One thing which is brought up often when talking about 5e/5.5e is the lack of a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class. Both of the two prior editions of DnD have had a dedicated arcane gish, as well as the current and prior editions of pathfinder. All have been centred around a spellstrike type mechanic, and all have had a clear focus on arcane type magic, rather than divine or occult links like Paladin or Warlock. As a result it has strongly associated mechanics and themes, but no 'story' to it unlike many other classes.
However one thing I've seen mentioned around this forum in particular is the lack of identity for the class, which may by one of the reasons for it failing to stick in the collective consciousness of the playerbase in the same way as a paladin. Even the class name has failed to last more than a single edition. Duskblade in 3e, swordmage in 4e, and magus in pathfinder. The only identifying feature it has consistently had is 'person who uses magic and weapon'. But this description applies to many other classes as well. I've seen some argue that it doesn't need an identity, in the same way a fighter doesn't. But unlike a fighter the class is a lot more specific.
The duskblade is mentioned as 'elite guardians of an ancient elven empire'. Which could provide some starting point. However it has a lot of overlap with the bladesinger, which as a 5e subclass lacks any of the features those wanting a gish class are asking for from a spellstriking gish. The swordmage from 4e is mentioned as being common among genasi, and the magic employed as being often but not always elemental in nature.
What do people think the identity should be for a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class should be if it did exist in the upcoming 5.5e? Or does it not need an identity beyond what it's previously had? How would you give it a story in a way which gives it a strong theme without preventing players from having their own background for characters using the class?
How about the origin of the gish, the Githyanki Gish?
Gish is already used to describe the martial/magical combo anyway, as in the op post it is mentioned 5 times and also in the title . With Baldurs Gate 3 we get the Githyanki front and center making relations to each other easier to understand for most new people.
If you want a decent Arcane Gish build, then might I recommend going Mark of Warding Dwarf Battle Smith 3-5/Abjuration Wizard X? You can also go with Vuman/Custom Lineage, or just grab Magic Initiate through a natural feat, so long as you're picking up Armor of Agathys along the way somehow. This build gives you access to Medium Armor, a Shield, Infusions (to bolster both), using your Int modifier for attack/damage rolls with any magical weapon (Infused weapons included), a perpetually-revivable companion that can help mitigate attacks for you, a fat stack of temp HP, a constantly-replenishing force field over that temp HP, Thorns Damage against anyone stupid enough to attack what's likely the tankiest character in the game, half-off the costs of some of the best defensive spells in the game (including numerous Wizard staples), and a late-game resistance to spells in general. This is on top of your high AC and/or spells giving you numerous ways to mitigate/negate most forms of melee/ranged combat, and Counterspell being practically given to you by Abjuration Savant. The best part is that, in order to replenish your Arcane Ward, all you need to do in order to replenish the force field over your Temp HP is to simply cast more tank spells.
Oh, and if the DM doesn't try to focus specifically you down to the ground, despite how nigh-untouchable you are? Well... We all know what happens when you don't focus the "Squishy Wizard..."
The real problem of the Gish is not a lack of a good name, but the lack of a good mechanic. As you move from tier 2 to tier 3+ the Gishes all run into one or both of two problems: 1) because of your focus on magic your martial/melee abilities start to fall behind the pure fighter. 2) because of your focus on martial combat your magical abilities start to fall behind the pure mage. In the end the Gish is neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat! the Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster never really get off the ground magically - they don’t get L3 spells until L13 but they do maintain parity with their respective classes in terms of basic combat capabilities. Really martials with a limited touch of magic.
the Hexblade’s magical talents are heavily limited - 5 slots of L5- spells with 15 spells known and 8 invocations The Paladin, Ranger and Artificer are all half casters so they are limited to L5 spells as well and only get 2 attacks with some subclasses having abilities/spells that allow a third attack. The Paladin gets clerical spells that mostly go to fueling their smites to try to keep their damage on par with fighters, rangers get primal spells that are mostly summoning/area control or that grant extra damage/attacks to keep them on par with fighters, Artificers gain arcane spells but are limited to a max of 15 prepared spells of L5- all requiring a material focus. At this time the artificer (especially the tank armorer) is the only even split arcane Gish. these are the real Gishes and none of them really work that well with the artificers probably closet mechanically if not thematically because of the class focus on infusions.
The 3 full casters are the valor and sword bards and the bladesinger. The bards at least get a D8 for hit points and get medium armor and martial weapons as well as a second attack. But they are limited to bardic spells by and large limiting their effectiveness as combatant. The bladesinger gets full access to arcane spells including all the evocation/battle spells, but they are limited to light armor and a D6 for HPs so they are always fairly squishy. To my mind they are better thought of as mages you don’t have to protect than as competent mainline combatants. With these subclasses they maintain some melee capability but are primarily casters that can defend themselves when needed.
the 1dnd ranger mechanic actually provides a fairly decent chassis for building a midline Gish except for two things - it’s only primal not arcane spells and even with the primal evocation spells are barred. If you allowed evocation and a choice of primal, clerical and arcane spells you could actually generate a pretty good Gish.
creating a full caster Gish may be impossible without making them overpowered. I tried to design a Swordmage class that used the battlemaster fighter and evocation Wizard trying to give the Swordmage most of both’s abilities which is how I tend to envision a true Swordmage. The result certainly kept up with both classes it compared to but with other classes it seemed to be overpowered with fighter or mage abilities being gained essentially every level. We do need a solid mechanic for an arcane Gish with evocation spells - a true battle age. But what it looks like and what name it gets ????
Ultimately the concept of the gish is just coming from the fact that D&D uses several "sources" or "types" of magic and people feel like one of them is "missing" its dualist. Divine has Paladins, if you believe in Primal then you have Rangers, but Arcane doesn't have one, unless you count Blade Warlocks, but I guess you shouldn't because they're not a full class like the others. But like... Pattern completion isn't a strong motivator. Nobody's a "Tetris L block" super fan. Nobody writes stories about the Rhetorical Questioner, Batman's other enemy to round out the Joker and the Riddler. Nobody went to see Solo: a Star Wars Story (comparatively, I mean). There needs to be a good reason beyond "there's room for it."
As an aside, in 5e there is no Primal magic, Rangers use Divine, but even still, apparently we need a gish to fill out the pattern because... Idk, other games set a precedent for Primal, I guess, so even though there isn't even a pattern in 5e, people still perceive one and want to complete it?
One thing which is brought up often when talking about 5e/5.5e is the lack of a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class. Both of the two prior editions of DnD have had a dedicated arcane gish, as well as the current and prior editions of pathfinder. All have been centred around a spellstrike type mechanic, and all have had a clear focus on arcane type magic, rather than divine or occult links like Paladin or Warlock. As a result it has strongly associated mechanics and themes, but no 'story' to it unlike many other classes.
However one thing I've seen mentioned around this forum in particular is the lack of identity for the class, which may by one of the reasons for it failing to stick in the collective consciousness of the playerbase in the same way as a paladin. Even the class name has failed to last more than a single edition. Duskblade in 3e, swordmage in 4e, and magus in pathfinder. The only identifying feature it has consistently had is 'person who uses magic and weapon'. But this description applies to many other classes as well. I've seen some argue that it doesn't need an identity, in the same way a fighter doesn't. But unlike a fighter the class is a lot more specific.
The duskblade is mentioned as 'elite guardians of an ancient elven empire'. Which could provide some starting point. However it has a lot of overlap with the bladesinger, which as a 5e subclass lacks any of the features those wanting a gish class are asking for from a spellstriking gish. The swordmage from 4e is mentioned as being common among genasi, and the magic employed as being often but not always elemental in nature.
What do people think the identity should be for a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class should be if it did exist in the upcoming 5.5e? Or does it not need an identity beyond what it's previously had? How would you give it a story in a way which gives it a strong theme without preventing players from having their own background for characters using the class?
You forgot to mention the origin off the idea AD&D Fighter/Mage Kit builds, the Warmage and Bladesinger. There is also the Eldrich Knight.
The issue here is the way magic is used, and the types of spells used have never been organized in a away to allow for them to build these subclasses properly in D&D, other game systems did it by dividing the types of magic, and 4th edition tried it a bit with the "Battlemaster" But the arcane warrior can only really work when you have Divine, Primal, and Arcane magic listed out separately. Then you can start to adjust the spells in Arcane for melee battle magic. Also, you don't build a subclass for a single species/ancestry, not anymore, it's why Bladesinger vanished for a lot of years, and why Warmage and eldritch knight lacked good flavor. As they were designed specifically for Elves. Also going on AD&D and the lore of the Githyanki it would be a Psionic/Arcane Rogue with two handed longswords and ring-mail/scale mail build and less the War-wizard/eldritch knight.
I don't think most people care. They just want to play the guy that gets to do everything, and don't pay attention to any inherent class identity. The complains about the gish classes and subclasses we currently have (minus Bladesinger) aren't that they don't have a class identity, it's that they don't get to do literally everything in the game, so they aren't good enough.
Edit - I removed the quote since the post has changed. I think I quoted too early before you finished your thoughts. Sorry about that!
The first Elf was basically an arcane gish. That arcane element has survived in small part even today. My first exposure to a class like an arcane gish was also inspired by Elves. The Complete Book of Elves for second edition introduced the Bladesinger 'kit.' I remember my group was fascinated with the idea. We even brought it into other games. It's possible that the most DnD identity you could give an arcane gish would be the Elves and their bladesingers.
You could even call it a Bladesinger. The history is there. It's very DnD. (You would have to absorb the subclass into it).
If the arcane gish was based on the idea of an Elven martial art, I think it could be very cool. The art would have spread to other cultures long ago, so anyone can use it. But it could still be grounded in Elven ideas of combat. Other cultural influences could even explain different subclasses for it. The Bladesinger would give the class enough ties to the unique DnD fantasy that I think it could quickly feel right alongside other classes.
I don't think most people care. They just want to play the guy that gets to do everything, and don't pay attention to any inherent class identity. The complains about the gish classes and subclasses we currently have (minus Bladesinger) aren't that they don't have a class identity, it's that they don't get to do literally everything in the game, so they aren't good enough.
That might be true of some. But I want an Arcane Gish to fulfill character concepts that I have ,and can't do well with a scattering of subclasses. I never care if my characters have high power. I don't want it to do everything. I just want it to have the same balance as the Ranger and Paladin. Half caster with extra attack at level 5 and some interesting features of its own.
The subclasses that we have are built on the foundation of a different class. So they either focus too much on the martial side or the caster side. Or if they do find something close to a balance, they are tied in with other things that don't fit for all concepts, like the Battlesmith having a pet and infusions.
I don't worry about the identity as much because I have no problem reflavoring any mechanics for my own games. They can say that the arcane gish all spit on their swords to cast spells and I can just change that. 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.
The real problem of the Gish is not a lack of a good name, but the lack of a good mechanic. As you move from tier 2 to tier 3+ the Gishes all run into one or both of two problems: 1) because of your focus on magic your martial/melee abilities start to fall behind the pure fighter. 2) because of your focus on martial combat your magical abilities start to fall behind the pure mage. In the end the Gish is neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat! the Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster never really get off the ground magically - they don’t get L3 spells until L13 but they do maintain parity with their respective classes in terms of basic combat capabilities. Really martials with a limited touch of magic.
the Hexblade’s magical talents are heavily limited - 5 slots of L5- spells with 15 spells known and 8 invocations The Paladin, Ranger and Artificer are all half casters so they are limited to L5 spells as well and only get 2 attacks with some subclasses having abilities/spells that allow a third attack. The Paladin gets clerical spells that mostly go to fueling their smites to try to keep their damage on par with fighters, rangers get primal spells that are mostly summoning/area control or that grant extra damage/attacks to keep them on par with fighters, Artificers gain arcane spells but are limited to a max of 15 prepared spells of L5- all requiring a material focus. At this time the artificer (especially the tank armorer) is the only even split arcane Gish. these are the real Gishes and none of them really work that well with the artificers probably closet mechanically if not thematically because of the class focus on infusions.
The 3 full casters are the valor and sword bards and the bladesinger. The bards at least get a D8 for hit points and get medium armor and martial weapons as well as a second attack. But they are limited to bardic spells by and large limiting their effectiveness as combatant. The bladesinger gets full access to arcane spells including all the evocation/battle spells, but they are limited to light armor and a D6 for HPs so they are always fairly squishy. To my mind they are better thought of as mages you don’t have to protect than as competent mainline combatants. With these subclasses they maintain some melee capability but are primarily casters that can defend themselves when needed.
the 1dnd ranger mechanic actually provides a fairly decent chassis for building a midline Gish except for two things - it’s only primal not arcane spells and even with the primal evocation spells are barred. If you allowed evocation and a choice of primal, clerical and arcane spells you could actually generate a pretty good Gish.
creating a full caster Gish may be impossible without making them overpowered. I tried to design a Swordmage class that used the battlemaster fighter and evocation Wizard trying to give the Swordmage most of both’s abilities which is how I tend to envision a true Swordmage. The result certainly kept up with both classes it compared to but with other classes it seemed to be overpowered with fighter or mage abilities being gained essentially every level. We do need a solid mechanic for an arcane Gish with evocation spells - a true battle age. But what it looks like and what name it gets ????
The 'gish class' from prior editions had an excellent mechanic. This being spellstrike and what that evolved into. Duskblade from 3.5e, and magus from pathfinder 1e and 2e can apply touch spells through their weapon attacks. In 4e, the gish had tons of magical weapon strike abilities, and reaction based teleports.
5e has lots of 'strike spells'. Things like ensnaring strike, searing/thunderous smite, and lightning arrow. However they're locked onto paladin and ranger lists, so eldritch knight and bladesinger can't use them.
If you look at paladin and ranger, they're not half a druid/cleric, and half a fighter. They blend their magic into their martial ability. Likewise, an arcane gish shouldn't be half a wizard glued onto half a fighter. It should be applying magical effects via weapon strikes, like paladin and ranger can.
I find it odd that people think a paladin and a ranger are fine, but an arcane equivalent will always be unbalanced inherently.
There really isn't an "occult" classification, Warlocks are also Arcane. So you've got the Hexblade Warlock, as well as the Bladesinger Wizard for your Arcane gish needs. Not to mention Swords Bards and both the Battle Smith Artificer and Armorer Artificer.
I should have specified that I was kind of aiming this at 5.5e. 5e has dozens of gish subclasses, and though none are as fun or work as well as the 4e swordmage, that space is very filled.
5.5e won't have an arcane half caster on release at all (including artificer). So the conversation kind of starts again.
One thing which is brought up often when talking about 5e/5.5e is the lack of a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class. Both of the two prior editions of DnD have had a dedicated arcane gish, as well as the current and prior editions of pathfinder. All have been centred around a spellstrike type mechanic, and all have had a clear focus on arcane type magic, rather than divine or occult links like Paladin or Warlock. As a result it has strongly associated mechanics and themes, but no 'story' to it unlike many other classes.
However one thing I've seen mentioned around this forum in particular is the lack of identity for the class, which may by one of the reasons for it failing to stick in the collective consciousness of the playerbase in the same way as a paladin. Even the class name has failed to last more than a single edition. Duskblade in 3e, swordmage in 4e, and magus in pathfinder. The only identifying feature it has consistently had is 'person who uses magic and weapon'. But this description applies to many other classes as well. I've seen some argue that it doesn't need an identity, in the same way a fighter doesn't. But unlike a fighter the class is a lot more specific.
The duskblade is mentioned as 'elite guardians of an ancient elven empire'. Which could provide some starting point. However it has a lot of overlap with the bladesinger, which as a 5e subclass lacks any of the features those wanting a gish class are asking for from a spellstriking gish. The swordmage from 4e is mentioned as being common among genasi, and the magic employed as being often but not always elemental in nature.
What do people think the identity should be for a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class should be if it did exist in the upcoming 5.5e? Or does it not need an identity beyond what it's previously had? How would you give it a story in a way which gives it a strong theme without preventing players from having their own background for characters using the class?
You forgot to mention the origin off the idea AD&D Fighter/Mage Kit builds, the Warmage and Bladesinger. There is also the Eldrich Knight.
The issue here is the way magic is used, and the types of spells used have never been organized in a away to allow for them to build these subclasses properly in D&D, other game systems did it by dividing the types of magic, and 4th edition tried it a bit with the "Battlemaster" But the arcane warrior can only really work when you have Divine, Primal, and Arcane magic listed out separately. Then you can start to adjust the spells in Arcane for melee battle magic. Also, you don't build a subclass for a single species/ancestry, not anymore, it's why Bladesinger vanished for a lot of years, and why Warmage and eldritch knight lacked good flavor. As they were designed specifically for Elves. Also going on AD&D and the lore of the Githyanki it would be a Psionic/Arcane Rogue with two handed longswords and ring-mail/scale mail build and less the War-wizard/eldritch knight.
Interestingly, 4e pushed genasi into becoming a large part of the classes identity. I think the days of the archetype being an elf or gith only thing are long gone.
The issue is that the best way to do "spell strike" is to create spells that specifically require and are designed around integration with a melee attack. These spells already exist, in the form of various "*** Smite" spells, which means everyone and their mother says "JUST MAEK PALLADUN MOR WIZZY FLAVER " and demands one do a poor job of reflavoring Paladin as an "arcane" character despite the general hostility of the Paladin class towards reflavoring.
Were "*** Smite" spells more broadly available, especially to arcane characters, then this would be significantly less of an issue. These spells could be limited to the prospective "Gish" class the way Smites used to be Dingdong exclusive, or they could simply be a suite of "Arcane Strike" spells available to anyone that pulls from Arcane magic. Either way, those spells need to be available before arcane gishes can work. "Spell Strike" as a class feature that can turn any spell in to a "*** Smite" is not likely to work.
The other thing arcane gishes need is basic, fundamental spells that allow a mix of Spell and Blade without constantly fighting for concentration. One of the reasons an arcane spellblade doesn't work is because they generally need two or three buffs active but only ever get one since Wizards makes every single goddamn spell in all Creation into concentration. No buff spells? No spellblade.
Mechanically speaking there's a couple of things that sound gish-y, and it's really a question of what people want to play.
The classic multiclass model was just 'does both, but mediocre at both'. That worked more or less in AD&D; in 3e and 3.5e you needed prestige classes, if you tried to do it with the basic multiclass rules you wound being 'does both, but lousy at both'.
If you want that model in 5e, you need to be worse at fighting but better at spellcasting than the eldritch knight, and worse at spellcasting but better at fighting than the valor bard, blade bard, or spellsinger setups. This just isn't something 5e does well, subclasses just aren't important enough and multiclassing works about as badly as 3e.
It's also possible to have a character with actually distinctive combined fighting styles. Usually this means buffing martial abilities with spells. It has most of the same problems as the standard, though -- you need more spellcasting than the EK, more fighting than the other options.
I have zero factual basis for this, but I strongly suspect that Tasha's Cauldron of Afterthoughts was really a platform for testing ideas for 1D&D. I have a suspicion that mechanics we saw used in the Bladesinger might make their way into a new Eldritch Knight subclass for 1D&D, or we might even see them make their way into an arcane gish class farther down the line. Again, complete speculation, but it's early yet...
I have zero factual basis for this, but I strongly suspect that Tasha's Cauldron of Afterthoughts was really a platform for testing ideas for 1D&D. I have a suspicion that mechanics we saw used in the Bladesinger might make their way into a new Eldritch Knight subclass for 1D&D, or we might even see them make their way into an arcane gish class farther down the line. Again, complete speculation, but it's early yet...
Tasha's was definitely starting to push 5e in the direction of 1DnD.
I'm all for some sort of 'spell blade' class but we technically now have a half arcane caster in the artificer, which has subclasses that do lean in martial directions. So it'd be difficult to add a new class that doesn't just feel like 'paladin with INT casting' or like it should just be another artificer subclass.
Maybe some tweaks to eldritch knight would work. Instead of making it a 1/3 caster, make it similar to arcane archer, using a limited resource to do melee focused magic things instead of just using the spell list. AA imo, while I think it could use some work, has a pretty cool foundation for a magical archer, doing something similar with a melee focus for a magical knight I think could make a good subclass. Without having to make a second arcane half caster.
Spell strike mechanic would help but what such an arcane Gish or any Gish also needs is a mechanic for using their weapon as a spell focus. Yes the ruby of the war mage does this but a Gish should really have a mechanic that does it - especially an arcane Gish. As I’ve said before, the 1dnd ranger, modified to allow evocation spells and a choice of spell types (clerical, primal, arcane) with a weapon focus mechanic and smite type/touch damage spells in each type would allow for almost any 1/2 cast Gish concept to be generated.
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.
They have that, but people tend to not like the play style, as 5th edition put most of the Wizard Buffs into Concentration Spells, and they can only maintain one at a time. There was a time, a Wizard could layer all those spells one after another before combat and walk in as an unstoppable tank. Back when Githyanki were first introduced, they were a psionic race, with a small number of Necromancers. The Necromancers were how they defeated the illithid.
If you want to make a Githzerai or Githyanki Arcane Warrior, You could do it fairly easily without doing a multiclass build. However if you want to be perfectly fluffy in lore, I can think of aa few Multi-Class builds that would be perfect. Aka the Hex-Paladin-Sorc builds that some build to maximize Chr Damage and Chr spell power. If you do it right you can even have a buff Zombie Horde walking along side you.
((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.))
One thing which is brought up often when talking about 5e/5.5e is the lack of a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class. Both of the two prior editions of DnD have had a dedicated arcane gish, as well as the current and prior editions of pathfinder. All have been centred around a spellstrike type mechanic, and all have had a clear focus on arcane type magic, rather than divine or occult links like Paladin or Warlock. As a result it has strongly associated mechanics and themes, but no 'story' to it unlike many other classes.
However one thing I've seen mentioned around this forum in particular is the lack of identity for the class, which may by one of the reasons for it failing to stick in the collective consciousness of the playerbase in the same way as a paladin. Even the class name has failed to last more than a single edition. Duskblade in 3e, swordmage in 4e, and magus in pathfinder. The only identifying feature it has consistently had is 'person who uses magic and weapon'. But this description applies to many other classes as well. I've seen some argue that it doesn't need an identity, in the same way a fighter doesn't. But unlike a fighter the class is a lot more specific.
The duskblade is mentioned as 'elite guardians of an ancient elven empire'. Which could provide some starting point. However it has a lot of overlap with the bladesinger, which as a 5e subclass lacks any of the features those wanting a gish class are asking for from a spellstriking gish. The swordmage from 4e is mentioned as being common among genasi, and the magic employed as being often but not always elemental in nature.
What do people think the identity should be for a dedicated arcane/elemental gish class should be if it did exist in the upcoming 5.5e? Or does it not need an identity beyond what it's previously had? How would you give it a story in a way which gives it a strong theme without preventing players from having their own background for characters using the class?
How about the origin of the gish, the Githyanki Gish?
Gish is already used to describe the martial/magical combo anyway, as in the op post it is mentioned 5 times and also in the title . With Baldurs Gate 3 we get the Githyanki front and center making relations to each other easier to understand for most new people.
If you want a decent Arcane Gish build, then might I recommend going Mark of Warding Dwarf Battle Smith 3-5/Abjuration Wizard X? You can also go with Vuman/Custom Lineage, or just grab Magic Initiate through a natural feat, so long as you're picking up Armor of Agathys along the way somehow. This build gives you access to Medium Armor, a Shield, Infusions (to bolster both), using your Int modifier for attack/damage rolls with any magical weapon (Infused weapons included), a perpetually-revivable companion that can help mitigate attacks for you, a fat stack of temp HP, a constantly-replenishing force field over that temp HP, Thorns Damage against anyone stupid enough to attack what's likely the tankiest character in the game, half-off the costs of some of the best defensive spells in the game (including numerous Wizard staples), and a late-game resistance to spells in general. This is on top of your high AC and/or spells giving you numerous ways to mitigate/negate most forms of melee/ranged combat, and Counterspell being practically given to you by Abjuration Savant. The best part is that, in order to replenish your Arcane Ward, all you need to do in order to replenish the force field over your Temp HP is to simply cast more tank spells.
Oh, and if the DM doesn't try to focus specifically you down to the ground, despite how nigh-untouchable you are? Well...
We all know what happens when you don't focus the "Squishy Wizard..."
The real problem of the Gish is not a lack of a good name, but the lack of a good mechanic. As you move from tier 2 to tier 3+ the Gishes all run into one or both of two problems:
1) because of your focus on magic your martial/melee abilities start to fall behind the pure fighter.
2) because of your focus on martial combat your magical abilities start to fall behind the pure mage.
In the end the Gish is neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat!
the Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster never really get off the ground magically - they don’t get L3 spells until L13 but they do maintain parity with their respective classes in terms of basic combat capabilities. Really martials with a limited touch of magic.
the Hexblade’s magical talents are heavily limited - 5 slots of L5- spells with 15 spells known and 8 invocations
The Paladin, Ranger and Artificer are all half casters so they are limited to L5 spells as well and only get 2 attacks with some subclasses having abilities/spells that allow a third attack. The Paladin gets clerical spells that mostly go to fueling their smites to try to keep their damage on par with fighters, rangers get primal spells that are mostly summoning/area control or that grant extra damage/attacks to keep them on par with fighters, Artificers gain arcane spells but are limited to a max of 15 prepared spells of L5- all requiring a material focus. At this time the artificer (especially the tank armorer) is the only even split arcane Gish.
these are the real Gishes and none of them really work that well with the artificers probably closet mechanically if not thematically because of the class focus on infusions.
The 3 full casters are the valor and sword bards and the bladesinger. The bards at least get a D8 for hit points and get medium armor and martial weapons as well as a second attack. But they are limited to bardic spells by and large limiting their effectiveness as combatant. The bladesinger gets full access to arcane spells including all the evocation/battle spells, but they are limited to light armor and a D6 for HPs so they are always fairly squishy. To my mind they are better thought of as mages you don’t have to protect than as competent mainline combatants.
With these subclasses they maintain some melee capability but are primarily casters that can defend themselves when needed.
the 1dnd ranger mechanic actually provides a fairly decent chassis for building a midline Gish except for two things - it’s only primal not arcane spells and even with the primal evocation spells are barred. If you allowed evocation and a choice of primal, clerical and arcane spells you could actually generate a pretty good Gish.
creating a full caster Gish may be impossible without making them overpowered. I tried to design a Swordmage class that used the battlemaster fighter and evocation Wizard trying to give the Swordmage most of both’s abilities which is how I tend to envision a true Swordmage. The result certainly kept up with both classes it compared to but with other classes it seemed to be overpowered with fighter or mage abilities being gained essentially every level. We do need a solid mechanic for an arcane Gish with evocation spells - a true battle age. But what it looks like and what name it gets ????
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Ultimately the concept of the gish is just coming from the fact that D&D uses several "sources" or "types" of magic and people feel like one of them is "missing" its dualist. Divine has Paladins, if you believe in Primal then you have Rangers, but Arcane doesn't have one, unless you count Blade Warlocks, but I guess you shouldn't because they're not a full class like the others. But like... Pattern completion isn't a strong motivator. Nobody's a "Tetris L block" super fan. Nobody writes stories about the Rhetorical Questioner, Batman's other enemy to round out the Joker and the Riddler. Nobody went to see Solo: a Star Wars Story (comparatively, I mean). There needs to be a good reason beyond "there's room for it."
As an aside, in 5e there is no Primal magic, Rangers use Divine, but even still, apparently we need a gish to fill out the pattern because... Idk, other games set a precedent for Primal, I guess, so even though there isn't even a pattern in 5e, people still perceive one and want to complete it?
You forgot to mention the origin off the idea AD&D Fighter/Mage Kit builds, the Warmage and Bladesinger. There is also the Eldrich Knight.
The issue here is the way magic is used, and the types of spells used have never been organized in a away to allow for them to build these subclasses properly in D&D, other game systems did it by dividing the types of magic, and 4th edition tried it a bit with the "Battlemaster" But the arcane warrior can only really work when you have Divine, Primal, and Arcane magic listed out separately. Then you can start to adjust the spells in Arcane for melee battle magic. Also, you don't build a subclass for a single species/ancestry, not anymore, it's why Bladesinger vanished for a lot of years, and why Warmage and eldritch knight lacked good flavor. As they were designed specifically for Elves. Also going on AD&D and the lore of the Githyanki it would be a Psionic/Arcane Rogue with two handed longswords and ring-mail/scale mail build and less the War-wizard/eldritch knight.
I don't think most people care. They just want to play the guy that gets to do everything, and don't pay attention to any inherent class identity. The complains about the gish classes and subclasses we currently have (minus Bladesinger) aren't that they don't have a class identity, it's that they don't get to do literally everything in the game, so they aren't good enough.
The first Elf was basically an arcane gish. That arcane element has survived in small part even today. My first exposure to a class like an arcane gish was also inspired by Elves. The Complete Book of Elves for second edition introduced the Bladesinger 'kit.' I remember my group was fascinated with the idea. We even brought it into other games. It's possible that the most DnD identity you could give an arcane gish would be the Elves and their bladesingers.
You could even call it a Bladesinger. The history is there. It's very DnD. (You would have to absorb the subclass into it).
If the arcane gish was based on the idea of an Elven martial art, I think it could be very cool. The art would have spread to other cultures long ago, so anyone can use it. But it could still be grounded in Elven ideas of combat. Other cultural influences could even explain different subclasses for it. The Bladesinger would give the class enough ties to the unique DnD fantasy that I think it could quickly feel right alongside other classes.
That might be true of some. But I want an Arcane Gish to fulfill character concepts that I have ,and can't do well with a scattering of subclasses. I never care if my characters have high power. I don't want it to do everything. I just want it to have the same balance as the Ranger and Paladin. Half caster with extra attack at level 5 and some interesting features of its own.
The subclasses that we have are built on the foundation of a different class. So they either focus too much on the martial side or the caster side. Or if they do find something close to a balance, they are tied in with other things that don't fit for all concepts, like the Battlesmith having a pet and infusions.
I don't worry about the identity as much because I have no problem reflavoring any mechanics for my own games. They can say that the arcane gish all spit on their swords to cast spells and I can just change that. 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.
The 'gish class' from prior editions had an excellent mechanic. This being spellstrike and what that evolved into. Duskblade from 3.5e, and magus from pathfinder 1e and 2e can apply touch spells through their weapon attacks. In 4e, the gish had tons of magical weapon strike abilities, and reaction based teleports.
5e has lots of 'strike spells'. Things like ensnaring strike, searing/thunderous smite, and lightning arrow. However they're locked onto paladin and ranger lists, so eldritch knight and bladesinger can't use them.
If you look at paladin and ranger, they're not half a druid/cleric, and half a fighter. They blend their magic into their martial ability. Likewise, an arcane gish shouldn't be half a wizard glued onto half a fighter. It should be applying magical effects via weapon strikes, like paladin and ranger can.
I find it odd that people think a paladin and a ranger are fine, but an arcane equivalent will always be unbalanced inherently.
There really isn't an "occult" classification, Warlocks are also Arcane. So you've got the Hexblade Warlock, as well as the Bladesinger Wizard for your Arcane gish needs. Not to mention Swords Bards and both the Battle Smith Artificer and Armorer Artificer.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I should have specified that I was kind of aiming this at 5.5e. 5e has dozens of gish subclasses, and though none are as fun or work as well as the 4e swordmage, that space is very filled.
5.5e won't have an arcane half caster on release at all (including artificer). So the conversation kind of starts again.
Interestingly, 4e pushed genasi into becoming a large part of the classes identity. I think the days of the archetype being an elf or gith only thing are long gone.
The issue is that the best way to do "spell strike" is to create spells that specifically require and are designed around integration with a melee attack. These spells already exist, in the form of various "*** Smite" spells, which means everyone and their mother says "JUST MAEK PALLADUN MOR WIZZY FLAVER " and demands one do a poor job of reflavoring Paladin as an "arcane" character despite the general hostility of the Paladin class towards reflavoring.
Were "*** Smite" spells more broadly available, especially to arcane characters, then this would be significantly less of an issue. These spells could be limited to the prospective "Gish" class the way Smites used to be Dingdong exclusive, or they could simply be a suite of "Arcane Strike" spells available to anyone that pulls from Arcane magic. Either way, those spells need to be available before arcane gishes can work. "Spell Strike" as a class feature that can turn any spell in to a "*** Smite" is not likely to work.
The other thing arcane gishes need is basic, fundamental spells that allow a mix of Spell and Blade without constantly fighting for concentration. One of the reasons an arcane spellblade doesn't work is because they generally need two or three buffs active but only ever get one since Wizards makes every single goddamn spell in all Creation into concentration. No buff spells? No spellblade.
Please do not contact or message me.
Mechanically speaking there's a couple of things that sound gish-y, and it's really a question of what people want to play.
The classic multiclass model was just 'does both, but mediocre at both'. That worked more or less in AD&D; in 3e and 3.5e you needed prestige classes, if you tried to do it with the basic multiclass rules you wound being 'does both, but lousy at both'.
If you want that model in 5e, you need to be worse at fighting but better at spellcasting than the eldritch knight, and worse at spellcasting but better at fighting than the valor bard, blade bard, or spellsinger setups. This just isn't something 5e does well, subclasses just aren't important enough and multiclassing works about as badly as 3e.
It's also possible to have a character with actually distinctive combined fighting styles. Usually this means buffing martial abilities with spells. It has most of the same problems as the standard, though -- you need more spellcasting than the EK, more fighting than the other options.
I have zero factual basis for this, but I strongly suspect that Tasha's Cauldron of Afterthoughts was really a platform for testing ideas for 1D&D. I have a suspicion that mechanics we saw used in the Bladesinger might make their way into a new Eldritch Knight subclass for 1D&D, or we might even see them make their way into an arcane gish class farther down the line. Again, complete speculation, but it's early yet...
Tasha's was definitely starting to push 5e in the direction of 1DnD.
Shame artificer isn't making the jump across.
I'm all for some sort of 'spell blade' class but we technically now have a half arcane caster in the artificer, which has subclasses that do lean in martial directions. So it'd be difficult to add a new class that doesn't just feel like 'paladin with INT casting' or like it should just be another artificer subclass.
Maybe some tweaks to eldritch knight would work. Instead of making it a 1/3 caster, make it similar to arcane archer, using a limited resource to do melee focused magic things instead of just using the spell list. AA imo, while I think it could use some work, has a pretty cool foundation for a magical archer, doing something similar with a melee focus for a magical knight I think could make a good subclass. Without having to make a second arcane half caster.
Spell strike mechanic would help but what such an arcane Gish or any Gish also needs is a mechanic for using their weapon as a spell focus. Yes the ruby of the war mage does this but a Gish should really have a mechanic that does it - especially an arcane Gish. As I’ve said before, the 1dnd ranger, modified to allow evocation spells and a choice of spell types (clerical, primal, arcane) with a weapon focus mechanic and smite type/touch damage spells in each type would allow for almost any 1/2 cast Gish concept to be generated.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Eldritch Knight, Bladesinger, Warmage, Hexblade....
They have that, but people tend to not like the play style, as 5th edition put most of the Wizard Buffs into Concentration Spells, and they can only maintain one at a time. There was a time, a Wizard could layer all those spells one after another before combat and walk in as an unstoppable tank. Back when Githyanki were first introduced, they were a psionic race, with a small number of Necromancers. The Necromancers were how they defeated the illithid.
If you want to make a Githzerai or Githyanki Arcane Warrior, You could do it fairly easily without doing a multiclass build. However if you want to be perfectly fluffy in lore, I can think of aa few Multi-Class builds that would be perfect. Aka the Hex-Paladin-Sorc builds that some build to maximize Chr Damage and Chr spell power. If you do it right you can even have a buff Zombie Horde walking along side you.
((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.))