Arcane Fencer

[Vestilence]

All right bare with me while I write a little scene.

Imagine you are the student of a powerful wizard, you find him dying in the home you shared, the place you trained together as he told you stories of his adventures.  With his dying words he most likely could not tell you all he had wished to but the sword that killed him is nearby right as a bunch of violent looking people show up in ambush.  You grab the sword, standing in  a battle ready stance as you notice you are surrounded.  Immediately you cast a repulsion spell, knocking them all away from you, then you target the furthest enemy from you with a freezing spell, followed up by a magic missile of sorts shattering him to pieces.  Teleporting to the next victims backside you lunge your sword into his back as another enemy approaches, you infuse the man you have your sword in with arcane energy, kicking him at the rest of the group, releasing that energy in a violent explosion that kills them all.  The last guy receives a fancy parry before you do a twirl and chop his head off....dropping to one of your knees as you finally have a chance to mourn your teacher/master/grand father figure.

TL;DR - Just wanted to express my passion for a Wizard like this to exist in a game, I know it won't happen in Project Eternity with the games mechanics/systems/style, but it's a dream...looking forward to Project Eternity though, all the nostalgia it will offer, new and old~

[Greensleeve]

I don't know, the idea of a sword-mage is relatively prevalent in RPGs as a concept. I wouldn't be surprised if there will be support for mages who kick ass with both sword and with spell. Whether it'll work the way you described in the scene though... That's a bit of a doubt. What you describe is almost more at home in an ARPG rather than isometric, tactical RTwP that this will be. 

[centurionofprix]

The Witcher?

[Micamo]

The Gish is such a popular character concept it'd honestly be criminal if they didn't make it work: D&D is the only fantasy roleplaying system I know of that likes to give players a hard time about it.

[mcmanusaur]

Herp derp. I'm honestly not such a fan of hybrid mage-warrior characters who can also have non-combat abilities without sacrificing combat capability. Sounds a bit overpowered and conducive to samey characters in my opinion.

[Nonek]

Fine to have such a balanced character, but his utility should also come with some serious downsides. If he crosses blades with a professional swordsman he should be embarassed by his lack of skill in comparison, and similarly his arcane might will pale beside a true wizards potency.  Otherwise why have a fighter or wizard at all.

[Eiphel]

The Pathfinder Magus class is a fighter-mage design I thought was pretty neat. Essentially their shtick is using melee combat as a delivery method for their magic, and having melee-delivered spells be more versatile and generally synergistic with being in melee.

[Stiler]

I've always wanted to play this type of character in rpgs. In most rpgs you are either stuck going "generic tank warrior or leather weather rogue dps melee fighter" or having to be a mage in a pointy hat who stands in the back firing spells.

 

This is an area where a few games have gotten decent at trying. Dragon Age had their "Arcane Warrior" which I loved and wish more rpgs had something similar.

 

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Arcane_Warrior

 

It allowed a Mage to use a sword and also allowed for him to use his magic score to be used in place of the strength requirement on weapons/armour, so you could wear things a normal mage couldn't.

 

Also in D&D terms they had the Mystic Warrior class (at least in 3.5 edition, not sure if they still have it).

 

 

Fine to have such a balanced character, but his utility should also come with some serious downsides. If he crosses blades with a professional swordsman he should be embarassed by his lack of skill in comparison, and similarly his arcane might will pale beside a true wizards potency.  Otherwise why have a fighter or wizard at all.

 

This I do not get, WHY does he need to be gimped in any way? A magic using Warrior should be NEITHER a "mage who simply wears armour" but-still plays like a mage, nor should he be a warrior who simply throws fireballs.

 

They should be their own independent class that has both strengths and weaknesses (just like ANY class should have) but they should have their own role they do well and not feel like they are simply gimped warroirs/mages.

 

Their skills should offer things that neither warriors nor Mages can do or have access to. I mean if a Warrior fights a mystic warrior, do you think the mystic warrior would just fight with his martial skills? No he'd make use of his magic to overcome the challenge, and that's where the fun/excitement (at least for me) comes from such a type of class.

 

Think for example, if he can use telekinetic powers to control his blade when he needs to. HE gets disarmed and can use magic to take hold of his weapon (Whereas a normal warrior couldn't and might have to take another die roll or something to regain his weapon). Or even having the ability to pull/push people away from him if need be (think Star Wars lol).

 

You get my point, when I think Mystic warriors I think of something similar to how say a Jedi Knight might fight, witht heir force powers, though obviosuly something uniquie/more their own for PE or whatever game they are in.

[Nonek]

Specialisation, he's neither as well trained in swordsmanship as the fighter or as well honed in the arcane arts as the wizard. Yes he can mix the two to achieve victory, but individually his skillset will suffer from not pursuing one path to the exclusion of all others. I'm not insisting the theoretical gentleman be gimped, the opposite in fact, i'm arguing that a character should have a limited skillset and either be a jack of all trades, or a master of one. A matter of equilibrium if you will.

 

Edit: Please lord no Jedi, Star Wars isn't exactly something that should be used as inspiration.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Nonek

[Bhazor]

And where exactly does the traditional fighter fit into all this? What's the point of having a warrior when an arcane warrior can fight just as well as them and have magic powers on top of those skills?

 

Talking of Jedi, they're the reason pen and paper Star Wars RPG's are so one sided with everybody playing a Jedi.

[Greensleeve]

You don't see everyone running around playing Magus in Pathfinder. You don't see everyone running around playing Eldritch Knight in NWN2. You don't see anyone at all running around playing Fighter/mage in IWD2. Why would including mages who can also fight in PE automatically mean that no one would play anything else? It's all about balance, and it seems as though a lot of posters here just assume that what this means is that this character is as good as a fighter, and as good as a mage, whereas in reality the character is less good if both sides are compared individually, and very different but still on par with the others when the two sides are taken together. 

[Bhazor]

Which means he would have to be a gimped mage and a gimped fighter. A role that is already filled by the Ranger, Cleric/Paladin and Monk classes in D&D.

[Greensleeve]

Which means he would have to be a gimped mage and a gimped fighter. A role that is already filled by the Ranger, Cleric/Paladin and Monk classes in D&D.

 

Eh... No. Not at all. Very few computer games do this archetype properly, but look at table-top RPGs. Pathfinder has the Magus. D&D 3.5 has a bajilion variations on it, but the purest would be the Duskblade. None of which is a gimped mage and a gimped fighter. They are something unique in nature, fighting in a way that the other classes don't. Which is how it should be. 

[Micamo]

Which means he would have to be a gimped mage and a gimped fighter. A role that is already filled by the Ranger, Cleric/Paladin and Monk classes in D&D.

Eh, good game design can avoid that problem and make gishes that are balanced with pure mages and pure fighters. The problem in D&D is trying to gish means you have to delay your spellcasting progression: Something that's utterly crippling because a new spell level gives you access to so much more power and flexibility that there's almost nothing that could possibly be worth giving it up: If you're ECL 7 and you don't have 4th level spells, you're pretty much strictly inferior anything that does. It's why playing races (or templates) with level adjustment or taking PrCs that don't give full casting is almost always a bad deal for a caster character (the exception is when you're doing something utterly ludicrous like dragonwrought kobold, and if your DM allows those he's either on crack or utterly sadistic). The best gish builds in D&D are the ones that don't actually take non-caster levels at all, they just walk around with huge buffs on themselves all day.

 

Unfortunately they're apparently keeping per-day limits and spell levels in Eternity, so there's a big danger of running into the exact same design trap. My suggestion: Make gishes give up a number of spells per day in exchange for their martial abilities, rather than have to deal with delayed spell access.

[Stiler]

Specialisation, he's neither as well trained in swordsmanship as the fighter or as well honed in the arcane arts as the wizard. Yes he can mix the two to achieve victory, but individually his skillset will suffer from not pursuing one path to the exclusion of all others. I'm not insisting the theoretical gentleman be gimped, the opposite in fact, i'm arguing that a character should have a limited skillset and either be a jack of all trades, or a master of one. A matter of equilibrium if you will.

 

Edit: Please lord no Jedi, Star Wars isn't exactly something that should be used as inspiration.

 

You keep looking at it as though the class has to be taken from the warrior and mage and rolled into a new character using those same skillsets.  imo  a good hybrid would be NEITHER a warrior nor a mage, but a class that is different from both, neither a "terrible warrior" or "worse mage" but a class that in it's own regard is different from BOTH with unique skillsets to that specific  class that makes him different from both a regular warrior/mage and makes his class stand on it's on, balanced of course.

I was simply using Jedi as something that (I assume most) people have seen and could "picture" when I talk about the types of abilities a magic using warrior "could" use, how different a Jedi fights with his weapons vs a regular swordsman because of their access to the force, though a magic using warrior in PE can be something quite different, I was merely using it as an "example."

 

 

And where exactly does the traditional fighter fit into all this? What's the point of having a warrior when an arcane warrior can fight just as well as them and have magic powers on top of those skills?

 

Talking of Jedi, they're the reason pen and paper Star Wars RPG's are so one sided with everybody playing a Jedi.

 

 

It's not about being "better," but something different.

 

A warrior for example, could have better access to using all weapons (IE axes, swords, shields, etc) as well as unique combat skills of their own, perhaps the warriors are better at taking damage (whereas the arcane fencers are better at avoiding damage, IE a type of magic teleportation/planeshifting that allows them to dodge attacks).

 

I don't think anyone is asking for this kind of class to be the "best warrior and mage ever!" but rather to simply stand on it's own and be different/unique.

 

I mean a mage is squishy, stands at the back and shoots fireballs/nukes the hell out of things, doing massive damage, etc. Whereas the Arcane Fencer is more about melee combat while using his magic to help him within that type of thing, wearing armour and things a warrior would use. It should play completely different then a regular "mage."

 

 

For example, using Dragon Age: Origins again, you were able to learn 3 classes in total, could be a straight up warrior/berserker or go arcane warrior, both were good in their own regard , neither was the "best" but both offered very different playstyles and advantages/disadvantages.

 

Why would people play a warrior over an Arcane Fencer? The same reason some people play a mage over a knight, or a rogue over a cleric, variety and the types of things that appeal to him.

 

 

Which means he would have to be a gimped mage and a gimped fighter. A role that is already filled by the Ranger, Cleric/Paladin and Monk classes in D&D.

 

As I've pointed out in previous comments, you don't need to look at him as a "gimped warrior/mage" rather just a unique class in of itself.

 

You mention a Cleric in D&D, you ever play one? Clerics are GREAT warriors and offer advantages over rolling straight up fighters, they are able to wear armour and do decent damage, they don't feel "gimped" in any way really and they aren't just "mages" in armour either.

 

(At least in 3.5 D&D).

[Aldereth]

If this were the Torment: Tides of Numenera board and this got implemented in game just for the cool factor, Colin McComb might have to make another apology video for Spellsword Mk II.

 

It's going to be superhard to balance in a party base game as the concept itself is more suited to the Superhero protagonist. That's why it work with Witcher.

[Greensleeve]

If this were the Torment: Tides of Numenera board and this got implemented in game just for the cool factor, Colin McComb might have to make another apology video for Spellsword Mk II.

 

It's going to be superhard to balance in a party base game as the concept itself is more suited to the Superhero protagonist. That's why it work with Witcher.

 

Not really. There are plenty of examples where the concept has been very well balanced. The Magus and the Duskblade being prime examples. 

[Lephys]

The first thing I thought of was a Wizard traveling door-to-door to see if people want to enclose their backyards. Does that make me strange? o_O

 

But really, a barrier-focused Mage would rock. 8D

 

Also, though I really like the idea of the scene/caster described in the OP, I'm not foreseeing that level of control or perspective in P:E.

 

I definitely think there should be a lot more interesting things to do with your magic, though. And, that kinda makes me think: Having your weapon sort of be a conduit through which you can cast would be a good change for a "battlemage" (sword-mage). Instead of just magically making yourself physically awesome with weapons, and also happening to toss some spells here and there that don't have much to do with weapons, what if there was an ENTIRE specialization of magic that focused on your weapon? So, you train (with regular old skill) with your weapons, JUST enough to allow you to properly wield them, and get them stuck in things sometimes (maybe with the help of the tactical magical diversions that create openings for you). Then, your weapon is MAGICALLY more effectively going to do awesome and destructive things to that entity, since you got your focus lodged into the enemy.

 

Next thought: ARCANE ARCHER! 8D

Edited June 3, 2013 by Lephys

[Eiphel]

 And, that kinda makes me think: Having your weapon sort of be a conduit through which you can cast would be a good change for a "battlemage" (sword-mage). Instead of just magically making yourself physically awesome with weapons, and also happening to toss some spells here and there that don't have much to do with weapons, what if there was an ENTIRE specialization of magic that focused on your weapon? So, you train (with regular old skill) with your weapons, JUST enough to allow you to properly wield them, and get them stuck in things sometimes (maybe with the help of the tactical magical diversions that create openings for you). Then, your weapon is MAGICALLY more effectively going to do awesome and destructive things to that entity, since you got your focus lodged into the enemy.

This is pretty much the exact idea behind the Magus in Pathfinder.

[Lephys]

This is pretty much the exact idea behind the Magus in Pathfinder.

Awesome! I'm actually in a Pathfinder campaign right now (we're only level 2) as a Wizard. I take it Magus is a prestige class?

[Eiphel]

 

This is pretty much the exact idea behind the Magus in Pathfinder.

Awesome! I'm actually in a Pathfinder campaign right now (we're only level 2) as a Wizard. I take it Magus is a prestige class?

 

It's a base class. https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/classes/base-classes/magus

[Lephys]

It's a base class. https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/classes/base-classes/magus

Ohhhhhh. They're not part of the Core Rulebook. Heh. We're restricted to the Core Rulebook for this campaign, as the DM is a bit new, and the group's a bit large. He wanted to narrow the scope of all the possible things he needed to deal with and look up, so as not to postpone our campaign for several weeks, AND to limit all the stuff the new people needed to learn for their own character creation, and about the rest of the party's characters. 8P

 

Good stuff, though!

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Something along the lines of D&D 3.5s Tome of Battle, please. Gimme that sweet weeaboo fightin' magic!

 

Seriously, a warrior-mage character based around a supernatural martial art would be cool. No, I don't mean D&D monks, using bare fists and zen abilities, and I don't mean some sort of anime ninja-samurai whatever. A `Martial Art` or `School of Combat` isn't an idea that only ever occurred to people east of the Mediterranean. There are countless western martial arts to take inspiration from, and all you need to do is attach a bit of soulfire to the sword occasionally.

 

In fact, I think this should be a possible monk build in PE, using the monk's wound and soul abilities to empower melee weapon attacks. The advantage here is your ability to cause massive damage and disruption to your enemies with these abilities. However, it's a risky strategy: using a weapon instead of bare hands means you're much worse at getting rid of wounds than a typical monk, so if things start going south, they go south a lot harder.

 

So, arcane fencer as danger monk - thoughts?

[Nonek]

Danger Monk erm I prefer a Dangermouse, because he's terrific, he's magnific. He's the greatest superhero in the world. Dangermouse, powerhouse. He's the fastest, he's the quickest, he's the best. Dangermouse.

[Jarmo]

Original D&D had all elves be battlemages, full armor, full combat capabilities and spells.

Balanced by slower level progression, lower max level and less hit points.

 

D&D 3.0 and 3.5 can also make it work. ToEE particularly had those nifty elven chains that gave good AC and low spell failure.

Take a couple of fighter levels and a whole bunch of wizard, works like charm.

 

Fully buffed: dexterity, strength, AC and resistances through the roof, sword flaming and stoneskin for damage reduction,

a fighter mage can go toe-to-toe with a fighter of similar level and can open up with a fireball! Totally awesome.

 

But that's as long as the buffs have duration and as long as you can take 10 rounds to apply them before the fight.

Fighter is ready from the get go and his strength doesn't disappear in a minute.

 

In the end. A wizard + a fighter make for a more effective combo than two fighter mages.

The wizard buffs up the fighter, stands back and lobs those high level spells.

 

But a fighter mage can be more versatile and capable alone, than either a wizard or a warrior. Depending on stuff.

 

 

Anyway.

So far as I know, I like the wizard in plate thing PE seems to be offering.