D&D General why do we not have an arcane half caster?

[Frozen_Heart]

I think the changing the name around constantly is one of the reasons it's always failed to stick in the collective consciousness. Gish, Duskblade, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Eldritch Knight, Swordmage, Spellsword, Battlemage, Magus. It's something different every single time.

I personally think sticking with Swordmage is best, even if the name isn't 100% accurate as you could be using a spear or axe or bow. It's the name which was in 4th edition and so is the most recent one which people have to cling onto. The other alternative is Magus, as it's survived through both versions of pathfinder and is currently in use for pathfinder 2e.

 

[Undrave]

I think the changing the name around constantly is one of the reasons it's always failed to stick in the collective consciousness. Gish, Duskblade, Bladesinger, Hexblade, Eldritch Knight, Swordmage, Spellsword, Battlemage, Magus. It's something different every single time.

I personally think sticking with Swordmage is best, even if the name isn't 100% accurate as you could be using a spear or axe or bow. It's the name which was in 4th edition and so is the most recent one which people have to cling onto. The other alternative is Magus, as it's survived through both versions of pathfinder and is currently in use for pathfinder 2e.

Magus doesn't really mean anything, it sound like a pseudo-latin "Mage" and doesn't really evoke any sort of martial prowess...

Swordmage is a good start, but I'd rather it be a 'plan B' in case you can't find a more fitting name. Maybe there's a word you could use to replace the 'sword' in the name? Or maybe some sort of "-mancer" variation? Those always sound interesting...

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is literally more of a story than at least 3 of the core 4 base classes.

If you had full read all of my posts on the subject, you would have seen I had already commented on this. That the Core Four are the only ones that have been allowed to be somewhat "generic". The other eight classes that have now shown up in more than one edition are all covered in fluff and story. And there hasn't been an arcane half-caster class whose story has sunk into the D&D populace headspace to warrant a place in the base game.

 

[Michael Linke]

In the usage of the jargon, half, 2/3, and 1/3 refer to how a caster's spellcasting relates to a "full caster", meaning one who gets a full progression to 9th level spell slots, rather than to how much of a class's design is dedicated to being a caster.

Was not aware of the jargon thing.

In older editions, this was accomplished either by delaying when you get spells, reducing how fast you gained access, and by making you level up slower. Now that modern editions standardize level gain, and pushing off certain abilities to high level is out of fashion, all of this has to be handled by halving the rate of spell progression. I would say this distinction can be misleading, as a lot of it depends on what spells you get to cast. In 5e, a paladin isn't really a half caster, I think. They get fewer spells than a cleric, but those are mostly different spells, used in different ways than cleric spells.

I assume we're talking about characters where the spell selection is the same as another caster, and we're just limiting the rate at which you gain access. Ironically, the ONLY half caster that fits that definition, as far as I can tell, is the Eldritch Knight, an Arcane Half Caster.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I hate when people shoot down an idea because they can't think of "the story" of a class. You could take a lot of the story from the paladin and apply it to a fighter/mage class, replacing the holy or divine components for arcane magic. You could also take some of the ranger's story and say that they patrol the borders of civilisation defending it from otherworldly threats. You can look at past editions, all with various kits and classes and come up with a story, bladesingers as knights errant, abjurant champions as defenders of the king, it really isn't that difficult. The only reason paladin and ranger have such a strong standing is because they were in from the early years but instead of a single class, fighter/mage used a multiclass. Had Gary decided to make a single arcane fighter class right in the beginning then we'd likely have one now as it would have been stuck in the consciousness of players.

As for paladin and ranger having a "story" my guess is that new players coming into the hobby only know it because they it in the PHB. A lot of people have no clue what a paladin is unless it's explained to them because they aren't part of the hobby and you'd be able to explain it to people in much the same way as an arcane fighter class: it's a knight that uses magic.

If the story doesn't matter, then why haven't we seen an arcane half-caster remain in the game (in the thematic space they think a fighter/wizard should be in, rather than the minstrel Bard and engineer Artificer?)

I personally believe it's because none of the classes that have been made have been able to distinguish themselves as anything more than just a fighter/wizard multiclass under a different name. Nothing that has stuck at least. Now yes... the Paladin and the Ranger would be in the same boat if they didn't already have a seat at the table... but they do. So by being grandfathered in over the decades and editions, they have enough champions in the community that the designers know better than to cut them out of whatever new edition is being made. But none of the arcane half-caster classes have that. None of them have nearly enough champions to have demanded this class identity be a part of the game year after year, edition after edition. None of them have stuck. That's just the way it is.

Now if you don't want to believe it's because they don't have any in-world identity beyond "warrior who casts arcane spells"... that's up to you. But I don't think you're going to find much traction to get one actually accepted and brought up to the level of the Paladin and Ranger if you don't. It hasn't happened yet. And if all that gets brought to the table for a Gish class is "it's a fighter that uses magic when they fight!", I suspect you're going to still get a whole bunch of "Why does this need to be its own class rather than any of the other arcane warrior subclasses or the fighter/wizard multiclass"?

 

[Mind of tempest]

Does anyone want to consolidate what we have so far?

 

[Scribe]

Does anyone want to consolidate what we have so far?

Was thinking on this between work tasks.

What I'm going to do is look at a listing of all the martial/caster hybrids, group them and get a 'main hook' to see what consolidation may make sense.

As I mentioned yesterday, I think one of the main issues is that so much design space is now spread through all the classes, so what would be the primary conceit if a Spellblade, or whatever we want to call this.

 

[Michael Linke]

If the story doesn't matter, then why haven't we seen an arcane half-caster remain in the game (in the thematic space they think a fighter/wizard should be in, rather than the minstrel Bard and engineer Artificer?)

As I said above, in my opinion, the ONLY half caster in the game right now is an Arcane Fighter/Wizard: the Eldritch Knight.

 

[Mind of tempest]

As I said above, in my opinion, the ONLY half caster in the game right now is an Arcane Fighter/Wizard: the Eldritch Knight.

sir your opinion confuses me explain?

 

[TwoSix]

sir your opinion confuses me explain?

They said above that they don't consider Paladin or Ranger to be half casters because they use a different spell list than their "parent" class, and thus aren't "half" of anything. I feel like it's a willful misuse of the standard jargon, so I didn't feel like engaging with it.