Gish in D&D 5e

>Too bad casters still dominate in 5e

Let me rephrase. It's the best class that isn't Wizard, Bard, or Moon Druid. Namely because Wizard has the most broken spells, Bard can steal those along with high level spells from the half-casters because it's designed poorly, and Moon Druid because Wildshape is designed poorly.

If I was going for strict power in a party of 4, I'd put Paladin on the list before a Cleric or a Sorcerer.

Hopefully the swordmage will eventually be a class.

I'm just gonna homebrew a proper Gish class myself. Already had to do a homebrew archtype for the Ranger, and a few Sorcerer Bloodlines.

Why not a Gish at this point.

I always felt like the pieces of a Swordmage were all there in other class features, but it's too level intensive to really pull off.

The Abjuration Wizard's level 6 feature seems like it could be great fun on an actual frontline class though to protect allies, and combined with some way to use melee cantrips to better effect could be a fun combo.

Just make wildshape maintain the HP missing percentage when shifting between forms and it's fine.

Yeah, overall my issues with those three classes aren't that hard to fix with a few houserules and changes. Maybe still not as balanced as some people would like, but my concern is more in the realm of overshadowing roles and breaking the game.

As long as a Bard isn't setting himself up to be a better archer than a Ranger and a Wizard isn't pulling off some nonsense with Simulacrum, the game works fine.

Some user's that frequently post in /5eg/ have made ports of both Pathfinder's Magus and 3.5's Duskblade, and styled them as arcane half caster classes. I might have saved the PDF for both of them, I'm not certain. Let me go check my local folders...

Sadly I canteen to find them. I remember the Duskblade one being more like a DPR version of a Paladin, trading heavy armor proficiency and going to a d8 hit die for the Arcane Channeling they had in 3.5 and the option to cast spells as bonus actions a limited number of times per long rest. Most of the spell list seemed to be blaster spells, with a few buff ones like Fly or Haste.

I believe the Magus version focused on applying various magical marks, brands, and curses to either debuff the foe or buff the damage they dealt, with the trade off being burning spell slots to perform said curses. I think their spell options were mostly utility with some blaster spells.

Don't forget 4e's Swordmage, which was a teleporting unarmored sword-wielder who warded off blows with arcane wards and literally melded melee & magic into every single attack.

Compared to that, 5e's efforts are jokes.

This. You're essentially using all your character building options to be able to eldtrich blast in melee

Yeah. The Hexblade at least makes it a bit less bad in that regard, since it lets you use Charisma for melee without needing to spend an Invocation like Eldritch Blast does for damage, and there are a few Invocations that can give it some other upsides in damage.

Still probably not as good as a standard warlock of another school, but at least it's not a completely pointless tradeoff like Blade Pact was alone.

4e swordmages wore leather armor

Funny thing about hexblade is that while it makes blade pact warlocks better, it also makes eldritch-blast spamming warlocks better as well, as the bonuses from hexblade curse apply to all attacks, not just weapon attacks

True, although the article also had a few Invocations that worked nicely for that, and the Hexblade will be a step ahead on Evocations, since it doesn't need to spend one to get Cha to attack and damage rolls. Plus there's one to simply teleport next to the target of your curse.

Again, I'm not saying it's the most optimal warlock out there, but it does solve a lot of the problems bladelocks had with being super detrimental. I'll take 'somewhat below par' over 'actively useless class features'

All invocations that require a level were errata'd to require that WARLOCK level.

Mostly because warlock was the multiclass bait class.

It still is, though mainly because 2 levels as any class with solid Charisma gives you a great ranged attack that automatically scales as you level.

And all it costs is your eternal soul, what a bargain.

Sorlocks are still the kings of damage when magic weapons aren't taken into account

Because eldritch blast + quickened eldritch blast is a lot of damage

Sorcadin, or if you start at high enough level/don't mind being kinda meh until you "get online"/allow UA multiclass sorclockadin.

I played one in 4ed I miss him.

Please tell us how the 4e swordmage and 5e's gishes differ and in what way?

Not him, but the big one is the Aegis. The rest you can sorta make do, if you are patient and multiclass some stuff.

Not him, but I think a couple big things about the 4e Swordmage were that they could use a blade as an implement, leaving their offhand free for a specialized ward spell that gave them a sort of swashbuckling vibe. Combine that with a lot of their attacks being a mix of elemental effects and melee attacks, along with a focus on teleporting around the battlefield to stab enemies or protect allies, and they had a really cool feel to them.

I think most of the pieces are there in 5e to make something similar, although the tricky bit is that they're spread around in a lot of places.

Basically, if they added Aegis as a first level spell (like they turned Warlock's hex into a 1st level spell), or possibly a cantrip, you could do it with bladesinger. A bit low on health, but having the AC sorta makes up for it.

M8ey compared to any 4e design element 5e is a joke.

I feel like you could translate it over as either a Shield spell that targetted an ally or a Hellish Rebuke style effect that could protect your friends instead, but both of those seem really lame in comparison, especially if it costs a spell slot each time.

And doing much more seems like a bit much. The Abjuration wizard gets a damage-reducing reaction that can protect allies starting at level 6, and the Hexblade Warlock gets a way to teleport next to enemies repeatedly at level 5.

Honestly, with the cantrips already in the game, I'm getting the feeling that maybe the Swordmage's Aegis effects would be better statted up as a feat. Something an Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, or maybe even a Warlock or Sorcerer could pick up in order to give them a way to protect their allies.

Well, if it'd eat both your concentration and your reaction it may be balanced as a spell.

I know that taking a slot sucks, but the alternative is a new class (admittedly, there's no arcane half-caster, and only 1 INT caster, so I don't see a problem with just having a swordmage).

>requires Character Level 5, and not Warlock Level 5 to learn.
So you didn't bother to read the erratas

the most gish experience I had in 5e was with:
Pal/Undyinglight Warlock/Draconic Sorcerer

Valor bard.

Full arcane casting, wears armour, can fight.

If you want to multiclass take two levels of something else for class features

>moon druids
>good past level 4
Opinion discarded

Honestly, my biggest issue with the Bladesinger as a stand-in for the Swordmage is not so much the lack of Aegis as the fact that the spells don't mesh up.

The Swordmage in 4e is a close to medium-ranged combatant; its spells are quick-casting affairs intended to be used up close and in person.

The Bladesinger, though, uses the standard Wizard spells, which mostly assume you're standing well-back from the melee and sniping with magic missiles and disintegrates and stuff.

The Bladesinger's inherently not suited for the Swordmage's "feel" because it's aimed at being more of a wizard with a little emergency melee training.

I'm not necessarily saying a 5e Swordmage as its own seperate Arcane Tradition is required, but the Bladesinger would be a LOT closer to the Swordmage if WoTC had converted over more of the Swordmage's spells.

There's a reason that the handful they DID convert are considered essential for any gish player to grab, be it Bladesinger, Bladelock or Eldritch Knight.

I always thought a Gish had to have synergy between his martial side and his caster side, that's why I never considered some of the 3.5 ""gishes"" an actual gish because there's no synergy is either you cast or you martial.

Duskblade (3.5) and Magus (PF) are way more synergetic (?) and Paladin (5e) is way less but at least has some synergy.

>level 4
They stay above up to 5th level, then they get a downgrade to good. I've seen a lot of play with them both from the player and GM perspective.

Also keep in mind that the Swordmage was meant to be used as a Tank/Controller in 4e, to absorb damage and shift foes around a bit (or even teleport themselves to a foe) and rely on the Aegis to keep them and their allies afloat.

I think the "best" way to do this in 5e would be to make it as an arcane half caster and they pick their archetype at first level: Swordmage for a tanky protector of allies that uses Aegis to increase AC and add a bonus to saves, Duskblade as a more bursty blaster fighter that gets Arcane Channeling for nova potential, and Magus as a full-time controller/debuff who burns spell slots to weaken foes or buff allies. Swordmage probably gets more armor proficiency, Duskblade knows more spells, and Magus gets a variation of Warlock Invocations as spell-like abilities.

That's why you see so many bladesingers who actually don't go melee

God man, whats the point of owning a physical copy of the Players handbook when they force you to check online every few months for an Errata.

Well yeah, the spells besides Aegis are also a problem, but you can sorta just pick out the ones that do exist and use those (blade cantrips, burning hands, uh... not sure what else, I'm not on top of my 5e). Yeah, some more melee spells would be nice.

You probably want to be some combination of Bladesinger + EK for a better Swordmage feel anyway. Full on Bladesinger is a bit too cast-y, EK is too little, combined they should be fine.

Errata for that wasn't even needed because power escaling always comes from the class you got that power, but because people like to munchkin they have to make rules clearer.

>Sure Paladin is a great class, but its by no means the traditional definition of a Gish, in this case being a Fighter / ARCANE Magic User.
A "traditional" definition of a gish is solely based on the available classes at the time. There is nothing about a paladin's list of abilities and spells that does not make it a gish through and through in 5e, just like the Mystic UA is also a great gish in 5e.

These retarded super narrow definitions that keep getting more and more narrow as time goes on is stupid.

Well, at least now that there is a Githyanki player race in playtest as of yesterday we are a step closer to the true Gish.

Stone Sorcerer and Hexblade have, in my experience, made hilariously competent gishes. to the point where I have a Stone/Hex sorlock that the party munchkin is still yelling at me for not arming with Eldritch Blast despite him being a fully functional bastard without it.

That's cool for stacking CHA bonuses to GFB and twin it or quicken it with sorcerer metamagic.

Yeah, especially tomelock for shillelagh or hexblade

>hexblade
Not really, undying light gives you +Cha to fire and radiant spells so for every GFB you add +Cha to damage (and because you quicken it you GFB twice per turn), Hexblade has no such thing. Also Draconic Sorcerer adds +Cha to fire damage too (if correct dragon).

Moon druid just feels like it was off handedly made because "druids need to be able to shapeshift" and then forgotten about.

It spikes at level 2 and can't be stopped until level 5. Then at 5 it falls off a cliff until 10, where it proceeds to be good for another 2 or 3 levels before being underpowered again.

Yeah, Bladesinger has the unfortunate side effect of being stapled to an amazing class. It's not really a sword mage so much as it's a cooldown for free +5 AC.

Hexblade has a few upsides:
- it comes online (giving you CHA to attack) at level 1 instead of level 3
- it doesn't lock you into Tome (for shillelagh), so you can grab blade pact for the CHA to damage (if you go that far) that works universally/doesn't require a bonus to activate/can be used with any weapon not just staffs, and warlock smites
- you are not locked into Fire as your damage source, so you can use the sorc variant that adds +CHA to your thunder damage, which means you can use booming blade instead of GFB, which can be twinned as well as quickened
- hexblade curse for some extra damage

Tying it to actual monster stats was a terrible idea. They should have paid attention to 4e where it was 'You turn into a primal representation of nature, while it can be any animal you don't need to go through books to find the best statline'. Give it scaling Natural Weapons (The exact sort are up to you), special movement at level 5 or something and extra attack (Limited to your Natural Weapons).

With summoning spells I'm pretty sure it's still very solid. Especially if you start with a CON class dip + take warcaster, then turn into some high-CON form.

>The Prefect Gish.

>As long as people don't take advantage of this boon, the game isn't imbalanced at all.
I thought we moved past this after hearing 3aboos spout this same garbage for over a decade.

If there's an option in the game that's objectively superior to another option within the game, you'd be doing yourself a disservice in not picking that option since the devs intended for people to use those options when confronting encounters.

>giving you CHA to attack
Not really, it exchanges Str/Dex for Cha, but yeah, that's nice. Also Undying like +Cha to Fire and Radiant appears at 1st level so I'm already dealing [W]+Str+Cha while you deal [W]+Cha and against a single dude per short rest you add +Prof
>it doesn't lock you into Tome
Neither does pal/undyinglight/draconicsorcerer, I wasn't Tome, I could, but I wasn't, I went Bladepact because teleporting out of anywhere weapon sounded cool even if I didn't get much benefit
>you are not locked into Fire as your damage source
This was a problem I agree

In the end my GFB dealt 3d8+Str+2xCha vs primary target and 4d8+3xCha to secondary target.

Compared to your BB that deals 3d8+2xCha and if it moves 4d8 (+Prof against a single dude per short rest)

Yours sound like a cool build too.

Paladins and Valor Bards, but both of them are pretty much martials who occasionally cast spells.

>Valor Bard
>Martial who occasionally cast spells

Ah, I thought you were going for the CHA monkey build with shillelagh. In that case, Hexblade has the really big upside (imo, anyway) that it focuses on CHA and doesn't need STR for attacks (though it doesn't have the tome-related upsides, and you probably want some for Plate).

The traditional gish is a Fighter/Mage multiclass. Paladin is not a fucking Fighter/Mage anywhere outside of a very specific combination of ACFs and feats in 3.5.

I fucked up that post, I meant to post EK instead of Valor Bard.

I always feel as if they made a Gish class with the ability to channel spells through weapons it would probably go over better. Something like this ability from the Homebrew Blood Hunter Class.

For context for those who have never used Blood Hunter, to use this ability you have to enchant your weapon by sacrificing current HP + Max HP = to your character level as a bonus action to do additional damage. You can also use this ability while this enchantment is active.

What do you guys think, in regards to the channeling ability do you think this is too much and maybe breaks the action economy or you think this is just what we need to fill the void?

People need to shut the fuck up about action economy because there are things that already exist in 5E that break it harder than any gish could.

A good gish will never exist in 5e because the system is designed to be as bland and uninteresting as possible to appeal to both grogs and normies who have never played an RPG before.

You'd be better off playing something like exalted since it's a system that's meant to be balanced around the fact that it's a) not meant to be balanced and b) meant to feature larger than life heroes doing awesome feats because they're beyond human limitation.

I'd like some examples as to things that already break it for your claim. (I'm not saying Channeling would break it I'm just trying to gauge the rooms thoughts.) Do you think the channeling feature would help with the gish-like feel?

Quicken Spell, Action Surge, whatever the fuck the Eldritch Knight's bonus action casting feature is called.

War magic.

>Quicken Spell
Limited, use bonus action.
>Action Surge
Very Limited once per short rest to regain action.
>War Magic + Improved War Magic
Uses both action and bonus action for Cantrip + Bonus action attack/ Spell + Bonus Action attack.

I don't see how these break the action economy. They are either limited in nature or require both the action and bonus action to utilize.

A channeling feature would only use your action to both cast and attack.
EX
>As an action I cast Lightning Bolt and channel that through my longbow, and fire the arrow. Arrow hits weapon damage + saving throws are made for the spell effect.

>Bonus action to do ??? whatever you can do as a bonus action.

Valor Bard or Fighter 1 / Lore Bard?

I'm speaking as a DM for things that I ban. Bards pinching Swift Quiver at mid-level instead of endgame and Wizards getting infinite wishes do not seem intentional in the slightest.

>the flavor of eldritch knight and spellsword is literally just "guy who casts spells and has swords"
>the flavor of duskblade is "elf who casts spells and has swords."
>the flavor of the eldritch knight, arcane trickster, and valor bard is "guy who casts spells and has swords"
>the flavor of bladesinger is "elf who casts spells and has swords"
>you think 5e's gishes are lacking thematically

You are an idiot.

Bards stealing Swift Quiver and smites are absolutely intentional. Archivists did the exact same thing with Paladin and Ranger spells back in 3.5 and it was 100% intentional.

If the rules interact in such a way that it allows a player to access those exploits then the exploit was intentional, even if the devs are not wholly aware of it.

Like for example, if I take "red" and combine it with "blue," it'll still make purple even if I'm unaware that such a thing was possible.

>Bards Pinching Swift Quiver/Destructive Wave
This is pretty intentional, a full caster swiping up a spell from a half caster is completely fine as written.

>Wizards Getting infinite Wishes
Wish has a limitation in which you could theoretically lose the ability to cast the spell forever and it also affects your Strength score.

You are a good DM. 5E become really satisfying after these quick little surgeries done to the more 3aboo parts of the rules.

A good gish will never exist in 5e because players are idiots who have some kind of hysterical blindness to all the good gish options that are already there.

>It's fine when the Bard becomes a better archer than the Ranger focused on archery just because he picked a spell

>A good gish will never exist in 5e because players are idiots who have some kind of hysterical blindness to all the good gish options that are already there.
Such as?

Blame WotC.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Besides, Rangers suck anyhow.

>good gish options that are already there
>Eldritch Knight: hit things, suck ass at magic
>Paladin: hit things, suck less at magic
>Bladesinger: zero incentive to use the class as a gish instead of a Wizard that can't be touched
>Bard: hit things or be a full spellcaster unless you steal the Paladin's smites
>Warlock: lol blade pact

Exalted is needlessly complicated in every way. What could have been a cool freeform game about making up epic stunts became a quagmire of overly granular rules and even worse ivory tower game design than 3.5. There are so many moving parts during character creation, they move in such weird ways, and everything is described with such unhelpful purple prose that you have no idea if you've made something broken or unplayable.

Fighters by nature are better Archers than Rangers blame WotC for that. Bards are better than Rangers by design.

Those are all good options.

No matter what, when you go for breadth rather than depth you're going to have a plan A and a backup plan. You can either be a fighter with spells for backup or a caster with weapons for backup. That you want to be good as a specialist in both swords and spells without having to specialize signifies that you are a munchkin optimizer who just wants to break the game open.

Have you actually played it before? If so, what edition was it?

No, they're not.

>Those are all good options.
Lol no, what are you smoking?
>You can either be a fighter with spells for backup or a caster with weapons for backup.
Then you're not a gish, you're just a martial/mage with more options that suck in the long run.
>That you want to be good as a specialist in both swords and spells without having to specialize signifies that you are a munchkin optimizer who just wants to break the game open.
Ah, the classic retort of a buttmad roleplayer who can't build a good character to save his life. How bout next time you just flip coins and leave RPG's to people who actually want to play them, m'kay?

Depends, by the time a Fighter has 4 attacks so does have the Ranger (5 if he has giant slayer?), so you could argue is not that easy to say which is better at archery.

Bard though gets 4 attacks with archery like way way way earlier than Ranger making him better than ranger at archery.

You're the one assuming that people want Lightning Warriors instead of Duskblades or Maguses when they're talking about gishes.

I've played 2nd and 3rd, each of which has its own special problems, but they share the general theme of having way more rules and player bells and whistles than necessary. They should have embraced the fact that their setting is way too diverse and outlandish to be simulated by rules and just made it more narrative.

The sheer volume of charms that do only marginally different things is stupid, having a different charm tree for every kind of martial arts is stupid, beginning the description of each charm with useless fluff before getting to what it actually does is stupid, increasing your wound levels with a charm rather than just with points is stupid, counting initiative in ticks was stupid, and 3e's dynamic initiative is only a little bit less stupid. I don't even mind 2e's rocket tag because it fits the theme. They could have even embraced it and replaced wound levels entirely with the number of perfect defenses you have left.

>Wish has a limitation in which you could theoretically lose the ability to cast the spell forever and it also affects your Strength score.

You mean your Simulacrum could lose the ability to cast the spell for ever.

Like I said, banning exploits.

>intentional
>done on purpose, deliberate

Ending up with a rules interaction by mistake is the exact opposite of intentional.

I would not use 3.5 as a good metric for Devs understanding their own game, nor as a good source for balanced houserules.

>Then you're not a gish, you're just a martial/mage with more options that suck in the long run.
You have some kind of weird private definition of gish, one that will never be satisfied no matter how many more options Wizards releases.

>Ah, the classic retort of a buttmad roleplayer who can't build a good character to save his life. How bout next time you just flip coins and leave RPG's to people who actually want to play them, m'kay?
If you want to optimize, that's cool. It can be fun to find the dominant strategy for any given set of rules. But when you want to change the rules to suit what you think should be the dominant strategy, that's not optimizing anymore; that's being a crybaby.

Is it too much for you to comprehend that people want to do cool things, and that the only way to do cool shit is through 5e's still-broken magic system?

>Ending up with a rules interaction by mistake is the exact opposite of intentional.
False!

If it wasn't intentional in some way then it wouldn't work the way that it does. Ignorance does not excuse negligence.