I just want a balanced class with half arcane spellcasting features and half martial features to work with. They can limit the power all the want. Restrict schools of magic, fighting styles, etc. I just need the chassis to build on.
((Note: Hexblade is the most popular Multiclass option, but when was the last time you saw a Hexblade warrior who did nothing but Hexblade? Same with any of the melee casters I listed, they are all used as options in multiclass builds, but are seldom used as a pure class.))
Also an ideal gish class would absolutely not use its casting stat for weapon attacks. That's a nightmare with hexblade, and leads to multiclass shenanigans with the rest of the charisma trio of terror.
Definitely doesn't need repeating, and I hope onednd doesn't bring that back.
Every time I say I would like an arcane gish Class, many people point to all of the subclasses that exist. But a subclass is not a Class. And none of them do what a class would do better. To be clear, by 'better' I mean more elegantly, not more powerful.
I don't care if they are powerful. I don't need them to use their spellcasting stat for attacks. I don't want reflavored Smites. I just want a Class that is built like the Ranger and Paladin in its advancement. A half caster and half martial. Every subclass gives up some of one side or the other because it's based on a different Class. The ones that come closest to a real, balanced, half caster/martial are bending over backwards to do it, and are limited in their theme.
Everything would work so much more smoothly if the was a real Class, and all of the subclasses that tried to be it get moved under the new Class. Make a real Class, put the Bladesinger and the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer in it. Or whatever combination works best for people. And let those subclasses work better because they have the right base Class. It's just cleaner game design. That's all I'm looking for personally.
Also an ideal gish class would absolutely not use its casting stat for weapon attacks...
Honestly with point buy and other highly limited stat blocks, it's the best way to optimize the game play. It's why Paladins are such a pain normally, as you need 3 stats to be high.
Pain for the DM's carefully crafted boss battle maybe?
Suddenly, the boss is surrounded by an army of minions. Can't smite them all, now can ya?
...But yeah. Playing a non-multiclass Paladin can be a pain, when it comes to trying to be a Gish with them. Sure, they're decent at dealing damage with a blade, but being a MAD class can suck. Plus, if they cast any spells, they'll be eating away at their "smite slots." Furthermore, if they didn't go with the Blessed Warrior fighting style, they'll likely not be all that powerful at ranged combat.
...Uuuuuuntil they take one whole level of Hexblade.
Suddenly, all that beautiful Gishness just lines right up for them. Who cares about being MAD? All their melee attacks are now done with their Charisma, instead of whatever else they were using. Worried about consuming spell slots? Take a quick nap, and get your spare Smite Slots back in an hour. Ranged Combat? I believe you meant to say "Eldritch Blast Shooting Gallery." Bonus points for the fact that you can pick up the Eldritch Smite Invocation (should you invest more than a level or two in Warlock), cast one of your Smite spells, pair those with your Divine Smite, and unlock the game-shattering potential of the Legendary Triple S M I T E ! ! !
I'm still in the design and test phase of my very own gish class and these here are some core mechanics right from level one.
Using Magic Combat Whenever you cast a spell that requires a spell attack roll against a single target or forces a single target to make a saving throw, you can instead make a weapon attack to deliver the spell. A Spell delivered this way adds the weapons damage to the usual effect of the spell, but no other effects and does not add your weapon damage modifiers to that attack.
Weapons and Magic Combat Bespelled Weapons are special weapons created to be used in conjunction with magic. Using Magic Combat with a Bespelled Weapon is the usual assumption. Using a weapon that has not the bespelled trait, risks permanent destruction caused by the magical energies coursing through the weapon.
If you use a weapon without the bespelled trait, after making the attack roll and resolving all effects of that attack, roll a d10 for the weapon. If the result is equal or lower to the used spell's level, the weapon is destroyed forever, as it dissolves into magical particles.
For a magic weapon without the bespelled trait, roll two d10 and take the highest result.
For a legendary weapon without the bespelled trait, roll three d10 and take the highest result.
Spellcasting Focus As a Martial Spellcaster your Weapons always act as a Spellcasting Focus for you. When using Magic Combat to cast a spell through a weapon attack, all Somatic Components can be replaced with the Weapon Attack.
Bespelled - You can use this weapon as a spellcasting focus. Using this weapon without the spellcasting or pact magic feature reduces the weapons damage to 1d4.
Disrupting - If an attack with this weapon causes a creature to roll a Constitution Saving Throw to maintain concentration on a spell, that roll is made with disadvantage.
It really depends on what you’re looking for. Lots of people multi Hexblade probably because they just don’t gel with the occult feel, but if you want a fighter who blasts things with magic, too, then the hexblade really is your go-to build. It’s tough, well armored, fights well, and blasts well, too. Nothing wrong with straight Hexblade, and it’s a pretty fair spellcaster to boot. I don’t know that you can really build a fighter/mage class better than that, as it’s also got relative simplicity going for it which is remarkable for a spellcasting class.
Arguably, I’d say the warlock chassis is the most like the way a D&D party normally should play (limited nova capability), and it gels with narrative concepts of spellcasters, too. At least the ones who aren’t gods incarnate.
And you can both smite in melee AND in range with a hexblade!
Hexblades are so good at gishing that pretty much every gish-ish concept that wants charisma will have Hexblade in it. It’s not because Hexblade is bad. A Hexblade main will have a lot going for it. It’s because older classes need what the hexblade got.
Artificer Battle Smiths could have done the same thing for Wizards, but 3 levels is too much progression to lose. But frankly, Wizards don’t need the help, LOL.
The interesting thing here is, what’s a Gish anyway? If you’re looking for a warrior who blasts, that’s a Hexblade and it’s done fairly well. If you’re looking for a Fighter who kind of buffs themselves, that’s an Eldritch Knight. If you’re looking for a Wizard who just knows how to swing a sword occasionally, that’s a Bladesinger. If you replaced “Hexablde” with “Fighter” and “Sorcerer” with “Mage,” then a Hexblade/Sorcerer is pretty literally a Fighter/Mage and it’s got a pretty nice synergy going on.
Wizards in 5e, and arguably in 3e, don’t really get powerful because of DAMAGE. If you want to blast things, you want a Warlock. Wizards shut down combats with control or elimination options - levitate, web, banishment, wall of force, etc. etc. The idea of a Fighter who also, er, doesn’t actually fight anything - that sounds fairly confused.
Pain for the DM's carefully crafted boss battle maybe?
Suddenly, the boss is surrounded by an army of minions. Can't smite them all, now can ya?
...But yeah. Playing a non-multiclass Paladin can be a pain, when it comes to trying to be a Gish with them. Sure, they're decent at dealing damage with a blade, but being a MAD class can suck. Plus, if they cast any spells, they'll be eating away at their "smite slots." Furthermore, if they didn't go with the Blessed Warrior fighting style, they'll likely not be all that powerful at ranged combat.
...Uuuuuuntil they take one whole level of Hexblade.
Suddenly, all that beautiful Gishness just lines right up for them. Who cares about being MAD? All their melee attacks are now done with their Charisma, instead of whatever else they were using. Worried about consuming spell slots? Take a quick nap, and get your spare Smite Slots back in an hour. Ranged Combat? I believe you meant to say "Eldritch Blast Shooting Gallery." Bonus points for the fact that you can pick up the Eldritch Smite Invocation (should you invest more than a level or two in Warlock), cast one of your Smite spells, pair those with your Divine Smite, and unlock the game-shattering potential of the Legendary Triple S M I T E ! ! !
I'm actually of the opinion that more classes should be MAD, rather than less. Deciding what stats to put points into and which to dump should be something requiring more thought than "put everything in main stat".
For me, the problem with all the subclasses is that they are built on classes that that aren't designed for a true half-martial/half-caster. They trying to wedge the idea into a Fighter, or a Wizard, and so on. A Divine half caster Class exists (Paladin), and a Primal half caster Class exists (Ranger), so an Arcane counterpart only makes sense. Then all of those Subclasses could be put in the Class that actually works cleanly.
I don't want smites, or a wizard that sometimes fights, or a fighter with some very weak spells. I just want a chassis that makes sense. So all those subclasses can feel more like the Paladin and Ranger. It's not hard to imagine. Just copy the Paladin and Ranger.
1d10 hit dice
Martial weapons and armor training
Fighting Styles
1/2 Caster progression
Extra Attack at level 5
Intelligence as the casting ability (like Paladin uses Charisma, and Ranger uses Wisdom)
Strength/Dexterity for weapon attacks
That's half of the class built already. Add in some neat features that fit the theme to finish it. Paladins get healing, Channel Divinity, and smites. Rangers get wilderness survival, special senses, and skills. This one would just have something with an Arcane feel to it. Then grab a lot of the old subclasses that tried to do it but fail to capture the idea fully and drop them into the new Class.
Pain for the DM's carefully crafted boss battle maybe?
Suddenly, the boss is surrounded by an army of minions. Can't smite them all, now can ya?
...But yeah. Playing a non-multiclass Paladin can be a pain, when it comes to trying to be a Gish with them. Sure, they're decent at dealing damage with a blade, but being a MAD class can suck. Plus, if they cast any spells, they'll be eating away at their "smite slots." Furthermore, if they didn't go with the Blessed Warrior fighting style, they'll likely not be all that powerful at ranged combat.
...Uuuuuuntil they take one whole level of Hexblade.
Suddenly, all that beautiful Gishness just lines right up for them. Who cares about being MAD? All their melee attacks are now done with their Charisma, instead of whatever else they were using. Worried about consuming spell slots? Take a quick nap, and get your spare Smite Slots back in an hour. Ranged Combat? I believe you meant to say "Eldritch Blast Shooting Gallery." Bonus points for the fact that you can pick up the Eldritch Smite Invocation (should you invest more than a level or two in Warlock), cast one of your Smite spells, pair those with your Divine Smite, and unlock the game-shattering potential of the Legendary Triple S M I T E ! ! !
I'm actually of the opinion that more classes should be MAD, rather than less. Deciding what stats to put points into and which to dump should be something requiring more thought than "put everything in main stat".
Yeah, but then you gotta take casters into consideration. I mean, does a Wizard really need much more than Intelligence, Constitution, and maybe a little bit of Dex? Their low AC is counteracted by Mage Armor, Shield, and various other defensive spells. Plus, it's kinda hard to prevent Gishness in this game, when multiclassing can alter stat priority.
For example, let's say I wanted to be an arcane Gish. Battle Smith 3-5/Abjuration Wizard X, with at least some method of gaining access to Armor of Agathys. I get access Half Plate, Infusions, the ability to perform melee attacks with my Int modifier, a steel companion that can help defend me, a replenishable force field over my temp HP over my actual HP, etc. Even if I wasn't allowed the ability to go Gish with my sword, I'm still a Wizard at my core. As such, Intelligence is always going to be my build's bread and butter, and no amount of effort is gonna make my Str, Dex, Wis, or Cha too important, when it comes to trying to strike my opponents down with spells.
Even Martials can use this practice, in order to align certain abilities. For instance, let's say I want to be a Swashbuckler Rogue. A single level dip into Hexblade, and my Charisma is fueling my Panache, my Initiative, and my blade. Let's say I wanted to go Inquisitor Rogue instead, and/or simply make an "Insightful" Fighter. All I have to do is find some way to access the Shillelagh Cantrip, and we're suddenly in business. Even without all this, Finesse is a weapon stat that makes Strength builds no longer be a requirement for Martials.
If you wanna see how completely ridiculous this can get, I actually have a character that fully demonstrates all this: This is Baskara. They're a Legacy Fire Genasi Hexblade 1/Battle Smith 4, who took the Magic Initiate feat, so they can gain access to Shillelagh. Their weapons are a Moon-Touched Rapier (Infusion), and a Club as a Pact Weapon (Pact of the Blade).
Weapon attacks, as everyone well knows, can be performed with Strength. Their Rapier has Finesse, meaning that they can perform Dex attacks with it. Thanks to Reach to the Blaze, Legacy Fire Genasi can cast Produce Flame and Burning Hands, using their Con modifier. Due to Battle Ready, any weapon that counts as magical (such as an Infused weapon, or one with Shillelagh cast on it) can utilize their Int mod for attacks. Because of Shillelagh, they can use their Wis modifier, when attacking with the club. And finally, we get to Hex Warrior, where both their Pact Weapon (Club) and designated weapon (Rapier) get to use their Cha modifier for attacks.
The future is now, old man. By level 5, their attack stat is "Yes."
Due to all this, it's actually incredibly easy to make a Gish character in D&D, so long as you know how to build one properly.
I guess I don't see why Artificer is getting overlooked. You have a half caster, arcane gish class right there! You get Infusions instead of Smites or Hunter's Mark and can either play with a buddy (Battle Smith) or solo with a ranged or beefy melee option (Armorer). The only thing you are missing is the 1d10 hit dice and fighting style from your list, BUT you get cantrips for free and a faster spell progression. Rather than trying to make a brand new class, why not be arguing in favor of including Artificer in 1D&D?
On another note, Hexblade gets all of the XXX Smite spells too and the ability to prone an enemy with an Eldritch Smite attack. You also get the ability to magic yourself any weapon that you want (which should be a bonus action, imho) if you go PoB, which gets you extra attack and bonus damage to weapon attacks through your invocations. Medium armor and shield proficiency plus access to Blur, Mirror Image, and Blink make you pretty hard to hit too.
I do like the Artificer. I think it's a petty well made class and fun to play. I would love to see it in the 1DnD PHB.
It's almost a shame that it's so nice, because it almost fits the bill for an arcane gish like the Paladin and Ranger, but not quite. I kind of wish they made an arcane gish like I'm talking about instead, and made the artificer one or more of its subclasses. The only problems I have with the artificer filling this role are the things it gave up in its evolution.
These are minor things, so I don't expect anyone to really agree with me. But the artificer gave up a wider range of thematic options by focusing on being a crafter. I don't personally have any problem reflavoring anything in DnD but a lot of people do. Every feature the Artificer has was at the cost of something that a generic arcane gish would have been able to do naturally. If you want the extra attack, but not a pet or power armor, too bad. You already paid for it. If you want the half caster progression with 1d10 hit dice and fighting styles, too bad you got infusions instead.
It's a cool class, don't get me wrong. I like it. I just wish it was more universal. I wish there was a class like I described, where the Eldritch Knight and Battlesmith could both better find a home. I wish I could play the character concepts I have without the forced focus that all of the current offerings end up creating.
As a DM, Artificer is ok. I don't have a problem fitting it into the world or a campaign.
BUT
As a Player, I HATE Artificier. It is by far my least favorite class. It does nothing that I would want from a Gish class. I want to do Melee, but I don't want a robot dog and I don't want power armor. The crafting aspect is wasted on me as well.
Stegodorkus has summed up my desires for a Gish class pretty well.
A Divine half caster Class exists (Paladin), and a Primal half caster Class exists (Ranger), so an Arcane counterpart only makes sense.
The Ranger is a Divine half-caster class.
The spells of clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers are called divine magic.
- PHB, Chapter 10, sidebar "The Weave of Magic."
There are only arcane and divine casters. Primal casters aren't a part of the game. Under this framework, we can see that the two original half-caster classes (Paladin and Ranger) are both divine, while the third- or quarter-casters (EK, AT, FE; College of Valor, however you want to categorize Pact of the Blade) are arcane. The Artificer is essentially a half-caster, although it gets spells at level 1 instead of 2, and gets cantrips by default instead of having to choose an optional fighting style for it. The spell progression after level 1 is the same. So let's call it a half-caster. It's an arcane one. So, arguably we are still missing an arcane half-caster, just to make it an even 2 vs 2 though, not to make it 1 vs 1 vs 1.
If that was going to happen, I guess we would base it on the Artificer progression. Both the divine ones get martial weapon training at level 1, and Extra Attack at 5. The arcane one instead gets cantrips and spellcasting at level 1, and no Extra Attack. If what we're after is symmetry, as you suggested, then the theoretical arcane half-caster "gish" would look more like a Warlock than a Fighter. It would have cantrips and level 1 spellcasting, and it wouldn't have Extra Attack unless one of its subclasses offered it.
But that's not what people want, as I understand it. They don't want symmetry. They say they want symmetry, to fill the supposed gap, to even out the numbers, but that would mean creating a gish that's a little too spellcaster and not quite swordsman enough.
The alternative could be, for 6e, to change either the Paladin or the Ranger to a structure more similar to the Artificer -- a more caster-aligned half-caster -- and then you could have both an arcane and divine option for leaning very slightly into either weapons or spells. Or, you could make the Ranger primal, like they're clearly planning to do, but then you would have the asymmetry of the arcane one being more caster while the other two are more martial. Maybe you also rework the Artificer to be more martial. Then you could have symmetry. But like... At what cost? Wouldn't this be really bland and boring? Isn't this what everyone hated about 4th edition?
There are only arcane and divine casters. Primal casters aren't a part of the game.
Eh, Primal is a spell list in One D&D, and it's useful to distinguish between 'mostly pulls from the Cleric list' and 'mostly pulls from the Druid list'.
There are only arcane and divine casters. Primal casters aren't a part of the game.
Eh, Primal is a spell list in One D&D, and it's useful to distinguish between 'mostly pulls from the Cleric list' and 'mostly pulls from the Druid list'.
Right, I'm looking ahead when I'm talking about Divine, Primal, and Arcane, and for how those classes will look in 1DnD. Ranger is a half caster with spells starting at level 1, and I imagine Paladin will be too. They'll probably look a lot alike.
Yeah artificier is an arcane half caster but not what people would call a gish, it's only even really meeting the martial part of it fully if you take the right subclass, and those suclasses have such specific theming it's not flexible for a lot of gish fantaies.
I don't think artificer is a bad idea but it's definitely not a 'spell blade' type character. Which is fine, it doesn't have to be that, but it's not going to scratch that arcane half caster itch. And I doubt we're going to see a 'spellblade' type class instead of subclasses like bladesinger and eldritch knight going forward.
There are only arcane and divine casters. Primal casters aren't a part of the game.
Eh, Primal is a spell list in One D&D, and it's useful to distinguish between 'mostly pulls from the Cleric list' and 'mostly pulls from the Druid list'.
Right, I'm looking ahead when I'm talking about Divine, Primal, and Arcane, and for how those classes will look in 1DnD. Ranger is a half caster with spells starting at level 1, and I imagine Paladin will be too. They'll probably look a lot alike.
Okay, I get it now. If that's the framework, then I think my preferred breakdown would be something like: Ranger powers involve places, Paladin powers involve people, and Gish powers involve things. Ranger would have subclasses based on what types of territories they defend, navigate, or conquer. The powers would simply reflect these regions, not require you to be in them. Paladin would have subclasses based on what groups of people they fight for, against, and alongside. Again, reflect, not require. And Gish would have subclasses based on what kinds of things they master, create, or collect.
I dunno, it's a little loose. A little weak. I tried to come up with some example ideas but I can tell I'm reaching.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Also an ideal gish class would absolutely not use its casting stat for weapon attacks. That's a nightmare with hexblade, and leads to multiclass shenanigans with the rest of the charisma trio of terror.
Definitely doesn't need repeating, and I hope onednd doesn't bring that back.
Every time I say I would like an arcane gish Class, many people point to all of the subclasses that exist. But a subclass is not a Class. And none of them do what a class would do better. To be clear, by 'better' I mean more elegantly, not more powerful.
I don't care if they are powerful. I don't need them to use their spellcasting stat for attacks. I don't want reflavored Smites. I just want a Class that is built like the Ranger and Paladin in its advancement. A half caster and half martial. Every subclass gives up some of one side or the other because it's based on a different Class. The ones that come closest to a real, balanced, half caster/martial are bending over backwards to do it, and are limited in their theme.
Everything would work so much more smoothly if the was a real Class, and all of the subclasses that tried to be it get moved under the new Class. Make a real Class, put the Bladesinger and the Eldritch Knight and the Arcane Archer in it. Or whatever combination works best for people. And let those subclasses work better because they have the right base Class. It's just cleaner game design. That's all I'm looking for personally.
Honestly with point buy and other highly limited stat blocks, it's the best way to optimize the game play. It's why Paladins are such a pain normally, as you need 3 stats to be high.
Paladins are a pain normally?
Pain for the DM's carefully crafted boss battle maybe?
Suddenly, the boss is surrounded by an army of minions. Can't smite them all, now can ya?
...But yeah. Playing a non-multiclass Paladin can be a pain, when it comes to trying to be a Gish with them. Sure, they're decent at dealing damage with a blade, but being a MAD class can suck. Plus, if they cast any spells, they'll be eating away at their "smite slots." Furthermore, if they didn't go with the Blessed Warrior fighting style, they'll likely not be all that powerful at ranged combat.
...Uuuuuuntil they take one whole level of Hexblade.
Suddenly, all that beautiful Gishness just lines right up for them. Who cares about being MAD? All their melee attacks are now done with their Charisma, instead of whatever else they were using. Worried about consuming spell slots? Take a quick nap, and get your spare Smite Slots back in an hour. Ranged Combat? I believe you meant to say "Eldritch Blast Shooting Gallery." Bonus points for the fact that you can pick up the Eldritch Smite Invocation (should you invest more than a level or two in Warlock), cast one of your Smite spells, pair those with your Divine Smite, and unlock the game-shattering potential of the Legendary Triple S M I T E ! ! !
I'm still in the design and test phase of my very own gish class and these here are some core mechanics right from level one.
It really depends on what you’re looking for. Lots of people multi Hexblade probably because they just don’t gel with the occult feel, but if you want a fighter who blasts things with magic, too, then the hexblade really is your go-to build. It’s tough, well armored, fights well, and blasts well, too. Nothing wrong with straight Hexblade, and it’s a pretty fair spellcaster to boot. I don’t know that you can really build a fighter/mage class better than that, as it’s also got relative simplicity going for it which is remarkable for a spellcasting class.
Arguably, I’d say the warlock chassis is the most like the way a D&D party normally should play (limited nova capability), and it gels with narrative concepts of spellcasters, too. At least the ones who aren’t gods incarnate.
And you can both smite in melee AND in range with a hexblade!
Hexblades are so good at gishing that pretty much every gish-ish concept that wants charisma will have Hexblade in it. It’s not because Hexblade is bad. A Hexblade main will have a lot going for it. It’s because older classes need what the hexblade got.
Artificer Battle Smiths could have done the same thing for Wizards, but 3 levels is too much progression to lose. But frankly, Wizards don’t need the help, LOL.
The interesting thing here is, what’s a Gish anyway? If you’re looking for a warrior who blasts, that’s a Hexblade and it’s done fairly well. If you’re looking for a Fighter who kind of buffs themselves, that’s an Eldritch Knight. If you’re looking for a Wizard who just knows how to swing a sword occasionally, that’s a Bladesinger. If you replaced “Hexablde” with “Fighter” and “Sorcerer” with “Mage,” then a Hexblade/Sorcerer is pretty literally a Fighter/Mage and it’s got a pretty nice synergy going on.
Wizards in 5e, and arguably in 3e, don’t really get powerful because of DAMAGE. If you want to blast things, you want a Warlock. Wizards shut down combats with control or elimination options - levitate, web, banishment, wall of force, etc. etc. The idea of a Fighter who also, er, doesn’t actually fight anything - that sounds fairly confused.
I'm actually of the opinion that more classes should be MAD, rather than less. Deciding what stats to put points into and which to dump should be something requiring more thought than "put everything in main stat".
For me, the problem with all the subclasses is that they are built on classes that that aren't designed for a true half-martial/half-caster. They trying to wedge the idea into a Fighter, or a Wizard, and so on. A Divine half caster Class exists (Paladin), and a Primal half caster Class exists (Ranger), so an Arcane counterpart only makes sense. Then all of those Subclasses could be put in the Class that actually works cleanly.
I don't want smites, or a wizard that sometimes fights, or a fighter with some very weak spells. I just want a chassis that makes sense. So all those subclasses can feel more like the Paladin and Ranger. It's not hard to imagine. Just copy the Paladin and Ranger.
1d10 hit dice
Martial weapons and armor training
Fighting Styles
1/2 Caster progression
Extra Attack at level 5
Intelligence as the casting ability (like Paladin uses Charisma, and Ranger uses Wisdom)
Strength/Dexterity for weapon attacks
That's half of the class built already. Add in some neat features that fit the theme to finish it. Paladins get healing, Channel Divinity, and smites. Rangers get wilderness survival, special senses, and skills. This one would just have something with an Arcane feel to it. Then grab a lot of the old subclasses that tried to do it but fail to capture the idea fully and drop them into the new Class.
Yeah, but then you gotta take casters into consideration. I mean, does a Wizard really need much more than Intelligence, Constitution, and maybe a little bit of Dex? Their low AC is counteracted by Mage Armor, Shield, and various other defensive spells. Plus, it's kinda hard to prevent Gishness in this game, when multiclassing can alter stat priority.
For example, let's say I wanted to be an arcane Gish. Battle Smith 3-5/Abjuration Wizard X, with at least some method of gaining access to Armor of Agathys. I get access Half Plate, Infusions, the ability to perform melee attacks with my Int modifier, a steel companion that can help defend me, a replenishable force field over my temp HP over my actual HP, etc. Even if I wasn't allowed the ability to go Gish with my sword, I'm still a Wizard at my core. As such, Intelligence is always going to be my build's bread and butter, and no amount of effort is gonna make my Str, Dex, Wis, or Cha too important, when it comes to trying to strike my opponents down with spells.
Even Martials can use this practice, in order to align certain abilities. For instance, let's say I want to be a Swashbuckler Rogue. A single level dip into Hexblade, and my Charisma is fueling my Panache, my Initiative, and my blade. Let's say I wanted to go Inquisitor Rogue instead, and/or simply make an "Insightful" Fighter. All I have to do is find some way to access the Shillelagh Cantrip, and we're suddenly in business. Even without all this, Finesse is a weapon stat that makes Strength builds no longer be a requirement for Martials.
If you wanna see how completely ridiculous this can get, I actually have a character that fully demonstrates all this:
This is Baskara. They're a Legacy Fire Genasi Hexblade 1/Battle Smith 4, who took the Magic Initiate feat, so they can gain access to Shillelagh.
Their weapons are a Moon-Touched Rapier (Infusion), and a Club as a Pact Weapon (Pact of the Blade).
Weapon attacks, as everyone well knows, can be performed with Strength.
Their Rapier has Finesse, meaning that they can perform Dex attacks with it.
Thanks to Reach to the Blaze, Legacy Fire Genasi can cast Produce Flame and Burning Hands, using their Con modifier.
Due to Battle Ready, any weapon that counts as magical (such as an Infused weapon, or one with Shillelagh cast on it) can utilize their Int mod for attacks.
Because of Shillelagh, they can use their Wis modifier, when attacking with the club.
And finally, we get to Hex Warrior, where both their Pact Weapon (Club) and designated weapon (Rapier) get to use their Cha modifier for attacks.
The future is now, old man. By level 5, their attack stat is "Yes."
Due to all this, it's actually incredibly easy to make a Gish character in D&D, so long as you know how to build one properly.
I think it's just a matter of "not the arcane gish we want".
Artificer has the issue of being not on theme for what most people envision to be an arcane gish.
They are the tinkerer, crafter, alchemist class. all their themes and features would actually work on a non-magical class.
Can they fulfill the gish fantasy? somewhat, but then you still got your robot dog, which doesn't fit or the power armor, which doesn't fit.
Now, if you would remake the artificer and replace all their crafting based features with matching arcane features, things would look different.
Instead of a robot companion you get an arcane summon/beefed up familar, instead of infusions you get enchanted weapons/armor options and so on.
I do like the Artificer. I think it's a petty well made class and fun to play. I would love to see it in the 1DnD PHB.
It's almost a shame that it's so nice, because it almost fits the bill for an arcane gish like the Paladin and Ranger, but not quite. I kind of wish they made an arcane gish like I'm talking about instead, and made the artificer one or more of its subclasses. The only problems I have with the artificer filling this role are the things it gave up in its evolution.
These are minor things, so I don't expect anyone to really agree with me. But the artificer gave up a wider range of thematic options by focusing on being a crafter. I don't personally have any problem reflavoring anything in DnD but a lot of people do. Every feature the Artificer has was at the cost of something that a generic arcane gish would have been able to do naturally. If you want the extra attack, but not a pet or power armor, too bad. You already paid for it. If you want the half caster progression with 1d10 hit dice and fighting styles, too bad you got infusions instead.
It's a cool class, don't get me wrong. I like it. I just wish it was more universal. I wish there was a class like I described, where the Eldritch Knight and Battlesmith could both better find a home. I wish I could play the character concepts I have without the forced focus that all of the current offerings end up creating.
As a DM, Artificer is ok. I don't have a problem fitting it into the world or a campaign.
BUT
As a Player, I HATE Artificier. It is by far my least favorite class. It does nothing that I would want from a Gish class. I want to do Melee, but I don't want a robot dog and I don't want power armor. The crafting aspect is wasted on me as well.
Stegodorkus has summed up my desires for a Gish class pretty well.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The Ranger is a Divine half-caster class.
- PHB, Chapter 10, sidebar "The Weave of Magic."
There are only arcane and divine casters. Primal casters aren't a part of the game. Under this framework, we can see that the two original half-caster classes (Paladin and Ranger) are both divine, while the third- or quarter-casters (EK, AT, FE; College of Valor, however you want to categorize Pact of the Blade) are arcane. The Artificer is essentially a half-caster, although it gets spells at level 1 instead of 2, and gets cantrips by default instead of having to choose an optional fighting style for it. The spell progression after level 1 is the same. So let's call it a half-caster. It's an arcane one. So, arguably we are still missing an arcane half-caster, just to make it an even 2 vs 2 though, not to make it 1 vs 1 vs 1.
If that was going to happen, I guess we would base it on the Artificer progression. Both the divine ones get martial weapon training at level 1, and Extra Attack at 5. The arcane one instead gets cantrips and spellcasting at level 1, and no Extra Attack. If what we're after is symmetry, as you suggested, then the theoretical arcane half-caster "gish" would look more like a Warlock than a Fighter. It would have cantrips and level 1 spellcasting, and it wouldn't have Extra Attack unless one of its subclasses offered it.
But that's not what people want, as I understand it. They don't want symmetry. They say they want symmetry, to fill the supposed gap, to even out the numbers, but that would mean creating a gish that's a little too spellcaster and not quite swordsman enough.
The alternative could be, for 6e, to change either the Paladin or the Ranger to a structure more similar to the Artificer -- a more caster-aligned half-caster -- and then you could have both an arcane and divine option for leaning very slightly into either weapons or spells. Or, you could make the Ranger primal, like they're clearly planning to do, but then you would have the asymmetry of the arcane one being more caster while the other two are more martial. Maybe you also rework the Artificer to be more martial. Then you could have symmetry. But like... At what cost? Wouldn't this be really bland and boring? Isn't this what everyone hated about 4th edition?
Eh, Primal is a spell list in One D&D, and it's useful to distinguish between 'mostly pulls from the Cleric list' and 'mostly pulls from the Druid list'.
Right, I'm looking ahead when I'm talking about Divine, Primal, and Arcane, and for how those classes will look in 1DnD. Ranger is a half caster with spells starting at level 1, and I imagine Paladin will be too. They'll probably look a lot alike.
Yeah artificier is an arcane half caster but not what people would call a gish, it's only even really meeting the martial part of it fully if you take the right subclass, and those suclasses have such specific theming it's not flexible for a lot of gish fantaies.
I don't think artificer is a bad idea but it's definitely not a 'spell blade' type character. Which is fine, it doesn't have to be that, but it's not going to scratch that arcane half caster itch. And I doubt we're going to see a 'spellblade' type class instead of subclasses like bladesinger and eldritch knight going forward.
Okay, I get it now. If that's the framework, then I think my preferred breakdown would be something like: Ranger powers involve places, Paladin powers involve people, and Gish powers involve things. Ranger would have subclasses based on what types of territories they defend, navigate, or conquer. The powers would simply reflect these regions, not require you to be in them. Paladin would have subclasses based on what groups of people they fight for, against, and alongside. Again, reflect, not require. And Gish would have subclasses based on what kinds of things they master, create, or collect.
I dunno, it's a little loose. A little weak. I tried to come up with some example ideas but I can tell I'm reaching.