D&D 5E (2024) Should the PHB have an arcane half caster?

[Horwath]

It is only "balanced" by the warlock spell list and one hander weapon feats being "mediocre".

that gets solved with pact of the blade feature.

But let's be honest, hexblade was made as hotfix for pact of the blade as it was horrible.

 

[Minigiant]

There will never be a full class designed and printed in a Player's Handbook just to give game mechanical "options". They don't care about mechanical options, they care about story.

Story comes first, mechanics come second.

Come up with the story of what this class is... what their reason is for how and why they are adventuring. Then after that you can determine what "chassis" to put the class in. If that ends up being an "arcane half-caster" a la Paladin and Ranger, fine, great! Even something as simple as "Witcher"-- a monster hunter who uses magic to get past the defenses of the creatures of the night that terrorize regular citizens-- would give us a hook to hang our hat on.

But if your class's story is the exact same story as the Eldritch Knight-- a bog-standard fighter who also casts the occasional spell... then your class will never be made because we already have the Eldritch Knight.

There are MANY stories for a magic warrior.

It's just in Modern Fantasy. Not much in Traditional Fantasy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are MANY stories for a magic warrior.

It's just in Modern Fantasy. Not much in Traditional Fantasy.

Then it doesn't really help for Dungeons & Dragons then, does it? Because D&D is traditional fantasy.

The Witcher is a 'warrior who uses magic' concept from traditional fantasy that has a strong emphasis and story that you can base a class around. The game already has that replicated to a certain extent with Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter. If WotC wanted to add their own Witcher-like class to the game, that could easily slot into the monster hunter theme that would get separated from the Ranger.

But if not that... then what other story is there? The Swordmage has a little bit of history within the game, but still needs a focus to their "defense" within the settings for which it exists. If we go with the idea of the Swordmage's 'Aegis' defensive abilities... what are Swordmages defending? Are they bodyguards for kings and nobles? Are they a defender and law enforcement for commonfolk, a wandering constabulary? Who are they, how do their acquire their magic, and what is "job" in the world a la the Paladin's "Knight In Shining Armor" and the Ranger's "Wilderness Survivalist and Protector"?

If only everyone could agree on the job of what this arcane half-caster would have... maybe it would gain traction and there would be enough of a call from the gaming populace for WotC to look into it. But I have made this exact same argument for the past 8 years... and all I ever get from people is "No, we just want a completely open and generic 'fighter/wizard' combo that has unique game mechanics so that we can make them be anything we want!" And this complete lack of agreement on what this so-called class should be (other than having "unique mechanics" but that's no argument for WotC to make a new class) is exactly why it's been asked for over and over and over and over and yet never gets made.

The "Generic Gish" concept has not inspired WotC to make a new class. And at some point someone should realize this and eventually try and offer up a different direction for the arcane half-caster if they really want one that badly, because the generic version just ain't cutting it with the people in charge on the coast.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have no idea why anyone wants an "arcane half-caster" beyond some weird fetish for symmetry, I have to say, and this thread has not enlightened me further on that. It seems more like people who want it want it purely for the sake of having it rather than because it's in any way necessary.

I don't want an "arcane half-caster"; I want an artificer and if the implementation happens to be an arcane half-caster then I want that. I'd also prefer the bard to be nearer the 3.5 bard rather than feeling so much like Another Spell-Slinger.

Part of it is that 5e is exceptionally high magic as a game. I'd rather also be able to easily be able to run it for some settings in a much lower magic way with bards, rangers, paladins, alchemists, and enchanters (of items) as well as martials and have it feel a lot more complete than it currently is.

 

[Minigiant]

that gets solved with pact of the blade feature.

But let's be honest, hexblade was made as hotfix for pact of the blade as it was horrible.

Well that was always the problem right?

Then it doesn't really help for Dungeons & Dragons then, does it? Because D&D is traditional fantasy.

The Witcher is a 'warrior who uses magic' concept from traditional fantasy that has a strong emphasis and story that you can base a class around. The game already has that replicated to a certain extent with Matt Mercer's Blood Hunter. If WotC wanted to add their own Witcher-like class to the game, that could easily slot into the monster hunter theme that would get separated from the Ranger.

But if not that... then what other story is there? The Swordmage has a little bit of history within the game, but still needs a focus to their "defense" within the settings for which it exists. If we go with the idea of the Swordmage's 'Aegis' defensive abilities... what are Swordmages defending? Are they bodyguards for kings and nobles? Are they a defender and law enforcement for commonfolk, a wandering constabulary? Who are they, how do their acquire their magic, and what is "job" in the world a la the Paladin's "Knight In Shining Armor" and the Ranger's "Wilderness Survivalist and Protector"?

If only everyone could agree on the job of what this arcane half-caster would have... maybe it would gain traction and there would be enough of a call from the gaming populace for WotC to look into it. But I have made this exact same argument for the past 8 years... and all I ever get from people is "No, we just want a completely open and generic 'fighter/wizard' combo that has unique game mechanics so that we can make them be anything we want!" And this complete lack of agreement on what this so-called class should be (other than having "unique mechanics" but that no argue for WotC to make a new class for) is exactly why it's been asked for over and over and over and over and yet never gets made.

The "Generic Gith" concept has not inspired WotC to make a new class. And at some point someone should realize this and eventually try and offer up a different direction for the arcane half-caster if they really want one that badly, because the generic version just ain't cutting it with the people in charge on the coast.

The AHC always felt like the Fantasy Royal Elite Super Soldier to me.

Either as King's Guard or the Army's assault force.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

There will never be a full class designed and printed in a Player's Handbook just to give game mechanical "options". They don't care about mechanical options, they care about story.

Story comes first, mechanics come second.

Come up with the story of what this class is... what their reason is for how and why they are adventuring. Then after that you can determine what "chassis" to put the class in. If that ends up being an "arcane half-caster" a la Paladin and Ranger, fine, great! Even something as simple as "Witcher"-- a monster hunter who uses magic to get past the defenses of the creatures of the night that terrorize regular citizens-- would give us a hook to hang our hat on.

But if your class's story is the exact same story as the Eldritch Knight-- a bog-standard fighter who also casts the occasional spell... then your class will never be made because we already have the Eldritch Knight.

Yep this is something I've been saying for ages. A class needs a story. 'swings sword + cast spell' isn't a class. It's a subclass or multiclass. An arcane gish would need its entire background, theme, and story building up to be worth something before adding.

Witcher is a one which I like. With subclasses taking aspects of different creature types which it hunts.

And yeah, that steps on Blood Hunters toes. But that's not an official class so that's fine. Ironically I've found the blood hunter to be the most enjoyable swordmage in 5e.

You can see how much more important story is than mechanics when it comes to the sorcerer. It's a class which has tons of story behind it, but next to no mechanical identity. Its previous mechanical feature became standard for every caster, and so it got built around the metamagic feat instead. The entire class is just a fleshed out feat, but because it has an amazing theme and story, it gets into the PHB.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There have been four editions where Bard was a proper class (not a weird dual-class thing or an optional class from Dragon). 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E.

2E - Advanced extremely fast, to the point where you actually got fifth-level spells before a Fighter/Mage did. Were more than a "half-caster". A 2/3rds or 3/4s caster, which is more appropriate. Was a true Jack of all Trades.

3E - The only edition where the Bard was a "half-caster". Also the only edition where the Bard was a trashfire. All negative Bard memes originate with 3E, because 3E's vision of the Bard was absolutely idiotic. Only the fact that being a caster was a huuuuuuuuuuuuge advantage over not being a caster saved them from being bottom tier. But a failure on every possible level.

I partially agree. There have in fact been five editions where the bard was a proper class.

3.0: The bard was every bit of the trashfire you claim and bard memes deservedly grew from it

3.5: The bard was given more of a glow-up than the 3.5 ranger. Although it's not obvious it was largely rewritten into something unique, making full use of the way different classes got spells at their own levels and had some unique and powerful stuff like Glibness that was only on their list, and reaching iconic bard-style spells like Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Otto's Irresistible Dance generally before the Sorcerer and sometimes before the wizard. Oh, and bard songs actually scale in 3.5 but not 3.0 (and can be buffed through feats, spells, and items; giving the entire party +4 to attack and damage at level 3 is a gamechanger). Using the standard 3.5 tier list the bard is tier 3 - which is where everyone should be. But because many people think 3.0 and 3.5 are the same edition it didn't get a second look from many.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Then it doesn't really help for Dungeons & Dragons then, does it? Because D&D is traditional fantasy.

Nah mate.

A lot of what you're saying is right but that's plainly and obviously wrong.

D&D isn't "trad fantasy" in the sense of "fantasy from 50 years ago". It's "trad fantasy" as in "mainstream fantasy".

Just look at D&D's art and how classes and so on have changed over the years. The issue that WotC's lead designers for 5E (specifically - not 3E or 4E) are slightly out-of-touch fantasy-wise. Not that a magic-warrior class isn't appropriate. It absolutely is - and even 3E recognised that. So it's been a lot of years.

3.0: The bard was every bit of the trashfire you claim and bard memes deservedly grew from it

3.5: The bard was given more of a glow-up than the 3.5 ranger. Although it's not obvious it was largely rewritten into something unique, making full use of the way different classes got spells at their own levels and had some unique and powerful stuff like Glibness that was only on their list, and reaching iconic bard-style spells like Tasha's Hideous Laughter and Otto's Irresistible Dance generally before the Sorcerer and sometimes before the wizard. Oh, and bard songs actually scale in 3.5 but not 3.0 (and can be buffed through feats, spells, and items; giving the entire party +4 to attack and damage at level 3 is a gamechanger). Using the standard 3.5 tier list the bard is tier 3 - which is where everyone should be. But because many people think 3.0 and 3.5 are the same edition it didn't get a second look from many.

I agree that it was improved, but it's still a totally trash conception of what a Bard is, and the changes were band-aids to trying and shore up this crap class, rather than a revision out of the terrible concept of "man who sings and prances during combat to make you, a real character who actually does stuff, roll higher", which as I said, was some appalling videogame rubbish even in 2000 (c.f. numerous videogame bards of the era, not least the EverQuest one from 1999, which seemed to be the largest single influence on 3.XE's take on the Bard). "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" was not unfair satire. And making them roll MUCH higher instead of just higher is exactly the wrong kind of improvement, because it shows a commitment the fundamentally dumb approach.

Also it's all very well saying everyone "should be" at T3, but they weren't lol. If Bards were "like 3.5E" in 5E, they'd be reduced to be a trash-tier joke character who stood around buffing people whilst real characters did actual actions with those buffs. Fortunately 5E's designers were too smart to fall into the trap of letting some characters be basically "buffbots" as they used to be called.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree that it was improved, but it's still a totally trash conception of what a Bard is, and the changes were band-aids to trying and shore up this crap class, rather than a revision out of the terrible concept of "man who sings and prances during combat to make you, a real character who actually does stuff, roll higher", which as I said, was some appalling videogame rubbish even in 2000 (c.f. numerous videogame bards of the era, not least the EverQuest one from 1999, which seemed to be the largest single influence on 3.XE's take on the Bard). "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" was not unfair satire. And making them roll MUCH higher instead of just higher is exactly the wrong kind of improvement, because it shows a commitment the fundamentally dumb approach.

Support character and force multiplier is not a fundamentally dumb approach, especially by 3.X standards. Some people enjoy playing them. And you didn't have to prance; Perform (Oratory) covers battle chanters, and warlord style, and charismatic evangelist. Bards did a better job of squad leader than the marshal class and did a better job of evangelical leader of fanatics than the cleric class and there are good reasons that bards should be the people leading mobs with pitchforks and torches.

(And one of my most dangerous and cheesiest 3.X villains was a bard playing a pipe organ to buff literally everyone in the mansion/dungeon).

Also it's all very well saying everyone "should be" at T3, but they weren't lol.

Yuuup. Fighters, monks, and Paladins were T5.

If Bards were "like 3.5E" in 5E, they'd be reduced to be a trash-tier joke character who stood around buffing people whilst real characters did actual actions with those buffs. Fortunately 5E's designers were too smart to fall into the trap of letting some characters be basically "buffbots" as they used to be called.

Or they'd be massively outperforming "real characters" who would mostly notice because when the bard didn't turn up they were about as effective at what they did as the bard was normally.

 

[Minigiant]

Nah mate.

A lot of what you're saying is right but that's plainly and obviously wrong.

D&D isn't "trad fantasy" in the sense of "fantasy from 50 years ago". It's "trad fantasy" as in "mainstream fantasy".

Just look at D&D's art and how classes and so on have changed over the years. The issue that WotC's lead designers for 5E (specifically - not 3E or 4E) are slightly out-of-touch fantasy-wise. Not that a magic-warrior class isn't appropriate. It absolutely is - and even 3E recognised that. So it's been a lot of years.


I agree that it was improved, but it's still a totally trash conception of what a Bard is, and the changes were band-aids to trying and shore up this crap class, rather than a revision out of the terrible concept of "man who sings and prances during combat to make you, a real character who actually does stuff, roll higher", which as I said, was some appalling videogame rubbish even in 2000 (c.f. numerous videogame bards of the era, not least the EverQuest one from 1999, which seemed to be the largest single influence on 3.XE's take on the Bard). "Sneak, sneak, sneak!" was not unfair satire. And making them roll MUCH higher instead of just higher is exactly the wrong kind of improvement, because it shows a commitment the fundamentally dumb approach.

Also it's all very well saying everyone "should be" at T3, but they weren't lol. If Bards were "like 3.5E" in 5E, they'd be reduced to be a trash-tier joke character who stood around buffing people whilst real characters did actual actions with those buffs. Fortunately 5E's designers were too smart to fall into the trap of letting some characters be basically "buffbots" as they used to be called.

Yeah.

Essentially 5e lacks some of the mainstream fantasy concepts because the lead designers lean on the older side and are slightly out of touch and 5e was meant to bring back many old and older D&D fans.

It is why the badelock was underpowered and the Hexblade was kludged into it to overpower it. The designers are from the old but not too old school where there are no Arcane warriors.


But modern fantasy both has them in lore and mechanics. D&D just has to choose a path.