The Paladin is a Divine spellblade built from the ground up to be a Divine spellblade, and is also the best/strongest class in D&D
The Ranger is a Primal spellblade built from the ground up to be a Primal spellblade, and with recent Tasha/1DD tweaks it is also one of the game's stronger classes.
There is no corresponding Arcane class. There are a bunch of bad subclasses awkwardly bolted onto things not designed to be spellblades to try and make them spellblades. All of these subclasses - every single one - is bad. Even Hexblade, which is generally only good when used alongside Paladin to make a Charisma-y Divine spellblade. None of them are designed for purpose, and thus none of them work remotely as well as the designed-for-purpose Divine and Primal spellblades
That is all Stegodorkus is asking for. A designed-for-purpose Arcane spellblade to match the Paladin and the Ranger, and to collect all the various flavors thereof under.
The Paladin is a Divine spellblade built from the ground up to be a Divine spellblade, and is also the best/strongest class in D&D
The Ranger is a Primal spellblade built from the ground up to be a Primal spellblade, and with recent Tasha/1DD tweaks it is also one of the game's stronger classes.
There is no corresponding Arcane class. There are a bunch of bad subclasses awkwardly bolted onto things not designed to be spellblades to try and make them spellblades. All of these subclasses - every single one - is bad. Even Hexblade, which is generally only good when used alongside Paladin to make a Charisma-y Divine spellblade. None of them are designed for purpose, and thus none of them work remotely as well as the designed-for-purpose Divine and Primal spellblades
That is all Stegodorkus is asking for. A designed-for-purpose Arcane spellblade to match the Paladin and the Ranger, and to collect all the various flavors thereof under.
I guess I fail to see how the Artificer is not the Int based, arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. It is a teeny bit squishier with the d8 vs. d10 hit dice, but can make its own magical weapons and armor to balance. It get's Extra Attack, it gets spells to modify attacks, it gets auto cantrips instead of a fighting style (which a fighting style option for both Ranger and Paladin), it gets at least Medium armor and Shield proficieincy (with Armorer getting Heavy) and Battle Smith gets Martial weapon proficiency.
What is it lacking that does not make it a spellblade? Ranger lacks smites but you still consider it a spellblade. Battlesmith gets some of the Smite Spells, but I assume they didn't want to step too hard on Paladin's toes. The Ranger has out of combat survivability and utility, the Paladin has limited healing and auras to help allies, the Artificer can Infuse items with magic for himself or his allies. What is missing?
The Artificer is pretty close. As I said earlier, I almost wish it wasn't such a nice class that almost gets there. Because it isn't quite the same thing. And it has a pretty narrow theme. Of course you can reflavor a lot of things, but you can't swap abilities. It was made to fill a role in a very specific campaign setting. It just happened to be something people really latched onto, possibly because it was so close to an arcane spellblade they wanted, and has since been gradually brought into the fold. But it still has signs of its roots in the design that don't mesh quite right. I fear I haven't don't a great job explaining, so I'm going to make another post to attempt once more, but I wanted to start with this.
The Paladin has features like Aura of Courage that don't do anything to support its spell-blade identity. They're present to support its fiction. Exactly the way the Artificer's features do. But since the concept is strong, barely anybody has a problem with that.
The Artificer concept just isn't as strong as the Paladin and Ranger concepts.
And I've yet to see a spell-blade concept that is.
Okay, I'm going to try to do better explaining what I'm talking about. It still probably won't suit everyone, and that's totally okay. But at least maybe I can make more sense.
This all comes down to game design for me. There are many ways to play an Arcane Martial hybrid character. I'm totally aware of the options. The problem for me is that they are almost all Subclasses, with the exception of the Artificer which has its own problems as I mentioned briefly above.
The reason that them being Subclasses is a problem is that they are all under Classes that were never designed to be a half-martial/half-caster of the Arcane the way that the Ranger and Paladin were specifically designed from the start. That's the crux of it. If you want to play a Primal spellsword, you have many options. Most of the are Subclasses for the Ranger. It is designed for this purpose specifically, and gives you all the tools you need. You then have many Subclasses within the Class to choose the flavor you want. The same is true for Divine spellswords with the Paladin.
It's going to be important going forward that I'm not talking about specific class features like Smites or elemental weapons defining a spellsword. Rangers don't have Smites. They have other features unique to them. All I'm taking about is a better Class structure to fit the scattered Subclasses under. The new Class could have any number of unique features that I won't be trying to brainstorm for this purpose.
The Paladin and Ranger share certain features that make them a perfect chassis for a half-martial/half-caster. They have 1d10 hit dice, fighting styles, half spell slot progression, extra attack at level 5, etc. They differ in their own unique flavor with things like Lay on Hands and Favored Enemy.
But when you look at the Subclasses that are supposed to be the arcane equivalent, you have things like the Eldritch Knight. The problem is that the Eldritch Knight is based on the Fighter Class. So it has all of the features of a Fighter. The Subclass only provides a few levels of distinct features. The majority of the Subclass abilities are from the Class itself. Why does that matter?
Because Classes are made up of 20 levels of features. Every one of those is part of the design budget for balancing the Classes. Fighters all get 1d10 hit dice, and fighting styles, and extra attack at level 5. But they also get Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable, more attacks later, more ASIs, etc. That eats up their budget. Because the Eldritch Knight is a Subclass of the Fighter, it's feature budget is primarily made up of Fighter abilities. So it can't be a half caster. It's a 1/3 caster with very limited schools of magic. It doesn't get very useful spells until way into the late game, when they aren't really as useful.
The Bladesinger has the same problem. It wants to be an arcane spellsword, but it can't, because it's budget is tied up in the Wizard Class. It gets the Wizard's full caster spell progression, Arcane Recovery, etc. It can't be like the Ranger or Paladin because of this. So it gets a song it can use for 2 to 6 minutes a day. And the extra attack takes up one of its Subclass features. Because a full Wizard spell progression is just that strong.
Even the Artificer has this problem. It's half caster with decent HP, weapons, and armor, but it's using its budget for things like Infusions and extra attunement slots. The Subclasses that want to fill the role of a real spellsword have to use part of their budget for an extra attack, and spend other parts on things like pets. While these features might work for some character concepts, they are wasted on others.
But if WotC made an arcane half-martial/half-caster Class like the Ranger and Paladin, this wouldn't be an issue anymore. The core chassis of the Class could accommodate all of those Subclasses better. The feature budget would be made for them. And it would open up a world of possibilities for different character concepts.
So you might end up with an arrangement something like this:
Fighter Class Subclasses -
Battle Master
Banneret
Cavalier
Champion
Echo Knight
Samurai
Wizard Class Subclasses -
Scribes
War Magic
Abjuration
Conjuration
Divination
Etc
Arcane SpellSword Class Subclasses -
Eldritch Knight
Arcane Archer
Bladesinger
Rune Knight
Battlesmith
Armorer
Psi Knight
The exact combinations of Class and Subclass would be up to them. This is just an example. And the subclasses would obviously need to be adjusted a little to fit in. But a Class designed this way would be a much better home for these disparate Subclasses. And new Subclasses could be made to cover other arcane spellsword concepts that they can't make well currently without the right Class chassis. Ones that people want, but can't make work with the options we have without the problems listed and heavy reflavoring.
At least it looks that way to me. I don't expect everyone to agree. It just personally feels like better design. At the perfect time to introduce it with a new edition. There won't be a better chance to move these Subclasses into a new Class, and improve them, than right now.
The Paladin is a Divine spellblade built from the ground up to be a Divine spellblade, and is also the best/strongest class in D&D
The Ranger is a Primal spellblade built from the ground up to be a Primal spellblade, and with recent Tasha/1DD tweaks it is also one of the game's stronger classes.
There is no corresponding Arcane class. There are a bunch of bad subclasses awkwardly bolted onto things not designed to be spellblades to try and make them spellblades. All of these subclasses - every single one - is bad. Even Hexblade, which is generally only good when used alongside Paladin to make a Charisma-y Divine spellblade. None of them are designed for purpose, and thus none of them work remotely as well as the designed-for-purpose Divine and Primal spellblades
That is all Stegodorkus is asking for. A designed-for-purpose Arcane spellblade to match the Paladin and the Ranger, and to collect all the various flavors thereof under.
I'd argue that artificer is meant to be the arcane version. But it's more a half forgotten afterthought than a serious class, and at only 4 subclasses has the least support in the game. I'd love it to get some more subclasses, such as a golemcrafter to go full frankenstein, or a runecrafter. Or even bring back the archivist.
And that's not getting into how many DM's seem to ban the class due to the flavour not suiting 'traditional fantasy'.
I guess I fail to see how the Artificer is not the Int based, arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. It is a teeny bit squishier with the d8 vs. d10 hit dice, but can make its own magical weapons and armor to balance. It get's Extra Attack, it gets spells to modify attacks, it gets auto cantrips instead of a fighting style (which a fighting style option for both Ranger and Paladin), it gets at least Medium armor and Shield proficieincy (with Armorer getting Heavy) and Battle Smith gets Martial weapon proficiency.
What is it lacking that does not make it a spellblade? Ranger lacks smites but you still consider it a spellblade. Battlesmith gets some of the Smite Spells, but I assume they didn't want to step too hard on Paladin's toes. The Ranger has out of combat survivability and utility, the Paladin has limited healing and auras to help allies, the Artificer can Infuse items with magic for himself or his allies. What is missing?
The "Blade" part of spellblade. The artificer is a very poor martial combatant, with both of its "Fighty" subclasses raising it to "moderate at best". I played a Battle Smith for two years, and I was easily the weakest martial combatant in my party. The Paladin outclassed me twice over, the ranger/rogue/monk outclassed me, the fighter/wizard outclassed me. My damage was subpar and my ability to improve that damage was limited compared to the others. I was still a highly valuable member of that party, bringing the most out-of-init utility as well as nonmechanical advantages derived from my background more than my class, but I was almost never a significant combatant.
The artificer is good, for the most part, at what it does. "Combat" is not what the artificer does. Not really.
I guess I fail to see how the Artificer is not the Int based, arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. It is a teeny bit squishier with the d8 vs. d10 hit dice, but can make its own magical weapons and armor to balance. It get's Extra Attack, it gets spells to modify attacks, it gets auto cantrips instead of a fighting style (which a fighting style option for both Ranger and Paladin), it gets at least Medium armor and Shield proficieincy (with Armorer getting Heavy) and Battle Smith gets Martial weapon proficiency.
What is it lacking that does not make it a spellblade? Ranger lacks smites but you still consider it a spellblade. Battlesmith gets some of the Smite Spells, but I assume they didn't want to step too hard on Paladin's toes. The Ranger has out of combat survivability and utility, the Paladin has limited healing and auras to help allies, the Artificer can Infuse items with magic for himself or his allies. What is missing?
The "Blade" part of spellblade. The artificer is a very poor martial combatant, with both of its "Fighty" subclasses raising it to "moderate at best". I played a Battle Smith for two years, and I was easily the weakest martial combatant in my party. The Paladin outclassed me twice over, the ranger/rogue/monk outclassed me, the fighter/wizard outclassed me. My damage was subpar and my ability to improve that damage was limited compared to the others. I was still a highly valuable member of that party, bringing the most out-of-init utility as well as nonmechanical advantages derived from my background more than my class, but I was almost never a significant combatant.
The artificer is good, for the most part, at what it does. "Combat" is not what the artificer does. Not really.
yeah it really doesnt do combat amazingly well tbh
I played in a game of straight classing still got outplayed by the barb and paladin in the party multiple times, only really became little bit more then halfway decent when i got a gun
I guess I fail to see how the Artificer is not the Int based, arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. It is a teeny bit squishier with the d8 vs. d10 hit dice, but can make its own magical weapons and armor to balance. It get's Extra Attack, it gets spells to modify attacks, it gets auto cantrips instead of a fighting style (which a fighting style option for both Ranger and Paladin), it gets at least Medium armor and Shield proficieincy (with Armorer getting Heavy) and Battle Smith gets Martial weapon proficiency.
What is it lacking that does not make it a spellblade? Ranger lacks smites but you still consider it a spellblade. Battlesmith gets some of the Smite Spells, but I assume they didn't want to step too hard on Paladin's toes. The Ranger has out of combat survivability and utility, the Paladin has limited healing and auras to help allies, the Artificer can Infuse items with magic for himself or his allies. What is missing?
The "Blade" part of spellblade. The artificer is a very poor martial combatant, with both of its "Fighty" subclasses raising it to "moderate at best". I played a Battle Smith for two years, and I was easily the weakest martial combatant in my party. The Paladin outclassed me twice over, the ranger/rogue/monk outclassed me, the fighter/wizard outclassed me. My damage was subpar and my ability to improve that damage was limited compared to the others. I was still a highly valuable member of that party, bringing the most out-of-init utility as well as nonmechanical advantages derived from my background more than my class, but I was almost never a significant combatant.
The artificer is good, for the most part, at what it does. "Combat" is not what the artificer does. Not really.
yeah it really doesnt do combat amazingly well tbh
I played in a game of straight classing still got outplayed by the barb and paladin in the party multiple times, only really became little bit more then halfway decent when i got a gun
The fact that Paladin is the strongest class in the game should not detract from the fact that Artificer (Battle Smith or Artificer) is still a decent combatant. The fact that pure martial characters are outclassing Gish characters in combat should come as no surprise as they offer virtually nothing outside of combat. And the pre-Tasha's Ranger was almost never played with how bad it was, so I don't want to hear how it was built from the ground up to be this amazing Gish.
I am currently playing an Armorer in a party of a Rogue, Ranger, Cleric, and Warlock. I am consistently keeping up if not outperforming the Ranger, Rogue, and Warlock in combat damage. The Ranger is a Gloomstalker, so his first turn outshines us all, but otherwise I am doing perfectly well. Sure, an Armorer doesn't have the "blade" part of spellblade, but a Battle Smith sure does. And you can even store a spell in your blade and use it up to 10 times per day for free!
I would argue that the Artificer is closer to a spellsword than a Paladin. Paladin's auras and Lay on Hands make it more of a support front liner that is a holy warrior blessed by the gods. The fact that it does all of this while still being able to output massive nova damage with Smites just makes it a bordering on broken class.
idk about you, but i know plenty of folk who played pre tashas ranger including myself, and any decently built ranger far outplays an artificer in combat damage, even pre tasha ranger
and honestly, if you look at all the current spellsword subclasses and classes, from paladin, to ranger, to even eldritch knight (which is a horrible spellsword, but still is one...technically) they far outdamage the artificer.
all of those are your gishes(tho not the classic one we want), not artificer currently, artificer is a support class, a forgotten and unsupported gish, if it had more support and was built better it would be the classic gish, but it doesnt come anywhere close to good damage. its moderate at best
Completely agree with this. It's kinda why I think that what Stegadorkus is asking for is a bit superfluous. Why would we need more Gish classes/subclasses, when we already have so many?
The reason we have so many gish subclasses is that all of them are bad, so they keep making another stab at making something people actually like.
I guess I fail to see how the Artificer is not the Int based, arcane counterpart to the Ranger and Paladin. It is a teeny bit squishier with the d8 vs. d10 hit dice, but can make its own magical weapons and armor to balance. It get's Extra Attack, it gets spells to modify attacks, it gets auto cantrips instead of a fighting style (which a fighting style option for both Ranger and Paladin), it gets at least Medium armor and Shield proficieincy (with Armorer getting Heavy) and Battle Smith gets Martial weapon proficiency.
What is it lacking that does not make it a spellblade? Ranger lacks smites but you still consider it a spellblade. Battlesmith gets some of the Smite Spells, but I assume they didn't want to step too hard on Paladin's toes. The Ranger has out of combat survivability and utility, the Paladin has limited healing and auras to help allies, the Artificer can Infuse items with magic for himself or his allies. What is missing?
The "Blade" part of spellblade. The artificer is a very poor martial combatant, with both of its "Fighty" subclasses raising it to "moderate at best". I played a Battle Smith for two years, and I was easily the weakest martial combatant in my party. The Paladin outclassed me twice over, the ranger/rogue/monk outclassed me, the fighter/wizard outclassed me. My damage was subpar and my ability to improve that damage was limited compared to the others. I was still a highly valuable member of that party, bringing the most out-of-init utility as well as nonmechanical advantages derived from my background more than my class, but I was almost never a significant combatant.
The artificer is good, for the most part, at what it does. "Combat" is not what the artificer does. Not really.
Yeah, but just because it doesn't satisfy some peoples' requirements for the arcane half caster with access to extra attack doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We do have what the OP is asking for, they just don't like it.
After a year and some change on a very war-gamey westmarch I have to say I love having an artificer on the battlefield. To the point where I don't care if it's an alchemist. Yes. I said it. You will almost never be the damage dealer that other extra attack classes are, but you have the potential to build for so many tricks and synergies. And with SS or GWM + faerie fire or maybe even bless from fey-touched you can build into a pretty competent damage dealer yourself.
A GWM battlesmith could have a giant blade covered in magic runes and a steel defender crafted with magic that allows the bending and shaping of metals, followed by ritual rune magic to awaken it. They reveal hidden enemies with faerie fire, ensnare others in web, shield themselves from overwhelming attacks and guard against the dragons' breath with absorb elements. This is a gish. A half caster gish. It's doing great damage with extra attack, has two bodies and all of the tactical possibilities that brings, marquee spells of an arcane caster, unique tricks full casters cannot replicate and is so open ended when it comes to thematics that you can make this any theme gish you want. Want a necro gish? Your sword is empowered with blood magic and your defender is a flesh golem. Want an evoker gish. Your Sword releases bursts of kinetic energy upon impact and your defender is powered by a steam engine powered by fire magic.
Yes, you have to work harder to arrive at the build than a paladin. But it exists, and it exists all over the place. Bladesinger is quite good. It just isn't as exciting of a stick swinger as people want. Oh well. It exists and there are plenty of ways to emphasize the melee nature and succeed.
Edit: Because I'm in rant mode
Take this Bladesinger build I like quite a bit:
Half Elf: 8/16/17/16/8/8
Take Res Con at 4, and then bump int or dex in any amount in any order. What you do with those ASI's will dictate what spells and tactics will work best for you and can be tailored to fit an individual character's theme.
I personally like this concentrating on a Tasha's Summon. Summon Shadowspan can be a shadow clone duplicate that fights alongside you. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade as part of an extra attack sequence is the most literal interpretation of weaving magic with melee fighting we have.
People will always complain about not having what they want even when it is right in front of them and there for the taking. That's what gets me about this. Just use some creativity. You don't even have to be as mechanically precise as the builds I've proposed, and you will succeed at most any table as long as you are a competent pilot. 5e is an easy game.
Trust me Heironymus, at higher levels other classes will pull ahead, dramatically. You're getting 'great damage' from that build solely and exclusively because of Great Weapon Master. No busted feat? No Battle Smith damage numbers. The support spells are very good, yes, and I spent a lot of time Faerie Firing enemies with Star. But that didn't make her attacks worth any more than all the crazytrain nonsense she was running around with.
I'm still not sure that I understand the opposition to some future 5.5e/6e swordmage class. 5.75e doesn't have an artificer. Or an eldritch knight. Or a bladesinger. Or a hexblade.
In fact so far it's just got a playtest version of ranger, bard, rogue, and cleric. Each with one subclass (hunter, lore, thief, and life respectively).
Isn't it a little off to count subclasses for one, but only base classes for another? ... And then not include things like martial clerics or druids at all?
The Paladin is a Divine spellblade built from the ground up to be a Divine spellblade, and is also the best/strongest class in D&D
The Ranger is a Primal spellblade built from the ground up to be a Primal spellblade, and with recent Tasha/1DD tweaks it is also one of the game's stronger classes.
There is no corresponding Arcane class. There are a bunch of bad subclasses awkwardly bolted onto things not designed to be spellblades to try and make them spellblades. All of these subclasses - every single one - is bad. Even Hexblade, which is generally only good when used alongside Paladin to make a Charisma-y Divine spellblade. None of them are designed for purpose, and thus none of them work remotely as well as the designed-for-purpose Divine and Primal spellblades
That is all Stegodorkus is asking for. A designed-for-purpose Arcane spellblade to match the Paladin and the Ranger, and to collect all the various flavors thereof under.
Bro, you really think that Paladin is the strongest class in D&D? Really? My brother in Tiamat, have you never heard of a Wizard?
Also, you're really gonna sleep on Artificers being in the game? Sure, they don't have as high of a hit die, but they tend to have a lot more AC (to the point of being nigh-untouchable, comparatively). Sure, they don't have a fighting style, but their subclasses are unique enough to completely alter their fighting styles, far more than what a basic Fighting Style would do. Hell, two of these subclasses actually use the Artificer's Caster stat, in order to deal Martial damage. Can your Paladin make the same claim, without having to multiclass? Ranger can kinda make the claim, with Druidic Warrior, but he'd have to (surprise surprise) give up his Fighting Style for Shillelagh. Meanwhile, Battle Smiths can go CBE/SS just fine, with a magical crossbow of their own design.
On top of that, if you want something that's "designed for purpose," that's literally the Artificer's whole schtick. They literally design various gadgets and tools, for your multi-purpose needs, both on the battlefield and off. Need a magical sword, so you can bypass non-magical damage resistances? Moon-Touched Sword. They can build that. Need a vial of poison, so you can discreetly kill off a nobleman by spiking their drink? Alchemy Jar. Vials for days. Want to ensure a success on a final blow? Clockwork Amulet. Need an expendable way to trigger a whole bunch of traps? Hat of Vermin. Start chucking. Want an easy way to deal with the Frightened condition early? Cuddly Strixhaven Mascot. Need to win a drinking contest? Tankard of Sobriety. Hidden weapon? Veteran's Cane. Non-subclass animal companion? Vox Seeker. Need another? Spellwrought Tattoo: Find Familiar. Too much loot laying around, after murdering everything? Bag of Holding. First-time DM accidentally drops Tiamat in front of your 2nd-level party? Add a second Bag of Holding, give them both to your Unseen Servant, have him walk up to Tiamat, tell him to shove one bag into the other, then erase Tiamat from the game.
And that's not even getting into all the other shenanigans you can get up to, by straight-up cheesing the replication of various other magic items, stacking up to six Attunements on a single character, and/or by completely ignoring whether that Holy Avenger is meant for anyone but an Artificer (See: Magic Item Savant). Speaking of magical equipment though, one of the problems with certain builds is that they rely on specific magic items, in order to truly shine, and/or help mitigate the MAD stat requirements their class requires (see: Paladin). Guess which class specifically can straight up make your a lot of those non-Infusion magic items at half the cost, and in a fraction of the time? If the DM's being stingy with magical equipment, just toss your gold at the Artificer, and they can hook your Paladin up with a brand new pair of Gauntlets (of Ogre Power), or your Druid with a decent set of Armor that they can actually use. It won't take too long, compared to other options. It'll just take money.
Also, the best part about this Gish class is that it can extend its Gish capabilities to your allies even further, thanks to a clever use of Infusions and Spell-Storing Item. Who needs the Archery fighting style, when I can just give myself or an ally the benefits of said fighting style, via Bracers of Archery? If the team's other melee martial is having problems with locking down enemies within melee, just shove Web into the Spell-Storing Item, and turn your local beatstick into Spider-Man. Hell, you can even give anyone in your party the power to rearrange the entire battlefield up to 10 times per day, thanks to your patented Vortex-Warp-in-a-Box, all at the low, low cost of 1 spell slot. I'd love to see a Paladin have such a command over the battlefield, for as cheap.
And for those DMs who complain about the "flavor" of the Artificer, don't forget that flavor itself is free. There's no saying that I can't reflavor my Artificer, in order to get him to fit into a fantasy campaign. I've even listed several examples of how to do this in a previous post, such as Runecrafter, Animist, Enchanter, and a gem-powered Luxcrafter. Hell, if you really want, you can even reflavor your character into being a Calligraphist who, through their sheer prowess with a brush, can infuse various pieces armor and equipment with the essence of Yokai. If Tasha's Guide can show a Magic Missile getting reflavored into a flock of angry green spectral chickens, then you can reflavor Artificers into being something more fitting for your desires.
Seriously. It seems too often to me that the only players who feel like Artificer is too weak are those who (ironically) aren't being inventive enough with the class itself. The sheer versatility that the class can provide, through its subclasses, infusions, and general crafting prowess, more than makes up for anything the class loses in exchange. If you want to build an Arcane Gish character, then I see no more straightforward way to go about it, than by straight-up building as an Arcane Gish character.
It might not be your intent, but you're coming off pretty aggressive. Yurei didn't say anything to warrant another rant. At this point it just seems like you want to show off all the builds you can think of. We've said we don't need build advice. Yurei is very competent at character build theory and creative characters.
You're mistaking a wanting a class mechanic designed with purpose for a class that can build things I wrote a very long post trying to explain how I just thought it would be better game design to gather all those subclasses under a new class. That's all. You don't have to agree. That's totally cool. But there is no point in trying to hammer home that you would just play differently. We understand.
I honestly don't know why this bothers you so much. If you think it's a dumb idea, that's cool, but just try to let it go. I've said all I can say to make my design ideas clear. If you don't get it, or don't like it, it really is okay. You're not going to convince me that the current subclasses work right, and I'm not going to convince you that they don't. I don't have anything more to say.
As Yurei and Stegodorkus have said there isn’t a 5e arcane Gish class despite the large number of subclasses trying to fill the bill. One of the problems I think we are having is that we also don’t have a 6e possible class to try and compare subclass builds with. So I thought I’d take a stab at creating a possible one. This based off the 1D&D ranger class. I dropped the expertise and a skill as the Swordmage shouldn’t be a expert class and should be a martial class so here goes. Swordmage Martial Class Primary Abilities: Intelligence, Dexterity Saves: Intelligence, Dexterity Hit Dice: D10 Skills: Arcana + 2 others Armor: Light, Medium Weapons: Simple, Martial Spell Casting: 1/2 caster rounded up, no Enchantment or Necromancy spells L1) Fighting Style, Spellcasting L2) Class Ability (suggested - second wind, weapon as a spell focus) L3) Subclass Ability L4) Feat L5) Extra attack (2) L6) Subclass Ability L7) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack can include a cantrip as one of the attacks) L8) Feat L9) Class Ability (suggested - Arcane Shield - shield spell free cast proficiency bonus times/ long rest) L10) Subclass Ability L11) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack (3)) L12) Feat L13) Class Ability (suggested - sculpt spells) L14) Subclass Ability L15) Class Ability (suggested - Portent) L16) Feat L17) ————- L18) Class Ability (suggested - Benign Transposition) L19) Feat L20) Epic Boon
while I’m sure that instead of looking at how arcane Gish subclasses would fare if based on a chassis like this or how classes like Artificer might compare to to it some folks will instead try to discuss my suggested abilities. That is not my intention, they are there just to provide some sense of what the final WOtC version might look like. In doing the class abilities I tried to draw lower level fighter and mage abilities for the class abilities as examples of what might be there. The real point is to imagine taking the various subclasses and fitting them into this chassis as opposed to the chassis they are presently in. The 3 subclasses that don’t fit are the bladesinger, and the 2 bard martial subclasses since these. 3 are full casters where this chassis is a half caster chassis.
None of the martials can pull that far ahead of the battle smith on damage without relying on the same feats. Even the paladin needs to figure out a way to get a bonus action attack or they're nothing special at all when it comes to damage unless they crit. I know, i've been playing a defensively minded paladin from 2-14 and the character is still active. I have a ba attack from centaur but i've also chosen a bunch of defensive decisions like defense style with a shield and going for ancients. I've been regularly outperformed in terms of damage by builds without power attack feats throughout my career.
You are really exaggerating the difference in damage capabilities as if these other martials don't also need to make a bunch of offensively minded decisions to get there.
As Yurei and Stegodorkus have said there isn’t a 5e arcane Gish class despite the large number of subclasses trying to fill the bill. One of the problems I think we are having is that we also don’t have a 6e possible class to try and compare subclass builds with. So I thought I’d take a stab at creating a possible one. This based off the 1D&D ranger class. I dropped the expertise and a skill as the Swordmage shouldn’t be a expert class and should be a martial class so here goes. Swordmage Martial Class Primary Abilities: Intelligence, Dexterity Saves: Intelligence, Dexterity Hit Dice: D10 Skills: Arcana + 2 others Armor: Light, Medium Weapons: Simple, Martial Spell Casting: 1/2 caster rounded up, no Enchantment or Necromancy spells L1) Fighting Style, Spellcasting L2) Class Ability (suggested - second wind, weapon as a spell focus) L3) Subclass Ability L4) Feat L5) Extra attack (2) L6) Subclass Ability L7) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack can include a cantrip as one of the attacks) L8) Feat L9) Class Ability (suggested - Arcane Shield - shield spell free cast proficiency bonus times/ long rest) L10) Subclass Ability L11) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack (3)) L12) Feat L13) Class Ability (suggested - sculpt spells) L14) Subclass Ability L15) Class Ability (suggested - Portent) L16) Feat L17) ————- L18) Class Ability (suggested - Benign Transposition) L19) Feat L20) Epic Boon
while I’m sure that instead of looking at how arcane Gish subclasses would fare if based on a chassis like this or how classes like Artificer might compare to to it some folks will instead try to discuss my suggested abilities. That is not my intention, they are there just to provide some sense of what the final WOtC version might look like. In doing the class abilities I tried to draw lower level fighter and mage abilities for the class abilities as examples of what might be there. The real point is to imagine taking the various subclasses and fitting them into this chassis as opposed to the chassis they are presently in. The 3 subclasses that don’t fit are the bladesinger, and the 2 bard martial subclasses since these. 3 are full casters where this chassis is a half caster chassis.
I'd probably give the swordmage a d8, rather than a d10. As they're meant to be pretty mobile and lightly armoured by default looking at the 4e version.
Weirdly I'd also be tempted to put them in the mage group despite being a half caster. Similar to how Paladin sits in the priest group.
Comrade, I was tempted to do both but decided on martial group and D10 to access the third attack more legitimately and to make them slightly stronger in combat. Hence the medium armor unlike the bladesinger’s light armor limitation. In my mind the bladesinger is really a mage that can fight a little when they have to rather than a true Gish that melee in the front line casting spells thru their weapon as they fight. I would leave the full caster gishes (bladesinger and valor/sword bards) where they are along with keeping the artificer class separate as their focuses are somewhat different and for balance a full caster shouldn’t also be a full martial (imagine this class as a full caster progression not a half caster and give it the 4th attack as well). But I could see building the 1/3 casters on this chassis and having them right up their in the mix instead of afterthoughts. I also think a class like this would eliminate many of the multiclass buildsfolks presently make trying to create their ideal Gish.
I definitely wouldn't want them to get two extra attacks. Neither paladin nor ranger has it. And when combined with being a half caster it definitely makes them too strong.
If their attacks are being empowered with magic or spells, they don't even need attack spam to make them competitive.
Yeah. If it's a new class, they don't get more than two attacks. If it's a fighter subclass like eldritch knight the subclass features need to be balanced against other subclasses and not full on wizard. Three and then four attacks should imo remain fighter only. Not only to leave fighters one of the few cool things only they get but also because it would require nerfing the magical part of this spellblade to account for it.
It would need its own mechanical identity separate from fighter and wizard and shouldn't borrow too heavily from either of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Paladin is a Divine spellblade built from the ground up to be a Divine spellblade, and is also the best/strongest class in D&D
The Ranger is a Primal spellblade built from the ground up to be a Primal spellblade, and with recent Tasha/1DD tweaks it is also one of the game's stronger classes.
There is no corresponding Arcane class. There are a bunch of bad subclasses awkwardly bolted onto things not designed to be spellblades to try and make them spellblades. All of these subclasses - every single one - is bad. Even Hexblade, which is generally only good when used alongside Paladin to make a Charisma-y Divine spellblade. None of them are designed for purpose, and thus none of them work remotely as well as the designed-for-purpose Divine and Primal spellblades
That is all Stegodorkus is asking for. A designed-for-purpose Arcane spellblade to match the Paladin and the Ranger, and to collect all the various flavors thereof under.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Artificer is pretty close. As I said earlier, I almost wish it wasn't such a nice class that almost gets there. Because it isn't quite the same thing. And it has a pretty narrow theme. Of course you can reflavor a lot of things, but you can't swap abilities. It was made to fill a role in a very specific campaign setting. It just happened to be something people really latched onto, possibly because it was so close to an arcane spellblade they wanted, and has since been gradually brought into the fold. But it still has signs of its roots in the design that don't mesh quite right. I fear I haven't don't a great job explaining, so I'm going to make another post to attempt once more, but I wanted to start with this.
The Paladin has features like Aura of Courage that don't do anything to support its spell-blade identity. They're present to support its fiction. Exactly the way the Artificer's features do. But since the concept is strong, barely anybody has a problem with that.
The Artificer concept just isn't as strong as the Paladin and Ranger concepts.
And I've yet to see a spell-blade concept that is.
Okay, I'm going to try to do better explaining what I'm talking about. It still probably won't suit everyone, and that's totally okay. But at least maybe I can make more sense.
This all comes down to game design for me. There are many ways to play an Arcane Martial hybrid character. I'm totally aware of the options. The problem for me is that they are almost all Subclasses, with the exception of the Artificer which has its own problems as I mentioned briefly above.
The reason that them being Subclasses is a problem is that they are all under Classes that were never designed to be a half-martial/half-caster of the Arcane the way that the Ranger and Paladin were specifically designed from the start. That's the crux of it. If you want to play a Primal spellsword, you have many options. Most of the are Subclasses for the Ranger. It is designed for this purpose specifically, and gives you all the tools you need. You then have many Subclasses within the Class to choose the flavor you want. The same is true for Divine spellswords with the Paladin.
It's going to be important going forward that I'm not talking about specific class features like Smites or elemental weapons defining a spellsword. Rangers don't have Smites. They have other features unique to them. All I'm taking about is a better Class structure to fit the scattered Subclasses under. The new Class could have any number of unique features that I won't be trying to brainstorm for this purpose.
The Paladin and Ranger share certain features that make them a perfect chassis for a half-martial/half-caster. They have 1d10 hit dice, fighting styles, half spell slot progression, extra attack at level 5, etc. They differ in their own unique flavor with things like Lay on Hands and Favored Enemy.
But when you look at the Subclasses that are supposed to be the arcane equivalent, you have things like the Eldritch Knight. The problem is that the Eldritch Knight is based on the Fighter Class. So it has all of the features of a Fighter. The Subclass only provides a few levels of distinct features. The majority of the Subclass abilities are from the Class itself. Why does that matter?
Because Classes are made up of 20 levels of features. Every one of those is part of the design budget for balancing the Classes. Fighters all get 1d10 hit dice, and fighting styles, and extra attack at level 5. But they also get Second Wind, Action Surge, Indomitable, more attacks later, more ASIs, etc. That eats up their budget. Because the Eldritch Knight is a Subclass of the Fighter, it's feature budget is primarily made up of Fighter abilities. So it can't be a half caster. It's a 1/3 caster with very limited schools of magic. It doesn't get very useful spells until way into the late game, when they aren't really as useful.
The Bladesinger has the same problem. It wants to be an arcane spellsword, but it can't, because it's budget is tied up in the Wizard Class. It gets the Wizard's full caster spell progression, Arcane Recovery, etc. It can't be like the Ranger or Paladin because of this. So it gets a song it can use for 2 to 6 minutes a day. And the extra attack takes up one of its Subclass features. Because a full Wizard spell progression is just that strong.
Even the Artificer has this problem. It's half caster with decent HP, weapons, and armor, but it's using its budget for things like Infusions and extra attunement slots. The Subclasses that want to fill the role of a real spellsword have to use part of their budget for an extra attack, and spend other parts on things like pets. While these features might work for some character concepts, they are wasted on others.
But if WotC made an arcane half-martial/half-caster Class like the Ranger and Paladin, this wouldn't be an issue anymore. The core chassis of the Class could accommodate all of those Subclasses better. The feature budget would be made for them. And it would open up a world of possibilities for different character concepts.
So you might end up with an arrangement something like this:
Fighter Class Subclasses -
Wizard Class Subclasses -
Arcane SpellSword Class Subclasses -
The exact combinations of Class and Subclass would be up to them. This is just an example. And the subclasses would obviously need to be adjusted a little to fit in. But a Class designed this way would be a much better home for these disparate Subclasses. And new Subclasses could be made to cover other arcane spellsword concepts that they can't make well currently without the right Class chassis. Ones that people want, but can't make work with the options we have without the problems listed and heavy reflavoring.
At least it looks that way to me. I don't expect everyone to agree. It just personally feels like better design. At the perfect time to introduce it with a new edition. There won't be a better chance to move these Subclasses into a new Class, and improve them, than right now.
I'd argue that artificer is meant to be the arcane version. But it's more a half forgotten afterthought than a serious class, and at only 4 subclasses has the least support in the game. I'd love it to get some more subclasses, such as a golemcrafter to go full frankenstein, or a runecrafter. Or even bring back the archivist.
And that's not getting into how many DM's seem to ban the class due to the flavour not suiting 'traditional fantasy'.
The "Blade" part of spellblade. The artificer is a very poor martial combatant, with both of its "Fighty" subclasses raising it to "moderate at best". I played a Battle Smith for two years, and I was easily the weakest martial combatant in my party. The Paladin outclassed me twice over, the ranger/rogue/monk outclassed me, the fighter/wizard outclassed me. My damage was subpar and my ability to improve that damage was limited compared to the others. I was still a highly valuable member of that party, bringing the most out-of-init utility as well as nonmechanical advantages derived from my background more than my class, but I was almost never a significant combatant.
The artificer is good, for the most part, at what it does. "Combat" is not what the artificer does. Not really.
Please do not contact or message me.
yeah it really doesnt do combat amazingly well tbh
I played in a game of straight classing still got outplayed by the barb and paladin in the party multiple times, only really became little bit more then halfway decent when i got a gun
idk about you, but i know plenty of folk who played pre tashas ranger including myself, and any decently built ranger far outplays an artificer in combat damage, even pre tasha ranger
and honestly, if you look at all the current spellsword subclasses and classes, from paladin, to ranger, to even eldritch knight (which is a horrible spellsword, but still is one...technically)
they far outdamage the artificer.
all of those are your gishes(tho not the classic one we want), not artificer currently, artificer is a support class, a forgotten and unsupported gish, if it had more support and was built better it would be the classic gish, but it doesnt come anywhere close to good damage. its moderate at best
The reason we have so many gish subclasses is that all of them are bad, so they keep making another stab at making something people actually like.
Yeah, but just because it doesn't satisfy some peoples' requirements for the arcane half caster with access to extra attack doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We do have what the OP is asking for, they just don't like it.
After a year and some change on a very war-gamey westmarch I have to say I love having an artificer on the battlefield. To the point where I don't care if it's an alchemist. Yes. I said it. You will almost never be the damage dealer that other extra attack classes are, but you have the potential to build for so many tricks and synergies. And with SS or GWM + faerie fire or maybe even bless from fey-touched you can build into a pretty competent damage dealer yourself.
A GWM battlesmith could have a giant blade covered in magic runes and a steel defender crafted with magic that allows the bending and shaping of metals, followed by ritual rune magic to awaken it. They reveal hidden enemies with faerie fire, ensnare others in web, shield themselves from overwhelming attacks and guard against the dragons' breath with absorb elements. This is a gish. A half caster gish. It's doing great damage with extra attack, has two bodies and all of the tactical possibilities that brings, marquee spells of an arcane caster, unique tricks full casters cannot replicate and is so open ended when it comes to thematics that you can make this any theme gish you want. Want a necro gish? Your sword is empowered with blood magic and your defender is a flesh golem. Want an evoker gish. Your Sword releases bursts of kinetic energy upon impact and your defender is powered by a steam engine powered by fire magic.
Yes, you have to work harder to arrive at the build than a paladin. But it exists, and it exists all over the place. Bladesinger is quite good. It just isn't as exciting of a stick swinger as people want. Oh well. It exists and there are plenty of ways to emphasize the melee nature and succeed.
Edit: Because I'm in rant mode
Take this Bladesinger build I like quite a bit:
Half Elf: 8/16/17/16/8/8
Take Res Con at 4, and then bump int or dex in any amount in any order. What you do with those ASI's will dictate what spells and tactics will work best for you and can be tailored to fit an individual character's theme.
I personally like this concentrating on a Tasha's Summon. Summon Shadowspan can be a shadow clone duplicate that fights alongside you. Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade as part of an extra attack sequence is the most literal interpretation of weaving magic with melee fighting we have.
People will always complain about not having what they want even when it is right in front of them and there for the taking. That's what gets me about this. Just use some creativity. You don't even have to be as mechanically precise as the builds I've proposed, and you will succeed at most any table as long as you are a competent pilot. 5e is an easy game.
Trust me Heironymus, at higher levels other classes will pull ahead, dramatically. You're getting 'great damage' from that build solely and exclusively because of Great Weapon Master. No busted feat? No Battle Smith damage numbers. The support spells are very good, yes, and I spent a lot of time Faerie Firing enemies with Star. But that didn't make her attacks worth any more than all the crazytrain nonsense she was running around with.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm still not sure that I understand the opposition to some future 5.5e/6e swordmage class. 5.75e doesn't have an artificer. Or an eldritch knight. Or a bladesinger. Or a hexblade.
In fact so far it's just got a playtest version of ranger, bard, rogue, and cleric. Each with one subclass (hunter, lore, thief, and life respectively).
Isn't it a little off to count subclasses for one, but only base classes for another? ... And then not include things like martial clerics or druids at all?
It might not be your intent, but you're coming off pretty aggressive. Yurei didn't say anything to warrant another rant. At this point it just seems like you want to show off all the builds you can think of. We've said we don't need build advice. Yurei is very competent at character build theory and creative characters.
You're mistaking a wanting a class mechanic designed with purpose for a class that can build things I wrote a very long post trying to explain how I just thought it would be better game design to gather all those subclasses under a new class. That's all. You don't have to agree. That's totally cool. But there is no point in trying to hammer home that you would just play differently. We understand.
I honestly don't know why this bothers you so much. If you think it's a dumb idea, that's cool, but just try to let it go. I've said all I can say to make my design ideas clear. If you don't get it, or don't like it, it really is okay. You're not going to convince me that the current subclasses work right, and I'm not going to convince you that they don't. I don't have anything more to say.
As Yurei and Stegodorkus have said there isn’t a 5e arcane Gish class despite the large number of subclasses trying to fill the bill. One of the problems I think we are having is that we also don’t have a 6e possible class to try and compare subclass builds with. So I thought I’d take a stab at creating a possible one. This based off the 1D&D ranger class. I dropped the expertise and a skill as the Swordmage shouldn’t be a expert class and should be a martial class so here goes.
Swordmage
Martial Class
Primary Abilities: Intelligence, Dexterity
Saves: Intelligence, Dexterity
Hit Dice: D10
Skills: Arcana + 2 others
Armor: Light, Medium
Weapons: Simple, Martial
Spell Casting: 1/2 caster rounded up, no Enchantment or Necromancy spells
L1) Fighting Style, Spellcasting
L2) Class Ability (suggested - second wind, weapon as a spell focus)
L3) Subclass Ability
L4) Feat
L5) Extra attack (2)
L6) Subclass Ability
L7) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack can include a cantrip as one of the attacks)
L8) Feat
L9) Class Ability (suggested - Arcane Shield - shield spell free cast proficiency bonus times/ long rest)
L10) Subclass Ability
L11) Class Ability (suggested - extra attack (3))
L12) Feat
L13) Class Ability (suggested - sculpt spells)
L14) Subclass Ability
L15) Class Ability (suggested - Portent)
L16) Feat
L17) ————-
L18) Class Ability (suggested - Benign Transposition)
L19) Feat
L20) Epic Boon
Subclass - Spelldancer
L3) suggested - action surge
L6) suggested - improved Critical
L10) +1 Fighting Style
L14) Eldritch Strike
while I’m sure that instead of looking at how arcane Gish subclasses would fare if based on a chassis like this or how classes like Artificer might compare to to it some folks will instead try to discuss my suggested abilities. That is not my intention, they are there just to provide some sense of what the final WOtC version might look like. In doing the class abilities I tried to draw lower level fighter and mage abilities for the class abilities as examples of what might be there. The real point is to imagine taking the various subclasses and fitting them into this chassis as opposed to the chassis they are presently in. The 3 subclasses that don’t fit are the bladesinger, and the 2 bard martial subclasses since these. 3 are full casters where this chassis is a half caster chassis.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
[REDACTED]
None of the martials can pull that far ahead of the battle smith on damage without relying on the same feats. Even the paladin needs to figure out a way to get a bonus action attack or they're nothing special at all when it comes to damage unless they crit. I know, i've been playing a defensively minded paladin from 2-14 and the character is still active. I have a ba attack from centaur but i've also chosen a bunch of defensive decisions like defense style with a shield and going for ancients. I've been regularly outperformed in terms of damage by builds without power attack feats throughout my career.
You are really exaggerating the difference in damage capabilities as if these other martials don't also need to make a bunch of offensively minded decisions to get there.
I'd probably give the swordmage a d8, rather than a d10. As they're meant to be pretty mobile and lightly armoured by default looking at the 4e version.
Weirdly I'd also be tempted to put them in the mage group despite being a half caster. Similar to how Paladin sits in the priest group.
Comrade, I was tempted to do both but decided on martial group and D10 to access the third attack more legitimately and to make them slightly stronger in combat. Hence the medium armor unlike the bladesinger’s light armor limitation. In my mind the bladesinger is really a mage that can fight a little when they have to rather than a true Gish that melee in the front line casting spells thru their weapon as they fight. I would leave the full caster gishes (bladesinger and valor/sword bards) where they are along with keeping the artificer class separate as their focuses are somewhat different and for balance a full caster shouldn’t also be a full martial (imagine this class as a full caster progression not a half caster and give it the 4th attack as well). But I could see building the 1/3 casters on this chassis and having them right up their in the mix instead of afterthoughts. I also think a class like this would eliminate many of the multiclass buildsfolks presently make trying to create their ideal Gish.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I definitely wouldn't want them to get two extra attacks. Neither paladin nor ranger has it. And when combined with being a half caster it definitely makes them too strong.
If their attacks are being empowered with magic or spells, they don't even need attack spam to make them competitive.
Yeah. If it's a new class, they don't get more than two attacks. If it's a fighter subclass like eldritch knight the subclass features need to be balanced against other subclasses and not full on wizard. Three and then four attacks should imo remain fighter only. Not only to leave fighters one of the few cool things only they get but also because it would require nerfing the magical part of this spellblade to account for it.
It would need its own mechanical identity separate from fighter and wizard and shouldn't borrow too heavily from either of them.