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

[Scribe]

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.

Not as good at casting as a Wizard, but better at swinging a weapon, while not as good at swinging a weapon as a Fighter, but better at casting.

Bonus points: Bard's shouldnt be full casters.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

There are some magic plus fighting stuff that other media do that would fit D&D and would mostly be handled by an arcane half caster.

The Magus class from 1st edition Pathfinder is a good example of an arcane half-caster warrior that appeared in PF1's Ultimate Magic. If One D&D/6e ever came out with an official book on magic, this is where their arcane half-caster warrior ought to be put in.

It's not going to be in the PHB but could come in another book. I like the idea of making an arcane half caster class with subclasses that incorporate what are currently subclasses tacked on to other classes, but I fear that might not work with existing content.

There are some forms of sword/axe/hammer-magic that fits D&D but is a bit in another box that it shouldn't be in the base D&D system.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's not going to be in the PHB but could come in another book. I like the idea of making an arcane half caster class with subclasses that incorporate what are currently subclasses tacked on to other classes, but I fear that might not work with existing content.

Laser Llama's homebrewed Magus, The Magus Class by laserllama , kind of did this. It's Order of the Blade Dancer subclass is a version of the Wizard Bladesinger subclass. Ditto for the Order of the Arcane Archer subclass.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Bonus points: Bard's shouldnt be full casters.

Counterpoint: They definitely should be, and it was always weird when they weren't. In 2E they might as well have been because they levelled up so much faster than Wizards! The weaksauce "singing bard" is a videogame-ish 3E aberration to be purged from this world with fire and poison.

I'd also accept a non-caster Bard with magical powers (not bloody SINGING or the like) which weren't D&D spells, but that's just unlikely.

There are some magic plus fighting stuff that other media do that would fit D&D and would mostly be handled by an arcane half caster.

Hard disagree.

You'd just have another class which fit incredibly poorly with all the "magic + fighting" characters in anime, videogames, and so on, because D&D's magic system is fundamentally not appropriate for those. They could go sit on the "poor fit" bench with the Artificer, Eldritch Knight, and so on.

You'd be better off with a class that wasn't a "caster" at all but just had magical abilities which were not actually spells.

Not as good at casting as a Wizard, but better at swinging a weapon, while not as good at swinging a weapon as a Fighter, but better at casting.

That's not describing anything about an actual class, hence my point re: symmetry fetish.

 

[Scribe]

That's not describing anything about an actual class, hence my point re: symmetry fetish.

Singing Bard (or however one wants to represent an 'act of inspiration') is totally fine! I know its been covered somewhere though, many times. I like Bard as a mix of everything, and having them as full casters doesnt sit right for me, but its whatever.

As to the Half-Caster, its not just symmetry, its (yet another) repeating thread. The Gish is missing. I've looked at and compared the 5e options, none of them hold a candle to the PF1 Magus.

 

[Minigiant]

Hard disagree.

You'd just have another class which fit incredibly poorly with all the "magic + fighting" characters in anime, videogames, and so on, because D&D's magic system is fundamentally not appropriate for those. They could go sit on the "poor fit" bench with the Artificer, Eldritch Knight, and so on.

You'd be better off with a class that wasn't a "caster" at all but just had magical abilities which were not actually spells.

It's spells designed for the class.

The key problem with the Artificer, AT, and EK in 5e is that they don't really have their own spells.

The Paladin and Ranger , due to the iconic status, will get book space in the PHB for both spells designed for the class and class features designed to meld with divine/primal magicand their weapons.

This is why the arcane half caster can't be in the PHB. It won't get the book space.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As to the Half-Caster, its not just symmetry, its (yet another) repeating thread. The Gish is missing. I've looked at and compared the 5e options, none of them hold a candle to the PF1 Magus.

The Magus is something much better-designed and more bizarre than just some generic "arcane half-caster" though, at least in PF2. Its reason to exist (at least as of PF2) isn't to mindlessly fill an "arcane half-caster" slot but to be something more peculiar and specific.

As for a Gish, I kind of agree, but I also don't think automatically selecting arcane half-caster is the right way to go. If 5E's MCing rules weren't 3E-style junk/dual-classing, this wouldn't even be an issue. I suspect a genuinely good Gish for 5E wouldn't be a half-caster at all, but more like the Warlock chassis with some tweaks.

It's spells designed for the class.

The key problem with the Artificer, AT, and EK in 5e is that they don't really have their own spells.

The Paladin and Ranger , due to the iconic status, will get book space in the PHB for both spells designed for the class and class features designed to meld with divine/primal magicand their weapons.

This is why the arcane half caster can't be in the PHB. It won't get the book space.

This seems like the fetish continued. You're putting the cart before the horse.

You're saying "we need an arcane half-caster" not "I have a great, specific and detailed idea for a class that would be really compelling, I guess they would probably be an arcane half-caster".

My point, in the end, is that this "cart first" deal is a fundamentally bad way to approach game design. You don't create a class for the sake of symmetry. You create a class because the class justifies it's own existence. If you decide to fill in "gaps" you often end up with pointless and ill-conceived classes. Even 4E, which did extremely well with the power source/role thing had a few classes which didn't really justify their own existence.

I do appreciate your point re: needing class-specific spells, but honest that's not what makes the Paladin or Ranger. Even if both had no class-specific spells they'd be about as good and flavourful as they are - and I bet an arcane half-caster would mostly be spamming Shield and a few other spells.

 

[mellored]

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.

Someone who can both hit things and cast spells.

But in an actual useful way. Not just someone who misses their attacks and has every thing save against their spells.

 

[Minigiant]

This seems like the fetish continued. You're putting the cart before the horse.

You're saying "we need an arcane half-caster" not "I have a great, specific and detailed idea for a class that would be really compelling, I guess they would probably be an arcane half-caster".

My point, in the end, is that this "cart first" deal is a fundamentally bad way to approach game design. You don't create a class for the sake of symmetry. You create a class because the class justifies it's own existence. If you decide to fill in "gaps" you often end up with pointless and ill-conceived classes. Even 4E, which did extremely well with the power source/role thing had a few classes which didn't really justify their own existence.

I do appreciate your point re: needing class-specific spells, but honest that's not what makes the Paladin or Ranger. Even if both had no class-specific spells they'd be about as good and flavourful as they are - and I bet an arcane half-caster would mostly be spamming Shield and a few other spells.

The Paladinn and Ranger are not worth being classes without their unique spells and class features.

The classes where created to give the warrior with the unique aspects the Fighter lacked. And as some unique features became general and available to others, the magical elements were emphasized.

But the core thing is that there are/were fantasy archetype of magic warriors. And each one of them would users of types of magic that would different types of magic in D&D.

That would result in an arcane half caster warrior, divine half caster warrior, primal half caster warrior. nd if you go into magicks not in traditional D&D, other fantasy magic warriors would be a psionic half caster warrior, a dark/death/shadow half caster warrior, and an elemental half caster warrior.

So yes. we don't need an arcane half-caster. We are missing an iconic type of magic warrior that didn't exist in the 70s and 80s. And if translated to D&D, it would be an arcane half-caster.

 

[Scribe]

The Magus is something much better-designed and more bizarre than just some generic "arcane half-caster" though, at least in PF2. Its reason to exist (at least as of PF2) isn't to mindlessly fill an "arcane half-caster" slot but to be something more peculiar and specific.

Consider it short hand then. When I say 'half-caster, arcane, melee', I mean the Magus pretty much 100% because its simply far better than anything in 5e.

I do agree, it likely would be a Warlock type design, but thats because the Warlock is a better design than most of 5e as well, even if I quibble on a few things with it.