D&D (2024) What would you actually want from an arcane half-caster in 1D&D PHB?

[doctorbadwolf]

The more I develop the Anathemir, the more I like the design paradigm of choosing what kind of class you’re playing at level 1, with subclasses that work regardless.

Obvious it works here because all theee options are part of the class regardless, and you’re focusing on one, but still.

Might be a good paradigm for the ranger, actually.

 

[Shardstone]

Honestly just call the class a Gish. I promise it can work.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I voted for it, but honestly I think the word "true" is doing way too much work in "I would like a true Gish." It always feels like what the Gish hardliners want is exactly the AD&D Fighter/Mage, without ever giving up the idea that the character is never more than 1 level behind a single-class character of either class. A character that's 80% Fighter and 80% Mage just isn't fair in a team-based, cooperative game, but it's what people want. They will never be satisfied.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

I'm torn, because I do think there should be a "gish", if only because it is a popular archetype. However, I've never really seen one I like, if only because I'm a fan of martial warriors, and they generally just end up overshadowing them. Selfish but the truth.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I voted for it, but honestly I think the word "true" is doing way too much work in "I would like a true Gish." It always feels like what the Gish hardliners want is exactly the AD&D Fighter/Mage, without ever giving up the idea that the character is never more than 1 level behind a single-class character of either class. A character that's 80% Fighter and 80% Mage just isn't fair in a team-based, cooperative game, but it's what people want. They will never be satisfied.

That's not what most people want when they're asking for a swordmage. They're essentially looking for something like paladin or ranger, but with different theming and abilities.

A class which is '80% wizard, 80% fighter' is still a bad gish, just like how a class which is 50% or 100% of each is a bad gish. A paladin isn't 50% cleric, 50% fighter. A ranger isn't 50% druid, 50% rogue. Both classes have their own spell lists and abilities which work to merge their magic and combat together.

I've played a 50/50 fighter cleric. It was very fun, but it is completely different to a paladin.

 

[mellored]

Just going to toss out the idea that artificers could potentially be the base class for sword magic.

Maybe call it a rune blade or something. Still need the spells, and maybe a few more infusions.
Boots of the winding path would be a good addition to a sword mage.

 

[Mephista]

I say Artificer. Why?

Part of what makes a half-caster a half-caster to me isn't just sword + magic. Its having a pet. Paladin mounts. Ranger companions. Warlock familiars. Artificer golems.

Its my wish, my dream, that this would be expanded upon and encouraged.

I would like to see us have four spell sources and a pure martial, a half- and a full-caster for each. Even if we only end up with Primal, Divine, Arcane, the fourth would touch on all three as a jack cough

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I say Artificer. Why?

Part of what makes a half-caster a half-caster to me isn't just sword + magic. Its having a pet. Paladin mounts. Ranger companions. Warlock familiars. Artificer golems.

Its my wish, my dream, that this would be expanded upon and encouraged.

I would like to see us have four spell sources and a pure martial, a half- and a full-caster for each. Even if we only end up with Primal, Divine, Arcane, the fourth would touch on all three as a jack cough

I mean, I'd like to see a dedicated pet class like the pathfinder summoner. It being scattered around lots of varying subclasses really limits how much of the power budget can go into the pet.

 

[cbwjm]

One of the things I hated about the early artificer design was that every subclass included a pet, I definitely would not want an arcane warrior who gets saddled with a pet.

@Frozen_Heart is correct in what I'd want to see as a dedicated arcane warrior, basically a d10 half-caster with good weapon and armour proficiencies and then some arcane flavoured class features. There are plenty of prestige classes and paragon paths from 3e and 4e that could be used as the basis for subclasses and I think it would even make for a good place to put the bladesinger rather than the wizard class.

 

[Mephista]

I mean, I'd like to see a dedicated pet class like the pathfinder summoner. It being scattered around lots of varying subclasses really limits how much of the power budget can go into the pet.

Okay. But I still want Pally.mounts, ranger companions, warlock super familiars and artificer golems. This has more to do fulfilling those classes' fantasy for me, and has no bearing on the presence or absence of other classes.
Especially in the core.