The biggest gimmick of the swordmage in 4e was that they used their Swordmage Aegis abilities to mark an enemy and trigger effects when the marked enemy attacked someone other then the swordmage, like teleporting to the enemy or reducing the damage of the triggering attack. They were more of a defender style class. The only subclass that does anything remotely like that is the Cavalier with its marking ability but it isn't a caster class and it doesn't have the teleport ability.
You may be able to build something that can function somewhat like this with a Paladin or a Bladesinger using spells possibly.
It is extremely difficult to divorce a paladin from their divine trappings though, it may be difficult to get the right narrative feel for your character when trying to turn a paladin into a 'Swordmage'.
Extremely difficult? How so? Just about the only thing that comes to mind is turning, and even that is fairly mild and limited to a few Oaths.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The biggest gimmick of the swordmage in 4e was that they used their Swordmage Aegis abilities to mark an enemy and trigger effects when the marked enemy attacked someone other then the swordmage, like teleporting to the enemy or reducing the damage of the triggering attack. They were more of a defender style class. The only subclass that does anything remotely like that is the Cavalier with its marking ability but it isn't a caster class and it doesn't have the teleport ability.
You may be able to build something that can function somewhat like this with a Paladin or a Bladesinger using spells possibly.
Oath of the Crown Paladin.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Extremely difficult? How so? Just about the only thing that comes to mind is turning, and even that is fairly mild and limited to a few Oaths.
Have you looked at their spell list? How about damage types that they deal (radiant, commonly associated with divinity)? Or their abilities? (Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Tenets, Channel Divinity, etc.)
It is very difficult to divorce paladins from their divine features. That's why I made an arcane "paladin" class, the Arcknight. It fills the role of a Swordmage/Duskblade, actually blending magic and martial attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I imagine what most people want from a sense of thematics and character concept is for the act of "Casting A Spell" and the act of "Striking With Sword" to be the same act, or at least seamlessly interwoven in a fluid dance of steel and fire. The Blade cantrips are actually quite good for that, except for the fact that casting a Blade cantrip is categorically worse than simply using a multiattack option in basically all relevant tactical cases. There is essentially never an advantage worth having in hitting once with a Blade cantrip rather than two or more times with regular steel for any character who has that choice to make. Smite-style spells are absolutely terrible and also conflict with maintaining the magical combat buffs a Swordmage is supposed to be good at, and even Divine Smite - the best Wizards was willing to do before the Tasha's update to the Bladesinger - was "I shove raw, unformed magical power into my sword and hope it burns the other guy".
The Bladesinger's ability to substitute a cantrip for one of its attacks via its super custom Extra Attack is the first time a character's been able to seamlessly weave (minor) magic and swordplay into a fluid action string, and it also empowers Blade cantrips. That one single change actually made the Bladesinger live up to the most basic, humble starting-line requirements of its name, but elsewise? Nobody's asking for the moon, or for the nuclear launch codes. People just want to be that awesome cool dude who wields both fire and steel. Doesn't have to be as good at fire as a wizard, or as good at steel as a fighter. Just needs to be able to spellsword, and not be a heavy-armor clankety-clank Lawful Stupid god-bothering divine busybody like the paladin.
I think the concept of a spellsword sounds really cool, but you’re totally right. Neither the Bladesinger nor the Eldritch Knight executes it perfectly, and the Paladin is by nature a divine rather than an arcane caster.
Extremely difficult? How so? Just about the only thing that comes to mind is turning, and even that is fairly mild and limited to a few Oaths.
Have you looked at their spell list? How about damage types that they deal (radiant, commonly associated with divinity)? Or their abilities? (Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Tenets, Channel Divinity, etc.)
Radiant is a great damage type, arguably second only to Force and possibly on par with Psychic. If the association with the divine bothers you, just make it one of the elemental ones instead. It's going to be resisted more often, so it's not overpowered, and you can give your Swordmage an elemental theme. Artificers and Divine Soul monks get healing spells, and they're arcane classes. Rangers don't feel like divine casters at all. False Life is a thing. Bolstering your own vigor or that of others is entirely in keeping with martial characters complementing their physical skill with supernatural ability. Most oaths (and the associated Channel Divinity options) have next to no divine or religious connotations. Just stay away from the ones that do, they're a bad fit for the Swordmage concept anyway. Holy symbols become arcane foci, prayers become words of power. Divine Sense is the tough one, but losing out on it is not much of a penalty.
Seriously, I don't see the problem here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Much as I'd love to get into a(nother) discussion of the multiple failings of 5e's class/subclass system and selection, this isn't really the thread for it.
Sorry, Drowfreak. I didn't mean to disrupt your conversation.
I still love D&D 4th edition, and I was unfortunate when I left all my books when I moved to Canada a while ago. Happyfully I could buy almost all 4th edition books here, some new, some on the secondary market. I think the system is great, but as one of my friends used to say: "4th edition is D&D, but it is a different animal". If you would like to learn more about 4th edition history and published material, I would suggest this video:
I never played 4e, but I have browsed the books for inspiration. I really like the trade dress and presentation of 4e over any other edition of D&D. The books are clean (as opposed to 3e which had a background image that made it look like every sentence was underlined), the Dungeons & Dragons logo is prominent and the labeling is clear and consistent, and the quality of art for 4e is way more consistent than earlier editions that featured a lot of amateur art. But my favorite tabletop books just based on design and aesthetics would be Pathfinder by a country mile. But I digress...
The Shannon Appelcline book series Designers & Dragons might be interesting for folks wanting to learn more about the backlash against 4e or the history of D&D and tabletop RPGs in general. The short time between 3.5 and 4 was a factor for discontent as well as the radically different game design that seemed to heavily favor using miniatures versus playing with theater of the mind (making costs associated with playing the game go up). Plus the licensing system was nowhere near as friendly as 3e for third parties. As far as lore, I do find the Spellplague annoying. It's like they were trying to do WoW Cataclysm for the Forgotten Realms or something. Not a fan. I can see why 5e decided to fast-forward a hundred years to get past it. You can also read about Hasbro letting its lawful evil flag fly with routine Christmas layoffs and how they let Paizo slip through their fingers to become D&D's biggest competitor (Paizo had been putting out Dungeon and Dragon magazines, but WotC decided not to renew their contract).
OP, I hope you find a group. Don't get discouraged. 🙂
Primarily due to 4e's reputation. People who don't read between the lines hear about 4e from players of 3.5, primarily, and most 3.5 players deem 4e to be Literally The Worst Thing Invented In All of the History of Mankind. Worse than war. Worse than sex crimes. Worse than genocide. Worse than PBR. Many/most 3.5 players cannot demonize, denigrate, and badmouth 4e enough, so new-to-5e players get the impression that the game is actively trying to send them to Satan.
Reading between the lines? D&D 4e was an attempt to modernize the game and get it away from some of the clinging old systems that had been strangling 3.5e to death. D&D 4e was also how Wizards discovered that the existing 3.5e playerbase for D&D...does not take modernization well. if D&D is not the exact same D&D as it was fifty years ago, players scream. So 4e was a commercial failure due to community backlash and the refusal of existing players to adopt the new system. Primarily because Paizo was operating "Legally Distinct 3.5e, It's Not D&D We Swear(TM)", a.k.a. Pathfinder, and 3.5 fans could simply switch to playing the exact same game they already had with a publisher that wouldn't trey to do something so malevolent as modernize their game out from under them.
Wizards had to backtrack in a blazing hurry, and as such 5e is much more like older editions of D&D. It's dramatically oversimplified, because Wizards identified that the key issue with getting new players into Pathfinder games is the fact that Legally Distinct Not-D&D-We-Swear 3.5e is incredibly dense, obnoxious, and difficult for the average newbie to pierce, so they "modernized" by stripping out most of the rules and leaving a barely functional skeleton in their place. Somehow, against all odds, it worked. 5e got huge, and Wizards couldn't kill off their money-hemorrhaging online resources for 4e fast enough.
So...yeah. 4e is The Edition That Wasn't, and older players would prefer that it never be spoken of again. Which is sad, because from what I heard 4e actually did worldbuilding, and it trusted its players to actually be capable of intelligent thought. There were some real gems in the system, but there's simply no way to access it anymore. Let alone play it.
Well, 3.5 Edition was already a heavy modernization of the game. Fourth Edition was closer to making an entirely new game that shared the logo and little else. And as the saying goes, you only have one chance to make a bad first impression and 4E had a lot of problems on launch. Not just with the rules, which focused even more heavily on combat than 3.5 (to the point that so-called utility powers were overwhelmingly just combat powers that were defensive in nature rather than offensive), but the first books for the game had problems like ink that was prone to smudging if you ran a finger over a page months after you'd bought the book and a near total lack of lore on monsters. Oh, and the ill-considered revision of the alignment chart.
The game wasn't all bad, but it did have some serious issues that really should have been fixed before launch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't like the premise that seems to seep from some of the posts that if you happened to dislike the 4e it was because you felt something holy has been touched and suddenly pitchfork appeared in your hand to protest.
It almost feels like you either appreciated the edition or were a backwards thinking old timer.
I had a lot of problems with 4e and I think it was a worse system than 5e and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact it's not the same D&D that it was 50 years ago.
for me it seems like it was a combo of completely rehashing the mechanics as well as rehashing all the agnostic lore of the game and...the lore of the FR setting. thats what seemed to piss everyone off. if they just did one of those things at a time it might not had such a negative impact. there were some cool things for sure in 4e....from what i have read from the books. love minions, all the attack effects, skill challenges.
Hah! What's funny about what you (Lathlaer) just said is that that's exactly how I feel about 5e. . .
I picked up 4e from my dad when I was in middle school. I loved the game (first edition of D&D I was introduced to), and I made a ton of characters, really complicated ones with lots to look forward to, big secrets to uncover, dramatic quests to complete. . . I made a ton of DM material, all sorts of weird stuff I couldn't wait to get a chance to run. . .
And then I found out that 5e had come out when I was really little. And my reaction was, "NO! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES BEFORE I'M OLD ENOUGH TO PLAY!!!"
Just. . . that's my only real problem with 5e. I was all prepped to play basically twenty years' worth of 4e, and then I realized it was outdated. Circumstances really lined up badly. . . or maybe they didn't! Depending on who I talk to, there's sometimes a good bet I will be able to use all that stuff after all, or there's no chance and I should just get over it.
The biggest gimmick of the swordmage in 4e was that they used their Swordmage Aegis abilities to mark an enemy and trigger effects when the marked enemy attacked someone other then the swordmage, like teleporting to the enemy or reducing the damage of the triggering attack. They were more of a defender style class. The only subclass that does anything remotely like that is the Cavalier with its marking ability but it isn't a caster class and it doesn't have the teleport ability.
You may be able to build something that can function somewhat like this with a Paladin or a Bladesinger using spells possibly.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Extremely difficult? How so? Just about the only thing that comes to mind is turning, and even that is fairly mild and limited to a few Oaths.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oath of the Crown Paladin.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Have you looked at their spell list? How about damage types that they deal (radiant, commonly associated with divinity)? Or their abilities? (Lay on Hands, Divine Health, Tenets, Channel Divinity, etc.)
It is very difficult to divorce paladins from their divine features. That's why I made an arcane "paladin" class, the Arcknight. It fills the role of a Swordmage/Duskblade, actually blending magic and martial attacks.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I think the concept of a spellsword sounds really cool, but you’re totally right. Neither the Bladesinger nor the Eldritch Knight executes it perfectly, and the Paladin is by nature a divine rather than an arcane caster.
Radiant is a great damage type, arguably second only to Force and possibly on par with Psychic. If the association with the divine bothers you, just make it one of the elemental ones instead. It's going to be resisted more often, so it's not overpowered, and you can give your Swordmage an elemental theme.
Artificers and Divine Soul monks get healing spells, and they're arcane classes. Rangers don't feel like divine casters at all. False Life is a thing. Bolstering your own vigor or that of others is entirely in keeping with martial characters complementing their physical skill with supernatural ability.
Most oaths (and the associated Channel Divinity options) have next to no divine or religious connotations. Just stay away from the ones that do, they're a bad fit for the Swordmage concept anyway.
Holy symbols become arcane foci, prayers become words of power.
Divine Sense is the tough one, but losing out on it is not much of a penalty.
Seriously, I don't see the problem here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Much as I'd love to get into a(nother) discussion of the multiple failings of 5e's class/subclass system and selection, this isn't really the thread for it.
Sorry, Drowfreak. I didn't mean to disrupt your conversation.
Please do not contact or message me.
I still love D&D 4th edition, and I was unfortunate when I left all my books when I moved to Canada a while ago. Happyfully I could buy almost all 4th edition books here, some new, some on the secondary market. I think the system is great, but as one of my friends used to say: "4th edition is D&D, but it is a different animal". If you would like to learn more about 4th edition history and published material, I would suggest this video:
I never played 4e, but I have browsed the books for inspiration. I really like the trade dress and presentation of 4e over any other edition of D&D. The books are clean (as opposed to 3e which had a background image that made it look like every sentence was underlined), the Dungeons & Dragons logo is prominent and the labeling is clear and consistent, and the quality of art for 4e is way more consistent than earlier editions that featured a lot of amateur art. But my favorite tabletop books just based on design and aesthetics would be Pathfinder by a country mile. But I digress...
The Shannon Appelcline book series Designers & Dragons might be interesting for folks wanting to learn more about the backlash against 4e or the history of D&D and tabletop RPGs in general. The short time between 3.5 and 4 was a factor for discontent as well as the radically different game design that seemed to heavily favor using miniatures versus playing with theater of the mind (making costs associated with playing the game go up). Plus the licensing system was nowhere near as friendly as 3e for third parties. As far as lore, I do find the Spellplague annoying. It's like they were trying to do WoW Cataclysm for the Forgotten Realms or something. Not a fan. I can see why 5e decided to fast-forward a hundred years to get past it. You can also read about Hasbro letting its lawful evil flag fly with routine Christmas layoffs and how they let Paizo slip through their fingers to become D&D's biggest competitor (Paizo had been putting out Dungeon and Dragon magazines, but WotC decided not to renew their contract).
OP, I hope you find a group. Don't get discouraged. 🙂
Well, 3.5 Edition was already a heavy modernization of the game. Fourth Edition was closer to making an entirely new game that shared the logo and little else. And as the saying goes, you only have one chance to make a bad first impression and 4E had a lot of problems on launch. Not just with the rules, which focused even more heavily on combat than 3.5 (to the point that so-called utility powers were overwhelmingly just combat powers that were defensive in nature rather than offensive), but the first books for the game had problems like ink that was prone to smudging if you ran a finger over a page months after you'd bought the book and a near total lack of lore on monsters. Oh, and the ill-considered revision of the alignment chart.
The game wasn't all bad, but it did have some serious issues that really should have been fixed before launch.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't like the premise that seems to seep from some of the posts that if you happened to dislike the 4e it was because you felt something holy has been touched and suddenly pitchfork appeared in your hand to protest.
It almost feels like you either appreciated the edition or were a backwards thinking old timer.
I had a lot of problems with 4e and I think it was a worse system than 5e and it doesn't have anything to do with the fact it's not the same D&D that it was 50 years ago.
for me it seems like it was a combo of completely rehashing the mechanics as well as rehashing all the agnostic lore of the game and...the lore of the FR setting. thats what seemed to piss everyone off. if they just did one of those things at a time it might not had such a negative impact. there were some cool things for sure in 4e....from what i have read from the books. love minions, all the attack effects, skill challenges.
Hah! What's funny about what you (Lathlaer) just said is that that's exactly how I feel about 5e. . .
I picked up 4e from my dad when I was in middle school. I loved the game (first edition of D&D I was introduced to), and I made a ton of characters, really complicated ones with lots to look forward to, big secrets to uncover, dramatic quests to complete. . . I made a ton of DM material, all sorts of weird stuff I couldn't wait to get a chance to run. . .
And then I found out that 5e had come out when I was really little. And my reaction was, "NO! YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE RULES BEFORE I'M OLD ENOUGH TO PLAY!!!"
Just. . . that's my only real problem with 5e. I was all prepped to play basically twenty years' worth of 4e, and then I realized it was outdated. Circumstances really lined up badly. . . or maybe they didn't! Depending on who I talk to, there's sometimes a good bet I will be able to use all that stuff after all, or there's no chance and I should just get over it.
Fyi the 4e discord community has revived and updated the compendium. It lives and is better than ever in all it's glory!