|
Our group recently completed Council of Thieves, in which I played a sorcerer (Abyssal)/fighter/eldritch knight. I concentrated on making a melee fighter, so I invested heavily in buff spells like heroism and bull's strength, as well as feats like arcane strike, arcane armor training and mastery, armor proficiency light and medium. Of course, I also sought out a magic mithral breastplate and buckler to dispose of that pesky arcane spell failure. The character turned out to be a fairly decent melee combatant, especially if he had time to prepare. However, the lower caster level and lack of spell-related feats made him a pretty ineffectual spellcaster, particularly when it came to offensive spells. Still. if you are not too concerned about combat optimization, it is a pretty fun character to play.
This is not a Gish. Shugenja are divine casters. Great story though!I gished in Rokugan.
While Rokugani Shugenja are divine casters...look at the numbers. d6 hit dice, poor BaB, only good Will saves, casting like a sorcerer - with a mix of arcane/divine spells to choose from. We're not talking Cleric or Druid here - Shugenja were gimped Sorcerers.
The only saving grace is armored casting...though they got no armor proficiencies. And you couldn't multiclass without a feat (which I had), and even then you had rough multiclassing limitations.
Maybe it wasn't a gish, but is sure smelled, sounded, looked, felt and tasted like one.
+1, If you're going to make this arguement then none of the examples are gish since none are Githyanki.
Mixing warrior/caster levels a 'gish' makes. I included my psychic warrior and would include a mageblade from AE for the same reasons.
So does that mean a cleric is a gish? A druid? I dunno, if someone says gish i think arcane, perhaps the purists are right and the term isnt useful :P.
|
I think we're using "Gish" to define someone Gish as someone who is both primary caster and primary melée. So combat bards and "spirit of the wolves" Druids qualify. For that matter, divine/arcanes are being counted. In 3.5 many clerics would qualify as well; though combat clerics are difficult now (Oracle and Inquisitor generally do them better anyway).
Gish is not strictly Arcane Melee here; it is using the term from the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana "combo guys"; though without the rules of such.
So does that mean a cleric is a gish? A druid? I dunno, if someone says gish i think arcane, perhaps the purists are right and the term isnt useful :P.
Mixing warrior/caster levels a 'gish' makes. I included my psychic warrior and would include a mageblade from AE for the same reasons.
My internal definition is "a warrior who relies on spellcasting to improve his/her fighting ability". So by that definition, a melee Cleric 9 who likes to use Divine Power, Righteous Might, etc. would be a "gish", and a Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 2 who likes to use Magic Missile and Lightning Bolt would not be a gish (just a crappy wizard).
Nothing keeps out the anti-gish people. They are OBSESSED.
|
|
This is not a Gish. Shugenja are divine casters. Great story though!I gished in Rokugan.
While Rokugani Shugenja are divine casters...look at the numbers. d6 hit dice, poor BaB, only good Will saves, casting like a sorcerer - with a mix of arcane/divine spells to choose from. We're not talking Cleric or Druid here - Shugenja were gimped Sorcerers.
The only saving grace is armored casting...though they got no armor proficiencies. And you couldn't multiclass without a feat (which I had), and even then you had rough multiclassing limitations.
Maybe it wasn't a gish, but is sure smelled, sounded, looked, felt and tasted like one.
+1, If you're going to make this arguement then none of the examples are gish since none are Githyanki.
Mixing warrior/caster levels a 'gish' makes. I included my psychic warrior and would include a mageblade from AE for the same reasons.
Does this apply for something like a Warpriest then? Heavily geared toward combat to begin with, spells to back it up, plus the loss of only one spell level overall?
If that's the case, I just spent three years playing a Gish.
I've played several (I'd say about a dozen in one night games 3 in on going games) in 3x versions. A lot of it really depends on the runner in question (if they love lots of higher powered fights in one day it can lessen you effect) but for the most part I've found that if you are willing/able to keep scrolls of all your spells around and use you spell slots for damage/buffs in most battles you stay up to pare. You attack the foes who are open to magic with magic, and the ones who are open to melee with melee it works out fairly well. If you use buff spells correctly then you can make as big or bigger a dent when fighting high powered creatures that don't really have a weakness per say (such as dragons) but will drain you for the day.
|
Nothing keeps out the argumentative people. They are OBSESSED.
Let's not be so limited. You can't start a thread about anything without detractors showing up to badmouth it. Politics, editions, flavors of ice cream, doesn't matter what the topic is.
As for the topic, I tried a dwarven ranger/wizard, but the game didn't get past 2nd level, so I can't really contribute anything.
Throughout the years, I've used several Gish as NPCs. Almost every time, the Gish has used their spells for buffs. Offensive magic was a waste of time. From time to time, a Magic Missile found its way towards the party in exasperation, but that's about it. I don't think I've ever not feated for medium or heavy armor proficiency when not provided by class abilities.
After the Warmage came out, I used it as the primary class when creating guards for the arcane churches and guilds in my campaign world. They worked out pretty well. They're rather underpowered I guess compared to some of the wrangling you can do with the rules, but they're a f!!@ of a lot easier to prepare and play than the rules-wrangled options.
So does that mean a cleric is a gish? A druid? I dunno, if someone says gish i think arcane, perhaps the purists are right and the term isnt useful :P.This is not a Gish. Shugenja are divine casters. Great story though!I gished in Rokugan.
While Rokugani Shugenja are divine casters...look at the numbers. d6 hit dice, poor BaB, only good Will saves, casting like a sorcerer - with a mix of arcane/divine spells to choose from. We're not talking Cleric or Druid here - Shugenja were gimped Sorcerers.
The only saving grace is armored casting...though they got no armor proficiencies. And you couldn't multiclass without a feat (which I had), and even then you had rough multiclassing limitations.
Maybe it wasn't a gish, but is sure smelled, sounded, looked, felt and tasted like one.
+1, If you're going to make this arguement then none of the examples are gish since none are Githyanki.
Mixing warrior/caster levels a 'gish' makes. I included my psychic warrior and would include a mageblade from AE for the same reasons.
Gish is arcane, it always was, and always will be. This term is meant for them because divine already has the ability to cast in armor.
None of us have ever played a Githyanki.
After the Warmage came out, I used it as the primary class when creating guards for the arcane churches and guilds in my campaign world. They worked out pretty well. They're rather underpowered I guess compared to some of the wrangling you can do with the rules, but they're a f!&~ of a lot easier to prepare and play than the rules-wrangled options.
Damn if that isnt the truth. My favorite part of playing a warmage was the first 5 levels, my answer to 85-95% of the questions my dm asked me was "I hit it with rocks" (hail of stone). I love that spell. I didnt have to think much about my spell choice, so instead i made of verbal and somatic components for my spells, and described in detail what and how i used them. Was alot of fun. Its a wonder how much time you get when you dont have to dig through a wizards spellbook.
None of us have ever played a Githyanki.
Thank you so very much for adding to the conversation with your blanket statement that is not only as I said absent of any contribution to the conversation, but actually untrue. I have played as a githyanki in 3.5, and I bet at least a few others have as well. I just havent played a githyanki fighter mage. He was a rogue if I recall correctly.
I can give a GM's perspective at least. I am running a campaign that started in 3.5 at 14th level, and is currently at 17th level using PFRPG. We have a Fighter 1/Arcane Sorcerer 6/Eldritch Knight 10 and a Ranger Wizard Arcane Archer whose class split I don't quite remember at the moment.
Now, I do have to provide a caveat: based on comments I have received before, I understand that I am the only being in the universe who is or has ever run a high level game, and therefore my experience regarding the matter doesn't really count. I missed the memo that the levels past 10 in the core rulebook were just meant to be filler, so I apologize for my ignorance.
Of course, I'm puzzled, because when people show their uber-awesome builds or test classes, they use 20th level characters, but I'm sure I'll understand how this is all supposed to work someday.
But just for the record:
When game began at 14th in 3.5, we only had the ranger-wizard (level split was 6 ranger, 8 wizard, I believe). Largely archery based, so if a "gish" is melee only, you can set this aside. While an elf ranger-wizard should work as it's a very elfy concept, he struggled. The arcane archer in 3.5 didn't work very well, so he didn't take it. He did well with utility spells to support his rangeryness, but couldn't affect enemies very well.
When we converted to Pathfinder, he rewrote his character slightly, taking a few levels of the new and improved Arcane Archer, as these now helped add to his caster level, etc. He is doing much better because his CL went up and the Prestige Class actually helps synergize the two taken base classes. He is not going to throw combat spells at bosses--but he's far more effective anyway in those fights boosting himself and shooting the boss down (which he's becoming notorious for doing).
The Eldritch Knight joined us when we converted to Pathfinder at 17th. He wears mithril breastplate, if I recall, and usually avoids having to check for spell failure via either Arcane Armor Training or using the Arcane Bloodline ability to make spells a Still Spell while still casting at only a standard action. He is a solid melee combatant--I don't think he would win the DPS award, but he's a good heavy hitter with a falchion and a well-designed crit build that also nicely takes advantage of the EK's capstone. He's got a decent, not the highest, but decent AC in the 30s and if he ends up taking the front line (as he often does) he can boost himself with Fire Shield and other tricks to make him either harder to hit, or annoying to hit by the enemy.
With only 1 fighter level, he's only slightly behind the party's full casting cleric on caster level and has seldom failed a caster level check to beat SR (and the full caster hasn't made her checks 100% of the time either). He's got a strong charisma and his DCs aren't easy to beat.
Obviously since he joined the party at 17th, I can't comment on how he worked/would have worked at lower levels, but midlevels he probably would have been a slightly weaker than usual sorcerer--but still would have good enough charisma and skills to keep up.
Though it has nothing to do with being an arcane warrior, I'll also note that the Eldritch Knight came in to replace a Party Face Paladin. He fills the Party Face well with EK and Sorc skills and Charisma, and where he doesn't hit quite as hard as the paladin did, he makes up for it in flexibility and firepower. He is a very adaptable character that works well in my campaign, which has both "normal" combats as well as a lot of diplomatic circumstances, skills and puzzle challenges (not "Skill Challenges" but things that you have to solve well).
Both characters contribute extremely well to the party both in and out of combat. Especially since the Cleric is the Cloistered variant and doesn't participate in melee, they handle the combat with the Rogue-Shadowdancer very effectively.
Anyone who wants to know more about the builds in question, ask.
Now, I do have to provide a caveat: based on comments I have received before, I understand that I am the only being in the universe who is or has ever run a high level game, and therefore my experience regarding the matter doesn't really count. I missed the memo that the levels past 10 in the core rulebook were just meant to be filler, so I apologize for my ignorance.
Of course, I'm puzzled, because when people show their uber-awesome builds or test classes, they use 20th level characters, but I'm sure I'll understand how this is all supposed to work someday.
You are not the only soul to ever run one, I have run a high level game, i just think the vast majority are at lower levels. And the reason people post 1-20 builds is they would like to PLAY 20th level characters, but you will find far fewed DMs interested in the idea then is needed to run games for all those players.
Gish is arcane, it always was, and always will be. This term is meant for them because divine already has the ability to cast in armor.
Thing is, though, a lot of people who want an arcane/melee hybrid want to give it armored casting...heck the Bard GETS armored casting.
So why do people want to melee/arcane? So they can self-buff to effectively melee? That's EXACTLY what Clerics/Druids do. No, it has to be the spell selection. They want the wiz-bang wizard spells that Clerics/Druids can't have.
So, to me, 'gish' = "I want melee and arcane spell list!"
If this is so, the L5R Shugenja fit the bill - they were divine casters, but had LOTS of spells from the arcane spell list. Of course, they were sorcerers so they couldn't take much advantage of it...terrible, terrible spellcasting class...but the only one that was available. Heck, I had to take a feat JUST so I could dip into Barbarian (Berserker) and then return to Shugenja.
Ok few things. First I will not use the word as it 1: Means a Githyanki. subcast and 2: In the real word the common use of that word is...something I am not gonna cover here, look it up
Anyhow an arcane warrior or fighter/mage style pc does indeed need to have well...arcane in it. So nope divine based classes do not count as playing a F/M
Played a Githzerai, which I found more interesting that the other gith spawn.
I had a Githzerai Psiwarrior modeled after Dakon. He created more of the society than the books as far as I'm concerned. That was a fun character, who functioned a lot like a Gish.
I have not found anything on urbandictionary in their definitions of Gish that has disturbed me. I guess I am just heartier than most.
Nothing keeps out the anti-gish people. They are OBSESSED.Obsessed? it's you folks that make a new thread practically every day. At this rate they should make a forum sandbox just for these threads.
That would be interesting, but i think it would be a slippery slope. If we have a gish section of the forums, what then? We would need a 'what alignment is batman' section for sure, anything else?
I still chalk up the continued discussion to unfulfilled desire to be a fighter/mage in 3.x despite alot of efforts.
Edit:
Just thought of another one: Fighters/Barbarian complaint forum section.
2: In the real word the common use of that word is...something I am not gonna cover here, look it upI'm going to recommend NOT looking it up like seeker suggests. Just take his word that it is highly NSFW.
Yeah my fault I should have said NSFW, but yep thats one of the main reasons I don't use that word. Sounding silly is another, not meaning what folks use it for is a 3rd. In that order really.
pretty much LazarX, ya hit in in one right there.
It's more like unfufillable in the context of what the posters want. It's nearly impossible to execute those desires without stepping on the toes of single-classed fighters and mages.I still chalk up the continued discussion to unfulfilled desire to be a fighter/mage in 3.x despite alot of efforts.
Indeed, just like it was impossible to make the bard without stepping on the rogue and sorcerors toes. It was also impossible to make the paladin without stepping on the cleric and fighter's toes. And dont even get me started on the ranger. That bastard has crushed more toes then I can count. You are absolutely correct, hybrid classes are simply impossible to create without ruining the game for those classes that already exist.
but ya can't get 3 people to agree on what they want.
It needs to be full baba , full caster!
Medium BAB, bard casting
Full baba, 1/2 caster
wait better swift action abitys
No better buffs
No wait we need better damaging spells
eh can't make anyone happy here
but ya can't get 3 people to agree on what they want.
It needs to be full baba , full caster!
Medium BAB, bard casting
Full baba, 1/2 casterwait better swift action abitys
No better buffs
No wait we need better damaging spellseh can't make anyone happy here
While you are right there is a difference of opinions, there is not really more then 3 general opinions on how it should pan out.
3/4 and bard casting
Full bab 4 levels
Full bab 6 levels heavily restricted spell list.
No one, has said full bab full caster, NO ONE.
The details differ, but every class has different opinons on what it SHOULD do. Remember the arguments over the final version of hte paladin? People disagreed on that, does that mean the paladin shouldnt exist?
And of course you cant make everyone happy, but you could make many if not most of them happy with 1 or 2 classes.
but you could make many if not most of them happy with 1 or 2 classes.
No you couldn't, it's just be more of "why does x suck" just like the EK, Folks have an ideal of what they want, an unreasonable one most times and if it doesn't fit they are just not happy
You could make some of em happy but not most and prob not half
But the EK does suck.
Point out people who don't like the Duskblade.
A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.
but you could make many if not most of them happy with 1 or 2 classes.No you couldn't, it's just be more of "why does x suck" just like the EK, Folks have an ideal of what they want, an unreasonable one most times and if it doesn't fit they are just not happy
You could make some of em happy but not most and prob not half
That is a pretty big blanket statement for the whole of people interested in a fighter mage base class. I wonder, wasnt there lots of talk about wants and not wants of the various things during the playtest of the Core rules? People disagreed with what they wanted didnt they? I seem to remember as much. But in the end we got a product that most of us are satisfied with. But that is somehow not possible with this one specific concept right? Because people who want a fighter mage class are just bickering children who could never be happy right?
A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.
Actually the EK provably sucks for the first 2 books of every Adventure path. You know because it's absent.
A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.
Saying "you count as fighter levels" does not a good class make.
A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.Saying "you count as fighter levels" does not a good class make.
but what about how it's 'capstone' precludes the use of the basic feats that combine spellcasting and fighting (arcane strike and arcane armor training/mastery) that makes the class awesome right?
but what about how it's 'capstone' precludes the use of the basic feats that combine spellcasting and fighting (arcane strike and arcane armor training/mastery) that makes the class awesome right?A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.Saying "you count as fighter levels" does not a good class make.
That makes it even better.
The PF EK is better than the 3.5 EK (remotely) but it is still a weak class.
Seriously, who thinks the Duskblade sucks? Point them out so they can explain themselves.
but what about how it's 'capstone' precludes the use of the basic feats that combine spellcasting and fighting (arcane strike and arcane armor training/mastery) that makes the class awesome right?A good amount I have seen at lest 10 or 15 posters stat that on this board alone. and no the EK does not suck, but see there lays the issue.Saying "you count as fighter levels" does not a good class make.That makes it even better.
The PF EK is better than the 3.5 EK (remotely) but it is still a weak class.
Seriously, who thinks the Duskblade sucks? Point them out so they can explain themselves.
ok ok we have gone a bit far Caedwyr is right. seeker if you like i'd be glad to continue our discussion in a different thread.
Because people who want a fighter mage class are just bickering children who could never be happy right?
Not what I said, what I said was most will not be happy no matter what is done, just look at the base classes for proof that ya can't please everyone and in this case I don't think ya can please even half unless you pu out about 6 classes that fill every possible nitch and make the core classes useless
Advanced Player's Guide?
Not even close, it has six class that fill small niches folks wanted, but ya never gonna get half og the F/M crowd to agree on any one class, may 6 if they make the other classes useless will be "right"
Ya just can't make folks happy