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

[Ruin Explorer]

fighter/mage multiclass?

I've never seen F/M or "Fighter/Mage" used to mean anything else lol.

And yeah no-one played F/Ms except Elves because they could get Elven Chain (and most DMs did fork it over eventually).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nah mate.

A lot of what you're saying is right but that's plainly and obviously wrong.

D&D isn't "trad fantasy" in the sense of "fantasy from 50 years ago". It's "trad fantasy" as in "mainstream fantasy".

Just look at D&D's art and how classes and so on have changed over the years. The issue that WotC's lead designers for 5E (specifically - not 3E or 4E) are slightly out-of-touch fantasy-wise. Not that a magic-warrior class isn't appropriate. It absolutely is - and even 3E recognised that. So it's been a lot of years.

When I said "traditional fantasy", what I meant by "traditional" was standard Medieval-era fantasy-- castles, knights, faeries, wagons, swords, chainmail armor etc. Lord of the Rings stuff. "Modern" fantasy I took to mean more recent century fantasy-- Victorian, 1800s, 1900s, Steampunk, and whatever time periods typical Anime falls into. Now maybe that's not what Minigiant meant when they made the "traditional" versus "modern" comparison-- maybe they meant "modern" as in more recent writings/authors and not the time periods the stories were set in. And if that's the case, then that's on me. Mea culpa.

But from the way I was thinking of it... as far as Greyhawk and Faerun and the like are concerned... I would call that traditional medieval fantasy, which I still think is the baseline default for the D&D game. And an arcane half-caster's story would need to fit into that traditional grouping of classes alongside barbarians, knights, rangers, and wizards in towers for WotC to even consider making it, in my opinion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When I said "traditional fantasy", what I meant by "traditional" was standard Medieval-era fantasy-- castles, knights, faeries, wagons, swords, chainmail armor etc. Lord of the Rings stuff. "Modern" fantasy I took to mean more recent century fantasy-- Victorian, 1800s, 1900s, Steampunk, and whatever time periods typical Anime falls into. Now maybe that's not what Minigiant meant when they made the "traditional" versus "modern" comparison-- maybe they meant "modern" as in more recent writings/authors and not the time periods the stories were set in. And if that's the case, then that's on me. Mea culpa.

But from the way I was thinking of it... as far as Greyhawk and Faerun and the like are concerned... I would call that traditional medieval fantasy, which I still think is the baseline default for the D&D game. And an arcane half-caster's story would need to fit into that traditional grouping of classes alongside barbarians, knights, rangers, and wizards in towers for WotC to even consider making it, in my opinion.

That's clearly not what D&D is about anymore, though - 1600s-1900s is now the dominant vibe.

Just look at the art in 4E/5E art - and even 3E actually - 3E's vibe was "dungeonpunk", which is very distinct from trad fantasy. Look at 5E's OFFICIAL settings, almost none are Medieval.

Forgotten Realms - Renaissance era for the most part (especially the SCAG area). 1500s-ish.
Eberron - 1920s-ish minus guns/tanks/etc.
Greyhawk - Medieval for the most part.
Ravnica - 1700s-1900s depending on the exact take, but it's very much modern.
Wildemount - Hard to say but late Renaissance-early modern period? Like 1600s-1700s. They've got pretty advanced firearms, airships, etc. for example.
Mythic Odysseys of Theros - Bronze Age/Iron Age
Ravenloft - Anywhere from pre-history to medieval to 1900s, depending on the zone.
Strixhaven - Hard to say, but whatever it is, it's modern. I'd say basically 1800s/1900s.
Spelljammer - Age of Sail-ish so, what, 1700s? That's the general vibe. Some stuff is more modern.
Dragonlance - Medieval for the most part.

And that's the most generous we can be. The only medieval settings in 5E at all are there by dint of campaigns - Greyhawk via Saltmarsh and Dragonlance via Dragon Queen. We eliminate those and we're exclusively 1600s or late, with a lot of 1800s/1900s (well and Bronze Age-y Theros, but that's different in the opposite direction).

The baseline default is very much not 1200-1300 anymore. In 2E, absolutely it was. But that was a long, long time ago. Things have changed. D&D is about mainstream high fantasy, and mainstream high fantasy now is mostly set in settings equivalent to 1600-1900s - certainly in literary fantasy and videogames, but also a lot of TV/movie fantasy. There are exceptions, like Rings of Power and House of the Dragon, but for example, Shadow and Bone is basically late 1800s/early 1900s (as we will really see in the unlikely event Netflix doesn't cancel them after S2 - in S4 or so there should be a tank which would outperform most interwar tanks). Arcane is also basically 1800s/1900s.

 

[tetrasodium]

That's clearly not what D&D is about anymore, though - 1600s-1900s is now the dominant vibe.

Just look at the art in 4E/5E art - and even 3E actually - 3E's vibe was "dungeonpunk", which is very distinct from trad fantasy. Look at 5E's OFFICIAL settings, almost none are Medieval.

Forgotten Realms - Renaissance era for the most part (especially the SCAG area). 1500s-ish.
Eberron - 1920s-ish minus guns/tanks/etc.
Greyhawk - Medieval for the most part.
Ravnica - 1700s-1900s depending on the exact take, but it's very much modern.
Wildemount - Hard to say but late Renaissance-early modern period? Like 1600s-1700s. They've got pretty advanced firearms, airships, etc. for example.
Mythic Odysseys of Theros - Bronze Age/Iron Age
Ravenloft - Anywhere from pre-history to medieval to 1900s, depending on the zone.
Strixhaven - Hard to say, but whatever it is, it's modern. I'd say basically 1800s/1900s.
Spelljammer - Age of Sail-ish so, what, 1700s? That's the general vibe. Some stuff is more modern.
Dragonlance - Medieval for the most part.

And that's the most generous we can be. The only medieval settings in 5E at all are there by dint of campaigns - Greyhawk via Saltmarsh and Dragonlance via Dragon Queen. We eliminate those and we're exclusively 1600s or late, with a lot of 1800s/1900s (well and Bronze Age-y Theros, but that's different in the opposite direction).

The baseline default is very much not 1200-1300 anymore. In 2E, absolutely it was. But that was a long, long time ago. Things have changed. D&D is about mainstream high fantasy, and mainstream high fantasy now is mostly set in settings equivalent to 1600-1900s - certainly in literary fantasy and videogames, but also a lot of TV/movie fantasy. There are exceptions, like Rings of Power and House of the Dragon, but for example, Shadow and Bone is basically late 1800s/early 1900s (as we will really see in the unlikely event Netflix doesn't cancel them after S2 - in S4 or so there should be a tank which would outperform most interwar tanks). Arcane is also basically 1800s/1900s.

I'm not so sure about that last bit, 5e d&d isn't really about anything. Sure it might have item lists & pictures that suggest it can support something, but when you try to use them 5e itself tends to bend over backwards to fight the effort. As a system it does that by taking such pains to avoid choosing any one particular style over some other style. Those hints ultimately just exist to tell players that the failure is on their GM.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not so sure about that last bit, 5e d&d isn't really about anything. Sure it might have item lists & pictures that suggest it can support something, but when you try to use them 5e itself tends to bend over backwards to fight the effort. As a system it does that by taking such pains to avoid choosing any one particular style over some other style. Those hints ultimately just exist to tell players that the failure is on their GM.

Ok, maybe I misunderstood, I thought your point was D&D was trad fantasy as in medieval fantasy, and my point was "not anymore".

 

[Minigiant]

I said "traditional fantasy", what I meant by "traditional" was standard Medieval-era fantasy-- castles, knights, faeries, wagons, swords, chainmail armor etc. Lord of the Rings stuff. "Modern" fantasy I took to mean more recent century fantasy-- Victorian, 1800s, 1900s, Steampunk, and whatever time periods typical Anime falls into. Now maybe that's not what Minigiant meant when they made the "traditional" versus "modern" comparison-- maybe they meant "modern" as in more recent writings/authors and not the time periods the stories were set in. And if that's the case, then that's on me. Mea culpa

Somewhat. I meant both.

The Arcan Half Caster Warrior doesn't make sense in the setting that D&D was original based on.

However for people born well after D&D's creation, their sense of what is fantasy is very different from D&D's roots. And in newer style setting like Ravnica, Wildemount, or Nentir Vale, having a human who teleports behind the orc chieftain then swipes him for lightning and slashing damage is not unbelievable.

 

[Knight_Marshal]

Can't say I see "shaman" swinging weapons.

That said, a ranger with a barbarian subclass would be fine.

I imagine the Shaman more like the Bear Shaman out of Age of Conan. Lots of buffs, heals and a giant 2 handed club.

 

[DMZ2112]

So new edition... and once again, not a single arcane half caster class to act as a paladin/ranger counterpart. Doesn't matter if you prefer artificer or swordmage, neither makes it in.

The entire archetype has been strangely ignored in 5e, with artificer having only 4 subclasses and banned by many DM's. While a swordmage class never even made it in, with a large proportion of the playerbase actively against having one at all.

Should an arcane half caster have priority over one of the PHB classes next edition? Or should it come later on?

I'm certainly in the minority, having this opinion, but I thought introducing subclasses should have meant the paladin and ranger becoming fighter subclasses, along with swordmage/eldritch knight. It's supposed to be a dip into another core concept; if you want to go full half-and-half, you multiclass fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, or fighter/wizard.

But again, I'm not looking to convert anyone, I'm a weirdo. Still, no, I don't miss an arcane half-caster class.

 

[mellored]

I'm certainly in the minority, having this opinion, but I thought introducing subclasses should have meant the paladin and ranger becoming fighter subclasses, along with swordmage/eldritch knight. It's supposed to be a dip into another core concept; if you want to go full half-and-half, you multiclass fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, or fighter/wizard.

My biggest issue with that is a lack of spells that can be used with weapons. I don't want a fighter who can cast fireball.

Paladins have all sorts of smites, healing, and mystic auras to supplement their weapons. They have their own spell list designed for holy weapon combat.

Rangers have hunters mark, ensnaring strike, and Zephyr strike, lightning arrow, and Ashardalon's Stride to supplement their attacks. They have their own spell list designed for magical bow combat.

For arcane, booming blade and green flame blade are big steps in the right direction, but there needs to be a lot more.

I want a fighter who can telport behind an enemy to surprise attack him. Or who makes his sword invisible and harder to block. Someone who can disguise himself as an ally so the enemy doesn't know who is who. Who can summon a weapon. Or who can put himself and another creature into a pocket dimension where they duel one on one.

A lot of those could be added as spells, or they could be features in a new class. There is no spell list for arcane weapon combat.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm certainly in the minority, having this opinion, but I thought introducing subclasses should have meant the paladin and ranger becoming fighter subclasses, along with swordmage/eldritch knight. It's supposed to be a dip into another core concept; if you want to go full half-and-half, you multiclass fighter/cleric, fighter/druid, or fighter/wizard.

But again, I'm not looking to convert anyone, I'm a weirdo. Still, no, I don't miss an arcane half-caster class.

I'm of the opposite opinion, in that if paladin/ranger are just a fighter with a couple of spells tacked on, then the concept has been done badly. Subclasses have demonstrated that they don't do a good job of handling a concept which has too much of an individual identity, as they don't allocate enough power budget to it due to the main class eating it all. If paladin was a fighter subclass, you would have to get rid of its smite and nerf its auras to balance it (seriously action surge and divine smite together would delete pretty much anything in the game). And suddenly, paladin no longer feels like a paladin. It feels like a fighter with a slight divine theme.

If subclasses had a higher portion of the overall power budget compared to the main class, then I fully agree that those concepts could be folded into fighter and rogue.

Imo:

• High class power budget, low subclass power budget should mean lots of classes.
• Low class power budget, high subclass power budget should mean few classes, and concepts moved into subclasses.
• 5e has the former, while also having few classes and moves concepts into subclasses. Causing many concepts to then be executed extremely poorly.