PDA

View Full Version : Why do "Fighting Mages" not work?



Yora
2012-03-25, 02:19 PM
I was doing some thinking about the subject of charcter class archetypes and came to the conclusion, that "fighting mages" don't work:

Assume, like most RPGs, the tree basic character types warrior, thief, and mage. D&D with its cleric and druid is the only example I know in which priests are very different from mages, but pretty much everything else follows these three principles.
Now if we combine the classes with each other ata 2:1 ratio, we also get the "magic warrior", "skilled warrior", "fighting thief", "magic thief", "skilled mage", and the "fighting mage". And even a "skilled magic warrior" if you want.

Now all these cases make sense for RPG characters and there are lots of examples for them in fiction. Jedi would be "magic warriors", rangers would be "skilled warriors", and so on. For the "skilled magic warrior" I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists.

Except the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting. Now a spellcaster with added skills in sneaking and knives is not such a bad idea. Also adding some magic to a warrior also works well. But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything. One could argue that D&D clerics and druids are primary spellcasters with added weapons and armor, but they are good because they have no drawback to their spellcasting in 3rd Ed. and also gave us CoDzilla. If you reduce your spellcasting power a bit to complement it with combat capability, it ends up a total waste.

So yeah. Do you think there's a reason why that combination is the only one that doesn't work well, is it just coincidence, or is there something I've completely overlooked?
But I really can't think of any example of characters who are spellcasters but also swing a sword around while getting some synergy from it. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

hamishspence
2012-03-25, 02:33 PM
Except the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting. Now a spellcaster with added skills in sneaking and knives is not such a bad idea. Also adding some magic to a warrior also works well. But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything. One could argue that D&D clerics and druids are primary spellcasters with added weapons and armor, but they are good because they have no drawback to their spellcasting in 3rd Ed. and also gave us CoDzilla. If you reduce your spellcasting power a bit to complement it with combat capability, it ends up a total waste.

So yeah. Do you think there's a reason why that combination is the only one that doesn't work well, is it just coincidence, or is there something I've completely overlooked?
But I really can't think of any example of characters who are spellcasters but also swing a sword around while getting some synergy from it. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

Duskblades? Though their magical abilities are significantly more limited.

4E swordmages might fit.

Spiryt
2012-03-25, 02:34 PM
Personally, I would say that it's because archetypes like that have obviously very limited use.

Magic is completely fictional, and 'fighting stuff' in most fantasy settings is mostly to completely fictional too - people swing swords and stuff, but it doesn't have much to do with reality we know.

Thus, with 'rules' being different everywhere, it's hard to even come with such distinctions....


Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

Yet he still 'mage' to the boot, from very definition, and can kill stuff with sword better than most population.

What does that make him?


I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists.

Save the very first Witcher story, Witchers magic was extremely limited, so hard to really call them 'magic' - although it definitely was there.

On the other hand, main villain of Witchers Saga, Vilgefortz, powerful mage, beat the hell out of Geralt in very traditional way, with iron staff.

Likely a lot of his prowess, reactions, and obviously the staff itself were magic born, but still fact is fact. Hard to set a clear boundary here as well.

Grinner
2012-03-25, 03:27 PM
In order to derive any benefit from introducing a new archetype into a character, the abilities of each must by synergistic.

In the case of the mystic warrior, he can augment his blows with magic and ward himself against enemies of every stripe while still maintaining his role.

However, the typical arcane spellcaster is usually given the role of "Lord Fireball, Evoker Most High". Because he normally operates behind the safety of the party's meatshield, his abilities are not synergistic with that of the warrior.

So, if you want an effective Fighting Mage, you'll need to change his focus entirely.


Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

He most certainly does! I mean, not very often, but the pent-up badassery is evident when he does.... :smallwink:

Coidzor
2012-03-25, 03:50 PM
Because unless you're fighting with magic you're either fighting or doing magic and your paradigm of conceptualizing the universe automatically says that fighting with magic is just fighting.

TheOOB
2012-03-25, 05:04 PM
There are a few reasons that warrior mages don't usually work that well. The first is that as a general rule, with rare exception, magic using classes start off weak but gain rapidly in power, whereas fighting classes tend to start off strong and advance at a steady rate until they are overtaken by spellcasters.

See Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards)

This is partly a balance thing, game systems will "balance" a powerful magic by making magic users suck early on, even though that creates the exact opposite of balance. Further, most game designers like to make more and more powerful spells as characters progress in power, while warriors tend to just get steadily high numbers, rarely getting special abilities.

What this means for multiclass characters is that mixing the two rarely makes sense. You see, in D&D, for example, each level of Wizard is better than the last, while each level of fighter is pretty much the same. That means that the more levels of wizard you have, the more you are giving up for a few fighter levels, and the more levels of fighter you have the more levels of wizard you have to take for them to start being relevant.

Another issue is why divine/fighter combos work better than mage/fighter combos. You see, most systems give your character one action a round. During this action, you can either attack, or cast a spell. For a divine/fighter character this works, your spells are mostly buffs and healing, and your damage comes from your attacks, however arcane/fighter characters have some problems. Since both their spells and their attacks focus on eliminating enemies, they are kind of redundant. You will almost always be better at one than the other, so why would you use the one your worse at? And if you aren't going to use it, why take those levels at all?

jaybird
2012-03-25, 05:11 PM
Sorcerer/Paladin/Abjurant Champion (3.5) or Synthesist/Paladin (PF) work scarily well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...

navar100
2012-03-25, 05:15 PM
I'm not seeing what you're looking for since they do work. 3E has Duskblade and Abjurant Champion among the better choices. Pathfinder has Magus and its version of Eldritch Disciple is wholly better than 3E if not perfect in its own right.

If you're stuck on the notion that spellcasting is oh so superior to everything then there's no helping you find what you're looking for. If you can't stand not having 9th level spells by level 20 and/or not having caster level equal character level (Abjurant Champion builds can have both) then there's no satisfying you.

Of course, this is assuming 3E D&D. Other systems may provide what you're looking for. Being a Jedi for one. GURPS possibly, even with the standard 100 point build.

Grinner
2012-03-25, 05:41 PM
I'm not seeing what you're looking for since they do work. 3E has Duskblade and Abjurant Champion among the better choices. Pathfinder has Magus and its version of Eldritch Disciple is wholly better than 3E if not perfect in its own right.

If you're stuck on the notion that spellcasting is oh so superior to everything then there's no helping you find what you're looking for. If you can't stand not having 9th level spells by level 20 and/or not having caster level equal character level (Abjurant Champion builds can have both) then there's no satisfying you.

Of course, this is assuming 3E D&D. Other systems may provide what you're looking for. Being a Jedi for one. GURPS possibly, even with the standard 100 point build.

I think she's talking about a character that's less "Tricked-out Warrior", and more "Mage-with-a-Sword". I could be misreading your post though...

Edit: Also, I could be wrong, but doesn't the Daggerspell Mage fit these criteria?

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-25, 05:43 PM
The difficulty here is that "Fighting with magic" still tends to be really recognizable as "Fighting"

The monk who punches and the monk who Fire Punches have more in common with each other than the Wizard who just burns the enemy from afar, both in terms of combat capabilities and visually.

The idea of someone that's mostly a wizard who does just a little fighting doesn't really make sense because once you have Firey Laser, Firey Laser And A Kick In The Shins seems superfluous.

cattoy
2012-03-25, 06:00 PM
They work just fine - if you're willing to play something other than D&D.

Heck, in some game systems, they're so good, they're pretty much broken.

Coidzor
2012-03-25, 06:00 PM
The difficulty here is that "Fighting with magic" still tends to be really recognizable as "Fighting"

The monk who punches and the monk who Fire Punches have more in common with each other than the Wizard who just burns the enemy from afar, both in terms of combat capabilities and visually.

The idea of someone that's mostly a wizard who does just a little fighting doesn't really make sense because once you have Firey Laser, Firey Laser And A Kick In The Shins seems superfluous.

Indeed, the only thing I could think of that would seem to qualify at all would be to do something ToBish and have techniques that one could use with spells to have the spell effect and then do something else at the same time.

CGforever!
2012-03-25, 06:14 PM
So, what you're saying is that a warrior/thief complements his skills with combat ability and his combat ability with skills, but the warrior/mage doesn't complement his magic with combat ability, just his combat ability with magic.

That's almost exclusively correct. Taking a level of fighter for proficiencies, a fort boost, and a feat could conceivably be useful if a mage has some spells that are best used close up, but why not just be a mage that is better from afar?

There are two main types of mage/warriors - duskblades (hit with weapon and spell at the same time) and gish (hit with magic OR spell, possibly combining them with certain spells). Gish have to deal with the whole quadratic mages/linear warriors thing as much as anyone, they lose power for some fall-back ability - not a great thing. Eldritch Knight is probably the "safest" since you lose so little mage-ness, and I hear abjurant champion kicks all kinds of ass (though I don't know much about it).

You know what gish doesn't suck? The swiftblade. If there were more classes like that - that truly combine spellcasting and warrior ability, then D&D wouldn't have this problem.

Heliomance
2012-03-25, 07:25 PM
Pretty much every single character in the anime Fairy Tail is a fighting mage.

claricorp
2012-03-25, 07:31 PM
A great example(IMO) of a fighting mage is the magus from pathfinder.

Lord Raziere
2012-03-25, 08:14 PM
hmmmm….

well, a fighter is a guy who uses weapons to fight up close

a mage is a guy who uses magic to blast from afar.

a magic fighter is a guy who uses magic to enhance his close up fighting style.

therefore a fighting mage, is a guy who uses weaponry to enhance his magic to fight from afar.

therefore, a fighting mage, is a magical archer.

Grinner
2012-03-25, 08:24 PM
therefore, a fighting mage, is a magical archer.

I applaud your genius.

Knaight
2012-03-25, 10:16 PM
Fighting mages work just fine in most classless systems*. They work even better in classless systems where magic isn't necessarily hugely useful in a combat situation, which makes them largely mages who happen to use a spear or sword or whatever if they actually get pushed into magic.

*This only includes generic and fantasy specific systems.

Thiyr
2012-03-25, 10:29 PM
From what I've read in the series so far (halfway through it), 99.9% of humans that fight in the Codex Alera series would fit as potential "Fighting Mages" of one sort or another. Biggest case of this though would probably be windcrafters. Wind giving you flight and manipulation of air currents is big, so big. It's a ton of what they do. Combat is trying to cut out the airflow of your opponent can still fly...or to do a flyby and just knife them.

Outside of this, the big cases are where magic is either immensely taxing or likely going to cause friendly fire. If your options are "in an open area torch the enemy", "in an enclosed area, torch your enemies, allies, and everything else around" or "stab it with a sword", sword becomes an important option to be proficient with, even if your primary job is supposed to be "magical ranged artillery". Pretty much, its when magic -can't- solve every problem, or is less efficient/safe than to use non-magical means.

Zaydos
2012-03-25, 10:34 PM
Clerics and druids have always been fighting mages, and always been one of the strongest classes, even though their magic took a significant hit compared to wizards till 3e (Red Box they didn't even get spells till 2nd level) so your reason for discounting them only applies in 3e and seems rather arbitrary even then (as arcane spells tend to be better). That and eldritch knight, or better yet Abjurant Champion, can totally fit your listed criteria for a fighting mage. Or the transmuter who uses Polymorph/Shapechange for their insanely powerful defensive buffs and the fact that they allow him to fight should he have to. Not all gishes rely on melee first and magic second. 2e also had elves which would be Fighter/Wizards and as they couldn't wear armor those tended to be more mage than fighter when I saw them.

In RPGs you can easily make them in GURPS, and I'm not familiar with many non-D&D systems. What little I know about non-D&D systems these seem fairly prevalent. The thing is generally a fighting mage is a mage until magic won't help them and then they show what fighting skill they have.

In media Rand al'Thor is primarily a mage, but that doesn't stop him from being a skilled swordsman and knowing when to fallback on it.
And Harry Dresden, haven't read many of the books but he's definitely primarily a mage but knows when to just shoot a gun or punch his way through things.

So really I'm not seeing it.

HunterOfJello
2012-03-25, 11:01 PM
A true "Fighting Mage" would use magic and attack with a sword as the same action. This is the sort of thing you see it lots of fantasy games and fighting games. In d&d, those two actions rarely occur at the same time. The majority of classes and builds that use both fighting and magic do so one at a time. That is the reason that the "Fighting Mage" does not occur properly in 3.5 .

The exception to this and the alternate solution that was created, is the Swordsage. The swordsage uses magic and attacks at the same time in a single action. The melee attack is magic and the magic is a melee attack. This creates a type of Gish feeling that is lacking in almost all other builds.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-25, 11:08 PM
Assume, like most RPGs, the tree basic character types warrior, thief, and mage. D&D with its cleric and druid is the only example I know in which priests are very different from mages, but pretty much everything else follows these three principles.Hmm, I don't think that "three principles" bit holds true in classless systems. :smallconfused:

Also, Exalted's priests are very different from mages. :smallamused:


Now all these cases make sense for RPG characters and there are lots of examples for them in fiction. Jedi would be "magic warriors", rangers would be "skilled warriors", and so on. For the "skilled magic warrior" I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists.How about the Exalted? :smallamused:


Except the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting.I hate to hammer on this again and again, but I've seen it done well enough in classless systems like Shadowrun and Exalted; in fact, they're gonna be some of your most heavily-armored characters, because in Shadowrun, mages are gonna want to avoid cyber and/or bioware, and in Exalted, magic doesn't give a damn if you're wearing armor or not, and you're still going to want to be able to do magic kung-fu.

Speaking of magic kung-fu, if I recall correctly, didn't the oWoD Mages have a Tradition, the Akashic Brotherhood, that had their own specific brand of magic fighting arts? :smallconfused:


But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything.Sure it does! It just depends on how the system presents it.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-03-25, 11:22 PM
Haven't read the entire thread, but wouldn't the archetype synergy and usability depend entirely of what rules magic follows in a specific setting?

If you have a setting where magic can only affect objects/people you physically touch magic becomes a great addon for certain classes, if it can only do large scale, fairly uncontrolled damage giving the mage a ranged weapon is a pretty good idea. If you can only manage a limited amount of magic per day a weapon to compensate makes sense.

The problem is D&D don't really support it unless you get some very specific classes or builds, but in general there's nothing saying things can't work well with each other if you start to look at the world a character will exist in and not just the archetypes.

Starbuck_II
2012-03-25, 11:25 PM
Well, 2E the Armor spell doesn't have a Duration (AC 6, so +4 AC as Armor worked backwards from 10).
Heck, it lasts till you take 8 + caster level damage.
Which means it lasts a really long time (as 9 damage at 1st kills you)

Clerics didn't have a restriction on weapons being blunt only some did. The book even goes into how War Clerics should be able to use swords, etc.

So a Cleric/Mage or a Druid/Mage can be like Gandalf.
Or if 1/2 Elf: Fighter/Mage/Druid (or Cleric) can fight like the best of them.
Best part of fighter is specialization bonus for Darts (3/1 rate of fire becomes 4/1) or making weapon go ffrom 1/1rd to 2 attk/rd.

Jedi are totally Fighting Mages or Magic warriors. Depending on how they are speced. Luke if a Magic Warrior with a minor in fighting magery, but Emperor is a Fighting age with a minor in mage warrior.

Excession
2012-03-25, 11:57 PM
I think 4e has plenty of "Fighting Mage" support. Some builds of Wizard, Warlock, Invoker, Sorcerer and more will all be found mixing it up in the front lines. Sometimes in heavier than expected armour and swinging a superior weapon. Close blast and burst spells, spells to buff defenses, and spells to punish enemies that hit them are their building blocks. Why should the warrior types get all the front-line fun; that's where all the monsters are!

That Dwarf with hide armour, a massive warhammer, more HP than the Paladin, a glowing aura of hellfire, and a pile of corpses at his feet? Quite possibly a Warlock.

Yora
2012-03-26, 12:43 AM
Without having played it, D&D 4th Edition might not be a good example, since all classes work with powers anyway, from what I have heared. The difference appears to be in the fluff text, but the mechanics for hitting with a sword or using a spell are the same. So I have heard.

Most examples given here appear to me like "a weapon comes in handy, when you can't use magic". Which is true, but also holds for the D&D wizard who runs out of spells and uses his sling or crossbow, just to not be standing around and doing nothing. With only rudimentary experiences with Shadowrun, this seems to be the case there as well.

bloodtide
2012-03-26, 01:24 AM
Why don't fighting mages work? What exactly is a fighting mage to you?

Ive seen plenty for D&D....a minatuar wizard that charges into battle with delayed or quicked spells. So cast delay lightning bolt 1 round, charge foe and zap lighting bolt.

You mentioned a wizard with armor? Well, that is easy. You can make a fighter mage no problem. Fighter is a great class for mages types, it gives them BAB and combat feats that apply to spells.

Are you 'just' talking about blaster type mages? As a fighter/transmuter type can sure buff up before battle, as can many other mages.

Mewtarthio
2012-03-26, 01:29 AM
A fighter with a minor in magic can use his magic to complement his fighting, say by lighting his sword on fire or blinking around the battlefield or whatnot. A mage with a minor in fighting, on the other hand, doesn't get to use his fighting abilities that often. Now, as a fictional character, that works fine: You end up with a character who's still a formidable opponent once you get past all his magical defenses.

For an RPG character, though, the builds have to have some semblance of balance. It's possible there's a system out there that explicitly caters to mage/fighter hybrids, but in most systems, a fighting mage cannot be obviously better than either a pure mage or a pure fighter. The magic fighter manages to get around that, in part because some systems (*cough* DnD) tend to err on the side of magic, but mostly because a magic fighter is significantly different from a pure fighter: A magic fighter has a new resource to manage (magic) and a whole host of different tactical options, and so could reasonably fill a different niche. A fighting mage, on the other hand, already does most of his work through magic, so fighting's more of a backup. Thus, to keep things "balanced," we end up with a mediocre mage who doubles as a mediocre fighter.

Yora
2012-03-26, 01:39 AM
Exactly. I only managed to salavage my barbarian/sorcerer by changing him to a ranger/sorcerer and go the sorcerer with skills route.

A warrior with magic is a warrior who can buff himself in most cases, and occasionally has some direct damage spells as well. This reduces his capabilities as a fighter, but it's compensated by the magic.
On the other hand, a spellcaster who lowers his ability to cast spells to be somewhat competent with a sword loses part of his power but doesn't gain anything to compensate. While there is a clear synergy effect in complementing a warrior with magic, there is no such effect when complementing a spellcaster with weapons. Either he has to stop using his mediocre spellcasting to use his poor swordfighting instead, or the weapon becomes a wand that is used to deliver a spell to the target.

In many cases, this is a neccessity, because often it is not expected that mages spend the whole adventure fighting enemies with spells all the time. In many cases, mages may even lack real combat capability and are merely utility spellcasters. In such a case giving them a crossbow or a pistol doesn't hurt. They are not really contributing to the offensive capability of the party when compared to the real warriors, but it's better than just watching.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-26, 01:43 AM
Exalted. Full stop.

Yora
2012-03-26, 01:47 AM
I don't know Exalted. Please enlighten us.

Knaight
2012-03-26, 01:50 AM
For an RPG character, though, the builds have to have some semblance of balance. It's possible there's a system out there that explicitly caters to mage/fighter hybrids, but in most systems, a fighting mage cannot be obviously better than either a pure mage or a pure fighter. The magic fighter manages to get around that, in part because some systems (*cough* DnD) tend to err on the side of magic, but mostly because a magic fighter is significantly different from a pure fighter: A magic fighter has a new resource to manage (magic) and a whole host of different tactical options, and so could reasonably fill a different niche. A fighting mage, on the other hand, already does most of his work through magic, so fighting's more of a backup. Thus, to keep things "balanced," we end up with a mediocre mage who doubles as a mediocre fighter.

You're assuming a fairly heavy, combat focused system. Plenty of systems don't fit this category at all. Others cater to fighting mages really well - take Qin, in which exorcists are mostly using spells, but can also take their enchanted willow sword to the various vengeful demons and spirits and beat them down every bit as well as an actual warrior (against another human with a weapon they can't do nearly as much).

bloodtide
2012-03-26, 01:50 AM
Either he has to stop using his mediocre spellcasting to use his poor swordfighting instead, or the weapon becomes a wand that is used to deliver a spell to the target.


So are you talking about a character that can cast a spell and hit with a melee weapon at the exact same time and do almost exactly the same effect 'power' wise?

So a character that did a shocking grasp claw attack, would that count or not? How about a vampric touch claw attack?

I guess your not talking about battlefeild control where they'd use a spell to say slow or hinder the foes and then pick them off with weapons.

Of course, I've never gotten the whole 'wizards are uber awesome' and 'fighters are crap weak' thing myself.

Sidmen
2012-03-26, 01:51 AM
This really seems like it depends entirely on the setting and/or rule system. The Fighting Mage exists in many systems - the Elder Scrolls universe, for example. Battlemages in this universe use their magic while wearing heavy armor, and when they run out of mana, they charge in with a mace to smite their weakened foes.

In the Exalted Universe, as well, the Fighting Mage is basically the default Mage type - he uses sorcery while his foes are at range, then switches to blades when they get in close (to do otherwise is suicide 90% of the time).

Fighting mages tend to not work when magic is scalled on a different scale from fighters. When magic is weaker, or at least comparable to Fighting there doesn't seem to be much of a problem in mixing it up.

Fatebreaker
2012-03-26, 01:58 AM
Exalted is an amazing game. The relevant bits for this thread are that it's a classless system where any character of any power uses essence (think mana) to perform superhuman feats of awesome called charms (special maneuvers). It doesn't matter whether you're doing calligraphy or swordplay, Exalted characters use essence to power their badassery. The most hardcore martial character is still a swordmage.

There is also sorcery, which is a step above charms, and even some of those spells are designed for close combat. There's one which turns you into a giant brass engine, where every single limb (including your tongue!) turns into a whirling implement of death! Even the mage-mages are likely to be supreme badasses in combat. One of my (sorcerer) players decided that the solution to a nigh-unkillable warrior encased in the best armor sorcery and smithery can make was to do some wacky gymnastics, handstand on its helmet, and transmute all of the armor into a living prison of molten hellfire. Very fighty, very magey.

There's an order of martial artists who punch reality until it rewrites itself.

It's an AWESOME game.

Yora
2012-03-26, 02:11 AM
In the Exalted Universe, as well, the Fighting Mage is basically the default Mage type - he uses sorcery while his foes are at range, then switches to blades when they get in close (to do otherwise is suicide 90% of the time).
Does Exalted have active defense? Because that's something that would make a lot of sense to me.
What I usually see is either mages who are so well protected and "have enough hit points" to just accept being stabbed while keeping on casting, or they somehow manage to stay back and not get attacked at all. But when "not getting hit" becomes a high priority, then decking out mages with armor and giving them a weapon to parry and kill enemies while unable to take a 3 second break to cast a spell, becomes a very sensible idea.

And maybe that's really the answer to the original question: Fighting mages don't work because in lots of RPGs and fiction, mages don't need to avoid getting hit. Weapons are a purely offensive tool that is inferior to attack spells and armor can be entirely repleced with long duration spells.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-26, 02:26 AM
Does Exalted have active defense?Sorta, yeah. I mean, technically, you have "defense values," but you're totally capable of activating Charms to boost these, and the Exalted even have (admittedly-costly) Charms that grant perfect defenses, such that you can parry a flung mountain range, or dodge a nuclear explosion.


Weapons are a purely offensive tool that is inferior to attack spells and armor can be entirely repleced with long duration spells.That's why Exalted has artifact weapons and armor available at character creation, representing indestructible armaments made of magical materials too heavy for mortals to wield.

Of course, even a fist or dagger's going to be a potent weapon when backed by offensive Charms like Fists of Iron Technique or Fire and Stones Strike.

Yora
2012-03-26, 02:37 AM
Sounds like everyone in exalted uses magic, so it probably wouldn't be a good example.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-26, 04:21 AM
Sounds like everyone in exalted uses magic, so it probably wouldn't be a good example.Well, not quite; the Exalted use magic, and even then, only for the traits that they purchase Charms for.

Gods, elementals demons, ghosts, Fair Folk, Dragon Kings, Primordials, hekatonkhires, enlightened mortals, and behemoths also either are magic, or use magic, or both.

Ordinary mortals are kinda screwed, I'll admit, but generally, you're not playing Exalted to be an ordinary mortal. :smalltongue:

For instance, I have a character who's an Exalted "scavenger lord," someone who goes and pillages magical ruins to make a profit. He's got supernatural dodging capabilities, supernatural persuasion capabilities, supernatural lock-picking capabilities, and even supernatural bureaucratic capabilities (hey, I gotta find a buyer for this stuff somehow...), but while he's skilled at throwing knives or punching someone, he's not got any magical capacity to do so.

Yuki Akuma
2012-03-26, 04:30 AM
Yet he still 'mage' to the boot, from very definition, and can kill stuff with sword better than most population.

What does that make him?

Gandalf is an angel.

Also, the main reason Sorcerers in Exalted switch to 'normal' combat magic at close range isn't because they can't defend themselves - they absolutely can. It's mostly because getting distracted from casting a spell has a tendency to make it explode violently.

Also also, it's not so much that "everyone uses magic" in Exalted. Everything is magic in Exalted. All of reality is formed of Essence, and the laws of physics are replaced with laws of magic.

In any other setting, a lot of Artifacts would be super-science (or even mundane-science) gadgets.

Spiryt
2012-03-26, 04:48 AM
Gandalf is an angel.


Or 'spirit' or 'power' or Maia, or however you call it....

At the end of the day, he summons the light, lightnings out of the blue, burns stuff up, sends the dreams far away to reach other dudes...

Seems magic enough, compared to the 'magickness level' of the world around him at least.

Yuki Akuma
2012-03-26, 05:16 AM
Or 'spirit' or 'power' or Maia, or however you call it....

At the end of the day, he summons the light, lightnings out of the blue, burns stuff up, sends the dreams far away to reach other dudes...

Seems magic enough, compared to the 'magickness level' of the world around him at least.

Yes but my point is, he's not really the same thing as a Generic Fantasy Wizard. In D&D terms, he's closer to being a Solar than anything else.

Sidmen
2012-03-26, 05:42 AM
Sounds like everyone in exalted uses magic, so it probably wouldn't be a good example.

I think of Charms more as Feats than as magic - sure, the explanation is "they use magic to do this", but it still boils down to "increase damage dealt by melee attacks by X". Sorcery is Exalted's "magic" analog.

The answer to the posed question is yes, exalted does have active defenses (in the form of charms) that cannot be used while casting spells. Since charms are your feats - you are pretty naked without them and only have your most basic defenses (which usually aren't enough to survive).

Autolykos
2012-03-26, 06:10 AM
What about mages focusing on touch spells? They need some way to get a solid BAB and survive for a while near enemies.

And for other systems, most mages I played in Shadowrun were kinda good shots with a pistol and wore a lot of body armor; FFBA under an armored jacket or designer armor is pretty much the standard once you can afford it. Add spell locks with "Increased Initiative +3" and "Armor", and you can kick ass like the sammy (especially if you use shotguns or SMGs instead of pistols). All of this comes relatively cheap, leaving more than enough room for utility spells.

Yora
2012-03-26, 06:17 AM
Isn't shadowrun also quite lethal?

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-26, 06:44 AM
I think of Charms more as Feats than as magic - sure, the explanation is "they use magic to do this", but it still boils down to "increase damage dealt by melee attacks by X".I'm going to have to disagree with you there; even the most basic stuff beyond the Excellencies are pretty darned supernatural.

Here's twenty examples straight out of the core book, with as few prerequisites as possible:
Open a lock by touching it. Dodge an attack that cannot be expected. Run at sixty miles per hour. Hit immaterial spirits, and deal aggravated damage to them. Regenerate someone's amputated limb. Throw a knife a tenth of a mile, or a javelin a fifth of a mile, and still hit the target. Carry around your own theme music and special effects. Compel a set of commands into someone by touching that person. Suffer no ill effects from even the nastiest of poisons or diseases. Suffer no ill effects from the worst environmental effects nature can throw at you, such as a volcanic eruption. Make something, be it a sword, a house, or a cake, without any tools whatsoever, four times faster than the guy who has tools. Instantly know when anyone's lying to you. Give people the equivalent of a full college education in one month. Balance on something as narrow as a single human hair, and keep your footing in even the worst earthquake. Make out the details of a commander's epaulets at five hundred yards' distance, at night. Be invisible just by standing still. Instantly know the real price of an object by picking it up. Copy a 5,000-page tome in a few hours. Conjure a magic warhorse out of nowhere. Navigate your ship perfectly through even the most difficult of naval passages.


Sorcery is Exalted's "magic" analog.Sorcery is one of Exalted's "magic" analogs; another is Charms.


Since charms are your feats - you are pretty naked without them and only have your most basic defenses (which usually aren't enough to survive).Are you aware of the newest errata out, Sidmen? It's very helpful in this regard; lethality's been toned down quite a bit.

EDIT: And yes, Yora, Shadowrun's pretty darn lethal.

erikun
2012-03-26, 07:52 AM
While I haven't read it yet, I believe Elric of Melbourne could fit the fighting-mage theme. So could just about any spellcaster who uses a sword focus, or whose staff is more than just a decorated twig. Urban fantasy has mages with guns, which kind of merge the fighting-mage and magic-warrior themes a bit... although they are more frequently spellcasters with a firearm than gun specialists with a few spells.

As for why? Because any reasonable non-god spellcaster is going to realize that an opponent might get close to them at some point, and not being completely defenseless is a good idea. Plus, such characters are generally channeling large amounts of arcane energies through their preferred focus; this generally makes it quite powerful, and so more than enough to cut through mundane doors or opponents. (Also, most spellcasters do not have D&D's absurd spell reserves at high levels, so conserving a spell by shooting someone in the face just makes good sense.)


As for D&D3 - since that seems to be the topic of conversation - there are a few fighting-mages present. Tashalatora characters give up little in exchange for good bonuses; the old 3.0 Duelist did the same for Intelligence classes. (3.5 Duelist limits the AC bonus to PrC class level, making it much less useful.) Charisma casters have several ways to boost AC and saves. Monk and Swordsage dips can benefit Wisdom-based casters, through Sacred Fist or even just a Monk's Belt. And let's not forget the Twilight Mithral Chain Shirt, Darkwood Buckler, and Defending Dagger that can grant a wizard a nice chunk on AC with no penality.

Tyndmyr
2012-03-26, 09:28 AM
They work just fine - if you're willing to play something other than D&D.

Heck, in some game systems, they're so good, they're pretty much broken.

This. Hell, in 7th sea, this is THE way to build mages, with pure mage being notably more unusual.

Skaven
2012-03-26, 09:34 AM
But I really can't think of any example of characters who are spellcasters but also swing a sword around while getting some synergy from it. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

He does in the books. He summons walls of fire etc against Worgs just from memory.

Particle_Man
2012-03-26, 10:09 AM
Well there are elves in 3.x D&D. They can be wizards with long sword proficiency right from level 1. There are feats that can be taken to reduce or negate arcane spellcasting failure chances.

You could also look to Basic/Expert D&D where the elf class is explicitly a fighter/magic-user (down to mixed level titles), or 1st/2nd ed AD&D where the elf can be a fighter/magic-user or fighter/wizard multi-class character.

Now does this sort of elf have any basis in non-D&D literature? I dunno.

Yuki Akuma
2012-03-26, 10:48 AM
He does in the books. He summons walls of fire etc against Worgs just from memory.

Technically that was a use of the Elven Ring of Fire. He's generally not allowed to use his personal supernatural powers, so most of the magic he uses is from the Ring.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-26, 10:54 AM
And maybe that's really the answer to the original question: Fighting mages don't work because in lots of RPGs and fiction, mages don't need to avoid getting hit. Weapons are a purely offensive tool that is inferior to attack spells and armor can be entirely repleced with long duration spells.

If by "lots of RPGs and fiction" you mean DND 3e, then yes.

Lapak
2012-03-26, 11:35 AM
To add to the 'yes, they do work' theme of the thread in general, even D&D 3.5 has workable MAGE/fighters. The Jade Phoenix Mage is definitely a magic-first class, but it has enough of a focus on fighting to definitely call it a secondary role for the class.

To go outside of tabletop RPGs and into CRPGs, the Mage/Fighter type with emphasis on the magic is one of the easiest builds to be successful with in the Elder Scrolls series. Nobody wants to mess with Divayth Fyr. (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Divayth_Fyr)

Waddacku
2012-03-26, 11:48 AM
The point (or at least a point) is, though, that in many of these examples the fighting role isn't actively supplementing the magic role, it's replacing it. The magic warrior boosts his combat prowess with spells, but the fighting mage equivalent would be one that boosts his spellcasting with his combat prowess, instead of switching between them.

I think one decent example here actually is the Arcane Archer PrC, in at least one regard. The Imbue Arrow ability lets the Arcane Archer improve his spells with his archery, by increasing their range or in some cases even giving a range to a spell normally centered on her.
For more 3.5 things, on the defensive side, casters dipping into ToB classes could qualify, with things like shoring up weak saves with Diamond Mind counters, for instance. Might still not feel particularly... Martial, though.

Telonius
2012-03-26, 12:03 PM
While I haven't read it yet, I believe Elric of Melbourne could fit the fighting-mage theme. So could just about any spellcaster who uses a sword focus, or whose staff is more than just a decorated twig. Urban fantasy has mages with guns, which kind of merge the fighting-mage and magic-warrior themes a bit... although they are more frequently spellcasters with a firearm than gun specialists with a few spells.


Elric was my first thought as well, but (at least from what Yora's saying) it might be more of a "fighter who enhances his stuff with magic." His fluff is really close to a Binder's as well, so it might not be that good of a comparison.

In order for a mage to really want to devote himself to any kind of a melee weapon, channeling the spell through the weapon would have to give some options that aren't already available in spell form. I think Daggerspell Mage tried to accomplish this, but the results weren't that terrific. Using something like a melee Warlock as a basis for design might be better. Warlock isn't exactly a mage, but it's fairly close and you don't have to deal quite as much with the loss of Ultimate Cosmic Power as you would with using Wizard as a base. A special PrC, feat chain, or Invocation progression that enhances Hideous Blow (to make it actually usable) or Eldritch Claw (to make them better) could do it.

Beleriphon
2012-03-26, 12:59 PM
There's always The Elder Scrolls games. I'm fond of the battle mages myself, and in Skyrim I'm building a pretty potent one handed/destruction character. Gotta say wading into battle throwing fireballs and hacking dudes up with an axe is pretty fun. Also, heavy armour is nice for this combo.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-26, 01:57 PM
As others have said, it depends on what you want out of your fighter/mage. A monk or ToB character is a good example of a "boost-myself-with-magic" type fighter-mage, especially the PF version with Ki pools and such. Spend a little magic, be able to jump far. Use personal magic to improve the striking power of your fists; spells and processes to enhance your awareness and avoid blows.

For the "spells with one hand, sword with the other", you generally have to go with a straight up fighter-mage... or, really, a cleric. Buff spells, debuff spells, decent fighting ability... the cleric really is the fighter/caster of the system.

Partysan
2012-03-26, 02:25 PM
It's a bit of a more difficult concept, since whenever you are using magic to fight it tends to register as "fighting".
I think one possible interpretation of the mage who knows fighting is one that gains a different way of thinking and using magic instead of actually doing a lot of melee, effectively arriving at a tactical control-attack mage. Another would be something like the benders from Avatar who are elementalists who use martial arts. Moving effectively might be useful for a mage as well, and reading opponent's body language is a typical martial application. And let's not forget that Harry Potter would have died earlier if not for his physical dodging skills.
Another way to arrive at a concept would be to use the magic fighter, then tone down the fighting and up the magic. Then we'd have someone who knows only basic fighting skills, but can buff themselves so much that they end up powerful, supplementing this with tactical application of other spells. Think Negi from Mahou Sensei Negima.
Someone who wears out an opponent with tactical magic an finishes them off by weapon would also be possible.

Divayth Fyr
2012-03-26, 02:39 PM
Technically that was a use of the Elven Ring of Fire. He's generally not allowed to use his personal supernatural powers, so most of the magic he uses is from the Ring.
Do we know for sure it was a power of the Ring? IIRC (though I didn't read some of Tolkien's other works) it never was stated whether he used spell or artifact.

Also, didn't Gandalf add some of his own magic when the river washed away the Nazgul (waves shaped like riders etc)? That definately doesn't seem like something connected with the ring of fire ;)

hamishspence
2012-03-26, 02:52 PM
In the novel Gandalf took on five of the Nazgul at Weathertop- the lights are visible from miles away and Aragorn and the hobbits wonder what's up.

In Moria Gandalf puts a "shutting spell" on the door, which the Balrog breaks- and he speaks a Word of Command as the door begins to open, causing a cave-in.

This is some time before the Balrog is revealed fully at the Bridge.

Stubbazubba
2012-03-26, 04:40 PM
The problem is with Wizards in D&D parlance already implying that they have access to a full range of offensive, utility, and to a lesser extent, defensive capabilities, while fighter-types get offensive and defensive bumps. The overlap makes the fighting capabilities irrelevant.

However, even from a clean slate, differentiating mage-fighter (Jedi, Nightcrawler stuff) and fighter-mage (??). The best thing I can think of is start with an A:TLA style bender and add on some armor and weapons; he uses physical means to evade or deflect enemy attacks, parrying lightning or fireballs with his magically-imbued sword, and primarily attacking with lightning, laser discs, earthquakes, etc. in return. Like what if fire-benders actually went to blows when they got close to each other, to repel each other and get back to good fire-bending range?

But at some point the line between fighter-mage and mage-fighter gets blurred a lot. Arbitrarily saying that the above character prefers using magic to attack and swords to defend instead of vice versa is kind of just that; an arbitrary distinction.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-26, 06:19 PM
To add to the 'yes, they do work' theme of the thread in general, even D&D 3.5 has workable MAGE/fighters. The Jade Phoenix Mage is definitely a magic-first class, but it has enough of a focus on fighting to definitely call it a secondary role for the class.

All the workable fighter/mage builds in DND 3e are gishes, though, which is pretty different from a fighting mage. A gish synergizes his magical and physical abilitiies - by using self-buffs, or casting spells and hitting enemies with one action. A fighting mage, as I understand it, is just a spellcaster who also uses weapons and maybe armor.

And while a fighting mage of this kind is a pretty bad build in DND 3e, it's a perfecly workable one in 4e, a very good one in AD&D/old DND, and most other RPGs at least let it work. It's also something that appears in stories a lot.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-26, 06:32 PM
All the workable fighter/mage builds in DND 3e are gishes, though, which is pretty different from a fighting mage. A gish synergizes his magical and physical abilitiies - by using self-buffs, or casting spells and hitting enemies with one action. A fighting mage, as I understand it, is just a spellcaster who also uses weapons and maybe armor.Ahh, okay; in that case, I once again reference my Exalted group. :smallbiggrin:

Our Twilight Caste is a sorcerer; his current repertoire of spells is as follows:

Death of Obsidian Butterflies: the caster shoots a spray of thousands of razored black glass butterflies, out to a hundred yards or so, with enough force to shred wood and score stone.
Summon Elemental: the caster summons an elemental and binds it, either to serve him for a lunar month, or to perform a given task for a year and a day.
Emerald Banishment: the caster banishes a demon of the first circle.
Wood Dragon's Claw: the caster transmutes his hands into wicked wooden claws that can deal devastating lethal damage.
Emerald Countermagic: the caster terminates a spell of the Emerald Circle or less.


In combat, he primarily uses a short daiklave, unless he can pull aside the time to cast Wood Dragon's Claw, or we're faced with enough enemies to warrant using Death of Obsidian Butterflies.

On that note, I dread the day he learns Magma Kraken. :smalleek:

Fatebreaker
2012-03-26, 06:36 PM
In combat, he primarily uses a short daiklave, unless he can pull aside the time to cast Wood Dragon's Claw, or we're faced with enough enemies to warrant using Death of Obsidian Butterflies

It's worth point out that a "short" daiklave is the kind of sharp implement which makes a bastard sword look like a bootknife.

Exalted sorcerers are brutal.

Yuki Akuma
2012-03-26, 06:36 PM
Our Twilight Caste is a sorcerer

Is there such a thing as a Twilight Caste who isn't a sorcerer? :smallwink:

Frozen_Feet
2012-03-26, 06:39 PM
Guys, guys, guys.

You're forgetting one classic type of character: Healer / White mage. The guy whose magic is only good for helping and improving others, not himself. Usually, these guys are wimpy in a fight, but in some games you can equip them with enough armor and weaponry so they can hold their own in combat.

Really, in my mind that's the distinction between a "Magic Fighter" and "Fighting Mage" - the former's magic is there to complement their fighting and destroying enemies, while the latter's magic is there for something entirely else and they need to use mundane means to hold up in a fight.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-26, 06:41 PM
It's worth point out that a "short" daiklave is the kind of sharp implement which makes a bastard sword look like a bootknife.Actually, a short daiklave's only three feet long; unattuned, it's comparable stat-wise to a chopping sword, but much heavier.


Is there such a thing as a Twilight Caste who isn't a sorcerer? :smallwink:Hard to believe, I know, but such things happen. :smalltongue:

Technically there had to have been non-sorcerer Twilights during the Primodial War, as it hadn't been invented yet.

Kalirren
2012-03-26, 06:44 PM
Fighting mages work just fine. Ever played a conjuration mage in Skyrim? It works. Conjuration/Restoration/Block/Smithing/One-handed/Marksmanship. Summon atronachs and zombies, then throw your strength against the enemy's weakness. You will prevail.

Why does it work? Because unlike in 3.5, the skills/powers system in Skyrim doesn't make it impossible for an integrated, magic-enhanced combat style to be pursued in earnest.

Lord Raziere
2012-03-26, 06:46 PM
whatever, you can all have your definitions, but I'm sticking to "magical archer" as a fighting mage, cause they enhance their sorcery using archery and ranged weapons. thats my definition, you can all have your own, whatever it may be…

fighting healer is something completely different, and so is healing fighter, rogue mage and mage rogue, to me.

erikun
2012-03-26, 07:45 PM
whatever, you can all have your definitions, but I'm sticking to "magical archer" as a fighting mage, cause they enhance their sorcery using archery and ranged weapons. thats my definition, you can all have your own, whatever it may be…
There's also magetanks, or fullblown spellcasters in heavy armor. I see them a lot on MMOs, either as a spellcaster that gets an armor proficiency tree or a melee-tank that gets its own magical attacks tree. (It is frequently the Paladin for the latter.)

WalkingTarget
2012-03-26, 08:05 PM
Do we know for sure it was a power of the Ring? IIRC (though I didn't read some of Tolkien's other works) it never was stated whether he used spell or artifact.

At the very least, Tolkien mentioned in a letter that Gandalf's use of fireworks was a result of his status as the bearer of the Ring of Fire. It follows (but is by no means definite based on this alone) that his other feats dealing with fire manipulation are also related. Olorin was associated with dreams; I don't see how that would lend itself to be so much of an expert with it (it's also worth keeping in mind that Gandalf was initially developed as a character, with pretty good fire manipulation abilities, before he was a Maia. The Hobbit wasn't really meant to be set in Arda originally - it just cribbed some background details from Tolkien's unpublished mythologies and it's possible that the Ring explanation was just a retcon. Who knows?).

Fatebreaker
2012-03-26, 08:38 PM
Actually, a short daiklave's only three feet long; unattuned, it's comparable stat-wise to a chopping sword, but much heavier.

Ah, my bad. I presumed you were using "short" as shorthand for stuff like the reaper or wavecleaver daiklaves, which while not as long a bastard sword are significantly thicker, wider, and generally oversized in other ways. I totally forgot that short daiklave was a thing! Thanks for the reminder!

Knaight
2012-03-26, 09:06 PM
If by "lots of RPGs and fiction" you mean DND 3e, then yes.

Let's be fair. It's also D&D 1e, 2e, and 4e, along with a whole host of blatant ripoffs.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-26, 09:27 PM
Guys, guys, guys.

You're forgetting one classic type of character: Healer / White mage. The guy whose magic is only good for helping and improving others, not himself. Usually, these guys are wimpy in a fight, but in some games you can equip them with enough armor and weaponry so they can hold their own in combat.

Really, in my mind that's the distinction between a "Magic Fighter" and "Fighting Mage" - the former's magic is there to complement their fighting and destroying enemies, while the latter's magic is there for something entirely else and they need to use mundane means to hold up in a fight.


For the "spells with one hand, sword with the other", you generally have to go with a straight up fighter-mage... or, really, a cleric. Buff spells, debuff spells, decent fighting ability... the cleric really is the fighter/caster of the system.

Not really...

Tengu_temp
2012-03-26, 10:01 PM
Is there such a thing as a Twilight Caste who isn't a sorcerer? :smallwink:

All the cool Twilights I've seen so far were not sorcerers.


Let's be fair. It's also D&D 1e, 2e, and 4e, along with a whole host of blatant ripoffs.

Not really. In those games, being a fighting mage can be effective and spells don't make weapons redundant. Unlike 3e.

MickJay
2012-03-26, 10:45 PM
Fighting mage works perfectly well in the (now somewhat venerable) Quest for Glory series of adventure/rpg hybrid games. Because of how character creation works, one can start with any of three basic classes (thief, magic user, fighter) and add skill(s) otherwise reserved for other classes, magic being the most versatile and potent. The Paladin (something of a 'prestige class') is essentially a fighter with some 'holy' magic (but retains all earlier skills), and the Paladin/Wizard combination is by far the post powerful. Synergy is fairly limited (works best in the 5th installment), but even before that the option to throw a few offensive spells before casting a one-shot damage enchantment on a weapon to finish an opponent off is not to be sneered at.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-26, 11:54 PM
Fighting mage works perfectly well in the (now somewhat venerable) Quest for Glory series of adventure/rpg hybrid games. Because of how character creation works, one can start with any of three basic classes (thief, magic user, fighter) and add skill(s) otherwise reserved for other classes, magic being the most versatile and potent. The Paladin (something of a 'prestige class') is essentially a fighter with some 'holy' magic (but retains all earlier skills), and the Paladin/Wizard combination is by far the post powerful. Synergy is fairly limited (works best in the 5th installment), but even before that the option to throw a few offensive spells before casting a one-shot damage enchantment on a weapon to finish an opponent off is not to be sneered at.

Real Heroes cast Zap before they even left the Katta's Tail Inn. :smallwink:

Sidmen
2012-03-27, 12:19 AM
whatever, you can all have your definitions, but I'm sticking to "magical archer" as a fighting mage, cause they enhance their sorcery using archery and ranged weapons. thats my definition, you can all have your own, whatever it may be…

fighting healer is something completely different, and so is healing fighter, rogue mage and mage rogue, to me.
That is ... not a definition... you just chose one of a hundred forms of fighting mages and, what? Decided that the others don't count?

Lord Raziere
2012-03-27, 12:36 AM
well there is two forms of fighting: ranged or melee. melee is already covered by magic fighters, who used magic to enhance their weaponry in melee. so I reasoned that fighting mages use ranged weaponry to enhance magical ranged attacks. there is no reason to use melee weapons to enhance ranged magical attacks, as there is no connection there that isn't just using a staff like a normal wizard to channel magic through.

while a wizard who knows how to wield a sword, is just a wizard who knows how to wield a sword. when they run out of magical energy, they don't become a "fighting mage" they switch from being a mage to being a plain fighter with less armor and training.

meanwhile a mage that fights while casting support spells is a fighting healer, we already have that.

therefore, a magical archer is a fighting mage. thats my definition, according to my logic.

Gensh
2012-03-27, 12:44 AM
therefore, a magical archer is a fighting mage. thats my definition, according to my logic.

I daresay this is likely the best explanation of a mage enhancing their abilities with weapons rather than the other way around. It's a matter of slight differences. Compare a swordsman who uses magic to be stronger and light his sword on fire - a magic fighter - with a wizard who uses an armor-piercing crossbow (any crossbow in a gritty setting) to create an improvised lightning rod and roasts his foe from the inside-out. It's a slight difference but a notable one.

Sidmen
2012-03-27, 02:32 AM
therefore, a magical archer is a fighting mage. thats my definition, according to my logic. But... What I'm missing is: what stops a Fighter who uses ranged weapons, and who uses magic to bolster himself from existing. I think that you are missing the differences in the combinations. A fighter-mage is a mage who uses fighting to supplement his magic ability. A mage-fighter is a fighter who uses magic to supplement his fighting ability.

Range simply doesn't enter the equation, and is really just an aesthetic choice. I'm not saying an Arcane Archer can't be a fighting mage, but they could also be a magical fighter, depending on which (the archery or the magic) is primary.

Fighting mages only really exist when the use of magic is limited in a meaningful way - DnD 3.5 doesn't do that, past a certain point you almost never run out of magic. When magic is limited, the fighting mage uses his weapons skills to handle weaker foes, or those weakened by his magics. A magical archer could be doing that - but so could a spell-slinging swordsman in plate armor.

Yora
2012-03-27, 05:58 AM
You're forgetting one classic type of character: Healer / White mage. The guy whose magic is only good for helping and improving others, not himself. Usually, these guys are wimpy in a fight, but in some games you can equip them with enough armor and weaponry so they can hold their own in combat.

Really, in my mind that's the distinction between a "Magic Fighter" and "Fighting Mage" - the former's magic is there to complement their fighting and destroying enemies, while the latter's magic is there for something entirely else and they need to use mundane means to hold up in a fight.
I think that's exatly the thing that got me wondering. In the games I am familiar with, there is no need for active defense and hit points and magic defenses are completely sufficient to keep a mage alive and they can cast spells while being attacked with almost no penalty.

If a mage needs to avoid being hit and can not make himself invulnerable with his spells, then you have a situation in which martial skill complements spellcasting and a mage with weapons and armor makes sense. You take a penalty to the power of your spells in exchange for an increased chance to successfuly cast your spells in the middle of combat. That is a situation in which a fighting mage works perfectly well and makes complete sense. Static defense scores and hit points make this benefit useless, so it becomes redundant to have any martial skill as well.

Waddacku
2012-03-27, 06:32 AM
But... What I'm missing is: what stops a Fighter who uses ranged weapons, and who uses magic to bolster himself from existing. I think that you are missing the differences in the combinations. A fighter-mage is a mage who uses fighting to supplement his magic ability. A mage-fighter is a fighter who uses magic to supplement his fighting ability.

Range simply doesn't enter the equation, and is really just an aesthetic choice. I'm not saying an Arcane Archer can't be a fighting mage, but they could also be a magical fighter, depending on which (the archery or the magic) is primary.
Nothing stops that fighter from existing, and the argument isn't that he doesn't. An archer using spells to enhance is archery is a magic warrior, a magic-user using bow and arrow to aid his spells is a fighting mage.
The former might (in 3.5 terms) be using spells like Arrowmind and Hunter's Eye. The latter might be using Arcane Archer's Imbue Arrow, or... Well, not a whole lot of other things come to mind, which is somewhat the point of the topic. Some spells require a solid connection between caster and target, you could do something with a arrow with a string on it. Things like that. Not a lot of space for it in 3e, but that's a system issue, not a concept one.

Lapak
2012-03-27, 08:26 AM
Yeah, I don't think I understand what some people are looking for from a mage/fighter as distinct from a fighter/mage here, even theoretically.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-27, 10:02 AM
All the cool Twilights I've seen so far were not sorcerers.How about medics? We had a recent incident in-game involving some necrotech baddies that made him decide to spontaneously sprout three dots of Medicine. :smalltongue:

On that note, Ailment-Rectifying Method is pretty awesome.

boomwolf
2012-03-27, 10:39 AM
The reason fighting mages does not work in PnP games is because of the action economy, you do either one or another, you opponents are polite and the nature of magic is usually more destructive/buffing then tactical.

Now, take a video game mechanic, lets use Mass Effect for example, as I recently played it.

Now, unless you are a PURE biotic (ME mages), your "magic" is not that effective at outright KILLING stuff (and even then, not as effective as a real gunslinger), and you want to fire your guns for kills, so why WOULD you be a mage-fighter? (mage-gunner actually) because they provide TACTICAL help, you can use them to suppress given enemies, lowering your amount of simultaneous enemies, take out the protective shields some enemies have, enhance your guns to have special effects, put up barriers to defend from enemy fire and even give an AoE attack centered on your if you get swarmed.
Guns CANT do that, so you want some "magic" to help you, but your go-to solution to combat remains the same-fill the bad guy with bullets.

The only place where fighting mages work is in game systems when the capabilities of fighters and mages are completely set apart, so the fighter-mage, while lacking the superior tactical power of the mage and being weaker in direct confrontation the a pure fighter has the ability to preform both, at rapid succession, switching as needed to adjust to the situation.

In PnP combat is just to similar, and magic usually covers all of the fighter's abilities anyway, so there is never a reason NOT to use magic.

Lhurgyof
2012-03-27, 11:00 AM
I was doing some thinking about the subject of charcter class archetypes and came to the conclusion, that "fighting mages" don't work:

Assume, like most RPGs, the tree basic character types warrior, thief, and mage. D&D with its cleric and druid is the only example I know in which priests are very different from mages, but pretty much everything else follows these three principles.
Now if we combine the classes with each other ata 2:1 ratio, we also get the "magic warrior", "skilled warrior", "fighting thief", "magic thief", "skilled mage", and the "fighting mage". And even a "skilled magic warrior" if you want.

Now all these cases make sense for RPG characters and there are lots of examples for them in fiction. Jedi would be "magic warriors", rangers would be "skilled warriors", and so on. For the "skilled magic warrior" I can really only think of The Witcher right now, but it exists.

Except the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting. Now a spellcaster with added skills in sneaking and knives is not such a bad idea. Also adding some magic to a warrior also works well. But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything. One could argue that D&D clerics and druids are primary spellcasters with added weapons and armor, but they are good because they have no drawback to their spellcasting in 3rd Ed. and also gave us CoDzilla. If you reduce your spellcasting power a bit to complement it with combat capability, it ends up a total waste.

So yeah. Do you think there's a reason why that combination is the only one that doesn't work well, is it just coincidence, or is there something I've completely overlooked?
But I really can't think of any example of characters who are spellcasters but also swing a sword around while getting some synergy from it. Yes, Gandalf has a sword, but he doesn't cast spells.

I wonder why there was no illustration for the ragemage... :smalltongue:

There's also classes like the duskblade who do indeed get benefits from using a weapon and using spells. It does exist in some games, but it's more of a niche class, I feel.

I'm almost positive I've been ninja'd by about three pages of posts, though.

Dimers
2012-03-27, 11:26 AM
In the games I am familiar with, there is no need for active defense and hit points and magic defenses are completely sufficient to keep a mage alive and they can cast spells while being attacked with almost no penalty. If a mage needs to avoid being hit and can not make himself invulnerable with his spells, then you have a situation in which martial skill complements spellcasting and a mage with weapons and armor makes sense.

For that, see GURPS. It makes a lot of sense to sink character points into armor and weapon use for a caster, unless you start out really high up in point value. Even then, it may turn out cheaper for the same effect, depending on the GM's rules on training and maintaining skill. It's just not sensible in a medium-power fantasy setting to make a character who relies entirely on magic; mundane skill dramatically improves defense. Offense, less so, but if you're putting points into weapon skill for a better Parry anyway, you can always use that to smack things once you're short on mana.

Yora
2012-03-27, 11:33 AM
There's also classes like the duskblade who do indeed get benefits from using a weapon and using spells. It does exist in some games, but it's more of a niche class, I feel.
But isn't a duskblade just a swordsman who charges his weapons with magic that adds an extra punch when the weapon hits?

Lhurgyof
2012-03-27, 11:36 AM
But isn't a duskblade just a swordsman who charges his weapons with magic that adds an extra punch when the weapon hits?

Yes, but it's still a caster/mage that gets better through use of armor and a weapon (and even kind of needs them to work right). Unless I'm not understanding what the OP wants. :I

Heliomance
2012-03-27, 11:41 AM
All the cool Twilights I've seen so far were not sorcerers.

Sorry, are you calling Misho Thrice-Radiant not cool?

Fatebreaker
2012-03-27, 11:56 AM
Sorry, are you calling Misho Thrice-Radiant not cool?

He knows magic science! (http://keychain.patternspider.net/archive/koc0109.html)

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-27, 06:07 PM
Yes, but it's still a caster/mage that gets better through use of armor and a weapon (and even kind of needs them to work right). Unless I'm not understanding what the OP wants. :I

Basically, it's a matter of which is the adjective: A magical fighter is a fighter that uses magic to fight better. A fighting mage is a mage that uses fighting to magic better-

Which is where a lot of people hit confusion. It's obvious that stabbing a guy is much more effective if the sword is on fire, or if you can teleport behind him and catch him flatfooted.

But how do you add stabbing to a fireball to get a BETTER fireball?

You know, if Magic weren't already completely overpowered in 3.5 I'd be tempted to add a prestige class that allows a wizard to bypass saves by successfully stabbing his opponent (sort of like how there's already a tradition that any spell that requires an attack roll doesn't require a save)

Lhurgyof
2012-03-27, 07:08 PM
Basically, it's a matter of which is the adjective: A magical fighter is a fighter that uses magic to fight better. A fighting mage is a mage that uses fighting to magic better-

Which is where a lot of people hit confusion. It's obvious that stabbing a guy is much more effective if the sword is on fire, or if you can teleport behind him and catch him flatfooted.

But how do you add stabbing to a fireball to get a BETTER fireball?

You know, if Magic weren't already completely overpowered in 3.5 I'd be tempted to add a prestige class that allows a wizard to bypass saves by successfully stabbing his opponent (sort of like how there's already a tradition that any spell that requires an attack roll doesn't require a save)

Can't the duskblade use his spells as a full attack though? Shocking grasp is much better 3+ times a round if you ask me. :smallconfused:

Hiro Protagonest
2012-03-27, 07:37 PM
Exalted is an amazing game. The relevant bits for this thread are that it's a classless system where any character of any power uses essence (think mana) to perform superhuman feats of awesome called charms (special maneuvers). It doesn't matter whether you're doing calligraphy or swordplay, Exalted characters use essence to power their badassery. The most hardcore martial character is still a swordmage.

There is also sorcery, which is a step above charms, and even some of those spells are designed for close combat. There's one which turns you into a giant brass engine, where every single limb (including your tongue!) turns into a whirling implement of death! Even the mage-mages are likely to be supreme badasses in combat. One of my (sorcerer) players decided that the solution to a nigh-unkillable warrior encased in the best armor sorcery and smithery can make was to do some wacky gymnastics, handstand on its helmet, and transmute all of the armor into a living prison of molten hellfire. Very fighty, very magey.

There's an order of martial artists who punch reality until it rewrites itself.

It's an AWESOME game.

Just don't break it. Too hard.

Seriously, Exalted is broken. For a duel in this forum, there's a Dawn Caste Solar (guy who focuses really hard on fighting) and a Slayer Caste Infernal (guy who focuses really hard on fighting). Equal experience. The Dawn rolls 27 dice for his Grand Daiklave, before any penalties, and the Slayer rolls 15 (think of it as a +20 bonus on attacks rolls versus a +10, and everyone gets Power Attack for free, and Power Attack retroactively). Yeah.


Can't the duskblade use his spells as a full attack though? Shocking grasp is much better 3+ times a round if you ask me. :smallconfused:

1. 3/4 BAB
2. It takes a high level to get it as a full attack, until then you can only do it as a single attack
3. It could just as easily be argued to be augmenting the sword, not the spell, especially since, as a spell, it might even be nerfed (touch attack >>>> normal attack)

Lhurgyof
2012-03-27, 08:40 PM
Just don't break it. Too hard.

Seriously, Exalted is broken. For a duel in this forum, there's a Dawn Caste Solar (guy who focuses really hard on fighting) and a Slayer Caste Infernal (guy who focuses really hard on fighting). Equal experience. The Dawn rolls 27 dice for his Grand Daiklave, before any penalties, and the Slayer rolls 15 (think of it as a +20 bonus on attacks rolls versus a +10, and everyone gets Power Attack for free, and Power Attack retroactively). Yeah.



1. 3/4 BAB
2. It takes a high level to get it as a full attack, until then you can only do it as a single attack
3. It could just as easily be argued to be augmenting the sword, not the spell, especially since, as a spell, it might even be nerfed (touch attack >>>> normal attack)

I guess so. I wasn't saying that it was perfect, but it's as close to the OP as I can see D&D 3.5 coming. :I

AmberVael
2012-03-27, 08:53 PM
One thing I want to say: Avatar.

If you want a "fighting mage" with an emphasis on mage, but where fighting certainly contributes and has a clear role, I cannot think of a better example than bending. The martial arts aspect to it gives the benders clear skills when it comes to combat, allowing them to use martial prowess and magic in one seemless whole. They might bend without fighting, or fight without bending, but using that martial skill and magical talent together, benders become something much more impressive- and also really cool.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-03-27, 09:01 PM
I guess so. I wasn't saying that it was perfect, but it's as close to the OP as I can see D&D 3.5 coming. :I

Psion/wilder/erudite can dip a level of fighter or crusader for heavy armor, then walk around in full plate. There's also mithral and Twilight to reduce ASF, and a wizard can walk around with a breastplate and heavy shield. Cleric/druid/archivist with the right spells (mainly a lot of summons, then buffs to use on yourself and the summons) can also do it. Just use Tenser's Transformation/Displacement/Mirror Image/Dimension Door/Contingency/Celerity/Divine Power/Righteous Might/Mighty Wallop/Greater Mighty Wallop/Wild Shape (with wilding clasps)+Greater Magic Fang/Shillelagh if the enemy gets anywhere near you.

A cloistered cleric (for knowledge skills and Knowledge Devotion) or archivist (you can still take Knowledge Devotion, and dip a level of cleric for Turning) with a staff can easily appear to be a conjurer-type, then when the enemy engages you in combat, you have Persistent Divine Power and Persistent Greater Mighty Wallop to pummel them.

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-27, 10:14 PM
One thing I want to say: Avatar.

If you want a "fighting mage" with an emphasis on mage, but where fighting certainly contributes and has a clear role, I cannot think of a better example than bending. The martial arts aspect to it gives the benders clear skills when it comes to combat, allowing them to use martial prowess and magic in one seemless whole. They might bend without fighting, or fight without bending, but using that martial skill and magical talent together, benders become something much more impressive- and also really cool.

This is a good point. They tend to spend more time flinging elements at each other than actually punching, but they're mobile enough that close combat actually happens and someone who didn't know martial arts would be at a disadvantage.

AmberVael
2012-03-27, 10:18 PM
Well, the real point is that their fighting skill directly adds to their bending skill as well. That fast speed punch applies just as directly to shooting fire from your fists as it does hitting someone in the face. Sure, you might not actually hit someone while bending, but the form is still there. The smoother and quicker you punch, the quicker and better your fire blast will be.

Yora
2012-03-28, 04:32 AM
Since fighting in Avatar is almost entirely unarmed and unarmored, it's difficult to make a clear distinction.
I'd say firebenders are warriors who add magic fire to their punches and kicks, or using it as a ranged weapon in the same way as guns.
On the other hand, waterbenders appear to be full mages, completely avoiding any physical impact. Their martial arts component is almost entirely dodging.

And with earthbenders I have no idea where to place them. Probably because they are so versatile. The Boulder! fights just like firebenders, while the Dai Li are much more like waterbenders in their style, prefering evasion and disabling enemies using the environment.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-28, 11:21 AM
Since fighting in Avatar is almost entirely unarmed and unarmored, it's difficult to make a clear distinction.Actually, most of the firebenders we see are armored (though they tend to go unnamed and serve the role of extras in combat).


On the other hand, waterbenders appear to be full mages, completely avoiding any physical impact. Their martial arts component is almost entirely dodging.I'm going to have to disagree with you there; their martial arts component is motion. When they control water, their motion is its motion.

Also, dodging is still totally an active defense.

Roderick_BR
2012-03-28, 11:39 AM
Sorcerer/Paladin/Abjurant Champion (3.5) or Synthesist/Paladin (PF) work scarily well, so I'm not sure what you're getting at...
One (complex) exception does not make the rest of the OP's point invalid, so I'm sure you know what people are getting at, yes. Fighter/Wizard multiclass still sucks, and, as pointed out, doesn't make much sense conceptually.
The duskblade is a notable exception as well, as it does allow you to save up on the action economy a bit, and allows you to use buffs. Outside D&D, though, you don't see much examples of fighting mages.

I have a few indications to comment:
* Link from Legend of Zelda: pretty much uses a few spells (often from artifacts) to get buffs/healing or for puzzles. Not much of a wizard.
* Negima: In this manga they define well two kinds of wizard, the caster type, your typical magical cannon, and the fighting one, that combines buffs with close combat. Note that these need to balance when they will attack normally, and when they need to stop and cast a stronger spell, in a minute-by-minute basis.
* Fairy Tail: In this manga, pretty much alll magic styles already have fighting included, and most buffs and normal casting are pre-battle, with a few minor buffs during the fight, and lots of evokations/summonings.

Fhaolan
2012-03-28, 01:32 PM
The whole problem with this is the non-symmetry of the relationship between magic and mundane in nearly all RPGs, especially in class-based ones.

Most magic systems have magic being able to enhance, or substitute for, mundate actions. However, their magic systems do not have the reverse with mundane actions able to enhance, or substitute for, magic.

For example: In D&D, Magic can boost your strength, speed, endurance, and accuracy. So a fighter who has access to magic can become a better fighter.

However, in D&D your strength, speed, endurance, and accuracy have very little effect on spell casting. Yes, you do have to make a to-hit roll on some spells, but as a rule mages avoid those spells because improving accuracy is more difficult than using spells that don’t depend on accuracy.

This non-symmetry is why Magic Fighters are more common than Fighting Mages. If magic had more dependencies on being able to hit, reach, or similar, and it was possible to *improve* those abilities in a mundane way then having Fighting Mages would become a more likely scenario.

If spells were inherently less accurate at range, but were far more accurate as touch attacks, and it was possible to channel touch attacks through weapons, then a Mage that actually fights with his staff, using it to extend his reach and improve the accuracy of his spells, would become viable. Say the range of the fireballs and similar spells was a lot shorter and difficult to put exactly where you want it, but you could have one ride a crossbow bolt to get longer range and accuracy, then you will end up with a lot more mystics who just happens to be archers, rather than archers who just happens to be a mystics. More subtle stuff, like charms could work the same way. If you could channel a sleep or charm through a dart or blowgun, but otherwise would have to reach out and touch the target…
So it’s really down to how magic works in the game system.

Draco Ignifer
2012-03-28, 05:12 PM
As far as I can tell, the best "fighting mage" in D20 is one who picks up some sort of bonus dice from somewhere, like a sneak attack, to make his spells deadlier. Maybe get your DM to allow spells to count as weapons for Iaijutsu focus? Aside from that, it's like Fhaolan says - you'd need the attributes that fighting brings to the table, like a higher BAB, iterative attacks, or even martial maneuvers, to boost your magecraft. For the most part, it just doesn't really happen.

Tengu_temp
2012-03-28, 05:57 PM
How about medics? We had a recent incident in-game involving some necrotech baddies that made him decide to spontaneously sprout three dots of Medicine. :smalltongue:

On that note, Ailment-Rectifying Method is pretty awesome.

Yeah, I said not sorcerers. One day I want to run a Twilight that's basically Ginko from Mushi-shi, only with more combat ability.


Sorry, are you calling Misho Thrice-Radiant not cool?

I haven't read enough KoC to even notice he is a Twilight. Or that he can use sorcery, for that matter.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-03-28, 06:15 PM
I haven't read enough KoC to even notice he is a Twilight. Or that he can use sorcery, for that matter.

...His caste was revealed in the first strip. The caste mark shines when he creates an interview table. Strip 10 was when he used Stormwind Rider.

erikun
2012-03-28, 10:45 PM
One thing that I'm noticing in the thread is that magic is getting broken up into "fighting magic" and "wizard magic" for some reason. I mean, I would not expect anyone to call a mailman sorcerer a 'fighter', but given the discussion in this thread, I would not be surprised to see a full-BAB armored mailman get called a 'fighter throwing magic' than an actual spellcaster.

I mean, look at Avatar. How could you not say they are primary spellcasters, or throwing magic around? Calling them martial artists who just happen to augment their kicks with giant walls of fire or ripping the earth apart is likely understating things a bit. It is also the reason we can't peg down the fighting-mage: because all the spells that get related to fighting get handed to the magic-warrior and any who use them are not fighting-mages.

tordirycgoyust
2012-03-29, 08:58 AM
Because Fighting Mage occupies the region between "Warrior casting a spell here and there"/"Tricked Out Warrior" and "Mage picking up a dagger for the first time" and the dividing lines are REALLY fuzzy.

OR If we accept Lord Raziere's theory that "Z enhances Y" as opposed to the above assumed "Y produces more utilons than Z", in principle there is no reason for your sword to not enhance your magic or your magic to not enhance your arhery, and everyone uses magic to enhance their sword, but, in practice one finds that your bow/gun/sling is the only weapon you enhance your magic with. One notes that this is quite niche, and, in 3.X at least, very unoptimiz-(ed/able).

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-29, 09:17 AM
One thing that I'm noticing in the thread is that magic is getting broken up into "fighting magic" and "wizard magic" for some reason. I mean, I would not expect anyone to call a mailman sorcerer a 'fighter', but given the discussion in this thread, I would not be surprised to see a full-BAB armored mailman get called a 'fighter throwing magic' than an actual spellcaster.

I mean, look at Avatar. How could you not say they are primary spellcasters, or throwing magic around? Calling them martial artists who just happen to augment their kicks with giant walls of fire or ripping the earth apart is likely understating things a bit. It is also the reason we can't peg down the fighting-mage: because all the spells that get related to fighting get handed to the magic-warrior and any who use them are not fighting-mages.

Avatar is pretty clearly a world of fighting mages, yeah.

charcoalninja
2012-03-29, 11:12 AM
One (complex) exception does not make the rest of the OP's point invalid, so I'm sure you know what people are getting at, yes. Fighter/Wizard multiclass still sucks, and, as pointed out, doesn't make much sense conceptually.
The duskblade is a notable exception as well, as it does allow you to save up on the action economy a bit, and allows you to use buffs. Outside D&D, though, you don't see much examples of fighting mages.

I have a few indications to comment:
* Link from Legend of Zelda: pretty much uses a few spells (often from artifacts) to get buffs/healing or for puzzles. Not much of a wizard.
* Negima: In this manga they define well two kinds of wizard, the caster type, your typical magical cannon, and the fighting one, that combines buffs with close combat. Note that these need to balance when they will attack normally, and when they need to stop and cast a stronger spell, in a minute-by-minute basis.
* Fairy Tail: In this manga, pretty much alll magic styles already have fighting included, and most buffs and normal casting are pre-battle, with a few minor buffs during the fight, and lots of evokations/summonings.

Except that a Fighter / Mage multiclass in core 3.5 doesn't remotely suck...
Fighter 5/Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10 ends you with full BAB for 15 levels, and what CL 14 wizard spells? That's easily a tier 3 character right there, higher if he focuses on summoning and fighting with his summons and other utility magic not subject to SR. So our Fighter mage has managed to use his magic to improve his combat ability far beyond the prowess and scope of a straight fighter. Is he as magical and awesome as a straight Wizard? No. But then nobody is. He's much better in an antimagic zone, or when out of spells, or against things with heavy SR, or against something he didn't plan for though.

If you don't want to use the prestige class expressly designed FOR fighter mages you can go fighter 9 / wizard 11 and STILL be a tier 3 character. You come out looking like a cleric with weak casting but you're much stronger than the monk, barbarian, ranger, paladin, rogue, fighter... so that tells me that it works just fine.

You know... or you could just play a bard.
Just sayin.

EDIT: as for fighter mages in media, anime is full of em. DBZ is a bunch of monk/evokers or martial arts psychokineticists, Naruto is literally fighter mages everywhere the way their ninjutsu works, Full Metal Alchemist is another great example.

EDIT2: additionally the core fighter / mage I listed would be a devistating archer through magic item creation. Look at the Javelin of lightning. Now apply that to arrows. A slew of arrows lobbing things like scorching ray, or stinking cloud, or fireballs, or orb spells allows this guy to fire off action economy abuse through expending resources, but half the resources of any non fighter mage trying the same thing. The guy can legitimately build himself to be iron man if he wants. If you go non core you have Artificer that does the same thing out of the box.

Eric Tolle
2012-03-29, 11:18 AM
Which is where a lot of people hit confusion. It's obvious that stabbing a guy is much more effective if the sword is on fire, or if you can teleport behind him and catch him flatfooted.

But how do you add stabbing to a fireball to get a BETTER fireball?

Off the top of my head, here's some examples:

Mage: A sword or swordplay can be a foci for Forces magic, allowing magic to be cast.

Runequest: a sword can hold power points or a spell, meaning it doesn't have to take up memorization space.

Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies/Jaws of the Seven Serpants: Depending on how you describe your attack, a "swordsman" trait may well add to your "Sorcerer" or other magic trait. Hell, it would be easy enough to make a "Magic swordsman" trait.

Heroquest: make a "Magic swordsman" attribute that can either be rolled separately, or used as an augment to a magic attribute.

Risus: take a "Magic swordsman" knack, and describe casting fireballs through your sword. Make it funny while you're at it.

FATE/Dresdin Files: A sword can be a focus to help cast magic better. Also, you can take Aspects such as "I do magic better when I'm swording" that will give you a bonus to magic when you're swording people.

Sorry, rather than an "RPGs in general" situation, this seems more like a first world D&D problem.

Lord Raziere
2012-03-29, 11:33 AM
Because Fighting Mage occupies the region between "Warrior casting a spell here and there"/"Tricked Out Warrior" and "Mage picking up a dagger for the first time" and the dividing lines are REALLY fuzzy.

OR If we accept Lord Raziere's theory that "Z enhances Y" as opposed to the above assumed "Y produces more utilons than Z", in principle there is no reason for your sword to not enhance your magic or your magic to not enhance your arhery, and everyone uses magic to enhance their sword, but, in practice one finds that your bow/gun/sling is the only weapon you enhance your magic with. One notes that this is quite niche, and, in 3.X at least, very unoptimiz-(ed/able).

well here is the thing:
weapon to enhance magic, means that the magic is the primary part of the attack.
magic to enhance weapon, means that the weapon is the primary part of the attack.

magic fighter can use ranged weapons enhanced by magic….

but fighting mage, using a sword to enhance their magic, is the same as normal mage, using a staff to enhance it. They are still casting a spell through a stick in their hand, its just that this stick is sharp as opposed to decorative. therefore, such a "fighting mage" is just a normal mage using a sword as a staff/wand. there is no real difference.

but a fighting mage that uses a bow and arrow to enhance their magic, thats a completely different monster.
Consider the quite old and simple principles of Sympathy (things that look the same are more connected) and Contagion (things that have been in close contact for long periods of time are more connected).
Consider that many arrows in a quiver, all look quite the same, and all spend a lot of time together bundled up with each other.
Now imagine an archer firing a bunch of arrows at a fortress, aiming at a different place every time, to spread them out across the fortress as much as possible.
Now imagine that he is down to one arrow.
Now imagine that he casts a spell, that makes the last arrow explode.
Imagine, that he exploits the sympathetic link between his last arrow and all the arrows he fired while doing so.
Imagine that all the arrows he fired, all explode as well, destroying the entire fortress, or at least damaging it significantly.
Now imagine that a hundred mage-archers are doing this.

Bye-bye fortress.

I know, not DnD at all, but still a good example of why I consider a fighting mage to be a magical archer. and there are many more uses of a bow and arrow to enhance ones magic. thats just the most obvious and destructive.

to sum it up, I consider a magical archer to be a better fighting mage as its weapon is more flexible for magical uses, while a sword doesn't offer anything I don't get from a staff, magically speaking.

as for the benders….I concede that its also a form of fighting mage, one very close to the magical monk version, and I do confess that at least three of my characters are inspired by elemental benders. they are after all, using their bodies to enhance their magic.

jaybird
2012-03-29, 12:24 PM
One (complex) exception does not make the rest of the OP's point invalid, so I'm sure you know what people are getting at, yes. Fighter/Wizard multiclass still sucks, and, as pointed out, doesn't make much sense conceptually.
The duskblade is a notable exception as well, as it does allow you to save up on the action economy a bit, and allows you to use buffs. Outside D&D, though, you don't see much examples of fighting mages.


Magus and Synthesist Summoner from Pathfinder. Duskblade, as you mentioned. Jade Pheonix Mage from ToB. On the Rogue end of things there's the Daggerspell Mage and Spellwarp Sniper. Single-class options for "fighting magic" could include DFA and Warlock.

Wardog
2012-03-29, 06:02 PM
A "fighting mage" would be a viable concept in a system where:

* Magic (or at least combat magic) is physically demanding. An "academic wizard" who spends all his time doing research at a magical university, and not casting that many spells, can get away with being a stereotypical "squishy wizard". An adventuring or combat wizard, on the other hand, will need to be strong and tough, and fighting ability then comes as a nice bonus because of that.

* Using magic requires combat skills. Magic missile doesn't automatically hit - you have to use the same or similar skills to hit someone with it as if you were throwing a physical missile; and spells can be dodged or parried using the same or similar skills to dodging or parrying in combat.

* Levelling/skilling up in one class doesn't affect levelling/skilling in another. A Level 10 wizard might need to spend a lot of xp to advance to Wizard 11, but could spend the same amount of xp to get 3 fighter levels. Unless you are min-maxing to get a key-stone magical ability, taking a few fighter levels may be more useful than one more wizard level.

* What constitutes a "mage", as opposed to a priest/druid/shaman/cleric/etc is really just fluff. If you can have a primary caster with decent fighting ability, then you can have a "mage" with decent fighting ability.

Eric Tolle
2012-03-30, 11:11 AM
but fighting mage, using a sword to enhance their magic, is the same as normal mage, using a staff to enhance it. They are still casting a spell through a stick in their hand, its just that this stick is sharp as opposed to decorative. therefore, such a "fighting mage" is just a normal mage using a sword as a staff/wand. there is no real difference.

That's only assuming the generic spell lists of D&D where any mage can easy cast any spell. In a system that relied on more symbolic qualities of magic though, a sword might be needed to cast magic that uses the symbolic traits of a sword; say, division, warfare, strength, possibly even nobility and masculinity. In a symbolic magic system one's choice of foci would determine the effects of the spells so "sword magic" would be fundamentally different from other kinds of magic, each with their own unique foci.

For something like that, Mage sounds ideal. Other systems might be PDQ, Heroquest or BRP.

zlefin
2012-03-31, 02:04 AM
i'd be happy to homebrew up a class that could do this.
Though i'd want OP to post a VERY clear definition as to what would constitute it; but there's enough chat in the thread to clarify exact meaning.
Note that it won't be as powerful as wiz 20; because well, wizards are overpowered and I don't want to make an overpowered class. Fighting mages can work; they jsut don't work with the balance problems in core 3.5; if you make different mage classes then adding fighting could totally work.

Yora
2012-03-31, 04:09 AM
If the same effect could also be achieved with a fictional or actual gun or an enchanted melee weapon, then it's magic that enhances martial skill.
If it does anything else, then it's not pure combat magic.

Fiery Diamond
2012-03-31, 03:32 PM
If the same effect could also be achieved with a fictional or actual gun or an enchanted melee weapon, then it's magic that enhances martial skill.
If it does anything else, then it's not pure combat magic.

See, as I see it, this is the problem with the question being posed and the stance being taken. You do your best to DEFINE things such that a "fighting mage" doesn't work. If some of your initial conditions are disputed, your argument falls apart.

Also: Avatar benders. You're fooling yourself or just being obstinate if you can say that they are anything other than fighting mages.

Yora
2012-03-31, 04:20 PM
No. I asked the question under certain assumptions which I stated in the first post. And actually several people provided input that helped answering exactly what I was wondering about.
A fighting mage under my definition actually does work under certain conditions. The concept is redundant if mages can use spells that provide better protection than armor, they have the hitpoint to simply soak some damage without any impediments, and they do not get distracted at casting spells by enemies attacking them in melee. Which is the case in D&D, Pathfinder, and most video games.

If magic does not do a better job at protection from damage and mages can not reliably cast spells while enemies swing weapons at them, then learning how to fight gives them a huge when fighting in battes. They need to use armor and shields to stay alive and learn to use weapons to keep attackers busy. Mages who don't have such training need to stay out of combat and require permanent bodyguards.

Arbane
2012-04-01, 01:05 AM
Legend of the Wulin looks to have fighting mages - magic is mostly to do divination to figure when/how your opponent is most vulnerable, or casting curses to weaken them, but to actually lower the boom on them, the spellcaster will need to use kung-fu just like everyone else.

Fortuna
2012-04-01, 05:35 AM
Another possibility that springs to mind is a system wherein magic is more effective the weaker your opponent. Whether that means Power Word type spells that need your opponent to be below a certain threshold for use or an injury system which lowers your opponent's resistance to everything, including the difficult-to-make-work magic. Then you would have a character who fought some, simply to make the magic stick, but used magic as their 'big guns' and probably as a modus operandi against mooks.

Emmerask
2012-04-01, 08:39 AM
One (complex) exception does not make the rest of the OP's point invalid, so I'm sure you know what people are getting at, yes. Fighter/Wizard multiclass still sucks, and, as pointed out, doesn't make much sense conceptually.


I don´t know, a fighter/wizard/spellsword (which more or less would be the wotc "do this for a fighting mage" way) seems still a lot stronger then a pure fighter, even though it is extremely weak in comparison to pure caster builds.

In a high powered game this will suck but in medium or low powered you will do just fine with that combo.
So its stronger in comparison to a fighter but weaker in comparison to a wizard... in my book that would be a working fighting mage.

Yora
2012-04-01, 08:53 AM
I think that depends entirely on the how strong magic is in the world and under the rules the action takes place. D&D is on the very end of the "Magic is better" side, but it's very easy to create a kind of magic where it's utterly useless against armed attackers.

ericgrau
2012-04-01, 08:55 AM
When you only want side abilities while keeping your original focus, I'm strongly in favor of one level dips for things like this rather than all-out prestiging. IMO it's a greatly underused trick.


A one level dip in rogue gives you full blown trapfinding and several skills as class skills. You pay double for future ranks, but your maximum ranks in the couple main skills you dipped for is the same as a full rogue. And since you probably only wanted a couple you can afford to max them all.
A one level dip in a caster class gives you full blown wand and staff (!) use. Neither of these have arcane spell failure in armor and neither do your three most useful first level spells: feather fall, true strike and benign transposition. Sure you can use magic device too but if you're not a high charisma rogue/bard this is way easier. Even mid level rogues have trouble without MAD.
A one level dip in a martial class gives you all kinds of proficiencies. A good option is a two-handed reach weapon for attacks of opportunity while continuing to cast (release/grip one hand as a free action), or to flank better. Fighters also grant a feat and heavy armor, barbarians also grant rage. Both great things to dip for. Monk and ranger provide benefits for more specialized builds.
A one level dip in any class gives a nice boost to the save that you're probably lacking. Martial classes are especially good to dip because you also get BAB, rather than choosing between not-dipping and getting BAB versus dipping and getting saves.

Philistine
2012-04-02, 03:21 PM
well here is the thing:
weapon to enhance magic, means that the magic is the primary part of the attack.
magic to enhance weapon, means that the weapon is the primary part of the attack.

magic fighter can use ranged weapons enhanced by magic….

but fighting mage, using a sword to enhance their magic, is the same as normal mage, using a staff to enhance it. They are still casting a spell through a stick in their hand, its just that this stick is sharp as opposed to decorative. therefore, such a "fighting mage" is just a normal mage using a sword as a staff/wand. there is no real difference.

but a fighting mage that uses a bow and arrow to enhance their magic, thats a completely different monster.
<Example Snipped>

to sum it up, I consider a magical archer to be a better fighting mage as its weapon is more flexible for magical uses, while a sword doesn't offer anything I don't get from a staff, magically speaking.
There's a serious problem here: you're using a significantly expanded definition of "normal mage" that includes the "fighting mage" archetype as being discussed by everyone else. The "normal mage" is the one standing at the back and slinging spells from as far out of harm's way as possible. If your mage is charging into the fray to deliver spells via a weapon - no matter whether that weapon is a staff, a sword, or a rubber chicken - then you're already on the fighter-mage spectrum, and it's just a question of whether your magery is boosting your leet fightan skillz or vice versa. The previously-mentioned Duskblade, for example, is at least arguably more "fighting mage" then "magic-enhanced fighter," with quickened casting and full-attack Arcane Channeling. And like I said, it works about as well with sword, staff, or rubber chicken.

Lord Raziere
2012-04-02, 11:00 PM
and? still just a mage with a different stick, your definition of mage is someone who doesn't fight at all and is just a bomber from afar, when in combat, a mage ducking, dodging and whatnot isn't being different from a mage, its what is needed to survive. when you start using magic with melee weapons your either being a magic fighter, or a mage who can switch to being a fighter, or a mage using a sword to cast spells, which isn't different from a mage just using a staff, sure the tip is deadlier, but what is the point of the sword if your just going to cast spells from it all day? it doesn't actually change the mage, they are still a mage, just one who is smart and prepares for the worst, as opposed to a mage who is stupid, doesn't wear proper protection and relies on not being reached at all to survive.

a fighting mage is someone who uses their weapons to truly enhance their magic, not just some optional usage of their casting implement, that is just switching between pure fighter and pure mage on the fly, two archetypes switching out moment to moment. a fighting mage, is someone where spellcasting and fighting is the same thing, with no pure magical or pure physical attacks.

you may have your definition, but don't presume to say that it is more right than mine, just because it is more popular.

darkdragoon
2012-04-04, 08:23 AM
Except the "fighting mage", a spellcaster with some added armor and weapon skill but still with the focus on spellcasting.

You could have a Wizard or Sorcerer spend feats on proficiencies and walk around with a Skillful weapon and Mithral Githcraft etc. armor, but that's not particularly efficient and kind of boring.

In practice gishes end up becoming this as you don't want to sacrifice level 9 spells for slightly more BAB and miscellaneous features.

The alternative base classes that start with "Armored Mage" type features, ie Duskblade, Warmage are already working from more limited casting.

I suppose a Bard that becomes a Sublime Chord but also has things like Snowflake Wardance might fit the bill.

For a one level prestige dip Dragonslayer is probably the best fit.



But giving a mage mid-range weapons? Doesn't seem to make sense or be useful for anything.

At low levels a crossbow is a fine backup. There are things like the Songbow for Bards. I suppose there would be considerably more interest if the Arcane Archer was more feasible.

Of course, there's also a lot of overlap with wands and staves, or any sort of repeatable "I shoot magic" effect like Eldritch Blast.

Philistine
2012-04-05, 10:26 PM
and? still just a mage with a different stick, your definition of mage is someone who doesn't fight at all and is just a bomber from afar, when in combat, a mage ducking, dodging and whatnot isn't being different from a mage, its what is needed to survive. when you start using magic with melee weapons your either being a magic fighter, or a mage who can switch to being a fighter, or a mage using a sword to cast spells, which isn't different from a mage just using a staff, sure the tip is deadlier, but what is the point of the sword if your just going to cast spells from it all day? it doesn't actually change the mage, they are still a mage, just one who is smart and prepares for the worst, as opposed to a mage who is stupid, doesn't wear proper protection and relies on not being reached at all to survive.

a fighting mage is someone who uses their weapons to truly enhance their magic, not just some optional usage of their casting implement, that is just switching between pure fighter and pure mage on the fly, two archetypes switching out moment to moment. a fighting mage, is someone where spellcasting and fighting is the same thing, with no pure magical or pure physical attacks.

you may have your definition, but don't presume to say that it is more right than mine, just because it is more popular.

Actually, my definition IS more right, for a couple of reasons. First, you're adding unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions to your definition. (Case in point: your fixation on creating an artificial distinction between "fighting with a sword" and "fighting with a staff," when the important thing for a fighting mage is... well, fighting, whether that's with sword, staff, bare hands, bow, or wet noodle.) Second, when it comes to establishing definitions for terms, consensus is how that's generally done - one of the very few instances anywhere in which "more popular" translates directly into "more correct."

Lord Raziere
2012-04-05, 11:16 PM
Um no? Why are you thinking that I'm making a point thats the exact opposite of what I am actually am making?

My point, is that there is no distinction between a sword and a staff spellcasting-wise. Neither gives a greater benefit to my view, there is no real difference between a mage using a staff to shoot a fireball and mage using a sword to shoot a fireball. they are functionally the same. Furthermore a mage whacking people with a staff is no different from a mage attacking people with a sword, neither is a fighting mage, just a mage attacking someone with a normal weapon. Therefore not a fighting mage, because normal mages already do that.

a fighting mage is not a spellcaster who just happens to be able to fight normally, they are someone who can use weaponry and fighting to enhance their spellcasting in combination with no difference between fighting or spellcasting at all, with no mundane attacks.

why? because the spellcaster who just happens to be able to fight normally, is not a fighting mage. a mage casting the spell while not in combat is a pure mage, since they are not fighting, even when they send a fireball into combat from far away.
the mage that when he runs out of mana, draws a sword and goes charging in, is not being a mage, he is being a pure fighter, who happens to know a bunch of spells he can't use. or he is either switching between pure magical attacks and pure mundane attacks on the fly, and therefore switching between being a mage and fighter on the fly, but not doing both at the same time.

and consensus does not matter if I don't think it logical. it just means that I think that I am right and they are deliberately choosing a different thing that they think is logical and are disagreeing with me. It only means that I should continue trying to prove that my logic is right, until a compelling enough reason presents itself that proves me wrong, and none has surfaced so far, so I continue to espouse what I consider right.

Autolykos
2012-04-06, 08:14 AM
* Levelling/skilling up in one class doesn't affect levelling/skilling in another. A Level 10 wizard might need to spend a lot of xp to advance to Wizard 11, but could spend the same amount of xp to get 3 fighter levels. Unless you are min-maxing to get a key-stone magical ability, taking a few fighter levels may be more useful than one more wizard level.That's actually true for pretty much any skill-based system out there. Getting from zero to somewhat adequate fighting ability is at some point almost guaranteed to be cheaper than increasing already exceptional magic abilities even further. Overspecialization in most skill-based systems tends to be very expensive and have diminishing returns. At that point, compensating weaknesses (and then increasing generalization) is the best option.

wumpus
2012-04-06, 11:52 AM
First of all D&D has had "fighting mages" since 1973. They're called clerics.

Other systems allow other means to make such a beast.

I can see why designers would rather not allow any such thing. You spend a great deal of time getting both swords and sorcery to be viable in most games. Then you have to go back and make it work for parts of each to work at various times in the game across most games. I can see designers either following D&D's example of rigid classes or faking it via "emergent classes" carefully designed in such a way that they don't have to worry about infinite possibilities and each's level or power.

On a side note, didn't Aahz in the Myth Adventure series (written when AD&D(1e) was new) suggest that Klods (humans) only had a long enough life to study magic or melee? He also suggested that it was a function of their learning curve, and implied that Perverts* were so much better (no comment about his nephew's century-long apprenticeship).

DDO (dungeons and dragons online) includes only a limited selection of base classes. Even so, somebody managed to come up with a workable gish: the Tukaw build (16 sorcerer/2 paladin/2 rogue (replacing rogue with monk may also work)). Note that in DDO evasion is huge and there are no rings of evasion: the rogue levels give you evasion, the paladin levels give you the reflex save via the grace bonus and melee weapons and hit points. I think it plays as a mostly self-buffing melee build, but recent changes that favor blaster-casters may have changed that. While rings of evasion don't exist, items of divine power (with set number of charges) drop fairly often and are a matter of switching things out on a regular basis.

* In the myth series Perverts are the dwellers of the plane Perv. Note this is unwise to call one to his face. Using the term Perv-ects will make such a meeting less unpleasant.

Fatebreaker
2012-04-06, 02:46 PM
and consensus does not matter if I don't think it logical.

Note that what Philistine actually said was...


Second, when it comes to establishing definitions for terms, consensus is how that's generally done - one of the very few instances anywhere in which "more popular" translates directly into "more correct."

...which is a statement entirely about definitions and not about right or wrong.

Past a certain point, your personal definition of a word or idea becomes irrelevant no matter how right you are (or aren't). If the group you're talking to has a very different definition, you will be unable to express yourself in any meaningful way.

When an Englishman asks me if he can "bum a ***," I realize that he's asking if he can borrow a cigarette. But someone not familiar with British-English may be quite shocked at the implications. Or maybe the Englishman will get more than he bargained for. Depends on who he asks. And that's the point -- in each case, the Englishman said the same words, but depending on the listener, he asked for very different things.

That's why, in debates about ideas, one of the most important things is to define terms. Otherwise you end up talking past one another about entirely different things. However logical you believe your definition to be, if the rest of the room is using a different definition, every time you put forward your ideas you will be misunderstood. If you realize that you have a different definition, and persist in using it in spite of how self-defeating that is to the advance of your position, then that is entirely your fault.

--

I'd like to toss a "fighting mage" idea into the ring: Space Marine Librarian. For extra magic-y oomph, make it a Grey Knight Librarian. Either way, it's a psyker (space mage!) whose armor and weapons are actually designed to enhance their magical powers while providing martial bonuses. Sounds pretty damn fightin' mage to me!

The Emperor Protects!

--

Edit: Apparently, the British word for cigarette is auto-censored by the forum. Well, those of you who know will get it, and those of you who don't know, meh. You're smart enough to figure out the point I'm making. You are smart enough to figure out the point I'm making, aren't you?