Defining Gishes and Their Function

[Palanan]

In another current thread there’s been a side discussion which turns on the definition of “gish,” and not surprisingly people have different things in mind when they use the term. Everything from the magus to the Eldritch Scoundrel has been considered a “gish” in one way or another, and the term covers a broad spectrum of classes, archetypes, PrCs and features.

So I thought it might be helpful to move that discussion here, to sort out the various subspecies of gish to enable better comparison between them. Since Pathfinder has a number of gish and gish-like options, it’s probably better to focus on comparing options within PF, with outside comparison to 3.5 where necessary.

So, what exactly is a “gish,” and where do the various Pathfinder options fall on the spectrum of gish function? For me, the magus and the Arrowsong Minstrel are at the high end of both function and elegance, since they imbue their physical attacks with magic of one form or another, including spell channeling. I see the Eldritch Knight as clunkier and much less functional, and to me the Eldritch Scoundrel is even less so, since it doesn’t have any specific way to fuse magic and physical combat.

But these are just my impressions of a few of the options. How else do people define “gish,” and how would they sort the Pathfinder options on the gish spectrum?

.

[Kurald Galain]

To me, a Gish means being able to cast a spell and melee attack in the same turn, at an early level.

The obvious Gish is of course the Magus.
Bloodrager counts because several bloodlines activate a spell of your choice when you rage.
Duskblade counts because of its swift-action spells, and free quicken ability.
Since the distinction between arcane and divine magic is basically invisible during gameplay, I consider the Warpriest a Gish as well.

Restriction on spellcasting: you have to be able to cast a variety of spells, not just touch attacks spells (any caster can cast a touch spell and attack with that in the same turn, that's what touch spells do) and not just a single SLA (e.g. ninja invisibility).
Restriction on melee: you have to be decent at melee, which basically means full BAB (bloodrager/duskblade) or in-class bonuses to make up for that (magus/warpriest). And enough AC/HP to actually survive in melee, which rules out most wizard/sorc builds (although it can be made to work).

If you can attack or cast on your turn, then you're basically a wizard-with-a-sword-in-his-hand. A problem with several +16/9th builds is that while they can attack in melee, they have no reason for doing so.

[Cosi]

A Gish is a character that uses (traditionally Arcane) casting to enhance (traditionally melee) weapon combat capability. That can be something like the Duskblade (which uses Arcane Channeling to use a spell and an attack simultaneously) or it can be something like the Swiftblade (which uses arcane spells to provide itself with combat buffs). Arguably the Cleric Archer counts as a Gish.

[PhantasyPen]

The bare minimum for a gish to me is "can fight with weapons equally as well as they can cast spells." To that end, one of the biggest things I look for is BAB 16+ and 9th level spells on the same build as the benchmark for a truly decent gish build, but only 16+ BAB is what I would call mandatory for a true and proper build, you can get away with only having 5th-level spells as your highest spells to cast, depending on your spell list, but the whole point of a gish is to be a skill martial combatant as well as a spellcaster. Ways to cast spells and attack at the same time are what make for the most exceptional builds, but are not necessarily mandatory, but you do need some way to consistently empower yourself and attack in the same turn even if it's not actually casting a spell per say.

[Serafina]

If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks). And ideally, you want to combine those two abilities in one of three ways:
- Buff yourself to be better at fighting. To be worthwhile, you either need short-duration buffs that benefit from an improved action economy (because you don't want to waste rounds buffing yourself up most of the time), or long-term buffs that only apply to the caster (because otherwise, someone else might as well cast them on you)
- Cast a spell at the same time as you're attacking. In other words, break the action economy - though there's ways to design it as to not be broken. Obviously, this can also be combined with the former, but can also pull off all the other caster tricks.
- Deliver a spell via a weapon attack. Aka what the Magus does. It's one of the best ways to express this blend of abilities, and can be a nice boost to damage as well.

So you can be a Gish by virtue of class features that change how you can cast your spells, or how you deliver them - but in my opinion, you could also call a character without any of those, and just the right sort of spells (some swift-action defensive ones, and some long-duration self-only ones cast in advance of combat) a Gish.

[Psyren]

My definition is much broader than Kurald's - for me, it's just a character concept that combines casting and martial prowess in combat. Doing both in the same round is preferable, but requiring that (especially at low levels) would toss out several iconic concepts like Eldritch Knights, Slayers, and even Druids from consideration. Heck, even Psychic Warriors have a hard time doing that early on, barring a handful of swift-action powers.

[Kurald Galain]

Doing both in the same round is preferable, but requiring that (especially at low levels) would toss out several iconic concepts

Fair point, but doing both in the same round is the most visible thing, in actual gameplay, that sets a Gish apart from literally any medium-BAB spellcaster.

Aka what the Magus does.

Magus does all three of the things you mention

[ezekielraiden]

For my part, a gish comes in three flavors. Making up my own names for them.

-- "Jedi/Sith." More or less full fighting and combat-useful casting, ideally simultaneous. Additional utility is useful but not strictly necessary. Skimping a little on the highest echelons of spellcasting can be okay if you get something strong enough in exchange (e.g. Swiftblade).

-- Sword wizard, aka "Wizard of the Spiral Tower" (a 4e PP that could use longswords as if they were wand implements). Pure caster, but with some lesser, augmented fighting capability. E.g. if you had a build that could double its BAB but got no extra attacks for doing so. Clerics almost automatically fit this, of course.

-- Magic thief, aka "Grey Mouser." Someone who has turned magic into another tool in the "skill and deadly attacks" toolbox. But because the rogue relies on sneak attack dice and stealth, rather than armor and iterative attacks per se, it's much more important to have the utility magic here rather than the offensive oomph.

Some will go hardcore and assert that only my Jedi/Sith is a true gish, and that's fine. I think that belief is misplaced, but not unwarranted. To my eyes, the 'Arcane Trickster' fits best into the gish archetype, and I think it's not warping anything to include it there. If you prefer being totally unambiguous and using rigidly defined categories, there's nothing wrong with limiting it to only the first category.

Incidentally, this is why Bard/SC makes such a good gish basis. Your Bard levels give great skills and abilities (which can even aid your combat side), you get basically full casting progression, and depending on your choice of BAB+casting PrC you can get some real nice benefits (e.g. Abjurant Champion). It can really fit into any of the above 3 lists.

[ATalsen]

Serafina's Post comes closest to what I'm looking for in a Gish, so I'll quote it (with a nod toward PhantasyPen's post as well for begin of the same mind as me):

If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks).

Yes, that's how I see a Gish as well.

To give my personal benchmarks, to be relevant in melee I need BAB +16 by 20th level.
To be relevant in casting, I need to have 8th level spells by 20th level.
(I prefer 9th casting, and 7th level is the bare minimum)

Obviously these criteria for me mean that the Pathfinder Magus (or 3.5's Duskblade, etc) doesn't fit the term 'Gish' any more than, say, a Bard does.

Heck, I can almost say that a Gish to me is a PC who is better in melee and better (and more versatile) in casting than the Bard class.

And ideally, you want to combine those two abilities in one of three ways:
- Buff yourself to be better at fighting. To be worthwhile, you either need short-duration buffs that benefit from an improved action economy (because you don't want to waste rounds buffing yourself up most of the time), or long-term buffs that only apply to the caster (because otherwise, someone else might as well cast them on you)

Supporting Melee with self buffing is certainly something I expect from a Gish PC; this tends to require relevant and versatile casting.

- Cast a spell at the same time as you're attacking.
- Deliver a spell via a weapon attack.

For me, simultaneous casting and delivering via weapon are 'nice to have' items, but not what I require out of I Gish PC.
Though, I won't turn them down if I can get them on the build too!

[dude123nice]

To me it means: The ability to meaningfully use both martial and magical combat against enemies in the same encounter. By that i mean that there has to be a certain advantage to using both spells and attacks against enemies, not just one or the other. A spellcaster who either can only attack or only cast a spell in a single turn can still count if there is a good reason to alternate between the two. Still, that mostly won't be happening according to pathfinder rules. That is the problem with 3.5 action economy and the power of spells, unless a special mechanic is created that allows you to both cast and attack in the same round, it's best to either use your most powerful spell, or an attack with comparative or greater strength, and there is little use to trying to use a weaker spell (like a quickened spell) and a weaker attack in the same round.

[Kurald Galain]

That is the problem with 3.5 action economy and the power of spells, unless a special mechanic is created that allows you to both cast and attack in the same round, it's best to either use your most powerful spell, or an attack with comparative or greater strength, and there is little use to trying to use a weaker spell (like a quickened spell) and a weaker attack in the same round.

That hits the nail on the head. A +16/9th gish is nice when you're theorycrafting, but in actual gameplay it has no reason to use its melee attacks, because 9th-level spells are just that much more powerful.

[dude123nice]

That hits the nail on the head. A +16/9th gish is nice when you're theorycrafting, but in actual gameplay it has no reason to use its melee attacks, because 9th-level spells are just that much more powerful.

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it? You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point. How many feats and abilities do you have that help you at Melee? Is it even worth attacking unless you get an AOO ore something? Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

[Serafina]

The +16 BAB benchmark very much says you want to be full-attacking, because you're clearly really desperate for that one extra attack (it's the only difference between +15 and +16 after all, other than another +1 to attack). But just being restricted to full-attacks is really restrictive - all they do is damage (and not even necessarily competetive damage), and you only get to execute them in quite narrow circumstances.

And there's a lot of other ways to get a good melee/spellcasting blend. The Magus aside, you can just go for a Reach Cleric build (which can also work with other classes, of course).
Basically, you take a class like the cleric with medium BAB progression, and good casting progression. You get good attributes for melee, and invest feats into it, and do it traditionally at lower levels - but as you level up, you progress into using your spellcasting more and more. And while you do that, you'll still get value out of your melee capabilities by making attacks of opportunity - whether that be from enemy movement, enemy casters that provoke, or all the various synergies that you can unlock.
Sure, that build might not be "the best" at melee - but you're getting a lot more value out of your melee than if you're using it in lieu of casting spells.

And the same goes for the Magus - they might not be "the best" at melee or spellcasting, but they're getting a lot more value out of it than a build who gets higher numbers for each individually. And the same can go for a well-build Bard-gish, or a Hunter with a combat buddy, or any other number of builds like that.



Also, it strikes me as very silly to insist that a Gish must cap out at +16 BAB. "Chase this 20th-level build" mentality aside, it also means that the Druid or Cleric - two classes who very much blend fighting and spellcasting - aren't "Gishes", which is quite silly indeed. (Well, they aren't arcane spellcasters, but that doesn't mean much).

[Eldariel]

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it? You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point. How many feats and abilities do you have that help you at Melee? Is it even worth attacking unless you get an AOO ore something? Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

Eh. You can just walk around with Shapechange and go full attacking/abilitying people as a gish and you'll be more than fine. In that, the 16 BAB is more than fine. You don't need to invest another 9th level slot and since that one lasts for hours it allows for pretty good all day clearing of all but the toughest of challenges (for which you have all your spell slots since you're just bludgeoning most things to death effortlessly). Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options; it's not like getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 is somehow obsolete and something like Contingency is of great use to a Gish. Just because you aim for a certain goal doesn't mean that each step in the way isn't also valuable. Sure, you're still worse than a Wizard 20 but that's a given if you're playing 3.5/PF.

[ATalsen]

And even that +16/9th, well, what's the point of it?

To me the point of a Gish is to be self-sufficient.

In games where treasure is not reliably select-able, you can use appropriate buff spells to overcome the deficit without needing to rely on other characters to supply you. In games where crafting is available or desirable you can craft (maybe not everything you want, depending on feats available and build).

If you need magic to overcome an encounter, you have it, if you need to self-buff (or even buff the party instead) and go melee, you have it.
Just the ability to cast spells that provide long duration resistance to energy is a huge step toward self-sufficiency that a typical martial character can't provide themselves.

You mus have made A LOT of sacrifices to get to that point.

A well-optimized Gish will have made sacrifices in areas the game is not designed to focus on, or the player is ok with other characters handling.
Gishes typically let you engage with more areas of the game - casters engage with much of the game, and martial engage with much less, so even if you just use your magic in combat to make you equivalent to a martial, during non-combat portions you can use yoru magic resources to do more than they can.

I just don't see that as much of a sacrifice, though there will be some, I agree.

Or maybe it's the other way around and you only really have buff and utility spells. But if you spend to much time buffing, in 3.5 combat, the rest of the party has mostly already finished the encounter. Or you are up against a powerful boss and he smacks you in the face mid-buff. So you stop buffing as much and then realize that all you needed was a powerful martial with some magical defense and utility. And there are easier ways to get that then the +16/9th.

Generally I tend toward long term buffs when I use Gishes, so they are up and running when the encounter begins. I'd agree that more than 1 round buffing is probably not effective in many cases.

A Gish can be a powerful martial, and/or a powerful caster as the need arises - and that ability to switch off at will allows a Gish to successfully engage in more of what a game has available to engage in than just a caster or just a martial.

You pay a bit in power, perhaps, depending on precise build, but I've learned from other systems that more resources you can 'shift around' to fit the current situation the overall more power (in terms of combat OR ability to direct the narrative) your PC possesses.


To me, a Gish is not better at begin a martial than a dedicated martial is, nor better at casting than a dedicated caster is, but by being most of both, they are more effective at dealing with the entire scope of the game than either one.

[ATalsen]

The +16 BAB benchmark very much says you want to be full-attacking, because you're clearly really desperate for that one extra attack (it's the only difference between +15 and +16 after all, other than another +1 to attack). But just being restricted to full-attacks is really restrictive - all they do is damage (and not even necessarily competetive damage), and you only get to execute them in quite narrow circumstances.

I concede that going for +16 does make it appear that for Gishes I want to be full attacking, and for some builds I probably do.

However its really just a goal that's designed to keep the build 'on track' to have a good BAB throughout the build.

Also, it strikes me as very silly to insist that a Gish must cap out at +16 BAB. "Chase this 20th-level build" mentality aside, it also means that the Druid or Cleric - two classes who very much blend fighting and spellcasting - aren't "Gishes", which is quite silly indeed. (Well, they aren't arcane spellcasters, but that doesn't mean much).

That's the other part of defining Gish as needing +16 - it effectively says "no full 20 base classes are Gishes". And that helps narrow the field of what I consider Gishes.

Gish started as a term for Psionic/Marital cross, and became Magic/Martial, but I, myself, never refer to Divine Magic/Martial PCs as Gishes - they just aren't to me. To me a Gish needs to be Arcane or Psionic.

3.5 Druids are very awesome in casting and melee, and I enjoyed the heck out of the time I played one, but I never thought of the PC as a Gish.

[Quertus]

If you're a gish, you are capable of doing two things sufficiently well that they're relevant: you can cast spells, and you can make weapon attacks (usually in melee, but one can expand that to ranged attacks).

"Gish" is kinda an oldschool term, and, if memory serves, it pretty much means this. The character can competently engage the "fighting" minigame, and is capable of competently engaging the "casting" minigame.

In the original Elder Scrolls, I built a character who spread her talents rather thin. In melee, her cadence was something like "miss miss hit miss hit" (whereas my brother's character was more like "hit crit crit hit crit"). She could cast spells, which I mostly used to survive combat (+100 HP per caster level made for quite the tank), but also for random utility. And she could make an attempt - and generally fail - at every lock / trap / whatever.

Was this character a Gish? IMO, no, because, while I could engage every minigame, I could not do so competently.

That is how I define the term.

EDIT

Mr definition is independent of how quickly one attains this capability. A character who went straight Fighter 20, then took 20 levels of Wizard is, at that point, a Gish. Even if they were not a Gish for the first 20+ levels.

[Kurald Galain]

However its really just a goal that's designed to keep the build 'on track' to have a good BAB throughout the build.

Good to hear that. The thing is that if your goal is to have an attack bonus (instead of BAB) at a certain rate, then you do have to take class-based self-buffs into account, such as rage, or a swift-action weapon enchant.

Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options

That's a good point, getting N-th level spells as early as possible is a useful goal.

Interestingly, if you apply this goal to the levels most commonly played at (as opposed to the hypothetical level 20), single-class gishes suddenly become very competitive over prestige classed ones.

[ExLibrisMortis]

For me, the quintessential gish is a character that prefers to fight and deal damage with (physical) weapons, and most of its ability to do so is supplied by magic. That is, a gish is way worse at melee combat than at spellcasting, until they start spellcasting. The Dragon Age Arcane Warrior is a perfect example: mostly sucks at melee (having exactly zero melee skills and low strength), but the ability to activate combat magic/haste/rock armour/arcane shield/shimmering shield makes for a pretty effective overall fighter.

In 3.5, for example, I wouldn't consider a war mage/havoc mage/spellsword a gish, even though they are "battle mages" intended to be in melee wielding a sword. The war mage list just doesn't have enough buff spells to call this character a gish.

That said, it wouldn't take much to make a war mage into a gish, only a few spells would do it (bite of the werebear, haste, that sort of thing). Anyone who supplies their own spells (and doesn't just UMD some wands or wear some magic items), to improve their combat prowess has something of a gish about them, even if it's not their primary trick, so they could be called "gish" if you wanted to talk about that part of their abilities.

[tadkins]

A Gish, to me, is something to play if you want to look competent with a sword but also want to reshape reality to your whim.

[Faily]

For me, a gish is a character who uses both magic and weapons equally, usually Arcane or Psionic but in cases of Pathfinder's Inquisitor and Warpriest I'd include those under that umbrella too. If I were to pinpoint mechanical aspects, it would be at least 6th level spells and around 3/4 BAB progression (can be a mix of full and 1/2 BAB from different classes).

A gish fights with weapons, enhanced by magic, but also wields magic to solve problems that their weapons cannot (utility stuff like Knock, Invisibility, Scrying, Dimension Door, Teleport). They're tough enough to stand with the martials on the frontlines (but might not be able to tank it all on their own). Without their magic they tend to lag behind the martials, but with magic they can outpace them easily.

I've never been one to chase that 16BAB/9th spells since... well, if I got 9th level spells, why should I worry about using weapons?

[tadkins]

well, if I got 9th level spells, why should I worry about using weapons?

To portray the look you want for your character. Sometimes you want a wizard that swings an awesome-looking magically-charged blade, rather than blasting them with a spell. The great thing about being a gish wizard is that you can teleport to a plane, beat some stuff up, and head back home to your personalized magical demiplane to have a cold one.

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.

[dude123nice]

Eh. You can just walk around with Shapechange and go full attacking/abilitying people as a gish and you'll be more than fine. In that, the 16 BAB is more than fine. You don't need to invest another 9th level slot and since that one lasts for hours it allows for pretty good all day clearing of all but the toughest of challenges (for which you have all your spell slots since you're just bludgeoning most things to death effortlessly). Of course, every step in the way (every new spell level and every attack) also opens up new options; it's not like getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 is somehow obsolete and something like Contingency is of great use to a Gish. Just because you aim for a certain goal doesn't mean that each step in the way isn't also valuable. Sure, you're still worse than a Wizard 20 but that's a given if you're playing 3.5/PF.

Getting 6th level spells on ECL 12 makes everything else obsolete. The problem with walking around in Shapechange and melee-ing people is: WHY WOULD YOU? Even in shapechange a wizard focused on spellcasting is still better off spellcasting. Shape change is best to get defences and special abilities, not melee. Except if you did something like intentionally take feats and prestige classes that improved your melee at the expense of your casting, and in that case that could in fact be considered a Gish.

To portray the look you want for your character. Sometimes you want a wizard that swings an awesome-looking magically-charged blade, rather than blasting them with a spell. The great thing about being a gish wizard is that you can teleport to a plane, beat some stuff up, and head back home to your personalized magical demiplane to have a cold one.

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.

Problem with that is that if your DM is giving you anything remotely close to appropriately challenging encounters, your Wizard/EK Knight would be the one getting beat up, not the other way around. A EK Knight is probably worse than a bard with no archetypes at melee. And if you try to mitigate the problem by focusing A LOT on your physical stats.... well you will still be sub par melee, and now your DCs and spells per day will be poor to. Saying " I am a Gish because my DM is lenient " is a pretty poor argument, since I am sure this thread assumes that a Gish should be at least basically competent for their level.

[Kurald Galain]

It's why I always preferred stuff like Wizard/Eldritch Knight to the Magus for that purpose. The Magus is definitely a very well designed, mechanically-sound class no doubt, but I don't think it can do what I just described above.

Challenge accepted

Turns out the Magus can do this, because it can pick some spells from the wizard list. Spend a feat to get the Janni's Jaunt spell and you're all set. If you don't need to go cross-planar, Teleport is already on the Magus list (although a wizard/EK can cast this two levels earlier than a Magus could). HTH!

[tadkins]

Problem with that is that if your DM is giving you anything remotely close to appropriately challenging encounters, your Wizard/EK Knight would we the one getting beat up, not the other way around. A EK Knight is probably worse than a bard with no archetypes at melee. And if you try to mitigate the problem by focusing A LOT on your physical stats.... well you will still be sub par melee, and now your DCs and spells per day will be poor to. Saying " I am a Gish because my DM is lenient " is a pretty poor argument, since I am sure this thread assumes that a Gish should be at least basically competent for their level.

But wouldn't those 9th level spells kind of even things out?

Challenge accepted

Turns out the Magus can do this, because it can pick some spells from the wizard list. Spend a feat to get the Janni's Jaunt spell and you're all set. If you don't need to go cross-planar, Teleport is already on the Magus list (although a wizard/EK can cast this two levels earlier than a Magus could). HTH!

I mean, hell, if it was possible for a Magus to do that, then I would be 100% behind that class. You'd probably know better than anyone if it was possible, but I've always been embarassed to ask. I just have an overactive imagination and want a character that can do the craziest things. :D

-Travel to different planes, different worlds, and through space.
-Create its own personal dreamhome demiplane that reflects its mindset/tastes/personality.

Everything else I would want, I know the Magus could do already. It really is a great class. It's just that the Wizard could do pretty much anything, including what I posted above. And making it into an EK doesn't hurt that.

[dude123nice]

But wouldn't those 9th level spells kind of even things out?

If you choose good 9th level spells then you are solving everything with magic, and so the whole EK thing is wasted on the character, and, if you pick bad spells, then no, they don't even things out. And what do you do UNTIL you get those spells? Or do you only play characters starting from 19th level?

[tadkins]

If you choose good 9th level spells then you are solving everything with magic, and so the whole EK thing is wasted on the character, and, if you pick bad spells, then no, they don't even things out. And what do you do UNTIL you get those spells? Or do you only play characters starting from 19th level?

Which is totally fine. You choose the EK route if you want to be a wizard that holds a sword (and doesn't look like a fool swinging it).

It's true that most campaigns don't reach that high, but generally don't you plan on a character that might get there? I always look at the capstones and think "it'll be neat if this character gets it one day!".

[dude123nice]

Which is totally fine. You choose the EK route if you want to be a wizard that holds a sword (and doesn't look like a fool swinging it).

It's true that most campaigns don't reach that high, but generally don't you plan on a character that might get there? I always look at the capstones and think "it'll be neat if this character gets it one day!".

But there is no meaning to the wizard to hold sword. And you still DO have to slog through those low levels. I mean you are entitled to your own opinion, but, as I've already said, I think many people in this thread, like me, are looking for a mechanically viable way to be a Gish. For a build where combining spellcasting and physical fighting is an optimal choice, not a deliberate limiting of one's potential. I just don't see any point in being a wizard who flaunts around a sword he can't use effectively. It's like a real life soldier intentionally running at enemy lines with a bayonet these days when he still has a good angle to shoot at them.

EDIT: what I mean to say is, just like the bayonet soldier, a wizard with EK levels still looks like a fool against any serious opposition, because he has much better options. Your build only really works with a lenient DM ant that's the hard truth.

[tadkins]

But there is no meaning to the wizard to hold sword. And you still DO have to slog through those low levels. I mean you are entitled to your own opinion, but, as I've already said, I think many people in this thread, like me, are looking for a mechanically viable way to be a Gish. For a build where combining spellcasting and physical fighting is an optimal choice, not a deliberate limiting of one's potential. I just don't see any point in being a wizard who flaunts around a sword he can't use effectively. It's like a real life soldier intentionally running at enemy lines with a bayonet these days when he still has a good angle to shoot at them.

The only meaning you need is whether or not you envision your wizard holding a big two-handed sword instead of a staff. I don't think the EK is as bad as you describe either. It would run at the enemy lines with a magically charged weapon, cutting down squadrons that can't even move because time itself has been commanded to stop for them. Certainly would take a long time to get there though, no question.

It sounds like what you're looking for is the Magus. That's the class that's designed from the ground up to combine magic with martial fighting, and it does it very well. I've already described what I want in a character and the Magus doesn't have that sadly (as far as I know). But for your purposes it would be perfect.

[dude123nice]

The only meaning you need is whether or not you envision your wizard holding a big two-handed sword instead of a staff. I don't think the EK is as bad as you describe either.

Yes it is that bad . Almost any of the 3/4 Bab 3/4 casting classes are better martials than it is. And I can assure you I already am well acquainted with the magus. It is because I know what a TRUE Gish is that I can confidently say that EK is just bad.