D&D (2024) Should the PHB have an arcane half caster?

[DeviousQuail]

I would like there to be one, whether it's in the PHB or a supplement, so that we can at least have an agreed upon starting point to build from. Artificer fits the bill on a basic level but I've always felt like it was the oddball of the half caster group. Similar imo to how monks and warlocks are oddballs amongst the martials and full casters, respectively. Having something that fits the mold of the ranger or paladin, but with Int instead of Wis or Cha, could make a great home for some old and new subclasses.

I think most, but not all, gish subclasses would be better served on a half caster chassis. Bladesingers, Eldritch Knights, Blade pact Warlocks, Valor Bards, and Sword Bards always felt like they got overshadowed by the full caster progression, underserved by the 1/3 progression, or undermined by melee cantrips. Arcane Archers using spell slots to power their magic arrows is something I'd like to see. It could also make a nice home for new subclasses like Witcher (sad Henry Cavill noises), Chanter and Cipher (Pillars of Eternity), Blue Mage (Final Fantasy), and Dohvakiin (shout, shout, let it all out).

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bards were never half-casters. They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters. In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered. Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster. Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have.

3e bards still had the penalizing slow spell progression. Even for a spont caster, who were clearly so powerful they needed a stunted spell progression.

 

[tetrasodium]

Adding an arcane half-caster because there are a divine and primal half-caster is the box filling approach and doesn't demonstrate a need to be done just for being absent. That seems to be reinforced by comments that are similar to smite spells and abilities, and that looks like getting hung up on a single term that didn't matter in 5e up until spell list changes being proposed.

There are also several ways to combine melee and magic to various degrees including multi-classing into classic builds. This gets back to too many different people have too many different ideas on what that class would look like.

I do think the artificer should be added to the PHB, however; and the eldritch knight could stand some improvements. But adding another class or radically altering a class doesn't have a good reason to do so.



We know from the comments given in the UA's mentioning the artificer that the devs are aware of the artificer. The class is more likely to have at least some information (such as a side bar on how to adapt it) than to have nothing because of those mentions.



Why do you think bards should be a half-caster? We've already learned the community response to bard spell casting early in 3.0 and still in 3.5 with improvements when that version of bard massively outclassed rangers and paladins in magical capabilities. Especially 3.5 with the improvements to bard songs.

I disagree with how you interpret a "jack-of-all-trades". The concept needs to be adequately skilled in each of those areas to be worth playing instead of restricted in all areas to the point no one wants to play one. 5e did a great job by giving other arcane spellcasters benefits to improve their spellcasting. That results in being a decent spell-caster but no where near the benefits of metamagic or invocations. Definitely not the arcane recovery, spell list access, ritual mechanics, spell mastery, or signature spells that wizards enjoy.

A bad caster is not a jack-of-all-trades. It's just a bad caster. The full caster bard that lacks those other enhancements that improve spell casting keeps them relying on skill benefits and inspiration while being subpar compared to other full spellcasters.



Bards were never half-casters. They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters. In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered. Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster. Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have. 4e used the powers structure (arcane source) so weren't restricted and 5e they continued to use the full structure.

In 2e, the XP advancement tables and bonus XP rules had bards at a higher caster level than other magic-users so they had significant advantages as a full spellcaster. In 3.x the magical songs and variant spell levels still gave bards near full spellcaster magic even before the PrC's that added more.

Looking at bards when clerics and druids also didn't cast 9th level spells and then comparing them to paladins and rangers as half-casters doesn't stand up to critical reasoning. Even calling them 2/3's casters is looking at 3e but ignoring other editions, ignoring the magical song contributions, ignoring the caster level rules, ignoring the spells that varied with spell level based on class, and ignoring PrC's that improved spellcasting for bards further.

While citing the 2e exp tables you might want to compare the spell slots available to bars vrs wizards at different levels of experience. You can't compare levlx to level x for the very reason that you cite. Yes bards got experience for finding gold, they did not get experience for casting spells. Wizards got experience for casting spells instead of finding gold.

Spoiler: bard to wizard spell slots per level

• L1: Bard exp needed 0- Wizard Exp needed:0
  • Bard Slots: -none-/hardly the hallmark of a "full caster"
  • Wizard Slots: 1
• L2 Bard exp needed 1,250 - Wizard Exp needed: 2,500
  • Bard Slots: 1
  • Wizard Slots: 2
• L3 Bard exp needed 2,500- Wizard Exp needed: 5,000
  • Bard Slots: 2
  • Wizard Slots: 2/1
• L4 Bard exp needed 5,000- Wizard Exp needed: 10,000
  • Bard Slots: 2/1
  • Wizard Slots: 3/2
• L:5 Bard exp needed 10,000- Wizard Exp needed: 20,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/1
  • Wizard Slots: 4/2/1
• L6 Bard exp needed 20,000- Wizard Exp needed: 40,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/2
  • Wizard Slots: 4/3/2
• L7 Bard exp needed 40,000- Wizard Exp needed: 60,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/2/1
  • Wizard Slots: 4/3/2/1
• L8 Bard exp needed 70,000- Wizard Exp needed: 90.000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/1
  • Wizard Slots: 4/3/3/2
• L9 Bard exp needed 110,000- Wizard Exp needed: 135.000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/2
  • Wizard Slots: 4/3/3/2/1
• L10 Bard exp needed 160,000- Wizard Exp needed: 250,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/2/1
  • Wizard Slots: 4/4/3/2/2
• L11 Bard exp needed 220,000- Wizard Exp needed: 375,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/3/1
  • Wizard Slots:4/4/4/3/3
• L12 Bard exp needed 440,000- Wizard Exp needed: 750,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/3/2
  • Wizard Slots: 4/4/4/4/4/1
• L13 Bard exp needed 660,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,125,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/2/1
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/4/4/2
• L14 Bard exp needed 880,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,5000,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/3/3/1
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/4/4/2/1
• L15 Bard exp needed 1,100,000- Wizard Exp needed: 1,875,000
  • Bard Slots: 3/3/3/3/1
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/2/1
• L16 Bard exp needed 1,320,000- Wizard Exp needed: 2,250,000
  • Bard Slots: 4/3/3/3/2/1
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1
• L17 Bard exp needed 1,540,000- Wizard Exp needed: 2,625,000
  • Bard Slots: 4/4/3/3/3/1
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2
• L18 Bard exp needed 1,760,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,000,000
  • Bard Slots: 4/4/4/3/3/2
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/2/1
• L19 Bard exp needed 1,980,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,375,000
  • Bard Slots: 4/4/4/4/3/2
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/3/3/3/1
• L20 Bard exp needed 2,200,000- Wizard Exp needed: 3,750,000
  • Bard Slots: 4/4/4/4/4/3- Notice they never get above 6th level slots ?... Again not very indicative of a "full caster"
  • Wizard Slots: 5/5/5/5/5/4/3/3/2 slots.

Even if you compare 2e spell slots at exp N to exp N there's no case for calling bards a "full caster" 20,000 will give you a level 5 wizard with 4/2/1 spell slots to a level 6 bard with only 3/2 slots. Then at 250,000 you get a level 10 wizard with 4/4/3/2/2 slots to a level 11& change bard with 3/3/3/1 spell slots. Later at 1,875,000 you get a level 15 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/2/1 slots to a level 17 bard with 4/4/3/3/3/1.. Still later at 2,250,000 you get a level 16 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 slots & 4 more levels to go in wizard compared to a maxed out level 20 bard with 4/4/4/4/4/3 who will never see level 7 or 8 spells.

With 3.x... Everyone had the same exp per character level & spell slots per caster level but bards had reduced caster level progression and every caster got certain spells at different levels so bards could no longer so just grab whatever they wanted from the wizard list

 

[Yaarel]

The 5e Bard fullcaster is mythologically accurate, and important.

A 5e half-caster Bard concept can be a new Ranger subclass, called "Troubadour", with urban features and performance skills, possibly switching to or borrowing from the Bard class spell list.

There can also be a Background called "Performer". so a nonmagical character can be this concept in a useful way. It would be nice if the Instrument Proficiency itself granted some worthwhile gaming benefit. Also Rogue or Assassin might want this Background or Proficiency for certain concepts like the Dark Sun Bard to gain entry among aristocrats and so on.

 

[Clint_L]

Reading these arguments, I am more inclined to think that an arcane half-caster would have been a good idea back when 5e launched, because there are a lot of sub-classes that might have worked better there - Bladesinger and Arcane Archer definitely come to mind! I also get why the Artificer, which is an arcane half-caster, makes more sense as an optional class, as it is more setting specific and I can see why lots of DMs would prefer not to have that technological element in their campaign.

I fear the PHB ship has sailed, though. One of the main design goals of OneD&D is backwards compatibility with 5e, and I don't see how you make that work with radically transforming someone's class/sub-class. So the way forward is probably not via the PHB, but through whatever the next Xanathar's/Tasha's is going to be.

 

[Ashrym]

3e bards still had the penalizing slow spell progression. Even for a spont caster, who were clearly so powerful they needed a stunted spell progression.

Sort of.

Wizards gained spell levels at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17; sorcerers at levels 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18; bards at levels 1(2), 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16. The spell restrictions for a bard were cantrips at 1st level and one level behind for 1st-level spells compared, the same as sorcerers for 2nd-level spells, and back to only 1 level behind for 3rd-level spells. They were close until 4th-level spell access but pointing at that specifically ignores the other points I brought up.

All 3 examples cast spells at the caster class level.

3e did not use standard spell levels. 3e adjusted spell levels to the class for when they wanted the class to access it, so what happened was a bard would gain access to spells WotC thought were bard spells at similar levels to other full spell casting classes.

The other major point is bards had magical songs. At 1st level that included countersong, bardic inspiration, and fascinate. Spell like ability with songs replaced other slots. They later gained inspire competence, suggestion, inspire greatness, song of freedom, inspire heroics, and mass suggestion. That doesn't mean they needed a stunted spell progression. Their magic was simply split into multiple mechanics.

Here are the numbers of spells known for the relevant comparison:

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	5​	6​	6​	1​	0​
2​	7​	7​	9​	2​	0​
3​	9​	8​	12​	2​	0​
4​	11​	10​	14​	3​	1​
5​	13​	12​	16​	3​	1​
6​	15​	14​	17​	4​	2​
7​	18​	17​	20​	4​	2​
8​	20​	20​	21​	5​	3​
9​	22​	23​	22​	5​	3​
10​	24​	24​	25​	6​	4​
11​	26​	28​	26​	6​	4​
12​	28​	29​	27​	7​	5​
13​	30​	32​	30​	7​	5​
14​	32​	33​	31​	8​	6​
15​	34​	36​	32​	9​	7​
16​	36​	37​	36​	10​	8​
17​	38​	39​	38​	11​	9​
18​	40​	40​	40​	12​	10​
19​	42​	42​	42​	15​	13​
20​	44​	43​	43​	16​	14​

That includes the most songs in with spells known for the bard, and the smite and lay on hands abilities for the paladin. Spell casting ability scores are assumed 19, 16, and 14 as the minimums for all spell levels in each class.

Here are the number of magic actions based on those numbers:

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	5​	9​	3​	1​	0​
2​	7​	11​	6​	2​	0​
3​	9​	12​	8​	2​	0​
4​	11​	17​	11​	3​	1​
5​	13​	18​	14​	4​	1​
6​	15​	23​	16​	5​	2​
7​	18​	25​	18​	5​	2​
8​	20​	30​	21​	6​	3​
9​	22​	32​	23​	6​	3​
10​	24​	36​	24​	8​	4​
11​	26​	38​	27​	8​	4​
12​	28​	42​	29​	9​	5​
13​	30​	44​	30​	9​	5​
14​	32​	48​	34​	10​	6​
15​	34​	50​	37​	12​	7​
16​	36​	54​	39​	13​	8​
17​	38​	56​	43​	14​	9​
18​	40​	60​	46​	15​	10​
19​	42​	62​	49​	18​	13​
20​	40​	64​	51​	20​	14​

This includes songs and smites, and a pool of healing for lay on hands.

Here is the caster levels (based on class level).

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	1​	1​	1​	0​	0​
2​	2​	2​	2​	0​	0​
3​	3​	3​	3​	0​	0​
4​	4​	4​	4​	2​	2​
5​	5​	5​	5​	2​	2​
6​	6​	6​	6​	3​	3​
7​	7​	7​	7​	3​	3​
8​	8​	8​	8​	4​	4​
9​	9​	9​	9​	4​	4​
10​	10​	10​	10​	5​	5​
11​	11​	11​	11​	5​	5​
12​	12​	12​	12​	6​	6​
13​	13​	13​	13​	6​	6​
14​	14​	14​	14​	7​	7​
15​	15​	15​	15​	7​	7​
16​	16​	16​	16​	8​	8​
17​	17​	17​	17​	8​	8​
18​	18​	18​	18​	9​	9​
19​	19​	19​	19​	9​	9​
20​	20​	20​	20​	10​	10​

A bard gaining an 8th-level wizard spell as a 6th-level bard spell removes the significance of the spell levels, and bard song DC's being based on either perform check or class level brings the DC's in line as well.

The only thing a person does by looking at a specific part of the class is miss the big picture on how it functions overall. 3.5 bards are full casters when we look at how spell levels works and also recognize that they achieve that because of the separate spells and songs mechanics.

It's obvious that when a system is being created looking at past editions that separates spell casting tables the way 5e did that bards are far more in line with full casters as well.

While citing the 2e exp tables you might want to compare the spell slots available to bars vrs wizards at different levels of experience. You can't compare levlx to level x for the very reason that you cite. Yes bards got experience for finding gold, they did not get experience for casting spells. Wizards got experience for casting spells instead of finding gold.

I might want to compare various classes and other aspects instead of just wizards. For example, here's the caster level comparison:

Level​	Priest​	Wizard​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	1​	1​	1​	0​	0​
2​	2​	2​	2​	0​	0​
3​	3​	3​	3​	0​	0​
4​	4​	4​	4​	0​	0​
5​	5​	5​	5​	0​	0​
6​	6​	6​	6​	0​	0​
7​	7​	7​	7​	0​	0​
8​	8​	8​	8​	0​	1​
9​	9​	9​	9​	1​	2​
10​	10​	10​	10​	2​	3​
11​	11​	11​	11​	3​	4​
12​	12​	12​	12​	4​	5​
13​	13​	13​	13​	5​	6​
14​	14​	14​	14​	6​	7​
15​	15​	15​	15​	7​	8​
16​	16​	16​	16​	8​	9​
17​	17​	17​	17​	9​	9​
18​	18​	18​	18​	9​	9​
19​	19​	19​	19​	9​	9​
20​	20​	20​	20​	9​	9​

Wizards got bonus XP for casting spells to overcome a problem, for crafting magic items, and for successfully researching new spells. Bards got XP based on the value of treasure, the the HD of monsters defeated, and every time they used a special ability.

Even if you compare 2e spell slots at exp N to exp N there's no case for calling bards a "full caster" 20,000 will give you a level 5 wizard with 4/2/1 spell slots to a level 6 bard with only 3/2 slots. Then at 250,000 you get a level 10 wizard with 4/4/3/2/2 slots to a level 11& change bard with 3/3/3/1 spell slots. Later at 1,875,000 you get a level 15 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/2/1 slots to a level 17 bard with 4/4/3/3/3/1.. Still later at 2,250,000 you get a level 16 wizard with 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 slots & 4 more levels to go in wizard compared to a maxed out level 20 bard with 4/4/4/4/4/3 who will never see level 7 or 8 spells.

Level​	Cleric​	Druid​	Wizard​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	0​	0​	0​	0​	0​	0​
2​	1500​	2000​	2500​	1250​	2000​	2250​
3​	3000​	4000​	5000​	2500​	4000​	4500​
4​	6000​	7500​	10000​	5000​	8000​	9000​
5​	13000​	12500​	20000​	10000​	16000​	18000​
6​	27500​	20000​	40000​	20000​	32000​	36000​
7​	55000​	35000​	60000​	40000​	64000​	75000​
8​	110000​	60000​	90000​	70000​	125000​	150000​
9​	225000​	90000​	135000​	110000​	250000​	300000​
10​	450000​	125000​	250000​	160000​	500000​	600000​
11​	675000​	200000​	375000​	220000​	750000​	900000​
12​	900000​	300000​	750000​	440000​	1000000​	1200000​
13​	1125000​	750000​	1125000​	660000​	1250000​	1500000​
14​	1350000​	1500000​	1500000​	880000​	1500000​	1800000​
15​	1575000​	3000000​	1875000​	1100000​	1750000​	2100000​
16​	1800000​	3500000​	2250000​	1320000​	2000000​	2400000​
17​	2025000​	500000​	2625000​	1540000​	2250000​	2700000​
18​	2250000​	1000000​	3000000​	1760000​	2500000​	3000000​
19​	2475000​	1500000​	3375000​	1980000​	2750000​	3300000​
20​	2700000​	2000000​	3750000​	2200000​	3000000​	3600000​

I can make it easier for you. By the time the bard reaches 20th level outside of XP bonuses the cleric is about to hit 18th level, the druid is still 14th level, the wizard is about to turn 16th level, the paladin is about to turn 17th level, and the ranger has just turned 15th level. Here are your spell slots and caster levels for each:

• cleric -- CL 18; 8/8/8/8/6/4/2 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells. Possibly only 5th-level spells.
• druid -- CL 14; 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells. Possibly only 5th-level spells.
• wizard -- CL 16; 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 and is the only class with up to 9th-level spells. Possibly only only 4th-level spells.
• paladin -- CL 9; 3/3/3/1 and will never have better than 4th-level spells.
• ranger -- CL 8; 3/3/2 and will never have better than 3rd-level spells.
• bard -- CL 20; 4/4/4/4/4/3 and will always have up to 6th-level spells.

That wizard possibly has access to more spells prepped, yes; but the bard has a much better caster level than any other class in an edition where that matters. I say possibly because 2e also used ability score requirements for spell levels and it takes a lot of luck or generous rolling methods for those other spell casters to meet those requirements.

It's facetious to point to levels for spells in 3e as an argument and ignore the fact that clerics and druids wouldn't be either applying that same standard because that's the first edition either had those spell levels.

We also cannot ignore the 2e bard's ability to force a paralyzation save at will for influencing attitudes outside of combat.

I would point out that treasure XP bonuses and special ability spam are more effective sources of XP for faster level increases than the table suggests. My bards were often 2-3 levels higher than wizards at lower levels and more after name level. 2e bards made better fireballs.

As I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a system separating spellcasting tables into 2 charts (full or half) the bard would fall into the full caster looking at paladins and rangers for comparison.

With 3.x... Everyone had the same exp per character level & spell slots per caster level but bards had reduced caster level progression and every caster got certain spells at different levels so bards could no longer so just grab whatever they wanted from the wizard list

I demonstrated that bards did not have reduced caster level progression. Caster level was equal to bard class level.

Gaining certain spells at different levels is what enabled bards to learn spells at similar levels to other full casters. That has no bearing on the wizard list just like having a bard spell list instead of using the wizard list has nothing to do with a class's status as a caster. I gave more earlier in this post as well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Reading these arguments, I am more inclined to think that an arcane half-caster would have been a good idea back when 5e launched, because there are a lot of sub-classes that might have worked better there - Bladesinger and Arcane Archer definitely come to mind!

Definitely. Some, like Arcane trickster, are good where they are, but others…

I also get why the Artificer, which is an arcane half-caster, makes more sense as an optional class, as it is more setting specific and I can see why lots of DMs would prefer not to have that technological element in their campaign.

To be fair, all that makes the Artificer a “tech” class is flavor. They could just as easily be a rune-scribe, or an “Imbuer” who channels elemental and planar energy into objects and potions, or a blessed smith with a living mithral arm whose touch imbues divine power into items because they’re blessed by Moradin or whatever.

Hell, Artillerist makes a really good Battle Mage, and Alchemist is…an iconic Medieval archetype. Add Ritual Caster feat and it’s a really good representation of the hermetic alchemists.

The hermetic alchemist, equal parts scientist and magician, is literally more iconic than the “battle priest” or “shapeshifting nature priest” or half the other classes.

I fear the PHB ship has sailed, though. One of the main design goals of OneD&D is backwards compatibility with 5e, and I don't see how you make that work with radically transforming someone's class/sub-class. So the way forward is probably not via the PHB, but through whatever the next Xanathar's/Tasha's is going to be.

I don’t think you actually need to change or delete any existing subclasses, but all the things in the phb are subjecting to being changed, as long as the new version is compatible with supplemental stuff that is already published. Adding the artificer would mostly just be an issue due to devaluing Tasha’s and Eberron RFTLW.

Adding a swordmage, or rewriting the monk to be the mystic and making it lean more toward gish while remaining compatible with existing subclasses*, wouldn’t be an issue IMO.

*you add the ability to choose Int over Wis, ability to choose from 2-3 different defense buffs, including a defense boost that lets you wear armor, and some more explicitly mystical ki abilities, and then you fix the elements subclass so it doesn’t suck. From there it’s just rewriting a lot of flavor, making the core features less hardline about weapons and armor, maybe rework level 5, and go.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sort of.

Wizards gained spell levels at levels 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17; sorcerers at levels 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18; bards at levels 1(2), 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16. The spell restrictions for a bard were cantrips at 1st level and one level behind for 1st-level spells compared, the same as sorcerers for 2nd-level spells, and back to only 1 level behind for 3rd-level spells. They were close until 4th-level spell access but pointing at that specifically ignores the other points I brought up.

All 3 examples cast spells at the caster class level.

3e did not use standard spell levels. 3e adjusted spell levels to the class for when they wanted the class to access it, so what happened was a bard would gain access to spells WotC thought were bard spells at similar levels to other full spell casting classes.

The other major point is bards had magical songs. At 1st level that included countersong, bardic inspiration, and fascinate. Spell like ability with songs replaced other slots. They later gained inspire competence, suggestion, inspire greatness, song of freedom, inspire heroics, and mass suggestion. That doesn't mean they needed a stunted spell progression. Their magic was simply split into multiple mechanics.

Here are the numbers of spells known for the relevant comparison:

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	5​	6​	6​	1​	0​
2​	7​	7​	9​	2​	0​
3​	9​	8​	12​	2​	0​
4​	11​	10​	14​	3​	1​
5​	13​	12​	16​	3​	1​
6​	15​	14​	17​	4​	2​
7​	18​	17​	20​	4​	2​
8​	20​	20​	21​	5​	3​
9​	22​	23​	22​	5​	3​
10​	24​	24​	25​	6​	4​
11​	26​	28​	26​	6​	4​
12​	28​	29​	27​	7​	5​
13​	30​	32​	30​	7​	5​
14​	32​	33​	31​	8​	6​
15​	34​	36​	32​	9​	7​
16​	36​	37​	36​	10​	8​
17​	38​	39​	38​	11​	9​
18​	40​	40​	40​	12​	10​
19​	42​	42​	42​	15​	13​
20​	44​	43​	43​	16​	14​

That includes the most songs in with spells known for the bard, and the smite and lay on hands abilities for the paladin. Spell casting ability scores are assumed 19, 16, and 14 as the minimums for all spell levels in each class.

Here are the number of magic actions based on those numbers:

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	5​	9​	3​	1​	0​
2​	7​	11​	6​	2​	0​
3​	9​	12​	8​	2​	0​
4​	11​	17​	11​	3​	1​
5​	13​	18​	14​	4​	1​
6​	15​	23​	16​	5​	2​
7​	18​	25​	18​	5​	2​
8​	20​	30​	21​	6​	3​
9​	22​	32​	23​	6​	3​
10​	24​	36​	24​	8​	4​
11​	26​	38​	27​	8​	4​
12​	28​	42​	29​	9​	5​
13​	30​	44​	30​	9​	5​
14​	32​	48​	34​	10​	6​
15​	34​	50​	37​	12​	7​
16​	36​	54​	39​	13​	8​
17​	38​	56​	43​	14​	9​
18​	40​	60​	46​	15​	10​
19​	42​	62​	49​	18​	13​
20​	40​	64​	51​	20​	14​

This includes songs and smites, and a pool of healing for lay on hands.

Here is the caster levels (based on class level).

Level​	Wizard​	Sorcerer​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	1​	1​	1​	0​	0​
2​	2​	2​	2​	0​	0​
3​	3​	3​	3​	0​	0​
4​	4​	4​	4​	2​	2​
5​	5​	5​	5​	2​	2​
6​	6​	6​	6​	3​	3​
7​	7​	7​	7​	3​	3​
8​	8​	8​	8​	4​	4​
9​	9​	9​	9​	4​	4​
10​	10​	10​	10​	5​	5​
11​	11​	11​	11​	5​	5​
12​	12​	12​	12​	6​	6​
13​	13​	13​	13​	6​	6​
14​	14​	14​	14​	7​	7​
15​	15​	15​	15​	7​	7​
16​	16​	16​	16​	8​	8​
17​	17​	17​	17​	8​	8​
18​	18​	18​	18​	9​	9​
19​	19​	19​	19​	9​	9​
20​	20​	20​	20​	10​	10​

A bard gaining an 8th-level wizard spell as a 6th-level bard spell removes the significance of the spell levels, and bard song DC's being based on either perform check or class level brings the DC's in line as well.

The only thing a person does by looking at a specific part of the class is miss the big picture on how it functions overall. 3.5 bards are full casters when we look at how spell levels works and also recognize that they achieve that because of the separate spells and songs mechanics.

It's obvious that when a system is being created looking at past editions that separates spell casting tables the way 5e did that bards are far more in line with full casters as well.



I might want to compare various classes and other aspects instead of just wizards. For example, here's the caster level comparison:

Level​	Priest​	Wizard​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	1​	1​	1​	0​	0​
2​	2​	2​	2​	0​	0​
3​	3​	3​	3​	0​	0​
4​	4​	4​	4​	0​	0​
5​	5​	5​	5​	0​	0​
6​	6​	6​	6​	0​	0​
7​	7​	7​	7​	0​	0​
8​	8​	8​	8​	0​	1​
9​	9​	9​	9​	1​	2​
10​	10​	10​	10​	2​	3​
11​	11​	11​	11​	3​	4​
12​	12​	12​	12​	4​	5​
13​	13​	13​	13​	5​	6​
14​	14​	14​	14​	6​	7​
15​	15​	15​	15​	7​	8​
16​	16​	16​	16​	8​	9​
17​	17​	17​	17​	9​	9​
18​	18​	18​	18​	9​	9​
19​	19​	19​	19​	9​	9​
20​	20​	20​	20​	9​	9​

Wizards got bonus XP for casting spells to overcome a problem, for crafting magic items, and for successfully researching new spells. Bards got XP based on the value of treasure, the the HD of monsters defeated, and every time they used a special ability.

Level​	Cleric​	Druid​	Wizard​	Bard​	Paladin​	Ranger​
1​	0​	0​	0​	0​	0​	0​
2​	1500​	2000​	2500​	1250​	2000​	2250​
3​	3000​	4000​	5000​	2500​	4000​	4500​
4​	6000​	7500​	10000​	5000​	8000​	9000​
5​	13000​	12500​	20000​	10000​	16000​	18000​
6​	27500​	20000​	40000​	20000​	32000​	36000​
7​	55000​	35000​	60000​	40000​	64000​	75000​
8​	110000​	60000​	90000​	70000​	125000​	150000​
9​	225000​	90000​	135000​	110000​	250000​	300000​
10​	450000​	125000​	250000​	160000​	500000​	600000​
11​	675000​	200000​	375000​	220000​	750000​	900000​
12​	900000​	300000​	750000​	440000​	1000000​	1200000​
13​	1125000​	750000​	1125000​	660000​	1250000​	1500000​
14​	1350000​	1500000​	1500000​	880000​	1500000​	1800000​
15​	1575000​	3000000​	1875000​	1100000​	1750000​	2100000​
16​	1800000​	3500000​	2250000​	1320000​	2000000​	2400000​
17​	2025000​	500000​	2625000​	1540000​	2250000​	2700000​
18​	2250000​	1000000​	3000000​	1760000​	2500000​	3000000​
19​	2475000​	1500000​	3375000​	1980000​	2750000​	3300000​
20​	2700000​	2000000​	3750000​	2200000​	3000000​	3600000​

I can make it easier for you. By the time the bard reaches 20th level outside of XP bonuses the cleric is about to hit 18th level, the druid is still 14th level, the wizard is about to turn 16th level, the paladin is about to turn 17th level, and the ranger has just turned 15th level. Here are your spell slots and caster levels for each:

• cleric -- CL 18; 8/8/8/8/6/4/2 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells. Possibly only 5th-level spells.
• druid -- CL 14; 6/6/6/5/3/2/1 and will also never have access to 8th or 9th-level spells. Possibly only 5th-level spells.
• wizard -- CL 16; 5/5/5/5/5/3/2/1 and is the only class with up to 9th-level spells. Possibly only only 4th-level spells.
• paladin -- CL 9; 3/3/3/1 and will never have better than 4th-level spells.
• ranger -- CL 8; 3/3/2 and will never have better than 3rd-level spells.
• bard -- CL 20; 4/4/4/4/4/3 and will always have up to 6th-level spells.

That wizard possibly has access to more spells prepped, yes; but the bard has a much better caster level than any other class in an edition where that matters. I say possibly because 2e also used ability score requirements for spell levels and it takes a lot of luck or generous rolling methods for those other spell casters to meet those requirements.

It's facetious to point to levels for spells in 3e as an argument and ignore the fact that clerics and druids wouldn't be either applying that same standard because that's the first edition either had those spell levels.

We also cannot ignore the 2e bard's ability to force a paralyzation save at will for influencing attitudes outside of combat.

I would point out that treasure XP bonuses and special ability spam are more effective sources of XP for faster level increases than the table suggests. My bards were often 2-3 levels higher than wizards at lower levels and more after name level. 2e bards made better fireballs.

As I mentioned above, it's pretty clear that a system separating spellcasting tables into 2 charts (full or half) the bard would fall into the full caster looking at paladins and rangers for comparison.



I demonstrated that bards did not have reduced caster level progression. Caster level was equal to bard class level.

Gaining certain spells at different levels is what enabled bards to learn spells at similar levels to other full casters. That has no bearing on the wizard list just like having a bard spell list instead of using the wizard list has nothing to do with a class's status as a caster. I gave more earlier in this post as well.

The fact that 2e Bards prepared spells from the wizard spell list whily cleric Ranger druid and paladin did not is extremely relevant to why the comparison is bstd&wizard not cleric & bard or pally & bard.

 

[Knight_Marshal]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Shaman as a Primal half caster. Make it somewhat if a mix between a druid, ranger and barbarian with a more spirit calling theme.

 

[mellored]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Shaman as a Primal half caster. Make it somewhat if a mix between a druid, ranger and barbarian with a more spirit calling theme.

Can't say I see "shaman" swinging weapons.

That said, a ranger with a barbarian subclass would be fine.