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

[Ruin Explorer]

The Hexblade chassis is already overpowered.

It really isn't.

Multiclassing with it is, but the chassis itself is not. This is a common misconception people get from the hype about MC combos. And the most powerful thing it has is Hexblade's Curse, which, obviously, a different class would not have. It also wouldn't get Eldritch Blast so would be worse at range.

The "plus" is giving it better combat spells.

So don't give it any OP spells?

 

[Minigiant]

It really isn't.

Multiclassing with it is, but the chassis itself is not. This is a common misconception people get from the hype about MC combos. And the most powerful thing it has is Hexblade's Curse, which, obviously, a different class would not have. It also wouldn't get Eldritch Blast so would be worse at range.

The chassis is. The only reason why the Hexblade doesn't overwhelm games is that it was built after the PHB and not specifically designed to synergize. But even one bit of optimization puts it over the edge.

Plus a Hexblade warlock without EB has a better range attack than most melee builds of warrior classes while losing only slightly in melee power all with 9th level spells.

The Hexblade is overpowered and should be an example of archetypes that should be in the AHC.

The Hexblade should not be a warlock. It was shoehorned into warlock in 4e and 5e in order to not create a new class.

 

[accountcreatedtopostthis]

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.

So I've read all the replies to this post of yours. And how you adressed them in turn.

I kind of agree with you. I like the way you pointed out that 1) What they actualy want is a Gish. 2)In their mind: Gish = Arcane half-caster. 3) There might be alternatives for a relevant DnD Gish.

That.said. I disagree with the logic that lets you discard the parallel between a Gish as an arcane equivalent to the Paladin and Ranger.
Your argument that the class specific spells are irrelevant...I mean, ranger without hunter's mark or Paladin without find steed could work I guess but...how about no?
Jesting aside: the way the ranger's spell list meshes with the skillset, both in fluff and crunch is hard to deny.
On the same token, the divine smite feature of the Paladin illustrates how a half-caster spell list can fuel spell-adjacent skills.
Based on those 2 observations, is it that big a stretch to imagine a Magus-like arcane half-caster with enough, varied, spellslot-fueled spell-adjacent features (a la divine smite) to both create a valid identity and justify not reserving your slots for spamming shield every round? breeeeeeeathes
Like a monk spending spellslots instead of ki points.

Yeah, I guess making a monk analogy when trying to sell a game design is a poor strategy, but I'm sure you get my meaning.

To be clear: not saying the Warlock chassis for the Gish is bad. The aforementioned "spell-adjacent skills" term could be used to describe Invocations after all.
Just saying your entirely disregarding working with what we already have seems like a pity.

In my opinon, anyway.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

one of the main reasons i would want one is that while variations of gish are something they've repeatedly made attempts at in 5e and seem to understand is a wanted concept they've never really ballanced it well when trying to 'covert' the other martials or fullcasters into being a gish IMO, and giving them their own class lets them be their own thing rather than having to fit into another class's leftover subclass design space and use that limited space to turn it into something they weren't intended to be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Plus a Hexblade warlock without EB has a better range attack than most melee builds of warrior classes

It really does not.

For example, a level 11 Fighter with a longbow and STR20 has three attacks doing 1d8+5 damage. That's far better than any cantrip at that level.

That's with zero build and no subclass. Just literally pulling out a longbow.

So that's just a nonsensical claim.

The Hexblade is overpowered and should be an example of archetypes that should be in the AHC.

I have no idea what this means.

The Hexblade should not be a warlock. It was shoehorned into warlock in 4e and 5e in order to not create a new class.

No. This is just flatly untrue.

Hexblade was a Warlock sub-type. There was already a "new class", Swordmage, so that's a nonsensical claim. And claiming that something has been "shoehorned" for the last 15 years isn't a very good argument.

Your argument that the class specific spells are irrelevant...I mean, ranger without hunter's mark or Paladin without find steed could work I guess but...how about no?

Both could and should be class features. So how about yes?

Based on those 2 observations, is it that big a stretch to imagine a Magus-like arcane half-caster with enough, varied, spellslot-fueled spell-adjacent features (a la divine smite) to both create a valid identity and justify not reserving your slots for spamming shield every round? breeeeeeeathes
Like a monk spending spellslots instead of ki points.

It's not impossible but realistically it's going to probably be worse at damage than a Paladin (unless you just rip off Smite) and it's going to be incredibly hard to resist spamming Shield unless you take if off their list, which, for 1D&D, you probably cannot even do, because of the way lists work (and it would obviously be mad to ban them from Abjuration spells).

Also, like, why? What's the benefit?

You're still engaging with the fetish. That you need the class for the purposes of symmetry. You need to propose a concept FIRST, and only THEN do you propose how it works. So far the concepts proposed have largely been ones which would work much better with a Warlock-based chassis.

one of the main reasons i would want one is that while variations of gish are something they've repeatedly made attempts at in 5e and seem to understand is a wanted concept they've never really ballanced it well when trying to 'covert' the other martials or fullcasters into being a gish IMO, and giving them their own class lets them be their own thing rather than having to fit into another class's leftover subclass design space and use that limited space to turn it into something they weren't intended to be.

So explain the class you envision in detail. Justify its existence with something other "it's symmetrical!". Paladins are an extremely loreful class (NPI lol) with a detailed and complex reason to exist. Rangers are a goddamn mess who probably shouldn't be half-casters, but that's a separate discussion. Explain why you need "Arcane half-caster" specifically for the concept you're proposing, and why a variant on the Warlock chassis wouldn't work better.

So far all you're presenting is a circular argument.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

At least that's a logical reason I can respect! I'm not the biggest fan of Artificer but it's not a disaster either.

Only thing I'd want to change about a potential PHB artificer would be to pick subclasses for it which work in a more 'traditional' fantasy setting. Alchemist already does this and can be a very classic witch type character. But battlesmith with its robo-puppy, artillerist with its walking turret, and armourer with a full on iron man suit all struggle to fit in a vanilla fantasy setting. The result being the a lot of DMs ban the class from what I see.

One thing I really love about artificer is how insanely impactful its subclasses are. Being a half caster allows this, as their power budget isn't being eaten up by spellcasting.

 

[accountcreatedtopostthis]

Both could and should be class features. So how about yes?

Duuude, that's a low blow! I called "jesting aside"...still, I'll adress it below but...damn, no fair...

Also, like, why? What's the benefit?

You're still engaging with the fetish. That you need the class for the purposes of symmetry. You need to propose a concept FIRST, and only THEN do you propose how it works. So far the concepts proposed have largely been ones which would work much better with a Warlock-based chassis.

SO! What's the benefit? Options.

You illustrated perfectly the value of design options when pointing out how iconic class-specific spells could have been class features instead.
Which could open an interesting debate as to the value of feature-locking instead of making spells available to other classes through subclasses (ex: hunting mark for vengeance paladin). One offers lisibililty, the other flexibility. Choices. Options.
That's all I aimed to offer you, the same way I enjoyed reading you offering it to others.

Yes, an OCD-like need for class symmetry is an irationnal way to go about game design. But overcompensating for their misguided conceptions of design to the point of systematicaly discarding whatever relevant idea is associated with, not generated by, their fetish is not much better.
They were so blinded by "I need arcane Half-caster" that they didn't see "All I want is a Gish". You're so focused on "Arcane half-caster fans are blinded by their symmetry fetishisism" that you can't possibly conceive that "Some of the intellectual blunt instruments the half-caster fans blindly throw around could actualy get the job done".
You seem like a bright fella. I found it a pity for you to lock yourself out of a valid option out of sheer contempt.

For the record:
That.said. I disagree with the logic that lets you discard the parallel between a Gish as an arcane equivalent to the Paladin and Ranger.
I do believe the above sentence states my intent to address the "how to Gish in DnD". As opposed to "How to defend arcane half casters to fill OCD-fueled voids in my life".

Take care, friend.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

 

[CreamCloud0]

So explain the class you envision in detail. Justify its existence with something other "it's symmetrical!". Paladins are an extremely loreful class (NPI lol) with a detailed and complex reason to exist. Rangers are a goddamn mess who probably shouldn't be half-casters, but that's a separate discussion. Explain why you need "Arcane half-caster" specifically for the concept you're proposing, and why a variant on the Warlock chassis wouldn't work better.

So far all you're presenting is a circular argument.

did i say anything about symmetry? what i said was 'trying to force a separate martial or a fullcaster into being a gish results in an unbalanced subclass, both power-wise and abilities-wise', it deserves to be given it's own design space, the fact that arcane half-caster is what many people think is best for achieving that design is irrelevant to matters of symmetry or role grid-filling.

and lore? what's the lore of the fighter? the rogue? the wizard? 'i studied this stuff and got good at it' you don't need 'lore' so much as a concept, lore can and will be discarded like yesterday's news if it doesn't fit a character's concept, the 'warrior who perfectly combines magic and martial abilities' is a very well known/popular concept that is wanted by many players and that's enough for it to be valid.

as for why i think the warlock chassis wouldn't work it's that pact slots are too much of a one and done casting capacity, sure they might have invocations and cantrips but they don't really measure up to the more sustained measure of power and versatility people would expect from a gish.

 

[Minigiant]

really does not.

For example, a level 11 Fighter with a longbow and STR20 has three attacks doing 1d8+5 damage. That's far better than any cantrip at that level.

That's with zero build and no subclass. Just literally pulling out a longbow.

So that's just a nonsensical claim

I was saying the the Hexblade has the best combo of range and melee. And it's SAD.. As well as Having 9th level spells.

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