D&D 5E (2014) 3/4 Caster: Its Absence and Design Space in 5E

[Aldarc]

Those archetypes definitely aren't 1/4 casters, as they cast spells up to 4th level, they are between 1/3 and 1/2, but it doesn't really matter.

What part of "This correction has already been made" did you not understand?

 

[RangerWickett]

In the future, magical abilities could cost MP, and you'd have an MP Limit equal to your total character level, a number of Spells Known based on your actual levels in spellcasting classes, and an MP Pool equal to your MP Limit multiplied by the number of spellcasting class levels you have.

Different classes might give you perks in different directions. All the full casters would give you bonus MP Limit. Sorcerers might get a bigger MP Pool. A wizard might get more Spells Known.

In this system, at level 1:

Sorcerer - MP Limit 2, Spells Known 3, MP Pool 5
Wizard - MP Limit 2, Spells Known 5, MP Pool 2
Paladin - MP Limit 1, Spells Known 2, MP Pool 1
Fighter - MP Limit 1, Spells Known 0, MP Pool 0

And then at level 5

Sorcerer 5 - MP Limit 8, Spells Known 7, MP Pool 55
Wizard 5 - MP Limit 8, Spells Known 13, MP Pool 40
Paladin 5 - MP Limit 5, Spells Known 5, MP Pool 25
Fighter 4/Wizard 1 - MP Limit 6, Spells Known 5, MP Pool 6

So the fighter who multiclasses into wizard can do magic that's better than what a flat 1st level wizard can, but still only gets a few spells per day.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think that 3/4th casters could work in 5e, but I don't think that they should be a class, just like how 1/4th casters are just two subclasses in 5e. While 1/4th casters are the casting subclasses for non-casters (Arcane Trickster Rogues, Eldritch Knight Fighters), I could see 3/4th casters being the "more casting" subclasses for the Half-Caster classes.

For example, there could be a "Warden" Ranger subclass that gets a different spell table from the base Ranger's spell table, getting up to 7th level spells, with the options being from the Druid Spell List. There could be a "Herald" Paladin subclass that got the same spell-slot progression table as the Warden Ranger, but got Cleric spells, and a "Master Tinker" Artificer subclass that got up to 7th level spells from the Wizard list (probably restricted to Transmutation and Abjuration spells, though).

TL;DR - I don't see three-quarter casters having a place as a Class option in 5e, but I do think that they could work as a subclass option.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think that 3/4th casters could work in 5e, but I don't think that they should be a class, just like how 1/4th casters are just two subclasses in 5e. While 1/4th casters are the casting subclasses for non-casters (Arcane Trickster Rogues, Eldritch Knight Fighters), I could see 3/4th casters being the "more casting" subclasses for the Half-Caster classes.

For example, there could be a "Warden" Ranger subclass that gets a different spell table from the base Ranger's spell table, getting up to 7th level spells, with the options being from the Druid Spell List. There could be a "Herald" Paladin subclass that got the same spell-slot progression table as the Warden Ranger, but got Cleric spells, and a "Master Tinker" Artificer subclass that got up to 7th level spells from the Wizard list (probably restricted to Transmutation and Abjuration spells, though).

TL;DR - I don't see three-quarter casters having a place as a Class option in 5e, but I do think that they could work as a subclass option.

That’s a good idea.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

What part of "This correction has already been made" did you not understand?

Presumably the part where you expect everyone to carefully read the entire thread before pointing out a glaring rules error in the original post, which, like it or not, is not how everyone interacts with threads on this site. I'd recommend noting the error in the original post at the top of the thread if you don't want every 15th post to be about Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.

 

[Aldarc]

Presumably the part where you expect everyone to carefully read the entire thread before pointing out a glaring rules error in the original post, which, like it or not, is not how everyone interacts with threads on this site. I'd recommend noting the error in the original post at the top of the thread if you don't want every 15th post to be about Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters.

The first time they pointed it out was okay, but repeating themselves after they already pointed this out is the issue. But the error has been corrected now.

 

[Horwath]

As mentioned before 2/3rd caster would be nice to have, getting new level spells every 3 levels, at levels 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 from 1st to 7th level spells.

Also, it would be nitpicking but 1/3rd casters could be reworked as 2/5th casters. that is that they get new spells every 5 levels instead of 6.
AT and EK would still get only 4th level spells, but they would get them few levels sooner, at level 3/6/11/16 instead of 3/7/13/19.

 

[CubicsRube]

Honestly I hate the D&D paradigm of "Everything must be a spell". For example Hunter's mark should be a class ability not a spell.

There's far too much spellcasting in 5e so I would not welcome a 3/4 caster.

That's not to say that I don't want magic in my D&D games. Quite the opposite. Magic feels incredibly mundane in D&D vs other systems because almost every monkey and their dog has magic.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A 3/4 caster would only miss out on 9th level spells, I've felt that a 2/3 caster would fit well in the game and top out at 7th level spells, I actually have a spreadsheet somewhere with the spell progression. I'd have probably preferred the bard on a 2/3 spell casting track with more class features over making them a full caster.

Unless I'm mistaken, a 3/4 caster would go up to 7th level spells, so they'd miss out on 8ths and 9ths. While I generally agree that that's not too much of a reduction in power, it could still be made to work. You'd start off with 1st level spells, and gain a higher spell level at levels 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17. This means you'd pull consistently ahead of the half-caster at level 6, and fall consistently behind the full-caster at level 7, which seems like a pretty good place for the three types to diverge.

I don't, personally, see all that much utility from adding any of these things. But it seems to me that, if you really "had" to add something, a 3/4-caster would arguably be more distinctly different from the half-casters than a 2/3-caster would be, while remaining distinctly different from a full-caster. It also better splits the difference between half- and full-casters, capping out at 7th level spells (where half-casters cap out at 5 and full-casters cap out at 9). The only real benefit I can see to a 2/3 caster is that the progression table is smoother: at one more than every multiple of 3, you gain a higher spell level, until you cap out at 6.

If half-casters didn't exist, so the only models we had were full-casters and 1/3-casters like EK and AT, then I could see 2/3-casters as fitting into a nice niche. But with both 1/3- and half-casters present, 2/3 just seems to compress too much into too tight a space: people cap out at 4th level spells, 5th level spells, and 6th level spells...or go all the way to 9ths.

Edit: It's worth noting, I was presuming that there would be an artificial cap on progression the way that full-casters are artifically capped off from getting 10th level spells like they're supposed to mathematically. (That is, full-casters gain a new spell level at every odd character level...except 19th, where they get nothing. I was assuming similar limits for both 2/3 and 3/4 casters, blocking them from getting what should be their highest theoretical spell level.) If that cap isn't considered, then yes, 2/3 casters and 3/4 casters would go one spell level higher at extremely high levels. I personally find that sort of thing weird, and thus wouldn't design something that way--why have features that are only reached if you literally get to the highest or second-highest level possible in the game?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Honestly I hate the D&D paradigm of "Everything must be a spell". For example Hunter's mark should be a class ability not a spell.

There's far too much spellcasting in 5e so I would not welcome a 3/4 caster.

That's not to say that I don't want magic in my D&D games. Quite the opposite. Magic feels incredibly mundane in D&D vs other systems because almost every monkey and their dog has magic.

It would, perhaps ironically, be much easier to have magic that is cool on its own if having magic weren't a prerequisite for doing the vast majority of cool things that the rules enable characters to do.