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

[Paul Farquhar]

I would love a 'magus' or 'dusk blade' style gish that used the artificer spell chart had it's own dedicated list of spells..

The 5e unified spell slot system means spells only stay exclusive until they are not.

Lore Bard, for example, could have them even under current rules.

 

[Blue]

you know how in 5e we have barbarians and monks who have built-in armour class why has no one made a half caster with the same thing?
it seems it would an easy way to start showing how it is different and to start the process of making it iconic?

What archetype(s) will this enable that we can not build now (including with the multiclassing rules)?

This seems like wandering mechanics in search of a problem.

 

[bedir than]

Putting this in notepad to repost every third day.

WotC doesn't make new Classes just to fill out new game mechanic combos. They make Classes when they have stories for them. If there's no quality Class story, they aren't going to make a new Class just for the sake of making it because there's a mechanical niche that could be filled.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pathfinder has eleventyone different types of swordmage.

 

[Mind of tempest]

What archetype(s) will this enable that we can not build now (including with the multiclassing rules)?

This seems like wandering mechanics in search of a problem.

well it is part of trying to make the archetype people crave but can never hammer out the details

 

[Redwizard007]

We did this for the "Adventurer" class (where every thing you get is via feats), to create a generic Unarmored Defense, equal to 10 + DEX + an ability score of your choice other than Dexterity.

STR - You know how to use your power to push attacks aside and off-balance your enemies.
CON - Your stamina keeps you moving in a fight, making you hard to hit.
INT - You analyze the situation and your opponents' movements, removing yourself from harm's way.
WIS - Your insight into danger has given you a sense of how to avoid it as much as possible.
CHA - Your confidence and poise allows you to position yourself in unexpected ways, fooling your attackers.

Or something like that...

I was seriously questioning how those stats could aid AC, but I like the way you did it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, I have a question:

Do any significant proportion of players actually like playing "half-casters" because they're half-casters?

Because my experience over the last 30-odd years suggests the answer is somewhere between "HELL NO" and "Absolutely not". My experience is that people play things like Paladins and Ranger despite the fact that they're half-casters, very much not because of it. That people would prefer they had abilities or even were full casters, but they want to play that fantasy (both are extremely popular concepts - i.e. the "holy warrior" and the "woodsman"), so just roll with it.

Half-casters seem to be this weird fixation among people who put mechanics ahead of fantasy, i.e. they want to lay out a bunch of classes to fit arbitrary, usually symmetrical mechanical patterns, without any regard for whether they're creating classes that people actually want to play, that express some kind of "fantasy", or the like.

It's profoundly bad, bass-ackwards game design, of the kind professional and successful game companies know very well to avoid. There's a reason WotC or Blizzard don't often go for this sort of thing, and instead look at the fantasy first, and the mechanics second (even if they sometimes mess up in their haste to get there). When they do take their eye off the ball, and put mechanics ahead of fantasy, we get messes like the Sorcerer, who exists for mechanical reasons, with a fantasy come up with to justify those, rather than vice-versa.

 

[jmartkdr2]

What archetype(s) will this enable that we can not build now (including with the multiclassing rules)?

Eldritch Knight that feels like a fighter enhancing their attacks with magic.

This seems like wandering mechanics in search of a problem.

A Half-caster class is the only guaranteed solution, thiugh frankly there’s no reason the EK couldn’t have been an answer.

It’s honestly odd to me how often WotC has missed the mark on this.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It’s honestly odd to me how often WotC has missed the mark on this.

I think the point is, there is no mark.

Which fantasy are your trying to emulate? Elric? Existing rules do that. Geralt? Existing rules do that. Movie Gandalf? Existing rules do that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A Half-caster class is the only guaranteed solution, thiugh frankly there’s no reason the EK couldn’t have been an answer.

It’s honestly odd to me how often WotC has missed the mark on this.

I disagree on both points.

A half-caster isn't the solution. A half-caster would just be another missing of the mark. People who want to play a Swordmage or the like, don't just want basically a Paladin/Ranger but with Arcane spells, and INT-based AC or something. They want split into two groups, in fact, I'd say:

1) People who want an Arcane-magic-THEMED melee, but who don't give a toss about actual spells, and indeed might well dislike them. Half-caster is not a solution any more than EK was there, it's just another annoying missing of the point. This is a huge group, frankly.

2) People who want serious magical punch but also want to be flouncing around with a sword and in light or no armour. This is already solved via Bladesingers and two flavours of Bard (though exactly which two I leave to your discussion).

If we go half-caster, we just make the same dim mistake as PF1E, which had as noted by others, a bazillion of these, all of which were mechanically complex, poorly balance, and worst of all, not actually fun to play, because they didn't really express the fantasy of the "magical warrior", because they were so bloody finickity. 4E OTOH managed to nail the concept repeatedly.

And WotC don't often miss the mark here (unless you're meaning very specifically with this one archetype). They do sometimes - c.f. the Sorcerer, which exists purely to express a mechanical approach, and which nearly gained an actual identity in the DNDNext playtest, but they chickened out. If they often missed the mark we'd be flooded with dubious classes which exist more for mechanical reasons. The last time that was close to true was 3.5E, but even then most of the new classes (excluding PrCs, which were 95% trash) justified their own existence by more than "here's some mechanics!".

The only argument I can see that they did "miss the mark" is re: Type 1 - D&D is missing that, and it would be popular. But Pathfinder 1E-esque half-caster melee? Ugh. Fail, imho.