Besides the Hexblade, there is also the Swordmage, which can also be hybridized very effectively with the Wizard.  Really, 4e is one of the friendliest systems to spellcasters with swords (among systems that make meaningful distinctions between sword wielders and spellcasters).

1of3 - Gandalf as Invoker certainly works - cookie for you.

I'd submit that Merlin is the actual quintessential wizard. As has been pointed out, Gandalf is a demi-god/angel/superhero. Besides, Samwise was the actual hero of the story, why does everyone end up wanting to be Gandalf, Legolas, or Aragon? Anyway, IMO seeking to become a melee specialist is actually nerfing the 4e wizard concept if what one wants is to be as effective as possible. I would be all about CC/utility if I were to play another 4e wizard. Otherwise, tell the player to suck it up and grow a pair, either make an actual arcane meleer as others have said or just play his wizard the way he wants and stop quibbling over 2 points of damage that he can easily make back with magic, being a wizard and all.

Quote from: Sigmund;450878I'd submit that Merlin is the actual quintessential wizard. As has been pointed out, Gandalf is a demi-god/angel/superhero.

I think it's just a self-referential, post-modern way of looking at Gandalf. By that same token, Merlin is a demi-god/demon/superhero as well, since his origins are described as being related to incubi (in Robert de Boron's take, late 12th century/early 13th, he is the son of a devil and virgin intended to become the Antichrist, no less. In Geoffrey's of Monmouth's, 12th century, he is the son of an incubus and a king's daughter), and his gifts make him an outsider in the world of men (in some versions he acquires his powers from becoming mad at the sight of war and finding wisdom in the forest).

I think the theme of otherworldliness, of connection to something "out there," to the magic that makes up the cosmos, nature, whatever is outside of the sphere of influence of men and their civilization, is part of the wizard archetype, whether we're talking about Gandalf or Merlin.

Quote from: Benoist;450900I think it's just a self-referential, post-modern way of looking at Gandalf.

Ben, WTF? :confused: Tolkien himself identifies the Wizards (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast the [strike]Shitty[/strike] Brown and the two others) as Maia. Which is to say, demigods or angels. Tolkien refers to Gandalf as "an angel" a few times in the Unfinished Works and in letters.

Tolkien was many things, but self-referential and post-modern he ain't.

Quote from: The Butcher;450920Ben, WTF? :confused: Tolkien himself identifies the Wizards (Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast the [strike]Shitty[/strike] Brown and the two others) as Maia.

Yup. As a Maia. Not a "demi-god." Not an "angel." Not a "superhero."

Quote from: The Butcher;450920Which is to say, demigods or angels.

No. There's no strict equivalence here. It's a shortcut.

Quote from: The Butcher;450920Tolkien refers to Gandalf as "an angel" a few times in the Unfinished Works and in letters.

Would be the closest of the three, and an imperfect one at that. You'll find that there are comparisons drawn in UW and letters, but there is no strict equivalence there. Tolkien spells out as much.

Quote from: The Butcher;450920Tolkien was many things, but self-referential and post-modern he ain't.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that referring to Gandalf on a strict equivalence basis as a "demi-god, angel, superhero" is inaccurate. It fails to take into account Gandalf in its context, i.e. Middle-earth, to instead consider him in some sort of miasma of pop culture context. Tolkien certainly wasn't into that kind of pop culture. Hence, if you want to enlarge the context, it pays to compare to (Western, Britain/Northern) legend and myth, and you'll find actually big similarities between Gandalf and Merlin, which ultimately was my point.

EDIT - to my own defense, I'm actually not a fan of superheroes in general. I think that's the particular word that got to me. I'm not trying to make a big deal out of it. Just pointing out how I see similarities between Gandalf and Merlin is what the post was really about.

Quote"As for 'whose authority decides these things?' The immediate 'authorities' are the Valar (the Powers or Authorities): the 'gods'. But they are only created spirits - of high angelic order we should say, with their attendant lesser angels - reverend, therefore, but not worshipful; and though potently 'subcreative', and resident on Earth to which they are bound by love, having assisted in its making and ordering, they cannot by their own will alter any fundamental provision."
Letter 131

The 'attendant lesser angels' would be the Maiar.

"But G. is not, of course, a human being (Man or Hobbit). There are naturally no precise modern terms to say what he was. I wd. venture to say that he was an incarnate 'angel'-..."
Letter 156

"G." refers to Gandalf.

"He is still under the obligation of concealing his power and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no more violently than the release of St Peter from prison."
Op. cit.

"He" refers to Gandalf.

Note the use of the apostrophe to say 'angel', the 'gods' etc i.e. all these things are approximations, comparisons for the modern reader. They are not strict equivalences.

It was interesting when I played 4e we had a noob in the group who had this Character idea he was convinced was awesome.

A wizard from a Family of Barbarians. It's an okay concept but he clashed with our rules expert (on the borders of lawyerism) over the fact he ignored his advice and dumped points into Strength and Constitution.

The effect of which is when our Battle Plan inevitibly screwed up our Kung Fu Wizard dealt far more damage than any of our warrior types.

Between that and the Drow Barbarian falling unconcious every fight, the flamboyantly camp Tiefling Warlord demanding pink drinks with umbrellas in them and the Dwarf "veteran of the sort of war you go through and still start on level 1" our game was more a parody of D&D than a D&D game which made our DM facepalm often!

Quote from: Benoist;450927Note the use of the apostrophe to say 'angel', the 'gods' etc i.e. all these things are approximations, comparisons for the modern reader. They are not strict equivalences.

Someone should totally draft a mythological equivalence table, kind of like NATO has one for dictating equivalence between military ranks of different countries.

Quote from: The Butcher;450931Someone should totally draft a mythological equivalence table, kind of like NATO has one for dictating equivalence between military ranks of different countries.

Somebody should pitch this idea as a GURPS supplement to Steve Jackson.

Quote from: Benoist;450924Yup. As a Maia. Not a "demi-god." Not an "angel." Not a "superhero."

Gandalf is a Maia. The Maia are lesser Ainur. The greater Ainur are the Valar. So, if we think of the Valar as "gods" then Gandalf can be characterized as a "demi-god" or "lesser god". They might also be characterised in other ways, but that's not the point. Also, if one thinks of "angels" as lesser divine beings, then "angel" is also an appropriate comparison. Lastly, most of the "superheroes" we read about/watch in fiction are beings (mortal or otherwise) who have "powers" that we consider "supernatural" or "superhuman". Among the ranks of "superheroes" are even some characters that have, in our real world legends and myths, been characterized as "demigods" and even full-blown "gods". Sorry Benny, but your hang-ups about superheroes are your problem and in no way make my characterizations inaccurate.

QuoteNo. There's no strict equivalence here. It's a shortcut.

Wrong, but ultimately, so what? There's nothing inherently wrong with short cuts.

QuoteThat's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that referring to Gandalf on a strict equivalence basis as a "demi-god, angel, superhero" is inaccurate. It fails to take into account Gandalf in its context, i.e. Middle-earth, to instead consider him in some sort of miasma of pop culture context. Tolkien certainly wasn't into that kind of pop culture. Hence, if you want to enlarge the context, it pays to compare to (Western, Britain/Northern) legend and myth, and you'll find actually big similarities between Gandalf and Merlin, which ultimately was my point.

As I said, the characterization is not inaccurate, although in the context in which I was making it, strict accuracy isn't needed anyway. You have a point about Merlin though. I am not as familiar with Merlin's mythological origins. Perhaps it's just that I see Merlin as more "wizardly" in the way we think about wizards in much of the fiction I've enjoyed containing the character. He seems more proactive, more willing to involve himself in things. He fits, and probably went a long way towards inspiring, the wizardly advisor archetype. The "power behind the throne" kinda thing. Whatever, in the end, a first level 4e D&D wizard isn't, and shouldn't be IMO, either Gandalf or Merlin.

Edit: I'd like all my bards to be Egil Skallagrimsson, I'd like all my rogues to be the Grey Mouser or the Stainless Steel Rat, I'd like all my warriors to be.... well, Egil Skallagrimsson. Just wouldn't be fair to the other players, unless we're putting together a fantasy version of the Avengers or the A-team, which while a fun concept for a campaign is not the vibe I get from the OP.