Hexblade, duskblade, bladesinger and sword mage in 5e

The arcane warrior concept has a bit of a spotty history in dnd.

I was wondering if people wanted to see it come back as a class and if so whether they wanted one of the old class concepts to be updated or modified, or what new ideas people had.

Or

Should multi-classing just be set up so that fighter-wizards don't suck?
The arcane warrior concept has a bit of a spotty history in dnd.

I was wondering if people wanted to see it come back as a class and if so whether they wanted one of the old class concepts to be updated or modified, or what new ideas people had.

Or

Should multi-classing just be set up so that fighter-wizards don't suck?

My nostalgic inclination is to opt for setting up multiclassing so that fighter/wizards don't suck, but I believe that there is real design space for a truly melee/magic integrated gish concept.

I'm not really the target audience, so I'll let others chime in.

Danny

I'll go with 'multi-classing should be set up so that no combination sucks', actually.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I agree with Salla and mrpopstar. i dont know if there is enough design space for the concept of the gish as a full class (except, perhaps, on FR, where swordmages are "classic"). My vote is for "a multiclass system that does not suck".
I think there is definitely enough history and design space to justify including a "magic warrior" class.  They've said that they don't want to introduce classes too often in Next, but you could fold a good few concepts into Magic Warrior.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
I want both.  Certainly want multi-classing that doesn't suck no matter what combination is put together, fighter-wizard included.

Also think there is room for a true gish class with things like chanelling magic though your weapon, teleporting adjacent to a marked enemy, or what have you.
Swallowed by a generic magic user... 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

A multiclass wizard/fighter type usually ends up simply being a character that holds a sword while shooting a fireball or swings a sword like a fighter when not casting spells. The duskblade/bladesinger, OTOH, usually has something a little more unique than a straight multiclass, like the ability to channel spells through melee attacks or have some kind of magical defense. I think the magic swordsman is definitely a strong enough concept to stand on it own and there is a ton of design space for magic melee offensive and defensive abilities.
Well then for all those who want a class, what should the class look like? 
Well then for all those who want a class, what should the class look like? 



Oh I want the class just think the trend is.. oh its arcane Bladesinger.. munch Im magic user.... Witch.... much Im a magic user.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Um reroll that coherence check please.
Um reroll that coherence check please.



The 4e offerings 
A witch could have been a Druid/Warlock Arcane/Primal mix.... instead the class was a wizard.
A bladesinger could have been an opportunity to fix some swordmage short comings and maybe have a striker style swordmage... instead it was just a wizard.

The number of wizard/subclass plus schools  added in 4e was approaching obnoxious.. I am just expecting almost every arcane class to be eaten by the wizard
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Yeah wizard really needs to get broken up a bit.
D&D would be a better game if classes and monsters didn't sound like someone took a deck of magic cards and shuffled them to produce new material. The Diablo Magic Item table from 2nd edition should not be the guiding light for designing classes or races.

Your Feral Wilder Dusk Rat Shadowblade Demonmage of the Black Acid Mountains should not exist.
Options are Liberating
Yeah, feral's a stupid background.

Anyway could you be a little more precise as to your problem? that characters are composed of too many pieces, or that the names sound silly? and how is that relevant to the topic?
Yeah, feral's a stupid background.

Anyway could you be a little more precise as to your problem? that characters are composed of too many pieces, or that the names sound silly? and how is that relevant to the topic?



I'm not sure when they started doing it, but its always been silly. Monstrous Manual 5 for 3.5e or so had this problem big time. When I see the many names for spell casters with swords, I'm seeing too many of the same character class, and their existence is being justified because their prefixes and suffixes don't match up, even though all of them are nothing but flavored Fighter-Mage hybrids. Sometimes they're a Mage-Thief hybrid, but let's be real, a Mage doesn't really gain anything by being a Thief, except getting a step closer to being a fighter - we've already had the pick lock/knock hide in shadows/invisibility backstab/SoD debate - what you really gain is a spell caster with a sword, and possibly some light armor.

In 2e, we called them Bards. And the Bard's handbook had a lot of kits. The Elves had kits too for their Fighter Mages. Anything else is basically a campaign specific flavored variant of these two. Putting Blade or Mage at the end of my title, or Dusk, Shadow, Hex, somewhere else in my name doesn't make me unique, it makes me a laughing stock- particularly if the part of my title doesn't actually correlate with my actual powers. Like if I somehow wielded a blade and stabbed people for blood used in blood magic rituals only, then that would be very different from someone with a fancy title who just happened to have a short sword and magic missiles. Likewise, if I have Shadow in my name, perhaps I have access to shadow magic? Perhaps I don't cast a shadow too?

I don't mind breaking up the wizard stuff, in 2nd edition we had specialists and later custom wizards with limited school access. I dont think it should be forced, and I dont think we need more than one kind of "generalist" caster-warrior hybrid.  3e supplements got crazy with the number of hybrids.
Options are Liberating
I don't recall 3.5 getting an MM5, uh 3.0 got up to 4 I think, but after that and for the run of 3.5 (excepting the MM1 reprint of course) they didn't run general monster manuals they preferred to use setting books, or loosely themed books to fill out the hordes.

As for the names, you do realize those are totaled from two editions of the game and that duskblade is basically the 3.5 swordmage.

But yeah that's part of what I'm getting at, people want an eldritch warrior option, it's just that the concept's never managed to hew out a consistent identity the way paladin, barbarian, monk, or even the soulknife have.

How do we make an arcane soldier class with traction?
I don't recall 3.5 getting an MM5, uh 3.0 got up to 4 I think, but after that and for the run of 3.5 (excepting the MM1 reprint of course) they didn't run general monster manuals they preferred to use setting books, or loosely themed books to fill out the hordes.

As for the names, you do realize those are totaled from two editions of the game and that duskblade is basically the 3.5 swordmage.

But yeah that's part of what I'm getting at, people want an eldritch warrior option, it's just that the concept's never managed to hew out a consistent identity the way paladin, barbarian, monk, or even the soulknife have.

How do we make an arcane soldier class with traction?


here's mm v
www.amazon.com/Monster-Dungeons-Dragons-...

i just don't see the eldritch fairy stuff as being outside magic. That's probably because i associate fairies and elves with norse and finnish mythologies, and for those settings, magic and these races were synonymous - they even had dwarves and dark elves. A paladin is clearly the knightly cleric with a sword, and by final fantasy 1 standards, puts them at the polar opposite of the Black mage:white mage dichotomy. But that only leaves room for one more Warrior Wizard. The Soul Knife is Psionics and popularized by swapping out the Sword entirely for an energy blade, ala jedi light sabers and Psylocke.

But "magic user + sword wielder" doesn't need several class incarnations, because it doesn't stand out. It can be easily reflavored using modular powers, and allowing the DM or player to retitle the character, just like a wizard specialist can be called "Necromancer" or "Summoner", but is still "wizard" to new DMs.
Options are Liberating
How did I miss that book?

Ok shin, i have no bloody clue what you're on about. Who said anything about fairies, or something being outside magic? Stop reacting to things no one's said.

As for the mage+warrior concept not need several incarnations, THAT'S THE ISSUE I'M ADDRESSING! The hex-blade, the duskblade-swordmage, and the bladesinger, are all trying to cover the arcane weapon user angle differently, and I'm a little tired of seeing a bunch of half-baked, over-specialized, cut and paste classes all failing at the concept and I'm interested in what ideas people might have for a complete, useful, class that might be able to grab the warrior-mage archetype and hold onto it for a few editions. 
How did I miss that book?

Ok shin, i have no bloody clue what you're on about. Who said anything about fairies, or something being outside magic? Stop reacting to things no one's said.

As for the mage+warrior concept not need several incarnations, THAT'S THE ISSUE I'M ADDRESSING! The hex-blade, the duskblade-swordmage, and the bladesinger, are all trying to cover the arcane weapon user angle differently, and I'm a little tired of seeing a bunch of half-baked, over-specialized, cut and paste classes all failing at the concept and I'm interested in what ideas people might have for a complete, useful, class that might be able to grab the warrior-mage archetype and hold onto it for a few editions. 


 
In a way I agree with you there should be one mage/fighter in the game, although I don't get why we have to chose between getting one solid class or getting one solid subsystem both should work and if it was as easy as one or the other the multi-class subsystem all the way "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

But I honestly feel there is a reason why the wheel keeps getting reinvented it's because the wheel is just too damn generic, there have been threads about this but I feel there issues are too dependent not to bring them up again:

The Wizard is a huge ungodly blob  which has dibs on everything spell related except healing


The Fighter is a huge ungodly blob which has dibs on everything martial except sneak attack.

Pair them up together and you get a huge blob of a character with so many options, a non existenant theme that you might as well be building GURPS Fantasy character, and I mean no disrespect to GURPS Fantasy it's its own beautiful separate game, with the DM restricting you from healing spells and sneak attack.

You have a character  who kills someone with a sword, charms someone else into being their minion,is attacked and switches to a trident weapon and starts throughing lightning, seeing that his mind slave is dead makes him a zombie switches to a bow and light armorur sends the zombie ahead and sits back sniping, seeing his zombie minnion fall he summons a demon and rides it into battle dual wielding lances realises he's in trouble pulls out a Tower Shield afterwards casting Stone Skin to dened himself then invinsibility and finally teleporting back home.

A blob.

While you could have:
Hex-Blade: fighter who swings the tide of battle in his favour by using curses to weaken his enemy.
Bladesinger:warrior who before the enemy can get in melee range has launched severrall evocations.
Duskblade: warrior who harnesses illusions to move about the battlefield freely.
Sword-Mage: take your pick of one or two schools which are free, I preffer abjuration and divination.

That's the problem there isn't outside of DnD or of hastilly built games a concept of incredibly-broad warrior/generalist wizard but there are a lot of concepts of focused warrior/thematic mage.
I'd rather have a solid multiclassing scheme -- at least it would work for other combinations, such as the Warrior/Priest.
Even in the case of a specialized gish class, I'd prefer it to be by default rather plain (i.e., armor, weapons and Vancian spells). All the fancy blade-channeling (and the like) things would only restrict the role of the class, and should be confined to themes or other options.
I'd rather have a solid multiclassing scheme -- at least it would work for other combinations, such as the Warrior/Priest.
Even in the case of a specialized gish class, I'd prefer it to be by default rather plain (i.e., armor, weapons and Vancian spells).


Tacky.... seriously I love the archetype and I would never play that.
I love teleporting swordmages who shield thereselves and allies and Flameblades who manifest weapons made of pure fire and weave fire in to a retaliatory shield and ability to see what things looked like before they were burnt and levitate on a wave of heat and maybe even weave fire in to golden cloth ... what you describe? Nope in fact if that is what I see... I think the entire edition will be passed by the way side.  
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Tacky.... seriously I love the archetype and I would never play that.
I love teleporting swordmages who shield thereselves and allies and Flameblades who manifest weapons made of pure fire and weave fire in to a retaliatory shield and ability to see what things looked like before they were burnt and levitate on a wave of heat and maybe even weave fire in to golden cloth ... what you describe? Nope in fact if that is what I see... I think the entire edition will be passed by the way side.  
 



I don't. And I don't want to be forced to "manifest a weapon made of pure fire" in order to play an Elf.

G.

Multiclassing can't cut it, for me.

Off the top of my head, I see three distinct flavors of gish:
1) a guy who is equally competent with sword and spell.  This is the one that can be handled with multiclassing: he knows wizard spells that he can use at range and is decent with a sword when he's in melee, but he doesn't get as many spells or as many martial maneuvres (be they at-wills, power strikes, or AEDU types) as someone with only the one class because he's a generalist.  This needs to actually work, though, by making him less MAD and giving him the ability to wear decent armor without rendering him unable to use his spells.
2) a duskblade-like (although I agree it was silly to call them duskblades when they have nothing to do with shadow magic) striker who uses magic to augment his melee prowess.  This is not appropriate for multiclassing, since he needs a feature neither fighter nor wizard has (melee channeling) and should have a vastly restricted spell list.  Not just reduced spells/day, not just access to a limited number of schools, but access only to spells that are thematically appropriate to a melee character who uses magic to augment his swordplay (melee touch spells, short-range teleports, personal buffs, but no fireballs or divination or bigby's hands).  This is what he gives up relative to a wizard for access to martial talent and durability.  What's your plan for multiclassing this character, "if you take the melee channeling feat, you lose access to all spells not on the following full-page list"?  I would also argue that even his spells are better structured around an encounter/power-strike chassis than a vancian daily system, which makes it even harder to build him as a half-and-half class.
3) the swordmage, pretty much as he exists in 4e.  I know swordmages aren't canon in non LFR settings, but that's a silly reason not to have a class, especially one I really like ;).  He too, is not appropriate for multiclassing.  He's not halfway between the two mechanically in ANY sense of the word: he's as durable as the fighter, and has almost none of the versatility/AoE of the wizard.  He's more of a retextured fighter than a hybrid; he does what the fighter does, only he does it the way a wizard would do it.  The aegis is and must be quite distinct from anything either the fighter or the wizard can do, his spell list too must be restricted, I'm not particularly happy with a "spell tax" of mage armor every encounter as opposed to an always-on feature...

It seems to me that these three spellswords have very distinct design spaces that deserve a spot in D&D - maybe not PHB1 but a spot.   Only one of them is supportable well via multiclassing.  You could try to shoehorn the other two into a multiclassing system with some feats with fighter/wizard prerequisites, but that would a) mean you can't play one from level 1, B) mean it's kinda hard to limit them to their narrowly defined design spaces rather than the amorphous blob of not just fighter/wizard but fighter/wizard/duskblade/swordmage, and C) make it really difficult to fully realize those concepts by tweaking HP/armor/features/spell lists/power structure to what it should be.  If you don't like these class concepts because you think they're too generic or too amorphous, don't play them.  Ban them from your own games if you must.  But some of us like them.
I'd prefer fighter/wizard be an effective multiclass.

But to make some happier, I would also like more spells that support fighting face to face.  A normal wizard wouldn't take those spells because he doesn't want to do that.  Doesn't mean they couldn't exist.

I would also like some themes and backgrounds to specifically support multiclassing.  So swordmage is the background for a particular style of Ftr/Wiz

 

My Blog which includes my Hobby Award Winning articles.


Tacky.... seriously I love the archetype and I would never play that.
I love teleporting swordmages who shield thereselves and allies and Flameblades who manifest weapons made of pure fire and weave fire in to a retaliatory shield and ability to see what things looked like before they were burnt and levitate on a wave of heat and maybe even weave fire in to golden cloth ... what you describe? Nope in fact if that is what I see... I think the entire edition will be passed by the way side.  
 



I don't. And I don't want to be forced to "manifest a weapon made of pure fire" in order to play an Elf.

G.



 
Err I don't see how playing a Elf would always lead to a weapon manifested out of fire ?

Unless you're making a reference to those days when if you weren't human your race was your class and elves were 100% of the time fighter mages but those dark days are long behind us.
And I don't want to be forced to "manifest a weapon made of pure fire" in order to play an Elf.


Price of tea in china.. what in h E double hocky sticks are you tlaking about?

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'd prefer fighter/wizard be an effective multiclass.

But to make some happier, I would also like more spells that support fighting face to face.  A normal wizard wouldn't take those spells because he doesn't want to do that.

 



So you smash them in even though ther flavor doesnt work and their function doesnt fit the methods of a low hit point class?

This is very much lets put traps in the game style I hate in design.

God all this to avoid having another class? I want class features that the Wizard doesnt have nor does the Fighter.
 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Bladesinger is a theme/kit/prestige class only for elves.

I rebember the psionic soulknife. I imagine if the archetype is very popular the arcane swashbucler could be a class of Next D&D.

What if player wants a arcane fighter with spiked chain or kurasigama (=siclke with chain)? (or master of returning throwing axe).

I wonder about ki/incarnum like soucer of power.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Bladesinger is a theme/kit/prestige class only for elves.

I rebember the psionic soulknife. I imagine if the archetype is very popular the arcane swashbucler could be a class of Next D&D.


Nods the soulknife concept pretty cool.

What if player wants a arcane fighter with spiked chain or kurasigama (=siclke with chain)? (or master of returning throwing axe).


Scratch the word sword off of swordmage unnecesarily narrow since day one and replace with Blade or War.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

See that's why I prefer to have classes with custom power lists.

So wizards don't have to have spells for multi-class, splash build, and skillset.

So it seems like the main issue with putting together an arcane warrior class is the core unifying aspect. What unites the disparate models as a single class?

Also bladesinger was released as a post-e class in 4e avaliable to any race. 
From what is posted here it seems the issue with what unites the models into a single class is the wide range of possibilities. Not mechanical limitations, just that if one class was made it might not do everything. Taking a step back from that I think (

This is assuming that the hybrid is filling a role not taken up by a Bard or Arcane Battlepriest/Druid/Ranger. It also assumes that the Wizard will be a more l imited class (PAX panel said something about only the 6 most iconic spells being avaliabe in the core book). It goes on to assume that themes will allow for a fairly heavy change in class setup (allowing, for example, a larger emphasis on different Ability Scores). Still, in at least one post they already mentioned a Fighter with a Mystical theme who, if I remember, might have access to a familiar. We might also assume that a Wizard could get a more martial theme, giving them access to some fighter feats/abilities/powers...


Personally, I hope for all of it in at least some modular options. A simple and effective multiclassing system (for class flavor if my fighter wants to take up religion AFTER level 1) a wide range of unique themes and a solid core class, or even two, that fill a fighting caster role. I also hope that all of these options are NOT avaliable in the core Next books. After all, this is not 3.complicated.  
I like to have a hybrid class. Feels alright to me.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E

     In my opinion Arcane Warrior (“AW”) is a MAGE. You know... fires & stuff, deflecting things with blade, carving symbols with his weapon. The KEYWORDS here are MAGIC (as wizard, even spellbook maybe) and WARRIOR (Martial weapon user). Perhaps later on he can choose specialization to magic or to sword techniques.

   Here are some guidelines to start shaping the concept of AW 5e (the purpose of this is to be able to mix ideas and decide as a community what is finally an AW. Someone make a pool after this thread gets big enough, so that each could have a say to define this class):

Weapons :Swords, Bows, Staffs, ballista, hands


   Most concepts picture AW with swords. Why limit only to this. This class needs a boost in creativity. Charging his spear with the essence of winter. Rising his sword to channel a powerful lightning. He channels from flashy spells like firebending, imbuing spells that target (aka Duskblade/arcane archer of 3.5) and deal damage, to spells that teleport him where he throws his sword,  to create an arch of magic between weapon and himself, and to other magic oriented effects using/affecting his weaponry.

Spells: More pure arcane (force) and Evocations, necromancy, summoning/tricks (modifiable)


   Yes. Part of him is a wizard. He should cast the same fireball a wizard casts. He might not reach the majesty of a wizard's “Power Word Kill”, but his duality in his arts should create something of equal magnitude. So YES and NO. Yes he knows some things a pure arcanist does but he also has his own. Some could picture him with blood magic. Maybe he could choose. Some spells should be same as wizard's but it is a different class & it deserves its own Abilities/spells
(means he might even gain the exact same spells but limited in quantity & low level. No AW with meteor swarm)

(PS: Don’t prevent a player to play other concepts. Classes generally should be modifiable to suit what player has in mind. One of the few things 4e did right with DM permission & inspiration)

Auras: Damaging close effects or even effect based(Difficult terrain)


   He focuses in melee combat. He is a caster. What spell would you search if you were such a person? Something heavy, thick, solid or raw, damaging magic for CQC. This choice comes naturally. Maybe he needs his weapon to create this effect as he weaves it against his enemies/"spelldancing", name it as you like. Alternatively, he could make it purely as a wizard can (we need a pool for this).

Flavor and Effects: Blade Barriers, Animating Bows, throw all 12 javelins with deadly necro-battle spells.


   Make him use weapons telepathically. As master of weapon and magic he is capable of creating combinations. He can link himself with weapon(s) and is especially deadly with them.


MageShields: Spell barriers, Absorb damage, prevent teleport near.


   As a melee warrior, AW knows spells that boost his endurance in the battlefield. Barriers of force, Karma spells that absorb some damage he takes and channeling it through his weapon, element resistance spells he stole from a wizard’s spellbook.

The arcane warrior concept has a bit of a spotty history in dnd.

I was wondering if people wanted to see it come back as a class and if so whether they wanted one of the old class concepts to be updated or modified, or what new ideas people had.

Or

Should multi-classing just be set up so that fighter-wizards don't suck?



Ideally, multiclassing should allow for non-sucking combinations. That said, as much as I detest class bloat a single-class arcane warrior is something that I don't mind at all.

The problem with the single class arcane warrior is that everyone has their own opinion--bladesinger, spellsword, hexblade, etc.

Personally, I think the best execution of the arcane warrior concept was the psychic warrior psionic class(!). Armor, weapons, spells (psionic powers) and interesting mystical abilities (psionic feats) that enchanced its capabilities as a warrior and mage. It did the concept right, it just used the "wrong" power source. Make it arcane (and all that entails), and it'd be perfect in my opinion.
In DnD, the cleric is a divine warrior who wears heavy armor and beats people in the face in the name of his god.

In DnD, the paladin is a divine warrior who wears heavy armor and beats people in the face in the name of his god...from horseback.

Indeed, if these 2 RADICALLY different concepts can be made into 2 dufferent classes, then surely the bladesinger/gish has his place! 
Maybe if we pare some concepts out the remianing ones will help pin this down?

Let's see:

Hmmmmm the guy blasting you with wands and spell-grenades is probably more artificer (splash of fighter) than anything else so the arcane-equipped soldier is out.

The war mage sitting on a horse or behind the front lines weaving spells to shield his foes and blast his enemies without frying too many of his buddies is really more wizard than warrior. So he's out.

Anyone else that should be fobbed off elsewhere? 
My greatest fear with multiclassing is teh debacle they made in every edition prior to 4th where any deviation from pure caster led to pure failure from a casting standpoint.  This goes back to the linear vs. exponential growth of the classes in previous, non-4th edition, and led to wizards losing a lot more than other classes by giving up caster levels.  

If you want to fix it you have to not limit caster level or spell access but limit spell number availble.  A 9/9 Fighter Mage in 3rd ed was casting 5th level spells and couldnt hurt anyting with a modicum of SR. Do it right and your 9/9 Fighter Mage is casting at 18th level but has maybe half the spells of wizard and maybe missing some abilities gained at higher levels.
What if spells scale based on character level? and spell resistance stays buried?
Since both the Fourth Edition and the heir-beloved-by-3.5 Pathfinder have full classes for magical warriors (Swordmage and Magus respectively), I cnanot imagine the Fifth Edition without such. Also there is Old D&D with its Elf class which was both a Fighter and a Wizard.
Member of Grognards for 4th Edition
Multi classing is for achieving something that is a mix of two or more classes.  By all means, make multi classing work.  But neither the duskblade nor the swordmage are in fact mixes of fighter and wizard.  So why are you trying to build them via multi classing?  What do you people have against class bloat?
Sign In to post comments