Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9602425" data-attributes="member: 6790260">IMO, any character that can cast any spells from a source that is not a feat or a magic item is a spellcaster. I give feats the tiniest bit of leeway, but if that feat is giving a cantrip that is an absolutely critical component of the character achieving the goal described, that character is pretty clearly a spellcaster, just a minor one.Conversely, a character that does not use spells is presumptively a martial character, with a few exceptions, like Monk, which is neither a spellcaster nor a martial by this metric, but rather a non-spellcaster supernatural character.So: most Fighters (exceptions include EK and Rune Knight), most Rogues (exceptions include AT and Soulknife, and probably Phantom), most Barbarians (exceptions include Wild Heart, World Tree, and Wild Magic). If there were a spell-free Ranger, it'd fall here too--and with careful "spell" selection, you may be able to pick out things that are using things that really should've been class features but got offloaded onto the spell list because Reasons.For example, an EK that leverages cantrip damage alongside Extra Attack? No, not a martial character anymore, because the player has intentionally made outright spellcasting a critical part of their relevant actions (in this case, damage-dealing). Conversely, I would actually kinda-sorta grant that a to-the-nines Bladelock is about as close as one can get to a "martial" character despite being unequivocally a spellcaster, especially if those spells don't factor in (e.g. no hex, no CME, no Eldritch Smite, etc.); that's definitely an intentional grey area on the part of the designers.</blockquote>

Verification