiz 6/Swiftblade 9/Full cast 5

Wanna kick butt. Free action (haste), Cast 2 unmodded ownage spells, win!
OR Free action (haste), move and Full Attack!

201 to 250 of 801 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Arg... gish issues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.