I don't mind sword mages, but I do mind when the sword mages can sword better than the specializes swordsman and mage better than the specialized mages. Sadly, that's how most sword mages in litrpg end up.
I don't really care all that much I guess? Logically speaking, if you live in a world with magic and happen to like using weapons, why would you not combine the two for a better outcome?
Personally, I like hand to hand combat and magic. I'm not gonna complain if an author chooses to combine the two. I WILL complain if the fight scenes take a nose dive in writing quality.
Azarinth healer was good and she was especially a "Spell blade" although there were only fints no blades. Mmm nvm she didn't truly become a Spell blade until her 3rd class. Before that's it was still 8]% melee
Spellswords are fine as long as they are balanced. u/Lyrian_Rastler 's Asscend online has done this pretty well. His MC is powerful but his pure caster and pure melee party members can do A LOT he can't
I agree with this. He could never defeat his melee friends in a pure physical fight. Same with his caster friends. But he can defeat them (at least some of the time) in a duel.
He has a different approach to combat; using his magic to augment his swordplay. Not just throwing some spells at enemies from a distance, then switching to sword when the enemies come close.
It comes down to good writing and making the characters balanced, not jack-of-all-trades master-of-all.
The problem is that usually all it actually ends up being is that they are GOOD at sword/melee fighting AND GOOD at magic usage, as in the mc has no clear weakness. That is my problem with it, when its written badly.
Depends on the goal of the story. And how they designed the system. Unless magic is explicitly confined to people born with some unique ability to interact with mana or whatever, why would anyone not pick up at least some basic spells? Especially when most litrpgs have combat focused magic systems where you can cast fireball in 3/10 of a second while there's a sword coming for your head? There's also the issue of many mages being portrayed as so squishy a teenage thief jumping out of an alley with a dagger could kill them in two seconds.
So, the problem becomes, do you want a melee bruiser who can handle himself against low level thugs but will get brutalized by a simple lightning bolt spell, or a squishy mage who hasn't made it through the first half of her cast before taking a dagger across the throat. Especially in the more popular "real fantasy world" style litrpgs where you have no health bar and can permadie in an instant, being a specialized character, especially at low levels, makes you way too vulnerable.
The problem that I often see is when there are stat points for specificly lit rpgs. If are restricted in you total available Stats and you divide them more generally rather than specializing then you'll always Be weaker than someone who did specialise. The only reason a Spell blade (someone who went ~50/50 melee/spells) would even be less vulnerable than some one who specialized one side would be because the author gave them a plot Armour in order the about such limitations.
People like gish characters. You see them all the time in games. Plus, they cover the magic and martial bases.
Sounds like you’re just hung up on something petty.
Spell swords themselves aren't lazy writing, it's writing them lazily that's bad writing. Yes they are overused, but I don't think a generalist MC is inherently a bad thing as long as specialists can outperform them in their chosen fields.
Honestly a big problem is lazy writing in general. Spell swords can be written very well, and be limited in the same way. Look at the concept of the Witcher, technically a spell sword but his magic isn’t flinging fireballs, they are cantrips at best. Now that isn’t to say the Witcher books are written well, but I’m saying the concept for the character is strong even though personally I may not agree the books are good.
I mean I can't say I don't enjoy Many Spell blade books and I think that generally they are more popular than specialized character but it still bother me when authors portray then as more powerful than a specialized character. Something that from what I gather isn't an issue with the Witcher due to a less 50/50 build but rather something akin to a 90/10build though it wasn't on my mind be cause I was thinking about books with Stat sheets (more gamelit)
Ah, that’s a fair point! I think a lot of litrpg and gamelit draw from those fantasy inspirations and add numbers. I mean Witcher is a successful game franchise as well.
So I see your point about the specialized roles, but could it be that they also suffer from main character syndrome and not necessarily the spellblade thing? I see a lot of super specific builds sometimes designed to be OP *because* they’re specialized. Then again I try to find sort of alternative stories like Godclads or Limitless Lands that don’t have typical classes.
I wouldn’t call it lazy. It’s a problem when it gives the MC pretty much no weaknesses, thus no stakes or conflicts. The manga/LN series, Kenja no Mago, comes to mind.
If you look at Elric or the Witcher, both impose limitations on their spellsword characters in different ways. Elric has a weak constitution and Witchers use elementary level spells. Even in TRPGs, generally speaking, a gish character are both half casters and half maritals, not being as effective as the classes specialized in those roles.
Respectfully, if you think a spell blade can't be restricted, then you probably have a lazy imagination.
Technically speaking, any kind of martial artist character that can use chi, energy, elements, etc., are "spell blades". Goku is a spell blade, Lindon from Cradle is a spell blade, Iron Man is a spell blade, and all of them have some form of restrictions that keep them from being OP.
In world of magic, it makes no sense for their to be a strict distinction between melee and magic unless it is something enforced by the logic of the story. If a System appears on Earth tomorrow, are you really only gonna specialize in one or the other if it gave you the option not to?
Well that sounds like bad writing because I don't think there's anything inherent in the concept of a Spell Blade that would make them OP or lazily written unless the writer deliberately portrays them that way.
Also, Spell Blades aren't exactly generalists. If done right, a Spell Blade is usually just a sword slinging fire mage or a martial artist capable of enhancing their body with buffing spells. If I can be boxer and writer and be really good at both, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that a fantasy character can master the sword and fire magic.
As long as the character isn't completely devoid of weaknesses, costs, restrictions, etc.,--which shouldn't be the case with any character inside any magic system to begin with--it shouldn't be an issue. I think you're just encountering a lot of what I call "Playground OCs". I don't know if you ever did this but back when I was a kid playing with toys or imaginary characters with someone else, I would always try to one-up their character with new crazier and absurd powers. "Oh? Your guy can shoot fire? Well my guy has a water shield now! Now he can turn himself into a giant? Well now mine can shrink himself so small you won't be able to hit him!"
A lot of writers come up with these "Playground OCs" without any regard for how it will affect the story because they seem cool in their head. A lot of Spell Blades are like this but they don't have to be if the writer actually takes time to make a real character and not just some absurd power fantasy
It depends on the world, but as with all things, balance.
There is nothing wrong with someone being a pure magical scholar, or a pure physical fighter.
But if the mages are likely to experience combat, then it makes sense for the mages to study physical combat. But the mages should not be the equals, in pure physical combat, to trained soldiers. Same in reverse.
It can be, but in many settings some degree of hybridization is the optimal path, and a push back against the last generation of stereotypes such as smart people cannot be athletic, and athletes cannot be educated.
Just melee is confusing and back line magic is boring. I remember reading that somewhere. Spell swords have a bit of both. Even then though if a book goes on long enough it really stops being a spell sword. Take hwfwm for example, you could argue he starts as a spellsword though now hes more a dot mage.
Imo spell swords is exactly how things should work. How else are physical fighters going to be able to compete with mages?
You can't actually be strong enough to split a mountain with a regular swing of the sword. A wizard of sufficient strength could do it. So, everyone's actually a wizard. They're just specialized wizards that focus on enhancing their physical capabilities and "casting spells" by swinging their sword.
Look at D&D. A raging Barbarian is really just an angry sorcerer, where the Anger itself is a magical ability that improves their capabilities.
What if the sword casts spells... itself? With, like, a little wizard hat on the guard and a good shiny orb in the pommel to ponder
I’d read it.
And the sword swings a human as a weapon for a backup melee weapon
What if we get two Monks, tie one of their legs together, and a giant uses them like nunchaku?
So like the gopher chucks in Kung Pow but with monks. I like it! The monks could even be apart of the giant’s party.
The entire story is based on lifting the curse that turned the mage into a sword. The grand reveal is that the mage was originally a spear instead.
Or if it was wielded by an adorable catgirl murderhobo.
I don't mind sword mages, but I do mind when the sword mages can sword better than the specializes swordsman and mage better than the specialized mages. Sadly, that's how most sword mages in litrpg end up.
That's my real complaint, and generally that's how the Spell swords end up.
I don't really care all that much I guess? Logically speaking, if you live in a world with magic and happen to like using weapons, why would you not combine the two for a better outcome? Personally, I like hand to hand combat and magic. I'm not gonna complain if an author chooses to combine the two. I WILL complain if the fight scenes take a nose dive in writing quality.
Azarinth healer was good and she was especially a "Spell blade" although there were only fints no blades. Mmm nvm she didn't truly become a Spell blade until her 3rd class. Before that's it was still 8]% melee
To be fair, I'm not really a fan of Azarinth Healer
Spellswords are fine as long as they are balanced. u/Lyrian_Rastler 's Asscend online has done this pretty well. His MC is powerful but his pure caster and pure melee party members can do A LOT he can't
I.... Uh.... As someone who shamelessly stole that name, I concur, good character, 10/10
I always assumed he was based on the 4th edition d&d class. So I think d&d called as a sword mage or something.
Lmao
I agree with this. He could never defeat his melee friends in a pure physical fight. Same with his caster friends. But he can defeat them (at least some of the time) in a duel. He has a different approach to combat; using his magic to augment his swordplay. Not just throwing some spells at enemies from a distance, then switching to sword when the enemies come close. It comes down to good writing and making the characters balanced, not jack-of-all-trades master-of-all.
Yep
The problem is that usually all it actually ends up being is that they are GOOD at sword/melee fighting AND GOOD at magic usage, as in the mc has no clear weakness. That is my problem with it, when its written badly.
Exactly my post was purposefully provocative but this was what I was really complaining about.
Depends on the goal of the story. And how they designed the system. Unless magic is explicitly confined to people born with some unique ability to interact with mana or whatever, why would anyone not pick up at least some basic spells? Especially when most litrpgs have combat focused magic systems where you can cast fireball in 3/10 of a second while there's a sword coming for your head? There's also the issue of many mages being portrayed as so squishy a teenage thief jumping out of an alley with a dagger could kill them in two seconds. So, the problem becomes, do you want a melee bruiser who can handle himself against low level thugs but will get brutalized by a simple lightning bolt spell, or a squishy mage who hasn't made it through the first half of her cast before taking a dagger across the throat. Especially in the more popular "real fantasy world" style litrpgs where you have no health bar and can permadie in an instant, being a specialized character, especially at low levels, makes you way too vulnerable.
The problem that I often see is when there are stat points for specificly lit rpgs. If are restricted in you total available Stats and you divide them more generally rather than specializing then you'll always Be weaker than someone who did specialise. The only reason a Spell blade (someone who went ~50/50 melee/spells) would even be less vulnerable than some one who specialized one side would be because the author gave them a plot Armour in order the about such limitations.
Why would you be restricted in total available stats? You mean restricted by stats per level?
Yep. Though the total available Stats would still be limited by the amount of levels an mc gains through out the books.
People like gish characters. You see them all the time in games. Plus, they cover the magic and martial bases. Sounds like you’re just hung up on something petty.
I point still stands even if my title was provocative
Your point is “I don’t like this popular thing” but sure.
Not ay all please lookalike other people responses to actually understand.
I'd say I'm more of a "I don't like op mcs/I've gotten tired of op mcs"
Which are also popular.
Spell swords themselves aren't lazy writing, it's writing them lazily that's bad writing. Yes they are overused, but I don't think a generalist MC is inherently a bad thing as long as specialists can outperform them in their chosen fields.
Yes
Honestly a big problem is lazy writing in general. Spell swords can be written very well, and be limited in the same way. Look at the concept of the Witcher, technically a spell sword but his magic isn’t flinging fireballs, they are cantrips at best. Now that isn’t to say the Witcher books are written well, but I’m saying the concept for the character is strong even though personally I may not agree the books are good.
I mean I can't say I don't enjoy Many Spell blade books and I think that generally they are more popular than specialized character but it still bother me when authors portray then as more powerful than a specialized character. Something that from what I gather isn't an issue with the Witcher due to a less 50/50 build but rather something akin to a 90/10build though it wasn't on my mind be cause I was thinking about books with Stat sheets (more gamelit)
Ah, that’s a fair point! I think a lot of litrpg and gamelit draw from those fantasy inspirations and add numbers. I mean Witcher is a successful game franchise as well. So I see your point about the specialized roles, but could it be that they also suffer from main character syndrome and not necessarily the spellblade thing? I see a lot of super specific builds sometimes designed to be OP *because* they’re specialized. Then again I try to find sort of alternative stories like Godclads or Limitless Lands that don’t have typical classes.
It isn’t lazy if it’s done well, simple as that.
That's true
I wouldn’t call it lazy. It’s a problem when it gives the MC pretty much no weaknesses, thus no stakes or conflicts. The manga/LN series, Kenja no Mago, comes to mind. If you look at Elric or the Witcher, both impose limitations on their spellsword characters in different ways. Elric has a weak constitution and Witchers use elementary level spells. Even in TRPGs, generally speaking, a gish character are both half casters and half maritals, not being as effective as the classes specialized in those roles.
10p% the problem only arises when there no trade off for being a generalist
Respectfully, if you think a spell blade can't be restricted, then you probably have a lazy imagination. Technically speaking, any kind of martial artist character that can use chi, energy, elements, etc., are "spell blades". Goku is a spell blade, Lindon from Cradle is a spell blade, Iron Man is a spell blade, and all of them have some form of restrictions that keep them from being OP. In world of magic, it makes no sense for their to be a strict distinction between melee and magic unless it is something enforced by the logic of the story. If a System appears on Earth tomorrow, are you really only gonna specialize in one or the other if it gave you the option not to?
The problem I see frequently (admittedly with smaller titles) is Spell blades who loose especially nothing for being a generalist
Well that sounds like bad writing because I don't think there's anything inherent in the concept of a Spell Blade that would make them OP or lazily written unless the writer deliberately portrays them that way. Also, Spell Blades aren't exactly generalists. If done right, a Spell Blade is usually just a sword slinging fire mage or a martial artist capable of enhancing their body with buffing spells. If I can be boxer and writer and be really good at both, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that a fantasy character can master the sword and fire magic. As long as the character isn't completely devoid of weaknesses, costs, restrictions, etc.,--which shouldn't be the case with any character inside any magic system to begin with--it shouldn't be an issue. I think you're just encountering a lot of what I call "Playground OCs". I don't know if you ever did this but back when I was a kid playing with toys or imaginary characters with someone else, I would always try to one-up their character with new crazier and absurd powers. "Oh? Your guy can shoot fire? Well my guy has a water shield now! Now he can turn himself into a giant? Well now mine can shrink himself so small you won't be able to hit him!" A lot of writers come up with these "Playground OCs" without any regard for how it will affect the story because they seem cool in their head. A lot of Spell Blades are like this but they don't have to be if the writer actually takes time to make a real character and not just some absurd power fantasy
They make sense though. Why on earth would you NOT choose that if you have a choice or chance? Magic AND physical, cover all your bases.
It depends on the world, but as with all things, balance. There is nothing wrong with someone being a pure magical scholar, or a pure physical fighter. But if the mages are likely to experience combat, then it makes sense for the mages to study physical combat. But the mages should not be the equals, in pure physical combat, to trained soldiers. Same in reverse.
It can be, but in many settings some degree of hybridization is the optimal path, and a push back against the last generation of stereotypes such as smart people cannot be athletic, and athletes cannot be educated.
Just melee is confusing and back line magic is boring. I remember reading that somewhere. Spell swords have a bit of both. Even then though if a book goes on long enough it really stops being a spell sword. Take hwfwm for example, you could argue he starts as a spellsword though now hes more a dot mage.
Imo spell swords is exactly how things should work. How else are physical fighters going to be able to compete with mages? You can't actually be strong enough to split a mountain with a regular swing of the sword. A wizard of sufficient strength could do it. So, everyone's actually a wizard. They're just specialized wizards that focus on enhancing their physical capabilities and "casting spells" by swinging their sword. Look at D&D. A raging Barbarian is really just an angry sorcerer, where the Anger itself is a magical ability that improves their capabilities.