Any Drizzt/Artemis Fans here

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: @Delphi

That's the problem. There have been many ways, but there hasn't been one way that gained traction. Multiclassing has the most history, but it by definition lacks a shorthand. Bards have gone through many mechanical shifts and are most (in)famous for being terrible, not for mixing spells with swords. Other options have come and gone, but none have become dominant. The term bandied about online, at least, is gish; that not only means nothing to most non-D&D gamers, it means nothing to most people who don't have the right D&D background or don't frequent character build forums.

3e bards are only terrible by comparison to wizards (which is true for most other classes too) and 4e bards are actually good. i do see your point but i think the proliferation of character classes from 3e onwards means that class-as-identity is now more or less dead: your class is primarily a set of mechanical properties and it's up to you to pick the right class or classes to fit your character concept, rather than your class being your character concept in itself

anyway if you do want a term that connotes "a mage who uses a sword", it's hard to be more direct than "swordmage"

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

No, a cleric is not a cleric plus. Since the beginning, clerics have been better fighters than mages but worse fighters than warriors. The balance is that their magic is supposed to be more limited or less powerful than that of mages. I think this is true enough. Healing is important, but it doesn't impact a big battle the way a fireball does.

this isn't really true for mid-to-high-level clerics in 3e, where the Righteous Might spell instantly turns you into as good a melee combatant as most non-heavily-optimised fighters. clerics arguably have fewer totally game-changing spells than wizards, but they still have more than enough win-the-fight-in-one-standard-action spells to go around and they're less dependent on DM largesse in order to acquire those spells in the first place. of course 3e full-caster classes are kind of broken in general (to give an instructive example, fireball is actually one of the worst 3rd-level combat spells for wizards in 3e, despite standing up pretty well against what non-casting classes can do)

[Alorael at Large]

Where do the Knights of Solamnia turn undead? Original modules? AD&D sourcebooks?

 

—Alorael, who found the original trilogy quite clear on the lack of any supernatural powers among Solamnics. They were knights in the European sense: aristocracy with arms and armor and a code of honor.

[Aoslare]

I thought I remembered this from DQOK, and I did.

 

Wikipedia:

Knights of the Sword... are granted minor healing abilities by Kiri-Jolith, their patron, and are valuable in a battle as they are both great fighters and can heal in a pinch.

Knights of the Rose... Due to their extreme faith in Paladine, the patron deity of this Order, they are able to banish undead by praying. They are also immune to any form of fear.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: @Delphi

Where do the Knights of Solamnia turn undead? Original modules? AD&D sourcebooks?

—Alorael, who found the original trilogy quite clear on the lack of any supernatural powers among Solamnics. They were knights in the European sense: aristocracy with arms and armor and a code of honor.

Click to reveal..

You have to remember that the gods had only just returned in the original trilogy. Krynn had no cleric powers for a very long time, so the knights you see in that trilogy do not have that power. The order of old had that power, and they do have it later after the gods return, well, until the gods leave again at the end of Dragons of Summer Flame. Presumably, they have cleric powers again post War of Souls.