Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should the PHB have an arcane half caster?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8875965" data-attributes="member: 6750235"><p>Adding an arcane half-caster because there are a divine and primal half-caster is the box filling approach and doesn't demonstrate a need to be done just for being absent. That seems to be reinforced by comments that are similar to smite spells and abilities, and that looks like getting hung up on a single term that didn't matter in 5e up until spell list changes being proposed.</p><p></p><p>There are also several ways to combine melee and magic to various degrees including multi-classing into classic builds. This gets back to too many different people have too many different ideas on what that class would look like.</p><p></p><p>I do think the artificer should be added to the PHB, however; and the eldritch knight could stand some improvements. But adding another class or radically altering a class doesn't have a good reason to do so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We know from the comments given in the UA's mentioning the artificer that the devs are aware of the artificer. The class is more likely to have at least some information (such as a side bar on how to adapt it) than to have nothing because of those mentions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why do you think bards should be a half-caster? We've already learned the community response to bard spell casting early in 3.0 and still in 3.5 with improvements when that version of bard massively outclassed rangers and paladins in magical capabilities. Especially 3.5 with the improvements to bard songs.</p><p></p><p>I disagree with how you interpret a "jack-of-all-trades". The concept needs to be adequately skilled in each of those areas to be worth playing instead of restricted in all areas to the point no one wants to play one. 5e did a great job by giving other arcane spellcasters benefits to improve their spellcasting. That results in being a decent spell-caster but no where near the benefits of metamagic or invocations. Definitely not the arcane recovery, spell list access, ritual mechanics, spell mastery, or signature spells that wizards enjoy.</p><p></p><p>A bad caster is not a jack-of-all-trades. It's just a bad caster. The full caster bard that lacks those other enhancements that improve spell casting keeps them relying on skill benefits and inspiration while being subpar compared to other full spellcasters.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Bards were never half-casters. They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters. In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered. Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster. Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have. 4e used the powers structure (arcane source) so weren't restricted and 5e they continued to use the full structure.</p><p></p><p>In 2e, the XP advancement tables and bonus XP rules had bards at a higher caster level than other magic-users so they had significant advantages as a full spellcaster. In 3.x the magical songs and variant spell levels still gave bards near full spellcaster magic even before the PrC's that added more.</p><p></p><p>Looking at bards when clerics and druids also didn't cast 9th level spells and then comparing them to paladins and rangers as half-casters doesn't stand up to critical reasoning. Even calling them 2/3's casters is looking at 3e but ignoring other editions, ignoring the magical song contributions, ignoring the caster level rules, ignoring the spells that varied with spell level based on class, and ignoring PrC's that improved spellcasting for bards further.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 8875965, member: 6750235"] Adding an arcane half-caster because there are a divine and primal half-caster is the box filling approach and doesn't demonstrate a need to be done just for being absent. That seems to be reinforced by comments that are similar to smite spells and abilities, and that looks like getting hung up on a single term that didn't matter in 5e up until spell list changes being proposed. There are also several ways to combine melee and magic to various degrees including multi-classing into classic builds. This gets back to too many different people have too many different ideas on what that class would look like. I do think the artificer should be added to the PHB, however; and the eldritch knight could stand some improvements. But adding another class or radically altering a class doesn't have a good reason to do so. We know from the comments given in the UA's mentioning the artificer that the devs are aware of the artificer. The class is more likely to have at least some information (such as a side bar on how to adapt it) than to have nothing because of those mentions. Why do you think bards should be a half-caster? We've already learned the community response to bard spell casting early in 3.0 and still in 3.5 with improvements when that version of bard massively outclassed rangers and paladins in magical capabilities. Especially 3.5 with the improvements to bard songs. I disagree with how you interpret a "jack-of-all-trades". The concept needs to be adequately skilled in each of those areas to be worth playing instead of restricted in all areas to the point no one wants to play one. 5e did a great job by giving other arcane spellcasters benefits to improve their spellcasting. That results in being a decent spell-caster but no where near the benefits of metamagic or invocations. Definitely not the arcane recovery, spell list access, ritual mechanics, spell mastery, or signature spells that wizards enjoy. A bad caster is not a jack-of-all-trades. It's just a bad caster. The full caster bard that lacks those other enhancements that improve spell casting keeps them relying on skill benefits and inspiration while being subpar compared to other full spellcasters. Bards were never half-casters. They were full-casters who weren't as fleshed out as other full-casters. In 2e and 3.x caster level mattered. Bards progressed in caster level correctly for a full-caster. Compared to paladins and rangers who gained spells far slower with even lower spell access and with caster level restrictions bards didn't have. 4e used the powers structure (arcane source) so weren't restricted and 5e they continued to use the full structure. In 2e, the XP advancement tables and bonus XP rules had bards at a higher caster level than other magic-users so they had significant advantages as a full spellcaster. In 3.x the magical songs and variant spell levels still gave bards near full spellcaster magic even before the PrC's that added more. Looking at bards when clerics and druids also didn't cast 9th level spells and then comparing them to paladins and rangers as half-casters doesn't stand up to critical reasoning. Even calling them 2/3's casters is looking at 3e but ignoring other editions, ignoring the magical song contributions, ignoring the caster level rules, ignoring the spells that varied with spell level based on class, and ignoring PrC's that improved spellcasting for bards further. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should the PHB have an arcane half caster?
Top