D&D 5E Artificers, Paladins, and Rangers, oh, MY! (Concerning Cantrips)

CreamCloud0

Adventurer
It really confused me when i was first looking at building a halfcaster character and realising they don’t have cantrips when the thirdcasters do, i realise now that it’s because balance but at the time my infuriated logic was ‘but they’re more magical, so why do they have less access to at-will magic?’ Even if they only had a very small number of cantrips I’d rather they have some than none at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

ECMO3

Hero
Eh?

Unless you are talking about shillelagh wisdom rangers, they are pretty much always better using a weapon.

Artificers get a cantrip at first level because throwing a flask of oil fits the concept better than using a weapon.
There is magic stone for Rangers as well.

Also Guidance is a hugely powerful cantrip to both Rangers and Paladins that get the fighting style.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I didn’t realize artificers had different spell casting progression than other half-casters, apart from the cantrips. How do artificer levels factor into multiclassing with multiple casting classes?

EDIT: Ah, I see, they add half their level rounded up instead of down.
 
Last edited:

Weiley31

Legend
You could always have the Feat Magic Initiate and the ability to earn another Fighting Style as Renown/Faction rewards.
Especially if you don't have any Champion subclassed Fighters in the party. That way you're not stepping on toes and your Paladin/Druid can still nab a bonus Fighting Style that gives em a Cantrip.

Heck, nothing is stopping ya for doing the same thing for your Druids/Clerics as well.
 

I didn’t realize artificers had different spell casting progression than other half-casters, apart from the cantrips. How do artificer levels factor into multiclassing with multiple casting classes?

EDIT: Ah, I see, they add half their level rounded up instead of down.
Alternatively, you could view it as Ranger+1.
 


Sure, but what Rising from the Last War actually says you add half your Artificer level rounded up, doesn’t it?
It does (repeated in Tasha's). But "round up" is the same as add a half when the normal rule is "round down". And a half, before you divide by two, is one.

Thus, an artificer has the casting ability of a ranger one level higher than it's actual level.
 


It does (repeated in Tasha's). But "round up" is the same as add a half when the normal rule is "round down". And a half, before you divide by two, is one.

Thus, an artificer has the casting ability of a ranger one level higher than it's actual level.
No. Not one level higher. Only when mutliclassing and only every other level.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
And, frankly, I would hate for those classes to sacrifice one of their key lower level features for something Artificers get for free... 🤷‍♂️
Look at how much the wizard gets in addition to casting. Now look how much the bard can get in addition to casting. Just because they are a full caster does not mean that they have the same focus on their casting. Wizards have a great spell list, extra ritual usage, and preparation allowing changing of spells. Bards have spells known, a narrower spell list both in what it does in and out of combat as well as what saves it targets, but lots of non-casting goodies like one of the only non-concentration buffs around (prior to the twilight cleric).

Half casters are the same. Just because artificers get cantrips, there is no evidence they get it "for free" - they are more magic-focused half casters and their features around that - invocations, cantrips and the like. While rangers and paladins spend their features on abilities that make sense for their classes.

So if you want those classes to be like Artificers, the question is: what thematic class abilities are they giving up to gain cantrips?
 


It always works. Do the math.

Math teacher here.
Maybe I misunderstood you. Also math teacher here.
Can you write it down as formula?

I would say, you need to add 1 before rounding down, not 1/2.

(x+1)/2 round down should be the same as x/2 round up.

For x = 1 you get 1, for x = 2 you get 1, for x = 3 you get 2 in both cases, and so on.

y/2 round down should be one lower every other level.

For y = 1 you get 0, for y = 2 you get 1, for y = 3 you also get 1 and so on.

So if your artificer/ranger/paladin level is even, you don't round at all, so you get the same multiclass spellcaster level.
 

o if your artificer/ranger/paladin level is even, you don't round at all, so you get the same multiclass spellcaster level.
Half casters only advance every other level. So the casting ability of a 4th level ranger is exactly the same as a 5th level ranger. So, whist it is true that a 4th level artificer has the same casting ability as a 4th level ranger, it is also true that they have the same casting ability as a 5th level ranger. I.e ranger level +1, as I stated.

It's a bit tricky for me to type some symbols (such as modulus), but it's ECL = mod((L+1)/2); ECL is the effective caster level, L is the artificer's level.
 
Last edited:

Half casters only advance every other level. So the casting ability of a 4th level ranger is exactly the same as a 5th level ranger. So, whist it is true that a 4th level artificer has the same casting ability as a 4th level ranger, it is also true that they have the same casting ability as a 5th level ranger. I.e ranger level +1, as I stated.

It's a bit tricky for me to type some symbols (such as modulus), but it's ECL = mod((L+1)/2); ECL is the effective caster level, L is the artificer's level.

But artificers and rangers have exactly the same spellcastin progression, except for level 1 and cantrips.
 

Half casters only advance every other level. So the casting ability of a 4th level ranger is exactly the same as a 5th level ranger. So, whist it is true that a 4th level artificer has the same casting ability as a 4th level ranger, it is also true that they have the same casting ability as a 5th level ranger. I.e ranger level +1, as I stated.

It's a bit tricky for me to type some symbols (such as modulus), but it's ECL = mod((L+1)/2); ECL is the effective caster level, L is the artificer's level.
Just because 'hey, who doesn't love a pedant?', the modulo operator is typically written as %.
 



That is the notation for absolute value... which is sometimes called modulus. You are using a modulo operator in the sense of obtaining a remainder when X is divided by a modulus Y.
You are probably right - I teach maths by default, my main subject is physics (and to be honest I scraped through the maths modules!)

My maths isn't as bad as my chemistry though, and I have to teach that too!
 

You are probably right - I teach maths by default, my main subject is physics (and to be honest I scraped through the maths modules!)

My maths isn't as bad as my chemistry though, and I have to teach that too!
I wasn't trying to give you a hard time! I'm a software engineer. I have (very infrequently) have made use of the modulo operator (which, as I was saying earlier, is usually written as % in the programming languages I frequent) so have inadvertently become aware of the intricacies of the term 'modulus' (although I'm sure some actual mathematician will come along and out-pedant/correct me on some of the finer points!).

I spent part of my university career studying Chemical Engineering... don't ask me to recall any of it though :)
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top