D&D 5E Concepts for an arcane half-caster/gish

[Cap'n Kobold]

OK. So what does this class need to do, in order to realise the concept?

Completely self-reliant classes aren't generally a good fit in a party-based game like D&D, but a backup to the more specialised classes is often good. It looks like this class isn't going to have healing, and its not intended to fight as well as a Fighter, delve as well as a Rogue, or cast as well as a Wizard, which gives good reason why a member of the class might join a D&D party.

So, what special capabilities do you think this class would have, and how should they be expressed mechanically?

Spells: The Lore Bard, Eldritch knight, Ranger, and Arcane trickster expressions of the 'multi-skilled adventurer trope' all have limited spell lists, or ones directed towards a specific aim (party support mostly).
Would this class use the base Wizard spell list? Any restrictions or additions?

Combat: Would this class have full armour and martial weapon proficiencies? Or stick to medium or light Armour?
Fighting styles: Would they get these options as a pure Fighter would? Which ones?
Extra Attack: Would they get this? What sort of levels? Would they get some other form of combat capability instead, like a rogue's sneak attack?

Skills: What are the archetypal skills that this class would be trained in?
Thieves Tools can be picked up by anyone, but would the members of this class be generally all trained in Thieves Tools?
Any other tools: Cartographer's? Land/sea vehicles?

Special capabilities? What makes this class special, that will distinguish it from a current class or multiclass? What should it be able to do that they can't etc.

 

[77IM]

I found another cool word: "Warder."

This is an archaic term which means what you think it means. It also shows up in the Wheel of Time series as people who act as bodyguards to mages. The Warders also get some minor magic enhancements in order to perform this task (I forget exactly what).

In D&D terms, the broader concept would be someone who guards mages and, in return, is taught some magic. Presumably they need to defend their wizard masters from threats both mundane and arcane, so they split their training between martial prowess and useful defensive magic.

 

[Zardnaar]

OK. So what does this class need to do, in order to realise the concept?

Completely self-reliant classes aren't generally a good fit in a party-based game like D&D, but a backup to the more specialised classes is often good. It looks like this class isn't going to have healing, and its not intended to fight as well as a Fighter, delve as well as a Rogue, or cast as well as a Wizard, which gives good reason why a member of the class might join a D&D party.

So, what special capabilities do you think this class would have, and how should they be expressed mechanically?

Spells: The Lore Bard, Eldritch knight, Ranger, and Arcane trickster expressions of the 'multi-skilled adventurer trope' all have limited spell lists, or ones directed towards a specific aim (party support mostly).
Would this class use the base Wizard spell list? Any restrictions or additions?

Combat: Would this class have full armour and martial weapon proficiencies? Or stick to medium or light Armour?
Fighting styles: Would they get these options as a pure Fighter would? Which ones?
Extra Attack: Would they get this? What sort of levels? Would they get some other form of combat capability instead, like a rogue's sneak attack?

Skills: What are the archetypal skills that this class would be trained in?
Thieves Tools can be picked up by anyone, but would the members of this class be generally all trained in Thieves Tools?
Any other tools: Cartographer's? Land/sea vehicles?

Special capabilities? What makes this class special, that will distinguish it from a current class or multiclass? What should it be able to do that they can't etc.

Proficient in heavy armor (reduces MAD and having to pump dex)
Proficient in con saves (so you can buff youself and go into melee without losing your spells all the time).
Half caster (we have multiple full caster gish, none of them are that good at actual fighting)
2 attacks a round a'la Paladin/Ranger
A fighting style a'la Paladin/Ranger.
An extra (limited/situational) source of damage
Int as a spell casting stat (as we have multiple cha based classes already)
Hands free casting (as that part of the warcaster feat) or design verbal only spells or let them sacrifice spell slots for something else (like Paladins and the smite spells).

A unique spell list could also work or give them access to the Sorcerer or wizard spell list.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Nothing in this post makes any sense.

And you expect me to take seriously your criticism that my position doesn't make sense, right? Rather than assume you just don't get what I'm saying because of "cognitive dissonance" or some such?

Please explain to me why factotum, a word that means employee makes more sense than argonaut - a word that literally means adventurer, in describing a class that is conceptualized as a professional adventurer.

Um... "literally means"?

"Factotum" literally means "do-everything": fac "do" + totum "everything".

"Argonaut" literally means "sailor on the Argo": Argo "the Argo" + naut "sailor".

So if we're going by what the words literally mean, "factotum" blows "argonaut" out of the water for describing a character who places an emphasis on versatility.

Now, if we're going by the word's broader usage, then yes, factotums are typically in the employ of someone else. In other words, they are professionals. Like your proposed characters. But do you know who weren't professionals? The Argonauts. The crew of the Argo was, in fact, exceptional in that it was not a long-term unit, but rather a group of heroes pulled together from all over for one specific quest. It really is the Classical equivalent of an all-star team playing an exhibition game. Does not seem appropriate for a class based on adventuring companies.

And none of this really matters, because if you decide that "factotum" doesn't communicate the idea you want to communicate, then congratulations! you're right. When communicating, the intuitions and understanding of the speaker and the listener have to line up, so if your intuition doesn't like "factotum", that's just as bad as if your audience's intuition doesn't like "argonaut". But you did ask me to explain why I think "factotum" is a better term, so there it is.

That's just a silly, malformed argument all the way through.

If you think heaping empty abuse on a position is sufficient to refute it, then you ought to have conceded to Quickleaf back on page 2.

 

[ZickZak]

Hexblade. Iconic AF

 

[steeldragons]

All base classes -as I believe this is intended- receive their own personal spell lists.

"[One] Third-casters" are limited/restricted by type of magic/spell school.

"Half-casters" are limited by spell selection. They have individual spell lists, as all 5e classes, but are limited A) to No Cantrips and 5th level spell progression; and B) with a severely restricted -to "balance" them against less martially adept classes, would be my guess - to something like 8-10 or LESS spells per spell level...

Actually: [math edited]
Paladin: 11/8/6/3/3 = 31 total choices.
Ranger 11/11/9/4/2 = 37 total choices.

My recommendation is that this be observed/followed for your "arcane paladin-style professional adventurer." I would make sure the spell list was diverse (as their proclaimed purpose) with a smattering of simple offense, a some defense, and a lot of utility.

Choosing from the Wizard spell list, as this is the "arcane magic half-caster analogue to the paladin," I get something like...

First Level Spells ---------------- Second Level Spells --------- Third Level Spells --------- Fourth Level Spells ------- Fifth Level Spells
Alarm --------------------------- Arcane Lock ---------------- Dispel Magic -------------- Banishment -------------- Legend Lore
Blade, Booming ------------------ Darkvision ------------------ Fireball ------------------- Faithful Hound ----------- Passwall
Blade, Green Flame -------------- Detect Thoughts ----------- Glyph of Warding ---------- Resilient Sphere ---------- Telepathic Bond
Comprehend Languages ---------- Hold Person ---------------- Magic Circle --------------- Wall of Fire
Detect Magic -------------------- Knock --------------------- Nondetection
Hold Portal ---------------------- Locate Object -------------- Protection from Energy
Jump --------------------------- Magic Weapon
Magic Missile ------------------- Mirror Image
Protection from Evil/Good-------- Scorching Ray
Shield ------------------------------ See Invisibility
Thunderwave

[Edited for MORE Math errors] 11/10/6/4/3 [I have no idea what I was counting/Edit] =
34 spells total. Between Paladin and Ranger. For everything else it sounds like this class is going to be able to do, I don't really think you can get away with any more spell use than that.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Proficient in heavy armor (reduces MAD and having to pump dex)
Proficient in con saves (so you can buff youself and go into melee without losing your spells all the time).
Half caster (we have multiple full caster gish, none of them are that good at actual fighting)
2 attacks a round a'la Paladin/Ranger
A fighting style a'la Paladin/Ranger.
An extra (limited/situational) source of damage
Int as a spell casting stat (as we have multiple cha based classes already)
Hands free casting (as that part of the warcaster feat) or design verbal only spells or let them sacrifice spell slots for something else (like Paladins and the smite spells).

A unique spell list could also work or give them access to the Sorcerer or wizard spell list.

But it's important to build the class around a concept that incorporates these mechanical elements, rather than just trying to build a class out of the mechanics.

 

[Einlanzer0]

And you expect me to take seriously your criticism that my position doesn't make sense, right? Rather than assume you just don't get what I'm saying because of "cognitive dissonance" or some such?

Um... "literally means"?

"Factotum" literally means "do-everything": fac "do" + totum "everything".

"Argonaut" literally means "sailor on the Argo": Argo "the Argo" + naut "sailor".

So if we're going by what the words literally mean, "factotum" blows "argonaut" out of the water for describing a character who places an emphasis on versatility.

Now, if we're going by the word's broader usage, then yes, factotums are typically in the employ of someone else. In other words, they are professionals. Like your proposed characters. But do you know who weren't professionals? The Argonauts. The crew of the Argo was, in fact, exceptional in that it was not a long-term unit, but rather a group of heroes pulled together from all over for one specific quest. It really is the Classical equivalent of an all-star team playing an exhibition game. Does not seem appropriate for a class based on adventuring companies.

And none of this really matters, because if you decide that "factotum" doesn't communicate the idea you want to communicate, then congratulations! you're right. When communicating, the intuitions and understanding of the speaker and the listener have to line up, so if your intuition doesn't like "factotum", that's just as bad as if your audience's intuition doesn't like "argonaut". But you did ask me to explain why I think "factotum" is a better term, so there it is.


If you think heaping empty abuse on a position is sufficient to refute it, then you ought to have conceded to Quickleaf back on page 2.

This is fundamentally an argument of semantics, as dumb arguments on message boards typically are. I'm not telling you your name is terrible. It's an interesting name. I'm just not conceding that it's better than argonaut for my concept, because it remains my opinion that it isn't. Argonaut has been colloquialized to mean adventurer, and was even used for gold rush participants in the 1800s. Arguing that it's an inappropriate name to use for a class that represents professional adventuring just doesn't hold any water. You people are clinging to your preconceived notions and arguing with emotion.

 

[steeldragons]

Another point for Factotum, if technically one were keeping points, is doesn't it have some D&D history/cred? 3e? 2e kit? It was a class option somewhere, right? Or am I mis-remembering?

Revamping/updating to 5e a former class concept that might have some immediate name recognition among a certain segment of audience is always good for one's "brand."

 

[Rossbert]

To quick weigh in on the name, as everyone has, I will put aside my personal issue (all I see is the Greek myth) but using the colloquial definition makes it too broad. In a party of adventurers having a guy whose class is called "adventurer" seems weird, and if the goal is to make a class that encompasses all things needed on an adventure (even if you don't include heals) to fit that name you are really stepping on a lot of toes (something I think 5e already has issues with, I'm looking at you College of Swords!)

On the main part of the topic, I do think the concept is a bit too broad to fit well without some refinement.

The paladin worked because divine magic, and especially its divine magic is based on two concepts, smacking/smiting/banishing cosmic evil and restoring health.

The problem is arcane magic is literally everything else and some of the evil banishing/repulsion. It is just too much to mix without a heavier focus (trickster and bard hit enchantment and illusion hard, knight with evocation and such).

I am not sure the idea is needed with all the weapon/magic subclass options but I do love me some hypothetical design. The options I saw presented above felt a bit too good as is.

Extra attack and fighting style, totally on board.

Heavy armor, Con proficiency and hands-free casting, this feels like a lot of defense all together and I think there may need to be more trade-off. The first thing I would drop is con saves and give Wis and Str. I would then look at maybe medium armor with hands-free casting OR heavy armor and normal casting.

Extra damage source, like it but not sure what, obviously burn a slot to add something maybe damage of a type that matches a prepared spell? Just throwing it out there. Or maybe go weird and give advantage on a damage die or something. Possibly add a die based on the slot level. Lots to play with.

Definitely a unique and somewhat limited spell list (see above about focus) if you wanted a super-general sampling they should be interesting and decent but generally not the absolute go-to spells.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.