Best idea I have so far is "warden".  I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered.  Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.

My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot.  The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half).  That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options.  The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).

Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly.  They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character.  You can't change it once the character starts.  Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed.  So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class.   "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1144080Best idea I have so far is "warden".  I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered.  Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.

My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot.  The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half).  That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options.  The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).

Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly.  They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character.  You can't change it once the character starts.  Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed.  So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class.   "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.

Rifts also gives us Spirit Warrior, which is a Native American neo-primitive (following the "old ways") warrior with mystical/magical/spiritual powers making a better warrior (as opposed to the more magical, less warrior Shaman).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1144080Best idea I have so far is "warden".  I'm not in love with it, but it's better than some of the alternatives I've considered.  Doesn't hurt that I see the spells for such a character as mostly supplementary to the fighting, which probably means a focus on protection, aid, and utility kind of magic.

My next favorite was "mystic", but already had it pinned to a better spot.  The progression is "warrior" (full combat options, no magic), "warden" (lots of combat options, minor magic), "mystic" (half and half).  That goes with "rogue" and "hunter" as other no magic options, "wanderer" as another minor magic option, and then "shaman" and "magi" as the more heavy magic options.  The actual magic type for any character with magic is varied (e.g. could have an academic magi or a more priestly type).

Part of my issue is that these aren't classes exactly.  They are more like base partial classes that gives a spine and some meat to the character.  You can't change it once the character starts.  Classes are then more specific and flavorful and layered on top of the rather bland base, with multi-classing allowed.  So I need a name that is descriptive enough to convey and remind of the mechanical idea, but not so much that it overly stereotypes the character or steals a label better left for a class.   "Shaman" isn't a perfect fit because it conjures an image, but I think it's also varied enough in its images that I can live with it.

Warden sounds like your character is in charge of a prison. Perhaps Warmage might be better, or Battlemage, Spellsword, etc. Though, if these are supposed to be base classes and multi-classing is allowed, I wonder if a hybrid class (like a mystical warrior) is even necessary as a base class. Wouldn't it be simpler to just multi-class into a mystical warrior concept or treat this as a specialized class built from a baseline warrior rather than treat such a specialized concept as a base class?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1143980I'm trying to get to the base archetype.  Or discover if there even is a base archetype of mostly warrior with light magic tricks?  If there is, what would you call it?

No idea of the base archetype because you'd have to define the essential ratio more. Best I could say is what you already said: D&D "elf" or TSR paladin, ranger, bard. And then at that point it is self-referential as players shaped the popularity and became a feedback as D&D developed -- basically a self-referential ouroboros of wish-fulfillment into edition development.

I guess you could say video game and anime references fed into that D&D-as-Self-Reference because early Final Fantasy & Dragon Warrior & Deedlit of 'Record of Lodoss War', etc. took straight from D&D. In turn that popularised their consciousness in fandoms so as to feed the rise of gishes (1/2 casters) and 1/3 caster and 1/4 casters all the way to now 5e with "splash caster" (from racial spell or magical feats like Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster). Apparently this has feedback looped so hard that Sword Art Online (people trapped in video game rpgs) and the like are there own anime sub-genres and their tropes & design expectations are affecting video and ttrpgs in turn.

I dunno if you can find the Ur-manifest of this archetype anymore until you define the different ratio subcategories. But at that point it's like micro-genres in music, you might as well get a pair of skinny jeans and thick-framed glasses because you'll be trawling the underground for some time, delaying your master's thesis.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1144086Warden sounds like your character is in charge of a prison. Perhaps Warmage might be better, or Battlemage, Spellsword, etc. Though, if these are supposed to be base classes and multi-classing is allowed, I wonder if a hybrid class (like a mystical warrior) is even necessary as a base class. Wouldn't it be simpler to just multi-class into a mystical warrior concept or treat this as a specialized class built from a baseline warrior rather than treat such a specialized concept as a base class?

Not exactly a class, but has some of the elements of a class.  It's not really playable by itself and no "multi-classing" on the base, only on the actual classes.   This setup is not going to be as flexible as a skills-based system or even something like a complex class-based system.  Rather, it's seeing how many options I can get into it with a system only slightly more complexity than D&D Basic/Expert setup.  Right now, the experiment is to see if the "base" stuff provides enough of a framework for the central character idea to simplify the other parts of the system.  In effect, I need to nail down the ratio of combat/magic/other in the base to box out complexity issues elsewhere.

In normal D&D, only caster characters ever get access to spells.  A wizard gains access to higher level spells at odd levels, (ie, 3rd level spells at 5th level).  We modify the spell levels a little bit, so 'full casters' get them a little earlier (and our spells only go up to 7th level), but every character has a caster level.  For 'non-casters' it is 1/2 their level minus 1 - meaning that a 3rd level warrior could learn 1st level spells if they wanted to.  They still have to invest resources (the equivalent of a feat).  This makes it pretty easy for a character to pick up a couple of tricks - like the rogue that knows how to turn themselves invisible - without fully dedicating themselves to casting or missing out on their critical class features.  We like the idea of everyone having SOME access to magic, while wizards have the most versatility with it....  

Probably worth noting - most spells that are powerful relative to your level take a full action to cast - as you get more powerful they take less time.  A powerful wizard can cast spells more quickly than a 'gaffer' - as a result, warriors and rogues are more likely to learn spells that they can use outside of combat.  Giving up a whole turn (and having to worry about having a spell disrupted) is a pretty steep cost when you could be backstabbing a fool for x3 damage.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1144133In normal D&D, only caster characters ever get access to spells.  A wizard gains access to higher level spells at odd levels, (ie, 3rd level spells at 5th level).  We modify the spell levels a little bit, so 'full casters' get them a little earlier (and our spells only go up to 7th level), but every character has a caster level.  For 'non-casters' it is 1/2 their level minus 1 - meaning that a 3rd level warrior could learn 1st level spells if they wanted to.  They still have to invest resources (the equivalent of a feat).  This makes it pretty easy for a character to pick up a couple of tricks - like the rogue that knows how to turn themselves invisible - without fully dedicating themselves to casting or missing out on their critical class features.  We like the idea of everyone having SOME access to magic, while wizards have the most versatility with it....  

Probably worth noting - most spells that are powerful relative to your level take a full action to cast - as you get more powerful they take less time.  A powerful wizard can cast spells more quickly than a 'gaffer' - as a result, warriors and rogues are more likely to learn spells that they can use outside of combat.  Giving up a whole turn (and having to worry about having a spell disrupted) is a pretty steep cost when you could be backstabbing a fool for x3 damage.

Do you deal with arcane spell failure from armor, etc?

If you're really just looking for a name ... "Supernatural Warrior" comes to mind.  Not as elegant as the one-word alternatives, but it seems to say what you want.

How about calling it a Gish.

Quote from: Shasarak;1144152How about calling it a Gish.

I'd rather not. That name is a Gith term for something specific to their culture, and I like to reserve it for that usage just as I don't call every sword wielding mage a bladesinger.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1144156I'd rather not. That name is a Gith term for something specific to their culture, and I like to reserve it for that usage just as I don't call every sword wielding mage a bladesinger.

I would not want to culturally appropriate from the Gith.

So then how about calling it a Gysh.

Quote from: Shasarak;1144203I would not want to culturally appropriate from the Gith.

So then how about calling it a Gysh.

I won't lie, that made me chuckle.

Many RuneQuest characters seemed to fit what you looking for.

In the Glory Road system, there are two kinds of classes. Professions like Mage, Initiate, Elite Warrior and Specialist in (an environment) that require so much of ones time that they exclude other classes for humans and other peoples with normal lifespans. Occupations, like Half-Mage, Hedge-Priest, Fighter and Inhabitant of (an environment) can be combined.

Fighter/Half-Mage seems like it would be split too equally to fit what you want. However, the people who have played recent examples have played them as fighters with a few spells.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1144142Do you deal with arcane spell failure from armor, etc?

We use a spell point system.  Metal armors (particularly iron/steel) make a spell more expensive to cast.  Spending as much as you would for a 3rd level spell to cast a 1st level spell gets expensive, but it is possible.  Bronze armor is not as good as iron/steel, but it reduces the cost of casting.  

We never really liked the percentage chance of spell failure, and we didn't really like thinks like 'still spell' automatically negating it.  This is a happy compromise - if you need to dress in full plate to infiltrate the lich-king's castle, you can still cast some spells, but you're much less effective - without being COMPLETELY ineffective.

I remember playing a fighter in ad&d, and feeling like it was the best class at lower levels.  Then at higher levels, the fighter was far outclassed by clerics and magic users.  So, we allowed the fighter to gain some magic items; which did help, but there was still a noticeable gap.  So, we allowed the fighter to multiclass.  My fighter stopped gaining fighter levels, and started to learn magic instead.  After doing that for a while, the fighter could better hold his own; but then he wasn't really a fighter, anymore....  Magus would have been more appropriate.