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

[Frozen_Heart]

Isn't Artificer the arcane gish half-caster class? They already said that's not going into the PHB

It's the only one in 5e yeah.

And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.

 

[Mephista]

It's the only one in 5e yeah.

And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.

Its not being updated into the PHB CORE. Considering how much they've been talking about it in the UA pdfs, I somehow doubt that qualifies as "barely remembers." Post Tasha's, we've had, what, three subclasses released in total? Across all classes?

EDIT - sorry, five total subclasses post-Tasha. Two in Fizben (ranger, monk), two in Shadowfell (warlock, bard) and one in Dragonlance (sorcerer).

 

[Clint_L]

It's the only one in 5e yeah.

And it's not being updated to go into ODD. WotC barely remembered it existed in 5e either. Only 4 subclasses.

Tasha's came out barely a year ago. It doesn't really need an update, does it?

 

[MoonSong]

Tasha's came out barely a year ago. It doesn't really need an update, does it?

Tasha's came two years ago.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Assuming that this is something like the Elf class in B/X, then yes, it should be added. Warlock could go (to a non-PHB splatbook) to make room.

Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?

i'll repeat what i said in the current swordmage thread, better a single class specifically designed to be an arcane gish rather than using subclasses to force non-gish-apropriate classes into being one.

I didn't take part in that one I think - but if I had I'd have said that we can do that when and only when we get agreement about how a "gish" should work among most people who want to play one. Because as things stand 75% of people will be disappointed by the subclass because they preferred their old version (or actually wanted to play a sword-wielding wizard) and we'll get to the XKCD standards issue.

And I'm very much in the "Yes the PHB should. It's called the Artificer" camp.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?

Yeah picking the warlock out of all the classes to kick from the PHB seems odd. It's by far the most distinctive and unique full caster (both for mechanics and for 'class story').

(I'd personally pick the wizard clone to axe if I had to kick out a PHB class)

 

[MoonSong]

(I'd personally pick the wizard clone to axe if I had to kick out a PHB class)

I'd cut the boring bookworm instead.

 

[schneeland]

Why take out literally the single most popular casting class, and the most distinctive (and IMO best) to make room for a box filling excercise?

It's mostly a thing of personal taste - it's odd (in the sense of sticking out) mechanics are exactly the reason why I would relegate it from the PHB to a supplement. And the elf as part fighter, part mage is with D&D long enough that I don't consider it simply a box-filling exercise.
That being said, the 5e Sorcerer feels useless enough that it, too, could be removed from the PHB.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'd cut the boring bookworm instead.

I wouldn't cut it. I'd make it a sorcerer subclass with its subclass gimmick being Int-based and prepared casting.

 

[Corinnguard]

If WoTC were to include an arcane half-caster into it's next PHB, it ought to be like Laser Llama's Magus class on GM Binder. The Magus Class by laserllama Then all of the arcane subclasses (the Eldritch Knight, the Bladesinger, etc.) currently available in 5e would be this class' subclasses.