# Swordmage Class



## Traycor (Sep 7, 2007)

YES!

This was mentioned the most recent playtest: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070907a&authentic=true

I really, really, really hope this makes it into the Player's Handbook. It's always so frustrating to need to multi/prestige class to play the type of character I wanted in the first place. I'm assuming this new class would bear some resemblance to the Duskblade. Overall, that class was fairly solid. 

The Swordmage name is highly fitting. It's generic enough to allow a wide range of concepts.

Hopefully I can play that elven bladesinger at lvl 1


----------



## Cadfan (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh, we all know its going to be a Duskblade.


----------



## Howndawg (Sep 7, 2007)

Swordmage: the long lost love child of the Hexblade and Duskblade, who devoured his parents and took all their stuff.  Sounds like it might make "The Complete Arcane Handbook"* when it comes out. 

*Note: I totally made up the CAH.  I'd lay odds WotC is doing one, but don't quote me as saying the CAH is coming out. Incidently, I'm also making up "The Complete Divine Handbook" and "The Complete Martial Handbook". Remember, I just made them up, I don't want anybody going around saying "WIZARDS IS DOING BLAH BLAH BLAH!"

Howndawg


----------



## kenmarable (Sep 7, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> I really, really, really hope this makes it into the Player's Handbook.



Considering he mentioned that he "should get around to designing it", I have serious doubts that they would start a new class at this point with any hopes of getting it into the first PHB. The classes are one of the most integral parts of the entire system, and I'm near positive the classes are 90% how they will appear in the PHB - just some fine tuning and possibly debate over whether to drop one or two for later. If they would actually consider adding in a new class at this point in development after they have already been playtesting internally for a year or two, it would be a very dumb and risky thing to do, and WotC R&D aren't dumb. 

So, I'd love to see it was well, but it sounds like multiclassing is greatly improved with the swordmage/gish concept being very high on their list for getting it right. But I would not hold out any hope of it appearing as core in PHB 1.

I read that much more as "I should write the swordmage up for my PC" rather than "I should write the swordmage up for the Player's Handbook".


----------



## JRR_Talking (Sep 7, 2007)

i thought there would be player handbooks 2,3,4,5 et al and not 'complete hamsters handbook'?

john


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 7, 2007)

JRR_Talking said:
			
		

> i thought there would be player handbooks 2,3,4,5 et al and not 'complete hamsters handbook'?
> 
> john




Why can't they do both?  They never said the weren't doing one, just people made assumptions.


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 7, 2007)

We already have the mageblade from _Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved_. Why not update that into 4E instead of inventing the wheel? (Oh wait, Wizards would have to use OGC and admit that other companies exist....)


----------



## Victim (Sep 7, 2007)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> We already have the mageblade from _Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved_. Why not update that into 4E instead of inventing the wheel? (Oh wait, Wizards would have to use OGC and admit that other companies exist....)




Or because without using the AE magic system, using an AE casting class is pretty worthless.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 7, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> I don't want anybody going around saying "WIZARDS IS DOING BLAH BLAH BLAH!"




Are you trying to suggest that Wizards _isn't_ doing BLAH BLAH BLAH?

-The Gneech


----------



## Elsenrail (Sep 7, 2007)

There will be such a class... because there is a novel _Swordmage_ by R. Baker to be released in Mah 2008 as far as I remember.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 7, 2007)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Oh, we all know its going to be a Duskblade.




As long as they don't name it Duskblade, that's OK.  Or that other term ...

I think this is the ideal concept for the "arcane defender" role.  But somehow I doubt we'll see it in the first PHB if the rumor about 8 classes proves to be true.


----------



## Blackwind (Sep 7, 2007)

I must say, I think the name "swordmage" is dumb.  I really hope they call it something else, like Mageblade or (my current favorite) Spellsword.  In the podcast they said they were working on "a swordmage class" (IIRC); that doesn't mean it's actually going to be called that.

EDIT: _"There will be such a class... because there is a novel Swordmage by R. Baker to be released in Mah 2008 as far as I remember."_

Ugh.


----------



## Traycor (Sep 7, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> ...But somehow I doubt we'll see it in the first PHB if the rumor about 8 classes proves to be true.



I agree, but I honestly don't understand why. The way I've always seen it, the starting classes in the player's handbook should cover all the bases to allow at least the basic type of character you want to make. Most any idea can be fluff adjusted to fit into the basic classes of the PHB.

But not an arcane martial character. This can _only_ be done through multiclassing. This is frustrating because at lvl 1, my character either doesn't know magic, and studies it right fast for lvl 2, or my character doesn't know how to fight, then all of the sudden is proficient with 40 weapons.

In my groups we level up slow, and we play at lvl 1. I don't need an uber char, but I would at least like to be able to play the basic character concept I want out of the box... someone who has studied magic and martial skills for years.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 7, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Are you trying to suggest that Wizards _isn't_ doing BLAH BLAH BLAH?




No, he just doesn't want anyone going around saying that.

After all we know:


> Okay, it appears those initial books will include -
> FR campaign setting
> Dragon-related book
> Magic item book
> ...


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 7, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> But not an arcane martial character. This can _only_ be done through multiclassing.




I'm not sure why this is a problem.



> This is frustrating because at lvl 1, my character either doesn't know magic, and studies it right fast for lvl 2, or my character doesn't know how to fight, then all of the sudden is proficient with 40 weapons.
> 
> In my groups we level up slow, and we play at lvl 1. I don't need an uber char, but I would at least like to be able to play the basic character concept I want out of the box... someone who has studied magic and martial skills for years.




Wasn't there a section on apprentice level characters that covered exactly this special case?

It seems to me that this is a very minor problem with the current multi-classing rules compared to the power drop of for multi-classing if you are a spellcaster, and I've never liked the attempts to use PrC's to fix the problem.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 7, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> It seems to me that this is a very minor problem with the current multi-classing rules compared to the power drop of for multi-classing if you are a spellcaster, .





Thats kind of dependent on your point of view. I dont see any reason why they shouldnt change both.


----------



## Traycor (Sep 7, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a section on apprentice level characters that covered exactly this special case?



Yes there was, and I almost tore my hair out looking for it a couple of months ago until I realized it was removed from the 3.5 DMG. So I had to dust off my old 3.0 version for the rules.

This leads me to believe that 4E will have no optional apprentice rules in the DMG to make up for this deficiency. T_T


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 7, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> Yes there was, and I almost tore my hair out looking for it a couple of months ago until I realized it was removed from the 3.5 DMG. So I had to dust off my old 3.0 version for the rules.




Ahh... yet another way that 3.0 is a superior ruleset than 3.5  Color me unsurprised and glad I didn't waste my money.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 7, 2007)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Ahh... yet another way that 3.0 is a superior ruleset than 3.5  Color me unsurprised and glad I didn't waste my money.





"superior ruleset" is largely a matter of opinion. Most rulesets simply have good points and bad points...and which is which will vary from person to person.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 8, 2007)

The Fighter+Wizard class has been lacking for quite some time in the core books.

Fighter + Cleric = Paladin
Fighter + Druid = Ranger with spells

Why no arcane-dabbling warriors?


----------



## Jared Rascher (Sep 8, 2007)

Rich has said he will be writing a Forgotten Realms novel called "Swordmage" as the beginning of a new trilogy.


----------



## hong (Sep 8, 2007)

Battlefish was a perfectly good name.


----------



## Agamon (Sep 8, 2007)

No one's used the word-which-shall-not-be-named in this thread.  I'm so proud! *sob*

Edit: May bad.  kenmarable, I'm looking at you *glare*


----------



## Gloombunny (Sep 8, 2007)

Man, I hope they come up with a better name.  "Swordmage" is probably the worst name for that concept I've yet heard.  The syllables just don't flow together at all; no matter how you say it just sounds like two separate words.  Plus it sounds more like a wizard who specializes in making magic swords, or uses a sword to focus his magic the way other wizards use wands, or something, and not like a magic-wielding warrior at all.

What else have we got... "duskblade" is kinda cool, but almost as awkward to say as "swordmage", and until you're used to it it sounds like some kind of evil blackguard type of dude.  "Hexblade" flows nicely and is more evocative, but it also ties the concept to curses which isn't so great.  "Spellsword" works great as a word, but as a name it sounds more like a magic item than a person... and it's just asking for someone to say "S-W-O-R-D" and then giggle wildly.  "Mageblade" is probably the best so far, but it's still awkward to say and not terribly evocative.

Coming up with a good name for a generalized warrior-mage class is hard!


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 8, 2007)

NatalieD said:
			
		

> "Swordmage" is probably the worst name for that concept I've yet heard.




Bah.  The Swordmage was one of the cooler NPCs in the _Birthright_ campaign.  I still have the miniature and will one day use it for a PC.   Maybe even a swordmage


----------



## Scarbonac (Sep 8, 2007)

NatalieD said:
			
		

> Man, I hope they come up with a better name.  "Swordmage" is probably the worst name for that concept I've yet heard.  The syllables just don't flow together at all; no matter how you say it just sounds like two separate words.  Plus it sounds more like a wizard who specializes in making magic swords, or uses a sword to focus his magic the way other wizards use wands, or something, and not like a magic-wielding warrior at all.
> 
> What else have we got... "duskblade" is kinda cool, but almost as awkward to say as "swordmage", and until you're used to it it sounds like some kind of evil blackguard type of dude.  "Hexblade" flows nicely and is more evocative, but it also ties the concept to curses which isn't so great.  "Spellsword" works great as a word, but as a name it sounds more like a magic item than a person... and it's just asking for someone to say "S-W-O-R-D" and then giggle wildly.  "Mageblade" is probably the best so far, but it's still awkward to say and not terribly evocative.
> 
> Coming up with a good name for a generalized warrior-mage class is hard!







What's wrong with "Fighter/Magic-User"?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Sep 8, 2007)

You mean "weapon-user/magic-user", right?


----------



## kenmarable (Sep 8, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> But somehow I doubt we'll see it in the first PHB if the rumor about 8 classes proves to be true.



I'm pretty sure that rumor has been laid to rest since they've pretty much confirmed over 8 classes so far.


----------



## kenmarable (Sep 8, 2007)

Agamon said:
			
		

> No one's used the word-which-shall-not-be-named in this thread.  I'm so proud! *sob*
> 
> Edit: May bad.  kenmarable, I'm looking at you *glare*



Why all the hatin' on the githyanki?

Sorry, I just have no idea why people hate the term so much. Maybe it has been over-used in applying it to more than just the githyanki, but the filters let it through, so I guess it can't be *that* taboo. 

gish, gish, gishy gishgish gish


----------



## Agamon (Sep 8, 2007)

Keefe the Thief said:
			
		

> You mean "weapon-user/magic-user", right?




*Ahem* Fighting man/magic-user.  And there is no muticlassing in the one true version of D&D!


----------



## Agamon (Sep 8, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> Why all the hatin' on the githyanki?
> 
> Sorry, I just have no idea why people hate the term so much. Maybe it has been over-used in applying it to more than just the githyanki, but the filters let it through, so I guess it can't be *that* taboo.
> 
> gish, gish, gishy gishgish gish




Agh!  Noo!  Nooooo!  Please, don't!  I'll bring a shrubbery!


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Sep 8, 2007)

Honestly I'd prefer fewer classes (3-4) and just using multiclassing and different talent/feat selections to represent different archtypes.

But since thats not going to happen I'm sure we'll see some sorta spellsword class at some point, but I doubt it'll be in the core book.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 8, 2007)

What kinda surprised me in 3E, and some of my players, is that they created so many "warrior-mage" prestige or alternate base classes, and nearly all get their own spell progression and spell list. Instead of simply going ahead and give them a level of "arcane caster of choice" every other level or so, making it easier to be compatible with later added levels of the same caster class. Like taking a fighter, D8 instead of D10, medium BAB, adding a level of wizard every few levels (only the spell casting, though) and the ability to ignore armor spell failure chances every few levels, and you're done. Maybe add bonus feats that can be either fighter or metamagic feats. If a character with that class wants to take more wizard levels later, they can stack with the already existing caster levels, since those are wizard levels. So taking one level of wizard while already having 6 wizard caster levels lets the character cast like a 7th level wizard.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Sep 8, 2007)

Whats so hard about trying combinations of classes, feats and various abilities. Must we really just take all the class fiddling out of the game.


----------



## Driddle (Sep 8, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Are you trying to suggest that Wizards _isn't_ doing BLAH BLAH BLAH?




BLAH BLAH BLAH was the 3rd edition. Then they produced BLAH BLAH BLAH BL for v3.5.
This is going to be BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. Totally new blah concept.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 8, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> What kinda surprised me in 3E, and some of my players, is that they created so many "warrior-mage" prestige or alternate base classes, and nearly all get their own spell progression and spell list. Instead of simply going ahead and give them a level of "arcane caster of choice" every other level or so, making it easier to be compatible with later added levels of the same caster class. Like taking a fighter, D8 instead of D10, medium BAB, adding a level of wizard every few levels (only the spell casting, though) and the ability to ignore armor spell failure chances every few levels, and you're done. Maybe add bonus feats that can be either fighter or metamagic feats. If a character with that class wants to take more wizard levels later, they can stack with the already existing caster levels, since those are wizard levels. So taking one level of wizard while already having 6 wizard caster levels lets the character cast like a 7th level wizard.



 Which is what WotC did with the Battle Sorcerer. Medium BAB, HD d8, light armor (no ASF), Simple + One Martial Weapon, cast spells as a Sorcerer (1 less spell known per level, 1 less spell per day per level).

Best arcane/warrior combo I've see for 3.5. Very customisable and without any mandatory style of play (unlike the Hexblade, Duskblade, etc).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 8, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Which is what WotC did with the Battle Sorcerer. Medium BAB, HD d8, light armor (no ASF), Simple + One Martial Weapon, cast spells as a Sorcerer (1 less spell known per level, 1 less spell per day per level).
> 
> Best arcane/warrior combo I've see for 3.5. Very customisable and without any mandatory style of play (unlike the Hexblade, Duskblade, etc).




Right...Unearthed Arcana, correct?  

Hmhmm, I see...best attempt indeed. Now if they hadn't screwed with the "Spells/Day" and Spells Known" lists and instead gave him 2 sorcerer caster levels every 3 class levels or so, effectively making him a 15th level sorcerer when reaching level 20, or starting with "apprentice level" casting on 1st and going up 2/3 from there...it would have been what I imagine.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 9, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> Now if they hadn't screwed with the "Spells/Day" and Spells Known" lists and instead gave him 2 sorcerer caster levels every 3 class levels or so, effectively making him a 15th level sorcerer when reaching level 20, or starting with "apprentice level" casting on 1st and going up 2/3 from there...it would have been what I imagine.




I think you want 3/4 rather than 2/3; 2/3 would give you lCL 13 at 20.

I'd much prefer that approach to the Battle Sorcerer -- the current design doesn't leave enough spellcasting options.  I'd actually prefer the Battle Sorcerer as a Battle Wizard: Int-based, spellbook-based, but 3/4 of the spellcasting progression of a wizard with the resulting flexibility and more rapid access to spells with fewer spells per day.

Duskblade is a nice attempt at the flavor, but the limited spell list defines his schtick.  What if you want a ranged weapon warrior-mage, instead of a melee one?  Or one who mostly uses utlity & buff spells instead of attack spells?  Yeah, there's bard, but ...


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 9, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> I think you want 3/4 rather than 2/3; 2/3 would give you lCL 13 at 20.
> 
> I'd much prefer that approach to the Battle Sorcerer -- the current design doesn't leave enough spellcasting options.  I'd actually prefer the Battle Sorcerer as a Battle Wizard: Int-based, spellbook-based, but 3/4 of the spellcasting progression of a wizard with the resulting flexibility and more rapid access to spells with fewer spells per day.
> 
> Duskblade is a nice attempt at the flavor, but the limited spell list defines his schtick.  What if you want a ranged weapon warrior-mage, instead of a melee one?  Or one who mostly uses utlity & buff spells instead of attack spells?  Yeah, there's bard, but ...




Gah, yeah.  3/4 would end you at 15 of course. Silly me.   

But that's the nice part about D&D. Modify and enjoy.  Always has been, always will be, no matter what number in front of the E.


----------



## Gloombunny (Sep 9, 2007)

What I really like about duskblade is that it's designed to be a warrior who uses magic as part of his combat technique, not just a second-rate warrior who can cast some second-rate spells when he's not fighting.  The magic and fighting skill are actually integrated.  The best you can do with most warrior/mage combinations is to cast some buffs on yourself before wading in, or maybe set your sword aside for a turn to cast a spell.


----------



## Felon (Sep 9, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Which is what WotC did with the Battle Sorcerer. Medium BAB, HD d8, light armor (no ASF), Simple + One Martial Weapon, cast spells as a Sorcerer (1 less spell known per level, 1 less spell per day per level).
> 
> Best arcane/warrior combo I've see for 3.5. Very customisable and without any mandatory style of play (unlike the Hexblade, Duskblade, etc).



As mentioned by Natalie, the battle sorcerer can easily wind up hemmed into a prescribed style of play. Medium BAB, d8 HD, light armor proficiency, and proficiency with a single martial weapon doesn't really make for much of a warrior--it's basically a ranger without combat styles or favored enemies. With its reduced number of spells known (which isn't a very large number to begin with), the class has an even worse tendency than the spellsword or eldritch knight to find itself pulled towards being a half-arsed warrior who tosses a lot of arcane self-buffs to cover the spread.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 9, 2007)

See, that's why I want a Battle Wizard.  Enough spells known to choose either uility spells for the day, or to focus on combat spells to be effective in melee -- but not enough spells per day to do both at the same time.

It seems like the existing classes or prestige classes that tackle this role do a good job optimizing for one end of the spectrum or other (warrior or mage), but only manage to pull off middle ground for a specific niche approach (like the duskblade and his melee attacks).  I'm still looking for a flexible middle of the road warrior-mage ... like the old Elf class, but without overshadowing everyone else.


----------



## GhostTiger (Sep 9, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> See, that's why I want a Battle Wizard.  Enough spells known to choose either uility spells for the day, or to focus on combat spells to be effective in melee -- but not enough spells per day to do both at the same time.
> 
> It seems like the existing classes or prestige classes that tackle this role do a good job optimizing for one end of the spectrum or other (warrior or mage), but only manage to pull off middle ground for a specific niche approach (like the duskblade and his melee attacks).  I'm still looking for a flexible middle of the road warrior-mage ... like the old Elf class, but without overshadowing everyone else.





One sacred cow of D&D I'd love to see slain, and there's no way it will ever be, is the all-or-nothing BAB. I'm running a gestalt campaign now, which solves the problems being discussed here, but I've been tinkering with the idea of a core class Warrior Mage that has a fighter BAB, BUT ONLY FOR HIS BONDED WEAPON, otherwise Simple Weapon proficiency with a wizard BAB. A limited spell list along the lines of the Suel Arcanamach PrC, maybe the Spellsword Channel spell ability (neat idea I've always liked). And that's it. Maybe.   lol


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 9, 2007)

The AE mageblade's weapon (which he also uses to cast spells) gets a special enhancement bonus for him only. So his BAB is not fighter progression (it's rogue IIRC), but he gets about the equivalent to hit as a fighter and he can cast spells in his armor.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 9, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> See, that's why I want a Battle Wizard.  Enough spells known to choose either uility spells for the day, or to focus on combat spells to be effective in melee -- but not enough spells per day to do both at the same time.
> 
> It seems like the existing classes or prestige classes that tackle this role do a good job optimizing for one end of the spectrum or other (warrior or mage), but only manage to pull off middle ground for a specific niche approach (like the duskblade and his melee attacks).  I'm still looking for a flexible middle of the road warrior-mage ... like the old Elf class, but without overshadowing everyone else.




Just out of curiosity, and because you got my puzzle complex working...lets look at a hypothetical warrior-mage class with some flexibility, and what we'd need for that.

- Mageblade (Arcana Unearthed): provides the concept of a personal melee weapon that gets enhanced with levels, and special effects like calling it at higher levels. Provides magical shielding and the ability to slice through others shields.

- Arcane Archer (DMG): provides the personal ranged weapon concept with enhancements, and the ability to send touch spells through arrows.

- Duskblade (PHB II): provides the ability to cast in armor, to send touch spells through melee weapons, and to quick-cast spells in combat at higher levels. Also to overcome spell resistance of opponents he hurt in combat.

So I'd take a basic frame of d8 HD, medium BAB, good Fort OR Will save, a handful of class skills, 2+Int bonus skill points per level, all simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor proficiency, and small and medium shields. The Armored Caster I'd apply in spell failure chance percentage to be ignored, starting at 10% and going up, kinda like the Spellsword from Tome & Blood did I think. Then I'd see how to tack on the other stuff. The "personal weapon" shtick would be a general concept, to be applied to either a ranged or a melee weapon, as the player prefers. The rest should be not a problem to be tacked on at the levels they are. Maybe shift them around a little to avoid overloaded levels. Bonus feats i'm not sure about, since the combined class abilities should be already pretty sufficiant to make the class potent.

To that, I'd add sorcerer caster levels 2/3, starting at Apprentice level casting so you only get your bonus spells at 1st levels, adding _Eschew Material Components_ in one variant or another so the spell component bit is taken care of. That way, a 20th level character would get access to 7th level spells.

If you want a more studied version, replace the sorcerer with wizard caster levels. Adds worrying about components and spellbook, but also a greater flexibility in your magic.

Would that be a class you'd consider worthwhile?

Accidentally, if you switch out some of those with divinely inspired powers, you can make a nice cleric variant.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 9, 2007)

Felon said:
			
		

> As mentioned by Natalie, the battle sorcerer can easily wind up hemmed into a prescribed style of play. Medium BAB, d8 HD, light armor proficiency, and proficiency with a single martial weapon doesn't really make for much of a warrior--it's basically a ranger without combat styles or favored enemies. With its reduced number of spells known (which isn't a very large number to begin with), the class has an even worse tendency than the spellsword or eldritch knight to find itself pulled towards being a half-arsed warrior who tosses a lot of arcane self-buffs to cover the spread.



 I can't agree with that. Light armor, Medium BAB and HD d8 is equal to a Cleric. Simple weapons plus one Martial weapon is *better* that the cleric. What the cleric gets on top of that is Medium and Heavy armor and shields. And why does the clerc get that? because he gets non-exciting spells. Which the Sorcerer gets.

As for the spell table, I applied the Battle Sorcerer changes to the Sorcerer entry of the SRD, and let me tell you, it gets enough spells to go around.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 9, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> As for the spell table, I applied the Battle Sorcerer changes to the Sorcerer entry of the SRD, and let me tell you, it gets enough spells to go around.




If you mean spells per day, I'd agree .. but not spells known.  The fourth level battle sorcerer, for example, still only knows 2 1st-level and 1 2d level spell.  At sixth level, when third level spells are gained, it's 3/1/1.  I'd personally prefer a few more spells known in the lower level progression to provide flexibility.



			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> So I'd take a basic frame of d8 HD, medium BAB, good Fort OR Will save, a handful of class skills, 2+Int bonus skill points per level, all simple and martial weapons, light and medium armor proficiency, and small and medium shields. The Armored Caster I'd apply in spell failure chance percentage to be ignored, starting at 10% and going up, kinda like the Spellsword from Tome & Blood did I think. Then I'd see how to tack on the other stuff. The "personal weapon" shtick would be a general concept, to be applied to either a ranged or a melee weapon, as the player prefers. The rest should be not a problem to be tacked on at the levels they are. Maybe shift them around a little to avoid overloaded levels. Bonus feats i'm not sure about, since the combined class abilities should be already pretty sufficiant to make the class potent.
> 
> To that, I'd add sorcerer caster levels 2/3, starting at Apprentice level casting so you only get your bonus spells at 1st levels, adding Eschew Material Components in one variant or another so the spell component bit is taken care of. That way, a 20th level character would get access to 7th level spells.




Using wizard progression and 3/4 spellcasting (so you get 15 levels in 20) and I'd like it.

So perhaps something like (admittedly 3.5 mechanics since we don't know much about 4E):



			
				 Warrior-Mage class said:
			
		

> HD: d8
> 
> Skill Points: 2 + Int per level X4 at 1st level
> Class skills: Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int),  Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge (all skills, taken individually) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int) and Swim (Str).
> ...




Ends up with BAB +15 (+2 to hit and +4 damage from bonus feats, though) and CL 15 with 8th level spells (assuming a wizard progression)arriving at level 20.  Not as "optimal" BAB and CL-wise as some of the warrior-mage paths that can be done with prestige classes, but there should be enough perqs to encourage sticking with the same class progression.

It probably needs its ability list tweaked as it is a bit more generous than duskblade (I don't have my PHB II handy).  Free Weapon Focus/Specialization make up some for the medium BAB over time, but only with a single weapon.  There's probably some re-balancing that should be done, too, to reduce the amount of breakage that could occur when mixed with certain feats or prestige classes.  For example, the +1 arcane spellcastign class should only give spell progression as a wiz/sorc, but the spell levels in warrior-mage shouldn't stack with those from wizard or sorcerer, nor should the ASF reduction work with pure wizard or sorcerer levels, to prevent a 2-3-level dip in the class followed by wiz/sorc levels.  But then a highly competent power-gamer can probably break any set of mechanics, so it may not be worth worrying about too much.

For 4E ... tweak the spell progression to capture whatever a new wizard looks like breaking down at will, per encounter, and per day abilities.

Edit: added ability explanations and shifted spellcasting progression slightly to avoid dipping.

Balance comparison:

[sblock]
Vs. Fighter:
- Lower HD (-21 HP on average)
- Lower BAB (gives up +5 BAB and 1 iterative attack)
- Worse Fort, better Will save
- Fewer feats/abilities with less flexibility (4 combat feats, 3 arcane feats, 2 special abilities that scale vs. 11 fighter bonus feats)
- Less weapon flexibility (only able to specialize in a single weapon)
- Broader skill list
- No heavy armor or tower shield
- Spellcasting
Overall: Probably mroe attractive than a single-classed fighter.

Vs. Wizard (assumes wizard progression)
- Better HD (+44 HP on average)
- Better BAB (+5 BAB, third iterative attack)
- Same Save
- 2 fewer arcane feat options, but 4 combat feats and two special abilities including casting in armor
- Armor proficiency and martial weapon prof
- Slower spellcasting progression
- -5 caster levels, no 9th level spell access
- No familiar
- Broader skill list
Overall, probably balanced against a single-classed wizard

Vs. Sorcerer (assumes sorcerer progression)
- Better HD (+44 HP on average)
- Better BAB (+5 BAB, third iterative attack)
- Same Save
- Adds 3 arcane feats, but 4 combat feats and two special abilities including casting in armor
- Armor proficiency and martial weapon prof
- Slower spellcasting progression
- -5 caster levels, no 8th or 9th level spell access
- No familiar
- Broader skill list
Overall: probably balanced, but a bit more attractive compared to pure sorcerer ve pure wizard

Vs. Battle Sorcerer assumes sorcerer progression
- Same HD, BAB, Saves
- Slightly broader skill list
- Adds medium armor and all martial weapons
- Adds 3 arcane feats, 4 combat feats, 2 special abilities
- No familiar
- More spells known/per day, but slower progression to higher level spells
- -5 caster levels; no 8th/9th level spells
Overall: probably balanced, depending on the value of the 5 caster levels vs the additional abilities.

Vs. Cleric
- Same BAB
- Same HD
- Worse Saves
- -5 CL, no 9th level spells
- No domains or turn undead, (3 special abilities cleric vs 4 combat feat, 3 arcane feats, 2 special abilities)
- No heavy armor proficiency
- Martial weapon proficiency
- Weapon focus/specialization
- Vastly different spell list
- Both cast in armor (except heavy for the warrior-mage)
Overall: Cleric has roughly equivalent melee abilities and more spell development so is probably more powerful in the end, but the WM can make up in blasting ability.  Close match.

Vs. Duskblade
- Same HD
- Worse BAB (-5 BAB and one less iterative attack), made up slightly by focus feats
- Worse Saves
- No neavy armor proficiency
- Similar casting in armor, but gained later
- No quick cast ability or spell power (2 arcane feats probably balanced against spell power)
- Broader spell list, higher level spells, and quicker access to higher level spells, but fewer spells per day and down 5 caster levels
- Same arcane chanelling except not limited to melee, but initial ability gained later
- Virtually identical skill list
Overall: Better in net spellcasting power & flexibility but worse in focused melee and integrated spell/melee ability.  Pretty close overall.


Vs. Fighter10/Wizard10 multiclass (assumes wizard progression)
- Same BAB
- Better Will, worse Fort save
- Better HP on average (~+20)
- No heavy armor/tower shield
- +5 Caster levels & +3 spell levels
- Equal feat/special abilities -- including highly useful casting in armor
- No familiar
Overall: Much better than the pure multiclass -- but the pure multiclass is as sub-optimal as you can get.

Vs. Optimized Fighter/Wizard/PrC mix
- Lower BAB (best mixes get +17-+18
- Lower caster level (best mixes get 17-18 with 9th level spells)
- Weapon Specialization
- Similar special abilities (depends on the specific PrC mix)
- Similar, perhaps better HD (depends on specific PrC mix)
- Worse saves
Overall: Weaker than a 20-level fully min-maxed PrC mix, but better integrated.[/sblock]

Edit 2: Posted to the House Rules Forum for more discussion of this class idea specifically.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2007)

With all the oddball assorted bits that have been named off by WotC, I wouldn't count any particular class as gospel, yet.

Unless this "swordmage" brings something to the table besides being a powered-up fighter/mage multiclass, I hope they leave it as vapor.  My hope for 4E is that there are no base classes, ala duskblade, paladin, scout, or even spellthief.  Actually, my real hope includes no PrCs that are just there to gird a multiclass.  Ultimate magus, eldritch knight, and mystic theurge have to go.  Arcane trickster is iffy, but might be acceptable.

I the only purpose of the class is to facilitate the cross between two other classes, just fix the freakin' multiclass rules.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I can't agree with that. Light armor, Medium BAB and HD d8 is equal to a Cleric. Simple weapons plus one Martial weapon is *better* that the cleric. What the cleric gets on top of that is Medium and Heavy armor and shields. And why does the clerc get that? because he gets non-exciting spells. Which the Sorcerer gets.
> 
> As for the spell table, I applied the Battle Sorcerer changes to the Sorcerer entry of the SRD, and let me tell you, it gets enough spells to go around.




  The Cleric also gets good Fort and Will saves (generally the most important) far more spells per day, and gets his entire spell list as spells known. 

  And you may find Cleric spells "non-exciting" but especially in combination with the Clerics other features, they are very powerful and useful.

  The Cleric is far and away the most powerful, and especially the most resilient, class in the PH.

  The Battlesorcerer deal from UA is pretty nice, especially in overall concept execution, but mechanically it doesnt do that great a job. Mainly because it gets almost no known spells.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> With all the oddball assorted bits that have been named off by WotC, I wouldn't count any particular class as gospel, yet.
> 
> Unless this "swordmage" brings something to the table besides being a powered-up fighter/mage multiclass, I hope they leave it as vapor.  My hope for 4E is that there are no base classes, ala duskblade, paladin, scout, or even spellthief.  Actually, my real hope includes no PrCs that are just there to gird a multiclass.  Ultimate magus, eldritch knight, and mystic theurge have to go.  Arcane trickster is iffy, but might be acceptable.
> 
> I the only purpose of the class is to facilitate the cross between two other classes, just fix the freakin' multiclass rules.





  The trouble with this is, many classes that some see as existing to facilitate a cross between two other classes are in fact there own classes and there own archtype seperate from any similar to a whatever/whatever. 


  Wether a warrior/mage base class is one such I dont know for sure, but I'd have no objection to it. Of course I like more base classes, as long as they arent totally reptitive or mostly with archtypal support.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> The AE mageblade's weapon (which he also uses to cast spells) gets a special enhancement bonus for him only. So his BAB is not fighter progression (it's rogue IIRC), but he gets about the equivalent to hit as a fighter and he can cast spells in his armor.





  I like the Mageblade a lot, in a lot of ways.

However, I can personally take or leave the "bonded weapon" thing. And, the Mageblade does, to a lesser extent than many other similar classes, have the issue of being a warrior-mage class who's spells consist mainly of combat buffs, and seems to be built around this type of strategy. 

  Now of course a Mageblade can improve his spell access with feats, which puts it above most other attempts at such classes.


  If they do a base-class warrior-mage, I hope its more like the Spellsword, with a broad general spell selection, so you can have the warrior-mage who basically uses magic to be a better warrior, or more of a mage who knows how to fight as well.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I like the Mageblade a lot, in a lot of ways.
> 
> However, I can personally take or leave the "bonded weapon" thing. And, the Mageblade does, to a lesser extent than many other similar classes, have the issue of being a warrior-mage class who's spells consist mainly of combat buffs, and seems to be built around this type of strategy.
> 
> Now of course a Mageblade can improve his spell access with feats, which puts it above most other attempts at such classes.




Mageblades are my favorite gi....I mean fighter/mage that I've seen to date for a couple of reasons:

1) There spells are well suited to the style. They get combat buffs, a lot of touch attack spells, and UNIQUE SPELLS that only they can do.

2) They get unique abilities in the class, not just fighter and mage slapped together. They intergrate the styles into something completely new.


----------



## GhostTiger (Sep 10, 2007)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> The AE mageblade's weapon (which he also uses to cast spells) gets a special enhancement bonus for him only. So his BAB is not fighter progression (it's rogue IIRC), but he gets about the equivalent to hit as a fighter and he can cast spells in his armor.





What I don't like about the Med BAB is the loss of an iterative attack as compared to the Fighter. The to hit bonus will be roughly the same, true, and the Mageblade will have a +2 weapon at 6th level, which most Fighters will not, but the Fighter wil have a second attack, which the MgB will not. And AE classes advance slower, so at 15K xps a 6th level Ftr with a +1 weapon will have a to hit bonus of +7 (6+1) and a second attack while a 5th level MgB of equal strength will have a to hit bonus of +5 (3+2) and only that attack.

I like the idea of an arcane fighter class that equals the fighter in BAB, but is lesser in versatility (no bonus feats) and uses his own power to buff himself and his weapon, rather than relying on party spellcasters and a looted or purchased weapon. Similar result, different means.

But I do like the Mageblade and the idea of the Athame in particular.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 10, 2007)

I did post this in the house rules thread Olgar opened already, but it does seem it's warranted to do so here, too, since this discussion spawned the whole idea, so here's the result of what I proposed further upstream.  

Altered Mage Blade


----------



## jasin (Sep 10, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> I can't agree with that. Light armor, Medium BAB and HD d8 is equal to a Cleric. Simple weapons plus one Martial weapon is *better* that the cleric. What the cleric gets on top of that is Medium and Heavy armor and shields. And why does the clerc get that? because he gets non-exciting spells.



Like divine power? 

I'm a battle sorcerer fan myself, but the cleric is both more powerful and more versatile.

But than, that's the cleric, who is commonly accepted to be both more powerful and more versatile than most anything.


----------



## jasin (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> If they do a base-class warrior-mage, I hope its more like the Spellsword, with a broad general spell selection, so you can have the warrior-mage who basically uses magic to be a better warrior, or more of a mage who knows how to fight as well.





			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Mageblades are my favorite gi....I mean fighter/mage that I've seen to date for a couple of reasons:
> 
> 1) There spells are well suited to the style. They get combat buffs, a lot of touch attack spells, and UNIQUE SPELLS that only they can do.
> 
> 2) They get unique abilities in the class, not just fighter and mage slapped together. They intergrate the styles into something completely new.



It seems to me that there are two different concepts that different warrior-mage fans want to see implemented.

There's something like the eldritch knight (particularly of the wizardly variety), a guy who does most of the wizardly duties like teleporting and scrying and conjuring magnificent mansions, but fights with a sword instead of a scorching ray.

And then there's something like the duskblade, who has his own peculiar spell list and is more like an arcane counterpart to the paladin (as a divinely powered warrior), than to the cleric (a spellcaster who also fights and a fighter who also casts spells).

I'm more interested in the former, which ideally I don't think should be a base class. I'd rather have just have good multiclassing rules than a fighterwizard class. A new class won't cover fighter/druids or druid/rogues or monk/wizards, and it should be easier to model the more specific duskblade-like concept if you have generic fighter/wizard rules that work, than it would be to model a hybrid concept fighter/wizard with a duskblade-like class.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 10, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I'm more interested in the former, which ideally I don't think should be a base class. I'd rather have just have good multiclassing rules than a fighterwizard class. A new class won't cover fighter/druids or druid/rogues or monk/wizards, and it should be easier to model the more specific duskblade-like concept if you have generic fighter/wizard rules that work, than it would be to model a hybrid concept fighter/wizard with a duskblade-like class.




I think a part of the differences in how folks approach this problem is the preference in how the game system feels. Going for a "base class" approach emphasizes, in my opinion, the effect of classes as archetypes (meaning class as a solid career path in a game world) and the effect of niche protection, while a strong multi-class approach emphasizes a system of modularity and the effect of classes as "toolbox" (meaning a class as a package of abilities that can be added, swapped and modified). I like the base class approach, which is why I puzzled together a base class.  Incidentally, I'm pretty convinced that you will get a working multiclass system if you reduce the archetype emphasis of classes a lot more, and turn further toward a skills and feats based character creation system. Maybe somebody will one day come along and prove me wrong, but so far I've seen great systems on the "strong classes" side as well as the "strong modularity" side of the spectrum, but no system that really manages to combine them equally. D&D 3.X shows that clearly, since there are multiple approaches in the last 8 years to make the strong classes much more malleable, with the drawback that the characters themselves can become a lot more unwieldly.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> The trouble with this is, many classes that some see as existing to facilitate a cross between two other classes are in fact there own classes and there own archtype seperate from any similar to a whatever/whatever.




Not every hybrid is an archetype of its own.  Or, more properly, if the archetype is a blend of two other archetypes, it doesn't warrant its own class.  That said, I have no problems with new base classes, so long as they are more than just an implementation of a multiclass or a powered-up multiclass.

What I hope to see is the absolute prohibition on armored arcane casting disappear.  Apply a penalty to the magical attack bonus, if need be, or make Armored Caster a feat/talent.  "Can cast in armor" does warrant its own class or archetype.  

Now, if you want to throw in Arcane Strike, bonding and auto-enchanting a signature weapon, and some similarly themed abilities, you might have enough to differenciate a mageblade from a fighter/mage multiclass.  In fact, I'd really dig on that.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Not every hybrid is an archetype of its own.  Or, more properly, if the archetype is a blend of two other archetypes, it doesn't warrant its own class.  That said, I have no problems with new base classes, so long as they are more than just an implementation of a multiclass or a powered-up multiclass.
> 
> What I hope to see is the absolute prohibition on armored arcane casting disappear.  Apply a penalty to the magical attack bonus, if need be, or make Armored Caster a feat/talent.  "Can cast in armor" does warrant its own class or archetype.
> 
> Now, if you want to throw in Arcane Strike, bonding and auto-enchanting a signature weapon, and some similarly themed abilities, you might have enough to differenciate a mageblade from a fighter/mage multiclass.  In fact, I'd really dig on that.





  Well, I'm talking more about conceptual distinctness than mechanical distinctness, although the two often overlap.

  For instance, many consider Ranger and Paladin to be simply "implementations of a multiclass". I don't, especially in the case of the Paladin. The Paladin doesn't represent a fighter/cleric multiclass, he represents the archtype of a ...well, a paladin. A Champion. A holy/unholy/whatever warrior who's mostly a warrior with a few extra powers. Whereas a fighter is a fighter, and a Cleric is some hairbrained attempt by Gary Gygax to create a fantasy-fied version of the Knights Templar, who would actually just be fighters..

  Of the 11 3.x PH classes, the only three I consider in any way not worthy of a base class is Barbarian (which even if you change the name to Berzerker is more of a fighting style than a class), Sorcerer (which as it is is simply a slightly less Vancian wizard) and too a much lesser extent Monk, although I think a meditative warrior is probably overall a strong enough archtype for its own class. 

  Now things like Favored Soul, Spellthief, arent really strong enough archtypes to warrant a class. And things like Warlock and Hexblade might would be, but they insist on locking them into a specific flavour (in this case a dark/evil theme.)


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Well, I'm talking more about conceptual distinctness than mechanical distinctness, although the two often overlap.




I'm talking a bit of both.  I agree that some tweeners exist that are practically archetypes of their own.  But, if they would be, mechanically, pretty much identical to a multiclass, why clutter things up with a separate class?

The ranger-as-multiclass is something I've never understood.  Then again, I figure the archetypal ranger is more of a professional (in the loosest meaning of the word) warrior who is toughened by lots of time in the wilds than the military branch of a druid circle or an explorer.

I think the cleric, as written, provides a fair model for the champion paladin.  Without the backing of his god (i.e. spells), he's probably not as good as the fighter.  But with that backing, he shines quite brightly.  That said, I still think the cleric is a bit light on the sword and a bit heavy on the prayer side.  Thus, the added fighter levels.  But, I wouldn't object to a dedicated paladin/divine champion class in 4E, so long as it's much better done than 3x.  They should also make the cleric a bit softer and generically "priesty".  If the cleric is kept as a psuedo-Templay, it's going to continue to push on the champion's niche in the same way the unfortunate barbarian pushes on the ranger.



> Now things like Favored Soul, Spellthief, arent really strong enough archtypes to warrant a class. And things like Warlock and Hexblade might would be, but they insist on locking them into a specific flavour (in this case a dark/evil theme.)




Agreed.  The warlock could easily be rewritten to exemplify calling on any pact or blood power.  Actually, it would be interesting to see it combined with the binder in a way.  The hexblade was a very interesting concept, but was poorly implemented.  That's definitely the sort of tweener base class/concept that I would consider worthwhile, though.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> I'm talking a bit of both. I agree that some tweeners exist that are practically archetypes of their own. But, if they would be, mechanically, pretty much identical to a multiclass, why clutter things up with a separate class?





  Well first, clutter is a matter of perspective. next, because you may want to be that class, not a mixture of others. I dont see any of the current classes as "hybrids" in any way. And also due to the issue, which could of course be changed, of wanting to start out as what you want to be.




> I think the cleric, as written, provides a fair model for the champion paladin. Without the backing of his god (i.e. spells), he's probably not as good as the fighter. But with that backing, he shines quite brightly. That said, I still think the cleric is a bit light on the sword and a bit heavy on the prayer side





  the 3.x Cleric is a semi-competent warrior and a very powerful spellcaster who can use spells to turn into a full blown warrior at need. He fits neither the martial champion nor the spellcasting priest very well conceptually.




> But, I wouldn't object to a dedicated paladin/divine champion class in 4E, so long as it's much better done than 3x. They should also make the cleric a bit softer and generically "priesty". If the cleric is kept as a psuedo-Templay, it's going to continue to push on the champion's niche





  As well as being ridiculesly overpowered. Thats why the Cleric needs to become a pure spellcaster, and the Paladin expanded to be a more versatile Champion class.




> The hexblade was a very interesting concept, but was poorly implemented. That's definitely the sort of tweener base class/concept that I would consider worthwhile, though





  the Hexblade was an ok attempt at the warrior-mage deal, but they had to add in the alignment restriction and the negative/evil/dark flavour and abilities, thus making it far to specific.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 10, 2007)

Traycor said:
			
		

> YES!
> 
> This was mentioned the most recent playtest: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070907a&authentic=true
> 
> ...





4e multiclassing is going to make a fighter/wizard perfectly viable at all level. There is no reason for a core class like a swordmage or bladesinger :\


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 10, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 4e multiclassing is going to make a fighter/wizard perfectly viable at all level. There is no reason for a core class like a swordmage or bladesinger :\




As has been mentioned before, 1st level (barring a *major* pardigm shift).

Now, if you want to play a fighter/wizard at first level you either have to start knowing no magic and "suddenly" pick up all your magic abilities at 2nd level, or start with no melee abilities and "suddenly" learning at 2nd level how to use all weapons, armor, and gaining a decent fighting skill.

The apprentice levels of 3.0 might work reasonably well if implemented again.  They weren't bad for 3.0, it was just being a multi-classed wizard that was a problem in 3.X.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 10, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> For instance, many consider Ranger and Paladin to be simply "implementations of a multiclass". I don't, especially in the case of the Paladin. The Paladin doesn't represent a fighter/cleric multiclass, he represents the archtype of a ...well, a paladin. A Champion. A holy/unholy/whatever warrior who's mostly a warrior with a few extra powers. Whereas a fighter is a fighter, and a Cleric is some hairbrained attempt by Gary Gygax to create a fantasy-fied version of the Knights Templar, who would actually just be fighters..



Ha! Just what I think 
The Paladin as a champion of his faith or a principle is a MUCH stronger archetype than the cleric. I think the cleric lacks focus. Maybe it's because there's so much variance depending on the cleric's deity/faith. Even the Favored Soul is in my opinion a stronger archetype than the cleric. I think a spontaneous caster makes a lot more sense for a divine spellcaster.

So, if a class should be relegated to the status of a prestige class, it's the cleric, not the paladin!

I really think, people believe the cleric is one of the basic archetypes only because the cleric has been present as a class in every edition.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> Ha! Just what I think
> The Paladin as a champion of his faith or a principle is a MUCH stronger archetype than the cleric. I think the cleric lacks focus. Maybe it's because there's so much variance depending on the cleric's deity/faith. Even the Favored Soul is in my opinion a stronger archetype than the cleric. I think a spontaneous caster makes a lot more sense for a divine spellcaster.
> 
> So, if a class should be relegated to the status of a prestige class, it's the cleric, not the paladin!
> ...





Basically yes. People always bring up the Templars and the Bishop guy from Song of Roland or whatever, but I find little basis for the totality of what the Cleric is in 3e. The Cleric in particular, and the whole "divine" spiel in D&D in general have a lot of conceptual issues.

  In the end, the best way would be to have the concept of "priest" divorced from being a class entirely, since "priest" is really more a cultural role. And Divorce the notion of "god magic" from "healing and protection."

  Chances are, the idea of a warrior-mage is a stronger archtype than any one of the ones contributing to the Cleric class.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 10, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> As has been mentioned before, 1st level (barring a *major* pardigm shift).
> 
> Now, if you want to play a fighter/wizard at first level you either have to start knowing no magic and "suddenly" pick up all your magic abilities at 2nd level, or start with no melee abilities and "suddenly" learning at 2nd level how to use all weapons, armor, and gaining a decent fighting skill.
> 
> The apprentice levels of 3.0 might work reasonably well if implemented again.  They weren't bad for 3.0, it was just being a multi-classed wizard that was a problem in 3.X.




A 1st level wizard could be ok enough. Wear light armor instead of heavy (which perhaps you cannot even afford at 1st level) and eat up some arcane spell failure. The BAB difference is only +1, weapon proficiency is not nice but... 

...but frankly I don't care: with 30 levels of game, having to suffer for 1 level is a fair price for a player that wants the best of both worlds. Or play a gish only when the game starts at 2nd level (most groups start higher than 1st after a couple of campaign anyway).


----------



## Howndawg (Sep 10, 2007)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> Are you trying to suggest that Wizards _isn't_ doing BLAH BLAH BLAH?
> 
> -The Gneech





Actually, no.  I just don't want any unfounded rumors being traced back to me, even if they happen to be true   .

Howndawg


----------



## Howndawg (Sep 10, 2007)

NatalieD said:
			
		

> Man, I hope they come up with a better name.  "Swordmage" is probably the worst name for that concept I've yet heard.  The syllables just don't flow together at all; no matter how you say it just sounds like two separate words.  Plus it sounds more like a wizard who specializes in making magic swords, or uses a sword to focus his magic the way other wizards use wands, or something, and not like a magic-wielding warrior at all.
> 
> What else have we got... "duskblade" is kinda cool, but almost as awkward to say as "swordmage", and until you're used to it it sounds like some kind of evil blackguard type of dude.  "Hexblade" flows nicely and is more evocative, but it also ties the concept to curses which isn't so great.  "Spellsword" works great as a word, but as a name it sounds more like a magic item than a person... and it's just asking for someone to say "S-W-O-R-D" and then giggle wildly.  "Mageblade" is probably the best so far, but it's still awkward to say and not terribly evocative.
> 
> Coming up with a good name for a generalized warrior-mage class is hard!




"Dweomercraft Myrmidon"

Howndawg


----------



## Mercule (Sep 10, 2007)

Jhaelen said:
			
		

> I really think, people believe the cleric is one of the basic archetypes only because the cleric has been present as a class in every edition.




Actually, I assume that the priest is archetypal because of the implied polytheistic setting in D&D.

In a psuedo-Medieval setting that is a bit lighter on the "pseudo", the paladin is much more iconic.  That's not what we have.  D&D has moved, socially, quite a bit earlier to large Greco-Roman cities, temple districts, etc.

Either way, the cleric, as written, isn't archetypal, iconic, or otherwise representative of much of anything.  It's a wart of beef.  It fails to represent any sort of general priest, instead leaving that to the role of less proficient (in every way) adepts.  It shoe-horns any PC priest into a warrior mold.  

Worst of all, the healer aspect of the class has so ingrained itself into the body of D&D rules that it sucks down a broad gamut of play.  People get hurt, so you need a healing mechanism for those desperate combats and so you don't feel stupid for facing the next battle with a gaping chest wound.  The cleric is the only class that really heals well, so that's what is expected of it.  Because good healing is a superior tactic to inferior healing, groups make heavy efforts to have a cleric with them and designers have to balance damage to assume a certain level of healing.  That requires clerics to heal that level of damage or more.  Which also makes it unreasonable to continue adventuring after your cleric has dumped all his healing into you.  Which results in two-hour adventuring days.  Which spawns a boatload of fixes, none of which seem to actually address this whole crazy healing/health thing.  

Thus, 4E.  If 4E doesn't fix the way healing works at a pretty fundamental level, we'll end up seeing a lot of the same issues in a couple of years.  I can't remember the last time my players stopped the day because the wizard ran out of spells (though, I'm sure they have).  More often, they stop because the healer is done.

Anyway, the shorter response to what you said is that the cleric isn't inherently an archetype in itself.  But, in the implied D&D setting and the published settings, some sort of priestly class is called for.  Hopefully 4E includes one, for a change.


----------



## Merlion (Sep 10, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Actually, I assume that the priest is archetypal because of the implied polytheistic setting in D&D.
> 
> In a psuedo-Medieval setting that is a bit lighter on the "pseudo", the paladin is much more iconic.  That's not what we have.  D&D has moved, socially, quite a bit earlier to large Greco-Roman cities, temple districts, etc.
> 
> ...






  I dont think the setting calls for a priest class. In the Realms, which is about as polytheistic and god/church focused as it gets, the "clergies" already include non-priest classes. 

  In fact, most gods in most D&D worlds would it seems to me have their clergies best represented by members of other classes anyway. 

 In Arcana Evolved, the implied setting of course is not the same, but there is no priest type class...theres a priest *feat* that gives you social benefits.  And the Magister is very capable of filling the idea of a spellcasting priest.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 10, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> "Dweomercraft Myrmidon"
> 
> Howndawg




OOOH!  *Dweomerblade!*


----------



## hong (Sep 11, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> OOOH!  *Dweomerblade!*



 Dweomerblade +5!


----------



## Varianor Abroad (Sep 11, 2007)

Myrmiwarrior!


----------



## Klaus (Sep 11, 2007)

Varianor Abroad said:
			
		

> Myrmiwarrior!



 Mimirwarrior!


----------



## Masquerade (Sep 11, 2007)

Howndawg said:
			
		

> "Dweomercraft Myrmidon"



Nice ring to it.

I have used the term "myrmidon" by itself to refer to a fighter/spellcaster. It's a nice fit..you know, if you ignore the word's history and connotations. ^_^


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 11, 2007)

Lets simply call it "ninja" and be done with it. We all know that ninja are the secret masters of martial AND mystical arts, after all.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 11, 2007)

Merlion said:
			
		

> I dont think the setting calls for a priest class. In the Realms, which is about as polytheistic and god/church focused as it gets, the "clergies" already include non-priest classes.
> 
> In fact, most gods in most D&D worlds would it seems to me have their clergies best represented by members of other classes anyway.




I don't necessarily disagree with this, either.  But, if you have divine magic, I find it odd that the only guy who gets the favor of his god is the one who knows how to wear heavy armor and crush skulls.

Either have priests unrelated to casting, or make a priestly class that can represent a cross-section of priests.


----------



## Jer (Sep 11, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> 4e multiclassing is going to make a fighter/wizard perfectly viable at all level. There is no reason for a core class like a swordmage or bladesinger :\




I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.

If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells.  The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.

But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does?  What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank?  That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way.  In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could.  I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.
> 
> If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells.  The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.
> 
> But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does?  What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank?  That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way.  In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could.  I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.



 Ideally, there should be one class for each role/power source combination. I hope they do this and put 12 classes in the PHB1.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 12, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> I disagree - because multiclassing may be the wrong approach entirely for a concept.
> 
> If characters have roles, and a Fighter has the Tank role while a Wizard has the Controller role, then a multiclass Fighter/Wizard is likely going to be best able to build a Tank/Controller character - a character that can wade into battle swinging a sword OR throw out hefty area of effect spells.  The character fills two roles, and his two classes define those roles.




I absolutely hope this is not the case. Those roles should not become straight-jacket for classes, therefore as a fighter/wizard you won't be shoehorned into being a tank/controller, but that would just be an option. If the roles became straight-jacket during the development process, then the ruleset would be badly rigid IMHO.




			
				Jer said:
			
		

> But what if my concept is more along the lines of a "mystic warrior" that uses his magic differently than a wizard does?  What if I want to have access to "battle magic" that enhances my ability to be the Tank?  That's a completely different type of character, and I'm not sure that the new game is actually going to be giving us multiclassing rules that work that way.  In fact, with an emphasis on "roles", I don't see how they could.  I'd like to be surprised and see a multiclassing system that is all things to all people, but I just don't think it's going to be possible.




Mystic warrior, like a Monk? Or a Hexblade? Possibly, but this is quite an advance concept compared to the more traditional classes, so I definitely think it belongs to a PHB2. But the fact is, most of the players that want to play a Gish, they really just want to get the best of both worlds. Fair enough, if the game can support their "needs" then it's better for everyone, but I would put the needs of more general and basic concepts always before.


----------



## jasin (Sep 12, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Ideally, there should be one class for each role/power source combination. I hope they do this and put 12 classes in the PHB1.



I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".



 Yes, but you have to start somewhere. The role/source combo provides an easy-to-notice open niche, making it easier to come up with a cool concept to fill that niche.


----------



## Jer (Sep 12, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> I just hope they define classes on the concepts' own merits, rather than to fill out the grid. The role/power source thing seems like a fine framework for actually building the classes and picking abilities, but the idea behind a class shouldn't be "it's a divine striker".




Hear, hear!  I agree with this.  There's no need to generate classes just to fill some somewhat arbitrary slots.  They're finally getting rid of the nine-slot alignment grid that was often used as a crutch to fill in monsters arbitrarily, let's not replace it with another grid.

That said, there is something to be said about pondering what types of classes could fill certain slots.  I'd love to see a concept that could fit into a "martial Controller" slot, personally.  How would that work?  Some of the class/slot combos just don't scream "archetypal combo" to me, and that's one of them.


----------



## Jer (Sep 12, 2007)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> I absolutely hope this is not the case. Those roles should not become straight-jacket for classes, *therefore as a fighter/wizard you won't be shoehorned into being a tank/controller, but that would just be an option*. If the roles became straight-jacket during the development process, then the ruleset would be badly rigid IMHO.
> 
> ...
> 
> Possibly, but this is quite an advance concept compared to the more traditional classes, so I definitely think it belongs to a PHB2. *But the fact is, most of the players that want to play a Gish, they really just want to get the best of both worlds.* Fair enough, if the game can support their "needs" then it's better for everyone, but I would put the needs of more general and basic concepts always before.




First, I'd like to say that I've never personally seen any Fighter/Wizard combos in play that didn't fall into the role of what I would call a Tank/Controller in any edition of the game - including the Elf class from the B/X D&D set.  In combat these characters either wade into battle swinging their sword and taking hits like a Fighter OR they stand back and throw Fireballs and Lightning Bolts and Sleep and Charm Person spells at the opposition.  I'd like to see a concept for a multiclass Fighter/Wizard that didn't operate this way in combat, personally, because I'd like to believe that multiclassing is more flexible than that, but I've never seen one played any other way at the table.

Second, it sounds like you're saying that this is exactly what most players that want to play a "Gish" are actually asking for anyway - a Fighter/Wizard character that can fight like a Fighter or throw area of effect spells around like a Wizard.  That's fine - I guess it's kind of like Gandalf in a lot of ways - but I would hope those players would understand that they're never going to be as good a Fighter as a single class Fighter of the same character level or as good a Wizard as a single class Wizard of the same character level.

But the other concept I was talking about - a fighter that uses magic to make himself a more effective fighter - is exactly why you can't do this stuff entirely by multiclassing - it's a concept that doesn't fit with the traditonal roles of the Wizard or the Fighter (though it's close to that of a Fighter).  The argument was that you could do it all with multiclassing, but I contend that there are some concepts that just aren't going to work well with multiclassing because the very nature of the class system already has archetypal roles assumed for each class - and has stretching all the way back to OD&D's "Fighting Man" and "Magic-User" distinctions.  (Though I agree - something like that should be in a future supplement and doesn't need to be in the core of the game at all.  I think the closest we've seen so far in print to the concept is actually the Psychic Warrior from the Psionics Handbook, but I don't know much about the Duskblade - it may be the same type of class.)


----------



## jasin (Sep 12, 2007)

Jer said:
			
		

> That said, there is something to be said about pondering what types of classes could fill certain slots.  I'd love to see a concept that could fit into a "martial Controller" slot, personally.  How would that work?  Some of the class/slot combos just don't scream "archetypal combo" to me, and that's one of them.



Something along the lines of the tripping spiked chain fighter?


----------



## GreatLemur (Sep 12, 2007)

NatalieD said:
			
		

> What I really like about duskblade is that it's designed to be a warrior who uses magic as part of his combat technique, not just a second-rate warrior who can cast some second-rate spells when he's not fighting.  The magic and fighting skill are actually integrated.  The best you can do with most warrior/mage combinations is to cast some buffs on yourself before wading in, or maybe set your sword aside for a turn to cast a spell.



This comment is extremely correct.  This is exactly why this character concept needs its own class (be it Duskblade or Swordmage or whatever), and cannot be effectively emulated through multiclassing.  (Unless maybe they want to introduce a more flexible magic system where it's "cheaper" or easier to buff yourself than others, or to deliver attack spells at touch range than at a distance, etc.  _Then_ there'd be some real synergy between Fighter and Wizard levels, I guess...)


----------



## Klaus (Sep 12, 2007)

For argument's sake:
Martial:
Leader - Warlord
Controller - Knight
Defender - Fighter
Striker - Rogue

Divine:
Leader - Cleric
Controller - Druid
Defender - Paladin
Striker - ???

Arcane:
Leader - Bard
Controller - Wizard
Defender - Swordmage
Striker - Sorcerer

?


----------



## jasin (Sep 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Yes, but you have to start somewhere. The role/source combo provides an easy-to-notice open niche, making it easier to come up with a cool concept to fill that niche.



But it seems to me when you design like that it's easy to fall into the trap of not bothering to come up with a concept that's cool when described in plain language, because it can seem that filling the empty slot justifies the concept in itself.

For example, the favored soul: it's a divine spontaneous caster. OK, neat. But what is it for people who don't play D&D, who don't know what the words "divine" and "spontaneous" mean in this context? A guy who performs miracles in his god's name? Isn't that already covered by the cleric?

IMO, it's a bit like alignment: the power source/role thing is good for _describing_ what a class does and how they do it, but I wouldn't want the designers to be saying "wait, X cannot be a martial striker, we already have that one; let's make it a divine striker, because that's still open".


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Rich referred to this in his latest blog.



> I've noticed that some people over at ENWorld picked up on the class name "swordmage" that was mentioned in my playtest report a couple of days ago. I'm amazed at how much you folks can divine from such a thin reference. Some of the later posts in the thread were uncannily accurate predictions. I hope to say some more about it soon, because I used a swordmage as the protagonist in my upcoming novel "Swordmage." I'd like to tell you how I saw the character and his capabilities working, at least as told through the lens of fiction as opposed to game rules. I'm checking now with my boss to see if I can.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> For argument's sake:
> Martial:
> Leader - Warlord
> Controller - Knight
> ...




That'd be pretty cute, though I'd feel a little sick irl if the Knight had "mind-control"-type abilities (if he "controlled" people by smashing them around, stunning them, charging them and so on though, awesome).

A Divine striker is a cool concept. Don't let it be the Monk, D&D Jesus, don't let it be the Monk! <prays fervently>

The Druid could make a decent Divine striker, too, although I admit controller is more "obvious".

This also allows for four different Psionic classes, which I heartily approve of.


----------



## Yergi (Sep 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> For argument's sake:
> Martial:
> Leader - Warlord
> Controller - Knight
> ...




I got it! Divine Striker = Inquisitor! He'd need to have Stealth and/or Deception as a class skill, as no one ever suspects him...

But seriously, Inquisitor sounds like it would fit nicely into the Divine Striker shtick.


----------



## Gundark (Sep 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> For argument's sake:
> Martial:
> Leader - Warlord
> Controller - Knight
> ...




I like this list. Having the 4 types for each category would be awesome. Hopefully the leader (or the controller, striker, defender) from one category (martial, divine, arcane) will function just as well as their conterparts (ie. the arcane leader does just as well at their roles as a marital leader) just that they'll play differently (playing the bard will feel different from playing the Warlord).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 13, 2007)

Mercule said:
			
		

> My hope for 4E is that there are no base classes, ala duskblade, paladin, scout, or even spellthief.  Actually, my real hope includes no PrCs that are just there to gird a multiclass.  Ultimate magus, eldritch knight, and mystic theurge have to go.  Arcane trickster is iffy, but might be acceptable.



Well, arcane tricksters, unlike the other PrCs you mention, actually bring new abilities to the table. Granted, pickpocketing and (I think) opening locks at range isn't super-sexy, but it's something. (Although it might be better handled with a feat chain or even just some spells.)

Likewise, the spellthief has some new tricks that would make for a good rogue feat chain in 4E.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 13, 2007)

The inclusion of a martial arcane magic-using base class in the PHB would make me very happy.  Very very happy.

And I'll cast a vote for plain old Warmage as the name of the class.  That eliminates the inclusion of any specific weapon name from the name of the class, which could possibly make those who want their "Swordmage" to use a glaive or something feel kinda awkward.

Warmage.  Short for Warrior-Mage.  Also, I might add that it rolls off the tongue very well.  I mean, sure, it's no Cellar Door, but it has a nice sound to it.  


I hope they include this class in the very first PHB.  My DM has already said that all he'll be using is the very first PHB and DMG, and I want to be able to play the class.


----------



## Malhost Zormaeril (Sep 13, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> For argument's sake:
> Martial:
> Leader - Warlord
> Controller - Knight
> ...




Hadn't they told it way back when this whole Role schtick started that the Divine Strikers would be the Rangers?  Has that changed?

As for Martial Controller, I probably think that some sort of tripmonkey or grenadier (ninja?) is a better bet than the Knight (who is just a mounted Fighter anyway).  Maybe a Swashbuckler, too?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

Malhost Zormaeril said:
			
		

> Hadn't they told it way back when this whole Role schtick started that the Divine Strikers would be the Rangers?  Has that changed?




Rangers have been stated to be strikers.  Nothing has been said about whether they are Divine or not from WotC.  Others have suggested it, but we have nothing concrete.


----------



## Tewligan (Sep 13, 2007)

kenmarable said:
			
		

> ...it sounds like multiclassing is greatly improved with the swordmage/*gish* concept...



You just made my list.


----------



## breschau (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Rangers have been stated to be strikers.  Nothing has been said about whether they are Divine or not from WotC.  Others have suggested it, but we have nothing concrete.




No, nothing official. But, the fact that Rangers had druid spells in AD&D (yes and magic-user spells also), priest spells in 2nd, and divine spells in 3rd... it stands to reason that they are Divine Strikers in 4th.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Sep 13, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> A Divine striker is a cool concept. Don't let it be the Monk, D&D Jesus, don't let it be the Monk! <prays fervently>




Hrm, need some incense and other stuff to outweight RE's prayers.  Must have monk as the Divine Striker...



> This also allows for four different Psionic classes, which I heartily approve of.




Agreed.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 13, 2007)

breschau said:
			
		

> No, nothing official. But, the fact that Rangers had druid spells in AD&D (yes and magic-user spells also), priest spells in 2nd, and divine spells in 3rd... it stands to reason that they are Divine Strikers in 4th.




However, given that the class has had significant changes in every edition, it stands to reason that more changes are likely in 4E.  Who knows what they might be.  A number of people have called for rangers to be non-spellcasters, so it might happen.


----------



## senna (Sep 13, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> However, given that the class has had significant changes in every edition, it stands to reason that more changes are likely in 4E.  Who knows what they might be.  A number of people have called for rangers to be non-spellcasters, so it might happen.




But the same people asked for a non-spelcaster paladin, which dosn´t mean that it´s not powered by divine means, the ranger could be the same, without spells, but with powers that come from a divine source. Besides, in the martial power source articles, only fighters and rogues were mentioned, witch may indicate that the ranger isn´t martial powered.
For what is worth, i think that the ranger and the druid should be in the PH2 with a nature power source.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 13, 2007)

I always felt that 3e could have done with a fighter class which had a short arcane spell list in the same way that the paladin and ranger did (in fact I thought that the ranger would have been better as an arcane casting class rather than a druidic casting class, since in its earliest incarnations (Strategic Review and AD&D) it had greater arcane casting ability than divine casting ability.

I actually used a ranger variant in my last campaign (called it the 'spy') who was a ranger but with the spell list swapped for the Assassin spell list as arcane spells. That made for a nice combination.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 13, 2007)

jasin said:
			
		

> For example, the favored soul: it's a divine spontaneous caster. OK, neat. But what is it for people who don't play D&D, who don't know what the words "divine" and "spontaneous" mean in this context? A guy who performs miracles in his god's name? Isn't that already covered by the cleric?




I agree, concept must be closely tied with mechanics to pass my 'errrrr?' test.

Long before Favoured Soul I introduced a spontaneous divine caster into my campaign. Essentially it was exactly like a sorcerer, but drew spells from the divine list instead and had one domain. The class was called 'Prophet', and each of his known spells were his 'faiths'. One prophet might have faith to call for healing, another prophet might not have the faith for that but had faith in calling down fire from the heavens or whatever. The prophets stood outside the normal temple heirarchies, acting as independent 'voices of the gods', and so filled a neat niche in my campaign world as well as being fun to play.

Cheers


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 13, 2007)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Long before Favoured Soul I introduced a spontaneous divine caster into my campaign. Essentially it was exactly like a sorcerer, but drew spells from the divine list instead and had one domain. The class was called 'Prophet', and each of his known spells were his 'faiths'. One prophet might have faith to call for healing, another prophet might not have the faith for that but had faith in calling down fire from the heavens or whatever. The prophets stood outside the normal temple heirarchies, acting as independent 'voices of the gods', and so filled a neat niche in my campaign world as well as being fun to play.
> 
> Cheers




Huh.

That's about ten times better as an implementation than Favoured Soul, imho. Consider it stolen.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2007)

Expanding:

For argument's sake:
Martial:
Leader - Warlord
Controller - Knight
Defender - Fighter
Striker - Rogue

Divine:
Leader - Cleric
Controller - Druid
Defender - Paladin
Striker - Ranger

Arcane:
Leader - Bard
Controller - Wizard
Defender - Swordmage
Striker - Sorcerer

Psionic:
Leader - Wilder
Controller - Telepath
Defender - Psychic Warrior
Striker - Monk


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 14, 2007)

I think that one designer stated that the knight powers were split between the fighter and the paladin, so it would look like that there is no knight class in 4e.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Sep 14, 2007)

Not sure if anyone's seen this yet, but thought I'd post it just in case.

Rich Baker's Blog 



			
				Rich Backer's Blog said:
			
		

> I've noticed that some people over at ENWorld picked up on the class name "swordmage" that was mentioned in my playtest report a couple of days ago. I'm amazed at how much you folks can divine from such a thin reference. Some of the later posts in the thread were uncannily accurate predictions. I hope to say some more about it soon, because I used a swordmage as the protagonist in my upcoming novel "Swordmage." I'd like to tell you how I saw the character and his capabilities working, at least as told through the lens of fiction as opposed to game rules. I'm checking now with my boss to see if I can.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Not sure if anyone's seen this yet, but thought I'd post it just in case.
> 
> Rich Baker's Blog




Yeah, I quoted it towards the top of the page.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Not sure if anyone's seen this yet, but thought I'd post it just in case.
> 
> Rich Baker's Blog




ANyone want to guess which posts were the ones he's referring to?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Sep 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Yeah, I quoted it towards the top of the page.




Whoops, sorry Glyfair.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2007)

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> I think that one designer stated that the knight powers were split between the fighter and the paladin, so it would look like that there is no knight class in 4e.



 Right.

So, what class could be considered a Martial Controller?


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> So, what class could be considered a Martial Controller?



I can't think of any sort of martial class that can effect large spaces, except for maybe an archer who can do something like "Storm of Arrows".


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> ANyone want to guess which posts were the ones he's referring to?




We can only wonder.

I'd guess that two things are pretty solid:

(1) It's the "arcane defender" class
(2) It accomplishes an integration of swordplay and spells that no current mix of multiclass and prestige class can offer from 1st level, that probably integrates both weapon and spells early on.

Beyond that ... I'd speculate that the swordmage kills the duskblade and takes his stuff, but whether the character is a *sword*mage or sword*mage* or a *swordmage* an open question.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Sep 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> So, what class could be considered a Martial Controller?




The Grenadier (alternate name: Sapper or Engineer).  He's really good with alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, and other alchemical products that act like spells but are of mundane construction.  He's good with weapons, though not as proficient as a fighter, and is typically employed as a seige engineer.  His variety of skills, trapsetting/defeating abilities, and alchemical crafting abilities give him the ability to prepare and control the battlefield to canalize the enemies to be destroyed by strikers and defenders -- or wear them down so they can be easily dispatched.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> The Grenadier (alternate name: Sapper or Engineer).  He's really good with alchemist's fire, tanglefoot bags, and other alchemical products that act like spells but are of mundane construction.  He's good with weapons, though not as proficient as a fighter, and is typically employed as a seige engineer.  His variety of skills, trapsetting/defeating abilities, and alchemical crafting abilities give him the ability to prepare and control the battlefield to canalize the enemies to be destroyed by strikers and defenders -- or wear them down so they can be easily dispatched.




Oh man, that right there is sexy.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> We can only wonder.
> 
> I'd guess that two things are pretty solid:
> 
> ...



I'm hoping that the guy can use things that aren't swords. Bows, or even _unarmed attacks_. I think a guy who can buff himself or make his fists flaming before punching someone's nose in.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia (Sep 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> So, what class could be considered a Martial Controller?



Barbarian?!?


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I can't think of any sort of martial class that can effect large spaces, except for maybe an archer who can do something like "Storm of Arrows".



 Bingo. Machine-gun archer.

As opposed to one-shot-kill sniper, which is the other major archetype for archery d00ds.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 14, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> Or because without using the AE magic system, using an AE casting class is pretty worthless.




Hence the *Why not update that into 4E instead of inventing the wheel?*

update = not taking it word for word from AE


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> So, what class could be considered a Martial Controller?



A class that's a lot like the Swordsage from Tome of Battle, which does have area attacks, and attacks which inflict certain conditions on enemies.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> A class that's a lot like the Swordsage from Tome of Battle, which does have area attacks, and attacks which inflict certain conditions on enemies.



But the Swordsage's "Power source" is "magical". How could you pull off a MARTIAL one? As in, no overt magical source for the effects.


----------



## the_myth (Sep 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> But the Swordsage's "Power source" is "magical". How could you pull off a MARTIAL one? As in, no overt magical source for the effects.





It was said somewhere that the Paladin gains his strength from the divine: deity-inspired powers and abilities.  

Perhaps the "Swordmage" gains her skill by having cast spells upon herself.  Someone suggested this earlier in the thread, just not using the new, high-fallutin' power source lingo.

Can anyone think of a pop culture example of this?


----------



## Baduin (Sep 14, 2007)

Perhaps something like mages from Vance's "Dying Earth". They are actually not very like D20 wizards. They more resemble fighters or rogues, fighting with swords, but without armor and with a few per day powerful spells. (actually, their spells were not per day, but they could as well be - their spell-books were not portable). 

I would also think about Elric of Melnibone - swordfighter who buffs himself with magic, with good summoning spells; Zelazny's Dilvish the Damned - also swordfighter, but with a city-killing spell.

eg something like:
BAB - as rogue 
fairly high skills
at will-magic armor, shield, cantrips, eventually some buffs (blur etc)
per encounter- true strike, various touch spells (Shocking Grasp etc), eventually some non-damaging spells (like expeditious retreat, jump, etc), some illusions and pyrotechnics (in the general sense) to confuse foes
per day - like wizards
Not proficent with armor. Cannot use his abilities when wearing armor.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Sep 14, 2007)

I think that the Swordsage Battlefish will resemble the Mageblade from Monte Cooks AE.
Reasons:
1) Some of the designers worked with Monte and even played in his campaigns. So they are somewhat familiar with the workings of the Class.
2) It is IMO the only working Base Class that combines arcane Spells and Martial aspects.
3) Why reinvent the wheel if you can take the best from all D20 products and change it to fit your needs.

Updated as per Hong's suggestion


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> It was said somewhere that the Paladin gains his strength from the divine: deity-inspired powers and abilities.



Yes, that makes him the Divine Defender. We're talking about a Martial Controller. What you're describing is an Arcane Controller.


----------



## hong (Sep 14, 2007)

Tharen the Damned said:
			
		

> I think that the *Swordsage* will resemble ...




Oops!

See, people, you wouldn't have this problem if you called it battlefish.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Sep 14, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Oops!
> 
> See, people, you wouldn't have this problem if you called it battlefish.




You are right there. I updated my post accordingly.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Sep 14, 2007)

hong said:
			
		

> Oops!
> 
> See, people, you wouldn't have this problem if you called it battlefish.




Yeah, I can see the babelfish jokes around any game table, and how the character is only good if he is small enough to fit into somebody's ear.


----------



## The_Gneech (Sep 14, 2007)

the_myth said:
			
		

> Perhaps the "Swordmage" gains her skill by having cast spells upon herself.  Someone suggested this earlier in the thread, just not using the new, high-fallutin' power source lingo.
> 
> Can anyone think of a pop culture example of this?




Jedi Knights?

-The Gneech


----------



## Danzauker (Sep 14, 2007)

I just hope that the rework multiclassing so that it REALLY is worthwhile.

So that with EIGHT base classes, including the FOUR staple fantasy/D&D, I can make of all kinds of sword-using-spellcaster, mage-thief, god-blessed-fighter and everything else I want without having to resort to OTHER published base classed.

The publication of all the 3-new-base-classes-per-book splatbooks (of which there are some I really like, I have to admit) are IMHO the clead admission of the total FAILURE of 3.x multiclassing system...


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2007)

Danzauker said:
			
		

> I just hope that the rework multiclassing so that it REALLY is worthwhile.
> 
> So that with EIGHT base classes, including the FOUR staple fantasy/D&D, I can make of all kinds of sword-using-spellcaster, mage-thief, god-blessed-fighter and everything else I want without having to resort to OTHER published base classed.
> 
> The publication of all the 3-new-base-classes-per-book splatbooks (of which there are some I really like, I have to admit) are IMHO the clead admission of the total FAILURE of 3.x multiclassing system...



 And I think the 3 new base classes introduced in the Complete series were really good additions to the game.


... well, except the Samurai.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2007)

I hope that the swordmage concept won't cause them to give up on making a viable multiclassing system that can handle a fighter/wizard.  I'd like it if a fighter/wizard were a martial guy who backs his fighting up with battlefield control, while the swordmage is a guy who enhances his fighting ability with magic.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 14, 2007)

I wonder if the "swordmage" and the Warlord are one and the same...


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 14, 2007)

Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> small enough to fit into somebody's ear.




I am a bad bad bad man.  I thought that said rear.


----------



## lukelightning (Sep 14, 2007)

It's actually the S-Word Mage, with an ability to cast _blasphemy_ and curses.


----------



## olshanski (Sep 14, 2007)

Is that like the S*Mart mage who fights with a boom-stick?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Rich has updated his blog and posted a bunch on the Swordmage:


> Good morning, everybody! Today, I can talk a little bit about the swordmage.
> 
> First, let me say a few words about the origin of the class. Some of you have already observed that the "grid" created by lining up power sources on one axis and character role on another axis is a natural first place to look for class ideas. We don't intend to meticulously fill in each possible combination, or even limit ourselves to one class per cubbyhole, but it's an interesting place to start. The swordmage appeared about 15 months ago when we asked ourselves, "Say, what would an arcane defender look like?"
> 
> ...


----------



## F4NBOY (Sep 14, 2007)

Good morning, everybody! Today, I can talk a little bit about the swordmage.

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=906386

1 minute late


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Sounds like the Swordmage killed the Psychic Warrior, took his stuff, and called it "magic".


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 14, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And I think the 3 new base classes introduced in the Complete series were really good additions to the game.
> 
> ... well, except the Samurai.




Some of them were good additions to the game.

Because 3E multiclassing is pretty much crap*. 

It completely failed to replicate even the basic "style" of multiclassing from previous games, and was used more as a tool for munchkinism and quickly picking up X, Y and Z, more than actually playing a character who is a hybrid of more than one class. With PrCs it could become overpowered, and without them, it could often be wildly underpowered.

Dozens of 3E Base Classes added in Complete books, in Dragon, and on WotC's website were attempts to create viable "multiclass" classes, which were almost universally significantly more powerful and practical than actual multiclassing.

This is the problem, and why we're so keen to see multiclassing for 4E that works well for the commonest multiclass combos, and doesn't leave characters who are mediocre at one thing and crap at the other, but who are, at the very least, mediocre at two things, like in previous editions. I suspect that with a autoscaling abilities and so on, 4E will be fine at this, or at least a lot more interesting, but it's my number one hope for the new rules.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Sounds like the Swordmage killed the Psychic Warrior, took his stuff, and called it "magic".




I do hope not, the Psychic Warrior was much cooler than a lame old "swordmage" (jeez), and will hopefully return in the new Psionics book which we have been told will arrive eventually.

* - This is an opinion, not a fact, if it was a fact, I would use the word "fact". If this is too hard for you, please stay away from internet messageboards. Everything I post is opinion unless I specifically state that it's fact.


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Dozens of 3E Base Classes added in Complete books, in Dragon, and on WotC's website were attempts to create viable "multiclass" classes, which were almost universally significantly more powerful and practical than actual multiclassing.



I think this is far from correct.  Most of the classes were considered poor choices.  For every warlock there was a hexblade and spellthief.  

A handful of classes got a lot of attention, and even those weren't necessarily considered powerful.  No one complained about the Scout being powerful, but it was one of the most popular of the new classes.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Sounds like the Swordmage killed the Psychic Warrior, took his stuff, and called it "magic".




Good enough for me---I rarely use psionics but I've always *loved* the PsyWar.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I do hope not, the Psychic Warrior was much cooler than a lame old "swordmage" (jeez), and will hopefully return in the new Psionics book which we have been told will arrive eventually.



What I mean is that the psychic warrior's power list for the most part revolves around powers that just effect him. From expansion to healing to dimensional door. Meanwhile, almost half of the Duskblade's spells are boom/ranged effects, not buffs. 

It wouldn't hurt my feelings any if they designed the PsyWar and the Swordmage to be similar but distinctly different. The Swordmage doesn't wear armor, and his spells are strictly arcane buffs. The Psywar should get armor, and he should get psionic powers *but here's the important part*: the Psywar powers aren't just psionic versions of the Swordmage's arcane spells. The SM gets mage armor, the PW gets a bonus to natural armor; the SM gets damage reduction spell, healing for the PW; the SM can set his blade on fire, the PW should get some other damage-heightening effect, perhaps a single-shot damage boost like 3d6. The powers/spells should be similar in their purpose (Improve defenses, do more damage, hit more, have a few sundry effects) but the effects should be distinct enough to tell them apart. 

But then, I think the same should be true for psions vs. wizards.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 14, 2007)

Rich said:
			
		

> * Swordmages aren't "gishes" or bladesingers. Someone over on EN World made an uncannily accurate prediction about the class, which I can confirm here: A swordmage is a warrior who uses magic to fight better.
> * Swordmages use spells of armorning and protection instead of wearing heavy armor. At the most basic level, it's something along the lines of an always-on mage armor spell, renewed each morning. Since they're defenders, they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and swordmages get there by using persistent magic effects.I think there are other persistent wards in play too, spells that provide some energy resistance, mental defense, things of that sort.
> * Swordmages have lots of room for fun, combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells. For example, my character Geran makes use of a few short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects. The movement effects will work great for a defender--what better way to get the troll to stop beating on the wizard than to simply trade places with your unarmored friend?
> * Swordmages have room for fun attack powers, too. For example, I have Geran make use of a short-duration, self-only strength spell, as well as another one that wreathes his sword in magical flames. There are a few others I touched on in my novel, but I don't want to give any more away 'cause I don't want to spoil things.



Mmm, crunchy goodness!  Sounds to me like this is a fighter who uses innate magic, rather than a fighter with fancy gear.  Such a character could be a lot of fun to play.

A spell that gives a bonus to AC, instead of enhancement/deflection bonuses. A self-only strength spell instead of a _belt of strength_.  A spell that wreathes his sword in magical flames, instead of a _flaming sword._  Short-range teleport spells instead of a _cape of the monteback._  And so on.

I think we can guess how they are reducing the game's dependence on magic items...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> I think this is far from correct.  Most of the classes were considered poor choices.  For every warlock there was a hexblade and spellthief.
> 
> A handful of classes got a lot of attention, and even those weren't necessarily considered powerful.  No one complained about the Scout being powerful, but it was one of the most popular of the new classes.




That's lovely as an opinion, if only it was backed up by any form of facts! One thing is clear - many of the 3E base classes were designed around a hybridization of class X and Y theme, and that is a fact.

I'm particularly interested in your assertion that the Scout was "one of the most popular" of the new classes, I take it that's entirely anecdotal and opinion-based?


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm particularly interested in your assertion that the Scout was "one of the most popular" of the new classes, I take it that's entirely anecdotal and opinion-based?



Anecdotal, with evidence.  It was one of the last classes dropped from the "alternate class survivor" I ran a while back.

In fact, it made it to the final against the warlock.  Not bad for a field of 33 classes.  Also vote around 300 give a lot of weight to the "anecdotal evidence."


> One thing is clear - many of the 3E base classes were designed around a hybridization of class X and Y theme, and that is a fact.



Won't disagree with that.  Many more prestige classes were created to fix this role, though.


----------



## Patlin (Sep 14, 2007)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Good enough for me---I rarely use psionics but I've always *loved* the PsyWar.




The PsiWarrior has allways been a favorite of mine, and I can't wait to take a swordmage out for a test drive.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

I personally thought the Psiwar was a little underpowered. He had a cleric BAB and few power points to throw around. Thank god the various Psionic feats were there to offer a little boost.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Sep 14, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Sounds like the Swordmage killed the Psychic Warrior, took his stuff, and called it "magic".



Until the Psychic Warrior returns in PHB2 or whenever he's supposed to reappear.


----------



## broghammerj (Sep 14, 2007)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Mmm, crunchy goodness!  Sounds to me like this is a fighter who uses innate magic, rather than a fighter with fancy gear.  Such a character could be a lot of fun to play.
> 
> A spell that gives a bonus to AC, instead of enhancement/deflection bonuses. A self-only strength spell instead of a _belt of strength_.  A spell that wreathes his sword in magical flames, instead of a _flaming sword._  Short-range teleport spells instead of a _cape of the monteback._  And so on.
> 
> I think we can guess how they are reducing the game's dependence on magic items...




Yeah, but what do you do with a character who has those abilities then acquires those items?  They must have to implement some sort of stacking restriction in the new rules.  Then again like all of 4E "previews" they are devoid of any concrete info so we can only speculate.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> Until the Psychic Warrior returns in PHB2 or whenever he's supposed to reappear.



Well, Rich said that they wouldn't be putting the Swordmage in the PHB1. So either he's going in the PHB2, or something in between them?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 14, 2007)

Glyfair said:
			
		

> Won't disagree with that.  Many more prestige classes were created to fix this role, though.




Interesting on alternate class survivor, I'll have to take a gander at that - I would wager the preferences of a bunch of DMs like ENworld are a little different to if we somehow polled all the players in our campaigns, though.

Completely agree that even more PrCs were made for this, but that's because literally hundreds of PrCs, many of them completely unecessary or serving nigh-exactly the same purpose as others, were created. They were the pointless "filler-crunch" of 3E in 90% of cases (I'd be willing to be that 10% of PrCs represented around 75-80% of all PrC levels taken, even just accounting for official WotC PrCs).

I think that really only strengthens my "multiclassing was completely borked in 3E" point, though.

On-topic, I sincerely hope the Swordmage is quite distinct from a Fighter/Mage, but not just "better", like someone with 15 levels of Duskblade was really honestly, just better than someone with 8 levels of Mage and 7 levels of Fighter, or what have you. Presumably a Fighter/Mage will have more "zap-boom" effects (which actually work, rather than being laughable) and the Swordmage will have have a lot of quick-casting buffs, ports, and so on as it's creator suggests.



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, Rich said that they wouldn't be putting the Swordmage in the PHB1. So either he's going in the PHB2, or something in between them?




That's not a logical assumption. He could be in PHB3, or PHB4, or never. We've been specifically told Psionics will be back, and it's popularity in 3E (much greater than in 1E or 2E) seems to suggest that will be sooner rather than later (though I doubt PHB2, more likely a Psionics Handbook in the same year as PHB2).


----------



## Glyfair (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> Interesting on alternate class survivor, I'll have to take a gander at that...



The interesting ones are the Top Ten and the Top Five.



> I think that really only strengthens my "multiclassing was completely borked in 3E" point, though.



I'll wholly support that spellcasting and multiclassing in 3E didn't mix.  I think there were only very minor kinks outside this.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> That's not a logical assumption. He could be in PHB3, or PHB4, or never.




Well, when Rich said "But for various reasons we decided to go with a slightly different mix of character classes, and so the swordmage is [/b]going to wait for a while[/b]" I assumed he didn't mean 2+ years. Because that's a bit beyond what I would consider "a while". 



> We've been specifically told Psionics will be back, and it's popularity in 3E (much greater than in 1E or 2E) seems to suggest that will be sooner rather than later (though I doubt PHB2, more likely a Psionics Handbook in the same year as PHB2).



I don't see why it shouldn't go in the PHB2. The PHB1 is "Arcane, Divine and Martial power sources", so the PHB2 very well could be "Mental" power source.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> I think that really only strengthens my "multiclassing was completely borked in 3E" point, though.




Actually, I disagree. Multiclassing in 3E is head-and-shoulders above previous iterations *except* when mixing pure spellcasting classes with anything else (including other pure spellcasting classes).

SWSE does this better, with "spell" effects tied to skill rolls; specifially, the Use the Force skill, which improves whether or not you take your next level in Jedi or Bounty Hunter.

Apart from that (and one other issue*), however, it works well.

* - Multiclassing skill points.  A Fighter 1 / Rogue 1 has 16 base skill points and 13 base HP.  A Rogue 1 / Fighter 1 has 26 base skill points and 11 base HP.  However, a move to a more SWSE-like skill system will likely improve this by quite a bit.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 14, 2007)

I really like the idea for the Swordmage that was given in that blog post. It makes it sound like something different than what a multicalss Fighter/Wizard would be, and I think that is important. Even if you have good multi-classing rules which allow a Fighter/Wizard multiclass character, there is plenty of room for something which takes the concept of an armored arcane weapon-user and does something that can't be replicated with multiclassing.

To use a slightly obsure videogame example...

In Final Fantasy 5, it is possible to have a Traveller (fighter) or Knight (a fighter who protects his allies) who knows magic of some kind. Also, the Red Mage class (which can fight, as well as use both healing and destructive magic) is similar. However, there is also a dedicated Sorcerer (in Japan, called the Sword-magic User) who combines magic and swordplay in ways that a Knight with magic skills cannot, infusing hiw weapon with magic and casting destructive spells with each strike of his sword.

A Fighter/Wizard multiclass is like a Final Fantasy Knight with Black Magic, or a Red Mage. A Swordmage would be the Final Fantasy Sorcerer.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2007)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> To use a slightly obsure videogame example...



Uh oh...


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Sep 14, 2007)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, I disagree. Multiclassing in 3E is head-and-shoulders above previous iterations *except* when mixing pure spellcasting classes with anything else (including other pure spellcasting classes).
> 
> SWSE does this better, with "spell" effects tied to skill rolls; specifially, the Use the Force skill, which improves whether or not you take your next level in Jedi or Bounty Hunter.
> 
> ...




You know what? You're right. When I think of multiclassing, I just always think of "with a spellcaster", because that's always what players seem to want to do. 3E was fine if you stuck to non-spellcasters, which are probably a minority of classes, but still. I just hope 4E gets spellcasters right too (the simplest way is to provide some limited "spellcasting" improvement even if they don't select their next levels in the class, but it's a bit tricky to balance).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Sep 14, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Uh oh...



What can I say? I play a lot of videogames. I don't have many other examples to make use of... Besides, it works.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2007)

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> You know what? You're right.




Thanks!

It's also an issue that I became intimately familiar with as soon as I started playing 3.0.  The first character I tried to convert was an Elven Fighter / Magic-User.

It became rather apparent, after only a couple levels, that it wasn't working all that well.

There've been lots of attempts at patches over the years for that exact concept (Practiced Spellcaster, duskblade, PrCs, etc.), but they've all been patches.  I'd like to see it more formally and more effectively brought into the base rules.


----------



## Victim (Sep 14, 2007)

I don't understand how using magic to fight better isn't being a bladesinger/gish thing.  Using magic to improve fighting is pretty much the only thing that made fighter/mage/PrC multiclasses decent in 3.x.  Otherwise, you just have a bunch of redundant attack options and little synergy.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 15, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't understand how using magic to fight better isn't being a bladesinger/gish thing.  Using magic to improve fighting is pretty much the only thing that made fighter/mage/PrC multiclasses decent in 3.x.  Otherwise, you just have a bunch of redundant attack options and little synergy.



Most wizard spells aren't designed to facilitate combat, but rather to bypass it.  They either blow up the enemy or disable the enemy.  Only a few wizard spells are really useful in melee, and those are mostly buffs like Bull's Strength and Blur.  However, some of the things Rich Baker mentions, like teleporting around the battlefield, would be an excellent addition to a martial character's repertoire, especially if it were mostly kept to swift actions.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 15, 2007)

Victim said:
			
		

> I don't understand how using magic to fight better isn't being a bladesinger/gish thing.  Using magic to improve fighting is pretty much the only thing that made fighter/mage/PrC multiclasses decent in 3.x.  Otherwise, you just have a bunch of redundant attack options and little synergy.



Fighter/magic-users predate 3E.

Elves in BD&D don't buff up (since there really aren't buff spells in BD&D) to become better fighters, they blast and zap and also use swords.

They won't be modeled well by swordmages, though.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 15, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Well, Rich said that they wouldn't be putting the Swordmage in the PHB1. So either he's going in the PHB2, or something in between them?



There's supposed to be an arcane book in 2008. The swordmage (and the bard and the gnome, come to think of it) would be a natural fit there.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> There's supposed to be an arcane book in 2008. The swordmage (and the bard and the gnome, come to think of it) would be a natural fit there.




Where has this arcane book been mentioned?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Sep 15, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where has this arcane book been mentioned?




The Israel translator leaked a bunch of info the day before 4e hit.

Three Supplements were a "Martial Arts" book, an "Arcane Spells" Book and a "magic item" book.

It wasn't exactly clear, but my intepretation is that these are The Complete Martial Handbook, The Complete Arcane Handbook, and The Complete Divine Handbook.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 15, 2007)

There's also supposed to be a "dragon" book. Whether this is more Draconomicon or more Dragon Magic remains to be seen. Obviously, if it's the former, it has a hell of a tough act to follow. (Other than its pukey dragon mount monster.)


----------



## Intrope (Sep 15, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> Fighter/magic-users predate 3E.
> 
> Elves in BD&D don't buff up (since there really aren't buff spells in BD&D) to become better fighters, they blast and zap and also use swords.
> 
> They won't be modeled well by swordmages, though.



 True, but something that was adequate at both toe-to-toe fighting and blasting woudl be a defender/controller mix. Which might be best handled via straight multiclassing--and it sounds like (from the playtest's Warlord/Wizard) that you can be useful in both classes. 

I guess I'm suggesting that classes that integrate a power source would be slotted into one role (fighter, paladin, swordmage: defenders); if you want mixed roles you multiclass?


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 15, 2007)

I'm glad the Swordmage won't be in the first PHB, I prefer the PHB remains mostly for traditional classes (you know, classes with a single-word name   ).

I'm also glad that Baker said that they won't use role/power "grid" in a nerd way, by filling all the blanks, and instead they only use it as inspiration but won't feel restricted by it in any way. Great!


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Sep 15, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> I don't see why it shouldn't go in the PHB2. The PHB1 is "Arcane, Divine and Martial power sources", so the PHB2 very well could be "Mental" power source.




I think that a single power source PHB would defy the concept of "one PHB each year" I expect the introduction of new power source but also expansions of old power source
what are they going to put in the annuals PHB otherwise? 
skill will be in PHB1, lots of feats and talents and combat rules will be in PHB1 and they are not going to reprint each time the same stuff
so each annual PHB will have new power sources, new feats, new talents, new spells, new classes for new and old power sources, mixed-classe that match and mix power sources and so on
my question is how many Power Source can be done 
I did a little list on another thread: Nature (could be split in Living Things, Weather), Psi, Chi, Spirits of the dead/ancestors, Spirit of Animals, Negative, Positive, Social, Sexual, Fey, Leyline, Elements, Stars, Music, Poetry.... and you can go on and on


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Sep 15, 2007)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> The Israel translator leaked a bunch of info the day before 4e hit.
> 
> Three Supplements were a "Martial Arts" book, an "Arcane Spells" Book and a "magic item" book.
> 
> It wasn't exactly clear, but my intepretation is that these are The Complete Martial Handbook, The Complete Arcane Handbook, and The Complete Divine Handbook.



to me this don't make sense
why the need for "complete..." if you are going to do a PHB each year???? it's contraddictory....


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 15, 2007)

FabioMilitoPagliara said:
			
		

> to me this don't make sense
> why the need for "complete..." if you are going to do a PHB each year???? it's contraddictory....



As I've previously predicted, I expect that they're going to do three power sources in each PHB, and then three Complete releases each year to expand on the introductory material for each power source.  So year one is Martial, Arcane, and Divine in the PHB, plus an arcane book, martial book, and divine book.  Year two will be Psionic, Nature?, and ?????.  Then we'll see a psionic book, a nature book, and a third book on whatever the third power source is.  The power sources each year will be tied to the demands of whatever campaign setting they're introducing to 4th edition that year.  In year 2, for example, we'll see psionic power appearing in time for the Eberron campaign setting.


----------



## Patlin (Sep 16, 2007)

I'm thinking a "mystic" or "spiritualist" power source for monks, ninjas and possibly others.  Such a plan would explain why Monks would be left out of the PHB, if that is indeed the case.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 16, 2007)

Sounds like ROlemaster with arcane, channelling, mentallism, and essence at times.


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Sep 16, 2007)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> As I've previously predicted, I expect that they're going to do three power sources in each PHB, and then three Complete releases each year to expand on the introductory material for each power source.



even if they keep it around 98 pages I can hardly think what they could put in it, classes and maneuvers/spell?
to me seems much more likely a big fat PHB and that's it
the reason are manifold
a. you will sell much more phb than single "complete whatever" in a fat PHB you can put a little for everyone
b. you have so much resource, if you add "complete whatever" to the 3 annuals core and adventures and world material you are stretching a little too much (how many designers do you need?)


> So year one is Martial, Arcane, and Divine in the PHB, plus an arcane book, martial book, and divine book.  Year two will be Psionic, Nature?, and ?????.  Then we'll see a psionic book, a nature book, and a third book on whatever the third power source is.  The power sources each year will be tied to the demands of whatever campaign setting they're introducing to 4th edition that year.  In year 2, for example, we'll see psionic power appearing in time for the Eberron campaign setting.



except for the complete, I can see the Nature and spritual and psionic and mysticism at least
maybe a "tech" and an Social/Artist power source (the ability to play emotions beyond what other classes can do?)


----------



## Rechan (Sep 16, 2007)

Other obvious power sources: Outsiders (Pacts such as Hexblades/warlocks), Elements, Dragons (essentially the Dragon Shaman/Dragonfire Adept/etc).


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 16, 2007)

Rechan said:
			
		

> Other obvious power sources: Outsiders (Pacts such as Hexblades/warlocks), Elements, Dragons (essentially the Dragon Shaman/Dragonfire Adept/etc).





Incarnum, truenames


----------



## fuindordm (Sep 16, 2007)

If they want to support Eberron, then the most important power sources are arguably Psioniics, Nature, and Artifice. Look at the new races it offers: the Kalashtar (psionic), shifters (natural), and waforged (artifice).

Eberron also has the five druid sects, great stuff for naturalists.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 16, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I'm thinking a "mystic" or "spiritualist" power source for monks, ninjas and possibly others.  Such a plan would explain why Monks would be left out of the PHB, if that is indeed the case.




The current fluff states that "ki" = "psionics"


----------



## Patlin (Sep 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> The current fluff states that "ki" = "psionics"




Yet a 3.5 ninja isn't a psionic PC, and clearly uses ki.  I don't think the fluff is all that clear...


----------



## Intrope (Sep 17, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Yet a 3.5 ninja isn't a psionic PC, and clearly uses ki.  I don't think the fluff is all that clear...



 I think that's mostly because Psionics isn't core, and therefore can't be used in non-psionic books (like PHB or Complete Adventurer). If Psi makes into a core book (PHB 2?), then it would make sense to make Monks & Ninjas as Psi weilders.


----------



## Rechan (Sep 17, 2007)

I think it's an important distinction to make that Psionic doesn't necessitate Psionic Powers. The Soulknife's power comes from a psionic source, but he doesn't have Psionic powers. 

Psionics is just "harnessing the power of the mind/body by discipline or focus". The fluff for psionics is that the yogi who can walk across hot coals or take an arrow in the chest is no different than the guy who sets something on fire by thinking really hard about it. "I want it to happen so bad that it happens." 

This is different than Magic in the sense that, as far as I know, the fluff of magic is more channeling and directing an outside force. To mix metaphor, Magic is like the Force - all around you, and you must channel and direct for the desired effect. (Even if Jedi are more like psions in the effect sense, I'm saying they're wizards in the "manipulate outside power to do what you want it to do" sense).


----------



## Klaus (Sep 17, 2007)

Patlin said:
			
		

> Yet a 3.5 ninja isn't a psionic PC, and clearly uses ki.  I don't think the fluff is all that clear...



 And so is a monk, so what's your point? The fluff (iirc, it was in Secrets of Sarlona) states simply that psionics encompasses the ability known as "ki". So whenever you read "ki", it represents the same inner power tapped by Psions and other psionic charcaters.

How can it be clearer?


----------



## Khaalis (Sep 17, 2007)

I have to agree with other posts. I expect to see Swordmage in the equivalent of the Complete Arcane Power (4X) released in the 2008 schedule. I do not think they would have given the thumbs up to an entire trilogy based on the Swordmage, to be released in the 2008 product line) if it wasn't going to see the light of day until some time in 2009+. However, the timing might be slightly off and it be seen very early in 2009, but I wouldn't expect a full year delay from PHB1 to seeing the Swrodmage.

Just as a side note, I believe they are going to be intent on taking systems and concepts people liked most from 3.5X and translating them in theory over to 4X.  The swordmage is basically a translation of all the melee/spellslinger combinations attempted over the years (duskblade, hexblade, etc.). I believe they will do the same for other power sources that were received well. Thus, I am putting bets on PHB2 = Psionic, Incarnum and either Shadow or Binding power sources.

Following this model, with a 3 New Core each year (PH, DMG, MM) and 3 corresponding splatbooks, they have a solid 6 "heavy book" core product list for the year which can then be supplimented by all of the other product lines (adventures, campaign world material, novels, map tiles, minis, etc.)


----------



## Khaalis (Sep 17, 2007)

Klaus said:
			
		

> And so is a monk, so what's your point? The fluff (iirc, it was in Secrets of Sarlona) states simply that psionics encompasses the ability known as "ki". So whenever you read "ki", it represents the same inner power tapped by Psions and other psionic charcaters.
> How can it be clearer?



I agree with you Klaus, but you have to understand that some people have a problem understanding more "open" or "generic" concepts. Some people expect a Ninja, Monk, Samurai, etc. (or any "eastern" class really) to use "ki" or "chi" and will only accept the class if it says specifically that. They have problems understanding that psionics is a metaphor for any/all "inner strength/energy" power sources. However, if written well enough, the fluff SHOULD be able to get the point across to even the most stubborn reader.  Personally, I see psionics as definitely fitting as the "power source" for all such "inner power" classes, not just "mental mages" as many people see psionics.


----------

