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

[Neonchameleon]

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.

Going half-and-half with 3.X style multiclassing simply doesn't work; you get stuffed by the action economy so on any given turn a level 12 fighter/wizard would either be casting as a level 6 wizard or attacking as a level 6 fighter. The Eldritch Knight isn't great - but an Eldritch Knight 5 is going to beat the stuffing out of a fighter 4/wizard 2 thanks to the second attack. The reason the Paladin works is that they get to burn their spell slots and attack on the same action.

And the more I think about it the more I think the warlock is a better chassis for a half-caster than someone who doesn't get high level spells.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

This depends a lot on the class. The later Sorcerer subclasses, for example, are great because the sorcerer hasn't eaten the power budget.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

This depends a lot on the class. The later Sorcerer subclasses, for example, are great because the sorcerer hasn't eaten the power budget.

The artificer is another one with the subclasses taking a lot of the power budget, and I really enjoy it for that reason. It makes the class far more varied than something like fighter or wizard. Shame there are only 4 subclasses.

 

[Gorck]

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

Interesting. I created my Shaman based on the WoW version (minus the 2-weapon fighting). In the end, it turned out to be sort of a hybrid between a Druid and a Warlock.

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

There isn't, and that's a good point. I expect the divine and primal problems to solve themselves in oneD&D; if we're going to consolidated spell lists for the three magic power sources, those smites will have to be on the cleric spell list and those ranger spells will have to be on the druid spell list. But it won't fix the arcane problem.

• 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.

I think classifying D&D5's execution as "extremely poor" is a little much, but I would have liked to see an implementation closer to the second option.

Going half-and-half with 3.X style multiclassing simply doesn't work

Yeah, I think we've established that what you think works and what I think works are not exactly overlapping sets.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm certainly in the minority, having this opinion, but I thought introducing subclasses should have meant the paladin and ranger becoming fighter subclasses,

I'm partially with you. I personally think that there isn't much reason beyond tradition for the ranger to be its own class, but I think the paladin is distinct enough to be its own thing.

A little closer to on-topic, I've thought for ages that bards should be primal rather than arcane. (Well, druid-related before the term "primal" became a thing.) Which would open up more space for an arcane fighter, perhaps.

 

[DMZ2112]

I'm partially with you. I personally think that there isn't much reason beyond tradition for the ranger to be its own class, but I think the paladin is distinct enough to be its own thing.

That's funny, I fall the opposite way. Paladins don't seem substantially different in concept than martial clerics, to me, but the ranger is a class that ought to be focused on exploration rather than combat. It would take a lot of doing to get there from the baseline fighter.

A little closer to on-topic, I've thought for ages that bards should be primal rather than arcane. (Well, druid-related before the term "primal" became a thing.) Which would open up more space for an arcane fighter, perhaps.

Bards are my favorite class concept, but they've been ridiculous since they started getting magic songs beyond a simple charm effect. I blame The Bard's Tale, although I know the idea is older.

AD&D1 bards did draw from the druid spell list, and I agree that makes more sense from a historical perspective, but I've always felt like they ought to be able to swipe spells from anywhere.

 

[mellored]

I'm partially with you. I personally think that there isn't much reason beyond tradition for the ranger to be its own class, but I think the paladin is distinct enough to be its own thing.

If your going to give the Druid ensnaring strike, and wizard a teleport slash (which needs to exsist), and the cleric gets smites, then I'm not sure how the Paladin stands out.

Or... You could probably just have a single half-caster class. Paladin (divine), ranger (primal), monk (psionic), and gish (arcane, and needs a better name) as sub-classes.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I feel like D&D has been stuck for the past three editions, for better or worse, with the same generation of designers who cut their teeth with D&D through 2e and TSR. Mearls and Crawford were 3pp designers in the d20 system era, but they were still mostly from this same generation. I think that has led to D&D being a bit too conservative when it comes to representing mainstream fantasy or even popular conceptions of certain archetypes.

 

[accountcreatedtopostthis]

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.

I respectfully disagree. The arcane spell list (understand: (5e's wizard+warlock spell list. No, sorcs do not have a spell list) offers plenty of badass manga-like fighting spells.

Teleport behind an enemy to surprise attack him? Misty step.
A sword invisible harder to block? Shadow blade reads "when you use the sword to attack a target that is in dim light or darkness, you make the attack roll with advantage."
Disguise as the enemy's ally for confusion? Disguise self not withstanding, you're probably heavily underestimating phantasmal force.
Summon a weapon? You really hate Shadow blade, don't you?
Otherly dimension duel? That's wish territory. Depending on the conditions, the effects you describe border on the realm of 9th level.

So you see, there is plenty of options for arcane weapon combat. Actualy, make your life simpler and simply assume there are arcane options for everything. Even porn.
...
Forget I wrote that.
Anyway: the spells are there. What's missing is something that both has the spell slots early enough to make use of it before the end of the campaign, and the bulk to survive bringing them in melee range.
Plus feature that sublimate the base effects of those spells (exemple: generic level 3 theoretical Gish feature - You have advantage on weapon attacks when landing from a teleportation effect. There. You got your teRepoLUtationuuuu suRashuuuuuu)

If I may be so bold, I would hazard the guess that what you're looking for is not options, but explosiveness. You want to feel like your combat is an Avenger's movie. Or a Shonen. Or a Gods of War game. And there is nothing wrong with that.
That said, that mentality should not be represented in the core RAW. Because once they open that gate, you can't take the toy back from the kids.
The good news though? Homebrew is meant to be overpowered. So go wild, tiger.
Also: Have you ever tried 3.5 or Pathfinder? Something tells me it might just be right up your alley.

In my opinion, anyway.